-
#1935 Reply
Posted by
thetruth
on 24 Jan, 2014 01:20
-
It's still 0 here. I am not sending my son to school
They're on regular time, since they catch public transportation. But, when the weather gets cold public transportation gets off track.
I usually take him to school, but ordinarily he catches the bus home.
He'll just have to miss a few days. It's better than dealing with frostbite or being frozen like an ice cube.
The weather needs to break. Now!
-
-
#1936 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 24 Jan, 2014 08:50
-
it is cold as hell here this morning.
fresh coffee is being prepared. I am ready to start my day.
congrats to rafa and his fans. i thought it might go 4 sets but nadal does it in straights.
i will catch this match tonight.
-
-
#1937 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 24 Jan, 2014 14:42
-
possible snow flurries here today.
-
-
#1938 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 24 Jan, 2014 22:30
-
-
-
#1939 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 25 Jan, 2014 19:20
-
warmer today and tomorrow but the cold weather returns on Tuesday.
-
-
#1940 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 25 Jan, 2014 22:02
-
-
-
#1941 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 26 Jan, 2014 08:26
-
congrats to stan and his fans at Camelot.
well done.
-
-
#1942 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 26 Jan, 2014 11:35
-
tennis warehouse is getting more and more pathetic with each passing week.
the endless blind hate for rafa evidently knows no bounds.
they are really sick bastards to be saying the kind of things they are saying about rafa.
-
-
#1943 Reply
Posted by
Emma
on 26 Jan, 2014 14:26
-
IMO both Federer and Nadal have successfully produced some of the worst fans ever. These fans deserve each other. It's just a human jungle out there. I have no sympathy for the majority of the fans. Not that some of the Nole and Murray fans are any better to be truthful, but they are only a handful.
Now on to the match, and if I am to be honest, Nadal had a lot at stake. A lot. He was supposed tie with Sampras and equal his record and to lose to a player like Wawrinka who is not his caliber yet, would have been a great shame - doesn't matter if the loss had come in 3 or 4 or 5 sets. And why not a loss. The likes of Nadal, Nole, Federer, Murray etc. might be the top players and are constantly on the watch, but in this particular tournament, Wawrinka became the man to beat when he took out the 4 times AO champion - Novak Djokovic. Earlier on, he beat one of his old time nemesis Robredo in straight sets and just when people thought, he might have not had much left after the long match against Nole, he came out strong and beat Berdych in 4 sets. Wawrinka looked like a man on a mission from the get go. Considering all that, the injury comes off as damage control for future sake as so much is still at stake - Nadal is chasing history after all and not just Sampras' but also Federer's, so I am sure he doesn't want set a precedent here by losing to a player he shouldn't be losing to, especially when the new year has just begun.
Now I am not a fan of Wawrinka at all but credit should be given where credit is due. He was steamrolling from the start of the match and took the 1st set in fashion and went quickly 2-0 in the 2nd set. This tells me he was by no means either nervous or overwhelmed by the fact that he had just won his very first set against Nadal in a GS match no less. He most definitely showed up last night not just to play the game but also to win it. He's turning 29 soon and he may never win a Slam again, so why waste such a golden opportunity. Thanks to Norman who must have instilled all this into Stan and kept him highly motivated.
Congrats to Stan and Li Na. Despite all the controversies throughout the tournament, these two definitely deserved to win 2014 AO.
Unfortunate for Nadal no doubt that he had to lose it here in the final when he came so close to win it but sometimes some of the players become too competitive for their own good and consequences leave no one alone. Had he not had a history of a number of things in the past including the injuries, this would have been more believable, but it's hard to trust a guy who has no respect for the rules. He's a repeated offender of the rules after all and that makes it hard to feel sorry for him. I'd rather he cleans up his acts and play like a normal human being. Once he does that I am sure people will have no problem accepting him as one of the true greats, but right now, that's not the case. As they say, what goes around comes around.
I am sorry that I couldn't write a more constructive post to cheer you up and the fact that, I used to like him one time back in 2008 and prior, makes it even harder for me to write this, but over the years, after seeing a few things I have stopped being a fan. But my mind is not made up about him. He can always change and I am perfectly willing to change my mind about him as well.
