ATP 1000: Miami

paulcz wrote:

It is far better to have a discussion with less people and speak straightforwardly about tennis stuff on a good level without beating about the bush..

Couldn't agree more.
On a different note, it is no coincidence that there are suddenly all these characters coming out of woodwork to criticise OTF, doing we know whose dirty work.

That can only be a good sign

OTF is the best

noleisthebest wrote:

OTF is the best

Yes, that proves it.

.

summerblues wrote:
It did not mean to be patronising (nor, of course, disappointing ) and I do not know why you see it that way. You like to pride yourself on "call spade a spade" attitude, so I think the focus should be on whether or not the statement was correct rather than on its tone anyway. Are you suggesting that in the circumstances I described you would have predicted people "wiping the floor" with Djokovic? Including the choice of words? Let's say I doubt it.

I don't know which circumstances you have described, but whatever they are, of course I would have never made the same statement for a few very solid reasons.
Firstly, unlike Nadal, Novak is a lot better hard-court player and his 5 slam titles on that surface speak volumes.
Secondly, I hope Novak never has to stay out of tennis for 7 months due to any injury.

As far as I am concerned Nadal was not injured. He may have had a bad case of tendonitis, but you don't need 7 months for it to go away. A few weeks , max 6 is more than enough and most players carry that kind of discomfort. People with such long absence usually undergo surgery and as far as we know that was not the case with Nadal.

What he did during the seven months is a mystery; we can only make guesses based not on what his dubious camp was pumping out every two weeks (see the thread Has Nadal unofficially retired), but occasional photos of him going cycling in the mountains with pro cyclists, ski-jetting etc....

And thirdly, if Novak was injured and absent for 7 months, he would be very vulnerable and certainly would not win IW on his return like Nadal did.

He was injured after USO 2011, had torn muscle in the back ribcage and had to rest for 6 weeks not touching the racquet. He did honour his agreement and played in Basel where he got bageled by Nishikori and had a pale edition in WTF.

Finally, I'll indulge you with your guess that I wouldn't use "wipe the floor with" expression with Novak, even though Nishikori did just that in Basel.

Why? because Novak is not a cheat like Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:
It did not mean to be patronising (nor, of course, disappointing ) and I do not know why you see it that way. You like to pride yourself on "call spade a spade" attitude, so I think the focus should be on whether or not the statement was correct rather than on its tone anyway. Are you suggesting that in the circumstances I described you would have predicted people "wiping the floor" with Djokovic? Including the choice of words? Let's say I doubt it.

I don't know which circumstances you have described, but whatever they are, of course I would have never made the same statement for a few very solid reasons.
Firstly, unlike Nadal, Novak is a lot better hard-court player and his 5 slam titles on that surface speak volumes.
Secondly, I hope Novak never has to stay out of tennis for 7 months due to any injury.

As far as I am concerned Nadal was not injured. He may have had a bad case of tendonitis, but you don't need 7 months for it to go away. A few weeks , max 6 is more than enough and most players carry that kind of discomfort. People with such long absence usually undergo surgery and as far as we know that was not the case with Nadal.

What he did during the seven months is a mystery; we can only make guesses based not on what his dubious camp was pumping out every two weeks (see the thread Has Nadal unofficially retired), but occasional photos of him going cycling in the mountains with pro cyclists, ski-jetting etc....

And thirdly, if Novak was injured and absent for 7 months, he would be very vulnerable and certainly would not win IW on his return like Nadal did.

He was injured after USO 2011, had torn muscle in the back ribcage and had to rest for 6 weeks not touching the racquet. He did honour his agreement and played in Basel where he got bageled by Nishikori and had a pale edition in WTF.

Finally, I'll indulge you with your guess that I wouldn't use "wipe the floor with" expression with Novak, even though Nishikori did just that in Basel.

Why? because Novak is not a cheat like Nadal.

It's this kind of logical masterclass which sends me buzzing.

Larry do you get on with tiriac? I am guessing no.

luvsports! wrote:Larry do you get on with tiriac? I am guessing no.

No, he's my arch rival.

wilson_nxt wrote:I've been a member here since Oct12 and do no-ones work and have no idea what that alludes to. I posted limitedly - Federer is hardly discussed here in relative terms which surprises me, instead it's all antiNadal-proDjokovic hypocrisy catalysed by the forums most virulent poster. In recent times its really bugged me the rubbish spewed out and would say the same if Federer was targeted in this way. There is the morbid curiosity element of posting here amongst the extremists but even that is tedious now so this is my last post. Thank goodness on both sides I'm sure.

