The Tennis Thread

[Robbo66]

Same, a gentleman too...happy to be playing. Refreshing to see.

[over_the_hill]

Bright Halo said:

Isner is defying the aging process, just getting better the older he is. 37 now and playing like he is in his mid twenties.
I know it is a cliché but he does move well for a big fella.
The third set showed how the top guys inc Murray normally handle Isner. Hold your own serve then out manoeuvre him in the tie break.
Murray just not consistent enough during the other sets. I think if he had met him a round or two later he would have done it.

Isner will be a challenge to anyone this year playing like that.
Good luck to him, would love to see him take a top scalp.

The one issue I saw for Isner was low balls. Anything that didn't pitch up or drop shots where his height worked against
him and he generally struggled to get down to them and consequently played a bad shot.

[Bright Halo]

I have only just learnt that Matteo Berratini was forced to withdraw due to a positive Covid test.
What a shame that is as he played exceptionally well at Queens and must have been in with a good chance at Wimbledon.
Terrible for him and the spectators miss out on a truly entertaining player.

[Bonefish Blues]

Hard to look past Novak for this one.

[Bannock]

Is it just me or does anyone else get fed up with the unquestioning hero worship of Nadal? Yes he wins lots, but his play is so so so so soul crushingly dull. I just switch off when he's on. Thud thud thud thud thud, no variety, no excitement. I fact at Wimbledon I only really enjoy the first week, when you can watch the lesser players on an unusual surface, it produces some great matches which the TV routinely ignores because they don't involve the "big" names. I rejoice in those years when we're fortunate enough to see Nadal go out in the early rounds. GOAT? Not a chance in hell, just bloody invincible on clay because he's so boring. The French Open is unwatchable.

Same goes for bloody Isner, he's actually hopeless at pretty much every aspect of the game except serving, he just managed to profit from a couple of Murray errors to break him twice yesterday, and got fortunate with some drops at the net which is a skill usually outside of his game, such as it is.

Also, I couldn't care less if people think Murray is taciturn or miserable or whatever. So what if he is. He's great to watch on court, I don't give a monkey's what any player is like off court, I'm not likely to ever be trying to make friends with them now am I.

YMMV

Edited by Bannock on Thursday 30th June 11:31

[john41901]

Bannock said:

Also, I couldn't care less if people think Murray is taciturn or miserable or whatever. So what if he is. He's great to watch on court, I don't give a monkey's what any player is like off court, I'm not likely to ever be trying to make friends with them now am I.

YMMV

Edited by Bannock on Thursday 30th June 11:31

Is clearly the end of his era now unfortunately, is impressive from such a traumatic childhood (Dunblane) they were able to focus and succeed in the game at this level. The two stand out matches of this tournament for entertainment (for me) so far have been Serena (I'm not fan but what a battle) and Murray last night. Nadal Djok final looking more and more likely imo.

[Bonefish Blues]

I watch Nadal knowing exactly what I'm going to get, but admiring it nonetheless. Absolute force of nature, and I think a lovely guy behind all the odd stuff

[ferrisbueller]

I thought Isner was crushingly efficient yesterday. Big serves backed up with quality volleying and plenty of decent shots off the deck. Absolutely not a one trick pony and capitalised on his chances. He probably won't play that well again for a while, if ever. The current version of Murray couldn't break him down and made key errors. Such is life.

[McGee_22]

I think that's the best I've seen Isner play in recent years and the half-volleys from Murray service returns were crippling Murrays efforts - that said, Murray made three critical unforced errors in the fifth game of the fourth set to lose his service game, and subsequently the set and the match.

[Bannock]

ferrisbueller said:

I thought Isner was crushingly efficient yesterday. Big serves backed up with quality volleying and plenty of decent shots off the deck. Absolutely not a one trick pony[b] and capitalised on his chances. He probably [b]won't play that well again for a while, if ever. The current version of Murray couldn't break him down and made key errors. Such is life.

