2017 French Open...ATP 2000...Roland Garros...Paris, France

[don_budge]

Body Language...

Wawrinka has a fighting spirit today. I really hope so. He is making some mistakes but he is castigating himself intensely. He wants this one. Murray broken at 3-4 and Wawrinka not serving for the set. A telling point of the match. Murray looks tentative and unsure. A long way to go but it looks to me as if Wawrinka wants to kick his ass.

[don_budge]

Interestingly...Wawrinka fails to serve it out. Ahhh...the travails with the less than perfect service motion. When the pressure is on the little flaws and anomalies seem to gather in the Gold Mine and make it impossible to control the damn thing. The next time he serves...without the pressure he is flawless. Murray to serve to get into the tiebreaker. He is hanging in there...as Murray is known to do. They have played 17 times and Mr. McEnroe informs us that the winner of the first set has won 14 times.

[stotty]

Murray played a good tie-break in the first set, muddled through some tricky points and came out the winner. Stan isn't rolling as consistently as he can with that big game of his. It's up to Murray to keep him off balance enough to stop that happening.

I'd like see Murray playing closer to the baseline. It's dangerous to sit too far back with Stan.

[don_budge]

Murray played a good tie-break in the first set, muddled through some tricky points and came out the winner. Stan isn't rolling as consistently as he can with that big game of his. It's up to Murray to keep him off balance enough to stop that happening.

I'd like see Murray playing closer to the baseline. It's dangerous to sit too far back with Stan.

The first set was pretty dodgy. The tie-break was eerily reminiscent of the first set tie-break between Djokovic and Thiem. Shaky serving. Stan couldn't buy a first serve when he needed it most. He does that a lot. I remember in that semi against Roger in London he couldn't seem to buy a first serve.

That being said Wawrinka has won the second is as of now up a break in the third. Murray does not play with the confidence of the number one player in the world. It doesn't suit him. He would rather be the hunter than the hunted. His intestinal fortitude has always been questioned. He adapted to a point but it appears that he still has issues. He isn't comfortable with that target of the number one player in the world on his back.

Some players get a feeling of invincibility from wearing that mantel but this doesn't appear to be the case with Murray. All this could change in an afternoon. All that has to happen is for Murray to do a complete metamorphosis before our very eyes. But you know what the chances of that happening of that are...don't you? Similar to the odds of monkeys flying out of your butt...to quote the great singer Madonna.

[don_budge]

"See if you can make him run...try to get to the legs a bit." -John McEnroe as to what Murray should try to do in the face of Wawrinka's power.

[stotty]

I missed the third set...had to take Pancho out. He missed his walk yesterday so I had to take him double today. I come home and find Murray has just won the third set to take a two sets to one lead. I am loathed to root for Murray but may have to. The country needs it. I woke this morning to find my country in tatters. Theresa May has fallen flat on face and is about the most humiliated person on earth right now. I am not sure a stiff upper lip will be enough to get her through the week, let alone Brexit. The mightiest small country on earth has gone through the most incredible battering. Are we the start of a process that all nations will go through or will we be the example that fell flat on it's face. I fear the latter....

It's all about keeping Wawrinka slightly off balance here and there. Djokovic has never been able to do it of late with Stan...can Murray?

[klacr]

Been on a plane all day.

So glad Wawrinka won. nuff' said.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

Nadal is an even stronger favorite per oddsmakers vs Stan than he was vs Thiem. I certianly am not an oddsmaker but I am a bit surprised at that.

[stotty]

Nadal is an even stronger favorite per oddsmakers vs Stan than he was vs Thiem. I certianly am not an oddsmaker but I am a bit surprised at that.

I never understood how the bookies make money from tennis until I spoke to someone in the trade. Apparently "set betting" is the money maker, for the bookie, and potentially the punter. People bet more on who will win the first set, or how many games will be played in a match. With online betting, which in tennis is huge over here, people also bet on who will win the next upcoming point! So who will win the French Open is more of a sideshow than a money maker.

