Tennis

[Red Rick]

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.

Meh, its so easy to put it all on doping. Another huge factor that you shouldn't overlook is the homogenisation of court surfaces. Basically every court except for clay courts have gotten a lot slower. S&V has died out because of that, players like Hewitt who are great at redirecting pace but not great at generating their own really suffered from that.

You had players like Roddick going from just bombing every ball to grinding out every point just so he could keep up

 

[blackcat]

Meh, its so easy to put it all on doping. Another huge factor that you shouldn't overlook is the homogenisation of court surfaces. Basically every court except for clay courts have gotten a lot slower. S&V has died out because of that, players like Hewitt who are great at redirecting pace but not great at generating their own really suffered from that.

You had players like Roddick going from just bombing every ball to grinding out every point just so he could keep up

Hewitt liked the faster surface, always complained with the Australian open surface, "rebound ace" was not fast enough. Roddick power guy blunted by slow courts, and Hewitts hustle also neutralised to an extent, tho he never could manage to master clay, p'raps cos he could not put away enough brute force winners, or hit with the "top" of NAdal

 

[sniper]

TheHitch's point about court specialists disappearing is interesting.
Good rebuttal from RedRick that the traditionally fast surfaces have been slowed down, I think the balls at Wimbledon have also been made slower (more hairy).
This was all in response to players like Krajicek killing the game with strings of aces.
There were games when the crowd really had nothing to watch other than aces, half-aces, smashes, and the occasional passing return winner. Somewhere early 2000s I think the BBC and Wimbledon decided it was time to 'create' more rallies.

That said, the increased doping definitely played a role as well, like Hitch argues. The development of players like Nadal, Ferrer, and Wawrinka on hardcourt suggests it. In the past, claycourt specialists like Bruguera, Kuerten, etc, would not even bother showing up during the american hard-court season (they either took a break or would continue to play in small gravel tournaments in europe), and if they did they'd often lose to lower ranked hardcourt specialists.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re:

TheHitch's point about court specialists disappearing is interesting.
Good rebuttal from RedRick that the traditionally fast surfaces have been slowed down, I think the balls at Wimbledon have also been made slower (more hairy).
This was all in response to players like Krajicek killing the game with strings of aces.
There were games when the crowd really had nothing to watch other than aces, half-aces, smashes, and the occasional passing return winner. Somewhere early 2000s I think the BBC and Wimbledon decided it was time to 'create' more rallies.

That said, the increased doping definitely played a role as well, like Hitch argues. The development of players like Nadal, Ferrer, and Wawrinka on hardcourt suggests it. In the past, claycourt specialists like Bruguera, Kuerten, etc, would not even bother showing up during the american hard-court season (they either took a break or would continue to play in small gravel tournaments in europe), and if they did they'd often lose to lower ranked hardcourt specialists.

Article on the changes in the balls in 2002, they not only slowed down the balls on grass but speeded them up on clay.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/547256-how-the-humble-tennis-ball-has-hepled-change-the-game

It just killed the diversity of the game, players doped before the change and have doped after it.

 

[robow7]

Agree, hard courts and grass were made to be slower in speed, balls were made to be slightly heavier, all necessary in trying to slow the game down.... why? because racquet technology and string technology (think poly) and the average pro becoming taller and stronger was killing the rally (possibly add Ped's to the list as well). The unintended consequence of this mix has created a single style of play necessary to be successful and has disarmed the specialist. I'm not sure where the game evolves from here but if you think it's going to change soon, you're wrong, I live next door to one of the top university tennis programs in the U.S. and the kids coming up play the same style of game. Racquet/string technology will have to be reigned in if we are to see any major changes in the way the game is played.

 

[Billie]

Re:

TheHitch's point about court specialists disappearing is interesting.
Good rebuttal from RedRick that the traditionally fast surfaces have been slowed down, I think the balls at Wimbledon have also been made slower (more hairy).
This was all in response to players like Krajicek killing the game with strings of aces.
There were games when the crowd really had nothing to watch other than aces, half-aces, smashes, and the occasional passing return winner. Somewhere early 2000s I think the BBC and Wimbledon decided it was time to 'create' more rallies.

Correct. BBC shows analysis on this between the 3rd and 4th game off the 08 Nadal Federer Wimbledon final. They compared Federer serves from 2003 and 2008 showing that the ball loses much more speed after the bounce in 2008 then in 2003.. Is on youtube if you want to watch it.

 

[del1962]

Tennis at Wimbledon was becoming really boring when you had players like Philippoussis who was very average but had a big serve being able to reach finals.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Tennis at Wimbledon was becoming really boring when you had players like Philippoussis who was very average but had a big serve being able to reach finals.

agree about Philippoussis. Rafter, Krajicek and Ivanicevic were also pretty mediocre, though excellent serve-volleyers.
Otoh, reminiscing the likes of Edberg.

 

[robow7]

Don't put Rafter in the same group as Ivanicevic, Kraijcek, Phillippousis, as he didn't have the same big serve as these guys. He was much more in the same vein as Edberg, big kick serve in order to allow himself to close in on the net and then a wonderful volley with very quick athletic movement. It's a shame his back woes took him out, he was fun to watch.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Don't put Rafter in the same group as Ivanicevic, Kraijcek, Phillippousis, as he didn't have the same big serve as these guys. He was much more in the same vein as Edberg, big kick serve in order to allow himself to close in on the net and then a wonderful volley with very quick athletic movement. It's a shame his back woes took him out, he was fun to watch.

fair enough.
Yes, quite Edberg-ish. Similarly weak groundstrokes

 

[robow7]

True but at least Edberg had a beautiful backhand though his forehand was downright ugly.

