[Pirata Morado]

Nicolas Mahut and John Isner are playing a 1st round match at Wimbledon and these are the parcials:

4 - 6
6 - 3
7 - 6
6 - 7

Sets #3 and #4 needed a tie breaker, so tied at 2 sets each they go to the 5th set.

Playing 5 sets in tennis is such an athletic feat, now picture this:

They tie the set at 6 just like the previous 2 sets.

So they keep on playing..

and playing...

and tie at 7...

and tie at 8...

and tie at 9...

since there's no tie breaker for the 5th set they keep on playing...

and tie at 10...

and tie at 11...

and...

and tie at 15...

(to be continued...)

This post has been edited by Pirata Morado: 23 June 2010 - 05:38 PM

[Pirata Morado]

and they keep on playing...

and tie at 20...

and tie at 25...

and tie at 30...

and tie at 35...

and tie at 40...

nobody seems to be able of grabbing a 2 game lead...

and tie at 45...

and tie at 50...

and tie at 55...

and tie at 59...

and lights are out so the game gets suspended for the second night in a row!!!!!

After 7 hours playing the 5th set alone, there's still not a winner, so they will keep on going tomorrow, and after anyone finally wins this one, he will have to play his second round match in the same day, go figure!

[Schuxu]

That is great, man you have to love sports for stories like this.

[Huindekmi]

They've been playing each other for over 10 hours. At the highest level. Spanning two days. One of these guys is going to crack sooner or later.

[Sancho Panza]

On third day, Isner takes it 70-68. About 15 sets worth of games in one single set. Over 11 hours of tennis, most of it in the 5th set. Unbelievable.

This post has been edited by Sancho Panza: 24 June 2010 - 08:09 AM

[Huindekmi]

So... How do you think Isner is going to do in the next round?

[Sancho Panza]

I'm the wrong guy to ask. Before the match, I would have predicted Isner in max 4 sets, which would have meant maybe 45 games. My prediction would have been 150 games short! One thing is certain - his second round opponent is well-rested.

[Sancho Panza]

Nadal does it again. How many times did Berdych deliver a knock-out blow only to see Nadal come out of nowhere to return it with a winner? It's time to include him among the my all-time greats like Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer.

Posnanski - that guy can write about anything and get away with it - has a good piece on Isner-Mahut.

[anunderwaterguy]

Nadal looks back to his best. I honestly thought Murray would beat him in the semi (maybe I'm just biased), but Nadal deserved it and his game matches up well to Berdych. Still don't think he has the game to win the US Open, but with Federer struggling he has as good a chance as he's had in a long time to finally win it.

[Sancho Panza]

Murray can and probably will win Wimbledon one day, and the same is true for Nadal at the US Open. Nadal has superior head-to-head stats - 14-7 all matches, 12-5 finals, and 6-2 Grand Slam finals - against a Federer who was not struggling - with of course anything save Nadal. For as long as his knees hold up, Nadal has a good chance with his game at the US Open, a game that's been good enough to beat a Roger Federer on hard courts in finals at Dubai and the Australian Open. Nadal's stroke technique is even less suited for grass than hard court, yet he more than makes up for it on both surfaces with smarts, wheels, stamina, will power, and above all big heart.

[anunderwaterguy]

Sancho Panza, on Jul 5 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

Murray can and probably will win Wimbledon one day, and the same is true for Nadal at the US Open. Nadal has superior head-to-head stats - 14-7 all matches, 12-5 finals, and 6-2 Grand Slam finals - against a Federer who was not struggling - with of course anything save Nadal. For as long as his knees hold up, Nadal has a good chance with his game at the US Open, a game that's been good enough to beat a Roger Federer on hard courts in finals at Dubai and the Australian Open. Nadal's stroke technique is even less suited for grass than hard court, yet he more than makes up for it on both surfaces with smarts, wheels, stamina, will power, and above all big heart.

In theory he should be less suited to grass because the surface is quicker, but I'm not so sure. Nadal completely destroyed Murray in the 2008 Wimbledon quarter final, for instance, but he was then outplayed by him and lost at the US Open a few months later. Last year he was still suffering from inconsistency after his injury, but the manner in which he lost to Del Potro (6-2, 6-2, 6-2) was quite shocking to me. I don't know if the inconsistent bounce at Wimbledon is a factor - I would imagine it makes his top spin forehand very difficult to return - but I do think he's better on grass than he is at the US Open.

Australia is a little different because the court is a good bit slower than it is at the US Open (even now they've changed it). I think Nadal has a great chance to win it, but I think it's arguably even more difficult for Nadal to win the US Open than it was for Federer to win the French. At least Federer was always comfortably the second best player on clay, whilst at the US Open Nadal has to worry about several other players (Murray and Del Potro the two most recent examples from the last two years). It would be a great achievement if he could do it.

[Sancho Panza]

If the manner of an unfit player's loss is so significant, then how shocking was the manner in which Federer, who was fit, lost 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 to Nadal in Paris 2008?

Last year was no measure of Nadal's ability to play on any surface. Now fit, he just handled the enormous differences in surface speed and bounce characteristics between the French and Wimbledon, which are much greater than those between one hard court and another.

Nadal moves on the court like no other. Because of the strain on his knees, I give him two more years to take the Open. He might not – Borg never did – but if he does it won't surprise any of his competitors. Nadal is the one guy they do not want to face at the next Open.

[anunderwaterguy]

Sancho Panza, on Jul 5 2010, 11:55 PM, said:

If the manner of an unfit player's loss is so significant, then how shocking was the manner in which Federer, who was fit, lost 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 to Nadal in Paris 2008?

Last year was no measure of Nadal's ability to play on any surface. Now fit, he just handled the enormous differences in surface speed and bounce characteristics between the French and Wimbledon, which are much greater than those between one hard court and another.

Nadal moves on the court like no other. Because of the strain on his knees, I give him two more years to take the Open. He might not – Borg never did – but if he does it won't surprise any of his competitors. Nadal is the one guy they do not want to face at the next Open.

I'm just looking at how he's fared in Wimbledon compared to the US Open in the past. In 2008, when he wasn't injured, he hammered Federer in Paris in the aforementioned match, he then had arguably the best result of his career (beating Federer at Wimbledon) and then a couple of months later at the US Open went out rather meekly to Murray in the semi-finals. There has to be a reason why the Nadal that dominated the 2008 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open struggled in Flushing Meadows.

I do think he should be the favourite with the way Federer is playing, but if he wins it will be a bigger achievement for me than winning Wimbledon was.

[Sancho Panza]

anunderwaterguy, on Jul 5 2010, 05:05 PM, said:

a couple of months later at the US Open went out rather meekly to Murray in the semi-finals. There has to be a reason why the Nadal that dominated the 2008 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 Australian Open struggled in Flushing Meadows.

It can happen against a rising talent who has nothing to lose. In either case, semis in the last two Opens are no more evidence that Nadal struggles on that surface than Edberg's more devastating 0-6 6-7 4-6 loss to Becker at Wimbledon that Edberg struggles on grass. Instead of surface struggle evidence, both results were further evidence that those kind of matches happen to everybody on every surface.

Nadal has won trophies on hard courts in Peking, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Dubai, Indian Wells, Montreal, and Melbourne. Whatever the difference between those hard courts and the ones at Flushing Meadow, it can't be anywhere near as great as the difference between clay at the French and grass at Wimbledon, both of which he's won within a matter of weeks twice.

Nadal's stroke technique – topspin, two-handed backhand - is the same that's used by legions of Spanish players. The reason that clay court player Nadal wins masters and slams on other surfaces as well is he gets to more balls more quickly and so can do more with them than anybody, independent of whether the surface is gravel or marble.

For the record - Nadal is not my kind of player. I play tennis exactly the way Federer does, except of course for a world of difference in quality. I see myself when Federer plays, so he has my sympathy when up against Nadal. I know what it's like when the other guy moves so well that I'm forced to hit a series of winners just to get one point, start to finish for hours. Tennis, like life, is movement, and Nadal's got it in spades. If Federer is no longer struggling by the next Open, he will be again if he faces a healthy Nadal.

This post has been edited by Sancho Panza: 06 July 2010 - 09:01 AM

[anunderwaterguy]

Sancho Panza, on Jul 6 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

Nadal has won trophies on hard courts in Peking, Madrid, Monte Carlo, Dubai, Indian Wells, Montreal, and Melbourne. Whatever the difference between those hard courts and the ones at Flushing Meadow, it can't be anywhere near as great as the difference between clay at the French and grass at Wimbledon, both of which he's won within a matter of weeks twice.

It's not, but who is to say that someone can't master both clay and grass yet still (relatively speaking) struggle on a fast hard court? It's not about him adapting so much as it's about how the court allows others to play. If the only way to beat Nadal is to play ultra aggressive tennis, then the US Open is the best place to use that strategy. It's difficult to play extremely aggressive tennis at Wimbledon because of the inconsistent bounce and the effectiveness of slice shots on grass - look at how poorly guys like Del Potro, Gonzalez and Verdasco have done on grass in comparison to their records on hard courts.

Let's get a bit of perspective here, saying Nadal "struggles" at the US Open is tempered by the fact that he's one of the greatest players of all time and is a threat on any surface, but with that stated it stands to reason that he's better on some surfaces than others. No player is equally proficient on all surfaces - no matter whether they're an all time great or a lowly ranked nobody playing in challengers. For me, the US Open represents Nadal's "weakest" surface, so it would be his greatest achievement to win there (in my opinion). Would you disagree with that?

[Sancho Panza]

anunderwaterguy, on Jul 6 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

No player is equally proficient on all surfaces

True. Nadal grew up on clay. He was educated on clay. His strokes are clay court strokes. He's a baseliner, like all clay court players. To wit, Nadal's a clay court player par excellence. He's most proficient on clay. Everywhere else he's "weaker", in equal measure. I'm not convinced that he's any weaker on a Flushing Meadows hard court than on grass, least of all than on all other hard courts where he's won throughout the world.

anunderwaterguy, on Jul 6 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

Would you disagree with that?

You think that the Open would be his greatest achievement, I Wimbledon, but Rafa I suspect the Open because it's the only one that's eluded him hitherto, which would leave me entitled to nothing more than a minority opinion!

[Sancho Panza]

Check out Nadal's Day 5 interview at the US Open. He says Wimbledon is much faster than Flushing Meadows, thinks maybe others say it's slower only because he's won it twice.

A good interviewee, like Justin Brown and Querrey. Harrison? He never heard a simple question for which he couldn't give a long-winded answer. Querrey would just answer: Yeah, maybe, we'll see. Put me on Center Court, dammit!

[senior octobre]

Sancho Panza, on 24 June 2010 - 08:06 AM, said:

On third day, Isner takes it 70-68. About 15 sets worth of games in one single set. Over 11 hours of tennis, most of it in the 5th set. Unbelievable.

It's not 70-68 in the fifth but Francesca Schiavone (ITA) defeated Svetlana Kuznetsova (RUS) 16-14 in the third at the Australian Open. I watched the third set and Schiavone has a big heart.

This post has been edited by senior octobre: 24 January 2011 - 03:32 AM

[Sancho Panza]

She does!

Nadal did not look good beating the 18-year old the other day.

[senior octobre]

Sancho Panza, on 24 January 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

She does!

Nadal did not look good beating the 18-year old the other day.

yea, i think I caught some of that. the kid was up 4-0 in the second but gave it back...