Bradman like brilliance in the 21st Century - Federer

[Zainub]

I've wanted to type in this post since yesterday, but I either haven't had the time, or have forgotten. Tiger Woods reminded me of my ignorance with Golf. It's the only sport I seem to follow only by names, so and so won, so and so came runner up, so and so is the world number one, and so one is the best player never to have one a ...what it's called, major, right? I've tried watching it on telly and making sense out of it but the thing is I don't know how the scoring goes, so I'm often left totally bafled. But even just looking it, as players make their way across such utterly beautiful coarses (have I spelled this right?) and hit the balls so crisply, it's so pleasing to watch. So calm , so serene. No dirty fighting like in football, no loud screaming in appeals like in cricket, no dangerous equipment abuse like in tennis, no intimate physical contact like in rugby, no disturbing crashes like in F1, no heart breaks like in hockey...ah, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced, golf has to be the ultimate sport. I think I'll love Golf if only I knew it a bit better, at least if nothing, details of how the scoring goes. Any quick and easy help in this regard will be so much appreciated.

[Rachael]

Um... normally you add "1" each time you hit the ball...... and the lowest aggregate (over 4 rounds of 18 holes) wins. Only exception (not common) is "matchplay"... where you work on a hole by hole basis: players go "head to head"... and win any hole on which they take fewer shots than their opponent.

Matchplay games are generally 18 holes.. and end something like "5&4": that would mean 5 holes ahead (have won 5 more holes than the opponent) with 4 holes to play (thus meaning your opponent can no longer even level the scores).

"Par" scores are what a hole / course *should* take: so a par 3 is going to be a short hole on which you can hit the green with your first shot, then push the ball close with the putter before sinking it. A par 5, by contrast, will be a lot longer... with two huge hits needed to get close to the green... then maybe a chip and two puts to sink the ball.

"Par" makes following the score easier because at any stage in the contest you can see how a player is doing compared to a "par" score... so you might see a golfer get a one-under-par "birdie" at a par 3 hole (meaning he completes the hole in 2 rather than 3) and then another birdie on a par 5 (meaning he gets the ball down in 3 rather than 5) before a one-over-par "bogey" on the par 4 (meaning 5 shots instead of 4) and a two-over-par "double bogey" at the next par 5 (taking 7 shots instead of 5). After all of that he would be PAR -1 -1 +1 +2 = one over par. If he then managed a two-under-par "eagle" (e.g. hole in one at a par 3, or - more commonly - down in 3 on a par 5) he'd then move to "1-under" for the tournament.

No matter where you are on the course... meaning how many holes you've played.. you have a score relative to "par"... so you can easily see if anyone's steaming ahead....

Of course... in optimum conditions the top player may well end a tournament 15-under par. Then again... if the wind is blowing on a "links" course (think British seaside, gorse growing on sand dunes) you can see an entire tournament in which only 5-6 players stay below par.

The only other thing that springs to mind as critical is the "cut": players go out in groups of 3 for the first 2 days.. and after they have each played 2 rounds (36 holes) a stack of them are sent packing. Generally, any player within 10 shots of the lead can stay (so if Woods is leading on 9 under par the cut will not be lower than 1 over par)... but there's also an allowance made for numbers: if 90 players start out... the idea might be that the leading 45 players (and any players level with the 45th placed player) will contest the final 2 days... going out in pairs in reverse order (leaders last).

Oh - in the event of a tie.... the players go for a "play off": might be four holes... after which, if the scores are still level, it becomes sudden death (effectively matchplay).

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Somoeone mentioned the best loser in sport - surely a tie between Jimmy white and Ivan Lendal.

[greg]

Best loser in sport has to be Britains very own Tim Henman.Lots of talent but bottles it when it matters.At least Lendl won some Grand Slams.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by greg

Best loser in sport has to be Britains very own Tim Henman.Lots of talent but bottles it when it matters.At least Lendl won some Grand Slams.

Won some grand slams? He was a giant of the game!

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ivan Lendl (born March 7, 1960) is a former World No. 1 professional tennis player. He was one of the game's dominant players in the 1980s and early 1990s.

During his career, Lendl captured eight Grand Slam singles titles, and reached an astounding 19 Grand Slam singles finals. He first attained the World No. 1 ranking on the men's professional tour in February 1983. He continued to be ranked No. 1 for much of the next eight years through to 1990. He finished four years ranked as the world's top player (1985-7 and '89), and was ranked World No. 1 for a total of 270 weeks, beating the record previously held by Jimmy Connors (this has since been surpassed by Pete Sampras). Lendl's game relied particularly on strength and heavy topspin from the baseline and ushered in the modern era of "power tennis".

Henman hasn't the record that Lendl had... but the "bottling it" accusation is misplaced: you don't get the record he's got without being as tough as it's possible to be. His record of reaching the last eight in all but one of the last nine Wimbledon Championships is pretty much unparalleled... but you're also talking about the guy who won the 2003 Paris Masters:

Paris Masters          Hard     1  Nikolay Davydenko  W   6-3, 6-4
                                2  Sebastien Grosjean W   3-6, 6-4, 7-5
                                3  Gustavo Kuerten    W   6-4, 6-2
                               QF  Roger Federer      W   7-6, 6-1
                               SF  Andy Roddick       W   7-6, 7-6
                                F  Andrei Pavel       W   6-2, 7-6, 7-6

Grosjean, Kuerten, Federer and Roddick in successive rounds before beating Pavel in the final: must rank amongsth the toughest draws in the history of the sport. Awesome performance at a tournament so huge that it is in effect an extra "Grand Slam".

The "no bottle" argument I don't buy... but like Agassi.. and like Warne in this last Ashes series... he's a scrapper... so yes: you frequently find he (like the others) gives the memorable performance in matches that OTHERS win.

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Won some grand slams? He was a giant of the game! Henman hasn't the record that Lendl had... but the "bottling it" accusation is misplaced: you don't get the record he's got without being as tough as it's possible to be. His record of reaching the last eight in all but one of the last nine Wimbledon Championships is pretty much unparalleled... but you're also talking about the guy who won the 2003 Paris Masters

Getting to the last eight at Wimbledon isn't a massive achievement at all; the guy has been brought up playing on grass and all that shows is that he is a good grasscourt player, yet, he has been exposed as a player who isn't great as he has never made a Wimbledon final; obviously showing that there are better players than Henman.

I hope Henman wins a Wimbledon...but in the era of the Fed-Express, it seems as if it'll be tough for anyone to beat him. The only man capable of actually "beating" Federer (beating, as in outplaying him then winning) is Marat Safin; and he did that against him at the Australian Open.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Space monkeys will fly out my bum before henman wins wimbledon. I aslo beleive its partly because he's a "bottler" but not in the normal way. Every world cup or home test series our cricketers and footballers are expected (rightly or wrongly) to win. That pressure can be easily spread out between players and coaches. But for poor old tiger tim, that pressure (often even greater because of his "fan" base) falls on his spindly shoulders alone. SO while he is a bottler, i think an englishman, certainly one who many middle aged, middle class housewives find attractive, will have to have bottle of gigantic proportions to win wimbledon. Rudeski never had that kind of pressure and had he had Henmans skill he might have won.

[Rachael]

I wasn't suggesting that Henman was a great (though I'd count Lendl in that category). I was merely responding to the accusation that he "bottled it": I'd argue that if anything he's gone further than talent alone could have taken him.

Let's get this in perspective: he's not had the luxury of a Roddick serve... or the return of Agassi... or the pace around the court of Hewitt... or the ridiculous angles of Kuerten... or the relentless brutality of literally dozens of really effective baseliners (like Nalbandian and Safin). He's arguably been a more complete player than ANY of the above... by being very, very good at pretty well everything.

There are many top players who'd gladly have Henman's serve in place of their own... or Henman's delightful one handed backhand... or (quite commonly) his approach shots.... to say nothing of his obvious strengths: return of serve (not aggressive, but gets him into more points than most players can dream of) and volley (best in the game).

The unfortunate thing is that it's easier to make your way to the top of the game with no more than a big serve and a big forehand: it's much tougher beating opponents by varying the pace, bringing them in and lobbing/passing them, getting to the net and pressuring them and so on. Henman had to do it the hard way!

[Paoli]

Rusedski could've won a slam or two, has the potential which is built around a big service game. Took a set off Roddick in the Australian Open, the only man to do so until Hewitt carved the A-Rod up in four in the semis.

[Zainub]

Thanks for that Rachael, I'm still a shade confused about one or two things, but at least I've made a start. Thank you.