ATP Masters 1000: Monte Carlo

It's that time of the year....the sun is shining, birds are singing, days are getting longer and yes, our beautiful tennis is coming home to Europe
And what a place to start: Monte Carlo!



Everyone, yes, everyone is playing (I know Murray got m/(b)urried today...)
The draw is out, and for once Nadal doesn't have it easy, he is in Nole's half and Ferrer's quarter.

Let the fun begin....



Draw:


Order of Play:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2015/410/op.pdf


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYkVtz6ozJE  

Yes I saw that. Easy for federer tough for Djoko and Nadal.....

Last year Rafa fell to Ferrer in the quarters. Same again? Not so sure.

Ferrer played really well against Nole in Miami, I don't think Nadal will get past him in Monte Carlo.

Some super-cool first round matches:

Coric-Dolgopolov
Thiem-Pouille (WC!!! lost to Mahut in some challenger today)
JJ-Fognini

Tenez wrote:Yes I saw that. Easy for federer tough for Djoko and Nadal.....

Fed's got Stan in the quarters, hard to see Stan beating fresh Fed this time.

As things stand, it's realistic to expect a Nole-Fed final
No, I am not jinxing  

Nice work if you can get it....

Others who can't get it though, have to work hard and practise, practise, practise.....

Nole and NITB have one thing in common, we both France

His recent interview to Le Parisien:

" Q. What are your first memories of France?

Before i put a first step in this country, I already had a positive image of France. There is a long tradition of friendship between our countries: many French live in Serbia and many Serbs speak French. Me too, although I am still working to learn French perfectly. When I came here for the first time in 11 years to play the international tournament in Tarbes, I loved this country as well as people. And then I played my first French Open at age 16 in juniors.

Q. What impressed you then?

As a Serb, after the war in Yugoslavia, it was not easy to travel. When we said our nationality, people had cringed watching us strangely. They thought we were terrorists, we would do a dirty trick. It was very difficult for me and my family, especially my father, who accompanied me on junior tournaments. We had to make more effort than others to impress people. But France was one of the few countries where we felt welcomed, where there really any human warmth, friendship.

Q. What was your first tour?

In juniors, I often traveled by train and it was through Paris, the TGV stopped Gare de Lyon. We were doing a tour of the neighborhood, that’s when I saw the Bercy hall for the first time. When you’re a player, you spend all the days on the court, we do not do too much tourism because it takes time and energy. It took me four or five years before going to see the Eiffel Tower! Same for the Louvre. Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, each building has a soul, a special architecture and history. I, who come from a country where we cultivate our traditions and cultural heritages, So, I greatly respect and admire those who do the same. I take more pleasure in these countries because I feel their soul.

Q. What are your favorite places in Paris?

The Bois de Boulogne, Parc Monceau in the beautiful areas around the Avenue George V and the Champs Elysées … And there Montmartre, with its beautiful artistic side. The Louvre is impressive too. There are restaurants where I go regularly, as Le Relais de l’Entrecote, a world reference!

Q. Have you developed a special relationship with France?

I feel more and more close to the French culture. Speak the language, it helps, like living in Monaco. And now, I have sponsors like Peugeot and Gerblé, who chose me because I can relate to French culture. I like your sense of humor, which is pretty sarcastic and particular. It makes me laugh. I also noticed that people in France are very confident, especially in Paris. I find it interesting to meet people who have this joy of living, the desire to succeed and this influence.

Q. You had a son, Stefan, in 2014. They say he was born in Nice …

No, he was born in Monaco.

Q. (Indiscernible.)

He will play tennis later? It is impossible to predict. When he walks, he will, at some time, grab a racket and a ball, it will be natural. As soon as he speaks, people will ask him if he wants to play, become better than his father.

Q.At Roland Garros, you played legendary games like this semi-final
in 2013, losing to Rafael Nadal. But the title continues to elude you …

This is a tournament that I dream of winning. The matches I lost at Roland Garros against Nadal, really were not easy to digest. But I want to take this as a learning: it is a challenge that allows me to grow and improve. This will be my mindset for the 2015 edition, I can not wait to play. I think it will go well for me there, even if it is far away and, psychologically, I do not even want me to project. Roland Garros is at the top of the ladder of my priorities, as always.

Q. Because the French public supports you?

Last year, after my defeat in the final, I experienced one of the most touching moments of my career when the whole stadium applauded me for a long time. I had tears in my eyes because the French public is not easy to conquer. Benefit from this support while I am not French is something I will never forget and that encourages me. What matters is how you feel, and I, in Paris, I feel good, appreciated, supported by positive energy. That’s when I feel so I play my best tennis."

