Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Monday, July 17, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:09AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:04:24 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > > Some Fedfans saying Fed was in amazing form etc I disagree cos he was hardly freakin pushed, he barely tried anything special servingwise in the final cos he didn't have to, also his movement was that remarkable, he upped it a bit at the end in the 3rd set, but only cos he wanted to finish it. A couple more matches and Nadal would've easily won against the level played today!
 
> > This Federer was sufficient to bag the record 8th W. If needed, however, Federer would've have raised his level to deal with Nadal. Like at the AO 2017.
 
> that is the real question, would Fed have been able to up his level against Nadal, not saying he couldn't but the level he played yday, Nadal would have beaten him.
 
The level he displayed was sufficient to bring home the title. Nadal being there and playing well is a different challenge which would force Federer to raise his level accordingly --- as at AO 2017.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:25AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > > http://www.avg.com
 
> > Fed has since admitted that the French Open drubbing he received affected his Wimbledon final performance against Nadal. I don't think these matches can be viewed in isolation. Now that Fed is playing unencumbered by that clay H2H mental burden, we can all see what he is capable of.
 
> how is he unencumbered by the FO burden when he was too frightened to even play Nadal on clay this year?
 
He does want to be re-encumbered by it LOL. Skipping the clay season was a brilliant decision. His aggressive style isn't really conducive to the surface.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:57AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:19:04 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > So they are worried he can lose early but if he doesn't he will win magically.
 
> > you're saying Nadal couldn't beat the level Fed played against Cilic yday???
 
> You think Federer had to play anywhere near his best level to get the job done vs a physically hampered Cilic? If Nadal was Fed's opponent, Fed would have played many levels higher. I'm sure it would have been a good battle but I think Federer would have prevailed on this surface.
 
no that was my point, he didn't at all, he was very casual, until perhaps the end of the 3rd when he wanted to finish it. That's why I said Nadal would've beaten this level Fed, whether Fed would've been able to raise it to beat Nadal is interesting cos he wasn't pushed at all this tournament.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:57AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:09:39 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > This Federer was sufficient to bag the record 8th W. If needed, however, Federer would've have raised his level to deal with Nadal. Like at the AO 2017.
 
> > that is the real question, would Fed have been able to up his level against Nadal, not saying he couldn't but the level he played yday, Nadal would have beaten him.
 
> The level he displayed was sufficient to bring home the title. Nadal being there and playing well is a different challenge which would force Federer to raise his level accordingly --- as at AO 2017.
 
thought it was his improved bh that won the AO? LOLOL
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:15AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:57:12 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > you're saying Nadal couldn't beat the level Fed played against Cilic yday???
 
> > You think Federer had to play anywhere near his best level to get the job done vs a physically hampered Cilic? If Nadal was Fed's opponent, Fed would have played many levels higher. I'm sure it would have been a good battle but I think Federer would have prevailed on this surface.
 
> no that was my point, he didn't at all, he was very casual, until perhaps the end of the 3rd when he wanted to finish it. That's why I said Nadal would've beaten this level Fed, whether Fed would've been able to raise it to beat Nadal is interesting cos he wasn't pushed at all this tournament.
 
A casual Federer wouldn't be able to produce a winner off a Cilic retrieve in the first set. Raonic pushed Federer in the third set. Berdych did in the first two sets.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:16AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:57:54 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > that is the real question, would Fed have been able to up his level against Nadal, not saying he couldn't but the level he played yday, Nadal would have beaten him.
 
> > The level he displayed was sufficient to bring home the title. Nadal being there and playing well is a different challenge which would force Federer to raise his level accordingly --- as at AO 2017.
 
> thought it was his improved bh that won the AO? LOLOL
 
So you disagree that Federer raised his level against Nadal in the fifth set at AO 2017?
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:37AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:06:01 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Laver did, won two slams, Hoad lost to Ken at FO, cheap greek lost in second round at FO, so did mickenroe, jimbo, Borg never cared except the channel slam, Fed, Rafa, Novak are in a different class, cant compare Ferrari to a mustang!!!!!!!!
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:14AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > What does it tell us about the state of current day tennis?
 
> it the most difficult impossible physical high level tough highest ever competitive level ever in history, which is why a 39 year old guy totally and completely smashes and dominates everything without the loss of a single set
> except 1 guy on clay! :D
 
Federer is special. An 8-time winner of the most prestigious title. Not seen in a hundred plus years. Nadal is equally special too.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:29AM -0700

> I'm referring more to the uniformity of surfaces & playing styles,
rather than quality of field.
 
Where is the uniformity of surfaces if Nadal won 10 out of 15 on clay, djokovic won 7/12 in the AO, and the GOAT won 8 grass, 5 uso, 5ao and one on clay?
 
