Re: Muster on the Hamburg final

On May 21, 9:03 pm, the...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 May 2007 07:10:54 -0700, "arnab.z@gmail"



<arnab.zah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 7:49 pm, the...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 May 2007 06:22:51 -0700, "arnab.z@gmail"

<arnab.zah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 7:05 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1179732286.921537.218670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On May 21, 9:55 am, "andrew.r...@xxxxxxxxx" <andrew.r...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Incidentally, I agree with skriptis that slower clay presents Nadal
with the problem of not being able to hit shots as forcefully or
offensively.

Oh please...it presents BOTH the players with the problem. Which means
it's not a big factor at all. What matters is who is more likely to
adapt to a different clay condition and play his natural game on clay?
Nadal or his opponent?

No, this is true, some bizzaro thing, just like faster courts at AO 00
helped Agassi's serve...and since Sampras always seerved faster/better than
him, this gave Agassi small advatnage.

When clay is slow with low bounce, then Fed can be just as or almost just as
good in defensive department, thus anihilates Nadal's advatange..
Then it's matter of who is better in the offensive department.

Really,no branier, just need to have some cells...

No, it's bull*** you just made up on the spot.

No Arnab, skriptis is correct in what he says.

He isn't. He clearly didn't watch the match. Looks like you didn't
either. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I would put it that it
was harder for Nadal to dominate the game, which made it easier for
Federer to defend/attack.

Bull***.

Nadal found throughout Hamburg slowness of the courts reducing his
chances for aggressive play and hitting winner(or forcing
UE's)...Because of his topspin strokes.

Bull***.

Spin slows down the ball.

? So?

Federer said after the final that in previous matches he felt that
Nadal was always dictating play, yet in this one he felt it was
himself who dictated.

Yes, and neither Nadal nor Federer attributed this in any way to the
supposed "slowness" and "lack of bounce" in Hamburg. Because in that
case, they would be telling lies.

Having higher bounce and faster court makes it a lot harder for Fed to
answer Nadal's topspin-heavy groundstrokes.

The ball was bouncing very high on Hamburg as well. You clearly didn't
watch the match.

And I think you are just talking out of your ass on whether "having
higher bounce and faster court makes it a lot harder for Fed to
answer Nadal's topspin-heavy groundstrokes." I don't buy it. Federer
almost beat Nadal last year on bouncy and faster clay in Rome. Had two
matchpoints. So either you are not thinking, or you are, well, trying
to stir up ***. Trying to find out whether trolling is fun? :-)

Of course Nadal could have dictated here too, if he had hit balls more
deep than what he did in this match -Balls ended perfectly in Fed's
optimal strike zone.

No, more like Federer was generally much more aggressive and pounced
on any and every opportunity. Federer took the ball very early on both
wings and MADE it look like as if the balls ended perfectly in
Federer's optimal strike zone.

You only get to play as well as your opponent allows you to.

Yes, and Federer dictated the match with his aggressive stroke-play.

Well, I don't bother to explain the same thing third time. Just read
Fed's and Nadal's interviews, watch all Nadal's matches with
commentary and read what Muster says, then we might be on the same
line.

I have done all that. I am not so sure you did.

It makes no sense to answer comments such as "bull***". I guess you
couldn't come up with better counter arguments.


No, because it doesn't make any sense to me. The best way to point out
nonsense is to call on it.

I do agree that significant part of fed's success was because of his
aggressive play(and backhand working great in the end). I am merely
making a point(or several) why Nadal's game was not as effective
yesterday as usually.

Yeah, and I am merely making the counterpoint that bringing up the
supposed "slowness" and "less bounciness" of the Hamburg clay as the
reason behind Nadal's game being not as effective is simply flawed
reasoning. It's so ludicrous that I have to call bull*** on this one.
I saw the matches, I saw the bounce and speed of the balls. I know
what I am talking about. Even if it IS true that the surface somehow
negates Nadal's efficiency, and I don't for a moment think it is, I
believe it is too miniscule to be considered as a factor in this loss.
My honest take.

.

Quantcast