liquidglass

Rublev to take a set and overs between Rafa and Tsitsipas would be my call.

Some players check out at this stage of the season, to the point that it's hard to understand why they even bother to play. I've noticed over the years that if a player has lost their last three or four matches and the season is about to finish, then there's a good chance they'll continue their losing streak until they're done for the season. Goffin has lost his last four or five matches or whatever it is, so it wasn't a massive surprise to me that he lost - the way he lost the second set tie-break sums it up really, it was as though he'd just had enough and wants to go on holiday.

Thanks @liquidglass I might back Sorribes based on your thoughts.

There is definitely the problem with the clash of styles and trying to figure out what Sabalenka's raw power might be worth. However, I think that there is already evidence to show that should not be a problem with Sorribes having previously succeeded over a similar player in Kontaveit. I think Sorribes may be on one of those unusual freaky runs that comes not so often in a players career. Sorribes to win definitely is the right play here.

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

Just need to put straight one or two matters that need clarification. Firstly I do not know if you have your own customized definition to the word "injection" if not I think it is obviously clear that since Murray and Konta there has been a remarkable improvement on the mens and womens side with the inclusion of new players unless you are not conversant with British tennis. The improvement is nowhere near the other countries mentioned but it is there. Secondly, you seem to think that randomness resides at the opposite end of consistency. It is simply a variant in this case. It will almost be impossible to find randomness at the later stages of a grand slam if consistency has not accompanied it there. I may have to reiterate again for effect that nothing makes Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin any more different from players like Swiatek, Kostyuk Podoroska, Rybakina etc. Not everyone good will be lucky enough to breakthrough and some will be lucky enough to break through without being quite good enough. Where is Muguruza today? Wozniacki never won a grandslam till the end of her career and she reigned as no1 for a decent period. When Kenin and company are able to live in the top 5 for like 5years straight then we can continue this discussion. You would have been able to get your desired final born out of consistency (Nadal vs Djokovic) but for the randomness that has now arrived with consistency. Tsitsipas will definitely have a lot to say about that for sure!!

I do not think that it requires any intense observation to realize that tennis has officially entered a new era as with a few other sports like snooker etc. Most times there is never any distinguishing ceremony to mark this kind of change aside noting the slow and steady upgrade of the human infrastructure as the years roll on. In most cases change will occur as a simulated or clandestine activity which will always be visible to those who understand the game or are privileged with an inside view.
Over the past years this simulated process has continued in the background and invariably progressed the game to where it is now. I remember when tennis was mostly about serve and volley, a one handed back-hand and a defensive back hand slice (as opposed to the continuous full backhand swings that we see these days in brutal rallies) There were also more overhead lobs etc used to alter the cause of a rally. Then from Jimmy Connors onwards, we started seeing this new kind of aggressive baseline game with players opting to stay back to control points. This also signalled the beginning of the double-handed backhand stroke that has now suddenly become the norm. All these were changes that happened as the game evolved. We also saw the introduction of aggressive baseliners into the game like Jim courier, Thomas Muster, Monica Seles, Serena Williams etc
You must remember that change is not something that happens instantaneously. It is always somewhat of a slow and deliberate process. Over the last few years there has been a steady injection of talent from Russia, China, Romania, USA and even the United Kingdom who have suddenly raised their game on both sides of the ball. So when cite Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin as pre-change models, you are definitely making a mistake as these young women are the product of this current change. Random slam winning was very rare before these new breed of young women came on board. You will also discover that these women represent the ages of players born from 1997 on-wards which is about where we can just about trace back the roots of these new era of players to.
I definitely believe that I am quite right when I say that true aficionados would rather prefer randomness. This is perhaps true in all sports. It is this same unpredictability that makes the FA cup very special. Most of us are here on this forum because we have a very comprehensive understanding of the game backed by an unrivaled passion. So whilst Grand Slams for the ordinary tennis watcher will center around Federer, Djokovic and Nadal, for us here who take stock of everything from the satellite  level and beyond, it is more about those competitive early rounds where these random talents try to make their bid for glory. These matches are always special for us to see a baby star that we all know break into maturity. Predictability is as boring as Djokovic and Nadal in another final as was Steve Davis in a snooker final way back when.
Yes, we all want to see rivalries in as much as we want to see new talent emerge. Nothing makes Osaka, Kenin and Andreescu any different from Swiatek Podoroska etc. It is all about having your opportunity to take your chance when it becomes available. A good player is all about a positive mental attitude. When you look at a player like Podoroska, you will discover that her bad habit for winning did not start here at the French Open. She always lived in winning mode which was why it was not too difficult to project it on to a higher level. I have known her from jump street and have been following her progress along with many others like Kostyuk. They all have a positive attitude towards the game and are very progressive. If we repeated the tournament there is no certainty where anyone will finish. The same will be true even with a fully packed elite field. The field is now closely bunched up talent-wise and there is no one person so far in front as before. 

