MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
Legend
This whole thread is further proof that the Aussie Open is the red-headed step child of the slams. Not that we needed any more proof.........
What wrong with red heads?
They still matter, despite their legitimacy.
This whole thread is further proof that the Aussie Open is the red-headed step child of the slams. Not that we needed any more proof.........
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/out-on-a-limb/2007/12/19/1197740381086.html"I'll be honest: I've known for the past few months there's something not right. I know my body, and I try to be positive. I try and get up and I try and tell myself 'there's a bit of pain, you'll get up, you'll be fine', and every time I stepped up my training it would swell up again … I was enjoying the training, but it's your body saying 'you can't do it, you can't do it'."
What wrong with red heads?
They still matter, despite their legitimacy.
It's just an expression. I don't mean to insult red heads by comparing them to the AO.![]()
Federer had a fluke loss in Indian Wells. It happens. In Paris, Nadal and Federer both lost to a red hot Nalbandian, Federer's loss to Nalbandian was very competitive, Nadal's loss to Nalbandian was a spanking, if it had not been for Nalbandian then Federer would have gone on to destroy Nadal in the final just like he did at the year end Masters. Federer is far superior to Nadal on any type of hard court. The two arent even in the same league on hard courts, fast, slow, burnt, sunny side up, any kind.
It was someone else. If they were going to make a season, they should cut down on the hard court season. Otherwise leave it as it is.
explain to me how nadal beat federer in the Dubai finals in 06 then, or in miami in 04?
I'll say it again since you don't seem to understand. Not all hardcourts are equal. The courts in Shanghai suit Federer perfectly. Low bounce, indoors, and fast courts. I can't think of a tournament that suits Federer more against Nadal. I definitely would love to see Nadal play Federer again on a slow hardcourt which I guess Miami is that. They are 1-1 so far on slow hardcourts. Nadal struggles against certain players on hardcourt because some like the high ball (especially 2 hand backhands). Federer is not one of those type of players.Federer had a mental block with Nadal then. It is receding now. He has won their last 4 sets on hard courts. I doubt Nadal will ever beat Federer on a hard court again, although their meetings on hard courts will be far and few between since Nadal isnt strong enough on hard courts to get that far very often. Also todays slowed down grass is actually a much stronger surface for Nadal then hard courts, and Nadal isnt even able to beat Federer there, were as you point out he used to beat him on hard courts were Nadal is nowhere near as good as todays slowed down grass.
Lastly Nadal's adequate career success vs Federer on hard courts is no indication of his overall ability on the surface compared to Federer. Just like Blake and Berdych's success vs Nadal on hard courts is no indication of their overall ability on the surface compared to Nadal. Federer piles hard court slams like candy, Nadal cant even get past the quarters of a hard court slam. Any kind of hard court, fast, slow, icy, slippery, muddy, frosty, Federer is far superior and has far more chance then Nadal.
Nothing is wrong with fast courts or low bounces. Historically, we had Wimbledon > USO > AO > FO in terms of speed. Now, the USO is the fastest and the Wimbledon is 2nd slowest. Thus, the AO should be increased in speed to replace the position of USO, not be slower, so that we have 3 slow slams and 1 fast one.
3 Slams, 6 Masters Series and the Masters Cup are played on fast surfaces. You can rate them from really fast to simply fast but all of them are fast so it´s ridiculous to demand even faster surfaces.
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.
3 Slams, 6 Masters Series and the Masters Cup are played on fast surfaces. You can rate them from really fast to simply fast but all of them are fast so it´s ridiculous to demand even faster surfaces.
Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.
Neither Indian Wells nor Miami can plausibly be considered a fast surface, unless you regard every surface other than clay to be fast. If anything, we need a Masters Series event on grass as well as one on indoor carpet.
Incidentally, Wimbledon was the world's most prestigious tournament long before the All England Club slowed the surface.
Wimbledon is a tournament of prestige and tradition. It was tradition to have an all court / S&V type game to win Wimbledon (see past champions such as Sampras, Laver, Edberg, etc)
When they started slowing down the surface, you have players just sitting on the baseline now adays.
LLEYTON Hewitt yesterday unreservedly endorsed Plexicushion - the Australian Open's new surface - as vastly superior to its predecessor Rebound Ace.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22978468-11088,00.html
I don´t think the tradition at Wimbledon is about the type of game to win. Anyway you cannot pretend that players play the same style than in 1877.
The reason players don´t volley so much is not that Wimbledon slowed down the grass. You don´t see serve-volley on the fastest surfaces either. Mahut at Queens was the exception.
IMO the serve and return of serve are so powerful today with these racquets that the serve-volley game turned to be useless. Players either win the point with the serve or from the baseline, the serve-volley mentality isn´t there, even on the fastest surface you can imagine today.
A faster surface would only benefit the Karlovic and Guccione types and I don´t think that´s the kind of game most of us want to see.
At the US Open many players came to net, see Feliciano Lopez, Isner, Roddick, Federer, and a whole slew of list. Heck, even Davydenko made his way there at times, and he NEVER goes to net. A faster surface benefits the player who is more agressive.
