10spro wrote:Rhymes, Roddick's serve is his main weapon as you well know, but if you watched the match today, it just didn't have the same sting as last years final with Fed where he mixed the location of his serves extremely well. I thought his serves today were pretty down the line, Lu started to read'em like a book and the rest is history. But more importantly the American was ineffective at breaking Lu's serve and frankly the Chinese guy started to mix his game up, staying in the baseline, coming to the net, to the point that Roddick just didn't know what to expect next.
And Djoko's game has more variety than Roddicks. Even if he had won today, I liked Djokovic chances better at facing the great Federer. The only aspect of the game that Djoko needs to improve is his stamina when the match goes to five sets.
No 10s, didn't get to see the game so appreciate the summary. Sounds like Lu played a clever match. In fairness to Roddick, I think he's added a lot more variety since he hired Stefanski to coach him and I think that's reflected in better results: finalist at Wimbledon and more recently finalist at Indian Wells and winner at Miami. I think he'd've liked his chances against Djoko. He's having a better year than the Serb and he's won their last 3 meetings. Anyway, he didn't do enough yesterday to earn that shot. Having said all that, I think you're right when you say that Djoko has more variety in his game, though he hasn't really consolidated his Aussie Open win in 2008. He has definitely shown at least sporadic stamina problems and I've heard talk of a respiratory ailment. He didn't play Madrid this year apparently for reasons related to allergies. Anyway, after the early fright against Rochus, he seems to be in top form now.
Good QF line-up but Nadal v Soderling stands out for me.
10spro wrote:Rhymes, Roddick's serve is his main weapon as you well know, but if you watched the match today, it just didn't have the same sting as last years final with Fed where he mixed the location of his serves extremely well. I thought his serves today were pretty down the line, Lu started to read'em like a book and the rest is history. But more importantly the American was ineffective at breaking Lu's serve and frankly the Chinese guy started to mix his game up, staying in the baseline, coming to the net, to the point that Roddick just didn't know what to expect next.
And Djoko's game has more variety than Roddicks. Even if he had won today, I liked Djokovic chances better at facing the great Federer. The only aspect of the game that Djoko needs to improve is his stamina when the match goes to five sets.
Roddick is so overrated....I'm not surprised he lost. His game has no variety and when his serve isn't popping, he's in trouble. He plays so quickly and without any thought to strategy (it seems). Roddick also comes off to me like a spoiled @ss at times. Like when he got the tiebreak to 3-3 and he motioned the crowd for more applause. He just isn't likeable IMO. I hope Isner can climb the ranks and pass up Roddick eventually.
10spro wrote:Rhymes, Roddick's serve is his main weapon as you well know, but if you watched the match today, it just didn't have the same sting as last years final with Fed where he mixed the location of his serves extremely well. I thought his serves today were pretty down the line, Lu started to read'em like a book and the rest is history. But more importantly the American was ineffective at breaking Lu's serve and frankly the Chinese guy started to mix his game up, staying in the baseline, coming to the net, to the point that Roddick just didn't know what to expect next.
And Djoko's game has more variety than Roddicks. Even if he had won today, I liked Djokovic chances better at facing the great Federer. The only aspect of the game that Djoko needs to improve is his stamina when the match goes to five sets.
Roddick is so overrated....I'm not surprised he lost. His game has no variety and when his serve isn't popping, he's in trouble. He plays so quickly and without any thought to strategy (it seems). Roddick also comes off to me like a spoiled @ss at times. Like when he got the tiebreak to 3-3 and he motioned the crowd for more applause. He just isn't likeable IMO. I hope Isner can climb the ranks and pass up Roddick eventually.
Roddick is by no means my favourite player but the ATP rankings are not based on opinion. They're based on results. Roddick is the world no.7 because he's got the results to be there. When a guy like Lu, who isn't in the top 100 anymore as far as I know, gets to the round of 16 in a slam it's a surprise to most people and when he tops that by beating the world no. 7 and three-times finalist to reach the last eight...Seriously Jack, I think that result has to count as a surprise.
