The Strength of Eras debate put to rest.

First topic message reminder :

1 - In general, the latest era is the strongest but won't be as strong as tomorrow's. No player today woudl be as good if they hadn't played and trained versus the previous generation. That applies to Federer, Djoko, Nadal and everybody else.
2 - #1 is true only if the the number of players worldwide (from club level to top professionals) remains the same or increase. IF the pool of players (even at club level drops), it's almost certain, the overall level will drop.
3 - (for Socal) - An era's strength can be characterised by a strength in talent, fitness and technique. Today what makes this era "strong" is their fitness level which can essentially be attributed to science (and their team...more than the player). We know this cause not so long ago we thought Nadal was a physical phenomenon but now we can see that Djoko and Murray - who both were not particular athletes in their youth - can rival phyiscally with Nadal). In terms of technique and talent, Nadal, Murray and Djoko are certainly not stronger than many of the past players but they largely make it up by their amazing court coverage and stamina. There are a lot of players who can strike the ball as well but not many can produce over the distance cause it requires great composure to execute great shot over the distance and as soon as the body starves of O2, the execution drops.
4 - When all players in a couple of years will be as fit as Nadal and Djoko, then the talented players will shine through and expose the "weakness of today's era as being essentially "physical". Djoko has this year with his relative talent clearly exposed the limited skills of Nadal. For now, essentially due to the slow conds, it's the physical players that can consistently get to the last rounds of slams.
5 - #4 explains why youngsters take longer to shine through. They might be more talented but physically it's a very tough world out there. It's become like cycling where the top racers are 24 and over.

In summary, yes there are 3 or 4 players who are strong physically at the top but besides Federer and rare others, the top players are not that great technically. They can't do magic things with the ball except retrieving balls that were not reachable in the past, but since they spend 35 hours per week in the gym instead of on the court, it's clear we are bound to see physical exploit more than technical/talent ones.

S_A, can you do a simple analysis of prime Nadal vs. prime Djoko - say, over the last 2 years?

JuliusHMarx wrote:S_A, can you do a simple analysis of prime Nadal vs. prime Djoko - say, over the last 2 years?

Julius, I'll help you out with this year: 5-0

Julius that will be a prime Nadal vs a prime Djokovic. They will be evenly matched i'll say with leading the head to head as it is now. One tournament which had both players playing in prime was USO last year Nadal won that.

Julius, I'll help you out with this year: 5-0

But according to Nadalites the bull was suffering in his head, wrists, shoulder, knees, eyes, elbows, toes, and not to mention he forgot his special weapon: MTO

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Julius, I'll help you out with this year: 5-0

But according to Nadalites the bull was suffering in his head, wrists, shoulder, knees, eyes, elbows, toes, and not to mention he forgot his special weapon: MTO

He also had a mysterious fever that kept re-surfacing whenever he lost a match.

I actually never rated Nadal or Djokovic for talent. Those guys have super human stamina and just outmuscle the others. A case in point would be Tsonga v Djokovic in Wimbledon. Tsonga showed the superior skills and more clinical tennis but it is the consistency married with the sub-human fitness levels of Djokovic that smothers more skillful and entertaining players such as Tsonga. Nadal is even worse in that the massive time lag between points plus the primeval howling when he strikes the ball makes him extremely tedious to watch. Can't say I'm ever sad to see him lose.

Super D Boon wrote:I actually never rated Nadal or Djokovic for talent. Those guys have super human stamina and just outmuscle the others. A case in point would be Tsonga v Djokovic in Wimbledon. Tsonga showed the superior skills and more clinical tennis but it is the consistency married with the sub-human fitness levels of Djokovic that smothers more skillful and entertaining players such as Tsonga. Nadal is even worse in that the massive time lag between points plus the primeval howling when he strikes the ball makes him extremely tedious to watch. Can't say I'm ever sad to see him lose.

Amen to that brother. Never can get too much of a good thing.

