Fed wants to hit with Sampras again
steve jaros
"Just got to Los Angeles for some days of training before Indian
Wells....trying to organize a couple of hits with the "pistol"..."
--
"the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic
population by 30 million".
- Heinrich Himmler, 1941
uly...@mscomm.com
in late '07. He should never have travelled all over Asia after a
gruelling year just to pocket more millions.
Shakes
I hope it's because he wants to sharpen his serves and volleys. That
would be great.
jdeluise
Yeah, let's hope so. Otherwise it's all over, he might as well retire now.
The field has simply passed him up... they have bloodied and bruised him
physically, mentally and psychologically.
He is done.
Unless, by some remote chance, he learns how to volley.
Shakes
You seem to have some beef with Fed sharpening his volleys ? He
doesn't have to ignore the rest of his game, you know ? It's not an
either-or scenario. And yes, if he can regain his volleying level to
his 2001-2003 level and he came in on 30% of the points, he will not
do worse. He will do better. And he wouldn't have lost the Wim 2008
and AO 2009 finals to Nadal either.
These guys have no experience playing a good volleyer who's going to
attack at any opportune moment.
You can certainly disagree with me, but I think attempting to
obsfucate the point by saying something ridiculous is getting
boring.
This place has become all about shouting down opposition and you are
certainly leading the way.
SliceAndDice
Why would Fed choose Sampras to sharpen his volleys? Sampras' passing
shots were average.
Shakes
I'm talking about technique. Fed's technique and anticipation on the
volleys need to be sharpened. His form is not completely solid (esp.
on the FH volley), and he is very tentative when it comes to
anticipating and covering the passing lanes.
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can certainly disagree with me, but I think attempting to
> obsfucate the point by saying something ridiculous is getting
> boring.
>
> This place has become all about shouting down opposition and you are
> certainly leading the way.
In reality I have no problem with him coming to the net more often. I just
don't think he is ever going to be the net genius you want him to be, and
that is OK with me because he shows his genius elsewhere. You seem to be
willing to write warehouses of speculative text about volleying scenarios
involving Fed... *you* are the one obsessed with it and pretty much
unwilling to accept or think about any other ways he could sharpen his game.
And though I was exaggerating in my post, it isn't too far away from what
you and ulysses are saying really.
Shakes
In another thread, I made a very valid point on why I think so. It
went unnoticed. I'll put it here again. What is the main driving force
behind Fed's (or Nadal's) game ? The main underpinning. It's speed and
movement. All of Fed's magic during his peak was based on him getting
to the ball that little bit earlier that gave him options, choices.
All of his racquet wizardry comes second to that.
When an athlete ages, what is the first physical component to suffer ?
Speed/agility, explosiveness, the ability to turn abruptly. So instead
of getting a fraction early, you are getting there a fraction late.
Your choices are limited. Your racquet wizardry is moot when you
cannot get to the ball in time.
So, how can this be neutralized by a player as talented as Fed ? By
shoring weapons that do not rely on speed and that do not let
opponents exploit that loss in speed. This can be done by beefing up
the serve so you get cheaper points, or by beefing up your groundies
so the opponent has less chance to get to it, or by shortening the
rallies by coming forward at the earliest opportunity.
And I think if he keeps playing the current way, he will keep making
the QF/SF of slams but end up losing to the more younger and
consistent top guys.
I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
Iceberg
Fed knows Sampras is the master. This proves that despite all the
shouting of the Fedfans, Fed considers that (even now) Sampras hits
harder and flatter than most players today, he said hit, he didn't say
practice volleying with.
Shakes
... of serving and volleying, yes.
> This proves that despite all the
> shouting of the Fedfans, Fed considers that (even now) Sampras hits
> harder and flatter than most players today, he said hit, he didn't say
> practice volleying with.
Yes, I think Sampras hit harder and flatter than most players today.
But that's an entirely different topic. Further, there is no need for
Fed to be particularly specific as to what he wants to practice with
Sampras for.
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In another thread, I made a very valid point on why I think so. It
> went unnoticed. I'll put it here again. What is the main driving force
> behind Fed's (or Nadal's) game ? The main underpinning. It's speed and
> movement. All of Fed's magic during his peak was based on him getting
> to the ball that little bit earlier that gave him options, choices.
> All of his racquet wizardry comes second to that.
>
> When an athlete ages, what is the first physical component to suffer ?
> Speed/agility, explosiveness, the ability to turn abruptly. So instead
> of getting a fraction early, you are getting there a fraction late.
> Your choices are limited. Your racquet wizardry is moot when you
> cannot get to the ball in time.
You are correct in general, but this is not yet applicable to Fed. Are you
saying that Fed has slowed down enough that at this point he can't hit with
the top players anymore?
That's not what I see when Fed loses these matches. I see boatloads of
unforced errors (and yes many of them are truly unforced), mental walkabouts
(typically after winning a set), and generally poor serving games. No doubt
he has slowed somewhat, but he's not "old" yet and is still very fit. No,
it's not speed that's killing him in these matches, it's something else.
