This year's 24 Hours of Le Mans is now behind. For me this was the second Le Mans I really followed. I followed as much of last year's race as possible and enjoyed it, and this time I wanted to see the entire race, and it was a truly great race.
This year marked the return of the works Porsche team to Le Mans. I was happy to see Porsche going to Le Mans; they are such an iconic brand in racing and one of my favourite car brands. I really hope they will have success at Le Mans, yet this year I was actually hoping them not to win. I didn't want them to humiliate Audi and Toyota in the first year after their comeback, especially as Audi is another of my favourite brands.
Audi has dominated Le Mans since 2000 winning all but two races, 2003 and 2009. That's why it is understandable many people wanted to have a new winner. Still, my sympathies were on Audi's side, partly because of their difficult week. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Loic Duval crashed badly in Wednesday's practice session. Duval didn't injure himself badly in the accident but was he had to miss the race and was replaced by Marc Gene. The #1 Audi also couldn't participate the first qualifying session on Wednesday. The qualifying wasn't too good for other Audis, too. The three R18s occupied the starting positions 5 to 7, behind the Toyotas and the Porsches.
Early in the race, #14 Porsche had some fuel system problems that forced it to pits being repaired. Then, with just under two hours of racing, it started to rain heavily and we had some drama. The #8 Toyota driven by Nicolas Lapierre seemed to spin by itself to barriers on the wet track, and at the same a GT Ferrari, driven by Sam Bird hit the #3 Audi driven by Marco Bonanomi. The Audi had to retire whereas the Toyota was able to continue the race but lost lots of time being repaired.
At night, the #1 Audi had to pit to get the fuel injector changed. Also the #14 Porsche faced again problems, being forced to have again a long pit stop. Meanwhile the #7 Toyota was racing with a comfortable lead of almost two minutes to the second-placed #2 Audi. Then, in early morning we had the most dramatic moment of the race. The leading #7 Toyota had been reported to have stopped at Arnage and the #2 Audi took the lead. An electrical problem had forced the Toyota to retire from the lead.
Now, despite all the struggles of the week, the Audi team found themselves having a one-two lead in the race with #2 in the lead and #1 second. The #20 Porsche was on the third place in front of the #8 Toyota and #14 Porsche who had lost lots of time in pits during the race. But the race was far from over, there was still more than the duration of a regular WEC race to finish. And it wasn't a comfortable finish for Audi. The #2 R18 dropped to third position because its turbocharger had to be changed. Now the #1 Audi was leading the race, after being heavily crashed on Wednesday's practice. One of its drivers was the record-winner of Le Mans, Tom Kristensen, aiming for his tenth win.
But nothing was predictable in this race. The #1 Audi also had to get its turbocharger changed, which dropped it to the 3rd place. Now the #20 Porsche was leading the comeback race of the manufacturer in Le Mans. But the #2 Audi was coming fast from behind and it got past during the pit stops. Eventually, the #20 Porsche couldn't even make the podium as technical issues forced it to retire. Also the #14 Porsche had to pit because of technical problems but it was sent back to track at the end of the race to cross the finish line.
In the end, the race was won by the #2 Audi R18 driven by Marcel Fässler, Andre Lotterer, and Benoit Treluyer. The #1 Audi R18 driven by Tom Kristensen, Marc Gene, and Lucas Di Grassi finished second and the #8 Toyota TS040 driven by Anthony Davidson, Sebastien Buemi, and Nicolas Lapierre finished third.
Many people must have found yet another Audi win boring but I was happy for them after all the difficulties they had this week. In some ways, I can understand the joy of Rafael Nadal's fans after his maybe the worst French Open-winning performance. In both cases, the old winner was vulnerable but nobody else had what it takes to win.
At the same time, I feel gutted for Toyota. They did everything right in the race but to win a 24-hour race, you must have the reliability and they didn't have. They were the fastest car this year and I hope they can win Le Mans soon, even though Toyota doesn't raise the same passion in me as Porsche or Audi.
Porsche had an excellent comeback race even though technical issues ended it. Before those issues, they had even one car racing for the win. I hope and believe they can have success in the next years and have tight battles for wins against other teams. While I was happy that Audi could win after the difficult week, I hope to get a new winning manufacturer as soon as possible. Despite Audi's win, at least this year the battle for the win involved three teams, so you can't say Audi winning was inevitable.
Besides the LMP1 class, I enjoyed the GTE classes. Especially the battle for the win of GTE Pro was exciting with wheel-to-wheel racing. The #51 Ferrari of AF Corse, #97 Aston Martin, and #74 Chevrolet Corvette were battling for the win of GTE Pro. Unfortunately first the #74 Corvette and then the #97 Aston Martin faced technical problems, ending the battle for the win before the race ended. I wanted Aston Martin to have a good result as their last Le Mans was a sad race because of Allan Simonsen's death in the GTE Am class. That's why I was really gutted about the power steering issue that took them off from battling for the GTE Pro class win. Every cloud has a silver lining, though. My countryman Toni Vilander was driving the winning AF Corse #51 Ferrari with Gianmaria Bruni and Giancarlo Fisichella. And Aston Martin could win the GTE Am class with the #95 V8 Vantage GTE; the same number that Simonsen had at last year's Le Mans. Unfortunately their #98 V8 Vantage GTE faced some technical issues while leading the GTE Am class; otherwise they could have had one-two in the class.
I really enjoyed the race, 24 hours of great racing and drama, and no artificial gimmicks like DRS or tyres designed to degrade like in F1. Le Mans and other WEC races aren't so hard to follow for an F1 fan, as there are many F1 drivers there. My motorsport interest is definitely moving from F1 to Le Mans and the WEC.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Monday, June 9, 2014
Will Djokovic ever win the French Open? Or even another slam?
This year seemed to be the golden opportunity for Novak Djokovic to win the elusive French Open title. The biggest obstacle to win the title, Rafael Nadal, had not been too impressive after the Australian Open and he played his worst pre-French Open clay season despite being able to win the Madrid Masters and make the final at the Rome Masters. Djokovic had a wrist injury during the Monte Carlo Masters but the wrist was healthy for the Rome Masters which he won, defeating Nadal in the final. So everything seemed fine for him before the French Open.
After the early losses of potential black horses Stan Wawrinka and Kei Nishikori, the French Open was a two-horse race between Djokovic and Nadal, like in the previous couple of years, and it ended with a Djokovic-Nadal final. Despite winning the first set, Djokovic's performance was lame. He couldn't hit through Nadal's defense often enough and Nadal could exploit it if Djokovic left the court open. And mentally his performance was poor. He lost his serve in the last games of the last three sets, being on serve in second and fourth sets. And the match ended with a double fault, just like the French Open final two years ago.
I am starting to believe that Djokovic just doesn't have what it takes to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. He can beat Nadal in Masters events on clay but Nadal will always bring his best to the French Open. Plus there is the pressure of the missing slam from the Career Grand Slam, which doesn't help him.
