Nadal's asterisked slams

[TennisGuy]

Well well well, what a game changer revealed today.
Zverev didn't manage to win but we learned a lesson today.

Nadal can no longer be considered the Clay King.
'Dry Clay King' yes.

But we will have to put an asterisk next to any claim
that he is the Clay King*.

He is NOT the 'Wet Clay King'!

Zverev made that very clear today.

Nadal breadsticked Zverev the first set.
Then the rain started and Zverev returned the favor
breadsticking Nadal and taking a 2-0 lead in the third
before play started to be interrupted and finally halted
until the courts dried up again.

[The Iceberg]

Yep those 50 straight sets in a row just weren’t enough!

[Tuan]

Yes Zverev showed half a backbone there.

[Manuel aka Xax]

WTF ?!
Actually, rain helped Rafa.

Not only the delay in the final set broke Zverev's momentum, it also slowed down rallies thanks to heavier balls.

The slower the clay, the best it is for Rafa, especially vs tall players.

[TennisGuy]

Not the way I saw it.

Dry first set. Rafa 6-1.
Wet second set. Zverev 6-1.

Zverev up 2-0 third set, rain interruptions start.

Court dries off. Momentum broken. Rafa wins 3rd.

Wet clay/balls, balls don't bounce as high.
Less hang time for balls.
No over the shoulder swings.

[Manuel aka Xax]

You are confusing very little rain (which aren't changing changing anything. See court watering after each set) and "true" rain episodes.
The court had not dried after the third set pause.

I guess you're not familiar with clay courts.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Manuel,
Did you see anything in Zverev's performance that signals concern for Rafa and his camp heading into the FO? Or was it more confirmation of his dominance? Or bit of both? How did you 'read' Rafa's Italian Open final, heading into the FO? Anything Rafa needs to worry about, in your view?

P

[StephenJ]

Let's face it: If Rafa doesn't win this FO, we will all be stunned. He
looks so much better than anyone else out there on the dirt-coated cement.





--
for the total eradication of the imperialists, the Chinese
people are willing to endure the first U.S. nuclear
strike. All it is is a big pile of people dying.

- Mao Tse-Tung, 1958

[MBDunc]

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 11:18:48 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
> Let's face it: If Rafa doesn't win this FO, we will all be stunned. He
> looks so much better than anyone else out there on the dirt-coated cement.

Middling or 2nd tier favourites won't beat Nadal. Only distant chance is Djoker - and that is using some year's old history....

Only real Nadal defeat changes are: zoning unknown when Nadal has a bad-day-at-the-office or injury (Nadal has this thing always ready in his sleeve, though)

.mikko

[Whisper]

Imagine the pressure on his shoulders with that kind of expectation.
Has any player ever been more of a fave to win any slam ever?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Pelle Svanslös]

Yes, Rafa. Rafa's 1.4 at Betfair, he's had worse odds at RG before.

--
https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2014/08/19/1193729/Comment-Herge-alle-pecher-jurons-favoris-capitaine-Haddock-pointe-Bretagne_1_730_425.jpg

[StephenJ]

Maybe, but ... I'd still rather be Nadal than anyone else in the draw, LOL.

[TennisGuy]

On 5/25/2018 7:54 PM, Whisper wrote:

>>
>> Let's face it: If Rafa doesn't win this FO, we will all be stunned.
>> He looks so much better than anyone else out there on the
>> dirt-coated cement.
>>
>>
>
>
> Imagine the pressure on his shoulders with that kind of expectation.
> Has any player ever been more of a fave to win any slam ever?

Shoulders?
The only pressure Rafa feels these days is on his ass!

[John Liang]

So why couldn't he defend a Wimbledon, a USO or a AO when there were less pressure on the shoulders ?

[Manuel aka Xax]

I don't see much trouble for Rafa on any given clay match :-)
Even a below average version of himself is enough to win versus anyone on tour but very very few players (who have to play good to great in order to win even such matches. Stan, Nole are the only ones I'm thinking about at the moment in a BO5) !

On BO3, I am ready to bet that Rafa's day are numbered against Zverev.
He got a lucky escape this time, a quite undeserved win IMO.

The kid is learning fast, and displayed near unreal composure, and some kind of "hard reset switch button" between set 1 & 2.
He has everything to kill Rafa on ANY reasonably fast/dry clay court (not just tall guy, 2HBH things: gameplan & tactics to unsettle Nadal, PLUS the MUCH required belief that he can beat Nadal on clay).
And he will soon.

On a BO5, I bet he's still too young, and possibly too weak (stamina wise) to survive a 4 or 5 setter vs THE King Of Clay.
And I can hardly picture Sasha ousting Rafa in straight sets, so at the French Rafa should be relaxed.

Yet, Rafa isn't getting younger, and his own style on clay is sooo demanding that he still is "one of a kind"...
Cannot but wonder how much loss of speed / court coverage will (as age is taking its toll) be enough to have a Nadal much more vulnerable, to
We've seen lately that two young guns (better: a young and two very young!) have found two ways to deal with KOC : Thiem blasted him out on the court (a lot more possible in BO3 than in a BO5), Zverev mixed it up very nicely, and Sasha was a much more impressive streak from the very first game of the second set than Thiem ever was.
I was also quite happy to see both Tsitsipras & Shapovalov not fearing to go for their shots, both took some hard learned lessons, as expected. What I am expecting from both is that both have learned.

Nadal is OBVIOUSLY THE ABSOLUTE fav for this french.
Not only given his current clay season so far, nor the legacy he holds here.
Yet, I wonder how many great fights (not especially 5 setters, even straight setters can be mentally exhausting) he can manage during a slam, now that he is over 30)...

See even 95% winning chances of any given of the seven matches needed to win any slam won't for sure secure an ELEVEN FO trophy !
Not to mention "stupid" / unpredictable events, like injury during a match (for I hope Muster's bad luck won't happen ever again), that can ruin everything in a split second.

Of course his draw is the easiest among usual suspects, yet...
Let's say I hope he's going to be challenged more than once during this FO.
To me every player facing Nadal on clay (or Federer on grass / HC when he was 25-30 years old) should be preparing such match as "the match of his life", instead of entering the court with the fear of a humiliation.
I mean it : who is going to make fun of you for loosing to Rafa at the FO, or Fed at SW19 ?!?
Any time you're not playing a match with a good chance to win it, the very least you can do is DARE play YOUR shots. Or even just DARE play unexpected shots. DARE PLAY FFS :-)

[TennisGuy]

On 5/27/2018 6:49 PM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:

> I mean it : who is going to make fun of you for loosing to Rafa at the FO, or Fed at SW19 ?!?
> Any time you're not playing a match with a good chance to win it, the very least you can do is DARE play YOUR shots. Or even just DARE play unexpected shots. DARE PLAY FFS :-)
>

>... DARE PLAY FFS :-)

Is that a special F.O. shot? :)

[Whisper]

> So why couldn't he defend a Wimbledon, a USO or a AO when there were less pressure on the shoulders ?
>

Couldn't be arsed. He already proved he could beat Federer in off-clay
slam finals & make him cry.

