Halle 2013

First topic message reminder :

Nadal has decimated the field, by withdrawing, from Halle.

The tattered remainder of Halle draw looks like

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?EventId=500&Year=2013

As an aside, the Grass Chewing has now a new pair of COWs (Champions of the Old World) cudding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud) together some Doubles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/06/23/Halle-Federer-Haas-Teaming-Up-For-First-Time.aspx

Daily Schedule - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/Schedule.aspx?EventId=500

Who wants to bet on the next player to beat a certain 17-slam winner?

Will it be Stubby or Wang-waver? Or perhaps the Jerzy COW...

Oh Tommy

Home crowd jitters ....??

Homogenised, tennis is alot different now than 1990-2000 if you hadn't noticed.
The average age of the top 100 has been creeping up year on year, we have no 18-19 year olds anywhere in top 300 or so. This is the age of the older player due to the conditioning now needed to reflect slower conditions. This conditioning takes longer to achieve and keeps the guys at the top for longer hence we see more and more 28-32 year olds near the top of the game. When Nadal, Murray, Djokovic turn 30 are their slam wins going to dry up completely? Don't think so. We'll likely see more guys winning slams in their 30s than ever before. Roger is part of this new wave of older guys. Tommy shows us what is possible at 35. Agassi set the trend with his amazing fitness into his 30s, it's not just about talent or being an all time great. Tennis has moved on...looking back to the 1990s is irrelevant.

How many, I asked. I don't want speculation on the future, I want hard facts. How many have made Wn1 after 29, and how many have won a slam after 29.

Fed serving for the match.

Fed takes it 3:6, 6:3, 6:4.

Not bad not bad.

Fantastic display.

He played ok. Nothing special, but job done

Red wrote:Fantastic display.

Stupid post.

_homogenised_ wrote:He played ok.  Nothing special, but job done

You should definitely start getting excited for Wimbledon.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:Fantastic display.

Stupid post.

Don't be rude.
First set I admit he didn't really turn up with the intensity- but he really stepped it up in the final 2 sets with some fine play.
Haas I think was a bit inconsistent as well.

So, not being rude, just accurate. It was a stupid post by you. It just was.

You said that last year when I said Federer is going to win Wimbledon.

Last year Federer lost to Haas, remember.

bogbrush wrote:So, not being rude, just accurate. It was a stupid post by you. It just was.

Don't feed it man.

Saturday going slow I guess!

Chill people.

Homogenised, you're arguing against blatant facts of the current game. Look at the ages of players making the quarters and semis of all events now...I'm looking here and forwards, not back. We all know the game is being and will increasingly continue to be dominated by over 27/28 yo's like never before. Obviously the game has been dominated by 4 amazing players since 2004 (with seemingly scant resistance from the previous generation). Wait until the current breed of 26/27 yo's turn 30...the historical paucity of >30 yo slam winners will undoutedly change. Roger winning a slam at 30 will not be unique. Ferrer just got to a slam final at 31...and the most gruelling one to boot.

Anyway. Well done Roger...not bad for an old guy. Neither is Haas.
The other semi at Halle is between a 31 and 27 yo (both turn that in a few days). Over at Queens we have another 32 year old in the semis, and Tsonga too at 28. Tennis is changing out of all recognition to what we've known before. Don't see what there is to argument about here tbh.

I didn't say Federer was at his best, I just said I was impressed by his performance (well after going a set down) today.

God knows why people are getting so angry.

Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

lydian wrote:Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.
Predictable really, which is a shame.

Lydian, it could be that tennis is becoming an older sport, or it could be that there is simply a dearth of outstanding young talent at the moment.

I mean, I don't see anyone in the 18-22 bracket that even matches up to the Tsonga's and Berdych's let alone the Fedals. Tennis is getting olde because the top guys are getting older - they're not necessarily getting better - certainly not the players of Fed's generation (which accounts for greater than 25% of the top 100).

I think it's probably a product of homogenisation, allowing a one game fits all approach which is probably more conducive to longevity than having to practice and hone a variety of skills on a variety of conditions.

Haas played really sloppy in the third set, with DFs and UEs, otherwise this could have been more competitive match.

Federer missed quite a few chances in the first set.

I think this is the first time at Halle, that there are 4 SHBHs in the SFs.

More than likely, Gasquet would come out from the other side.

I agree with those points emancipator and don't think they're mutually exclusive. It's a case of both IMO...the average age of the top 100 has gone up by around 2 years since the mid 90s I believe.
I wonder if homogenisation is leading to a future set of jack of all trades and master of none...so no-one new breaks through with anything truly special? Think this is what you're saying too.

