Discussion:
Medved needs a great coach not
Add Reply
PeteWasLucky
2021-02-21 19:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Gracchus
2021-02-21 21:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
PeteWasLucky
2021-02-21 21:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:> if he wants to make it one step higher. > He is going anywhere with this game against the top three. > He needs a strategist. Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
Djokovic did to him what I thought he should have done.
Medved can keep calling them close matches until he retires, we
have said the same about the two previous young generation.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Gracchus
2021-02-21 21:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:> if he wants to make it one step higher. > He is going anywhere with this game against the top three. > He needs a strategist. Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
Djokovic did to him what I thought he should have done.
Medved can keep calling them close matches until he retires, we
have said the same about the two previous young generation.
Well, two things at work then: (1) the big three are the big three for a reason. Most players need to play near-perfect tennis to beat them. (2) Even when playing well, you can't afford any lapses or else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.
bob
2021-02-22 00:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 13:40:40 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by PeteWasLucky
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:> if he wants to make it one step higher. > He is going anywhere with this game against the top three. > He needs a strategist. Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
Djokovic did to him what I thought he should have done.
Medved can keep calling them close matches until he retires, we
have said the same about the two previous young generation.
Well, two things at work then: (1) the big three are the big three for a reason. Most players need to play near-perfect tennis to beat them. (2) Even when playing well, you can't afford any lapses or else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.
granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs.

but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" about
to catch him, eventually.

bob
Gracchus
2021-02-22 00:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 13:40:40 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by PeteWasLucky
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:> if he wants to make it one step higher. > He is going anywhere with this game against the top three. > He needs a strategist. Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
Djokovic did to him what I thought he should have done.
Medved can keep calling them close matches until he retires, we
have said the same about the two previous young generation.
Well, two things at work then: (1) the big three are the big three for a reason. Most players need to play near-perfect tennis to beat them. (2) Even when playing well, you can't afford any lapses or else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.
granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs.
but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" about
to catch him, eventually.
Obviously I was referring to three players who won the most slams and not who was the one to beat last month or next month. Those three players have dealt OK with Medvedev up to now.

As for the future, Roger may go through the motions for one more Wimbledon or USO, but he's basically toast--just as you predicted in 2012. :)

Nadal may grind out another FO in a few months and get to 21. I still think Djoke is the greater achiever whether he passes him or not.
bob
2021-02-22 00:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:32:12 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 13:40:40 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by PeteWasLucky
On Sunday, February 21, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:> if he wants to make it one step higher. > He is going anywhere with this game against the top three. > He needs a strategist. Against competition of that level, all they could tell him is execute better than those three guys. Easier said than done. Yeah, he got blown out yesterday, but most of those matches have been close.
Djokovic did to him what I thought he should have done.
Medved can keep calling them close matches until he retires, we
have said the same about the two previous young generation.
Well, two things at work then: (1) the big three are the big three for a reason. Most players need to play near-perfect tennis to beat them. (2) Even when playing well, you can't afford any lapses or else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.
granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs.
but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" about
to catch him, eventually.
Obviously I was referring to three players who won the most slams and not who was the one to beat last month or next month. Those three players have dealt OK with Medvedev up to now.
yes, but we've been so accustomed to the "big 3" that some people
still think that they're dominating tennis. i'd say that belongs to
djok alone now.
Post by Gracchus
As for the future, Roger may go through the motions for one more Wimbledon or USO, but he's basically toast--just as you predicted in 2012. :)
2014, but yes, i thought roger would lose much of his motivation for
the game after passing sampras. but he knew something i didn't:
nadal's game would last longer than his hair.
Post by Gracchus
Nadal may grind out another FO in a few months and get to 21. I still think Djoke is the greater achiever whether he passes him or not.
nadal's paltry 2 wimbledons is a sticking pt for me. but should he get
to 21, most people will call him GOAT. and it's all moot anyway right?
djok is sailing past it.

bob
PeteWasLucky
2021-02-22 01:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
bob
2021-02-22 18:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.

djok struggled some in AO until crunch time.

roger's what, 40, and hasn't played in anything meaningful in a long
time plus surgery.

i think that time is very very near, if not already happening.

