WEBVTT - Beating the Book: 2023 US Open Tennis Betting Preview

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:04.520
<v Speaker 1>Check it down, then.

0:00:08.320 --> 0:00:08.880
<v Speaker 2>No Down.

0:00:08.960 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 3>Then Thursday noon, August twenty four, twenty twenty three, it's

0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:21.239
<v Speaker 3>Beating the Book podcast kil Alexander US Open Tennis preview.

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:25.079
<v Speaker 2>Love it last Slam of the year, hardcourt slam and

0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 2>what has been for me admittedly tremendous CLV not a

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:34.040
<v Speaker 2>damn winner kind of season. That is just how it's been.

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:38.080
<v Speaker 2>Hopefully that turns here. It's turned a little bit the

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:39.920
<v Speaker 2>last week here, but hopefully for the US Open it

0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 2>turns it as always to help us with a tennis slam,

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 2>it's our buddy who is the co host of not

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:47.199
<v Speaker 2>just the Deep Dive podcast which he does with Andy Moletor,

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 2>but also NBC Sports Bet the Edge Pod. It's Drew Didzick.

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:53.240
<v Speaker 2>Everybody wail Underscore Caper on Twitter.

0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:57.680
<v Speaker 1>How you doing, Drew, I'm tremendous Gille. Always a fun

0:00:57.760 --> 0:01:00.440
<v Speaker 1>day when we get to see a slam draw. It

0:01:00.520 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>is there's only four of them a yere.

0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:07.280
<v Speaker 2>Only four year. This is the one where we're like,

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:09.480
<v Speaker 2>oh wait, a minute's after the morning show, so we

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:11.400
<v Speaker 2>kind of have to figure out when to put it

0:01:11.640 --> 0:01:14.399
<v Speaker 2>out the podcast. Unlike the French were sometimes we're doing

0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:18.600
<v Speaker 2>it while it's happening, and I guess we should start

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:21.319
<v Speaker 2>by say, first of all, for those who aren't watching

0:01:21.319 --> 0:01:22.760
<v Speaker 2>this because we only put out a clip, but you

0:01:22.800 --> 0:01:26.440
<v Speaker 2>are outdoors doing this. You're saying in central California, so

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 2>you look great out there. Thanks for doing this, appreciate it.

0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 2>Here are the two headlines. You tell me if I'm wrong, Boy,

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 2>is this greased nicely? For Djokovic on the men's side

0:01:36.400 --> 0:01:39.640
<v Speaker 2>and man is Ega in trouble on the women's side.

0:01:40.560 --> 0:01:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Agree sincerely with the first point, and I think you

0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>could have actually made that even stronger. Yes, And uh

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>second point, I disagree.

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:55.640
<v Speaker 2>Oh really really, I like to hear it.

0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:58.640
<v Speaker 1>So this is a little bit of a maybe seems

0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:01.600
<v Speaker 1>mentally contradictory, and maybe I've just been in the sun

0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>too long this summer. That's possible, also possible, But uh,

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:10.400
<v Speaker 1>I think I was most nervous about running into Cocoa Golf.

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>And at face value, she's in your quarter but uh,

0:02:15.720 --> 0:02:18.400
<v Speaker 1>she has got a very very tough path to get

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:20.840
<v Speaker 1>to the quarterfinal. Whereas you, guy, I feel like it

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>gets a buye. I see what you mean right there?

0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:27.280
<v Speaker 1>You I see okay, okay, I mean do you look

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:28.800
<v Speaker 1>at the you look at the bottom of the section,

0:02:29.000 --> 0:02:32.359
<v Speaker 1>like like Q one is stacked. It is sex That's

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:35.160
<v Speaker 1>that's true. But they're all on the bottom, which is

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>Coco's Porsche.

0:02:36.400 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 2>No, that is a good point. That is a good point.

0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 2>Let me let me tell you why I didn't have

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:42.919
<v Speaker 2>it that nuanced, Because have you tried looking at these

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 2>draws on both the ATP and the WTA sites when

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 2>they first come out?

0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:49.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, disaster disaster.

0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 2>So like, for first of all, I texted you when

0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:53.160
<v Speaker 2>I looked at the I looked at the men's side first,

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:54.960
<v Speaker 2>and I'm like, wait a minute, how can there be

0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:57.480
<v Speaker 2>all these amazing matches of the first half And I'm like, oh,

0:02:57.600 --> 0:02:59.320
<v Speaker 2>the first round. I'm like, oh, okay, that's wrong.

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 1>What's especially you know, it's especially funny, man, the US

0:03:03.080 --> 0:03:07.200
<v Speaker 1>Open does uh they do the least amount of fanfare

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>with the draw, which is a mistake, a mistake, like

0:03:09.919 --> 0:03:12.400
<v Speaker 1>they should they should make this an event. You know,

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 1>get get there's you know, you know where there's famous

0:03:15.160 --> 0:03:17.519
<v Speaker 1>people hanging out that love tennis, New York, New York.

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 1>You know that they would love to come and participate

0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:22.240
<v Speaker 1>in a US Open draw, and you know the fan

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:25.200
<v Speaker 1>the fanfare involved with the French Open and Wimbledon especially

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.079
<v Speaker 1>is awesome. New York needs to embrace that. Instead they

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:31.760
<v Speaker 1>just you know, bang, the computer spit this out. Well,

0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:33.640
<v Speaker 1>if the computer's spitting it out, you shouldn't have a

0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 1>problem getting the right physical you know, like the PDF

0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:38.880
<v Speaker 1>draws on the website, right, they.

0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 2>Fail, So so you're right. I'm looking at Q one,

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 2>which again, like just like you said, the reason I

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:46.400
<v Speaker 2>said it the way I said it was because yes,

0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 2>if you look at Q one as a whole, it's

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:52.400
<v Speaker 2>about seven well it's called six really good players deep.

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 2>But EGA's side of Q one has an out of

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 2>form Kadermatova, and I guess, and I guess Patrick Viteva

0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:04.680
<v Speaker 2>would be the main, the main challenger on her side,

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:07.160
<v Speaker 2>but the other side has golf Us the Pinco Collins

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 2>and Andreva.

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:11.280
<v Speaker 1>I think Vidva is on the on the other side too.

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:14.320
<v Speaker 1>But just like I think she would be the fourth

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:16.160
<v Speaker 1>round opponent for I'm going off memory, I think she

0:04:16.160 --> 0:04:18.159
<v Speaker 1>would be the fourth round oponent for golf. Golf. Golf

0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:19.360
<v Speaker 1>has something insane like.

0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:22.680
<v Speaker 2>Okay, this webs ut website can go to hell. It

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 2>can go to hell, yeah, because it's ridiculous. If that's true.

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:32.279
<v Speaker 1>Basically, Coco drawing Andreva round two I think is trouble

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:36.480
<v Speaker 1>and and and like, I'm not an idiot, Andreva has

0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:38.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot to prove. Thinking that she's all of a

0:04:39.000 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>sudden a top twenty player when she's just you know,

0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:43.960
<v Speaker 1>had a couple of breakout performances this season is maybe asking,

0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:46.359
<v Speaker 1>you know, asking a lot of her. Yeah, but but

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:48.720
<v Speaker 1>but the facts are she just hasn't played as much

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:51.920
<v Speaker 1>tennis this season this season, particularly recently, as Coco has,

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 1>so she's a fresher opponent and she's very dangerous. I know,

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Coco ousted her at the French Open, and that was

0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>an interesting thing single match market to watch because I

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:06.479
<v Speaker 1>feel like Andreva opened up like plus one twenty and

0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:09.279
<v Speaker 1>got that almost favorite or maybe even close favorite there.

0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:12.360
<v Speaker 1>But and Coco ultimately got the better of her because

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 1>she's just a very more experienced player. But this table's

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>had turned a little bit coming in off of a

0:05:18.279 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 1>huge title. She's played a lot of a lot of

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 1>tennis in the last month and a half. And Andrewa,

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.280
<v Speaker 1>I think is a very live for an early upset

0:05:27.320 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>for Coco. Coco does, yeah, if she gets through there.

0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:35.880
<v Speaker 1>Her round three opponent is nasty around four opponent, I

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 1>think is is a tough test. Whereas I I look

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>at I think it's like Austin Pinka and kuter Matova

0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:44.080
<v Speaker 1>are sort of the other ranked players in and around

0:05:44.160 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Egas section, and honestly, either of one of them even

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:49.760
<v Speaker 1>gets to play Ega in round four, I'll be surprised.

0:05:49.800 --> 0:05:52.720
<v Speaker 1>I really look at that top half as Ega basically

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:55.280
<v Speaker 1>got to buy it withnd Bye the week two, maybe

0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:58.320
<v Speaker 1>even buy it the quarterfinal and she could face Golf

0:05:58.400 --> 0:06:01.039
<v Speaker 1>or Golf could get ousted early, but he away. I

0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:03.520
<v Speaker 1>feel like Ego was most at risk in this tournament

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.480
<v Speaker 1>if she ran into Coco at the semi final stage

0:06:06.520 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>or at the final stage, and Coco had a just

0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:12.039
<v Speaker 1>a little bit easier path, and instead she gets her

0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:15.040
<v Speaker 1>at the quarter final stage and Coco's got just an

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 1>absolute gone at march to get there, I can't let

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:21.480
<v Speaker 1>to get there. So I, after digesting a little bit,

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 1>I feel like this is now kind of eagest to lose.

0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 1>And I know her second servicesues are real. I know

0:06:27.120 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>that you know she won last year pretty ugly, but

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:32.520
<v Speaker 1>I talk about let's.

0:06:32.320 --> 0:06:36.680
<v Speaker 2>Talk about Ego for sure, who has won four Grand Slams.

0:06:37.520 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 2>Just turned twenty two years old. She has won I

0:06:40.520 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 2>want to say fifteen tournaments. Don't hold me that, but

0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:46.240
<v Speaker 2>it's it's right around there. So she's like in you know,

0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:49.880
<v Speaker 2>the on pace Serena schedule things. However, the difference is

0:06:49.960 --> 0:06:54.200
<v Speaker 2>this and no one loves Ega more night. But she's

0:06:54.400 --> 0:06:56.160
<v Speaker 2>very Jay Rod and I on Twitter talk about this

0:06:56.240 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 2>a lot. She's really odd when it comes to certain

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:06.359
<v Speaker 2>tournaments and her being satisfied with the levels she gets

0:07:06.360 --> 0:07:08.720
<v Speaker 2>to in those tournaments. This makes sense. So there's certain

0:07:08.720 --> 0:07:10.200
<v Speaker 2>tournaments where she's like, well, I've never been to the

0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:12.360
<v Speaker 2>Semis before I got to the Semis, so that was

0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 2>good enough for me.

0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:14.600
<v Speaker 1>Mission accomplished.

0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and it's a little it's an odd little quirk

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.880
<v Speaker 2>with her. Now obviously it doesn't doesn't matter with the French.

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.280
<v Speaker 2>She've already won a US Open, She's won tons of thousands,

0:07:25.400 --> 0:07:27.920
<v Speaker 2>rights and master's tournaments, so she's it's not like when

0:07:27.920 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 2>you look at accumulative that there's anything to complain about,

0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:33.200
<v Speaker 2>but there are some odd performances as a result of

0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:35.720
<v Speaker 2>that kind of mindset. And she's the one with the

0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:38.880
<v Speaker 2>you know, with the psychologist, with the sports psychologist who's

0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:40.960
<v Speaker 2>on you know first person to do that, as I recall,

0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:43.680
<v Speaker 2>maybe the second, So I don't know, it's just a

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 2>weird little quirk. She still looked. Look for those who

0:07:45.760 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 2>are are newish to tennis and are listening to this.

0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:51.120
<v Speaker 2>When you look at raw hardcore numbers egas number one

0:07:51.200 --> 0:07:57.000
<v Speaker 2>period across the board, Coco and Vondrasova is who I

0:07:57.080 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 2>have two and three, believe it or not, followed by

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:01.360
<v Speaker 2>the Sabalanca, the coolist of the world. I don't know

0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:03.400
<v Speaker 2>where you have them stacked, but that's kind of where

0:08:03.400 --> 0:08:05.760
<v Speaker 2>it stacks up right now. But he is the best.

0:08:05.960 --> 0:08:08.840
<v Speaker 2>But I'm curious if you've noticed that sort of behavior

0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:10.400
<v Speaker 2>and sort of wondered about it.

0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:13.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, I I have noticed it, and I think

0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 1>it's somewhat relatively straightforward to explain, which is, she's peerless,

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:22.680
<v Speaker 1>so she has to measure success by personally beating her

0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 1>past performance, right, she just needs to show progress within

0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:29.960
<v Speaker 1>some way of you know, measuring it against well, what

0:08:30.000 --> 0:08:31.920
<v Speaker 1>did I do here last year? Right? That that's my

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 1>guess because again, like that, there's no one else in

0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:38.720
<v Speaker 1>her generation who's performed even close to what she's done

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 1>to this point. And you know that she's kind of

0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:45.079
<v Speaker 1>in a she's in I mean, you know, Cocoa Gough,

0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:47.000
<v Speaker 1>I guess would be sort of the other kind of

0:08:47.440 --> 0:08:50.679
<v Speaker 1>young upcoming player. She's got three years on Coco like

0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:54.640
<v Speaker 1>and just in raw age. It's a big three. Yeah,

0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:58.160
<v Speaker 1>no question, And so you know, I think, you know,

0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:00.560
<v Speaker 1>it's just tough for her to say, like, you know,

0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:03.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, she's been world number one forever. You know,

0:09:04.040 --> 0:09:05.839
<v Speaker 1>like you've got to find a way to motivate yourself.

0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:07.280
<v Speaker 1>You got to find a way that kind of self

0:09:07.320 --> 0:09:09.440
<v Speaker 1>evaluate and measure success. And I think that's the way

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 1>she does it. She's a weird she's a weird athlete

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:16.800
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of ways. But I think her uniqueness

0:09:16.880 --> 0:09:19.160
<v Speaker 1>also affords her a little bit of a mental edge

0:09:19.160 --> 0:09:21.440
<v Speaker 1>against a lot of the other women on tour. And

0:09:21.920 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think they are pretty sorry about no problem,

0:09:29.320 --> 0:09:30.800
<v Speaker 1>Sorry about that, Sorry.

0:09:30.559 --> 0:09:32.720
<v Speaker 2>About Joe has a phone call through skype issue that

0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:33.880
<v Speaker 2>we're working through. That's okay.

0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I don't know how to don't know how to

0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:39.440
<v Speaker 1>shut this up, sorry guys, But yeah, I get the

0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:42.080
<v Speaker 1>sense that there are parts of her game that she,

0:09:42.520 --> 0:09:45.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, desperately needs to really sharpen and improve. And

0:09:46.040 --> 0:09:48.880
<v Speaker 1>if she tightens up like her second serve and in

0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:52.400
<v Speaker 1>general tightens up some of her you know, decisions about

0:09:52.400 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 1>aggressiveness and managing aggressiveness throughout a match. You know, then

0:09:56.840 --> 0:09:59.840
<v Speaker 1>she'd be unstoppable. And I think she ultimately will get there.

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:02.560
<v Speaker 2>I think that ultimately she will know question he get there?

0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm super yeah.

0:10:03.840 --> 0:10:06.720
<v Speaker 2>By side note, it has nothing to do with anything.

0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:08.480
<v Speaker 2>But when you said ultimately she would get there, you

0:10:08.480 --> 0:10:10.440
<v Speaker 2>know what. I just read this this week. This has

0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 2>nothing to do with anything, everybody, So I apologize. Todd

0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 2>wished that. My buddy sent me in the mail about

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:19.240
<v Speaker 2>three months ago. He's like, dude, if you read Agassi's autobiography,

0:10:19.240 --> 0:10:22.120
<v Speaker 2>and I'm like no, He goes, you'll love it. I go, oh, okay,

0:10:22.280 --> 0:10:23.960
<v Speaker 2>should I get it. He's like, I'm gonna send it

0:10:24.000 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 2>to you. That's how much I think you'll love it.

