Australian Open 2018

Federer got rodiculously good im doubles today, my word!!!




Belinda was a good partner to him, too.

One of the very rare times in life that I get envious. 

Monfils again exposing how 1d Rubi is.

His FH is so fast and deep, he could come in any time he likes, but he’d rather stay glued to the baseline...petrified of the net for some reason...he needs to get rid of that phobia asap.

I think Rublev was tired. His match yesterday took a lot of him. I really fancy him to win his next encounter with Monfils.

I disagree.
Monfils would have beaten him even if they had played in R1.
He was retrieving everything with ease and draining Rublev both physically and mentally.

Amazing Nole is cmsodered third facourite by the bookies:

• Roger Federer - 7/4
  
  
• Rafael Nadal - 5/1
  
  
• Novak Djokovic - 11/2
  
  
• Grigor Dimitrov - 9/1
  
  
• Alexander Zverev - 10/1
  
  
• Juan Martin Del Potro - 12/1
  
  
• David Goffin - 16/1
  
  
• Nick Kyrgios - 20/1
  
  
• Stan Wawrinka - 20/1
  
  
• Dominic Thiem - 25/1
  
  
• Marin Cilic - 28/1
  
  
• Milos Raonic - 28/1
  
  
• Kevin Anderson - 40/1
  
  
• Denis Shapovalov - 50/1
  
  
• Jack Sock - 50/1
  
  
• Jo-Wilfried Tsonga - 66/1
  
  

Draw is on Thursday, the 11th.

What's amazing is Federer being favourite at 37!

He might be favourite, I still don't fancy his chances as much as 7/4!

Yes, that’s as crazy as his talent...

I just wanted to say how happy I am for Gilles Simon to be back, winning a title yesterday after three years.

He is my favourite French player and I learnt to appreciate him even more while he was “absent” struggling with injuries.

Bravo Gillou!

Anyway, I am beginning to feel a little excited with the new season just about to start.

Only a week to go.

Shame there are still so many players injured.
Hopefully the TDs have had time to think and maybe decide they’ll speed up their courts in order to keep players burn out less trying to outrally and outrun each other.

I really didn’t think Nole was going to play in Oz, nut according to this clip he is:



I hope he gets a good draw and a chance to play himself into form.

Good to see Fed beat that russian prick Zverev https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6I8F-lIlN0

BH seems fine.

Djoko to quit first round match.

NKR wins Brisbane but says he has a knee injury that could force him out of AO.

luvsports! wrote:NKR wins Brisbane but says he has a knee injury that could force him out of AO.

Maybe but he is a big mouth! You never know with him.

Tenez wrote:What's amazing is Federer being favourite at 37!

He might be favourite, I still don't fancy his chances as much as 7/4!

7/4 is the kind of odds that only peak Nadal should get at RG, pre peak Djokovic. 

It only reflects the money though, it’s not a genuine measure of probability.

Just saw a bit of Shapo-Da Silva...so good to watch Shapo!
I can’t believe he is only 18. Amazing talent and joy for the game.

Playing Delpo tomorrow, should be a treat!

Kyrgios losing to Zverev atm, can’t find a stream, but just goes to show how “consistent” Kyrgios is.

Brain, brain, my serve for the brain!

how come Kyrgios is playing again? Of couse he wants to lose.

I don;t think Kyrgios is playing now.

He is.
I just looked at the score, it must be that exo in Kooyang, sets are win by first to 4 games.
It’s now one set all.

Ah...that makes more sense. I knew he would not play a serious match.

It's something in Sydney called "Fast4" - an exhibition and Hewitt is in on the act too

Kyrgios should really be looking at making a step up in 2018, but his past unreliability means that like others I'll believe it when I see it.  He is undoubtedly talented, but not entitled to the benefit of any doubts.

Right now, and with loads of trepidation, Federer looks a more likely bet than anyone else, but we don't even know the field or the fitness of the better players so it's a very marginal call and the overall probability is obviously someone else - I understand his current 'favourite' status, but his odds seem absurd.

Hi folks, first of all: happy new year to you all.

I haven't seen any tennis since the WTF so i don't know what to expect, but then again: who does? 

My pick for now would be Nadal. The possiblilty of him getting a free ride to the title USO-like is quite realistic (and let's face it: his withdrawal from Brisbane doesn't mean anything). Even last year, in a supposedly stronger field, only Fed's best moments of his career could stop Nadal from winning it. Speaking of..Fed can't win again can he? No matter what the bookies say. Miracles do happen sometimes, but certainly not over and over again.

