You got those H2Hs wrong I think.

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 10:05 pm

It should be 6-2 for Murray vs. Fed and 5-2 for Rafa vs. Roddick.

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pm

I don’t think Roddick’s two-hander was quite as vulnerable as Roger’s one-hander today. To me, if Roddick had served to what he’s capable of he’d've had an even better chance of taking out Nadal, and maybe hit his approach shots deeper too. Percentage-wise, he converted more breakpoint chances (2 of 5) than than Roger did against Murray (2 of 10). Had Roddick pushed a 3rd set, you never know how the momentum could’ve swung. Roger got it to a 3rd but then fell apart mentally. I don;t think Roddick would’ve done that.

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 11:02 pm

That’s Nadal’s MO isn’t it — he targets most of his oponents’ backhands and if he finds the slightest opening he begins his onslaught by peppering it until the errors begin to add up = win.

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Murray has an interesting mindset when playing Federer I am sure that explains his success against him, he does not let Roger control the match at all.

Andy’s backhand wasn’t bad today but it’s always going to be difficult to beat a superior defender unless you can hit through the court and end points quickly at the net which Andy was unable to do today, but he still made the match more interesting than we thought it might be didn’t he? I was on pins and needles toward the end of that second set when they went to tiebreak!

I am still very proud of Andy’s performance here and even more so that he was able to regroup and win the doubles title with his friend Mardy Fish! … allez Fish-n-Rod!

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 11:39 pm

“Murray likewise continued his domination of Federer, extending his career record to 6-4 and four in a row over the Swiss.”

It’s 6-2 for Murray (not 6-4)!

Posted March 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm

DESPERATELY SEEKING MR. JUSTIN GIMELSTOB

While watching the semi final match between Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick, I all of a sudden realized, that my television automatically tuned to Justin Gimelstob show, and noticed, that as Mr. Gimelstob was not in control of himself.

As his testosterone level rose to the level that the hormone was leaking out his eye socket, as he was eyeing Ms Kate (the actress). Mr Gimelstob lost control of himself, stopped commenting on the important semi-final match, which he was on job for, and started to flirt with Ms Kate.

Instead of listening to commentary of the match at a crucial stage, we were listening to Mr. Gimelstob’s flirt talk with Ms. Kate and Ms Kate’s giggles, who also spoke between points.

Mr. Gimelstob could not but give complete attention to Ms. Kate and not only that, he was gracious enough to give Ms. Kate free commentary coaching, on our time. What astonished me was Tennis Channel Open allowed this interaction to continue for at least two games if not three, and that too with the blessing of the director, who invited Ms Kate back. I guess Mr. Gimelstob must be looking fowrard to the day when Ms Kate will appear, once again.

Dear Tennis Channel Open producers, directors, commentators: We the Tennis Channel Open viewers are interested in tennis and educated commentary. If Mr. Gimelstob wants to flirt, he must not do it on our time. I recall, Mr. Gimelstob, a year or, so ago, while interviewing Ms Maria Sharapova, in a Tennis Channel Open program, asking her for a date, on national television.

Mr. Gimelstob, what is wrong with you, man? Do you not have any pride or, are you in complete control of your testosterone. Any opportunity that present’s, be it be on national television, you have got to avail it. Jesus man, what’s going on? THIS IS CLASSIC DESPERATION. Therapy man Therapy.

Mr. Gimelstob, stop making a fool of yourself on national television.
Tennis Channel Open, please put an end to such conduct.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 am

Maverick, Von, and anybody else who has not enjoyed the Tennis channels coverage or Justin Gimbelstob’s commentary, Please email your protests to- viewerresponse@tennischannel.com

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 am

Well, Mr Gimelstob is an American male…

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 am

Von: hope you got the champers out for Andy R’s doubles win. I think he might be a bit of a team player you know, he generally plays very well in Davis Cup and obviously enjoys it, and is excellent, doubles. Did Federer really say Andy M was a “normal” talent. If he did the man’s a tw-t. Substitute whatever vowel you like there. Andy M has incredible “natural” talent. I’m going to stick my neck out and say even more than Rafa, so there!
Colin: loved your comment! Do you think Andy will be kind and give Roger a choice of curtain material? Thanks for tip re stream. I actually subscribed to ATP for that match, couldn’t bear awful quality any more, and it was excellent and got Jason Goodall, who is a huge Murray fan, too.
OOOOh, gonna be a bag of nerves with this one. People are saying Rafa’s not playing too well, can’t see it myself.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 am

Boo! Obviously “excellent at doubles”!!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 am

Interesting comments about Gimelstob but I was watching the match and not so concerned about Gimelstobs antics. BTW this was not a Tennis Channel broadcast nor was this the Tennis Channel Open. This is the BNP Parabas Open broadcast by Fox Sports!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 am

I guess I am very lucky that I watch the matches on ATP TV with Goodall and Konieg commenting. I think one of the links on channelsurfing.net also shows the ATP TV, so perhaps it is a better alternatice to FSN.

Tomorrow I will be out so I will tape FSN, but I guess I have to watch it on mute.

Gimelstob said some horrible things to Kournikova. I am amazed that he is still allowed to do commentary. Perhaps FSN cannot find anybody else! He must have really good connections that let him keep this job.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 am

Fed is way past his prime , so its natural for younger players to beat him. Andy is doing that consistently beacause IMO he is the best player in the world at the moment. Nadal is going loose badly to him tomorrow.

I think Von is on mission to drive away every poster who happens to come here. In the end she will be the only one left here. Well done, keep going Von.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 am

Yes, Andy R. loves the team environment and it’s one of the reasons he does so well in Davis Cup. all od the guys on the american DC team work well together, for which I’m thankful.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 am

Margot: The post from me at 5:17 is for you. I forgot to mention that I’ll break out the champers after Andy M’s match.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 am

TD(Tam):

Thanks for that link, but Gimel is commentating on FSN and not the Tennis Channel for Indian Wells. He works for the Tennis Channel though and I don’t see any harm sending the emails to the Tennis Channel to let them know of the viewers thoughts on his commentary. All we can do is try.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 am

Zola said:

“Federer lost concentration when Murray fell”, which I think is right. The question is , why? I think both Leif Shiras and Mark Petchy, Murray’s old coach, made good points here.

Leafy said that Murray tires Federer mentally by constantly posing him difficult problems which require a vigilant and flexible mind to counter - very frustrating for a natural, instinctive player who is not noted for his cerebral prowess. At the beginning of the third set, when the momentum was with Fed, Leafy was asked who he thought would win, and he tipped Murray, on the grounds that Federer becomes worn out - mentally. Physically, he is fine. This is an interesting variation on the mental strength issue, especially since Nadal actually does much the same thing to Federer. You could call it softening up, there is something of the drip-drip-drip Chinese torture about it.

Petchey made the point that Murray’s fall broke Fed’s focus, which must anyway have been stretched to screaming point. The relief at being able to let go appears to have induced the holiday spirit - very hard to wind himself up again, when this can only mean a return to the torture chamber. There is an almost tangible reluctance of the spirit.

From the quotes I have seen (hard to access full interviews these days, especially from the dreadful revamped ATP site) Federer seems to have been generous to Murray and acknowledged that the better player won on the day, but I still feel he is dodging the real issues. (I am not inclined to be critical of this, b.t.w. Few of us are any better, I daresay, when faced with difficult truths. Still, facts are facts.) And one hugely salient fact is, Murray can now pound Fed’s backhand even more effectively (on the hard)than can Nadal. Not only does he have him permanantly teetering on the edge of imbalance - because he has to cover Murray’s excellent down the line shot - he is eventually frustrated into risky shots with the forehand. That is the meaning of the gradually increasing unforced error count. It just won’t do for Federer to say that unfortunately today there were too many unforced errors. They didn’t come out of the blue, for actually Federer has been in good nick this week. In fact, of course, the unforced errors were, indirectly, errors forced by Murray’s relentless successful, and extremely skilfully executed tactics. Now Federer doesn’t want to concede this, and you can undertand why.

Because, what can he do about it? Saying things like Murray is now lodged firmly in Fed’s head is just sloppy. Murray has a style of play to which Federer does not have an answer and, sadly from my perspective, I can’t see this changing, not least because it is highly unlikely Nurray will ever have an off day against Federer.

Would a coach help? Even supposing he can break through the “stubborn” factor, what actually could a coach do? It seems to me clear now that there are two players whom, realistically, Federer cannot beat in grand slams. He just doesn’t have the game any more. So to win another slam, and leaving aside the rest of the competition, he is going to have to avoid both of them. Well, one of them may fall before the final - but both? Doesn’t seem likely, somehow. So although the unlikely does, of course, happen from time to time, the odds on Federer winning another slam seem to me to be heavily against.

