Weeks 35 & 36 - US Open

thejester · Satellite level

Weeks 35 & 36 - US Open

Nix · Futures level

I agree that it's really hard to want either of them to win. On balance I'd slightly prefer Stan, just because eroding Djokovic's confidence may benefit Andy more in the long run. Also because I think it may encourage Dan just a bit to have done so well against the eventual winner. But as to either of them personally winning, couldn't care much at all.

JonH · All-time great

Stan gone 2 sets to 1 up - theyve played 3 hours for 3 sets, if this goes the whole way, we could be looking at 5 hours?! Wow. What is the longest slam final in terms of time played?

JonH · All-time great

Ignore that, seen the answer, Nole v Nadal in Oz 2012 www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/5-longest-grand-slam-finals

Long time reader · Lower Club Player

Does Djokovic just have a completely different set of rules or are you allowed 2 injury timeouts for the same injury??

RJA · Hall of fame

Well I am now completely over Evo's defeat as it has served the greater good.

JonH · All-time great

And with the win, Tour Finals website confirms Stan as 3Rd player into the finals after Andy and Nole

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Evo's defeat remains a running sore with me, technically he was more than a match for the world number 3, psychologically he is in a good place able to utilise his game in a way that is most effective and also able to rise above other players antics, ie. insisting on broken racquets being cleared up, having a word in Nick the Greeks shell like when getting agitated in the doubles etc....

I am afraid he still has the tell tail handles of love and although not a second chin, the gentle dewlap of a young bullock with issues with refuelling. Motivating oneself to do the hard yards is comparatively easy when compared to the discipline required to live well at all times.

If he can address that top 50 pah , there are potentially 3-4 years at the very top of the game he can snatch.

Topemp · Strong Club Player

Oakland2002 wrote:

I am afraid he still has the tell tail handles of love and although not a second chin, the gentle dewlap of a young bullock with issues with refuelling.

Beautifully put.

Dan's made huge progress, but whether he has the hunger (metaphorical) to really push the boundaries of his potential remains to be seen. He has achieved far more than any of us expected this year. And I noticed that he covered 3,500 more feet than Stan in 3rd round match, but for him to suggest that fitness was nothing to do with his defeat as he did in press conference suggests that he is willing to sacrifice a lot but not 'whatever it takes'.

However, whilst i think Dan has always believed in his game, I do wonder whether he really realised how good he could be. The more he plays at Main Tour level, it is perfectly possible that he will increasingly want to trade at that level, his fitness was good enough to compete for four sets and vast majority of matches he plays will be over in 3.

Either way, with Dan, it will be fun to find out.

RJA · Hall of fame

Topemp wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:

I am afraid he still has the tell tail handles of love and although not a second chin, the gentle dewlap of a young bullock with issues with refuelling.
Beautifully put.
Dan's made huge progress, but whether he has the hunger (metaphorical) to really push the boundaries of his potential remains to be seen. He has achieved far more than any of us expected this year. And I noticed that he covered 3,500 more feet than Stan in 3rd round match, but for him to suggest that fitness was nothing to do with his defeat as he did in press conference suggests that he is willing to sacrifice a lot but not 'whatever it takes'.

But that isn't what he actually said. He admitted he was a bit tired in the final set, albeit more mental than physical, but rightly said that he lost the match because he didn't take his chances in the 4th set tiebreak. He rejected the line that Murray always put forward after his tough defeats which was "I must work harder" and I am glad it did because while it was an admirable attitude it ignored the reasons that Murray was losing so many big matches. It is blindingly obvious that Dan has worked bloody hard over the last 16 months and to suggest that he is willing to work hard but not quite hard enough doesn't strike me as being supported by evidence. Dan isn't rejecting the need to work hard, he is simply saying that working ever harder is way too simplistic a response to a defeat. It doesn't matter how much work you do in the gym you can't fully prepare for experiences like the Wawrinka match, the hours of near constant focus on point after point after point. The only way you get used to playing those matches is by playing in them and it was an experience that Murray and even Djokovic had to go through. Besides, I just don't buy this idea that being in the gym or on the practice court during every spare moment is particularly healthy. Players aren't robots, they don't live simply for tennis and not only do they deserve to have a bit of fun sometimes but they need to have a bit of fun sometimes. Being able to enjoy the fruits of your labour is certainly motivational for most of us and tennis players are no different.

christ · Futures level

We may also be guilty of overlooking the fact that even if Mr Evans had beaten Mr Wawrinka, there is no guarantee that he would have replicated Mr Wawrinka's subsequent results.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes. I think Dan was more mentally tired, than physically tired, in the fifth set. And he knew that his huge chance had gone. Not that that meant he accepted he'd now lose - he still had a chance - but that fourth set, with its tie-break, was his HUGE chance. And it's a sign of lucidity and sporting intelligence that he knew that.

