Indian wells the draw is out and lookey, lookey we could have a fedal quaterfinal!!!

by socal1976 Wed 06 Mar 2013, 5:36 am

First topic message reminder :

Djoko, Murray in the same half. Del po is in murray's quarter, Tsonga is in Djoko's quarter, and ferrer v. Berdy in the other quarter. But of course everyone will be talking about the Fedal quarterfinal. I love it, poor Hawkeye first Murray wins a slam and now Federer and Nadal set to battle not in a semi, but in a quarter. My commiserations Hawkeye. Interesting possible second round match as Djokovic most likely will play Fogninniiiii!!!!!!!! Maybe the most anticipated second round match in the history of the masters.

Well now we will get to see how far along that leg is for Nadal, I really do hope for the sake of his fans, the sport as a whole, and himself that he can catch a break and the leg holds for a long time. This might be a good time for fed to pick up a win in their h2h, but frankly I don't think so. Nadal is putting up incredible numbers holding 93 percent of the time and breaking 36 percent of the time, that is winning 64 percent of the games he plays and on the men's tour that is a big number. To me his shotmaking looks as good as ever. The serve and backhand in particular look frightening. If Nadal remains healthy he will be a top contender for all the remaining slams.

Interesting, I don't know if this is something IW is doing or if this is for all the masters. They have expanded the field and given all 32 seeds byes in the first round. As opposed to in the past when the top 8 players received byes. The winner will take home a cool million by far, far the biggest payday of any regular masters, making Indian wells 6th million dollar payday tournament on tour.

Murray and Djoko have somewhat easier quarters, I would rate Fed's the toughest quarter, although really only Nadal is particularly menacing, but in terms of depth of talent Ferrer probably has the toughest quarter. Can we set this charade aside and just seed Nadal 4 at the least?

by socal1976 Wed 06 Mar 2013, 5:38 pm

laverfan wrote:@SoCal - Feudal - Mobile phone auto-correction? Who is the Master and who is the Slave?

Autocorrect has its moments but hey when waiting around for a meeting I can still post

by lydian Wed 06 Mar 2013, 6:09 pm

I don't see what you see in Jerzy socal...yes he's more than a serve but tennis is never, ever, dominated by guys over 6'3. At 6'8' he'll get sussed out quickly by the truly talented boys...all they have to do is make him move and put everything down at his feet. I'm not saying he's not good...but he's not "slam-good" in my opinion. Although in the years ahead who knows when the big 4 age or move on.

by quietplease Wed 06 Mar 2013, 6:17 pm

socal1976 wrote:
quietplease wrote:'These "young'uns" are pretenders. They aren't anywhere near ready to make inroads into the top 10 let alone the top 5 yet and i suspect all will have been knocked out by the quarters. Whilst Raonic and Kei are probably the most consistent of the bunch, they still don't have the full set of skills needed to successfully compete at the masters 1000/slam later stages..."

The main thing holding back Kei and Raonic from a 1/4 or better is self -belief.
Raonic has a semi decent record to date against top ten players and pressured Federer here last year.

Tomic has not accomplished as much -being a bit younger - but has a favourable draw so maybe some hope there too.

I also think that the players you mention have the ability to make it happen. But frankly the bar the top guys are setting is not something that even most world class pros can attain. The top 4 doesn't leave a lot of crumbs on the table for other players regardless of their age. Still Lydian is correct we have the oldest top 100 in history average age is 27. I do think however that the prime now for tennis players has been pushed back a bit because you just can't blast your way to the top of the game anymore on raw power anymore.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Mar 2013, 6:19 pm

That is part of my analysis lydian that when murray, or djoko get old someone has to win the slams. I do feel that while we are not there yet we could very soon be in a transitional period. I also do think that it isn't a mutually exclusively idea that the peak years for tennis players is moving back a bit and these guys just need a bit more seasoning to get to the bar that has been set at a very high level. I think what we are seeing as well in all sports is the evolution of the taller, bigger, athlete that can move as well or nearly as well as the smaller athlete. You probably don't follow American team sports, but in US team sports with their emphasis on height, speed, and power combined this is really prevalent. IN the NFL you have players at 250 pounds playing at positions that used to be played by players at 220 pounds and the 250 pounders today are not moving slower if anything they are faster. Look at the size of Usain bolt and compare him to carl lewis before him and jessie owens before that. Now tennis in away is more like football in that flat straight speed is not nearly as important as change of direction and an explosive first step. But basketball and NFL football are also two sports where the first step and change of direction are very important and players are not only bigger, taller, stronger, but also faster. Del PO won a slam at six foot six and in a couple of years without the big 4 as dominant as now, why not a guy who is six foot 8?

by quietplease Wed 06 Mar 2013, 6:34 pm

My optimistic view of a break through by someone other than the top 4 is in part based upon the recent history of the US Spring hard court swing.

