US Open 2013

Tenez wrote:

Not looking good for the rest of week weather wise in NY

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=weather+new+york&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enGB539GB539&q=weather+new+york&gs_l=hp...0l5.0.0.0.6743...........0.ZJOvByvWC90

Oh, that looks really bad.
I don't bother with weather forecast though, 9/10 it's wrong, remember all the huff and puff about some disastrous hurricane just before last year's USO?
Fortunately, it turned out to be nothing more than heavy thunderstorm for New Yorkers.

Julia Santamaria wrote:According to your stats the USO has been speeded up since 2006 to 2011...

How? they prove otherwise.

But I don't understand- he's just used your stats??
He's not even giving any opinion on or anything, he's simply done some accurate calculations (which I just double checked).

no worries NITB

oh I didn't realise we had gone on to a second page, didn't see some comments.
2 secs let me just repost...

Nadal v Djoko USO 11 
a) total points ..................268
b) match duration ..............4 hrs 10 mins = 250 mins
c) points / min ..................1.072
d) strikes / rally .................22.25 (taken from Tenez data = 89 / 4)
e) strikes / min ..................23.85 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.52s per length of court (match average) Where a ball strike corresponds to the ball traversing the length of the court

Federer v Blake USO 06
a) total points ..................291
b) match duration ..............2 hrs 47 mins = 167 mins
c) points / min ..................1.743
d) strikes / rally .................12.00 (taken from Tenez data = 84 / 7)
e) strikes / min ..................20.91 (match average = c x d)
f) Average .......................2.87s per length of court (match average)

Hence considering the average time taken for the ball to cross the tennis court as an overall match average, the speed of the court has increased from 2006 (2.87 s/court length) to 2011 (2.52 s/court length). That is using Tenez' data (average ball strikes per rally point) we may safely conclude that the US Open court has speeded up in recent years. Thus we have debunked the debunker. 

But it is nonsense to think a ball takes about 3 sec to cover the length of a court....unless it is Nadal's moonballing back and forth to the moon so Noore stats are completely off the mark here. I don;t even know how he gets to those numbers but I can see an absurd flaw already is that he includes the time of a match, number of points played, etc.....which have little to do with the time it takes for a ball to get to travel over the net.

And the 12 strike/rally is an average I picked on some chosen rallies so there is enough rallying to obtain a reasonable average. It's certainly not the avearge of rallies per point per match.

As said Noore's comment is absurd....quite a few posters pointed that out and clearly understood what my stats are about.

Fed time  

Fed looks strong-- backhand is a weapon today..

Too bad the Fed/Nadal match will be a night match--  I think Fed thrives in the daytime conditions.

The whole point here is he has used the stats you have provided. His calculations are there and laid out very well with clarity.

The people who pointed out it was wrong said it was because your examples are representative of the whole match.. in which case your evidence doesn't stand at all (you can't have it both ways).

Fed playing with great confidence which is so good to see.
Berlocq does not stand a chance, he can grunt to the Moon and back, it won't help!

Good too see Fed's racket speed is back to his normal standard. He definitly has gained confidence in hitting through the ball. There's not much length in Berlocq's shots though so this is a pleasant practice session for Federer.

But i wouldn't go any further to say that this level is good enough to reach the quarters.

ok, GSM. Good match (yet very uneven). I enjoyed to see how Fed played today, and that was a while ago.

The young brit evans is actually pretty talented! Good to watch when he is playing well. He can go from very good to abysmal. 2-1 on tomic!

luvsports! wrote:The young brit evans is actually pretty talented! Good to watch when he is playing well. He can go from very good to abysmal. 2-1 on tomic!

Good on him!
Tomic is in my bad books after lying in the court to protect hid bully father, so ABT !!!  

Stunning stuff from Federer there, Berlocq is a class competitor; make absolutely no doubt about it: this result should be sending shockwaves down the Nadal camp.

Lovely to see a hungry, healthy and happy Fed all in one again!
He clearly strengthened his core which has allowed his back/mind to "relax" a bit and get him going freely.

He really is such a treasure

Julia Santamaria wrote:Stunning stuff from Federer there, Berlocq is a class competitor; make absolutely no doubt about it: this result should be sending shockwaves down the Nadal camp.