[bob]

yes, but that's easier said than done.

bob

[bob]

for the 1st time since maybe 06, minus that one djok year when rafa
was out of sorts, i think rafa can lose to 2-3 players without being
injured. i think he could've lost to federer even.

bob

[Manuel aka Xax]

Obviously yes, as most of matches are in your career, unless you're top 20 or 10 (not especially when facing former Big4 members, by the way).

[bob]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 05:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Manuel aka Xax

i often hear the advice, in all sports, "if you're an underdog
anyway, why not just do something crazy, something unexpected."

then nobody does it. must be a reason.

bob

[StephenJ]

IMO, Fed is making another mistake by skipping this FO. Shouldn't skip
slams at this stage. I know it paid off for him last year, but ...

[John Liang]

No, it is not a mistake specially at his age. Clay is grueling for Federer. He knows very well he would not be able physically win 3 or more best of five on clay. He knew it could back fire on him physically if he goes deep into FO draw and pick up an injury. Player at his age needs to pick the tournament and Federer is doing the right thing to concentrate on Wimbledon where he has the best chance of winning another grand slam. Another FO is very long shot for Federer.

[guypers]

Even W is a loooong shot for Fed this year!

[bob]

IMO fed could've won this yr's FO. at least a better chance than
pretty much any other year since 05..

bob

[TennisGuy]

Exactly.

If he had trouble winning F.O.'s during his peak years, how could anyone
reasonably expect him to win it now as an ol' fart?

[TennisGuy]

On 5/28/2018 9:26 AM, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 05:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Manuel aka Xax

>

> i often hear the advice, in all sports, "if you're an underdog
> anyway, why not just do something crazy, something unexpected."
>
> then nobody does it. must be a reason.
>
> bob
>

Nobody except Rosol or Muller at Wimbledon. :)

[TennisGuy]

On 5/20/2018 4:53 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
> Well well well, what a game changer revealed today.
> Zverev didn't manage to win but we learned a lesson today.
>
> Nadal can no longer be considered the Clay King.
> 'Dry Clay King' yes.
>
> But we will have to put an asterisk next to any claim
> that he is the Clay King*.
>
> He is NOT the 'Wet Clay King'!
>
> Zverev made that very clear today.
>
> Nadal breadsticked Zverev the first set.
> Then the rain started and Zverev returned the favor
> breadsticking Nadal and taking a 2-0 lead in the third
> before play started to be interrupted and finally halted
> until the courts dried up again.
>
>

Hmmmm.....

Nadal's Kryptonite (water) has reared its ugly head again at the F.O.
allowing Bolelli to take a 3-0 lead in the 3rd.

No problem. Play has been suspended and Bolelli will be
dispatched in short order when play resumes. :)

[bob]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 14:01:47 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

that's a very good point actually. pt being, pretty much never happens
although it's talked about often.

bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 3:49:13 PM UTC-7, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le vendredi 25 mai 2018 19:50:55 UTC+2, Patrick Kehoe a écrit :

[SNIPPED]

> > Manuel,
> > Did you see anything in Zverev's performance that signals concern for Rafa and his camp heading into the FO? Or was it more confirmation of his dominance? Or bit of both? How did you 'read' Rafa's Italian Open final, heading into the FO? Anything Rafa needs to worry about, in your view?

> > P


> I don't see much trouble for Rafa on any given clay match :-)

++ Over all, I agree... :)

> Even a below average version of himself is enough to win versus anyone on tour but very very few players (who have to play good to great in order to win even such matches. Stan, Nole are the only ones I'm thinking about at the moment in a BO5) !

++ Just to say: Nole looks much more healthy, a touch more 'solid'... not so emaciated and boney... AND he didn't look as tired as easily as he has been of late... hitting the ball hard against Dutra da Silva today... good signs for Nole at least being able to compete over BO5...

Stan loses after being up 2sets to 1 against Garcia-Lopez (who seems to give him trouble every time they play)...

> On BO3, I am ready to bet that Rafa's day are numbered against Zverev.
> He got a lucky escape this time, a quite undeserved win IMO.

++ Yes. Could have easily gone for Zverev, should have really... up a break in he third at 3-1 after blitzing Rafa in second set 6-1... then the rains came :)

> The kid is learning fast, and displayed near unreal composure, and some kind of "hard reset switch button" between set 1 & 2.

++ Ya, that was a key 'psychological take away' for fans... Thing Rafa reamins amazing at is just dispensing with that kind of set (bad result) mid match... his recalibration ability is, well, incredible... he actually comes back HARDER after getting wall papered in a set...

> He has everything to kill Rafa on ANY reasonably fast/dry clay court (not just tall guy, 2HBH things: gameplan & tactics to unsettle Nadal, PLUS the MUCH required belief that he can beat Nadal on clay).

++ Yep... and he's not even EXPLORED any meaning set of attack options from the front of the court yet... goodness, when Zverev gets up at net (situationally) and learns to shut off key points from there, he's going to be frightening... :)

> And he will soon.

++ I totally agree. His baseline power game + the serving power/quality aligned with that vapourizing backhand and really good movement, well, it's a great mix... and again, any level of competency at net (or on the approach into the forecourt) he can fit into his game will pay off MASSIVELY...

> On a BO5, I bet he's still too young, and possibly too weak (stamina wise) to survive a 4 or 5 setter vs THE King Of Clay.

++ Ya... he'd have to get him in 3 or 4, which, as Nadal has long proven, is incredibly difficult to produce, on the clay, especially in Paris...

> And I can hardly picture Sasha ousting Rafa in straight sets, so at the French Rafa should be relaxed.

++ Though - like Federer on grass, they are still winning, but, there's some pressure mounting as well... (WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS?) the 'it's all gravy' theory of aged legends topping up their historic level totals does have SOME validity... and yet, NEITHER wants to relax their grips, neighter wants to pass on the mantle and certainly Federer has been showing signs of real nerves early in matches/finals/semi's; I do admit, he's nevertheless been winning a lot of those... :) Which is normal enough; but, one cannot forget that 'problematic nerves/nervous states' are always part of the process of elite winning and at the very end of a career (even great careers)... Nerves sort of pivot back into relevance, seem to show up and are ONE of the things that betray even legends... Roger had a nice run of I-CANNOT-BELIEVE it's happening again tennis this past 18 months or so... ANd yet, now he and Rafa ARE the defacto targets on tour YET AGAIN... and one has to wonder when the nerves and weight of expection will FINALLY get to them...

> Yet, Rafa isn't getting younger, and his own style on clay is sooo demanding that he still is "one of a kind"...

++ Right. Defying time and inevitability can be an exhausting occupation... :)

> Cannot but wonder how much loss of speed / court coverage will (as age is taking its toll) be enough to have a Nadal much more vulnerable, to
> We've seen lately that two young guns (better: a young and two very young!) have found two ways to deal with KOC : Thiem blasted him out on the court (a lot more possible in BO3 than in a BO5), Zverev mixed it up very nicely, and Sasha was a much more impressive streak from the very first game of the second set than Thiem ever was.

++ Holding ones confidence and competence for 3+ hours to get the job done... just insanely difficult against Rafa... as we all know... because we haven't seen anyone come up with a sufficiently invasice COUNTER stratedgy against Rafa on clay... OTHER THAN NOLE, no ones been able to put together the game style and keep at it long enough on clay to beat him... amazing!

