Talk About Tennis 2.0

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:47 pm Who's the last "field" winner for men? Cilic at 2014 USO I suppose. It's been more than 10 years now... Unless maybe you count Alcaraz first Slam title.

I wouldn't consider Alcaraz the 'field' at the 2022 US Open as he became #1 after winning the title.

This for me is another argument that slams on ATP side are unique and we should not tinker with the format. Going to bo3 in slams will destroy men's tennis. Look what happened to Davis Cup. Do you want this happening to Slams? IMO if women played bo5 in Slams, there would be less "random" winners. Maybe not immediately, but once the players who are young now, will train specifically for this format, we will have more clear and defined picture on WTA side as well.

skatingfan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:56 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:47 pm Who's the last "field" winner for men? Cilic at 2014 USO I suppose. It's been more than 10 years now... Unless maybe you count Alcaraz first Slam title.

I wouldn't consider Alcaraz the 'field' at the 2022 US Open as he became #1 after winning the title.

Yes, I don't count Alcaraz as "the field" when he won. He was already clearly a top player.
Looking back, I did look if Stan's Aussie was after Cilic's US. It wasn't, so I agree that Cilic is the last "field". Thiem was a top player when he won, Medvedev was a top player when he won.

Why didn't they play the doubles final first? I hope people eventually came back.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:44 pm Yes, I don't count Alcaraz as "the field" when he won. He was already clearly a top player.
Looking back, I did look if Stan's Aussie was after Cilic's US. It wasn't, so I agree that Cilic is the last "field". Thiem was a top player when he won, Medvedev was a top player when he won.

And Stan was the 8th seed at the 2014 Australian Open - I'm not sure if that is really 'the field' either, or than it was an era where 3 players really dominated all the majors.

skatingfan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:57 pm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:44 pm Yes, I don't count Alcaraz as "the field" when he won. He was already clearly a top player.
Looking back, I did look if Stan's Aussie was after Cilic's US. It wasn't, so I agree that Cilic is the last "field". Thiem was a top player when he won, Medvedev was a top player when he won.

And Stan was the 8th seed at the 2014 Australian Open - I'm not sure if that is really 'the field' either, or than it was an era where 3 players really dominated all the majors.

That too. The field in the ATP is less likely to break through.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:51 pm Why didn't they play the doubles final first? I hope people eventually came back.

I hope they came back too.
But if that is the crowd that a Slam's doubles final can get, you look at the data. This is a business, and doubles seems not to be able to hold its side of the deal.

Maybe they could schedule them closer to the singles finals. 4.5 hours in between singles and doubles finals isn't gonna keep a lot of people around for both matches.

The ability to hold serve to win a set is a sure sign of mental strength...Keys showed it!

skatingfan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:38 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:26 am I don't see Madison winning this but then again, who saw her making the Final?

L. Jon Wertheim

I mean a lot of us in predictions didn't even pick her to win her R16 match.

"

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:42 am The ability to hold serve to win a set is a sure sign of mental strength...Keys showed it!

She was broken when she served for the first set - she won the 1st & 3rd sets by breaking Sabalenka.

I'm posting this here too. This is definitely how the #1 player should behave.

BTW I blame Saquon Barkley for me posting all the Sinner winning pics here.