US Open Day 11 Thursday

First topic message reminder :

Hope it's OK to get this going. Just the two men's quarters to think about today. While Fed and Berdych must be seen as favourites to win, it could be that an inspired Monfils could take out Rog, while Cilic is not without hope against Tomas.

bogbrush wrote:I'm happy to agree he's (Rafa's) very talented, it's obvious

You're one step short of the lunatic fringe bb.

Oh I know the sort all right Hawkeye. I call them "category 4".

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm happy to agree he's (Rafa's) very talented, it's obvious

You're one step short of the lunatic fringe bb.

Did it come over a bit fanatical?

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think there's five levels of poster bias amongst members.

1. Neutral or near-neutral posters (laverfan springs to mind). These barely allow favouritism into their posts and uninitiated posters wouldn't have a clue where they stood.

2. Biased posters who make no secret of their favouritism but who base statements on unbiased analysis even if they go against their hopes. This covers many of us; modesty forbids bringing myself into it but I think Murdoch is a great example.

3. Posters who frequently contort facts to squeeze them into a shape they can live with. For some reason I've just thought of my dear friend Caledonian Craig, surely just coincidence.

4. Haddie & Hawkeye

5. Lunatic fringe posters no longer with us.

lol bogbrush. You are categorizing posters through your heavily tinted Federer glasses. Anyone who posts anything positive about Federer's scariest rival will obviously be just one step short of the lunatic fringe. From a certain angle you are in the crazed fan boy category. You know the sort that sleeps on a cushion with an imprint of their idol

Oh the irony. Is there an irony smiley?

I remember saying haddie would not be seen round here while the USO was on (Rafa taking a sabbatical) and here we are, not been seen. The very least hawkeye has still been here without their idol

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I remember saying haddie would not be seen round here while the USO was on (Rafa taking a sabbatical) and here we are, not been seen. The very least hawkeye has still been here without their idol

HE is my fav poster here, yes very biased but I love the way she puts her article in neat non- abusive way yet a point from a fan perspective.

The articles of her are very interesting and generally funny with a little dig eventhough most didn't make sense

But HE , keep up your good work, you are a life blood for this forum, and I am one of those who come to this forum to read your articles specifically.

The Special Juan wrote:The biggest change Ivanisevic has made to Cilic is the serve.  He used to have a horrible back bend during it where he'd pretty much fold his back into a 'c' shape.  Goran's changed his serve motion and he no longer has that bend which has allowed him to develop a more consistent and quicker serve.  He used to have an average serve for a big guy but now it's a weapon.  Couple with his very solid groundstrokes and good court coverage we've now got a very good player.

I believe that ban allowed him time to work on aspects of the game he would otherwise not have had he still been competing.

Just wanted to highlight this post, this is excellent analysis from TSJ. The serve technique has indeed changed, not too significantly but it's much better than it used to be. We all used to remark about how poor Cilic's serve was for his frame, especially compared to Del Potro who's a similar height. Used to be painful watching him jerk his back in like that, he gets more snap from the wrist now. Good coaching decisions being made by Goran

Agree that is a very good spot. Cilic used to arch his back far too much, and not in a good way like Sampras did. No better serving teacher than Goran. Do you think he's pronating more silver...wondering where the extra snap is coming from...better use of push up the legs too?

Thank you both I'm not too sure what the numbers are but I reckon he must be chucking in fewer double faults these days too. With the old service motion he used to throw in a lot during crunch moments and you could see during the ball toss it was all going wrong.

Agree, he seemed to have a very rachety motion before, it's a lot smoother now. Some interesting points here about Goran coming on board and improvements to serve.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/tennis/2014/02/9/cilic-ivanisevic-improvement.aspx

Cheers lydian, good numbers and information there.

No worries...building on your good spot

Get a room guys

Don't ruin the love-in, LS

lydian wrote:Agree that is a very good spot. Cilic used to arch his back far too much, and not in a good way like Sampras did. No better serving teacher than Goran. Do you think he's pronating more silver...wondering where the extra snap is coming from...better use of push up the legs too?

