posted Nov 24, 2007

Rafter was miles more popular down under than Hewitt, especially with older people. Good old Patrick was the boy next door, the one every mother wanted her daughter to bring home, while Leyton was the bad boy. You either loved or hated him. No comparison. Of course, for me, I always preferred Hewitt - much more like my sort of personality actually.

Leyton became more popular after he was engaged to Kim Clistjers. That didn't last, but the Aussie public adopted Kim and the media called her "Aussie Kim'. They absolutely adore her down under. That, in itself, is a reflection on the lack of women tennis players of quality in Oz.

As for youngsters, there is one young guy called Brendon Klien, who won the Juniors at the AO, I think. He actually plays in the same tennis district that I grew up in.

I have noticed, for the past 20 years or so, that the Aussies seem to be very well represented in junior ranks, but very few of them seem to make it through to top ranked senior players. Don't know why.

In any case, I live in Canada now. I go back to Oz most winters, so am down there for the AO - not this year. So I am not really any closer than you guys to seeing the emerging talent. Compared to how well Australia are doing in their other principal sports, such as swimming and cricket however, tennis is doing very, very badly and I really don't know why that is. Perhaps the administration is not as well run as in those other sports, but I have no basis for saying that. It would be easy to blame it on lifestyle, claiming the Aussie kids and Aussie people, in general, have things to easy and don't put in the real hard work required, but that is not the case in swimming and definitely not in cricket. So it is one of those little mysteries.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2007

Speaking of swimming makes me think that there is also this debate as to who is the best swimmer ever and I am sure bingting and I would make good debating partners/foes whichever you prefer. It could be a generational thing as it happened in swimming. There were only a handful of good Aussie swimmers in the 90s which changed dramatically at the end of the decade and the beginning of the new century but it seems that a peak was reached especially as far as the Aussie men are concerned, not so much true for the women though. What is happening to Aussie tennis could be similar.
Finally, you really don't sound like someone with a Hewitt-like personality...it would suit me or bingting better as far as this forum is concerned.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Rafter was a bit unlucky to have to play both semis against an in-form Agassi (both he won in five), and he started well against Pete but did not have enough to finish it. I could not watch 2001 on a trip to Russia but I think Goran deserved his first victory in four tries.

Can anybody tell me why players with the most ferocious and consistent groundies like Agassi or Nadal have often only an average serve?

If you are a Rafa fan, you can´t help but feel frustrated, as he often found himself quickly down 15-40 or 0-40 and had to dig deep to get out of it, which was not always successful.

At W 07 one could clearly see that Rafa had for the most part an upper-hand in the rallies, but he could hardly win any free points on serve. On the contrary, Federer, not a huge server like Becker, Pete, Goran or Roddick, is, IMO, the most effective server in the history. As Nadal had to win his service through long rallies, Roger came out of trouble just by 4-5 Asses in a roll.

That also explains why Djoko is more successful on hard than Rafa, winning Miami, Montreal, Vienna and reached the USO finals (Rafa only won Indian Wells). That was mainly because of his more potent serves.

I can understand why Chang had a weak serve -- he is small (170cm)and relatively weaker than his contemporaries. But Nadal is more than 185cm and probably the most muscular player in the history -- his biceps rival Roberto Carlos´quads!! And yet he only possesses such a weak serve! Something hard for me to comprehend!

Maybe anyone can enlighten me on that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Let me try to give you a non arrogant answer. When I was watching tennis in the 90s, I also wondered why the big servers (Ivanisevic, Krajicek, etc) didn't have good groundstrokes and why those with good groundstrokes couldn't serve that well. Here we obviously exclude Federer and Sampras who have both (I don't think Federer ever served 4 aces in a row though or at least not anymore....I dont want to be the know-it-all professor but please say aces not asses). I don't have a real explanation aside from saying that big server are usually tall and hence less mobility which is important when you want to hit pristine shots.
Also, I don't buy the McEnroe theory which is that Djokovic and Ferrer are better hard court players than Nadal. Nadal has won Montreal (by beating Agassi), Indian Wells, was close to beating Federer at Miami (he was 2 sets and a break up), he also won Dubai by beating Federer who was at the time, and if I am not mistaken, on the longest hard court streak ever (actually, Nalbandian had beaten Federer so he was no longer on the longest streak but still, he had had only one defeat) and he also won Madrid. On fast surfaces, he just made the final in Paris on indoor carpet (you may argue that he didn't face tough opponents). He never reached a hard court slam semi but did he have that many chances? He missed the AO 96, was injured this time at the US Open. I also think he underperformed at those other slams but let's give him another 2 real attempts to prove himself. If he misses the next AO and US Open, then I will side with you.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

I obvously meant that Nadal missed the AO 2006, not in 1996 as I wrote

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Sorry Aces! got mixed up with the German word "Asse". I think Fed did serve 4 aces against Nadal in the Shanghai semis 07, when rafa was, I believe, 15-30 up. Okay Fed said Rafa might have touched the last one. But isn´t his serve devastating?

