Australian Open 2014 : MOTD : Day 6

luvsports! wrote:Allez le Monf!
Such a high risk game! I honestly cannot understand how people don't think that taking the ball so early is difficult. It's so much more risky!

Maybe because if they did, they would have to acknowledge the existence of talent and the lack of it in Nadal who does the utmost opposite with the ball: waits as far as possible to take it on and then safely impart his unnatural power spin to it.

Once Nadal fans understand it, their whole world collapses which is why they stubbornly and ferociously refuse to admit it and come up with all sorts of see-through arguments and constructions to support their fragile fandom.
I can understand kids in the playground carrying on like that, but grown adults...my oh my!

It is as clear as daylight who the real, natural tennis players are and who the drilled, Bolletieri, athletes & types.
It's not the end of the world if you are not talented, but some people find soooo difficult to accept it. Unfortunately, it hurts when the lack of talent is helped by doping and usurps talent, ruining tennis in the process.
Worst of all is rubbing it all in and adding salt to the wound by calling all that ugly charade "greatness".
Rather than admire someone's talent and be happy they can enjoy it, they are envious and call it "luck".
As Ana Ivanovic once put it so well:
"Sport does not build character-it reveals it."

Fed is not going to get a gift from anyone. He will have to take down Nadal himself.

Do you think Fed can do it ROTLA?

I set my alarm to 5.30. When it woke me up I checked the score to see Nadal won the first set 6:1 and went straight back to sleep. Glad I did not bother to get up.

noleisthebest wrote:Wow, SB, you are emerging to be a Dimi fanboy  

I am offended. What do you mean? I have always been a Dimi fanboy

Dimi is the only one of the yongsters that I am genuinly rooting for. The other ones I just want to succeed so that we get someone fresh at the top.

You should check out some of the match if you can, it was quite good. Rao was playing ok too - with his big frame he will always struggle with agility but he was playing ok. Just watching from 5:4 in the fourth set will give you a good taste of the match. Dimi in particular hit some lovely shots during that stretch. I think at 5:4 15-15 (or thereabouts) he hit a great half-volley passing shot backhand. And during the tie-break he hit one amazing on-the-run passing shot. He was using slice very well too - Rao would often find it difficult to pick up the low bouncing balls.

I think he may be ready to go far this year - I would be disappointed if he does not reach top 10 and I am hopeful that perhaps he can make some decent inroads inside top 10 too. It is also clear he has been taking tennis seriously - he has improved his movement by leaps and bounds.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Do you think Fed can do it ROTLA?

My Heart says yes, but my head says no. But I'm not going to disappointed, that I'm sure. Fed has past his beats tennis days and now 32, Nadal also being younger and in prime form after probably his best year in 2013. 

All cards  maybe stacked against Fed, but its okay. I rather see him play and lose than not play at all.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Do you think Fed can do it ROTLA?

I do not know about Rotla, but I do not think Fed can do it. But if Fed is playing well, then perhaps he can take out Andy, thus eliminating the one player who could prevent Rafa from reaching the final. How about that?

summerblues wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Do you think Fed can do it ROTLA?

I do not know about Rotla, but I do not think Fed can do it.  But if Fed is playing well, then perhaps he can take out Andy, thus eliminating the one player who could prevent Rafa from reaching the final.  How about that?

I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see him play and lose than not play at all.

+1

Well put.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

Absolutely. Agree.

Federer needs to get past Tsonga first.

laverfan wrote:Federer needs to get past Tsonga first.

:)Yes right. And it may not be easy either.

laverfan wrote:Federer needs to get past Tsonga first.

Oh yes. Don't worry LF, that is all well understood.

summerblues wrote:Dimi is the only one of the yongsters that I am genuinely rooting for.  The other ones I just want to succeed so that we get someone fresh at the top.

Krygios also played well against Paire, but is a bit behind Dimitrov in terms of development.

I would be glad to see Federer get another go at Murray after he gets past Tsonga (and perhaps in 3-4 sets).

laverfan wrote:I would be glad to see Federer get another go at Murray after he gets past Tsonga (and perhaps in 3-4 sets).