I think Djokovic's chances to win the French Open depend on how fast he will decline, how fast Nadal will decline, and how fast the new generation will come. Given Nadal's injury history, one can assume Djokovic will have a couple of years more on the top of the game. Plus there may be a year when Nadal has an injury, giving others a great chance to win the title. But Nadal's bad year may come too late for Djokovic. Djokovic is 27 and he can't keep his current level for many more years; next year he will already be older than Roger Federer when he won his only French Open title. Also, there will be new players coming to the top of the game. The tour has been dominated by players in their late 20s plus few in their early 30s. But recently there has been some good performances by younger players. Kei Nishikori was already close to beat the French Open champion Nadal in the Madrid Masters final before a back injury forced him to retire. If he can still develop, he will be a big challenger for the ageing Djokovic. Ernests Gulbis' semifinal run at Roland Garros was also impressive, and if he can start to live up to his potential and develop, he is another challenger. And there are young players like Grigor Dimitrov and Dominic Thiem with lots of potential. In a couple of years, Nadal may already have declined and isn't anymore Djokovic's tougest opponent even on clay but there may be other players who keep him from winning the French Open.
So what I think about Djokovic's chances to win the French Open? I think he still has years to win it. David Ferrer is 32 and still he is playing excellent clay tennis. Nadal will have issues with his body and can't keep on winning year after year. Also, I don't see another as dominant a clay-courter as Nadal emerging, so I believe Novak will still have a few more chances. But even if he didn't have to play against Nadal, he will have to play with the pressure of winning the missing Grand Slam title. One can wonder if that has been the reason why he hasn't been able to beat Nadal at Roland Garros unlike at all clay Masters.
Today's loss was Djokovic's third consecutive lost Grand Slam final. Add to that, his losses at last year's French Open and this year's Australian Open were tight five-set losses to the eventual champions. One can wonder why the player who was so dominant in 2011 cannot anymore win slams; his last slam is the Australian Open last year. I think things started to go wrong for him at last year's French Open. He lost the semifinal against the eventual champion Nadal despite leading the final set with a break. After that we saw a lame performance in the Wimbledon final. In last year's US Open final, he wasted lots of chances in the third set, eventually losing it, and played a bad fourth set after that, losing the match. And today's final didn't look like he has the mental fortitude to win.
Maybe he is starting to feel pressure to win a slam. He hasn't been able to repeat the three-slam season of 2011. If things are getting hard, he seems unable to get over those difficulties the way he did in the exhaustingly-long 2012 Australian Open final which he won despite being down a break in the final set. I definitely believe he will win more slams, he is just so good. But if he is facing trouble in the match, he may not find the way to get over it.
After the early losses of potential black horses Stan Wawrinka and Kei Nishikori, the French Open was a two-horse race between Djokovic and Nadal, like in the previous couple of years, and it ended with a Djokovic-Nadal final. Despite winning the first set, Djokovic's performance was lame. He couldn't hit through Nadal's defense often enough and Nadal could exploit it if Djokovic left the court open. And mentally his performance was poor. He lost his serve in the last games of the last three sets, being on serve in second and fourth sets. And the match ended with a double fault, just like the French Open final two years ago.
I am starting to believe that Djokovic just doesn't have what it takes to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. He can beat Nadal in Masters events on clay but Nadal will always bring his best to the French Open. Plus there is the pressure of the missing slam from the Career Grand Slam, which doesn't help him.
I think Djokovic's chances to win the French Open depend on how fast he will decline, how fast Nadal will decline, and how fast the new generation will come. Given Nadal's injury history, one can assume Djokovic will have a couple of years more on the top of the game. Plus there may be a year when Nadal has an injury, giving others a great chance to win the title. But Nadal's bad year may come too late for Djokovic. Djokovic is 27 and he can't keep his current level for many more years; next year he will already be older than Roger Federer when he won his only French Open title. Also, there will be new players coming to the top of the game. The tour has been dominated by players in their late 20s plus few in their early 30s. But recently there has been some good performances by younger players. Kei Nishikori was already close to beat the French Open champion Nadal in the Madrid Masters final before a back injury forced him to retire. If he can still develop, he will be a big challenger for the ageing Djokovic. Ernests Gulbis' semifinal run at Roland Garros was also impressive, and if he can start to live up to his potential and develop, he is another challenger. And there are young players like Grigor Dimitrov and Dominic Thiem with lots of potential. In a couple of years, Nadal may already have declined and isn't anymore Djokovic's tougest opponent even on clay but there may be other players who keep him from winning the French Open.
So what I think about Djokovic's chances to win the French Open? I think he still has years to win it. David Ferrer is 32 and still he is playing excellent clay tennis. Nadal will have issues with his body and can't keep on winning year after year. Also, I don't see another as dominant a clay-courter as Nadal emerging, so I believe Novak will still have a few more chances. But even if he didn't have to play against Nadal, he will have to play with the pressure of winning the missing Grand Slam title. One can wonder if that has been the reason why he hasn't been able to beat Nadal at Roland Garros unlike at all clay Masters.
Today's loss was Djokovic's third consecutive lost Grand Slam final. Add to that, his losses at last year's French Open and this year's Australian Open were tight five-set losses to the eventual champions. One can wonder why the player who was so dominant in 2011 cannot anymore win slams; his last slam is the Australian Open last year. I think things started to go wrong for him at last year's French Open. He lost the semifinal against the eventual champion Nadal despite leading the final set with a break. After that we saw a lame performance in the Wimbledon final. In last year's US Open final, he wasted lots of chances in the third set, eventually losing it, and played a bad fourth set after that, losing the match. And today's final didn't look like he has the mental fortitude to win.
Maybe he is starting to feel pressure to win a slam. He hasn't been able to repeat the three-slam season of 2011. If things are getting hard, he seems unable to get over those difficulties the way he did in the exhaustingly-long 2012 Australian Open final which he won despite being down a break in the final set. I definitely believe he will win more slams, he is just so good. But if he is facing trouble in the match, he may not find the way to get over it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
My view into the first half of Stan Wawrinka's 2014 season
Stan Wawrinka lost today on the first round of the French Open against Guillermo Garcia-Lopez. That was a big disappointment since he is the World No. 3 and the winner of the season’s only Grand Slam event, Australian Open, as well as the Masters event on Monte Carlo’s clay courts.
Wawrinka’s season has been quite a rollercoaster. He started the season with a title in Chennai and after that he sensationally won the Australian Open defeating Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal on his way. That title showed he can beat anybody in the World. He was the first player since Sergi Bruguera at the 1993 French Open to defeat the two top seeds in a Grand Slam tournament. Also, he was the first non-Big Four player since Juan Martin del Potro at the 2009 US Open to win a Grand Slam tournament. He is a bit similar player to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Tomas Berdych, he has an offensive game with heavy groundstrokes. But why have those two never won a slam and Stan has? I think a reason is that Stan is more consistent from the baseline; he won’t commit as many errors in long rallies against the great defences of the likes of Nadal and Djokovic.
