Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Australian Open 2016 Jan 18th - Jan 31st

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    PTAB93 wrote: »
    Do you know who I want to win one more? Venus! I'd love her to take out Serena along the way and win her last slam and retire on a high note! :)

    Calling it now, Simona/Radwanska wins FO, Serena wins Wimbledon and Azarenka wins USO! You can all buy me a pint if I'm spot on! :D

    Hopefully Murray wins tomorrow, maybe he'll take some inspiration from Angie today and realise that the best can be beaten!

    Muguruza for FO, I think. Others I agree with.


  • Options
    #153
    RosyLily
    Registered Users Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭RosyLily


    Amazing from Angelique!! She came out swinging and it paid off. Her victory speech was hilariously rambly.:D Very classy response from Serena. Looking at Twitter there seems to be a lot of love for Kerber. Well deserved! How ironic would it be if another German stopped Serena in a GS??:pac:

    I'd love to see this win propel German women's tennis to another level. They've got talented players!


  • Options
    #154
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Amazing performance from Kerber. The point she won to go 40-0 up in the first game of the 3rd set was outstanding. She fought fire with fire and often dominated rally's on the Williams serve. Most of Serena's aggressive play was sent back with interest. Kerber's running forehand beat Serena all ends up every time she came to the net. Pin point stuff from Kerber and some of the angles she created at times were ridiculous. It just goes to show how many of the women stand off Serena and are beaten before they enter the court. If you are tenacious like Kerber and play aggressive tennis and go for the lines instead of hitting straight back to her then Williams is beatable. Easier said than done I know, but Williams shouldn't be waltzing through most matches the way she does


  • Options
    #155
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    CKonetheonlyone wrote: »
    It's natural to her

    It's her build and power. In terms of picking up a racket and having a natural finesse and a god given talent she's not one of the best. If she had a build similar to the rest of the players she'd be bang average as without the power she'd be regularly outplayed


  • Options
    #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Well done by Kerber but Williams let that match away - too many unforced errors. First German individual tennis slam (male or female) since 1999 (Graf).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    glasso wrote: »
    Well done by Kerber but Williams let that match away - too many unforced errors. First German tennis slam (male or female) since 1999 (Graf).

    Not really. If you're attacked all ends up and are not allowed dictate then you're gonna make more unforced errors than on average


  • Options
    #158
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    An unforced error is where you lose a point by making a mistake in a situation where you should be in full control. For example, making contact with the ball on the wrong part of the racket, or having bad timing (e.g., hitting the ball too early) is considered unforced errors. One of the most common unforced errors, especially for novices, is double faulting serves.

    A forced error is where one player hits a good shot, putting the opponent into a tight spot. For example, carefully angled shots, drop shots, or a sudden change in pace may lead to forced errors. In these situations, the receiver may have to hustle to the ball, become off balance, or set up a return stroke incorrectly in his haste. Since the error was due to that great shot from the opponent, it would be considered a forced error.


  • Options
    #159
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    glasso wrote: »
    An unforced error is where you lose a point by making a mistake in a situation where you should be in full control. For example, making contact with the ball on the wrong part of the racket, or having bad timing (e.g., hitting the ball too early) is considered unforced errors. One of the most common unforced errors, especially for novices, is double faulting serves.

    A forced error is where one player hits a good shot, putting the opponent into a tight spot. For example, carefully angled shots, drop shots, or a sudden change in pace may lead to forced errors. In these situations, the receiver may have to hustle to the ball, become off balance, or set up a return stroke incorrectly in his haste. Since the error was due to that great shot from the opponent, it would be considered a forced error.

