OCTUPUS

I have just learnt that when the foot TOUCHES the line at service it's a foot fault.If that be the case i can submit that almost every ATP player i have watched has touched the line at service sometime in every match and yet foot fault is not called.Frankly I have only seen foot fault called when the foot clearly crosses the line.Knowing that Serena has come from worse situations to win a crucial match in the past,cld this call against her be said to be unfair? I think even Clijsters knew the match was still open up to that point!

Several TV replays showed Serena's foot on the line but not CROSSING it.Can someone educate me on what really constitutes foot fault? Is it when the foot touches the line or when it crosses it?

I read recently a report in the TIME magazine about Nadal's plan to change his playing style in order to conserve strength,be more efficient and last longer at the No 1 spot.He plans to sacrifice a little spin on his forehand for more pace.I think it's a wise move cos his strategies against Fed will not work against Murray or Djokovic whose backhands are stronger than their forehands.Nadal's heavy forehand strokes sacrifice pace for topspin.As long as his serves and forehand ground strokes are not fast enough,it's only a matter of time before he becomes defenceless against Murray and Djokovic.Toni knows that,and I believe this informs this move to change a winning style! Just as Nadal,a natural right hander was advised to play tennis with the left hand in order to produce unorthodox reverse spins,(a night mare for right handers),I hope this new strategy will produce the expected results.

Yes, a lot has been said about Andy Murray's improved game this season.His powerful double fisted backhand is a great counter to most players who prefer to attack their opponents' backhand.Over the years most players develop their surest winners as inside out ground strokes.But with Murray this is little problem.Running round the backhand to execute this shot like Roddick usually does,exposes the rest of the court to Murray's favourite backhand down the line winners.His game,at the moment seems pretty well rounded-Mental toughness,serves,receives,and volleys are all superb.His physical strength also appears to have improved.It will be interesting to see how he fairs against opponents like Nadal,Djokovic and Federer in FIVE set deciders.His exploits this yr are only in 3 setters! I wish him success at the Aussie.He has paid his dues and he deserves it.

It looks like the same mental handicap that prevented Fed from getting to the No 1 spot earlier than he did has caught up with him again.I was shocked to learn he lost to a player like Gilles Simon in the early rounds of the ROGERS cup(all due respects to Simon),but I was even more shocked at his display yesterday,against Ginepri at Cincinatti(despite the 6/0 win in d 3rd set).It was a matter of concern to see that Roger can no longer string 5 straight ground strokes without blowing the ball miles away from target.I mean,his unforced errors(mishits) were so often and so embarrasing to us,his fans.Ginepri lost because the game and circumstances were bigger than he could handle.If Roger is to stand any chances at all at this yr's Olympics and US open,he desparately needs the services of a Psychologist.I think the loss at Wimbledon has taken something out of him.He needs,in addition to work hard on his return of serves, as well(he just floats balls back,instead of attacking 2nd serves).

Frankly I find the scoring system a bit absurd.I dont see how Federer should lose a whooping 300 points just because he could not "defend"his Wimbledon title.Same 300 points awarded to Nadal,the winner.So if the maximum points was deducted from Fed,even at reaching the finals,how much would have been deducted if he lost at round 1? What exactly is "title defence"?.Should the same point deduction be exacted on a title defender irrespective of how far he advances in the tournament?If so then I find it unfair.For getting to the finals at all,Fed should not lose the maximum point obtainable for winning the event.Can some body educate me on the rationale for this huge point deduction?

Same Murray who played brilliantly against Gasquet could not stand up to Nadal.Why? because you can only play as much as the opposition allows you to.It's usually players' "off days" whenever they meet Nadal because they are forced to make errors(so called "unforced errors").They know that their shots must frequently clip the lines to have a chance of beating Nadal.Anything short of that will be returned with interest.In an attempt to hit the lines against Nadal most players overplay their shots either wide or long.What Murray counted as winners were returned as passing shots from Nadal,constantly! Even cheap overheads were pitifully blown by Murray.Re-watch this match and observe the trajectory of Nadal's approach shots.Simply awesome! Nadal's balls are highly spun,they kick all over the court and they are generally agitated in motion.Many players,including Federer, have problems containing his shots and that's why they have so high unforced errors rate against him.

Unlikely,cos Nadal was already good enough to play him at the finals in 2006.I prefer not to focus on Fed's past records but on his current ability to take on a dangerously improved Nadal.Records dont play 4 anyone!!.Yes,some argue Fed is playing well at the Wimbledon 08 but mind you,that's against lesser opponents.A player only plays as well as he is allowed to play.Can someone tell me what other strategies Fed is going to use against Nadal on grass which is even slower now than b4(and suiting Nadal's game)? His serves will be slowed down by the surface and Nadal will attack him ruthlessly.Or is he going to try serve and volley against Nadal? If he does so successfully in the 1st set,can he sustain it throughout the match? Nadal has a remarkable agility,speed and energy never seen in the history of tennis.Secondly Nadal's passing shots are simply wicked and will quickly pin Fed back to the base.I maintain that Fed must improve on his rallies to beat Nadal in Wimby 08.

If Federer is going to beat Nadal ,should they meet in the Wimbledon finals, he had better pull off something more than his name.If he continues to play wild backhand shots and many unforced errors he stands no chance against Nadal!! For him to beat NADAL(and not any other player) he must cut down on unforced errors,he should be ready for long rallies as there are NO EASY POINTS WITH NADAL( his serves which give him easy points can fail him and he will be in real trouble).I am a supporter of both players and no blind fanatic.So i base my arguements on realism not sentiments.The way Nadal is playing now is as if he grew up on grass.He is pretty aggressive and fast,drop shots are no use against him and he has perfected his forehand down the line shots.His serves are a big threat now unlike before.I mean,one has to be a damn Fed fanatic to say he has not seen the obvious improvements in Nadal's game.Now my question is: What are the matching improvements in Fed's?

Safin has replaced the Djokovic threat.Everybody knows that when Marat Safin is in form,he is the deadliest tennis player in the circuit.Should Fed overcome the Safin threat and meet Nadal in the final,he will have the odds against him.First,he has not improved over his 2007 form(Nadal has improved,by far).To beat Nadal,he must increase his aggressiveness,sharpen his angled volleys and reduce his unforced error rate to beat Nadal.He has not really impressed me in this year's Wimbledon, in the context of his abilities to beat Nadal.Secondly, the French open 2008 loss will still be fresh in his mind.I believe Federer has a better chance if Murray or Ancic takes out Nadal(I dont see any one else left who can beat Nadal).Fed fans should hope that he plays some one else in the final.For new records sake,I look forward to another Fed success but my fear for him is real and realistic.

With his win over Novak on Sun,I think Nadal has sent shivers down the spines of opposition at the forth coming Wimbledon.Should they meet,I dont see Novak doing better against Nadal at Wimbledon where they have to play best of 5 sets,than he did against him at the Queen's(best of 3).As for Fed,the only other real opposition,he definitely needs to improve on his current form(despite his win at Halle) to stand a chance against Nadal who is playing on grass as if he is a natural grass court player! One just has to give it to Nadal.He has done his home work really well.His serves are a great threat now.His volleys,drop shots,forehand down the line and aggressive in-court play are virtually flawless and they represent some of the areas of obvious improvements.Winning has become habitual for Rafa.For sure,this is his year!

A few months ago I argued on this site that Roger needs to add forehand drop shots to his game if he must stand a chance of winning at the French.Well I am glad to see him use it against Gonzo and Monfils.If he uses it well to mix up his shots against Nadal,who knows,he might just win his most elusive title this yr.Good luck Fed!

I have never seen Federer so comprehensively beaten as Mardy Fish did at the PACIFIC semis.He was so outplayed in every dept of the game that he just gave up WITHOUT A DECENT FIGHT.He has always lost tough but not this time.He will not chase down lobs,his serves were so ineffective Mardy was attacking them from inside the baseline.Disgusting!! I didnt see Mirka at the stands.It's bad enough without a coach,but without Mirka,Federer is finished.Everybody needs emotional support,even if he is the best player on planet!!

I think Federer's post match excuses at the Dubai open are defensive against an opponent he has not quite worked out a way to beat convincingly.Murray has a damaging tactics against him.Can somebody tell me also why these two top 11 players had to play a FIRST round match in Dubai? I am curious.

Barring injuries and if,only if,Tsonga can reproduce his performance today against Nadal,in the Aussie final,I dont see any body stopping him.His shot selection is brutal and is the key to his victory against Nadal.His volley is new to contemporary tennis and the boy is just too calm for a rookie!!

Three reasons why I believe Nalbandian is the player to beat in 2008: 1).The ferocity and consisitency(not necessarily the smoothness or artistry)of his back hand is arguably unparalled in the circuit for now. 2).His serves are very consistent and dangerous, and 3)He has finally won the battle against mental toughness.Thanks to his new coach,for all these.Even Federer confirmed these facts after his two losses to David at the tail end of 2007.

I believe he should win the Australian open.

Barring any injuries to Roger,there appears a little chance that Rafa will ever surpass Federer,who leads him now with over 2000 points.Nadal is playing so much better than many previous world number ones did at the time they enjoyed that status,yet number one continues to elude him!!.Why? Because he is so unfortunate to have Federer on the scene.The tragedy is that Nadal appears even likely, in time, to burn out and perhaps retire b4 Federer who plays a less physical tennis.

I like all the expression of optimism regarding Lindsay's comeback,but can anyone tell me of any woman in history who's had a baby,is 31 years or above,came back from retirement and still broke into top 10? The odds are seriously against her.If she manages it,I will be pleasantly surprised.I am fan of hers,but on this occasion I refuse sentiments.

I like all the expression of optimism regarding Lindsay's comeback,but can anyone tell me of any woman in history who's had a baby,is 31 years or above,came back from retirement and still broke into top 10? The odds are seriously against her.If she manages it,I will be pleasantly surprised.I am fan of hers,but on this occasion I refuse sentiments.