Shanghai Thread

[The Special Juan]

First topic message reminder :

Draw here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Shanghai_Rolex_Masters_%E2%80%93_Singles

Is it just me or is the court painfully slow?

[bogbrush]

Monaco in the top 8 would be a travesty, the guy just has no game. He's more or less the GOAT hitting partner, would be a wonderful guy to reactive with, your shots would be so grooved by the end.

[LuvSports!]

i cant believe he is even in contention for it!

[JuliusHMarx]

I've always wanted Monaco to win Monte Carlo.

[lydian]

Agree BB, both Nadal and Federer absolutely school this guy.
Federer destroyed him at USO11, Nadal the same at DC final.
Infact Nadal uses him as a hitting partner often, you can see why.
If this what the top10 is coming to then the future of the game looks even rosier than I thought.

[lydian]

Just looked, in the last 6 sets Monaco played vs. Nadal he's won a paltry 6 games

In the last 5 sets against Federer he's won 11 games.

That's Top10 quality for you.

[The Special Juan]

Federer's group at the WTF:
Federer
Ferrer
Almagro
Monaco



On today's results, really disappointed by Tomic. Perhaps it's time for a real coach? (If his dad coaches him)

[User 774433]

I think 80s stank

At this point I think any pretence socal has to an understanding of the game is officially exposed.

The decade of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander stank. Yeah, if you say so.....

You do realize I was being sarcastic but that is why like the liar and propagandist you are you quoted exactly 4 words and not the whole quote which clearly shows I am being sarcastic. Either you are a known liar or you lack the basic english comprehensions skills of a ten year old, which is it BB?

Nah, you put no emoticon to signal anything of the sort.

I can see why wish you'd meant it sarcastically, but it was quoted in context and as written.

Good wriggle though.

No he was being sarcastic.
Hawkeye was commenting on how Haas is not at his peak, and hinted that this wasn't a strong era, Socal then replied by saying that we cannot judge how strong this era is by players such as Haas- who have no real impact on slams compared to Top 4- and used the 80's as an example of how an era can be falsely devalued by judging it by a player who had no real impact in Slams -sarcastically talking about Brad Gilbert as a prime example.

[lags72]

I've always wanted Monaco to win Monte Carlo.

Ah yes .....the headline writers would be salivating at the very prospect .........

I somehow doubt they will ever get their chance .....

[lydian]

Lol TSJ, that would have the punters cashing in their tickets for sure.
Ferrer vs Monaco would go on all night...who needs Nytol?

[CaledonianCraig]

I think 80s stank

At this point I think any pretence socal has to an understanding of the game is officially exposed.

The decade of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander stank. Yeah, if you say so.....

You do realize I was being sarcastic but that is why like the liar and propagandist you are you quoted exactly 4 words and not the whole quote which clearly shows I am being sarcastic. Either you are a known liar or you lack the basic english comprehensions skills of a ten year old, which is it BB?

Nah, you put no emoticon to signal anything of the sort.

I can see why wish you'd meant it sarcastically, but it was quoted in context and as written.

Good wriggle though.

No he was being sarcastic.
Hawkeye was commenting on how Haas is not at his peak, and hinted that this wasn't a strong era, Socal then replied by saying that we cannot judge how strong this era is by players such as Haas- who have no real impact on slams compared to Top 4- and used the 80's as an example of how an era can be falsely devalued by judging it by a player who had no real impact in Slams -sarcastically talking about Brad Gilbert as a prime example.

And socal would be pretty much spot on there. Lets get things straight - Haas has not fallen off a cliff form-wise by any means at all. Yes he is 35 but players aged 30+ can and have remained competitive in the past and evidently Haas is another case. His year ending averaging has hardly altered at all in his fit years and that includes this year. However, he has never been a consistent challenger at slams and so I fail to grasp all this excitement just because he wins a match in Shanghai. As sure as eggs are eggs Haas won't be in the reckoning at the end of this tournament so getting excited about one win and using it as some sort of evidence is pretty ridiculous. As for the ridiculing of certain players in the top ten I will repeat what I said earlier in that every era serves up players who make the top ten yet fans may not rate that player. Nothing new there.