Nole is very charming and articulate. Unlike Nadal when he was number one, Nole embraces the role and makes an effort.

noleisthebest wrote:Some super-cool first round matches:

Coric-Dolgopolov
Thiem-Pouille (WC!!! lost to Mahut in some challenger today)
JJ-Fognini

Thiem just spend a week with Fed at Fed's clay training camp.  Thiems coach said it made a world of difference for Thiem to see how Fed trains and goes about his business, and that Fed exposed weaknesses that the coach and Thiem had not expected.  Seems to feel it will pay huge dividends for Thiem going forward, so we'll see if it's an immediate boost.

Interview link Truffin? SOunds interesting.

"Training with Federer is accelerated learning"
Interview | Philip Bauer
April 10, 2015, 11:38 am
Günter Breznik, coach Dominic Thiem, talking on units with the Swiss star and a terrible start to the season

Vienna - Dominic Thiem starts at the tournament of Monte Carlo in the clay court season, previously graduated Austria's number one when it comes Tennis Switzerland intensive training with the industry leader Roger Federer. derStandard.at spoke with coach Günter Breznik.

derStandard.at: How strong a player can benefit from training with Roger Federer?

Bresnik: Exercising in this form is very valuable. Dominic has reeled off three days the complete program with Federer. This is more than just a simple drive home, the two have played a lot of points. Dominic see how many balls Federer returned, how well he served as varied is his game. Since you can take as a greenhorn lot.

derStandard.at: Do you have to adapt as a youngster the wishes Federer?

Bresnik: A Federer himself asks nothing, he has no wishes and makes no demands. He is a friendly person, yet affable than you would think anyway itself.

derStandard.at: But there must be a plan.

Bresnik: Concrete running it from this: After having taken the players, the coaches tell me - in this case, Severin Luthi and Stefan Edberg - with their ideas. I say yes to everything and amen, because I am grateful for every minute that Dominic can play Federer. And then the training starts.

derStandard.at: Can you describe the process roughly?

Bresnik: First, any amount standing to meaningful exercises in the second half we went on points. With or without cuffs. At the end of many sentences were played.

derStandard.at: Does such an invitation an extra motivation?

Bresnik: No, Dominic is already motivated to the hair ends, as it does not require an additional boost. But there is an accelerated learning. The quality of such training, the quality of this player can not simulate it. This is worth gold.

derStandard.at: How fast can the positive impact?

Bresnik: Very fast. I have watched it just clicked on some things. Dominic has understood a lot and was able to implement it.

derStandard.at: Can you describe this process in more detail?

Bresnik: We have known for years that in the game of Dominic not everything is perfect. We discuss that too. Only: Normally he get away with it. Against a non Federer. With Federer, he fails in a very short time several times in a row. You get your own weaknesses demonstrated that brings more than any conversation

I hope Fed told him to sweat that FH down....

Cheers big cahoona!

Both Fed and Stan have lots of points to lose this year at MC. And unfortunately one of them is definitely not going to get past the QF.

Draw looks good for Fed but with him these days, we never know. He has blown a few chances in the past where his draw looked kind on paper or he looked absolute fav to win.

I am surprised Nishi is not playing. He must be carrying a chronic injury.

First on today Gulbis v Heider-Mauer.

Gulbis is facing a potential soul-destroying defeat as HM serves and hits the ball hard.
Unlike Gulbis, he's been playing a lot this year (did the entire Latin American clay tour plus the rest) and is in as good a form as he can be.

Gulbis, our champagne boy on the other hand is playing with no confidence and rusty footwork.

Only a miracle, i.e. a good working 1st serve can save him today.

Catch 22.

noleisthebest wrote:First on today Gulbis v Heider-Mauer.

Gulbis is facing a potential soul-destroying defeat as HM serves and hits the ball hard.
Unlike Gulbis, he's been playing a lot this year (did the entire Latin American clay tour plus the rest) and is in as good a form as he can be.

Gulbis, our champagne boy on the other hand is playing with no confidence and rusty footwork.

Only a miracle, i.e. a good working 1st serve can save him today.

Catch 22.

 Lost the 1st set 1-6 and a Break down early in the 2nd... he will be out of top-100 by RG end.

So much talks about the will to be #1. Talk is cheap.

Very sad to watch Gulbis atm. Netting every FH in the forecourt.

With that odd motion, he is looking like a bird with a broken wing

He played so well last year, esp RG.

