Djokerfan

Essay on Social Media (Kinda)

Is that title effective SEO? I somewhat come-clean with my parenthetical disclosure. Yeah, I have a sentence or two about potential ills of said industry/tools, but I take aim here, again, at some of the participants/tools who use these global conversational mechanisms.

And good Thursday to you! A lot on tap today/night in Los Cabos and Washington D.C. (sorry to ignore the Austrian clay – but do comment on that if you’d like, for we are all ears tennis).

We’re yet to see the first ball in either HC venue today, so what a perfect opportunity to address some of that off-court crap that often interests us.

I just got done reminding my kid again how social media (especially of the snapchat kind of crap) are garbage. The kids (old man rhetoric pulling into the driveway) are obsessed with this online world; that I might be guilty of throwing shade at the entire population might amount to some ethnocentric swerve and if so, I apologize. Maybe this is more of an American culture issue, but it’s an issue.

I also understand that two things can be true: social media are potentially distracting and destructive, but can and do provide us with numerous advantages. A blog, after all, is part of this technological and social landscape. I assume you understand my concern as a parent or any sensible individual with concern for humanity, the planet, etc.

And so: there is my set-up (context) for what bit of social media I stumbled across today, via tennis writer Jon Wertheim and his world according to Twitter.

Here’s a fairly harmless tweet simply announcing his discussion on SI.com about a few things tennis and otherwise. His “column” is set-up in a kind of mailbag format, so he’s responding to readers, responding to their comments, answering their questions.

I will touch-on some of the actual points of discussion in a moment, but first we’re talking about the garbage truck that is (potentially) social media (in this case Twitter), where everyone has a voice and therefore a “meaningful” criticism or argument. Again, I understand the inherent democratic ethos of social media, much of this as part of a very convincing case for the proliferation of these social platforms to challenge authority, etc.

But you know where we’re going here: Tennis Fanland, where all the cute fanboys and fangirls get to scream their bloody heads off for the sake of their infallible tennis heroes! Weeeeeeeee!

You can click on that Wertheim tweet above and see the ensuing discussion, but let me help you out and post this next tweet from JW where he admits that he’s committing a cardinal sin by even acknowledging these fangirls/social media “trolls.”

You can follow that trail to see the misery of the Djokerfan in all her/their wild interpretation of anything that doesn’t don the Serb in lovely robe, jeweled crown and magnificent staff.

In other words, folks, as you’ve seen me (one who tries to maintain some balance and order over my and others’ ATP perspectives) get pulled into this fanclub bullshit: here’s a mainstream “nice guy” getting mugged on social media. For what?

I suppose the fangirls take issue with Wertheim suggesting that Djokovic’s troubles traverse beyond the bruised elbow. Thought on this? Do you think JW stepped in it here? Anyone who spends a bit of time on this consideration, acknowledges Djokollapse, etc., should probably come to a similar kind of harmless and concerned view of his recent decline.

I think the fangirls are insufferable and actually undermine their hero, who’s future, to JW’s point, is a bit uncertain – though, to JW’s point, Federer and Nadal’s break from the tour does show that such a hiatus is not necessarily “career suicide.” The SI writer/Tennis Channel voice seemed really to give more hope to Novak’s prognosis, but the paparazzi appear to be waiting on each and every potential syllable of disrespect.

I shouldn’t complain too much, to be fair: I get more material than I know what to do with from these vacuous trolls.
_____________________________________________________

To some of the actual points of discussion from Wertheim’s column, I have a few points to consider.

Actually, another trigger for the Djokerfan embedded in Jon’s response about Novak’s break is the comparison to Federer. Don’t you think this kind of association has to just boil that fan’s blood? We’re just guessing here, but I suspect this might have been the most “damaging” part of that response. Federer ruined the possibility of any unforeseen epic comeback following a big injury break (even though Nadal, actually, has made almost a career of such moves). I feel the pain of the Djokerfan here. RFRT, indeed.

Moving-on, how about this next question from a Wertheim reader:

Couldn’t you still make the argument that Pete Sampras is GOAT? Why? Simply because shouldn’t the number of Grand Slam titles be compared relatively to the players’ peers rather than across generations. Sampras won 14 titles, Agassi the next on that list won eight. Sampras won a whopping 75% more titles. Shouldn’t that tell you that it was more difficult to win Grand Slam titles in that era? Shouldn’t we also take into account that the game has changed (Technology, training, court speed etc.) since the 90s and made it possible to have far more consistent results? 
—Rahul, Brooklyn

This is HRFRT. Rahul, here, is onto something, but he needs me to take the argument from where he says: “Agassi the next on that list won eight.” Not only that, Rahul: Borg’s and Laver’s 11, and Emerson’s 12 had been eclipsed, which seemed perhaps insurmountable when you consider all of the greats of the 80s and 90’s who came-up well short. The best analysis here drives a deeper wedge into the bigger narrative, the historical context that surrounds theses players: who came before them, what motivates them, etc.

The point here concerns historical expectation. Sampras climbed tennis Everest and the stretch of history he dominated seemed truly remarkable. But it wasn’t as much, in the end, given what was just around the corner.

