Re: Ask Tenez Thread

[noleisthebest]

Lydian is now calling me a mini-tenez...
I do have thoughts of my own! 

Sorry I won't ask you again (re Lydian) but just think of it from my perspective. 

You are a new fan of Leeds United!
You have a decent understanding and knowledge of the club but are still very eager to learn
from people (leeds fan A and Leeds fan B) who know a lot more about it than you. 
Heated discussions ensue and you see merits in both arguments. Until you know a lot more about that subject you cannot speak with such authority and knowledge as A and B.

I am eager to learn from 2 posters who I feel are very knowledgeable about tennis. Simple really.

Hi LS - Have you disappeared? You absence has been noted.

BTW, the reason I thought of this question is again the fact that Federer at 32 wins on the fastest tournaments of the year for the 6th times while he lost on slower IW conds.

SO once again, Lydian's dodgy theories exposed!

Btw, where is Lydian?
Has he changed his name, or posting under another ID.

Would be fun to have him here.

[noleisthebest]

Do you think any good pundit (imo goodall, koenig, courier, petchey, mats, mercer) would think that Chardy is more talented than Murray if you asked them off the record?

Talented players ALL have great serve and forehand.

[Tenez]

I don't think they would cause I believe most brush the doping suspicions aside and only comment on what they see. They don't want to know, it coudl affect their commenting unconsciously. But most know what it takes to hit a FH like Chardy at will for 3 sets. It's a great talent. A professional like Murray coudl maybe do it on a good day but simply chose not to.

Murray is much more professional than Chardy. Not only on his fitness but change of tactics, right shot at the right moment, never give up...etc....but it is fair to say that all this professionalism from Murray rests essentially on his superior fitness. Without it, no choice but to have a much riskier game.

I think Koening woudl be the closer to say it. I remember what he once said regarding Nadal: "what he does with the ball is not that great but the sheer focus and energy he put on every point is what makes him so difficult to play"!.

[legendkillar]

Ah Tenez. This thread has certainly thrown up some interesting and thoughtful insights. I thought I would throw this question out to you and the rest of the OTF community. If you could play one set of tennis against any pro past or present who would it be and what court and why?

[noleisthebest]

Roger, CC. With wooden racquets.

You?

[legendkillar]

Ooooooh I was going to play devils advocate and wait for everyone else's reply.

Has to be CC at the home of tennis. I would have to say McEnroe. Purely because if there was anyone as a kid I wanted to play so badly and beat it was him. It's weird as time has gone by and I have watched others, no-one quite got under me like McEnroe.

Roger is up with the tennis gods and it would be wrong for my low level brand of tennis to attempt to hit with the great man. 

[luvsports!]

Who would you say over the years is in the equation for most talented female player? And over the past 20 years or so where you rate the likes of Henin, Serena, Venus, Hingis, Seles, Graf, Mauresmo etc in talent and why?

[Tenez]

Mandlikova was to me the most talented I have ever seen...but it was a time when talent was easier to see with a naked eye.

Even McEnroe made tennis look easier than Federer.....cause back then tennis was simply easier.

So it is a difficult question again cause Federer is certainly more talented than McEnroe....by a mile though we we have not seen McEnroe train as hard against that new generation but I have no doubt that his talent woudl simply be completely ineficient against those new players like it quickly became already in 85 with the arrival of youngsters who trained with bigger frames.

Going back to your question, this is how I'd rate them. Though very close between Hingis and Henin.
Henin, Hingis Mauresmo Graf, Serena, Seles Venus

I woudl rate Miskina, Kutzenova higher than Graf and Mauresmo as well.

[luvsports!]

And why? 
I thought Henin was insanely talented.

[Tenez]

Well I put Henin first in your list....so not sure why question it then.

[luvsports!]

No as in why are those players you mention v talented?

[luvsports!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1NS235TJoE Mandlikova

[Tenez]

No as in why are those players you mention v talented?

Very easy. Eye/hand coordination providing beautiful timing, meaning again, easy effortless points....easy slams wins.

[Tenez]

Just found out that about her...

Personal life[edit]
Mandlíková is the daughter of Vilém Mandlík, who was an Olympic 200-meter semifinalist for Czechoslovakia in 1956. Hana married Australian restaurateur Jan Sedlak in Prague in 1986:[1] they divorced two years later, shortly after Mandlikova obtained Australian citizenship. In June 2002, she gave birth to twins Mark Vilém and Elisabeth Hana. Their father was a friend who was to have no role in their upbringing, Mandlikova intending to raise them with her partner, fitness trainer Liz Resseguie.[2]

[luvsports!]

This is a post by mmt1 on v2 about stan vs feds bh. Thoughts T? I don't know enough about this stuff at all.

