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.

lydian wrote:Thanks for making the judgement invisible. Nice of you...and I'm supposed to say what back?
I note you never comment negatively on anything Tenez ever says.
We're all entitled to opinions...if you dont agree then comment otherwise, but leave your judgements about me to yourself please.

Well well nobody agree with what everything Tenez says, I dont agree Nadal lacks skills, I dont agree Federer was better now than in his prime, i have wrote comments on his threads too, but atleast he is a meaningful poster and don't come here with the intention of irritating fellow posters.

NITB a nole fan is a good friend of Tenez, I am neither a Fed or Rafa fan , like his view points.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but trying overdo or shout the same message hundred times doesn't make it a fact, which is what happening in v2 right now.

to be fair coolers, that's not lydian doing that.

bogbrush wrote:to be fair coolers, that's not lydian doing that.

I know BB, thats what i mentioned in my earlier comment.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

bogbrush wrote:to be fair coolers, that's not lydian doing that.

I know BB, thats what i mentioned in my earlier comment.

Ok, hopefully one poster will have athink about what I put near the bottom of the last page.

Tenez, you're trying to equate (to use your phrase) Sampras and Federer's ends of career here when in reality they were very different. I do believe that Federer is a better tennis player now (and by that I mean an overall tennis player) but he was quicker back in 2006 for sure but the gap is less than it was for Sampras. Sampras declined alot after 2000, yes new opposition was coming through and I did not expect him to keep on winning ad infinitum, but some of his losses were woeful. I repeat again...Kafelnikov in 2001 made it public that Sampras should retire due to the "embarassing losses". Rusedski said Pete was noticeably slower. I dont hear players saying this of Federer now do you?

Yes, the game evolves but some players evolve with it. Federer is doing a great job of doing that...and he's fit, motivated and healthy. Sampras wasnt - and the gap with new players coming through was all the more exacerbated. Sure he could string the odd good win, talent is talent, but he was getting caught out badly, very often. US'02 was an anomaly, an almighty last push for greatness as he knew his time was finally up. Had he been that motivated the previous 2 years he could have achieved more surely, but he didnt...for all the reasons I have outlined. Sometimes you need to look at some of the softer reasons that affect players careers, not just how the game evolves, and players always getting better with age. Many dont, or rather they go back at the same time the game goes forward. I'm happy to be very objective about Sampras, and IMHO he was a washed up player after winning SW19 2000...he didnt have any motivation left (slam record was broken by that 2000 win), had got married, was hardly practicing and his thalassemia was dogging him more and more. These are not made up facts.

Against that Lydian we've had;

* Federers increasing incidence of back troubles (Wimby 2010, WTF 2009)
* He got married too, plus had kids
* GF Year, which included a loss to Blake at Olympics in Summer 2008 (the same time you often describe him as "peak" Federer for reasons I wonder why), a loss to Roddick (nuff said) and other crap
* loads of losses to people he would have previously dumped on

I do believe that when it's all in a row and he's fit and fresh Federer can play at a higher leve;l (despite the half step loss) but those days are rare now because he just can't keep it all together especially through a long event.

That makes him worse in my book. Similar process maybe to Pete, at least in effect.

I've always said Fed's peak years are 04-07...slams results show that.
However, he was still a force in 2008 at SW19.
Lets not get into comparing EBV virus with thalassemia, they're completely different. One is a life-long disorder, the other isnt. Federer' blood was virus free after 3 weeks (by mid/late-Feb '08) - the medical records that Federer discussed revealed that, and I know we've argued about this before. Ongoing issues with EBV are associated with the virus still being present in the blood (as per Ancic and Soderling).

We cant just list factors for 2 players and assume they have the same impact on each. I firmly believe that Pete's medical disorder is the primary reason for the rather rapid decline (as I see it) after summer 2000. An article I posted earlier written when Pete was 25/26 was saying the disorder would affect him badly by 30...and so it proved!
There are some parallels between Fed and Pete, and had Pete not had the condition I think he would have had a better end to his career that Federer is having (ok he's not won a slam since AO10 but he's been very unlucky at USO for example the past 2 years).