Bit of a contradiction, there.

[ferrisbueller]

Bannock said:

ferrisbueller said:

I thought Isner was crushingly efficient yesterday. Big serves backed up with quality volleying and plenty of decent shots off the deck. Absolutely not a one trick pony[b] and capitalised on his chances. He probably [b]won't play that well again for a while, if ever. The current version of Murray couldn't break him down and made key errors. Such is life.

Bit of a contradiction, there.

Not sure how that's a contradiction. The claim was all he could do was serve big. He demonstrated far more than that. He beat Murray up.

In terms of sustaining that level, he's 37 now.

[Bannock]

ferrisbueller said:

Bannock said:

ferrisbueller said:

I thought Isner was crushingly efficient yesterday. Big serves backed up with quality volleying and plenty of decent shots off the deck. Absolutely not a one trick pony and capitalised on his chances. He probably won't play that well again for a while, if ever. The current version of Murray couldn't break him down and made key errors. Such is life.

Bit of a contradiction, there.

Not sure how that's a contradiction. The claim was all he could do was serve big. He demonstrated far more than that. He beat Murray up.

In terms of sustaining that level, he's 37 now.

If he's never going to play that well again, then you're saying all he's got is his serve, which makes him a one-trick pony. Also, were he not a one trick pony, and he had other weapons in his armoury than just the biggest serve in the game, he'd have one a Grand Slam by now. As you say he's 37, and he hasn't. He's the modern Roscoe Tanner.

Sorry for buggering up the bold tags, I'm about as much use as an Isner service return usually is.

Now watch Isner win Wimbldon this year....Ivanisevic style.

[ferrisbueller]

Bannock said:

ferrisbueller said:

Bannock said:

ferrisbueller said:

I thought Isner was crushingly efficient yesterday. Big serves backed up with quality volleying and plenty of decent shots off the deck. Absolutely not a one trick pony and capitalised on his chances. He probably won't play that well again for a while, if ever. The current version of Murray couldn't break him down and made key errors. Such is life.

Bit of a contradiction, there.

Not sure how that's a contradiction. The claim was all he could do was serve big. He demonstrated far more than that. He beat Murray up.

In terms of sustaining that level, he's 37 now.

If he's never going to play that well again, then you're saying all he's got is his serve, which makes him a one-trick pony. Also, were he not a one trick pony, and he had other weapons in his armoury than just the biggest serve in the game, he'd have one a Grand Slam by now. As you say he's 37, and he hasn't. He's the modern Roscoe Tanner.

Sorry for buggering up the bold tags, I'm about as much use as an Isner service return usually is.

Now watch Isner win Wimbldon this year....Ivanisevic style.

That's not what I wrote.

I'm sorry he beat your man, but he did. Comprehensively.

[Bannock]

Now who is reading things that aren't there. My man?

Look, you can't claim someone isn't a one trick pony (in the context of discussing someone who is famed for one aspect of the game and has never excelled at any other), and then say he'll never play that well again. The second part of that contradicts the first. What other aspect of Isner's game is world class, outside his serve? What is he consistently better than his opponents at?

He won yesterday by his usual tactic of heavy serving from 12/13 feet, depending on a couple of errors from the opponent at crucial moments to break him, and playing other strokes outside his serve game unusually well. That's all he's done his entire career, and of course sometimes it works and he wins. However, not often enough to carry him to the top level of the game and win even a single Grand Slam.

I'm analysing Isner here, not Murray, it's irrelevant who his opponent was yesterday. I don't give a monkey's about Murray, or any individual player, particularly. If Isner was the height of Djokovic, he'd be flipping burgers in Wendy's.

[ferrisbueller]

Bannock said:

Now who is reading things that aren't there. My man?

Earlier, while moaning about Isner, you were praising Murray.

