- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 1,524
Rune v Cerundolo is a good'un, lots of mentality swings from both players.
Tennis!
- Thread starter cotedupy
- Start date
Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:
Lifelong player and fan here. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except that I think I'm going to give the edge to Alcaraz. He just doesn't seem to be affected by the pressure of a major, by the rigors of a 5 setter. He seems made in a lab for this. With every passing moment, his star is rising and Djokovic's is falling. If this isn't the time, then it will come very soon.
I don't put Ruud and Rune in the same book. Rune is a head case who needs to grow up. Ruud is very talented but I think he just lacks that killer instinct.
Tsitsipas is just displeasing by like every possible metric
More than anything, I was sad to see Sinner exiting so early. I think the future belongs to Alcaraz and Sinner, along with Rune if he can get his mental/emotional sh*t together. I think Shelton also has tremendous potential.
Anyway, with Rafa out, it's just not the same. Hope he can put one last magical run together next year.
Ah yeah, I'd be with you TBH - I would still have Alcaraz as a favourite for the tournament, I just think he's far too shortly priced. When I wrote that post he was pretty much evens to win the tournament, you couldn't really get better than 6/5. Whereas Tsitsipas was widely available at 14/1*, which I reckon is far too long, so I did have a little outside bet on him at that price.
Alcaraz should edge it though you're right, and will be a good good game later whichever way. Plus at least by having a few quid on ST I won't be too disappointed if he wins. Whereas normally I'd be actively rooting against him in any given situation whether it's; tennis, running for the bus, trying to impress on the dancefloor, brushing his teeth in the morning... you'd always want Tsitsipas to fail unless there was some kind of monetary gain to be had.
Fingers crossed for Rafa eh. I don't know how successful that kind of surgery can be in terms of getting back to an elite level(?), but if there's anyone who could do it and still have a tilt at a Slam or two it'd be Rafa at RG!
* Interestingly Ruud was priced at 20/1 for the tournament before that win yesterday. I imagine it's a fair bit shorter now.
The real final is June 9th where boys become men and men become Gods!
jjlotti
Well-Known Member
Joker's whisper to Carlos at the net " a young bull and old bull stood on the hill looking down at the herd of cows. The young bull said.....
Well what an interesting second week it's been in the Men's Singles at Roland Garros, with a number of somewhat surprising results I think...
I wouldn't have picked Ruud over Rune, nor had him breezing past a resurgent Sascha Zverev quite so easily.
And I doubt many saw Alcaraz thrashing Tsitsipas as comprehensively as that, it was awesome to watch. Had he carried that level into the semi then he surely would've beaten Djokovic at a canter too. But it's interesting how many of NJ's games I can remember over the years where top opponents have picked up some weird, niggling-but-non-terminal injury after a set or two. It seems to me that when players try to match the sheer physicality of Djokovic's game they sometimes just end up overexerting themselves in trying to keep up. The overwhelming majority of human bodies are simply not designed to do what his does.
It seems trite to say, but the only way to beat him is by being better than him, and with a game that forces him off his own terms. Which is no mean feat; no one has been able to in Melbourne for about a decade, Nadal - but no one else - can reliably do it in Paris, and maybe Sinner or Alcaraz might have a chance at Wimbledon this year, though probably not. The only person recently who's ever really managed to beat Djokovic playing his own game*, is Dani Medvedev on non-Australian hard courts. And he's helped considerably by having a serve that when firing on all cylinders, is almost unbreakable.
Unfortunately I don't think Caspar Ruud will do it this afternoon. He's another player whose game isn't immediately particularly impressive, he does have a pretty spicy forehand, but no really big weapons stand out. Nothing disruptive or dominant enough to shut down Djokovic being Djokovic. Nevertheless there is clearly a certain je ne sais quoi about the red clay in Paris that Ruud finds rather agreeable - he will test NJ I’m sure.
And he seems extremely nice too, doesn't he? So perhaps then let’s just hope that the best person wins today.
---
* Andy Murray could do this too actually. There was a period of quite a few years when Murray was at his peak, where he repeatedly made Djokovic look very average, especially on American hard courts.
I wouldn't have picked Ruud over Rune, nor had him breezing past a resurgent Sascha Zverev quite so easily.
And I doubt many saw Alcaraz thrashing Tsitsipas as comprehensively as that, it was awesome to watch. Had he carried that level into the semi then he surely would've beaten Djokovic at a canter too. But it's interesting how many of NJ's games I can remember over the years where top opponents have picked up some weird, niggling-but-non-terminal injury after a set or two. It seems to me that when players try to match the sheer physicality of Djokovic's game they sometimes just end up overexerting themselves in trying to keep up. The overwhelming majority of human bodies are simply not designed to do what his does.
