The BIG DEBATE: 2006vs2011

by amritia3ee Thu 29 Dec 2011, 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

The DEBATE:

In which year did Fed face higher competition? As we are not debating about Federer's level in the respective years- but the competition he faced- I will now compare the players he has faced in each round of a slam- from Round 1 to the final. Even if he lost earlier than the final I would see his route if he had won- we are not judging him but WHO he faced/would have faced.

Aus Open: I will always state the 2006 player first then 2011- eg AO final: Baghdatis vs Djokovic
R1- Istomin vs Lacko- Lacko was ranked in the top 100 and ran Rafael Nadal very close in Doha a few weeks
before AO. Istomin meanwhile was not on great form- although he did have potential as we saw in his 2010 Queens display. Very close. DRAW
R2- Mayer vs Simon- the talented frenchman Giles Simon has a good baseline game and will look to try and break into the Top 10 next year. Mayer has improved a lot since 2006 when he was outside the Top 50. 2011
R3- Myrini vs Malisse- both were top 50 players at the time. Malisse came of a great performance in Chennai while Myrini was in indifferent form. 2011
R4- Haas vs Robredo- Haas was top 50 and definitely a tougher prospect. 2006
QF- Davydenko vs Wawrinka- The Swiss number 2 has no real chance of troubling Fed. Davydenko provided slightly more of a challenge. 2006
SF- Keifer vs Djokovic- 2011
F- Baghdatis vs Murray- (if he had reached 2011 final)- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

French Open:
R1- Hartfield vs Lopez- hartfield was outside the top 150 while Lopez ran fed close a few weeks before they played. 2011
R2- Falla vs Texeira- while Falla is potentially a dangerous player- Texeira was outside the top 150. Easy call. 2006
R3- Massu vs Tipsarevic- both were in Top 50 but Tipsarevic has a more dangerous game- he is now in the
Top 10. 2011
R4- Berdych vs Wawrinka- as shown in 2010 Wimby Berdych had the game to cause trouble to Fed, unlike the Swiss number 2. 2006.
QF- Ancic vs Monfils- monfils was top 10 at that time, unlike Ancic, and had a french crowd behind him. Its very tight though. DRAW
SF- Nalbandian vs Djokovic- No question, Djokovic was pre-tournament favourite- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal has improved since 2006- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

Wimbledon:
R1- Gasquet vs Kukushin- Gasquet easily- 2006
R2-Henman vs mannarino- henman was former semi-finalist- 2006
R3- Mahut vs Nalbandian- Nalbandian has the shots to cause Fed trouble- 2011
R4- Berdych vs Youzhny- Berdych- who beat him in 2010- 2006
QF- Ancic vs Tsonga- Tsonga came in on good form with strong showing at Queens but Ancic was good on grass- tight call- 2011
SF- Bjorkman vs Djokovic- if he had got to the semi (remember what fed did is irrespective- we are judging it purely on his competition)- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal improved by 2011 on grass- 2011
2011 4-3 2006

US Open:
R1- Wang vs Giraldo- Giraldo was top 60 player- unlike Wang- 2011
R2- Henman vs Sela- former number 4 was potentially dangerous- 2006
R3- Spadea vs Cillic- Cillic is a very dangerous player on his day- a tougher fixture- 2011
R4- Gicquel vs Monaco- Monaco ranked higher and more consistent- 2011
QF- Blake vs Tsonga- both very good attacking players- DRAW
SF- Davydenko vs Djokovic- no doubt- 2011
F- Roddick vs Nadal- Roddick had a lethal serve on a fast surface but Nadal is a better baseline player- DRAW
2011 4-1 2006

ALTOGETHER:
2011 16-8 2006
This means that 2011 was tougher/ more competition for Federer compared to 2006.

Remember! Fed's level of play and how the match turned out is irrelevant- its just his competition we are judging. Smile

Fed might have improved/got worse but that is irrelevant. This is why I have continued his draw even when he exited!

