Men's Final - USO 2018

One is an opinion going against facts.  The other is based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AS A TOP LEVEL PRO.

It's a fact that Del Potro can approach the net and never ever did.  He has legs.

Daniel wrote:One is an opinion going against facts.  The other is based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AS A TOP LEVEL PRO.

It's a fact that Del Potro can approach the net and never ever did.  He has legs

So can I! I have legs and can approach the net. We re talking about approaching the net and winning!

If you want to see how a genius with out of this world Serve and volleying skills do it versus a road runner, watch that!:

Your logic is absurd.  You think a top 10 player in the game can't attack the net...  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  And the guy is 6 feet 6.

I don't reason. I observe. I observe that in 2 decades no-one has won SVing. Delpo would be low on my list of potential slam winner by SVing.

Del Potro would have to learn an entirely new game to start serve volleying. He’s a power grinder whose game is based on minimum risk/variety, relying on his natural weight of shot. 

The only time he’s interesting to watch is when he’s up against one of the very best and is forced to take greater risk and hit nearer to the lines/even harder, which he did for 2-3 games in the middle of the final. That’s his only change up. He is not suddenly going to start hitting feathered drop shots or come sneaking in to put away a volley.

If you think a top 4 player and former Slam winner can't learn to run to the net, I don't really have any other response than to call you an idiot.  I don't want to , but that's all I have left.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/44784078

Must be an illusion.

I like Wilander's views. He is not a stupid guy and knows his tennis. I think you are misinterpreting what he really means. From what I read he says that Delpo was doomed. So doom for doom, Matts felt Delpo had to try his luck and go for more risk. Keeping his routine of rallying and waiting for an opportunity on his FH was not going to win him the slam on the day.

SO Matts was suggesting a more kamikase approach. A 1 in in 100 chance but at least a chance...while Delpo rallying tactic were simply doomed, hopeless.

The fact remains that no-one won a slam by SVing in 2 decades or so.

Even Pete in his last slam in 2002 was rallying more from the baseline., with much less Sving.

I don't think Daniel is actually advocating a S&V dominant game plan. I read it as he was suggesting if Djokovic was going to kill him from the baseline, that Delpo should've tried rushing the net now and then and try disrupt the flow of the game.

I don't see that as an unreasonable position. Him highlighting that actually shows the lack of variety of many of the top players.

legendkillar wrote:I don't think Daniel is actually advocating a S&V dominant game plan. I read it as he was suggesting if Djokovic was going to kill him from the baseline, that Delpo should've tried rushing the net now and then and try disrupt the flow of the game.

I don't see that as an unreasonable position. Him highlighting that actually shows the lack of variety of many of the top players.

Ding ding ding... We have a winner.

What Tenez et al seem to be suggesting is that Del Potros game plan from 2-0 down was sound.  So sound he lost 3-0. Mixing the game up, coming to the net when you've smashed them out wide or done a 130 mph serve...  
These are BASIC strategies that even most club players understand.

It's not difficult and claiming it's impossible to mix things up or play smart tennis rather than 100% baseline is nonsense of the highest order.  It's as much nonsense as suggesting it's impossible to play a short serve against nadal when he's 100m behind the baseline.  So impossible I can do it.

Even with the dashing the net it's so much about being a competent volleyer, it's about putting pressure on the opponent to come up with the shot. Yes granted Djokovic has burnt many with passing shots, however trying to disrupt the rhythm and flow of the game. 

Look at Isner. He comes to the net much more. So the whole size argument bit of a myth.

Tall players have a massive advantage at the net as well.  Any idiot at a club will attest to it.

If I were faced with a choice of following Plan A and definitely losing, I must say I'd be inclined to take a look at Plans B - Z. Call me rash but that's just my take on it.

As a matter of pure theory it would seem to me to be about uncertainty as much as anything else.  I'd think that I have a small edge on my opponent and he sticks to a fairly predictable game plan, I can stick to mine and have a much better chance of consistently making good my advantage.  By contrast, my opponent does not need to mix it up a great deal in his efforts to disrupt my flow to increase his chances.