After the Australian Open, there were high expectations on Wawrinka, even though some people were also wondering if he is only a one-tournament wonder. He played in the Davis Cup first round in Serbia in the weekend after the Australian Open where he had trouble in beating Serbia’s Dusan Lajovic. After that weekend, he didn’t play before the Masters event in Indian Wells. He started the tournament promisingly but his run ended against Kevin Anderson on the round of 16. He didn’t make it any further in the following Masters event in Miami where he lost to Alexandr Dolgopolov. After Miami, Stan played in the Davis Cup quarterfinals in Switzerland. He wasn’t too impressive in that tie, he lost his first singles rubber to Kazakhstan’s Andrey Golubev and with Roger Federer, they lost the doubles rubber against Andrey Golubev and Aleksandr Nedovesov. He won one rubber that weekend, the must-win fourth rubber against Mikhail Kukushin.
After those weak performances, more people were asking if he can really challenge the top players on a constant basis. Two weeks after that difficult Davis Cup weekend, Stan showed he isn’t a one-tournament wonder as he won the Masters event on clay in Monte Carlo. He dropped only one set in that tournament, in the final against Federer. Especially his semifinal performance against David Ferrer, who had just beaten Nadal, was very impressive. It seemed like he could be one of the biggest favourites for the French Open, Djokovic had a wrist injury, Nadal was off-form, and he had just beaten Federer and Ferrer.
As Stan was playing so well, he dropped the 250-point event of Oeiras from his schedule and his next event was the Masters event of Madrid. There he lost his first match against the young talent Dominic Thiem, after winning the first set 6-1. In the following week in a Masters in Rome, he made it to the round of 16 where he lost to Tommy Haas. After the title in Monte Carlo, his results from Madrid and Rome weren’t what was expected. He had some back issues but this started to remind of the time of Indian Wells and Miami. After a big title, he couldn’t live up to expectations. But after some worse performances, he could bounce back in Monte Carlo. Could he do it again, this time at Roland Garros?
Well, he couldn’t. He started his first round match against Guillermo Garcia-Lopez well and in the fourth game, he broke into a 3*-1 lead. But after that, things started to go wrong for Stan. Right in the next game, Garcia-Lopez broke back and in Stan’s next service game, he broke into a 4*-3 lead. Stan had started making lots of errors. That is how the match went forward. Garcia-Lopez won the first set. In the second set, Stan had again a lead of a break but lost it later. In the end, Stan could break to win the set 7-5 but right in the first game of the third set, Garcia-Lopez broke. Stan couldn’t reduce errors and he was getting desperate. After a hold to 2-3* in the third set, Stan couldn’t win any more games, Garcia-Lopez won the third set 6-2 and the fourth set 6-0.
So, what went wrong with Stan at the French Open? Why are his three titles his only tournaments this year where he has made it past the round of 16? If we exclude the big titles from the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, he was having a better season a year ago. He was more consistent back then.
I think he isn’t used to his new status as a Grand Slam champion. There is nothing wrong with his game; he was awesome in Monte Carlo. But it all comes to down to if he can play his best game. Maybe he is floating after all his success this year and taking matches too easily. Then if things don’t go his way, he will get desperate. I think that is what happened today. After being unable to hold his serve after getting a break, he started making errors and was unable to get his game together for the rest of the match. Then, as he couldn’t get the match back on track, in the last one and a half sets, despair took over.
I think he had too high expectations for the French Open. He had won a slam this year and he had shown in Monte Carlo that he can win a big clay tournament. He forgot to concentrate on the game; he expected wins to come more easily. I think the same happened already after the Australian Open. He had high expectations for the American Masters events and he failed to live up to those expectations. I think those bad results helped him to get the right mentality for Monte Carlo. He knew there are no easy wins. I hope today’s loss makes the same. I believe today’s loss brings him down to earth, concentrating fully on the game, expecting no easy wins. And if he enters another slam with as high expectations, I believe he will be able to handle those expectations better.
But what to expect from Wawrinka in the future? Can he win more big titles, can he win even another slam?
I believe he will bounce back. He has shown in last one and a half years so many times that he has the skills to challenge and beat anybody on the tour. I expect good results from him in the second half of the season. The grass season may be difficult for him; he has never been excellent on grass. Given his great performances at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, I believe he will still win big titles. He can even win another slam. I fancy his chances in the hardcourt slams. Clay may be his preferred surface but I think a medium paced surface like hardcourt suits him best against the likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Hard courts aren’t too fast for Stan but they enable him to hit through the best defences. But he is already 29. He won’t have many chances to win big titles. If he is to win another slam, I think he must do it within the next two years.
Wawrinka’s season has been quite a rollercoaster. He started the season with a title in Chennai and after that he sensationally won the Australian Open defeating Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal on his way. That title showed he can beat anybody in the World. He was the first player since Sergi Bruguera at the 1993 French Open to defeat the two top seeds in a Grand Slam tournament. Also, he was the first non-Big Four player since Juan Martin del Potro at the 2009 US Open to win a Grand Slam tournament. He is a bit similar player to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Tomas Berdych, he has an offensive game with heavy groundstrokes. But why have those two never won a slam and Stan has? I think a reason is that Stan is more consistent from the baseline; he won’t commit as many errors in long rallies against the great defences of the likes of Nadal and Djokovic.
After the Australian Open, there were high expectations on Wawrinka, even though some people were also wondering if he is only a one-tournament wonder. He played in the Davis Cup first round in Serbia in the weekend after the Australian Open where he had trouble in beating Serbia’s Dusan Lajovic. After that weekend, he didn’t play before the Masters event in Indian Wells. He started the tournament promisingly but his run ended against Kevin Anderson on the round of 16. He didn’t make it any further in the following Masters event in Miami where he lost to Alexandr Dolgopolov. After Miami, Stan played in the Davis Cup quarterfinals in Switzerland. He wasn’t too impressive in that tie, he lost his first singles rubber to Kazakhstan’s Andrey Golubev and with Roger Federer, they lost the doubles rubber against Andrey Golubev and Aleksandr Nedovesov. He won one rubber that weekend, the must-win fourth rubber against Mikhail Kukushin.
After those weak performances, more people were asking if he can really challenge the top players on a constant basis. Two weeks after that difficult Davis Cup weekend, Stan showed he isn’t a one-tournament wonder as he won the Masters event on clay in Monte Carlo. He dropped only one set in that tournament, in the final against Federer. Especially his semifinal performance against David Ferrer, who had just beaten Nadal, was very impressive. It seemed like he could be one of the biggest favourites for the French Open, Djokovic had a wrist injury, Nadal was off-form, and he had just beaten Federer and Ferrer.
