...for what?Both are not the sharpest knives out there for doing things out of their profession?But I assume tennis?Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.Alcaraz is "boater" but with less sustainability. A kind of flame which burnsbrighter but not that long.Talent? = somehow who you see the most talented = your favorite player?Even the "experts" have confused upon this issue (how it is in general possible that your favorite player is THE same you consider most talented?)Of course
MBDunc was again up to his best and wrote:brighter but not that long.Talent? = somehow who you see the most talented = your favorite player?Even the "experts" have confused upon this issue (how it is in general possible that your favorite player is THE same you consider most talented?)Of course
...for what?Both are not the sharpest knives out there for doing things out of their profession?But I assume tennis?Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.Alcaraz is "boater" but with less sustainability. A kind of flame which burns
balance, scale (usually in the plural)
tax paid for use of public scales
anything weighed
talent (weight, often of gold or silver)
the monetary sum equaling a talent (weight) of gold or silver
BABOON!
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)
On 12/07/2023 4:28 am, LedZep IgaSwanTech wrote:
BABOON!
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)Alcaraz is the best player I've ever seen.
BABOON!I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:51:16 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
On 12/07/2023 4:28 am, LedZep IgaSwanTech wrote:
BABOON!Alcaraz is the best player I've ever seen.
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)
Yes,
At FO 2023 it was all-about experience and long-run to win for Djoker (at SF).
Djoker played a spot on enigma 1st set, which made Alcaraz doing too much physically 2nd set?
.mikko
On 12/07/2023 4:28 am, LedZep IgaSwanTech wrote:
BABOON!
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)Alcaraz is the best player I've ever seen.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]> can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless > youngsters generation.Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He has reached ATP Ranking #1 as theyoungest man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments. I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.He has won on grass, clay and hard courts. This guide is only 20 years old now.He is truly a "useless youngster" and you,sir, must be a real champion!
I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]
can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless
youngsters generation.
On 12/07/2023 10:39 pm, MBDunc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:51:16 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
On 12/07/2023 4:28 am, LedZep IgaSwanTech wrote:
BABOON!Alcaraz is the best player I've ever seen.
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)
Yes,
At FO 2023 it was all-about experience and long-run to win for Djoker
(at SF).
Djoker played a spot on enigma 1st set, which made Alcaraz doing too
much physically 2nd set?
.mikko
Absolutely. Djoker played perfect 1st set and took the chance to break
with unorthodox touch volley winner. Credit to Carlos for hanging in
there and waiting for chance to take over, which he achieved in 2nd set
- but you could see the strain on his face and the pressure he put
himself under. It's a shame he got cramps as I still had money on him
to win the match at that point, but you can never count Djoker out and
he would have just kept piling the pressure on and using his vast experience. I would have said Alcaraz fave 55/45 from beginning of 3rd
set, but I could be wrong. At Wimbledon I have Djoker as fave as it's
not as physically punishing, so Djoker's strengths/experience are
magnified and stamina is not as big an issue.
Who did he beat in us open?
The tour has no good players which is clear in
having the top 3 winning everything while they were
35+ years old.
Alcaraz is coming in time where Federer and Nadal
are gone, and only djok is remaining. Great youngsters
beat old champions in slams. Remember Federer and
Sampras in Wimbledon?
As I said, I will change my mind after the
conclusion of Wimbledon.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus gotATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good players which is clear in > having the top 3 winning everything while they were > 35+ years old.The level of
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:rATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good players which is clear in > having the top 3 winning everything while they were > 35+ years old.The level of
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got
Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem. As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On 13.7.2023 4.01, Whisper wrote:
On 12/07/2023 10:39 pm, MBDunc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:51:16 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
On 12/07/2023 4:28 am, LedZep IgaSwanTech wrote:
BABOON!Alcaraz is the best player I've ever seen.
I got you Sampras-lovers ;-)
Yes,
At FO 2023 it was all-about experience and long-run to win for Djoker
(at SF).
Djoker played a spot on enigma 1st set, which made Alcaraz doing too
much physically 2nd set?
.mikko
Absolutely. Djoker played perfect 1st set and took the chance to
break with unorthodox touch volley winner. Credit to Carlos for
hanging in there and waiting for chance to take over, which he
achieved in 2nd set
That set was one of the best shows I've seen in tennis. Still
salivating.
The Alcatraz tank just wasn't to be stopped. Too bad it ran
out of gas. It would have been a match for the ages otherwise.
- but you could see the strain on his face and the pressure he put
himself under. It's a shame he got cramps as I still had money on him
to win the match at that point, but you can never count Djoker out and
he would have just kept piling the pressure on and using his vast
experience. I would have said Alcaraz fave 55/45 from beginning of
3rd set, but I could be wrong. At Wimbledon I have Djoker as fave as
it's not as physically punishing, so Djoker's strengths/experience are
magnified and stamina is not as big an issue.
Saw a couple of points of Meds demolishing Rune. Not more than five. Impressive. Always happy to see Rune, Mom & M gone. Let's hope that that never happens, but Meds could win this thing.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:ryoungest man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments. I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.He has won on grass, clay and hard courts. This guide is only 20 years old now.He is truly a "useless youngster" and you,sir, must be a real champion!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]> can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless > youngsters generation.Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the
Who did he beat in us open?
The tour has no good players which is clear in having the top 3 winning everything while they were 35+ years old.
Alcaraz is coming in time where Federer and Nadal are gone, and only djok is remaining.
Great youngsters beat old champions in slams. Remember Federer and Sampras in Wimbledon?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]
can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless
youngsters generation.
Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He
has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the youngest
man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments.
I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.
He has won on grass, clay and hard courts.
This guide is only 20 years old now.
He is truly a "useless youngster" and you,
sir, must be a real champion! Hahahaa!
br,
KK
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
Who did he beat in us open?
I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruud
in the final. The stakes were very high: the
first GS singles title for the winner *and*
ATP Ranking #1.
Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So
the Norwegian was really a super top player
among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was not
easy to beat him.
The tour has no good players which is clear in
having the top 3 winning everything while they were
35+ years old.
The level of play in the ATP Tour is extremely high.
According to Emil Ruusuvuori, all the players in the
Top 100 can beat each other now, depending on their
current form of the day and the various circumstances.
Alcaraz is coming in time where Federer and Nadal
are gone, and only djok is remaining. Great youngsters
beat old champions in slams. Remember Federer and
Sampras in Wimbledon?
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Those guys are not just
tennis legends, they are *tennis gods*. Players like that
simply do not emerge very often at all. Therefore it
makes little sense to compare the current top players to
them.
