The us open surface is so slowwwwwww.

[Tennis_Hands]

He said he couldn't meet Federer at the last minute, and the media spun it as if Federer made every attempt to contact Djokovic and he refused to meet! There is a big difference!.

Why are you involving the media? Oh, I know why, to explain your failed stance. As usual, the others are the problem, not you. It was your contention that Djokovic was not involved.

I said those specific errors from the Fed FH were forced errors. I am not arbitrarily reclassifying Fed's UEs as forced, as you were implying.

LOL, not only you are lying directly proven by that quote, but you are also ridiculous.

Just for you, Tennis_Hands, I rewatched the first set to find the instances where this pattern occurred (Fed slice DTL -> Djokovic FH CC -> Fed FH error), and let's see what the official scorekeeper thinks, huh?

1-2 15-15: Forced error
1-2 30-15: Forced error
4-5 AD-40: Forced error
(another one at 1-0 in the TB, but it didn't result in an immediate Fed error)

(Click on the "LIVE" and find the set and game; the scores shown are after the point was played):
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/1701.html

Turns out the tallies are keep in my head are pretty accurate.

Set #3

Federer -Djokovic 2-1

Djokovic on serve 15-0

Federer hits slice DTL to Djokovic, Djokovic returns to Federer, Federer hits the ball out: 30-0

LIVE tracker:

"30 - 0R. Federer loses the point with a backhand unforced error"

That is only the first such situation that I checked after I read your BS. SO not only of the FH, but on ANY side.

RIP lies.

Seats!

 

[Deleted member 743561]

 

[BeatlesFan]

I figured I would get this started early. I have no idea what the surface is going to be but what the hell.

Brad Gilbert already confirmed during Wimbledon that he's heard confirmation from USTA big wigs that the surface will continue to play slow as hell this year. He actually said, "slower than ever, is what I've heard."

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Brad Gilbert already confirmed during Wimbledon that he's heard confirmation from USTA big wigs that the surface will continue to play slow as hell this year. He actually said, "slower than ever, is what I've heard."

LOLZ if that really happens. This thread will be a gold mine.

And Wimbledon still was slooooooooooow. Zzzzzzzzz

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

lol.

Imagining that alleged conversation overheard by Gilbert conjures something priceless for me.

Suit 1: Yeah, guys, what are we thinking in terms of court speed this year?​

​

Suit 2: Well, we've got to achieve a sort of balance between meeting the expectations of consumers and those of our own—​

​

Suit 3: What is with you people? Said it before, and I'll say it again. Folks complain about the tennis balls on the daily. And they're getting faster with their bellyaching, too. This is how we counter. By dumping in enough sand to satisfy King Tut, himself. End result?​

​

​

SLOW. SLOW AS BALLS, BOYS.​

 

[MeatTornado]

Brad Gilbert already confirmed during Wimbledon that he's heard confirmation from USTA big wigs that the surface will continue to play slow as hell this year. He actually said, "slower than ever, is what I've heard."

It's so bizarre. Are they actually happy with how the tournament played out last year under what was also called "slowest ever" at the time?

Fed getting out-grinded by a journeyman before they could market him for the 2nd week. Rafa's matches lasting so long his body gave out from all the hard-court rallying. Serena not having the legs to run with her younger opponent. I can't even fugue out what the conspiracy theory reason would be behind slowing it down even more. It can't be good for business.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

That dude needs to take several seats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[I Am Finnish]

That scene looks familiar

 

[jm1980]

LOL, not only you are lying directly proven by that quote, but you are also ridiculous.

????

Set #3

Federer -Djokovic 2-1

Djokovic on serve 15-0

Federer hits slice DTL to Djokovic, Djokovic returns to Federer, Federer hits the ball out: 30-0

LIVE tracker:

"30 - 0R. Federer loses the point with a backhand unforced error"

That is only the first such situation that I checked after I read your BS. SO not only of the FH, but on ANY side.