Sampras won 7 grass, 7 HC and you didn't complain.
 
Fed was in 10 grass finals winning 8, won 10 HC.
 
I guess the numbers are proportional but Fed is greater.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:31AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:29:42 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Sampras won 7 grass, 7 HC and you didn't complain.
 
> Fed was in 10 grass finals winning 8, won 10 HC.
 
> I guess the numbers are proportional but Fed is greater.
 
thought you Fedfans called it "green clay" at Wimbledon?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:35AM -0700

> thought you Fedfans called it "green clay" at Wimbledon?
 
Oh we were waiting for nadal in the final but he missed the bus.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 07:09PM +0100

On 17/07/2017 18:14, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
>> it the most difficult impossible physical high level tough highest ever competitive level ever in history, which is why a 39 year old guy totally and completely smashes and dominates everything without the loss of a single set
>> except 1 guy on clay! :D
 
> Federer is special. An 8-time winner of the most prestigious title. Not seen in a hundred plus years. Nadal is equally special too.
 
https://streamable.com/ji4vf
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:15AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 21:33:39 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:

> I'm referring more to the uniformity of surfaces & playing styles,
> rather than quality of field.
 
Then wouldn't the same guy dominate at all slams?
Fed is #1 at W, co-#1 at USO & #2 at AO. He is not even close at FO.
Rafa is #1 at FO & not even close at other slams.
Djoker is #1 at AO & not even close at other slams.
It is easy to see who is the "locker room #1" here.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 07:23AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
 
Ha ha exactly. As a Fed fan, rooting for him in an epic match creates a lot of stress. If he wins one of those epics a la Australia, it is incredibly satisfying. But I would rather he not make things too complicated, for my own mental well-being. :)
 
I really do not know how the Nadal fans deal with this, as most of his later stage matches outside of clay end up being epic seesaw five setters? Maybe they just approach these matches with a "any win outside of clay is gravy" mindset? I also feel that is how *he* viewed these matches in the earlier stages of his career and it helped him win a lot of them.
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:03AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 00:03:29 UTC+5:30, undecided wrote:

> I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.
 
Sadly, the field has 128 players and Rafa doesn't get to play Roger in the
final without facing some other bums along the way. 5 different bums have
beaten Rafa (Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, Muller) the last 5 times he
played at W and none of them reached even an SF.
Here's their respective record over the last 5 times Rafa played:
Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Rafa R2 R1 R4 R2 DNP R4
Fed W R2 F F SF W
 
Fed straight-setted Cilic who beat Muller in 5 who beat Rafa in 5.
Why should Rafa be more competitive against Fed? He's lost thrice to
him already this year on HC where Rafa has a better record vs Fed.
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:09AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 09:58:18 UTC+5:30, Court_1 wrote:

> I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.
 
Repeat after me: Rafa lost to Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown & Muller
before QF and none of them made it even to SF. Why should he be better
in the later rounds if he is not good enough to get through the earlier
rounds. You have this love affair with Rafa that causes you to pick him
year after year for at least making the final when simple logic and
past history suggests his glory days at W are long past.
It is illogical to suggest that Rafa woulda beaten Cilic.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:51AM -0700

> when is the US open final
 
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/eventschedule.html
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:55AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 16:57:34 UTC+1, Carey wrote:
 
> > LOL W2008!
 
> Hey Icey, what's the Nadal-Fed Grass H2H again? And since the USO is coming up, their HC H2H, as well?
 
> Thanks Dood!
 
sounds like some real desperate questions there! haha
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:30AM -0700

> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:28:14 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Very true.
 
> It was quite smart on Federer's part to model his service games on Whisper's pattern rather than Pete's.
 
Fed has always relied on his serve to win matches, without his serve, he'd prob be quite average record. Hasn't he hit now 10,000 aces in his career - that says it all really. That not disparaging his serve, since I really like the way he serves.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:37AM -0700

> Fed has always relied on his serve to win matches, without his serve, he'd prob be quite average record. Hasn't he hit now 10,000 aces in his career - that says it all really. That not disparaging his serve, since I really like the way he serves.
 
Fed is 6,1 shorter than djokovic same height like Nadal.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:54AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:37:58 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Fed has always relied on his serve to win matches, without his serve, he'd prob be quite average record. Hasn't he hit now 10,000 aces in his career - that says it all really. That not disparaging his serve, since I really like the way he serves.
 
> Fed is 6,1 shorter than djokovic same height like Nadal.
 
so what, it's technique, Sampras was the same height, it a cracking serve.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:39AM -0700

> Actually I think Mac has been increasingly charitable regarding Roger. He was making a lot of very positive, even glowing remark about him the past two weeks. J-Mac's mother is suffering from leukemia, so many his vicious side has been shelved because of this.
 