As Stan was playing so well, he dropped the 250-point event of Oeiras from his schedule and his next event was the Masters event of Madrid. There he lost his first match against the young talent Dominic Thiem, after winning the first set 6-1. In the following week in a Masters in Rome, he made it to the round of 16 where he lost to Tommy Haas. After the title in Monte Carlo, his results from Madrid and Rome weren’t what was expected. He had some back issues but this started to remind of the time of Indian Wells and Miami. After a big title, he couldn’t live up to expectations. But after some worse performances, he could bounce back in Monte Carlo. Could he do it again, this time at Roland Garros?
Well, he couldn’t. He started his first round match against Guillermo Garcia-Lopez well and in the fourth game, he broke into a 3*-1 lead. But after that, things started to go wrong for Stan. Right in the next game, Garcia-Lopez broke back and in Stan’s next service game, he broke into a 4*-3 lead. Stan had started making lots of errors. That is how the match went forward. Garcia-Lopez won the first set. In the second set, Stan had again a lead of a break but lost it later. In the end, Stan could break to win the set 7-5 but right in the first game of the third set, Garcia-Lopez broke. Stan couldn’t reduce errors and he was getting desperate. After a hold to 2-3* in the third set, Stan couldn’t win any more games, Garcia-Lopez won the third set 6-2 and the fourth set 6-0.
So, what went wrong with Stan at the French Open? Why are his three titles his only tournaments this year where he has made it past the round of 16? If we exclude the big titles from the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, he was having a better season a year ago. He was more consistent back then.
I think he isn’t used to his new status as a Grand Slam champion. There is nothing wrong with his game; he was awesome in Monte Carlo. But it all comes to down to if he can play his best game. Maybe he is floating after all his success this year and taking matches too easily. Then if things don’t go his way, he will get desperate. I think that is what happened today. After being unable to hold his serve after getting a break, he started making errors and was unable to get his game together for the rest of the match. Then, as he couldn’t get the match back on track, in the last one and a half sets, despair took over.
I think he had too high expectations for the French Open. He had won a slam this year and he had shown in Monte Carlo that he can win a big clay tournament. He forgot to concentrate on the game; he expected wins to come more easily. I think the same happened already after the Australian Open. He had high expectations for the American Masters events and he failed to live up to those expectations. I think those bad results helped him to get the right mentality for Monte Carlo. He knew there are no easy wins. I hope today’s loss makes the same. I believe today’s loss brings him down to earth, concentrating fully on the game, expecting no easy wins. And if he enters another slam with as high expectations, I believe he will be able to handle those expectations better.
But what to expect from Wawrinka in the future? Can he win more big titles, can he win even another slam?
I believe he will bounce back. He has shown in last one and a half years so many times that he has the skills to challenge and beat anybody on the tour. I expect good results from him in the second half of the season. The grass season may be difficult for him; he has never been excellent on grass. Given his great performances at the Australian Open and Monte Carlo, I believe he will still win big titles. He can even win another slam. I fancy his chances in the hardcourt slams. Clay may be his preferred surface but I think a medium paced surface like hardcourt suits him best against the likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Hard courts aren’t too fast for Stan but they enable him to hit through the best defences. But he is already 29. He won’t have many chances to win big titles. If he is to win another slam, I think he must do it within the next two years.
Monday, May 5, 2014
My visit to ATP Munich
Last week I was able to fulfil one of my dreams and see ATP-level tennis
live. I visited the BMW Open in Munich on the quarterfinals day. Now I
want to share some of my photos from that day.
Next I will go to the singles matches played on the centre court.
I missed the first two sets of the match but saw most of the third which was total destruction by Kližan. Kližan had a bad 2013 season but he has had some good results on clay this year and eventually he won the Munich tournament.
Tommy Haas is one of my favourite players so it was great to see him playing. Unfortunately he has had shoulder issues this year and he isn't playing on his best level. Still, he could produce some nice shots and it was great to see him winning in front of a German crowd.
You can hear people saying Fabio Fognini is the dark horse of the French Open. I must say I didn't see it in this match why he could have big success at Roland Garros. Bellucci was playing more offensively and hit some flashy winners. But he made way too many errors, which even made the crowd frustrated.
I was one of the few people in the crowd whose favourite was Berankis as Struff played in front of his home crowd. Struff is a tall player with a big serve. Berankis, on the other hand, is small for a tennis player and can't rely on outpowering his opponents but he has more variety in his game than Struff. Berankis was doing the right things and took the first set from Struff. In the second and third sets he was unable to break Struff's serve, though, and Struff was able to break Berankis once in both sets to win the match.
All in all, it was a great day. I think you can get more of the game when you are watching it on site compared to watching it from TV. You can see e.g. spin better as well as things like bounce height or net clearance. This was my first tournament visit and definitely not the last. I can recommend all tennis fans going to a tournament.
 |
| The club house of the tennis club MTTC Iphitos. |
 |
| The club house of the tennis club MTTC Iphitos. |
 |
| A Rolls-Royce on display at the club. |
 |
| Jakob Schnaitter in a junior match. |
 |
| The winner's prize car in front of the scoreboard. |
 |
| The doubles team of John Peers and Jamie Murray. |
 |
| The doubles team of Eric Butorac and Raven Klaasen. |
 |
| The catering area. |
 |
| The Info Tower. |
 |
| The centre court in Munich. |
Next I will go to the singles matches played on the centre court.
Martin Kližan def. Denis Istomin 7-6(3), 1-6, 6-1
I missed the first two sets of the match but saw most of the third which was total destruction by Kližan. Kližan had a bad 2013 season but he has had some good results on clay this year and eventually he won the Munich tournament.
 |
| Kližan serving against Istomin. |
Tommy Haas def. Andreas Seppi 6-3, 3-6, 6-3
Tommy Haas is one of my favourite players so it was great to see him playing. Unfortunately he has had shoulder issues this year and he isn't playing on his best level. Still, he could produce some nice shots and it was great to see him winning in front of a German crowd.
 |
| Haas hitting a backhand against Seppi. |
 |
| Haas hitting a volley. |
 |
| Seppi serving. |
Fabio Fognini def. Thomaz Bellucci 6-2, 6-2
You can hear people saying Fabio Fognini is the dark horse of the French Open. I must say I didn't see it in this match why he could have big success at Roland Garros. Bellucci was playing more offensively and hit some flashy winners. But he made way too many errors, which even made the crowd frustrated.
 |
| Fognini (left) and Bellucci (right) warming up. |
 |
| Fognini hitting a forehand. |
 |
| Bellucci hitting a volley. |
 |
| Players shaking hands after the match. |
Jan-Lennard Struff def. Ričardas Berankis 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
I was one of the few people in the crowd whose favourite was Berankis as Struff played in front of his home crowd. Struff is a tall player with a big serve. Berankis, on the other hand, is small for a tennis player and can't rely on outpowering his opponents but he has more variety in his game than Struff. Berankis was doing the right things and took the first set from Struff. In the second and third sets he was unable to break Struff's serve, though, and Struff was able to break Berankis once in both sets to win the match.
 |
| Struff serving against Berankis. |
 |
| Berankis hitting a volley. |
 |
| Struff giving signatures after winning the match. |
All in all, it was a great day. I think you can get more of the game when you are watching it on site compared to watching it from TV. You can see e.g. spin better as well as things like bounce height or net clearance. This was my first tournament visit and definitely not the last. I can recommend all tennis fans going to a tournament.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Formula One to return to Long Beach?
