Cincinnati Masters

First topic message reminder :

Men's draw: http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2016/422/mds.pdf

Interesting to see how far Murray and Nadal can progress after their exertions in Rio last week. Murray looked to have a difficult opener in Karlovic but Ivo has also had a busy schedule in the US hard court season and is one game from an exit against Monaco.

Could this be the time for a new Masters winner? Can someone like Raonic or Kyrios take advantage? Or even Monfils?!

Women's draw: http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/2016/1017/MDS.pdf

For the first time in a long time, the number one is in play in this tournament. Serena is out with a shoulder issue (after not entering initially to stay longer in Rio, then taking a wildcard last minute) and Kerber needs to win the title to overtake her.

Rain delay again

Murray's results:

6-3 6-2
6-3 6-2
6-4 6-4
6-3 6-3

Didn't see most of the matches but that doesn't look like a lof of energy spent.

I assume a rest week next week.

It might be a good idea for him to stay in the US to avoid travel on top of it all, but I guess he'll be OK.

Don't the US have some players playing first match Tue/Wed, and then if the draw is good, first two matches are a cruise for Murray, practically practice. So could be almost two weeks before he really needs to be at his best. I think he'll be OK.

US Open is now doing more standard slam schedule - Mo/Tue 1st round, Wed/Thu 2nd round etc, SF on Friday and final on Sunday.

Still, I think Andy could be ok, even though obviously if there is one player that may have overplayed this summer, it is him. The last time he failed to make a final was in Monte Carlo; and he has played full schedule between then and now.

It stopped raining; and it looks like they will try to get the second SF completed tonight.

Nice win Andy - Cilic in the Final

Hope Yvonne continues to spread her "Doom & Gloom"

Good win for Andy. Not having to spend much time on court this week. Will be a tough final though particularly as I think it may be the first match he's played in day conditions this week?

Raonic has now broken Andy's serve once in 14 sets I believe.

The more I sit and think about this the more at ease I am. If he hadn't have played the Olympics he would still have been in action at the Toronto Masters that week so the schedule hasn't really altered at all.

Now I am no expert on these matters but since Andy must feel at ease with his game at the moment could he take two or three days off next week (no training or court-work as no tweaking is needed) whereas if he had been off-form with same schedule would he have needed more tweaking and court work eating into rest time?

Anyway Murray's unbeaten run stretches to 22 matches. Onwards and upwards.

A Murray - Cilic seems like a worthy final.  Cilic has earned his spurs - so if Murray loses, one cannot begrudge Cilic gaining a first masters title.  But looking at Cilic's career record he has one Grand Slam title, no Master's titles, no 500 ATP titles and thirteen 250 ATP titles.  He has never reached a Master's final before and has only reached three ATP 500 finals losing all three.

So it's Cilic with the latest chance to become the first player younger than Novak to win a Masters. Novak has now been the youngest to have done so for over 9 years!

It must happen soon surely. 7/8 QFists were younger than Novak in this event. That said, with Novak out and Nadal/Murray going straight from the Olympics, this looks a better chance than the Masters later this year!

Good performance from Cilic. Yes, Murray looked a bit jaded, but this is the Marin who we thought would be a regular contender when he met Del Potro at the US09 SF

Be interesting to see how Cilic reacts, as he becomes a bit of a target and the Cincy / US Open double is not often done

As for Murray. he seems fine - it was more his radar been off and more importantly he was fine with the defeat

Murray's family now joins him as he now gets some well deserved R&R, I think he'll be fine next week, when the last major, of the year, hits the road

Murray favourite for the US Open for me.

I'd make it;
Murray
Djokovic
...big gap...
Del Potro
Cilic
...smaller gap...
Nadal
Wawrinka
Raonic
...big gap...
Anyone else.

Yeah, good to see Cilic win. He played a fine match and deserved the title. Andy didn't play well but he's played a lot of tennis and looks like he needs a rest. Just hope he hasn't overplayed and recovers for the US Open.