What I find hilarious almost always is, Federer fans can throw any random players name in about how he beats Nadal but the ironic part is, thousand names could be mentioned and Federer will be the last to be mentioned, make it 1001th. Must be frustrating; he rather takes the beating from Nadal.

Anybody who were to hit the ball 5h a day from the age of 5 could do great things, even if he were told to do it with his unatural hand (left one for instance) .

What guys like Davydenko, Federer, Tsonga do cannot be done by everybody, even doing it from their natural side 7 hours a day. Some are extremely talented out there.

unlucky SA nobody shares your boring views...

where's catalan power when ya need him?

Tenez wrote:Anybody who were to hit the ball 5h a day from the age of 5 could do great things, even if he were told to do it with his unatural hand (left one for instance) .

What guys like Davydenko, Federer, Tsonga do cannot be done by everybody, even doing it from their natural side 7 hours a day. Some are extremely talented out there.

What a shock! I agree. Why should Federer hit the ball 5 hours a day when he could be working 5.5 hrs a day with Paganini?

Super D Boon wrote:I actually never rated Nadal or Djokovic for talent. Those guys have super human stamina and just outmuscle the others. A case in point would be Tsonga v Djokovic in Wimbledon. Tsonga showed the superior skills and more clinical tennis but it is the consistency married with the sub-human fitness levels of Djokovic that smothers more skillful and entertaining players such as Tsonga. Nadal is even worse in that the massive time lag between points plus the primeval howling when he strikes the ball makes him extremely tedious to watch. Can't say I'm ever sad to see him lose.

It is funny that there are so many deluded individuals who actually believe that two players who have attained the #1 ranking aren't that talented. Some of those same people think Davydenko and ljubicic are very talented. Talent really means taste to them, they don't like a particular player or his style and they denigrate them by claiming that they lack talent. Tsonga has a great deal of talent, but he is no where as good or as clean a ball striker as Djokovic. I think Tsonga might kill to be able to hit a backhand like Djokovic. This whole stamina argument is a joke made up by extremist federer fans, if it is just conditioning that allows them to win matches why doesn't Michael Russel or Ferrer win multiple slams. Fitness is the base, but if you don't have talent in ball striking you will get nowhere near the levels Nadal and Djokovic have got to. The extremist fed apologists have basically shown that they are delusional and in serious need of medication.

socal1976 wrote:It is funny that there are so many deluded individuals ....

Isn't it?

socal1976 wrote:It is funny that there are so many deluded individuals who actually believe that two players who have attained the #1 ranking aren't that talented. .

It's hilarious isn't it?

And it forms the basis of about 90% of your posts.

When will you stop shooting yourself in the foot? I can't imagine you've got anything other than a stump left by now.

I think the deluded faction of federrettes who claim that Nadal and Djokovic aren't talented at hitting a tennis ball and win on lungs alone are frankly the deluded ones. I know the world's number one player is not talented at hitting a tennis and you have the gall, audacity, and sheer cluelessness to call other people deluded. This may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard by any person, the world #1 tennis player isn't that talented at hitting a tennis ball, but ivan ljubicic is. Do you guys work for monty python or something.

socal1976 wrote:I think the deluded faction of federrettes who claim that Nadal and Djokovic aren't talented at hitting a tennis ball and win on lungs alone are frankly the deluded ones.

Ehh...yep...and did you watch the match of your man last night? Let me quote him:

Novak Djokovic:

He played a lot of low balls, slices - I was confused on the court. he was changing pace a lot. He was always sending me a different ball. It was really hard for me to adjust to it because of the conditions that we played in.

So your Bolitieri boy doesn;t like variety?

And now from the player he faced.

ALEXANDR DOLGOPOLOV: I think he wear me out in the first points and I was a bit tired. When I was serving for it on 4-1, I got an unlucky call. I mean, I was leading in points and attacking. One unlucky call, and then it turned around and it was a tough tiebreak for me. You know, I was trying to play steady because I saw he wasn't comfortable with the rhythm. You know, I wear myself out, as well, for the match.

But hey, We are keen to welcome both of them in "our" deluded club!

I saw the Djokovic quote myself and was going to mention it. He actually admits to being confused because his opponent didn't run left and right hitting the same tedious balls. Can anyone imagine a #1 ever confessing to this?

The Dolgopolov quote is news to me and even more revealing. Yep, he won on fitness.

bogbrush wrote:I saw the Djokovic quote myself and was going to mention it. He actually admits to being confused because his opponent didn't run left and right hitting the same tedious balls. Can anyone imagine a #1 ever confessing to this?

The Dolgopolov quote is news to me and even more revealing. Yep, he won on fitness.

I think Novak was playing within himself for last two sets. He won by having greater court awareness really because Dologopolov had his chances in the tie break - it was very unfortunate for him that there was a bad call, over ruled by umpire, but which would have put him at 5 1 if they had not had to play a let. However, he did even it up again and then Novak was better on the important points. That's really what Dog needed to do in the 1st was to execute the crucial points better.

I agree that it was Dolgopolov who was playing lights out tennis at times in the first, but Novak didn't need to - I am sure he would have found another gear had it been tighter later on. He did, in the end, solve the puzzle of Dolgopolov's game, or probably more fairly, when Dog's game wasn't producing desired results, he didn't have a plan B.

I do agree though that it was Dolgopolov that provided the thrills and entertainment yesterday and made Djokovic's play yesterday look quite boring in comparision. I hope that we see many more matches from Dolgopolov with the promise of the 1st set.

Yes Tenez he was so confused that he beat him three straight sets, he was trying to give his opponent credit. And dolgy played a great couple of sets and he is an opponent who plays a style that this different and if he is on can give players trouble. He isn't a challenger player the guy is top 30 and is a player that tries to break the rhythymn of his opponent. By the way the low slice has always bothered Djoko because of his western forehand and his two handed backhand fed uses a lot of angled slice short in the court to his backy whenever possible.

Keep trying to convince that world #1s Nadal and Djoko aren't that talented and aren't great ball strikers. What next are you going to try to convince me that Barack Obama isn't a good politician, or that Messi isn't that good at football, or that John Holmes wasn't well endowed, or that ice cream tastes bad? This particular argument of the federette apologists is by far the most delusional and stupid argument I have ever heard by anyone on any topic.

Tenez wrote:

Ehh...yep...and did you watch the match of your man last night? Let me quote him:

Novak Djokovic:

He played a lot of low balls, slices - I was confused on the court. he was changing pace a lot. He was always sending me a different ball. It was really hard for me to adjust to it because of the conditions that we played in.

So your Bolitieri boy doesn;t like variety?

No he doesn't like playing in a swirling wind against junk ballers. Who does?

Tenez wrote:And now from the player he faced.

ALEXANDR DOLGOPOLOV: I think he wear me out in the first points and I was a bit tired. When I was serving for it on 4-1, I got an unlucky call. I mean, I was leading in points and attacking. One unlucky call, and then it turned around and it was a tough tiebreak for me. You know, I was trying to play steady because I saw he wasn't comfortable with the rhythm. You know, I wear myself out, as well, for the match.

So Dolgopolov admits to being mentally and physically weak and a physically and mentally weak person = untalented tennis player in any era.

DId people watch that first TB point? It's such an good example of today's tennis. Djoko does his best to keep the rally going knowing that the longer the exchange, th ebetter his chance of winning. Funnily enough he lost the point but that doesn;t really matter cause long rallies takes the edge off the player later in the set or match.