Apparently the court is similar to last year (correct?) so i'm curious how Dimi will do. Would be nice if he can do even better than last year.

Furthermore, i don't have a clue: Delpo? Cilic? Djoko? Shapo? Kyrgios? Goffin? So yes, a lot of questionmarks in this post..

The draw will be more important than ever with Djokovic way down the numbers and it all generally messed up. The only certainty is the Federer & Nadal won't meet until the final.

Would be nice to see Nadal get something nasty for once though the draw last year was as brutal for Federer as could have been planned and it didn't stop him.

Happy New Year to you GP.

I am pretty sure that if Nadal withdraws, he will do it when the draw is out. He doesn't want Federer to be having 2 day rest like last year before the final so he can increase his chances to remain number 1.

That's what a "professional" tennis player would do!

At the end of a slam, having 2 day rest is so precious for Federer at 37. If Nadal were to quit before the draw, then Fed would be seeded #1 and that woudl give him the 2 days. Not what Nadal wants.

And if they were to meet in the final, I agree that for once I'd favour a rested Nadal over an exhausted Federer. But still a small chance for Fed.

Tenez wrote:Happy New Year to you GP.

I am pretty sure that if Nadal withdraws, he will do it when the draw is out. He doesn't want Federer to be having 2 day rest like last year before the final so he can increase his chances to remain number 1.

That's what a "professional" tennis player would do!

At the end of a slam, having 2 day rest is so precious for Federer at 37. If Nadal were to quit before the draw, then Fed would be seeded #1 and that woudl give him the 2 days. Not what Nadal wants.

And if they were to meet in the final, I agree that for once I'd favour a rested Nadal over an exhausted Federer. But still a small chance for Fed.

Yes, i'm afraid that's how it works in professional tennis, especially since the slam record is at stake.
But it's a long way for Federer to get to the final anyway, whereas Nadal still can outlast most of them, without playing great.

The draw certainly is crucial, but it 'll also be interesting to find out how the 25-second shot-clock will work out.

An on-form Federer will beat Nadal, and I'm not convinced extra days rest is needed, particularly if on-form Federer has dispensed with a semi-final opponent more easily than he did Wawrinka in 2017.

And yes, the 25 second clock is a completely different dynamic. I don't see this being to Nadal's advantage.

bogbrush wrote:An on-form Federer will beat Nadal, and I'm not convinced extra days rest is needed

Let's see if you're still as convident once they both made it to the final...

bogbrush wrote:An on-form Federer will beat Nadal, and I'm not convinced extra days rest is needed, particularly if on-form Federer has dispensed with a semi-final opponent more easily than he did Wawrinka in 2017.

And yes, the 25 second clock is a completely different dynamic. I don't see this being to Nadal's advantage.

And do you really think they will apply the clock (20 seconds it is in slams in fact) to Nadal.

Nadal will have an easy draw and there will be no clock.

I am really sick of him.

what are everyone's thoughts on Nole in AO?

How far can he go?

and is he going to have an easy or difficult draw?

Shot clock is only for qualifying I believe, so that won’t be an issue for Rafa at the Oz Open. 

Novak will be in the 13-16 seed bracket, so he will face someone ranked 17-24 in R3 - Kyrgios and Raonic the tough options there. 

However, in R4 he is guaranteed to be seeded to meet someone ranked 1-4 - 50-50 shot at him facing one of Fedal.

Thanks, Slippy.

I’d like Nole to bump into Nadal in QF.

This is such an open slam.

As GP says, it’s Nadal’s to lose (happy new year GP), of course Federer would beat him fresh, but it’s hard to imagine a fresh Federer in his seventh match.

Though, maybe this year, with a year of his best 2017 tennis under his belt, his matches in Oz won’t go to 5 sets like last year.

Im Serbian media - tons of speculation whether Nole is going to play at all.

I would be very disappointed of he quit last minute, but I can see it happen if they give him a rotten draw which would not be the first time

Y’know, I’m as big a Federer fan as any and of longer standing than many, and as GP says I’d be wary if Nadal & Federer were in the final because that’s natural if you’re emotionally invested. I’ve battled the anti-Fed trolls like Wise_Analyst and the rest over 10 years ago but despite my long history of arguing in Federers favour I really hate this idea that all the draws are rigged for Nadal and Federer is tired after a tough set.

