Oz open prediction game - Day 9!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Zverev has somewhat settled into this match..

bogbrush wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Zverev has somewhat settled into this match..

Great jinx!

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

luvsports! wrote:WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

gallery play wrote:Ok, that was quick. Didn't see any of it. Seems like there's no loss of form at all?

He's been bookmakers fav since Murray went out. Who would have thought that? Some here claimed he retired last summer...

NITB wrote:

gallery play wrote:Ok, that was quick. Didn't see any of it. Seems like there's no loss of form at all?

He's been bookmakers fav since Murray went out. Who would have thought that? Some here claimed he retired last summer...

Amd what did you claim?
That he will win AO 2017?

Tenez wrote:I think despite having played a few short matches, Fed is extremely exhausted. He was in 2015 when he had good short runs to the finals so i think he is even more tired now.

I honestly dont fancy his chances much.

Tenez wrote:I think despite having played a few short matches, Fed is extremely exhausted. He was in 2015 when he had good short runs to the finals so i think he is even more tired now.

I honestly dont fancy his chances much.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

I think they're panicking because they've had a glimpse of how tedious the sport will be once Federer goes, and we have Djokovic and especially Murray boring us to death, and are taking steps to improve it as a spectacle.

We know they were slowed especially to prevent a Federer monopoly and promote this rivalry with Nadal, now they realise - ironically because the same man is at a different stage of career - that they have to change them again.

Just a shame we were all deprived of years of amazing attacking tennis from the greatest player to pick up a racquet.

Daniel wrote:Ah Bogbrush commenting on BBC too

Tenez wrote:Does anyone remember the discussion I had with Lydian about the Fed v Pete Wimbledon match?

He was saying that Fed at 19 was closer to his peak than Pete at 29....LOL how wrong was he again!

bogbrush wrote:

Daniel wrote:Ah Bogbrush commenting on BBC too

Well they need somebody with sense on there. Pity they don't have some sense in the upper reaches of the organisation as well.

I presume I received an upvote

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

I think they're panicking because they've had a glimpse of how tedious the sport will be once Federer goes, and we have Djokovic and especially Murray boring us to death, and are taking steps to improve it as a spectacle.

We know they were slowed especially to prevent a Federer monopoly and promote this rivalry with Nadal, now they realise - ironically because the same man is at a different stage of career - that they have to change them again.

Just a shame we were all deprived of years of amazing attacking tennis from the greatest player to pick up a racquet.

NITB wrote:

Tenez wrote:Does anyone remember the discussion I had with Lydian about the Fed v Pete Wimbledon match?

He was saying that Fed at 19 was closer to his peak than Pete at 29....LOL how wrong was he again!

I remember those discussions were long and boring...I would usually switch off after page one.

But remember  everything you have ever said and that goes to 10 years back was true.


Time between points, doping, slow balls...everything. It looked so avant-garde then wnd now it's common knowledge.
My "speciality" was draw rigging.

Shame it took Fed so long to say it on the big scene.

Still better now than never.


Would be cool to have Lydian here, for goold old times sake , after all, Nadal is still in the draw!

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

I think they're panicking because they've had a glimpse of how tedious the sport will be once Federer goes, and we have Djokovic and especially Murray boring us to death, and are taking steps to improve it as a spectacle.

We know they were slowed especially to prevent a Federer monopoly and promote this rivalry with Nadal, now they realise - ironically because the same man is at a different stage of career - that they have to change them again.

Just a shame we were all deprived of years of amazing attacking tennis from the greatest player to pick up a racquet.

It's that sentence that does just irks me. I am not one for the fandimonium and it doesn't suit your sceptical posture on these boards and also maybe it's the Victor Meldrew in me that's comming out as for the most part I do enjoy your postings . I think it's a tad presumptuous that it would've been a total ownership of the field (which he did for a while) and that no-one else can produce flair attacking tennis.

I hold Federer as the greatest tennis player that ever lived, but I don't believe he was the only one to be completely hindered by the homogenisation that kicked in.

There have been many sports that have tried to make the sport as generic and bland as they can possibly manage over the decades and like tennis, they get it totally wrong. Tapping into your business brain, you know monopolies are usually frowned upon, unless of course they establish a real need and become that necessary evil which is what I might see in what most see in Federer.

I don't think the tennis bodies know what they will do when Federer calls it a day. They sway from one extreme to the next and confidence in their ability to make the right decisions is beyond low.

This tournament has had both Murray and Djokovic lose early and have they been missed? No. However the coverage of those losses has been poor because no-one (from a media perspective) has come out to say the quality of the tennis produced by the remaining field is the direction tennis should head in. It's more of the loss of the top ranked players as adverse to the tennis left in the draw that's on display. The crime for me has been that tennis has relied on 'brand' The Big 4 if you will for all the wrong reasons and I think that has had a detrimental effect on how fans view the sport and a lot of quality players not attracting the eyes of viewers that it should do.

I know that's a wayward rant, but I've had an espresso and I am wired and eager!

garthmarenghi wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

I think they're panicking because they've had a glimpse of how tedious the sport will be once Federer goes, and we have Djokovic and especially Murray boring us to death, and are taking steps to improve it as a spectacle.