Match du Jour:
Dolgopolov-Coric

Expecting Dolgo to demolish Coric's serve. The rest should follow.
Dolgo's flight on clay, one of the finest enjoyments tennis can offer.

Go  !!!!

On the other court Paire struggling the same way as Gulbis. No confidence.

Allez Benoit you MUST NOT lose to Kudla

Dolgo exposes Coric's limitations beautifully: zero flair, zero brains, just keeping the ball in play.

Coric's game was modelled on modern well moving percentage tennis, and he is good at it, just born 5 years too late.

Scary to think Nadal won 14 slams like that.

noleisthebest wrote:Dolgo exposes Coric's limitations beautifully: zero flair, zero brains, just keeping the ball in play.

Coric's game was modelled on modern well moving percentage tennis, and he is good at it, just born 5 years too late.

Scary to think Nadal won 14 slams like that.

Very true! Well 10 years too late.

And the grind pays off. Generously helped by Dolgo's trademark gifting.
One set all.

And from 0:3 down in the first set, Paire wins in 2

Beginning to resemble his old 2012 self.
Shame he's probably going to run into Simon the wall in R2.

Genuinely struggling to come up with a more useless uninformative measure than weeks at number 1.

Lol. Being the best for the longest amount of time. V impressive.

The trophies he picks up during his time at number 1 (or even not number 1) is what impresses me.
This itself couldn't be a more irrelevant measure.

Lol, butt hurt rafa fan. 
It's an immense achievement for anyone who gets to it.

The ranking points just measure his success anyway, except it's compartmentalised into a 12 hour period.
You could have two guys achieve exactly the same thing over separate years, but the spread of points of the other players could mean they have different rankings.

Having weaker or injury-prone competition is like a double gift to rankings, firstly you don't have as much competition to pick up Slams, and secondly it's unlikely any of you opponents will do well enough on their own to even come close.

Here we go again..

Lol- don't feed the troll luv. We all KNOW why this poster feels the way they do!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Genuinely struggling to come up with a more useless uninformative measure than weeks at number 1.

Have you lost all hope of Nadal recovering that top spot?

"Being number 1 is everything" said one of the greatest champion.

truffin1 wrote:Lol- don't feed the troll luv.  

I'm sorry, who are you calling 'the troll' ?
Back with the personal insults are we ?

Tenez wrote:
"Being number 1 is everything" said one of the greatest champion.

You can analyse how much a player has achieved in his career by his achievements and performance in all the tournaments he has entered.
All rankings tell you more than that basically how the share of the other points were divided up between the other players. Just think about it logically.

Nah fair enough Truff, it's his opinion. I don't think he is trolling. 
Just Kim being Jong being Un.

Even if I was too examine a player quantitatively (based purely on his record, and ignoring factors such as competition which would make it a qualitative judgement), I would look at ranking points obtained, and ranking points obtained as a percentage of maximum rankings points he could have obtained in the tournaments he did play (so for example if you enter all slams and 5 masters, and you win all of them- you get 100%).
How the rest of the tour divide up the remaining rankings points between themselves is totally irrelevant to that player itself. As soon as you concern yourself with ranking position (rather than ranking points) that is what you are doing. Important for the player's ego perhaps, but not important to any objective statistical analysis.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
"Being number 1 is everything" said one of the greatest champion.

You can analyse how much a player has achieved in his career by his achievements and performance in all the tournaments he has entered.
All rankings tell you more than that basically how the share of the other points were divided up between the other players. Just think about it logically.

OK, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not trolling, as luvsport says too. I'll put forward some logical argument and you tell me if you think it is correct or not.

In his career, in terms of achievements, let's say you are almost right. Number and importance of tournaments won tells you a big part of the picture and is somehow correlated with how much money the athlete is making from the sport itself (not advertisement deals, etc.). Do you agree though that this does not tell you how consistent the athlete is. #weeks at number one or #weeks in a row, tell you the consistency at a very high level, i.e. at the top of your sport. It is almost the most important thing, along with slams. You can win slams by some big part of luck. Luck dies out in the long run. #weeks at #1, when added, is a way to make the luck factor die out faster. Why do you think Nadal wanted this ranking to take the results for two years and not just one? Because he knew it was a really important measure and that he believed having two years would help him with his lack of consistency on more than 6 months in a row...

sphairistike wrote:
In his career, in terms of achievements, let's say you are almost right. Number and importance of tournaments won tells you a big part of the picture and is somehow correlated with how much money the athlete is making from the sport itself (not advertisement deals, etc.). Do you agree though that this does not tell you how consistent the athlete is. #weeks at number one or #weeks in a row, tell you the consistency at a very high level, i.e. at the top of your sport. It is almost the most important thing, along with slams. You can win slams by some big part of luck. Luck dies out in the long run. #weeks at #1, when added, is a way to make the luck factor die out faster. Why do you think Nadal wanted this ranking to take the results for two years and not just one? Because he knew it was a really important measure and that he believed having two years would help him with his lack of consistency on more than 6 months in a row...