Useless post, like always

His on court interview with Pam Shriver was also very sharp and relaxed, loved all that tongue in cheek stuff about the draw and caring for results only  

Evans breaks tomic in the 4th!
I am susceptible to hyperbole now and again but I think he may be the most talented brit out there.

and he takes it in 4 sets, what a win!

luvsports! wrote:Evans breaks tomic in the 4th!
I am susceptible to hyperbole now and again but I think he may be the most talented brit out there.

What about James Ward?

 

luvsports! wrote:and he takes it in 4 sets, what a win!

Brilliant!
Didn't get to see him, wretched tax return got in the way  
What's he like.
Knowing British school of tennis, nothing much to look forward to: safe DBH baseliner?  

gallery play wrote:
Useless post, like always

Back at you buddy  

Hope Mannarino is still going, now there's a sight for sore tennis eyes  

He takes the ball early, shbh, great slice, good ball striker, lots of variety. Great stuff!

Julia im sorry but with that comment re nadal you were asking for a response like that.

luvsports! wrote:He takes the ball early, shbh, great slice, good ball striker, lots of variety. Great stuff!

Julia im sorry but with that comment re nadal you were asking for a response like that.

Wow!!!!!
I've got to see THAT, good on him, got a lucky spot in the qualies (I think someone withdrew, so he got in), went through those 3 matches and after that knocked out some quality players: Nishi and Tomic AAAAAND with the SBH !
So he's already got 5 wins, who is he playing next?

luvsports! wrote:He takes the ball early, shbh, great slice, good ball striker, lots of variety. Great stuff!

What about Murray though?
I take the ball early, have a SHBH (ok I don't really but I could), have a great slice, consider myself a good ballstriker, have a lot of variety (ok I don't really but I could)- so in this case could I call myself more talented than Murray?
It's more complex then that.

luvsports! wrote:
Julia im sorry but with that comment re nadal you were asking for a response like that.

Class display from Federer tonight, his back seemed ok. According to Tenez when his back is ok he is now better than ever- so surely he has a good chance better than ever against Nadal. The courts are also apparently playing quicker than the past few years.

Compared to your response that ferrer is more talented than verdasco because he has a higher ranking and has had more success. 
Or Nadal being more talented than nalbandian for the same reason. 

Ok tell me why you think murray is more talented and I shall respond.

Dodging my point aren't you.
You still had that comment coming by gallery play after that remark.

And Mannarino wins the 2nd set (against Querrey, should he win another one will be playing Fed next) again in the TB!!!  

I watched him from very close up twice this Wimbledon (beat Dustin Brown and lost to Kubot who then lost to JJ), and he is the most magical ball-striker, he is so slight and natural as a player, there is virtually no muscle definition in his legs at all.
According to ATP his weight is only 66 kg (180 cm tall) and he looks it!
I particularly loved watching him serve, he makes such sublime contact with the ball, you can barely hear it!
I really hope he gets to play Fed in the next round, it should be a real treat  

luvsports! wrote:
Dodging my point aren't you.

Not really...
Considering Murray has won 2 Grand Slams and is one of the highest ranked in the world, and has won like 10+ Masters 1000 etc. etc. while Evans had never won a Grand Slam match before this tournament... I think it's upto you to provide a very very convincing reason why Evans is a more talented and skill full tennis player.

To refute your points exactly:
-Murray can also take the ball early and when it has pace... he has a good trackrecord on faster surfaces and his return of serve shows amazing reflex especially when the ball is so fast.
-shbh; well Murray has a DHBH and a class one at that.
-good ball striker; I believe Murray is a better ball striker. Evans himself may agree with me on that.
-variety; Murray has a lot of variety: a better slice than Evans, a better dropshot than Evans, he is better at using angles on the court compared to Evans... basically Murray is more skilful than Evans in every department.

I made it clear that you were dodging the point re nadal being sent shockwaves. Stop wumming please. 

Why do I have to? It is my belief he is more talented. 

Again you believe that only the most successful are the most talented, which is not true.
You don't respond to everything i say so i will do the same.

luvsports! wrote:I made it clear that you were dodging the point re nadal being sent shockwaves.

Relax it was a cheeky comment, nothing to get so angry over.

Why do I have to? It is my belief he is more talented. 

Well you don't have to explain it, but you could back it up?

Again you believe that only the most successful are the most talented, which is not true.

Did I say that?
I said that considering Murray is multi-slam winning and one of the most successful players in the world currently playing, while Evans has never been in the top 150 and before this week had never won a match in a major... there should be some convincing reasons why Evans is more talented. You've not really come up with any.