Recently there has been talk about Formula One possibly returning to Long Beach. The founder of the Grand Prix of Long Beach, Chris Pook, is working to get F1 to the streets of Long Beach. According to him, F1 wants to have three races in the United States by 2016, the already existing race in Austin, Texas, and races on both the East and the West Coasts.
I think Long Beach would be a great location for an F1 race. The Grand Prix of Long Beach is the most famous street race in the USA. That's why a race in Long Beach could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the States and help it to become more popular there. I think it would be even more important for F1 to have a race in Long Beach if the planned West Coast race in New Jersey fails. The planned New Jersey race with Manhattan as the backdrop could have brought huge attention to F1 in the USA; there are no other races as close to the New York City. Unfortunately that project is already at least two years late, and it happening seems more and more unlikely as time goes by. To me, it feels like Long Beach would be the only other race in the States which could give F1 as much attention as that New Jersey race.
Long Beach hosted F1 already in the late 70s and early 80s before they replaced it with the less expensive and domestically more popular CART series nowadays known as the IndyCar Series. But why would Long Beach now want F1 back? Hosting F1 is much more expensive than IndyCar, and an F1 race would require improved facilities. But F1 would bring more exposure to the event. F1 draws an international crowd whereas IndyCar isn't followed that much outside the USA. The ticket prices would explode if IndyCar were replaced by F1, and many local fans would be unable to attend the race. But even though F1 isn't so popular in the States, an F1 race could have fans from all over the country. F1 races in the USA are rare events compared to IndyCar races; 16 of the 18 IndyCar races take place in the States. And an F1 race gets more spectators from abroad than an IndyCar race.
But can Long Beach afford an F1 race? I believe they can. The US Grand Prix has drawn big crowds in the two years it has been held in Austin. The USA is a big country, and even though F1 isn't the most popular motorsports category in the States, there are still lots of people interested in F1. I believe the USA could have two or even three F1 races with large enough crowds. But another thing is if hosting an F1 race is more profitable than hosting an IndyCar race. The IndyCar race draws big crowds in Long Beach and is much less expensive than an F1 race. Then again, the revenues from an IndyCar race are probably smaller than from an F1 race.
A race in Long Beach would be important for F1 in the States but a race in Long Beach is maybe even more important for the IndyCar Series. Long Beach is the most important street race in the USA and adds prestige to the IndyCar Series. Losing Long Beach from the schedule would take attention away from the series and be a sign of the series being in a bad state; another series has the most famous street race in IndyCar's home market. That's why, for the sake of the state of IndyCar, I hope F1 doesn't return to Long Beach but it remains as an IndyCar race. For F1, I hope the race in New Jersey will happen. I believe it could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the USA and help to increase its popularity there. And I think two races in the USA would be enough at the moment. There are so many countries hosting Grands Prix that I think even two is a lot for one country. F1 could increase its popularity in the States also by having more races in the same time zones. Besides the existing US, Canadian, and Brazilian Grands Prix, have another Grand Prix in the USA and Grands Prix is Mexico and Argentina. That would mean six races in the American time zones.
I think Long Beach would be a great location for an F1 race. The Grand Prix of Long Beach is the most famous street race in the USA. That's why a race in Long Beach could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the States and help it to become more popular there. I think it would be even more important for F1 to have a race in Long Beach if the planned West Coast race in New Jersey fails. The planned New Jersey race with Manhattan as the backdrop could have brought huge attention to F1 in the USA; there are no other races as close to the New York City. Unfortunately that project is already at least two years late, and it happening seems more and more unlikely as time goes by. To me, it feels like Long Beach would be the only other race in the States which could give F1 as much attention as that New Jersey race.
Long Beach hosted F1 already in the late 70s and early 80s before they replaced it with the less expensive and domestically more popular CART series nowadays known as the IndyCar Series. But why would Long Beach now want F1 back? Hosting F1 is much more expensive than IndyCar, and an F1 race would require improved facilities. But F1 would bring more exposure to the event. F1 draws an international crowd whereas IndyCar isn't followed that much outside the USA. The ticket prices would explode if IndyCar were replaced by F1, and many local fans would be unable to attend the race. But even though F1 isn't so popular in the States, an F1 race could have fans from all over the country. F1 races in the USA are rare events compared to IndyCar races; 16 of the 18 IndyCar races take place in the States. And an F1 race gets more spectators from abroad than an IndyCar race.
But can Long Beach afford an F1 race? I believe they can. The US Grand Prix has drawn big crowds in the two years it has been held in Austin. The USA is a big country, and even though F1 isn't the most popular motorsports category in the States, there are still lots of people interested in F1. I believe the USA could have two or even three F1 races with large enough crowds. But another thing is if hosting an F1 race is more profitable than hosting an IndyCar race. The IndyCar race draws big crowds in Long Beach and is much less expensive than an F1 race. Then again, the revenues from an IndyCar race are probably smaller than from an F1 race.
A race in Long Beach would be important for F1 in the States but a race in Long Beach is maybe even more important for the IndyCar Series. Long Beach is the most important street race in the USA and adds prestige to the IndyCar Series. Losing Long Beach from the schedule would take attention away from the series and be a sign of the series being in a bad state; another series has the most famous street race in IndyCar's home market. That's why, for the sake of the state of IndyCar, I hope F1 doesn't return to Long Beach but it remains as an IndyCar race. For F1, I hope the race in New Jersey will happen. I believe it could bring a lot of attention to F1 in the USA and help to increase its popularity there. And I think two races in the USA would be enough at the moment. There are so many countries hosting Grands Prix that I think even two is a lot for one country. F1 could increase its popularity in the States also by having more races in the same time zones. Besides the existing US, Canadian, and Brazilian Grands Prix, have another Grand Prix in the USA and Grands Prix is Mexico and Argentina. That would mean six races in the American time zones.
Monday, March 17, 2014
The state of ATP doubles
Once again Indian Wells had many singles players playing doubles thanks to its two-week format. Some teams consisting of singles players were able to upset established doubles teams, for example Federer/Wawrinka beat the 2010 US Open runner-ups Bopanna/Qureshi and two-time Grand Slam champions Paes/Stepanek in their semifinal run. The recent Australian Open champions Kubot/Lindstedt were defeated on the first round by F. Lopez/Robredo, both of them known mostly as singles players. The eventual champions, the Bryan brothers, were forced into the match tiebreak against Isner/Querrey, a team of singles players.
