Tennis

[Manwell Pablo]

8 minutes ago, kingfox said:

What? For saying his form was poor at the time of Indian Wells which it was.

 

He's had a tremendous clay court campaign, I have him to get to the final here.

 

Its a few dodger losses it was hardly constituted a loss of form worth commenting on was it, as he’s gone on to prove. It’s not like you can claim the Australian open exit was poorer than usual form he’s yet to turn up to a grand slam really.

 

i dunno about that to be fair, don’t think itll be long though, the final piece of the jigsaw for him is in his head especially at slams.

[kingfox]

18 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Its a few dodger losses it was hardly constituted a loss of form worth commenting on was it, as he’s gone on to prove. It’s not like you can claim the Australian open exit was poorer than usual form he’s yet to turn up to a grand slam really.

 

i dunno about that to be fair, don’t think itll be long though, the final piece of the jigsaw for him is in his head especially at slams.

His form and performances between the Australian Open to Indian Wells was poor though, you can't deny that but he's got back to form and has been absolutely flying recently.

 

His draw is decent, Djokovic, Nishikori and Dimitrov are in his half, two of which aren't fully fit and the other in Dimitrov has a poor clay record. As I said earlier, Goffin and Thiem are the other two I can potentially see getting through to the final from the bottom half, I've gone for Zverev though on my bracket.

[Manwell Pablo]

13 hours ago, kingfox said:

His form and performances between the Australian Open to Indian Wells was poor though, you can't deny that but he's got back to form and has been absolutely flying recently.

 

His draw is decent, Djokovic, Nishikori and Dimitrov are in his half, two of which aren't fully fit and the other in Dimitrov has a poor clay record. As I said earlier, Goffin and Thiem are the other two I can potentially see getting through to the final from the bottom half, I've gone for Zverev though on my bracket.

 

 Well we’ll no not really he did alright in the Hopman cruised his Davis cup rubbers and as I said, Had a couple of bad 500/250 tournaments hardly uncommon for big players, nothing worth commenting on. Not like his ranking started to drop.

 

Besides it was the fact that as soon as you said it he was winning a masters tournament about a week later which I found amusing.

 

If if it was just  ability than yes. Itll be interesting to see how he copes mentally when he gets to the third/fourth round.

[Facecloth]

So Norrie progresses to round two. Second time he's moved into round two at a slam because his opponent has pulled out injured. Would like to see him win a match at a slam now as the next part of his progress. Obviously he's done well elsewhere to improve his ranking but that first proper slam win will be a big mental step up.

[Manwell Pablo]

5 hours ago, Facecloth said:

So Norrie progresses to round two. Second time he's moved into round two at a slam because his opponent has pulled out injured. Would like to see him win a match at a slam now as the next part of his progress. Obviously he's done well elsewhere to improve his ranking but that first proper slam win will be a big mental step up.

 

To be fair I watched it he was on top pretty much straight away. Played well.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

 

To be fair I watched it he was on top pretty much straight away. Played well.

Yeah he did. It's just when he goes the distance in a best of 5 setter and someone starts coming back at him, will it play on his mind. Would be nice for him to see one out.

[leicsmac]

Norrie acquitted himself well, but a home favourite on the leading show court was always going to be tricky.

 

Edmund into round three, and he now stands alone. Ought to have a word with Murray about how that feels, he's been there often enough.

[kingfox]

Damir Dzumhur, what a fvcking bottle job.

[leicsmac]

Fascinating match between Edmund and Fognini (damn good on clay) developing.

 

Foggy takes the first set, then Edmund almost blows a 5-1 lead in the second after Fognini melts down, being pulled back to 5-4 before breaking to make it one set all.

 

Anyone's game.

[Facecloth]

Edmunds gone in 5 sets.

[Facecloth]

Zverev falling apart here. Looks like @Manwell Pablo is right about his mental strength.

[kingfox]

Zverev gonna fvck up my bracket, I was joint 2nd out of 900+ as well the ****.

[leicsmac]

Shame Edmund couldn't finish off Foggy, here's hoping he does well on grass seeing as most of the onus will likely be on him.

[kingfox]

19 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Zverev falling apart here. Looks like @Manwell Pablo is right about his mental strength.

Tbf mate he so could've easily lost in the last two rounds, his mental strength got him through both. Was able to find another gear against Lajovic which in the end saw him storm to victory, Dzumhur really choked against him but Zverev dug deep on big points, today is all very similar.

[Facecloth]

Just now, kingfox said:

Tbf mate he so could've easily lost in the last two rounds, his mental strength got him through both. Was able to find another gear against Lajovic which in the end saw him storm to victory, Dzumhur really choked against him but Zverev dug deep on big points, today is all very similar.

Hmmm I don't think it's the mental strength to fight back that's the issue, it's the mental strength to perform at grand slams like he does elsewhere. Bit like Ben Foster. Great keeper over the years for the likes of WBA but in a man Utd or England shirt he fell apart. Some sportsmen just struggle when the eyes of the world are on them.

