TENNIS

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3235
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:42 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.
I know what you mean, but I've been paying quite close attention to the shape of the ball landing thing on Hawk-eye of late and I've definitely noticed some that are much more circular than others.
OK, fair enough.
There was a good example yesterday of a looped shot which came down almost vertically, and the Hawkeye mark was virtually circular.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by JimBentley » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:59 am

Ryan Taylor wrote:
Martin Bishop wrote:I don't think Wimbledon loses too much money on balls. You can buy used match balls in the Wimbledon shop (or at least you could at some point). They might well make a profit on them.
Awesome. Always wondered what they did with them, I presumed they just offloaded them to the ballboys and ballgirls or something.
My parents' next door neighbours used to go to Wimbledon every year and always brought back loads of used match balls. If I didn't know where they'd come from I would have said they were brand new, you couldn't tell they'd ever been used at all.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7800
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:48 pm

If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: TENNIS

Post by Clive Brooker » Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:33 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.
Not sure about this. Firstly, assuming it's impracticable to make Hawkeye available on every court used in every professional tournament, you'd have a situation where the playing conditions differ greatly from match to match according to whether Hawkeye is in use or not. Whether you have independent verification or not isn't quite such a fundamental difference. Secondly, how is Hawkeye physically going to make the call? At the moment players expect a decisive and almost instantaneous call when a ball is out - absence of a call tells them that the point is still in progress and they get quite upset at even a momentary hesitation from a line judge. Maybe Hawkeye could be linked to a PA system and have a computerised voice yell "Out!" as quickly as a human judge, but I doubt whether it would catch on.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7800
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:04 pm

Clive Brooker wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.
Not sure about this. Firstly, assuming it's impracticable to make Hawkeye available on every court used in every professional tournament, you'd have a situation where the playing conditions differ greatly from match to match according to whether Hawkeye is in use or not. Whether you have independent verification or not isn't quite such a fundamental difference. Secondly, how is Hawkeye physically going to make the call? At the moment players expect a decisive and almost instantaneous call when a ball is out - absence of a call tells them that the point is still in progress and they get quite upset at even a momentary hesitation from a line judge. Maybe Hawkeye could be linked to a PA system and have a computerised voice yell "Out!" as quickly as a human judge, but I doubt whether it would catch on.
I was just thinking maybe a noise in the umpire's ear and he says "out", but that introduces a delay.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4137
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Jon O'Neill » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:33 pm

Got a feeling this will be a classic..

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7230
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Matt Morrison » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:53 pm

Was better than the boxing by the reports, not that that made it classic. Fair play to Djokovic though, the winner I'd have hoped for I think. (Of the two.)

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: TENNIS

Post by Adam Gillard » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:51 pm

I was uploading my Wimbledon 2011 photos to Facebook and this result came up via the automatic tagging feature:

Image
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: TENNIS

Post by Adam Gillard » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:56 pm

YES!
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7800
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:14 pm

Right then. Novak Djokovic has just won the French Open meaning that he is the first man to hold all four grand slam titles since Rod Laver when he won them all in 1969 (I think). The fact that it's not a "proper grand slam" because he hasn't won them all in the same calendar year seems little more than a semantic point to me.

So does this lift him up in the echelons of greatness more than simply winning the same grand slams but not holding them all at once? I certainly think it is a big deal, but let's compare some stats of the top players:

Number of grand slams:

1. Roger Federer - 17
2= Pete Sampras - 14
2= Rafael Nadal - 14
4= Roy Emerson - 12
4= Novak Djokovic - 12
6= Rod Laver - 11
6= Bjorn Borg - 11
8. Bill Tilden - 10
9= Fred Perry - 8
9= Ken Rosewall - 8
9= Jimmy Connors - 8
9= Ivan Lendl - 8
9= Andre Agasssi - 8

Most titles:

1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Ivan Lendl - 94
3. Roger Federer - 88
4. John McEnroe - 77
5. Rod Laver - 74
6. Rafael Nadal - 69
7. Novak Djokovic - 65
8= Bjorn Borg - 64
8= Pete Sampras - 64
10. Guillermo Vilas - 62
11. Andre Agassi - 60
12. Ilie Năstase - 58

Most weeks ranked number one:

1. Roger Federer - 302
2. Pete Sampras - 286
3. Ivan Lendl - 270
4. Jimmy Connors - 268
5. Novak Djokovic - 201
6. John McEnroe - 170
7. Rafael Nadal - 141
8. Bjorn Borg - 109
9. Andre Agassi - 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt - 80
11. Stefan Edberg - 72
12. Jim Courier - 58

Most consecutive weeks at number one:

1. Roger Federer - 237
2. Jimmy Connors - 160
3. Ivan Lendl - 157
4. Pete Sampras - 102
5. Novak Djokovic - 100
6. Lleyton Hewitt - 75
7. John McEnroe - 58
8. Rafael Nadal - 56
9. Andre Agassi - 52
10. Bjorn Borg - 46
11. Ilie Năstase - 40

I looked up most dominant individual year ever, and came across a few things, but I will give you some links. This, this and this.

Basically, in terms of win-loss percentage you get McEnroe 1984, Connors 1974, Federer 2005, Federer 2006, Borg 1979, Djokovic 2015. But that's not the only measure. As I said above, calendar years are arbitrary, and Djokovic has won all four grand slams consecutively. In terms of maximum ELO rating, Djokovic is top, one point ahead of Federer. But then by that measure, Kei Nishikori is 23rd.

Also, in some of the stuff I've read, it is said that Federer had an early career advantage because it was a weaker time for tennis before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray emerged. And while Federer was still at the top of his game, it became quite clear that Nadal had the beating of him. So although most people seem to say that Federer is the greatest, Nadal appeared to be better than him, and Djokovic looks like surpassing both.

With older players, it seems that Connors and Lendl underperformed in grand slams based on their time at number one and career titles. Sampras has a really good record overall but didn't do much in the French Open. It was harder to do well at all grand slams in those days though. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be a player before the current era with a really good claim to being the greatest.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3235
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:53 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:Right then. Novak Djokovic has just won the French Open meaning that he is the first man to hold all four grand slam titles since Rod Laver when he won them all in 1969 (I think). The fact that it's not a "proper grand slam" because he hasn't won them all in the same calendar year seems little more than a semantic point to me.

So does this lift him up in the echelons of greatness more than simply winning the same grand slams but not holding them all at once? I certainly think it is a big deal, but let's compare some stats of the top players:

Number of grand slams:

1. Roger Federer - 17
2= Pete Sampras - 14
2= Rafael Nadal - 14
4= Roy Emerson - 12
4= Novak Djokovic - 12
6= Rod Laver - 11
6= Bjorn Borg - 11
8. Bill Tilden - 10
9= Fred Perry - 8
9= Ken Rosewall - 8
9= Jimmy Connors - 8
9= Ivan Lendl - 8
9= Andre Agasssi - 8

Most titles:

1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Ivan Lendl - 94
3. Roger Federer - 88
4. John McEnroe - 77
5. Rod Laver - 74
6. Rafael Nadal - 69
7. Novak Djokovic - 65
8= Bjorn Borg - 64
8= Pete Sampras - 64
10. Guillermo Vilas - 62
11. Andre Agassi - 60
12. Ilie Năstase - 58

Most weeks ranked number one:

1. Roger Federer - 302
2. Pete Sampras - 286
3. Ivan Lendl - 270
4. Jimmy Connors - 268
5. Novak Djokovic - 201
6. John McEnroe - 170
7. Rafael Nadal - 141
8. Bjorn Borg - 109
9. Andre Agassi - 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt - 80
11. Stefan Edberg - 72
12. Jim Courier - 58

Most consecutive weeks at number one:

1. Roger Federer - 237
2. Jimmy Connors - 160
3. Ivan Lendl - 157
4. Pete Sampras - 102
5. Novak Djokovic - 100
6. Lleyton Hewitt - 75
7. John McEnroe - 58
8. Rafael Nadal - 56
9. Andre Agassi - 52
10. Bjorn Borg - 46
11. Ilie Năstase - 40

I looked up most dominant individual year ever, and came across a few things, but I will give you some links. This, this and this.

Basically, in terms of win-loss percentage you get McEnroe 1984, Connors 1974, Federer 2005, Federer 2006, Borg 1979, Djokovic 2015. But that's not the only measure. As I said above, calendar years are arbitrary, and Djokovic has won all four grand slams consecutively. In terms of maximum ELO rating, Djokovic is top, one point ahead of Federer. But then by that measure, Kei Nishikori is 23rd.

