There is a good chance we might see Isner pitted against Nadal in the 4R. Loved their final in Cincinnati. Will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Printable View
There is a good chance we might see Isner pitted against Nadal in the 4R. Loved their final in Cincinnati. Will be interesting to see how this one goes.
yes :shaking: tough ones for nadal first against dodig and then isner and federer if all goes well.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvind Srinivasan
There was an interesting discussion during the Federer match about the way the courts have changed. The arguement posed was as to whether Roger had got the raw deal with the change in courts. A good point was made on the monotony of serving and volleying and the likes of a Sampras running through the draw with just the serve alone. It is tough to disagree seeing how the long rallies have made the game a lot more entertaining for the crowd. The occasional serving and volleying does have its charm, but I guess the organisers are forced to have slower courts. Its not just for the players but also for the people watching it.
I think it played INTO Federer's hands during his peak from 2004 to 2008. He could stay right back against big hitters like Roddick, Blake, Safin and beat them by converting defence into offence. Which is exactly how Nadal, Djoko and Murray have played to beat him by and by. Fed still had the game to beat the Roddick generation but even a chance of an upset was practically ruled out once the courts slowed. Wimbledon slowed down in 2001...the first time that Fed made an impression. I don't think it's a coincidence.
^ A point was made as to how Federer adapted from being a true blue serve volleyer. Federer to his credit can rip the ball and the slower courts do help in generating more spin. The spin is one of Federer's most potent attack imo. He's next to Nadal on the number of rotations per minute on the ball. So the notion that the courts have been overtly disadvantageous to Federer is not true. The one thing that hurts Federer though is his stamina. Over the years its been hard for him to play the excrucuatingly long rallies and that too against the likes of Nadal and Djokovic.
I don't know if he was ever an out and out serve volleyer or just an all court player with the ability to play serve volley...like say Bjorn Borg. Even in 2003, he played Roddick from the baseline but went S&V in the final against Philipoussis. Yes, the difference in the way Nadal, Djoko play is they hit very heavy and keep at it relentlessly. That is not really Fed's forte though he has tried admirably well to keep pace with them at that. He is more about amazing wrists which he uses to suddenly and unexpected change direction and stun the opponent. Speaking of slow courts, if you watched the Llodra-Murray match, you wouldn't notice it. And I can swear I didn't when I watched the Rafter-Ivanisevic Wimb final in 2001 (when the courts were supposed to have already been slowed down). So it's also about racquets and their impact on playing styles. Even if courts were as fast today as in the 90s, the racquets by themselves would give players more options and put incoming volleyers at greater risk of getting passed. This might be unpalatable for old school tennis fans but this is just how tennis has evolved over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvind Srinivasan
This is exactly why we have a FO where all these pushers can hit all day long (6+ hours borefest)...
How about some variety in the GS surfaces like we used to have before.
Its a shame how the likes of Lendl, Becker, Sampras would find it extremely difficult to achieve the Career Grand Slams...
Lendl literally sacrificed playing the entire Clay season (his favourite surface) just to get that one elusive Wimbledon title, but still couldn't.
Thats how tough it was to quickly adjust to Grass after a long clay season..
Nowadays it has become a joke to achieve the Career Grand Slam, with players not have to change even a bit to achieve the same.
Just stand 6 feet behind the baseline and hit all day long beating your opponent purely on your tenacity with no variety at all. I know it is not easy to do, but it still...
