Roland Garros / French Open 2025 [Men] - Grand Slam

[Moxie]

For that to happen both need to make it to the final. They're on opposite sides. Djoke has bigger problems to worry about first like Zed, Draper or Jannik

Almost certainly 2 of those. Zverev awaits if he beats Norrie, Griekspoor having just retired in the 2nd. I'm not clear what happened. I expected that match to be long, and wasn't really paying attention when I saw the Dutchman shaking hands. Too bad. As for Draper/Sinner, it's an either/or, but likely he does get one of them. All but certainly Sinner, the way he's playing.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, LOL. I think I meant a "tendency" to jump ahead. You like to predict and put them into categories, either of rankings or compared to other players, this era, or others. I don't mind it, and it's useful. It's the way you think. But sometimes I do mind when you predict for young players. I think Fils was one of the ones I was complaining to you about recently, for deciding where he'd land.

No. I don't think so. To me, "overrrated" means given credit beyond their talent. It is common enough, and happens more often than not, I think we've come to realize. We can see the talent, and it's fair to hope and even expect, or predict, but it's the x-factor that so many are missing. Over-hyped is different. That's the media, and sometimes it is to their detriment.


This is what I was talking about, above. I get that you think like this, and it's useful, in some ways, but as a predictor of the future, I don't always agree with it. Especially of young players. I think Rune could yet surprise us. He does have a lot of raw talent and power. And an inclination to be agressive and with a will to win. He's just lacking discipline, and structure. But I've said that (well, with far less conviction) about, say, Shapovalov, who never convinced me. I think Rune could still be pretty great. But he's running out of time for dithering about and needs to knuckle down. Or he'll end up being a Dimitrov. (There, I made a comparisons. LOL.)

All fair enough. But I think there's a disconnect between how concrete you interpret my predictions and categories as, and how solid I actually intend them to be. I don't hold strongly to anything...I just like to take snap-shots and look at historical precedents, because mostly they're useful and give us, at the least, a range of possibilities. Meaning, you look at historic players who are similar in terms of age-contextual accomplishments, and see a range of outcomes.

For example, just about every player was great by the time they were Rune's age. Even the seemingly "late-blooming" Lendl was still a couple years from winning a Slam, but was a great player. His 1982 is one of the greatest Slamless years in Open Era history (15 titles, including the Tour Finals, WCT, and three Masters equivalencies). All the other 6+ Slam winners had won Slams by Rune's age, and multiple big titles.

This is not to say that Rune can't buck the curve. I mean, Stan Wawrinka sort of opened the door for players to have late breakthroughs or do unusual things, as far as historical precedents are concerned. But when projecting into the future, the historical precedents are generally more predictive. With Rune, at this point the precedents say that he's not going to be an all-time great, though still could be a "non-great elite," or nearly-great player.

Anyhow, I do think Rune has another octave in him and is definitely on my short list of likely Slam winner, and possible multi-Slam winner. But he's definitely slipped over the last two years, as far as his upside: from possible all-time great to likely lesser elite. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but just a bit of a reality check compared to what he projected as after winning a Masters at 19.

As for Fils, I'm not sure what you're specifically talking about. I guess my view that he's more of a future second tier type than an elite? You know I like to use Berdych and Tsonga as the quintessential "second tier" types - guys that are regulars in the top 10, might win a Masters or three, but only dip into the top 5 and are never real candidates for #1. I suppose the current equivalent would be someone like Rublev: not quite as good as "non-great elites" like Medvedev and Zverev, but better than guys like Hurkacz and Fritz. That's sort of how I see Fils. Again, nothing wrong with that.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

The difference is that Sinner has improved so much since age 19. Look at where his game was in 2020, and look at it now. Meanwhile, Rune is pretty much the same player as he was at 19, with hardly any improvement. Same with FAA.

 

[El Dude]

The difference is that Sinner has improved so much since age 19. Look at where his game was in 2020, and look at it now. Meanwhile, Rune is pretty much the same player as he was at 19, with hardly any improvement. Same with FAA.

Yes, exactly. And precedents reflect this: talent shows itself very early, but it then has to develop and those age 19-22 years are crucial in terms of long-term outcome. The development doesn't have to be linear, but has to be there.

