Greetings from Canada

To introduce myself - I'm very much a Federer fan, and I follow the progress of Milos and Vasek with hope and pleasure.  I've enjoyed reading this forum for some time and I think I'm ready to offer some thoughts.  I've been mulling over 3 topics: family tensions, fan appeal, and a question I believe nitb posed awhile ago about what makes tennis attractive.  I'll start with the last one.

I think a great tennis match is like great sex, not about the ending but the exuberant play in getting there.  Of course there can be only one winner in a match, but both players can and should experience exhilaration in the contest.  I don't think of a tennis match as gladiatorial and I don't like to see anger and intimidation driving the action.  Challenges thrown and met, and the twists and turns of the intangibles like bad calls or wind gusts, provide much more excitement than domination.

As for the sport - is there any other sport that requires sustained individual competition in 3 dimensions in such a large arena?  Tennis asks you to play 3D chess at high speed in an extraordinarily physical fashion.  And there is no way to score, nothing to aim for but outwitting your opponent.  You can't drive for the basket, hit it out of the park, dump it in the goal...  Everything is open and shifting continually, and sometimes it seems even the player is mostly in the air with feet only touching down to shift momentum and direction.  Explosive action with total engagement - what could be better?

Cheers!

Good OP, welcome to the forum

Sex is like a game of racketball, you work up an appetite and hope you dont get hit in the eye! - Dr Cox.

Welcome Bluenose

Hello bluenose! (BN from now on)

welcome to OTF.
As you say, tennis is really one fascinating game with so many facets to it, it's almost inexhaustible in the ways you can look at it.
It's because it is so consuming in every way, because it engages the entire being: body, mind, emotions, passion, because you have another person to "fight" or play with or against on the other side of the net, and because none of all that would happen or even begin to exist without that little neon ball.
That fluffy thing that gives life and animates otherwise still life on court, every stroke of it is like a heart-beat.
Heart-beat of one life created by two people playing the game.

I find playing tennis thrilling,  and what gives me most thrill is hitting the backhand, as well as timing the serve well.
I just love the sounds that come off the racquet.

I have recently been playing with my BH grip and changed it slightly achieving a lot more pace with it.
I got so carried away with it and enjoying it yesterday, I started running around my FH!!!
I'll keep to myself the thought that went through my mind as I hit probably my best BH ever...

noleisthebest wrote:
I got so carried away with it and enjoying it yesterday, I started running around my FH!!!

You've been watching too much Benoit Paire haven't you  

Watching tennis rarely gives the same thrill as playing, though, except when I watch Federer in full flight.
That can only be bettered by watching him live and close up.
The ultimate tennis experience for me would be to be able to play like him.
Just for a day, even an hour.
Lucky, lucky, lucky him with all the ability and talent he has.
Doesn't he use it well, and doesn't he enjoy playing for us all!

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
I got so carried away with it and enjoying it yesterday, I started running around my FH!!!

You've been watching too much Benoit Paire haven't you  

Paire's BH is really exquisite in its deadliness and elegance, and I admire how he has managed to find a way to play super-attacking tennis with a DBH.
Having tried DBH myself once, there is no way he can enjoy hitting it like SBH.
I really have nothing against the DBH per se, but really believe it should not exist, in its essence, it has nothing to do with the concept of a BH, it's a hybrid shot which is neither a FH nor a BH.

noleisthebest wrote:
I really have nothing against the DBH per se, but really believe it should not exist, in its essence, it has nothing to do with the concept of a BH, it's a hybrid shot which is neither a FH nor a BH.

Somewhere in this line lies a contradiction, surely?
I think you do have something against the DHBH.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
I really have nothing against the DBH per se, but really believe it should not exist, in its essence, it has nothing to do with the concept of a BH, it's a hybrid shot which is neither a FH nor a BH.

Somewhere in this line lies a contradiction, surely?
I think you do have something against the DHBH.

It does and it doesn't.
I have everything against a DBH, but don't mind it in the sense that since it has been allowed, there is not a lot one can do about it.
If it was in my power, I'd ban it here and now.

....and I suppose one of the most attractive (among so many others!!!) aspects of a tennis game is its honesty.

There is just no mucking about on the tennis court!
You have to earn your win, you have to deal with your self, because sometimes the time almost stops in the middle of play and you want to get out of that capsule but you can't!
Just like in real life, you have to keep going, you have to drag yourself out of yourself, you can't stop playing until the match is finished.
And maybe its because of that honesty, we all get so upset when we see pros cheat with doping and rules bending.
And again, just like in everyday life, there are people you love playing and those you don't.
Most of the time, I don't even register the person, just the ball.
Always different and always new.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
I really have nothing against the DBH per se, but really believe it should not exist, in its essence, it has nothing to do with the concept of a BH, it's a hybrid shot which is neither a FH nor a BH.

Somewhere in this line lies a contradiction, surely?
I think you do have something against the DHBH.

It does and it doesn't.
I have everything against a DBH, but don't mind it in the sense that since it has been allowed, there is not a lot one can do about it.
If it was in my power, I'd ban it here and now.

So would I.  But the real issue isn't the DBH, it's again the conditions that have allowed it to become such a weapon.  So really attacking the root cause would stop any need for it to be outlawed.  However, let's say they standardized equipment here and now, I'd say yes, it needs banning.  Only the most talented players could hope to have an excellent 1 handed backhand.

