Page 89 of 308

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:58 am
by Ribbons
I have been reading about the 1908 London Olympics for a side project, and it's a gift that keeps giving. To quote one source, they were "wet, long-winded, and controversial." According to another source, Germany was the only country not hacked off at the UK by the end.

The official report is at https://olympic-museum.de/o-reports/oly ... t-1908.php, with the chapter on tennis starting on page 314. Regarding the final, it was noted that "the contrast between the attendance of spectators on this occasion and the crowd that went to see the match for the amateur championship was very marked[.] The latter match was somewhat of a fiasco, and the fear of seeing another display of the kind probably accounted for the absence of many familiar faces."

Regarding the silver medalist's performance in the final: "He did not win a set, but he ought to have secured the first set, and he never looked like a hopeless loser at any stage of the second or third."

Finally, about the gold medalist, quoting from the _National Review_: "In practically every respect except service Mr. Gould is a beautiful player; it would stamp him as a greater player still if he became a beautiful server, and not only, as he is now, a terribly effective one."

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:13 am
by 3mlm
Ribbons wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:58 am I have been reading about the 1908 London Olympics for a side project, and it's a gift that keeps giving. To quote one source, they were "wet, long-winded, and controversial." According to another source, Germany was the only country not hacked off at the UK by the end.

The official report is at https://olympic-museum.de/o-reports/oly ... t-1908.php, with the chapter on tennis starting on page 314. Regarding the final, it was noted that "the contrast between the attendance of spectators on this occasion and the crowd that went to see the match for the amateur championship was very marked[.] The latter match was somewhat of a fiasco, and the fear of seeing another display of the kind probably accounted for the absence of many familiar faces."

Regarding the silver medalist's performance in the final: "He did not win a set, but he ought to have secured the first set, and he never looked like a hopeless loser at any stage of the second or third."

Finally, about the gold medalist, quoting from the _National Review_: "In practically every respect except service Mr. Gould is a beautiful player; it would stamp him as a greater player still if he became a beautiful server, and not only, as he is now, a terribly effective one."
That commentator seemed to think that "beautiful" form was as important as results.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:26 am
by Deuce
Ribbons wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:58 am I have been reading about the 1908 London Olympics for a side project, and it's a gift that keeps giving. To quote one source, they were "wet, long-winded, and controversial." According to another source, Germany was the only country not hacked off at the UK by the end.

The official report is at https://olympic-museum.de/o-reports/oly ... t-1908.php, with the chapter on tennis starting on page 314. Regarding the final, it was noted that "the contrast between the attendance of spectators on this occasion and the crowd that went to see the match for the amateur championship was very marked[.] The latter match was somewhat of a fiasco, and the fear of seeing another display of the kind probably accounted for the absence of many familiar faces."

Regarding the silver medalist's performance in the final: "He did not win a set, but he ought to have secured the first set, and he never looked like a hopeless loser at any stage of the second or third."

Finally, about the gold medalist, quoting from the _National Review_: "In practically every respect except service Mr. Gould is a beautiful player; it would stamp him as a greater player still if he became a beautiful server, and not only, as he is now, a terribly effective one."
^ This is yet another reminder of how much the English language has declined over the years.
It held on for a longer while in Great Britain, but has been in decline there, as well, for a number of years now...

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:12 am
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:53 pm Raw, Real and Reilly – Meet the No. 1 Player in America: Badass Reilly Opelka
His manager and agent and whatever any image consultant or PR firm they hired in recent years should all get fat Christmas bonuses this year. I'm still not a fan, but money well spent sculpting an image that people seem to like, and they deserve even more than they've gotten.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:15 pm
by meganfernandez
dave g wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:01 am TAT.com (version 1.0) used to have a link to this website https://www.livescore.in/tennis/ , which contains scores of ongoing matches. It is what I use.
I use an app called Tennis Live and live it a lot.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:59 am
by ti-amie


Anyone going to argue with this?

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:28 am
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:59 am Anyone going to argue with this?
Easily one of the greatest, but the greatest? Wouldn't commit to that without looking at other years. There are times in the late 80s to mid 90s where there is crossover so there's potential for years with Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Edberg, Becker and Ivanisevic, but also Lendl and McEnroe. I'd think late 90s and early 2000s has similar potential.

And I think there's a decent chance that there is a year or three where every participant is a Grand Slam winner. Is this 2009 year better than that just because it has the Big 4? I'm sure opinions on that will vary.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:05 am
by mick1303
In 1992 - All 8 participants were Grand Slam winners (some won their Slams later): Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Courier, Edberg, Krajicek, Chang, Korda

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:46 pm
by ponchi101
If you go by total number of slams: 2009 was indeed great, with 64.
But Mick's point is very good. In 1992 all were Slam champions. The 2009 class had three non-slammers.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:37 pm
by ti-amie

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:55 pm
by ponchi101
I have seen that shot at local level. The guy at the net did not crush the smash, the guy at the back ran it down and did crush his. And made it.
This one is still amazing.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:48 pm
by Suliso
There is a near identical by Roger playing Roddick in his early career and he did make it.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:00 pm
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:48 pm There is a near identical by Roger playing Roddick in his early career and he did make it.


Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:11 pm
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:46 pm If you go by total number of slams: 2009 was indeed great, with 64.
But Mick's point is very good. In 1992 all were Slam champions. The 2009 class had three non-slammers.
i'd probably go with 1992. The 2009 photo is all because of 3 people, and three of them aren't' contributing at all.

Re: Tennis Random, Random

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:38 pm
by ti-amie
If you look at the second clip Monfils did land the shot.