Jeor Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Old thread hasn't been closed but at 460 posts it's only a matter of time... 25 minutes ago, Leap said: But one thing I did learn today - for tennis, radio is a poor substitute. I wouldn't say the Wimbledon Live Radio commentators were particularly good anyway, but the tension I felt listening to that last game was smaller than when I actually watched the thing, even though I knew the score that time. Anyway, glad to see Fed through if only because this was grass and Wimbledon. I don't fancy his chances on Sunday, but goddamn I cannot wait to watch it. Fingers crossed for #21. I think tennis on radio is a pretty crazy idea...apart from the atmosphere and commentary on the scoreline, I don't know that I'd pick up that much from it. Still, I guess you have to settle for what you can! Djokovic has to start the favourite, but the crowd will definitely be on Federer's side. It would be great to see him get #21 and pull a little ahead of Djokovic/Nadal on the total Slam count again. But I think it's unlikely - I'm calling it for Djoker in 4 sets. It's a lot to ask Federer to roll back the clock and play like that for two big matches in a row, and Djokovic now knows what he might potentially have to prepare for, whereas I think Fed rather took Nadal by surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 Djokovic was apparently a bit whingey when the crowd began siding with Bautista Agut. Boris Becker on commentary during the Fed/Nadal match said that early on his career, it did bother Novak that everyone seemed to like Roger or Rafa more than him, but he thought Djokovic was over it now and accepted that he wouldn't be quite like those two. In some ways it might prove more motivation for Djokovic to show the Wimbledon crowd he can defeat their beloved son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 I can't even fathom how terrible tennis would be on the radio. Sure you can follow the games, but the in match calls must be awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I can't even fathom how terrible tennis would be on the radio. Sure you can follow the games, but the in match calls must be awful. Cricket on radio I can get. But tennis on radio...there's just no time to picture what's happening. At most you'd just need to get some score updates here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Calibandar said: That is always how it is though. When Federer is on form and playing to his best on a non-clay surface, even at age 37 he has Nadal's number. The last couple of years he has beaten him again and again. There just came a phase where he was able to remove that mental block that always seemed to come upon him and strangle him when he plyed Rafa, and since then their matches have become even better, Yeah he was really excellent. This is the Federer I love watching on grass, or everywhere. There is just no one else even remotely like him. Nadal is a truly incredible tennis player and you just know that as awesome as Federer is, it can go wrong at any point, a few points make all the difference. To have Federer's attractive style and then also win the game, that to me is the marvel. Federer is the last holdover from the era in which serve and volley and a really forward style if play were the thing. The thing with Federer's play is that he never really got pushed behind the baseline. So many of his groundstrokes were essentially half-volleys as he refused to retreat. And playing all those half-volley groundstrokes he got off some amazing angles and speed - regardless of all the GOAT debates, I think Fed deserves to be rated as the greatest natural shotmaker in tennis history (Djoker and Nadal are great shotmakers too, but in a counterpunching sort of style in terms of what they can get back and passing shots on the run - Fed by contrast manufactures shots and angles audaciously from the beginning). He's got incredible hand-eye coordination to take the ball so early, especially with a one-handed backhand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Really super pleased with this win. Well deserved. But.. the job is not done, the Djoker must be taken as well. I hope this is Fed's moment, and seeing him play this tournament, I think he could. I thought it was 50-50 pre-match today but it wasn't as close as that, Nadal got outclassed even though he played some tremendous tennis himself. The surface looks quite fast too, might be in Fed's favour. Free Northman: All-time top 3: 1) Federer ( of course) 2) Djokovic 3) Nadal Let's see Djokovic and Nadal kick ass at age 37. In terms of sheer dominant periods Djoker is Federer's equal, for sure. But you have to factor in the age difference. In terms of what they bring to the game, you have to give it to Federer. Also in terms of majors of course. But I don't love these discussions cause it always mean you have to give minus points to one of the other guys you admire, I enjoy watching Djokovic the least of the the three but he has been an absolute phenom, and still is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Totally agree Jeor. His sheer level of skill and craftsmanship is just unbelievable. Nadal and Djokovic put other things against that which are also incredible, but my heart goes out to the agressive style of Federer that just has so much beauty to it. Nadal's and Djoker's finest moments I feel, are always when they play Federer and are able to throw him some terrific counterpunches from crazy angles. It's nowhere near as much fun to watch Nadal or Djoker play Bautista or Ferrer, but Federer is a perfect foil for their own skillset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just to point out that according to Wikipedia Federer hasn’t beaten Djokovic in a major since 2012. That’s 7 years ago. So when Roger was 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divica Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 5 hours ago, Jeor said: The thing with Federer's play is that he never really got pushed behind the baseline. So many of his groundstrokes were essentially half-volleys as he refused to retreat. And playing all those half-volley groundstrokes he got off some amazing angles and speed - regardless of all the GOAT debates, I think Fed deserves to be rated as the greatest natural shotmaker in tennis history (Djoker and Nadal are great shotmakers too, but in a counterpunching sort of style in terms of what they can get back and passing shots on the run - Fed by contrast manufactures shots and angles audaciously from the beginning). He's got incredible hand-eye coordination to take the ball so early, especially with a one-handed backhand. this is a very good coment. It is also sad that we don t have a great a young player with feds characteristics… Maybe the closest one is zverev because thiem or tsitsi have the same profile as nadal or djoko... 