Wimbledon 2018

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'd have Nadal ahead of Federer for the US, with both behind Novak. Federer, going by what I've seen of him, has gone backwards since last year, while Nadal has improved

I think so. Nadal and Nole are neck and neck. There was literally a bounce of a ball between them yesterday. Nadal seems to still have that insane intensity. Nole coming back to peak levels. I just can’t see a 37 year old Fed beating either at Flushing Meadows, should all three progress...

Paddy Power has all three at “3/1.”

Nole 3/1, Nadal at 10-3 and Fed at 7/2

EagererBeaver

Don't forget the impact the wind can have at FM either. It can absolutely wreak havoc.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

I think so. Nadal and Nole are neck and neck. There was literally a bounce of a ball between them yesterday. Nadal seems to still have that insane intensity. Nole coming back to peak levels. I just can’t see a 37 year old Fed beating either at Flushing Meadows, should all three progress...

Paddy Power has all three at “3/1.”

Nole 3/1, Nadal at 10-3 and Fed at 7/2

Ye I think Nadal is playing as well as he can at the moment, while there is still some further improvement in Djokovic. There may not be, and I hope not, in the sense we get another close Nadal-Djokovic game. Wouldn't like Novak to straight set him

Chivito550

Jaysus didn’t realize Eurosport don’t have US Open this year! Disaster. I’ll be seeing none of it so, other than the 2 days I’m actually there at Flushing Meadows.

NoviGlitzko

walshb wrote: »

I think so. Nadal and Nole are neck and neck. There was literally a bounce of a ball between them yesterday. Nadal seems to still have that insane intensity. Nole coming back to peak levels. I just can’t see a 37 year old Fed beating either at Flushing Meadows, should all three progress...

Paddy Power has all three at “3/1.”

Nole 3/1, Nadal at 10-3 and Fed at 7/2

With age into consideration, I think you guys underestimate Fed. I remember watching endless Nadal/Nole matches in 2011 and thinking this is an insane level that no one can reach, which it was, only for Federer to go on and dismantle Novak in the FO semi 2011. Federer takes so much time away from the opposition because of how early he hits the ball. Nole/Nadal stand so far behind the baseline. As epic as the SW19 semi between them was, it simply wouldn't happen against this new Federer regardless of the Anderson result. Roger said in the presser that he had a day where (in other words) 'I wasn't feeling it, sometimes we have off days, luckily it doesn't happen to me very often but today it did'. I believe him. Could be wrong of course, but yeah.

The Golden Miller

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

With age into consideration, I think you guys underestimate Fed. I remember watching endless Nadal/Nole matches in 2011 and thinking this is an insane level that no one can reach, which it was, only for Federer to go on and dismantle Novak in the FO semi 2011. Federer takes so much time away from the opposition because of how early he hits the ball. Nole/Nadal stand so far behind the baseline. As epic as the SW19 semi between them was, it simply wouldn't happen against this new Federer regardless of the Anderson result. Roger said in the presser that he had a day where (in other words) 'I wasn't feeling it, sometimes we have off days, luckily it doesn't happen to me very often but today it did'. I believe him. Could be wrong of course, but yeah.

As in Federer would beat them, or the game would just be shorter? If Nadal or Djokovic play well, they beat Federer.

NoviGlitzko

The Golden Miller wrote: »

As in Federer would beat them, or the game would just be shorter? If Nadal or Djokovic play well, they beat Federer.

Don't agree at all. It all depends on form/fitness etc. with the top 3. In 2017 Federer would've beaten both of these guys IMO. Too heavily attacking for either of them. I still think Fed has the level to beat both, no doubt about it. If USO comes and Fed meets Nadal as an example, my moneys on Fed. Too aggressive on fast courts for him to live with. Rafa was simply blown away in IW 2017. Roger played **** in Miami same year and still won in straights. But I go back to my point again; Roger is underestimated because he wasn't in contention here at Wimbly.

