Miami 2018

Well done to Isner, great match, humble guy, nice speech. Well deserved. Zverev is a pusher and he can thank the old top 4 or top 8 for not being in form, as he would not of seen a Masters Final or a GS ever!!

Agree... But he will get better.

Pleased for Isner, he deserves the title.

So Delpo after playing a final and a semi-final (can’t remember hiw far he went at AO) feels exhausted and wahts to play a reduced clay season...at 29.

Which again puts Federer’s efforts at nearly 37, at quite an amazing level.

“I'm not thinking about tennis anymore. It was enough, enough.

I would love to keep playing in this level on the clay-court tournaments, but I don't know when I'm going to start, because I need to [train] even better than hard court. And I want to stay healthy during the whole year. So maybe I quit a few tournaments at the beginning and then be ready for Paris, or maybe a tournament before."

I really enjoyed the match, esp Johnny’s-was-good-tonight fighting.
The big man left the proverbial everything on the court. 

He really WON the match, went for his shots...that ace at 40:00 when serving for the match (which Zverev challenged) that landed bang on the corner (I don’t remember I’ve ever seen such an accurate serve on the hawk-eye) summed up all his focus, heart and determination to win.



Well done, Izzy!

29 is old for a tennis player.  Look at the winners.

The best player of the tournament won and well deserved. He came through multiple players ranked above him and beat them despite his losing h2h against all.

Crandon Park's last winner, cheers. 

Off to Hard-Rock.

noleisthebest wrote:So Delpo after playing a final and a semi-final (can’t remember hiw far he went at AO) feels exhausted and wahts to play a reduced clay season...at 29.

Which again puts Federer’s efforts at nearly 37, at quite an amazing level.

“I'm not thinking about tennis anymore. It was enough, enough.

I would love to keep playing in this level on the clay-court tournaments, but I don't know when I'm going to start, because I need to [train] even better than hard court. And I want to stay healthy during the whole year. So maybe I quit a few tournaments at the beginning and then be ready for Paris, or maybe a tournament before."

This was 3rd tournament in 4 weeks. He also played Acapulco and won it., Also Delray Beach which he lost early.
So expected to be exhausted, lots of tennis off late.

Daniel wrote:29 is old for a tennis player.  Look at the winners.

What about 32, Isner age? he was playing better at 26 hey?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:So Delpo after playing a final and a semi-final (can’t remember hiw far he went at AO) feels exhausted and wahts to play a reduced clay season...at 29.

Which again puts Federer’s efforts at nearly 37, at quite an amazing level.

“I'm not thinking about tennis anymore. It was enough, enough.

I would love to keep playing in this level on the clay-court tournaments, but I don't know when I'm going to start, because I need to [train] even better than hard court. And I want to stay healthy during the whole year. So maybe I quit a few tournaments at the beginning and then be ready for Paris, or maybe a tournament before."

This was 3rd tournament in 4 weeks. He also played Acapulco and won it., Also Delray Beach which he lost early.
So expected to be exhausted, lots of tennis off late.

Yes, but then again so many here don’t understand that Federer loses and plays like he did in IW and Miami because he is tired, not because he has “declned”.
That was my point.

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:29 is old for a tennis player.  Look at the winners.

What about 32, Isner age? he was playing better at 26 hey?

This is the best of Isner, I have watched  a lot his matches and never did he played so well.. and throughout  the week.

Tenez once again doesn't seem to be able to understand rules and trends and exceptions. Zverev done more than Isner has in a much shorter time. And he'll win slams - where Isner very likely will not. 

There's your difference


29 IS old for a tennis player.  Winning the odd tournament doesn't change that.  This needs repeatedly hammering into you - the massive number of tournament wins (esp Slams) are won before a player reaches 30.  With few exceptions.

Learn that. 

Yeah yeah I don't understand much. Glad you're enlightening us all.

I'll start listening to you when players are winning more in their 30s than their 20s - and when it becomes a trend.  Until then................