Exactly BB , but these people just don't understand and its useless conveying it again n again.

invisible, are you going to contribute something useful or just keep sniping from the cheap seats?

lydian wrote:Tenez, you're trying to equate (to use your phrase) Sampras and Federer's ends of career here when in reality they were very different. I do believe that Federer is a better tennis player now (and by that I mean an overall tennis player) but he was quicker back in 2006 for sure but the gap is less than is was for Sampras. Sampras declined alot after 2000, yes new opposition was coming through and I did not expect him to keep on winning ad infinitum, but some of his losses were woeful. I repeat again...Kafelnikov in 2001 made it public that Sampras should retire due to the "embarassing losses". Rusedski said Pete was noticeably slower. I dont here players saying this of Federer now do you?

Yes, the game evolves but some players evolve with it. Federer is doing a great job of doing that...and he's fit, motivated and healthy. Sampras wasnt - and the gap with new players coming through was all the more exacerbated. Sure he could string the odd good win, talent is talent, but he was getting caught out badly, very often. US'02 was an anomaly, an almighty last push for greatness as he knew his time was finally up. Had he been that motivated the previous 2 years he could have achieved more surely, but he didnt...for all the reasons I have outlined. Sometimes you need to look at some of the softer reasons that affect players careers, not just how the game evolves, and players always getting better with age. Many dont, or rather they go back at the same time the game goes forward. I'm happy to be very objective about Sampras, and IMHO he was a washed up player after winning SW19 2000...he didnt have any motivation left (slam record was broken by that 2000 win), had got married, was hardly practicing and his thalassemia was dogging him more and more. These are not made up facts.

Ok you are muddying the waters further by saying that some can play their best at 30 but others at 30 had decline long ago. The fact it's much tougher physically nowadays would actually affect Federer much more than it woudl have Sampras. Also the famous argument about losing some pace on the court is very convenient for some cause of course noone can prove that actually. Are we supposed to notice a player losing pace on the court when frankly no one here coudl with the naked eye notice a 5 hundredth of a second difference over a 5 meters run, if that! But of course, throwing one is slower or faster is so easy cause noone can argue against that.

The fact is the game moves on, and the players at the top are pushed out by better or stronger players. It happened to them all. And as the game becomes more competitive, the difference between the top 20 is smaller now than then.

Regarding the summer of 2008;

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=B676

That on it's own settles it for me. If you really believe peak Federer loses that match, then I have to say I can't advance the argument any further.

So basically Tenez, you're ignoring the thalassemia issue.
This is not a convenient argument but a very valid comment...you're also ignoring that players who competed against Sampras regularly could see the marked decline in him with their own eyes.
Who better to judge? Why would Kafelnikov say he should retire?
I dont hear players openly saying similar about Federer.
Yes the game moves on...and so should this discussion, lets move on. You and I both know we'll never agree anyway.

lydian wrote:So basically Tenez, you're ignoring the thalassemia issue.
.

Yes. I certainly am. He won 14 slams with it, winning many 5 setters.

lydian wrote:
Who better to judge? Why would Kafelnikov say he should retire?

Exactly. Glad Pete did not listen to Kafel, he would be on 13 slams.

It might settle it for you but not me.

1. Federer played a bad match (his FH and serve were off), it happens
2. Blake played the match of his life, it happens.
3. The major problem with your argument is that Federer comes back 11 DAYS later at USO and goes on to win the title. Didnt seem to be much wrong with his form and fitness shortly after the Olympics did there?
4. Nadal was already getting to SW19 finals in 06 (4 sets) and 07 (5 sets)...and getting closer and closer to him. 2008 was a logical progression, plus Nadal was on fire in 2008 as FO showed a couple of weeks before. Federer lost that match fair and square with EBV a thing of the past. He was virus free in February, it was a very mild infection he had. He played Nadal at Wimbledon 5 months later...and had been playing fine in the run-up with no difference than 2007 - indeed Fed's results after AO08 to FO08 were actually better than his results from 2007.

lydian wrote:invisible, are you going to contribute something useful or just keep sniping from the cheap seats?

Well i could contribute something useful on useful topics and replies, not on yours, people her know who takes cheap seats and cheap supports to launch an attack on fellow posters. Do you really do anything other than complaining and mourning on everybodies view point? you along with some fellow posters ruined the reputation of board so badly.

I have explained your baised theory wrong, according to you Sampras wasnt good enough at his 30's where as Federer is better than his prime at 30's , to negate your argument I quoted something Sampras said about his game himself and you won't agree to it either. Having opinion is ok, but silly baised opinion is foolish. If you don't like Federer thats fine, you dont have to target him and gangup on his fans.

Tenez wrote:Yes. I certainly am. He won 14 slams with it, winning many 5 setters.