Probably both lydian, hard to tell when there's a big change to the action like that though. I bet he is getting his legs into the movement a lot more though, given the new overall shape? Thanks for that link too, good stuff

i'll leave you love birds to it...

"je t'aime oui je t'aime..."

lol guys...

Agree silver that he's getting more leg work into the serve, and you could tell so because longer matches are tiring his legs more. Seems he's serving around the same speed but getting more % 1st serves in, and with better placement...seems to be serving better into the corners of the boxes than he used to so wondered if he's pronating better out wide...something Goran was truly excellent at.

Lydian in regards to coaching a serving style or technique, there isn't so much as a serving style as there are different grips are there? You know like a semi western serve if you get me?
You see so many differing, individual styles and you see players changing serves over time (ala djokovic and nadal 2bh).

I recall someone saying Sampras switched from a dhbh to a shbh when he was younger. Is there generally an age that a player gets the serve and generally sticks with it?
Soz for the incoherent babble but I was just curious.

Its hard to give a definitive answer LS, serving is effectively a series of moving parts through a sequence of moves...from bouncing the ball, to moving weight backwards, bending knees, to throwing the ball up, arching the back, getting into trophy position...and players vary the position of their elbows at this point enormously, to how they throw the racquet, level of pronation, etc....you can imagine with all these variables you get loads of different overall styles. At its simplest serving is the same as throwing a ball...and if you watch 20 people throw, they'll all have differing natural styles. Most players serve with continental grip, using a SW or E grip is much more unusual...not many top players do it other than Nadal.

The serve for a player will tend to lock in between 7-10 years old, or earlier if they started at 3-4yo. Goran says he's had the same motion since he was 4 years old. It depends on how "right" it is and how much work it needs to smooth it out. But the essential throwing of the racquet at the ball in trophy position cant be changed much as its your inherent timing...and some people simply have faster arms than others so serves speeds vary enormously...just like people can throw a stone varying distances...in tennis everything up to that throwing point can vary stylewise, and you can add MPH by throwing the ball forwards, pronating harder (Sampras has amazing pronation snap). Like many other tennis strokes, how you ultimately time the ball in the critical arc of the stroke is largely down to inherent timing...and if its fixed at around 7-10yo you cant change it much after then, just improve footwork, preparation/take back, and follow-through. Pete switching to SHBH from DHBH isn't that radical really...its just use of a different stroke...not really changing a base stroke. The biggest change in recent years I've seen to a stroke is Gulbis' FH...now that's change. Plus Nadal's serve...its changed massively, his elbow positioning at the top in trophy is completely different...and that takes some dedication to change as you're messing with basic set ups. Same with Ernests FH...changing stuff as a pro is a massive risk. Kudos to those who try.

Likewise, in club players once you've got an established stroke its very hard to change...sure grips can vary but again that not really changing the core stroke itself. Sorry for the long winded answer...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I remember saying haddie would not be seen round here while the USO was on (Rafa taking a sabbatical) and here we are, not been seen. The very least hawkeye has still been here without their idol

Frankly Im surprised you can remember anything JM including your own name... Ive been here just cant bear to be involved in the fawning and over Mr Smugley... disgusted with Montfils as I know Rafa would never have let him off the hook and I seriously hope that someone wipes that sickly grin off his face before SUNDAY

but I will leave you with this in the meantime.... my time will come JM have no fear you wont get rid of me that easy .. To me there is nothing to comment on.. my feelings about your idol fan boy are well recorded


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/08/fans-longing-nadal-says-federer-not-players/52513/#.VApCUGOaWEs

I thought you were a Rafa fan HN, not a Fed hater? Oh well, I live and learn.

Did I say I was a hater.... strong language Julius..a disliker and never professed any different.... Ill let you get away with that as it is pretty late in your neck of the woods... but I too live and learn

lydian wrote:Likewise, in club players once you've got an established stroke its very hard to change...sure grips can vary but again that not really changing the core stroke itself. Sorry for the long winded answer...

