Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by Emma on August 24, 2015, 07:23:10 PM »
I basically repeated my post from the Chitchat thread but I had to because I basically covered everything in that post.

Federer did play aggressive tennis (which he always does, doesn't he?) but neither Nole or Murray were at their best - especially Djokovic because he has no mental weakness against Federer. Didn't Federer fans make the same excuse about Wimbledon final that he put too much effort against Murray and didn't have much left for the final? And it's true - he did put extra effort to show off against Murray and wasn't able to do the same against Djokovic but of course, these are the best returners of the game and so one of them was going to get to him. Djokovic is No. 1 for a reason and by miles.

Anyway, Federer was as fresh as daisy coming into this tournament, one of the tournaments where he tends to play well, and had a very easy draw up until Murray and played night matches mostly. Also, I am not sure if Federer would have won against either Gasquet or Wawrinka. No guarantee that he would have.

Murray should have tanked his match against either Dimitrov or Gasquet as I suggested before the tournament and Nole could have afforded to go out to Dolgo and save as much energy as possible. Unfortunately neither made a smart decision.  But in any case, not all is lost since USO is upon us and we do have one week in between. Cincy will be forgettable soon.
Did you see the match Emma?
Fed was literally stalking the baseline and refusing to budge.
Any short ball was punished.
The blitzkrieg returns on 2nd and even one 1st serve were stunning.
He did serve lights out.
And yes, he was 'fresh as a daisy' compared to the other 2 fellers.
Should make for an interesting storyline if he is able to make the 2nd week of the Open.

I fully expect Nole and Andy to be there regardless of how tired they might be.

I saw the matches. In fact and it's up to you to believe me but I already knew they are both going to lose to Federer. The signs were all there from the get go. In fact, when I found out Federer decided to skip Montreal, I knew right away what he had in mind. Once you get to follow these players and for a while you start to notice all sorts of patterns in players. He and his team already planned this perhaps knowing already who were likely to make the Motnreal final.

Anyway, Federe's serves were very on and effective no doubt but Djokovic's return game was far off. He was returning at 20% at some point - one of his career lowest. Even Goffin and Dolgo were all over him and I hope you saw those matches in their entirety. And Murray looked completely out of sorts from his Fish match. He just dragged things on for ranking's sake. I'd like to have a word with Mr. Bjorkman at this point. I mean that was such an unintelligent decision. Murray suffers a great deal from bad decisions and this kills me.

I am sure Andy is very eager to win a Slam this year but he's been given some tough draws and his schedulings are something of a nightmare especially lately. So on top of playing a very long schedule this year, he will also have to battle all those things that are against him quite unfortunately. He is not as popular as Federer to get any advantage or favours.

And Nole should be really motivated especially after taking those 2 big losses to Andy and Roger but I am not sure if he'll be able to manifest it in the end given that he's feeling a bit tired after the long successful season. 2 Slams, 4 Masters and 4 finals are not a matter of a joke.
62
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by Emma on August 24, 2015, 07:05:56 PM »
If you take Federer's serve out, he looks very plain and simple. He is dictating his play simply due to his serves these days. Karlovic is another guy who is still on tour due to his serve. A strong serve does help in the long run.
Sorta like saying, well if you take away Nadal's FH he's rather plain and simple.
Or Nole Murray's movement.
Heck, I think it's the easiest stroke in the game to practice and master but most folks would rather play pattycake from the baseline.  Go figure. ;-()

Sorry but both Djokovic and Murray have a lot more to offer than just movements. You don't beat your opponents just with your movement. You have to have other tools too.

They are the best returners of the game and you don't need to run from one corner to another corner to return. It requires to stand on the baseline in one spot.

And they also have the best backhands in the business.

Murray's got a great 1st serve while Nole's servs are pretty consistent.

Djokovic has a lethal forehand while Murray's touch at the net are oh so delicate. McEnroe can't seem to get enough of it.

Andy's lobs from supremely defensive position are quite deadly. While Djokovic's mental strength is one of top in history of tennis.