Well unlike Truffin you are atleast making an argument instead of just relying on personal insults.

If you read my last post, I said important measures could be: ranking points obtained, and ranking points obtained as a percentage of maximum rankings points he could have obtained in the tournaments he did play (so for example if you enter all slams and 5 masters, and you win all of them- you get 100%).

There's 2 key differences between looking at this, and looking at ranking position. Firstly ranking position looks at how the other players have split up the remaining rankings points that you have not won. For reasons just explained, I think this is frankly irrelevant when examining a player specifically.
The second one could be the timing spread. For me this is also irrelevant. If you win 6 tournaments in one year, and 0 in the next; I don't see why that would be better than winning 3 in one year and 3 in the next. The first one could mean you reach world number 1 for a period of time, while the second one may mean you won't. But I don't see why one is better than the other, unless you just want to put across a cheap jibe at players who are injury prone.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
"Being number 1 is everything" said one of the greatest champion.

You can analyse how much a player has achieved in his career by his achievements and performance in all the tournaments he has entered.
All rankings tell you more than that basically how the share of the other points were divided up between the other players. Just think about it logically.

But the length at number 1 is one of the best and most significant criteria for gauging a "GOAT".

Imagine a player winning only on slow HC yet able to win 9 GS...all at the AO and of course having very little time at number 1. It will just confirm that this player is one dimensional with little or no capacity to adapt. ..hence affecting his GOAT status greatly.....don't you think?

There is two ways of doing analysis, for me in both ways ranking position is irrelevant:

1/ Quantitatively- i.e. just looking at stats. For me in this category, ranking points is important. Also the ratio of ranking points obtained/ ranking points possible in tournaments entered (i.e. Serena would be higher than Wozniacki between 2010-2012 on this count).
So ranking position irrelevant, for reasons explained above

2/ Qualitatively- Here you would take into account what you've seen in terms of stats (quantitatively) and then also at other factors such as competition/ impact of injury etc.
Again here ranking position itself has no real significance.

So therefore whichever way you look at it, the ranking position is basically irrelevant.
At best, you could make a tenuous argument that chasing the bragging rights itself shows determination, and you can get extra credit if this pays off; but frankly in a large scheme of things to examine this is not much use.

sphairistike wrote:...Why do you think Nadal wanted this ranking to take the results for two years and not just one? Because he knew it was a really important measure and that he believed having two years would help him with his lack of consistency on more than 6 months in a row...

Very good point.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

If you read my last post, I said important measures could be: ranking points obtained, and ranking points obtained as a percentage of maximum rankings points he could have obtained in the tournaments he did play (so for example if you enter all slams and 5 masters, and you win all of them- you get 100%).

There's 2 key differences between looking at this, and looking at ranking position. Firstly ranking position looks at how the other players have split up the remaining rankings points that you have not won. For reasons just explained, I think this is frankly irrelevant when examining a player specifically.
The second one could be the timing spread. For me this is also irrelevant. If you win 6 tournaments in one year, and 0 in the next; I don't see why that would be better than winning 3 in one year and 3 in the next. The first one could mean you reach world number 1 for a period of time, while the second one may mean you won't. But I don't see why one is better than the other, unless you just want to put across a cheap jibe at players who are injury prone.

I read it after I posted, but it hasn't changed my point of view. My main issue with what you are saying is the fact that for consistency, you need to win a lot in the tournaments played. Let's also not forget that the number of countable tournaments for your ranking is pre-set, so playing more can compensate for not having a good percentage, but also tires you more so will go against you in the long run. The competition matters though, as being able to consistently do better the the competition combined tells a lot. It tells how big the spread in success is between you and your peers. All the big guys play around the same number of tournaments, give or take one or two max. So clearly the points and %age are in sync, except if you get hurt and miss because of that. But again, this is what consistency is about, managing to be there for the tournaments that matter, playing in a way such that you can compete longer, at the highest level, consistently...

