US Open Day 9!

First topic message reminder :

Ashe Day:

Lipsky/Rampras v Butorac/Klaasen
Bencic v Peng
Dimitrov v Monfils

Ashe Night:

Bautista-Agut v Federer
Wozniacki v Errani (snore)

Louis Armstrong:

Williams/Williams v Makarova v Vesnina
Cilic v Simon
Berdych v Thiem
Bryan/Bryan v Verdasco/Marrero

Shame for Thiem, but his day will come. Excellent tournament from him.

Bautista had an easy ride to this point, but he's acquitting himself well against a Federer that's playing some good stuff. Should jump Robredo in the rankings too, so good for him!

Silver did you see how empty the court was for that?? Haven't seen this court have as tiny a crowd in years. Agree with you mate Bautista was a good fighter can see why he's ranked high.

I know JM! Couldn't believe it, was it on Armstrong? I would've been there in a heartbeat. Story of Flushing Meadows sadly, at the non-marquee matches

That was an Ok workout for the number 2 seed. The quarters are all set

Djokovic - Murray
Wawrinka - Nishikori
Cilic - Berdych
Federer - Monfils

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:The new Monf is boring, but he's a winner.

I actually like this new Monf, he more of a Tennis player than a circus clown of late.

How is he boring exactly? Compared to Berdych or Raonic he is definitely super entertaining.

The question is put to KR right? and I agree he is 10x more fun to watch than Berdych or Raonic.

Yea it was IC, how can a Rafa fan call a flashy player boring?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:That was an Ok workout for the number 2 seed. The quarters are all set

Djokovic - Murray
Wawrinka - Nishikori
Cilic - Berdych
Federer - Monfils

Top notch QF line up.

1]Nole - Andy will be entertaining for sure, you can't ask a better QF match than that.

2]Federer - Monfils will be equally tough, the clown troubled Fed earlier in the masters which was a very close 3 set win for Fed, and Monfil is playing even better now. I certainly see this match Fed as just marginal fav, Monfils do come with his chances on.

3]Cilic - Berdych, may not be an entertaining encounter, but Cilic is filling the void left by Del Po, I really want him to dump the most boring player left in the draw, but certainly won't be easy as Berdych will start the fav.

4]Stan vs Kei, another equal encounter if Kei can bring his A-game on, Stan starts slightly a big fav given the lat night long match of Kei and Raonic, but nevertheless Kei might push a win and withdraw the next match, like he did earlier after beating a Swiss and withdrew on the match against Djoko, will history repeat again?

I am not going with my heart

1]Murray over Djoko in tight 5 sets
2]Stan over Kei in tight 5 sets
3]Fed over Monfils in tight 5 sets
4]Cilic over Berdych in tight 5 sets.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea it was IC, how can a Rafa fan call a flashy player boring?

I guess the requirement for getting the grade of entertainment [for a Rafa fan] should be time wasting and hence Monfils don't qualify.

Silver wrote:Bautista had an easy ride to this point...

Lol, and Federer hasn't...?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Yea it was IC, how can a Rafa fan call a flashy player boring?

Indeed, there's nothing flashy about Berdych either. Even Ferrer plays with more variety than Berdy!

Re: Rafa, I'll just say one final time from my perspective that as a guy involved heavily in tennis outside forums and fandom, I don't find Rafa boring one iota. If you know a lot about tennis you marvel at his highly unorthodox game. Nothing he does is the norm...whether it's serving and volleying with an Eastern grip, hitting DHBH with a dominant right arm, power from 290gram 15 year old racquet, hitting BH slice (not just FH topspin) at 5300rpm, or using stretch shortening cycles (...look it up) on his FH like no other player...he's actually a total one off. Only armchair enthusiasts who prefer 1-4 short rally's over point construction belittle his game. But hey, each to their text book/identikit style 'hard/flat players' own.

That said, Berdy on a fast HC in good form is a real handful for anyone. I feel he was robbed by the high winds a couple of years back vs Murray with his high ball toss, precise game (due to hitting hard & flat). If the weather stays fine wind-wise he could go a very long way.