It’s such crap, it really is. Nadal got super lucky in the USO but so did Fed at Wimbledon abd he still had to beat the guy who beat Federer, and I didn’t see Federer fade after the long first set against Zverev. Seriously, this is truly lame. Federer is the greatest player who ever lived and he has Nadal figured out. This event increasingly looks to be Federers, if not “to lose” but as favourite.

I  can’t remember whether you took part in this thread back on v2, but the evidence for Nadal’s draw rigging is clear to see.

http://www.606v2.com/t27820-draw-fixing-an-official-study?

(funnily, while I was looking for it I saw someone’s thread called “Nadal’s piddle draw”  , plus, even I have had enough of reposting this link...)

Unfortunately, the damage can’t be undone and you can’t deny Nadal has regularly had preferential treatment from ATP, right down to banning a first class umpire Bernardes from his matches,  asking for sandy slow surface from TDs, not to mention the unpalatable stiff of 2 years protected ranking etc etc...

As for Federer, he is almost 37. Amd not Youzny’s 37...it’s 37 of a guy who won 95 titles and has clocked serious mileage on those legs.

If you can’t see how that affects his performance, then I don’t know what more to say...

I wish you were right and there was no difference between being 27 and 37, but there is.

We are all benefitting from the experience and richness of the game a 37yo talent of Federer can give us,  but forgetting he can be father to some of his opponents!

Anyway, I keep going in circles.

Oh, did I say there was no difference between 27 and 37? Thanks, I didn’t know that.

C’mon nitb, ever since you found a happier life by agreeing with Tenez over everything you lost a solid grip on these things. Nadal has had lucky draws. The game went towards his style.... and now it’s moving away. I dislike his style intensely but I don’t think he calls the shots. You raise him wanting 2 year rankings and omit to say he didn’t get it. What does that tell you?

2 years tennis ranking was voted heavily against at the players’ council.
Nadal left in a huff and resigned after that fiasco.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/9168264/Rafael-Nadal-resigns-as-ATP-players-body-vice-president-after-lack-of-movement-on-changes-to-ranking-system.html

Good, old, late abrad Drewitt helped a lot in thise days. 

As for Tenez etc...it’s a pleasure to have read his tennis comments over the years.

I learnt so much.

You also agree with many others here on various topics but  I never pull that “personal” card, I try to address the point you make instead.

bogbrush wrote:An on-form Federer will beat Nadal, and I'm not convinced extra days rest is needed, particularly if on-form Federer has dispensed with a semi-final opponent more easily than he did Wawrinka in 2017.

That's a big statement. You know I have always said players can play their best tennis late (29 onwards)...but one thing I am aware of,  as the real challenge for mature players, are the matches in succession.

Fed at 27 was already saying winning a TMS 1000 was "almost" harder than winning slams cause of the no rest day at the end of the week.

At 37 an extra day is simply crucial. Even at 36 I am pretty sure Nadal would have won last year had fed got just one day rest (more so if Nadal had had 2).

Again look at those Wimbies and USOs Federer lost v Djoko in spite of playing so well up to the final.

Well twice Federer beat Nadal in a 1000 Final in 2017 with no breaks between rounds, so.....

Tenez wrote:


At 37 an extra day is simply crucial. Even at 36 I am pretty sure Nadal would have won last year had fed got just one day rest (more so if Nadal had had 2).

Again look at those Wimbies and USOs Federer lost v Djoko in spite of playing so well up to the final.

I entirely understand the logic, but I think that the situation with the Fedal rivalry is different to what it was and to the Fed/Djoko rivalry in 2014-2015.  The AO 2017 was crucial, and it was a tight match, or rather the first 7 games of the last set were tight when both guys were playing close to their best.  It may be that the extra day of rest was crucial for Federer then.

However, as bogbrush has pointed out, Federer has twice since then defeated Nadal in Masters finals without a day of rest before the final - at Miami the match was the culmination of two 6-round tournaments over 4 weeks and Shanghai was after Federer had needed to recover from Toronto and the USO.

I suggest tentatively that the Fedal rivalry has swung for the time being and Federer is residing in Nadal's head whereas previously it was the other way around.  Until Nadal changes something or Fed's condition/form drops a notch, which may happen at any minute of course, both guys know that Nadal does not any more have an overwhelming 'go to' tactic which enables him to camp out until Federer runs aground.   That is worth a day's rest for Federer I'd say.

