Wimbledon 2016 & Grass Season (Draw Is Out!)

Yeah, its called the Napoleon syndrome, you see them mostly in small dogs as they are aggressive, compensating for their small body 

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw woman in my club wear that zebra Adidas top!!!

A. Murray fan!

I knew it was on its way.

Anyone watching any tennis these days?

not me.....I will pay more attention when Wimbledon starts.

Me neither...though I may have a look at Federer-Goffin, it shouldn't be too hard on the eyes.

Thiem is doing well, but I find it difficult to enjoy watching him because he is so physical and loud when playing.

Wow, Zverev beat the in-form Baggy...so probably to play Fed in the semis tomorrow.

Federer demolishig Goffin 6:1 in 19 minutes.

Goffin disappointing...and exposed...he has absolutely nothing to trouble Federer who, unchallenged, is able to play his loose, flying tennis.

I am not complaining!

Is Amri aka IMBL, Donald Trump, Larry Ellison, Julia Santamaria, Kim Jong etc.. Temporary21 mod on v2?

He's always had grand ambitions

noleisthebest wrote:Me neither...though I may have a look at Federer-Goffin, it shouldn't be too hard on the eyes.

Thiem is doing well, but I find it difficult to enjoy watching him because he is so physical and loud when playing.

I was actually wacthing a picture of him this morning and that's exactly what came through my mind: hard work and his face is grimacing quite a bit....not a sign of genius.....but very talented.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Me neither...though I may have a look at Federer-Goffin, it shouldn't be too hard on the eyes.

Thiem is doing well, but I find it difficult to enjoy watching him because he is so physical and loud when playing.

I was actually wacthing a picture of him this morning and that's exactly what came through my mind: hard work and his face is grimacing quite a bit....not a sign of genius..... but very talented.  

Yes...the gap between talen and genius...
even under pressure defending two set points in the TB, Federer is a dream to watch.

What a strange match. I actually watched teh end of Goffin Federer. Goffin served for teh set at 5/4.

Amazing how Federer manages to win despite being so heavy on his feet.

Tenez wrote:What a strange match. I actually watched teh end of Goffin Federer. Goffin served for teh set at 5/4.

Amazing how Federer manages to win despite being so heavy on his feet.

True, he looked even a bit chubbed-up in the face, but quite trim elsewhere.

His BH is better than ever, though!
The pace has almost caught with thr FH and that is saying something!!!

Regardless, he will be vulnerable after two hours of play, esp if drawn into many long rallies.

Kyle Edmund!
What a nice player...if he had Murray's horse-working ethics, he could be a very good player.

Such clean ball-striking sound.

I think he has. He is quite fit for his age. All those guys will more likely become better than the current top guys.

If he has, he is very far from Murray...got bagelled in the third set. Good news young players have to be really good to be noticed now. They almost have to have a complete game.

is murray going to make history today and become the first person to ever win queens 5 times?
shame its probably the only record he will ever have,but only cause the other top players either disregard the event and skip it or play halle instead 

Federer's in the prime of his life. And it's really showing.

Milo takes first set on TB, very good play from him, especially that slice down the line and then net play.

Andy on some of that crappy Quorn mince since its a sponsor of tournament   

2:0 on second set for Milo, come on take it, since you can't win W 

3:0 for Milo.

Btw no one dare and buy that communist Peugeot that Djoko keeps pushing on silly adverts 

Murray getting battered. No mentality whatsoever as usual - and Raonic playing like a future slam champion - FINALLY.

If not this year, Milo should get a GS next year, maybe Thiem too I hope.

Lucky return. Very lucky to win that game - but it helps when you have a crowd that obnoxious.

I put 20 on Murray when he was 0/3 down in the second set at 8.5 odd.

Murray lucking out here really. This set should have easily been raonic's. He's just playhing defensively and getting a few unforced errors his way.

Tenez wrote:I put 20 on Murray when he was 0/3 down in the second set at 8.5 odd.

