To be honest, the matches till now were far from being one-sided except for the Kvitova's and her substitute Stosur's matches. Especially Errani proved to be a really tricky player again. She really gets into the opponent's mind and from time to time can even do that to Radwanska, whose game bases on this very tactic.
From the Round Robin part of this tournament I draw two conclusions. First one is more general. Players, who are more likely to lose their concentration during clutch moments are also the players who can't serve well. Maybe Errani may be an exception, she does not break down easily, actually not at all. (At least I'm referring to Errani whom we watch this whole year, maybe we should say Errani 2.0) Think of how Azarenka lost to Serena, or how miserable Li was against Azarenka in the first 6 games of the second set.
Second one is, an elite group of players started to distinguish themselves clearly from the other woman players. I'm talking about the Serena, Aza and Maria and to some extent Radwanska as well. All these players have more all around games and can hinder their opponents from exploiting their weak points with their various weapons and most importantly they choke much less than others. And these players maintained a decent level of tennis and physical shape throughout the whole year. Nearly all spots in this year's Slam finals were occupied by these players. (in French Open Errani was the deal breaker) This elite group of players, as I mentioned in my earlier blogs, like the top 4 in men's tennis, make to the final stages of many tournaments and let us enjoy new rivalries and new dramas, which lacked in women's tennis for years.
To conclude, it is hard to say anything about the upcoming matches, because these are all rivalry matches and past performances are not very decisive. Maybe I should elaborate on what I mean with rivalry matches. These are rivalries between top players who persisted to stay on top for a long period, and proved to be a very good player. So we can be sure that with a high probability they will play their best tennis at this stage. Secondly, the past matches of rivalries determine the atmosphere of the new matches to some extent, giving one side a psychological advantage. Players prepare these matches with a different mind set totally concentrated, they dedicate themselves in every respect, because these are the matches, to prove something both to themselves and to the world.
One thing they cannot forget by concentrating or meditating is their energy level though. Contrary to my earlier thoughts, Serena dealt with the first stage really well and enjoyed the break, whereas Errani tired the shit out of Radwanska. Tomorrow will be a physical test for Radwanska as much as a rematch of the Wimbledon final. Sharapova - Azarenka match is quite tricky. We shouldn't consider Azarenka's performance in the first three matches, in forming expectations. That semi final will be very much independent from them, and more dependent on the defeat Sharapova suffered in Moscow in a totally one-sided battle.
26 Ekim 2012 Cuma
24 Ekim 2012 Çarşamba
Prospects of the WTA Masters Final in Istanbul
We are having an amazing year in women's tennis at least in my regard. For the first time in the last several years, some rivalries are born, Azarenka - Sharapova the most striking and intense one, Azarenka - Serena Williams and maybe Azarenka - Radwanska, a very one-sided one.
Do these rivalries, that I speculate, tell you something? One side of the rivalries is occupied by Azarenka No.1 for the whole season. She is really strong, consistent and doesn't have many weaknesses, to be exploited, which makes her a very competent player on every surface and in every occasion. She proceeds nearly in every tournament she plays to the finals or semi-finals and match one of these ladies in the top 5.
There is nothing much to tell about Serena, she is having her second golden era and seemed quite impossible to beat especially on grass. I say seemed because that level seemed so superior because she played two great tournaments in a row in her favorite surface and caused a and I believe she played better than she would have imagined. Sharapova also plays at a high and consistent level but alongside her fierce offensive weapons, she possesses a very striking Achilles tendon: her lack of speed, which prevents her chasing the ball like Azarenka, Radwanska or Wozniacki, and locks her to the baseline (maybe sometimes drive volleys and overhead shots but seldom We can still say that her serve despite an enormous improvement in the past two seasons, can cause trouble in close matches.
Radwanska, in terms of rankings, is like the David Ferrer of women's tennis. It is not a strong comparison but she is like a buffer zone between the three best players and the rest. She is clearly the best of the rest and can dare to stand against the best three but doesn't stand a chance when the best three are in good form. For example, she beat the best 3 players only once (Sharapova in Miami final and lost in the other 7 occasions against them)She is not just a counter puncher but also versatile and smart enough to make good use of her versatility. Fyi, she is not at the level she used to be in the beginning of the year.
