On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:17:35 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:
"Kunndi" <kunndi@nospam.pls> wrote:>
Nadal's play? But, the overhit forehands and the double faults don't match >> that.>> The wind?>> The blisters?>> In any case, he gut'sed it out. >
How about, as a wild guess, the fact that he'd played 12 matches>in the last 3+ weeks, and that only a week after he'd played>10 matches in two weeks.>
It's amazing the guy is still able to walk, if you ask me.>
To me, what's interesting to ask is, would he have melted down>in the second were it a best of three match? Of course, we'll>never know the answer.
Surprised the Hell outa me to find the dam' thing going five.
How many of the non- slams do that?
-- Thank you, Adelphia, for demanding $120 more a year for The Tennis Channel!
Robert B. Waltz 4 April 2005 06:03:12 [ permanent link ]
tinmimus99@hotmail.com (mimus) wrote:
[ ... ]
Surprised the Hell outa me to find the dam' thing going five.>
How many of the non- slams do that?
A half dozen of the Masters, and four or five other events. Changes a bit from year to year, but looking quickly at the Media Guide, it appears last year's list was:
Barcelona Basel Gstaad Hamburg Madrid Miami Monte Carlo Paris Rome Vienna
Oddly enough, the Masters Cup has a three-set singles final but a five-set doubles final. TV influence, maybe: Since no one will show the doubles, might as well do best of five.
I seem to recall hearing that non-Masters events could only have best-of-five if they were grandfathered in -- i.e. if they had best-of-five finals before the current best-of-three rule was instituted. Haven't found that in the ATP rules, though.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
Ted of Ted's Tennis 4 April 2005 06:47:26 [ permanent link ]
Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in news:waltzmn-E50A5E.21031203042005@europe.isp.giganews.com:
Oddly enough, the Masters Cup has a three-set singles final> but a five-set doubles final. TV influence, maybe: Since> no one will show the doubles, might as well do best of> five.
I thought the Masters Cup was normally best-of-five; it simply got changed to best of three for last year thank to Mattress Mac's putting what should be an indoor event out in the rain of Houston.
I posted this on previous thread, but perhaps this is a more appropriate thread.
Allow to share some of my thoughts on the nitty gritty:
Fed was tentative and uncomfortable in the first couple of sets, it had to do with the fact that Nadal covered the court as well as anyone and came up with incredible passing shots (mostly from his backhand side) regularly, Fed was rattled, couldn't figure out a safe pattern to win points, plus the loss to Nadal last year at the same place hung over him like a ghost, saying to him that he hadn't figured out a way to play the youngster yet; the third tactical fact in it was that Nadal hit with a tons of top spin, as if he was playing the Rolan Garros, it could count for a lot of initial micues on Fed's ground strokes and volleys, especially volleys, it's very difficult volley those topspin passing shots.
But proving his mental toughness, eventually Fed hung in there, little by little, noticing little detailds, finding a pattern to win points, cutting down on his UEs, getting used to Nadals spins.
Fed was lucky in two respects though, first, it was best of 5, giving him longer to figure out ways to win, second, Nadal doesn't possess a big serve, he has to win the hard way, rallying point in and point out, it proved to be very physically exausting, especially in a best of 5 match.
But I was very impressed...no, IN AWE of Fed's mental toughness, twice two points from defeat (would've have been twice in row), frustrated beyong belief by Nadal's exellent and surprising sustaining high levels of play, he hung in there, never getting down on himself, gaving up, finally and slowly finding a little opening, working his way into the match, turing the tide by the sheer power of his will (of course the forehand as well .
Now I understand why he's never lost in a finals yet, he is mentally as tough as Hewitt, with much better all around game, it's just deadly.
I would think this should give Fed so much confidence going into the French since Nadal would be a big threat to win it, getting this monkey (no puns intented here off his back should help his chance of winning the French a lot.
Robert B. Waltz 4 April 2005 16:46:39 [ permanent link ]
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in > news:waltzmn-E50A5E.21031203042005@europe.isp.giganews.com:>
Oddly enough, the Masters Cup has a three-set singles final> > but a five-set doubles final. TV influence, maybe: Since> > no one will show the doubles, might as well do best of> > five. >
I thought the Masters Cup was normally best-of-five; it simply got changed > to best of three for last year thank to Mattress Mac's putting what should > be an indoor event out in the rain of Houston.
