Miami 2018

Awesome game from Shapo.

Match reaching a decent level in the third set, gloves are off.

Shapo running on fumes and adrenaline.
I hope that's going to be enough for the W.

Coric take it, not a bad match at all, good to see 2 youngsters play a proper match.

coric wins

Yep...and easy FH missed gave Coric the win. Shapo hasn't got ice in his vein!

A bit more composure and he would have won that easily.

Tiafoe is not very flexible on his knees...but strangely that does not prevent him from hitting big shots!

Coric does not have much game, but he looks to me to be quite mature and focused.  More so than many other youngsters (Kyrgios, Tomic, even Zverev and Thiem).

Jahu wrote:Coric take it, not a bad match at all, good to see 2 youngsters play a proper match.

Don’t mix that steroid squealing grunter with a proper talent like Shapo.
Coric is an utter peasant of a player with nothing interesting to offer.

Coric plays a very very similar game to Novak. He just isn’t as good a returner. Does look like he is starting to kick on - although these slow NA hard courts are probably his ideal surface, so will be interesting to see how he goes on clay/grass.

summerblues wrote:Coric does not have much game, but he looks to me to be quite mature and focused.  More so than many other youngsters (Kyrgios, Tomic, even Zverev and Thiem).

Some tour experience and coaching have started to show results now. And those good results will further help him.

Tomic is gone for good.

Slippy wrote:Coric plays a very very similar game to Novak. He just isn’t as good a returner. Does look like he is starting to kick on - although these slow NA hard courts are probably his ideal surface, so will be interesting to see how he goes on clay/grass.

For me, Coric is the wannabe Nole.
Unfortunately, he's picked up and enhanced Nole's worst traits: self-entitled attitude, grunting.
He doesn't have any charm to pull it off.

As for the game, good mover but not as good as Nole.

I suppose Coric has tried to combine Nadal (steroid muscles) with dynamic game (Nole)...so it's a hybrid which in my opinion has arrived a bit late on the scene.

Chung, on the other hand has taken Nole's game and improved it - great movement, great hands and shots, very good on the stretch, proper "wall" but equipped with good shots for the next era.

Coric is stuck in the limbo with his game as he doesn't have any weapons.

noleisthebest wrote:

Jahu wrote:Coric take it, not a bad match at all, good to see 2 youngsters play a proper match.

Don’t mix that steroid squealing grunter with a proper talent like Shapo.
Coric is an utter peasant of a player with nothing interesting to offer.

Come on!! You don't like him cause he is a Croat, what steroids 

Not saying Coric is anything great at, nor does his game attract me, but it was a fine match.

Coric from a few years ago 
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/05/31/b5/0531b50c0f1a4330668a14bd19547cc2.jpg

Not bad, bit of a Nadal/Andy school of muscles and 12h a day in Gym.

So, Chung showing a different face today: poor serving, cautious play...allowing Isner to outrally him!!!

yep disappointed from Chung! I was travelling so could not watch but expected him to win.

I just saw the first 4 games now and clearly Chung played badly...in particular that game serving at 1/2 where he has 3 game points and ends up losing it. I felt there was no point continuing watching after that.

Looks like Raonic is coming back to form.....unless Delpo has been playing too much.

Tenez wrote:I just saw the first 4 games now and clearly Chung played badly...in particular that game serving at 1/2 where he has 3 game points and ends up losing it. I felt there was no point continuing watching after that.

Chung now has a losing 1-4 h2h against Isner. If he had lost yesterday on 2TBs, it was still fine, but the scoreline 6-1, 6-4 is unacceptable. Isner is poor returner, he barely wins sets other than TBs. Getting broken 3 times in 2 sets by Isner? bad..

Maybe the crowd got in Chung's head, but I'm not going to give him that benefit of doubt. 

Just poor performance.

Yes poor performance but the H2H at this age is meaningless when there is roughly a 10 year age gap difference, and more so when Chung won their last encounter 2 months ago.

