Page 16 of 308
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:38 pm
by ponchi101
It will happen to all. Roger's 21 may not be there. Rafa's 2nd Aussie neither.
That is the reason that for us Pete's fans his last slam was so great. The last time we saw him he won his match, and he won his very last point at the net, hitting a winning volley.
For Serena's fans, these last losses are not enjoyable.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:04 pm
by Liamvalid
I’d like to think I saw enough from Serena to get 24 at Wimbledon, but that may be wishful thinking
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:08 pm
by Suliso
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:04 pm
I’d like to think I saw enough from Serena to get 24 at Wimbledon, but that may be wishful thinking
The very last chance, but I find even that unlikely.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:26 pm
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:21 am
Two of the three best American women played earlier. The USTA will never forgive itself for deciding Osaka wasn't worth their time.
Gilbert was talking about US men. Women's tennis is always an afterthought in the US.
So Gilbert was saying this on the broadcast the other day and Patrick was commentating with him. Brad says all this, and Patrick says basically yes, good idea. Brad keeps going. Patrick says something along the lines of "wonderful, now go find the funding for that, convince them to change X number of courts to clay, convince them the program needs to require the time on it, get the investors to buy into the idea" and Brad throws something out, Patrick throws out another obstacle just the same. Brad basically says, well why can they do it so easily in Spain and France, and Patrick doesn't give a clear answer but says it should be easy, it's just not. Whoever the powers that be are that bankroll the USTA, they are not here for red clay courts in various locations around the US, that's just the bottom line.
There may be more, this is off the top of my head - American women (besides Serena) good on clay - Sloane, Shelby, Amanda, Madison, Danielle, Caty, Bernarda
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:42 pm
by JTContinental
I was wondering when the Suliso Serena death knell tour would start up
She just waxed the world #2 2 days ago. Really what she needs is to avoid drawing Osaka, who has a younger, better version of her game--the title would have been hers here had Naomi gone out earlier.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:45 pm
by ti-amie
Clay courts make you have to learn how to really play tennis. Point construction. Positioning. Staying on top of things mentally. Having to be in pretty good physical shape. Once you've mastered those lessons playing on a hard court is a different proposition.
What's being lost in all the Jen Brady hype is that she hired German coaches and spent a lot of time during the lockdown there. The man she worked with is in Melbourne with her.
Madison Keys good on clay with her style of play? Receipts please.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:47 pm
by Suliso
Let me rephrase my question - which American players are better on clay than on hard court? There are several which are not too bad, but better than on hard?
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:51 pm
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:47 pm
Let me rephrase my question - which American players are better on clay than on hard court? There are several which are not too bad, but better than on hard?
I believe Shelby Rogers prefers clay. She grew up playing on green clay. I think Madison Keys has said she really likes clay now and maybe even better than hard court, can't remember - she likes how the ball sits up and gives her more time to rip. Don't know about Kenin but wouldn't surprise me.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:29 pm
by ponchi101
I grew up playing in both clay and hard. I find the idea that hard courts make you less disciplined somewhat unfounded.
In hard courts, in the past and for people like us (me), you could sprint very quickly for the shot. But if your opponent had you in the run, your recovery was more difficult: depending on your speed it could take as many as three steps to finally stop and come back. A good placed volley into the open court would beat you. On clay, you would learn to slide into the shot so that at your point of contact that would be the furthest you would be out. From there, recovering to the middle is easier because you already stopped. The same volley would now not win the point.
Examples like "look at Roger, he won everywhere but Pete could never win on clay, and Roger grew up on clay. Therefore, clay is better" are a little misleading too. Look at Delpo. He grew up on clay but his best results are on hard. More power to clay? Maybe, but the reality is that most countries favor clay courts so most players will come from a clay upbringing. Cilic is a similar example. But you would ask: Ok, they are good players who won Slams on hard, but if clay was the key issue, why did they never win on the same clay that they grew up? Delpo has made only 2 SF at RG and 2 SF at Madrid, the other clay court event he has performed the best. His sole MS1000 is at IW. So, he grew up on clay and plays better on hard? It makes little sense.
My idea: America is simply going through a natural random slump, in the men's. The women are doing fine and they win and play well everywhere (Sloane's second GS final was at RG). It is not the clay, it is not the style, it is simple randomness and the memory of when the USA was the powerhouse.
Look at Australia. Almost two full decades of dominance, growing up on grass. And then, this huge void. Simply because the rest of the world started to play tennis too, when they became affluent. You want more champions? Put more racquets in the hands of kids. The best will rise.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:34 pm
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:29 pm
I grew up playing in both clay and hard. I find the idea that hard courts make you less disciplined somewhat unfounded.
In hard courts, in the past and for people like us (me), you could sprint very quickly for the shot. But if your opponent had you in the run, your recovery was more difficult: depending on your speed it could take as many as three steps to finally stop and come back. A good placed volley into the open court would beat you. On clay, you would learn to slide into the shot so that at your point of contact that would be the furthest you would be out. From there, recovering to the middle is easier because you already stopped. The same volley would now not win the point.
