Does Anyone Want To Discuss Tennis?

606v2 used to be a tennis discussion forum. However as of 10.49am today when Mad for Chelsea made a comment about the British Fed Cup team the only topic being discussed is Nadal... and mainly limited to a few posters repeating how much they dislike him.

Does anyone else want to discuss tennis? If so please post a new article or use this space to talk about something of interest. I did try with my article about the Davis Cup final but that sadly has died as has every other article on 606v2 apart from one...

Who do you think will win the Davis Cup this year with Djokovic and Nadal not playing? Does USA have a good chance now?

I will be doing the Sampras vs Federer article soon, hopefully people will comment on that.
As for the Davis Cup, I still see France/Spain as favourites.

break_in_the_fifth

I was really sad that Switzerland lost at the weekend. Unable to watch but had just assumed they would come through... even when they went down by two rubbers on the first day. It had looked like a good opportunity for Federer to get his hand on one of the few trophies he hasn't already won...

Yes I suppose the USA does have a chance. They have a few decent players and always get on so well as a team (I think that shouldn't be underestimated in Davis Cup).

I'm not so sure that Djokovic and Nadal won't be tempted to make a return if their countries get to the later stages.

amritia3ee

You should go for it. Who could get worked up about Federer and Sampras? It might calm things down...

I can think of one person...

I heard about it but didn't see it either. Disappointing stuff. It's difficult to tell with Fed these days. If he continues for more years then I think he still has a chance for the Davis cup though I'm not really bothered too much if he wins it or not.

Federers about to play now in Rotterdam against Mahut.

I'd love to uncork the ATP bottle and discuss tennis. Amritia and Veejay might not like to talk about other players except Nadal though.

JM,
Did you see my Davis cup report this week? Also I am in the midst if researching the fed vs Sampras article.

Also I am in the midst if researching the fed vs Sampras article.

Been done countless times. Conclusion has always been 16>>14. Slams on all 4 venues>>slams on 3/4.

Saved you time there eh?

hawkeye wrote:606v2 used to be a tennis discussion forum. However as of 10.49am today when Mad for Chelsea made a comment about the British Fed Cup team the only topic being discussed is Nadal... and mainly limited to a few posters repeating how much they dislike him.

Does anyone else want to discuss tennis? If so please post a new article or use this space to talk about something of interest. I did try with my article about the Davis Cup final but that sadly has died as has every other article on 606v2 apart from one...

Hawkeye my sentiments entirely.

The equivalent of War and Peace has been posted on the Nadal threads and quite frankly it's boring. So take it from me I could not give a toss whether Rafa has ever even contemplated taking steroids.

Federer up a set on Mahut.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Also I am in the midst if researching the fed vs Sampras article.

Been done countless times. Conclusion has always been 16>>14. Slams on all 4 venues>>slams on 3/4.

Saved you time there eh?

Those were the days. Endless threads about weak eras and how Federer wasn't fit to lace Pete's shoes. The question is what's he up to nowadays? Losing to Cedric (Pioline) seemed to be the end of a very brief appearance on the masters circuit or is he just playing in the US?

The question is what's he up to nowadays? Losing to Cedric (Pioline) seemed to be the end of a very brief appearance on the masters circuit or is he just playing in the US?

He's currently giving minimal tips to waiters in Starbucks

JM here's some interesting news for you on the Sampras front (as of Sept 2011 anyway)

Former tennis star Pete Sampras and his model wife Bridgette Wilson have been trying to sell their custom built home in California since March of 2010, according to Trulia.com. The couple just recently dropped the price to $19,950,000 to try and get it off their hands.The house is 13,000 square feet and of course has a full tennis court.

Obviously then he's a bit short of funds in the meantime.

Probably moving to Monaco to avoid the taxes smart guy or tight...

Federer beats Mahut in two sets.

If there was any depth to the game these days there'd be things to talk about.

The sport is about to go into the wilderness. People will disagree with me. They'd be wrong.

Davydenko-PHM looks good. Some very nice shots from both. Davy up a set, but almost broken in the next.

