oberyn has posted 0 links and 8 comments to SportsFilter and 0 links and 0 comments to the Locker Room.
To: The Black Hand And you're not funny. Geez, I've searched these forums and, to be frank, I hope you don't spend a lot of time watching sports, because, if you do, your retention leaves a lot to be desired.
posted by oberyn at 08:56 AM on January 30
"Federer starts the second set 0-1/0-0. He's love-all in games, but a set down." Perhaps a better way to look at it would be, it doesn't matter if Federer loses that first set 6-7(20-18) or 0-6. Either way, he still starts the second set 0-1/0-0. If Tiger shoots in the 80s in the first round, he can kiss that green jacket goodbye. There were folks saying he had no chance after shooting a high first round in 2005. If Tiger Woods plays an abysmal first round, he has a much bigger hole out of which he has to dig himself. If Federer's getting smoked in the first set he can start taking cuts, mixing things up, to try and get himself back in rhythm for the remaining sets without handicapping himself further.
posted by oberyn at 02:49 PM on January 29
Tennis vs. Golf. There's no definitive answer. Tougher for Tiger Arguments 1. Federer can play a bad first set, and the second set still starts 0-0. If Tiger Woods has a bad first round, he starts the second round trailing the leaders. 2. Federer always knows where he stands with respect to the guy he's playing and can take steps to make sure that guy doesn't beat him. Tiger Woods can shoot a great round, but he's still just playing the course like everybody else. He can't do anything to make Phil Mickelson hit driver off the tee on 18 instead of playing it safe. Federer can, at least in theory, keep hitting to his opponent's backhand until it breaks down. Tougher for Federer Arguments 1. The flip side of # 2 above. Federer's opponents can directly impact his play. Both golf and tennis boil down to executing one's shots. However, in tenns, a player's opponent can cause you to rush your shots or hit shots with which you aren't comfortable. Tennis keeps track of "unforced errors" to differentiate them from instances in which a player's opponent has forced the error. In golf, all bad shots are unforced errors. 2. If Tiger Woods has a bad round, he has quite a bit of time before he has to tee it up again. He can have a sit-down with his swing coach, Hank Haney, and go back to the practice tee and try and address any problems. Unless there's a rain delay, Federer has a couple of minutes before the next set starts, and he can't talk to anyone about how to fix the problem.
posted by oberyn at 10:00 AM on January 29
The Black Hand, that strategy worked well enough for Andre Agassi at various points in his career, so why not? : ) Seriously, a focused Serena is definitely good for women's tennis. That was a tremendous performance. Also, there's a big difference between "unseeded" and "unheralded". Despite her ranking at the start of the tourney, did anyone honestly think there were 80 better players on the WTA Tour? Of course there weren't, just like there aren't 13 better players on the WTA Tour now that she's in the 14th spot. Fitness-wise, I still don't think she's back to where she was in 2002-03, when she won four slams in a row and five out of six, but, as she proved in Australia, she doesn't need to be. Tha alone should scare the heck out of the rest of the ladies on tour. She out-hit, out-played, and out-thought Sharapova, which should scare them all, as well.
posted by oberyn at 09:03 PM on January 27
I hope he didn't. Mid-way through the 2nd set, I was hoping someone would shoot Roddick and put him out of his misery. That was just brutal. I give Roddick credit for being a stand-up guy in the press conference, though.
posted by oberyn at 01:34 PM on January 26
Why was Vick the one carrying the bottle in the first place? He has an entourage/posse. That's one of the main reasons you keep those guys around. LOL.
posted by oberyn at 07:42 PM on January 23
I don't think it's controversial, but if the purpose is to generate interest, I don't see its being particularly effective. Tennis needs to make things more easily understandable to the casual viewer: Case in point, Davis Cup. I'm not convinced the players necessarily know how that works. I won't mind RR, as long as we don't see a return to the days when players had too much of an incentive to tank a match just so they'd play a less dangerous opponent in the next round.
posted by oberyn at 07:34 PM on January 23
I don't know, I think the author made some good points with respect to the need to shorten the tennis season and the fact that it's a bit early in that season to have one of the major tournaments. I also didn't take the guy's (at least I assume it's a guy) tone to be ultra-serious. I thought a great deal of it was clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek (come on, sensory deprivation chamber, trick question re: 1986 Australian Open question, and loss of credibility for the tournament's not being held that year, poking fun at Agassi fans and the G.O.A.T. argument, etc.) At least that's the way I read it, and if you read it that way it's actually just a light-hearted, fairly humorous piece. The author would probably laugh himself silly if he saw some of the responses it generated.
posted by oberyn at 07:30 PM on January 23
Copyright © 2014 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.