Good post all around, but this in particular is so true. I started out coaching juniors and have now moved into all-ages, and the pliability of the youngsters is staggering compared to adults. It's like in most sports, not only is it difficult to change a person's 'natural' way of doing things, but it's usually detrimental in the long term as well. If you force someone to play a stroke that's wildly different from where they started out (I'm talking beyond a certain age, of course) then they'll have to work too hard to maintain the unnatural body position and it mentally taxes them. Best to build on the existing foundation and tweak one piece at a time - a surprising amount of progress can be made in this way. You mention Gulbis and that's a great example of what not to do! Not to mention his new forehand is...well...technically problematic.

LS: I'd agree with lydian and say that 10-12+ you're unlikely to change too much about a serve, but big adjustments can still be made to toss, trophy and legs in particular which can make a huge overall difference. The beauty of the sport is that if you look at the top fifty players, you'll see fifty different serves - there's no one 'best' way to do it. My favourite serve technically is Novak's, but it's very difficult to coach due to his athleticism and flexibility, so you work with what you have. It irritates me to no end when coaches try to override what technique and playstyle a kid has with their own philosophy on how it should be done, and that's not to speak of how many refuse to coach SHBH and always try to convert. Coaching/teaching is like a puzzle, a code to be cracked on an individual basis - you don't use the same size wrench for every bolt.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now the perils of being involved in education!

Yo Silver n Lyd u guys need a seperate thread, this much over analysis is not needed seriously.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive been here just cant bear to be involved in the fawning and over Mr Smugley...

Last night (maybe somewhere around MP time) I was thinking to myself that we were just one bad mishit away from H-n showing up.

It looks like I may have been right

Glad that Fed survived - my heart was in my throat all right as Fed was headed towards an inevitable early exit.

What next?

I thought Fed was actually playing quite well in the couple of matches I saw before yesterday - well enough that I thought he might have a chance to win it all (after all he came close at Wimbledon while not playing quite so well).

However, yesterday's match now has me unsure.  Was it just a blip or is this closer to what we can expect from him the rest of this USO?  If he somehow gets to play Nole and plays like last night, he will get obliterated.

My take (perhaps too optimistic) is that this was a blip and he may well find the form of the earlier rounds.  No guarantee he wins even in that form, but at least he will have a shot.

hawkeye wrote:From a certain angle you are in the crazed fan boy category. You know the sort that sleeps on a cushion with an imprint of their idol

LOL, this is too funny - mischievous even

Between you and BB, there is exactly one that I can imagine sleeping on a cushion with an imprint of their idol.

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive been here just cant bear to be involved in the fawning and over Mr Smugley...

Last night (maybe somewhere around MP time) I was thinking to myself that we were just one bad mishit away from H-n showing up.

It looks like I may have been right

Nearly but Montfils did what I knew he would in fact after the second set I forecasted the result even the score..
Hence he never has and never will win a major slam... a waste of a talent sadly..
Hey ho.... shant be watching anymore ... come on Kei

Haddie-nuff wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive been here just cant bear to be involved in the fawning and over Mr Smugley...

Last night (maybe somewhere around MP time) I was thinking to myself that we were just one bad mishit away from H-n showing up.

It looks like I may have been right

Nearly but Montfils did what I knew he would in fact after the second set I forecasted the result even the score..
Hence he never has and never will win a major slam... a waste of a talent sadly..
Hey ho.... shant be watching anymore ... come on Kei  

Haddie I understand Rafa is not playing and you are tinge upset but blaming Monfils as a waste of talent after yesterdays match is very immature comment, to be honest Fed was very very lucky to survive the match, one the first match points Monfils Forehand just ended up long if not he would be facing Cilic tomorrow.

Rafa has been lucky countless times, had he lost Wimbledon 2008 would you have agreed to his slaters that he could never win a Wimbledon? seriously there is no difference between you and those WUMs.