> I was also quite happy to see both Tsitsipras & Shapovalov not fearing to go for their shots, both took some hard learned lessons, as expected. What I am expecting from both is that both have learned.

++ Agreed. Hard earned. Taking it on the chin to 'experience' the moment(s) against Rafa on a clay court to try and work out what set of patterns have to be played to get the better of the great man. That's one thing that Nishikori seems destined to bring to the clay court against Rafa; he has some successful patterns but then NOTHING... yes, injuries are his best excuse... but, basically after that near win over Rafa in Rome years ago - NOTHING.

> Nadal is OBVIOUSLY THE ABSOLUTE fav for this french.

++ Agreed.

> Not only given his current clay season so far, nor the legacy he holds here.
> Yet, I wonder how many great fights (not especially 5 setters, even straight setters can be mentally exhausting) he can manage during a slam, now that he is over 30)...

++ Was/have been wondering that as well... Like Federer next month on the grass... should any of the early round guys dig in and take him 5 set over 4.5 hours and make him work and stop and turn and stretch, how much will be taken off of his grass court finishing game deep into the second week of the tournment? Thus how vulnerable could he then be heading into a competitive semi or final? I suspect, likely, very vulnerable! Will it be/could it be the same now for Rafa on clay?

> See even 95% winning chances of any given of the seven matches needed to win any slam won't for sure secure an ELEVEN FO trophy !
> Not to mention "stupid" / unpredictable events, like injury during a match (for I hope Muster's bad luck won't happen ever again), that can ruin everything in a split second.

++ Sure. Though outside the absolute 'exceptional circumstance' Rafa looks really solid... it would take a career level performance against him to defeat him OR back to back protracted matches to soften him up; and that might not be enough... as he's going ALL IN now to win these; he's not saving for what's down the road in the season... each major is a total effort to click over that number of majors... That's one diffence (among many) between he and Federer... Rafa's less - over all - career strategic... he's maximing what he can EVERY TIME he gets into postion to win TO THE EXCLUSION of what might come next... Federer did that (saying that at the AO2017) precisely because he was beginning to believe he was phasing out of the majors... he was so shocked to be back with a shot at winning, he mentally went to the absolute wall... but, in winning it, he and his team recalibrated all the factors THINKING: "HEY! There's a window here to maybe win a handful more IF we plot it out correctly!" And thus, Federer off lists the French so as to maximize his Wimbledon run... and then THAT WORKED... They must have been going crazy to have worked it all out and the plan go PREFECTLY... then it was almost inevitable they would give it another go in 2018... then Federer DOES win AO again... well, there was no turning away from the planning then... It was interesting to hear Federer say (yesterday) he does plan to play ONE MORE French Open again before he retired... I THING he really, really believes he might out last Nadal physically, so he can drop back into Paris and have a late, late career showdown on the clay against Rafa, if it comes to that, and effectively have an even 'fight' (given he's 5 years older)... That would be mind-blowing...

> Of course his draw is the easiest among usual suspects, yet...
> Let's say I hope he's going to be challenged more than once during this FO.
> To me every player facing Nadal on clay (or Federer on grass / HC when he was 25-30 years old) should be preparing such match as "the match of his life", instead of entering the court with the fear of a humiliation.

++ Exactly. TO THE VERY LAST POINT. GO FOR IT... push them as far as you possibly can... see IF there ARE any cracks behind the legendary facades or Feds and Rafa... THERE MUST BE - there are... one just has to play the match of ones life to get to those cracks... :) But what the hell! What else are you doing in the game if not LIVING for the opportunity to test yourself beyond what you imagine is possible?

> I mean it : who is going to make fun of you for loosing to Rafa at the FO, or Fed at SW19 ?!?

++ Exactly. My point as well; hit out toward the imporbably and see if destiny or probability can be altered in the fractious, competitive moment!

> Any time you're not playing a match with a good chance to win it, the very least you can do is DARE play YOUR shots. Or even just DARE play unexpected shots. DARE PLAY FFS :-)

++ I am known to have shouted at the television (on many an occassion) that very plee! :)

Good takin' Manuel!
P

[TennisGuy]

On 5/28/2018 2:42 PM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:


actually comes back HARDER after getting wall papered in a set...
>
>> He has everything to kill Rafa on ANY reasonably fast/dry clay court (not just tall guy, 2HBH things: gameplan & tactics to unsettle Nadal, PLUS the MUCH required belief that he can beat Nadal on clay).
>
> ++ Yep... and he's not even EXPLORED any meaning set of attack options from the front of the court yet... goodness, when Zverev gets up at net (situationally) and learns to shut off key points from there, he's going to be frightening... :)
>

Bbbb....butttt Courty said he was just a 'Lurch' Zverev! A nobody!
Nothing special. :)

[Manuel aka Xax]

To me, it was a good tactic for Federer to go for the #1, playing Rotterdam (iirc), not for the bonus week(s?) he added to his legacy, just to open a "new front" vs Rafa...
I mean, it was clear right after AO that Roger was not likely to schedule more clay tournaments than he did last year :-)
Hence, apart from an unexpected poor clay season from Rafa, we all knew it was just a matter of time before Nadal took the spot back, most likely after the French.
Fed "invited" Rafa to replicate his brilliant 2017 clay season results :-)
Smart move, given the amount of big tournaments clay season has, esp when compared with grass.

> > Yet, Rafa isn't getting younger, and his own style on clay is sooo demanding that he still is "one of a kind"...
>
> ++ Right. Defying time and inevitability can be an exhausting occupation... :)
>
> > Cannot but wonder how much loss of speed / court coverage will (as age is taking its toll) be enough to have a Nadal much more vulnerable, to
> > We've seen lately that two young guns (better: a young and two very young!) have found two ways to deal with KOC : Thiem blasted him out on the court (a lot more possible in BO3 than in a BO5), Zverev mixed it up very nicely, and Sasha was a much more impressive streak from the very first game of the second set than Thiem ever was.
>
> ++ Holding ones confidence and competence for 3+ hours to get the job done... just insanely difficult against Rafa... as we all know... because we haven't seen anyone come up with a sufficiently invasice COUNTER stratedgy against Rafa on clay... OTHER THAN NOLE, no ones been able to put together the game style and keep at it long enough on clay to beat him... amazing!

You forgot Soderlin ;-)
Okay, that was just one match.
Yet their famous Wimbledon match (when Robin mocked Rafa's panties ritual) was tense and very competitive, Robin had got under Rafa' skin before their 2009FO encounter.
Big hitters often got the upper hand on Nadal, especially tall ones, Robin was able to "do it" on clay, as opposed to everybody else.

> > I was also quite happy to see both Tsitsipras & Shapovalov not fearing to go for their shots, both took some hard learned lessons, as expected. What I am expecting from both is that both have learned.
>
> ++ Agreed. Hard earned. Taking it on the chin to 'experience' the moment(s) against Rafa on a clay court to try and work out what set of patterns have to be played to get the better of the great man. That's one thing that Nishikori seems destined to bring to the clay court against Rafa; he has some successful patterns but then NOTHING... yes, injuries are his best excuse... but, basically after that near win over Rafa in Rome years ago - NOTHING.