Wawrinka is going to have to play his backside off to win that final. He will have to play as well as he did against Novak when he won the title himself. It's possible, but a big ask.

It is great to see Nadal moving so much better than at the start of the year. He's getting much closer to his best. Borg won the French Open twice without dropping a set. In 1978 he dropped just 32 games in the 7 rounds played to win the event. In 1980 he won the whole event with the loss of only 38 games. Nadal is close to being as dominant if he can mop Stan up in three.

I placed a bet back in the day for Borg to win the French Open 10 times. In 1977 he skipped the event to play Team Tennis...that would have been seven titles. He then quit aged 26. What a shame. It was on the cards. Borg's only real rival on clay was Lendl but he was still a long way being as good as Borg, and Borg always played so well against Lendl in the same way he did against Vilas. But that was back in the late 70s. Now its 2017. Where did all that time go...and look what's happened to the game!

[stroke]

I never understood how the bookies make money from tennis until I spoke to someone in the trade. Apparently "set betting" is the money maker, for the bookie, and potentially the punter. People bet more on who will win the first set, or how many games will be played in a match. With online betting, which in tennis is huge over here, people also bet on who will win the next upcoming point! So who will win the French Open is more of a sideshow than a money maker.

Wawrinka is going to have to play his backside off to win that final. He will have to play as well as he did against Novak when he won the title himself. It's possible, but a big ask.

It is great to see Nadal moving so much better than at the start of the year. He's getting much closer to his best. Borg won the French Open twice without dropping a set. In 1978 he dropped just 32 games in the 7 rounds played to win the event. In 1980 he won the whole event with the loss of only 38 games. Nadal is close to being as dominant if he can mop Stan up in three.

I placed a bet back in the day for Borg to win the French Open 10 times. In 1977 he skipped the event to play Team Tennis...that would have been seven titles. He then quit aged 26. What a shame. It was on the cards. Borg's only real rival on clay was Lendl but he was still a long way being as good as Borg, and Borg always played so well against Lendl in the same way he did against Vilas. But that was back in the late 70s. Now its 2017. Where did all that time go...and look what's happened to the game!

That was a very interesting bet on Borg. Certainly, the odds were not nearly as sophisticated as they are now, but do you remember what your odds were on the Borg bet for 10? I would think that would have been a very big payout. It is really hard to see Stan dealing with that Nadal forehand for a 3 out of 5 set win. That fh is just a all day massive problem for his opponents, but the one thing Nadal is doing better to me is he is hitting his bh better than he was in his prime(and not wasting or using as much energy running arouund it to hit fh's. But as we both agree, there is no way he is as good now as he was in his prime. You are right about Lendl of course. He really did not become the dominant player he was until he came back from 2 sets down to beat McEnroe in the FO final.


That is a surprise to me what you said about tennis betting(and how the bookies make their money). I don't bet. I know the oddsmakers/bookies know more than me. They seem to stay in business.

[stotty]

That was a very interesting bet on Borg. Certainly, the odds were not nearly as sophisticated as they are now, but do you remember what your odds were on the Borg bet for 10? I would think that would have been a very big payout. It is really hard to see Stan dealing with that Nadal forehand for a 3 out of 5 set win. That fh is just a all day massive problem for his opponents, but the one thing Nadal is doing better to me is he is hitting his bh better than he was in his prime(and not wasting or using as much energy running arouund it to hit fh's. But as we both agree, there is no way he is as good now as he was in his prime. You are right about Lendl of course. He really did not become the dominant player he was until he came back from 2 sets down to beat McEnroe in the FO final.


That is a surprise to me what you said about tennis betting(and how the bookies make their money). I don't bet. I know the oddsmakers/bookies know more than me. They seem to stay in business.

My father placed the bet on Borg on my behalf. I was too young to bet at the time. He put £8 down in I think 1978 0r 1979. I honestly cannot remember the odds or what the return would have been.

The last time I placed a bet was on Michael Stich to win Wimbledon in 1991. I saw him make the semis of the French Open that year and was utterly convinced Wimbledon would be a walk in the park the way he was playing and with a serve and second serve like that. He went on to win Wimbledon that year and Stotty made £300.