0:10:25.559 --> 0:10:30.920
<v Speaker 2>Have you ever read his autobiography? It is no spectacular.

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:33.800
<v Speaker 2>It was written in like two thousand and seven. No,

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:35.280
<v Speaker 2>don't hold me to that, but somebody it was like

0:10:35.280 --> 0:10:39.000
<v Speaker 2>about fifteen years ago. And here's the spoiler of the

0:10:39.040 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 2>whole thing. But I would recommend everybody go read this

0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:43.760
<v Speaker 2>because it is such a fascinating book. The headline is

0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:49.439
<v Speaker 2>he hated tennis. Hated it, right, So, like he struggled

0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:52.400
<v Speaker 2>his whole career with this, you know, because his dad

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:55.640
<v Speaker 2>was the taskmaster. He became, you know, this great player.

0:10:55.920 --> 0:10:58.040
<v Speaker 2>He always hated it for all the things, and yet

0:10:58.080 --> 0:10:59.400
<v Speaker 2>in the end he became the number one player in

0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:01.160
<v Speaker 2>the world in one a slams. Right, So it was

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 2>like this whole thing, we're back and forth. So not

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:06.560
<v Speaker 2>at all comparing that to to ego in any way,

0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:10.839
<v Speaker 2>but it is the mental side of this is so fascinating, right,

0:11:10.920 --> 0:11:13.079
<v Speaker 2>And so for someone like her, I mean, you say, great,

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:14.960
<v Speaker 2>you're making me feel even better about ego when you're like,

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:19.079
<v Speaker 2>she's peerless. So she's like inventing goals.

0:11:19.240 --> 0:11:23.120
<v Speaker 1>It's fascinating, fascinating, and I mean, good for her for

0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:27.120
<v Speaker 1>doing it, because you know that we are not that

0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:32.760
<v Speaker 1>far removed from another peerless athlete in Naomi Osaka, who

0:11:32.960 --> 0:11:36.280
<v Speaker 1>lost you know, went off the reservations and you know,

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:38.160
<v Speaker 1>she never recaptured it, and I don't know if she

0:11:38.200 --> 0:11:40.920
<v Speaker 1>will ever return to tennis. It's just kind of a mystery. Yeah,

0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>And uh, you know I think that you know, her

0:11:44.320 --> 0:11:47.360
<v Speaker 1>vacating kind of the next great hardcore player has certainly

0:11:47.440 --> 0:11:50.120
<v Speaker 1>been a huge, you know bump and you know, kind

0:11:50.120 --> 0:11:53.480
<v Speaker 1>of really allowed the same same.

0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, the path was cleared. Yeah, ye, the.

0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:58.760
<v Speaker 1>Path is cleared for her. So it's it's pretty pretty huge.

0:11:58.800 --> 0:12:02.920
<v Speaker 1>And I mean, you know, half I had to make.

0:12:03.400 --> 0:12:06.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, maybe I'll save it for the end, but yeah,

0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:10.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean I think probably takes this one, and this

0:12:10.160 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 1>is number five.

0:12:11.040 --> 0:12:13.760
<v Speaker 2>This if she takes this one, and I you know,

0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 2>I'm not betting on anyone else to take it. I

0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:18.240
<v Speaker 2>have a quarter bet, which I just hinted at. But

0:12:18.360 --> 0:12:19.400
<v Speaker 2>I ega.

0:12:19.240 --> 0:12:21.680
<v Speaker 1>Is ah, you like the same bets I like. I

0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:24.320
<v Speaker 1>think we didn't even we didn't even preview this good.

0:12:24.440 --> 0:12:26.280
<v Speaker 2>Oh, Se, just say what I like. I like vondro

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:30.480
<v Speaker 2>Sova in yeah, I love Marquete Vandrosova, who let me

0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 2>just say this, and you were great because I said

0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 2>I said to you after the Wimbledon pod after Wimbledon completed,

0:12:36.240 --> 0:12:38.280
<v Speaker 2>I like Vondrosova, by the way, plus four fifty at

0:12:38.360 --> 0:12:42.320
<v Speaker 2>DraftKings and Q three that is Jesse Pegoula's quote unquote

0:12:42.760 --> 0:12:45.000
<v Speaker 2>quarter if you will. But I like Vondrosova plus four fifty,

0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:47.800
<v Speaker 2>I said to you after the Wimbledon pod or after

0:12:47.840 --> 0:12:50.840
<v Speaker 2>Wimbledon completed, and Vondrosova ends up winning Wimbledon to win

0:12:50.880 --> 0:12:53.440
<v Speaker 2>her first major. I was like, Drew, you and I

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:57.160
<v Speaker 2>didn't even mention her once, and your response I think

0:12:57.200 --> 0:12:59.480
<v Speaker 2>was appropriate, which is, can you blame us?

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:04.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? Why would you? Why? She had played like two

0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:06.920
<v Speaker 1>grass patches in her life coming into this season, so

0:13:07.160 --> 0:13:10.840
<v Speaker 1>I even considering her would have been at malpractice. Yeah,

0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:13.560
<v Speaker 1>some people, I'm sure saw enough quality in week one

0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:15.720
<v Speaker 1>to get on board at pretty absurd prices for her.

0:13:16.520 --> 0:13:20.680
<v Speaker 1>And you know, I think she showed a constitution which

0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:25.800
<v Speaker 1>matters for slam tennis, right she got you know, she

0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:29.240
<v Speaker 1>she did not She did not lose her pool when

0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:32.600
<v Speaker 1>she was being outplayed by Svidelina. She just steady eddied

0:13:32.640 --> 0:13:35.440
<v Speaker 1>her way through that match. You know, she had some

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:37.840
<v Speaker 1>moments where it looked like on was kind of keeping it,

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:42.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, putting it together. In the final, she put

0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:43.840
<v Speaker 1>her head down, you know, it was bonders of she

0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>put her head down, and she she just powered powered

0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:50.959
<v Speaker 1>through it. And I think, you know, I would typically

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:54.280
<v Speaker 1>look at a player like her who was coming off

0:13:54.320 --> 0:13:58.559
<v Speaker 1>of what's a seemingly one of type of slam last

0:13:58.559 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 1>time out, not really having a huge impressive run of

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:07.120
<v Speaker 1>form to back it up on hardcourt, and I would say, well,

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:09.959
<v Speaker 1>you know, she's got the she's got the career accomplishment,

0:14:10.000 --> 0:14:13.000
<v Speaker 1>she's in exhal mode and this is just doesn't mean

0:14:13.080 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 1>much to her, and you know, we can probably rule

0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:19.480
<v Speaker 1>her out off that, but she got a great drap

0:14:19.840 --> 0:14:22.600
<v Speaker 1>and she doesn't seem to necessarily be built that way

0:14:22.680 --> 0:14:25.040
<v Speaker 1>at least just her her mentality that she showed in

0:14:25.080 --> 0:14:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Wimbledon specifically has me thinking this, and I tend to

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:32.280
<v Speaker 1>agree with you. I think you know we're way ahead.

0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:34.560
<v Speaker 1>Heartbe card before the horse here. But yeah, my final

0:14:34.560 --> 0:14:36.880
<v Speaker 1>prediction would be over Andrisua.

0:14:36.720 --> 0:14:40.400
<v Speaker 2>Oh in the finals. Yeah. Like I said before, only

0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:44.760
<v Speaker 2>spot Tech and golf have better hardcore numbers talking about

0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.200
<v Speaker 2>well spot tech year, six months, one month, however you

0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 2>want to slice it up. Golf, obviously we have to

0:14:49.880 --> 0:14:53.120
<v Speaker 2>include the short of short term, because she has been

0:14:53.480 --> 0:14:56.560
<v Speaker 2>in a short term basis the best. But Vondrasva just

0:14:56.720 --> 0:14:59.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, twelve month, six month, one month kind of thing,

0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:02.320
<v Speaker 2>like just consist across the board one O seven five

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 2>talking about serve and return percentages one O nine point

0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:08.920
<v Speaker 2>seven on a six month one So I mean it's tremendous.

0:15:08.920 --> 0:15:11.880
<v Speaker 2>So I definitely have her winning that quarter. You've got

0:15:11.880 --> 0:15:14.400
<v Speaker 2>her in the finals against Egot. I would love to

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:22.840
<v Speaker 2>see that final. Uh so you think von Tresilva in

0:15:22.840 --> 0:15:24.880
<v Speaker 2>the finals. I have her winning the quarter, which means

0:15:24.880 --> 0:15:27.480
<v Speaker 2>you do too. What bet do you have here, sir

0:15:27.520 --> 0:15:28.600
<v Speaker 2>that you'd like to share.

0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:34.240
<v Speaker 1>So well? Definitely, you know, I think kind of breaking

0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:36.080
<v Speaker 1>down the rest of the quarter is Q two is

0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the one that I think you're looking for an absurd

0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:42.880
<v Speaker 1>price on. Count me among the people who are sincerely

0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:48.920
<v Speaker 1>concerned about the health and fitness of Elena Rebakana. Yes again,

0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:54.680
<v Speaker 1>kind of going back to the US Open draw criticism. Uh,

0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:57.720
<v Speaker 1>they picked I think the worst photograph of her I've

0:15:57.760 --> 0:16:01.640
<v Speaker 1>ever seen to put on like the on the social

0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:04.680
<v Speaker 1>media that they did. You know how they did Ego's quarter,

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:09.120
<v Speaker 1>the Goola's quarter right right like well in AIDA's quarter,

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.040
<v Speaker 1>like they literally like found some absolutely beleaguered photo of

0:16:13.040 --> 0:16:17.560
<v Speaker 1>her from Cincinnati or or Canada or something, and she's like,

0:16:17.720 --> 0:16:21.040
<v Speaker 1>oh no, like wow, geez, like she's gonna be okay,

0:16:21.440 --> 0:16:24.280
<v Speaker 1>like what's going on here? But no, I think it's

0:16:24.320 --> 0:16:27.440
<v Speaker 1>it's it's generally fair to wonder if she's going to

0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:30.080
<v Speaker 1>be able to hold up in the heat, humidity, and

0:16:30.120 --> 0:16:33.520
<v Speaker 1>it's generally fair to you know, think that you know,

0:16:33.720 --> 0:16:36.320
<v Speaker 1>she needs like a good amount of time to fully

0:16:36.360 --> 0:16:38.720
<v Speaker 1>regroup from the illness that she came that came down

0:16:38.800 --> 0:16:42.040
<v Speaker 1>that she forced her to withdraw from Roland Garros. And

0:16:42.520 --> 0:16:45.120
<v Speaker 1>I still think that she's probably, you know, a top

0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:47.560
<v Speaker 1>three player going forward. I think, you know, kind of

0:16:47.560 --> 0:16:51.600
<v Speaker 1>looking at the you know, the current one, two three

0:16:51.720 --> 0:16:54.720
<v Speaker 1>in terms of you know, the year end race with

0:16:55.600 --> 0:16:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Sa Blanciga and Rebakna, like, yeah, those are your three

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:02.720
<v Speaker 1>neutrallly best players if they're all informed. But right now,

0:17:02.760 --> 0:17:04.480
<v Speaker 1>I don't think you can put her in that category,

0:17:04.480 --> 0:17:06.680
<v Speaker 1>which means she's, you know, she's a risk of retirement,

0:17:06.680 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 1>she's a risk of withdrawing, she's a risk of getting upset,

0:17:10.240 --> 0:17:13.440
<v Speaker 1>which opens, I think opens the door for Q two

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:17.399
<v Speaker 1>to anyone because I certainly don't have any any strong

0:17:17.440 --> 0:17:20.240
<v Speaker 1>confidence that Sachary is going to do anything in this tournament.

0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:24.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And I have no bet currently in Q two nothing.

0:17:24.600 --> 0:17:28.199
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, same, And I think the answer really is wait

0:17:28.240 --> 0:17:29.800
<v Speaker 1>to see where the qualifiers land and see if we

0:17:29.800 --> 0:17:32.520
<v Speaker 1>can get like one hundred to one on somebody. But

0:17:33.280 --> 0:17:36.000
<v Speaker 1>maybe so you know, because that if there's a if

0:17:36.040 --> 0:17:38.960
<v Speaker 1>there's a totally ridiculous surprise that's going to come from there.

0:17:40.080 --> 0:17:42.040
<v Speaker 1>The Q three we.

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:44.320
<v Speaker 2>Look through it and see, like, who would I ridiculous?

0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:47.000
<v Speaker 2>Who would I be shocked by? I mean everybody? Right,

0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:49.119
<v Speaker 2>Lynchu's playing well, but I'm not betting on her fifty

0:17:49.119 --> 0:17:53.760
<v Speaker 2>to one. No, what about a Sloan Stevens who obviously

0:17:53.840 --> 0:17:55.840
<v Speaker 2>won this tournament. But she's fourteen to one. It's not

0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:56.560
<v Speaker 2>like she's super long.

0:17:56.600 --> 0:17:58.280
<v Speaker 1>No, sound a big enough price, right, that's not a

0:17:58.520 --> 0:18:00.680
<v Speaker 1>good price. Really, like the whole sect in tier, which

0:18:00.720 --> 0:18:02.640
<v Speaker 1>is usually where you shop when you kind of feel

0:18:02.640 --> 0:18:05.640
<v Speaker 1>like the you know, the favorite is vulnerable. No one

0:18:05.640 --> 0:18:09.640
<v Speaker 1>in that that tier really inspires me. So Q two

0:18:09.680 --> 0:18:12.560
<v Speaker 1>is going to be a wild card I think, not

0:18:12.560 --> 0:18:14.560
<v Speaker 1>not a technically a wild card, but you know what

0:18:14.640 --> 0:18:19.359
<v Speaker 1>I mean, like a shocker totally, which again kind of

0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.480
<v Speaker 1>helps the case for ego. Like if she's taken on

0:18:22.560 --> 0:18:24.680
<v Speaker 1>a beaten up Cocoa in the quarters and then gets

0:18:24.880 --> 0:18:27.040
<v Speaker 1>a wild card in the semis, and you know, is

0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 1>fresher for the finals and whoever comes out of the bottom,

0:18:30.080 --> 0:18:33.840
<v Speaker 1>that's huge.

0:18:32.840 --> 0:18:34.920
<v Speaker 2>Right now, Though you must pick a you must pick

0:18:34.920 --> 0:18:35.920
<v Speaker 2>a way you don't have to bet on this, but

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:37.720
<v Speaker 2>you must pick a winner right now. For Q two,

0:18:37.720 --> 0:18:40.680
<v Speaker 2>the person you would say real quick would be I'll

0:18:40.680 --> 0:18:46.240
<v Speaker 2>say it with you, last name three two one Mukova.

0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean it's it's Mukhova. But she played so

0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.480
<v Speaker 1>much tennis in Cincinnati too, Like, I really.

0:18:57.240 --> 0:18:59.320
<v Speaker 2>Did you think that since it? Did you get the

0:18:59.359 --> 0:19:02.200
<v Speaker 2>feeling that the players were over that tournament this year?

0:19:05.359 --> 0:19:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Didn't get that read I My takeaways were more like,

0:19:12.440 --> 0:19:15.800
<v Speaker 1>why are they taking this so seriously? Right? Like? Why

0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:21.040
<v Speaker 1>was Djokovic? Why was Djokovic Autkraz the most to the death? Yeah?

