PDA

View Full Version : Enberg had a premonition


netman
04-28-2007, 08:56 PM
Was watching the Yannick Noah-Mats Wilander 1983 French Open final last night on the Tennis Channel. Besides the joy of seeing actual shot variety on clay, I caught a comment Dick Enberg made that made him look like a prophet.

After Noah put away another smash with some serious vertical leap, Enberg says something to the effect of "Red Auerbach may be calling Noah on the phone tomorrow". Auerbach being the famous coach and GM of the Boston Celtics during their dominance of the NBA.

Little did Enberg know that 23 and 24 years later, Noah's son would be winning the NCAA basketball championship twice and becoming a top 5 NBA draft pick.

-k-

CyBorg
04-28-2007, 10:18 PM
Was watching the Yannick Noah-Mats Wilander 1983 French Open final last night on the Tennis Channel. Besides the joy of seeing actual shot variety on clay, I caught a comment Dick Enberg made that made him look like a prophet.

After Noah put away another smash with some serious vertical leap, Enberg says something to the effect of "Red Auerbach may be calling Noah on the phone tomorrow". Auerbach being the famous coach and GM of the Boston Celtics during their dominance of the NBA.

Little did Enberg know that 23 and 24 years later, Noah's son would be winning the NCAA basketball championship twice and becoming a top 5 NBA draft pick.

-k-

I didn't even know he's Yannick's son.

thejackal
04-28-2007, 10:40 PM
kinda neat, even though if you say enough things, you're bound to luck out.

chiru
04-29-2007, 05:39 PM
kinda neat, even though if you say enough things, you're bound to luck out.

lol, yah kinda like nostradamus, you make enough fantastically unbeleivable predictions and when you get a few right, you'll seem like a prophet.

Azzurri
04-30-2007, 05:11 PM
Enberg and Red A. were roomates in college. Red made mention to Dick about Noah's natural skills that he could probably have played in the NBA if it were not for tennis. Its funny how Enberg made it sound like it was his idea. Also..when Noah's son was born, Red sent basketball tapes and video of Red himself giving tips and advice to Noah's little boy. He had to wait until the little guy was 7 before he showed him the video's. Here is the funny thing...the tapes were made on the day of his birth. I think Red gets the real credit. Amazing. Greatest BB coach ever (Him and Wooden).

35ft6
04-30-2007, 11:13 PM
Another prediction was during the Mac and Lendl match, when Enberg said that you get the sense that if only Lendl could win his first slam, break that barrier, he would win a whole bunch more.

Azzurri
05-01-2007, 09:41 AM
Another prediction was during the Mac and Lendl match, when Enberg said that you get the sense that if only Lendl could win his first slam, break that barrier, he would win a whole bunch more.

think about how many times and announcer said that about the best player never to have won....they say that stuff all the time. Enberg seems like a nice guy, but he is CLUELESS.

35ft6
05-02-2007, 08:55 AM
think about how many times and announcer said that about the best player never to have won....they say that stuff all the time. Enberg seems like a nice guy, but he is CLUELESS. Really? I haven't heard it. I think Lendl had lost 3 slam finals at that point so I can see why somebody would feel that way about him. Who else could you say that about? Pioline?

Azzurri
05-02-2007, 09:48 AM
Really? I haven't heard it. I think Lendl had lost 3 slam finals at that point so I can see why somebody would feel that way about him. Who else could you say that about? Pioline?

What I meant was announcers always use that phrase about the "best player never to win a major" if he could only win his first then the second, third etc. would be easier. Just like winning your first tournament. Winning the first in anything seems to be the toughest hurdel. I am also talking about those "best to never win" type guys, NOT Pioline type guys. Pioline was a good player. No one thought of him as the greatest player not to win a major until he did so. When Lendl finally won his first, its true...he was in his 4th major and it was about time he broke through. Lendl was considered a special player by then. Enberg was not making such a bold prediction.

I have heard that type of phrasing from many announcers in all different sports ; "Once this guy or that guy breaks through look out!!"

I just don't give much credit to Enberg in terms of his understanding of the game. Now his voice and demenour are terrific. I really like the guy. But he is not that smart. Keep in mind, producers whisper a lot of details to these people all the time. Announcers like Mac and Carillo (I know she is disliked) don't need information.