bob
Whisper
2021-02-23 02:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.
Yeah that Tsitsipas loss was puzzling. Rafa won 1st 2 sets easily 63 62
& only lost 1 point on serve in 6 service games in 3rd set. He did
everything but win in straights. 2 missed overheads in t/b sealed the
deal (he pretty much never misses an overhead), & then Tsi started to
play much better and got stronger while Rafa slowed down a lot.
Post by bob
djok struggled some in AO until crunch time.
Djoker is simply a mental beast. You have to admire a guy who stares it
in the face like that & somehow wills himself to play his A grade stuff
when required, muscle tear or no. Just legendary stuff & we have to bow
to it. many lesser players just look for an excuse to pull out. That
Wimbledon 2019 win over Fed has made Djoker feel like he can win from
any position. He believes it, so it happens.
Post by bob
roger's what, 40, and hasn't played in anything meaningful in a long
time plus surgery.
i think that time is very very near, if not already happening.
bob
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wi
The Iceberg
2021-02-23 19:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.
Yeah that Tsitsipas loss was puzzling. Rafa won 1st 2 sets easily 63 62
& only lost 1 point on serve in 6 service games in 3rd set. He did
everything but win in straights. 2 missed overheads in t/b sealed the
deal (he pretty much never misses an overhead), & then Tsi started to
play much better and got stronger while Rafa slowed down a lot.
it really odd but perhaps last few years Nadal finds it hard to close out these type of matches, maybe it an age thing as Sampras said he had same trouble when he was 29/30. There was this one and the Wimbledon one against Djoker which he should have won + Medvedev USO which went to 5 sets (he just managed to get through) etc.
Gracchus
2021-02-23 19:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
it really odd but perhaps last few years Nadal finds it hard to close out these type of matches, maybe it an age thing as Sampras said he had same trouble when he was 29/30. There was this one and the Wimbledon one against Djoker which he should have won + Medvedev USO which went to 5 sets (he just managed to get through) etc.
Not odd at all when you consider how physical his style is. And he's going on 35.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't think that was the reason.

I believe Nadal is inexperienced in situations like those. He's not used to leading 2-0 and cruising the third set only to find himself serving at 5-5 in the fifth. Just totally new for him.

I dare to say, had it been a "normal" five setter, he most likely wins. By normal I mean just a competitive match, not Nadal crushing the guy for 2 sets and 95% of the time in the third set yet forced to play 5 sets. He was totally in control. We know players freak out once they start losing match that they assumed was won.

Of course, the age factor does exist, but I remember him saying how Medvedev surprised him in that USO final. He crushed Medvedev in Montreal final 6-3 6-0 and he admitted he didn't expect Medvedev to put up such a fight after he won first 2 sets in USO final. Medvedev win next two and forced a fifth.

Of course, the age factor is a reason why Nadal insists on winning in straights, in order to shorten matches and conserve energy. He's the blitzkrieg player these days.

And like every blitzkrieg, if you don't finish in time, you're in for a trouble. You spend much more every in the earlier stages of a match with such tactics.

That's why he look spent in the fifth imo. Not just the age.

And this is something he was imo also close to experiencing in FO final against Djokovic. He crushed Djokovic 6-0 6-2 7-5 but Djokovic almost pushed him to 4th set, and had that happened, who knows.