I can’t wait to finish that book. 😀

Wertheim responds well to the way Rahul worded his inquiry. The flaw is in comparing the player (Sampras or Federer) to his contemporaries. Sampras and Federer, a point I will certainly clarify in my piece, are the real trailblazers given the historical sequence of events, the timeline, if you will. Federer responded more to Sampras (I will explain and complicate that) and Nadal and Djokovic have responded to Federer. Given where we are now numbers-wise, someone certainly needs to explain HRFRT. You dig?

I will add that JW’s point about Serena is absurd. Sorry, Jon. Swing and a miss.

Here’s this question from another reader:

Just in the last few days, Rublev won a 250 event at age 19, Opelka blew at least six match points. Tiafoe, Fritz stumbling. Players changing coaches…

there is nobody I can find writing about this. Where do you get info online about this stuff? Any discussion sites, blogs you’d suggest? Could you write on emerging Americans, how they vary in balancing tournament scheduling/practice, long-term vs. short-term goals, and what their projected ceilings are (expected best ranking by expert consensus)? Also: What is the effect of having young kids on performance? (Murray, Djokovic, Fritz—injuries don’t heal if you don’t sleep/are carrying babies.)
—Andy F.

Andy, come to Mcshow Blog! I will continue to cover the youngsters, as I have, and not just the Americans. I have tried to maintain a somewhat steady eye on that class as it’s health and success are paramount to the future of this sport.

But Andy F. reminds me that I need to do more.

One of the reasons I want to generate any revenue from this blog is so I can establish more and more access to the game, to actual tournament play, players, etc. Nothing motivates me (other than the act of writing and conversing with readers, which are both very inspiring) more than the chance to attend more live (bigger) tennis tournaments!

Have pen and paper, will travel. 😀

Finally, one error from yesterday’s post, in setting-up anticipation for the Fritz v Kokkinakis match today in Los Cabos, was that I called this a R16 encounter. This is a QF match, my friend. Big moment, imho, for the American. Between the two, the Aussie is in a better place with his game, having some success to speak of in 2017. Mainly, he and Jordan Thompson’s doubles title in Brisbane was a big surprise (and accomplishment), but his win over Raonic in straights at Queen’s even bigger and more relevant here.

Enjoy the tennis and Join the Conversation (yeah, I mean comment after reading and follow the blog via email – see top right on blog). Seriously. 🙂

Djokovic’s Highest Form Ever (DHFE)

The summer is a glorious time of year on the ATP since we get a chance to see the year’s strongest athletes outlast those weakened by the long and arduous season that began in early January (or the ones who’s games just tend to wilt on this most even and rigorous surface). The firm quickness becomes more unforgiving, speed presses the point, each exchange more a test of skill and weaponry than of one’s fluency toward the idiosyncracies of a particular surface; and the air temperature rises along with its seasonal bosom buddy, the humidity. Indeed, the North American summer hard courts offer us a candid look at the tour’s best playing on the surface that showcases the best and exposes the rest, I’m afraid.

I think a good place to start with this DHFE is recalling when we tackled that quasi-related claim that Federer won 2017 AO because Melbourne played significantly faster this year (part of the grand conspiracy) and (get ready, I’m warning you, this is an argument advanced by Djokerfans) Novak doesn’t play as well on such a fast surface? Why would one ever make such a claim about their hero? That’s undermining Super Novak, novak_djokovic4_1359023691_540x540pointing-out a flaw in his game (a big flaw if you ask me). Novak’s 2-5 USO finals record and his inability to win Cincinnati (the one Masters he hasn’t won) speaks to this difficulty on the quicker courts; and making this shortcoming into some kind of strength doesn’t bode well; or arguing that his hard court record overall is the best-of-all-time, where the fanclub refers to him as HC GOAT. These we might suggest are Red herrings, squandered on the breach.

As we turn here to the summer N.A. HC swing, all of this bluster about Novak’s HC greatness takes quite a hit. And if you’re going to argue that he has shown the HFE on a tennis court, personally, I would start my argument with NYC HCs to support such a statement, then probably WB, before any sort of legitimate argument about HFE is made. Looking at the competition would be the other factor, or even the people who are making this claim. Many of these Djoker “representatives” are belligerent, of course, but I even heard mainstream media mouth-pieces get a little carried-away, as well, especially back in 2015-16.

I was fairly frank about Novak’s dominance at the time. I had no problem saying that this was an historical run, and that I didn’t quite see the end of it, with Fedal sailing out to sea, Muzzard typically muzzled, etc., yes, thought the competition was pretty poor (argued that Roger – at 34 – gave some of the Serb’s majors added/needed weight since beyond the Maestro, and perhaps Murray, what was really left?). Never did I step into that pile of HFE, however. Too much evidence to the contrary, especially if you’ve been watching the men battle for decades now and you’re not afraid to watch and re-read the history of this great sport.

Before we go any further, might I bring to everyone’s attention that articles like this  aren’t composed, perhaps, if such vehement (and vitriolic) subjectivity toward our fair sport isn’t strewn all over the place like debris after an ill-advised engagement or wedding has occurred. DHFE is a rival faction against all sensible tennis fans.

And how apropos that we’re here, on the eve of the run toward NYC.

