Let's Talk Serves

[Kieran]

No, you'd call Ralph...

Ralph would be among the aliens, duh.

Then definitely don't call Federer! You want to drink water again, right? :snigger :lolz:

I don't think Roger would recognize a one-eyed giant-headed Rafa. And since as we all know, the match is on his racket, he'll be fine.

That's true! And Alien Rafa would be more vulnerable to the Unnamed Player, so if Roger would only stand on the baseline a bit like this...

 

[Ricardo]

Ah, you're missing the point too. Firstly, I'd pick Nole's backhand. It has withstood pressure better than Roger's.

By losing 6 out of 12 major finals and stinking up the joint in 2009 and 2010? I'm using your criteria here.

You're not using my "criteria" at all. In fact, I don't know what losing a match has to do with the backhand. His backhand may have performed quite well. My "criteria" isn't one of who won most slams. It's how shots hold up under great pressure.

This is how we know how good they are.

Secondly, how can you isolate a shot from the match it's hit in? You can't. Cali tried this when he wanted to prove who's the best ever tennis player. We may as well also include isolated practice shots too.

How am I isolating a shot from a match? I'm a isolating a shot from the rest of their games. Huge difference. I'm looking at every serve they ever hit (well, not really, but you know what I mean) and making my conclusion accordingly. I'm not isolating it from a match at all. In fact, it's the context of the match that makes me realize how superior their serves were.

Thank you. So you'll agree that doing it at an even higher level, facing insane pressure and an opponent at their ripest is even better. Cheers!

By the way, I think it's worthwhile to discuss shots like this, but to say a shot smacked in the early rounds without pressure is "greater" than a man who's facing the best returns at the highest level, I can't agree to this. You don't hit shots with no context...

I didn't say "greater," I said "better." Again, big difference. Secondly, point me out to an example in which Karlovic and Isner's serves got "smacked." Please. It's the rest of their games that got smacked, but their serves were pretty much unplayable for the majority of their careers. But of course, I'm open to being proven wrong when you decide to point out facts that prove the opposite.

And buddy, please, don't play the "you're missing the point" card. We both know I'm not. You're better than that

Unfortunately, you want it both ways. You want to say, "oh, look, I'm proving he did it in matches against the best returners, therefore"...except you're ignoring what I'm saying, and therefore, missing the point. They didn't show it at the highest level. It's like apologists for George Best suggesting he'd have a great World Cup, if only the "rest of the team" didn't let him down.

Maybe he would have, but maybe he wouldn't. I happen to think that Federer's fifth set serving against Roddick in 2009, for example is beyond guys like Dr Evil, because they wouldn't cope with the pressure. Can I prove this? No, nor can you prove the opposite.

But we do both have to accept that Federer and Pete have been great servers at the toughest imaginable moments for a player, in context, and not isolated from the worst pressure in the game...

"I don't know what losing a match has to do with the backhand. His backhand may have performed quite well. " there you said it, you just isolated a shot from his game/match. If it doesn't have anything to do with his backhand, then surely it means he has a better backhand wether or not he succeeded under the 'highest pressure'.

What are you arguing about? you are just tennis illiterate and contradict yourself. You are trying to present a 'point' yet drop a rock on your own foot in the process......


secondly, those who showed it under the highest level means their particular shot is better? ok, i give you:

Federer's serve held up in slam final, his serve is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's (who never showed it under the 'highest pressure')
Rafa's serve held up in slam final, his serve is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's.
Hewitt's serve held up in slam final, his serve is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's.
Gaudio's serve held up in slam final, his serve is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's.

Can Kieran refute any of the above? he said it that you can only prove whose shot is better by showing it under the highest pressure, namely a slam final, and it means that shot is BETTER than Ivo/Isner's which never got tested in slam final.

What tennis illiterate Kieran said would also validate that:

Federer's backhand has held up in a slam final so it's better than Nalby's.
Johansson's backhand has also held up in a slam final so it's better than Nalby's.
Krajicek's backhand has held up in a slam final so it's better than Nalby's.

Now how can Kieran refute any of the above after he set his own "criteria"? (that really 'any' of your shot is better if it's been proven in a slam final, than whoever never showed it in a slam final)

What a great argument Kieran just presented :clap

 

[Kieran]

Well said, ricardo. And typical of people who don’t understand things, you use a lot of words. Brevity is wit, brother, write that down 10,000 times, so you learn something: brevity is wit.

I’ll be brief.

If I said that I think Djoker’s serve holds up better than Federer’s under the greatest pressure in a slam final, that’s actually locating the backhands within the matches, and judging them.