The Golden Miller

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Don't agree at all. It all depends on form/fitness etc. with the top 3. In 2017 Federer would've beaten both of these guys IMO. Too heavily attacking for either of them. I still think Fed has the level to beat both, no doubt about it. If USO comes and Fed meets Nadal as an example, my moneys on Fed. Too aggressive on fast courts for him to live with. Rafa was simply blown away in IW 2017. Roger played **** in Miami same year and still won in straights. But I go back to my point again; Roger is underestimated because he wasn't in contention here at Wimbly.

I would have put any amount of money on Federer beating Nadal from last year, up until recently. This year Nadal has seemingly grown in confidence, looks fitter again, made a few adjustments and improvements to his game and has gone up a few levels. When Nadal is in this form, he usually has Federer's number, and Novak his. Novak or Nadal will beat Federer comfortably imo

NoviGlitzko

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I would have put any amount of money on Federer beating Nadal from last year, up until recently. This year Nadal has seemingly grown in confidence, looks fitter again, made a few adjustments and improvements to his game and has gone up a few levels. When Nadal is in this form, he usually has Federer's number, and Novak his. Novak or Nadal will beat Federer comfortably imo

One thing I've noticed is Nadal has his serve 2010 mojo back. I was also impressed with how more inclined to be aggressive he was and not moonball in a rally against Novak.

I'm not saying Rafa can't beat Fed. Anything can happen in sport. However, the adjustment Federer made to his backhand is simply far too great (in my eyes) that Rafa can't trouble now like he could before. For many years coach Toni Nadal's plan was to attack the RF BH and it worked, then Roger switched rackets and revamped his BH in 2017 and could hit clean winners off it. Naturally, Nadal started hitting to the FH because he was getting no joy with the BH side. It changes the whole dynamic of the rallies.

Fed is 30-2 in GS since his comeback at the AO. He took peak 2011 Nole to USO brink and beat him at the FO 2011. I believe he's a better player now because of his changes to his game. Saying he can't beat these guys at their peak is absolute rubbish.

walshb

I’ve written Fed off several times, and he comes back to win big. Just think his recent year to 18 months of form has dipped and dropped...

I also think the top three are going to find it tougher, and will need to fight harder than ever to make slam finals..all 30 + now..

Chivito550

Not one of the big 3 have been playing better than ever in the last 18 months. Maybe in certain aspects, but as a whole no. The next gen simply are not stepping up. There is very little talent there, hence they are all still winning. Peak top 3 beats this top 3.

Hector Savage

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Don't forget the impact the wind can have at FM either. It can absolutely wreak havoc.

The roof has sorted that out.
As for Nadal in US Open ... hmm remember the US Open surface has really slown down, it's the most "clay like" surface of the hardcourts.

If Nole could barely beat him on grass, he would lose to him in New York.

Hector Savage

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not one of the big 3 have been playing better than ever in the last 18 months. Maybe in certain aspects, but as a whole no. The next gen simply are not stepping up. There is very little talent there, hence they are all still winning. Peak top 3 beats this top 3.

Indeed, no doubt the next generation are weak, Boris Becker on the BBC saying nowadays it takes longer to mature, not a weak gen blah blah ... but we all know there is an issue here - This US Open will be the last chance for a guy in his 20s to win a slam !!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: I couldn't believe it - had to look that up to confirm.

EagererBeaver

Hector Savage wrote: »

The roof has sorted that out.
As for Nadal in US Open ... hmm remember the US Open surface has really slown down, it's the most "clay like" surface of the hardcourts.

If Nole could barely beat him on grass, he would lose to him in New York.

Can the rain be closed for wind? I thought only rain.

Christy42

Hector Savage wrote: »

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not one of the big 3 have been playing better than ever in the last 18 months. Maybe in certain aspects, but as a whole no. The next gen simply are not stepping up. There is very little talent there, hence they are all still winning. Peak top 3 beats this top 3.

