Tennis: French Open 2021

[Czechboy]

String french for the Czech ladies...

Win singles
Win doubles (Siniakova was outstanding).
Win girls singles.

To an earlier comment about how Krejcikova is a doubles player... She is an exceptional doubles player but it was the 33 seed vs 32. She is now 15 in the world and on back to back tournament wins.

The proper description would be late bloomer which is very common amongst Czechs that started in doubles and transitioned...

Jiri Novak
Radek Stepanek.
Barbora Strycova
Lucie safarova
Jana novotna.

She is following their paths.

 

[MaxV]

When discussing GOAT, it appears that the number of GS titles is at front.

But what about the number of total singles titles?

Fed - 103
Rafa - 88
Djoker - 84

 

[Beau Knows]

Djokovic is clearly on track to be the GOAT. But I think with 2 guys ahead of him in the slam count (even if they're just ahead by 1), that he's not clearly ahead yet, if at all.

95% chance he gets there, but I think it's premature to put him there right now.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

I think Nadal could end at 22 or 23 (2 French Opens + 1 misc., or 3 more French opens). So it's no lock that Djokovic gets 4-5 more to get outright lead.

 

[kihei]

When discussing GOAT, it appears that the number of GS titles is at front.

But what about the number of total singles titles?

Fed - 103
Rafa - 88
Djoker - 84

Well, that's what makes horse races, eh.

Unless Nole wins something really crazy like 23 or 24 Grand Slam titles, I'd be willing to bet that in fifty years or so, The Big Three will be viewed as a single three-headed mega-super-nova entity with a life all its own. All three will have their own GOAT corners. Nole will be the best ever; Nadal will prevail as colossus of clay with heart and intensity never to be matched; and Roger will be the guy that got their first and the closest tennis ever came to the Platonic ideal as well as the clear People's Choice for capturing the world's attention with all the beauty and grace of his game. All three will have great resumes that their supporters' can point to; each will have a wide list of magnificent achievements that the other two can't match. They will collectively end up representing a kind of Golden Age of tennis (Serena included) and we will all have been lucky to have been alive to see them play.

 

[Troubadour]

At the French Open, on the non clay courts he was untouchable as it gets and other majors were basically over before they started. The only time I felt like Djokovic was that inevitable was 2011 up until the US open.

No, he was not untouchable. He lost repeatedly to Nalbandian, and Nadal. He lost to a baby Murray in Cinci 06.

Lost the very first match against Nadal in Miami 2004 (hard). Rafa was only seventeen. Had to work very, very hard not to lose to Nadal again at the very same tournament next year (hard) where he came back from two sets down. Dropped a set to Nadal in Dubai (hard). Dropped a set to a two-feathered-butt Nadal in Wimbledon 2006 (grass), and it could very much have gone to 5. Almost lost the 2007 final. Dropped a set to both Nalbandian and Hewitt at the 04 AO. Lost three times to Nalbandian between 2005 and 2007, indoor. He was taken to five by a mid-thirties Agassi at 2004 US Open, to four in 2005.

It never really happened the way Fed fans tell you. He had some great stretches there, but he was never really untouchable.

 

[kihei]

No, he was not untouchable. He lost repeatedly to Nalbandian, and Nadal. He lost to a baby Murray in Cinci 06.

Lost the very first match against Nadal in Miami 2004 (hard). Rafa was only seventeen. Had to work very, very hard not to lose to Nadal again at the very same tournament next year (hard) where he came back from two sets down. Dropped a set to Nadal in Dubai (hard). Dropped a set to a two-feathered-butt Nadal in Wimbledon 2006 (grass), and it could very much have gone to 5. Almost lost the 2007 final. Dropped a set to both Nalbandian and Hewitt at the 04 AO. Lost three times to Nalbandian between 2005 and 2007, indoor. He was taken to five by a mid-thirties Agassi at 2004 US Open, to four in 2005.

It never really happened the way Fed fans tell you. He had some great stretches there, but he was never really untouchable.

According to the ATP, these are Federer's won loss records for a three year period:

2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5

247-15 over a three year period: 173-9 over a two season period. I mean, wow.

Nadal did dominate Federer early, though four of his six wins in this period were on clay. However, Roger's record versus Nalbandian during this period: 7-1

During this period, Federer's record against the six most recent #1s before him:

Hewitt: 9-0
Roddick: 7-0
Agassi--6-0
Safin--4-1
Ferrero--3-0
Kuerton--1-0

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

No, he was not untouchable. He lost repeatedly to Nalbandian, and Nadal. He lost to a baby Murray in Cinci 06.