Some of his passion looks to be gone too.
I think your diagnosis is incorrect, at least for the present.
>
> So, how can this be neutralized by a player as talented as Fed ? By
> shoring weapons that do not rely on speed and that do not let
> opponents exploit that loss in speed. This can be done by beefing up
> the serve so you get cheaper points, or by beefing up your groundies
> so the opponent has less chance to get to it, or by shortening the
> rallies by coming forward at the earliest opportunity.
Yes, but the *real* problems I see that he is having (concentration and too
many errors) can hurt him just as acutely at the net as at the baseline.
> And I think if he keeps playing the current way, he will keep making
> the QF/SF of slams but end up losing to the more younger and
> consistent top guys.
>
> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think Sampras hit harder and flatter than most players today.
> But that's an entirely different topic. Further, there is no need for
> Fed to be particularly specific as to what he wants to practice with
> Sampras for.
Flatter? Perhaps. Harder? I doubt that. Remember who you are responding
to by the way.
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of his passion looks to be gone too.
I'd add that he has probably come to terms with the fact that he can be
beaten at slams by more players these days. Some of the sheer will that has
kept him in some tight matches in the past might be gone now.
Shakes
> On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In another thread, I made a very valid point on why I think so. It
> > went unnoticed. I'll put it here again. What is the main driving force
> > behind Fed's (or Nadal's) game ? The main underpinning. It's speed and
> > movement. All of Fed's magic during his peak was based on him getting
> > to the ball that little bit earlier that gave him options, choices.
> > All of his racquet wizardry comes second to that.
>
> > When an athlete ages, what is the first physical component to suffer ?
> > Speed/agility, explosiveness, the ability to turn abruptly. So instead
> > of getting a fraction early, you are getting there a fraction late.
> > Your choices are limited. Your racquet wizardry is moot when you
> > cannot get to the ball in time.
>
> You are correct in general, but this is not yet applicable to Fed. Are you
> saying that Fed has slowed down enough that at this point he can't hit with
> the top players anymore?
>
He didn't slow down THAT much, but enough that the fractions of time
he loses every time he has to change direction add up. He can hit with
them and even be on par with them most times. But here's the thing.
When a big point comes up, when his opponent, like Nadal or Djok just
wants it that little bit more, when they are a little more dialed in
than usual, they put in that extra effort, maybe by adding more zip or
more RPMs in Nadal's case, by running extra hard and covering Fed's
shots, the loss of speed makes a difference.
> That's not what I see when Fed loses these matches. I see boatloads of
> unforced errors (and yes many of them are truly unforced), mental walkabouts
> (typically after winning a set), and generally poor serving games. No doubt
> he has slowed somewhat, but he's not "old" yet and is still very fit. No,
> it's not speed that's killing him in these matches, it's something else.
> Some of his passion looks to be gone too.
>
Sure, but the mental walkabouts have always been there, even with
vintage Fed. We have seen that so many times with Fed, and even said
that that has been his undoing against Nadal.
> I think your diagnosis is incorrect, at least for the present.
>
I think it is correct. Because there's no denying that he has slowed
down. As a prime example, he's unable to cover his FH side as well as
he used to. In fact, he had problems with that right from 2008. Every
time he runs around his BH and hits an inside-out FH, he's now
vulnerable to the DTL shot to his own FH. We have seen that
innumerable times the last 12 months or so.
>
> > So, how can this be neutralized by a player as talented as Fed ? By
> > shoring weapons that do not rely on speed and that do not let
> > opponents exploit that loss in speed. This can be done by beefing up
> > the serve so you get cheaper points, or by beefing up your groundies
> > so the opponent has less chance to get to it, or by shortening the
> > rallies by coming forward at the earliest opportunity.
>
> Yes, but the *real* problems I see that he is having (concentration and too
> many errors) can hurt him just as acutely at the net as at the baseline.
>
When the rallies are short, it's a lot easier to maintain
concentration.
> > And I think if he keeps playing the current way, he will keep making
> > the QF/SF of slams but end up losing to the more younger and
> > consistent top guys.
>
> > I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
> > can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>
> Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
> it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
> of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
> possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
At that level, he doesn't have to slow down a whole lot. Most people
don't realize how closely matched the top guys are. It's like a 2-3%
difference. Even that slight drop in speed, reaction etc. makes a huge
difference. Which is what we are seeing.
Shakes
When I said harder, I meant in terms of penetration through the court.
Obviously, with the lighter, larger sized racquets, and increased
swing speeds, top players today are swinging out harder than they did
in the '90's, but I don't think their shots penetrated through the
court as well as Sampras' did.
Obviously, you have guys like Sod, Berdych who hit flat and probably
harder than Sampras.
I know Iceberg can be kooky but I thought he made a valid, even though
the intention was to slight, point.
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I said harder, I meant in terms of penetration through the court.
