Gilles Simon’s Path to Tennis’ Top Tier in 2009

Dan,
haven’t read your post yeat, just the explanation. What a nice excuse. Congratulations. :) :) Lovely news and all the best to you and your wife. Will you let us know when the baby is born?

October 26th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Dan,
you mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y752KmjDX8

October 27th, 2008 at 12:30 am

“Paris has any number of interesting stories and matches. Djokovic’s quarter of the draw looks to be quite rough. I do wish Paris and Madrid would do away with the first round byes for seeded players as playing one extra match in October in no way saps an elite player’s Australian Open chances.”

What about Shanghai chances? DC? What about the long season they’ve had already? I think some of these guys would be plenty tired by now. There’s a chance these guys may have had small tournaments near it.

October 27th, 2008 at 12:49 am

Well, yes it is true! Fed won the tournament, but not many top players are playing in the events. And Murray was in Russia! Federer was struggling in the early matches of the tournament! And Blake was knocked out early! Blake might has a chance against him. Since he had been Federer this year! Well, I would say, he is a top 3 man! But the best! I don’t think so! Just like 2004 to 2007, he won his Grand Slams, when there weren’t anyone there to challenging him. And Nadal was kind of new to grass, but also gave difficult time at last year Wimbledon. The result would had been different. If Nadal wasn’t playing everyday!

October 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am

Well, if he keeps on skipping tournaments because of mono! I am pretty sure that, Fed would looks impressive with his record on papers! ;) Actually it would be ashame that if he didn’t win Basel! Because it has such an easy field!

October 27th, 2008 at 1:41 am

Some of these comments are the product of playing rugby at too young an age. Take note, Dan.

It’s Dr. Hannibal Lecter, btw. Let us not piss him off.

October 27th, 2008 at 2:14 am

I have never read 3 consecutive idiotic comments until just a few moments ago. Wow. Are you people serious? I can’t even respond to the idiocy.

October 27th, 2008 at 3:16 am

Dan:

Congratulations on the upcoming blessed event!! There’s nothing more beautiful than the sound of the pitter-patter of little feet running through the house. Do you have a preference — a boy or girl? I suppose you’re already fantasizing playing ball and/or tennis with the boy. Precious moments to be enjoyed. All my very best to you and your wife on the soon-to-be happy occasion. :P

October 27th, 2008 at 3:51 am

Hello Mr. Martin: Do you believe Simon is the best of the French? They seem to have a group ready to make more deep runs at Slams (Tsonga, Gasquet, Simon, Monfils, not as much Mathieu but nonetheless a solid player) and they seem to be a bunch intent on individual glory. This year has been a breakout year of sorts for Monfils, Tsonga, and Simon (less so Gasquet but he seems relevant nonetheless).

Will this group supplant the current crop of the Spanish Armada as the best contingent out there? Spain and Argentina and Russia seemed to produce the best players (collectively), but it looks like France’s moment is emerging.

Is France’s moment emerging? Does that mean anything? Can this group do anything?

October 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am

The point is, Federer blew away a Nalbandian in, well not his best form, but quite good form. That is significant. In this respect, it doesn’t matter about the quality of the rest of the field. Much as I admire Murray, I don’t think he could live with Federer in this form – not yet, though he surely has the potential to do so. Fortunately for Murray, Nadal etc, these days Federer cannot sustain this kind of form. But every now and then, he’s going to pull it off; any Fed fan must hope he does so in the big ones.

In my immediate reaction to yesterday’s match, I delighted in Fed’s all round play, but didn’t mention his serve – somehow, it seemed too obvious, and besides, it’s the one stroke that can generally be relied upon (although it didn’t look so hot in Madrid). But really, has Federer ever served better?

Let’s not be mealymouthed about this. Has ANYONE ever served better? Noel rightly took me to task for suggesting that Federer’s serve might, at any stage of his career, be comparable in excellence to Sampras’. So let’s look at it from another point of view. Whilst in no sense robotic, Sampras was Mr.Consistency himself w.r.t.his serve. Federer is certainly pretty consistent, but not in the Sampras league; and when he is a bit off in his placement, he does not have speed to rely on, which Sampras did, always. Double whammy from Sampras, not to mention 2nd serve etc. But every now and then, Federer serves out of his skull – as he did yesterday. There will, in the history of tennis, of course have been other comparable serving performances. But does it make sense, at this very high level, to say that one guy bestrides the summit alone?