Indeed, no doubt the next generation are weak, Boris Becker on the BBC saying nowadays it takes longer to mature, not a weak gen blah blah ... but we all know there is an issue here - This US Open will be the last chance for a guy in his 20s to win a slam !!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: I couldn't believe it - had to look that up to confirm.

What so you mean? Will this guy not be able to win his 30s? Or is it any guy in their 20s at which point could another 20 year old not do it in Australia?

Sorry just not able to interpret your statement.

lostcat

Djokovic doesn't usually have the best luck or whatever at the US Open, he has only won two after all (in a tournament which should suit him), so I would be hard pressed to place him as out and out favourite.
He got a pretty soft draw at Wimbledon in fairness until the semi, which helped him to get most of the loose play out of his system without being in danger of going out.

its nice to have him back in the mix in any case.

Hector Savage

Christy42 wrote: »

What so you mean? Will this guy not be able to win his 30s? Or is it any guy in their 20s at which point could another 20 year old not do it in Australia?

Sorry just not able to interpret your statement.

My point is the youngest slam winners (Del Potro and Cilic) will turn 30 this September.

So we are about to enter an era where there is no one in their 20s that are grand slam champions.

That is utterly bizarre really.

walshb

osarusan wrote: »

If Nicklaus was transported forward 40 or 50 years in time along with his equipment of those days, he'd be left behind for sure.

.

That is just not true....

50 + years ago he won the Masters with a 17 under......

That's just one tremendous result from 40-50 years ago....

Golf is not near the same as tennis as regards comparisons through eras...

EagererBeaver

Hector Savage wrote: »

My point is the youngest slam winners (Del Potro and Cilic) will turn 30 this September.

So we are about to enter an era where there is no one in their 20s that are grand slam champions.

That is utterly bizarre really.

I was confused too but get you now. Yeah, I guess when you think about how many the Big Three plus Murray (I refuse to label them a Big Four) and Wawrinka have won, it shouldn't be a surprise but when it's there it front of you like that it's really startling.

The younger lads really do need to step up. For all his success, talent and hype, Zverev has made one GS quarter final. One. Embarrassing.

walshb

Hector Savage wrote: »

My point is the youngest slam winners (Del Potro and Cilic) will turn 30 this September.

So we are about to enter an era where there is no one in their 20s that are grand slam champions.

That is utterly bizarre really.

It is bizarre, but I really think this recent spell of the three greats is so so rare. They are monsters of the game, and two of them are still young enough, with the older Federer really being a young type player as regards his style of play. They are so so good that the players with them and coming up behind them juts aren't good enough. They are there, but not good enough. Probably good enough to win slams in any other era...

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

It is bizarre, but I really think this recent spell of the three greats is so so rare. They are monsters of the game, and two of them are still young enough, with the older Federer really being a young type player as regards his style of play. They are so so good that the players with them and coming up behind them juts aren't good enough. They are there, but not good enough. Probably good enough to win slams in any other era...

I think alot of it is mentality with the younger guys. They don't seem to have that bit between their teeth to put guys to the sword, and wilt under pressure. You need a winners mentality and that intensity, these guys seem happy just to be there

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I think alot of it is mentality with the younger guys. They don't seem to have that bit between their teeth to put guys to the sword, and wilt under pressure. You need a winners mentality and that intensity, these guys seem happy just to be there

That's valid, but even from a talent/physical side, all three today are playing brilliant tennis in all areas of the game......

It's almost like three Usain Bolt's in the same era.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

That is just not true....

50 + years ago he won the Masters with a 17 under......

That's just one tremendous result from 40-50 years ago....

Golf is not near the same as tennis as regards comparisons through eras...

Its not a case of being true or not. Its an opinion which you dont happen to agree with, which is fine. I dont agree with yours either.