I think if one deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is Chung.

Unfortunately, Chung has a heart of a rabbit.

Well he showed his heart in that AO 4th round....so it's npt because he has a bad day that suddenly, it's all downhill from now.

I am not convinced it was a bad day.

He just doesn’t strike me as a fighter, someone who would go on the court and try to punch above his weight.

If the opportunity’s there (AO QF) yes, he’ll take it, but not much of a roar.

His serving was really bad (both first and second) and just showed that inner state perfectly...probably intimidated by Isner’s serve.

You could have said that of Pete when he claimed he was happy he lost his USO crown. ....he still went on to win 13 more slams. Or Fed losing to Henman after beating Pete, Rafa losing to Gonzo after beating Fed first time.

We cannot draw conclusions at this age. You coudl be right but confidence and will will come with his weapons. Once you have teh weapons, the rest comes with it...most of the time.

Delpo won but came back from the brink of a loss. Raonic, again the nerves played him down. Raonic was twice a break up in the decider, and lost that adv in the very next game.

TB was clearly Delpo. He is looking strong as ever, infact strongest. A day of rest shall help but I hope he just doesn't run out of fuel. This is what happened at Oly 2016 final.

Tenez wrote:You could have said that of Pete when he claimed he was happy he lost his USO crown. ....he still went on to win 13 more slams. Or Fed losing to Henman after beating Pete, Rafa losing to Gonzo after beating Fed first time.

We cannot draw conclusions at this age. You coudl be right but confidence and will will come with his weapons. Once you have teh weapons, the rest comes with it...most of the time.

This is where Nadal was the most special young player(and a teen) I've seen. Even better than 17yo Wimble champ Becker. 

He was not scared of facing anyone, ... ANYONE.. no matter what situation. No other teen has come even close. Nadal's ability to get over the last point/lost opportunity/last set lost etc is remarkable and he had it since young age.

These young players, they fold on big occasions. May have an upset, but next time will surrender meekly.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:..This is where Nadal was the most special young player(and a teen) I've seen. Even better than 17yo Wimble champ Becker. 

He was not scared of facing anyone, ... ANYONE.. no matter what situation. No other teen has come even close. Nadal's ability to get over the last point/lost opportunity/last set lost etc is remarkable and he had it since young age.

These young players, they fold on big occasions. May have an upset, but next time will surrender meekly.

I disagree with this ROTL and I have explained it many times. Nadal's strength was physical and because he had that superior fitness, he "ended up" not fearing anyone. He often started badly v Federer (and most others) and only took heart when he saw Federer starting to shank.
One who I regard mentally stronger than most was actually Wilander. Same as Chang, those guys were in fact simply fitter and could outlast anyone. Always started badly, but took heart when the opposition started to tire.

I don;t buy this mental strength. I have said it so many times...and I was proven right as soon as Djoko and Murray (and now Federer) could outlast Nadal. Nadal is actually a very nervous player. Sure he fights cause that all he has, but I woudl not call him a mentally strong player. Just that he has a game (a physical one) which makes him look mentally strong.

Becker, who I cannot stand had that arrogance and confidence which made him strong mentally like the germans can be.

My point is, and I think we have discussed this before. The young players like Shapo, Thiem, Chung, Dimi etc and the whole lot. They all get fazed just by looking know who are they going to play. They get overwhelmed by the occasion.

They basically have lost the match, even before it starts. They will be happy just to be able to compete a few games. Matches are won/lost even in the dressing room. Nadal was never like that.

Chung started to serve poorly and was scared by Isner's serving. His fear affected his other parts of the game as well. And so a meek loss.

And Chung is not physically a skeleton. He is 21-22 and with good athletic built. This loss was mostly set in the locker room.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:You could have said that of Pete when he claimed he was happy he lost his USO crown. ....he still went on to win 13 more slams. Or Fed losing to Henman after beating Pete, Rafa losing to Gonzo after beating Fed first time.