Very simple but very efficient...if you are fit enough. Djoko used to be the one running out of breath first. Certainly not anymore.

socal1976 wrote:Yes Tenez he was so confused that he beat him three straight sets, he was trying to give his opponent credit. And dolgy played a great couple of sets and he is an opponent who plays a style that this different and if he is on can give players trouble. He isn't a challenger player the guy is top 30 and is a player that tries to break the rhythymn of his opponent. By the way the low slice has always bothered Djoko because of his western forehand and his two handed backhand fed uses a lot of angled slice short in the court to his backy whenever possible.

Keep trying to convince that world #1s Nadal and Djoko aren't that talented and aren't great ball strikers. What next are you going to try to convince me that Barack Obama isn't a good politician, or that Messi isn't that good at football, or that John Holmes wasn't well endowed, or that ice cream tastes bad? This particular argument of the federette apologists is by far the most delusional and stupid argument I have ever by anyone on any topic.

Oh ok, so Djokovic just made that up.

And Obama is a failure, by the way.

icecold wrote:No he doesn't like playing in a swirling wind against junk ballers. Who does?

Dologopolov isn't a junk baller. Don't you even understand the expression? He put a lot of work on every ball.

Junk balling is when you stand at the back and push stuff back with nothing on it, like Simon most of the time. It's similar to moonballing, which you will know a lot about.

Tenez wrote:Anybody who were to hit the ball 5h a day from the age of 5 could do great things, even if he were told to do it with his unatural hand (left one for instance) .

Nonsense.
You can practise the piano for five hours a day from the age of five but that won't guarantee you a future as a concert pianist unless you have a talent for music. Why should tennis, swimming, skiing, sprinting or any other physical discipline be any different?

Tenez wrote:DId people watch that first TB point? It's such an good example of today's tennis. Djoko does his best to keep the rally going knowing that the longer the exchange, th ebetter his chance of winning. Funnily enough he lost the point but that doesn;t really matter cause long rallies takes the edge off the player later in the set or match.

Very simple but very efficient...if you are fit enough. Djoko used to be the one running out of breath first. Certainly not anymore.

Earth to Tenez. The best players have always been the strongest, fastest and fittest. It is sport. That is how it should be.

If it is all down to fitness tenez why don't we recruit some kenyan marathon runners send them to a tennis camp for a year and then have them dominate the ATP tour. You can be as fit as you possibly like if you don't have weapons you will not win. Djokovic has incredible tennis skills and so does Nadal and so does Murray, in fact I would say they all have way more weapons than Mats Wilander or Lleyton Hewitt both players that became #1 in the socalled fast court era.

And BB a junkballer is someone who takes pace off the ball with a lot of slice, at the club I refuse to play them at all because they turn the game to garbage. One guy at my club hits slice off both forehand and backhand for every shot, I played him once beat him in two tough sets and then refused to play him ever, ever again. Dolgo is a good player, but in this match he was using a lot of junk ball tactics, which is very smart actually as Djoko is a better high ball hitter due to his western forehand and two handed backhand.

Don't worry about Dolgo's loss, this things happen in tennis. I clearly remembered believe it Roddick playing tennis with more variety and providing the entertaiment at Wimbledon 09 finals while Federer concentrated on serving. At the end, Roddick was physically out lasted by the more physical Federer 16-12 in the 5th set and wore a jacket after.
Dolgo been physically out lasted in a 1st set tie break by Djokovic not bad after all.

socal1976 wrote:Yes Tenez he was so confused that he beat him three straight sets, he was trying to give his opponent credit. And dolgy played a great couple of sets and he is an opponent who plays a style that this different and if he is on can give players trouble. He isn't a challenger player the guy is top 30 and is a player that tries to break the rhythymn of his opponent. By the way the low slice has always bothered Djoko because of his western forehand and his two handed backhand fed uses a lot of angled slice short in the court to his backy whenever possible.

Keep trying to convince that world #1s Nadal and Djoko aren't that talented and aren't great ball strikers. What next are you going to try to convince me that Barack Obama isn't a good politician, or that Messi isn't that good at football, or that John Holmes wasn't well endowed, or that ice cream tastes bad? This particular argument of the federette apologists is by far the most delusional and stupid argument I have ever heard by anyone on any topic.