RIP lies.

Seats!

So even after reposted my quote, where I'm specifically referring to a limited set of errors on the forehand side, you are still trying to twist my words?

I'd have to class those errors (Fed's next shots after Djokovic redirected the DTL slice to Fed's FH) as forced errors.

This point doesn't follow the pattern I'm talking about at all.

The even more hilarious part of this specific point you chose is that the BH UE in question was a sliced BH... If anything, this supports my claim that the BH slice was a problem.

But more importantly, no comment on the three points in the first set that actually fit the pattern I'm talking about, huh? I wonder why.

 

[BrokenGears]

When you realize that a lot of the posters here are just retired old fools, it makes it much easier to not take this forum seriously at all

 

[mbm0912]

I figured I would get this started early. I have no idea what the surface is going to be but what the hell.

 

[jm1980]

I don't forget anything. I brought up your statement about you counting UE as FE as a result of Djokovic's play on a DTL slice from Federer and pinned you to the wall when you said that you have never claimed something like that. Then you went out of your way to claim that that is how it is counted, and I gave you an example that your own source disagrees with you.

Do you need new glasses? Let's make the very important qualifier of my statement even bigger, shall we?

I'd have to class those errors (Fed's next shots after Djokovic redirected the DTL slice to Fed's FH) as forced errors.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Do you need new glasses? Let's make the very important caveat of my statement even bigger, huh?

It is irrelevant to your point, dear (although I perceived that it will be the next obfuscation in the line). You point was that once Fed gets to Djokovic's FH with a DTL slice everything going back at him is according to you a FE. It is absolutely irrelevant which side the ball is going to.

Seats!

 

[jm1980]

It is irrelevant to your point, dear (although I perceived that it will be the next obfuscation in the line). You point was that once Fed gets to Djokovic's FH with a DTL slice everything going back at him is according to you a FE.

LOL, more invented claims, even after the qualifier was made even clearer... I'm specifically isolating the FH errors, and you turned into "everything"

It is absolutely irrelevant which side the ball is going to.

No, it's absolutely relevant because the discussion was about the Federer FH. Let's also remember that the quote was a response to your claim that:

Where he managed that he managed it because Federer's FH was an UE machine, not because that was particularly good for Djokovic.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

 

[Enga]

I have has the plesur of playing on the courts of this years upcoming World Tennis Finals and I must say it is sooooo slow, I couldnt even hit a 150 mph ace against my grandma.

 

[jm1980]

Hahaha. You position was that the tactic of slicing DTL puts Federer in disadvantadge, since supposedly that puts Djokovic in control of the rally. The vast majority of your posts do not include any additional qualification.

Yes, that was (and still is) my position. Slicing DTL more often than not put Fed at a disadvantage.

So, my dear, in your original post, your second post and a slew of other posts you did not make any additional qualification that you are specifically talking about going to Fed's FH. The main original talking point was the effectiveness of the slice and in particular of the slice DTL in regard to getting the upper hand. The FH side of Federer came as an addition, since it has been noted that Federer made unusual for him number of of UE on that side.

You fail in your attempt to yet again try to change the main argument which was that once Federer deployed slice DTL to Djokovic's FH he was supposedly in disadvantageous position. The UE/FE talk was introduced by you when you said that you are going to simply count the UE as FE.

This is where you go off the rails. You attempted to shift the blame of Fed losing the points from the slice DTL to his forehand. You claimed that Djokovic didn't do anything particularly well in response to those slices, just that Fed's forehand was a "UE machine." It was only then that I corrected you, and said those particular errors were forced. It was obvious I was talking about those specific shots, but I added the qualifier to that statement because I knew you would attempt to twist my words. Alas, you did it anyway.

The only thing you get right in your claim is that Djokovic's FH response wasn't particularly good. But of course - it didn't have to be! We teach even 12-year-old juniors that the geometry of the court dictates the high percentage play in that scenario is a CC FH, which is all Djokovic had to do. Fed was then forced into a FH error. But the blame lies squarely on the slice DTL preceding the error.

