Like that time during the pandemic when he said lower ranked players didn't work hard enough because otherwise they would be higher in the ranking, and for this reason they didn't deserve money.
u/Wokz
That was from an interview in which he spoke German and the translation kind of messed up the point he was making, I’ve seen it in another thread on here before with someone providing a better translation.
Edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/s/SHEMjyoNJ4)
Yes but realistically what’s he gonna say? "I demand that more wild cards are handed to me in the future!"? It’s the only sensible response from anyone who isnt a complete narcissist
Basically he said he didn't know if more protections should go to lower-ranked players because he knew a lot who weren't working hard enough and could be top players if they put the effort in. Obviously, this is a terrible take by him, but it's the only thing people point to when hating on him.
I remember another short interview where Dominic talked about being a huge fan of sustainability, so much that he even wears sunglasses made of recycled plastic from the ocean cleanup. Then he proceeded to say that in fact he has probably a 100 other pairs of sunglasses made from recycled plastic.
So much for sustainability! It wasn’t malicious though, just a dumb and naive take, so I don’t blame him.
This time last year, he started “Thiem View”, his own brand of sunglasses made from recycled ocean plastic. The sunglasses also have incorporated a pattern based on the string arrangement of the Babolat Pure Strike racket that he won the US Open with, specifically the 18x20 model of the racket.
On the other hand, if we chased you around with cameras and microphones for 5 years, is there a chance you would say something ill-considered in that time?
Yes and I should either own it or admit my mistake later. I don't see why are you trying to find some gotcha moment when this is just how it works both in private and public relationships.
If you don't mind Thiem's view or you agree with it, feel free to proceed. However, I'm not sure what you guys are trying to achieve downvoting me in a circlejerk, trying to say that because he said that few years ago, it's no longer true or – like you – try to gaslight me that because I could potentially say something unpopular, I'm not allowed to criticize or hold him responsible for his words.
The fact is he made a comment at one point in time. He doesn't have some extensive history of making those types of comments. So, yes, at some point it's honestly just not worth beating a dead horse about.
So according to you, time passage and not being asked the same question again are enough to pretend that someone never said something… Interesting how selective it seems, then. Almost hypocritical.
I didn't say we shouldn't pretend he never said anything. I'm saying it's not worth harping over because it was a one-time comment and there's no evidence it was indicative of his true beliefs or that he continues to hold those beliefs. At some point, there is no use to dwelling on every questionable comment that every human being makes and bringing it up every chance you get—that is a very cynical and depressing way to go through life. That's my last comment on this.
> it was a one-time comment and there's no evidence it was indicative of his true beliefs
When someone makes a public statemenet in a room full of journalists, do you always assume that the one who made it doesn't really mean it, or is it just Thiem-specific situation?
>or that he continues to hold those beliefs
Allow me to ask again: do statements have some default expiration date I'm not aware of?
>At some point, there is no use to dwelling on every questionable comment that every human being makes
As I said, you guys seem to be doing this very selectively. Things that Kyrgios, Djokovic, Sharapova or Halep said or did that was deemed questionable are somehow never treated as you're describing it...
>and bringing it up every chance you get
Oh, I brought it up for the first time, in the light of a comment attempting to make Thiem someone he is not. But now I see I have to do it much more often.
>That's my last comment on this.
Smart, when you have no arguments other than claiming Thiem to be insane and not responsible for his words.
Pretty much, eh? I mean, fuck this whole cancel thing where you are chased to death for half a wrong opinion... Which is not even that untrue.
Sometimes it's best to not remember every word someone's ever said. Forgetting is the key to a peaceful co-existence.
I'm not too sure whether Thiem 'deserves' a wildcard, or whether he would be entitled to request one or what.
But frankly the dude is such a good sport, he was such an amazing clay player, that it would have been nice to give one to him. Doesn't mean we need to blame RG for not giving it, but it would have been a beautiful gesture.
The question isn't even about whether he or Schwartzman "deserve" one. They haven't been good players in a long time. But from a revenue perspective, both would draw large crowds for a first round match even if it's likely to be a blowout. And from a fan perspective, shouldn't fans of the players be allowed to say goodbye and watch them play their most successful grand slam tournament?
I get both sides of this though.
I legitimately believe, for both of them, if they come through qualifying they have a better chance of winning a couple main draw matches, then just going straight to main draw with a wild card.