For example, Nadal's clay court achievements will
*never* be matched or exceeded. I don't care
whether they will play tennis for the next 10000
years, but Nadal will remain as The King of Clay.
Djoker's stats are also beyond belief, it is not
normal!
As I said, I will change my mind after the
conclusion of Wimbledon.
As far as I know, Alcaraz vs Djokovic head-to-head is
now 1-1. Alcaraz has already beaten Djokovic and I seem
to remember it was a big ATP1000 match.
Even if Alcaraz quit tennis right now, I would still
remember him as a great champion.
br,
KK
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good players which is clear in > having the top 3 winning everything while they were > 35+ years old.The level of
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got
Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem. As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.
I can't understand how you see greatness in Fed's game but are so blind
re Alcaraz. It really is strange to me.
On 13/07/2023 6:35 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
Who did he beat in us open?
I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruud
in the final. The stakes were very high: the
first GS singles title for the winner *and*
ATP Ranking #1.
Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So
the Norwegian was really a super top player
among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was not
easy to beat him.
The tour has no good players which is clear in
having the top 3 winning everything while they were
35+ years old.
The level of play in the ATP Tour is extremely high.
According to Emil Ruusuvuori, all the players in the
Top 100 can beat each other now, depending on their
current form of the day and the various circumstances.
Alcaraz is coming in time where Federer and Nadal
are gone, and only djok is remaining. Great youngsters
beat old champions in slams. Remember Federer and
Sampras in Wimbledon?
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Those guys are not just
tennis legends, they are *tennis gods*. Players like that
simply do not emerge very often at all. Therefore it
makes little sense to compare the current top players to
them.
For example, Nadal's clay court achievements will
*never* be matched or exceeded. I don't care
whether they will play tennis for the next 10000
years, but Nadal will remain as The King of Clay.
Djoker's stats are also beyond belief, it is not
normal!
As I said, I will change my mind after the
conclusion of Wimbledon.
As far as I know, Alcaraz vs Djokovic head-to-head is
now 1-1. Alcaraz has already beaten Djokovic and I seem
to remember it was a big ATP1000 match.
Even if Alcaraz quit tennis right now, I would still
remember him as a great champion.
br,
KK
Alcaraz and Sampras are the most explosive players I've seen. Sampras
was ridiculously efficient, goal was to end the point within 5 strokes. Alcaraz is explosive from all over the court,
RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:11:56 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:> Rune will be around for 10 years winning the slams that Carlos doesn't - > he's the Agassi in the Sampras v Agassi rivalry.His birthday is on April 29, same as Agassi's.
That's insane
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:11:56 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:> Rune will be around for 10 years winning the slams that Carlos doesn't - > he's the Agassi in the Sampras v Agassi rivalry.His birthday is on April 29, same as Agassi's.
Rune will be around for 10 years winning the slams that Carlos doesn't - he's the Agassi in the Sampras v Agassi rivalry.
Both are not the sharpest knives out there for doing things out of their profession?
But I assume tennis?
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
Alcaraz is "boater" but with less sustainability. A kind of flame which burns brighter but not that long.
Talent? = somehow who you see the most talented = your favorite player?
Both are not the sharpest knives out there for doing things out of their profession?
But I assume tennis?
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
Alcaraz is "boater" but with less sustainability. A kind of flame which burns brighter but not that long.
Talent? = somehow who you see the most talented = your favorite player?
Tennis pros come in two types: athletes and specialists/freaks.
The athletes could have excelled in several sports, they just chose tennis; >> Boris Becker, Serena Williams (potential roller derby monster)
The specialists are one hit wonders; could Connors or McEnroe compete
at the top level in anything else? Mac especially, with his magic at the net -
Mac and Becker were good soccer players!
On July 11, MBDunc wrote:
Both are not the sharpest knives out there for doing things out of their profession?
But I assume tennis?
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
Alcaraz is "boater" but with less sustainability. A kind of flame which burns brighter but not that long.
Talent? = somehow who you see the most talented = your favorite player? Tennis pros come in two types: athletes and specialists/freaks.
The athletes could have excelled in several sports, they just chose tennis; Boris Becker, Serena Williams (potential roller derby monster)
The specialists are one hit wonders; could Connors or McEnroe compete
at the top level in anything else? Mac especially, with his magic at the net -
I've never heard the talking heads recognize this distinction.
--
Rich
On 13/07/2023 4:27 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]
can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless
youngsters generation.
Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He
has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the youngest
man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments.
I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.
He has won on grass, clay and hard courts.
This guide is only 20 years old now.
He is truly a "useless youngster" and you,
sir, must be a real champion! Hahahaa!
br,
KK
pwl is a real hardcore Federer fan who really thinks Fed is better than Nadal and Djokovic, and every other player in history. He thinks Federer invented tennis and has the best serve, bh, fh, volleys, drop shots, lobs, mental toughness etc etc.Not sure why, and I think he's a grown man too.
On 13/07/2023 17:03, Whisper wrote:
On 13/07/2023 4:27 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]
can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless
youngsters generation.
Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He
has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the youngest
man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments.
I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.
He has won on grass, clay and hard courts.
This guide is only 20 years old now.
He is truly a "useless youngster" and you,
sir, must be a real champion! Hahahaa!
br,
KK
Not sure why, and I think he's a grown man too.pwl is a real hardcore Federer fan who really thinks Fed is better than Nadal and Djokovic, and every other player in history. He thinks Federer invented tennis and has the best serve, bh, fh, volleys, drop shots, lobs, mental toughness etc etc.
But how does he compare to TT's hardcore Nad fanboyism ?
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakeswere very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem.
As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:33:19 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:11:56 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:> Rune will be around for 10 years winning the slams that Carlos doesn't - > he's the Agassi in the Sampras v Agassi rivalry.His birthday is on April 29, same as Agassi's.
That's insane
amazing that Whisper linked Rune with Agassi :)
On 13.7.2023 19.26, Whisper wrote:
On 13/07/2023 6:35 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Alcaraz and Sampras are the most explosive players I've seen. Sampras
was ridiculously efficient, goal was to end the point within 5
strokes. Alcaraz is explosive from all over the court,
There's an article at the ATP site about Alcatraz' first strike tennis.
About 70% of the points he's played at W are 0-4 shots. Of those 1/3 are
one shot rallies, and over 50% are rallies with 1-2 shots. These include receiving. He plays very short points. Good for longevity.
Overall he has won 54% of points played. Of the 0-4 rallies, he wins
53%. 53% is a match winning points win %.
His margins don't go down as the points lengthen. He wins 55% of points lasting 5-8 shots. Etc.
First strike tennis wins matches for him. But if you survive the first onslaught, there's even fewer places for you to hide.
