ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.

The forum has dried up. We are missing the passion of nitb. I'll try to fill in with what I can.

Who's playing:
Among top10, all but Nadal and Isner. Fed is playing.

Draw is out for your analysis. https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/shanghai/5014/draws

For top seeds the SF are lined up as:

1. Fed vs Delpo
2. Djoko vs Zverev

Seeds to have fallen in 1st rnd are : 1. Shawrtzman and Sock

Thanks for starting the thread ROTLA. I enjoyed that break! I m now in bed with a cold...so maybe some time to watch some tennis though my connection here still sucks.

I had a look at the draw yesterday and from what I remember Federer has it tougher again. Nothing has been easy for him ...except his talent.

He has a 1000 to lose if I remember.

Hopefully he can take it and stay in that YEnd #1 race.

I just checked the race to London and Federer is actually out of it....unless he wins everything from now.....very unlikely.

Yeah, that ship sailed at Wimbledon.

Fed vs Medvedev is lined up for tomorrow. Medvedev is coming off a good week in Tokyo. This is not going to be easy for Fed.

Aye.  The #1 ranking is over for Fed, I'd suggest forever.  

This year Djoko is on 6,455 in the race aiming at Nadal's race tally of 7,480 - barring injury t's inconceivable that he won't be #1 at the end of the season.

Fed's decline is relative - he's still had a better year than all but a handful on tour could dream of in 2018.  If his reduced circumstances are sufficient for him to continue enjoying there's every reason to keep going for a while.

If I bought tickets and saw Kyrgios on the list I'd thing about asking for a refund. The guy is becoming a serial tanker.

barrystar wrote:....Fed's decline is relative - he's still had a better year than all but a handful on tour could dream of in 2018.  If his reduced circumstances are sufficient for him to continue enjoying there's every reason to keep going for a while.

Really I don;t care much about Federer's future success. I am not even sure I care about anyone else success from now on. I am more concerned about stopping the RRunners from having more success.

I'd like Federer to play WTF a final time and RG and Wimbledon next year.....not having played at all or much outside the slams. There is no point in him playing ATP1000 or lesser ones from now on.

Federer battling like a lion. He is not playing badly but one feels that this SHBH lacks power nowadays.....especially since he plays lots of slice from it. Without the legs he used to have it's going to be hard work on every match....especially with the successive matches in that ATP1000 formats.

Still beautiful to watch.

Had some pressure as well from Uniqlo! It's big there in Asia I guess. Well done.

And Medvedev was playing well and has been quite in good form as of late. I almost wanted to mention him in the Tsitsipas thread, but as he is 2 years older and in 2 years at age 20 you can progress hugely, I figured the comparison was unfair. But it is interesting to see that Medvedev managed to win 3 tournaments this year, including Tokyo at the 500 level last week and at least the last two without dropping a set and beating the other #NextGen when meeting them.

We should be happy Fed can still beat guys like that at 37, this is nothing short of a miracle if you ask me, GOAT or not... OK, Ken Rosewall may have the AO back in 72 aged 37+, but clearly the technology and professionalism of the sport back then is not even worth being compared with today's tennis....

Yes Medv was moving well and for a tall guy that's very important. However his game is once again a bit 1D....but as long as he executes well he is going to be a very dangerous player. I still think he looks frail mentally.

sphairistike wrote:...
We should be happy Fed can still beat guys like that at 37, this is nothing short of a miracle if you ask me, GOAT or not... OK, Ken Rosewall may have the AO back in 72 aged 37+, but clearly the technology and professionalism of the sport back then is not even worth being compared with today's tennis....

Very true...ROTLA says we shoudl not compare players in different eras but frankly we can compare eras...and nowadays it is much harder.....much harder than 10 years ago even.

I would disagree a bit here. I think it is difficult at his age to play 100% both mentally and physically week in week out. Let's not forget he played Tokyo as a qualifier, so he had to win 7 matches in a row there and then he won the first match in Shanghai against the home player (which he prides himself at beating in all tournaments he played this year) to make it 8 in a row and this without really more than a day's rest for the past week and a half. So it is not fair to say he is frail mentally. Ask Nishikori if he thought so...

Tenez wrote:

sphairistike wrote:...
We should be happy Fed can still beat guys like that at 37, this is nothing short of a miracle if you ask me, GOAT or not... OK, Ken Rosewall may have the AO back in 72 aged 37+, but clearly the technology and professionalism of the sport back then is not even worth being compared with today's tennis....

