2014 Rogers Cup!

First topic message reminder :

As I said in another thread the draw for this years Canada Masters is up and you can view it on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Rogers_Cup) or on their website (http://www.rogerscup.com/men/english/singlesDraw.php)

Promises to be a good tournament.

Dont start this Foggy Djoko legend...

laverfan wrote:Well played Tsonga. Two big scalps, so far.

Evidently likes Toronto as it is his third semi here in four years.

Gregory's return has improved, or is the court just slow?

Oh Dimi Dimi. Gifting the game, now Kev to serve for the match.

Holy pancakes. Kev loses a few MP all in the net 5:5

Dimi wins on TB with a little injured knee. What a crazy match with possible best shot of the month from Dimi, right in the T.

Kevin deserves a ATP500 at least this year.

Not sure Anderson will ever come back from this defeat. Horrendous choke at *5-4 40-15. The 2nd forehand of the four he missed in a row was one of the easiest you will ever see. Two more dog ugly forehands at 5-4 up the tiebreak and then to top it all off he served a double fault to lose.

As for Dimitrov he didn't look good. Best thing is that he hung in there and gave Kev the chance to lose.

Didn't see the Murray match. Was it as muggish as the scoreline suggests?

Was ok for Andy level at this year but again with silly behaviour and getting peed off with himself. Tsonga was above average. Equal quality from both.

Can only be mental for Andy. This was a great chance to rack up a masters. Juzt needs to start winning these close matches.

Lopez has played well so far. Second set TB. Slicing his way to glory. Lopez misses volleys, including some tough ones, to lose the set. Third set.

iC should be enjoying this.

...and he still has Roger to look forward to. Or David.

Lopez beats the pride of Canada. Federer breaks in the first game.

Hello SB. Crazy, almost three breaks in first three games. Ferrer is a tough guy, he came back from breadstick v Dodig.

Good battle with Ferrer, but 15-0 now. Well done Old Man.

Ferrer , what a player!

iC had a good outing too.

So then, SF time already, and with a lineup that nobody would have called on day one. The four contenders can boast a total of 22 Masters titles between them. Oh.....er .....hang on ......21 of those were won by the same guy .....  

I had a hunch - after all the other upsets this week - that the Geruilatis Law of Statistical Probability would somehow work its magic, and that Daveed would finally chalk up a win v the Fed last night. But it was not to be, and he now joins an exclusive club of players (other esteemed members include Hewitt & Youzhny) who have suffered fifteen times in a row at the hands of the Swiss one. Couldn't see the match, but I did notice that Federer's first serve had dipped significantly compared to previous rounds. Both Cilic and Ferrer proved more of a challenge than they have in the past ; but I can imagine that nowadays he gets just as much satisfaction from these battling wins than the once-common quick straights. Much tougher on the ageing limbs though .......

JWT v Grigor, should be a fascinating contrast. It's 3-0 to Jo, but those were all played way back in 2011 - since when things have moved on somewhat : Grigor now has four titles under his belt and these have propelled him into the top ten of course.

I seem to remember Federer once saying of JWT that when everything is working perfectly, he has the power to just blast you off the court, and there's really not much you can do about it. Time to see what the rising star Grigor can do.....

For the other semi we have a Veterans Match. Oddly enough, Deliciano might have been happy to play this one on grass given all his successes this year and last. He has won an amazing 23 matches on English lawns in just two seasons ....(shome mishtake surely .....!!??)

So what would the Title here mean for each of them ......?

Federer : no difference whatever to the legacy of the Birthday Boy, but his London spot would be 100% guaranteed

Dimitrov : a first Masters, another big leap forward, and he would displace Ferrer at Number 6. (but only a matter of time until top five, surely ......)

Tsonga : a much-needed confidence boost ahead of USO, and he would not end his career a one-Masters-wonder

Lopez : Hmm...... don't want to count him out, he's a great guy, and the locals might even forgive him for having taken out their man. Almost certainly his last chance of a Masters, given how the draw has fallen. But nor can I see him holding the trophy ......

Here's hoping for some good stuff .....Dimi is my pick/hope.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the day Federer loses to Ferrer is the day he should retire. If he can't beat an opponent who suits him as perfectly as the Spanish terrier then there's nothing more he can do in the game.

lags72 wrote:

I seem to remember Federer once saying of JWT that when everything is working perfectly, he has the power to just blast you off the court, and there's really not much you can do about it. Time to see what the rising star Grigor can do.....

