Our Great Era Debunked!

Now is a good time to reflect on the previous seasons and get a better understanding of what happened to our game in the last 5 years. We hear of course all the fans of Nadal, Murray, Djoko and even some of Federer say that we are experiencing the strongest era in tennis and they support their belief by belittling the players of the past, particularly the time when Federer was dominant and had no opposition outside clay.

Nowadays, the players we perceived as great in 2006 such as Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Ljubo even are no longer remembered that great and compared to Nadal Djoko and Murray seem inconsistent and erratic. There is something about the way Nadal, Djoko and Murray consistently reach the last rounds of slams, all slams!, that certainly make them look very good even if in Murray’s case, he has not won a slam yet.

However as some of us explained in other threads, the main difference between now and then is that the game is simply played differently and the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then. To compare the 2 “eras” I have highlited 2 matches played by the best players of those eras from the USO (06 and 11) and highlighted how the game and conditions have changed.

In short I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!! In some shorter rallies over 50% faster, helped by taking the ball earlier and hitting much flatter. This is a huge difference!!!

So what does that mean? It means that the players then, the best ones were the sharpest ones. Great reflexes, taking the ball early and flat and they were trying to take time away from their opponent to dictate and rushed the opponent into mistakes as opposed to today’s tennis where the retrievers push the opponent into mistakes by giving them smaller targets thanks to amazing retrieving skills that were unseen up to 2006.

But that’s not all. The game was faster, cause the conditions were faster, and that generation learnt their game with natural strings while spin was harder to generate and not as beneficial as hitting flat and shortening the point. Tennis was played at a smooth rhythm and everybody then was playing within the 20s rule. It was understood that there was no other choice so no need to learn a different tennis that could not be sustained over long distances, especially on those fast surfaces where taking risk was rewarding.

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What a lot of people here fail to realise is that the game has seriously changed and the skills are different but certainly not better. When the courts were fast in 2005/06, Nadal was being beaten by Blake…..3 times in a row in fact. Yet Nadal was good enough to have 2 FOs. The very talented Davydenko could not take time away from Blake. The latter holds a 7/0 H2H against the Russian cause whom could take the ball earlier and inject pace was simply better at that time. Davydenko could not handle Blake or Federer but we know he loves Nadal’s slower pace as long as he can handle a fair bit of running with the Spaniard.

For those reasons above, I think it is ignorant to believe that 2003-06 was a weak era. In fact in terms of tennis played under the rules and on fast conditions, it’s been the best tennis we have had and we don’t know how Nadal or Djoko would fare in those. Well I am certainly more optimistic about Djoko’s success than Nadal, especially if we were to apply the 20s rule but I would expect Djoko to lose more often than he did in 2011 being rushed by players who spent their life learning to take time away from their opponents (Nalbandian, Blake, Safin and others). We have to stress as well that in those days, there was no recipe to run as long and as fast while keeping UEs down, so no-one had a choice to play differently than taking risk and the more talented were the better at it. And Federer was simply the best when it came to “skilled” tennis. We wii never know how great his peers would have been without him. But on fast surfaces, it was not Nadal that stopped him from accumulating his slams. It was other very talented players trying their best but falling short. Saying it was a weak era, is as stupid as saying Nadal had a weak era on clay cause no-one was physical enough to fight with him there and noone won anything significant on clay bar Nadal. But as we have seen this year, it’s changing fast now that we have another physical player.

In conclusion, the game evolves and I don’t want to fall in the trap of some posters here, that is belittling today’s era, but we have to recognise that the game changed thanks to a few factors and those changes are extremely important is changing the scenery of tennis when we know small margins can have a huge impact on a game, a match and a career.

Source:
Federer Blake USO 2006 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8
Djokovic Nadal USO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk
Djokovic Murray AO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpKJYhjEcA
Difference obvious to the naked eye.

It would have been more useful to have a comparison between 2007 final and 2011 USO semi-final between Novak and Federer for proper analysis.
Can you do those two, Tenez

I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

Well done Tenez, superb analysis.

Thanks Jahu. A bit of a long post but could not quite make it shorter.

The matches you have chosen are ridiculous. Federer and Blake are more attacking- even if they played now, and Djokovic and Nadal are more defensive. Even if you had Fed-Blake now and Djoko-Nadal in 2006 you would get similar stats. Of course Nadal only matured as a hard/grass court player from 2007 but thats irrelevant.

And how could a player, who wasn't even on form before the event, NOT EVEN TOP 15, reach a GS final- Baghdatis.
The fact of the matter is apart from Nadal on clay, there was no one with the talent and consistency to cause any sort of damage to Federer. The only real test Federer had was Nadal on clay- until around 2007.

Tenez wrote:I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

I know, but that doesn't tell anything.
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

Lol i don't know why people stress so much. If you want to think Davydenko, Blake etc are better than the likes of Djokovic,Nadal Murray, all you have to do is convince yourself hard enough and in time, you will believe it. By the way, wasn't the likes of Murray, a teenager in 2006 beating Federer on the so-called fast conditions at Cincy without breaking a sweat, some thing the 2 clowns above couldn't? You have to give it to Blake though, he all by ended Federer's olympics singles gold dream. Legend!
Anyway, the weak era ended in 08 so it's old news.

Even if we speeded up the courts, and magically turned Baghdatis into his old self- at his very best- he would never reach a final with the competition now.

noleisthebest wrote:
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

Precisely!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

I know, but that doesn't tell anything.
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

It proves a lot on the contrary. I am not using extreme cases, it's the skills needed to arrive at the same stage of the tournament 5 years apart that are extremely opposed.

The only reason Blake could arrive there was because the field was weak.

Top 4 2011 vs Top 4 May 2006

1. Djokovic 2011 vs Federer 2006 = Draw
2. Nadal 2011 vs Nadal 2006= Nadal 2011 is better- if not for Djokovic would be great season.
3. Murray 2011 vs Ljubicic 2006= lol Murray 2011
4. Federer 2011 vs Roddick 2006= Federer 2011

If you do think Ljubicic could beat Murray and Roddick would cruise past Federer, my apologies.

Look I would be the first person to say Federer is a great player. (And I'm sure Simple Analyst, noleisthebest would agree with me here). Make no doubt about it.
But was the competition he faced bar Nadal on clay between 2003-2006 great?
No.
Hence all his records are slight inflated due to this. When he has faced tougher competition he has slightly struggled -especially against Nadal in Grand Slams- but nevertheless Federer is still a great player.

Nah i will say a very good player who took advantage of weak competition to get 10 slams than he should have.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

I know, but that doesn't tell anything.
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

It proves a lot on the contrary. I am not using extreme cases, it's the skills needed to arrive at the same stage of the tournament 5 years apart that are extremely opposed.

I know, but Nadal against anybody takes ages. It's the trajectory of his moonball that does it. I hate it, but it legal.

Tournament - RG 2011

Match	Total Points	Total Minutes	Longest Rally	Points/minute
SF - Federer-Djokovic	309	219	27 Shots	1.411
SF - Murray-Nadal	223	197	31 shots	1.132
F - Federer-Nadal	273	220	24 shots	1.241

E&OE

Well one thing you have to understand its very hard to convince everybody [wums n greats included],

Its the Roddick, Fish, Ferrers Davydenko's still ruling the roost on the physical demanding game of today. Fish gave tougher time to Fed than anybody else in WTF.

There is no such thing called Golden era or weaker era. If you say Hewitt, Safin and Roddick at best were inferior, these players were beating the Legends of previous era like Sampras badly, do that mean Sampras era was the weakest? Sampras was beating the yester year legends badly, do that mean 80's were even more weaker? rubbish.

So if one player stands tall above rest does it make the era weak? so according to wums, a player has to lose some matches to make his wins credible right? this itself debunks the weak era topic.

To add more to the above, 2011 was weaker coz nobody was able to challange Djokovic, the closest one is the 30 year old semi-retired Federer, so its safe to assume 2011 was the weakest of last 4 years.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

I know, but that doesn't tell anything.
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

Nopes... all he is saying is that Blake is/was different from Nadal/Djoko and played tennis differently. The post does a good work on showing on how exactly he was different and why the players of 2006 were not less talented but only different from the players of 2011!

Superb analysis Tenez

invisiblecoolers wrote:Well one thing you have to understand its very hard to convince everybody [wums n greats included],

It's the fans who are not convinced, or more precisely, do not want to be convinced asI am only relaying stats here. But we expected that. They drop names and expect us to reason based on how good a name sounds and the more title that name has the better it sounds. That's their sole reasoning. But then you tell them Davydenko beat Nadal in their last 4 encounters and that this very same Davydenko has a 0/7 H2H v Blake and cannot understand why cause their reasononing doesn't stretch that far.

laverfan wrote:Tournament - RG 2011

Match	Total Points	Total Minutes	Longest Rally	Points/minute
SF - Federer-Djokovic	309	219	27 Shots	1.411
SF - Murray-Nadal	223	197	31 shots	1.132
F - Federer-Nadal	273	220	24 shots	1.241

E&OE

LF, Thanks for the effort. I think it's best to show how many sec a point takes more than number of points per minute (so just reverse the fraction).

But that is just a detail to show the difference in the physicality of the game. My main table shows how many shots are played per time...well more precisely the average time between 2 shots and that shows how much faster the game was. (20% faster - huge!).

Fedex_the_best wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I could certainly work out some stats...but I am pretty sure we will see some differences in the pace already. What I wanted to do is compare the pace between Federer v Djoko USO 11 with Djoko v Nadal. Another day maybe. Or maybe LF can help me.

I know, but that doesn't tell anything.
Even better! Try and find two matches of Federer and Nadal from 2006 and 2011.
The way you 've done it it's not really representative, more like extreme cases which don't prove much.

Nopes... all he is saying is that Blake is/was different from Nadal/Djoko and played tennis differently. The post does a good work on showing on how exactly he was different and why the players of 2006 were not less talented but only different from the players of 2011!

Superb analysis Tenez

Exactly
I would add that in 2006, having quick hands (talent/pace?) was extremely important. Nowadays due to longer rallies, physique is certainly the key factor as they do not push each other into mistakes, but into running right and left as the considerable increase in # of rallies and slowing down of the pace shows.

noleisthebest wrote:I know, but Nadal against anybody takes ages. It's the trajectory of his moonball that does it. I hate it, but it legal.

Certainly that helps but that's exactly what I am exposing here. And Djoko does very well v Nadal cause he can do the running with Nadal. Djoko is not trying to speed up the game. He is taking the bull by the horns and does the running as well instead of shortening the points.

Of course I am stressing on the physical players, in particular Nadal. But my point in this thread is to show what is needed nowadays to win teh USO as opposed to 5 years ago. There is no point of me comparing Djoko/Nadal with Thierry Champion/Clement on clay.


What woudl be relevant is work out the time between 2 shots in that Murray/Djoko AO 2011 final and see how it compares with Blake/Federer.

That's not the point. In 2011 Djokovic had to play against the rest of the top 4 in Grand Slam finals. But in 2006 Fed was facing people outside the top 20, who didn't even have experience at that stage before.

And another thing is how did Nadal get to number 2i in the world so easily. Today he is number 2 but he got to the final of 3 Grand Slams. In 2005 for example he could only really play on clay but still easily got to number 2. This was because no one else had the consistency and experience in Grand Slams apart from Federer. And players who did get to number 3, eg Ljubicic, did not even compete in Grand Slam semi-finals. How can you get to number 3 without atleast playing one Grand Slam semi.
As for this 'skills' article Tenez, Djokovic was too young and a Nadal was not good enough on HC or else they might have even played each other in the final.

Nice stats work but I think this is a case of stating the obvious - Blake and Federer are quicker players than Nadal, Djokovic - they are both shot-makers. Doesnt make them any more talented though per se. Blake won 10 singles titles and never got past a slam quarter-final, there is no way he can be held up as some panthenon of the game. His best slams results are:

Australian Open QF (2008)
French Open 3R (2006)
Wimbledon 3R (2006, 2007)
US Open QF (2005, 2006)

Hardly the stuff of legend. Even if Federer was mopping up then, we still didnt see Blake in finals or semis, etc. Nadal and Djokovic play slower, and longer ralleys because they have a different game style. And look at their results compared to Blake, Ljubicic, Haas, Robredo, Safin, Roddick, et al.
And we're also trying to paint 2006 as some different type of era here whereas in reality is was just about the same speed, the courts had done most of their slowing between 2001-2004. If Blake was such a great fast-court player, how come he didnt do well at Wimbledon back in 2006? He got to 3R (losing to that great Mirnyi!) ...whereas Nadal got to the final!
There is no way I'll ever be convinced the players of 2006 were even the equal of the players of today - much of whom have been around since 2006-onwards anyway, albeit in their early careers. Just look at their respective results...thats what counts at the end of the day when you come to judge someone's ability. Blake hit loads of flashy winners, one of the best hard FHs in the game and quick footwork but he didnt win much did he! Why's that...?

NTIB - I have added a few stats from Djoko v Murray AO. Sure the surface is even slower than teh USO but it just shows that those 2 were not keen to rush one another either in those rallies. It's Nadal's mooballing v Murray slice BHs and those shots are not rushing anyone for sure.

amritia3ee wrote:If you do think Ljubicic could beat Murray and Roddick would cruise past Federer, my apologies.

Do you mean the guy who, aged 31, beat Djokovic, Nadal and Roddick at Indian Wells to take 2010 title?

Great article Tenez, and funny to see some posters including this quoted one have nothing to come back with except demonstrations of their incredulity.

It's an interesting comparison, but I can't help thinking any match with Nadal involved will end up being played at a slower pace, so it's perhaps a little unfair on Djoko.
As others, and Tenez, have pointed out, there are other matches which could perhaps provide a better comparison, but it's a lot of work!

"the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then" - quite true and we might even say the same when comparing, say the 90s and the 70s (or Laver and Sampras).

Oddly, amritia seems to agree with this when describing Nadal and Djoko as defensive. These days and on most of the current surfaces, a defensive strategy coupled with great stamina is safest route to success.

Whether one prefers players who play that way to those who are more attacking is, of course, purely personal preference. And I doubt we'll ever get anyone agreeing on what constitutes 'talent' or if defensive talent is better/worse than attacking talent.

As for the example of Baghdatis, I seem to recall a certain Chris Lewis reaching the final of Wimbledon, but I don't remember anyone trying to cheapen McEnroe's career as a result.

lydian wrote:Nice stats work but I think this is a case of stating the obvious - Blake and Federer are quicker players than Nadal, Djokovic - they are both shot-makers. Doesnt make them any more talented though per se. Blake won 10 singles titles and never got past a slam quarter-final, there is no way he can be held up as some panthenon of the game. His best slams results are:

You keep doing the same mistake. The fact is when the courts were fast, Blake was one of Federer's closest rival. I don't care about the titles. I am exposing how faster the game was.

When you say it doesn't make them more talented, so what does? What is talent for you? size of lungs? For me the main talent in tennis (remember making what is difficult look easy accoring to the definition) is actually one's ability to cope with pace and win a point effortlessly. If you think talent is about winning, you have got the definition completely wrong. Talent helps you win...it doesn't give you the win. When you see Djoko v Nadal or Murray, they don't make winning a point look easy. You know, as proven here, that winning a point takes lots of running because less risk is taken to secure a harder won point. In short whether they know or not win a point easily (talent) they are not exposing this skill. They may have it, but they don't care. They know nowadays, talent doesn't win you slams. Otherwise Federer woudl have never lost against them cause I believe we all agree he is by far more talented than them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
"the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then" - quite true and we might even say the same when comparing, say the 90s and the 70s (or Laver and Sampras).

Certainly but the main problems with earlier eras (pre-open) is the pool of players they could compete with. It was much smaller and there was only on handful of players who coudl dedicate their life in making a living playing tennis. That made a huge difference between teh Pros and those trying to become pros.

And one of the biggest factor is the evolution of technology, diet and court pace which certainly dictates change of guard in tennis. I am convinced that most posters don't quite grasp what difference learning a game with a small frame v a large frame can have on you chance to last. Likewise with strings and diet.

Even though there is only 4 or 5 years separating Nadal and Federer, comparing Nadal who learnt to play on clay with spinny strings versus Federer who learnt on fast surfaces with natural guts makes a huge difference.

bogbrush wrote:
Do you mean the guy who, aged 31, beat Djokovic, Nadal and Roddick at Indian Wells to take 2010 title?

The guy had potential and was good at his best- but he didn't reach a GS semi-final.

Tenez wrote:

we all agree he is by far more talented than them.

The Federer fans do.

Tenez, perhaps I should have said 80s vs 90s e.g. McEnroe and Sampras, since the changes in technology, in a relatively short period of time, are highlighted there.

Following on from what you say, more posters should take note of how many players stick with e.g. the racket they learnt with, as long as possible, even after it has become obsolete from the technology view-point.
Players frequently have their rackets custom-made the same way for years and if not that, then at least customised (lead tape etc). As technology advances, it's difficult for a professional player to change with it.

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:If you do think Ljubicic could beat Murray and Roddick would cruise past Federer, my apologies.

Do you mean the guy who, aged 31, beat Djokovic, Nadal and Roddick at Indian Wells to take 2010 title?

Great article Tenez, and funny to see some posters including this quoted one have nothing to come back with except demonstrations of their incredulity.

Thanks BB. I knew you'd like it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Players frequently have their rackets custom-made the same way for years and if not that, then at least customised (lead tape etc). As technology advances, it's difficult for a professional player to change with it.

Very true because it is close to impossible to change the style your learnt while young. McEnroe was reluctant to change to a bigger frame but when he tried his brother's racket Max 200G), he liked it as it gave his half volleys and volleys more security. But sadly for him it did not change his "push" game giving his younger opponents softer balls they knew how to bash as they learnt to play with larger frames (Becker, Edberg Pete).

What I found really surprising when I went to see McEnroe play live 6 or 7 years ago in London is how he had since adapted to larger frames hitting the ball with much more spin than he did while at the top. But then again, you woudl expect that from a talented player. How to maximise the use of his tool. Unfortunately for him he coudl not do that at short notice while at the top and that contributed to his swift decline after 84.

lydian wrote:
Hardly the stuff of legend. Even if Federer was mopping up then, we still didnt see Blake in finals or semis, etc. Nadal and Djokovic play slower, and longer ralleys because they have a different game style. And look at their results compared to Blake, Ljubicic, Haas, Robredo, Safin, Roddick, et al.

Do you wish to compare Ljubicic with Sampras? How? there is no fast court nowadays where the fast serve of Ljubo coudl have made a great difference. So where else can we compare them? on clay where the conds have not changed much? Yes good idea and guess what? their best there is very comparable. Both reached the semi though Ljubo was unlucky to face the most physical player of all time.

Pace is everything and in 2003-2006 there was an unstoppable player on faster (not that fast) surfaces.

Who else do you want to compare? Did you know that Pete lost his first 5 encounters versus Chang even losing on fast carpet? Well Blake won his first 3 matches versus Nadal on comparatively slower HCs!

Nalbandian in Paris and Rome 2007 v Nadal: 64 60 and 61 62 Please JHM don't laugh! And a 3rd thrashing was on its way before Nadal's lungs made the difference and Nalbandian decided to have an operation and leave the courts for more than a year.

That's why titles only say one side of the story. It certainly helps to be fit nowadays when the game is so physical on those slow surfaces.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:Nice stats work but I think this is a case of stating the obvious - Blake and Federer are quicker players than Nadal, Djokovic - they are both shot-makers. Doesnt make them any more talented though per se. Blake won 10 singles titles and never got past a slam quarter-final, there is no way he can be held up as some panthenon of the game. His best slams results are:

You keep doing the same mistake. The fact is when the courts were fast, Blake was one of Federer's closest rival. I don't care about the titles. I am exposing how faster the game was.

Blake was ranked no. 4 in 2006, nuff said really

@Lydian: do you really think the conditions of 2006 were equal to todays conditions?
Take a look at this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AXetq5dV20&feature=related
To me it's a different world and i don't need an old Blake-Federer clip to come to that conclusion. Roddick at the time had already switched to more loopy groundstrokes (2 yards behind the baseline) but it's still quite fast

No one is doubting the court was faster- but no one apart from Federer (and Rafa on clay) had the experience and consistency in the latter stages of tournaments to challenge. tbh roddick never really had much apart from his serve- his groundstrokes were hardly worldclass.

Whether you agree or not you can't deny Tenez knows a thing or two about starting a good debate! Will this one challenge his fed 06 debate?!?!!?

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:Nice stats work but I think this is a case of stating the obvious - Blake and Federer are quicker players than Nadal, Djokovic - they are both shot-makers. Doesnt make them any more talented though per se. Blake won 10 singles titles and never got past a slam quarter-final, there is no way he can be held up as some panthenon of the game. His best slams results are:

You keep doing the same mistake. The fact is when the courts were fast, Blake was one of Federer's closest rival. I don't care about the titles. I am exposing how faster the game was.

Blake was ranked no. 4 in 2006, nuff said really

@Lydian: do you really think the conditions of 2006 were equal to todays conditions?
Take a look at this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AXetq5dV20&feature=related
To me it's a different world and i don't need an old Blake-Federer clip to come to that conclusion. Roddick at the time had already switched to more loopy groundstrokes (2 yards behind the baseline) but it's still quite fast

I know you don't but many do. Or rather do not want to see it. In particular the fans of Nadal Djoko and Murray. It's clear that those slower courts have also benefitted a player like Ferrer but players with big FHs like Berdych and Soderling also benefitted.

To be fair I think Lydian recognises the pace has changed but strangely enough it doesn't believe that the change of pace required very different skills and that, more strangely, the slower pace helped Federer as much as Nadal????!!!! Which is a very weird conclusion.

The main criteria of those slow conds is that it gives those very fit players a big advantage which is clearly demonstrated by their consistency at slams. On faster surfaces and within 20s, woudl Nadal have won his match v Haase and Petzchner? Woudl he have won v Querrey in Wimby 2006? etc...all those losses woudl have contributed in taking experience on grass and woudl certainly would have it much harder v Federer and other quick hand players. Woudl Djoko have passed Dolgo in the USO11 let alone Federer? He even struggled v Tsiparevic.

LuvSports! wrote:Whether you agree or not you can't deny Tenez knows a thing or two about starting a good debate! Will this one challenge his fed 06 debate?!?!!?

It is actually linked to that "Fed better in 06?" debate. Those slower conditions, and more physical game has seriously contributed to Federer's decline or rather scarcer titles. Give him a low bounce like in London, even on a slow surface, and he is unbeaten in 2 years at 30! Beating Murray, Djoko and Nadal. Frankly, it's not even close. Imagine if it was fast and lower bounce like in 2003-6.

Fast surfaces and fast play would have reclassified Nadal as a typical, but excellent, Spaniard; a clay eponent.

Nothing wrong about that.

One aspect of Nadal's game that needs to be credited was the fact that he persisted outside clay and made inroads into the HC and Grass despite the conditions not suiting him to begin with (the debate of court slow-downs in 2001 vs. 2003 vs. 2007 should be separate topic).

Whether it took lungs or legs or biceps, is not very conducive to the here-and-now.

IMVHO, everyone agrees the game is different in 2010-2011 than it was in 2003-2007. Waiting for someone to start dissing me on this post.

Tenez wrote:Thanks for the effort. I think it's best to show how many sec a point takes more than number of points per minute (so just reverse the fraction).

Will do.

bogbrush wrote:Fast surfaces and fast play would have reclassified Nadal as a typical, but excellent, Spaniard; a clay eponent.

Nothing wrong about that.

But unforunately such delusional was rubbished by the typical, but excellent, spaniard; clay "e"ponent thrashing the World No.1 Federer at 17 old years old to an inch of his life in Miami 2004 before reviving him to enable a career of one sided slam domination.

Its shocking what some players try and get away with!

I think the scoring system should be changed to rid tennis of this sneaky way of trying to win points without hitting the ball hard and flat.

Having viewed the well researched data on the average time taken for the ball to travel the length of the court IMO a fair cut off point would be about 1.20 secs. Only when players use their natural skill and talent to play faster than this can points be scored. Anything slower and a large buzzer situated at the side of the court would sound. Play would stop and the point would have to be replayed. It would be entertaining for the audience as they could be encouraged to boo and jeer the poor skills of the players involved.

That should teach them...

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Fast surfaces and fast play would have reclassified Nadal as a typical, but excellent, Spaniard; a clay eponent.

Nothing wrong about that.

But unforunately such delusional was rubbished by the typical, but excellent, spaniard; clay "e"ponent thrashing the World No.1 Federer at 17 old years old to an inch of his life in Miami 2004 before reviving him to enable a career of one sided slam domination.

So Nadal could not stop this 'one-side' domination despite being around since 2005 (I assume you mean Miami 2005 not 2004). and allowed the 'weak-era' slam domination (including two 3-slam-a-year runs in 2006 and 2007). What a shame!

Yh Nadal was only really a clay courter until 2007. Still beat Federer in Miami though, the first time they played.

The only real test Federer had 2003-2006 was Nadal on clay, which he couldn't pass.

I still think Fed is a great player, in-spite of this.