RG 2014

[Lucian86]

While the match was dominated by Nadal, I don't agree with your assessment guys at all. (Lucian and Matheja)

First, I find Thiem BH to be the better shot. I find his serving lacking. He does have good foot speed and he did miss quite a few re-drops and touch shots. But to label him one dimensional at 20 y/o playing against arguably the GOAT player and best player to ever touch the clay is just wrong and a bit out there. May I remind you that THE only way to win Rafa on clay is by Force for ANYONE but Djoker at the moment. Thiem had the right plan and you could see it working at times, but he lacked big serve and he did not execute the plan very well. One need to be able to be aggressive and more importantly stay aggressive to execute this plan.

The fact he spend a lot of time far behind the baseline as opposed to closer to the baseline is simply inexperience and intimidation by Rafa. It takes a lot of confidence to take Rafas balls on the rise and for someone like Thiem, young guy playing at this stage against that player - tough ask. (while not impossible)

What I have seen today is a promising young player that (assuming is not injured) is good enough to hang around Top 8-15 in ATP. Certainly not a Rafa/Roger/Djoker caliber player, but certainly capable beating some top guys and on a good days (in 1-2 years) the top 4.

You do agree more with me than disagree The difference is that you find for him some extenuating circumstances. I just judge what I saw regardless.

About where we disagree; I understand that you feel the backhand is a good shot but better than his forehand ? hm...the later it's just a great shot (in fact I had nothing bad to say about it). I feel he's just pushing the backhand and nothing more although he can put some power behind it.
Being aggressive is sure the key to beat Rafa but not staying so far behind the baseline and forcing every shot to become a winner. It's better to stay aggressive by taking the ball early and breaking the rhythm. Aslo there was not a plan B for Thiem in this match. He played the same way all the match knowing what the outcome will be.

[djarvik]

Well, it is always about circumstances really. If you think about it. The whole sport is hang up on tangibles.

"Judging what you saw regardless" is dangerous and can lead to overwhelmingly bad conclusions. For example Federer losing in first round. Should we not look at Federer's tangibles of just becoming a father? ...not having enough court time? ...and just assume he is the worse player then the one he lost to? ...because we "Judging what we saw regardless"

It doesn't quite work that way, does it?

You simply cannot overlook the fact that he is young, inexperienced, playing against #1, on the big stage, on Clay court etc... you cannot say that all this has no affect and "What you saw is what you get" from the guy. It may play into your argument - but it is simply not the reality of things.

As for FH vs BH, you maybe right, but just remember, clay+rafa did not do his BH justice. Even THE best one handers struggle in that equation. But never the less I believe his FH is transparent if powerful, and a lot of times he drops it short with little direction, that actually hurt him a lot today. His BH on the other hand is a formidable weapon. Less consistent, granted, but he hides it well and lands it quite deep and generates nice angles.

He also seems to make the most highlights with his BH rather then FH, which does mean he has got some major shot making from that side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlu-rOhvxIE

[Cro Morgan]

Donald Young for the win.

[djarvik]

Gulbis for the win.

Donald Young for the win.

Young VS Gulbis in final.

[Moralspain]

Gulbis for the win.

Donald Young for the win.

Young VS Gulbis in final.

All my poker chips on that...ALL IN

PS: poker chips = 7139 posts , call anyone?.

[Ali-Iqb93]

I ll like to see federer vs gulbis in 4th round.


Gulbis is up 6-3 first set

[Lucian86]

"Judging what you saw regardless" is dangerous and can lead to overwhelmingly bad conclusions. For example Federer losing in first round. Should we not look at Federer's tangibles of just becoming a father? ...not having enough court time? ...and just assume he is the worse player then the one he lost to? ...because we "Judging what we saw regardless"
It doesn't quite work that way, does it?
You simply cannot overlook the fact that he is young, inexperienced, playing against #1, on the big stage, on Clay court etc... you cannot say that all this has no affect and "What you saw is what you get" from the guy. It may play into your argument - but it is simply not the reality of things.

Hold on, I didn't sentence him to mediocrity for the rest of his career The Federer comparison is not ok because we all know who Federer is and what he can do
I'm not saying he's not going to be a Top 10 player in the future. He can because he can strike very well from the baseline and we know that technically that could be enough to be a good player in modern tennis (sure, you need other non technical qualities). Djokovic for instance is just an average player outside the baseline: he can't volley well, the smash is terrible, the drop-shots also (once he was using them a lot but with little success) and his serve is good but not great (way better than Thiem's though). However, Djokovic's ground strokes from the baseline are monstrous and he takes the ball early as a great modern player should. You could see that in Djokovic since 2007 when he was 20 years old. Thiem not yet imo-
Anyway, he seems very professional. I read somewhere that he aknowledged to have played a little bit too far away from the baseline and that he struggled with his backhand because of Nadal's top spin.

[Corbon]

I ll like to see federer vs gulbis in 4th round.


Gulbis is up 6-3 first set

Ernie vs Fed smells of an upset.

[Lucian86]

Here's what Thiem had to say: (from menstennisforum.com)
"I will need 2 or 3 years to get to the level of the best players" said humble Dominic Thiem in his press conference in Paris, after losing to Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the second round of the French Open.

"I have the chance to learn a lot playing against these players. It's very good practice for me. I have a lot to improve, not just my position in the court, which against these players should be more advanced, more into the baseline rather then far at the back. One thing is to say it, one thing is to do it. I think only Novak Djokovic manages to play like that against Rafael Nadal" said Thiem.