Tubular.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
I agree.
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
br,
KK
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as he's
able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs. He may not
have longevity but the quality is there to win at he very highest levels while his star burns, eg can win calendar slam imo.
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
On 14/07/2023 6:17 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
I agree.
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
br,
KK
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as he's
able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs.
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosiveI agree.
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
On 14.7.2023 11.22, Whisper wrote:
On 14/07/2023 6:17 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
I agree.
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
br,
KK
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as he's able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs.I'm stocked for today.
they said this about Nadal since 2005, just ask Patrick ;D
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
for the past decade in the most important matches so why should we expect a 20 year old kid to beat Djokovic so quickly?Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem.Isn't Alcaraz is the youngest male number one player of all time? He has four Masters 1000 titles. That's better than Thiem's career already.
I mean the kid is 20 years old and I've been reading nothing but criticism from some fanatics on social media because he cramped in that FO final vs Djokovic. Give the kid a break and some time.
As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.Alcaraz doesn't just have to beat "a champion." He has to beat one of the greatest players of all time and the best Big Three player of the past decade. Nadal and Federer, the two other GOAT players, sure had trouble beating Djokovic(Nadal off clay)
And for the umpteenth time, 36 year old Djokovic is not "old!" This is 2023 and not 1983. Players can stay fit much longer in the sport these days. Djokovic is a fanatic about staying fit. Whatever decline Djokovic has experienced, he has compensatedfor by improvement in other areas(serve, forehand, solid as a rock mentally.) He's a tough nut to crack.
Sure, if Alcaraz is the real deal he should beat Djokovic in a slam and it would be nice to see him do it at Wimbledon this year. But, if he doesn't do it yet, it certainly doesn't mean he's a failure.
On 14/07/2023 3:40 am, gap...@gmail.com wrote:got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good players which is clear in > having the top 3 winning everything while they were > 35+ years old.The
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:28:21 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus
I can't understand how you see greatness in Fed's game but are so blind >> re Alcaraz. It really is strange to me.
Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem. As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.
Beat dollar pete 63,26,64,63 at W 2003Links?
I'll give you 10k if that's true. If its BS you can buy me a coffee.
On 14/07/2023 4:42 am, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 13.7.2023 19.26, Whisper wrote:
On 13/07/2023 6:35 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Alcaraz and Sampras are the most explosive players I've seen.
Sampras was ridiculously efficient, goal was to end the point within
5 strokes. Alcaraz is explosive from all over the court,
There's an article at the ATP site about Alcatraz' first strike
tennis. About 70% of the points he's played at W are 0-4 shots. Of
those 1/3 are one shot rallies, and over 50% are rallies with 1-2
shots. These include receiving. He plays very short points. Good for
longevity.
Overall he has won 54% of points played. Of the 0-4 rallies, he wins
53%. 53% is a match winning points win %.
His margins don't go down as the points lengthen. He wins 55% of
points lasting 5-8 shots. Etc.
First strike tennis wins matches for him. But if you survive the
first onslaught, there's even fewer places for you to hide.
Tubular.
Awesome stats! Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive style, seems a young man's game. He will have to modify his style as
he ages, which may lead to less success?
On 14/07/2023 6:17 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
I agree.
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
br,
KK
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as
he's able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs. He
may not have longevity but the quality is there to win at he very
highest levels while his star burns, eg can win calendar slam imo.
You know what, kk? I've thought about that, too, and I'd say that the
two biggest *physical* traits that pros have that others do not are:
eye-hand coordination (expresses itself as "timing"); and superior eye sight--I mean very much above average.
And you just cannot work around either of these, if you don't have them.
Anway, I am not worried about Alcaraz's mentalHe has the confidence of very talented youth. I don't yet see anything I
breakdown at Roland Garros against Djoker. Like
others have said, Alcaraz is still very young and
inexperienced. He is usually mentally strong.
can label as a coherent thought process--hasn't needed it, yet.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as he'sTime will tell.
able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs. He may not
have longevity but the quality is there to win at he very highest levels
while his star burns, eg can win calendar slam imo.
Yes, he is a great player. It is amazing how quickly he
makes progress and learns to play on all surfaces. His
game is both powerful and versatile.
If you want to excel in tennis, being talented is
not enough. Talent is required, all right, but so
is hard work that takes years. That work must be
started when the player is young.
Conversely, practicing hard is not enough to make
everyone a great tennis player. When I think of myself,
I practiced very hard when I was young, but I am
not talented enough. Even the best tennis and gym
coaches could not turn me into a professional
tennis player.
Anway, I am not worried about Alcaraz's mentalHe has the confidence of very talented youth. I don't yet see anything I
breakdown at Roland Garros against Djoker. Like
others have said, Alcaraz is still very young and
inexperienced. He is usually mentally strong.
br,
KK
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as he's
able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs. He may not
have longevity but the quality is there to win at he very highest levels
while his star burns, eg can win calendar slam imo.
Time will tell.
Yes, he is a great player. It is amazing how quickly he
makes progress and learns to play on all surfaces. His
game is both powerful and versatile.
If you want to excel in tennis, being talented is
not enough. Talent is required, all right, but so
is hard work that takes years. That work must be
started when the player is young.
Conversely, practicing hard is not enough to make
everyone a great tennis player. When I think of myself,
I practiced very hard when I was young, but I am
not talented enough. Even the best tennis and gym
coaches could not turn me into a professional
tennis player.
Anway, I am not worried about Alcaraz's mental
breakdown at Roland Garros against Djoker. Like
others have said, Alcaraz is still very young and
inexperienced. He is usually mentally strong.
br,
KK
On 14.7.2023 11.22, Whisper wrote:
On 14/07/2023 6:17 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not sure about the longevity aspect with his explosive
style, seems a young man's game. He will have to
modify his style as he ages, which may lead to
less success?
I agree.
Some tennis commentators have said that Alcaraz's
style of very physical play puts heavy strain on
his body. Those claims seem credible to me.
Top-level professional tennis is quite demanding
and very many players suffer from injuries.
br,
KK
I suggest we all get the popcorn out and enjoy this kid as long as
he's able to play at this level, which hopefully will be 3-5 yrs.
I'm stocked for today.
Alcaraz is not merely talented, he may well be the most gifted playerever. Plus he has a huge work ethic and love for the game. What a gift
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:36:27 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
player of the past decade. Nadal and Federer, the two other GOAT players, sure had trouble beating Djokovic(Nadal off clay) for the past decade in the most important matches so why should we expect a 20 year old kid to beat Djokovic so quickly?
Federer sure had. Two match points on serve on his favorite turf yet the mental demons kept him at 8 Wimbledon titles. What a pity.