Thankyou for reading Smile

I hope you enjoyed the research Smile

An easy multiple choice question I have for you guys:
Since 2006 Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are now a bigger threat- across all surfaces. Do you think Federer's competition in the latter stages of a Grand Slam (irrelevant of form) has got:
a)harder
b)easier
c)stayed the same

Pretty easy question- don't be a politician by answering vaguely at first and then expanding on some sidetrack- it's an easy multiple choice.
To help you with the question you can use my research above with the comparisons and also consider this: If Fed played the same level as he did this year in 2006; would he still have won 3 slams? I believe so, and therefore my question above is answered.

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:19 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
bogbrush wrote:David Ferrer?

The guy who enjoyed only a brief period at #4 when in his prime a few years ago and whose game consists of hitting it back. A lot.
Federer hasn't lost to Ferrer.

No, and he's ranked ahead of these other players. Why am I supposed to take their top 10 status seriously?

Federer hardly ever lost to such people. Now he does. 2010 in particular was a joke;

Baghdatis, Montanes, Gulbis.... the list went on and on.

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:22 pm

bogbrush wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
bogbrush wrote:David Ferrer?

The guy who enjoyed only a brief period at #4 when in his prime a few years ago and whose game consists of hitting it back. A lot.
Federer hasn't lost to Ferrer.

No, and he's ranked ahead of these other players. Why am I supposed to take their top 10 status seriously?

Federer hardly ever lost to such people. Now he does.

Are you being sarcastic or what?
In 2007 he lost to players like Volandri and Canas. As I have shown earlier:
Federer's losses to people outside the current top 10 in 2011:
1/ Gasquet
2/Melzer
Only 2 matches in 2011 that were to people outside the current top 10.

Federer's losses to people outside the top 10 at the time in 2007:
1/Nalbandian
2/Volandri
3/Canas
4/Canas again

And even if you consider the Top 10; he has not lost to anyone like Ferrer; Berdych and Tsonga are nothing like Ferrer. I don't see what you're trying to say...

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:25 pm

bogbrush wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
bogbrush wrote:David Ferrer?

The guy who enjoyed only a brief period at #4 when in his prime a few years ago and whose game consists of hitting it back. A lot.
Federer hasn't lost to Ferrer.

No, and he's ranked ahead of these other players. Why am I supposed to take their top 10 status seriously?

Federer hardly ever lost to such people. Now he does. 2010 in particular was a joke;

Baghdatis, Montanes, Gulbis.... the list went on and on.

Soderling, Hewitt, Monfils.

Yeah, just like at his peak........

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:27 pm

Yes but in this article we are considering 2011. He has only lost to 2 players outside the Top 10 in 2011.

Youre point is completely disproved by 2011.

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:29 pm

Who did he lose to in 2006?

Or is that another inconvenient statistic which we're not allowed to count?

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:32 pm

In 2006 his losses to people outside the Top 10 was similar to 2011. Either way the fact that he had more losses to players outside the TOp 10 in 2007 and 2005 compared to 2011 shows that your theory is wrong.

by time please Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:33 pm

I think most people who have followed TMF's career consider him to be a less consistently brilliantly player than he was earlier in his career, regardless of who he is playing.

He used to stroll through most tournaments, now he is frequently taken to tie breaks or to 7-5 against players that he was in cruise control against a few years ago. Maybe this is lack of concentration, maybe the body, that has a fair degree of competition mileage on it, is not quite as good as it was.

I thought Melzer beat him for the first time this year? Perhaps I am wrong. Certainly over the last couple of years there are players who have recorded wins over him after previously struggling to take games, let alone sets. Considering whether he is in decline or not, most reasonable posters would consider these performances as well as his efforts against his opponents in the top 4.

I am not sure what your point is about Ferrer - he is number 5 in this golden age and beat Nadal at the beginning of 2011, and again (albeit this time in an exho) in 2012.

There is no one definitive truth amritia - and certainly your concept of it will differ from mine and others however much you put things in 'big letters' or bold print.

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:36 pm

It's not a theory, it's just obvious.

Oh, and in 2006 he lost just to two men; the #2, and one match he tanked to Murray.

