Back to back double faults after a championship point.
Long way to go, but Djoker's still alive.
Long way to go, but Djoker's still alive.
View: https://twitter.com/BenRothenberg/status/1437188895100260353I hope we get an explanation for that celebration after match point.
Don't forget we still have Indian Wells coming up next month!Disappointing finals but a very fun tournament all around. See you in Australia!
Same here. It's funny, I absolutely love the majors and devour as much of them as I can. And I never even consider watching any other match during the year.I only pay attention to the Grand Slams, tennis only gets 8 weeks of my life per year.
Basically the same here. I might stop and watch for a half hour if I stumble across a match on a lazy winter Sunday afternoon, but I don't look for it. I do love the slams though.Same here. It's funny, I absolutely love the majors and devour as much of them as I can. And I never even consider watching any other match during the year.
Completely agree. It's also nice going in that the max a Men's match is going to be is 3 sets/3 hours(ish). While the drama of a 4.5 hour match can be fun, it can also be draining and sometimes impossible to watch all of. In addition to the shorter matches, I think it also creates more (or, at least, different) drama - when Djokovic or Nadal lose the first set in opening or middle rounds of a slam, I still know how it's going to end...but at a 1000 level event that outcome is much more in doubt with the shorter format.There are loads of lesser tournaments...but if you enjoy the Slams, you should really think about tuning into at least some of the ATP 1000 or WTA 1000 events, especially the ones held concurrently like Indian Wells. They feature most of the best players, and often the draws are even better than the Slams, simply because the fields are smaller and you have to be c. a Top 50 player rather than a Top 100 player to get in automatically. And they really help shape the narrative of what will happen and is happening in the Slams themselves - particularly on the women's side of things at the moment.
FWIW, the reason I singled out "particularly on the women's side of things at the moment" is that even when healthy, Djokovic and Nadal have often sat out some of the 1000-level events or not tried particularly hard in them - their rankings have been so secure that they haven't needed many points for them, and they've come to feel as though they can prepare better for the Slams in their own time rather than under tournament conditions. That's one of the reasons I've been down on men's tennis of late, to be honest; tennis is healthiest when it's *not* all about the Slams, but rather when they are the most important part of a vibrant and healthy year-long calendar. And that's exactly what we're seeing in women's tennis right now: the Slams are as wide open as they've ever been, and the best players (who aren't nearly as separated from the rest of the women's field as Djokovic is from the men's) really, really want to win the 1000-level events in particular in part because they are prizes worth winning in and of themselves, not just because they provide match practice and signify who is peaking as the next Slam approaches.Completely agree. It's also nice going in that the max a Men's match is going to be is 3 sets/3 hours(ish). While the drama of a 4.5 hour match can be fun, it can also be draining and sometimes impossible to watch all of. In addition to the shorter matches, I think it also creates more (or, at least, different) drama - when Djokovic or Nadal lose the first set in opening or middle rounds of a slam, I still know how it's going to end...but at a 1000 level event that outcome is much more in doubt with the shorter format.
Completely agree. While I appreciate their individual greatness, and completely respect/understand why the big 3 pretty much only care about the slams at this point, I am pretty much over them being the focal point of the men's game for the reason you stated above. I am not sure we see an end to that for another 2-3 years though.FWIW, the reason I singled out "particularly on the women's side of things at the moment" is that even when healthy, Djokovic and Nadal have often sat out some of the 1000-level events or not tried particularly hard in them - their rankings have been so secure that they haven't needed many points for them, and they've come to feel as though they can prepare better for the Slams in their own time rather than under tournament conditions. That's one of the reasons I've been down on men's tennis of late, to be honest; tennis is healthiest when it's *not* all about the Slams, but rather when they are the most important part of a vibrant and healthy year-long calendar. And that's exactly what we're seeing in women's tennis right now: the Slams are as wide open as they've ever been, and the best players (who aren't nearly as separated from the rest of the women's field as Djokovic is from the men's) really, really want to win the 1000-level events in particular in part because they are prizes worth winning in and of themselves, not just because they provide match practice and signify who is peaking as the next Slam approaches.