Kvitova is lost this year she was more inconsistent than ever, I think she will try to erase this year from her memory and wish to make a fresh start next year. I remember she was declared to be the most improved player of 2011, this year everything went wrong for her. She needs to be health both physically and mentally.
The other players Kerber, Li Na and Errani are in my opinion no way a favorite Though they are strong players who could make to the finals, they possess certain weaknesses to be exploited. Li Na's inconsistency, movement and mental problems coupled with a mediocre serve can put her nearly any moment in the match under stress especially facing these top 7 players and she is not as strong to handle that much stress. Kerber is an awful server and that's it, she can't beat the top three players if they are in good form, she may gave improved a lot in the course of the past season but she still has a lot to improve.
To conclude, I don't think Errani or Kerber has any chance to make to the semis. But on the other side, things might get complicated with the substitution of Stosur with Kvitova. As we have seen in last years US Open, Sam is capable of beating every woman in the tour regardless of anything, if she is at her prime. But she has been only a handful of times in her prime, including the Us Open final against Serena in 2011. Nonetheless, she will definitely bring some excitement to that group, I think she is the only underdog who can oust out a favorite.
If you ask me who will the tournament, I bet we will have a rematch of the Us Open final and we will see who will benefit more from an indoors court. One more thing, I really wonder whether Serena will be able to maintain her physical level, if she plays 5 intense matches in 6 days. That was a problem for Federer in the Olympics. Okay he had an incredibly long match in the semis (4h30m marathon against Del Potro) just one day before the final but still, it won't be much easier for Serena.
Do these rivalries, that I speculate, tell you something? One side of the rivalries is occupied by Azarenka No.1 for the whole season. She is really strong, consistent and doesn't have many weaknesses, to be exploited, which makes her a very competent player on every surface and in every occasion. She proceeds nearly in every tournament she plays to the finals or semi-finals and match one of these ladies in the top 5.
There is nothing much to tell about Serena, she is having her second golden era and seemed quite impossible to beat especially on grass. I say seemed because that level seemed so superior because she played two great tournaments in a row in her favorite surface and caused a and I believe she played better than she would have imagined. Sharapova also plays at a high and consistent level but alongside her fierce offensive weapons, she possesses a very striking Achilles tendon: her lack of speed, which prevents her chasing the ball like Azarenka, Radwanska or Wozniacki, and locks her to the baseline (maybe sometimes drive volleys and overhead shots but seldom We can still say that her serve despite an enormous improvement in the past two seasons, can cause trouble in close matches.
Radwanska, in terms of rankings, is like the David Ferrer of women's tennis. It is not a strong comparison but she is like a buffer zone between the three best players and the rest. She is clearly the best of the rest and can dare to stand against the best three but doesn't stand a chance when the best three are in good form. For example, she beat the best 3 players only once (Sharapova in Miami final and lost in the other 7 occasions against them)She is not just a counter puncher but also versatile and smart enough to make good use of her versatility. Fyi, she is not at the level she used to be in the beginning of the year.
Kvitova is lost this year she was more inconsistent than ever, I think she will try to erase this year from her memory and wish to make a fresh start next year. I remember she was declared to be the most improved player of 2011, this year everything went wrong for her. She needs to be health both physically and mentally.
The other players Kerber, Li Na and Errani are in my opinion no way a favorite Though they are strong players who could make to the finals, they possess certain weaknesses to be exploited. Li Na's inconsistency, movement and mental problems coupled with a mediocre serve can put her nearly any moment in the match under stress especially facing these top 7 players and she is not as strong to handle that much stress. Kerber is an awful server and that's it, she can't beat the top three players if they are in good form, she may gave improved a lot in the course of the past season but she still has a lot to improve.
To conclude, I don't think Errani or Kerber has any chance to make to the semis. But on the other side, things might get complicated with the substitution of Stosur with Kvitova. As we have seen in last years US Open, Sam is capable of beating every woman in the tour regardless of anything, if she is at her prime. But she has been only a handful of times in her prime, including the Us Open final against Serena in 2011. Nonetheless, she will definitely bring some excitement to that group, I think she is the only underdog who can oust out a favorite.