And just as the cherry on top, any unfavorable outcome for Fed following a DTL slice only serves to strengthen my original position

 

[BeatlesFan]

This is even better!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yes, that was (and still is) my position. Slicing DTL more often than not put Fed in a disadvantage.


This is where you go off the rails. You attempted to shift the blame of Fed losing the points from the slice DTL to his forehand. You claimed that Djokovic didn't do anything particularly well in response to those slices, just that Fed's forehand was a "UE machine." It was only then that I corrected you, and said those particular errors were forced. It was obvious I was talking about those specific shots, but I added the qualifier to that statement because I knew you would attempt to twist my words. Alas, you did it anyway.

The only thing you get right in your claim is that Djokovic's FH response wasn't particularly good. But of course - it didn't have to be! We teach even 12-year-old juniors that the geometry of the court dictates the high percentage play in that scenario is a CC FH, which is all Djokovic had to do. Fed was then forced into a FH error. But the blame lies squarely on the slice DTL preceding the error.

And just as the cherry on top, any unfavorable outcome for Fed following a DTL slice only serves to strengthen my original position

The FH was an addition to the already discussed subject which was principally about what happens when Federer plays a slice to Novak's FH. I illustrated that with 6! examples by quoting your posts. Your whole premise was that. You addressed the FH situation after that (as you admit in your post by saying that I brought it up, but these posts were made before that, dear), but it was clear as day what you were talking about, so your laughable claim is put to rest.

YOU teach juniors? You cannot teach yourself out of an empty room.

It is obvious by your last sentence: you still cannot wrap your head around the fact that, if the mistake is unforced, the unfavourable outcome was not a result of a play from Djokovic. After wasting everyone's time with lying and twisting you concede your level with that remark. You don't understand what an unforced error means! You was also stupid enough not only to demonstrate that, but also this time to miss to leave a back door to get out of it. Any. Hahahaha!

Seats!

 

[Nostradamus]

how do we make it Djokovic proof ?

 

[jga111]

Federer slicing wasn’t tactical. It was nervous and safe.

 

[jm1980]

The FH was an addition to the already discussed subject which was principally about what happens when Federer plays a slice to Novak's FH. I illustrated that with 6! examples by quoting your posts. Your whole premise was that. You addressed the FH situation after that (as you admit in your post by saying that I brought it up, but these posts were made before that, dear), but it was clear as day what you were talking about, so your laughable claim is put to rest.

This is what you said in response to my claim that slicing DTL put Fed at a disadvantage:

Where he managed that he managed it because Federer's FH was an UE machine, not because that was particularly good for Djokovic.

What you meant here was not an "addition," but an unsuccessful attempt to largely shift the blame to the Federer FH for the unfavorable outcomes resulting from a DTL slice

That is when I felt compelled to correct you, as those were FH errors were FE and not UE

YOU teach juniors? You cannot teach yourself out of an empty room.

Whaddayaknow, I actually step on the court quite often... Instead of just thinking one can become an expert by watching it on TV

It is obvious by your last sentence: you still cannot wrap your head around the fact that, if the mistake is unforced, the unfavourable outcome was not a result of a play from Djokovic. After wasting everyone's time with lying and twisting you concede your level with that remark. You don't understand what an unforced error means! You was also stupid enough not only to demonstrate that, but also this time to miss to leave a back door to get out of it. Any. Hahahaha!

An unfavorable outcome is an unfavorable outcome, regardless of how it ends up happening.

Or do you think losing points is a good thing?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

This is what you said in response to my claim that slicing DTL put Fed at a disadvantage:

What you meant here was not an "addition," but an unsuccessful attempt to largely shift the blame to the Federer FH for the unfavorable outcomes resulting from a DTL slice

That was the specific address to the point that Federer's FH was unusually prone to errors, which doesn't in any way interfere with your original contention. I provided enough examples of your original contention. My first posts addressing you also didn't address that specific argument.

