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.

Tenez - the best players adapt to the times. Sampras started off with a DHBH, then played a more baseline game in the early 90s, as the 90s progressed he reverted to a more S&V style to capitalise on the quick conditions. You cannot compare a guy with 14 slams to Luber, a guy who barely reached a slam Quarter across his whole career...thats laughable. Sampras also won Rome Masters. His physique and poor recovery powers due to genetic thalassemia werent suited to the French Open. The year he got to the semis (beating Courier in 5 sets in the quarters - Courier was good on clay remember), he had nothing left against Kafelnikov, a guy he wiped the floor with normally - and had he met Stich in the final I dont doubt he would have won. But thats by the by. He and Luber are in different tennis planets and trying to compare them makes your argument look laughable. You seem to forget one important factor about Luber...he couldnt move! And if anything on fast surfaces the guys need to still move rapidy as they have less time. For example, Goran was a much better athlete than Luber ever was. Ivan looked wooden alot of the time and was vulnerable to being pulled outwide. Yes he could hit a nice flat shot when his feet were planted but his achilles heel was actually his heels! Blake was quick, nice FH but had a dodgy BH and dodgy mentality.

Bruguera was good on clay but nowhere else. He got to 4 hardcourt final only and 3 of those were very small events. Nadal has reached 24 HC finals - many of them major. And you cannot even compare Sergei's clay record to Nadal's either, it pales into insignificance. Nadal has shown genuine allround ability...e.g. winning Queens, beating Federer at Miami as a 17 yr old at Miami which looked a quick enough surface to me, beating Luber in 2005 on indoor hard. Your attempt to paint the guy as another Bruguera is laughable. Talent is talent...in any time period...and I remember all the commentators announcing Nadal as a major tennis talent in 2003 when he first appeared. They saw the potential, and he's fulfilled that. Nadal has won too many events across a whole spectrum of styles/surfaces, across a large period of time to be dismissed so easily.

Just because you dont like Sampras or Nadal (or Murray or Nole, or anyone who isnt called Federer), you continually try to paint them as some type of journeymen players comparable to Luber or Bruguera.
You then try to foist onto us that Blake and Luber are great players...so on the one hand you talk down obviously great great players but on the other seem to want to upgrade non-slam, or otherwise, achievers. What tennis planet are you living on Tenez? Keep digging, this is very amusing stuff..."The World According To Tenez".

The colour of the court was too blue/green that day you see.
*the day Federer lost to Nadal on the extremely fast courts that were Miami

[quote="Tenez"]

lydian wrote:

Guys like Blake Roddick and Ljubo (though this latter never had the lungs to last 5 sets) were the one give Federer the toughest time.

Yeah! Whatever Tenez. I suppose their combined 1-19 winning record, by the end of 2006, was giving Fed a "tough" time

I'm loathe to slate any era, but the more Tenez 'talks' the more ridiculous the defence of 2006 looks

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Guys like Blake Roddick and Ljubo (though this latter never had the lungs to last 5 sets) were the one give Federer the toughest time.

Yeah! Whatever Tenez. I suppose their combined 1-19 winning record, by the end of 2006, was giving Fed a "tough" time

I'm loathe to slate any era, but the more Tenez 'talks' the more ridiculous the defence of 2006 looks

That's how weak the era was 1-19=tough time.
It's no coincidence that as soon as better players such as Nadal, Murray Djokovic came in Federer started to do worse. And as much as his fans blame the colour/pace/cloud cover you have to remember Federer has a negative H2H against both Murray and Nadal.

Tenez wants us all to believe, that Fed's relative failures (note I'd still take his record during the last two years and give it to Murray!!) are due to the super strength and fitness of Rafa "Terminator" Nadal, Novak "The muscles not from brussels" Djokovic and Andy "Mr Universe" Murray, i.e. the Swiss kings skills get swatted by these brutes

But, so we are led to believe, there was this skillful sublime Tennis and hence Fed flowered

The fact that Andy and Rafa were beating Roger in 2006 and Novak was taking sets of him - is irrelevant of course

lydian wrote:Tenez - the best players adapt to the times.

You mean like Pete on clay!

Be serious Lydian! Pete and that Rome masters is a joke and you know it. He played Doesedel in the semi and Becker in the final....you know Becker, that other player that never won a single title on clay (not even a 250) but so many on fast surfaces.

That's why you cannot be taken seriously, cause all your points fall dead flat when considered one by one.

And please stop this excuse of Pete having thalassemia. Pete won so many 5 setters that your argument doesn't make sense. Dolgo has also a similar conds an plays in the most physical era.

Regarding Bruguera....that's my very point, at that time if you were a clay court specialist like Nadal is, there was no room for you outside. And Wilander never adapted to fast grass. At least he adapted to fast USO...whihc clearly was not the case of Nadal until the game can be played at 20% slower rate!!!!!!!!

What is my liking of Nadal or Pete got to do there? I am only providing tangible facts you can verify by yourself. You have such a fan approach that you think I am as polarised as you are. I am not. I am explaining how the game moved. Yes, I am not a fan of physical tennis but I accept it is what players need to be successful and just hilighting that skills needed on fast conds were very different.

.

banbrotam wrote:Tenez wants us all to believe, that Fed's relative failures (note I'd still take his record during the last two years and give it to Murray!!) are due to the super strength and fitness of Rafa "Terminator" Nadal, Novak "The muscles not from brussels" Djokovic and Andy "Mr Universe" Murray, i.e. the Swiss kings skills get swatted by these brutes

Oh dear and Banbro is the only tennis fan on the planet that thinks "the super strength and fitness of Rafa "Terminator" Nadal, Novak "The muscles not from brussels" Djokovic and Andy "Mr Universe" Murray, don't play a role in the outcome of a match despite killing those very players for the remaining months of the year.

When will you learn a thing or 2 Banbro about tennis?

Lets look at some facts:
-Federer did far better in 2006 than in 2011
-Federer's only losses came to Djokovic and Nadal- a few against top 10 Berdych and Tsonga- and one blip against Melzer.

-Federer himself said that he has improved since 2006.
-One thing is for sure- as shown in the O2 his shotmaking is still there- the only problem is now he is older he can't replicate it for 5 sets.
-So let's just consider 3 set matches. Even here he did not win one till Basel-a tournament with similar competition as in 2006. If he had faced Blake/Ljubicic rather than Nadal/Djokovic (irrelevant of court speed) would he have had more success? Of course.

-Lastly Federer himself as said that the level of play his currently higher than it has been throughout his career?

Of course as usual, Tenez has no answer to my fact based argument.
Edit: If Tenez doesn't answer my above post ^^ it shows has nothing to say against my argument.

Lol i like how the delusion Tenez is dodging Banbrotam's rather damaging comment pointing out, rather shrewdly how 19 year old Murray or was it 18 duly thrashed Federer in straight sets at Cincy. Funnily enough, Federer's hard court loses under the fantasy fast conditions of 2006 came at the hands of Nadal and Murray.

For those who do not want to get it...

The facts are:

- You can nowadays win the USO playing at a roughly 20% slower pace between 2 shots.
- That the time allowed between points is constantly stretched over the rule not by 2 or 5 seconds but by 15 to 30s...more than double.
- playing 290 points in 2011 takes 1h 45mn more than it did in 2006!!!!!!!!!!! That is a staggering 65% more time.
- We will never know whether those guys could win playing within the rule.

...and that is terrible thinking of it.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol i like how the delusion Tenez is dodging Banbrotam's rather damaging comment pointing out, rather shrewdly how 19 year old Murray or was it 18 duly thrashed Federer in straight sets at Cincy. Funnily enough, Federer's hard court loses under the fantasy fast conditions of 2006 came at the hands of Nadal and Murray.

He also claimed that Fed's toughest time came against Blake, Roddick, Ljubo even though the H2H is 19-1. I mean the 2 wins you pointed out there on fast hardcourt were all 2006 and before- just those 2 matches already beat the efforts of Blake, Ljubo and Roddick

Tenez wrote:For those who do not want to get it...

The facts are:

- You can nowadays win the USO playing at a roughly 20% slower pace between 2 shots.
- That the time allowed between points is constantly stretched over the rule not by 2 or 5 seconds but by 15 to 30s...more than double.
- playing 290 points in 2011 takes 1h 45mn more than it did in 2006!!!!!!!!!!!
- We will never know whether those guys could win playing withing the rule.

...and that is terrible thinking of it.

LOL so I wan't on you 'foes' list after all. Or did you just unfoe me. Or is it just a coincidence that your 'facts' based comment was similar to mine.


Was this 'rule' applied in Miami 2004 and Cincy 2006 on fast hardcourts where Nadal and Murray all respectively racked up more wins than Ljubo/Blake/Roddick did during their whole career against Federer.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Tenez wants us all to believe, that Fed's relative failures (note I'd still take his record during the last two years and give it to Murray!!) are due to the super strength and fitness of Rafa "Terminator" Nadal, Novak "The muscles not from brussels" Djokovic and Andy "Mr Universe" Murray, i.e. the Swiss kings skills get swatted by these brutes

Oh dear and Banbro is the only tennis fan on the planet that thinks "the super strength and fitness of Rafa "Terminator" Nadal, Novak "The muscles not from brussels" Djokovic and Andy "Mr Universe" Murray, don't play a role in the outcome of a match despite killing those very players for the remaining months of the year.

When will you learn a thing or 2 Banbro about tennis?

Never said that fitness doesn't play a role, of course it does. Fed was busy bragging to everyone at the O2 how he stays fit all year - or does he not count?

Making fitness the only reason for their success, whilst ignoring your man's equally as important great fitness record - is why people think that you do know about Tennis, but choose to use this knowledge to castigate a great trio of players

More contradictions, from Tenez

Tenez, I've dropped you a pm. Dont worry, it's not bad.

banbrotam wrote:Making fitness the only reason for their success, whilst ignoring your man's equally as important great fitness record - is why people think that you do know about Tennis, but choose to use this knowledge to castigate a great trio of players

Honestly, what a poor argument again Banbro. You recognise that fitness plays a role but you don't think that it is that important?

What do you think is the difference between Nadal kicking Murray's bum in the last 3 slams and Murray bagelling Nadal a few weeks later in Japan? Or even Nadal losing v Mayer in Shanghai?

Please explain! Maybe I am missing something

Explain this Tenez:
Nadal and Murray beat Fed in Miami 2004 and Cincy 2006 respectively where the court was extremely 'fast' (or were these exceptions LOL) and thus amassed more wins against Federer in these 2 matches alone than Ljubo, Blake, and Roddick had amassed during their whole career.

I’ve been following tennis intensively for 25 years now, and what always fascinated me most were the rivalries between players with different styles/tactics: McEnroe-Borg, Becker/Edberg-Lendl, Sampras-Agassi, Federer-Nadal. Usually one player attacking and coming to the net a lot, and another one trying to win the points from the back of the court.

Unfortunately the former playing style is gradually disappearing as the chances of winning that way are slim nowadays. Opponents are so fit they can keep running and retrieving and simply wait for mistakes. Rather than compensating this trend by speeding up the game (modifying court surface, racket/strings or balls), things have developed in the opposite direction, making things worse for the ‘attacking players’.

Federer has extended his stay at the top of the game by adapting his style, playing now mostly from the back of the court. But he’s an exception. I’m pretty sure that Mac, Becker, Edberg and even Sampras would have great difficulty winning Slams nowadays. That’s not because they aren’t good enough for today’s great “era”, but because conditions are unfavorable to them. Note that I’m not arguing that players like Nadal and Djokovic are worse than the above-mentioned players, but I would find it much less interesting to watch tennis if guys like these play all the Slam finals. We already have Roland Garros and all the clay Masters events to prove who is the fittest and the best ‘grinder’, it would be such a shame if the entire season becomes like this.

Very good post PS85!

As Agassi said a few months ago...it's a different ball game nowadays. And what people will one day realise is how talented Federer has been to adapt his game to the slower and newer style.

Tenez, no-one is holding Pete up to be an excellent claycourter but YOU are the guy comparing Ljubicic to him. Ridiculous. Remember Sampras throwing up in sheer exhaustion against Corretja in 1995 at US Open, was only a 4hr match. Did you never wonder why he threw up? His fitness was a very real issue - and the man says so himself, or is he a liar now and you know better?

Then you talk about a medical condition you know nothing about, and dismiss it like you dismiss other serious points. Have you ACTUALLY read what Dolgo says about having the similar condition Pete had?

Here's a snippet for you:
What kind of a man does it take to receive a kick second serve at ad-in (after multiple deuces) from the No. 12 player in the world and No. 10 seed at this U.S. Open and return it with a drop shot, the way Alexandr Dolgopolov did while facing David Ferrer here today? Well, a brave one. Or maybe an incredibly gifted one. Or someone who's just plain dumb. Then again, maybe it takes a guy who's feeling so ill he knows he can't string together more than two or three shots without feeling dizzy and incapacitated—a guy who's had a rare blood disorder from birth, one which is sometimes activated when he crosses a string of time zones and usually winds up forcing him to take intravenous medication and pills, and demands a severe change of diet (eliminating fried foods, salt and gassy beverages, among other things) coupled with a few weeks of utter rest.

Dolgo..."I have this problem from birth—some blood problems. Sometimes, I don't feel so well, especially when I change time zones a lot: Australia, Europe to the U.S. . . That's why I don't like to fly. Sometimes it affects my game, and I just have to deal with it. I couldn't have the usual [medical] treatment before the U.S. Open Series because I played Umag and then had just five days before I came to the U.S. They do intravenous blood stuff. They just put some medicine in, and I have to take some pills and change my diet, take some time [two weeks] off. I don't really want to say a lot. . . I just have it. It affects my stomach. I feel ill all the time. I don't want to eat. So for four tournaments now, I couldn't play my game. In Cincinnati, I felt a lot better. I was more consistent in my game. Here in New York, I didn't even practice before the tournament. I practiced today for 20 minutes, just to hit the ball. I'm feeling really bad. So today I risked what I could, got a few games, but pretty well that was the maximum of what I can do. I couldn't run. I couldnt serve. I was feeling dizzy. I just had to go for it because the more I played the worse I felt. So I just play like I could, and with David [Ferrer] you have to play really soild, because he's running so good, and he's getting all the balls back. I couldn't let him play a lot. I felt badly for the guy. I reminded him he still managed to pull an impressive number of rabbits out of his hat. Well, it's my style, too. I don't wait for the other guys. I don't run like crazy on the baseline. I like to play a lot of risk—attacking tennis, serving fast, going to net, drop shots. . .And now, with my health, I don't have a choice. I can't imagine running and working out points."

And you dont think this similar condition affected Sampras on clay? Or in longer matches, or travelling long distances - ever wonder why he didnt go to Australia much? Or why he had to revert to a more S&V style as he got older, or couldnt practice as much as he got older, or recovered poorly between matches, especially late nighters at USO...??? And you dismiss is so easily despite the very guy saying so that you give an example of?

A hematologist said this of Sampras in 1996:
For the supremely talented Pete Sampras, it is unlikely that any opponent will prove as much of a challenge as thalassemia. It has been learned that Sampras has an inherited condition that is almost certainly thalassemia, a congenital form of anemia common among people in the Meditteranean. Sampras's mother, Georgia, was born in Greece, and his father, Sam, is of Greek ancestry. Having that thalassemia means the 25-year old Sampras has a low count of hemoglobin, which carries oxygen in red blood cells. "It's a mild to moderate anemia and you lead a normal life with no reduction in life expectancy," Toronto hematologist Dr. George Kutas explained.
"A weekend hacker probably wouldn't even notice it. There haven't been many world-class athletes with thalassemia, so there's no literature
available on the subject. We don't have studies to prove it, but due to
the limited oxygen-carrying capacity, an athlete might get to the point where he could no longer increase his cardiovascular output because of a limited number of red blood cells. That would impair the extra effort required at that top level of sport."
Inhaling oxygen, as is done in some sports, notably football, would not be a solution for Sampras. "That probably wouldn't help," Kutas said, "because there's nothing wrong with the red blood cells carrying the oxygen, it's just that he's not making enough hemoglobin."
What advice would Kutas have for Sampras? "It's obvious that in a long
match he gets into more trouble," he said. "One minute he's hunched over leaning on his racquet [as against Alex Corretja in a memorable match at the U.S. Open] and then the next he's serving an ace at 110 miles an hour. I'd basically tell him only to push himself to a certain point."
Should Sampras be watching what he eats? "There's nothing he can really do in terms of diet," Kutas said, "because it's a condition you have from birth-actually it's often misdiagnosed as a lack of iron."
As for the effects on Sampras's career, it's clear that he will continue to have problems when he gets involved in long, exhausting matches. But especially at tournaments such as Wimbledon where the points are over quickly, he should be able to perform well and possibly add to his impressive total of eight Grand Slam wins. If Sampras admits to having thalassemia [which he did a year after this article in 1997], it would help silence critics who have interpreted his frequent physical breakdowns as being the result of poor preparation and conditioning.

Another article finished: "an average couch potato would usually not even be aware of having this form of anemia. But when a world-class athlete pushes himself to the limit in hot weather or long matches, it can sap his resistance. And I need not catalogue the periodic collapses by Sampras in such conditions. One wonders whether the effects of Pete's anemia will be more apparent from now to the end of his career. I admit this is sheer speculation. But it is no secret that as athletes approach 30 years of age -- Sampras is 26 -- they no longer possess the physical resistance they once did. And so it proved...


You dismiss both Dolgo and Sampras without knowing the underlying facts about their conditions. This is all just another reason to support that you tend to state alot of rarified nonsense on here that casual observers may buy but not those that know the game. The problem is that your arguments are so tainted by your inherent hate of Nadal or anyone else who can be judged against Federer that you cant even see it anymore. I have debunked just about any facts you have spouted on this forum...including the fallacy of Nadal playing quicker at Miami 2004 than he does today. Remember when I went through every single point, and you were proved wrong? Or that Nadal only beat Federer in long matches due to lungs, and I debunked that by showing you all the spread of 2/3/4/5 set wins? etc, etc.
You love to state grandiose statements on here with spurious "facts" to back them up to support a bias you already hold. You see I think Federer is a great player, its obvious, I dont deny it - even though I think the players of 2006 werent that great. But you deny Nadal is a great player, and wil go to any length to show otherwise! The problem is that 99% of people disgaree with you. You seem perenially stuck in denial - and that denial is making you look silly with the constant arguments thrown up to make Federer look better and all his true opponents look worse.

So you're now with this thread even trying to big up Luber and Blake to make his peak year achievements of 05/06/07 look better...whats the problem, is this all a freudian slip that you're actually worried his opponents werent that strong during that period so you feel you need to 'big' them up? Its so obvious what you're doing with all this...and yet its us who are all wrong! The Dolgo thing has just sunk you once again...you see the guy is struggling to physically compete in this era, just as Sampras so often struggled to compete physically in his....you never wondered a guy of his ability struggled as he did on clay...? Or that pushing himself to a rdiculous end to beat Courier in 5 sets killed him for the next match? Go on Tenez, keep living in denial, its an easier way to judge the tennis world right?

lydian wrote:Tenez, no-one is holding Pete up to be an excellent claycourter but YOU are the guy comparing Ljubicic to him.

Exactly! They are very comparable on clay. We cannot compare them on 90s fast surface cause though Ljubo developed his game on those fast surface, he never quite got the chance to play on them. The closest to fast was maybe Madrid where he was steamrolling Nadal until the crowd blew the roof off and Nadal's superior physique paid off after 5 sets!!!. Pete never played in today's physical tennis. SO we never know how he woudl have done. What we know is that on slow court he did not do well. Of course I see Pete as having stronger mental strength than Ljubo but when it comes to playing against each other, what do we know the outcome would be? Did you know that Agassi v Ljubo is 2 all in their H2H? Do you know if Pete would have been able to reach FO semi in 2006 like Ljubo did? Federer prevented Pete to win another slam and prevented Agassi to win a couple more at least.Fed prevented Roddick and Hewitt to win many more. Federer prevented Nalbandian and Davydenko to win some slams as well maybe.

Federer pushed the game to higher spheres in 2003-2007 than Nadal ever did in 2008 or even 2010. That's what history will remember. And when I say higher spheres for Nadal, read physical spheres....not obvious about talent wise as he managed to slow the game down by 20%.

Tenez, I read your reply and all I hear is Federer....Federer....Federer....Federer

Yes lets compare the aging Agassi, and end of road Sampras to the young Luber and young Federer hey? You seem to keep digging further...now you're telling me that not only was Luber probably the equal of Sampras but now Agassi with his 6 HC slams. Remind me again, against these two guys with 22 slams and countless other slam and ATP achievements what excatly did Luber achieve in the game? Because even if he was born in the wrong era then surely his talent would have achieved something across all the surfaces at his disposal across the 00s? Oh I forgot a couple of quarters and a semi...how did I ever overlook this gargantuan of tennis???

Who cares that Nadal plays slower, the game is more physical than the 90s due to slower conditions (and remember I timed him point for point at the same speed in 2004 Miami vs 2011 Canada Masters). I guess slower conditions are Nadal's fault too hey? Unless you're saying that the current focus on physicality is down to Nadal in which case he may have had a longer lasting impact on tennis than Federer however you deem that to be...ironic hey?

Superb logic and analysis from Lydian, you're teaching Tenez a lesson here.
Edit: He still hasn't explained how a young Nadal beat Federer in fast-hardcourt-Miami 2004 or how Murray beat him in Cincy 2006.

You see you keep throwing number of slams are you sole argument.

If Agassi was so much better than ljubo how come at his peak (yes at the time he was accumulating slams) he lost v young Ljubo? His slams did not help him then, did they?

This discussion is not about number of slams, it's about surfaces and match up. Calling Ljubo a weak player makes me laugh cause at 31, moving like a tree, lessoned Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine if he had their legs and lungs.

Hello



I have been away for a few weeks and I see that in my absence anarchy has descended.

amritia3ee wrote:Tenez has now resorted talking b*llocks. His only hope is if his number 1 suck up Mr. Double Standards Bogbrush comes to help him out.

Amritia, clearly respectful and reasonable debate is not your forte. In the space of a week you have managed to drag the forum into the canyons of ignominy.

With regards to the debate itself, I think Tenez makes a fair point, essentially that the conditions of today are more conducive to the fitter, grinding players on tour. Players that learned to play the game in a different era under different conditions (courts, balls, strings, more emphasis today on longer and physical rallies) will naturally struggle in the current climate. By this token, the game itself has indeed changed and like Tenez points out, slightly different skillsets are required to win today compared to 2006. Thus any attempt to denigrate eras is inherently misplaced.

It is to Federer's immense credit that at the age of 30 he is still the main obstacle that a slam winner has to go through in order to win the title.



emancipator - may the serve be with you.

I am simply.. the.. emancipator.

Allow me to guide you to the light.

Tenez wrote:You see you keep throwing number of slams are you sole argument.

If Agassi was so much better than ljubo how come at his peak (yes at the time he was accumulating slams) he lost v young Ljubo? His slams did not help him then, did they?

This discussion is not about number of slams, it's about surfaces and match up. Calling Ljubo a weak player makes me laugh cause at 31, moving like a tree, lessoned Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine if he had their legs and lungs.

Tenez, stop focusing on single matches will you. And you have the temerity to accuse me of short-sightedness at looking at slam records which is at least broader than looking at single matches. Do you draw scientific charts with 1 or 2 points on them to make a trend?

Stop trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear with Ljubicic...you're flogging a dead horse. You're making yourself look ridicolous pushing Luber and Blake like this vs Agassi and Sampras. If you took Luber back to the 90s he'd be a kind of Todd Martin...big serve, flat shots, but not a great mover...and Martin didnt achieve that much either (although more than Luber). You see when you look at all the greats of the game down the years they all have 2 things in common...great movement (its why all the #1s have been around 6'1' tall give or take an inch) and a strong mindset. Ljubicic wasnt great at either was he.

Amritia's point:
"Nadal and Murray beat Fed in Miami 2004 and Cincy 2006 respectively where the court was extremely 'fast' (or were these exceptions LOL) and thus amassed more wins against Federer in these 2 matches alone than Ljubo, Blake, and Roddick had amassed during their whole career."
I have to say is a very interesting one.

But the fact remains that you are being very rude to Tenez to the point of insults and hassling him. You really need to stop that in my opinion. It's no wonder he doesn't respond to your admittedly good point if you can't be more civilised in debate.

Henman Bill wrote:Amritia's point:
"Nadal and Murray beat Fed in Miami 2004 and Cincy 2006 respectively where the court was extremely 'fast' (or were these exceptions LOL) and thus amassed more wins against Federer in these 2 matches alone than Ljubo, Blake, and Roddick had amassed during their whole career."
I have to say is a very interesting one.

But the fact remains that you are being very rude to Tenez to the point of insults and hassling him. You really need to stop that in my opinion. It's no wonder he doesn't respond to your admittedly good point if you can't be more civilised in debate.

He called me 'armpit' lol. He should call me 'amritia' in future.

emancipator wrote:I am simply.. the.. emancipator.

Allow me to guide you to the light.

I shall indeed oh emancipator, oh

Henman Bill wrote:
But the fact remains that you are being very rude to Tenez to the point of insults and hassling him. You really need to stop that in my opinion. It's no wonder he doesn't respond to your admittedly good point if you can't be more civilised in debate.

Firstly he should learn I am amritia not 'armpit' as he calls me.
And starting up sarcastic 'Welcome back Nadal fans' articles doesn't help either.

Then can we draw a line over what has been said, and start again if everyone agrees to stop the digs and debates in an adult manner?

Yes sure

But can you tell him to stop calling me armpit- that would help thanks

Henman Bill wrote:Amritia's point:
"Nadal and Murray beat Fed in Miami 2004 and Cincy 2006 respectively where the court was extremely 'fast' (or were these exceptions LOL) and thus amassed more wins against Federer in these 2 matches alone than Ljubo, Blake, and Roddick had amassed during their whole career."
I have to say is a very interesting one.

If you look at the details, you may know that in 2004, Federer had just won IW while Nadal had lost v Callieri. A week later Federer seems to have caught a flu and has a very tough 3 setter v Davydenko the number 54 in the world (at the time). Nadal beats him but then loses convincingly to Gonzo a round or 2 later. I cannot think Gonzo had special weapons Fed did not have to beat Nadal.

Well the first loss of Federer to Murray is very similar except that I don;t think fed was sick on this one. He just wanted to save energy as again he had just won Montreal convincingly and hada very tough 3 setter in his 1st round of Cincy where Shri even served for the match. Clearly Fed wanted to pull out and said after his match, Shri should have won but as he coudl not close the match I closed it. Fed went on to win the USO with Nadal and Murray nowhere to be seen in the final stages.

I apologise for my slightly angry behaviour and I admit I may have slightly overreacted after Tenez called me 'armpit.'
However as Henman Bill points out- my point still stands.
How did Nadal beat Federer in Miami 2004 on a fast hardcourt. And Murray beat Fed in Cincy 2006 for that matter. How is it that just these 2 wins, all before 2007, account for more wins that Ljubicic, Roddick and Blake have accumulated over Federer.

lydian wrote:Tenez, stop focusing on single matches will you. .

I wish you were a bit more. That's what tennis is all about.

But Amritia you don't have to look that far back to 2004 when much of the debate is on 2006 to find Nadal beating Federer on the hard courts. He had a routine victory against Federer in Dubai that 2006 as well.
May be the arabs were blowing sand into Federer's eyes throughout the match so i guess the result was irrelevant.

