Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Tennis and Mets
Hey. For those who don't know, I moved to Philly. If anyone wants to come see a Phils game, let me know....
Trivia Question: Three National League players rank in the top 10 in the League in both runs and RBIs. They are Lance Berkman, Chase Utley, and this player who garnered no all-star consideration whatsoever.
So I figured EJ was likely to post about this, but since he didn't, I will belatedly. On Sunday, I had the run of the house to myself. The wife was gone, I had cold beer and white cheddar popcorn on hand, and my beloved Mets were on TV. I settled into the couch, and at the end of the inning flipped over to Wimbledon. From that point on, I only saw the Mets game in 2 minute and 2 second spurts. As a casual tennis fan, I was glued to the match. Here's why:
- First, I know enough to know that Federer and Nadal are the unquestioned best players alive. #3 is a long way off. Moreover, in the last year, there have been minor cracks in Federer's fortress of dominance. On top of all that, Nadal destroyed Federer in the French (granted, not Federer's preferred surface), followed that up by rolling through a grass court tournament leading up to Wimbledon, and owned a somewhat surprising 9-4 record vs. Federer in finals matches (a large portion of which were on clay). Simply put, if you were choosing two players to watch play, there would be no choice but these two.
- The match was particularly good for men's tennis. For everyone who complains that tennis has turned into a serving contest, this is Exhibit A that thrilling men's tennis still exists. These two continuously put together extended, entertaining rallies.
- Like boxing, I think that styles make a tennis match. In so many ways, Federer and Nadal are great opposites. Nadal runs all over the court and tries to knock the fuzz off the ball, while Federer pirouettes about, slicing and carving meticulously angled shots. Nadal stomps and grunts and squints and pouts, while Federer's biggest show of emotion is a tiny fist pump. Nadal dresses like a gay house painter, while Federer looks like he's going to the country club, but only for brunch. Nadal picks his ass 3,000 times per hour, while Federer ... doesn't.
- The truly memorable part of the match wasn't just that these are two great champions going 5 sets. Its that they are two champions going 5 sets and playing exquisitely well throughout. Even in the 5th set, they were each making shot after shot, and as John McEnroe pointed out, they both showed almost no signs of fatigue. But the true zenith of the match was the fourth set tiebreaker. With it tied, Nadal made a passing forehand on a dead sprint that my dad (a tennis afficianado) considers one of the five best shots that he's seen in his lifetime. Not to be outdone, in the ensuing championship point, Federer stroked an exacting backhand that passed Nadal and dipped in inches from both the sideline and the baseline. It was at that point that the announcers began discussing the magnitude of the event, and making earnest comments about how they literally considered themselves lucky to be watching live.
- A true sign of the greatness of the competition was the end. For whatever reason, I have an affinity for Federer and an inexplicable dislike for Nadal. I was rooting heavily for Federer throughout. By the end, though, when Nadal served out the final game, I couldn't be bitter. It was just too good. Nadal was too good, and he certainly deserved to win. All in all, an outstanding afternoon (and evening) of sport, resulting in me being thoroughly drunk and covered in white cheddar dust.
Don't look now, but the Phillies have opened the door and the Mets have meekly stumbled into the playoff picture. They took 3 of 4 this weekend from the Phools, and are going on 5 straight as I write (I better not jinx). They look to be heading into the break in a reasonable position. Considering that Fernando Tatis, Damion Easley, Marlon Anderson and the corpses of Luis Castillo, Brian Schneider and Endy Chavez are 6 of the 11 Mets with the most plate appearances, that's not so bad.
David Wright should be an all star. He has more hits, doubles, triples, homers, runs, RBIs, walks, a better OBP and better slugging percentage than Aramis Ramirez, all while playing in a lesser offense. Plus, he's the reigning gold glove holder. All that said, he shouldn't win the vote-off for the last spot. That should go to Pat Burrell, who has been absolutely mashing the ball all year long. Corey Hart shouldn't get a vote.
