Grass court season

First topic message reminder :

Stuttgart kicked off today, bloke by the name of Roger Federer(rocking a new hair do) is playing.

Stan Wawrinka has added Paul Annacone to his coaching group, as he continues to search for improvements on grass. Will his morale be badly affected by the drubbing he received in Paris?

Will Andy Murray defend his Wimbledon championship?

Will the real Djokovic ever return?

Will Nadal do anything on grass?

Will a youngster steal the limelight?

Two 35 year olds win grass tournaments, Federer at Halle, Lopez at Queens.

I watched the final tie-breaker at Queens - and it was high quality and enthralling.  Lopez was hitting lines.  A really popular winner and Cilic did himself proud too.

ps. Cilic is now due to play in the doubles final semi-final at Queens.

What a great day on the Veterans Circuit.

The #NextGen is not quite here yet.........

Cilic & Matkowski lose the doubles semi-final 6-1 3-6 8-10 to Murray & Soares.

Currently Murray & Soares playing Benneteau & Roger-Vasselin in the final.

Britain's Jamie Murray and doubles partner Bruno Soares beat France duo Julien Benneteau and Edouard Roger-Vasselin 6-2 6-3 to win Queen's. (copy and paste from BBC)

Tremendous effor from Lopez, beating Stan W, Chardy, Berdych, Dimitrov and Cilic. Deciding set in QF, SF and F. 7-5 and 7-6 sets in every match.

Curious that Lopez beat Chardy in the second round at Stuttgart, and then Berdych in the QF, and beat them both in the same rounds again at Queens.

Berdych is not having a good season.

Lopez would it be stating the obvious to expect him to now inevitably lose early at Wimbledon? R3/R4 maybe.

3 of his 4 slam quarter finals have been achieved there. He has never gone beyond the QF at a slam.

Lopez Wimbledon QFs
2005 - lost to Hewitt in straights*
2008 - lost to Safin in 4
2011 lost to Murray in straights

Only other slam QF - US open
2015 - lost to Djokovic in 4

* Random trivia - I was actually at this game - the only time I went to centre court. When I got the ticket 2005 centre court Wed I thought it would be Tim Henman in the QF like he had made every year since 1996 except one, little did I know he would never again even reach R3 at Wimbledon.

I loved Lopez's reaction to winning Queen's - how thrilled he was and how he recognises that, even though it is not a Masters &c, it is a special tournament with a special pedigree and a very impressive list of winners which he now joins.

He is nearly always a joy to watch on Court, and on this occasion a joy to see off Court too - in the drab identikit world of media-trained sponsors' clothes horses (and I don't 100% blame players who wish to avoid 'gaffes' from interviews not in their mother tongues), it is such a breath of fresh air to see a totally honest reaction of true happiness.

Henman Bill wrote:

...................................

Lopez would it be stating the obvious to expect him to now inevitably lose early at Wimbledon? R3/R4 maybe.

3 of his 4 slam quarter finals have been achieved there. He has never gone beyond the QF at a slam.

...........................

Well ..... perhaps .....in some ways, a first week exit might seem 'inevitable'.

BUT the difference this year is that he did actually win Queens for the first time, after many, many years of trying - and in impressive fashion, as you have noted.

Lopez himself feels his game is in better shape right now than he can remember. And if he takes that new-found confidence into Wimbledon (after a good few days rest !), it's just possible he can go really deep. He is certainly tough to stop in this form, as many good grass players have found over last couple of weeks. All depends how well he holds up over five sets. I suppose the likes of Cilic and Dimitrov might ultimately still be seen as having stronger credentials (?), notwithstanding their respective losses at Queens.

EDIT : have just seen your post barrystar. Agree 100%. Yesterday's win meant a lot to him, and he sure showed it

Just to add ..... Lopez is all too aware that at 35 there may be relatively few days-in-the-sun left for him to enjoy on court ; hence his exuberant, 'enjoy it while I can' attitude at yesterday's trophy ceremony.

Great stuff, and he will be missed when he does call it a day.

