Roland Garros, Men's French Open 2026 - Grand Slam

[Kieran]

FAA , head scratcher game after being up 0-40 on Cobolli’s serve at 1-2, one set all, he had soo many chances early in that 3rd set & Coboli looked a little spent and was splaying the BH but Felix could not go for the kill.

I will say this one last time; can we please stop saying how well FAA played in that 5 set match with Rafa at the FO a few years ago. He plays up or down to his competition & he LOST that match.

Play ugly & win is what champs do.

FAA plays “pretty”, that does not always work.

It’s one thing some people think, that Roger played pretty and won. Roger was a tough, nasty bastard. Aged almost 38 he had two championship points at Wimbledon against a player 6-7 years younger and ranked number one, and to some idiots this was proof that he’s a weak, meme-worthy loser. I remember he had match points in the 2005 Australian Open semi with Safin, and he was the subject of ignorant mockery even then, but I was thinking, jeez even on an off day this bloke is hard to kill.

Guys like Roger ought to be avoided if you’re on your own at night walking down a dark alley. FAA should think about these things…

 

[Federberg]

It’s one thing some people think, that Roger played pretty and won. Roger was a tough, nasty bastard. Aged almost 38 he had two championship points at Wimbledon against a player 6-7 years younger and ranked number one, and to some idiots this was proof that he’s a weak, meme-worthy loser. I remember he had match points in the 2005 Australian Open semi with Safin, and he was the subject of ignorant mockery even then, but I was thinking, jeez even on an off day this bloke is hard to kill.

Guys like Roger ought to be avoided if you’re on your own at night walking down a dark alley. FAA should think about these things…

Roger was the ultimate paradox. His game was beautiful and romantic. But he was pragmatic and in clutch moments (those Novak match point situations) preferred to let the opponent take the risks. If he had had a bit more rock and roll in his soul, he might have written a different script in some of those situations. Aesthetically beautiful, but the soul of a true Swiss in the clutch. It was never choking with him, just a disdain for taking risks. I reckon he would have felt - in his own mind - that he hadn't really won, he'd fluked it... if he had tried the sort of thing Novak would have tried. I grudgingly respect Djokovic for that sort of 'fuck it' mentality

 

[El Dude]

It’s one thing some people think, that Roger played pretty and won. Roger was a tough, nasty bastard. Aged almost 38 he had two championship points at Wimbledon against a player 6-7 years younger and ranked number one, and to some idiots this was proof that he’s a weak, meme-worthy loser. I remember he had match points in the 2005 Australian Open semi with Safin, and he was the subject of ignorant mockery even then, but I was thinking, jeez even on an off day this bloke is hard to kill.

Guys like Roger ought to be avoided if you’re on your own at night walking down a dark alley. FAA should think about these things…

I think part of this is the inevitable comparisons to Nadal and Djokovic. Compared to those two, Roger seems a bit weak in terms of grit and crucial moments. But that's simply because Rafa and Novak upped the level of possible grit from "great" to "stratospheric."

I think most would agree that Roger is probably the most talented tennis player of all time, at least in the last 30-35 years.* But tennis is obviously about more than talent - just ask David Nalbandian, who had the talent to be an ATG. Roger was also very strong mentally, but Novak and Rafa were just stronger. No one was a better competitor than Rafa, and no one a better defender than Novak. And both were no slouches in the talent department.

*(before 1990ish, especially the wooden racket era, the the game is a bit too different to make clear comparisons of talent; I think it could be talented that Mac was similarly talented to Roger, but within the context of his time)

 

[the AntiPusher]

Definitely agree with you. Not to mention, FAA's performance against Rafa is overrated a bit. He didn't play the 2011 or even 2020 version of Nadal. (Quite frankly, Isner taking peak Nadal to 5 sets at RG, especially considering the limitations of his game, is much more impressive to me.)

FAA played a faded, almost 36-year-old version of Nadal, who was certainly beatable. Medvedev should have beaten Nadal at the AO and FAA probably should have beaten Nadal that day at RG, but they let Nadal off the hook.

I disagree to a point if that makes sense. I watched the entire match and I didn’t see a dip in Rafa’s game that day. I posted this several times previously, Felix had 3 or 4 UFEs the final set. Rafa hit 12 plus winners. Felix when Toni was added to the team played better clay court tennis that day than yesterday. I will go back to look up the stats later. There’s no letting Nadal off the hook at RG..