You are lacking so much arguments that you are talking nonsense. Obama, Holmes, Messi....

I don't know if you noticed but Djoko and Dolgo are not that deluded. They both know who won and so do I. I am just explaining what makes the strength of this era.

It's amazing, we could not find better matches than Nadal/Nalby and Djoko/Dolgo to illustrate my OP. Including the ridiculous time they both take between points to impose their physical game.

Strangely I believe you have no problem admitting that Djoko is a better ball striker than Nadal and always was...despite teh H2H being still against him?

Both Roddick and Dolgopolov didn't play the points they needed to win as well as Djokovic and Federer did - that is why the latter two won.

You know Simple - Federer didn't raise his knee till it hit him under the chin, screaming into his fist , or beat his chest Tarzan like in triumph, bite the trophy or eat Centre Court - he wore a jacket a Nike rep handed to him - what a show off!!!!!

bogbrush wrote:
Oh ok, so Djokovic just made that up.

And Obama is a failure, by the way.

He is obviously a skilled politician since there are tens of thousands of them all who would love to be as big a failure as a politican as he is attaining the most powerful office in the world. And i never claimed Djokovic made it up, I said your point is irrelevant Dolgo is a tricky top 25 player, so what exactly does Novak being confused by his unique style for a set and half prove other then that you hate the man and attack him at every possible point.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Don't worry about Dolgo's loss, this things happen in tennis. I clearly remembered believe it Roddick playing tennis with more variety and providing the entertaiment at Wimbledon 09 finals while Federer concentrated on serving. At the end, Roddick was physically out lasted by the more physical Federer 16-12 in the 5th set and wore a jacket after.
Dolgo been physically out lasted in a 1st set tie break by Djokovic not bad after all.

If only they'd stopped the set when one of them got 2 games ahead at 6 it wouldn't have been such an epic I guess.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Oh ok, so Djokovic just made that up.

And Obama is a failure, by the way.

He is obviously a skilled politician since there are tens of thousands of them all who would love to be as big a failure as a politican as he is attaining the most powerful office in the world. And i never claimed Djokovic made it up, I said your point is irrelevant Dolgo is a tricky top 25 player, so what exactly does Novak being confused by his unique style for a set and half prove other then that you hate the man and attack him at every possible point.

But Socal is completely blind to tennis. His arguments are always down to W and L and ranking. But as WL and ranking comes and goes, he reajusts his theories every week on Monday when the ranking is updated.

Tenez, in regards to Djoko v. Nadal they are both great ball strikers i think Novak has the advantage in some areas and Nadal in others. Novak had 2 years of serving problems so if you asked me in 09 and 10 who is the better ball striker i wouldn't say Novak, at least not from the service line.

And I stand by my point claiming that Novak isn't that talented like this Super Boon, guy is like claiming Messi isn't that good at football or that ice cream tastes bad. It is the same ludicrous argument you have been pawning for years and outside of a few flat earthers no one buys it.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Oh ok, so Djokovic just made that up.

And Obama is a failure, by the way.

And i never claimed Djokovic made it up, I said your point is irrelevant Dolgo is a tricky top 25 player, so what exactly does Novak being confused by his unique style for a set and half prove other then that you hate the man and attack him at every possible point.

Oh so "he was trying to give his opponent credit." doesn't mean he was making it up?

Now it just looks like you're agreeing with my initial post.

time please wrote:Both Roddick and Dolgopolov didn't play the points they needed to win as well as Djokovic and Federer did - that is why the latter two won.

You know Simple - Federer didn't raise his knee till it hit him under the chin, screaming into his fist , or beat his chest Tarzan like in triumph, bite the trophy or eat Centre Court - he wore a jacket a Nike rep handed to him - what a show off!!!!!

Yes and the latter two won because according to our friends, they both out-lasted their opponent. No?
The fact that it was Roddick providing more variety and entertainment in that match is bad enough for me.

No, I am not you were the one who made a big deal of the world #1 admitting to being confused, I said it wasn't a revelation of any kind. He obviously figured out the puzzle quick enough to win in straight sets.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

time please wrote:Both Roddick and Dolgopolov didn't play the points they needed to win as well as Djokovic and Federer did - that is why the latter two won.

You know Simple - Federer didn't raise his knee till it hit him under the chin, screaming into his fist , or beat his chest Tarzan like in triumph, bite the trophy or eat Centre Court - he wore a jacket a Nike rep handed to him - what a show off!!!!!

Yes and the latter two won because according to our friends, they both out-lasted their opponent. No?
The fact that it was Roddick providing more variety and entertainment in that match is bad enough for me.

Time to get over it now

icecold wrote:

Tenez wrote:Anybody who were to hit the ball 5h a day from the age of 5 could do great things, even if he were told to do it with his unatural hand (left one for instance) .

Nonsense.
You can practise the piano for five hours a day from the age of five but that won't guarantee you a future as a concert pianist unless you have a talent for music. Why should tennis, swimming, skiing, sprinting or any other physical discipline be any different?

Bravo Icecold, I have a niece who since she was five has practiced tennis every day for 5 hours a day, she was at an academy from a young age. It got her a division one college scholarship but she would not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being ranked number #1 or even #20.

socal1976 wrote:No, I am not you were the one who made a big deal of the world #1 admitting to being confused, I said it wasn't a revelation of any kind. He obviously figured out the puzzle quick enough to win in straight sets.

A credit to the amazing on-court ability of the World No.1 to find a way to beat his opponent. What strucks me about Djokovic is a player who is willing to learn more and very intelligent on court. The guy lost 16 times to Nadal and has worked on other aspects of his game as well as his fitness and has been dominating him since then. The other player who has lost 17 times to Nadal is probably wagging his tail waiting for another beating instead of actually finding a way to beat him. Djokovic for example lost to Nadal 5 straight times before Cincy in 2009 and then beat him 3 straight times, lost 2 more and has won the last 5 times. It shows both players dominate in certain periods but Djokovic is stamping his authority on Nadal recently. The 5 wins have come within a short period so we await to see what Nadal can do. Djokovic has shown the ability to learn against Nadal so far, the same cannot be said about Federer. How difficult could it be?

socal1976 wrote:

icecold wrote:

Tenez wrote:Anybody who were to hit the ball 5h a day from the age of 5 could do great things, even if he were told to do it with his unatural hand (left one for instance) .

Nonsense.
You can practise the piano for five hours a day from the age of five but that won't guarantee you a future as a concert pianist unless you have a talent for music. Why should tennis, swimming, skiing, sprinting or any other physical discipline be any different?

Bravo Icecold, I have a niece who since she was five has practiced tennis every day for 5 hours a day, she was at an academy from a young age. It got her a division one college scholarship but she would not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being ranked number #1 or even #20.

Yes bravo Icecold. Playing the piano at concert level is about talent and not much to do with physical training therefore you confirm the very point I was making. Now I fail to understand how a sport where you need both talent and physical strength can be compared to the Piano?

But don;t worry, I don;t want to know.

You see Simple, the post above makes some really good points but your dig about Federer just reduces it for me to rubbish. Federer has played Nadal well in the past (and let's not forget has won 2 Wimbledons over him and lost a third in what is considered by many to be the best match of all time - well it takes two players to make it so ) He can still beat Rafa over 3 and did so at WTF just as McEnroe predicted he would - 5 is now most likely beyond him.

You know I don't really care whether you think Federer is rubbish or not, but I just wonder why his name is brought into every discussion by you when everyone else is talking about completely different players.