Djokovic is clear favourite for the US. He's the best hard courter in the world and has taken a nice rest. Murray obviously second favourite. I would then have Wawrinka, Nadal and Cilic in a pack. DP, Raonic and Kei one step further back.

Guest82 wrote:Murray favourite for the US Open for me.

I'd make it;
Murray
Djokovic
...big gap...
Del Potro
Cilic
...smaller gap...
Nadal
Wawrinka
Raonic
...big gap...
Anyone else.

You beat me too it!! My only doubt would be Del boy over five sets, in the second week.

You'd actually be hard pressed  to be making a  case for anyone other than Cilic to challenge the top 2

Could make it interesting, particularly if Novak's carrying and injury and Andy's half knackered 

Repeat of 2014 or new winner, anyone?

banbrotam wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Murray favourite for the US Open for me.

I'd make it;
Murray
Djokovic
...big gap...
Del Potro
Cilic
...smaller gap...
Nadal
Wawrinka
Raonic
...big gap...
Anyone else.

You beat me too it!! My only doubt would be Del boy over five sets, in the second week.

You'd actually be hard pressed  to be making a  case for anyone other than Cilic to challenge the top 2

Could make it interesting, particularly if Novak's carrying and injury and Andy's half knackered 

Repeat of 2014 or new winner, anyone?

I suppose we know Cilic and Delpo have the game to win it and have proved it at Cincy & Rio. But then again, it wouldn't be a massive surprise if they went out in the first week.

And I see Serena held on to #1 too...wonder if Kerber may get another chance?!

Not sure Kerber really deserved it anyway. If she gets is by winning the US Open, and being the only person to hold two slams, it's probably deserved. Otherwise, once she loses the AO points, the chance is gone, maybe forever.

More likely Muguruza or someone else at #1 by next year.

Just looking up Cilic's route to victory. Quite interesting:
Troicki-Verdasco-Berdych-Coric-Dimitrov-Murray

Not really a no-hoper in any round.

Cilic is ending up with a better career than a lot of people, Berdych, Tsonga maybe for instance.

Muguruza seems to have no consistency though. Have to feel if Serena can win the US, she's got a good chance to hold on to next Wimbledon.

Hard to see any of the other top players holding number 1 for long. They all seem to go on good runs followed swiftly by a run of poor defeats.

Henman Bill wrote:Just looking up Cilic's route to victory. Quite interesting:
Troicki-Verdasco-Berdych-Coric-Dimitrov-Murray

Not really a no-hoper in any round.

Cilic is ending up with a better career than a lot of people, Berdych, Tsonga maybe for instance.

Don't think Troicki has won a match since RG.

Cilic is young enough to add to his achievements too, but seems limited to the faster courts.

Interesting that Andy looked far better at the faster Cincy, than that turgid IW equivalent they had a Rio

I genuine think he's the best (yes, I know he lost the final, but you know what I mean!!) at the fastest courts / or lower bounce and by contrast the very slow ones, i.e. I see Novak still dominating 75% of the surfaces or been favourite, but a slow clay court or fast hard (grass) one, then I think Andy's better. The two extreme contrasts, just about sum up Andy's schizo personality (lately, has there been anyone who has more rows with Umpires - it's virtually every tournament!! In fairness, like Mac, he's often right )

The reasons simple for me, as more of an instinct / touch type player, like Roger, he gets far more into a grove easier when there is some pace. And the very slow courts, add to his bloody minded grinder type play

Agree about Cilic, but in fairness there should be enough variety so that we have, say 20% of 'very' fast court events. I'm pleased for him, I always thought he has more talent than Berdych, he produces more draw dropping shot, when on song

Initially, the weather looks good at New York, so hoping for a bit more fast play

What a surprise Murray bottles it in another final. He's never been part of a 'TOP 4'. Luck can only get you so far.