On 13/07/2023 5:00 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]> can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless >youngsters generation.Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the youngest man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments. I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.He has won on grass, clay and hard courts. This
Alcaraz is not merely talented, he may well be the most gifted playerever. Plus he has a huge work ethic and love for the game. What a gift
he is to tennis.
Here we go again, Whisper with his bipolar extreme posts, how many times have we seen these kinds of posts?
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:50:03AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:> > > Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem.Isn't Alcaraz is the youngest male number one player of all time? He has four Masters 1000 titles. That's better than Thiem's career already.I mean the kid is 20 years old and I've been reading nothing but criticism from some fanatics on social media because he cramped in that FO final vs Djokovic. Give the kid a break and some time. >As I said, great youngsters beat
[-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: windows-1252, 12 lines --]
Alcaraz is not merely talented, he may well be the most gifted playerever. Plus he has a huge work ethic and love for the game. What a gift
he is to tennis.
Here we go again, Whisper with his bipolar extreme posts,
how many times have we seen these kinds of posts?
On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes
I am not sure what brought Federer in the discussion, you seem so obsessed with the guy and it's obvious in the big decline in your posts after he retired.
You can comment on my post about great youngsters beating great champions on their best surface, example Federer over Sampras in Wimbledon. Nadal winning and beating Federer in the FO as young teen.
Alcaraz has another chance to show something special in this Wimbledon reaching the final and beating a 36 years old.
After that, he isn't a high league in my book.
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around
his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Alcaraz is a superior athlete, but he is not a chess master, he plays too much of
a physical game that he gets injured in practice and matches.
On July 14, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Alcaraz is a superior athlete, but he is not a chess master, he plays too much ofAnother Marat Safin?
a physical game that he gets injured in practice and matches.
--
Rich
On 7/14/23 11:47 AM, Rich D wrote:
On July 14, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Alcaraz is a superior athlete, but he is not a chess master, he playsAnother Marat Safin?
too much of
a physical game that he gets injured in practice and matches.
--
Rich
I think there are some good parallels. Alcaraz is the better tennis
talent, and was maybe developed better, than Safin.
Both of them are basically ape men who've been given a racquet instead
of a club.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:36:27 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
player of the past decade. Nadal and Federer, the two other GOAT players, sure had trouble beating Djokovic(Nadal off clay) for the past decade in the most important matches so why should we expect a 20 year old kid to beat Djokovic so quickly?
Federer sure had. Two match points on serve on his favorite turf yet the mental demons kept him at 8 Wimbledon titles. What a pity.
Court_1 Wrote in message:rThiem's career already.I mean the kid is 20 years old and I've been reading nothing but criticism from some fanatics on social media because he cramped in that FO final vs Djokovic. Give the kid a break and some time. >As I said, great youngsters beat
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:> > > Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem.Isn't Alcaraz is the youngest male number one player of all time? He has four Masters 1000 titles. That's better than
I won't get into the details of your entire post, it's all subjective,
only one part of your post, there is a difference between a 36 years old player that takes care of himself and staying in good shape, and younger legs healthy young athlete. Clearly you didn't play competitivly to get the sense of what younger legsmean. It's full credit for these older players finding ways to play and choke their opponents, but they aren't as explosive and fit as when they were younger. This tells one thing about the status and level of the tour.
Alcaraz is a superior athlete, but he is not a chess master, he plays too much of a physical game that he gets injured in practice and matches. I expected him to win in the FO, but his performance there was very disappointing. One more repeat inWimbledon final and he would be confirmed to be a good player but not a great one.
If he can find a way to win the trophy, then I see him winning 10+ slams, otherwise he wouldn't be filling the vacant created by fedal for me.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something magical
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras will
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 23:36:27 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
for the past decade in the most important matches so why should we expect a 20 year old kid to beat Djokovic so quickly?Alcaraz is one slam winner right now, similar to Thiem.Isn't Alcaraz is the youngest male number one player of all time? He has four Masters 1000 titles. That's better than Thiem's career already.
I mean the kid is 20 years old and I've been reading nothing but criticism from some fanatics on social media because he cramped in that FO final vs Djokovic. Give the kid a break and some time.
As I said, great youngsters beat champions in slams, when your great Alcaraz manages to beat 36 years old Djokovic in a slam then we can start talking about possible greatness.Alcaraz doesn't just have to beat "a champion." He has to beat one of the greatest players of all time and the best Big Three player of the past decade. Nadal and Federer, the two other GOAT players, sure had trouble beating Djokovic(Nadal off clay)
for by improvement in other areas(serve, forehand, solid as a rock mentally.) He's a tough nut to crack.And for the umpteenth time, 36 year old Djokovic is not "old!" This is 2023 and not 1983. Players can stay fit much longer in the sport these days. Djokovic is a fanatic about staying fit. Whatever decline Djokovic has experienced, he has compensated
having a 36 year old sprinter winning the 100m's.Sure, if Alcaraz is the real deal he should beat Djokovic in a slam and it would be nice to see him do it at Wimbledon this year. But, if he doesn't do it yet, it certainly doesn't mean he's a failure.
Agree with what you say but athleticswise a 10+ year gap of these youngsters really should be enough to cause a lot of upsets, these are meant to be top 100 in the world tennis players! Murray would not be sitting around letting this happen, it like
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras
That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't recall that.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:Federer's talent and artistry, Djokovic is a bit better.
Federer and Nadal having trouble beating Djokovic at the slams for the past decade(except for Nadal on clay) is also fact. How many matches did Federer have match points vs Djokovic and then blow it? At some point you have to concede that >despite
On 15/07/2023 5:27 pm, Court_1 wrote:Federer's talent and artistry, Djokovic is a bit better.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Federer and Nadal having trouble beating Djokovic at the slams for the past decade(except for Nadal on clay) is also fact. How many matches did Federer have match points vs Djokovic and then blow it? At some point you have to concede that >despite
3 times Fed had 2 match points in slams v Novak and lost, twice in USO
semis 2010 and 2011, and the famous 2019 Wimbledon final. We can
discount 2010 USO as Novak lost to Rafa in the final so it didn't lead
to a slam title anyway. 2011 USO I'd say Rafa wins that USO if Fed made final as he really had his number in slams in those days. But who
knows maybe Fed wins both of those USO's over Rafa? That would have
given Fed 7 USO titles, equal Tilden's all time record. Had Fed won
those 3 'blown' matches he may be on 23 slams today, Novak 21 and Nadal
21. More likely it would be Rafa 23, Fed 21 and Novak 21.
The 2019 Wimbledon final is maybe the best and most significant match in tennis history, and it couldn't have been any more dramatic. Hard to
believe it happened. In terms of being Wimbledon king it has huge implications. Had Fed won he'd be on 9 and Novak on 6, hoping for a 7th tomorrow. Now 8-8 looks like a good chance, and Novak is 3-0 in
Wimbledon finals v Federer if we're looking for a tie-break, ie who was better at Wimbledon.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras
That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't recall that.