I'd focus on what/who brings you joy if I were you

time please wrote:You see Simple, the post above makes some really good points but your dig about Federer just reduces it for me to rubbish. Federer has played Nadal well in the past (and let's not forget has won 2 Wimbledons over him and lost a third in what is considered by many to be the best match of all time - well it takes two players to make it so ) He can still beat Rafa over 3 and did so at WTF just as McEnroe predicted he would - 5 is now most likely beyond him.

You know I don't really care whether you think Federer is rubbish or not, but I just wonder why his name is brought into every discussion by you when everyone else is talking about completely different players.

I'd focus on what/who brings you joy if I were you

Well the odd win here and there against Nadal was impressive but hardly much to write about. Well done for him to winning against a full clay courter Nadal in 4 sets at Wimbledon 06 and outlasting him in 07. Could have been an 8-0 slam head to head by now so i guess credit where it's due.

SA, it is interesting how their rivalry has had those types of streaks. Even when Nadal was beating Djoko regularly I felt that he never felt completely comfortable playing Novak. And on Fed I agree to an extent, Fed has never changed his game or used different tactics enough to turn the tide. He did try different tactics at the WTF in london last year going after the backhand return and not chipping it, hitting the backhand up the line instead of cross court court. But that was way too little too late. That has been the thing that has made novak and Nadal as well so good that they have continually added new elements to their game. When Nadal first broke onto the tour he couldn't hit a serve 110 miles an hour now he gets them humming at the high 120s. Djoko completely changed his serve (didn't work out for him) and his forehand (that did work out for him).

Tenez wrote:But Socal is completely blind to tennis. His arguments are always down to W and L and ranking.

Absolutely correct. Tennis is a sport and the most talented sportsmen and women will rise to the top. How else should we judge the tennis playing ability of players rather than assessing their results?

In any contest between participants of similar ability, the result will come down to who is better mentally and physically. One player or team may be physically fitter and stronger but mentally not up to the job and throw in the towel. (Safin vs Santoro)

Others may be physically in weaker condition but their never say die attitude will be the deciding factor in getting the win. (AO Final 2009)

I cannot think of any sport where this doesn't apply.

Let's face it, Lindsay Davenport or Justine Henin had better timing and were better ball strikers than Roger Federer will ever be, especially on the backhand side. Of course they would be lucky to take a game off Federer in a serious match because he is physically so much stronger, fitter and faster than they are. Does that mean that they really are better tennis players than Federer but the latter only wins because they cannot compete with his physicality? Of course not.

So why use that stupid argument where Nadal and Djokovic are concerned? I don't buy it for a minute but if you seriously believe that Federer is owned by Nadal only because he cannot compete physically then tough. That is no excuse.

The bottom line is he is not as good a tennis player as Nadal and the area where he is deficient is totally irrelevant.

socal1976 wrote:SA, it is interesting how their rivalry has had those types of streaks. Even when Nadal was beating Djoko regularly I felt that he never felt completely comfortable playing Novak. And on Fed I agree to an extent, Fed has never changed his game or used different tactics enough to turn the tide. He did try different tactics at the WTF in london last year going after the backhand return and not chipping it, hitting the backhand up the line instead of cross court court. But that was way too little too late. That has been the thing that has made novak and Nadal as well so good that they have continually added new elements to their game. When Nadal first broke onto the tour he couldn't hit a serve 110 miles an hour now he gets them humming at the high 120s. Djoko completely changed his serve (didn't work out for him) and his forehand (that did work out for him).

Why i don't see his recent domination over Nadal a suprise. I watched their match at Cincy in 2009 and though Nadal was all over the place then, i felt Djokovic tactically was brilliant and making changes in the match to counter any attempt by Nadal to change the game. He dominated him and you could see a player who knew what he was doing. My friend Timeplease will have something to say about this but in terms of developing ones game, i don't think Federer has done much to his game to be honest. Tactically, we know he is poor but until even employing the services of Annacone, his game was in a stand-stil. The thing was, it was still good enough to beat a large part of the tour why in the period 2003-2007, he needn't change much. When you competing against Robredo, Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Ljubic etc as top 5 opponent, you are hardly every going to become a visionary on court. The coming of Nadal was a start in exposing the lack of vision in Federer's game and tactics but soon as guys like Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Del Potro etc appeared, we saw Federer scrumbling from side to side is matches losing them frequently it became more apparent.