Monfils deserve respect,

In order to make you bite your comment he will come and beat Rafa in FO 2015, he will win your respect.

No, Monfils' talent has been squandered...one swallow doesn't make a summer. His career is a litany of underachievement vs his capability, sure it was a good match vs Sir Rodge but he was still guilty of being too passive at times. He's so keen to use his athleticism all the time that he sits 10 feet behind the baseline chasing no hope balls but exhibiting some beautiful slides, runs and gets from the very furthest corners of the court...rarely getting much on the ball back (unlike Nadal's/Djokovic/Murray) and burning valuable energy in the process. He never changes his approach to this. Federer was below par, primarily due to the wind...it's a leveller, and Monfils missed his chance. Again.

Have to agree with Monfils, athletically one of the best pure athletes to grace the game of tennis. Height, Speed, agility and brutal power from all areas of the court. The problem with Monfils is that despite his speed he has poor footwork and balance, poor shot selection, poor tactics, and loses focuses from one point to the next. My nickname for him is the fall guy, no it isn't just a bad 1980s sitcom with Lee majors it is virtually every Monfils match. He takes super long strides and therefore is completely out of position and off balance on so many occassions that he routinely hits the deck.

Monfils would have been an outrageously good basketball player with that vertical hanging ability...and it would have suited his showman side too. Lee Majors will always be the $6 Million Dollar Man to me...childhood super hero!

Haddie-nuff wrote: Ive been here just cant bear to be involved in the fawning and over Mr Smugley... disgusted with Montfils as I know Rafa would never have let him off the hook and I seriously hope that someone wipes that sickly grin off his face before SUNDAY

but I will leave you with this in the meantime.... my time will come JM have no fear you wont get rid of me that easy .. To me there is nothing to comment on.. my feelings about your idol fan boy are well recorded


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/08/fans-longing-nadal-says-federer-not-players/52513/#.VApCUGOaWEs

Stay calm Haddie. Federer winning a tournament without Rafa present has nothing to do with Rafa. As Federer says in that article you quoted Rafa not playing represents an opportunity for other players. Or to put it a little more bluntly and emphatically - While the cats away the mice will play. Because the reality is Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since pre history. Monfils is a great entertaining player but he is far from a Nadal. I'm hoping your time comes soon    

Both Federer and Djokovic must be laughing now at the prospect of playing Nishikori (a beat up Nishikori at that) and Cilic for a place in the final. As Federer says a great opportunity for certain players (cough!) not so good for the fans...

Category 4 alert!

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did I say I was a hater.... strong language Julius..a disliker and never professed any different.... Ill let you get away with that as it is pretty late in your neck of the woods... but I too live and learn

It's just a turn of phrase HN. 'Fed disliker' doesn't have the same ring to it.
It does go to show that despite what Hawkeye says, it's not just some Fed fans that dislike Rafa - there are also some Rafa fans that dislike Fed.

hawkeye wrote:Because the reality is Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since pre history.

That's because Rafa's a beautiful hero and 10 times the player that measly smug Federer is.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did I say I was a hater.... strong language Julius..a disliker and never professed any different.... Ill let you get away with that as it is pretty late in your neck of the woods... but I too live and learn

I like your location location location (never watched the show but I like typing it). CANADA. Now i definitely know where you're from

bogbrush wrote:1. Neutral or near-neutral posters...

2. Biased posters who make no secret of their favouritism but who base statements on unbiased analysis even if they go against their hopes...

3. Posters who frequently contort facts to squeeze them into a shape they can live with...

I like these descriptions. I think most of us here are somewhere in the spectrum from 2 to 3. HMM is indeed a great example for #2.

Your category 1 I think includes two subcategories. Posters that are truly neutral, i.e., those who do not have player preferences, and posters who do have preferences - maybe even strong ones - but choose to hide them.

"The 2011 US Open winner and five-time Open finalist – including the last four in a row – comes to New York carrying a streak of 13 Grand Slam events dating back to the 2011 French Open in which he has either a) won the tournament (five times), or b) lost to the eventual winner."

