Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:16 am The rule can be easily enforced. One tournament official sitting in the players box. Lift finger, chair umpire calls the violation.
But I agree with Shriver in that, if you are not going to enforce it, take it out. Allow the coaches to become the 3rd base coach of baseball.

The official will need to speak the coach's language. They could also make the penalty harsh - one warning, next violation banned from the match, next banned from all the tournament's matches, next banned from the next tournament's matches, and so on.

You speak Russian? Because I don't, and I can easily tell when papa Kenin is coaching Sofia. And when Mama Shapo is coaching Dennis.
It is not that hard to see when somebody is being coached
Just hire a few naziPonchis that really dislike that attitude and let them roll. Heck, I loved Henin and I would still would have kicked Carlos off the box after the third game of the match.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:46 am You speak Russian? Because I don't, and I can easily tell when papa Kenin is coaching Sofia. And when Mama Shapo is coaching Dennis.
It is not that hard to see when somebody is being coached
Just hire a few naziPonchis that really dislike that attitude and let them roll. Heck, I loved Henin and I would still would have kicked Carlos off the box after the third game of the match.

You might suspect someone is being coached, but if you're going to levy penalties, you have to prove it - and in many cases that will mean documenting what was said. That would have to be the standard for any harsher penalty than what they have now.

I loved Henin, too. But coaching doesn't bother me. Don't love that they're flouting a rule but I don't like the rule and wish they allowed coaching, so I really don't care.

Come on, people... they're never going to crack down on coaching now, as they've had on-court coaching for a few years now (only for the women, which is rather embarrassing for the message it sends that women need coaching more than the men do), AND they've decided to allow coaching in non-Majors (again, only for the women).

Obviously, being strict about it in Majors would send even more of a mixed message than the one being sent now, which is itself quite mixed.

What do we think? I agree with this observation.

I think he has great speed, and a really good forehand.
Nobody is asking him to beat Roger at Wimbledon. He is being asked to beat a qualifier that he had 2-0 in sets.

No... that 'need a particular weapon' stuff is just cliché crap.
Felix's game is good enough to be top 10. But he isn't mentally mature enough to be there yet.

Whether he will evolve to achieve the mental maturity needed to be a regular member of the top 10 or not, only time will tell. I thought his solid win over Denis a couple of days ago would be a step in that direction, but today shows otherwise. Because he's still young, it's still 2 steps forward, 2 steps back at this point.

We'll have to wait to see what the future holds.

I was right, sort of, about Hsieh's lack of a clothing contract.

Sickening.

That's a wonderful story from McNamee.
I can identify, because I, too, can literally go years without breaking a string (although I alternate about 4 racquets). And I don't like the way a racquet plays right after restringing it (and I string them myself). It takes a while for the strings to settle before I'm comfortable with it.

But I can recognize a broken string right away .

I think there is a point about FAA lacking weapons and hence often losing from winning positions. He'll probably be a top 10 player and for some time, but what about his potential to be a multi Slam winner? I have my doubts... I personally are putting my virtual money on Sinner instead in the under 21 group. Also very intrigued about Alcaraz, but there it's too early to judge.

We all agree about Sinner, that he is for real. But we also agree that it will be a long time before we see a NEW 5 slam winner. Talent wise we also agree that Kyrgios seemed to be the guy that could do it, but we know that story too.
FAA may win a slam or two. He may not. The field is going to be very open and, after all, somebody has to win any slam that is played. But we have to stop comparing all these guys to the current big three or even the previous crop. Those days are gone.
I put FAA down for one slam sometime in the next ten years. Notice this: Zverev is already 23, with one Slam final appearance. And everybody was equally sold on him as we are on Sinner.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:47 pm We all agree about Sinner, that he is for real. But we also agree that it will be a long time before we see a NEW 5 slam winner. Talent wise we also agree that Kyrgios seemed to be the guy that could do it, but we know that story too.
FAA may win a slam or two. He may not. The field is going to be very open and, after all, somebody has to win any slam that is played. But we have to stop comparing all these guys to the current big three or even the previous crop. Those days are gone.
I put FAA down for one slam sometime in the next ten years. Notice this: Zverev is already 23, with one Slam final appearance. And everybody was equally sold on him as we are on Sinner.

I don't actually fully agree. It won't be that long at all. About 5-7 years till someone other than you know who will have 5 Slams. Once all three are retired things will start accumulating quickly.

Look at the post Serena women's game. Looked a bit bleak at one stage, but Naomi already has 3 Slams and would be no great surprise if she were to reach 5 this year.