I call it "Tsonga Tennis". It crops up every once in a while and makes you wonder why the biggest title he's won in the game is a solitary Paris Masters (arguably the easiest one to win). Jo for the title!

(But wouldn't it be magical if Lopez won it? I don't want to start the #AnyoneButDimitrov hashtag on Twitter but.... anyone but Dimitrov)

Whats with you and Dimi? You jelous of him or his gf?   

He's ok, apart from below par gf, he is a breath of fresh air.

Jahu wrote:Whats with you and Dimi? You jelous of him or his gf?   

He's ok, apart from below par gf, he is a breath of fresh air.

How dare he beat Andy at Wimbledon! I'll never forgive him for that.

Seriously, I think he's an ok player. Not great but the best of the rest at the moment. What annoys me is that he and Raonic will pick up about 8 cheap majors between them despite being average by big 4 standards (Raonic especially).

Yes, but big 4 standard will be forever in tennis history as a special period.

I dont think in 5y there will ever be a big 4, monopolising the tennis scene for 15y.

30+ yo making their last stand(s)? Tsonga is 29.

Lopez is playing some wonderful S&V.

Ferrer did not have the vicious Nadal stuff to break down Federer's BH despite the constant attack. If Federer wants the trophy, he needs to clean up his BH a bit.

Dimitrov made it through because of Anderson's demons. Acapulco and this match were very similar.

This will be Tsonga's to lose. Much better player than Anderson who should be a volleyball player, not tennis!

Poor Ferrer 0-15 to Federer though   

Dimi wasn't 100% yesterday to be honest...and big servers are his weak spot as he slices his BH returns too much.

Lopez is the best S&V player in the business...he was born 15 years too late! He's always the kind of player all the others hate to play given his game is ultra-aggressive. Gotta love the measured, chilled out way in which he struts about the court too. Another player doing well near his 33rd birthday...and moves up to #16 ranking.

Trivia:
5% of top100 are aged under 23!! (this was 30% 10 years ago!)
20% of top100 are aged 32 or above! (this was only 3% 10 years ago!)

66% of top30 are aged 28 or above! (this was only 23% 10 years ago)
34% of top50 are aged 30 or above! (this was only 10% 10 years ago)

The by-product is that unexpectedly in this "grinding" age of longer ralleys tennis is actually giving its players 15 year peak(ish) playing careers...that's not bad vs other sports actually.

lydian's collection of trivia re the age factor is clear evidence that players are maturing later, and lasting longer.

But ..... despite the extended careers, and the impressive ability of many older guys (indeed several well beyond 'traditional' retirement age) to hold their own within the Top 20, we are yet to see this translate into title success at the highest levels :

Q. Of the last 50 Slams played, how many went to players aged over 30 ....?
A. Just three.

Q. Of the last 50 Masters played, how many went to players aged over 30 ...?
A. A big fat zero.

Plus ca change ......

That wasn't really my point lags...more that high level playing careers are being extended, tennis isn't all about winning the slams and Masters events...not many players win these across tennis history to be honest but many pros earn a living from the game, and have a better chance of sustaining their living if they can play for longer.

In terms of winning the big ones, I predict the dynamics of this will change over time and we get more >30yo winners...not domination, just more winners than now.

Good match between the Williams brothers sisters.

Sure lydian, .....very fair comment, and it's true that we fans - along with the statisticians who put together the record books - tend to get overly-absorbed by the very limited number (relatively) of players who win the really big stuff, whereas the sport itself is much, much bigger than that.

The Special Juan wrote:What annoys me is that he and Raonic will pick up about 8 cheap majors between them despite being average by big 4 standards

Or, to put it differently, it annoys you that they may end up being more successful than Andy even though you would like to think of Andy as being better than them

summerblues wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:What annoys me is that he and Raonic will pick up about 8 cheap majors between them despite being average by big 4 standards

Or, to put it differently, it annoys you that they may end up being more successful than Andy even though you would like to think of Andy as being better than them

Am I that transparent? I can't even attempt to deny that's a factor but it just shows that, in sport, some players don't always get what they deserve and others get more. I won't get into ifs and buts though, pointless arguments. However the thought of Raonic winning stuff sickens me.