Why is it so hard to play against Rafael Nadal on clay? Dominic now can speak for himself: "He doesn't give you anything. He doesn't give away a single point. Even if you are up 30-00 or 30-15 he would still fight on every ball thinking he can win the game. His top spin is very hard to deal with. For example, I like a lot to play the backhand down the line, but today it was almost impossible for me, because the top spin of the ball was to strong. He played very well, very few mistakes".

from his facebook page

2:6, 2:6, 3:6 against Rafael Nadal. I didn't play a bad match. But many details were not good enough to make it a test for him. Most of them were real rookie-errors. Easy unforced errors. They happen because you want to play better on clay against Rafael Nadal than you want to play against anybody else. And because he absolutely doesn't help you. No errors, no presents. It was a mega experience to stand on the biggest clay court in the world together with the best claycourt player in the world. I unconditionally want to make that experience that again. And the next time I want to come one step closer. This is a big goal and worth working for it as hard as I can. Thanks for your incredible support!

[Corbon]

Tursunov 1-2 in sets behind.

[Ali-Iqb93]

Gulbis to lose to federer in 4th round

Djarvik you still up for this ?

[djarvik]

"Judging what you saw regardless" is dangerous and can lead to overwhelmingly bad conclusions. For example Federer losing in first round. Should we not look at Federer's tangibles of just becoming a father? ...not having enough court time? ...and just assume he is the worse player then the one he lost to? ...because we "Judging what we saw regardless"
It doesn't quite work that way, does it?
You simply cannot overlook the fact that he is young, inexperienced, playing against #1, on the big stage, on Clay court etc... you cannot say that all this has no affect and "What you saw is what you get" from the guy. It may play into your argument - but it is simply not the reality of things.

Hold on, I didn't sentence him to mediocrity for the rest of his career The Federer comparison is not ok because we all know who Federer is and what he can do
I'm not saying he's not going to be a Top 10 player in the future. He can because he can strike very well from the baseline and we know that technically that could be enough to be a good player in modern tennis (sure, you need other non technical qualities). Djokovic for instance is just an average player outside the baseline: he can't volley well, the smash is terrible, the drop-shots also (once he was using them a lot but with little success) and his serve is good but not great (way better than Thiem's though). However, Djokovic's ground strokes from the baseline are monstrous and he takes the ball early as a great modern player should. You could see that in Djokovic since 2007 when he was 20 years old. Thiem not yet imo-
Anyway, he seems very professional. I read somewhere that he aknowledged to have played a little bit too far away from the baseline and that he struggled with his backhand because of Nadal's top spin.

Fair enough.

Here's what Thiem had to say: (from menstennisforum.com)
"I will need 2 or 3 years to get to the level of the best players" said humble Dominic Thiem in his press conference in Paris, after losing to Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the second round of the French Open.

"I have the chance to learn a lot playing against these players. It's very good practice for me. I have a lot to improve, not just my position in the court, which against these players should be more advanced, more into the baseline rather then far at the back. One thing is to say it, one thing is to do it. I think only Novak Djokovic manages to play like that against Rafael Nadal" said Thiem.

Why is it so hard to play against Rafael Nadal on clay? Dominic now can speak for himself: "He doesn't give you anything. He doesn't give away a single point. Even if you are up 30-00 or 30-15 he would still fight on every ball thinking he can win the game. His top spin is very hard to deal with. For example, I like a lot to play the backhand down the line, but today it was almost impossible for me, because the top spin of the ball was to strong. He played very well, very few mistakes".

Here's what Thiem had to say: (from menstennisforum.com)
"I will need 2 or 3 years to get to the level of the best players" said humble Dominic Thiem in his press conference in Paris, after losing to Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the second round of the French Open.

"I have the chance to learn a lot playing against these players. It's very good practice for me. I have a lot to improve, not just my position in the court, which against these players should be more advanced, more into the baseline rather then far at the back. One thing is to say it, one thing is to do it. I think only Novak Djokovic manages to play like that against Rafael Nadal" said Thiem.

Why is it so hard to play against Rafael Nadal on clay? Dominic now can speak for himself: "He doesn't give you anything. He doesn't give away a single point. Even if you are up 30-00 or 30-15 he would still fight on every ball thinking he can win the game. His top spin is very hard to deal with. For example, I like a lot to play the backhand down the line, but today it was almost impossible for me, because the top spin of the ball was to strong. He played very well, very few mistakes".

from his facebook page

2:6, 2:6, 3:6 against Rafael Nadal. I didn't play a bad match. But many details were not good enough to make it a test for him. Most of them were real rookie-errors. Easy unforced errors. They happen because you want to play better on clay against Rafael Nadal than you want to play against anybody else. And because he absolutely doesn't help you. No errors, no presents. It was a mega experience to stand on the biggest clay court in the world together with the best claycourt player in the world. I unconditionally want to make that experience that again. And the next time I want to come one step closer. This is a big goal and worth working for it as hard as I can. Thanks for your incredible support!

That is pretty much what I have said and how I feel. Comes across as very professional and nice guy. Would have loved some Gulbis influence here, otherwise he will become another one of those monotone players.

[djarvik]

Gulbis to lose to federer in 4th round

Djarvik you still up for this ?

This deserves a separate thread! Coming up with a poll!

[Corbon]

Nadal in 3.

What's up with Monf again, lost 4th set 0-6 without moving, think he is going to retire.

[ELTXETXU]

Nadal in 3.

What's up with Monf again, lost 4th set 0-6 without moving, think he is going to retire.

Finally he won! But imo, with not a very fair tactic from Monfills... He just stopped to play in the 4th set for no reason (i guess to save energy)