Serve-volley needs to come back. It would add more variety and a different dimension to the game of tennis. That is what made the Sampras-Agassi duels so compelling. Sampras always had the better of Andre on the quicker surfaces and Andre was better on the slower surfaces where his return game was more of a factor. I believe that Andre beat Pete the only time they played at Roland Garros and Andre had his number Down Under.

I have to agree with Tenez about Michael Llorda's game. He is quite a talent; unfortunately in today's conditions , his talent will scarcely be rewarded.

kemet wrote:I have to agree with Tenez about Michael Llorda's game. He is quite a talent; unfortunately in today's conditions , his talent will scarcely be rewarded.

He did take a set off of Delpo on a relatively fast court today. He is a fun player to watch.

Hear hear hawkeye.

Look...we all know the sport needs to speed up on some surfaces (not all) but does it, and physicality, have to be the topic of discussion on all threads? Is this forum to become nothing but a moaning club for people nostalgic for the game they enjoyed yesteryear?

Personally I dont believe the game is going to go into the wilderness, its just going through a transitional phase - the game never stands still, nor should the topics discussed on here.

[quote="kemet"]Serve-volley needs to come back. It would add more variety and a different dimension to the game of tennis. That is what made the Sampras-Agassi duels so compelling. Sampras always had the better of Andre on the quicker surfaces and Andre was better on the slower surfaces where his return game was more of a factor. I believe that Andre beat Pete the only time they played at Roland Garros and Andre had his number Down Under.

I have to agree with Tenez about Michael Llorda's game. He is quite a talent; unfortunately in today's conditions , his talent will scarcely be rewarded.[/quote]

A bit of perspective here please Lloodra is a very entertaining player to watch but he is 31 and has been on the tour since 1999 and has never made a great impact. Therefore to blame the fact he is not higher ranked on todays conditions is slanting the facts.

Llodra did do well in Paris 2010.

Does this mean you will not be posting articles attacking Murray?

Calder106 wrote:
I have to agree with Tenez about Michael Llorda's game. He is quite a talent; unfortunately in today's conditions , his talent will scarcely be rewarded.[/quote]

A bit of perspective here please Lloodra is a very entertaining player to watch but he is 31 and has been on the tour since 1999 and has never made a great impact. Therefore to blame the fact he is not higher ranked on todays conditions is slanting the facts.

So do you want to say Llodra is not quite a talent? If by making a great impact it only means to you that one should reach top ranking, should be in conversation to win slams, and should have some good titles under his belt, thne surely as a singles player, Llodra does fall short, maybe by some distance. But that doesn't mean he isn't quite a talent. Talent doesn't always transform into silverware, conversely every count of silverware doesn't show great talent. Can I put some examples? Maybe not needed this time. I agree in today's conditions of playing surface, balls and the strings, he stands not much chance. Also he didn't make great use of the talent even when the surface and conditions suited his game better.

Transforming talent into success is another talent in its own. Not all talented tennis players have that.

I've always said that the greatest talent is finding the way to win...you can be blessed with perfect technique but it counts for nothing if you cant make it carry you across the finishing line.

But sometimes we split hairs too much on here....all the top 30 players are all amazingly talented. However, I dont think you win silverware at the pinnacle of tennis (or any technique based sport) without immense talent, the will to win, etc.

I said he is a very entertaining player to watch. I didn't say, but should have ,that he does have a lot of talent. The point I was trying to make is that even with that skill and talent he was no more prolific results wise in the early part of the 2000's than he is now. Therefore saying that the change in court speeds etc. has hampered him does not really stack up. Actually re-reading what you have said you agree with this.

There are many talents - innate talent which is natural ability which of course will need honing to translate into success, but athletes blessed with naturally faster hand to eye co-ordination and superior athletic movement perhaps don't have to initially, when young, train as hard as those whose innate skills are not so instinctive. John McEnroe is the perfect example of a naturally blessed athlete - one who famously disliked too much training but whose innate skills made him one of the most exciting players of the modern era.