"Largely" won't save your current stance. You were talking about both.

Seats!

That is when I felt compelled to correct you, as those were FH errors were FE and not UE

That is only part of your original stance, so whether you "felt compelled" is only your way to justify avoiding to be accountable for the consequences of taking the broader stance.

BTW, there are other instances that show your utter helplessness. If you go and check the point at 3-5 40-15 in the 4th the chipped return that goes to Djokovic's FH, he plays to Federer's FH, who nets the ball. The point is marked as an unforced error from the FH side.

Seats!

Whaddayaknow, I actually step on the court quite often... Instead of just thinking one can become an expert by watching it on TV

I have seen enough people that "step on the court quite often" to know that that doesn't mean anything, so, whatddayanow. However, the way you avoid taking responsibility is a sure sign what your other activities amount to. I can imagine the poor kids that have to abide to the "lessons" of a completely incompetent and full of himself "player". Unfortunately for you, you are not talking to someone who "became an expert by watching TV", so you will have to work hard to level up to the conversation's requirements. You are still not there, so:

Take a few!

An unfavorable outcome is an unfavorable outcome, regardless of how it ends up happening.

Or do you think losing points is a good thing?

Let me repeat that: you don't know what an unforced error is.

Yet another effort at putting words in my mouth doesn't help you one bit. It actually makes your determination to make a derriere out of yourself quite obvious, so place yourself where you belong:

On the seats!

 

[Deleted member 766172]

The ventilation is my main concern right now, rather than the courts being slow. I think Fed likely would have won his match against Millman last year if there were proper ventilation. Fed played well on slow hard courts this year, from what I can tell.

 

[jm1980]

That was the specific address to the point that Federer's FH was unusually prone to errors, which doesn't in any way interfere with your original contention. I provided enough examples of your original contention. My first posts addressing you also didn't address that specific argument.

"Largely" won't save your current stance. You were talking about both.

LOL, you are forgetting what you said - again! My original contention was the slice DTL was bad, period. You then attempted to explain that away by introducing the argument that it was only bad because of the Federer FH and its UEs.

That is only part of your original stance, so whether you "felt compelled" is only your way to justify avoiding to be accountable for the consequences of taking the broader stance.

The broader stance is still correct. You were the one who tried to make the specific argument that the FH was to blame.

BTW, there are other instances that show your utter helplessness. If you go and check the point at 3-5 40-15 in the 4th the chipped return that goes to Djokovic's FH, he plays to Federer's FH, who nets the ball. The point is marked as an unforced error from the FH side.

First of all it's clearly not a chipped return - he comes over the ball. Second, it wasn't even DTL, but inside out. Third, it wasn't from a neutral position. So you managed to show your ignorance not once, but three times in one statement! Brilliant!

Most hilarious part is, is this is the closest example you could find of Fed hitting a FH UE within those parameters? LOL. Even if I were to generously give you this one, you are still at a 3:1 ratio. And you claimed a 1:1 W/UE was "already bad" for Fed?

I have seen enough people that "step on the court quite often" to know that that doesn't mean anything, so, whatddayanow. However, the way you avoid taking responsibility is a sure sign what your other activities amount to. I can imagine the poor kids that have to abide to the "lessons" of a completely incompetent and full of himself "player". Unfortunately for you, you are not talking to someone who "became an expert by watching TV", so you will have to work hard to level up to the conversation's requirements. You are still not there, so:

Full of myself? LOL. I am not the one who constantly belittles other posters on the board and refuses to admit they are wrong, even when the truth hits them in the face

PS: who do you think is teaching kids nowadays to hit topspin CC groundstokes all day long, and changing their 1HBH to 2H?

Let me repeat that: you don't know what an unforced error is.