Even though I'm very optimistic about Fonseca--who is about as sure a thing you'll find, at least at this stage in his career--it is still not guaranteed that he'll continue to take those steps forward to actualize his potential. That said, for Fonzie, losing to Draper is actually a positive in the long-term: it drives home the fact that he's not there yet, that he can't just ride the natural talent, but still needs to work. I think he's got the head to realize this, so is less likely to "wallow in his talent" than some players.

By Rune's age, you have a much better sense of how well they'll actualize their talent. In the sense that you say, Rune is more Shapovalov than Sinner. He's more talented than Shapo so even without much improvement, he can still hang around in the 8-15ish range for years to come. But there's a big gap between that range, and the top 5.

 

[Moxie]

All fair enough. But I think there's a disconnect between how concrete you interpret my predictions and categories as, and how solid I actually intend them to be. I don't hold strongly to anything...I just like to take snap-shots and look at historical precedents, because mostly they're useful and give us, at the least, a range of possibilities. Meaning, you look at historic players who are similar in terms of age-contextual accomplishments, and see a range of outcomes.

For example, just about every player was great by the time they were Rune's age. Even the seemingly "late-blooming" Lendl was still a couple years from winning a Slam, but was a great player. His 1982 is one of the greatest Slamless years in Open Era history (15 titles, including the Tour Finals, WCT, and three Masters equivalencies). All the other 6+ Slam winners had won Slams by Rune's age, and multiple big titles.

This is not to say that Rune can't buck the curve. I mean, Stan Wawrinka sort of opened the door for players to have late breakthroughs or do unusual things, as far as historical precedents are concerned. But when projecting into the future, the historical precedents are generally more predictive. With Rune, at this point the precedents say that he's not going to be an all-time great, though still could be a "non-great elite," or nearly-great player.

Anyhow, I do think Rune has another octave in him and is definitely on my short list of likely Slam winner, and possible multi-Slam winner. But he's definitely slipped over the last two years, as far as his upside: from possible all-time great to likely lesser elite. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but just a bit of a reality check compared to what he projected as after winning a Masters at 19.

As for Fils, I'm not sure what you're specifically talking about. I guess my view that he's more of a future second tier type than an elite? You know I like to use Berdych and Tsonga as the quintessential "second tier" types - guys that are regulars in the top 10, might win a Masters or three, but only dip into the top 5 and are never real candidates for #1. I suppose the current equivalent would be someone like Rublev: not quite as good as "non-great elites" like Medvedev and Zverev, but better than guys like Hurkacz and Fritz. That's sort of how I see Fils. Again, nothing wrong with that.

I do think I understand where you go with all that, and why you do it. And yes, that is what I meant about your take on Fils. He's only 20. It seems early, but, hey, it's your right to predict. Mine to complain/disagree.

But I do have to point this out in the above. (See bold). Stan Wawrinka was 29 (and 10 months) when he won his first Major. Rune is 22, which he only turned a month ago. So he has 11 more months of being 22.

Just sayin.

 

[don_fabio]

Bublik out of all guys beats Draper!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Bublik out of all guys beats Draper!

Yeah, I'm surprised by that result, especially after the lesson Draper gave to Fonseca the other day. Perhaps, Draper overlooked this match, and was thinking ahead to the potential Sinner match.

 

[lomaha]

Yeah, I'm surprised by that result, especially after the lesson Draper gave to Fonseca the other day. Perhaps, Draper overlooked this match, and was thinking ahead to the potential Sinner match.

Bublik played like his life depended on it. So inspired and close to the edge. A great win for him and well deserved. Draper didn't even play bad. He was just outplayed.

 

[don_fabio]

Stan Wawrinka was 29 (and 10 months) when he won his first Major. Rune is 22, which he only turned a month ago. So he has 11 more months of being 22.

I agree that Rune deserves more time to reach his potential, but the way he lost yesterday against Mussetti is a bit worrying. He was completely overplayed in last 2 sets and didn't stand a chance to make it even a close match. I did not expect him to go down like this.

 

[El Dude]

I do think I understand where you go with all that, and why you do it. And yes, that is what I meant about your take on Fils. He's only 20. It seems early, but, hey, it's your right to predict. Mine to complain/disagree.