When Nicklaus won the Masters shooting -17 50 years ago or whenever it was, how did the course set-up compare then to now, out of interest? Since he last won it 30ish years ago, the holes are on average 30-40 yards longer now, not to mention he would have to contend with significantly faster greens. Further, at his peak Nicklaus had an average driving distance of 280y or thereabouts, one of the longest hitters, which would place him somewhere around the 200 mark on the PGA tour now. Not saying he couldn't be competitive, just an illustration of how the game has moved on. The point, just for interest, isnt what Nicklaus would be doing with todays technology.

All sports are pretty much the same i think, even those you might assume wouldn't change that much, such as darts or snooker. All have undergone significant technology advances which makes comparing eras not exactly futile but complicated at the very least.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its not a case of being true or not. Its an opinion which you dont happen to agree with, which is fine. I dont agree with yours either.

When Nicklaus won the Masters shooting -17 50 years ago or whenever it was, how did the course set-up compare then to now, out of interest? Since he last won it 30ish years ago, the holes are on average 30-40 yards longer now, not to mention he would have to contend with significantly faster greens. Further, at his peak Nicklaus had an average driving distance of 280y or thereabouts, one of the longest hitters, which would place him somewhere around the 200 mark on the PGA tour now. Not saying he couldn't be competitive, just an illustration of how the game has moved on. The point, just for interest, isnt what Nicklaus would be doing with todays technology.

All sports are pretty much the same i think, even those you might assume wouldn't change that much, such as darts or snooker. All have undergone significant technology advances which makes comparing eras not exactly futile but complicated at the very least.

The claim is not true. End of.

Golf is a completely different sport with far too many variables to blanket apply such a claim...

Look through the years and the scores and that tells me that there is every chance players from 40 years ago could compete and shoot winning scores, or scores that would put them in contention.

Yes, equipment and knowledge have improved, which can help the overall game, but the fact that there are many other variable to consider, trying to gauge it is very difficult.

Unless I am wrong and suddenly today golf courses and weather patterns have changed so much?

The Open is a links course, always has been as far as I know. Played on the same courses for decades......Some very imnpressive scores from years ago and some "poor" scores from years ago that saw wins. Same as today and recently.

Here's one.....Nicklaus with today's technology and knowledge may have been even better (as in physically a better player) than years ago? May have....not definitely, as like I said, there are other variables out of our and his control (that would see him still shoot poorly) that can hugely influence the game of golf.

Chivito550

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its not a case of being true or not. Its an opinion which you dont happen to agree with, which is fine. I dont agree with yours either.

When Nicklaus won the Masters shooting -17 50 years ago or whenever it was, how did the course set-up compare then to now, out of interest? Since he last won it 30ish years ago, the holes are on average 30-40 yards longer now, not to mention he would have to contend with significantly faster greens. Further, at his peak Nicklaus had an average driving distance of 280y or thereabouts, one of the longest hitters, which would place him somewhere around the 200 mark on the PGA tour now. Not saying he couldn't be competitive, just an illustration of how the game has moved on. The point, just for interest, isnt what Nicklaus would be doing with todays technology.

All sports are pretty much the same i think, even those you might assume wouldn't change that much, such as darts or snooker. All have undergone significant technology advances which makes comparing eras not exactly futile but complicated at the very least.

Golf is also a much more international sport now. Back 40-50 years ago it was really just USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, South Africa.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

That's valid, but even from a talent/physical side, all three today are playing brilliant tennis in all areas of the game......

It's almost like three Usain Bolt's in the same era.

Of course they are 3 of the greats, it's just hard to gauge where they are relative to where they were. I do think it's more to do with deficiencies in the younger guys though, which is allowing their dominance to continue. If you had a young Lleyton Hewitt breaking through right now, he'd be winning a few slams, and would certainly be putting it up to the big 3 in a way the young guys today aren't

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Of course they are 3 of the greats, it's just hard to gauge where they are relative to where they were. I do think it's more to do with deficiencies in the younger guys though, which is allowing their dominance to continue. If you had a young Lleyton Hewitt breaking through right now, he'd be winning a few slams, and would certainly be putting it up to the big 3 in a way the young guys today aren't

Peak Hewitt doesn't do any damage to the three today.....they are too strong. He is not strong enough. Fed a horrible match for him, as is Nadal and Nole. He has nothing on them....and he doesn't even have the power they have...