There is no doubt that with reasonable skills, real graft can shape talent especially if a child is taught from an early age - you are building muscle memory. I think players such as McEnroe, Federer, and obviously Laver from what I have read might well have been extremely successful even if they had picked up a raquet for the first time at 10 years, but players like Agassi and very probably Nadal too were intensively training with fairly single minded purpose from an extremely young age. I wouldn't rate one talent as being superior to the other except to say that I think Mac, Fed and Laver were very blessed.

I absolutely agree Lydian that without 'will to win' you won't succeed - but I think that is separate to talent, it is quite simple 'heart' and obviously of the guys mentioned one thinks of Rafa the warrior, but I believe that all champions actually have this quality in abundance.

Good points TP.

I always struggle with this mysterious term "talent"...we say McEnroe is a naturally blessed athlete but then so is Nadal (just look at his footwork and nothing else for a start when watching him play). Talent on the tennis court is made up of so many composite parts long before the racquet hits the ball.

The will to win is more than heart, it is talent in itself. Psychologists have broken down the winning mindset of champions and to be able to innately suppress stress, live in the moment under extreme physical/mental pressure and execute a mentally prepared strategy at the highest level is a talent...ie. some are simply born to be able to do that better than others. Just like some people make better leaders than others... As Connors once said tennis is 95% mental...even when the game is so physical. If it was just about fitness guys like Verdasco would be #1. Unless we have evolved as a conscious species the mind drives the body to execute.

For me talent isnt just the ability to gracefully hit a ball and make it look easy - and for guys that win 8+ slams they are all immensely, even insanely, talented. After all these are the guys that out of millions upon millions of players over the years make their mark on the history of the game. They are a breed apart - separated by talent from their peers.

Lydian wrote:The will to win is more than heart, it is talent in itself. Psychologists have broken down the winning mindset of champions and to be able to innately suppress stress, live in the moment under extreme physical/mental pressure and execute a mentally prepared strategy at the highest level is a talent...

I had never actually thought of it like that, but actually have wondered how these champions control their breathing and their bodies in the most important hours on the biggest stages. I think all of we passionate fans would probably admit that the heart rate goes up watching the guys/gals we are rooting for in clutch moments which would probably render us all totally physically incapable if we had to wield a raquet. I think my hands would be trembling so much that I would be unlikely to make contact with the ball let alone be able to guide it into court.........

would be very interesting to have some of these guys wired up and see just how their 'tickers' react in comparision to we armchair supporters

Not sure the will to win is a talent so much as sheer guts and never-say-die spirit.
Was Connors a "talented" player in that he had beautiful shots, moved gracefully and was blessed with, well.....talent? Well, probably not. Was he a great player? Yes. He was also a great match player, as he could grind out wins when not at his best.
Is, for example, Gasquet talented? Yes, but by no stretch of the imagination can he be classed as a great player.

Absolutely - and these top players often say it was probably worse for their coaches and families than it was for them coming through close matches. And they're probably right! I believe these top players breathe just as hard as their peers at key moments but they seem to be able to mentally zone everything else out....they dont focus on the things that dont matter, they concentrate their entire focus on what they know is critically important, and have the calmness to execute the thoughts they conceive to overcome the situation they find themselves in. Lessers players get distracted by whats going on around them, allow negative thoughts to creep in, focus on the other player too much, start thinking ahead or to a lost point 4 games ago. Its the ability to stay in the zone and moment that really differentiates these players I believe.

But you make a good point...I wonder if these guys are able to slow their breathing/BPM down faster...or simply able to minimise its impact on their outlook and response. I guess that poems that says "If you can keep your head whilst those around you are losing theirs...then you'll be a man" alludes to what can separate people. I think a winning mentality can be enhanced but I do believe you have to be born with it to a large degree.

SFP - but I'm getting at what underpins the will to win. When we say a guy has heart...what does that mean? That he sticks to the task? That he never knows when he's beat...? If its not a talent that separates players at tge highest level why dont all the players have the same ability to just push themselves to the same degree when the stressful match moments come?