    I've watched tennis for years. I'm aware of the difference. If you attack a player and pile them under pressure and not allow them to dictate they are hardly going to be in any sort of rhythm, are they? Trying too hard to force something from nothing etc. Not only that but from a psychological point of view too...doubting their shots, no belief etc etc. Kerber took the game to her and didn't let her play. You think it's a coincidence Federer would regularly hit seemingly easy shots completely wayward when he came up against Nadal? They are effectively indirect forced errors


  • Options
    #160
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,113 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    PTAB93 wrote: »
    Do you know who I want to win one more? Venus! I'd love her to take out Serena along the way and win her last slam and retire on a high note! :)

    Calling it now, Simona/Radwanska wins FO, Serena wins Wimbledon and Azarenka wins USO! You can all buy me a pint if I'm spot on! :D

    Hopefully Murray wins tomorrow, maybe he'll take some inspiration from Angie today and realise that the best can be beaten!

    Aggie never done much at the French so don't fancy her chances and so many power hitters on the tour have the game to trash her. I think Muguruzu wins that if she is consistent, its her best surface.

    I wouldn't argue to much with your other calls though.:)


  • Options
    #161
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    yerwanthere123 wrote: »
    Serena will still beat Steffi and probably Margaret Court, she just has to wait a little while longer.

    Wouldn't think it's guaranteed, father time may finally be catching up with her. Looked like a lot of those UEs were down to poor footwork and general slowness in the legs. No woman over 33 has won a GS since 1954.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Wouldn't think it's guaranteed, father time may finally be catching up with her. Looked like a lot of those UEs were down to poor footwork and general slowness in the legs. No woman over 33 has won a GS since 1954.

    If everyone starts playing like Kerber against her she'll have trouble winning more but if they all revert to type and think it's great to just get a set off the great Serena Williams she'll rack up a few more before she's done.

    You could even see Kerber at times losing focus and drifting back from the baseline to where she normally plays. She managed to catch herself and move forward again but everytime she went back Serena was in charge of the point. Kerber's victory was as much a mental one as a physical one. A lot of other players lose to Serena before they even step on the court.


  • Options
    #163
    Wicklow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Wicklow Brave


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    It's her build and power. In terms of picking up a racket and having a natural finesse and a god given talent she's not one of the best. If she had a build similar to the rest of the players she'd be bang average as without the power she'd be regularly outplayed

    This really irks me.

    'If she had a build similar to the rest of the players she'd be bang average'. What is that even supposed to mean? What build would be similar to the rest of the players? There are how many thousands of professional tennis players and you're suggesting they all have the exact same build with the exception of one? Why is that?

    If she didn't have the power she possesses she would be bang average? Eh, but she does possess this important component to being successful at tennis and is therefore not bang average. Why does her possession of such an important component of the game somehow diminish her achievements and natural talent? You could take any component of someone's game and say ''if they didn't have 'x' they'd be regularly outplayed. ''If Novak Djokovic wasn't so fast/fit etc. he'd be regularly outplayed'', ''if Lionel Messi was half a foot taller, he wouldn't have as low a centre of gravity and such good balance and he'd be bang average''. If my auntie had balls she'd my uncle.


  • Options
    #164
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Wicklow Brave wrote: »
    This really irks me.

    'If she had a build similar to the rest of the players she'd be bang average'. What is that even supposed to mean? What build would be similar to the rest of the players? There are how many thousands of professional tennis players and you're suggesting they all have the exact same build with the exception of one? Why is that?

    If she didn't have the power she possesses she would be bang average? Eh, but she does possess this important component to being successful at tennis and is therefore not bang average. Why does her possession of such an important component of the game somehow diminish her achievements and natural talent? You could take any component of someone's game and say ''if they didn't have 'x' they'd be regularly outplayed. ''If Novak Djokovic wasn't so fast/fit etc. he'd be regularly outplayed'', ''if Lionel Messi was half a foot taller, he wouldn't have as low a centre of gravity and such good balance and he'd be bang average''. If my auntie had balls she'd my uncle.

    I'm talking about technical skill with the racket in her hand i.e what most people would equate to natural talent. I never said there weren't other factors involved in making an overall world class finished product.


