Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Friday, March 31, 2017

stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Mar 31 04:04PM -0500

Was watching a replay of Sampras/Edberg 1993 AO semifinal and was
reminded of how serving has changed.
 
For the first two sets, I watched for the serve speeds on the court's
speed gun.
 
Edberg's fastest first serve was 174 KPH or 108 mph. His average was
clearly lower than that, his typical first serve was around 164 KPH or
102 MPH. And MANY of Edberg's first serves, maybe 40% of them, failed to
reach 100 MPH.
 
His second serves were typically around 84 MPH and he did hit several
that failed to hit 80 MPH.
 
Huge-serving Pete? Yes, he clearly hit harder serves. But not by today's
standards. In two sets of action, Pete reached the 120 MPH mark ZERO
times, his biggest first serve was 193 KPH, which is just short of 120
mph. His second biggest, fair or fault, was 190 KPH or 118 MPH.
 
More typically, his first serve was about 180 KPH or 111 MPH, and his
vaunted second serve clocked in around 150 kph or 93 MPH.
 
For example, in game 3 of the second set, Pete hit *first* serves of
116, 113, 107, and 99 MPH. Sampras hitting a 99 MPH first serve? Yep.
 
As a result, I saw Edberg hit *several* return winners off of Pete's
first serve. Pete did the same thing to Stefan.
 
No wonder the match was filled with lots of volleying and very little
service aces or winners?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Mar 31 02:10PM -0700

You opened can of worms for yourself by this post :)
 
Alex, where are you?
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Mar 31 03:11PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 5:04:47 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
+1
Good post!
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Mar 31 03:15PM -0700

If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.
undecided <costasz@gmail.com>: Mar 31 03:49PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 5:04:47 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Nonsense....Pete in his last USO was hitting 130mph serves. I was there watching it happen. The radar guns were changed to show higher speeds over the years. Pete was still ace'ing people on the seniors tour just like he did when he played the ATP. He wasn't the biggest server but he was precise and his 2nd serve was not much slower than his 1st. That was the key to his success.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Mar 31 04:10PM -0700

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:15:25 AM UTC+11, Scott wrote:
> If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.
 
Edberg's serve was designed to get him to the net as quickly as possible, he hit a lot of body serve to cram his opponent, he also hit a lot of kicking serve. Edberg had quite a few injuries to his back in 89/90 and forced him to retire in 89/90 Australian Open. The injuries forced him to make subtle changes to his serve to put less stress on his back. Edberg was underrated as a returner, he got a lot of ball back against big servers and was very difficult to ace him repeatedly.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Mar 31 06:59PM -0500

On 3/31/2017 5:49 PM, undecided wrote:
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> Nonsense....Pete in his last USO was hitting 130mph serves.
 
Radar guns are radar guns. Pete DID hit a ton of 130 MPH serves at 2002
USO, but that's because his serving got much bigger as time went by.
 
Everyone's did! Rackets and strings, or somesuch, changed around
1995-1996, such that serves got a lot bigger.
 
If you doubt it, WATCH the serves at that 93 AO! They clearly are slow
by today's standards.
 
There's no way Pete was actually hitting 130 mph serves that were
registering as 110 MPH serves. Not a chance.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Mar 31 07:01PM -0500

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:15:25 AM UTC+11, Scott wrote:
>> If Pete had Edberg's serve, I see Edberg winning more than losing against Pete.
 
> Edberg's serve was designed to get him to the net as quickly as possible, he hit a lot of body serve to cram his opponent, he also hit a lot of kicking serve. Edberg had quite a few injuries to his back in 89/90 and forced him to retire in 89/90 Australian Open. The injuries forced him to make subtle changes to his serve to put less stress on his back. Edberg was underrated as a returner, he got a lot of ball back against big servers and was very difficult to ace him repeatedly.
 
Yes, as a Becker fan, i was aware of Edberg's returning. Edberg was a
big guy, 6'2" and well built. He didn't have power on his serve but he
was big and strong enough that big servers could not easily bully him.
He could get those balls back if he got a racket on them.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Mar 31 05:01PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
 
> Edberg's serve was designed to get him to the net as quickly as possible, he hit a lot of body serve to cram his opponent, he also hit a lot of kicking serve. Edberg had quite a few injuries to his back in 89/90 and forced him to retire in 89/90 Australian Open. The injuries forced him to make subtle changes to his serve to put less stress on his back. Edberg was underrated as a returner, he got a lot of ball back against big servers and was very difficult to ace him repeatedly.
 
Edberg had a back injury in 1989 (retired from the 1989 AO QF and then had surgery around March or April, IIRC). He retired from the 1990 AO F because of an abdominal injury, not back injury.
 