The players I listed were playing Wimbledon during the 90s. You sir need to go read some history books. The tradition of Wimbledon has been to be the fastest surface of the slams, and IT IS tradition to have an allcourt game to win, as REAL GRASS is tennis played with allcourt games. You have to know how to lob, how to volley, baseline, return, and everything in the book to win on grass. Although Pete Sampras was a great server, he didn't just win Wimbledon purly on his serve. He had an extremely underrated return game, and was a great defensive player, especially off the forehand side. Even Borg who is primarily known as a baseliner was S&Ving and using allcourt tactics to win Wimbledon.
At the US Open many players came to net, see Feliciano Lopez, Isner, Roddick, Federer, and a whole slew of list. Heck, even Davydenko made his way there at times, and he NEVER goes to net. A faster surface benefits the player who is more agressive.
The players I listed were playing Wimbledon during the 90s. You sir need to go read some history books. The tradition of Wimbledon has been to be the fastest surface of the slams, and IT IS tradition to have an allcourt game to win, as REAL GRASS is tennis played with allcourt games. You have to know how to lob, how to volley, baseline, return, and everything in the book to win on grass.
I had a feel of the surface today; you can sure see why the balls are fluffing up. I spose we can only hope that they'll play a bit better once they've had some use.
You name 3 out of 4 guys who base their game on serve. They simply come to the net to hide their deficiencies from the baseline, not because they´re great volleyers. Even on clay they would come to the net.
Federer has never been a serve-volleyer and he will never be remembered as one. Occasionally, he goes to the net, that´s all, and the same could be said about most of the players in the tour. Maybe it breaks the tradition you´re talking about but he didn´t win 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens coming to the net.
Sorry but Laver didn´t play in the 90´s and I don´t think the tradition you´re talking about started in the 90´s anyway.
You need to understand the evolution of the game, don´t blame the surface. It wasn´t tradition that players could serve at 150 mph, tell me why you need to volley serving those bombs. So should they play with wood racquets to keep the tradition?
Sure, you need many things to win on the so-called (especially in the last 2 years) "real grass" but Ivanisevic and Krajicek were not exactly players with all-court games who won Wimbledon when it was considered "real grass" by some fans.
Do you know who did win at Queens, which is considered real grass by some fans, 4 times in the last 5 years? Roddick,where is his all-court game? He is not Karlovic or Guccione but...all-court game?
The current grass at Wimbledon is a FAST but FAIR surface and we watched a great final this year on this grass.
I had a feel of the surface today; you can sure see why the balls are fluffing up. I spose we can only hope that they'll play a bit better once they've had some use.
Yet they haven't played each other on a slow hard court yet.
Yes they have, twice in Key Biscayne. Nadal owned Federer 6-3, 6-3 in their first match on these slowish hard courts. Nadal was up 2 sets to 0 in their second match... but Fed came back to win in 5.
Problem is Djokovic will take out federer before he gets to the final to play nadal. :-?
Or Volandri or Canas or Gonzo or Nalby.
You believe those Press Releases??? AELTCC caved to the dirtballers; that's why they changed the subsurface and the grass. Wimby is too slow ... but the clay courters are happy.Wimbledon did what they needed to do: to provide a more compact and higher quality grass so we don´t watch weird bad bounces all the time in the 2nd week of the tournament. That´s not too much to ask for a so called "prestigious" tournament.
Blake will take out Federer.
Brand new courts are always sandy and slow. it plays like the clay courts with consistant bounce. this means trouble for federer, Nadal's serve is so much more effective on slow sandy surface cause it takes spin so well.
You believe those Press Releases??? AELTCC caved to the dirtballers; that's why they changed the subsurface and the grass. Wimby is too slow ... but the clay courters are happy.
- KK
I understand that courts get "broken in", but how much faster can they get in a few weeks. The gap between expectations and actual court speed seems to be big in this instance.
Blake will take out Federer.
Sounds good. They make it sound like it is a negative. The only concern is the injuries which isn't good. Australian Open should be the second slowest surface and not be so similar to the US Open.
The dirtballers used to not even ENTER Wimby; they got so tired of being dusted-off in the 1st Round. In the early '80s (I think) they "boycotted" and held a bunch of Press Conferences to let everyone know they were boycotting Wimby. (It's a good thing they had those press briefings; otherwise nobody would have known they were protesting. They were total non-factors at AELTCC prior to then.)Then explain to me why the only ¨clay courter¨ Nadal has been the only one to do consistently well on grass? What exactly have the rest done on the ¨slower¨grass?
This is nonsense. Borg changed his game during his fantastic run at Wimby. He played a LOT of S&V tennis in winning all those Wimbledons.I´m sure if there were message boards back in 1980 people would have complained about Borg winning so many Wimbledon´s being primarily a baseline player with a wood racquet. I suppose the grass was slow back then too.
