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.

You know how to shoot yoursef in the foot SA. I read your link....for once it was interesting. Bruguera is more talented that Sampras according to your RPM theory.

If we do bring Nadal's performance into this discussion the guy was hitting much harder than I have seen him hit this year on the HC. That was due to Nalbandian who attacked his loopy BH forcing Nadal to end rallies a lot quicker. The first set was the most enjoyable set of the tournament as it was vintage from both men.

Tenez wrote:Icecold...SA's posts are reduced to a single line asking me whether I want to read him or not. You are getting close to joinning him...

There is one thing Icecold will agree to, we both enjoy using your ever lacking logic to make you look stupid

But to go back to the topic, Nalbandian from the "weak era" is simply a much better ball stricker than Nadal and Nadal had to compensate by running crazy right and left. Imagine if Nadal had Nalby's footwork, he'd have lost pretty convincingly.

ok...i'll open and read your post SA..just per curiosity...

Tenez wrote:You know how to shoot yoursef in the foot SA. I read your link....for once it was interesting. Bruguera is more talented that Sampras according to your RPM theory.

Couldn't have shot yourself any better. You famous claim of less talented the more rpm you hit makes Federer the 3rd talentless player in the history of tennis behind Bruguera and Nadal lol.

Last I heard having great footwork is another talent...
But as usual Tenez conveniently reduces Nadal to physicality.
Anyone who actually saw that match would have seen Nadal making Nalby look extremely ordinary in the 2nd set with loads of outright winners that Dave couldnt get a racquet on....and trust me that took talent.

Last I also heard was that for all his so-called great ball striking Nalby has 0 slams and Nadal 10...go figure.

Whittering on about Federer v Nadal is so last few years. (Lydian, this one's not for you, I have no issue where you stand on all this).

With official one-sided ownership of Nadal by Djokovic on three surfaces this year, including his favourites - an achievement Nadal never asserted over Federer - it's looking increasingly likely that Nadal will do well to reach 12 Slams so all that debate is dead; the question now is whether we'll ever see a new young player or whether this lot will have the sport to themselves until their mid-thirties, in which Djokovic gets 25 Slams.

No. Anyone who actually saw the macth could see Nadal scrapping through right and left heavily relying on his physique.

Just check the post match interview!

BB, I also doubt Fed would have reached 16 had Nole been in this form 4-5 years ago also... ;-)

Looking forward I think Nole has come along at the perfect time to amass slams fairly unheeded.

Glad to see you find guys in pain funny, but nonethless it doesnt change the fact that he made Nalby look ordinary in that 2nd set. Your physicality argument only works so far...especially when guys like Murray, Federer and Djokovic have all embraced physicality too. Change the record man....

lydian wrote:BB, I also doubt Fed would have reached 16 had Nole been in this form 4-5 years ago also... ;-).

Nole could not have been in this form 4/5 years ago cause one the latest science was not around and more importantly he needed exposure versus Nadal and federer to reach today's level. It took him rougly 4 years of getting kicked to finally surpass them...wel certainly Rafa...not too sure about Fed yet. Last time they played, it was not so clear.

Tenez wrote:No. Anyone who actually saw the macth could see Nadal scrapping through right and left heavily relying on his physique.

Just check the post match interview!

Of course. What a disgrace! He won't make the trip to aunty Amigos 49th birthday cake party. Both players invited but Nalby wants all the cake to himself.
Next flight to Argentina.

lydian wrote:Glad to see you find guys in pain funny, but nonethless it doesnt change the fact that he made Nalby look ordinary in that 2nd set. Your physicality argument only works so far...especially when guys like Murray, Federer and Djokovic have all embraced physicality too. Change the record man....

With all due respect Lydian, making 2011 Fat Dave look ordinary is.. well... ordinary.

lydian wrote:Change the record man....

About 20 players have pulled out of the USO in the last 7 days due to physical issues and you want me to change the record?