Lost the very first match against Nadal in Miami 2004 (hard). Rafa was only seventeen. Had to work very, very hard not to lose to Nadal again at the very same tournament next year (hard) where he came back from two sets down. Dropped a set to Nadal in Dubai (hard). Dropped a set to a two-feathered-butt Nadal in Wimbledon 2006 (grass), and it could very much have gone to 5. Almost lost the 2007 final. Dropped a set to both Nalbandian and Hewitt at the 04 AO. Lost three times to Nalbandian between 2005 and 2007, indoor. He was taken to five by a mid-thirties Agassi at 2004 US Open, to four in 2005.

It never really happened the way Fed fans tell you. He had some great stretches there, but he was never really untouchable.

Sure, he lost a handful of non-clay matches a year, he got caught by the boom end of the ultimate boom/bust Safin once, you can't bat 1.000. If he lost a random match to Murray on hardcourt or something they would a breaking wtf news story SOMEONE BEAT FEDERER!

The only seasons like peak Federer for W/L are 2011 and 2015 Djokovic. Subjectively 2015 Djokovic "felt" more to me like a 2010 Nadal season than 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic but I have no real objectively evidence of that, statistically it's as good as any season in history. He goes 74-9 in 2013 and 61-8 in 2014 and only wins 1 major each and then goes 82-6 in 2015, so my take is that he underperformed at the majors in 13 and 14 and was due to have a good year at them which he had in 15.

 

[Fantomas]

The only seasons like peak Federer are 2011 and 2015 Djokovic.

Are we just discussing this generation? Because Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969 and John McEnroe was 82-3 in 1984.

Curious to see if Djoker comes close to achieving the first Grand Slam in more than 50 years.

 

[Fantomas]

Djokovic is clearly on track to be the GOAT. But I think with 2 guys ahead of him in the slam count

I think Djokovic is obviously a GOAT candidate, but the majors count isn't the best metric to decide who is the GOAT.

Before the open era, pros didn't even play the grand slam events for a long time. And in the 1970s and 80s, many skipped the Australian because it paid very little.

Counting majors only really became a thing since the ATP tour standardized in 1990. A very short time span.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Are we just discussing this generation? Because Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969 and John McEnroe was 82-3 in 1984.

Curious to see if Djoker comes close to achieving the first Grand Slam in more than 50 years.

Yes, just this generation, I'm aware McEnroe has arguable GOAT season

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Ranking the top 15 big 3 seasons (trying to be objective as possible, thus I rate 2015 high even though personally I felt like he was more beatable that year than 2011 version of him or or peak Federer)

1. 2011 Djokovic
2. 2015 Djokovic
3. 2006 Federer
4. 2004 Federer

These are near perfect seasons with 3 majors and also all time overall W/L. Djokovic gets the edge due to competition although 2006 Federer has slight edge in w/l and number of titles.

5. 2010 Nadal
6. 2007 Federer
7. 2005 Federer
8. 2013 Nadal

07 Federer and 10 Nadal are excellent 3 major seasons. 05 Federer is probably the best 2 major season you can have, he went 81-4 and just lost to Safin who may have beaten anyone in history that day. 2013 Nadal is also a superb season that started after the Australian so he had less of a chance of winning 3 majors. Both these versions may be better than 2010 Nadal/2007 Federer but hard to rate them over 3 major years.

9. 2008 Nadal
10. 2017 Federer
11. 2016 Djokovic

These are strong 2 major years. 2017 Federer was good outside of the 2 majors and went 54-5 overall so that's just a genuinely a really great season deserving of top 10 consideration. 2016 Djokovic started perfect but faded after the French.

12. 2017 Nadal
13. 2009 Federer
14. 2019 Nadal
15. 2019 Djokovic
16. 2018 Djokovic

These are 2 major years that are slightly less elite outside of them, with 17 Nadal and 09 Federer almost winning a third. 2019 Nadal is strong at 58-7 but plays less tournaments. Djokovic 2018 hard to rate as he came on strong the 2nd half.

17. 2013 Djokovic
18. 2014 Djokovic
19. 2012 Djokovic
20. 2007 Nadal

If doing big 4 my #17 would actually be 2016 Murray (1 major, 3 major finals, 9 titles and Olympic Gold is actually probably the BEST 1 major season of anyone's). But since this is a big 3 ranking the list is filled out with Djokovic seasons.

So Djokovic has possibly the top 2 or 2 of the top 4, but also no other in the top 10 according to my rankings. However with his consistency he has a lot of excellent lower level years rounding out the top 20, and giving him 8 of the top 20 overall. He is however putting together an great 2021 at 21-3 so far although I doubt he finishes with as many tournaments as 2011 or 2015 to really rival them unless he gets a calendar slam.