I think Fed is going to get past Tsonga... Tsonga looks good, but Fed is gaining a little confidence. He reiterated last night on ESPN studio with Gilbert that he doesn't expect to be at his best shape and form until March/April though....  That being said- it's hard to see him beat Murray and certainly not Nadal. 

I like the sentiment though- rather see him play and lose than not play at all!

laverfan wrote:Krygios also played well against Paire, but is a bit behind Dimitrov in terms of development.

I saw a bit of Kyrgios in his first round match I think. He looks like he can be good down the road but he is where Dimi was a few years ago in terms of development. Also, he is quite tall with a DHBH, so his game will never look as "classic" as Dimi's, which will probably make it harder for me to warm up to him.

summerblues wrote: You should check out some of the match if you can, it was quite good.  Rao was playing ok too - with his big frame he will always struggle with agility but he was playing ok.  Just watching from 5:4 in the fourth set will give you a good taste of the match.  Dimi in particular hit some lovely shots during that stretch.  I think at 5:4 15-15 (or thereabouts) he hit a great half-volley passing shot backhand.  And during the tie-break he hit one amazing on-the-run passing shot.  He was using slice very well too - Rao would often find it difficult to pick up the low bouncing balls.

Will have a look later.
I am relatively indifferent towards Dimi, mainly because of his game.
I saw him play Nole live from the first row at Boodles last summer (even teased him about Masha as it was still not official then) and was disappointed that he played exactly the same game as Nole, despite having a SBH.
He hits a very good, clean FH, and does nothing with it, no shot-making at all.
I have a feeling he lacks guts and he will never develop into a full-blooded attacking player like Fed.
He could at least try.
I really hope he does, but time seems to be going by and his game (although I have not seen him at all this year) looks to be going from safe to safer.
I would love to see him play instinctive tennis, just not sure where he stands with it, but that's more benefit of the doubt based on those early days when he was spending a bit more time inside the court.

truffin1 wrote:... That being said- it's hard to see him beat Murray and certainly not Nadal. 

10 Consecutive QFs (2004-2013) is a good record to have. He can push it to 11. Murray is coming back from back surgery, so there is a good chance for him to beat Murray and Tsonga both. He needs to tighten up the UEs and his BH.

Gabashvili played consistently to Federer's BH (I think about 50-60%). The lack of foot speed is very apparent, where he chased fewer balls on the FH side.

Gilbert was talking about 16 lbs. higher tension than his previous racquet giving him more topspin on FH and BH. Can Federer leverage this to his advantage?

Nadal was pretty thorough in dissecting La Monf.

laverfan wrote:

truffin1 wrote:... That being said- it's hard to see him beat Murray and certainly not Nadal. 

10 Consecutive QFs (2004-2013) is a good record to have. He can push it to 11. Murray is coming back from back surgery, so there is a good chance for him to beat Murray and Tsonga both. He needs to tighten up the UEs and his BH.

Gabashvili played consistently to Federer's BH (I think about 50-60%). The lack of foot speed is very apparent, where he chased fewer balls on the FH side.

Gilbert was talking about 16 lbs. higher tension than his previous racquet giving him more topspin on FH and BH. Can Federer leverage this to his advantage?

Nadal was pretty thorough in dissecting La Monf.

Yes, his semifinal streak at the AO is really amazing. Been a heck of a run.

I saw what you saw. Fed is moving better, but clearly lost a step latterly to the forehand side. He lunges so often now and the ball flies.  He says he can regain that speed, but if it's not from his injuries and age related- obviously it's going to be tough.

Fed confirmed in the ESPN interview with Gilbert that he had upped the tension by a "few kilos".  

Interestingly, I saw on his website fan forum, Courier was commentating for one of the live streams or some channel and said that the telltale sign of whether Federer was fully intouch with the new racquet would be seen in comparing his speeds on serve and ground strokes.. Said until Federer fully trusted the racquet, there actually might be a dip in pace..  Courier came back later and said he had some stats and so far this year compared to last year, Federer is hitting 2mph less avg on 1st serve, 3mph more on second, and 2 or 3 mph less on forehand groundstrokes. Couriers take was that means Fed still has some trust issues and not playing completely free with the racquet.