Also Medvedev came back in that USO final, but he didn't have enough experience probably as it was 2019. Tsitsipas in 2021 has it.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-02-24 10:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
I don't think that was the reason.
I believe Nadal is inexperienced in situations like those. He's not used to leading 2-0 and cruising the third set only to find himself serving at 5-5 in the fifth. Just totally new for him.
I dare to say, had it been a "normal" five setter, he most likely wins. By normal I mean just a competitive match, not Nadal crushing the guy for 2 sets and 95% of the time in the third set yet forced to play 5 sets. He was totally in control. We know players freak out once they start losing match that they assumed was won.
Of course, the age factor does exist, but I remember him saying how Medvedev surprised him in that USO final. He crushed Medvedev in Montreal final 6-3 6-0 and he admitted he didn't expect Medvedev to put up such a fight after he won first 2 sets in USO final. Medvedev win next two and forced a fifth.
Of course, the age factor is a reason why Nadal insists on winning in straights, in order to shorten matches and conserve energy. He's the blitzkrieg player these days.
And like every blitzkrieg, if you don't finish in time, you're in for a trouble. You spend much more every in the earlier stages of a match with such tactics.
That's why he look spent in the fifth imo. Not just the age.
And this is something he was imo also close to experiencing in FO final against Djokovic. He crushed Djokovic 6-0 6-2 7-5 but Djokovic almost pushed him to 4th set, and had that happened, who knows.
Also Medvedev came back in that USO final, but he didn't have enough experience probably as it was 2019. Tsitsipas in 2021 has it.
Good post. I have to say your posts are the best these days in rst.
Intelligent, fair, logical & thought provoking. Keep it up.
bob
2021-02-25 20:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 11:25:02 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by The Iceberg
it really odd but perhaps last few years Nadal finds it hard to close out these type of matches, maybe it an age thing as Sampras said he had same trouble when he was 29/30. There was this one and the Wimbledon one against Djoker which he should have won + Medvedev USO which went to 5 sets (he just managed to get through) etc.
Not odd at all when you consider how physical his style is. And he's going on 35.
djokovic is also very physical, IMO his game depends nearly all on his
physicality. and he manages to close out matches seemingly from the
grave. IMO nadal has lost a little confidence (off clay).

bob
undecided
2021-02-24 00:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.
Yeah that Tsitsipas loss was puzzling. Rafa won 1st 2 sets easily 63 62
& only lost 1 point on serve in 6 service games in 3rd set. He did
everything but win in straights. 2 missed overheads in t/b sealed the
deal (he pretty much never misses an overhead), & then Tsi started to
play much better and got stronger while Rafa slowed down a lot.
Post by bob
djok struggled some in AO until crunch time.
Djoker is simply a mental beast. You have to admire a guy who stares it
in the face like that & somehow wills himself to play his A grade stuff
when required, muscle tear or no. Just legendary stuff & we have to bow
to it. many lesser players just look for an excuse to pull out. That
Wimbledon 2019 win over Fed has made Djoker feel like he can win from
any position. He believes it, so it happens.
Post by bob
roger's what, 40, and hasn't played in anything meaningful in a long
time plus surgery.
i think that time is very very near, if not already happening.
bob
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
If you looked closely at Rafa in the 3rd set TB, his face was flush red and he was sweating profusely. He did not look good. If I looked like that I'd be taking a timeout.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Bit Whisper informed us up Nadal lost 0 pts on his serve in first 5 games, and only 1 pt in the 6th game.

So he was 24-1 on serve, 96%.

That's huge. Can't think of a better set?

I know Ivanišević won 100% of his first serves against Muster in 1996 YEC RR match he won 6:4 6:4.

Point being Rafa was giving his best. And give him some slack he wasn't competing in months. We saw how Tsitsipas sank the next match.