And of course then there's that out of this world movement.

They are both loaded with weapons. Murray's variety and Djokovic's baseline game are something of a sheer beauty. You gotta be completely blind not to see any of it.

And I give Nadal full credit for identifying someone's weak-point and capitalizing it. That itself is a genius tactic. Not to mention, his forehand is not only a thing of beauty but also a sheer terror for his opponents. And his speed on the court is underrated.

And of course Federer is loaded with tools too. They all are but Federer no longer poses his other weapons as well as he used. His serves nowadays dictate the game. In fact, if you break it down, he remains clueless. He himself admitted that his serves are helping him winning matches. But when he goes into tournaments, where he needs to sustain for two whole weeks, his serves tend to deteriorate. Wimbledon is slightly different as the court is still playing a bit faster than other courts, so he can survive longer; however he needs help with his draws/schedules etc, even there.

Karlovic is still winning matches and beating the likes of Raonic mainly because of his serves. Of course, I rate the serve as the mightiest weapon to have and kudos to both Federer and Karlovic that they still have it, but they still have it because it comes very naturally to them. It is their greatest weapon just like perhaps movement is their (Djokovic and Murray) greatest weapon and when they age, then obviously they are not going to be as deadly as they are now. Similarly, if Federer doesn't serve as well or didn't then he wouldn't have seen as much as he's seeing right now.
63
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by Emma on August 24, 2015, 06:37:53 PM »
I take it both Djokovic and Federer would be really eager to win Cincy now. Murray should dump Cincy after winning a couple of matches there, since Cincy plays similar to USO so it would help him to get used to that kind of surface.

See, there's a reason why I said that. I knew a few things ahead of time. I knew both Nole and Andy would be tired and Federer would be fresh. Add to the fact that, Federer tends to play well at Cincy - one of his favourts where not too many players give their all since it's just before the Open.

And this year Murray played 16 tournaments including 2 DC ties. He won 56 matches and lost 9.

And Djokovic played 12 tournaments including 1 DC tie. Won 56 matches and saw 5 losses. He won 2 Slams and 4 Masters. In fact, the last 6 Masters were won by either Djokovic or Murray.

Federer played only 8 tournaments and played only those where he had a chance. Saw 45 wins and 7 losses. He lost to Seppi in the 4 round at AO and lost to Wawrinka at RG in the Qtr-final.

Both Djokovic and Murray not only played more tournaments than Federer but they are also the two most consistent players of this year. You don't think that takes its toll on them especially this time of the year?  Didn't we see Nadal fading as well after USO in the past due to his consistency throughout the year?
 
You can't overlook these facts. It's easy to say he played this or that but it wasn't the only reason why he played like that. The other guys were too tired to bring their best and that helped Federer significantly to play his best. And on top of that, they faced far more worthy opponents than Federer en route to semi. Where was Federer in other Masters and Slams this year? The only Slam he peaked was Wimbledon but when he faced a relatively fresh Djokovic, he wasn't able to play his game or more to the point, wasn't allowed to.

It's great that Federer is playing relatively well at this age, I'll give him that but there are other reasons behind it too. One, Nadal, his No. 1 enemy is declining quite naturally; second, Murray was nowhere near his best in 2014. It had been speculated back then the kind of toll it might take on Murray mentally if he had won Wimbledon but in truth, no one had any idea. But now we know. Together with his surgery in late 2013 and Lendl's sudden departure early 2014 made Andy play like an amateur throughout 2014. In fact, Murray took so many beatings to some of these player whom he used to beat quite frequently that his whole H2H against some of the top players got all twisted. His whole career took a tumble because of it and he went out of top 10 at one point. And this year, he is only trying to come back where he left things off. These two reasons kept Federer consistently on the 2nd spot of ranking and he knows it too.

So it's not as black and white as it is made out to be. I'll give Federer what he deserves but not more than that.
64
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by Alex on August 24, 2015, 05:27:48 PM »
Disagree with you Monster. He wasn't that sharp in either Montreal or Cinci. As I said, he could've been taken much earlier in both tournaments. I'm not talking about finals.

i.e. Goffin was 2 BP up in the third set, I thought it was over. Novak survived.