If you want to equate that to his 2011 results outside the top ranked players then that's your call. It's laughably wrong but if you really need to convince yourself or convince the forum you believe it then that's cool.

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:40 pm

I was just saying he lost to 4 players outside including Volandri and Canas in 2006 and only 2 players- Melzer and Gasquet in 2011.; thats not to say he has got better/worse- im just pointing it out.

Anyway time, I'm extremely interested to hear you opinions (answers to my 2 questions), from someone as respectable as you I will be looking forward to hearing your answers. Hug

and you seem slightly angry with me too lol rose

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:42 pm

bogbrush wrote:It's not a theory, it's just obvious.

Oh, and in 2006 he lost just to two men; the #2, and one match he tanked to Murray.

If you want to equate that to his 2011 results outside the top ranked players then that's your call. It's laughably wrong but if you really need to convince yourself or convince the forum you believe it then that's cool.

No his results were better in 2006 compared to 2011, no doubt. I'm just saying your point of him losing more to 'medium ranked players' compared to the past is inaccurate as in 2007 he lost more to 'medium ranked players' than 2011.

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:46 pm

amritia3ee wrote:I was just saying he lost to 4 players outside including Volandri and Canas in 2006 and only 2 players- Melzer and Gasquet in 2011.; thats not to say he has got better/worse- im just pointing it out.

Anyway time, I'm extremely interested to hear you opinions (answers to my 2 questions), from someone as respectable as you I will be looking forward to hearing your answers.
and you seem slightly angry with me too lol

I'm not angry, but I do suggest to you that you should treat posts on a thread you start as posts to the forum rather than personal communications to yourself, otherwise you just monopolise the discussion by responding personally to every post.

We know your opnion, we'd like to share our own and hear what the FORUM thinks.

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:48 pm

bogbrush wrote:
We know your opnion, we'd like to share our own and hear what the FORUM thinks.

Sure

If you want you can answer my 2 questions...

by time please Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:51 pm

Aaaaaaah - we have all answered your questions - sometimes it is not as simple as a yes or no. If you don't think people have responded in context, then your comprehension skills could do with a quick brush up!

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:53 pm

If Fed played like he has in 2011 in 2006; how many Grand Slams would he win in 2006? There's no correct answer- I think 3.
Sad

And you're still angry with me time please Sad

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:55 pm

How to turn a forum into a game of tag............ "last touch".....

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 4:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:How to turn a forum into a game of tag............ "last touch".....

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 03 Jan 2012, 5:02 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
If Fed played like he has in 2011 in 2006; how many Grand Slams would he win in 2006? There's no correct answer- I think 3.
And you're still angry with me time please

If there's no correct answer, maybe the best answer is 'We don't know'.
If he'd played as against Djoko in 2011 AO, maybe Davydenko 2006 would have beaten him.
If he'd played as against Tsonga at Wimby 2011, maybe Nadal 2006 would have beaten him.
If he'd fluffed set points at 6-5 in the 3rd against Roddick at the USO in 2006, maybe Roddick would have won that match.

Or maybe not.

by time please Tue 03 Jan 2012, 5:02 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
If Fed played like he has in 2011 in 2006; how many Grand Slams would he win in 2006? There's no correct answer- I think 3.
And you're still angry with me time please

No not angry amritia - a bit exasperated perhaps but I am exceptionally grumpy today now that I am back trying to work (and failing miserably!)

As to your question above - who the h*ll knows? Majors are won with a combination of things like form, form of other players, luck etc all playing their part. For 16 slams all these factors aligned in Fed's favour, for 10 slams to date they have aligned for Rafa and for 4 everything has fallen into place for Novak. You can't take one of these variables (ie a player) and insert that into another set of circumstances and be sure of getting a certain result - not unless you have divine powers?

by Guest Tue 03 Jan 2012, 6:06 pm

I think Federer is a little slower and he seems to lose concentration more. His challengers have got better. Federer hasn't really ever come to grips with Nadal and Nadals style of play. Federers game has matched up against every other player except Nadal. Although towards the end of the season (after the US Open) Nadal becomes a spent force - and Federer rolls him over in the end of year World Tour final. Djokovic has now overtaken Federer and Murray should be next.

