clinic by Federer

Heavy balls on forehand, backhand, and serves plus great volleying.

PeteWasLucky

2015-02-28 16:41:39 UTC

33 beating the world number one, too much about retirement.

RzR

2015-02-28 16:41:40 UTC

Post by PeteWasLucky
Heavy balls on forehand, backhand, and serves plus great volleying.

novak was unlucky a bit, but federer was better today.

the serve is the mother of all strokes in tennis...

PeteWasLucky

2015-02-28 16:48:10 UTC

Raising the level when it's needed is what Federer did today and used to do in his peak time.

Court_1

2015-02-28 23:06:39 UTC

Post by PeteWasLucky
Raising the level when it's needed is what Federer did today and used to do in his peak time.

On the faster hc low bouncing surfaces, Federer is just better than Djokovic. Djokovic excels on the slower higher bouncing hc surfaces.

SliceAndDice

2015-02-28 17:03:10 UTC

His forehand looked the best I have seen it look in a long while. Great match!

h***@gmail.com

2015-02-28 17:08:32 UTC

Post by SliceAndDice
His forehand looked the best I have seen it look in a long while. Great match!

Plus fun to watch. Each point seemingly different than the next vs the same patterns again and again.

It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

Ulysses

2015-02-28 17:27:09 UTC

Post by SliceAndDice
His forehand looked the best I have seen it look in a long while. Great match!

Plus fun to watch. Each point seemingly different than the next vs the same patterns again and again.
It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

It looks like Fed is finally comfortable hitting his FH with his new racket. His FH is still a shadow of what it was in his prime, but it's still good enough to whip the world's #1 in straight sets. Beating Nole in a 3/5 match format is going to be a lot more difficult. Fed's never beaten Novak in a match that went 5 sets, I think he's 0/3 against him. In any case, a solid display from Fed where he held his nerve.

2015-02-28 17:33:33 UTC

Post by Ulysses
It looks like Fed is finally comfortable hitting his FH with his new racket.

You mean that famous 8 inches larger racket?

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 10:14:30 UTC

Post by Ulysses
It looks like Fed is finally comfortable hitting his FH with his new racket.

You mean that famous 8 inches larger racket?

lol

Pelle Svanslös

2015-02-28 19:00:41 UTC

Post by Ulysses

Post by SliceAndDice
His forehand looked the best I have seen it look in a long while. Great match!

Plus fun to watch. Each point seemingly different than the next vs the same patterns again and again.
It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

It looks like Fed is finally comfortable hitting his FH with his new racket.

Looks more like the Bastard has become a Lendlesque tuneup king.

--
"Got no time for jibba jabba"

2015-02-28 17:27:34 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

Obviously Fed's tactic was to deny Djok rhythm. Played very aggressive
keeping points short which was helped by him serving as well as/better
than ever.
Federer won more 1st serve points, Djokovic won more 2nd serve points
which shows that regardless the result Djoko had stronger groundgame...
while Fed had really good serving day. I would say that this was Fed at
his very best peak level and Djoko at his average level.

Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

Gracchus

2015-02-28 17:34:32 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

Fleming is either being very generous or is an idiot. Playing great on a given day at age 33 doesn't mean you're better than ever--it means you can still play great on a given day, especially if you only need to play a few short matches against stooges to reach the final. Meanwhile in every slam now there are lapses, and lapses mean not winning slams.

2015-02-28 17:44:40 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

His argument was improved tactics. I have stats that show his serve has
actually improved over the years...

Gracchus

2015-02-28 17:51:29 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

His argument was improved tactics. I have stats that show his serve has
actually improved over the years...

Obviously he has made adjustments to stay near the top, but he is nowhere near his peak. There is no way to fully compensate for loss of speed, reflexes, etc. The serve is the easiest thing to hold onto forever, but it only can do so much--else Sampras would still be vying for slams.

2015-02-28 18:59:05 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

His argument was improved tactics. I have stats that show his serve has
actually improved over the years...

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Gracchus

2015-02-28 19:14:06 UTC

Post by Gracchus
Obviously he has made adjustments to stay near the top, but he is nowhere near his peak. There is no way to fully compensate for loss of speed, reflexes, etc. The serve is the easiest thing to hold onto forever, but it only can do so much--else Sampras would still be vying for slams.

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

2015-02-28 19:35:21 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...

Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

MBDunc

2015-02-28 20:15:37 UTC

Post by TT
2
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest..

Technically you can have a player who win 30 slams, loses a couple of SF:s to some new players at end career points. And after that peak those new players go and get their heydays and win 5+ slams.

You have 30 slam winner with 100% against 5+ major champs.

I tried to dig but run out of time, but were there any Tilden wins over multi-slam champs at SF/F stage of slams? 0-3 at finals for sure against Lacoste/Cochet?

.mikko

2015-02-28 23:16:37 UTC

Post by MBDunc

Post by TT
2
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest..

That's pretty horrible clown era then... if you win 30 slams you're
going to have looots of semis and finals.

Post by MBDunc
I tried to dig but run out of time, but were there any Tilden wins over multi-slam champs at SF/F stage of slams? 0-3 at finals for sure against Lacoste/Cochet?
.mikko

I don't know about semis for players pre open era... but Tilden faced in
major finals 38% 5+ champs but that's not including Johnston who
probably is same calibre.

I'd rather use the stat about 10+ major finalists for Tilden because of
that...

Tilden 24 major finals:
Opponent = major champ 58% of the time
Beat major champs 43% of the time
Beat others 90% of the time.

Gracchus

2015-02-28 21:30:44 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

It's not about excuses, but the reality of aging, which is the issue. If you play 6 matches leading up to the final in a slam, even if they're straight-set wins, you've still played 18 sets before the championship. Compare that with the amount of rest Federer had before Dubai and how many sets he played this week to reach Djokovic. He can hardly tell his body which are the "right" matches to win. He has it or he doesn't. And at 33+ years, he often doesn't.

2015-02-28 22:11:59 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Age excuse for #2...

2015-02-28 22:18:16 UTC

Post by Gracchus
Obviously he has made adjustments to stay near the top, but he is
nowhere near his peak. There is no way to fully compensate for
loss of speed, reflexes, etc. The serve is the easiest thing to
hold onto forever, but it only can do so much--else Sampras would
still be vying for slams.

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the
Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still
good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

It's not about excuses, but the reality of aging, which is the issue.
If you play 6 matches leading up to the final in a slam, even if
they're straight-set wins, you've still played 18 sets before the
championship. Compare that with the amount of rest Federer had before
Dubai and how many sets he played this week to reach Djokovic. He can
hardly tell his body which are the "right" matches to win. He has it
or he doesn't. And at 33+ years, he often doesn't.

Age excuse for #2...

Not that beating Djoko isn't great... it is and congrats for that. It's
just the annoyance of "no loss matters and every win is magic" fabel.

Gracchus

2015-02-28 22:33:48 UTC

Post by TT
Not that beating Djoko isn't great... it is and congrats for that. It's
just the annoyance of "no loss matters and every win is magic" fabel.