That's a good line on Djokovic.  He's only being beaten by the best and you can't complain about that.

From: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2014-09-05/social_sound_off_facts_about_men.html

I am sorry to say those who have mourned about Monfils clearly haven't watched the game for a while.

People like Lyd, Haddie would have found it tough to watch USO in the absence of Sir. Rafa and hence commenting having not watched any match.

Monfils has shown a lot of discpline this entire tournament and not just Fed match, Monfils at times was unplayable the entire tournament and not just Fed's match.

Gael has indeed stopped most of his clown acts in the tournament and has really focused on his Tennis, I was one of those who never wanted him to progress coz he showed little dedication to Tennis in the past, but it clearly evident on his match vs Gasquet that he was more focused on the match than clown acts.

he backed that with a superb performance against Dimitrov, and Gael didn't lose coz of his stupid clown acts against Roger but a bit of unluck, we wouldn't be talking about this had that one shot would have fallen short a few inches and Roger would have packed his bags.

Please show respect to a player who is showing his commitment to Tennis now and not what he was in the past.

...and presumably I'm a great example of Cat 3. IC, I've probably watched more USO than you have so don't tell me what I've watched and not watched. At least I'm here and posting in the absence of Nadal. I don't have to think too far back to remember modest self-acclaimed Cat 2 posters here disappearing for months when their charge lost a slam final or went into a slump.

Also, regarding Monfils it's not just about clowning around. His tactical brain isn't plugged in. He lacks mental discipline in sticking to a game plan. Sure he plays well from time to time, powering people off court. But his style of play tires him out...as described elsewhere...because he chooses to be Mr Athletic Prowess at the back of the court when he doesn't need to be. Had he adopted a different game plan he might have had more juice to push Fed in the 4th & 5th sets. Instead he rolled over like a house of cards like he normally does in 5 setters. Not good for slams is it?

It comes down to the chance of Fed beating Djokovic?
(as can't see neither not making the final)

lydian wrote:It comes down to the chance of Fed beating Djokovic?

Most likely so.

No chance if Fed plays like he played against Monfils.  Fed will have to be at his very best, and even then it will be less than 50/50.  He will also need to find a way to shorten the points.  I was watching Nole vs Murray - there is no way in the world Fed can hope to live in the kind of rallies the two were playing.

Unlike you, I can imagine upsets in both of today's matches; though obviously I also think Fed and Nole are likely to win.

Monfils lacks commitment to tennis, either that or he just isn't very smart. I don't know how you can play top flight tennis and literally not have improved any of your weaknesses in nearly a decade of play. What about today's Monfils is any different or better than the Monfils we saw burst on the scene at 18 or 19? He makes the same exact mistakes and has the same exact way of losing matches.

Monfils certainly does lack the required mental discipline. But if talent is the ability to get the win, then in that sense he simply lacks that talent. It's not wasted talent, it's simply a lack of (mental) talent that costs him. As such, how can we say he's an underachiever? He's achieved as much a he is capable of given the sum of all his talents.
You can't switch on mental talent any easier than you can switch on a world-class forehand.

I dont think my comment on Montfils is immature far from it. he has always been known to be the joker in the pack  commentators said at the match that his hugest problem is himself... cannot stay focussed and loses concentration.. yes he is a magnificent athlete but one of the most frustrating players to watch because you know the talent he has and the ability to beat any other player on tour...yes Rafa included.  However the writing was on the wall for me when he won the first two sets... he gets a glazed look that says 'can I go home now"  So i will stick with my original assessment of Montfils..a great bloke a great athlete... but sorry HE LOST THAT MATCH  Federer never one it

lydian wrote:

Also, regarding Monfils it's not just about clowning around. His tactical brain isn't plugged in. He lacks mental discipline in sticking to a game plan. Sure he plays well from time to time, powering people off court. But his style of play tires him out...as described elsewhere...because he chooses to be Mr Athletic Prowess at the back of the court when he doesn't need to be. Had he adopted a different game plan he might have had more juice to push Fed in the 4th & 5th sets. Instead he rolled over like a house of cards like he normally does in 5 setters. Not good for slams is it?

