Wimbledon

[stroke]

https://hughclarke.substack.com/p/alcaraz-v-djokovic-wimbledon-final?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-f1ab127a-5404-40a1-a41a-cfc86e4de919

Super good take on the match to me. The best I have seen by a long shot.

[stotty]

https://hughclarke.substack.com/p/al...a-cfc86e4de919

Super good take on the match to me. The best I have seen by a long shot.

It's a good article...good find.

His take on Novak is identical to what we have all been saying on the forum for years. He's dead right in saying that many of Novak's strengths are very subtle and go virtually unnoticed. It wasn't a great match by Novak's standards but Carlos had a lot to do with that. In the fifth set, however, Novak was right there and it was a great achievement for Carlos to overcome Novak and win because no one else has been able to in that kind of situation...and at just 20 years old.

Couple of interesting quotes from the author. The subtlety of Novak's game definitely goes unnoticed in contrast to Roger and Carlos's games' of amazing shot-making skill.

But crowds care about more than just winning.

Alcaraz is in that Federer mold. If there has been criticism of some champions, it’s often that they are too clinical for casual fans. Sampras’ cool and serve-lasered game was often branded as such, and juxtaposed against Nadal and Federer, Djokovic has probably come under a similar framing. It’s important to remember that sports are in the entertainment business at the end of the day, and players like Alcaraz are a boon for bottom lines.

[arturohernandez]

It's a good article...good find.

His take on Novak is identical to what we have all been saying on the forum for years. He's dead right in saying that many of Novak's strengths are very subtle and go virtually unnoticed. It wasn't a great match by Novak's standards but Carlos had a lot to do with that. In the fifth set, however, Novak was right there and it was a great achievement for Carlos to overcome Novak and win because no one else has been able to in that kind of situation...and at just 20 years old.

Couple of interesting quotes from the author. The subtlety of Novak's game definitely goes unnoticed in contrast to Roger and Carlos's games' of amazing shot-making skill.

I am really late to the party. One reaction.

1) Yes, I have seen Djokovic twice in person. It is like watching a ping pong match. He just covers so much ground and makes people come up with better and better shots. There was an IBM commercial playing here during WB. What we saw was that Fed had to hit a bunch of backhands and one down the line to win a point against Novak. Just one point.

A few observations:

1) Finally!!! Someone made Djokovic look should I say it..... Old. He looked slow to me. Just not as springy as he has in the past. It is to be expected. Should I predict the fall of Djokovic once more?

2) Please, please, please stop returning from way back. I mean, Alcaraz made Daniil look slow and unable to deal with playing the whole court. All court tennis matters. This idea that modern tennis is different is fluff. Tell me that any of these deep returners, Ruud, Medvedev, yes, even Rafa, would have stood a chance against Sampras. No way. Sampras might not win every time but he would just torture them. And if you have to play, Becker, Edberg and Sampras in a row there is no way they would win any majors. I was thrilled to see Alcaraz not rely on the deep return. He should put it away for good. Touch and placement count just as much as anything else.

3) This was kind of a repeat of 2008. Alcaraz handled the wind better just like Nadal did. Fed was more based on precise timing. Novak could not just hit in rhythm whenever he wanted.

4) Can someone stotty, johnyandell , stroke explain why we skipped a great champion? A new phenom emerged every ten years in the past. Then suddenly no one appeared. The article points out something really interesting. It is the ability to adapt. Most of modern tennis suddenly thought that the route to great tennis was through repetition and clean hitting. Ruud, Sinner, Thiem, Zverev all hit super clean. But they are missing the extra shot. All the other things that the big 3 have. Why did it take more than 20 years for another great champion appear compared to the past? Is it the type of training that tennis has developed? One based on repetition and perfection and not on adaptability, touch and imperfection.

Man I am starting to sound old myself...

[stroke]

I am really late to the party. One reaction.

1) Yes, I have seen Djokovic twice in person. It is like watching a ping pong match. He just covers so much ground and makes people come up with better and better shots. There was an IBM commercial playing here during WB. What we saw was that Fed had to hit a bunch of backhands and one down the line to win a point against Novak. Just one point.