I've never seen anyone here say that. Is "fabel" a Freudian slip? :)

Look, it's amazing that he's ranked where he is now, but the reality is that he's past his prime. Any tennis player is at that age no matter what adjustments he/she makes, and trying to pretend that he can perform at the level he once did is highly silly. Even Roger Magnus isn't a superman.

Whisper

2015-03-01 09:24:00 UTC

Post by TT
Not that beating Djoko isn't great... it is and congrats for that. It's
just the annoyance of "no loss matters and every win is magic" fabel.

I've never seen anyone here say that. Is "fabel" a Freudian slip? :)
Look, it's amazing that he's ranked where he is now, but the reality is that he's past his prime. Any tennis player is at that age no matter what adjustments he/she makes, and trying to pretend that he can perform at the level he once did is highly silly. Even Roger Magnus isn't a superman.

True, but you seem to be implying he'd beat peak Djoker/Rafa in slams if
this was 2004. Nobody seriously buys that, because the evidence shows he
mainly won slams v 2nd tier & lower players, & teen Djoker etc.

Nobody questions his ability & results in tune-ups - that really is
amazing stuff. Pity he can't replicate in matches that mean something.

: (

Gracchus

2015-03-01 16:37:40 UTC

Post by Gracchus
Look, it's amazing that he's ranked where he is now, but the reality is that he's past his prime. Any tennis player is at that age no matter what adjustments he/she makes, and trying to pretend that he can perform at the level he once did is highly silly. Even Roger Magnus isn't a superman.

True, but you seem to be implying he'd beat peak Djoker/Rafa in slams if
this was 2004. Nobody seriously buys that, because the evidence shows he
mainly won slams v 2nd tier & lower players, & teen Djoker etc.
Nobody questions his ability & results in tune-ups - that really is
amazing stuff. Pity he can't replicate in matches that mean something.
: (

This is your usual revisionist tripe that has been addressed many times.

Whisper

2015-03-02 07:46:45 UTC

True, but you seem to be implying he'd beat peak Djoker/Rafa in slams if
this was 2004. Nobody seriously buys that, because the evidence shows he
mainly won slams v 2nd tier & lower players, & teen Djoker etc.
Nobody questions his ability & results in tune-ups - that really is
amazing stuff. Pity he can't replicate in matches that mean something.
: (

This is your usual revisionist tripe that has been addressed many times.

Not to my satisfaction.

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 11:09:20 UTC

Post by TT
Not that beating Djoko isn't great... it is and congrats for that. It's
just the annoyance of "no loss matters and every win is magic" fabel.

I've never seen anyone here say that. Is "fabel" a Freudian slip? :)
Look, it's amazing that he's ranked where he is now, but the reality is that he's past his prime. Any tennis player is at that age no matter what adjustments he/she makes, and trying to pretend that he can perform at the level he once did is highly silly. Even Roger Magnus isn't a superman.

what level did he perform at? he must've been able to beat Djoker 60 60 by your reckoning, perhaps even a golden set? you tell us

Whisper

2015-03-01 09:17:13 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.

He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

guypers

2015-03-01 12:23:23 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

LOL! But can Hoad get a game from him, if they played ten sets? Not in a ukking million years!!

Whisper

2015-03-02 07:26:23 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

LOL! But can Hoad get a game from him, if they played ten sets? Not in a ukking million years!!

He'd get games, but Hoad wins something like 62 63 62.

Patrick Kehoe

2015-03-02 16:15:51 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

LOL! But can Hoad get a game from him, if they played ten sets? Not in a ukking million years!!

He'd get games, but Hoad wins something like 62 63 62.

Oh, yaaa... no doubt about it... ???

P

Rodjk #613

2015-03-02 18:48:37 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Nonsense.

Post by guypers

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat,

Like Seppi? Tsonga? Robrado? Stakhovsky?

Post by Whisper
& loses the big matches v the

Post by guypers

Post by Whisper
best players in slams, like he always has.

So he won 17 slams by losing big matches?

Post by guypers
LOL! But can Hoad get a game from him, if they played ten sets? Not in a ukking million years!!

He'd get games, but Hoad wins
something like 62 63 62.

This is delusional...but at least in your case it is consistent.

Rodjk #613

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 21:30:06 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Nonsense.

how is it nonsense when he's still #2 in the world and just beat #1? top Fedfan marks though.

h***@gmail.com

2015-03-01 13:55:15 UTC

To me Fed has lost a lot physically. For most of his career he beat Djok from the baseline. He was 100% Djok's equal in terms of court coverage and defense and then better on offense. There's no way he beats 2011 Djok at the FO w/o this being true. Now he's only better on offense, which is still good enough in best of 3 matches on faster surfaces, but that's it.

Patrick Kehoe

2015-03-02 16:12:54 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
To me Fed has lost a lot physically. For most of his career he beat Djok from the baseline. He was 100% Djok's equal in terms of court coverage and defense and then better on offense. There's no way he beats 2011 Djok at the FO w/o this being true. Now he's only better on offense, which is still good enough in best of 3 matches on faster surfaces, but that's it.

Good analysis... Feds has certainly lost some coverage defensively... his reading of the game helps him here (ie experience and natural spacial awareness of the game much like Rafa, who has a slightly keener sense of court)... Novak is his equal on a hardcourt WHEN they match up A LOT OF THE TIME... very little to choose between them... if Fed is in full champagne tennis mode he can brush bye Novak with his stronger situational serving and more willingness to be offensive throughout a match... But, Nole's 6 years younger and in his prime, so, that also tells us something about Federer, at 33, being able to beat him in straights on a court Nole's been a 4 time champion on, ie, a court he's very confident and proficient on...

P

Whisper

2015-03-03 08:02:24 UTC

Only in tune-ups. Can't do it in slams due to his mental issues.

Post by Patrick Kehoe
But, Nole's 6 years younger and in his prime, so, that also tells us something about Federer, at 33, being able to beat him in straights on a court Nole's been a 4 time champion on, ie, a court he's very confident and proficient on...

Nice, but of no significance to multi slam champs.

Gracchus

2015-03-03 08:52:20 UTC

Post by Patrick Kehoe
Good analysis... Feds has certainly lost some coverage defensively... his reading of the game helps him here (ie experience and natural spacial awareness of the game much like Rafa, who has a slightly keener sense of court)... Novak is his equal on a hardcourt WHEN they match up A LOT OF THE TIME... very little to choose between them... if Fed is in full champagne tennis mode he can brush bye Novak with his stronger situational serving and more willingness to be offensive throughout a match...

Only in tune-ups. Can't do it in slams due to his mental issues.

Yeah, if it weren't for those mental issues he could have 25 slams instead of 17. And 10 Wimbledons instead of a pitiful 7.

Whisper

2015-03-03 10:43:23 UTC

Only in tune-ups. Can't do it in slams due to his mental issues.

Yeah, if it weren't for those mental issues he could have 25 slams instead of 17. And 10 Wimbledons instead of a pitiful 7.

Look I'm very impressed with Fed's numbers. I just wish he did it v
somewhat better players than Bagditis, Roddick & Hewitt. That's all.
I'm not asking for something impossible for a goat level player.

