Wimbledon 2016 *Warning Post #15*

Harry Palmr

ANDY ANDY ANDY etc.

Harry Palmr

Time to end the net call.

BoJack Horseman

Boom!

straight sets win.

mzungu

A worthy champion.

HeidiHeidi

Bah. That is all.

Mint Sauce

Try and hold it together Andy.

RosyLily

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I've barely managed to keep up with the singles this year.... Who's in the mixed final?

I love watching doubles (except for all the hi-fiving between points which annoys me far more than it should) - the speed of the rallies is just incredible!

Henri Kontinen and Heather Watson vs. Robert Farah and Anna-Lena Groenefeld.

Fierce tears from Andy! All credit to Milos. He'll definitely be lifting a Grand Slam title.

Synode

A lot of errors from Raonic but well deserved for Murray

HeidiHeidi

Awww, that was a great match, and those two are adorable!

Makes a refreshing change from Andy roaring and shouting.

walshb

RosyLily wrote: »

Henri Kontinen and Heather Watson vs. Robert Farah and Anna-Lena Groenefeld.

Fierce tears from Andy! All credit to Milos. He'll definitely be lifting a Grand Slam title.

I didn't see any actual tears, but he did seem very emotional.

Halloween Jack

I was half way up a mountain in Wales today but I taped the match and just caught up.

3 points I want to make, firstly, for all the once a year whoppers who come in here and give out stink any time Andy Murray is going well in Wimbledon, thank you for making his victory all the sweeter.

Secondly, I thought Murray was brilliant today, only faced 2 break points in a single game and completely took raonic's weapons away from him.

Third point, I actually quite like milos, but in the evidence of that match, he's a serve and a forehand, he looked completely bamboozled by Murray's variety, the sliced back hand made a mug of him more than once. He's deffo the most likeable of the 'next generation' but might end up getting caught by zverev and thiem. I hope not.

In conclusion though, big Andy Murray is a legend and deserved Wimbledon champion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Third point, I actually quite like milos, but in the evidence of that match, he's a serve and a forehand, he looked completely bamboozled by Murray's variety, the sliced back hand made a mug of him more than once. He's deffo the most likeable of the 'next generation' but might end up getting caught by zverev and thiem. I hope not.

Of the big tall serve bot men I think Raonic has the most variety to his game. Isner, for example, would bore you to death, he's just a serve. Today though Raonic looked to have little faith in his groundstrokes so was coming into the net a lot but he wasn't much better there.

For such a tight score line he was never really in contention though.

Halloween Jack

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Third point, I actually quite like milos, but in the evidence of that match, he's a serve and a forehand, he looked completely bamboozled by Murray's variety, the sliced back hand made a mug of him more than once. He's deffo the most likeable of the 'next generation' but might end up getting caught by zverev and thiem. I hope not.

Of the big tall serve bot men I think Raonic has the most variety to his game. Isner, for example, would bore you to death, he's just a serve. Today though Raonic looked to have little faith in his groundstrokes so was coming into the net a lot but he wasn't much better there.

For such a tight score line he was never really in contention though.

He was definitely let off the hook a couple of times in a way I'm not sure would have been allowed vs Novak. Was more emphatic than the score line suggests

Floppybits

Was happy to see Murray win yesterday. I thought Raonic performed well for someone who was playing in their first grand slam. He has a bit to work on to get to Murray's and Djokovic's level. He needs to get stronger on the backhand side and up his fitness level.

I think it is Raonic, Theim and Zverev who will make the step up. Still see Murray and Djokovic being a couple of levels ahead of the rest of the players.

Some year for Murray though 3 Slam finals.

NoviGlitzko

Floppybits wrote: »

I think it is Raonic, Theim and Zverev who will make the step up. Still see Murray and Djokovic being a couple of levels ahead of the rest of the players.

Still no GS winner from players born in the 1990's. Younger generation just isn't good enough. Says it all with Fed at #3 being 35 years of age in a few weeks.

Floppybits

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Still no GS winner from players born in the 1990's. Younger generation just isn't good enough. Says it all with Fed at #3 being 35 years of age in a few weeks.

I disagree with you saying they are not good enough. The difference is now that players look after themselves and can play at a higher level longer. It also takes time for the younger players to build up the experience, fitness and also the get right people around them to get them to the next level.

Gone are the days of 17 year old becker, or an 18 year old Nadal unless they are freaks.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I don't know about the ATP but I'm sure on the WTA they introduced new rules about what age a player can turn professional at. It's there to protect the players, look at someone like Capriati for why it's necessary, but it means that they're a few years older before they can start competing week in week out on the Tour and making the money that goes with it, money necessary to make another step up. You get one or two players who will make an impact as soon as they make the move up, Bencic, Bouchard, for example, but for a lot of them they're into their 20's before they start to make any real impact.

