French Open Day 12, Thiem to watch the Berdy

First topic message reminder :

Finishing of the Men's and Women's QFs....

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/schedule/index.html

Nore Staat wrote:

barrystar wrote: ... Its interesting how much traffic on this site decreases for the latter stags of slams when neither Fedal nor Murray are playing.

And there is hardly a squeak on this forum when the women are playing.

Well, when the women are playing, I'm on a Caribbean site, where there's a much greater appreciation of women's tennis, and women's sport in general....

bogbrush wrote:Williams has had it against some of these younger girls, they can run her into the ground.

It's still a bit too early to write Serena's obituary....

6-1 in the third.

BB - I've talked over it with plenty of Brexiteers, and I have found some of them pretty persuasive and measured.  We can agree that the EU is in one hell of a mess, much of it down to the absolute travesty of the misguided political project that's the Euro, and that France is a huge part of what's going wrong.  I'm still a Eurosceptic "inner" who wants to muddle along criticising it from the inside.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, as well as on what the rhetorical device you continue to use implies.

Sure.

To respond to one point; I've learned in business that there's far more power when you're outside and able to make decisions than inside and bound by others, even if you lack the appearance of protection.

They have no interest in listening or changing. This is a project with a fixed point destination, all suggestions by the people running it to the contrary are bull***t. Criticise it from the inside all you or anyone likes, this is a train on a track with no points, not a car on a road. And it's headed into a pile-up.

shivfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Williams has had it against some of these younger girls, they can run her into the ground.

It's still a bit too early to write Serena's obituary....

6-1 in the third.

Against who? This girl is nobody.

It's becoming clearer, which is t a criticism of Williams, she's well past her peak with age and injuries.

bogbrush wrote:Sure.

To respond to one point; I've learned in business that there's far more power when you're outside and able to make decisions than inside and bound by others, even if you lack the appearance of protection.

They have no interest in listening or changing. This is a project with a fixed point destination, all suggestions by the people running it to the contrary are bull***t. Criticise it from the inside all you or anyone likes, this is a train on a track with no points, not a car on a road. And it's headed into a pile-up.

I hope you are wrong, but I can see why you say what you do, friends of mine say the same almost verbatim - I don't feel certain about staying, I've got a choice which I have to exercise, and "Remain" is the way I'll go because my misgivings that way are less.

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that I think the fixed point of destination has changed, which is actually a problem in one sense. I think that the experience of Greece means that it is now impossible, for at least a generation, to get to the politically integrated super-state that extreme Europhiles want - the European public won't buy it, and it will be more difficult to achieve by stealth than before. The problem is what to do about a currency which does not have what every currency needs, which is genuine political and financial backing by the government, and ultimately the people, of the 'state' which issues it. The result is that the EU will remain in the current limbo land for years to come, which I would agree is a very serious problem, not least because it is never openly addressed. But if the ordure hits the fan on that one, as it's likely to, the resulting tsunami will be desperately damaging in any event.

Slightly to change the direction of travel, would you advocate doing a Norway and trying to adopt the half-way house of the EEA (subject to others agreeing of course), at least for a while, or would you want completely out and starting with a clean sheet.

The public have never had a say. When a country goes rogue and offers them a say, and they reject (eg Ireland, or France on the constitution - oops it's was only a treaty, right?) they get another vote until they get it right.

It can only go to complete integration or collapse. The economic mess is intractable otherwise.

I'd say as the 5th biggest economy in the World, dealing with an economic basket case with whom we run a big trade deficit, we hold almost all the cards and could cut a great deal. Norway based, perhaps, or maybe a better one of our own. The only downside is they'd be petrified because if we showed it could be done, Holland and Denmark would be next in a minute. No wonder the collected massed ranks of the elites (Obama, Lagarde, et al) are screaming at us.

Both men's SF starting at the same time tomorrow. Stan v Andy on Chatrier. Novak v Dom on Lenglen.

Born Slippy wrote:Both men's SF starting at the same time tomorrow. Stan v Andy on Chatrier. Novak v Dom on Lenglen.

Yes, but for the second day running they are ignoring the poor weather and REFUSING to start before 1pm local time. The men's semis won't start before 3pm. Ok, the weather's been simply horrible and totally unseasonal. But, look. There's got to be someone with a bit of nous to say "Let's give ourselves the best chance to finish these matches."

Possibly we are looking at this the wrong way. They probably have hundreds of people scheduled to do certain things at certain times. It's easy to say now that they should start earlier but that's something that they should plan in advance, not rush at the last minute.

shivfan wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

barrystar wrote: ... Its interesting how much traffic on this site decreases for the latter stags of slams when neither Fedal nor Murray are playing.

And there is hardly a squeak on this forum when the women are playing.