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 9:10 pm

Nore Staat wrote:I think Federer is a little slower and he seems to lose concentration more. His challengers have got better. Federer hasn't really ever come to grips with Nadal and Nadals style of play. Federers game has matched up against every other player except Nadal. Although towards the end of the season (after the US Open) Nadal becomes a spent force - and Federer rolls him over in the end of year World Tour final. Djokovic has now overtaken Federer and Murray should be next.

Yes he tends to struggle against Nadal; but we must also remember that he has a negative H2H against Murray pretty much from 2006. As for Djokovic, he has a positive H2H record against him but I still feel a peak Djokovic would trouble Federer more than a peak Gonzalez or Blake for example.
One very important point is that he was quite lucky to face people like Baghdatis and Gonzalez who did not have much experience in Grand Slam finals- hence when they reached that stage to face Federer- mentally if not anything they would not be as well prepared to play well.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 03 Jan 2012, 9:20 pm

Roddick the only exception? What about Safin, Hewitt and Agassi?
Conveniently forgotten?

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 9:22 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Roddick the only exception? What about Safin, Hewitt and Agassi?
Conveniently forgotten?

Yes all at the end of their respective careers.

by **laverfan** Tue 03 Jan 2012, 9:27 pm

amritia3ee wrote:but apart from serve he didn't have much to offer and hence was picked off by Federer quite easily.

Watch what a 'serve-only' player can do...

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4Sgt7ZJTLc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ypvZEXEiJI

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 03 Jan 2012, 9:29 pm

So you're argument is that multi-slam winners are too old but other players lack experience. And that multi-slam winners that can still get to slam finals are not as 'golden' at that point in time as, say Andy Murray is now, or Djoko was in 2010 (with just one slam) or Peurta, Soderling or Berdych.
Sorry amiritea but that is just WAY off the mark.
To be honest I reckon your pursuit of 'Nadal over Fed' has blinded you to the reality on that point.

by Henman Bill Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:02 pm

On the discussin between Bogbrush and Amritia:
Federer lost just as often to lower ranked players (roughly) in 2004 and 2007 as 2011. Bogbrush's argument only works if you look at only 2005 and 2006 in isolation.
However... his 2004 and 2007 losses were not in slams. The Berdych/Soderling/Tsonga losses in 2010/2011 slams do not have a 2004-2007 equivalent, that is true.
I think to answer the questions by the way a) it has got harder and b) the 2011 Federer would most likely have won 3 slams in 2006, the same three for me.
Federer has stayed at about the same level, while the other top 4 have improved.
I still think we are doing this to death a bit though. Maybe I should start a new thread on another topic.

by Jahu Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:03 pm

Yeah, getting a bit boring all these threads of posters who are obsessed with their player, and starting threads about other players.

Sleep tight amiritea as Nadal has secured 3'rd ever best player position after Fed/Sampras, which is not bad.

by lydian Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:16 pm

Its hard to say with Fed, on the one hand his serve, court positioning, pacing and mental "stability" in crunch moments have all got better...on the other he's a little (only a bit though) slower, less whip on the FH (some might say thats not bad) and not as good a volleyer (guess he does less and less as the surfaces slow).
Who's to say which have greater weighting. I certainly think his serve has become much more of a weapon.

These comparison arguments are impossible to validate. Each era is better than the last in terms of the game moving forwards. Since 1960s the game changes all the time. We clearly know the game has moved forwards alot given that others of Fed's age struggled more after 05/06/07...Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Luber, Safin, Nalby, Davy, etc. Fed has had the talent to adapt and stay at the relative top of the game. Someone in 5 years will come along and kick Nole's butt off court. We cant compare eras...or maybe even the same player who has crossed eras (whatever an era is, and whenever it starts/ends)...the players like the eras change as the environment changes. Federer has had to become a better player to stay at the top as other areas of his game likely creak more with age. How can we compare the two different players - 2006 Federer vs 2011 Federer - when they arent the same player? Or that other players may have changed in different ways too. Its chalk vs cheese.

by Henman Bill Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:34 pm

secured 3'rd ever best player position after Fed/Sampras
__________________
Hmm maybe 3rd best of recent years, but a bit unfair on old greats like Borg, Laver, Tilden etc to have them not even in the picture against Nadal let alone the others!

