Lots of new names here....a few thoughts...

Not entirely.

Djokovic's form has been woeful this year and it is by no means a gimmie that he would defeat Federer again. Federer beat him at Wimbledon and this might be the time for Djokovic to repay the deed.

Let's see what the draw throws up.

Tenez wrote:

What do you mean by rough and soft? the mods or the posters?
------------
Hehe. I meant posters. v2 caters towards a somewhat softer poster segment. I know you may disagree, but for me there is nothing wrong with it in principle. There are people who prefer non-confrontational discussion and in general do not feel comfortable if the debate gets too heated. And that is perfectly fine, that does not mean that they should be scorned or ridiculed or criticised for that. And there is nothing horrible about v2 trying to cater to that type of audience.

But not everyone is like that. I prefer more free-flowing fora, where posts may be more confrontational and people freely express their opinions even if those may be unpalatable - and perhaps occasionally even offensive - to some of the fellow posters (funnily enough, in spite of this preference, I myself am not necessarily into "bold" type of posting myself).

As long as it is all done within reasonable level of civility, I actually prefer some confrontation on a forum. But again, I recognize not everyone is like that and I do not think there is anything conceptually wrong with how v2 wants to position their forum.

The only problem is that "meek and lowly" soft bunch were quite able to kick out posters they didn't like.
It was not the mods that started it but those very non-confrontational types.
Doesn't matter now, anyway.

I prefer more free-flowing fora, where posts may be more confrontational and people freely express their opinions even if those may be unpalatable
------------------------------------------
I agree. That's the purpose of a forum actually. To read what people have on their mind and not what is already out there in the main stream media.

For instance, reading things like "Fed and Rafa are 2 great champions" bores me to death. I like to dwell a bit more into what makes them "great" champs.


===============
As long as it is all done within reasonable level of civility, I actually prefer some confrontation on a forum.
------------------------------------
Indeed. Though ideally I would like to read posts I can learn from. It could be simply news, insight from somone inside the ATP or even someone with a clear knowledge of technique. Though I have listened to many pro commentators and very few can bring something new. The dynamics of the game are actually pretty simple to understand.

Though I have listened to many pro commentators and very few can bring something new. The dynamics of the game are actually pretty simple to understand.

------

This for me is where commentators like Petchey and Fleming leave the others in their wake.

Fleming for a doubles specialist knows a thing or 2 about singles and the fact he points such obvious things durng a match or even finds inventive ways for players to turn matches or maintain the same course of action is quite phenominal.

Petchey for me is the best out there. He is quite septical to the odd fanboy moment with a Murray victory, but he is always willing to criticise no matter how precise it is. What I like about him is that he does offer geuine insight and analysis even in the face of a Buckland or Cowan who just throw out there the most ridiculous comments and observations I have ever heard. Petchey is usually spot on with most of his comments.

I was impressed with ITV during the French Open in being able to employ commentators like Courier and Santoro who's insight I enjoyed a immensely.

Wimbledon is still hit and miss. When you have a line up such as Becker, McEnroe and even Henman to an extent and you follow it up with Castle and Cotter it really does ruin the experience some what. I don't feel Becker and McEnroe say what they would really like to say.

Croft and Wilander annoy me to no end.

I think a lot of them are good but it took the old generation (Mc, Cash, Becker) some time to pick up the effect of new strings and slower conds for instance.

Robbie Koening is amongst the best commentator in my view. But at the end of the day they all come up with absurd statements (well that I find absurd) cause they are also salesrep to some extend and have to use a coded language to please all sides.

Wilander is actually very good...I think and so is Henman actually but I can honestly say that I am not learning much from them cause I know what makes a player good and weak how the element (strings, racquets, wind, fast/slow conds, etc...) affect their games.

An example of Koening getting it wrong. He said that Ferrer was extremely strong mentally and he had lots of respect for him cause he was giving everything on the court. On every match.

I kind of see what he says but Ferrer when it gets tense versus the top player he shrinks more than anybody else.

How often has he beaten top players in his career? The last FO semi v Rafa was typical (as well as his other matches on clay v Rafa). He could have won them all but managed to lose them all, even without fighting at all towards the end.

So when Koening says he is an amazing fighter I really question it, especially against the top players.

I get what your saying with Ferrer, I think he he does have the fighter element. When I was watching Ferrer v Murray he was tense. He played some really good stuff, but that 2nd set TB he should've seen out. The Ferrer that beat Del Potro would've seen that match out against Murray.

I think one of the things which annoy me about Wilander is the fact he constantly changes view too quickly for my liking. I can recall the Djokovic and Seppi match and he had Seppi a nailed on certainty to win that match despite Djokovic having much more in reserve.

Henman is astute and I like what he brings when he comments on volleying and what is required. McEnroe provides the best insight to mentality of players and what they could and should be feeling.

Fleming for me provides the best education in tennis. Ok I can forgive the them for not being able to speak a lot about the strings, but he more than any of them speaks so well of strings and the fact he like the rest plays the legends matches at GS's they use the latest in racquet technology, but I think they would find it hard to really speak in depth because they are not using the racquets in the prime of their careers. I would imagine they would get some pop from the racquets and feel the extra % of power it entails, they would agree that if they used it in their era or if they were around in this era that it would be difficult to accustom to such changes.

I went to a shop a couple of weeks back and I was fuming because the so-called racquet expert knew nothing on the racquets or strings or grips and I found myself having to educate him on who produces what.

Yes, string and technology are key nowadays but more importantly how you develop your game based on what you have used.

Agassi for instance could never have developped his game with a small frame wooden racquet.

Federer was able to change his FH while at the peak of his career to avoid giving too many points as the topspin ball he was getting was much harder to time than the ball sent by natural string he was getting at the beginning of his career. Hence the loss of that wow factor on his FH. I remember in 2007 we thought he was not the same as before already...but he was ahead of us and knew he had to do something about his game cause the ball was coming back more often thna previously.

I remember watching the Madrid 09 final (fed v Nadal) on sky on youtube. The commentators there were excellent. Were they Petchey Cowan? I guess I coudl find it on youtube.

Madrid 09 final I think it was Petchey and Barry Millns.

Agassi used a bigger frame too when he started that second peak from 1999 onwards. His serve had more pop to it as well. Agassi started with a wooden racquet and the moment he played nationally he moved over to the metal/graphite racquets. To see how much his game developed with the racquet you need not look no further than his Wimbledon final 1992 and compare it to his Australian Open final in 2000. Massive difference in the power on his BH.

I think when you look at Federer now, he goes for a much flatter FH CC. I think what Federer did well as you say is add much depth to his FH just to remain in rallies. Ok it doesn't loop like a Nadal FH, but it does have the desire effect in forcing a more attacking approach from the opponent. Not many people attack on the Federer FH apart from Djokovic and at a push Murray.

I so feel McEnroe himself could be much better on commentary because he played with a wooden and metal racquet.

You rarely get broadcasters who stretch the subject of tennis out beyond the courts to maybe touch on the changes in the modern era's to tennis in general.