It seems to me that you can say that Federer has it in him, occasionally, to serve as devestatingly as anyone has ever done. And it is this tremendous weapon which is – occasionally – at Federer’s disposal which leads one to think that he may be a danger to win a slam for 2 or 3 or even 4 more years to come. Not a certainty, which means logically he might never win another one (but then logically, he might win another 16 – so much for logic, you might say), never a certainty but always a threat.

I think we’re in for some funny times in the next few years w.r.t. Federer. Time and again, he’s going to be written off (including by ignoramuses like me). And then he’s just going to spring a surprise, and everyone will wonder: is this the renaissance? No, they will conclude, following a few poor tourneys on the trot – and then, suddenly, there he’ll be again, sheepishly holding up the trophy…..

That is the power of having a very great serve. It doesn’t have to manifest all the time. Just sometimes, when it counts.

October 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Yeah great article great analysis.
Gilles is the best! I enjoy watching him playing.

October 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am

Noel – sorry for calling you “Neil”!

October 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Ha ha ha ! The fool seems to be suggesting that Fed’s gonna be beaten by may be even Tom,Dick & Harry ! Go fool go,you need a check up for your badly damaged brain ! ;-)

October 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

The article was about Simon for the most part and has turned into a debate about Federer? Oh well

October 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I like Simon because he smiles even if he’s in a tight corner. He never gives up. His forehand is a big weapon. His Inside-out FH is like a firing missile. Very attractive player.

October 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Dan:

I goofed up big time with my comment about playing ball/tennis with your little boy. After I had written it I thought, Oh no, girls play baseball and tennis too, in fact nearly all of the sports nowadays women play. In view of that potential scenario, it will be a lot of fun for you and your little cutie pie, who will be sugar and spice and all things nice. I bet now you’re talking about it, you can’t wait. Patience — you’ll need it for those 2:00 am feedings. :P

I agree with you on the MS tournaments and dislike the present format, which has been a bone of contention for me, especially the finals 2 of 3 sets — an abomination, and one which I feel was unfair to Sampras, Agassi, and the other players of their era. Some fans put down titles of the smaller tournaments as insignificant, but aren’t the MS tournamnets practically the same, except as you stated a larger draw, but then the top 16 get a bye, so what’s the difference? Nada. I think it’s also unfair to the fans who pay a hefty sum of money for their tickets, to watch a final of only 2 sets on most occasions — if they’re lucky 3 sets. It’s so wrong!

October 27th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

“The article was about Simon for the most part and has turned into a debate about Federer? Oh well” – fair point. My post should have been on the other thread – apologies.

We tend to think of Simon as having just emerged this year. But I recall watching him beat Murray a year and a half ago. Murray came back to win the 2nd set easily,and you thought: plain sailing, now. Who, after all, is Simon?

A very, very irritating customer indeed, that’s who Simon was (if you happened to support the fellow on the other side of the net). He just wouldn’t go away. And even when he went ahead in the third, you still were tempted to think: this is just an aberration, Murray is clearly the class player here, obviously he will shortly get his act together and send Simon back to the stables or wherever it was he had emerged from. But far from this happening Simon, in his own irritatingly undemonstrative fashion, was proving to be – on the day – the better player. And by the end, you felt Murray was well beaten.

So in those days, as recently, there was this tendency to underestimate Simon. In a strange way, this probably helped him. Nothing like being invisible to catch your opponent off guard.

But all the players are wise to Simon’s skills and courage now. No more “who he?” It will be instructive to see how he handles it.

October 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I have high hopes for Murray in Paris, and the reason is that the matches are best of 3. I’d agree that at this stage Federer would be the likely winner over 5 sets, but over 3 Andy has a great chance. Nadal is probably near the limit of even his formidable stamina. Of course, Murray may lose before those two come into the reckoning, but as I say I have high hopes. St Petersburg shouldn’t have taken too much out of Murray, as apart from the Tipsarevic match it was plain sailing.

October 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Dan:

“I think the current format makes the Masters Series events having 2X the points of the average International Series tournament insulting. Look at the guys Simon beat to win Indianapolis. It may not have included the win over Federer that Murray posted in Madrid, but otherwise it was a pretty tough set of matches.”

This is why I complain about the MS tournaments and decry its unfairness with such sick lugubriosity. Laugh if you must, but I am of the firm belief that the MS tourneys are a joke with respect to value. The winner racks up 500 points and $500,000 for what — the same amount of sets and matches as the smaller tourneys. Look at what Roddick did in Dubai to gain 300 points. The disparity is unbelievable and it also annoys me when people put down the winners of the smaller tourneys because they are not looking at the whole picture. Anyway, who said life was fair.