Very true...ROTLA says we shoudl not compare players in different eras but frankly we can compare eras...and nowadays it is much harder.....much harder than 10 years ago even.

 I think its harder because the younger gen are facing 3 of the best players in tennis history and they are not showing any signs to letting it go. Once the three are gone, the tour will be completely open. See what's going on on women's side. Its all open anyone can win any titles. No one is racking up the trophies alone, its all distributed among many players. 

The thing is great players will be able to create their own space. Fed pushed aside the likes of Hewitt,  Ferrero, Nalby and Safin and made his own space. So did Nadal and then followed by Djok.

After Djok, there simply hasn't been a player good enough to be able to create his own space. Murray with his perseverance and experience ( some luck going his way ) was able to pull 3 slams and also #1. Stan with his peak game stacked up 3 slams. 

There hasn't even been anyone who looks like can win a slam even if the above 5 were not playing. No one is consistently better than even the guys of their gen. And this is why it's hard for anyone to win.

I don;t think we are seeing the best 3 players in history. We are seeing the best in history and 2 supremely fit atheltes ahead of their time fitness wise...like Chang or Hewitt were except that unlike Chung and Hewitt, it's going to take a bit longer to catch them up physically.

You right about Nadal and Djoko creating their own space but as I said a 1000 times they were helped by the circumstances: The lack of technology improvement while making the most of the nutritional one. Imagine if they were born in Fed's era and had to learn to play SVing natural strings to be successful like it was for Fed up to 2002 roughly. What would Nadal have achieved with nat gut? Retrievers were no longer successful even on clay by 2002.

If you looked at Medvedev this week or Zverev other times that those youngsters are going to be as fit as Nadal and Djoko in due time but with additional weapon.

The difference is that Djoko and Nadal have roughly 10 more years experience in "professional tennis"....and this is impossible to bridge without having a technological advantage like Nadal and Djoko had over Federer, or Pete and becker had over McEnroe and Lendl, or Borg had (fitness wise) over Nastase or Laver.

Without technical change it takes much longer to succeed and typically success is shorter apart for those who embraced the change at the right time.

Wow...the fact I had not been watching tennis for month helped me realise how fitter Zverev is now compared to last time I saw him. He really has meat up, his legs in particular.

Fed is happy when he can return many serves.

Is there a more beautiful shot than Fed's BH slice?

I fancy Zverev's chances tomorrow v Djoko.

Djokovic is an amazing player! He has the ugliest shots of the top 100 but for some reasons they are all coming back thanks to his mouvement. They are not hurting either but they are difficult to pull winners from and gutless (or is it talentless) Zverev doesn't want to pull the trigger.

It's ugly tennis from both sides. Amazing to see that as talent as Federer is he could lose to those guys. There is something I don't actually understand here. Is that down essentially to mouvement? can't see another explanation considering the gulf there is talent wise between a Djoko and a Zverev.

Zverev frustation is showing. He is trying to be conservative and yet makes the mistakes before Djoko. What an idiot and gutless player. Being so tall and having so much power, yet playing like Djoko.

I am actually enjoying Zverev's frustration...so gutless!

To be fair Djoko is scrapping right and left.....and so quick.

This describes what I was writing earlier to ROTLA: It is "professionalism". You cannot get that level of fitness overnight. He took Djoko 24 years (2011) to get that fit and from what I saw he improved his mouvement even after 2011 thanks to dedication and knowledge.  Plus of course his shots became more consistent with the experience.

Very simple: the difference today? 10 extra years of experience of scrapping for Djoko. Depressing match....like many nowadays!

...no wonder this forum is dying!

Zverev chose to be 2/6 1/5 0/40 down to go for his shots! Ridiculous!

And the commentators calling this a "master class" from Djoko when frankly it was Zverev collapsing!

It's annoying cause as a guy, I don;t mind Djoko....just his game is so ugly.

Absolute masterclass from Djokovic. Has made an on-form Zverev look very ordinary. Back into the world top 2. I fear a bit for Fed if he does beat Coric but maybe Novak won’t find the same form tomorrow.

Looks like Djokovic is back for good now.

At least Nadal can’t bank his RG any more.

Coric beat Federer last time they played I believe....unless they played after Halle.

Koenig who I think is one of the very best commentator says that Coric is a very physical player who tried to be as Nadal like as possible.