Then you didnt read the articles I posted where the haematologist said the condition was the reason why he struggled in long matches. And he won 14 slams DESPITE it.
...he missed many AOs because he didnt want to travel and risk flare-ups.
...in many 5 setters he was simply exhausted, even throwing up, it was his mental (not physical) strength and serve that got him through
...for me its the primary reason he wasnt great on clay, he just didnt have the stamina to last long ralleys or ability to recover between gruelling matches...after all in the mid90s his groundstrokes were actually pretty good inc. best FH in the game at the time and his BH was solid. His clay record is a clear anomaly given his obvious talent - thalassemia was the reason.

invisiblecoolers wrote:people her know who takes cheap seats and cheap supports to launch an attack on fellow posters. Do you really do anything other than complaining and mourning on everybodies view point? you along with some fellow posters ruined the reputation of board so badly

Launch an attack on fellow posters??? yeah right...pray tell?
Ruined the reputation of the board so badly??? yeah right...pray tell?

Get a grip, your response on here and other threads regarding me is completey OTT

JuliusHMarx wrote:… but mathematically, you can't take the points Tenez produced and arrive at the results you did - it's just mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid.

I did and I can and it is mathematically correct. I merely took the OP’s data and assumptions and mathematically aligned them to the overall match data. In fact I haven’t needed to go beyond the mathematics. However, some beyond “maths” points have now been raised by others, e.g. Henman Bill and Lydian, but you can read them for yourself above.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The points chosen can by representative of the match in terms of the time per 'court length travelled', but not, of course, in terms of the average number of strokes per rally … (… you need to provide evidence) …

I used the OPs data and assumptions to negate the OPs conclusion. Consequently, I don’t need to provide any further evidence as au contraire it is up to the one making the claim to provide the further evidence. To elaborate, the OPer needs to provide the evidence to show that

a) the 4 pts chosen for the Nadal v Djoko USO 11 match is representative “speed wise” of the 268 pts played
b) the 7 pts chosen for the Federer v Blake USO 06 match is representative “speed wise” of the 291 pts played.

However, it is in fact possible to reanalyse those 4+7 points given in the OP on their own, in a less simplistic manner to show an interesting consistency that doesn’t require any difference of condition at all between 2006 and 2011 (in support of Lydians view). I wonder if anyone can spot what I mean, it should take only a cursory glance at the original data ...

… but surely this is all boring stuff? The general discussion has got so much more interesting with all the rough and tumble . But this it seems has spilt over onto the rest of the 606 v2 tennis forum and sadly some subsequent moderation has led to a few casualties within the 606 v2 tennis family .

At this point it is well to reveal another pertinent statistic; the period leading up to Christmas Day is a peak time for relationship break ups ... http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/845918-facebook-break-up-chart-shows-that-christmas-is-a-relationship-killer

... and with that I bid thee all a Merry Christmas

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes. I certainly am. He won 14 slams with it, winning many 5 setters.

Then you didnt read the articles I posted where the haematologist said the condition was the reason why he struggled in long matches. And he won 14 slams DESPITE it.

Should I believe the Dr or the stats? Pete has one of the best record in 5 setters. He is the 3rd all time great in 5 setters won! Outlasting everybody of his generation bar Lendl..despite outlasting Lendl in a 5 setter at 20 at teh USO 90! Do you remember what Courier said a few times? "he pukes, he cries on the court but he still sends accurate missiles". Federer on the other hand has one of the worst record.

The reason he was not great on clay is much simpler. His serve which helped him win 14 slams on fast surfaces was not giving him as many free points on clay. It's as simple as that.

Are you saying that without his blood conditions he would have won 28 slams? A real fan you are.

Nore Staat wrote: I used the OPs data and assumptions to negate the OPs conclusion.

You certainly used them and abused them even, so much that I don't even recognise my poor data you are talking about.

Nevermind. Merry Xmas.

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:… but mathematically, you can't take the points Tenez produced and arrive at the results you did - it's just mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid.

I did and I can and it is mathematically correct.

Except that it ain't and all the finger wagging in world doesn't change the laws of mathematics. I agree that it may be a bit of a side issue to the main point, but if you're going to use maths to make a point, it's fairly important to get the maths right.

invisiblecoolers wrote:I have explained your baised theory wrong, according to you Sampras wasnt good enough at his 30's where as Federer is better than his prime at 30's , to negate your argument I quoted something Sampras said about his game himself and you won't agree to it either. Having opinion is ok, but silly baised opinion is foolish. If you don't like Federer thats fine, you dont have to target him and gangup on his fans.