I see where you're coming from when you say that Roddick is overrated but IMO that should read "was overrated" in the sense that he was seen as the successor to Sampras and Agassi and that hasn't happened, partially due to the appearance on the scene of the great Federer, who has denied him 3 Wimbledon titles. I don't know about his personality or whether he's a likeable guy or not (in some of his press conferences he's shown a nice line in dry humour). Given his age and the fact that old habits die hard, I think he's shown admirable humility in submitting to the Stefanski regime and becoming a more complete player than he was a couple of years ago.
rhymes450 wrote:
Roddick is by no means my favourite player but the ATP rankings are not based on opinion. They're based on results. Roddick is the world no.7 because he's got the results to be there. When a guy like Lu, who isn't in the top 100 anymore as far as I know, gets to the round of 16 in a slam it's a surprise to most people and when he tops that by beating the world no. 7 and three-times finalist to reach the last eight...Seriously Jack, I think that result has to count as a surprise.
I see where you're coming from when you say that Roddick is overrated but IMO that should read "was overrated" in the sense that he was seen as the successor to Sampras and Agassi and that hasn't happened, partially due to the appearance on the scene of the great Federer, who has denied him 3 Wimbledon titles. I don't know about his personality or whether he's a likeable guy or not (in some of his press conferences he's shown a nice line in dry humour). Given his age and the fact that old habits die hard, I think he's shown admirable humility in submitting to the Stefanski regime and becoming a more complete player than he was a couple of years ago.
Yes it was a surprise that Roddick lost to such a low ranked player, but it wasn't a surprise that he lost at this point in a major. Is he a more complete player today than he was several years ago? Yes. And tagging him as the next Sampras or Agassi will make you look bad if you don't live up to those lofty expectations. I guess I am guilty of that as well.
It is dissapointing to see all the few top Americans go down one after another in the major tournaments and men's American tennis sure isn't what it used to be.
rhymes450 wrote:
Roddick is by no means my favourite player but the ATP rankings are not based on opinion. They're based on results. Roddick is the world no.7 because he's got the results to be there. When a guy like Lu, who isn't in the top 100 anymore as far as I know, gets to the round of 16 in a slam it's a surprise to most people and when he tops that by beating the world no. 7 and three-times finalist to reach the last eight...Seriously Jack, I think that result has to count as a surprise.
I see where you're coming from when you say that Roddick is overrated but IMO that should read "was overrated" in the sense that he was seen as the successor to Sampras and Agassi and that hasn't happened, partially due to the appearance on the scene of the great Federer, who has denied him 3 Wimbledon titles. I don't know about his personality or whether he's a likeable guy or not (in some of his press conferences he's shown a nice line in dry humour). Given his age and the fact that old habits die hard, I think he's shown admirable humility in submitting to the Stefanski regime and becoming a more complete player than he was a couple of years ago.
Yes it was a surprise that Roddick lost to such a low ranked player, but it wasn't a surprise that he lost at this point in a major. Is he a more complete player today than he was several years ago? Yes. And tagging him as the next Sampras or Agassi will make you look bad if you don't live up to those lofty expectations. I guess I am guilty of that as well.
It is dissapointing to see all the few top Americans go down one after another in the major tournaments and men's American tennis sure isn't what it used to be.
Jack, it is a pity that for the moment there doesn't appear to be a male American player ready to really challenge for the top spot. PK 500's reference to the double-edged sword of American youth sport being overly structured in the World Cup thread may tie in here also. If you look at the top American players (Roddick, Blake, Querrey, Fish, Isner), there's is a great similarity among them in terms of style, strengths, weaknesses and even physical stature. These are all excellent players and I imagine it takes a great system to produce players of that quality on a regular basis. However, if you look at the ATP top 4 (Federer, Murray, Rafa, Djoko), none of them really fit a mould in the sense that they all have individual qualities and styles that set them a little apart. I suspect it's just a matter of time before America produces a player or players who break the mould a little...somebody like Sampras, Courier, Agassi, McEnroe, with that something special to set them apart. I know hardly anything about the US tennis system (though I'm told that it's very methodical and scientific) so I'm really just thinking out loud. I could be way off the mark. BTW, there's no doubt IMO that while we're waiting for that super special player to emerge, Roddick is easily the best bet for American tennis to win a slam, so I'll be expecting you to get right behind him in his quest to capture a second Flushing Meadows title (only kidding ).
