Wimbledon 2019

yerwanthere123

forumdedum wrote: »

I watched the match until 8-8, 5th set. Lost interest there.

Did not seek the result, appeared on Facebook feed. Here I have expressed views.

You watched an almost five hour match, yet gave up as it approached the climax? :pac:

forumdedum

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

You watched an almost five hour match, yet gave up as it approached the climax? :pac:

Yes. I knew what the outcome would be.

lostcat

Have just watched this, having been otherwise engaged yesterday. Some of the excitement/engagement is certainly not there when knowing the result. The final set turned it into an epic, but i thought the first four sets were at a slightly lower level that their previous Wimbledon finals. Djokovics performance being erratic meant that they were not both playing well at the same time for the majority of the match.

It was heroic performance from both players for different reasons, Federer played high level attacking tennis for the guts of five hours and Djokovic, while not really being at it, hung around long and maintained enough clarity of thought to pounch at the key moments.

Statistially, over a season or a career, players generally loose as many tie breaks as they win. Each tie break is a 50-50 scenario. For Djokovic to win 3 in a row in the same match is lotto winning stuff, but Federer seemed to back off slightly in the tiebreaks while Djokovic elevated.

I can see how the match might be viewed as Federer 'being robbed' in light of the above, but Djokovic, through sheer determinism, won the few points that matters, and enough of the rest to keep himself afloat.

sacamano

Cringing at how edgy forumdedum is trying to come across as.

C__MC

Weird game yesterday
I thought Novak would beat him in 4
Was it a classic?

It felt gripping but the ending was weird. Kinda felt roger just throw in the towel knowing he had screwed up prior to the tie break.

Novak is a battler but the public dont seem to connect with him as youd like.

walshb

forumdedum wrote: »

Yes. I knew what the outcome would be.

Your posts come across as you being both angry and frustrated with the result, and it’s not allowing you to be objective. You so wanted a Fed win, and because it didn’t happen, you’re searching for an answer, other than “sometimes these things happen in sport.”

That’s not a dig at you, btw. Many many Fed fans probably feel the same, me included..

Sheridan81

sacamano wrote: »

Cringing at how edgy forumdedum is trying to come across as.

What do you mean!?

If he beat Federer in the longest final ever at Wimbledon, saving two match points in the process-something that's not been done since the forties- in front of his parents and son and millions of viewers around the world, winning his 16th slam with most of the crowd against him, he would just refuse to accept the trophy and tell Sue Barker :

"No thanks, Sue. I was a bit passive out there. Give it to Roger, he deserves it more than me. I'll just go home and have a good long look at myself in the mirror and question what I'm doing with my career. Maybe browse boards for a while. I used to be more attacking you know... once upon a time. In fact, I might just retire. Bye all."

yerwanthere123

C__MC wrote: »

Weird game yesterday
I thought Novak would beat him in 4
Was it a classic?

It felt gripping but the ending was weird. Kinda felt roger just throw in the towel knowing he had screwed up prior to the tie break.

Novak is a battler but the public dont seem to connect with him as youd like.

I didn't see much of the first four sets, but saw all of the last. From the general feedback I've seen online the quality wasn't that high for a lot of the match but the gripping fifth made up for it. Would that be a fair assessment, for those who saw the whole thing?

forumdedum

sacamano wrote: »

Cringing at how edgy forumdedum is trying to come across as.

I don't try to "come across" as anything thank you.

sacamano

Sheridan81 wrote: »

What do you mean!?

If he beat Federer in the longest final ever at Wimbledon, saving two match points in the process-something that's not been done since the forties- in front of his parents and son and millions of viewers around the world, winning his 16th slam with most of the crowd against him, he would just refuse to accept the trophy and tell Sue Barker :

"No thanks, Sue. I was a bit passive out there. Give it to Roger, he deserves it more than me. I'll just go home and have a good long look at myself in the mirror and question what I'm doing with my career. Maybe browse boards for a while. I used to be more attacking you know... once upon a time. In fact, I might just retire. Bye all."

Think you've quoted the wrong quote!

dominatinMC

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I didn't see much of the first four sets, but saw all of the last. From the general feedback I've seen online the quality wasn't that high for a lot of the match but the gripping fifth made up for it. Would that be a fair assessment, for those who saw the whole thing?

Would pretty much agree with that assessment. In the immediate aftermath, some were proclaiming it as an all-time classic (up there with the '07 and '08 finals), but I guess once the adrenaline/endorphins wore off and logic set in, most seemed to conclude that it was a very good match which was somewhat short on high quality tennis but was compensated for by the drama and tension.

forumdedum

Sheridan81 wrote: »

What do you mean!?

