If Federer beats Nadal, I'll concede hes the GOAT
Jamtheman
against the only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't
his fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
the Greatest? And please, no debate on as whose the greatest (a silly
concept in my opinion)
uly...@mscomm.com
are willing to annoint Roger GOAT if he wins Sunday.
Joe Ramirez
Federer already has his cake; now he's just shopping for extra icing.
steve jaros
Whisper
> Hmmm.... you think a debate on who is GOAT is "a silly concept," but
> are willing to annoint Roger GOAT if he wins Sunday.
>
He's saying he's silly - no one's arguing.
Whisper
This would be a huge layer of icing though. Beating Djoker & Rafa to
win FO is different to beating Potro & Soderling.
Gracchus
We've had this round and round and round before.
If you believe that head-to-head determines "greatest", then he isn't.
If you believe performance against the field and slam count determines
"greatest," then he is regardless of what happens in the FO final.
Should he win, however, it would add one more slam to his
achievements, and make him even greater.
Sure, Federer's head-to-head vs. Nadal is a smudge on an otherwise
impeccable resume, but it determines nothing. Those who would argue
that it makes Nadal the greatest are the true "fanatics."
Gracchus
> This would be a huge layer of icing though. Beating Djoker & Rafa to
> win FO is different to beating Potro & Soderling.
Quite true. I admit that I don't expect Federer to win the final, but
it would be a crowning achievement and--dare I say it-- legendary feat.
Whisper
>> win FO is different to beating Potro& Soderling.
>
>
> Quite true. I admit that I don't expect Federer to win the final, but
> it would be a crowning achievement and--dare I say it-- legendary feat.
I agree. Can Fed step up to it?
TennisGuy
> Federer already has his cake; now he's just shopping for extra icing.
The fact that we are even TALKING about Federer, at the ripe old age
of 29, winning the F.O. on Sunday, is good enough for me.
A Federer win would be icing on the icing that's already on his
cake! :)
uly...@mscomm.com
horrible beatdown he got at the FO a month earlier.
He was flying high today after beating Djoker and the French crowd
will be 95% for him on Sunday. That should count for something. And
Nadal is not playing at his usual phenom level right now and has to
have shaken confidence because of his lackluster (by his standards)
clay season.
steve jaros
pretty good post. B+
--
Look at any 'democratic' country, like America.
In these countries the real business of 'state' is carried
on by departments, staffs, and bureaus...Parliaments
are only places where chattering goes on with the purpose
of fooling the 'common people'. - V.I. Lenin
Superdave
The best thing is that it would shut idiots like you up and cement his greatness
in the minds of even his most doubting Thomas's. For that, it's worth winning
but for history and a world who already believes, it's just a lil extra icing.
Superdave
He has a chance.
A chance Pete NEVER had nor ever could have with his clay sucking game.
Superdave
wrote:
Very well and sensibly said.
RahimAsif
3-6 in slams is certainly more respectable than 2-7. Plus, if he can
beat Rafa on his best surface, it would be a huge achievement for his
legacy. Doubt that will happen though - I am thinking Nadal in 3,
maybe 4 sets...
John Doe
> Despite my doubts.
If Federer wins, you will just post using your other aliases...
> But if he looses, thus widening his win loss record against the
> only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't his
> fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
> the Greatest?
Only a fanatic would ignore the fact that Rafael Nadal admits the
reason he has a winning record against Roger Federer is because
Federer reaches almost all of the finals and Nadal usually loses
before playing Federer in hard court tournaments.
Some fanatics are so repetitious, it's sickening.
Get a life.
--
> And please, no debate on as whose the greatest (a silly
> concept in my opinion)
>
>
regular
nym-shifting
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Jamtheman <jamesrichardtaylor gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
> Subject: If Federer beats Nadal, I'll concede hes the GOAT
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 5
> Message-ID: <136f4de4-abb0-42e1-b643-91f410b1b2d9 j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.30.3.141
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1307149325 8552 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2011 01:02:05 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:02:05 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.30.3.141; posting-account=urZdkQoAAABlMT-ukA0FfNc2jlA_mcw4
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: ASELCHRU
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/534.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/11.0.696.71 Safari/534.24,gzip(gfe)
>
John Doe
> who cares what you concede?
lol
Well, it makes a thread...