0:19:21.040 --> 0:19:25.040
<v Speaker 1>Why was that the most hotly contested best of three

0:19:25.040 --> 0:19:28.520
<v Speaker 1>match we've seen in ten years? That was? That was

0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:31.119
<v Speaker 1>so so it was unbelievable.

0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:33.000
<v Speaker 2>I said out loud. I'm like, can you imagine that?

0:19:33.160 --> 0:19:38.040
<v Speaker 2>Like Southern Ohio? Like the they ended up with this match? No,

0:19:38.040 --> 0:19:40.440
<v Speaker 2>no disrespect to Southern Ohio, but it's not It's notn

0:19:40.440 --> 0:19:43.080
<v Speaker 2>New York City, you know what I mean. I was like, Wow,

0:19:43.280 --> 0:19:47.400
<v Speaker 2>this is bizarro and it was amazing. It was amazing.

0:19:48.119 --> 0:19:50.719
<v Speaker 1>That was the best Masters final that I can remember. Uh,

0:19:51.119 --> 0:19:53.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure there's one. I'm sure there's one from years

0:19:53.520 --> 0:19:56.240
<v Speaker 1>ago that I'm forgetting there's probably a given.

0:19:56.000 --> 0:19:58.600
<v Speaker 2>The given the players though, I mean, you're right, what

0:19:58.720 --> 0:20:01.399
<v Speaker 2>was the call? Like I forgot his name? The the uh,

0:20:02.119 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 2>the Australia South Africa. I think is a shot making

0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:06.920
<v Speaker 2>of the gods. He said in the middle of yes, yes,

0:20:07.200 --> 0:20:13.320
<v Speaker 2>that was was That's very very correct, Yes, yeah, but.

0:20:13.520 --> 0:20:15.639
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that was that. That match was incredible. I was

0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:19.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of like, these guys don't really they're not really

0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:20.480
<v Speaker 1>They're not just going to point for the US Open.

0:20:20.520 --> 0:20:22.399
<v Speaker 1>They're really gonna leave it all out here. Okay, let them,

0:20:22.440 --> 0:20:25.399
<v Speaker 1>let them go. I'm enjoying it. Same thing with the

0:20:25.400 --> 0:20:28.520
<v Speaker 1>Ega Cocoa match. You know, that felt like that, that

0:20:28.560 --> 0:20:32.040
<v Speaker 1>felt like it had consequence. And wait again, like I'm

0:20:32.040 --> 0:20:35.440
<v Speaker 1>more nervous about the you know, the ego's potential at

0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:38.400
<v Speaker 1>the you know, in Flushing Meadows, if you know, if

0:20:38.440 --> 0:20:41.280
<v Speaker 1>Coco's coming from another part of the draw, that's not

0:20:41.320 --> 0:20:46.680
<v Speaker 1>as challenging because you know, snapping a lifetime seven zero

0:20:47.000 --> 0:20:50.960
<v Speaker 1>streak where you are not competitive in all seven not competitive,

0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:53.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, that's a big mental hurdle to clear. And

0:20:54.160 --> 0:20:56.399
<v Speaker 1>I think, you know, whatever work Coco is doing with

0:20:56.480 --> 0:21:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Brad Garrett Brad Gilbert, uh and whatever. Her just a

0:21:01.160 --> 0:21:03.880
<v Speaker 1>general you know kind of focus and pressure she's brought

0:21:03.880 --> 0:21:06.679
<v Speaker 1>to this swing considering how poorly her season started. Like

0:21:06.720 --> 0:21:09.399
<v Speaker 1>I'm happy for I really wanted, you know, her to

0:21:09.440 --> 0:21:11.240
<v Speaker 1>take this step forward and I was kind of like

0:21:11.359 --> 0:21:13.639
<v Speaker 1>a little nervous and distressed about the quality we were

0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:16.200
<v Speaker 1>seeing from her and uh, you know in the fall,

0:21:16.320 --> 0:21:18.880
<v Speaker 1>in the winter and spring and you know even into

0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:22.040
<v Speaker 1>the summer. So I'm glad she's she's here. But I

0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:24.880
<v Speaker 1>think that she got absolutely she was the cold water.

0:21:25.119 --> 0:21:27.040
<v Speaker 1>She got the cold water for me with this draw,

0:21:27.240 --> 0:21:29.560
<v Speaker 1>because I would have said, you know, twenty four hours ago,

0:21:29.560 --> 0:21:32.040
<v Speaker 1>out have been like she should be your absolute, no doubt,

0:21:32.080 --> 0:21:34.720
<v Speaker 1>second choice yep for this for this title. And now

0:21:34.800 --> 0:21:38.159
<v Speaker 1>I think like if she gets to the semi finals,

0:21:38.160 --> 0:21:41.679
<v Speaker 1>she's got to feel really really positive about that. And

0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:43.440
<v Speaker 1>if she gets there, I think she's going to be

0:21:43.480 --> 0:21:46.040
<v Speaker 1>on fumes. Now that that said, you know, again we're

0:21:46.040 --> 0:21:48.639
<v Speaker 1>talking about a Q two opponent who might be you know,

0:21:48.760 --> 0:21:51.840
<v Speaker 1>like the Magdalenette of the Australian Open kind of setup.

0:21:51.880 --> 0:21:55.119
<v Speaker 1>You know, like like just a truly happy to be

0:21:55.200 --> 0:21:58.959
<v Speaker 1>here type of player, and that might be you know

0:21:59.000 --> 0:22:01.000
<v Speaker 1>what she needs to ultimate get this title, so I'm

0:22:01.040 --> 0:22:03.760
<v Speaker 1>not ruling it out, but a boy, I feel like she,

0:22:03.920 --> 0:22:06.159
<v Speaker 1>you know, her her probability and her odds and her

0:22:06.240 --> 0:22:08.600
<v Speaker 1>prices all of a sudden here upside down, considering how

0:22:08.640 --> 0:22:11.680
<v Speaker 1>tough that path is. Two three, we talked a little

0:22:11.680 --> 0:22:13.600
<v Speaker 1>bit about the Goula's quarter.

0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:16.960
<v Speaker 2>I love that from the well.

0:22:18.520 --> 0:22:23.800
<v Speaker 1>The next way, and that is sound quarter. But I

0:22:23.840 --> 0:22:27.359
<v Speaker 1>think I think I'll save my favorite bet for just

0:22:27.400 --> 0:22:30.679
<v Speaker 1>a minute here. But the Google's quarter is tough too.

0:22:31.240 --> 0:22:33.160
<v Speaker 1>She does not have an easy path out of there

0:22:33.240 --> 0:22:33.640
<v Speaker 1>at all.

0:22:34.880 --> 0:22:39.920
<v Speaker 2>I think that was Samsonova keys for undress bottom.

0:22:39.960 --> 0:22:42.199
<v Speaker 1>There a lot of really yeah, a lot of a

0:22:42.200 --> 0:22:45.639
<v Speaker 1>lot of really players with success at this a venue,

0:22:45.760 --> 0:22:48.480
<v Speaker 1>players with who are playing well now like there's a

0:22:48.520 --> 0:22:51.760
<v Speaker 1>lot of there's a lot of trouble for the Gooula

0:22:51.800 --> 0:22:54.920
<v Speaker 1>in there. My guess is that quarter comes down to

0:22:55.000 --> 0:22:59.840
<v Speaker 1>von Drusiva versus sam Sonova. But I'm not sure if

0:22:59.840 --> 0:23:02.400
<v Speaker 1>you all some of the offshore prices. But sam Sonova

0:23:02.400 --> 0:23:05.240
<v Speaker 1>has drifted aggressively in a couple offshore markets, so it's

0:23:05.320 --> 0:23:07.679
<v Speaker 1>almost I feel like someone almost knows that something's not

0:23:07.760 --> 0:23:09.879
<v Speaker 1>right with her physically. I have not heard this, But

0:23:10.800 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm getting this weird pattern of when my price is

0:23:14.000 --> 0:23:16.600
<v Speaker 1>very off market on sam Sonova, I am just getting

0:23:16.680 --> 0:23:20.520
<v Speaker 1>railroaded both ways. Like I'm like, you know, with like

0:23:20.560 --> 0:23:24.520
<v Speaker 1>the Rebecca Samsanova match in Canada, I was like, why

0:23:24.600 --> 0:23:26.840
<v Speaker 1>is this not mine's two fifty Rebecca? What is going

0:23:26.840 --> 0:23:28.720
<v Speaker 1>on here? She went off as like a small favorite

0:23:28.720 --> 0:23:31.960
<v Speaker 1>there I could I could not. I could not like

0:23:32.040 --> 0:23:36.320
<v Speaker 1>square that price even remotely. And of course sam Sonova

0:23:36.320 --> 0:23:38.240
<v Speaker 1>comes back from one to six and wins that.

0:23:38.400 --> 0:23:42.080
<v Speaker 2>I think I had sam Sono for that day, had yeah, yeah,

0:23:42.119 --> 0:23:43.200
<v Speaker 2>that was the one. Yeah.

0:23:43.520 --> 0:23:47.040
<v Speaker 1>She's been playing well, and you know, I think she

0:23:47.080 --> 0:23:49.040
<v Speaker 1>can get out of her section, and but I don't

0:23:49.040 --> 0:23:51.520
<v Speaker 1>think she beats Van Drusiva, and I worry a bit

0:23:51.560 --> 0:23:53.840
<v Speaker 1>about her physically, And again the drifting of her price

0:23:53.880 --> 0:23:56.359
<v Speaker 1>has got me spooked, like someone knows she's not physically well.

0:23:57.480 --> 0:23:59.840
<v Speaker 1>She's always a question mark about winning seven matches, So

0:23:59.880 --> 0:24:01.879
<v Speaker 1>I anny good conscience, say play whatever.

0:24:01.920 --> 0:24:04.680
<v Speaker 2>You know, she's always drew, She's always a question mark

0:24:04.720 --> 0:24:06.800
<v Speaker 2>when she has seven match points, let alone do any

0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:07.960
<v Speaker 2>seven matches.

0:24:08.920 --> 0:24:10.840
<v Speaker 1>What was that last year against Do.

0:24:10.760 --> 0:24:13.159
<v Speaker 2>You remember that? I was on a plane for that

0:24:13.560 --> 0:24:16.240
<v Speaker 2>and I was I had her in that match, and

0:24:16.320 --> 0:24:17.600
<v Speaker 2>I could not believe what.

0:24:17.600 --> 0:24:20.360
<v Speaker 1>I was watching. I was in Hawaii. I almost threw

0:24:20.359 --> 0:24:23.520
<v Speaker 1>my phone over the back too, was like, what is

0:24:23.600 --> 0:24:24.359
<v Speaker 1>what has happened?

0:24:24.600 --> 0:24:26.200
<v Speaker 2>Speaking about this? Has nothing to do with that. Anybody

0:24:26.240 --> 0:24:28.320
<v Speaker 2>speaking of that? I had I texted you. I don't

0:24:28.320 --> 0:24:31.200
<v Speaker 2>know if I texted you on this. I had Mark

0:24:31.280 --> 0:24:33.600
<v Speaker 2>Andrea Westler. I believe that's an I don't know like

0:24:33.600 --> 0:24:38.159
<v Speaker 2>you pronounce it. I had him against Schivchenko last on Sunday,

0:24:38.200 --> 0:24:40.639
<v Speaker 2>the day of the Alkoraz Djokovic match in Winston Salem.

0:24:40.640 --> 0:24:43.960
<v Speaker 2>They played a few matches the first day and I

0:24:43.960 --> 0:24:47.360
<v Speaker 2>I got him at plus two hundred. He was plus

0:24:47.440 --> 0:24:51.240
<v Speaker 2>one fifteen by match time, which is maybe the sickest

0:24:51.240 --> 0:24:53.760
<v Speaker 2>CLV I've ever got in my life on anything. He's

0:24:53.840 --> 0:24:57.000
<v Speaker 2>up for love in the final set and Chivchenko quits.

0:24:58.480 --> 0:25:01.359
<v Speaker 2>This is be Yeah, So that was you talk about,

0:25:01.359 --> 0:25:04.520
<v Speaker 2>Like the Samsonova throwing the phone, That was about as

0:25:04.680 --> 0:25:08.000
<v Speaker 2>close to pure abject frustration as I've ever gotten on

0:25:08.040 --> 0:25:10.760
<v Speaker 2>any of this stuff. I'm like, when you're good, you're

0:25:10.800 --> 0:25:11.360
<v Speaker 2>you can't win.

0:25:11.560 --> 0:25:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes sometimes that's the harbinger of really good things are coming. Right.

0:25:15.920 --> 0:25:18.440
<v Speaker 1>If you're if you if you're because like if you're

0:25:18.480 --> 0:25:21.399
<v Speaker 1>reading the matches right, but the people looking at your

0:25:21.400 --> 0:25:25.760
<v Speaker 1>accounts are like, well he sucks. Yeah, yeah, this guy's leading,

0:25:25.960 --> 0:25:29.440
<v Speaker 1>Like give him what he wants. Sometimes that's the that's

0:25:29.480 --> 0:25:31.600
<v Speaker 1>the sign that it's about to go hot. So I'll

0:25:31.640 --> 0:25:34.119
<v Speaker 1>give you that as a lifeline there. But yeah, I

0:25:34.160 --> 0:25:36.679
<v Speaker 1>know sam Sonova and to me, I think this is

0:25:36.720 --> 0:25:40.120
<v Speaker 1>how Q three shakes out. I like in that match

0:25:40.200 --> 0:25:42.760
<v Speaker 1>and really like, if you can crack Q three, I

0:25:42.760 --> 0:25:44.640
<v Speaker 1>think you've got a finalist. And I think you got

0:25:44.640 --> 0:25:45.200
<v Speaker 1>a finalist.

0:25:45.240 --> 0:25:53.720
<v Speaker 2>Price does le Fernandez interest you at all in any form?

0:25:54.200 --> 0:25:57.240
<v Speaker 1>No, she's done it before.

0:25:57.680 --> 0:26:00.919
<v Speaker 2>He's done it before. By the way, Emma's not in this.

0:26:01.119 --> 0:26:03.000
<v Speaker 2>Emma Rotakanu is not a part of the draw.

0:26:03.720 --> 0:26:06.359
<v Speaker 1>Where is she? I don't believe, so I don't think.

0:26:05.240 --> 0:26:09.800
<v Speaker 1>I think she's still recovering from risks. Yeah, don't quote

0:26:09.840 --> 0:26:13.240
<v Speaker 1>me on that though the maybe back surgery I can't remember,

0:26:13.400 --> 0:26:16.560
<v Speaker 1>but she'll be back next year probably the Q four

0:26:17.560 --> 0:26:20.440
<v Speaker 1>For me at least, this is I'm not exactly sure

0:26:20.440 --> 0:26:23.359
<v Speaker 1>why sablink is plus one twenty ish. I feel my

0:26:23.840 --> 0:26:25.800
<v Speaker 1>number to say she should be over fifty percent there,

0:26:27.080 --> 0:26:30.440
<v Speaker 1>and it's because Q four is weak. And yes I'm

0:26:30.480 --> 0:26:35.439
<v Speaker 1>including John's Drew bor in that commentary. And I think

0:26:35.680 --> 0:26:37.639
<v Speaker 1>my favorite way to play the women's draw is a

0:26:37.720 --> 0:26:40.800
<v Speaker 1>stage of elimination. Rina Sablanca semi finals.

0:26:40.960 --> 0:26:42.680
<v Speaker 2>Wow, what's the number.

0:26:43.880 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 1>It's going to be big. It hasn't popped yet, but

0:26:45.520 --> 0:26:48.240
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be like, yeah plus two fifty ish

0:26:48.400 --> 0:26:50.600
<v Speaker 1>would be my guest because she's got a winner re

0:26:50.680 --> 0:26:53.879
<v Speaker 1>quorter and then lose that that match in the semis.