I'm with Eviscerator. I see baseline blasting as "mindless". (And I do get a grin when I read baseliners saying S&V tennis is "mindless".) I guess "one man's pleasure is another man's poison...."Well how much slower could you possibly want things to get? <snip>
I guess if you are a fan of mindless baseline bashing, or a player like Nadal, you are personally happy, but what of the health of tennis overall?
The dirtballers used to not even ENTER Wimby; they got so tired of being dusted-off in the 1st Round. In the early '80s (I think) they "boycotted" and held a bunch of Press Conferences to let everyone know they were boycotting Wimby. (It's a good thing they had those press briefings; otherwise nobody would have known they were protesting. They were total non-factors at AELTCC prior to then.)
They wanted the money they could earn by getting into the 3rd and 4th Rounds -- which is significant in the Majors. They were not trying to change the courts so much they could last deep into the 2nd week.
Amazingly, AELTCC chose to give them more credence than they deserved. AELTCC changed the subsurface. They watered more ... they opened the balls two weeks early ... they changed the grass.... (We, who appreciate the subtleties of Serve & Volley tennis scoffed that AELTCC turned Wimbledon into a clay court event ... clay courts with some grass on them.)
Rafael Nadal didn't personally have anything to do with those protests. But he surely benefitted from them, didn't he?
This is nonsense. Borg changed his game during his fantastic run at Wimby. He played a LOT of S&V tennis in winning all those Wimbledons.
I'm with Eviscerator. I see baseline blasting as "mindless". (And I do get a grin when I read baseliners saying S&V tennis is "mindless".) I guess "one man's pleasure is another man's poison...."
- KK
I wonder if Nadal's knees will give him any problems on these "sandpaper" courts. Can't wait until January![]()
So when Agassi won Wimby in 1992 I suppose the grass was slow then right? Even when Hewitt played Nalby in 2002 I guess it was just slow. Even though the year just prior we had Ivanisevic vs Rafter. Or when Courier made the 1993 final. Heck even Guga made the QF in 1999 with net game that's possibly worse than Roddick's.
So when Agassi won Wimby in 1992 I suppose the grass was slow then right? Even when Hewitt played Nalby in 2002 I guess it was just slow. Even though the year just prior we had Ivanisevic vs Rafter. Or when Courier made the 1993 final. Heck even Guga made the QF in 1999 with net game that's possibly worse than Roddick's. I remember well about the dirtballers like Muster, Corretja, Costa and Bruguera complaining and boycotting Wimby. But those guys were much more clay court oriented players than Nadal. Nadal, Moya, Lopez and Ferrero are really the only guys to do well outside of the dirt and the rest struggled to do something special outside of the red stuff.
In the last two Wimby finals Nadal has been to net and succeeded more than Fed. Difference being that Nadal doesn't have a big enough serve for the grass and was crucial to Fed's win this year. The main difference at Wimby recently compared to the past is the hardness and consistency of the surface. You get a cleaner bounce and the court is harder than before. You won't get rough or "dead" spots like in the past. The only bad bounces come from worn out spots. Basically making it a hardcourt with soft grass on top. The bounce is still lower due to it being grass and it stilll takes the slice very well. Even players with big serves still have the advantage. Hewitt and Roddick who play their best on faster surfaces did relatively well until they ran into Joker and Gasquet. But in all honesty those guys would have won even at the US Open. Maybe Roddick wouldn't have choked the lead away but they didn't lose because the court was too slow.
As for baseline tennis being boring, some of us happen to appreciate point construction, endurance, the ability to change defense to offense and the chess match that baseline rallying brings to tennis. The mindless bashing of the ball in the 90's with serve and volleying drove me straight to bed. I posted about this on page 4 and I'll say it again. Watching matches that involved Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Philippousis, Becker were the very things I didn't like about tennis. Just do this pattern for 3-4 hours. Ace, ace, unreturnable serve, big serve/weak reply= easy volley and stay this way all day long. No thanks. Those days are long gone and I hope they never come back. The only time S & V'ing was interesting was when it was against a baseliner. Serve and volleying died due to the racquet and string technology of today. Also players evolving. Combine more powerful racquets with polyester or a gut/poly hybrid and you can hit clean winners by the net rusher without fear of overhitting. That is my pleasure and thankfully my poison is no longer prevalent in tennis anymore. Hallelujah!
Agassi is the only example of a pure baseliner consistently doing well at Wimbledon on fast grass against top serve and volleyers, and that's because he is Agassi.
By the way, it's no coincidence that if you look at all of the great highlights throughout tennis history up until the present, the vast majority of them involve someone at some point going up to net.
This idea that nobody goes to net anymore is dead wrong. Take a look at some match stats. Fed, Gasquet, Roddick, Haas, Tsonga, etc finish points at net all the time. Even guys like Hewitt, Nadal, Baghdatis are approaching the net ~40 times in many matches.
I'm hoping it stays slow. Would be a fun Australian Open this year to see Fed and Nadal on an equal surface.
I'm hoping it stays slow. Would be a fun Australian Open this year to see Fed and Nadal on an equal surface.
I wonder if Nadal's knees will give him any problems on these "sandpaper" courts. Can't wait until January![]()