Interesting how whenever anyone calls out an error on your part, you say "I
meant to say" this or that.
> Obviously, with the lighter, larger sized racquets, and increased
> swing speeds, top players today are swinging out harder than they did
> in the '90's, but I don't think their shots penetrated through the
> court as well as Sampras' did.
Then obviously you were talking primarily about flat hitting.
>
> Obviously, you have guys like Sod, Berdych who hit flat and probably
> harder than Sampras.
>
> I know Iceberg can be kooky but I thought he made a valid, even though
> the intention was to slight, point.
OK.
jdeluise
On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even that slight drop in speed, reaction etc. makes a huge
> difference. Which is what we are seeing.
We will have to agree to disagree that this is currently Fed's biggest
problem.
felangey
vulnerable to the DTL shot to his own FH. We have seen that
innumerable times the last 12 months or so.<
Shakes old boy, everyone who chooses to run around their backhand is
vulnerable to the DTL. We have seen that innumerable times over the last few
decades.
Shakes
OKay, he's *more* vulnerable than he used to be. BTW, not true for
everyone. In fact, that was Sampras' favourite strategy - to camp on
the BH side and leave the FH side open, inviting players to go DTL so
that he could then hit his monster running FH. Todd Martin mentioned
this tactic of Sampras specifically during his guest role as a
commentator in the Sampras-Agassi 2001 USO QF match.
Shakes
> On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When I said harder, I meant in terms of penetration through the court.
>
> Interesting how whenever anyone calls out an error on your part, you say "I
> meant to say" this or that.
But it is true. It's not like I am making an about-turn in my
statement.
> > Obviously, with the lighter, larger sized racquets, and increased
> > swing speeds, top players today are swinging out harder than they did
> > in the '90's, but I don't think their shots penetrated through the
> > court as well as Sampras' did.
>
> Then obviously you were talking primarily about flat hitting.
>
>
Yes, and flat shots hit hard cut through quicker. I was equating
harder with the idea of which gets through quicker and with more
linear momentum. If we talk about swing speed, then, yes, today's
players hit harder than they did earlier.
Carey
I'm unclear as to how RF would go about 'beefing up' the serve or
groundies
without negatively impacting another part of his game: eg stamina,
added muscle
vs consequent loss of speed, and so on. This suggestion seems
simplistic to me.
kaennorsing
Of course, there's always a trade-off. I agree with Shakes though,
that Fed needs to keep points shorter if he wants to be fresher late
in the tournament. Especially in slams. One of the biggest things that
go with age is the ability to recover from a match. At 29 you'll take
two or three days to recover from a tough match, instead of one or
two. So the solution is to avoid tough matches and/or keep tough
matches short. A good way to do that is to keep points short. Another
way is to mix up your game, so you don't put too much stress on your
favourite shots.
I think we've already seen Fed make the adjustments. Of course it's
easy to fall back into your old ways, which we've seen as well.
There's just no way to avoid ageing and we shouldn't expect miracles
from Fed. He's actually done quite well in the last six months or
so... Just no slam win, but still.
Iceberg
so it's just your bullshit Fedfan opinion then, whereas Fed himself is
saying he wants to *hit* with Sampras.
Iceberg
Shakes you made valid and interesting post, jdeluise is just trying to
bring in his silly pointless Fedfan bias into things.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I think Federer is doing really well considering his being
29. There are not many 29 y/o that can still compete at the top level
at that age. Andre comes to mind but on todays surface and technology
he wouldn't have done quite as well if he played at that age today. I
give kudos to Federer for competing and I do think he can take the
trophy at the USO.
Superdave
there is no such thing as silly pointless Fedfan bias by definition.
Fed is the best of all time by all objective measures so their can
be no bias except to the downside.
Upside bias is not possible because he is already at the top.
Vari L. Cinicke
> All of Fed's magic during his peak was based on him getting
> to the ball that little bit earlier that gave him options, choices.
> All of his racquet wizardry comes second to that.
That, I think, summarizes your position on Federer's game.
No wonder you are so pessimistic. You think Federer has lost his primary
weapon of speed to age. His secondary weapons, in your opinion, are not
good enough for being a contender (and maybe were never good enough?)
any more.
Federer's miserable situation!
Federer failed to add to his 16 slams at Wimbledon going out in the QF
with an ATP rank of #2.
Masters - Canada - F loss to #4 Murray
Master - Cincinnati - Winner
US Open - SF loss to #3 Djokovic
Masters Shanghai - F loss to #4 Murray
Stockholm - Winner
Basel - Winner
Masters Paris - SF loss to #14 Monfils
World Championship - Undefeated Winner with wins over #1,3,4,5,7
Doha - Winner
Australian Open - SF loss to #3 Djokovic
Dubai - F loss to #3 Djokovic
Record vs. Top 10 - 13-5
Titles - 5
Losses outside Top 10 - 1 to #14
I wonder what you were saying about Sampras's game in the comparable
period of his career. Here is a summary:
Sampras had won his 13th slam at Wimbledon and was ranked #2 on the ATP
Tour.