Isner, Fish, Soderling, and even Devverman made semi finals in sunny California. Lujubicic and Davedenko lifted Masters Shields at IW and Miami respectively.

Roddick was also able to do well at both after dropping to the lower rungs of the top ten.

Hope Springs Eternal? Palm Springs? There must be a connection!

by socal1976 Wed 06 Mar 2013, 6:47 pm

Funny thing is they call it palm springs it must be a really small spring because I have never seen anybody of water that isn't artificial in any visit I have made there. But quietplease, that is a fair point there does always seem to be one darkhorse that breaks into the mix.

by carrieg4 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 7:41 am

This was quite interesting

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Six-Indian-Wells-Story-Lines-for-the-Men.aspx

by lydian Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:02 am

Thanks for the points above socal but you miss one huge factor in all those examples - none of those guys have to run for up to 5 hours in a match. Bolt isn't going more than 20s at best! In team sports you can take breathers whilst on the pitch and rely on colleagues, not in tennis. You mention football, yes those guys are fit and run miles...and I can tell you premiership players are not particularly bigger than 10-20 years ago when the Premier league started. In endurance events, ultimately size lets you down.

Look at tennis, we have the long term top 4 all between 6'1 and 6'3...they're the ones winning the slams since 2004. It's been like that for a long time now since mid-80s...look at guys who won more than 1 slam...Becker 6'3, Lendl 6'2, Edberg 6'2, Sampras 6'1, Rafter 6'1, Agassi 5'11, Kafelnikov 6'3, Courier 6'1, Bruguera 6'2, Kuerten 6'3, Federer 6'1, Nadal 6'1, Djokovic 6'2....not much between guys there who won 89 slams between them and counting!

Yes on average guys across are slightly taller, but not much, and they're not muscle men. You can't hulk large weight around a tennis court for hours. I think the height increase is bottoming out but you'll always get the odd outlier like Jerzy, we always have. But he won't become the norm...especially as courts get slower with even more emphasis on ralley endurance and movement. On slower surfaces name a great slam winning claycourter above 6'3?

You mention Delpo winning at 6'6 but we had Krajicek winning a slam at 6'5 and Martin getting to slam finals at 6'6, plus Goran was a hell of a player at 6'4. Just what is so different now? However, no guy above 6'2 has actually ever dominated tennis...and probably never will.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:17 am

Good points on the conditioning aspect that is a fair critique. But look at the long view, we had rosewal and laver at five seven and five eight, we had connors at five foot ten maybe five eleven. The human animal is evolving and the modern athlete is evolving even faster because of the intense level of physical training. I don't see conditioning being that big a factor in the majority of the matches even at a slam. Did del po collapse after 5 sets with Fed in the USO? No he didn't. Tennis is not a triathlon, yes physical fitness, change of direction all of these things are major factors and an advantage for the smaller man. I am not saying JJ will dominate the tour and win 10 slams, but I think he can be, if he maintains his focus and works a grandslam champion. Every player whether he is five six or six six has certain advantages and disadvantges per their body type. Isner played a pretty long ass match and kept his wind as well. Fitness is important in tennis but I still believe it is secondary to hitting a tennis ball well and moving properly, I probably wouldn't favor JJ in a match on clay against Ferrer or Nadal, but that isn't the match I am looking for him to win anyway.

by lydian Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:25 am

Him winning 1 slam doesn't prove the point of your argument about height. The guys like Rosewall you mention are years and years ago. In modern times since the mid 80s not much has really changed...tell me how it has please? Guys winning 4-6 plus slams are never going to be above 6'3. As average ralley length goes up conditioning at the top is a huge factor...the top 5 are not by coincidence the fittest guys on tour.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:38 am