We know they were slowed especially to prevent a Federer monopoly and promote this rivalry with Nadal, now they realise - ironically because the same man is at a different stage of career - that they have to change them again.

Just a shame we were all deprived of years of amazing attacking tennis from the greatest player to pick up a racquet.

They slowed the courts down to start with in the early 2000's because everyone was getting pissy pants about big servers.

It certainly didn't help Fed, but he was not the starting point for the court speed changing, although granted they slowed them down further as his career went on.

Anyway, who cares... Fed wins again! This is his tournament. On Sunday, he reigns again!

bogbrush wrote:Woah! I never saw that!!

What legends (I mean duggietoo, for example). Thank God there were no questions from Wise_Analyst, Mediter, Dr_Sincere, Impartial_Lion etc.

gallery play wrote:

NITB wrote:

Tenez wrote:Does anyone remember the discussion I had with Lydian about the Fed v Pete Wimbledon match?
He was saying that Fed at 19 was closer to his peak than Pete at 29....LOL how wrong was he again!

I remember those discussions were long and boring...I would usually switch off after page one.
But remember  everything you have ever said and that goes to 10 years back was true.
Time between points, doping, slow balls...everything. It looked so avant-garde then wnd now it's common knowledge.
My "speciality" was draw rigging.
Shame it took Fed so long to say it on the big scene.
Still better now than never.
Would be cool to have Lydian here, for goold old times sake , after all, Nadal is still in the draw!

Are you sure? 
Prepare yourself for arguments like: "Nadal needs extra time between the points because the cheering of the crowd lasts longer when he plays".

NITB wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Woah! I never saw that!!

What legends (I mean duggietoo, for example). Thank God there were no questions from Wise_Analyst, Mediter, Dr_Sincere, Impartial_Lion etc.

I thought that was all the same person, was really funny!

I remember that at the time I was so obsessed with Nole I was actually secretly hoping Borg would say Djokovic was his favourite player at the time.

bogbrush wrote:

NITB wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Woah! I never saw that!!

What legends (I mean duggietoo, for example). Thank God there were no questions from Wise_Analyst, Mediter, Dr_Sincere, Impartial_Lion etc.

I thought that was all the same person, was really funny!
I remember that at the time I was so obsessed with Nole I was actually secretly hoping Borg would say Djokovic was his favourite player at the time.

Many of them were (not duggietoo).
[b[Great days; totally unmoderated madhouse, for those of us who battled and lived to tell the tale all other argument in forums is childs play.[/b]
Speaking of which, I looked at 606v2 and it is DEAD. They killed it.

Lydian wrote:Did someone mention my name ;-)

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer describing perfectly the situation with TDs slowing the courts down turning tennis matches into slugsfests.

I think they're panicking because they've had a glimpse of how tedious the sport will be once Federer goes, and we have Djokovic and especially Murray boring us to death, and are taking steps to improve it as a spectacle.

We know they were slowed especially to prevent a Federer monopoly and promote this rivalry with Nadal, now they realise - ironically because the same man is at a different stage of career - that they have to change them again.

Just a shame we were all deprived of years of amazing attacking tennis from the greatest player to pick up a racquet.

It's that sentence that does just irks me. I am not one for the fandimonium and it doesn't suit your sceptical posture on these boards and also maybe it's the Victor Meldrew in me that's comming out as for the most part I do enjoy your postings . I think it's a tad presumptuous that it would've been a total ownership of the field (which he did for a while) and that no-one else can produce flair attacking tennis.

I hold Federer as the greatest tennis player that ever lived, but I don't believe he was the only one to be completely hindered by the homogenisation that kicked in.

There have been many sports that have tried to make the sport as generic and bland as they can possibly manage over the decades and like tennis, they get it totally wrong. Tapping into your business brain, you know monopolies are usually frowned upon, unless of course they establish a real need and become that necessary evil which is what I might see in what most see in Federer.

I don't think the tennis bodies know what they will do when Federer calls it a day. They sway from one extreme to the next and confidence in their ability to make the right decisions is beyond low.

This tournament has had both Murray and Djokovic lose early and have they been missed? No. However the coverage of those losses has been poor because no-one (from a media perspective) has come out to say the quality of the tennis produced by the remaining field is the direction tennis should head in. It's more of the loss of the top ranked players as adverse to the tennis left in the draw that's on display. The crime for me has been that tennis has relied on 'brand' The Big 4 if you will for all the wrong reasons and I think that has had a detrimental effect on how fans view the sport and a lot of quality players not attracting the eyes of viewers that it should do.

I know that's a wayward rant, but I've had an espresso and I am wired and eager!

I'm only saying that if you tilt the playing field over all those years into a direction favouring him that a few borderline results would have come the other way. Even through the caffeine that's not too controversial surely?

NITB wrote:

Lydian wrote:Did someone mention my name ;-)

Hello Lydian!

Long time no see!
How are you? Still a Rafa fan?

I think Tenez has been missing you.

Tenez wrote:Welcome here Lydian, the gentle, self-moderated tennis forum, where only tennis really matters.