--
ahonkan
I second that. IMO Rafa is already past his peak at the ripe
old age of 25, maybe 5% below Rafa 2010. Though Fed 2011
so far this year has been about 25% below his best (2005-7),
he showed glimpses of Vintage Fed vs Djoker. If that Fed
shows up, he could beat Rafa in 5 if not 4.
RzR
so why didnt nadal make all of the finals that fed was winning?
h2h is such a bullshit argument, its not even funny
Fan
Federer needs to win this to prove that his 2009 victory was not a
lucky outcome of Nadal injuring himself. Winning this French could
remove any doubt about his ability to win a slam on clay against a
healty Nadal.
However, Nadal winning would prove just the oppsite...
bob
good post.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 4/06/2011 11:18 AM, Gracchus wrote:
i think we know for sure that fed will step up to his best level, he
nearly always does in important matches. the question will be if nadal
also plays his best stuff.
bob
felangey
lucky outcome of Nadal injuring himself<
Funny Fannie.
Joe Ramirez
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:19:42 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 4/06/2011 11:18 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 8:08 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This would be a huge layer of icing though. Beating Djoker& Rafa to
> >>> win FO is different to beating Potro& Soderling.
>
> >> Quite true. I admit that I don't expect Federer to win the final, but
> >> it would be a crowning achievement and--dare I say it-- legendary feat.
>
> >I agree. Can Fed step up to it?
>
> i think we know for sure that fed will step up to his best level, he
> nearly always does in important matches.
Especially if he loses them. Then we know for sure that he was at his
best.
bob
no 'especially' - he's at his best either way. win or lose.
bob
steve jaros
there's no great mystery here: on clay, Nadal's best is clearly better
than Fed's best. He's as dominant on clay as Borg was.
--
Conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration.
- Pat Buchanan
steve jaros
it's a poor post, because he says that making the FO final and losing to
Nadal actually harms fed's all-time legacy, when actually this
tournament has, if anything, enhanced it.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
bob
wrote:
>On 6/4/2011 7:41 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Jamtheman
>> <jamesrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Despite my doubts. But if he looses, thus widening his win loss record
>>> against the only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't
>>> his fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
>>> the Greatest? And please, no debate on as whose the greatest (a silly
>>> concept in my opinion)
>>
>> good post.
>
>it's a poor post, because he says that making the FO final and losing to
>Nadal actually harms fed's all-time legacy, when actually this
>tournament has, if anything, enhanced it.
why? fed is 29, not 35. he claimed he'd be 'peak' until 30. he's never
had much injury, he recently plays proper amount, he plays fairly
'effortless' due to a very smooth style. he's no reason to be over it
yet.
this making excuses for a 29 yr old is worn out. tell me about agassi,
connors or lendl well into 30s. not fed at 29.
bob
Whisper
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:08:59 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/06/2011 11:05 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 9:02 pm, Jamtheman<jamesrichardtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Despite my doubts. But if he looses, thus widening his win loss record
>>>> against the only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't
>>>> his fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
>>>> the Greatest? And please, no debate on as whose the greatest (a silly
>>>> concept in my opinion)
>>>
>>> Federer already has his cake; now he's just shopping for extra icing.
>>
>>
>> win FO is different to beating Potro& Soderling.
>>
>
>
> The best thing is that it would shut idiots like you up and cement his greatness
> in the minds of even his most doubting Thomas's. For that, it's worth winning
> but for history and a world who already believes, it's just a lil extra icing.
Nope. He needs to win to have any argument he's better than Rafa h2h.
Whisper
Nothing to do with Sampras. He played in a diverse era where you
needed specialist surface skills to win all slams. Today it's the same
4 guys making all the slam semis, playing the same game on every
surface. If they played in the 90's they'd be 1 surface specialists.
Whisper
> Jamtheman<jamesrichardtaylor gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Despite my doubts.
>
> If Federer wins, you will just post using your other aliases...
>
>> But if he looses, thus widening his win loss record against the
>> only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't his
>> fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
>> the Greatest?
>
> Only a fanatic would ignore the fact that Rafael Nadal admits the
> reason he has a winning record against Roger Federer is because
> Federer reaches almost all of the finals and Nadal usually loses
> before playing Federer in hard court tournaments.
>
> Some fanatics are so repetitious, it's sickening.
>
> Get a life.
Still doesn't explain why Rafa beat him in Wim & AO finals while Roger
was peak & No.1.
