Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Wimbledon 2019

1525354555658»

Comments



  • walshb wrote: »
    I know, but seriously, I still think it's a pr1ck thing to do.....no humanity in it....

    The man is a career clean athlete. A legend. He deserves some leeway, some!

    Over zealous pr1cks do this......no real justification.

    Unless, and I doubt it in this case, RF is really under their suspicion.....

    If it was Gatlin, for example, yes...away you go, and Stephen's day as well for good measure.

    I can understand the frustration at being disturbed on Christmas Day, but unfortunately this is part of an athlete’s responsibility, they know they can be tested at ANY time. Tennis has been very good to Federer. He can give up 10 minutes to pee into a cup and sign a form. It really isn’t that big a deal. It’s got nothing to do with who is suspicious and who is not. It is called random testing for a reason.




  • Chivito550 wrote: »
    I can understand the frustration at being disturbed on Christmas Day, but unfortunately this is part of an athlete’s responsibility, they know they can be tested at ANY time. Tennis has been very good to Federer. He can give up 10 minutes to pee into a cup and sign a form. It really isn’t that big a deal. It’s got nothing to do with who is suspicious and who is not. It is called random testing for a reason.

    I get all that, but surely some sort of human decision making/discretion?

    Some dude actually had to plan this......

    Deliberate: Today, Christmas day I am going to rock up to one of sport's greatest and most admired stars. A man who has never failed a doping test, and who is not at all under suspicion, and ask him to pi%s in a cup for me.....

    You are looking at it a bit too robotically......

    Not saying any one day should be exempt......but some context and perspective and common sense should prevail...




  • Showing up on Christmas day it could be that they were turning up the heat on federer

    Most logical explanation




  • Man, looking at those tennis forums, I be like:

    https://streamable.com/hpbbn




  • Jaklmex wrote: »
    Showing up on Christmas day it could be that they were turning up the heat on federer

    Most logical explanation

    But why?

    They must have been very suspicious of him for this reason to be valid...


  • Advertisement


  • walshb wrote: »
    Pr1cks!

    No need for this.....FFS, 364 other days in the year....


    25th of December isn't special for everyone, they can show up at the Djokovics if they want on the 25th.
    Wouldn't be very welcome on the 21st of November or 1st of January though.




  • walshb wrote: »
    The man is a career clean athlete. A legend. He deserves some leeway, some!

    But you can't just assume that, unless you just have blind faith. The only way to prove it is by regular & random testing. Shouldn't be a problem for any top athlete, part of the deal these days.




  • BarryD2 wrote: »
    But you can't just assume that, unless you just have blind faith. The only way to prove it is by regular & random testing. Shouldn't be a problem for any top athlete, part of the deal these days.

    Yes, but my issues is more the clearly over zealous approach in this instance....

    Weighing up all the knowns here it comes across as ridiculous...




  • Worth recalling our own famous debacle with the testers and the whisky

    I won't mention names again




  • Chivito550 wrote: »
    Doping will help absolutely anyone. Rafa and Novak’s style would lend itself more to doping than Roger’s style. That’s not to say Roger wouldn’t benefit from it (he absolutely would). Having followed their careers closely for over a decade and a half, you could argue a case for any of them doping. I think the case is probably stronger regarding Rafa and Novak though, with the former having Operation Puerto and the secrecy of who the tennis blood bags belonged to while the latter had a sudden explosion in 2011.

    What about Federers explosion since 2017 in his late thirties. In 2010 People were questioning whether he would soon retire from the game, because he was looking a shadow of himself.He simply wasn't able to physically compete with the likes of djkovic, Nadal, warinka etc. And that clearly showed.. He won one grand slam between 2010-2017 and that was Wimbledon 2012 against Murray.. Now in his late thirties he can physically compete with these guys again, (who are six years his junior and should be peaking) and win grand slams.

    Surely that would raise more question marks?


  • Advertisement


  • I agree it takes skill and he is a great player but and heres the big but ,string technology plays a huge part in both how he and Nadal play .
    The Luxilon Effect has contributed hugely to their success .

