Cincinnati Master 1000

[The Strokes]

Kyrgious was gracious but still he is a jerk (you too). It's perfectly possible to be a jerk who is gracious in defeat. For example, Ilie Năstase

Very true. Everyone contains "multitudes" as someone once said.

 

[Federberg]

It's going to be interesting to see how much of a threat both of these guys can be at the Open

 

[Carol]

My question is if someone was thinking that Kyrgios went to make a show in the Trophy Ceremony. Of course he is not so silly and he knew the only thing he could do is to congrat his opponent and with his best face

 

[The Strokes]

It's going to be interesting to see how much of a threat both of these guys can be at the Open

Dimi keeps this up he is the threat.
Kyr may have a big upset, but I don't see him going the distance.

 

[Busted]

It's going to be interesting to see how much of a threat both of these guys can be at the Open

I expect Kyrgios will only make an effort if gets a show court and\or if he plays Federer, Nadal or Murray. And Dimitrov will flame out like he always does if he has to play those guys - unless he senses they're injured. Beating a bunch of nobodies to win a Masters 1000 where 7 of the top 10 didn't play - and the other 3 lost early? Please. I watched the match and yawned. If he'd played that same match against any of the Big 4 he'd have lost easily. Luckily for him he was playing Mr. I Can Only Be Bothered To Try Hard When I'm Playing One Of The Big 4. Heck, I think if Dimitrov had played Ferrer - who played a great match against Kyrgios in the semis - until the tie breakers! - he'd have lost to Ferrer. Brad Gilbert on ESPN2 said that Dimitrov played more freely than Kyrgios because he wasn't playing one of the top guys - and Kyrgios wasn't playing as good because...he wasn't playing one of the Big 4. That sums up the final - and both players - in a nutshell. Enough guys are out injured that Dimitrov COULD make the quarters depending on his draw. - but semis or Finals? I can't see it happening unless a lot of other guys lose early or are injured.

 

[Busted]

Dimi keeps this up he is the threat.
Kyr may have a big upset, but I don't see him going the distance.

With as many injuries as there currently are and as many good younger players are there are - Dimitrov's probably not going to get a better chance to make a US Open semi or final - but I still don't see it happening unless more guys are injured or lose early.

As for Kyrgios? Oy vey. I'm at the point where I wish he'd just walk away from the sport. He obviously does not love it or even enjoy it. It's a job to him - nothing more. That's fine - except quit being a whiny snot and bragging about tanking matches because you're bored or don't want to be there. Nobody's making him play. If he's not happy - then take the millions he's earned and go away. Nobody's going to miss him or his whining. The more the tennis analysts talk about how much he doesn't love the game, the less I care about him squandering his talents. Nobody can make him care or make him want to play or make him want to win. Not a coach, not a "team" and obviously not his mother.

 

[Busted]

I have actually softened alot towards Nick in the last year.
If you want to see some real venom and bile, go on some other other sites--Talk tennis, talk about tennis and see what posters are saying about him.
He gets bashed up the wazoo.

I've softened to the point where I just want him to get his act together or go away. I'm sick of his tanking, bragging about tanking and the whining. He's 22 not 2. Time to suck it up, butter cup..

 

[Busted]

While it's obvious Roger was stubborn to wait years to adjust his strategy versus Nadal, my point was not about re-inventing his game against one player. He changed his game against the field to allow him to still compete at an elite level. His change to first strike tennis and shorter points was something he brought in to allow him compete with guys half his age and to conserve energy for the biggest matches. For years now he's been winning matches much faster than any of the big 4 or 5 on average as a result. Often in slam matches he's off the court in 1.5 hours or less while the rest are out there running around like a bunch of numpties against nobodies for 3+ hours.

Save your breath. Rafa's fans think he invented the wheel and did everything before Federer - and better - even when it's clearly not true. I've long said that if Nadal hadn't spent all that time grinding at the baseline and played a more aggressive style - he wouldn't have been injured as much as he has been in his career. Playing at least 1 2.5-3 hour match in EVERY tournament - especially Slams - is just ridic. I said the same thing about Djokovic - that that style would catch up with him one day - and it has. When he returns - I bet he'll be shortening points by coming into the net and playing first-strike tennis just like Federer has done. Why slug it out for 4 hours if you don't have to?

 

[The Strokes]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Excellent candidate for "ignore."

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Roger willing to change his racket is in itself one of the biggest changes anybody in any sports can do. Pete could not bring himself to do it, suffered for it . I cannot even find an analogy for this. Complete this sentence for me please : A tennis player changing a racket that won him many slams is like a _____ player changing his ____ .

 

[mrzz]

A tennis player changing a racket that won him many slams is like a guitar player changing his strings and hair stylist .

 

[Moxie]

Roger willing to change his racket is in itself one of the biggest changes anybody in any sports can do. Pete could not bring himself to do it, suffered for it . I cannot even find an analogy for this. Complete this sentence for me please : A tennis player changing a racket that won him many slams is like a _____ player changing his ____ .

I don't see why Roger would get so much cred for changing his racquet, (which actually took him a long time to adapt to,) when Rafa has been tinkering with his game, all along. And Rafa has added weight to the head of his racquet, which seems to be helping his serve.

 

[Moxie]

While it's obvious Roger was stubborn to wait years to adjust his strategy versus Nadal, my point was not about re-inventing his game against one player. He changed his game against the field to allow him to still compete at an elite level. His change to first strike tennis and shorter points was something he brought in to allow him compete with guys half his age and to conserve energy for the biggest matches. For years now he's been winning matches much faster than any of the big 4 or 5 on average as a result. Often in slam matches he's off the court in 1.5 hours or less while the rest are out there running around like a bunch of numpties against nobodies for 3+ hours.

