Cincinnati Master 1000

[GameSetAndMath]

Wow, a day of 4 TBs.

 

[Carol]

Ok, I see that I'm going against the current, I will pull for Dimitrov B-)

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

 

[The Strokes]

Cahill says that anyone who calls Ferrer a pusher doesn't know tennis. So there. :devilfinger::lulz2:

"Pusher" was being used in a completely inappropriate way on this thread a few days ago--Ferrer, Agut, ARV, all got called pushers, none are at all. Not even close.
The only true pusher I know of is Tomic.

 

[The Strokes]

Ok, I see that I'm going against the current, I will pull for Dimitrov B-)

I am totally going for Dimi.
We are now a current.
He is lovely to watch--like Fed without Fed!--and doesn't rely on aces to win, like NK. Like Isner. Like Fed like all Big servers. The only reason you even saw rallies tonight Kyr/ferr, is that Ferr is a wonderful grinder and could keep the ball in play. But it wasn't enough to beat Nick. Still I wondered how Ferrer was suddenly playing this level of tennis again ... he did better against Nick than Rafa. But you need weapons to beat Nick--Dimi has them.

 

[The Strokes]

Wow, a day of 4 TBs.

Hardly surprising with Isner and Kyrgios playing

 

[The Strokes]

I like final: kyr/Dimi--don't recall seeing that matchup (they played once IW 2015 Dimi won) both good candidates for their first 1000. I think it's time someone from so-called "generation useless" (how rude) got something.
If Dimi could get his shit together he'd add some more interest to the top 10. Last thing we need is another monster server over 6'4".
Personality and tennis-wise, I'll take him over Nick any day, even as a loser.

 

[Carol]

I am totally going for Dimi.
We are now a current.
He is lovely to watch--like Fed without Fed!--and doesn't rely on aces to win, like NK. Like Isner. Like Fed like all Big servers. The only reason you even saw rallies tonight Kyr/ferr, is that Ferr is a wonderful grinder and could keep the ball in play. But it wasn't enough to beat Nick. Still I wondered how Ferrer was suddenly playing this level of tennis again ... he did better against Nick than Rafa. But you need weapons to beat Nick--Dimi has them.

Well, besides Dimi looks a very nice guy I think it's time to show his best game and I think this is a good opportunity in front of a guy that he is a very good player but not enough to win a MS unless the others have not played so well. Of course Ferru has played much better than Nadal ( it's difficult to play worse than he played yesterday) but even that he has improved a lot comparing to the rest of the year we know that he has won only one MS during his all carrer and it means that always has been hard to him to reach the finals and harder to win so today Kyrgios has had one more point on his favor but I agree that Dimi has more weapons to win so I hope he will

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just as Nick is excited to play big time players, I believe he will also be excited to play finals (even if only Dimi is there across the net).
So, I guess Nick will win this.

 

[Front242]

I am totally going for Dimi.
We are now a current.
He is lovely to watch--like Fed without Fed!--and doesn't rely on aces to win, like NK. Like Isner. Like Fed like all Big servers. The only reason you even saw rallies tonight Kyr/ferr, is that Ferr is a wonderful grinder and could keep the ball in play. But it wasn't enough to beat Nick. Still I wondered how Ferrer was suddenly playing this level of tennis again ... he did better against Nick than Rafa. But you need weapons to beat Nick--Dimi has them.

He's said he wants to try and get back in the top 10 and the only way that's happening is if he's back on the special sauce, which is quite possible seeing how he's playing lately.

 

[mrzz]

and doesn't rely on aces to win, like NK. Like Isner. Like Fed like all Big servers

Let us not start a Fedal war when we do not need one. Include Federer in the "need aces to win" list is statistically untrue. Federer breaks serve in a month more than Isner and Kyrgios have done in their careers. And that's just part of the argument.

 

[The Strokes]

Let us not start a Fedal war when we do not need one. Include Federer in the "need aces to win" list is statistically untrue. Federer breaks serve in a month more than Isner and Kyrgios have done in their careers. And that's just part of the argument.

Belevie me, I don't want to start a Fedal war.
Just commenting on Fed's serve--he doesn't serve up aces like Isner or Karlovic or Kyrgious, but check out the atp leaderboard on serve stats. He is #3. Isner is #1 and Kyrgios about #6. His serve is way more involved in his success than Nadal's Murray's Djok's etc. "Need aces to win" does not really describe Fed, to be more specific.

 

[britbox]

Highlights from the Semis:

 

[DarthFed]

If you have said that once you rooted for the guy it would be biggest fattest lie of all times. In fact I would be so disapppointed that I could even put you on ignore list

Let's hope it doesn't come to a point where I root for Nads to win. I can't think of a scenario where that would happen so I think we'll be alright.