After those results, one can question the level of doubles on the ATP Tour. In the 2010s, singles players have been winning the Indian Wells title three times out of five, Rafael Nadal twice partnering doubles specialist Marc Lopez in 2010 and 2012, and Dolgopolov/Malisse in 2011. There have been also other examples where singles players can beat good teams of doubles specialists. For example, the last two World Tour Finals champions got beaten by singles players in the Davis Cup soon after those titles. The 2012 Tour Finals champions Granollers/M. Lopez were beaten in the Davis Cup final by Berdych/Stepanek. OK, Stepanek is a great doubles player. But last year's Tour Finals champions Marrero/Verdasco got beaten on this year's Davis Cup's first round against Haas/Kohlschreiber, neither of whom is particularly known as a doubles player.
Singles players have had success also in the Olympic doubles. In their run to doubles' Olympic gold in 2008, Federer/Wawrinka beat doubles specialists like the Bryan brothers and Bhupathi/Paes. At the 2012 Olympics, the silver and bronze were won by Llodra/Tsonga and Benneteau/Gasquet, of whom Tsonga and Gasquet play doubles quite rarely.
I think it is quite obvious that there are singles players who could have success in doubles if they played it more often. Fernando Verdasco is an example of a good singles player who has successfully started to play doubles on a regular basis. Still, I don't think top singles players would dominate doubles if they played there. Federer/Wawrinka were beaten in Indian Wells by the eventual runner-ups Peya/Soares, so the final was occupied by doubles specialists despite many singles players' presence. Also Federer/Wawrinka didn't steamroll the other doubles specialists they faced during the tournament. I believe today's top-level doubles tennis is doubles at its very best, despite some players with good doubles skills concentrating only on singles. But singles players playing doubles regularly would add depth to the top of doubles tennis.
But how to make more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis? Yevgeny Kafelnikov is the last man who won singles and doubles at the same Grand Slam event, at the 1996 French Open. Nowadays you could not imagine that happening; the top singles players concentrate solely on singles in slams, playing seven best-of-five singles matches is physically taxing enough. That's why I see very little hope to see the best singles players playing doubles at slams. But I think the players ranked between 10 and 20 could play doubles more often at slams. They usually don't have so deep runs in singles that playing doubles would hurt them, especially as a deep run is not guaranteed in doubles either. Playing doubles more often might also bring something to their singles game, especially improve their net game, even though unfortunately that is not so important in today's baseline-dominated game. But I can see also those players ranked between 10 and 20 rather concentrating solely on singles; by making it one round further in singles, they can earn more than by making the doubles quarterfinals. And I don't think doubles’ prize money should be increased. John McEnroe questioned the status of doubles by saying doubles specialists are players who could not make it to the top in singles and that's why he suggested abandoning doubles and chanelling the prize money to lower-ranked singles players. I don’t agree with him about abandoning doubles, I think doubles belongs to tennis. But singles is the main thing in tennis and I think you should not be able to make a living by playing solely doubles unless you are really good in it.
Maybe the tour should promote doubles more to add the prestige of winning doubles titles. That might encourage more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis. The players whose chances to win singles titles in big events are slim might play doubles for the prestige of winning, even if that might hurt them in singles. Look at the Olympics, even the big names of singles' game are playing doubles as they can play for the Olympic medals only once in four years and the prestige of doubles’ gold is close to the prestige of singles’ gold. I think the ATP could do a lot to promote doubles. They could increase doubles' coverage; I think many fans were willing to see the Federer/Wawrinka vs. Peya/Soares semifinal from Indian Wells as there were two famous singles players there. But that match was not televised as television channels don't want to show doubles. Actually, even Challenger Tour doubles matches are streamed better than Masters Series doubles matches. I think that is shameful and the ATP should do something on it. I think they should ensure coverage at least from Masters semifinals and finals, preferably from earlier rounds, too. Who cares about doubles if you cannot see it? If you think doubles' coverage should be increased, you can sign a petition here.
After those results, one can question the level of doubles on the ATP Tour. In the 2010s, singles players have been winning the Indian Wells title three times out of five, Rafael Nadal twice partnering doubles specialist Marc Lopez in 2010 and 2012, and Dolgopolov/Malisse in 2011. There have been also other examples where singles players can beat good teams of doubles specialists. For example, the last two World Tour Finals champions got beaten by singles players in the Davis Cup soon after those titles. The 2012 Tour Finals champions Granollers/M. Lopez were beaten in the Davis Cup final by Berdych/Stepanek. OK, Stepanek is a great doubles player. But last year's Tour Finals champions Marrero/Verdasco got beaten on this year's Davis Cup's first round against Haas/Kohlschreiber, neither of whom is particularly known as a doubles player.
Singles players have had success also in the Olympic doubles. In their run to doubles' Olympic gold in 2008, Federer/Wawrinka beat doubles specialists like the Bryan brothers and Bhupathi/Paes. At the 2012 Olympics, the silver and bronze were won by Llodra/Tsonga and Benneteau/Gasquet, of whom Tsonga and Gasquet play doubles quite rarely.
I think it is quite obvious that there are singles players who could have success in doubles if they played it more often. Fernando Verdasco is an example of a good singles player who has successfully started to play doubles on a regular basis. Still, I don't think top singles players would dominate doubles if they played there. Federer/Wawrinka were beaten in Indian Wells by the eventual runner-ups Peya/Soares, so the final was occupied by doubles specialists despite many singles players' presence. Also Federer/Wawrinka didn't steamroll the other doubles specialists they faced during the tournament. I believe today's top-level doubles tennis is doubles at its very best, despite some players with good doubles skills concentrating only on singles. But singles players playing doubles regularly would add depth to the top of doubles tennis.
But how to make more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis? Yevgeny Kafelnikov is the last man who won singles and doubles at the same Grand Slam event, at the 1996 French Open. Nowadays you could not imagine that happening; the top singles players concentrate solely on singles in slams, playing seven best-of-five singles matches is physically taxing enough. That's why I see very little hope to see the best singles players playing doubles at slams. But I think the players ranked between 10 and 20 could play doubles more often at slams. They usually don't have so deep runs in singles that playing doubles would hurt them, especially as a deep run is not guaranteed in doubles either. Playing doubles more often might also bring something to their singles game, especially improve their net game, even though unfortunately that is not so important in today's baseline-dominated game. But I can see also those players ranked between 10 and 20 rather concentrating solely on singles; by making it one round further in singles, they can earn more than by making the doubles quarterfinals. And I don't think doubles’ prize money should be increased. John McEnroe questioned the status of doubles by saying doubles specialists are players who could not make it to the top in singles and that's why he suggested abandoning doubles and chanelling the prize money to lower-ranked singles players. I don’t agree with him about abandoning doubles, I think doubles belongs to tennis. But singles is the main thing in tennis and I think you should not be able to make a living by playing solely doubles unless you are really good in it.
