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

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

Djokovic looks gassed. I fear he played his final on Friday

This set will tell a lot. Usually Djokovic comes roaring back in these situations.

ND in real trouble I think now

that half-volley winner from the baseline after a good return from ND was unreal

before he hit that I was thinking that's a good return - ND has this set

maybe the "beat Nadal at RG but you don't win the Championship" trend is set to continue

Tsitsipas showing composure and definitely NOT wilting here, so far

but ND lost his focus stupidly there at 6-5 for a few minutes - only himself to blame really

sloppy start here now also 'cos he's kicking himself

Tsitsipas needed that

Djokovic making Tsitsipas's case there that he shouldn't have got a time warning

especially at a key set point

edit - should have kept focus on his own game instead of trying to be sound!

that could be big

had the set for the taking - awful game for him

GustavoKuerten wrote: »

Tsitsipas can win this, beating Djokovic at his advanced age is not the formidable task it once was.

are you trying to break the number of new boards accounts in 24 hours record?

Good so far from Tsitsipas

nearly hugely costly there from ND by putting an easy volley into the net and the miss-hit giving break point

but unreal clutch rally from ND to bring it back

glasso wrote: »

these "next gen" can't just decide to "step up" and beat a player like Djokovic

Djokovic is still very very very good - no matter that he's 34 (just) - as if that was ancient or something in a game where you have to provide short bursts of activity (points) with a rest after each one

He can easily go for 4 hours plus as shown the other day and is probably the best clutch points player ever

He could easily be the best for another 2 years the way that he takes care of himself and manages to keep the level

Having that challenge there may push them which is a good thing but it may or may not happen this year or next year if Djokovic is able to keep playing so well

Tsipsitas may well have it to be a good GS finalist performer straight out of the blocks and he has a game that can work against Djokovic (recent results on head to head are not great but he had chances in those matches so it doesn't tell the whole story there)

fair play to him if he is a great first time finalist but he's facing a superb player here - there is no "step up" button

hoping for a good match and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for Tsipsitas to do it as he has the game that works against Djokovic as said - a very damaging "serve plus 1" game - e.g. the serve and next shot to finish the point

Obviously no player can decide to step up over night, it takes time, all we're looking for is players to play to the best or their ability and not wilt or have the game lost before they even step on the court just because they're playing a big name e.g. Djokovic or Nadal which is what has been happening in recent years.

Tsipsitas has to hope that Djokovic expended so much "emotional energy" on the previous match and the resulting huge high that he got from it afterwards

Conceivable that that could leave him flat today to an extent coming down off that feeling

But then again he's a mental beast and is cognisant of managing his levels very well

Girly Gal wrote: »

Hopefully it'll be competitive today, expect Djokovic to win, but, want to see Tsitsipas make him earn it, the worst thing that can happen today is a one sided win for Djokovic, nothing against Djokovic just the game in general needs Tsitsipas (and the other next gen guys) to step up and really challenge at GS level now.

these "next gen" can't just decide to "step up" and beat a player like Djokovic

Djokovic is still very very very good - no matter that he's 34 (just) - as if that was ancient or something in a game where you have to provide short bursts of activity (points) with a rest after each one

He can easily go for 4 hours plus as shown the other day and is probably the best clutch points player ever

He could easily be the best for another 2 years the way that he takes care of himself and manages to keep the level

Having that challenge there may push them which is a good thing but it may or may not happen this year or next year if Djokovic is able to keep playing so well

Tsipsitas may well have it to be a good GS finalist performer straight out of the blocks and he has a game that can work against Djokovic (recent results on head to head are not great but he had chances in those matches so it doesn't tell the whole story there)

fair play to him if he is a great first time finalist but he's facing a superb player here - there is no "step up" button

hoping for a good match and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for Tsipsitas to do it as he has the game that works against Djokovic as said - a very damaging "serve plus 1" game - e.g. the serve and next shot to finish the point

Hopefully it'll be competitive today, expect Djokovic to win, but, want to see Tsitsipas make him earn it, the worst thing that can happen today is a one sided win for Djokovic, nothing against Djokovic just the game in general needs Tsitsipas (and the other next gen guys) to step up and really challenge at GS level now.

Orange Slice wrote: »

I choose not to believe him, especially when emotions are high just after the victory, people say irrational things in such moments.

he also achieved another stat never ever achieved before

nobody had ever beaten Nadal after losing the first set to him on clay over 5

so a first

the way Nadal came out of the blocks like an unplayable monster would have broken the spirit of any other player perhaps

maybe another reason why Djokovic would then come out and claim that it was his best match here and he also said one of his top 3 matches of all his career

but sure what the hell would he know say some?!

Djokovic will certainly say if he played well but does not throw these sort of comments about.

second day in a row with a "random new poster" - no coincidence

pathetic behaviour in fairness

Orange Slice wrote: »

He most definitely didn't play his best match on Friday, he's played better in the past at Roland Garros.

Yes the five set stuff you're talking about is meaningless. Djokovic beat Nadal before at Roland Garros, and now he's done it again. Nobody said it's easy to beat Nadal at Roland Garros, beating him there is a tough task, not as tough as it used to be though as he's old now, slower around the court and makes more unforced errors. His stamina has considerably declined too, Nadal seems to struggle now over long matches.

Nadal hadn't lost a match there since 2015 (withdrew in 2016), had won the last 4 on the trot and was steamrolling (one set lost) through the tournament

was still a massive massive task

Djokovic said himself that he played his best match (not his best ever tennis there - maybe you missed the distinction perhaps) there - you can choose to believe him or not - whatever....

Orange Slice wrote: »

A lot of people have a weird need to believe that everything now is "better than ever".

It's the same in every sport, the media drives this idea that all sports are getting better year on year, the truth is all sports go through peaks and troughs. In tennis we've just gone through the greatest era of the game, the level has already dropped from it's peak and will drop further once Djokovic and Nadal retire or lose form as the next gen guys play at a much lower level. It'll peak again sometime in the future, unlikely to get to the highest peak of the Federer, Nadal, Djokovic era, but, higher than what the next gen guys are capable of.

No doubt in the future we will have people say and believe that tennis is being played at a much higher level than the peak of the Federer, Nadal & Djokovic era, which is near impossible to see happen.

Orange Slice wrote: »

A lot of people have a weird need to believe that everything now is "better than ever".

Unfortunately thats the melodramatic era we live in.
Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.

Orange Slice wrote: »

Yea but he had already been beaten in straight sets by Djokovic at the French Open so those other stats are fairly arbitrary and meaningless.

he's won the last 4 titles in a row and had only dropped one set in the championship so far

and when he lost or withdrew before he was either sick (Soderling), injured or off-form bigtime and lost in earlier rounds

neither of which was the case this year

it's the fooking hardest thing in sports to do

98.5% win record on clay over 5 up to that match

meaningless indeed.

nobody is saying that

everything now is "better than ever"

which is simply bs paraphrasing on your part

Djokovic said that he played HIS best match at RG which is entirely possible given the challenge and the circumstances.

Hard to see Djokovic letting it slip today, but if Tsitsipas comes out aggressive and is painting the lines it will be very interesting. I don't think he will be able to keep it up for 3 sets however

glasso wrote: »

If and when or if ever Djokovic gets to 20 then he'll certainly be out in front due to all the other stats and head-to-head records.

Some may not like him but he'll be obviously the G.O.A.T

I used to like Djokovic a lot but he bores me s&$#less

No one will ever touch Federer no matter how many or what they win imo

If and when or if ever Djokovic gets to 20 then he'll certainly be out in front due to all the other stats and head-to-head records.

Some may not like him but he'll be obviously the G.O.A.T

walshb wrote: »

I agree here..