If you ask me who will the tournament, I bet we will have a rematch of the Us Open final and we will see who will benefit more from an indoors court. One more thing, I really wonder whether Serena will be able to maintain her physical level, if she plays 5 intense matches in 6 days. That was a problem for Federer in the Olympics. Okay he had an incredibly long match in the semis (4h30m marathon against Del Potro) just one day before the final but still, it won't be much easier for Serena.
23 Ekim 2012 Salı
Let the most beautiful win!
During the last preparation phase to the WTA - Masters Final tournament in Istanbul, Turkish sports media make some ads about the Women tennis, the players and the progress of tennis in Turkey. However, the majority of the news, especially in big national media (you'd expect the contrary I presume), covers generally the outfit, the beauty of the tennis players, and other subjects are just covered in a few stereotypical sentences. Yeahh tennis improves in Turkey .... These tournaments are good opportunities for our kids to relate themselves ....
We will see whether there really is some sort of progress in Turkish tennis in the near future. But we should have already taught ourselves that organizing an event is not the same thing as educating the younger generations. It might help if you wisely incorporate each other, otherwise it is just a show off which has no consequences.
We will see whether there really is some sort of progress in Turkish tennis in the near future. But we should have already taught ourselves that organizing an event is not the same thing as educating the younger generations. It might help if you wisely incorporate each other, otherwise it is just a show off which has no consequences.
Tennis is not an exception, if no sexy girls playing then focus on the sexy fans!
22 Ağustos 2012 Çarşamba
.jpg)
6 Ağustos 2012 Pazartesi
Olympic Winners
Hail for Murray and Serena!
Both had sensational wins in their golden final matches defeating their opponents in straight sets and never giving them the upper hand throughout the whole match.
To begin with, Serena showed once again her capabilities, how she is capable of dominating women's tennis both in singles and doubles, collecting golds in both events and also having collected championship trophies in Wimbledon last month, despite the staggering form of her older sister Venus. In Olympics, she just lost 4 games in singles semi-final and final matches to the switching world no.1's Azarenka and Sharapova, which is probably an unparalleled performance. She has beaten Azarenka 6-0, 6-3 and Sharapova 6-0, 6-1 in the final. This is such an incomprehensible number, so you don't have to get into details, how she won or what she did better then her opponents. She surpassed all her opponents leading nearly in all statistics of these matches.
I'm not going to get into details, but there is something worth mentioning that Serena has the best serve among today's players and allegedly is all time best server, and in addition to that she has a no worse return then Sharapova or Azarenka, who are the two of the best returners today. These serving and returning skills give her an edge in the beginning of all points she plays, both in serving and returning games. For example, despite having a very good serve, Federer has never been a good returner or neither Nadal or Djokovic do have dominant serves but very damaging returns. (All these players have many different attributes which cannot be dealt with in these lines with a few sentences, this is just a small remark.) I think possessing both superior returning and serving skills partly explains how she can beat these top players with losing very few games even a single game, when she is in top form.
Another important aspect is that being 31 years old, she does not show any signs of loss of sharpness or physical power, maybe because she simply does not have a declining profile or because there is no one to force her to the limits. ALthough Azarenka, Sharapova and even Kvitova and Radwanska are far better players than the former no.1's of Women's tennis like Safina, Jankovic or Ivanovic, they couldn't put up a strong resistance against her, in the course of one and half years after the come back of the Williams. Her only loss in a final match since her last comeback came from the hands of Sam Stosur in US Open. That was one in a million performance from Sam, she was firing from everywhere on the court and crushed Serena, as Serena had been doing the others in tat tournament.
I wanted to draw a comparison between the performance of Serena Williams after her comeback in year 2011 and that of her in year 2002, 2003 where she started to dominate women's tennis and rised to world no.1 for the first time in her career. If you exclude her two losses in her first five matches in the summer of 2011, which is excusable for someone who survived after a lethal illness, then you are left with a win/loss raito of 66-3. Moreover, she beat the top ten players in all recent encounters except for Sam in USO final. Acknowledging that the player profile has been detoriated in the last decade, it is unfair to blame today's players for Serena's success.