I honestly like my discussions with Lydians. Unlile SA and Amri he is trying hard and willing to discuss. However I agree with you that he is biased. Very biased in fact. He appears as "fair minded" in his discussions but I can tell you that arguing with him for a few years, there is not a piece of single data he provided that did not help Federer winning his slams and not a piece of data that helped Nadal and Peter win theirs.

As we can read here being 30 helps Federer but not Pete. But it's not all according to Lydian
- Slow grass and slow courts helped Federer win his slams. Faster conds would have seen him struggle more.
- Wimby 2001 was slow grass of course helping Fed over Pete (despite having a goran Patrick final)
- Pete had declined in Wimby 01 more than Fed was further from his peak.
- 2003-2007 was a weak era filled with names we can laugh about
- Federer is more physical than Nadal (yep! it's there too)
- Federer is beaten nowadays by better players, Pete was declining and no way would he lose v those new players if in form.
- The best of Fed is not better than teh best of Nadal and Djoko on HC.
- Fed's mono is a myth. Well certainly after the AO08.
etc...etc..

Lydian honestly says he doesn't like very much Federer but recognises his great talent to set the tone as a fair poster but I'll challenge anyone and him, even, to provide a piece of text from him where parameters have not helped Federer in his slams quest.

When not discussing Federer directly his views are very good and balanced I have to add.

lydian wrote:It might settle it for you but not me.

1. Federer played a bad match (his FH and serve were off), it happens2. Blake played the match of his life, it happens.
3. The major problem with your argument is that Federer comes back 11 DAYS later at USO and goes on to win the title. Didnt seem to be much wrong with his form and fitness shortly after the Olympics did there?
4. Nadal was already getting to SW19 finals in 06 (4 sets) and 07 (5 sets)...and getting closer and closer to him. 2008 was a logical progression, plus Nadal was on fire in 2008 as FO showed a couple of weeks before. Federer lost that match fair and square with EBV a thing of the past. He was virus free in February, it was a very mild infection he had. He played Nadal at Wimbledon 5 months later...and had been playing fine in the run-up with no difference than 2007 - indeed Fed's results after AO08 to FO08 were actually better than his results from 2007.

Nope, not against Jimmy Blake it doesn't. Federers year was wiped by that bout, he couldn't do his usual training preparation for one.

And Fed struggled through that USO, barely shaving past Andreev and he was happy to play a frozen Murray in the final.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Er, Nore, you've used the total match time, but then extrapolated from the small sample of points Tenez provided, to the whole match. I.e. you've assumed d) as the average rally length of the whole match, which isn't correct.
Which kind of completely invalidates you're whole assumption.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your figures.

The irony of course is that you point out the issue with this one, but forget to point out that Tenez has tried to extrapolate his small sample to a whole year.

Tenez wrote: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!!!

This is wrong. Which kind of completely invalidates his whole assumption, doesn't it?

Which in turn is probably the whole point of NS's post - to prove how utterly ludicrous the idea of using a small sample to define court speeds for an entire year is.

Courts are slower now.

Is anyone disputing this?

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Er, Nore, you've used the total match time, but then extrapolated from the small sample of points Tenez provided, to the whole match. I.e. you've assumed d) as the average rally length of the whole match, which isn't correct.
Which kind of completely invalidates you're whole assumption.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your figures.

The irony of course is that you point out the issue with this one, but forget to point out that Tenez has tried to extrapolate his small sample to a whole year.

I think quite a few people had already, quite rightly, pointed that out. I mentioned it also, in passing, but felt that others had already made that point very well.

bogbrush wrote:Courts are slower now.

Is anyone disputing this?

Depends, as that's probably a winner for the 'vague statement of the year' award.

Assuming you mean that courts on the ATP tour are in general slower than they were in the past, then it depends for me. Slower than 2006? No. Slower than 2000? Of course they are. Or so I think.

My assumption, like everyone elses, is based purely on opinion. There could have been a gradual slowdown for decades, it could suddenly have whittled down from fast to slow in one year. Personally I think the Wimbledon grass change kicked off a complete change in mentality resulting in a sharp slowdown. You know, for all we think they may never have slowed down at all. But I could be wrong. I could also be right.

