Well I actually find it slightly amusing, but the reason why I wouldn't think of pome as "classy" is the utter narcissism, she has an huge portrait of herself in her apartment, has her own pic on her Mobile Phone where she can't stop taking pics of herself.

Perhaps I'm just not in touch with the modern world, and many other tennis players insta/selfie themselves to death, but she just seems to be a bit OTT. Her dress sense too goes for the skimp., Again I guess I'm just seeing "classy" as demure, old-fashioned probably.

She's fine on-court really, and yes she guts it out admirably, which many on both Tours don't do enough IMHO.

I don't know how it reflects on her as a person, I don't know enough about her to judge. But I see where you are coming from, classy isn't a word i'd use to describe her wedding dress either https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm8hJPuWIAAsUVW.jpg It's just not my taste I guess.

One thing I do notice, is when she is striding about the court she looks like she is about to nut somebody, I wouldn't like to get in a fight with her that's for sure!

Ferrer about to retire?.

Serena hanging out with Hamilton in Mexico, I wonder if Brundle is going to dare risk it tomorrow.




I hope she's got a good application of tape. She'll catch a chill wearing that top.

So the biggest take from the latest No Challenges Remaining podcast with WTA CEO Steve Simon is that they haven't got a streaming deal for 2017 to replace TennisTV going ATP only. *face palm*

Add that to the fact that he wants to speed up the game and do away with 3 set thrillers. This guy is sounding more and more like a loose canon. Come back Stacey, all is forgiven!

you what!? how??

At a press conference during Wuhan he said he wanted to speed up the matches for broadcast by possibly introducing no ad scoring and 3rd set super tiebreaks.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/...an-open/61496/

Basically he wants it to become like the IPTL.

The dumbing down of tennis...not to mention the fact that people will be very vocal about the pay issue again.

I would love to see Daniela Cibulkova win the WTA Tour finals. But i just cant see Angelique Kerber losing as she is head and shoulders better than everybody else

I'd like to see her win it too. She provided one of the best matches of the year for me when she defeated Radwanska in the 4th round of Wimbledon. Enjoyed watching her run at Eastbourne too.

BTW, her name is Dominika.

BMS can end the year as doubles number one if she wins the final with Lucie.

I thought so some months ago, but then he had some good wins recently so maybe one more year?

I really don't understand that, it's not like the women's game is slow. I haven't listened to it yet, i'll hopefully get round to it later today. It just seems like trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

This quote stuck out to me:
“The attention spans of the audience today is shrinking,” he told Sport 360. “Everybody wants it in very short nuggets, and to see somebody sit for two to three hours and watch anything anymore is getting harder and harder.”

I take it he is talking about getting new fans, because I rarely if ever hear people complaining matches are too long. Boring yes, but that's not directly related to match length.

Cibulkova is a joy to watch when shes playing her best. Whatever happens today if she continues improving shes gonna be a big player in the slams next year no doubt

I might take the point of Djokovic having more slams, but the top players all treat the Olympics as just as important, and to make comparisons including Slams and Masters, but without including the Olympics is a slight of hand. There was a point where Murray was the holder of two Slams and Gold, but he wasn't near #1, and Djokovic fans weren't campaigning for him then.

Murray still has a lot to do if he's to get to #1, so far from guaranteed, but there are a number of players who have got to #1 having achieved less in the previous year than Murray has in this past year, so the suggestion he wouldn't deserve it is sour grapes from a small sub-set of Djokovic fans. They didn't complain about the path being easier for Djokovic when Murray was absent because of injury, or under-performing on clay especially, because of his back problems.

The idea that Murray is adding events to his schedule to vulture is also paranoid nonsense. It's mandatory for players to take part in at least one 500 event during this period, and there is a maximum of four slots within the 500 category for countable points across the year. Djokovic was playing in 500 events while Murray took time off after his baby was born. Murray had two of them empty prior to Beijing, and Vienna will replace the zero pointer he's been carrying for the last year for not competing at Basel because he prioritised Davis Cup. Murray had scheduled Vienna months ago, so it wasn't a last minute add, hoping to sneak the #1 spot. There are no points for Davis Cup this year, and as soon as the last of those points drop, he'll have another empty space in the 500 category, which means he's under-represented in that category.

From a points perspective, Murray has wasted time and energy competing hard at the Olympics and Davis Cup. If he'd skipped the Olympics, he'd have entered the Canada Masters, where he's had a lot of success, and probably done better at the US Open.

There's lots of what-ifs involved when it comes to scheduling and points, and fans of players are bound to notice the times when their favourite is disadvantaged, but very few notice when it happens to their rivals. There are people who have got to number one with less points than Murray holds now, or at previous points in his career.

Murray still has a lot to do before he can get to the actual, official number one, so I think people are getting ahead of themselves, but I find it astonishing that any serious follower of tennis might claim that he's fluked it, or cheated his way there.

Does anyone have the mens ranking points from W and onwards.

The ATP website has a section within each player's profile with their rankings break-down, and it tells you what is and isn't counted at that point in time.

This is the one for Murray.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/playe...ings-breakdown

If you go to the rankings page, you can quickly get to the equivalent page for all of the top players, and see where they will lose, and where they can gain points. Murray's zero points from Basel will drop this week, which he can replace with points from Vienna.

The zero pointers bit can be confusing, and often unfair IMO. Even if you play Davis Cup, you are also required to play another 500 or 250 after the US Open, and if you don't, they add zero points to one of your countable tournaments - even if that means pushing out points you've earned elsewhere in the season. It even applies if you have had a long-term injury. I think if you are injured, and can't player Shanghai, Paris or the WTF, then you should be excused from that rule.

That net cord.

Great match. Cibulkova just went all in on Kerber there.

Makarena won the doubles to go with their Olympics gold, ending Team Bucie's 18 match streak.

Brilliant result. What a fighter Domi is. Got to love her upbeat attitude. Even when she loses a long exciting point she sees the funny side. Hope she can win a slam next year.

I'm really dissapointed in the result, and i'm not very happy with how Kerber played. But I am really impressed with Cibulkova, just fearless from beginning to end. I'm not a fan but I can't fault her performance this week, she's been great.

Congratulations Domi

Andy really has the French players numbers doesn't he?

Very happy to see Cibulkova win. yay for her.
2017 will be interesting

I do think Serena will win at least one slam, but much less sure now than I was a year ago.

Jo's girlfriend looks lovely.

I see Novak is playing doubles at Paris. Is this a move to keep pushing his points up or does he have to play a certain amount of doubles matches to stay in contention for other events?