Canada Masters - QF loss to #9 Safin
Cincy Masters - R16 loss to #16 Henman
US Open - F loss to #7 Safin
YEC - RR loss to Hewitt, SF loss to Kuerten on a fast indoor HC
Australian Open - R16 loss to #54 Todd Martin
Memphis - R32 loss to #96 Chris Woodruff
Scottsdale - R32 loss to #43 Andrew Ilie
Record vs. Top 10 - 3-4
Titles - 0
Losses outside Top 10 - 4, to #16, #43, #54 and #96
What did Sampras need to do?
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
Doh. You guys really are milking the age excuse. Yet at the same time
you think he can win USO. Quite some crap.
RzR
age, motivation are the two primary factors since he didnt really have
any limiting injuries
Iceberg
yes, Fed cannot keep chasing those DTL's as well anymore, he is still
quick but can't match when Djoker repeatedly lobs it back to him, this
is a fairly obvious.
felangey
Are you serious? Obvioulsy to stay *away* from the net....beef up his
groundies....make the poins longer! :D
Iceberg
lol Agassi wouldn't have done as well with today's surface and
technology, he'd have been still been winning slams.
Iceberg
no, the most he needed was a crystal ball so he could've seen the
clown era coming then he'd have gone off and been bothered to win 4 or
5 more slams.
TT
One factor you overlook is level of opponents.
kaennorsing
Nice fantasy but of course he couldn't have with Fed coming into his
prime... Sampras may have made another W or USO final only to lose to
Federer who, of course, started dominating those tournaments like no
one before or since... IMO Sampras was wise to call it quits when he
did.
RzR
nah....when oldass, badback, wife and kid having, ljubo beats nadal, who
is currently number one, we can say that the field is evenly matched
with the past times
RzR
LOL
Iceberg
he didn't 'bother' winning another slam after W2000, duh. oh no are
you are Fedfans going to say Fed was dominant even then, I proved the
other day he was made to wait until Hewitt, Henman etc allowed him.
Whisper
>>> We all remember what happened to Fed after all those exos against Pete
>>> in late '07. He should never have travelled all over Asia after a
>>> gruelling year just to pocket more millions.
>>
>> I hope it's because he wants to sharpen his serves and volleys. That
>> would be great.
>
> Yeah, let's hope so. Otherwise it's all over, he might as well retire now.
> The field has simply passed him up... they have bloodied and bruised him
> physically, mentally and psychologically.
>
> He is done.
>
> Unless, by some remote chance, he learns how to volley.
It's a bit late now. He needed to take some knocks a couple years ago &
develop a tough net mentality.
If he did right about now he'd be a terrific attacking player, teeing
off on his fh & bh's & taking position at the net. Sure he'd lose a few
points, but the % would favor him over the course of a match, & he'd be
much tougher mentality on huge points.
If he started now it would take him up to 2 years to get grooved, & he's
30 soon.
Whisper
> On Mar 3, 6:55 pm, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 3:29 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 3, 2:45 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com"<ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>>>> We all remember what happened to Fed after all those exos against Pete
>>>>> in late '07. He should never have travelled all over Asia after a
>>>>> gruelling year just to pocket more millions.
>>
>>>> I hope it's because he wants to sharpen his serves and volleys. That
>>>> would be great.
>>
>>> Yeah, let's hope so. Otherwise it's all over, he might as well retire now.
>>> The field has simply passed him up... they have bloodied and bruised him
>>> physically, mentally and psychologically.
>>
>>> He is done.
>>
>>> Unless, by some remote chance, he learns how to volley.
>>
>> doesn't have to ignore the rest of his game, you know ? It's not an
>> either-or scenario. And yes, if he can regain his volleying level to
>> his 2001-2003 level and he came in on 30% of the points, he will not
>> do worse. He will do better. And he wouldn't have lost the Wim 2008
>> and AO 2009 finals to Nadal either.
>>
>> These guys have no experience playing a good volleyer who's going to
>> attack at any opportune moment.
>>
>> You can certainly disagree with me, but I think attempting to
>> obsfucate the point by saying something ridiculous is getting
>> boring.
>>
>> This place has become all about shouting down opposition and you are
>> certainly leading the way.
>
> shots were average.
On the contrary Sampras was dangerous from everywhere. He could rip a
big passing shot at any time.
Yes he was lazy about his baseline game, but that's only because he
could afford to be.
Whisper
> On Mar 3, 4:09 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3-Mar-2011, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can certainly disagree with me, but I think attempting to
>>> obsfucate the point by saying something ridiculous is getting
>>> boring.
>>
>>> This place has become all about shouting down opposition and you are
>>> certainly leading the way.
>>
> the QF/SF of slams but end up losing to the more younger and
> consistent top guys.
>
> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>
>
I agree Fed's only option is to beef up s/v game, but surely it's too
late now?
