...another, more nuanced take on the "physicality as the demise of tennis" discussion

[kragster]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

Do you often have trouble with reading comprehension? Or was my sarcasm too subtle for you? I said nothing about the article and simply gave a back handed compliment to one of the most respected tennis writers around these days.

I don't typically agree with your views but in this case it was a major reading comprehension miss by Polaris. I think the problem with people on this forum is a severe lack of ability to isolate a post from a poster.

[li0scc0]

Originally Posted by Lsmkenpo

Here is my nuanced take on this BS article. The author like most other journalist wouldn't know good technical tennis if it hit him right between the eyes. WTF does Federer have to do with Djokovic and Nadal playing a match that included arguably the worst 1st set of tennis ever played in a major final. Somehow it is Federer's fault that they played like crap the first set, or Nadal played like crap the 2nd, and 3rd set? There was perhaps 1 set of good tennis in the 4th, the 5th was more crap because both players were too tired to play good tennis after playing largely uninspired error filled grinding for 5 hours.

The author is simply trying to defend his initial ignorance, with more ignorance.

The tennis played in that final was not the best from either player, the two have played many better matches than this one against one another. The author picks out 4 or 5 good shots hit the entire match and thinks that somehow quantifies the match as great. A Nadal Overhead? LOL, Djokovic returning Nadal's weak second serves deep? LMAO and a couple of good passing shots out of 6 hours of play? LMFAO

I guess a few good shots, some over the top celebrations of UFE's and 5 sets over 7 hours makes it the match of the century, never mind the multitude of uncharacteristic UFEs, or the uninspired play of the first few sets, that didn't happen it is the imagination of these so called bitter fans.

I say anyone who thought that was the match of the century doesn't watch much tennis , or doesn't know the sport very well to make an informed opinion. The author is the editor of Tennis magazine, the most useless sports magazine I have ever had the displeasure of reading, 90% fluff and BS, rarely is there a single article in the entire magazine worth the time to read. Now I know why.

Rewatch this so called match of the century now, without the drama, and if you can stay awake till the end, you will know this match wasn't even the best match of the tournament, let alone match of the century.

Sensational post.
This match was atrocious. I preferred the women's final at the Australian. At least it was over quickly, with the good shots compressed into one hour instead of 5+.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

Do you often have trouble with reading comprehension? Or was my sarcasm too subtle for you? I said nothing about the article and simply gave a back handed compliment to one of the most respected tennis writers around these days.

I have no trouble with reading comprehension. I was not referring to your comment on this thread, but your comment on Tignor's article on that website. So, don't bark up the wrong tree, please.

Go back and read your comment, if you don't remember. Or better yet, let me quote it for you here:

Originally Posted by vernonbc

Good article Steve. Rafa, IMO, has never ever gotten the credit he deserves for his brilliant game. If we've had to read/hear about Federer's elegant backhand for the millionth time, how about just a little bit of praise for Rafa's magnificent footwork, his fabulous forehand down the line, his impossible banana shots, the never-before-in-history amount of spin he can get on his forehands. Rafa has been one of the best in the world since his blazing arrival on the scene as a teenager and has unmatched legend written all over his career but he's considered a grinder??? C'mon already.

That qualifies as a mushy hosannah to me, huh?