But trying to prove this statistically with a sample so miniscule is absolutely 100% incorrect and inaccurate. Of course, if Tenez comes back with data collected from all rallies for all, or even the majority of the matches on those surfaces suspected of slowdown and bases his opinion on that, then I'd say his proof would be pretty solid. Doing that though may take some time.

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:It might settle it for you but not me.

1. Federer played a bad match (his FH and serve were off), it happens2. Blake played the match of his life, it happens.
3. The major problem with your argument is that Federer comes back 11 DAYS later at USO and goes on to win the title. Didnt seem to be much wrong with his form and fitness shortly after the Olympics did there?
4. Nadal was already getting to SW19 finals in 06 (4 sets) and 07 (5 sets)...and getting closer and closer to him. 2008 was a logical progression, plus Nadal was on fire in 2008 as FO showed a couple of weeks before. Federer lost that match fair and square with EBV a thing of the past. He was virus free in February, it was a very mild infection he had. He played Nadal at Wimbledon 5 months later...and had been playing fine in the run-up with no difference than 2007 - indeed Fed's results after AO08 to FO08 were actually better than his results from 2007.

Nope, not against Jimmy Blake it doesn't. Federers year was wiped by that bout, he couldn't do his usual training preparation for one.

And Fed struggled through that USO, barely shaving past Andreev and he was happy to play a frozen Murray in the final.

Losing to Karlo, Fish for the first time that summer losing to Stepanek for the first time to since 2002!!!

Those losses versus Karlo, Fish and Blake for the first time are very telling about the problem that was affecting Federer. GF is known to slow down your reflexes. But the funny thing is that this effect is felt on some days more than others. You could see he was playing ok some days and suddenly it looked too fast for him. Federer hardly ever lost sets to Karlo and if anything has had few TBs against him cause he has been able to reurn his serve very well when healthy. But again on Summer 08, it;s too fast for Fed, he simply is slower reacting.

There are too many strange results that summer, in particular versus fast players requiring quick anticipation.

But once again, does Lydian wish to acknowledge it, like everybody else does? I doubt it.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:
This is wrong. Which kind of completely invalidates his whole assumption, doesn't it?

It's not wrong! I am not going to work out every match of 2006 and 2011. I am working on stats and all those stats on more than one match now shows that the rhythm of play was faster in 2006. But more importantly there was no slow play in finals of USO like you have now. Nadal's slow retrieving game was NOT successful at that time. You can see that if you really want to see it.

Telling me I need to work out every match of 2006 just shows how reluctant some of you are to accept what everybody sees quite clearly.

It's your turn to prove me wrong. It's easy. Show us a physical player winning the USO by retrieving up to 2007.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Doing that though may take some time.

Luckily for you!

For the 1000s time, my main point is not to prove that the courts were faster but that play at the later stages of a tournament was played at a faster rhythm cause that were the successful styles!

Unless you are in denial you cannot accept that simple fact.
clocking Clement versus Santoro at the USO 06 might give us a slower rate of course!!! But those guys where nowhere to be seen in the finals. That is the very point so no need to check how fast the game was played in the earlier rounds. Goran v Becker in the first round at the FO might give you wrong idea of how fast those courts were playing. However if both reach the final, then it gives you a bit more clue.

There is nothing wrong or irrational in those basic stats I have exposed. There is indeed a chance that the very random rallies I chose were not representative of the whole match....yes...I admit to that.....but only a biased person looking at the rest of the video could say that the stats do not reflect my very point.

Your choice.

Summer 2008

Beaten finalist in the FO to Nadal (a tournament he hadn't won before)

Beaten finalist Nadal at Wimbledon (a great 5 setter which either player could have won)

Winner at USO.

Hardly a bad run for someone still meant to be suffering a virus. Federer obviously had a lot of good days as opposed to bad. Don't you think his other losses were more to to do the fact it was an Olympic year and he was prioritising that and the slams.

Tenez wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Doing that though may take some time.

Luckily for you!

For the 1000s time, my main point is not to prove that the courts were faster but that play at the later stages of a tournament was played at a faster rhythm cause that were the successful styles!

Unless you are in denial you cannot accept that simple fact.
clocking Clement versus Santoro at the USO 06 might give us a slower rate of course!!! But those guys where nowhere to be seen in the finals. That is the very point so no need to check how fast the game was played in the earlier rounds. Goran v Becker in the first round at the FO might give you wrong idea of how fast those courts were playing. However if both reach the final, then it gives you a bit more clue.