The NYC HC, I would argue, is where the best pure tennis is played. NYC has gobs of evidence of this kind of greatness, more so, I will argue, then the other HC major – AO. Part of this is the AO snub from a few greats (Borg, Connors, McEnroe, et al.). Plus, the USO is simply an older tournament; age, location and history all play into suggesting that the USO determines a more significant title that, by the way, builds a more significant legacy than an arbitrary claim about form. One should play best where the best is played.

Indeed, I am saying that one’s form at the USO should be a big part of any argument for HFE (which is so subjective). Saying the USO is more prestigious than the AO because of its history and speed is not arbitrary.

Why haven’t FO champions, before Nadal, ever sniffed the upper echelon of such arguments (careful with Borg as he never won the USO and went away too early)?

Speed kills. The USO has that relentless call for a highest level of fortitude and execution on the tennis court. Quite a cocktail when you have all that history, those brightest lights, the concrete jungle and the lethal speed and precision of the razor’s edge.

As we undermine this DHFE claim, we have made a bit of a suggestion, then, that the USO (even Roger’s Cup and Cincy) should be a part of any discussion of HFE since this is the surface and the venue where such a boisterous and preposterous claim might find its footing.

Fans have been claiming the DHFE since he began his 2015 run (or even before that most likely) and the 2016 Doha final v Nadal gave them a little added lift. Here’s Nadal’s analysis of Djokovic’s form in that final – the Serb pummeled the Spaniard 6-1 6-2.

Two things: This was a tune-up for Melbourne, a minor tournament in early January, a 250; and Nadal wasn’t exactly playing very well. Do we need to recall Nadal’s 2016 results? He was still shaken from his absolutely dreadful 2015. He shows-up at Doha as Novak is still screaming from his 2015 – two players in completely different career points.

Nadal went-on to lose in 1R at Melbourne. All this to say, don’t use this eye-witness (who probably has more credibility than anyone making such a claim) as evidence for DHFE.

To be fair, the Djoker went-on to win 2016 AO, the Sunshine Double, Madrid and then the FO before the wheels came off and he spun into the Djokollapse.

We actually see here the culmination of the case for DHFE. He wins 2015 AO (Murray), WB (Federer), USO (Federer), 2016 AO (Murray) and 2016 FO (Murray).

The sheer amount of success (Novak Slam) in which he’s pretty much unfazed by his competition anywhere (his majors won by beating the perennial ATP bridesmaid and a 34-35 year-old Federer) concocts the rumor that this is the HFE. Many arguments were made about Djokovic’s 2015 being the greatest season of all-time. His numbers that year were staggering, for sure. Therefore, he played the HFE?

But based on what exactly? His W-L record?  This article shows the greatest seasons ever based on W-L:

1. John McEnroe — 1984 — 82-3 (.965)
2. Jimmy Connors — 1974 — 93-4 (.959)
3. Roger Federer — 2005 — 81-4 (.953)
4. Roger Federer — 2006 — 92-5 (.948)
5. Bjorn Borg — 1979 — 84-6 (.933)
6. Novak Djokovic — 2015 — 82-6 (.932)

If we’re basing the HFE on W-L, then DHFE is a stretch. Remember though: the Djokerfan will levy the level of competition tax on our ears. Djokovic was unbelievable, the argument goes, against top-10, top-5, etc. His case here with W-L becomes more formidable.

So then we’re into the level of competition factor of this equation. Which the Djokerfan doesn’t want any part of, I’m afraid. Spanking a trained Murray and a waning Federer doesn’t crack the whip. Throwing around seeds and top-5 opponents, etc., needs more context since this can be quite misleading.

So, is it the play he manufactured on the court? Along the lines of what Nadal said after Doha, a Nadal who had little leg on which to stand?

Ahhh, the 2015-PF argument (2015 Peak Federer). If we can argue that Federer was at his peak in 2015, with Djokovic handling him fairly easily in two major finals (WB and USO mind you!), and Federer is, by many, considered the GOAT, then by simple logic, if we’re beating the greatest at his peak, we’re the greatest!

Doesn’t that sound absurd, especially the use of that pronoun?

How about some 2005 Federer, folks (this is probably two years before his absolute peak when, in fact, he beat Djokovic in straights in a USO final).

This is Federer v Agassi 2005 USO final we’re going to see. Look at the depth and disaster on Federer’s racquet. This is complete bedlam. Agassi is playing well here, even though he’s at the end. I would say this helps us see my point about this surface showcasing the greatest tennis, the purity and cleanliness of the shot, the athleticism, etc.

Look at Federer’s FH and BH. And listen to some of the commentary. Early in the video, McEnroe (at 1:05) points-out that Agassi has the “greatest ROS in the history of the sport.” I remember explaining this truth to a big Djokerfan who didn’t grasp Agassi’s ROS prowess (which undermines much of this “tennis expert’s” understanding of the sport). And remember: Federer wasn’t exactly hitting Andre off the court since the American great had done years of battle with the GREATEST SERVE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT. As I’ve said a million times, give me Novak on Pete’s serve; granted, Novak is supreme in the ROS department, but don’t overlook the rest of the history of the sport, folks. Andre could hold his own, which he does in this match, a bit.

But Federer is simply unplayable, from both wings, on serve, etc. Watch.

Here’s some of the Djokovic v Nadal 2016 Doha final

Ladies and gentlemen, if one goes to the HFE argument, we need convincing evidence, narrative, numbers, etc. 2016 Doha is not getting it done, a 250 in January against a morbid Nadal.

We’re on the eve of the big run-up to the last major, what some would argue is the grandest of the grand slams. I think it’s fitting to approach any talk of HFE by referring to the USO.

Djokovic can play tennis with the best of them; he has a great case as one of the best players of all time. No question. But the HFE argument is just ignorant, lacks context, evidence and is, like many of these GOAT powwows, another instance where one’s bias has him by his ass.

Some of the esteemed readers of this blog have made some great points in the previous post’s comments. Some of this entails the massively flawed 2015-PF claim. If you look at that 2005 footage, search some 2006-10, you’ll probably see a pretty strong game from Federer that subordinates anything from 2013-16, a time in which the man was reaching his mid thirties, playing a brutal schedule and not really adding much to his game.

You know what I think of the Ljubičić hire, how this breathed confidence and execution back into the Swiss’ game plan, along with a very real sense of revenge (which probably best illustrates this fresh breath, this deliverance of Roger Federer in 2017). He had the injury break and the time to tweak his game for this specific run in 2017.

But, but, but. Go back to the 2005 USO final video above. The reason it’s probably easier to say that Federer has a better case for HFE than does Djokovic revolves around the simple eye-test. Ljubičić has been instrumental, but Federer already had some decent tools to work with.

Federer has so many weapons. His BH in 2005, in that video, is so offensive it’s silly. The confidence and execution there make for an insanely formidable day at the office for his opponent; and it’s more fearsome than the 2017 version. The FH is then THE most deadly weapon in the gamd. He’s CC and DTL at will, deep, his athleticism organizing each shot. His serve is, as we know, a massive weapon.

At 4-2 in the first set he delivers two aces in particular here. One is 112mph down the T; the other is 124 out-wide, both from the ad side, both unreadable from one of the best “readers” the game has ever seen from the ROS.

Of course, he finishes points at the net (almost) as well as anyone. Agassi, like so many of his non-clay opponents of this era, has very little chance. That’s four point-ending weapons.

Federer’s real peak has all of this in full view with a much more youthful, threatening persona that few could deal with.

This DHFE pertains to the masterful baseliner, with a brilliant ROS, great court-movement to buttress his great FH and BH. His serve got better under Becker, but it was never in that Federer class, let alone other greats.

I am going to close and say that if you are going to make this HFE claim, you better include in your calculations the prospects of longevity, of one being able to sustain it since “highest” or “best” is only so if one can sustain such form.

And that will be the final chapter here with Djokovic, with DHFE, Djokollapse (and his legacy in general, something I will deal with in the HRFRT eBook).

His is a form that will be tough to sustain, imho. Watching Nishikori today in D.C., I thought about Djokovic. This is such a physical style of tennis, one that requires a long,  defensive stance.

Finishing points becomes even more critical as a player ages.

How does Djokovic finish points? This will be most telling. Nadal, as we saw throughout clay this year, was very aggressive, the FH ending points before anyone could even figure-out what was happening. And Nadal has a great net game, as we’ve mentioned many times before.

But the argument with Nadal has been longevity, as well. Does he have enough for the HC this summer? We shall see.

We’re bound to carry this conversation on throughout the comments and in several subsequent posts.

As I’ve made quite clear, the tour needs a healthy Djokovic and we wish him the best, deepest and quickest recovery. But his fanatics need to clean-up after themselves with regards to much of this unnecessary and unrealistic zoology (GOAT experiments in particular).

This stream-of-consciousness DHFE discourse ought to have woken me from slumber. Thanks for reading.

Looking forward to talking about some of the tennis tomorrow. D.C. is in full tilt.

Cheers.

Timeout: Let’s Burn Some Bullshit

Because we’re on the web (can’t deny my blog is on the internet, unfortunately), we get more or less tossed-in to this bath-house of points-of-view, some of which fail on several levels. However, the positives of the internet, I’m afraid, outweigh the negatives, which, granted, is a vague generalization, but you and I know I’m right about this. We have so much ease and insight at our fingertips via the internet: the smartest of us, then, will be those who can discern the legitimate from the bullshit.

I work hard on this blog and know, in fact, that I need to step-up my game even more. The blog as a genre has grown and has become a more and more credible platform for additional perspectives on a variety of topics. This development advances social, intellectual and democratic agendas and is, therefore, valuable, among other things.

But there are still and always will be much less constructive blogs, discussion boards and articles, etc., that litter the interwebs and potentially our thought processes. Again, I don’t think this is necessarily a doomed condition.

This just means that you have to develop the ability to read and understand what is decent from indecent, honest from delusional, etc.

The Djokofans are upside-down right now (I mean the crazed, belligerent types, about which you can read at that infamous dump emanating out of S. Africa and his sibling-hysteric apparently coming-out of Britain, among, I am sure, many more).

I address this bullshit from time to time. I did so around the time of Indian Wells, here and here.

Here’s what everyone’s favorite tennis blogger wrote recently (you probably saw he called WB rigged, Djokovic persecuted, etc.). His lunacy is better represented in pretty colors.

“I’ve posted tables before which showed that Djokovic gets the toughest draws and face the stiffest competition and the above confirms this fact. It also shows that Federer had the weakest competition of the big four throughout his career.

So not surprisingly, Federer has won the most slams. Some of the most striking facts are that Djokovic won only one of his slams without facing a big 4 member in the final while Federer won 12 slams without facing a big 4 member in the final. Federer has also won 11 slams without facing any big 4 member at all while Djokovic had to beat at least one big 4 member in all the slams he won.”

I have addressed this in so many ways, this being one of the more recent articles.

There are two major problems with this ridiculous point about facing the “Big 4.” One is the inability to acknowledge that Federer played virtually in a different era; as my linked article points-out, by 2008, Federer had 13 majors, Nadal had 5 and Djokovic had 1. That’s not a typo, nor do you have to be an authoritative tennis historian to see a problem with this “Big4” criterion. Wipe the bullshit from your chin.

This “Big 4” point used to criticize Federer’s opponents is rife with fallacy; you pick which specific fallacy applies: Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

The second problem is putting so much ill-advised stock in the composition and development of a draw. No one can control a draw other than the players contesting those matches. I have heard people talk about the anti-climactic 2017 Wimbledon final, how this might affect Roger, the quality of the win, etc.

Please note: this has no bearing on the quality of that major. Federer’s draw was tough, he played well enough to win, Cilic couldn’t muster the goods in the final, so Federer wins his 19th. That’s what happened and even more so: that’s what the records show and will show in the future.

Remember the Mcshow Tennis Nadal v Federer argument (a series of posts I wrote over a year ago)? One of the flaws with that H2H is Nadal often was no where to be found late in the draw in tournaments that didn’t take place on the red dirt of RG. Is that Federer’s fault? That he didn’t get to play the #2 seed, who went out in the 3R? Shit happens, folks. You can not blame a player because other players shit their pants earlier in the tournament. Djokovic, Nadal and Murray bowed-out early in this last Wimbledon, so we should discount Federer’s win? Ha ha.

In fact, what will become clearer to you novice thinkers is that the very fact of one’s survival becomes a big part of legacy. If you can’t stay healthy, that’s a flaw and once that can of worms is opened, we can go all sorts of places. Staying healthy is part of the program. If you can’t, you won’t and no one cries for you other than your sad, diapered little fans who are really just sport hooligans who could care less about tennis.

The idea that Federer’s 19th is blemished because he couldn’t play Djokovic in the semi-final, or Nadal/Murray in the final is so weak. Those three players lost prior to playing Federer. Can you wrap your brain around that fact? They didn’t play well enough to advance. Do you understand that?

I have to keep this somewhat focused since so many extensions arise – health and consistency are HUGE factors folks and like I have been arguing for almost a year now, the Djkollapse has been tragic. That’s part of that story, part of the 12 majors, his BH, etc.. Just like Nadal’s injuries are inseparable from his clay success and his non-clay inconsistency.

Please read more closely, with more discernment and breadth of knowledge. Please.

Next:

“Federer is the talented one who currently has the most slam titles. Nadal is the great fighter and clay court GOAT. Djokovic is the most complete if you include the mental aspect and has the highest peak level. They are all incredible players and it is unlikely that any of them will ever be officially crowned the GOAT.”

Someone explain how Djokovic is the most complete player. He’s a baseline grinder with superb flexibility, has a great ROS and a decent serve. This “most complete” claim is a vague statement that lacks any sort of definition/delineation. He has been described as having a very natural stroke, from his early days, his timing superbly natural, his turn through the ball exquisite. But there’s a lot more to tennis than FH and BH from the BL.

This will get played-out, historically. We will get to why Federer’s 2017 is not that surprising, but why Djokovic excelling at the age of 35-36 might be. Read that last sentence again (I have posed it a million times): how, do you gather, will Djokovic play at 33, 34 or 35? That has to do with one’s game, style and related health which play massive roles in one’s legacy. Sorry if this seems so obvious.

Lastly and most ridiculously:

“There are many more variables than what I touched on in this post. For instance the biased scheduling we saw at Wimbledon but far more importantly the influence of the mainstream media. By always promoting Federer as the embodiment of all that is good and noble and victimizing Djokovic as the villain they influence the way Federer and Djokovic are perceived and treated as a result.

The media has enormous power and in politics, the powerful use it for instance to win elections and to make people vote against their own interests. It is the ultimate brainwashing tool and very easy to fall for if you are not inclined to think for yourself and hold a certain skepticism for everything you hear in the mainstream media.

Anyway, the media is just one other factor that I wanted to include because it is part of a rigged system whether in sport, politics, or whatever the case may be. I never talked about it before but I saw how enormously influential it is in American politics and thought it is an underrated and overlooked influence in tennis.

But I will leave it at that. [. . .]”

Ha ha ha ha ha aha.  The media affects the results of matches? That’s the argument. Are you talking about the popularity of a player and how that affects the fans and therefore the playing environment? Right: I just articulated your argument more effectively than you.

If a player is beaten by the crowd, what’s that player’s prospects on tour? This is a joke, right? The media controls tennis matches. The popularity affects scheduling, etc. Does the media affect the draw? Was Djokovic’s victimization the reason he got such a soft draw at 2017 WB? Help us out here.

I know: part of the conspiracy is Roger gets a tougher draw, therefore his matches are against higher quality opponents, which encourages the organizers to put such a quality match-up on CC whereas Djokovic gets the shitty-easy draw so his matches can be moved to Court 1.

Is that what you fangirls are arguing? The softer draw was part of the conspiracy?

This sophomoric blogger completely loses his ass when he gets into world politics here, or American politics in particular and the role of the media. One can see he’s trying to add this political association to strengthen his argument that the media affects tennis matches. The media is big in politics; therefore, it’s big in tennis. Another weak logical fallacy, I’m afraid.

The latest chapter in the media’s influence on politics is that the media, as a whole, failed the American people in the last Presidential election. Literally, there was one poll out of the University of Southern California that appears, in hindsight, to have seen a much tighter election. On the whole, the media failed, did not affect the election other than one could argue that the American people rebelled against the mainstream media narrative: that Hillary Clinton would be the next US President.

In other words, don’t give the media that much credit.

And we’re talking about tennis, so to the point here, you’re in way-over-your-head.

To come full circle: we bloggers are here to keep the mainstream media, hopefully, more honest and perhaps more and more unsure of their own significance.

At the same time, a blogger off-the-rails doesn’t give this new genre much advance. Maybe ease-up on your fanboy antics, enjoy and analyze the sport more objectively, so you don’t make such a fool of yourself.

I have a lot more to say folks about more things tennis and this blog (a lot of thinking going-on here about the direction of the season and this blog). I will post another article tonight (by writing that down, such goals more often come to pass). 🙂

Cheers!

Wimbledon QF Preview and A Rant

Quarter Finals

1. Murray (3 set R16) v Querrey (5 set R16)

My numerology is fantastic! Everyone who played a three-set R16 match raise your hand. You are going to win your QF match and advance to the SF! Congratulations! This is a conspiracy and we’ve let this one go a little too far. You are all part of a grand chain of events beyond your control. If your R16 match went 5 sets, sorry. Better luck next time!

Actually my Rant is below, but I’m really feeling it right now. Sorry. Thought that pattern nonetheless is pretty funny and does probably work to determine the SF match-ups. Ha ha.

Murray should advance here and wear-and-tear will be a part of that. Plus, Murray has more leverage across the board, starting with he’s a better tennis player. But the intangibles are speaking-up, as well. He’s the defending champ at his home major. Lendl is in the house. Murray looks untroubled so far and we know he’s been getting good reps. That RG SF wasn’t all for nought. What’s not to like about Murray?

Of course, Querrey isn’t just an empty pint. Querrey made the QF last year after beating Novak (the supposed beginning of Djokollapse) and lost to Raonic. He can play grass and his big serve makes him relevant (as it does Muller and Raonic and even Berdych). Andy’s ROS will partly neutralize the American’s big weapon, but stranger things have happened. And what’s the status on injuries? I have heard Andy is injured. Novak looked injured today, yet the talking heads around SW19, who have better access than we do, don’t seem to be talking much about any of this. This could be Andy in 3 or 4, but if gets into the land of TB, the contest could get tight, go either way; and Murray, we know, is still chasing that lion. But you have to favor Murray here.

2. Cilic (3) v Muller (5)

These two played a tight SF at Queen’s Club that Marin won 63 57 64. Muller may be rested and feeling really confident from that win over Nadal, so we could be in for another tight match. I have been big on Cilic and I think he over-powers the lefty; at the cilic-wimbledon-2017-wednesdaysame time, the big serve can neutralize a dangerous opponent, too. Can Muller tap into a big day on serve and keep things going for another round? Probably better to surmise that Gilles is pretty taxed, and Marin will continue to march towards another final-four showdown (remember, he was up 2-0 sets on Roger in last year’s WB QF. He had MP at Queen’s two weeks ago in the final. This is a guy with major championship range and he’s probably pretty motivated). Jonas Bjorkman doesn’t hurt either. We like Cilic here but an energized and stoic Muller would be gift for us fans, again (that Nadal match is still ringing in our ears).

3. Fededer (3) v Raonic (5)

Federer is rolling, and Raonic has had a less than good year on tour; but we better understand that Milos will not be an easy match for Federer. Of course, last year’s SF plays into that. But even more so: his run here at these Championships. A win like that in the R16, against a young hot-shot who’s been playing better and more (consistently), has to bring Raonic out of his slump a bit. And the serve is just enormous. We think back to the role a big serve can play on these lawns, even the slower manifestations of the grass. The Zverev match is a big win for the Canadian.

But, the taxman did collect, Raonic needing five big sets (though he breadsticked Sascha in the fifth) to compile the victory. That was a tough battle, so some fatigue would be expected and Federer has been pretty light on his feet, flowing, seems ready for this revenge match.

A reader asked about my commentary last year where I called Roger out a bit for failing to close-out Raonic. I have not re-read my post on that SF, but like most matches, there are a few big moments in the exchange that will determine the big shifts in score and momentum (clutch). I remember that being the case with that match, that Federer, whether it was injury, the Ljubičić-project still in its infancy, who knows, but Federer couldn’t handle the big Raonic at that point. Raonic had a better year in 2016, had McEnroe in his box during the fortnight, etc. He was a better player then.

And Federer has that clear re-interpretation of tennis at the business-end. 2017 Federer, understatement of the era, has been remarkably more efficient, lethal. Before, all of that lethality would dull in those critical breaths of huge games and points. He’s closing now; the BH being a good tangible example of this new approach; but the intangibles seem as palpable, as well. Federer’s variety, sorcery, and talent are now polished with that more efficient gamesmanship, match management, etc. You know what I mean.

Federer should win this (on the 5 v 3 numerology) but also on the arch of their careers (ironically); Federer is looking to continue an historical year, playing well. Raonic seems to be struggling just a bit and might have expended a bit too much getting to the QF.

Lastly, on this match; that serve and ROS equation. If Federer can serve well here, then the Canadian has to have a mammoth day on serve. Federer’s ROS is much better and will, most likely, get a look at some BP – of course, he has to cash-in, unlike Nadal yesterday. But if Federer is serving like he did against Grigor, how does Raonic pressure Federer?

4. Djokovic (3) v Berdych (5)

I will write this analysis tomorrow, but as you can see, based-on my sophisticated numerology, I can predict that Novak will win in 3 sets (follow the pattern there?).

I wrote that sentence yesterday, so another prediction fulfilled! I know, I’m being pretty silly, but the match (I watched bit toward the end) looked off. Novak had a MTO and seemed to be wincing through out his service games. That did not look good. I saw highlights of the first set and Novak looked solid, running Mannarino side-to-side at will; Novak looked to be hitting the ball well. 

But he looked off closing-out the match, unhappy, uncomfortable. After the match, Gilbert and Goodall didn’t say much about the injury. Is he injured? Was that an inappropriate MTO? I’m referring to my back-in-forth with Wilfried in last night’s comments. Novak looked legitimately uncomfortable in that right shoulder/elbow/etc.

As for Berdych, he can play grass and he’s a big boy with a big game. He does struggle playing these top guys; he is 2-25 against Novak overall. But, he’s also 1-1 at WB against the Serb, the win coming in the 2010 QF.

We’ll see. I still don’t know the status of Novak. I’ve been anticipating his return for a few months now. He didn’t really prove too much at Eastbourne, his draw here has been a joke (again, Mannarino looked completely over-matched out there. Looked like a bad ticket to watch Wimbledon), and now he looks to be battling injury with another match tomorrow against a big hitter?

You got me on this one.

Berdych has been playing well this year; I keep going back to the QF at Miami where he played 2017 Federer to a stand-still. He’s under the direction of Ivanišević. But he just played 5 v Thiem and he’s 2-25 against the Djoker. I’m not calling upset though this would not surprise me; would validate this mystery form and health that the shitty draws perpetuate. Instead, I’m calling BS on the Serb – if he’s healthy, and he probably is, he routines the big, tired Czech underachiever (you hear that, Tomás? Prove me wrong, big guy).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Is there any pressure on Djokovic? You bet there is. He has to prove to someone, anyone (himself, his coaches, Pepe, his fans) that he is in major championship winning form. This isn’t Novak, #1 in the world, with a seasoned box including Wimbledon great Boris Becker on staff. This is Novak, clawing his way out from under the Djokollapse, who’s hired Agassi and Mario Ancic, a decent player back in the early to mid aughts, but left the game to go to law school and become a banker.

Brad Gilbert, referring to Djokovic’s R16 match today getting postponed (and finally moved to July 11), suggested that both Djokovic and Agassi must have been pacing back Agassi_Wimbledon-2017-player-Novak-Djokovic-988952and forth like Agassi used to do during his playing years, anticipating the start of his match (Gilbert coached the American for a time). These two have to be somewhat nervous since there’s a lot on the line – more so than for any other player (an argument I have been making all year, which I started in 2016). This is more important for him than it is for Fedal, Andy, Cilic, Mannarino, yo mama, etc.

Don’t be fooled.

And Agassi is not messing around. He’s doing this coaching gig pro bono. He’s going after people even somewhat critical of Novak, including John McEnroe; according to reports, McEnroe likened Djokovic’s fall to that of Tiger Woods’. Hmmm. We might have to consider the context here like was necessary with his comment about Serena’s relevance on the ATP. Agassi told Johnny Mac to shut-up.

So, from the nervous pacing to the mafia-like public relations, the Novak camp has to know that tomorrow had better be a smooth three-setter.

If you recall, I joked about the upset alert in my last post regarding Djokarino. Instead we got Muller Time (another t-shirt). I don’t think Novak has much difficulty tomorrow, but then again I don’t have much on which to base my confidence in Novak.

I will fill-out the QF preview tomorrow. Thanks for reading.

PS
Djokerfan is suggesting that there’s a conspiracy in putting Djokarino on Court 1 today, knowing full well that they would never get that match in, so moving the match to 7/11 is part of, again, some conspiracy to undermine Nole. Djokerfan is wrong again. The conspiracy, rather, is that this unrepentant mass needed something about which to hiss and piss; it’s not a meaningful tournament unless the Djokergirls and boys are crying. Alas, we have a complaint! Couldn’t cry about the draw. But they got something to piss on, after all. Only the Djokes on them. 😀

PPS
Good luck, Novak. Just play good tennis.
Berdych is waiting and playing like it’s 2010 😉

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Rant

Folks, you and I read and watch a lot of tennis. The fact that you’re reading this right now makes me very happy, by the way – might even add a little motivation in the morning to get out of bed 😀

I grew-up listening to many of our great tennis narrators add so much layer and depth to matches, tournaments, championships, and their players. I’m getting side-tracked here; this is not a recollection of some of the sport’s great voices – that would be a fun post to write for sure.

This is about some of the garbage out there that I want to say a few quick words about. Indeed, some of the less qualified “voices” in our super-charged social media environment decorate this glorious tennis landscape like wads of senselessness that I guess at least provide some of us fuel for discourse. But you know of what I speak.

Let me paraphrase the sentiment that I have been torpedoing for awhile here lately. It’s pretty much the Djokerfan. Separate this discussion from the discussion about tennis and their hero. He’s an all-timer, one of the very best ever and watching him struggle to get out of this collapse is a little disturbing; I can go into that more later, but let’s just say that the world isn’t quite right when a 30 year-old Novak Djokovic is struggling. As I’ve been saying, get your shit together, bud. Shit or get off the pot. What is this? Seems very personal, emotional.

Of course, Andy last year and now Fedal have moved to fill the void; so it’s not like we’re abstinent from genius competitive professional men’s tennis. In other words, the sport we love is better when people are healthy and playing their best. All players.

Do you hear that, Djokerfans? Your pissing and moaning about the conspiracy against your player is a bad look, a really bad look. You believe Novak has been singled-out because he’s a threat to Fedal, the sport in general, whatever.  You believe others (a vague “they”) perpetrate an historical crime (perpetuated) against Djokovic. If that’s the case, and it is, then the spirit of your complaint implies you would prefer to see bad fortune brought upon others. If you believe there is ill-will toward your player, then you naturally (we all assume this if you’re too dumb to realize this) invite ill-will on your opponents.

You recall my exposé on CindyBlack3 (look her up on Twitter) and that fog horn of fanatical garbage. She blocked me finally when I asked her how her argument that Novak is the greatest HC player of all time jives with Roger’s and Pete’s 5 USO majors, or Lendl’s eight straight USO finals. That’s the land of hard courts, folks, where the men separate themselves from the pretenders. Federer has as many of those titles as Novak, Nadal and Andy have combined. Get your saber metrics toilet paper out of the building. She and her cohorts have all kinds of statistics that argue the corruption of draws designed to undermine Novak, historically.

The Djoker conspiracy around 2017 Wimbledon has finally landed, as of yesterday (tough to bring too much attention to the draw in which their player has played a bunch of top-50 players). I touched-on this extra-terrestrial encounter yesterday, as the alien ship landed only because there was nothing acutely, of note, for them to sink their teeth into until that Muller v Nadal match.

Because Djokarino played today, the scheduling of a Djokovic match is now under protest; the calendar was altered, moved to today because the court it was scheduled to play on yesterday, Court 1, happened to be occupied by one of the great matches of recent memory.

One popular strain of the conspiratorial virus reads along these lines: “They” (whoever the fuck that is) want a Federer-Murray final. They’ll go on to say crap like Federer’s scheduling has never been subject to so much “bad luck.”

The Fan will look past the pure manner of scheduling and the coincidence that Nadal and Muller would play a ~5 hour classic. Are Muller and Nadal in on the conspiracy, too?

Or is it that you want to play on Centre Court? Part of this complaint might be that because the Nadal/Muller went so long, Agassi and Djoker were upset that the last R16 match wasn’t moved to Centre Court on the fly. They were upset, apparently. But can’t you all see how/why that seems a little more complicated than you’d all like it to be? A lot of pieces, quickly, and confusedly, have to move. Sorry to break it to you, but the entire planet doesn’t just revolve around Djokovic. But isn’t that ironic, because you think the tennis planet revolves around Federer (and Nadal?). Actually, clarify that for me; is Nadal part of the bad guys? Is it Djokovic v Federer or Djokovic v Fedal? I haven’t heard if Nadal was upset that he was on Court 1 for the R16. Perhaps we should look into that…

If you’re bummed that Djokovic wasn’t originally scheduled for Centre Court, what’s your point? That your player is being de-valued, you’re insecure that he’s not “liked” or as popular as other players? That sounds ridiculous. But is it possible that there is some truth to that? Would such a sentiment be totally unfounded?

If you can’t possibly see the rationale for Murray playing on Centre Court and/or Roger Federer playing on Centre Court (from a fan’s point-of-view, the role of marketing, the pulse of business enterprise, the growth of the tournament and the sport, not to mention the quality of the match – your draw stinks, Novak), I can only encourage you to keep reading my blog, because I believe that will help.

What about your draw?

If you think the tournament really wanted Federer v Murray, why wouldn’t they just switch Federer’s draw with Djokovic’s? Your QF opponent has a 2-25 record against you. You played a guy today in the R16 that looked way out of his league and the guy he beat in R3 is best known for tanking matches. You get the most favorable draw in the tournament, yet you think we’re all coming for you?

Did you see the move that I made in that last sentence? I changed the pronoun from “they’re” to “we’re.”

Your irrationality does see it as the world is after you. And people like me will come after you because your hysteria taints an ordinarily decent event (Is the sport totally void of corruption? No. But we can certainly utilize our crap-detectors to determine what and when something is really worth some kind of investigative discussion).

The only thing, of course, that will cure this disease is for Novak to start winning; then again, we know humanity well enough to gauge that even that won’t curb the conspiracy enthusiasm. 😉

Carry-on.