 

[Kieran]

I think part of this is the inevitable comparisons to Nadal and Djokovic. Compared to those two, Roger seems a bit weak in terms of grit and crucial moments. But that's simply because Rafa and Novak upped the level of possible grit from "great" to "stratospheric."

I think most would agree that Roger is probably the most talented tennis player of all time, at least in the last 30-35 years.* But tennis is obviously about more than talent - just ask David Nalbandian, who had the talent to be an ATG. Roger was also very strong mentally, but Novak and Rafa were just stronger. No one was a better competitor than Rafa, and no one a better defender than Novak. And both were no slouches in the talent department.

*(before 1990ish, especially the wooden racket era, the the game is a bit too different to make clear comparisons of talent; I think it could be talented that Mac was similarly talented to Roger, but within the context of his time)

I think as well, though, we tend to brush aside the fact that Roger is 6 years older than Rafa and Novak. By the time he began to be the third wheel, he had a record 16 slams and was into what’s typically the downhill part of the course. So Novaks most dramatic victories, for instance, are clouded by this fact. Sometimes fans act as if Novak displaced peak Federer and exposed him. This kind of thinking is nonsense. Federer should be more respected, in this regard.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I was referring to Felix isn’t a real contender not the Italian. I have no quells against the Italian..heck I like the guy’s game. He ain’t no mental midget.

Can you make yourself clearer in future? it came across the other way, there is no way I am taking Saba for starters she wouldnt be able to keep up with me

 

[the AntiPusher]

Can you make yourself clearer in future? it came across the other way, there is no way I am taking Saba for starters she wouldnt be able to keep up with me

Lord Have Mercy.. Your Hubby deserves the Noble Peace Prize.. No way any other person can SURVIVE keeping quiet around you!! You are something ..Much love and respect as always.. ( i know Sista Moxie is laughing as hard as she can reading this message in HEAVEN Lord Rest her Soul)

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Lord Have Mercy.. Your Hubby deserves the Noble Peace Prize.. No way any other person can SURVIVE keeping quiet around you!! You are something ..Much love and respect as always.. ( i know Sista Moxie is laughing as hard as she can reading this message in HEAVEN Lord Rest her Soul)

I said I mis read your post okay there is no need to start attacking me thank you very much

 

[the AntiPusher]

I said I mis read your post okay there is no need to start attacking me thank you very much

I did not attack.. You do mis read my comments alot..Quit being on the defensive.. I was clearly talking about FAA not Cobolli.. You are too quick to respond if you think someone is saying something about your favorite players and especially the Italians.. Always Remember Baron's greats statement on this board.. "Respond to the Post, not the poster"..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I did not attack.. You do mis read my comments alot..Quit being on the defensive.. I was clearly talking about FAA not Cobolli.. You are too quick to respond if you think someone is saying something about your favorite players and especially the Italians.. Always Remember Baron's greats statement on this board.. "Respond to the Post, not the User..

Excuse me go back and read what you just said about me my hubby deserves the Nobel Peace Prize etc? No way any other person can survive keeping quiet around you? you are something? that is an attack on me okay
Maybe I do mis read your comments, maybe you can make your self clearer in the future or better still I wont respond to your posts.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Excuse me go back and read what you just said about me my hubby deserves the Nobel Peace Prize etc? No way any other person can survive keeping quiet around you? you are something? that is an attack on me okay
Maybe I do mis read your comments, maybe you can make your self clearer in the future or better still I wont respond to your posts.

I wont go back and forth about. Its not this man's way of doing things. the previous needed to be said because almost ever post you clamp down on me ( i cant speak for others) because you are clearly into your feelings about Sinner and Saba getting bounced. Felix may not be the type of player that a champion needs to be and Sascha is definitely a POS off the court. Yet, they are clearly not your favorite players but noOne at least I cant say anything positive aspects about either player. Go back and review, every time I mention Sascha or Felix , you have to dismantle my posts. I feel like I need to get clearance from you before I post which is not the way this forum is designed. So if you feel you need to ignore me to keep your calmness its on you.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I wont go back and forth about. Its not this man's way of doing things. the previous needed to be said because almost post you clamp down on me ( i cant speak for others) because you are clearly into your feelings about Sinner and Saba getting bounced. Felix may not be the type of player that a champion needs to be and Sascha is definitely a POS off the court. Yet, they are clearly not your favorite players but noOne at least I cant say anything positive aspects about either player. Go back and review, every time I mention Sascha or Felix , you have to dismantle my posts. I feel like I need to get clearance from you before I post which is not the way this forum is designed. So if you feel you need to ignore me to keep your calmness its on you.