Nobody is match fit really, and as Djokovic said, all these injuries players are no surprise.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
undecided
2021-02-24 22:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
Bit Whisper informed us up Nadal lost 0 pts on his serve in first 5 games, and only 1 pt in the 6th game.
So he was 24-1 on serve, 96%.
That's huge. Can't think of a better set?
I know Ivanišević won 100% of his first serves against Muster in 1996 YEC RR match he won 6:4 6:4.
Point being Rafa was giving his best. And give him some slack he wasn't competing in months. We saw how Tsitsipas sank the next match.
Nobody is match fit really, and as Djokovic said, all these injuries players are no surprise.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
I think you misunderstood my post. Rafa has always been a sweater but the only few times I've seen the flush red face was in instances where he was facing severe pressure in big matches like when Djoker or Fed was administering a beating onto him. It was unusual to have the 'stressed out' face when he in the advantageous position he was in. I saw that and immediately I said 'oh oh, something is up with Rafa'. I don't know what it was, it may have been fatigue or something else but something happened in the TB.
The Iceberg
2021-02-24 10:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by undecided
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.
Yeah that Tsitsipas loss was puzzling. Rafa won 1st 2 sets easily 63 62
& only lost 1 point on serve in 6 service games in 3rd set. He did
everything but win in straights. 2 missed overheads in t/b sealed the
deal (he pretty much never misses an overhead), & then Tsi started to
play much better and got stronger while Rafa slowed down a lot.
Post by bob
djok struggled some in AO until crunch time.
Djoker is simply a mental beast. You have to admire a guy who stares it
in the face like that & somehow wills himself to play his A grade stuff
when required, muscle tear or no. Just legendary stuff & we have to bow
to it. many lesser players just look for an excuse to pull out. That
Wimbledon 2019 win over Fed has made Djoker feel like he can win from
any position. He believes it, so it happens.
Post by bob
roger's what, 40, and hasn't played in anything meaningful in a long
time plus surgery.
i think that time is very very near, if not already happening.
bob
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
If you looked closely at Rafa in the 3rd set TB, his face was flush red and he was sweating profusely. He did not look good. If I looked like that I'd be taking a timeout.
yes agree he was ridiculously sweating like A-Rod level, but he was a mini-break up and should've held it, Tsitsi wasn't doing anything special. The missed overhead was really odd, that was an angry shot almost.
bob
2021-02-25 20:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by bob
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:44:08 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
else it's curtains. That's why IMO having a strategist isn't likely to change the pattern. Maybe the money is better spent on a top sports psychologist.granted we've had a big 3 for 15 yrs. but IMO we're on the cusp of just a big 1, and 3 new "little 3s" aboutto catch him, eventually.bob
I don't see anything has changed. Let's see, the last slams
Federer played, he was in the FO sf, AO sf, a point away to win
Wimbledon.
Nadal also has been Nadal.
the tsitsipas defeat is a signal to me that nadal's teetering on that
place where he may win FO, but nothing else. hope i'm wrong, but
that's how i see it.
Yeah that Tsitsipas loss was puzzling. Rafa won 1st 2 sets easily 63 62
& only lost 1 point on serve in 6 service games in 3rd set. He did
everything but win in straights. 2 missed overheads in t/b sealed the
deal (he pretty much never misses an overhead), & then Tsi started to
play much better and got stronger while Rafa slowed down a lot.
Post by bob
djok struggled some in AO until crunch time.
Djoker is simply a mental beast. You have to admire a guy who stares it
in the face like that & somehow wills himself to play his A grade stuff
when required, muscle tear or no. Just legendary stuff & we have to bow
to it. many lesser players just look for an excuse to pull out. That
Wimbledon 2019 win over Fed has made Djoker feel like he can win from
any position. He believes it, so it happens.
i think that's it: djok is simply the psychologically strongest player
i can recall, maybe even above sampras? those 2 are tops IMO.
Post by Whisper
Post by bob
roger's what, 40, and hasn't played in anything meaningful in a long
time plus surgery.
i think that time is very very near, if not already happening.
bob
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.


bob
Gracchus
2021-02-25 21:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Whisper
2021-02-25 22:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
bob
2021-02-25 23:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.

bob
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If Federer had won would it not be a choke from Djokovic as Pelle says?

Djokovic led with a break in the fifth. He broke at 3-3 to lead 4-3 and was broken back immediately.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
bob
2021-02-26 17:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:56:49 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis
they were won >more than lost.total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusingto fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.just didn't cash.bob
If Federer had won would it not be a choke from Djokovic as Pelle says?
if djok had 2 match points on serve, it would've been a choke IMO. it
was a toss up match either way. for federer to be in position to win
was a big deal considering he's old. same time, fed beat a lot of
clowns before djok/nadal matures.
Djokovic led with a break in the fifth. He broke at 3-3 to lead 4-3 and was broken back immediately.
bob
Gracchus
2021-02-26 02:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
Whisper
2021-02-26 09:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.

But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
bob
2021-02-26 17:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:14:32 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.
But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
very interesting take.

bob
Gracchus
2021-02-26 18:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:14:32 +1100, Whisper
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.
But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
very interesting take.
It is. Whisper is right that if Federer had gone for aces and blown it, people would say it was an epic choke, but I still wish he'd have done it. Against most anybody else, I'd say play it safe.