John Liang

2015-03-03 10:57:31 UTC

Only in tune-ups. Can't do it in slams due to his mental issues.

Yeah, if it weren't for those mental issues he could have 25 slams instead of 17. And 10 Wimbledons instead of a pitiful 7.

I am impress with Sampras 14 wins but he has a lot of his wins against the likes of Piolines and his pigeon in Agassi and Courier. I would be hell lot more impressed if he did not loss slam to people like Edberg, I am not asking a lot for a 14 times grand slam winner beating a 6 time slam winner ..

John Liang

2015-03-03 09:11:00 UTC

Only in tune-ups. Can't do it in slams due to his mental issues.

Of course FO 2011 and Wimbledon 2012 are considered as tune ups. After 2000 Wimbledon Sampras could not win a thing for two years was that also due to his mental issues or was it age related ?

Nice, but of no significance to multi slam champs.

MBDunc

2015-03-01 22:13:56 UTC

Post by Whisper
Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Except that...since Fed broke the record, 15th slam at Wimb 2009...Fed has lost at slams to (in addition to Nadal/Djokovic losses):
2 x Tsonga
2 x Berdych
Soderling
Delpo
Robrero!
Stakhovsky!
Cilic
Gulbis
Seppi!!!
Murray

Compare these losses to Fed's #1 reign (2004-2007) slam routes?

.mikko

Whippet

2015-03-02 01:20:01 UTC

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 4:17:13 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:

On balance there's not much difference.

There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.

I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.

Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Gracchus

2015-03-02 01:42:12 UTC

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.
I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Well remember who you're talking to, and know that he doesn't give credit where credit is due. Federer has a poor h-2-h against Nadal because it's a bad matchup, and this is the only thing that's kept Federer from being a 20+ slam champion. And even with the Nadal factor, he still has the all-time slam record.

But Whisp is determined to try to spin Federer's results into a personal fiction that Fed has a poor record against *all* other top players and somehow the poor shlub stumbled past Sampras to reach 17 slams. Reality check--Neither Djokovic nor Murray have ever been dominant over him. As for this talk about wins over "teen Djoker," exactly ONE of Federer's slam encounters occurred when Djokovic was 19, while FOUR of Djoke's wins were against "over 30" Fed, which puts the rivalry solidly in Federer's favor. Aren't shell games fun?

Whisper

2015-03-02 09:33:38 UTC

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.
I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Well remember who you're talking to, and know that he doesn't give credit where credit is due. Federer has a poor h-2-h against Nadal because it's a bad matchup, and this is the only thing that's kept Federer from being a 20+ slam champion. And even with the Nadal factor, he still has the all-time slam record.
But Whisp is determined to try to spin Federer's results into a personal fiction that Fed has a poor record against *all* other top players and somehow the poor shlub stumbled past Sampras to reach 17 slams. Reality check--Neither Djokovic nor Murray have ever been dominant over him. As for this talk about wins over "teen Djoker," exactly ONE of Federer's slam encounters occurred when Djokovic was 19, while FOUR of Djoke's wins were against "over 30" Fed, which puts the rivalry solidly in Federer's favor. Aren't shell games fun?

I really wanted Fed to win some of these epic 5 setters. He lost them all.

It's like he's a prima donna who thinks it beneath him to fight & scrape
on the court, ala Jimmy Connors. He just wants the opponent to show
respect to his talent/artistry & lose in 3 or 4 sets.

There's always some excuse for Fed's losses. It wears thin.

MBDunc

2015-03-02 10:54:41 UTC

Post by Whisper
I really wanted Fed to win some of these epic 5 setters. He lost them all.

Fed's 5 set record is poor, but he has two five set Wimb final wins, 2007 Nadal, 2009 Roddick.

.mikko

Pelle Svanslös

2015-03-02 16:49:57 UTC

Post by MBDunc

Post by Whisper
I really wanted Fed to win some of these epic 5 setters. He lost them all.

Fed's 5 set record is poor, but he has two five set Wimb final wins, 2007 Nadal,

The 10th anniversary of the Bridesmaid's last slam win over (a baby)
Rafa will soon be here.

Post by MBDunc
2009 Roddick.

A 5 set Verdun over Roddick?

Ha ha ha hah a ha ha h ah ah ah ha ha ha ha h a.

--
"Got no time for jibba jabba"

2015-03-02 13:50:56 UTC

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.
I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Well remember who you're talking to, and know that he doesn't give credit where credit is due. Federer has a poor h-2-h against Nadal because it's a bad matchup, and this is the only thing that's kept Federer from being a 20+ slam champion. And even with the Nadal factor, he still has the all-time slam record.
But Whisp is determined to try to spin Federer's results into a personal fiction that Fed has a poor record against *all* other top players and somehow the poor shlub stumbled past Sampras to reach 17 slams. Reality check--Neither Djokovic nor Murray have ever been dominant over him. As for this talk about wins over "teen Djoker," exactly ONE of Federer's slam encounters occurred when Djokovic was 19, while FOUR of Djoke's wins were against "over 30" Fed, which puts the rivalry solidly in Federer's favor. Aren't shell games fun?

Yes, when they were both in their twenties, Djokovic was utterly dominated by Federer. The head to head only looks respectable because Djokovic has been able to pick up a bunch of wins against an ancient (in tennis years) Federer whilst he himself is in his peak years.

h***@gmail.com

2015-03-02 14:36:37 UTC

Post by me

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.
I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Well remember who you're talking to, and know that he doesn't give credit where credit is due. Federer has a poor h-2-h against Nadal because it's a bad matchup, and this is the only thing that's kept Federer from being a 20+ slam champion. And even with the Nadal factor, he still has the all-time slam record.
But Whisp is determined to try to spin Federer's results into a personal fiction that Fed has a poor record against *all* other top players and somehow the poor shlub stumbled past Sampras to reach 17 slams. Reality check--Neither Djokovic nor Murray have ever been dominant over him. As for this talk about wins over "teen Djoker," exactly ONE of Federer's slam encounters occurred when Djokovic was 19, while FOUR of Djoke's wins were against "over 30" Fed, which puts the rivalry solidly in Federer's favor. Aren't shell games fun?

It's always been a good match-up. Though Fed is 4-2 against Djok in matches played in 2014/15 (4-3 counting the walk over at the tour championships). And in those two matches Djok won he needed a 3rd set tiebreak and then 5 sets, whereas Fed has had some straight set wins. In retrospect that W win for Djok is looking like the outlier thanks to Fed's subpar groundstrokes in that match.

Patrick Kehoe

2015-03-02 16:20:32 UTC

Post by me

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Well, he's got 17 majors so he clearly hasn't always lost to the best.
I don't think he'd be down 2 sets to 1 and fighting for his life at Wimbledon against Djokovic. Djokovic wasn't playing particularly inspired tennis in that final but he was playing a slower, older Federer so he had a big advantage. Feds still got himself to 4-4 in the fifth set at Wimbledon. Not bad.
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

Well remember who you're talking to, and know that he doesn't give credit where credit is due. Federer has a poor h-2-h against Nadal because it's a bad matchup, and this is the only thing that's kept Federer from being a 20+ slam champion. And even with the Nadal factor, he still has the all-time slam record.
But Whisp is determined to try to spin Federer's results into a personal fiction that Fed has a poor record against *all* other top players and somehow the poor shlub stumbled past Sampras to reach 17 slams. Reality check--Neither Djokovic nor Murray have ever been dominant over him. As for this talk about wins over "teen Djoker," exactly ONE of Federer's slam encounters occurred when Djokovic was 19, while FOUR of Djoke's wins were against "over 30" Fed, which puts the rivalry solidly in Federer's favor. Aren't shell games fun?