NITB, you call Nadal the death of tennis, well you're the death of this forum actually, your levels of hypocrisy and feverish zealotism know no bounds. I'm just amazed tenez can't see it. Others can. Goodbye, good riddance

Hi socal, long time no see! The last time you lost your debate here you called me a moron.
I see now who’s the real moron running for cover!


You (and amrit) know very well there’s “anti-rafa”
stuff at OTF because nadal is the most notorious con artist in tennis history. Of
course alert observer wonder why and how an over-rated clay specialist whines so
much off court and gets away again and again with foul play on court, as
documented in NICK SYWAK’s article in the New York Magazine I quoted below. (Nothing
you don’t already know, but worth another read as a reminder why nadal’s made
himself a target of criticism and speculation)


RAFAEL NADAL AND THE DARK ART OF THE DIVE TENNIS:


http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/06/rafael_nadal_and_the_dark_art.html


““Rafael Nadal is in acute distress. He's just lost the game, he's facing a
momentum-defining tiebreaker, and his opponent has his second wind. Rafa's just
hit yet another impossible shot from an impossible angle, and one foot seems to
have borne all the acrobatic brunt. He's in deep crouch, trying to gauge the
extent and implications of the pain. Then he heads to his chair and calls for
the trainer; the tiebreaker will have to wait; his opponent, oozing adrenaline,
will have to cool his heels. After a tense interlude during which his opponent,
visibly upset, remonstrates with the umpire to restart, Nadal returns, takes
the tiebreaker, and romps. The press waits with bated breath to hear the
results of the MRI — will he be able to carry on and defend his title? The
results show nothing of any concern, and Nadal smashes his next opponent in
four sets, fresh as a daisy.

As a counterpoint, consider a key moment in the most
recent season of another Spanish juggernaut, soccer's FC Barcelona. They're in
the midst of a crucial Champions League encounter they are expected to win, yet
the game remains tensely poised, and Barça are potentially facing elimination
from the sport's most prestigious competition. As if on cue, the Barcelona
players respond by crumpling to the ground in operatic agony whenever they
brush up against an opposing player; clutching their faces as if their eyes had
been gouged out after a contested header; and gang-griping to the ref after any
phantom infraction by the opposition. The collective pressure tells on the
official, an irreplaceable player on the other side is soon sent off, and Barça
go on to win not only the game but the entire tournament.

You can see where I'm going with this. (And perhaps see
that I am a fan of Arsenal, Barcelona's opponent in that
match.) Diving, the feigning of injury to accrue unfair advantage, is the
ineradicable dark art that shadows the beautiful game. And whereas its most
cynical exponents are invariably Italian, the Spanish have made great strides
in incorporating it into their style of play, which, coincidentally or not, has
been the most successful one of the past few years.

Is there an equivalent to the art of the dive in tennis?
Soccer in Spain being the real
unifying religion firing the nation's spiritual life, is it not reasonable to
wonder whether its rites, rituals, and codes of conduct (or lack thereof) exert
an influence in other national sports? The admittedly partisan description
above involving Barcelona was of one match, yet it could just as easily have
described any of the four clásicos they played against Real Madrid toward
the end of this past season — that is, games of immense importance in which theblaugrana were up against the wall. Each time
when the game threatened to get away from them, their default mode was to dive.

The account of Nadal seeking medical attention mid-match took place on Monday
during his fourth-round victory over Juan Martin del Potro.
After days of speculation about his injury, he dismissed Mardy Fish on
Wednesday,telling reporters that he was using a heavy anesthetic
to numb the pain.

Yet it also could have been, mutatis mutandis, from any
number of recent episodes. Just last year at Wimbledon, in the third round,
Nadal called for the trainer on numerous occasions en route to a bumpy five-set
victory yet never appeared injured, a tactic his opponent characterized after the
match as "pretty clever." He did the same thing to
disrupt Federer's rhythm during the first set of this year's French Open final.
In each instance the timing was impeccable, and unsportsmanlike.