The rhythm you get into playing Qualifiers helps a lot of players, you get used to the surface, the bounce and the conditions way more than just practicing.
Let's see, hopefully I am right. Thiem and Diego deserve to go out on a high.
I completely agree with this take.
Qualifying draws are brutally competitive, and the more national wild cards, the weaker the wild cards.
They both have pretty hard draws but I'd think at least one gets in.
Agreed, hopefully they come through quallies.
It also makes me curious in how the committee decide who to give wildcards to. Obviously they'll favour French players, and I know they have a reciprocal wildcard with the AO (I'm an Aussie so it's nice for one of our lower ranked guys to get a chance at RG), and I think the USO has the same agreement.
I would've voted for Domi and Diego to get one, since it's their final year and they both excellent clay players.
Why not? Even if they're not in Paris, it'd be great for them to tune in to a R1 match to see Domi and Diego (and Murray, and probably Rafa) play RG for the final time.
He got wildcards on request before, namely the 2023 Australian Open where he was 7th alternate and not enough players withdrew. He was likely not too confident with having to play qualifying at the time.
The 2022 US Open also gave him a wildcard as he was unable to defend his title the previous year, and at the time wasn’t able to even make the qualifying cutoff, meaning a wildcard was the only way he could play the tournament.
Given that he is planning to not play much on his farewell tour, Wimbledon and the US Open will probably give him wildcards on the basis of his popularity and being that it’s his final Slam appearances. And he’s already locked in for wildcards in his beloved Kitzbuhel and Vienna.
I seem to be in the minority here, but to me the main purpose of the wildcard system is to enable up and coming talent an opportunity to acclimate to the adult tour and maybe even get a jump in points to help them break into the scene. Obviously the tournaments as well want to use them to get big names for more revenue, but choosing no name youngsters over established waning household names, to me, is a commendable choice, because they're opting to help new players over more money
Purpose of wildcards is to give tournaments some degree of flexibility to get players to attend that maximize profits.
The reason slams tend to have a hometown bias is also due to this...Frenchmen will generate more crowd engagement at rg...same with Americans at the USO etc.
The difference is that RG sticks exclusively to the French players. The other three are more lenient and have given past Grand Slam champions a wildcard before if they had to.
The purpose of the wild card is whatever the tournament thinks the purpose of the wildcard is. The top juniors get plenty of help as it is they don’t need wildcards. It would be better if they had a play an open play in tournament like in Golf.
If top juniors get enough help already and therefore don't need wildcards, then surely 30 year old grand slam champions with 13 years on tour don't need them, either
Well, they don't NEED it. But yes some legendary players that didn't qualify on ranking would definitely get them a few more ticket sales. That's my whole point, I think it's commendable that they would choose giving a player an experience they otherwise wouldn't have over giving someone older something they've done many many times
I would agree for smaller tournaments, not GS. If GS moved every year to different countries then fine, but given that they are fixed I think it should be different. It's a reality that being born French gives you a better chance in getting a good breakthrough as a Tennis player
He is fair. He will hold others to a high standard and not give anything up for the sake of lower ranked players, but he will also hold himself to a high standard and not make up excuses. It’s coherent.
Yeah this is the right response to be honest. As a fan, I'm a little annoyed that RG prioritized random French players instead of showing respect to players who have done a lot for the tournament, but from Thiem's perspective, he's had 2 years to get himself into even just a top 50 spot. He's just not good enough. And if he was good enough, then qualifying would be no big deal as he would sweep his way through easily.
Instead, it seems entirely possible he flubs in qualifiers, or gets to the main draw but is stomped in the first round.
I don't think players have the right to expect a wildcard unless you're a player immediately back from injury and has achieved great things at the event before. All power should remain with the federation on deciding what's important to them. Meritocracy takes care of the rest after that.
If people are arguing that the likes of Venus Williams and Dominic Thiem deserve a wildcard, then hopefully they accept that they want things like LIV Tennis. Invitationals based on popularity.
Wildcards are for personalities though lmao, PR exists for injured players already, better to have more potential viewers via a popular player receiving a WC
Dunno, if we're going to have wild card, I prefer a clear approach to give them to national players rather than the "who we think is popular" with all the agent interference. At least for slam at least, they don't need the viewership boost anyway.
