Tweet
I can not get worked up about the Laver Cup, even if held in Geneva. Never cared about exhibition matches.
-
-
That being said...that was quite an exhibition that Roger Federer and Nick Kyrgios put on. Nick takes Federer seriously and plays tennis. Not daring to disrespect the man. I like that about Nick. A positive. Nick and Jack Sock played doubles against Rafael Nadal and Stefanos Tsitsipas. Nick doesn't care for Nadal...and neither do I. Another plus for Nick. I don't think Tsitsipas is too crazy about Nadal either and he tried to tolerate being on the same side of the court as him. But Nadal is a very selfish man. Very, very selfish. Childlike. Therefore an idiot. It was rather funny watching Federer trying to prop his giant ego when Nadal finds it impossible to be a team player. A leopard cannot change his spots.Originally posted by gzhpcu View Post
An exhibition is an exhibition by definition. Yet there was a lot to be gleaned regards the state of tennis and the personalities. Interesting to see Björn Borg and John McEnroe in the spotlight. They have become caricatures of their former selves but in a very pleasant way. Ironic seeing the very last of the classic era most dynamic rivalry ever on opposite sides in this exhibition. I love seeing Rod Laver too. That match you posted of him and Neale Fraser says it all.
Strange to see Nadal trying to be a doubles player. He is incapable of being a true human being. Still the scurrying around with the towels and the fucking ticks with the serve and the return. Truly he is an imbecile that can play tennis.
Best to you Phil. I know you mentally preparing yourself for your date with the surgeon. Great to hear you in a most positive frame of mind. You got this brother. -
One very interesting aspect of this exhibition in Geneva has been the doubles. It's twice as entertaining to watch as the singles. Except for Roger Federer of course. Wouldn't you know it too that Roger is the most interesting on the court with whoever he is playing with.Originally posted by gzhpcu View PostComment
-
I know what you mean. It's a meaningless event. I find it unwatchable.Originally posted by gzhpcu View PostStottyComment
-
I haven't got used to the weird "black & white" court with "colour" players on it - looks like some editing technique, just can't stop noticing its weirdness.Comment
-
Also the cheesy camaraderie...Comment
-
Treated myself to not watching.Comment
-
Seems to be the general consensus. I watched bits and pieces. In general it was not compelling. Except Roger Federer of course. He won't be around forever you know. His match with Kyrgios was interesting. Kyrgios is a different animal when he is on the court with Roger. Not completely normal of course. But better. Reminds of when McEnroe was on the court with Borg. He cleaned up his act.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
But the doubles was really interesting. Again...particularly so when Roger was on the court. He alone seemed to know where to be at all times. He alone seemed to know how to anticipate on a good poach.
The tennis in general these days is frightfully boring. I couldn't wait for the Wimbledon final to be over midway through the match. At the end it was torture.
But back to the doubles again. It was interesting to watch Nadal for instance and see what a fish out of water he was. He doesn't have the skill set. Not to say that he couldn't have learned it. But the evidence was stunning. As I have said many times..."whole elements of the foundation of the game of tennis have been engineered out of it".Comment
-
You guys all knew Europe was going to win right?
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
Hopefully when Roger retires he'll take the whole event with him.StottyComment
-
Copy that. And the cheesy camaraderie(that Phil mentioned) was tiresome.Originally posted by stotty View PostComment
Comment