Then there's the excessive time he routinely takes
between points during his service games, the illegal coaching he routinely
receives from his uncle/coach from the stands. If he's taken to task for such
gamesmanship by the umpire, he appears genuinely offended and throws a tirade.
I don't believe this is mere cynicism on Nadal's part. It is, rather, a
confusing clash of codes. Being Spanish, he is a product of a sporting culture
that exalts the opportunist and rewards him for his shrewd manipulation of the
rules, within certain bounds. To be a great athlete, in this paradigm, is not
incommensurate with exploiting every loophole.

Of course, everyone everywhere loves a winner, and
unless you really push it (with, say,
performance-enhancing drugs), we'll look the other way when it comes to how you
went about your winning. But unlike in Spain and Italy, the American model of
sportsmanship is more conflicted about cheating per se, no matter how artfully
cloaked it may be. (To wit: the polarizing status of "floppers" like
Reggie Miller in basketball.) Which is the real reason Americans can be queasy
about soccer. But we've embraced Nadal, especially after his career-Grand
Slam-cementing victory here in the U.S. Open last year, and with good reason:
He is a great champion. He needs no trickery to win. Let's keep him honest.””

Wilson is not Socal.

Larry Ellison wrote:Wilson is not Socal.

Yeah, like Mickey is not amritia?

I’ll say this one last time. You’ve lost all credibility with me. I don’t believe in
anything you say. Not a single word. So no need to waste time talking to me,
thank you very much.

SR wrote:

Larry Ellison wrote:Wilson is not Socal.

Yeah, like Mickey is not amritia?

Yep, pretty much.

wilson_nxt wrote:I've been a member here since Oct12 and do no-ones work and have no idea what that alludes to. I posted limitedly - Federer is hardly discussed here in relative terms which surprises me, instead it's all antiNadal-proDjokovic hypocrisy catalysed by the forums most virulent poster. In recent times its really bugged me the rubbish spewed out and would say the same if Federer was targeted in this way. There is the morbid curiosity element of posting here amongst the extremists but even that is tedious now so this is my last post. Thank goodness on both sides I'm sure.

NITB, you call Nadal the death of tennis, well you're the death of this forum actually, your levels of hypocrisy and feverish zealotism know no bounds. I'm just amazed tenez can't see it. Others can. Goodbye, good riddance

I don't mind posters not liking other players. I also dislike some players and NITB knows I am not a fan of Djoko at all. Larry is a huge fan of Nadal and I also dislike Nadal. But here most of us can see beyond our players preferences. We discuss tennis and try to avoid having a dig at each others.

If you can contribite positively, there are good things to learn here and discuss freely...but one needs an open mind.

noleisthebest wrote:Finally, I'll indulge you with your guess that I wouldn't use "wipe the floor with" expression with Novak, even though Nishikori did just that in Basel.

Why? because Novak is not a cheat like Nadal.

I should not have brought up the part about the exact choice of words. This brought the "player X is a bigger cheat than player Y" topic, which has much more of a subjective component than "player X will likely beat player Y", so it would be even more difficult to get a consensus here.

I was hoping that while staying on topics such as "10 players wiping the floor with Nadal", "Nadal not entering IW because of being scared to go there", "Rafa dropping out of top 10 come Wimbledon", etc - which are quite factual - I could convince you that you guys are indeed irrational in your assessments and that maybe you could revamp at least some of your talk to make it reflect reality more closely. I believe it would be better for this forum - both in terms of quantity and quality - if the talk that has little hope of being right was featured less prominently.

Of course, in the end how do we decide if something has hope of being right? If you guys really believe things like the above, I suppose you will just post them, but it will be difficult for a casual visitor to take the forum seriously.

Or, let me put it yet another way. Say a person holds an opinion which is far from mainstream and they want to present it. It goes without saying that typical reaction will be scepticism. And that is a reasonable reaction, because while there are cases where the non-mainstream opinion is the correct one, there are also plenty of cases where the non-mainstrean opinion is just nonsense. So, a person trying to present non-mainstream opinion - if they at all want to be taken seriously - needs to be careful in the presentation, more so than if they were presenting a mainstream opinion. Say I am an outsider who takes a peek and sees some of your predictions which are wishful thinking nonsense. Obviously it would make me less likely to bother giving serious thought to anything else that is posted here.

BTW, in case you yet again think I am being condescending. It is not meant that way; I am just giving my honestly felt opinion; and why would I not?