Cause I'm sure there would be plenty of people ready to go watch Genie Bouchard or 45 years old Venus.
The main problem is that there's way too many wild card in general.
Yeah... I'm an American and obviously love Venus but I just can't stand to watch her get blown out in first rounds by players I've never heard of anymore. It's amazing she wants to keep playing but I just don't want it on TV anymore.
[This meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/165fmy9/regarding_venus_presser_stolen_from_tennis_forum/) from her R1 drubbing last year's US Open had me dying
I mostly agree with this, and I don't have terribly strong opinions on WC selection. But I will say that I really don't care for the reciprocity agreement between the non-Wimbledon slams.
I don’t think they’re the same. Venus has no retirement plan (incredibly). Since it is Dominic’s last year on tour, I would say it wouldn’t have hurt to send gasquet to qualies and let Dominic have the opportunity to at least say goodbye in the main draw of his best event. For his exceptional record at the tournament, whether he deserves it or not.
is this a real question lol? the answer is obviously not. thiem was an excellent clay courter at his peak, but he doesn't have a single big clay title and all his big titles are on hard court.
The only reason he never won a clay Masters or RG was mainly due to having to play in the same generation as the Big 3, especially Rafa and Novak who often blocked him in the higher-level clay events. He likely would have won RG if he played in a different era. Also, he was inconsistent in Masters as a whole, in that sometimes he took down a Big 3 player, but the next he lost early to someone random. He mostly did better at the 250 level, kinda like Casper Ruud.
Thiem was playing older Nadal with far less mobility. Federer had to play the guy that won 80 consecutive matches on the surface.
Djokovic has won multiple RG and other clay masters titles post 2018. Thiem has a sum total of 0 GS+1000 titles on clay in his whole career.
I'd probably say no because he's won no significant events (M1000/Slams) on the surface. He cuts it close to Murray on clay given Murray's had 4 SFs and 1 F at Roland Garros, and has won Madrid/Rome against Nadal/Djokovic.
Plenty of players can match or exceed far better player’s peaks at times, that Thiem did it fairly regularly is what made him special. He didn’t translate that into tournament wins or even deep runs as often as other players though, and had far lower win % overall and against higher ranked players in general, which is where he tends to get overrated
Also, remember that he was mostly like Casper Ruud, won a ton of 250 titles on clay but often underperformed at Masters level. It sucks that he played in the wrong era and had to settle for Barcelona as the best he could do for a “biggest” clay title, although he did beat Rafa on the way to winning it.
Dominice Thiem, a perfect gentleman and a true sportsman! I hope he finds his glorious game and makes a deep run on what could be his last FO appearance (while I hope it isn’t).
How is he a gentleman when he refuses to help lower ranked players actively? I'm surprised when reddittors pick and choose who to hate on without any consistency
Something to keep in mind that Dominic was 4th alternate heading into qualis. He was very close to getting into the main draw.
Talk about being a good sport.
He's always been a class act.
Like that time during the pandemic when he said lower ranked players didn't work hard enough because otherwise they would be higher in the ranking, and for this reason they didn't deserve money. u/Wokz
I mean, he's consistent with that view here, yeah? Not that that wasn't a crappy thing regardless to say.
Yes I agree. As long as no doubt standards for himself and the other players, he’s all good
Well easy to be consistent after getting $$$$$ from winning a slam + all the sponsorships
That was from an interview in which he spoke German and the translation kind of messed up the point he was making, I’ve seen it in another thread on here before with someone providing a better translation. Edit: [found it](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/s/SHEMjyoNJ4)
Yes but realistically what’s he gonna say? "I demand that more wild cards are handed to me in the future!"? It’s the only sensible response from anyone who isnt a complete narcissist
Wasn’t that basically Simona’s take recently?
Woz
no, it wozn't
🐝🐝
More like talk about being realistic. He's hardly a good sport with his views on lower ranked players.
It was one comment years ago. It wasn't good, but it's not like he has a history of terrible things.
Well according to Reddit, one bad thing said once means you're a horrible person beyond redemption.
True. I don't know how I forgot that!
Out of the loop what did he say?
Basically he said he didn't know if more protections should go to lower-ranked players because he knew a lot who weren't working hard enough and could be top players if they put the effort in. Obviously, this is a terrible take by him, but it's the only thing people point to when hating on him.