Yet again, we have to pay tribute to Sampras’ staying power, patiently waiting for the day. But Sampras was a marathon man, Federer is a sprinter.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am

Since I must confess I don’t actually play tennis, I’m wary of making technical comments, but here goes anyway. Yesterday a commentator (perhaps Goodall)remarked that Fed likes to stay close to the line and dislikes giving up any territory. Might this be why Murray and Nadal do well against him? Nadal puts that big topspin on the ball so that it rears up in Fed’s face and cramps him in his own shots. Borg used to do that. Murray doesn’t routinely put quite that much spin on the ball, but he does hit deep. In both cases, if Fed were just a little further back, he might make better replies. Federer doesn’t seem obviously “macho” in the way some players can, but perhaps he is a bit obsessed with being dominant.
End of amateur psychology session!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am

Looking at what I just wrote, it strikes me that I was rather ignoring the fact that Fed had the most success yesterday when he attacked the net. Maybe best to ignore everything I say - I do!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am

I think Roger’s epiphany came when(third set?) he hit that almighty smash and Andy M just seemed to bounce up to the ball, put his racket down and hit an amazing passing shot. Roger wasn’t the same afterwards, who can blame him, it was fabulous!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am

I just posted on other part of Tennis-X but I think the quotes from Time Magazine are relevant here. It seems that Federer, despite his brilliance on court, has simply NOT IMPROVED as much as Murray and Nadal (or Roddick, for that matter). Federer, from 2003-2007, seemed to just improve, almost all the time - even at the French Open (he played a better 2006 than he did 2005 - faced the same opponent, but 2006 saw him with a chance of winning). When he took out Djokovic in the 2007 US Open in straight sets, it was another statement: “All challengers outside of the French Open, will not beat me. Ever.”

But really, Federer seemed to lose sight of the fact that IMPROVEMENT is the name of the game in tennis. James Blake can improve his game and get to the #4 ranking (see 2006). Andy Murray can improve his game and be the #2 player in the world (no matter the scoreboard, Murray is playing like a #2 player right now - it seems it’s Nadal at one, Murray at two, Federer at three, Roddick at four, Djokovic at five, and then a host of players around six, seven etc). So Federer may have the points of a number two player, but he is the number three player based on how he’s playing, and his improvement relative to number one and two. ALSO: Federer’s worsened considerably at pulling out matches “down the stretch”. His performances in the third sets of matches has been - I think we could refer to it as a “let down” - now that he is being pushed into the third set of matches and later stages, Federer is not responding well.

He is not “owning his fear”. He’s not “enjoying the competition”. He’s not playing that well in the later stages when an opponent is matching him shot for shot.

I do not think this is mental - I think it’s based on his training. How did Federer get to being Federer in the first place? I think it was in part an insatiable desire to improve in order to have the skills to beat the opponents on the other side of the net, repeatedly. At first, as in the 2003 masters event in Houston, it was novel to Federer: he beat players he had a horrible record against. But then, that became routine (against all but NADAL and for some reason, NALBANDIAN [also known as one of the two best players never to win a slam title out of sheer lack of interest...our boy Nalbandian and Marcelo Rios seem to make up that "talented two latin american players" with all the weapons but all of the problems!]). Routine seemed to have become “boring” and, for all his brilliance, Federer certainly does not look improved out there.

Federer improved the game, but after a point, he has not improved, and now lives in the tennis world he improved, as a player going backwards!

Now, I love Federer. I want him to win the grand slam singles title at Roland Garros this year and go off into the sunset as the top player after getting back his Wimbledon crown. But I dont think it will happen if he keeps showing up at tournaments “rusty” - sure, that would have been a good strategy in the past, saw in 2006 when he could just “show up” in Miami and Key Biscayne with limited practice, and take the titles. 2006 is not 2009.

Anyhows…it is tempting to look at Nadal’s victories as of late and attribute it to guts or courage. But from reading Time Magazine’s January story, it’s clear Nadal keeps improving at a rapid rate, and that improvement is what gives him the edge relative to the other players. It’s improve or perish out there.

I have quoted it extensively here and left the link at the bottom - TIME MAGAZINE JANUARY 2009.

This is what it said:

Nadal: “I’ve always liked the competition more than the tennis.”

“Nadal — who first picked up a racquet aged 3 — and his coach found their own solutions, developing a style of play concerned less with form and technique than with results. What matters is winning.”

“Nadal — who first picked up a racquet aged 3 — and his coach found their own solutions, developing a style of play concerned less with form and technique than with results. What matters is winning.”

“All athletes develop their own mix of style and technique. But Nadal’s peculiarity is quantifiable. San Francisco–based tennis researcher John Yandell has used video-capture technology to record the topspin of Nadal’s forehand. He found that Nadal’s shot rotates at an average of 3,200 times a minute. Andre Agassi, one of the game’s great shotmakers, generated 1,900 rotations per minute in his prime, and current world No. 2 Roger Federer, whose forehand is considered among the game’s best, generates 2,700. As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe has said of Nadal, “His normal safe forehand is the toughest shot in the world.”

“Rallying with Nadal, says former Top 10 player turned coach Brad Gilbert, “is an education in pain.”

“Nadal and his coterie of physical trainers know that the flip side of his heavy topspin is that it forces him to engage in bruising rallies. His muscle-bound physique — which Nadal says is down to genes rather than weight-lifting — adds an extra burden: the explosive forces those muscles generate put his body under increased strain.”

That one confused me. Nadal gets bigger every year so I have to think the kid is in the gym.

And of course…the fatal flaws:

“Ask his trainer, Rafael Maymo, what parts of Nadal’s body are under strain when he plays, and he answers: “Shoulder, feet, legs and back. Oh wait, that’s every part.” Sampras is even more direct: [Nadal] puts so much effort into each point that eventually something will break.”

But while Nadal gripes about too many matches, Toni has been reworking his nephew’s game to make it less physically demanding. In recent months, the pair have focused on increasing the velocity of Nadal’s serve in the hope of earning more aces, and improving Nadal’s net play in the hope of shortening rallies. More drastically, they have begun altering Nadal’s trademark forehand. In Paris, I spent two hours watching Nadal practice forehands with a follow-through that came around his body in the traditional manner rather than whiplashing behind his head. Toni barked complaints if his pupil unconsciously reverted to his old follow-through. At one point, unhappy with the results, Toni pointed at a promotional picture of Federer on the JumboTron above the court, a post-forehand action shot of the Swiss player with the caption hit that back if you can! See, like that!, Toni seemed to be indicating. “Federer is a wonderful player,” Toni says later, before making a gesture with his hand in imitation of a painter’s strokes. “He plays with [this],” he says, hand brushing up and down. “His spirit is so easy.”

“”Rafael must play like himself but better, [less spin], quicker points.” But how can Federer be too good when Rafael is ranked No. 1? “There is a difference between who is better and who knows more,” says Toni. “Better now is Rafael, he is No. 1 in the ranking. But who has the best game? Federer.”

“But so much of his success stems from his resistance to tradition that Toni’s plan to make his charge more orthodox may dim Nadal’s aura among fellow pros. When I asked the American player Andy Roddick about the changes, he couldn’t believe that Nadal would voluntarily reduce the spin on his forehand. “One of the things that is difficult about facing [Nadal] is the extreme topspin he gets on the ball,” Roddick told TIME. “If it’s true, I don’t think it would make him more effective.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373-2,00.html

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am

23rd March 2009

Dear bloggers,

Thanks for your response regarding our American commentator Mr. Justin Gimelstob. I am happy to see we are like minded. Thanks for the link to Tennis Channel Open viewer response section. I will avail of this.

To the question, why is Gimelstob still commenting? This is because, as most of us Americans know, the quality of one’s work is not as important as one’s ability to pamper ego of people above you. Who you know and who and how you network is more important than your ability to do the job at hand. This is why Justin Gimelstob continues to work on tennis broadcasts.

Mr. Gimelstob, professionalism is required when commentating on tennis matches. Your conduct, be it bad behaviour, flirtations and asking for dates on national television, when you should be talking on the job at hand, is beyond un-professionalism. It is also irresponsible of broadcast networks to continue with Justin Gimelstob. Ever often, Mr Gimelstob shows us how silly, childish and immature he is.

I hear Mr. Gimelstob is soon going to be an ATP officail. I guess pampering and networking works.

On another note: While I understand, camera scanning through audience in sports event is a part of sport viewing on television, and I also accept focusing camera on celebrities in the audience as ok, but I do not agree when few pretty girls or women are picked up from the audience and broadcasted on national and international television. Girls and women come to the stadium to watch tennis. Tennis television broadcast station officials by displaying pretty females in the audience on national and international television are expressing their voyeuristic tendencies, in the pretext of improving their ratings. I ask of, male (testosterone) dominated producers, directors and officials of tennis broadcasting channels, how much more are we males going to exploit females? Do you have any moral limit? We must respect the privacy of females in audience. It is another matter if prior permission has been sought.

I, from time to time cover tennis events. I was asked by one media official, to concentrate on good looking, pretty girls and women, as it attracts men to the event. I was taken aback by this request. I did not comply, as I felt it was beneath my moral upbringing to exploit females in the audience. When asked, why I did not comply, I replied, beauty is in the eye of beholder. What is pretty to me may not be so to your viewer. Since that time, I have not been asked to do such work. However such work continues. It is a shame.
Enjoy the BNP Paribas finals

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Hi grendel,

If you’d like to read the full pressers, the best place to find them is at ASAP Sports. They publish the full scripts on the web. There are a few already up from yesterday. Here is the link if you’re interested:

http://www.asapsports.com/show_events.php?category=7&year=2009&title=BNP+PARIBAS+OPEN

Andrew,

I replied to you on the previous thread. I said some things that echo what you said here about Federer, Nadal and adaptation

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Roger’s epiphany came when (third set?) he hit a mighty smash and Andy M just kind of jumped to the spot, put his racket down and hit an amazing passing shot. Roger was done for and it was just magic.
(thought I’d written this b4, but it’s not appeared, strange)

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Sean delete that last please, the excitement of Murray’s win has clearly gone to my head. sorry!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm

margot - you’re too funny. Don’t worry about your excitement; it’s infectious.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm

grendel, I know you agree with zola’s and the commentators’ take that Federer lost his way after Murray’s fall. Here are their replies to that interpretation:

1. Q. At 2-1, 15-all, Andy took a tumble. You checked to see that he was okay, and then three points later you’re walking off broken. You don’t win another game. What happened?

