*Official* Tennis Thread

[superkingdave]

Yeah I watch the final most years but I don't tend to watch the prize giving TBH. Don't see why he should present it, just some pointless hanger on that doesn't contribute anything to the country like Charlie does.

Actually does a fair amount, especially considering he is in his mid seventies.

IIRC his mother was previously president of the AELTC before him.

 

[Anil]

Hope Anil gives Roddick some respect now

i certainly do...that was a magnificent effort from roddick! but federer was just so wonderfully determined...

 

[Smudge]

Yeah I watch the final most years but I don't tend to watch the prize giving TBH. Don't see why he should present it, just some pointless hanger on that doesn't contribute anything to the country like Charlie does.

What part of the "president of the All-England tennis club" are you struggling with?

 

[PhoenixFire]

What part of the "president of the All-England tennis club" are you struggling with?

Yawn.

OK then, why the hell should he be president of the All England Tennis Club if the only reason he has the position is because he was born into it? Fair enough if it is someone who actually serves a purpose like Prince Charles or the Queen, but all these minor-royals just really annoy me. He is 24th in succession for the throne. Fair enough if he does charity work or whatever, but surely he could do all of that without all the honourary titles and public money.

 

[Johnners]

Is it really that big of an issue? Seems to me like you're the only one that has a problem with him presenting the trophy....

Anyone would think the man had just killed your cat or something.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well it's just that I'd rather have someone like Sampras present the trophy, someone who actually did something worthwhile than some stuffy old git that probably hasn't contributed a whole lot to tennis as a whole. I've more of a problem with the minor-royals generally, but that is beside the point.

 

[Simon]

Glad that Roger regains the world number ranking. Really deserves it considering in the past 4 grand slams he holds 3 trophies and a runner up in the other.

 

[Anil]

Fair enough if it is someone who actually serves a purpose like Prince Charles or the Queen

and what purpose do they serve? social parasites at best...

 

[PhoenixFire]

and what purpose do they serve? social parasites at best...

Well if we didn't have a monarchy we would have to devolve power to a president I am led to believe. I'm not against the monarchy, I just don't like the idea that they get public funding for just being born into it, rather than earning it.

Anyway, I've already derailed this thread enough, back to tennis....

 

[irfan]

Reckon Roger will be caught off guard and be pushed to 5 sets tonight. Roddick's playing some very good tennis and has made big improvements in his arsenal outside his traditional weapons - big serve and booming forehand. I'm not convinced that Roddick has made the mental adjustments that afflicts him when playing Federer in Grand Slams and that could be the difference as Federer should win more of the big points.

Will be awesome if Feds can win the Wimbledon, US and Oz next year as this is the best chance he's ever gonna get of achieving the Grand Slam.

Fell asleep early on in the second set . Congrats to Roddick - he gave Federer absolutely everything and then some but tightened up on some key points which proved to be the difference. Roddick will be devastated by this, not sure if he can ever beat Roger in a GS again.

From other posters comments it seems like the quality of the tennis didn't reflect the closeness of the contest - which is a shame. Roddick did well to play the game on his own terms by having short games and reducing the amount of baseline battles - and nearly pulled it off.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Feel for Smitteh.

Yeah man, I was ****ing gutted. Feel so bad for Roddick, this could be harder to swallow than last year and it could really destroy him. Hopefully it doesn't.

Find it hilarious that Jono made a post about Henin not being a good server and saying that makes her an incomplete tennis player, then two players put on the best display of serving you'll ever see under immense pressure and people are saying it was rubbish tennis. Wake up to yourselves.

 

[Anil]

Well if we didn't have a monarchy we would have to devolve power to a president I am led to believe. I'm not against the monarchy, I just don't like the idea that they get public funding for just being born into it, rather than earning it.