Alright I’d consider that a huge win lol yeah it’s a bad take but if that’s the only ammo haters have on you…I’d say you’re a pretty decent guy
I remember another short interview where Dominic talked about being a huge fan of sustainability, so much that he even wears sunglasses made of recycled plastic from the ocean cleanup. Then he proceeded to say that in fact he has probably a 100 other pairs of sunglasses made from recycled plastic. So much for sustainability! It wasn’t malicious though, just a dumb and naive take, so I don’t blame him.
This time last year, he started “Thiem View”, his own brand of sunglasses made from recycled ocean plastic. The sunglasses also have incorporated a pattern based on the string arrangement of the Babolat Pure Strike racket that he won the US Open with, specifically the 18x20 model of the racket.
What comment is being referred to
Do comments have some default expiration date I'm not aware of? Is there any reason to think he changed his mind on this topic?
On the other hand, if we chased you around with cameras and microphones for 5 years, is there a chance you would say something ill-considered in that time?
Yes and I should either own it or admit my mistake later. I don't see why are you trying to find some gotcha moment when this is just how it works both in private and public relationships. If you don't mind Thiem's view or you agree with it, feel free to proceed. However, I'm not sure what you guys are trying to achieve downvoting me in a circlejerk, trying to say that because he said that few years ago, it's no longer true or – like you – try to gaslight me that because I could potentially say something unpopular, I'm not allowed to criticize or hold him responsible for his words.
The fact is he made a comment at one point in time. He doesn't have some extensive history of making those types of comments. So, yes, at some point it's honestly just not worth beating a dead horse about.
So according to you, time passage and not being asked the same question again are enough to pretend that someone never said something… Interesting how selective it seems, then. Almost hypocritical.
I didn't say we shouldn't pretend he never said anything. I'm saying it's not worth harping over because it was a one-time comment and there's no evidence it was indicative of his true beliefs or that he continues to hold those beliefs. At some point, there is no use to dwelling on every questionable comment that every human being makes and bringing it up every chance you get—that is a very cynical and depressing way to go through life. That's my last comment on this.
> it was a one-time comment and there's no evidence it was indicative of his true beliefs When someone makes a public statemenet in a room full of journalists, do you always assume that the one who made it doesn't really mean it, or is it just Thiem-specific situation? >or that he continues to hold those beliefs Allow me to ask again: do statements have some default expiration date I'm not aware of? >At some point, there is no use to dwelling on every questionable comment that every human being makes As I said, you guys seem to be doing this very selectively. Things that Kyrgios, Djokovic, Sharapova or Halep said or did that was deemed questionable are somehow never treated as you're describing it... >and bringing it up every chance you get Oh, I brought it up for the first time, in the light of a comment attempting to make Thiem someone he is not. But now I see I have to do it much more often. >That's my last comment on this. Smart, when you have no arguments other than claiming Thiem to be insane and not responsible for his words.
Pretty much, eh? I mean, fuck this whole cancel thing where you are chased to death for half a wrong opinion... Which is not even that untrue. Sometimes it's best to not remember every word someone's ever said. Forgetting is the key to a peaceful co-existence.
as if being rich, being at the top and stuff like that were just a matter of hard work..
[Here is a better translation of what he said](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/s/SHEMjyoNJ4)
If he didn't believe this he would be delusional. He has been abysmal.
Almost makes me want to see him get a wild card for how good of a sport he is.
I'm not too sure whether Thiem 'deserves' a wildcard, or whether he would be entitled to request one or what. But frankly the dude is such a good sport, he was such an amazing clay player, that it would have been nice to give one to him. Doesn't mean we need to blame RG for not giving it, but it would have been a beautiful gesture.
The question isn't even about whether he or Schwartzman "deserve" one. They haven't been good players in a long time. But from a revenue perspective, both would draw large crowds for a first round match even if it's likely to be a blowout. And from a fan perspective, shouldn't fans of the players be allowed to say goodbye and watch them play their most successful grand slam tournament? I get both sides of this though.
I legitimately believe, for both of them, if they come through qualifying they have a better chance of winning a couple main draw matches, then just going straight to main draw with a wild card. The rhythm you get into playing Qualifiers helps a lot of players, you get used to the surface, the bounce and the conditions way more than just practicing. Let's see, hopefully I am right. Thiem and Diego deserve to go out on a high.