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Peak Hewitt doesn't do any damage to the three today.....they are too strong. He is not strong enough. Fed a horrible match for him, as is Nadal and Nole. He has nothing on them....and he doesn't even have the power they have...

Don't agree, Hewitt was operating at a higher level until 2002, niggling injuries and his speed and form slowly deteriorated subsequently. Novak struggled with him twice at Wimbledon, Hewitt a shadow of the player he was. Another example was in 2010 at Roland Garros, Hewitt probably gave Nadal his hardest game of the tournament on his favourite surface. Hewitt was broken in each set, but they were tough breaks, and Hewitt also had break points. This is peak Nadal against Hewitt years past it. Hewitt up until 2002, would be beating/competing with this top 3, the way this next generation aren't. And I think you over-estimate the big 3 relative to other era's, not taking cross generation variables into account all that much.

And the Hewitt comparison was really about the comparisons to the new guys breaking through, and their lack of a real will to win and attitude compared to a young Hewitt. It's what you'd expect from new players trying to break through

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

The claim is not true. End of.

Golf is a completely different sport with far too many variables to blanket apply such a claim...

Look through the years and the scores and that tells me that there is every chance players from 40 years ago could compete and shoot winning scores, or scores that would put them in contention.

Yes, equipment and knowledge have improved, which can help the overall game, but the fact that there are many other variable to consider, trying to gauge it is very difficult.

Unless I am wrong and suddenly today golf courses and weather patterns have changed so much?

The Open is a links course, always has been as far as I know. Played on the same courses for decades......Some very imnpressive scores from years ago and some "poor" scores from years ago that saw wins. Same as today and recently.

Here's one.....Nicklaus with today's technology and knowledge may have been even better (as in physically a better player) than years ago? May have....not definitely, as like I said, there are other variables out of our and his control (that would see him still shoot poorly) that can hugely influence the game of golf.

I'll repeat again, its nothing to do with truth. Its an opinion. You dont win by putting End of. Doesnt work like that.

But you're correct in citing the Open. The beauty of the Open is its the one golf event where less of a premium is put on power and length and more on accuracy and simply holding your nerve on what for many golfers is unfamiliar terrain. Tom Watson coming whisker close to winning in 2009 will always be one of my favourite sporting memories. The main weapon of links courses is the weather but how many golf tournaments are staged on links courses? 3 at most I think. They are the exceptions rather than the rule.

We're not talking about variables. We're talking the simple fact that a short hitter - which is hypothetically what Nicklaus would be in todays era - operates at a significant disadvantage on the majority of todays courses, certainly in the US anyway. He'd face a situation where he'd be playing approach shots with long irons or even fairway woods against guys with mid to short irons in their hands.

Thats just how it is. End of. (Am I doing this right?)

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic isn't it? I'd still hold Nicklaus to be the greatest golfer of all time, but I wouldnt be too definitive about it because i find it difficult to compare eras. The same for tennis and most other sports. Thats the only point i was trying to make.

dominatinMC

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye I think Nadal is playing as well as he can at the moment, while there is still some further improvement in Djokovic. There may not be, and I hope not, in the sense we get another close Nadal-Djokovic game. Wouldn't like Novak to straight set him

Very much doubt that's going to happen. Even when peak Nole beat Nadal convincingly in the 2011 Wimbledon and US Open finals, both were 4 setters. Much like Federer, Nadal has made adjustments (and improvements) to his game to counteract Nole. Although these adjustments weren't enough in the semi-final last week, from what I saw, I think Nadal has the weapons and gameplan to ensure the matchup remains as competitive as it was during the semi-final.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye Nadal's serve has improved in recent times, as his backhand has, while Novak's backhand has gone backwards. The bit in bold could be the difference tomorrow. In their epic 4 and 5 setter games, it's always Nadal just about hanging onto his own serve, while Novak breezes through his own. If Nadal gets more of a look in to Novak's serve on a consistent basis, it could be a long long game