Yet another effort at putting words in my mouth doesn't help you one bit. It actually makes your determination to make a derriere out of yourself quite obvious, so place yourself where you belong:

Sounds more like you are the one who doesn't know what an unforced error is, by repeatedly claiming Fed's FH UEs were the reason for the DTL slice failing him

 

[Tennis_Hands]

LOL, you are forgetting what you said - again! My original contention was the slice DTL was bad, period. You then attempted to explain that away by introducing the argument that it was only bad because of the Federer FH and its UEs.

Your stalling tactic is clear: repeat until the cows come home. Unfortunately, you are not making any progress. You original contention was not simply that "DTL was bad". You original contention was that it is so bad that after it happens Djokovic is in such advantage that all Federer's errors are then forced. I already showed your contention in it entirety, so trying to chop parts of it in order to make it more neutral doesn't help you in any way. I introduced a particular case, addressing the already noted problem from the FH wing. I also told you in the previous post that introducing it doesn't in any way free you from the responsibility to be accountable for the overall argument that you made.

So, take a seat and read what you are answering to!

The broader stance is still correct. You were the one who tried to make the specific argument that the FH was to blame..

Already addressed above AND in my previous post.

Seats!

First of all it's clearly not a chipped return - he comes over the ball. Second, it wasn't even DTL, but inside out. Third, it wasn't from a neutral position. So you managed to show your ignorance not once, but three times in one statement! Brilliant!

He doesn't come over the ball, you are absolutely blind!

Are you OK? Inside out?

Get a grip, dear, or , rather, have a SEAT!

Most hilarious part is, is this is the closest example you could find of Fed hitting a FH UE within those parameters? LOL. Even if I were to generously give you this one, you are still at a 3:1 ratio. And you claimed a 1:1 W/UE was "already bad" for Fed?

When in desperation return to something that was already clarified.

Seats!

Full of myself? LOL. I am not the one who constantly belittles other posters on the board and refuses to admit they are wrong, even when the truth hits them in the face

As exemplified by your words I posted before!

Seats!

PS: who do you think is teaching kids nowadays to hit topspin CC groundstokes all day long, and changing their 1HBH to 2H?

Topspin groundstrokes. Nowadays. Wow, you are true innovator. I guess that is why tennis is in such dire straights. Because the saviours like you are "teaching".

Seats on the court for the saviour!

Sounds more like you are the one who doesn't know what an unforced error is, by repeatedly claiming Fed's FH UEs were the reason for the DTL slice failing him

Sounds like the d**********y is reaching top levels in your attitude, as you clearly indicated that you don't know what an unforced error is by claiming relevance of Djokovic's actions to ANY mistake that Federer made, regardless what it is.

I liked how you fall into tailspin the moment you are cornered and repeat the same BS again and again.

You can spin on your SEAT!

 

[Chadalina]

I really hope not, its been months since we saw real tennis

 

[Pantera]

Nadal lost to Federer at Wimbledon and that didn't make the surface faster. Seats!

Grass is the fastest surface out there..federer wont hit 25 aces anywhere but W.

 

[jm1980]

Your stalling tactic is clear: repeat until the cows come home. Unfortunately, you are not making any progress. You original contention was not simply that "DTL was bad". You original contention was that it is so bad that after it happens Djokovic is in such advantage that all Federer's errors are then forced. I already showed your contention in it entirety, so trying to chop parts of it in order to make it more neutral doesn't help you in any way. I introduced a particular case, addressing the already noted problem from the FH wing. I also told you in the previous post that introducing it doesn't in any way free you from the responsibility to be accountable for the overall argument that you made.

I am repeating myself because you keep misrepresenting my arguments even after I point out said misrepresentation. The most egregious case is on display right here... I mean, how do you go from my original statement, which was this in its entirety:

He definitely overused the slice in this match, specially DTL to Djokovic's forehand. It didn't really bother Djokovic

To this?!

You original contention was that it is so bad that after it happens Djokovic is in such advantage that all Federer's errors are then forced.