I agree with you that Rafa´s goundies are as solid as anyone on the tour -- more consistent than Djokovic. But it was his serve which let him down often, even against insignificant players like Matteus and the Canadian guy (forgot his name)in Montreal this year ( though he won both in three). He would have been a real contender of the no.1 spot if his serve had been as good as Djoko´s, IMO. But I still cannot understand why a player of his stature and physique is unable to develop a more potent serve! And now with his nagging injuries, I am not quite sure that he will perform better on the hard in 2008. But I hope I am wrong because I really like the guy.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Haven't had a chance to post on this yet.

Really glad Pete got to win one game. Its hard to read anything in to this series but i can't help looking at the scores and seeing how Pete's performance relative to Federer has improved over the three games. I also certianly don't think that Federer wasn't trying 100% especially with the form he carried into it.

It seems Pete was rusty in the first match and by the third had his service nailed and had enough of a read into Feds game to make the difference. The big question i think this answers is could Fed handle Petes serve in the same way he does Roddicks? ..... no he can't.

We talk about margins a lot and i think some people got carried away in recent years with how far Fed is ahead, just like sprinters these guys are very close, but i do think this lets the modern generation know that you can not write of greats of the past. I don't think anyone can now say that the H2H between these two would have not been close and for me i still have Pete a bit further ahead.

All credit to Fed for playing these matches - hes a big man, and all credit to Pete (retired too early?) for putting in all the training for the performance; also Pete... surely now having seen Federer facing backwards trying to return some of those balls.... must go down as the best server of all time.... Agassi's short backswing was the only thing for me that threatened that over the years.

Well done.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

Some people think that big servers like Isner and Karlovic can give Fed some trouble. Yes, but only within a certain limit -- they cannot keep their high level of serving for more than a set which is not enough to beat Fed. But Pete can maintain that level throughout the match which shows the difference.

I also thought a lot about Nadal´s rather harmless serve despite all his superb athletic qualities. Could the following reason have something in it?

Nadal is a right-hander by nature -- he writes with the right hand. When he was a youngster, his uncle Toni made him to hit the forehand with his left hand, so that he could anchor his two-handed backhand with his dominant right hand, which would make his backhand less vulnerable. Well, so he also started to serve with the left which was not his dominant hand. That might be the reason why he could never really develop a lethal serve, like the one Federer has or the one Djokovic has, although he has the height (185cm), the strength and the athleticism for a very good serve. Maybe he can serve better with his right hand!

I wonder how you guys think about it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 25, 2007

I didn't know about this story and it could have been a factor. However, I saw Nadal practising with his right hand last summer and I can tell you he can't play with it. He was just playing for fun at the end of the practise session and clearly couldn't control the ball well at all, I mean, the way he was playing with his right hand, I am sure any ballboy would have beaten him.
Also, I don't fully agree with what you said at the beginning. Karlovic and Isner can give trouble to Federer for more than a set, let's actually say two sets as Federer beat Karlovic 7-6 7-6 a few times for instance. I don't understand why people are commenting so much about those exhibitions, I mean Federer can lose to Volandri. I am sure that if Rafter and Kafelnikov came out of retirement and trained like Pete trained for those exhibitions, they might be able to cause an upset too. Remember Agassi played until the age of 36 but was still very competitive. At 35, he managed to win a few 5 setters in a row including one in the semi on Saturday without being affected the next day for the final.
Where Pete was impressive this week is in the fact that he hadn't played competitive tennis for 5 years so coming back should have been really hard. Some players take months to get back to their previous levels when they come back after injuries but Pete, like I assuming any very talented player would, only needs a couple of matches under his belt. That reminds me of his 'come back' after his back injury, he missed everything from the US Open 99 till Paris and then still won the Masters Cup.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

"Some people think that big servers like Isner and Karlovic can give Fed some trouble."

Those people are idiots then. Big servers give Federer precisely no trouble at all. Roddick is the obvious example. Karlovic has a 0-5 record against him and has only won two sets in those matches, Isner has lost their only encounter. Federer eats one-dimensional players for breakfast.

add comment | complain about this comment