Yep very much so. The homogenisation is contributing to greater longevity probably compounded by better fitness regimes and a lack of new and credible threats.

Think we're agreed on the "blunting of the game"...and all orchestrated by the ITF in early 2000s, who'd have thought it.

_homogenised_ wrote:How many, I asked. I don't want speculation on the future, I want hard facts.  How many have made Wn1 after 29, and how many have won a slam after 29.

This link should provide an answer to part 2 (...slam after 29...) - http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html#oldest

If 29 is the cut-off year and Open Era (1968-2012), there are 27 slams in roughly 44 years (~176 slams) is about 15%, or another way to look at it is roughly 1 slam per year (or 0.6 slam, if you will) has gone to some one over 29 yo.

This is Mens only.

LF
So fairly regularly then...and this will increase you feel in future.

Gasquet loses like an amateur to Youzhny 6:2. 6:3.

So tomorrow, the final of all finals, the best match of this year Fed-Youzhny...

Jahu wrote:Gasquet loses like an amateur to Youzhny 6:2. 6:3.

So tomorrow, the final of all finals, the best match of this year Fed-Youzhny...

It'll be a fantastic match. I make Youzhny the slight favourite. (Sorry, thought I was Red for a minute)

lydian wrote: LF
So fairly regularly then...and this will increase you feel in future.

The names in that list (13) are perhaps exceptions, though. They are all brilliant players (in alphabetical order. Number in parentheses indicate how many slams they won after age 29).

Agassi (5), Ashe, Connors (3), Federer, Gimeno, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Korda, Laver (5 - ), Lendl, Newcombe (2), Rosewall (4), Sampras

Zverev, on Federer, ...

Assessing what went wrong, Zverev said, “With Federer, it’s like you’re at the net and you think ‘oh why did I even come here?’

“His ball when it travels to the air it has so much stuff on it, like it just only goes through the air but it moves like left and right, it moves like a shank but it’s not a shank. You think it’s going to go long but it’s like two feet inside the baseline. His ball is just phenomenal. The worst is like when you’re at the net you cannot tell where he’s going to go. With most of the players, you can anticipate. Because of his [stance], he can go down the line or crosscourt. You think, ‘okay he went down the line most of the times, so let’s cover down the line.’”

Very similar to Wawrinka's evaluation of Nadal's shots...

"[Nadal’s] a lefty and puts so much topspin on his forehand, so I have to [play my] backhand always high," said Wawrinka. "So I need to have the perfect timing to play a strong shot. You could see today [that] if I don't have the legs to get there, I have no chance to come back in the point. So many times [today] he hit one [or] two forehands to my backhand and I could come back."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/06/24/Halle-Friday-Zverev-On-Federer.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/19/Madrid-Sunday-Final-Nadal-Wawrinka.aspx

lydian wrote:Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

No, I'm just bored at Amrits little routine where he bigs up Federer insincerely. It's lame and it's old, and worth calling for what it is.

The second and third sets from Federer were fantastic, while Haas was inconsistent.
Nothing wrong with saying that, it's the truth.

I could accept that Roger had been fantastic if he had won in straight sets 6-3 6-4 or something but he dropped the first set against an older player so can't see how it was fantastic.

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

No, I'm just bored at Amrits little routine where he bigs up Federer insincerely. It's lame and it's old, and worth calling for what it is.

Do you remember MlleRevers/FantasticBingTing... and others of the same ilk on 606? Two trenches have been dug, named Federer and Nadal (or perhaps Gallipoli it should be), and incendiaries are lobbed across to start a fire/screaming/cursing/... It is a stalemate till the dying days of forums (or wars).

This debate will continue for as long as the generation watching these two lives, when it will become a page in the THOF Tennis History.

Long may these two live, and we continue our whose-dad-is-bigger discussions. Forums will die, if this debate was/is not an eternal one.

CC- I was talking about the final 2 sets from Federer- apologies as I probably didn't make that clear enough.
He was serving and hitting the ball really well, the third set could have been a bit closer if Haas had kept his cool though.

Well Red I cannot judge to be fair as I never saw it. I am merely going on scores.

I have the opposite opinion LF, a part of me can't wait until Federer and Nadal retire.

With Youzhny confirmed for tomorrow's final, it's pretty likely Fed will come through with his first title of this year. Like other Fed fans, I'm not sure if that means we'll be seeing Fed mount a successful defense of his Wimbledon title, however it would be nice to see him in the final and at least have a shot. Wimbledon finals have nearly always produced the best from Federer. 


