Tennis Talk

[cheekyboy]

5 hours ago, ThirdDrawerDown said:

What's interesting is that Hewitt started as a d1ckhead and eventually changed completely. That's a career to be respected.     

 

Hello M, I agree with you about Hewitt and early doors he was unfortunately a product of poor parenting and he did change a lot over the course of his career. There is one glaring, stark difference between Hewitt, even when he was in his d1ckhead phase, compared to Kyrgios and Tomic and that is that he would never throw a point, game, set or even an entire match like that pair have done. His homage to the game and his respect for it's traditions and for current and former champions was always there...................unfortunately that is not the case for either Kyrgios or Tomic.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

41 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

His homage [Hewitt] to the game and his respect for it's traditions and for current and former champions was always there...................unfortunately that is not the case for either Kyrgios or Tomic.

I think Hewitt's speed and agility around the court in his early twenties was a force of nature in much the same way as one might describe lendl's backhand when he was at the top of his game. Both seemed to defy the laws of physics ! I modeled my backhand on Lendl's, I went out and got the same racquet, sadly that's as close as i got

 

I agree about Kyrgios and Tomic......at least McEnroe was entertaining, "Suuuuureelyy you can't be seriouuuuuuuus !"

[blybo]

15 hours ago, chu said:

So you rate Pat as a better serve volleyed than Sampras?

Sampras had the best serve of his generation, but he was also a supreme all court player. He didn't need to serve and volley to win, Pat did and that is why he was the best. It wasn't always classical or pretty. Often his reflex volleys were almost top spin, but he got so close to the net it still worked.

 

15 hours ago, zippi said:

Nick knows exactly what he is doing and is creating a brand through notoriety that will yield generous profits and none of the burden (and effort) of having to remain in the top 3 or 5 or even 10. With a more serious approach a solid run in the top 5 is well within his grasp and reach - yet precisely because of corporatisation of players and the fake morality of winning  - his every "false" move generates enormous waves.

I agree. Everything about him is to appeal to the Gen Z crowd. He could and probably should be #1 by now, he has supreme talent as he shows now and again. From Wiki about Gen Z

Quote

They also uniquely feel a pressure to play up, play down, or challenge what is expected of them, both in their personal and public lives

Hence they connect with him and Nike and Beats pay him a fortune to be the bad boy. There is so much money in the game today that he will probably soon earn more than Novak, purely because of the marketability of him to a generation who will soon be the biggest spenders in the world economy.

[cheekyboy]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I think Hewitt's speed and agility around the court in his early twenties was a force of nature in much the same way as one might describe lendl's backhand when he was at the top of his game. Both seemed to defy the laws of physics ! I modeled my backhand on Lendl's, I went out and got the same racquet, sadly that's as close as i got

 

I agree about Kyrgios and Tomic......at least McEnroe was entertaining, "Suuuuureelyy you can't be seriouuuuuuuus !"

Hello David, did you learn your tennis in the Hunter Valley?............................I taught the game in several venues/clubs throughout the Hunter Valley and we may have crossed paths.

 

John McEnroe, despite all the gamesmanship, always gave 100% on the court and has always been a strong advocate for the traditions of the game.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited July 18, 2019 by cheekyboy

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

39 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

Hello David, did you learn your tennis in the Hunter Valley?............................I taught the game in several venues/clubs throughout the Hunter Valley and we may have crossed paths.

 

John McEnroe, despite all the gamesmanship, always gave 100% on the court and has always been a strong advocate for the traditions of the game.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Hi Keith,

No, I grew up and lived in Sydney until recently. I played competition tennis at Eastern suburbs tennis club in Coogee but never made it to A grade.

 

I had a ton of lessons and as said, bought great gear. My wife even bought me designer tennis outfits but strangely my backhand never rivaled Lendls.

 

Replete with all my gear I took a lesson one day from a crusty old coach. He sent me down the other end saying " I'll fire a few balls at you and lets see what you've got". Several minutes later I emerged from the challenge feeling pretty cocky saying, "How did I look?"

 

He replied "Man, you looked fantastic......you play like sh*t, but you looked fantastic !"

 

C'est La Vie !

 

Cheers

David

Edited July 18, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[LHC]

Dare one say 'generation gap'? 