[User 774433]

Brad Gilbert in the late 1980's had a career high of world number 4 when he was 30 years old, IIRC. He never went past a quarter final of a Slam in his career.
Ivan Ljubicic was world number 4 or 5 in the naughties at some point, he only reached 1 Grand Slam semi-final.
Does it make the 80's, or naughties terrible? No.
It always says something about the period, but we can't react with hyperbole, and exaggerate the truth using this evidence.

I used to think about the mid-naughties period in that light for a while, but then I realised every era had it's strong and weak points. The mid-naughties might not have had many world class players at the top of the game, but it had many great youngsters, good strength in depth, and the a great player in the form of Federer, while Nadal was was always a beast in clay. There is two sides to every coin.

[lydian]

This isn't a case of fans not rating him....he's 0-6 to Federer, 0-6 to Djokovic, 1-4 to Nadal, 0-6 to Berdych, 0-4 to Tsonga, 2-2 to Murray, 2-2 to Tipsy and 2-2 to Delpo. Even Verdasco schooled him today.

Haas is a quality player for sure, no surprise if he made a deep run anywhere.

[lydian]

Naughty but nice hey IMBL?

[socal1976]

I think 80s stank

At this point I think any pretence socal has to an understanding of the game is officially exposed.

The decade of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander stank. Yeah, if you say so.....

You do realize I was being sarcastic but that is why like the liar and propagandist you are you quoted exactly 4 words and not the whole quote which clearly shows I am being sarcastic. Either you are a known liar or you lack the basic english comprehensions skills of a ten year old, which is it BB?

Nah, you put no emoticon to signal anything of the sort.

I can see why wish you'd meant it sarcastically, but it was quoted in context and as written.

Good wriggle though.

No he was being sarcastic.
Hawkeye was commenting on how Haas is not at his peak, and hinted that this wasn't a strong era, Socal then replied by saying that we cannot judge how strong this era is by players such as Haas- who have no real impact on slams compared to Top 4- and used the 80's as an example of how an era can be falsely devalued by judging it by a player who had no real impact in Slams -sarcastically talking about Brad Gilbert as a prime example.

Thank you IMBL in the words of legend Tupac Shakur you are "here again to set the record straight". The fact that BB dishonestly chopped the paragraph into 4 words and quoted it should tell everyone all they need to know about his honesty. Either that or he really is lacking in reading comprehension skills that an average 10 year old would possess. Of course I was joking, what is even more enlightening about BB's unfounded attack look at how he quotes just 4 words of mine when he could have put the whole sentence or the whole paragraph that would make it clear to anyone that he is again talking out his dirty place. But that is the kind of person he is, he doesn't care if he is being honest or not as long as he can attack his perceived enemies.

[socal1976]

I think 80s stank

At this point I think any pretence socal has to an understanding of the game is officially exposed.

The decade of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl and Wilander stank. Yeah, if you say so.....

You do realize I was being sarcastic but that is why like the liar and propagandist you are you quoted exactly 4 words and not the whole quote which clearly shows I am being sarcastic. Either you are a known liar or you lack the basic english comprehensions skills of a ten year old, which is it BB?

Nah, you put no emoticon to signal anything of the sort.

I can see why wish you'd meant it sarcastically, but it was quoted in context and as written.

Good wriggle though.

Hawkeye was commenting on how Haas is not at his peak, and hinted that this wasn't a strong era, Socal then replied by saying that we cannot judge how strong this era is by players such as Haas- who have no real impact on slams compared to Top 4- and used the 80's as an example of how an era can be falsely devalued by judging it by a player who had no real impact in Slams -sarcastically talking about Brad Gilbert as a prime example.

And socal would be pretty much spot on there. Lets get things straight - Haas has not fallen off a cliff form-wise by any means at all. Yes he is 35 but players aged 30+ can and have remained competitive in the past and evidently Haas is another case. His year ending averaging has hardly altered at all in his fit years and that includes this year. However, he has never been a consistent challenger at slams and so I fail to grasp all this excitement just because he wins a match in Shanghai. As sure as eggs are eggs Haas won't be in the reckoning at the end of this tournament so getting excited about one win and using it as some sort of evidence is pretty ridiculous. As for the ridiculing of certain players in the top ten I will repeat what I said earlier in that every era serves up players who make the top ten yet fans may not rate that player. Nothing new there.