Wawrinka's backhand does not suffer from the same limitations vis a vis the top players, that Federer's does, and I have a few reasons for this, as I have studied their techniques extensively - but I should point out that Wawrinka is not the only player with a 1-handed backhand that doesn't struggle with it against Nadal, for example.

But as to Wawrinka's backhand, the short answer is his backhand is superior to Federer's. The long answer is that Wawrinka's backhand generates more power than Federer's because of the following:

1. He opens his hips earlier and more dynamically than almost any other player with a 1-handed backhand in tennis - including Federer
   

1. The plane of his stroke is flatter through the point of contact, sacrificing no power for spin
   

1. He stands behind the baseline, and as such his optimal point of contact at waist height, rather than up at his shoulders
   

1. His stroke finishes out and across the plane of his shoulder, rather than over his head, so he generates more pace and can remain behind the baseline
   

1. His trunk and core are stronger than your average player, thus he generates more racquet head speed even when pulled wide on the backhand
   

[size][size]


For these reasons, his backhand is superior to Federer's - this sounds impossible because Federer's backhand is so aesthetically appealing, and he is so talented, that we assume he is technically omnipotent - that he can do everything equally well. But it just isn't true - he has very broad skills on the backhand, and his skill level is deeper across the spectrum of shots he can hit on the backhand side than your average player, but in terms of generating pace and depth on the backhand, he cannot compare to Wawrinka. 

Federer does a lot of other things very well and better than Wawrinka, but not the backhand.[/size][/size]

[noleisthebest]

For me, there is no comparison of Stan's and Fed's BH.
Fed's one better.

It's a more natural shot and the proof is the endless variety he can produce with it.

Stan's BH is great but simple and a product of drilling.

It's no coincidence Stan's has not done well in faster conditions.

Stan's basic topspin BH does produce more pace and technically speaking it's probably because he drives the ball a split second longer than Fed.
That's why their follow-through is different, too.

I know people are now carried away with Stan's recent success, but he's been around a long time for his "superior"BH not to shine earlier.


In fact, I think Gasquet's BH is better, too. Certainly more natural and versatile.

[Tenez]

This is a post by mmt1 on v2 about stan vs feds bh. Thoughts T? I don't know enough about this stuff at all.
.......

Federer does a lot of other things very well and better than Wawrinka, but not the backhand.

I'd like to answer this in more details when I am back home. But I'd correct one major comment as :

But as to Wawrinka's backhand, the long answer is his backhand is superior to Federer's on slow surfaces but inferior on faster surfaces . The short answer is that Wawrinka's backhand certainly generates more power than Federer's.

So the key is on faster surface, Fed's BH is pacy enough not to be a problem for the opponent...and Fed's BH volleys, BH returns, BH slices are better than Stans (Fed has simply better hands). However on slower surface, Fed's BH is just too slow against those roadrunners whereas Stan can certainly keep those guys guessing on his BH and that makes a huge difference on how those guys have to cover the court.

[luvsports!]

T?

[Tenez]

Actually I have not much to add.

Fed would certainly benefit from having more pace. As he takes the ball earlier than Stan he doesn't swing as hard as Stan.

But again, it's all down to the pace of the court. Stan has played 2 excellent matches recently (one v Nadal and one v Djoko). On those 2 occasions his BH was clearly more efficient, especially against those 2 players. But on grass or faster HC, I'd give the advantage to Federer. And again when those 2 play against each other, I'd expect Fed to win 9 times out of 10 regardless the surface. Well....now fed is 34 soon......That is starting to add up.

[luvsports!]

SO on the whole a good post from mmt1 then.

[Tenez]

I disagree with the language he uses such as:

"Wawrinka's backhand does not suffer from the same limitations vis a vis the top players,"

Fed's BH can do more things actually. It's easy to write something like that after the great display Stan showed in the FO. But overall Fed's record v the top players and v Stan is 10 times better and knowing how much they have hammered Fed's BH, it's fair to say that Fed's BH must have done something right over time.

Otherwise on the technical side it is true that Stan has a stronger arm and torso which gives him added pace. In a way he reminds me very much leconte who also had a deadly BH. Leconte had also like Stan lower gravity and strong arm.

[luvsports!]

V interesting stat on Murray's 2nd serve.

In 2005 Wimby he averaged 99mph.
Now at 85mph!

That is a big drop. Odd how it went down so much and is maybe now more of a weakness than it was aged 18.


Thoughts T? Why would that happen?

[Tenez]

It's very bizarre indeed. I know that Murray can have good serving days so I guess today was not a good one. We will have to gather more data in the coming matches.

[luvsports!]

But the thing is T is that I think that average is fairly common for Murray on the 2nd serve. He can even hit it in the 70's! 

It's plummeted! Lost his guts?

[Tenez]

I must say I have not thought about it. 2nd serve is certainly about more control, more spin.