 

Sure, I get the need for respecting the tradition and the way of the game and the people involved. But it is a fine line to walk and avoid being perceived as 'stale'. Tennis at the pro level is a spectator sport, and one could argue it needs to move with the time and its audience. 

 

If one is involved with coaching, then by all means teach the younglings the respect and tradition of the game; as parent paying for tennis lessons we do appreciate that. OTOH as parents we also want our kids to find themselves and pave their own way. If that means breaking with tradition, or defining different measures of success, then we should ultimately respect their judgement and let them be their own person. 

[cheekyboy]

3 hours ago, LHC said:

Dare one say 'generation gap'? 

 

Sure, I get the need for respecting the tradition and the way of the game and the people involved. But it is a fine line to walk and avoid being perceived as 'stale'. Tennis at the pro level is a spectator sport, and one could argue it needs to move with the time and its audience. 

 

If one is involved with coaching, then by all means teach the younglings the respect and tradition of the game; as parent paying for tennis lessons we do appreciate that. OTOH as parents we also want our kids to find themselves and pave their own way. If that means breaking with tradition, or defining different measures of success, then we should ultimately respect their judgement and let them be their own person. 

Agree, tennis at the pro level is a spectator sport, so explain what happened to those poor saps that paid their hard earned cash for a seat to watch Tomic lose his first round match at Wimbledon this year in 57 minutes..................the bloke didn't try and only turned up so he could collect his first round loser's prize money.There is no way anyone can condone the appalling behaviour of Kyrgios and Tomic and put it down to them just being their own person. You don't have to look far to find literally hundreds if not thousands of young players here in Australia making their way in tennis, at a junior level, club level and indeed at a pro level and none of them behave like Kyrgios and Tomic and beleive me, they are far from stale.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited July 18, 2019 by cheekyboy

[cheekyboy]

25 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Hi Keith,

No, I grew up and lived in Sydney until recently. I played competition tennis at Eastern suburbs tennis club in Coogee but never made it to A grade.

 

I had a ton of lessons and as said, bought great gear. My wife even bought me designer tennis outfits but strangely my backhand never rivaled Lendls.

 

Replete with all my gear I took a lesson one day from a crusty old coach. He sent me down the other end saying " I'll fire a few balls at you and lets see what you've got". Several minutes later I emerged from the challenge feeling pretty cocky saying, "How did I look?"

 

He replied "Man, you looked fantastic......you play like sh*t, but you looked fantastic !"

 

C'est La Vie !

 

Cheers

David

 

LOL, David, you've painted a very funny picture there.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

22 minutes ago, LHC said:

Dare one say 'generation gap'? 

 

Sure, I get the need for respecting the tradition and the way of the game and the people involved. But it is a fine line to walk and avoid being perceived as 'stale'. Tennis at the pro level is a spectator sport, and one could argue it needs to move with the time and its audience. 

 

If one is involved with coaching, then by all means teach the younglings the respect and tradition of the game; as parent paying for tennis lessons we do appreciate that. OTOH as parents we also want our kids to find themselves and pave their own way. If that means breaking with tradition, or defining different measures of success, then we should ultimately respect their judgement and let them be their own person. 

Hi LHC

I apologize upfront as I am probably misinterpreting your post.

 

I don't see respecting tradition and avoiding being stale as mutually exclusive.

 

I am not really 100% sure what respecting tradition means but if it entails a certain code of behaviour or sportsmanship, I am all for it ( as I gather you are too). I don't have a problem with the game technically progressing or players earning outrageous prize money or sponsorship deals.

 

I am just struggling to see where the "generation gap" applies.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

[Nigel]

In my biased opinion, I think the "generation gap" is the cultural shift in Australia from British to American, due to TV content.

The first time I experienced a crowd heckling young players/kids was when I went to the local oval to  kick a footy and there was a game of baseball being played. Then the tennis champs went from being humble and gracious (Rod, Kenny, Newk, Roy) to Connors and McEnroe and their tantrums. Sorry I know I'm painting with a broad brush but I preferrd it when we were more British.