Berdych definitely played the match of his life. He played the big points better than Roger and the key to his win IMO was his first serve. With that big frame of his and high toss, Federer just couldn't read his serves which were bombs for a lot of easy points for the Swede.
There's a rumor saying that Federer has been bothered by a back/ thigh injury for a couple of weeks now, and maybe so as he committed uncharacteristic of him too many errors on key points. But full credit to Berdych, he doesn't have the touch at the net and does not seem to run very fast, dude is 6'5", but you surely could tell yesterday.
Another match that I caught late was the Murray-Tsonga one. The Scott looks dangerous and maybe, just maybe could pull a huge upset against Nadal.
Not saying that the Spaniard may not reach the finals, this is just his best chance at consolidating his number 1 status, as Federer may drop all the way to number 3 by the end of the weekend.
10spro wrote:Berdych definitely played the match of his life. He played the big points better than Roger and the key to his win IMO was his first serve. With that big frame of his and high toss, Federer just couldn't read his serves which were bombs for a lot of easy points for the Swede.
There's a rumor saying that Federer has been bothered by a back/ thigh injury for a couple of weeks now, and maybe so as he committed uncharacteristic of him too many errors on key points. But full credit to Berdych, he doesn't have the touch at the net and does not seem to run very fast, dude is 6'5", but you surely could tell yesterday.
Another match that I caught late was the Murray-Tsonga one. The Scott looks dangerous and maybe, just maybe could pull a huge upset against Nadal.
Not saying that the Spaniard may not reach the finals, this is just his best chance at consolidating his number 1 status, as Federer may drop all the way to number 3 by the end of the weekend.
Fed's been a bit under par since he won Australia in brilliant style. He didn't seem too interested in the Master 1000 events but going out in the quarters of two consecutive slams is really underachieving by his standards. Berdych is playing very well lately (finalist in Miami and semis at RG). Don't know what his h2h with Djoko is.
Caught the last 3 sets of the Nadal match. I'm a bit surprised by how well he's serving. I don't know exactly how many aces he hit but it was well into double figures. He was really mixing it up well and Soderling was tearing his hair out trying to get a read on it especially on the ad side. Also interesting was that he was receiving only about a yard from the baseline and often using block returns, which is fairly unusual for him but it worked out pretty well. I think Murray is a great player to watch. He's got a huge repertoire and very good touch at the net when he does come forward. He even threw in a bit of serve and volley in his win over Nadal in Australia. He's beaten Nadal in their last two slam meeting, both on hard but Nadal crushed him at Wimbledon 2008. Murray's a better player now though. Tough one to call and could be a classic but hard to bet against Rafa.
rhymes450 wrote: Tough one to call and could be a classic but hard to bet against Rafa.
This was Rafa's best match yet. Murray played well enough to steal the 1st and second set but the uncanny ability from Rafa to run down after every ball just probably wore down the Scott. Third set, Murray is serving to go up 5-3 on his serve and misses some key points, the most noticeable one, a missed open volley into an open court. Rafa rallies back to tie things 4-4 and the rest is history.
Again, don't think Murray played badly, it's just that Rafa played the important points much better, and to do in straights sets is amazing.
rhymes450 wrote: Tough one to call and could be a classic but hard to bet against Rafa.
This was Rafa's best match yet. Murray played well enough to steal the 1st and second set but the uncanny ability from Rafa to run down after every ball just probably wore down the Scott. Third set, Murray is serving to go up 5-3 on his serve and misses some key points, the most noticeable one, a missed open volley into an open court. Rafa rallies back to tie things 4-4 and the rest is history.
Again, don't think Murray played badly, it's just that Rafa played the important points much better, and to do in straights sets is amazing.
I caught the last set and a half and I'd agree. Murray didn't play badly. He had a set point in the 2nd and was a break up in the third. I thought Nadal was very aggressive off the ground and really went after Murray's forehand. His inside out forehand and forehand down the line were really working well and at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, I think he served very well again. He also showed that he's got a lot more to offer than just physical power with some great touch on the volleys in the 2nd set breaker. In a way, it's a pity Murray didn't take that 2nd set because it could've set us up for an epic, though my feeling was that Rafa was playing too well today to lose this one. For anyone interested in Murray's post match press conference...