35ft6
05-04-2007, 04:37 PM
What I meant was announcers always use that phrase about the "best player never to win a major" if he could only win his first then the second, third etc. would be easier. Just like winning your first tournament. Winning the first in anything seems to be the toughest hurdel. I am also talking about those "best to never win" type guys, NOT Pioline type guys. Pioline was a good player. No one thought of him as the greatest player not to win a major until he did so. I said Pioline because I can't think of another guy right now who'd been in several Slam finals only to lose each time, which is where Lendl was in that match against Mac.

What he said was "you get the sense if this guy can just break through in a Slam final, he'll win a whole string of them." I've never personally heard a commentator say this. Lendl was in a unique situation. Having lost 3 Slam finals and having number 1 potential. Again, this is not a COMMON situation. Can't think of any other multiple slam winner who lost his first three slam finals.

FiveO
05-04-2007, 05:40 PM
I said Pioline because I can't think of another guy right now who'd been in several Slam finals only to lose each time, which is where Lendl was in that match against Mac.

What he said was "you get the sense if this guy can just break through in a Slam final, he'll win a whole string of them." I've never personally heard a commentator say this. Lendl was in a unique situation. Having lost 3 Slam finals and having number 1 potential. Again, this is not a COMMON situation. Can't think of any other multiple slam winner who lost his first three slam finals.

Agassi.

1990 RG Finalist
1990 USO Finalist
1991 RG Finalist

before winning his first major at Wimbledon in '92.

...and

while no longer having "#1" potential when he finally won Wimby in '01, Ivanisevic, who was a finalist there in '92, '94 and '98 before winning his only major.

35ft6
05-04-2007, 09:50 PM
Agassi.

1990 RG Finalist
1990 USO Finalist
1991 RG Finalist

before winning his first major at Wimbledon in '92.

...and

while no longer having "#1" potential when he finally won Wimby in '01, Ivanisevic, who was a finalist there in '92, '94 and '98 before winning his only major.Cool. I couldn't think of any, but it's not like I was certain it never happened before.

Gasquetrules
05-04-2007, 11:43 PM
Matts Wilander beat Agassi in a terrific five-set match in the 1988 French Open. I believe it was in the finals.

Am I wrong about this? Was the Wilander-Agassi match in the semis?

Agassi played great tennis for four sets, before Wilander crushed him in the fifth.

I think it was in the French finals. If this is the case, then Agassi lost four GS finals before breaking through at Wimbledon in '92.

FiveO
05-05-2007, 05:48 AM
Matts Wilander beat Agassi in a terrific five-set match in the 1988 French Open. I believe it was in the finals.

Am I wrong about this? Was the Wilander-Agassi match in the semis?

Agassi played great tennis for four sets, before Wilander crushed him in the fifth.

I think it was in the French finals. If this is the case, then Agassi lost four GS finals before breaking through at Wimbledon in '92.

That match took place in the semis.

Wilander went on to beat Leconte in the '88 RG final.

Gasquetrules
05-05-2007, 10:12 PM
I have a copy on DVD and recall that the quality of play was very high. Just didn't remember if it was semis or final.

Agassi played very well. He came to the net a lot and with much success. He just wasn't fit enough to maintain the high level of play into the fifth set.

Wilander was very good in 1988. Just ask Ivan Lendl. Lendl beat Agassi in the US Open semis in four sets (dropped the first set to a red-hot Agassi) only to be out-played by Wilander in an excellent final.

Wilander was very fit, and he just made so few errors from the baseline or at net. Very smart, very stingy player in '88.

FiveO
05-05-2007, 10:19 PM
I have a copy on DVD and recall that the quality of play was very high. Just didn't remember if it was semis or final.

Agassi played very well. He came to the net a lot and with much success. He just wasn't fit enough to maintain the high level of play into the fifth set.

Wilander was very good in 1988. Just ask Ivan Lendl. Lendl beat Agassi in the US Open semis in four sets (dropped the first set to a red-hot Agassi) only to be out-played by Wilander in an excellent final.

Wilander was very fit, and he just made so few errors from the baseline or at net. Very smart, very stingy player in '88.

Absolutely.