Nole has generally had Fed's number this year, 3-1, I dont see Fed beating Nole again TBH. Also dont forget Fed uses modern tech as well:

"So Roger Federer has a secret weapon. It stands to reason. Rarely is he injured or below par in fitness despite his rigorous schedule on the tennis tour. It has been suggested widely on the web – though not by any medical practitioner - that one element that contributes to Federer’s supreme physical condition is his alleged use of bio-electric-magnetic technology. He is said to be one of a number of athletes and sports teams that carry a portable pulsed magnetic therapy unit on tour. According to Bemer, who make the unit, and sporting professionals such as Karin Mobes, Federer’s Swiss compatriot and world winter triathlon champion, it enhances performance, aids faster regeneration and helps to prevent injuries."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/alternative_medicine/article7068678.ece

"Of course, Roger Federer is a gifted athlete, but could he have a secret weapon that gives him an edge on the tennis court? You might be surprised to know that Roger Federer makes use of gadget called a BEMER. This is a portable pulsed magnetic field device which speeds healing of muscle and tendons after tough tennis matches."
http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409618906

Lets not throw stones in glass houses...

bogbrush wrote:With all due respect Lydian, making 2011 Fat Dave look ordinary is.. well... ordinary.

Yes but the argument was about the supreme ball striker than Nalby is vs the usual argument of Nadal being a neanderthal with no talent.
Its amazing why so many other players without talent havent won 10 slams, 19 Masters as well...

LOL! "Desperate" is the word that comes to mind.

Tenez wrote:About 20 players have pulled out of the USO in the last 7 days due to physical issues and you want me to change the record?

Tenez, the game is physical and become more so. You name me a sport where its physical evolution hasnt progressed. This isnt bloody snooker we're following, its a highly physical game and always was but more so now. The attritional rate will keep increasing whilst the game gets faster, the balls & courts slower, and the strings/racquets better but they dio nothing about the tennis calendar to aid recovery.
What is boring about your posts is the constant jibes at Nadal, your whole "thesis" is set up against Nadal, and we've heard it so often that it really is very boring now. Its not like you're unbiased is it...

lydian wrote:Nole has generally had Fed's number this year, 3-1, I dont see Fed beating Nole again TBH. Also dont forget Fed uses modern tech as well:

"So Roger Federer has a secret weapon. It stands to reason. Rarely is he injured or below par in fitness despite his rigorous schedule on the tennis tour.

It has been suggested widely on the web – though not by any medical practitioner - that one element that contributes to Federer’s supreme physical condition is his alleged use of bio-electric-magnetic technology. He is said to be one of a number of athletes and sports teams that carry a portable pulsed magnetic therapy unit on tour. According to Bemer, who make the unit, and sporting professionals such as Karin Mobes, Federer’s Swiss compatriot and world winter triathlon champion, it enhances performance, aids faster regeneration and helps to prevent injuries."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/alternative_medicine/article7068678.ece

"Of course, Roger Federer is a gifted athlete, but could he have a secret weapon that gives him an edge on the tennis court? You might be surprised to know that Roger Federer makes use of gadget called a BEMER. This is a portable pulsed magnetic field device which speeds healing of muscle and tendons after tough tennis matches."
http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409618906

Lets not throw stones in glass houses...

I know quite a bit about magnetic pulses Lydian, because have used them on horses. I think they certainly have a part to play in speeding up healing from muscular or ligament injury because the pulses work apparently to stimulate endorphins (natural painkillers released by the body) and increasing blood flow. It is a very minimal thing and works accumalatively over a long period - it's really massage but without a masseur, and is used for about 20 minutes per session. Having used it for a variety of injuries and strains on horses, I think it does have a part to play in reducing swelling, but it is difficult to assess just how much else it helps. My philosophy using them has been that it's worth a try because they don't do any harm!

