French Open 2015 - Day 5 and 6

First topic message reminder :

Day 6 - Friday 29 May 2015

Philippe-Chatrier Court - 11:00 AM

Women's Singles - Round 3

Alize Cornet (FRA) [29] vs. Mirjana Lucic-Baroni (CRO)

Men's Singles - Round 3

Damir Dzumhur (BIH) vs. Roger Federer (SUI) [2]

Women's Singles - Round 3

Samantha Stosur (AUS) [26] vs. Maria Sharapova (RUS) [2]

Men's Singles - Round 3

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) [14] vs. Pablo Andujar (ESP)

Suzanne-Lenglen Court 11:00 AM

Women's Singles - Round 3

Ana Ivanovic (SRB) [7] vs. Donna Vekic (CRO)

Not Before: 12:00 PM
Men's Singles - Round 2

Richard Gasquet (FRA) [20] vs Carlos Berlocq (ARG) To Finish 3-6 6-3 6-1 4-6

Men's Singles - Round 3

Nicolas Mahut (FRA) vs.Gilles Simon (FRA) [12]

Men's Singles - Round 3

Gael Monfils (FRA) [13] vs Pablo Cuevas (URU) [21]

Women's Singles - Round 3

Carla Suarez Navarro (ESP) [8] vs. Flavia Pennetta (ITA) [28]

Court 1 11:00 AM

Men's Doubles - Round 2

Bob Bryan (USA) [1]
Mike Bryan (USA) [1]
vs.

Thanasi Kokkinakis (AUS)
Lucas Pouille (FRA)

Women's Singles - Round 3

Lucie Safarova (CZE) [13] vs. Sabine Lisicki (GER) [20]

Men's Singles - Round 3

Stan Wawrinka (SUI) [8] vs. Steve Johnson (USA)

Men's Singles - Round 3

Benoit Paire (FRA) vs. Tomas Berdych (CZE) [4]

Court 2 11:00 AM

Men's Singles - Round 3

Lukas Rosol (CZE) vs. Teymuraz Gabashvili (RUS)

Not Before: 12:30 PM

Women's Singles - Round 3

Elena Vesnina (RUS) vs. Ekaterina Makarova (RUS) [9]

Women's Singles - Round 3

Garbine Muguruza (ESP) [21] vs. Angelique Kerber (GER) [11]

Mixed Doubles - Round 1

Alize Cornet (FRA)
Eric Butorac (USA)

vs.

Caroline Garcia (FRA) [5]
Bob Bryan (USA) [5]

Read more at http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/schedule/index.html#GjkQzAtVTCyFOWHd.99


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Day 5 - Thursday - Paris Time 11am

Court Philippe-Chatrier

Women's Singles - Round 2

Julia Goerges (GER) vs. Caroline Wozniacki (DEN) [5]

Men's Singles - Round 2

Nicolas Almagro (ESP) vs. Rafael Nadal (ESP) [6]

Men's Singles - Round 2

Andy Murray (GBR) [3] vs. Joao Sousa (POR)

Women's Singles - Round 2

Danka Kovinic (MNE) vs. Kristina Mladenovic (FRA)

Court Suzanne-Lenglen

Women's Singles - Round 2

Petra Kvitova (CZE) [4] vs. Silvia Soler-Espinosa (ESP)

Women's Singles - Round 2

Serena Williams (USA) [1] vs. Anna-Lena Friedsam (GER)

Men's Singles - Round 2

Novak Djokovic (SRB) [1] vs. Gilles Muller (LUX)

Men's Singles - Round 2

Richard Gasquet (FRA) [20] vs. Carlos Berlocq (ARG)

Read more at http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/schedule/schedule10.html#98LB7tf3RrrTsRUb.99

Hawkeye is right again. What is this real culprit? Whoeever goes over the time limit is the Culprit, real one too! So what is this 'Nadal is the real culprit'??

Other playerS are given TVs and not Nadal alone, but Nadal was targeted when he was given TV warnings when he was facing BPs, not once but many times. The other playerS also argued with the umpires but only Rafa was targeted again for arguing with the umpires.

It seems to me the media has nothing to talk about so they target Rafa and talk about his TV and his 'feud' with Bernardes! They should talk about Novak and his career slam, I thought that is/was a greater story! Why still on Nadal who according to some, is going to be dethroned?

Matchpoint wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I understand the mix up but those are hawkeye posts, not HN.

