re: 2016 Non-GS Tennis Thread

I just flipped on tennis channel with a point in progress. I see enough to identify the player in the near court as Wawrinka. I can't tell who the guy in the far court is, but I can see him moving towards a shot and it's clear he's a legit athlete on the moving front. i think to myself: "it's gotta be Nadal, or Simon,....or maybe Thiem. Hopefully it's Nadal, I wouldn't mind watching a Nadal/Stan match."

It was Simon. The point of this anecdote relates to a post of mine from several months ago where I wondered why I wasn't able to tell how good Zverev was just on the basis of my eyeball test. The fact that I sized up the far court player's athleticism chops after seeing them make two strides tops leads me to believe that I have a good eye for that. The fact that Zverev wasn't leaping off the screen at me after several viewings leads me to the conclusion that (a) my eye for shotmaking isn't nearly as good, (b) gauging shotmaking ability while watching a match on TV is tougher than sizing up athleticism, or some combo of both.

Simon is up 6-4, 4-2, btw.


*paraphrased.

I would agree with (b), but I don't get the correlation between (a) and your ability to gauge shotmaking ability. Or, in other words, why can't you be good at both?

There was a whole thread about Kyrgios tanking, but I haven't watched the videos either.

he will get it

djokovic is acting like a bitch still even after taking some time off.

his run is just about over while murray practically ascends to the top.

quote:

---

I would agree with (b), but I don't get the correlation between (a) and your ability to gauge shotmaking ability. Or, in other words, why can't you be good at both?

---

I was just spitballing.

Check out this view we had at the Challenger tourney in Vegas this weekend.

LINK

If you ever have a chance to sit courtside instead of behind the baseline, do it. The speed of the game is amazing compared to how it looks on TV.

I would venture to say nobody in the world would have returned that serve.

Yeah placement is more important than pace for serving aces. One right in the corner like that the returner has no chance. I agree it is impressive to see a big serve returned though. The hand eye coordination of the pros is so fast.

Everything you said is spot on, in my opinion. I was having a very similar conversation with my buddy at the match.

If you watch a random pro or coach from your local country club, you might think, "This guy is incredible. Great movement, has all the shots, no weaknesses. I don't see how anyone could beat him." Then you put him up against one of these guys ranked in the 100-300 range and he wouldn't win a single game.

From there, you take a random guy ranked 150ish and put him up against a Goffin type, and he would be lucky to win more than 1 game. Then you watch Goffin vs. Djokovic when Novak is in good form, and Goffin would get spanked like 6-3, 6-1.

I used to think that if things went right I could probably take a game off a guy in the 200-300 range. Not only was I wrong, but I'm not even sure I could win a point unless they double faulted. The difference really is that drastic.

The only reason I can come up with to explain the difference is a combination of many small things. Movement is definitely high on the list, but it's also anticipation, court placement, consistent depth and angle of shots, patience to stay in rallies, stamina, mental strength, and probably a lot more.

Of course most of this doesn't apply to servebots... but they are fascinating in their own way. That said, even if I was allowed to serve every game in a match vs. Groth, I would still get double bagled.

True, that was wrong. I should have said 200 or 300, and "could" instead of "would". But, my point was that whatever difference there is between those players that causes blowout scorelines is very difficult to distinguish if you watch them independently.