Whisper
How Fed plays Djoker has no relevance to how he should play Rafa.
Superdave
I can explain it. They forced him to play in the dark. They could have just
tossed a coin.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
beav...@ozemail.com (Whisper) wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with Sampras. He played in a diverse era where you
> needed specialist surface skills to win all slams. Today it's the
> same 4 guys making all the slam semis, playing the same game on
> every surface. If they played in the 90's they'd be 1 surface
> specialists.
There's some justice to this, although I'd argue that it's relatively
recent. The commentators seem to be in agreement that the hard balls
introduced this year are making the FO play more like hard courts. But
it's new, so you can't blame that for Federer's making all those finals in
the mid 2000s. And until 2009, Nadal's results on hard courts lagged well
behind his results on clay/grass, so clearly there was a difference then.
wg
steve jaros
To me, the only real division in skills during the 1990s was the
grass/clay division. Grass was fastest, clay was slowest, and HC was
somewhere in between. And because there are lots of clay events, that
spawned a cottage industry of "clay court specialists", the "spanish
armada", etc.
But, that changed when Wimbledon, in response to complaints from the
clay court specialists, changed the ball and the grass, which has slowed
up the surface considerably. Probably why Nadal has been so successful
there. The USO now has the fastest surface of the 4 grand slams.
All the three other slams play the same way they always have, until as
you say this year the FO is playing faster because of the new hard balls.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
steve jaros
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:08:05 -0500, steve jaros<sja...@chill.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/2011 7:41 AM, bob wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Jamtheman
>>> <jamesrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Despite my doubts. But if he looses, thus widening his win loss record
>>>> against the only great player of his era to a pitiful 8-17, shouldn't
>>>> his fanatics have the honesty to admit this illustrates why he isnt
>>>> the Greatest? And please, no debate on as whose the greatest (a silly
>>>> concept in my opinion)
>>>
>>> good post.
>>
>> it's a poor post, because he says that making the FO final and losing to
>> Nadal actually harms fed's all-time legacy, when actually this
>> tournament has, if anything, enhanced it.
>
> why? fed is 29, not 35. he claimed he'd be 'peak' until 30. he's never
> had much injury, he recently plays proper amount, he plays fairly
> 'effortless' due to a very smooth style. he's no reason to be over it
> yet.
Poor argument for two reasons. First, even if Fed is still peak-prime,
no one with any sense has ever claimed his best clay tennis is as good
as Rafa's best clay tennis. A Rafa win is expected in this match and
thus can't tell us anything 'worse' about Fed than what we already know.
Throw in the fact that his win over Joker was very noteworthy, stopping
the best win streak we've ever seen, and that means that even with a
loss to Rafa in the final, this FO has, if anything, enhanced
perceptions of Fed's greatness.
Second, while age is an obvious marker of when a guy is peak, it's
clearly not the only thing. E.g., Mcenroe was only 25/26 from 1985
onwards, but he never achieved the form between 1985-1989 (what you
would call his last peak years age-wise) that he had between 1980-1984.
Why did Mac lose his top form even though he was still age-and-health
peak? IMO for the same reason Fed did after 2007: he had achieved a
position of such strong dominance that his ego got the best of him, lost
focus, and never regained it.
There are many other examples. E.g., between 1992-1994, Becker was not
close to his form of 1986-1989, despite still being 25-27 years old.
This isn't rocket science, you just have to watch.
--
like every crusader, she exulted in the opportunity
to be vicious in the name of virue.
- SL, Babbitt
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> All the three other slams play the same way they always have, until
> as you say this year the FO is playing faster because of the new
> hard balls.
Well, except the Australian, which was played on grass through 1987, then
Rebound Ace until a couple of years ago, now Plexipave. According to the
players, there was a substantial difference between Rebound ace and the UC
Open surface.
wg
bob
wrote:
>On 6/5/2011 7:43 AM, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
and yet nadal wins with fast balls. they slow down wimbledon, which
allows fed to win 6, then speed up FO, yet nadal still wins it.
bob
bob
wrote:
yet when i previously used age as a marker, i was criticized as all
players have their own peaks/valleys and age isn't a great predictor.
can't have it both ways.
>Why did Mac lose his top form even though he was still age-and-health
>peak?
mental reasons, drugs, family.