Johan Santana, though he hasn't thrown too many absolute gems, has been solid for the Mets. He's 6th in the NL in strikeouts and WHIP, and 5th in ERA. The problem is that the Mets have let him down. He's gotten 4.73 runs/9 innings pitched in support, leading to his 7-7 record. While that doesn't sound horrible when compared to Barry Zito's 3.4 runs of support, the surprising stat is that 3 Mets starters rank in the top 6 in support! Pelfrey, Maine and Perez all receive at least 6.2 runs/9 IP, and have only taken advantage of that to the tune of 21 wins and 17 losses.
Unsurprisingly, the answer to the trivia question is a Met. Although he's been a constant disappointment to me all year, seemingly never coming through in big situations when I'm watching, Carlos Beltran is 5th in the league with 64 runs scored and 8th in the league with 62 RBIs.
Trivia Question: Three National League players rank in the top 10 in the League in both runs and RBIs. They are Lance Berkman, Chase Utley, and this player who garnered no all-star consideration whatsoever.
So I figured EJ was likely to post about this, but since he didn't, I will belatedly. On Sunday, I had the run of the house to myself. The wife was gone, I had cold beer and white cheddar popcorn on hand, and my beloved Mets were on TV. I settled into the couch, and at the end of the inning flipped over to Wimbledon. From that point on, I only saw the Mets game in 2 minute and 2 second spurts. As a casual tennis fan, I was glued to the match. Here's why:
- First, I know enough to know that Federer and Nadal are the unquestioned best players alive. #3 is a long way off. Moreover, in the last year, there have been minor cracks in Federer's fortress of dominance. On top of all that, Nadal destroyed Federer in the French (granted, not Federer's preferred surface), followed that up by rolling through a grass court tournament leading up to Wimbledon, and owned a somewhat surprising 9-4 record vs. Federer in finals matches (a large portion of which were on clay). Simply put, if you were choosing two players to watch play, there would be no choice but these two.
- The match was particularly good for men's tennis. For everyone who complains that tennis has turned into a serving contest, this is Exhibit A that thrilling men's tennis still exists. These two continuously put together extended, entertaining rallies.
- Like boxing, I think that styles make a tennis match. In so many ways, Federer and Nadal are great opposites. Nadal runs all over the court and tries to knock the fuzz off the ball, while Federer pirouettes about, slicing and carving meticulously angled shots. Nadal stomps and grunts and squints and pouts, while Federer's biggest show of emotion is a tiny fist pump. Nadal dresses like a gay house painter, while Federer looks like he's going to the country club, but only for brunch. Nadal picks his ass 3,000 times per hour, while Federer ... doesn't.
- The truly memorable part of the match wasn't just that these are two great champions going 5 sets. Its that they are two champions going 5 sets and playing exquisitely well throughout. Even in the 5th set, they were each making shot after shot, and as John McEnroe pointed out, they both showed almost no signs of fatigue. But the true zenith of the match was the fourth set tiebreaker. With it tied, Nadal made a passing forehand on a dead sprint that my dad (a tennis afficianado) considers one of the five best shots that he's seen in his lifetime. Not to be outdone, in the ensuing championship point, Federer stroked an exacting backhand that passed Nadal and dipped in inches from both the sideline and the baseline. It was at that point that the announcers began discussing the magnitude of the event, and making earnest comments about how they literally considered themselves lucky to be watching live.
- A true sign of the greatness of the competition was the end. For whatever reason, I have an affinity for Federer and an inexplicable dislike for Nadal. I was rooting heavily for Federer throughout. By the end, though, when Nadal served out the final game, I couldn't be bitter. It was just too good. Nadal was too good, and he certainly deserved to win. All in all, an outstanding afternoon (and evening) of sport, resulting in me being thoroughly drunk and covered in white cheddar dust.
Don't look now, but the Phillies have opened the door and the Mets have meekly stumbled into the playoff picture. They took 3 of 4 this weekend from the Phools, and are going on 5 straight as I write (I better not jinx). They look to be heading into the break in a reasonable position. Considering that Fernando Tatis, Damion Easley, Marlon Anderson and the corpses of Luis Castillo, Brian Schneider and Endy Chavez are 6 of the 11 Mets with the most plate appearances, that's not so bad.