Very true, also sorry for his mother.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:43AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:59:50 AM UTC-4, Ulysses wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > I think he had hitched his wagon to Nadal (or maybe Djokovic) becoming GOAT. This Roger Renaissance has completely blindsided him.
 
> Actually I think Mac has been increasingly charitable regarding Roger. He was making a lot of very positive, even glowing remark about him the past two weeks. J-Mac's mother is suffering from leukemia, so many his vicious side has been shelved because of this.
 
Guess it was just me then. Sorry to hear about his mom.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:42AM -0700

Some great advice from the GOAT
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/17/roger-federer-hungover-tennis-next-generation-wimbledon
Roger Federer, hungover after partying until 5am to celebrate his eighth Wimbledon title, had enough lucidity on Monday morning to throw down a challenge to the next generation to play more attacking tennis if they want to dislodge the old order.
 
The 35-year-old Swiss could easily return to No1 in the world and win his third slam of the season in New York in early September after coming through Wimbledon without losing a set. He won in Melbourne, too, in vastly different circumstances, and he looks and sounds as content as when he was dominating the game alongside Rafael Nadal, then, in recent years, competing with Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray for supremacy.
 
"Yeah, my head's ringing," he said with a smile. "I don't know what I did last night [after the Champions' dinner at the Guildhall in central London]. I drank too many types of drinks, I guess. After the ball we went to – what would you call it? I guess it's a bar – and there were almost 30 to 40 friends that were there. We had a great time. Got to bed at five, then woke up, and just didn't feel good. The last hour or so I'm somewhat OK again. I'm happy with that."
 
He is happy, too, with his game, which has returned to its stunning best since he came back on the Tour in January. Federer can fairly be regarded as the best player in the world right now and maybe for a while to come, regardless of sitting behind Murray and Nadal in the rankings – and three places ahead of Marin Cilic, whom he defeated 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 in the final on Sunday.
 
But Federer is less content with the mindset of the younger contenders, who still have not been able to remove the 30-plus elite from the top of the pile. "I know you can easily get sucked into that [attritional] mode when you don't want to attack but, if you can't volley, you are not going to go to the net. Almost every player I played here wouldn't serve and volley. It's frightening to me, to see that at this level.
 
 
"I look at the stats and, whatever round it is, I see that the guy I'm going to face is playing 2% of serve and volley throughout the championship. I'm going, OK, I know he's not going to serve and volley – which is great for me. And the grass was playing fast this week. I wish that we would see more coaches, more players taking chances up at the net, because good things do happen there.
 
"I do believe the depth in the men's game is as great as it's ever been but, because of the way they play, maybe not super-fast like they used to back in the 80s, the margins are bigger because of the surface speed, the ball speed and the racket technology. You have to hit a lot of good shots to come through a Murray or a Djokovic. Over five sets, it catches up with you and it's favourable for the top guys."
 
Federer also thinks the points system does not favour younger players. "Since my generation and Rafa's generation, yes, the next one hasn't been strong enough to push all of us out. A young guy, if he wants to make a breakthrough, he can beat me or any top player, but, if he doesn't make a run to the final or win the tournament, he's not making any move in the rankings.
 
"It's not so easy to win five straight matches [in Masters and lower tournaments]. The consistency that's required by the young generation is quite complex. Because of our different playing styles at the top – put Stan [Wawrinka] in there, put Cilic in there and then the big four – it's hard for young guys to make a run through that."
 
He added: "I grew up with bonus points, believe it or not, back in the 90s. I remember playing Pat Rafter on Suzanne Lenglen in Paris and I was playing for double points in grand slams. I think it was 45 to beat a player [ranked] between two and five. It was like 90 points just to beat Pat and then take the points of the round.
 
"Of course sometimes you couldn't defend those points the following year, so it was complex. But it was great for a big-court player to play a big guy and beat him there.
 
"What I feel is a bit wrong in the rankings system is, if you have a great run and play a quarters, like Andy did, for instance, fought, loses in five sets, walks away with 360 points. I walk away with 2,000 points. I feel the gap's too big. It's only been like this since a few years. To win eight 250s to make up for a slam, I find it too much.
 
"That's why, by playing little and making so many points at slam level, it puts me in a totally different situation. I can really start picking and choosing my moments when to attack [the rankings].
 
"But it is how it is. The good thing is that the best player in the world should be the one winning the biggest tournaments. That's an aspect I understand: that we have a lot of points in Masters 1000s, slams and then the World Tour Finals."
wkhedr <wkhedr@my-deja.com>: Jul 17 10:34AM -0700

They didn't have enough time to heal after the AO to get a DP in this Wimbledon few months later.
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