 

He really shouldn't be be taken to 5 sets in all  three matches at a slam like he might here, he should be progressing with ease if he has any designs on winning one, or even making the last 8 or 4.

[kingfox]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Hmmm I don't think it's the mental strength to fight back that's the issue, it's the mental strength to perform at grand slams like he does elsewhere. Bit like Ben Foster. Great keeper over the years for the likes of WBA but in a man Utd or England shirt he fell apart. Some sportsmen just struggle when the eyes of the world are on them.

 

He really shouldn't be be taken to 5 sets in all  three matches at a slam like he might here, he should be progressing with ease if he has any designs on winning one, or even making the last 8 or 4.

I'll say he's more like the Svitolina of Men's Tennis  both win high profile tournaments throughout the year then struggle in the slams. As Manwell said he'll get there at some point but he's still got that layer of immaturity to him, not as bad as Kyrgios though.

 

Mentally though despite being taken to five sets I think he's done extremely well on that front, if this was a year or so ago for example he probably would've lost to Lajovic or Dzumhur. If he somehow pulls this off then he'll probably face Thiem next round 

[Facecloth]

29 minutes ago, kingfox said:

I'll say he's more like the Svitolina of Men's Tennis  both win high profile tournaments throughout the year then struggle in the slams. As Manwell said he'll get there at some point but he's still got that layer of immaturity to him, not as bad as Kyrgios though.

 

Mentally though despite being taken to five sets I think he's done extremely well on that front, if this was a year or so ago for example he probably would've lost to Lajovic or Dzumhur. If he somehow pulls this off then he'll probably face Thiem next round 

Hmmmm I'm just saying he's got a long way to go if he's regularly being taken to 5 sets in the early rounds of slams. Doing well to get through, but doing badly to be in that position in the first place. How many players who go 5 sets a lot win slams, not many. He'll be knackered before 2nd week at this rate.

[kingfox]

17 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Hmmmm I'm just saying he's got a long way to go if he's regularly being taken to 5 sets in the early rounds of slams. Doing well to get through, but doing badly to be in that position in the first place. How many players who go 5 sets a lot win slams, not many. He'll be knackered before 2nd week at this rate.

Well he's pulled it out the bag again but you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence, "Doing badly to be in that position in the first place", you can't question his mental strength to pull it out the bag like he has, in the last set today he was so determined and fired up to win, making it this hard for himself though will take it's toll like you say, if he gets past any further then I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Kendal Fox]

Just listening to a part of Mark Petchey's commentary during the Zverev vs Khachanov match, he was talking up the fact that they were both very tall and that 6' 6" and above is fast becoming the standard height for pro male tennis players. Whilst there is some truth to that, it still struck me as a bit shallow of him because he did'nt go on to add that so far, no very tall player has actually succeeded in winning multiple Grand Slams. Del Potro has 1 in 10 years as a pro (US Open) and that's about it.

 

Over the last 45 years - Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (all ATG'S) have amassed the most Grand Slam titles between them. But all were between 5' 11" - 6' 2" in height, considerably shorter than the 6' 6" plus "Tall Guys" that we're supposed to be so impressed by. Clearly there's a reason for this.

 

It seems like there's this misguided conception that simply being freakishly tall trumps all other attributes, yet NONE of the very tall guys have gotten anywhere close to even a moderate run of success in the Grand Slams. And there's been 6' 6" plus guys since the days of Todd Martin, 25 years ago.

Edited 3 June 2018 by Kendal Fox

[Collymore]

Classic misconception of winning grand slams is the only measure of success in tennis. 

 

Being a very tall tennis player gives you a massive advantage on your serve which is 50% of the game. One of the tallest tennis players is Karlovic who is 6f11 or something ridiculous and he is still cutting it with the best in the world and he's nearly 40! He basically turns up knowing that he just needs to break serve to guarantee a win. If you took 6 inches of his height he'd have probably not made it as a pro in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 June 2018 by Collymore

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Collymore said:

Classic misconception of winning grand slams is the only measure of success in tennis. 

 

Being a very tall tennis player gives you a massive advantage on your serve which is 50% of the game. One of the tallest tennis players is Karlovic who is 6f11 or something ridiculous and he is still cutting it with the best in the world and he's nearly 40! He basically turns up knowing that he just needs to break serve to guarantee a win. If you took 6 inches of his height he'd have probably not made it as a pro in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But winning major events is the measure of success in most sports. Yes there are some decent tall players who win the odd tournament, but at the very top of the spot, the very best players who win most of the slams and most of the other titles are not 6ft6 plus, they are between 5ft12 and 6ft2.

 

Just look at the rankings over the years, the players who have dominated the top 4 or 5 spots are not giants. The odd big guy might infiltrate the top ten briefly but they don't hang around for long.