There are 2 ways to make it pacier: more muscles (more control, yet more pace) or simply a better feel (flatter, yet spinier than the first serve).

I believe Nadal had also a sudden increase in his serve's speed in Wimby 2008, so clearly it can be done with muscles...or simply more confidence. Though this latter I guess is less likely.

[Autumnleaf]

Interesting stat indeed, are you sure they are valid? Such an outlier would be explained more easily by an error of measurement. The speed guns don't always work to perfect satisfaction.

In Halle Karlovic serve was measured at same speed as Federer's. Naked eye test told me - impossible.

[noleisthebest]

I think people underestimate Fed's serve, esp the flat first one - it's a stinging beauty!
AL,
I am planning to go to Halle next year (provided Fed is playing).
Is it easy to get good tickets on the day or do you need to book in advance?

[luvsports!]

Interesting stat indeed, are you sure they are valid? Such an outlier would be explained more easily by an error of measurement. The speed guns don't always work to perfect satisfaction.

In Halle Karlovic serve was measured at same speed as Federer's. Naked eye test told me - impossible.

Wimbledon stat team put it up twice and Jmac and Petchey briefly talked about it during the match.

[noleisthebest]

He probably spins it more now then, though 2nd seve is usually spin one anyway.
But it's always been a liability for him.
At least he has improved his first serve now.

[Tenez]

V interesting stat on Murray's 2nd serve.

In 2005 Wimby he averaged 99mph.
Now at 85mph!

That is a big drop. Odd how it went down so much and is maybe now more of a weakness than it was aged 18.


Thoughts T? Why would that happen?

Actually..what are the stats?....surely Murray did not average 99mph in Wimby 2005!!!!

[Tenez]

I woudl not be surprised if average serve speed get lowest at Wimbledon this year. I believe they are still doing their best to take the serve out of the equation here to favour longer rallies.

[noleisthebest]

T, just saw this article about Nole overtaking Nadal's record at consecutive number of weeks as number one.
It also mentions the total number of weeks at number one, amd the list looks interesting:

1. Rodžer Federer 302
2. Pit Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Džimi Konors 268
5. Džon Mekinro 170
6. Novak Đoković 156
7. Rafael Nadal 141
8. Bjern Borg 109
9. Andre Agasi 101
10. Lejton Hjuit 80

To me it looked almost like a chronological chart of physical evolution in tennis.

Basically, only top three on that list are SBH-ers. And onky Fed and Sampras of the three were not needing extra fitness for their domination.

I don't have any particular question, just wondered if you had any comments.

Which player in the list surprses you to be in most and why?
(Not talking about talent, just sheer ability to ladt that long at the top with whatever they had).

[Tenez]

Intersting list, points and ...spelling.

In fact Connors should never had that many weeks at number 1. Vilas and Connors were the real number one for a year or 2 but the way they counted US tournaments as opposed to others was really unfair. And Connors won plenty of tournaments just by entering the 1/4F and semis...

So in fact that list could/should be made with the first 4 being SHBHers and last 6 DBHBers. But yes I noted already 10 years ago that physical players were successful earlier that more talented players who needed more time to find their games while physical players dropped faster down the ranking (hence as you can see less time as number 1).

2 surprises: Borg should be much higher. From 1976 to 80 he was nearly unbeatable and shoudl have been number 1 for many more weeks. Pete on the other hand was very lucky to have played under such quick conditions.

Djoko sadly hasn't got the game to be that high but like Pete is lucky to be playing with slow balls.

[noleisthebest]

Oh, spelling...just couldn't be bothered to re-spell it...you worked it out, anyway!

Yes, when you look at that list you know there must he a valid reason behind every player and nature of their domination.

Interesting point about fast/slow conditions for Pete/Nole and just sheer tour grinding by Connors.

It may be worth adding/ comparing their slam count as well just to get a fuller picture.

There is a bunch of them with 7-8 slams but not all made it to this number of weeks as no 1 list (Wilander, Becker...)

And yes, knowing how superior Borg was in his day....

Now, knowing physical bar must be close to its limits, again interesting to see who and especially what kind of game/player will be able to dominate long enough to join this list.

[noleisthebest]

Actually, the big question is are we really at the end of physical bar?

I watched tour the France the other day and was shocked to see aSpanish cyclist almost sprint 7 km up the 10% slope, and not even be puffed out!!!

He made Nadal look like a fitness pussycat!

Coric will be the one to watch now, he does not have weapons but can move very well and quite naturally.
Scary how he outlasted  a few decent players in Wimbledon! In this physical era.

And he is only 18!!!

[Tenez]

Now, knowing physical bar must be close to its limits, .....

I thought Safin was the limit back then...but we know how tennis has gone since. Froome is better than Lance and Murray display of recovery after gruelling rallies on Sunday was staggering. And look how Djoko can be anywhere on the court....imagine Kokki in a few years helped by longer steps thanks to more muscle.