I don't think JJ will win 4 slams, as I said his winning even one slam is contingent on him maintiaing focus, hardwork, and not having serious injury problems. But as you conceded the height of players is moving up. It is a gradual transition. The majority of the tour is played over three sets, and even today in the socalled slow court era conditioning even in slam doesn't decide the majority of matches. Yes, if you are Empanada Dave and suffer from hunger pangs during the course of a five set matchl that is one thing. But as you have noted yourself, nothing precludes most people from being able to acquire the requisite conditioning to win lots of tennis matches. I think you assume that the big man can not be fit enough to win slams, I disagree, the fittest basketball player I have ever seen was six foot nine and two hundred and forty pounds and played the position that required the most speed and the most fitness, and the most change of direction. One man by the name of Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Every time he would get the ball he would sprint full speed into the attack launching fastbreak after fastbreak. He played a positon where the average player at that size to this day is about six two or six three, yet I have never seen the frenetic pace that he maintained at six nine from any of his successors. I know it is a cross sport analogy, but tennis is similar in that you are talking about numerous short bursts of speed not one extended marathon type of fitness. If JJ was expected to beat a 135 pound Kenyan in the 10,000 meters well then I would never bet on him. But tennis is not a triathlon, the bigger you hit the ball the less you have to run.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:42 am

Good night Ill pick this up tomorrow. I got to work tomorrow damn it.

by lydian Thu 07 Mar 2013, 9:07 am

Yes but the big guys win one slam then break down with injuries...Krajicek, Martin (2 time finalist), Safin and Del Potro. They have power but it comes at huge expense. In the Open era, out of 173 slams played only 4 times has a guy above 6'5 got to the final...Martin twice, Del Po and Krajicek. 3 of those are during faster 90s conditions and DelPo at USO, fastest slam we now have. Even at 6'4 it's not been that many times.

So I just don't see where this sudden height increase is coming from to win slams when we have even slower conditions than before. Height evolution is taking place amongst the lower down players in general but in winning slams or Masters, its the usual height players winning 6'1 - 6'3. That's the ideal height for movement, strength and fitness and don't see how that's going to change - there is no new data to suggest otherwise and your favourite player is 6'2.

by kingraf Thu 07 Mar 2013, 10:20 am

Sorry, Socal, I have vocally agreed with you in many things, but I digress. Nadal, I believe is not 6'1. At the Hit for Haiti matches, he was nearer to Agassi in height than Fed or Sampras. I mention this because, well I always wanted to tell someone.

Now as to the height issue: While I do believe athletes are getting heavier, I dont think they are that much taller. You mentioned Bolt, but he is an outlier, a freak. Using him to justify your point is like using da Vinci to justify an argument about Italian intelligence. If I recall correcty, numbers 2-5 in the 100m final were all 5'11-6'1. Shelly-Anne Frasier, the female champion topped out at 5'2. In cricket the top three pace bowlers in the worl stand at 5'10-6'2. A decade ago that height was 6'3-6'5. Of course, cricket recently had its first 7 footer, but again, an outlier. In basketball, Miami Heat won the championship with a relatively small team. I dont think they had a guy top out over 6'10. Of course thats a tall man, but in basketball, hardly a freak.
I use these examples to illustrate that, across sports, big doesnt always win. I mean Leo Messi is what, 5'6?

Looking at the top tennis players, I dont think 6'6+ slam winners will ever win slams at the rate of Rafa, Roger et al. Modern medicine can only do so much. To win a slam one will need to play an average of 24-26 sets over two weeks, around 16-17 hours. This is physically taxing, and big men are physiologically disadvantaged. Safin wasba dead man walking in AO2004 having played 18 hours of tennis. DelPo was rather fortunate in that he despatched Nadal very quickly in the USO 09. This meant he had energy left over to play the final. I would actually argue that tennis will have another sub 6-foot multiple slam winner before it gets a 6'6 plus multiple winner.
(Of course it may already have one in Nadal)

by quietplease Thu 07 Mar 2013, 12:14 pm

Whom do you think has the best chance to win a slam outside of Murray, Nadal, Feder, Djokovic.
A plus 6'2 (Delpotro,, Isner, Raonic, Tsonga, JJ, Berdych) or someone under that height (Ferrer, Gasquet, Tomic, Almagro)?