By way of illustration, as I understand it the effectiveness of Federer's SABR lay not so much in the points it won him when executed well, but the dilemma it cast on the server anticipating it.  Even though he knew it might happen only a few times, he could not be sure when.  To this is added the fact that the wonderful scoring system creates such a roller-coaster by putting a varying mental load on points during the course of even one game.

However, to add something else a bit contrarian to the mix; I once read somewhere that Federer is of the view that too many players spend too much time in practice trying to address their weaknesses rather than attempting to maximise their strengths.

Perhaps the ability to adopt plans B-Z and to mix it up in a way that is productive at the very top level is a gift given only to the very few.....?

bogbrush wrote:If I were faced with a choice of following Plan A and definitely losing, I must say I'd be inclined to take a look at Plans B - Z. Call me rash but that's just my take on it.

Wouldn't say it's rash. If you know you are not playing to a winning level that makes Plan A effective, for me would stand the argument to plump for Plan B and up to Z if it takes that many.

Also depends on how readily you would be to accept your opponent is simply playing a higher level than anything you can throw in Plans A-Z. Though to me it stands the reason then if you got Z and are still being beaten, that by definition the opponent is better. Had many of those days which were not mine. In some instances it's been a pleasure being a spectator.

I wouldn't mind if he'd at least try.  But he's not doing anything different ever...  playing the best hc defender there is with a pure baseline game when he can fire bombs and is 6 feet 6 is insane.

The problem in that case was that plan B was even less likely to help that plan A.

Delpo was never going to win SVing. If a player changes his tactic for one he is even less comfortable then it goes very quickly on the scoreboard.

Wilander made the same false and wrong comment when he called Fed "ball less" at FO 06 or 07 v Nadal. The fact is Fed did not have the tools to hit through Nadal then. And when. Fed tried to be ultra aggressive in FO 2008 we saw what happened.

So I'm pretty sure the score would have been more one sided had Delpo tried to get to the net.

There isn't anything less likely than what happened.  That was the worst outcome.

Winning or losing one has to back his strength to have any chance. Delpo's strength is baseline power-game, not S&V. In fact, he isn't much of a volleyer at all. His serving is also ordinary for a guy his size.

Plan-B, Plan C, Plan-D... trying too many things all in one match is surely not going to work. He could have had PlanA and B and that's all. But mostly this has to be discussed with the coach before the match. But is he investing in having the right coach?

Delpo's problem is his weak BH, which when coupled with players like Djokovic who have very strong BH and extreme court coverage, becomes an easy escape route. 

Keep the ball to his BH and he will stay tame. And then Delpo tries to make up with the FH and errors out. Fed-Nadal same problem in the past.


The usual pattern that happens with players having a clear weakness in the armoury.


So Delpo couldn't have done anything that day to win.

Tenez wrote:The problem in that case was that plan B was even less likely to help that plan A.

Delpo was never going to win SVing. If a player changes his tactic for one he is even less comfortable then it goes very quickly on the scoreboard.

Wilander made the same false and wrong comment when he called Fed "ball less" at FO 06 or 07 v Nadal. The fact is Fed did not have the tools to hit through Nadal then. And when. Fed tried to be ultra aggressive in FO 2008 we saw what happened.

So I'm pretty sure the score would have been more one sided had Delpo tried to get to the net.

Then shake hands at the net and walk off court then.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:The problem in that case was that plan B was even less likely to help that plan A.

Delpo was never going to win SVing. If a player changes his tactic for one he is even less comfortable then it goes very quickly on the scoreboard.

Wilander made the same false and wrong comment when he called Fed "ball less" at FO 06 or 07 v Nadal. The fact is Fed did not have the tools to hit through Nadal then. And when. Fed tried to be ultra aggressive in FO 2008 we saw what happened.

So I'm pretty sure the score would have been more one sided had Delpo tried to get to the net.

Then shake hands at the net and walk off court then.

May as well if you have a pre-determined fate or that you are accepting that fate.

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:The problem in that case was that plan B was even less likely to help that plan A.

Delpo was never going to win SVing. If a player changes his tactic for one he is even less comfortable then it goes very quickly on the scoreboard.