Not sure if this is 606v1 or 606v2.

Actually, a good response from Tenez. I was aware of some of that detail but not all of it. But.. it does seem rather convenient that Nadal and Murray happened to catch Federer on an off day or a tanking data or a tired day where players like Blake and Ljubicic and many others apparently never did!

Amritia I didn't see Tenez call you armpit but overall he is normally a very civilised poster and I've seen you Amritia use more insults in three days than I've seen Tevez use in three years. Anyway not trying to take sides as I more in the middle, but let's all try and be more civilised.

laverfan wrote:Not sure if this is 606v1 or 606v2.

Well I have apologised for my overreaction to the name-calling, not sure if Tenez has done the same.

Anyway back on topic; are we blaming Federer's 2004 loss on 'injury.' And Murray 2006 on 'tanking.' Quite convenient that, isn't it.
And what happened in Dubai 2006?

Nice to see you are active here amritia - this is what the forum needs especially fans of Rafa who were driven away sadly, most of them never to return

However you and catalan sorry simple A have livened it up with your excellent tennis knowledge

sportslover wrote:Nice to see you are active here amritia - this is what the forum needs especially fans of Rafa who were driven away sadly, most of them never to return

However you and catalan sorry simple A have livened it up with your excellent tennis knowledge

Thankyou sportslover.
Even though I am a massive massive Nadal fan I still have great respect for his rivals such as Federer.

Fedal debates are so passe.

Shows lack of creativity and debating, IMVHO, on 606v2 and points to stagnation.

Must be a weak era of posters on 606v2.

Dolgopolov is a wonderful player, hope his medical conditions do not negatively impact his slam aspirations.

amritia3ee wrote:

sportslover wrote:Nice to see you are active here amritia - this is what the forum needs especially fans of Rafa who were driven away sadly, most of them never to return

However you and catalan sorry simple A have livened it up with your excellent tennis knowledge

Thankyou sportslover.
Even though I am a massive massive Nadal fan I still have great respect for his rivals such as Federer.

Very nice to see a poll incorporating such high moral standards. https://www.606v2.com/t20641p100-2006-vs-2011-which-era-top-4-was-better

laverfan wrote:Fedal debates are so passe.

Shows lack of creativity and debating, IMVHO, on 606v2 and points to stagnation.

Must be a weak era of posters on 606v2.

Dolgopolov is a wonderful player, hope his medical conditions do not negatively impact his slam aspirations.

For the record I don't think I ever called 2006 a 'weak era' but a 'weaker era.' These sentiments have also been echoed by Federer, you can't blame me for agreeing with him.

Laverfan, stick to your only use: Googling statistical data for the board.

laverfan wrote:

Very nice to see a poll incorporating such high moral standards. https://www.606v2.com/t20641p100-2006-vs-2011-which-era-top-4-was-better

Never in the poll do I mention anything negative about Federer. I just point out Murray and Federer are better than Ljubicic and Roddick respectively... I hope you did not take any offence by that claim.

amritia3ee wrote:

sportslover wrote:Nice to see you are active here amritia - this is what the forum needs especially fans of Rafa who were driven away sadly, most of them never to return

However you and catalan sorry simple A have livened it up with your excellent tennis knowledge

Thankyou sportslover.
Even though I am a massive massive Nadal fan I still have great respect for his rivals such as Federer.

I think on the whole most of us do however it is sometimes off -putting by comments made by some of the over exuberant fans who only see the world through rose tinted glasses!

sportslover wrote:
I think on the whole most of us do however it is sometimes off -putting by comments made by some of the over exuberant fans who only see the world through rose tinted glasses!

Spot on

Simple_Analyst wrote:But Amritia you don't have to look that far back to 2004 when much of the debate is on 2006 to find Nadal beating Federer on the hard courts. He had a routine victory against Federer in Dubai that 2006 as well.
May be the arabs were blowing sand into Federer's eyes throughout the match so i guess the result was irrelevant.

Superb analysis