Tenis radi tenisa

[Time Crisis]

Prosto ne znam da li da se slozim ili ne.... Specijalci su nesto sto je obelezavalo ranije turnire, ali se i tada znalo ko su glavni favoriti. Agasi uze sva 4 komada, Sampras sve sem RG-a.

Kad već pominješ, Agasi ga je uzeo na jedvite jade protiv Medvedeva, koji iako dobar igrač, nije baš neka legenda tenisa, tu godinu nije završio ni među prvih 30 :)

[nexus13]

Kad već pominješ, Agasi ga je uzeo na jedvite jade protiv Medvedeva, koji iako dobar igrač, nije baš neka legenda tenisa, tu godinu nije završio ni među prvih 30 :)

Agasi je 1 car :) . Vazio za jednog od najtalentovanijih klinaca ikada, pa izgubio 3 finala i proglasen za vecitog chokera, da bi krenulo sa cuvenim W. i Zecom u finalu. Onda ludilo sa Gilbertom, uzimanje svega zivog da bi pao na 140-i neku poziciju, i za par meseci se vratio medju 5, pa opet krenuo sa uzimanjem svega zivog i nezivog. To je covek zbog kojih su milioni klinaca krenuli da pikaju tenis, a nikad necu zaboraviti 80-i neku, kada je nepoznati klinac u Kajagoogoo fazonu oprao naseg Bobu da ovaj nije znao sta ga je snaslo. Edited January 30, 2012 by nexus13

[bergasa19]

Agasi je supermegagigacar.

[Afterburner]

nema mnogo veze sa tenisom sem da se radi o jednoj od najboljih teniserki ikadashow je dancing with the stars, bas me nesto razocarala, nema sluha, ni talenta za ovo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8nDdVDyoQYovde ima dosta ljubitelja i nfl-aevo kralja http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTtAyKPpIU4&list=PL0A4F93FFC9AC6021&index=10&feature=plpp_video

Edited March 20, 2012 by Afterburner

[Garnirung]

Tu je i Mala Mo nastupala. Bjaše vest pre godinu ili tako nešto

[Ros]

nema mnogo veze sa tenisom sem da se radi o jednoj od najboljih teniserki ikadashow je dancing with the stars, bas me nesto razocarala, nema sluha, ni talenta za ovo

mi to poluredovno pratimo u nemackoj verziji. sportisti su uglavnom katastrofa losi u tome. jedini izuzetak je giovane elber. ali on je brazilac, oni se ne racunaju.

[Time Crisis]

Zanimljiv članak:http://iltennisresults.webs.com/apps/blog/show/14684969-waiting-for-an-offer-from-the-bundesliga-amir-weintraubInače Weintraub ima odličan blog i zanimljivo piše :)

[Garnirung]

Znaš hebrejski :) ? Gde si našao englesku stranu ili si ustvari mislio na ovaj sajt što si linkovao?A što se tiče liga, ok je to, ako ima interesovanja, što da ne. Ja sam odranije čuo za World Team Tennis, ali se nisam nešto udubljivao u tu priču.Mada realno, to je izvodljivo uglavnom u ovim, ekonomski jačim zemljama.

[Time Crisis]

Znaš hebrejski :) ? Gde si našao englesku stranu ili si ustvari mislio na ovaj sajt što si linkovao?

Ima prevod :D http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=174951U temi ima nekoliko njegovih članaka, vredi pročitati, kako izgleda život tenisera koji nisu u top 10 :)

[freakns]

Ima prevod :D http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=174951U temi ima nekoliko njegovih članaka, vredi pročitati, kako izgleda život tenisera koji nisu u top 10 :)

fenomanalan blog

[Arkadija]

Kako dobri tekstovi, čovek odlično piše.Ja sam čula za te lige pre par godina, ali niko nije mogao da mi podrobno objasni o čemu se radi, a nekako se poklopilo sa Novakovim pohodom na 1. mesto, pa mi je to ostalo van žiže intertesovanja da bih tražila po netu o čemu se radi.

[Garnirung]

Najjače je što upravo spominje Aleksa Bogdanovića, momka koji je i sam davao dosta izjava o tom krvavom čelendžer-fjučers iskustvu.I rekao bih da obojica podvlače, nesvesno, koliko je veliki pritisak u tenisu kao pojedinačnom sportu. Ne samo takmičarski, nego sveukupni. Kako finansijski, medijski, a na kraju i takmičarski. Velika razlika u odnosu na većinu timskih, gde čovek može i da se sakrije i pokrije, a i da ga podrže i uzdignu, kao što i Amir naglašava posle one Dejvis kup pobede i uticaj izraelskog selektora na njegovu psihu.

[189-]

valjda tu treba ovu vest postaviti...novi rekord

[Time Crisis]

Odličan post sa mtf-a, vredi ga pročitati od prve do poslednje reči :)

Originally Posted by NYCtennisfanYou cannot judge how well Djokovic has played a match by W/UE ratios alone because in many of the matches he dominated last year, he did so with worse W/UE ratios than the one you just cited. Now, in this match, he wasn't all that great in the first set, but you know what? He was up and down in a lot of sets last year, but the difference was that he wound up winning every close match he played bar the one against Federer at RG. Winning every close match is something that is not sustainable in tennis. All throughout the summer he played matches in every tournament with somewhat poorly played sets with worse W/UE rations than the one he had in this particular match in Rome against Tsonga, yet won. A lot of the success that Djokovic has comes from the forced errors he is able to get his opponents to make.What's really interesting about Djokovic is that he dominated last year without the stats of players who are usually dominant, i.e., he didn't dominate in first serve points won, was broken often, and he lost plenty of sets. This year's Miami 1000 event and last year's Belgrade tournament are the only two tournaments in his great run that he won without dropping sets. Yes, he doesn't have a dominant serve or even a very good one anymore (which was not the case when he was rising in 2006 and 2007), but Nadal in his dominant years was very dominant and stingy about losing serve and dropping sets and his serve isn't a weapon either. Nadal won 90% of his service games in 2010 compared with 86% of service games won by Djokovic in 2011 which is a huge difference in the tennis world. In 2010, Nadal lost 38 of the 210 sets that he played (18.1%) while Djokovic lost 33 of the 202 sets that he played (16.3%). Nadal, however, lost 4 more times so obviously those losses will have him incur more lost sets. In the tournaments he won, Nadal dominated from beginning to end of the tournament in most cases and was very stingy with sets given up. In the tournaments he won in 2010, Nadal lost just 9 of 112 sets played (8%) with only one tournament played where he lost more than one set in the tournament (Wimbledon). Djokovic lost 18 of 148 sets in the tournaments he won (12.2%), with multiple sets lost in 5 of the tournaments he won. He up and down in a lot of sets, got broken, came right back, played poorly in sets, yet managed to win almost everything. Yes, he did have dominant sets where he lost 2 or fewer games, but even in those sets, he would sometimes get down a break or be broken.Djokovic can dominate without "dominating" from start to finish, and can dominate without good W/UE numbers as he did last year. I think he's right on track this year. It's unreasonable to expect a player to win every close match every time he plays one, especially when he doesn't have a good serve and can't win service games easily. What Djokovic and Nadal (and to a lesser extent, Murray) have been able to do consistently with regards to winning such a high % of matches is really amazing and attests to how the game has evolved. If someone had asked me if two players could be as dominant as Djokovic and Nadal have been without the aid of even a good serve, never mind a great serve, I would not have responded that it was not possible. Tennis is a different game now and Djokovic and Nadal know they can win with tremendous defense, great consistent groundstrokes, and rock solid mental toughness. If a player can hit it well enough all match long to beat them, then good for them, but few have the talent and ability to do so, and remember, those players are also going to be moved by Djokovic and Nadal and not get the chance to hit big all match long.In the Djokovic/Federer RG SF encounter, Federer kept going after his shots even though he was beginning to temper things as the match went on and as he almost always does against Djokovic over a 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 set period (Federer has even hinted at EXACTLY this in his press conferences about why he didn't attack as much at the AO and it was so painfully obvious in Australia when the risk-reward totals for attacking almost all fell on the side of risk) .You can see the patterns play out in Djokovic matches. Players break him, but they cannot put him away easily with their own serve games in large part due to Novak's great return of service but also because most of the players don't have the shots to consistently hit attacking shots and win points at key situations in games i.e., at 30-30, 15-40, and so on against as someone as consistently great as Novak or Nadal is who both have the ability to occasionally turn out a big offensive shot and change the rhythm. You almost always see Novak get back a serve, player is not confident enough in his shots, protracted rally ensues, ND wins, player loses confidence because he doesn't have the shots necessary to put this guy away and knows it's going to be a long day of protracted rallies, and he crumbles. In addition, the players who DO have the big shots then don't have the movement to consistently get into position to hit those big shots, especially if they miss their first serves.Tennis has changed -- first serves and first strike tennis is not as important. I never thought the day would come when % tennis would rule the tennis landscape; growing up playing I never thought it was possible because a really good attacking player always seemed to have the advantage if he were "on," but that doesn't seem to be the case today. Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray to a lesser extent, the top three players other than Federer over the past 3 or 4 years all play % tennis. They don't have to worry about their serve % dipping in a key match and rendering them vulnerable because they don't rely on their service to win matches by winning rallies with their athleticism and defense, although Murray is at another level when he can get 60% of his serves in since he has a very powerful first serve that seems to come and go. How many times has Murray won while serving at 45%? How many times has Djokovic won while hitting 1 or 2 aces with a couple of service winners? Nadal? The first serve can still dominate the game, but most players can't consistently serve well enough in pressure matches to hold up against the returning of Djokovic or Murray or the defense and groudstrokes of Novak and Nadal. If a player is not serving well enough, they are probably going to lose against these returning, defensive, athletic machines. The %s are in Nadal, Djokovic, and to a lesser extent Murray's favor. To me, what really exemplifies Djokovic's and Nadal's greatness is that they can consistently win this way match in and match out without breaking down.

[Afterburner]

da, konacno pobedjuje bolji u polju. zato je definicija napadaca nepotpuna igracka kategorija. zbog toga sam uvek volela defanzivce sa prisutnom napadackom taktikom.oni cine klasicne napadace nedostojnim. vidi se da autoru to nije po volji pa je negde osetio potrebu I da federera izuzme iz te , kako je nazvao, masinerije sto je najveca greska danas koju analiticari prave. licno ne mislim da je konstantno portretisanje danasnjeg tenisa kao borbe luckih radnika istinit I celovit pogled.vise mi deluje kao lament za danima slave nekih pojedinaca. rekla bih da ovaj primerak je u procesu negiranja da fed jednostavno vise nije dovoljno dobar. tj fedov fan, jel sam pogodila? :). btw ne citam mtfta struja koja forsira nadolazeci tenis kao puku borbu procenata bi zaista trebalo da se udubi jos malo.fali im par komponenti.samo, potcenio je taj lik novakov servis I generalno udarce svrstavsi ga u masine za izazivanje iznudjenih. isto vazi I za nadala. ali zanimljiv osvrt na tenisku evoluciju...