I do not think that it requires any intense observation to realize that tennis has officially entered a new era as with a few other sports like snooker etc. Most times there is never any distinguishing ceremony to mark this kind of change aside noting the slow and steady upgrade of the human infrastructure as the years roll on. In most cases change will occur as a simulated or clandestine activity which will always be visible to those who understand the game or are privileged with an inside view.
Over the past years this simulated process has continued in the background and invariably progressed the game to where it is now. I remember when tennis was mostly about serve and volley, a one handed back-hand and a defensive back hand slice (as opposed to the continuous full backhand swings that we see these days in brutal rallies) There were also more overhead lobs etc used to alter the cause of a rally. Then from Jimmy Connors onwards, we started seeing this new kind of aggressive baseline game with players opting to stay back to control points. This also signalled the beginning of the double-handed backhand stroke that has now suddenly become the norm. All these were changes that happened as the game evolved. We also saw the introduction of aggressive baseliners into the game like Jim courier, Thomas Muster, Monica Seles, Serena Williams etc
You must remember that change is not something that happens instantaneously. It is always somewhat of a slow and deliberate process. Over the last few years there has been a steady injection of talent from Russia, China, Romania, USA and even the United Kingdom who have suddenly raised their game on both sides of the ball. So when cite Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin as pre-change models, you are definitely making a mistake as these young women are the product of this current change. Random slam winning was very rare before these new breed of young women came on board. You will also discover that these women represent the ages of players born from 1997 on-wards which is about where we can just about trace back the roots of these new era of players to.
I definitely believe that I am quite right when I say that true aficionados would rather prefer randomness. This is perhaps true in all sports. It is this same unpredictability that makes the FA cup very special. Most of us are here on this forum because we have a very comprehensive understanding of the game backed by an unrivaled passion. So whilst Grand Slams for the ordinary tennis watcher will center around Federer, Djokovic and Nadal, for us here who take stock of everything from the satellite  level and beyond, it is more about those competitive early rounds where these random talents try to make their bid for glory. These matches are always special for us to see a baby star that we all know break into maturity. Predictability is as boring as Djokovic and Nadal in another final as was Steve Davis in a snooker final way back when.
Yes, we all want to see rivalries in as much as we want to see new talent emerge. Nothing makes Osaka, Kenin and Andreescu any different from Swiatek Podoroska etc. It is all about having your opportunity to take your chance when it becomes available. A good player is all about a positive mental attitude. When you look at a player like Podoroska, you will discover that her bad habit for winning did not start here at the French Open. She always lived in winning mode which was why it was not too difficult to project it on to a higher level. I have known her from jump street and have been following her progress along with many others like Kostyuk. They all have a positive attitude towards the game and are very progressive. If we repeated the tournament there is no certainty where anyone will finish. The same will be true even with a fully packed elite field. The field is now closely bunched up talent-wise and there is no one person so far in front as before. 

Yeah, I knew you would have been gutted about Sinner. That is one of the most painful ways a person can lose a bet where the thought is spot on but loses on the expression of that thought. Sinner covered the handicap and total games with a lot to spare. It also looked like he could win a set anytime he chose to put his foot on the gas pedal but never quite got round to doing it. He largely suffered from the cobwebs of inexperience. His total concentration was in and out for most parts and his commitment to shots was lackadaisical at times coupled with a body language that was not in line with that mission that he was setting out to accomplish. Despite all that, Sinner is the real McCoy for sure!

I do not think that it requires any intense observation to realize that tennis has officially entered a new era as with a few other sports like snooker etc. Most times there is never any distinguishing ceremony to mark this kind of change aside noting the slow and steady upgrade of the human infrastructure as the years roll on. In most cases change will occur as a simulated or clandestine activity which will always be visible to those who understand the game or are privileged with an inside view.
Over the past years this simulated process has continued in the background and invariably progressed the game to where it is now. I remember when tennis was mostly about serve and volley, a one handed back-hand and a defensive back hand slice (as opposed to the continuous full backhand swings that we see these days in brutal rallies) There were also more overhead lobs etc used to alter the cause of a rally. Then from Jimmy Connors onwards, we started seeing this new kind of aggressive baseline game with players opting to stay back to control points. This also signalled the beginning of the double-handed backhand stroke that has now suddenly become the norm. All these were changes that happened as the game evolved. We also saw the introduction of aggressive baseliners into the game like Jim courier, Thomas Muster, Monica Seles, Serena Williams etc
You must remember that change is not something that happens instantaneously. It is always somewhat of a slow and deliberate process. Over the last few years there has been a steady injection of talent from Russia, China, Romania, USA and even the United Kingdom who have suddenly raised their game on both sides of the ball. So when cite Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin as pre-change models, you are definitely making a mistake as these young women are the product of this current change. Random slam winning was very rare before these new breed of young women came on board. You will also discover that these women represent the ages of players born from 1997 on-wards which is about where we can just about trace back the roots of these new era of players to.
I definitely believe that I am quite right when I say that true aficionados would rather prefer randomness. This is perhaps true in all sports. It is this same unpredictability that makes the FA cup very special. Most of us are here on this forum because we have a very comprehensive understanding of the game backed by an unrivaled passion. So whilst Grand Slams for the ordinary tennis watcher will center around Federer, Djokovic and Nadal, for us here who take stock of everything from the satellite  level and beyond, it is more about those competitive early rounds where these random talents try to make their bid for glory. These matches are always special for us to see a baby star that we all know break into maturity. Predictability is as boring as Djokovic and Nadal in another final as was Steve Davis in a snooker final way back when.
Yes, we all want to see rivalries in as much as we want to see new talent emerge. Nothing makes Osaka, Kenin and Andreescu any different from Swiatek Podoroska etc. It is all about having your opportunity to take your chance when it becomes available. A good player is all about a positive mental attitude. When you look at a player like Podoroska, you will discover that her bad habit for winning did not start here at the French Open. She always lived in winning mode which was why it was not too difficult to project it on to a higher level. I have known her from jump street and have been following her progress along with many others like Kostyuk. They all have a positive attitude towards the game and are very progressive. If we repeated the tournament there is no certainty where anyone will finish. The same will be true even with a fully packed elite field. The field is now closely bunched up talent-wise and there is no one person so far in front as before. 

Yeah, I knew you would have been gutted about Sinner. That is one of the most painful ways a person can lose a bet where the thought is spot on but loses on the expression of that thought. Sinner covered the handicap and total games with a lot to spare. It also looked like he could win a set anytime he chose to put his foot on the gas pedal but never quite got round to doing it. He largely suffered from the cobwebs of inexperience. His total concentration was in and out for most parts and his commitment to shots was lackadaisical at times coupled with a body language that was not in line with that mission that he was setting out to accomplish. Despite all that, Sinner is the real McCoy for sure!

Agreed on PCD there! Gutted about Sinner!