banbrotam wrote:Interesting that Andy looked far better at the faster Cincy, than that turgid IW equivalent they had a Rio

I genuine think he's the best (yes, I know he lost the final, but you know what I mean!!) at the fastest courts / or lower bounce and by contrast the very slow ones, i.e. I see Novak still dominating 75% of the surfaces or been favourite, but a slow clay court or fast hard (grass) one, then I think Andy's better. The two extreme contrasts, just about sum up Andy's schizo personality (lately, has there been anyone who has more rows with Umpires - it's virtually every tournament!! In fairness, like Mac, he's often right   )

The reasons simple for me, as more of an instinct / touch type player, like Roger, he gets far more into a grove easier when there is some pace. And the very slow courts, add to his bloody minded grinder type play

Agree about Cilic, but in fairness there should be enough variety so that we have, say 20% of 'very' fast court events. I'm pleased for him, I always thought he has more talent than Berdych, he produces more draw dropping shot, when on song

Initially, the weather looks good at New York, so hoping for a bit more fast play

Still think Djokovic can out-grind Murray. I think their matches become mentally tiring for Murray so eventually he goes walkabouts mentally. On a fast court he would seem to have the edge over Djokovic for sure. It remains to be seen if Djokovic is on the slide or just had a couple of surprising losses.

Cilic is a threat at USO and Wimbledon. I think he has a bit more to his game than Berdych, with variety and moving forward. Also he's better mentally.

Jermaine2015 wrote:What a surprise Murray bottles it in another final. He's never been part of a 'TOP 4'. Luck can only get you so far.

What a surprise, your posts are still boring.
Probably nearly wrote an original interesting post, but bottled it I guess.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:What a surprise Murray bottles it in another final. He's never been part of a 'TOP 4'. Luck can only get you so far.

What a surprise, your posts are still boring.
Probably nearly wrote an original interesting post, but bottled it I guess.

Feel free to talk when Murray's achievements match up to the great Boris Becker's...unlikely to happen as Murray has no backbone

Jerry,Jerry,Jerry

Listening to Boris is even more boring than your attempts at trying to post something that's remotely sensible

I think Jermaine is only after a rise. In other sections of 606v2, in sports he seems to have an interest in, he makes worthwhile and quite detailed comments. Whereas in the tennis section he acts differently. Well you all know what gives trolls a big rise - so don't help him relieve himself on this thread.

Nore Staat wrote:I think Jermaine is only after a rise.  In other sections of 606v2, in sports he seems to have an interest in, he makes worthwhile and quite detailed comments.  Whereas in the tennis section he acts differently.  Well you all know what gives trolls a big rise - so don't help him relieve himself on this thread.

He's entitled to his opinion surely? I don't think he is being offensive. I don't actually agree with his point, but doesn't mean it's not valid.

Guest82 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I think Jermaine is only after a rise.  In other sections of 606v2, in sports he seems to have an interest in, he makes worthwhile and quite detailed comments.  Whereas in the tennis section he acts differently.  Well you all know what gives trolls a big rise - so don't help him relieve himself on this thread.

He's entitled to his opinion surely?   I don't think he is being offensive.   I don't actually agree with his point, but doesn't mean it's not valid.

I question your ability to distinguish a troll from reasoned comment. He has been repeating the same thing over and over but you know this.

Nore Staat wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I think Jermaine is only after a rise.  In other sections of 606v2, in sports he seems to have an interest in, he makes worthwhile and quite detailed comments.  Whereas in the tennis section he acts differently.  Well you all know what gives trolls a big rise - so don't help him relieve himself on this thread.

He's entitled to his opinion surely?   I don't think he is being offensive.   I don't actually agree with his point, but doesn't mean it's not valid.

I question your ability to distinguish a troll from reasoned comment.  He has been repeating the same thing over and over but you know this.

Yes I know what he's saying and he's probably looking for a rise. However, I don't really find him offensive.