A few observations:

1) Finally!!! Someone made Djokovic look should I say it..... Old. He looked slow to me. Just not as springy as he has in the past. It is to be expected. Should I predict the fall of Djokovic once more?

2) Please, please, please stop returning from way back. I mean, Alcaraz made Daniil look slow and unable to deal with playing the whole court. All court tennis matters. This idea that modern tennis is different is fluff. Tell me that any of these deep returners, Ruud, Medvedev, yes, even Rafa, would have stood a chance against Sampras. No way. Sampras might not win every time but he would just torture them. And if you have to play, Becker, Edberg and Sampras in a row there is no way they would win any majors. I was thrilled to see Alcaraz not rely on the deep return. He should put it away for good. Touch and placement count just as much as anything else.

3) This was kind of a repeat of 2008. Alcaraz handled the wind better just like Nadal did. Fed was more based on precise timing. Novak could not just hit in rhythm whenever he wanted.

4) Can someone stotty, johnyandell , stroke explain why we skipped a great champion? A new phenom emerged every ten years in the past. Then suddenly no one appeared. The article points out something really interesting. It is the ability to adapt. Most of modern tennis suddenly thought that the route to great tennis was through repetition and clean hitting. Ruud, Sinner, Thiem, Zverev all hit super clean. But they are missing the extra shot. All the other things that the big 3 have. Why did it take more than 20 years for another great champion appear compared to the past? Is it the type of training that tennis has developed? One based on repetition and perfection and not on adaptability, touch and imperfection.

Man I am starting to sound old myself...

My answer to your question is Novak, Nadal, and Federer are the 3 best players of all time, and they all played at the same time. I doubt in our lifetime we will even see one more player of that level. Alcaraz does seem to be the best tennis player post those 3. Will he win 20 Majors, the lowest rung on the ladder of the 3 great ones? I seriously doubt it. And as impressive as their Majors domination was, to me, their domination of the Masters 1000's was maybe even more mind boggling.

[stotty]

4) Can someone stotty, johnyandell , stroke explain why we skipped a great champion? A new phenom emerged every ten years in the past. Then suddenly no one appeared. The article points out something really interesting. It is the ability to adapt. Most of modern tennis suddenly thought that the route to great tennis was through repetition and clean hitting. Ruud, Sinner, Thiem, Zverev all hit super clean. But they are missing the extra shot. All the other things that the big 3 have. Why did it take more than 20 years for another great champion appear compared to the past? Is it the type of training that tennis has developed? One based on repetition and perfection and not on adaptability, touch and imperfection.

Man I am starting to sound old myself...

We haven't skipped a great champion. It's just that the Big 3 have been so phenomenal. If anyone got skipped it was Murray, and possibly Wawrinka. Murray has never really been in the same conversation as the other three but without them on the tour he would have lapped up 7 or 8 slams.

Alcaraz could win many slams in my view because in a year or two he will be the Big 1, as at the moment there is no one out there to touch him other than Novak. But someone will turn up, they always do. It will interesting to see if Carlos can do the week in week out winning that the Big 3 have been doing the last 20 years.

[jimlosaltos]

I am really late to the party. One reaction.

1) Yes, I have seen Djokovic twice in person. It is like watching a ping pong match. He just covers so much ground and makes people come up with better and better shots. There was an IBM commercial playing here during WB. What we saw was that Fed had to hit a bunch of backhands and one down the line to win a point against Novak. Just one point.

A few observations:

1) Finally!!! Someone made Djokovic look should I say it..... Old. He looked slow to me. Just not as springy as he has in the past. It is to be expected. Should I predict the fall of Djokovic once more?

2) Please, please, please stop returning from way back. I mean, Alcaraz made Daniil look slow and unable to deal with playing the whole court. All court tennis matters. This idea that modern tennis is different is fluff. Tell me that any of these deep returners, Ruud, Medvedev, yes, even Rafa, would have stood a chance against Sampras. No way. Sampras might not win every time but he would just torture them. And if you have to play, Becker, Edberg and Sampras in a row there is no way they would win any majors. I was thrilled to see Alcaraz not rely on the deep return. He should put it away for good. Touch and placement count just as much as anything else.

