+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Around The Grounds (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: The Sports Desk (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-27.html)
+--- Thread: Australian Open 2017 (/thread-3094.html)
Re: Australian Open 2017 - flyboy77 - 01-30-2017
But for Federer's (Nadal phobia inspired) unforced errors, the Fed would have won in straight sets...
Nadal's serve and forehand simply aren't what they were....
I believe Raonic was injured significantly in his match with Rafa. i reckon a fit Raonic would beat Rafa comfortably too. Then there's Murray and the Djoker....
Re: Australian Open 2017 - Mav - 01-30-2017
Pat Cash threw a funny wobbly over Fed calling an injury time out at the end of the 4th set. He said it was cheating - legal cheating but cheating nevertheless.
Slowing down the game to blunt the opponent's momentum is exactly what Rafa does all the time. He stretches out the time between the serves to achieve this. Not only does he do this on his own serve, but also when receiving. He makes the server wait for him to get into position. The etiquette of tennis is that the receiver should play to the server's pace. It's the job of the receiver to be ready to receive whenever the server starts his service motion - much like batsmen are supposed to be ready for the bowler whether he comes off a short or a long run. Of course, that's not in the rules so it's a breach of etiquette rather than a breach of the rules. There is a time limit on serving, though, and Rafa usually exceeds it but is rarely called on it. So you'd have to say that Rafa cheats within the rules too. From a spectator's POV, I'd take Fed's tactic over Rafa's. Knowing Fed's off the court getting treatment means you can get a beer without missing anything, but the extra Rafa takes during games just slows the game down.
The funny thing is that Rafa can use his tactic but others can't. Umpires just accept that Rafa takes his time and rarely act. But if Fed did the same, umpires would say that he's deliberately slowing down play and they'd rigorously enforce the time limit against him.
It's a bit like the controversy over grunting in women's tennis. One of Sharapova's opponents started doing the same back to her but officials made it clear that they'd ping her for doing so because they knew that wasn't part of her game. So Sharapova and others were allowed to grunt as they claimed it was beyond their control while others were warned that they had to avoid grunting.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - townsendcalling - 01-30-2017
(01-30-2017, 03:14 AM)flyboy77 link Wrote:Nadal's serve and forehand simply aren't what they were....
I believe Raonic was injured significantly in his match with Rafa. i reckon a fit Raonic would beat Rafa comfortably too. Then there's Murray and the Djoker....
Grand Slam tennis is an endurance event, survival of the fitness, with a bit of luck thrown in when unknowns knock out a favourite to make your path easier.
Anyone who watched Dimitrov / Nadal live would not consider Rafa's forehand any less potent than recent time. His serve has never been his weapon.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - PaulP - 01-30-2017
(01-30-2017, 03:42 AM)Mav link Wrote:Pat Cash threw a funny wobbly over Fed calling an injury time out at the end of the 4th set. He said it was cheating - legal cheating but cheating nevertheless.
Slowing down the game to blunt the opponent's momentum is exactly what Rafa does all the time. He stretches out the time between the serves to achieve this. Not only does he do this on his own serve, but also when receiving. He makes the server wait for him to get into position. The etiquette of tennis is that the receiver should play to the server's pace. It's the job of the receiver to be ready to receive whenever the server starts his service motion - much like batsmen are supposed to be ready for the bowler whether he comes off a short or a long run. Of course, that's not in the rules so it's a breach of etiquette rather than a breach of the rules. There is a time limit on serving, though, and Rafa usually exceeds it but is rarely called on it. So you'd have to say that Rafa cheats within the rules too. From a spectator's POV, I'd take Fed's tactic over Rafa's. Knowing Fed's off the court getting treatment means you can get a beer without missing anything, but the extra Rafa takes during games just slows the game down.
The funny thing is that Rafa can use his tactic but others can't. Umpires just accept that Rafa takes his time and rarely act. But if Fed did the same, umpires would say that he's deliberately slowing down play and they'd rigorously enforce the time limit against him.
It's a bit like the controversy over grunting in women's tennis. One of Sharapova's opponents started doing the same back to her but officials made it clear that they'd ping her for doing so because they knew that wasn't part of her game. So Sharapova and others were allowed to grunt as they claimed it was beyond their control while others were warned that they had to avoid grunting.
Inconsistency and interpretation are inevitable anywhere laws exist. It's up to the authorities to call him on it. He is, like any sportsman, open to pushing the boundaries on certain things to get a winning advantage. As a rafa fan, I've seen him get plenty of time warnings in his career. I notice that holier-than-thou Roger is also not averse to having time outs at critical moments, albeit less than rafa.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - flyboy77 - 01-30-2017
(01-30-2017, 03:58 AM)townsendcalling link Wrote:Grand Slam tennis is an endurance event, survival of the fitness, with a bit of luck thrown in when unknowns knock out a favourite to make your path easier.