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:41 pm

Henman Bill wrote:secured 3'rd ever best player position after Fed/Sampras
__________________
Hmm maybe 3rd best of recent years, but a bit unfair on old greats like Borg, Laver, Tilden etc to have them not even in the picture against Nadal let alone the others!

Guys, this thread isn't about the Spanish supremo 17-9 H2H career slam champion Rafael Nadal/

by **laverfan** Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:44 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:secured 3'rd ever best player position after Fed/Sampras
__________________
Hmm maybe 3rd best of recent years, but a bit unfair on old greats like Borg, Laver, Tilden etc to have them not even in the picture against Nadal let alone the others!
Guys, this thread isn't about the Spanish supremo 17-9 H2H career slam champion Rafael Nadal/

How can you forget OG, DC and Clay King, etc., etc. ? Laugh

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:52 pm

laverfan wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:secured 3'rd ever best player position after Fed/Sampras
__________________
Hmm maybe 3rd best of recent years, but a bit unfair on old greats like Borg, Laver, Tilden etc to have them not even in the picture against Nadal let alone the others!
Guys, this thread isn't about the Spanish supremo 17-9 H2H career slam champion Rafael Nadal/

How can you forget OG, DC and Clay King, etc., etc. ?

This is getting ridiculous now!

How many times am I going to have to say, we don't need to mention the Olympic Gold Medallist King of Clay multiple Davis Cup holder 17-9 H2H against Swiss number 2 Career Slam winner Spanish supremo Tennis Ace Rafael Nadal!

by amritia3ee Tue 03 Jan 2012, 11:54 pm

Henman Bill wrote:
I think to answer the questions by the way a) it has got harder and b) the 2011 Federer would most likely have won 3 slams in 2006, the same three for me.
Federer has stayed at about the same level, while the other top 4 have improved.

You clearly know your stuff HB:notwortyh:

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:02 am

amritia3ee wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:
I think to answer the questions by the way a) it has got harder and b) the 2011 Federer would most likely have won 3 slams in 2006, the same three for me.
Federer has stayed at about the same level, while the other top 4 have improved.

You clearly know your stuff HB:notwortyh:

Although there is no correct answer so I'm told.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:06 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:
I think to answer the questions by the way a) it has got harder and b) the 2011 Federer would most likely have won 3 slams in 2006, the same three for me.
Federer has stayed at about the same level, while the other top 4 have improved.

You clearly know your stuff HB:notwortyh:

Although there is no correct answer so I'm told.

Maybe there is Julius, maybe there is.

Anyway we all know that Roger himself agrees with me on this one. Also it would benefit Federer to say that there was more competition in 2006 (which he doesn't say); hence making himself seem much better than Nadal and Djokovic and co.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:11 am

amritia3ee wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:
I think to answer the questions by the way a) it has got harder and b) the 2011 Federer would most likely have won 3 slams in 2006, the same three for me.
Federer has stayed at about the same level, while the other top 4 have improved.

You clearly know your stuff HB:notwortyh:

Although there is no correct answer so I'm told.
Maybe there is Julius, maybe there is.

Anyway we all know that Roger himself agrees with me on this one. Also it would benefit Federer to say that there was more competition in 2006 (which he doesn't say); hence making himself seem much better than Nadal and Djokovic and co.

Yeah, I heard him say "If I were transported back in time to 2006 I would still win 3 slams"

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:14 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yeah, I heard him say "If I were transported back in time to 2006 I would still win 3 slams"

No he agrees with me on the first point- he hasn't talked about the second- (the comp has got harder). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:15 am

amritia3ee wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Although there is no correct answer so I'm told.
Maybe there is Julius, maybe there is.

