2012年3月13日 星期二

On Time Wasting

From RF.com tvradke  Written on: 03/12/2012 | 06:07 PM

People have been noticing this for a very long time. Since Nadal was 19. But the officials have never had the guts to do anything about it. Nadal, Djokovic and a number of others can continue making a mockery of the rules. I always thought that if Roddick had been the dominant player of this era instead of Roger, the likes of Nadal would have struggled to be that slow on the court. Roddick would have simply gotten to the line in 10 seconds and waited and looked at the umpire on every point and sooner rather than later, the official would be compelled to act. Roger is too nice to make a big deal out of this and instead tells himself to adapt and keep his focus. Roddick simply did not get any real opportunities to play Nadal when he himself was a top 3 player. I remember Ljubicic once commenting after he lost to Nadal in 2005 French Open saying that the amount of time Nadal took between points was ridiculous. People have been talking about it all along but it is all just talk.

早從 Nadal 十九歲大家就已經注意到這件事了(發球拖時間)。但官方從沒有魄力來採取相關作為。Nadal, Djokovic 跟其他幾位可以繼續嘲笑規則沒關係。我總是幻想如果之前是 Roddick 的時代而非 Roger 的,像 Nadal 這種拖時間的選手就不會在場上膽敢這樣慢條斯理來發球。Roddick 十秒內就會回到底線等發球,然後會每分都盯著主審看,遲早官方會被迫採取行動。Roger 就是人太好才沒對這種事大驚小怪,他反而告訴自己要去適應、保持專注。Roddick 在前三時根本沒啥機會跟 Nadal 對上。我記得 Ljubicic 05年法網輸給 Nadal 後曾經說過 Nadal 分與分之間所花的時間實在多到荒繆。大家講這件事講很久了,不過就也只是講講。 

2012年2月15日 星期三

You've got to be LINdding me!!!

Jeremy Lin's game-winner against Rap helped Knicks win six streak games.

2012年2月13日 星期一

奪走巨人隊的光采:林書豪—籃壇的Tim Tebow,零度太陽處女

Robert Phoenix » Giant Buzz Kill; Introducing Jeremy Lin, B-Ball’s Tim Tebow, Zero Degree Virgo Sunshine

February 11th, 2012 @ 7:45 pm by Robert Phoenix

Linsane in the membrane.

The universe has a wicked sense of humor. The New York Nephillim, I mean Giants, barely had a chance to shine in the glow of the Super Bowl’s lesser light when some Taiwanese-American kid with a crew cut, who by the way, also happens to be a Tim Tebowesque Christian, has taken New York by storm and somehow managed to eclipse the Giant achievement. Yes, I’m talking about Jeremy Lin.

宇宙有個惡趣味的幽默;紐約懼人,呃我是說巨人幾乎沒時間好好享受贏超級盃的滋味,因為這位平頭台裔美籍小子,剛好也像Tim Tebow一樣是基督徒,如風暴一般席捲紐約,把巨人隊奪冠的光環完全掩蓋。是的,我就是在說林書豪。

If you don’t know who Jeremy Lin is, I guarantee that if he keeps playing the way he has been, you will.


Let’s get the key astro stuff out of the way, do a little back story, then drill down.


2012年2月11日 星期六

2012年2月4日 星期六

球員分析 - Tsonga, Isner, Soderling

From RF.com feddy052377 Written on: 01/29/2012 | 07:24 AM

Taken as a whole, these guys would have to serve really well and hit big throughout a match to win, something that's difficult to do over a best of 5 sets format. That's the "beauty" of ND's, AM's, and RN's games -- THEY don't need to have an "on" day necessarily, i.e., serve really well or hit the ball deep consistently; they can simply play the odds that the opponent can't continue hitting big and serving big the entire match.


Individually, all of these guys have huge holes in their games.