Well, when the women are playing, I'm on a Caribbean site, where there's a much greater appreciation of women's tennis, and women's sport in general....

Yes I can understand.  The BBC commentator said that if the women played best of five rather than best of three Serena would have won more slams - saying that Serena's power game would eventually click and take over and there is no-one out there able to resist.

In the past I enjoyed women's tennis as much and sometimes more than men's tennis but Sharapova, Azarenka and the shriekers - well I just couldn't hack it (others can but I can't) and then Venus Williams in her later incarnations wearing negligee costumes to promote her own brand of clothing plus the shrieking (inspired by Sharapova) - I thought was just taking the piece ... I don't blame the ladies - I blame the organisers for allowing it to happen but I stopped watching women's tennis almost entirely.

As I did not see the end of the Novak/Berdy match so therefore never followed the post match discussion, indeed if there was one, can anyone tell me whether Novak picked up any penalty or warning for his tantrum throwing racquet that nearly hit a line judge.. God knows much would have been said had it been anyone else.. bearing in mind the episode with Nalbandian.. Novak risked disqualification and nothing seems to have been said... or did I miss it ??? I find that really weird

Henman Bill wrote:Possibly we are looking at this the wrong way. They probably have hundreds of people scheduled to do certain things at certain times. It's easy to say now that they should start earlier but that's something that they should plan in advance, not rush at the last minute.

I seem to remember Wimbledon starting as early as 11am even on the show courts one year (1997?) in an effort to catch up. There can really be no excuse for not starting earlier today if one of the men's semis is a long match and gets rained off. That match would then have to finish tomorrow, putting the winner at a disadvantage for Sunday's final.

Reckon Serena will be too much for Bertens and that Mug will take out Stosur. Hope Thiem can give Djoko a good match. Stan and Andy? Anybody's guess.

Today cloud is more of an order of the day in Paris. No rain so am 11am start isn't needed. Granted it may have been as isdue earlier in the tournament but today and yesterday it would have made no difference.

Haddie-nuff wrote:As I did not see the end of the Novak/Berdy match so therefore never followed the post match discussion, indeed if there was one, can anyone tell me whether Novak picked up any penalty or warning for his tantrum throwing racquet   that nearly hit a line judge.. God knows much would have been said had it been anyone else.. bearing in mind the episode with Nalbandian.. Novak risked disqualification and nothing seems to have been said... or did I miss it ??? I find that really weird

To be honest I think that may have come at a time when a lot of people (pisters here) had switched over to the Goffin/Thiem match as that was hanging on the balance whereas Djokovic was strolling through and had just went two sets up. When something isn't seen not as many will comment on it. However, I would say I'd have been gobsmacked even if he had struck someone with the stray tacquet if he had been defaulted. He is World No.1 and tournament has already lost leading lights Federer and Nadal so am sure the officials would have skipped around such a decision.

He got a warning for it which was the right call. Obviously if he had hit someone it would have been very interesting what they would have done.

Thanks for the info CC and BS
Still whatever the situation .. his penalty would/should be no different then anyone else's .. doesn't like his cage rattled though does he;)

It seems Djokovic has a habit of throwing his racket around.  If he had had hit the line judge then I think by the rules he would have had to be disqualified - but what a gut wrenching decision that would have had to have been for the tournament director as he sees money and interest disappear and the creating of an historic tennis incident with the world no 1 going for the year round grand slam being disqualified in the quarter final while leading by two sets to love against a fading opponent.  Murray moans and whines on the tennis court but Djokovic throwing his racket around is ultimately more destructive and more deserving of censure.

I didn't see the incident & await for someone to upload it onto youtube.  Apparently the line judge took evasive action and would have been hit otherwise.

I just remember what happened to Nalbandian, inexcusable we know as he did hurt  a line judge, but Lord knows there was enough said about it.
I also am left asking is he or is he not bordering on  time violations.. seems there is little you can do wrong when your name is Djokovic and not Nadal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eMBPpdTuEs

He threw his racket into the floor and it took a wicked bounce. It would have been extremely unlucky had it hit the line judge and probably not painful.

He threw his racket into the floor and it took a wicked bounce...No problem there then

It would have been extremely unlucky had it hit the line judge and probably not painful.

Not lucky that it didn't hit the line judge  

And it probably would not have been painful anyway

Well that makes his behaviour acceptable then..

If we remember your namesake Mr Timothy. He got defaulted early on in his career for hitting s ball girl with a ball he simply lobbed back in frustrstion

It's not really the intent that they punish, I've never seen intent to hit one of the court staff, even with nalbandian. They punish the fact you shouldn't have risked the scenario in the first place
Nole shouldn't be risking freak bounces and was certainly lucky thetr

What Djokovic did was no worse that any time any player has thrown his racket to the floor. You can't say it was worse just because of a bad bounce. In my view even if it had hit the linesman it should not have been a disqualification.