> IMO for the same reason Fed did after 2007: he had achieved a
>position of such strong dominance that his ego got the best of him, lost
>focus, and never regained it.
there was nothing dominant when he played nadal though, even pre 07.
morelikely answer is we got a few more good players, ending clown era.
>There are many other examples. E.g., between 1992-1994, Becker was not
>close to his form of 1986-1989, despite still being 25-27 years old.
>This isn't rocket science, you just have to watch.
i do. fed plays as well now as he ever did. or VERY close to it. if
anything, nadal dropped a bit today in form.
bob
steve jaros
I was limiting my analysis to the 1990s, since whisper was comparing the
sampras and federer eras, and the AO switch from grass predated them.
However, one thing i should have mentioned was Sampras's contribution to
the changes at Wimbledon: it wasn't just the complaints of the clay
specialists that led to the change, it was the perceived boredom of the
"bullet-fest" serving contests between guys like Sampras and Goran in
the 1990s that prompted the change as well.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
steve jaros
As i predicted a week ago, Federer did Nadal's dirty work for him by
knocking off Joker. Joker would have probably beaten Nadal today.
Nadal has gotten a big boost out of being #1: Fed and Joker often play
each other in the semis (like at last year's USO), and whoever wins that
grueling and emotionally draining match then gets picked off by Nadal in
the final pretty easily.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but ...
--
There comes a point in the downward slide of the human condition
when a man ceases to be a man. He may still walk erect, but it is
principally a matter of skeletal arrangement, not ethics.
- Harlan Ellison
steve jaros
I try not to. I agree that age is obvious evidence, and if you want to
argue against it you have to have a compelling reason. I've given three
examples - Fed, Mac, and becker - of champs who were not in peak form
despite being somewhere between 25-29 years old.
Edberg from 1993 on is another good example. From 1993 on, 27 on, he was
past-peak.
Even your Sampras fits the bill: The year Pete turned 27, in 1997, he
won 2 slams that year. That made it 4 out of the previous 5 years where
he had won 2 slams in a year.
He never did it again. Wilander? Lost his peak at age 25, like Mac.
26 seems to be the last peak-prime year for lots of players.
Look at all the names i produced: Mac, Becker, Wilander, Edberg,
Sampras, Federer ... what do they all have in common? From 27 on, no
peak form.
Men who produce peak-form form 27 on (Connors?) seem to be the
exception, not the rule.
bob
wrote:
it was a good call and the way rafa played i agree.
>Nadal has gotten a big boost out of being #1: Fed and Joker often play
>each other in the semis (like at last year's USO), and whoever wins that
>grueling and emotionally draining match then gets picked off by Nadal in
>the final pretty easily.
>Nothing wrong with that, of course, but...
til this yr djoker wasn't really that much of an emotional hurdle.
bob
bob
wrote:
by 'peak' i mean a guy who is playing as well as he ever has. his
results may vary for other reasons, mainly competition levels.
certainly things happen to change a players overall level, and age is
one of them, but when a guys game drops depends on the player.
my eyes tell me that fed is playing very close to the level he always
played. if he's dropped anywhere, it is in the past year and i believe
mostly due to lesser motivation. yet, like sampras in 2002, he felt a
little peeved about the hype for djok lately and motivated himself >
past yr, hence his FO performance. pertty clear to me.
bob
undecided
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:05:12 -0500, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6/5/2011 12:54 PM, bob wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 6/4/2011 7:45 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 6/4/2011 7:41 AM, bob wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Jamtheman
>
> - Show quoted text -
And JMac agrees with you. In the NBC coverage he kept saying how this
his the best Fed has looked on clay. He has a better backhand, better
serve and better movement on clay than ever before. Perhaps his FH is
not as lethal but that may be perception since people only hit to his
FH when they are trying to pull him wide.
steve jaros
Yes, and if you ask me why all those guys dropped it would be a slightly
different reason. Fed and Mac because of ego-driven loss of focus,
Becker fell madly in love with some black chick, Wilander had a
career-year in 88 and felt he couldn't do any better, Edberg lost a step
getting to the net, etc...
But the result was the same: Lack of peak form from age 26 on out.
> my eyes tell me that fed is playing very close to the level he always
> played.
My eyes tell me he doesn't have anything like the balletic,
float-like-a-butterfly movement he used to have. He's clearly lost 2 steps.
bob
wrote:
yet djok was a far lesser player 3 yrs ago and pushed fed about as
hard in USO final as he did in FO semi. so fed must not be "that" much
worse steven...
bob
steve jaros
bob, as i showed yesterday, 26/27 seems to be the dividing line for
peak/non-peak.
