• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The 2015 US Open |OT| 31th August – 13th September

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Kohli has the game to be a pretty consistent member of the top 15 if not more, but he's a complete and total mug. I'm not talking inconsistent headcase; I mean consistent "bow down to the overlords" level mug. Makes Berdych look strong-willed.
 
S

Smellycat

Member
Federer is having a pretty bad serving day, which is affecting the rest of his game. Hopefully he can win this in straight set, and that this will be his had serving day of the tournament, because he needs his serve against Isner.
 
N

Niraj

I shot people I like more for less.
Berdych and Gasquet are 6-6, and 4-4 on hard courts (Berdych is 1-0 in slams, AO). So that one is possibly a toss-up, but I like how Gasquet has been playing.

Isner just made it through due to retirement.
 
S

scarlet

Member
Read on twitter

COKULVVUkAAKQ7K.png
 
J

John Dunbar

correct about everything
szaromir said:
99% sure she just didn't expect to go so deep in singles, now that she has she withdrew from the other two competitions.
Click to expand...

i don't think she would cook up such a dramatic excuse if that was the case. it's not like it's an uncommon practice to drop out of doubles when you do well in singles.
 
D

Diamond

Member
milanbaros said:
Has there ever been three consistent players as Fed, Djokovic or Murray in the men's tour?
Click to expand...

John Dunbar said:
at the same time? probably not, but björg, mcenroe and connors was probably the closest.
Click to expand...

Prime Sampras was also very consistent, winning one or two slams every year between 1994 and 2000 and he has still the record of most consecutive year-end number one ranking. But yeah, I think Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray set even higher standards, by going deep in slams but also winning most World Tour Finals and Masters 1000 tourneys.
 
S

szaromir

Banned
Diamond said:
Prime Sampras was also very consistent, winning one or two slams every year between 1994 and 2000 and he has still the record of most consecutive year-end number one ranking. But yeah, I think Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray set even higher standards, by going deep in slams but also winning most World Tour Finals and Masters 1000 tourneys.
Click to expand...

Although Sampras ended as year-end #1 record 6 times in a row, he was not anywhere near as consistent within those seasons as those 4 have been.

Cetkovska is continuing ass-kicking, Pennetta is her victim today.

edit: as I typed that, she double faulted to break herself :mad:
 
J

John Dunbar

correct about everything
szaromir said:
Although Sampras ended as year-end #1 record 6 times in a row, he was not anywhere near as consistent within those seasons as those 4 have been.
Click to expand...

i don't think that's really fair. between 1993-1995, sampras made it to just one less grand slam final than murray has in his career. and nadal is not really that consistent outside clay. despite having won a slam in ten consecutive years, he has also lost in the quarters or earlier in every year but one. not to even mention the slams he missed entirely.

there are the masters of course, but you have to remember that masters used to be best of five back then. it would be interesting to see how the current top 4 would fare if they had to play best of five matches all year.
 
S

szaromir

Banned
John Dunbar said:
i don't think that's really fair. between 1993-1995, sampras made it to just one less grand slam final than murray has in his career. and nadal is not really that consistent outside clay. despite having won a slam in ten consecutive years, he has also lost in the quarters or earlier in every year but one. not to even mention the slams he missed entirely.

there are the masters of course, but you have to remember that masters used to be best of five back then. it would be interesting to see how the current top 4 would fare if they had to play best of five matches all year.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth to what you're saying, also all tournaments now have very similar conditions so the big 4 don't need to adapt as much as Sampras had to.

Still the top 4 are more consistent. Murray, other than skipping FO '13, has made QF at every major or better since AO '11, Djokovic the same since Wimbledon '09, Federer's streak obviously is much shorter but he reached 36 consecutive QFs. Murray loses sometimes in BO3 matches to players like Raonic or Chardy but overall is very strong throughout the season. Nadal's sucked at Wimbledon since 2012, but before that he had been rock solid at all majors for several seasons. Also, his season typically goes south after the US Open when he rarely achieves anything notable.

Federer and Djokovic are the two most consistent players ever and the number of consistency and longevity records they're sharing or are going to share is amazing.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
John Dunbar said:
i don't think that's really fair. between 1993-1995, sampras made it to just one less grand slam final than murray has in his career. and nadal is not really that consistent outside clay. despite having won a slam in ten consecutive years, he has also lost in the quarters or earlier in every year but one. not to even mention the slams he missed entirely.

there are the masters of course, but you have to remember that masters used to be best of five back then. it would be interesting to see how the current top 4 would fare if they had to play best of five matches all year.
Click to expand...

Only Masters finals were best of five iirc, so I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference. The same people would be reaching the finals, more or less, so I guess a more tiring workload would just mean a slightly more equal title distribution between the Big Four - probably less Masters for Djokovic and more for the other three.
 
S

szaromir

Banned
Crab said:
Only Masters finals were best of five iirc, so I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference. The same people would be reaching the finals, more or less, so I guess a more tiring workload would just mean a slightly more equal title distribution between the Big Four - probably less Masters for Djokovic and more for the other three.
Click to expand...
No, (some) other tournaments also had BO5 finals at the time.
 
J

John Dunbar

correct about everything
Crab said:
Only Masters finals were best of five iirc, so I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference. The same people would be reaching the finals, more or less, so I guess a more tiring workload would just mean a slightly more equal title distribution between the Big Four - probably less Masters for Djokovic and more for the other three.
Click to expand...

you are right, not sure where i had the idea that it first moved to only the final being bo5 before going full bo3. although i think at some point at least semi-finals at some tournaments might have been bo5, but that was probably before sampras. though i think it would be of some help to rest of the tour to at least have some opportunities to play the top players in a bo5 matches outside slams, even though they probably wouldn't make the final too often.
 
R

Ricker

Member
Damn I hope Genie can continue her singles for the rubber match against Vinci,who destroyed her in New Haven...they will wait till early tomorrow morning I guess...If she bails will Cibulkova be the lucky loser orwill they just do a walkover for Vinci ?
 
S

sam777

Member
Hopefully Bouchard will be good to go tomorrow.
Also now Rafa is out I would like to see Murray or a first timer win the US Open.
 
D

Diamond

Member
Ricker said:
Damn I hope Genie can continue her singles for the rubber match against Vinci,who destroyed her in New Haven...they will wait till early tomorrow morning I guess...If she bails will Cibulkova be the lucky loser orwill they just do a walkover for Vinci ?
Click to expand...

Walkover, a defeated player is out of the tournament, even if the winner retires without playing the following match.
 
S

Silkworm

Member
Well Kerber fought hard but Azarenka prevailed in the end :-\ Guessing the next match for Azarenka will not be nearly as difficult nor as exciting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Serena Williams has baby girl
21
5K
perfectchaos007 replied
US Open 2017 |OT| The One Where Everyone's Injured (Or Pregnant)
41 42 43 44 45
2K
124K
Quake1028 replied
Tokyo Game Show 2019 |OT| Konichiwa Mothafuckas!
|OT| 2 3
138
21K
sadaiyappan replied
  • Locked
US Open 2016 [OT] Bodies ache, but New York will not wait. [Tennis]
22 23 24 25 26
1K
67K
Yappadappadu replied
NJPW G1 Special in USA [OT] Billy Gunn Main Events in 2017
35 36 37 38 39
2K
109K
Empyrean Heaven replied
Top Bottom