But I still want Raonic to win though.

If Raonic wins I still win £40.

raonic hasnt been with johnny mac for long and already you can see the improvements he has made to his game
its just his inexperience thats catching up with him in the final

Tenez wrote:I put 20 on Murray when he was 0/3 down in the second set at 8.5 odd.

Well done!

I had my share of luck today, too.
Someone in the club just let me have their tickets for CC on second Monday.

Gimme middle saturday ones please

no one congratulating murray on making history today? lol
be sure to hear the likes of andrew castle,john lloyd and sue barker use this "record" to place him along side the greatest players ever to play the game
let be honest murray certainly wouldnt have won it as much if djokovic,nadal and federer were playing queens

Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

he was a complete;y dfferent player in the first set and you chould see the impovement mac brought to his net game
just goes to show how much confidence and the mental side of the game inpact a player

Did Raonic just sell the match? Not acceptable to beat Andy in London, he gave up the match for an envelope (is this libel?) 

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I put 20 on Murray when he was 0/3 down in the second set at 8.5 odd.

Well done!

I had my share of luck today, too.
Someone in the club just let me have their tickets for CC on second Monday.

When does Wimbledon start?

noleisthebest wrote:Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

Rao wasn't far off from winning. He served well but then Murray starts to read the serve and from then can throw long rallies.

Grass nowadays (with slow Slaz balls of course) is not different than clay.

Tenez wrote:
When does Wimbledon start?

In one week!

It came so quickly.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

Rao wasn't far off from winning. He served well but then Murray starts to read the serve and from then can throw long rallies.

Grass nowadays (with slow Slaz balls of course) is not different than clay.  

Yes, it's amazing that these serves are so containable.
But Raonic's serve is not that great...he is more about the force than placement and variety.
So when he gets predictable, Murray can feed off his pace, Raonic starts missing , choking...
Nothing lookes easy and flowing in his game.

It was unreal to read comments in this thread saying how well he played, even FK saw him as a slam winner!

I can't even imagine what that must've looked like.


He is a mess once his serve starts being returned.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

Rao wasn't far off from winning. He served well but then Murray starts to read the serve and from then can throw long rallies.

Grass nowadays (with slow Slaz balls of course) is not different than clay.  

Yes, it's amazing that these serves are so containable.
But Raonic's serve is not that great...he is more about the force than placement and variety.
So when he gets predictable, Murray can feed off his pace, Raonic starts missing , choking...
Nothing lookes easy and flowing in his game.

It was unreal to read comments in this thread saying how well he played, even FK saw him as a slam winner!

I can't even imagine what that must've looked like.


He is a mess once his serve starts being returned.

he will gain in confidence. Mc at least gave him that but then he was caught up by his old deamons. His serve is good enough that on normal old conditions, he would simply never be returned. tennis has done its best to prevent big servers to dominate.

This is why have a retriever winning 5 times Queens and another 2 sharing 5 wimbledons. Non sense. It;s like Wilander and Bruguera winning 6 wimbledons between themselves. Grass doesn't mean anything.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

Rao wasn't far off from winning. He served well but then Murray starts to read the serve and from then can throw long rallies.

Grass nowadays (with slow Slaz balls of course) is not different than clay.  

You seem to be becoming more and more blinkered Tenez. No question that grass doesn't play the same as 20 years ago and that there is less contrast between the surfaces as a result. However, to claim that there is now no difference between grass and clay is utter tosh. Do you really think that, say, RG and Queens play the same? How about if we compared some stats between the two, for example % of service games held and average rally length. Do you really think they would be the same for both tournaments? If not, how do you explain the difference?

I watched quite a lot of RG and quite a lot of Queens. There were obvious differences between the two and I'm staggered that a tennis expert like yourself can't see that. I think you've become so obsessed with your fitness is everything theory that you're blind to the facts.