Monfils will be great as usual for 2 sets then run out of steam and his inconsistency and mental lapses will be capitalised on by The Fed. Rodge won't give him time for his large wind up strokes, so Gael will do lots of running, in lots of heat and like a 100m sprinter tire after 1500m...the truth is that like all very top players Federer is both a sprinter and an endurance runner...with the ability to take the ball earlier than Monfils. Gael's only chance is to blow Rodge off court in straights, clinging on in the 3rd like he did with Dimi. If it goes more than 3 sets he's toast.

From the posts above I think there's a confusion between Berdych and Monfils between posters.


Bogbrush, they call him The Peacemaker.

BB, you must be loving this Fed-cakewalk so far...? They might as well as stuck him in the ladies draw...

Peace man...

lydian wrote:or using stretch shortening cycles (...look it up) on his FH like no other player...

Not just armchair enthusiasts but many pro commentators appear to think that the most effective ground strokes should always be hit deep (and hard and flat). They should get a pencil, paper, compass, dividers, protractor and a ruler. Draw a tennis court in proportion and try drawing a few projections of possible places to hit a ball. It shouldn't take long to discover (perhaps surprisingly?) that short angled shots from side to side will force an opponent to run the longest distance. There are quite a few examples of Nadal taking up position in the center of the court and hitting a progression of short angles. The best ones to watch are the ones were his opponent can keep up the defending for the longest period of time... It is a low risk but highly aggressive style of play.

lydian wrote:If you know a lot about tennis you marvel at his highly unorthodox game.

Is there an implication there that those who don't marvel at his game don't know a lot about tennis?

lydian in very anti-Fed mood this early in the morning?

Had a bad night at the club?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:If you know a lot about tennis you marvel at his highly unorthodox game.

Is there an implication there that those who don't marvel at his game don't know a lot about tennis?

lol

I don't think his game is unorthodox. It's actually pretty simple - but wildy effective. How he executes it technically maybe unorthodox. But I think they're two different things.

Looking forward to Murray/Djokovic. Really hope Muray does the business. Djokovic's clapping of points that are won by the opposition really irrates me. Or anyone else who does it.

Basically they're saying - I've just played a brilliant point too. It's self congratulatory. You never see anyone clapping an ace or a first serve followed up by winner forehand. If you play 4 consecutive points like that - that's good if not better tennis also!

Jahu, not antiFed in the slightest, he's got a fabulous draw, sh*t happens...but it's all about whether he can win the title or not ultimately...it's the SF/F matches that count and where the draw usually converges to a point of difficulty.

JHM, er...no. The converse of things doesn't always logically apply. It's more about understanding the underpinnings of Nadal's game which is naively derided by all and sundry, usually by those with what I would consider limited knowledge of the actual playing game if we got down to brass tacks. You don't have to be a fawning fangirl, or even a girl at all, to appreciate his game and ability/talent. If people don't like his game, that's fair enough but those who say he had limited talent are naive about the game.

JJ, I disagree. I think he's applauding the shot, not the point.

Nothing special about the point in this example, it's just a good, clean winner from Murray. I don't see anything self-congratulatory in it.

JohnnyJ, the point is he makes the game look simple, not in the same way as Fed, but nonetheless simple in execution. That's the beauty of talent!

lydian wrote:JohnnyJ, the point is he makes the game look simple, not in the same way as Fed, but nonetheless simple in execution. That's the beauty of talent!

That must be a difference in perception. To me, he makes it look like it takes all the physical strength/effort/stamina he can muster to play his preferred style of game. It's that expenditure of energy that to me makes it look 'difficult'. Often, after say, a long Djoko/Rafa match, the reports use words such as 'brutal', 'physical', 'war of attrition' etc. which to me don't equate to a 'simple' style of play.

Cake walk draws... May I remind you Nadals draws in the USO. Ok here it is, 4th round Lopez, QF Verdasco, SF Youzhny.. If Fed had a SF like that then you can say what you like mate.

12 wins vs top 10 players this year must be very "cake" like in your opinion.

My assessment of Rafa's style would be that it is physically extremely difficult but mentally simple. Very few other people would have the physical gifts to play that style but the gameplan itself is straightforward.

My personal view is that his execution of that gameplan has made him the greatest tennis player ever but I wouldn't be queuing up to watch him play.

