Re: ATP 2017 500,250: Rio, Marseille, Delray

by Emancipator Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:49 pm

Dimitrov's just not that good. Scraped past Janowic the other day and now loses to the lightweight Goffin.

by noleisthebest Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:52 am

Two great finals today:

Tsonga-Goffin
Nishi-Dolgo

Noone to want to lose....tennis wins!

by Tenez Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:19 am

Yes. I think Tsonga is stronger mentally but Goffin's tennis better. It's going to be down to key points. No idea who's going to win....Tsonga maybe.

Nishi will win that second one but good to see Dolgo back.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:35 am

Tenez wrote:Yes. I think Tsonga is stronger mentally but Goffin's tennis better. It's going to be down to key points. No idea who's going to win....Tsonga maybe.

Nishi will win that second one but good to see Dolgo back.

Goffin is a bunny-head. Panics and starts going to nothing shots. He lost it completely when he lost the 2nd set. Composure and a steady head is so needed to succeed at the highest level. Goffin breaks down so easily due to a sudden momentum going against him.

What is his coach doing??

He needs to add some topspin for safety on some of his shots, else they will as keep going long or wide.

by Tenez Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:07 am

I see him as a kind of Davydenko. He is now top 10 and his confidence will be growing fast. Looking at the score it seems he started strongly so I am not sure his head was the problem.

It s true that when you have a sharp game like his he is more likely to go through ups and downs.....but that I is what makes him good and dangerous too.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:17 am

I prefer Goffin to Davydenko, nicer game. Davydenko was like a robot.

Happy Dolgo won yesterday, saw a few games, wasn't really that watchable.

Also Harrison won his first ever title in Memphis.
At 24, I suppose he still qualifies "young".

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:25 am

Tenez wrote:Yes. I think Tsonga is stronger mentally but Goffin's tennis better. It's going to be down to key points. No idea who's going to win....Tsonga maybe.

Must've been the hair!

ATP 2017 500,250: Rio, Marseille, Delray - Page 4 2028442-42564336-640-360

by Tenez Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:09 pm

I preferred Davydenko....beauty to watch when on form. ....cause so cruel.

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:30 am

Wow, Tommy Haas who will be 39 in 6 weeks is playing in Delray! (as well as Delpo)

by noleisthebest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Good to see Pouille back in action. I read an interview with him, still not 100%, but hope he lifts the trophy in Marseille tomorrow!

by luvsports! Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:34 pm

Thhhiiieeeeeeeemmm!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:45 am

luvsports! wrote:Thhhiiieeeeeeeemmm!

Well he won, get to take home some ranking points. But I'm not going to take too much out from this win. It was a relatively weaker field for an ATP500.

Let him win beating guys above him, he is still to do that.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:50 am

What a pathetic end to Delay Beach tournament... a walkover win.

by Tenez Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:31 pm

Rublev beat Fognini to qualify for his first semi of a 250!

He is on his way up!

by noleisthebest Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:50 pm

I saw they were playing...amd Rubi got in as a LL, lost in qualies to a nobody...dunno what to think of tennis any more.
Betitng has ruined it.

It's got to be stopped if at all possible.

by Tenez Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:15 am

I don;t think betting was involved. The guy who beat Rublev did well against Goffin.

by noleisthebest Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:16 am

I hope so. He's had some suspicious results in the past.

Russian players in parricular are vulnerable.(their mafia)

by noleisthebest Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:35 pm

So Rubi is playing Dodig in the semi!

I saw Dodig beat Rubi in Roehampton in the last round of Wimbledon qualies two years ago.

It was very close.

Hopefully, Rubi will be able to cross the line this time.

by Tenez Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:13 pm

When are they playing?

by noleisthebest Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Tenez wrote:When are they playing?

They've finished.
Little Dragon won 7:6 6:1 diva

.

by Tenez Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:27 pm

Cool....typical of a lucky loser.

by noleisthebest Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:30 pm

Tenez wrote:Cool....typical of a lucky loser.

Yes, interesting...

by Tenez Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:33 pm

If he wins tomorrow....he enters top 50. Then serious things starts!

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:48 am

Read an interesting piece by SFP on 606V2 about how this year 21 titles have been won by players in their 30's and for the first time this year Zverev was the first teenager reached the final of Masters since 2008! Eeek.