Anyway we all know that Roger himself agrees with me (that the competition has got tougher) on this one. Also it would benefit Federer to say that there was more competition in 2006 (which he doesn't say); hence making himself seem much better than Nadal and Djokovic and co.

Of course all the Fed hatahs try to portray him as a: deceitful man who is trying to trick people by lying or just too deluded to come to grips with the truth.
tbh these attacks are even worse then criticising his tennis- they are criticising his personality and basically saying he is a liar (indirectly)- very insulting allegations and unfounded accusations IMHO
Of course it's lucky I am here to defend the great Federer and some simple research to show that he is not a liar as his hatahs make him out to be. He is right in saying that the competition is tougher now; but whether he has improved is tough to say- I believe his serve and backhand has improved but his concentration levels are suspect.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:21 am

So when Fed says "The best player doesn't always win a 5-set match" he's telling the truth - because he never lies and is never wrong?

by Henman Bill Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:23 am

Look Federer says himself (well maybe implied is more accurate) that the game improves over time and he is a better player now. By implication, Federer and Amritia agree. Anyway, it's been done to death hasn't it this one. Why not get over to my new article instead. Whistle

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:27 am

The game improves over time - one of my previous points, which amritia disagreed with.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:27 am

Henman Bill wrote:Look Federer says himself (well maybe implied is more accurate) that the game improves over time and he is a better player now. By implication, Federer and Amritia agree. Anyway, it's been done to death hasn't it this one. Why not get over to my new article instead.

I'm sorry with all these Fed hatahs launching disgraceful attacks on his character I feel it is my duty to defend him.
I think the hatahs are just jealous of him as he is one of the greatest players of all time, albeit he has a negative H2H on his biggest rival and struggled a bit in slams when the quality in the field has improved (although he will win more than 1 slam in 2012 for me)

by Tenez Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:33 am

The game changes at least as much as it improves.

Comparing 2006 and 2011 without taking into consideration the fact that rallies have at least twice as many shots now as then is useless.

Which is better? the Federer playing 4 or 5 shots a rally or the Federer playing 8 to 10 shots a rally on average? Well no-one has the answer except that nowadays it's not a choice, he has to play longer rallies and he needs to be fit enough to sustain those rallies.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:43 am

Tenez wrote:The game changes at least as much as it improves.

Comparing 2006 and 2011 without taking into consideration the fact that rallies have at least twice as many shots now as then is useless.

Which is better? the Federer playing 4 or 5 shots a rally or the Federer playing 8 to 10 shots a rally on average? Well no-one has the answer except that nowadays it's not a choice, he has to play longer rallies and he needs to be fit enough to sustain those rallies.

Well that's because Nadal and Djokovic, 2 defensive players, are both at their peak. If we compared the stats of Fed Blake if they played now, and Nadal vs Djokovic (if they played in 2006), the match in 2006 would then have shorter rallies.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:50 am

Tenez wrote: the Federer playing 4 or 5 shots a rally or the Federer playing 8 to 10 shots a rally on average? Well no-one has the answer except that nowadays it's not a choice, he has to play longer rallies

The fact of the matter is, between 2003 and 2007 (Rafa in Wimby an exception) in latter stages of Grand Slams outside clay no one really could defend well. This meant that Federer didn't need to have longer rallies, as he won it in a few shots; however the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic can make him play more shots to hit a winner- hence he has to play in longer rallies. Even if it was made ultra slow in 2006 don't tell me players like Roddick,Blake and Gonzalez really had the defensive skills to withstand the attacking force from Federer for too long.

So in some ways Fed was lucky between 2003-2007 to not really face anyone in latter stages of Grand Slams with enough defensive skills to force Federer to play extra shots in a rally- hence shorter rallies.

by Guest Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:54 am

Here's the rub in one extremum: How long would it take for there to be a result if Federer (2006) played Federer (2006) in a best of five set match. Now compare that to how long it would take for a Nadal (2010) v Nadal (2010) best of five set match to resolve itself.

by Tenez Wed 04 Jan 2012, 12:58 am

Or you could say "the fact of the matter is that conds have slowed down to the point that taking risk doesn't pay as much and top players prefer to engage in physical battles than suicidal risky business.

In London where we had a low bounce risk taking paid off and Tsonga and and Federer were by far the best players.

Yes Nadal and Djoko have improved but the conds have a lot to do with that. In teh 90s Nadal woudl have never won a slam outside clay.

Nadal admits he doesn't take the ball early enough. It's a clear admission of his limitations should the conds speed up.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 1:17 am

Look Tenez, this isn't about the Olympic Gold Medallist King of Clay multiple Davis Cup holder 17-9 H2H against Swiss number 2 Career Slam winner Spanish supremo Tennis Ace Rafael Nadal.

What I am saying is true. Even from 2004 it was apparent that the likes of Roddick, Blake and Gonzalez were never good enough defensively to draw Fed into longer rallies. As for the Olympic Gold Medallist King of Clay multiple Davis Cup holder 17-9 H2H against Swiss number 2 Career Slam winner Spanish supremo Tennis Ace, he beat Fed the first time they played in the fast hardcourts of Miami.

by lydian Wed 04 Jan 2012, 1:22 am

Yes but height of bounce and court speed are slightly different topics. Its not speed per se that hurts Nadal, its very low bounce and his Western grips - speed/bounce are connected by not exclusively so. WTF is known for its lower bouncing courts. To be honest low bouncing courts generally also hurt Djokovic more too (another one with extreme Western FH grips). Federer with his semi-Western/Eastern grips copes much better.
Nadal has also admitted he's not been standing in the court enough (inside baseline) compared to 2010...he can take the ball much earlier...I defy anyone to watch that 2004 match against Federer and see that he took the ball much earlier. In some respects I think Nadal has gone backwards as a player since those days in the pursuit of a more defensive style - despite what Tenez says the guy has the talent to hit early, harder and faster but he's decided on a game approach based on the slowing surfaces in the past few years. He broke that approach for USO10 but has since gone backwards in my opinion...string changes, loss of confidence, even perhaps a slight loss of fitness (I dont think he works on his fitness as much as he used to) and staying way behind the baseline. His game has gone in the wrong direction...and I also blame some of that on Toni for not being technical enough in the tutoring approach, too focused on a defensive ralleying style - the old Spanish way Toni knows best.

by Tenez Wed 04 Jan 2012, 8:46 am

lydian wrote:...I defy anyone to watch that 2004 match against Federer and see that he took the ball much earlier.

That's why I often suspect your judgement there. Taking the ball earlier then did not help him beat Callieri a week earlier nor Gonzo a couple of matches later. It did help him beat a sick Federer who probably wanted to go home after having just won IW. Number 54 Davydenko almost beat that Federer the day earlier.

Nadal in 2004 did nothing of note...bar beating a sick Federer.

You know you are using an irrelevant match to make a point. What's the point?

Everybody can hit early. Not many can take the ball early and keep it in court.

by amritia3ee Wed 04 Jan 2012, 10:27 am

Tenez wrote:
lydian wrote:...I defy anyone to watch that 2004 match against Federer and see that he took the ball much earlier.

That's why I often suspect your judgement there. Taking the ball earlier then did not help him beat Callieri a week earlier nor Gonzo a couple of matches later. It did help him beat a sick Federer who probably wanted to go home after having just won IW. Number 54 Davydenko almost beat that Federer the day earlier.

Nadal in 2004 did nothing of note...bar beating a sick Federer.

You know you are using an irrelevant match to make a point. What's the point?

Everybody can hit early. Not many can take the ball early and keep it in court.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Fed lost to Rafa in Miami 2004 on a fast hardcourt, just deal with it instead of trying to come up with pathetic excuses. What about Abu Dhabi 2006? or the first 2 sets in Miami 2005? In all these matches, even though they were on fast surfaces, Nadal still showed that defensively he was very strong and hence could trouble Federer. You showed stats of Fed-Blake 2006 USO; of course the points would be shorter considering Blake is so terrible defensively.

by Sponsored content