Floppybits

Triangle Bell wrote: »

Floppybits wrote: »

I disagree with you saying they are not good enough. The difference is now that players look after themselves and can play at a higher level longer. It also takes time for the younger players to build up the experience, fitness and also the get right people around them to get them to the next level.

Gone are the days of 17 year old becker, or an 18 year old Nadal unless they are freaks.

Do you think Pete Sampras didn't look after himself?

18 year old Nadal would be just as dominant now as he was in 2005. The talent simply isn't there now, it's a weak era for tennis.

I am sure Sampras looked after himself as well as was possible but I bet it is nothing like what the top players do today. What Sampras and players of his era were doing would be considered stone age to what players do today to keep themselves in tip top condition.

NoviGlitzko

Floppybits wrote: »

I disagree with you saying they are not good enough. The difference is now that players look after themselves and can play at a higher level longer. It also takes time for the younger players to build up the experience, fitness and also the get right people around them to get them to the next level.

Gone are the days of 17 year old becker, or an 18 year old Nadal unless they are freaks.

No GS winner for any player born in the 90's means they would be at least 25 years of age now, and it's not as if Nole or Andy is gonna be easy to beat in coming years. Theim & Zverev are talented (the latter could be great given his age), & Raonic has a monster serve, but there isn't anyone who's broken out yet who you can say looks like a new Murray nevermind a Rafa/Fed/Djokovic. The talent simply isn't in it's abundance like it was a decade ago, which is sad.

lostcat

Floppybits wrote: »

I am sure Sampras looked after himself as well as was possible but I bet it is nothing like what the top players do today. What Sampras and players of his era were doing would be considered stone age to what players do today to keep themselves in tip top condition.

Sampras (and everyone before him) could not hold a candle to current players in terms of the length of season and the amount of tournaments played.
Most players did not play all masters events, many skipped the AO.

The tour has never been more draining or required more mental / physical fitness than now (look how mentally and physically shagged Djokovic looks after the past 12 months)

The fact that Murray has 1 more masters title than Sampras is proof of this, the current players play a lot more tournaments.

Whether the skill level / talent is higher is a different question.....

MisterAnarchy

lostcat wrote: »

Sampras (and everyone before him) could not hold a candle to current players in terms of the length of season and the amount of tournaments played.
Most players did not play all masters events, many skipped the AO.

The tour has never been more draining or required more mental / physical fitness than now (look how mentally and physically shagged Djokovic looks after the past 12 months)

The fact that Murray has 1 more masters title than Sampras is proof of this, the current players play a lot more tournaments.

Whether the skill level / talent is higher is a different question.....

I'm not sure Sampras is a good example,as he had the hereditary blood disease Thalassemia.
It causes anemia. It limits physical and athletic endurance and causes those who have it to feel fatigued when forced to perform athletic feats.
Sampras was generally able to control this condition, although he was not known for his endurance in extremely long matches.

Imagine how good he'd be if he didnt have that illness ,the man was one of the greats.

Trengle

The true greats usually win a slam by 21 or 22, there is no one now who really stands out a potential great.

lostcat

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I'm not sure Sampras is a good example,as he had the hereditary blood disease Thalassemia.
It causes anemia. It limits physical and athletic endurance and causes those who have it to feel fatigued when forced to perform athletic feats.
Sampras was generally able to control this condition, although he was not known for his endurance in extremely long matches.

Imagine how good he'd be if he didnt have that illness ,the man was one of the greats.

I wasn't picking on Sampras per se, he was just typical of the era in terms of the amounts of tournaments played.
my point is that professional tennis was almost not a full time sport the way it is now. also attitudes were commonly very different across the board, Becker admitted that he lost motivation at 22, borg stopped playing at 26 (was it), wilander has admitted that once he managed toi knock lendl off the number 1 spot, be lost all motivation, and he wasn't that old...

to think that borg had retired at an age where no current player has won a masters, and that becker basically packed it in at 22 (with 6 majors)....im not sure what it exactly means, but it was a sport where attitudes were a lot different.

someone on an american blog has gone into this in a bit of detail, and has some valid points on the broader picture if you can handle the guff (google 'how rodger federer ruined tennis' to find it)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Trengle wrote: »

The true greats usually win a slam by 21 or 22, there is no one now who really stands out a potential great.

Yeah, if you look at the records, Serena with 22, Federer with 17, nobody on the scene at the moment looks like even coming close.

Djokovic is a bit of an freak in the statistics in that he won one relatively young but didn't win another for 3 years and then dominated. But generally speaking there's nobody looking like ever challenging those records.

Kvitova was the youngest Slam winner for a while on the WTA, I think, but even then she was 21 and has only won 1 Slam since. You'd need someone having 4 or 5 in the bag by the time they're 21 to even look like catching Serena.

On the men's side, okay you get the occasional surprise, Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo, but they're usually freak results and other than Stan winning twice they're rarely repeated. None of the men's tour really look like being Slam winners at the moment, never mind potential greats of the sport.