I would not mind to see a Coric Djoko...I think this Coric has a very good chance.

Well he’s got more chance than this Federer.

I think Federer has to commit hard to 2019 or its time to chuck it in, he looks off the pace completely.

Fed is not moving. Looked stiff on the return and then quickly during rallies. 4 matches in a row is simply too much for him nowadays...It's been for a while actually.

bogbrush wrote:Well he’s got more chance than this Federer.

I think Federer has to commit hard to 2019 or its time to chuck it in, he looks off the pace completely.

Yes...But I don't think he should play 2019.....just SW19.

Tenez wrote:....
It's ugly tennis from both sides. Amazing to see that as talent as Federer is he could lose to those guys. There is something I don't actually understand here. Is that down essentially to mouvement? can't see another explanation considering the gulf there is talent wise between a Djoko and a Zverev.

This coric Fed match confirms the point that legs are everything in tennis.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well he’s got more chance than this Federer.

I think Federer has to commit hard to 2019 or its time to chuck it in, he looks off the pace completely.

Yes...But I don't think he should play 2019.....just SW19.

So you’ve given up on clay then?

He will obviously play Australia. After that it’ll be a light season.

Yes and no. Last spring he just had won the AO and was relatively on form. It turned out he wasn't fully fit as his grass campaign showed, so sure he should/could not have played the FO.

With what we know now (he simply cannot line up matches), he clearly has no chance at the French (and I don;t think he has any at Wimbledon either) but if he is ranked 33 in the world and has a chance to play Nadal in the first 2 rounds, then yes I would like him to enter.

I still think he is the best player on the day. And his only remaining challenge to me is to beat Nadal on clay in bo5. If he is still highly ranked, sure he should skip it and only play SW19. I would not even bother with AO if I were him, though AO gives him a chance to have 2 days rest before the final.

Tenez wrote:I don;t think we are seeing the best 3 players in history. We are seeing the best in history and 2 supremely fit atheltes ahead of their time fitness wise...like Chang or Hewitt were except that unlike Chung and Hewitt, it's going to take a bit longer to catch them up physically. 

You make tennis look so simple that just getting fit is enough. As simple that the fittest professional cricketers/swimmers too can just show up and win slams. 

No sir. If Chang and Hewitt are your examples, then Nadal and Djok would have had the same success as Chang and Hewitt. But is that the case? If fitness was their primary winning edge, then it can only get up to what it got for Chang and Hewitt. The success of change and hewitt can be compared to the success of Murray. Murray like Hewitt, Chang didn't have the game to succeed and hence just like them needed to get as fit as Nadal/Djo to have a chance. 

Hence Murray just like Chang/Hewitt never dominated tennis for the prolonged period like Nadal/Djo. Fitness can only get you so far. no more.


Its different with Nadal and Djoko. These 2 have an extremely good game to go with the fitness and a very steady mind too.

Tenez wrote:The difference is that Djoko and Nadal have roughly 10 more years experience in "professional tennis"....and this is impossible to bridge without having a technological advantage like Nadal and Djoko had over Federer, or Pete and becker had over McEnroe and Lendl, or Borg had (fitness wise) over Nastase or Laver. 

Again you are assuming that these 2 always had 10+ years of experience compared to other. No sir. They didn't have experience from day-1. 

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Djo at 21 and there were other players of similar age groups with great juniors careers too but they failed. 

If experience was a reason then today's 25-28-year-olds should not be losing to Nadal/Djo at all. But yet they are. They have good enough time to get fit, good enough experience to help. But if they are not winning its only because they don't have the required tennis which is needed to beat them.

Fitness is important but without tennis, it can only get success like Chang, Hewitt, and Murray. Not like Nadal, Djok.

Tenez wrote:Fed is not moving. Looked stiff on the return and then quickly during rallies. 4 matches in a row is simply too much for him nowadays...It's been for a while actually.

I think he asked for a Wed start, so the 4 matches in a row was not something surprising for him. Scheduling could have taken a toll on him coz he took a lot to win the earlier rounds ( Medvedev, Agut..).

I don't see scheduling is his problem. His problem is his aged body.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:You make tennis look so simple that just getting fit is enough. As simple that the fittest professional cricketers/swimmers too can just show up and win slams. 

It is that simple I am afraid. Borg said that years ago: "tennis is a sport of thousands little sprints". He knew what he was talking about cause he was then the fittest and beating all the old pro at 18! Chang did the smae, so did Hewitt and then Nadal and Djoko. If you can put the physical bar high enough, talent will be nearly irrelevant.

