I don't think people realise how good Hewitt actually was in the so called vacuum period between Sampras and Federer.
And Sampras still managed to somehow pull it together and roll back the years in the 2002 US Open to win the whole thing.
Roddick was superb when he won his US Open title. Roddick even managed to beat Murray at Wimbledon in 2009 when Murray was considered a great bet to win (Murray was thought of being good enough by many to already have won a grand slam title or 2 by that point.) and Roddick was thought of as being a terrible player. If Roddick was so terrible he would never have taken Federer to 16/14 in the final set in the final and the game he lost to lose the title was the only time his serve was broken in the entire match.
People who dismiss Hewitt and Roddock as rubbish really don't know what they are talking about.
Absolutely no one has mentioned Andy Roddick. You appear to be starting a debate and then ending it in the same post.
Roddick was on the wane in 2009 and Murray should have won that match but I don't think anyone at all thought Roddick was a terrible player at that time, just not quite as good as previous years.
Let's not forget that until fairly recently there were only 16 seeds at the GS.
If 32 seeds had existed in 1994, Lori McNeil couldn't have knocked out Steffi in R1.
Who's to say what sort of upsets may have happened if Roger, Rafa, Nole and Andy had played under those conditions.
Like tennisman is fond of pointing out it's hard to accurately make cross-generation comparisons. Different technology and different fitness regimes skew things somewhat.
The big 4 should potentially face the 33 to 64 in the first round of a grand slam tournament. I don't know how the rounds are drawn today.
Personally I think they ought to have kept the old 16 seeds rather than increase to 32.
Theee was also far more scope for a big upset in the early 2000's as well. You have to go through the draws to assess whether or not Murray would have cleaned up rather than gloss over the surface to assess if Murray would have cleaned up. But I don't think it would have had things quite as easy back then as some people think.
I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that the courts were a lot faster than then. It certainly made things more unpredictable, anyone on their day can blast a load of winners and there wouldn't be much the other player could do about it. Whereas now, the courts are much more defense orientated, it aids defensive players who are naturally more consistent than the offensive players. So this is why we have virtually the same guys appearing in the semis/finals time and time again in all tournaments.
I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that the courts were a lot faster than then. It certainly made things more unpredictable, anyone on their day can blast a load of winners and there wouldn't be much the other player could do about it. Whereas now, the courts are much more defense orientated, it aids defensive players who are naturally more consistent than the offensive players. So this is why we have virtually the same guys appearing in the semis/finals time and time again in all tournaments.
Things are so much so nowadays that likes of Wawrinka and Tsonga in each of the grand slam tournaments have usually been faced with the task of having to beat 3 of the likes of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray in the same grand slam tournament to pick up a grand slam title.
BBC 3 coverage starts at 7pm Friday and then it moves to BBC2 after Newsnight until 1am. However I think Murray may win his match is straight sets and Ward lose his in straights so we may not make it to BBC2!
Eurosport are also showing the France vs Australia tie from lunchtime on Friday.
If as I expect GB lose the tie - as I cannot see Ward beating Isner or Querrey or our doubles team beating the Bryans I just hope the BBC will also back our team and show the world group play off in September. Even if its GB away to Uzbekistan.
Personally I will be watching on ES - they have supported our GB Davis and Fed Cup team through thick and thin even in the EuroAfrica zone 2 years. But good at least that the BBC are showing some more tennis outside the grass court season/ATP world finals.
BIB - do we know if Wardy will get the nod as our #2? Could well be Edmund. And who knows if Isner will be fit.
I don't think people realise how good Hewitt actually was in the so called vacuum period between Sampras and Federer.
And Sampras still managed to somehow pull it together and roll back the years in the 2002 US Open to win the whole thing.
Roddick was superb when he won his US Open title. Roddick even managed to beat Murray at Wimbledon in 2009 when Murray was considered a great bet to win (Murray was thought of being good enough by many to already have won a grand slam title or 2 by that point.) and Roddick was thought of as being a terrible player. If Roddick was so terrible he would never have taken Federer to 16/14 in the final set in the final and the game he lost to lose the title was the only time his serve was broken in the entire match.
People who dismiss Hewitt and Roddock as rubbish really don't know what they are talking about.