Life on the line and you have to pick one player to win? Nole by a whisker.

I just don’t see it as being remotely clear for any of them..

They are neck and neck the three of them..

Doesn't that depend on conditions and length of the match? Neither Federer nor Nadal look really up to long 5 set battles anymore and certainly not more than one in a championship. They're surviving at the moment on blasting away their opponents in straight sets, with skill and reputation as main factors. Personally I don't see them lasting much longer, just hope they don't go through a phase of getting out in early rounds. Something to be said for reading the writing on the wall and quiting when ahead.

Djokovic despite I think his on court persona can be unlikable, has a few more miles left in him yet.

SlickRic wrote: »

My position is this (and I don't like Djokovic at all).

Federer may be the most mesmerising to watch at his best, but I think Djokovic is the most difficult player to beat at his best.

I won't fall out with anyone over it. It's just how I've felt for a while now. If someone wants to argue for Fed, then great.

I agree here..

Life on the line and you have to pick one player to win? Nole by a whisker.

I just don’t see it as being remotely clear for any of them..

They are neck and neck the three of them..

Not bad suggestions but the calibre of personnel involved not the same imo

And where matches go to a second day it loses the intensity

glasso wrote: »

Loser has higher number of UE's shocker (55 vs 37 overall).

Including the third set which took twice as long as a normal set - some long games with lots of break points saved and a tie-break.

Match was over half an hour longer in duration than the 5 setter that preceded it where UE count was 47 - 43.

Tennis is certainly not all about stats either.

It's about the battle, the ebb and flow, the intensity.

That's what makes it compelling.

Zverev V Tsitsipas was a five setter and had less UE's but wasn't a quarter of the match that came after it!!!

it's easily the best "big" / GS semi or final for years

I put it ahead of the Fed - Djokovic Wimbdledon final in 2019 as it had more "weight" (Nadal never lost at RG semi or final, his 98.5% win record over 5 on clay, never lost a match after taking first set here compared to a relatively faded Federer) and more intensity (imo)

after that you have to go back a long way to find a good one.

The 2017 RG sem-final between Wawrinka and Murray was a belter: 6-7 3-6 5-7 7-6 6-1. Of course, as the match went into a fifth set, you just knew the winner wouldn't be able to recover properly for the final, which was exactly what happened to Wawrinka against Nadal.

Both of the Australia Open semi-finals that year were great matches as well: Federer-Wawrinka and (especially) Nadal-Dimitrov. While the final was also a five-setter, it wasn't quite as good as either semi, IMHO.

The rain- and wind-interrupted 2019 semi-final at the French was also a very dramatic match, Thiem beating Djokovic 6-2 3-6 7-5 5-7 7-5. If you recall, this match finished on the Saturday morning, after Djokovic seemingly refused to return to the court the previous evening.

whiterebel wrote: »

I watched that match last night, and had no stake in who won. While I watched it, my son, who's a RN fan walked past and asked how it was going. I said, and this is TB in the 3rd, its brilliant - but its drama, not brilliant tennis. I wake up this morning and Roddick, Murray and Croft are in paroxysms over it. I'm scratching my head wondering did we watch different matches? Now, commentators have to believe everything is better now, particularly when. they show it on their channel - Football started in 1992 - Sky Sports syndrome. No teams before 92, no great players, no great goals. They have a vested interest, plus younger viewers don't remember the greats. How you can even have the discussion about GOAT in tennis without Laver is ludicrous. 11 slams, and forced to miss 20 when he dominated mens tennis. Talk of records for pre-Open era is conveniently forgotten. He won the slam of slams twice, 1962 and 1969.

Anyway, the match last night - one of the greatest? Nadal had 16 UEs before the TB in the 3rd set. 55 in total in 4 sets. 55 by the best player on clay we have ever seen. I'd say he has won tournaments with less UEs than that. Eurosport have the highlights up this morning, I watched it back, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. They started their highlights of a 4 set match, at the 3rd set. I had thought, while watching live, that the 3rd set would make it into a "greatest of all time" conversation, but there were terrible misses everywhere in that set, just less by ND.
Great drama, but definitely not great tennis. Nowhere near Nadal/Fed Wimbledon or Mac v Borg x 2.