There was never a doubt that Rafa would win today, he was just dominant from the get go. Berdych must have had what, 2-3 break points the entire match? Impressive serving by the Spaniard keeping it wide to Berdych's backhand and due to his big frame, although he did rather well, he just couldn't run forever east-west the entire match.
He's clearly the #1 rank player in the world, if healthy not many can touch Nadal.
NBC is about to re-run that epic tie-break between Borg-Mac some 30 years in what's perhaps the most exciting match ever besides Nadal-Federer a couple of years ago. Just seemed like yesterday.
10spro wrote:There was never a doubt that Rafa would win today, he was just dominant from the get go. Berdych must have had what, 2-3 break points the entire match? Impressive serving by the Spaniard keeping it wide to Berdych's backhand and due to his big frame, although he did rather well, he just couldn't run forever east-west the entire match.
He's clearly the #1 rank player in the world, if healthy not many can touch Nadal.
NBC is about to re-run that epic tie-break between Borg-Mac some 30 years in what's perhaps the most exciting match ever besides Nadal-Federer a couple of years ago. Just seemed like yesterday.
Yep, routine win for Nadal, which is not bad going in the final of Wimbledon against a guy who's taken out both Fed and Djoko with relative ease. The impression is that on clay and grass, he's got an even bigger game than the big hitters and while he defends very effectively against their onslaughts, they haven't got the mobility to stay with him when he goes on the offensive. Today, Berdych look completely outgunned once the rallies opened out.
On to Toronto, Cincinnatti and Flushing Meadows now, traditionally the toughest part of the season for Rafa, especially the latter two. If he can win in New York, he's suddenly going to be on 9 slams and counting. Will we see a Fed reaction?
30 years since the Borg-McEnroe epic? Hard to believe. That 4th-set tie-breaker was incredible.
rhymes450 wrote:
Yep, routine win for Nadal, which is not bad going in the final of Wimbledon against a guy who's taken out both Fed and Djoko with relative ease. The impression is that on clay and grass, he's got an even bigger game than the big hitters and while he defends very effectively against their onslaughts, they haven't got the mobility to stay with him when he goes on the offensive. Today, Berdych look completely outgunned once the rallies opened out.
30 years since the Borg-McEnroe epic? Hard to believe. That 4th-set tie-breaker was incredible.
Nadal was on a mission today....as he was against Murray. Berdych just could not break him. Rafa is playing near perfect tennis these days and if he continues like this will win the next major too. Berdych was great when serving, but couldn't figure out how to break Nadal and that was that. Wish it was a more competitive entertaining 5 set match, but what can you do?
About the Borg-McEnroe epic match, I just can't watch that old stuff anymore. I am so spoiled by the fast pace of today's power game.
And when you watch the women from the Chris Evert or BJKing time, it looks like they are just volleying the ball back and forth so slowly. It's such a different game now. How did they even use those small wood racquets?
jackB1 wrote: It's such a different game now. How did they even use those small wood racquets?
Hey, I still got mine and will keep it forever. My first wood racket was a Slazenger before I upgraded to a Head 'Vilas' model. They were heavy rackets and the latest wooden generation were nicely crafted, before the Kevlar rackets started to arrive. It's a different game for sure today, all power and not as much technical tactics involved.
10spro wrote:
Hey, I still got mine and will keep it forever. My first wood racket was a Slazenger before I upgraded to a Head 'Vilas' model. They were heavy rackets and the latest wooden generation were nicely crafted, before the Kevlar rackets started to arrive. It's a different game for sure today, all power and not as much technical tactics involved.
I disagree. Just because there is more speed and power in today's game doesn't mean it's not as technical. Players today have much better and refined technique than players of decades ago. Yes, there aren't as many "serve and volley" players anymore, but that doesn't mean there is any less strategy or technique going on. I guess I don't know exactly what you meant by "tecnical tactics"?
10spro wrote:
Hey, I still got mine and will keep it forever. My first wood racket was a Slazenger before I upgraded to a Head 'Vilas' model. They were heavy rackets and the latest wooden generation were nicely crafted, before the Kevlar rackets started to arrive. It's a different game for sure today, all power and not as much technical tactics involved.
