Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Devilito, Mar 31, 2013.
"Sat" is the right term because Ferry was unable to stand at the end
Thanks for the link!
I'm amazed at the audacity of those two guys to attempt to entertain the crowd with skill and a desire to win instead of the current instinct to simply be the last man standing.
Sampras/Becker would probably have to play three 5-set matches to accumulate 95 UEs!
yeah, and at least they'd be making UEs trying to be aggressive and hit winners as opposed to running out of gas after a 60 shot rally.
Being Easter and all, what would you pick? Sitting through Murray Ferrer or… crucifixion. I'm thinking....
nice vid. back in the good ol' days, when matches were under ten minutes long.
This is better. It just is.
Easter is all about resurrection, which your link was able to accomplish to my sagging tennis spirit. The crucifixion happened on Good Friday, also the day Haas couldn't close out that mug Ferrer!
When and if they speed up the surfaces again, and the game becomes a contest of winners/shotmaking once again, I wonder if people are going to say:
"Remember the good old days? We had routine 4-5 hours of grindfests, and a good match is marked by unbelievable unforce error numbers instead. And the last set consists of MTO and cramp rub-down. THAT'S how you know it's a good match. None of this 1-2 punch nonsense on fast surfaces."
Thank you! Matches today are such a complete bore.
In honor of this match I went out after and had a 2 hr practice. Thought of Murray and aimed a little higher over the net with my FH. Never saw him hit so many relatively easy FHs into the net.
The sad part is the ATP will not read any of the comments about this match on the internet. Business as usual until ticket sales and TV ratings tank for an extended period.
I don't blame the guys. It wasn't like they were pushing non-stop. Ferrer was trying to hit aggressively but the balls just were not going anywhere. Maybe if they forced themselves to approach on every shot, their shots would have more bite?
I had a hit yesterday on similar gritty courts and man it was impossible to finish points. In my frustration to do so, I was missing balls by miles. Could not get anywhere near the net when the balls that went in refused to stay consistently deep.
Thanks for the link! Now this is world class tennis as it should ne played!
Yes, it was really probable that a match played in extreme heat and humidity on slow courts was going to be a high quality winner-fest.
Not sure how those ratings are going to plummet if people like you keep watching the entire three hours of "pushing/grinding" and then proceed to complain about it endlessly afterwards.
I know, I know. Every single before Nadal/Djokovic/Murray existed was as high quality and exciting as Federer/Safin 2005 or Sampras/Becker 1996. Uninteresting finals emerged the second those three "mugs" hit the scene.
i thought it was much more fun than the aussie open final...
On balance, I think I'll go with Murray-Ferrer. At least I can have a nice little doze when watching a long, tennis match. Not sure that would be possible if someone nailed me to a cross!
By "crucifixion" I take it you refer to the 6 hour AO final between Ralph and Noel ?
Becker vs Sampras?
Edit: Nailed it!
It is my belief no top players of today except Federer and Tsonga can live in that kind of lightning first strike shotmaking environment.
Just imagine the latest Miami final if they had to play 5 sets which they had to do not so long ago. It would have ended before set 4 started.
Has Ferrer ever shown this much fatigue/cramps before? Has Murray?
It was 78 F. That's not really hot nor was heat as being a factor mentioned by the Sky commentators.
it's like the difference between Group B rally vs Nascar
humidity makes heat worse... it was hot and humid... also, if they knew it would be a 5 setter they would have both gone fro more aggressive tennis
LOL...you guys are pathetic. That sampras/becker match is a borefest. yesterdays match with murray/ferrer was far more entertaining and displayed a much better skillset and athleticism.
This was the worst match I've watched in a long time, and that says a lot considering Nadal wasn't even in it.
You guys want to go back to aces and 2 shot rallies.
No thanks. I remember those days, they weren't that great as the rackets got too powerful.
Not at all, these are the sort of matches we cannot get now, the contrast in styles
Nah, I want to go back to when players hit more winners than errors.
I juat watched Tsonga and Blake from a couple weeks ago. Highly entertaining match. So there are other styles out there. But that Becker Sampras match was ace ace ace 2shot rally, 3 shot rally, ace. Ugh.
And whats with that hangdog look every time the point was over from Sampras? He had great style when hitting but no pizzazz at all, his era was kinda boring if you ask me.