Fed really fucked up losing that W final to Nole... good for Nole, as far as that goes... he was fighting for his tennis life in terms of major final wins, having lost sooooo many prior to that win... now, with AO this year, all is well and he's on the right track... Feds won all he needs to... all just icing on his grand cake anyway... same with Rafa... these guys are legends... they don't NEED to prove ANYTHING else...

P

Court_1

2015-03-02 17:56:24 UTC

Post by Patrick Kehoe
Fed really fucked up losing that W final to Nole... good for Nole, as far as that goes... he was fighting for his tennis life in terms of major final wins, having lost sooooo many prior to that win...

Yes. That was a big opportunity to get that 8th W title and he blew it big time. He may not ever get another chance like that. If it wasn't for his serve in that W match he would have been gone in the 4th set. His fh was subpar on that day.

Post by Patrick Kehoe
now, with AO this year, all is well and he's on the right track...

I feel that Djokovic is back on track primarily because: A) Federer is older and can no longer win best of five matches like he did in his prime and B)Nadal has been out of the picture with his "injuries." This has given Djokovic some serious clear sailing at the slams. The truth is Djokovic should have won more slams due to Fed's age and Nadal's absences.

Post by Patrick Kehoe
Feds won all he needs to... all just icing on his grand cake anyway... same with Rafa... these guys are legends... they don't NEED to prove ANYTHING else...

That is true that they don't need to prove anything but great champions always feel the need to have to prove something. Federer wants to show and prove he can still be viable against Djokovic and Nadal and Nadal wants the slam record.

grif

2015-03-02 20:28:55 UTC

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/03/empire-strikes-back/54216/#.VPTG4_msXYA

Court_1

2015-03-02 20:34:39 UTC

Post by grif

Look at this pic and the way Nole's been praising Fed. That Wimbledon win was so huge for Nole that he doesn't even give a fuck about losing to Fed at non-slams. It's like he wants to reward Fed in some way, lol.
http://cdn.tennis.com/uploads/img/2015/03/01/roger/article.jpg
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/03/empire-strikes-back/54216/#.VPTG4_msXYA

As long as Porcupine is able to keep his number one ranking and win at slams that is most important for him at this stage. But Fed did take him to the brink at W last year!

Court_1

2015-03-02 20:44:24 UTC

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 3:28:57 PM UTC-5, grif wrote:

Hey Griffie, you are a Brit, do you watch the BBC tv show Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch? I saw the first two episodes a year or so ago and have not been able to watch the rest of the episodes. Have they kept up the quality of the episodes and are they worth watching?

grif

2015-03-02 21:18:47 UTC

Post by Court_1
Hey Griffie, you are a Brit, do you watch the BBC tv show Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch? I saw the first two episodes a year or so ago and have not been able to watch the rest of the episodes. Have they kept up the quality of the episodes and are they worth watching?

Yeah, I think they are pretty good. It's worth watching just for Cumberbatch. I only found out later that I had seen him before in a minor role in the comedy, "Starter for 10"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477095/

I think Sherlock was the series that really skyrocketed him to fame, especially with the ladies. There are 3 episodes per season if I remember. You should at least watch Season 2 episode 1 where he meets his match with a woman!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1942612/

As an aside, there was some Jamie Oliver show and he was trying to teach the actress, Kate Hudson, how to make a curry. While they were chatting, she said what a huge fan she was of Game of Thrones. I was taken aback, because that series is unrelentingly brutal and she didn't strike me as someone who would enjoy something like that. Anyway, can't wait for it to come back on.

Court_1

2015-03-02 22:25:41 UTC

Post by grif
Yeah, I think they are pretty good. It's worth watching just for Cumberbatch.

Yes, Cumberbatch is definitely the main reason to watch along with the writing. Ok, I will try and continue watching the episodes I haven't seen.

Post by grif
I think Sherlock was the series that really skyrocketed him to fame, especially with the ladies.

No question. Sherlock put him on the map internationally. He has that certain something which makes him attractive, no doubt about it. Apparently when he has appearances, he has women fans who scream for him like he is a member of the Beatles. I certainly don't understand that but I can see why people find him interesting.

Post by grif
There are 3 episodes per season if I remember. You should at least watch Season 2 episode 1 where he meets his match with a woman!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1942612/

Oh dear, I am going to have to watch that episode for sure. Thanks. :)

Post by grif
As an aside, there was some Jamie Oliver show and he was trying to teach the actress, Kate Hudson, how to make a curry. While they were chatting, she said what a huge fan she was of Game of Thrones. I was taken aback, because that series is unrelentingly brutal and she didn't strike me as someone who would enjoy something like that. Anyway, can't wait for it to come back on.

I have yet to see GOT but my husband watches it and likes it.

grif

2015-03-02 22:34:37 UTC

Post by grif
Yeah, I think they are pretty good. It's worth watching just for Cumberbatch.

Yes, Cumberbatch is definitely the main reason to watch along with the writing. Ok, I will try and continue watching the episodes I haven't seen.

Post by grif
I think Sherlock was the series that really skyrocketed him to fame, especially with the ladies.

Yeah, when I first heard that the girls really liked him, I was like, huh ? Why ? Is it the voice ? What is it ? Lol.

Post by grif
There are 3 episodes per season if I remember. You should at least watch Season 2 episode 1 where he meets his match with a woman!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1942612/

Oh dear, I am going to have to watch that episode for sure. Thanks. :)

The only thing about Sherlock is that each episode is quite long and the plots can be quite convoluted. It's not something that you can just put on the background. That's the only reservation I have about recommending it. It's not what I call casual viewing.

I have yet to see GOT but my husband watches it and likes it.

He's got good taste then!

Court_1

2015-03-09 23:29:39 UTC

Grif, what about the tv show "Grantchester?" It is about an English vicar in a small town who starts to investigate crimes with the lead detective.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3747572/

I caught a few episodes of this show on PBS and thought it was quite good not for the mystery part of it because you can figure out the mystery part easily but for the character development aspect of the show(lots of back stories going on.) The lead actor, James Norton is very charismatic. You guys have it going on over there in the UK with your actors. Much better talent coming out of the UK these days than from the US. I hear "Grantchester" is really taking off in the UK and that James Norton is getting a lot of notice. He has potential. They have apparently picked the series up for a second season. What say you? Have you seen it/heard about it?

grif

2015-03-10 10:19:02 UTC

Grif, what about the tv show "Grantchester?" It is about an English vicar in a small town who starts to investigate crimes with the lead detective.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3747572/
I caught a few episodes of this show on PBS and thought it was quite good not for the mystery part of it because you can figure out the mystery part easily but for the character development aspect of the show(lots of back stories going on.) The lead actor, James Norton is very charismatic. You guys have it going on over there in the UK with your actors. Much better talent coming out of the UK these days than from the US. I hear "Grantchester" is really taking off in the UK and that James Norton is getting a lot of notice. He has potential. They have apparently picked the series up for a second season. What say you? Have you seen it/heard about it?

