"Official" Wimbledon Thread

[sportschick]

Yea, but this is :D

 

[melock]

What hurts Roddick is his matter-of-fact demeanor in post-match interviews. How do I put this…he's already ready to be a TV announcer. His statements after losing in the French - that he played pretty well and executed his gameplan - sound like that of some tennis hound who scours the grid for tough draws. Could you imagine the world's number 3 golfer saying that? <i> Well, I missed the cut, but then again it's the U.S. Open, the setup really doesn't suit me as well it does a guy like Jeff Maggert </i>

Do I want to see Roddick turn into Serena Williams? (whose post-game loss interviews seem to fixate on how badly she played, as if she can't <i> really </i> be beaten if she doesn't beat herself). No. But he should win Wimbledon. On this surface, he can beat Federer, darn near did once, and will ten more cracks at a title.

While we're at it, a thought about Federer, a player I really like and enjoy watching. However... is the guy really the best of all time, or playing in a fortunate era? If we cast our gaze back, say to 1990-1995 or so, and he's in a pool with Sampras, Agassi, Goran, Becker, Stich, Courier, Edberg…that gang. How many Grand Slams does he have then?

That's what I was trying to say a page ago about Roddick. He should be able to play well and win on grass. He's been close, but not recently and I wonder why that is. He's not like he's old or been seriously injured.

I think the same thing with Tiger Woods as you do with Federer. If Tiger was playing in the late 70s without all the technological advances and playing against Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino, Floyd, North, Weiskoff would he be as dominant? He'd still be good, but probably not winning as much. Same with Federer although I think the guy is outstanding and would have been a favorite to win just about anything he entered. He's damn good.

 

[BTExpress]

While we're at it, a thought about Federer, a player I really like and enjoy watching. However... is the guy really the best of all time, or playing in a fortunate era? If we cast our gaze back, say to 1990-1995 or so, and he's in a pool with Sampras, Agassi, Goran, Becker, Stich, Courier, Edberg…that gang. How many Grand Slams does he have then?

I think we're romanticizing that period a little too much . . . and forgetting how obscenely deep the talent pool is on the ATP Tour today.

I'll take Federer or Nadal or Djokovic to beat the likes of Michael Stich 19 out of 20 times and Goran 17 out of 20 times.

Becker and Edberg were at their best on a surface that nobody plays on (grass) and were borderline useless on a surface in which most tournaments are held (clay). Edberg, while a class act, had one of the ugliest and most technically unsound forehands of any top-5 player you'll ever see. And not only did Becker never win the French . . . he never won ANY tournament on clay anywhere.

Courier fought his guts out . . . but that's all he had. In Courier's day the likes of Sergei Bruguera and Alberto Berasategui were your French Open finalists. I think Federer-Nadal speaks a little better for this era.

 

[melock]

Don't forget Tomas Muster. That guy was an animal on clay. I remember seeing him hit forehands in a wheelchair when he was recovering from a broken leg. Scary. I like your thinking BTW.

 

[nafselon]

I wouldn't say Edberg was useless on clay, he made the finals of the French in 1989 or 1990 (whichever year Chang won) and won a few Masters Series titles on the surface. He wasn't Borg by any stretch but he wasn't as bad as Becker, who I don't believe ever won a singles title on the surface.

Edberg's forehard was butt ugly, but of course he was such a serve and volley player that if a crucial point ever came down to his forehand he was already in trouble. I actually think Pat Rafter was a better serve and volleyer but his peak came at the wrong time as Agassi and Sampras were winning the majority of the tournaments and leaving him behind in the quarters and semis.

Otherwise I agree. Michael Stich is horribly overrated, even Martina rips him for being a one-trick pony. Goran is similar in his one-dimension although far less of a douchebag.

 

[nafselon]

Henman wins....Wondering how much steam he'll have for the second round.

I expected Fish to put up a better showing against Nadal on the grass, maybe Nadal is much better on grass than I orginally thought.

 

[Alma]

While we're at it, a thought about Federer, a player I really like and enjoy watching. However... is the guy really the best of all time, or playing in a fortunate era? If we cast our gaze back, say to 1990-1995 or so, and he's in a pool with Sampras, Agassi, Goran, Becker, Stich, Courier, Edberg…that gang. How many Grand Slams does he have then?

I think we're romanticizing that period a little too much . . . and forgetting how obscenely deep the talent pool is on the ATP Tour today.

Obscenely deep is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Any argument that depends on the relevance of the French Open loses me.
Sorry.

 

[GB-Hack]

Henman wins....Wondering how much steam he'll have for the second round.