ROGER FEDERER: Um, way too many errors today. The first set, I tried to keep playing; I couldn’t. I struggled with the rhythm today, so that was the same thing in the third set.

Q. When he did go down, though, did you think he was hurt? And after that, did he just play better, or did you just…

ROGER FEDERER: Not really, no.

Q. That was a turning point?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, he played unbelievable in the end. I made many mistakes. My fault, you know.
No, I was worried for him. You know, went down badly. I didn’t see the entire fall because I was following my ball. But, you know, he screamed, so I hoped he was fine.
I was happy to see that he got back up. That was good that he’s not injured.

Q. After that particular fall, he [Fed] then went into a bit of a trance and you were almost able to dominate the match from there on in.

ANDY MURRAY: I managed to do the same in Doha, as well. You know, just — yeah, I started to make a lot of balls. I was getting the ball nice and high and deep, and actually, after I fell over, the wind picked up quite a bit.
He missed a few balls long in that game, mishit a couple. After that, he had little chance at 5-1. But I think I lost one, maybe one point in the next — from after I fell, maybe one point in the next sort of three games after I fell. It was quite comfortable after that.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm

I’m so happy to see Nadal and Murray- two really talented and all-round tennis players reaching the final. Players like Federer and Roddick are so one-dimensional that it’s almost impossible to watch them play. I think Federer should realize that he can’t win tournaments like he did in 2004-07 ever again. Because he never had the talent required to become the world number one or win grand slams. But he was extremely lucky to be in an era when there was absolutely no competition.

Now there are good players around, and therefore Federer will never win anything ever again.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Roger will still Roger federer the best tennis player in the history.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm

I admire Roro’s love for Roger and regret the ignorance of Mark Nicholas!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Mark Nicholas is a very stupid guy to say the least!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm

fedster is a Fedtard, that’s why he can’t accept the truth.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Neither Murray nor Rafa’s equal to Fed in terms of talent. They were, they are and they always will be less talented than Federer. I have to agree that Murray is close to Fed in terms of talent, but is less talented after all; he’s more talented than Rafa though. Finally I have to say that guys like Pete, Fed, Borg, Laver & Gonzales are placed in a higher echeleon of tennis in comparison to guys like Rafa, Mc Enroe etc. Nothing will change it. However I think that Borg’s the best player in history! However I’m sincerely hoping for Novak to stop sucking and play while facing Rafa and Murray, the way he used to play before. I’m clearly waiting for a clash between a tip-top Novak and a tip-top Murray in a GS FINAL.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm

What’s wrong with you, Mark Nicholas? I’m a big Novak Djokovic fan, dont’ like Fed also, but this is too much. Fed is not talented!? You’re making this conversation here meaningless, to comment and to participate.
Fedster, this is the best thing I heard lately, about that Novak - Murray clash. Congrats.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Does anyone know how to find the women’s final on streaming? I can’t find it anywhere!

hi Duro, I read this article this morning re: Novak; here’s the link in case you’re interested.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/142787-novak-djokovic-too-much-too-soon

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Margot

From memory, Federer did not hit a mighty smash - it’s not his way, anyway. Generally speaking, he likes to place his smashes, and often does it rather badly. This week, he has been much safer, but the smash to which you allude was a sad reversion to type. He was right near the net, the ball bounced nicely, and Federer was in good position to send it off to Canada. Instead, he tried this placing business again, and just handed it to Murray. Of course, Murray’s response was spectacular - but he should never have been allowed a look in in the first place. Can you imagine what Roddick, or almost anyone for that matter, would have done when presented with such an overhead opportunity? But no, Federer has to be cute. Well, he paid the price.

Andrew Miller:

You make some interesting points. My point - following Shiras and Petchey - about the mental thing is by no means the usual take, i.e. that they are too mentally tough for him etc. That may or may not be the case. But the suggestion was that Federer becomes mentally tired and confused when forced to think again and again about how to counter tactics which are precisely designed to neutralise his natural skills - which, pace the bizarre contribution of Mark Nicholas, are probably unmatched. Of course, theory is all very well, but such “genius denying” tactics, to coin a phrase, can only be deployed in practice by players of the very highest calibre. Which is why the whole process is somewhat new to Federer. He certainly doesn’t think much of it,that is true. Nadal likes to get into the pit and dirty his hands, Murray enjoys a puzzle, Federer gives the impression of wanting to sail through adversity. He gets a bit cross when the winds are not favourable. In my view, Federer was, for two or three years, a whirlwind. It is of course the case that this did not come out of nowhere, naturally hard work played its part. Even so, the whirlwind is largely spent,no amount of work will summon it back, and we are left with vestiges - still, in themselves, often very remarkable. But it’s going to be a slow descent, since Federer does wish to carry on. Would he, still, if he was granted privileged access to the future? I wonder.

Incidentally, about Nalbandian. First the Argentine had Fed’s number. The the roles were reversed. In stage 3, Federer seems to be somewhat on top - but only just.

Jane: thanks for the link. As often with Federer, language rather gets in the way of understanding, but also, he just is not clear anyway. I feel precision is definitely something he wants to avoid in this area, for the reasons I gave. Thus :”
he played unbelievable in the end. I made many mistakes. My fault, you know.” That sounds candid, but it isn’t, imo, because he makes it appear that the “unbelievable” play of Murray was one thing, his “mistakes” another. The two are not, therefore, causally linked. You might want to argue I am being nitpicking - but I want to say that the element of “fuzziness” here is deliberate, and not just designed for public consumption, but for his own peace of mind. In short, I don’t think Federer has yet faced up to what an utterly formidable rival Murray has become. If only he could play just that little bit better, cut out the errors, and so on, then he can hope for a different result - that’s the way the thinking goes. The crucial question, though, which Federer does not address, is: what is the source of the errors? Federer kind of allows it to be assumed (but the whole thing is a bit vague) that HE is the source (”My fault, you know”).

But what if Murray is the source? Down that route, Federer does not want to travel.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm

‘Nadal is the GOAT’ is surely not ready to accept the harsh truth as he’s a Nadal A** licker. Hahahahahaha… Go man go, suck somewhere else!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Grendel: well, I admit some hyperbole, some poetic license, because I do think Andy’s response was terrific. Have just heard there’s a mighty (that word again) wind in Indian Wells, which makes me fear for Andy, feel he may be blown away, Rafa is so strong.
Well, may the best man win..as long as it’s Andy!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Grendel: I really enjoyed that take! Genius denial indeed - every time out against Nadal and Murray, Federer runs into a system of playing that is tortuous: absolute denial of an environment that favors his natural style. The pace of the ball is “controlled” by Murray and Nadal; the pace of the ball “lures Federer into uncharacteristic” erros; the capabilities of Nadal and Murray to mix the pace of shots at will in an apparently undecipherable pattern.

The lack of a recognizable pattern. I think you are totally right - it’s entering an environment that deprives Federer of what he’s accustomed to, which are players that play “standard” styles. Those styles aren’t standard, they are designed to play each point out in an excruciating way, which requires great focus. It runs Federer into wall after wall, and it probably creates a lot of headaches!

So: I think that was really great. thank you for sharing, I can see how it causes confusion for the Federer.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm

There are very few players who’d want to admit their opponent was playing better hence the win, as opposed to saying he, the losing player, played badly. This kind of mentality is easier for most people to accept. This was clearly evidenced in Djokovic’s comments after his loss to Roddick. Djokovic hinted that it was all he, making the errors and playing flat, whatever, etc., etc., because Roddick didn’t do anything ’special’ to earn the win. That was a slap in Roddick’s face. I disagree with that kind of rationalization, which is an endeavour to cover up the obvious, because if Roddick didn’t do anything “special”, he wouldn’t have won. It’s that simple. Roddick had to have served better as was evidenced by the stats, and he also had to impose his game on Djokovic to force him to make errors or overplay, et al. Sometimes just the mere presence of the opponent forces the other to play poorly — a mental cramp.

In such situations I think the sporting thing to do would be to state the opponent was the better player. If this is done, their pressers wouldn’t be so tricky, the losing player would be more respected by the fans, and more importantly, the situation confronting the loser would force him to admit to just himself that he needs to face up to the reality of his problems, instead of allowing himself to be stuck in the stage of denial. It’s the denial that’s responsible for their mind-set that their opponent didn’t win on his merit, but because they played poorly, and here we’ve come full circle. Additionally, by emerging from the stage of denial, he most probably would be forced to seek alternatives and/or help from various sources and begin working on different approaches with the express intention of solving his problems and/or riddle which sholuld be uppermost in his mind — keeping somewhat of an open mind as it were, instead of hiding behind a verbal smokescreen.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Again to remind some of the Rafa-fanatic scoundrels here…….. You guys sound really stupid while saying that Nadal is the GOAT, he’ll never be; so stop dreaming. This creation is full of harsh realities which is hard to accept for people with a closed brain like the fanatic fans of different players! And don’t bray too much like a donkey telling us silly things like some of your favourite guys are GOATS while the players you don’t like are donkeys and other similar things and presenting your baseless and lame logic to the fans of other players. Even some Fed-fanatics used to tell me that Fed’s better than Sampras and thus the GOAT but I used to deny it all the time. It’s only now that they are realising that I was right and they were only fooling themselves by claiming Fed as the undisputed GOAT! ONLY GOD’S THE GOAT.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm

I don’t think your nitpicking grendel; I can see how Federer massages the truth subconsciously. He did say, half-jokingly, how he is “old” in that presser, and in an earlier one he called Murray a “youngster.” I wonder if on some level he has just come to terms with that age gap. I wouldn’t be a bad thing if he had. He also admitted fully in the last press conference his weaker backhand wing so he seems aware of his own strengths and weaknesses, but perhaps less ready to admit that causal link you refer to.