But I do have to point this out in the above. (See bold). Stan Wawrinka was 29 (and 10 months) when he won his first Major. Rune is 22, which he only turned a month ago. So he has 11 more months of being 22.

Just sayin.

Just a nit-pick: You have Stan a year older than he was (he was 28, 10mo). And I use Stan as an example of how precedents are never written in stone, but...Stan is singular, in terms of winning multiple Slams starting at 28 years old. Meaning, he's living proof that its never too late, yet also the rarest of exceptions.

As for Fils...we'll see. But know that me comparing him with Berdych/Tsonga isn't a slight...those two were excellent players for about a decade, during the hardest context in ATP history (as far as winning big titles). I think Fils will have a better career because his peak won't involve the Big Four. I wouldn't be surprised if he's more like a Dominic Thiem, although hopefully a luckier (healthier) version. And of all players on tour I'd probably rank him only behind Sinner, Alcaraz, Rune, Draper, Fonseca, and Mensik in terms of future outlook.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

You could go either way with Fils against Ben Shelton and Musetti, but that would be the tier I'd put Fils in.

At this point, I think Rune has fallen behind Shelton and Musetti.

 

[Fiero425]

You could go either way with Fils against Ben Shelton and Musetti, but that would be the tier I'd put Fils in.

At this point, I think Rune has fallen behind Shelton and Musetti.

Even though they're in different levels of the rankings, Rune reminds me of Khachanov & Hurkacz who can put it all together to win a Masters event; actually defeating 1 of the Big 3, but never seem to get over the HUMP! We've seen a glimpse of what they could do when things are going well for them, but in the Majors, we're lucky if they have 1 or 2 good runs! I still like watching them play; just a little frustrating that the consistency isn't there, but that's to be expected! It's the NORM! Look at Rublev dropping like a rock in the rankings! He's under .500 on the season; something like 7-13, 14 if counting today when Sinner finishes him off! Let us not forget the "slide" of Tsitsipas, Medvedev, FAA, & Tiafoe (until this FO making the QF w/o losing a set)!

 

[don_fabio]

Look at Rublev dropping like a rock in the rankings! He's under .500 on the season; something like 7-13, 14 counting today when Sinner finishes him off today!

Hair Dude is as calm as he can ever be, slowly approaching the inevitable and that is okay. No shame if you lose to Sinner.

 

[Moxie]

Just a nit-pick: You have Stan a year older than he was (he was 28, 10mo). And I use Stan as an example of how precedents are never written in stone, but...Stan is singular, in terms of winning multiple Slams starting at 28 years old. Meaning, he's living proof that its never too late, yet also the rarest of exceptions.

As for Fils...we'll see. But know that me comparing him with Berdych/Tsonga isn't a slight...those two were excellent players for about a decade, during the hardest context in ATP history (as far as winning big titles). I think Fils will have a better career because his peak won't involve the Big Four. I wouldn't be surprised if he's more like a Dominic Thiem, although hopefully a luckier (healthier) version. And of all players on tour I'd probably rank him only behind Sinner, Alcaraz, Rune, Draper, Fonseca, and Mensik in terms of future outlook.

I'm kind of glad you picked a nit on that one, because I was nitpicking you, a bit. I do understand that you use Stan as the example of what can yet happen, even if you don't start winning Majors by 22, but, as you say, he's still the outlier. And, he "only" got 3 Majors. (All irony intended by those quotation marks.) And Holger isn't in those "dire" straits yet. I'm still holding out hope that Holger will pull his game, his discipline and his head together in time for a solid of challenging the best and for the big titles. Which is my point about his age. However, I do agree, esp. with @don_fabio who said that his performance against Musetti was worrying. And I note your mention of Shapovalov, above, who I was reminded of in that performance.

I also understand why you use Berdych and Tsonga as examples of a "tier." But you're right to point out that they played in the time of the Big 3/4, and there was just no room for them. Some of these guys will probably be luckier than that. We'll see how long "Sincaraz" can hold the dominance at the top. Looks like it might last through the French, though Novak looks like he has an opinion on that. But he's not exactly "new blood."

On the other hand, WTF with Bublik?!

