Both were great especially Kyrgios - Federer but the crowd was terrible
Nishikori and Murray haven't exactly been great, the former since the AO and the latter all year. Zveref on the other hand did beat Djokovic the other week to break into the top 10, so I don't think he needs to be afraid of those two. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Murray lost early against Del Potro or whoever. Wawrinka on the other hand will most likely be a very tough opponent and I think he might even take the whole tournament. He won Geneva and apparently winning a Masters before entering a Slam is a good sign for him, historically.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Is the tension actually greater just because there are more tie-breaks? i.e. do the players feel the pressure at a 3-3 tiebreak the same as a 6-6 tiebreak?
Any problem with injuries here?
Eh, not too sure on this one, but it seems like something required in a fast-paced format.
This would be annoying as a player. They say it would be an unpredictable way to start a point, true... but how will points starting with a let look?
Hmm not sure. On one hand it seems like we're skimming on player welfare. On the other hand, they should just retire when hurt, and I don't like the tactical use of the time-outs).
Strongly against. However I see what they're trying to do here by giving the fans an inside view into a pro match.
Well, a set deciding tiebreak is a set deciding tiebreak. I don't think there's any real difference in how much pressure you feel. But I think the idea is more to "reset" the game advantage more frequently. Suppose you have two players that are likely to hold serve - if one of them gets an early break, it's more likely that they're going to win the set regardless of whether they have to win four or six games total, so by reducing the number of games in a set, you have less "downtime" for lack of a better term.
Well, yeah, it does. Maybe you could argue it counteracts having less opportunities to break over the course of six games compared to three like I described above, but personally I'm not a fan.
Don't think so, the players warm up before entering the court after all. From what I read it impacts performance in a different way though:
So it doesn't seem like a positive when you essentially carry over parts of the warm-up into the first set. I also find it highly questionable that spectators can't wait an extra five minutes.Glenn Hill said:
Well, the time limit between points is already at 25 seconds. The shot clock is just supposed to enforce the limit more consistently. I don't really mind per se, but I don't feel it's necessary either.
Frankly, I think this is both dumb and unnecessary. You don't have many points where a serve needs to be replayed because of a let in the first place and players have no incentive to try to hit the cord. But by changing this rule, they actually create that incentive and, like you said, it's not a desirable way to start a point.
I will admit, I liked listening in on the changeover conversations during the Laver Cup. That said, I prefer preserving the pure 1v1/2v2 nature of tennis as much as possible and I fear it might lead to newcomers being at an even greater disadvantage due to not having or not being able to afford the best coaches out there.
Hmm, a 6-6 would feel a little more important than deciding a 3-3, at least if I were playing. I guess it could still be the same.
I'm not a fan either. For what they're trying to do though this is acceptable.
Good point. What's the point of speeding it up if the first set has less quality.
Yea that's what I was trying to get at (though I didn't know it was 25s already). If there's a visible shot clock no one can get away with it. I would be against this in Grand Slams, but here I'm okay with it.
Agreed.
No, missed them. Might go back to check out the finals at some point.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I so wish I could have seen that historical match! Socializing isn't that great sometimes...