I was surprised as it seems like he has more power on the 1st serve, he def can ramp up the serve down the T moreso than in the past couple of years, but perhaps on avg he's using more spin and angles and dropping the mph to get used to the racquet. His 2nd serve def is being hit with more power.  Backhand too though it seems like Courier didn't have the stats for that.

Of course Fed is not going to be trusting the racquet 100% yet, but every win will bring him a little closer to that relaxed inner state.
His reluctance that comes across as hesitance possibly messes up the footwork as well.
I have seen him move superbly last year, so don't think he lost anything in footspeed at all.
To me, it's not going to be about the racquet speed on his FH, although that will happen first, it is the BH that will be the final piece in the jigsaw of his complex game.
Once he gets his BH going, once it starts flowing out of him in all its variety, that will be the sure sign that all is in place and good health.
Can't wait to see it however long it takes.

noleisthebest wrote:Will have a look later.
I am relatively indifferent towards Dimi, mainly because of his game.

I know you are not a huge fan but he is playing quite well, so worth having at least a brief look - as I say, enough to watch the last few games of the match to get a good feel for it.  I am not the greatest fan of Nole's style either but I can still see that he does extremely well what he does - one can appreciate that without necessarily liking it much.

Plus the match yesterday was not all stuck at the baseline.  Rao was trying to charge the net quite a bit and they both played some all court tennis; it was fairly enjoyable from that perspective too.

I had a look but all I could find was a minute and a half of highlights which featured a very aggressive Raonic and Dimitrov passing him a few times.
He's got a big chance with his next match, and that will be the trickiest one to predict of all.
Agut is fast and won't give him time to breathe if he gives up the initiative.
That's the thing he lacks, the instinct to boss the opponent.

summerblues wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

Absolutely.  Agree.

Not me actually. I want to see Murray and Nadal die on the court. Of course I want to see Federer win Murray but only if he can beat Nadal....and I think he can...just not on those courts. the spin is too much of an advantage.

I have yet to see Federer play this year. I hope to catch some of it on Monday.

Tenez wrote: I want to see Murray and Nadal die on the court.

Murray has not had much match fitness anyway. The Lopez match is case in point. Neither is going to "die".

Tenez wrote: Of course I want to see Federer win Murray but only if he can beat Nadal....and I think he can...just not on those courts. the spin is too much of an advantage.

Are you suggesting they play on 80s grass and only S&V is allowed?   

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

Absolutely.  Agree.

Not me actually. I want to see Murray and Nadal die on the court. Of course I want to see Federer win Murray but only if he can beat Nadal....and I think he can...just not on those courts. the spin is too much of an advantage.

Yes but the spin is Nadal's own generated. Its just like great timing is Fed's advantage. One has to win matches using their own advantages and countering the opponent's.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

Absolutely.  Agree.

Not me actually. I want to see Murray and Nadal die on the court. Of course I want to see Federer win Murray but only if he can beat Nadal....and I think he can...just not on those courts. the spin is too much of an advantage.

Yes but the spin is Nadal's own generated. Its just like great timing is Fed's advantage. One has to win matches using their own advantages and countering the opponent's.

Doing what Federer does is infinitely harder than what Nadal does.  Give Nadal a 1 handed backhand and see where he is.  It takes far more skill to be Fed than Nadal.  And these courts cater to Nadal.  Nearly all today's courts and racquet technologies do.  That's why it's unfair.

noleisthebest wrote:Of course Fed is not going to be trusting the racquet 100% yet, but every win will bring him a little closer to that relaxed inner state.
His reluctance that comes across as hesitance possibly messes up the footwork as well.
I have seen him move superbly last year, so don't think he lost anything in footspeed at all.
To me, it's not going to be about the racquet speed on his FH, although that will happen first, it is the BH that will be the final piece in the jigsaw of his complex game.
Once he gets his BH going, once it starts flowing out of him in all its variety, that will be the sure sign that all is in place and good health.
Can't wait to see it however long it takes.