Like you I am curious what the oddsmakers say because they tend to be a shrewd bunch, to say the least.

Let's hope Stan turns up tomorrow. Let's hope he brings his entire game with him. If he does, and only if he does, we'll have a decent game to watch. I'll tune into the forum tomorrow around 45 minutes after the start of play as I have to coach a little beyond the scheduled start time. Login if you can. Maybe don_budge will too. We can swap analysis and have some fun.

[don_budge]

I don't bet.

Me neither...I tend to bet with my heart. Total loser. You see stroke...I would have bet you were a betting man. I would have lost.

But as for the French Open...it too is a loser. From my perspective. All it needed was Federer to show up and for him to make it to the semi's or quarter's. But he would have been up against it to win...unless his magic potions are more potent than he thinks. But Wimbledon isn't too far away. I will have to wait for Roger. He will probably play a warm-up event or two.

On paper Wawrinka doesn't stand much of a chance. But that being said he came back from an improbable two sets to one with Murray. It is within the realm of possibilities let's say. I guess I don't need to repeat myself about how I feel about Nadal. I am not sure I can stomach a couple of hours watching that self obsessed prima donna jerk going through his obsessive compulsive act again. I guess it comes down to Djokovic, Murray and Nadal represent the modern tennis paradigm and it goes without saying...I can't stand any of them. Wawrinka is tolerable...but he isn't much to watch either in terms of creativity or any sort of feeling for the game. He's pretty robotic as well.

When the first Prince tennis racquets appeared on the scene in the late 70's I was screaming bloody murder. "They are taking the art out of the game." No where is this more evident than here in the city of artists...Paris. But Paris isn't cracked up to what it used to be either. Another case of tennis metaphoring life. I was at the French Open a couple of years ago and paid what I consider a bundle to watch Djokovic play Raonic and Sharapova play Muguruza. I lost count of the number of cups of coffee that I drank to keep from nodding off watching these two snooze fests. The coffee was pretty good on the other hand and I had a pretty decent looking Russian lady sitting next to me entertaining me with some pretty darned good conversation. Putin...Obama. Her kids tennis. So on and so forth. The tennis was totally boring. Sharapova was screeching up a storm that would have made anyone with Trump Derangement Syndrome jealous.

PS...I didn't get to see the Thiem and Nadal match. That was a disappointing result. Thiem could have saved this tournament by making the finals. A big ask...as Stotty says.

[stroke]

[QUOTE=don_budge;n64030]

Me neither...I tend to bet with my heart. Total loser. You see stroke...I would have bet you were a betting man. I would have lost.

good one DB, I always like it when some of the oh so tiring commentators(Mary Car/illo the worst) start talking/speculating about who the favorite is. The favorite is who the oddsmakers say it is. As Stotty says, they are a shrewd bunch. I hope Stan can push Nadal, not go away in this final, but he is going to have to be at his absolute best to have a shot. It will have to be a spectacle of winners. I wish Thiem could have trusted his game, his rallying ability with Nadal. It looked to me like Thiem felt as if he almost had to go for broke, swing out of his shoes so to speak, to have a chance.

[don_budge]

It is really hard to see Stan dealing with that Nadal forehand for a 3 out of 5 set win. That fh is just a all day massive problem for his opponents, but the one thing Nadal is doing better to me is he is hitting his bh better than he was in his prime(and not wasting or using as much energy running arouund it to hit fh's. But as we both agree, there is no way he is as good now as he was in his prime.

The thing that Novak Djokovic had figured out about Rafael Nadal is that in order to beat him and beat him soundly...you had to use the old Tilden tactic of first destroying your opponents strength. This is perhaps a page out of "The Art of War" as well. But the backhand is improved so it is even more important now to attack the forehand of Nadal with an element of surprise and an element of exaggerated aggression. In other words...you are going to have to "trust" it as stroke said in regard to Dominic Thiem.

