ATP as we hardly discuss any women's matches!
IMO most exciting match will be
Paire vs Baker, I think Baker is favourite here but nitb might have different take on that.
Murray vs Baghdatis will be an evening match, I think it will 3 easy straight for Murray.
Delpo to battle out Kei Nishikori, an upset cannot be rule out there.
In the absence of mighty nadull, one of the Lukas (name is rosol, Lukas Rosol) and Kohli will be battling out for a probable first fourth round grand slam appearance. On current form Mr rosol should be fav but who knows, aye, eh?
tsonga, who is he playing?
Glad to see Fed going through, it was scary. I lost my appetitie and was cursing that all of that feel good factor from Nadal's exit is going to go to vain but Fed is still there, one short of the win to emulate Sampras.
Let's watch and enjoy. Wimber 2012! Aye!
Wimbledon Day 6 ATP 2012
posted on 30/6/12
Cilic won at Boodles by beating Monaco and Monaco was the better player on the day. Cilic played below his best level of two years ago. He was useless at the net.
posted on 30/6/12
It's been a fabulous and memorable first week of Wimbledon.
We've had great dramas and upsets and I thoroughly enjoyed my day there on Monday.
Big for rotla and tmf for hosting daily threads
posted on 30/6/12
nitb
posted on 30/6/12
And our day thread has more comments than v2 .
posted on 30/6/12
There are only two tools a player needs in order to be attackng: a nice forehand and plenty of fire in the belly. Murray has neither in my opinion.
-------------
What you more poetically call "fire in the belly" falls within what I cover under "personality". I admit, he may not be the type given to attacking.
When I say tools, I mean more the shots in his armory and his physical abilities. There I disagree with you.
First, I think that boiling it all down to a "nice" forehand is oversimplifying it, and second I think his forehand is good enough to allow him to play more aggressively.
I am not saying he will (or needs to) become an all-out aggressor, but I do think he has the physical ability to be more aggressive than he normally is.
Just watching today's match can give you a bit of an idea. He certainly increased his level of aggression later in the third set. It is not the first time he has been aggressive and I have seen him succeed with that approach before (and again tonight). So it is not like he just physically cannot do it.
I am off for the rest of the day so any further arguments will need to wait for another day or thread - if you respond and I will not it is not because I am ignoring you
Good night to all of you in your neck of the woods.
posted on 1/7/12
Murray looked ok tonight - a few AE's but Baggie folded pretty much after he surrendered the break in Set 3.
Murray should make the final - Tsonga or DP are realistically the only ones who can stop him.
Nole still to win the whole thing, he is sharper than Fed nowdays and does what Murray does but does it just that bit better.
Stick to my original prediction - Djokovic Murray final with Djokovic win in 4
posted on 1/7/12
SB,
I know what you are trying to say, that's the Murray from Rome 2011 semifinal.
That Murray is almost a fluke, kind of Fed in RG 2011 semifinal, a highly pumped-up performance that cannot be sustained match-in match-out, almost like one-offs, or rare at best.
I disagree about Murray's forehand.
He CAN hit it flat and hard ,but so can anybody else.
the real question is why does he not do it all the time
posted on 1/7/12
That Murray is almost a fluke, kind of Fed in RG 2011 semifinal, a highly pumped-up performance that cannot be sustained match-in match-out, almost like one-offs, or rare at best.
--------------------------------------------
Right intent but incorrect example to pick Fed's 2011 FO semis performance. If you think that performance from was so rare that it can be called "almost a fluke" then you certainly haven't seen much of Federer at all.
Bring back last year balls and I'll guarantee that he will do it again and many times over.
posted on 1/7/12
@SB
You hold a very ideological view of things. At the top, players will gravitate towards the style that brings them most success. They are playing to win, not for fun. If conditions slow down sufficiently to make defensive tennis the most likely tennis to succeed, more players - even among the most talented attackers - will gravitate towards that type of tennis. As they indeed should.
--------------------------------------
Actually we both are on same side as I see except the topic got deviated in this reply of yours. I didn't even mean to say that players should play the ideological game for fun and excitement of themselves and the viewers.
My point was on the view that its Murray's choice or likeness for this defensive play that he does it and though he chooses to play this way, he can shift anytime because he has all the skills to do it.
Murray just had no choice. He couldn't be aggressive and hit winners at will, he just hasn't got the talent and skill to do it. If he had he would be doing it from his junior days. But as we know, people learn to adapt, "evolve" to survive. Its only natural if one wants to succeed. He picked up on this defensive style of play because compared to his own aggressive shot-making, he is better at defending, slicing endlessly with patience till the opponent runs out of it, running and chasing all balls. This gives him a better chance to win based on percentage-play. Anything else and he wouldn't even have seen top-50, let alone this top-4 for 4 years now.
Slow courts and balls, good racquets and strings have made his life much easier because the favor percentage play.
Tennis is not natural for Murray, and I don't think he likes playing it either. He is a pro, but its different, he doesn't enjoy playing tennis. Its not difficult to spot it in his oncourt demeanor. He enjoys winning, but not playing tennis. Everything he does on court looks so "manufactured", its like well-thought out and planned and madeup after years of hard work put all together in order to make up for the missing natural skill and talent. Yes he is a player, quite successful one to, but I don't see anything great about it. Good, but not great.
posted on 3/7/12
Rotla:
I suspect overall we do not differ all that much on the issue of natural attacking ability vs court conditions vs how players play these days etc etc. However, I think that specifically on Murray we do differ. Clearly, he will never be an attacker in the Federer mold. However, for every player there is some range of playing styles within which they are able to operate and from which they can choose. I honestly think that Andy is choosing suboptimally - that his abilities would allow him to be more aggressive and to be more successful with it than he is now. It iis not like he never tried it - there is enough evidence to indicate he might be able to do it.
I am not saying everyone can just become more aggressive. For example, Nadal is an example of a player who I think just does not have the tools that would allow him to be aggressive. I have never seen him successfully employ agressive style of play - which is unlike Murray.
Anyway, I think we (at least I) kind of said what we were going to say so let's sit back and watch what the next few days bring.