He's good, but I still don't like him

7:44 Feb 2, 2009 72

It's like Ali versus Fraser, if the two boxers were given sticks and told to hit balls at each other. Actually it's much better than that.

Nadal versus Federer is going to be one of those rivalries that they make documentary films about (if someone is following these guy around at the moment, i would like to put in a proposal).

If only I liked Nadal. The singlet-wearing chipmunk really annoys me, though I can't figure out why. He does look like Atreyu.

And speaking of the tennis, that old cherry about pay has come up again. The skinny is women play best of three, men play best of five (not including tie-breakers) but both now earn the same prize money.

Money in sports is always about earning potential and women's tennis brings in the punters just as much as men's tennis. Work rates or time spent on court doesn't have too much to do with it. I would be more interested in this issue if tickets to the women's matches were cheaper.

There is the argument that women can in earn more in total by playing doubles as well, something the top men don't do as they are knackered from their five set matches (apparently). I call "boo-hoo" on that (with the appropriate hand gestures) as the average men's career is longer than the average women's so it wil even out.

In the end though, it's not my money. When the WTA players asked for equal pay there would have been more of an argument than "because it's not fair". There would have been a business justification (and hopefully it was a little classier than "it's pretty girls running about in skirts on TV").

To cricket now where hopefully someone is paying the Black Caps some money because they deserve it.

I saw this tweet this morning from Dan:

"Same old Aussies, always cheating!" Haddin knows the rules - gloves in front of the stumps = not out. Unbelievable.

And I thought, oh well, we lost but it looks like we've got something decent to grumble about. But then this from Megan

Whatever. It was never in doubt. Cheating Aussie wicketkeepers notwithstanding.

So we won, but have something to grumble about, in other words a perfect win for New Zealand!

And the White Ferns beat the steenking Aussies too. So good results all around. Well, except for Roger.

******

As I mentioned last week, I'm Superbowling today at Four Kings, Wellington. Come down and join us, if ya like. So while I'm gone you kids play nice in the system.

72 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Hadyn Green, 08:59 Feb 2, 2009

And if anyone does want to join us, I'm wearing a totally random Julius Peppers road jersey (after hours of deliberation)

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report
Russell Brown, 09:30 Feb 2, 2009

We should be grateful. For so long the best player in the world was Sampras, who I could hardly bear to look at.
I like Nadal too, but I really thought Federer would step up here. He certainly had enough game -- he just failed to take his opportunities. How many break points did he not convert?
Ah well. It was worth staying up late to see the cricket, where despite the cheating Aussie keeper and an unbelievably bad LBW decision on the second ball of the innings, the New Zealanders were able to take the Aussies' slump to a new low.
The commentators were on their usual form. Was it Healey who said something like "when you've got a bowling attack like Daniel Vettori has, you've got to play to a plan"? Translation: what a bunch of plodders.
They didn't seem to grasp that New Zealand has two bowlers in the top five of the one-day rankings, including the best one-day bowler in the world, Daniel Vettori. (The other is Mills at No.5) Dicks.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Simon Poole, 09:52 Feb 2, 2009

Russell: I was under the impression that Vettori had slipped to number two earlier this year by Nathan Bracken, but your point is a good one.
Both Mills and Vettori shone last night, and I was not surprised at all to see Mills picked as man of the match. It's a shame for Vettori that opposing batsmen mostly look to block him and score runs elsewhere, or he'd pick up quite a few more wickets and cement that #1 ranking quite easily, I suspect.
However, I do find it a touch sad that our next best-ranked ODI bowler is Oram - we desperately need another decent paceman now that Shane Bond is off NZC's radar. It will be interesting to see if Andy Moles can conjure anything special from the rank and file.

Since Dec 2008 • 161 posts Report
Simon Poole, 09:55 Feb 2, 2009

Gah, english fail - that's what you get for changing your wording.
Vettori slipped to number two earlier this year, behind Bracken.

Since Dec 2008 • 161 posts Report
Blake Monkley, 10:22 Feb 2, 2009

The one thing that annoys me about Nadal , he is always picking his undies out of his bottom when he serves.
I really like how players get to challenge a decision in tennis games (three challenges per set), couldn't this work for cricket matches as the Broom decision was shocking.