Glad Fed agrees with me

"Clearly it all starts with the footwork. Without footwork you aren't going to be able to hit a backhand or you're going to be stretched so much you're not going to be able to hit one. You've just got to be able to react. Important is to set yourself up that you have multiple options and you're most dangerous for your opponent. I think it's important to not always hit it in the same spot -- you can disguise it to some degree, but what you want to be able to do is show your opponent that you can hit it all, so when it gets important he doesn't know where it's going to go. Then with me, I can manage with a slice and then the topspin and the flat backhand. I try to mix it up as much as I can. But at the same time, I also need to be able to just make enough in a row just for consistency and also for my confidence.
Just staying aggressive with the footwork, not sort of leaning back too much, not getting too passive on it, because you can have tendency to do that with a one-handed backhand because you can bail out and go to the slice. I know everybody can, but a double-hander usually doesn't. The one-hander, it's so natural for us to play the slice that you almost have to tell yourself to always stay on the front foot and play aggressive. On a quicker court like here it's definitely one thing you want to do.”

noleisthebest wrote:Glad Fed agrees with me

Though he does not seem to agree with you 100% :

NITB said:

Melbourne courts are slow and high bouncing

RF said:

On a quicker court like here

Anyway, let's see how tonight goes.  I am actually quite hopeful that Roger will beat Tsonga - he looked good in his previous round I thought.

FedererKing wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I rather see Fed lose in a semis to Nadal than lose to Murray in QF.

Absolutely.  Agree.

Not me actually. I want to see Murray and Nadal die on the court. Of course I want to see Federer win Murray but only if he can beat Nadal....and I think he can...just not on those courts. the spin is too much of an advantage.

Yes but the spin is Nadal's own generated. Its just like great timing is Fed's advantage. One has to win matches using their own advantages and countering the opponent's.

Doing what Federer does is infinitely harder than what Nadal does.  Give Nadal a 1 handed backhand and see where he is.  It takes far more skill to be Fed than Nadal.  And these courts cater to Nadal.  Nearly all today's courts and racquet technologies do.  That's why it's unfair.

See its not Nadal's fault that  Fed plays singled handed BH. Similarly Fed wasn't forced to have a SHBH, he just chose it as DHBH was just not natural to him. So you argue that if Nadal is given SHBH to play with, what will Fed do if he being natural righty like Nadal, is given to play with his left hand. 

Does it take more skill to be Fed? it depends on your definition of skill. Fed's game is beautiful and graceful, Nadal's can't do that. But what Nadal does, perhaps not many players can do either. But Nadal's game is definitely more doable than Fed's.

These courts cater to Nadal's game? Yes. So its his advantage for sure. I just wished faster courts remained faster and slow remained slow. But the news is this year the R L arena is playing  a bit quicker.

The point is not whether the court is playing a little quicker - it is still slow!
As for comparing Federer to Nadal...I admit it blows my mind that people can't spot how average Nadal is.

noleisthebest wrote:The point is not whether the court is playing a little quicker - it is still slow!
As for comparing Federer to Nadal...I admit it blows my mind that people can't spot how average Nadal is.

 Nadal average? Nadal is not average, not him. He never was. Even if you take out all his wins on slowed down hard and grass court, His clay record alone is so phenomenal, it will still put him among the Greats of the game. 8 RG titles, 18 clay Masters, you still think that's average?

How many players have 8 slams and 18 masters?

JS will be pleasantly surprised to see you saying this Raiders!

noleisthebest wrote:......to tell yourself to always stay on the front foot and play aggressive. On a quicker court like here it's definitely one thing you want to do.”[/i]

Is Fed making a ref to the AO court speed here???

Tenez wrote:Is Fed making a ref to the AO court speed here???

Yes, I think so.  BTW, Fed has looked quite good against Gabashvili, I am hopeful for tonight.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:....See its not Nadal's fault that  Fed plays singled handed BH. Similarly Fed wasn't forced to have a SHBH, he just chose it as DHBH was just not natural to him. So you argue that if Nadal is given SHBH to play with, what will Fed do if he being natural righty like Nadal, is given to play with his left hand. 