I've never heard of this show tbh. I know who Robson Green is, but not James Norton. Nearby Cambridge is pretty, but shows set in small villages tend not to attract me much. Had a quick look at a trailer, seems ok.

BTW, You're an X-Files fan, right ? Have you ever heard of "Fringe" ? It's supposed to be of a similar vein.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/

Also wondering if I should check out, "Penny Dreadful"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2628232/

A cast of characters including Dorian Gray, Van Helsing, Victor Frankenstein ... hmmm!

Court_1

2015-03-10 23:12:21 UTC

Post by grif
I've never heard of this show tbh. I know who Robson Green is, but not James Norton.

James Norton is "dreamy" in the "Grantchester" series! Great head of hair! :) He basically plays a vicar who has women swooning over him and he is in the middle of his own identity crisis and is suffering PTSD from fighting in the war and feeling responsible for killing one of his platoon members.

I read that "Grantchester" is popular in the UK and that Norton is becoming a star over there. I think this young guy has a lot of potential. I hope he has a good agent who can get him going internationally. He is certainly more appealing than some of these idiot actors they have chosen for stardom in North America!

Post by grif
Nearby Cambridge is pretty, but shows set in small villages tend not to attract me much. Had a quick look at a trailer, seems ok.

I know what you mean with those small village setting shows but this one has a bit of a different feel because they are focusing on character development a little more. There were only six episodes in the first season but I am looking forward to watching the second season and I don't say that too often these days with tv shows.

Post by grif
BTW, You're an X-Files fan, right ? Have you ever heard of "Fringe" ? It's supposed to be of a similar vein.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/

Yes, I know about "Fringe" and the subject matter interests me but for some reason back when the show first came on something turned me off from watching it. I can't remember what though. I can't remember if it was because the target audience was for teeny-boppers like "Supernatural" or something else. I also wasn't a big Joshua Jackson fan.

Post by grif
Also wondering if I should check out, "Penny Dreadful"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2628232/

Yes,"Penny Dreadful" seems very interesting to me. I have been meaning to try and watch it. I think the show "American Horror Story" has a similar theme(psychological horror) and I have started to watch the first season of that show and so far think it is pretty good.

If you start to watch "Penny Dreadful" let me know if it is worth watching.

For some reason I am into British tv shows and mini-series at the present time.
The quality of some of these British tv shows seems to be better than a lot of the crap North America is coming up with. In fact, the US entertainment industry seems to copy the successful UK shows.

Gracchus

2015-03-10 23:48:27 UTC

Post by Court_1
For some reason I am into British tv shows and mini-series at the present time.
The quality of some of these British tv shows seems to be better than a lot of the crap North America is coming up with. In fact, the US entertainment industry seems to copy the successful UK shows.

I like them too. And I thought I'd seen a lot of them until this thread! It seems many of the British shows give the audience credit for more intelligence that what we have in N. America. Even their junkier stuff is better than ours on average.

Court_1

2015-03-11 02:19:32 UTC

Yes. If you start to research it, it is unbelievable how many good British tv shows/miniseries there are of every genre--i.e. mystery, horror, drama, sci-fi, etc. Some of the networks/channels in N. America just give us the tip of the iceberg (like PBS which is where I happened to catch "Grantchester.") So many of the US shows are rip-offs of a show which originally aired and was produced in the UK.

The Brits are especially great at the mystery genre. Here is a guy who is a self-confessed British mystery/crime show junkie and he lists and reviews a lot of the British mystery/crime shows.

http://timbarron.net/entertainment/british_crime_tv_series.html

Here is a site which lists a lot of good British miniseries:

http://www.listal.com/list/british-miniseries

Gracchus

2015-03-11 03:57:56 UTC

Post by Court_1
Yes. If you start to research it, it is unbelievable how many good British tv shows/miniseries there are of every genre--i.e. mystery, horror, drama, sci-fi, etc. Some of the networks/channels in N. America just give us the tip of the iceberg (like PBS which is where I happened to catch "Grantchester.") So many of the US shows are rip-offs of a show which originally aired and was produced in the UK.
The Brits are especially great at the mystery genre. Here is a guy who is a self-confessed British mystery/crime show junkie and he lists and reviews a lot of the British mystery/crime shows.

Thanks for the great links! I haven't seen a lot of these shows yet, but I've watched some, including:

"Sherlock Holmes" with Jeremy Brett
"Morse"
"Endeavor"
"Foyle's War"
"Poirot"
"Broadchurch"
"Midsomer Murders"
"Silk"
"Father Brown"
"The Politician's Wife/Husband"

Court_1

2015-03-11 04:20:24 UTC

"Sherlock Holmes" with Jeremy Brett
"Morse"
"Endeavor"
"Foyle's War"
"Poirot"
"Broadchurch"
"Midsomer Murders"
"Silk"
"Father Brown"
"The Politician's Wife/Husband"

You are welcome. The only show I have seen from your list above is "Midsomer Murders." At first I thought it was a pretty good show but after watching around 40 episodes I began to tire of it. Same formula every single time and I preferred Detective Barnaby's pairings with some of the earlier characters/actors who solved the cases with him. I also started to find John Nettles to be extremely annoying for a few reasons to the point where that was the main reason I could no longer watch the show.

How would you rate those other shows you mentioned above?

Gracchus

2015-03-11 05:10:13 UTC

Post by Gracchus
"Sherlock Holmes" with Jeremy Brett
"Morse"
"Endeavor"
"Foyle's War"
"Poirot"
"Broadchurch"
"Midsomer Murders"
"Silk"
"Father Brown"
"The Politician's Wife/Husband"

You are welcome. The only show I have seen from your list above is "Midsomer Murders." At first I thought it was a pretty good show but after watching around 40 episodes I began to tire of it. Same formula every single time and I preferred Detective Barnaby's pairings with some of the earlier characters/actors who solved the cases with him. I also started to find John Nettles to be extremely annoying for a few reasons to the point where that was the main reason I could no longer watch the show.
How would you rate those other shows you mentioned above?

I think that earlier "Midsomer Murders" were better than the later ones. I agree that the earlier partners were better too. But it feels like a kinda sorta ok series even at its best. Formulaic indeed.

Of the other ones I listed, "Father Brown" is pleasant but not great. Quality varies. "Silk" was disappointing.

Jeremy Brett is an excellent Sherlock Holmes, and the eps are done well even if the production quality is a bit dated. "Poirot" is also good. Some people love these. I find them well-written and acted but somehow dry.

I think "Foyle's War" is first-rate. It's set during WW II and the creator is meticulous with historical detail. Creative stories and characterizations. I've seen a lot of these more than once, but it doesn't get stale.

