nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

French Open 2021

Floppybits

A few days away from the second Slam of the year. I guess for the men's Nadal has to be favourite. Is there anyone that beat him here? As for the ladies for me its wide open with 3 or 4 players that can win. I see Osaka has said she is not doing any press at the French Open for her mental health. I don't see her winning it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

walshb

Rob2D wrote: »

Try it sometime :pac: And keep in mind, they're expected to do it several times a week.

I am an old man.......no need for me to try it

I am not saying that they do not need to be fit, but what they are doing in terms of endurance and stress is not extraordinary at all.

They are young and fit and healthy athletes. They play tennis at the highest level.

Endurance and stamina are important, but not near to the same level as endurance and stamina are important in some other endurance/stamina dominated sports.

As said, most the points last 5-10 seconds at most, and they have 20-30 seconds rest, add on the other breaks and rests, and actual play time/effort is nothing extraordinary for elite tennis players.

Tennis is so much about natural talent and skill and mechanics..

[Deleted User]

Girly Gal wrote: »

I still think he's past his peak, but, still the best player around and playing to a high level just not as high as before which is understandable. It's just that his main competition (Nadal and Federer are further past their peaks) and the next gen players aren't strong enough to beat him. I think Djokovic of 5/6 years ago would beat the current version.

impossible to know really but going on yesterday, not the case at RG. (as he said himself)

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

eh you were one of the very people going just the other day on about how he was "passed his peak" and that the next gen should be beating them (and him - Djokovic).

Nadal is not finished yet at RG either - he could win another one there imo.

Some people have a huge recency bias based on one match tbh.

I still think he's past his peak, but, still the best player around and playing to a high level just not as high as before which is understandable. It's just that his main competition (Nadal and Federer are further past their peaks) and the next gen players aren't strong enough to beat him. I think Djokovic of 5/6 years ago would beat the current version.

Rob2D

walshb wrote: »

It is not some extraordinary effort or feat. Far from it,

Try it sometime :pac: And keep in mind, they're expected to do it several times a week.

SlickRic wrote: »

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

I don't think so. He's not well rounded enough. Watch him try to volley or play doubles, it's horrendous. He does seem to getting a little better though in fairness. But he would have to seriously up his net game to be considered the GOAT in my eyes. Also he has questionable footwork that he's able to make up for with his stretchiness.

Of the 3, Fed has the best claim whether people like it or not. He's the most skilled across all aspects of the sport. But then if you extrapolate that, is he better than Laver? Probably not. So who knows.

Nadal on clay, yeah I guess you give it to him. But even so, I think Borg would have had him. Maybe. I dunno, it would be a hell of a match to see.

[Deleted User]

Langosta wrote: »

Tennis players typically peak around 24 and decline slightly soon after. This is true of the big three. Federer's best season, and highest level was 2006 when he was 24, turning 25 in August. Nadal's best season and highest level was 2010, he turned 24 in June that year. Djokovic's best season, and highest level was 2011, he turned 24 in April that year.

Djokovic has just played his best match of tennis at RG (not ever anywhere, best there) according to himself and several respected commentators agree

Fact is, being one of the best ever, he's still playing absolutely amazing tennis and "typically peak" does not apply to a completely untypical player.

We're not talking about Tim Henman here

The true true greats of certain sports can adapt their playing styles to compensate for aging beyond the "typical peak" (not forever obviously - see Fed) and leverage experience, pure skill, hunger and dedication to their craft.

Langosta

Tennis players typically peak around 24 and decline slightly soon after. This is true of the big three. Federer's best season, and highest level was 2006 when he was 24, turning 25 in August. Nadal's best season and highest level was 2010, he turned 24 in June that year. Djokovic's best season, and highest level was 2011, he turned 24 in April that year.

[Deleted User]

Girly Gal wrote: »

When all is said and done and all 3 are finished playing I think Djokovic will be considered by most as the greatest player of all time, I expect him to get more than 20 grand slams, he already has the longest time at No. 1 and better h2h v Nadal and Federer which is unlikely to change. How much longer he will dominate is hard to know as he is at an age where his level could drop suddenly and will be unable to attain it again. Just look at Nadal a few months back he looked invincible at RG, but against Djokovic and at times in the quarter final looked very vulnerable, Nadal looks unlikely to win a slam outside of RG now and may even struggle to win another there.

.

eh you were one of the very people going just the other day on about how he was "passed his peak" and that the next gen should be beating them (and him - Djokovic).

Nadal is not finished yet at RG either - he could win another one there imo.

