Henman Says No Retirement; Combined Senior Rankings Debut

[steve]

Funches, regarding Nalbandian's backhand, I cannot see how you can talk about one stroke in isolation from the rest of the player's game. Its basically an exercise in abstraction and nothing more. Fed uses his backhand in many varied ways and just because he doesn't hit as many winners with it does not mean it is not a superb shot. You know that he uses it in the manner that is most effective within the the particular set of circumstances he is faced with. As you said, the mind factor comes into play all the time with him. Judging by his phenomenal record I can't see what success players have had by hitting to his, relatively speaking, weaker side. Nadal has had success against him for sure but he is another phenomenal player. I think you must analyze a given stroke or a particular aspect of a payer in an overall context of that player's game and ultimate performance. In the end you have to win, and if you don't, who cares about your game.

[chrisfromalbany]

much better backhand than Nalbandian

Not at the Masters Cup he didn't and was a good part of the reason he lost to him there. Who had the better backhand in that encounter? Or didn't you see the match?

Funches, regarding Nalbandian's backhand, I cannot see how you can talk about one stroke in isolation from the rest of the player's game. Its basically an exercise in abstraction and nothing more. Fed uses his backhand in many varied ways and just because he doesn't hit as many winners with it does not mean it is not a superb shot. You know that he uses it in the manner that is most effective within the the particular set of circumstances he is faced with. As you said, the mind factor comes into play all the time with him. Judging by his phenomenal record I can't see what success players have had by hitting to his, relatively speaking, weaker side. Nadal has had success against him for sure but he is another phenomenal player. I think you must analyze a given stroke or a particular aspect of a payer in an overall context of that player's game and ultimate performance. In the end you have to win, and if you don't, who cares about your game.

I don't agree.. this god Federer stuff has got to stop. His backhand is a weakness. You'd lead me to believe Federer is playing possum with backhand to set up the point so he can win with forehand??? No Federer/god getting overpower on the backhand side. I see it when he played Safin, Nadel, or Nalbandian.

Nalbandian has a better backhand. Yes you can look at one stroke over another. Again has nothing to do with the number of titles the guy has won. What about Sampras backhand. He was a great record, was his backhand great as well. Not seeing the point.

And I am not sure what a trier two player is.. Anyone that isn't Federer? I guess the point is less about Nalbandian and more about Federer. There are weakness in his game. He doesn't do everything the best. There are players on the tour that have better parts of there game then him.

[steve]

Hey, Chrisfromalbany, I'm not into the "godfed" business, just a cold hard analysis of this historic player, simple as that. No, he's not playing possum with his backhand but simply using his relatively weaker side to its full potential, leaving most winners for his forehand. Something most players try. Sure he has some weaknesses, who doesn't, but most of his weaknesses are stronger than most player's strengths. How do you win 37 titles, including 7majors, by having exploitable weaknesses? BTW, Fed is 7-2 against Safin, so how often has Safin taken advantage of Fed's backhand? And lately, how often has Nalb.?

So tell me again. How do you look at a stroke without analyzing the overall game and the ultimate efficacy of that stroke? The result of your game is, in fact, the only thing that counts. How you use all facets of your game to win is what really matters. Who cares how stylish you are if you can't get those titles. Discussion of a player's stroke mechanics is useless without an analysis of the ultimate result. Is the stroke contributing toward victory or toward defeat? Tennis requires a cold hard lucid examination of what is effective and what is not and to what degree. Pete Sampras did this better than anyone, and his game was beautiful to watch as well in its fluidity and athleticism.

Tier 1 players are the ones regularly winning the big championships or at least some of them. I think you can surmise who they might be. Generally, players who are destined to be more than historical footnotes.

[mimi]

I disagree with almost everything written in this thread, except that it's absurd that Mauresmo will be No. 1 for as many weeks as Venus.

2)Hingis is one of the most underrated players of all time. Yep, she stayed at No. 1 too long, but in 1997, didn't she lose only three or four times all year? She was utterly dominant, winning matches repeatedly when she barely lost any games. To compare a jarhead like Capriati, one of the dumbest players (and people) in sports, to Hingis is an insult. Capriati barely has 10 career tournament wins. She's got a great game but a feeble mind.

