| |
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
|
|
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 2, 2006
|
|
The Djokovic/Federer match was a great match last night and finally the champ is dethroned on a surface other than clay for the first time in three years. Djokovic played the perfect match with great offense and defense and by making Federer like passing shots like the one in the 3rd set. He is going to win many grand slams and be the next Federer in the men's tennis world. It is great to watch his emotion and he is funny with his impressions of Sharapova and Nadal. I hope Federer's dominance is over, but its going to be great to see the top 3 battle in the French, Wimbledon, and the U.S Open, where Djokovic had chances last year to win. To my other point, this was a great match and i was disgusted that it was not talked about on ESPN First Take or Mike and Mike In the Morning. People need to respect tennis especially when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are involved.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 10, 2007
|
|
Federer's dominance might be over - but he certainly will not dissappear from the top ranks soon.
Him having the stomach flu a week before and the new surface on the courts in Melbourne (that caused the ball to bounce a bit higher) that he had trouble with most definitely aren't excuses - BUT they are also solid facts that can't be denied or forgotten. Roger got so confused that he didn't figure out what to change in time during this match. He will figure out better strategies quite soon (especially being more agressive in the 1st set) - not necessarilly ones that will result in victory, but definitely more than a straight set loss.
Roger probably learned his lesson to play in at least 1-2 warmup tourneys before the Aussie Open.
Does anyone actually think that Federer finally being challenged in a slam besides clay will make him wilt and make a big drop in the rankings over the next 2 or so years?
And arth (bunch of numbers) - what do you not like about Federer (it's quite obvious in your tone)? Just curious. His seriousness and stare? The fact that he could go months without losing a single set? His disliking of players that take forever to decide to challenge a call? Something else?
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 11, 2006
|
I love tennis, but I find it practically impossible to get into the Aussie Open. I can never actually watch a match due to the time differences and when I do get to watch, I'm rarely able to avoid hearing who won before I see it. That said, from what I saw, which was about a set and a half, this was a very good match. Djokovic was on his game and that's fun to watch.
I think Djokovic had more to do with Federer losing than the surface change, or the flu the week before, or any other factor but yes, those things probably were factors.
Personally, I've never liked Federer. I respect his game a lot, and I most especially respect the fact that he went from a player who used to choke in big matches, to a player who is a stone cold killer in big matches.
But, I find Federer to be somewhat arrogant, I can't stand total dominance in any sport (makes it boring) so I do enjoy him being challenged but. most of all.....I hate that stupid blazer he breaks out at Wimbledon.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 10, 2007
|
|
melprophet - I undertsand your reasons for not liking Roger and I'm quite aware that your exact reasons and similar ones are why so many others don't like him.
But on a serious note deeper down - if you want to put blame on anyone for Roger being so dominant blame all of the other players on the men's professional circuit who couldn't (and most probably still won't) figure him out and execute it on the court against him enough to beat him.
Actually, I find total dominance in a sport boring - make that usually. Something about how Roger dominates makes me watch more - maybe I'm the odd one, who knows! I can see why Roger can be seen as arrogant - but then I ask myself, what if I was as friggin' good and dominant at a sport - would I seem at least a tad arrogant?
I would find it to be quite likely and humanly natural!
Oh - seeing as I'm on the west coast I'm going to try and watch the whole Tsonga - Djokovic match live - I hope i don't fall asleep during a 5th set!
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 11, 2006
|
Good post dude!
There's no question about what you said about the other players. People have blasted me here before for suggesting that todays players are one-dimensional, but I stand by that statement and suggest that todays player doesn't know how to do anything but play from the baseline. If a player was willing to step outside that and incorporate serve and volley into their game for example, one would have a weapon to utilize against Federer.
As it stands now, almost every top player in the game tries to beat Federer at Federer's own game. They all play the same type of game as Federer, but nobody does it nearly as well as Federer does. Maybe Djokovic will some day, consistently.
About his arrogance. Yeah, I don't blame him for being somewhat arrogant. But I draw the line at the "Roger Slam" and the silly blazer. I find it galling that Federer himself uses the phrase Roger Slam. If the media does, that's fine. But him using the term? You gotta be mighty arrogant to call an accomplishment you've never even achieved, after your own name.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 10, 2007
|
|
I'm trying to remember when during my teenage years (mid to late 90's) the top male tennis players went away from serve 'n volley to being mostly baseline guys and more importantly why.
Even though guys could serve as fast back then as today I believe that all of the other strokes are hit harder and have more speed. Which makes it harder to serve 'n volley because the ball will get past you really quickly quite often.
It seems like those who try to serve 'n volley nowadays have a lot of trouble with it for some reason.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 11, 2006
|
I think Agassi and Sampras were the biggest factors in the shift to pure baseline tennis. I know Agassi was the first player who became known for taking the ball early on the rise. Nobody had seen anything like that before Agassi did that. It allowed him to generate more angles and to hit with more pace and power. Sampras upped the ante on the power serve and was amongst the first players to serve as hard as he did, and as accurately...Other players like Chang and Courier arrived with them, and won some, and suddenly out of nowhere, the top 10 had a bunch of baseline players.
What made all the above possible in my opinion is racket technology. Bigger rackets with bigger sweet spots provide the ability to hit bigger angles and are also forgiving of less than perfect ground strokes.
I'm not claiming to be right about this, but I think if players attempted to serve and volley, and also just volleyed more, they'd be able to use the volley effectively. I think Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and maybe one or two others have the natural ability to incorporate some serve and volley and volley into their games now, but for the most part
junior players shooting for the pros would need to play that way and develop that game from childhood and bring it to the professional level to see if it could really hold up against the baseline game.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:91
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 19, 2008
|
|
Tennis needs an American bad boy again. The reason there wasn't much coverage is becuase most of the mathces were the same old same old. I thought the Baghdatis match was unreal. I didn't see anything else that compared. Seeing a top seed go down isn't as much fun as it used to be, I think. The fact that most of the Americans are knocked out so early doesn't help the coverage. Guys will ALWAYS watch womens tennis no matter who's playing. But in my opinion tennis needs a marketable American player with some fire before the popularity comes back near the Agassi/Sampras days.
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 11, 2006
|
No doubt we need an American player to come in and shake things up. Roddick and Blake won't be getting better than they are right now, so there's not much to be excited about in American tennis.
Where are the good young players?
|
Great Match but no talk on ESPN so far
| |