Theee was also far more scope for a big upset in the early 2000's as well. You have to go through the draws to assess whether or not Murray would have cleaned up rather than gloss over the surface to assess if Murray would have cleaned up. But I don't think it would have had things quite as easy back then as some people think.
To illustrate your point, Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002. When it came to defending his title the following year, Rusty got bounced out in the first round by big Ivo Karlovic.
Let's not forget that until fairly recently there were only 16 seeds at the GS.
If 32 seeds had existed in 1994, Lori McNeil couldn't have knocked out Steffi in R1.
Who's to say what sort of upsets may have happened if Roger, Rafa, Nole and Andy had played under those conditions.
Like tennisman is fond of pointing out it's hard to accurately make cross-generation comparisons. Different technology and different fitness regimes skew things somewhat.
BIB - great point. Doubling the seedings from 16 to 32 has made slams more predictable.
If the 16 seeds still applied, then one of the top players could potentially be playing the likes of Janowicz, Dimitrov, Verdasco, Monfils, Gulbis in R1.
To illustrate your point, Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002. When it came to defending his title the following year, Rusty got bounced out in the first round by big Ivo Karlovic.
BIB - great point. Doubling the seedings from 16 to 32 has made slams more predictable.
If the 16 seeds still applied, then one of the top players could potentially be playing the likes of Janowicz, Dimitrov, Verdasco, Monfils, Gulbis in R1.
There are only 16 genuine seeds in a grand slam tournament.
But the fact that there are 32 seeds has helped significantly widen the form gap between seeds 1 to 4 and seeds 5 to 8. Likewise the form gap between seeds 5 to 8 and 9 to 16 has increased significantly as well.
Those names on the day would be more a big threat to win 3 sets off Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in first round in the old 16 seed system yet by the time they face Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the quarter or semis in the 32 seed system they do well to win a set or 2 and sometimes do but winning 3 sets is beyond them as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray by then have well settled into the tournament and playing very well.
Messrs Janowics, Verdasco, monfils, Dimitrov and Gulbis of the 17 to 32 are all prone to often losing round 1in a grand slam in the 32 seed system whereas Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the 32 seed system are far less vulnerable to suffering a major upset in round 1 than in the old 16 seed system. Of course it still happens today but only very occasionally
PS Here is a twitter pic of the venue for the GB vs USA match in San Diego
- the court looks a bit like a chocolate cake before the sauce has been spread evenly
If the 16 seeds still applied, then one of the top players could potentially be playing the likes of Janowicz, Dimitrov, Verdasco, Monfils, Gulbis in R1.
Wouldn't that be great? They should absolutely go back to it. One of the reasons I like Lleyton Hewitt being ranked about no.40-50 is that he can be playing one of the seeds early so we get a great match in the first rounds instead of the predictable matches we ususally see (in the last years he's beaten Del Potro and Wawrinka, lost to Janko, Simon and seppi in the early rounds of slams)
Hoping that Stan wins - mens tennis needs a surprise winner in the worst way.
Warm up starts at 8:30. If I had to guess, the match will start at about 8:40. It is Rafa though so don't bank on the match starting quickly.
Thanks!
I think I'll set my alarm for 9am. Don't mind missing the first bit of the match and got a long day tomorrow so don't want to wake up too early. As you say, it's Rafa so they'll probably only have played a couple of games by then.
What a breath of fresh air the ladies after match interviews were.
Off the cuff talk, esp Li Na was hilarious, better than the usual scripts they adhere to.
Congratulations to Li Na. And that speech was hilarious. It's a shame that Cibulkova couldn't hang on in that second set as the first was quite riveting to watch. As a neutral, I was able to just enjoy it. I'm hoping that Cibby continues to progress into the later stages of Slams in the future - her personality is very engaging and she played with no fear which, for a first final appearance, was very refreshing. I wasn't that surprised she made the finals. I've seen her in a couple of tournmanets on the tour in the last year and I've always though she had the fighting spirit and aggressive game play to get to a major final. I only hope that this is the first of many.
On the Rafa note, they showed some interesting analysis that every single-handed backhand player in the top 20, bar Federer, has lost to Rafa every time. I have been hoping that Stan might just be able to eek out a win - motivated by his Djkor victory - but at this rate I guess one set will be some achievement.