I think he has steam, and now he's bumped the seed off from that section, an easier draw than he might have had.

He always makes it interesting, especially if he gets on center court.

 

[ballscribe]

While we're at it, a thought about Federer, a player I really like and enjoy watching. However... is the guy really the best of all time, or playing in a fortunate era? If we cast our gaze back, say to 1990-1995 or so, and he's in a pool with Sampras, Agassi, Goran, Becker, Stich, Courier, Edberg…that gang. How many Grand Slams does he have then?

I think we're romanticizing that period a little too much . . . and forgetting how obscenely deep the talent pool is on the ATP Tour today.

Obscenely deep is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

It is obscenely deep. There are players from countries who had barely heard of tennis in the Becker/Edberg era.

If you ever have one of those Futures tournaments in your area, go and check it out.

I think the prize for winning one is about $1300. The qualifying draw is even bigger than the main draw. You could have to win 8-9 matches to win the whole thing, if you have to go through the qualies.

And ALL those guys can play, even the ones ranked 1000 in the world. It's scary as hell. Unless you're a genius, I can't even imagine how tough it must be to make the leap. You win a tournament, play nine matches, beat everybody, and all it does is raise your ranking from 520 to 507.

And the other 100 guys all want the same thing you do.

The women aren't as deep, but there are still new ones hatching every day, in places like Slovenia and Chinese Taipei and Madagascar and Armenia and places I haven't even heard of.

 

[Alma]

ballscribe,

I've seen a Futures tournament before.

Regarding this deep field you talk about, reading the piece in NYT last weekend about the 18-year-old who can't even win a game in an ATP match to a guy who then can't win a game in the following round...I don't know if that says "deep" to me.

Beyond that...define deep. As in, what's it deep relative to? College tennis? The guys down at the club? I'm not sure Federer makes 8 finals in a row if that's deep. It's so deep that absolutely <I> no one </i> can beat him other than Nadal...on one surface? The fifth seed this Wimbledon is Gonzales...is he really better than the fifth seed 15 years ago?

 

[John]

Interesting note: Fifteen years ago, Agassi, Chang and Courier all lost in the first round at Wimbledon. Agassi was seeded third, Chang sixth and Courier eighth.

 

[sportschick]

Serena looked awful this morning. I hope she's not headed for another early Wimbledon exit.

 

[John]

Serena looked awful this morning. I hope she's not headed for another early Wimbledon exit.

She didn't look to good early in the Australian either, so I wouldn't worry too much -- unless the hamstring injury is serious.

For any Tim Henman fans out there, or tennis fans in general, you'll probably enjoy this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article1909884.ece

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Speaking of Timmy, he's got yet another five-setter going this morning.

 

[nafselon]

Unfortunately for Henman, he came out on the wrong end of this fifth-setter. Took all his energy to get it to five sets and he was dead once he did. Hopefully he'll do a 15th and final Wimbledon next year.

Federer officially begins his Wimbledon campaign over the weekend, it was nice for the tournament people to give him a couple of live scrimmages first.

 

[spnited]

So I'm watching James Blake losing to Juan Carlos Ferrero and I'm wondering, has there ever been a more overrated player than James Blake?
If he weren't an American, he'd be referred to as a 27-year-old journeyman. But to listen to all of the commentators he's still some great American hope even though he has won exactly NOTHING in his career.

 

[Cansportschick]

Serena looked awful this morning. I hope she's not headed for another early Wimbledon exit.

Meanwhile, sis Venus looked great in her second round match. I wouldn't count her out just yet.

 

[John]

So I'm watching James Blake losing to Juan Carlos Ferrero and I'm wondering, has there ever been a more overrated player than James Blake?
If he weren't an American, he'd be referred to as a 27-year-old journeyman. But to listen to all of the commentators he's still some great American hope even though he has won exactly NOTHING in his career.

I think it's because he's such a nice guy, who has endured quite a bit over the past five years or so. But he's been awful in 2007.

The bigger mystery to me is Fernando Gonzalez, who looked like the No. 2 player in the world at the Australian Open. Then he, a Chilean, gets bounced in the first round at the French and the third round at Wimbledon.

 

[BTExpress]

It's not that Blake is overrated.

I'm pretty sure the other 230 nations of the world give him little or no recognition.

But as one of only two Americans within shouting distance of even competing to make it to the second week of a Grand Slam, he will get more coverage in the American media than a player of his limited accomplishments deserves.

Add the "nice guy" and "good comeback from the abyss" factors, and there you have it.