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 12:22 pm

Nadal, I believe is not 6'1. At the Hit for Haiti matches, he was nearer to Agassi in height than Fed or Sampras. I mention this because, well I always wanted to tell someone.
-------------------

sorry have to disagree with that Agassi was around 5¨10 and a bit
Rafa is definitely taller and his ATP profile says he is 6¨1"

I think DelPotro has the best chance of winning a slam in the taller category .. None of those shorter players mentioned can I ever see winning a slam.. would love that Ferrer could but he wont.

by LuvSports! Thu 07 Mar 2013, 12:22 pm

tomic is 6'5 quietplease

by quietplease Thu 07 Mar 2013, 12:28 pm

Oops, move Bernie into the other group and repalce him with Nishikori.

On balance I believe the power forwards have the inside track on winning the next slam - assumimg Nadal,Fed,Nole and Murray ever actually lose another one between them in the next 4 years!

by LuvSports! Thu 07 Mar 2013, 12:39 pm

big up goffin and berankis!

by kingraf Thu 07 Mar 2013, 1:51 pm

Tsonga is hardly a power forward. If Tomic were to win a slam it would have less to do with his height and more to do with his unpredictability.

If Janowicz or Isner win a slam or indeed more than one MS1000, I will sell my kidneys on the black and give you the receipt.
You can bookmark that.

I could see Gasquet having some sort of run in the near future, his bubbling under and is beginning to string performances together.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 1:59 pm

I could see Gasquet having some sort of run in the near future, his bubbling under and is beginning to string performances together.

Never in a million years... if he was serving for the match in a GS it would be the biggest choke you have ever seen.

by kingraf Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:03 pm

Surely no bigger a choke than JW "boiling water in his veins" Tsonga?
Gasquet does not have mental issues on the big stage¡ It was all fitness related. He will fix this.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:24 pm

Well Im obviously watching a different Gasquet to the one you are..
a player with God given talent and a sublime backhand... but mentally he is left wanting.

by kingraf Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:34 pm

I mean the guy who threw up after a 40 shot rally. Only for Murray and Djokovic to play a 50+ shot, and continue within 30 seconds a few days later. If you dont think there was a chasm in fitness then I dont know.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:40 pm

Says it all then doesn´t it.

by kingraf Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:45 pm

Look Gasquet looks fitter this year, and his ranking is climbing, hope springs eternal

by LuvSports! Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:47 pm

I agree with HN, mentally gasquet is a bit powder puff.
When was the last time he got to a quarter final? He seems to regularly reach the 4th round, but no further. He had a good chance against murray at the french last year but fell away badly.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 2:52 pm

LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!! Shocked

by hawkeye Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:01 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!!

That was just about the ugliest match I have ever watched. Not that I could stomach watching it all. I had to turn it off. The crowd behaved like an ugly mob braying for blood and Gasquet didn't have a chance...

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:06 pm

Maybe thats how you saw it given the person playing HE but Gasquet could have been playing any one of a number of players and he would have still choked ... he is a mental midget. Ive seen Rafa play Tsonga/Montfils/Gasquet in front of a French crowd (and it doesnt get much worse than that for a Spaniard) and he has still won

by lydian Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:10 pm

Kingraf, if you look at this photo:
Indian wells the draw is out and lookey, lookey we could have a fedal quaterfinal!!! - Page 2 60833423-the-players

You can see Nadal's eye-line is the same as 6'1 Federer (and Roger is rumoured to be somewhere between 6'1 and 6'2). He's also appreciably taller than 5'10 Davydenko at the end, so I don't doubt 6'1 is correct.

by Danny_1982 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!!

That was just about the ugliest match I have ever watched. Not that I could stomach watching it all. I had to turn it off. The crowd behaved like an ugly mob braying for blood and Gasquet didn't have a chance...

The Wimbledon crowd acted like an angry mob? Did they refuse to eat their strawberries? Did someone in the royal box dare to undo their tie?

I'd love to hear you explain how the Wimbledon crowd were like an 'ugly mob'.

I remember Gasquet inexplicably bottling it right on the finish line, and the British crowd pushing him on to victory... In a completely fair way, and as always a bit less vociferously than any other slams do with their home players.

by hawkeye Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:18 pm

Danny_1982. If you witnessed it and didn't think it ugly I doubt anyone could explain it to you...

by hawkeye Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:19 pm

Hey Roger I'm back!

http://postimage.org/image/83dh7g6xx/

by LuvSports! Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:22 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!!