  • Options
    #165
    Wicklow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Wicklow Brave


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I'm talking about technical skill with the racket in her hand i.e what most people would equate to natural talent. I never said there weren't other factors involved in making an overall world class finished product.

    Yeah but she obviously possesses incredible technical ability. It's a non-contact sport, they're not playing rugby. To suggest she'd be bang average on her technical ability alone is totally wrong.


  • Options
    #166
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Wicklow Brave wrote: »
    Yeah but she obviously possesses incredible technical ability. It's a non-contact sport, they're not playing rugby. To suggest she'd be bang average on her technical ability alone is totally wrong.

    Fair enough, I over exaggerated the point. I'm sure she would win majors but she would certainly not be as dominant if it was left up to her natural ability alone. There's other technically skilled players around who could match her in this department. What separates her is her sheer power from her physical build, not her natural gift with a racket in hand. That's all


  • Options
    #167
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Fair enough, I over exaggerated the point. I'm sure she would win majors but she would certainly not be as dominant if it was left up to her natural ability alone. There's other technically skilled players around who could match her in this department. What separates her is her sheer power from her physical build, not her natural gift with a racket in hand. That's all

    I see what you're trying to say but anything associated with her physical build is natural ability.


  • Options
    #168
    Wicklow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Wicklow Brave


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Fair enough, I over exaggerated the point. I'm sure she would win majors but she would certainly not be as dominant if it was left up to her natural ability alone. There's other technically skilled players around who could match her in this department. What separates her is her sheer power from her physical build, not her natural gift with a racket in hand. That's all

    Well I suppose it's how you define 'natural ability'. In my opinion, she has as much natural ability as anyone that's ever picked up a tennis racquet, as much natural ability as anyone that's ever played any sport for that matter.


  • Options
    #169
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    I see what you're trying to say but anything associated with her physical build is natural ability.

    Being born a great athlete isn't a skill or ability it's just good luck.

    Vladimir Klitchsko/Tyson Fury etc would kill Floyd Mayweather in a boxing match but wouldn't be anywhere near as skillful a boxer as Mayweather.

    I'm sure you could apply the same principle to Tennis (and other sports) and say there are certain players who benefit from having great natural athleticism, size and strength.


  • Options
    #170
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    Being born a great athlete isn't a skill or ability it's just good luck.

    No, but her strength and power come from her build, which is natural.

    She has obviously had to learn to harness that power and strength in the right way for tennis but it is in itself a natural ability.


  • Options
    #171
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Exactly Dingus. I was actually going to use boxing as an example but you beat me too it ha.

    I also should have used the word natural talent as opposed to natural ability. She may be the best/one of the best tennis players ever, but she isn't the most naturally talented player ever. Far from it. Therefore, I feel her success is based more on her freak natural build (for a woman's tennis player) as opposed her sheer talent as a player.

    Roddick would be a good example actually. He could regularly steam roll his way through rounds despite being a very limited player.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    No, but her strength and power come from her build, which is natural.

    She has obviously had to learn to harness that power and strength in the right way for tennis but it is in itself a natural ability.

    Natural ability and natural talent are not one and the same


  • Options
    #173
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Natural ability and natural talent are not one and the same

    The original point was that if you took away her build and she only had her "natural abilities" she wouldn't dominate.

    My point is her strength and power (and probably speed) are natural byproducts of her build, therefore you can't separate her build from her natural abilities.


  • Options
    #174
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    The original point was that if you took away her build and she only had her "natural abilities" she wouldn't dominate.

    My point is her strength and power (and probably speed) are natural byproducts of her build, therefore you can't separate her build from her natural abilities.