The fact is that Andy Murray has always been successful on grass, probably more so than any other surface, and yet, even taking into account the slowing of conditions, grass still offers the least opportunity for long, grinding rallies. So how do you explain his relative success? I'm all ears?

I am glad servefests are finished in Wimbledon.

Also curious if Wimbledon will make balls quicker this year.
probably not, but you never know...

Yes, servefests can be pretty underwhelming. I think grass has a fairly good balance these days. Would be nice if attacking play was slightly more rewarded, but hard to achieve that without allowing serve to totally dominate again.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Yes, servefests can be pretty underwhelming. I think grass has a fairly good balance these days. Would be nice if attacking play was slightly more rewarded, but hard to achieve that without allowing serve to totally dominate again.

It's a combination of things, but I think the biggest factor is the aged top echalon.

What annoys me about grass tennis atm  is the ease with which every tom dick and harry can rally for ever on it.

Tennis has lost its thrill like that.

I also admit it's hard to find a good balance.

There is too much topspin and not enough flatter hitting relying on natural timing.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Well, pundits have to keep the masses happy...I was playing at the club this afternoon and someone said: has Andy won?
I completely forgot about his match...so we sat and watched the last two games in which Raonic looked pathetic.

Mac in his box is a waste of time and money.
With those tree trunks of legs, Raonic will never learn to volley.

Rao wasn't far off from winning. He served well but then Murray starts to read the serve and from then can throw long rallies.

Grass nowadays (with slow Slaz balls of course) is not different than clay.  

You seem to be becoming more and more blinkered Tenez. No question that grass doesn't play the same as 20 years ago and that there is less contrast between the surfaces as a result. However, to claim that there is now no difference between grass and clay is utter tosh. Do you really think that, say, RG and Queens play the same? How about if we compared some stats between the two, for example % of service games held and average rally length. Do you really think they would be the same for both tournaments? If not, how do you explain the difference?

I watched quite a lot of RG and quite a lot of Queens. There were obvious differences between the two and I'm staggered that a tennis expert like yourself can't see that. I think you've become so obsessed with your fitness is everything theory that you're blind to the facts.

The fact is that Andy Murray has always been successful on grass, probably more so than any other surface, and yet, even taking into account the slowing of conditions, grass still offers the least opportunity for long, grinding rallies. So how do you explain his relative success? I'm all ears?

You certainly belong to V2. Your post is full of contradiction.

The fact remains. retrievers are winning Wimbledon like they were winning clay before. Murray has a poor serve and wins by extending rallies. This is not grass as we know it. It's only fast when the grass is fresh but after a week of play it's very much like clay. Balls got bigger on grass in 2002, so of course Murray was always very good on it as he has never played on it. Real grass was before his time.

Murray didn't win because he read the serve but because raonic level dropped when he had the match at his mercy. He got unlucky in 1 game then bottled the rest.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Yes, servefests can be pretty underwhelming. I think grass has a fairly good balance these days. Would be nice if attacking play was slightly more rewarded, but hard to achieve that without allowing serve to totally dominate again.

So what? We have 3 different surfaces FOR A REASON.

Wimbledon qualies starting today.

Good luck to them all wi this weather!

Look, I know the difference between grass and clay used to be much more pronounced, with specialists for both and virtually two different tours (clay, grass/hard) operating in parallel. It is a shame that we've lost that contrast, but, with modern technology etc., I think it would be difficult to revert back to old school grass, as big servers would become unplayable, with virtually every set inexorably and tediously heading for a TB. Maybe, some tennis purists would be happy, but the average punter would not and I fear the popularity of Wimby would suffer.

Addressing Tenez's post, you didn't really answer my question. Do you think that certain key stats are now the same on clay and grass and, if not, how do you explain the difference if the two surfaces now play the same?

Yes, I accept that changes in conditions (and technology) mean that a counter-punching, baseline game has a greater chance of success and S&V is pretty much dead. However, the whole tour consists of baseliners these days, so they are all in the same boat.