This is by the way one of the reason I don't buy the arguments about Nadal % win vs. how much more he could win had he not been injured etc. Because he plays less often (with these prolonged injury breaks), he can be at his best for these shorter time lapses and dominate more. Had he had to maintain a schedule a la Federer, his %age would be much lower... Consistency at the very top for prolonged period of times, is the ultimate test, IMO.

Tenez wrote:
Imagine a player winning only on slow HC yet able to win 9 GS...all at the AO  

No, even in this case doing a standard deviation calculation measuring his spread across the 4 Slams is the right thing to do.
You'd also have to examine whether there were any real differences in how the surfaces play. At the moment there's a great deal of homogenisation, so any great spread would probably due to other factors apart from surface such as confidence at the venue, timing of the event in the year (i.e. Djokovic hits the ground running well, but sometimes gets edgy mid-season, hence one would expect him to do better at AO than USO), and sometimes just form at the time.

It just seems like you are dismissing weeks @no1 altogether.
Feds won more slams than anyone else in 2004-2007 & 2009.
Rafa won more slams than anyone else in 08, '10 & '13.

Just because Djoko only won more slams than anyone else in just '11 doesn't detract from his legacy.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:There's 2 key differences between looking at this, and looking at ranking position. Firstly ranking position looks at how the other players have split up the remaining rankings points that you have not won. For reasons just explained, I think this is frankly irrelevant when examining a player specifically.
The second one could be the timing spread. For me this is also irrelevant. If you win 6 tournaments in one year, and 0 in the next; I don't see why that would be better than winning 3 in one year and 3 in the next. The first one could mean you reach world number 1 for a period of time, while the second one may mean you won't. But I don't see why one is better than the other, unless you just want to put across a cheap jibe at players who are injury prone.

Weird reasoning! So according to your reasoning you don't see why winning winning 3 slam would be better than reaching 6 semi finals? can't you see that winning 7 slam matches in a row is better than winning 14 over 7 slam?

Same thing with being number 1. It is about achieving more than everybody else. As a matter of fact there are less number1 players than slam winners...for a very good reason. Being number 1 is simply harder.

luvsports! wrote:It just seems like you are dismissing weeks @no1 altogether.
Feds won more slams than anyone else in 2004-2007 & 2009.
Rafa won more slams than anyone else in 08, '10 & '13.

Just because Djoko only won more slams than anyone else in just '11 doesn't detract from his legacy.

LS, if you look carefully I am saying you look at ranking points overall, as well as ratio ranking points obtained/rankings points possible to obtain for the number of tournaments entered.
Those two measures would be boosted for Djokovic in his slams from 2012-2014. For me if you look at ranking position as well as this, the only new thing you're learning is the spread, and how the other players have divided up the remaining points amongst each other.

Edit: Tenez- this reply to LS should also address your point you just made.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Imagine a player winning only on slow HC yet able to win 9 GS...all at the AO   

No, even in this case doing a standard deviation calculation measuring his spread across the 4 Slams is the right thing to do.
You'd also have to examine whether there were any real differences in how the surfaces play. At the moment there's a great deal of homogenisation, so any great spread would probably due to other factors apart from surface such as confidence at the venue, timing of the event in the year (i.e. Djokovic hits the ground running well, but sometimes gets edgy mid-season, hence one would expect him to do better at AO than USO), and sometimes just form at the time.

There is a great deal of homogenisation but Nadal has won 9FO....and only 1 AO. .......so surely the fact that Nadal won most of his slams on clay and despite having won many slams has not got an amazing # of weeks at number 1 is no coincidence and confirms the point I was making.

But anyway the simple fact you do TRY not to give much credibility to number 1, proves very much how important deep down you think it is.

Tenez wrote:
There is a great deal of homogenisation but Nadal has won 9FO....and only 1 AO.

Firstly you could account for this measure by any sort of statistical measurement on the balance between Slams. You don't even need to do a  standard deviation, you could just see 9 is 8 more than 1.
Secondly I've already addressed this very point on another OP I wrote, specifically discussing why Nadal has the distribution he had. I came to the conclusion that in Slams, since 2009, there is no actual difference for Nadal between USO, AO, and FO; in terms of how beneficial the surface itself is. When he was younger he was better at FO than the other two, before 2009 this is. But even then, for the sensible discussion I had on that, the statistics we talked about was his distribution of slams rather than ranking position.

Tenez wrote:
But anyway the simple fact you do TRY not to give much credibility to number 1, proves very much how important deep down you think it is.

No because I make a rational logical argument which you can only argue against tenuously.