Funches, I don't think you understood my post. I wasn't talking about '97, and I wasn't comparing the greatness of Hingis and Capriati. I was saying that Capriati and especially Venus should have at least another 20 weeks each at #1 for the good years they had. Hingis last won a slam in '99, but stayed #1 for much of '00 and '01. Venus and Capriati had the better years then, but the determining factor in the rankings was how much Hingis played.

Obviously, Hingis was more consistent for a longer time than Capriati, and rightfully has more #1 weeks, but she should not have been #1 for so long after '99.

We know the WTA ranking is a little strange, as many of you may remember in '03 when the Williams' became injured. It's true that Serena lost in the '03 FO semis and Venus in the rd. 16. At the same time, however, Serena still held the 3 other slams and Venus the 3 other finals when they were displaced by both Belgians in August.

It was ridiculous that Clijsters, who won the '02 Year Ending Championship and reached the FO final in '03, became #1 just a month after Wimbledon.

...

Also, yes, Federer's backhand is not his best shot. It is, however, better than most other players. It can be attacked when he is having an off day, but he can certainly hit winner after winner when he is on his game.

[funches]

mimi,

I understood your post and I understood your point. I disagree with you on that one, but not strongly. I was using a broad brush because I disagreed with the general tenor of that thread – others more than yours.

I can't remember a time when Capriati deserved to be ranked ahead of Hingis. Yeah, I know, she was the holder of Roland Garros and the Aussie Open titles at the same time, but I believe she won only one other tournament (and maybe zero since the only other tournament she won during her three-grand slam run was Charleston) in that 12-month span. The regular events have to count for something, or why have a tour? Hingis probably won about eight in that span

I'm being lazy here and not doing an easy fact check, so if I'm way off, feel free to correct me.

[consafos]

Steve is largely correct that its pretty tough to isolate one stroke against another (from two different players) and get a whole lot of meaning out of it. I mean, would it make sense to ask why Henman doesn't hit his BH like Safin? Completely different styles and approaches to winning points.

Yes Fed's BH is weaker than his FH. (Gee, I've never heard that before.) Yes, Nalby has a very good backhand, much more solid than Fed if we're talking about bashing balls from the back court, nailing down the line winners, etc. Steve's point, I believe, is that you could not insert Nalby's BH (or Safin's or whoever) into Fed's game and still have him be as effective as he is with his "weak" one hander. Fed's strokes fit his game, his body and movement, as do Nalby's. An objective (or sane) person can look at their respective results and decide which player, and their respective style, is producing the more impressive results.

If only we could all move and play like Fed...but Nalby does pretty damn good, for a fat guy.

This whole discussion remonds me of why some young players (and club playrs) suck. They look at different pros and they want to serve like Roddick, hit a FH like Fed, BH like Safin, volley like Henman, etc etc. Trying to build a Frankenstein game when they're naturally suited to something entirely different.

Oh, and Chrisfromalbany, since you were talking about seeing the TMC where Nalby beat a gimpy Fed, you did see their USO match last year as well, right? If not, check the score line. Nalby's superior BH got him 7 games in 3 sets...food for thought.

[steve]

Thanks, consafos. You said it very well. I should have framed it as you did. You always have to look at the organic whole and analyze how all the parts fit together to produce the desired result, in this case one slam after another.

[consafos]

^ ^ ^

Thanks, I still have my moments!

[funches]

I don't understand the point at all that you can't compare strokes of different players.

That's like movie fans saying you can't compare the acting or the cinimatograpy of one movie to another because you have to judge them as a whole. One movie can be better than another even if its acting is worse as long as the script, directing and look are better. That's common sense.

No one said Nalbandian was better than Federer. What we said was Nalby had a better backhand while Fed was superior at everything else. Maybe we're wrong, but spare us the strange logic that you can't compare individual parts. I've never heard anyone argue that before until this thread.

I'm not necesarily saying that Fed would be better if he had Nalby's backhand (I'd have to watch Nalby more closely than I have before; he's one of my least favorite players). I am saying the average player would rather have Nalby's backhand than Fed's. I am saying Nalby's backhnad helps him win more matches than Fed's backhand helps him win matches.

[consafos]

I don't understand the point at all that you can't compare strokes of different players.

That's like movie fans saying you can't compare the acting or the cinimatograpy of one movie to another because you have to judge them as a whole. One movie can be better than another even if its acting is worse as long as the script, directing and look are better. That's common sense.

No one said Nalbandian was better than Federer. What we said was Nalby had a better backhand while Fed was superior at everything else. Maybe we're wrong, but spare us the strange logic that you can't compare individual parts. I've never heard anyone argue that before until this thread.

I'm not necesarily saying that Fed would be better if he had Nalby's backhand (I'd have to watch Nalby more closely than I have before; he's one of my least favorite players). I am saying the average player would rather have Nalby's backhand than Fed's. I am saying Nalby's backhnad helps him win more matches than Fed's backhand helps him win matches.

funches, just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong. Time to get over yourself. Here, I'll draw you a "common sense" picture. I didn't say you can't compare strokes, I said there isn't much to be made of it given the respective players styles and how the strokes fit into the whole. Just like you don't fault a Woody Allen movie for not having killer special effects. That doesn't mean you can't compare Annie Hall to The Matrix, as pointless of an exercise as I would find that to be. Got it now, chief? So knock youself out. Compare strokes to your little heart's content. Just do me a favor and stop declaring a winner.

And no, you haven't been saying "the average player would rather have Nalby's backhand than Fed's" and "Nalby's backhnad helps him win more matches than Fed's backhand helps him win matches..." but you just did now. So, in terms of those comments, you are most likely right. The average player probably would be better suited to Nalbys BH as the average player doesn't usually move and see the court like Fed. And Nalby probably does win more points on his BH side than Fed does. That seems like some solid common sense.

[funches]

Actually, the only bad part of my post was I misspelled cinematography.

[consafos]

^ ^ ^ ^
lol

[mimi]

funches, to get back to our discussion about Hingis/Capriati, check out these stats for 2001:

Grand Slams: Hingis F, S 1st, S...................Capriati W, W, S, S
Tier l events: Hingis F, S, S, F, S, S, Q.......Capriati F, W, F, 1st, F
Tier ll events: Hingis W, W, S, S, S..............Capriati S, Q, S, R16
Tier lll events: Hingis W..............................Capriati F

Now of course I've only taken into account the tournament play up to Filderstat, when Hingis apparently became injured and ended '01 her season.

As you were saying, points do not just come from the slams. The amount of points a player receives, however, are usually greater for those players who consistently play well at the big events. Both Capriati/Hingis won 3 titles, and whose were bigger? Hingis reached 3 other finals while Capriati reached 4 other finals.

Hingis still played very well, but couldn't defend most of her championships from 2000, which included 3 tier l's, 1 tier ll and 1 tier lll. 2 other tier l's, a tier ll and the Year Ending Championship weren't defended because Hingis had to cut her season short. She also crashed out of wimbledon in the opening round. Without winning anything other than tier 2 and 3 titles, Hingis remained #1 until she retired from Filderstat in the fall.

It's true that Capriati started off the year at #14, but after Wimbledon, switched off with Davenport between #2 and #3.

Obviously, I'm not criticizing Hingis, just the system that decides the rankings. She played so much and did consistently well to keep the #1 ranking under the system, but in many people's minds, she should not have been #1 for so long.

[funches]

Mimi,

You're missing the point about Capriati because, um, uh, ...

And another thing. You don't understand that er, hm, etc ...

OK, you beat me with facts. I thought Hingis had a heck of a lot more than three tournament wins even at the end of her first career. But allow me to keep on believing Capriati never should have been ranked ahead of her because I can't stand Capriati.

This must be the backing down consafos was talking about a couple months ago. But it is incredible how few tournaments Capriati has won in her career. There's no other three-slam winner who comes close to her lack of overall titles.

[mimi]

I agree about Capriati and her lack of titles. She has been in a load of finals and just couldn't win. How many times has she been in the USO semis and lost? She should have eased past Dementieva in her last attempt, but choked away many chances to close the match out.

It seemed like in '01 she had turned the corner, as she beat some foes that had always troubled her (Hingis, Davenport, Seles) and owned Serena. She still couldn't get past Venus.

Then in '02, after defending the AO, she started losing to Serena and Mauresmo again and again. She also stopped being able to beat Davenport.

I think Capriati is just one of those very streaky players. She can beat everyone (except Venus apparently) when she is at her best, but can lose to the likes of Kournikova and Stevenson repeatedly when she is off.

It's really hard to imagine the extremes of Capriati's career.