0:26:53.920 --> 0:26:57.080
<v Speaker 1>And I count me among the people that believes that

0:26:57.160 --> 0:26:59.680
<v Speaker 1>this is an actual thing with her right now that

0:27:00.200 --> 0:27:03.639
<v Speaker 1>you know she cannot get past whatever mental demons exist.

0:27:03.800 --> 0:27:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Regarding the semi final experience. The one semi final was Magdalenett. Yeah,

0:27:11.240 --> 0:27:13.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if that was a tougher, that was not

0:27:13.200 --> 0:27:16.119
<v Speaker 1>Magdalenet in that moment was is she Is she the

0:27:16.200 --> 0:27:20.600
<v Speaker 1>Australian no champion? I don't know. All I know is that, uh,

0:27:21.040 --> 0:27:23.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, I don't know that you can really hold

0:27:23.840 --> 0:27:27.919
<v Speaker 1>Wimbledon against her because on like raised her level pretty

0:27:28.600 --> 0:27:33.600
<v Speaker 1>impressively in that match to oust her. But some of

0:27:33.600 --> 0:27:37.440
<v Speaker 1>the other talk about, yes, yeah, for sure, go there,

0:27:37.520 --> 0:27:39.679
<v Speaker 1>We'll go there right next. But yeah, I mean some

0:27:39.760 --> 0:27:42.399
<v Speaker 1>of the some of the semi final losses. The Mukhova

0:27:42.560 --> 0:27:46.000
<v Speaker 1>French Open was the worst. You know, some of these

0:27:46.000 --> 0:27:48.840
<v Speaker 1>semi final losses are she's wearing it, you know.

0:27:48.960 --> 0:27:52.879
<v Speaker 2>The Mokhova one was out of control like she was.

0:27:53.720 --> 0:27:54.480
<v Speaker 2>That was her match.

0:27:55.280 --> 0:27:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I don't. I can't recall seeing a more aggressive meltdown.

0:27:58.600 --> 0:28:02.639
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that was brutal. The Anjiboor thing is very is

0:28:02.760 --> 0:28:05.320
<v Speaker 2>very simple, which is you You had her Wimbledon last year.

0:28:05.400 --> 0:28:07.760
<v Speaker 2>She gets all the way to the finals, she loses Tobaccano,

0:28:07.840 --> 0:28:09.480
<v Speaker 2>you have thirty three to one. It was a great bit.

0:28:11.200 --> 0:28:15.520
<v Speaker 2>Anjibor has gotten to three Slam finals, I believe three.

0:28:15.640 --> 0:28:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Three Yeah, two Wimby's in the US Open last year.

0:28:18.280 --> 0:28:21.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, she's lost them all. At Wimbledon, like you said,

0:28:21.760 --> 0:28:24.159
<v Speaker 2>she had a couple matches. There was it Sablenka and

0:28:24.200 --> 0:28:28.560
<v Speaker 2>Rabakna where she was unbelievable coming from me.

0:28:28.680 --> 0:28:32.359
<v Speaker 1>Three yeah, three in a row. She she nuked Kvitova.

0:28:32.520 --> 0:28:35.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah as a dog. She came back on Rebaccna, and

0:28:35.760 --> 0:28:39.080
<v Speaker 1>she came back on Sabalanca come back and yeah, the

0:28:39.120 --> 0:28:42.680
<v Speaker 1>comebacks were highest level that we saw. Actually, the comebacks

0:28:42.720 --> 0:28:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that was the highest level I've ever seen her play tennis. Actually, yeah,

0:28:46.040 --> 0:28:48.040
<v Speaker 1>she was playing better than she played it last years before.

0:28:48.920 --> 0:28:50.720
<v Speaker 2>And the flip side of that then is then she

0:28:50.760 --> 0:28:54.000
<v Speaker 2>gets to the final and she gets just it wasn't

0:28:54.040 --> 0:28:57.840
<v Speaker 2>that she just got beat. It wasn't very difficult to tell.

0:28:59.160 --> 0:29:02.000
<v Speaker 2>It just felt like it was too much. The nerves

0:29:02.000 --> 0:29:05.000
<v Speaker 2>were just it just wasn't She wasn't never gonna win.

0:29:05.320 --> 0:29:07.600
<v Speaker 2>I mean, not taking anything away from from Vandersla, but

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:10.160
<v Speaker 2>it just I just wonder it. And I agree with

0:29:10.240 --> 0:29:13.000
<v Speaker 2>you about this Satellanca quarter, which is did you bore

0:29:13.520 --> 0:29:17.320
<v Speaker 2>it's Janction when it's Barbara Kurujikova. I guess Casakina is

0:29:17.400 --> 0:29:20.160
<v Speaker 2>probably the next best option there.

0:29:20.960 --> 0:29:24.000
<v Speaker 1>Sabalanca is like sixty to sixteen against her well, and

0:29:24.080 --> 0:29:27.480
<v Speaker 1>my numbers is just the wrong matchup for her, Like

0:29:27.760 --> 0:29:30.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, Kasakia, love her, loved love watching her play,

0:29:30.560 --> 0:29:32.760
<v Speaker 1>love seeing her construct points, loved like seeing her you

0:29:32.760 --> 0:29:36.880
<v Speaker 1>know unraveled, really good, sir, but for but Sabalanca is

0:29:36.920 --> 0:29:40.520
<v Speaker 1>exactly the wrong person to try to get through. So yeah,

0:29:40.560 --> 0:29:43.240
<v Speaker 1>I think Sablanca comes through the quarter pretty cleanly. I

0:29:43.280 --> 0:29:46.960
<v Speaker 1>like plus one twenty there, and then uh yeah, I'll

0:29:46.960 --> 0:29:49.160
<v Speaker 1>be against her in the semi finals until she proves

0:29:49.160 --> 0:29:53.320
<v Speaker 1>otherwise unless it's literally against somebody that she has no

0:29:53.440 --> 0:29:56.160
<v Speaker 1>business losing too. I mean, some of some of these

0:29:56.160 --> 0:29:58.320
<v Speaker 1>losses in the Semis for Sablanca have come at the

0:29:58.320 --> 0:30:01.440
<v Speaker 1>hands of like competent players like Eager Beater last year

0:30:01.640 --> 0:30:04.000
<v Speaker 1>in the Semis, and that was that was not fluky,

0:30:04.280 --> 0:30:06.680
<v Speaker 1>like you know, Ego was the better player ultimately, but

0:30:07.920 --> 0:30:11.240
<v Speaker 1>you know that was a super even match. So yeah,

0:30:11.320 --> 0:30:14.520
<v Speaker 1>until she really conquers that demon, I think, uh, you know,

0:30:14.560 --> 0:30:15.960
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a bet against it in the.

0:30:15.880 --> 0:30:20.880
<v Speaker 2>Semis stage of elimination. Semis when that comes down elimination

0:30:21.040 --> 0:30:21.920
<v Speaker 2>true is all about it.

0:30:22.680 --> 0:30:25.880
<v Speaker 1>Having anything better than anything better than plus two fifty

0:30:25.920 --> 0:30:27.080
<v Speaker 1>is a bet. Okay.

0:30:27.880 --> 0:30:29.360
<v Speaker 2>I'm just looking at some of these other before we

0:30:29.400 --> 0:30:31.440
<v Speaker 2>move on to the men's which is probably not going

0:30:31.480 --> 0:30:33.280
<v Speaker 2>to be nearly as fascinating. Well maybe it will be.

0:30:33.840 --> 0:30:36.440
<v Speaker 2>I'm looking at just some of the I'll use DraftKings.

0:30:36.480 --> 0:30:39.800
<v Speaker 2>What else do they have here? Not to win EGA's

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:42.840
<v Speaker 2>minus three p thirty, not to win the tournament? Uh

0:30:43.200 --> 0:30:46.720
<v Speaker 2>first time winner, Yes is minus two eighty. I guess

0:30:46.880 --> 0:30:48.000
<v Speaker 2>no is two to one. Yeah.

0:30:48.160 --> 0:30:49.880
<v Speaker 1>I meant to ask you something before we move off

0:30:49.920 --> 0:30:52.840
<v Speaker 1>them entirely yeah, do you have a thesis about the

0:30:53.080 --> 0:30:56.280
<v Speaker 1>uh the have you duty ball? Oh?

0:30:56.320 --> 0:30:58.560
<v Speaker 2>I don't know what is yours?

0:30:58.880 --> 0:31:04.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm struggling in here. Yeah it if you don't already know.

0:31:04.800 --> 0:31:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Last year they used this the regular duty balls, and

0:31:09.120 --> 0:31:11.000
<v Speaker 1>a bunch of the women complaint because they use the

0:31:11.000 --> 0:31:14.320
<v Speaker 1>heavy duty balls for the men. My guess is that

0:31:14.400 --> 0:31:17.560
<v Speaker 1>the heavy duty balls just they don't pop as much fuzz, right,

0:31:17.680 --> 0:31:22.840
<v Speaker 1>so they it's it's a little bit, it's a little tougher.

0:31:23.200 --> 0:31:25.040
<v Speaker 1>It's tougher to hit through a ball when it's when

0:31:25.080 --> 0:31:30.800
<v Speaker 1>it's like, you know, coming apart. So it should, in

0:31:30.840 --> 0:31:35.320
<v Speaker 1>my opinion, handle the more powerful players. If they're using

0:31:35.320 --> 0:31:36.200
<v Speaker 1>the heavy duty.

0:31:35.960 --> 0:31:38.520
<v Speaker 2>Ball, I should should benefit.

0:31:38.160 --> 0:31:40.480
<v Speaker 1>That should benefit that yeah if you if yeah, if

0:31:40.520 --> 0:31:43.000
<v Speaker 1>you're trying to hit through, it should help you. So

0:31:43.400 --> 0:31:47.160
<v Speaker 1>should benefit a player like Sabalanca. You should benefit a

0:31:47.160 --> 0:31:51.480
<v Speaker 1>player like IgA uh Vakna if she's got it to google,

0:31:51.480 --> 0:31:54.400
<v Speaker 1>if she's got it like it could shock out. If

0:31:54.440 --> 0:31:55.080
<v Speaker 1>that matters.

0:31:55.320 --> 0:31:57.760
<v Speaker 2>I thought, you know, I feel in the category of

0:31:57.880 --> 0:32:02.800
<v Speaker 2>all complaints, I thought last year's sort of the Sunshine

0:32:02.880 --> 0:32:04.960
<v Speaker 2>Double was it was it Indian Wells in Miami where

0:32:04.960 --> 0:32:07.320
<v Speaker 2>they used the smaller balls. Do you remember that episode.

0:32:07.440 --> 0:32:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was.

0:32:09.320 --> 0:32:12.200
<v Speaker 2>A that I agreed with like that, I'm like, why

0:32:12.200 --> 0:32:16.040
<v Speaker 2>are we doing that? I did, I mean Eagle was

0:32:16.280 --> 0:32:19.480
<v Speaker 2>she hated that? But yeah, no, I'd agree with you.

0:32:19.520 --> 0:32:21.440
<v Speaker 2>I think if anything would benefit But I don't know,

0:32:22.760 --> 0:32:25.840
<v Speaker 2>like how much I put in that when handled.

0:32:25.760 --> 0:32:28.880
<v Speaker 1>I think, I think take a player like Sabolenca, look

0:32:28.920 --> 0:32:31.240
<v Speaker 1>at some of her early round winner do cors error

0:32:31.320 --> 0:32:33.760
<v Speaker 1>ratios last year, compare them to what she looks like

0:32:33.800 --> 0:32:35.320
<v Speaker 1>in the first couple of rounds this year, and maybe

0:32:35.440 --> 0:32:38.880
<v Speaker 1>draw some conclusions. But I don't have a very strong

0:32:38.920 --> 0:32:40.720
<v Speaker 1>piece of son that. I just it's a point of

0:32:41.000 --> 0:32:43.160
<v Speaker 1>a point of note that things that that is different

0:32:43.200 --> 0:32:43.560
<v Speaker 1>this year.

0:32:44.440 --> 0:32:46.640
<v Speaker 2>One last player I just want to just for thoroughness

0:32:46.640 --> 0:32:50.680
<v Speaker 2>his sake. Sloan Stevens in twenty eighteen beat Mattie Keys

0:32:51.000 --> 0:32:54.280
<v Speaker 2>in Q three. That's Vondra Sovas. We both like Vondrosova. There.

0:32:54.440 --> 0:32:57.400
<v Speaker 2>We didn't talk beforehand. Did you put any stock in

0:32:57.400 --> 0:33:00.320
<v Speaker 2>Mattie Keys having a run good?

0:33:00.720 --> 0:33:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, surely, yeah, if she's right physically, she could. I

0:33:05.720 --> 0:33:07.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't really get what's going on with her. We

0:33:07.840 --> 0:33:10.120
<v Speaker 1>saw some highs from her at Wimbledon. Net were a

0:33:10.160 --> 0:33:14.040
<v Speaker 1>total surprise to me, and then we've seen some most sins,

0:33:14.080 --> 0:33:17.200
<v Speaker 1>so it's tough tough to really kind of pinpoint what's

0:33:17.200 --> 0:33:21.560
<v Speaker 1>going with her physically. But yeah, I'm not really not

0:33:21.640 --> 0:33:24.960
<v Speaker 1>really super excited about any of the US women where

0:33:24.960 --> 0:33:26.200
<v Speaker 1>they landed in rout this year.

0:33:26.360 --> 0:33:30.680
<v Speaker 2>DraftKings has a prop SIA tech at Sabalaca and Pagoula

0:33:30.800 --> 0:33:34.400
<v Speaker 2>versus the field minus one forty, the field is plus

0:33:34.400 --> 0:33:37.880
<v Speaker 2>one hundred. What's your instinct on that? Without having to

0:33:38.080 --> 0:33:40.120
<v Speaker 2>crunch the numbers.

0:33:40.120 --> 0:33:42.080
<v Speaker 1>I would just put that in the EGA bucket only.

0:33:42.240 --> 0:33:44.719
<v Speaker 2>Yep, my riction too, all right.

0:33:44.760 --> 0:33:47.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean we didn't really give her a ton of air.

0:33:47.560 --> 0:33:50.680
<v Speaker 1>We didn't here. But like, she won, she won toront

0:33:50.960 --> 0:33:53.440
<v Speaker 1>she won Montreal. I've heard a lot of people saying

0:33:53.480 --> 0:33:57.480
<v Speaker 1>that conditions ball blah blah blah, this is Montreal is

0:33:57.520 --> 0:34:00.360
<v Speaker 1>a very very fair analog for what to expel here

0:34:00.360 --> 0:34:02.760
<v Speaker 1>in conditions beat at Montreal.

0:34:03.960 --> 0:34:08.120
<v Speaker 2>And she won the title on the double header for Samsonova. Right, Yes,

0:34:08.200 --> 0:34:10.520
<v Speaker 2>she had to play twice in one day. By the way,

0:34:10.840 --> 0:34:12.600
<v Speaker 2>A lot of people get upset about that, but like

0:34:12.760 --> 0:34:15.920
<v Speaker 2>the way I understand that these tournaments in order to

0:34:16.160 --> 0:34:19.240
<v Speaker 2>extend it a day it cost them so much money,

0:34:19.440 --> 0:34:23.160
<v Speaker 2>so they can't when like Weatherin is involved. So essentially

0:34:23.239 --> 0:34:25.600
<v Speaker 2>Pagoula got to play a tired player later.

0:34:25.400 --> 0:34:31.600
<v Speaker 1>In the day. Yeah, it was effectively a title, Yeah exactly.