Secondly, where did anyone say that Rafa’s serve is a great serve? The topic is about great serves. I already said that Rafa's serve isn't a great one. Playing in a slam final doesn't change that...

 

[brokenshoelace]

If I said that I think Djoker’s serve holds up better than Federer’s under the greatest pressure in a slam final, that’s actually locating the backhands within the matches, and judging them.

...which is exactly what I was doing when talking about Ivo/Isner's serves. I'm locating them within a match, isolating them from the rest of their games (which may have failed him, the same way Novak's game might have failed him in those finals), and judging them.

It's literally the same thing.

 

[Kieran]

If I said that I think Djoker’s serve holds up better than Federer’s under the greatest pressure in a slam final, that’s actually locating the backhands within the matches, and judging them.

...which is exactly what I was doing when talking about Ivo/Isner's serves. I'm locating them within a match, isolating them from the rest of their games (which may have failed him, the same way Novak's game might have failed him in those finals), and judging them.

It's literally the same thing.

The same thing, but at a much lower level...

 

[Ricardo]

Well said, ricardo. And typical of people who don’t understand things, you use a lot of words. Brevity is wit, brother, write that down 10,000 times, so you learn something: brevity is wit.

I’ll be brief.

If I said that I think Djoker’s serve holds up better than Federer’s under the greatest pressure in a slam final, that’s actually locating the backhands within the matches, and judging them.

Secondly, where did anyone say that Rafa’s serve is a great serve? The topic is about great serves. I already said that Rafa's serve isn't a great one. Playing in a slam final doesn't change that...

for someone who claim to value brevity, then go on a flawed idiotic argument and circle around that 100 times is ..... ridiculous in anyone's language.

Fed has a great serve (right?) and has played way more slam finals than Pete, does that mean that his serve is better than Ivo/Isner's?

here is what you can learn from, for someone like you who is totally tennis illiterate but talks a hell of a lot. Go and repeat "i should shut up and learn" 1000 times and you might just have made the first step in the right direction.

as to wit? apart from that Ivo/Isner serve not proven in slam (so worse than Pete's), there is also "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa".......... but you actually claim that you are witty, that's gold :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

There you go making stuff up again. You'll take a long time before you find a post where I say that "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa", but it doesn't stop you saying that. A liar needs a good memory, but memory will suddenly fail you now, I'm afraid.

As for Fed's serve over Ivo's, well, try read properly. It gets tiresome repeating it. Even someone like you must be able to read, if you can post. Try read it all again, eh?

 

[Ricardo]

There you go making stuff up again. You'll take a long time before you find a post where I say that "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa", but it doesn't stop you saying that. A liar needs a good memory, but memory will suddenly fail you now, I'm afraid.

As for Fed's serve over Ivo's, well, try read properly. It gets tiresome repeating it. Even someone like you must be able to read, if you can post. Try read it all again, eh?

A lot of people saw you posted that Fed has no matchup issue with Nadal... don't tell me how you worded it differently, i don't care. There you just lied again, caught right there :clap

what evidence does anyone have that Sampras's serve is better than Ivo's? not the same class in percentage, power, angle, bounce and speed, all you got is he served in slam finals?

so did Fed, Safin, Delpo, Hewitt, Rafa, Gaudio.......

what an idiot.

 

[Kieran]

A lot of people saw you posted that Fed has no matchup issue with Nadal... don't tell me how you worded it differently, i don't care. There you just lied again, caught right there :clap

They didn't, and I didn't. Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean you have to broadcast yourself.

If you're going to claim something, back it up. But you can't back this one up, and you know it. So, that's a lie, my friend. Wanting something to be true don't make it so... :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

If I said that I think Djoker’s serve holds up better than Federer’s under the greatest pressure in a slam final, that’s actually locating the backhands within the matches, and judging them.

...which is exactly what I was doing when talking about Ivo/Isner's serves. I'm locating them within a match, isolating them from the rest of their games (which may have failed him, the same way Novak's game might have failed him in those finals), and judging them.

It's literally the same thing.

The same thing, but at a much lower level...

Yeah, "much lower level" playing against the Federers, Nadals, Djokovics and Murrays of the world. Awful.

 

[Ricardo]

A lot of people saw you posted that Fed has no matchup issue with Nadal... don't tell me how you worded it differently, i don't care. There you just lied again, caught right there :clap

They didn't, and I didn't. Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean you have to broadcast yourself.

