Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ashkor87]

I will give you another example. Not Carlos.
Remember a few years ago, Novak retired at Wimbledon due to a shoulder injury. His service motion was (maybe) the culprit. It was too cramped, and Goran seems to have worked very nicely on that, making it more elongated.
I believe (I will let Ashkor clarify) that what Ashkor is saying is that Carlitos' motion is too short in the backswing. Therefore, before he starts stretching to hit the ball, he has to accelerate faster than usual because his arm is still up, and he needs to bring it down and up again.
Sampras motion was the opposite. He would drop his racquet head DOWN onto his back, and from there he would spring it back to hit the ball. His racquet was prepared "earlier", so he did not need to have brisk moves to reach the ball. No jerky motions led to a smooth swing, and Sampras never had any shoulder/elbow problems in his serving arm (a surprising fact, give how heavy and tightly strung his racquet was).

Exception: Roddick. He had a very compact motion. But his racquet did a lot of the work, so he also never had arms issues.

Exactly, I can't add anything to your explanation..
Btw I feel Garcia has a little bit of a similar issue too... though certainly less clearly..her main problem is she starts a bit too erect..

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

I don't think that Andrey is as superrrr excited to play Daniil as Daniil is to play him.
It's weird to see how Stefanos is so respected in the tour.

[Deuce]

I said a few years ago that there are definite parallels between Tsitsipas and Djokovic in terms of their character...
Both have views that are pretty 'out there' - Djokovic likes to be 'alternative', and Tsitsipas pretends to be a 'philosopher' (and fails miserably)... both of their fathers are controversial over-the-top supporters of their sons (Djokovic's father wore shirts with Novak's photo on them, Tsitsipas' father wore masks with a caricature of Stefanos on them); both fathers say stupid things (as do their sons)... And I think that both Djokovic and Tsitsipas are sort of tolerated, but not liked or very respected personally, by most of their peers.

[Deuce]

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of having the winning player write something on the lens of the camera is when the telecast never shows you what was written?
It's completely asinine.
They show us the player writing something - which 90% of the time we cannot decipher because it is backwards to us, and because they often write above and/or below what can be viewed anyway... and the telecast doesn't bother to have a different camera show from the front what the player wrote.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF SHOWING THEM WRITING SOMETHING FROM THE BACKWARDS PERSPECTIVE OF THE LENS THAT IS BEING WRITTEN ON, AND NEVER SHOWING IT FROM A READABLE ANGLE?

This is happening more and more often - several times this week in both Dubai and Acapulco.
Are the people who manage these broadcasts really that incredibly stupid?
It would certainly appear so.

[Owendonovan]

^We just need one player to write F. Off and it will end. Just one.

[Deuce]

^We just need one player to write F. Off and it will end. Just one.

My money's on Fognini.
Or Kyrgios.
Or Vandeweghe...

[Deuce]

Marta Kostyuk won the Austin tournament - her first WTA level tournament win.
She did not shake her opponent's hand because Kostyuk is Ukrainian and Gracheva, her opponent, is Russian.
She also refused to mention her opponent in her 'victory speech', and there were no photos taken of the two players together with their respective trophies, as there usually is, apparently at Kostyuk's demand.

Kostyuk also refused to shake Azarenka's hand after their U.S. Open match last year (Azarenka is from Belarus), and has gone on record as saying she won't shake hands with any Russian or Belarusian player.
Kostyuk also refused to participate in a charity event to raise money and awareness for Ukraine simply because Azarenka was also scheduled to participate in the event.

There are divided opinions on this ignoring of sporting protocol. In reading through several articles on the matter of the missing handshake (and there are many articles), I have chosen to include the one below, because it goes into some detail from both sides. It's not the most well written article, but it'll suffice for introducing the subject.

Along with the article, I ask you to submit your perspective on Kostyuk refusing to shake hands with her opponent. Was she right to do this, or was she wrong? And why.