0:34:32.360 --> 0:34:34.040
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I love her and everything. I've bet on

0:34:34.120 --> 0:34:36.640
<v Speaker 2>her many many, many times over the years to to

0:34:36.719 --> 0:34:42.040
<v Speaker 2>good success. But I don't I don't see it here. Yeah,

0:34:42.800 --> 0:34:46.440
<v Speaker 2>all right, men'sa We started out by saying this one

0:34:46.480 --> 0:34:49.680
<v Speaker 2>you did agree to, which is, oh, boy, Djokovic is

0:34:49.680 --> 0:34:53.360
<v Speaker 2>in Q four, He's got, you know, an out of

0:34:53.400 --> 0:34:58.239
<v Speaker 2>for ali Asim Taylor, Fritz is in there, and then

0:34:58.280 --> 0:35:00.759
<v Speaker 2>sitz Bass plays Milos around it in the first round,

0:35:00.760 --> 0:35:03.280
<v Speaker 2>which maybe for first round matches might be the greatest

0:35:03.320 --> 0:35:05.520
<v Speaker 2>of them all, because you never know with roundage, there's

0:35:05.520 --> 0:35:08.240
<v Speaker 2>always the puncher's chance in what is his last tournament?

0:35:08.280 --> 0:35:11.480
<v Speaker 2>By the way, John Isner and roundage last tournament, right Isner?

0:35:11.520 --> 0:35:13.040
<v Speaker 2>For sure, I don't know about rounded shit. I think

0:35:13.040 --> 0:35:15.279
<v Speaker 2>it is probably.

0:35:16.880 --> 0:35:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Last tournament.

0:35:18.680 --> 0:35:20.120
<v Speaker 2>Keene Shikry, you said, what was that.

0:35:20.800 --> 0:35:22.160
<v Speaker 1>You think this might be his last torment?

0:35:22.360 --> 0:35:24.960
<v Speaker 2>I mean he hasn't. The thing is, he hasn't played

0:35:24.960 --> 0:35:27.680
<v Speaker 2>in so long, for so many at least a year now,

0:35:27.760 --> 0:35:28.560
<v Speaker 2>right where he's just.

0:35:28.480 --> 0:35:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Gotten back on it's been on weird lower level stuff. Yeah,

0:35:31.560 --> 0:35:33.120
<v Speaker 1>I kind of feel like there's a bunch of guys

0:35:33.160 --> 0:35:35.399
<v Speaker 1>who are kind of making the last run out this time. Yeah.

0:35:35.440 --> 0:35:38.279
<v Speaker 2>How about if you're John Isner, right, or rounded any

0:35:38.320 --> 0:35:41.720
<v Speaker 2>of these guys and you're like you were a spectacular

0:35:41.800 --> 0:35:45.000
<v Speaker 2>tennis player. It's like Tommy Hearns right, had the misfortune

0:35:45.000 --> 0:35:47.200
<v Speaker 2>of being born when Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard

0:35:47.280 --> 0:35:51.200
<v Speaker 2>were born, so they just sorry, John Isner, you probably

0:35:51.239 --> 0:35:53.760
<v Speaker 2>would have won a lot of tournaments, but and maybe

0:35:53.800 --> 0:35:55.880
<v Speaker 2>a slam who knows, but you were born at the

0:35:55.920 --> 0:35:58.920
<v Speaker 2>same time Djokovic and a Dald Federal or I'm sorry.

0:35:58.239 --> 0:36:00.160
<v Speaker 1>He did win a lot of tournaments. They were just

0:36:00.200 --> 0:36:01.240
<v Speaker 1>all in Atlanta.

0:36:02.920 --> 0:36:06.160
<v Speaker 2>That's right, all to fifty. His serve is not quite

0:36:06.160 --> 0:36:07.880
<v Speaker 2>what it used to be. So anyway, I just mentioned

0:36:07.920 --> 0:36:11.000
<v Speaker 2>everybody of note in Djokovic's quarter, like this is a

0:36:11.040 --> 0:36:12.600
<v Speaker 2>free pass to the summers.

0:36:13.520 --> 0:36:15.600
<v Speaker 1>It's a free pass, and actually it's a free pass

0:36:15.640 --> 0:36:24.440
<v Speaker 1>to the final because okay, there are there are four

0:36:24.520 --> 0:36:27.719
<v Speaker 1>men in this draw who have better than a five

0:36:27.719 --> 0:36:30.120
<v Speaker 1>percent chance of beating Djokovic, and they're all on the top.

0:36:30.960 --> 0:36:35.719
<v Speaker 2>Alcarez Medvedev, Sinner and demoneur.

0:36:36.000 --> 0:36:41.960
<v Speaker 1>I goes vere I was gonna yeah, and there's Verev.

0:36:42.000 --> 0:36:43.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm only giving it to him because what we saw

0:36:43.600 --> 0:36:44.680
<v Speaker 1>two years ago in that summer.

0:36:44.880 --> 0:36:48.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so let's start out.

0:36:48.239 --> 0:36:50.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, all four on the top, so he's only gonna

0:36:50.160 --> 0:36:50.879
<v Speaker 1>have to play one of them.

0:36:51.040 --> 0:36:54.719
<v Speaker 2>Alcarez, Verev and Sinner are all in Q one. By

0:36:54.760 --> 0:36:57.279
<v Speaker 2>the way, there's other like Dimitrof, Thompson, Evans, Greeks. I mean,

0:36:57.280 --> 0:36:59.720
<v Speaker 2>there's some players who had a good hardcore season, but Alcorrez,

0:36:59.840 --> 0:37:03.239
<v Speaker 2>very and Center all in Q one, Q two, for

0:37:03.400 --> 0:37:10.640
<v Speaker 2>my money, is the most competitive. Medvedev, Demonor or Cots, Barrettini, Montfee,

0:37:10.920 --> 0:37:13.919
<v Speaker 2>rube Lev, hatching Off. It's pretty good.

0:37:14.680 --> 0:37:15.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah on one.

0:37:15.640 --> 0:37:17.799
<v Speaker 2>And in Q three you're you're probably right. I mean,

0:37:18.520 --> 0:37:23.560
<v Speaker 2>Caspar Rude, he's not beating Jokevich, Tafo puncher's chance, but

0:37:23.640 --> 0:37:27.680
<v Speaker 2>you know, not really his best this year. Davidevich, Kina

0:37:27.760 --> 0:37:31.319
<v Speaker 2>all was tough, Pulgarune. He doesn't have the best hard

0:37:31.360 --> 0:37:34.759
<v Speaker 2>core numbers, by the way. Quarda and then my well,

0:37:35.200 --> 0:37:37.239
<v Speaker 2>shall I give a couple of quarter picks. I got

0:37:37.320 --> 0:37:41.359
<v Speaker 2>Tommy Paul seven to one in Q three, I.

0:37:41.280 --> 0:37:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Mean the numbers would tell you he's clearly a top

0:37:43.160 --> 0:37:45.400
<v Speaker 1>ten hard quarter right now, which I feel like defies

0:37:45.400 --> 0:37:47.680
<v Speaker 1>the eye test a little. But the numbers are what

0:37:47.719 --> 0:37:49.040
<v Speaker 1>they are, and.

0:37:49.440 --> 0:37:52.120
<v Speaker 2>I think QT I think demonor twelve to one in

0:37:52.239 --> 0:37:55.200
<v Speaker 2>Q two is worth a is worth a bet. It's

0:37:55.239 --> 0:37:57.720
<v Speaker 2>a tough quarter, but I really do based on numbers,

0:37:57.719 --> 0:37:59.680
<v Speaker 2>I think those are the best quarter bets on the board.

0:38:00.640 --> 0:38:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Well, I can't really strongly disagree the the macro view

0:38:09.239 --> 0:38:13.680
<v Speaker 1>of the men's draw is if Djokovic doesn't make the final,

0:38:13.920 --> 0:38:17.600
<v Speaker 1>it's because he's got he got defaulted for hitting a

0:38:17.600 --> 0:38:21.759
<v Speaker 1>ball girl Like that's like, that's like I think that's

0:38:21.760 --> 0:38:24.120
<v Speaker 1>just that's the scariest thing that could knock it out

0:38:24.120 --> 0:38:27.440
<v Speaker 1>of this uh this, you know, this tournament. Before the final,

0:38:28.239 --> 0:38:28.600
<v Speaker 1>we just.

0:38:28.520 --> 0:38:31.160
<v Speaker 2>Had great During the podcast. By the way, Jimmy mccaro,

0:38:31.360 --> 0:38:33.839
<v Speaker 2>Hall of Famer, welcome the podcast. He didn't have much

0:38:33.840 --> 0:38:35.480
<v Speaker 2>to say about tennis. I just have to play that out,

0:38:36.920 --> 0:38:37.520
<v Speaker 2>Hall of Famer.

0:38:38.920 --> 0:38:42.200
<v Speaker 1>I so I guess I'm not even really being glib.

0:38:42.360 --> 0:38:44.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't think anyone on the bottom half of the

0:38:44.480 --> 0:38:48.480
<v Speaker 1>draw realistically has a chance to beat Jokovic. This includes

0:38:48.520 --> 0:38:52.280
<v Speaker 1>this pass. This includes Rune and you know, the rune

0:38:52.840 --> 0:38:54.400
<v Speaker 1>part of the story is a tough one for me

0:38:54.440 --> 0:38:57.400
<v Speaker 1>because I have a bunch of dead runee tickets. I remember, basically,

0:38:57.640 --> 0:39:01.000
<v Speaker 1>I've greeted him. I've greated him in pens greeted him

0:39:01.000 --> 0:39:01.759
<v Speaker 1>in pencil at.

0:39:01.640 --> 0:39:03.719
<v Speaker 2>Bel What month did you bet those? You bet them

0:39:03.760 --> 0:39:04.560
<v Speaker 2>early in the.

0:39:04.640 --> 0:39:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Year, jure, it was a while ago because I figured

0:39:09.520 --> 0:39:11.240
<v Speaker 1>I figured he was going to have his and lows

0:39:11.280 --> 0:39:13.400
<v Speaker 1>and do well in the mass you know, do all

0:39:13.480 --> 0:39:16.000
<v Speaker 1>the Masters, but you know, kind of struggle at the

0:39:16.040 --> 0:39:18.560
<v Speaker 1>Slam level, figure out best of five as we went

0:39:18.600 --> 0:39:21.680
<v Speaker 1>through the season, and you know, maybev peaking when everyone

0:39:21.680 --> 0:39:23.759
<v Speaker 1>else was gassed when we got to the you know,

0:39:23.800 --> 0:39:26.200
<v Speaker 1>the US Open. But it did not play out that way.

0:39:26.239 --> 0:39:28.840
<v Speaker 1>He went deep into the French Open, he went deep

0:39:28.920 --> 0:39:32.960
<v Speaker 1>into Wimbledon. He really really really kind of fired all

0:39:33.000 --> 0:39:34.799
<v Speaker 1>of his bullets in the spring and summer, and he

0:39:34.920 --> 0:39:38.080
<v Speaker 1>is a limpid right now. And you know when he

0:39:38.160 --> 0:39:41.120
<v Speaker 1>won Paris last year is his breakout tournament that was

0:39:41.360 --> 0:39:43.520
<v Speaker 1>it was a Masters. It's worth It's at the end

0:39:43.520 --> 0:39:45.560
<v Speaker 1>of the season, so people kind of forget about it.

0:39:46.560 --> 0:39:48.799
<v Speaker 1>I think Jack Sock won one year, or you know,

0:39:49.880 --> 0:39:52.080
<v Speaker 1>Jack Sock made it one. Yeah, Jack Sock might have

0:39:52.120 --> 0:39:55.840
<v Speaker 1>won it one year. I feel like Philip Kravinovit Kredenovich

0:39:56.120 --> 0:39:58.520
<v Speaker 1>went to the finals one year there, like Paris has

0:39:58.560 --> 0:40:02.160
<v Speaker 1>some weird results, but the Rune result was special because

0:40:02.200 --> 0:40:04.400
<v Speaker 1>he beat Djokovic head to head in that final, and

0:40:04.440 --> 0:40:07.400
<v Speaker 1>it was like, oh my god, like he's got that level.

0:40:07.480 --> 0:40:10.919
<v Speaker 1>That's awesome. Like Djokovic was super informed and he beat

0:40:10.960 --> 0:40:13.719
<v Speaker 1>him head to head, and so you have that kind

0:40:13.719 --> 0:40:16.800
<v Speaker 1>of mental ammunition. You're you're you're gonna win a Slam

0:40:16.800 --> 0:40:20.000
<v Speaker 1>one day, and you know, I kind of assumed that

0:40:20.640 --> 0:40:22.880
<v Speaker 1>it would be a summer of back and forth battles

0:40:22.920 --> 0:40:25.520
<v Speaker 1>between Djokovic and Outkraz, and those two might be, you know,

0:40:25.640 --> 0:40:28.880
<v Speaker 1>take enough damage that Rune could sneak you know, an early,

0:40:29.000 --> 0:40:31.719
<v Speaker 1>an earlyish title, because sometimes the US Open is a

0:40:32.160 --> 0:40:35.440
<v Speaker 1>debutante type of experience. You know, it was it was

0:40:35.480 --> 0:40:38.000
<v Speaker 1>for Medvedev, it was for al Kraz last year, it

0:40:38.080 --> 0:40:41.120
<v Speaker 1>was for a team finally getting his first title, and

0:40:41.440 --> 0:40:44.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, like you know, you know, there there is

0:40:44.080 --> 0:40:46.600
<v Speaker 1>a whiff of that. But the problem is Djokovic just

0:40:46.640 --> 0:40:49.080
<v Speaker 1>hasn't played very much tennis this year, right, Like he

0:40:49.239 --> 0:40:53.400
<v Speaker 1>is way way way later load to this point of

0:40:53.440 --> 0:40:55.680
<v Speaker 1>the season than he normally would be, and I think

0:40:55.760 --> 0:40:58.479
<v Speaker 1>that matters. I think that because some of his US

0:40:58.520 --> 0:41:00.960
<v Speaker 1>Open results over the balance of his career are the

0:41:01.040 --> 0:41:05.360
<v Speaker 1>least impressive of the slams, which doesn't entirely make sense,

0:41:05.360 --> 0:41:08.160
<v Speaker 1>but you know, you know, he doesn't do especially well

0:41:08.160 --> 0:41:11.480
<v Speaker 1>in humidity, he doesn't do especially well in daytime matches

0:41:11.480 --> 0:41:13.959
<v Speaker 1>in community and oh, by the way, they play the

0:41:13.960 --> 0:41:17.919
<v Speaker 1>men's final in the day, in the heat of the day, and.

0:41:18.040 --> 0:41:20.400
<v Speaker 2>It looks like he was going to collapse in that

0:41:20.480 --> 0:41:22.200
<v Speaker 2>match against Alcarez in Cincinnati.

0:41:22.640 --> 0:41:24.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah he did. It's not he doesn't. He does not

0:41:25.320 --> 0:41:28.480
<v Speaker 1>perform especially well physically in these conditions. So he's got that.

0:41:28.840 --> 0:41:31.759
<v Speaker 1>He's got to overcome that, truly. But you know, just

0:41:31.800 --> 0:41:34.240
<v Speaker 1>the fact that he hasn't really fired as many bolts

0:41:34.280 --> 0:41:38.799
<v Speaker 1>this year, I think matters. And Brune, on the other hand,

0:41:38.880 --> 0:41:42.600
<v Speaker 1>is just absolutely on fumes. Now. If Rune like surprises

0:41:42.680 --> 0:41:45.040
<v Speaker 1>and makes a run here, like, I'll be happy for him.