2012年2月3日 星期五

澳網四強 (上半籤)

From RF.com feddy052377 Written on: 01/29/2012 | 03:56 AM

As for Djoko/Murray, I mentioned at the start of the tournament that that was a 50-50 match and it was. It's not that Djoko was playing particularly poorly (even though both he and Murray were playing badly), but that it's an awkward matchup. Murray has defeated Djoko plenty of times on hard courts. His return is just as good, BH just as good, first serve is bigger although he didn't display it, volleys better, and his defense is just as good. If Murray comes to play, that matchup is always going to be awkward and tight.


On another note, the tour might want to take a look at the ugly nature of the Djoko/Murray match to see the future of the tour. Neither player could hit through the other on this court and because of the other's defense. There was no where to go. Every player is going to play like this in the future to maximize their chances because this style of play with today's courts yields results and reduces the variance in results, i.e., no ups and downs really, make the other player win with his offense and if his offense isn't good enough, then you win.


2012 澳網決賽用時真相

Length of Aussie final didn't add up

By Kamakshi Tandon Special to ESPN.com


But just as the numbers don't do justice to the drama of the contest and the quality of certain stages of Sunday's match, they don't quite tell the full story about its length, either.


2012 澳網決賽 Time to reflect...

By Jim Courier 

"It’s hard to get my head wrapped around the physical effort I saw Sunday night in Melbourne, even a few days later. The tennis Novak and Rafa were able to summon late in the match boggles my mind. Ivan Lendl and I were talking about it Monday morning on our way back to the States, and both of us were shaking our heads and asking the same question: How could they possibly not cramp up out there? Ivan and I were known to be among the fittest of our time, but neither of us felt like we could have possibly made it through the way those guys did. It was a hot night (Novak changed his first shirt at the 30-minute mark) and the rallies were brutal from the get-go.

即使幾天過後,我還是無法理解決賽他們倆人的體力到底哪來的。Novak與Rafa比賽後段越打越好這點真是令我費解。Ivan Lendl與我回美國的路上有談到這個,我們都想不透並有著同樣的疑問:他們怎麼可能沒抽筋?Ivan跟我以前都以體力著名,但都不認為自己可以像他們那樣打。那晚很熱(Novak半小時就換了第一件球衣),一開始對抽更是激烈。

Whatever it is that these guys are drinking/eating on court, I want some immediately to stave off my jet lag."


weak public statement but we get it....

Yeah, we certainly did, didn't we? XDDD

2012年2月2日 星期四

Gotta Admire Your Highness...

From RF.com Nacciyar Written on: 01/28/2012 | 10:19 PM

Nadal is only 7 Slams away. He seems immune to pressure, because he's never felt the pressure forever deflecting it on to someone else, usually Roger. 


So, I don't think it will be as hard to achieve the Slam total for him as it was Roger...with Roger everyone expected him to be spectacular even before he won a title. The talk of breaking Pete's record had started when he was still in single digits.


Nadal has benefited enormously from Roger's presence. Furthermore, for the first few years he was "just" a clay courter, and when he made a mark on other surfaces, everyone was surprised. Wow, look at this boy who tries so hard. We shouldn't expect him to win, because, look he's already trying so hard.


Furthermore, Nadal hasn't had to do deal with the pressure of not winning one of the 4 majors. He won USO 10, gift wrapped to him...so, there's no striving for the goal.


Of course, no one talks about his abysmal performance at the WTF, and indeed, it appears that the media diminishes that tournament's significance, saying it's at the tail end, everyone is tired or injured etc.


It says something about the homogeneity of court surfaces and the balls when both Nadal and Djokovic have won 3 Slams in a year. When Roger did it (3 times) it was considered incredible. Just to win Wimbledon/RG back to back was considered a feat! Now, all of this is par for the course.


From RF.com feddy052377  Written on: 01/28/2012 | 10:41 PM

A lot of really good stuff here. 7 slams is still a lot and no easy feat, but a win today will send him hurtling closer to his goal.


Great point about the early pressure on Federer practically ever since his fourth slam win , i.e., the 2004 USO. After that amazing performance, everyone talked about him possibly becoming the greatest ever and the talk of the career slam and grand slam started then and put pressure on Federer for a long time. In addition, ever since 2006, statistically the greatest season in ATP tour history along with perhaps JMac's '84 season, people have pestered Federer about RN. People were calling RN the "real #1" during Fed's 2006 year!


Having Fed a repository of deflected pressure has indeed greatly benefited RN although it can be said that had it not been for Federer's tremendous play, RN might already have a good argument for GOAT as he would have had the most weeks ever at #1 (RN had enough points in 2005-2007 to be #1 in most years).


Unfortunately for Federer, most people will forget about all of his extraordinary achievements, cf.,
wikipedia page as the achievements are too numerous to enumerate which make the case for him as GOAT IF RN gets close to the slam count. Federer is so much more than the slam count. His level of success over the past eight years or so is simply unparallelled; he has been greatness personified on every surface, at every tournament, seemingly NEVER blown out, and always in every match against every opponent on every surface. His F's, SFs, QFs streaks, his streak of winning titles, streak against top 10 opponents, overall against the top 10, etc., etc., will all be overlooked if RN gets close to 16 because of the H-to-H advantage, even though that advantage is the result of unique historical parameters.

不幸的是對Federer來說大家會忘記他所有超凡的成就,維基百科上的紀錄多到不勝枚舉,如果RN接近他的大滿貫數的話,以他的各項紀錄來說他就是史上最佳,Federer的成就根本不只有大滿貫冠軍數。過去八年他成就的等級根本無與倫比,他是每個場地、每個錦標的最佳詮釋;看起來每場比賽對上每個對手在每種場地,他從沒慘敗過。如果RN接近他的大滿貫冠軍數的話,因為對戰戰績的關係,他的連續決賽、四強、八強紀錄,連續贏得冠軍的紀錄、連續對上Top10贏球的紀錄、對上Top 10的總戰績……等等都會被忽略,雖然說這對戰戰績的結果是因為特殊的對戰組合與球風相剋。

2012年2月1日 星期三

慢場地 VS 球員打法

From RF.com feddy052377 Written on: 01/29/2012 | 03:50 AM

There's a lot of truth in what you write. I agree with the fact that this AO was one of the most boring grand slams I have ever watched, and I would say that had Federer defeated RN.


As for the other players not stepping up against AM, ND, an RN, I think it's fundamentally due to the paradigm shift that's occurred in tennis. I had this discussion with RickyRoger last year. I cannot believe and would not have believed it 20 years ago if someone had told me that the first serve isn't as important as it used to be and that first strike tennis is almost at a disadvantage now. 


ND, AM, and RN play the %s better than anyone else in the history of the game. They can win without a first serve and when they do get in a first serve, it's a bonus. Compare this to players such as Sampras, Becker, Federer, etc. If they're having an off night getting first serves in, they're vulnerable. There's a chance of an upset if that's the case. Federer has avoided those early upsets because, unlike first strike players of the past, he plays tremendous defense and can neutralize big games. AM, ND, and RN play tremendous defense, neutralize big games (especially AM and ND) wear you down, and force you to hit big and serve big throughout a match. You can defeat them if you do so THROUGHOUT a match, but it's very, very difficult to do so with today's balls and courts.. Big hitters know this and when they falter just a bit, they know that they've lost a lot of momentum and they never get it back. They know what an uphill grind it will be against those guys. This is why you see AM, ND, and RN at the ends of tournaments every time and it's not going to change anytime soon.

從來沒人比NDAMRN會打安全球,沒一發他們也可以贏球,有一發就當賺到。比起其他球員如Sampras, Becker, Federer,如果他們突然某場比賽找不到一發就麻煩了,還有可能因此輸球。Federer能避免這些爆冷是因為與其他過往大砲不同,他的防守極佳,能抵銷掉對手的攻擊。AMNDRN球風極度防守,不僅把對手攻擊抵銷(特別是AMND),還讓你在底線累個半死,逼你整場比賽催出最快的一發、打出最誇張的致勝球。你能整場比賽都這樣打當然能打敗他們,但因為時下的場地速度與用球,能做到也是非常困難的事。攻擊型球員當然也知道如此,所以只要他們一抖就知道自己要輸掉氣勢而且很難再扳平,跟這些球員打就像在爬坡。這就是為什麼AMNDRN每次都能打到最後,而且這現象短期內也不會改變。

場地速度之於 Roger 打法之於未來網球發展 XD

From RF.com RickyRoger Written on: 01/30/2012 | 09:24 PM

I'm in the middle of writing an exhausting essay on friggin' ACL injuries and it's driving me nuts, so I'll weigh in (after a long long time) here in depth on what I think about the surface wars, as a "break".

For me, the bottom line right now is this: yes, now everything "major" is slow. But to be honest, now is not 2007 or even 2008. And in 2007, in spite of the grass being slower, Roger should never have gone five sets with Nadal at Wimbledon, and had no business losing to him in 2008 either. It was the result of a steady progression of passive play in his game, and an increasing unwillingness to put the ball exactly where he wanted to put it in a transition sense that led to those losses, and all of this happened when he let go of Roche. He is only again playing "his" brand of tennis now, with Annacone around, in the last couple of years, and there's a sense of "too little too late" that has come with it since the real "death" in speed at majors occurred sometime in 2009/10/11. Or at least, it was that drop in speed that actually affected him to the extent it has now. The AO has been progressively slower since 2008 once Plexicushion Prestige was laid down. Each year I see it either taking more spin or causing higher bounce, this year it was more speed than bounce, but it clearly affected Roger's penetration.

我認為現在重點是:沒錯,大滿貫場地現在都比較慢了,但說實在的現在也不是2007或2008,2007年就算草地變比較慢,Roger 也沒必要跟Nadal打到五盤,2008年那場更不應該輸他。這是他打法越來越被動、還有不願把球打到他想要運用的位置才導致輸球,而這些都是在Roche離開後發生。前幾年請Annacone後他才又開始自己的網球,但這一切不免讓人有“於事無補”的感覺,因為大滿貫場地變慢是發生在09、10、11年的某時,或至少是場地速度下降也多少影響到他。澳網場地從08年改換Plexicushion Prestige後速度就越變越慢,每年我看澳網不是球上旋越來越多就是彈跳越來越高,今年是速度比較快彈跳比較低,但這也影響 Roger的致勝球。

I urge you guys to watch the 2007 and 2008 USO matches. The courts were still quick and slick. Murray was clueless, and Djokovic thrived in 2007 in NYC because he played a far more attacking and exciting brand of tennis then. From 2009, however, the speed has just DIED there. I'm not sure if they changed the Decoturf that year in some way, but there was a change.

我強烈建議大家去看2007和2008的美網比賽,場地還是很快很光滑。Murray那時一無所知,Djokovic 2007年在紐約發光發熱是因為那時他打的是比現在更具攻擊、更刺激的比賽。然而2009後美網場地速度就不見了,我不確定他們是否那年把Decoturf換掉,但確實有改變。

As far as Wimbledon goes, I'm sorry: there is no excuse for losing to Nadal on that surface, whatever Nadal's new tactics involved. There is a reason he steamrolled everyone even in 2007 and 2008 on that surface other than Nadal, in 2008 not even dropping a set until the final, and winning in 2009. Even now, as bouncy and slow as it may seem, it is grass, and a final at SW19 still looks considerably faster than any other major final. It is for this reason that Roger's loss to Tsonga confounded me last year, since I believed he was past that passive play with Annacone in tow. I still hold that he was injured in that tournament, and think his best shot is still either there or at RG.


Right now, indeed, things are ridiculous. And ironically, Roger's new game (and it's not the game he played from mid 2007 to mid 2010) does not hold up well against the top 4 anywhere other than at RG and Wimbledon because of the quicker balls. And even there, he needs to avoid Rafa due to the mental match-up. The furrow in his brow is amply evident when he sees Rafa across the net, compared to other players who beat him more often recently such as Tsonga, Novak and Del Potro. He figures them out, uses his amazing defense on the slower courts to find position again, but against Rafa, the match-up puts him all at sea. He really does need a draw to open up for him at this stage, much like it did at the AO 2010, though he did play sublime baseline tennis in that tournament, and fully deserved the win whatever his opposition was. Unfortunately, the draw is unlikely to open up at all barring injury to the "other 3", and I mean an actual injury, not the sitting-down-in-a-chair brand. Until then, no big hitter will hit them off court since there is no place for those sorts of contenders in modern major tennis. That Roger would be able to beat them on a decently fast court was amply evident at the WTF last year, but at a major, Roger will continue to struggle against Rafa and Novak.

現在情況確實是很荒繆沒錯,諷刺的是Roger的新打法(不是他07年到10年中的打法)除了在法網跟溫網外,對top 4球員並沒有啥威脅,因為法溫網用比較快的球。就算在那裡,因為心魔他也必須避開Nadal—他看Nadal在網子對面時的眉頭深鎖就是最有力的証明,但對其他近來打敗他更多次的其他球員如Tsonga、Del Potro、Novak他卻不會這樣。他摸清他們的底,在慢速場地用絕佳的底線防守來讓自己腳步到位;但對Nadal,這相剋的對戰組合讓他無所適從。他這年紀真的需要好籤來奪冠,就像2010年澳網一樣;雖然那年他底線功力一流,誰當對手他都值得奪冠。不幸的是除了top 3受傷外,Roger籤運很難再好了,而且我指的是真正的受傷,不是那種“坐到爛椅子”的那種傷。在那之前沒有攻擊型球員會打敗他們,因為現代網球沒有他們的位置。Roger還是能在夠快的場地打敗他們,去年年終賽就是鐵証;但在大滿貫賽,Roger還是會對Nadal跟Djo打得掙扎。

To draw a parallel in a sport I play more seriously now, squash; in the mid 90s, it was quite simply impossible to watch a professional squash match. Rallies lasted FIVE MINUTES in some cases. At some point in the early 2000s, officials and fans had had enough. Drastic changes came into play that immediately favoured attacking players. Scores were changed to allow fewer ups and downs in momentum. The balls changed things completely. Courts were made more and more "dead" to make sure winners stayed winners. And out of the blue, more and more attacking players emerged from nations with a penchant for flair such as France and Egypt, and they now frequently occupy the top 5 spots.


Understandably, because of its far smaller stature, these kinds of changes were easy in squash. It still is "about the sport", so to speak. Prize money is laughable, and in the words of one great number one, "You have to be an idiot to play this sport for money." It truly is enjoying a golden age, and I believe it shares remarkable similarities with tennis' real golden age in the 60s and 70s, when a sense of actual camaraderie was prevalent, when players had a beer after a match in a major, when they would drive from one tournament to the next. Tennis was played for pure joy. Of course, with the way tennis has grown now, the money that has come into it is no doubt a wonderful thing, but I do wonder what its done for the kid that likes to serve big, hit big, and hell, once in a while, hopp. I like to be optimistic in spite of all this, and believe that this monotony HAS to change. The players are there: DP, Dolgopolov, Roger, Berankis, Dimitrov. I just wonder if they'll ever have that chance, that opportunity to have their Federer-beats-Sampras moment in a world where the odds are stacked against them.

可以理解的是因為壁球的影響力較小,這些改變相對簡單。說到底這還是“為了運動好”,獎金是很可笑的,套句某位球王的話:「白痴才為了錢打球。」黃金年代時真的是這樣,我相信網壇真正黃金年代—60、70年代也是如此,那時大家都有同袍情誼,大比賽完還會一起喝酒,這個錦標打完還會一起開車到下一個錦標去,打網球是打開心的。當然網球因為錢變成這樣也是件美事,但我不禁會想這些改變對想當巨砲、打致勝球的小朋友有什麼影響呢?甚至對Roger的影響?即使如此我還是傾向樂觀看待這一切,並相信這單一性必須改變。還是有這些球員:Del Potro、Dolgopolov、Roger、Berankis、Dimitrov。我只是懷疑當全世界都不看好他們,他們能否有那種機會,有個機遇可以擁有像Federer打敗Sampras的那種時刻。

Come on ITF, give us a squash rennaissance.