Regardless of conditions, I really don't think DBH is a weapon.
Weapon is, or at least should be something that enables you to attack, move forward, take initiative.
DBH is just a tool for those who play baseline tennis, something that is there to annul real weapons.

Almost like a doped shot: giving you more stability and essentialy safety esp on returns, but taking away all the pleasure and beauty in everything else you do with it.

And one final thought before I fly away to dreamland.
The thing I find really appealing about tennis is the door/exit/escape it offers out of everyday grind.
It's a little bit like stepping into a different reality, where all the rules and limitations of place and time that chain us in our lives: habits and repetitive routines they all fly out of the window on a tennis court.
There, anything can happen!
However little ability we have, we can do what we like! We can create, be silly, we can fly and survive, I just think that's fabulous! 

bluenose wrote:As for the sport - is there any other sport that requires sustained individual competition in 3 dimensions in such a large arena?  Tennis asks you to play 3D chess at high speed in an extraordinarily physical fashion.  And there is no way to score, nothing to aim for but outwitting your opponent.  You can't drive for the basket, hit it out of the park, dump it in the goal...  Everything is open and shifting continually, and sometimes it seems even the player is mostly in the air with feet only touching down to shift momentum and direction.  Explosive action with total engagement - what could be better?

Cheers!

Welcome on board Bluenose.

I am not sure tennis is being outwitting your opponent. I am not sure if you noticed but the king of outwitting is Federer and he is nowhere to be seen at end of slams anymore. The guy who won the last 12 slams (bar Wimby12) is simply the fittest guy. And that also contradicts your second part of that paragraph. It's not open, not been shifting for a while, It's been the same players not using explosiveness but lungs and stamina for most of the recent past.

Certainly the tennis you describe is pre-2005...not since.

I've been outed as old!  But I think you misunderstood the meaning of shifting - I meant the target shifts.  And what I saw in the semifinal O2 was Federer very much outwitting Nadal but missing on the closer.  Over and over.  I don't yet believe that he will not recover the accuracy.  And I still think that his inexorable creep forward is one of the most scary sights on the court because it is so rare and unpracticed.  I'm a long way from giving up on Roger.

But yeah, I grew up in the northern wilds with 2 very fine tennis parents but not even a backboard among the sled dogs.  When we finally moved outside and got tv I was horrified by the antics of the US players.  Edberg was my guy.  And Martina!  There was a long stretch where women's tennis was more interesting than men's.

And for 10 years Roger has been a touchstone with my mother who is far away but with our time zone difference we've been able to keep each other informed.  So I do have a sentimental attachment; that is something I'm mulling over for later. 

And I don't think anybody understands the geometry of the court like Roger, because nobody consistently pops the surprises he does.  The way he took Wimbledon 2012 was amazing, and I don't believe it's over.

bluenose wrote:And I don't think anybody understands the geometry of the court like Roger

I don't think anybody understands tennis like Roger. One interesting thing about the WTF this year was that they interviewed the players about their tactics. I can only find two examples but you can see the difference between Roger and Nadal here quite startling.

Federer:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgv4nqEBoo (6:10 in)

Nadal:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K3mTttRJBE

When Roger retires, I hope he starts commentating. That, would be a feast for the ears.

Massively agree with that Polly. Expert analysis.

BlueNose did you catch any of Canadian Milos Raonic's commentary at the O2?
It was actually very good. Much better than his tennis! Was pleasantly surprised and so much better than Cowan and gormless grinning greg, albeit that isn't saying much.

What Federer is saying with nice words (using DNA) is that he is more talented than Gasquet.....or gutsier than Gasquet.... or both. Gasquet used to be able to take the ball quite early young but with the change of strings and spinnier ball he felt he had to stand further back to give himself an easier ball to time.

Federer is the SHBH player who take the ball earliest. It's easier to do with a DHBH but with a SHBH one needs amazing timing (especially with today's spinny balls) and guts. This is why he has been the only SHBHer able to challenge the top guys and even win slams in the last 9 years.
If you don't have that exceptional talent AND guts, you simply have no chance to win a slam with a SHBH nowadays. It's as simple as that.

Polly 81 wrote: I can only find two examples but you can see the difference between Roger and Nadal here quite startling.

Federer:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgv4nqEBoo (6:10 in)

Nadal:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K3mTttRJBE .

I posted these two on the WTF thread, again, Fed and Nadal but after different matches (Delpo and Berdych)

noleisthebest wrote:What a cool feature, post-match analysis with Fed!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZlbNsIBRFOg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DZlbNsIBRFOg

And Nadal analyses his FH

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lOwl2gneCYw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlOwl2gneCYw

bluenose wrote:To introduce myself - I'm very much a Federer fan, and I follow the progress of Milos and Vasek with hope and pleasure.  I've enjoyed reading this forum for some time and I think I'm ready to offer some thoughts.  I've been mulling over 3 topics: family tensions, fan appeal, and a question I believe nitb posed awhile ago about what makes tennis attractive.  I

I found that original thread, it was started by Tenez:

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t235-watching-tennis-what-is-it-all-about

I did another one where I just do my tennis musings as they come to me, last thig was how I think I'd feel if I won Wimbledon.
Would be interesting to hear from others too. I can't be the only one with such high ambitions  

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t195-is-tennis

Good threads indeed NITB.