David Wright should be an all star. He has more hits, doubles, triples, homers, runs, RBIs, walks, a better OBP and better slugging percentage than Aramis Ramirez, all while playing in a lesser offense. Plus, he's the reigning gold glove holder. All that said, he shouldn't win the vote-off for the last spot. That should go to Pat Burrell, who has been absolutely mashing the ball all year long. Corey Hart shouldn't get a vote.
Johan Santana, though he hasn't thrown too many absolute gems, has been solid for the Mets. He's 6th in the NL in strikeouts and WHIP, and 5th in ERA. The problem is that the Mets have let him down. He's gotten 4.73 runs/9 innings pitched in support, leading to his 7-7 record. While that doesn't sound horrible when compared to Barry Zito's 3.4 runs of support, the surprising stat is that 3 Mets starters rank in the top 6 in support! Pelfrey, Maine and Perez all receive at least 6.2 runs/9 IP, and have only taken advantage of that to the tune of 21 wins and 17 losses.
Unsurprisingly, the answer to the trivia question is a Met. Although he's been a constant disappointment to me all year, seemingly never coming through in big situations when I'm watching, Carlos Beltran is 5th in the league with 64 runs scored and 8th in the league with 62 RBIs.
# posted by Big Thunder @ 9:25 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Good Wimbledons usually produce more work for me come Monday, so ironically the tennis got in the way of my ability to blog about tennis. But yes, it was an unbelievable match and I'm with Thunder's Dad on that forehand. That was truly absurd -- to hit a ball on the run from that far behind the baseline is unreal.
To me, what made the match so good wasn't just its quality (because, to be honest, Fed-Safin in the 2005Aussie semis was the highest quality match I've seen) but how incredibly riveting every set was. The acknowledged greatest match ever played was the 1980 Wimbledon final between McEnroe and Borg (two other great contrasts in styles), but that went 1-6 7-4 6-3 6-7 8-6. Essentially, two of the sets weren't that close.
In this match every set was a heart-stopper and, really, Federer should have won the second set (I really believe the turning point in the match is when he bricked a swining volley at 4-3, 40-40 on Nadal's serve. After that Fed went on a walkabout for six points and before he knew it, the second set was gone.)
As to the Mets, I'm trying to remain cautious. This team can rip off a 7-game losing streak at any time, but it does appear they've awakened from a slumber. And yes, Wright should be an All-Star. And Beltran is just a funny player. He's awful so often you forget how ridiculous he can be during his hot streaks. And leads the MLB in big-ugly-mole-on-the-side-of-his-head.
It was nice to see Santana pick up a win yesterday. In his last six starts prior to last night, the Mets scored two runs or fewer five times, and he understandably went 0-4. Tell me my ace is going to an avergae of 6-2/3 per start and post a 2.84 ERA and I'm pretty happy.
Post a Comment
To me, what made the match so good wasn't just its quality (because, to be honest, Fed-Safin in the 2005Aussie semis was the highest quality match I've seen) but how incredibly riveting every set was. The acknowledged greatest match ever played was the 1980 Wimbledon final between McEnroe and Borg (two other great contrasts in styles), but that went 1-6 7-4 6-3 6-7 8-6. Essentially, two of the sets weren't that close.
In this match every set was a heart-stopper and, really, Federer should have won the second set (I really believe the turning point in the match is when he bricked a swining volley at 4-3, 40-40 on Nadal's serve. After that Fed went on a walkabout for six points and before he knew it, the second set was gone.)
As to the Mets, I'm trying to remain cautious. This team can rip off a 7-game losing streak at any time, but it does appear they've awakened from a slumber. And yes, Wright should be an All-Star. And Beltran is just a funny player. He's awful so often you forget how ridiculous he can be during his hot streaks. And leads the MLB in big-ugly-mole-on-the-side-of-his-head.
It was nice to see Santana pick up a win yesterday. In his last six starts prior to last night, the Mets scored two runs or fewer five times, and he understandably went 0-4. Tell me my ace is going to an avergae of 6-2/3 per start and post a 2.84 ERA and I'm pretty happy.
<< Home