Of course I was upset with Sinner going out the way he did, it was upsetting to see him ' hit a wall' like he did. I am not biased when it comes to him, I have had a go at him in the past, and when he gets beaten, gosh I was live at the AO this year when Novak beat him and I was one of the first to congratulate Novak , he deserved his win, Jannik played dreadful, you have just come back to TF BTW
Go and read my comments regarding Saba losing? I said she deserved to lose when she was up leading 4-1. she isnt a fav player of mine
I dont like Sasha, gosh where do I start with him and I am not the only one at TF that agrees with me, he is a whinger and always complains when he gets beaten, he hasnt done anything in the past to improve his game, his fhand is weak.....that is my opinion and others btw at TF
I have nothing against Felix, yes maybe he needs to have a stronger mentality, that is it.
This is an forum and I like others have a right to opinions, people are not going to agree regarding say their favorite players dont meet their expectations and of course they are going to defend them, that is human nature.

 

[El Dude]

I think as well, though, we tend to brush aside the fact that Roger is 6 years older than Rafa and Novak. By the time he began to be the third wheel, he had a record 16 slams and was into what’s typically the downhill part of the course. So Novaks most dramatic victories, for instance, are clouded by this fact. Sometimes fans act as if Novak displaced peak Federer and exposed him. This kind of thinking is nonsense. Federer should be more respected, in this regard.

Yeah, I hear you. I do wonder how long Roger might have played without Djokodal. First of all, he very well could have won at least one Calendar Slam in 2006-07. If he had, and then dominated for a few more years in 2008-12ish, he might have been ready to wind down. I mean, who would his main competitor have been, Andy Murray?

In other words, he might have won more in 2008-10ish, but I'm not sure if he would have still been playing after around 2015.

People make a lot about improvements in medical tech and fitness, but there has to be the will behind it - and clearly Roger was "inspired" by Djokodal. Agassi already played longer than the greats of the 80s and 90s, winning his last Slam at 32, his last Masters at 34, remaining in the top 10 at 35 and only retiring a year later. I think that was partially him making up for a mispent youth. Agassi's path echoed Connors somewhat, though he retired more quickly after falling from elite status, while Connors lingered. Roger, then Rafa and Novak, essentially added +5 more years to what a tennis career looks like.

It isn't entirely a new precedent, except as far as the Open Era is concerned. Laver and Rosewall were still great into their 30s, and Rosewall played until he was almost 46. And of course Pancho Gonzales was still a very good player in his 40s, wining two Masters equivalents at 41 years old. But starting in the md-70s or so, the game got younger - the power game of Connors and Borg. Stan Smith and Ilie Nastase declined from their peak level in their late 20s. Newcombe and Ashe were a bit more of holdouts from the Laver era, and were still good in their early 30s, but retired shortly after. Connors was a bit of an outlier and considered on the old side when he won his last Slam in 1983 at 31. Since then, and before the Big Three, or 1984-2011 before Federer entered his 30s, only Agassi and Sampras were older Slam winners, and just barely.

Consider how many Slams the Big Three won at older ages than Connors' last: Federer with 3, Nadal with 7, Djokovic with 12. Plus, Stan's last in 2016. They re-wrote the possible, or at least the norm of 1970ish to 2010ish.

Here's a crazy stat: Novak won as many Slams as Edberg and Becker combined at an age older than Jimmy Connors' last Slam.

We won't know for some years if this longer prime will translate to younger generations. We might get some glimmer of it in the next few years, as Next Gen enters and goes deeper into their 30s. Medvedev has already declined somewhat, and who knows how long Zverev's candle will burn. Rublev and Fritz seem to be trending downward, and of course Tsitsipas is a shadow of his former self. These guys are all 28-30ish. So we're really looking at 2031 and beyond, when Jannik Sinner turns 30.