Reminds me of one of the Jeopardy champions' tournaments some year ago. There was a player who got a daily double, bet everything and missed the question. Then either the same game or the next night (can't recall), he accrued a good amount of money, got another daily double, and missed again. He was asked later if he regretted it and he said no. His opponents (Jennings & Rutter) were so good that he felt he couldn't afford to be conservative.

https://williamspaniel.com/2014/05/15/roger-craigs-daily-double-strategy-smart-play-bad-luck/
guypers
2021-02-26 19:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:14:32 +1100, Whisper
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.
But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
very interesting take.
It is. Whisper is right that if Federer had gone for aces and blown it, people would say it was an epic choke, but I still wish he'd have done it. Against most anybody else, I'd say play it safe.
Reminds me of one of the Jeopardy champions' tournaments some year ago. There was a player who got a daily double, bet everything and missed the question. Then either the same game or the next night (can't recall), he accrued a good amount of money, got another daily double, and missed again. He was asked later if he regretted it and he said no. His opponents (Jennings & Rutter) were so good that he felt he couldn't afford to be conservative.
https://williamspaniel.com/2014/05/15/roger-craigs-daily-double-strategy-smart-play-bad-luck/
The other guy, Holzheiser (all in ) did alright!
Gracchus
2021-02-26 21:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by guypers
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:14:32 +1100, Whisper
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.
But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
very interesting take.
It is. Whisper is right that if Federer had gone for aces and blown it, people would say it was an epic choke, but I still wish he'd have done it. Against most anybody else, I'd say play it safe.
Reminds me of one of the Jeopardy champions' tournaments some year ago. There was a player who got a daily double, bet everything and missed the question. Then either the same game or the next night (can't recall), he accrued a good amount of money, got another daily double, and missed again. He was asked later if he regretted it and he said no. His opponents (Jennings & Rutter) were so good that he felt he couldn't afford to be conservative.
https://williamspaniel.com/2014/05/15/roger-craigs-daily-double-strategy-smart-play-bad-luck/
The other guy, Holzheiser (all in ) did alright!
Yeah, he was a professional gambler so it was second nature. Jennings was out of his comfort zone when they went head-to-head, but he forced himself to make those big bets too because he knew he had to. Beat Holtzhauer in the end too.
bob
2021-02-27 00:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:27:36 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:14:32 +1100, Whisper
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:46:41 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
Don't know exactly if he 'blew it' - sure you'd think he could make a
big serve to win, or follow up fh winner etc - but Djoker really stared
it down, like he did at those 2 USO semis years ago where he also saved
2 mp's by playing tough. Ideally in tennis you should be 'winning' it
rather than opponent losing. Djoker won it more than Fed lost, if that
makes sense. They were great matches to watch because they were won
more than lost.
total credit to djok for being as always mentally tough and refusing
to fold. but roger to even get into that position had his chances.
just didn't cash.
Yes, exactly. Not taking anything away from Djoke. He didn't buckle when things weren't going his way, kept the pressure on, and executed when he needed to. But I still think Roger had it in his grasp to win one of those match points. All depends how you look at it I guess.
It's always easier to criticize in hindsight. As skriptis said a while
ago Roger should have just gone for an ace on every serve when he was at
40-15. He would have had 4 chances at an ace or unreturnable serve
standing at 40-15 - ie if he misses 1st serve go for ace on 2nd serve -
then again at 40-30.
But if he did that & still lost he'd be ridiculed for being too
aggressive - especially if he served 2 df's. He's a pretty good server
though, especially on grass, so odds would have been in his favor to
make 1 of the 4 serve opportunities. Anyway that's what I call a flip
of the coin match. Djoker is mentally tougher so prob fitting he won it?
very interesting take.
It is. Whisper is right that if Federer had gone for aces and blown it, people would say it was an epic choke, but I still wish he'd have done it. Against most anybody else, I'd say play it safe.
frankly i love the idea - 4 serves to make 1 for the cup? with fed
serving? hindsight.

because you do not want to let djok get into a rally at crunch time,
he's very clutch as we've seen.
Post by Gracchus
Reminds me of one of the Jeopardy champions' tournaments some year ago. There was a player who got a daily double, bet everything and missed the question. Then either the same game or the next night (can't recall), he accrued a good amount of money, got another daily double, and missed again. He was asked later if he regretted it and he said no. His opponents (Jennings & Rutter) were so good that he felt he couldn't afford to be conservative.
https://williamspaniel.com/2014/05/15/roger-craigs-daily-double-strategy-smart-play-bad-luck/
against jennings i'm shocked he could even mutter a response! the
pressure.