Don't pair Fed with the other three. If there is one guy who could fit into any era, it would be Federer. He has all the tools needed for that. Put him on ice & he would figure out how to win it. Fed has put on lot of miles on his body (having played over 1100 matches on the tour). Lets see how the other 3 would figure when they have that much of mileage..Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvind Srinivasan
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega
True. Hard to disagree. Federer has his foot on both places. Hard to see Nadal, Djokovic survive in the earlier era.Quote:
Originally Posted by omega
True. But he was basically a serve and volleyer when he started out. But kudos to him for adapting and maximising his all court play.Quote:
Originally Posted by crimson king
என்ன பெரிய பழைய எரா? நாங்களும்தான் பார்த்தோமே! ஆண்டி ராடிக் என்ற செத்த பாம்பையே எம்பூட்டு நாளா அடிச்சிக்கிட்டு இருந்தார்னு! ஆண்களுக்கான டென்னிஸில் இப்போ உள்ள போட்டி/பலம்/நுட்பம் வேற எந்த எராவிலுமே காண முடியாது!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvind Srinivasan
Federer with Nadal, Djoko, Andy, Ferrer, Del Porto, Berdych >>>>> Federer with any old Era
ராலி பார்க்கும் போதே தெரியலையா! இந்த எராவின் நேர்த்தியை! ராலி செய்வதற்கும் வித்தை தெரிஞ்சிருக்கணும். பழைய எராவில் ராலி அவ்வளவாக இல்லை யென்றால் அவர்களின் அணுகுமுறை அப்படி. சர்வீஸ் போட்டவுடனே ஒரு யுத்தியும் இல்லாமலே நெட்டுக்கு ஓடி வருவது. மொத்து வாங்க வேண்டியது. இப்போது அப்படி இல்லை. நெட்டை நோக்கி எப்போ நெருங்கி வரணும் என புரிதல் இருக்கு. எல்லா எராக்களிலும் சர்வீஸ் போடும் திறன் பற்றி பேசுங்கள். இரண்டாம் முறை சர்வீஸிலும் ஏஸ் அதுவும் t இடத்தில் போடக் கூடிய சாம்பிராஸ் போன்ற ஜாம்பவான்கள் இப்போது இல்லை. அந்த விஷயத்தில் பழைய எறா பெஸ்ட்.
"This is exactly why we have a FO where all these pushers can hit all day long (6+ hours borefest)..."
Of the previous top 4 - i.e. before Fed slipped to 7 recently - only Murray can somewhat be described as a pusher and he too has begun to get more aggressive. Everybody who plays from the baseline is not a pusher. If that was so, Agassi must be one too and he was the only player after Laver to achieve a career slam in the open era before Fed and Rafa. And speaking of which...
"Nowadays it has become a joke to achieve the Career Grand Slam, with players not have to change even a bit to achieve the same."
Only Fed and Rafa have achieved the career slam since Agassi. Djoko has come close but he hasn't achieved it yet and Murray didn't even bother turning up at RG this year. People act like any tom, dick and harry has achieved a career slam in the current era which is not at all true. And as for changing one's style, even Agassi played in more or less the same way on all surfaces and still achieved the feat. So, the homogenization of tennis was already taking shape in the 90s...it just took the next generation to learn from Agassi and emulate his style. Agassi and not Sampras was the most influential player of the 90s, in spite of winning fewer slams. History will record that his approach of playing an offensive baseline game with a double backhand is what has become more popular with current players...except Fed and a few others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Rallies have made the game more interesting to the people true. But like how Omega said, the slower courts have also forced tennis players to abandone a style of play that goes by the name Serve and Volleying. You need a balance in everything. But you hardly get to see SnV even on the faster courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Anyone who unnecessarily prolongs a rally is a pusher....This includes Federer also...Quote:
Originally Posted by crimson king
Time & again I have seem those 20+ shot rallies having multiple oppurtunities to finish it early being just pushed further & further until one pulls up the trigger for an UE..
There is a big difference between Agassi & Nadal/Murray....Novak is atleast an aggressive baseliner like Agassi...
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Keep all your yuthi to yourself....It needs a tremendous skill to S&V....
Put any of your current era pusher in the 90s era you will know what I am talking about.
For eg. the only match Pete & Fed played at Wimbledon, both had almost exact same number of points won at the net...
In those era, current top players stand little chance. Same way Pete would not have much chance with homogenization of courts...
No wonder Nadal calls 90's era tennis as not real tennis. How stupid of him!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Same way Nadal also is beating a setha paambu in Federer!!
How can you call Nadal greater when he has absolutely has no competition on clay & all he has beat his bunny in Federer!!