 

[sniper]

Re:

True but at least Edberg had a beautiful backhand though his forehand was downright ugly.

true story.
i loved edberg.
he was and will remain my favorite.
rafter was too much of a krajicek competitor for me. (me being dutch and all)

 

[buckle]

Re: Andy Murray is Unwell ...

I notice that Andy Murray has been "unwell" of late so expect him to return fully juiced for Wimbledon. Given that Djokovic's slam narrative has fallen through then the Championships are up for grabs again. Wawrinka's inability to volley may rule him out and Nadal won't bother this year which only leaves Federer.

 

[Andynonomous]

Re: Andy Murray is Unwell ...

I notice that Andy Murray has been "unwell" of late so expect him to return fully juiced for Wimbledon. Given that Djokovic's slam narrative has fallen through then the Championships are up for grabs again. Wawrinka's inability to volley may rule him out and Nadal won't bother this year which only leaves Federer.

Nadal is playing two grass warm-ups this year (something he has never done before). He won the first one, while displaying some extra speed on his serve. I think that uncle Toni, has decided that Rafa can score a win at Wimbledon, and has prescribed some extra testosterone.

Watch Nadal's average first serve speed at Wimbledon, USO, AO. Especially the second week, where it would do the most good.

 

[robow7]

Murray is really more of a head case rather than lacking the physical tools. Djoker's present coach, HOF'er, Boris Becker even stated earlier this week that he's never seen a player become so upset with himself day in and day out where he's talking to himself (berating himself) on every point. Too much negativity and allows your opponent too much confidence.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Murray is really more of a head case rather than lacking the physical tools. Djoker's present coach, HOF'er, Boris Becker even stated earlier this week that he's never seen a player become so upset with himself day in and day out where he's talking to himself (berating himself) on every point. Too much negativity and allows your opponent too much confidence.

I never liked Andy Murray. He seemed to come across as an ***.
Then I learned he was an elementary school student who took cover when someone came in and shot and killed several people.
Surviving an incident like that is bound to leave a ton of emotional scars.
I will never look down on him again.

 

[Bielers]

Re: Re:

Murray is really more of a head case rather than lacking the physical tools. Djoker's present coach, HOF'er, Boris Becker even stated earlier this week that he's never seen a player become so upset with himself day in and day out where he's talking to himself (berating himself) on every point. Too much negativity and allows your opponent too much confidence.

I never liked Andy Murray. He seemed to come across as an *.
Then I learned he was an elementary school student who took cover when someone came in and shot and killed several people.
Surviving an incident like that is bound to leave a ton of emotional scars.
I will never look down on him again.

From what I remember, he was in another part of the school that day and wasn't fired at. I think it's more that he's just naturally a competitive and single-minded individual...

 

[avanti]

I doubt that there is much doping in tennis. However the possibility of match fixing is my bigger thought.

 

[Koba80]

Re:

I doubt that there is much doping in tennis.

I don't really stray here that much, but post of the year contender right here. #POTY

 

[Andynonomous]

Re: Re:

I doubt that there is much doping in tennis.

I don't really stray here that much, but post of the year contender right here. #POTY

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet (I hope that you are being sarcastic).

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I doubt that there is much doping in tennis.

I don't really stray here that much, but post of the year contender right here. #POTY

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet (I hope that you are being sarcastic).

Poes law possessive noun poe's law

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Murray is really more of a head case rather than lacking the physical tools. Djoker's present coach, HOF'er, Boris Becker even stated earlier this week that he's never seen a player become so upset with himself day in and day out where he's talking to himself (berating himself) on every point. Too much negativity and allows your opponent too much confidence.

I never liked Andy Murray. He seemed to come across as an *.
Then I learned he was an elementary school student who took cover when someone came in and shot and killed several people.
Surviving an incident like that is bound to leave a ton of emotional scars.
I will never look down on him again.

as Bielers says he wasn't even there.
there's a lesson to be learned here: be less gullible.
elements of such stories are often exaggerated or invented. See Froome for instance and his childhood adventures that supposedly toughened him up allowing him to become one of the alltime GT greats.

 

[T_S_A_R]

Murray and his brother were both at the school the day of the shooting. Neither were in the gymnasium where the shooting took place but why lie about it Sniper?

Also rather than the family exaggerating the story they have played down and rarely spoke of it. The would be pariahs in Dunblane if they lied or exaggerated regarding this.

(FYI I think Murray got on a program after Nadal destroyed him at Wimbledon SF 2010)

 

[sniper]

Re:

Murray and his brother were both at the school the day of the shooting. Neither were in the gymnasium where the shooting took place but why lie about it Sniper?

Also rather than the family exaggerating the story they have played down and rarely spoke of it. The would be pariahs in Dunblane if they lied or exaggerated regarding this.

(FYI I think Murray got on a program after Nadal destroyed him at Wimbledon SF 2010)

where did i say he's lying about it?
apparently he wasn't there at the actual shooting even though delgados seemed to be under the impression that he was.
the newspapers and journos and biography writers often like to exaggerate elements of such stories (or leave out details that make it less spectacular).

and even if you would now show me proof that Murray took out the gunmen single-handedly, fact remains: be less gullible when it comes to sportsmen and their stories.
It's all about sales, sales and more sales. I think we agree on that.

 

[T_S_A_R]

He was at the school. To say that he didn't suffer a traumatic experience because he wasn't in the actual room is bizarre and disrespectful.

Also given that he was on tour for 8 years before speaking publicly about it and has never linked the incident to performance I fail to see the comparison with Froome/Badzilla.