Maybe I tend to be too critical when it comes to Djokovic, but I'm not that impressed with Djokovic at all atm. He needs to be more aggressive. He plays percentages too much. He is waisting his energy by going into these long rallies and expecting his opponents to make UE. Too passive. I'm glad Fed schooled him today. Maybe Nole will wake up and realize that his style of play will not work for too long.

Stanimal schooled him too by simply being much more aggressive.

I do realize that Djokovic is still ruling the tennis world by far. I miss Djokovic from 2007. He was so much more aggressive.
 
Fed commented that him and Novak are aggressive players while Nadal and Murray are more passive/defensive. I'm not so sure.

And Stanimal schooled him where things mattered the most - a Slam final. But of course, Nole wasn't half the player in the final because his semi-final battle against Murray was so long and was played over two days. While Stan had a day or two off in the meantime and was fresh as daisy in the final.

How can anyone overlook that? Only fan boys/girls I'd say.
Yes, it is true. Nole didn't have a day off, but still he is super fit so no excuses.

I tend to be to critical. Well, that's why I never got married  ..-). Well, I did it once but it didn't last so it doesn't count  :paper bag:.
65
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by monstertruck on August 24, 2015, 05:09:00 PM »
Disagree with you Monster. He wasn't that sharp in either Montreal or Cinci. As I said, he could've been taken much earlier in both tournaments. I'm not talking about finals.

i.e. Goffin was 2 BP up in the third set, I thought it was over. Novak survived.

Maybe I tend to be too critical when it comes to Djokovic, but I'm not that impressed with Djokovic at all atm. He needs to be more aggressive. He plays percentages too much. He is waisting his energy by going into these long rallies and expecting his opponents to make UE. Too passive. I'm glad Fed schooled him today. Maybe Nole will wake up and realize that his style of play will not work for too long.

Stanimal schooled him too by simply being much more aggressive.

I do realize that Djokovic is still ruling the tennis world by far. I miss Djokovic from 2007. He was so much more aggressive.
 
Fed commented that him and Novak are aggressive players while Nadal and Murray are more passive/defensive. I'm not so sure.
Pretty tough to get around the fact that he made both finals being 'not so sharp'. ;-()
Is he peaking right now?  Not even close.  But he's still playing some pretty good tennis.
Some of the passes he made yesterday were simply ridiculous. :scared:
66
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by monstertruck on August 24, 2015, 05:05:37 PM »
If you take Federer's serve out, he looks very plain and simple. He is dictating his play simply due to his serves these days. Karlovic is another guy who is still on tour due to his serve. A strong serve does help in the long run.
Sorta like saying, well if you take away Nadal's FH he's rather plain and simple.
Or Nole Murray's movement.
Heck, I think it's the easiest stroke in the game to practice and master but most folks would rather play pattycake from the baseline.  Go figure. ;-()
67
Tennis Discussions / Re: ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments
« Last post by monstertruck on August 24, 2015, 05:03:16 PM »
I basically repeated my post from the Chitchat thread but I had to because I basically covered everything in that post.

Federer did play aggressive tennis (which he always does, doesn't he?) but neither Nole or Murray were at their best - especially Djokovic because he has no mental weakness against Federer. Didn't Federer fans make the same excuse about Wimbledon final that he put too much effort against Murray and didn't have much left for the final? And it's true - he did put extra effort to show off against Murray and wasn't able to do the same against Djokovic but of course, these are the best returners of the game and so one of them was going to get to him. Djokovic is No. 1 for a reason and by miles.

Anyway, Federer was as fresh as daisy coming into this tournament, one of the tournaments where he tends to play well, and had a very easy draw up until Murray and played night matches mostly. Also, I am not sure if Federer would have won against either Gasquet or Wawrinka. No guarantee that he would have.

