Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Federer (20) - Nadal (18) - Djokovic (16)

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Nick's Sports Bar
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:18 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Djokovic has my support, TP.

Want to see him surpass them all.

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:46 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

any reason?
_________________
You never look good trying to make someone else look bad. Disrespecting & insulting other to prove your point just shows how shaky your own position is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Djokovic wins in five thrilling sets, taking him to 16 slam titles.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

UPDATE!

Grand Slam Head to Head Records:

Nadal 10-4 Federer
- 1). French Open 2005 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 2). French Open 2006 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2006 (Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 4). French Open 2007 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 5). Wimbledon 2007 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 6). French Open 2008 (Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 7). Wimbledon 2008 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2009 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2011 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). Australian Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 11). Australian Open 2014 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 12). Australian Open 2017 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 13). French Open 2019 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2019 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)

AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-0 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-3 Federer
US OPEN = Nadal 0-0 Federer

Nadal 9-6 Djokovic
- 1). French Open 2006 (Quarter Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 2). French Open 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 4). French Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 5). US Open 2010 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 6). Wimbledon 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 7). US Open 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2012 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2012 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). French Open 2013 (Semi Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 11). US Open 2013 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 12). French Open 2014 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 13). French Open 2015 (Quarter Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2018 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)

AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 0-2 Djokovic
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-1 Djokovic
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-2 Djokovic
US OPEN = Nadal 2-1 Djokovic

Djokovic 10-6 Federer
- 1). Australian Open 2007 (4th Round) = Federer (3 sets)
- 2). US Open 2007 (Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 3). Australian Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 4). US Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 5). US Open 2009 (Semi Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 6). US Open 2010 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 7). Australian Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 8]. French Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 9). US Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 10). French Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 11). Wimbledon 2012 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 12). Wimbledon 2014 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 13). Wimbledon 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 14). US Open 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2016 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 16). Wimbledon 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)

AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Djokovic 1-1 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
US OPEN = Djokovic 3-3 Federer

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Would any of them have been able to take a set off Rod Laver or Arthur Ashe?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, because Nole is the GOAT Wink
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:43 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a totally different game now even compared with recent times (the 80s), because of the racquet technology. If modern players took the huge swings they do now with the old racquets, there would be a lot of balls flying in all directions, including into the crowd behind them.

I think more serious thought should go into limiting the effects of the technology, but that doesn't look like happening.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Sept. 2, 2014

Putting a New Spin on the Tennis Racket

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-a-new-spin-on-the-tennis-racket-1409688723

"Wilson calls its new technology Spin Effect. The idea is simple: Fewer strings produce more spin. In Dimitrov's case, he averaged 300 RPMs more per shot with the technology, enough extra spin, Wilson claims, to cause a shot that would otherwise land more than a foot beyond the baseline to drop into the court.
...

The best racket for spin, the Spaghetti String racket, was invented in 1970s. Its strings, which were not interwoven, put so much funky rotation on the ball that the International Tennis Federation declared the rackets illegal.
...

By reducing the number of cross strings, which go from left to right, Wilson says its racket's vertical main strings move more freely, snap back with more force and create more spin than a traditional string pattern. Wilson recently received a patent that it claims covers any pattern with more main strings than cross strings. Its ideal string pattern is 16 main strings and 15 crosses.
...

Wilson developed Spin Effect for amateurs. Professionals have such sound and fast swings that they can produce inordinate spin with any racket. They don't need help—at least, that's what Wilson thought.

As it turns out, though, Wilson's pro players have been eager to test the technology. Two top pros ... now use the Spin Effect version of their Wilson rackets. Six other players in the top 200 on the men's and women's tours also use them... according to the company.
...

Not everyone sees fewer strings as the key to spin. Gael Moureaux, Babolat's rackets product manager, said a racket's aerodynamics, and the amount of space between strings, could produce similar effects. The company sees 16 main strings and 19 crosses as ideal."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:35 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Which Strings Generate the Most Spin?

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php

"The results ... support those previously obtained by the ITF, and commonly reported by players themselves, indicating that polyester strings generate more spin than nylon strings. Most of our data were obtained using clamped racquets where we found that the outgoing spin from a selected group of polyester strings was 25% greater, on average, than a sample of four nylon strings, at least under the test conditions. Some strings generated more spin when strung at high tension, while other strings generated more spin when strung at low tension."


[Elsewhere, the author says "polyester strings become popular after about 2005".]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:48 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

SPAGHETTI STRUNG RACQUETS

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/SPAGHETTI%20STRUNG%20RACQUETS.htm

"In 1971 a German horticulturalist, Werner Fischer, invented a new way to string tennis racquets. It generated so much spin on the ball that it was eventually banned by the International Tennis Federation in 1978. One of the problems was that players of relatively low standing were able to beat top players by generating much more spin than the top players could at the time. Ironically, the modern game of tennis has evolved to the point where players like Nadal can now generate almost as much spin as Fisher could in the 1970’s with his spaghetti strings. Modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net since they can easily be passed down the sideline or overhead with a topspin lob. That was one of the reasons that the spaghetti stringing system was banned in the first place."


[I like the bit where he says "modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net".