 I also attribute the downturn in Australian cricket team behaviour to those nasty South Australian brothers/brats who also played baseball. Maybe it was there before them, I was too young to know.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Nigel

[zippi]

3 hours ago, blybo said:

 

19 hours ago, zippi said:

Nick knows exactly what he is doing and is creating a brand through notoriety that will yield generous profits and none of the burden (and effort) of having to remain in the top 3 or 5 or even 10. With a more serious approach a solid run in the top 5 is well within his grasp and reach - yet precisely because of corporatisation of players and the fake morality of winning  - his every "false" move generates enormous waves.

I agree. Everything about him is to appeal to the Gen Z crowd. He could and probably should be #1 by now, he has supreme talent as he shows now and again. From Wiki about Gen Z

Quote

They also uniquely feel a pressure to play up, play down, or challenge what is expected of them, both in their personal and public lives

Hence they connect with him and Nike and Beats pay him a fortune to be the bad boy. There is so much money in the game today that he will probably soon earn more than Novak, purely because of the marketability of him to a generation who will soon be the biggest spenders in the world economy.

My thinking exactly....

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

59 minutes ago, Nigel said:

In my biased opinion, I think the "generation gap" is the cultural shift in Australia from British to American, due to TV content.

The first time I experienced a crowd heckling young players/kids was when I went to the local oval to  kick a footy and there was a game of baseball being played. Then the tennis champs went from being humble and gracious (Rod, Kenny, Newk, Roy) to Connors and McEnroe and their tantrums. Sorry I know I'm painting with a broad brush but I preferrd it when we were more British.

 I also attribute the downturn in Australian cricket team behaviour to those nasty South Australian brothers/brats who also played baseball. Maybe it was there before them, I was too young to know.

Funnily enough I was talking to someone about something similar the other day.

 

I believe every nation/culture has it's lets say unpleasant characters and maybe everyone has potential for some bad behaviour. It seems there is certain circumstances like the anonymity of the internet or getting behind the steering wheel of a car that facilitates that bad behaviour.

 

At a broader level I think the world in general is/has changed as influenced by social media and the internet. Gracious behaviour does seem more of a rarity but certainly not gone.

 

In essence there is more of a dichotomy in my observation where  gracious behaviour and bad boy/girl behaviour are *both* laudable (backed by their respective advocates) . Not just on the Tennis court but Trump on twitter or on internet fora where civility is sometimes mistakenly seen as a weakness, someone needing a "safe space" and being a "snowflake".

 

 

[LHC]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I don't see respecting tradition and avoiding being stale as mutually exclusive.

 

I am not really 100% sure what respecting tradition means but if it entails a certain code of behaviour or sportsmanship, I am all for it ( as I gather you are too). I don't have a problem with the game technically progressing or players earning outrageous prize money or sponsorship deals.

The issue is not about what you and I can see or value. I can certainly concur that following a code of behaviour, displaying sportsmanship, embracing hardwork and dedication to one's craft are all worthy attributes. But if we insists that all generations must embrace the same set of values then we missed the point of generation gap. We should be wise enough to accept that each generation will choose what values matter to them without being judgemental about the actual choices made. For example the traditional spectator may value a Djokovic vs Federer match featuring technical skills and mental fortitude of the highest order; yet it may be possible that the youngest generation find such contest 'stale' if it doesn't have crazy shots, slapstick antics, or other entertainment value fine-tuned for the shortest attention span. You would not find Djokovic or Federer daring to try an underhand serve; but Kyrgios did. Maybe Kyrgios fans are only there to watch him play, be entertained by his unexpected antics and spectacle, and don't really care if he wins or not. You may say the player is now 'bigger' than the game, and you may be right. But that is all a part of that generation gap.

 

Finally you may have already seen this new article of a young spectator who was seriously criticised for reading a book during the Federer vs Nadal match:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/wimbledon/commentator-roasts-wimbledon-spectator-for-not-paying-full-attention-to-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal/news-story/2c47e39af342f5fb3576703e2972abba

[ThirdDrawerDown]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

civility is sometimes mistakenly seen as a weakness, someone needing a "safe space" and being a "snowflake"

The Christchurch murders survivors have said that the best thing any person can do is to call out hate speech when it appears. The process of turning people into objects and, by dehumanising them, making it "OK" to further abuse them, starts with insults and degrading labels. "Snowflake" is a typical example.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, LHC said:

The issue is not about what you and I can see or value. I can certainly concur that following a code of behaviour, displaying sportsmanship, embracing hardwork and dedication to one's craft are all worthy attributes. But if we insists that all generations must embrace the same set of values then we missed the point of generation gap. We should be wise enough to accept that each generation will choose what values matter to them without being judgemental about the actual choices made. For example the traditional spectator may value a Djokovic vs Federer match featuring technical skills and mental fortitude of the highest order; yet it may be possible that the youngest generation find such contest 'stale' if it doesn't have crazy shots, slapstick antics, or other entertainment value fine-tuned for the shortest attention span. You would not find Djokovic or Federer daring to try an underhand serve; but Kyrgios did. Maybe Kyrgios fans are only there to watch him play, be entertained by his unexpected antics and spectacle, and don't really care if he wins or not. You may say the player is now 'bigger' than the game, and you may be right. But that is all a part of that generation gap.

 

Finally you may have already seen this new article of a young spectator who was seriously criticised for reading a book during the Federer vs Nadal match:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/wimbledon/commentator-roasts-wimbledon-spectator-for-not-paying-full-attention-to-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal/news-story/2c47e39af342f5fb3576703e2972abba

I hear you but I think that there is more in common across generations than that which separates them.

 

If I look at the great playwrights from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller, poets from TS Elliot to Leonard Cohen, theologians, philosophers from Plato to Descartes, songs from Porter to Adelle and Amy Whitehouse......I submit that the human condition has not changed that much. Sure, superficial expressions like fashion and hair styles change but people  basically  have the same aspirations, need to love and to be loved, search for meaning and purpose. The rest of the stuff is just little stuff.

 

I don't see it as one generation being judgemental to another, just tackling the same problems from a different perspective.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

[LHC]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If I look at the great playwrights from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller

Arthur Miller's "All my sons" is an example of the difference in values between one generation and the next. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, LHC said:

Arthur Miller's "All my sons" is an example of the difference in values between one generation and the next. 

It could be argued quite the opposite. I believe the theme/s for "All my sons" are far more universal and cross generational, cross cultural and timeless. That is what makes Miller (and Shakespeare et al) great IMO.

 

The values of moral corruption, betrayal, and family relationships are just as applicable today as then. Joe, who was responsible for the crime of supplying faulty plane engine parts in WW2, was allegedly motivated by the more noble sentiment of looking after his family, and his son. What he forgot was that all the people who died as a result of his actions could also be considered "all my sons".

 

If you look at the Crucible I think there is a stronger arguments there about different value systems applying to a society or culture, or if you will generations. Still, I don't see it that way. It says to me you can't just burn people at the stake because you think they are a witch (or blow them up  in the name of religion). It describes how warped values can become in the service of popular factional beliefs which condition us to think and act in a particular way. There are countless examples of this in history and so very applicable to current times IMO. Just the names and circumstances change.

 

Very importantly I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be judgemental about choices our kids make just because they are not our choices. However, there is a big difference between "go your own way" and "go your own way irrespective of the moral imperative". Perversion of the moral imperative can be seen today just as easily as in bygone eras. What is the moral imperative? I dunno except I know it when i see it, it is something handed down the generations by playwrights, poets, philosophers and theologians

 

Cheers

David

Edited July 19, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[Wimbo]

On 18/07/2019 at 6:58 PM, ThirdDrawerDown said:

The Christchurch murders survivors have said that the best thing any person can do is to call out hate speech when it appears. The process of turning people into objects and, by dehumanising them, making it "OK" to further abuse them, starts with insults and degrading labels. "Snowflake" is a typical example.

So is "Racist".

[LHC]

On 19/07/2019 at 8:36 AM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What he forgot was that all the people who died as a result of his actions could also be considered "all my sons".

He didn't simply forget, he never had that value in him from the start. It only dawn on him at the end of the play. 

 

On 19/07/2019 at 8:36 AM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Very importantly I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be judgemental about choices our kids make just because they are not our choices. However, there is a big difference between "go your own way" and "go your own way irrespective of the moral imperative". Perversion of the moral imperative can be seen today just as easily as in bygone eras. What is the moral imperative? I dunno except I know it when i see it, it is something handed down the generations by playwrights, poets, philosophers and theologians

You are starting to sound like Jordan Peterson . Moral discourses that inevitably involve politics and religion are going to be frown upon by the mods. I suggests we stop while we are ahead, and return to the OP topic of discussing tennis and Wimbledon. 

