Feel as if this is a bit of reverse psychology 101.
I just checked Deutche Welle and Fed sounded completely upbeat.
Found the match a bit boring to be honest, it wasn't a masterclass from Federer nor was it a really entertaining/competitive or high quality match. All that said, had a good evening. I really would have been a bit disappointed if I'd never been able to see Federer live at least once, so that completes all the big names for me.I’m nearly home. Another terrific experience. Everytime I’ve watched Roger live he has won
I have to say, Roger’s topspin BH held up better than it usually does. So dominant on serve too. Movement still excellent.
But damn... Thiem was horrible. It was great to see some of his shotmaking live, but his head was constantly down and he wasn’t consistent at all.
The support Federer gets... its relentless. I had an Irish guy behind me screaming for him every other point. Nearly busted my ear drums
How did you enjoy it @rainingaces @bananaforehand ??
We could make a real spectacle of this thing...
I’m nearly home. Another terrific experience. Everytime I’ve watched Roger live he has won
I have to say, Roger’s topspin BH held up better than it usually does. So dominant on serve too. Movement still excellent.
But damn... Thiem was horrible. It was great to see some of his shotmaking live, but his head was constantly down and he wasn’t consistent at all.
The support Federer gets... its relentless. I had an Irish guy behind me screaming for him every other point. Nearly busted my ear drums
How did you enjoy it @rainingaces @bananaforehand ??
Hold your horses, it's a long way to go.We could make a real spectacle of this thing...
Set up a thread with a poll and everything.
What do you think?
Right. But we've got a bit less than two days to lobby on our own behalves.
I'm more of a 0-1 poster so I already know the answer to that question.Right. But we've got a bit less than two days to lobby on our own behalves.
Because what I'm envisioning here is a straight-up popularity contest (not that it would affect the wager).
e.g., "Whom would you rather take a leave from the boards?"
Oh, I don't always aim to please.
You can make a thread if you like.Oh, I don't always aim to please.
I am quite confident that this would be a most enlightening exercise.
With reverberations into the new year and beyond.
Because, you see, votes will be made public.
Very cool.
It's possible they won't meet in the SF. You never know with Federer and he could beat Anderson and top his group while Djokovic is obviously favored to top his.
Okay, well would you be good with carrying on with this thing, regardless of whether they meet in the SF or F?
Sure.
That’s been a pretty fair bet since Wimbledon tho.
but if Fed beats Anderson doesn’t he go ahead of him? Super confused.
That's my dry humor
A combination of a Nishikori win and Anderson winning one set would send Fed packingHere are the scenarios.
Ha. You have no ideas how many ideas I'm getting for this thing.
What do you mean by multiply the consequences?Ha. You have no ideas how many ideas I'm getting for this thing.
I'll float a couple of them. You tell me whether either hold appeal for you.
- Tag-team. We partner up with other posters and multiply the consequences.
- Penalty-match. The wager-winner gets to stay; this we know. But if the masses vote him out, off the island he goes.
Well, the poll respondents would be voting on us. The Fed-Djo stuff we'd leave to the match thread.
So it's not really about Federer-Djokovic, is it?Well, the poll respondents would be voting on us. The Fed-Djo stuff we'd leave to the match thread.
By "multiply the consequences" I just meant increasing the "casualties." The more, the merrier.
Many more could get in on the fun. I suppose it could, in theory, get much more elaborate, with duration of the penalties growing exponentially in coordination with losses absorbed by the various teams. But that wasn't on my mind.
This is going to be great. Win-win for everyone.
I, too, was possibly going to go on an extended break anyway, but this would certainly provide an impetus. But I did like the idea of the "vote-out" serving as a back-up.
No backing out now, buddy!
Ok, give me your best idea.
I gave you the best of the lot. At least concerning the immediate wager.
Yeah go for it.I gave you the best of the lot. At least concerning the immediate wager.
Ultimately, the concept could be franchised, of course.
P.S. Can game day get here already?
I've been busy with work, but that started me thinking: has there ever been a player with a 1HBH with the kind of return stats of Agassi, Murray, Nadal, Djokovic? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but maybe I'm missing someone. Borg must have had similar stats, and I think Connors also, all guys with 2HBHs. It seems to me that if we ever get a guy with a 2HBH who also has the kind of net skills that people like Fed have, that guy would dominate like no one we've every seen.
Edberg is the only player with a single hander who's top 15 on 2nd serve return points won on HC. He's 15th.
But you have countless people still thinking he will win slams. I don’t think he’ll ever win RG either. Great fitness, zero tennis brain.
One of my first ever post on TW
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/is-thiem-the-new-berdych.601070/
I've looked at Edberg's stats, and I was wondering about him. I've been deluged by work and have had almost no time to write.
We also have to think about how the game has changed. Edberg was weakest on clay, exactly where you'd expect a guy to have more problems who is an attacker. You would expect Novak to be insanely good on clay, but for career he is #7 and is a good bit under a bunch of clay court specialists. He was an overall monster in 2011, but his stats on HC were about equal, and normally they are always lower. Clay is Djokovic's weakest surface, which to me shows that he is not essentially a grinder but more of a blend.
It should not be an advantage, which is why I think we have not yet seen a player who takes full advantage of a 2HBH combined with top notch net skills. And this is a puzzler to me because today there are so many players who also have a good single handed slice.
I think there's a greater overlap in coordination between single handers, a slice backhand and net skills than a double hander. Much more wrist control required for the one hander, which is why I think every player would have a better net game if they had a one hander than if they had a double hander
Horrible conservative first serving and still only 50% in.
But I was right isn't it.
But I was right isn't it.
But it was played. Look at the thread title.
