O/T Wimbledon Final Replay

« **on:** July 08, 2007, 01:27:57 PM »

Help,

Forgot to tape the Men's Final. Does anyone know if it will be replayed at any time?

Bob

« **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2007, 02:33:30 PM »

Bob, I don't think so. I checked the Tennis channel and I don't see a rebroadcast there on the scheduling. Not to rub it in, but it was a good match.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2007, 02:39:50 PM »

Yes it was a fantastic match. And Mr. Borg there to watch M. Federer tie his 5 straight singles Wimbledon record.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2007, 01:53:25 AM »

What do you all think Roger's chances are of making it six in a row next year? Nadal came within a whisker of winning this time, and he seems to be getting better every other month.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:26:32 AM »

That was Federer's best win ever. Showed mental toughness under extreme pressure. Saving those 15/40 games was huge.

Nadal's advantage is that he's younger and obviously improving. His disadvantage is that he plays a more physical game and is more prone to injury. On the other hand, Federer is about to turn 26, which is when tennis old age begins. He may have longevity because he plays a game that is easy on his body (his career has been remarkably injury free). Net/net I think Nadal is more likely to win Wimby than Federer is to win the French.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Bob_Huntley on July 08, 2007, 01:27:57 PM

Help,

Forgot to tape the Men's Final. Does anyone know if it will be replayed at any time?

Bob

I heard during Sportscenter last night that it's going to be replayed tonight -- I think they said ESPN Classic but I'm not certain.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2007, 10:11:44 AM »

Bob,

Since the age of 12, I played tennis. I grew up in the Connors/McEnroe era. I played early and often. And, not to boast, but as a teen, I won, and I won often in tournaments.
I went on to play tennis on our college team. I taught tennis into my mid 20's when a torn right achilles tendon occurred. Of course, it wasn't until I tore the left achilles tendon and tired of long terms of having my legs in casts that I turned to golf - and only wish now that I had done so sooner.

I only preface that, because now, to my thinking, Wimbeldon has become two weeks of the most boring of all majors anywhere, in any sport. It's to the point where I's rather watch the "Rock, Paper, Sissors" tournament than watch Wimbeldon.

I mean, at least the US Open at Flushing Meadows has some excitement and drama. But those days at Wimbeldon seem to have passed. In fact, for a while, the men's tennis in general, compared to the women's, just plain stunk. Which is maybe why the cameras panned between volley's to their gorgeous girlfriends in the stands.

So to this match, I say, watch the highlights on ESPN Sports Center, and file it in your memory as if you watched the entire event.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:32:22 AM »

Phil -- maybe Federer's best shot at the French is if Nadal succumbs to injury.

Tom -- why do you find Wimbledon so dull? Serve and volley?

« **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:44:43 AM »

Quote from: Jim Nugent on July 09, 2007, 11:32:22 AM

Phil -- maybe Federer's best shot at the French is if Nadal succumbs to injury.

Tom -- why do you find Wimbledon so dull? Serve and volley?

Jim,

I don't think Federer can beat a healthy Nadal over 5 sets on clay. Nadal has a mental edge on clay as well as a tactical advantage of hitting that heavy topspin forehand to Federer's backhand, which is most effective on clay because of the high bounce.

For my part, I think Wimbledon has lost some of its distinctiveness because no one plays serve-and-volley tennis anymore. Sampras might have been a bit boring on grass because he hit so many aces and unreturnable serves, but McEnroe played a beautiful game on grass and he played serve-and-volley on every point.

« **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2007, 12:55:57 PM »

I couldn't agree more Phil. It's hard to believe the amount of baseline tennis that was being played yesterday.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:58:34 PM »

Well, both tours have done their fair part to reduce the amount of serve and volley and may have regulated it nearly out of existence.

First of all, the Australian used to be played on grass at Kooyang Tennis Center and there were other grass tune-up events before that. Now, they are all gone. The Aussie is now played on rebound ace, a court that, when the temperature rises, actually plays slower.

Second of all, the grass court season shrank one week in the last decade or so in exchange for another week on red clay.

Third, the carpet surfaces used to be fast. Now, the carpets used on both tours are considerably slower.

Fourth, the technology we all talk about in golf has affected tennis as well. Tournament special balls are used to help "throttle" back the game. With the racquets, you can now blast it by someone on the baseline--no reason to go to net to close out a point.

Sure, Federer can make it 6 in a row next season. He's been relatively healthy during his career. Nadal has experienced some knocks, so one can never be sure what that can do to him in the future. Whoever said a Nadal injury or not near 100% is the only way Federer can win in Paris is absolutely correct. Federer's best will lose to Nadal's 90% in 4 sets on red clay all the time. Pretty much everyone struggles against Nadal because he is the best in shape player on the ATP.

The best Wimbledon finals were as follows:

1972 Smith over Nastase (wonderful because it was the pure shots of Smith over the best shotmaker in the history of the game)
1979 Borg over Tanner
1980 Borg over McEnroe (18-16 in the 4th set tiebreaker!)
1982 Connors over McEnroe
1992 Agassi over Ivanisevic (who knew!)
1998 Sampras over Ivanisevic (slugfest central)
2001 Ivanisevic over Rafter (the last great Australian serve and volleyer) 9-7 in the 5th.