Give me Fed, Nadal, Dkoker, Tsonga etc any day of the week. They can speed up the courts a,little bit but the 80's and pre Fed 90's tennis kinda sucked... to me anyway. Its when I started to lose interest.
Not going to happen. I want to see rallies. Speed up the courts slightly, sure, but I enjoy baseline rallies vs ace fests and two shot rallies like the supposed golden days. Otherwise get ready for the John Isner era. Please. No thanks.
Love those three matches!!!
Pioline lacked the killer instinct, but he was technically complete and great player.
I love that era of tennis, so many good and different players.
You well know that Isner would not succeed in any era because tennis is a sport of movement and he's too tall to move well, you know this.
It should be more like this Federer - Tomic match.
I was fortunate to be at Wimbledon last year to watch Tsonga v Fish, a very enjoyable match, real old school stuff, crowd loved it as well.
But I would like to see this kind of match in a final live on television, not on court 2 at Wimbledon. These types of players are not getting to big finals.
I watched until the third set only to see a women's match break out.
Number 2 in the world, really? The whole third set I kept thinking "Why doesn't he come in and shorten the points?" He's 6'3, fast on his feet, and has a long reach. Use all of that to advantage instead of playing like your 5'9 opponent.
A win's a win, but that was uninspiring tennis on Murray's part.
Federer approached the net more than 50 times in the match as well IIRC.
QFT...it's mindboggling to me how, with so much on the line, Murray came out so flat. Lendl's mission is far from complete if Murray ever looks as bad as he did yesterday.
Right, that's why Goran Ivansevic won Wimbledon at 32 years old and no movement at all, just ace ace ace boom boom boom. Sounds like John Isner to me. You probably just forgot what it was like. I grew up in that era. Tennis was booooring. Even Sampras was tossing like 25 ace matches out there. Nothing more boring than that.
wow, what a difference 17 years makes. :shock:
Goran moved a lot better than isner and was far superior at the net. Also, Goran's return game was better. Guy could hit more than two shots in a row. Isner can't break anyone's serve. All of his matches end up in 5 set tie breaks, even the three set matches!
Right, right. That's why Isner beat Federer at Davis Cup on clay last year, and beat Djokovic at Indian Wells last year. Took Nadal to 5 sets at the French after having a 2-1 lead in sets.
He's also beat Berdych (twice), Tsonga, Monfils, Haas, and Raonic.
Does he have movement issues? Yes. But speed the courts up, and his serve would be absolutely unreturnable, and I think he'd break enough times to be able to win a major at a place like Wimbledon. We'll never know, because the place is so slow now. And that's fine. I Don't LIKE Isner's style, or that style of tennis.
The speed of that grass is so fast.
True, that was an excellent match by Federer, the best match he played in a number of years in my opinion.
But remember, once Federer fades from the scene we will not see that kind of tennis, which is why it is important for younger players to come through who want to play that style and be more aggressive around the net and get to compete at the highest level. Can Tsonga make a Wimbledon final?
Regardless of the speed, Isner is not good enough to make major finals in any era. I like how you use an extreme example to try to make a point, unfortunately for you because you are using an extreme example, it almost renders your point invalid. No amount of looking at this from an array of angles and the odd upset he creates here and there will change the fact that Isner is not good enough to make major finals so there is no point comparing him to people like Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic who were talented players and quite a few inches shorter.
But I'm sure you will keep trying though ;-0
68 times, to be exact. He won 53 of those points.
Ok, I guess beating the #1 and #2 players in the world the last couple of years is "extreme". As well as beating almost everyone in the top 10.
Also, JohnnyMac and Courier have both said he's talented enough to make it to the finals of majors.
So to say Isner would never make it to a final with the lightning fast courts of the 80's and early 90's seems illogical to me. I think that any tennis expert would be more likely to agree with me than you.
But I guess we'll never know.
who hasn't beaten isner this year? he's lost as many matches as he has won. players have figured him out and know that all you have to do is block back the serve right to his feet as Hewitt demonstrated masterfully at IW. on faster courts they'd be outright return winners.
also, isner can barely break serve now, how is he going to win return games when players are bombing low bouncing serves past him with his wobbly knees. the current high bouncing surfaces help him (why he holds relatively well on clay). Hewitt was returning serves from head level at IW. Federer would half volley those serves on fast hardcourt.
Separate names with a comma.