Tennis

[mrhender]

I think Djokovic would have rather met Nadal or Federer today...

Wawrinka is as unpredictable as he is dangerous....

 

[the sceptic]

probably a pretty significant amount of luck involved too. I mean, painting the lines for 4 sets isn't a skill. Some days he will miss a higher % of those winner and suddenly Djokovic wins in 5.

edit: I don't mean it's all luck, but when you play with really small margins you can't really control if you're hitting winners or errors.

 

[peloton]

Re:

probably a pretty significant amount of luck involved too. I mean, painting the lines for 4 sets isn't a skill. Some days he will miss a higher % of those winner and suddenly Djokovic wins in 5.

edit: I don't mean it's all luck, but when you play with really small margins you can't really control if you're hitting winners or errors.

Absolutely, a combination of confidence, skill and luck.
But Stan's backhand is a thing of beauty ( unlike his shorts...)

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

There isn't some magical drug that allows you to paint the line when otherwise the ball goes out, although reduced fatigue makes it easier to maintain concentration, which is something the big players have exploited with doping for a long time now, no one more than Djokovic and Nadal. It's luck and keeping a cool head.

Disagree. Once you get to the level of pros you are talking about people who can hit any square centimeter on the court they want with their eyes closed. If they can't they wont make it as pros. The talent pool is so deep.

Physical ability is what seperates them. Nadal shows this, especially at French. His shots go between service line and baseline. Its not their accuracy, its the kick of the topspin, delivered with that power

 

[robow7]

Stan hit out today, he knew he couldn't rally all day with Djoker and tactically it's called first strike tennis, meaning the first ball that you have any chance to go for an out right winner, you take it but that's not what any player likes to do, too high risk. That's a testament to Djoker's defensive skills, consistency and court coverage, If Stan is on, he looks brilliant but if the timing is off even a hair, you roll up unforced errors by the basket full and bow out. Stan rolled the dice and won today, but no human can do this day in and day out and you may see him go out in the quarters at the next tourney.

 

[sniper]

Stan hit out today, he knew he couldn't rally all day with Djoker and tactically it's called first strike tennis, meaning the first ball that you have any chance to go for an out right winner, you take it but that's not what any player likes to do, too high risk. That's a testament to Djoker's defensive skills, consistency and court coverage, If Stan is on, he looks brilliant but if the timing is off even a hair, you roll up unforced errors by the basket full and bow out. Stan rolled the dice and won today, but no human can do this day in and day out and you may see him go out in the quarters at the next tourney.

the question is what kind of PED allowed him to play the 'first strike' card so successfully yesterday.
in a slam final, normally you're more nervous than in other matches which could have negative consequences for a 'first strike' game plan.
Not for Stan yesterday

 

[blackcat]

the non-scientific term is called "flow". I am assuming it is more prevalent in the fine motor skill coordination sports, than the purely athletic sports, where it is difficult to measure if you put out a % or two more than normal. In ball-sports, the ball can keep on landing and keep on going in.

 

[robow7]

I don't think any PED was required of Stan for that particular style of play. He was heavily the underdog, no pressure on him because he was supposed to lose, so you just hit out, and the Gods are with you and they fall in. Somewhat surprised that he didn't fall apart when he got up, because all too often you begin thinking, "well I've won a set or two and that's a lot more than anyone thought I would do" and you proceed to become more tentative and hand the match to the favorite. On the other hand his confidence grew and he continued to rip away, maybe because he had won a grand slam before so he wasn't in that unfamiliar territory.

Another thing surprising is why the Djoker wasn't able to bounce back after the grueling 5 set match in the semi's? I mean with mere mortals, it's understandable where you might not have fully recouped but as of the last few years, normally Djoker comes back in the next match like the day before was a mere 2 hour practice session. I wonder if someone slipped him a piece of whole wheat bread when he wasn't looking for it.

 

[Andynonomous]

Stan won the French Open via offence first. This is VERY unusual, because the slow red clay lends itself primarily to defence (the reason Nadal has dominated over the years).

This "offence first" strategy, only works when the player is VERY accurate on the day.
See this thread for examples of Wawrinka's powerful shots (wait about 3 minutes to let the gifs load).
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=650465

Those shots are VERY low percentage shots, and usually lead to a loss. Stan was just hot on the day.

 

[blackcat]

Stan won the French Open via offence first. This is VERY unusual, because the slow red clay lends itself primarily to defence (the reason Nadal has dominated over the years).

