I have always been fascinated by tennis scores, I see things in them that perhaps most 'normal' people don't. Whenever I read a tennis score I look at it rather intently, some scores tell a story, some don't give much away but most tell a story, even If I have not watched the match.
Take for instance a match that has always stuck in my mind; Nadal vs Philippoussis US Open 2006, First Round. Possibly the sport's greatest ever returner, apart from Borg, takes on a huge serve. What is the mindset ?
If I can get the serve back I can win the match, simple.
Or is it ?
Sometimes we watch tennis matches and it unfolds all rather 'simply', the 'best' guy wins, yet we need to look at how he wins to fully understand tennis.
Rafa in 2006 took on an Aussie Wild Card in Philippoussis who had been runner up at Wimbledon to Federer three years earlier. 'Flip' could still play the game but staying away from injury was not one of his strong points.
To cut a long story short, Rafa won this particular match 6-4, 6-4, 6-4.
How did he win it ?
Just.
It looks all pretty standard but a score line like that is tough to achieve. It's a 'just' win, nothing more, nothing less, a battle of the mind. One player is superior off the ground, the other owns a serve that is hard to get a hold of.
Three breaks will do, one each set. It is achieved.
Only the best returners can achieve that type of result. They take the bombs, they count the aces, they wait for the slightest of opportunities, they take them. Pretty simple stuff. To the naked eye, yes.
Like I said, I study scores, it does my head in some days as I try to see 'reason' with them.
REWIND
US OPEN 1992
SECOND ROUND
A guy by the name of Brad Gilbert from the US, ranked World Number 22 took on Michael Stich of Germany, seeded 11, Wimbledon Mens Singles Champion of 1991. Tough match up either way you look at it in Round 2 of a Slam.
Stich was up two sets to one and lost but the thing about the scoreline is the most remarkable of statistics.
7-0 Gilbert, fifth set tie breaker.
A one off ?
US OPEN 1992
THIRD ROUND
Brad Gilbert took on another American Tommy Ho who reached a career high of 85 in singles in 1995 and 13 in doubles in '96. Tommy could play the game. Not a house hold name but now days a guy ranked 85 in singles would be living pretty well financially, it's simply the era difference now in tennis.
You don't have to be top 50 to own a nice car.
Ho lead Gilbert two sets to one and lost. Here's the score in the fifth set tie breaker.
7-0 Gilbert.
Is there a pattern here ?
We all know Gilbert is a genius, love him or hate him. He was a player who won 20 ATP Titles, that commands respect. Forget the fact that Connors won 109 and Federer is trying his best in his 'old age' to hunt him down at 90 something.
20 titles is outrageous.
BG owned a rather 'quirky' style, no technical genius but he prove that 'Winning Ugly' was not only a trade mark of his game but also a book title that maybe made him as much off court as it did on.
Genius either way you look at it.
For the record Gilbert finally lost a tie breaker point in his fourth round against Volkov, 7-6 in the fourth, though maybe he could be forgiven for having tired legs by that stage.
The US Open Tennis Championships of 1992 were full of mind games and marathon matches but one thing I do love about New York in September is this, they agree on the same thing as I do and I liken it to an Aussie BBQ;
It should be 'well done' yet 'never over cooked'.
Mahut and Isner at Wimbledon in 2010 was the most farcical match I have ever witnessed, over 11 hours in total and over 8 hours for the final set, over 100 aces each.
That's tennis ??
That's ridiculous.
Yep, the Yanks have got it right, finish the match at 6-6 in the final set with a tie breaker, that's still a tough day at the office.
Well done, not over cooked.
US OPEN 1992 Title.
Stefan Edberg won his quarter final against Lendl 7-6 in the fifth then his semi against Chang 6-4 in the fifth in a tick under five and a half hours.
He then beat Sampras in 4 sets to back up his title win a year earlier which in fact only cost him two sets in his run to the title, such was his dominance.
A year later it was almost a case of 'Hey guys, do you mind ? I am trying to defend a title here'.
( Which he did.)
Stubbornness in tennis is a necessity.........
No comments:
Post a Comment