I gotta say, though, I really admire Murray’s confidence right now (another attribute that Fed acknowledged in Murray), his cunning to take the other player out of their “natural game” rather than go for broke himself. He puts it thus:

ANDY MURRAY: Yeah. Well, the one thing I tried to explain to a few people, like a year or so ago, is that, you know, people say, Oh, you play very defensively. You didn’t hit the ball particularly hard all the time, or whatnot. You lose a lot of the matches by letting guys sort of dictate the points.
But you know, trying to explain that there’s more than one way of dictating points. It’s not just going for big, booming serves all the time and huge forehands. If you change the pace with the ball a lot, you know, and mix it up, you know, makes your guy — I’m playing the match how I want it to go.
If I started trading big groundstrokes with someone like Federer, I think he likes that. I haven’t done it against him, and I don’t do it against many people. That’s my game style. Very rarely do I lose matches having let the other guy play his natural game.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Von,

You make a valid point. Maybe Djokovic should be thinking not so much about how he played poorly, but externalizing a little more: i.e., what could I do to poke holes in Roddick’s game next time? How can I read his serve better or whatever?

Maybe Federer, similarly, could spend less time worrying about his backhand and more time strategizing about how to deal with Murray?

This kind of goes back to what Andrew posted about Nadal, how Nadal adapts his game to his opponent, trying to capitalize on his opponent’s weaknesses and capitialize on his own strengths. Maybe it;s really a combination of both.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm

margot:

The wind is gusting at 25 to 50 mph, and it’s blowing debris all over the court. The wind will favor the player who can handle it the best. Yesterday, Roddick’s frustration with the wind was ostensible. The wind helped Nadal by blowing his shots away from Roddick, while doing the reverse to Roddick. Roddick had the lowest amount of serves in that match. It was useless trying a kick serve out wide, due to the wind wreaking havoc on that type of serve. Fortunately for Nadal, it didn’t hinder his serve but helped it by giving it an assist, making his serve effective, and the reverse for Roddick giving the serve too much umph and blowing it away.

Considering Murray earns free points on his serve also, it would be interesting to see what the wind will do to his serve. Anyway, here’s hoping for a Murray win …. break out the champers.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Jane is totally right. I remember that when Federer develops curiosity about what he can do within a bewildering scenario, he almost always finds a way to do it. That same curiosity would benefit Djokovic, and a little more of Nadal’s never say die attitude might also benefit Djokovic. I really do believe that Federer’s resolve in the five set loss to Nadal was remarkable: basically Federer was losing badly, and he put himself within a minute of winning - that match was by no means Nadal’s. And then he ran around the backhand and stuck it to Nadal and almost had him.

Now I know that letting bygones be bygone is important, but Jane is right here. Some problem solving would do wonders for Djokovic, and I think for Federer too. Agassi once said that if you play a great match against Federer, you lose 7-5, 6-4. Not anymore: you get Federer into a third or fifth set, and it’s anyone’s game. I would like to see Federer train better for that last set that he finds himself in more frequently these days and rediscover the curiosity and problem solving of 2005 and even Wimbledon 2008. It shouldnt be anymore,

“we’ve played many times and know each others’ games” - sorry, that doesnt work.

In my opinion, it has to shift to:

“Today is a new day, and I look forward to working through that situation.” Being pressed into a corner, Federer has got to own his fear and open the eyes and see if there’s anything happenning. Agassi once did that in 2005, when he saw James Blake sitting a little bit on the ad side, I am not sure what it was, BUT AGASSI SAW IT. Then he exploited it.

I think if Federer is more sensitive to these microshifts and curious about how to exploit them, then he will have better chances in these third and fifth sets. I actually think it’s the curiosity about the new situations that should help him if he regains it - each day is a new day for Federer, and the sooner he recognizes the new world the better.

It can’t be any longer that the old template works: it doesnt. The way to beat Federer has been discovered (the denial system that Grendel mentioned, which makes each sitation neutral and provides Federer with more opportunities to flounder and “pull the trigger”). Federer cannot be so upset with the pace-less environment get lulled to sleep out there. He cant let himself be lured into the games of Murray and Nadal.

He’s got to find the weaknesses in those gameplans - he has to. I think it’s how he’ll solve them and I think he needs to see some videotape or write down some things that he noticed. He needs to do it, because Murray and Nadal’s coach have done this against Federer, and Federer seems to be the only one without the counterplan.

So yes, I agree with Jane. I think the environment has changed for Federer, and he has the tools but he cant go out there and feel that yesterday’s game works today. Today’s new for a reason, and he must get back to paying attention to what’s going on and exploit the opponents’ strategies. He obviously knows this inside out when playing Roddick - Federer loves pace and sees those service games as fun. But he doesnt like Murray’s “no pace hours” “speed limit zero” experiences. He’s got to learn to like them, or it’s going to be even tougher to accomplish his goals.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Andrew, it feels a little like an epiphany for me. Because I have been whining about Djoko’s game of late, rather than thinking about his opponent’s games when he plays them, I’ve kind of internalized his errors too - ha-ha. I’ve also thought lots about how Federer can fix the backhand problem particularly against Rafa; Ra and I recently had a conversation about just this.

But you posting about Rafa combined with a discussion I had with Von last night made me see things differently. Djoko, and probably Federer, just need to study their opponent’s games and figure out in turn where they need to improve. Djoko should look at the games of people he has lost to recently: Tsonga, Gulbis, Roddick, Rafa - many of these guys are big hitters, so how can he counter that and improve accordingly. Likely Djoko could do with a coaching change, but I suspect he’s fiercely loyal.

Anyhow, back to the match!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm

jane:

I don’t want to get into expressing my opinions on the matter before some Fed troll begins hammering me for my ‘wisdom’. However, I’ll say this much that in order to rectify a problem, we have to first admit to ourselves that we have one, and then begin to formulate a strategy on how to deal with it and implement the changes necessary. It is only by so doing that we will begin to change and allow healing to take effect.

Another excuse or ploy we see/hear, is that of some people in order to elevate themselves in the eyes of others, would be to pull them down as much as they can to their level or lower, even though they are fully cognizant it’s not true. These strategies are just to fool themselves and further escalate the denial they are striving so hard to control, not to mention the fact that they are deluding themselves into thinking others are in agreement with them. We see this manifested right here on these threads, where some posters try to elevate their players by bringing others down, sadly to the point of ridicule.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Jane, thanks for the link, I already read it yesterday. Pretty fair article.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Von - wise words. No sense wallowing, better to adapt and get on with it really. That’s the spirit of a champion. Fail, try harder; fail again, try harder again. Think through the puzzles. Strategize. That’s exactly what Rafa did to get to number 1 and he deserves credit for that, along with his coach.

But first - admit and see things clearly.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Nadal is in every one of Murray’s service games, and that’s making holding for Murray a problem.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm

“Fail, try harder; fail again, try harder again” (jane)- sounds a bit like Sam Beckett: “Go on failing. Go on. Only next time, try to fail better.” And:”I can’t go on. I’ll go on”.

Sorry about that. I think it was the rhythm of the sentence, it very forcibly brought good ole samuel to mind.

Murray served like a demon against Fed. Apparently, he feels the wind today will not allow him to give it his all. Consequently, we have the bizarre spectacle of Nadal outserving the Scot. How annoying. To just throw away one of your best weapons. Perhaps that will change.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Jane, Rafa is a natural mistake, predator, beast. Only 2 players in the world have what I consider to the be the pure, noble, classy, genuine tennis talent and aristocracy. Not the two finalist tonight.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Typo, of course. … what I consider to be…

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm

jane: It’s first acceptance then adaptation, and the hardest is acceptance. Once that’s accomplished the path is easy, but until we arrive at acceptance, we’ll continue to mess up, big time.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Yes, well, I love Beckett. Maybe Nadal and Fed have a little bit of a Hamm and Clov relationship: stuck like.

It is annoying; I really wanted to see Murray come through but his serves need work, and especially that second serve too.

Duro,

Nadal isn’t a mistake - he was raised to be what he is. You should read the Times article link that Andrew posted; it’s very interesting. The other players, naturally talented or not, could learn from this evolutionary perspective.

Or they can take the artist’s perspective and try Beckett’s approach. “Go on” even when you can’t.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Can you play basketball against Shak? Now you get it? You may know every possible element of the game better than he does, but no use… Natural advantage.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 pm

But Duro, what is the “natural advantage” then? His strength? His competitiveness? I am curious what you mean?

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm

I wonder if having grown up playing on an island, with windy conditions is allowing Nadal to adjust most easily yesterday & today at IW. He just seems much more at ease & adaptable to the high winds than Roddick or Murray.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm

He is not a typical tennis player! Look at his biceps. His NATURAL strength is his advantage. Look how ugly he hits the ball, spin and spin and spin and spin. This is not what is tennis all about! He is just a contender, the best of all time, but there are only two genuine artists in this game.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm

tenisbebe: I’d say definitely. He’s been practicing in that type of windy weather his entire life, and it’s become second nature to him.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Duro, there are several artists in the game. Each has his own specialty and God given talents.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Not at all, my dear Von. Only two of them. The rest is contenders, guys in good form etc etc. One is already a history and the other one is completely lost at the moment, but only one of them will be back to claim what is his by birth.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Okay, I understand what you meant by his “natural advantage” but I am inclined to agree with Von here; I think there are many different ways of playing tennis and each has its own merit. Some games look better to some people. Some players play more offensive; some more defensive. Some construct points; some counter punch.