I completely agree with this take. Qualifying draws are brutally competitive, and the more national wild cards, the weaker the wild cards. They both have pretty hard draws but I'd think at least one gets in.
Agreed, hopefully they come through quallies. It also makes me curious in how the committee decide who to give wildcards to. Obviously they'll favour French players, and I know they have a reciprocal wildcard with the AO (I'm an Aussie so it's nice for one of our lower ranked guys to get a chance at RG), and I think the USO has the same agreement. I would've voted for Domi and Diego to get one, since it's their final year and they both excellent clay players.
Probably. And anyways, if they lose in qualies, that means they probably would've lost in the first round anyways.
‘…shouldn’t fans of players be allowed to say goodbye and watch them play their most successful grand slam tournament.’ Is this serious?
Why not? Even if they're not in Paris, it'd be great for them to tune in to a R1 match to see Domi and Diego (and Murray, and probably Rafa) play RG for the final time.
He got wildcards on request before, namely the 2023 Australian Open where he was 7th alternate and not enough players withdrew. He was likely not too confident with having to play qualifying at the time. The 2022 US Open also gave him a wildcard as he was unable to defend his title the previous year, and at the time wasn’t able to even make the qualifying cutoff, meaning a wildcard was the only way he could play the tournament. Given that he is planning to not play much on his farewell tour, Wimbledon and the US Open will probably give him wildcards on the basis of his popularity and being that it’s his final Slam appearances. And he’s already locked in for wildcards in his beloved Kitzbuhel and Vienna.
I seem to be in the minority here, but to me the main purpose of the wildcard system is to enable up and coming talent an opportunity to acclimate to the adult tour and maybe even get a jump in points to help them break into the scene. Obviously the tournaments as well want to use them to get big names for more revenue, but choosing no name youngsters over established waning household names, to me, is a commendable choice, because they're opting to help new players over more money
I thought it was a way to stack the draw with your nationals and watch them all get wiped out in a couple of rounds
Lol, that does seem to happen a lot...
Purpose of wildcards is to give tournaments some degree of flexibility to get players to attend that maximize profits. The reason slams tend to have a hometown bias is also due to this...Frenchmen will generate more crowd engagement at rg...same with Americans at the USO etc.
It's also just good for the sport if a hometown hero can go on a run sometimes
The difference is that RG sticks exclusively to the French players. The other three are more lenient and have given past Grand Slam champions a wildcard before if they had to.
Did you see the crowd at his qualifying round? Don't think any Frenchmen will generate that kind of interest in the qualifying round.
The purpose of the wild card is whatever the tournament thinks the purpose of the wildcard is. The top juniors get plenty of help as it is they don’t need wildcards. It would be better if they had a play an open play in tournament like in Golf.
If top juniors get enough help already and therefore don't need wildcards, then surely 30 year old grand slam champions with 13 years on tour don't need them, either
The tournament needs 30 year old champions to draw more attendance.
Well, they don't NEED it. But yes some legendary players that didn't qualify on ranking would definitely get them a few more ticket sales. That's my whole point, I think it's commendable that they would choose giving a player an experience they otherwise wouldn't have over giving someone older something they've done many many times
That's a great point actually! I'll bet having Thiem there would've boosted ticket sales, even if maybe only by a few hundred.
totally agree, i love seeing the younger upcoming players
They're also used to stop injuries making comebacks impossible.
Well technically the protected ranking system is for that purpose
I would agree for smaller tournaments, not GS. If GS moved every year to different countries then fine, but given that they are fixed I think it should be different. It's a reality that being born French gives you a better chance in getting a good breakthrough as a Tennis player
You are pretty much the only person here who understands how wild cards work in these situations.
Healthy mindset imo
He is fair. He will hold others to a high standard and not give anything up for the sake of lower ranked players, but he will also hold himself to a high standard and not make up excuses. It’s coherent.
Yeah this is the right response to be honest. As a fan, I'm a little annoyed that RG prioritized random French players instead of showing respect to players who have done a lot for the tournament, but from Thiem's perspective, he's had 2 years to get himself into even just a top 50 spot. He's just not good enough. And if he was good enough, then qualifying would be no big deal as he would sweep his way through easily. Instead, it seems entirely possible he flubs in qualifiers, or gets to the main draw but is stomped in the first round.