We cannot draw conclusions at this age. You coudl be right but confidence and will will come with his weapons. Once you have teh weapons, the rest comes with it...most of the time.

This is where Nadal was the most special young player(and a teen) I've seen. Even better than 17yo Wimble champ Becker. 

He was not scared of facing anyone, ... ANYONE.. no matter what situation. No other teen has come even close. Nadal's ability to get over the last point/lost opportunity/last set lost etc is remarkable and he had it since young age.

These young players, they fold on big occasions. May have an upset, but next time will surrender meekly.

Nadal couldn’t hold a candle to Nole who at the height of Nadal’s clay invincibility told him he was beatable.

It may have taken him 10 years to actually do in Roland Garros, but he did it (in straight sets).

And threw a glove in Fed’s face claiming he wanted to be the new number one.
He beat him in Montreal and took him to 3 tb sets in his first 2007 USO final.
He really didn’t fear the super mighty Fed.

Something Nadal never did when young, plus Nole had no muscles or great fitness back then.


Nadal was always (fakely, of course) saying how he was happy to be number two.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:My point is, and I think we have discussed this before. The young players like Shapo, Thiem, Chung, Dimi etc and the whole lot. They all get fazed just by looking know who are they going to play. They get overwhelmed by the occasion.

They basically have lost the match, even before it starts. They will be happy just to be able to compete a few games. Matches are won/lost even in the dressing room. Nadal was never like that.

Yet Shapo and Kyrgios beat nadal at 18 first time they played...imagine teh lesson they would have inflicted to 18 yo Nadal! It;s a different era now. The professionalism the big 4 have developped in the last 10 years is an impossible gap to bridge when you are only 18 or 22. Maybe you think Chang and Becker were better than those youngsters.....They clearly were not!

And Chung is not physically a skeleton. He is 21-22 and with good athletic built. This loss was mostly set in the locker room.

Yes and that is why he is ranked number 4 in the race to London!

I must admit I’ve been annoyed with Delpo since that IW final.

But after reading this, (I know it’s cheesy) I melted again...

““It was great tennis, a great battle,” he told ATP World Tour afterwards.

“I think we both enjoyed the game and the crowd, of course, are amazing, making a great atmosphere on court.

I’m so glad to still be alive and to reach the semi-finals.”

The magic of tennis.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Isner to take Miami!!!

Tenez wrote:You could have said that of Pete when he claimed he was happy he lost his USO crown. ....he still went on to win 13 more slams. Or Fed losing to Henman after beating Pete, Rafa losing to Gonzo after beating Fed first time.

We cannot draw conclusions at this age. You coudl be right but confidence and will will come with his weapons. Once you have teh weapons, the rest comes with it...most of the time.

Agree about being a bit early to draw conclusions, but your example of Federer at a similar age is much better than your example of Sampras.  I remember the latter's monkey off his back comments at USO 1991, but to win the year before he had beaten Muster, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi - the draw hardly fell open for a likely one-hit wonder; he also had a more consistent year in 1991 than 1990, and he was dead right about being liberated after the USO 1991.  He went on to win the season-ender before moving quickly into the top 5 then the top 3 during a period when his rivals included Becker, Edberg, Lendl, & Courier at his career peak.  Federer didn't just disappoint in the next round after beating Sampras in 2001, but he was pretty feeble over the next two years for a 'future great', particularly at the slams.  I thought Sampras (and Agassi) was pretty obviously the next big thing when the Edberg/Becker/Lendl generation petered out (Agassi too), whilst Federer looked talented but super flakey by comparison.

As much as I am not a fan of Busta, I feel a bit sorry for him as he was serving for the match before being robbed a point. ...Still had 2 MPs...after that but now seems gutted and out of sorts.

I quite like the Busta Anderson matches. We have had a fair share of them recently on those slow HC and it is a good match up.

Not great talent but good drama for a classic attacker v retriever game.