good example though, and applies to all sports: luck favors the bold
as they say (most of the time).

bob

bob
2021-02-25 23:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:26:05 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:12:00 +1100, Whisper
Roger is getting very old & is short of matchplay. How far can talent &
a good draw take him? He can still pull off 1 more Wimbledon, but will
take a minor miracle.
roger blew 2019 Wimbledon. it was his for the taking. just don't see
it again, but if he wins 1 more slam that'll be it IMO.
Agree on both counts.
i had to board a flight riight after roger broke in set 5. sat there
for 2 hours bummed that roger won another W. and then... :-)

credit roger for even being that position at that age.

bob
Whisper
2021-02-21 21:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
bob
2021-02-22 00:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:46:11 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
IMO, that's exactly what it was.

bob
jdeluise
2021-02-22 00:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bob
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:46:11 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
if he wants to make it one step higher. He is going anywhere with
this game against the top three. He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
IMO, that's exactly what it was.
Med participated in his own downfall, but yes most credit should go to
Djok.
Whisper
2021-02-22 06:14:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jdeluise
Post by bob
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:46:11 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
if he wants to make it one step higher. He is going anywhere with
this game against the top three. He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
IMO, that's exactly what it was.
Med participated in his own downfall, but yes most credit should go to
Djok.
Med needs a different strategy for Djoker. Shots that work against
anyone else don't work v Djoke. Bottom line Djoke is a better player &
absolutely peaks for the slams. Scary thought having to come up with a
strategy to beat that level. May not be possible.
PeteWasLucky
2021-02-22 06:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.

For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-02-22 06:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
One thing people haven't noticed is all the work Ivanisevic has put in
improving Djoker's serve. He started the final with a brilliant ace
down the T. Goran is a left hander so used some of that knowledge to
make his serve more of a weapon & setting up points, I especially notice
the improved quality of serving wide in deuce court.

Djoker is working on shortening points to extend his career. He hasn't
put a foot wrong so far. We're not gong to see much dip in his form
until he secures the slam record.
grif
2021-02-22 16:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
  listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
  our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
  may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
  got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
  his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
One thing people haven't noticed is all the work Ivanisevic has put in improving Djoker's serve.  He started the final with a brilliant ace down the T.  Goran is a left hander so used some of that knowledge to make his serve more of a weapon & setting up points, I especially notice the improved quality of serving wide in deuce court.
Djoker is working on shortening points to extend his career.  He hasn't put a foot wrong so far.  We're not gong to see much dip in his form until he secures the slam record.
Also, the conditions of this AO were really fast.
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30929156/fast-australian-open-courts-giving-novak-djokovic-unexpected-advantage

"..
Historically, Tennis Australia has aimed to produce courts which land somewhere in the middle of the International Tennis Federation's five-tier Court Pace Index (CPI), as it generally offers up the best tennis for viewers, without favoring a particular style of player. A CPI rating of 29 or lower is considered a "slow court," while anything above 45 is graded as "fast."

According to Hawk-Eye, the average CPI at the Australian Open over the past five years is 41, making it consistently a "medium-fast" surface, and still clearly the quickest of the four Slams. However, this year, the CPI has been measured at 50, confirming players' comments about just how fast the courts are playing.

Another factor which has led to quicker courts in 2021 is simply the amount of tennis played on them. Unlike previous years, in which Australian Open warm-up and lead-in events are played around the country, COVID-19 and restrictions around the virus forced the majority of tennis to be played at Melbourne Park, including the Great Ocean Road Open, Murray River Open and ATP Cup. As a result, a fortnight of tennis in Melbourne quickly blew out to more than a month.