Interesting points about how the average age of players on the tour has been creeping up and the possibility of increasing numbers of 30 years old (+) taking more of the slams. What lydian says makes sense, I can see Fed winning at least one more slam (despite how his current forms appears) and Nadal too (although Nadal is some way off from turning 30)! Would be lovely if Fed successfully defended his Wimbledon title, wouldn't it be the first time an over 30 year old player has successfully defended Wimbledon in the open era? I'm not sure, but would be brilliant if he did! 

Ah Lucius, good to see you posting

Last time we spoke you talked about studying Latin, how did that go?

Red wrote:Ah Lucius, good to see you posting

Thanks, I'll try to post more for Wimbledon, I been fairly quiet on the tennis postings of late!

Red wrote:Last time we spoke you talked about studying Latin, how did that go?

Ha, I thought brushing up on my Latin would be hard, but actually, it's quite easy! I've discovered that Latin is useful for learning Spanish (I'm currently learning for my holiday to Spain in August). Maybe I'll be able to understand Nadal in Spanish in the not so distant future! I doubt I'll ever master the strange accent though.

luciusmann wrote:

Red wrote:Last time we spoke you talked about studying Latin, how did that go?

Ha, I thought brushing up on my Latin would be hard, but actually, it's quite easy! I've discovered that Latin is useful for learning Spanish (I'm currently learning for my holiday to Spain in August). Maybe I'll be able to understand Nadal in Spanish in the not so distant future! I doubt I'll ever master the strange accent though.  

It helps a lot.
I did Latin, Ancient Greek, French, and Spanish all for GCSE; and they all complimented each other really well.

Red wrote:

luciusmann wrote:

Red wrote:Last time we spoke you talked about studying Latin, how did that go?

Ha, I thought brushing up on my Latin would be hard, but actually, it's quite easy! I've discovered that Latin is useful for learning Spanish (I'm currently learning for my holiday to Spain in August). Maybe I'll be able to understand Nadal in Spanish in the not so distant future! I doubt I'll ever master the strange accent though.  

It helps a lot.
I did Latin, Ancient Greek, French, and Spanish all for GCSE; and they all complimented each other really well.

That's impressive. Which one would you say is the hardest? I'm biased, although my experience suggests Latin is a fairly strange language (rather like English). I don't know much French or Spanish (yet), would be interested to know what your experience suggests.

I'd say Ancient Greek is the hardest, especially the grammar where you have 'active', 'passive' and 'middle' as well. Obviously there's a new alphabet there as well, but that doesn't tend to me a problem. 

French or Spanish... it's difficult to say. I did French since a younger age, so by the time I got the GCSE I more or less knew the language to a basic level. I'd say Spanish grammar probably tends to be a bit more regular.
Latin helped my Spanish, do I think for your trip in August knowledge of Latin will really help. The funny thing is I didn't even realise it, I remember doing Spanish comprehensions and being able to translate vocabulary that we haven't learnt yet... and it would only be later that evening or something that I realise that I've picked up that word or part of the word subconsciously from studying Latin set text. 
Latin is harder than French and Spanish, but not as hard as Greek overall. In French and Spanish you don't use the subjunctive and other grammatical rarities as much as you do in Latin.

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

No, I'm just bored at Amrits little routine where he bigs up Federer insincerely. It's lame and it's old, and worth calling for what it is.

Fair enough BB, likewise the reverse-reciprocation of constant Nadal denigration, use of term Rafatards, etc, has been wearing on the other hand. After Nadal's RG win some effervescence from his fans was to be expected after the 8 month lay off...but it seems to have triggered some ill-tempered comments. Like LF says, these "battles" will go on, especially if Nadal keeps adding to his slam tally. It's a shame the level of one is bigged up, and the other down when we're all "lucky" to be around 2 all time legends of the game at the same time given its taken approx. 130 years to create four 12+ slam winners (although oddly we have 3 in the space of 15 years).

lydian wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Probably because of what happened last Sunday...happens every time.

No, I'm just bored at Amrits little routine where he bigs up Federer insincerely. It's lame and it's old, and worth calling for what it is.

Fair enough BB, likewise the reverse-reciprocation of constant Nadal denigration, use of term Rafatards, etc, has been wearing on the other hand. After Nadal's RG win some effervescence from his fans was to be expected after the 8 month lay off...but it seems to have triggered some ill-tempered comments. Like LF says, these "battles" will go on, especially if Nadal keeps adding to his slam tally. It's a shame the level of one is bigged up, and the other down when we're all "lucky" to be around 2 all time legends of the game at the same time given its taken approx. 130 years to create four 12+ slam winners.

Spot on lydian. Sit back and marvel at two of the greatest players of all-time is what I say. Anyone trying to dumb down their achievements really need to take a long thought about what they post.

Well I haven't said anything offensive about Federer, and I genuinely thought he played well in the final 2 sets today.