On 15/07/2023 3:57 am, RahimAsif wrote:were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes
will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went >"wow - there is somethingFederer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
I am not sure what brought Federer in the discussion, you seem so obsessed with the guy and it's obvious in the big decline in your posts after he retired.
You can comment on my post about great youngsters beating great champions on their best surface, example Federer over Sampras in Wimbledon. Nadal winning and beating Federer in the FO as young teen.
Alcaraz has another chance to show something special in this Wimbledon reaching the final and beating a 36 years old.
After that, he isn't a high league in my book.
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras
Federer was a nobody at the time, no need for Sampras or any good player
to get pumped for this match as he'd done fuck all at that stage and
even got hammered by Tim Henman next round. Alcaraz's status is light
yrs ahead of where Fed was at the time, world no.1 defending USO champ
and already declared boat level by many real experts. Now fuck off and
stop polluting this ng with Fedfuckery nonsense. Fed was a great player
and top 3 of his era, doesn't need more pumping up than that.
On 15/07/2023 3:57 am, RahimAsif wrote:were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes
will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went >"wow - there is somethingFederer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
I am not sure what brought Federer in the discussion, you seem so obsessed with the guy and it's obvious in the big decline in your posts after he retired.
You can comment on my post about great youngsters beating great champions on their best surface, example Federer over Sampras in Wimbledon. Nadal winning and beating Federer in the FO as young teen.
Alcaraz has another chance to show something special in this Wimbledon reaching the final and beating a 36 years old.
After that, he isn't a high league in my book.
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras
Federer was a nobody at the time, no need for Sampras or any good player
to get pumped for this match as he'd done fuck all at that stage and
even got hammered by Tim Henman next round. Alcaraz's status is light
yrs ahead of where Fed was at the time, world no.1 defending USO champ
and already declared boat level by many real experts. Now fuck off and
stop polluting this ng with Fedfuckery nonsense. Fed was a great player
and top 3 of his era, doesn't need more pumping up than that.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r> On 13/07/2023 5:00 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:> I will change my mind a little if he [Alcaraz]>can beat Novak otherwise he joins the useless > youngsters generation.Alcaraz won the US Open while 19 years old. He has reached ATP Ranking #1 as the youngest man ever. He has won four ATP1000 tournaments. I don't remember how many ATP500 wins he has.He
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:> On 15/07/2023 3:57 am, RahimAsif wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote: > >> On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>> Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.>
Wrote in message:r > >>>> On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and aWrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't recall that.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>> On 15/07/2023 3:57 am, RahimAsif wrote:>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00AM UTC-7, Whisperwrote:>>>> On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:>>>>> Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r>>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com>
the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras will have to play much better than heFederer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around>>>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a>>>> teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.>>> Wrong. I remember clearly before
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>> On 15/07/2023 3:57 am, RahimAsif wrote:>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>>>> On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r>>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember
On 15/07/2023 5:27 pm, Court_1 wrote:Federer's talent and artistry, Djokovic is a bit better.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Federer and Nadal having trouble beating Djokovic at the slams for the past decade(except for Nadal on clay) is also fact. How many matches did Federer have match points vs Djokovic and then blow it? At some point you have to concede that >despite
3 times Fed had 2 match points in slams v Novak and lost, twice in USO
semis 2010 and 2011, and the famous 2019 Wimbledon final.
We can
discount 2010 USO as Novak lost to Rafa in the final so it didn't lead
to a slam title anyway.
2011 USO I'd say Rafa wins that USO if Fed made
final as he really had his number in slams in those days.
The 2019 Wimbledon final is maybe the best and most significant match in tennis history, and it couldn't have been any more dramatic. Hard to
believe it happened. In terms of being Wimbledon king it has huge implications. Had Fed won he'd be on 9 and Novak on 6, hoping for a 7th tomorrow. Now 8-8 looks like a good chance, and Novak is 3-0 in
Wimbledon finals v Federer if we're looking for a tie-break, ie who was better at Wimbledon.
On 15/07/2023 5:37 pm, Court_1 wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a >>> teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras
That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't recall that.
But he was ranked 12th and won nothing. It's not comparable to
Alcaraz's status. Novak facing world no.1 in Wimbledon final is nothing
like Sampras facing 12th ranked kid in 4th round.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rof talent, and the match was therefore much closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest rivals--
Two good examples of extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not necessarily equal--level
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?
Was Nadal mentally weak when Federer managed to break back and win the AO 2017?
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:level of talent, and the match was therefore much closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest rivals-
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Two good examples of extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not necessarily equal--
Federer did IMO.You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
the granddaddy of mental implosions on Federer's part. What could be worse than that match for Federer and his fans?In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?Who cares? All we can discuss is what did happen and there were many occasions where Federer lost the plot vs Djokovic in important matches by having match points and imploding. It was a pattern that was established in 2010 at the USO. 2019 however was
Was Nadal mentally weak when Federer managed to break back and win the AO 2017?No, but that was the first time Federer beat Nadal in a slam match in a decade! That's a long time especially if many people are calling you GOAT. GOAT implies that you beat everybody all the time!
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?Djokovic! Without a doubt.
Don't start with that age crap again. It's ridiculous IMO when 35+ Federer was beating all other players in his path, was winning slams, making it to finals of slams, outplaying Djokovic in large portions of matches, etc.
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:level of talent, and the match was therefore much closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest rivals-
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Two good examples of extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not necessarily equal--
Federer did IMO.You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and Djok is just blah.
Stylistically, aesthetically of course.
In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?Who cares?
Was Nadal mentally weak when Federer managed to break back and win the AO 2017?No, but that was the first time Federer beat Nadal in a slam match in a decade! That's a long time especially if many people are calling you GOAT. GOAT implies that you beat everybody all the time!
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?Djokovic! Without a doubt.
Don't start with that age crap again
--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Ayatolla of Rock and Rolla!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. It's ridiculous IMO when 35+ Federer was beating all other players in his path
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:Federer did IMO.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and Djok is just blah.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:01:43 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:elegance Federer did IMO.
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
It's funny how people decide a player is mentally weaker than opponents because they are willing to ignore all other variables.
In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?Who cares?
Who cares? People that are saying they are logical should care, clearly you aren't one.