Wilander made the same false and wrong comment when he called Fed "ball less" at FO 06 or 07 v Nadal. The fact is Fed did not have the tools to hit through Nadal then. And when. Fed tried to be ultra aggressive in FO 2008 we saw what happened.

So I'm pretty sure the score would have been more one sided had Delpo tried to get to the net.

Then shake hands at the net and walk off court then.

May as well if you have a pre-determined fate or that you are accepting that fate.

Exactly, that was my point on the Plan B-Z thing; I was being sarcastic saying I was rash - if you're losing you have to change plan, to do otherwise is stupid and brings me to the stage where you either stay out there for the fun or shake hands.

To me, a top pro should be there only to win and would therefore do something, anything. Jimmy Connors would have started an argument over something - he'd have had a field day complaining about the ball bouncing for instance, and at the USO would have had the crowd in a frenzy. I could see him waiting for the 12th bounce then standing up and walking to the Umpire to complain that it's unsportsmanlike conduct making him crouch for so long, or he'd wait until the ball was about to go up and pick that moment to stand up to complain, really messing Djokovic about. Then the moment Djokovic complained he'd have orchestrated more aggravation. It may not work but he'd not lose before going pretty much around the alphabet.

Let's not forget that Delpo has beaten Djoko 4 times in the past....never by SVing! I am pretty sure the match would have been more comical, uglier and above all shorter with faster hand shake had he SVed.

So yes he was doomed, but Djoko has never been known for his consistency within a match so Delpo's best chance was to keep plugging in.

Not difficult to conceptualise.

Again as mentioned earlier it's not about SVing throughout the whole match! Can't think how many times that needs to be reiterated. It's about trying something different to turn the match. 

Yes he's beaten Djokovic 4 times previously, but not in a Slam final. 

As BB says, go out swinging.

Tenez wrote:Let's not forget that Delpo has beaten Djoko 4 times in the past....never by SVing! I am pretty sure the match would have been more comical, uglier and above all shorter with faster hand shake had he SVed.

So yes he was doomed, but Djoko has never been known for his consistency within a match so Delpo's best chance was to keep plugging in.

Not difficult to conceptualise.

No, very clearly it was a great idea that worked out really well.

I don't think there's a poster on here who advocated SV all the time. I hope not anyway, I'd fear for their mental state. What they might be saying is mix it all up. How about

- some volleying, maybe off some high kicking serves
- mixing up the pace and direction in rallies, give him some junk, or moonballs
- mess his serve preparation up like I said before (it's worth remembering that his 1 GS win came by getting under the skin of his opponent with some very borderline behaviour on hawkeye appeals)

Or maybe you're right, just carry on with a consistent losing game.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Let's not forget that Delpo has beaten Djoko 4 times in the past....never by SVing! I am pretty sure the match would have been more comical, uglier and above all shorter with faster hand shake had he SVed.

So yes he was doomed, but Djoko has never been known for his consistency within a match so Delpo's best chance was to keep plugging in.

Not difficult to conceptualise.

No, very clearly it was a great idea that worked out really well.

I don't think there's a poster on here who advocated SV all the time. I hope not anyway, I'd fear for their mental state. What they might be saying is mix it all up. How about

- some volleying, maybe off some high kicking serves
- mixing up the pace and direction in rallies, give him some junk, or moonballs
- mess his serve preparation up like I said before (it's worth remembering that his 1 GS win came by getting under the skin of his opponent with some very borderline behaviour on hawkeye appeals)

Or maybe you're right, just carry on with a consistent losing game.

Daniel wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Let's not forget that Delpo has beaten Djoko 4 times in the past....never by SVing! I am pretty sure the match would have been more comical, uglier and above all shorter with faster hand shake had he SVed.

So yes he was doomed, but Djoko has never been known for his consistency within a match so Delpo's best chance was to keep plugging in.

Not difficult to conceptualise.

No, very clearly it was a great idea that worked out really well.

I don't think there's a poster on here who advocated SV all the time. I hope not anyway, I'd fear for their mental state. What they might be saying is mix it all up. How about

- some volleying, maybe off some high kicking serves
- mixing up the pace and direction in rallies, give him some junk, or moonballs
- mess his serve preparation up like I said before (it's worth remembering that his 1 GS win came by getting under the skin of his opponent with some very borderline behaviour on hawkeye appeals)

Or maybe you're right, just carry on with a consistent losing game.