Thoughts?

by Tenez Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:56 am

Toughts? Tenez told you in 2010 that players did not peak at 26 nor 27.

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:00 pm

Is it peaking though or maturity?

by noleisthebest Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:05 pm

legendkillar wrote:Is it peaking though or maturity?

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t835-top-10-players-age?

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:31 pm

... wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Is it peaking though or maturity?

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t835-top-10-players-age?

So did everyone decide on new names?

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:35 pm

In relation to the article, participation numbers were referenced. Sadly there are no stats around (that I can find anyway) for example around the amount of juniors currently participating with LTA funding and whether that's increased or not. I do believe that numbers must be down, but getting to the crux of the matter as to why could be any number of reasons.

by noleisthebest Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:42 pm

Rublev needs a proper coach to develop his talent.

He has reduced himself to a grunting 1d basher.

I don't care it won him the title on Sunday. Grr

by luvsports! Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:42 pm

Interesting. Recently you were singing his praises!

by Jahu Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:17 pm

Yeah nitb can't hold herself not loving these russian loosers, anything with EV, Zverev, Rublev, some other canadian git with EV too.

No one cares for state sponsored drugged russians Laugh

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:34 am

Tenez wrote:Toughts? Tenez told you in 2010 that players did not peak at 26 nor 27.

Shame that Tenez hasn't explained this:

Federer
Slams before 29: 16
Slams 29+: 3 [Oldest Wimb champ in Open Era, second oldest Slam winner in Open Era. Latest Slam aged 35.]

Nadal
Slams before 29: 13
Slams 29+: 2 [Note - has only won one slam outside of RG in the last 7 years. Latest Slam aged 31.]

Sampras
Slams before 29: 13
Slams 29+: 1 [last Slam aged 31]

Agassi
Slams before 29: 3
Slams 29+: 5 [last Slam aged 32]

McEnroe
Slams before 29: 7
Slams 29+: 0

Djokovic
Slams before 29: 11
Slams 29+: 1 [So far. And his latest trend is the most woeful 365 days of his career since he started winning. Latest slam aged 29.]

Or that Zverev, at the age of 19-20 - Thiem age 23 - are the only players other than Fed/Nadal to win Masters event this year. Also, you might want to look at how the top 10 is shaping up. Those 30+ players won't be there forever.

The evidence really doesn't look as great as you delude yourself into believing. You can even take finalists, semifinalists.... you name it. With the exception of Agassi (who still stopped winning slams in his early 30s), the trend is nearly always that 29+ players win less than 19-28 (and IS always that way with any other big winner). That goes for the greatest of all time, too. How about just accepting that the evidence isn't with you?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's also add the following:

Number of Slams won by players 30+: 24 (recent: Federer 2012/17/17. Nadal 2017. Wawrinka 2015/16. Agassi 2001/03. Sampras 2002.)

Number of players to have won one Slam 31+: 10 (Rosewall, Gimeno, Agassi, Ashe, Laver, Sampras, Connors, Federer, Wawrinka, Nadal)

Number of players to have won three Slams 28+: 8 (Connors, Agassi, Laver, Federer, Newcombe, Rosewall, Djokovic, Wawrinka)

Number of players to have won two Slams 30+: 6 (Connors, Agassi, Laver, Federer, Rosewall, Wawrinka)

Number of players to have won three Slams 30+: 3 (Rosewall, Federer, Laver)

Why would that be, Tenez.... ?

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:01 am

luvsports! wrote:Interesting. Recently you were singing his praises!

I like him, that's why I am frustrated as I can see how much better he could play.
It's not easy to break through as a young player and he has been struggling and trying hard in the last two years.

Most talented alongside Shapalov.

by Tenez Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:57 am

Jahu wrote:Yeah nitb can't hold herself not loving these russian loosers, anything with EV, Zverev, Rublev, some other canadian git with EV too.

No one cares for state sponsored drugged russians

Results wise, it seems to me the UK is the new RDA!

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:39 pm

Once again, Tenez ignores a question that he can't answer....

by Tenez Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:20 pm

Daniel wrote:Once again, Tenez ignores a question that he can't answer....

I have answerd yours a 1000 times but you don't want to hear it. Sorry I can't help....though i expect you know by now but just dont want to admit you were wrong.