.

Loser has higher number of UE's shocker (55 vs 37 overall).

Including the third set which took twice as long as a normal set - some long games with lots of break points saved and a tie-break.

Match was over half an hour longer in duration than the 5 setter that preceded it where UE count was 47 - 43.

Tennis is certainly not all about stats either.

It's about the battle, the ebb and flow, the intensity.

That's what makes it compelling.

Zverev V Tsitsipas was a five setter and had less UE's but wasn't a quarter of the match that came after it!!!

it's easily the best "big" / GS semi or final for years

I put it ahead of the Fed - Djokovic Wimbdledon final in 2019 as it had more "weight" (Nadal never lost at RG semi or final, his 98.5% win record over 5 on clay, never lost a match after taking first set here compared to a relatively faded Federer) and more intensity (imo, but some will prefer the other match)

after that you have to go back a long way to find a good one.

whiterebel wrote: »

I watched that match last night, and had no stake in who won. While I watched it, my son, who's a RN fan walked past and asked how it was going. I said, and this is TB in the 3rd, its brilliant - but its drama, not brilliant tennis. I wake up this morning and Roddick, Murray and Croft are in paroxysms over it. I'm scratching my head wondering did we watch different matches? Now, commentators have to believe everything is better now, particularly when. they show it on their channel - Football started in 1992 - Sky Sports syndrome. No teams before 92, no great players, no great goals. They have a vested interest, plus younger viewers don't remember the greats. How you can even have the discussion about GOAT in tennis without Laver is ludicrous. 11 slams, and forced to miss 20 when he dominated mens tennis. Talk of records for pre-Open era is conveniently forgotten. He won the slam of slams twice, 1962 and 1969.

Anyway, the match last night - one of the greatest? Nadal had 16 UEs before the TB in the 3rd set. 55 in total in 4 sets. 55 by the best player on clay we have ever seen. I'd say he has won tournaments with less UEs than that. Eurosport have the highlights up this morning, I watched it back, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. They started their highlights of a 4 set match, at the 3rd set. I had thought, while watching live, that the 3rd set would make it into a "greatest of all time" conversation, but there were terrible misses everywhere in that set, just less by ND.
Great drama, but definitely not great tennis. Nowhere near Nadal/Fed Wimbledon or Mac v Borg x 2.

The umpire deserves to take one massive boot in the ass for giving ND a violation, when Nadal, as usual slowed down the server. On break point, no less. In one tournament you've got Fed penalised for slowing down one of the slowest servers around, then Nadal is told he is fine versus Norrie, despite persistently slowing up the server. Then you've got the server being penalised last night because Nadal is giving himself a sponge bath in the corner followed by 27,000 tics that he has developed. This needs to stop, the 3rd set would have been done in less than an hour by 2 reasonably quicker servers last night. Nadal hit an ace last night, and you could clearly see he was nearly back to the towel by the time the clock started. No wonder they are not on obvious display for the TV cameras any more.

Agree with all of that.
Well said.

walshb wrote: »

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..

My position is this (and I don't like Djokovic at all).

Federer may be the most mesmerising to watch at his best, but I think Djokovic is the most difficult player to beat at his best.

I won't fall out with anyone over it. It's just how I've felt for a while now. If someone wants to argue for Fed, then great.

coach is giving her signals which side to serve to

low-key finish!

K really blew those match point break points there in a weak fashion.

how will the nerves hold up serving for the match?

Prefer to see the Russian Anastasia prevail here, nicer game to watch. Other one seems more limited tactics, though effective. Re Nadal, all that time delay is about game management and conserving his body. By end third set last night, he’d played a lot longer than his normal and just faded.