Of course, that doesn't mean a 24 year old can't play a bad match
(non-peak form) or that the 29 year old can't occasionally play a match
that resuscitates his peak form of earlier years. The smaller the unit
of analysis (tournament, match, set, game, point), the more likely peak
form can be summoned up. Heck, a 40 year old can probably still play a
peak point, maybe a peak game.
But you don't win slams that way. By 'peak', we mean being able to do it
consistently across many matches, so as to be able to prepare to win
slams, then win slams, and that disappears around 26/27.
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
bob
wrote:
you showed that after 27 most guys win slams at a lesser rate. says
nothing of their overall level. says lots about the field.
>Of course, that doesn't mean a 24 year old can't play a bad match
>(non-peak form) or that the 29 year old can't occasionally play a match
>that resuscitates his peak form of earlier years. The smaller the unit
>of analysis (tournament, match, set, game, point), the more likely peak
>form can be summoned up. Heck, a 40 year old can probably still play a
>peak point, maybe a peak game.
yet major slam finals on presumably fed's best surface, while he's at
his peak age, while he hasn't had 2 kids yet, while he hasn't caught
sampras yet, hasn't won FO yet, still proving himself, while he's
perfectly healthy - isn't a good judge of his ability?? face it, my pt
stands.
>But you don't win slams that way. By 'peak', we mean being able to do it
>consistently across many matches, so as to be able to prepare to win
>slams, then win slams, and that disappears around 26/27.
steve, just jam the car into reverse and step on the pedal real hard.
it'sll get u out of this one. :-)
bob
steve jaros
sure it does .... for all those champs, the field just happened to get
tougher after they turned 27 .. LOL.
when Fed was peak, he was 2-0 against nadal in non-clay slam finals.
since falling off peak, he's lost them all. not surprising ...
--
"I guess everybody thinks about old times,
even the happiest people".
"Some memories are realities, and are better
than anything that can ever happen to one again".
- Willa Cather, My Antonia
bob
wrote:
no - it gradually got deeper usually, and over 5 yr period, just
enough to tip the scales. or are you saying that chris evert (with her
exact game ) of 1974 could beat SW of 2008?
>when Fed was peak, he was 2-0 against nadal in non-clay slam finals.
>since falling off peak, he's lost them all. not surprising.
2008 was the crossover pt where both were extremely close to their
peak. we saw what happened. if fed wasn't peak anymore, 2009 never
happens.
bob
steve jaros
right ... it just gradually got deeper for all those champs after they
passed 26? come on.
>> when Fed was peak, he was 2-0 against nadal in non-clay slam finals.
>> since falling off peak, he's lost them all. not surprising.
>
> 2008 was the crossover pt
2007 was the last time i saw peak-fed. and believe me, i've searched
high and low for him since.
--
A great writer is nothing less than a martyr who does not die.
- Balzac
bob
wrote:
26 means about 5 yrs at near your peak already - and 5 yrs is a pretty
good timeframe for the game to inch up in depth, in normal
circumstances. of course we were lacking a top 3 kind of thing form
2003-2007, but says nothing of #5-50..
>>> when Fed was peak, he was 2-0 against nadal in non-clay slam finals.
>>> since falling off peak, he's lost them all. not surprising.
>>
>> 2008 was the crossover pt
>
>2007 was the last time i saw peak-fed. and believe me, i've searched
>high and low for him since.
is it his results, or his game, that makes you think so?
think about your reply, this is critical.
bob
steve jaros
obviously, i mean his game. That's what form is. It's why i laugh when
dummies say agassi reached peak-form in 1999 and beyond, when he was 28
and older. His *results* got better because he stopped being flippant
about the game and became totally dedicated. But anyone watching him
could see his form and level of play wasn't nearly as good as it was in
94/95, when he was also briefly dedicated to tennis but 23/24 years old.
And it happened to him the same as for most others: movement. That's the
first thing to drop. Agassi went from being a fluid mover, quick as a
mosquito, to being a plodding bruiser on the court. From 27 onwards,
guys lose a step or two, and that has a big impact.
Same with Fed: Fed used to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
on the court, but i haven't seen him glide around the court since 07.
Stuff like serving power lasts much longer.