Yeah, I am not a huge fan of Raonic's game either. But I would also be surprised if he went on to win multiple slams. One, or perhaps two, maybe, but not more than that I think. There is something very "bulky" about him - even though he is shorter than Delpo, he gives the impression of being far more burdened in his mobility by his size. I just cannot see him winning that much.

Dimi, on the other hand, I think could really become very good. It is too early to tell where he ends up, but to me he could become fair and square a better player than Andy has ever been. So even if he were to become more successful than Andy, I would not necessarily think it unjustified.

No matter how good Grigor may or may not become in future, he was not good enough today

He was out of gas today...all his previous 3 setters this week and withdrawal from Washington last week due to flu have taken their toll. He'll be back next week and the speed of Cincy will be interesting to see vs his game.

Cheers Lags, absolutely...the game as a whole is huge and looking from the inside out the amount of work it takes for ANY player to become pro standard is mind boggling. Beyond the top 100 guys are genuinely struggling to make a living yet in real terms are very near in ability to everyone outside the top 10. Just look at the money on offer at the draw of a Challenger taking place this week below...



That's...

WINNER - € 5,035
FINALIST - € 2,975
SEMI-FINALIST - € 1,760
QUARTER-FINALIST - € 1,020
SECOND ROUND - € 600
FIRST ROUND - € 365

The winner gets 80pts...so the winners cheque is worth $63/point.
The winner at Toronto gets 1000pts and $600,000...$600/point.

So, not all points earned on the ATP tour are equal...is that right or fair?

All the prize money in the slams and Masters needs sharing better. It's far too top heavy, the Challenger tour is tough and a high level...yet it pays a pittance and guys can't survive. Something needs to happen.

If Tsonga comes to fight, I really don't think there's much anyone not named Nadal or Djokovic can do about it. I like Dimi though, so a little sad to see him falter, but big Jo is due a run again

There are "only" 138 Challenger events across the entire ATP annual calendar. The average prize pot per event is $45,000. So that's $6.2m in total across the whole Challenger tour where guys from rank 50 to 300 try to carve their living, ie. the bulk of the top end professional tour. Marcos Baghdatis is playing one this week because his ranking has dropped. Once you drop below 60-70 you can't get direct entry into ATP 250 or above events anymore. Challengers become your staple.

So Cincy next week...guess the prize fund? $4.0m....that's 65% of the entire 138 event Challenger tour.
Absurdly, the winner will get 10% of the entire Challenger annual tour prize fund.

See the issue....?

I'm not really sure what you want done Lydian? It's all well pointing out the size of the pie the better players get, but they are hardly stealing from the guys > 60. Cincinnati affords $4m because that's what they generate, sponsors and TV comps aren't paying top dollar to subsidize challengers It's not a problem unique to tennis. Nor is it a new problem to tennis.

Actually tennis is more lopsided than just about any other sport in this way. A pro footballer in the UK in the bottom division (4th division below Premiership league) can still earn $100,000 per year...they are probably around 1500 players down from the top. That's just in the UK. A tennis guy globally ranked below 150 is earning basically nothing.

Gerald Melzer, younger brother of Jurgen, is 24, turned pro in 2007. He's ranked #146 and been on Challenger tour a while. His career earnings? ....$26,000.

What I want done is for a much larger slice of the ATP cake to be given to the Challenger tour...which is the feeder of the main ATP events everyone on these boards likes watching and commenting on. The grassroots isn't being supported properly. If the Challenger fund increased 10-fold, which would be a pittance out of the main ATP & slam funds, it would make such a massive difference to the players and tour as a whole.

Tell me how a guy earning €1,000 as a quarter finalist on Challenger tour is supposed to make a living and cover his costs?
Do you know how many talented young players drop out because they can't make ends meet?
Do you wonder why there are fewer and fewer young players in the top 300...?
Tomorrow's talented sportspeople see the tough route to the top and pick other sports, given good tennis players are usually equally good at 2-3 other sports too.
That's the real issue we face - it's just not an attractive or sustainable sport to get into except for a very few. Tomorrow's "Federer" is more likely to become a pro-footballer than pro-tennis player and the sad reality is that this is exactly what tennis coaches are telling the parents of 7-11 year old kids.