Anyway, I've already derailed this thread enough, back to tennis....

i don't know why there needs to be a president since he would just be the nominal head of state with no real power, the real executive authority is the prime minister anyway(just like in india), even if there is one, an elected leader who works at his job for a limited period of time and pays his taxes like any other citizen is worse than a family of "privileged" moochers who don't make any positive contributions to a democratic society and have lived off the public(and pillaged loot from other societies) for generations because....??

anyway as you say don't want to derail this thread so i am stopping now...

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Nice call irfan.

What is the difference between 8-6 and 12-10? How is it any different? Eventually Roger won a break point, and he did it when it mattered the most. Whether he did it 4 games earlier or not doesn't change it from "all right" to "too much".

He only got the break because Roddick couldn't play anymore.

Obviously, Federer had something in reserve since at one point it looked like he was well and truly on the ropes, but I thought it was sad the way he started getting service returns and Roddick made those pitiful unforced errors.

I realise it's a rare case, but 16-14 in a tiebreak would've been a better result.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Anil, my point was that women's tennis is far more competitivehe today compared to the past. Keep the top 2-4 players aside and the rest of the field is far stronger today compared to 20 years back. It's far tougher to win titles now than it was 20 years back is all that I am saying.

I gotta disagree with this.

In 1989, Graff won every GS except for the French, which she lost to Arantxa Sánchez Vicario. The next year had four different winners -- Graff, Seles, Navratilova and Gabriela Sabatini.

It's more or less the same as now, except for the fact that women's tennis was more compelling in 1989-1990.

 

[Anil]

He only got the break because Roddick couldn't play anymore.

Obviously, Federer had something in reserve since at one point it looked like he was well and truly on the ropes, but I thought it was sad the way he started getting service returns and Roddick made those pitiful unforced errors.

I realise it's a rare case, but 16-14 in a tiebreak would've been a better result.

so federer was better at roddick at hanging tough...that is one of the many things that make him a much better player than roddick...implying that he was lucky that roddick blinked first in the marathon 5th set(if i misinterpreted that 1st statement, i apologize but that's what it sounded like) doesn't make any sense...see what roddick says of federer here

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Federer showed stamina, fitness and mental toughness by serving so well -- and Roddick falling apart in the second set tiebreaker had a huge bearing in the outcome -- but in his last few services games, all Roddick had going for him was his first serve. Whenever Federer managed a return, Roddick couldn't keep the ball in play. Federer only really broke him by returning serve. Kudos to Federer for holding his own serve, but the tiebreaker system would've been much fairer.

 

[Jono]

Find it hilarious that Jono made a post about Henin not being a good server and saying that makes her an incomplete tennis player, then two players put on the best display of serving you'll ever see under immense pressure and people are saying it was rubbish tennis. Wake up to yourselves.

I'm assuming you weren't having a go at me there, but the others in this thread that didn't appreciate the 5th set?

Because I thought the match was excellent.

 

[Jono]

Federer showed stamina, fitness and mental toughness by serving so well -- and Roddick falling apart in the second set tiebreaker had a huge bearing in the outcome -- but in his last few services games, all Roddick had going for him was his first serve. Whenever Federer managed a return, Roddick couldn't keep the ball in play. Federer only really broke him by returning serve. Kudos to Federer for holding his own serve, but the tiebreaker system would've been much fairer.

How is it fairer though? What you're saying is, eventually Federer became better than Roddick, so let's end the match earlier then?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm assuming you weren't having a go at me there, but the others in this thread that didn't appreciate the 5th set?

Because I thought the match was excellent.

Yeah, was using it as an example.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

How is it fairer though? What you're saying is, eventually Federer became better than Roddick, so let's end the match earlier then?

Roddick was spent. If they'd played a tiebreak, both guys would've had a fairer shot at winning it. I don't like watching tennis matches were a guy loses because he's drained and has nothing left. Federer couldn't do anything with the Roddick serve until Andy began to tire.

I don't wanna take anything away from Federer, he held serve on 8-8 when he was down 15-40 and served his way to victory, but with both struggling to get points off each other's serve, what's the point of playing 30 games? They were serving to stay in the game over and over again. Take it away, force the tiebreaker and you have a shorter, more dramatic form of what actually happened.