Anyone who watched Dimitrov / Nadal live would not consider Rafa's forehand any less potent than recent time. His serve has never been his weapon.
yep, watched all 5 hours of the RN-GD game. i stand by my comments.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - Mav - 01-30-2017
Paul, not sure I'd call Federer holier-than-thou. I'd call him a traditionalist, often to his disadvantage. A good comparison would be Adam Gilchrist who honoured a long-lost tradition of walking even in the case of feathered edges which were imperceptible to umpires.
In Federer's case, he clung to his small-headed raquet, didn't like the Hawkeye system, and didn't like injury time-outs. His coaches begged him to move to a larger raquet for years but he only made the change recently. He seemed to make ridiculous challenges as if to underline his dislike of Hawkeye, but now he uses it wisely like every other player (and to good effect last night). And he has come to terms with the fact that the rules allow injury timeouts rather than players being forced to play despite injuries. He now uses them like other players do.
If he'd railed against other players' using large-headed raquets or injury timeouts in the past (rather than criticising the rules that allow them to do so), I'd agree he's now being hypocritical. But if not, then he's just going with the flow after some idiosyncratic resistance.
As for the injury timeouts, no one can prove Federer had no injury. He's a 35 year old and it's unlikely he was playing without any niggle or strain. Getting a massage and a retape makes sense if it's allowed, just as it makes sense for footy players to get a massage late in games before returning late in the game.
It used to be that niggles and cramps were bad luck. Players were expected to work on their conditioning to avoid such problems in gruelling matches. Remember when Pat Rafter sweated so much that he lost electrolytes and collapsed on the court in convulsions? He was well ahead of Agassi in their AO match at the time. Rafter was forced to withdraw as there were no injury timeouts allowed back then for a loss of conditioning. When Agassi was asked whether he felt that the victory was undeserved, he responded angrily that the game was as much about making sure you could last for 5 sets as it was about winning the first 2 sets.
The tennis authorities blinked later on for fear of being sued by a player who was required to play on with cramps or strains. Now, the rules allow treatment for niggles or loss of conditioning. No doubt players from Cash's era hate the change and Federer would prefer a return to the more unforgiving rules of the past. But if you can't beat them, you might as well join them.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - PaulP - 01-30-2017
I have no issue with injury time outs, and in fact I support them. I don't want to see the Pat Rafter incident to which you refer (and similar) happen to anyone else. I understand as with all systems, the opportunistic types will find "loopholes" that can be exploited.
It's perfectly true that no one can prove Fed's time outs were not warranted. As you say, he's 35 etc. But you could also say the same about Rafa. He plays a more brutal and taxing type of tennis, and has missed out on large amounts of tennis because of his injuries. Given his style of tennis, it is quite possible that his various time outs were also warranted. Although in both Fed's and Rafa's case, they certainly seem to come at "convenient" moments.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - DJC - 01-30-2017
I watched the last two sets and thoroughly enjoyed the contest. I was pretty sure Rafa would win after the way he played in the fourth set but he simply couldn't maintain that form.
It was interesting to hear the commentators talking about how much Rafa and Fed love tennis (I'd love it too if I could make as much money!). I couldn't help think that Kyrgios and, to a lesser extent, Tomic don't have the same love for the game. I think I recall Kyrgios saying something about not enjoying tennis.
Re: Australian Open 2017 - Gointocarlton - 01-30-2017
(01-30-2017, 07:45 AM)PaulP link Wrote:I have no issue with injury time outs, and in fact I support them. I don't want to see the Pat Rafter incident to which you refer (and similar) happen to anyone else. I understand as with all systems, the opportunistic types will find "loopholes" that can be exploited.I reckon I'll give Fed the benefit of the doubt given his standing in the game. Fed, Rafa and someone like Rafter before them (Im sure there are others also) are in my eyes the best examples of good sportsman and gentlemen on and off the court. Blokes like Murray ( >
It's perfectly true that no one can prove Fed's time outs were not warranted. As you say, he's 35 etc. But you could also say the same about Rafa. He plays a more brutal and taxing type of tennis, and has missed out on large amounts of tennis because of his injuries. Given his style of tennis, it is quite possible that his various time outs were also warranted. Although in both Fed's and Rafa's case, they certainly seem to come at "convenient" moments.
), Joker, Kyrios, Tomic and the like wouldn't tie the shoe laces of the three I mentioned. Joker has gotten better since his ranking topped out but I reckon has the potential to revert to his old ways. Time will tell. The rest are just spoilt brat a-holes who have no idea how to conduct them selves and dont understand/appreciate how talented they are and the privileges they are afforded because of their talents.