But that doesn't change the fact that it was best of three.
Yes, it has historically been best of five.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn-6F5E4F.20173503042005@europe.isp.giganews.com...> "Kunndi" <kunndi@nospam.pls> wrote:>
Nadal's play? But, the overhit forehands and the double faults don't >> match>> that.>> The wind?>> The blisters?>> In any case, he gut'sed it out.>
How about, as a wild guess, the fact that he'd played 12 matches> in the last 3+ weeks, and that only a week after he'd played> 10 matches in two weeks.>
It's amazing the guy is still able to walk, if you ask me.>
To me, what's interesting to ask is, would he have melted down> in the second were it a best of three match? Of course, we'll> never know the answer.
On the other hand, Federer had the privilege of a soft draw. Before the Miami tournament started I've pointed out the nonsense that all of his real treats Roddick, Ljubicic and Nadal were put in the same 1/8 of the draw. Do you still think that it remains to be demonstrated that Nadal is really a threat to anyone on hardcourts ?
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn-6D5008.07484104042005@europe.isp.giganews.com...> Marius Hancu <NOSPAM@videotron.ca> wrote:>
pedrodias@snip.net wrote:> >
Do you know what he's commited to in the next few weeks?> >
Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg.>
Of course, the ATP signed him up for those; he didn't do> it himself.>
Federer hasn't played Monte Carlo for two years. Why should> he start now? I think the odds of him doing so are too small> to be worth considering.>
I hope you're right. To my mind, the only remaining question about him is his longevity, and I think that will largely depend on his ability to manage his schedule. Or Mirca's ability to manage his schedule. He can't keep up this rate. He probably could when he was losing more, but right now he's the Hardest Working Man In The ATP (tm). I hope they're aware there's a problem.
Ted of Ted's Tennis 4 April 2005 21:26:24 [ permanent link ]
Somebody claiming to be "dizzy" <dizzyREMOVE_THIS@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d2rer0$quv$1@ss405.t-com.hr:
On the other hand, Federer had the privilege of a soft draw. Before> the Miami tournament started I've pointed out the nonsense that all> of his real treats Roddick, Ljubicic and Nadal were put in the same> 1/8 of the draw.
It only matters that all three were in the opposite *half* from Federer, since Federer could only play one of them in the final. And if the draws are truly random, they should all end up in the opposite half from Federer one time in eight. Considering there are four Slams and nine Masters Series events, it really *should* happen at least once a year.
Ted of Ted's Tennis 4 April 2005 21:26:29 [ permanent link ]
Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in news:waltzmn-237440.07463904042005@europe.isp.giganews.com:
But that doesn't change the fact that it was best of three.>
Yes, it has historically been best of five.
Your original statement, using the present tense, implies that from this year on the Masters Cup final will be best-of-three. Have they changed from the intended best-of-five final?
Robert B. Waltz 4 April 2005 21:32:36 [ permanent link ]
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in > news:waltzmn-237440.07463904042005@europe.isp.giganews.com:>
But that doesn't change the fact that it was best of three.> >
Yes, it has historically been best of five.>
Your original statement, using the present tense, implies that from this > year on the Masters Cup final will be best-of-three. Have they changed > from the intended best-of-five final?
I have no data. I suspect not. But the TV networks might well pressure them to do so: "You did it last year."
Sorry if the tenses were confusing.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
Robert B. Waltz 5 April 2005 06:09:47 [ permanent link ]
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in > news:waltzmn-24FDB3.12323604042005@europe.isp.giganews.com:>
I have no data. I suspect not. But the TV networks might well> > pressure them to do so: "You did it last year."> >
Only ESPN might pressure them, but since the event is going to be in > Shanghai, it's not as though ESPN are going to carry the final live.