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:05 pm

You don't answer it. You ignore it. Your evidence is a 3 year period in tennis that isn't all that impressive... against the last 30+ years of tennis history.

by bogbrush Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:29 pm

Speaking as I do as a renowned mediator and force for consensus in forum debates, I have a question for Daniel & Tenez.

What evidence would constitute proof that you are Wrong?

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:36 pm

There is no evidence to constitute that I am wrong... because I'm not. What you'd need at the least is the next 10 years where winning more slams in your 30s to 20s is the norm. That isn't even the norm now. Tenez conveniently gets around this by saying technology and the opposition have changed so much that success is not a factor in determining the norm. That's garbage. First, tech doesn't change that drastically in 5 year periods - secondly, where exactly is this opposition? The Dark Destroyer and Mr Kalashnikov? Kyrgios who has all the talent but isn't realizing it? Tomic who admits he doesn't give a shit? Nishikori, the biggest pussy in sport (has made retiring and giving up an art form)? Meanwhile Federer admitting this is Generation Never and telling them he's disappointed.

So what exactly is Tenez argument? In the past it's always been "Federer doesn't win as many slams in his 30s to his 20s [along with numerous other players] because the younger generation gets a. wise to his play and b. faster and faster and c. technology changes. "

Do you agree with that Bogbrush? I know for a fact that you don't. When presented with video evidence and statistical evidence to show that Federer moved faster in 2006, was more consistent in 2006, and had a better forehand in 2006... he just says "No he didn't". There is so much evidence out there that nearly all players are better in their 20s to their 30s. There are exceptions, of course.... but that's all they are. Even Gimeno won his only slam at 34 and 10 months - Rosewall won 4 in his 30s - Agassi won three of his five at 29+. Going by Tenez's logic, players have always been better in their 30s.

Tenez's argument is like wet tissue paper.. actually even wet tissue paper has some cohesion. When presented with even one dimensional sport's athletes, like Bolt in 100m, the trends are unmistakable that the faster times are nearly always from runners in their 20s. Then I get back "Running isn't tennis". So Tenez wants players to be getting faster and faster year on year - but only in tennis? It's just mind bogglingly all over the place.

Lastly, as I said before, Tenez not only wants his arguments to be true - he wants literally theoretical impossibilities to be true. For example, he has argued that players always get faster and faster. But we know this isn't true. A human being has an upper limit to the maximum speed he can be in any sport - even the Long Jump Olympic record was set in the 60s - and the margins of change in running have been so very fine to say the least. It's not like every 10 years or so, you see a one second difference in speed. Even 1/10 of a second is a massive difference in 100m - and it's only being added to by those with freakishly long legs - something that doesn't help you so much in tennis. If it did, Ivo would be on 19 slams.

by Tenez Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:43 pm

bogbrush wrote:Speaking as I do as a renowned mediator and force for consensus in forum debates, I have a question for Daniel & Tenez.

What evidence would constitute proof that you are Wrong?

It's obvious (analog data) backed up by digital data.

Here for you:
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t790-how-fast-does-tennis-move-on

and

From a past thread:

Tenez wrote:I see SB points but I like to analyse analog data as opposed to digital ones. That's the problems nowadays....People cannot analyse the "analog" data. Thhey don;t see the game “as is”, they need a digital camera or an HE to draw stats to tell them what others can see without.

The analog data tells me that Nadal has a "better" (digital term) game than Federer. Not as sharp and as good on the day but over all less risky, more robust, less dependent on the form of the day and simply lasts longer on those slower conds. Analog data told me that Nadal needed to have long breathing period between point to sustain this high energy consumption....digital analysts thought it was OCDs for instance.

I could see that Federer was simply not prepared to play that kind of powerful game week in week out. He was not playing Fish, Denton, Ljubicic, Gaudio or Ginepri anymore he has to play guys like Ferrer, Murray, Djoko and Nadal …..”better” (in digital term) than the old guard though not as talented (analog term).

I could see Federer was working very hard to adapt to the new world but it was never going to be easy for him, either you have the energy or your don’t. Those who have are simply ranked at the top, those who don’t are lower ranked. Not much to do with tactics, SHBH v DHBH or talent. Its about pure brawn since Nadal’s arrival.