The good thing about playing Nadal is that since Fed has that power from the BH, it is Nadal doing most of the running and he can shorten rallies without having to retireve constantly.

However conds in Shanghai were the fastest and Nadal was apparently not 100% in Shanghai nor Miami (according to Federer), though I am sure Fed wasn't either.

What woudl have been interesting is to see how federer would have handled Nadal on slow USO where Nadal showed amazing dominance and form....and doing it over 3 sets.

We shall see. In any case I fancy Nadal to pull out once the draw is out or lose early if not fit cause when he is not 110% he never goes very far.

Slippy wrote:Shot clock is only for qualifying I believe, so that won’t be an issue for Rafa at the Oz Open. ...

That says a lot. Frustrating! It should be the other way around....the more serious and important the round the more important it is to abide by the rules.

Fear of (losing) the big names of course...or what else?

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:Shot clock is only for qualifying I believe, so that won’t be an issue for Rafa at the Oz Open. ...

That says a lot. Frustrating! It should be the other way around....the more serious and important the round the more important it is to abide by the rules.

Fear of (losing) the big names of course...or what else?

i seriously think this is the power of Nadal. At the USO they already had the clock during the qualies. I thought after that they decided  to apply the clock throughout the AO. I guess the fuzz NAdal made about it  made 'm to change the plans..

I saw an interesting article the other day which said that these days tennis crowds don't, on the whole, like underdogs to beat the big names in earlier rounds.  That is apparently because they anticipate that the quality of the later rounds will diminish.  

This is one of the more significant changes in attitude towards sport over my lifetime and I think it started during the 1990's.  You can also see it in football where in England we have a Premier League which ensures that the riches are kept by the top 20 clubs rather than spread out across a wider league system, and in Europe we have a Champions League whose structure ensures (I think largely by design) that the clubs who fight for the ultimate prize are similar names from a smallish pool of 'big' clubs year-in year-out.  You can also increasingly see it in business - high streets morph into one with ubiquitous chain stores.  Consistent knowable 'quality' is more preferred than it used to be over quirkiness and uncertainty - it certainly benefits suppliers/producers, and reliability has its attractions for end consumers too.

So I would agree with Tenez that so long as we have big names who have learned a style of play which requires major recuperation between points, the introduction of shot-clocks will require fighting against solidly entrenched interests.  That said, starting it on the challengers and the futures tour and in qualification will mean that a new generation may grow up who will tailor their game to the new needs, so all is not doom and despair.

Lets see how fast can Djoko run on Asics.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:Shot clock is only for qualifying I believe, so that won’t be an issue for Rafa at the Oz Open. ...

That says a lot. Frustrating! It should be the other way around....the more serious and important the round the more important it is to abide by the rules.

Fear of (losing) the big names of course...or what else?

i seriously think this is the power of Nadal. At the USO they already had the clock during the qualies. I thought after that they decided  to apply the clock throughout the AO. I guess the fuzz NAdal made about it  made 'm to change the plans..

yep. The same power that gave him 12 to 14 slams free of Djoko in his draw between 2008-11. It had to be pointed out by a study for the sequence to stop!

barrystar wrote:I saw an interesting article the other day which said that these days tennis crowds don't, on the whole, like underdogs to beat the big names in earlier rounds.  That is apparently because they anticipate that the quality of the later rounds will diminish.  

This is one of the more significant changes in attitude towards sport over my lifetime and I think it started during the 1990's.  You can also see it in football where in England we have a Premier League which ensures that the riches are kept by the top 20 clubs rather than spread out across a wider league system, and in Europe we have a Champions League whose structure ensures (I think largely by design) that the clubs who fight for the ultimate prize are similar names from a smallish pool of 'big' clubs year-in year-out.  You can also increasingly see it in business - high streets morph into one with ubiquitous chain stores.  Consistent knowable 'quality' is more preferred than it used to be over quirkiness and uncertainty - it certainly benefits suppliers/producers, and reliability has its attractions for end consumers too.

It seems to me there are so far 2 big names in tennis: Nadal and Federer. I am not sure people wish to see many Djoko v Murray or even Murray v Stan (in spite of Stan's great game). However anyone of those slightly less popular players v Nadal or Fed make for a big happy and excited crowd.