Can't think how many times that needs to be reiterated. 

It's this simple:  Del Potro and Cilic and Raonic will lose every single Slam match v Nadal and Djokovic unless they are at their absolute peak (having a blinder of a day)... which rarely happens.  Anything less and Nadal and Djok will put that ball back in to play every time and wait for the error.  And seems to me Cilic and Delpo etc are too dumb to work this out, as they continue to try the same doomed approach time and again.

Djokovic must have been laughing at how stupid Del Potro was in that match.  I bet he thought more than once "Well, this is in the bag... This colossal fool just keeps playing the same game!"

If you're at your local club and you work out the opponent is great on the forehand and crap on the backhand, you don't play to the forehand.  You use your brain and think "Hmmm...  looks like this donkey is useless on the backhand....  I'll join up the dots and aim for the backhand"

Djok and Nadal are weak against

- Disruptions to their rhythm.  Nadal even has to have bottles lined up he's that much of a tool.
- Having their time taken away.  6 feet 6 players playing a baseline defence game are just being idiots.
- Ultra offensive players who are smart with their net approaches and mixing the game up.

They aren't weak against

- Playing a baseline game with no net approaches, especially on slow surfaces - because they can just keep putting the ball back in play
- Being able to dictate the match on their own terms
- Donkeys like Cilic and Delpo and Raonic and Dimitrov.

bogbrush wrote:....

Or maybe you're right, just carry on with a consistent losing game.

I just don't dwell in phantasmagoria.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:The problem in that case was that plan B was even less likely to help that plan A.

Delpo was never going to win SVing. If a player changes his tactic for one he is even less comfortable then it goes very quickly on the scoreboard.

Wilander made the same false and wrong comment when he called Fed "ball less" at FO 06 or 07 v Nadal. The fact is Fed did not have the tools to hit through Nadal then. And when. Fed tried to be ultra aggressive in FO 2008 we saw what happened.

So I'm pretty sure the score would have been more one sided had Delpo tried to get to the net.

Then shake hands at the net and walk off court then.

May as well if you have a pre-determined fate or that you are accepting that fate.

Exactly, that was my point on the Plan B-Z thing; I was being sarcastic saying I was rash - if you're losing you have to change plan, to do otherwise is stupid and brings me to the stage where you either stay out there for the fun or shake hands.

To me, a top pro should be there only to win and would therefore do something, anything. Jimmy Connors would have started an argument over something - he'd have had a field day complaining about the ball bouncing for instance, and at the USO would have had the crowd in a frenzy. I could see him waiting for the 12th bounce then standing up and walking to the Umpire to complain that it's unsportsmanlike conduct making him crouch for so long, or he'd wait until the ball was about to go up and pick that moment to stand up to complain, really messing Djokovic about. Then the moment Djokovic complained he'd have orchestrated more aggravation. It may not work but he'd not lose before going pretty much around the alphabet.

It depends on the player's personality. Trying to create a disruption can backfire as one might lose his own focus trying to do create a scene. One can only try it when given up any hope of a regular win. In the past, many players tried many strange things to disrupt opponents. But they don't do it now. And I like it this way.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:....
....
To me, a top pro should be there only to win and would therefore do something, anything. Jimmy Connors would have started an argument over something - he'd have had a field day complaining about the ball bouncing for instance, and at the USO would have had the crowd in a frenzy. I could see him waiting for the 12th bounce then standing up and walking to the Umpire to complain that it's unsportsmanlike conduct making him crouch for so long, or he'd wait until the ball was about to go up and pick that moment to stand up to complain, really messing Djokovic about. Then the moment Djokovic complained he'd have orchestrated more aggravation. It may not work but he'd not lose before going pretty much around the alphabet.

It depends on the player's personality. Trying to create a disruption can backfire as one might lose his own focus trying to do create a scene. One can only try it when given up any hope of a regular win. In the past, many players tried many strange things to disrupt opponents. But they don't do it now. And I like it this way.[/quote]

Agree. I would never condone an attitude a la Connors or Nadal....Taking PED is also part of what a PRO has to do tp keep up.