And Craig you are correct as well. Agassi reached a US open final against absolute peak Federer and really should have taken him to 5 sets when he was 35 years old. Pete Sampras at 36 beat Roger federer indoor in an exho against absolute peak fed. Every time Haas, Ferrer, Fish, Niemennen or anyone of the early 2000 guys wins a match all of sudden that is proof of a weak era or at least a not so strong era. All in BB and a group of fed apologists desires to pretend that all eras are equally strong or that fed's early contemporaries were anything other than the weaker sauce we all know they were when compared to today's players.

Simultaneously they attempt to argue that Fed's early cotemporaries werent weak eventhough they didn't win more in their absolute peak, and that today's yongsters are weak because they aren't winning enough. So no era is weak except this one when it comes to young players, is that really the logical absurdity that they expect us to buy? How many times have you heard this ridiculous ultramoron line about "How can an era be strong when David Ferrer is world #5?"? Well my response is how could an era be strong with brad gilbert as world #4?
No he was being sarcastic.

[bogbrush]

Brad Gilbert in the late 1980's had a career high of world number 4 when he was 30 years old, IIRC. He never went past a quarter final of a Slam in his career.
Ivan Ljubicic was world number 4 or 5 in the naughties at some point, he only reached 1 Grand Slam semi-final.
Does it make the 80's, or naughties terrible? No.
It always says something about the period, but we can't react with hyperbole, and exaggerate the truth using this evidence.

I used to think about the mid-naughties period in that light for a while, but then I realised every era had it's strong and weak points. The mid-naughties might not have had many world class players at the top of the game, but it had many great youngsters, good strength in depth, and the a great player in the form of Federer, while Nadal was was always a beast in clay. There is two sides to every coin.

Hey don't knock Ljubi; the guy was good enough to win a Golden Era Masters (though not a Weak Era one... )

[User 774433]

Brad Gilbert in the late 1980's had a career high of world number 4 when he was 30 years old, IIRC. He never went past a quarter final of a Slam in his career.
Ivan Ljubicic was world number 4 or 5 in the naughties at some point, he only reached 1 Grand Slam semi-final.
Does it make the 80's, or naughties terrible? No.
It always says something about the period, but we can't react with hyperbole, and exaggerate the truth using this evidence.

I used to think about the mid-naughties period in that light for a while, but then I realised every era had it's strong and weak points. The mid-naughties might not have had many world class players at the top of the game, but it had many great youngsters, good strength in depth, and the a great player in the form of Federer, while Nadal was was always a beast in clay. There is two sides to every coin.

Hey don't knock Ljubi; the guy was good enough to win a Golden Era Masters (though not a Weak Era one... )

Well I think that was a bit of a one-off. Not sure if he won any other tournament that year actually.
Anyway I'm not saying he is a bad player- he's a very good player- but at no point was he really a threat in slams, even when he was in top 4 (he spent a much longer period at number 5 though).
As I said nothing is black and white, different 'eras' have different assets.

[Danny_1982]

Goodness me, you two like a row don't you.

And BB, you are clearly a bright chap so you surely knew that socal was being sarcastic in saying the 80's stank. That was so clearly tongue in cheek. And come on, you know it was don't you.

As for eras, I rarely get involved in this debate but I'll chip in for once... The vast majority of pros including all time greats speak of this era as the strongest ever. Do I agree that it's the strongest ever? Not sure... But it's certainly up there in my view.

I have not heard one legend of the game state that its weak. This proves nothing definitively of course, but lets be honest... They know a great deal more than any of us.

Of course, I respect the views of those who disagree with that.

[socal1976]

Goodness me, you two like a row don't you.

And BB, you are clearly a bright chap so you surely knew that socal was being sarcastic in saying the 80's stank. That was so clearly tongue in cheek. And come on, you know it was don't you.

As for eras, I rarely get involved in this debate but I'll chip in for once... The vast majority of pros including all time greats speak of this era as the strongest ever. Do I agree that it's the strongest ever? Not sure... But it's certainly up there in my view.