If he beat Federer in the longest final ever at Wimbledon, saving two match points in the process-something that's not been done since the forties- in front of his parents and son and millions of viewers around the world, winning his 16th slam with most of the crowd against him, he would just refuse to accept the trophy and tell Sue Barker :

"No thanks, Sue. I was a bit passive out there. Give it to Roger, he deserves it more than me. I'll just go home and have a good long look at myself in the mirror and question what I'm doing with my career. Maybe browse boards for a while. I used to be more attacking you know... once upon a time. In fact, I might just retire. Bye all."

Naturally Djokovic would have to accept the trophy in the public view. I guess Novak isn't aware of his negative approach.

ballyargus

dominatinMC wrote:

Would pretty much agree with that assessment. In the immediate aftermath, some were proclaiming it as an all-time classic (up there with the '07 and '08 finals), but I guess once the adrenaline/endorphins wore off and logic set in, most seemed to conclude that it was a very good match which was somewhat short on high quality tennis but was compensated for by the drama and tension.

There has been excessive fanfare in the wake of this game. A competitive final that would have been passable otherwise has been punctuated by all the drama of the fifth.

It will live long in the memory for the fifth set alone

Jaklmex

I was willing fed on but I knew he'd find a way to lose

forumdedum

Jaklmex wrote: »

I was willing fed on but I knew he'd find a way to lose

So true so often.

walshb

ballyargus wrote: »

There has been excessive fanfare in the wake of this game. A competitive final that would have been passable otherwise has been punctuated by all the drama of the fifth.

It will live long in the memory for the fifth set alone

Agreed.

It was missing the speed and intensity of a peak classic. Seemed to be played at a “casual” pace..

BarryD2

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I didn't see much of the first four sets, but saw all of the last. From the general feedback I've seen online the quality wasn't that high for a lot of the match but the gripping fifth made up for it. Would that be a fair assessment, for those who saw the whole thing?

Didn't see it all either but from what I did, all sets bar the second were very competitive and closely fought. All those could have gone either way.

yerwanthere123

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I didn't see much of the first four sets, but saw all of the last. From the general feedback I've seen online the quality wasn't that high for a lot of the match but the gripping fifth made up for it. Would that be a fair assessment, for those who saw the whole thing?

the quality was decent up until the 5th set (2nd set Fed was v good and Djo not obv)

there were a lot of errors in the 5th set

quality dropped as the tiredness set in

but the 5th was always going to have drama as someone had to win and it was still close / matching games.

Chivito550

BarryD2 wrote: »

Didn't see it all either but from what I did, all sets bar the second were very competitive and closely fought. All those could have gone either way.

The 4th was one way traffic to be honest. Federer got up 2 breaks. Djokovic got one back but result was never in doubt.

The Golden Miller

In the past, when Nadal and Novak have gotten at Federer, he rattles a bit too much and far too often for my liking. He was the better player yesterday, but again rattled when Novak upped it at key times. His on court persona usually goes quite when it's put to Federer, but unusually it was him who kept taking the game to Djokovic yesterday. In reality, Novak has another few gears in him, has just been struggling to get going lately.

Federer was unlucky, but these things go in circles, he's also got the rub of the green more often than not in his career

Federer really failed badly in the key moments - even though he got to match point he didn't convert.

likewise in the tie-breaks

ND owned the big moments and took the match even though he was not at all at his best.

His mental fortitude and ability to pull it out of the bag when really required has to be admired.

the history books are written according to the victors, not the iffers.

walshb

This is just it...swings and roundabouts. Nole won. But folks rather the headline that Fed lost, or better still, blew it...

One of those championship points he got a first serve in. Wasn’t enough, because Nole dealt with it and did the job..

lostcat

I don't think so, Djokovic didn't seem to be playing well enough to blow anything at any stage (apart from the three tiebreakers when he perked up). it was almost like Djokovic happened to find himself a break up without knowing how it happened. If he had been in decent form he would have served it out (and it may not have gotten to a 5th in the first place).

still he can count himself lucky to have won it (and I think he does to be fair)

mzungu

Djokovic kept his nerve at the big points. He didn't play to his usual high standards but he was able to grind out that win.

I like watching Djokovic play. The skill it takes to be able to do what he does is unbelievable. Yes, Federer might be more aesthetically pleasing, but that does not diminish Djokovic's way of playing. Two different styles battled it out yesterday and it was fascinating to watch.

to win 3 tie-breaks in one match, save 2 match points and go on to win it is clutch by any measure.

Rob2D

I still can't believe he even hit second serves on those championship points. He had 40-15 which is 4 free shots. I would have stood up to that line and hit the 4 hardest serves of my life. Someone would have had to lift the trophy for me afterwards.