Boxing
Floyd Mayweather topped the Forbes list, last year - LaMont Peterson, a world champion just below him, earned $20 000 for his first title defense.
Bolt vs everyone else in athletics
Anderson Silva vs Mixed martial artists of an equivalent ranking (MMA's Evo-types)

Individual sports not named golf are top heavy, it's the nature of the beast.

Tennis different from all those, it's cash rich and ran by a globally structured body and tour, like golf.
Answer my other points above re: tomorrow's potential stars?

And boxing isn't cash rich? Maybe fractured, but even in the days of the one organisation everyone but the champ had it tough. Mayweather earned $120 million last year. Pacquiao earned $30 million. Klitschko earned upwards of $20 million. That's three fighters, minimum $170 million dollars... how much The top 100 earn? Boxing's problem isn't a fiscal deficiency, neither is MMA's, even if it's not quite as financially resourced. The reality Is people go to watch the marquee names, so the marquee names receive marquee money. Simples. British footballers playing third division still get crowds of around 10, 000 a week... and sell players to bigger teams, which finances players' wages. It's not some sort of conspiracy, the footballers ranked "1500" have a bigger audience, and they earn accordingly. It's simple capitalism.

To answer your other points

- Okay great cut the pie more - but who is going to agree? Not the tournament directors. Not sponsors. Not top ranked players. If it was that simple it would have been done aeons ago.

- Tennis players have always had this choice though. Tennis hasn't suddenly become hard for anyone not ranked <60. nor has pro football, basketball etc suddenly walked into new money.

kingraf wrote:If Tsonga comes to fight, I really don't think there's much anyone not named Nadal or Djokovic can do about it. I like Dimi though, so a little sad to see him falter, but big Jo is due a run again

See: Australian Open 2008

Aw Nikolay Davydenko's retired

Good point lydian re athletes choosing alternative ventures, such is the grueling tennis grind to success.
All the top US athletes are NOT playing tennis (say many of their pundits) so they need to somehow address this issue, but it won't be easy.

The Special Juan wrote:

kingraf wrote:If Tsonga comes to fight, I really don't think there's much anyone not named Nadal or Djokovic can do about it. I like Dimi though, so a little sad to see him falter, but big Jo is due a run again

See: Australian Open 2008

Indeed !

How ironic that kingraf should draw attention to Nadal, with the implication that Nadal is some sort of exception to the rule - simply because that infamous AO demolition still stands as perhaps the perfect reminder of just what can happen when JWT is at his very best.....

I haven't forgotten Australian Open 2008, but that was a once-off, and a poorer Nadal on Hard courts. I certainly don't think Nadal only needs to show up to beat any version of Tsonga, but the way Nadal's forehand matches up with Jo's backhand means Jo is simply a lot less likely to build up any of the proper momentum that makes him such a dangerous opponent. I mean even when Nadal went through that dry patch in 2009, when he hadn't beaten a top ten player on hard in however long it was, there was always Jo. He absolutely blew Nadal apart in 2008, but that's not a reflection of the current reality anymore than tapes of a peak Ronaldinho give us an idea of how he'll perform next season.

Federer v Tsonga at W is also another reminder of what Tsonga is capable of. Or Canada 2009.

Of the four wins that Tsonga has, two are in Canada (2009, 2011), the W (2011) and RG 2013 are the other two (ignoring the W/O in Doha).

I expect Tsonga to put up a an excellent fight. Federer needs to play peRFect to win this one.

The Special Juan wrote:

Jahu wrote:Fed would say Be quiet.

Tsonga braakes againnnnn

There's a video on YouTube of him telling someone to shut up.  It might be your favourite player Djokovic.

The video title was wrong, if you watch the video he clearly says "Quiet pls".

laverfan wrote:Lopez has played well so far. Second set TB. Slicing his way to glory. Lopez misses volleys, including some tough ones, to lose the set. Third set.

iC should be enjoying this.

Lopez virtually broke all our hearts when he saved the 9 break points and then cleaning up the set and match.   

The Special Juan wrote:Aw Nikolay Davydenko's retired

And thus preserves his winning head to head v Rafa!

Shame for Davydenko, he's had a tough few years. I see has won $16m in prize money though, so I'm not too sorry for him.

Good character. Yes, add another 16M on endorsments etc. quite a retirement pot.