Wimbledon 2014: MOTD Day 13 Sun 06/07/2014 - Gentlemen's Final

Well, you are in the right place for learning!

I have learnt so much from Tenez, as he has excellent understanding of tennis and is happy to share it.

Playing the game in addition, being able to feel various types of ball-striking gives the base to properly comprehending what goes on while watching.

I've come a long way from the days when I liked players because they were "cute" or "coming to the net"

Haha, I'm not the type to like anyone, just because they are cute.  They have to bring more to the table than that. Ok, beautiful movement will get me more often than not, love beautiful skiing e.g. for an example from another sport. Beauty in sports seems to equate to making difficult things look effortless.

Yes, I noticed that there are a lot of people with understanding around here, that's why I wanted to take part in the discussions. I will sometimes provoke a little bit, but not with the pretence to know more (which I obviously don't!), more to get more in depth to questions/ points that interest me.

To elaborate: When I was a child, I had absolutely no opportunity to play. Back then, it was at least shown in TV, so I know a little bit from that time when it was big in Germany.

Later it was not shown on TV and I completely forgot about it, because it is also not a topic in the media. So I came back only last year, when I was interested in doping, in the business side and in the social meaning of pro sports. Still so fascinated by that topic and I found that there is interesting discussion about that here.

Nadal is a big topic there obviously, because he is so indecent and elicites so many emotions. I watched a little bit of tennis and loved it and wanted to learn more, including how to play.  I have general good fitness from other sports I do, like nordic skiing, running, cycling.

Fortunately my husband did play as a child (I believe there is not a sport, he didn't do though I am more athletic), so he teaches me a little bit when we both have the time. It's a completely different game though, a bit like children. Still I like it and will get better, I'm a natural.

Being "a natural" does help, esp women as they tend to be less coordinated than men.

I also started later than I wanted, because there were zero opportunities...which saddens me a lot as I have always loved the ball and rue the years the locust have eaten.
Tennis, unlike any other sport is the hardest to master and takes time.

I often see it as a tall mountain I once stood at the bottom of in Jungfrau, Switzerland, I am at the bottom and Federer is at the top.

But it's a beautiful climb and I don't care about the grazed knees...

I love the play and am not bothered about losing at all. The thrill of ball-striking, chasing it like a kitten chases the ball of wool, I feel so free and alive on the tennis court.
I can't get enough of it as the better you play, the more you enjoy it.

A friend I often play gets so down when she loses, she says winning makes her feel good, but I don't care for winning, for me, the joy is hitting a good shot, playing a great point...that stays with me and carries me over to the next time, never the bad ones, they are there to be improved!

Autumnleaf wrote:Interesting discussion, but in the end impossible to come to a conclusion here. Don't agree with the statement of the game "improving". I'd say more neutrally "changing", because "improvement" is too much of a judgement in my view. It's clear that the physical/ athletic elements of the game take supremacy now which is a sad development imho.

Concerning age: the exact effects will be very difficult to find out because there are so many things to factor in. But surely the usual low age of GS winners is not connected to physical decline at age 28 (!). That's way too early and not supported by any studies about human physiology. Agassi made the US Open final at age 35!

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html

"The physical peak for most humans, in most sports, is between 25 and 35 years of age; during this peak period, the well-conditioned athlete can create a confluence of muscular strength, peak cardiovascular and oxygen transport, speed and reaction time, and mental capabilities (including the ability to deal with competitive pressures), all bound together by a desire to succeed."


Beyond 35-40 however, there are discernible/ measurable reductions in maximum heart rate, VO2 max and lean body mass, testosterone level that will reduce athletic performance. The degree of these changes depends on the individual and it surely won't be quick (!), but at the highest level even one percent counts.

I see what you mean but it is difficult to deny that winning today requires harder work than yesterday. With muscles and hard work those players can beat the most talented players out there. It might not be for the taste of all but it is a fact. Borg woudl beat any of the previous player, like Pete would beat any of the previous players, Like Fed would beat any of the previous ones too. It is difficult to deny that Djoko and Nadal seriously improved in the last 7 years.

I don't think a player peak at 25. We can see that nowadays that the sport has got more physical. With the sport becoming more physical the peak has actually moved up. Look at Stan, and all the other 24/25 players....they will keep improving right up to age 30. In tennis the timing is essential and that improves well in the 30s. The problem is the recovery period after 27. But with drugs (legal or illegal) and training they can seriously improve that and this is why it has been much harder for youngsters recently.