I have not heard one legend of the game state that its weak. This proves nothing definitively of course, but lets be honest... They know a great deal more than any of us.

Of course, I respect the views of those who disagree with that.

Thank you first off for acknowledging the truth of what is going down on this thread Danny. But on one point you are mistaken, I don't like a good fight, never have but I won't back down from stating my piece. How would you like it if someone lied about one of your positions and then went about to use a dishonest quote to attack you? What is my response even after I have attempted at different periods to ignore this type of conduct for months?

I much more enjoy speaking with you or lydian and exchanging ideas as opposed to fighting with anyone, but I am like Pacino in Gfather III, "they just keep pulling me back in"

[JuliusHMarx]

This thread has definitely been Shanghai'd!
Now after we've all have a good laugh at that stupendous joke, we can re-group and get it back on track. In fact, I think we will!

Off topic posts will be removed from this line ->
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(and possibly slightly above it)

[lydian]

To be fair that sentence either has all 3 players stated being sarcastically rubbish, or they're all great. There's no hint of a different meaning for different players within the same sentence. The problem is by lobbing in Gilbert, who was clearly a very different class to the others, it is hard to know which way to read that statement.

[Danny_1982]

I've never had a problem with you socal. You are very passionate about Novak as I am about Andy, but despite our obvious bias towards our favourite player I've never found you over aggressive in our debates and have enjoyed them, so I retract the 'row' comment as I have no real idea of the history between the two of you and where it comes from.

But I have to reiterate, it is completely clear to me that you were commenting tongue in cheek when saying the 80's stank. I'm extremely surprised that anyone could misinterpret it.

It would be good if everyone accepted that it was sarcastic and moved on.

[Danny_1982]

Sorry julius, didn't see your post before submitting...

My lips are sealed now.

[lydian]

Well I agree Gilbert stank!

[Danny_1982]

Well I agree Gilbert stank!

Good coach though.

[lydian]

Not a bad coach though...although current #3 might think I'm being sarcastic

[lydian]

"Snap" Danny

[Danny_1982]

I think the current #3 would agree now too.... But as a stroppy teenager I think it was a bad match up.

I never saw Gilbert play to be honest. He wasn't that bad surely?

[socal1976]

I've never had a problem with you socal. You are very passionate about Novak as I am about Andy, but despite our obvious bias towards our favourite player I've never found you over aggressive in our debates and have enjoyed them, so I retract the 'row' comment as I have no real idea of the history between the two of you and where it comes from.

But I have to reiterate, it is completely clear to me that you were commenting tongue in cheek when saying the 80's stank. I'm extremely surprised that anyone could misinterpret it.

It would be good if everyone accepted that it was sarcastic and moved on.

Thanks Danny we are set for a very interesting end of this year but I think the true fight between Murray and Djoko for #1 starts next year.

[bogbrush]

I think the current #3 would agree now too.... But as a stroppy teenager I think it was a bad match up.

I never saw Gilbert play to be honest. He wasn't that bad surely?

He wasn't much really, nothing threatening to his game. Quite stroppy though.

[lydian]

He knew how to "Win ugly"....and he wasn't joking either.
I think he invented the term "junk ball tennis".

BTW, now if we're talking 80's in terms of the 1800's now that was an horrendous decade - that blasted Renshaw won Wimbledon 7 times. The scoundrel!

[Josiah Maiestas]

He knew how to "Win ugly"....and he wasn't joking either.
I think he invented the term "junk ball tennis".

BTW, now if we're talking 80's in terms of the 1800's now that was an horrendous decade - that blasted Renshaw won Wimbledon 7 times. The scoundrel!

Probably with a total of 8 players entered to the tournament.

[bogbrush]

He knew how to "Win ugly"....and he wasn't joking either.
I think he invented the term "junk ball tennis".

BTW, now if we're talking 80's in terms of the 1800's now that was an horrendous decade - that blasted Renshaw won Wimbledon 7 times. The scoundrel!

Probably with a total of 8 players entered to the tournament.

Weak era.

Anyone remember the "Era of Lions"?

One for the 606 veterans.

[Danny_1982]

I think the current #3 would agree now too.... But as a stroppy teenager I think it was a bad match up.