But it’s true that Rafa seems to be the strongest physically and perhaps mentally as well. He can be a bit machine-like in his persistence. Clearly, though, it pays off. Maybe we’ll all lose the battle to machines one day. … Okay now I digress!

Bye all. See you in Miami!

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Von, agree or disagree?

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Ok, good night.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm

Duro: I disagree. It’s all a matter of perception. We each see things differently and that’s wonderful. Could you imagine a world where everyone said yes? It would be boring.

Good night and sleep well.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm

“I’m clearly waiting for a clash between a tip-top Novak and a tip-top Murray in a GS FINAL.”

I would like to see this too, but now that they are #3 and #4, the only way a meeting can be set up is if both Nadal and Federer get ousted before the final. Nadal, maybe. But Fed has not failed to make a final at Wimbledon since 2002, and the US Open since 2003.

For some reason, I don’t think Novak D and Andy M will be meeting each other for quite a long time.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Duro, before you slip between the sheets, aren’t you going to satisfy our curiosity as to who you mean by the two artists?

I mean, obviously the one still playing, but “lost at the moment” - clearly you mean the great Nalbandian. No need to enlighten us about that! We all understand and agree wholeheartedly. The question is, who could you mean by the one who is history? Mecir is a clear contender, but I’m going for McEnroe.

By the way. Just one problem. What the devil IS an artist? Some people, for instance, claim that there are musicians, poets, painters, tennis players and so on, some of them good and some not so good - but, at any rate, nothing is gained by attaching the extra label “artist”. Thus a poet (painter, tennis player, and so on) might respond, upon being asked what he does to express his outrage at the conditions of mortal existence, “I write poetry, I paint pictures, I caress tennis balls..” and when informed that he is therefore an artist, he might screw up his eyes and ask “What’s that, guv?”

After all, is a street artist an artist, what about a rap artist - is he one? And a piss artist? words, words, words……

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm

grendel: I think Duro is talkikng about Federer and Djokovic.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Duro, you’ve got me all curious now. Who are the two artists? I figure Federer is the obvious one, but who is the other?

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Von: I also believe the players Duro considers “artists” are Federer & Djokovic. I think Djokovic is definitely on his list. Grendel I agree that Nalby would be near the top of the list but would be interested to hear Duro’s response.

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Grendel: By Mecir, you mean Miloslav Mecir, yes? I stopped watching tennis for most of the 80’s & so am not intimately familiar with him nor his game. Can you enlighten?

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm

People - Von’s right. There is no mystery. Duro means Novak and Roger. They are the “artists”.

grendel - you forgot this one:

“artist: habitual practitioner of a specified reprehensible activity : a con artist | rip-off artists.”

Ha-ha. Now to whom can we apply that word?

Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 pm

But Grendel is not thinking of the immediate but rather much bigger picture, which I appreciate, enjoy & (maybe, given some discussion) might agree with.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 am

Totally true tenisbebe, I was just clarifying what I think Duro meant. There are so many players of yore who were greats, artists, or whatever word you want to use to describe them.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 am

Yeah Jane. Made me think about the 80’s when I was involved in other things and stopped watching tennis for the most part. I thought it had become very boring (men’s game). It just makes me appreciate all the more how wonderful & diverse the tennis has been since 2000, with Sampras winding down & Hewitt #1, through today - we are very lucky to be enjoying such a plethora of talent on the tour!

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 am

a nadal trouncing. didn’t get to see it, or any of the semi final matches, but sounded like andy’s expletives were back in full force.

maybe this dad thing for fed isn’t such a good thing after all….he seems to be waxing poetic these days.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 am

tenisbebe

I was joking about Nalbandian, actually - although, come to think of it, why not? Anyway, I thought, let’s give the Federer the artist theme a little rest…

Miloslav Mecir had a lovely way of striking the ball that I have never encountered elsewhere, although plenty of people (including myself) have thought of Murray as something of a successor. Mecir seemed to glide to the ball, none of this frantic charging, and caress it rather than whack it, directing it to the appropriate spot as if he had given it whispered instructions.

His change of pace was sublime, especially since, as an onlooker, one couldn’t tell what was coming merely by observing body movement. The strange thing was that Mecir, by his calm and stately motion, created an illusion of control, so one was always surprised, with a feeling of let down, when the ball was out. And - given that he was a chronic underachiever - this must have been more often than one likes to imagine.

In today’s world of muscle, speed and generally animal vigour, it is hard to believe that Mecir would have been very successful. That is a pity, in a way. Tennis is a gladiatorial sport, or has become so anyway - amazing to see those photographs of, say, Tolstoy playing tennis, not to mention the early women top players, with their flowing dresses seemingly designed to inhibit rather than encourage movement. So any discussion of tennis greatness always has to include brute strength, speed, mental and physical stamina, and so on. Properly so, no doubt. This is jungle stuff, when it comes down to it, and that’s what people like and get excited by - our Darwinian inheritance, I daresay. I’m no different. But I do love the oddballs, the Mecirs, the Santoros, the Oliver Rochus’ - they have their place, and an important one I hope.

But it is true that such artistry as one divines in tennis is incidental. Epiphenomenon is the rather ugly word they use these days, I believe (to describe an accidental by product - tends to be the things we value, so far as I can see - grace, charity, love….)When a leopard stalks, chases and captures its prey, it is a wonderful, terrifying and beautiful spectacle. That is no part of the leopard’s intention, however….

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 am

andrea is right roddick and murray are not on the level with nadal while federer is an old man on tour compared with the physicallity of a athlete of nadals stature, indian wells did a great job this year as they always do but the tensions of african americans in the crowd are still lingering from the horrid incident with richard williams and the sisters years ago.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Wrong, people, wrong… If I meant “history” for the player who’s not playing anymore, it would only be Sampras (the best of all time). My “history” player is playing still. The other one doesn’t deserve to mention his name at the moment, but when he comes back for what is his (by birth) I will speak his name loudly and proudly.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Duro: I thought you meant Federer due to your remarks to another poster re Fed’s talent.

So you like Pistol Pete, eh? Well, we have something in common. He was/is my all-time fave.

Gimme a break here, what are you talking about “what’s his by birth”? Are you saying Djoko has some kind of inheritance or lineage that greatness is his due to that genealogical entitlement? Come on, Duro, get real, he doesn’t even have any type of tennis genes, because it’s not like his parents were tennis legends or something to that effect. I can see that statement being applied to Sampras’ sons, but definitely not Djoko. Djoko is one of a long line or pack of players who has some talent, but he definitely hasn’t earned any entitlement rights to anything in tennis by his birth.

You’re funny Duro, and I’m happy you’ve chosen to post here regularly. Your boy might do well at Miami, if the weather is not too hot. Today it’s a rather cool day and one that’s not sunny, which is a rarity, but we’ll survive. Hence, if the weather remains cool, I can see him going deep in Miami, but that’s contingent upon him staying away from the bikini girls, parties, and all the crazy stuff that goes on in South Beach.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm

I’ll be back in couple of minutes to explain you something. Gotta put my future baby tennis genius asleep.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm

MMT:

Did you see the famous 1975 Ashe v. Connors Wimby, last evening? WOW, did Ashe sock it to Connors. The first two sets 6-1, 6-1 — a blitz, I tell ya Connors was definitely befuddled. And, yes, I saw the junk balls strategy, which paid off handsomely.

TC is also showing a recap of the best of 2008 and also the best tantrums. Now that one I have to see, because I love to see the true personalities come to light, and moreso the humor. I’ve set my DVR to record, so I can watch and watch as often as I like. I’m sneaking a bit of posting on my laptop at work. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam does not allow for Internet explorations, so I use my laptop during my lunch and breaks.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Von, unlike all-loving Jane, you’re sharp and passionate. I have certain difficulties arguing with you people, because of two reasons: one is that these dictionaries of mine are killing me and the other one is that you (in US and Canada) are 6-8 hours behind, so I have to stay till 3 am too have a decent conversation with you guys. Last night I fell to sleep, but I was glad this evening seeing so many controversy that my comment made.
Djoković have SOME talent!? Watch your tongue Von, don’t comment something that you know rather superficially… Claiming for what is his by birth doesn’t mean he had to have some “genealogical” inheritance given to him from (by) his parents. It has to do something with his destiny. I am an astrologist. Do I have to explain more?

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Duro:

“Watch your tongue Von, don’t comment something that you know rather superficially… Claiming for what is his by birth doesn’t mean he had to have some “genealogical” inheritance given to him from (by) his parents. It has to do something with his destiny. I am an astrologist.”

OK Duro, I’ll defer to you on the astrology part. I take it you’ve seen first-hand Djoko’s destiny during one of your astral walks? Well, kudos to you, I’m not that gifted and further, I don’t believe in astrology so I’m batting way below 500 in that respect. And, no you don’t have to explain more. Anyway, even though I don’t believe in astrology, I’d like to win the lottery, so maybe you could take a look at our lottery and give me the winning numbers. If I win the lottery, I’ll give you 20% commission for your help. Would that be fair. Also, when I win the lottery, I won’t have any time for blogging, because I’ll be too busy jet-setting on the French Riviera or San Tropez, etc., enjoying myself, which would definitely make some people happy — no Von to drive people away with ‘wisdom’ and upsetting comments. Ha, ha.