No, all the TV networks like best of three; it's easier for them to budget the time. And that includes, e.g., Eurosport and the other European networks. Which might show it live, or near-live. So they might apply pressure.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:Xns962E62375FC9Btedstennismyrealboxcom@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...> Somebody claiming to be "dizzy" <dizzyREMOVE_THIS@yahoo.com> wrote in> news:d2rer0$quv$1@ss405.t-com.hr:>
On the other hand, Federer had the privilege of a soft draw. Before>> the Miami tournament started I've pointed out the nonsense that all>> of his real treats Roddick, Ljubicic and Nadal were put in the same>> 1/8 of the draw.>
It only matters that all three were in the opposite *half* from Federer,> since Federer could only play one of them in the final. And if the draws> are truly random, they should all end up in the opposite half from Federer> one time in eight. Considering there are four Slams and nine Masters> Series events, it really *should* happen at least once a year.
Agree, but that is not the whole story. Safin, the only man to beat him this year, was also in the opposite half of the draw. Four top contenders (ATP Race #3, #4, #5, #6) in the opposite half of the draw when #2 Hewitt doesn't play is a truly rare soft draw that *shouldn't* happen at least once a year.
"dizzy" <dizzyREMOVE_THIS@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:d2ti4h$56v$1@ss405.t-com.hr...> Agree, but that is not the whole story. Safin, the only man to beat him this> year, was also in the opposite half of the draw. Four top contenders (ATP> Race #3, #4, #5, #6) in the opposite half of the draw when #2 Hewitt doesn't> play is a truly rare soft draw that *shouldn't* happen at least once a year.
Don't you think that those other top players got relieved and were happy, when they saw Fed on the other side of the draw?
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d2tr3l$fbl$1@plaza.suomi.net...>
"dizzy" <dizzyREMOVE_THIS@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä> news:d2ti4h$56v$1@ss405.t-com.hr...>> Agree, but that is not the whole story. Safin, the only man to beat him> this>> year, was also in the opposite half of the draw. Four top contenders (ATP>> Race #3, #4, #5, #6) in the opposite half of the draw when #2 Hewitt> doesn't>> play is a truly rare soft draw that *shouldn't* happen at least once a> year.>
Don't you think that those other top players got relieved and were happy,> when they saw Fed on the other side of the draw?>
Robert B. Waltz 5 April 2005 17:24:15 [ permanent link ]
Luke Croll <Lukecroll@yahoo.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
In his interview, we see:>
Q. In preparation for Roland Garros, will you play first Monte-Carlo,> Hamburg, Rome, all of them?>
ROGER FEDERER: Yes, I will. That's the plan. If I'm not playing one or> the other, it's a bad sign (smiling).
I can only say, I'll believe it when I see it. Why, when he is the dominant player and playing huge numbers of matches, should he play now, when he skipped it back when he wasn't dominant?
I'm more inclined to think the ATP is pushing him to at least *say* he's playing all their required events. But he even has an excuse, now: The blisters.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:24:15 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:
Luke Croll <Lukecroll@yahoo.com> wrote:>
[ ... ]>
In his interview, we see:>>
Q. In preparation for Roland Garros, will you play first Monte-Carlo,>> Hamburg, Rome, all of them?>>
ROGER FEDERER: Yes, I will. That's the plan. If I'm not playing one or>> the other, it's a bad sign (smiling).>
I can only say, I'll believe it when I see it. Why, when he>is the dominant player and playing huge numbers of matches,>should he play now, when he skipped it back when he wasn't>dominant?>
I'm more inclined to think the ATP is pushing him to at least>*say* he's playing all their required events. But he even has>an excuse, now: The blisters.
Yes, I would also be surprised as he's got to be very tired. There have been few official withdrawals yet, but you've got to expect Agassi and Roddick to pull. They've lost Hewitt, so if Fed goes too, that Monte Carlo field is going to be quite weakened. -- Luke Croll ABDK FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~abdk-faq/faq.htm
"Luke Croll" <Lukecroll@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:isi751t7ddn20e0tb83836t06v31qkcpos@4ax.com...> Yes, I would also be surprised as he's got to be very tired. There> have been few official withdrawals yet, but you've got to expect> Agassi and Roddick to pull. They've lost Hewitt, so if Fed goes too,> that Monte Carlo field is going to be quite weakened.
With Roddick's and Agassi's recent red clay record, these withdrawals surely make draw less juicy but not that weaker. Fed on the other hand would be a loss...
