I was at Nottingham yesterday so thought I would give a short summary. It was the first time I had ever seen James Ward play and for the majority of the match I was pretty disappointed as he fairly quickly went down 6-1, 5-1* and didn't seem to have anything to hurt Tursunov with. However, I was really impressed with how he came back to level at 5-5 as he just cut out the errors and Tursunov started to spray the ball a bit (as he can do at times). I don't think Tursunov got particularly tight and I would say Ward was winning rather than losing, he was comfortably playing top 100 stuff in the last part of the match. He looked very solid (you could tell he has played quite a bit on clay) and had quite a bit of variety. Just a shame he couldn't play the whole match like that. I think some have been a bit harsh about the 11th game of the set where he got broken. It was a really long game (5 or 6 deuces) and I think Tursunov was just able to come up with a couple of good shots to finish it. Overall James managed to save 5 MPs at various stages during that second set. Hopefully he will be able to maintain a high level throughout a match as, in terms of raw ability, he has a shot at being top 100 in my opinion.
A word on the behaviour of the players, as I see this is being debated, I think those that used positive emotions (Muller often yelled out 'allez' after winning points) helped them but in that particular match Sweeting was pretty shocking and I think it hurt him a lot. He seemed far more focused on arguing with the umpire than trying to win the match and certainly didn't endear himself.
Really enjoyed everyones comments regarding behaviour. Its amazing how we all differ in our opinion.
Special thanks for Portsey reminding me of the small Franny Lee v Norman (Bites your Legs) Hunter. A bit like Haye v Valuev. It was a good scrap as well and sadly I remember it as im to old. Good fight and both get sent off..........only to start again as they were walking off. Brilliant stuff.
Maybe this is my odd view on things and behaviour as I have beena fan of sports for to long and from an age where characters abounded everywhere and the more mischievous the better. I do find modern sports have actually become duller (tennis included) as players have become fitter and technically better and good old money has corrupted sport in general where winning is everything as opposed to simply just doing your best or being as good as you can be. Football arguablly being the best example.
Anway, lets hope for a better week from the Brit players next time out. To many lower case not in bold defeats on Stevens excellent table this time out.
I will now rereat to my read every day but only post once in a blue moon state.
Anway, lets hope for a better week from the Brit players next time out. To many lower case not in bold defeats on Stevens excellent table this time out.
LOL true, sadly most weeks end with almost everyone in lowercase/not bold, because only one player can win each tournament, i.e. that's not just a GB problem! But a few more numbers in the points columns and a few more still bold on Thursday and beyond would definitely be nice!
__________________
GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!
I don't think any of the tweeters are there today (none of the possibles I follow are, anyway) - a lack of Brits left in singles might explain that, along with the RG SFs being on.
It's weird how many times the scores on one or more courts have frozen this week.
__________________
GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!
Yeah, I can tell. Do they have a phone number somewhere? I can't detect it on their website, hmmmm. I only noticed they wrote Bemelmans was from France while he's Belgian (yay for LTA).
Well, having been one of the people who started this debate, I'll also make one last contribution before ambling off in to the sunset. Should say that the below is not with reference to Mr Ward, who has generally been mentioned on this board as a really positive person with a great attitude. One response to provocation on an off day doth not a difficult person make. So the points are general.
Like various other posters, I think that you don't get ahead by being generally unable to control your emotions (unless your name is McEnroe). For example Safin -- who I would gather from other players' comments was regarded as underachieving relative to his extraordinary talents* -- would appear to exemplify this, rather than the positive power of "letting it rip" And like other posters, I would class abuse of others (linesmen, ballboys/girls, etc) as being a sign of being "out of control" in a way that is unhelpful. That's not to say that great (and lesser) players aren't going to have the occasional outburst -- they're human, under pressure, and a bad call must be extremely frustrating. But I would never relish a GB player's behaving badly and regard it as a sign of potential success.
Beyond that, for me (and I'm aware this is a view others may well not share), if (which is denied) habitually abusing officials were a sure way to success, and there was a choice between having a GB player who was ranked in the top 100 and was known habitually to be abusive and a GB player who was 150 and wasn't, I'd take the 150.
Tennis is a game. Doing "anything to win," if it includes being abusive of others, is elevating winning a game over treating people decently. Hmmm. Not sure about that one. And for children watching the sport, do we really want to give them the idea that you can behave badly so long as you are gifted? That's a concept that has caused the world more than enough grief already. Or that the way to deal with disappointment is to rant? Doesn't really help most of us when we meet unfairness in school, on the job, etc.
End of my monologue . . . . :) Aware that it may be perceived as making mountains out of molehills . . .
*And yes, I know GB would love to have some underachieving Grand Slam winners . . . .
shame i left my pass from the weekend at home, that had lots of numbers on it, inc Paul Hutchins mobile, could have be fun to let Nathii give him a piece of her mind :)
__________________
Count Zero - Creator of the Statistical Tennis Extrapolation & Verification ENtity or, as we like to call him, that steven.
Murray and Soderling - do I need to even provide anything? The good thing is that these two don't pretend to be the saints that they aren't. As a result I find them to be quite likable.
Oh... and the other Slam winners who have played on the Tour recently are, I think, JMDP (insulted his opponent's mum on court), Ferrero (I've found mentions of him "disrespecting" umpires), Roddick (Lol), Hewitt (LOL) and Safin (LOOOOOL).
Ratty, I agree with what you say, of course. But there's no reason to believe James didn't control his emotions since he went on to win the match
Gee, I have to say that in my opinion that's quite some sampling there, and generally irrelevant at that !
I didn't see anyone claiming the top 3 were perfect. But I would still strongly maintain that in their tennis they are very rarely abusive, and do control their emotions as indeed they all showed again today in often trying circumstances when it was the their ability to control their emotions that helped them to maintain such general high quality levels.
My arguement and I think others' have been in the generality, never doubting that with all top players and Slam winners you could find instances of them losing the plot. It was not I maintain these instances that helped make them winners but the fact that for the vast amount of their playing time they do in fact keep control and certainly when it matters.
So you drag up such as JMDP insulting Andy's mum a few years ago. The main point I'd say is when it mattered, at the US Open, he was very much in control and emerged a Grand Slam winner. It was that control which helped win it for him and certainly not that he may have been known on occasion not to show such control.
Whether they are in general really good human beings is not a matter that was generally being discussed and some would argue that you do need a ruthless streak to get to the top.
But re the top 3, they very rarely insult officialdom, they very rarely lose control, and that is helpful to their tennis. And thankfully they are not perfect.
-- Edited by indiana on Friday 3rd of June 2011 09:34:39 PM
Like I said before with Fed, it's so much easier to behave well when you're winning.
And those aren't the only examples, I am sure. And talking of sampling, how many times has James done this that everyone started jumping on the poor guy?
-- Edited by Salmon on Saturday 4th of June 2011 09:02:00 AM