A bit late to the party here, but just reflecting on the epic semi-final. Ultimately, it transpired something along the lines above. As others have stated, Nadal had plenty of opportunities on Noles serve, but Noles serve saved him time and again (which I was slightly surprised by, as I didn't realise his serve was so good). Whilst Nadals serve has improved a lot, it just wasn't good enough to stand-up to the consistent returning of Djokovic. One interesting thing I noted from the matchup was that Nadal was a lot more aggressive than I've seen him vs. Nole in the past, and usually found himself on top in the baseline exchanges and rallies (which wasn't always the case). I think the backhand (cc in particular) has brought a new dimension to this matchup, and should be interesting going forward. Djokovics defense was absolutely insane at time, his flexibility which allows him to retrieve shots is truly something to behold!

MisterAnarchy

Joe_ Public wrote: »

We're not talking about variables. We're talking the simple fact that a short hitter - which is hypothetically what Nicklaus would be in todays era - operates at a significant disadvantage on the majority of todays courses, certainly in the US anyway. He'd face a situation where he'd be playing approach shots with long irons or even fairway woods against guys with mid to short irons in their hands.

Thats just how it is. End of. (Am I doing this right?)

Nicklaus ,a short hitter ? What the hell are you talking about ?

Further, at his peak Nicklaus had an average driving distance of 280y or thereabouts, one of the longest hitters, which would place him somewhere around the 200 mark on the PGA tour now.

Really ,you think you can just compare distances like that ,completely different equipment ,before custom fitting ,ball advances etc .

Why would Nicklaus be a short hitter ???

Have a read of this and come back to us
https://www.pga.com/golf-instruction/golf-buzz/how-far-would-golfs-legends-drive-ball-using-modern-equipment

The Golden Miller

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Nicklaus ,a short hitter ? What the hell are you talking about ?



Really ,you think you can just compare distances like that ,completely different equipment ,before custom fitting ,ball advances etc .

Why would Nicklaus be a short hitter ???

Have a read of this and come back to us
https://www.pga.com/golf-instruction/golf-buzz/how-far-would-golfs-legends-drive-ball-using-modern-equipment

I think his point was Nicklaus would be a short hitter if you plucked him straight out of the past, as Walsh was saying you could still make direct comparisons due to playing the course, not the man. Joe is making the point Nicklaus would be a huge hitter today, adjusted for improvements in the game

RosyLily

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats just how it is. End of. (Am I doing this right?)

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic isn't it? I'd still hold Nicklaus to be the greatest golfer of all time, but I wouldnt be too definitive about it because i find it difficult to compare eras. The same for tennis and most other sports. Thats the only point i was trying to make.

Yes it is. Try to stay on topic please.

Hector Savage

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I was confused too but get you now. Yeah, I guess when you think about how many the Big Three plus Murray (I refuse to label them a Big Four) and Wawrinka have won, it shouldn't be a surprise but when it's there it front of you like that it's really startling.

The younger lads really do need to step up. For all his success, talent and hype, Zverev has made one GS quarter final. One. Embarrassing.

I know, I'm so dissapointed in Zverev, he is 21 ... by the time Nadal was 21 he had about 3 slams ..

The Golden Miller

dominatinMC wrote: »

Very much doubt that's going to happen. Even when peak Nole beat Nadal convincingly in the 2011 Wimbledon and US Open finals, both were 4 setters. Much like Federer, Nadal has made adjustments (and improvements) to his game to counteract Nole. Although these adjustments weren't enough in the semi-final last week, from what I saw, I think Nadal has the weapons and gameplan to ensure the matchup remains as competitive as it was during the semi-final.