    Great article on it here ,it also explains why so few young players are breaking through .
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

    And another one
    https://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3064206
    I do not buy the "Luxilion Effect" theory. For me, both articles border on being technologically deterministic. They attribute the success of the big 3 to their string technology (that all players have access to) whereas the relative failures of US players are also because of that same technology. That does not compute. It's the players that have shaped the game and not the technology.

    What I took from reading those very US-centric articles is that they are a bit sore that they no longer dominate the game like they did back in the 90s when the likes of Sampras and Agassi were in their prime. Perhaps it was taken as a given that this would continue unabated with the players that came after. In order to continue at the top, you need to evolve with the times. I never heard any complaints when racquet technology was suiting US players back in the 80s and 90s and rightly so.

    Everybody has the same advantages and disadvantages so it's down to how they handle the changes. Instead of blaming the string technology, the US need to take a leaf out of the European book and change their coaching styles in order to compete.




  • indeed.

    and anyway vice.com is hardly a serious journalistic outfit and the other article is from 2007.

    the Americans have only themselves to blame on the men's side.

    their players don't work hard enough imo. they've had some talented guys but they never made it to the very top but got into the top 10.

    they have had plenty of time to adapt to a change in style.

    in any case outside Agassi and Sampras some of their most successful players were baseliners - e.g. Courier and Chang.

    buymeacoffee.com/glassopy





  • sxt wrote: »
    What about Federers explosion since 2017 in his late thirties. In 2010 People were questioning whether he would soon retire from the game, because he was looking a shadow of himself.He simply wasn't able to physically compete with the likes of djkovic, Nadal, warinka etc. And that clearly showed.. He won one grand slam between 2010-2017 and that was Wimbledon 2012 against Murray.. Now in his late thirties he can physically compete with these guys again, (who are six years his junior and should be peaking) and win grand slams.

    Surely that would raise more question marks?

    Exactly...

    But most most people don't want to look at Fed. They want to look at those beating him. The grinders that dare to challenge Fed's brilliant artistry.

    How can these awkward looking two be besting such elegance and beauty? Oh, it's because they are on these drugs that give them, what is it??? Oh, staying power and court coverage power beyond normal human capability...:rolleyes:

    I don't mind anyone questioning these players, but some of the logic being bandied about that casts aspersions on some players, and not otters, smacks of bitterness, and a vendetta type mentality.

    Fed is clean.........

    Nole is clean

    Nadal is clean....

    They all beat each other because of their exceptional talents and skills and physical capabilities on a tennis court

    BTW, just on court coverage, for example, as you will get the whole "drugs benefits the grinders more," nonsense.....Fed probably covers just as much court in his matches as Nole and Nadal....he simply covers it a wee bit differently/visually.

    Oh, and nothing from Sunday could clearly show that Roger was more gassed/exhausted than Nole.....5 hours they were on court.

    2017 Oz final similar....Fed looked to finish that tough match stronger than Nadal.....




  • There's a thread on doping around if ye want to move the conversation there. Getting off topic a bit.




  • RosyLily wrote: »
    There's a thread on doping around if ye want to move the conversation there. Getting off topic a bit.
    :confused:




  • Redsky121 wrote: »
    He switched to a bigger Racquet in 2013, it usually takes a couple years to adapt and the bigger size gave him more power and less shanks due to a bigger sweet spot. He could have easily won two slams in 2015, he played great that year, arguably better than 2017.

    Just wondering, what are the advantages of a smaller racquet? There have to be some, otherwise nobody would be using them.




  • Chivito550 wrote: »
    Just wondering, what are the advantages of a smaller racquet? There have to be some, otherwise nobody would be using them.

    Seems to be power vs control
    https://tenniscompanion.org/tennis-racquet-head-size-and-length/ as well as the increased sweet spot.




  • Chivito550 wrote: »
    Just wondering, what are the advantages of a smaller racquet? There have to be some, otherwise nobody would be using them.





  • RosyLily wrote: »
    There's a thread on doping around if ye want to move the conversation there. Getting off topic a bit.

    Wimbledon is over too. I think Walshb just wants someone to talk to.




  • 1) Head size: Typically between 95-110 square inches. Larger heads, generate more power and have a larger sweet spot. Smaller head sizes offer more control. 2) Length: Adult rackets can be anything from 27-29 inches long, though most are nearer the lower end of the scale


  • Advertisement
Advertisement