Does it take more skill to be Fed? it depends on your definition of skill. Fed's game is beautiful and graceful, Nadal's can't do that. But what Nadal does, perhaps not many players can do either. But Nadal's game is definitely more doable than Fed's.

These courts cater to Nadal's game? Yes. So its his advantage for sure. I just wished faster courts remained faster and slow remained slow. But the news is this year the R L arena is playing  a bit quicker.

Well we do not know whether it's Nadal's fault or not the courts have slowed down since he arrived on the big stage. I do think players through sponsors can influence the direction courts pace is going....to favour or unfavour players. I might be wrong but we should always bear in mind that tennis, and sport in general, is a business show above all.

When Fed started to play and learn the game, all the great players who were at the top and inspired him were SHBH. So it's not his "fault" either that he picked SHBH.

Where it says the courts play quicker? I have not read that from anybody bar Nadal and Amri....the hot weather made them quicker...not the courts themselves. They looked dead slow to me on the Nadal/Monfils match.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Is Fed making a ref to the AO court speed here???

Yes, I think so.  BTW, Fed has looked quite good against Gabashvili, I am hopeful for tonight.

Which is strange cause I heard him say otherwise in an interview at the beginning of the week.


I have yet to see Fed play this year but I am also confident he can beat Tsonga. I was just worried about his close 3rd set in the previous round.

noleisthebest wrote:I admit it blows my mind that people can't spot how average Nadal is.

He may be average by whatever criteria you measure players, but tennis is a sport, sport is about winning, and he certainly is not average in that regard.

Sport is not about playing prettily, nor is it about being talented.  If talent or pretty style can help you win, sure, that is good, but otherwise they are largely irrelevant.

I think what we call pretty in sport is usually making things look easy. Winning a point easily and effortlessly is "pretty" to the eye....and it actually means having talent and being a better player.

Problem is that nowadays, no-one can make easy points consistently enough to win majors. That's what has gone wrong with tennis in particular. Nothing is easy, especially on those dead slow conds.

Tenez wrote:Well we do not know whether it's Nadal's fault or not the courts have slowed down since he arrived on the big stage. I do think players through sponsors can influence the direction courts pace is going....to favour or unfavour players. I might be wrong but we should always bear in mind that tennis, and sport in general,  is a business show above all.

Perhaps, but I would say even changing conditions is within reason.  Sports have always been doing that - if a player or team become too dominant the sport often looks for ways to adjust to make it more competitive.  Even supposing conditions were being changed to make it more competitive between Roger and Rafa on hard courts, it would have only been because Rafa was able to beat Roger on clay and challenge him on grass, and thus make their competition into a blockbuster.

Tenez wrote:I think what we call pretty in sport is usually making things look easy. Winning a point easily and effortlessly is "pretty" to the eye....and it actually means having talent and being a better player.

But at the end of the day, talent in itself is irrelevant.  Same goes for being a "better player" unless it translates to a victory.

There are places where "talent" or "beauty" can be goals in themselves, but not in competitive sports.

Tenez wrote:Which is strange cause I heard him say otherwise in an interview at the beginning of the week.

Yes, quite a lot of conflicting assessments on the conditions this year.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Which is strange cause I heard him say otherwise in an interview at the beginning of the week.

Yes, quite a lot of conflicting assessments on the conditions this year.

Pretty sure down to the weather variation. At the end of the day, I'd trust the TD who said nothing was changed....and the only tennis saw (Nadal Monfils) confirms just that.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think what we call pretty in sport is usually making things look easy. Winning a point easily and effortlessly is "pretty" to the eye....and it actually means having talent and being a better player.

But at the end of the day, talent in itself is irrelevant.  Same goes for being a "better player" unless it translates to a victory.

There are places where "talent" or "beauty" can be goals in themselves, but not in competitive sports.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing. In sport winning is everything....agree....but I seriously suspect sport was invented to let talent express itself. In boxing talent was either the speed of a punch and or the weight of the punch. In tennis it was the control of the ball, etc...talent is what we wanted to see and in my view why sport was created and even became so popular. Nothing to do with "pretty" but more the ease of winning and and more so the ability of delivering that talent under pressure.