Age difference is crap in professional individual sports? lol
Did you repeat this many times until you believed it?
Clearly you are willing to ignore the major fundamentals of professional sports just to
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:Federer did IMO.
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and
Djok is just blah.
That's about right. Djokovic's style is never anything great poets would write about but it's very effective, obviously. He took down two goats for a decade with it. He slowly asphyxiates his opponents and drains the life out of them.
Court_1 kirjoitti 16.7.2023 klo 3.34:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mentalAbsolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness.
toughness of Federer.
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was
mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and
Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance Federer
did IMO.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker,
and
Djok is just blah.
That's about right. Djokovic's style is never anything great poets
would write about but it's very effective, obviously. He took down
two goats for a decade with it. He slowly asphyxiates his opponents
and drains the life out of them.
Have to hope for Alkie to surprise us positively. But I doubt it.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:Federer did IMO.
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and elegance
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and
Djok is just blah.
That's about right. Djokovic's style is never anything great poets would write about
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:19:39 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:Federer's talent and artistry, Djokovic is a bit better.
On 15/07/2023 5:27 pm, Court_1 wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Federer and Nadal having trouble beating Djokovic at the slams for the past decade(except for Nadal on clay) is also fact. How many matches did Federer have match points vs Djokovic and then blow it? At some point you have to concede that >despite
might never be topped in his lifetime)...3 times Fed had 2 match points in slams v Novak and lost, twice in USO
semis 2010 and 2011, and the famous 2019 Wimbledon final. We can
discount 2010 USO as Novak lost to Rafa in the final so it didn't lead
to a slam title anyway. 2011 USO I'd say Rafa wins that USO if Fed made
final as he really had his number in slams in those days. But who
knows maybe Fed wins both of those USO's over Rafa? That would have
given Fed 7 USO titles, equal Tilden's all time record. Had Fed won
those 3 'blown' matches he may be on 23 slams today, Novak 21 and Nadal
21. More likely it would be Rafa 23, Fed 21 and Novak 21.
The 2019 Wimbledon final is maybe the best and most significant match in
tennis history, and it couldn't have been any more dramatic. Hard to
believe it happened. In terms of being Wimbledon king it has huge
implications. Had Fed won he'd be on 9 and Novak on 6, hoping for a 7th
tomorrow. Now 8-8 looks like a good chance, and Novak is 3-0 in
Wimbledon finals v Federer if we're looking for a tie-break, ie who was
better at Wimbledon.
Doubtful - my guess is Djok has at least 3 more Wim in him - So he will most likely end up with 10 minimum. Slam wise, I think Djok would end up with close to 30. Would be shocked if he doesn't get to at least 28 (double the # that >Sampras thought
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went >"wow - there is something
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >>>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras
talent. Yourself excluded of course, somehow you thought Roddick was the standout talent of that generation - and was "Sampras on steroids" - and Fed had no chance to compete with Roddick because he won't be able to return his >serve, because "youFederer was a nobody at the time, no need for Sampras or any good player
to get pumped for this match as he'd done fuck all at that stage and
even got hammered by Tim Henman next round. Alcaraz's status is light
yrs ahead of where Fed was at the time, world no.1 defending USO champ
and already declared boat level by many real experts. Now fuck off and
stop polluting this ng with Fedfuckery nonsense. Fed was a great player
and top 3 of his era, doesn't need more pumping up than that.
LOL..typical Whisper. Gets called out on his factually incorrect statement (no hype in the Fed-Sampras match) with specific examples, and falls back on "Fedfuckery". Yes, Fed was nowhere near the finished package at that time, but many >ppl saw his
"Fed was a great player and top 3 of his era" - lol, we are not talking about Jim Courier or Michael Chang here. We are talking about the guy who first scaled the Mt Everest of 20 slams, and did so by playing with grace and elegance that >will likelynever be matched in our lifetime. Sure, he left a few slams on the table and possibly GOAT status because of lack of mental toughness that you would expect from such a champion player, but let me assure you of one thing: by >each and every measure,
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:59 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went "wow - there is something
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around >>>> his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras
That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't recall that.
I am sure he recalls, but his hatred of Fed causes him to write stuff that are factually incorrect...
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went >"wow - there is something
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras
Federer was a nobody at the time, no need for Sampras or any good player
to get pumped for this match as he'd done fuck all at that stage and
even got hammered by Tim Henman next round. Alcaraz's status is light
yrs ahead of where Fed was at the time, world no.1 defending USO champ
and already declared boat level by many real experts. Now fuck off and
stop polluting this ng with Fedfuckery nonsense. Fed was a great player
and top 3 of his era, doesn't need more pumping up than that.
Another point - this thing about being crowned BOAT by many "real experts" is just plain stupid. BOATness is totally subjective -
one can claim that that Wawrinka is the real BOAT - having beaten Nadal and Djokovic (twice!) for his 3 >slams.
Or one can claim that the true BOAT is none other than Richard Krajicek - the guy who beat Sampras in straight sets at Wim >smack in the middle of his 7 Wim run.
You can neither prove nor disprove these BOAT claims.
If Alcaraz >suddenly >loses motivation after losing to Djokovic again and again (very possible following the Wim final smackdown) and doesn't win >anything ever again - all these real >experts would look extremely silly...
On 15/07/2023 7:42 pm, RahimAsif wrote:will have to play much better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went >"wow - there is something
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around
his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a >>>> teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might lose today". McEnroe also said >that Sampras
talent. Yourself excluded of course, somehow you thought Roddick was the standout talent of that generation - and was "Sampras on steroids" - and Fed had no chance to compete with Roddick because he won't be able to return his >serve, because "you cannotFederer was a nobody at the time, no need for Sampras or any good player >> to get pumped for this match as he'd done fuck all at that stage and
even got hammered by Tim Henman next round. Alcaraz's status is light
yrs ahead of where Fed was at the time, world no.1 defending USO champ
and already declared boat level by many real experts. Now fuck off and
stop polluting this ng with Fedfuckery nonsense. Fed was a great player >> and top 3 of his era, doesn't need more pumping up than that.
LOL..typical Whisper. Gets called out on his factually incorrect statement (no hype in the Fed-Sampras match) with specific examples, and falls back on "Fedfuckery". Yes, Fed was nowhere near the finished package at that time, but many >ppl saw his
never be matched in our lifetime. Sure, he left a few slams on the table and possibly GOAT status because of lack of mental toughness that you would expect from such a champion player, but let me assure you of one thing: by >each and every measure,"Fed was a great player and top 3 of his era" - lol, we are not talking about Jim Courier or Michael Chang here. We are talking about the guy who first scaled the Mt Everest of 20 slams, and did so by playing with grace and elegance that >will likely
Sampras was the best of his era by a huge margin, Federer was 3rd. You
can't be goat if you're not goat of your own era - pretty basic logic.