If he gave it a good red hot go he'd have to stomach 2-6 3-6 type losses
to Djoker/Soderling types for 12-18 months while developing the new
style. He'll be 31 by then.
Whisper
>>
>> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
>> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>
> it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
> of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
> possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
In your 30's you can still play a blinding great match - problem is
backing it up next day & staying fresh.
That's where you need Sampras-type skills - ie hit flat/hard, great
serves, quick points, constant net attack etc.
Whisper
Yah, Fed is in a tough position. He's not young so doesn't have time to
see the fruits of this sacrifice.
He has 2 options;
1) Go ahead with developing the s/v game & hope it bears fruits in his
mid 30's;
2) Just go out & enjoy playing the next couple years as he'll probably
retire soon, especially if he's no longer a factor at slams.
I guess there's a chance the bigger players can get upset & Fed gets a
cushy draw at a slam & gets 1 more win?
Manco
be effective against most players. But go up against Nadal, Djokovic
and Murray with S&V is suicide because their passing shots are too
good. Nadal is famous for innovating the "double-dipper" 2-shot
passing shot. The first shot is heavy topspin not designed to be an
outright winner but be impossible to hit a good volley, then the ball
pops up in the air and he puts that ball away for an easy winner. He
can repeat that 100x in a match if necessary.
Joe Ramirez
That's why Pete retired at 31, and at 29 and 30 was flattened in next-
day USO finals.
Iceberg
yes, this is why it's no wonder Fed wants to hit with him.
Iceberg
pls don't try to make out that is the only reason.
Iceberg
Tsonga proves you wrong.
Shakes
> On 3/3/2011 7:20 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
> > All of Fed's magic during his peak was based on him getting
> > to the ball that little bit earlier that gave him options, choices.
> > All of his racquet wizardry comes second to that.
>
> That, I think, summarizes your position on Federer's game.
>
> No wonder you are so pessimistic. You think Federer has lost his primary
> weapon of speed to age. His secondary weapons, in your opinion, are not
> good enough for being a contender (and maybe were never good enough?)
> any more.
>
> Federer's miserable situation!
You have this habit of assuming something I never said. I did NOT say
that Fed is not good enough to be a contender. I said specifically
that he's good enough to be close, but his slight loss of speed is the
difference between winning those few big points and losing them.
> Federer failed to add to his 16 slams at Wimbledon going out in the QF
> with an ATP rank of #2.
>
> Masters - Canada - F loss to #4 Murray
> Master - Cincinnati - Winner
> US Open - SF loss to #3 Djokovic
> Masters Shanghai - F loss to #4 Murray
> Stockholm - Winner
> Basel - Winner
> Masters Paris - SF loss to #14 Monfils
> World Championship - Undefeated Winner with wins over #1,3,4,5,7
> Doha - Winner
> Australian Open - SF loss to #3 Djokovic
> Dubai - F loss to #3 Djokovic
>
> Record vs. Top 10 - 13-5
> Titles - 5
> Losses outside Top 10 - 1 to #14
I don't care what he did outside of slams. The point is in 2008-2009,
Fed was beating Djok in similar stages of slams (SF of the USO in both
cases). Now he's lost to Djok in similar situations. Fed has not
beaten Nadal in a slam since Wim 2007. And, with his current game,
it's going to be more and more difficult beating those guys in a best
of 5 set match in a slam.
>
> I wonder what you were saying about Sampras's game in the comparable
> period of his career. Here is a summary:
>
> Sampras had won his 13th slam at Wimbledon and was ranked #2 on the ATP
> Tour.
>
> Canada Masters - QF loss to #9 Safin
> Cincy Masters - R16 loss to #16 Henman
> US Open - F loss to #7 Safin
> YEC - RR loss to Hewitt, SF loss to Kuerten on a fast indoor HC
> Australian Open - R16 loss to #54 Todd Martin
> Memphis - R32 loss to #96 Chris Woodruff
> Scottsdale - R32 loss to #43 Andrew Ilie
>
> Record vs. Top 10 - 3-4
> Titles - 0
> Losses outside Top 10 - 4, to #16, #43, #54 and #96
>
> What did Sampras need to do?
>
Actually, Sampras should've stayed back more against Hewitt and Safin
instead of playing cavalry type S/V. Would've been in a much better
position then.
The thing is Sampras' approach was to bring on the heat and see if the
other guy had an answer to it. If he did, Sampras lost. Fed's approach
is to wait and pounce, to ambush. And it worked well for him. But my
point is the past does not determine the future. You can laugh if you
want, but if you cannot reach the ball in time, your racquet skills
cannot help you all the time. You cannot hit what you cannot reach.
MBDunc
Luckily we can always check Tsonga's actual achievements from ATP site
rather than rely on wouldacouldashoula.
In addition to Tsonga's huge slam title count and overall succee at
tour Tsonga also has a magnificent 1-5 h2h losing record against
Nadal.
.mikko
Patrick Kehoe
> from a Facebook post today:
>
> "Just got to Los Angeles for some days of training before Indian
> Wells....trying to organize a couple of hits with the "pistol"..."