Rob2D

Now I'm off for another night of restless sleep :pac:

Chivito550

Rob2D wrote: »

Now I'm off for another night of restless sleep :pac:

My exact feelings right now too.

josip

Chivito550 wrote: »

My exact feelings right now too.

Here's a little something to help you all drift off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aglqvAuOaQQ

MisterAnarchy

mzungu wrote: »

Djokovic kept his nerve at the big points. He didn't play to his usual high standards but he was able to grind out that win.

I like watching Djokovic play. The skill it takes to be able to do what he does is unbelievable. Yes, Federer might be more aesthetically pleasing, but that does not diminish Djokovic's way of playing. Two different styles battled it out yesterday and it was fascinating to watch.

I agree it takes skill and he is a great player but and heres the big but ,string technology plays a huge part in both how he and Nadal play .
The Luxilon Effect has contributed hugely to their success .

Great article on it here ,it also explains why so few young players are breaking through .
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

And another one
https://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3064206

rireland

It is kind of sad that the big 3 are all past their peak and Murray always had a big say in things too.

They're still the best 3 but they don't get around the court like they used to. Nadal I remember from his peak was someone who never let a shot by him, he always got it back somehow but Roger managed to hit some easy enough winners going from left to right and vice versa.

Federer doesn't get around the ball as often as he did and the power on the forehand isn't as it once was.

Djockovic too doesn't get around the court like he did in his peak.

Rob2D

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I agree it takes skill and he is a great player but and heres the big but ,string technology plays a huge part in both how he and Nadal play .
The Luxilon Effect has contributed hugely to their success .

Great article on it here ,it also explains why so few young players are breaking through .
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

And another one
https://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3064206

I much prefer synthetic, I even have a nice hexagonal shaped one that a few people in the club like too. But I always end up using poly because the ball goes in a lot more. Although I try to use softer polys. Luxilon is trash IMO.

It must have an awful affect on the kids though. I know some parents who for years have had their kids using RPM Blast. Crazy. They're going to have such arm problems later in life.

Blinky Plebum

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I agree it takes skill and he is a great player but and heres the big but ,string technology plays a huge part in both how he and Nadal play .
The Luxilon Effect has contributed hugely to their success .

Great article on it here ,it also explains why so few young players are breaking through .
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

And another one
https://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3064206

Same applies for every sport.

Technology advances and it favour certain types of players more than others.

Footballs and pitches being of a much better quality today compared to the 1960's and 70's favours the more skilful footballer and attackers generally.

The fact that the Americans haven't adjusted to keep up with the rest is an indictment of their tennis association rather than a reason to be complaining about the sport changing.

yes blaming string technology for the failure of American men is pretty lame.

everyone has access to the same gear.

more like guys like Nadal, ND, Fed, Murray were talented AND worked a lot more during their formative teenage years and kept striving to improve throughout their career compared to their US counterparts.

take someone like Roddick - arrived on the scene but never seemed to develop beyond his initial impact. he was decent but didn't develop really and remained relatively one-dimensional. look at ND - had the talent but took a few years to really apply himself to get the best out of himself and is famous for looking at ways to keep his movement and flexibility at the highest level that his body can achieve for his age. or Fed - adding to his backhand, increasing racquet volume. Nadal, re-engineered his serve.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

yes blaming string technology for the failure of American men is pretty lame.

everyone has access to the same gear.

more like guys like Nadal, ND, Fed, Murray were talented AND worked a lot more during their formative teenage years and kept striving to improve throughout their career compared to their US counterparts.

take someone like Roddick - arrived on the scene but never seemed to develop beyond his initial impact. he was decent but didn't develop really. look at ND - had the talent but took a few years to really apply himself to get the best out of himself and is famous for looking at ways to keep his movement and flexibility at the highest level that his body can achieve for his age. or Fed - adding to his backhand. Nadal, re-engineered his serve.

It’s a reasonable enough explanation to me. If courts have slowed, the ball bounce has become higher, and racquet developments have allowed for more clay court like top-spin play, then it stands to reason that a country which has its players grow up on hard courts are going to struggle.

It’s not really an excuse, but more a statement of fact.

I don’t know how many clay courts there are over in the USA but I’m guessing very few in comparison to Europe and South America. The US tennis federation have to invest heavily in the construction of clay courts and have all the youngsters grow up on them. They have to adapt. The sport has changed sadly.

Murray didn't grow up with clay courts - he went to them (made the decision himself actually as saw how his brother had not really progressed).

find a way...

the US with it's resources relative to other places has no excuse in terms of developing their top talent really and could easily have clay courts at the development facilities where the best juniors could access them.

if they failed to adapt it's on them

Rob2D

glasso wrote: »

Murray didn't grow up with clay courts - he went to them (made the decision himself actually as saw how his brother had not really progressed).

find a way...

the US with it's resources relative to other places has no excuse in terms of developing their top talent really and could easily have clay courts at the development facilities where the best juniors could access them.

if they failed to adapt it's on them

Hardly Roddick's/Blake's fault though. American hard courts reigned supreme up until 15-20 years ago. You can't blame them and the USTA for not being able to see the future.

