Quote:
Originally Posted by miked
If it were really that impossible to return, maybe these guys would have made it past the 3rd round or something.
Comparing that game to the one this morning and calling them both amazing tennis because of length is silly. The tennis that was played last night was light years beyond that of the Isner match.
|
And again, you're comparing last nights match, between 2 of teh GREAT players, to a match between a couple of quality players. its a HUGE difference in the tennis world. a 10 place difference in the rankings is like going from a hall of fame pitcher to a middle relief guy for the cubs. There is a distinct and extreme change in pure talent level in Tennis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S
If you go by the description on the USTA website, I should think that everyone on the ATP tour is between 6 and 7, and probably at the higher end of that scale.
|
yes and thats the problem with it. if you go by that ranking listing *I* am a 6.0 player. I weigh 300lbs and haven't lifted my racquet in over a year. Thats the problem with the website listings, it gives you a general idea of where you "could" be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic
Glad to hear whatever it was is forgotten, Jon. So hopefully it was exaggeration. It sounded pretty bad.
Render, I'm not sure I know what it's like to face a 100-mph serve (at least one that was in more than a couple of times a set), and I can respect what they do - even Isner. I remember when I faced my first hard-server, back in high school, and my coach told me to step in, not back ten feet behind the baseline - catch it on its rise. Otherwise it plays you just like a ground ball plays an infielder if you wait for it.
But from a fan perspective, if I'm rating "good" tennis, I want to see the best playing. I don't consider the Isner game good tennis on the international level. Just because Isner can run me off the court 0-0-0 doesn't mean he's playing great tennis. I can respect what he does with his serve, but I don't think that match two years ago was anything but horrible tennis. What I still don't understand is why that makes me a bad person.
I loved watching McEnroe and Borg and Connors play. Connors could return anything. Federer is so good he's almost a machine. Nadal never lets go of a point. What I would consider classic tennis is two men at that level, up and down, never conceding a point. No one would consider any of my matches classic. I wouldn't even expect my mother to watch, and she loved tennis.
Ozzie Smith was such a proficient infielder people went to games just to see him make superhuman plays on hard grounders in the hole. That's what I remember as Great.
One other question, just to illustrate a point. Why don't we celebrate the people who finish last in a marathon? After all, they give their all, supposedly, too, and they've undoubtedly set a record for the most time spent participating in a difficult sport.
|
I don't thin you're a bad person Jim, but your initial few posts about that previous match were downright vitriolic about it. And as I stated many times that in your opinion its bad tennis to play serve and volley, thats fine we get that, but if you're using that to utterly disregard what isner and his opponent did last year then to be perfectly frank, you're wrong. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what it takes to play Tennis at that level.
Thats all I said then, thats all I said now. You're statements showed a ridiculous shallowness of understanding and appreciation of what these athletes do and What it takes to do them.
To try and compare the style and skill of the Nadals and Conners of the Tennis lore to the Isner's is just insipid. It doesn't relate. You can't expect the younger up and comers to put on the spectacle that the all time greats did and still do. That said you can't just ignore what Isner did either, it was a grueling and truly amazing thing that happened. Your scorn was, it would seem, misinformed and misplaced.
If it helps anyone understand what I mean. Federer in his teens was a serve and volley player. Same as Isner. He hit a wall and had to learn more and develop more to become who is is now. Style != Skill and it certainly doesn't equate to how good you are. it simply gives you as the viewer a guage of what you feel like watching.