It seems trite to say, but the only way to beat him is by being better than him, and with a game that forces him off his own terms. Which is no mean feat; no one has been able to in Melbourne for about a decade, Nadal - but no one else - can reliably do it in Paris, and maybe Sinner or Alcaraz might have a chance at Wimbledon this year, though probably not. The only person recently who's ever really managed to beat Djokovic playing his own game*, is Dani Medvedev on non-Australian hard courts. And he's helped considerably by having a serve that when firing on all cylinders, is almost unbreakable.
Unfortunately I don't think Caspar Ruud will do it this afternoon. He's another player whose game isn't immediately particularly impressive, he does have a pretty spicy forehand, but no really big weapons stand out. Nothing disruptive or dominant enough to shut down Djokovic being Djokovic. Nevertheless there is clearly a certain je ne sais quoi about the red clay in Paris that Ruud finds rather agreeable - he will test NJ I’m sure.
And he seems extremely nice too, doesn't he? So perhaps then let’s just hope that the best person wins today.
---
* Andy Murray could do this too actually. There was a period of quite a few years when Murray was at his peak, where he repeatedly made Djokovic look very average, especially on American hard courts.
Last edited:
jjlotti
Well-Known Member
Yep Easy, you just make him hit overheads 30% of the time!!!!
jjlotti
Well-Known Member
Wife out shopping....a fine Sunday indeed
Well what a tournament that was, complete with the final, and result, that everybody wanted to see.
A while back on this thread I said I thought that grass might actually turn out to be Alacaraz' best surface, as opposed to the prevailing view going into this tournament that it was his weakest. Though I'm certainly not trying to claim any unusual amount of tennis expertise or knowledge; you can equally go back through this thread and find any number of other predictions I've got wrong, and tbh I still would've had Djokovic as marginal favourite going into Sunday's game.
Why did Alcaraz win then? What is it about grass that is so suited to him?
Amid all the dazzle, flourish, power, and technical excellence of Alcaraz' game, for me his biggest weapon is often ignored, not commented upon, or simply unnoticed: Alcaraz is very, very fast.
Grass is easily the quickest surface that tennis is played on, the ball skids off it rather than bouncing high, so players need to be closer to the baseline and take their shots earlier. A double whammy in terms of reaction needed and the ability to be in the right place at the right time. Because people play close to, or inside, the baseline it also encourages coming into the net, and Alacaraz' volley is extremely good; he has the softest of hands, as demonstrated by his peerless drop shot. The drop itself is less of a weapon on grass than it is clay, where the opponent is starting further behind the baseline, but the importance of volleying on grass and the low bounce unleashes other weapons; Alcaraz' lob is also world class, and if you're arriving at the ball a split-second before anyone else can you have more time to play that or a passing shot past an opponent at the net.
On other surfaces some of these shots can seem flamboyant or recherche, but grass lends itself to variety - power and finesse. It's why the greatest games and players on grass are the most the most entertaining to watch. As much as I adore Nadal, Federer was undoubtedly the more beautiful, and Alcaraz has more Federer in him than he does Nadal.
Something that is often commented upon is that Alacaraz has arrived at the top of men's tennis pretty much fully formed, he doesn't have weaknesses, only a litany of strengths. But on grass the thing that really unlocks that variety, that pushes him beyond even Novak Djokovic, is his speed. And that's why I think, when all is said and done - we will regard it as his best surface, not his weakest.
---
It seems a funny thing to say about a 20 year old with the world at his feet, who will win dozens more grand slams, but that final was probably more important for Carlito than it was Novak. He's been the best men's player on the tour for about 18 months now and No.1 for half that, yet before last weekend he had only won a single major.
Alcaraz will almost certainly not endure the same level of competition during his career that the 'Big 3' did, and consequently will very likely win more slams than any of them. But if he'd continued to underperform on the biggest stages when NJ and RN were still playing, then there would always be a question mark. Sunday's victory against a Djokovic playing the best tennis of his career, on a court he hadn't lost on in ten years, obviates that line of argument. The door is now wide open for Carlos Alcaraz to become the greatest.
A while back on this thread I said I thought that grass might actually turn out to be Alacaraz' best surface, as opposed to the prevailing view going into this tournament that it was his weakest. Though I'm certainly not trying to claim any unusual amount of tennis expertise or knowledge; you can equally go back through this thread and find any number of other predictions I've got wrong, and tbh I still would've had Djokovic as marginal favourite going into Sunday's game.