Yes strange how the crowd like names. It's almost as if they want to see the big names so they can tell on FB that they have seen the big names. I guess that is what has changed since your/our hey days Barry. Back then we did not care about our e-social life as there wasn't any. We lived for ourselves.....not by proxy!

Meanwhile: it seems Djokovic, Nadal and Wawrinka will be playing.
Nadal lost to Gasquet and Djokovic beat Thiem. For what it's worth.

That's a lot of money for winning TBs in an exo!

Nadal yesterday faced Richard Gasquet in the Kooyong Classic, losing 6-4, 7-5 in blustery conditions at the exhibition tournament.

But the Spaniard insisted he would not have been playing at all if he was worried about the knee injury that has kept him out of action since November.

And today he appeared three times on the Margaret Court Arena in the unique format, beating France’s Lucas Rouille 10-1 before being pushed all the way by Lleyton Hewitt in a close 13-11 victory.

However, he could not handle Berdych in the final as the Czech player triumphed 10-5 to claim the winner-takes-all prize of $250,000 (£184,500).

Lucas "Rouille". Funny journalists!

Seeds: Men’s singles

1 Rafael Nadal (ESP)
2 Roger Federer (SUI)
3 Grigor Dimitrov (BUL)
4 Alexander Zverev (GER)
5 Dominic Thiem (AUT)
6 Marin Cilic (CRO)
7 David Goffin (BEL)
8 Jack Sock (USA)
9 Stan Wawrinka (SUI)
10 Pablo Carreno Busta (ESP)
11 Kevin Anderson (RSA)
12 Juan Martin del Potro (ARG)
13 Sam Querrey (USA)
14 Novak Djokovic (SRB)
15 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA)
16 John Isner (USA)
17 Nick Kyrgios (AUS)
18 Lucas Pouille (FRA)
19 Tomas Berdych (CZE)
20 Roberto Bautista Agut (ESP)
21 Albert Ramos-Vinolas (ESP)
22 Milos Raonic (CAN)
23 Gilles Muller (LUX)
24 Diego Schwartzman (ARG)
25 Fabio Fognini (ITA)
26 Adrian Mannarino (FRA)
27 Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER)
28 Damir Dzumhur (BIH)
29 Richard Gasquet (FRA)
30 Andrey Rublev (RUS)
31 Pablo Cuevas (URU)
32 Mischa Zverev (GER)

What a joke of a draw....


Another heavy fix for Nadal.
Or does BB think differently?

With each 'section' being 16 players...

Top Half:
Nadal avoids most potential dangers in his section - Dzumhur looks the trickiest in R16; the second section holds few fears in his potential QF opponent, top ranked Carreno Busta or Cilic.

His prospective SF opponent, Dimitrov, has a tough third section, but Kyrgios and Shapovalov (and Tsonga) are on the other side of it.  

The fourth section in the top half has highlights of Anderson and Sock.

Bottom Half:
Assuming that the returnees are fit, R16 in the first two sections is tough on paper - Thiem and Wawrinka bookend the first, Djoko and A Zverev the second - perhaps a meaty QF.

The third section is solid with Goffin, Berdych, and del Potro in it.

The fourth, Federer's section, has Querrey, Raonic, and Gasquet - all guys he should beat if on any form, but tougher than Nadal's.

Overall
Nadal has 3 routine rounds to play himself in until the potentially tricky Dzumhur - then the QF looks OK for him, and whilst an inspired Dimi in the SF might be hard, he has overwhelming H2H's vs. the higher seeds in his half and only Cilic as a past slam winner.  

Federer's  1st 4 rounds look tougher than Nadal's, albeit negotiable, and his potential QF/SF opponents are of a different standard altogether - his side of the draw has 3 other past slam winners (Djoko/Stan/Del Boy).

Nadal has by far the least difficult route of all the main contenders with far fewer potential opponents with proven resilience in bigger tournaments, Masters as well as Slams.  On my limited knowledge he also seems to avoid big flat hitters who can be so dangerous for him in early rounds.

noleisthebest wrote:What a joke of a draw....


Another heavy fix for Nadal.
Or does BB think differently?

The ceremony was live....and fed participated to the draw I read.

Nadal is just a lucky man. A very lucky one. Even wheh he seems to have tough draws, they all vanish before meeting him.