    No it wasn't, I used that phrase once by mistake. My original point included "natural finesse" and "god given talent" followed by "technical ability" and "natural talent" in the next related post. Her success in mainly down to her physical build than her talent as that's what serperates her from the rest to win, the same as any success a limited Roddick had


  • Options
    #175
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    No it wasn't, I used that phrase once by mistake. My original point included "natural finesse" and "god given talent" followed by "technical ability" and "natural talent" in the next related post. Her success in mainly down to her physical build than her talent as that's what serperates her from the rest to win, the same as any success a limited Roddick had

    Some of her talent/ability/skill come from her physical build though but they're still natural abilities/skills/talents. You can't separate them.


  • Options
    #176
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    I think the point being made is that physical strength is not as 'admirable' as other natural talents. But I still think Serena would have won multiple Grand Slams on pure tennis ability alone.


  • Options
    #177
    mansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭mansize


    Prediction for today
    6-3, 6-2, 6-0


  • Options
    #178
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    Some of her talent/ability/skill come from her physical build though but they're still natural abilities/skills/talents. You can't separate them.

    Don't forget her temperament which was one of the best I've seen for a female tennis player.
    Whilst it isn't as good as it was, she is still a top temperament.
    Temperament is huge in the women's game, too many chokers and bottlers in it.


  • Options
    #179
    Wicklow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Wicklow Brave


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Therefore, I feel her success is based more on her freak natural build (for a woman's tennis player) as opposed her sheer talent as a player.

    I'm sorry but to say that she has a 'freak' natural build for a professional woman's tennis player is absolutely ludicrous. People have always over exaggerated Serena Williams's strength (I'm not going to say why but it doesn't take a genius to work it out).
    She's 5'9'' and 70kg. For comparison (quick Google search):
    Davenport 6'3'' and 80kg
    Mauresmo 5'9'' 69kg
    Clijsters 5'8'' 68kg
    Muguruza 6'0'' 74kg
    Stosur 5'7'' 68KG
    Kuznetsova 5'9'' 73kg
    Lisicki 5'10'' 70kg
    Konta 5'10'' 70kg

    So there you can see some players almost identical in height and weight to Serena yet I've never heard anyone talk about their 'freak build'. So relative to her peers her build is not at all 'freakish'.


  • Options
    #180
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,410 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Wicklow Brave wrote: »
    I'm sorry but to say that she has a 'freak' natural build for a professional woman's tennis player is absolutely ludicrous. People have always over exaggerated Serena Williams's strength (I'm not going to say why but it doesn't take a genius to work it out).
    She's 5'9'' and 70kg. For comparison (quick Google search):
    Davenport 6'3'' and 80kg
    Mauresmo 5'9'' 69kg
    Clijsters 5'8'' 68kg
    Muguruza 6'0'' 74kg
    Stosur 5'7'' 68KG
    Kuznetsova 5'9'' 73kg
    Lisicki 5'10'' 70kg
    Konta 5'10'' 70kg

    So there you can see some players almost identical in height and weight to Serena yet I've never heard anyone talk about their 'freak build'. So relative to her peers her build is not at all 'freakish'.

    The only one even close to Serena in build would be Stosur, and she's not even close herself. The rest are all your average build of a female tennis player, bar Clijsters who normally looked a bit chubby. Serena is built like a bull and has serious muscles on her arms and legs. She consistently has the most powerful serve and forehand because of this. She's a strong woman with an extremely powerful game by women's tennis standards. Some days it's impossible to break her due to the sheer power. There's nothing wrong with that, it goes a long way to making her the best (at least top 3) player ever. But in saying that, she isn't that far ahead of everyone due to raw skill and talent, it's the power which has separated her from the rest and made her so successful.

    Again, it's like saying Roddick is more talented than Gasquet because he achieved more through sheer power, despite being roundly criticised for having a limited game. He was a better player though, as he achieved much more, but it wasn't due to talent, it was due to relying on a bullet serve and forehand. And I'm not implying Serena has a limited game at all, she doesn't


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Men's final about to start. Djokovic needs to play more like he did against Giles Simon than against Fed for Murray to have a chance.


Advertisement