It doesn't matter very much that Nadal is not camping out on the backhand side of his court as much as he used to. This changes nothing. Stan will have to take some very decisive play to the forehand in order to open up the court. It would certainly help is he was prepared to come to the net once he has Nadal reaching as well.

The big weapon that Stan may be lacking could be the serve. He has been quite shaky at times...even historically, at crucial times in matches he is unable to dominate on his service game. This is where Roger Federer excels over all of the modern day players. Big serving with the game to back it up. For example...serving and volleying is not entirely out of the question for Federer.

The problem with Nadal is it is very difficult to get him off balance. So far it is the tactics of Djokovic that seems to really have a chance of accomplishing this. The key is this...you must play aggressively enough to take the cross court forehand play out of Nadal's hands. If he is in position to hurt you from the cross court he is damn sure going to. But if he is stretched out just enough he is not so devastating going deep to the opponents backhand which opens up a tiny window there. But the opening is when Nadal comes up the line from an aggressive ball to his forehand...the other side of the court is now open to be exploited. Novak has been more successful in attempting to exploit this with a combination of speed, spin and placement. He has been effective rolling it short, cross court with spin.

It will be interesting to see what kind of game plan the Wawrinka brain trust will come up with here. He is going to have to get into Nadal's head a bit and wear down his legs as well. Both of these are difficult to do in their own right. Nadal is as tough as he is stupid. He may very well be doped up too. Mats Wilander mentioned something that I think that I have mentioned here on the forum as well. Nadal has not been tested. It's one thing to cruise through a tournament unscathed...but it is another thing that when you reach the finish line you have been tested and under the gun. If Wawrinka can get out of the blocks fast and implement his tactical game on Nadal and dictate the play...he just may have a chance. His chances may be better in there out of five than in any other of the permutations...or combinations.

[don_budge]

Let's hope Stan turns up tomorrow. Let's hope he brings his entire game with him. If he does, and only if he does, we'll have a decent game to watch. I'll tune into the forum tomorrow around 45 minutes after the start of play as I have to coach a little beyond the scheduled start time. Login if you can. Maybe don_budge will too. We can swap analysis and have some fun.

Working on a Sunday? It's a day of rest...take it easy Coach Stotty. But as I say that half kiddingly the point you make about bringing the entire game is absolutely mandatory for both players. If Nadal slips a bit it may be Stan that dictates the play.

One of the things that makes the "Djokovic Tactic" versus Nadal work is the Djokovic backhand. At least the "old" Djokovic backhand. Once Djokovic takes control of the point by pressing the Nadal forehand, Djokovic is able to really apply and maintain pressure on Nadal if Nadal goes back crosscourt into the Djokovic backhand. It won't do any good for Wawrinka to move Nadal over if he cannot capitalize on his first move. Djokovic backs up his play to the Nadal forehand with aggressive tactics with his backhand whether it be a return to the crosscourt or aggressive down the line. In order to be aggressive on his backhand he is probably going to have to take it inside the baseline...is this shot in Wawrinka's bag?

Roger Federer also found this out as well. He has to play the backhand early against Nadal. It won't do any good being any sort of passive. Roger's bigger racquet and his incrementally stronger grip (don_budge assumption) allows him to move in a be aggressive on any return that is not hit with massive pace and topspin. Once again...it is the old Tilden adage or "maintaining pressure on your opponent" that is going to be the telling tactic today.

I think I heard Mats Wilander say that Stan has won the last twelve finals that he has played. He really shows up for the big matches it seems. If he showed up all the time to play like that it might just be good for his game and the game in general. It's going to be interesting to see if Stan has any definitive tactic going on today instead of just hitting "hard and harder". Something subtle...an idea perhaps. Something intellectual...tennis speaking of course.

I'll be tuned in Stotty. I've cut the lawn. Trimmed the bushes. Weed whacked. I've got to walk the doggie...Puntzie. I've been calling him Putie and Putin lately. My wife gets a kick out of it. I think Putin is laughing at the West. The futile West. But I wouldn't miss it. A chance to see Nadal get bush whacked. If he gets on top I will probably go to the golf course...even though I am too tired to bet my legs under my swing.