3) This was kind of a repeat of 2008. Alcaraz handled the wind better just like Nadal did. Fed was more based on precise timing. Novak could not just hit in rhythm whenever he wanted.

4) Can someone stotty, johnyandell , stroke explain why we skipped a great champion? A new phenom emerged every ten years in the past. Then suddenly no one appeared. The article points out something really interesting. It is the ability to adapt. Most of modern tennis suddenly thought that the route to great tennis was through repetition and clean hitting. Ruud, Sinner, Thiem, Zverev all hit super clean. But they are missing the extra shot. All the other things that the big 3 have. Why did it take more than 20 years for another great champion appear compared to the past? Is it the type of training that tennis has developed? One based on repetition and perfection and not on adaptability, touch and imperfection.

Man I am starting to sound old myself...

Get Off My Lawn! (Kidding).

Good point on the wind. Djokovic has, historically, had more trouble playing in the wind than many top ATP players.

Missing Generation? Kyrgios was a generational talent. Not emotionally suited, to put it politely. Perhaps there was another that chose soccer. A third that got injured. So much has to go right to get a career on the ATP, yet alone become a star.

As for Djokovic looking slow, agreed. Perhaps those drop shots that didn't work too well in the early going worked great after all? Remember, Djokovic was literally gasping for air in his first set vs Caspar Ruud at Roland Garros. First set! Stalled and stalled and stalled without getting a call. Worked. Recovered. Was also fading in the second set that Alcaraz won at Roland Garros. Djokovic's service and forehand speed went down by 10 mph. Then Alcaraz's attack of nerves bailed him out.

[doctorhl]

Arturo: Adaptability, not all repetition and perrfection as you stated. I agree. Partial answer may be the amount of time some elite players were exposed to other sports. Multisport exposure teaches the risk/rewards of ball manipulation skills like striking, catching and throwing, plus risk/rewards of various footwork patterns for speed, balance and change of direction. Today's elite tennis path seems closer to gymnastics with emphasis on the mental/ physical mindset n?eded for perfection, not for a variety of skills needed for adaptability in decision making.

[arturohernandez]

Arturo: Adaptability, not all repetition and perrfection as you stated. I agree. Partial answer may be the amount of time some elite players were exposed to other sports. Multisport exposure teaches the risk/rewards of ball manipulation skills like striking, catching and throwing, plus risk/rewards of various footwork patterns for speed, balance and change of direction. Today's elite tennis path seems closer to gymnastics with emphasis on the mental/ physical mindset n?eded for perfection, not for a variety of skills needed for adaptability in decision making.

I have been over at Hugh Clarke's substack, https://hughclarke.substack.com. Cannot remember who recommended it but it is very good reading. In any case, he discusses the ways in which the forehand has evolved to creating lots of spin and acceleration with very extreme grips. Think Tiafoe, Sock and Khachanov. His view is that Delpo was a better simpler model. This is similar to johnyandell 's view on the serve. Fed is a better model because he was not as flexible as Sampras and Roddick. I am guessing that Fed is probably a model for a lot of things. His game had a basic simplicity to it that could then be ratcheted up as necessary.

I don't think it is just Tennis but we can definitely see in Tennis, the idea of specialization. It is the reason that the one handed backhand has basically disappeared. It takes longer to develop and so only the very gifted one hander will stick around. That is mostly men these days. Women just won't take the risk.
In any case, yes, all of the general skills needed are lost in a litany of drills and exercises.

Borg, Lendl, Becker. They hit against the wall for hours. I used to do that too.

Ash Barty would do the same. Jason Kidd practiced passing that way. He could learn how the ball spun and learned to control it.

Now a days they would be stuck with coaches, trainers, parents, physios. Kids are supposed to mini-pros. The idea of just experimenting with things has taken a back seat.

I better stop before I sound really cranky.