Murray has a better record on faster courts than Evans, and has shown he can take the ball very early from a young age. See his match in 2006 against Roddick.
His reflex to return serve (probably joint best returner of serve atm) is fantastic, especially when the serve is so fast he has the reaction to use the pace so well... much better than Evans can even dream.
Variety wise, Murray has much more variety than Evans in his arsenal; far better drop shot, Murray's slice is world class and miles above Evans etc. etc. Murray also has a better serve.

Let me put it to you this way, is there any aspect of the game you'd really have the world number 186 Evans above the Wimbledon champion?

Yes I am livid with rage, just apoplectic! I merely said that comment invited that kind of response, no need really.

For me murray doesn't win matches being on top of the baseline, taking the ball early, shortening the points, taking many risks. He mainly does it through extending the rally, making great retrievals, forcing his opponent into an UE. Ok?

You said that re nadal and ferrer being more talented than nalbandian and verdasco respectively.

luvsports! wrote:Yes I am livid with rage, just apoplectic! I merely said that comment invited that kind of response, no need really.

lol

For me murray doesn't win matches being on top of the baseline, taking the ball early, shortening the points, taking many risks. He mainly does it through extending the rally, making great retrievals, forcing his opponent into an UE. Ok?

Fair enough, a tad simplistic, but anyhow how does this mean Evans is more talented?
As I said, which aspect of Murray's game is inferior to Evans? Backhand? Forehand? Dealing with pace?

luvsports! wrote:
You said that re nadal and ferrer being more talented than nalbandian and verdasco respectively.

I'd say both those cases are much closer than the one we are currently discussing.

Did that not make it clear. Murray doesn't win matches doing that and evans does. Attack minded over defensive minded.
For a guy of 5'9 I believe he is a better ball striker. He is a very competent volleyer and came in and made a lot of tough volleys. Murray rarely comes to the net (djoko more so) like nadal but they dont really come in when the odds are stacked against them.

From what I am hearing from you it seems you have not watched much of him and are dismissing him just because murray has been very successful.

gallery play wrote:ok, GSM. Good match (yet very uneven). I enjoyed to see how Fed played today, and that was a while ago.

Good. I did not see the match but the score is quite telling. If only he never had had this back problem and his confidence in his game and new racquet had started 3 months ago...he really woudl have a good chance.

And Mannarino does it!!!!!    

So happy for him.

Julia Santamaria wrote:The whole point here is he has used the stats you have provided. His calculations are there and laid out very well with clarity.

The people who pointed out it was wrong said it was because your examples are representative of the whole match.. in which case your evidence doesn't stand at all (you can't have it both ways).

No he did not. He completely misses the point. Bottom line is the game was simply played faster between Fed and Blake in USO 2006 than 5 years later between Nadal and Djoko. If you can't see what the stats say, you are simply not getting it.....or you don;t want to. ...probably more likely.

luvsports! wrote:From what I am hearing from you it seems you have not watched much of him

Nope, I've watched a lot of him actually, I've taken an interest after his Davis Cup wins earlier this year. Before that I admit I only watched him a bit.
I saw him play Challenger events in Vancuover and California in the run up to the US Open.

Did that not make it clear. Murray doesn't win matches doing that and evans does. Attack minded over defensive minded.

The discussion is based on who is more talented, not on who is more attacking. I may play more attacking than Murray, am I more talented than him? I am not even on his level.

For a guy of 5'9 I believe he is a better ball striker.

Than Murray?
As I said I've watched them both extensively, and there is a humongous gap in ball-striking ability... in Murray's favour.
However we are both entitled to our opinions  

He is a very competent volleyer and came in and made a lot of tough volleys. Murray rarely comes to the net (djoko more so) like nadal but they dont really come in when the odds are stacked against them.

Today Evans was decent at the net, but overall I'd say Murray is far far better in that area. Evans is normally quite poor at the net, he doesn't have the reflexes Murray does. Watch Utube highlights of him against Klahn his net game is critical in costing him the match.

If I was to do a shot by shot comparison:
Serve- Murray is ahead
Return of serve- Murray is miles ahead, especially returning pacy serves with his amazing reflexes
Net Game- Murray is ahead, by quite a margin
Forehand- Murray's forehand is vastly superior
Backhand- Barely a competition here
Drop Shots- Evans has terrible drop shots most of the time, Murray is an expert
Slice- Murray is much better with the slice, can use it much more effectively.