Needless to say, Sampras' record of 14 slams is very much in jeopardy, probably will fall by the end of next year.

« **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:09:32 PM »

Mostly its the equipment. Note that until recently, the western grip was a rarity because with the older racquets it was almost impossible to hit a low ball. The larger heads with increased sweet spots have made it much easier to hit attacking top spin shots off low balls. As a result it is more difficult to get to the net and control play.

As far as your ranking og Wimbledon finals and players I won't comment except to say that if you think Nastase was the best shot maker in the history of the game you must not have seen much of Laver or Rosewall just to mention a couple.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:18:27 PM »

It's interesting that technology has had a similar effect on golf and tennis, making the respective majors more homogenous. The Wimbledon and French Open finals had the same participants and similar tactics, although the result was different. In the same way, the Masters has become more like the US Open because of course changes made to cope with technology.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2007, 10:13:27 PM »

Jim,

I'm sure it's a combination of factors causing tennis to be dull. The serve and volley you mentioned are one. As with the shot makers of golf, the shot makers in tennis don't seem to be there. The game, as in golf, has gone to pure power. Power is boring in much the same way as a one-trick pony. I don't know what the ratio to feet to mph would be, but lengthen the court 3 to 5 feet and see how shot making returns as velocity is reduced.

The fixed camera angle making it as exciting as paint drying is another. Almost makes one claustrophobic to watch that never ending frame of grass. If I want to see a plain playing field with people running horizontal across the top and bottom of my screen, I'll play "Pong" on some old Atari system.

The personalities playing are dull. Even Sharapova, for all of her talent and looks, with all that grunting makes it impossible to watch. Give me Connors/McEnroe any day. Hell, I'd take the non-exciting Ken Roswell and Rod Laver to this current crop of players.

Sport in general has much to do with the cast of characters, as well as the talent they possess. Give me a reason to tune in vs reading the paper to see who won, or watch the highlights on ESPN. Tennis needs it's McEnroe's and Nastase's just as golf needs it's Ky Lafoon's and John Daly's.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2007, 10:45:36 PM »

I dont follow it as closely as I used too.I have been to several Wimbeldons,used to play a lot ,etc.I have lost some interest simply because the players are so much younger .When I watch golf I can at least relate.I have lost interest in most team sports also.I do miss Stephan Edbergs beautiful serve and volley.I do like US Open night matches.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:03:03 PM »

Mike Beene -

It isn't that the players are younger, it is that you (and I) are OLDER!

I was a serious tennis player in the 1960's/70's and owned a tennis shop in San Francisco from 1973-77. I remember seeing the first metal tennis racket and the first pair of leather tennis shoes in the 1960's. I remember the great artists of the game, like Rafael Osuna, Manuel Santana and Evonne Goolagong and the great Aussies, like Laver, Emerson and Court.

Federer is a refreshing throwback to the good old days. He is one of few modern players I imagine could adapt to playing with a wood racket within 30 minutes or so.

DT

« **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:08:46 PM »

Thanks for the uplifting reminder.Remember the T2000.Kind of like those first metal woods.

« **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:16:08 PM »

One last old remembrance.I was 12 or 13 and talked my dad in to taking me to see the WCT final(I believe).It was Stan Smith v Arthur Ashe,and in Ashe's book he talks about the point when Smith said the ball didn't bounce twice.Ashe said if Smith said it his word was good.Two class acts.My dad didn't appreciate the game.After the first set he said"all that for one to nothing?"

« **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:43:42 PM »

How has Wimbledon done in TV ratings? Are more or less people watching than used to? What about tennis overall? Has the game gotten more popular, or as I often hear about golf, has it started to slip?

« **Reply #19 on:** July 10, 2007, 03:50:10 AM »

Quote from: peter_mcknight on July 09, 2007, 03:58:34 PM

Well, both tours have done their fair part to reduce the amount of serve and volley and may have regulated it nearly out of existence.

First of all, the Australian used to be played on grass at Kooyang Tennis Center and there were other grass tune-up events before that. Now, they are all gone. The Aussie is now played on rebound ace, a court that, when the temperature rises, actually plays slower.

Second of all, the grass court season shrank one week in the last decade or so in exchange for another week on red clay.

Third, the carpet surfaces used to be fast. Now, the carpets used on both tours are considerably slower.

Fourth, the technology we all talk about in golf has affected tennis as well. Tournament special balls are used to help "throttle" back the game. With the racquets, you can now blast it by someone on the baseline--no reason to go to net to close out a point.

Sure, Federer can make it 6 in a row next season. He's been relatively healthy during his career. Nadal has experienced some knocks, so one can never be sure what that can do to him in the future. Whoever said a Nadal injury or not near 100% is the only way Federer can win in Paris is absolutely correct. Federer's best will lose to Nadal's 90% in 4 sets on red clay all the time. Pretty much everyone struggles against Nadal because he is the best in shape player on the ATP.