The quality of "Morse" is also very high. It had a long run. The "Endeavor" series is actually a Morse prequel set in the mid 1960s. So far I'm enjoying that one too.

I would also recommend "Broadchurch" with David Tennant. Very atmospheric.

Court_1

2015-03-11 05:40:29 UTC

Post by Gracchus
I would also recommend "Broadchurch" with David Tennant. Very atmospheric.

I forgot I did see the miniseries "The Politician's Husband" with David Tennant and Emily Watson. I thought it was fair. I know you are going to hate me for saying this but David Tennant looks like a rodent and I find it distracting. I am not a big fan of Emily Watson either.

I know a few people who like "Broadchurch" and it sounds like something that I would probably like so I may try and watch it. Isn't the tv show "Gracepoint" the US version of "Broadchurch" starring David Tennant? I have not seen that either.

I did try and watch the British show "The Missing" about a child who is abducted(a similar theme to "Broadchurch") but I could not get into it at the time.

Gracchus

2015-03-11 06:09:11 UTC

Post by Gracchus
I would also recommend "Broadchurch" with David Tennant. Very atmospheric.

Yes, I wasn't hugely impressed with "The Politician's Husband." The aspect of the autistic child especially seemed tacked on and contrived.

I'm neutral toward Emily Watson. She seems like a solid actress. I don't see the rodent in Tennant, but if you think so, imagine if he had a child with Sara Errani!

Post by Court_1
I know a few people who like "Broadchurch" and it sounds like something that I would probably like so I may try and watch it. Isn't the tv show "Gracepoint" the US version of "Broadchurch" starring David Tennant? I have not seen that either.

Yes, I knew they were making an American version also with Tennant, but I haven't seen it. I might watch one out of curiosity to see what changes they made.

Court_1

2015-03-11 21:02:32 UTC

Post by Gracchus
I'm neutral toward Emily Watson. She seems like a solid actress. I don't see the rodent in Tennant, but if you think so, imagine if he had a child with Sara Errani!

A Tennant/Errani child would be frightening. A new species of rat would be created with that coupling. :)

Speaking of bad US tv shows, I tried to watch the new CSI last week called "CSI Cyber." I watched about 10 minutes and called it quits. Terrible show and "snaggletooth" Patricia Arquette is still a WTH? actress for me.

Thomas R. Kettler

2015-03-15 16:44:36 UTC

Post by Gracchus
Thanks for the great links! I haven't seen a lot of these shows yet, but
"Sherlock Holmes" with Jeremy Brett
"Morse"
"Endeavor"
"Foyle's War"
"Poirot"
"Broadchurch"
"Midsomer Murders"
"Silk"
"Father Brown"
"The Politician's Wife/Husband"

You are welcome. The only show I have seen from your list above is
"Midsomer Murders." At first I thought it was a pretty good show but after
watching around 40 episodes I began to tire of it. Same formula every
single time and I preferred Detective Barnaby's pairings with some of the
earlier characters/actors who solved the cases with him. I also started to
find John Nettles to be extremely annoying for a few reasons to the point
where that was the main reason I could no longer watch the show.
How would you rate those other shows you mentioned above?

I think that earlier "Midsomer Murders" were better than the later ones. I
agree that the earlier partners were better too. But it feels like a kinda
sorta ok series even at its best. Formulaic indeed.
Of the other ones I listed, "Father Brown" is pleasant but not great. Quality
varies. "Silk" was disappointing.
Jeremy Brett is an excellent Sherlock Holmes, and the eps are done well even
if the production quality is a bit dated. "Poirot" is also good. Some people
love these. I find them well-written and acted but somehow dry.
I think "Foyle's War" is first-rate. It's set during WW II and the creator is
meticulous with historical detail. Creative stories and characterizations.
I've seen a lot of these more than once, but it doesn't get stale.
The quality of "Morse" is also very high. It had a long run. The "Endeavor"
series is actually a Morse prequel set in the mid 1960s. So far I'm enjoying
that one too.
I would also recommend "Broadchurch" with David Tennant. Very atmospheric.

Have you seen "Inspector Lewis"? They brought back Kevin Whately to
reprise his character from "Inspector Morse".

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469870/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2>
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0874608/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

--
Remove blown from email address to reply.

Gracchus

2015-03-15 16:31:43 UTC

In article <>,

Post by Gracchus
The quality of "Morse" is also very high. It had a long run. The "Endeavor"
series is actually a Morse prequel set in the mid 1960s. So far I'm enjoying
that one too.

Have you seen "Inspector Lewis"? They brought back Kevin Whately to
reprise his character from "Inspector Morse".

Yes, I have been watching "Inspector Lewis," though unfortunately they only seem to only make about 3 episodes at a time. The eps I've seen IMO aren't quite as good as "Morse," but still very worth watching.

Fednatic

2015-03-11 10:19:17 UTC

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:20:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

"Sherlock Holmes" with Jeremy Brett
"Morse"
"Endeavor"
"Foyle's War"
"Poirot"
"Broadchurch"
"Midsomer Murders"
"Silk"
"Father Brown"
"The Politician's Wife/Husband"

You are welcome. The only show I have seen from your list above is "Midsomer Murders." At first I thought it was a pretty good show but after watching around 40 episodes I began to tire of it. Same formula every single time and I preferred Detective Barnaby's pairings with some of the earlier characters/actors who solved the cases with him. I also started to find John Nettles to be extremely annoying for a few reasons to the point where that was the main reason I could no longer watch the show.
How would you rate those other shows you mentioned above?

Foyles War is TOP NOTCH !

Whisper

2015-03-11 08:16:33 UTC

The yanks are certainly capable of producing quality film, but they are
hostage to ratings. eg 'The Slap' is quite a good effort imo. Problem
is dumb shows like Big Bang Theory, Modern Family etc rate through the
roof so you can't ignore the big $$ that generates. As long as that
happens we'll continue to get the same garbage.

It's good we have options to watch quality shows from around the world.

2015-03-11 15:43:53 UTC

But your films are better.

Watched The Company of Wolves. Didn't actually like it that much...
It was very atmospheric and cinematography was brilliant so points for
that but the story was imo rather bland and not gripping at all... just
too much Red Riding Hood, and divided to a few loosely connected dreams
inside a dream didn't really help.
Interesting bit is that the girl in main role was in one other film in
addition to this one. (ok 3 films total but the last one doesn't really
count)

And the girl who had a small role as "wolfgirl", Danielle Dax, was only
in this film. She's more known for her singing...

Loading Image...

Now if you want to see sort of similarly atmospheric film but better I
suggest Argento's Phenomena:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087909/reference

Whisper

2015-03-03 10:24:27 UTC

Post by grif

Post by Patrick Kehoe
Fed really fucked up losing that W final to Nole... good for Nole, as
far as that goes... he was fighting for his tennis life in terms of
major final wins, having lost sooooo many prior to that win...

Yes. That was a big opportunity to get that 8th W title and he blew it
big time. He may not ever get another chance like that. If it wasn't
for his serve in that W match he would have been gone in the 4th set.
His fh was subpar on that day.