Some people have a huge recency bias based on one match tbh.

Slashermcguirk

The match goes to show again what I have always said, Djokovic is the one player who can always threaten Nadal on clay. He needs to play peak level but when he does he gives Nadal such unique challenges. He uses the angles so well on his forehand side and his penetrating backhand deep into the Nadal forehand is so effective.

He has the array of shots, deceptive power and his return of serve keeps the pressure on.

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

There is a load of rubbish talked about how the next gen should be winning the slams now as Nadal and Djokovic are "past their peak"

(I'm not counting Fed as he's actually too old at this stage. Personally don't give him any chance of winning at SW19)

Nadal was completely unplayable last year at RG and still fearsome this year and I don't think that any other player except Djokovic could have come back from the monstrous start that Nadal put in to go to 5-0 yesterday

ND said himself that this was the best tennis that he has ever played at RG and I believe him.

Djokovic has just turned 34 and his style is not as attritional as Nadal's who is 35.

Too many people still buy into this "you're done in tennis when you turn 30". It's certainly not true in the case of one of the best players ever.

I think that Djokovic has at least 2 more good years in him if he's bothered.

The race for the most GS titles is what is what is driving him on and I hope that he does it.

Certainly not saying that it's a given that he wins on Sunday - Tsitsipas could surprise people and be a natural final performer.

When all is said and done and all 3 are finished playing I think Djokovic will be considered by most as the greatest player of all time, I expect him to get more than 20 grand slams, he already has the longest time at No. 1 and better h2h v Nadal and Federer which is unlikely to change. How much longer he will dominate is hard to know as he is at an age where his level could drop suddenly and will be unable to attain it again. Just look at Nadal a few months back he looked invincible at RG, but against Djokovic and at times in the quarter final looked very vulnerable, Nadal looks unlikely to win a slam outside of RG now and may even struggle to win another there.

Federer is too old now to be a serious contender at GS level, probably the most naturally gifted player of all time, but, mentally weaker than both Djokovic and Nadal. I wouldn't be surprised by an early exit at Wimbledon, if he were to reach a semi final or final it would be a poor reflection on the quality of the next gen players. Personally I think there is a serious question mark about the competitiveness of the next gen players. Most apart from Tsitsipas are in their mid twenties but have struggled to consistently contend at the slams.

Djokovic is on course for the calendar Grand Slam and it would be quite fitting if he achieved it, reach 21 slam titles and confirm him as the greatest player ever. He doesn't really look to have any serious contender at the other slams ( getting over Nadal at RG was the biggest obstacle in his way) unless the next gen players step it up big time which they don't look cable of. Only injury or a serious dip in form can stop him now.

[Deleted User]

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Just watching back some of the tennis, it’s amazing the variety Djokovic brought. The angle he produces on the forehand side loaded with topspin, there were times it looked like he was pulling Nadal out into the crowd. Then you look at the power he generates with his cross court backhand deep into Nadals forehand, it just skips through the court it’s so flat. He constructed so many of the points so well which was in big contrast to last years final when he was struggling with his game and rushing for a winner but missing.

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

There is a load of rubbish talked about how the next gen should be winning the slams now as Nadal and Djokovic are "past their peak"

(I'm not counting Fed as he's actually too old at this stage. Personally don't give him any chance of winning at SW19)

Nadal was completely unplayable last year at RG and still fearsome this year and I don't think that any other player except Djokovic could have come back from the monstrous start that Nadal put in to go to 5-0 yesterday

ND said himself that this was the best tennis that he has ever played at RG and I believe him.

Djokovic has just turned 34 and his style is not as attritional as Nadal's who is 35.

Too many people still buy into this "you're done in tennis when you turn 30". It's certainly not true in the case of one of the best players ever.

I think that Djokovic has at least 2 more good years in him if he's bothered.

The race for the most GS titles is what is what is driving him on and I hope that he does it.

Certainly not saying that it's a given that he wins on Sunday - Tsitsipas could surprise people and be a natural final performer.

Langosta

What a brilliant tennis match that was yesterday. I think the fact the match played into the late evening helped Djokovic hugely. If the match was played a few hours earlier in hot conditions Nadal likely would have won. The lateness of the match nullified Nadal's heavy topspin which usually wears down his opponents. Looking forward to the final, I wouldn't count out Tsitsipas.

walshb

SlickRic wrote: »

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

Come on

There’s plenty stats and criteria and intangibles to argue for any the big three

Personally I think Fed greatest tennis player ever. Nobody does it better…

On clay all at peak, Nadal wins!