 

[DarthFed]

It should be a good match today and I'm ok with either winning. I think Nick winning today would make him more dangerous at the USO than Dimitrov would be if he wins this. Pretty ridiculous that this is Sir Grigor's first MS final but hopefully this is the start of something for him.

 

[Carol]

Belevie me, I don't want to start a Fedal war.
Just commenting on Fed's serve--he doesn't serve up aces like Isner or Karlovic or Kyrgious, but check out the atp leaderboard on serve stats. He is #3. Isner is #1 and Kyrgios about #6. His serve is way more involved in his success than Nadal's Murray's Djok's etc. "Need aces to win" does not really describe Fed, to be more specific.

Definitely and Kyrgios too

 

[Front242]

Federer's serve has always been more about placement and disguise than speed. It's true of most players that if they can't hold serve they likely face an uphill battle trying to win. Most of the big servers also don't need aces to win, they simply need to hit good first serves.

 

[mrzz]

Belevie me, I don't want to start a Fedal war.
Just commenting on Fed's serve--he doesn't serve up aces like Isner or Karlovic or Kyrgious, but check out the atp leaderboard on serve stats. He is #3. Isner is #1 and Kyrgios about #6. His serve is way more involved in his success than Nadal's Murray's Djok's etc. "Need aces to win" does not really describe Fed, to be more specific.

I believe you (but around here you need just a tiny spark to start a fire).

About Federer´s serve: Yes, his serve is more involved in his success than in the rest of the big 3 +1 case, basically because he serves better than them. The problem is not the argument in itself, it is what people jump to conclude right after it. "Oh, then he only wins due to his serve". Nadal has more physical strength than the rest of the big 3 +1, and physical strength is more involved in his success than in the other guys cases. But surely physical strength is not his main driver for success (I can think of handful of more important reasons, the first one is talent).

And -- little hair splitting here: Big server is different than good server. The big guys in general are good servers too, but still their serves are based on power (and height). Federer's serve is a reflection of his technical skills: It has power, but it has placement and variety, and it is extremely clutch on big moments. In other words, he serves well because he is an extremely good player, not the other way around.

 

[Carol]

I believe you (but around here you need just a tiny spark to start a fire).

About Federer´s serve: Yes, his serve is more involved in his success than in the rest of the big 3 +1 case, basically because he serves better than them. The problem is not the argument in itself, it is what people jump to conclude right after it. "Oh, then he only wins due to his serve". Nadal has more physical strength than the rest of the big 3 +1, and physical strength is more involved in his success than in the other guys cases. But surely physical strength is not his main driver for success (I can think of handful of more important reasons, the first one is talent).

And -- little hair splitting here: Big server is different than good server. The big guys in general are good servers too, but still their serves are based on power (and height). Federer's serve is a reflection of his technical skills: It has power, but it has placement and variety, and it is extremely clutch on big moments. In other words, he serves well because he is an extremely good player, not the other way around.

Wrong, I don't think Nadal has more physical strength than the others big 3, Novak has showed and impressive strength, Murray too, he has the stronger legs and body of all the tour but not his head, and of course Federer it doesn't matter his style or whatever you think about it, he had when he was younger and now with 36 years old has showed it in different occasions. In one word all of them need a lot of strength otherwise they never could be in the place they are

 

[The Strokes]

I believe you (but around here you need just a tiny spark to start a fire).

About Federer´s serve: Yes, his serve is more involved in his success than in the rest of the big 3 +1 case, basically because he serves better than them. The problem is not the argument in itself, it is what people jump to conclude right after it. "Oh, then he only wins due to his serve". Nadal has more physical strength than the rest of the big 3 +1, and physical strength is more involved in his success than in the other guys cases. But surely physical strength is not his main driver for success (I can think of handful of more important reasons, the first one is talent).

And -- little hair splitting here: Big server is different than good server. The big guys in general are good servers too, but still their serves are based on power (and height). Federer's serve is a reflection of his technical skills: It has power, but it has placement and variety, and it is extremely clutch on big moments. In other words, he serves well because he is an extremely good player, not the other way around.

I agree re distinction on Fed's serve, he's the only guy of average height with a serve that potent, and it's not so much power-based, as placement-based.
And no I would never say he wins only because of his serve--I understand way more than that about his game and tennis in general.
And having an amazing serve is a totally legitimate form of tennis excellence.
What I am talking about is more of a subjective preference--that I prefer the kind of tennis that is not decided by aces or unreturnables. And it's a fact: I don't like the big servers.
Did you see KYr vs. Karl? zzzzzzzzzzzz
So for interesting tennis, one big server only!
I always feel for the guy playing the big server because he has to earn it with groundies, and tactics. The big server holds with his serve.