0:41:45.160 --> 0:41:46.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I would like to see him kind of

0:41:46.920 --> 0:41:49.160
<v Speaker 1>get to the level of an alcoraz And and you know,

0:41:49.280 --> 0:41:52.759
<v Speaker 1>give us a real deal rivalry at the Slam level

0:41:52.760 --> 0:41:56.160
<v Speaker 1>for the next generation. But it doesn't. I feel like

0:41:56.200 --> 0:42:00.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm a year early there maybe and then Rude. I mean,

0:42:01.280 --> 0:42:04.640
<v Speaker 1>if you have Rude Djokovic semi final, I probably lay

0:42:04.680 --> 0:42:08.360
<v Speaker 1>five hundred on Djokovic without really blinking if we have

0:42:09.480 --> 0:42:11.879
<v Speaker 1>who and and like the other guys in that, Yeah,

0:42:11.920 --> 0:42:14.359
<v Speaker 1>Tommy Paul is absolutely live to come through Q three.

0:42:15.840 --> 0:42:22.279
<v Speaker 1>I suppose is always gives sure a little bit. Yeah,

0:42:22.280 --> 0:42:24.399
<v Speaker 1>he's he's he's a tough, tough, tough out.

0:42:24.440 --> 0:42:26.880
<v Speaker 2>But I don't believe. I don't believe in Quorda.

0:42:27.760 --> 0:42:30.399
<v Speaker 1>Okay, Okay, I don't. I didn't. I'm not gonna bet him,

0:42:30.400 --> 0:42:33.399
<v Speaker 1>but you know, who knows what you're gonna get with him.

0:42:33.480 --> 0:42:36.880
<v Speaker 1>But the because his highs are high, the so I

0:42:36.880 --> 0:42:40.600
<v Speaker 1>think ultimately the you know, the path for Djokovic out

0:42:40.640 --> 0:42:44.000
<v Speaker 1>of Q four is very straightforward path to the final

0:42:44.200 --> 0:42:46.200
<v Speaker 1>in that you know, whoever comes out of Q three

0:42:46.280 --> 0:42:50.520
<v Speaker 1>is very straightforward and the opposite from Again, from a

0:42:50.560 --> 0:42:54.680
<v Speaker 1>macro standpoint, I don't think you could have given al

0:42:54.800 --> 0:43:00.000
<v Speaker 1>kas a worse stretch to get there. It really, it's bad,

0:43:00.280 --> 0:43:03.839
<v Speaker 1>it's crazy crazy. Tilted in favor of Djokovic in terms

0:43:03.880 --> 0:43:07.560
<v Speaker 1>of path, al Kraaz's path includes Dan Evans who won

0:43:07.840 --> 0:43:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Washington in round three. I don't think Dan is live.

0:43:12.600 --> 0:43:15.120
<v Speaker 2>He was like he's gonna be and yeah, he's amazing

0:43:15.120 --> 0:43:15.680
<v Speaker 2>in Washington.

0:43:16.760 --> 0:43:21.799
<v Speaker 1>His Yeah, his path includes Scam Nori who beat him

0:43:21.800 --> 0:43:25.200
<v Speaker 1>in Rio and in just In just in general can

0:43:25.520 --> 0:43:28.680
<v Speaker 1>even if Scam does not win that match, he could

0:43:28.719 --> 0:43:32.439
<v Speaker 1>make it go five hours. That's what he does. So, uh,

0:43:32.480 --> 0:43:34.279
<v Speaker 1>you know he's going to potentially do a little bit

0:43:34.320 --> 0:43:35.879
<v Speaker 1>of damage and then you got to play the winner

0:43:35.880 --> 0:43:40.959
<v Speaker 1>of potentially Zverev sinner. Sinner plays Aucraz tough, probably should

0:43:41.000 --> 0:43:43.880
<v Speaker 1>have beat him last year in the quarterfinal. I think

0:43:43.920 --> 0:43:47.000
<v Speaker 1>they played that was effectively that the facto final last

0:43:47.040 --> 0:43:50.880
<v Speaker 1>year at the US Open. Sinner's tough, Zaverev is tough.

0:43:51.320 --> 0:43:54.440
<v Speaker 1>I've seen enough from Zverev in this run since his

0:43:54.480 --> 0:43:57.879
<v Speaker 1>French Open semi that I think he's I think he's

0:43:57.920 --> 0:44:01.880
<v Speaker 1>as bad as he's going to be. And the best

0:44:01.920 --> 0:44:04.279
<v Speaker 1>he ever played was his US Open run where he

0:44:04.360 --> 0:44:08.520
<v Speaker 1>almost beat Djokovic in the semi finals, came oh so

0:44:08.719 --> 0:44:12.839
<v Speaker 1>close two years ago, and if that guy shows up,

0:44:12.880 --> 0:44:15.640
<v Speaker 1>he could definitely beat Alcarez. In my opinion, I don't

0:44:15.719 --> 0:44:17.600
<v Speaker 1>know that there is enough of a gap between those

0:44:17.600 --> 0:44:20.879
<v Speaker 1>players to say Alcaz should be better and bigger than

0:44:20.960 --> 0:44:25.480
<v Speaker 1>like minus two hundred in that match. And uh, and

0:44:25.520 --> 0:44:27.359
<v Speaker 1>so it's going to be tough for Alcarez to get

0:44:27.400 --> 0:44:31.440
<v Speaker 1>out of Q one. Presumably. I guess Medvedev is your

0:44:31.440 --> 0:44:34.719
<v Speaker 1>favorite in Q two. I don't have a strong read

0:44:34.920 --> 0:44:36.399
<v Speaker 1>Q two. And what's going on with him?

0:44:36.480 --> 0:44:40.840
<v Speaker 2>Yact, Yeah, Medvedev would surprise me earlier. It wouldn't surprise

0:44:40.920 --> 0:44:42.799
<v Speaker 2>me whatever happens with him. I could see him winning

0:44:42.800 --> 0:44:44.840
<v Speaker 2>the court. But that that court, I'm curious who you

0:44:45.000 --> 0:44:49.400
<v Speaker 2>like here Medvedev? Uh, the Drapers, yaris per cells of

0:44:49.440 --> 0:44:52.239
<v Speaker 2>the world, all who have you know have have can

0:44:52.320 --> 0:44:55.320
<v Speaker 2>be a little bit fright demonnor or cotts beryt tiny

0:44:55.320 --> 0:44:58.879
<v Speaker 2>who had his best would be trouble mown Fie at

0:44:58.880 --> 0:45:04.600
<v Speaker 2>his best is trouble, rube lev Coorich hatching up. I

0:45:04.600 --> 0:45:08.359
<v Speaker 2>mean that that quarter is super state. Let me what

0:45:08.560 --> 0:45:10.640
<v Speaker 2>is your point about al Khorre If you had to say,

0:45:10.640 --> 0:45:15.000
<v Speaker 2>the best five hard court players in the world right now, Djokovicalkores,

0:45:15.040 --> 0:45:17.399
<v Speaker 2>whichever order you want to put him in, Medvedev three,

0:45:17.640 --> 0:45:20.680
<v Speaker 2>Sinner four. Who am I missing in the top five?

0:45:23.239 --> 0:45:24.840
<v Speaker 1>I think Zarah at current four.

0:45:24.800 --> 0:45:27.360
<v Speaker 2>Probably point being all the other four are all.

0:45:27.239 --> 0:45:32.520
<v Speaker 1>Up in the top. Yeah, yeah, right, Yright and and Zvere.

0:45:32.719 --> 0:45:35.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm cud a sinner is only going to

0:45:35.160 --> 0:45:38.160
<v Speaker 1>have to play probably he's only going to have to

0:45:38.160 --> 0:45:42.960
<v Speaker 1>play one. He may play two of them. Alcrazy may

0:45:43.000 --> 0:45:49.759
<v Speaker 1>play two the but you know Medvedev uh when I

0:45:50.040 --> 0:45:53.080
<v Speaker 1>usually when you see a quarter and medvedevs in there,

0:45:53.200 --> 0:45:55.560
<v Speaker 1>my initial reaction as well, who's on the bottom of

0:45:55.600 --> 0:46:00.600
<v Speaker 1>that quarter and it's his little brother Vera. Yeah like

0:46:00.680 --> 0:46:04.040
<v Speaker 1>that that big brother little brother relationship. I don't think

0:46:04.200 --> 0:46:10.800
<v Speaker 1>is over. So sorry, Rube Love maybe another year. He definitely,

0:46:11.040 --> 0:46:13.560
<v Speaker 1>he's still really needs he can't get over the quarterfinal

0:46:13.800 --> 0:46:18.120
<v Speaker 1>to save his life. And and I think your point

0:46:18.200 --> 0:46:21.320
<v Speaker 1>is fair where all of the kind of dark horses

0:46:21.400 --> 0:46:24.800
<v Speaker 1>all landed in Q two. You mentioned her catch he

0:46:25.719 --> 0:46:29.560
<v Speaker 1>he I don't. I don't think he should have beaten outcast,

0:46:29.640 --> 0:46:33.120
<v Speaker 1>but he was there, He was there.

0:46:33.280 --> 0:46:35.959
<v Speaker 2>His serf in that tournament was unbelievable. I mean about

0:46:35.960 --> 0:46:39.160
<v Speaker 2>Alcarez because this is related to that. Alcarez has played

0:46:39.400 --> 0:46:44.160
<v Speaker 2>a lot of tough matches where guys have really pushed him,

0:46:44.160 --> 0:46:47.360
<v Speaker 2>and he ends up winning almost all of them, except

0:46:47.360 --> 0:46:51.000
<v Speaker 2>for the Djokovic one. But does that like give you

0:46:51.040 --> 0:46:53.240
<v Speaker 2>a little bit of pause with him where you're like, Okay,

0:46:53.239 --> 0:46:57.040
<v Speaker 2>you're not exactly crushing people at this point, no question.

0:46:57.520 --> 0:46:59.960
<v Speaker 1>But it's not about the not rushing people. It's much

0:47:00.080 --> 0:47:04.200
<v Speaker 1>more about your your effectively electively taking damage.

0:47:04.800 --> 0:47:07.680
<v Speaker 2>You're accumulating your fatigue.

0:47:07.719 --> 0:47:11.240
<v Speaker 1>What are you doing? Yeah, yeah, why don't accumulate this fatigue?

0:47:11.920 --> 0:47:15.720
<v Speaker 1>Win these matches and straits and preserve your best stuff

0:47:15.719 --> 0:47:17.759
<v Speaker 1>for when it matters most like that should be the

0:47:18.080 --> 0:47:24.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, the mental calculus. And he'll get there. Surely

0:47:24.360 --> 0:47:27.799
<v Speaker 1>he's young enough that maybe it doesn't matter as much

0:47:27.840 --> 0:47:29.400
<v Speaker 1>for him as it would for a player who was

0:47:29.440 --> 0:47:33.839
<v Speaker 1>in their later twenties or thirties. But considering the fact

0:47:33.920 --> 0:47:36.480
<v Speaker 1>that now two out of the three most high profile

0:47:36.560 --> 0:47:40.360
<v Speaker 1>matches he's played this year, he's basically failed physically, I

0:47:40.400 --> 0:47:46.200
<v Speaker 1>would say that a something he should have higher, you

0:47:46.239 --> 0:47:51.120
<v Speaker 1>know more, more priority on not taking this fatigue. You

0:47:51.160 --> 0:47:54.600
<v Speaker 1>should have you know more, And and I think coming

0:47:54.600 --> 0:47:58.160
<v Speaker 1>into this tournament Alcarez a week ago before, before they

0:47:58.200 --> 0:48:00.520
<v Speaker 1>played the Cincinnati Final, he was the favorite here in

0:48:00.560 --> 0:48:02.520
<v Speaker 1>the US Open. I think we might have even talked

0:48:02.520 --> 0:48:08.240
<v Speaker 1>about it in your show. But Wendre and the thesis

0:48:08.360 --> 0:48:11.960
<v Speaker 1>was like, okay, like he's playing too much like Djokovic.

0:48:12.000 --> 0:48:13.560
<v Speaker 1>If he's a dog in the head to head is

0:48:13.560 --> 0:48:16.239
<v Speaker 1>the bed like this is? This is going to be

0:48:16.320 --> 0:48:19.760
<v Speaker 1>pretty straightforward. I don't think there's any way Djokovic closes

0:48:19.760 --> 0:48:24.000
<v Speaker 1>his dog in a final against outcrast now, not considering

0:48:24.000 --> 0:48:26.480
<v Speaker 1>what he's going to go through to get there, not considering,

0:48:26.680 --> 0:48:29.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, what happened in Cincinnati, and not considering how

0:48:29.080 --> 0:48:31.360
<v Speaker 1>much more Tennessee's played in this hard court swing. So

0:48:32.719 --> 0:48:35.520
<v Speaker 1>Outcras winning this tournament would genuinely surprise me.

0:48:36.080 --> 0:48:38.839
<v Speaker 2>So if we have, we just sort of talked ourselves

0:48:38.920 --> 0:48:42.080
<v Speaker 2>into a plus. I mean again, you can't mean plus

0:48:42.080 --> 0:48:43.560
<v Speaker 2>one twenty five is not good enough. I guess on

0:48:43.640 --> 0:48:46.120
<v Speaker 2>Djokovic to win the tournament, but it ain't terrible.

0:48:47.680 --> 0:48:51.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean, like I have to math it out

0:48:51.040 --> 0:48:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a little bit, I guess. But but two, there's value

0:48:56.400 --> 0:49:00.719
<v Speaker 1>in Djokovic in pocket in two ways. One is al

0:49:00.800 --> 0:49:06.799
<v Speaker 1>Krez gets popped, which he could, And one is Djokovic

0:49:06.920 --> 0:49:08.840
<v Speaker 1>is just going to close like minus one fifty against

0:49:08.880 --> 0:49:09.759
<v Speaker 1>him in the final.

0:49:09.920 --> 0:49:11.840
<v Speaker 2>And Djokovic will have no tread on the tire and

0:49:11.840 --> 0:49:12.560
<v Speaker 2>Alchorrez will.

0:49:12.440 --> 0:49:14.960
<v Speaker 1>Have tens of it correct, correct.

0:49:14.680 --> 0:49:19.600
<v Speaker 2>Correct correct right ergo the minus one fifty, So I yeah,

0:49:19.719 --> 0:49:23.279
<v Speaker 2>I mean this couldn't have broken better for Djokovic. Could not.

0:49:23.360 --> 0:49:28.080
<v Speaker 1>I really couldn't. There's whiffs of there's there's whiffs of uh,

0:49:28.320 --> 0:49:31.279
<v Speaker 1>this is maybe the last one where he beats Southcres.

0:49:32.920 --> 0:49:35.920
<v Speaker 2>It would also be twenty four for him from time Margaret,

0:49:37.040 --> 0:49:40.839
<v Speaker 2>Yeah right, but yeah, I mean he's got that way.

0:49:40.960 --> 0:49:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, there's whips.

0:49:42.360 --> 0:49:44.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah that that did have that Cincinnati final did have

0:49:44.920 --> 0:49:46.880
<v Speaker 2>a little thriller in Manila to it.

0:49:47.719 --> 0:49:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Yes, great call, yes, which was exactly Ali.

0:49:51.760 --> 0:49:55.279
<v Speaker 2>Ali won, but he knew in the corner, this is

0:49:55.360 --> 0:49:57.080
<v Speaker 2>the end of the greatness.

0:49:57.360 --> 0:50:00.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this was it. And I I if the draw

0:50:01.080 --> 0:50:03.799
<v Speaker 1>wasn't the way, it wasn't stacked in his favor, I

0:50:03.800 --> 0:50:06.440
<v Speaker 1>don't know that I would be saying this with such sincerity,

0:50:06.480 --> 0:50:10.640
<v Speaker 1>but I think he wins this US Open, and I

0:50:10.680 --> 0:50:13.680
<v Speaker 1>think this I'm not saying that this is it, like

0:50:13.760 --> 0:50:16.279
<v Speaker 1>he certainly could win the next year. He certainly could.

