glasso wrote: » well he has an actual injury so not his fault that he got that. but maybe he just isn't built body/stamina for a full 2-week GS run with matches over 5 sets - and isn't dominant / good enough to be able to breeze through the earlier rounds with easy games which as you said definitely is an advantage in terms of toll on the body.
Floppybits wrote: » This is his problem "no one has a better record of winning slam matches from being two sets down than anyone". The fact that he expends a lot of energy winning matches in the early rounds means that he is a goosed when it really matters which is what happened today. I watched the first set this morning and said to myself he is not going to finish this match, you could see he was goosed. When Djokovic was playing Medvedev, he was conserving energy in that match meanwhile Nishikori was slogging his guts out in another marathon match. This is what Djokovic, Nadal and Federer (until recently) have over the others is that they spend less time on court.
lostcat wrote: » Hes hard to work out, one one hand no one has a better record of winning slam matches from being two sets down than anyone, on the other hand he does get a lot of injuries and retires / pulls out of matches.
jr86 wrote: » Well you also had perennial QFists like Tsonga, Ferrer and Berdych. There was a very solid top 10 or so only a couple of years ago, where it was a major shock to see anyone outside it go and make a semi. Outside of Nadal and Djokovic now its just so fluid. If both get injured/lose form goodness knows what will happen. It wouldn't amaze me to see unseeded players starting to make finals or even win an odd slam, and then promptly disappear.
glasso wrote: » well the big 4 were called the big 4 for a reason now 1 of those is gone, 1 is getting too old and the other 2 are fit at the moment. Then you had Wawrinka and Delpro who when fit would have been the other 2 I guess. With the younger guys if some of them actually get consistent it will take a while for the ranking to stabilise so that they are seeded and hence advance in a predictable manner. so I would argue that it's not like the WTA but in a flux / changeover period.
jr86 wrote: » I think there was always a strong possibility an outsider was coming through that side of the draw given Zverev's major struggles The ATP is becoming very WTA like outside of Nadal and Djokovic who are uber consistent in every slam. Only a few years ago you'd steadily predict at least 6 out of the 8 QFists in advance and most likely at least 3 SFists Nowadays outside of RN and ND it could be anyone. And plenty of 'flash in the pans' such as Edmund, Checcinato, Chung, etc.
glasso wrote: » well yes if he got to top 10 in the world as I said he's hardly unknown but I meant that in terms of Melbourne 2019 he has not even been talked about even though he has now ended up the semi. I hope that he takes a set off Djokovic at least and makes a go of it.
jr86 wrote: » Well Pouille has made 2 slam quarters before (beating Nadal on the way to one) so he hasn't exactly come from nowhere. he's going well yes but I expect him to be comfortably beaten by Djokovic, and like Edmund and Chung I'd expect him to revert to type after this event (go on an odd good run but be inconsistent in the main)
Floppybits wrote: » Typical of Nishikori to pull out during a match.
glasso wrote: » Yes Pouille has been on the tour 6 years. Had a run to top ten last year (literally number 10) but only very very briefly. Not a guy you hear a lot of talk about - maybe he's a bit of a late bloomer. Djokovic is not by any means flawless at the moment but he has that bit-between-the-teeth vibe about him. Very hard to beat when he's on it and fully engaged. He's a gritty fcuker and on his best surface - Melbourne is his equivalent when healthy of what used to be Fed's Wimbledon or almost (but not quite that level of owning) what is fit Nadal's RG.
glasso wrote: » Lucas Pouille has been a real sleeper in this tournament. Had never won a match here before and had a losing start to 2019. Dealing with raonic so well means that he must be playing decent. He has never played djokivic who in form like this is a nightmare as one winner in a rally is not enough, you have to hit two as he'll get the first one back.
Chivito550 wrote: » Ladies and gentlemen, the human race has reached peak stupidity.https://twitter.com/andyharris1994/status/1087296926138097667?s=21
jr86 wrote: » Nishikori beating Djokovic at the US Open 2014 has been the catalyst for ND just completely dominating this match up ever since In truth I think it'll be a fairly straight forward passage for Djokovic and Nadal into the final, although Raonic could keep ND honest enough if he makes the semi
yerwanthere123 wrote: » I think Nishikori will be lucky to win ten games
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