Bannock said:

Same goes for bloody Isner, he's actually hopeless at pretty much every aspect of the game except serving, he just managed to profit from a couple of Murray errors to break him twice yesterday, and got fortunate with some drops at the net which is a skill usually outside of his game, such as it is.

Also, I couldn't care less if people think Murray is taciturn or miserable or whatever. So what if he is. He's great to watch on court, I don't give a monkey's what any player is like off court, I'm not likely to ever be trying to make friends with them now am I.

Bannock said:

Look, you can't claim someone isn't a one trick pony (in the context of discussing someone who is famed for one aspect of the game and has never excelled at any other), and then say he'll never play that well again. The second part of that contradicts the first. What other aspect of Isner's game is world class, outside his serve? What is he consistently better than his opponents at?

In the context of his age, and the finite time that dictates in terms of his career, who knows. In pure statistical terms, that match wasn't actually a huge anomaly, but the execution was right up there.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/wimbledon-men/202...

I'm not sure what your metric is for other aspects of his game, but would suggest his volleying and overheads would be deemed to be decent. Clearly he is also well capable of playing a range of other shots to a high standard. If all he could do was serve, he wouldn't be able to win a match. He also wins 10% of his games returning serve.......that's not based on his opponents gifting him four points per game on their own serve. And by definition, he doesn't have the advantage of his serve when he's not serving.

Bannock said:

He won yesterday by his usual tactic of heavy serving from 12/13 feet, depending on a couple of errors from the opponent at crucial moments to break him, and playing other strokes outside his serve game unusually well. That's all he's done his entire career, and of course sometimes it works and he wins. However, not often enough to carry him to the top level of the game and win even a single Grand Slam.

Yes, he broke Murray's service. Just to confirm, Isner isn't serving during his opponent's service game.

I'm no Isner fan, but he's been a top 10 player and had a career that spans 15 years as a pro, amassing about $22m in winnings alone. Does that qualify him as "World Class"? Being one of the best in the World at the sport? Or does he have to win Grand Slams to be World Class? Is he an all-time great, no. But he's no donkey.

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/john-isner/i186...

Bannock said:

I'm analysing Isner here, not Murray, it's irrelevant who his opponent was yesterday. I don't give a monkey's about Murray, or any individual player, particularly.

Just Isner, or all the other players who play off a big serve?
And Nadal's "Boom boom".....
And........

Bannock said:

If Isner was the height of Djokovic, he'd be flipping burgers in Wendy's.

Jesus wept. Absurd.

[Bannock]

So because I said Murray is great to watch on court and I don't care about his personality, he's "my man"? That's an example of proper absurdity. Do you want a list of every player who I think is great to watch on court, but about whose personality I don't give a fk? It's quite a long list, although I promise it doesn't include Isner, nor Nadal. Nick Kyrgios is one. Is he "my man" now?

If anyone's defending "their man" here, It isn't me.

The burger comment was obviously humour. He'd probably be clever enough to get a job in a call centre for a bank if he was only 6'2". (Humour, please do not take literally nor personally.)

Isner is boring. That's pretty much all there is to it. Anyone involved in a 70-68 set probably hasn't got much more about them than a big serve.

I am happy for him that he's done as well as he has with limited talents, but I can't be arsed watching him really.

[ferrisbueller]

Dry your eyes.

[dontlookdown]

Well done Heather!

[cuprabob]

Currently enjoying the Boulter v Pliskova game

[Bannock]

ferrisbueller said:

Dry your eyes.

Ah, I see we have a proper grown up here. Wildly original comment.

Anyway, thought Krajinovic was going to give Kyrgios more of a game there. Shame he wasn't at the races. Still, we got a few of those Kyrgios "moments", attempting shots through the legs and all that.

Got Thompson v Tsitsipas on now, sad to see the 'tache making a comeback, but he is an Aussie so they probably never went away there. Looks like it'll be a walk over so I might see if there's anything else more competitve on.

What are you enjoying today, ferrisbueller?