not trying to be a dick but did you even bother to read the OP?

I'd like to get your phone number

I like this guys attitude. Just wants action, sort out the minor details of who is playing and what the odds are later. Gotta love that.

Similar topic... Am I the only one who finds the whole routine of the server getting 4/5 balls to pick 2 from before each serve very bizarre? I fail to see how any of the balls end up in that much better shape than the others and it just seems to slow down the match.

yea, it's funny. i don't know how it started but it's a tradition. ostensibly, players select the least furry balls (the freshest of the batch). these guys hit these balls a ton so by the end of the set it might make a tiny difference for a slower, high spin second serve.

but they do this even after ball changes for the first game in a set...so i can't imagine one ball would be any more used than the next from being held by the ballboys for 5 seconds lol.

so to answer the question: no reason that i know of. it's just tradition.

well, like in any sport, some players get really superstitious and if they hit a big serve they demand that ball back. when I was a kid i was a ballboy at a bunch of tourneys in toronto/mtl and some guys would hit the same ball every first serve for the entire set/duration of the balls

Yeah I was gonna say it just feeds their superstitions. You know what would really make tennis more fun to watch (its fun already but MORE)? Assorted ball colors and each time its a guy's turn to serve he gets to pick from one of every color (have to use different color on second serve). Just seeing their "strategy" and hearing the ridiculous commentary from the announcers would end up being hilarious I think. "ooh last time he went for the blue/orange combo he lost the point, I think he's going to regret this one John".

220k to 20k

doesnt matter if its 1million to 5k

tennis has no luck, so you have no chance

its skill only

the better player wins everytime

Most players look for the 2 out of the 3 balls that are the most similar, even if the differences are tiny. In theory it should lead to a better second serve.

haha the first 3 things you listed are what i love about them. they could handle losing better for sure but i love their attitude and cockiness on the court.

better than what? better than the second serve would have been if they selected the other ball?? lol

fyp. otherwise you're obviously wrong.

they are the happy gilmore of women's tennis players. i value class in my tennis champions. they have none. they've helped increase the level of play in women's tennis but they've also brought the level of class down.

how does everyone see the argument that although fed has the majors record, sampras is still the GOAT based on the level of competition he had to go through to win his. yes fed has rafa (who would probably break whatever record fed ends up with if his knees weren't destroyed) and murray/joko blah blah....but pete had to deal with everyone from andre, courier, chang, rafter, kafelnikov, guys like goran/kraijicek/philipussy, etc etc

I wouldn't say Fed has had it easy but you are right that Sampras played during a really sick time for tennis, particularly American tennis.

Great Nadal story.

This is really a bet on my ability to improve relative to Patrik.

Also, as I mentioned before, there is much more variance at lower levels of tennis.

In juniors, I had some occasional big wins against much better players. Let's say #100 in the FL 16-and-unders is playing #10. Number 10 will have very significant weaponry and won't miss much. Number 100 will have less advanced weaponry and significantly less precision.

If the match-up is such that Number 100 is a counterpuncher and Number 10 is relentlessly aggressive, then Number 100 can occasionally come up with the win.

It doesn't take much of a slip for Number 10's game to fall apart against a strong counterpuncher. An aggressive player has to have 85+% accuracy on his aggressive shots (b/c most come back) to make the payoff positive. Maybe one day in twenty, this figure dips below the threshold and the counterpuncher wins.

In the higher levels of tennis (higher than Patrik and I's level), you don't see as many upsets because the level of precision is higher and less variable. Also - crucially - the level of mental toughness is much higher and the better player knows how to grind it out on an off day.

Brandon

didn't Fed win like 6 majors or something before getting a coach? pretty damn impressive imo

brandon what is the least amount to take action on this? risk 11k to win 1k? or will u take risk 5500 to win 500? or $5.50/.50c? what were u saying about 7-1 odds on ur side? and are we allowed to come watch? thanks

I think Feds early career he had it perhaps easier than previous champs. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian being your main obstacles kinda shows that. But now I believe is the toughest time in mens tennis in history, tougher than Sampras' toughest year. Murray would be a multiple grand slam winner in another era. So would Djokovic. If Del Potro comes back again as strong as he was tennis is going to be just gross in talent at the top level. Yet Nadal and Fed are still heads above, thats because they are GOAT contenders. I am a casual tennis fan though so I would be interested to know if the experts think my opinion is misguided.

fed won 9 majors before rafa's 2nd french, so he got a pretty good head start on accumulating...safin could've been an all timer but he didnt have the attitude, hewitt is the ultimate grinder (imo) making the most from a more limited skill set but bigger heart/toughness/fitness...

i actually always felt bad for andy...it wasn't his fault the american media anointed him the next Sampras, he just got lucky to win his major between era's (pete/fed)...but he's always totally honest and objective in interviews etc

Ra_Z,

I believe you are right. This is toughest era in tennis.

Nadal and Federer are on another level entirely. This is all you need to know....

Title/Champion, Runner-Up
2010 U.S. Open Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic
2010 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal Tomas Berdych
2010 French Open Rafael Nadal Robin Soderling
2010 Australian Open Roger Federer Andy Murray
2009 U.S. Open Juan Martin del Potro Roger Federer
2009 Wimbledon Roger Federer Andy Roddick
2009 French Open Roger Federer Robin Soderling
2009 Australian Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer
2008 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andy Murray
2008 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal Roger Federer
2008 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer
2008 Australian Open Novak Djokovic Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
2007 U.S. Open Roger Federer Novak Djokovic
2007 Wimbledon Roger Federer Rafael Nadal
2007 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer
2007 Australian Open Roger Federer Fernando Gonzalez
2006 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andy Roddick
2006 Wimbledon Roger Federer Rafael Nadal
2006 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer
2006 Australian Open Roger Federer Marcos Baghdatis
2005 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andre Agassi
2005 Wimbledon Roger Federer Andy Roddick
2005 French Open Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta

That is 21 of 23!

Arguably the only recent comparison to this level of play is Sampras on grass (I recall reading that Sampras held serve 97% of the time at Wimbledon but haven't confirmed this stat).

Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon at age 19, and my take is that he'd be a heavy favorite prime-on-prime.

Re-action, 1k minimum at risk amount, send to me to book. You can bet on me getting laid 7-1, or bet on Pat laying me 12-1.

Brandon

Brandon,

What's your basis for saying that he'd be a HEAVY favorite prime on prime? Style matchup? The overall change in the men's game in terms of style and strength?

wait...what are we betting on?

ok since this is where all the tennis experts are my last racket was the ProStaff 85 ~15 year ago, freakin St. Vincent ones! And I have no clue what a good racket/string is, this looked the closest

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wils...SON-KPS88.html

any recs on strings. I like a hybrid setup with durable mains and playable crosses.

I'm guessing you don't have the St. Vincent's anymore, but if you happen to have held on to them, they're worth wayyy more than whatever you paid for them back in the day.

This thread brings me back to when I was a T-Warehouse messageboard nerd, good times.