See, you got me going.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yeah, I hear you. I do wonder how long Roger might have played without Djokodal. First of all, he very well could have won at least one Calendar Slam in 2006-07. If he had, and then dominated for a few more years in 2008-12ish, he might have been ready to wind down. I mean, who would his main competitor have been, Andy Murray?

In other words, he might have won more in 2008-10ish, but I'm not sure if he would have still been playing after around 2015.

People make a lot about improvements in medical tech and fitness, but there has to be the will behind it - and clearly Roger was "inspired" by Djokodal. Agassi already played longer than the greats of the 80s and 90s, winning his last Slam at 32, his last Masters at 34, remaining in the top 10 at 35 and only retiring a year later. I think that was partially him making up for a mispent youth. Agassi's path echoed Connors somewhat, though he retired more quickly after falling from elite status, while Connors lingered. Roger, then Rafa and Novak, essentially added +5 more years to what a tennis career looks like.

It isn't entirely a new precedent, except as far as the Open Era is concerned. Laver and Rosewall were still great into their 30s, and Rosewall played until he was almost 46. And of course Pancho Gonzales was still a very good player in his 40s, wining two Masters equivalents at 41 years old. But starting in the md-70s or so, the game got younger - the power game of Connors and Borg. Stan Smith and Ilie Nastase declined from their peak level in their late 20s. Newcombe and Ashe were a bit more of holdouts from the Laver era, and were still good in their early 30s, but retired shortly after. Connors was a bit of an outlier and considered on the old side when he won his last Slam in 1983 at 31. Since then, and before the Big Three, or 1984-2011 before Federer entered his 30s, only Agassi and Sampras were older Slam winners, and just barely.

Consider how many Slams the Big Three won at older ages than Connors' last: Federer with 3, Nadal with 7, Djokovic with 12. Plus, Stan's last in 2016. They re-wrote the possible, or at least the norm of 1970ish to 2010ish.

Here's a crazy stat: Novak won as many Slams as Edberg and Becker combined at an age older than Jimmy Connors' last Slam.

We won't know for some years if this longer prime will translate to younger generations. We might get some glimmer of it in the next few years, as Next Gen enters and goes deeper into their 30s. Medvedev has already declined somewhat, and who knows how long Zverev's candle will burn. Rublev and Fritz seem to be trending downward, and of course Tsitsipas is a shadow of his former self. These guys are all 28-30ish. So we're really looking at 2031 and beyond, when Jannik Sinner turns 30.

See, you got me going.

Do you think the current group of players eg Alcaraz and Sinner physically can play beyond age 30? or will we just have to wait, I feel the newer smaller head racquets, can force some players to have injuries example wrists., they way they hit the ball, people are now saying that is a reason that Alcaraz is out with a his wrist injury? it has happened to Del Potro and Theim?
Kudos to Novak at his age being still able to compete at GS level.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I don't know why, but I have a feeling that Jannik is going to call it a career at 28, either after the 2029 US Open or 2030 Australian Open.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I don't know why, but I have a feeling that Jannik is going to call it a career at 28, either after the 2029 US Open or 2030 Australian Open.

Of course you would Phil

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I hear you. I do wonder how long Roger might have played without Djokodal. First of all, he very well could have won at least one Calendar Slam in 2006-07. If he had, and then dominated for a few more years in 2008-12ish, he might have been ready to wind down. I mean, who would his main competitor have been, Andy Murray?

In other words, he might have won more in 2008-10ish, but I'm not sure if he would have still been playing after around 2015.

People make a lot about improvements in medical tech and fitness, but there has to be the will behind it - and clearly Roger was "inspired" by Djokodal. Agassi already played longer than the greats of the 80s and 90s, winning his last Slam at 32, his last Masters at 34, remaining in the top 10 at 35 and only retiring a year later. I think that was partially him making up for a mispent youth. Agassi's path echoed Connors somewhat, though he retired more quickly after falling from elite status, while Connors lingered. Roger, then Rafa and Novak, essentially added +5 more years to what a tennis career looks like.