Heck, Sampras can probably still hit 130 mph serves accurately even now.
But watching him and agassi playing that exo a few months back, was like
watching tennis in very slo-mo as far as movement around the court.
GOYLE
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 6/8/2011 7:07 PM, bob wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 6/6/2011 5:58 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 6/5/2011 9:41 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2011 6:35 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2011 12:54 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2011 7:45 PM, bob wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think there is a set age for losing movement. When I watch
Nadal play, he just turned 25, but it looks like he has lost a lot of
movement from a year ago. When I watch Novak it looks like he has
gained in his movement from last year and he's 24.
steve jaros
Sure, there's some individual variation. But it's remarkable how the
results for most top champs fell dramatically once they past their 26th
birthday.
--
As a tourist, you become economically significant but
existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
- D. Foster Wallace
bob
wrote:
then why do you keep using his results to 'prove' it?
> It's why i laugh when
>dummies say agassi reached peak-form in 1999 and beyond, when he was 28
>and older. His *results* got better because he stopped being flippant
>about the game and became totally dedicated. But anyone watching him
>could see his form and level of play wasn't nearly as good as it was in
>94/95, when he was also briefly dedicated to tennis but 23/24 years old.
i think for a couple yrs post 99 agassi's level came close or equal to
that 1-2 yr peak 94.
>And it happened to him the same as for most others: movement. That's the
>first thing to drop. Agassi went from being a fluid mover, quick as a
>mosquito, to being a plodding bruiser on the court.
he did that by choice - he wanted to up his strength, which he did
dramatically. it came at expense of limberness, speed. it was a
choice.
> From 27 onwards,
>guys lose a step or two, and that has a big impact.
>Same with Fed: Fed used to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
>on the court, but i haven't seen him glide around the court since 07.
>Stuff like serving power lasts much longer.
very subjective: i think he moves as well as he ever did, minus an
ever so slight lack of 1st step push.
>Heck, Sampras can probably still hit 130 mph serves accurately even now.
>But watching him and agassi playing that exo a few months back, was like
>watching tennis in very slo-mo as far as movement around the court.
yes, they're retired many yrs, not 29.
bob
steve jaros
not a choice - getting older, you lose a step. so only thing to do is
rely more on power.
sampras is another good example: before 1997-1998, he was more of an
all-court player, would often rally from the baseline. But from 1998
onwards, as his movement declined, he became more of a pure
serve-sweeper. Easier on the fading legs.
>> From 27 onwards,
>> guys lose a step or two, and that has a big impact.
>> Same with Fed: Fed used to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
>> on the court, but i haven't seen him glide around the court since 07.
>> Stuff like serving power lasts much longer.
>
> very subjective: i think he moves as well as he ever did, minus an
> ever so slight lack of 1st step push.
what isn't subjective is that once a champ is past his 26th birthday,
the results tend to drop dramatically. probably not a coincidence.
--
If you want to be loved, never leave your mistress
without making her cry a little ..
- Balzac
bob
wrote:
and getting bulkier you can frequently lose your agility adn 1st step
speed also. do't deny he didn't bulk up considerably right at this
timeframe.
>sampras is another good example: before 1997-1998, he was more of an
>all-court player, would often rally from the baseline. But from 1998
>onwards, as his movement declined, he became more of a pure
>serve-sweeper. Easier on the fading legs.
>
>>> From 27 onwards,
>>> guys lose a step or two, and that has a big impact.
>>> Same with Fed: Fed used to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
>>> on the court, but i haven't seen him glide around the court since 07.
>>> Stuff like serving power lasts much longer.
>>
>> very subjective: i think he moves as well as he ever did, minus an
>> ever so slight lack of 1st step push.
>
>what isn't subjective is that once a champ is past his 26th birthday,
>the results tend to drop dramatically. probably not a coincidence.
but could be a coincidence. and for fed, i see a lot less droppff than
many do. not going to change my mind with words steve, i have to see
it on court.
bob
steve jaros
>> what isn't subjective is that once a champ is past his 26th birthday,
>> the results tend to drop dramatically. probably not a coincidence.
>
> but could be a coincidence.
bob, that just beggars belief.
--
Even if U.S. atom bombs were dropped on China and blasted
a hole in the earth or blew it to pieces, this might be
a big thing for the solar system, but it would still be
an insignificant matter as far as the universe as a whole
is concerned.
- Mao Tse Tung, 1958