I am bloody surprised you can;t see when what we have seen the last 15 years (bar Federer) is the fittest player winning the slam. Nadal won it all cause he was fittest and Djoko became better cause simply fitter! It's dead obvious and not arguable, I am afraid.

No sir. If Chang and Hewitt are your examples, then Nadal and Djok would have had the same success as Chang and Hewitt. But is that the case? .

No Because Chang and Hewitt did not place the physical bar high enough. Also the conditions then allowed a bit more variety. And as you know both got injured pretty quickly in their career which meant that their career at the very top shortened swiftly.  That's why being "professional" is so important. Nowadays they have teams making sure you keep that fitness that high. Has Nadal won anything not 100%, Has Djoko won anything not 100%. No. Those guys as good as they are they can be beaten by anybody if they cannot run the miles.

If fitness was their primary winning edge, then it can only get up to what it got for Chang and Hewitt. The success of change and hewitt can be compared to the success of Murray. Murray like Hewitt, Chang didn't have the game to succeed and hence just like them needed to get as fit as Nadal/Djo to have a chance. 

Murray is again confirming just that very point. When he got the fittest (helped by Djoko entering a bad patch) he won almost everything....did not last long cause his body was not made for running, yet he won it all for the time he was teh fittest. neither Nadal, Murray or Djoko will be remembered for their talent or by how easy they made tennis look (which is the definition of talent actually).

Hence Murray just like Chang/Hewitt never dominated tennis for the prolonged period like Nadal/Djo. Fitness can only get you so far. no more.

I am afraid but that is not logical and I guess this is why you can't see the simple fact that tennis is essentially about fitness. They did not last as long as Djoko cause their fitness did not last. And also Federer being an exceptional player took a couple if not more slams off Hewitt's hands.

Its different with Nadal and Djoko. These 2 have an extremely good game to go with the fitness and a very steady mind too.

What do you mean by a "good game"? Where is Nadal now that he is not 100%? why is he not 100% to start with? Did he force his fitness a bit too much once again?

C'mom. You are denying the obvious.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Again you are assuming that these 2 always had 10+ years of experience compared to other. No sir. They didn't have experience from day-1. 

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Djo at 21 and there were other players of similar age groups with great juniors careers too but they failed.

Sure but he arrived with a better body than a 30 yo. To do that nowadays is almost impossible cause tennis like cycling has become much professional in the last 10 years. You don't have young Tour de France champions for the very same reasons! How long did Thomas have to wait to win teh TDF this year? 32!..and the average of the TDF winner is above 30 and no-one under 25....unless you go back to Ulrich 20 years ago with the arrival of EPO. And as I said, Djoko and Nadal benefitted from a new technology over the slighly older generation which never learnt to play with luxilon.

If experience was a reason then today's 25-28-year-olds should not be losing to Nadal/Djo at all. But yet they are. They have good enough time to get fit, good enough experience to help. But if they are not winning its only because they don't have the required tennis which is needed to beat them.

The 25-28 have suffered, like Djoko was suffering to Nadal for the first 4 years, even though he was only a year younger than Nadal. Only by going extreme in 2011 (gluten free, egg chamber and so on) that Djoko became better than his master. Maybe that new generation (25-28) do not have the will or know how to get through that. I have seen a young Nishikori lessoning Djoko but clearly he has not the physical base and/or maybe the dedication to go all the way like Djoko did. You can see that Coric and Zverev are learning fast from the fitness side of their champions. They know that is the way to go to win constantly. Murray knew that too.

Fitness is important but without tennis, it can only get success like Chang, Hewitt, and Murray. Not like Nadal, Djok.

You need a physical base for sure....but also conds which favour physical tennis. That was not the case for Chang who had to play most of his career on fast acrylic and carpet. If tomorrow you have to serve and volley to win matches on superfast courts, Nadal and Djoko will be nowhere the top!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:The difference is that Djoko and Nadal have roughly 10 more years experience in "professional tennis"....and this is impossible to bridge without having a technological advantage like Nadal and Djoko had over Federer, or Pete and becker had over McEnroe and Lendl, or Borg had (fitness wise) over Nastase or Laver. 

Again you are assuming that these 2 always had 10+ years of experience compared to other. No sir. They didn't have experience from day-1. 