Desperation, lol, whatever! Tenez, you're the one peddling the same old stuff about others without realising all the players are seeking whatever physical edge they can get...you seem to live in this utopic world where you think everyone is using technology and PEDs, yet Federer is the maestro relying on nothing but old school tech and sheer talent alone....dream on.

wrote: Topspin lets you send a tougher ball at your opponent--and with a greater margin of clearance over the net.

To me it is quite likely that the coach interviewed in this article is talking to an audience of amateurs and tennis scholars rather than about pros. In fact, it is very true that it’s difficult to find amateurs able to hit the topspin well, as it requires better timing and racket head speed than average. For the pros instead the top spin is a much safer shot, this because, as stated above by the coach, the curve trajectory of the ball allows a greater clearance over the net. Furthermore, topspin causes a tennis ball to drop into the court at a faster rate , making it more unlikely for the shot to land out. Top spin in summary trades power for safety. There are few players though who have been able to generate some power with the topspin , like Guga and Nadal, who have been able to play aggressively, limiting the unforced errors to a minimum.

Tenez wrote:LOL! "Desperate" is the word that comes to mind.

Lol 'exposed' yet again is the word that comes to mind.

What a crashing blow this is. So not only does Federer train like a Navy Seal, he is ahead of the pack with technology to, who would have though.

Thanks TP, most of these advances work subtley over time. However, its an example though of how ALL top players will use whatever tech's they can get access to to help them recover.

lydian wrote:

bogbrush wrote:With all due respect Lydian, making 2011 Fat Dave look ordinary is.. well... ordinary.

Yes but the argument was about the supreme ball striker than Nalby is vs the usual argument of Nadal being a neanderthal with no talent.
Its amazing why so many other players without talent havent won 10 slams, 19 Masters as well...

Clearly yuo have not read the OP. You can win with power and stamina, especially in slams where physique take a bigger importance. The "no talent" is simply a dishonest way to bring the debate down to your fanatism level. Hewitt won 2 slams without a weapon bar his grit and fitness. If you can win 2, you can win 10...if you are fit enough. Borg won 11 by outlasting all the talented players of the time.

What you have failed to acknowledge is that we are always talking in relative form. They all have talent and fitness....more or less but you have constantly failed to appreciate the real fitness/talent ratio of those players.

[quote="Simple_Analyst"]

Tenez wrote:LOL! "Desperate" is the word that comes to mind.

Lol 'exposed' yet again is the word that comes to mind.

What a crashing blow this is. So not only does Federer train like a Navy Seal, he is ahead of the pack with technology to, who would have thought.

lydian wrote:Thanks TP, most of these advances work subtley over time. However, its an example though of how ALL top players will use whatever tech's they can get access to to help them recover.

Well absolutely - I quite agree - they would be foolish not to. Careers are probably shorter now for top players as seasons have lengthened and many more tournaments are mandatory so that all takes a huge toll on the body.

However, I think it is correct that all methods should be scruntinised and debated by the relevant authorities - I don't think a dodgy method a slam winner necessarily makes, but I always worry about the potential for abuse of young players by the unscrupulous.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: There are few players though who have been able to generate some power with the topspin , like Guga and Nadal, who have been able to play aggressively, limiting the unforced errors to a minimum.

Guga was able to generate power with top spin cause he was the first player (certainly one of the very first) to use luxilon strings and at that time, compared to natural gut, he had a clear advantage and his top spin looked fast and powerful...thanks to the strings.

However since then everybody uses those strings or similar but they all have to flatten it more or less to really get the pace....bar Nadal who can hit with more spin than everybody else and yet the ball is quite fast. You can only do that with a big arm. When Nadal lost his kilos in 2009 his balls were really short.

I am not sure what you mean by "topspin trades power with safety". It's actually wrong. As the coach says teh harder you hit a topspin, the safer the shot. This is why a few of us refer to Nadal as a moonballer. Sure not a nice word but the safety in his shots are quite similar to what Wilander was doing in 1980s with natural strings.

