Roland Garros 2011

The second GS of the season is here and I can tell by the lack of thread two days into the tournament there is a lack of interest in it. Still I thought I would start one.

Looks like a two horse race - Nadal and Djokovic, although Federer is still waiting in the wings for slip-ups.

It is ironic that the organisers have changed the ball this year (it is lighter making the courts play much faster) so that it plays into Djokovic's hands.

There is gossip doing the rounds that Djokovic is doping and that is why he has had such a big physical improvement. Does anyone think this gossip has any credence or is it just the consequence of the fact that so many people dislike Djokovic?

I'm not really sure I can say much about the women other than it looks like a free-for-all - wouldn't be surprised if the winner comes from out of the blue like last year.

Haven't bothered to watch any. Turned it on the other day and it was Sam Stosur and I almost fell asleep. I've never experienced such a lack of interest in tennis before.

Any time someone suddenly solves all their problems and kicks all kinds of ass, in any sport, doping is suspected. I don't know if Djerkovic is doping, but he wouldn't be the first.

RG site, for reference. I hate to admit that I'm as bored with the current state of affairs as you guys (and what was posted on the other thread lg started). Truthfully, I've been a little traumatized since Serena had her scare. I'm afraid that: 1) she's done when she still has so much tennis left in her; and 2) that she'll drop dead. I really don't think I could handle that.

Who knows if Djerkovic is doping, but even though I hate him, he doesn't appear to have a lack of integrity in that area. But then, who does? Can't tell by looking. Remember a couple of years ago Murray really bulked up, and I remember Martina leading the way oh so many years ago.

btw, loving the new Talk. Previewing could change my life ;-)

From over the UK it seems that everyone in US sports is on drugs - baseball and American football almost seem to encourage it.

People are saying stuff about Djokovic due to his sudden ability to last long matches - he no longer seems to huff and puff through them. I do feel a little sorry for him, some of the tennis he is playing now is fantastic, as good as anything Nadal and Federer have been playing over the last few years.

In a recent interview Djokovic said he is on a new diet and one aspect of it is it is gluten free and he attributes his better health to this.

He is playing good tennis but that does't change how negative I feel about him.

Is it just me or is C Wozniaki just wearing a long shirt with shorts under it?

Okay, so now Clijsters, Wozniaki, Stosur are out.
A lot of upstarts in the women's draw still.

Schiavone still plays on.

Djoker still plays from what I hear, but I didn't check the men's scores when I went to the website.

Have people seen this? The luckiest shot in Grand Slam history?.

Not sure what I'm supposed to click when get to the site. Maybe it's different in UK?

>10 citygirl: - perhaps you can't get content in the US. Try this link

Oh! I didn't know that kind of shot was legal!

Watched Djokovic-Del Potro before it was stopped at one set all. Great stuff - it was all angles and thought (Djokovic) against sheer power (DP). Good to see DP able to compete at this level again.

Yeah, I'd really love the see the rest of that match. Not sure what time it's on, but I'll look.

Watched some of the Monfils/Ferrer match. Didn't suck. I guess I can watch as long as Djerko is not on my tv.

When things are going well they are really going well - Djokovic has a walk-over into the SF while Federer has to play Monfils (which, to be honest, is more-or-less the same thing).

Not sure what is going on with Nadal but he looks very beatable at moment - perhaps speeding up the court and the balls is having an effect on him. (The idea of four different GS surfaces is a joke - they now all seem to play the same way).

It's true, there's little difference between the surfaces, except maybe the grass. Watching Rafa now. I miss the guns. Please, Rafa, dump the sleeves.

I wish I could have seen the Bartoli Schiavone match AND the Sharapova Li match. Maybe I'll watch a bit tonight.....

It's a pity that Sharapova - I think a Sharapova victory may have helped breathe some life back into the women's game. Mind you, with Li Na in the final this may well be the most watched GS final in history.

Nadal to defeat Murray easily. Djokovic to defeat Federer in 4.

I think a Sharapova victory may have helped breathe some life back into the women's game.

I was hoping for the same thing...oh, well.

Well, I'm so glad no Djerko in the final. I will be setting my alarm. Got to see the 2nd set of the Fed match and he looked pretty good.

Also excited for Li/Schiavone. I wouldn't have bothered to watch Sharapova, personally, but the finalists are both great players to watch with low annoyance factor.

I was visiting my Mother-in-Law today and just happened to change the channel to watch the end of the Murray/Nadal match and then the ENTIRE Federer/Dkokovic match. MiL and I had a blast watching it and I was so happy to see Roger win.

Lots of errors, but also lots of excellent tennis.

Tomorrow Na Li and Schiavone. I agree, lg about the great players to watch with low annoyance factor.

No shrieking with Sharapova, and no moaning with Azarenka. Joy.

And Sunday! Why, I do believe I'll actually watch the final.

I was watching the live analysis on the FO site of the Fed-Djo match today at work (no video) but damn that first set was tight. I hope I get a chance to watch the replay!

I'm surprised how happy people are about Sharapova not being in the final - as far as I can see she would have brought some media interest to the final. Women's tennis desperately needs a few players to focus on and neither of the two in the final are those players (unless you are Chinese or Italian).

Is Nadal the happiest man in the world at present? He's in the French final again and gets to play someone he beats all the time, rather than a man who was beating him all the time. This is Federer's best chance for years though, the courts are playing so fast that they are playing like hard courts.

I watched the women's final and was really pleased to see one that was not completely one sided as so many have been in the past couple of years. Congratulations to Li Na and Schiavone for an enjoyable match!

I watched the women and although the scores were close Li Na really did dominate. I think it was her nerves that took the second set to a tie break. 7-0 in the tie break is pretty dominant.