OOps, my bad, corrected. Apologies to HN and HE and thanks to BB 

Oh wait, I thought they're one and the same poster, in spirit anyway! 

Ah for the days of the multiple identity 606 geniuses like Impartial_Lion / Wise_Analyst, Mediter 1 - 99, etc. etc.....

hawkeye wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:
Tennis is fine. This post is a mess, as it makes zero sense still positing Nadal the only target given yesterday's evidence having completely overturning it. 

Give it up, HN, people know who the real culprit is  - the one who steps on his own feet but rather than accounting for his own missteps/failures, he blames others. It's always somebody's else's fault but his. of course, this way Nadal gets the most attention because he doesn't act like a champ with multi slams. I promise you, when he stops throwing tantrums and threat the RULES OF THE GAME and those assigned to enforce them with respect, demonstrating himself as a mature tennis professional, the press et al will return the favour.

Why do you say that Nadal is the "real culprit" if Murray getting a tv has proved that he isn't? I would say that Nadal gets the most attention because he IS a champ. I still don't know why he has been targeted multiple times with tv's at crucial times in matches. When another player gets one it's treated in an entirely different way. Excuses are made and it is made out that the rule is the problem and not the player. Murray's complaints to the press were backed up. ie he was watching the tv screen, he didn't know long he had taken and at the same time the press managed to have a little swipe at the real target. It stinks.

This is brilliant. Why bother debating what happened when you can just invent a parallel Universe and rail against it?

Calder. Just check the reports. Murray gave reasons and the press accepted them. The press have run with how the time violations were harsh and how the rule is unfair as it is. All the reasons given by Murray could be given by any player including Nadal. So why was no one "bothered" when Nadal has been repeatedly targeted. Why is Nadal's name coming up in nearly every write up of Murrays time violations? Why are the times Nadal get's tv's on crucial points ignored. Nadal has been penalized on set points and gone on to lose the set on the back of it and yet most of the write ups don't even mention it. Then journalists write articles implying that Umpires are being slack with him and he is making a mockery of the rules because he hasn't had a tv since Rio. They want it two ways. Nadal has had at least 8 matches affected by tv's since Rio and yet they still want to claim that he is going unpunished. Another player gets one and it's meant to prove they are always playing within the rules and the press turn their attention to the problems of the rules.  

If Murray or any other player comments about tv's they are listened to. If Nadal says the same things the press jumps on him for whining. The whole thing stinks. It's upto the ATP to have clear rules and apply them to all players fairly. Their lack of transparency is allowing players to be treated differently in the same circumstances. It is also allowing the media to run with whatever agenda they feel like.

Can we please stop with the personal stuff?

Not seen anything that constitutes an insult or personal.

A series of statements as if of fact by hawkeye when they are nothing of the sort. Not for the first time either.

Murray's reaction was mature and responsible, that of a professional who acknowledges his responsibility and accepts the role of the Umpire. Nadal's was that of a spoilt kid who's been getting away with cheating for a decade and is hacked off that he's being called for it.

It's quite reminiscent of the time he wanted 2-year ranking to help himself and flounced off in a sulk when Federer sided with the interests of the lower ranked guys and wouldn't allow it. Pattern?

Seriously though HE if anything you feel posted is an insult or personal, as JHM and the mods have re-iterated time and time again please use the report button.

HE I don't really bother about the press they need stories in order that people will read them. My problem with your previous post was that you were making out that Murray was complaining strongly about getting his TVs yesterday. Which from the articles you linked was in my opinion not the case. Your other article repeatedly asked for instances other than Rafa where players had been given TV's on important points. I gave a couple for Murray (AO v Berdych, Miami v Anderson) which you never bothered to acknowledge. Now he has another two. However because these don't fit with the answer you wanted from your research (i.e. Umpires are only targeting Nadal) the focus your issue has changed.

Moving on.

What are the odds of a Federer upset?

BB, those who throw tantrums on court, like destroying rackets or curse and swear using the F word, are the ones who behaved like spoilt kids! I see you're always picking on Nadal! Also, all players except maybe Fed DO go over the time limit so are you saying they're all cheaters??

The two year ranking does have its merit, may avoid having the top players to meet too soon at the big events, the way the draw at this FO turns out, should a top player like Rafa or Delpo in the past get injured and has to skip a major part of the season.and thus a ranking drop.