Good pick Nishi, I had almost forgot how he had Nadal on the ropes once, and was to win, that I got really disappointed by their next matches.
You put it right: felt like a promise never to be uphold.
Sadly, injuries didn't explain the outcome of their matches since that "promise".

> > Nadal is OBVIOUSLY THE ABSOLUTE fav for this french.
>
> ++ Agreed.
>
> > Not only given his current clay season so far, nor the legacy he holds here.
> > Yet, I wonder how many great fights (not especially 5 setters, even straight setters can be mentally exhausting) he can manage during a slam, now that he is over 30)...
>
> ++ Was/have been wondering that as well... Like Federer next month on the grass... should any of the early round guys dig in and take him 5 set over 4.5 hours and make him work and stop and turn and stretch, how much will be taken off of his grass court finishing game deep into the second week of the tournment? Thus how vulnerable could he then be heading into a competitive semi or final? I suspect, likely, very vulnerable! Will it be/could it be the same now for Rafa on clay?
>
> > See even 95% winning chances of any given of the seven matches needed to win any slam won't for sure secure an ELEVEN FO trophy !
> > Not to mention "stupid" / unpredictable events, like injury during a match (for I hope Muster's bad luck won't happen ever again), that can ruin everything in a split second.
>
> ++ Sure. Though outside the absolute 'exceptional circumstance' Rafa looks really solid... it would take a career level performance against him to defeat him OR back to back protracted matches to soften him up; and that might not be enough... as he's going ALL IN now to win these; he's not saving for what's down the road in the season... each major is a total effort to click over that number of majors... That's one diffence (among many) between he and Federer... Rafa's less - over all - career strategic... he's maximing what he can EVERY TIME he gets into postion to win TO THE EXCLUSION of what might come next... Federer did that (saying that at the AO2017) precisely because he was beginning to believe he was phasing out of the majors... he was so shocked to be back with a shot at winning, he mentally went to the absolute wall... but, in winning it, he and his team recalibrated all the factors THINKING: "HEY! There's a window here to maybe win a handful more IF we plot it out correctly!" And thus, Federer off lists the French so as to maximize his Wimbledon run... and then THAT WORKED... They must have been going crazy to have worked it all out and the plan go PREFECTLY... then it was almost inevitable they would give it another go in 2018... then Federer DOES win AO again... well, there was no turning away from the planning then... It was interesting to hear Federer say (yesterday) he does plan to play ONE MORE French Open again before he retired... I THING he really, really believes he might out last Nadal physically, so he can drop back into Paris and have a late, late career showdown on the clay against Rafa, if it comes to that, and effectively have an even 'fight' (given he's 5 years older)... That would be mind-blowing...

As perfect as 2017 Federer's schedule was, it was mostly a bet when decision were made, imo.
Same about this year, or near the same : with the uncanny bonus of "now every other player knows that this bet had worked once" :-)

Yet, it's way too early for me to speculate about either Roger next Wim or future FO... Even if I agree that Federer might be thinking he can wait for Nadal to get slowed down a bit (or more) by inevitable age toll :-)
I also can picture a FO title for Federer, without having to play Nadal (either not there because of injury, or having been ousted by a less dangerous player for Roger than Rafa has always been, thanks to lefty+huge spin)

> > Of course his draw is the easiest among usual suspects, yet...
> > Let's say I hope he's going to be challenged more than once during this FO.
> > To me every player facing Nadal on clay (or Federer on grass / HC when he was 25-30 years old) should be preparing such match as "the match of his life", instead of entering the court with the fear of a humiliation.
>
> ++ Exactly. TO THE VERY LAST POINT. GO FOR IT... push them as far as you possibly can... see IF there ARE any cracks behind the legendary facades or Feds and Rafa... THERE MUST BE - there are... one just has to play the match of ones life to get to those cracks... :) But what the hell! What else are you doing in the game if not LIVING for the opportunity to test yourself beyond what you imagine is possible?
>
> > I mean it : who is going to make fun of you for loosing to Rafa at the FO, or Fed at SW19 ?!?
>
> ++ Exactly. My point as well; hit out toward the imporbably and see if destiny or probability can be altered in the fractious, competitive moment!
>
> > Any time you're not playing a match with a good chance to win it, the very least you can do is DARE play YOUR shots. Or even just DARE play unexpected shots. DARE PLAY FFS :-)
>
> ++ I am known to have shouted at the television (on many an occassion) that very plee! :)

I've been DELIGHTED by the way Simone has been playing Rafa so far.
He went for near every shot, and had Nadal on the ropes more than once.
He borrowed a good deal from Federer'17 gameplan, and has been able to execute it ON CLAY quite brilliantly: refusing as much as possible to play away from the baseline, hitting flat & fast 1HBH, either to fix Nadal on one side or to kill a rally.
Never seemed destroyed by the loss of a set, which is even more remarkable since he was up a break in the second, he could have totally melted in the third, and he did quite the opposite.
I didn't checked stats, but I would be quite surprised if he had not hit more winners than Nadal so far... ON CLAY !
I also bet that Nadal UE are higher than usual, for Bolelli is forcing him to "overplay" (not sure how well that translate from french !) a lot more often that expected when reigning champ is facing any lucky looser.

> Good takin' Manuel!
> P
Thanks, always nice to chat about tennis :-)
RST "Signal to Noise Ratio" isn't improving, far too often trolling about who's BOAT, GOAT, and other endless and often sterile debates.
You're among the few posters I actually enjoy reading / replying.

As much as I've been enjoying this tennis era : how not to (?), when 3 of the most successful players ever have been on stage at the same moment, not forgetting the two 3 slams wonders (so far !) that managed to "steal" their well-earned own titles in such a high density field (not only speaking about top 5), as much I regret the days I started reading (and few months later, posting in) RST.
I'm really fed up with fanboyism, some have even managed to make me starting to "un-like" players I used to like a lot, because of their biased posts.
Having so many people posting mostly to keep arguing about something also had me missing even more former memebers (Erich, not only for his excellent highlights, Joe and few more that I fail, right now, to remember names.

[StephenJ]

Fed's decision making the past 1.5 years has been impeccable so there's
not much use arguing it, but .... after Nadal wins this FO, he'll still
just be 3 slams ahead of Nadal.

Nadal's chances of ending up GOAT by surpassing Fed's slam total is
still a very real possibility, and Fed knows that. Five years.

Skipping the FO is really a sign of his realization of that, IMO.

[John Liang]

Having a real look at Nadal's current performance across the current clay court season I think it is going to be increasingly difficult for him year in year out of FO and without a draw like USO last year, I don't know where he is going to get those extra 4 slams. You really think he is going to win the next 4 FOs ?

[StephenJ]

I'm not predicting that Nadal will finish with more slams than Fed and
be GOAT, I'm saying it's a real possibility.

Nadal has proven capable of winning slams anywhere. I don't put another
W or USO or AO past him.