I think Stan will surprise us by starting well, perhaps winning a set, but I think he'll fade after that. Impossible to look beyond a pretty easy Rafa win.
Comments
Absolutely no one has mentioned Andy Roddick. You appear to be starting a debate and then ending it in the same post.
Roddick was on the wane in 2009 and Murray should have won that match but I don't think anyone at all thought Roddick was a terrible player at that time, just not quite as good as previous years.
The big 4 should potentially face the 33 to 64 in the first round of a grand slam tournament. I don't know how the rounds are drawn today.
Personally I think they ought to have kept the old 16 seeds rather than increase to 32.
I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that the courts were a lot faster than then. It certainly made things more unpredictable, anyone on their day can blast a load of winners and there wouldn't be much the other player could do about it. Whereas now, the courts are much more defense orientated, it aids defensive players who are naturally more consistent than the offensive players. So this is why we have virtually the same guys appearing in the semis/finals time and time again in all tournaments.
Things are so much so nowadays that likes of Wawrinka and Tsonga in each of the grand slam tournaments have usually been faced with the task of having to beat 3 of the likes of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray in the same grand slam tournament to pick up a grand slam title.
That's a really tough assignment.
To illustrate your point, Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002. When it came to defending his title the following year, Rusty got bounced out in the first round by big Ivo Karlovic.
BIB - great point. Doubling the seedings from 16 to 32 has made slams more predictable.
If the 16 seeds still applied, then one of the top players could potentially be playing the likes of Janowicz, Dimitrov, Verdasco, Monfils, Gulbis in R1.
There are only 16 genuine seeds in a grand slam tournament.
But the fact that there are 32 seeds has helped significantly widen the form gap between seeds 1 to 4 and seeds 5 to 8. Likewise the form gap between seeds 5 to 8 and 9 to 16 has increased significantly as well.
Those names on the day would be more a big threat to win 3 sets off Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in first round in the old 16 seed system yet by the time they face Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the quarter or semis in the 32 seed system they do well to win a set or 2 and sometimes do but winning 3 sets is beyond them as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray by then have well settled into the tournament and playing very well.
Messrs Janowics, Verdasco, monfils, Dimitrov and Gulbis of the 17 to 32 are all prone to often losing round 1in a grand slam in the 32 seed system whereas Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the 32 seed system are far less vulnerable to suffering a major upset in round 1 than in the old 16 seed system. Of course it still happens today but only very occasionally
Not before 7.30pm Melbourne time i.e. 8.30am UK time. But you don't want to miss Virginia Wade's pre match insights so 7.45am!:D
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/schedule/index.html
PS Here is a twitter pic of the venue for the GB vs USA match in San Diego
- the court looks a bit like a chocolate cake before the sauce has been spread evenly
https://twitter.com/USDavisCupTeam/status/425464425387397120/photo/1
Depends how long the warm up is :kitty:
Warm up starts at 8:30. If I had to guess, the match will start at about 8:40. It is Rafa though so don't bank on the match starting quickly.
I don't think I could listen to Virginia Wade for 45 minutes.
Wouldn't that be great? They should absolutely go back to it. One of the reasons I like Lleyton Hewitt being ranked about no.40-50 is that he can be playing one of the seeds early so we get a great match in the first rounds instead of the predictable matches we ususally see (in the last years he's beaten Del Potro and Wawrinka, lost to Janko, Simon and seppi in the early rounds of slams)
Hoping that Stan wins - mens tennis needs a surprise winner in the worst way.
And hopefully Lisicki, Robson, and Watson as well.:)
Will happen this year if she keeps it up. She has virtually no points to defend over the next few months.
Thanks!
I think I'll set my alarm for 9am. Don't mind missing the first bit of the match and got a long day tomorrow so don't want to wake up too early. As you say, it's Rafa so they'll probably only have played a couple of games by then.
Off the cuff talk, esp Li Na was hilarious, better than the usual scripts they adhere to.
On the Rafa note, they showed some interesting analysis that every single-handed backhand player in the top 20, bar Federer, has lost to Rafa every time. I have been hoping that Stan might just be able to eek out a win - motivated by his Djkor victory - but at this rate I guess one set will be some achievement.
She shows that there is no need to scream after every shot - including drops shots
Heart says yes but the head says no
He can but it all depends on his nerves.