Maybe the tour should promote doubles more to add the prestige of winning doubles titles. That might encourage more singles players playing doubles on a regular basis. The players whose chances to win singles titles in big events are slim might play doubles for the prestige of winning, even if that might hurt them in singles. Look at the Olympics, even the big names of singles' game are playing doubles as they can play for the Olympic medals only once in four years and the prestige of doubles’ gold is close to the prestige of singles’ gold. I think the ATP could do a lot to promote doubles. They could increase doubles' coverage; I think many fans were willing to see the Federer/Wawrinka vs. Peya/Soares semifinal from Indian Wells as there were two famous singles players there. But that match was not televised as television channels don't want to show doubles. Actually, even Challenger Tour doubles matches are streamed better than Masters Series doubles matches. I think that is shameful and the ATP should do something on it. I think they should ensure coverage at least from Masters semifinals and finals, preferably from earlier rounds, too. Who cares about doubles if you cannot see it? If you think doubles' coverage should be increased, you can sign a petition here.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
A look into the 2014 Alpine Skiing World Cup Finals
The 2014 Alpine Skiing World Cup will come to its conclusion next week at the Finals in Lenzerheide, Switzerland. Both men's and women's overall World Cup titles are tight two-way battles and also five out of eight discipline titles are still open. The titles already decided are men's downhill and super-G won by Aksel Lund Svindal and women's slalom won by Mikaela Shiffrin.
Marcel Hirscher comes to Lenzerheide with a lead of only four points to Aksel Lund Svindal. Neither skier seems to be at their very best at the moment. The Olympics did not go too well for either of them, both of them were even gold medal favorites but the only medal for those two was Hirscher's silver in slalom. They were also unable to reach podium in the post-Olympics races in Kvitfjell and Kranjska Gora. I made some calculations based on their three last races in each discipline. I calculated their average points scores from those three races. (I also gave points to the Olympic races with the World Cup system) Here are the projected final points based on those averages.
Hirscher: 1050 (current) + 60 (GS) + 68 (SL) = 1178 (projected)
Svindal: 1046 (current) + 45 (DH) + 49 (SG) = 1140 (projected)
Svindal's points average for giant slalom would be 12 points, equaling a 19th-place finish. But only fifteen best skiers get points in the final races so I did not include that to the projected points.
So, I believe Hirscher will be able to get slightly more points from the technical events as Svindal in the speed events. But you cannot count out the possibility of Svindal winning both speed events, which would require Hirscher winning both technical events. And in that case, a points finish in giant slalom would be enough for Svindal to secure the overall World Cup title.
Weather can also play a role in the World Cup finals as cancelled final races will not be rescheduled. In the last two times when Lenzerheide hosted the Finals, they had to cancel half of the individual races because of the weather. Speed events are more likely to get cancelled than technical events, so that may turn the fight in favor of Hirscher.
The race for the third place is very much between Alexis Pinturault and Ted Ligety. Pinturault is ahead of Ligety by 75 points. Given Ligety's poor form outside giant slalom, I believe Pinturault can stay ahead unless he fails to score any points in the finals. Kjetil Jansrud is 216 points behind Pinturault and is in a great form in speed events. But to pass Pinturault, he should have a good result also in giant slalom which is very unlikely given his bad giant slalom form.
Ted Ligety has been the most impressive giant slalom skier this season, yet surprisingly he is not leading the giant slalom World Cup standings. He had three weaker races in the mid-winter where he had one third place and two retirements. The giant slalom leader Marcel Hirscher has been more consistent and has missed the podium only once, in the last race in Kranjska Gora. If Hirscher has a podium result in Lenzerheide, then he will win the giant slalom title, no matter how Ligety performs. But there is some chance for Ligety, Hirscher was fourth in Kranjsjka Gora and also in the Olympic giant slalom before that.
The slalom World Cup is a three-way battle with Felix Neureuther leading Marcel Hirscher by five points and Henrik Kristoffersen by forty points. Kristoffersen's chances are quite slim, to win the slalom title, Hirscher should be third and Neureuther fourth at best. Still, he has been the most consistent of these three skiers recently, including World Cup and Olympic races; he has a four-race podium streak. But he is the outsider in this battle; Neureuther and Hirscher should not lose their points lead over him.
Hirscher has finished all slalom races since January; Neureuther has retired in Adelboden and at the Olympics. But in the five slaloms he has finished since January, he has finished four times ahead of Hirscher. Ultimately, I think Hirscher is a better slalom skier than Neureuther and he has been more consistent. But I think Neureuther has a better form and I think he will beat Hirscher once again if he finishes. That's why he is my pick for the slalom title.
Women's overall World Cup is a two-way battle between Maria Höfl-Riesch and Anna Fenninger with Höfl-Riesch having a lead of 29 points. I made similar calculations based on their recent performances as with men:
Fenninger: 1151 (current) + 42 (DH) + 59 (SG) + 93 (GS) = 1345 (projected)
Höfl-Riesch: 1180 (current) + 33 (DH) + 73 (SG) + 31 (SL) + 17 (GS) = 1335 (projected)
Höfl-Riesch has usually been a better downhill skier but in the recent races Fenninger has been better. In super-G there is not so big a difference between these skiers. Höfl-Riesch can get some lead over Fenninger in slalom but to win the overall title, she needs a big lead before the final race that is giant slalom. Giant slalom is Höfl-Riesch's worst discipline whereas Fenninger has won the last three World Cup giant slaloms and was the silver medalist in the Olympic giant slalom.
Tina Weirather is currently on the third place but she is out because of an injury. That was a very unfortunate injury; she missed the Olympics and was in a position to fight for the World Cup titles, even for the overall World Cup. That's why Tina Maze and Lara Gut are likely to pass her in the overall standings. Maze is leading Gut by 32 points and I believe she will finish the season third. Gut seems to be better in super-G but Maze is better in downhill and slightly in giant slalom plus she does slalom unlike Gut.
Also women's downhill World Cup will be decided between Höfl-Riesch and Fenninger. Höfl-Riesch has a lead of 80 points and will have more downhill wins than Fenninger, so Fenninger needs to win the final race and in that case Höfl-Riesch needs the twenty points of the 13th place which would be her worst downhill of the season. So Fenninger's task seems almost impossible. If Höfl-Riesch somehow lost this title, I think it would be a huge blow for her overall title chances as it would mean a lead of at least 50 points for Fenninger with three races to go.
Lara Gut is leading the standings ahead of injured Tina Weirather but third-placed Anna Fenninger is 71 points behind Gut and has a chance for the title. But this title is almost as difficult for her to win as the downhill title, to have any chance, she needs to finish in the top 2 and even if she won, the 29 points of the 9th place would be enough for Gut.