I am not sure we have reached the limit. I certainly thought we did when we saw Borg and Lendl 30 years ago.

[noleisthebest]

Yes...Kokki is an interesting player.

I wonder how Rubi is going to fit in that new wave.

Will he be able to impose hmself?

This new generation of 17-20 year olds (Rubi, Kokki, Coric, Kyrg, Thiem?, Zverev) looks more exciting than the "lost" generation of Dimi, Raonic, Nishi etc...

And I also wonder if the French will be able to get into that group: Pouille and Herbert look too "old-fashioned"...

[Tenez]

I think the main problem for Rublev is that he seems very temperamental. And that's his biggest weakness I can think of for now. he might turn out to be one of those players who can win easily...but lose easily if his mind doesn't settle. As Rotla said, Gulbis was very promising too....

He seems however to have an amazing talent which could carry him over those ups and downs.

[noleisthebest]

I didn't notice the negative side of his temperament.

When I watched him against Dodig in Roehampton, his mum was commenting how he can't keep concentration, and I disagreed there.

It's not concentration but fitness that's causing the focus to drop.
Despite the talent he still hits the ball quite hard and is in a kind of flow when he is doing it, so must be very demanding physically for him.

Once he sorts out his fitness I think he'll be fine.

He reminds me of Nole in his mental relentlessness except that unlike Nole, Rubi has got the weapons to attack, not defend.
I see it more as passion than temper, and he is using it very well to channel his aggression.

That in itself is hard to sustain, especially in today's conditions.

He'll  have to learn to volley.
I reckon it's impossible to win from baseline exclusively as an attacker these days.

[noleisthebest]

Talkimg of Rublev, after this:

"I am very disappointed with the result. I wasn't in good physical condition and I wasn't sufficiently focused. I feel I can play against players on the level of Tommy Robredo. This match taught me a lot, made me realize what I have to work on. I need to serve better, play with more patience, and improve physically.
I knew Robredo, the eve of the match, said that Spain would defeat Russia without problems. I can assure him within a year I will beat Tommy without problems.
The main thing is to continue working. Playing this competition is an incredible honor for me. The feeling you have when you take to the field is unique. I want to hear it again."

he came with this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndreyRublev97/status/623099028599914496

Can't make my mind up, whether it's good or bad...

I know it's best to let the racquet do the talking, but I like that he has this belief and is not afraid to speak his mind.

I am sick and tired of PR-ed cliches...

[Tenez]

Well he seems motivated for sure. They are clearly making a reference about "when I get fitter".....leaving little doubt on how to get fitter.

[noleisthebest]

Well he seems motivated for sure. They are clearly making a reference about "when I get fitter".....leaving little doubt on how to get fitter.

It's sad pro athletes have no choice now. Or do they?

He probably won't not see it that way, though he'll have to have at least one split second where he'll be fully aware of what he's doing.

Then the next one he'll brush it under the carpet of his consciousness and start his walk per aspera ad astra...

[Tenez]

It's just being professional. It's needed to be on par - or close to - with the rest.

[noleisthebest]

It's just being professional. It's needed to be on par - or close to -  with the rest.

You are right!
Seeing average grinders like Kavcic wear him out with percentage tennis just now, I can't wait for Rubi to become fit!

Terrible to watch talent gasp for air...

[Tenez]

oh he lost? the more talent one has the less air one needs.

[noleisthebest]

Well they did play on clay...and he looked so sad when he lost

I am worried they are pushing him too much, he hasn't had a break for a long time, I hope he doesn't get injured.

It's hard to know how to time and manage player's development in this era!

[Tenez]

Yes..still it looked like he coudl have made it in 2 sets. He was probably drained emotionally from the DC.

[noleisthebest]

How do you see racquet technology progress?

Do you under any circumstances see frames getting smaller?

[Tenez]

I can't see frames getting smaller...nor bigger as there are already out there, yet not used by pros. It seems the range for pros is between 95-105.....with 99% of them between 98 to 100inch2. The material can still progress but can't see much of an effect.

The strings however can still progress a bit. I can easily imagine some having even more power and spin.....which would probably help the more aggressive players....but the heavy topspiner too.

The key is how the ball bounce on the court and off those strings.

[noleisthebest]

I am worried they may get bigger but lighter, especially if strings continue to encourage spin.

We have a guy in the club who uses those shiny black polygonal strings.
Ex-badminton player with great h2e coordination.

He can generate crazy pace with just wristing the shot.
Zero muscle. No practice...
So imagine someone similar with 3 hours of drill from the age of 4-5 as they all start now.
Bigger sweetspot, bigger muscles, taller players, safer ball-striking...
I am sure Toni's already working on another "project" in his lab.

Many pros play with 100" frames already.

Can technology get out of control like fitness seems to have?

[Sponsored content]