ATP WTA Wimbledon GS 6/27/22 - 7/10/22

[ponchi101]

...

Did he get that from the Nick Kyrgios playbook?

Beat me to it. Don't know if to be impressed or worried.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

...

Did he get that from the Nick Kyrgios playbook?

Beat me to it. Don't know if to be impressed or worried.

I was worried because he definitely saw it from Nick, but impressed cuz the player is kinda cute.

[meganfernandez]

Norrie Knob Knoll

[ponchi101]

You didn't.... (well, you did )

[Deuce]

^ That is absolute and utter BS.
Tennis needs to take a good, hard look at itself and decide whether it wants to be a respectable, legitimate, honest sport, or if it wants to go the full 'entertainment' route like the WWE and UFC.

I have a big problem with underhanded serves. I find them to be an underhanded tactic. The reason is because, with a traditional overhand serve, the receiver sees the wind-up, and so can time the split step, or whatever he/she does to return.
The underhand serve can easily be done (and is most often done) to completely surprise the receiver when the receiver is not ready. It's the same as a quick pitch in baseball (pitcher throwing when the batter isn't ready) - which is not permitted in baseball. The entire purpose of the underhand serve is to catch the receiver by surprise. And that's complete BS and extremely poor sportsmanship in my book.

It's very different than a drop shot during a point - which is a fair and legitimate play... because a drop shot is played while the opponent is moving and active and ready. The underhand serve is done when the receiver is completely flat-footed.

The underhand serve needs to be banned before tennis turns into the WWE.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

^ That is absolute and utter BS.
Tennis needs to take a good, hard look at itself and decide whether it wants to be a respectable, legitimate, honest sport, or if it wants to go the full 'entertainment' route like the WWE and UFC.

I have a big problem with underhanded serves. I find them to be an underhanded tactic. The reason is because, with a traditional overhand serve, the receiver sees the wind-up, and so can time the split step, or whatever he/she does to return.
The underhand serve can easily be done (and is most often done) to completely surprise the receiver when the receiver is not ready. It's the same as a quick pitch in baseball (pitcher throwing when the batter isn't ready) - which is not permitted in baseball. The entire purpose of the underhand serve is to catch the receiver by surprise. And that's complete BS and extremely poor sportsmanship in my book.

It's very different than a drop shot during a point - which is a fair and legitimate play... because a drop shot is played while the opponent is moving and active and ready. The underhand serve is done when the receiver is completely flat-footed.

The underhand serve needs to be banned before tennis turns into the WWE.

I am gonna play a little Devils Advocate here because I am also not really an advocate for the underhand serve, but what if the player is in the deciding set and just a few points away from winning the match and they are cramping badly and they are unable to complete the service motion without being in terrible pain? Do they still try and toss the ball and just bloop the ball in or is it ok to do the underhand serve or should they just retire even though they are so close to winning the match?

[Deuce]

That was obviously not the case in the video clip of the kid on match point...
And it's not the case when Kyrgios does it, either. In those situations, it's not done due to any type of injury - and that's what I commented on.

If it's a legitimate injury that prevents them from serving normally, then they can serve underhanded, and that's fine. Just don't do it to deliberately catch your opponent off guard or by surprise, because that's not fair.

Serving underhanded while making your opponent aware that that is what you're doing is ok. Obviously, it's foolish, because it won't win you too many points - but if it's the only option available to you due to legitimate injury, then fine - just don't use it to try to win the point by surprise.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

If it's a legitimate injury that prevents them from serving normally, then they can serve underhanded, and that's fine. Just don't do it to deliberately catch your opponent off guard or by surprise, because that's not fair.

Serving underhanded while making your opponent aware that that is what you're doing is ok. Obviously, it's foolish, because it won't win you too many points - but if it's the only option available to you due to legitimate injury, then fine - just don't use it to try to win the point by surprise.

I agree with you. It is just another way of trying to turn the game of tennis into somewhat of a circus show. This is the main reason why Stef got so frustrated and slammed the ball off a Kyrgios underhand serve to the back wall in their match the other day. I have been learning and playing the game of tennis since the age of 5 and I really think the people that have taught me in the past and now have taught me the proper way to play the game. I will probably never have the talent that Nick Kyrgios has for the game of tennis, but I do know one thing is I will play the game correctly and he has missed the boat with that aspect.

[ashkor87]

This Djokovic trick of taking a bathroom break to turn the match around is borderline unethical..I think..what do folks here think of it?

[ashkor87]

Am happy to see the Indian 'namaste' gesture has become global!
It was always used by Christians especially but more for prayer than 'thank you' or 'hullo'..