What Tenez needs to explain is that, if Murray's success is primarily dependent on grinding opponents down and imposing his superior physicality, then why does he get arguably his best results on grass, a surface which, while changed from 20 years ago, unquestionably has shorter points and less opportunity for long grinding rallies than, say, clay.

In my book, one key advantage for Murray is his ability for returning big servers on faster surfaces. If this isn't a form of tennis talent, I don't know what is. We all know Tenez has an incredibly long list of tennis player more talented than Murray and Djoko. So, can he explain why they can't return a big server like Raonic as effectively?

More to the point, if fitness is so important as a determinant of success on today's tour, why do these more talented players not just get fitter? Surely the financial incentive is there for them to do so. Murray's ability to return serve is a legitimate natural talent that sets him apart from the pack, as it's something you can't teach. In contrast, anyone can work on fitness and, even if you believe illicit means are used by some, surely these are still accessible to all top players. Let me assure you Tenez, if the majority of lower ranks thought they were regularly losing due to fitness, they'd be moving heaven and earth to close the gap. I see no evidence of that.

The biggest weakness with the Tenez fitness theory is that it suggests that competitive advantage is totally reliant on the factor which is most reproducible, i.e. fitness. That just doesn't make sense. If Murray and Djoko's success depended only on fitness, then where are all the clones? They simply don't exist and even Tenez accepts that the new generation doesn't conform to the fitness mould either.

No question that Nadal's emergence contributed to an arms race of fitness at the very top of men's tennis. But this arms race depended on having a group of players very close to parity in the talent stakes. If you can't first match a player with your tennis ability, then superior fitness alone is not going to cut it. Hence why there is less emphasis on fitness further down the tour (although modern conditions plus increased professionalism has increased the base level of fitness across the tour).

Ultimately, this obsession with fitness being the only thing that matters in modern tennis demeans the sport and tarnishes Fed's legacy. I find it an insult that supposedly the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet can be confounded merely by superior legs and lungs.

While Tenez ponders the post above, I'm going to try a thought experiment using Murray as my guinea pig. Let's compare Murray to other prominent players of his generation (I've been a bit loose with the definition)  and try to identify H2Hs where fitness plays a decisive factor.

First lets deal with players that have (much) better records than Murray. I ask the question: does Murray predominantly lose in big matches against these players mainly due to inferior fitness?

Federer - No
Nadal - No
Djokovic - No

Now let's take players with worse records and ask the question: does Murray predominantly win the big matches against these players mainly due to superior fitness?

Wawrinka (fairly even record) - No
Berdych - No
Ferrer - No
Tsonga - No
Monfils - No
Del Potro - No
Cilic - No
Raonic - No
Nishikori - No

Can you identify any from the above you disagree with? If you disagree with all of them, perhaps you could select a few you disagree with the most and explain why, if possible.

Auto,

what is Murray beating his opponents with if not predominately fitness?

It's certainly not a killer FH or great serving.

Look how much muscle he puts in every one of his shots.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Ultimately, this obsession with fitness being the only thing that matters in modern tennis demeans the sport and tarnishes Fed's legacy. I find it an insult that supposedly the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet can be confounded merely by superior legs and lungs.

But once again, it's a fact. The fittest wins all the slams...and if it was not for huges talents such as Federer and Stan, the super fit retrievers woudl have won all the slams since 2005. Murray, Nadal and Djoko have won 28 slams out of the last 32 (8 years!) And each time it was the fittest on the day who won the final match of teh grand slams.

And it actually emphasises and not diminish Fed and Stan legacy. Being able to win while attacking against "roadrunners" (Fed's expression) is an amazing achievement only the upmost talented players can do.

Oh and it's not "merely" superior lungs and legs but is soleley legs and lungs which make the difference between them and the rest. No different than Pete's serve making the difference on fast surfaces but that same serve unable to make the difference on slower conds like clay. 14 slams on fast versus fat 0 on clay.