[John Liang]

Let's put it this way, he never defend a non clay court slam titles to begin with. he never past the QF of Wimbledon in last 6 years and he needed a draw that let him face nobody ranked in the top 25 to win a hard court slam in 4 yaers to win the USO. If it is a possibility it is very low.

[bob]

i don't see a W, but an AO, maybe.

bob

[Manuel aka Xax]

Name few sports in which you can meet the absolute King, say, for this era, Federer on Grass (+ indoor ?), Nadal on clay, and Djokovic on HC... on a less un-regular basis than in any other :-)

Tennis tournaments format helps excellent players (for despite bullshits some keep saying, any top 150 is, at the very least, either (when not combined !) an amazing tennis player or an amazing athlete) to face the masters in the game.

Yet, for most of the time, most of the field is facing much nearer (ranking or "talent" wise) players, hence that underdog status is less to little relevant.
You can beat (even much) better players than you not even playing lights out (not to mention "out of sort" opponent sometimes).

What is a lot more unlikely is to defeat top10 playing your usual game, unless you're top20.
Who might enter a clay court with a gameplan that says "I'll outlast Nadal" ?!
I've witnessed once such a match (and it wasn't even on clay), that infamous AO final between Rafa & Nole. And it was one of the worst slam final I can remember of.
It was atrociously long, code violating all along, and poorly played for big parts of it.

> then nobody does it. must be a reason.

Check previous point, hope you get the picture.
I was only speaking of "real" underdog status, meaning, as you should have understood by now, any player (but, maybe, from top10) when facing any member of the big 5 (Wawrinka belongs, having 3 slams is this so particular era) as long as these five are healthy, which hasn't been the case for quite some time now.
You can also speak of real underdog status when a player from qualies faces a top100, obviously.

If you ask for my "bigger picture opinion", I would say that "modern" era training (and play) has focused way too much on athletic / powerplay, and is lacking big time on mental aspect...
I have no precise point/year to define when it started, what I mean by that is the combined effect of 32 seeds, nanotech rackets, borderline legal strings (octogonal shape, and so on) and so on.

It was quite predictable, as "science" invested sports : healthier food, ever more specialized exercices from personal physio, easy measured "improvements" (faster serve, now that radar are everywhere, it's easy to "check"... As if faster was always better than precise placement, quite stupid imo)...

I can't remember how often I've wondered what Nadal / Djokovic might do with mid70s / mid80s headsized rackets (and lack of stiffness), for exemple :-)

[MBDunc]

torstai 31. toukokuuta 2018 14.26.51 UTC+3 Manuel aka Xax kirjoitti:
> I can't remember how often I've wondered what Nadal / Djokovic might do with mid70s / mid80s headsized rackets (and lack of stiffness), for exemple :-)

This is always pointless comparision which is used only for PEIBS.

They might be better or worse, but it is all speculative.

You can test your thinking: imagine Borg playing today - then re-speculate him back to 70:ies with its conditions/rackets. Noone would give him any slams?

.mikko

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

It's a boomer thing. They like to discuss Borg and pretend it's
somehow still "relevant".

Do I like Borg? Sure, I'm all for historical perspective and
comparisons, give me Doherties, Wilding, Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez,
Hoad, Laver, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal,
Djokovic and let's discuss.

Whisper does it and you too, being aware and knowledgeable of
tennis history, have entire picture in front of your eyes.


But to put the guy from wooden era, who played 40 years ago in the
same sentence with current players and start some one on one
comparisons as if he's relevant or a benchmark of sorts, is
nonsensical imo.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Whisper]

Imo wood rackets put a premium on tennis skills & tactics/strategy. You
can play baseline or net, just depends what your talents are.

The modern equipment eliminates a big part of tennis & makes it more 1
dimensional imo. Yes there were dull & boring players with wood rackets
too, but overall tennis is better when it has huge variety in playing
styles & strokes.

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

Remember both Gonzales and Borg played with wood.

So why there are no threads e.g. "would Djokovic/Murray be able to
return Gonzales serve if he served with modern racquets"?


But we have to be abused with Borg all the time?

It's a cultural thing. Silent generation people are mostly very
polite, boomers otoh are often obnoxious.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 14:17:38 UTC+2, MBDunc a écrit :
> torstai 31. toukokuuta 2018 14.26.51 UTC+3 Manuel aka Xax kirjoitti:
> > I can't remember how often I've wondered what Nadal / Djokovic might do with mid70s / mid80s headsized rackets (and lack of stiffness), for exemple :-)
>
> This is always pointless comparision which is used only for PEIBS.

PEIBS, stands for Past Era Is Best ? Not reading (and even fewer posting) RST as often I used to...
I am neither a PEIB nor a CEIB supporter.
Both have fatal flaws.

> They might be better or worse, but it is all speculative.

Unless actual players (or retired few years ago) agree to test old tools, yes :-)
My speculation is most of them (even top guns) would find it very inconfortable, having to play with way smaller rackets, more flexible bodies and old strings.

As a player, I'm happy to claim that swapping my good old & beloved Edberg Pro Staff 95SQi to either my Babolat Drive 105SQi (which I find now too large, hence got replaced during summer 16) and my Head Radical Team 102SQi was quite helping (I played with the Wilson up to 2005 or so) versus players I had no big problems to deal with, when they were also using "old" rackets.
I saw the last Federer (280grams model, not Roger's 340grams) 97SQi when I had one of my own Radical restrung last week, and it truly is a beautiful tool, I'd like very much to try, just to see how going back to smaller head might feel :-)

> You can test your thinking: imagine Borg playing today - then re-speculate him back to 70:ies with its conditions/rackets. Noone would give him any slams?

Not sure to get your point here.
I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs Federer... Just not as many as he got, most likely !
And possibly even one USO vs Djokovic :-)
At least one AO, had he bothered to enter few (even with Fed or Djoker on the other side of the net) !

I was quite surprised that you replied to "only" my last words.
Words, which were here to add more weight (and a somewhat funny/irreverent opening conclusion) to what I was saying about "bigger picture" in tennis.

[StephenJ]

>On 5/31/2018 7:39 AM, Whisper wrote:

> Imo wood rackets put a premium on tennis skills & tactics/strategy.  You
> can play baseline or net, just depends what your talents are.
>
> The modern equipment eliminates a big part of tennis & makes it more 1
> dimensional imo.

IMO it's a hard call. It's definitely tougher to play with a wood
racket, modern rackets do more of the work for you. But tougher doesn't
necessarily mean more skillful - it would be even tougher to play tennis
with a ping pong paddle, but if we did that, then Sampras and you might
be indistinguishable on the court, meaning the poor racket had
dumbed-down the skills needed.

Modern rackets do allow for things that same skillful that just wouldn't
exist with wood - Nadal's forehand for example. Is that a denigration of
skill or an upgrade of it? I just don't know.

I do feel comfortable saying that the new rackets matter enough to make
"boat" comparisons between wood and post-wood inadmissable.

[StephenJ]

>On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:

> I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...

I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
1970s playing with a wood racket.

[Manuel aka Xax]

It's not just "wooden rackets", yet I tend to agree with this post.
Modern rackets (stiffer, lighter, despite bigger) helped more counter-strike than "creative" players.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :
> >On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>
> > I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
>
> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
> 1970s playing with a wood racket.