Why did Alcaraz win then? What is it about grass that is so suited to him?
Amid all the dazzle, flourish, power, and technical excellence of Alcaraz' game, for me his biggest weapon is often ignored, not commented upon, or simply unnoticed: Alcaraz is very, very fast.
Grass is easily the quickest surface that tennis is played on, the ball skids off it rather than bouncing high, so players need to be closer to the baseline and take their shots earlier. A double whammy in terms of reaction needed and the ability to be in the right place at the right time. Because people play close to, or inside, the baseline it also encourages coming into the net, and Alacaraz' volley is extremely good; he has the softest of hands, as demonstrated by his peerless drop shot. The drop itself is less of a weapon on grass than it is clay, where the opponent is starting further behind the baseline, but the importance of volleying on grass and the low bounce unleashes other weapons; Alcaraz' lob is also world class, and if you're arriving at the ball a split-second before anyone else can you have more time to play that or a passing shot past an opponent at the net.
On other surfaces some of these shots can seem flamboyant or recherche, but grass lends itself to variety - power and finesse. It's why the greatest games and players on grass are the most the most entertaining to watch. As much as I adore Nadal, Federer was undoubtedly the more beautiful, and Alcaraz has more Federer in him than he does Nadal.
Something that is often commented upon is that Alacaraz has arrived at the top of men's tennis pretty much fully formed, he doesn't have weaknesses, only a litany of strengths. But on grass the thing that really unlocks that variety, that pushes him beyond even Novak Djokovic, is his speed. And that's why I think, when all is said and done - we will regard it as his best surface, not his weakest.
---
It seems a funny thing to say about a 20 year old with the world at his feet, who will win dozens more grand slams, but that final was probably more important for Carlito than it was Novak. He's been the best men's player on the tour for about 18 months now and No.1 for half that, yet before last weekend he had only won a single major.
Alcaraz will almost certainly not endure the same level of competition during his career that the 'Big 3' did, and consequently will very likely win more slams than any of them. But if he'd continued to underperform on the biggest stages when NJ and RN were still playing, then there would always be a question mark. Sunday's victory against a Djokovic playing the best tennis of his career, on a court he hadn't lost on in ten years, obviates that line of argument. The door is now wide open for Carlos Alcaraz to become the greatest.
Last edited:
! plural is quite the prediction.
Who knows!
Loved your writeup, tho. Such an exciting moment.
I think we're all gonna run out of superlatives to describe this kid before long
he seems to do everything right.But if I had to pick one stand out for his performance in the wimbledon final, I might go a different direction. What impressed me most was the maturity that he showed-- for maybe the first time in his young career, I saw him really moderating his intensity to just stay within himself, wait for his moments, and extract the occasional unforced error from Djokovic. There were plenty of points where he used a bit more looping topspin to increase his margin in the rallies and force Djokovic to take the ball off the rise from deep in the court. He never seemed to over extend himself or press when it wasn't time.
I'm sure it was lessons learned from the French. No repeat of the mental, emotional, and physical exhaustion.
So that's the scariest thing about him to me. To be able to make those adjustments at his age, against Djokovic in the wimbledon final no less, tells us that this isn't just a supremely talented player -- he's a true champion in every sense and I think he will indeed match if not eclipse the big 3 in time.
jjlotti
Well-Known Member
I'll gladly give Carlos the next couple years but beyond that who knows. He has had quite a few injuries for as young as he is. To many factors in sports. The best players win majors, being #1 or the best "on tour" means nothing to champions. Much more likely the men's game will mirror the women the next bit going forward. We have been spoiled by the big three.... The "sportscenter" mentality that who won yesterday is the greatest is for ratings, not the record books.
I have been saying/waiting for at least five years for a young guy to come in and kick the big 3's teeth down their throat's allah Aggasi and McEnroe. Retire old man, I'm going to whip your butt every time I see you. Didn't see that Sunday......
When Novak missed the overhead in the 5th I knew the match was over. Carlos cracked him mentally on this day and it was over. "The Inner Game of Tennis" decides finals when two are evenly matched. That's what I saw....
I have been saying/waiting for at least five years for a young guy to come in and kick the big 3's teeth down their throat's allah Aggasi and McEnroe. Retire old man, I'm going to whip your butt every time I see you. Didn't see that Sunday......
When Novak missed the overhead in the 5th I knew the match was over. Carlos cracked him mentally on this day and it was over. "The Inner Game of Tennis" decides finals when two are evenly matched. That's what I saw....