Simply the best: The golden era of men's tennis
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...nis/57339052/1
Only your hatred towards Fed is showing up!!Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
When I say earlier era it is about 90's which even Fed was not part of. So please understand what is being said....
From Stefi's FB wall about Andy's win at Wimbledon!
What a HUGE well deserved and well earned win for the newly crowned Wimbledon champion Andy Murray! Murray stayed focused throughout the final and continued to play aggressively even when Djokovic tried changing things up. Djokovic's semifinal two days before - the longest in Wimbledon history - seemed to have left him less than 100% physically. The crowd, the city, the country all seemed to be wanting and believing in Andy to go all the way, especially in that incredible last game of the match. I must say it has been a privilege watching Andy over the years, persevere over the challenges of having to beat arguably the 3 greatest players of all time. I believe his achievements have only just begun. What a win for tennis to see the big 3 in the game suddenly become the big 4. Can't wait to see Andy's game thrive off this accomplishment, he is going to get better as a result. One deep breathe for tennis and here comes the US Open!
உங்களோட புரிதல் அப்படி இருக்கையில் நான் எப்படி பொறுப்பாக முடியும்? Federer-க்கு சரியான போட்டியே இந்த எரா ஆட்டக் காரர்களே! அதுதான் என் அபிப்ராயம். இந்த எராவிலும் முன்னிலையில் இருந்தாரே Federer. அப்புறம் என்ன!Quote:
Originally Posted by omega
OK...If you say so..Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Thanks a ton Aravind for bringing in a discussion that gives an opportunity to bring to the forefront, a long lost art in Tennis - Serve and Volley. For some one who lost interest in watching tennis a couple of years after Pete Sampras called it quits, the happenings for the good part of the last 8 years have done nothing to ignite the interest back.
As we grew up watching the likes of Borris Becker, Pete Sampras, Ivanisevic, Micheal Stich, Richard Krajicek, Pat Rafter, Tim Henman and Mark Philippoussis execute the art in enthralling fashion, the Andre Agassi influenced generation (as someone has mentioned) is hard to take.
The same generation of women's tennis saw players like of Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, and co fight from the baseline with the exception of probably Jana Navotna. For me the difference between men's and women's game those days was S&V. A powerful service followed by an ability to quickly close out a point was the men's game to me.
Pete Sampras, was undoubtably my favorite. It was joy to watch him counter the agility of Agassi, the guile of a Pat Rafter or the brute force/power of an Ivanisevic or a Krajicek.
Apart from a handful of games involving Roger, i haven't followed the game enough to actively compare/discuss the two era's.
Would be following the discussion with keen interest though :). Thanks once again Aravind.
Unfortunately this era followers think its just easy piecy to S&V...Little they know that, if this era players had that ability they would love to finish the point quick (atleast for half of the time). They simply lack it & the slowness of all the surfaces have just killed that art!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CEDYBLUE
You are absolutely right, the macho in watching ATP has long gone & it is almost like watching WTA (with all the grunts & two handed ball bashing with no variety)..
IMO, this is Fed's era. The old era that you are referring to was way-too short with only the ageing Sampras (he almost retired immediately) /Agassi and only the likes of Roddick/Hewitt/Safin to challenge. Nothing to take away from his wins during that period, he clearly had the best all-round game to taken on any type of player, but it's just that it was too short IMO to call it an era.Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Fed's era started with the likes of Andy Roddick and it still goes on.
+1...Quote:
Originally Posted by CEDYBLUE
Somdev fighting it out against Seppi. He's lost the first set 7-6. But the play in the tie breaker was great. Hope he keeps up the fight.
Haven't watched Sampras period tennis to participate in the discussion. Started watching tennis in early 00 only.