If you're going to claim something, back it up. But you can't back this one up, and you know it. So, that's a lie, my friend. Wanting something to be true don't make it so... :nono

BUT I AM GOING TO BROADCAST AND SEE WHO LIED
this is your post
http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2003

RE: Fedal: do we stop saying it's a "bad matchup"..
Pete Sampras recently declared Rafa to be a rock. Another time, he said Rafa is a beast. When a proud champ like Pete can only use such strong metaphors to describe Rafa, we know that he's praising him highly.

I always felt that Rafa made tennis too much like a contact sport for Roger. Even as a kid, Rafa physically dominated Roger. It was never about match-up - it was about imposing himself on his opponent, and Rafa does that to everybody. And while Roger can do that to most people - impose his aesthetically pleasing game - he gets thrown back on the ropes by the rough-housing Rafa.

 

[Ricardo]

So again, Kieran loves getting caught. Rafa imposed himself on Roger, it was NEVER about match-up.

How the hell could Rafa impose himself on Roger if it wasn't for the matchup issue (that Rafa's high bouncing forehand always give Roger's single backhand fit) and has that kind of head to head?

CLEARLY IT WAS ALWAYS A BAD MATCHUP FOR FEDERER.

Witty tennis illiterate Kieran has just done it again.... clap clap

 

[Kieran]

So...where does this say "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa"?

It doesn't, silly boy. :nono

You were probably hiding in your bedroom when some people said that Nole would always dominate Rafa after 2011 because of the match up. And I said the same thing: it's not "about match up."

Why isn't it?

Because there's more to tennis than just accepting a bad match up. As Rafa showed, in turning that rivalry back around to his side. I happen to believe that Roger is so great he shouldn't be so simply dominated by Rafa plugging one shot.

By the way, you took your time, and you were quite obvious in how you'd try twist things, but, it doesn't say what you want it to...

 

[Ricardo]

So...where does this say "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa"?

It doesn't, silly boy. :nono

You were probably hiding in your bedroom when some people said that Nole would always dominate Rafa after 2011 because of the match up. And I said the same thing: it's not "about match up."

Why isn't it?

Because there's more to tennis than just accepting a bad match up. As Rafa showed, in turning that rivalry back around to his side. I happen to believe that Roger is so great he shouldn't be so simply dominated by Rafa plugging one shot.

By the way, you took your time, and you were quite obvious in how you'd try twist things, but, it doesn't say what you want it to...

bad move Kieran, i already anticipated that you were gonna spin it by playing a word game.

Fed has no match up issue with Rafa, surely it doesn't mean "it was never about match up (regarding those two)....... because you just got caught LYING.

Try spinning it and i encourage you to, I know your move and like to beat it out of you. :snigger

 

[Kieran]

Here's a simple analogy I often use. The simpler the better to explain things to you: two men attend a fight, one has a gun and the other has a bread knife.

Bad match up, I presume? Well, not if you're unwilling to fire a gun on somebody.

The fact is, Roger serves half the games against Rafa. He gets the opportunity to set the play in those games - and they all end up with Rafa pitching his shots into Roger's backhand.

Rafa did something to reset the defaults against Novak, but Roger has been unsuccessful in doing the same against Nadal.

This isn't "about match up" - it's about Roger. He should never be dominated so much by one single shot...

 

[Ricardo]

Here's a simple analogy I often use. The simpler the better to explain things to you: two men attend a fight, one has a gun and the other has a bread knife.

Bad match up, I presume? Well, not if you're unwilling to fire a gun on somebody.

The fact is, Roger serves half the games against Rafa. He gets the opportunity to set the play in those games - and they all end up with Rafa pitching his shots into Roger's backhand.

Rafa did something to reset the defaults against Novak, but Roger has been unsuccessful in doing the same against Nadal.

This isn't "about match up" - it's about Roger. He should never be dominated so much by one single shot...

really? it was a physical limit for him. Tony was asked about strategy for Rafa vs Roger, and said one of the main things would always be for Rafa do what he always does... which everyone knows. Roger does not have time to run around it, and needs to rely on that single bh..... he can do it 3 times, 5 times, before it breaks down (either hit a short ball or an error). and i bet it breaks down before Rafa's fh does, % wise guaranteed.

I'll simplify this, in offence Rafa loops that fh to Fed's bh and in defence guess what? he still loops that fh to Fed's bh because he would always have the best chance in a point by doing so. There isn't a number for this, but i'd say maybe he gets a 20-30 points advantage by doing this. How much does Fed have to do in other areas to make up for this disadvantage? in case the chance is low, it gets lower as the playing condition gets slower (or bounce higher).

Which is why we give Fed pretty good odds against players of similar ability (joker and murray) while we know for a fact that Fed's chance against Nadal is........ low.