His opinion that Murray isn't "one of the big four" (true to an extent in my opinion) and is a bottler (not true in my opinion) is valid though.

Come on Guest. You can't seriously be arguing that describing Murray as a bottler for losing the Cincy final is a valid opinion? He's just cleaned up in his previous three finals in a row including two far bigger events! There is no possible way Jermaine actually believes that opinion nor various others he has stated in the past.

I have no problem with the odd troll but they should be recognised for what they are and treated accordingly.

Jermaine2015 wrote:The legend of Roger Federer goes on and on. Weeks shorts of his 35th birthday, the greatest reaches yet another Wimbledon final. No Nadal or Djokovic to deny him this time. #18

Still, he did give us this priceless example of premature speculation. I like Federer and it's a shame he didn't make the final but the schadenfreude when this type of thing happens to someone like Jermaine did lessen the blow. Not quite as good as Wise Analyst on the old 606 in the US07 final but entertaining nonetheless.

I wonder if he realises that Andy Murray is odds on to pass Becker's total of 13 Masters Cup wins as he already has 12. One he idolizes the other to him is spineless. I wonder if he realizes it is quite feasible Murray equals or goes close to Becker's total of six slam wins? Or if he realizes Murray has already surpassed Becker's total of slam finals appearances or that Murray has reached every slam final unlike Becker or that he realizes Murray's win percentage record is currently higher than Becker's? Also Becker's Olympic haul is puny compared to Murray. Evidently, there is a lot Jerry does not know about what it takes to succeed in tennis at the world level so really is points are rendered invalid.

Now back to proper tennis discussion....

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wonder if he realises that Andy Murray is odds on to pass Becker's total of 13 Masters Cup wins as he already has 12. One he idolizes the other to him is spineless. I wonder if he realizes it is quite feasible Murray equals or goes close to Becker's total of six slam wins? Or if he realizes Murray has already surpassed Becker's total of slam finals appearances or that Murray has reached every slam final unlike Becker or that he realizes Murray's win percentage record is currently higher than Becker's? Also Becker's Olympic haul is puny compared to Murray. Evidently, there is a lot Jerry does not know about what it takes to succeed in tennis at the world level so really is points are rendered invalid.

Now back to proper tennis discussion....

Yawn you keep getting a hard one over the Olympic Games...nothing more than an exhibition event. Even someone like Massu has two Olympic gold medals...

Masters 1000 yippee...Murray will win more of those than Boris. So what? Boris won the year end championships(in whichever variation was contested) 5 times. Murray has won that year end championships how many times? Ah yes zilch.

More major finals prove what? Boris 6-4, Murray 3-8. Boris turns up for the finals, Murray turns up for the free hospitality...

Born Slippy wrote:Come on Guest. You can't seriously be arguing that describing Murray as a bottler for losing the Cincy final is a valid opinion? He's just cleaned up in his previous three finals in a row including two far bigger events! There is no possible way Jermaine actually believes that opinion nor various others he has stated in the past.

I have no problem with the odd troll but they should be recognised for what they are and treated accordingly.

No, I don't agree with it. But if that is what he thinks, then he is entitled to think that, despite evidence existing that it is probably not the case.

Hmm the Olympics am exhibition tournament?? Means bucket loads to the players. Look how defeat against Murray in 2012 reduced Federer to tears and had him vowing to return in 2016 in search of gold. Look how a first round defeat in Rio reduced Djokovic to a gibbering wreck in floods of tears and Del Potro likewise in reaching the final. Nishikori was emotional as well in winning bronze. Never seen any of those players display such emotions at the WTF.

Let's remember Jerry you are the one throwing labels such as spineless around at Murray yet he has excelled a number of Becker's achievements already so does that not just equate to Boris being even more spineless? After all Boris hasn't the spine to lambast drug takers in tennis unlike Murray.

