Showing posts with label Tournament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tournament. Show all posts

Is elite tennis now just a case of last man standing?

Is elite tennis now just a case of last man standing? - Tennis has become steadily more gladiatorial and it is losing a lot of quality because of the ‘last man standing’ nature of the matches at the highest level.

Many of the ATP finals are about one player outlasting another, and the concept of pure tennis does not come into it, sadly. It is a great shame that players have to concentrate all of their efforts on simply surviving physically.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/0iQI0FU2cioUY61RGK8ubQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/blogs/simon-reed/Muzzlehaioghiaoghiwoghiwogh.jpg
Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal, winners in Miami and Indian Wells

A classic example was at the Miami Masters when the final between Andy Murray and David Ferrer simply came down to conditioning and the two players taking themselves to their limits in terms of fitness.

I am a Murray fan, but it was not great tennis: it was an error-strewn contest decided by the Brit’s astonishing levels of fitness and strength; it was a difficult match to watch with two players giving absolutely everything in tough conditions.

Novak Djokovic and Murray are the top two players in the world right now because they are fitter than anyone else and can outlast their opponents under all sorts of difficult situations and in testing match after testing match.

Rafael Nadal has relied upon his superior intensity and fitness levels for a long time at the top of the game, and his strength and power continues to see him thrive despite a spate of long-term injury problems.

But is this all we want from the game that we love? Do we just want to see marathon finals decided by one player outlasting another?

I am far from the biggest purist, but I sometimes despair when I see this survival tennis becoming such a theme in the modern game.

The last couple of tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami have left me increasingly concerned for the future of the sport, with American TV networks even cutting away from matches because of their seemingly endless plodding.

There has to be a solution, however, and I believe that it is to quicken up the courts – to shorten the rallies and to restore the game to be focusing primarily upon shot-making and not purely on fitness levels.

The sport is fast becoming a question of ultra fit players slogging it out on desperately slow courts, and the benchmark of a so-called good match is how long it lasted. This has to change, because spectators and TV networks are fast losing interest.

The courts at Indian Wells and Miami were shockingly slow, and this is becoming an issue across the board. Even at Wimbledon, the courts are slower by the year and that is not conducive to pure, attacking tennis.

No one wants to see consistently defensive play from the top players, and the issue of fitness should be a secondary aspect behind the quality of the shots that are produced at the top level. After all, why do we watch tennis if it is not to admire the play of the best in the world?

The talent is being taken away from the tennis, and incredibly gifted shot-makers are being crushed due to them not having enough strength or stamina – we will never again see a young player burst onto the scene in an exciting way because of how difficult it is to compete physically. An immensely talented player such as Grigor Dimitrov has not had a sniff of a Grand Slam, whereas in other eras perhaps he could have stunned the world.

The players have to put so much into matches that it is impossible for them to maintain such a high intensity throughout the season – this means that there are always going to be very serious blips in form and drops in quality. It has to be a real concern.

Tennis at the very highest level has totally changed, even in the last five years, and it is far too attritional now. We want to see the very best of the top players, and the courts and the approach has to change, because the game is only going in one direction.
By Eurosport | Simon Reed – 12 hours ago

READ MORE - Is elite tennis now just a case of last man standing?

Is this year's NCAA tournament most unpredictable?

Is this year's NCAA tournament most unpredictable? - Welcome back to BracketRacket, your one-stop shop for all your NCAA tournament needs.

Today, we take stock of the appallingly low number of perfect Final Four picks, look back at how other underdogs have done in the national semifinals, and get John Beilein's thoughts on postgame transportation.

But first, a statistical basis for declaring that this is indeed the most unpredictable NCAA tournament in recent memory:

WILDEST. TOURNAMENT. EVER.



We've reached that point, according to a formula devised by Pete Tiernan over at BracketScience.com. Tiernan's formula - he calls it the ''Madometer'' - measures the unpredictability of each NCAA tournament since the field expanded to 64 teams.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/eEbU.7aiNPQ6LPsLKvQuEw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTI7cT04NTt3PTM0MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/Sports/ap/201303311403505980787-p2.jpeg
Michigan guard Nik Stauskas reacts after making a 3-point shot against Florida during the first half of a regional final game in the NCAA college basketball tournament, Sunday, March 31, 2013
---
On a scale of 0 to 100 - with 0 meaning the higher seed wins every game and 100 meaning the opposite - the 2013 tournament checks in at 21.8 so far. Tiernan says even if top overall seed Louisville wins it all, this year's tournament will break the previous Madometer record of 19.8, set in 2011. (That, you may recall, was the year Virginia Commonwealth and Butler made the Final Four, and a nine-loss Connecticut team won the title.)

The most predictable tournament might not necessarily ring a bell. It was 2007, which measured a paltry 4.1 on Tiernan's scale. That was the second of Florida's back-to-back titles. The top-seeded Gators beat top-seeded Ohio State in the title game. The other Final Four teams were No. 2 seeds, and three of the quarterfinals involved the top two seeds in those regions.
---

AND ON THAT NOTE ...

Forget filling out a perfect bracket. Even predicting the whole Final Four was almost impossible this year.

ESPN reports that 47 perfect out of 8.15 million brackets in its Tournament Challenge game made the right picks. That works out to about 1 in 173,000 brackets.

Now, for some perspective. In his 2003 book ''Life: The Odds,'' Gregory Baer estimated that the odds of a random American man someday dating a supermodel were about 88,000 to 1.

No word on whether ''I picked Wichita State'' would help or hurt that American man's chances.

---
TROUBLESOME TRIPS

It takes over 10 hours to drive from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Atlanta - per Google Maps. Luckily for Wolverines coach John Beilein, those days are over.

Beilein, who began his career coaching teams in upstate New York at Erie Community College, Nazareth and LeMoyne, was asked Monday about those long bus rides to and from games.

''You upgraded us to bus trips. There wasn't a lot of bus trips,'' he said. ''It was more van trips. ... I often refer to the times we'd be up playing St. Lawrence or Potsdam or something, playing St. Rose or St. Michael's, being white-outs, snowstorms, listening to the Syracuse-Georgetown game. Here we're trying to make it home alive sometimes.''

Now Beilein's Wolverines are set to play Syracuse - at the Final Four in Atlanta.

Of course, Orange coach Jim Boeheim didn't want to hear about all of the obstacles Beilein dealt with early in his career.

''I'm not sure he's had any adversity,'' Boeheim said. ''He's been successful wherever he's been.''

---
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

We've reached the point in the tournament where we can acknowledge the anniversary of title games past. So congrats to Georgetown (1984), UNLV (1990), Duke (2001), Florida (2007) and Kentucky (2012), who all won national championships on April 2.

UNLV's title came in a 103-73 rout of Duke, and none of the other title games on April 2 were decided by fewer than eight points. The most memorable April 2 game may have been a semifinal between Houston and Louisville in 1983. The Cougars, a.k.a. Phi Slamma Jamma, beat the Cardinals 94-81 in what looked like it might be a de facto national title game - but N.C. State stunned Houston in the final, leading to those lasting images of beloved Wolfpack coach Jim Valvano desperately searching for someone to hug.

---
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN

Former Notre Dame great Kelly Tripucka heard someone talking about how the Indianapolis Colts almost beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in an AFC championship game, but Aaron Bailey couldn't come down with Jim Harbaugh's last-ditch heave.

Tripucka had a would've-could've-should've story of his own from the NCAA tournament.

''If we beat Michigan State in the 1979 regional finals, there would've never been Magic and Bird in college,'' Tripucka said.

The Spartans, though, beat the Irish 80-68 and went on to win that transcendent title game featuring future NBA superstars Magic Johnson and Indiana State's Larry Bird.

The previous year, in Tripucka's first of four NCAA tournaments, he helped Notre Dame advance to the Final Four before losing - twice.

''It was a tough weekend for us,'' recalled Tripucka, an analyst for Dial Global Sports. ''We lost by four to Duke, then had to play in the Final Four consolation game. And, we lost to Arkansas at the buzzer.''

---
CONFERENCE SUPREMACY UPDATE

We'll provide the numbers. Now let the spin begin. The Big Ten leads all conferences with 13 wins so far in the NCAA tournament. The Big East is second with 11.

So is it better to have four teams in the round of 16 but only one in the Final Four like the Big Ten - or would you rather be the Big East, with two teams in the Final Four but five one-and-dones?
Or maybe the real winner is the Missouri Valley conference, which sent only two teams but still has a shot at an improbable national championship.

---
STAT OF THE DAY

The folks at STATS offer the following:

Wichita State is just the fifth team seeded ninth or lower - seeding began in 1979 - to reach the Final Four. While those low seeds are 0-4 in national semifinals, No. 8 seeds have fared quite a bit better, with a combined record of 3-2. The three eighth-seeded teams, who share the distinction as the lowest seeds to reach the title game, were UCLA in 1980, Villanova in 1985 and Butler two years ago. Villanova is the one team from that group to win the national championship, pulling off its upset of Georgetown 28 years ago on April Fool's Day.

Can Wichita State supplant that group as the lowest-seeded team to win the tournament? Well, the only other No. 9 seed to reach the Final Four was Penn in 1979, and the Quakers lost to Michigan State 101-67. Penn still shares the Final Four record for largest margin of defeat with Oregon State, which lost to Cincinnati 80-46 in 1963.

---
QUOTE OF THE DAY
''I said to him, 'You want me to bring it back or stay with you?' He said, 'It's staying with me.' I said, 'All right, just make sure you don't lose it.''' - Louisville coach Rick Pitino, discussing injured guard Kevin Ware's desire to keep the team's regional championship trophy. Pitino visited Ware again Monday, the day after he broke his leg in a gruesome injury against Duke.
By NOAH TRISTER (AP Sports Writer) | The Associated Press – 2 hours 4 minutes ago 

READ MORE - Is this year's NCAA tournament most unpredictable?