The 'letting the lower ranked players have better chances to get to the top' idea may sound noble, but seriously I would prefer Delpo in the top ten or top eight any day, than a Raonic who hasnt even reached a slam final and haven't won anything important. I notice that among the top ten now, Raonic is the only one who hasn't reached a slam final.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Moving on.

What are the odds of a Federer upset?

Today?

Even a pessimist like me thinks he should get through today.

I'd imagine quite long.

I like that notion. Let's forgo the future of the sport because 'big' players need all the help they can get

Top players stay at the top with their talent. Injury has always been a part of any sport. Sh!t happens. Time moves on. If they have tools they can get back to the top. Protected ranking has no merit at all.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:BB, those who throw tantrums on court, like destroying rackets or curse and swear using the F word, are the ones who behaved like spoilt kids!  I see you're always picking on Nadal! Also, all players except maybe Fed DO go over the time limit so are you saying they're all cheaters??

The two year ranking does have its merit, may avoid having the top players to meet too soon at the big events, the way the draw at this FO turns out, should a top player like Rafa or Delpo in the past get injured and has to skip a major part of the season.and thus a ranking drop.

The 'letting the lower ranked players have better chances to get to the top' idea may sound noble, but seriously I would prefer Delpo in the top ten or top eight any day, than a  Raonic who hasnt even reached a slam final and haven't won anything important.  I notice that among the top ten now, Raonic is the only one who hasn't reached a slam final.

I don't pick on Nadal, I just call it as I see it. In any case he might have me banned from 606v2!

As for the ranking, come on! All that is is lifting up the ladder after you've climbed & was self serving. Thankfully consigned to the bin.

hawkeye wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:
Tennis is fine. This post is a mess, as it makes zero sense still positing Nadal the only target given yesterday's evidence having completely overturning it. 

Give it up, HE, people know who the real culprit is  - the one who steps on his own feet but rather than accounting for his own missteps/failures, he blames others. It's always somebody's else's fault but his. of course, this way Nadal gets the most attention because he doesn't act like a champ with multi slams. I promise you, when he stops throwing tantrums and threat the RULES OF THE GAME and those assigned to enforce them with respect, demonstrating himself as a mature tennis professional, the press et al will return the favour.

Why do you say that Nadal is the "real culprit" if Murray getting a tv has proved that he isn't? I would say that Nadal gets the most attention because he IS a champ. I still don't know why he has been targeted multiple times with tv's at crucial times in matches. When another player gets one it's treated in an entirely different way. Excuses are made and it is made out that the rule is the problem and not the player. Murray's complaints to the press were backed up. ie he was watching the tv screen, he didn't know long he had taken and at the same time the press managed to have a little swipe at the real target. It stinks.

Why do you say that Nadal is the "real culprit"

I said that by association. Now you're dragging me into old Nadal stuffs I'd no intention to get into earlier. Firstly, with his latest umpire "request," people don't just simply think of it as a first offence in isolation. All alert readers would associate his TVs with his numerous past incidences of gamesmanship/rule breaking. No, it's not only because he's a champ he gets the most attention, but more specifically because he's a champ carrying a very heavy baggage of dark and well-publicised gamesmanship history. He can't escape it now - who famously paid a fine for repeatedly receiving on-court coaching? Who curiously bumped against his opponent while losing, or took questionable MTOs, or randomly ran away when the other guy on the other side of the net was just about to serve for the match? Etc. 

Secondly, back to to the TV itself, it was never enforced for the longest time until only a few years back. Did you complain about the umpire ignoring the time rule when Nadal was typically and customarily going over time en route to winning so many matches in the old days? You didn't blame those umpires who let your guy get away with murder. But now when they're finally trying to do their job enforcing the rule, albeit inconsistently, you blame them only because Nadal is not winning anymore? 

Let the guy answer for his own issues, whatever those maybe, with dignity. Respect works both way. He wants respects he needs to behave respectfully, that is, respect and play by the rules too. Incidentally, how many slams do you think Nadal  would have won if he had been made to play within the rule from the very beginning? Yeah, I know, very unfair, it only stinks when your guy is losing, right? 

Nonono take this to the sticky. This threads for people who want to talk about the actual tennis

LK, so you think Rafa vs Novak at the QF would make it easy for both of them? Also,like you said, if one has talent, one would move up the rankings, be it one or two year rankings, and need not rely on some top guys falling out of top ten due to injuries, in order to get there. By 'giving others a chance', are we giving the not so good guys a chance to move into top ten?

