Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2019, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[El Dude]

Well, del Potro was a new masters winner indeed, but as he was a major winner it felt differently (actually to me is really different).

Of course. So were Cilic and Stan, both of whom had won Slams before Masters. But I think we can look at Masters as a sign of things to come on the Slam level. Sea changes tend to percolate up from the bottom: first younger generations start winning ATP 250s and 500s, then Masters, and then Slams. I'm not talking about the stray outlier, but as a whole.

The reason I'm singling Masters out is that they are the "vestibule" of the Slams. What we're seeing is the sea change percolate to the level just below Slams, which means it isn't long before it starts happening at the Slam level.

 

[Carol]

They say that Fog has a couple of injuries and probably he went to some surgeries after RG, I hope the injuries are not so badly and unusual like this one.......

http://www.espn.com.co/video/clip/_/id/4835446

 

[mrzz]

Of course. So were Cilic and Stan, both of whom had won Slams before Masters. But I think we can look at Masters as a sign of things to come on the Slam level. Sea changes tend to percolate up from the bottom: first younger generations start winning ATP 250s and 500s, then Masters, and then Slams. I'm not talking about the stray outlier, but as a whole.

The reason I'm singling Masters out is that they are the "vestibule" of the Slams. What we're seeing is the sea change percolate to the level just below Slams, which means it isn't long before it starts happening at the Slam level.

Agreed. I brought that up simply because I feel that 2019 is more "different" than 2018 already. But honestly if we look in a completely non passioned way to the data, the years are (still) not that different. But we know the seed of change is there, so we give a lot of value to the small changes we see. Of course, all it takes is just a different major winner and then we will all believe that the future has arrived.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

. I dont think it is a bold prediction to say that we'll likely have at least one more this year to make it 3+ in each of the last three years, after only three new winners in the previous six.

New or old, Non-Fedalovic players will win a majority of Masters Tourneys this year.

 

[El Dude]

Agreed. I brought that up simply because I feel that 2019 is more "different" than 2018 already. But honestly if we look in a completely non passioned way to the data, the years are (still) not that different. But we know the seed of change is there, so we give a lot of value to the small changes we see. Of course, all it takes is just a different major winner and then we will all believe that the future has arrived.

Do you still think Fedal are done winning majors?

I do think that all three are looking more mortal than in years past. Well, Roger looks better than he has since 2017, but is still quite vulnerable. I don't think Rafa is in peak form and Novak seems to be in a lull. The point being, these guys can be beaten. Maybe they have enough gas to pedal it just right to take all four majors this year, but if that happens it will be just barely and it will also be the last time. Really. This time. For real.

 

[El Dude]

New or old, Non-Fedalovic players will win a majority of Masters Tourneys this year.

Hope so!

 

[mrzz]

Do you still think Fedal are done winning majors?

The short answer is "yes".

The long one is just too long -- I have tried to write it down but did not like the result. Maybe a good resume would be: I am as certain as someone who knows that anything can happen could be. And this "anything" include much more unlikely events.

 

[herios]

The short answer is "yes".

The long one is just too long -- I have tried to write it down but did not like the result. Maybe a good resume would be: I am as certain as someone who knows that anything can happen could be. And this "anything" include much more unlikely events.

We will see in 2 months what happens in Paris.
Rafa said in the presser that he played one of his worst matches in 14 years against Fabio. I am sure the outcome had something to do with Fabio as well, it was not just Rafa playing bad.
Fabio has beaten Rafa before, he is not afraid to go for his shots.
It could have been just a hi-cup, or he is less consistent than before.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Congrats to Fognini.
Finally wins a well deserved M1000(His level on clay rewarded)
Hopefully he builds up on this and has a great season and stays injury free.

Great week especially after that jailbreak win against Rublev.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, whenever I read one of your attacks I go back and read what you are complaining about and EVERY TIME find that you have twisted what I actually said just to try to make me look wrong.

Listen carefully: I did NOT say that Novak was as good as Borg, Rafa, and Lendl on clay...I listed him among them as players who were better than Roger. THAT IS ALL. I made no statement with regard to how he compares to those other three players.

As for Roger vs. Novak, I agree that it is close-ish but given Novak the edge for reasons Herios laid out.

Just cheap, I knew you were gonna say this bs....it’s not an attack. The group of Borg, Nadal and Lendl are significantly more accomplished than Roger and Novak who are in the same category with next to nothing to separate them. The fact you chose to put Novak with those standouts gave it away, I don’t care how you try to twist out of it, basically it just means you don’t know anything, sorry it’s a fact not attack. It’s exactly like someone putting Becker with Fedalvic, laver and Borg as Goats in comparing Edberg, and I will tell you nothing really separate Becker and Edberg...argue if you want, but you are just tennis clueless.

 

[Federberg]

Ricardo, whenever I read one of your attacks I go back and read what you are complaining about and EVERY TIME find that you have twisted what I actually said just to try to make me look wrong.