[Candyflip]

1 hour ago, LHC said:

return to the OP topic of discussing tennis and Wimbledon. 

Great idea. 

[ThirdDrawerDown]

First discussion of The Crucible I can recall on SNA, and good points made. On the topic of changing one's nature, here is the view from the Grand Slam board of control after Wimbledon re Mr Tomic:

 

Quote

Australian tennis bad boy Bernard Tomic has been denied in his appeal to overturn a fine for not playing to "required professional standards" at Wimbledon, amid a stern reprimand from the grand slam board.

The 26-year-old lost his first-round match last month, 6-2, 6-1, 6-4 to Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and was fined his winnings of 45,000 pounds (NZ$83,170) as organisers ruled his effort wasn't up to scratch in the 58-minute loss....

 

Quote

However the board did not overturn their decision, and event went on to crucify his attitude to the sport, in a letter sent his way.

"A review of your historical record of misconduct at grand slams, never mind elsewhere, provides little justification for an adjustment," board director Bill Babcock wrote, in the letter which was published in the New York Times.

"In your case, Bernard, I am sure you would agree there is no historical evidence to give comfort to the theory that you can reform your behaviour."

"Admittedly, I am sceptical that you can achieve this reform of grand slam on- court behaviour," Babcock wrote. "Many others, no doubt, would be even more than just sceptical.

"Good luck and I hope to be pleasantly surprised in the future by your successful reform."

Tomic said he would appeal the decision further, though.

"I don't care about this 25 percent; I care about the right thing for players in the future," he told the New York Times.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/114390064/bernard-tomic-reprimanded-by-tennis-officials-as-wimbledon-appeal-rejected

 

The line "I care about the right thing" certainly had me rolling on the floor laughing.  The man appears oblivious to the idea of "wake-up call".

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by ThirdDrawerDown

[cheekyboy]

9 hours ago, LHC said:

I suggests we stop while we are ahead, and return to the OP topic of discussing tennis and Wimbledon. 

Agree 100%, LHC, I was wondering what was going on with the off topic remarks and thinking this can only end poorly.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[HdB]

It is a bit off the subject but quite refreshing to hear some info about some of our more irritating tennis competitors - I have never thought some of this 'bad behavior' was actually intentional and media driven - it's interesting to see it that way - love the comments about McEnroe but yes, the man was/still is all fighter, even on a bad day

 

Curiously, a bit off the subject but,  the excellent court behavior of our women on the cricket and the Netball - jeez, some of that netball is like football, and with a smile at the end!

[ThirdDrawerDown]

The First Round Performance rule is on page 42 of the Grand Slam Rules and Tomic does have a point that the match umpire should have pinged him but did not. Even so, it's a flimsy foundation to base an appeal on.

 

He'll probably play the victim card and "poor me". Maybe some crowd-funding for his next appeal?

 

The New York Times reports that:

Quote

Tomic took particular issue with Babcock’s refrain that he was required to use “best efforts at all times,” saying that conservation of energy and strategic tanking are part of the sport.

This could get technical: the Rule does not require "best efforts at all times", just "play to a professional standard". If Tomic is right and "strategic tanking" is part of playing tennis to a professional standard, then a small gap in his favour opens.

 

As a spectator I don't want to spend time or money to watch tanking. The sponsors probably have the same view: for a start, tanking tarnishes their brands by association.

Edited July 20, 2019 by ThirdDrawerDown

[LHC]

'Tanking' does happen in professional sports, not just in tennis, and sometimes for good reasons. The morality is certainly questionable especially from the paying audience point of view.

 

I recall Mats Wilander was criticised for skipping the smaller tournaments to save himself up for the Grand Slams, and ended up winning seven titles. That was not tanking, but Wilander was clearly been strategic to the irks of his peers. 

 

As for Tomic, his hitting partner Djokovic thinks taking the prize money away was not fair - https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Novak_Djokovic/73554/novak-djokovic-tomic-has-a-history-of-playing-matches-with-less-effort-/

 

Edit: for spelling

Edited July 21, 2019 by LHC