As I said, the two year rankings has its merit, its not all evil.

Back to today's topic, I dont think Fed would get upset by his opponent, who is relatively an unknown. Fed in straight sets.

Monfils vs Cuervas looks more interesting.

MP, Rafa would win as many slams as he has now. WHY? Because if they enforced the rule back them, Rafa would just play the way he played since day one, ie serve quickly taking less time between points. Watch his matches back then, from 2003 to 2005, hes doing alright without any delay. In fact he might even concentrate on building a bigger serve back then to cut down on the rallies and the running, and that would have save his body from all those injuries throughout his career.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:LK, so you think Rafa vs Novak at the QF would make it easy for both of them?  Also,like you said, if one has talent, one would move up the rankings, be it one or two year rankings, and need not rely on some top guys falling out of top ten due to injuries, in order to get there. By 'giving others a chance', are we giving the not so good guys a chance to move into top ten?

As I said, the two year rankings has its merit, its not all evil.  

Back to today's topic, I dont think Fed would get upset by his opponent, who is relatively an unknown. Fed in straight sets.

Monfils vs Cuervas looks more interesting.

How do Slam winners need it easy??

They don't play qualifiers and get top billing on the show courts.

How much easier do they need it????

temporary21 wrote:Nonono take this to the sticky. This threads for people who want to talk about the actual tennis

This.

Please spare us the task of having to move posts around (or delete them 'cos it's easier).

Can we have nested stickys? Or a sticky folder?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:LK, so you think Rafa vs Novak at the QF would make it easy for both of them?  Also,like you said, if one has talent, one would move up the rankings, be it one or two year rankings, and need not rely on some top guys falling out of top ten due to injuries, in order to get there. By 'giving others a chance', are we giving the not so good guys a chance to move into top ten?

As I said, the two year rankings has its merit, its not all evil.  

Back to today's topic, I dont think Fed would get upset by his opponent, who is relatively an unknown. Fed in straight sets.

Monfils vs Cuervas looks more interesting.

How do Slam winners need it easy??

They don't play qualifiers and get top billing on the show courts.

How much easier do they need it????

They could have more help putting their shorts on?

Lk, it works both ways; playing qualy's would get them started earlier than the top players, its no wonder the first few rounds are the most dangerous for the top players.

Eh??

I am speechless.

Yeah, best that you're speechless!

I shall stop here and concentrate on today's matches. Watching Fed now.

UnlovedUnluckyNotBoy, is again confusing us.

Fed should give a set to this Bosnian kid, motivate him a little.

Of the 16 qualifiers in the mens draw at this FO only 2 made it to the second round. Think about that.

If Roger doesn't quickly forget about the elements, we could have an interesting match

Never seen him as a great wind player - his game, like Murray's relies too much of a fine touch

How come? Patchey/Cowan said last week that Fed is one of the best wind players?

Sure his precision would be lost on the wind, but Patchey must know something we don't.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Of the 16 qualifiers in the mens draw at this FO only 2 made it to the second round. Think about that.

One of them being Kyle Edmund, who had the frightening task of playing Stephane Robert, a wild card ranked 558.

This whole notion that somehow having played in the qualifiers, players are more ready for the early rounds is bordering on a myth, specially for Paris, where playing 3 qualifiers is likely to leave you tired.

banbrotam wrote:If Roger doesn't quickly forget about the elements, we could have an interesting match

Never seen him as a great wind player - his game, like Murray's relies too much of a fine touch

It helped him greatly to win the US Open.

dummy_half wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Of the 16 qualifiers in the mens draw at this FO only 2 made it to the second round. Think about that.

One of them being Kyle Edmund, who had the frightening task of playing Stephane Robert, a wild card ranked 558.

This whole notion that somehow having played in the qualifiers, players are more ready for the early rounds is bordering on a myth, specially for Paris, where playing 3 qualifiers is likely to leave you tired.

Phew! Some sense

I'm starting to worry about this forum. There appears to be a trend emerging where completely fictional things are being stated as fact in order to support impossible positions.

It is not a benefit to play the qualys.

Meanwhile, Fed goes 2 sets up.

bogbrush wrote:I'm starting to worry about this forum. There appears to be a trend emerging where completely fictional things are being stated as fact in order to support my favourite player.

It is not a benefit to play the qualys.

There you go

I was being nice.