Listen carefully: I did NOT say that Novak was as good as Borg, Rafa, and Lendl on clay...I listed him among them as players who were better than Roger. THAT IS ALL. I made no statement with regard to how he compares to those other three players.

As for Roger vs. Novak, I agree that it is close-ish but given Novak the edge for reasons Herios laid out.

Lol! Mate.. you do this all the time. You accuse people who disagree with you of attacking you. You need to get over it. Perhaps you shouldn't over reach so much. Grouping Novak in with Borg, Rafa and Lendl clearly implies that he is on their level. I do wish you would man up and at least admit fault sometimes, I promise you, folks would respect you more for that.

By the way it is not clear to me that either Novak or Roger belong in a higher group than Wilander and Muster. There was a time when we expected Muster to win any clay event he was in. I don't think we've ever felt that way about either Roger or Novak.

 

[Ricardo]

It is a close call

Exactly, so neither belongs to the highest group. Depending how you look at it, one can be seen edging another only based on very small differences. El don’t know put Novak with the trio who are clearly a cut above, which is laughable.

 

[mrzz]

We will see in 2 months what happens in Paris.
Rafa said in the presser that he played one of his worst matches in 14 years against Fabio. I am sure the outcome had something to do with Fabio as well, it was not just Rafa playing bad.
Fabio has beaten Rafa before, he is not afraid to go for his shots.
It could have been just a hi-cup, or he is less consistent than before.

Agreed in general, but in short I do think he (RN) is less consistent, at least when he goes in to attack mode. I was with that impression already, and if that happened in MC, than it is serious.

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! Mate.. you do this all the time. You accuse people who disagree with you of attacking you. You need to get over it. Perhaps you shouldn't over reach so much. Grouping Novak in with Borg, Rafa and Lendl clearly implies that he is on their level. I do wish you would man up and at least admit fault sometimes, I promise you, folks would respect you more for that.

By the way it is not clear to me that either Novak or Roger belong in a higher group than Wilander and Muster. There was a time when we expected Muster to win any clay event he was in. I don't think we've ever felt that way about either Roger or Novak.

You can look forward to some more childish kinder level mouth off from el don’t know, as he attempts to argue his way out of this. Put simply, Roger vs Novak who tops is arguable, the trio is not. Pretty obvious he was trying to solidify his personal belief that Novak tops Roger on clay as being undebatable, therefore pulling in the trio as some kind of support.




(Expect to see that he says he is a Roger fan trying to be objective)...haha, as if I don’t know better.

 

[El Dude]

Was it Mark Twain who said, "Don't argue with fools because bystanders might not be able to tell the difference?" I should probably heed that advice.

I would only say, Federberg, that I've given you the benefit of the doubt time and time again but you seemingly can't get over your gripe with me and take every opportunity to try to prove me wrong, even to the point of siding with an imbecile like Ricardo in a fool's quest. How do you make yourself look, grouping yourself with Ricardo? I am fine admitting when I'm wrong - but only when I'm actually wrong. This is a total waste of time - read what I actually wrote. If you don't get it, you're either willfully disagreeing with me because of your own issues, or you're just plain stupid. Again, I only grouped Novak among those that are above Roger. I said absolutely nothing about how he is in relation to the other three. Please quote me if I did! But you won't because you can't, because I simply didn't.

Either way, life is too short to waste time arguing with fools and assholes on the internet. I'm getting really tired of dealing with this shit every other time I post something, so not sure what the point is bothering anymore. If your goal is drive me away with this incessant gadflying, you guys win. Who are you going to pick on next? Who's your next target? Have at it, boys! Enjoy your assholism, but work out your issues on someone else because I've had enough of this silliness.

 

[Federberg]

Was it Mark Twain who said, "Don't argue with fools because bystanders might not be able to tell the difference?" I should probably heed that advice.

I would only say, Federberg, that I've given you the benefit of the doubt time and time again but you seemingly can't get over your gripe with me and take every opportunity to try to prove me wrong, even to the point of siding with an imbecile like Ricardo in a fool's quest. How do you make yourself look, grouping yourself with Ricardo? I am fine admitting when I'm wrong - but only when I'm actually wrong. This is a total waste of time - read what I actually wrote. If you don't get it, you're either willfully disagreeing with me because of your own issues, or you're just plain stupid. Again, I only grouped Novak among those that are above Roger. I said absolutely nothing about how he is in relation to the other three. Please quote me if I did! But you won't because you can't, because I simply didn't.