So Duro, did you give the little guy a tennis ball to hold while sleeping? Did his stars reveal he is pre-destined to be tennis’ No. 1 player for 2024/25/26 and thereafter? Come on, let’s hear what you’ve seen for your young ones.

On a side note, there’s a dictionary feature on the google tool-bar for American English. Try it, you’ll find it helpful.

PS: I feel bad for you with the time difference, it’s difficult for me when I call my friends/relatives in the UK also. I seem to forget the time and I wake them up.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Actually, when I was in Charleston SC, a bought a ticket on a gas station and brought it in the hotel. I never found it anymore, so… My son won’t be playing tennis, but I like to give him tennis balls anyway. He won’t be tennis No 1 player, but Nole will. As I said, the only two pure, genuine, classy, aristocratic tennis players, ex Roger Federer and future Novak Djokovic.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Duro:

Maybe that was the winning ticket you lost. You are confusing me now by saying your son won’t be the No. 1 player, but you mentioned in your previous post, “Gotta put my future baby tennis genius asleep.” So what are you saying, your son will be a tennis genius, but he won’t be the No. 1 player? Who knows, he could be.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Djoko will eventually be the No. 1 player, but I don’t see it happening this year, but it could be next year. We’ll see.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm

I was kidding about my son, of course, cause tennis was the subject, right?
That lottery ticket, if winning one, was suppose to bring 108 million US Dollars… I didn’t buy it by chance, but the made took a chance…
About Novak, two years and some from now he’ll be No 1 in the world! Rafa will be severely injured, not playin for a long time and never coming back to the level where he was before, Fed will be dropping rapidly, Murray close but never number one, and Djokovic will hold the crown for couple of years, very dominantly.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Well Duro, you’ve just given Djoko’s fans a lot to hope for and look forward to in the coming years. Good job, and thanks.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Ok, Von. Gotta go now, half past midnight, I’m working tomorrow. About Miami… real sweet. Say hello to Jane if you post her. I called you once the poker of tennis lovers, Jane, Von, Tenisbebe and Sar. Jane was the missing card that night as well as tonight. Incredibly clever girls you are. Pleasure to share thoughts with you. Good night, Von from Mid West.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Duro: Good night, and sweet dreams of Djoko. Yes, sorry you missed the other ladies, but they’ll be around later or tomorow when you’re awake. Look for jane in the mornings as she said previously.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Duro Says:

“Wrong, people, wrong… If I meant “history” for the player who’s not playing anymore, it would only be Sampras (the best of all time). My “history” player is playing still. The other one doesn’t deserve to mention his name at the moment, but when he comes back for what is his (by birth) I will speak his name loudly and proudly.”

I read your clue correctly that one was retired. I suspected Sampras and Federer. But now I’m not so sure about Federer. Perhaps it’s Marat Safin, since you keep mentioning “when he comes back”.

Duro:

“Claiming for what is his by birth doesn’t mean he had to have some “genealogical” inheritance given to him from (by) his parents. It has to do something with his destiny. I am an astrologist. Do I have to explain more?”

You’re an astrologist? Oops. Your credibility just took a nose dive with me. Now I know you’re full of it. No offense or anything, but that stuff is bunk. You need to get another profession if you want to be taken seriously.

“OK Duro, I’ll defer to you on the astrology part. I take it you’ve seen first-hand Djoko’s destiny during one of your astral walks? Well, kudos to you, I’m not that gifted and further, I don’t believe in astrology so I’m batting way below 500 in that respect. And, no you don’t have to explain more. Anyway, even though I don’t believe in astrology, I’d like to win the lottery, so maybe you could take a look at our lottery and give me the winning numbers. If I win the lottery, I’ll give you 20% commission for your help. Would that be fair. Also, when I win the lottery, I won’t have any time for blogging, because I’ll be too busy jet-setting on the French Riviera or San Tropez, etc., enjoying myself, which would definitely make some people happy — no Von to drive people away with ‘wisdom’ and upsetting comments. Ha, ha.”

Yay! Von and I have something in common! Astrology is rubbish and I’ve tested it to be the case. I did an experiment at work. I had a ‘personality’ description of all 12 star signs and I told a colleague to tell me her star sign and I’d read her description back to her and she would tell me if it was accurate or not. She was a Scorpio but I read to her the description for Libra, and she still agreed with it.

Other skeptics have taken it further. They too star signs from everyone in a room and gave back a detailed description of their personality based on their astrological star sign. The participants were very convinced by its accuracy. Then the participants were told to hand their description to the person sitting to their right and read another person’s description. It turned out they all had the same description, even though they had different star signs. The same description still worked because it was so generic and vague that it applied to everyone.

And that’s astrology for you.

Duro Says:

“I was kidding about my son, of course, cause tennis was the subject, right?
That lottery ticket, if winning one, was suppose to bring 108 million US Dollars… I didn’t buy it by chance, but the made took a chance…
About Novak, two years and some from now he’ll be No 1 in the world! Rafa will be severely injured, not playin for a long time and never coming back to the level where he was before, Fed will be dropping rapidly, Murray close but never number one, and Djokovic will hold the crown for couple of years, very dominantly.”

So it turned out to be Djoko and Sampras? Well.. I don’t know what an artist is, but I don’t find Djoko artistic. He plays beautifully, but he’s a basher. He doesn’t hit the kind of shots that Fed seems to pull out of thin air at least once per match. The seemingly impossible looking shots. The seemingly irretrievable shots that come back for an improbable winner. The smashes that get returned as passing shots to the bewilderment of the smasher.

In 2 years Novak will be #1? Maybe. Roger will be too old to contend, okay I can buy that. Rafa will be severely injured, I can buy that too. But your brush off of Murray was too simple. “He will be close but never number one.” Why? You have more explaining to do. It’s easy to make claims without giving reasons to back your claims.

It very well could happen, but I don’t know. The guy (Novak) has a big ego. Cheryl Murray in her ‘Top ten “what were they thinking” moments in 2008′ gave him no less than three entries.

8. Djokovic writes his monography

My First Grand Slam by Novak Djokovic debuted this spring. It is a monography written by the man himself about….well….his first Grand Slam. For the bargain price of forty Euros, you can learn everything there is to know about Nole’s long, illustrious career. For real. All three years of it. And if you happened to live in Serbia, you had the opportunity to pay another thirteen Euros to get a photo with the champ and have the book signed. The cover of the book promises interviews, testimonies and oppenents (spelled just that way). Too bad Roger Federer didn’t write monographies for each of his Slam victories. We could be positively swimming in tennis testimonies.

6. Papa and Uncle Djokovic break into television

Or to be more precise, they broke into a television studio. During his match against Rafael Nadal in Hamburg, Nole’s father Srdjan determined that the Serbian television commentators were not being complimentary enough to his son. Of course, his only recourse was to drive over to the RTS (National Serbian TV) station, break into the studio and verbally berate journalist Nebojsa Viskovic. Nole’s uncle took it one step further, threatening Viskovic with physical violence if he didn’t start cheering for Nole more. Pure class, these people. And I’m sure that Viskovic has learned his lesson. You never EVER point out the fact that Novak Djokovic has blown two significant leads when he has blown two significant leads.

1. Nole makes friends with New York

There are some moments that transcend silliness and take that fateful trip straight to stupid. Novak Djokovic took that journey on a humid night in September in front of some 20,000 people. It wasn’t completely his fault – Andy Roddick had wounded him terribly by suggesting that perhaps the treatment he’d received throughout the tournament on his ankles, knees, back, left earlobe etc… were not what they appeared. After defeating Roddick in their quarterfinal match, Nole proceeded to “get Roddick back” by accusing the entirety of Arthur Ashe Stadium of being against him and not thinking that his injuries were real. The New York crowd showed their appreciation of his whining by booing him off the court. I think I might have heard somebody in the front row yell “stop reading our minds”, but I can’t be 100% sure.

If she was doing one for 2009, she’d include his change of racquet.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm

Here’s an article explaining why Astrology is nonsense:

http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

I’ll just quote a snippet that Astrologists don’t seem able to address:

————-
Astrologers emphasize the importance of the positions of the sun, moon, planets, etc., at the time of birth. However, the birthing process isn’t instantaneous. There is no single moment that a person is born. The fact that some official somewhere writes down a time of birth is irrelevant. Do they pick the moment the water breaks? The moment the first dilation occurs? When the first hair or toenail peeks through? When the last toenail or hair passes the last millimeter of the vagina? When the umbilical cord is cut? When the first breath is taken? Or does birth occur at the moment a physician or nurse looks at a clock to note the time of birth?

Why are the initial conditions more important than all subsequent conditions for one’s personality and traits? Why is the moment of birth chosen as the significant moment rather than the moment of conception? Why aren’t other initial conditions such as one’s mother’s health, the delivery place conditions, forceps, bright lights, dim room, back seat of a car, etc., more important than whether Mars is ascending, descending, culminating, or fulminating? Why isn’t the planet Earth—the closest large object to us in our solar system–considered a major influence on who we are and what we become? Other than the sun and the moon and an occasional passing comet or asteroid, most planetary objects are so distant from us that any influences they might have on anything on our planet are likely to be wiped out by the influences of other things here on earth.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Cheryl Murray took another poke at Djokovic when she wrote an article praising Federer and Nadal during the AO. This woman is so blunt (and I love her for it) she should work for tennis-x.