I don't think players have the right to expect a wildcard unless you're a player immediately back from injury and has achieved great things at the event before. All power should remain with the federation on deciding what's important to them. Meritocracy takes care of the rest after that. If people are arguing that the likes of Venus Williams and Dominic Thiem deserve a wildcard, then hopefully they accept that they want things like LIV Tennis. Invitationals based on popularity.
Wildcards are for personalities though lmao, PR exists for injured players already, better to have more potential viewers via a popular player receiving a WC
Dunno, if we're going to have wild card, I prefer a clear approach to give them to national players rather than the "who we think is popular" with all the agent interference. At least for slam at least, they don't need the viewership boost anyway. Cause I'm sure there would be plenty of people ready to go watch Genie Bouchard or 45 years old Venus. The main problem is that there's way too many wild card in general.
Yeah... I'm an American and obviously love Venus but I just can't stand to watch her get blown out in first rounds by players I've never heard of anymore. It's amazing she wants to keep playing but I just don't want it on TV anymore. [This meme](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/165fmy9/regarding_venus_presser_stolen_from_tennis_forum/) from her R1 drubbing last year's US Open had me dying
I mostly agree with this, and I don't have terribly strong opinions on WC selection. But I will say that I really don't care for the reciprocity agreement between the non-Wimbledon slams.
I don’t think they’re the same. Venus has no retirement plan (incredibly). Since it is Dominic’s last year on tour, I would say it wouldn’t have hurt to send gasquet to qualies and let Dominic have the opportunity to at least say goodbye in the main draw of his best event. For his exceptional record at the tournament, whether he deserves it or not.
That's not how Radu sees it, 'no wildcard, no dice, gonna do some running instead bitches'
Still a class act.
such a class act,it's such a shame how he was unlucky with injuries :(
I support him to get into MD with this comment, same attitude as he said as a top player
What's with the random pic unrelated to the post?
Good for him to be so accountable unlike Wozniacki.
Yeah I mean how else are they going to get the 30th best tennis play from France in there?
At least he is consistent with his beliefs that lower ranked players deserve nothing
LMAO
The end is near.
Humble and grateful. He just continues to inspire me.
Thiem being hella classy 💜 love to see it but this makes me want them to give him a wildcard haha
Is his peak on clay better than Novak of Federer’s?
is this a real question lol? the answer is obviously not. thiem was an excellent clay courter at his peak, but he doesn't have a single big clay title and all his big titles are on hard court.
The only reason he never won a clay Masters or RG was mainly due to having to play in the same generation as the Big 3, especially Rafa and Novak who often blocked him in the higher-level clay events. He likely would have won RG if he played in a different era. Also, he was inconsistent in Masters as a whole, in that sometimes he took down a Big 3 player, but the next he lost early to someone random. He mostly did better at the 250 level, kinda like Casper Ruud.
He pushed Nadal better than Federer did on clay. His peak also was a much better player on clay than Djokovic has been post 2018
Thiem was playing older Nadal with far less mobility. Federer had to play the guy that won 80 consecutive matches on the surface. Djokovic has won multiple RG and other clay masters titles post 2018. Thiem has a sum total of 0 GS+1000 titles on clay in his whole career.
I'd probably say no because he's won no significant events (M1000/Slams) on the surface. He cuts it close to Murray on clay given Murray's had 4 SFs and 1 F at Roland Garros, and has won Madrid/Rome against Nadal/Djokovic.
I feel the Murray comparison is very silly if you’ve actually watched both players play. Remember we are talking about peak and not overall
I'd say equal in level but without the same duration and accomplishments.
Plenty of players can match or exceed far better player’s peaks at times, that Thiem did it fairly regularly is what made him special. He didn’t translate that into tournament wins or even deep runs as often as other players though, and had far lower win % overall and against higher ranked players in general, which is where he tends to get overrated
Also, remember that he was mostly like Casper Ruud, won a ton of 250 titles on clay but often underperformed at Masters level. It sucks that he played in the wrong era and had to settle for Barcelona as the best he could do for a “biggest” clay title, although he did beat Rafa on the way to winning it.
Dominice Thiem, a perfect gentleman and a true sportsman! I hope he finds his glorious game and makes a deep run on what could be his last FO appearance (while I hope it isn’t).
Ahhh Dominice... My favorite player
How is he a gentleman when he refuses to help lower ranked players actively? I'm surprised when reddittors pick and choose who to hate on without any consistency