I wasn't speculating about "one way time warp" of champions into others eras...
In "fairness" both anachronisms have to be imagined: both old champ playing with new tools AND actual champ playing with old tools :-)

In either option, I can see Borg defeating any "great of the game", of course it seems "easier" to picture that players using their era tools should have more "chances" of winning that using their opponents era rackets+strings.

Is it purely "random" that 2HBH became the most popular as head size increased ?
Not to me, as I said earlier many times, new material allowed lighter and stiffer rackets despite bigger and bigger head ?
Ever tried to hit heavy top-spin 2HBH using anything below 95SQi ?

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :

> >On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>
> > I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
>
> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
> 1970s playing with a wood racket.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070
69SQi 2HBH :-)
Great video linked in that page, too (a must watch before it might be removed):
https://youtu.be/4kjB-0vfbt8

[Patrick Kehoe]

Where is Courty? I only check in once in a while (randomly)... don't see her on the board any more??? Did she retire from RST? :) Did she stomp off? Get tired?

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 4:12:33 AM UTC-7, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le lundi 28 mai 2018 20:42:50 UTC+2, Patrick Kehoe a écrit :

[SNIPPED]

> To me, it was a good tactic for Federer to go for the #1, playing Rotterdam (iirc), not for the bonus week(s?) he added to his legacy, just to open a "new front" vs Rafa...

** I agree... one small tournament and you get back to #1, a no-brainer really...

> I mean, it was clear right after AO that Roger was not likely to schedule more clay tournaments than he did last year :-)

** Right... you don't mess with perfect planning... :)

> Hence, apart from an unexpected poor clay season from Rafa, we all knew it was just a matter of time before Nadal took the spot back, most likely after the French.

** Yes...

> Fed "invited" Rafa to replicate his brilliant 2017 clay season results :-)
> Smart move, given the amount of big tournaments clay season has, esp when compared with grass.

** True...

> > ++ Holding ones confidence and competence for 3+ hours to get the job done... just insanely difficult against Rafa... as we all know... because we haven't seen anyone come up with a sufficiently invasice COUNTER stratedgy against Rafa on clay... OTHER THAN NOLE, no ones been able to put together the game style and keep at it long enough on clay to beat him... amazing!

> You forgot Soderlin ;-)
> Okay, that was just one match.
> Yet their famous Wimbledon match (when Robin mocked Rafa's panties ritual) was tense and very competitive, Robin had got under Rafa' skin before their 2009FO encounter.

** True... though Sods and Rafa was ALL about Sods being able to dictate, defend and counter then take the offense with hammer-blow power-shots and hang in for hours... not a 'formula' as such... not a template... :) Except for Theim; he seems to want to create a mini-Sods template to battle Rafa on clay... :)

> Big hitters often got the upper hand on Nadal, especially tall ones, Robin was able to "do it" on clay, as opposed to everybody else.

** Sods could defend and thus 'absorb' Rafa sufficiently on clay to then actually counter-hit Rafa, which no one could do on the Paris clay... in other words he could translate his power tennis with enough defensive soundness and very formidable 'big-point' conversions to really rough Rafa up... amazingly!

> > ++ Agreed. Hard earned. Taking it on the chin to 'experience' the moment(s) against Rafa on a clay court to try and work out what set of patterns have to be played to get the better of the great man. That's one thing that Nishikori seems destined to bring to the clay court against Rafa; he has some successful patterns but then NOTHING... yes, injuries are his best excuse... but, basically after that near win over Rafa in Rome years ago - NOTHING.
> Good pick Nishi, I had almost forgot how he had Nadal on the ropes once, and was to win, that I got really disappointed by their next matches.

> You put it right: felt like a promise never to be uphold.
> Sadly, injuries didn't explain the outcome of their matches since that "promise".

** No, they don't... but, he's also not had the ability to produce 6 months of consistant big match ball striking in order to peak his ground game, and that's a must going in against Rafa on the clay... groove technically, cardio-peaking fitness capacity, mental resilience all adding up to sustainable confidence to produce a willfull fighting attitude to hang in there and battle Rafa WITH the proper tools for the contest... Nish has all of that BUT CANNOT seem to be able to produce 4 to 6 months of sustained top play to actually make it happen when the spring comes and he inevitably runs into Rafa... sucks he doesn't have the body-type to be able to 'warrior-it-out' against the top guys... he's so talented...

> As perfect as 2017 Federer's schedule was, it was mostly a bet when decision were made, imo.

** Sure. No way Feds expected to win the 2017 AO, but he did and then the calculus totally changed... he didn't even expect to win in Miami (after winning Indian Wells); he said on French Radio that he thought he would be exhaused half way through Miami, but he kept winning and 'not feeling terrible' (my best translation)... I thought that was a telling way of putting it... he EXPECTED to feel waxed in Miami 2017... BUT, then he and Sven and Pierre Paganini (who has become more of a fator in his planning as he's gotten older) decided to try and skip the clay (as we all know) and that was LARGELY based on Pagainin's assessent as to how Federer would hold up in relation to maximizing his Wimdeldon chances... AND BOOM... that worked out too...

> Same about this year, or near the same : with the uncanny bonus of "now every
other player knows that this bet had worked once" :-)

** Yes, there's a kind of 'psychological precident' for his loading up for the grass at the expense of the clay... and Rafa and his team keep to their pattern of planning precisely because they are also STILL winning almost everything on clay, so - for them - the pattern his kept to - it would be IDIOTIC to pass up on all those massive tournament wins... so there's a kind of 'resolution to necessity' each (Feds and Rafa) have selected for themselves... so far, so good, for each... cannot blame them... AND YET THE FIELD and talented elites ARE GAINING!

> Yet, it's way too early for me to speculate about either Roger next Wim or future FO... Even if I agree that Federer might be thinking he can wait for Nadal to get slowed down a bit (or more) by inevitable age toll :-)

** Yes... it's almost beyond probability (or calculable probability) for Federer to 'know' that waiting out Rafa will be ANYTHING LIKE a successful stratedgy... Federer IS AFTER ALL 5 years older and age tends to trump EVERTHING in the high stakes game of career probabilities and maximizing winning outcomes... And (I know I have) predicting Rafa's physical decline has been a fools bet for many years now... even approaching 32 and with cycles of injuries behind him, it's proven problematic, and frankly foolish, predicting just WHEN Rafa's going to start his major DOWN SLIDE preformance/results wise, especially on clay :)

> I also can picture a FO title for Federer, without having to play Nadal (either not there because of injury, or having been ousted by a less dangerous player for Roger than Rafa has always been, thanks to lefty+huge spin)

** Though, Feds would have to give up his current grass stratedgy... I wonder if Federer gets upset this Wimbledon, will he change things up again and go for the French? Or is he actually waiting for Rafa to have some marked slip in over all performance first? Which would be sort of pathetic, really...

> > ++ I am known to have shouted at the television (on many an occassion) that very plee! :)

> I've been DELIGHTED by the way Simone has been playing Rafa so far.
> He went for near every shot, and had Nadal on the ropes more than once.
> He borrowed a good deal from Federer'17 gameplan, and has been able to execute it ON CLAY quite brilliantly: refusing as much as possible to play away from the baseline, hitting flat & fast 1HBH, either to fix Nadal on one side or to kill a rally.