Anyway, best of luck to all the players going forward. First Slam to Wawrinka and Li Na.
-
-
#1944 Reply
Posted by
Emma
on 26 Jan, 2014 17:48
-
I didn't get to see the Federer/Murray qtr final match live. I was too tired from the Nadal/Dimitrov match so ended up following the score on my phone. Typically I don't do that with any of Andy's important matches but here I wasn't convinced Andy would be able to win. Just didn't believe Andy was ready for a highly competitive match in a Slam so soon without enough solid match play.
So anyway, I watched the match on Friday and was disturbed by the double bounce controversy. Now from the instant look it's very hard for a fan to tell whether the ball bounced twice or not, but after watching the point up close and in slow motion a couple of times, it was very clear to me that the ball had bounced twice. It touched the surface for the 2nd time and Federer scooped it almost at the same time, but it did touch the ground first. Federer later in his press conference said that he had no idea as his eyes were probably closed, but that doesn't take away the fact that, both him and Murray were the closest ones to the ball; therefore, they were the ones who were watching the ball with their eagle eyes. And in fact after Federer put the ball away, Andy turned around and looked at Pascal Maria hoping to see any sign from him as he was clearly convinced the ball bounced twice. But Pascal was the furthest from the ball and Federer's racquet did cover most of the ball, so I am sure it was very hard for him to decide from that distant. I do not believe Federer didn't know; he knew, but his competitive self took the best of him and he decided to take the point anyway. What confirmed more that he knew was when he went on to tell the umpire to not show the point again and again on the big screen, as it might create 'controversy'.
It became controversial in fact only after that. Had he been fair - not only he would have not asked to stop playing the clip, but also, he would have been equally interested in finding out the truth, but alas. He was just became too greedy to win the match against Murray on that night, because he was so convinced he was playing his best tennis and had a chance to win AO.
And terrible of those who make excuses like 'oh but Andy went on to win the 3rd set anyway so why does it matter'. Such nonsense. First of all, maybe one of these days you will realize that, that's so not the point and it does matter. Second, fair is fair and it was a very important point as Andy would have gone 30-15 up instead he went 15-30 on his game. What's more, he got distracted and ended up getting broken that gave Federer the opportunity to serve out for the match. Had Andy held serve, Federer would have been under pressure to hold his serve at 4-5 and Andy could have had a shot to take the set there. There were chances like that as well. And Andy is known for comebacks so who knows how the mental aspect of things would have shifted from that point on. Instead Andy had to work very hard to win that set and it took a lot out of him.
I understand that Federer was the better player all in all and probably would have won the match in the end anyway, but fair is fair. Federer should have given that point to Andy. Let's be fair to other guys and let's not be so competitive that you start to lose your own self.
Anyway, that's in the past now but thought I'd give my view on it. It's very important to me that players remain fair to each other given that they all work very hard for each point.
-
-
#1945 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 26 Jan, 2014 18:18
-
I missed the andy vs Federer match but that is why Camelot has a tennis videos center.
I will catch it in between tournaments.
I can assure you that Federer is winning again but he looks anything but happy out there at times.
I saw him again throw his arms up and also offer a few looks of disgust when nadal would hit his passing shots or an inside out forehand.
Federer needs to change that aspect of his personality and applaud a little bit when somebody hits a remarkable shot. it cools the sting and allows you to look forward to the next point in a more positive light.
his meeting with nadal at the net after the match was also somewhat cold and brief.
at any rate it is what it is. these guys are global sports superstars. they do what they want to do. they know they bring home the bacon.
nike sells billions of dollars of worth of merchandise because or nadal, federer, and tiger woods.
nadal has become the number one global draw in tennis.
we have created "the masterclass fireside" at the tennis discussion page. I think it has some promise.
we will all help him of course in any way we can.