Another lungbuster of a match!

As a Murray fan I used to prefer it when he lost matches like this. Now it seems he can outlast Ferrer in such a manner. Not sure why Andy goes aggressive when his energy is at it's lowest. Maybe if he done that at the start of matches he might well be able to coast these types of matches out. Wish he had showed some of the variation he did against Cilic.

Delighted yes that Murray is at no.2, though I wish it has been a better performance.

Cometh the Clay cometh the man. All eyes on Nadal now. Hoping Djokovic or Murray can stop him on the dirt.

legendkillar wrote:Another lungbuster of a match!

As a Murray fan I used to prefer it when he lost matches like this. Now it seems he can outlast Ferrer in such a manner. Not sure why Andy goes aggressive when his energy is at it's lowest. Maybe if he done that at the start of matches he might well be able to coast these types of matches out. Wish he had showed some of the variation he did against Cilic.

Delighted yes that Murray is at no.2, though I wish it has been a better performance.

Cometh the Clay cometh the man. All eyes on Nadal now. Hoping Djokovic or Murray can stop him on the dirt.

I don;t mind to see Murray overtaking Federer. I want the world to see that amazing "natural" athletism from Nadal is a common thing nowadays. Soon we will have guys like Karlovic out-running Nadal and will we say "amazing natural" fitness plus thanks to new "hard" working methods.

In a way it;s not different than the European governments meeting and saying they have solved the debt crisis....until the next bank or country defaults.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Another lungbuster of a match!

As a Murray fan I used to prefer it when he lost matches like this. Now it seems he can outlast Ferrer in such a manner. Not sure why Andy goes aggressive when his energy is at it's lowest. Maybe if he done that at the start of matches he might well be able to coast these types of matches out. Wish he had showed some of the variation he did against Cilic.

Delighted yes that Murray is at no.2, though I wish it has been a better performance.

Cometh the Clay cometh the man. All eyes on Nadal now. Hoping Djokovic or Murray can stop him on the dirt.

I don;t mind to see Murray overtaking Federer. I want the world to see that amazing "natural" athletism from Nadal is a common thing nowadays. Soon we will have guys like Karlovic out-running Nadal and will we say "amazing natural" fitness plus thanks to new "hard" working methods.

In a way it;s not different than the European governments meeting and saying they have solved the debt crisis....until the next bank or country defaults.

Both players were cramping and I can't remember the last time I ever saw that in a BO3 Masters Final. For me it does raise questions on Andy's fitness levels. Djokovic outlasted him in AO and Ferrer did the same had he not choked. Going into the Clay I don't think Andy can hang with Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer. I think NITB made the point on Andy's movement on Clay being sluggish.

Wonder if Baggy is thinking of relocating to Cyprus.

Doesn't help that the ECB advised Cyprus to invest in Greece years ago

Physiologically, Murray should have been running out of steam way before Ferrer...but just the fact he can outlast a shorter built like Ferrer is proof he is on something.

He will never have Nadal or Djoko's stamina because of his built but he is doing ridiculously well fro someone of his frame.

I dunno Ten. Murray looked well and truly cooked and had Ferrer just mustered some solid service games could've won it out. Why he challenged on HE on MP was a mystery. The moment the match went to TB you knew Murray would he it out and the first point said it all. Ferrer couldn't put him to bed.

I don't see Andy making inroads on the Clay.

I agree though that the extra bulk is only going to hamper him in longer matches.

I think Murray safely and easily physically outlasted Ferrer in that match.
Ferrer was done big time because it was him who was attacking and Murray just pushing the balls back in that 3rd set.
He even slumped on the ground after not being able to bend his knee on a sliced BH at one stage.

Murray just tends to put on that "cooked" look when he is losing. He may have been a little dehydrated, that's all. He could've run & played another 2 sets no problem. Ferrer could not.

legendkillar wrote:
I don't see Andy making inroads on the Clay.

I think Murray can do very well on clay. It depends on how fit he is. He will not move as well as Nadal or Ferrer there but he can still make them run. Let's see what happens.

noleisthebest wrote:I think Murray safely and easily physically outlasted Ferrer in that match.
Ferrer was done big time because it was him who was attacking and Murray just pushing the balls back in that 3rd set.
He even slumped on the ground after not being able to bend his knee on a sliced BH at one stage.