I think 'simplistic' is a good word, RJA. JoKo is probably working no harder, in terms of pure effort, than she did 24 months ago. But the results are chalk and cheese. When Andy says he 'must work harder' does he mean I must train more? or I must work harder at finding what I need to do to be a better tennis player? Which may well involve other things completely unrelated to tennis. Both involve hard work. The second is certainly harder in terms of more difficult to achieve.

Again, I feel that the British problem is we don't have enough players. Tim was such a clean-cut guy. Andy is pretty wholesome. We haven't had a slightly rough diamond player for ages. If we had 15 guys in the top 200, there'd be a few more 'Dan' sorts and he wouldn't stand out in the same way. France has, and has had, plenty. And very well they do, too. They work damn hard. But they also make headlines for other things. I think Dan's effort and commitment has been outstanding.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 12th of September 2016 11:01:33 AM

Topemp · Strong Club Player

RJA wrote:
Topemp wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:

I am afraid he still has the tell tail handles of love and although not a second chin, the gentle dewlap of a young bullock with issues with refuelling.
Beautifully put.
Dan's made huge progress, but whether he has the hunger (metaphorical) to really push the boundaries of his potential remains to be seen. He has achieved far more than any of us expected this year. And I noticed that he covered 3,500 more feet than Stan in 3rd round match, but for him to suggest that fitness was nothing to do with his defeat as he did in press conference suggests that he is willing to sacrifice a lot but not 'whatever it takes'.
But that isn't what he actually said. He admitted he was a bit tired in the final set, albeit more mental than physical, but rightly said that he lost the match because he didn't take his chances in the 4th set tiebreak. He rejected the line that Murray always put forward after his tough defeats which was "I must work harder" and I am glad it did because while it was an admirable attitude it ignored the reasons that Murray was losing so many big matches. It is blindingly obvious that Dan has worked bloody hard over the last 16 months and to suggest that he is willing to work hard but not quite hard enough doesn't strike me as being supported by evidence. Dan isn't rejecting the need to work hard, he is simply saying that working ever harder is way too simplistic a response to a defeat. It doesn't matter how much work you do in the gym you can't fully prepare for experiences like the Wawrinka match, the hours of near constant focus on point after point after point. The only way you get used to playing those matches is by playing in them and it was an experience that Murray and even Djokovic had to go through. Besides, I just don't buy this idea that being in the gym or on the practice court during every spare moment is particularly healthy. Players aren't robots, they don't live simply for tennis and not only do they deserve to have a bit of fun sometimes but they need to have a bit of fun sometimes. Being able to enjoy the fruits of your labour is certainly motivational for most of us and tennis players are no different.

I don't think we're really that much in disagreement, RJA or Coup Droit.

His demeanour early in the 5th set, suggested he was gone physically and mentally. He looked like he could barely move in the third game. I accept that mentally the fourth set had taken a huge toll, but whilst accepting that his whole performance up to then suggested he's in really good shape, why should he feel that having matched Stan over 4 sets that his chance had gone?

The first two games of fifth set he was still competitive, if he could have won one of those maybe it would have given him a renewed lease of life.

He had every reason to be shattered, he'd run a lot more than Stan had, and he isn't used to playing five setters as players who regularly appear in Grand slams are. I also agree that single-mindedly running up and down mountains isn't the only route to success, but I think he might also pause to wonder whether in a year's time he could be in a position where he still had as much to give in the fifth set as he had in the previous four and how he could get himself in the shape to do that.

The Knight · Challenger qualifying

RJA wrote:
He rejected the line that Murray always put forward after his tough defeats which was "I must work harder" and I am glad it did because while it was an admirable attitude it ignored the reasons that Murray was losing so many big matches.

I always saw Andy's "I must work harder" as just a deadbat generic reply so he didn't have to state in the press what he really thought went wrong and needed to do differently in future. I'm sure when Lendl/Maclagan etc. asked him the same question after a defeat they would get a fairly different answer

JonH · All-time great

Just getting involved - it was interesting seeing the tweet from Leon Smith on the DC site with Kyle and Dan enjoying Haggis. The team is obviously together well in advance, presumably in Glasgow? They looked relaxed and certainly Kyle did, and my suspicion is that they are already over the US Open and ready to move on - the great thing about tennis is that there is always another event around the corner and someone to beat, lose to and test ones game against and I am sure Dan and Kyle are up for it. In the photo Dan also to me (as someone carrying a half stone too much) looked pretty slim and i good shape so dont think he has too much to worry about - weight and apparent bulk arent always related to fitness; Stan W has taken plenty of barbs at his bulk before but clearly is fit based on the long matches he very often comes out winning