Bollocks, staying inside the rules while getting into an opponents head is all part of the sport. Tennis is as much a mental battle as one of shots and if I were a pro I'd fancy my chances of messing with Djokovic's head in a way I wouldn't with Nadal.

I didn't say it was a choice for JMDP, I cited it as one of a vast range of alternative approaches... though I did point out that JMDP himself used the tactic to good effect against Federer in 2009.

Have to say I disagree with you there bb.  If you're disrupting opponent in a way outside the rules with gamesmanship, you aren't really winning.  It's no different to violating the time rule. It's cheating.

BB mixing a little his corporate wall street life with Tennis court, guess he plays often with rich cheaters 

Jahu wrote:BB mixing a little his corporate wall street life with Tennis court, guess he plays often with rich cheaters 

I eat rich cheaters for breakfast.

Jeremy Irons encapsulated one of my principles in a brilliant speech during "Margin Call". He said along the lines of; "what did I tell you when you first came to my office? I said there are three ways to win at this business; be smarter, be first, or cheat.. and I don't cheat, and while I like to think we've got a load of smart people here it's a Hell of a lot easier just to be first".

Cheaters fail because fundamentally they run crap businesses that survive on the back of cheating. I've seen it all - bribers, schmoozers, law breakers - and in the end you crush them because what wins in the end is being smarter and being first. I sometime wish I could organise an OTF get-together at our business, you'd love it... but internet anonymity and all that

Daniel wrote:Have to say I disagree with you there bb.  If you're disrupting opponent in a way outside the rules with gamesmanship, you aren't really winning.  It's no different to violating the time rule. It's cheating.

I explicitly said within the rules.

I think it's within the rules to choose specifically annoying times to legitimately complain about Djokovic's service behaviour. Nowhere does it say I have to do it in a way that's most convenient to him.

bogbrush wrote:

Jahu wrote:BB mixing a little his corporate wall street life with Tennis court, guess he plays often with rich cheaters 

I eat rich cheaters for breakfast.

Jeremy Irons encapsulated one of my principles in a brilliant speech during "Margin Call". He said along the lines of; "what did I tell you when you first came to my office? I said there are three ways to win at this business; be smarter, be first, or cheat.. and I don't cheat, and while I like to think we've got a load of smart people here it's a Hell of a lot easier just to be first".

Cheaters fail because fundamentally they run crap businesses that survive on the back of cheating. I've seen it all - bribers, schmoozers, law breakers - and in the end you crush them because what wins in the end is being smarter and being first. I sometime wish I could organise an OTF get-together at our business, you'd love it... but internet anonymity and all that

I love that film!! Absolutely under-rated. Will Emerson is brilliant.

I always use the Kevin Spacey speech at the end for the fire sale on how to motivate a team when they are faced with the situation of building beds in a burning house. Nothing rallies the cause when incentivising those to run the extra mile.

Wasn't Irons the very embodiment of a scary top guy? I just loved the bit where he tells Zachary Quinto to stand up and explain it and to talk to him "as if talking to a small child, or a Golden Retriever…. it's wasn't brains that got me here you know" with a smile that let's you know (i) he's loaded with brains, and (ii) he has other qualities too, ones that you might be a bit more wary of than just brains!

It made me laugh because for many years when sat in rooms with  technical experts in engineering, finance or anything else, I'll often interject and say something like "ok, look, just explain the situation please, and remember that I'm not a technical expert in this" when the person knows damn well that I know enough to see through to the heart of the matter (I should do, I have very long experience at what I do and I've always been a generalist rather than a specialist) and bullshitting is unwise.

I don't know so much the scary, it was the decisiveness and forthright nature of him that made him so indomitable. He was clearly a guy anyone with political and emotional intelligence would get him on board. He used power so brutally and effectively. I loved the bit in which he turned to Demi Moore and Simon Baker with the "what shall we do next" and the glare of ownership. Loved it.

Oh I am a generalist and sometimes 10 words has the power to wrap up 100 of them! I am like "put the dots on the table and I'll join them" What the dots do in detail can be irrelevant when the joining of them is more vital.