I wouldn't say the rallies are necessarily "boring", but something has been lost. When you see almost no serve-volleying at Wimbledon, something is very wrong with tennis. It's shameful that the ITF never acted to save it.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:54 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David Foster Wallace (in an ode to Federer in 2006):

"The Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum, for instance, has a collection of all the various kinds of rackets used here through the decades, and one of the many signs along the Level 2 passage of the Millennium Building(5) promotes this exhibition with both photos and didactic text, a kind of History of the Racket. Here, sic, is the climactic end of this text:

'Today’s lightweight frames made of space-age materials like graphite, boron, titanium and ceramics, with larger heads — mid-size (90-95 square inches) and over-size (110 square inches) — have totally transformed the character of the game. Nowadays it is the powerful hitters who dominate with heavy topspin. Serve-and-volley players and those who rely on subtlety and touch have virtually disappeared.' "



[I think Foster Wallace's Federer fandom makes him lose sight of reality (e.g. 13 years later, there can be no doubt about the sad truth of the text at the Wimbledon Museum he quotes disapprovingly), but it's an article worth quoting from in future posts.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

R. Cross: "... modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net..."

C. Walner: "More sand added to the paint on the court slows down the speed of the ball, which is what tennis directors have been wanting for years. But why?

It’s because the fast-paced serve and volley style is not considered exciting for the audience. It’s largely a one-and-done style where the point is won or lost quickly. Baseline rallies, however, are longer, more fun to watch and add drama to the match. This equates to more viewers, increased fan excitement and participation and better revenue."


Walner again: "To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer."



[That's a huge clash of beliefs. Do (some) audiences really believe rallies are more exciting? There is no question rallying is safer. How can avoidance of risk be more exciting?

If Walner is right, the ITF not only did nothing to prevent serve-volleying dying, but actively hastened its death.

What they should really want is variety and differences of style. That is one of many factors that made Borg vs. McEnroe the most compelling rivalry in all tennis -- speaking of which, those two should have been consulted, along with older champs, before the ITF meddled with the game.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Walner puts the death of serve-volley tennis down to "slower court speeds, softer balls, better rackets, enhanced string technology, and improved fitness and strength in today’s players".

He says:

"To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer. This allows more time for the baseliner to get to the ball and set up for a big shot.
...

In September 2001, the Independent Newspaper published an article about how the ITF deliberately requested the companies that provide balls to the WTA and ATP to make them slower on fast courts. Interestingly, the ITF also wanted the speed of the balls to be faster on red clay.
...

... three different balls were introduced to the pro game. On hard court surfaces, something called a “type 3” ball was used, which is 6% larger in diameter and moves slower in flight. The ball will come off the racket with the same speed as a standard ball (the type 2 ball) but provide 10% more reaction time to the opposing player. This is because a type 3 ball slows quicker in the air than a traditional type 2 ball does.
...

As the new millennia came and went, even better rackets were being produced. At this point, rackets were so good, that baseline players had lost much of the fear of their opponent’s coming to net.
...

Ultimately, the tennis world was introduced to polyester strings that would forever change the game.

The new polyester strings started to make their appearance in the mid-to-late 1990s. ...

Poly was really the first string to alter the landscape of tennis and disrupt the serve and volley game. Poly is known for allowing a player to generate huge amounts of spin. Passing shots can be as high as 10 feet with them and still land inside the court. With so much spin on the ball, coming to the net is now a hazardous ploy. Today’s players, like Rafael Nadal and Jock Sock, hit with insane levels of RPM (3000+) on their forehand groundstrokes. This causes their shots to dip with so much arch the net player can’t react in time to volley effectively."



https://serveandvolleytennis.com/why-did-serve-and-volley-die-out/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The Volley, Once a Huge Part of the Game, Is in Decline

June 28, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/sports/tennis/wimbledon-volley-serve.html

"For more than 50 years, through the last half of the 20th century, the volley played the lead role in tennis’s premier drama, Wimbledon.
...

As recently as 2003, the year Roger Federer won the first of his eight Wimbledon singles titles, he served and volleyed on 48 percent of his service points.

But in the 21st century, this tactic has become far less prevalent. On the men’s side, figures compiled by the strategist Craig O’Shannessy reveal that serve-and-volley points fell to 1,980 in 2018 (6.93 percent of total serve points), down from 9,168 in 2002 (32.6 percent). By the time Federer won his seventh title, in 2012, he served-and-volleyed less than 10 percent of the time.
...

Four decades of developments triggered the volley’s decline. Before the early 1970s, the one-handed backhand — preferred by an overwhelming majority of players — could rarely apply enough speed, precision or spin to trouble a volleyer. But the ascent of the two-handers Jimmy Connors, Chris Evert and Borg, who from 1974 and 1982 collectively won 10 Wimbledon singles titles, began to turn the tables.

“The quality of service returns and passing shots improved significantly,” said Tim Mayotte, a six-time Wimbledon quarterfinalist in the ’80s who was known for his forehand volley. “Everything from power to direction to recovery to the two-handed backhand topspin lob added a whole other dimension.”

In May 1999, 43 of the top 100 male players in the world hit their backhands with one hand. As of June 2019, there were 15.
...

Equipment changes also reduced the impact of the volley. Wood rackets, with 65-inch hitting areas, made it difficult to generate the kind of whiplike topspin necessary to dip the ball at the volleyer’s feet. Graphite rackets — lighter, lively and with head sizes as big as 110 inches — arrived in the ’80s, making it much easier to hit powerful ground strokes.

By the ’90s, a new string, Luxilon, heralded another volley-hostile dimension.
...

Said Kovacs, “the passing shot is like a very fast curveball.”

Wimbledon further hurt the volley in 2002, when a new variation of the longstanding grass surface was planted. The result was both a more consistent bounce and a slower court."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Nick's Sports Bar All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group