The giant slalom title will be decided between Jessica Lindell-Vikarby and Anna Fenninger. Lindell-Vikarby had a great early season and is leading by 14 points ahead of Fenninger who has been excellent in the last giant slalom races. A win means automatically the title for Fenninger and even if she finishes second, Lindell-Vikarby must win the race. Of the discipline titles, this seems like the easiest for her to win.
Giant slalom being the final race of women’s season may have its effect on the outcome of the giant slalom title. If Fenninger needs a safe run for the overall title, she may not be willing to take risks for the giant slalom title.
So it seems like an interesting final week for the season. Let's hope the weather will permit all races in good and fair conditions, and cancellations will not decide any titles.
Men's overall World Cup
Marcel Hirscher comes to Lenzerheide with a lead of only four points to Aksel Lund Svindal. Neither skier seems to be at their very best at the moment. The Olympics did not go too well for either of them, both of them were even gold medal favorites but the only medal for those two was Hirscher's silver in slalom. They were also unable to reach podium in the post-Olympics races in Kvitfjell and Kranjska Gora. I made some calculations based on their three last races in each discipline. I calculated their average points scores from those three races. (I also gave points to the Olympic races with the World Cup system) Here are the projected final points based on those averages.
Hirscher: 1050 (current) + 60 (GS) + 68 (SL) = 1178 (projected)
Svindal: 1046 (current) + 45 (DH) + 49 (SG) = 1140 (projected)
Svindal's points average for giant slalom would be 12 points, equaling a 19th-place finish. But only fifteen best skiers get points in the final races so I did not include that to the projected points.
So, I believe Hirscher will be able to get slightly more points from the technical events as Svindal in the speed events. But you cannot count out the possibility of Svindal winning both speed events, which would require Hirscher winning both technical events. And in that case, a points finish in giant slalom would be enough for Svindal to secure the overall World Cup title.
Weather can also play a role in the World Cup finals as cancelled final races will not be rescheduled. In the last two times when Lenzerheide hosted the Finals, they had to cancel half of the individual races because of the weather. Speed events are more likely to get cancelled than technical events, so that may turn the fight in favor of Hirscher.
The race for the third place is very much between Alexis Pinturault and Ted Ligety. Pinturault is ahead of Ligety by 75 points. Given Ligety's poor form outside giant slalom, I believe Pinturault can stay ahead unless he fails to score any points in the finals. Kjetil Jansrud is 216 points behind Pinturault and is in a great form in speed events. But to pass Pinturault, he should have a good result also in giant slalom which is very unlikely given his bad giant slalom form.
Men's giant slalom World Cup
Ted Ligety has been the most impressive giant slalom skier this season, yet surprisingly he is not leading the giant slalom World Cup standings. He had three weaker races in the mid-winter where he had one third place and two retirements. The giant slalom leader Marcel Hirscher has been more consistent and has missed the podium only once, in the last race in Kranjska Gora. If Hirscher has a podium result in Lenzerheide, then he will win the giant slalom title, no matter how Ligety performs. But there is some chance for Ligety, Hirscher was fourth in Kranjsjka Gora and also in the Olympic giant slalom before that.
Men's slalom World Cup
The slalom World Cup is a three-way battle with Felix Neureuther leading Marcel Hirscher by five points and Henrik Kristoffersen by forty points. Kristoffersen's chances are quite slim, to win the slalom title, Hirscher should be third and Neureuther fourth at best. Still, he has been the most consistent of these three skiers recently, including World Cup and Olympic races; he has a four-race podium streak. But he is the outsider in this battle; Neureuther and Hirscher should not lose their points lead over him.
Hirscher has finished all slalom races since January; Neureuther has retired in Adelboden and at the Olympics. But in the five slaloms he has finished since January, he has finished four times ahead of Hirscher. Ultimately, I think Hirscher is a better slalom skier than Neureuther and he has been more consistent. But I think Neureuther has a better form and I think he will beat Hirscher once again if he finishes. That's why he is my pick for the slalom title.
Women's overall World Cup
Women's overall World Cup is a two-way battle between Maria Höfl-Riesch and Anna Fenninger with Höfl-Riesch having a lead of 29 points. I made similar calculations based on their recent performances as with men:
Fenninger: 1151 (current) + 42 (DH) + 59 (SG) + 93 (GS) = 1345 (projected)
Höfl-Riesch: 1180 (current) + 33 (DH) + 73 (SG) + 31 (SL) + 17 (GS) = 1335 (projected)
Höfl-Riesch has usually been a better downhill skier but in the recent races Fenninger has been better. In super-G there is not so big a difference between these skiers. Höfl-Riesch can get some lead over Fenninger in slalom but to win the overall title, she needs a big lead before the final race that is giant slalom. Giant slalom is Höfl-Riesch's worst discipline whereas Fenninger has won the last three World Cup giant slaloms and was the silver medalist in the Olympic giant slalom.
Tina Weirather is currently on the third place but she is out because of an injury. That was a very unfortunate injury; she missed the Olympics and was in a position to fight for the World Cup titles, even for the overall World Cup. That's why Tina Maze and Lara Gut are likely to pass her in the overall standings. Maze is leading Gut by 32 points and I believe she will finish the season third. Gut seems to be better in super-G but Maze is better in downhill and slightly in giant slalom plus she does slalom unlike Gut.
Women's downhill World Cup
Also women's downhill World Cup will be decided between Höfl-Riesch and Fenninger. Höfl-Riesch has a lead of 80 points and will have more downhill wins than Fenninger, so Fenninger needs to win the final race and in that case Höfl-Riesch needs the twenty points of the 13th place which would be her worst downhill of the season. So Fenninger's task seems almost impossible. If Höfl-Riesch somehow lost this title, I think it would be a huge blow for her overall title chances as it would mean a lead of at least 50 points for Fenninger with three races to go.
Women's super-G World Cup
Lara Gut is leading the standings ahead of injured Tina Weirather but third-placed Anna Fenninger is 71 points behind Gut and has a chance for the title. But this title is almost as difficult for her to win as the downhill title, to have any chance, she needs to finish in the top 2 and even if she won, the 29 points of the 9th place would be enough for Gut.
Women's giant slalom World Cup
The giant slalom title will be decided between Jessica Lindell-Vikarby and Anna Fenninger. Lindell-Vikarby had a great early season and is leading by 14 points ahead of Fenninger who has been excellent in the last giant slalom races. A win means automatically the title for Fenninger and even if she finishes second, Lindell-Vikarby must win the race. Of the discipline titles, this seems like the easiest for her to win.
Giant slalom being the final race of women’s season may have its effect on the outcome of the giant slalom title. If Fenninger needs a safe run for the overall title, she may not be willing to take risks for the giant slalom title.
So it seems like an interesting final week for the season. Let's hope the weather will permit all races in good and fair conditions, and cancellations will not decide any titles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)