5 hours ago, Calibandar said: Let's see Djokovic and Nadal kick ass at age 37. In terms of sheer dominant periods Djoker is Federer's equal, for sure. But you have to factor in the age difference. In terms of what they bring to the game, you have to give it to Federer. Also in terms of majors of course. But I don't love these discussions cause it always mean you have to give minus points to one of the other guys you admire, I enjoy watching Djokovic the least of the the three but he has been an absolute phenom, and still is. Djokovic might end up having a better resume by the time he retires. Honestly, nobody can know how many titles novak will win… But for the moment federer tops djokovic in nearly all the importante statistics... As I said above nadal can t be compared with the other 2. He has a lot of titles but they are almost all on clay… There is no doubt he is the best player ever on clay, but his results on other surfaces just aren t on the level of federer or djokovic… However is results on clay are so amazing that they put him on the same level of titles as the other 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divica Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 31 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Just to point out that according to Wikipedia Federer hasn’t beaten Djokovic in a major since 2012. That’s 7 years ago. So when Roger was 30. And how many times have they played since? Because I would say that probably in the last 4 years they only faced 2 or so in masters. Don t Forget that novak had 2 or 3 very dark years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 What a start Halep has made in this women's final - broken Serena's serve twice and out to a 3-0 lead. The question is whether she has overcome her mentally fragile state in Grand Slam finals (1-3 record) and whether she can keep winning the games while Serena is still off and making lots of unforced errors. When Serena finds her range this match will become much tougher for Halep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Halep’s all over Williams here. ETA: Straight sets in less than an hour. Great performance from Halep but that’s a bit of a disaster from Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 6-2 6-2 in 55 minutes. An absolute demolition but nobody would have guessed that Halep would be dealing it out and Serena would be on the receiving end. Serena had an absolutely awful match (25 unforced errors to Halep's 3), and lost so many points from unforced errors when she was on top of the rally and Halep just made her hit one more shot. But Halep also just played really well. Even though Serena was serving at 68% first serves, Halep returned so well that Serena still only won 59% of those first serve points, which has to be one of the lowest first-serve win rates Serena would have ever faced. And no sign of nerves from Halep either - closed it out with a love hold, no fuss at all. She's now 2-3 in Grand Slam Finals, which makes for better reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 And Serena is now 2-5 in her last seven Grand Slam finals after having started her career as a virtual lock being 20-4 in finals. Ever since she lost that 2016 Australian Open final to Kerber, Serena has lost her aura of invincibility, having lost twice to Kerber, and once to Muguruza, Osaka and Halep now. It doesn't really tarnish her legacy in that I think she's secured her position as the greatest women's player in history. However, this late decline is only natural given her age (in athlete terms), the knee injury and her somewhat limited mobility. A lot of the unforced errors were because she was slightly out of position or reaching for the ball. Other players who can get her shots back, keep the rallies going and get her moving have a real chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Congratulations to Halep, she played brilliantly, if you blinked the game was over. As good as she was Williams made a ton of unforced errors. But some of the returns Halep made were incredible. I’m very happy for her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 Halep has now won Slams on clay and grass, and she's a good hardcourt player too. She'll be a genuine threat across all Slams for a few years now and I really think breaking her duck with that French Open has really helped her get over the mental issues, there were none in this final at all. Great to see her so happy and with her family afterwards too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Just to point out that according to Wikipedia Federer hasn’t beaten Djokovic in a major since 2012. That’s 7 years ago. So when Roger was 30. That seems very biased and selective. Why would you only include majors? I can recall a few real nice wins in Masters tournaments that certainly mattered and were very impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 24 minutes ago, Calibandar said: That seems very biased and selective. Why would you only include majors? I can recall a few real nice wins in Masters tournaments that certainly mattered and were very impressive. As a fan my perception is that these top players manage their training and preparations through the year to peak at the Grand Slams. In my mind at least they are best measured by how they perform at the four major tournaments. None of the other tournaments have the same level of scrutiny, prestige and status attached to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 Tennis is an interesting game in that there really are so many measures of a player's effectiveness. World Number One: I feel that a player needs to at least reach this so they can be forever remembered as a former No. 1 player but it's kind of a "one and done" sort of thing. Once you've reached it, other things become more important like Slam titles. Pat Rafter can describe himself as a former number one but apart from that nice moniker I don't think people give it that much weight. that being said, Sampras and Federer are way ahead of everyone else in terms of total weeks spent at 1 so it's not a bad measure. But it is influenced a lot by how many tournaments are entered etc. Grand Slams: These are what people pay attention to the most, and a bit like Cycling with the Grand Tours I think 99% of people only really watch and follow the Slams. You have to be a real diehard tennis fan to be following all the Masters events etc. So it's not surprising that they're used as the main barometer. And they're just really easy to count. Wozniacki and a few other women became Number One without winning a Grand Slam and I reckon they probably would have traded the ranking for a Slam win (though Wozniacki didn't have to in the end). Other tournaments: If you go by total tournaments won, and all that sort of stuff, then all sorts of different players pop up. Like the number one ranking (which can be built up by playing a lot of smaller tournaments) I think people don't lend these much credence - and probaby rightly so, given that the smaller tournaments on the circuit often don't contain all the top players in the draw. That being said, the Masters tournaments are more or less compulsory so they do have competitive draws. Even though they're only best of 3 sets, I'd make the argument that Masters results do matter somewhat, at least in a head-to-head as it still psychologically counts as a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: As a fan my perception is that these top players manage their training and preparations through the year to peak at the Grand Slams. In my mind at least they are best measured by how they perform at the four major tournaments. None of the other tournaments have the same level of scrutiny, prestige and status attached to them. As a tennis fan who follows the game all year, what happens in the Big Masters tournaments has to me almost equal value as the Grand Slams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.