[jimlosaltos]

I have been over at Hugh Clarke's substack, https://hughclarke.substack.com. Cannot remember who recommended it but it is very good reading. In any case, he discusses the ways in which the forehand has evolved to creating lots of spin and acceleration with very extreme grips. Think Tiafoe, Sock and Khachanov. His view is that Delpo was a better simpler model. This is similar to johnyandell 's view on the serve. Fed is a better model because he was not as flexible as Sampras and Roddick. I am guessing that Fed is probably a model for a lot of things. His game had a basic simplicity to it that could then be ratcheted up as necessary.

I don't think it is just Tennis but we can definitely see in Tennis, the idea of specialization. It is the reason that the one handed backhand has basically disappeared. It takes longer to develop and so only the very gifted one hander will stick around. That is mostly men these days. Women just won't take the risk.
In any case, yes, all of the general skills needed are lost in a litany of drills and exercises.

Borg, Lendl, Becker. They hit against the wall for hours. I used to do that too.

Ash Barty would do the same. Jason Kidd practiced passing that way. He could learn how the ball spun and learned to control it.

Now a days they would be stuck with coaches, trainers, parents, physios. Kids are supposed to mini-pros. The idea of just experimenting with things has taken a back seat.

I better stop before I sound really cranky.

The internet is made for cranky. If you recall Seinfeld, the Internet is "Festivus for the rest of us." The anti-Xmas "holiday for the airing of grievances". <g>.

Specialization: Years back I saw a study of great athletes that contended the margins are so small and the ability so great that those that stand out have one, small advantage and are able to assert that edge. An example they gave was James Harden, the NBA guard and at his peak one of the greatest shooters of all time. Harden, the study claimed, could STOP faster than anyone. So, he isolated opponents in two ways. First, he would stop, step back and hit a 3 point jump shot before his opponent could react. Second, if covered tightly, he'd stop, get hit - throw a shot up and get a foul shot. Often, he'd make the off balance shot and get another 3 pointer the old fashioned way.

Another example was an NBA player that could get in the air more quickly than anyone else. Can't recall who that was. Another, Vikings WR Justin Jefferson, rated 2nd best overall player in NFL. Can track a pass, go to it and perfectly high-point the reception while DB is trying to figure out where it is. There's actually a new test in NFL that's a combination of eye exam and video game. Player wears a VR goggle and tests how fast he can identify the outlier object.

49ers QB was literally the last player taken in the draft. Called in as a rookie played at a pro bowl level. Arm isn't strong. Isn't big. Isn't fast. He got one of the highest scores yet on that video recognition test. When the defensive players are running all over, trying to disguise their coverage he spots the open receiver nearly instantly (or so the argument goes. We'll see how he does this year._

I would argue the homogenization of tennis courts removed some ability to do that in tennis. Think clay court specialists, grass etc. John McEnroe, as his brother described his game - hit a swing serve, then a tear-drop volley.

Now, perhaps, we're seeing the nascent re-emergence of athletes that can assert a marginal advantage.

Sorry, I'm sounding pedantic. Just occurred to me. Perhaps on further thought it will evaporate <g>.

[stroke]

The internet is made for cranky. If you recall Seinfeld, the Internet is "Festivus for the rest of us." The anti-Xmas "holiday for the airing of grievances". <g>.

Specialization: Years back I saw a study of great athletes that contended the margins are so small and the ability so great that those that stand out have one, small advantage and are able to assert that edge. An example they gave was James Harden, the NBA guard and at his peak one of the greatest shooters of all time. Harden, the study claimed, could STOP faster than anyone. So, he isolated opponents in two ways. First, he would stop, step back and hit a 3 point jump shot before his opponent could react. Second, if covered tightly, he'd stop, get hit - throw a shot up and get a foul shot. Often, he'd make the off balance shot and get another 3 pointer the old fashioned way.

Another example was an NBA player that could get in the air more quickly than anyone else. Can't recall who that was. Another, Vikings WR Justin Jefferson, rated 2nd best overall player in NFL. Can track a pass, go to it and perfectly high-point the reception while DB is trying to figure out where it is. There's actually a new test in NFL that's a combination of eye exam and video game. Player wears a VR goggle and tests how fast he can identify the outlier object.