Guest82 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Come on Guest. You can't seriously be arguing that describing Murray as a bottler for losing the Cincy final is a valid opinion? He's just cleaned up in his previous three finals in a row including two far bigger events! There is no possible way Jermaine actually believes that opinion nor various others he has stated in the past.

I have no problem with the odd troll but they should be recognised for what they are and treated accordingly.

No, I don't agree with it.   But if that is what he thinks, then he is entitled to think that, despite evidence existing that it is probably not the case.

The key phrase there is "if that is what he thinks". My post explained why it won't be. You'd have to be soft in the head to believe Murray bottled the Cincy final. Jermaine strikes me as a perfectly intelligent person who happens to dislike Murray and/or his fans and enjoys a bit of trolling.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm the Olympics am exhibition tournament?? Means bucket loads to the players. Look how defeat against Murray in 2012 reduced Federer to tears and had him vowing to return in 2016 in search of gold. Look how a first round defeat in Rio reduced Djokovic to a gibbering wreck in floods of tears and Del Potro likewise in reaching the final. Nishikori was emotional as well in winning bronze. Never seen any of those players display such emotions at the WTF.

Let's remember Jerry you are the one throwing labels such as spineless around at Murray yet he has excelled a number of Becker's achievements already so does that not just equate to Boris being even more spineless? After all Boris hasn't the spine to lambast drug takers in tennis unlike Murray.

You big up Murray's achievements as if he's some sort of ATG

When you stop your continual drivel, these are Boris' claim to fame:

Wimbledon champion aged 17(yep you guessed it Murray got no way near this one)
Defended Wimbledon aged 18(Murray has never defended a Major)
4 consecutive Wimbledon finals(doubtful Murray will match this)
7 Wimbledon finals(zero chance of Murray doing this either)
World number 1

Plus the countless others I could reel off.

Now pipe down old boy...

I am sorry but when you resort to calling a player spineless who has bettered a player you idolise in ANY stat then it makes your whole posts really quite meaningless. In my eyes respect begets respect and that goes for players and posters. Players who can get to the world level in tennis even to win a 250 event is an achievement so to win even one slam is a huge achievement and meritorious of respect and calling someone who has won three of them spineless is far below respectful hence you will get no respect from me until your attitude changes.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am sorry but when you resort to calling a player spineless who has bettered a player you idolise in ANY stat then it makes your whole posts really quite meaningless. In my eyes respect begets respect and that goes for players and posters. Players who can get to the world level in tennis even to win a 250 event is an achievement so to win even one slam is a huge achievement and meritorious of respect and calling someone who has won three of them spineless is far below respectful hence you will get no respect from me until your attitude changes.

*YAWN*...got bored of your drivel

Ha! Ha! Jermaine  / Jerry is back

What do you think to Lewis Hamilton's recent dominance? 

Born Slippy wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Come on Guest. You can't seriously be arguing that describing Murray as a bottler for losing the Cincy final is a valid opinion? He's just cleaned up in his previous three finals in a row including two far bigger events! There is no possible way Jermaine actually believes that opinion nor various others he has stated in the past.

I have no problem with the odd troll but they should be recognised for what they are and treated accordingly.

No, I don't agree with it.   But if that is what he thinks, then he is entitled to think that, despite evidence existing that it is probably not the case.

The key phrase there is "if that is what he thinks". My post explained why it won't be. You'd have to be soft in the head to believe Murray bottled the Cincy final. Jermaine strikes me as a perfectly intelligent person who happens to dislike Murray and/or his fans and enjoys a bit of trolling.

I know lots of intelligent people that have blind spots for thing they just cannot see.

Also, maybe he did bottle the final a bit. He was certainly favourite going into it...he was clearly physically and mentally tired too. Maybe a tired mind opened up some doubts once Cilic started playing well...?

I don't think he is a serial bottler, but I suppose it is possible to still lose the odd match due to nerves or "bottle".

Hi all.