As usual

Its a benefit to play the qualies FOR the players ranked low enough down to need to play them. It doesnt make them world beaters, but it does make THEM harder propositions than if they came in cold

Federer is managing to avoid working himself too hard. 3 sets in a short time.

He'll need his legs against Le Monf who even if he not playing great will keep things going with his telescopic limbs.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:

The two year ranking does have its merit, may avoid having the top players to meet too soon at the big events, the way the draw at this FO turns out, should a top player like Rafa or Delpo in the past get injured and has to skip a major part of the season.and thus a ranking drop.

The 'letting the lower ranked players have better chances to get to the top' idea may sound noble, but seriously I would prefer Delpo in the top ten or top eight any day, than a  Raonic who hasnt even reached a slam final and haven't won anything important.  I notice that among the top ten now, Raonic is the only one who hasn't reached a slam final.

Almagro had been a consistent top 20 player since 2008. Most of that time he was firmly placed within the top 15 with brief spells within the top 10. Then last year he had foot surgery and didn't play until 2015. All the talk of "protected ranking" is a bit misleading because there is nothing protected about ranking it just entitles players to enter a few tournaments based on their previous ranking when they return but they are not seeded at their previous ranking.

Almagro has been playing well since he returned arguably at a similar level to prior to his surgery. Got unlucky drawing 5th seeded Nishikori in the first round of the AO, Nadal in the second round of Miami and Barcelona and Djokovic (who he took to 3 sets) in Rome. His ranking prior to the FO had therefore taken a double hit first from the the missing 6 months from his schedule and second from a bit of bad luck. His ranking is now 154 and the commentators in his match yesterday said he had only gained direct entry into the FO because of two withdrawals. More bad luck though he drew Nadal in the 2nd round. The commentators described his match with Nadal as being of the same standard as a good quarter final.

I'm not convinced that there are 153 players better than Almagro in the world today. As far as I'm concerned Almagro has more than proved his quality with his consistent play over his entire career. If players could choose an early round opponent I doubt any would choose Almagro. I'm not sure who is being protected or penalized by refusing to recognize the obvious.

I know the guy who's developed his game in the meantime but isn't allowed to pass a protected guy would be disadvantaged.

It's bad luck for Nico isn't it? Never mind, it happens.

Mahut has just gone two sets to one up on Simon. Life in the old dog yet. So Fed is through, but it could be exit time against Monfils, I fear.

Monfils is not looking very steady thus far. Dropped 3 sets already. Might not get pass Cuevas. Let's see...

Monfils still needs to get through Cuevas though, who is a solid player on the surface. Good to see Mahut doing well!

My other account seems to have been permanently deactivated (I didn't get any notification about it?), and I don't have enough posts to send PMs in order to sort it out yet. Sorry for cluttering the thread folks.

bogbrush wrote:I know the guy who's developed his game in the meantime but isn't allowed to pass a protected guy would be disadvantaged.

It's bad luck for Nico isn't it? Never mind, it happens.

This is meant to be a discussion! You just throw in snide one liners and insults and call  anyone you disagree with a liar. It's bullying plain and simple in an attempt to stop other posters from expressing an opinion that you don't like. It obvious that you just don't like Nadal plain and simple. Any excuse to stick the knife in. Pathetic  

Stan flying too, 2 sets up + 2:0 up.

So Tempura who are/were you?

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I know the guy who's developed his game in the meantime but isn't allowed to pass a protected guy would be disadvantaged.

It's bad luck for Nico isn't it? Never mind, it happens.

This is meant to be a discussion! You just throw in snide one liners and insults and call  anyone you disagree with a liar. It's bullying plain and simple in an attempt to stop other posters from expressing an opinion that you don't like. It obvious that you just don't like Nadal plain and simple. Any excuse to stick the knife in. Pathetic  

  Now aint that a fact

Yep, temp21 said it well, and that's what I meant. As usual BB would just want to have a go at Rafa or his fans.

LK, the Almagro case is a good example, Delpo is another.

It's not always about Rafa, unlike some here, as usual, would like to assume. There are more players than just Rafa who suffered a ranking drop because of injury, like Nalby in the past for example. Like what Hawkeye mentioned, the protected ranking is not really a protected ranking, so a player ranked no.-10 won't stay at no.10 when he comes back from injury. So, a player of Nalby's calibre for example, coming back from injury would very much depend on his luck to not draw a top player in his first round match. The system is not kind to players who get injured and then coming back from injury.