Also, in some of the stuff I've read, it is said that Federer had an early career advantage because it was a weaker time for tennis before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray emerged. And while Federer was still at the top of his game, it became quite clear that Nadal had the beating of him. So although most people seem to say that Federer is the greatest, Nadal appeared to be better than him, and Djokovic looks like surpassing both.

With older players, it seems that Connors and Lendl underperformed in grand slams based on their time at number one and career titles. Sampras has a really good record overall but didn't do much in the French Open. It was harder to do well at all grand slams in those days though. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be a player before the current era with a really good claim to being the greatest.
I heard a relatively recent analysis that put Connors on top. Not sure of the metric, but his large number of title-wins seems to support that to an extent.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Callum P
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:35 am

Re: TENNIS

Post by Callum P » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:10 pm

Hm, I appreciate that Djokovic is an incredible player and can't help but admire what he's doing. But he's making tennis a bit boring and his style isn't really exciting.

Peter Mabey
Devotee
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: TENNIS

Post by Peter Mabey » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:42 pm

Callum P wrote: ... he's making tennis a bit boring ...
Superfluously :twisted: :mrgreen: :evil:

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7800
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:12 pm

I think Federer's two grand slam titles this year make his claim for greatest ever stronger than it was before. As I alluded to before, Nadal had generally had the better of him in grand slam finals, so winning the Australian Open against Nadal definitely makes a difference. And Nadal is still playing good tennis - look how he won the French this year. I would argue that this year has been crucial for Federer in fact. Had Nadal won the Australian Open final and Federer not won Wimbledon, Federer would now be leading Nadal by 17 slams to 16 instead of the 19-15 that it is now. And if Nadal did overtake Federer in terms of slams won, I think his record against Federer would work in Nadal's favour. Federer has also now won two grand slams at the age of 35 and people won't shut up about that, so he's definitely won some breathing space over Nadal.

Djokovic has faded of late, when at one time it looked like he might dominate for a while and stake his own claim for greatest.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:44 pm

Federer, GOAT.
message ends
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Zarte Siempre
Kiloposter
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: TENNIS

Post by Zarte Siempre » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:32 pm

The best player ever is quite clearly Dustin Brown and I won't hear another word said on the matter.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2603
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by JimBentley » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:12 pm
I think Federer's two grand slam titles this year make his claim for greatest ever stronger than it was before. As I alluded to before, Nadal had generally had the better of him in grand slam finals, so winning the Australian Open against Nadal definitely makes a difference. And Nadal is still playing good tennis - look how he won the French this year. I would argue that this year has been crucial for Federer in fact. Had Nadal won the Australian Open final and Federer not won Wimbledon, Federer would now be leading Nadal by 17 slams to 16 instead of the 19-15 that it is now. And if Nadal did overtake Federer in terms of slams won, I think his record against Federer would work in Nadal's favour. Federer has also now won two grand slams at the age of 35 and people won't shut up about that, so he's definitely won some breathing space over Nadal.

Djokovic has faded of late, when at one time it looked like he might dominate for a while and stake his own claim for greatest.
Thing is, Federer and Nadal haven't finished yet. We don't know the end of this story.

I just think it's fantastic that we're living through a time where there's four fantastic players - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray - all competing at the same time and when they're all fit, it's pretty much anyone's guess who's going to come out on top. We're being spoiled, really.

Matt Bayfield
Devotee
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Seated at a computer

Re: TENNIS

Post by Matt Bayfield » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:55 pm

Federer is one of a small number who has a valid claim to be the greatest men's singles tennis player of all-time, and his men's singles results of 2017 strengthen that claim.

Greatest tennis player of all-time is an entirely different matter, and must also include career achievements in men's doubles, ladies' singles, ladies' doubles, and perhaps also mixed doubles. By this metric, Federer would appear to be lagging well behind players including McEnroe (J), Navratilova, Graf, and Williams (S). And outside of the highest profile disciplines, Esther Vergeer would be another contender.

I would have loved to have seen Federer play more doubles during his career, and when his singles dominance finally wanes, I hope he continues to play doubles well into his 40s, as other tennis greats have done.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests