Federer has surgery for torn meniscus--out at least a month

[klacr]

I've had same concerns for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEVDM4

Kyrgios vs. Raonic wimbledon final...no thank you. Unless Raonic starts coming to the net more.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[curiosity]

..................................
Viewers switch on in far fewer numbers for players outside the big three.
................................Worrying, isn't it? I have being saying there could be trouble ahead for a long time. ...................The game could be in for an almighty slump a few years down the line. Am I being too pessimistic or does anyone else have my concerns?...................................

I agree that a slump is possible, but do not share the feeling that a slump is bad for the game I love. I preferred Forrest Hills to the current US Open venue. All the majors were better before the stadiums were expanded.

Tennis was very popular in the '20s, '30s, '40's, 50's, and 60's. In other words before the open era, before tennis was truly a Big Money Game. And I enter into evidence the scrivenings of fellows on this site, not least among them D_G, substantially affirming the existence of a beautiful game long before the players' unions broke open the chests of gold.

I would not even mind if my grandchildren came to see the game as a bit quaint, and interesting for that reason. The game will capture them sure enough. By stealth. I like tennis played at neighbor's houses and at quiet clubs. I like it played for exercise. It is not surprising that figures as diverse as the late Katherine Hepburn and Harrison Ford long started their morning with a half hour of hitting. It's a perfect exercise when started slow and easy, rhythmically, tuning up, slowly pushing the beat, until you're playing a furious game saved from yourself only by the iron laws of gentlemanly conduct. Usually.

[don_budge]

A. F. - After Federer then what?

Concerns are growing here and there about Roger's knee surgery and that his absence could easily extend to two or three months. The concern is mostly box office rather than Roger's health. Roger is apparently worth a fortune to any event he enters.

Viewers switch on in far fewer numbers for players outside the big three. The TV audience for the Cilic v Nishikori US Open final was weeny compared to the 2015 final featuring Djokovic and Federer. With the top three having dominated for over the last ten years, it's left all the other players with little to no stock value. Murray alone is also considered low stock but bankable when he plays one of the top three.

Worrying, isn't it? I have being saying there could be trouble ahead for a long time. It's healthy that top players are usurped while they are still great so the game maintains ongoing credibility. At this rate the top three will exit on their own terms, undeposed. Tennis fans will be left lamenting...

The game could be in for an almighty slump a few years down the line. Am I being too pessimistic or does anyone else have my concerns?

Would you switch on for a Kyrgios v Raonic Wimbledon final?

The don_budge teaching paradigm for teaching tennis…

The book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the living proof.


To truly understand the paradigm you must be a student of the game…as well as being the teacher. You must know and understand your tennis history. You must know the signs and understand their meanings. You must discern. You must connect the dots…those glorious three little dots that Ferdinand Celine made immortal.

You notice there is nothing but a blank page after Roger Federer…the living proof. We are in that zone now…we go forwards. Or not. Once Roger goes we are in uncharted territory…uncharted waters. As it stands it doesn't look all that good.

Whole facets of the original game have been engineered out of the equation. The game is now a boring malaise that has become an endless duel from the baseline. The truth of the matter is the modern game has always been a BORE. After 1984 when the first semifinal in a major was contested with oversized racquets the game became way too fast and it had to be slowed down…before it derailed itself. A runaway train.

It was at some point on or around 2001 that the game gradually became more and more baseline oriented due to insidious engineering. This is what the game has "evolved" to. Where can it go from here? It could go backwards if they speed up the courts to the immediate post classic era and then once more we will be faced with the same problem that we had before. We will have the likes of a Kyrgios vs. Raonic matches which will be just as or more boring than the present baseline format.

Realistically…it is the end. The end of all that was good and virtuous. The end of romance, of God and child-like dreams. Perhaps the illusion of these things will persist for some years…but it's only a matter of time. Can you envision 2034 when a child born in 2016 will turn 18 years old? I'm scared.

1984 is the title of a book that a man by the name of George Orwell wrote. It doesn't have a happy ending. Even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam says that he isn't very good at happy endings. That is because Eddie is a realist…even though his cup remains a combination of being either full or empty…he understands the nature of the beast. It's the same for the rich and successful as it is for pathological losers (which we all are). Just ask John McEnroe. He puts his shorts on one leg at a time too.

In 1984 at the U. S. Open men's semifinals all of the four men used over or mid-sized racquets. For years Bud Collins called it "the greatest day of tennis ever". I was there from start to finish…in the morning it was Stan Smith versus John Newcombe in the veteran's singles. Next up was Ivan Lendl versus Pat Cash followed by Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. The night cap was the great John McEnroe versus Jimmy Connors. Every match that day went the distance. The tennis was spell binding that's for sure. But it was the day the music died. Like Buddy Holly…tennis went down in flames for all times.

Bud Collins, while calling it the greatest day in tennis ever, never did footnote that all of the players were using oversized racquets. He either overlooked that important fact or he did it for some other reason. He is a respected tennis historian and he needs to be questioned on this. As I said the tennis was absolutely scintillating and breathtaking. I watched every single point that day and in the back of my mind I knew what I knew this very day. Tennis was finished as the game that I knew and loved growing up.

Those days are gone and better left alone. But here we are once again. It's the twilight zone. Betwixt and between. It is no longer day and it isn't night yet. Well it is…truth is it has been over for a long time. Federer in his own way has been an illusion…a man of his times. It's the racquet stupid. His superiority a product of not only his skills and equipment but that of the illusions of the past. The truth is the modern field has been weakened by atrophy and it hasn't evolved into anything as most think. It is only engineering. By making the equipment more intrinsic the species actually was in decline.

So what will the brain trust of the ITF pull out of the hat next? What dirty tricks do they have up there sleeves? You can be certain that all due respect will be paid to the moneychangers…the man behind the curtain. It's no longer a conspiracy…it's an accepted fact of life. Everyone has bought into it. It is the end. When nobody understands just how it is that we got to where we are at and have ceased to ask the important questions. We are there. Trust me.

"A return to wooden rackets would be a huge improvement for professional tennis. The biggest change in the game in the last twenty-five years, the replacement of wood by graphite, has been a bad one. I happen to think that wooden rackets are beautiful aesthetically and purer for the game. Look at baseball. Kids start with aluminium bats in Little League, then move on to graphite or kevlar or whatever in college…and then and only then …if they make it to the majors do they get to use those beautiful wooden bats that require greater expertise for success. Why not do the same thing in tennis? I think it looks great to have a little wand in your hand, instead of some ultra-thick club big enough to kill somebody with! Wood to me has glamor. You need strategy and technique. Tennis these days is sadly lacking in all these things. It's all as David Bowie said…wham, bam, thank you, ma'am."-the great John McEnroe in his autobiography "Serious".

Coming from John McEnroe this is quite a mouthful. Its white light. Its a beautiful statement that speaks of his child-like personality and his "idea" as an adolescent. It speaks of his absolute love and RESPECT for the game…his innocence. He has a "Peter Pan" complex if anything. Plus he's a perfectionist. He never wanted to "grow up". Who can blame him? I love John McEnroe like a brother. He rebelled against the system and he took them on. They were fucking with his game. He was outnumbered and there wasn't much he could do…except go down in flames. He could have quit like Bjorn Borg…except he was just getting started. But "they" managed to derail him…there is no telling what the final tape would have looked like if the game had remained "all wooden" for the duration of his career. We will never know and that is the shame of it…the horror.

I got it wrong the first time…for John it was "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke". Nasty should have been…"joke 'em if they can't take a fuck". I was right about Gonzalez…he said "fuck 'em all". He was right…so right. Look where we are.

If you know what I mean...

[bottle]

It is not surprising that figures as diverse as the late Katherine Hepburn and Harrison Ford long started their morning with a half hour of hitting. It's a perfect exercise when started slow and easy, rhythmically, tuning up, slowly pushing the beat, until you're playing a furious game saved from yourself only by the iron laws of gentlemanly conduct. Usually.

Nice. But it's Katharine not Katherine. Believe me, I know. A sub-editor with one collapsed lung at The Middletown Press changed all the a's to e's in an article by me as a way of sabotaging my relationship with the all-sport-and-game talented jock. Remember (or don't or perhaps you never knew but I sure do): She and I beat her brother and my brother in straight sets, the only time I ever beat that brother or her brother despite frequent attempts as I recall. But foolishly, perhaps even insanely, I turned down the consequent offer of skinny fool in COCOA.

[curiosity]

Nice. But it's Katharine not Katherine. ...............
................... But foolishly... I turned down the consequent offer of skinny fool in COCOA.

Quite a beastly sub-editor! Yes, I spelled K with an e, like my grandmother's name... We have equally bad spell-checkers, so I'll return the favor: Coco. No A.

The closest I ever came to K H was to play on some of the same courts, but in different decades, for example the courts at Bryn Mawr College.

We can, various of us, have conflicting views of what is good or bad for tennis, but we end up in the same place, realizing that tennis is a very pleasant sport that can be bent to varied uses, fit into wildly different particular lives. Cheers.

[bottle]

So right. And also on Coco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_Chanel).