 

You're right it does give then an advantage on the serve and it's probably helped players like Karlovic's longevity, but usually outside the serve they aren't the best on groundstrokes, so the moment they face someone who can handle their serve they struggle. 

 

EDIT: @Kendal Fox forgot Cilic obviously, but the success of the big guys is still limited compared to the slightly smaller ones.

Edited 3 June 2018 by Facecloth

[Manwell Pablo]

To clarify in regards to Zverev he was problems in his head at grand slams in terms of putting pressure on himself to perform and get where everyone thinks he should be, thus rarely plays his best tennis and Hence why he’s got himself in a mess several times this week, he has however dug deep and got past it which will help him in the future no end. It was never a case of him collapsing under pressure at big moments in matches he just under performs. He will get better as he gets older and even if he loses to Thiem he’s made good progress in getting into a quarter final for the first time.

 

i think he’s been helped out by the fact he is a bit of a scalp now as well and both Karen and Dzhumher seemed to tense up a bit and waste some great chances to to take control of their matches or in the latters case beat him.

 

to wade in on the height debate I agree height helps with certain things but I’m yet to see a tall guy who can really glide round the court with an arsenal of great ground strokes, most of them are all slide backhand and a hammer of a forehand. Whether we are talking grand slams or general ATP the most successful men for god knows how long are the big 4 and Murray said is the tallest at 6’3 I believe. If anything the really tall guys lose out as they play to their strengths a bit too much, 6’6 is probably an optimum height tif to Petchy but being 6’6 is no substitute for genuine talent.

Edited 3 June 2018 by Manwell Pablo

[Kendal Fox]

18 hours ago, Collymore said:

Classic misconception of winning grand slams is the only measure of success in tennis. 

 

Being a very tall tennis player gives you a massive advantage on your serve which is 50% of the game. One of the tallest tennis players is Karlovic who is 6f11 or something ridiculous and he is still cutting it with the best in the world and he's nearly 40! He basically turns up knowing that he just needs to break serve to guarantee a win. If you took 6 inches of his height he'd have probably not made it as a pro in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But winning the slams is where the legacy and money are at and Karlovic's height and serve just don't work out for him in the majors. Why is that?

[Kendal Fox]

12 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

To clarify in regards to Zverev he was problems in his head at grand slams in terms of putting pressure on himself to perform and get where everyone thinks he should be, thus rarely plays his best tennis and Hence why he’s got himself in a mess several times this week, he has however dug deep and got past it which will help him in the future no end. It was never a case of him collapsing under pressure at big moments in matches he just under performs. He will get better as he gets older and even if he loses to Thiem he’s made good progress in getting into a quarter final for the first time.

 

i think he’s been helped out by the fact he is a bit of a scalp now as well and both Karen and Dzhumher seemed to tense up a bit and waste some great chances to to take control of their matches or in the latters case beat him.

 

to wade in on the height debate I agree height helps with certain things but I’m yet to see a tall guy who can really glide round the court with an arsenal of great ground strokes, most of them are all slide backhand and a hammer of a forehand. Whether we are talking grand slams or general ATP the most successful men for god knows how long are the big 4 and Murray said is the tallest at 6’3 I believe. If anything the really tall guys lose out as they play to their strengths a bit too much, 6’6 is probably an optimum height tif to Petchy but being 6’6 is no substitute for genuine talent.

 

That's my point. Forgot whether I saw it on ITV4 or Eurosport, but earlier on the broadcast today, the studio panel were talking about it being strange that the older players are still hanging around, almost preventing the youngsters from getting the limelight. It's pretty obvious to me that that's because there's just too much empahsis on these youngsters being tall, with a big serve, but little in the way of adaptability and depth to their game..

 

It's as if they just don't get it, because you can't expect the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray to just roll over for them, just because they're older. They are simply just much more talented than the young, tall guys, so if still fit, they're going to keep dominating.

Edited 4 June 2018 by Kendal Fox

[Kendal Fox]

18 hours ago, Facecloth said:

But winning major events is the measure of success in most sports. Yes there are some decent tall players who win the odd tournament, but at the very top of the spot, the very best players who win most of the slams and most of the other titles are not 6ft6 plus, they are between 5ft12 and 6ft2.

 

Just look at the rankings over the years, the players who have dominated the top 4 or 5 spots are not giants. The odd big guy might infiltrate the top ten briefly but they don't hang around for long.

 

You're right it does give then an advantage on the serve and it's probably helped players like Karlovic's longevity, but usually outside the serve they aren't the best on groundstrokes, so the moment they face someone who can handle their serve they struggle. 

 

EDIT: @Kendal Fox forgot Cilic obviously, but the success of the big guys is still limited compared to the slightly smaller ones.

 

Thanks for that, yes Cilic, along with Del Potro are the exceptions, but even then, they've won 2 Grand Slams between them in over a decade as pros.