Sneaking in a quick quip about Shanghai and touting my blog. Who doesn’t like his or her observations and arguments to be more or less verified by events in the real world.

1. I wrote that series of articles about Novak post-U.S. Open (the objective look at his career arch) and a week later he announces to the world that he’s burned-out, doesn’t care about majors or even being #1. One can say he’s playing mind-games, but either way, he doesn’t quite seem like a guy who is going to win a calendar slam in 2017, a claim I heard some fanboy jerk off recently.
2. In my last post about China and Tokyo and a little look at Shanghai said pretty much diddly about Kyrgios. I have made clear his firepower is the real deal and the sport would vastly benefit from his rise in quality and consistency. He won Tokyo. Not only did I NOT wax poetic about that at all (I said congrats); I said let’s see you do something at a 1000. I read that he threw his last match and acted like a complete asshole. Fuck that guy. Suspend him from the sport. I watched him a bit in Tokyo, playing Harrison I believe, and even in his control of the match, he looks and acts like a piece of shit. His hunched shoulders, weird mummerings to himself or his imaginary friend beside him. . . My blog so I can say these things. And I know what I’m saying seems harsh to some, but I know what I see: a tennis turd. Someone scoop that shit up and toss it over the fence.
3. Nadal. I have been consistent with my arguments about Nadal. There was that tiny bump in form on the clay this year, but he’s done. I was even uncertain about that wrist injury.  Seemed very odd. Think about Nadal for a second. Granted, if you really go back, watch some old matches or what-have-you, his legacy might shine pretty bright. But in the bigger picture, thinking about the game as it marches on, his legacy is not what it used to be or perhaps will be. Like I have said MANY times: he is not on Pistol Pete’s level. Sorry. Yet as people still want to hold onto that grit and grind of a game, with balloon balls and shallow ground-strokes galore, he’s getting routined by Dimitrov last week and Troiki yesterday?

I call it like I see it, folks. I have a little post in the works about the depth of the draw. Might scratch that and say something here:

Looking at Shanghai revealed a bunch of interesting even early round matches (Kyrgios v M. Zverev and Nadal v Troiki were not part of that evidence, necessarily – those are pretty much just garbage results). How about Murray beating Johnson and now he gets Pouille. I hope that’s a good/great match though I could see Murray winning in two TBs or 4 and 5.

How about A. Zverev beating Isner in R1, then beating Cilic and now he gets Tsonga. Not bad at all. Monfils beat Anderson and now he gets Goffin. The point of the article is that depth can be two things: strength/depth at the very top and talent/depth through out. Remember, Federer ruined tennis 😉 He created such a separation at the top, was then joined by the other 2 or 3. The sport lacks that strength at the top (Novak was playing by himself through out 2014 and 2015, really. Only Lendl’s return to Murray’s camp and that odd shooting star called Stanimal have made things a little more interesting). That lack of top strength continues, but a handful of decent players (young) seem to be filling-out the draw. A new era, indeed.