Djokovic VS Carreno Busta
There certainly cannot be too many confident tipsters around now with the amount of quality body blows that the bookies have inflicted over the last week or so. Still we keep coming forward with our gloves high up over our faces hoping to land that knockout punch on the bookies. Ask Alexander Povetkin. lol!!! There is nothing to say about Djokovic as it stands so I will quickly go on to talk about Carreno Busta. Firstly the head to head between both men stands at 3-1 Djokovic  which begun on clay back in 2014. Djokovic won that match in straight sets 6-0 6-1. They met again on clay 3years later in 2017 Monte Carlo. Djokovic won that one this time in three competitive sets 6-2 4-6 6-4 (It was evident that Carreno had adjusted a bit to the Djokovic game by the improved scoreline. Fast-forward to 2019 Cincinnati (first meeting on hard courts) Djokovic wins 6-3 6-4 which kind of indicates that Carreno would have put up a decent performance there. Their second meeting on hard courts came recently at the US Open last month where like in the previous meetings on clay, Carreno showed improvement from the first meeting. Remember that he had just broken Djokovic to lead 6-5 which was what led to the disqualification of the Djoker. I am not trying to commence a victory campaign for Carreno here, rather I am trying to point towards the value in backing the underdog in a certain way that should lead to profits.
Carreno Busta would not have quickly forgotten where he was in their last meeting before it was called off and will draw a lot of confidence from there. I also believe that he would additionally have an improved chance of bettering that performance since we are talking clay here, and so far to this point he has really done well to maximize his energy levels with the time that he has spent on court so far. The target here is total games over 27.5 @1/2(alternative totals paddy power) again maximum stakes advised. Good luck folks!!!

What state is the WTA in? Randomness or consistency, it is clear that the standard of tennis has still remained very very high even without the usual old faces. In fact true aficionados of the game will certainly prefer randomness over predictable and mundane consistency. It is what keeps everything intriguing and exciting. Also it matters not what the ranking of the three remaining players are. We can all see that they are all far better than those numbers will care to indicate.  Even before this competition a player like Iva Swiatek would always be priced respectably by the bookies regardless of who she was playing and there certainly cannot be anything random in the scores she has produced on the way to completely obliterating her opponents including Halep.
Covid 19 has just helped to jettison an old era of tennis  to instal a brand new brigade of young talent same as we currently see in the men’s game. What the covid 19 situation has done for these lowly ranked players is that it has afforded them to play in an empty arena without the usual tension that the crowds or the centre courts would have otherwise brought, thus allowing them to play with the uttermost freedom from the abundance of the talent within. It is the main reason why you will begin to see these faces at the later stages of tournaments even after the old brigade has returned. Things have really changed in all spheres of life and that change has come to stay.

What state is the WTA in? Randomness or consistency, it is clear that the standard of tennis has still remained very very high even without the usual old faces. In fact true aficionados of the game will certainly prefer randomness over predictable and mundane consistency. It is what keeps everything intriguing and exciting. Also it matters not what the ranking of the three remaining players are. We can all see that they are all far better than those numbers will care to indicate.  Even before this competition a player like Iva Swiatek would always be priced respectably by the bookies regardless of who she was playing and there certainly cannot be anything random in the scores she has produced on the way to completely obliterating her opponents including Halep.
Covid 19 has just helped to jettison an old era of tennis  to instal a brand new brigade of young talent same as we currently see in the men’s game. What the covid 19 situation has done for these lowly ranked players is that it has afforded them to play in an empty arena without the usual tension that the crowds or the centre courts would have otherwise brought, thus allowing them to play with the uttermost freedom from the abundance of the talent within. It is the main reason why you will begin to see these faces at the later stages of tournaments even after the old brigade has returned. Things have really changed in all spheres of life and that change has come to stay.