I disagree. Just because there is more speed and power in today's game doesn't mean it's not as technical. Players today have much better and refined technique than players of decades ago. Yes, there aren't as many "serve and volley" players anymore, but that doesn't mean there is any less strategy or technique going on. I guess I don't know exactly what you meant by "tecnical tactics"?
There was more 'thought' and 'strategy' in the game when the wooden rackets were being used. Nowadays if you know that someone has a weaker side all you're doing is using today's technology and power the ball towards it. In the golden days I had to work harder to win a point with a wooden racket, the frame was much smaller as well as the sweepspot, so hitting it almost perfect was essential. The mishits today are way more forgiving and you can still get away with a point.
10spro wrote:
Hey, I still got mine and will keep it forever. My first wood racket was a Slazenger before I upgraded to a Head 'Vilas' model. They were heavy rackets and the latest wooden generation were nicely crafted, before the Kevlar rackets started to arrive. It's a different game for sure today, all power and not as much technical tactics involved.
I disagree. Just because there is more speed and power in today's game doesn't mean it's not as technical. Players today have much better and refined technique than players of decades ago. Yes, there aren't as many "serve and volley" players anymore, but that doesn't mean there is any less strategy or technique going on. I guess I don't know exactly what you meant by "tecnical tactics"?
There was more 'thought' and 'strategy' in the game when the wooden rackets were being used. Nowadays if you know that someone has a weaker side all you're doing is using today's technology and power the ball towards it. In the golden days I had to work harder to win a point with a wooden racket, the frame was much smaller as well as the sweepspot, so hitting it almost perfect was essential. The mishits today are way more forgiving and you can still get away with a point.
Today's racquet's definitely have more "put away power" and that leads to quicker points/ shorter rallies.
Anybody following Toronto? I caught Nalbandian's last three matches in Washington and the match today against Ferrer. Amazing comeback from injury and he's not even served very well from what I can make out. When he's playing well, you get the impression that his destiny is in his own hands against practically anyone.
rhymes450 wrote:Anybody following Toronto? I caught Nalbandian's last three matches in Washington and the match today against Ferrer. Amazing comeback from injury and he's not even served very well from what I can make out. When he's playing well, you get the impression that his destiny is in his own hands against practically anyone.
Heading there at the end of the week. Nalbandian had been plagued by injuries the last couple of years, good to see him back.
Federer is having a tough time against the other Argentinian now, J. I. Chela. He's going to have to grind it out in TO if he's to reach the finals.
rhymes450 wrote:Anybody following Toronto? I caught Nalbandian's last three matches in Washington and the match today against Ferrer. Amazing comeback from injury and he's not even served very well from what I can make out. When he's playing well, you get the impression that his destiny is in his own hands against practically anyone.
Heading there at the end of the week. Nalbandian had been plagued by injuries the last couple of years, good to see him back.
Federer is having a tough time against the other Argentinian now, J. I. Chela. He's going to have to grind it out in TO if he's to reach the finals.
Just caught the end of it thanks to your post 10s. I'd been watching the Verdasco v Schwank match and thought that Fed/Chela was coming up after that one. The next few weeks are looking very interesting. Could be an important period in Fed's career. Not sure about the shirt. He could send one to Agassi. It strikes me as the kind of garment that might open a door or two in Las Vegas.
If you're heading along to see this, have a great time. Nothing like watching these guys hit live. Of the less obvious things to see, if you get the chance, I'd recommend checking out Youzhny. With his military salute after victories and memories of him beating himself up with the racket a few years ago against Almagro, I had him down as a bit of a nutter but when I saw him in Madrid this year I was totally blown away by the beauty of his backhand. I seem to remember your preference for one-handed backhands and the way this guy mixes slice with topspin on that wing is awesome. Maybe it's just me but I think you'd appreciate what he does.
I went to my first real Pro tournament a fews weeks ago in Atlanta. Saw Fish vs Roddick and also
some doubles with Isner & Blake playing together. I couldn't believe how tall Isner was. He is like an
NBA center playing tennis....just incredible. His kick serves were bouncing up into the stands
The Roddick/Fish match was fun to watch. Fish played great and Roddick seems to be on the
downslide. He doesn't hit his groundstrokes as hard as he used to and just rallies and waits for
an opening. Seems like his best days are already behind him. Prime years for tennis pros's now seems
to be 21-25. Anyway, was really cool seeing these pro's play in person.
