Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,519 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I decided to open a thread about this, because ahead of every Grand Slam the same shit is going down at MTF. People draw conclusions from tournaments that are played on the same type of surface, but in reality benefit very different playing styles. I'm going to mention the two most frequent misinterpretations I witness:

Rome -> Roland Garros
While both played on clay, this tournaments are very different. People who perform strongly in Rome often fail at Roland Garros (latest example is Alex Zverev). In his prime, Federer could often challenge Nadal in Rome, just to get roasted in RG. I feel like the best indicator for Roland Garros is Monte Carlo, which is also very slow and benefits Nadals topspin-heavy style of play. I hardly need to mention that RG and Madrid are even further apart.

Halle -> Wimbledon
So this year, Coric beat Federer in Halle. And what happens in Wimbledon? Coric bombs out in spectacular fashion, and Federer is peaking already in the first round. Both tournaments are played on grass, but the characteristics of the Wimbledon green and the grass in Halle are very, very different. I feel like Queens is a much better indicator for Wimbledon.

So what do you think? Which tournaments are the best indicators to how a player will perform at a Slam? And what are the most common misinterpretations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,528 Posts
I think in terms of Roland Garros, I've seen it stated frequently that Monte Carlo may be closest. RG possibly some kind of hybrid of MC and Rome... 80MC/20Rome or something? In terms of Halle and Queen's... at least the court seems to be in much better condition in Queen's than Halle, but that's all that caught my eye.

Here's a bit on ace count / estimation of court pace based on that at different tournaments: The Speed of Every Surface, 2016 Edition ? Heavy Topspin

Based on this, on clay, Rome is closest to RG, but as said, I've seen many people argue that MC would be the best predictor. On grass, according to this Newport and S-hertogenbosch are closest to Wimbledon. Queen's seemingly faster, even more than Halle, with Stuttgart being the fastest. But surely there's more to it than the ace count.

As to Coric beating Fed, the latter having played two weeks non-stop probably had something to do with it. I saw him also mention that his goal for the smaller tournaments was mostly to not get hurt before Wimbledon. Had it been a Wimbledon final, the outcome may have been different in terms of the level of focus and effort from Fed (I believe).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,519 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I think in terms of Roland Garros, I've seen it stated frequently that Monte Carlo may be closest. RG possibly some kind of hybrid of MC and Rome... 80MC/20Rome or something? In terms of Halle and Queen's... at least the court seems to be in much better condition in Queen's than Halle, but that's all that caught my eye.

Here's a bit on ace count / estimation of court pace based on that at different tournaments: The Speed of Every Surface, 2016 Edition ? Heavy Topspin

Based on this, on clay, Rome is closest to RG, but as said, I've seen many people argue that MC would be the best predictor. On grass, according to this Newport and S-hertogenbosch are closest to Wimbledon. Queen's seemingly faster, even more than Halle, with Stuttgart being the fastest. But there's more to it than the ace count.
Very interesting, thanks. I'm very curious which tournaments have the most correlation with the performances in Grand Slams.

Also, the best indicator is acutally quite obvious, but often gets overshadowed by more recent results. Its the same Slam that was played the year prior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,528 Posts
Very interesting, thanks. I'm very curious which tournaments have the most correlation with the performances in Grand Slams.

Also, the best indicator is acutally quite obvious, but often gets overlooked by more recent results. Its the same Slam that was playedd the year prior.
That's a good point. Counts for something for sure. Personally I still also place a high value on recent form (the ongoing season really, but even more so the recent tournaments), although e.g. in the case of Coric, things didn't pan out (not sure whether he got injured in the 2nd set though? 1st set was really close and it looked to become a long close battle...). But yeah, even if you didn't produce last year, or even in the previous few slams on a different surface, you may have taken a few steps forward with your game and be in your best form. Take even Fed and his maiden win at Wimbledon. He had lost in the 1st round the last year (did have the QF run beating Sampras the year before that though; a bit similar to Kyrgios in the sense that he has also already managed one nice run on grass, and people know that he has potential, but hasn't managed to produce such a result again). Fed did conquer Halle (his 1st grass title) that year going into the 2003 Wimbledon. Some other names with deep runs without stellar results in the past in terms of GS's: obviously Nadal; Nishikori USO '14; Berdych Wimbledon '10; Thiem RG '16.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,294 Posts
Coric isn't a slam player, so of course he bombed out, nothing to do with the surface.
Federer won his 1st Round easy, but he'd have had the same result if he played Lajovic at Halle too.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top