Tenez wrote:As much as I am not a fan of Busta, I feel a bit sorry for him as he was serving for the match before being robbed a point. ...Still had 2 MPs...after that but now seems gutted and out of sorts.

I didn't see it, how was he robbed? Bad call?

Anderson looks like an ostrich!

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:As much as I am not a fan of Busta, I feel a bit sorry for him as he was serving for the match before being robbed a point. ...Still had 2 MPs...after that but now seems gutted and out of sorts.

I didn't see it, how was he robbed? Bad call?

He was serving for the match. 15/0 I think and hits an unreternable serve but is called out. Instead of giving him the point, the referee asks to replay it cause Kevin managed to touch it.

Ta.
Well, he won in the end.

yep he won for the first time in 5 encounters....after saving MP.

Certainly watchable. Not sure Coric Zverev can be as much fun. I want them both to lose so I am not sure I will bother watching.

Tenez wrote:Yet Shapo and Kyrgios beat nadal at 18 first time they played...imagine teh lesson they would have inflicted to 18 yo Nadal! 

Then why stop at Nadal. Then lets imagine what they would have done to 21yo Fed in 2003. Let's imagine what they would have done to Pete in 1993. They would have certainly crushed Laver to double bagels in 1968.

But this is all imagination, nothing to do with reality. The reality is that if Kyrgios, Shapo etc. were playing in 1968 or 1993 or 2003 or 2005 facing Nadal, they would NOT have the game they have in 2017. The game they have in 2017-18 is because its tennis of 2017-18. Tennis has evolved as you know, so it was just not possible to have the tennis of current era a decade ago. Tennis 10-12 yrs  ago may be weaker (that's another discussion), but the competition wasn't to an extent to have such differences in results. 

So 18yo  Nadal in 2005 will have to be compared with what results he was bringing to what the Kyrgios/Shapo/Chung are bringing for themselves. Its not even 20% of what Nadal could get as  teen. 

That's  Nadal as a young player was way ahead of the other young players we are having now and off late.

Men’s line up today was horrible. There were some better names in challengers. Seriously.

If it wasn’t too late, I’d watch Ostapenko-Collins.

I saw highlights of Collins-Venus, Collins came out of nowhere and thrashed her in two sets.

Ostapenko finally playing well again.

She really is like a woman’s version of Stan...when she’s on she’s unstoppable.

nitb wrote:Nadal couldn’t hold a candle to Nole who at the height of Nadal’s clay invincibility told him he was beatable.

It may have taken him 10 years to actually do in Roland Garros, but he did it (in straight sets).

Couldn't hold a candle huh?? The only thing that holds is 10-1. Saying big things means nothing, its words. Even Gulbis said about being #1.

10 years is a very... VERY long time in tennis. Right now if 18yo Shapo says Nadal is beatable at RG and then taken 10 years to do it ( they being aged 28-42 respectively by then), would it count? 

What Djokovic said in 2005-06 about beating Nadal on clay would have hold weight had he beaten him in the next year or 2. Not after 10 years, while Nadal capping 9 RG titles to Djoko's 0. So was cheap trash talk from a young player, nothing more.

nitb wrote:And threw a glove in Fed’s face claiming he wanted to be the new number one.
He beat him in Montreal and took him to 3 tb sets in his first 2007 USO final.
He really didn’t fear the super mighty Fed.

Something Nadal never did when young, plus Nole had no muscles or great fitness back then.


Nadal was always (fakely, of course) saying how he was happy to be number two.

Who doesn't want to be no. 1? They all do, some say , some don't. Even Gulbis said so throwing a towel in Djoko's face. US open 2007 wasn't 3 TBs, 7-6 7-6 6-4 Federer was comfortable in his game throughout.

Besides, it took more than 12 years for Djoko to go ahead by 1 in their h2h. Nadal was never behind in his h2h against Fed.

Young Nadal was way ahead of young Djokovic.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Saying big things means nothing, its words. Even Gulbis said about being #1.