** That sort of power out put tennis seems to be how Theim has decided he's going to face up to Rafa - win or lose... Theim's fit enough and getting mentally tough enough to make a considerable fight against Rafa on clay over 5... IF Theim can get all the way into the last 3 rounds of the tournament... then it's just a matter of producing on 'the day' against Rafa... Theim has enough big match experience and winning sets off of Rafa to FINALLY see if he can measure up... because he's got the big serve, massive forehand, reliable backhand wing to hang in, the fitness and the dawning belief... can he put it all together? That's the last piece of the puzzle...

> Never seemed destroyed by the loss of a set, which is even more remarkable since he was up a break in the second, he could have totally melted in the third, and he did quite the opposite.

> I didn't checked stats, but I would be quite surprised if he had not hit more winners than Nadal so far... ON CLAY !

** He was leading on the stats when I saw them, but didn't see the final results...

> I also bet that Nadal UE are higher than usual, for Bolelli is forcing him to "overplay" (not sure how well that translate from french !) a lot more often that expected when reigning champ is facing any lucky looser.

** Even today, Rafa had more than his usual UE's and that was in a set he won 6-2... Rafa's 'stats' are changing as he gets past 30... even on the clay... but his run-around forehand and court patterning for offensive strikes on clay are still ASTOUNDING good... he seems FULL of energy - positive energy... no one has 'scared' him yet this tournament... nor pushed him toward his limits not even SB...

> > Good takin' Manuel!
> > P
> Thanks, always nice to chat about tennis :-)
> RST "Signal to Noise Ratio" isn't improving, far too often trolling about who's BOAT, GOAT, and other endless and often sterile debates.

** TOO TRUE M!

> You're among the few posters I actually enjoy reading / replying.

> As much as I've been enjoying this tennis era : how not to (?), when 3 of the most successful players ever have been on stage at the same moment, not forgetting the two 3 slams wonders (so far !) that managed to "steal" their well-earned own titles in such a high density field (not only speaking about top 5), as much I regret the days I started reading (and few months later, posting in) RST.

** You and I both... Fed/Rafa/Nole... all legends... producing dizzying tennis and epic matches... and a more than decent revolving, supporting, cast over the years... tennis certainly in a good place but I have SO MANY writing and editing projects on the go, I don't get much time to drop in to RST...

> I'm really fed up with fanboyism, some have even managed to make me starting to "un-like" players I used to like a lot, because of their biased posts.
> Having so many people posting mostly to keep arguing about something also had me missing even more former memebers (Erich, not only for his excellent highlights, Joe and few more that I fail, right now, to remember names.

** Totally agree... Joe Ramirez, Erich, Rodjk, Javier Gonzalez, Habib, Jack, Sakari, Jesper, bg, (had a great friend on the board and blanking trying to rembmber his name... getting old! :)

P

[*skriptis]

Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Husband forbade her.

[TennisGuy]

On 5/31/2018 3:02 PM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> ... IF Theim can get all the way into the
> last 3 rounds of the tournament... then it's just a matter of
> producing on 'the day' against Rafa... Theim has enough big match
> experience and winning sets off of Rafa to FINALLY

Sorry I don't follow...

Getting into the last 3 rounds does not mean he will face Nadal.
Nadal is on the other side of the draw and can only face Thiem if
he makes the final.

Last 3 rounds mean Thiem could potentially face:
Nishi, Zverev, Djoker/Goffin/Dmitrov.
None of them are gimmees!

How did you so quickly and easily jump from:

> IF Theim can get all the way into the
> last 3 rounds of the tournament... then it's just a matter of
> producing on 'the day' against Rafa.

???

[Shakes]

I think the only folks on rst that Court_1 engaged with in conversation were Gracchus and TT. I thought she would leave once they both stopped posting, esp. Gracchus.

[Patrick Kehoe]

So, Courty's gone? Wow. TT gone too? Really... Ok... Thanks!

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

Didn't check sides, actually (struggling to keep my interest in this tournament for some reason)... so, they would only meet in the final... ya, then basically Theim's basically hooped :)

Super long odds for Theim to get a result over Rafa in a final (in Paris)...

P

[joh]

It's Thiem.
Why is this so hard?

[Manuel aka Xax]

Dumb LineFeed ! correct link is obviously:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 01/06/2018 11.03, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 19:03:13 UTC+2, Manuel aka Xax a écrit :
>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :
>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
>>>
>>> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
>>> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
>>> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
>>> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
>>> 1970s playing with a wood racket.
>>
>> https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070
>> 69SQi 2HBH :-)
>> Great video linked in that page, too (a must watch before it might be removed):
>> https://youtu.be/4kjB-0vfbt8

Järryd is playing with a woodie here. The others with graphite. Can you
see the difference in what comes out of their racquets?

--
"We're trying to help you, Sir"
-- Paramedic in "Little Fockers"

[Whisper]

Correct spelling is a luxury for slam champions only.

[Whisper]

On 1/06/2018 6:28 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 01/06/2018 11.03, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 19:03:13 UTC+2, Manuel aka Xax a écrit :
>>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :
>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era,
>>>>> even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
>>>> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
>>>> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
>>>> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
>>>> 1970s playing with a wood racket.
>>>
>>> https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070
>>>
>>> 69SQi 2HBH :-)
>>> Great video linked in that page, too (a must watch before it might be
>>> removed):
>>> https://youtu.be/4kjB-0vfbt8
>
> Järryd is playing with a woodie here.

I used to play with a woodie in mixed doubles all the time in my teens.
Man some of those chicks were smoking.

[Pelle Svanslös]

And another guy with a woodie ...

[joh]

Luxury? Must be hard having a high IQ.

[Whisper]

Can't be arsed looking up correct spelling for clowns. Win a slam &
I'll make the effort & show some respect, else fuck off.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Pelle Svanslös]

Np, whipsy.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le vendredi 1 juin 2018 10:28:31 UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös a écrit :
> On 01/06/2018 11.03, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> > Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 19:03:13 UTC+2, Manuel aka Xax a écrit :
> >> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :
> >>>> On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
> >>>
> >>> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
> >>> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
> >>> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
> >>> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
> >>> 1970s playing with a wood racket.
> >>
> >> https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070
> >> 69SQi 2HBH :-)
> >> Great video linked in that page, too (a must watch before it might be removed):
> >> https://youtu.be/4kjB-0vfbt8
>
> Järryd is playing with a woodie here.

Yep, I know, that's precisely why I posted those links !

> The others with graphite. Can you
> see the difference in what comes out of their racquets?

Here come the very naive (no pun intended) question I was expecting :-)
And it's so telling about the one asking.

No idea how old you might be, yet have you ever played tennis ?
I bet you did not.
If you did, I guess was a somewhat short experience using only one kind of racket, obviously quite recent (Y frame, composite, 105SQi or more, 280Grams max).