My perspective is that she is wrong to do this, as the sporting field is supposed to be one of fair play and respect. If you don't respect your opponent, then you shouldn't embark on the playing surface to compete against them. If you embark on the playing surface with an opponent, and battle for the win, you should be prepared to play fair and to show genuine respect and shake hands when the dual is finished, regardless of who wins. This is the principle that sport is founded upon, and I feel it should be upheld.

I feel that Kostyuks behaviour is extremely immature. While this is not uncommon for 20 years olds, I'd have hoped that someone around her would help her to see life from a less narrow perspective. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have occurred - at least not successfully.
I can admire the strength of Kostuyk's determination - but I feel she is pointed in the wrong direction.

I can understand that Kostyuk is obviously upset by what the country of Russia is doing to her country of Ukraine. Her anger and sadness is completely justified. That war/invasion is, however, a completely separate issue from a tennis match. And, in refusing to shake hands with any Russian or Belarusian opponent, she has, in effect, brought the war/invasion to the tennis courts, when she had the opportunity to bring peace instead.

What say you?

Kostyuk Wins, Then Ignores Opponent

.

[Suliso]

Easy for us to pontificate, but I wonder how it was during WWII. Did Americans or Canadians played sports with Germans on a neutral ground and said it's just a game and let's keep politics out? I think the situation is very similar only on smaller scale.

[Deuce]

Easy for us to pontificate, but I wonder how it was during WWII. Did Americans or Canadians played sports with Germans on a neutral ground and said it's just a game and let's keep politics out? I think the situation is very similar only on smaller scale.

And so how is it different than any other stereotyping, or guilt by association, or prejudice?
Should irrational and unfair perspectives be accepted or justified - and even condoned - in certain situations?

Unless the individual him/her self is guilty of actions to which one is fundamentally opposed, there should not be a problem. If one views a person as being guilty or complicit simply by birth association, that is blatantly unjust, is it not?

How and when did it come to be that Americans were eventually able to play sports with Germans, Japanese, etc. (and vice versa) without problem? Apparently, people came to their senses at some point, realizing that the people they are competing against - or even playing with - were not participants in the war(s), and so were doing them no harm.

There are still some Americans who harbour hate and resentment toward German and Japanese people (and other nationalities). These people are commonly viewed now as being prejudiced and irrational, and they are condemned. Why should such persons be viewed differently during wartime than they are viewed years after?

[Suliso]

How and when did it come to be that Americans were eventually able to play sports with Germans, Japanese, etc. (and vice versa) without problem? Apparently, people came to their senses at some point, realizing that the people they are competing against - or even playing with - were not participants in the war(s), and so were doing them no harm.

Eventually yes, during the war I'm pretty sure no.

[Deuce]

How and when did it come to be that Americans were eventually able to play sports with Germans, Japanese, etc. (and vice versa) without problem? Apparently, people came to their senses at some point, realizing that the people they are competing against - or even playing with - were not participants in the war(s), and so were doing them no harm.

Eventually yes, during the war I'm pretty sure no.

Most professional sports were halted during WW1 and WW2, were they not? And international sports competition was not as prevalent as it is now. Thus not much opportunity for Americans to compete against Germans, Japanese, etc.

Even more significantly - segregation was still going strong in America during those wars. And so prejudice and racism were rather widely accepted - and was even legal.
Has humanity not evolved and progressed socially since then? It seems that it has. Perhaps Kostyuk's perspectives should evolve, as well.

[ponchi101]

Easy for us to pontificate, but I wonder how it was during WWII. Did Americans or Canadians played sports with Germans on a neutral ground and said it's just a game and let's keep politics out? I think the situation is very similar only on smaller scale.

In the same sense that we (here at the forum) have stated that the Russians and Belarusians, being individuals, should not be singled out for a collective action done by their countries (and we have been clear that they can't even openly oppose the actions of their governments, as they are dictatorial), Kostyuk as an individual has the right to proceed with her actions. She has the right to decide that these other players represent the countries attacking hers, and therefore the very little she can do, she will do.
She has been consistent in her approach. And this, being an exceptional situation, is one that I can accept.

There is a country that has done incredible harm to mine, during our 25 years of dictatorship. I do not mingle with people from that country. it is very hard to swallow.

[Suliso]

Fidel and friends?