Either way, life is too short to waste time arguing with fools and assholes on the internet. I'm getting really tired of dealing with this shit every other time I post something, so not sure what the point is bothering anymore. If your goal is drive me away with this incessant gadflying, you guys win. Who are you going to pick on next? Who's your next target? Have at it, boys! Enjoy your assholism, but work out your issues on someone else because I've had enough of this silliness.

oh here we go It's funny how you'll start off with the insults and if I jump in you'll start whining. Anyway I'll forgo that. You must really think a lot of yourself if you think that I feel the need to gang up against you because you bother me. Far from it. I'm extremely consistent. I might be accused of many things but surely not inconsistency. I note that you continue to peddle the nonsense that Novak is a better career clay courter than Federer when there's no definitive proof of that. Your continuing reliance on "data" to promote your point of view yet again exposes your lack of knowledge. El Don't Know indeed! You did well noting the pedigree of Borg, Lendl and Nadal, but slipped up terribly mentioning Novak in the same sentence. Paying no respect to the likes of Wilander and Muster by the way, but that's the recency bias of the young or ignorant. Clearly I wasn't the only one who noticed it obviously. I actually restrained myself by not making an issue of it as I knew you would whine like a.... (oh dear! I almost forgot... I"m trying to be nice) I've told you time and time again... stop making declarative statements and you'll find yourself in less trouble.

 

[El Dude]

Federberg, here's the quote you've got your panties in a wad about:

Umm, no they don't. Roger has been in more clay Slam finals (five) than all but 22 players have been in ALL Slam finals on any surface. Think about that for a moment. Roger lost four Slam finals to the "surface GOAT"...no shame in that.

If you tally up all factors, how many players in the Open Era were greater clay courters than Roger? Rafa, Borg, Lendl, Novak, and then it gets questionable. Vilas? Wilander? Hard to say. I suppose we could talk about Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, etc. Meaning, only four players were clearly better on clay than Roger, and I'm sure some will complain about my inclusion of Novak. But at the very worst he's one of the top 10 clay courters of the Open Era.

That said, winning another RG would do more for either resume than them winning any other Slam.

Now re-read that, carefully. The group is "greater clay courters than Roger." That is the only way I grouped Novak with Rafa, Borg, and Lendl. Not once did I make any statement about how Novak compares to them, except that they are greater clay courters than Roger.

The logic is very simple. By saying Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are larger planets than Earth, I am not saying that Neptune is as large as Jupiter or Saturn! This is so basic that I don't know why I need to explain this. Ricardo's whole attack on me is based on his erroneous assumption that I am equating Neptune with Jupiter, which clearly I am not.

I also never said that Novak over Rafa isn't debatable. I think it is, but as I said I would give the edge to Novak, but not by a huge margin and am open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, here's the quote you've got your panties in a wad about:



Now re-read that, carefully. The group is "greater clay courters than Roger." That is the only way I grouped Novak with Rafa, Borg, and Lendl. Not once did I make any statement about how Novak compares to them, except that they are greater clay courters than Roger.

The logic is very simple. By saying Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are larger planets than Earth, I am not saying that Neptune is as large as Jupiter or Saturn! This is so basic that I don't know why I need to explain this. Ricardo's whole attack on me is based on his erroneous assumption that I am equating Neptune with Jupiter, which clearly I am not.

I also never said that Novak over Rafa isn't debatable. I think it is, but as I said I would give the edge to Novak, but not by a huge margin and am open to being convinced otherwise.

Lol! And there you go.. you get yourself into even more trouble. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all giants - Jupiter and Saturn gas giants; Neptune and Uranus ice giants. If Federer is Earth, you're implying that Novak is an order of magnitude greater. You're classing him as one of the giants. That's what you're saying! That is factually incorrect mate. Stop digging before you bury yourself with rubbish

By the way I'm not sure what all that nonsense about what Ricardo was saying. Ricardo, permit me to speak on your behalf briefly... he never said anything about you comparing Novak to Rafa. His point.. and rightly so... is that you seem intent on creating distance between Novak and Roger. There is no distance. None at all!

 

[mrzz]

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. You are nitpicking on El Dude's post. The quote is there and it only says that x,y, z and w are larger than v. Nothing about any hierarchy amongst x,y, z and w.

If, by virtue of old posts, you are so sure about what he actually thinks about x,y,z and w, why don't you wait for him to actually say something new about it and just then argue/complaint/insult or whatever crap you feel like doing? It gets amazingly boring to watch that shit.

 

[El Dude]

But that isn't true, Federberg - I'm not "intent on creating distance between Novak and Roger." Despite Ricardo's ridiculous implication, I'm not some secret Novak fan. You know that Roger is my guy. But I'm also interested in seeing things as truthfully as possible and, in the end, care less about my guy being better than I do about understanding what is true.

Why do you insist on me saying something I'm not actually saying? Even when I clarify or correct, you say I'm either lying or back-pedalling...you don't take anything I say at face value.

You're taking the planet analogy too concretely or willfully misunderstanding to continue your apparent vendetta. The simple point is that all four planets are larger than Earth. That is all. Now how much larger is a different matter, and I agree Novak-Roger is debatable.The gas giant part is not at all what I'm getting at, and you know this - but you're apparently more interested in being right than in actually understanding what I'm saying and believe, which makes this conversation pointless and simply masochistic on my part.