Where to start ?
- It was a double
- Was early days composite (glassfiber + wood mix were plenty, carbon came later)
- With players that were teached tennis using wood (maybe not Edberg, can't remember what kind of racket he was using, when young and having a 2HBH, might check this)
...
I guess you might now answer your own question, using the obvious clues I gave you.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 01/06/2018 16.08, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le vendredi 1 juin 2018 10:28:31 UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös a écrit :
>> On 01/06/2018 11.03, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 19:03:13 UTC+2, Manuel aka Xax a écrit :
>>>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:34:53 UTC+2, StephenJ a écrit :
>>>>>> On 5/31/2018 8:29 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am quite sure that Borg would have won slams, no matter the era, even FO vs Nadal or W vs >Federer...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not. IMO, wood rackets are significantly enough different from the
>>>>> modern ones that they require significantly different skill sets. I'm
>>>>> not sure Borg could win a single FO or W playing with modern rackets
>>>>> today, likewise, I'm not sure Nadal could have won a single FO in the
>>>>> 1970s playing with a wood racket.
>>>>
>>>> https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/bjorn-borg-racquets.604070
>>>> 69SQi 2HBH :-)
>>>> Great video linked in that page, too (a must watch before it might be removed):
>>>> https://youtu.be/4kjB-0vfbt8
>>
>> Järryd is playing with a woodie here.
> Yep, I know, that's precisely why I posted those links !
>
>> The others with graphite. Can you
>> see the difference in what comes out of their racquets?
> Here come the very naive (no pun intended) question I was expecting :-)
> And it's so telling about the one asking.

I't a honest, and interesting question as such. Can you tell a
difference? By only changing a racquet and nothing else, how big are the
changes you see going to be?

Why is this relevant? Because many things have changed. Give a peak
McEnroe a Babolat+Lux what changes are you going to see? I'll say: not
much of anything.

It's a no brainer that you also have to "grow up with it". But then a who



Everybody knows what the end result is by now. But what we don't know is
what for instance the pro game would look like without graphite. That is
we don't really know for sure which is cause and which is effect.

> No idea how old you might be, yet have you ever played tennis ?
> I bet you did not.
> If you did, I guess was a somewhat short experience using only one kind of racket, obviously quite recent (Y frame, composite, 105SQi or more, 280Grams max).
>
> Where to start ?
> - It was a double
> - Was early days composite (glassfiber + wood mix were plenty, carbon came later)
> - With players that were teached tennis using wood (maybe not Edberg, can't remember what kind of racket he was using, when young and having a 2HBH, might check this)
> ...
> I guess you might now answer your own question, using the obvious clues I gave you.
>

[Pelle Svanslös]

This is unfinished. The abominable Mac keyboard+trackpad+touchbar
combination sent this thing all by it self.

I'll come back to this later.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Has happened to me as well, wanting to go too fast on keyboard brought some shortkey(s) I didn't knew before :-)

[arahim]

Zverev seems to be getting in enough practice for playing five set matches.

[TennisGuy]

On 6/1/2018 9:10 PM, arahim wrote:
> Zverev seems to be getting in enough practice for playing five set matches.
>

Yes.

If/when his game evolves to the next level where he becomes a tad more
aggressive overall, he will make life much more easy for himself in this
respect.

Up until now he seems to play to the level of his opponents rather than
come down hard on them from the get go.

[TennisGuy]

I believe it's called the 'killer instinct'.
I wonder if he has it?

I know who has it for sure. :)

[StephenJ]

On 5/31/2018 8:37 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 14:39:19 UTC+2, Whisper a écrit :
>> On 31/05/2018 10:27 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>> MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> torstai 31. toukokuuta 2018 14.26.51 UTC+3 Manuel aka Xax kirjoitti:
>>>>> I can't remember how often I've wondered what Nadal / Djokovic might do with mid70s / mid80s headsized rackets (and lack of stiffness), for exemple :-)
>>>>
>>>> This is always pointless comparision which is used only for PEIBS.
>>>>
>>>> They might be better or worse, but it is all speculative.
>>>>
>>>> You can test your thinking: imagine Borg playing today - then re-speculate him back to 70:ies with its conditions/rackets. Noone would give him any slams?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a boomer thing. They like to discuss Borg and pretend it's
>>> somehow still "relevant".
>>>
>>> Do I like Borg? Sure, I'm all for historical perspective and
>>> comparisons, give me Doherties, Wilding, Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez,
>>> Hoad, Laver, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal,
>>> Djokovic and let's discuss.
>>>
>>> Whisper does it and you too, being aware and knowledgeable of
>>> tennis history, have entire picture in front of your eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But to put the guy from wooden era, who played 40 years ago in the
>>> same sentence with current players and start some one on one
>>> comparisons as if he's relevant or a benchmark of sorts, is
>>> nonsensical imo.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Imo wood rackets put a premium on tennis skills & tactics/strategy. You
>> can play baseline or net, just depends what your talents are.
>>
>> The modern equipment eliminates a big part of tennis & makes it more 1
>> dimensional imo. Yes there were dull & boring players with wood rackets
>> too, but overall tennis is better when it has huge variety in playing
>> styles & strokes.
>
> It's not just "wooden rackets", yet I tend to agree with this post.
> Modern rackets (stiffer, lighter, despite bigger) helped more counter-strike than >"creative" players.
>

Yes, the modern baseline game didn't exist before the modern rackets.
It's a big reason S/V has given way to baseline as the dominant style of
play.

In the 1970s, even a baseliner like Borg would routinely rush the net at
Wimbledon. Returns of serve with wood were hard.


--

[bob]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 22:39:10 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

wood made the game more fun to watch for sure.

bob

[arahim]

Zverev pulled off another 5 setter in which he was down 2 sets to 1. In the past all these five set wins that certain players have are quoted as statistics of resilience:) The question is why so many 5 setters against these opponents.

[StephenJ]

Yes, even the baseliners like Evert and Borg had to be able to hit volleys, touch shots, etc. There was a lot more variety in the game during the wood era.

Tennis today is basically laser-beam forehands and backhands.

[TennisGuy]

Yes this goes hand in hand with what I was saying (killer instinct).
He's now played three five setters in a row where he was down 1-2 in sets.
I don't care how young you are, this will tire you out the deeper you go
in the tournie.
If he is to beat Thiem he needs to do it in straights or 4 max.

He may have already pooped himself out with too many 5-setters though.

He needs to change his game where he comes out with his foot to the floor.

[arahim]

That's a tough potential road he has: Theim, Djokovic (even this one), Nadal. He'll need some help from other players, injuries etc. I suppose if he gets to the semifinals or finals that is still a reasonable result for him in slams (so far).

[TennisGuy]

Oh for sure. Making the semi's or finals at this stage of his career
is a great sign for his future.

Anything beyond that is gravy right now.

But he must learn from his mistakes in how to approach opponents that he
can beat.

You don't feel them out, or wait for them to implode (Murray-style).
Preservation of energy is KEY to winning slams.

He could very well be out of gas come the Thiem match.

[bob]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 14:25:39 -0700 (PDT), StephenJ <sja...@gmail.com>
wrote:

the old wood players exhibited more touch, angles and what appeared to
be more skill. it was a better game to watch IMO. i'd be happy to see
it back.

>Tennis today is basically laser-beam forehands and backhands.

bob