Message from discussion Another Monte Carlo question
Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr7627437pbc.0.1335490687455;
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: bob <stein...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Another Monte Carlo question
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <aZadnUTLItBBEgrSnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@westnet.com.au> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Organization: Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:38:02 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:21:37 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>On Apr 26, 2:01 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:58:18 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 25, 1:59 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:53:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>> >> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 25, 8:47 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> On 25/04/2012 2:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> >> >> > On Apr 24, 12:26 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.
>> >> >> > Federer is no clay court specialist and
>> >> >> A 5-time FO finalist is not a clay specialist? Now I've heard it all.
>> >> >Was Borg grass specialist (5 wimb titles and one final in a row).?
>> >> borg was a clay specialist who was so much better overall than
>> >> opposition, plus so focused and motivated to win wimbledon, plus a
>> >> time post aussies/pre mcenroe, that he was able to win the 5
>> >> wimbledons.
>> >Well...isn't this a same case as with cases when Nadal does well on
>> >grass and Fed on clay? They are all just great, right?
>> let me think before i answer that. :-) seriously, the difference is
>> the same type player is winning all slams nowadays. from 1975 for
>> almost 30 yrs i expected s/v to win and have advantage at wimbledon. i
>> expected baseliner to win and have advantage at FO. that has changed
>> and we have 1 type of player winning same everywhere.
>> > > >Was Connors grass specialist (4 grass slam titles + 5 grass slams
>> >> >runnerups).?
>> >> >Is Nadal grass specialist (2 wimb titles + 3 runnerups).?
>> >> don't fall into the "results only" trap. a guy can be good enough
>> >> overall to still win on a surface that is totally unsuited to his game
>> >> and style.
>> >Connors beat peak Mac at Wimbledon final. He had to have some game? Or
>> >did he just do what Fed did on clay? Got results but with obsolete
>> >clay game? Or what?
>> that was a "shit happens" kind of thing.
>> >Nadal beat Fed at Wimb final, no good?
>> fed is not a natural grass court style player, not a
>> sampras/mcenroe/becker type guy.
>> if i had to compare his style to any "great" of past 30 yrs, maybe i
>> say lendl. (big serve, big FH, good but not great BH, avg net game).
>> and we know how lendl fared at wimbledon VS mac/becker/edberg/cash
>Fed has way better movement,
no - relative to his own times, i would not say that at all. movement
is 1 thing that certanly changes with times. you're comparing fed's
absolute movement 20yrs later. not fair.
> that's the key difference (shot-to-shot
>analysis cannot be done due gear/era evolution, if smt. has to be
>remembered: at his heydays Lendl had awful 1st serve percentages
>compared to today's standard) and while I generally rarely buy whole
>"eye-candy"/"talent"-crap...let's say Fed's play assets somehow "feel"
>better for Wimbledon than Lendl's.
lendl played with about an 85sq in racket too.
>Even if Lendl is one of the posterboys of "modern racket era", in
>reality he used quite obsolete (by today's standards) gear. That
>affects also. I think Lendl would have had better shot at Wimbledon
>had he taken Agassi route - just played his natural game there -
>instead stubbornly going for S&V...when you are anyway handicapped in
>Lendl is underrated still. He made a great progress from "FH only
>lowlevel fitness choker circa 1980-81" into ruthless top-fitness
>heavyhitting machine of late 80:ies, peaking 1989 when he looked
>really good and when it took full steam Becker to stop him at high
when i compared fed to lendl, that wasn't an insult. just a
compaarison of the major stgrokes, and how similar they were and where
>Lendl choked some key victories off for sure but still was there for a
>decade+ as a high quality yardstick.
>Do you btw agree that improved gear (bigger head size of rackets,
>string technology) have improved relatively more at RoS, groundies and
>passing shots -areas rather than for S&V key areas?
not sure if it was head size, as i even though pros didn't use them, i
remember huge heads in 80s. if they were such an improver of ROS, more
pros would've been doing it.