A bit late to the party here, but just reflecting on the epic semi-final. Ultimately, it transpired something along the lines above. As others have stated, Nadal had plenty of opportunities on Noles serve, but Noles serve saved him time and again (which I was slightly surprised by, as I didn't realise his serve was so good). Whilst Nadals serve has improved a lot, it just wasn't good enough to stand-up to the consistent returning of Djokovic. One interesting thing I noted from the matchup was that Nadal was a lot more aggressive than I've seen him vs. Nole in the past, and usually found himself on top in the baseline exchanges and rallies (which wasn't always the case). I think the backhand (cc in particular) has brought a new dimension to this matchup, and should be interesting going forward. Djokovics defense was absolutely insane at time, his flexibility which allows him to retrieve shots is truly something to behold!

Ye Nadal was on top for much of the exchanges. If he had Novak's serve, he would of won the match. The serve is the real difference. It serve's Nadal well on clay he doesn't have to rely on his serve as much, but definitely a disadvantage on hardcourts and grass. Nadal should of really won this time around regardless I think, so it will be close in the US Open if they play. No roof should also help Nadal

Christy42

To be fair to Zserev he is at about the point when Fed and Djok started winning their slams (though Nole had a bit of a gap after his first).

I would say the slump in tennis has more to do with the 23-28 year olds. I'll give Zserev another year. Certainly he should be making at least a semi final somewhere

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'll repeat again, its nothing to do with truth. Its an opinion. You dont win by putting End of. Doesnt work like that.

The poster made a matter of fact claim. So, I do win by saying it's not true. The poster can't know something like that to be true. Nobody can. The poster did not give a thought or opinion.

Hector Savage

Actually I didn't listen to Irish radio this morning, did anyone cover the Wimbledon final or was the under 14 GAA final between Boggerville and Boggerville_II more important ?

walshb

Hector Savage wrote: »

Actually I didn't listen to Irish radio this morning, did anyone cover the Wimbledon final or was the under 14 GAA final between Boggerville and Boggerville_II more important ?

Probably the GAA trumped it...

Give you a right pain in the hoop that incessant GAA sh1t!

walshb

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Don't agree, Hewitt was operating at a higher level until 2002, niggling injuries and his speed and form slowly deteriorated subsequently. Novak struggled with him twice at Wimbledon, Hewitt a shadow of the player he was. Another example was in 2010 at Roland Garros, Hewitt probably gave Nadal his hardest game of the tournament on his favourite surface. Hewitt was broken in each set, but they were tough breaks, and Hewitt also had break points. This is peak Nadal against Hewitt years past it. Hewitt up until 2002, would be beating/competing with this top 3, the way this next generation aren't. And I think you over-estimate the big 3 relative to other era's, not taking cross generation variables into account all that much.

And the Hewitt comparison was really about the comparisons to the new guys breaking through, and their lack of a real will to win and attitude compared to a young Hewitt. It's what you'd expect from new players trying to break through

Not saying he doesn't do well and compete. He absolutely does, and he has. Just think he wouldn't break them, as in displace any of them. He may well grab a major here and there, ala Murray, but I think he'd be a clear 4th in the group.

What slam can we give him? Grass I see Fed always beating him. Nadal on grass and Nole on grass, from what I have seen would beat him most times.

Clay? I'd back all three over him with confidence....

He has a hard court chance......

Hector Savage

walshb wrote: »

Probably the GAA trumped it...

Give you a right pain in the hoop that incessant GAA sh1t!

I mean it's Ireland fair enough GAA takes priority, but when they don't even mention tennis or get it completely arseways it's really annoying.

Usually they won't even mention a grand slam result if it's not Wimbledon.

Chivito550

Hector Savage wrote: »

Actually I didn't listen to Irish radio this morning, did anyone cover the Wimbledon final or was the under 14 GAA final between Boggerville and Boggerville_II more important ?