27 is not longer the peak time. More around 30 nowadays....unless you are one of those physical players who certainly are pushing their bodies to ridiculous limits (Nadal, Murray and Djoko).

You only have to look at Slam champions to know that peak is long before 30.  Hands up who thinks Djokovic and Nadal will be winning Slams at 30?  Especially Wimbledon...

It just won't happen.

FedererKing wrote:You only have to look at Slam champions to know that peak is long before 30.

So the youngsters learning from the old guard and beating them with new technology and training is irrelevant?

You are saying that youngsters can only beat the champions when they decline. I notice that you are only coming with statements without articulating them.

How do you explain that Fed is still toes to toes with Djoko despite Djoko improving dramatically from 2007 to 2014?

FK, the game has changed considerably in more than one way to be able to measure, gauge and predict success of players through age now.

Maybe after this generation (Nadal, Nole, Murray) retire we'll have a clearer idea how this extreme levels of physicality can last and behave. 

Fed is an exception because of his talent. I am glad he is still thriving on challenging the new guard. He must have loved dismantling Raonic in that SF.

In the meantime, we are just witnessing how the new generation is challenging them: with height and power. And fitness. Quite a fragile combination (height and fitness), so maybe not a long phase before it all goes back to 6 foot 1 player again.

Maybe someone with Nadal's power but also with ball-striking talent. Would be scary...

I think Thiem could be that guy 2bh.
He's 6'1 I think, moves great and he outhit stan at times in madrid!

I saw Thiem vs Sock from row one on grass at Boodles just before Wimbledon.
I looked forward to seeing his FH prior the match, but I was quite disappointed: his ball-striking is very physical, loads of spin on it which gave him very little advantage on grass as he applies that spin in a unique way, kind of last possible moment, letting out an ugly guttural sound.
It took him a whole set to find his groove whereas Sock was smooth and sharp from the start pinning Thiem to the back of the baseline most of the match.
Thiem definitely looks much better on TV.

The two were both drenched in sweat and were a contrast to Gulbis & Fognini who had played before them.

Now, that was some real talent: gorgeous ball-striking, beautiful BH from Fog, some nice FHs from Earnie...

So, not holding my breath for Thiem any more. He's definitely got something about him, just to spinny and slow for grass.

noleisthebest wrote:Thiem definitely looks much better on TV.

His FH looks just as ugly on TV. In spite of that, I may still root him in future, just because of his BH, which is actually quite watchable.

The thing that I like about him is his ultra attacking game, you can see it's in him and it's driving him.
You can't teach that.
That's what Dimi is missing, I think.

noleisthebest wrote:The thing that I like about him is his ultra attacking game, you can see it's in him and it's driving him.
You can't teach that.
That's what Dimi is missing, I think.

There have been plenty of topics worth discussing here over the last few weeks, sadly so little time these days  So will randomly pick up some of them.

If this were the '80s or '90s, I would agree with your assessment of Dimi.  If a player with his skill set was not attacking more in those days, then it had to be down to their personality, because it was a suboptimal decision.

But it is very different these days.  A player who wants to succeed these days has to be much more careful as to what style they will employ - it is far from obvious they can be successful playing aggressively.  Dimi himself has only become more successful now - after he got himself in shape where he is able to survive on the baseline.

Nole did something similar in 2011.

Dimi needs to improve his BH, I think, it's a sitting duck and it's holding him back, so easy "tactics" there

It's good he is progressing, but for me personally, there is really nothing exciting about his tennis or character, like Delpo, for example.

Obviously, Nike is pushing him big time and he is a hard worker, somehow, I think another young player will come out of nowhere and put him and Raonic in the shade with some irresistible dazzling attacking tennis!

I understand that you as a Dimi fan follow him differently, but to me he is just another player, a bit like Nole to you....

Next few years will be interesting as this physical era is a new thing so it's hard to see how younger players are going to be able to break through, as they have a physical handicap in a way, I am guessing at least 3-4 years.

noleisthebest wrote:I understand that you as a Dimi fan follow him differently

I am not as much of a Dimi fan as I may come across as.  I probably like him about as much as Tommy Haas.  It is only in comparison against everyone else currently coming through that I like Dimi a lot better.  But I would love to see a younger player with a nicer and better game than Dimi.  As much as I like Dimi, I am unlikely to ever become a fan anywhere near the extent I am a fan of some other players (e.g., McEnroe, Edberg, Roger).