SMB Tennis thread (note there is a specific Wimbledon 22 thread)

Not seen the Halep match, but looks like 2 comfortable wins in the women's. Kerber was always in control. They are the 2 who I wanted to win, so 3/4 quarter final winners ain't bad.

Federer survived a first set he probably should have lost to win in straight sets again.
 


Benjamin said:
Cillic has been around forever and only won one slam, average player at best.
Click to expand...

Winning a slam, reaching potentially two other slam finals and having won a 1000 masters in this era already puts him ahead of Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet, Monfils, Isner, Raonic, Ferrer, Thiem, Goffin, Dimitrov, Kevin Anderson, Verdasco, Gilles Simon etc.

I'd argue peak Cilic is as good as peak Del Potro/Wawrinka/Murray. He's certainly got potentially another slam in him and doing so would easily put him in that tier.
 
Sharpshooter said:
Winning a slam, reaching potentially two other slam finals and having won a 1000 masters in this era already puts him ahead of Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet, Monfils, Isner, Raonic, Ferrer, Thiem, Goffin, Dimitrov, Kevin Anderson, Verdasco, Gilles Simon etc.

I'd argue peak Cilic is as good as peak Del Potro/Wawrinka/Murray. He's certainly got potentially another slam in him and doing so would easily put him in that tier.
Click to expand...

Let's not go overboard, Marin Cilic isn't remotely close to Andy Murray.
 
MarcoG said:
Let's not go overboard, Marin Cilic isn't remotely close to Andy Murray.
Click to expand...

He's nowhere near as consistent as Murray is, but I do think that on their day, Del Potro/Wawrinka/Cilic are as good as Murray is. Murray bring his A game nearly every tournament whereas those three bring it only a handful of times a year.

I know people talk up the 'big 4', but honestly Murray's not in the league of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal, it's really a 'big 3'. He's arguably the best and most consistent player after them though, but it is quite a long way back and I would say he's as close if not closer to those other players mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Sharpshooter said:
He's nowhere near as consistent as Murray is, but I do think that on their day, Del Potro/Wawrinka/Cilic are as good as Murray is. Murray bring his A game nearly every tournament whereas those three bring it only a handful of times a year.

I know people talk up the 'big 4', but honestly Murray's not in the league of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal, it's really a 'big 3'. He's arguably the best and most consistent player after them though, but it is quite a long way back and I would say he's as close if not closer to those other players mentioned.
Click to expand...

Measuring someone on their peak level of abilities when they don't perform to it with regularity is a bit daft though isn't it? On his day, Evgeny Donskoy beats Roger Federer. It doesn't mean he's close to being as good as him.

Murray's won more Olympic Gold medals than Marin Cilic has been in Masters 1000 finals. I just can't see any comparison between the two.
 
MarcoG said:
Measuring someone on their peak level of abilities when they don't perform to it with regularity is a bit daft though isn't it? On his day, Evgeny Donskoy beats Roger Federer. It doesn't mean he's close to being as good as him.

Murray's won more Olympic Gold medals than Marin Cilic has been in Masters 1000 finals. I just can't see any comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

I can see why del Potro and, to a degree, Stan would get compared but I'd put them a level above as well (del Potro's best was sublime but injury ended that).
 
Someone told me earlier that if Kerber beats Halep and our Caroline beats Mertens in the Semi-Finals that Caroline will be the new #1 in the rankings even if she goes on to lose a Final against Kerber ?
 
Arkle said:
Yeah, I fancy her (to win).
Click to expand...

Having had a bet on her to win a Slam each time she has played in one for the past eight years, and lost out, I would happily go with that, too. :)

I think she will beat Mertens overnight. And that Kerber will beat Halep. But a Final of Caroline against Halep with the winner lifting the trophy as well as being #1 come Monday would make it even more interesting.
 