That's fair enough HMM. It's a fairly contentious point of view, I grant you. As I suppose I should view it as excellent sportmanship. And playing the game in the right spirit etc etc.

But it really riles me for some reason! Plus I view it a little bit patronising!

Interesting that in a year which has threatened some light for the younger generation, the last slam sees QF containing all 3 of the big 4 who were fit to play; 3 of the established 2nd tier older than Djoko/Murray and two "youngsters" who are nearly 25 and 26 respectively. Change is a slow process.

Johnyjeep wrote:That's fair enough HMM. It's a fairly contentious point of view, I grant you. As I suppose I should view it as excellent sportmanship. And playing the game in the right spirit etc etc.

But it really riles me for some reason! Plus I view it a little bit patronising!

You could view it as though Djoko thinks all the opponent's other shots are not worthy of his applause

Djoko only applaudes when he is winning the match.

Thought would love to see the Top 4 do it sometimes to young guys, kind of encourage them.

Selfish little monopoly pr1cks these top 4 are.

lydian wrote:

Silver wrote:Bautista had an easy ride to this point...

Lol, and Federer hasn't...?

What? Of course he has, talk about stating the obvious. On another thread I said it's the easiest slam draw I've seen since his own at W'08.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying this time though - that Bautista performed very well despite having a big step up in quality from his previous rounds.

Jahu wrote:Djoko only applaudes when he is winning the match.

Thought would love to see the Top 4 do it sometimes to young guys, kind of encourage them.

Selfish little monopoly pr1cks these top 4 are.

Nadal and Murray never have applauded an opponent during a match, both too far serious and up themselves. JMDP is the last of the good guys to have made the top 4

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting that in a year which has threatened some light for the younger generation, the last slam sees QF containing all 3 of the big 4 who were fit to play; 3 of the established 2nd tier older than Djoko/Murray and two "youngsters" who are nearly 25 and 26 respectively. Change is a slow process.

The generation of Dimitrov, Raonic and Nishikori will never "catch up" to the top players of today. It will just be a case of waiting for the top players to decline as they get older.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Jahu wrote:Djoko only applaudes when he is winning the match.

Thought would love to see the Top 4 do it sometimes to young guys, kind of encourage them.

Selfish little monopoly pr1cks these top 4 are.

Nadal and Murray never have applauded an opponent during a match, both too far serious and up themselves. JMDP is the last of the good guys to have made the top 4

Yes!! Miss Delpo, thought I miss Soderlin too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:JohnnyJ, the point is he makes the game look simple, not in the same way as Fed, but nonetheless simple in execution. That's the beauty of talent!

That must be a difference in perception. To me, he makes it look like it takes all the physical strength/effort/stamina he can muster to play his preferred style of game. It's that expenditure of energy that to me makes it look 'difficult'. Often, after say, a long Djoko/Rafa match, the reports use words such as 'brutal', 'physical', 'war of attrition' etc. which to me don't equate to a 'simple' style of play.

There is some misunderstanding...I'm talking about game plan...he makes the game plan look simple. Yes we all know the energy he puts into the ball is unlike any other player in the history of the game. But it's not just physical..it's hard to convey, maybe Silver knows what I'm talking about too, but you have to play/know the technicalities of the game to a decent standard to appreciate that Nadal isn't just bludgeoning the ball. His talent in swing/movement/timing allows him to play with such a prodigiously high level of topspin, unlike any other player, that he can play with a higher margin and still be as effective, if not more effective than other players, for a lower level of risk taken. He also has the mental strength to stick to that game plan and not waiver from it no matter what pressure he's under. He's also one of the best movers the game has known...along with 3-4 others. That again allows him to always be in position for shots no matter the pressure, so again he is able to execute and make the game plan look simple. Has anyone here ever seen him practice live...? If you could stand behind him and watch the way he hits the ball, which is unlike any other player, then you'd see what I'm talking about. It's not just power...other players are arguably more powerful including Verdasco...it's innate timing with power, which equals much more power than someone simply bludgeoning away.

Just watch these FHs in practice...yes of course effort is going in but no-one has a FH like it, the amount of work on the ball is insane...and it comes from timing/talent at heart. You'll never see another FH like it.