Fucsovics vs Rublev
This is one of the matches that I thought I would get involved in today in the belief that I really think it will be a match that will deliver on all fronts, most importantly from a betting perspective.
Fucsovics has really been one of the most improved players in the men’s game over the last 2years albeit codedly. I really believe that his destruction of Medvedev came more from hardwork, consistency and perhaps a new belief in himself that he really belonged with the very best on this surface.
The head to head between both men stands at 2-0 Fucsovics, one win on clay in Barcelona in 2016 and the other one in a Davis Cup match on hardcourt in 2017. In my opinion Rublev has certainly improved in leaps and bounds since then but not enough to think that he is anything special other than a mundane aggressive ball-basher who is hopefully on the rise.
The thing with Rublev is that he only relies on a cul-de-saclike plan which he brings to court with no backup whatsoever, and to be fair to him It has worked well for him so far. However Fucsovics is more tactically sound in the sense that he always makes the necessary adjustments during the course of a match and certainly looks the right man to be on for the win. He plies his trade so very well on clay and has won a title on the surface. Even looking from the angle of Rublev’s last three games to this point, he played 5 sets with a hopeless Querrey, 4 sets with Fokina who is a decent player but a few levels below class-wise ,and Anderson who really should have been better off doing his own version of the Jerusalema rather than coming out to be counted as an also ran, we see that Fucsovis has a real live chance here at very juicy odds of 4/1. I have decided not to be greedy and have gone for him to win a set @paddy power 8/13 max stakes. Good luck all!

I guess everybody is still as much pulverized as Halep is. In this very hard-to-phanthom indulgence, there is no such thing as a free lunch in freetown. The bookies are indirectly telling us that there is no place to hide....not even in Swiatek. Tennis is more about matchups than any single individual brilliance. So Swiatek whilst in sublime form may not necessarily be the best thing since sliced bread. The whole field is still loaded with so much talent. I still feel that Ferro and Garcia can find improvement and enter this equation well. Garcia is very error prone but can be systematically clutch once she gets into rhythm. She still has problems closing out big matches and I do not think that will go away easily. Her big for glory can fully take off if she can beat Svitolina. She really should be able to accomplish that somehow. All to play for now in a very even field.

This really would have been a very good and positive tip but for the opposition that Sinner is up against. Against Nadal, he is not going to get credit for the brilliancy he has shown to get him up to this stage. Most flat hitters of the forehand and backhand will not stand a chance against the Nadal brutal style of play. Just take a look at the scores of Nadal’s first 4 matches with 0, 1 & 2 very rife in the straight sets wins he has dished out so far. I cannot see  Sinner hit the ball with any more intensity than Travaglia did. Well, maybe 15 or 20% more at best but surely to no avail. It is going to be brutally difficult for him to stay in rallies with Nadal’s constant barrage of awkward and unfriendly spins. Nadal just does not have cool off periods in his matches and a set requires too much off times from him which I see as unlikely. It would have certainly been different on a hard court. Still, no one knows the way things have been panning out post covid stylie. Good luck!

I guess everybody is still as much pulverized as Halep is. In this very hard-to-phanthom indulgence, there is no such thing as a free lunch in freetown. The bookies are indirectly telling us that there is no place to hide....not even in Swiatek. Tennis is more about matchups than any single individual brilliance. So Swiatek whilst in sublime form may not necessarily be the best thing since sliced bread. The whole field is still loaded with so much talent. I still feel that Ferro and Garcia can find improvement and enter this equation well. Garcia is very error prone but can be systematically clutch once she gets into rhythm. She still has problems closing out big matches and I do not think that will go away easily. Her big for glory can fully take off if she can beat Svitolina. She really should be able to accomplish that somehow. All to play for now in a very even field.

1pt Kamil Majchrzak to beat Karen Khachanov @ 4.00 Bet365
This is the sort of match I like to get involved in - a lesser known player in good form who should be full of confidence, up against a well known player without much form who might not be feeling great about their game. Majchrzak won in Prostejov in his last tournament, whereas Khachanov has lost two out of the three matches he's played on the dirt since the US Open finished. It should have been three losses out of three, but Struff somehow found a way to lose when he should have won. It's fair to say that Khachanov is a significant upgrade from the opponents Majchrzak faced in Prostejov, but he did beat Andujar in straight sets in the final and he's a very competent clay-courter. I think Majchrzak has every chance of taking one of the first two sets here, and that's enough to justify a bet on him at this price.

Just a bit of additional info to boost the Kovinic campaign. Yesterday Mertens withdrew from the doubles for reasons she gave as sickness. She also had a medical timeout yesterday that had to do with a nose bleed plus considering her recent run at the US Open it would seem about the right time for a change of the guards.