Last edited:
alexander said:
Someone told me earlier that if Kerber beats Halep and our Caroline beats Mertens in the Semi-Finals that Caroline will be the new #1 in the rankings even if she goes on to lose a Final against Kerber ?
Click to expand...

https://live-tennis.eu/en/wta-live-ranking

Love the live ranking site.

If she loses to Kerber as you say she will have 7265 to Halep's 7195. If she beats Kerber in the final she will have 7965 to Halep's 7195. Halep will pull well clear if she wins it, especially if she is against Mertens and would be extremely likely to hold on to that #1 ranking going into the French despite a few PM and P5s tournaments before then.

Kerber back in the top 10 now. Mertens will climb to #14 if she beats Woz and into the top 10 if she wins it all.
 
The Bridge Lad said:
https://live-tennis.eu/en/wta-live-ranking

Love the live ranking site.

If she loses to Kerber as you say she will have 7265 to Halep's 7195. If she beats Kerber in the final she will have 7965 to Halep's 7195. Halep will pull well clear if she wins it, especially if she is against Mertens and would be extremely likely to hold on to that #1 ranking going into the French despite a few PM and P5s tournaments before then.

Kerber back in the top 10 now. Mertens will climb to #14 if she beats Woz and into the top 10 if she wins it all.
Click to expand...

Looking at the men's side, Edmund is up to minimally 26 as it stands (and unless Chung wins), 19 as a finalist and 8 should he win it. The big thing, obviously is his potential move toward Slam seedings.
 
Arkle said:
Looking at the men's side, Edmund is up to minimally 26 as it stands (and unless Chung wins), 19 as a finalist and 8 should he win it. The big thing, obviously is his potential move toward Slam seedings.
Click to expand...

True. At least for the 3 remaining slams this season anyway.

Not sure if the reduction to 16 seeds is confirmed for next year, I think it is, which is an interesting debate in itself - what's your take on that? If you like normal order then you'd generally be against it, if you like to see big matches from an early stage and not risk not having them by someone flopping, or you like seeing more random runs from lowly ranks then you'll probably be for it.

I'm generally against it. With 32 men and 32 women matches on the first two days of slams (bar the French) and then 16 of each on the next 2, there are more than enough interesting matches IMO whether it be through national interest, a dangerous floater like Bencic vs Venus or even just big names vs anyone - there's usually something for everyone and doesn't need the free for all. Plus it kind of lessens the other tour events as players work hard to get themselves in the seeding positions throughout the year. You could have got the likes of Dimitrov vs Kyrgios and Kerber vs Keys (although proved a damp squib) in the first round had the 16 seeds been in force this year.
 
The Bridge Lad said:
True. At least for the 3 remaining slams this season anyway.

Not sure if the reduction to 16 seeds is confirmed for next year, I think it is, which is an interesting debate in itself - what's your take on that? If you like normal order then you'd generally be against it, if you like to see big matches from an early stage and not risk not having them by someone flopping, or you like seeing more random runs from lowly ranks then you'll probably be for it.

I'm generally against it. With 32 men and 32 women matches on the first two days of slams (bar the French) and then 16 of each on the next 2, there are more than enough interesting matches IMO whether it be through national interest, a dangerous floater like Bencic vs Venus or even just big names vs anyone - there's usually something for everyone and doesn't need the free for all. Plus it kind of lessens the other tour events as players work hard to get themselves in the seeding positions throughout the year. You could have got the likes of Dimitrov vs Kyrgios and Kerber vs Keys (although proved a damp squib) in the first round had the 16 seeds been in force this year.
Click to expand...

I'm mixed on the possible change. It's how things used to be so not new to me and it wasn't disastrous but it does mean that a player being injured for a month or two could go on a downward spiral with the wrong draw. Actually, broadly against it, for a lot of the reasons you give.
 
If Mertens doesn't feel the pressure too much I think she'll win the tournament but Wozniacki's probably the last player you'd pick to play if you are feeling it.

On another note, I bet Alize Cornet is wishing she didn't make so many comments about Sharapova just about now...
 

Back
Top