We won 2 World Under 20 Championship silver medals in athletics at the weekend. The women's 4x100m relay and Sommer Lecky in the high jump. Both exceptional achievements. We’d only won 2 medals in the 32 years history of the championships, and now have won 2 in 2 days. I didn’t listen to the radio over the weekend but I sincerely hope this got more attention than rubbish GAA matches in front of a two thirds empty Croke Park, or tennis match between a Serb and a South African.

paulie21

Can't blame radio stations for talking about GAA, Rugby and football thats what the majority of the audience wants, sports like tennis and athletics are niche sports in Ireland

walshb

paulie21 wrote: »

Can't blame radio stations for talking about GAA, Rugby and football thats what the majority of the audience wants, sports like tennis and athletics are niche sports in Ireland

True..

But as regards GAA, and Rugby to a lesser extent, there’s a huge contingent who couldn’t give a toss about the sport, but they daren’t show that...gotta’ keep up the facade that they like it...makes them feel Irish...

Sorry, bit off topic..

EagererBeaver

The Off the Ball lads regularly talk about tennis with Luke Jensen of ESPN.

It's covered appropriately for its profile in Ireland, i.e. a bit of coverage towards the business end of each GS, moreso at Wimbledon.

Weepsie

Chivito550 wrote: »

We won 2 World Under 20 Championship silver medals in athletics at the weekend. The women's 4x100m relay and Sommer Lecky in the high jump. Both exceptional achievements. We’d only won 2 medals in the 32 years history of the championships, and now have won 2 in 2 days. I didn’t listen to the radio over the weekend but I sincerely hope this got more attention than rubbish GAA matches in front of a two thirds empty Croke Park, or tennis match between a Serb and a South African.

There was decent enough coverage of the athletics. The world cup took most air time though.

Bash GAA, but the Limerick Kilkenny match was an absolutely brilliant sporting spectacle. As good as anything else you'll see (the gaelic football as ever was awful)

On the topic of competing with the big 3 (and Murray), Del Potro might have had a say and taken some slams had he been less inury prone, and looked after himself better. He was only 20/21 when he best Federer in 2009 and looked like he could go on to great things.

Rollo Fox

walshb wrote: »

Probably the GAA trumped it...

Give you a right pain in the hoop that incessant GAA sh1t!

Yeah your dead right, the media should clearly give preference to much much less popular sports thereby reducing their audience and advertising revenue . It's what all the intelligent media outlets who want to make a profit do.How foolish of newstalk not to give preference to something much less popular.

Rollo Fox

walshb wrote: »

True..

But as regards GAA, and Rugby to a lesser extent, there’s a huge contingent who couldn’t give a toss about the sport, but they daren’t show that...gotta’ keep up the facade that they like it...makes them feel Irish...

Sorry, bit off topic..

Stop talking nonsense would you.


It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to have a cut at the GAA, there were 80,000 people at the 4 matches in Croke Park this weekend and a further 20,000 at the hurling but somehow you think the media should give preference to tennis which is very much a minority sport in Ireland.

There is one tennis club within 10 miles of my house and about 10 GAA clubs in the same radius.

walshb

Rollo Fox wrote: »

Yeah your dead right, the media should clearly give preference to much much less popular sports thereby reducing their audience and advertising revenue . It's what all the intelligent media outlets who want to make a profit do.How foolish of newstalk not to give preference to something much less popular.

Who said the media should give preference to much less popular sports?

You’re all on your own there, pal.

Rollo Fox

walshb wrote: »

Who said the media should give preference to much less popular sports?

You’re all on your own there, pal.

You did by critcising the coverage the GAA news today got at the expense of tennis.Nobody really gives a fiddlers about tennis in Ireland whether you like it or not.There is no interest at grassroots level there is feck all interest in watching it on tv either.

I like watching it but I'm one of the few in my workplace yesterday who did watch the final.