And you can not just "easily" drop clay courts into places. Have you any idea of the amount of work and money it takes to install/swap out tennis courts? It's mental.

they are not needed everywhere - at the development facilities I said.

or they could send the best ones abroad / provide support to do so - that's what other countries do.

if you can have a guy coming from Scotland winning grand slams you can have Americans winning them.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

they are not needed everywhere - at the development facilities I said.

or they could send the best ones abroad / provide support to do so - that's what other countries do.

if you can have a guy coming from Scotland winning grand slams you can have Americans winning them.

If a country as huge, as economically developed and with a plethora of past tennis legends as the USA have to send tennis players abroad then there is something seriously wrong with the sport.

then build the bloody clay courts it that really is the issue

one or the other!

josip

Someone forgot to tell the Williams sisters that US players have been at a significant disadvantage internationally for the past 15 years.

Christy42

Chivito550 wrote: »

If a country as huge, as economically developed and with a plethora of past tennis legends as the USA have to send tennis players abroad then there is something seriously wrong with the sport.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/05/french-open-polyester-strings-gustavo-kuerten-roland-garros-atp-tennis/65921/

I mean the strings have been around for a while. Surely just practicing with them should give at least as much help as training on clay. I mean using the strings on hard court should be able to replicate using the strings on a hard court.

19 years since they were used to beat Sampras indoors. Murray went to Spain at about 15. At this point the US should have caught up. Especially with the armchair ride they get getting into big events with wildcards.

josip

josip wrote: »

Someone forgot to tell the Williams sisters that US players have been at a significant disadvantage internationally for the past 15 years.

I was going to say that but they don't really apply because they are just physical beasts (with acquired skill through repetition) who won by being stronger in the women's game where the others aren't with big serves and ground-strokes - doesn't matter what surface they were on.

sort of like caster semenya winning the 800m.

they are outliers really and not a good example imo

but the discussion was more about men's tennis.

Rob2D

josip wrote: »

Someone forgot to tell the Williams sisters that US players have been at a significant disadvantage internationally for the past 15 years.

Clay is their least successful surface too though.

Djokovic says he can get the all-time slams number

"“I believe I can achieve it but again there are different things that happen in life that need to correlate, correspond to my desires and if that happens I’ll still play at a high level hopefully.”

walshb

rireland wrote: »

It is kind of sad that the big 3 are all past their peak and Murray always had a big say in things too.

They're still the best 3 but they don't get around the court like they used to. Nadal I remember from his peak was someone who never let a shot by him, he always got it back somehow but Roger managed to hit some easy enough winners going from left to right and vice versa.

Federer doesn't get around the ball as often as he did and the power on the forehand isn't as it once was.

Djockovic too doesn't get around the court like he did in his peak.

Agreed. Very slight step missing for all three. Very slightly that bit slower to retrieve.

I have no issue claiming that Nadal and Nole are D greatest court coverage retrievers in tennis history...Nole probably number 1

Even though Nadal looked a wee bit slower on Friday, some of the gets were astonishing.....

The thing with Roger is that he is so brilliant in all areas, he almost gets overlooked in many areas....

He's top 3 or 5 in areas like service return, court coverage, retrieval ability, backhand fluidity/consistency, mental strength....

It's like you cannot put him number one in any area, because no area stands out due to all areas being exceptional...

His BH has always been talked about as being his weakness. Well, maybe his weakness, but a top 5 BH in history it is..

Others like Wawrinka and Gasquet are lauded for theirs. Neither have as beautiful or "consistent" a BH as Roger...but Roger almost gets penalized because he is so much better than both overall.

dominatinMC

glasso wrote:

Djokovic says he can get the all-time slams number

Nothing surprising there really. Surely all three of them believe this (obviously Fed has the record at the moment). They may not say so publicly, but privately at least, I'd imagine they all believe they can achieve this goal.

walshb

glasso wrote: »

Djokovic says he can get the all-time slams number

Very achievable, but also very un-achievable.... injuries and bit of bad luck here an there...

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

Nothing surprising there really. Surely all three of them believe this (obviously Fed has the record at the moment). They may not say so publicly, but privately at least, I'd imagine they all believe they can achieve this goal.

yes - just an answer to a question I agree.

staying fit, mentally well (has it even been explained why he went "off reservation" for so long there? - issues with his marriage it was postulated), being hungry for it, real contenders not emerging -> all these factors are key obviously.

at the moment I see him getting at least 4 to tie Federer.