Murray should have tanked his match against either Dimitrov or Gasquet as I suggested before the tournament and Nole could have afforded to go out to Dolgo and save as much energy as possible. Unfortunately neither made a smart decision.  But in any case, not all is lost since USO is upon us and we do have one week in between. Cincy will be forgettable soon.
Did you see the match Emma?
Fed was literally stalking the baseline and refusing to budge.
Any short ball was punished.
The blitzkrieg returns on 2nd and even one 1st serve were stunning.
He did serve lights out.
And yes, he was 'fresh as a daisy' compared to the other 2 fellers.
Should make for an interesting storyline if he is able to make the 2nd week of the Open.

I fully expect Nole and Andy to be there regardless of how tired they might be.
68
Tennis Videos / Re: Cincinnati 2015
« Last post by ulpe80 on August 24, 2015, 03:42:59 PM »
Hello,
I'm looking for the Match Coric-Zverev. Can anyone share it on mega?

Thank you very much for the effort!
69
Tennis Videos / Re: New sdede Matches Index List
« Last post by diegowar on August 24, 2015, 03:19:26 PM »
You can fix it while viewing the match by using VLC.

Press J and K while the video is playing to offset the audio by 50ms until you're satisfied with the sync.


You have to do it each time you view the match of course, but it's much more easy to do than to use a video editor and reencode everything.
70
General Discussions / Re: How "true" are you as a leftist/rightist?
« Last post by Emma on August 24, 2015, 12:11:43 PM »
Jesse, we survived initially about some 200,000 years ago, when there were no political or moral views, strictly based on our innate abilities or natural instincts that came very naturally to us. In other words, we didn't kill each other to survive but got together instead and it's a fact. And this still exists in other animals. For example, you will see in other species/animals that they are very protective of their infants and go to all sorts of distance to save them. And these animals aren't anywhere near as conscious as us, so it's safe to deduct that these are very natural instincts. Otherwise they have no other reason not to kill their own children as it shouldn't and wouldn't make any difference.

So an animal who's hardly aware of its own existence can't have emotionally held beliefs as it's not even aware of its own existence to that point and yet, it does everything to save its child. Where does this instinct come from if not innate? Begs the question, doesn't it?

It's true that most of our behaviors are learned due to environment in which we are born into and most often than not we act on impulses. But that doesn't take away the fact that some of our moral views are innate. We absolutely have the choice to not act on impulses.

For example and to answer your question - killing an innocent is wrong.  Or just plain killing. It's not wrong because it's legally wrong but it feels wrong. If you were the first man on earth then you'd kill only under certain circumstances - one, when you are hungry; two, when you are trying to defend yourself. But more importantly, it's an unnatural thing to do. Life and death are both part of natural processes. Killing is not. That's why most animals don't' kill their own kinds because they know intuitively that it's wrong - only humans do and those do mostly out of anger, greed, jealousy etc. but deep down inside they know it's wrong. It is not taught - you simply know it.

Slavery too is wrong and the whole world didn't adopt it only some certain cultures who thought they were superior to all others. It's more of a cultural thing than it is a question of morality. Is it our perception that changed or is it the fact that we are becoming more and more consciously aware of some of these innate values? It is the same with all others be it homosexuality, capital punishment, treatment and view of woman etc.

Quote
Our moral views are essentially socially constructed, if i were born in Pakistan, i'ld probably be a Muslim, i'ld probably have different views on feminism, homosexuality, liberalism in general. If i were born in Rome under Augustus, I guess i'ld be ok with gladiatorial combat, slavery, etc  I could go on and on.

They are not, really. I was born in Pakistan, don't practice my religion and yet, I don't possess any of those views and it's because I didn't act on impulses and didn't want to believe what my culture believed or what my parents taught. Instead I went deep inside and questioned it and I had my answers. And I shaped my life based on what I found inside. So I go with what feels wrong or what I know wrong intuitively. They all come very naturally to me. Most people don't look at that way and it gives that illusions as if morality is man made and nothing is natural. In truth, they are only acting on impulses without questioning it. We do have the choice not to believe and not act on impulses. Whether you will do it or not is entirely up to you.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10