That's not my interpretation of the rules though. I'm just saying what I think the rules should be.

I think the common sense rule would be disqualification for either intent, actual causing of injury, or direct hit with racket without a bounce.

Henman Bill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eMBPpdTuEs

He threw his racket into the floor and it took a wicked bounce. It would have been extremely unlucky had it hit the line judge and probably not painful.

Thanks for that. It seemed to be that it didn't take a wicked bounce - it took a normal bounce - Djokovic swung the racket from in front of him towards the back of him, he hit the racket on the ground in that swing and he either purposely let go of the racket or the bounce maybe caused the racket to come out of his hand - then followed the trajectory of his swing which was directly towards the line judge - who took evasive action.

So it wasn't a wicked bounce but it is not clear that he threw the racket - but it does look like he purposely hit the racket head on the ground then drew the racket across the surface behind him and then purposely let go - in a momentary fit of madness. I am not sure how he could have avoided a default

There is I suppose a responsibility to vent safely from players. Novak bounces his racquet very hard. In Rome it went over the billboard are and into the stands for example, got lucky there

There is probably a difference between a guy smashing it and keeping a hold of it in the middle of the court. To a guy who throws it down only a few feet from linesman

The difference may just be carelessness... But racquets can do enough damage for there to sanctions for "irresponsible venting". If you like

I seem to remember some time ago Kyrgios hit a ball into the crowd in temper and hit a spectator there was a great deal of controversy over the fact that he should have been disqualified instead of a warning.

It matters not as far as Novak is concerned.. Google Novak breaking rackets its a regular habit of his and one day, if not sooner rather than later, he will live to regret it. Intent is not the issue. Luck or lack of it isn't either, he should not be doing it neither should line judges, ball girls and boys be subjected to it. He admits himself he could have been disqualified.

You could argue that if you throw your racket a lot sooner a later you are going to get a situation where it flies off a funny angle for whatever reason or a ball boy runs across or whatever. So, in that sense, you may be unlucky in the individual instance, but not unlucky overall.

As soon as you actially throw your racquet and not hold onto it, you're taking a risk. There can be no complaints about luck or lack thereof

There is no defence HB sorry. He has admitted himself he could have been disqualified.. your fit of temper in this situation is to satisfy your OWN frustration and at that time your thoughts are not for anyone else but yourself. Such is the risk you take.

It's a strange quirk of Djokovic's and it is something he does on a regular basis. There was zero threat of Djokovic losing the match - he just wanted to get the match finished asap with the threat of rain hanging over the court.

To be honest, tennis fans are surprisingly tolerant when it comes to racquet smashing. People are always banging on about how top sportspeople should be role models and yet tennis players seem to get a free pass on this one. Even the famously serene Federer has done it on occasion. Although we tend to turn a blind eye to this behaviour, we really would be less than impressed if little Jimmy tried to emulate it down the local club.

In this particular instance, I actually think Novak was trying to abort the smash, resulting in the rather awkward swish and unfortunate loss of grip. Given how commonplace racquet smashing is, I think Novak would have been unlucky to be defaulted, particularly if he was trying to restrain himself from a full-blooded smash.

If I've read the situation wrong and Novak deliberately flung the racquet behind him, in the general direction of linesman and ball kids, then it was a bloody stupid thing to do and he could have had no complaints if disqualified.

I also don't think the comparison with the Nalbandian incident holds. That was a properly violent and reckless act. A key difference is that what Nalbandian did was guaranteed to injure the linesman. There was no misfortune about it. I'm not saying Nalbandian set out to hurt the linesman, but he did deliberately kick the hoarding and that act was always going to end badly.

Wow, I had read about it but only saw it now.  This was much closer than I imagined.

It is good that it did not hit the linesman but there definitely is part of me that is really wondering what would have happened if it had.  My guess is they would have thought long and hard and came up with a lame excuse "explaining" why he did not have to be defaulted.

I used to throw rackets when I was a kid, I had a racket that I threw so often there was barely any paint left on - I mean that literally. Once I threw a racket to the back of the court with some force. I was thinking it would just go into the netting/wiring or whatever you call that stuff at the back of tennis courts, but instead it hit the post and tore the frame of the racket in two, and that was the end of that.

Even as a young adult, I was still doing it, albeit less frequently.

I still get frustrations even today, even though nowadays it would be more likely verbal, or go to throw the racket, and not actually quite leave my hands.

Actually even that stuff I expect I've pretty much stopped doing, I hope, but only in my 30s.

It is pretty poor behaviour but in the list of immoral tennis behaviour I don't see it as that high a priority compared to other things.