It comes down to the chance of Fed beating Djokovic?
(as can't see neither not making the final)

Monfils lacked Mental Discpline ? agreed
Monfils Lacking Mental Discpline now? yes but he has shown tremendous improvement , and I still stay on my argument you haven't watched USO at all or your way too baised and upset Fed is still on the tournament.

Monfils lacked commitment to the game ? Yes
Is Monfils still lacking commitment to the game? I don't think so, he has shown a big commitment and his playing to win the game not to impress the crowd, can you show me a few instance in Fed- Monfils match where he engaged in clown acts? I bet you won't.

On Monfils rolling over in 5th set, again it shows you are talking based on the score line and not after watching the match, Monfils was heart broken in the 4th set after letting the 2 Match points go off, Yes Fed saved the 2nd match point brilliantly but the first Match point was very close and that inspite of Fed playing his best at that particular point,

Haas got heart broken in FO encounter with Fed and rolled over in the 5th set, Rafa got heart broken and rolled over in the 5th set vs Fed in Wim 2007, these are humans and when they see a struggle reaching a point close to success yet not there is a good chance to be heart broken, Monfils need such moments to get used to it and he will get better with every opportunity he gets like that , now don't utter the nonsense that Monfils showed no commitment.

Monfils is on the right path and if he continues this way I wouldn't be surprised if he even takes down your idol Sir. Rafa in FO , but guess what you will come back with injury excuse at that time as well.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Monfils certainly does lack the required mental discipline. But if talent is the ability to get the win, then in that sense he simply lacks that talent. It's not wasted talent, it's simply a lack of (mental) talent that costs him. As such, how can we say he's an underachiever? He's achieved as much a he is capable of given the sum of all his talents.
You can't switch on mental talent any easier than you can switch on a world-class forehand.

That is what my dad says. He says human beings are product of either genes or upbringing. You neither select your own genes or the culture or family you are brought up in. So he says it is basically useless to either compliment or punish anyone. Whatever they do right and or wrong is out of their control. To me that is a little too deterministic a philosophy. I think Monfils has the ability physically and lacks the application mentally. It isn't like we are asking him to launch a rocket to mars just to have the application to play proper tactics, shots, and to use proper footwork in a sport that he has been playing for probably over 20 years. I don't think he is mentally retarded or disabled.

Haddie-nuff wrote: but sorry HE LOST THAT MATCH  Federer never one it

I agree your last statement, Monfils was clearly the better player the other night, and a clown Monfils would not have reached to a position of 2 points to win, it itself shows he has improved his commitment to the game, the reason for his loss is not getting used to big moments, he is on the right track and once he faces such situation again and again he will cross it with ease in the future.

It took Rafa 3 attempts to win the Wimbledon so why expect Monfils to do it all of a sudden? whats disgusting is people haven't understood how much change he has brought himself on and applaud it at the moment at least, life is not all about critics and Gael deserve some pat on the back this time around.

I'm probably in somewhere in the middle of you and your Dad (is that a dangerous place to be?)

For some people that extra bit of mental discipline is actually extraordinarily difficult to achieve. No-one here knows enough about Monfils to know whether he's tried and failed to achieve it, or is too lazy to try or possibly too afraid to try. There could be many explanations - the human mind is very complex.

I just think it's too easy and probably too naïve to simply label and criticise the guy as an under-achiever.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm probably in somewhere in the middle of you and your Dad (is that a dangerous place to be?)

I am sorry your sense of humor has gone beyond bounds now, I have to take some time off from my desk, people around me are starting to think I have gone crazy all of a sudden by laughing like hell, but I just can't control it after reading it.

Maybe Julius, certainly having mental focus and discipline is a talent like any other. But he has under used the physical and athletic gifts that he has had, maybe that is because of deficiencies mentally that are not as easy to diagnose. Will someone just give him some Ritalin.