Yeah, but he waited a long time to make the change. Your contention that, "no one to date has been able to re-invent themselves to the extent he has," I think is not just a stretch, but fallacious. Of all the differences between Federer and Nadal, I think this is one of the more glaring. Nadal has always been adaptable, and Federer has come to it late in his career. Obviously Roger likes to play fast, and it benefits him as he gets older. But it's in part because he's not been as strong in the long run.

 

[The Strokes]

Roger willing to change his racket is in itself one of the biggest changes anybody in any sports can do. Pete could not bring himself to do it, suffered for it . I cannot even find an analogy for this. Complete this sentence for me please : A tennis player changing a racket that won him many slams is like a _____ player changing his ____ .

LOL I like your challenge, I'm going to ponder it.
But I also want to say, Fed's antiquated racquet was actually costing him. He got more power switching to a slightly bigger frame.
Switching is tough, but sometimes necessary. aka Divorce.

So you're a drummer in Aurora ... I'ma lapsed pianist not so far away

 

[DarthFed]

I don't see why Roger would get so much cred for changing his racquet, (which actually took him a long time to adapt to,) when Rafa has been tinkering with his game, all along. And Rafa has added weight to the head of his racquet, which seems to be helping his serve.

It didn't take him long to adapt to. He changed at the start of 2014 which was obviously a much better year than 2013. It paid dividends right away, the difference this year is either he or Ljubicic decided he should be more agressive on the backhand and ROS. His return of serve has kept him from being near 25 slams already, it was absolutely pathetic for close to a decade and was the main reason for some of the pathetic losses at Wimbledon and USO.

Rafa adding weight to generate even more topspin (which is a very big part of his game aside from movement) is not the same as changing to a larger frame.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah, but he waited a long time to make the change. Your contention that, "no one to date has been able to re-invent themselves to the extent he has," I think is not just a stretch, but fallacious. Of all the differences between Federer and Nadal, I think this is one of the more glaring. Nadal has always been adaptable, and Federer has come to it late in his career. Obviously Roger likes to play fast, and it benefits him as he gets older. But it's in part because he's not been as strong in the long run.

Nadal gets a lot of credit for "being adaptable" please give an example here. I'm guessing it will be that he worked hard to make his serve go from an absolute liability in 2005-2007 to being barely average. Or will it be that he actually played agressively at a couple Wimbledon's and a couple USO's. Or will it be that he had better court positioning at a couple of those events instead of staying 15 feet behind the baseline.

Fed around 2010 started to slip badly and despite having 16 slams already he knew that the time had come to play first strike tennis a lot more and come to net as much as possible. He couldn't live with the other elite players in long rallies and long matches. So yes he did reinvent himself a bit. Rafa worked on glaring weaknesses and made them adequate or even a strength at times (his serve this year has been the best it's ever been and he had other great tournaments like the USO)

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't see why Roger would get so much cred for changing his racquet, (which actually took him a long time to adapt to,) when Rafa has been tinkering with his game, all along. And Rafa has added weight to the head of his racquet, which seems to be helping his serve.

You answered your own question in brackets. It takes a long time to adjust and actually there is no guarantees that a player will successfully adjust to the new stick. THAT's the risk. It takes a real serious and risky commitment . So many players cannot pull the trigger on this issue because this is tinkering above and beyond. I am just a NTRP 6.0 player and it took me 30 years to finally give up the 85 Pro Staff (Old Sampras racket) . Imagine a guy like Roger giving up something that he won so much with. But he knew...and pulled the trigger. It is a lot more difficult than many think.

 

[Moxie]

It didn't take him long to adapt to. He changed at the start of 2014 which was obviously a much better year than 2013. It paid dividends right away, the difference this year is either he or Ljubicic decided he should be more agressive on the backhand and ROS. His return of serve has kept him from being near 25 slams already, it was absolutely pathetic for close to a decade and was the main reason for some of the pathetic losses at Wimbledon and USO.

Rafa adding weight to generate even more topspin (which is a very big part of his game aside from movement) is not the same as changing to a larger frame.

Perhaps we remember it differently, and I won't look it up now, but I remember Roger starting with the new stick, then going back for quite some time before he got used to it. I would challenge you that it paid dividends right away. Let's see whose memory is better.

The weight added to Rafa's stick is about adding heat to his serve, not topspin.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

LOL I like your challenge, I'm going to ponder it.
But I also want to say, Fed's antiquated racquet was actually costing him. He got more power switching to a slightly bigger frame.
Switching is tough, but sometimes necessary. aka Divorce.

So you're a drummer in Aurora ... I'ma lapsed pianist not so far away

Sampras knew that too, said afterwards many times, but he could not pull the trigger. It is a huge step, a huge risk that is not even guaranteed to work out.

The drummer part is still there but I have a drum shop now that takes most my time If you are not too far, drop by We'll talk tennis and music !

 

[Moxie]

You answered your own question in brackets. It takes a long time to adjust and actually there is no guarantees that a player will successfully adjust to the new stick. THAT's the risk. It takes a real serious and risky commitment . So many players cannot pull the trigger on this issue because this is tinkering above and beyond. I am just a NTRP 6.0 player and it took me 30 years to finally give up the 85 Pro Staff (Old Sampras racket) . Imagine a guy like Roger giving up something that he won so much with. But he knew...and pulled the trigger. It is a lot more difficult than many think.

I'm not saying it wasn't difficult. I think it took him a long time to commit to it. This is my disagreement with Darth, who seems to remember that it worked out great, immediately.