October 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

One other bone of contention for me is the amount of points the players receive for playing until the QFs in the smaller tournaments and tournaments in general — it’s a mere pittance. I believe the points should be more proportionately distributed. For instance, in the GS from Round 1 to the QFs they play 5 matches for 250 points, and then the points go up higher for the SFs and finals, which is ludicrous. For 2 additional matches there’s an additional 750 points, bearing in mind they did most of the work in the early stages of the tournament. Isn’t something wrong with this picture? Not to mention the prize money disparity. I’m angry at the unfairness of the whole points and money situation — the players are being robbed.

October 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I’m not too sure about Simon! He will be 24 in two months (that’s middle age in tennis), is only 5’11” and, if he was going to be really good, he would have made a name for himself since he was a teenager (like Nadal, Gasquet, Monfils, etc.) did. I like the guy and hope he proves me wrong but I think he is just having the best season of his life right now and, soon or later, the dream will be over, he will return to reality, and then stagnate between 15th and 25th (like Mathieu) for the next few years.

October 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I believe Simon is having his best year ever, which will taper off in a similar fashion to which Kamret has alluded, due to his age. Reading Guy Forget’s comments, who imo is in the best position to assess Simon’s abilities, it seems that he wants to see more of Simon’s performance before jumping on his bandwagon. I’ll defer to Forget, and play the usual wait and see game. Ergo, only time will tell ….

October 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

First of all, Dan, you never know. You might be carrying around the next Chrissy Evert or Steffi Graf. Second, I love hearing about Simon’s being so steady and determined and plain irritating. Since I can’t see, I’ll never appreciate the grace of a Federer or people who play like that, but I love listening to the rallies where the players really sound like they’re going to play until they drop just to keep the other one from getting a point. Also, I love firsts-the first time someone wins a slam, a Masters series, their first big tournament. It’s just neat and makes me realize the hard work they put in to get there. I also like comebacks which is why I will never factor out Federwonder even if he’s playing at 35 and hasn’t won a slam in years. He rather likes those things and can really dig down to get ’em. He sort of reminds me of Venus williams that way. Last, I do think they need to shorten the season somehow. I didn’t know Gilles had played so many tournaments but that can’t be good. I think they need to sit down ans say, “okay, how many of these things do I absolutely _have to play?” They can mark them down and then it might come down to the places they know their presence will benefit or boost tennis. There’s always going to be the temptation to earn more money, especially if you haven’t quite won your first million, or if you only _have won your first million. The little places need the top players because it helps to spawn interest, but it’s because they’re _little places, they can’t pay what perhaps some top players have come to expect. I don’t know what the answer is. I barely understand the difference between a first serve and a second serve! lol

October 27th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Dan,

Welcome back! I am happy to hear the reason for your hiatus; get ready for some crazy hours – you’ll be posting at 3:00 am more often with a wee lass/lad at hand. But it’s a blissful time – enjoy.

I was kind of thinking what kamret said while reading through all the posts, but it’s true that some players are late bloomers, or later bloomers anyhow. Simon has shown to be doggedly determined and surprising at the same time. Not simply a grinder. I look forward to seeing what he brings to the table next year.

I am not sure about clay – he certainly didn’t show reams of potential on that surface this year, losing quite early in all the events. I can see, points-wise, why one might make the argument that he should focus on doing well on clay, but he’s got to post some results / show the desire first. (Cassablanca is a title, but not a major event).

Meanwhile, he pushed rather effectively at Wimbledon, and got to the quarters at Nottingham, losing only to Verdasco, who nearly won the whole event. So maybe grass is a surface he should target? Just a thought.

I am missing all the matches – too busy at work. Arrrrggghhhh!

October 28th, 2008 at 12:39 am

I meant to say he pushed **Gasquet** rather effectively at Wimbledon (he took him to 4 sets via winning a tiebreak, and the other sets weren’t wash outs – one break in each made the difference), and Richard is great on grass.

October 28th, 2008 at 12:43 am

I m very impressed with Simon. He should give d big guys a run for their money ! He can tame d biggies 4 sure.I think he’d do better in MS events rather than at slams.If he plays lesser tournaments n gets more rest,then he’ll win a few MS at least !

October 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm