Federer or Djokovic?

First topic message reminder :

Ok, let's give this a good day or two for the forum to consider.

Who's going to win the semi? Here's my thoughts:

For Djokovic: He's on the hottest of streaks, he is almost impossible to get shots past, he beat Fed last year and things have gone his way since, Federer is inconsistent this year, he was warned at the French not to take him lightly.

For Federer: Djokovic is showing signs of fraility, Federer has two very good wins (Cilic, Tsonga) under his belt and is "tournament toughened" without being too beat up, he is highly motivated to grab #17, he is TMF.

What does the forum think?

I have admitted that I was wrong when I noticed it.

No probs Windy

wow wrote:I have admitted that I was wrong when I noticed it.

You were arrogant and rude, and looked down your pompous nose because I wasn't a tennis regular and am not conversant with the modern game.

Now run along and have a nice piece of ginger cake and a glass of milk.

If legendkiller could manage a polite reply to a genuine question then why couldn't you ?

Because I did not see the question at the first instance. I did say that it was an oversight.

Not worth arguing over, wow. I'm happy to put it down to the heat of the moment and a misunderstanding.

Perhaps you thought I was an outsider taking the mickey ( which I wasn't, ) and I've been guilty of that once or twice at the boxing section.

No harm done, my end.

Enjoy the tennis this weekend.

Well Mr Moderator, read the little extract from below:

Paganini’s three-year plan proved successful. “Today, Roger can reach a maximum speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters,” he recollected in 2003. Federer could run 3,300 meters in 12 minutes, 9,300 meters in 40 minutes and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends. This was an im­mense improvement from before"

Before that , Federer was not good enough to be winning titles so the fitness plan named integrated fitness training was implemented by Paganini, one of the best fitness coaches in the history of sport. SO to answer your question, Federer actually raised the bar in fitness. He became fitter than the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian etc. He was never going to dominate those with the so-called talent alone so that was what happened and he still goes through the same fitness regime today and one can only assume they become more instense over the years.

His fans will like you to believe he stays at home and eats all day, turns up on court the next day and beats his opponents but sadly for them no. He employs a Navy seal fitness regime to get as much fit as he can.

HumanWindmill wrote:
If Lendl could raise the physical bar during his era, and Nadal can do the same today, which impediment stands in the way of Mr Federer, thus preventing his doing the same ?

Only curious, you understand, and asking a genuine question.

It's a good question. When Federer came on the tour, his physique, compared to the very top players, was his weakness. It's the reason why he kept losing v guys like Hewitt and Nalbandian. Apparently he worked hard and became as fit as those top players. Or certainly fit enough to sustain long rallies against them and able to pick his winners without being forced into suicidal shots.

But being as fit as Nadal is simply another level which clearly he cannot reach, maybe because his training team is not as advanced as Nadal's but also because his game is simply not based on having more muscles and running for ever. He learnt his skills on fast surfaces essentially Serve and volleying against the SV specialists of the time. He simply now cannot change the dynamics of his game and develop a game like Djoko and Nadal with a double handed BH. It woudl be like asking Nadal to play and win serving and volleying.

Djoko on the other hand was able, thanks to his doctor and training team, to get close to Nadal's physical level. Certainly has got more stamina but is far from reaching Nadal's power. His game woudl not benefit of more muscles anyway. For Nadal those big arms are essential to hi game.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well Mr Moderator, read the little extract from below:

Paganini’s three-year plan proved successful. “Today, Roger can reach a maximum speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters,” he recollected in 2003. Federer could run 3,300 meters in 12 minutes, 9,300 meters in 40 minutes and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends. This was an im­mense improvement from before"

Before that , Federer was not good enough to be winning titles so the fitness plan named integrated fitness training was implemented by Paganini, one of the best fitness coaches in the history of sport. SO to answer your question, Federer actually raised the bar in fitness. He became fitter than the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian etc. He was never going to dominate those with the so-called talent alone so that was what happened and he still goes through the same fitness regime today and one can only assume they become more instense over the years.

His fans will like you to believe he stays at home and eats all day, turns up on court the next day and beats his opponents but sadly for them no. He employs a Navy seal fitness regime to get as much fit as he can.

I asked a genuine question, Mr Simple.

I have my answer, for which I am grateful, and I have endeavoured to make my peace with wow.

I have no wish to engage you in hostilities for having asked a sincere question, so I suggest you find a new home for your attitude.

Have a nice weekend.

Tenez wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:
If Lendl could raise the physical bar during his era, and Nadal can do the same today, which impediment stands in the way of Mr Federer, thus preventing his doing the same ?

Only curious, you understand, and asking a genuine question.

It's a good question. When Federer came on the tour, his physique, compared to the very top players, was his weakness. It's the reason why he kept losing v guys like Hewitt and Nalbandian. Apparently he worked hard and became as fit as those top players. Or certainly fit enough to sustain long rallies against them and able to pick his winners without being forced into suicidal shots.

But being as fit as Nadal is simply another level which clearly he cannot reach, maybe because his training team is not as advanced as Nadal's but also because his game is simply not based on having more muscles and running for ever. He learnt his skills on fast surfaces essentially Serve and volleying against the SV specialists of the time. He simply now cannot change the dynamics of his game and develop a game like Djoko and Nadal with a double handed BH. It woudl be like asking Nadal to play and win serving and volleying.

Djoko on the other hand was able, thanks to his doctor and training team, to get close to Nadal's physical level. Certainly has got more stamina but is far from reaching Nadal's power. His game woudl not benefit of more muscles anyway. For Nadal those big arms are essential to hi game.

Tenez, thank you very much for the thorough and informative reply.

As I say, I'm an absolute duffer when it comes to your sport and I was genuinely puzzled.

I appreciate your having taken the trouble to explain.

Tenez, I have to disagree, Wilander did win the USO and I believe he won the australian open on grass one year. The french open is probably faster than it has been, this year especially they brought in new balls that even you admitted were quicker balls and still nadal won the title. He won at Madrid when it was one of the fastest surfaces on tour, and indoor tournament at altitude.

Players have to win with the conditions of the the current tour, and so far the biggest beneficiary of the slower courts has been 16 slam winner Roger Federer who in his peak was one of the fastest and fittest guys on tour. The tour has been evolving for 30 or 40 years and all the great champions have had to adjust.

Well Mr Moderator or is it Admin? Have a good weekend. Maybe next time do a research yourself on the internet, not exactly hard

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well Mr Moderator or is it Admin? Have a good weekend. Maybe next time do a research yourself on the internet, not exactly hard

I'll do that if you Google ' manners.'

Legendkiller and Tenez were extremely polite and helpful, in the spirit of the forum, and I came away with better understanding.

If you wish to be an elitist oaf that is your problem.

Mr admin, how exactly was i not polite to you in my first reply?

Oh so you actually know about Google. I thought it might be new to you.

Soal - But I believe I explained many times that it's not a question of court pace only....it's teh combinaton of courts pace (court and balls) AND string technologies.

Fed has been excellent on clay too by reaching 5 or 6 FO finals. Without Nadal he coudl have had Borg's clay record. But on fast courts like old grass and carpet, even young he has a positive H2H v Goran, Sampras and Krajicek!

Explain to us who would have been more successful than Federer on faster conds?

Roddick? Stepanek? Be serious!

Tenez wrote:Soal - But I believe I explained many times that it's not a question of court pace only....it's teh combinaton of courts pace (court and balls) AND string technologies.

Explain to us who would have been more successful than Federer on faster conds?

Roddick? Stepanek? Be serious!

Tenez I am glad you mentioned strings Nadal is one of the few players who doesn't use luxlon or luxlon type strings which is amazing considering the torque he generates on the ball. I think if the conditions at wimby were faster Roger maybe wins the 08 wimby final, but probably loses the 09 final to Roddick. But again this is all hypothetical. I also think that safin when healthy would have given Roger more problems on a faster hardcourt or indoor surface. Today's guys like Tsonga, Soderling and del po would be even more fearsome.

Roger and I have said this over and over again is the greatest player of this generation and probably of any generation. But to deny the role that his speed and fitness has had in his success is willful blindness. I can agree with you to a certain extent if conditions were faster he would probably have more success than he had, how much more I don't know and maybe there would be other power players that i have mentioned above that would rise up and give him more trouble than they have.

HumanWindmill wrote:As I say, I'm an absolute duffer when it comes to your sport and I was genuinely puzzled.

The thing is tennis has changed quite a bit over the last decade with the technology and fitness advances and it takes some time to analyse and understand why some players become successful and others drop in the ranking, especially as there are some human factors too.

I find more and more commentators from all boards starting to understand the impact of courts, strings, balls...and they now tend to say all the same thing and so players. You hear the word "physique" and synonyms at every turn of phrase of their commentating and players interviews.

They just say it in a more diplomatic way that I and others do but in essence it's the same thing.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Soal - But I believe I explained many times that it's not a question of court pace only....it's teh combinaton of courts pace (court and balls) AND string technologies.

Explain to us who would have been more successful than Federer on faster conds?

Roddick? Stepanek? Be serious!

Tenez I am glad you mentioned strings Nadal is one of the few players who doesn't use luxlon or luxlon type strings which is amazing considering the torque he generates on the ball.

He still uses a poly which is shaped octogonally (or hexagonally) creating huge spin. Just another version of luxilon...

Tenez wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:As I say, I'm an absolute duffer when it comes to your sport and I was genuinely puzzled.

The thing is tennis has changed quite a bit over the last decade with the technology and fitness advances and it takes some time to analyse and understand why some players become successful and others drop in the ranking, especially as there are some human factors too.

I find more and more commentators from all boards starting to understand the impact of courts, strings, balls...and they now tend to say all the same thing and so players. You hear the word "physique" and synonyms at every turn of phrase of their commentating and players interviews.

They just say it in a more diplomatic way that I and others do but in essence it's the same thing.

I can certainly appreciate the changes, Tenez, though I wouldn't pretend to understand them. As I say, I was raised on Laver and Newcombe and, though I enjoyed to watch and even played a bit as a lad, I never enjoyed a depth of understanding.

Bit long in the tooth to start now, too, but your reply to my question at least scratched that itch and so, once again, I thank you for having taken the trouble.

You are welcome. I did not want to enter the discussion too deep about how one can become more physical but we know how most sports are affected by drugs.

Laver Newcombe? Ouahh...that was just before my time. I started to watch in 1973 and became simply addicted to it!

I'm the same way with boxing, and have been since the night Ali ( Clay, ) beat Liston first time out.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say. Speaking of which, I'd best get back to familiar territory at the boxing section.

Enjoy the weekend's action.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Tenez wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:As I say, I'm an absolute duffer when it comes to your sport and I was genuinely puzzled.

The thing is tennis has changed quite a bit over the last decade with the technology and fitness advances and it takes some time to analyse and understand why some players become successful and others drop in the ranking, especially as there are some human factors too.

I find more and more commentators from all boards starting to understand the impact of courts, strings, balls...and they now tend to say all the same thing and so players. You hear the word "physique" and synonyms at every turn of phrase of their commentating and players interviews.

They just say it in a more diplomatic way that I and others do but in essence it's the same thing.

I can certainly appreciate the changes, Tenez, though I wouldn't pretend to understand them. As I say, I was raised on Laver and Newcombe and, though I enjoyed to watch and even played a bit as a lad, I never enjoyed a depth of understanding.

Bit long in the tooth to start now, too, but your reply to my question at least scratched that itch and so, once again, I thank you for having taken the trouble.

Human,

It is never too late to appreciate a sport with it's nuances.

I would encourage you to watch more tennis, especially since the great Roger Federer may only be active for a couple more years.

He may not be the ethereal force he once was but there is no doubt that Roger Federer will not only be remembered as the greatest tennis player that ever played the game but also as one of the greatest sportsmen ever tp grace the world stage.

It is a rare privelage to witness such rarified talent in our own lifetimes.

He is the SRR of the tennis world.

emancipator wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Tenez wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:As I say, I'm an absolute duffer when it comes to your sport and I was genuinely puzzled.

The thing is tennis has changed quite a bit over the last decade with the technology and fitness advances and it takes some time to analyse and understand why some players become successful and others drop in the ranking, especially as there are some human factors too.

I find more and more commentators from all boards starting to understand the impact of courts, strings, balls...and they now tend to say all the same thing and so players. You hear the word "physique" and synonyms at every turn of phrase of their commentating and players interviews.

They just say it in a more diplomatic way that I and others do but in essence it's the same thing.

I can certainly appreciate the changes, Tenez, though I wouldn't pretend to understand them. As I say, I was raised on Laver and Newcombe and, though I enjoyed to watch and even played a bit as a lad, I never enjoyed a depth of understanding.

Bit long in the tooth to start now, too, but your reply to my question at least scratched that itch and so, once again, I thank you for having taken the trouble.

Human,

It is never too late to appreciate a sport with it's nuances.

I would encourage you to watch more tennis, especially since the great Roger Federer may only be active for a couple more years.

He may not be the ethereal force he once was but there is no doubt that Roger Federer will not only be remembered as the greatest tennis player that ever played the game but also as one of the greatest sportsmen ever tp grace the world stage.

It is a rare privelage to witness such rarified talent in our own lifetimes.

He is the SRR of the tennis world.

Just caught this one in time.

Even my limited eye can see the truth in what you say about Federer, emancipator. He always seems to have that little bit extra time to execute his shots. Quite a few boxers - as you well know - shared that quality. Marvellous to watch, as I suppose it is in any discipline.

Enjoy the weekend's action, and see you back at the boxing section.

I think Tenez makes a very fair point regarding the impact of physicality on the modern game.

I would even agree that physical conditioning is the single most important factor at the very top where the level of talent is reasonably uniform.

One only needs to look at the physique of the top players today in comparison to years gone by. These guys are super athletes with bulging muscles or streamline outfits with not an extra ounce of fat.

(Apart from that fat Argie that Delpo played against, and of course fat Dave)

To an extent I agree with you emancipator, but have you seen Djoko with his shirt off he doesn't exactly have bulging muscles. He is as skinny as a rail. The tennis build is still very similar it comes down to be slim and wirey strong, not to many rugby type builds on tour. For all the changes, the players have gotten taller but not really bigger in terms of wait and muscle mass to a large extent. Of course weight training has become a bigger part of the game as it has in all sports across the board.

emancipator wrote:I think Tenez makes a very fair point regarding the impact of physicality on the modern game.

I would even agree that physical conditioning is the single most important factor at the very top where the level of talent is reasonably uniform.

Yep but more importantly it's the physicality of the game that makes talent nowadays a negligeable factor. This is why you could say "uniformed talent". I have often said that Nadal is no more talented than a top 50. In fact we don;t know, or essentially, it doesn;t matter how talented is Nadal. As his book says he is not trying develop his natural skills, he woudl have used his right arm for that, he is simply porting the game to a physical battle. Any talented shot from his opponent like a drop shot, a good FH or BH, a volley can be retrieved and hammered back thanks to amazing court speed and big arms.

So instead of applauding the drop short, the volley, or FH sending Nadal 2m outside the trameline, we have to applaud the ball coming back through a passing shot or most of the time the UEs which pile up from the opponent, especially as the match goes on and those risky shots become even harder to pull while breathless.

socal1976 wrote:To an extent I agree with you emancipator, but have you seen Djoko with his shirt off he doesn't exactly have bulging muscles. He is as skinny as a rail. The tennis build is still very similar it comes down to be slim and wirey strong, not to many rugby type builds on tour. For all the changes, the players have gotten taller but not really bigger in terms of wait and muscle mass to a large extent. Of course weight training has become a bigger part of the game as it has in all sports across the board.

Djoko is the streamlined super athlete. Nadal is more the muscular prototype. But there is no doubt that these guys are fitter, faster, stronger than they've ever been. Any player with even a small weakness in this department is found out straight away. I remember that a lot of the players in the nineties were tall and thinnish with less defined musculature (Stich, Ivanisevic, Castle, Krajichek, etc) but pretty mucch the entire top twenty today are ripped like boxers.

Do people realise how muscular the abdominal belt must be to pull a powerful BH passing shot while streched, unbalanced with the knees flirting with the ground?

Most DBHBH of the past like Mecir, Rios, Nalbandian have had to stop playing for long stretches or even retire because it killed their back. To hold your back in such position one needs amazing belt muscles.

I wouldn't say that the high standard in fitness has made talent 'negligeable' factor. I just think it makes more winners less penatrable. The emergence of Nadal has made Federer adopt a much more attacking game. I think the one shot that separates Nadal and Federer is the cross court FH. Both are masters of the FH down the line, but now with strings playing such a big part makes it that more easier for Nadal hit a FH winner cross court in one stroke where I think it takes Federer just one more stroke to achieve the same.

I think that the surface at the US Open this year has favoured Federer because it is giving him more time to flatten the ball out with a greater success rate. Look at the Tsonga match. Tsonga was all at sea as he plays a higher tempo and given more time on shots makes it more difficult for him not to think and just couldn't find the range on his groundstrokes.

Actually the strings favour Nadal in the along the line FH, not cross court. That's where the net is higher and makes Federer's flatter FH much more risky. Nadal almost always clears the net by enough margin, even in that high part of the net, and has enough topsin to keep the ball in court.

Nadal's FH CC is good essentially because players try to cover their BH where 9/10 balls lands. Nadal's advantage is his quick footwork to turn that BH into his FH CC away from the player trying to protect his BH. Nadal loopy shots make the opponent do his fair share of running.

Federer can play well on slow and fast courts as proved by his record on all surfaces. W however know that Nadal has a much better record on slower surfaces that fast so I am not sure how it favours Federer....if facing Nadal anyway.

Legend, I agree, tennis is still about hitting a tennis ball really well over and over again. There are a lot of super fit guys who are ranked outside the top 5 or 10. You need the fitness, it is certainly a big key no question about it. But if you don't have good shots and weapons how will you differentiate yourself for the rest of the also rans.