Both Serena and Venus won 4 gold medals who hold the record in gold medals in Olympics tennis and are short of one medal compared to the record holder in total medal count, Kathleen Mckane Godfree, who has 1 gold 2 silver and 2 bronze medals.
I feel lucky to be able to watch Serena for years and also looking forward to see her play against a tough opponent who can relentlessly counter her shots. Azarenka and Kvitova are still young players who have room ro improve themselves and who have the talent to do so.
 |
| 4 Golds of Serena Left top: Sydney doubles 2000 - Right top: Beijing Doubles 2008 - Left Bottom: London Doubles 2012 - Right Bottom: London Singles 2012 |
Both had sensational wins in their golden final matches defeating their opponents in straight sets and never giving them the upper hand throughout the whole match.
To begin with, Serena showed once again her capabilities, how she is capable of dominating women's tennis both in singles and doubles, collecting golds in both events and also having collected championship trophies in Wimbledon last month, despite the staggering form of her older sister Venus. In Olympics, she just lost 4 games in singles semi-final and final matches to the switching world no.1's Azarenka and Sharapova, which is probably an unparalleled performance. She has beaten Azarenka 6-0, 6-3 and Sharapova 6-0, 6-1 in the final. This is such an incomprehensible number, so you don't have to get into details, how she won or what she did better then her opponents. She surpassed all her opponents leading nearly in all statistics of these matches.
I'm not going to get into details, but there is something worth mentioning that Serena has the best serve among today's players and allegedly is all time best server, and in addition to that she has a no worse return then Sharapova or Azarenka, who are the two of the best returners today. These serving and returning skills give her an edge in the beginning of all points she plays, both in serving and returning games. For example, despite having a very good serve, Federer has never been a good returner or neither Nadal or Djokovic do have dominant serves but very damaging returns. (All these players have many different attributes which cannot be dealt with in these lines with a few sentences, this is just a small remark.) I think possessing both superior returning and serving skills partly explains how she can beat these top players with losing very few games even a single game, when she is in top form.
Another important aspect is that being 31 years old, she does not show any signs of loss of sharpness or physical power, maybe because she simply does not have a declining profile or because there is no one to force her to the limits. ALthough Azarenka, Sharapova and even Kvitova and Radwanska are far better players than the former no.1's of Women's tennis like Safina, Jankovic or Ivanovic, they couldn't put up a strong resistance against her, in the course of one and half years after the come back of the Williams. Her only loss in a final match since her last comeback came from the hands of Sam Stosur in US Open. That was one in a million performance from Sam, she was firing from everywhere on the court and crushed Serena, as Serena had been doing the others in tat tournament.
 |
| Comparison of Serena's performance after her lung injury and in her first golden era |
Both Serena and Venus won 4 gold medals who hold the record in gold medals in Olympics tennis and are short of one medal compared to the record holder in total medal count, Kathleen Mckane Godfree, who has 1 gold 2 silver and 2 bronze medals.
I feel lucky to be able to watch Serena for years and also looking forward to see her play against a tough opponent who can relentlessly counter her shots. Azarenka and Kvitova are still young players who have room ro improve themselves and who have the talent to do so.
29 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Olympic Prospects of The Men
I personally believe that in their best form the big four are un-matched on grass no matter over how many sets they play. I say 'in their best form', because for example, after a 3-month clay court period, they are not as prepared as other players especially the grass court specialists, who do not even mind entering clay court tournaments. But now ,excluding Nadal, the big-three got used to grass after Wimbledon.
One other advantage of the big-three is that people in the tennis world started to really care about Olympics, which makes it at least as important as a Grand Slam or even more, favoring the players who can play under pressure. (although still being in test run, we can assume that Murray can handle pressure at least in Wimbledon).
