Week 16 - ATP 1000 - Monte-Carlo (clay)

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Week 16 - ATP 1000 - Monte-Carlo (clay)

indiana · Tennis legend

Sorry, I made rather more of Andy's ongoing WR 1 retention than I originally meant ( a retention that was always likely to last much of the year almost by default such was his second half to 2016 ).

It would of course be great if he had seemlessly carried on such dominance into 2017. But I guess the big reasons why I am not really uncomfortable with his form and results is I half expected a lull, a regroup before coming again, even without the added injury issue.

I think Andy has years left and is not finished with collecting Slams. If I thought this was to be anything like the new norm I would be worried, but it won't be.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I'm not so sure we ll see Andy winning many more slams or Masters, I had this feeling after he won Wimbledon even before he went on that great run after US Open culminating in becoming number 1. The way he has to manage his body over the years similar with Nadal makes it more difficult for him. I'm certain he ll not be in the top 10 and probably not even playing at all at Federers age.

I also think the days of the Top4 dominance are over. The last 4 Grand Slams have had 4 different winners and I wouldn't be surprised if we see 3 different winners in the next 3 Slams.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I have had withdrawal symptoms all day. Great to have the board backup again.

Meanwhile, the first three semifinalists in Monte Carlo are Pouille, Ramos and Goffin. Anybody who put a quid on that before the tournament started will have earned themselves a pretty penny or two. Can Schwartzman complete a highly unlikely quartet ?

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
I have had withdrawal symptoms all day. Great to have the board backup again.

Ah, so not just my work PC, then! That's a relief! smile

And now to the end of Brit interest in Monte-Carlo:

QF: (WC) Romain Arneodo & Hugo Nys (MON/FRA) CR 1032 (851+181) defeated (3) Jamie Murray & Bruno Soares (BRA) CR 15 (7+8) by 6-2 6-7(3) [10-3] bleh

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
I have had withdrawal symptoms all day. Great to have the board backup again.

Meanwhile, the first three semifinalists in Monte Carlo are Pouille, Ramos and Goffin. Anybody who put a quid on that before the tournament started will have earned themselves a pretty penny or two. Can Schwartzman complete a highly unlikely quartet ?

No. He can't.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
I have had withdrawal symptoms all day. Great to have the board backup again.
Ah, so not just my work PC, then! That's a relief!
And now to the end of Brit interest in Monte-Carlo:
QF: (WC) Romain Arneodo & Hugo Nys (MON/FRA) CR 1032 (851+181) defeated (3) Jamie Murray & Bruno Soares (BRA) CR 15 (7+8) by 6-2 6-7(3) [10-3]

So we have a guy ranked 851 in a Masters 1000 SF. You don't get many of those to the pound.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

The result above goes some way to prove my assertion of the random nature of Doubles.

Spectator · All-time great

If the remaining member of the quartet were anyone other than the nine-time winner of the event, I'd be excited at the prospect of breakthrough title for someone. (Don't know Ramos Vinolas, but would be thrilled to see Goffin or Pouille win). But given that it is the aforementioned, even if maybe no longer at his peak, I'm not holding breath. The result against A Zverev is quite something - and makes Kyle Edmund's work even more impressive.

indiana · Tennis legend

Jaggy1876 wrote:
The result above goes some way to prove my assertion of the random nature of Doubles.

... whereas the singles is looking entirely predictable here

( anyway, I'm admiring the more doubles liking posters letting your ongoing doubles comments pass without retort ).

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Jaggy1876 wrote:
The result above goes some way to prove my assertion of the random nature of Doubles.
( anyway, I'm admiring the more doubles liking posters letting your ongoing doubles comments pass without retort ).

Not prepared to dignify them with a comment, Indy. wink

indiana · Tennis legend

Anyway, re the singles, Nadal threatens to become at this stage a fairly runaway 2nd in this year's race behind the resting so far runaway leader, Fed. And Novak languishes back behind even Andy ( sorry about the "even" but you know what I mean at the moment, Muzza ).

Year end #1 looks very open with the handicap start Andy and Novak have given, and surely doubts as to how well Fed and Rafa can see the full year through with Fed indeed already taking this clay break prior to the French Open. Ever since the current points system began in 2009 the year-end #1 has had over 10,000 points ( Fed least in that first year, 10,550 ). That must be in real doubt this year.

Spectator · All-time great

Interestingly, there's precedent for a Monagesque (genuine Monagesque, not Monagesque for tax purposes!) player having a good run at the Monte Carlo tournament. In 2005, Benjamin Balleret, then ranked 351st, got a QWC and proceeded to win four matches, beating Portas, Bjorkman, Rochus and Grosjean to make it to the 3rd round of the tourney. He was finally stopped by Federer. (I remember the run ... alas, Balleret never really did much beyond that, though I seem to remember he had some good DC matches)

Which rather ties in nicely with the above post by Indiana. Amazing to think that 12 years later, we're still discussing whether Federer will be year end number one.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Benjamin's dad was also a pro tennis player and played for the Monaco team.

I think Benjamin still owns the title of winner of longest tie-break on the pro-tour - unless some super long one took place quite recently that I don't know about.

He quit pro-tennis about a year ago.

He's married and the dad of two kids, still living in Monaco, opened an estate agents with his best friend, I read, and also spent 20 weeks traveling and coaching alongside Gilles Muller this past year.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Stircrazy wrote:
indiana wrote:
Jaggy1876 wrote:
The result above goes some way to prove my assertion of the random nature of Doubles.
( anyway, I'm admiring the more doubles liking posters letting your ongoing doubles comments pass without retort ).
Not prepared to dignify them with a comment, Indy.

Two things here, firstly Indy I don't think Andy or Novak would lose to a 500plus ranked player and Stircrazy what you actually mean is I have a point and that there is little evidence to show Doubles is a credible Sport in its current structure.