For me this is actually a negative, I find it hard to take best of 3 men's matches seriously.Completely agree. It's also nice going in that the max a Men's match is going to be is 3 sets/3 hours(ish). While the drama of a 4.5 hour match can be fun, it can also be draining and sometimes impossible to watch all of. In addition to the shorter matches, I think it also creates more (or, at least, different) drama - when Djokovic or Nadal lose the first set in opening or middle rounds of a slam, I still know how it's going to end...but at a 1000 level event that outcome is much more in doubt with the shorter format.
So just out of curiosity, has that always been a thing for you...or only more recently? Because I do think there is a ton of merit to what @Conigliaro's Potential said above WRT the big 3 really only worrying abut the slams. So wondering if there is any kind of filter down effect on the fans.For me this is actually a negative, I find it hard to take best of 3 men's matches seriously.
Hmm. Basically I have just never had any interest in any tennis outside of the four slams, and those I have religiously watched since I was a kid. I have never really self-analyzed why this is, usually if I'm into something, I am into it obsessively, but I really think it's just what I said above, 8 weeks out of each year is enough tennis for me, and clearly those are the 8 weeks to watch. Also there is always a sense for me in tennis that motivation levels are different in non-Slams, meaning sometimes players are just trying to get matches in, etc. We saw an extremely rare case of this during a Slam this year when Federer withdrew in the middle of the French to try to better prepare himself for WImbledon, but in general everyone is going all out during those four tournaments.So just out of curiosity, has that always been a thing for you...or only more recently? Because I do think there is a ton of merit to what @Conigliaro's Potential said above WRT the big 3 really only worrying abut the slams. So wondering if there is any kind of filter down effect on the fans.
Hmm I think you definitely answered my question, at least in terms it has nothing to do with the Big 3. And it makes sense, I used to work in the tennis travel business and during a slam we'd often pitch our clients on some of the other events (Indian Wells, Miami, etc) and in many cases they weren't even aware they were considered large events.Hmm. Basically I have just never had any interest in any tennis outside of the four slams, and those I have religiously watched since I was a kid. I have never really self-analyzed why this is, usually if I'm into something, I am into it obsessively, but I really think it's just what I said above, 8 weeks out of each year is enough tennis for me, and clearly those are the 8 weeks to watch. Also there is always a sense for me in tennis that motivation levels are different in non-Slams, meaning sometimes players are just trying to get matches in, etc. We saw an extremely rare case of this during a Slam this year when Federer withdrew in the middle of the French to try to better prepare himself for WImbledon, but in general everyone is going all out during those four tournaments.
That doesn't really answer your question but it's hard to answer because I have never watched almost any tennis outside of those four tournaments, and that goes back way before Fed/Rafa/Novak. I have a similar, somewhat irrational personal boundary with soccer, I usually get into the World Cup (and occasionally the European championship) but I never watch any Premier League or any other league soccer, even though the quality of the sport there is almost certainly higher than the World Cup. It's just a personal line, there is only so much time to go around.
But that kind of makes sense in a way, the format of golf majors and secondary tournaments is identical and far less of a time commitment than following along the 1000s tennis events which are 10 days.It's funny...I'm pretty sure there are significantly more tennis fans who do what @jon abbey does than there are, say, golf fans who watch the majors but wouldn't watch e.g. the final round of The Players or The Memorial, even though the relative importance of those secondary tournaments is pretty much the same.
Interesting that they cancelled the last 3 matches, and threw a fun doubles exhibition in instead after the Cup was won. If I had paid the huge money for the Sunday tickets expecting to see 3 singles matches, which were replaced with a casual doubles match, I would have been very disappointedI know not the point, but Zverev was correct, the World Team did not win another match and lost the Cup 14-1.