Tenez wrote:
Yes bravo Icecold. Playing the piano at concert level is about talent and not much to do with physical training therefore you confirm the very point I was making. Now I fail to understand how a sport where you need both talent and physical strength can be compared to the Piano?

But don;t worry, I don;t want to know.

Playing the piano is physical. What do you think concert pianists use, Jedi mind tricks.

Pianists need to practise for hours to build up the strength and co-ordination necessary for playing complex pieces.

It requires phenomenal dexterity as well as musical sensitivity. The point is that someone can have all the musical sensitivity in the world but no matter how hard they practise they will never play to concert standard because they do not have the physical talents required. There are many great song writers who are not very good musicians. There are many great tennis coaches who were crap players because despite hours of practise from an early age they didn't have the talent.

If you think any old random five year old kid with the right training could one day be the next Nadal, you are out of your mind.

icecold wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Yes bravo Icecold. Playing the piano at concert level is about talent and not much to do with physical training therefore you confirm the very point I was making. Now I fail to understand how a sport where you need both talent and physical strength can be compared to the Piano?

But don;t worry, I don;t want to know.

Playing the piano is physical. What do you think concert pianists use, Jedi mind tricks.

Pianists need to practise for hours to build up the strength and co-ordination necessary for playing complex pieces.

It requires phenomenal dexterity as well as musical sensitivity. The point is that someone can have all the musical sensitivity in the world but no matter how hard they practise they will never play to concert standard because they do not have the physical talents required. There are many great song writers who are not very good musicians. There are many great tennis coaches who were crap players because despite hours of practise from an early age they didn't have the talent.

If you think any old random five year old kid with the right training could one day be the next Nadal, you are out of your mind.

Noticed how I used the word "much"? I believe you highlighted it as well. But anyway, you are trying to change the topic cause you are lacking of convincing arguments.

A tour de force by icecold, although it isn't very challenging to dismiss an argument that claims that two world #1s aren't very talented or good at striking a tennis player. Icecold excellent post.

Of course it comes down to a combination of factors from fitness, power, and technical ability. If Nadal only beats federer because of fitness then that is all fed's fault, anyone can get fit. But anyone can't become #1, it takes an otherworldly level of ability to win the amount of times Nadal has on the biggest stages and the same for Djoko.

But don't expect any of your well versed and logical arguments to sway tenez. He likes to rate players on how closely their style of play mirrors what he enjoys watching. Please explain to us Tenez that other then wins and losses how else we measure tennis players?

icecold wrote:Let's face it, Lindsay Davenport or Justine Henin had better timing and were better ball strikers than Roger Federer will ever be, especially on the backhand side.

Indeed. Say no more.

SA, I think Fed did develop early on in his career, but he very much stagnated by his mid 20s and refused to try different tactics against Nadal. And as you have pointed out he didn't exactly have very difficult competition until the arrival of Nadal and the development of Murray and Novak. I wouldn't be as harsh as you are I think Fed did make changes when he was young but when had all that success against weaklings like Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Robredo, and ljubi he got a little too complacent and comfortable in his game. A clearly inferior level of top talent in the early 2000s to what had come before (ie pete, andre, Courier, Becker, and Edberg) and clearly inferior to the current dominant stars Novak and Nadal. Annacone at the end of last year did get him to be more aggressive off the return and the backhand but it was a case of too little to late. Still Roger was so head and shoulders over his contemporaries that maybe and understandably he became stubborn and complacent in his approach to the game.