I have played tennis for almost 4 years when I was in US (remba perusa lam illa namma oorla tennis ball cricket veladura range-ku). Based on my experience S&V is an art and baseline is profession. To enjoy the game go for volley. More risk and more satisfaction. To win the game stand behind the baseline, put the ball in other court and wait for things to happen. We considered people who can play decent at net as a good player, as only very few were able to do that. It took almost two years for everyone in my area (almost all started playing at the same time) to just win few points in a set at net. I am not saying rallies are easy to play. It has its own difficulties. But
S&V - Sachin's straight drive / Dravid's extra cover drive ... Baseline game - Gayle's monstrous sixer / Dhoni's helicopter shot ...
former # 1 , known for his fast serves , 32 career titles, grand slam winner , 3 time Wimbledon finalist == setha baambu. Nalla vela Andy Roddick - ku tamizh theriyaathu.Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
aaha! unga comparison pullarikka vaikkuthunga. athuvum Baseline game to Sixer is so good.. You now hijacking this topic to a different level.. Wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by VinodKumar's
Just watching a little bit of Murray vs Mayer match....
Even though Murray is in the lead, its Mayer who is playing aggressive tennis, taking the ball on the rise, attacking the net more.
Murray in an ultimate pusher mode!! Ugly at its best...
But how exactly is it unnecessary? You can't say that objectively without considering other factors. Do you really want players to make a suicidal approach like Llodra and lose the point just because it would entertain SOME sections of the crowd? They are out there to win at the end of the day. And with the depth and pace of even normal rally balls these days, there is an extreme risk of getting passed unless you choose the right moment. And it has a lot more to do with racquets than courts. This is US Open 2000 final..before the 'slowdown'. Safin just kept passing Sampras all day...this was the new tennis. It was already born before Federer or Nadal came along. People just didn't notice it because they couldn't respect players like Hewitt or Safin for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by omega
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ34P-ArPWI
So that is all that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic do. They just wait for the right opportunity to come in...same like Connors or Lendl or Agassi. It's just much harder with modern equipment, whereas, conversely, it's easier to fire off winners from the baseline. I have already said Murray is a pusher and he was coached by the premier pusher of the 80s, Brad Gilbert. But Lendl has already brought a lot of difference to his game. He is much more attacking now and that's probably why he has started winning slams at long last. I presume you haven't watched the Murray-Llodra match of this US Open. Murray took the initiative to attack even before Llodra could get in..it was a great match, though very one sided.
I remember this match clearly, Pete thumped Hewitt in the semifinals and was swept away by Marat Safin in the Finals. This was 2000 US open. Yes. Exactly the reverse happened the next year. Sampras conquered Safin in the SF and subsequently lost in the finals to Hewitt.Quote:
Originally Posted by crimson king
But, the point i am trying to make is Pete Sampras taught Marat Safin a lesson or two about S&V in the SF of US Open 2001 and conquered his conquerer of last year with this trademark and delightful S&V.
In case, you forgot that, here is the video link for the US Open 2001 SF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5K6n6t4J_I
Despite losing to the likes of Safin and Hewitt when he clearly was ageing and slowing down, Sampras ended on a high, next year against Agassi in the US Open 2002.
My point is, at least with Pete, he never allowed anyone to 'own' him during his playing career. Off course, in clay courts everyone owned him, but in Grass and Hard courts, he was close to unstoppable. Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, et all all posed different threats (if you can include the likes of Chang/Courier who both were lighting quick from the baseline) and Sampras always had answers.
When the 'Fab 3 (or 4)' of the current generation hang their boots, this will be one thing that will/should be discussed when deciding their legacy.
I will stop here, basically because i have not watched the current 4 closely to compare them with Pete's era.
Delp lost to Hewitt.
wow...beautiful discussions going on...hats off... :) federer the best tennis player of all eras..suras...puras.... hats off :notworthy:
too bad....actually the reason why delpo lost is because of the surface being too slow and it suits hewitt who is a marathon player like nadal....they should change the surface next year so that the likes of delpo can win matches.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by VinodKumar's
what a beauty......what a beauty....Quote:
Originally Posted by VinodKumar's
nice discussions, opinions and views from Arvind Srinivasan, crimson king, omega and venkkiram.....
Some really good points omega and cedyblue. Please keep talking.