This "offence first" strategy, only works when the player is VERY accurate on the day.
See this thread for examples of Wawrinka's powerful shots (wait about 3 minutes to let the gifs load).
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=650465

Those shots are VERY low percentage shots, and usually lead to a loss. Stan was just hot on the day.

seems from those gifs, i have not seen the game, all were right in Stan's hitting zone, about 3.5-4 feet high, not too high for Stan's drives. now, I know the paradox, the sample fallacy, i may only be seeing a slither of the rallies from Nole, but i wonder why he could not play a ball with more topspin in the game. I guess even the best cannot switch their game up to such degree, and Nole presumed his A game could match Stan's A game, and to go to an entirely different game which was not his regular defense was flawed from the outset, better play the A game with the defense tweaked. certainly Nadal would have been making Stan play the ball at 5feet and higher, makes it impossible to drive the ball, unless you catch it when it is rising

 

[robow7]

Just looking at those points, how many backhands down the line did Stan nail? bunches. Though it's easier to say in hindsight but if you're Nole, you've got to keep going up the middle of the court to take away the angles. Glad he won and made the day on clay more fun to watch, much better than back in the good ole days. Ha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk

 

[infeXio]

This one

 

[sniper]

Re:

I wonder if someone slipped him a piece of whole wheat bread when he wasn't looking

anyway, what's up with the high fist pumping.
Nadal started it I think, raising the fist really high after a winner.
(maybe Hewitt did it before him?)
Djoker, Murray and Stan the Man have all followed suit. (Thank god Federer has a normal, lower, more gentle fist)
I don't like the high fist, in fact I think it's awful.
but it seems to be the new style of expressing confidence.
Kind of like a pissing contest.

Please bring back the low fist.

 

[SeriousSam]

Fantastic to see The Gymnast so thoroughly exposed by a talented shot maker.

Tennis is alive once again.

lol

 

[Ticker]

Re: Re:

I wonder if someone slipped him a piece of whole wheat bread when he wasn't looking

anyway, what's up with the high fist pumping.
Nadal started it I think, raising the fist really high after a winner.
(maybe Hewitt did it before him?)
Djoker, Murray and Stan the Man have all followed suit. (Thank god Federer has a normal, lower, more gentle fist)
I don't like the high fist, in fact I think it's awful.
but it seems to be the new style of expressing confidence.
Kind of like a pissing contest.

Please bring back the low fist.

Saving break point in only the second game results to:

 

[Andynonomous]

How about this one.

 

[sniper]

lol. exactly what i mean.

and the crowd they love it, that's the other problem.

 

[sniper]

not in the Nadal league of ridiculousness, but still:

and he's actually a nice guy.
but on court roids took possession of him.

 

[jalep]

I'm as happy as anyone that the 30 yr old Stanimal won the French Open. But thinking he's not doping? uh....

He won AO 2014 and mowed down everyone in his path, including Djokovic on his way to the final and sent Rafa packing in the final. That performance came as a big surprise for many a tennis fan, including myself. He was always good but at age 29, hardly a favorite to win AO that year. My first though watching him at AO was, what the hell? I know Magnus Norman has to be a part of his success but to start winning GS titles? really?

*shakes head*

As I said though, very happy to watch Stan win last Sunday and wish him continued success.

 

[The Hitch]

not in the Nadal league of ridiculousness, but still:

and he's actually a nice guy.
but on court roids took possession of him.

Hewitt is like Lemond and his generation in cycling in 1991. He was at the top when whatever new drugs tennis has came out in the mid 2000s. He was still 23 when he made the AO final. After that he didn't get worse, but just got blown away by all the new power players. Up until then there actually was something like a clay court specialist and grass court specialists. These days the participants making the quarters accross all gss are almost identical.

 

[blackcat]

not in the Nadal league of ridiculousness, but still:

and he's actually a nice guy.
but on court roids took possession of him.

Hewitt is like Lemond and his generation in cycling in 1991. He was at the top when whatever new drugs tennis has came out in the mid 2000s. He was still 23 when he made the AO final. After that he didn't get worse, but just got blown away by all the new power players. Up until then there actually was something like a clay court specialist and grass court specialists. These days the participants making the quarters accross all gss are almost identical.