Look at this pic and the way Nole's been praising Fed. That Wimbledon
win was so huge for Nole that he doesn't even give a fuck about losing
to Fed at non-slams. It's like he wants to reward Fed in some way, lol.
http://cdn.tennis.com/uploads/img/2015/03/01/roger/article.jpg
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/03/empire-strikes-back/54216/#.VPTG4_msXYA

That Wimbledon final was huge for both guys. Djoker had lost so many
slam finals he was becoming the modern day Lendl. Fed once again failed
in a huge match that would have greatly enhanced his legacy, rather than
throwing yet more questions into his character/will to win.

Djoker doesn't care if Fed beats him 60 60 in non-slams.

MBDunc

2015-03-03 06:36:24 UTC

Post by Court_1
The truth is Djokovic should have won more slams due to Fed's age and Nadal's absences.

8 slams, three year-end #1:s, four YEC:s.

That is top notch stuff at any era.

OK, maybe Djoker should have a slam or two more, but then again also Fed/Nadal/Murray have their own wouldacouldashouldas for their slam numbers. It evens out.

.mikko

Whisper

2015-03-03 10:40:59 UTC

Post by MBDunc

Post by Court_1
The truth is Djokovic should have won more slams due to Fed's age and Nadal's absences.

8 slams, three year-end #1:s, four YEC:s.
That is top notch stuff at any era.
OK, maybe Djoker should have a slam or two more, but then again also Fed/Nadal/Murray have their own wouldacouldashouldas for their slam numbers. It evens out.
.mikko

Djoker has lost a lot of slam finals for a great player - too many.
Almost twice as many as Sampras.

He's lost 4 just at 1 slam (USO) - Sampras lost 4 in his whole career.

Whisper

2015-03-03 08:52:19 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
It's always been a good match-up. Though Fed is 4-2 against Djok in matches played in 2014/15 (4-3 counting the walk over at the tour championships). And in those two matches Djok won he needed a 3rd set tiebreak and then 5 sets, whereas Fed has had some straight set wins. In retrospect that W win for Djok is looking like the outlier thanks to Fed's subpar groundstrokes in that match.

To me Fed is hugely lacking in big slam wins v great players. I know
you guys think this is some kind of cosmic fluke & no indication of
Fed's mental frailties, but I'm not a big believer in cosmic flukes.

John Liang

2015-03-03 09:06:35 UTC

He is about 5 years older than his closest rival, I don't care about cosmic fluke but how many players that was as successful as Federer actually won more after 27 ? Did Sampras do remotely as well as Federer at the same age ? Sampras was ranked outside top 10 in his final year for all his mental strength and still won less grand slams at the end of his career.

Whisper

2015-03-03 10:47:22 UTC

Post by John Liang

My point stands. I have given Fed credit for his positive attributes
(ie winning tune-ups, ranking No.1 recently etc), but I have rooted for
him many times in big slam matches & I've always come out disappointed.

John Liang

2015-03-03 11:01:07 UTC

My point stands as well, I always rooted for Sampras to do something at FO but he came up short even against 100+ journeymen not once but 8 times. He has many positive attributes, but if his mental toughness could only get him 14 slam titles compare to mentally weak Federer, Federer must be a hell of a player if he was mentally tougher, he would not be leading by just 3 slams and probably more like 6 or 7 more slam than Sampras.

Whisper

2015-03-03 11:04:54 UTC

Maybe the tennis gods are against Fed? They realized they fucked up by
making it too easy 2004-2007 so paying him back now by making him lose
in every slam last 6 yrs?

John Liang

2015-03-03 12:02:24 UTC

Maybe the tennis gods are against Fed? They realized they fucked up by
making it too easy 2004-2007 so paying him back now by making him lose
in every slam last 6 yrs?

He won 1 more slam than Sampras in the last 6 years and was as successful in term of slam wins as someone like Agassi who had a on/off type career. If tennis god was against Fed then why it allowed him to be more successful than almost every player in the last 30 years after he turned 26 ?

PeteWasLucky

2015-03-03 22:58:35 UTC

Maybe Federer is a great player.
But as whisper said Djok does not care if he loses to fed outside slams plus whisper wished Federer would have won his slams against great players like Djok, so wondering why Djok lost his sf match to Federer in Wimbledon allowing him to win his 7th Wimbledon, why it took the great player Djok five sets to beat the old guy Federer in Wimbledon, ...

PeteWasLucky

2015-03-03 22:53:02 UTC

lol, nice posts :)

Fednatic

2015-03-03 09:12:11 UTC

Hey, I've got a cosmic value for you.

Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships.

I just KNOW that GRATES on your ASS to NO end !!!

Whisper

2015-03-03 08:00:38 UTC

Post by me
Yes, when they were both in their twenties, Djokovic was utterly dominated by Federer. The head to head only looks respectable because Djokovic has been able to pick up a bunch of wins against an ancient (in tennis years) Federer whilst he himself is in his peak years.

'Subpar groundstrokes'. Another one for the excuse book.

It's remarkable how there is always some reason for all of Fed's losses?
To me it's blatantly obvious he has a major fault in his mental
makeup. He simply doesn't know how to beat the top players in slams.
He panics & rushes to losses every single time. Yes he didn't do that v
Roddick, Bagditis & Gonzalez, but that's because that was against
Roddick, Bagditis & Gonzalez.

Whisper

2015-03-02 09:27:42 UTC

Post by Whisper
On balance there's not much difference.
There's a lot of difference. Results show it and you can see it on the court. Movement is quite a bit slower as expected over 30.

Post by Whisper
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

Yes very good. I tipped Fed to win that Wimbledon at the start of the
year. Somehow Djoker managed to play his best ever tennis just in that
final (he was garbage v Dimitri in semis) & Fed backed off a bit from
the net play. But then the problem with Fed is there is always some
reason he loses these matches.....

Post by Whisper
Like him or hate him, you've got to give credit where credit is due. He just beat the #1 player in the world in a final. Not a major but not a Mickey Mouse event either.

I give him a lot of credit for his remarkable consistency & dedication -
but I also have to mark him down as fighter in the big slam matches.

When you think of all the great 5 set battles Fed has played at slams
you also have to accept he lost all of them. That really frustrates me,
so it must kill the true Fedfuckers like kehoe.

h***@gmail.com

2015-03-02 18:04:34 UTC

Post by Whisper
Yes very good. I tipped Fed to win that Wimbledon at the start of the
year. Somehow Djoker managed to play his best ever tennis just in that
final (he was garbage v Dimitri in semis) & Fed backed off a bit from
the net play. But then the problem with Fed is there is always some
reason he loses these matches.....

Completely inaccurate. Djokovic was less than great and certainly less than Federer at his best on grass.

Post by Whisper
When you think of all the great 5 set battles Fed has played at slams
you also have to accept he lost all of them.

I don't even have to Google to declare bullshit here. He defeated Nadal in 5 sets at Wimbledon. Also defeated Roddick in 5 sets at Wimbledon. I think one of his USO wins against Agassi was 5 sets but I'm not sure.

Most of the time he won in 3 or 4....if the matches were all 5 setters that he won you'd be complaining that he didn't win convincingly.