Lopez could easily have lost at any stage of Queens. Every match was close. Also, he may have given 100% at the tournament, while other, bigger players saw it as a practice tournament. I remember Andre Agassi in his book referencing something like "the Wimbledon warm up tournament" not even naming it. It is a event with some prestige, but not all players will recognize this.

"Good form" may sometimes be nothing more than a bit of luck, a few shots going an inch over the net instead of into the tape, and a little confidence. You expend emotional energy and physical energy in the warm up event, and then don't peak at the slam.

On the other hand, the rest week will definately help him here.  Defintely one to watch either way.

I remember Nicolas Mahut, a player now at a similar stage of his career to Lopez, nearly winning Queens and probably should have (lost to Roddick 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–7), but he never seems to do anything at Wimbledon. Well, last year he got to the 4th round to be fair, but that was the first time ever. Following his Queens final in 2007, he lost in the second round at Wimbledon that year, in straight sets to Gasquet. I keep an eye out for him at Wimbledon as well each year. I saw him play there once on an outside court, he lost to Tommy Robredo in straights in a match I thought before he could win. He's probably mostly known at Wimbledon for losing to Isner.

I'm not sure if Mahut's under performed at Wimbledon over the years there or been found out by players that didn't play to their peak in the warm up tournaments and were still getting used to the surface. Someone like Lopez or Mahut may know that they can do well on grass so be practicing on it during the French Open giving them a head start.

Mahut has actually had some bad results on grass this year, so unlikely previous years when he won Hertogenbosch will be coming in under people's radar with much less expectation than Lopez.

I do think Mahut would have got at least some more R4s and QFs at SW19 had he played in the 80s and 90s serve volley conditions (balls, court speed, rackets).

I just looked the winner's list at Queens and it's a spectacular list of greats throughout the ages. Tremendous history including the following champions (and all at the same site since 1890):

Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Gottfried von Cramm, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras.

Most of the GOAT contenders apart from Panco Gonzalez and Roger Federer. If anything the list of champions is slightly thinner on greats in the 2000s.

Watson beats Cibulkova - a much needed boost to her season.

@HB - Mahut's an interesting one and I've always had an eye out for him since he had that run at Queen's. A player who can do S&V, who does best on fast surfaces and has had a successful doubles career, he reminds me a bit of one of his formal doubles partners Llodra in that respect, but not so much when it comes to playing style - Llodra was more of an out-and-out S&V player. I don't think Mahut has under-performed at Wimbledon - I think that he finds his level vis-a-vis the rest of the field at the bigger tournaments (and on HC) and excels at the grass-court tournaments which are a big thing for him, but not the better players; his wins have been at s-Hertogenbosch and Rhode Island and, not to put too fine a point on it, the big guys have not gone to either of those venues determined to win for a while. I'd think when he hangs his racquet up as a Wimbledon and US Open doubles winner, #1 in doubles, a multiple singles winner on the main tour who has spiked interest for being in one or two big matches he can be well pleased with himself. If he wants to stay in tennis and has reasonable communication skills and all-round competence there'd be jobs for a guy like that.

Henman Bill wrote:I just looked the winner's list at Queens and it's a spectacular list of greats throughout the ages. Tremendous history including the following champions (and all at the same site since 1890):

Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Gottfried von Cramm, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras.

Most of the GOAT contenders apart from Panco Gonzalez and Roger Federer. If anything the list of champions is slightly thinner on greats in the 2000s.

Djokovic hasn't won it has he? I remember him playing Nadal there in the final one year (2008?)

Guest82 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I just looked the winner's list at Queens and it's a spectacular list of greats throughout the ages. Tremendous history including the following champions (and all at the same site since 1890):

Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Gottfried von Cramm, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Mcenroe, Connors, Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras.

Most of the GOAT contenders apart from Panco Gonzalez and Roger Federer. If anything the list of champions is slightly thinner on greats in the 2000s.

Djokovic hasn't won it has he?  I remember him playing Nadal there in the final one year (2008?)