"It didn't really bother Djokovic" = "gave Djokovic such an advantage that all Federer's errors were then forced"

He doesn't come over the ball, you are absolutely blind!

This ain't no chip:

This is a chip:

In this side-by-side zoomed in comparison you can easily see Fed's racquet brushing up on the ball in the point you mentioned. On the other hand, when he chips it, the racquet cuts under the ball.

The latter generates underspin, the former doesn't.

Are you OK? Inside out?

Care to explain how Fed manages to hit a "down the line" shot from his deuce side to Djokovic's deuce side?

Two basic mistakes from the guy who thinks he has a deep understanding of the game... LOL!

 

[jm1980]

<snip>

Bottom line is this: as you surely have rewatched parts of the match for this, do you really think Federer would have used the slice as much as he did if he could have replayed this match?

This has become quite tiresome, and we keep going in circles because I have to keep tearing down misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and mistake after mistake. I've read enough nonsense from you... for now

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I am repeating myself because you keep misrepresenting my arguments even after I point out said misrepresentation. The most egregious case is on display right here... I mean, how do you go from my original statement, which was this in its entirety:

To this?!

"It didn't really bother Djokovic" = "gave Djokovic such an advantage that all Federer's errors were then forced"


How? Here is how:

Not only that, but many of Novak's replies put Fed in a worse position than before the slice

In fact, on several occasions it put him at an immediate disadvantage

Several occasions = slice DTL Here

And what was the purpose of the slice DTL to Djokovic's forehand? Because that's the one I was criticizing the most when I made my first post.

...but the slice DTL was what allowed Djokovic to gain the upper hand.

But the DTL slice was specially bad. It's not that hard to understand

I already quoted all the other times you qualified what you meant by "using the slice", as well as your comment about the UE counted as a FE, and then the additional qualification about "any" error, so I am not going to write that again just because you are obfuscating on purpose.




This ain't no chip:

This is a chip:

In this side-by-side zoomed in comparison you can easily see Fed's racquet brushing up on the ball in the point you mentioned. On the other hand, when he chips it, the racquet cuts under the ball.

Your "expertise" ends here. Both are chip returns. The difference is where Federer wants to put the ball, and to a lesser degree how much time he has which also determines whether he blocks it more or he slices it more, but there is no doubt that that is a chip return in both instances. I dare you to go to the Instructions section post those exact two position and ask the question.

The latter generates underspin, the former doesn't.

No. Both generate underspin to different degrees, which is the reason why we are talking about the situation along with slicing.

Care to explain how Fed manages to hit a "down the line" shot from his deuce side to Djokovic's deuce side?

Two basic mistakes that even a TV expert wouldn't have made, so sad...[/QUOTE]



Oh, you are playing booty now. The point is that it is a shot with an underspin (and it is, if you are brave enough to test the opinion of people that actually know what they are talking about) like the slice, it is placed on at the centre of the court from where Djokovic plays it with his FH (just like the situation we discussed before), he plays it to Federer's FH (just like the situation we discussed before), and Federer made a FH error which was then qualified as UE. All the elements of comparable value.

The bolded BS that you implied that I am saying is, again you lying about what I am saying, and that is a basic mistake, that even a TTW expert wouldn't have made.

Seats!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Bottom line is this: as you surely have rewatched parts of the match for this, do you really think Federer would have used the slice as much as he did if he could have replayed this match?

This has become quite tiresome, and we keep going in circles because I have to keep tearing down misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and mistake after mistake. I've read enough nonsense from you... for now

Not so fast.

First let's see what other people say about your "that is not a chip return" "Federer comes over the ball" statements.

The test about the "expertise" of the "expert"

Other than that, one has got to enjoy the hilarity of the "for now". It basically means that you are looking to get out with nothing else as consequences. Even when throwing a tantrum leaving back doors? Noone is holding you here discussing, so the use of that beautiful snap shot, is just the thing that a weak person would do.

Stadium of seats for the saviour of tennis! The CC topspin genius!