 

[MsMeow]

The GOAT debate is really impossible. You have one guy who's way older than the other two (in athlete terms), then you have Rafa who is super dominant on one surface. Then you have Djokovic who is the youngest. It's like comparing Gretzky to Bobby Orr to Gordie Howe etc. Players tend to improve year after year, as does equipment and training.

 

[Fantomas]

Players tend to improve year after year

I don't think this is true.

 

[kihei]

I don't think this is true.

How about if she said that great players of our era peak later than their earlier counterparts? It wasn't that long ago, twenty years or so, that if you won a GS championship and were older than 27, you were a very rare bird. That certainly has changed with the Big Three, though several other players seem to be peaking later, too.

 

[Troubadour]

According to the ATP, these are Federer's won loss records for a three year period:

2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5

247-15 over a three year period: 173-9 over a two season period. I mean, wow.

Nadal did dominate Federer early, though four of his six wins in this period were on clay. However, Roger's record versus Nalbandian during this period: 7-1

During this period, Federer's record against the six most recent #1s before him:

Hewitt: 9-0
Roddick: 7-0
Agassi--6-0
Safin--4-1
Ferrero--3-0
Kuerton--1-0

He was great, but untouchable? That would be like... Nadal on clay from 2005 till 2007.

Federer's record against the six most recent No.1 players before him would be more impressive if nearly all of them weren't struggling with injuries of some sort/coming back from injury of some sort. Which, admit it or not, kinda epitomizes Fed's reign. 5 of his contemporaries went to No. 1 before him. Most of them got injured, in case of Safin disinterested in tennis as a whole. Federer ruled the vacant tennis world, then he got bossed around by a teenage clay court specialist.

Also, you got the Kuerten H2H (and name) plain wrong. Guga had his number and won the last two matches in 2003 and 2004.

 

[Troubadour]

Sure, he lost a handful of non-clay matches a year, he got caught by the boom end of the ultimate boom/bust Safin once, you can't bat 1.000. If he lost a random match to Murray on hardcourt or something they would a breaking wtf news story SOMEONE BEAT FEDERER!

The only seasons like peak Federer for W/L are 2011 and 2015 Djokovic. Subjectively 2015 Djokovic "felt" more to me like a 2010 Nadal season than 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic but I have no real objectively evidence of that, statistically it's as good as any season in history. He goes 74-9 in 2013 and 61-8 in 2014 and only wins 1 major each and then goes 82-6 in 2015, so my take is that he underperformed at the majors in 13 and 14 and was due to have a good year at them which he had in 15.

Fair enough.

 

[Fantomas]

How about if she said that great players of our era peak later than their earlier counterparts? It wasn't that long ago, twenty years or so, that if you won a GS championship and were older than 27, you were a very rare bird. That certainly has changed with the Big Tree, though several other players seem to be peaking later, too.

I don't think this is true either. Took a while for Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall to find their way and they dominated way into their 30s. Rosewall played effectively into his 40s.

These kinds of things are likely cyclical and have more to do with circumstances related to touring and different motivational factors (e.g., in Rosewall's and Laver's case, as well as Pancho Gonzales's, they were financial).

Overall, there's something to said about the way the standardization of the ATP tour (beginning with 1990) contributed to improving the mental health of tennis players and extending careers. 1970s and 80s tennis was a pretty crazy time, with complicated and unpredictable touring, and heavy recreational drug use among players.

 

[kihei]

I don't think this is true either. Took a while for Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall to find their way and they dominated way into their 30s. Rosewall played effectively into his 40s.

These kinds of things are likely cyclical and have more to do with circumstances related to touring and different motivational factors (e.g., in Rosewall's and Laver's case, as well as Pancho Gonzales's, they were financial).

Overall, there's something to said about the way the standardization of the ATP tour (beginning with 1990) contributed to improving the mental health of tennis players and extending careers. 1970s and 80s tennis was a pretty crazy time, with complicated and unpredictable touring, and heavy recreational drug use among players.

The real extending of careers didn't arrive to much later than that, however. Back in 2013, I did a piece of research into the average age of GS winners in the period between 1987 and 2013. Out of a sample of 106 GS tournaments, only 15 were won by players 28 or over, five of those by one player, Andre Agassi. If we eliminate Andre, only 10 times did it happen in a quarter century plus. With the exception of him, it was an extremely rare feat for anyone older than 27 to win a GS until the past eight or nine years.