I thought you would tell me, after all it was the crowning year for rafa, 2008! He destroyed murray in their qf clash.
That match was huge for both 2bh.
Gasquet hasn't been the same since imho and murray has pushed on, but maybe that would have happened anyway.

by Danny_1982 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm

hawkeye wrote:Danny_1982. If you witnessed it and didn't think it ugly I doubt anyone could explain it to you...

Nice sidestep.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm

hawkeye wrote:Danny_1982. If you witnessed it and didn't think it ugly I doubt anyone could explain it to you...

Oh come on HE.. there is no worse crowd than an angry French one.. and players have put up with it for years.. boos from the crowd to any player (particularly a Spaniard) playing a French player is norm.
Yes maybe the Wimbledon crowd got behind Andy and Reeechard couldn´t handle it.. simples.

by LuvSports! Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:31 pm

andy got so much abuse in his match vs gasquet at the french, they were booing him constantly.
The wimby crowd's reaction pales to the frenchies one.

by break_in_the_fifth Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:33 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!!

That was just about the ugliest match I have ever watched. Not that I could stomach watching it all. I had to turn it off. The crowd behaved like an ugly mob braying for blood and Gasquet didn't have a chance...

I went off Murray for the rest of the year because of that match.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:39 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:LS What year was it when he played Murray at Wimbledon and he was two sets to love up and a break in the third I believe... and he lost the match.

If he ever got within a mile of winning a slam I would willing eat frogs legs and that is a promise !!!

That was just about the ugliest match I have ever watched. Not that I could stomach watching it all. I had to turn it off. The crowd behaved like an ugly mob braying for blood and Gasquet didn't have a chance...

I went off Murray for the rest of the year because of that match.

Why ????? it wasn´t his fault .. he went out to win a match and did Doh

by Danny_1982 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 3:50 pm

I'm still amused that the words 'ugly mob' have been associated to the Wimbledon centre court crowd!

I think of New York booing the umpire in a Hewitt v Roddick match, or Djokovic in a post match interview... The RG crowd abusing pretty much anyone they decide they don't like...

The most offensive thing the centre court crowd have ever done is wear Union Jack hats or sing with Cliff Richard !

by Silver Thu 07 Mar 2013, 4:04 pm

lydian's picture kinda makes me miss Soderling a little bit.

Yeah, the CC crowd are definitely not a bunch that I'd associate with mob mentality. I remember that match at Roland Garros though, there was some serious abuse being sprayed around.

Edit: Just read carrie's link, the Bryans have never won IW?! Wow.

by break_in_the_fifth Thu 07 Mar 2013, 5:17 pm

He could have reminded them of fairplay... plus he did that stupid bicep thing especially after a match he had no place winning. The crowd even booed Gasquet when he came back from a bathroom break, I think at the end of a set.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 5:45 pm

lydian wrote:Yes but the big guys win one slam then break down with injuries...Krajicek, Martin (2 time finalist), Safin and Del Potro. They have power but it comes at huge expense. In the Open era, out of 173 slams played only 4 times has a guy above 6'5 got to the final...Martin twice, Del Po and Krajicek. 3 of those are during faster 90s conditions and DelPo at USO, fastest slam we now have. Even at 6'4 it's not been that many times.

So I just don't see where this sudden height increase is coming from to win slams when we have even slower conditions than before. Height evolution is taking place amongst the lower down players in general but in winning slams or Masters, its the usual height players winning 6'1 - 6'3. That's the ideal height for movement, strength and fitness and don't see how that's going to change - there is no new data to suggest otherwise and your favourite player is 6'2.

I didn't say all of sudden the ideal height would go up, but there is a gradual shift up in the average height and size of players, while those players retain the ideal movement. Look at Murray for example, have we ever seen a man of that size on tour move so well before on a tennis court? I don't think we have, again the process is not all of a sudden, but there is a creep up in height on tour that I think is reflected in the average player on tour. And that is what I said about JJ as well he may win a slam or two, i never said he would dominate the tour for years on end racking up a half dozen slams. So I think there is more of a basis of agreement were we diverge is on the finer points. I think if you looked at the average height of players in 2013, compared it to players in top 100 in 2003, 1993, 1983, 1973 you would see a steady trend upwards and onwards, not by large numbers but it would be a pretty straight line progression upwards. Now how it applies to JJ, is that for a man his size he doesn't move like Isner or Karlovic he moves much, much better. He can get fit enough to win tough five set matches and recover even at his size, whether he puts in the hard yards to do it or not depends on his mindset.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 5:53 pm

kingraf wrote:Sorry, Socal, I have vocally agreed with you in many things, but I digress. Nadal, I believe is not 6'1. At the Hit for Haiti matches, he was nearer to Agassi in height than Fed or Sampras. I mention this because, well I always wanted to tell someone.

