CAMELOT FANTASIES

he is going to need to get on clay asap and start fine tuning that ground game. he needs to strike gold in Dubai. that starts the process of moving up.

but first and foremost he needs to start getting in some sessions on clay.


running to the net is not going to cut it anymore against the likes of nole, nadal, and andy.


I am expecting andy to start making solid gains in his game. he is determined. he had a good tournament in Melbourne.

nadal is going to hit the red clay in just a few days. nole is probably already practicing some on clay in monte carlo. I hear he likes to hit on the red clay there pretty much year around when the time permits.


I firmly believe that Fed would taken his 18th slam had he been able to sneak into the final. so he is coming back quite strong in 2014 just as we predicted months ago.

stan is good but he is no match for Federer.


anyway the key is rock solid ground game. you need red clay for that. there is no other way to deal with nole, nadal, and andy.


Federer may have to go to Portugal if he decides to skip monte carlo again. I am talking about the estoril event.


you are right about Madrid: Madrid is relatively fast now so Federer can make some gains there.

there are plenty of points to be had. miami masters is another option.

perhaps he can hit both events: indian wells and Miami masters.

Lady TT, I'm convinced Magnus Norman has the proper plans for a player to beat Nadal anywhere. 

But as with any plan, the individual has to have the ability, fortitude, and some good fortune to be able to execute them.
And against top players, it isn't usually just one plan, usually you have to have at least a plan B, since top players are usually able to adapt during a 5 set match, and so one has to be able to vary the tactics so the player is unable to settle into a rhythm.   If you listen to top players comments after they lose, you will very often hear them say that they couldn't find their rhythm enough during the match.

This is why I would never agree to having the men play best of 3 set matches in majors.  In best of 3, a good player can be swept away before having time to adapt and the lesser player can win.  I personally feel all men's finals should be best of 5, no matter the tournament.

It surely isn't easy to execute against the very best players.  If it were, everybody would do it.  And we know that it not the case.
Also, it's not only one side that can have good tactics.  Both opponents are trying to impose their tactics on the match.
Fortune favors the brave, and the most successful execution wins.

It's not just Nadal. Tactics can be developed that can be used to beat any top player.
It's still a question of having sufficient talent, mental strength, and fitness to be able to execute those tactics.

Respectfully,
masterclass

certainly all masters finals should be best of 5.



they really destroyed one of the greatest traditions in tennis by removing the best of 5 feature in masters finals.

Lady TT, I'm convinced Magnus Norman has the proper plans for a player to beat Nadal anywhere. 

But as with any plan, the individual has to have the ability, fortitude, and some good fortune to be able to execute them.
And against top players, it isn't usually just one plan, usually you have to have at least a plan B, since top players are usually able to adapt during a 5 set match, and so one has to be able to vary the tactics so the player is unable to settle into a rhythm.   If you listen to top players comments after they lose, you will very often hear them say that they couldn't find their rhythm enough during the match.

This is why I would never agree to having the men play best of 3 set matches in majors.  In best of 3, a good player can be swept away before having time to adapt and the lesser player can win.  I personally feel all men's finals should be best of 5, no matter the tournament.

It surely isn't easy to execute against the very best players.  If it were, everybody would do it.  And we know that it not the case.
Also, it's not only one side that can have good tactics.  Both opponents are trying to impose their tactics on the match.
Fortune favors the brave, and the most successful execution wins.

It's not just Nadal. Tactics can be developed that can be used to beat any top player.
It's still a question of having sufficient talent, mental strength, and fitness to be able to execute those tactics.

Respectfully,
masterclass

I agree. I don't think that it's strokes and technique that always beats the lesser players, it's a combination of things.

Isn't it funny how players like Norman can get others to the top of the mountain, but not themselves?

Agreed general.   Can you think of a reason why they are not?

Respectfully,
masterclass

My post may have gotten lost.

I think it's to help an aging Federer.

BO5 in regular tourneys might disadvantage him a bit.

He's still a cash cow for the tour and sells tickets.

They kind of always do this to protect their investments.

WELCOME TO MASTERCLASS FIRESIDE                                                                                        WELCOME TO MASTERCLASS FIRESIDE








If you have a tennis related question, general masterclass has the answers.


state your tennis questions here and we will try to get you an answer.


post away and have a blast.

best of 5 sets for the finals at masters is essential and critical preparation for those who want to win slams.


they need to change it back.

Quote from: thetruth on January 28, 2014, 11:13:08 am

Quote from: masterclass on January 28, 2014, 10:38:18 am

Agreed general.   Can you think of a reason why they are not?

Respectfully,
masterclass

My post may have gotten lost.

I think it's to help an aging Federer.

BO5 in regular tourneys might disadvantage him a bit.

He's still a cash cow for the tour and sells tickets.

They kind of always do this to protect their investments.

Lady TT, don't believe this stuff re "aging Federer", as he was about 25-26 when they made the changes.   But the rest of what you said near the bottom is pretty much on target.   Federer wanted a return to 5 set finals.  For example, as a top player, he does not want to be blown off the court in 2 set tiebreakers by a hot serving Isner.  He wants time to be able to read the serve and adapt.

The real reason was to protect the tournaments revenue, which is what you alluded to, especially in the back-to-back masters.  Here is an article from 2011:

Federer says return to 5-set Masters finals might be nice

5/3/11 2:18 PM | Johan Lindahl
Federer says return to 5-set Masters finals might be nice The Swiss maestro weighs in on 5-match, best of 3 format for Masters winners.

Roger Federer has always been a fan of old-school tennis from his distrust of electronic line-calling to his small-headed racquet designed more than a decade ago. And now the Swiss is calling for consideration of a return to best of five set finals at the Masters 1000 level.

The No. 3, who is making his bid for a third trophy at the Madrid Masters, said that winning any pair of Masters back-to-back (Madrid followed by Rome next week, for instance) is a huge ask. But he said that it might also be a true challenge.

"To win any set of Masters back to back is tough," said the Swiss who beat Rafael Nadal in the Madrid final in 2009 and lost to the Spaniard a year later in the Caja Magica title match, "The fields are always very difficult and there is only one guy who gets the chance (winner of the first event).

"Plus it was tougher before when you had to win six matches and play a best-of-five final. The day off between the two was a travelling day, it was almost impossible.

"Now there is no more best of five and the top eight seed get first-round byes. In some ways, I‘d like to see best of five coming back, maybe something will change."

Five-set Masters finals were reduced in 2007 after a marathon in 2006. Nadal beat Federer in a five-hour five-set Rome final which eventually forced both to withdraw with fatigue from Hamburg which followed a day later.


I think they could go back to 5 set finals, as long as Masters were not back-to-back, which is a little silly scheduling anyway.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Well, when I say an aging Federer I mean it in terms of chronological years, not necessarily his game. I have been in the minority on more than a few occasions regarding him getting slow, losing foot speed, etc. I think his game is fine, but at times he has lacked motivation.

But TBH, I don't believe a word that Federer says especially as it relates to the electronic line calling. To me, a person who doesn't like a certain thing wouldn't be so apt to use it, and he uses it a lot. To me Federer speaks with a forked tongue. I find him very disingenuous.