However it is a fact that in those slow conds, talent hardly play any role. But speed things much more and it will be all down to talent and nerves again. So sport can be about talent again. We decide what we want from it. For now clearly, we want to see Nadal win and almoast everything is done to that effect. (I am only half kidding).

Tenez wrote:Not sure we are talking about the same thing. In sport winning is everything....agree....but I seriously suspect sport was invented to let talent express itself.

Tenez wrote:We decide what we want from it.

I agree with all that.  I am also not a huge fan of the direction in which tennis has been moving, but there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" in that.  It is fair to say something like:

"Tennis was designed to test a certain skill set and current conditions no longer test that, and instead test a different skill set."

But it is not reasonable to  suggest that current tennis players should be measured based on the skill set that was required to succeed in the old days.  Current players need to be measured on what is required today - at the end of the day, as you say, "we decide what we want from it".

If player A is more successful than player B because player A's game is more suited to current conditions than player B's game, but if player B would have been more successful in the old conditions, it does not make sense to claim that "player B is a better tennis player than player A", though it might make sense to say "player B would have been a better tennis player than player A if conditions had stayed the same as they used to be".

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I admit it blows my mind that people can't spot how average Nadal is.

He may be average by whatever criteria you measure players, but tennis is a sport, sport is about winning, and he certainly is not average in that regard.

Sport is not about playing prettily, nor is it about being talented.  If talent or pretty style can help you win, sure, that is good, but otherwise they are largely irrelevant.

I don't think I have ever used the word "pretty" to describe anything tennis-wise, but I do detect a strong dose of disdain in it from you.
Beauty and elegance are a result of talent: the more talented someone is, the better he/she looks as well as plays.
That is a fact just like it's a fact that after Sunday comes Monday.

As for winning, yes, winning is a crown of being good at something, and in an ideal world, the talented should win.
Unfortunately we are now living in a vulgarly commercial era that does not care about the ideals of Beauty and Chivalry.
To me, Nadal sums up just about everything that is wrong with today's not only tennis, but sport in general.
I know corruption has been around in sports for ages, esp in football, but it's somehow less in your face in a team sport.
One on one - you can't hide anything.
Everything has been polluted by exceeding, blind greed that has distorted values and ruined not just sport but music, films etc...

I don't have a clue who is selling most records and films these days, nor do I care.
I refuse to go down with the flow and drop my very old-fashioned taste.

I listen to people around me parrot what they've heard others parrot on TV and feel more and more isolated - the other day our head coach who is England's Seniors Captain kept telling me how he loves watching Nadal, what a lovely lad he is etc....then some other equally senile clones joined in... a short while I though (and said so to them) they were pulling my leg, but they were not, they were dead serious!!!
My world has been rapidly shrinking into a desert island...but it's a happy one!

noleisthebest wrote:Beauty and elegance are a result of talent: the more talented someone is, the better he/she looks as well as plays.
That is a fact just like it's a fact that after Sunday comes Monday.

I am not going to say much on your general take on our current society other than that I do agree to a large extent with your sentiments.

But I certainly disagree with your application to tennis.  Beauty and elegance in tennis lie in the eye of the beholder.  Saying otherwise is kidding yourself.  There is nothing deep or meaningful in how people hit the tennis ball and whether or not someone finds it elegant.  I am also fairly certain that is is untrue that "the more talented someone is, the better he/she looks as well as plays", in spite of your assurance that it is like Monday coming after Sunday.

Finally, I could not disagree more with this:

noleisthebest wrote:in an ideal world, the talented should win.

Why would that be so?  What would make such a world preferable - so much so as to call it "ideal"?

noleisthebest wrote:I refuse to go down with the flow

This reminded me of one of my favorite cartoons from years ago:

http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/My-motto-was-Go-with-the-Flow-but-I-had-no-idea-the-flow-would-end-up-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8640932_.htm

Only dead fish go with the flow