I also got curious about the average age of Grand Slam winners in this sample, so I did two compilations: one an average for the ten years previous to Federer’s first slam, 1993 to 2002 (Why those years? Because once Federer and Nadal appear on the scene, there’s not much of a sample to test in terms of other players winning Slams). I also did a sample including all years from ’93 to 2013, excluding the big fish, Federer, Nadal, Sampras and Agassi, so as to get a better sense of how mere mortals do.

In the ten year sample, previous to Federer’s first Slam in 2003, here are the average ages of Grand Slam winners for each of the four majors in this ten year period (this includes Sampras and Agassi’s titles during this period):

Australian: 26.2
French: 24.8
Wimbledon: 25.3
US: 24.4

Overall average of Grand Slam winner: 25.1 years of age

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excluding Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Agassi, 1993 to 2013, the average age of the other 26 Grand Slam winners in this period is almost exactly 24 years of age.

The breakdown for this group (again excluding the Big Four) is:

30+ year olds: 0 (Petr Korda. ’98 Australian Open winner, missed by a few days)
28/29 years old: 3 players
26/27 years old: 5
24/25 years old: 7
22/23 years old: 5
20/21 years old: 6

Obviously a lot of reasons influence this change including conditioning, equipment, diet, three seemingly superhuman specimens as role models, and changes brought about by the ATP over the years. But it is a dramatic change. So I do think it is safe to say that many players now peak later than their earlier counterparts.

 

[Fantomas]

Obviously a lot of reasons influence this change including conditioning, equipment, diet, three seemingly superhuman specimens as role models, and changes brought about by the ATP over the years. But it is a dramatic change. So I do think it is safe to say that many players now peak later than their earlier counterparts.

We know that three players do. Three players extremely motivated to hold a particular record.

Since 2005, these guys - and Andy Murray - have won almost everything. What exactly can you extrapolate from three players?

Even if you are to broaden your study and show that there is a broader trend, involving hundreds of players, that still doesn't take you to figuring out the cause of the phenomenon.

 

[kihei]

We know that three players do. Three players extremely motivated to hold a particular record.

Since 2005, these guys - and Andy Murray - have won almost everything. What exactly can you extrapolate from three players?

Even if you are to broaden your study and show that there is a broader trend, involving hundreds of players, that still doesn't take you to figuring out the cause of the phenomenon.

I'm way more interested in the extent of the phenomena of player success late in their career than the causes. And it is hardly just three players. One could add Anderson, Isner, Bautista Agut, and Wawrinka as elite players to that list. And it is not just top ten players who are continuing to play at a high standard far longer. Although seven of the top ten ranked players in 2018 were 30 or over, players are succeeding well into their 30s with much greater frequency than they did in the past. In March of 1993, for instance, there were a total of three players who were 30 years or over ranked in the ATP top 87, Lendl, Gilbert and McEnroe, a total of five in the top 100 (add Bates and Jaryd). Currently there are four such players ranked in the top ten; four more such players ranked in the top 20; and a total of 37 in the top 100. What one can extrapolate from that is that the 20 to 27 year old age group no longer dominates the sport the way it once did . That's a sea change of mammoth proportions.

 

[Fantomas]

I'm way more interested in the extent of the phenomena of player success late in their career than the causes.

Yes and that's fine. There might be something here, I can't say. I just don't like it when people draw conclusions that it has something to do with players being "better than ever" or some such nonsense.

 

[kihei]

Yes and that's fine. There might be something here, I can't say. I just don't like it when people draw conclusions that it has something to do with players being "better than ever" or some such nonsense.

Well, seeing as nobody but nobody has made that claim on these pages, I'd say you are jumping at shadows. That's another argument entirely.

 

[Fantomas]

Well, seeing as nobody but nobody has made that claim on these pages, I'd say you are jumping at shadows. That's another argument entirely.

No, that's exactly what MsMeow said, and is something I hear a lot, and that's what prompted my response. If that's not what you're saying then I really don't know why you replied. Move on.

 

[kihei]

No, that's exactly what MsMeow said, and is something I hear a lot, and that's what prompted my response. If that's not what you're saying then I really don't know why you replied. Move on.

I should also add that tennis equipment has not "improved," it's changed. The introduction of graphite and polyester strings are aesthetic decisions. Saying that they're better is like saying that aluminum baseball bats are better than wooden ones.

Move on yourself, pal. I rephrased Ms Meow's initial comment to get at a different point. Reread it and see. Try not oversimplifying/mistrepresenting other people's posts to get at your own pet peeves. That might lead to better discussions.