So the best players of each era go into the goat conversation. That's
how it works.
Federer played til nearly 40 while Sampras was done at 31, yet;
Wimbledon;
Fed 8
Sampras 7
USO
Fed 5
Sampras 5
Yr end No.1
Fed 5
Sampras 6
On 15/07/2023 7:49 pm, RahimAsif wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:59 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-4, RahimAsif wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:That's correct. Federer was being heavily touted for years by
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype
around
his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a >>>>> teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
Wrong. I remember clearly before the Sampras-Fed match in 2001, BBC
commentators saying something like this: "Pete Sampras has not lost
a match at Wim since 1997, but there is a very good chance he might
lose today". McEnroe also said that Sampras will have to play much
better than he had been to that point to beat Federer (even though
he was the 4-time defending champ). I was shocked, because I had
never seen Fed play before, but when I just saw the 1st set I went
"wow - there is something magical about the way this guy hits the
tennis ball". Just because you never saw the talent in Fed, doesn't
mean nobody else did...
commentators, sports writers, etc., before he won his first slam or
before he beat Sampras at Wimbledon. I'm not sure why Whisper doesn't
recall that.
I am sure he recalls, but his hatred of Fed causes him to write stuff
that are factually incorrect...
No I don't recall. Fed was ranked 12 and won nothing. Rune has a
bigger status.
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:
I'm playing around with the idea that talent erases, or covers, other
defects in a tennis player.
Some players are *so* talented, physically, that the do not need to
develop other supporting parts of their game. Two good examples of
extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could
win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or
Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not necessarily equal--level of talent, and the match was therefore much
closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.
Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so
broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest
rivals--maybe all, we'll see. But probably there'll come a time when
he'll need to actually *think* more, and if he can't develop that part,
he'll be like Federer, where at the end of his career, people will be
talking about what he left on the table. They don't say that about Nadal
or Djokovich.
To me, Barty was a great thinker. It may be that Jabeur is, too.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>> On 15/07/20
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?
Was Nadal mentally weak when Federer managed to break back and win the AO 2017?
You played tennis and you understand the physicality of the game, and that mental toughness can't patch all deficits.
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Two good examples of extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?
Djokovic! Without a doubt.
Don't start with that age crap again. It's ridiculous IMO when 35+ Federer was beating all other players in his path, was winning slams, making it to finals of slams, outplaying Djokovic in large portions of matches, etc.
On 16/07/2023 12:59 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:
I'm playing around with the idea that talent erases, or covers, other
defects in a tennis player.
Some players are *so* talented, physically, that the do not need to
develop other supporting parts of their game. Two good examples of
extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could
win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or
Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although
not necessarily equal--level of talent, and the match was therefore
much closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.
Yep
Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so
broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest
rivals--maybe all, we'll see. But probably there'll come a time when
he'll need to actually *think* more, and if he can't develop that
part, he'll be like Federer, where at the end of his career, people
will be talking about what he left on the table. They don't say that
about Nadal or Djokovich.
True, but it's so early in Carlos' career we don't have much evidence
how it will go. Logically you'd expect he can't keep up the insane explosiveness at age 30 so his game will have to evolve. Whether this results in less success depends on how his game looks. Novak is 36
and obviously not as quick as he was 10 yrs ago, but has evolved a
style that gives him equal success at the slams, if not more success.
He nearly won calendar slam at age 34 and may just do it at 36.
To me, Barty was a great thinker. It may be that Jabeur is, too.
Jabeur is an over thinker resulting in choke jobs. I'd invest in a
top notch psychologist for the next couple years if I were her.
"We can't discuss future coulda/woulda..."
On 7/16/23 3:38 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 16/07/2023 12:59 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:
I'm playing around with the idea that talent erases, or covers, other
defects in a tennis player.
Some players are *so* talented, physically, that the do not need to
develop other supporting parts of their game. Two good examples of
extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could
win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or
Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although
not necessarily equal--level of talent, and the match was therefore
much closer, this lack of toughness showed up and could result in loses.
Yep
Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so
broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest
rivals--maybe all, we'll see. But probably there'll come a time when
he'll need to actually *think* more, and if he can't develop that
part, he'll be like Federer, where at the end of his career, people
will be talking about what he left on the table. They don't say that
about Nadal or Djokovich.
True, but it's so early in Carlos' career we don't have much evidence
how it will go. Logically you'd expect he can't keep up the insane
explosiveness at age 30 so his game will have to evolve. Whether this
results in less success depends on how his game looks. Novak is 36
and obviously not as quick as he was 10 yrs ago, but has evolved a
style that gives him equal success at the slams, if not more success.
He nearly won calendar slam at age 34 and may just do it at 36.
To me, Barty was a great thinker. It may be that Jabeur is, too.
Jabeur is an over thinker resulting in choke jobs. I'd invest in a
top notch psychologist for the next couple years if I were her.
Yep.
So let's get this one straight, once and for all, Whisp...
The loss yesterday WAS a choke, right?
On 17/07/2023 12:57 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/16/23 3:38 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 16/07/2023 12:59 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:
I'm playing around with the idea that talent erases, or covers,
other defects in a tennis player.
Some players are *so* talented, physically, that the do not need to
develop other supporting parts of their game. Two good examples of
extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he
could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a
Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a
similar--although not necessarily equal--level of talent, and the
match was therefore much closer, this lack of toughness showed up
and could result in loses.
Yep
Alcaraz, at this point, is playing like an animal. His talent is so
broad and deep that he fairly easily beats many of his closest
rivals--maybe all, we'll see. But probably there'll come a time
when he'll need to actually *think* more, and if he can't develop
that part, he'll be like Federer, where at the end of his career,
people will be talking about what he left on the table. They don't
say that about Nadal or Djokovich.
True, but it's so early in Carlos' career we don't have much
evidence how it will go. Logically you'd expect he can't keep up
the insane explosiveness at age 30 so his game will have to evolve.
Whether this results in less success depends on how his game looks.
Novak is 36 and obviously not as quick as he was 10 yrs ago, but has
evolved a style that gives him equal success at the slams, if not
more success. He nearly won calendar slam at age 34 and may just do
it at 36.
To me, Barty was a great thinker. It may be that Jabeur is, too.
Jabeur is an over thinker resulting in choke jobs. I'd invest in a
top notch psychologist for the next couple years if I were her.
Yep.
So let's get this one straight, once and for all, Whisp...
The loss yesterday WAS a choke, right?