It isn't entirely a new precedent, except as far as the Open Era is concerned. Laver and Rosewall were still great into their 30s, and Rosewall played until he was almost 46. And of course Pancho Gonzales was still a very good player in his 40s, wining two Masters equivalents at 41 years old. But starting in the md-70s or so, the game got younger - the power game of Connors and Borg. Stan Smith and Ilie Nastase declined from their peak level in their late 20s. Newcombe and Ashe were a bit more of holdouts from the Laver era, and were still good in their early 30s, but retired shortly after. Connors was a bit of an outlier and considered on the old side when he won his last Slam in 1983 at 31. Since then, and before the Big Three, or 1984-2011 before Federer entered his 30s, only Agassi and Sampras were older Slam winners, and just barely.

Consider how many Slams the Big Three won at older ages than Connors' last: Federer with 3, Nadal with 7, Djokovic with 12. Plus, Stan's last in 2016. They re-wrote the possible, or at least the norm of 1970ish to 2010ish.

Here's a crazy stat: Novak won as many Slams as Edberg and Becker combined at an age older than Jimmy Connors' last Slam.

We won't know for some years if this longer prime will translate to younger generations. We might get some glimmer of it in the next few years, as Next Gen enters and goes deeper into their 30s. Medvedev has already declined somewhat, and who knows how long Zverev's candle will burn. Rublev and Fritz seem to be trending downward, and of course Tsitsipas is a shadow of his former self. These guys are all 28-30ish. So we're really looking at 2031 and beyond, when Jannik Sinner turns 30.

See, you got me going.

The symmetry of Djokovic's record is really something! He was proclaimed "The GOAT" by many experts after he completed his 1st CGS taking the 2016 FO Title, est. a Nole-Slam! That gave him 12 Majors early, then he won 12 more later in his 30's! He took 3 of 4 majors 4 times, 2 early ('11 &'15), then later ('21 & '23)! When it comes to all other titles, there's great symmetry win'n 25-40 % of all tourn.; Majors & Masters!

 

[El Dude]

Do you think the current group of players eg Alcaraz and Sinner physically can play beyond age 30? or will we just have to wait, I feel the newer smaller head racquets, can force some players to have injuries example wrists., they way they hit the ball, people are now saying that is a reason that Alcaraz is out with a his wrist injury? it has happened to Del Potro and Theim?
Kudos to Novak at his age being still able to compete at GS level.

No idea, but...what you write here, and what we're observing, reminds me of something that's happened in baseball over the last few decades. Pitchers have been throwing harder and harder...I believe that 25 years ago (or so), the average major league fastball was about 90 mph. Now it is closing in on 95 mph. At the same time, pitching injuries have skyrocketed and innings counts have gone down.

I mean, way back in the 19th century, a starting pitcher would start 50, 60, 70+ games and pitch 500+ innings. Even just in the 70s and early 80s, pitchers started 40 games and pitched 300+ innings. That has gradually decreased to the point that only a few starters surpass 200 innings every year. All of this is entirely due, in my opinion, to throwing the ball harder and harder.

Tennis and baseball are very different sports, but both involve wacking something really hard, and both have a history of increased power over time. It may be that, like baseball, we're reaching a failure point in tennis: Players are out-pacing their own natural physiques, sort of like an unbalanced bodybuilder who neglects leg day or core strength.

So yeah, I think its possible that the new crop has a shorter shelf life, that what we saw with the Big Three was a kind of sweetspot of what the human body is capable of...at least right now.

 

[Jelenafan]

19 year old Spanish tennis player Rafael Jodar making it to the qtrs this year reminded me of the incredible consistency of Spanish players at Roland Garros..

If I’m not mistaken, the last time a male Spanish player failed to reach the round of 16 at the French open was 1985. That is 41 consecutive years and counting.

Surely no other country comes close in any other Grand Slam.

 

[Fiero425]

Checking in on Sascha & Jakub's SF! Zverev's up 2 sets to Luv! I don't understand WTF's going on?! Mensik can hang in there w/ Djokovic, actually outduel him from the baseline, blow him off the court w/ his serve, but's now struggling against Zverev who plays the most basic of baseline games! I'm so confused! It can't just be about "the match up!"

UPDATE: Mensik turns it around in the 3rd! Sascha has a "Goolagong Walkabout," drop'n set 3-6! Can Sascha drop yet another 5 set'r up 2-0?

Update 2: Sascha up 3-0 in the 4th as he gains back control of the match! He's had to deal w/ a couple calls, but so far, so good! On his way?