The Tennis Thread
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
I guess this is the tennis forum equivalent of....
lolI never intended to start handbags nor did I lead on that I'm the best tennis player on these isles but I have been playing regularly for over 20 years, played at national tournaments with LTA rankings to enter, played for UCL in the BUCS for 6 years, coach, string rackets and am a massive follower of the sport. Now cmoose hasn't said what credential he has and I won't be surprised if he's better than me because I have been beaten many times by far better players.
This isn't what grinds here but the fact that certain principles to do with playing, stringing, coaching which I for one aren't a trailblazer for but isjust general knowledge within club level tennis and beyond are being refuted. It's a mere lack of respect for a fellow tennis player, I have the respect to put forward facts to say why for example string technology since poly have revolutionized the game but Mr Moose just responds with the old man made string and the newer ones aren't much different.
Here's Mr Federer explaining why poly strings revolutionized the game - http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2014-08-30/16887.php
The old synthetics were s
t, no one played with them and since Polys came along as Mr Federer says it changed the game and moved people from gut to poly. According the Mr Moose that's exaggerated.I also don't appreciate the belittling comments and your slick use of the english language doesn't excuse that. You obviously consider yourself intelligent but you don't really know how or little english I may possess so have a little respect to unknown people on the internet that you come across.
You know all said and done Moose I just don't get you. You are clearly passionate about what you believe in whether that's cars, tennis or whatever else. It really doesn't take long to go back over your posts present and past to see you have a nature about you when it comes to these discussions that really boil down to one thing that you don't accept anyone else's views about anything ever other than your own - Wouldn't it be far easier to sometimes just accept people have their views and they are just as valid as your own? - It's after what makes us all different.
I think by your last post you probably realize that you overstepped the mark just even bringing in Scooty's kids into it regardless of how Scooty or anyone else may interpret it.
I think by your last post you probably realize that you overstepped the mark just even bringing in Scooty's kids into it regardless of how Scooty or anyone else may interpret it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think that is where the problem lies. You do it so often and with no fore thought you don't know you are doing it. You have been personal to me and others many times but you try your best to hide it by thinking you are being clever and intellectually superior but many see through it.
In defence of cmoose and babw before it got a bit heatedin here their posts about how tennis has evolved over the past few decades was actually quite interesting. I suppose that's what makes it so difficult and perhaps even futile to compare players over different eras. For example, could a Nadal have won Wimbledon with the courts and equipment they had in the 90s and early 00s? Or could a Sampras have won lots of titles on the slow(ish) hard courts we see today?
BlackLabel said:
. For example, could a Nadal have won Wimbledon with the courts and equipment they had in the 90s and early 00s? Or could a Sampras have won lots of titles on the slow(ish) hard courts we see today?
Yes and yes. Both those players (and many other top players in all eras) have massive hunger, work ethic and obvious talent. What they did in their prime was a product of their training, in a different era their technique may have been different but their ultimate success would probably be the same.Sampras for example had one of the best double handed backhands until 14 years old when Fischer took over as coach and advised that if he wanted to in Wimbledon + the way the game was evolving he would be better off going to a single hander. He went from beating all the guys around him such as Chang, Agassi as a junior to losing to most of them for a few seasons because he had to relearn a stroke which is a massive commitment. If you don't have the dedication for success that could have ended his career.
Djokovic went the opposite way and learnt a double hander late into his development as his coach realised it would provide a more consistent base to build his game.
Babw said:
Murray Wawrinka tonight. Murray hasn't won set off Stan since he's been coached by Magnus Norman and turned a corner in his game. If Murray plays as he did against Nadal Stan will wipe the floor with him. I'm going with 6-2 6-2 to Stan.
Murray looking towards Davis cup I think. What's his reward for beating Stan - another humiliation at the hands of Fed I imagine. What was it last year; love and one?Interestingly the bookies see it the other way. Murray 4/7. Stan 11/8!
Babw said:
Murray Wawrinka tonight. Murray hasn't won set off Stan since he's been coached by Magnus Norman and turned a corner in his game. If Murray plays as he did against Nadal Stan will wipe the floor with him. I'm going with 6-2 6-2 to Stan.
Depends which Stan turns up but I think Andy will beat him tonight; might need 3 sets though! Wonder if brother Jamie and especially his doubles partner John Peers slept well last night; they had the Bryan brothers there for the taking and how they squandered all those match points I really don't know. The forehand Peers missed in the deciding tie-break was especially awful but then it's a very easy game when you're sat on your sofa - I've watched quite a few matches this week and am yet to miss a ball! 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Initial odds are based on what the bookies think will happen. Interestingly Murray now 8/13. Stan 13/10. So it looks like the punters are betting more on Stan - but it's fairly marginal. Interesting if he shortens any further in the build up tonight. I might put a tenner on Stan.Blackpuddin said:
Murray's already earned $167,000 for beating Ferrer. He'd double that with a win over Stan and then stand a chance for the $510,000 prize semi-final winners get. Djoko will get just over a million bucks for winning the Final. He would have won $2.2 mill if he hadn't lost en route.
Not sure what your point is? Can't believe any of the top players give money a second thought when they go out to play as they're all made for life anyway; winning and titles is what it's about for them, the finances look after themselves!Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff