-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Do you think Bafana Bafana will win tonight?
Australian Open
- Thread starter Celine
- Start date
Arthur
Honorary Master
Riveting.
Should be back in the office but can't tear myself away.
... Now for RF's 4th tie breaker serve...
Should be back in the office but can't tear myself away.
... Now for RF's 4th tie breaker serve...
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Murray's got the break in the 5th 
Arthur
Honorary Master
Murray muscles through.
Back to the office.
Back to the office.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Meh. Gonna watch the cricket rather.
Novak will take it again
Novak will take it again
Ou grote
Honorary Master
Meh. Gonna watch the cricket rather.
Novak will take it again
Murray seems to have discovered BMT.
I reckon he has a shot here.
as much as it pains me i have to agree with Alf
Ou grote
Honorary Master
I can see Murray having the sort of year that Novak had last year.
Although I Novak and Fed are my favourite players.
As long as Nadal doesn't win anything ...
Although I Novak and Fed are my favourite players.
As long as Nadal doesn't win anything ...
Smurfatefrog
Expert Member
Nadal is now down to 5th, so 1 of the big 3 will probably be getting him in the quarters at the French & Wimbledon!
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Novak wins it in 4 sets
Deezil
Senior Member
Depends on how he finishes the clay season
... but you bring up an interesting point though. Imo a draw is basically there to ensure your number 1 & 2 plays each other in the final which means ideally your #1 should play #8 in a quarter final (with 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 ... should they all make it that far) Why then do we get such stupid draws nowadays where 1 plays 5 and 4 plays 8 in the quarters for example? Why bother with a seeding system then?
To me that simply doesn't make sense (But that's just me)
Last edited:
Smurfatefrog
Expert Member
I agree, its a bit stupid. 1 and 2 are placed, 3 & 4 are random, so 1 could play either 3 or 4 in the semi. 5 to 8 are also random. Being number 1 seed should have the advantage of getting 32, 16, 8 & 4th seeds
Deezil
Senior Member
Now that you've explained it I guess the random factor at least keeps things interesting ... the divide between 1- 4 (and although he is great on clay I don't include Ferrer in that group) and the rest is so big that the top four are almost guaranteed to reach the semis in most tournaments anyway. With a randomness factor these paths to the final keeps changing.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
99% of the time, people want to see number 1 vs number 2 in the final. What better way to end a tournament than seeing the best 2 players in the world toughing it out?
Smurfatefrog
Expert Member
Yup, the only players capable of winning Grand Slams right now are Novak, Fed, Murray & Rafa. Novak's demolition of Ferrer proved it
Excluding Del Potro's 2009 US Open win, the last win by players other than the above four are:
Aus Open - 2005
US Open - 2003
Wimbledon - 2002
French - 2004
Excluding Del Potro's 2009 US Open win, the last win by players other than the above four are:
Aus Open - 2005
US Open - 2003
Wimbledon - 2002
French - 2004
Smurfatefrog
Expert Member
Think he's referring to the path to the final, not the actual final. You can get different players in the prior rounds even if seeding remain the same
Deezil
Senior Member
Jip otherwise the same players would almost always meet at the same stage of a big tournament with no way of progressing through the rankings if he simply doesn't have the capability of beating the better player.
Absolutely .... 1 vs 2 is ideal but honestly any combination of the top 4 in a final should theoretically be a good match (with good spectator support for either player)
Last edited:
Azbubu
Honorary Master
Virus affected his preparations.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
There has been a lot of speculation since Nadal claimed he was injured last year. I have my suspicions but he's due back in the next week.