However, you are right that he changed his service action after the 1989 back surgery. He didn't arch his back as much as he did from 1985-1988. IMO, his serve lost some of it's vicious spin though it was still a great kick serve.
 
Evidence shows that top level 2HBH players with good/attacking returning skills always bothered Edberg (Connors, Courier, Agassi). Once Courier, Agassi started making it to the top of the game, Edberg struggled more often than not. They were able to hit the returns earlier, harder, forcing him to hit tough volleys time and again. Occasionally, he would be in such fine form that he could take whatever they threw at him (1991 USO), but, by and large, he had a tough time with them.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Mar 31 05:07PM -0700

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:01:12 AM UTC+11, Shakes wrote:
 
> Edberg had a back injury in 1989 (retired from the 1989 AO QF and then had surgery around March or April, IIRC). He retired from the 1990 AO F because of an abdominal injury, not back injury.
 
> However, you are right that he changed his service action after the 1989 back surgery. He didn't arch his back as much as he did from 1985-1988. IMO, his serve lost some of it's vicious spin though it was still a great kick serve.
 
> Evidence shows that top level 2HBH players with good/attacking returning skills always bothered Edberg (Connors, Courier, Agassi). Once Courier, Agassi started making it to the top of the game, Edberg struggled more often than not. They were able to hit the returns earlier, harder, forcing him to hit tough volleys time and again. Occasionally, he would be in such fine form that he could take whatever they threw at him (1991 USO), but, by and large, he had a tough time with them.
 
Evidence also showed Edberg was well passed his peak after 92. 91 USO was probably his last peak level performance.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Mar 31 05:38PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:10:53 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> You opened can of worms for yourself by this post :)
 
> Alex, where are you?
 
God yes... 10 or 11 years ago that exact issue ignited a (fascinating) storm of posts about the 'relative' nature of serving, speeds, effectiveness given the surfaces, etc... I offered up the statement that Patrick McEnroe made (around 2006 or 2007, I can't remember) and he said - at that time - that the average serving speed on the men's tour was THEE key metric of DIFFERENCE, (though NOT the only one) when comparing tennis of the mid-80's and mid-90's and then c. 2006... Not only had the 130 threshold been broken and routinely bettered, the 140 threshold had been... THOUGH, more to the point was that it was just normal serving to hit 124-132 on the men's tour, throughout the top 100, not an outlying fact... and that had changed men's tennis... WELL... that blew open a whole on the board... even though obvious, it lead to the usual silliness on all sides, HOWEVER, it also stimulated a FASCINATING and EPICALLY long post(s) on the topic...
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Mar 31 05:40PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:49:23 PM UTC-7, undecided wrote:
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> Nonsense....Pete in his last USO was hitting 130mph serves. I was there watching it happen. The radar guns were changed to show higher speeds over the years. Pete was still ace'ing people on the seniors tour just like he did when he played the ATP. He wasn't the biggest server but he was precise and his 2nd serve was not much slower than his 1st. That was the key to his success.
 
No... there are other issues, but that's a MYTH about the radar guns... and many examples were cited (articles about the integrity of the radar guns since the 1980s!... That particular point is a red herring... have to say...
 
P
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Mar 31 06:39PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:01:12 AM UTC+11, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Evidence shows that top level 2HBH players with good/attacking returning skills always bothered Edberg (Connors, Courier, Agassi). Once Courier, Agassi started making it to the top of the game, Edberg struggled more often than not. They were able to hit the returns earlier, harder, forcing him to hit tough volleys time and again. Occasionally, he would be in such fine form that he could take whatever they threw at him (1991 USO), but, by and large, he had a tough time with them.
 
> Evidence also showed Edberg was well passed his peak after 92. 91 USO was probably his last peak level performance.
 
Possibly, but Connors' record against Edberg shows that he was always vulnerable to good 2HBH returning players.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Mar 31 12:39PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 10:14:12 AM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> Hope for a good one... GO Rafa... [Hoping for a Rafa-NickieK final... Feds has enough early season hardware :)]
 
> Rafa and NickieK would be fireworks...
 
> P
 
That would be a fun match. Nadal looks very hungry for this title. He might get back to his winning ways over Federer, if that final occurred. So Kyrgios in the final would spare certain fans of having to go through that. :P
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Mar 31 12:46PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-7, Jason White wrote:
 
 
> That would be a fun match. Nadal looks very hungry for this title. He might get back to his winning ways over Federer, if that final occurred. So Kyrgios in the final would spare certain fans of having to go through that. :P
 
If Nadal does beat Fed in the F, I wouldn't be surprised. Fed must be pretty beat up by now and is ready for a loss. However I expect Kyrgios will beat Fed first for the same reason.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Mar 31 01:09PM -0700

Rafa's toughest opponent to the final has been...Kohlschrieber. Not sure if this cakewalk draw would give you an accurate indication of his "hunger".
 
I do admit that the conditions favor him in the absence of Djokovic.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Mar 31 05:45PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:46:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-7, Jason White wrote:
 
> > That would be a fun match. Nadal looks very hungry for this title. He might get back to his winning ways over Federer, if that final occurred. So Kyrgios in the final would spare certain fans of having to go through that. :P
 
> If Nadal does beat Fed in the F, I wouldn't be surprised. Fed must be pretty beat up by now and is ready for a loss. However I expect Kyrgios will beat Fed first for the same reason.
 
I agree... Rafa ready to get a Fed scalp, Foggi didn't force Rafa into the tank of energy reserves... the only worry is that he's not hitting many winners these days... Foggi littered up the scoresheet (UFE)... so, either Feds or Nickie will be a challenge, but, this is a really good look in for Rafa on this court, gritty, he'll get to a lot of balls and make it rough for whomever he plays...
 
P
undecided <costasz@gmail.com>: Mar 31 03:51PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:42:44 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Sampras would have won zippo slams with wood
 
Idiot, Sampras grew up playing with wood and his pro racquet was the smallest and heaviest pro racquet at the time.
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Mar 31 03:56PM -0700

Le vendredi 31 mars 2017 15:24:43 UTC+2, Whisper a écrit :
> On 31/03/2017 10:42 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > Sampras would have won zippo slams with wood
 
> Sampras woulda been Pancho on steroids in wood era - probably won 30 slams.
 
Well, what does tell ?
 
Since Roddick was supposed to be a Sampras on steroids, it doesn't look really good for Pete :-)
 
 
By the way, the post you replied to was merely trolling.
Given his age, Sampras is quite likely to have started with wood tool.
I've been playing with the green & black painted wood Dunlop Mac once had, iirc.
And I was born near day-for-day ten years before Federer (August 1971).
 
Not having if not compete with, say at least play often with, wood racket is merely concerning players born after 1990.
I wonder how most would deal with such smaller heads, appart from Fed who has been the smallest head in the pro tour until very lately (with known results no longer after the switch)
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Mar 31 04:27PM -0700

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:51:02 AM UTC+11, undecided wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:42:44 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > Sampras would have won zippo slams with wood
 
> Idiot, Sampras grew up playing with wood and his pro racquet was the smallest and heaviest pro racquet at the time.
 
No, the pro staff wasn't the smallest racquet. The head size of Pro staff is about the same as Dunlop Max 200G Pro, both are larger than Adidas Lendl GTX Pro.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Apr 01 02:03AM +0300

https://twitter.com/ComedyCentralUK/status/847859783801737217
 
Note for Icey: PG rated!
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Apr 01 12:47AM +0300

http://www.clickondetroit.com/live/live-stream-april-the-giraffes-behavior-is-very-off-from-normal-demeanor
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Apr 01 01:22AM +0300

1.4.2017, 0:47, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
> http://www.clickondetroit.com/live/live-stream-april-the-giraffes-behavior-is-very-off-from-normal-demeanor
 
This is extremely exciting channel.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Mar 31 09:58PM +0200

When Federer was chasing his FO it seemed longer at the time than
it actually was. The feeling was probably amplified with the
uncertainties over whether he'd ever beat Nadal there. But his
first final was in 2006, he won in 2009. That's just 3 years.

 
Djokovic's quest for cgs and FO seemed to last even longer, and it
was, he was 29 when he won it, at the tail end of his peak
period. But on the other side, his first final was in 2012, so
it's legitimate to claim he waited 4 years.
 
 
That's 3 and 4 years. We all know Miami and FO can't compare, but
Nadal has been in 4 finals here, this one is his 5th and he
definitely wants it. But it's been 12 (!) years since his first
final.
 
If he wins I expect him to be superconfident coming into clay.
Achieving something he's been waiting for 12 years.

 
Federer, Daydenko, Djokovic, Djokovic.
05, 08, 11, 14.
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Mar 31 12:17PM -0700

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:59:01 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:
 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg
 
> > I'm fine with Federer, Nadal or Kyrgios winning the tournament.
 
> Fed and Nads are the old guard. I thought you were desperate for new blood to make a move.
 
Which is why I said I'm fine with Kyrgios winning the tournament. If he can win it by beating Federer and then Nadal that would be some big statement. Is he ready? With him you never know.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment