And on the BH, by extension — so you know where this is going.

Medvedev and Thiem both lost in the last day or so. I am putting Medvedev’s loss on him, Thiem’s on that awful surface.

Ha ha.

How far does honesty really get you?

I have talked for eons on my criticism of clay.

I have talked more recently, still quite pronounced, on my criticism of Daniil Medvedev.

Medvedev’s loss to Simon was like his loss to Pospisil. Give the man a taste of his own medicine, mix-in a little tennis literacy, of which the Russian has less than you might think, and you have a little taste of Russian beast.

Simon’s win is especially ominous for the Russian’s think tank. That’s not to say that Simon is a poor tennis player. Not at all. But he’s virtually benign. He wants to more or less hit with you, which is the Russian’s modus operandi, actually.

Daniil gives you the gruff, the austerity in his visage, and the bodily protest. I will not suggest he’s weak-minded, at all. The kid has great focus on the court, especially in some difficult times (yes, I said “great”).

But he just wants to sit back and trade ground-strokes with you.

He’s flat; I’ll give you that.

He’s tall; you won’t here me counter that, at all.

His “sit-back-and-trade” is pretty consistent, on point, persistent, granted, but this all gets pretty mindless, pretty routine and pretty boring.

Simon is the last guy Medvedev wants to play in this way (in France, no less).

We had a little argument going there from the peanut gallery that Pospisil was in form, having made the Montpellier final and bringing that, then, to Rotterdam where he caught Medvedev in his skivvies.

Pospisil just rallied the Russian, and came in on occasion, some of that doubles douche-baggery, if you will. Sexy and classy stuff from the Canadian.

But then he gets smacked by the Frechman in Marseille. Was Simon in great form?

No.

Folks, as one or two of my favorite American sports commentators like to say: the other teams have professional coaches, too.

I have said both that Medvedev is dangerous, going back to late 2018, early 2019, and that he’s being, more recently, over-valued. He was and he is dangerous. But after his failed run at the 2019 USO, I had to chime-in on the limits of said danger. People were crowning him the next great; some called him a “legend”: I kid you not. This is just low IQ stuff, folks. I even ventured to ask if he’d win a major (though I’m sure I conceded; the point is that calling someone a “legend,” at that stage in that guy’s career, is quite the cheese sandwich). He ain’t all that, ya’ll: not yet.

_____________________________________________

And the clay strikes again.

Guess who beat Thiem on this most insufferable surface?

You guessed it: the ever formidable Gianluca Mager!

The end.

(Oh but do search my clay commentary, I beg of you).

• My Kobe/Federer thoughts have found space in the same post, which I should be able to compose later today.
• Must watch: FAA vs Tsitsipas?

Unfortunately, I will not give this Marseille final that prestigious distinction.

FAA has a second final under his belt. But the glory of this Greek’s one-handed brilliance and desire to reach the top is just starting to give very real manifestation to my tennis dreams. 😀

I like the Canadian’s athleticism, but the Greek is becoming a man.

Like his one-handed bro, of course, who just fell in Rio.

No worries, as they say: Thiem lives for another day on clay.

We still believe in Thiem.

And until next time. . . thanks for reading.