And even more so when you’re both up at the net. Common doubles tactic too.
Heh - then again, if you ask McEnroe about this, he might have a word or two about one certain Mr. Lendl. Just make sure you put that hand up in apology, orelse (as my dad once saw at an exhibition match, of all things) you’ll have a pissed, glaring Andre Agassi bean an opponent, later, for not doing so.
Somewhat unrelated: ultimate fantasy - an Isner/Karlovic match with Dr. Steve Brule as a centre line judge.
Fantasyland.
And even more so when you’re both up at the net. Common doubles tactic too.
Heh - then again, if you ask McEnroe about this, he might have a word or two about one certain Mr. Lendl. Just make sure you put that hand up in apology, orelse (as my dad once saw at an exhibition match, of all things) you’ll have a pissed, glaring Andre Agassi bean an opponent, later, for not doing so.
Somewhat unrelated: ultimate fantasy - an Isner/Karlovic match with [ulr=“https://youtu.be/sVCuKVRMfJs?t=40”] Dr. Steve Brule as a centre line judge.
Fantasyland.
Brutal - don’t know how I made a double post that was eight minutes apart. (AND botched link) Apologies.
Yeah, Fognini has always given Kyrgios a good run for the money for Most Unpredictable Asshat.
Settling into (PVR’ed) Tsonga/Nadal.
Good job, Coco! At 15 you already did better than lots of people will ever do, and it’s pretty obvious you are not yet at your peak! Head high, woman! You done good!
I thought all majors were seeded using an identical procedure:
#3 and #4 have a 50-50 chance of being switched #s 5-8 can be in any of the 24 possible orders within that group #s 9-12 can be in any of the 24 possible orders within that group #s 13-16 can be in any of the 24 possible orders within that group #s 17-24 can be in any of the 40,320 possible orders within that group #s 25-32 can be in any of the 40,320 possible orders within that group (assuming they still seed 32)
Using this method, there is only a 1/192 chance that all nine of the top seeds would match their rankings.
I think you’re conflating seeds with their position in the bracket.
In majors, the #4 seed does not always get put in the same half of the bracket with the #1 seed. Rather, as you note, half the time, the #2 and #4 seeds are in the same bracket. So this means, effectively, that the #3 and #4 seeds have equal value, as do seeds #5 to #8, #9 to #16, and #17 to #32. But they are seeded first, THEN placed.
Later today, Federer vs Nadal face each other for the first time since 2008. As great as these two players, hard to believe that they have played each other in Wimbledon in 11 years.
Got to think Federer would have a better head to head record against Nadal if Nadal was better on grass. Federer is the GOAT of grass and Nadal kept losing in earlier rounds so FED didn’t have many opportunities to pad his record against Nadal.
Oddly, Federer’s record against Nadal on Clay is bad, because Federer is (was?) a great clay court player. If Federer was a poor clay court player, he would not have faced Nadal as frequently as he did, he simply would have lost before he faced Nadal in the finals (or semis)
You’re right; I meant to say “bracketed.” Aren’t seeds based pretty much solely on rankings? ISTR when WTA complained because Wimbledon had a “the defending champion is the #1 seed” policy.
Wimbledon is unique among the slams in having seeding that can deviate significantly from the rankings, because of grass court tennis being so different (and so rarely played) compared with the other surfaces.
