Australian Open 2018

NoviGlitzko

I think women should play best of 5 but with something like 4-5 games per set.

WickIow Brave

Jesus, the men's game is a bad way atm. This is a terrible tournament. Compared to last year's when Fed and Nadal played amazing matches en route and then played an epic between themselves. The French Open and Wimbledon were barely tolerable just because 'ah look at Fed and Nadal rewinding the clock isn't this great' but it's getting embarrassing now. The US Open was shocking like, pathetic how easy it was for Nadal. Federer's route to the AO final has been a joke. It's not good when a near 37 yo is just sauntering to the title like this and it's got nought to do with how great he is, he didn't win a single Slam between 2012-2017. It's more the lack of any competition. We're looking at Nadal coasting to another French Open and Federer to another Wimbledon in a few months aswell. Awful stuff.

Been great tennis on the women's side. Kerber and Halep was outstanding. Couldn't call the final either way, couldn't believe Kerber was beat. Whoever gets the better start is crucial.

ballyargus

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I think women should play best of 5 but with something like 4-5 games per set.

Tosh! Play 6 games, best of 5 -- all the way in a slam. If that's too much at least from the 4th Rd or QF onward

WickIow Brave

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I think women should play best of 5 but with something like 4-5 games per set.

I think both men and women should play best of 3. They're tennis players not marathon runners.

walshb

Fed in his 30th slam appearance. Astonishing...his level of play is pretty much on par with his "peak" years it seems....He juts doesn't age like other players. So graceful on the court and so smooth and relaxed.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Fed in his 30th slam appearance. Astonishing...his level of play is pretty much on par with his "peak" years it seems....He juts doesn't age like other players. So graceful on the court and so smooth and relaxed.

In one way this has been his most historic triumph as his great rivals have literally crumbled due to prolonged stress and strain. The ultimate vindication of his talent and playing style. Can't write off Cilic yet of course, but I suspect the occasion will once again be too big for him.

jr86

Switching men to best of 3 would be a disaster and I'm scared to death when the 'big 4' go it will be advocated far more. Money and ratings talk.

But slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and best of 3 can produce too many flukes.

I'd imagine the majority of Women players would have no problem playing Best of 5 either. Even just QF onwards - as a poster above mentioned - would be still very feasible

jr86

WickIow Brave wrote: »

It's not good when a near 37 yo is just sauntering to the title like this and it's got nought to do with how great he is, he didn't win a single Slam between 2012-2017. It's more the lack of any competition. We're looking at Nadal coasting to another French Open and Federer to another Wimbledon in a few months aswell. Awful stuff.

Well Federer is the greatest player ever and is playing some of his best tennis ever. Of course he'll hammer most. 6 of the top players in the game are all injured in some form too

Tbf Federer was average to borderline poor in 2013 and his level now is a step ahead of 2014. Remember, he still finished 2014 as world number 2 and probably would have in 2015 but for a scheduling cull. In 2016 he sat out half the season

But what I'm saying is there's a big difference (imo) as to why Federer is winning Slams now and not then - the fitness of Djokovic.

But Federer still coasted to 3 slam finals between 2014 and 2015 which he all lost to guess who. He lost to him in AO semi aswell (which he breezed into), and was basically injured at W'don 2016. Take out his MIA 2013 and he was still just as dominant, only the best player of this decade is now injured.

WickIow Brave

jr86 wrote: »

Switching men to best of 3 would be a disaster and I'm scared to death when the 'big 4' go it will be advocated far more. Money and ratings talk.

But slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and best of 3 can produce too many flukes.

I'd imagine the majority of Women players would have no problem playing Best of 5 either. Even just QF onwards - as a poster above mentioned - would be still very feasible

Yeah, best of 3 on men's side is inevitable imo. I used to be against it but I think's it the way to go now. Best of three of with no tiebreak in the deciding set, I think you'll get plenty of 10-8 epic final sets to replace the epic 5 setters and there aren't many fluke winners in the Masters so I can't see that being a problem in the slams. The best players will still win. A bit of unpredictability on the men's would do no harm either and also if it stops people whinging about women getting paid the same for less sets.

dominatinMC

jr86 wrote: »

Switching men to best of 3 would be a disaster and I'm scared to death when the 'big 4' go it will be advocated far more. Money and ratings talk.

But slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and best of 3 can produce too many flukes.

I'd imagine the majority of Women players would have no problem playing Best of 5 either. Even just QF onwards - as a poster above mentioned - would be still very feasible

Agree 100%. Best-of-5 is what separates the slams from M1000's. I know the format rewards the more physical players, but also rewards players who are consistent and can play at a high standard of tennis for long periods. I see Ben Rothenberg on Twitter is constantly pushing this best-of-3 agenda. It really is ridiculous imo, think of all the epic matches we have witnessed which would not have happened in a best-of-3 format. Wimbledon '08 wouldn't have happened for one.

yerwanthere123

Ben Rothenberg is a fúcking idiot, his opinions mean absolutely nothing. Best of 5 will never go on the men's side, rather they'll reduce the number of mandatory tournaments to deal with the ever-increasing injuries in the game. I'd like to see best of 5 from the QF's onwards in the women's game.

Rob2D

WickIow Brave wrote: »

A bit of unpredictability on the men's would do no harm either

Absolute nonsense. At the end of the day the best man should win END OF. Runnings long sets in anything is the best way to decide the real talent.

Maybe you'd like them to just flip a coin for the trophy altogether

jr86

John Isner going way deeper than he should in some Masters and his limitations being rightly shown up in slams, should be enough of an argument against it!

al87987

I think they should reduce the number of games in a set by 1 or 2 games so a tiebreak happens at 4-4 or 5-5 even instead of 6-6 and continue the best of 5 format.

This would lead to less lulls in matches, more 'big points' and yet still help the players.

jr86

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Ben Rothenberg is a fúcking idiot, his opinions mean absolutely nothing. Best of 5 will never go on the men's side, rather they'll reduce the number of mandatory tournaments to deal with the ever-increasing injuries in the game. I'd like to see best of 5 from the QF's onwards in the women's game.

Yeah, the calendar overall needs a complete review. The season is way too long and lop-sided

Reducing slams to 64 would be no harm, it would sort out a lot of tanks in round 1 for one but I can't see it happening anytime soon

I imagine though any imminent changes will be in the game-play itself

In ten years time, I'd be surprised to see deuces still as they are, and lets for serves hitting net and landing in.

WickIow Brave

jr86 wrote: »

Well Federer is the greatest player ever and is playing some of his best tennis ever. Of course he'll hammer most. 6 of the top players in the game are all injured in some form too

Tbf Federer was average to borderline poor in 2013 and his level now is a step ahead of 2014. Remember, he still finished 2014 as world number 2 and probably would have in 2015 but for a scheduling cull. In 2016 he sat out half the season

But what I'm saying is there's a big difference (imo) as to why Federer is winning Slams now and not then - the fitness of Djokovic.

But Federer still coasted to 3 slam finals between 2014 and 2015 which he all lost to guess who. He lost to him in AO semi aswell (which he breezed into), and was basically injured at W'don 2016. Take out his MIA 2013 and he was still just as dominant, only the best player of this decade is now injured.

I appreciate how good Federer is but I'd prefer it if he had to earn it like he did last year and not because of some young fella having to retire because of blisters. Federer could be winning slams until he's 60 and people would still gush about how great he is. Fair enough, they're Federer fans first and foremost, I'm a tennis fan and I'd like to see high quality, competitive matches.