Overall Murray is vastly superior and on another level at basically every single aspect of their respective game, and I'd suspect even Evans himself would soundly agree.

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:The whole point here is he has used the stats you have provided. His calculations are there and laid out very well with clarity.

The people who pointed out it was wrong said it was because your examples are representative of the whole match.. in which case your evidence doesn't stand at all (you can't have it both ways).

No he did not. He completely misses the point. Bottom line is the game was simply played faster between Fed and Blake in USO 2006 than 5 years later between Nadal and Djoko. If you can't see what the stats say, you are simply not getting it.....or you don;t want to. ...probably more likely.

His explanation and conclusions using your stats were crystal clear: that the surface has speeded up since 2006.

This can mean one of three things:
a) Your stats were not accurate, ie you made errors while counting
b) The samples you chose were not representative of the match as a whole
c) The surfaces have really sped up since 2006

I suspect it's option b), but we're all allowed our own opinion.

Ok i shall spell it out for you. My opinion is that if you dont have to rely on those things i mentioned (what murray generally relies on) that makes you more talented generally. Ok?

Disagree on the forehand, disagree on the volley, evans has a very good slice, disagree on murray being an expert on drop shots.
Agree to disagree.

Can you explain again why ferrer is more talented than verdasco?

luvsports! wrote:Ok i shall spell it out for you. My opinion is that if you dont have to rely on those things i mentioned (what murray generally relies on) that makes you more talented generally. Ok?

I see but the respective levels at which both execute their gameplan is on two very different levels, which makes even this arguably gross over-simplification (of the rely on vs not rely on attack) virtually totally null and void.

luvsports! wrote:
Agree to disagree.

K, fair enough.

luvsports! wrote:
Can you explain again why ferrer is more talented than verdasco?

Ability and Potential= Verdasco>Ferrer
Mental= Ferrer>>Verdasco

As a combination (which tennis always is): Ferrer>Verdasco

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:The whole point here is he has used the stats you have provided. His calculations are there and laid out very well with clarity.

The people who pointed out it was wrong said it was because your examples are representative of the whole match.. in which case your evidence doesn't stand at all (you can't have it both ways).

No he did not. He completely misses the point. Bottom line is the game was simply played faster between Fed and Blake in USO 2006 than 5 years later between Nadal and Djoko. If you can't see what the stats say, you are simply not getting it.....or you don;t want to. ...probably more likely.

His explanation and conclusions using your stats were crystal clear: that the surface has speeded up since 2006.

This can mean one of three things:
a) Your stats were not accurate, ie you made errors while counting
b) The samples you chose were not representative of the match as a whole
c) The surfaces have really sped up since 2006

I suspect it's option b), but we're all allowed our own opinion.

Completely wrong again. He is not using my stats....he using the match stats which have nothing to do with how fast a ball travels. The only stat he uses from me is the 12 shot rally average which but he again misinterprates it again. .....I never said their rallies were 12 shots in average it's me saying I considered 12 shots rally mininum to get a more accurate average of the time it takes for the ball to travel a court length.

This shows again how stubborn you are in recognising you are plain wrong....and because you are that stubborn I don;t
won't answer any further post on that matter, cause if you do not want to settle, think and find where you and Noore are wrong....it's after all your problem....But it's comical to see that you fail to see how  quicker (ball coming back and forth over the net) the game was played in 2006 while everybody else sees it.

Tenez wrote:This shows again how stubborn you are in recognising you are plain wrong....and because you are that stubborn I won't answer any further post on that matter.

OMG! I think you're stubborn too

Snap!!

But it's comical to see that you fail to see how quicker (ball coming back and forth over the net) the game was played in 2006 while everybody else sees it.

No no no, I am NOT saying that the courts have speeded up since 2006. Look at the above post, which you quoted. If I had thought that I would have chosen option c).
Nore uses your stats, your rally length stats, uses it as representative of the whole match and works it out. Pretty clear really, and he hasn't made a mistake.

Really dull match, Nole looking a bit out of sorts for some reason, tired and  slow on his feet.

Looks as if he really hates having to grind Becker, which seems to be the way to beat him, unusually sluggish, complete opposite from the last match, gets broken, and Becker serving for the first set now.

Becker not much different, in fact....is it very hot or humid in New York today or stg?


I must admit I do prefer night sessions.

Much better play from Nole in the TB, and it's 1:0.

djoko wins in 3.

Strange match it was...but job done in the end!