-
-
#1946 Reply
Posted by
Emma
on 26 Jan, 2014 18:44
-
All they need is to become a bit less competitive. That's what eating these guys. I remember Nole taking injury timeout just when Andy was supposed to serve for the match in the 5th set at the 2012 USO. Nole got booed by the crowd and as much as I like Nole, he too is suffering from the same disease. He did that to Andy at Cincy too in 2011 when he was on that superb run. In the final, Andy took the first set very quickly and looked very strong at the start of the 2nd set. Next thing you know Nole calls in the trainer and then pulls out of the final match citing injury not willing to give Andy a fair win and the mental edge just before the USO. He then went on to win the Open. It's a put off for me especially if they do it in big matches. I really hope Andy learns from all these and never ever does it to another human being. I want to like everyone but sometimes they make it very hard.
I say don't get too hung up on these records. Records are meant to be broken. That's why they call it a 'record'. It means this is a target and open for everyone to break it. And given the advancement of the technology these days, it's more than likely that things will be more and more in favour for the players - be it the constant change of the surface or new racquet technology etc. and who knows what else. But they will be all designed to help the players so that they can win more, break all sorts of records and draw more crowd, money and rating etc. So there's really no point becoming so obsessed with records since all of them will be broken anyway. Look at Sampras - he does say it doesn't bother him as he's accepted it and even for it. The fact that he was the best player in his time makes him more than enough happy. So if nothing, the current players can at least learn from the past champions and see for themselves how it is truly like in the long run.
-
-
#1947 Reply
Posted by
Emma
on 26 Jan, 2014 18:54
-
Anyway, here's a quick stat in light of last night's final:
Sampras 18 final appearances in which he won 14 times and lost 4 times; therefore, he won 78% of his total Slam finals.
Federer 24 finals; won 17 times and lost 7 times; therefore, he won 71% of his total finals.
Nadal 19 finals, won 13 times and lost 6 times; therefore, 68% of his total finals.
Nadal's % will change of course in the future with each loss and win as he's the most likely player to face both going forward as Sampras is a retired player and Federer is on his way down, so don't feel his percentages are likely to change all that much in the future.
-
-
#1948 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 26 Jan, 2014 19:05
-
Sampras was all class all the time.
nole has matured a great deal over the years. he does not engage in much gamesmanship anymore.
nadal just has his superstitions. I don't care for some of them but what can you do.
nadal's problem is that he is obsessed with his superstitions. uncle tony has told him to stop many times but he is just going to do it his way.
I had a few of them too. all tennis players have their various superstitions.
at any rate I think this was a huge opportunity for nadal. he failed to capitalize. its not often that one gets to reach slam #14. that would have placed him 3rd in history.
he also had a chance to become the first man in the open era to win each slam twice.
I know exactly what happened:
he is not as fit as he used to be. he also spent considerable mental and physical capital in 2013 and then he just kept on going trying to chase the #1 rank.
he played abu dhabi and he played Doha which he won.
its the accumulation of all this effort that forced his body to just quit. you sustain injuries at this level when you are fatigued.
he was all over the court and spent major physical and mental capital in order to run over Federer.
the man hit the wall final. he was fatigued and the back went as a result of that. you can just look at his face. he looks like a ghost. he is seriously fatigued.
it was not anything stan was doing. nadal lost the first set to nishikori also. and he lost the first set to dimitrov. stan played great in the first set but so did nishikori and dimitrov.
nadal's level has dropped since the u.s. open and he has to work too hard to win his matches.
take away the back injury and he probably finds his way back into the match. it would have been a tough battle but he would have found a way back.
-
-
#1949 Reply
Posted by
Clay Death
on 26 Jan, 2014 19:07
-
Anyway, here's a quick stat in light of last night's final:
Sampras 18 final appearances in which he won 14 times and lost 4 times; therefore, he won 78% of his total Slam finals.
Federer 24 finals; won 17 times and lost 7 times; therefore, he won 71% of his total finals.
Nadal 19 finals, won 13 times and lost 6 times; therefore, 68% of his total finals.
Nadal's % will change of course in the future with each loss and win as he's the most likely player to face both going forward as Sampras is a retired player and Federer is on his way down, so don't feel his percentages are likely to change all that much in the future.
interesting stats there lady emma.
pistol was quite dominant in slam finals.
lendl was not. he lost 11 slam finals.
-