That Whisperology for you. If he doesn't like a player that's reason enough. He'll bend and twist the results to suit his agenda.

He doesn't like Federer because he ousted Sampras....something he wasn't supposed to do.

Life sucks when you have idols and they get shot off their perch.

Whisper

2015-03-03 10:11:34 UTC

Completely inaccurate. Djokovic was less than great and certainly less than Federer at his best on grass.

I didn't say Djoker's best on grass was better than Fed's best of many
yrs ago. I said Djoker played like crap up until the final, where he
suddenly played his top notch A game. I didn't see that coming & was
confident Fed would win. It was a combination of Djoker raising his
game & Fed retreating from the net that sealed the deal. I didn't like
watching that. I was hoping Fed would finally turn the corner & have a
great 5 set win on his resume v another great player.

Post by Whisper
When you think of all the great 5 set battles Fed has played at slams
you also have to accept he lost all of them.

That response makes my point. Nadal was very green on grass & young,
yet still Fed needed to win 2 tie-breaks & 5 sets to win. Even so Rafa
had 2 break points to lead 3-1 in the 5th. If it weren't for t/b's Rafa
wins that in 3 straight sets.

Agassi was 35 yrs old & Fed peak at 24. Agassi had no business pushing
peak Fed to 5 sets at that point in his career.

Roddick is Fed's bunny & almost never beat Fed in his career (2 or 3
tune-up wins out of 25 or so matches). Can't work out why it took Fed
16-14 in 5th set to beat Roddick at Wimbledon?

I wouldn't hang my hat on those 3 matches to prove how great Fed was in
5 set matches in slams. He's played what 1,000 matches & he has almost
nothing to show for it in 5 setters.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Most of the time he won in 3 or 4....if the matches were all 5 setters that he won you'd be complaining that he didn't win convincingly.
That Whisperology for you. If he doesn't like a player that's reason enough. He'll bend and twist the results to suit his agenda.
He doesn't like Federer because he ousted Sampras....something he wasn't supposed to do.
Life sucks when you have idols and they get shot off their perch.

Sampras has nothing to do with this. He played in a different era in a
completely different environment so it's chalk/cheese.

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 11:11:55 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

exactly, he still thrashes the clowns to bits, as his overall level hasn't dropped at all. I've come to respect Fed more these days cos of this.

h***@gmail.com

2015-03-02 12:52:38 UTC

Didn't he just lose to Seppi for the first time a month ago at the AO? Short, convenient memories in RST.

2015-03-02 13:44:59 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

Fed has aged yes, but he's pretty much maintained his form overall for
10 yrs. He loses a little physically, but makes up for it by
experience/better serve etc. On balance there's not much difference.
He still beats the players he always beat, & loses the big matches v the
best players in slams, like he always has.

You really think peak Federer would lose slam matches to Stakhovsky / Gulbis types? Federer, like Agassi before him, has maintained a high level well into his thirties, but you'd have to be pretty clueless to think that these players were as good at this age as they were in their twenties.

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 11:07:17 UTC

That and "lapses" are not very strong arguments why he couldn't beat
Djoko at Wimbledon final for example...

Sure it is. He had to play six 3-of-5 matches to get to the Wimbledon final and he's not as good as he used to be. But still good enough to beat Djoke on a given day in a tournament like Dubai.

He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

he barely lost to Djoker at Wimbledon - 5 sets.

ahonkan

2015-03-01 17:50:47 UTC

Post by TT
He's winning wrong matches then... playing 6 easy matches in two weeks
is no excuse, on the contrary... he should have been even more on form...
Federer's record at slam SF+F is 35% against 5+ major champs and 89%
against the rest...

How is Rafa's or Djoker's record in slam SF+F vs 5+ major champs younger
by 5-6 years? Never forget how big a factor age is in tennis. Just ask
Rafa. Or maybe ask him around the end of 2015.

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 11:01:31 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

His argument was improved tactics. I have stats that show his serve has
actually improved over the years...

Fed is 'at peak' I've long said this, also don't forget lack of opposition.

The Iceberg

2015-03-02 11:04:29 UTC

Post by TT
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

His argument was improved tactics. I have stats that show his serve has
actually improved over the years...

also if he's NOT at peak how much would he have beaten Djoker by then?

Ulysses

2015-02-28 17:36:53 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

Obviously Fed's tactic was to deny Djok rhythm. Played very aggressive
keeping points short which was helped by him serving as well as/better
than ever.
Federer won more 1st serve points, Djokovic won more 2nd serve points
which shows that regardless the result Djoko had stronger groundgame...
while Fed had really good serving day. I would say that this was Fed at
his very best peak level and Djoko at his average level.
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

LOL! Yeah, it's a common occurrence for tennis players two months shy of being 34 (which will be Fed's age at the next major) to pile up more slams. Fleming must have stolen Wilander's coke stash to make such a stupid statement. However, he redeemed himself later on when correctly calling Fed "the Michelangelo of tennis."

And for the 5,000th time, this isn't close to peak Fed level. Say it all you want, you just expose the fact you never watched tennis before Nadal and have no clue about Fed's peak level because you never experienced it. Watch him play the USO final against Hewitt, that's peak. His lack of speed to his FH side in 2015 compared to 2005 is at least a 10% decline IN THAT ONE AREA alone. Never mind all the other age-related maladies which have compromised his game. It happens to all champions.

Ulysses

2015-02-28 17:39:25 UTC

Post by Ulysses

Post by h***@gmail.com
It's clear Djokovic gets frustrated being forced into short points.

Obviously Fed's tactic was to deny Djok rhythm. Played very aggressive
keeping points short which was helped by him serving as well as/better
than ever.
Federer won more 1st serve points, Djokovic won more 2nd serve points
which shows that regardless the result Djoko had stronger groundgame...
while Fed had really good serving day. I would say that this was Fed at
his very best peak level and Djoko at his average level.
Peter Fleming said that Federer is nowadays better tennis player than
ever... Now just waiting for extra slams to pile up...

LOL! Yeah, it's a common occurrence for tennis players two months shy of being 34 (which will be Fed's age at the next major) to pile up more slams. Fleming must have stolen Wilander's coke stash to make such a stupid statement. However, he redeemed himself later on when correctly calling Fed "the Michelangelo of tennis."
And for the 5,000th time, this isn't close to peak Fed level. Say it all you want, you just expose the fact you never watched tennis before Nadal and have no clue about Fed's peak level because you never experienced it. Watch him play the USO final against Hewitt, that's peak. His lack of speed to his FH side in 2015 compared to 2005 is at least a 10% decline IN THAT ONE AREA alone. Never mind all the other age-related maladies which have compromised his game. It happens to all champions.

The GOAT just schooled Nole today, no shame for a 27 year old world #1 to get thrashed by an old man:

Loading Image...

2015-02-28 17:42:50 UTC

Post by Ulysses
LOL! Yeah, it's a common occurrence for tennis players two months shy of being 34 (which will be Fed's age at the next major)

Wrong again...

He will be 34 after Wimbledon.

ahonkan

2015-03-01 17:46:05 UTC