Nadal isn't on the list

Well Nadal should be he won it the year he first won Wimbledon..did the double

and so begin the annual rain delays at Wimbledon !

That final between Nadal and Djokovic at Queens was a brilliant match. It is the only year I can recall them both playing at Queens, I don't think Novak has played it in since. That was back when Nadal was in his prime on grass but Novak was much more inexperienced. That being said Novak gave him a really tough match that day, the quality was very high!

Beijing Olympics  (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Canada (Outdoor/Hard)
Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass)
London / Queen's Club (Outdoor/Grass)
Roland Garros (Outdoor/Clay)
ATP Masters Series Hamburg (Outdoor/Clay)
Barcelona (Outdoor/Clay)
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo (Outdoor/Clay)


Above the Championships he won in 2008

Andy Murray's puzzling first round loss at Queens seems to have been based on physical issues. It has just been reported that "World number one Andy Murray has pulled out of his first exhibition match at Hurlingham Club with a sore hip".

In Murray's loss at Queens he was sluggish in movement and was getting to the ball late. A hip problem could have been the cause of that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/40416652

Well if Djoko met Rafa at Queens final in 2008 and Djoko didn't win it, then clearly Rafa was the one who won the title then! So, Rafa is one of the greats to win at Queens.

In addition to Rafa who's one of the ATGs, there are/were also a few slam winners winning there at Queens multiple times - Hewitt won it 4 times; Roddick 4 times and Murray 5 times, so that's quite an impressive list in the 2000s too!

Djoko did play at Queens in 2010 before he stopped playing warm up events on grass starting from 2011.

Oops sorry Rafa fans.

Rafa of course did the French Open, Queens, Wimbledon treble in 2008, and also I think at that time there was no rest week, and Queens would have been straight after the French Open so quite an achievement.

Henman Bill wrote:Oops sorry Rafa fans.

Rafa of course did the French Open, Queens, Wimbledon treble in 2008, and also I think at that time there was no rest week, and Queens would have been straight after the French Open so quite an achievement.

Ive already told you that in my post above...

Haddie-nuff wrote:Well Nadal should be he won it the year he first won Wimbledon..did the double

I know... was just saying he isn't on Henman Bills list

Henman Bill doesn't check before he posts

All sorts of topsy turvey results in Turkey.

If I'd been asked to pick the winner of the matches there, I'd have done well to get even half of them right.

Seeds crashing out and so on. I suppose you just go there for the match practice and you don't really want to be playing a final on Saturday/Sunday then having to rush to the airport and flying to UK on Sunday. Maybe that tournament would have been better in the week after the FO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Antalya_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles

I watched the last half of the SF Eastbourne match between Heather Watson & Caroline Wozniaki. Firstly I have to say - what a pleasure watching a women's match without any shrieking at all. It was played in silence - only a few voiceless heavy breathings. The WTA continue to scorn the paying public by not banning obvious voiced shrieking from the women's tennis.

Now in parts Heather Watson played like a top twenty player - some of her play was a joy to watch. The reason why she lost was because of her error count - some very basic errors after having manoeuvred herself into a point winning position. Interestingly one of the commentators talked about Watson's issues. Apparently Watson in practice has a much better game than in competition (in general). In practice she hits the ball harder and has an active game. In competition she becomes cautious and careful, she hits the ball not as hard, and tends to allow her opponents into the game and take over. Apparently if she was able to transfer her in training game into competition she would "easily" be a top twenty player according to this commentator. She said she would like to see Heather Watson copy the game plan of Justine Henan. She says Heather Watson could be like a Justine Henan. In discussion it was considered that Watson's forehand technique may need to be improved - so it becomes more reliable under pressure. But basically it was suggested Watson's major hurdle is mental.

Interesting thoughts about Heather Watson. I always thought her a bit too passive and limited to get that high in the rankings, although I haven't seen her play that often, and especially not recently.

I see Djokovic won the title in straight sets. Good for him that he has straight sets victories as he played four matches I think this week and he doesn't want to overplay but given they are in straight sets and he has had a long rest before that, maybe it's OK.