>
> --
> "the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic
> population by 30 million".
>
> - Heinrich Himmler, 1941
Translation: Brigette has given Big Rog a 'call back'... she's tired
of Pistol ending the points too early...
P
MBDunc
I agree especially against Hewitt. Most probable Sampras would have
lost both matches anyway (Safin/Hewitt both were really on fire) but
numbers would have been more "kind".
> The thing is Sampras' approach was to bring on the heat and see if the
> other guy had an answer to it. If he did, Sampras lost. Fed's approach
> is to wait and pounce, to ambush. And it worked well for him. But my
> point is the past does not determine the future. You can laugh if you
> want, but if you cannot reach the ball in time, your racquet skills
> cannot help you all the time. You cannot hit what you cannot reach.
That is true. When an aging top star goes towards sundown he has to
find new tricks (or dig from the deep). Connors went more aggressive,
Lendl more passive, Becker shifted into power baseliner, Sampras went
into a full S&V mode. Of course we can retrospectively think that
"becker/lendl shoulda have kept their succesfull game or Sampras
should have stayed more at back a'la 93-96.....
The best part is always that with multiple adaptations you may be
still have your slower footwork/worse stamina but more options and
especially experience in your bag.
.mikko
Iceberg
didn't see the other matches expect he was hanging back, but we all
saw that AO encounter when he was s/ving in the style of Edberg and
Sampras.
MBDunc
> > > Tsonga proves you wrong.
>
> > Luckily we can always check Tsonga's actual achievements from ATP site
> > rather than rely on wouldacouldashoula.
>
> > In addition to Tsonga's huge slam title count and overall succee at
> > tour Tsonga also has a magnificent 1-5 h2h losing record against
> > Nadal.
>
> didn't see the other matches expect he was hanging back, but we all
> saw that AO encounter when he was s/ving in the style of Edberg and
> Sampras
Tsonga must be then a real dumb player if he suddenly can forget the
uber winning strategy. May be smt.similar always happened to Sampras
at the time of FO too?
.mikko
Shakes
To some extent, I agree with the Tsonga example. In that one match, he
played far above his actual level and, IMO, played roughly close to
the level that a prime Sampras played at the business end of a slam. I
think that match was a fair indication that Sampras would've matched
up well against Nadal.
Joe Ramirez
Confirmation bias.
MBDunc
A prime Sampras would never be a cakewalk opponent. Noone denies that
(well except on clay...; ) ).
But Tsonga's AO win over Nadal was similar "flash" like Flippers win
over Sampras at 96AO or Krajicek's win over Sampras 96Wimb or Curren's
win over Connors Wimb83. Sometimes an excessive aggression just flicks
on and unless the "better" opponent is running full cylinders the
match just cannot be turned over.
.mikko
Shakes
I have no bias. Just my opinion.
Shakes
That's definitely true and explains why those guys cannot repeat those
feats.
jdeluise
On 4-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no bias. Just my opinion.
Everyone has a bias to some extent. Unfortunately your opinions can help
feed your biases if left unchecked. You are really going out on a limb to
appear impartial but it's obvious you are not.
Shakes
> On 4-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no bias. Just my opinion.
>
> Everyone has a bias to some extent. Unfortunately your opinions can help
> feed your biases if left unchecked.
True, but for everyone, not just me.
> You are really going out on a limb to
> appear impartial but it's obvious you are not.
Actually, if I did try to be impartial, we wouldn't have had all those
discussions. I stick to my opinion. Sometimes my opinion is similar to
others, sometimes it's not.
jdeluise
On 4-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:18 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have no bias. Just my opinion.
> >
> > Everyone has a bias to some extent. Unfortunately your opinions can
> > help
> > feed your biases if left unchecked.
>
> True, but for everyone, not just me.
Did I say otherwise? However, you appear to let your opinion run wild in
your head. You invent possible scenarios that could benefit Federer, and
then pat yourself on the back that you are right without any evidence.
>
> > You are really going out on a limb to
> > appear impartial but it's obvious you are not.
>
> Actually, if I did try to be impartial, we wouldn't have had all those
> discussions. I stick to my opinion. Sometimes my opinion is similar to
> others, sometimes it's not.
Sticking to your opinion can be a form of bias, especially if you don't have
any real evidence of anything you are arguing for.
TT
Tsonga played the match of his life...he's never played as well before
or since. Also he had some luck with his drop volleys...Nadal was
hitting pretty good passing shots.
TT
Tsonga was better than Sampras on all aspects of the game that day,
except serve. Much better.
Joe Ramirez
> On Mar 4, 11:18 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have no bias. Just my opinion.
>
> > Everyone has a bias to some extent. Unfortunately your opinions can help
> > feed your biases if left unchecked.
>
> True, but for everyone, not just me.
>
> > You are really going out on a limb to
> > appear impartial but it's obvious you are not.