That's why, I don't see the draw as indicative. (here is the draw) For, sure Djokovic is on the hardest part of the draw. If you look in detail, all the best players attended the Olympics and each constitutes a threat. For example, Nalbandian is always a serious threat who leads Federer in head-2-head stats. Players with big serves, Raonic, Isner, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro are always serious threats. Remember what Tsonga did to Federer in Wimbledon 2011. He gave him his first defeat from two sets to love. Roddick overpowered Federer in Miami this year. Nalbandian was about to defeat Nadal in Indian Wells. Raonic had a close match with Federer in Halle, which was a battle of serves.
What I'm trying to say is, there are many good players in the draw. Some are playing really good tennis right now like David Ferrer, who saw his first SF in Wimbledon this year, Cilic, who won a tournament before coming here and saw a final, Tipsaravic as well had a championship and a final after playing in Wimbledon. Some are not as good but still can blast and play a few good matches like Roddick or Isner. However, Olympics is quite a journey, in which you must venture through 6 difficult matches and also wear the flag of your nation.
Aside from the challengers to the reign of top-4, I'd like to stress a bit on the top-4. As you know Nadal suffering from his tendinits is out so we're left with Federer, Djoker and Andy. I think Djokovic still has the most potential to win but also less likely to win, because he may face strong opponents a possible quater-final with Raonic or Tsonga is waiting for him before he opposes Murray or Federer. But he is consistent, his play does not heavily depend on serve, since he is the best returner of the game and has an outstanding baseline play, which he adapted to grass as well. So, the biggest issue for him would be how will he react and use his serve against big servers on grass.
Murray is in very good form, as he played a very good match against Federer in the Wimbledon final. He was really consistent and did just several unforced errors in the first two sets and pushed Federer really to the edge before Federer sorted things out with the help of closed roof. He will definitely try again. Having on of the best returns in the game and good reflexes, he is prepared to face big servers as well. We will have a chance to see the added value of Ivan Lendl on his corner, who has a hard job recovering his protege after his last loss.
Finally, I don't see Federer as an invincible player right now, even on grass. I believe he would quit Wimbledon in 3rd round, unless Bennetau maintained his form and health throughout the match. The same argument is valid for his win against Del Potro on RG, since he was barely moving on the court in the last sets. What would be the odds for Federer, if he had lost both to Del Potro and Bennetau and was the number 4 right now? I acknowledge his fighting spirit and finding a remedy to each opponent, but the conditions and odds really favored him in the last 2 months. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous posts 'Big Champs Strike Back' the closing of the definitely aided him in his final and semi-final clashes. It is also very obvious for me that he can't stay in rallies with the strong and consistent guys like Djokovic, Murray and arguably against Ferrer or Del Potro at least on clay. I believe his genius will help him to sort things out at least to some extent, but he definitely needs consistent and to the point first serves.
To conclude, the big-three will be the major contenders counting days to win their first Olympic Medals and all knowing they might not have another chance. And for the contenders, players who have a great serve may be a contender for a medal, like Raonic, Tsonga, Roddick or Berdych but not Ferrer or Tipsaravic. I think they have a chance to make an impact in best of 3-sets and get at least a medal maybe not a gold one.
One other advantage of the big-three is that people in the tennis world started to really care about Olympics, which makes it at least as important as a Grand Slam or even more, favoring the players who can play under pressure. (although still being in test run, we can assume that Murray can handle pressure at least in Wimbledon).
That's why, I don't see the draw as indicative. (here is the draw) For, sure Djokovic is on the hardest part of the draw. If you look in detail, all the best players attended the Olympics and each constitutes a threat. For example, Nalbandian is always a serious threat who leads Federer in head-2-head stats. Players with big serves, Raonic, Isner, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro are always serious threats. Remember what Tsonga did to Federer in Wimbledon 2011. He gave him his first defeat from two sets to love. Roddick overpowered Federer in Miami this year. Nalbandian was about to defeat Nadal in Indian Wells. Raonic had a close match with Federer in Halle, which was a battle of serves.
 |
| It's a hard job to handle the grass of Wimbledon courts, which is a part of controversial topic 'the recent slowing down of the courts'. The groundsmen of Wimbledon admit that any delay into a third week would be a serious problem |
What I'm trying to say is, there are many good players in the draw. Some are playing really good tennis right now like David Ferrer, who saw his first SF in Wimbledon this year, Cilic, who won a tournament before coming here and saw a final, Tipsaravic as well had a championship and a final after playing in Wimbledon. Some are not as good but still can blast and play a few good matches like Roddick or Isner. However, Olympics is quite a journey, in which you must venture through 6 difficult matches and also wear the flag of your nation.