Henman Bill wrote:

..........................

I see Djokovic won the title in straight sets. Good for him that he has straight sets victories as he played four matches I think this week and he doesn't want to overplay but given they are in straight sets and he has had a long rest before that, maybe it's OK.

I think there's every possibility that Djokovic is now in excellent shape for Wimbledon, and that his prospects have been somewhat under-estimated. I'm seeing odds of 6/1 as outright winner but would rate him much more highly than that.

Likewise Rafa : the camp have been in very positive spirit, he has been putting in plenty of practise / preparation time despite the decision not to play any warm-ups. In the past Rafa himself has often adopted a low-key attitude ahead of Wimbledon but this year there's a different tone to his comments and he seems seriously determined to avoid any repeat of previous early exits (more about his buoyant mood on ATP site).

Murray is more of an unknown quantity right now but if the injury resolves itself, then he will take some stopping over five sets.

Federer will perhaps not be happy to be singled out with so much media attention. Part of his success in Melbourne was the fact that he was very much under the radar (well .... as much as Fed can ever possibly be !) and was playing so freely with no expectations either in his own mind or from the watching world.

A strong case can be made for all of the top four seeds and I certainly don't see Federer as standout favourite.

Best 'outsider' for me would be Cilic. But I would be very happy to see a brand new Slam winner.

@lags72 - a lot of good points there. I suspect Federer wears the mantle of favourite as well as anyone - he and Djoko were convincing #1's - but I agree that his situation is way more pressured than Oz. I agree with you that there's no strong favourite, and that Djoko and Nadal might go very deep. My reservations about Djoko are if his recent travails have affected the intensity of his training over the last few months, which may catch up with him if he has to go to the well in a big match.

It's a really interesting time in men's tennis right now.

@barrystar - I actually hesitated before hitting 'send' on that post because I wondered whether it sounded a bit waffly .....so am relieved to know that it made some sense to you (and hopefully others too)

Yes, it's an interesting time in the game. On the one hand we have a very familiar line-up in the top four seeds ....... ALL of them with form as multiple Wimbledon winners - not sure how often that same scenario has happened in years past ....... ?? On the other ..... perhaps harder than ever to predict how things will pan out.

Surely Fed is the substantial favourite here? He's been near unbeatable on hard courts this year and just won Halle on his best surface. He's also got a very decent draw this year.

In contrast, all of his main rivals have substantial question marks. Murray is injured and hasn't done anything all year. Novak isn't anywhere near slam winning form and Rafa has done nothing on grass for half a decade.

It isn't quite as much a certainty as Rafa winning the French but I would be very surprised if Fed didn't win Wimbledon.

I personally don't see him as 'substantial' favourite.

Sure, he's obviously in the frame because of the AO triumph and his unique grass pedigree. But age remains a factor where Bo5 over a two-week slog is concerned ..... you have to remind yourself just how unusual it is to win Slams at 35 or over. I think it's only ever happened a couple of times previously and the last (before Federer's) was almost 50 years ago ..... when the tennis world really was very different.

There's a good chance he can win. But there's equally a good chance that the circumstances which conspired in his favour in Melbourne may simply not happen again, even if this is his favoured surface.

Sure, and it was also unusual for slams to be won by players 30+ but the last three have been - and the winners of 33 of the last 34 slams are now over 30 (and the top 5 seeds for this slam). We can only judge based on current form - age in tennis now is just a number.

Fed came through 3 five setters in Melbourne and had a very tough draw, given his low seeding. It is highly unlikely he will have anywhere near as physically demanding a run on the grass. The circumstances are actually far more in his favour this time when compared to Oz.

@BS - that seems logical and on paper I'd agree, it's just....

The problem with the grass court season is that it is so short.  On the clay there were several other players making an impact before Roland Garros - such as Thiem and A Zverev - that made it seem that there could be a shake-up in the top order - although Nadal's form was looking imperious.  

