It's not slam time, but do yourselves a favor and check out the highlights of Kyrgios vs Zverev and Kyrgios vs Federer from Miami if you didn't catch the full matches. Both have some amazing tennis.
Both were great especially Kyrgios - Federer but the crowd was terribleIt's not slam time, but do yourselves a favor and check out the highlights of Kyrgios vs Zverev and Kyrgios vs Federer from Miami if you didn't catch the full matches. Both have some amazing tennis.
Nishikori and Murray haven't exactly been great, the former since the AO and the latter all year. Zveref on the other hand did beat Djokovic the other week to break into the top 10, so I don't think he needs to be afraid of those two. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Murray lost early against Del Potro or whoever. Wawrinka on the other hand will most likely be a very tough opponent and I think he might even take the whole tournament. He won Geneva and apparently winning a Masters before entering a Slam is a good sign for him, historically.Anyways French Open - is it Rafa's to lose? I think so. I took a quick look at his draw, doesn't seem many in his quarter. Maybe Raonic, but he's not really great on clay.
Don't mind the look of Zverev's chances. 4th round (Nishikori), QF (Murray) and SF (Wawrinka) is a big task though. Verdasco straight up too.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Is the tension actually greater just because there are more tie-breaks? i.e. do the players feel the pressure at a 3-3 tiebreak the same as a 6-6 tiebreak?Shorter Format: First to Four games sets (Tie-Break at 3-All), Best-of-Five sets, with No-Ad scoring
Any problem with injuries here?Shorter Warm-Up
Eh, not too sure on this one, but it seems like something required in a fast-paced format.Shot Clock
This would be annoying as a player. They say it would be an unpredictable way to start a point, true... but how will points starting with a let look?No-Let Rule
Hmm not sure. On one hand it seems like we're skimming on player welfare. On the other hand, they should just retire when hurt, and I don't like the tactical use of the time-outs).Medical Time-Outs
Strongly against. However I see what they're trying to do here by giving the fans an inside view into a pro match.Player Coaching
Well, a set deciding tiebreak is a set deciding tiebreak. I don't think there's any real difference in how much pressure you feel. But I think the idea is more to "reset" the game advantage more frequently. Suppose you have two players that are likely to hold serve - if one of them gets an early break, it's more likely that they're going to win the set regardless of whether they have to win four or six games total, so by reducing the number of games in a set, you have less "downtime" for lack of a better term.Is the tension actually greater just because there are more tie-breaks? i.e. do the players feel the pressure at a 3-3 tiebreak the same as a 6-6 tiebreak?
Well, yeah, it does. Maybe you could argue it counteracts having less opportunities to break over the course of six games compared to three like I described above, but personally I'm not a fan.No-ad scoring favours the returners and more service breaks, so Idk the exact benefit here. Does it really speed up matches? I guess, less points played.
Don't think so, the players warm up before entering the court after all. From what I read it impacts performance in a different way though:Any problem with injuries here?
So it doesn't seem like a positive when you essentially carry over parts of the warm-up into the first set. I also find it highly questionable that spectators can't wait an extra five minutes.Glenn Hill said:One thing to consider is that the stadiums the pros play on are VERY different from the courts they warm up on. The extra space around the court, the stands, and the very surface itself make the court play differently. Depth perception is changed slightly.
If you take away the warmup altogether, you're going to see really sloppy tennis for the first 10 minutes of the match. More double faults, more easy missed balls. I can't see how that's good for tennis.
Well, the time limit between points is already at 25 seconds. The shot clock is just supposed to enforce the limit more consistently. I don't really mind per se, but I don't feel it's necessary either.Eh, not too sure on this one, but it seems like something required in a fast-paced format.
Would be interesting to see how Nadal handles 25s limits.
Frankly, I think this is both dumb and unnecessary. You don't have many points where a serve needs to be replayed because of a let in the first place and players have no incentive to try to hit the cord. But by changing this rule, they actually create that incentive and, like you said, it's not a desirable way to start a point.This would be annoying as a player. They say it would be an unpredictable way to start a point, true... but how will points starting with a let look?
I will admit, I liked listening in on the changeover conversations during the Laver Cup. That said, I prefer preserving the pure 1v1/2v2 nature of tennis as much as possible and I fear it might lead to newcomers being at an even greater disadvantage due to not having or not being able to afford the best coaches out there.Strongly against. However I see what they're trying to do here by giving the fans an inside view into a pro match.
Hmm, a 6-6 would feel a little more important than deciding a 3-3, at least if I were playing. I guess it could still be the same.Well, a set deciding tiebreak is a set deciding tiebreak. I don't think there's any real difference in how much pressure you feel. But I think the idea is more to "reset" the game advantage more frequently. Suppose you have two players that are likely to hold serve - if one of them gets an early break, it's more likely that they're going to win the set regardless of whether they have to win four or six games total, so by reducing the number of games in a set, you have less "downtime" for lack of a better term.
The issue, in my opinion, is that by playing tiebreakers after only half the games, you give players only half as many chances to earn a legitimate break of serve in the first place and since a tiebreaker can be quite volatile, it decreases consistency overall.
I'm not a fan either. For what they're trying to do though this is acceptable.Well, yeah, it does. Maybe you could argue it counteracts having less opportunities to break over the course of six games compared to three like I described above, but personally I'm not a fan.
Good point. What's the point of speeding it up if the first set has less quality.So it doesn't seem like a positive when you essentially carry over parts of the warm-up into the first set. I also find it highly questionable that spectators can't wait an extra five minutes.
Yea that's what I was trying to get at (though I didn't know it was 25s already). If there's a visible shot clock no one can get away with it. I would be against this in Grand Slams, but here I'm okay with it.Well, the time limit between points is already at 25 seconds. The shot clock is just supposed to enforce the limit more consistently. I don't really mind per se, but I don't feel it's necessary either.
Agreed.That said, I prefer preserving the pure 1v1/2v2 nature of tennis as much as possible and I fear it might lead to newcomers being at an even greater disadvantage due to not having or not being able to afford the best coaches out there.
No, missed them. Might go back to check out the finals at some point.Did you see matches from this tournament?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I so wish I could have seen that historical match! Socializing isn't that great sometimes...That Djokovic-Nadal semi was ridiculous...