 |
| Players play in Olympics for themselves and for their nation as well, which slightly separates the Olympics from other tournaments. |
Aside from the challengers to the reign of top-4, I'd like to stress a bit on the top-4. As you know Nadal suffering from his tendinits is out so we're left with Federer, Djoker and Andy. I think Djokovic still has the most potential to win but also less likely to win, because he may face strong opponents a possible quater-final with Raonic or Tsonga is waiting for him before he opposes Murray or Federer. But he is consistent, his play does not heavily depend on serve, since he is the best returner of the game and has an outstanding baseline play, which he adapted to grass as well. So, the biggest issue for him would be how will he react and use his serve against big servers on grass.
Murray is in very good form, as he played a very good match against Federer in the Wimbledon final. He was really consistent and did just several unforced errors in the first two sets and pushed Federer really to the edge before Federer sorted things out with the help of closed roof. He will definitely try again. Having on of the best returns in the game and good reflexes, he is prepared to face big servers as well. We will have a chance to see the added value of Ivan Lendl on his corner, who has a hard job recovering his protege after his last loss.
Finally, I don't see Federer as an invincible player right now, even on grass. I believe he would quit Wimbledon in 3rd round, unless Bennetau maintained his form and health throughout the match. The same argument is valid for his win against Del Potro on RG, since he was barely moving on the court in the last sets. What would be the odds for Federer, if he had lost both to Del Potro and Bennetau and was the number 4 right now? I acknowledge his fighting spirit and finding a remedy to each opponent, but the conditions and odds really favored him in the last 2 months. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous posts 'Big Champs Strike Back' the closing of the definitely aided him in his final and semi-final clashes. It is also very obvious for me that he can't stay in rallies with the strong and consistent guys like Djokovic, Murray and arguably against Ferrer or Del Potro at least on clay. I believe his genius will help him to sort things out at least to some extent, but he definitely needs consistent and to the point first serves.
To conclude, the big-three will be the major contenders counting days to win their first Olympic Medals and all knowing they might not have another chance. And for the contenders, players who have a great serve may be a contender for a medal, like Raonic, Tsonga, Roddick or Berdych but not Ferrer or Tipsaravic. I think they have a chance to make an impact in best of 3-sets and get at least a medal maybe not a gold one.
23 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
Bjorn Borg vs Rafael Nadal
I would actually intend to write A Player from 70s vs A Player from 2010s as the title but it wouldn't be as catchy. The very same question arises nearly in all sports. Who is the best? Is the best player or team of today can beat the best one in bla bla? US built an incredibly strong basketball team for the Olympic games. When I first saw it, I was like 'It won't be fun for the opponents and it won't be fun either to watch US' games aside from seeing some spectacular moves and dunks." But then, what happened? On the very same day, I saw people comparing Dream Team of 92 Olympics to these guys! I understand the urge to compare the then best with the 'arguably' best in the history. But having some common sense can satisfy this urge.
To be honest, I am against drawing comparisons between players of different eras, because basically it is like comparing oranges harvested 100 years ago with the contemporary genetically modified oranges that grow with the help of numerous pesticides, herbicides. Both oranges have the same seed but there is a big industry working to improve its taste and nutrition level. As in the orange case, there are big industries trying to develop new equipment like rackets, strings, shoes, socks even these blue kinesio tapes, the benefit of which is argued nowadays, new training equipment, new diets and hence the science of sport is advancing. What I mean with sport science, is like mixture of knowledge and technology. People may implement some minor technical changes in the game play and shot making departments or could invent new training equipment which render stronger and healthier muscles or make new very specific diets considering the metabolic activities or deficiencies of the players. It is maybe exaggerated a bit, but Djokovic's gluten-free diet was one of the constituents of his rise to World no.1.