I never saw Gilbert play to be honest. He wasn't that bad surely?

He wasn't much really, nothing threatening to his game. Quite stroppy though.

I do enjoy watching a stroppy player. Not sure why. I guess when someone is so competitive that they can't control their emotions I warm to them. I like that they want to win that much.

I'm pretty competitive myself when it comes to sports, so maybe that's why. If I was out there I'd be flinging racquets at my opponent and sitting in my chair arms crossed and big bottom lip after a defeat.

[lydian]

Fernando Gonzalez could get stroppy for sure, knew how to trash a racquet properly..none of this slight crack in the frame rubbish after a tap on the ground, when he totalled a racquet it was hard to tell it used to be a piece of tennis equipment.

Era of Lions...those were the days....Jan 1, 1990 to Dec 31, 1999.
When someone commented "Thank you mouse for highlighting this superb spectacle for the true tennis connaisseurs of the board. The 1991 Australian Open final was contested between an aggressive serve volleyer and an aggressive baseliner, a far cry from the defensive pussyfooting from the baseline we have to put up with in this era. Put any of today's players, with the exception of Rafael Nadal, in that final against Becker or Lendl and they would irrefutably be triple bagelled. Nadal himself would only manage 5 games at the most."

[User 774433]

When someone commented "Thank you mouse for highlighting this superb spectacle for the true tennis connaisseurs of the board. The 1991 Australian Open final was contested between an aggressive serve volleyer and an aggressive baseliner, a far cry from the defensive pussyfooting from the baseline we have to put up with in this era. Put any of today's players, with the exception of Rafael Nadal, in that final against Becker or Lendl and they would irrefutably be triple bagelled. Nadal himself would only manage 5 games at the most."

I don't know who said that but...

[lydian]

Don't know but it was in response to "mouseinlionsattire".

[bogbrush]

Ah mouse! I had completely forgotten about mouse.

Great days....

[lydian]

Think mouse was chetanpv

[bogbrush]

Think mouse was chetanpv

Yes, I think that's correct though I forget who was who now. Mediter? Impartial_Lion = wise_Analyst think. Dr_Sincere? Very funny and smart poster(s).

[lydian]

And of course Cocteau Twin/AiR.

[lydian]

Some good matches today...

+ Will be interesting to see how Mayer gets on with Murray, he can be dangerous at times.

+ Dimitrov will not be happy he got Djokovic first round...he'll just hit a wall there....probably lucky to get more than 2-3 games per set. Still, probably won't tank like his young Australian counterpart.

+ Stepanek vs Gasquet will also be interesting - Turbot is one of those guys who is always at you and if you're having a bad day he can take the match away from you quickly as he gives you no rhythm....a mental challenge for Reeeeshard.

+ Then speaking of the old guard, it's Sanatogen boosts all round for Haas vs Robredo....or a case of 'Rock on Tommy'...which one will rock though?

+ Federer should have a walk in the park vs Lu. Not much to say there.

+ Last but not(?) least, Viktor vs Janko for the Intra-Serbian honour of losing to Novak.

[lags72]

lydian - we won't get the chance to see just how dangerous Mayer can be today........

He has withdrawn, so Murray goes straight to R3

[socal1976]

I really like the STepanek v. Gazza match now that is interesting matchup of styles. I like Richard in this one at least I am hoping. Djokovic in complete command against Grigor.

[The Special Juan]

Great, I get up "early" to watch Murray. Thanks Mayer, I should write an article showing my displeasure of this event.

[The Special Juan]

Baggy!!!!!!! Beats Raonic 7-6 6-7 7-6.

[Josiah Maiestas]

Raonic got aced 12 times, by tiny marcos. Tom Cruise might aswell start playing.

[lags72]

Raonic got aced 12 times, by tiny marcos. Tom Cruise might aswell start playing.

Marcos ain't tiny according to ATP official bio page, he's listed as 6' (183cm)

As for Raonic ..... if you dish it out, you gotta be able to take it too

[The Special Juan]

Well done Steps. Beats Gasquet 6-4 6-4.

[laverfan]

Federer looks a bit rusty, but may be enough for tonight.

[Sponsored content]