0:50:16.280 --> 0:50:19.080
<v Speaker 1>He's you know, we still have no idea if Alcarez

0:50:19.080 --> 0:50:21.680
<v Speaker 1>has the goods to win on the speed, speedy courts

0:50:21.719 --> 0:50:25.920
<v Speaker 1>in Australia. But yeah, I think, I mean, you know

0:50:26.400 --> 0:50:30.040
<v Speaker 1>the crossover was this year, right, Yeah, Alcaraz on the

0:50:30.040 --> 0:50:34.280
<v Speaker 1>way up, on the way down. And what happens next

0:50:34.400 --> 0:50:37.879
<v Speaker 1>is alcaz is minus two hundred every time the play,

0:50:38.440 --> 0:50:43.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, so it's it's this is it thought. He's

0:50:43.520 --> 0:50:44.600
<v Speaker 1>got to recognize that too.

0:50:45.200 --> 0:50:46.799
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure he does, though, I mean I can I'll

0:50:46.800 --> 0:50:48.440
<v Speaker 2>cite the Agacy book again. I mean when you read

0:50:48.480 --> 0:50:50.200
<v Speaker 2>so when you read about a guy's career like that,

0:50:50.239 --> 0:50:53.000
<v Speaker 2>where you just when he gives you a window into

0:50:53.040 --> 0:50:55.799
<v Speaker 2>his mind every not only every tournament, but every match

0:50:55.800 --> 0:50:58.719
<v Speaker 2>where his head was with Brooks Shields, where it was

0:50:58.760 --> 0:51:02.000
<v Speaker 2>with you know, Deffie Groff, like all this, all the

0:51:02.040 --> 0:51:04.040
<v Speaker 2>things that are going on in his life and how

0:51:04.440 --> 0:51:08.399
<v Speaker 2>as it better. We would never have had any idea, right,

0:51:08.440 --> 0:51:11.240
<v Speaker 2>we would never have been able to know the intangibles.

0:51:11.760 --> 0:51:14.600
<v Speaker 2>But with a guy like Djokovic, you kind of know

0:51:14.640 --> 0:51:17.520
<v Speaker 2>you're getting it every time the best. There's there's no

0:51:17.680 --> 0:51:20.919
<v Speaker 2>Djokovic being distracted right at this point, So at least

0:51:20.920 --> 0:51:22.480
<v Speaker 2>we have that going for you. Now your point is

0:51:22.520 --> 0:51:26.160
<v Speaker 2>still well taken. I mean, Novak Djokovic is. And we'll

0:51:26.160 --> 0:51:28.280
<v Speaker 2>get the up to the up to the day age.

0:51:28.360 --> 0:51:32.080
<v Speaker 2>Right here, he's thirty six years old. Thirty six years old.

0:51:32.600 --> 0:51:34.920
<v Speaker 2>He turned thirty six in May. Who was it?

0:51:34.960 --> 0:51:35.200
<v Speaker 1>Was it?

0:51:35.400 --> 0:51:37.080
<v Speaker 2>I can't remember. I'll forgive me for I don't remember

0:51:37.080 --> 0:51:41.200
<v Speaker 2>who said this on Twitter, but during that match he

0:51:41.320 --> 0:51:43.120
<v Speaker 2>pointed out, he goes the best tennis players in the world,

0:51:43.200 --> 0:51:44.879
<v Speaker 2>The best two tennis players in the world are thirty

0:51:44.880 --> 0:51:49.799
<v Speaker 2>six and twenty like that thing about how right, that's nothing.

0:51:50.239 --> 0:51:52.840
<v Speaker 2>Shouldn't be that way, shouldn't be that way sports avant.

0:51:52.880 --> 0:51:54.000
<v Speaker 2>I want to say it was who said that?

0:51:54.280 --> 0:51:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that sounds right.

0:51:55.120 --> 0:51:58.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, thirty six and twenty and uh, you know Veederer

0:51:58.239 --> 0:52:01.799
<v Speaker 2>is gone, Nadal's about to be gone on and you know,

0:52:02.040 --> 0:52:04.480
<v Speaker 2>only amount of time joke which we will see. Like

0:52:04.600 --> 0:52:07.720
<v Speaker 2>in other words, unlike with Ega, where the path cleared

0:52:07.760 --> 0:52:09.399
<v Speaker 2>for her with with Ash Barty and as you said,

0:52:09.440 --> 0:52:12.080
<v Speaker 2>Naomi was sucking. Anyone was talking who won four slams herself?

0:52:12.120 --> 0:52:14.719
<v Speaker 2>Like Ego's just tied with Naomi. That's amazing to think

0:52:14.719 --> 0:52:17.960
<v Speaker 2>about it that way. This would be, you know, who

0:52:18.000 --> 0:52:21.239
<v Speaker 2>would be the one to challenge Alcarez moving forward? I

0:52:21.280 --> 0:52:25.680
<v Speaker 2>don't know who I would rune. I guess I even.

0:52:25.560 --> 0:52:27.520
<v Speaker 1>Want to go with the well, yeah, I mean I

0:52:27.520 --> 0:52:32.360
<v Speaker 1>think we're expecting that at some point Center doesn't mentally go.

0:52:32.840 --> 0:52:35.719
<v Speaker 1>We're expecting that at some point Rune gets a little

0:52:35.760 --> 0:52:39.000
<v Speaker 1>bit more physically rote Busto. Yeah, and if either of

0:52:39.080 --> 0:52:41.000
<v Speaker 1>those two things happens, then you got a three way

0:52:41.080 --> 0:52:43.160
<v Speaker 1>race like the old Big Three, which would be exciting.

0:52:43.200 --> 0:52:45.440
<v Speaker 1>I think that's what men's tennis wants. That's what I

0:52:45.480 --> 0:52:48.600
<v Speaker 1>want to I would love to have a little rotating

0:52:48.680 --> 0:52:50.200
<v Speaker 1>route where you're trying to figure out who's the best

0:52:50.200 --> 0:52:52.360
<v Speaker 1>on which surface between those guys. That would be awesome.

0:52:53.160 --> 0:52:55.719
<v Speaker 1>Alcarez probably is the best of those players, but there

0:52:55.800 --> 0:52:58.040
<v Speaker 1>may be surface specific ways that other guys can get

0:52:58.080 --> 0:53:01.759
<v Speaker 1>an edge on it. That'd be awesome. I think. I

0:53:01.840 --> 0:53:05.719
<v Speaker 1>think the analog is going back to the women's side,

0:53:05.840 --> 0:53:10.040
<v Speaker 1>is like Osaka took the ground from Serena and that

0:53:10.160 --> 0:53:15.960
<v Speaker 1>was it. Serena realistically didn't have another shot at the

0:53:16.000 --> 0:53:20.640
<v Speaker 1>Slam in her after that from what I remember, And

0:53:20.760 --> 0:53:23.719
<v Speaker 1>I think that is, you know, we're close to there

0:53:23.880 --> 0:53:27.759
<v Speaker 1>for this rivalry between Djokovic and alcaz And it's been

0:53:27.800 --> 0:53:30.640
<v Speaker 1>a really special year of tennis because of the fact

0:53:30.640 --> 0:53:35.280
<v Speaker 1>that these two have been so like like objectively close

0:53:35.520 --> 0:53:40.680
<v Speaker 1>in my talent and it's because of the perfect crossover

0:53:40.760 --> 0:53:45.000
<v Speaker 1>of you know, Djokovic coming off peak and Alcarez approaching

0:53:45.400 --> 0:53:49.799
<v Speaker 1>and uh, you know, the leveling factors were just experience

0:53:49.960 --> 0:53:55.000
<v Speaker 1>and you know, conditioning, and you know, I think reflecting

0:53:55.040 --> 0:53:57.880
<v Speaker 1>on the French Open, I'm glad I was where I

0:53:58.000 --> 0:54:02.120
<v Speaker 1>was market wise, but it was it's even more clear

0:54:02.200 --> 0:54:05.640
<v Speaker 1>now that that was just a tactical war and the

0:54:05.760 --> 0:54:09.360
<v Speaker 1>experience should have been the factor that you know mattered

0:54:09.440 --> 0:54:13.600
<v Speaker 1>the most, much more than you know, ability, shot making comfortable,

0:54:13.840 --> 0:54:16.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, surface We named it like that was that

0:54:16.719 --> 0:54:21.279
<v Speaker 1>was just a tactical war. And that same advantage wasn't

0:54:21.280 --> 0:54:24.719
<v Speaker 1>there at Wimbledon because Djokovic just had didn't have enough,

0:54:25.120 --> 0:54:28.120
<v Speaker 1>didn't have enough information on what Alcras on grass was

0:54:29.080 --> 0:54:32.960
<v Speaker 1>and Autumn by surprise to a degree, and I think,

0:54:34.840 --> 0:54:37.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, the hard core data that I've got and

0:54:38.040 --> 0:54:41.319
<v Speaker 1>the feeling that I've got, you know, kind of handicapping

0:54:41.360 --> 0:54:44.920
<v Speaker 1>these players, says Djokovic wins this head to head if

0:54:44.920 --> 0:54:48.840
<v Speaker 1>it gets there in a let's pretend all of this,

0:54:49.640 --> 0:54:51.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, this fan fare about how how much harder

0:54:51.800 --> 0:54:57.920
<v Speaker 1>alcas path is does not materialize, saverev gets popped, Center

0:54:58.280 --> 0:55:01.320
<v Speaker 1>crashes out to an ultimate iron type of player around

0:55:01.400 --> 0:55:05.960
<v Speaker 1>two and and and you know some some you know

0:55:06.200 --> 0:55:10.880
<v Speaker 1>somebody that's that's true. Surprise wins Q two and al

0:55:10.960 --> 0:55:15.080
<v Speaker 1>Kraz's path is just as plain as Djokovic is in

0:55:15.160 --> 0:55:19.160
<v Speaker 1>that neutral handicap. I still think I'm laying price with

0:55:19.200 --> 0:55:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Djokovic because for whatever reason Alcrez does not. He's he's

0:55:25.160 --> 0:55:29.640
<v Speaker 1>a little bit too aggressive still in terms of trying

0:55:29.680 --> 0:55:33.200
<v Speaker 1>to force a point, trying to like trying to end

0:55:33.239 --> 0:55:36.440
<v Speaker 1>a point, and you can't play that way against Djokovic,

0:55:36.560 --> 0:55:38.799
<v Speaker 1>and he needs to learn that the hard way. And

0:55:39.400 --> 0:55:41.800
<v Speaker 1>Cincinnati was probably part one, and I feel like a

0:55:41.920 --> 0:55:45.640
<v Speaker 1>US Open final is probably part two, and maybe it

0:55:45.680 --> 0:55:47.880
<v Speaker 1>gets he finally gets solved by the family, get to

0:55:47.920 --> 0:55:50.960
<v Speaker 1>Australia or maybe it's next to us, but I don't know.

0:55:51.000 --> 0:55:53.800
<v Speaker 1>It could be longer, I guess. But to a degree,

0:55:53.920 --> 0:55:57.160
<v Speaker 1>trying to play that way against Djokovic is asking for trouble,

0:55:58.160 --> 0:56:02.000
<v Speaker 1>and Alcarez plays that way against everybody too. Like, I

0:56:02.040 --> 0:56:04.640
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's an accident that he's gone like three

0:56:04.680 --> 0:56:06.920
<v Speaker 1>sets against Max Pursoll. Yeah, I don't think it's an

0:56:07.000 --> 0:56:10.480
<v Speaker 1>accident that he's like losing to you know, Hubert Hubert

0:56:10.600 --> 0:56:12.640
<v Speaker 1>or catch right like this.

0:56:12.600 --> 0:56:15.440
<v Speaker 2>Is this is a great point, Dre, this is this

0:56:15.560 --> 0:56:18.200
<v Speaker 2>is Brugain. I didn't expect to talk about this three

0:56:18.200 --> 0:56:22.040
<v Speaker 2>different times. But Brad Gilbert's biggest advice to Andre Agassy

0:56:22.680 --> 0:56:25.160
<v Speaker 2>as his coach, which led him one could argue Brad

0:56:25.200 --> 0:56:27.240
<v Speaker 2>Gilbert was with him or seven out of his eight slams,

0:56:27.360 --> 0:56:31.440
<v Speaker 2>was Andre, you don't have to be perfect on every point.

0:56:32.080 --> 0:56:35.200
<v Speaker 2>Let your opponent lose the point. And this was his

0:56:35.360 --> 0:56:38.839
<v Speaker 2>biggest revelation. Like, Agassi's mind was blown by this because

0:56:38.880 --> 0:56:40.560
<v Speaker 2>up until that point in his life, no one had

0:56:40.600 --> 0:56:42.919
<v Speaker 2>ever said that to him before. And there's a little

0:56:42.960 --> 0:56:44.000
<v Speaker 2>bit of that with Alcarez.

0:56:44.320 --> 0:56:47.560
<v Speaker 1>You're right, yeah, yeah, a little bit and like and

0:56:47.680 --> 0:56:50.400
<v Speaker 1>actually I may be reaching here, then we may be

0:56:50.600 --> 0:56:53.719
<v Speaker 1>too far down narrative street. But uh, it felt like

0:56:54.000 --> 0:56:57.799
<v Speaker 1>he could have maybe reinforced that lesson the wrong way

0:56:57.840 --> 0:57:03.000
<v Speaker 1>with level, you know, like he won he won that

0:57:03.040 --> 0:57:05.520
<v Speaker 1>wimble To match because he was making shots that we

0:57:05.640 --> 0:57:08.319
<v Speaker 1>haven't seen tennis player making right as long as I

0:57:08.320 --> 0:57:11.520
<v Speaker 1>can remember. And he did a little bit of that

0:57:11.600 --> 0:57:15.000
<v Speaker 1>in Cincinnati too, But he had to really, really really

0:57:15.040 --> 0:57:18.240
<v Speaker 1>work hard to make those and it's tough, it's a

0:57:18.240 --> 0:57:21.160
<v Speaker 1>tough way to live. It's tough way to be. You're gonna,

0:57:21.200 --> 0:57:24.360
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna, you're gonna induce a physical strength, you know,

0:57:25.000 --> 0:57:30.600
<v Speaker 1>strenuous physical demands like that are tough in a five

0:57:30.640 --> 0:57:34.840
<v Speaker 1>hour match, and that's probably what we're looking at. So

0:57:34.920 --> 0:57:38.720
<v Speaker 1>I think to a degree, the inexperience that he will

0:57:38.720 --> 0:57:40.920
<v Speaker 1>bring into this current head to head, even if it

0:57:41.000 --> 0:57:43.760
<v Speaker 1>is neutral in every other way, I think I'm still

0:57:43.840 --> 0:57:47.040
<v Speaker 1>lay the price with Jokerich in the funnel. And I

0:57:47.080 --> 0:57:54.000
<v Speaker 1>think market wide, I don't see any like. I don't

0:57:54.040 --> 0:57:59.760
<v Speaker 1>see like a set of circumstances where the market makers

0:57:59.760 --> 0:58:03.680
<v Speaker 1>all sided flip and say no, no, al Karez needs

0:58:03.720 --> 0:58:07.880
<v Speaker 1>to be the favorite US, right, Djokovic, I think I

0:58:08.360 --> 0:58:11.480
<v Speaker 1>unless he's literally limping in off of an injury, I

0:58:11.520 --> 0:58:13.320
<v Speaker 1>think Djokovic goes off minus.

0:58:13.040 --> 0:58:18.120
<v Speaker 2>One fifty, which, again, short of having done the math

0:58:18.160 --> 0:58:20.960
<v Speaker 2>here on a match by match basis and hypothetical lines,

0:58:21.880 --> 0:58:23.320
<v Speaker 2>plus one twenty five would be a nice thing to

0:58:23.360 --> 0:58:23.880
<v Speaker 2>have in pocket.