We see top players like Berdych mentally fold in comparison to others like Fed/Nad/Nole...yet I'm sure Berdy's will to win is strong. Its just that the others have a stronger resolution...they dont get lost in key moments as often as he does. Its more than pure "heart", its an ability to ensure they pull through by staying in the moment, applying themselves fully. Its surely a talent to be able to do that point in, point out better than others?

One thing that, I think, can be agreed on is that talent without the hard work is no good if you want to reach the very top.
Reckon the reason that Fed was a comparative slow starter - compare his tourney wins and total match wins as a teenager with, say, Andy Murray's - is that everyone told him how talented he was and, perhaps, he did not work hard enough at his game.
Similarly, hard work without that little extra something can carry you only so far.

Talent carries with it a certain bias. Like which do you prefer. The elegant side of a talent or the rough side of talent. I think for me talent takes the form of being able to do something the other person can't or do it better. I have marvelled at Federer who is by the some the 'only' talent. I have marvelled at Nadal, Sampras, Borg, the other players too who are just mentioned in passing conversation or glossed in a summary.

In tennis it is a talent to be able to walk out on court and play simple groundstrokes with a rythym of your own. All players have that talent. Some are just that bit special and have other talents that the field simply just don't have. Not a case of born with it or practice it. They just have it.

I loved watching 'The Cat' Mecir. It was like watching a graceful ballet on the court. He had plenty of talent, but not very many accolades.

Pim Pim (Johansson) was another one, but as Lydian says, the 'will' was drained by injuries. Magnus Norman and another Magnus, Larsson.

Krickstein, Nalbandian, and many others, tennis history is replete with such names.

Vinciguerra, if any one can remember him.

Jose Luis-Clerc was another, a wonderful clay courter.

Yeah shame about Joachim, could have been a truly great player...

Used to like watching Larsson play with his easy loping strokes.

Remember Vinciguerra!

Itsd funny how Roddick gets so much stick and laughed at.

If Roger didn't exist then A-Rod could have 6 or 7 slams and be a legend of the game.

Very hard fought, topsy turvy match between DelPo and Troicki..WOW i couldn't tell which way it was going right until match point was taken.

Also it finished 6-0 6-1

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Very hard fought, topsy turvy match between DelPo and Troicki..WOW i couldn't tell which way it was going right until match point was taken.

Also it finished 6-0 6-1

With ankle 'twists' and nose 'bleeds' thrown in for drama.

Fedshankerer defeats Niemininjaen 7-5 7-6, to play either Davycoolio or Gasmaskquet.

Davycoolio beats Gasmaskquet.

Shanker vs. The Machine
DPOT vs. Berd-Brain.

Interesting SF line-up.

laverfan wrote:Shanker vs. The Machine
DPOT vs. Berd-Brain.

Interesting SF line-up.

laverfan wrote:Shanker vs. The Machine
DPOT vs. Berd-Brain.

Interesting SF line-up.

laverfan! Don't you know there's a lot of sensitive and emotional fans out there...

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:Shanker vs. The Machine
DPOT vs. Berd-Brain.

Interesting SF line-up.

laverfan! Don't you know there's a lot of sensitive and emotional fans out there...

Yes, I do. This is to help such fans appreciate the lighter side of the Tennis world.

I will be banned by my fellow moderator JHM, if I use the satellite of the earth for any oblique references.

The number of FH/BH misses from Federer were astounding. Niemo almost played a third set.

Ten Thousand Thundering Typhoons and Blue Blistering Barnacles... I am in trouble.

watched bits of the Davydenko match last night, had forgotten just how good Davydenko is when he's hitting the ball well, played some wonderful shots. If he can bring that form to tonight's game, it's not inconceivable that he could beat Federer, who didn't look too hot against Nieminenen.

Federer looked out of sorts against Nicolas The Marathon Man Mahut and even worse against Nimenenanienameieneaimeanaein. It should be interesting against Davy. The last set against Gasquet is the best I've seen Davy play in a long time.

Del po vs Big Bird is a 50-50 in my opinion.



emancipator

Mfc Davydenko's chances against Federer (assuming they are playing each other) are dependant on how hard he actually tries. Whoops... wait a minute this thread was meant for actually discussing tennis rather than vague innuendo.