JackB1 wrote:I went to my first real Pro tournament a fews weeks ago in Atlanta. Saw Fish vs Roddick and also
some doubles with Isner & Blake playing together. I couldn't believe how tall Isner was. He is like an
NBA center playing tennis....just incredible. His kick serves were bouncing up into the stands
The Roddick/Fish match was fun to watch. Fish played great and Roddick seems to be on the
downslide. He doesn't hit his groundstrokes as hard as he used to and just rallies and waits for
an opening. Seems like his best days are already behind him. Prime years for tennis pros's now seems
to be 21-25. Anyway, was really cool seeing these pro's play in person.
I like Mardy Fish as a player and he comes across as a nice bloke with a sense of humour. I think he's more complete than most of the other American players. For me he's the best volleyer and has the softest hands of his contemporaries. Apparently, he's dropped 30 pounds in recent times and that should help his mobility, which is often a weakness for guys that tall. He hasn't had the best of luck with injuries and I'm not quite sure why he's skipping Toronto, but with back-to-back wins in the last few weeks, he looks upwardly mobile.
Roddick complained of feeling unwell in Washington during his loss to Simon and pulled out of Toronto so hopefully he can get over that in time for New York. Jack, I get the feeling that we disagree on the merits of what he's achieved under Stefanski but I'd have to agree that his form has dipped since Miami. Time will tell whether that's temporary or terminal.
Youzhny won't thank me for singing his praises. Kiss of death! Mind you, he lost the match in Madrid that I saw too. Dolgopolov is anything but as aesthetic but he's a very unusual player, which is nice at a time when many pros seem to have stepped off conveyer belts.
Great atmosphere in TO as Berdych-Federer played the Friday night match. Berdych of course upset RF in Wimbledon but also beat him early during the year and you could tell that the Swiss didn't want to go down three times in a row against the Czech. He started strong and just owned him in the first set where his forehand dictated the pace as Berdych kept playing to that side. The second set was tight and all of the sudden RF started making more unforced errors on his forehand which (give credit to Berdych) was being picked on since the first point of the match even though he won the 1st set.
The crowd was definitely pro Swiss and Berdych had everything to put Federer away with the score 5-3 in the last set. He started tightening up, the crowd may have gotten to him and made some key and costly errors. The tie breaker was great to watch and the experience of the Swiss made the difference in the end.
Berdych is one monster of a hitter, at 6'6" he served big but his overall mobility is still suspect to me. RF attacked the net more than usual, which he should in my opinion and maybe his new coach P. Annacone has something to do with that.
The other quarters saw Murray beating Nalbandian easily in two as the Argentinian was playing his 10th match in 14 days and had no energy left. Semis looking good, there's a chance to see Nadal-Fed on Sunday but Murray and Djokovic have something to say about that.
It was an electrifying atmosphere, liked the new upgrades done in the stadium, just don't miss the mugginess of hog town Toronto.
You sure picked a good day to go 10s. The Fed-Berdych match was outstanding. I thought Fed was brilliant in the 1st. He hit one backhand down the line with such ferocity and precision that I was almost laughing at the outrageousness of it. The best thing for me was his motivation and the fact that he's clearly decided to take up Nadal's gauntlet. After the French and Wimbledon, maybe he's come to the conclusion that he can't stroll thru' other events allowing other players to pick up morale-boosting wins.
Fair dues to Berdych. He played some match and could easily have taken it. He was definitely put off a couple of times by some idiot in the crowd but showed his growing maturity by not allowing it to affect him.
Hats off to Nalbandian. Great run. Apart from fatigue, I think his relatively mediocre serving finally caught up with him a bit too. If he gets his serve going in the next few weeks...anyway, history has shown that making predictions with this guy is risky. I caught the 2nd set and I thought Murray was in brilliant form. The Nadal match should be great, with Murray playing well on his favourite surface. The organisers, sponsors etc. must be OTM with the top 4 all reaching the semis.
).