Examples like "look at Roger, he won everywhere but Pete could never win on clay, and Roger grew up on clay. Therefore, clay is better" are a little misleading too. Look at Delpo. He grew up on clay but his best results are on hard. More power to clay? Maybe, but the reality is that most countries favor clay courts so most players will come from a clay upbringing. Cilic is a similar example. But you would ask: Ok, they are good players who won Slams on hard, but if clay was the key issue, why did they never win on the same clay that they grew up? Delpo has made only 2 SF at RG and 2 SF at Madrid, the other clay court event he has performed the best. His sole MS1000 is at IW. So, he grew up on clay and plays better on hard? It makes little sense.
My idea: America is simply going through a natural random slump, in the men's. The women are doing fine and they win and play well everywhere (Sloane's second GS final was at RG). It is not the clay, it is not the style, it is simple randomness and the memory of when the USA was the powerhouse.
Look at Australia. Almost two full decades of dominance, growing up on grass. And then, this huge void. Simply because the rest of the world started to play tennis too, when they became affluent. You want more champions? Put more racquets in the hands of kids. The best will rise.
Yes, there are so many factors, including individuality. Someone's game might not develop for the surface most available to them.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:46 pm
by ti-amie
I still think that learning to play - the mental and physical part of the sport - on clay is where kids should start. The game you develop may be better played on hard courts but you would know how to construct a point for example, something many US players are unable to do. Constructing a point on a hard court is different than on clay but the concept behind constructing a point would be embedded in you and not some alien thought process.
If you look at players like Feliciano Lopez, David Ferrer, Delpo as has been mentioned, their games are better suited for hard courts but they have the basics, the mechanics, down pat. Just because you learn on clay doesn't mean you have to be a clay court specialist. I think that attitude is changing though and that is a good thing.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:29 pm
by Deuce
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:17 pm
Look at Canada - produced nothing ever and now great talents on both sides.
^ That's because we brought in people from France to set up here and run our programs.
Seriously.
This current wave of top Canadian players - from Milos and Genie onward (if Genie can be considered a top player) - occurred after Louis Borfiga, Nathalie Tauziat, Guillaume Marx, and others came over from France.
Not all the players went through the system directly (Denis and Leylah didn't, for example) - but the foundation these French (from France) people installed here had an indirect positive effect on them, all the same.
This French teaching system is done mostly on hardcourts here, by the way, with comparatively little done on clay.
We have had some decent players in the past, by the way - Carling Bassett... Helen Kelesi... Aleksandra Wozniak...
Glenn Michibata, Grant Connel, Sebastien Lareau, and Daniel Nestor in doubles...
Mary Pierce and Greg Rusedski were both born in Montreal (to different parents!). Rusedski was raised in Montreal and learned his tennis in Canada...
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:17 pm
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:45 pm
Madison Keys good on clay with her style of play? Receipts please.
Madison has been a Semi-Finalist and Quarterfinalist at the French, she's won Charleston/Family Circle/Whatever current name may be and also been runner up at least one other time, and she's been in the finals at one of the big European tournaments, I think it was Italy. She's injured so often I think it's easy to forget, but she's actually done well on the surface. But as I've mentioned before, it doesn't get criticized much, but her non-US travel schedule is suspect.
As for others - Shelby definitely grew up on clay, she's from Charleston. Anisimova grew up playing on hard courts and clay courts from what I remember, but obviously her best results thus far have been on clay. Sloane has said it's her favorite surface in the past. Bernarda is unquestionably best on clay. Caty, I'm not sure she's had enough time on the regular tour yet, but she was runner up at the French juniors, also won doubles there with Iga. And now that I'm writing that, pretty certain Caty lost that year to Coco. So she's another one.
Another one I just thought of on the horizon is Emma Navarro. Billionaire whose dad owns the tournament in Charleston, so clearly she's played on it. I believe she's also a RU at the French juniors in recent years.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:26 pm
by ti-amie
Don't stone me but I don't count the "green clay" of the US as "real" clay because it's not.
I did forget about Keys runs at the French.
Since it seems there's going to be a clay season this year I remain to be convinced that folks like Pera, Anisimova et all will prove themselves on the real terre battue.
Re: Tennis Random, Random
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:40 pm
by JazzNU
I think it's real clay for sure. Different than red clay, but still a clay court that shouldn't be discounted.
What I've noticed over the years about green clay is that it is "but that was on green clay" to downplay a Madison Keys or Angie Kerber winning there, but it's merely "she did win Charleston" when it's explaining the good clay court results of Stosur, Ostapekno, Bertens, Jankovic, Petrova, or take your pick. If it's someone known as a hard court player they "but that was green clay" them, but it's someone known to do well on clay in general, it's just "Charleston Open Winner or Finalist" with no qualifiers.