Djokovic is just one player, where are the up and coming players? Players aged 20-25 that should be challenging and winning the biggest tournaments. Federer has been beaten at slams by Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, Soderling, Raonic, Cilic, del Potro (I'm not including 2013 because yes, Fed was below form that year). You can't honestly believe Fed is playing that much better at 36 than he was at 29/30 when he lost to those guys? If he is than I would seriously question his methods. Most of those guys are old now but where are the next generation of players? It's quite depressing. I hope Cilic brings his A game because a repeat of last year's Wimbledon final is really not a good look for mens tennis and does Fed no good either. I hope Fed wins because I'm obviously a way bigger Fed fan than Cilic fan but please god it's competitive.

WickIow Brave

Rob2D wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. At the end of the day the best man should win END OF. Runnings long sets in anything is the best way to decide the real talent.

Maybe you'd like them to just flip a coin for the trophy altogether

Eh, the best players will still win in best of 3? Do you honestly think they wouldn't? How many shock Masters winners have they're been in the last 10 years?! Players that wouldn't have won if was best 5? If slams were best of 3 all along Djokovic would still have dominated for those few years he was number 1, Federer would still have won all those Wimbledons, Nadal would still have all won all those French Opens. I would rather the best player won than the best marathon runner to win TBH. There are plenty of epic Masters matches in best of 3 and plenty of epic women's matches? Or would you disagree? Does a match have to be best of 5 to be considered a classic?

LENNY86

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Eh, the best players will still win in best of 3? Do you honestly think they wouldn't? How many shock Masters winners have they're been in the last 10 years?! Players that wouldn't have won if was best 5? If slams were best of 3 all along Djokovic would still have dominated for those few years he was number 1, Federer would still have won all those Wimbledons, Nadal would still have all won all those French Opens. I would rather the best player won than the best marathon runner to win TBH. There are plenty of epic Masters matches in best of 3 and plenty of epic women's matches? Or would you disagree? Does a match have to be best of 5 to be considered a classic?

Just a BO5 tends to be a slug fest, Such as numerous Fed and Nole finals or Nole and Murray.

jr86

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I appreciate how good Federer is but I'd prefer it if he had to earn it like he did last year and not because of some young fella having to retire because of blisters. Federer could be winning slams until he's 60 and people would still gush about how great he is. Fair enough, they're Federer fans first and foremost, I'm a tennis fan and I'd like to see high quality, competitive matches.

Djokovic is just one player, where are the up and coming players? Players aged 20-25 that should be challenging and winning the biggest tournaments. Federer has been beaten at slams by Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, Soderling, Raonic, Cilic, del Potro (I'm not including 2013 because yes, Fed was below form that year). You can't honestly believe Fed is playing that much better at 36 than he was at 29/30 when he lost to those guys? If he is than I would seriously question his methods. Most of those guys are old now but where are the next generation of players? It's quite depressing. I hope Cilic brings his A game because a repeat of last year's Wimbledon final is really not a good look for mens tennis and does Fed no good either. I hope Fed wins because I'm obviously a way bigger Fed fan than Cilic fan but please god it's competitive.

You can't just say "he's 36 so he can't be better than 30"!

As the poster above said, the bigger racket has been a major difference, he's scheduling more precisely now, so he's much fresher for the big events.

His serve is as consistent as it's ever been in the last decade, his backhand paled in comparison back then to what it does now. I've barely ever seen him moving better

Sometimes sport and form in sport just does not follow black-and-white logic.

WickIow Brave

jr86 wrote: »

You can't just say "he's 36 so he can't be better than 30"!

As the poster above said, the bigger racket has been a major difference, he's scheduling more precisely now, so he's much fresher for the big events.

His serve is as consistent as it's ever been in the last decade, his backhand paled in comparison back then to what it does now. I've barely ever seen him moving better

Sometimes sport and form in sport just does not follow black-and-white logic.

I don't think there's ever been a player in tennis or any other sport for that matter to begin a decline at 30 and then make a huge improvement at 35. That is not normal.

LENNY86

:eek:

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I don't think there's ever been a player in tennis or any other sport for that matter to begin a decline at 30 and then make a huge improvement at 35. That is not normal.