>
> Actually, if I did try to be impartial, we wouldn't have had all those
> discussions. I stick to my opinion.
I'm not talking about bias in the sense of shaping your opinions to
suit players you like or dislike. Confirmation bias means favoring
evidence that supports your opinion, while discounting evidence that
conflicts with your opinion. A good example of this is seizing upon
Tsonga's 2008 AO match against Nadal as a good indication of how
Sampras would fare against Nadal, while apparently disregarding all
the other Tsonga-Nadal encounters, let alone all the other matches
Nadal has ever played against aggressive opponents.
Rodjk #613
The mind boggles at the ignorance of this statement...
Rodjk #613
Iceberg
yes, in that match Tsonga was reaching near Sampras levels.
Iceberg
he's just being honest!
Iceberg
he's given you ample and proven evidence, he's even had me agreeing
with him. it's you and Joe and co that are biased.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Iceberg
the thing is we've all seen that match, that's why it's a good piece
of evidence, rather than some obscure match nobody has seen where
Tsonga was probably injured or something else suspect.
Superdave
djock is playing that way at the moment. i don't think he can keep it up either. its just a purple patch as they say.
roger is still the man.
TT
So you didn't see the match, a shame.
Should be obvious that Tsonga on a good day hits better from baseline
than Sampy...much much better. Tsonga is quite a natural volleyer with
soft hands but that day he overdid himself, and had some luck too at
the net. What else...Tsonga is a good mover but there you might have a
point, only there...
Shakes
If Tsonga never again reached the level of play displayed at the AO,
it does not mean much in the bigger picture. It happens all the time.
Stich beat peak Edberg and Becker, back to back, in straight sets to
win Wim in 1991. He could never recapture that glory. But on that day,
he touched a level that neither Edberg nor Becker could match. But
Becker leads H2H against Stich 8-4.
So my view is that Tsonga, in that particular match, reached a level
close to peak Sampras. The fact that he never again played that well
is a pity, but it does not change that particular match. There was not
much Nadal could've done in that match.
Shakes
Come on, let's not get carried away.
Whisper
Bumrooting is not Brigitte's thing. She wants a guy firing winners &
hitting the mark.
Whisper
>> In addition to Tsonga's huge slam title count and overall succee at
>> tour Tsonga also has a magnificent 1-5 h2h losing record against
>> Nadal.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> To some extent, I agree with the Tsonga example. In that one match, he
> played far above his actual level and, IMO, played roughly close to
> the level that a prime Sampras played at the business end of a slam. I
> think that match was a fair indication that Sampras would've matched
> up well against Nadal.
Correct.
Whisper
Spoken like a true Fedfucker.
Whisper
Nadal's midcourt balls made Tsonga look really good.
Whisper
I saw it as a poor man's Sampras - which is still formidable.
Superdave
sure and slobbering all over her like a stuck pig.
Iceberg
Nadal hadn't seen anything like that kind of play before, the result
was understandable.
Superdave
i enjoyed that match as much as any match ever !
StephenJ
> On 4/03/2011 11:45 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
> >> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>
> > Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
> > it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
> > of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
> > possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
>
> In your 30's you can still play a blinding great match - problem is
> backing it up next day & staying fresh.
>
> That's where you need Sampras-type skills - ie hit flat/hard, great
> serves, quick points, constant net attack etc.
Agassi won more slams after age 30 than anyone in the open era, and
his game was the opposite of Pete's.
Shakes
I agree but then who else has Agassi's superb eye-hand coordination,
and ball striking ability ? Not Fed or Nadal. I mean, not to the same
degree as Agassi. Obviously, on an absolute scale, they are all tennis
Gods. It's tough to use Agassi as an example.
jdeluise
On 5-Mar-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree but then who else has Agassi's superb eye-hand coordination,
> and ball striking ability ? Not Fed or Nadal. I mean, not to the same
> degree as Agassi. Obviously, on an absolute scale, they are all tennis
> Gods. It's tough to use Agassi as an example.
Umm.. read some of the things you had to say about 29-year old Fed.... you
know, the guy you said is now too old and too slow to do anything but get to
the net.
"When an athlete ages, what is the first physical component to suffer ?
Speed/agility, explosiveness, the ability to turn abruptly. So instead of
getting a fraction early, you are getting there a fraction late. Your
choices are limited. Your racquet wizardry is moot when you cannot get to
the ball in time."
"At that level, he doesn't have to slow down a whole lot. Most people don't
realize how closely matched the top guys are. It's like a 2-3% difference.
Even that slight drop in speed, reaction etc. makes a huge difference. Which
is what we are seeing."
And the icing on the cake:
"You can laugh if you want, but if you cannot reach the ball in time, your
racquet skills cannot help you all the time. You cannot hit what you cannot
reach."