Exactly.  Talk is cheap.  Tomic was planning on becoming the GOAT.

Zverev was playing a little more aggressive today than in his last few matches. Plenty of unforced errors but at least he tried to do something. He was also easily the better player today. Coric is still a lightweight and will struggle to break into the top of the game.

If Anderson had won, all four semifinalists would have been 6'6" or taller.

Just saw a few games of Coric/Zverev. Terrible match! Coric shots were so short. and every time he tried to attack he was putting it way long or in the net.

Really awful game from both. Busta is (certainly looks) much better.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yet Shapo and Kyrgios beat nadal at 18 first time they played...imagine teh lesson they would have inflicted to 18 yo Nadal! 

Then why stop at Nadal. Then lets imagine what they would have done to 21yo Fed in 2003. Let's imagine what they would have done to Pete in 1993. They would have certainly crushed Laver to double bagels in 1968.

I have no problem with that. Unless you think it is fair to compare Renshaw with Pete and Federer. So if it is not, then it ain't fair either to compare Nadal, Becker and Chang with the new generation. It gets harder and harder for them.

But this is all imagination, nothing to do with reality. The reality is that if Kyrgios, Shapo etc. were playing in 1968 or 1993 or 2003 or 2005 facing Nadal, they would NOT have the game they have in 2017. The game they have in 2017-18 is because its tennis of 2017-18. Tennis has evolved as you know, so it was just not possible to have the tennis of current era a decade ago. Tennis 10-12 yrs  ago may be weaker (that's another discussion), but the competition wasn't to an extent to have such differences in results. 

But the reality works both ways.....even more so! You are the one imagining that 18yo Nadal would have been able to come up in 2017 and have been able to compete and beat the top players. That's pure imagination I am afraid. It doesn;t matter how fearless nadal would have been I don;t think he would have dome much better than Coric! End of story! 

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:So 18yo  Nadal in 2005 will have to be compared with what results he was bringing to what the Kyrgios/Shapo/Chung are bringing for themselves. Its not even 20% of what Nadal could get as  teen. 

I am afraid not. You are a programmer so your logic should be waterproof.  A piece of code working on Windows won;t work on a different platform, be it Linux or Unix.

Eras (or platforms) are not a constant and therefore you cannot draw the same conclusions when talking about what a player "woulda, shoulda, coulda" done in today's era.

Of course it will work, recompile and and run (mostly) 

Anyway I will agree, Nadal at 18-20 was 8 levels better then these kids now. Heck even Andy and Djoko were on different planet from these.

A not so interesting future in tennis is coming, but at least it seems that in a few years there will be no dominant force and many player can win GS.

Tenez wrote:I have no problem with that. Unless you think it is fair to compare Renshaw with Pete and Federer. 

You are not getting my point. Renshaw's greatness will be measured by the game and success he had during his time. So will be for Pete, Federer, Nadal, Coric, Shapo. They all are going to be measured against the competition they were having to face. And this what I'm doing.

I'm comparing a young Nadal's success he had against his competition in 2005. He he was unbeatable on clay since, no matter who he faced. He took out all top clay-courters, Federer etc... not once but weeks after weeks.. for the entire clay season. And he did it again the following year.. and year... He passed every test that was being put to him on clay.

Can you say even 1/4 of that for any young player after Nadal. While I agree about competition getting tougher, but the rate of this incline has been very slow in the last 10-15 years. This rate is high when changes are dramatic, especially when assisted by technological advancements (which you yourself have agreed that there is hardly anything in the last 15 about years)

 
Now see what any other young player has been performing against their competition. Zverev is the only one who has won a masters(2). But it wasn't a stellar performance, some assitence with draw opening/injury to top guys. No one else has even been in a TMS final. Raonic reached W finals, but only once. What followed the next year? The following tournaments?


Its almost certain they are unable to defend their best results the following year when they are defending their results. Even 26-27 yo Dimi will likely not going to defend his Cincy and WTF titles.