Now as to the height issue: While I do believe athletes are getting heavier, I dont think they are that much taller. You mentioned Bolt, but he is an outlier, a freak. Using him to justify your point is like using da Vinci to justify an argument about Italian intelligence. If I recall correcty, numbers 2-5 in the 100m final were all 5'11-6'1. Shelly-Anne Frasier, the female champion topped out at 5'2. In cricket the top three pace bowlers in the worl stand at 5'10-6'2. A decade ago that height was 6'3-6'5. Of course, cricket recently had its first 7 footer, but again, an outlier. In basketball, Miami Heat won the championship with a relatively small team. I dont think they had a guy top out over 6'10. Of course thats a tall man, but in basketball, hardly a freak.
I use these examples to illustrate that, across sports, big doesnt always win. I mean Leo Messi is what, 5'6?

Looking at the top tennis players, I dont think 6'6+ slam winners will ever win slams at the rate of Rafa, Roger et al. Modern medicine can only do so much. To win a slam one will need to play an average of 24-26 sets over two weeks, around 16-17 hours. This is physically taxing, and big men are physiologically disadvantaged. Safin wasba dead man walking in AO2004 having played 18 hours of tennis. DelPo was rather fortunate in that he despatched Nadal very quickly in the USO 09. This meant he had energy left over to play the final. I would actually argue that tennis will have another sub 6-foot multiple slam winner before it gets a 6'6 plus multiple winner.
(Of course it may already have one in Nadal)

Kingraf, interesting you mention the Heat, the heat lacked a center that is why they were deemed a small team by today's standards. However if you compare them to an NBA team 40 years ago they would be a huge team and they would be faster than the fastest team around. Lebron James is six foot eight inches tall and I think he probably beats Djokovic in a 40 year dash, and he weighs 270 pounds. He also has no problems when it comes to explosive first step or change of direction, he changes direction better at his size than the quickest of NBA players at six feet tall from the past. The modern human and the modern athlete is getting bigger, taller, and faster all at the same time. We are seeing it before our very eyes, the process of course is gradual.

You claim my analogy of comparing Bolt is incorrect because Bolt is an outlier, well then so is Messi and your same critique of my argument applies to your analogy. Even in 10 or 20 years a talented little man will be able to win in tennis, or football, or even the NBA if he is good enough. You say that the sprinters that finished 2-5 were 5-11-6-2, well if you compare them to sprinters of 40 or 50 years ago I guarantee you today's sprinters are taller on average, bigger on average, and the clock doesn't lie they are also faster on average. No one is saying that tomorrow all the top players are going to be six/six or higher. But the ideal size on average for the sport will creep up and up, ever so slightly year in and year out.

by socal1976 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 6:06 pm

This is another reason why we can not just speed up conditions appreciably, the modern male athlete needs a governor on his power or the game gets really unwatchable really fast. Unless you like aces I suppose at the expense of rallies.

by The Special Juan Thu 07 Mar 2013, 7:20 pm

Is this an IW thread?

Robbo could fancy a QF run here. Arvidsson in the first round, which would set up Gurgles in the second round who's hit-and-miss. If she beats Gurgles then she plays Petrova who she may have beaten before (it was Petrova or Safarova) and then potentially Wozzy who she could probably hit through. But she'll get beat by Arvidsson no doubt Laugh

As for Hev.... She was a very winnable first round which I think she will do. After that it's Kerber. If we dare peek past that, it's Wickmayer then (probably) Makarova or Safarova. Very difficult draw for Hev.

by The Special Juan Thu 07 Mar 2013, 8:23 pm

by ryan86 Thu 07 Mar 2013, 9:28 pm

At least she did better than Svitolina, I think it was, who was bundled out in about 45 minutes 6-0 6-0.

by Silver Thu 07 Mar 2013, 9:55 pm

Tomic through already, as is Paire and Goffin's got past Troicki, good on him.

Think we should create another thread for the tournament? With all due respect to socal's topic of course.

by Sponsored content