So, by your logic since Agassi was slower in his 30s than in his prime (by
his own admission) all of his eye-hand coordination and ball striking
ability is moot
felangey
> his own admission) all of his eye-hand coordination and ball striking
> ability is moot<
The webs we weave, eh? :)
Vari L. Cinicke
They were magical titans in the 90s. Agassi could fall out of the Top
100 and get back to #1. Sampras could keep the YE#1 while getting
beaten up by nobodies on clay.
You think Federer and Nadal are good enough to do that?
They barely seem capable of falling out of the Top 2.
Whisper
> On Mar 4, 9:59 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/03/2011 11:45 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
>>>> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>>
>>> Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
>>> it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
>>> of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
>>> possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
>>
>> In your 30's you can still play a blinding great match - problem is
>>
>> That's where you need Sampras-type skills - ie hit flat/hard, great
>> serves, quick points, constant net attack etc.
>
> Agassi won more slams after age 30 than anyone in the open era, and
> his game was the opposite of Pete's.
Fed can't play like Agassi.
He doesn't have the fitness, & also Agassi was more motivated to keep
working in his 30's as he still had a lot to prove.
Whisper
> On Mar 5, 12:47 pm, StephenJ<sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:59 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/03/2011 11:45 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>>
>>>>> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
>>>>> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>>
>>>> Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
>>>> it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
>>>> of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
>>>> possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
>>
>>> In your 30's you can still play a blinding great match - problem is
>>
>>> That's where you need Sampras-type skills - ie hit flat/hard, great
>>> serves, quick points, constant net attack etc.
>>
>> Agassi won more slams after age 30 than anyone in the open era, and
>> his game was the opposite of Pete's.
>
> I agree but then who else has Agassi's superb eye-hand coordination,
> and ball striking ability ? Not Fed or Nadal. I mean, not to the same
> degree as Agassi. Obviously, on an absolute scale, they are all tennis
> Gods. It's tough to use Agassi as an example.
On hardcourts I'd always favour peak Agassi to beat Fed & Rafa. If not
for Sampras Agassi would be a 6 time USO champ & have minimum 10 HC
slams to his name.
Whisper
But when someone points out the remarkable consistency of someone like
Tilden you cry 'not fair as Roger doesn't look good by comparison' lol
what a fuckwit.
TT
>
> Agassi won more slams after age 30 than anyone in the open era, and
You're joking, right? Laver did a Grand Slam to begin with...
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would have to disagree with this. This is pure speculation. You
don't know how Federer will play into his 30's. He is probably one of
the most fit active players for his age and ranking. He is essentially
injury free. In my opinion I see Federer wanting to keep working into
his 30's and he wants to prove he can do this as he ages.
steve jaros
> On Mar 5, 12:47 pm, StephenJ<sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 9:59 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/03/2011 11:45 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>>
>>>>> I cannot think of any other way that Fed can sharpen his game. If you
>>>>> can think of any other way, I'll be open to listen.
>>
>>>> Again, he doesn't look as slow as you are making him out to be. We all know
>>>> it's possible to retain much of your speed into your 30s (obviously not all
>>>> of it). I would rather him stay aggressive and avoid slicing as much as
>>>> possible, especially on returns (especially 2nd serves).
>>
>>> In your 30's you can still play a blinding great match - problem is
>>
>>> That's where you need Sampras-type skills - ie hit flat/hard, great
>>> serves, quick points, constant net attack etc.
>>
>> Agassi won more slams after age 30 than anyone in the open era, and
>> his game was the opposite of Pete's.
>
> I agree but then who else has Agassi's superb eye-hand coordination,
> and ball striking ability ?
Nobody.
--
Cezanne was my one and only master.
- Picasso
steve jaros
I meant 'not counting older guys from the pre-open era'.
--
I can't believe that a fourth-rate power like North Vietnam
doesn't have a breaking point.
- Henry Kissinger
steve jaros
> I guess there's a chance the bigger players can get upset & Fed gets a
> cushy draw at a slam & gets 1 more win?
Yes, Fed needs what Sampras got at 2002 USO - go on a hot streak, get
cushy draw and playing times, and have another guy do the dirty work of
knocking off the guys he can't beat.
If he does, he can eek out 1 more slam win, but that's it.
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
Whisper
> > On 3/4/2011 10:06 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> I guess there's a chance the bigger players can get upset & Fed gets a
>> cushy draw at a slam & gets 1 more win?
>
> Yes, Fed needs what Sampras got at 2002 USO - go on a hot streak, get
> cushy draw and playing times, and have another guy do the dirty work of
> knocking off the guys he can't beat.
>
> If he does, he can eek out 1 more slam win, but that's it.
>
>
There was never a player who Sampras couldn't beat. The match was
always on his racket the way I saw it.
eg he thrashed Hewitt & Safin in straight set semis in 2000 & 2001 USOs
even post-peak.
felangey
> on his racket the way I saw it.<
And we can only speculate how he would have done against Fed, at the only
tournament that really matters.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>> I agree but then who else has Agassi's superb eye-hand coordination,
>> and ball striking ability ?
>
>Nobody.
Because nobody else had a dragon in the backyard as a kid.