 

[kskate2]

Order of Play for French Open, Day 10 QF Round, June 3, 2025

 

[Fiero425]

I'm kind of glad you picked a nit on that one, because I was nitpicking you, a bit. I do understand that you use Stan as the example of what can yet happen, even if you don't start winning Majors by 22, but, as you say, he's still the outlier. And, he "only" got 3 Majors. (All irony intended by those quotation marks.) And Holger isn't in those "dire" straits yet. I'm still holding out hope that Holger will pull his game, his discipline and his head together in time for a solid of challenging the best and for the big titles. Which is my point about his age. However, I do agree, esp. with @don_fabio who said that his performance against Musetti was worrying. And I note your mention of Shapovalov, above, who I was reminded of in that performance.

I also understand why you use Berdych and Tsonga as examples of a "tier." But you're right to point out that they played in the time of the Big 3/4, and there was just no room for them. Some of these guys will probably be luckier than that. We'll see how long "Sincaraz" can hold the dominance at the top. Looks like it might last through the French, though Novak looks like he has an opinion on that. But he's not exactly "new blood."

On the other hand, WTF with Bublik?!

The old man had a good draw; no real threat! The 1st real test w/b w/ Sacha Wednesday! If he's to win #25, I doubt it can get much better for him unless either or both Sincaraz are upset! Novak can get back to #5 in the world if he continues his dominance over Zverev!

 

[El Dude]

I'm kind of glad you picked a nit on that one, because I was nitpicking you, a bit. I do understand that you use Stan as the example of what can yet happen, even if you don't start winning Majors by 22, but, as you say, he's still the outlier. And, he "only" got 3 Majors. (All irony intended by those quotation marks.) And Holger isn't in those "dire" straits yet. I'm still holding out hope that Holger will pull his game, his discipline and his head together in time for a solid of challenging the best and for the big titles. Which is my point about his age. However, I do agree, esp. with @don_fabio who said that his performance against Musetti was worrying. And I note your mention of Shapovalov, above, who I was reminded of in that performance.

I also understand why you use Berdych and Tsonga as examples of a "tier." But you're right to point out that they played in the time of the Big 3/4, and there was just no room for them. Some of these guys will probably be luckier than that. We'll see how long "Sincaraz" can hold the dominance at the top. Looks like it might last through the French, though Novak looks like he has an opinion on that. But he's not exactly "new blood."

On the other hand, WTF with Bublik?!

I've always liked Bublik, going way back to 2017 when he showed up on my radar as a Next Genner to watch. He finished that year at #117 at age 20, then slipped back in 2018 before rising to #56 in 2019. But then he stagnated and never really improved, though he started winning minor titles in 2022. I suppose he's a bit of a late-bloomer, though I doubt he'll do much. But its a nice run and maybe he'll be a top 20 guy for a few years.

 

[Moxie]

I've always liked Bublik, going way back to 2017 when he showed up on my radar as a Next Genner to watch. He finished that year at #117 at age 20, then slipped back in 2018 before rising to #56 in 2019. But then he stagnated and never really improved, though he started winning minor titles in 2022. I suppose he's a bit of a late-bloomer, though I doubt he'll do much. But its a nice run and maybe he'll be a top 20 guy for a few years.

But you didn't see the match, or any of his play this tournament? He's certainly been under the radar. He can be kind of a jerk, right?

 

[El Dude]

But you didn't see the match, or any of his play this tournament? He's certainly been under the radar. He can be kind of a jerk, right?

I haven't seen him play this tournament, so can't comment on his current form - but beating De Minaur and Draper is impressive. How's he look? I'll check out the highlights. Also, can't comment on whether he's a jerk, but he's a bit of a character in interviews. And he showed good sportsmanship when Medvedev got a bad call and wanted to replay the point. I think it was a couple years ago. And just be clear, he's not a favorite so I don't follow him closely, but just someone that I had hoped to see a bit more from but dropped off, and have enjoyed his sass.

 

[Fiero425]

But you didn't see the match, or any of his play this tournament? He's certainly been under the radar. He can be kind of a jerk, right?

Well I saw enough of Bublik in the lead in to Paris! He's been playing rather well and proved something by dismissing Draper so easily! His experience "shown thru!" Both were just as confident playing the warm-up events! Very impressive! To defeat Sinner, Bublik will need to be "in the zone" & channel "Edberg 1989" to relentlessly attack the net; esp. on 1st serves! It won't happen, but I can always hope and muse about it!