Our Great Era Debunked!

First topic message reminder :

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.

Top 4 2011 > Top 4 2006
No arguments there

bogbrush wrote:Are people still being so stupid as to use Slam success by the player population to infer field quality?.

They don't want to see differently. It doesn't suit their purpose.

Imagine Sampras playing in an era with slams as slow as the FO. Bruguera would be the big name. Pete's slam success woudl be roughly as good as Ljubo.....both reached the semi of FO!

Sampras is the perfect example how influencial surface is. And Wilander winning on all surfaces and only reaching one 1/4F at Wimbledon his opposite. Wilander even won on slow grass that the AO was at the time but could not get close to WImbledon's final.

Now they perfectly homogenised the surfaces in 2000s we have Federer, Nadal and probably Djokovic achieving the career slam. Its nowhere near as hard to achieve the career slam anymore when the playing conditions mean these modern players dont have to vary their games as much as Wilander, Lendl, Mac, Sampras, Borg, etc, had to.

Not that guys like Luber or Blake need to worry about that. Neither got very far in any of the slams anyway despite being such gargantuan talents of the game. On the one hand Tenez tells us conditions were still quick in 2006 vs 2011, and yet on the other despite "quick" conditions back in 2006 these illuminaries could barely get past 3rd round of Wimb or USO, oh hang on Blake got to quarters of US'06 in his best ever year! Wow.

Infact Ivan never got past the 3rd round of any of the faster slams Wimb or USO from 1999 to 2011. Blake never got past 2nd round at Wimbledon his whole career. But hey, these guys with quick hands know their way around a fast court right?

Their combined W:L career records at Wimb/USO - 47:43 out of 48 combined appearances. Thats an average record of 1 win per slam, i.e. 2nd round average.

Still, lets not compare slam records hey because clearly these guys have talent of such depth we just cant see it this way. Perhaps if we record ralley speed we might see it better?

The bit I find funny is that if there was an era with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg and Connors all together and if they all stopped each other from winning more than one Slam every few years, and making not many semis, there are clowns on here who would proclaim that a weak era based on nobody making many semis.

They can't seem to grasp how illogical their position is. It's weird.

Out of those 9 players; 8 of 9 they would all consistently be making the quarters and challenging themselves in tough matches.

But the likes of Blake and Ljubicic were barely reaching quarter finals :limp:

Add Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Newcombe.

Not far off our weak era now are we?

amritia3ee wrote:But the likes of Blake and Ljubicic were barely reaching quarter finals :limp:

Because.....?

Must have been better players on the day around I guess.

Or perhaps you think the inability of anyone to barely make a Slam semi these days is proof of the strength in depth? Or of the opposite?

Do you yet see how illogical it is to draw these conclusions?

They would all consistently reach Round 4. Not sure the likes of number 3 Ljubicic was even doing that :limp:

By the way, you do know that Ljubi beat Nadal and Djokovic when aged 31 to win his first Masters in 2010 don't you?

I guess he did much better when old in the strong era because at his peak in the weaker era he couldn't do that because... er.... oooh.

Individual results mean diddly. Nadal beat Luber indoors on hard to win the Madrid Masters in 2005.
Sure Luber could serve his way to oblivion on a good week, the problem was he didnt have many good weeks. Infact Ljubicic and Blake barely made a slam quarter to their name across 98 slam appearances. Sorry but that is pathetic for their so called level of greatness being held up here - or conversely if Luber was good enough to beat Nadal on a Masters HC event in 2010 when we'll be no doubt be told he was past it, then why is it that he's made just 1 HC slam quarter across 10 years of playing inc. his prime or so, and yet Nadal with nearly half the playing career has made 4xQF, 3xSF, 1xF and 2 Wins? Because the field now is so much weaker than Luber's halcyon years of 04-07? Yes Federer was mopping up 04-07 (hardly surprising is it) but that still left all the SFs and QFs to go after. The truth is there was no consistency across that time period...just Federer, the rest of SFs/QFs were spread all over the place. And yet even then Luber could barely make it onto the QF podium across his whole career.

Oh hang on, we're comparing slam results again across overlapping careers...how silly. Lets go back to comparing ralley speeds as that might show these 2006 players (who are still playing in 2011) in a better light...what next, how fast they tie their shoe laces?

Lydian Spot on

Must have been because they kept meeting players who could beat them.

Wow, sounds like one Hell of a strong period.

Still, now we have a period where there's no competition, which makes it really strong.

That is the logic, right?

Don't worry bb you'll understand one day.

Hey, we haven't even touched on how the top ten is full of 30 year olds and similar, leftovers from the weak era. And there isn't any talent under 24 anywhere to be seen.

But it's such a strong era isn't it?

The top 10 aren't full of 30 year old

Federer, Ferrer, Fish: that's 1/3rd.

And most aren't under 24 because of WHAT??? Because they.. aren't?

This is getting surreal.

3/10 = 1/3 Really?

Of course some eras can be weaker and some can also be stronger. For example if all the current players withdrew for one year and a bunch of beginners from N.Korea played for the duration of 2012- we can safely say that 2011 would be a stronger year than 2012. However the ranking points would add up to the same amount- the level of play would just be lower.
Of course I am not saying 2006 was just played by a bunch of amateurs but I am pointing out that one year can be 'weaker' than another.

Its actually 2/10 (Ferrer is 29)
And Fish is a late bloomer, hardly a carryover from 2005/6.

The level of physical conditioning these days makes it hard for young players to break through and survive the grind of the tour at the top.

But this isnt unusual, Henman and Agassi for example were playing into their 30s in the top 10. Think Moya and Stepanek were 30+ and near top 10 too.

Is that what happened when Safin and Hewitt (North Koreans) showed up while Sampras, et al, were withdrawing. But Agassi continued....

I didn't say they were N.Koreans- I was just illustrating my point that some eras can be stronger than others.

There are Tomic, Dimitrov, Raonic, Harrison on the horizon. Will it make 2011 weak for them?

None of them will even get Top 5 next year IMHO

amritia3ee wrote:I didn't say they were N.Koreans- I was just illustrating my point that some eras can be stronger than others.

Can you please define all the 'era's? Let us start with 2000 and go up to 2011.

amritia3ee wrote:None of them will even get Top 5 next year IMHO

So?

And you might argue that if true talent was still able to shine through at 30 yrs old in this current era, i.e. because this era was weaker allowing them so, then why are the 2006 top10 stalwarts Robredo, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ljubicic and Blake currently nowhere near the top 10 - and many of them havent been for ages?

Well in the example I was talking about one specific year. Also in the article Tenez is directly comparing 2006 to 2011. So let's just stick with that for now.

lydian wrote:And you might argue that if true talent was still able to shine through at 30 yrs old in this current era, i.e. because this era was weaker allowing them so, then why are the 2006 top10 stalwarts Robredo, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ljubicic and Blake currently nowhere near the top 10 - and many of them havent been for ages?

The change in colour of the court has been a big factor.

Look Tenez is the one who started the 'this era is better than that era' thing- why don't you ask him some of the questions you are asking me Laverfan.

I think Lydian is right here- and its not just her who believes so. Many top players including Federer say that competition is higher than it has ever been since he was playing, and 100 of journalists have make articles stating how the level is the highest its been for a while. They do know something right?

lydian wrote:And you might argue that if true talent was still able to shine through at 30 yrs old in this current era, i.e. because this era was weaker allowing them so, then why are the 2006 top10 stalwarts Robredo, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ljubicic and Blake currently nowhere near the top 10 - and many of them havent been for ages?

Let us be careful...

Nalbandian, Hewitt have been plagued by injuries...

You forgot Roddick....

Ljubicic is still playing. Blake would never have come back from a broken back, but is courageous enough to compete.

Robredo beat Murray in Hopman Cup, IIRC.

Each player has a progression as you point out, so we should not box them into specific years.

amritia3ee wrote:I think Lydian is right here- and its not just her who believes so. Many top players including Federer say that competition is higher than it has ever been since he was playing, and 100 of journalists have make articles stating how the level is the highest its been for a while. They do know something right?

It will always be. Natural progression. A 5ft 8in Laver winning four slams vs. average of 6ft 1in players, with 6ft 5in - 6ft 10in players.

Competition being stiffer is not the same as previous years being 'weak'.

There were 6ft 3in players in 1962-69 as well.

It might not be weak but it is 'weaker.' quite a bit weaker actually.

I chose my words carefully laverfan.
Nalbandian hasnt been top 10 since 2008, injury or no injury.
Likewise Hewitt hasnt been top 10 since 2005
I didnt include Roddick as he's the only to have continued making an impact, although his influence is waning by the month since the last slam final appearance in 2009.
I dont see the relevance of the Blake point, he broke his neck in 2004. His best years were after that but he hasnt been top10 since 2008.
Robredo is languishing in the 50s and barely made an impact all year, he was in the 50s in 2010 also, hasnt been top10 since 2007.

Yes they all progress and dip through careers, this is normal. However, some on here are holding up Ljubicic's win against Nadal in 2010 and the presence of other 30 yr olds in the top 10 as validation of the strength of the prime era from which these players came, i.e. 04-07 period. My point is that most of those players from that period are not faring well now even though they are no older than the examples given...even younger in some cases.

The 90s and 00s have both been dominated by #1 players who are 6'1' tall. We're yet to see a long-term #1 above 6'1'/6'2'.

Lydian....

Nalbandian was as close as #14 in 2009.
Hewitt had stayed in Top 30 till almost the end of 2008.
Davydenko is another missing player in your list.
In Blake's case, the game had almost passed him by in his best years. 2009 is when he was finally out of Top 25.
Ferrero this year did much better than Robredo.

lydian wrote:However, some on here are holding up Ljubicic's win against Nadal in 2010 and the presence of other 30 yr olds in the top 10 as validation of the strength of the prime era from which these players came, i.e. 04-07 period.

Ferrer (#14 in 2006) is still around, but Melzer is not. Gasquet is still hanging around. Lopez is around in Top 20.

Looby is used as a yardstick to prove the weakness of 2006, so he gets dragged into such discussions, so does Blake.

No one mentions Davydenko, Roddick, Ferrer, Lopez, etc.

lydian wrote:My point is that most of those players from that period are not faring well now even though they are no older than the examples given...even younger in some cases.

That feeds into the argument that such players grew up in a 'less' physical environment than say 2011. Hence they are not faring well. The whole 'era'ization (if there is such a word... ) is used as a convenience by journalists to make their respective points.

Respective players' fans use it as a 'greatness' yardstick.

Ask any of the current players to play on polished wood, and they will have broken hips and knees in fifteen minutes or less.

bogbrush wrote:The bit I find funny is that if there was an era with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg and Connors all together and if they all stopped each other from winning more than one Slam every few years, and making not many semis, there are clowns on here who would proclaim that a weak era based on nobody making many semis.

They can't seem to grasp how illogical their position is. It's weird.

I don't follow your logic. If we had such an era, the quality would be obvious, because we'd have say a McEnroe, with his 'hands', struggling to be in the Top 5

Aren't you making an argument for the current quality - where Tsonga, barely gets a look in at the Top 4?

Surfaces make a difference, but as far as I can see we've got at least three players in the Top 4 plus Tsonga with skills / application that on a par with some of those mentioned above. Can we really say that about the players of 2006 - other than Federer.

Hence, whilst the slow surfaces are frustrating - it's irrelevant to Tenez's simplistic discussion

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The bit I find funny is that if there was an era with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg and Connors all together and if they all stopped each other from winning more than one Slam every few years, and making not many semis, there are clowns on here who would proclaim that a weak era based on nobody making many semis.

They can't seem to grasp how illogical their position is. It's weird.

I don't follow your logic. If we had such an era, the quality would be obvious, because we'd have say a McEnroe, with his 'hands', struggling to be in the Top 5

The logic is that would we not recognise McEnroe as a great player precisely because he would be struggling to win slams and get in the top 5. He would simply be an 'also-ran' with good hands.
Additionally, the slams would be shared out, and they would be all dismissed as one/two slams wonders, in the way that people readily dismiss Safin, Hewitt, Roddick.
Whereas if Fed had stopped playing tennis at age 18, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick would all have won 3, 4, 5 slams, maybe more and we would be hailing them as greats. Despite their level of tennis being no better or worse than it was in reality.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:And you might argue that if true talent was still able to shine through at 30 yrs old in this current era, i.e. because this era was weaker allowing them so, then why are the 2006 top10 stalwarts Robredo, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ljubicic and Blake currently nowhere near the top 10 - and many of them havent been for ages?

Let us be careful...

Nalbandian, Hewitt have been plagued by injuries...

You forgot Roddick....

Ljubicic is still playing. Blake would never have come back from a broken back, but is courageous enough to compete.

Robredo beat Murray in Hopman Cup, IIRC.

Each player has a progression as you point out, so we should not box them into specific years.

Roddick is the coup de grace. A contender in 2006, even taking into account his recent injuries, now gets outplayed anytime any of the Top 8 play half decent Tennis against him. Moreover, this has been occurring for at least a couple of years.

So Roddick world No.1 in 2003, who certainly relies on fitness (indeed he almost had me giving up on Tennis at thought of an era dominated by him) fades to a mere Top 5 place by the end of 2006. Supporting the argument that 2006 was certainly better than 2003.

But, if it's all about fitness levels and strength - why hasn't Roddick won more than one Masters and have only reached the stages of a Slam SF (or beyond) twice, since 2006? Particularly given his record beforehand

Wasn't 2005-2010 the poorest clay era we have ever had? Nadal had no competition and the sole competition he had came from a carpet specialist beating Nadal on his own garden in 2009, and the other who managed to win a FO was a grass specialist.

Now we have another HC specialist Djoko finally coming of age hammering what some thoughts a year ago was the greatest clay courter of all time.

Now it's clear It was a bloody long weak clay era.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The bit I find funny is that if there was an era with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg and Connors all together and if they all stopped each other from winning more than one Slam every few years, and making not many semis, there are clowns on here who would proclaim that a weak era based on nobody making many semis.

They can't seem to grasp how illogical their position is. It's weird.

I don't follow your logic. If we had such an era, the quality would be obvious, because we'd have say a McEnroe, with his 'hands', struggling to be in the Top 5

The logic is that would we not recognise McEnroe as a great player precisely because he would be struggling to win slams and get in the top 5. He would simply be an 'also-ran' with good hands.
Additionally, the slams would be shared out, and they would be all dismissed as one/two slams wonders, in the way that people readily dismiss Safin, Hewitt, Roddick.
Whereas if Fed had stopped playing tennis at age 18, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick would all have won 3, 4, 5 slams, maybe more and we would be hailing them as greats. Despite their level of tennis being no better or worse than it was in reality.

I agree entirely

But then the logic supports the 2011 argument. Sensible people will argue that Murray and indeed Nole, would have more Slams if it wasn't for Federer and Nadal, i.e. the current strength in depth, makes it extremely difficult for a Tsonga to break through

This is the argument. Put the current Tsonga, who certainly isn't a fitness freak, in 2006 and surely most logical people would say he would have had a far better chance to win a Slam

Very good points JHM!

The most relevant point about this discussion is about Pete's career.

14 slams on fast surfaces
0 slams on slow clay. Worse not even close! only one semi.

How lucky Sampras did not play in such a slow and physical era. He may have been another Ljubo.

They are brushing aside the effect of court pace as not that relevant when it's everything! We woudl be talking about Bruguera in terms of greatness if the 90s were slow and not a word about Pete. And frankly there is not much difference in style between Bruguera and Nadal. The former did not have the chance to play with light racquest, spinny strings and when his knees went he did not get PRP cause at that time it wasn't around. That's the difference essentially with the diet advances of course!

Bruguera as good as he was on clay did not achieve anything on fast surfaces.

Well if you put the likes of McEnroes,Nadql,Federer, Sampras,Edberg,Connors,Agassi,Lendl,Borg etc in one era, they will simply just share slams and each will have what their talent and consistency deserve. No one player will dominate as others will be too good and competition would be stiff. How i wish for that. No clowns like Baghdatis,Gonzales,Roddick bersmirchingthe good name of tennis and reaching slams. Wonder who Federer will beat should he be lucky to even make a final jn such era

Banbro - The fact, I repeat, is that Murray can get away on those slow surfaces playing soft sliced BH and reach the final of slams. In the past, even in 2006 no player would go far with shots like that as federer and Blake would have killed them. Is that what you call a great player? Cause he has build himself the legs to retrieve almost any ball at the cost of being the most injured player on the tour?

Is that what you call talent? Do you realise that Murray and Djoko at the AO played very slowly. I am happy to do a comparison later on this same surface but i doubt the game woudl be played as slow between Djoko and Federer on that very surface.

That's my problem calling this era the stonges, even stronger. Cause shot making wise it's pretty poor if anything. Well it's great physical shot making (retrieving and pulling winner in the trameline thanks abs and legs not seen in 2004) but it terms of generating pace and accuracy effortlessly....not great at all.

The logic also supports the 2006 argument - or the argument for any year.
Which is why myself, BB, laverfan, Tenez and others (I hope I can speak for those I've named) - 'sensible people' if you will, tend to dismiss the idea of 'weak' and 'strong' eras. Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone claim that 2011 is 'weak', merely that there is no significant difference between this and other years.

What I find disappointing (or 'not sensible') is that people argue that a week, a month, or even a year is an 'era', or that 2003-2007 is a 'weak' era, but starting in Jan 2008 it's a 'strong' one, and that eras have arbitrary start and end dates depening on the player you're trying to bash (or the player you're trying to big-up.). The idea that this is impartial tennis analysis and not in fact, childishness and/or rabid fandom, is laughable.

With Tsonga, you're possibly right in that he would have a better chance, because of the faster conditions - now try putting the current Ferrer in 2006. But Tsonga would still have lost to Fed and then be dismissed as part of a 'weak' era by some - 'All Fed had to do in 2006 was beat no-slam wonder Tsonga'.

Laverfan, please dissect my words but you're missing the point. I was responding to BB saying the current top 10 is "full" of 30 years olds. It isnt and those guys who were around 24-26 year old around 2006 arent all faring that great in this current time period even though they're not that old considering Federer can physically maintain his near peak around 30 and push for the slams. The others of his age really arent doing that at all. I agree arguing eras is a waste of time and lord knows I've wrote enough threads about it inc. "GOTEs vs GOATs" on 606.

All we can do is judge players within their own time period (whatever that may approximate to be). But in my opinion, guys like Blake and Luber are overrated even in 05/06 - because I still believe slam performance is the best test of where players are in relative terms against each other in overall 'greatness' terms and they achieved little in slams. And many of the early 80s born guys who were doing well in 06 have fallen away in terms of achievement since Nadal/Nole/Murray/Berdych/Delpo/Soderling, et al, have arrived on the scene. The overall results show that.

lydian wrote:
All we can do is judge players within their own time period (whatever that may approximate to be). But in my opinion, guys like Blake and Luber are overrated even in 05/06

If they are over-rated. What about players who were beating them on those fast surfaces? What about the players who could not even beat a seed on fast surfaces. What about this very player that got bagelled by a 30 yo as soon the game was played on a low bounce surface last month?

You can see on the 2006 clip, Blake has no choice but take the ball early and try to force the mistake. No player standing back had a glimpse of a chance to win a match against those guys. Stepping back 1 meter or 3 like Nadal does on return and you were history. It would mean having to cover ground at an amazing pace. Those key shots that Nadal wins by bringing an impossible ball back woudl not simply not brought back. Federer's BH on those surface was really hurting as the clip shows. What was the score in Shanghai between Federer and Nadal? 64 61! Blake does a better job in the US 06. Guys like Blake Roddick and Ljubo (though this latter never had the lungs to last 5 sets) were the one givig Federer the toughest time. Teh balls were going too fast for Nadal to inject his spin. He was still good enough to win FO and reaching WImby final but like Pete on clay or Wilander on grass rather no chance to compete. Blake was better than Nadal. End of story.

Remember! the USO in the 90s was certainly never called a fast surface but a good compromise between clay and grass.

Tenez wrote:Banbro - The fact, I repeat, is that Murray can get away on those slow surfaces playing soft sliced BH and reach the final of slams. In the past, even in 2006 no player would go far with shots like that as federer and Blake would have killed them. Is that what you call a great player? Cause he has build himself the legs to retrieve almost any ball at the cost of being the most injured player on the tour?

Is that what you call talent? Do you realise that Murray and Djoko at the AO played very slowly. I am happy to do a comparison later on this same surface but i doubt the game woudl be played as slow between Djoko and Federer on that very surface.

That's my problem calling this era the stonges, even stronger. Cause shot making wise it's pretty poor if anything. Well it's great physical shot making (retrieving and pulling winner in the trameline thanks abs and legs not seen in 2004) but it terms of generating pace and accuracy effortlessly....not great at all.

You're constant knocking of Murray and Nole, undermines any argument you may have. Murray in particular, is at his best on fast courts. Or hard courts where the conditons are consistent, i.e. indoors. Go away and look at his record. With the, admittedley significant, omission of Paris - he's won all the Hard Court Masters, except Indy, arguably the slowest. Certainly Cincy isn't slow and he's won that event twice

I'm happy with your disquiet about the slowing of the courts. But believe me this doesn't help Murray. A 'refex' type player like him likes the ball fast and high as it plays into his quick hands. Slower courts amke him more vulnerable to longer matches and negates a lot of his skill shot, i.e. the slice shot becomes more redundant

And if "federer and Blake would have killed" Murray in 2006, why did Murray beat Federer at Cincy?

Come to think about it, how is an 19 year old fitness freak beating a GOAT on what you think is his worst surface? Or was Cincy playing like Monte Carlo in 2006?

I'm sure you'll have a carefully thought out answer