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Djo at 21 and there were other players of similar age groups with great juniors careers too but they failed. 

If experience was a reason then today's 25-28-year-olds should not be losing to Nadal/Djo at all. But yet they are. They have good enough time to get fit, good enough experience to help. But if they are not winning its only because they don't have the required tennis which is needed to beat them.

Fitness is important but without tennis, it can only get success like Chang, Hewitt, and Murray. Not like Nadal, Djok.

Grief. You spend endless posts trying to ridicule Tenez's logic and then come out with this gem. 

Let me point something out. The one thing Slam winners all have in common is that they have had to win 7 matches to win a Slam. Draws are luck no matter who wins in what section etc. Fitness is part and parcel of the sport. What separates winners and losers is mentality. Those who have the will to win. 

You cannot put a number on success and then say that's what being fit equates to. 

Blind leading the blind into a blind alley.

It's not fitness.  That's just a crap excuse for failure. And it flies in the face of Tenez original statements that the younger players are better and better all the time.  Yet still we see grandpa Fed in top 3 along with Djok and Nadal.

I had a look at the top 1000 players currently on tour. The only 4 players I could see that had been WN2 were Djok, Nadal, Fed and Murray.  This era has the shittiest most worthless bunch of bottle jobs and losers going.

Bottle job Thiem.  Style: All out baseliner.  Does it work v Djok and Nadal?  Err, no,  'cause they're better at it.  When it comes to the crunch, Thiem has proven that Nadal will come out smelling of roses.  

Retiring "ninja"  - the only thing I'd like to see about this ninja is his own rope strangling him.  He's made bottling and retiring an art form. But what's his game plan?  Oh, it's all out baseliner. Does it work v Djok and Nadal?  Err, no,  'cause they're better at it.
 
Zverev - Once touted by me to become the next big thing.  But what's his game plan?  Oh, it's all out baseliner.  Does it work v Djok and Nadal?  Err, no,  'cause they're better at it.

Kyrgios -  Love the guy - but his attitude is rock bottom.  He doesn't want to win.  And until he does he will win fuck all.

Del Potro - What's his game plan?  Oh, it's all out baseliner.  Does it work v Djok and Nadal?  Err no.  'Cause they're better at it.  Generally, the most brainless player on tour along with Cilic.  NO brains. No variety.  Can only win when having an A1 day. All that height.  All that power.  But go on you big dopy moron... sit there waiting for a bomb to be moonballed back in to play. 

Same for Cilic.

Dimitrov - Another loser. What's his game plan?  Oh, it's all out baseliner.   Does it work v Djok and Nadal?  Err, no, 'Cause they're better at it.

So, all you have vying for titles is a 37 year old Federer, an aging Nadal, and Djokovic. That's it.  TIME and AGAIN this pathetic generation FAIL.  Coric recently joined the list AGAIN.  Will he break through?

Is there any hope for Shapovalov?  I am tired of seeing failure against an aging crop of players who have no game plan.

Will to win is a smaller part of it.  These boys have no brains and that's where they fail most.  Slow surfaces don't help.

Daniel wrote:It's not fitness.  That's just a crap excuse for failure. ...

I have not read the rest but that is a strange comment from someone who excuses losses cause a player is not as fit after 26!

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:It's not fitness.  That's just a crap excuse for failure. ...

I have not read the rest but that is a strange comment from someone who excuses losses cause a player is not as fit after 26!

Strange only because you have lied again and don't seem to know your own argument.

1. Once again, I never said 26 was the cut off point.  I said statistically it was 28/29 with rapid decline in the 30s. This is a fact supported by Open Era stats.  Keep lying. I will keep repeating.

2. It's YOUR argument that the younger players aren't fitter than the older players. Not mine.  My argument is that the younger players are fitter but aren't winning because

a. they do not have the consistency of Nadal/Djok on the baseline and 
b. The fact they ARE playing that style with no variation is precisely the problem.

Not fitness, as YOU assert.  You'd make a great Democrat in America.  They're good at accusing their opponents of what they themselves do - as they roll around wearing vagina costumes. 

legendkillar wrote:You cannot put a number on success and then say that's what being fit equates to. 

 I haven't put an exact number here but given the history of physical players and their success in tennis, a success range can be arrived to in my opinion. Chang, Hewitt and Murray according to me didn't have the game to win slams. But adding the physicality to their tennis strength provided them with some chance ( though limited as it would ). They made good of it. 

And this is what I've expressed.