I dont think this is correct Hitch. I think it started in Lendl's time, seriously, others might have had uppers, or amphetamines, but Lendl and MArtina brought it in with a structured regimen. I am assuming Chang had support from coach/badsportparent, and definitely Thomas Muster and Jim Courier, its impossible to go on clay tears during the european clay season, you cant win three titles them come to roland garros and win. Well, Courier was more hardcourt, but he had that game where you can wear down the competitor on the other side of the net.

heres a tell. Any number 1 who is proudly touted and lauded by the media who says "he is the fittest guy in the game and has a strenuous fitness regime" = doper fo' shur. so hewitt, rafter... them all.

and note on Hewitt, he hit the period of the game that was at a low ebb, he had Sampras retiring, he had Courier on verge of retirement even tho Jim was young, he obviously had hit the burnout wall. Agassi was off in Fresno doing binges of meth and writing scripts for breaking bad while he was banging brooke shields and more alliterations.,,
so Hewitt could capitalise. He beat nalbandian for atheist chrissakes and then, that was wimbledon, think he might have beaten Philippoussis at US Open, but that was Andy Roddick's year about 2002, and when he lost to Hewitt, Andy got a really dodgy call in the first or second set, and it threw him completely off his game, before that call, he had Hewitt and he was gonna win that game, think it was the quarters. Andy was about 19, coulda been 18, coulda been 20, Lleyton was bout 22. But that was Andy's US Open to win, but he let his head go in that loss in the quarters.

Hewitt hit the game at a really soft spot. Andy coulda racked up about 6 Majors, and divided the spoils of the first few years of the 2000 decade between him and Marat Safin.

 

[Blakeslee]

Re:

At one point in the match they showed a statistic that William's shots are on average about 20kph faster than Safarova's.

I don't understand how tennis commentators can continue to ignore what is obviously going on with Serena Williams. It reminds me of the McGuire/Sosa/Bonds era in baseball where everyone was oohing and aahing about their incredible power while nobody was questioning the means it was being accomplished with.

The same thing happened in the coverage of the men's final, with the commentators in awe of how hard Stan was hitting. I've seen many of Stan's matches over the years and I can't remember him hitting as hard as he has been over the past two seasons.

 

[blackcat]

its not hitting hard per se. well it is and it is not.

it is not the 250km serve thunderbolts that that 28 yo australian sam groth throws down, the ex husband or jardmilla gaidjasova.

it is about doing it deep in the 5th, deep in the 2nd week of a slam, especially on clay.

 

[The Hitch]

not in the Nadal league of ridiculousness, but still:

and he's actually a nice guy.
but on court roids took possession of him.

Hewitt is like Lemond and his generation in cycling in 1991. He was at the top when whatever new drugs tennis has came out in the mid 2000s. He was still 23 when he made the AO final. After that he didn't get worse, but just got blown away by all the new power players. Up until then there actually was something like a clay court specialist and grass court specialists. These days the participants making the quarters accross all gss are almost identical.

I dont think this is correct Hitch. I think it started in Lendl's time, seriously, others might have had uppers, or amphetamines, but Lendl and MArtina brought it in with a structured regimen. I am assuming Chang had support from coach/badsportparent, and definitely Thomas Muster and Jim Courier, its impossible to go on clay tears during the european clay season, you cant win three titles them come to roland garros and win. Well, Courier was more hardcourt, but he had that game where you can wear down the competitor on the other side of the net.

heres a tell. Any number 1 who is proudly touted and lauded by the media who says "he is the fittest guy in the game and has a strenuous fitness regime" = doper fo' shur. so hewitt, rafter... them all.

and note on Hewitt, he hit the period of the game that was at a low ebb, he had Sampras retiring, he had Courier on verge of retirement even tho Jim was young, he obviously had hit the burnout wall. Agassi was off in Fresno doing binges of meth and writing scripts for breaking bad while he was banging brooke shields and more alliterations.,,
so Hewitt could capitalise. He beat nalbandian for atheist chrissakes and then, that was wimbledon, think he might have beaten Philippoussis at US Open, but that was Andy Roddick's year about 2002, and when he lost to Hewitt, Andy got a really dodgy call in the first or second set, and it threw him completely off his game, before that call, he had Hewitt and he was gonna win that game, think it was the quarters. Andy was about 19, coulda been 18, coulda been 20, Lleyton was bout 22. But that was Andy's US Open to win, but he let his head go in that loss in the quarters.

Hewitt hit the game at a really soft spot. Andy coulda racked up about 6 Majors, and divided the spoils of the first few years of the 2000 decade between him and Marat Safin.

Doping obviously existed before 2003-2005 but clearly went to a new level after. Since then there's been a total disappearence of players under 185. The disappearance of court specialists. The same players making every semi, every final. The game went from being say 50% physical to now about 80% physical. Guys like Hewitt at 180 can't compete. Ferrer kind of can with some players on clay. Maybe it's Spanish epo that allows him to grind out 5 setters but he still gets blown away by djoker, Murray or nadal 90% of the time.

 

[blackcat]

agree with that hitch ^