Well Meddy in any GS especially in hot humid conditions like the AO you have to be able to manage your energy?He didn’t play a bad third set, he played strategically the wrong way, given his obvious fatigue. Funny enough, he played the way he played in the opening 2 sets, but in my humble opinion, he was playing with less energy, so he’d have been wise to focus solely on holding his serve and taking wild Hail Mary swings at everything on Sinner’s serve.
Worst that would happen is that they go into a tiebreak, where again his serve would make him favourite. He wasted what little energy he had left trying to compete as fully in the third as he had in the first 2 sets.
It’s Sampras 101. But Meddy can’t be faulted for playing the way he did, though it killed him…
Well Carlos didnt have much compeittion did he Sinner was unwell? Carlos has dips and lost his focus at Cinncy, and I was fairly confident Sinner would win, as he played well all tournament and the faster conditions suit his play.I was impressed by what I saw from Carlos tonight, what little there was. He seemed energetic and up for it.
He’s now roughly 2000 points ahead in the race, but that’ll mean little if he doesn’t win in New York..
As far as I know, nobody has ever won 4 five set matches to win a slam. Nobody is taking anything away from your pet, but to say that Medvedev lost because focus is inaccurate. He was knackered…Well Meddy in any GS especially in hot humid conditions like the AO you have to be able to manage your energy?
My main point with Meddy he lost previous matches at the AO that year, going 5 sets, where he should have won in 3?
Getting to a business end of any GS tournament you have to physically able to play 5 sets, in any conditions
Sinner eared his GS title.
I don't know where you got that, but you must not have watched what little there was to see. It was clear there was something wrong, like illness, not injury. And when he saw the trainer, he also got the doctor. No one looked his elbow. See my post after the 3rd game. It was pretty obvious he felt unwell.Sinner retired 'cos of an elbow injury today. He wasn't sick.
When are you going to get over that Dimitrov lost that match due to injury? You keep looking for a way to prove that Sinner would have lost that match, anyway, which is not provable. True, Sinner doesn't (yet) have a great 5th set win record, but neither does Dimitrov, with a much larger sample size. Also, pretty poor record against top 10 players. And he's a terrific folder, in the long run. Yes, it definitely looked like Sinner was going down that day, but if Sinner had gotten him to a 5th, I wouldn't have given you much for Dimitrov's chances. There are reasons he hasn't had a better career, in spite of the talent, and a lot of it has to do with lack of grit.The one weakness Sinner has is winning 5-setters. This is why I do not believe he would have come back against Dmitrov. He has lost 8 matches that have gone 5 sets since 2022 Wimbledon, by far the most of any player:
2022 Wimbledon
2022 US Open
2023 Australian Open
2023 French Open
2023 US Open
2024 French Open
2024 Wimbledon
2025 French Open
Imagine if Sinner converts just half of these. He could have 8 slams by now.
BTW Sinner is not my pet okay thanksAs far as I know, nobody has ever won 4 five set matches to win a slam. Nobody is taking anything away from your pet, but to say that Medvedev lost because focus is inaccurate. He was knackered…
I posted what Sinner saidI don't know where you got that, but you must not have watched what little there was to see. It was clear there was something wrong, like illness, not injury. And when he saw the trainer, he also got the doctor. No one looked his elbow. See my post after the 3rd game. It was pretty obvious he felt unwell.
Actually AP was talking to a mutal friend of mine in that match with Dimitrov and said ' you wait he wont last in a 5 set match against Sinner if he goes that farWhen are you going to get over that Dimitrov lost that match due to injury? You keep looking for a way to prove that Sinner would have lost that match, anyway, which is not provable. True, Sinner doesn't (yet) have a great 5th set win record, but neither does Dimitrov, with a much larger sample size. Also, pretty poor record against top 10 players. And he's a terrific folder, in the long run. Yes, it definitely looked like Sinner was going down that day, but if Sinner had gotten him to a 5th, I wouldn't have given you much for Dimitrov's chances. There are reasons he hasn't had a better career, in spite of the talent, and a lot of it has to do with lack of grit.
No you can’t have been saying that. In two of those matches he lost the first two sets, and in the other he lost the second set, so winning them all in 3 sets wasn’t an option.BTW Sinner is not my pet okay thanks
You missed my point I was talking up to the matches before the final where Meddy should have won in 3 sets, and focus lost him those matches where he should have won in 3 sets
Getting to the business end of a tournament you have to be 100% physically ready in any conditions
If you watched those 2 matches he lost his focus, the reason why it went longer than it should haveNo you can’t have been saying that. In two of those matches he lost the first two sets, and in the other he lost the second set, so winning them all in 3 sets wasn’t an option.
Don’t worry about it…
You know if Alcaraz makes , say, the finals of the US Open, losing to Sinner AND wins a couple more Masters he could conceivably still be the YE # 1 even if Sinner has won three Majors to his one.I was impressed by what I saw from Carlos tonight, what little there was. He seemed energetic and up for it.
He’s now roughly 2000 points ahead in the race, but that’ll mean little if he doesn’t win in New York..
Ah yes, that’s what I meant. I tend to think the player who did best in the slams is the number one for that year anyway. But Carlos has as good a chance as any to win the USO, so hopefully he rubberstamps his position there.You know if Alcaraz makes , say, the finals of the US Open, losing to Sinner AND wins a couple more Masters he could conceivably still be the YE # 1 even if Sinner has won three Majors to his one.
Well duh! Been ranting about the rankings & how its failed the 2 Tours since the days of the "paper computer" of the WTA! It took a couple decades before they found Evonne Goolagong should have had at least 2 weeks at #1 back in the 70's! She joins the rest of the Top Women, but in my head, she's head & shoulders above them all w/ her athletic grace on the court! Her play would probably make me weep after watching decades of this travesty we call a "Game of Kings!"You know if Alcaraz makes , say, the finals of the US Open, losing to Sinner AND wins a couple more Masters he could conceivably still be the YE # 1 even if Sinner has won three Majors to his one.




As you mentioned overall Rafa had a better Slam record than Roger, making 3 finals & winning two. Roger won 2 Slams in 2 finals. Rafa won the FO & USO & the finals of the AO.The ATP year-end number measures the most ATP pionts for the year, and thus is more quantitative than qualitative. I'm guessing that the two match up 90% of the time, so it isn't bad. And even when they don't match up (that is, the best player in terms of quality isn't year-end #1), it usually isn't egregious.
In baseball terms, ATP rankings are more like hits or total bases rather than batting average or slugging percentage.
That said, I could see having bonuses or higher point totals for Slam titles than the current system. While I think the point system is pretty good at depicting relative difficulty of winning different tournaments, it does seem odd that a Grand Slam is "only" worth two Masters. I kind of think 2500 points would be better, so 2.5 Masters worth. Or maybe bonus points for things like multiple SlamsBut that's entirely subjective.
Either way, the 1990 system is a lot better than the 1973-89 system, imo, which averaged out title results in a weighted manner. So you have John McEnroe being year #1 in 1982, when both Connors and Lendl had better years. That's one of the worst, imo.
On the other hand, while I think Roger was the best player in 2017, winning more big titles in far fewer events than Rafa, i don't have a problem with Rafa being #1. Basically the difference comes down to him playing one more Slam and reaching the Final. He deserves credit for that, even if Roger's win% was significantly higher.