49ers QB was literally the last player taken in the draft. Called in as a rookie played at a pro bowl level. Arm isn't strong. Isn't big. Isn't fast. He got one of the highest scores yet on that video recognition test. When the defensive players are running all over, trying to disguise their coverage he spots the open receiver nearly instantly (or so the argument goes. We'll see how he does this year._

I would argue the homogenization of tennis courts removed some ability to do that in tennis. Think clay court specialists, grass etc. John McEnroe, as his brother described his game - hit a swing serve, then a tear-drop volley.

Now, perhaps, we're seeing the nascent re-emergence of athletes that can assert a marginal advantage.

Sorry, I'm sounding pedantic. Just occurred to me. Perhaps on further thought it will evaporate <g>.

I like your musings. It may just come down to what Al Davis coined, "just win baby".

[jimlosaltos]

I like your musings. It may just come down to what Al Davis coined, "just win baby".

Casey Stengel: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." "The game is 90 percent mental.The other half is physical."

[doctorhl]

"Assert marginal advantage"- Finding those one or two exceptional strengths that you have as a junior and building your game around it. Can we explore this a little further? My only strengths were reaction time and soft hands, but could never build a game around it. Can you guys give a few examples of players that were not especially well rounded, but maximized a particular trick and how they used it their game? Looking for the more subtle examples, as we all can probably provide a big serve, one trick pony player examples. It must be difficult for the junior player and coach interaction to decide if, when, and how to go down that road.

[stotty]

Casey Stengel: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." "The game is 90 percent mental.The other half is physical."

No, 50 percent of the game is mental, and the other half is in your mind....

[jimlosaltos]

"Assert marginal advantage"- Finding those one or two exceptional strengths that you have as a junior and building your game around it. Can we explore this a little further? My only strengths were reaction time and soft hands, but could never build a game around it. Can you guys give a few examples of players that were not especially well rounded, but maximized a particular trick and how they used it their game? Looking for the more subtle examples, as we all can probably provide a big serve, one trick pony player examples. It must be difficult for the junior player and coach interaction to decide if, when, and how to go down that road.

If I can leave out the part about "not especially well rounded", my point was about there being very little between the top players, so if one has that tiny point and can get to it repeatedly, they can differentiate themselves. I can find the examples in other sports. Tennis seems more difficult. And the other sports I mentioned actually measure these things and share that information with fans, something tennis does not. I would not have known Harden was the fastest at stopping in the NBA if its own data didn't show that. Ditto the new NFL tests that measure how fast players can visually recognize outliers in a group of objects extremely rapidly - and that top quarterbacks measure highly at that.

But I'll play along -- type these and duck <g>

McEnroe's hands/ touch at net. Exceptional. The lefty hook serve wide hook allowed him to make many of his service games all about his tear-drop volley. McEnroe used to say Donald Young had the best hands since him.

Djokovic: Return of serve. Can't find a physical attribute for that, though. Perhaps vision?

Fed: perhaps "Hand speed". Fed's more than once mentioned being gift with fast hands, so he thinks it was important.

Alcaraz: Perhaps balance. Yes, he's extraordinarily fast. But I'm amazed in photos and video how no matter how hard he's straining to reach a ball he seems centered.

Well. I tried. That's all I've got.

UPDATE: Had to come back to correct myself. My own example with Brock Purdy (from the NFL testing lab ) indicates an otherwise good but not outstanding player can differentiate himself -- here as a QB by his ability to reach coverages. That 'video game' test. That might be one that applies to tennis also. I remember Rafa coaching Fed at the Laver Cup ( can't type that one without smiling) when he was struggling against Kyrgios. Rafa said, "He sees the ball well." As a fan, I would have said "is hitting his forehand great", serve, etc. but Rafa said "sees the ball".

[don_budge]

I was really happy for Marketa and her husband and her cat! She seems cool. Loved the bet with her coach over the next tatoo.

https://www.tennis.com/baseline/articles/marketa-vondrousova-and-her-sister-got-matching-tattoos-wimbledon-win?fbclid=IwAR3G5B4V1LE-dCOBUV5_ev9F4xxa2T6W6WJUwkSRZ_tjiTHgJykxK-KUZLo