Federer only addition of power was changing his racquet bigger frame AND longer racquet. Still equipped with talent, more power and more consistency, he may have now a chance to repair some of his H2H v Nadal. Not a guarantee as physically Federer is certainly feeling it in the later stages of tournaments where he is due to meet Nadal but I certainly feel he is much better equipped now than he was in 2007. A proper digital analysis would tell you that too but there is none available out there yet.

Analog and digital should get you to the same conclusions, unfortunately most fans have their sensors blurred by their emotions.

Life is so much better in analog.

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:50 pm

He changed racquet precisely because his reaction times were dulled as he got older and he started shanking balls. He didn't WANT to or NEED to in 2006 (he was playing brilliantly with it - and smaller racquet heads have their own advantages). He was forced to by age.

by Tenez Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:55 pm

Funny how I wrote that in March 2015....almost 2 years before it all happened.....again....that's analog observation!

Tenez wrote:Federer only addition of power was changing his racquet bigger frame AND longer racquet. Still equipped with talent, more power and more consistency, he may have now a chance to repair some of his H2H v Nadal. Not a guarantee as physically Federer is certainly feeling it in the later stages of tournaments where he is due to meet Nadal but I certainly feel he is much better equipped now than he was in 2007. A proper digital analysis would tell you that too but there is none available out there yet.

by Tenez Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:57 pm

Daniel wrote:He changed racquet precisely because his reaction times were dulled as he got older and he started shanking balls. He didn't WANT to or NEED to in 2006 (he was playing brilliantly with it - and smaller racquet heads have their own advantages). He was forced to by age.

Learn Daniel, learn....

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t790-how-fast-does-tennis-move-on

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:07 pm

Tenez wrote:Funny how I wrote that in March 2015....almost 2 years before it all happened.....again....that's analog observation!
Tenez wrote:Federer only addition of power was changing his racquet bigger frame AND longer racquet. Still equipped with talent, more power and more consistency, he may have now a chance to repair some of his H2H v Nadal. Not a guarantee as physically Federer is certainly feeling it in the later stages of tournaments where he is due to meet Nadal but I certainly feel he is much better equipped now than he was in 2007. A proper digital analysis would tell you that too but there is none available out there yet.

I don't understand why everyone can't see it that way. it is so simple. I only discovered on tennis forums that quote from Socrates is so true

ATP 2017 500,250: Rio, Marseille, Delray - Page 4 0ee335ad039399f85a0da0f64c44ff34

ATP 2017 500,250: Rio, Marseille, Delray - Page 4 0ee335ad039399f85a0da0f64c44ff34

those who discuss people are the twitter etc followers, those who discuss events look at stats and numbers, and those who discuss ideas are able to see the heart of things - what the ball does.

by Daniel Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:10 pm

I don't need to "learn" - you need to stop ignoring overwhelming evidence that proves you are simply wrong. My evidence is the fact winning in the 30s is rare. You only have excuses for why that is (because you refuse to accept that it's because older players have worse reflexes, worse speed, worse movement, worse stamina, worse healing times, and years of battle scars).

In other words, I have science on my side and you do not.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:24 pm

Tenez wrote:
Daniel wrote:He changed racquet precisely because his reaction times were dulled as he got older and he started shanking balls. He didn't WANT to or NEED to in 2006 (he was playing brilliantly with it - and smaller racquet heads have their own advantages). He was forced to by age.
Learn Daniel, learn....

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t790-how-fast-does-tennis-move-on

Learning is beautiful and fantastic, one of the best things we can do. When I find people who know their subject I cling to them and try to learn as much as I can. We have a reasonable pool of people who cover a lot of subjects. Enough room for us all to shine. Big Grin

Mind is the most mobile part of the soul.

Tragically, people's egos are so massive they'd rather know everything.

I don't know how they can function like that. Must be strange.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:38 pm

I remember having watched tennis for years without knowing any terminology. I didn't even know what backhand was.

It only dawned on me once when I realised that you hit the ball with the back of your hand facing the net Blush

....but when I joined bbc 606 my knowledge took off!

by legendkillar Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:49 pm

http://www.givemesport.com/1112426-tim-henman-suggests-what-andy-murray-should-do-ahead-of-us-open

Henman saying what essentially most are.

by Daniel Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:08 pm

Why is he even thinking about playing? Is he THAT much of a moron?

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31