There hasn't been any obvious sign in the short grass season before Wimbledon that there is anyone out there who is going to shake up the top order.   A tired looking 35 year old Lopez won at Queens but I doubt he is going to have the same type of impact with the five set format at Wimbledon.

Born Slippy wrote:Surely Fed is the substantial favourite here? He's been near unbeatable on hard courts this year and just won Halle on his best surface. He's also got a very decent draw this year.

In contrast, all of his main rivals have substantial question marks. Murray is injured and hasn't done anything all year. Novak isn't anywhere near slam winning form and Rafa has done nothing on grass for half a decade.

It isn't quite as much a certainty as Rafa winning the French but I would be very surprised if Fed didn't win Wimbledon.

I admire your optimism .. be prepared to be surprised

Lags72: "Yes, it's an interesting time in the game. On the one hand we have a very familiar line-up in the top four seeds ....... ALL of them with form as multiple Wimbledon winners - not sure how often that same scenario has happened in years past .."


Interesting point. The Big 4 have all won Wimbledon at least twice. Perhaps someone can delve back and find if there's been a GS in the Open Era where there have been four players as multi-Slam winners in the field.

I won't offer to find a definitive answer to my own question, sfp  - although I have a hunch there may in fact be no precedent.

(Am I right in saying that laverfan has always been our go-to conundrum solver over the years ...... )

Off the top of my head, the Wimbledons of the early 90s would have had multiple SW19 champions in Edberg, Becker and McEnroe but I'm not sure if there was anyone else qualifying at that time.

In 1991 the draw included Becker, Edberg, J McEnroe, and J Connors - all multiple Wimbledon winners, and Lendl was in the draw too.

But only really Becker and Edberg were genuine prospects in that draw, so it's not a precise precedent (Becker lost to Stich in the final, who himself had beaten Edberg in that memorable SF when Stich never broke Edberg's serve).

Thanks for the comments & info.

So in '91 we had four multiple Wimbledon winners ..... and all very big names in Wimbledon folklore.

I think what's especially unusual about this year is that the four multiple champions are also the top four seeds ..... with each of them perfectly capable of taking another title.

Just thinking about it, we have every Wimbledon champion for the previous 14 Wimbledons in the draw. Admittedly, there are only 4 of them but that must still be a record?

1991 had champions for the past 10 years.

I don't think one can say that Rafael Nadal is one of the favorites to lift the Wimbledon title.  You have to take into account past form and the reasons behind it.   Nadals past form in the last five years at Wimbledon has been 2R 1R 4R 2R A and the reasons behind it - he has difficulty bending at the knees - he has difficulty with the balance and movement required for grass court tennis.  In 2012 and 2014 - playing at Wimbledon was followed by time on the sidelines injured and missing the US Open.   It will be a surprise to see Nadal do well at Wimbledon - and it is a risk for Nadal to play on the grass.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/nadal-wimbledon-2017-preview

The one thing Ive learned about Grand Slams is that I am always prepared to be surprised

A quck glance at odds checker.

And Federer is the favourite by a clear margin, with typical odds of 2/1. Which gives him a 33% chance to win the title. Say 30% to allow for bookie profit margin.

The other big four have about a 15-20% chance to win the title according to the bookies. There is very little in it but Rafa is, on average, second favourite and Murray fourth favourite although some bookmakers have the three of them at the same odds.

https://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens/mens-wimbledon/winner

What were the odds for the favourite winning the Grand National this year ?

Henman Bill wrote:A quck glance at odds checker.

And Federer is the favourite by a clear margin, with typical odds of 2/1. Which gives him a 33% chance to win the title. Say 30% to allow for bookie profit margin.

The other big four have about a 15-20% chance to win the title according to the bookies. There is very little in it but Rafa is, on average, second favourite and Murray fourth favourite although some bookmakers have the three of them at the same odds.

https://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens/mens-wimbledon/winner

Betfair tends to give the most "true" odds as the market dictates, no bookies margin built in.

They have:
Fed 3.2 (2.2/1)
Nadal 6.0 (5/1)
Djokovic 6.2 (5.2/1)
Murray 7 (6/1)