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20090127/Nadal_and_Federer_the_cornerstone_of_tennis

Nadal and Federer the cornerstone of tennis

2009-01-27 16:01:23
I was going to write a scathing article about Novak Djokovic today. About how a player can, in good conscience, retire from a QUARTERFINAL match and then claim that he feels fine an hour later. Seriously. Straight from the horse’s mouth at the post-match presser – “Yeah, I feel better. I feel better now. I want to get on the court again.” Buddy, you WERE on court. FORTY-FIVE MINUTES AGO.

And I was going to include a little tribute to Juan Martin Del Potro too. I mean, that was quite an effort he just put in against Roger Federer. He really left it all on the court, didn’t he? Laid his heart out there and tried his very best. Why, I think I even saw him run for a ball once in that third set. Epic effort. And no, I’m not disgusted in the least. Why do you ask?

But then I asked myself why I would want to waste my time writing about them. I’ll give them the same effort they gave us – about a paragraph’s worth. Instead, let’s talk about the guys who deserve to be discussed. Let’s have a little love-fest for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal who have earned every accolade offered to them – and then some.

—————-

Needless to say, when she writes her ‘Top 10 Blunders of 2009′, Novak will be getting his share of “(dis)honourable mentions”. The guy just seems to invite this stuff.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm

federer has no chance against nadal in paris however wimbledon and the us open could be reachable if nadal was clipped by djoko or murray before the final.

Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Giner, this second time you post me when I’m gone for a sleep. Now it’s morning, work in front of me, not time to spend. Answers when come back. You write a lot…

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 3:20 am

[...] http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-03-21/1009.php Have a read yourselves and thank the good thinkers on that blog! [...]

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 6:39 am

I’m back, and on the second thought, you do not deserve an answer. To much energy to spend… Why you’re writing so much? Clever people can say your rubbish in two sentences: I hate this, I hate that, plus you’re talking about something you don’t understand. Please don’t, it makes you… well, so common and mediocrity. So long.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Duro, you don’t need to explain your profession to anyone. It doesn’t matter what we think of astrology really. This board is about tennis. Speaking of which, have you seen the Miami draw? Von posted a link on the other thread. Anyhow I am off to work; have a good day!

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Hay Jane! My clever cosmopolitan friend! Nice to have you here! Why do people have the passion to talk so much about something they don’t understand, I don’t know. How come no one uses that energy to learn something about the subject they criticize instead of revealing themselves as stupid ones? May be it’s harder, maybe it takes sacrifice, maybe it’s a win against your own self, and that’s probably the hardest thing to achieve. Vanity fair…

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Von: Something strange happened with the DVR - it recorded only 2 hours of the match, so I missed the ending, but I did see the first 2 sets, and he was fantastic. It was so easy for Ashe it really didn’t even look like he was playing well, if that makes sense.

Did you also notice the arrogance and flippant attitude of Connors in the first few games? He’d beaten Ashe all 3 times they’d played (the last 2 of which he did in straight sets) and that year Ashe was the 6th seed - Connors was #1 and defending champion. Laughing in between points and goofing around with the ball kids.

Can you imagine how a player would be lambasted today if he behaved this way in a Wimbledon final?

A little background - Connors had lost the AO final to John Newcombe earlier in the year, but had won 2 “winner take all” challenge matches at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas against Rod Laver (100K) and the same Newcombe (250K) that year. He had already made a reputation for himself as a “bad boy” of tennis, regularly grabbing his crotch, flipping the crowd the bird and taunting his opponents on various occassions. Basically he was the world’s biggest ass as well as the #1 tennis player.

So it was no small pleasure to see him throwing his towel down in disgust and double-timing his walking pace from the changeover, etc. as the humiliation of what was happending to him began to seep in. Not to mention that lawsuit against Ashe and the ATP.

He had a hiccup in the 3rd set, but obviously closed it out with panache. I just love the wry and confident smile he displays after he’s handed the trophy, so confident and beautiful it was, because he knew he had just out-smarted and humiliated 1) the most hated man in tennis 2) his adversary in that lawsuit and 3) the best player in the world.

One more thing - I sure wish Wimbledon had never given up the tradition of the silent awards ceremony – it was part of the unique charm of the event, and years later, upon review, they feel more familiar and personal, like old home videos, than the monotonous drivel we’re usually treated to after modern victories.

Oh well…

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

MMT: That’s a bummer. I think FIOS is encountering some technical problems with their DVR recordings. There’s a glitch in the system that they’ve not been able to fix for over a year. I got this info right from the horse’s mouth. I had a dreadful experience one day when I tried to view one of my recordings. All of them were gone, and there was a message from FIOS stating if that happened to reset/reboot, etc., which I did, and was able to retrieve the previous ones, but my recordings for that day were null and void — bummer.

From the info I was given, I now manually record episodes individually instead of by series. It’s a problem, but it’s safer. On long matches, such as Wimby, I record the next program or programs for another hour following the matches, because if there’s an overflow, it’ll be picked up on the next program. The FIOS problem concerns feeds and signals coming in, and according to my source they change all of the time. From experimenting, I’ve learnt that I can record more shows on standard TV as opposed to HD, without my box becoming full. Maybe, you can try that on TC which has a standard and an HD channel. If I’m watching, I watch on the HD channel, but if I’m recording I use the standard.
______________

Your love for the Connors/Ashe/McEnroe era has become infectious, and I now enjoy watching those guys play, thank you for so generously sharing — it’s greatly appreciated.

Question: Don’t you think Connors would have been blown off the court had he played in this era? The guy had a poor excuse for a serve and he wasn’t any kind of dynamo on the court, except he did construct his points quite cunningly, and drove through the court on the final shot. I think he was lucky to have played in that era, because he would have perished in the present.

I watched Johnny Mc being interviewed after one of his Pepsi GS matches and was taken aback as to his almost shy demeanour. Now I know he was madness personified on the court, but there’s a stark contrast to this man, who I feel is quite a shy type of guy. Amazing …

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Duro: Hello to you from the US. Sorry I missed you earlier on today, but I don’t usually post in the mornings. Anyway, I hope you’re having a good night and will chat when you return. Check out the draw and give us your picks.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Von, where is your link, Jane mentioned it but didn’t say where it was.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/3/en/assets/pdfs/draws/09ATP_MDS2.pdf

Duro:

I can’t remember where I posted it, so here it is again — your very own personal link of the draw, just for you. Ha, ha.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Duro Says:

“I’m back, and on the second thought, you do not deserve an answer. To much energy to spend… Why you’re writing so much? Clever people can say your rubbish in two sentences: I hate this, I hate that, plus you’re talking about something you don’t understand. Please don’t, it makes you… well, so common and mediocrity. So long.”

I can’t help it if it’s too much for your attention span. Intelligent people don’t show this kind of weakness. They read my long posts and dissect them piece by piece when they don’t agree. Most of what I said were quotes from other people, so it wasn’t long at all really.

I understand what you do quite clearly. That you didn’t address what I said pretty much reveals that you have no answer.

What influence would the stars and planets have on the lives of people here? Is it gravity? Mars is too far away to even make a wave. Perhaps some unknown, undiscovered force? If so, how would you know?

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

You’re not the only one that’s ever taken issue with the length of my posts. They are usually long because I reply to multiple people in one post. I’ll admit that I am verbose, but my question to you is.. Have you ever read a book before? Or a newspaper? Even a text book from school days?

Because if you have, those are way longer than anything I’ve ever written. Please don’t tell me you’ve never read a book before..

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Giner, Giner… bitter all the way. Don’t be so predictable thinking that I wasn’t answering your “questions” because I didn’t know the answer, You couldn’t think of anything else? About school… I was official guest of your US Patent Office in Washington DC ( maybe to learn how to read, what you think?) But it doesn’t really matter. I practice astrology only from my love and passion to it but asking me those questions you’re only showing how few or none you actually know about it. One little explanation and I will switch to the tennis, the field more appropriate for you. Stars don’t influence on us, they are only an instrument to help us to conclude something because of their perfect order. God made that order (chaos against cosmos, remember?) We only learned to read it by time.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Thank you Von, my personal attendant! I’ll be back to comment later on, but I’m having so much trouble because of the connection to the Internet…

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Great draw for my superstar! Tsonga on the way, but I seriously doubt that he can stop him for the fifth time in row, so semifinal with Fed! Result: Fed out.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Jane, why are somewhere else all the time? Come here! Von, give me your prediction.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

I addressed you twice here but you didn’t answer. Find my posts!

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Hi Duro,

You’re a character: first you ask me why I am always here (don’t you have a job?) now you’re asking me why I am somewhere else all the time!? I guess you’re a hard person to please eh?

You have so much confidence in Novak; I admire you for your optimism. He’s got a pretty tough draw as far as I can tell - there’s Baggy, Gulbis, Berdych, Blake, and a couple of these guys he’d have to face *before he could meet Tsonga or Simon. But draws have a way of opening up sometimes, so I am hoping for the best. He needs to turn things around soon. If he loses number 3 to Murray, to me it’s not the end of the world. So what? He can get it back. The interesting thing to me is that if Federer loses points Murray could leapfrog him. The change to clay and grass midseason will be important this year: who will hold onto points? Who will lose them? Who will gain some?

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Duro:

My oh my, do you sound masterful! I mean, come here! WOW, and ha, ha.

I feel the top 2 have got walks in the park. There’s no one to stop them getting to the final. Your boy has Tsonga and a few who could give him some problems, and my guy has Monfils and Haas, who has given A-Rod some headaches in the past. Then if he gets past those, he meets up with Federer who has always been the conqueror.