"The more tennis you have, the more players are sliding across the court and more of that sand and grittiness gets taken off the court," Cahill said. "As the tournament progresses, it only quickens up more and more."
.."
The Iceberg
2021-02-22 17:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
Fed's worst mistake was listening to Tony Roche instead of hiring Edberg 5 years earlier! that SABR would've won his multiple extra slams.
guypers
2021-02-22 17:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
Fed's worst mistake was listening to Tony Roche instead of hiring Edberg 5 years earlier! that SABR would've won his multiple extra slams.
Wow, objective post iceman, brain transplant son?
The Iceberg
2021-02-22 18:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by guypers
Post by The Iceberg
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
Fed's worst mistake was listening to Tony Roche instead of hiring Edberg 5 years earlier! that SABR would've won his multiple extra slams.
Wow, objective post iceman, brain transplant son?
thanks for the compliment, boyo!
Whisper
2021-02-23 00:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
Post by PeteWasLucky
Medved has no strategies at all and as Undecided said as well,
listening to new ideas coming from some bright coaches can open
our eyes to issues in our games and major improvements that we
may have never achieved without them.
For example, Federer credits Tony Roche for his second serve, he
got that guy that forced him to dropshot and it became part of
his game, hired Edberg, hired Sampras coach, ...
Fed's worst mistake was listening to Tony Roche instead of hiring Edberg 5 years earlier! that SABR would've won his multiple extra slams.
I agree. I was saying this over 10 yrs ago.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-22 11:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Whisper
  if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
What little I saw of it was a low class match. A question of who would
claw himslef out of the funk first. Meds never did.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-02-22 11:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Whisper
  if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
What little I saw of it was a low class match. A question of who would
claw himslef out of the funk first. Meds never did.
I think Meds did claw back to his best after the 0-3 start. The 1st set
was pretty much 50-50 til Djoker took it by clever choices, using his
vast experience. After that Med couldn't compete with Djoker from
baseline, just a different class.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-22 11:43:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Whisper
  if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
What little I saw of it was a low class match. A question of who would
claw himslef out of the funk first. Meds never did.
I think Meds did claw back to his best after the 0-3 start.  The 1st set
was pretty much 50-50 til Djoker took it by clever choices, using his
vast experience.  After that Med couldn't compete with Djoker from
baseline, just a different class.
I only saw the third. The start of it was a collective chjoke fest. Meds
never recovered from it. No wonder the girlfriend/wife gave her the eye.
She knows tennis.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-02-22 11:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Whisper
  if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
I think it's more a case of Djoker not allowing Med to play his game.
What little I saw of it was a low class match. A question of who
would claw himslef out of the funk first. Meds never did.
I think Meds did claw back to his best after the 0-3 start.  The 1st
set was pretty much 50-50 til Djoker took it by clever choices, using
his vast experience.  After that Med couldn't compete with Djoker from
baseline, just a different class.
I only saw the third. The start of it was a collective chjoke fest. Meds
never recovered from it. No wonder the girlfriend/wife gave her the eye.
She knows tennis.
The 1st set was really good and very close. Djoker had a brilliant
start, starting with great ace down the T. Med was patchy but turned it
on & got back to 3-3. The 1st set ended up being key for Med. Djoker
was not taking the foot off the pedal after set 1.
undecided
2021-02-21 23:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Let's not forget that Djoker has excellent coaching staff, ex-top 10 player, wimbledon winner, one of the best servers of all time. So, the smart thing to do is get the best coaching you can afford once you are in top-10. Same advice I'd give to Tsitsipas. He needs to give Pete a call for some serve&volley lessons.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-22 11:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by undecided
you are in top-10. Same advice I'd give to Tsitsipas. He needs to
give Pete a call for some serve&volley lessons.
Let's not kill the baby in the crib.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
heyg...@gmail.com
2021-02-22 17:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by undecided
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
He needs a strategist.
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Let's not forget that Djoker has excellent coaching staff, ex-top 10 player, wimbledon winner, one of the best servers of all time. So, the smart thing to do is get the best coaching you can afford once you are in top-10. Same advice I'd give to Tsitsipas. He needs to give Pete a call for some serve&volley lessons.
Serena and Tsitsipas should probably both drop Patrick M as a coach/advisor. He seems to be as in it for himself as anything.
bob
2021-02-22 00:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:55:02 -0500 (EST), PeteWasLucky
Post by PeteWasLucky
if he wants to make it one step higher.
He is going anywhere with this game against the top three.
who are the top three?

bob
Loading...