[meganfernandez]

^ That is absolute and utter BS.
Tennis needs to take a good, hard look at itself and decide whether it wants to be a respectable, legitimate, honest sport, or if it wants to go the full 'entertainment' route like the WWE and UFC.

I have a big problem with underhanded serves. I find them to be an underhanded tactic. The reason is because, with a traditional overhand serve, the receiver sees the wind-up, and so can time the split step, or whatever he/she does to return.
The underhand serve can easily be done (and is most often done) to completely surprise the receiver when the receiver is not ready. It's the same as a quick pitch in baseball (pitcher throwing when the batter isn't ready) - which is not permitted in baseball. The entire purpose of the underhand serve is to catch the receiver by surprise. And that's complete BS and extremely poor sportsmanship in my book.

It's very different than a drop shot during a point - which is a fair and legitimate play... because a drop shot is played while the opponent is moving and active and ready. The underhand serve is done when the receiver is completely flat-footed.

The underhand serve needs to be banned before tennis turns into the WWE.

I am gonna play a little Devils Advocate here because I am also not really an advocate for the underhand serve, but what if the player is in the deciding set and just a few points away from winning the match and they are cramping badly and they are unable to complete the service motion without being in terrible pain? Do they still try and toss the ball and just bloop the ball in or is it ok to do the underhand serve or should they just retire even though they are so close to winning the match?

Ever heard of Michael Chang and his famous underhand serve in the 1989 French Open, when he was cramping vs Lendl? If not, YouTube it. It’s one of the most famous plays in modern history.

[meganfernandez]

This Djokovic trick of taking a bathroom break to turn the match around is borderline unethical..I think..what do folks here think of it?

Doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty low on my list of complaints about tennis. It would be impossible to tell whether someone really has to go to the bathroom or not, even with the convenient timing. Players need to be able to use the bathroom during a match. And any player can do this. So I just can’t muster any outrage. Pretty soon, the opponent will be able to consult with their coach during that time, so it won’t really disadvantage the opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deuce]

This Djokovic trick of taking a bathroom break to turn the match around is borderline unethical..I think..what do folks here think of it?

Doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty low on my list of complaints about tennis. It would be impossible to tell whether someone really has to go to the bathroom or not, even with the convenient timing. Players need to be able to use the bathroom during a match. And any player can do this. So I just can’t muster any outrage. Pretty soon, the opponent will be able to consult with their coach during that time, so it won’t really disadvantage the opponent.

^ I agree.
It's no different than a time-out, which other sports have. Some other sports even allow several time-outs.
If the match is not going your way, and you need a bit of time to reset, that's fine. I see it as being part of the game, and have no problem with the 'ethics' of it.
If it disturbs your opponent at the same time as it allows you to reset, then that's the opponent's weakness, and out of your control. If the opponent loses focus because of a break in the play, that's a deficiency on their part.

I also believe that Djokovic would have won that match with or without the bathroom break.

What I did see as 'unethical' was Sonego's campaigning for the roof to be closed the other day far sooner than it needed to be closed. He did this purely to give himself an advantage, and disadvantage Nadal at the same time.

[ashkor87]

As of today, my probability estimates:

Men: Djokovic 60%, Kyrgios 30%, Nadal 10%
Women: Halep 40%, Jabeur 30%, Rybakina 20%, Anisimova 10%
of course, 3 of them have to play one more match than Jabeur, which shows in the estimates..

comments?

[ashkor87]

This Djokovic trick of taking a bathroom break to turn the match around is borderline unethical..I think..what do folks here think of it?

Doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty low on my list of complaints about tennis. It would be impossible to tell whether someone really has to go to the bathroom or not, even with the convenient timing. Players need to be able to use the bathroom during a match. And any player can do this. So I just can’t muster any outrage. Pretty soon, the opponent will be able to consult with their coach during that time, so it won’t really disadvantage the opponent.

^ I agree.
It's no different than a time-out, which other sports have. Some other sports even allow several time-outs.
If the match is not going your way, and you need a bit of time to reset, that's fine. I see it as being part of the game, and have no problem with the 'ethics' of it.
If it disturbs your opponent at the same time as it allows you to reset, then that's the opponent's weakness, and out of your control. If the opponent loses focus because of a break in the play, that's a deficiency on their part.

I also believe that Djokovic would have won that match with or without the bathroom break.

What I did see as 'unethical' was Sonego's campaigning for the roof to be closed the other day far sooner than it needed to be closed. He did this purely to give himself an advantage, and disadvantage Nadal at the same time.

but isnt play supposed to be continuous?