Talk About Tennis 2.0

Fastbackss wrote:

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:00 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:29 pm ...

Roddick had some analysis on the death of the one-handed backhand today on his podcast. Has a lot to do with the return of serve and the next shot. You can't just chip it back and start the point with the return. The chip return has to be amazing now - he mentioned Llorda's. Otherwise you're in trouble right away. Also, people can defend with the two-hander better than they used to, and even go from defense to offense with it, like Novak's sliding BH. You see it more and more with better fitness and strings.

Andy wondered when we'd see someone return with a two-handed backhand then switch to one during the rally.

I say never. By now, the players have to start so young that they need two hands when growing up. Roger and Pete switched to one handers in their teens, but that was precisely to become attacking players.
I remember reading that Pete Fisher switched Pete from 1H to 2H because he told him: "Name me one great S&V player with a two handed BH". That rationale is useless today, because nobody is growing up to be a S&V player.

Fair point. It's tough once taught.
Roddick podcast even said a form of how it is similarly needed for women as there hasn't been a 1H in an even longer time.
He also pointed out how Barty did a form of1H/2H. 1H to set up and get into rally and 2H down the line or to hit winner

I’d say Ons does the same thing since she slices her BH a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ages ago, Dennis Van Dermeer asked this question: if 80% of the women hit a 2H backhand, how may have a 1H backhand?
The answer was 70%. A lot of players hit their SLICE BH wit one hand, and rallied with both.
The problem is the grip; if your dominant hand has the wrong grip for a slice BH, then going from a 2H to a 1H means not only letting go of one hand, it means changing grips halfway through the stroke. Barty could do it because her right hand was in an eastern BH grip to begin with; therefore, letting go of the left hand was not a liability.

Career high and new career high WTA rankings as of tomorrow inside the top 100 (ATP coming tomorrow)

Career high:

#1 Iga Swiatek,
#3 Coco Gauff
#16 Ekaterina Alexandrova
#97 Arina Radionova

New career high:

#14 Jasmine Paolini
#24 Anna Kalinskaya
#42 Magdalena Frech
#70 Ashlyn Krueger
#84 Zhuoxuan Bai (never heard of her...)
#95 Brenda Fruhvirtova
#96 Erika Andreeva

Sinner is now ahead of Alcaraz in safe points. Carlos will need to outperform him significantly in IW to stay ahead.

If we are playing these games ... :
Pete won slams in three different decades, if you count 1990 as the end of the 80's.

Third longest span between top 10 appearances...

Every time I watch him play, I wonder: this guy has NO slam finals' appearances? How is that possible?

Sinner up to #2 tomorrow and Dimitrov to #9.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 3:06 pm Every time I watch him play, I wonder: this guy has NO slam finals' appearances? How is that possible?

Novak. Roger. Rafa. Murray. Stan. Today's Champs. Plus, all of the FAR more deserving Slam finalists. I think the more pertinent question is- how did Dimitrov ever get 3 Slam SF results?!?!?!?!

Plus- Dimitrov has already gotten The Tours' Aggie/Cibulková Memorial ATP/WTA Championship Consolation Prize Trophy- i.e., Miss Congeniality. All that a Scrub+ player can ever hope for.

That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:22 pm That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.

Mentally tennis-player flaky, FAR too often. Shots not big enough. NOWHERE in the neighborhood of Stan, especially the way Stan clobbered the ball. (Stan also beat Rafa in an Aussie final- granted, Rafa had a 19-3 record, and Stan beat Roger in the Roland Garros QF the year he won in 2015, beating Novak in that final- Roger with the 23-3 record)- Dimitrov with more variety than Andy? Huh? For one- who'd you like better at the net?

AND, Carlos is a force on clay.

With Gauff getting too "old" the most promising teenagers on tour are Noskova (19) and M. Andreeva (16).

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:32 pm If we are playing these games ... :
Pete won slams in three different decades, if you count 1990 as the end of the 80's.

certainly it is