Greatest Career Achievement

First topic message reminder :

Tennis Fans. What for you is the Greatest Career Achievement?? Only one vote. Muahahahaha

legendkillar wrote:Ivanisevic actually commented after the match saying it would take at least 5 years for Roddick to get over that defeat. Here we are 2 years later and Roddick on the slide. Makes you wonder that despite Goran being 'crazy' sometimes, he certainly can make some thought provoking observations.

Federer, despite his W 2008 defeat, came back in 2009 and had a very good year. Which shows (as MThierry puts it) the 'chasm' between Roddick and Federer as a player and the fortitude.

Poor, poor Roddick - it was heartbreaking even for a devoted Fed fan like me. So sad that he had broken Fed and yet lost - but what a contest that 5th set was in retrospect - completely gladitorial for them both to keep raining down those immaculate killing serves, game after game.

I was so pleased to see Fed get his 15th so soon after RG, but I wish it hadn't been at the expense of such a gallant and brilliant Roddick

legend - will he ever really get over that defeat? I think Dick Francis said he was still dreaming in his eighties about Devon Loch's bizarre stumble before the finishing line, which robbed them both and the Queen Mother, of the Grand National win. I think this one will always haunt Roddick at moments.

In some ways, Roddick might have wanted to swap his one slam - the USO when he was 20 or 21 and more GS were envisaged - for the one that got away. At least he DID get one, but even that might not be enough to erase the memory of the 09 heartbreak.

laverfan wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Ivanisevic actually commented after the match saying it would take at least 5 years for Roddick to get over that defeat. Here we are 2 years later and Roddick on the slide. Makes you wonder that despite Goran being 'crazy' sometimes, he certainly can make some thought provoking observations.

Federer, despite his W 2008 defeat, came back in 2009 and had a very good year. Which shows (as MThierry puts it) the 'chasm' between Roddick and Federer as a player and the fortitude.

But Federer won the US in 2008 which would've restored some confidence and his 5th consecutive one at that. Also he lost to Nadal at the AO in 2009. Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?

Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

LK, no chance.

W 08 became an instant classic. Losing that match has not diminished Fed's legacy in any way whatsoever. In fact, the admirable manner in which he defended his title, fighting tooth and nail for every point and forcing Rafa to wrestle the championship from him, has added to his legend.

FO, on the other hand, was a must victory. Far more important in the overall scheme of things. It resulted in the career slam and distinguished him from Sampras.

Oh dear. a simultaneous post and no, we were not conferring !

It is an interesting question given he could've won 7 straight Wimbledons. Take that with what Nadal has achieved, it would've been an interesting debate to have a Career Grand Slam against consistent and unparallel brilliance.

As I said just a question.

Yeah the french open win was very important especially now with hindsight seeing as Nadal and probably Djokovic have a career slam.

I would not switch the FO 09 with W 08.

In fact, FO 11 would have been an even better accomplishment for Federer. He had already put so much effort into FO 11.

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not.

I would but I'm pretty sure Fed would too.

He has proven his worth on clay regardless of his FO title.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Yeah the french open win was very important especially now with hindsight seeing as Nadal and probably Djokovic have a career slam.

Are you suggesting that Djokovic will win FO 12 and complete his 'career' slam?

If it was possible then swap FO 2009 with 2011 I guess though the pressure would have been astronomical and Nadal would have got the career slam first nevertheless would still be an interesting switch though I'm sure the players themselves don't see it that way most of the time.

laverfan wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Yeah the french open win was very important especially now with hindsight seeing as Nadal and probably Djokovic have a career slam.

Are you suggesting that Djokovic will win FO 12 and complete his 'career' slam?

Nah fed's going to win FO 2012 but there's much less in the way of Djokovic eventually winning it then there was for fed. For most of feds career it was unattainable in a way.

Interesting.

Ignoring Laver and Budge's 'Grand' slam, Career Grand Slams pre- and post-Open Era show a distinct and longer period to achieve one.



Before Open Era...

Fred Perry (1933 U.S. Championships, 1934 Australian Championships, 1934 Wimbledon Championships & 1935 French Championships) [26]
Don Budge (1937 Wimbledon Championships, 1937 U.S. Championships, 1938 Australian Championships & 1938 French Championships) [23]
Rod Laver (1960 Australian Championships, 1961 Wimbledon Championships, 1962 French Championships & 1962 U.S. Championships) [24]
Roy Emerson (1961 Australian Championships, 1961 U.S. Championships, 1963 French Championships & 1964 Wimbledon Championships) [27]



Open Era...

Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1995 Australian Open & 1999 French Open) [29] ----- 6 years 11 months +
Roger Federer (2003 Wimbledon, 2004 Australian Open, 2004 US Open & 2009 French Open) [27] ----- 5 years 11 months
Rafael Nadal (2005 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open & 2010 US Open) [24] ------ 5 years 3 months +


Djokovic would look like (2008 Australian Open, 2011 Wimbledon Open, 2011 US Open, 20xx French Open (??))

If he does it in 2012 (with Olympics in the mix), it would be 4 years 4 months, very nice.

I like Goran, he's a pretty deep guy with some good viewpoints, and states it like it is!

I've just posted about Roddick elsewhere. Yes he's been top 10 for a while now but I think his game was blunted by Stefanki too much - his FH and serve (his weapons) havent been what they were in early 00s for a while now. Sure he's become more consistent but its also smoothed off the potential peaks of where he could have perhaps gone?

lydian wrote:Yes he's been top 10 for a while now but I think his game was blunted by Stefanki too much - his FH and serve (his weapons) havent been what they were in early 00s for a while now. Sure he's become more consistent but its also smoothed off the potential peaks of where he could have perhaps gone?

Stefanki did realise that Roddick needed to get fitter, which probably helped Roddick get to W 2009 final, in the first place. He also played a good match against Nadal in Miami 2010 playing fairly aggressive game.

Instead if you had mentioned Gonzalez (with Stefanki) going backwards, I would definitely concur.

Interesting stats Laverfan

I wonder if it was easier before, and becoming easier now again, to win a career slam due to surface speed/condition convergence? i.e. in the 30s up to 60s, all grass courts were probably much of a muchness? Then in the 70s the surfaces started to diverge...USO going to clay then hard, and in the 80s the AO going to slow hardcourt making it very hard for players to win all slams with the same basic game approach. Fast forward to the 00s and we see the surfaces converging against with similar speed indexes even if the surfaces themselves are still on the face of it different.

Maybe proof that the best period of play for variety was 80s and 90s due to divergence. Also proof that Agassi's achievement in winning the career slam (to go back to the OP) in the 90s is a remarkable achievement and one that cannot be repeated as its literally not possible now!

Not sure about that LF...clearly W09 was a great run (shame about the result for him). Roddick hired Stefanki towards the end of 08, if you compare his achievements across 2 four periods of 03-06 and 08-11 they are very different.

Slam finals and semis 03-06 = 4F & 3SF (and 1 slam)
Slam finals and semis 08-11 = 1F & 2SF

Masters finals 03-06 = 6 (4 titles)
Masters finals 08-11 = 2 (1 title)

No. of titles won 03-06 = 16
No. of titles won 08-11= 8

Also....his only 2 wins vs Federer were both pre-Stefanki. Its not been a disaster being with Stefanki but I question whether making him into an allrounder has blunted his true strengths (FH and serve). Sure his fitness is better but surely any new coach would have pushed that obvious area Roddick needed to improve on? I wonder how he would have done with better fitness granted, but with the more potent pre-08 serve (he blunted Henman's serve too) and harder forehand?

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

Unfortunately Fed Fans and other spectators of the sport do not have the power to swap a Wimbledon 2008 defeat for a French Open 2009 success.

Firstly, they would have had to ask Rafael Nadal to kindly "throw" the match (which is illegal) - but why would Rafael Nadal want to do that? It was clearly Rafael Nadal's intention to win both the Wimbledon 2008 title and the French Open 2009 title. There was zero reason for Nadal to throw the match and hence the championship - even if it pleased the "Fed fans". If Rafael Nadal had have stayed healthy then Roger Federer would not have won the French Open in 2009.

But then again if Federer had have won Wimbledon 2008 why would he not have wanted to win the French Open in 2009? I just can't make any sense out of the suggestion - sorry.

Djoker's 3 slams in a year. And 65-3 stats in a year.

Djoker is in Nadal's head wrote:Djoker's 3 slams in a year. And 65-3 stats in a year.

Federer 2004, 74:6, 3 slams, 2006, 92:5, 3 slams, 2007 68:9, 3 slams, Nadal 2010, 71:10, 3 slams.

Let us see what Djokovic can do in Basel, Paris and WTF. Hope he does well, he has had tremendous year, so far.

lydian wrote:Its not been a disaster being with Stefanki but I question whether making him into an allrounder has blunted his true strengths (FH and serve).

Your stats are compelling. I should have done a bit more research.

Nore Staat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

Unfortunately Fed Fans and other spectators of the sport do not have the power to swap a Wimbledon 2008 defeat for a French Open 2009 success.

Firstly, they would have had to ask Rafael Nadal to kindly "throw" the match (which is illegal) - but why would Rafael Nadal want to do that? It was clearly Rafael Nadal's intention to win both the Wimbledon 2008 title and the French Open 2009 title. There was zero reason for Nadal to throw the match and hence the championship - even if it pleased the "Fed fans". If Rafael Nadal had have stayed healthy then Roger Federer would not have won the French Open in 2009.

But then again if Federer had have won Wimbledon 2008 why would he not have wanted to win the French Open in 2009? I just can't make any sense out of the suggestion - sorry.

Nore, the question was posed in idle speculation in of wondering if defeat at W 2009 would haunt Roddick for ever and then someone asked whether they thought Roddick would rather win W 2009 and swap that for his US Open 2003 title if he could and that let onto people wondering if Federer would, in retrospect, knowing how the W 2008 defeat gave Nadal a lasting pscychological edge over him, rather have won W 2008 and foregone the French if a tennis god gave him the chance to choose - a bit like 'the judgement of Paris' in a tennis sense

time please wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

Unfortunately Fed Fans and other spectators of the sport do not have the power to swap a Wimbledon 2008 defeat for a French Open 2009 success.

Firstly, they would have had to ask Rafael Nadal to kindly "throw" the match (which is illegal) - but why would Rafael Nadal want to do that? It was clearly Rafael Nadal's intention to win both the Wimbledon 2008 title and the French Open 2009 title. There was zero reason for Nadal to throw the match and hence the championship - even if it pleased the "Fed fans". If Rafael Nadal had have stayed healthy then Roger Federer would not have won the French Open in 2009.

But then again if Federer had have won Wimbledon 2008 why would he not have wanted to win the French Open in 2009? I just can't make any sense out of the suggestion - sorry.

Nore, the question was posed in idle speculation in of wondering if defeat at W 2009 would haunt Roddick for ever and then someone asked whether they thought he would swop W 2009 for his US Open 2003 title if he could and that let onto people wondering if Federer would, in retrospect knowing how the W 2008 defeat gave Nadal a lasting pscychological edge over him, rather have won that one and foregone the French if a tennis god gave him the chance to choose - a bit like 'the judgement of Paris' in a tennis sense

Excellent summary TP. Except it was about Federer and not Roddick

NS I meant it in a sense that seeing how the match between Federer and Nadal is having massive influence on both mens careers in different ways and whether Federer would give up his Career Grand Slam for 7 Wimbledon titles.

Stefanki hasn't blunt Roddick's FH or serve. It's a natural adaptation to today's slower conditions. Federer went through it as well by making his FH more secure and less penetrating after having given tons of UEs against his matches versus Nadal.

The reason is simple. With slower conds and more topspin across all players especially at the top, the flatter, powerful FH became harder to time and a riskier shot. Added to that the fact that top players became amazing movers able to retrieve the best FHs, a flater FH stopped being a worthy shot. Too risky for the reward.

Hence, only one solution adopted by all players...getting fitter to be able to rally like everybody else while finding the best attacking/safety ratio suited to the player.

ooops just going to edit legend! first bit of post about Roddick cos I was rambling and then I forgot to insert Fed's name before next bit.

That's what you get for multi-tasking off to concentrate solely on nice bottle of wine and Mr T

Night all!

time please wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

Unfortunately Fed Fans and other spectators of the sport do not have the power to swap a Wimbledon 2008 defeat for a French Open 2009 success.

Firstly, they would have had to ask Rafael Nadal to kindly "throw" the match (which is illegal) - but why would Rafael Nadal want to do that? It was clearly Rafael Nadal's intention to win both the Wimbledon 2008 title and the French Open 2009 title. There was zero reason for Nadal to throw the match and hence the championship - even if it pleased the "Fed fans". If Rafael Nadal had have stayed healthy then Roger Federer would not have won the French Open in 2009.

But then again if Federer had have won Wimbledon 2008 why would he not have wanted to win the French Open in 2009? I just can't make any sense out of the suggestion - sorry.

Nore, the question was posed in idle speculation in of wondering if defeat at W 2009 would haunt Roddick for ever and then someone asked whether they thought Roddick would rather win W 2009 and swap that for his US Open 2003 title if he could and that let onto people wondering if Federer would, in retrospect, knowing how the W 2008 defeat gave Nadal a lasting pscychological edge over him, rather have won W 2008 and foregone the French if a tennis god gave him the chance to choose - a bit like 'the judgement of Paris' in a tennis sense

What are you talking about? Its clear that the fed fans were talking about literally swapping one GS win for another to engineer a more favourable and satisfying career for fed. Not only were they seriously considering it, having already set the wormholes to the correct coordinate in spacetime, they had only to put the offer to rafa in a way he couldn't refuse.

LF - thats the beauty of stats! (and know you like them )

I know players today need to be fitter due to slowing conditions, etc, but still think some of what made Roddick potent in the first place has been lost. Sure the guy can ralley longer due to fitness (and he had to get fitter whatever coach he was with) and now plays with more spinny FHs due to moving from semi-western to more western grip (now same as Nadal/Djokovic's), but it comes at a price...and the price is that he himself has become fairly impotent against the top guys unless he has a great serving day like he used to (e.g. W'09). I just think he's more consistent now and can last abit longer vs Nole/Nadal/similar but in reality if anything he looks further away from winning another slam than he used to. A player like Roddick with big weapons but not much else to fall back on needs to take risks (even now he's not a particularly great ralleyer as latter year results show - that BH still looks agricultural and the FH doesnt bite) ...sure he might tank out in the 2nd round more often but in other slams he might go deep rather than the alternative of 'death through mediocrity' by consistently going 3rd/4th/QF's but no further. Its the classic dilemma.

Lydian... One player, who has definitely benefited from being fitter is Fish.

There are also age considerations for Roddick. From an American perspective, the current stalwarts are the mainstay, while the younger generation is being put through it's paces. Would like to see Young, Harrison and Sock keep flying the American flag.

One thing that does seem to have changed from the pre-federer days is the consistency of the top player/ players across the slam tournaments and even down to the masters tournaments. This has been discussed in the past. You no longer get the "one-slam wonder" defying his rankings. Nadal has pretty well sown up the French Open these past seven years (only ever losing one match across those seven years), while Federer pretty much sowed up the rest of the slams from late 2003 onwards for about six years.

Only Nadal and now Djokovic have managed to develop their game (steady progress) where they are now able to consistently overcome Roger Federer (and age is slowly catching up with Roger). Djokovic this year has developed his game such that he is now able to consistently beat Rafael Nadal. He might even be able to challenge Nadal at the French Open. Only one other man - Del Potro rose as a challenger but injury has set his career back significantly.

Andy Murray has always said that he needs to improve his fitness and his consistency to challenge the top players in the slams. The fact that he hasn't already won a slam despite being five years or so in the top four or top five is testiment to the consistency of the players above him. It maybe that when Murray gets good enough to win one slam then he too will be good enough to go on a slam run - this is not the era of "one slam wonders".

Now it has been said that the reason for Roger Federers consistency is his brilliant talent and creative play, that doesn't stress his body too much (hence his longevity). The reason for Rafal Nadals consistency at the top level has been put down to his "superman" fitness, mobility and his defensive, safer style of tennis (the strongest top spin hitherto ever applied in the game) - plus the new therapy (Platelet Rich Plasma Therapy) that has kept his skeletal system functioning at full throttle (tendons, cartillage, knees).

Novak Djokovic's proper breakthrough at the turn of this year has been put down to his increased fitness and stamina (change of diet and more focussed approach) as well as incredible movement/body flexibility (like a professional ballet dancer) and having a somewhat similar defensive game to Nadal. Novak is now able to outlast Rafael in the rallies. The question is whether Novak, like Rafa before him, can find a way to prevent his body breaking down under the excessive stress he puts his body under.

agree re: FISH and it was always holding him back. In many respects he has a more complete game than Roddick, and is a genuine allrounder...Yes age is catching up on Roddick which makes trying to turn him into a softer around the edges, ralleying allrounder all the more bizarre a decision to take. I'm not sure where the next truly great american player is coming from...not sure about Young or Harrison. Sock looks interesting.

Interesting points Nore, in some respects I think Nole is putting his body under more elastic strain now than Nadal ever did. We know Nadal is almost superhuman in his ability to just simply keep going, and recover too. I'm not so sure whether Nole can keep doing what he's doing season in, season out like Nadal has been doing for the best part of 7 seaons now. We saw that he outlasted Nadal at USO (although Nadal did more running) but look at the price it put on him afterwards for the past 2 months. He knows that in the future he's only going to get more of the same from Nadal, so I wonder how Nole can keep it going because the fitter he makes himself the more he'll run himself into the ground each match by being able to last longer with Rafa (and maybe Murray too). Those sliding splits that Nole does on long stretches outwide cant be good for his groin tendons at all either...!

Ps - of course the other factor that has been raised is the slowing down of the fast courts (whether due to the surface or the size of the balls) and the advances in racquet technology (larger heads, more light weight, better string grip etc). In the past top level players were sometimes "bombed out" in an early round due to brilliant serving from a player having his one day wonder where all his serves go in etc. Nowadays this doesn't seem to happen.

lydian wrote:... Those sliding splits that Nole does on long stretches outwide cant be good for his groin tendons at all either...!

Nole's sliding on hard courts concerns me - there's always a risk of turning the ankle / ankle damage.

What's really curious is that Nole doesn't tape his ankles like the other pros do.

That is crazy, especially consider his retrieving skills and game.

Tenez wrote:What's really curious is that Nole doesn't tape his ankles like the other pros do.

That is crazy, especially consider his retrieving skills and game.

Many pepole fail to observe that one of Nole's great strengths is his outstanding athleticism. I take particular enjoyment in observing the way he moves like a cat, so light on his feet, walks beautifully, he is one super-coordinated creature, it must feel great to be in that skin!
Movement does a lot for me when watching tennis, the sheer beauty of well-proportioned body in flight, oh, I can't wait for Basel to start!!!

noleisthebest wrote:
Many pepole fail to observe that one of Nole's great strengths is his outstanding athleticism.

Do you really think many do? I thought that's what everybody was talking about. It's clear it's one of his main strength, if not his main one.

I dont doubt Nole is one hell of a "mover", its how he's able to compete with Nadal...but he pushes himself to huge stretching limits to compete against the guys like Nadal, Murray and Federer. Those ankles, groin and back must be at longer-term risk, even if he's not over-extending them often the strain on them must be huge. This is why I think he's in danger of breaking down quicker than Nadal during any one brutal season because for all Nadal's running he doesnt strain his connective tissues like Nole does, or rather Nadal's movement seems less extreme to me, i.e. more based on use of muscles than the stretching of sinew and bone.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Many pepole fail to observe that one of Nole's great strengths is his outstanding athleticism.

Do you really think many do? I thought that's what everybody was talking about. It's clear it's one of his main strength, if not his main one.

I didn't notice anyone talk about it properly, It is usually referred to in a derogatory tone when describing his "retrieving" skills.
That particular aspect of his tennis makes him so superior to Nadal compared to Federer.

lydian wrote:I dont doubt Nole is one hell of a "mover", its how he's able to compete with Nadal...but he pushes himself to huge stretching limits to compete against the guys like Nadal, Murray and Federer. Those ankles, groin and back must be at longer-term risk, even if he's not over-extending them often the strain on them must be huge. This is why I think he's in danger of breaking down quicker than Nadal during any one brutal season because for all Nadal's running he doesnt strain his connective tissues like Nole does, or rather Nadal's movement seems less extreme to me, i.e. more based on use of muscles than the stretching of sinew and bone.

Every one of their game has specific toll on a specific part of the body: with Nadal it's his knees, with Federer his back, Murray it's the ankles. Nobody is prone to injuries. but it's the athletic gifted ones that can do more and last longer.
Nole has crashed out after USO simply as he does not have the upper body mass and strength of Federer and Nadal, his legs make up for it.

At this level they're all athletically gifted, they have to be. But being athletically gifted and free from injury arent particularly related (besides general fitness levels). When you say nobody is prone to injury its a matter of relativity - there is a genetic basis that underpins it (a higher initial Type III/Type I collagen ratio in the tendons makes people more prone to injury for example). Many chronic tendon problems start from microtears that dont heal properly, and exertion is the biggest factor in microtears.

Nole may be lucky and never experience tendonitis, but his range of exertional stretching and going deeper in more and more events does put him at risk of constant microtears without sufficient recovery time. This factor alone is big difference over 2010

time please wrote: ... that let onto people wondering if Federer would, in retrospect, knowing how the W 2008 defeat gave Nadal a lasting pscychological edge over him ...

Roger Federer's "biggest" loss to Rafael Nadal was at the Australian Open in 2009 (he lost in five sets, losing 6-2 in the final set).

Roger Federer's loss at Wimbledon in 2008 was rather predictable. Rafael Nadal had reached the two preceding Wimbledon finals losing to Federer in four sets in 2006 (0–6, 6–7(5–7), 7–6(7–2), 3–6) and five sets in 2007 (6–7(7–9), 6–4, 6–7(3–7), 6–2, 2–6).

Roger Federer's loss at the Australian Open in 2009 was unexpected. Although Rafael Nadal had shown steady progress as he strove to adapt his game to the hard courts, prior to the AO 2009, he had not reached a hard court grand slam final. In fact some of the tennis commentators suggested that Rafael Nadal would never be able to win a hard court grand slam tournament. Rafael Nadal winning the Australian Open in 2009 revealed to Roger that he wasn't "safe" from Rafa on any surface. Whether this constituted a psychological edge is difficult to determine. Perhaps it was more a realisation of the state of Rafael Nadal's game compared to his own.

Of course, it could be suggested that the stress Rafael Nadal put his body under in adapting his style of play to the hard courts, led to its subsequent breakdown later in the same year (so swings and roundabouts). However, platelet rich plasma therapy, "salvaged" Rafael's Nadal body, which allowed him to reprise his winning ways in 2010.

Nore Staat wrote: However, platelet rich plasma therapy, "salvaged" Rafael's Nadal body, which allowed him to reprise his winning ways in 2010.

Yep. PRP became legal in Sept 09! What a timing!

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote: However, platelet rich plasma therapy, "salvaged" Rafael's Nadal body, which allowed him to reprise his winning ways in 2010.

Yep. PRP became legal in Sept 09! What a timing!

If Djokovic needs it, he can have it to.

BTW, we did have a PRP discussion on the old 606v1 which involved the muscle vs. ligament discussion, IIRC.

When you say salvaged his body, you mean tendonitis in his knees right? Whether PRP actually works or not is still subject of debate. Many argue that simply injecting the site with a needle and empty syringe promotes healing due to the internal bleeding caused and subsequent concentration of platelets. WADA only banned PRP in the 1st place because they thought it similar to blood doping which is used to boost oxygen levels and hence performance. PRP doesnt do that, its very specific for a single site of injury, so its no wonder WADA lifted the ban once they had data that showed it wasnt performance enhancing. PRP use is now massive across athletes inc. Tiger Woods.

LF, I remember the discussion on 606, I think I was part of it. And yes, as we know Djokovic has his oxygen capsule and Federer his electromagnetic machine. All athletes use whatever legal instruments they can to boost recovery.

Its a shame Fed didnt get that MP at USO so we could have had the pair of them contesting finals in all slams - what a record that would have been.

Would a separate PRP discussion be useful?

lydian wrote:When you say salvaged his body, you mean tendonitis in his knees right? Whether PRP actually works or not is still subject of debate. ...

Rafael Nadal reportedly did have treatment on both knees which got him playing aggressively again. I am not sure whether Rafael Nadal's precise treatment has ever been published, I was just following the presumption that others have made based on the limited (?) information that has been previously given concerning it. However it is good that you point out the uncertainty surrounding the precise effectiveness of the PRP treatment. It is an expensive treatment and some are querying whether the expense is justified.

Some comment on his treatment:
http://huntsvilleprp.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/platelet-rich-plasma-and-rafael-nadals-knee-tendinitis/
http://gototennis.com/2010/09/25/rafael-nadal-knee-update-his-doctors-spin-on-prp-therapy/

216 weeks at no. 2 ranked for Rafael nadal. The best no. 2 tennis player in the history of the game.

Djoker is in Nadal's head wrote:216 weeks at no. 2 ranked for Rafael nadal. The best no. 2 tennis player in the history of the game.

... to the best #1 player in the history of the game, Federer, at 237 weeks.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

time please wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Question I would put is would Fed Fans swap the Wimbledon 2008 defeat with his French Open success?
Probably not. Winning the French completed the set. OK, beating Rafa to get it would have been nice but it wasn't to be. The 08 defeat was cathartic and somehow added to the legend.

Unfortunately Fed Fans and other spectators of the sport do not have the power to swap a Wimbledon 2008 defeat for a French Open 2009 success.

Firstly, they would have had to ask Rafael Nadal to kindly "throw" the match (which is illegal) - but why would Rafael Nadal want to do that? It was clearly Rafael Nadal's intention to win both the Wimbledon 2008 title and the French Open 2009 title. There was zero reason for Nadal to throw the match and hence the championship - even if it pleased the "Fed fans". If Rafael Nadal had have stayed healthy then Roger Federer would not have won the French Open in 2009.

But then again if Federer had have won Wimbledon 2008 why would he not have wanted to win the French Open in 2009? I just can't make any sense out of the suggestion - sorry.

Nore, the question was posed in idle speculation in of wondering if defeat at W 2009 would haunt Roddick for ever and then someone asked whether they thought Roddick would rather win W 2009 and swap that for his US Open 2003 title if he could and that let onto people wondering if Federer would, in retrospect, knowing how the W 2008 defeat gave Nadal a lasting pscychological edge over him, rather have won W 2008 and foregone the French if a tennis god gave him the chance to choose - a bit like 'the judgement of Paris' in a tennis sense

What are you talking about? Its clear that the fed fans were talking about literally swapping one GS win for another to engineer a more favourable and satisfying career for fed. Not only were they seriously considering it, having already set the wormholes to the correct coordinate in spacetime, they had only to put the offer to rafa in a way he couldn't refuse.

Yeah whatever break - I am sure that is correct on whichever alternative planet you inhabit - just read your post back again and tell me that you think the posters who were idling chatting actually thought it was in their remit to do this and triple

It was a bit of fun, a game of 'what if' speculation, pleasantries between posters in full possession of their wits - not obviously to your taste, but I think you could do with just getting a little bit of perspective - we don't have Dr Faust and Old Nick, or a Tardis on the boards to my knowledge!