The best Wimbledon finals were as follows:

1972 Smith over Nastase (wonderful because it was the pure shots of Smith over the best shotmaker in the history of the game)
1979 Borg over Tanner
1980 Borg over McEnroe (18-16 in the 4th set tiebreaker!)
1982 Connors over McEnroe
1992 Agassi over Ivanisevic (who knew!)
1998 Sampras over Ivanisevic (slugfest central)
2001 Ivanisevic over Rafter (the last great Australian serve and volleyer) 9-7 in the 5th.

Needless to say, Sampras' record of 14 slams is very much in jeopardy, probably will fall by the end of next year.

Sampras over Ivanisevic?

That was just dull, dull, dull. There needs to be a contrast in styles for a great match up. That's why Borg and McEnroe was such a great match up, if sadly only short lived. Federer v Nadal could be up there as a great rivalry too. I loved the bit before the match when they were waiting to go out. Federer looked totally calm, as if he was going out to the cinema or something. Nadal was bobbing around like a boxer ready to go 15 rounds.

Boris Becker said on the BBC commentary that this was the best Wimbledon final since Borg v McEnroe. He said that he enjoyed Rafter v Ivanisevic but that this was a different level of play - clearly the best two players in the world playing near their best. If it had finished 9-7 in the fifth it would really go down as one of the great matches.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 10, 2007, 05:23:04 AM »

I'm not a big tennis fan. However, I'm astonished that anyone can criticise Wimbledon now (as against historically) for the serve and volley game. Did you actually watch Wimbledon? Almost nobody serves and volleys like they used to. Slower balls, slower courts and bigger rackets have made Wimbledon yet another baseline tournament, with just occasional visits to the net. The artistry of a McEnroe simply isn't seen anymore, very sadly.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 10, 2007, 05:33:58 AM »

Quote from: Mark Pearce on July 10, 2007, 05:23:04 AM

I'm not a big tennis fan. However, I'm astonished that anyone can criticise Wimbledon now (as against historically) for the serve and volley game. Did you actually watch Wimbledon? Almost nobody serves and volleys like they used to. Slower balls, slower courts and bigger rackets have made Wimbledon yet another baseline tournament, with just occasional visits to the net. The artistry of a McEnroe simply isn't seen anymore, very sadly.

I think Roger Federer may have a legitimate gripe about your comment re lack of artistry in the game. The man's a genius and a joy to watch.

That said, I think he's the exception to the rule. Baseline rallies are prevalant now. I'd bet there were more genuine rallies in the first set on Sunday than in the whole of the Sampras v Ivanisevic final.

« **Reply #22 on:** July 10, 2007, 08:39:02 AM »

Will Federer have a black mark on his record if he fails to win the French much like Borg has because of his failure to win the US Open?

I don't see Nadal getting worse on clay anytime soon and he appears to be getting better on all the other surfaces.

PS. I had a Wilson T2000, what a horrible racket really, smallest sweet spot ever. I wonder how much more Jimmy Conners would have won if he had dropped that racket earlier in his career.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 10, 2007, 09:04:06 AM »

Quote from: Mark Pearce on July 10, 2007, 05:23:04 AM

Almost nobody serves and volleys like they used to. Slower balls, slower courts and bigger rackets have made Wimbledon yet another baseline tournament, with just occasional visits to the net. The artistry of a McEnroe simply isn't seen anymore, very sadly.

I think it is almost impossible to have serve and volley tennis these days. If the courts and balls are fast enough for serve and volley to work, then they are probably so fast that returning serve becomes near impossible. Whilst I enjoyed the serve and volley game, i am glad the tournament has tried to slow the game down so that it didnt become a game of not much more than serving.

« **Reply #24 on:** July 10, 2007, 09:32:52 AM »

I too owned a Wilson T2000. I recall it clearly, as the first two were returned due to a "nit" metal imperfection that caused the strings to break as they rubbed against the metal.

And in those days, returning a racket wasn't as easily done as it is today. The store had to order each one.

For me, the worst part of the racket structure was trying to keep the ball from sailing. Getting top-spin often proved to be futile. You still can't beat a Jack Kramer Autograph model that could be strung to perfection. Once the "Advantage and Advantage II" nylon combo was perfected, and using a cardboard template, we would lightly spray a "grayscale" diamond on the heart of the racket's strings.

Oh, I think what Jim was saying was the 'lack' of serve and volley - which is at least how I interpreted it.

News:

Bob_Huntley

David Stamm

RT

Jim Nugent

Phil Benedict

Larry_Keltto

Tom Zeni

Jim Nugent

Phil Benedict

JLahrman

peter_mcknight

SL_Solow

Phil Benedict

Tom Zeni

mike_beene

David_Tepper

mike_beene

mike_beene

Jim Nugent

Ed Tilley

Mark Pearce

Ed Tilley

Craig Van Egmond

David_Elvins

Tom Zeni