Hard court all at best, probably Nole. Fed right behind. Should have put Nole away twice in U.S. semis.

On grass all at best, I think Fed best..

SlickRic

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

Slashermcguirk

Just watching back some of the tennis, it’s amazing the variety Djokovic brought. The angle he produces on the forehand side loaded with topspin, there were times it looked like he was pulling Nadal out into the crowd. Then you look at the power he generates with his cross court backhand deep into Nadals forehand, it just skips through the court it’s so flat. He constructed so many of the points so well which was in big contrast to last years final when he was struggling with his game and rushing for a winner but missing.

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'm not making any accusations against any players. I'm calling out the nonsense that doping isn't that important in tennis. Without the fitness and stamina, your skill isn't worth jack sh1t deep in the 4th set, 3 or 4 hours in.

This is kind of desperate..

Questioning why elite athletes could go 4/5 sets in a match..

What do people expect? They are athletes. Best of the best in their sport

Tennis matches can be hours long, but actual physical play is not. They have plenty rest during their matches..

Most the points/rallies are 5/10 seconds with 20-30 seconds non play

I often wonder why they need/have breaks every 2-3 games. After each set a 3 minutes break would be better.

It not 5/6 hours on a saddle riding a bike, or 26 mins on a running track, or 2 hours on a road running..

Average 3 hours match sees 25-30 mins of actual play/action. And that is over 3 hours. Not continuous. It is not some extraordinary effort or feat. Far from it, and far from it for young fit athletes who are paid millions to do it.

Roughly 17-20 percent of match time is actual play/effort.

This OTT doping talk every time is pathetic..why do folks always seem to want it to be true.

You could test the big three every day and they’d pass and still you’d have ignorant dumbass folks wanting not to believe..

NoviGlitzko

glasso wrote: »

Ah, so many first time winners of slams there

Some of whom are never heard from again in any serious context and others who are flakier than a terrible bout of dandruff, losing to absolute plodders with regularity

Begs the question, is the tour all so equally balanced ...

Or are so many just equally mediocore?

No doubt about it there's been a gulf of superstar talent in the women's game in the last few years. There's an argument there with the ATP too when you see the top 3 domination after their supposed primes, although that's another debate can be talked for days.

I think especially in the last 2 years there's been a huge influx of great women players. Swiatek, Andreesu, Gauff to name a few. The WTA level has been really high the last couple of weeks here. The passion that was on show throughout the tournament was great to see. It's in a good place IMO.

Personally I was just happy to see Serena lose (sorry to be a hater)

[Deleted User]

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I'd rather drama between two potential first time winners of the French than Nadal's utter domination any day of the week. Unless you're a fan of Rafa, who wouldn't?

Ah, so many first time winners of slams there

Some of whom are never heard from again in any serious context and others who are flakier than a terrible bout of dandruff, losing to absolute plodders with regularity

Begs the question, is the tour all so equally balanced ...

Or are so many just equally mediocore?

NoviGlitzko

TheRiverman wrote: »

Thankfully the men's game still gives us magical matches from well known star players of the sport. The women's game is a has been a shambles for some time exemplified by tomorrow's final of who? v your one.

I'd rather drama between two potential first time winners of the French than Nadal's utter domination any day of the week. Unless you're a fan of Rafa, who wouldn't?

NoviGlitzko

Lads I was nearly 2 hours behind there and just finally finished that voyage of a match. Mother of god. The other half and myself nearly lost hair in that 3rd set.

I've never been shy of being anti Nadal when it comes to the French, but when he first pumped a great winner a set down in the fourth I felt guilty in myself for cheering against a great sportsman.

The tension was just insane. Just a note to the commentary on ITV who said this is the highest level of tennis; it's not. It reminded me of a decade ago in 11' when these two were playing in Rome (or Monte Carlo) and remembering saying to myself this is the highest level of tennis I can recall seeing. Nole routine'd Nadal on clay in 2011 only for Federer to to do the same to him in a FO classic. Tennis, like the beauty of any sport is about styles making interesting match-ups.

I'm really looking forward to the final now. I give Tsisipas a decent chance here, whereas I think Nadal would've mentally wore him down. Wow again. What a match.

josip

So anti-vaxx, herbo fruit loop Djokovic is actually pumping himself full of EPO and Clenbuterol every time he closes his front door?
Okaaaay.

[Deleted User]

Lip Out wrote: »

Come on here after watching one of the best matches I've seen in a very long time and the absolute tripe that is being posted. "Poor enough tennis" and mostly posts about doping. Christ on a bike :rolleyes:

True, the Federer fans are really really really scraping the bottom of the barrel at this stage.

Sad stuff.

Chivito550

Not my opinion, but I lived with a Spanish guy who played tennis at a high level as a junior in Spain, and coaches too. He's a big Nadal fan. I brought up the topic of doping, and he flippantly said to me that all the top guys are doping - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and many more. He said it so matter of factly, and it didn't bother him in the slightest.

Not my opinion, just to make it clear.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Chivito won’t include Roger in his suspicions.

I'm not mentioning any players. I'm simply arguing nonsense that doping isn't a big deal in tennis, a sport where players are involved in exhausting 30 shot rallies in 4 hour matches.

Chivito550

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Do explain how doping would give you better technique on serve, forehand, backhand, volley, return etc???

Of course it would give you more stamina etc but pick up a tennis racket and try and get the technique those top 3 players have. Good luck with that. I stand over that if every player did dope or didn’t, those top 3 would win regardless because they are simply much better tennis players

Of course they are the best, all things being equal.

But without stamina, your skill isn't worth sh1t. What use is your amazing sliced backhand when you can barely walk with exhaustion deep in a 5th set. Doping powers the engine that let's the natural skills thrive.

I'm not accusing any specific players by the way.

You could dope up a guy ranked 100 and he could jump into the top 30 within a year. You could dope a guy ranked 10 and he could be a grand slam contender, and challenge the big 3 more. Doping can close the gap significantly.

Chivito550

Girly Gal wrote: »

Justin Gatlin is a proven drugs cheat, Djokovic, Nadal or Federer haven't as yet been proven to dope, so throwing out these accusations every time they play is only trying to blacken their name and downgrade their achievements. Also 10 mins after an extraordinary match isn't the time to be talking about, let people enjoy the wonderful tennis that was played tonight, you can talk about doping in a few days time when the tournament is over and everyone has had time to take it all in.

Sounds awfully like the whole "now is not the time to discus gun laws" in the aftermath of another mass shooting in USA. There is NEVER a good time to talk about doping, but the best time is when the sport is in the public eye. Why bother talk about it in 4 days when nobody is watching tennis bar the anoraks?

Many many athletes who have never tested positive have to deal with doping questions. Sifan Hassan for one right now. Why should tennis players be different? A question is not an accusation.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Why?

It’s tennis. Far more skill based than other sports that sees doping to increase endurance..

Sure, can give players extra energy/fitness…

We know this…

But are you real saying Federer, for example, probably was juicing? And if so, why?

What are the players doing that is so extraordinary?

How are you measuring it?

I'm not making any accusations against any players. I'm calling out the nonsense that doping isn't that important in tennis. Without the fitness and stamina, your skill isn't worth jack sh1t deep in the 4th set, 3 or 4 hours in.

Lip Out

Come on here after watching one of the best matches I've seen in a very long time and the absolute tripe that is being posted. "Poor enough tennis" and mostly posts about doping. Christ on a bike :rolleyes:

Rob2D

dominatinMC wrote: »

Small sample size in fairness!

Could get bigger........

redzerredzer

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I would think all the players are drug tested regularly. To be honest regardless the top 3 would win anyway because they are quite simply better tennis players! In a sport like cycling or long distance running it’s pure stamina, in tennis a drug won’t make you a better tennis player. Sure you could build stamina but these guys are just unbelievably good tennis players. You could pump every other player up, they still won’t be as good

There is no doubt tennis has a massive drug problem. I can assure you drug taking will make you a better tennis player. You can training longer and harder and recover from injuries much quicker.
To win best of 5 set matches for two weeks on clay requires incredible stamina. I would say it’s impossible to win RG without doping (since everyone else is doing it).
Regarding drug testing. There are obviously ways around that. Doctor Eufemiano Fuentes who’s cyclists were caught was going to name everyone from other sports but was silenced as the euro and World Cup winning Spanish football team would have been outed.

dominatinMC

Rob2D wrote: »

Fixed that for you

He may just be a physical freak. He's like stretch armstrong.

Rob2D wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what'll happen Sunday.

Ya I wouldn't rule Tsitispas out at all. I was kinda thinking all year that it would be ironic if the next gen finally broke through (USO last year doesn't count!) at RG - which has been a constant for so many years now.

Rob2D wrote: »

Nobody has ever won RG after beating Nadal. Novak lost to Stan the last time he tried.....

Small sample size in fairness!