Australian Open 2018

WickIow Brave

josip wrote: »

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.

Yeah I totally agree with that for all the players that are 30+. It's not surprising they are all burnt out trying to compete with Federer for all these years. I'm referring to the 18-23 year olds that are coming on to the scene, they haven't been on the tour that long and weren't dominanted by the big 4. They should be able to step up and pose some questions of a 36 year old but there doesn't to be anyone capable. That's worrying and making for a very dull tournament and tournaments to come.

josip

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah I totally agree with that for all the players that are 30+. It's not surprising they are all burnt out trying to compete with Federer for all these years. I'm referring to the 18-23 year olds that are coming on to the scene, they haven't been on the tour that long and weren't dominanted by the big 4. They should be able to step up and pose some questions of a 36 year old but there doesn't to be anyone capable. That's worrying and making for a very dull tournament and tournaments to come.

It takes a few years of Grand Slam experience to get the soles of your feet tough enough for the 2nd week

WickIow Brave

josip wrote: »

It takes a few years of Grand Slam experience to get the soles of your feet tough enough for the 2nd week

Nadal won his first slam at 19, Djokovic 20. Can't remember what exact age Federer was but he was like 20 when he first won Wimbledon. Murray was 21 when he made his first slam final. Nadal at the exact same age Kyrgios is now was just about to win his *6th* slam. Kyrgios hasn't even a semi-final yet and it's four years now since he beat Nadal at Wimbledon. I'm not saying they have to be as good as Nadal or Federer but come on. A 36 yo Federer gets through to the final because of a 6-1 5-2 (ret) win and people think that's good for the game? People on here talking about how 'astonishing' Federer is? Probably the same people who give out about the lack of competition for Serena when she wins all the time.

walshb

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Nadal won his first slam at 19, Djokovic 20. Can't remember what exact age Federer was but he was like 20 when he first won Wimbledon. Murray was 21 when he made his first slam final. Nadal at the exact same age Kyrgios is now was just about to win his *6th* slam. Kyrgios hasn't even a semi-final yet and it's four years now since he beat Nadal at Wimbledon. I'm not saying they have to be as good as Nadal or Federer but come on. A 36 yo Federer gets through to the final because of a 6-1 5-2 (ret) win and people think that's good for the game? People on here talking about how 'astonishing' Federer is? Probably the same people who give out about the lack of competition for Serena when she wins all the time.

You seem fixated on his age......

He is not like other "older" players. There is so much to his game and the way he plays and his lifestyle and court presence and shot delivery.

He is not doing the impossible here. He is simply still at a very high level of tennis excellence and it is seeing him win matches. He never really relied on the "younger" man's needs and attributes like stamina and intensity and explosive speed and power and relentlessness and that grinder attitude. That was never his game. His game and success was a mix of flare and shot selection and footwork and overall sensory greatness and brilliant serving and brilliant floating court coverage. It has allowed him less wear and tear through the years compared to the more intense and grinding type greats.

Last year at OZ I watched closely and to me he was every bit as brilliant as he was ten years previous,. Why? I don't know. That is why he is an astonishing tennis player. Little changes here and there can make you a slight bit better, or allow you to be the best or close to the best.

If he were a boxer he'd be one who took next to no punishment and kept himself in tip top shape, allowing him compete at the highest level whilst others who took shots and grinded out wins fell by the wayside!

Remember, Federer never "really" declined. He still hasn't really declined. If he had he would have been beaten a lot more the past 18 months or so.

ballyargus

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Nadal won his first slam at 19, Djokovic 20. Can't remember what exact age Federer was but he was like 20 when he first won Wimbledon. Murray was 21 when he made his first slam final. Nadal at the exact same age Kyrgios is now was just about to win his *6th* slam. Kyrgios hasn't even a semi-final yet and it's four years now since he beat Nadal at Wimbledon. I'm not saying they have to be as good as Nadal or Federer but come on. A 36 yo Federer gets through to the final because of a 6-1 5-2 (ret) win and people think that's good for the game? People on here talking about how 'astonishing' Federer is? Probably the same people who give out about the lack of competition for Serena when she wins all the time.

I agree the game is in a poor state but last year look at the 7 titles he won and who he beat in finals:

Miami beat Nadal in final (Kyrgios, Del Potro, Berdych en route)
Indian Wells beat Wawrinka in final (Nadal & Kyrgios en route)
Halle beat Zverev in final
Shangahi beat Nadal in final (Del Potro, Gasquet en route)

He also won the Aus Open, Wimbledon, the Swiss and went deep in other high ranking tourneys. The tourneys were far from gimmes.