0:58:25.320 --> 0:58:28.280
<v Speaker 1>Yeah right, right, because the other universe where it's Djokovic

0:58:28.320 --> 0:58:34.960
<v Speaker 1>against right now, yeah, sinner, I mean, you know the

0:58:35.000 --> 0:58:38.880
<v Speaker 1>other universe where Alkaraz gets popped. You know, Djokovic is

0:58:38.920 --> 0:58:39.560
<v Speaker 1>like minus five.

0:58:40.000 --> 0:58:41.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:58:41.280 --> 0:58:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Uh.

0:58:41.480 --> 0:58:43.520
<v Speaker 2>The last thing I was I was at the uh

0:58:43.800 --> 0:58:46.000
<v Speaker 2>was that sports book at at Aria the other day

0:58:46.000 --> 0:58:47.880
<v Speaker 2>and somebody asked me. They're like, oh, you know because

0:58:47.880 --> 0:58:49.800
<v Speaker 2>they listen to the show. They're like, I, you know,

0:58:49.880 --> 0:58:51.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, we know you're ahead of the curve on Ega.

0:58:51.720 --> 0:58:54.360
<v Speaker 2>You were ahead of the curt on Alcoraz. Is there

0:58:54.360 --> 0:58:56.840
<v Speaker 2>someone out there like that now? And I said that, like, well,

0:58:56.880 --> 0:58:58.720
<v Speaker 2>you know, the reason that it was more about Ega

0:58:58.760 --> 0:59:00.920
<v Speaker 2>than Alcoraz is because with the big it was harder

0:59:00.960 --> 0:59:03.440
<v Speaker 2>to project Alcoraz like when that would be that he

0:59:03.480 --> 0:59:05.880
<v Speaker 2>would overcome this, And now we're here and those guys

0:59:05.880 --> 0:59:08.480
<v Speaker 2>two and three are retiring at least if Nadala in

0:59:08.520 --> 0:59:10.840
<v Speaker 2>fact goes through it that here within a year, which

0:59:10.840 --> 0:59:13.920
<v Speaker 2>you will. And the answer that I came up with,

0:59:14.000 --> 0:59:16.400
<v Speaker 2>I was like, the difference is is that in those days,

0:59:17.360 --> 0:59:19.400
<v Speaker 2>you know, you knew that those three guys were getting older,

0:59:19.560 --> 0:59:22.080
<v Speaker 2>and in the on the women's side, there wasn't that

0:59:22.240 --> 0:59:24.840
<v Speaker 2>much top heaviness where you're like, okay, she can't overcome this.

0:59:25.040 --> 0:59:27.800
<v Speaker 2>Now it's sort of like, you know. The the closest

0:59:27.800 --> 0:59:30.560
<v Speaker 2>comp I could come to was mirr Andreva, right where

0:59:30.560 --> 0:59:32.880
<v Speaker 2>someone who's not really known because the runees of the

0:59:32.920 --> 0:59:35.560
<v Speaker 2>world are known, so mir Andreva was the closest. But

0:59:35.600 --> 0:59:37.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm like, yeah, but still, like you said, like all

0:59:37.440 --> 0:59:40.800
<v Speaker 2>the mainly the stats we have are on ITF and Challenger, right,

0:59:40.800 --> 0:59:41.120
<v Speaker 2>they're not.

0:59:41.240 --> 0:59:43.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's really really tough to parse that.

0:59:43.160 --> 0:59:46.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they're not main draw stats. So it's like, I

0:59:46.040 --> 0:59:48.440
<v Speaker 2>don't know, we I mean, this could be the state

0:59:48.480 --> 0:59:51.000
<v Speaker 2>of tennis with this kind of top heaviness of these

0:59:51.080 --> 0:59:53.440
<v Speaker 2>two e Go on one side, Carlos Alkaraz on the

0:59:53.480 --> 0:59:58.200
<v Speaker 2>other for a decade. I don't know, might be.

0:59:58.640 --> 1:00:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Uh yeah, I mean, and I think if you kind

1:00:03.160 --> 1:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>of build out a probability distribution that's got to be

1:00:05.400 --> 1:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>at least twenty percent.

1:00:08.520 --> 1:00:13.560
<v Speaker 2>That's a lot. Yeah, it's a lot. So just in review,

1:00:13.640 --> 1:00:15.960
<v Speaker 2>we both like vonder Silvia. You like her into the finals.

1:00:15.960 --> 1:00:19.080
<v Speaker 2>I like her to win the quarter as well like you.

1:00:19.400 --> 1:00:24.280
<v Speaker 2>I you like che stage of elimination for sabal Anca.

1:00:24.400 --> 1:00:27.720
<v Speaker 2>And I think we both agree about how the Djokovic

1:00:27.960 --> 1:00:30.520
<v Speaker 2>draw is just a beautiful, beautiful thing. Have you had

1:00:30.520 --> 1:00:32.400
<v Speaker 2>any chance to look at first round matches, by the way,

1:00:32.720 --> 1:00:35.080
<v Speaker 2>or I don't think the prices are even out yet.

1:00:35.080 --> 1:00:36.280
<v Speaker 2>Are they let me see.

1:00:36.920 --> 1:00:38.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm just looking them to come out in the last

1:00:38.480 --> 1:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>hour or two.

1:00:39.040 --> 1:00:42.560
<v Speaker 2>I have room. I have not. I'm looking right now,

1:00:42.600 --> 1:00:45.280
<v Speaker 2>and at least in certain far away places, they don't exist.

1:00:45.760 --> 1:00:48.840
<v Speaker 1>I'll tell you what though. I then get boots on

1:00:48.840 --> 1:00:50.360
<v Speaker 1>the ground around wonder round two.

1:00:50.760 --> 1:00:51.520
<v Speaker 2>Oh really?

1:00:52.120 --> 1:00:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, buddy, Oh wow, hold on, this is we're getting.

1:00:55.320 --> 1:00:57.680
<v Speaker 1>We're getting boots on the ground. We're gonna get some

1:00:57.680 --> 1:00:59.320
<v Speaker 1>some inside inside intel.

1:00:59.440 --> 1:01:00.000
<v Speaker 2>Oh really?

1:01:00.160 --> 1:01:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Uh yeah. I heading heading to uh New York on Sunday.

1:01:03.920 --> 1:01:07.400
<v Speaker 2>Good for you. I am meeting Sunday, meaning the day

1:01:07.400 --> 1:01:09.920
<v Speaker 2>after tomorrow or the day or three days Sunday, day

1:01:09.920 --> 1:01:10.560
<v Speaker 2>after tomorrow.

1:01:10.640 --> 1:01:14.320
<v Speaker 1>Okay, I'm going to catch the madness of a million.

1:01:14.160 --> 1:01:17.680
<v Speaker 2>Rounds, so I am. I am trying to do the

1:01:17.720 --> 1:01:22.120
<v Speaker 2>first weekend so nice. Yeah, next week, but I have

1:01:22.240 --> 1:01:24.320
<v Speaker 2>not got confirmation of that. But that wouldn't that would

1:01:24.440 --> 1:01:27.240
<v Speaker 2>entail me leaving after a Numbers game Friday, showing up

1:01:27.240 --> 1:01:30.520
<v Speaker 2>for night matches, spending all day Saturday there early Sunday,

1:01:30.560 --> 1:01:32.280
<v Speaker 2>and their bouncing, which I which I would love.

1:01:33.120 --> 1:01:34.800
<v Speaker 1>You know how, I know tennis is in a really

1:01:34.800 --> 1:01:35.560
<v Speaker 1>good place.

1:01:36.360 --> 1:01:37.320
<v Speaker 2>That we're willing to do that.

1:01:38.760 --> 1:01:41.320
<v Speaker 1>No, it's like the hottest ticket since Taylor Swift came

1:01:41.360 --> 1:01:45.480
<v Speaker 1>to town. Like really, it's it's it's crazy, crazy, crazy

1:01:45.680 --> 1:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>what the ticket prices are?

1:01:47.040 --> 1:01:49.400
<v Speaker 2>Like the good true I told you when I went

1:01:49.440 --> 1:01:52.520
<v Speaker 2>to when I went to Indian Wells, which you said ago,

1:01:52.560 --> 1:01:54.720
<v Speaker 2>no one goes to that tournament. I was like, usually

1:01:56.160 --> 1:02:00.840
<v Speaker 2>it was packed, packed and and this is is not

1:02:00.880 --> 1:02:03.520
<v Speaker 2>an easy place to get to, and it was packed.

1:02:04.200 --> 1:02:07.919
<v Speaker 1>Netflix impact, Netflix effect is that what's going what what's

1:02:07.920 --> 1:02:10.400
<v Speaker 1>happening here? I don't, Oh, you know what it is.

1:02:10.800 --> 1:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>It's the megapod. We're getting people, We're getting people fired

1:02:14.160 --> 1:02:14.840
<v Speaker 1>up for tennis.

1:02:15.000 --> 1:02:18.240
<v Speaker 2>That's what it is. True, It's a megapod. It's exactly

1:02:18.280 --> 1:02:20.919
<v Speaker 2>what's doing it. I honestly think it was because wait

1:02:20.960 --> 1:02:23.840
<v Speaker 2>a minute, I can go in California desert and like

1:02:24.040 --> 1:02:27.000
<v Speaker 2>watch the Egos and the and the Carlitos of the

1:02:27.000 --> 1:02:29.240
<v Speaker 2>world up closing. But my God, to count me in.

1:02:29.720 --> 1:02:31.760
<v Speaker 2>I do think there's also still even at that point

1:02:31.800 --> 1:02:34.240
<v Speaker 2>I said, there was still a post pandemic thing where

1:02:34.240 --> 1:02:35.680
<v Speaker 2>people wanted to get out of the house. I think

1:02:35.720 --> 1:02:38.960
<v Speaker 2>we're past that now. But I think, but you're you're

1:02:38.960 --> 1:02:41.120
<v Speaker 2>probably right about the US Open, like that is going

1:02:41.200 --> 1:02:42.400
<v Speaker 2>to be Mayhem.

1:02:43.120 --> 1:02:44.120
<v Speaker 1>It's a hot ticket man.

1:02:44.360 --> 1:02:46.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, where do you stay? By the way, I will

1:02:46.680 --> 1:02:48.080
<v Speaker 2>you don't have to give an exact location because I

1:02:48.080 --> 1:02:50.040
<v Speaker 2>don't wan people talking to you, but like where you

1:02:50.040 --> 1:02:50.520
<v Speaker 2>in the city.

1:02:51.680 --> 1:02:59.320
<v Speaker 1>I have a combinations away. I'm not sureful, I don't

1:02:59.600 --> 1:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't know where.

1:03:00.480 --> 1:03:00.960
<v Speaker 2>Oh are you?

1:03:01.200 --> 1:03:02.320
<v Speaker 1>Are you? Are you? So?

1:03:02.400 --> 1:03:04.360
<v Speaker 2>You are you going on behalf of NBC.

1:03:04.240 --> 1:03:06.840
<v Speaker 1>To go No, No, we'll do it. We're doing a

1:03:06.880 --> 1:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>talent HQ in Stanford, tad over to a flutch meadows

1:03:12.720 --> 1:03:13.520
<v Speaker 1>and evening.

1:03:13.560 --> 1:03:15.680
<v Speaker 2>But this I have a great trip. I'll try to

1:03:15.720 --> 1:03:17.760
<v Speaker 2>tag team at the end of well, I'll tag team.

1:03:17.760 --> 1:03:20.680
<v Speaker 2>I'll come in when you're leaving. That'd be awesome. Dude,

1:03:20.720 --> 1:03:22.280
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much. Let me just say this also

1:03:22.320 --> 1:03:25.000
<v Speaker 2>to people Drew Dinzick, for those who listen to this

1:03:25.040 --> 1:03:30.200
<v Speaker 2>podcast and listen to a numbers game, Drew does everything

1:03:30.280 --> 1:03:33.120
<v Speaker 2>that we ever ask him to do, like it. I

1:03:33.160 --> 1:03:36.440
<v Speaker 2>cannot tell you how appreciative I am for how accessible

1:03:36.560 --> 1:03:39.520
<v Speaker 2>you are. After all this time, I want you to

1:03:39.600 --> 1:03:42.480
<v Speaker 2>know how much I appreciate that man and these Obviously

1:03:42.600 --> 1:03:44.160
<v Speaker 2>when it comes to tennis, it's sort of a labor

1:03:44.200 --> 1:03:45.800
<v Speaker 2>of love for you and me. Like this we love

1:03:45.920 --> 1:03:47.840
<v Speaker 2>this so much that we're we're kind of willing to

1:03:47.840 --> 1:03:49.520
<v Speaker 2>talk about this whenever. By the way, forgive me, I

1:03:49.560 --> 1:03:51.360
<v Speaker 2>like interrupted you five times at the beginning because I'm

1:03:51.360 --> 1:03:54.280
<v Speaker 2>so excited to talk about it. But I just want

1:03:54.320 --> 1:03:56.080
<v Speaker 2>to tell I just want everybody to listen to know

1:03:56.440 --> 1:03:59.160
<v Speaker 2>how awesome you are and just being accessible because a

1:03:59.200 --> 1:04:03.600
<v Speaker 2>lot of people, frankly, how can I put this, They

1:04:03.600 --> 1:04:08.320
<v Speaker 2>don't really get how this works. And maybe maybe people

1:04:08.320 --> 1:04:10.880
<v Speaker 2>who really have more reason to show up than you

1:04:10.920 --> 1:04:13.560
<v Speaker 2>do have an excuse why they don't. So I just

1:04:13.600 --> 1:04:15.680
<v Speaker 2>want to say, I I love that about you, and

1:04:15.720 --> 1:04:17.520
<v Speaker 2>I always appreciate. I want you to know how much

1:04:17.520 --> 1:04:18.600
<v Speaker 2>I appreciate about.

1:04:18.320 --> 1:04:21.720
<v Speaker 1>That, all right, of course, it's it's it's a it's

1:04:21.720 --> 1:04:25.640
<v Speaker 1>a karmic Uh. It's a karmic endeavor on top of

1:04:25.720 --> 1:04:29.240
<v Speaker 1>a labor club. Uh. And uh. You know, the more

1:04:29.280 --> 1:04:31.320
<v Speaker 1>people we get into the support of tennis, and from

1:04:31.320 --> 1:04:34.720
<v Speaker 1>a vetting standpoint, the more we grow the interest in

1:04:34.720 --> 1:04:37.360
<v Speaker 1>the sport and the handle, I think it helps us all.

1:04:37.640 --> 1:04:40.240
<v Speaker 2>So may you have a profitable US Open man.

1:04:40.520 --> 1:04:42.880
<v Speaker 1>You as well. Thank you. Let's put a ball on

1:04:42.920 --> 1:04:43.360
<v Speaker 1>this season.

1:04:43.440 --> 1:04:46.040
<v Speaker 2>Let's do it, and safe travels to New york Man.

1:04:45.920 --> 1:04:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Have a great time, all right, take care of guys.

1:04:48.160 --> 1:04:51.640
<v Speaker 2>Drew Dinsing, Everybody Whale, Underscore Capper again, the podcast The

1:04:51.680 --> 1:04:54.520
<v Speaker 2>Deep Dive with Andy Molletor, and of course NBC Sports

1:04:55.000 --> 1:04:57.440
<v Speaker 2>Bet the Edge. Good luck with all your tennis bets

1:04:57.880 --> 1:05:00.560
<v Speaker 2>for this next couple of weeks of the US

1:05:01.080 --> 1:05:09.640
<v Speaker 1>BATA, the Sacba Batanga Bata, Sacraban Badang Bot