There is also another debate going on. The question is 'Did the courts slow down?' There is a serious concern of current and old professional players that the slowing down of the courts transforms today's tennis and renders the serve-and-volley game basically more ineffective. It is also very crucial firstly to mention that I couldn't find any real 'scientific evidence' supporting or refuting this theory. The only source is the claims of players and officials who are responsible of the grass surfaces in Wimbledon. However, the alleged changes have an ad hoc basis. As of 90s, with the help of technological developments in the racquet and string technology guys with big serves started to dominate the game with their serves and volleys. So, to protect the balance between different game types, the federation decided to take some measures and especially the grass courts lost pace. There is still a debate going on, so I'll stress on this topic in another post. But what I wanted to say is, there is arguably another variable, the court conditions, which makes our comparison of old and contemporary players arguably harder.
After 40 years of continual development and research for the better, how can we treat two individuals from different times as competitors on the same scale? They had different styles, played with different strings, rackets and balls on arguably differently paced courts. Even now it is hard to tell and decide, which player is better. For example, Nadal leads Federer in head-to-head 18-10, but this is not the sole indicator people say, and they also tell us to look at their accomplishments, their trophies. Federer having 17 Grand Slam and nearly 290 week of no.1 clearly is ahead of Nadal who has 11 Grand Slams only(!) 102 weeks. But how would it have been, if Nadal were 4 years older than Federer and he started to dominate tennis before and faced with young Federer in mid 2000s? Interesting question right? So, it is better to appreciate these players successes and talents and hesitate to compare them quickly and claim that someone is the best in history.
To be honest, I am against drawing comparisons between players of different eras, because basically it is like comparing oranges harvested 100 years ago with the contemporary genetically modified oranges that grow with the help of numerous pesticides, herbicides. Both oranges have the same seed but there is a big industry working to improve its taste and nutrition level. As in the orange case, there are big industries trying to develop new equipment like rackets, strings, shoes, socks even these blue kinesio tapes, the benefit of which is argued nowadays, new training equipment, new diets and hence the science of sport is advancing. What I mean with sport science, is like mixture of knowledge and technology. People may implement some minor technical changes in the game play and shot making departments or could invent new training equipment which render stronger and healthier muscles or make new very specific diets considering the metabolic activities or deficiencies of the players. It is maybe exaggerated a bit, but Djokovic's gluten-free diet was one of the constituents of his rise to World no.1.
 |
| Modern racquets (combination of fiberglass and graphite and titanium alloys) weigh around 200 g in contrast Borg's era racquets (wood) which are around 400 g. But new ones still provide a larger swingweight, heavier shots and less vibration and inconsistency. |
There is also another debate going on. The question is 'Did the courts slow down?' There is a serious concern of current and old professional players that the slowing down of the courts transforms today's tennis and renders the serve-and-volley game basically more ineffective. It is also very crucial firstly to mention that I couldn't find any real 'scientific evidence' supporting or refuting this theory. The only source is the claims of players and officials who are responsible of the grass surfaces in Wimbledon. However, the alleged changes have an ad hoc basis. As of 90s, with the help of technological developments in the racquet and string technology guys with big serves started to dominate the game with their serves and volleys. So, to protect the balance between different game types, the federation decided to take some measures and especially the grass courts lost pace. There is still a debate going on, so I'll stress on this topic in another post. But what I wanted to say is, there is arguably another variable, the court conditions, which makes our comparison of old and contemporary players arguably harder.
After 40 years of continual development and research for the better, how can we treat two individuals from different times as competitors on the same scale? They had different styles, played with different strings, rackets and balls on arguably differently paced courts. Even now it is hard to tell and decide, which player is better. For example, Nadal leads Federer in head-to-head 18-10, but this is not the sole indicator people say, and they also tell us to look at their accomplishments, their trophies. Federer having 17 Grand Slam and nearly 290 week of no.1 clearly is ahead of Nadal who has 11 Grand Slams only(!) 102 weeks. But how would it have been, if Nadal were 4 years older than Federer and he started to dominate tennis before and faced with young Federer in mid 2000s? Interesting question right? So, it is better to appreciate these players successes and talents and hesitate to compare them quickly and claim that someone is the best in history.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)