His improvement comes down to his entry and pulls from various tournaments, missing Clay swing which is taxing on his legs.

jr86

With respect I think you're completely over egging it.

He may have had a drop-off in 2013 but finished world number 2 (was in the running for #1 heading into WTF's) in 2014, made two slam finals in 2015, missed half of 2016.

You make it sound like he went out of the top 20 and then suddenly from nowhere returned to the top!

A few subtle differences have been key for him, to once again get over the line in slams (and the fact the only player better than him for much of the last few years is now struggling with injury).

jr86

Boris_Pecker wrote: »

It's an unusual case study really as there are lots of variables to examine.

Hear, hear

It's too simplistic to say anyone should be at X level at X age

jr86

But look a lot of this is based off two tournaments

Fed's runs from QF onwards

W'don 2017: Raonic (not fully fit) - Berdych - Cilic
AO 2018: Berdych - Chung - Cilic

No Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka - which there wouldn't be a hope of happening if all were fit

Fed has beaten who has been in front of him spectacularly but at the moment it's a freakish state-of-affairs with injuries in the Men's game.

WickIow Brave

Boris_Pecker wrote: »

It's an unusual case study really as there are lots of variables to examine.

Yeah. Very unusual is right.

dominatinMC

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah. Very unusual is right.

Ha, looks like Paul Kimmage is moonlighting on Boards! To be fair, I did read an article recently on the Irish Times (I think), where that journalist (not Kimmage) was questioning Feds comeback. I think it is only fair that if people point the finger at Nadal/Djokovic, that Fed is not exempt from the same treatment. I know Nadal/Djokovic play a more attritional, physical game, but Fed is also 5 years older (6 on Djokovic), which has to count for a lot! He has tailored his schedule, yes, but I am not surprised that some are suspicious.

Disclaimer: I, personally, do not think Fed is guilty of any nefarious activities (nor Nadal or Djokovic). I can just see why people (particularly causal fans) would be wary of a 36 (nearly 37!) year old dominating such a physically demanding sport.

walshb

dominatinMC wrote: »

I can just see why people (particularly causal fans) would be wary of a 36 (nearly 37!) year old dominating such a physically demanding sport.

They need to become fans, educate themselves on the game and educate themselves on what makes Fed so special a sporting talent.

WickIow Brave

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ha, looks like Paul Kimmage is moonlighting on Boards! To be fair, I did read an article recently on the Irish Times (I think), where that journalist (not Kimmage) was questioning Feds comeback. I think it is only fair that if people point the finger at Nadal/Djokovic, that Fed is not exempt from the same treatment. I know Nadal/Djokovic play a more attritional, physical game, but Fed is also 5 years older (6 on Djokovic), which has to count for a lot! He has tailored his schedule, yes, but I am not surprised that some are suspicious.

Disclaimer: I, personally, do not think Fed is guilty of any nefarious activities (nor Nadal or Djokovic). I can just see why people (particularly causal fans) would be wary of a 36 (nearly 37!) year old dominating such a physically demanding sport.

Ha! I'm not accusing Federer of anything just think his most ardent supporters are blinded by the fact that he's winning now because there's no competition rather than he's playing so much better. He's made small tactical and technical changes, that does not mean Fed at 36 is better than he has was at 30. Nadal has made changes since Moya came on board to improve his game but he won the 2017 USO more because he had no competition, not because of these changes. Nadal is not a better player than he was five years ago.

WickIow Brave

walshb wrote: »

They need to become fans, educate themselves on the game and educate themselves on what makes Fed so special a sporting talent.

Tennis at the highest level is a very physical game. It is absolutely absurd that you would think Federer is somehow immune to this and able to defy the aging process.

josip

But the reason there's no competition now is because all of his challengers have had to go to superhuman physical limits to compensate for the talent deficit between them and Federer.
It's not just down to good fortune that the other 3 of the big 4 are all injured.
They've burned themselves out trying to keep up.
A bit like what happened the USSR and USA economically.