I don’t want to say too much about the draws because I don’t want to stir up anything, but I personally feel, and I’m getting tired of tennis for this reason, the draws are wrong. My opinion, if the top guys are the tops in tennis, why are they given such low-ranked players and/or qualifiers to play against until the QF. They should be tested right from the inception. Why should the lower ranked players have to face such tough competition while the top guys aren’t? I’m sorry, I don’t get it. I know the reasoning behind it all, is the top guys have done the hard work and this is their reward. And, that means they are constantly being rewarded by easy draws which ensure they reach the QF, SF and Finals. So what of the other guys, don’t they deserve better? Look at the first rounds of tennis, very few fans want to watch, until the QF where the action begins. What’s wrong with this picture? The action should begin from Round I, watching the top guys show their stuff beating the tough opponents, not pulverize a poor qualifier, and then we see headlines and posts ‘he’s imperious’. Tah dah and whoopdedoo!! They should sweat out wins just like the lower-ranked guys and then they can really in earnest say they are the best.

Duro: You said, Fed out. Who’s in the draw that’s going to take him out before the QF? The qualifiers? Same for Nadal, Karlovic? What has Karlovic won over the past year. Let’s get real. And, I don’t understand why Roddick’s draw is of any importance to be mentioned as a comparison to Nadal’s draw, he’s not a top 4 player. Roddick is not in the conversation — it’s all about the top 4, isn’t it.

I suppose we’ll see a Nadal v. Murray SF, and Djok/Fed v.Tsonga SF. The draw has ensured Murray does not get to the final placing him in Nadal’s half; likewise Djok in Federer’s half. If Tsonga beats Djoko, he’ll lose to Federer because he gets nervous. We most probably will see a Nadal/Fed final unless Murray beats Nadal.

OK, I’ve given you my picks, who are yours?

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

I will be forced to switch to the European blogs about tennis. It’s 2 am and nobody answers and I don’t have time to wait, gotta work tomorrow! And you are probably taking your time… to dine or something. Good night everyone, and Giner, hurry up to post me as soon as I ‘m gone to bed, your specialty… Jane and Von, some other time maybe… Jane, I have to teach Saturday and Sunday, give me some hint!

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Von, I owe you one. Jane, I wondered if you have a job being so much around, not that I was complaining about it, and if you are (around) I wanted you to be on “my blog”. See, I don’t visit Sean Randal’s blogs (I don’t speak to him). Good night and see you tomorrow!

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Duro, what do you mean “give me some hint!” I don’t teach Fri, Sat or Sun so I’ll be watching the tennis! And blogging some of course. I hope to see you around?

Von, I don’t like that they only analyze the “top 4″ either; I commented a bit on Roddick’s path on the other thread, mentioning Safin and Monfils and potential stumbling blocks, but unless they come out hot, I think Andy is playing too well for them. I think Andy should get to the quarters. Don’t know if you saw the link to the tennistalk.com analysis I posted on the thread (the one about Rafa crushing Murray)? Anyhow it at least talked about “momentum builders” “slump busters” and also some early round matches to look forward to.

BTW, I love that quote about wine being good for the soul - now I have two excuses - good for the heart AND the soul!

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

jane: I didn’t see the link you’re talking about. I wasn’t referring to your mention of Roddick but I remembered someone else mentioned him when there was a comparison of Nadal’s draw, which made absolutely zero sense to me since Andy is not in the top 4, hence why even mention him as a comparison in the draw’s quarters. The draw is all about the top 4.

Ah zee bubbly is even better, but overall, wine is good, so drink and be merry. I become slap happy and dizzy and am not a good candidate for the stuff, but I try.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Von

One of my sons prefers the early rounds, on the grounds that there’s lots of interesting faces around - and conversely, not THAT lot again. That’s a point of view I have some sympathy for. A tournament always has a quite different feel to it in the early days, doesn’t it, a sort of breathy innocence - for which one feels a curious nostalgia as the heavy brigade stomp in to take the stage (it seems centuries since those early rounds; the strange and elastic nature of time is forcibly impressed upon one).

As for seeding, it’s presumably not just the players who demand it. There’s a certain financial imperative I imagine. The bulk of people at a final are probably not tennis aficianados, and perhaps want to see the top players - hence the protection.

The FA CUP, the biggest knockout football tournament in England, is not seeded, and this certainly gives it part of its charm and character. But of course, the bulk of the football is league based. So we have contrast. What might be appealing in tennis is if SOME tourneys were unseeded. That would deliver a nice dose of fresh air, whilst the bulk could remain seeded. Thus excitement could be retained. Naturally, the prospect of this would induce heart threatening agitation in just about every quarter of the tennis world, so it won’t happen. Pity.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

grendel:

I’d love to see a tourney of 32 or 48 of the top players without seeding. Just a random pot-luck and let’s see how the top 4 will fare. All I want is for fair competition. I mean if you’re that good, then you should knock out all and sundry, not be nursed or pampered and then move in for the kill AFTER all of the hard work is done. Let’s see some mettle. I’d guarantee one thing, we won’t see the same faces winning the big titles all of the time.

I like the early rounds too, except the top 4 matches, but there are some very good matches taking place between good competitors. For example, I loved Andreev, Tsonga, Verdasco, and Querrey’s early round matches, as they were action packed.

The reason is clear, it’s all about the money and it’s necessary to nurse the top 4 so they’ll arrive at the SF to put on a show.

BTW, I think the FA Cup has the right idea and that’s exactly what I’d like to see for tennis. I also would like to see the carry-over of points end. Let’s have a new No. 1 each year, and then we’re talking excitement. I think it’s one of the reasons tennis is not as popular as some of the other sports. Oh well, I’m done.

Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Von says: “I wasn’t referring to your mention of Roddick but I remembered someone else mentioned him when there was a comparison of Nadal’s draw, which made absolutely zero sense to me since Andy is not in the top 4, hence why even mention him as a comparison in the draw’s quarters. The draw is all about the top 4.” That was me - on another thread I believe. I was just blathering about the portion of the draw I looked at; wasn’t meaning to compare Roddick to Nadal (I think I also mention Murray having Nalby in his qtr) - just observations. But seriously, I think Roddick is currently playing like the #5 - Nico has been out with injury for awhile & JMDP is caving in. Tsonga, prior to IW, had the best 2009 win/loss record with I believe 21-3 but Andy surpassed that and is at 23-4. So although he is currently ranked 6th, I think he is definitely part of the conversation.

On another not, Von I would like to have a serious conversation about Andy’s performance in the IW semi’s. But I am off to bed soon….

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 12:05 am

Grendel says: “As for seeding, it’s presumably not just the players who demand it. There’s a certain financial imperative I imagine. The bulk of people at a final are probably not tennis aficianados, and perhaps want to see the top players - hence the protection.”

Spot on Grendel! Most of the boxes, suites (ie: expensive seats that cover the costs of the “cheap” seats) during the semis & finals of big tournaments are occupied by not by tennis afficianos but rather people that want to witness an “event”. This is probably true the world over: World Cup, Olympics, World Series, Super Bowl, etc. They pay the big bucks because they want to be able to say they were “there”, present at “the big event”. Tournament directors, sponsors & the like know this; hence the reason for setting up the draw whereby the top 4 seeds at at the extreme ends. Monet talks…..

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 12:20 am

oops… should be “not by tennis aficianados” and “money talks”. I need to trim my nails…..

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 12:24 am

tenisbebe: It wasn’t you either, mentioning/comparing the draws but let’s forget that, it’s not even worth talking about. I just wondered when I saw the post where Roddick fitted into the picture.

You wanted to talk about Andy R’s IW SF performance, let’s do that whenever you get on line.

You mentioned: “Monet talks”, but you meant ‘money’ talks, you were so close to the truth there unbeknownst to you, because if you want to buy a ‘Monet’ you definitely need the money to do so. Hence, whichever way you look at it, ‘Monet’ and money talks. Ha, ha.

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Duro:

“Stars don’t influence on us, they are only an instrument to help us to conclude something because of their perfect order. God made that order (chaos against cosmos, remember?) We only learned to read it by time.”

If we can conclude something about ourselves from the stars then how can they not influence us? Are you saying that god arranges the stars in such a way to reflect our lives so that we can read them?

What is perfect order? Will Mars’ position always be perfect regardless of where it is?

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Whenever someone says “I can’t be bothered, you write too much” they are conceding defeat, since they can be bothered reading books and papers that are longer. Clearly you have read my long posts since you said I don’t understand anything (then educate me) and made a terse attempt to address my question. You refusing to answer my questions means the fault is with your ability to answer, not your reluctance to read my posts (I know you read them).

I wasn’t very satisfied with your answer, and if you are reluctant to discuss this here, could you please email me at g.giner@yahoo.com.au?

If I tell you my horoscope, can you tell me something about me that isn’t broad enough to apply to just about everyone?

And by the way, I am not ‘bitter’. You misread me. But I am a skeptic, and disdainful of all forms of quackery. I have many more questions to ask of you. I hope you email me.

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Giner: You’d better be careful with respect to whom you anger because you’ll be receiving some very colorful email. Ha, ha, I love it! Watch your back or whatever.

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Giner: “What is perfect order? Will Mars’ position always be perfect regardless of where it is?” Mars will align with Jupiter and vice versa. I trust you know this song:

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind’s true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!
___________________
You’re so very funny, not to mention passionate!

Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:38 pm