Murray just tends to put on that "cooked" look when he is losing. He may have been a little dehydrated, that's all. He could've run & played another 2 sets no problem. Ferrer could not.

Not a cat's chance in hell!

Murray could barely serve in that final set.

2 more sets??

His name isn't Djokovic!

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think Murray safely and easily physically outlasted Ferrer in that match.
Ferrer was done big time because it was him who was attacking and Murray just pushing the balls back in that 3rd set.
He even slumped on the ground after not being able to bend his knee on a sliced BH at one stage.

Murray just tends to put on that "cooked" look when he is losing. He may have been a little dehydrated, that's all. He could've run & played another 2 sets no problem. Ferrer could not.

Not a cat's chance in hell!
Murray could barely serve in that final set.2 more sets??
His name isn't Djokovic!

So why do you think he could not play 3 sets in Miami against Ferrer and could play 5 against that same Djokovic AND beat him by outlasting him?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think Murray safely and easily physically outlasted Ferrer in that match.
Ferrer was done big time because it was him who was attacking and Murray just pushing the balls back in that 3rd set.
He even slumped on the ground after not being able to bend his knee on a sliced BH at one stage.

Murray just tends to put on that "cooked" look when he is losing. He may have been a little dehydrated, that's all. He could've run & played another 2 sets no problem. Ferrer could not.

Not a cat's chance in hell!

Murray could barely serve in that final set.

2 more sets??

His name isn't Djokovic!

So why do you think he could not play 3 sets in Miami against Ferrer and could play 5 against that same Djokovic AND beat him by outlasting him?

1) Ferrer lost his opening match in IW IIRC Murray made the QF's.

2) Ferrer had a walkover in his second round match, Murray didn't.

On that basis physically I struggle to see how Murray is in a much more beneficial position physically given Ferrer has had less court time.

Legend,

We are talking best of 3 here. Big, strong and fit boys playing the game now you and I.
That pair of legs has been trained to run all day. It's the muscling of forehand when in "attacking" mode that drains Murray like nothing else. But he didn't do much of it in that match anyway...he usually lasts a set and a half like that.

It would be interesting to see the court coverage stats, but I don't think they are available, although running is only half of the story....

NITB we are talking Murray and Ferrer. Both guys covered a ridiculous amount of court coverage. I think the running as you put was 80% of the story!

Murray v Gasquet - 119 minutes

Murray v Ferrer - 165 minutes

Both 3 setters. Damn near 3 hours for a 3 set match!!

Should be outlawed!

Drugs should be outlawed, then we'd start watching more human-like tennis we could relate to at least physically-wise

And with these words off to gym I fly!

Do away with muscle mass!! the legal and illegal!

Have fun at the gym

Muscle mass? No thanks!

Speaking of muscle mass and looking at today's women players, I really don't know what they do in the gym , but it sure ain't the same as what I do

noleisthebest wrote:Muscle mass? No thanks!

Speaking of muscle mass and looking at today's women players, I really don't know what they do in the gym , but it sure ain't the same as what I do

Typical example where this forum is being criticised for being "extreme" while neglecting the fact that the sport has gone itself to ridiculous extreme measures. Be it women turned into body builders with strange substances, players abusing the time rules, Referees told to ignore the time rule when it's a popular player, draws looking more than dodgy, etc...

Maybe I'm naive, but I hope the new ATP boss continues where Drewett left (when he leaves).
Nadal's 7 month "injury" absence was Godsent.
I doubt that enforcing 25 sec rule would've been pushed through had he been around.
I wonder what the process of electing them is and who has the final say...sponsors, TDs, somebody else?

Yes you are naive.

Money ruled, rules and will always rule as long as humans will be humans. There will always be ways to help the big ticket sellers.

Perhaps why there is a growing number of marxists

Tenez wrote:Yes you are naive.

Money ruled, rules and will always rule as long as humans will be humans. There will always be ways to help the big ticket sellers.

luvsports! wrote:Perhaps why there is a growing number of marxists

Is that true?

Capitalism or Communism it doesn't matter. the 1% smarter, greedier ones will turn whatever system to their advantage to exploit the 99% less smarter, greedier ones.

yes i watched a 30minute segment a while back on al jazeera about it, gaining momentum in the US interestingly.