I agree his game plan is simple (e.g. vs Fed - hit to the backhand until Fed makes an error - no great tactical masterplan required).
But I don't equate physicality with bludgeoning. JMDP bludgeons the ball, but imo expends less energy than Rafa. I equate it with effort spent per shot, be it in the shot itself or in the running involved. In that sense Nadal's game requires more 'physicality' esp. wrt stamina. And he needs those biceps - we see what happens when he loses that strength.
Fed vs Santoro, for example, would never be described as 'brutal' or 'physical' - and with good reason.

...oh let's forget it, you're not really listening to what I'm saying. Just trying to peddle the same old, Nadal hammers away at BHs and that's his success.

Regarding energy, Nadal puts more "energy" into the ball than any other player but you think that is because he's stronger than every other player...that if someone else was as strong they could do what he does? No they couldn't...the ability to put that amount of energy into the ball requires an 'X Factor' that no one player has. How many players can withstand that FH in the video above when it's fully on song? Why doesn't every other player with a great physique, inc, Murray and Verdasco, hit FHs like that?

But that is Rafa's stated game plan - he says it himself. It's not me trying to peddle it. Obviously he doesn't do it on every point, but that's his primary tactic, which he uses because it works.
Where did I say he's stronger than every other player? I didn't. I said he relies on his strength more than, say, (leaving Fed out of it) Gasquet.
Surely you're not implying that every player would hit like Rafa if they could, but they all lack the talent? That would make Rafa the most talented player ever...oh wait...

Simmering along nicely.

He nearly does, I've seen matches where he virtually plays the same point over and over. Certainly he will go game after game only serving to Federers backhand.

Fair enough, if it works that's the game, but I can't get enthralled with the imagination, nor does it keep me guessing what's coming next. It makes me feel that he must have to be a very tightly controlled person to be prepared to put so much into doing something one way. If it were me I'd be unable to resist the temptation to try something else, I guess the strict family background and lifetime coaching by an overbearing Uncle are a big part of this.

As for where it comes from, I'm happy to agree he's very talented, it's obvious. It also requires great strength (hence the extreme musculature) and gigantic effort and stamina. There's a reason why he's usually wringing wet after three games and keeps it going for 5 hours.

Tell me what is extreme about Nadal? His biceps? They're nothing ridiculous - what else? He hasn't got particularly big shoulders, legs, or chest either. The reason Nadal keeps it going for 5 hours is nothing to do with muscles. In fact, as we've seen with Murray, and other players, if you carry too much muscle then you run out of gas faster as they need more fuel. The truth of the matter is that Nadal is actually quite lean and just incredibly naturally fit. Compare...

Nadal AO14


Djokovic AO14


Murray AO12


Verdasco


Monaco


Haas


Soderling


So tell me - just what is so "extreme" about Nadal's musculature again? Why is he able to put so much energy into the ball compared to the guys above and do it for 4-5 hrs...answer is technique/talent and fitness. Not muscle. If you look at Nadal compared to other players, he's barrel shaped, but it's not muscle, the guys just has huge lungs which equals huge VO2 max...this is where his fitness comes from...genetics. Just like guys like the rower Matthew Pinsent, etc. if you look at the best middle distance runners they're all the ones with genetically massive chest cavities.

He's not the most muscled, but compare him to a Henjan, Federer type he's very much so.

I didn't say where his great endurance comes from, I just said he had it. I can't see anything controversial about that.

Both are needed for his game. Is that really in doubt?

Damn it, lydian! Shirtless men again?!

Lol Silver...I better not let my wife see me posting these pics!

BB, of course he needs muscle..,he's a top pro athlete, not a chess player, but you talked before about "extreme" musculature. It's baloney...please justify your "extreme" comment so I know where you're coming from. Many other players as showed above, and plenty of others, are more developed than Nadal. In fact it's arguable he's any bigger than Federer, who probably has a bigger chest and shoulders than Nadal. Muscles have nothing, zilch, nada, with his endurance. He's also well known for hating gym work...although obviously trains hard.

You said "there is a reason...why he keeps it going for 5 hours". What is that reason?