Auckland • Since Jul 2008 • 215 posts Report
Emma Hart, 10:27 Feb 2, 2009

I like Nadal too, but I really thought Federer would step up here.
Yeah, I'm a Nadal girl, for basically the same reasons I'll support Brazil if they're playing Germany at football: prettier to watch. I'm shallow, who cares. But I didn't expect him to beat Federer on a hard court after that five-hour semi he played. Kudos, I just wish he'd stop interrupting my cricket.
My bitching about the White Ferns game is too long for a comment, I think.

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
Blake Monkley, 10:33 Feb 2, 2009

Ponting to put his feet up.

Auckland • Since Jul 2008 • 215 posts Report
JP Hansen, 10:35 Feb 2, 2009

I really like how players get to challenge a decision in tennis games (three challenges per set), couldn't this work for cricket matches as the Broom decision was shocking.
They did trial this for the West Indies tests in NZ last month. Seemed to work OK, though the commentators were having monkeys when the 2rd umpire took more than a couple of minutes to make a decision.
And the captains had misgivings. Especially when McCallum was given out even after he challenged the decision because the TMO wasn't allowed to use snicko or hotspot to help with a caught behind decision (snicko and hotspot showed no contact was made between bat and ball).
http://www.odt.co.nz/sport/cricket/37286/cricket-questions-over-umpire-referral-trial

Waitakere • Since Nov 2006 • 206 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 10:36 Feb 2, 2009

I really like how players get to challenge a decision in tennis games (three challenges per set), couldn't this work for cricket matches as the Broom decision was shocking.
Contrary to what most commentators seemed to think, I liked the challenge system that they've been trialling. And three goes an innings seems about right.
The change that I thought was needed was to change the definition of when a challenge becomes successful. It should be "when the umpire has clearly made an error". Aka, lbw off an inside edge, Haddin yesterday.
That would speed up the process. If the TV umpire can look at two or three times, from different angles, he'll soon know if the umpire clearly made a mistake. No clear mistake, reject it, keep on playing. Should reduce the stoppages to a minute or so, rather than the 5 minutes we had during the Windies tests.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Russell Brown, 10:38 Feb 2, 2009

The one thing that annoys me about Nadal , he is always picking his undies out of his bottom when he serves.
Quite. Can't Nike make him some pants that don't get up his crack?
Although I, for one, am glad to see the back of the muscle shirts.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Emma Hart, 10:48 Feb 2, 2009

Ponting to put his feet up.
Whoa, he's getting stress leave? That's un-Australian.

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
Bart Janssen, 11:08 Feb 2, 2009

I really like how players get to challenge a decision in tennis games (three challenges per set), couldn't this work for cricket matches as the Broom decision was shocking.
They did try it in NZ vs the windies and it worked OK.
The biggest complaint seemed to be that 3 unsuccessful challenges was too many. The suggestion that seemed to get the most favour from the captains was you can have any number of challenges if you are proven right but after you are proven wrong you are done, no more challenges 'till the next innings.
That would prevent hopeful challenges that waste everyones time.
It seems that everyone wants a challenge system to deal with the odd shocking bad call (and Aussie cheats) but having 3 challenges meant that every 50/50 decision was getting revisited.
The umpires were really positive about it saying they felt supported by the 3rd umpire rather than undermined. They hate getting it wrong more than anyone else and any help was good.
One more suggestion was to make sure the 3rd umpire had the same rules apply to him as to the 2 out in the middle. That is, he rules according to the laws of cricket. His job is to make the right decision using extra technology and NOT to decide if the umpire in the middle got it wrong.
My guess is we'll see a one challenge system in place before the end of the year fro both test and one day matches.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report
Ben Chapman, 11:10 Feb 2, 2009

Whoa, he's getting stress leave? That's un-Australian.
Though it is not the first time he has been rested during a series against NZ. Considering how important the current Chappell–Hadlee is to the pride of Aus cricket, you'd think he'd be keen to play on.

Wellington • Since Nov 2008 • 135 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 11:12 Feb 2, 2009

Though I read a story which listed the Australian team's schedule for the rest of the year. Players that make the international top six club competition thing are pretty much playing and travelling for about 9 months straight. Must be hell if you have a family who can't travel with you.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Blake Monkley, 11:20 Feb 2, 2009

They did trial this for the West Indies tests in NZ last month.
Thanks JP and Kyle for the info. I for one will be pleased if this becomes the norm.

Auckland • Since Jul 2008 • 215 posts Report
Matthew Littlewood, 11:22 Feb 2, 2009

What surprised me the most about the final was Federer's poor service game. In the third set he was only getting about 50 percent of his first serves, which is unheard of for him. That said, the sheer power of Nadal's returns was just gobsmacking, I know Federer won the fourth set 6-3, but geez, he had to work hard for every point. Some of the returns were coming back to him at more than 100mph.
What I love about the rivalry between Nadal and Federer is the difference between the two styles- Federer in prime form just glides, there are times when his ability to almost teleport to exactly the right place on court. Nadal, on the other hand, is just this bundle of energy, which means he's tiring to watch. He seems to bustle.
Perhaps last night's final lacked some of the elements of Wimbledon 2008, such as the final three sets going to tie-breakers, and the game interrupted by rain, but there's no denying that we've been spoilt by the contest between those two. And what's even more frightening is that both have got a few years left in them.
Yeah, I'm a Nadal girl, for basically the same reasons I'll support Brazil if they're playing Germany at football: prettier to watch. I'm shallow, who cares
I'm sure I can't be the only bloke who was disappointed that there wasn't going to be a repeat of the Sharapova-Ivanovich final this time around...
But in all seriousness, wasn't there something mindnumbingly predictable about the way Serena Williams tore Safina apart? I've never really liked the Williams sisters, but credit where it's due, every time they can be bothered to step up, they just take the game away.

Today, Tomorrow, Timaru • Since Jan 2007 • 449 posts Report
Richard Llewellyn, 11:23 Feb 2, 2009

How many break points did he not convert?
He only converted 6 from 19, apparently, which is fairly poor by his remarkable standards.
A couple of things about Nadal. One is that he seems to be able to get inside Federer's head - he is so mentally strong that it becomes intimidating, and Federer makes mistakes at crucial times that one wouldn't imagine coming against Roddick or others.
The other is, as Nadal's mate Verdasco said, is that his ability to retrieve shots is such that means that opposing players feel like they have to win the same point 2 or 3 times against him. I'm guessing that gets a bit tiring after awhile :)
It will only become a 'rivalry for the ages' if the Fed can start winning some of these games - at the moment its becoming a pretty lopsided record. What price Nadal to beat Sampras record?
Re the cricket. Gotta love the Aussie commentators. Just to cheer myself up I watched the rugby league world cup final again in the weekend, just to hear Phil Gould et al announce periodically that the kiwis were 'shot', 'out on their feet', 'hanging on by a thread', 'playing negatively' etc. Love it.

Mt Albert • Since Nov 2006 • 399 posts Report
Emma Hart, 11:30 Feb 2, 2009

Gotta love the Aussie commentators.
We had a bunch of other stuff to do yesterday, so we had the radio on for the commentary, and whenever something interesting happened, we'd run to Sky. The radio commentary doesn't make me homicidal.
My favourite commentary moment was very early on, when someone asked Justin Langer how the Aussie team would be feeling. "Relieved," he said. "They'll just be so relieved they're only playing New Zealand and not South Africa."
He made it almost the whole way to the end of the sentence before Marsh went out.

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report
Matthew Littlewood, 11:36 Feb 2, 2009

It was worth staying up late to see the cricket, where despite the cheating Aussie keeper and an unbelievably bad LBW decision on the second ball of the innings, the New Zealanders were able to take the Aussies' slump to a new low.
I'd say, I don't think I've seen an Australian batting lineup look as demoralised against NZ as the one last night- okay, there was that Chappel-Hadlee match a couple of years back where we trundled them for 120, but that was due to Bond tearing through them, rather than a New Zealand who merely stuck to a simple but well-executed plan.
Mills was fantastic, he really seems to have gone up a notch under Vettori's captaincy, while Vettori's spell was close to perfect as goddamnit. I was impressed with Southee, too.
And yes, NZ's batting was hard-done by those two frankly disgusting decisions, but on the other hand, it never should've been that close, there was a moment of pure panic near the end of the match where I wondered whether it was possible for us to actually blow it, but thankfully Vettori showed a cool head and finished off what Mills and Taylor pretty much did by themselves.
God, Taylor's in wicked form though, he must be one of the most consistent ODI batsmen in the world right now.
The commentators were on their usual form. Was it Healey who said something like "when you've got a bowling attack like Daniel Vettori has, you've got to play to a plan"? Translation: what a bunch of plodders.
They didn't seem to grasp that New Zealand has two bowlers in the top five of the one-day rankings, including the best one-day bowler in the world, Daniel Vettori. (The other is Mills at No.5) Dicks.
True, and once we see the return of Styris, Ryder and Oram, there's a good argument to be made for NZ being the most finely balanced ODI side around. Now, if only that could somehow translate to our test performances....

Today, Tomorrow, Timaru • Since Jan 2007 • 449 posts Report
Ben Chapman, 11:38 Feb 2, 2009

My favourite commentary moment was very early on, when someone asked Justin Langer how the Aussie team would be feeling. "Relieved," he said. "They'll just be so relieved they're only playing New Zealand and not South Africa."
He made it almost the whole way to the end of the sentence before Marsh went out.
That wouldn't have got him down though. He was predicting an Australian score of 250 as late as the 30th over. And he spent much of the beginning of the NZ innings talking about how devastated the Black Caps would be if they lost.

Wellington • Since Nov 2008 • 135 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 11:39 Feb 2, 2009

God, Taylor's in wicked form though, he must be one of the most consistent ODI batsmen in the world right now.
Our top ranked batsman, but only at 23. I don't know how it works, but he must be top 20 surely?
Styris is 26. Man hasn't played in months.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Matthew Littlewood, 11:45 Feb 2, 2009

I'm loving this tennis and cricket talk!
A couple of things about Nadal. One is that he seems to be able to get inside Federer's head - he is so mentally strong that it becomes intimidating, and Federer makes mistakes at crucial times that one wouldn't imagine coming against Roddick or others.
The other is, as Nadal's mate Verdasco said, is that his ability to retrieve shots is such that means that opposing players feel like they have to win the same point 2 or 3 times against him. I'm guessing that gets a bit tiring after awhile :)
It will only become a 'rivalry for the ages' if the Fed can start winning some of these games - at the moment its becoming a pretty lopsided record. What price Nadal to beat Sampras record?
Yes, that's all very true. A couple of years ago Federer seemed comfortable to lord it over everyone on surfaces other than clay and just accept Nadal's dominance there, now it seems he doesn't even have that. And you're right, Nadal seems to be able to psych Federer out in the same way as Federer does to Roddick.
I wonder what it will take for Federer to claw back against him, because right now, Nadal's got under his skin. Still, it's worth reminding that most of their contests against oneanother go to five setters.
We had a bunch of other stuff to do yesterday, so we had the radio on for the [cricket] commentary, and whenever something interesting happened, we'd run to Sky. The radio commentary doesn't make me homicidal.
Yeah, I listened to the radio commentary last night too- Terry Aldermann is excellent, even-handed and often very funny. Certainly better than the droning sychophants of Nine's team, for sure.

Today, Tomorrow, Timaru • Since Jan 2007 • 449 posts Report
Matthew Littlewood, 11:48 Feb 2, 2009

Our top ranked batsman, but only at 23. I don't know how it works, but he must be top 20 surely?
Styris is 26. Man hasn't played in months.
The rankings are strange aren't they, Bond was no. 1 for much of last year despite not playing for NZ at all during that time. I've never figured out how they're done, really.

Today, Tomorrow, Timaru • Since Jan 2007 • 449 posts Report
noizyboy, 11:50 Feb 2, 2009

final over highlights for those who missed it...

wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 171 posts Report
Emma Hart, 11:53 Feb 2, 2009

A couple of years ago Federer seemed comfortable to lord it over everyone on surfaces other than clay and just accept Nadal's dominance there, now it seems he doesn't even have that.
I have wondered if this is the problem. It seemed like, last time round, Federer had decided to make a concerted effort to win the French Open. He played a couple of other clay-court tournaments, and I think he made some change to his coaching regime. So he actually tried and lost anyway. Now suddenly Nadal can beat him on grass and hardcourt. It wasn't so long ago that all the talk was about whether Federer could beat Sampras's record. (Federer is Sampras, surely: Nadal is Agassi.)

Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report