Tenez wrote: They all have talent and fitness....more or less but you have constantly failed to appreciate the real fitness/talent ratio of those players.

You make me laugh Tenez with your arrogant views on just about anything. I dont need to be told what I appreciate or dont by someone with a rabid hatred of one player that colours everything he thinks or writes about in tennis. You try to come across as altruistic and say its all relative, but you're quite happy to call a 10 slam winner a moonballer with little talent, and nothing but big lungs and biceps. You fail to recognise that the true talent at pro level is in winning the major prizes...so in that respect yes we can make all the players relative to one another, its called the ranking system and over 12 months and a period of years it doesnt lie does it. It tells us for the past 6 years Federer and Nadal have been the most talented players on tour. The rest of the discussion about technique and fitness is largely irrelevant when its the W that counts. Its like arguing about how different drugs have different mode of actions, and which MOA is the best - and yet at the end of the day is clinical outcomes that count. Yes, outcomes...if Nadal plays with a game you dont happen to like that doesnt matter because he's had a highly successful career and your diatribe against him will not change that one iota.

bogbrush wrote:Thing is Tenez, you'll never put it to rest while people have such deep personal needs to elevate one era above another in a vain attempt to elevate their heroes achievements above their prima facia value.

Think what socal would have to handle if he just looked at 3 Slams and took it from there.

I love how BB can read my mind, Djokovic for me is a great you want to believe it or not that is your choice.

I don't need convuluted arguments to prove Djoko is a great player, there are plenty of objective measures of success that he has attained. He will be judged not on his era but his record of accomplishments, just like every other player. The era argument doesn't outweigh his accomplishments or magnify them. Really, the reason I discuss the weak era is not take anything away from Roger I readily admit he is the best player of the modern era. The main reason I talk about the weak era because those guys practically caused me to almost stop watching and following tennis. Not a big fan of their style play, loathe big serve tennis and I like S and V in moderation.

It is actually much more difficult to hit a ball with an extreme western grip than with the traditional eastern grip that was used before. The extreme western is by far the most unnatural feeling grip, it also makes hitting the low ball much more difficult. John Mcenroe used basically one grip for all of his shots. Today's modern champions have to continually move from continental to western and back again on the fly. This is one facet that today's players are technically much more advanced than the old pros. Not saying those guys couldn't do it if they tried just saying that the idea that hitting a 5000 rpm forehand doesn't take as much technical ability as hit a flat shot is fallacious. As JK has correctly pointed out racquet head speed is a crucial measure of talent and the big fast swings are more difficult to time.

In my club there is a player who hits his BH volleys with his FH racquet's face. It is extremely difficult to do as he as to twist his wrist to extremes. Very impressive.

He is a cr@p player.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:About 20 players have pulled out of the USO in the last 7 days due to physical issues and you want me to change the record?

Tenez, the game is physical and become more so. You name me a sport where its physical evolution hasnt progressed. This isnt bloody snooker we're following, its a highly physical game and always was but more so now. The attritional rate will keep increasing whilst the game gets faster, the balls & courts slower, and the strings/racquets better but they dio nothing about the tennis calendar to aid recovery.
What is boring about your posts is the constant jibes at Nadal, your whole "thesis" is set up against Nadal, and we've heard it so often that it really is very boring now. Its not like you're unbiased is it...

Or they could make the balls & courts faster, the strings restricted. F1 addressed the fact that the technology was going to destroy the sport, I don't see why tennis can't do the same.

It's not as if there've not been restrictions on equipment for decades anyway.

Tenez wrote:In my club there is a player who hits his BH volleys with his FH racquet's face. It is extremely difficult to do as he as to twist his wrist to extremes. Very impressive.

He is a cr@p player.

Really and this analogy helps in this debate how? What does a crap player at your club have to do with players executing a perfectly good western forehand that generates massive spin and allows them to be successful at the top levels of the game?