Last 13 majors (age of winner at time):

Oz 18 - Federer (36)
US 17 - Nadal (31)
Wim 17 - Federer (35)
RG 17 - Nadal (31)
Oz 17 - Federer (35)
US 16 - Stan (31)
Wim 16 - Murray (29)
RG 16 - Novak (29)
Oz 16 - Novak (28)
US 15 - Novak (28)
Wim 15 - Novak (28)
RG 15 - Wawrinka (30)
Oz 15 - Novak (27)

I generally think Tenez’s views are, at best, questionable. However, surely that’s evidence that, currently, late 20s/early 30s is the best age to win the big events?

I would hazard a guess that run of 12 straight slams won  by players aged 28+ is unprecedented. More than half the last 12 slams being won by 30+ aged players is a very unusual stat.

Slippy wrote:I would hazard a guess that run of 12 straight slams won  by players aged 28+ is unprecedented. More than half the last 12 slams being won by 30+ aged players is a very unusual stat.

It should't be strange, really...tennis is evolving, pro sport is evolving and now we have this trend.
Only Daniel is still stubbornly refusing to remove cobwebs from his mind.

I assume Daniel will say, there are not any good enough youngsters to unseat these guys and that their best years were earlier on in their careers.

luvsports! wrote:I assume Daniel will say, there are not any good enough youngsters to unseat these guys and that their best years were earlier on in their careers.

Its a combination of lot of factors. Some of them as I see are below ( in no order of relevance).

1. The old guard consists of great players including GOAT, 2nd GOAT and All-4-Slam holder. Dislodging them off their throne is not easy. Fed even at 40 wouldn't be easy for the 20 yo to beat.

2. Younger gen would have been helped had they been equipped wit some devastating new sports technology. But its only minor corrections and nothing more.

3. No true future great player is coming up. None of them have any kind of consistency. They just don't dominate anyone out there ( new/old/peers). They haven't cemented their rankings at any position. They keep moving up and down the raking table.  They barely defend any titles at any level  that they won previous year. ( even ATP 250  keep changing hands).

Signs that they are not great players at any level. They are just buying their time so that the old guard fades eventually so that they can get some room to breathe . 

Among the current 20=> Age <=25, I don't see anyone who will win 5 slams. It will all be distributed. Fed , Nadal looked like winning multiple major before they won 2.

Slippy wrote:Last 13 majors (age of winner at time):

Oz 18 - Federer (36)
US 17 - Nadal (31)
Wim 17 - Federer (35)
RG 17 - Nadal (31)
Oz 17 - Federer (35)
US 16 - Stan (31)
Wim 16 - Murray (29)
RG 16 - Novak (29)
Oz 16 - Novak (28)
US 15 - Novak (28)
Wim 15 - Novak (28)
RG 15 - Wawrinka (30)
Oz 15 - Novak (27)

I generally think Tenez’s views are, at best, questionable. However, surely that’s evidence that, currently, late 20s/early 30s is the best age to win the big events?

That isn't a trend or any kind of evidence.  It's 3 players from the same era dominating a very weak set of youngsters - and one of those 3 (fed nadal djok) is now history - just around the time that most players are history.  Wawrinka doesn't look like doing much again either. Nor does Murray (again, around the time that players generally fizzle out).

In actual fact, Murray and Djokovic are backing my point up.  Federer and Nadal are exceptions to a rule. Exceptions are not rules.  Exceptions are not trends.  One era is not a trend. No other 30+ players are winning slams (and Djok and Murray haven't won one at 30).  There is nothing significant about Tenez point.

I must say I thought this data could easily be read as business as usual, except for Nadal and especially Federer. And both those guys are generally recognised to be unusual.

If we really have seen the end of Murray, Djokovic and Wawrinka then there's only a Nadal knee and a Federer back in the way of under 25 Slam champions.

But the most important point is that success does not automatically translate with peak.

Take the case of Nadal. He was very successful in 2008 and 2010. But in spite of playing better in 2011....he was stopped in 7 finals, including 3 slams by someone who became better than him. Nadal had to go back to the drawing board and add weight to his racquet and learn to take the ball earlier in order to improve.

So linking peaking with success is wrong to start with.

Jahu wrote:Isner to take Miami!!!

Good call.