Yes. Did you watch the match?Yes.
To me it looked like a choke from the outset. I was surprised she
got the break to lead 4-2, but laughed when she immediately lost her
serve to 0 and quickly lost the set and went a break down in 2nd.
Overall it was a poor match for a Wimbledon final. That's when the
whole world pays attention to tennis to see how the women play, are
they worth the same $$ as men and only playing bo3 etc. Jabeur is only
human, but a pro tennis player who's ranked top 5 and been in multiple
slam finals has to put in a better effort than that. In hindsight
would have been better if Sabalenka beat her in the semi as final
would have been better quality, which is amusing given I thought she
too was a choker until very recently : )
On 15/07/2023 7:47 pm, RahimAsif wrote:> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:19:39AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>> On 15/07/2023 5:27 pm, Court_1 wrote:>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:42:35PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:>>>>> Federer and Nadal having troublebeating Djokovic at the slams for the past decade(except for Nadal on clay) is also fact. How many matches did Federer have match points vs Djokovic and then blow it? At some point you have to concede that >despite Federer's talent and artistry, Djokovic
been any more dramatic. Hard to>> believe it happened. In terms of being Wimbledon king it has huge>> implications. Had Fed won he'd be on 9 and Novak on 6, hoping for a 7th>> tomorrow. Now 8-8 looks like a good chance, and Novak is 3-0 in>> Wimbledonthose 3 'blown' matches he may be on 23 slams today, Novak 21 and Nadal>> 21. More likely it would be Rafa 23, Fed 21 and Novak 21.>>>> The 2019 Wimbledon final is maybe the best and most significant match in>> tennis history, and it couldn't have
We can't discuss future coulda/woulda as we don't have crystal ball, only results up to date.
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 3:06:37 PM UTC-4, MBDunc wrote:
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
No, he was never good enough to win the big one on clay.
What do you call having match points in slams vs the same opponent four times and in the end you don't get the trophy? You don't think there's a big mental component to that?
Court_1 kirjoitti 16.7.2023 klo 3.34:elegance Federer did IMO.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and >> Djok is just blah.
That's about right. Djokovic's style is never anything great poets would write about but it's very effective, obviously. He took down two goats for a decade with it. He slowly asphyxiates his opponents and drains the life out of them.
Have to hope for Alkie to surprise us positively. But I doubt it.
On 16/07/2023 3:01 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 7/15/23 2:42 AM, RahimAsif wrote:> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:31:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:>> On 15/07/20
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
In Wimbledon 2019, Djok was up a break and if Federer won that match, would we have called djok mentally weak?
Was Nadal mentally weak when Federer managed to break back and win the AO 2017?
You played tennis and you understand the physicality of the game, and that mental toughness can't patch all deficits.
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?
Stop making excuses it's pathetic. Nobody is talking about a match here
or there, we have 20 years of Fed data ffs. Fed is not mentally weak by Jabeur standards, we're talking about comparisons to mental giants
Novak, Rafa, Sampras, Connors etc
On 16/07/2023 5:54 am, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Two good examples of extreme, stand0out talent, are Federer and Alcaraz. For Fed, he could win matches without developing the mental toughness of a Nadal or Connors. When he was eventually confronted with a similar--although not
Do you think if Federer was the 32 years old and Djokovic was the 38 years old, who do you think would have had the edge?
Djokovic! Without a doubt.
Don't start with that age crap again. It's ridiculous IMO when 35+ Federer was beating all other players in his path, was winning slams, making it to finals of slams, outplaying Djokovic in large portions of matches, etc.
It's refreshing listening to a sane Federer fan as opposed to PWL types
who seem impervious to facts and run on pure emotion : )
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:52:20 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
What do you call having match points in slams vs the same opponent four times and in the end you don't get the trophy? You don't think there's a big mental component to that?
Glad that we are on the same page here. Djokovic had put a tent in Federer's head and was residing there happily.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 3:06:37 PM UTC-4, MBDunc wrote:
Sampras was one-of-a-kind. Complete package for his era.
No, he was never good enough to win the big one on clay.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:39 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:elegance Federer did IMO.
Court_1 kirjoitti 16.7.2023 klo 3.34:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/15/23 12:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:01:36 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
You are smart guy, don't fall for the talk of the lack of mental toughness of Federer.Absolutely, you don't win 20 slams if you lack mental toughness. However, he's not wrong that generally speaking, Federer was mentally weaker than Djokovic/Nadal. It is what it is. Nadal and Djokovic don't have anywhere near the artistry and
You don't win 20 slams lacking mental toughness.
Have to hope for Alkie to surprise us positively. But I doubt it.
While Fed is like Baryshnikov, Nadal is like an agricultural worker, and >>>> Djok is just blah.
That's about right. Djokovic's style is never anything great poets would write about but it's very effective, obviously. He took down two goats for a decade with it. He slowly asphyxiates his opponents and drains the life out of them.
Alkie did it! I missed most of it and was surprised to see the slow asphyxiator lost. Finally, Federer gets to keep a record(Wimbledon titles) at least for now
On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes
I remember it differently. Fed was ascending in ranking at the time and Sampras was dropping. In the pre-match comments everyone was talking about how Fed had the game to beat Sampras.I am not sure what brought Federer in the discussion, you seem so obsessed with the guy and it's obvious in the big decline in your posts after he retired.
You can comment on my post about great youngsters beating great champions on their best surface, example Federer over Sampras in Wimbledon. Nadal winning and beating Federer in the FO as young teen.
Alcaraz has another chance to show something special in this Wimbledon reaching the final and beating a 36 years old.
After that, he isn't a high league in my book.
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around
his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:17:00 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:were very high: thefirst GS singles title for the winner *and*ATP Ranking #1. Ruud was a runner-up plus got ATP Ranking #2. So the Norwegian was really a super top player among everybody on the ATP Tour. It was noteasy to beat him.> The tour has no good
On 14/07/2023 8:02 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
On 13/07/2023 8:49 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:> kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did he beat in us open?I do not remember much, but he beat Casper Ruudin the final. The stakes
I am not sure what brought Federer in the discussion, you seem so obsessed with the guy and it's obvious in the big decline in your posts after he retired.
You can comment on my post about great youngsters beating great champions on their best surface, example Federer over Sampras in Wimbledon. Nadal winning and beating Federer in the FO as young teen.
Alcaraz has another chance to show something special in this Wimbledon reaching the final and beating a 36 years old.
After that, he isn't a high league in my book.
Federer was a nobody at Alcaraz current age and there was no hype around his match with Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon. Alcaraz is world no.1 and a
teen slam champ, and already been compared to the goats.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:55:15 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,234 |