WickIow Brave

walshb wrote: »

You seem fixated on his age......

He is not like other "older" players. There is so much to his game and the way he plays and his lifestyle and court presence and shot delivery.

He is not doing the impossible here. He is simply still at a very high level of tennis excellence and it is seeing him win matches. He never really relied on the "younger" man's needs and attributes like stamina and intensity and explosive speed and power and relentlessness and that grinder attitude. That was never his game. His game and success was a mix of flare and shot selection and footwork and overall sensory greatness and brilliant serving and brilliant floating court coverage. It has allowed him less wear and tear through the years compared to the more intense and grinding type greats.

Last year at OZ I watched closely and to me he was every bit as brilliant as he was ten years previous,. Why? I don't know. That is why he is an astonishing tennis player. Little changes here and there can make you a slight bit better, or allow you to be the best or close to the best.

If he were a boxer he'd be one who took next to no punishment and kept himself in tip top shape, allowing him compete at the highest level whilst others who took shots and grinded out wins fell by the wayside!

Remember, Federer never "really" declined. He still hasn't really declined. If he had he would have been beaten a lot more the past 18 months or so.

Okay, last comment from me on this. Roger Federer is the greatest men's tennis player ever. He is an unbelievable tennis player and he is more than a tennis player tbh in the way he plays the game. I really hope he wins on Sunday because he is a far better player than Cilic and 20 slams is a lovely round number and he absolutely deserves it. However, the men's game is in a terrible state right now and I'm not biased enough in my admiration of Federer to ignore this.

walshb

04/07 he wasn’t playing “peak” Noel and Nadal...

ballyargus

They all played each other "peak" at points and it was very nip and tuck. The difference in overall greatness comes down to consistency and longevity. The difference between them at their "best" comes down to the finest of margins. Only Nadal's clay record is unchallengeable.

RosyLily

Less than 12 hours until the women's final. Maiden Grand Slam and the World #1 is up for grabs. I'm thinking Halep will just edge this one but a Wozniacki win wouldn't be an upset. Pity I'll be stuck in work for it!!:(

If they stay healthy this season, I can see both women going far in the other GSs.

Floppybits

Great start from Wozniacki here. Both players not holding back.

Joe_ Public

Great match. Woz very clinical but going to be another tight set, a decider would be nice.

mickmackey1

Halep looking poorly here.

mickmackey1

Wouldn't doubt you Woz :rolleyes::rolleyes:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halep did well to win that 2nd set but is she going to be able to play a 3rd?

Rikand

The net doing Wozniacki no favours all the way thru the match

Floppybits

Think the treatment halep got cost Wozniacki thst second set. Wozniacki needs to get back to how she played in the first.

shamrock55

Hope wozniaki wins this,halep is a bottler anyway

Joe_ Public

Halep is fine, Woz lost her focus there, it happens.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

This is Woz's best performance in a Slam final, she's never gone to 3 before.

Floppybits

Halep looking the stronger here. Wozniacki struggling mentally.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Great final.

Will be a tough loss for whoever loses. Feel it will be worse for Wozniacki though, she's had one foot in front for most of the match.

Joe_ Public

The women’s tournament has been great, getting the final it deserves. Fantastic stuff.

shamrock55

Well done woz,I never thought she would win a slam tbh,now I'm begining to think halep never will

yerwanthere123

Oh Simona Difficult to see if she can ever win one after this. Once more it was in her hands, and once more, she gave it away.

yerwanthere123

This gif is still relevant

jr86

Wozniacki's defence for those last two points!!!

What an athlete

For all those who think good tennis is about all out attacking - fk off tbh!

Wozniacki seems a nice girl too, very pleased for her

Joe_ Public

I think the better player on the day won, not much in it. Halep doesn’t need to beat herself up about it, had a great tournament and will get more chances I’m sure.

Joe_ Public

jr86 wrote: »

Wozniacki's defence for those last two points!!!

What an athlete

For all those who think good tennis is about all out attacking - fk off tbh!

Wozniacki seems a nice girl too, very pleased for her

Yes and someone called Halep boring on this thread a couple of pages back. I guess some people have an abnormally high threshold for entertainment.

qwabercd

I think that match answers the question as to whether women should play 5 sets.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

qwabercd wrote: »

I think that match answers the question as to whether women should play 5 sets.

The second set was proof, if it was needed, of what makes Bo3 so entertaining. Halep was hanging together midway through that set but she dug in and clung on because if she lost the match was over. A Bo5 match and that set would probably have been written off.