The point is both are doing something the rest of us find difficult but for them it's simply the easiest way to execute that shot.

Nadal might have cool sweat pouring on every shot if he had to use a classic eastern grip knowing how risky his shots would then get.

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: There are few players though who have been able to generate some power with the topspin , like Guga and Nadal, who have been able to play aggressively, limiting the unforced errors to a minimum.

Guga was able to generate power with top spin cause he was the first player (certainly one of the very first) to use luxilon strings and at that time, compared to natural gut, he had a clear advantage and his top spin looked fast and powerful...thanks to the strings.

However since then everybody uses those strings or similar but they all have to flatten it more or less to really get the pace....bar Nadal who can hit with more spin than everybody else and yet the ball is quite fast. You can only do that with a big arm. When Nadal lost his kilos in 2009 his balls were really short.

I am not sure what you mean by "topspin trades power with safety". It's actually wrong. As the coach says teh harder you hit a topspin, the safer the shot. This is why a few of us refer to Nadal as a moonballer. Sure not a nice word but the safety in his shots are quite similar to what Wilander was doing in 1980s with natural strings.

Tenez: what I mean is that using the topspin you give up some power to achieve more safety in your shots. So looks like my wording wasn't clear or understood..

Guga: yes he was the first to use the new strings: but he was also able to generate phenomenal racket speed, you could see that because not only his FH but also is BH and Serve where big weapons: for me he was one of the best ever to play on clay.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tenez: what I mean is that using the topspin you give up some power to achieve more safety in your shots. So looks like my wording wasn't clear or understood..

Ah Ok - I would have said "pace" but you can say power too though the power is still transmitted but the propulsing forces are actually used to spin the ball instead of giving it pace. This is why Nadal's shots are not as penetrating as other players but the ball still carries more energy than any other player. It's not difficult to return Nadal's shots, it's however difficult to return them agressively and pull winners. Therefore it invites rallying (running right and left). And there comes the "physical" part of Nadal's game. Because they know they can't run as much as him, they are forced to pull the trigger.

Federer became fit enough to rally with Hewitt and choose his moment to attack. That gave him a big peace of mind as he did not have to rush and pull winners too early. When Nadal came on board, he brought the physical level a few more notches up and there Federer, live everybody else could not stay with him. Coria did a good job of it but at the end, even him failed. The advantage that Nadal has over Hewitt and let's say Djoko and Murray is that his shots carry more energy, even if less pacy but that is enough to make attacking a tough job. Federer can do it and when on fire, Nadal simply can't see the ball but that requires sharpness which deteriorates as the match goes on.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:BB, I also doubt Fed would have reached 16 had Nole been in this form 4-5 years ago also... ;-).

Nole could not have been in this form 4/5 years ago cause one the latest science was not around and more importantly he needed exposure versus Nadal and federer to reach today's level. It took him rougly 4 years of getting kicked to finally surpass them...wel certainly Rafa...not too sure about Fed yet. Last time they played, it was not so clear.

Nole could have had this success 2 years ago if his serve didn't go in the tank. He has made a number of improvements both in terms of mental approach, physical approach, and in terms of his weapons and game. The experience against Nadal and fed having played them a total of 50 plus times on tour certainly couldn't do anything but help his development. But it is clear one of the biggest improvements to his game has been his serve winning a higher percentage of points on 1st serve, second serve, and percentage of service games won. I don't know why you don't acknowledge the obvious he has more aces this year and has way less double faults as well.

But i don't see what's controversial about the fact that if Nole was in this form 4-5 years ago, Federer wouldn't have had 16 slams by now. Lets assume a hypothethical situation where a prime Djokovic was in 6 of hard court slam finals against Federer instead of laughables like Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzales and the great but 35 year old Aggassi, couldn't have seen him winning more than 2 of those slams to be fair.
However, it's all irrelevant though as he has won the slams already but questions can only be asked.

Prime Djokovic v Prime Federer.

Federer would come out on top more often than not. After all, almost 30 yr old Roger beat prime undefeated Djokovic on Roger's worst surface.

The only place where it would be really close is the slower hardcourts, but I would still take AUS '07 Fed over AUS '11 Novak. Even this year's semi was a very tightly contested match that was decided over a few points.

W and USO, peak Roger would be clear favourite.

Simple_Analyst wrote:it's all irrelevant though....

I agree with that bit!

The thing is Roger has reached a level not yet reached by any other players. It's sustaining that level physically now which is difficult but tennis wise there is still a huge gap between him and the rest. He has the tennis at 30 to take sets of Nadal on clay but it's just a physical issue preventing him to do it over 3 sets. I don;t think he has benefited as much of today's science like the other 2 or 3 have.

emancipator wrote:Prime Djokovic v Prime Federer.

Federer would come out on top more often than not. After all, almost 30 yr old Roger beat prime undefeated Djokovic on Roger's worst surface.

The only place where it would be really close is the slower hardcourts, but I would still take AUS '07 Fed over AUS '11 Novak. Even this year's semi was a very tightly contested match that was decided over a few points.

W and USO, peak Roger would be clear favourite.

Don't forgot a very young Djokovic beat a prime Federer many times as well and at the AO 2008.

Tenez wrote:The thing is Roger has reached a level not yet reached by any other players. It's sustaining that level physically now which is difficult but tennis wise there is still a huge gap between him and the rest. He has the tennis at 30 to take sets of Nadal on clay but it's just a physical issue preventing him to do it over 3 sets. I don;t think he has benefited as much of today's science like the other 2 or 3 have.

Oh, just taking a set off Nadal at 29? Pete Sampras, Agassi were actually all winning slams past 30 years, more impressive. He has not benefitted from today's science when it's been shown he uses the latest technology and it's devices available to boost performance, recovery etc.
I agree there is a huge gap between Federer and the rest though; the gap being the rest(Nadal and Djokovic) having the ability to beat him at will and win slams. He better starts filling up the gap.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

emancipator wrote:Prime Djokovic v Prime Federer.

Federer would come out on top more often than not. After all, almost 30 yr old Roger beat prime undefeated Djokovic on Roger's worst surface.

The only place where it would be really close is the slower hardcourts, but I would still take AUS '07 Fed over AUS '11 Novak. Even this year's semi was a very tightly contested match that was decided over a few points.

W and USO, peak Roger would be clear favourite.

Don't forgot a very young Djokovic beat a prime Federer many times as well and at the AO 2008.

That's correct. He's a very good player, although I always discount the AO 2008 because of your favourite disease

A disease? I'm in the dark about it.

Simple_Analyst wrote:A disease? I'm in the dark about it.

Heliophobia?

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

emancipator wrote:Prime Djokovic v Prime Federer.

Federer would come out on top more often than not. After all, almost 30 yr old Roger beat prime undefeated Djokovic on Roger's worst surface.

The only place where it would be really close is the slower hardcourts, but I would still take AUS '07 Fed over AUS '11 Novak. Even this year's semi was a very tightly contested match that was decided over a few points.

W and USO, peak Roger would be clear favourite.

Don't forgot a very young Djokovic beat a prime Federer many times as well and at the AO 2008.

That's correct. He's a very good player, although I always discount the AO 2008 because of your favourite disease

Actually, Novak only beat Roger ONCE prior to 2008, and even that was in 3 sets, winning both his sets in tie-breaks and losing the middle one 2-6.

His second win was at the AUS open 2008, when Roger was subpar due to illness.

In fact, that AUS open victory was Djoko's only victory against Fed in 2008, against 2 losses.

So he had a grand total of 2 victories against Fed prior to 2009; there goes your theory that a young Djoko beat peak Roger MANY TIMES.

What illness? I thought Federer famously called out Djokovic to not be on court if ill.