Havent been on the site for quite some time but got an email the other week which prompted me to take a look.

Since the Olympics, I have got back in to tennis and didnt realise that smaller events like the CM are really entertaining too! Whats the next big non major?

MT

Don't agree with that. It was never a 'bottle job' Cilic was the better player on the day and fully deserved the win. He was getting lots of free points off his serve and hitting very close to the lines in the rallies which allowed him to dictate.

Bottling to me is being in a strong position in a match and then letting it slip by making unforced errors. IMO it has happened with Murray previously. Nadal semi at Wimbledon 2011 a good example. However it can happen to all players. Raonic/Federer Wimbledon semi this year a good example. One of the reasons these players are at the top of the game is that they tend to bottle it a lot less than others. You just have to look at the number of times the very top players are in trouble and manage to win through.

I would call bottling not performing as well as you can, during the biggest moments. Arguably this happened to Murray during the final...although Cilic did play very well.

I don't think Murray will bottle every big match he plays, but as you've said above, even Federer "bottled" a match and he's certainly won enough not to be classed as a "bottler".

Mr Tom - Shanghai is the next masters 1000 tournament. Starts on 9th October. There are various 250's/500's between US Open and then.

Guest82 wrote:I would call bottling not performing as well as you can, during the biggest moments.  Arguably this happened to Murray during the final...although Cilic did play very well.  

I don't think Murray will bottle every big match he plays, but as you've said above, even Federer "bottled" a match and he's certainly won enough not to be classed as a "bottler".  

Mr Tom - Shanghai is the next masters 1000 tournament.  Starts on 9th October.  There are various 250's/500's between US Open and then.

Going by that logic and talking about Cincy only then you have to say Stan, Rafa and Kei all bottled it. There may be reasons for all of them but they were all beaten easily by unseeded opponents who just played better than them on the day. I wouldn't say any of them bottled it.

Calder106 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:I would call bottling not performing as well as you can, during the biggest moments.  Arguably this happened to Murray during the final...although Cilic did play very well.  

I don't think Murray will bottle every big match he plays, but as you've said above, even Federer "bottled" a match and he's certainly won enough not to be classed as a "bottler".  

Mr Tom - Shanghai is the next masters 1000 tournament.  Starts on 9th October.  There are various 250's/500's between US Open and then.

Going by that logic and talking about Cincy only then you have to say Stan, Rafa and Kei all bottled it. There may be reasons for all of them but they were all beaten easily by unseeded opponents who just played better than them on the day. I wouldn't say any of them bottled it.

Stan, Rafa & Kei didn't get to the biggest moment. The final. They probably weren't playing well enough to "Bottle" it.

I am not particularly convinced Murray did bottle it, just think there is a possibility it happened. Too easy to just say "he's won loads so can't be a bottler".

If you read back I never said "he's won loads so can't be a bottler". In fact I gave an example when I thought he did. He may even have done it in the FO final this year. There seemed to a lack of belief after Djokovic recovered from a set down. Hence quickly getting Lendl back on board. I just don't think that losing the Cincy final was an example of someone bottling it. He got behind and Cilic stayed strong and didn't let him back in (unlike Fognini and Johnson at the Olympics). Credit to Cilic for that.

The "won loads so not a bottler" was said earlier on in the thread...not by you.

I think he lost the French Open final due to a lack of belief, once Djokovic won the second set. I don't know if that is bottling or not really.

Cilic certainly played a good match. I just thought Murray had played better in the semi final and has a very good h2h with Cilic so I expected him to play better.

Just think that Cilic was in the zone in that final and every time Murray looked like getting a hold on the second set he stepped up again.

The final wasn't a big match for Andy though. It was his 19th Masters final and he's won 12 of them. For him, it was a relatively minor match. The whole tournament was just to get some practice on similar courts to the US Open. He was awful for most of the tournament and played relatively poorly in the final. Absolutely no chance he bottled it.