ATP Tennis/Non-India Davis Cup

[Prashant]

He has lost a step, and can't back pedal often enough to hit inside out forehands.

Great insight. It is a thing of inches, he's maybe 2-3% slower than at his best but that is enough to reduce the number of opportunities to hit the inside out.

[PKBasu]

Regardless of what happens this year, Nadal is the greatest clay-courter of all time. The next best, Guillermo Vilas and Bjorn Borg, are a long way behind him. In theory, Borg may have rivalled Nadal for greatness on clay, but he foolishly chose to shorten his career, so his metrics will never match those who had full careers. Dominance on clay over a 13-year period is already Nadal's peerless legacy.

[PKBasu]

But the interesting thing about modern day tennis is that, since the 1970s, far more tournaments have been played on clay than in the pre-Open era -- and far fewer are played on grass. Until the mid-1970s, 3 of the Slams were played on grass! Today, just one Slam is on grass, and no Masters tournaments are played on grass. On clay, we have 3 Masters tournaments (Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome). Hard courts are the dominant surface -- with 5 Masters, 2 Slams. One Masters tourney is played on indoor carpet (Paris).

[prasen9]

Another way to look at it is that Bjorg did not have the mental fortitude to have a long, full career. We often ignore the mental aspect of sport. Bjorg for all his physical gifts failed mentally (or did not care about having a full career).

So we celebrate those who have the tenacity to have a long career and the consistency to win over that long career, i.e., the skills to win and maintain that skill for a long time. Federer is peerless in this aspect. Although he may have a peer in Djokovic if he can last. Djokovic got physically and mentally conked for a year or two but is back to his senses now.

[Sin Hombre]

Nadal has obviously had a pretty long career at this point. I think he went pro in 2002.

[prasen9]

Yes. He has. 2001 I think. I believe he was 19 when he won his first major. Which is why he is just after Federer in the number of GSs won. As has Djokovic.

[Sin Hombre]

Lost to Tsitsipas now. Clearly his worst season on clay in a very long time and no obvious injury to blame either.

[prasen9]

Age? This is why I liked Federer's decision to play the French this year. It is more open than previous years and Fed knew that it would be. Still, I think the young guns or Djokovic/Nadal can beat Federer as Thiem did but hey, you take your chance. If the draw opens up and upsets happen, etc. he may win yet another French. A small chance is better than zero chance.

[Sin Hombre]

Nadal seems to have improved week on week and played much better in Rome.

Mental toughness is still shot though as he kept choking on BPs and gave away a set to an under-par Novak in the final.

[PKBasu]

Nadal is peaking at the right time, just before the FO. But Roland Garros will still be competitive, I think.

[PKBasu]

i watched much of the humdinger between Wawrinka and Tsitsipras. The latter's willingness to serve-volley whenever he was in trouble was quite refreshing to see. Stan dug deep to hold from 0-40 down in the first game of the final set to pull through in the end. Tsitsipras is not elegant, but is supremely athletic and has a lot of variety in his game.

Federer has reached the QF (where he plays Stan) without dropping a set so far. Nadal dropped a set against Goffin, but has otherwise looked thoroughly dominant as well. Next up for him is likely to be Nishikori.

[prasen9]

So it is Federer-Nadal!

[PKBasu]

The world's top-4 will be playing the French Open semifinals. Weather permitting, it should be an amazing evening.

[prasen9]

Nadal takes the first set. Which means Thiem has to take 3 out of the next 4. Seems tough.

[S_K_S]

Rafa is a certainty to overtake Roger now in number of slams won. I wouldn't be surprised if Rafa has another 4 French titles in him. You might take a set, you might even take two, but no one is good enough to beat him in a best of 5.