I suppose Nadal would rather play Fed than Djokovic, but Fed is playing pretty well and has to be confident after beating Djokovic. It might be a good match.

Enjoyed the women's final, and getting ready to watch Roger & Rafa. After all my whining at the beginning of the tourney, I'm feeling pretty good today.

Sorry that Roger lost, but he gave a better showing than other times in Paris.

Thoroughly enjoyed the tournament, though I only started at week two. Roger was gloriously Himself against Djoke. And nearly good enough against the trans-human Nadal.

I thought at 5-2 in the first set Federer had a real chance of winning - he was playing well and Nadal seemed to be struggling a little. The set was there for Federer's taking and when he didn't take it there never was any possible outcome other than a Nadal win. Federer can take confidence though - he served really well (which kept in the match); on the other hand, he has had 7 years to work out a strategy to beat Nadal and still hasn't come with one.

This is what Federer said -

I'm the one that's playing with smaller margins, so obviously I'm always going to go through a few more ups and downs, whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time.

"So it's always me who's going to dictate play and decide how the outcome is going to be. If I play well, I will most likely win. If I'm not playing so well, that's when he wins.

I'm not sure that holds up - the couple of times Federer has beaten Nadal in the last few years have been due to weaknesses with Nadal physical shape. But then does a champion has to take the view that if they play well they will win. It leads to an interesting question - can Federer play his best against Nadal? Does he get tight because of previous results against Nadal? The first set was a good example - he was bossing Nadal but when he made one mistake his whole game fell apart for 30 minutes and in the 2nd set tie-break he made 4 unforced forehand errors.

What was interesting was that Nadal's coach said that Nadal targets the French Open, winning it makes it a good year; Federer said he targets Wimbledon and winning it makes it a good year.

Well, I was hoping for a different outcome from this Fed-Rafa FO final, but it was great to watch, and as an added bonus, now Djerko does not get to be No. 1.

> 31/32

Federer was dominant in the first set. He looked unbeatable, and Nadal didn't have the answer. Until he did. I think Fed is right that he's playing with smaller margins. What he doesn't explicitly mention is that to play "well", ie well enough to beat Nadal requires playing better over at least three sets than it is possible for him to play more than very rarely. Yesterday he played nearly well enough, and nearly as well as he can play, and no dice. That first set level was impossible to maintain, especially against Nadal's relentless pressure.

Of course, if he doesn't feel he can beat Nadal, he might as well not be playing.

That quote from Roger sounds awfully arrogant and doesn't give Rafa credit.

If only Roger had won that first set with that drop shot..... just a teensy bit out..... the outcome might have been different. Not necessarily, but maybe.

Ah well, I agree with citygirl that Djerkovic doesn't get to be #1. He did lose gracefully though, got to give him that.

# 35. I agree that Roger's statement sounds arrogant. I would like to see it in context with what else he said, that might change the tone of it as it doesn't sound like Roger.

I wouldn't celebrate too early about Djokovic not making #1 - Nadal will probably have to win Wimbledon as well in order to stop him taking over in 3 weeks.

Djokovic will become #1. But then next year when he has to defend all those titles from his streak this year and doesn't win 41 matches in a row, he'll go down in the rankings and ... Nadal? Roger? Murray? del Potro?..... etc.. will move up.

The way it works the winner of a title doesn't gain anything if he retains it the next year and loses ground if he doesn't win again.

If Roger hadn't gotten arrogant during the match and tried that cavalier drop shot, he'd have won the first set. He did seem to go away mentally after that. He never used to let mistakes like that get to him, but when he plays Rafa, it's easier for him to lose concentration.

I do think I understand what he meant, but it does sound arrogant the way he put it. He's not gonna say "my mind went away for about a set and Rafa never lets up" even if that's what happened. He's got to spin it positively towards himself, that's how champion athletes think.

Yay, Djerko's #1 status postponed at least for a while. I'm willing to let him be #1 if it means Roger wins Wimbledon, tho.

>39 littlegeek: - being #3 makes it harder for him - he will probably have to beat Djokovic and Nadal back-to-back to win it. I think a good draw for him would be to get Nadal in the SF and hope Murray beats Djokovic in the other SF. But then if he beat Murray in the final he would instantly be the most disliked sportsman in the UK.

Roger has lots of fans in the UK. But you have to be one hell of a homer to root for Henman for all those years. Murray is a longer shot, if you ask me; Henman had a great game for grass. And Murray is Scottish which only barely counts.

I'd love for Roger to win Wimbledon. If not him, then Murray, who does seem to be playing better more recently. I agree, jargoneer, with your setting up of the SF - Roger beat Nadal, Murray beat Djokovic so that they meet in a final. Can you imagine the energy on Centre Court then?

I remember when Henman played his first Wimbledon. He had no endorsements, no emblems on his tennis whites. By the time he'd gone several rounds he had several patches sewn onto his shirt. He was so cute and exciting to watch. The crowds went absolutely nuts.

Djokovic pulled out of Queens. That seemed surprising to me - the announcers mentione at the French Final. Why would he pull out of the grass court warmup if he intended to try to win Wimbledon?

I was wondering that, too, km.

He says knee tendonitis. They often say knee tendonitis.

>41 littlegeek: - I think you'll find that if Murray reaches the final he'll be adopted as a true blue Brit - remember no British player has won the tournament since Julius Caesar invaded.

>44 stellarexplorer: - that could be a growing problem, more tournaments than ever are played on hardcourt and that's the most unforgiving surface.

Inquiring minds, eh, lg?

With that band on his leg at the French, Djokovic may be battling tendonitis. Nadal's bane, but never Roger's. It does seem rather amazing that except for mono and the occasional stomach upset, Roger's remained remarkably free of injuries.

Grass and clay courts are being changed to play more like hardcourts.