There is nothing wrong or irrational in those basic stats I have exposed. There is indeed a chance that the very random rallies I chose were not representative of the whole match....yes...I admit to that.....but only a biased person looking at the rest of the video could say that the stats do not reflect my very point.

Your choice.

Despite your waffling, the point remains - your stats prove pretty much nothing in respect to comparing speeds of rallies e.t.c. over the years, which is what you were claiming. The round's you've picked make absolutely no difference - the sample is still far too small for it to be considered accurate for anything other than, at the most generous, 2 or 3 games. If I picked 4 rallies that were over in 3 shots from Wilmbledon 2011 and 4 rallies that lasted 8 shots in 1965 then naturally I could make a ludicrous claim. Compared over the course of matches where the vast majority of rallies were picked up the truth would soon emerge. It's not an effort I would ever expect anyone to make, as ultimately it's not worth the effort just for a few points on a forum, is it?

So therefore without the backing of any valid statistics, like everyone else, it's just your opinion, which for all you are entitled to it, you seem to fail to accept that despite what you think, it carries no more weight about it than anyone elses. Yapping on about 'you're biased!' and 'you're delusional!' never has, and never will add weight to your arguments.

That's all there is to it for me really; I needn't argue the toss of the coin on a matter that has been debated many, many times before.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Courts are slower now.

Is anyone disputing this?

Depends, as that's probably a winner for the 'vague statement of the year' award.

Assuming you mean that courts on the ATP tour are in general slower than they were in the past, then it depends for me. Slower than 2006? No. Slower than 2000? Of course they are. Or so I think.

My assumption, like everyone elses, is based purely on opinion. There could have been a gradual slowdown for decades, it could suddenly have whittled down from fast to slow in one year. Personally I think the Wimbledon grass change kicked off a complete change in mentality resulting in a sharp slowdown. You know, for all we think they may never have slowed down at all. But I could be wrong. I could also be right.

But trying to prove this statistically with a sample so miniscule is absolutely 100% incorrect and inaccurate. Of course, if Tenez comes back with data collected from all rallies for all, or even the majority of the matches on those surfaces suspected of slowdown and bases his opinion on that, then I'd say his proof would be pretty solid. Doing that though may take some time.

I reckon it was pretty specific, and I think the process isn't over. Look at Paris this year, they were playing on soup and even the Sky commentating team were talking about how bad it was - they said you couldn't see on TV just how much the surface made a mess of the balls and fluffed them up inside a couple of games to slow right down.

The USO organisers had to go into detail about how the court was so slow - they tried to say it was all about bad weather stopping them being smoothed out or something but nothing appeared to change. What is certain is that they openly talked about the courts being slower this year.

The only thing that speeded up was the balls at RG, which is the one place I'd rather they didn't!!

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Despite your waffling, the point remains - your stats prove pretty much nothing in respect to comparing speeds of rallies e.t.c. over the years, which is what you were claiming. The round's you've picked make absolutely no difference - the sample is still far too small for it to be considered accurate for anything other than, at the most generous, 2 or 3 games. If I picked 4 rallies that were over in 3 shots from Wilmbledon 2011 and 4 rallies that lasted 8 shots in 1965 then naturally I could make a ludicrous claim. Compared over the course of matches where the vast majority of rallies were picked up the truth would soon emerge. It's not an effort I would ever expect anyone to make, as ultimately it's not worth the effort just for a few points on a forum, is it?

So therefore without the backing of any valid statistics, like everyone else, it's just your opinion, which for all you are entitled to it, you seem to fail to accept that despite what you think, it carries no more weight about it than anyone elses. Yapping on about 'you're biased!' and 'you're delusional!' never has, and never will add weight to your arguments.

That's all there is to it for me really; I needn't argue the toss of the coin on a matter that has been debated many, many times before.

Clearly in denial! In short you are saying that Pete and Goran reaching Wimbledon's finals and those 2 never reaching the FO final has nothing to do with pace of court AND their style.

You are right! No point discussing further cause you don't want to see it.

Many open minded posters have seen the point.

I wonder SS, when you see HE stats on the screen do you reject them straight away cause they are not a representation of the whole year for all players?

Tenez wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Despite your waffling, the point remains - your stats prove pretty much nothing in respect to comparing speeds of rallies e.t.c. over the years, which is what you were claiming. The round's you've picked make absolutely no difference - the sample is still far too small for it to be considered accurate for anything other than, at the most generous, 2 or 3 games. If I picked 4 rallies that were over in 3 shots from Wilmbledon 2011 and 4 rallies that lasted 8 shots in 1965 then naturally I could make a ludicrous claim. Compared over the course of matches where the vast majority of rallies were picked up the truth would soon emerge. It's not an effort I would ever expect anyone to make, as ultimately it's not worth the effort just for a few points on a forum, is it?

So therefore without the backing of any valid statistics, like everyone else, it's just your opinion, which for all you are entitled to it, you seem to fail to accept that despite what you think, it carries no more weight about it than anyone elses. Yapping on about 'you're biased!' and 'you're delusional!' never has, and never will add weight to your arguments.

That's all there is to it for me really; I needn't argue the toss of the coin on a matter that has been debated many, many times before.

Clearly in denial! In short you are saying that Pete and Goran reaching Wimbledon's finals and those 2 never reaching the FO final has nothing to do with pace of court AND they style.

You are right! No point discussing further cause you don't want to see it.

Many open minded posters have seen the point.

Well I was fully expecting the usual 'in denial!' response Tenez, but i'm amazed that you've elaborated on that with an argument on two players who as far as i'm concerned, i've never discussed.

My main argument was to do with the validity of your statistics, which as it stands bear no accuracy in relation to your point, which of course presents the conclusion that this topic is based on opinion, not fact. It may well be an accurate opinion, it may well not be - no-one on here has any statistics to actually confirm their arguments on this matter as fact, so people should stop pretending they do.

If you want my opinion on the court speeds, I replied to bogbrush a while back and it should be up the page somewhere.

Tenez wrote:I wonder SS, when you see HE stats on the screen do you reject them straight away cause they are not a representation of the whole year for all players?

You'll have to help me on this one - what are 'HE' stats?

Tenez wrote:

Many open minded posters have seen the point.

If by open minded posters you mean your fans then yes, they have all seen your 'point.'

The fact of the matter is your whole point is garbage- even if the courts were slower why would that 'debunk' this era. Federer himself has said the competition is now tougher then ever- along with practically all the commentators. Just because the surface has got faster/slower doesn't improve the level of play or 'debunk' any era as you have put it.

The funny thing is people are criticising me for trying to bring up the 'era' theory and discrediting the likes of Ljubicic in 2006; when you yourself put up this thread first trying to criticise this current era/year. Of course god knows how you think watching a few points on youtube a taking a note of how many seconds a few rallies take, somehow reflects the whole year in anyway. What's even more interesting is that you are criticising this era due to some fascination with some court speeds being more valid than another.

What's even more comical is that Feds fans are complaining that I am bias just because I put up a poll, while this article is just a clear dig at the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. What you are trying to say is that the only reason these 3 are doing well is because the courts are so slow that the fact that they have no talent but are very athletic hands them victory.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:My main argument was to do with the validity of your statistics, which as it stands bear no accuracy in relation to your point, which of course presents the conclusion that this topic is based on opinion, not fact. It may well be an accurate opinion, it may well not be - no-one on here has any statistics to actually confirm their arguments on this matter as fact, so people should stop pretending they do.

If you want my opinion on the court speeds, I replied to bogbrush a while back and it should be up the page somewhere.

Those stats do not pretend to be accurate as I see no point of them being more accurate, it would take lots more time for a negligeable result. They are however a reflection of the game played then and now and funnily enough confirms everything we observe. Including the fact that the same number of points is played in 65% more time (unless you deny this stat as well). That is what samples are for though time per point is not a sample but the summary of the whole match in that case.

I could add to my samples the USO finals between Agassi and Federer or Federer Roddick to add to my point but I feel I don't need to cause again only those who do not want to see it won't see it.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

Tenez wrote:I wonder SS, when you see HE stats on the screen do you reject them straight away cause they are not a representation of the whole year for all players?

You'll have to help me on this one - what are 'HE' stats?

Hawk Eye, the electronic stats you get to see on TV between games.

Tenez wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

Tenez wrote:I wonder SS, when you see HE stats on the screen do you reject them straight away cause they are not a representation of the whole year for all players?

You'll have to help me on this one - what are 'HE' stats?

Hawk Eye, the electronic stats you get to see on TV between games.

Again i'm slightly confused. I apologise but this may need spelling out for me.

When you say Hawykeye stats, are you referring to hawkeye decisions as in 'was the ball in/out?' or are we referring to things like the diagram that shows how where each serve landed e.t.c.?

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

Tenez wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

Tenez wrote:I wonder SS, when you see HE stats on the screen do you reject them straight away cause they are not a representation of the whole year for all players?

You'll have to help me on this one - what are 'HE' stats?

Hawk Eye, the electronic stats you get to see on TV between games.

Again i'm slightly confused. I apologise but this may need spelling out for me.

When you say Hawykeye stats, are you referring to hawkeye decisions as in 'was the ball in/out?' or are we referring to things like the diagram that shows how where each serve landed e.t.c.?

Don't worry!

Maybe I need to clarify an important point here for NS (and maybe SS)about those stats.

I list a few rallies with varied number of shots per rally. For instance 8 shots up to 31. I woudl like to stress that I draw no conclusion at all in the number of shots played per rally. It's not relevant here though it can be another interesting piece of information. However I agree that so few sample points would make a conclusion very innacurate and useless (maybe that's what SS and NS were saying).

What I am interested about is the average time between 2 shots (or length of court). I use roughly 90 shots in Djoko/Nadal case and 84 in Blake/Fed case. Those are indeed good reasonable samples.

lydian wrote:
1. Federer played a bad match (his FH and serve were off), it happens
2. Blake played the match of his life, it happens.

Perhaps, a bit out of context, but does anyone remember Fedrinka playing and winning the Doubles OG @Beijing 2008.

Singles players who played Doubles also (except Henri-Mathieu).

Blake - Singles SF (with Querrey) lost in the first round.
Nadal - Singles OG (with Robredo) lost in the second round.
Djokovic - Singles SF (with Zimonjic) lost in the first round.
Gonzales - Singles F (with Massu) lost in the first round.
Melzer - Singles QF (with Knowle) lost in the second round.
Davydenko - (with Andreev) lost in the second round - both Singles and Doubles.
Berdych - (with Stepanek) lost in the first round.
Monfils - Singles QF (with Simon) lost in the first round.
Henri-Mathieu - Singles QF. DNP doubles.

Wawrinka (Federer's partner) lost his singles in R2.

It is possible, that the doubles took it's toll on Federer's Singles bid.

Not feasible laverfan, doubles is a grandads sport. Indeed, you've alerted me to a piece of evidence that it was a fitness issue (which wouldn't have gurt him in the doubles format).

I appreciate the efforts of Tenez, but this is a flawed analysis. If you really want to investigate changing conditions you need to use the same, or at the very least, similar players! It's like a clinical trial where you give all the sickest people a placebo and the others a new 'wonder' drug and then claim it justifies the hype. This shows that Federer plays more quickly than Nadal and Djokovic, and is more attacking by nature. I, for one, already knew this.

Nice to see the excuses about Federer's Olympics defeat. Highlight is Tenez's post saying his fitness could come and go due to after-effects of mono, so it was there when he lost and then not when he won! It's the perfect excuse, kudos to that man.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I appreciate the efforts of Tenez, but this is a flawed analysis. If you really want to investigate changing conditions you need to use the same, or at the very least, similar players! It's like a clinical trial where you give all the sickest people a placebo and the others a new 'wonder' drug and then claim it justifies the hype. This shows that Federer plays more quickly than Nadal and Djokovic, and is more attacking by nature. I, for one, already knew this.

Nice to see the excuses about Federer's Olympics defeat. Highlight is Tenez's post saying his fitness could come and go due to after-effects of mono, so it was there when he lost and then not when he won! It's the perfect excuse, kudos to that man.

Please read the post again. I am not trying to prove that the conds are faster. I don;t prove annything. I simply highlight with facts that the game in the later stages of the USO was played at a faster rate than in 2011. The conclusions are obvious for us to make. What is proven is that Fed v Blake played at a faster rate than Djoko v Nadal.

That's all I am saying...plus a few things you should work out for yourself.

Yes Mono is well documented for just giving you bad days. Again, it's about knowing!

Talking about being "flawed" how about you not picking on Pete's illness that apparently makes you weak physically but yet Pete has the best 5 setter record of since Lendl!

Positively 4th Street wrote:Nice to see the excuses about Federer's Olympics defeat.

Not offering excuses. . Just watch at +36:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvTLNjnmx4Q

Just an ordinary tennis match, with the usual result, one player lost, the other won.