Never about match up? give it up Kieran, I'll have a field day all over you.

 

[Kieran]

You may disagree on how important is this match up thing - and even if you agreed with me, you'd find a way to disagree as well - but you will have to agree that I never said that "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa".

Not ever. That's you making stuff up.

Again. :s :nono

Big matches are famously won between the ears, not between the lines. There's a healthy dose of truth in that. Nadal imposes himself on Federer - and Federer fails to impose himself on Rafa.

Nole was imposing himself on Rafa and very few of us (ie, myself, Moxie and Tented) said this wouldn't last forever. Rafa re-plugged things and we were proven right. If it was a simple matter of "bad match up", players would automatically win by applying this. They don't, because bad match ups can be overcome.

So go back and search for an actual example of where I said the match up doesn't exist...

 

[Ricardo]

You may disagree on how important is this match up thing - and even if you agreed with me, you'd find a way to disagree as well - but you will have to agree that I never said that "Fed has no match up issue with Rafa".

Not ever. That's you making stuff up.

Again. :s :nono

Big matches are famously won between the ears, not between the lines. There's a healthy dose of truth in that. Nadal imposes himself on Federer - and Federer fails to impose himself on Rafa.

Nole was imposing himself on Rafa and very few of us (ie, myself, Moxie and Tented) said this wouldn't last forever. Rafa re-plugged things and we were proven right. If it was a simple matter of "bad match up", players would automatically win by applying this. They don't, because bad match ups can be overcome.

So go back and search for an actual example of where I said the match up doesn't exist...

i don't care how you think you can spin out of it, "Roger has no match up issue with Rafa" does perfectly fit into "it was never about match up". I knew you were gonna argue how you worded it differently, disappointedly you have failed to surprise me.

Match up can only be overcome to a certain degree. There is not a single shot in Rafa's arsenal that Djoker can so blatantly abuse to the same degree that Rafa himself can do to Fed's single bh. The match up may or may not favour Djoker, but technically it's simply not to the same degree.

 

[Kieran]

Isn't it funny how you accuse me of saying things, then when you can't find these things, you post something and expect me to argue it on your terms?

"It was never about match up" actually suggests there's a match up, but it was never about that. Not completely it wasn't. It only became about that because Roger was unable to overcome it. It's a strength of Nadal that imposes himself on everybody - that's also in the post you quoted me from, but you ignored that bit.

As for Nole, go back and search the thread "Rafa's gonna be #1 again" which I started on the old tennis.com forum and brought here, and tell the people there that Nole couldn't blatantly abuse Rafa: there were many posters there - and here - who said it was a simple matter of match-up, and Rafa wasn't going to turn tables in that rivalry.

But he did.

Now, as I said, you may disagree about the importance of the match-up thingy, but you can't find an example of me saying that "Roger has no match up issue with Rafa".

Not ever. :nono

And I've been consistent on this throughout my times in posting on every forum we've all been on. So I recommend you pay attention, or else quit making stuff up about me...

 

[Ricardo]

Isn't it funny how you accuse me of saying things, then when you can't find these things, you post something and expect me to argue it on your terms?

"It was never about match up" actually suggests there's a match up, but it was never about that. Not completely it wasn't. It only became about that because Roger was unable to overcome it. It's a strength of Nadal that imposes himself on everybody - that's also in the post you quoted me from, but you ignored that bit.

As for Nole, go back and search the thread "Rafa's gonna be #1 again" which I started on the old tennis.com forum and brought here, and tell the people there that Nole couldn't blatantly abuse Rafa: there were many posters there - and here - who said it was a simple matter of match-up, and Rafa wasn't going to turn tables in that rivalry.

But he did.

Now, as I said, you may disagree about the importance of the match-up thingy, but you can't find an example of me saying that "Roger has no match up issue with Rafa".

Not ever. :nono

And I've been consistent on this throughout my times in posting on every forum we've all been on. So I recommend you pay attention, or else quit making stuff up about me...

here it is, two players of similar level, one owns the other head to head and you claim it was never about match up. what is it if it's not about match up?

don't get smart with me, i wish i can say nice try like i did to Murat. But you know what, i am simply not to be confused. I don't fall for this crap, you said it and you are trying to get out.

Djoker is nowhere nearly as bad match up for Rafa, period. He beat the crap out of Rafa in 2011 because he was playing better tennis (as shown by his domination over the field, simple as that.) Rafa never dominated the field anywhere near that level, but dominated Federer who himself dominated the field more than just about anyone in history. What gives?