Federer Nadal - age comparison

First topic message reminder :

This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H, but to compare and contrast the two men's careers at the same age - i.e Rafa at 25 is 4yrs and 10 months younger than Federer at 30 so you can compare his record and position now with Fed's in 2007 (January 2007 if you are being precise) - and speculate on where they may end.

There's a good summary here http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html, and also here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry

Comparing February 2007 Fed with February 2012 Nadal I'd suggest the following:

a. Rafa started everything younger than Fed - he raced ahead with slam wins but now its very tight with Fed and Rafa on 10 each (stopping the watch at AO 2007/2012) - unless Rafa wins 2 more this year he'll fall behind Fed's rate and I think he really needs to get ahead of Fed's rate at this age to stand a chance of over-taking him.

b. Rafa is more than a whole year's worth of weeks at No. 1 behind Fed

c. Rafa is miles ahead on Masters Series Wins and DC wins but well behind on TMC/WTF wins

d. They are neck-and-neck on overall tournament wins at 46 each including Fed's AO 2007

e. Rafa's w/l is superior to Fed's at the same age (although Fed's has improved by almost 2% since 2007).

f. Hindsight tells us that about 5 years ago Fed was at his absolute peak as a tennis player and the first cracks in his mastery were just about to appear with those two losses to Canas at IW and Miami. 2007 marked the end of years with 10+ tournament wins or 90% w/l ratios: having said that, in the five years since February 2007 Fed has been none too shabby managing another 6 slam wins.

g. In 2007 Fed had the beating of pretty much all his opponents with the exception of his main rival Nadal who was in command on clay but beatable elsewhere and did not dominate the H2H for another year. In 2012 Nadal has the beating of pretty much all his opponents (in slams at least) with the exception of his main rival who is currently more dominant over him than he ever has been over Federer.

h. They have a comparable 'mileage' in terms of matches played - Rafa has only played about 50 more matches than Fed at the same age, a difference of less than 10%.

Nadal has made fools of those predicting his career path often enough, but it's almost impossible to believe that he will be able to sustain similar sustained quality between now and 2017 as Fed has done in the 5 years since 2007. I'd go further, I suspect that 25 will prove to have been the 'turning point' age at which Federer's career trajectory will be shown to have caught up with the effect of Rafa's early gains. I am well aware that without Djoko on form Rafa could start cleaning up in the big tournaments pretty smartly - but my assessment of the Aus Open 2012 is that it was just as encouraging for Murray and Djoko, and probably more so, than it was for Nadal.

Therefore, on what I consider to be the three main indicators:

* Fed's overall slam total of 16 is looking safer from Nadal as each slam passes us by.

* Nadal has no prospect of beating Fed's tally of weeks or y/e at No. 1.

* I'd be very surprised if Nadal ends up with more overall tournament wins than Federer - he's got to win at least another 25 and his past rate of accumulating wins suggests that will be beyond him in the future, particularly if he is going to reduce his schedule. He has not won away from clay since October 2010.

Wow, you mean he got tired in six matches in a 13 year pro career sounds like a big conditioning problem. I watched many of those matches listed comedically by tenez, and I didn't see the exhaustion factor certainly not in the two french open losses, he was practically beaten from the first or second set on.

I love how post hoc Tenez just looks at most of Fed's grandslam losses in recent years and just says that he was tired in all of them. How convenient, and this is the same crowd that makes fun of Nadal fanatics who claim every Rafa loss is a result of an injury. So I guess Roger only loses when tired, (lol) Rafa only loses when injured, and Novak only loses when he eats gluten or something. All a bunch of post hoc justifications that might of worked if I hadn't seen pretty much all those matches and vaguely remembered how most of those matches had nothing to do with exhaustion.

2006 FO is the funniest supposed evidence of exhaustion. Roger blows Nadal out 6-1 in the first set and then gets blown out 6-1 in the next set. I guess that taxing first set of 6-1 just caused him to meltdown in set #2. Here is the funny thing the 4th set went 7-6, where a supposedly tired federer should have been exhausted. Lost in 4 sets the first two sets were breeze toughest set was the LAST SET. Sounds like exhaustion to me. (thinly veiled sarcasm). I won't get into the whole list but a number of those matches had little to do with exhaustion, 09 Australia is another example. Nadal was the one who played the second semi against Verdasco for 5 hours and fed had the earlier and easier semi.

"and Novak only loses when he eats gluten or something"

Socal.....you're calling yourself a Nole fan ?

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
He has a right to his opinion. He has the right to express it. Just waiting for the usual suspects to finish vacations, then JHM and I have our work cut out.

I am not sure he has an opinion. But he seems to have an agenda and that is to constantly drag discussions down.

I do have an opinion you just don't agree with it.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
He has a right to his opinion. He has the right to express it. Just waiting for the usual suspects to finish vacations, then JHM and I have our work cut out.

I am not sure he has an opinion. But he seems to have an agenda and that is to constantly drag discussions down.

I do have an opinion you just don't agree with it.

For the 3rd time can you please answer my question?!?!?
Why do you put this emotion when you aren't being sincere about federer losing to nadal.
Please can you stop dodging this simple question.

noleisthebest wrote:"and Novak only loses when he eats gluten or something"

Socal.....you're calling yourself a Nole fan ?

I was being sarcastic Nitb, trying to show them how nonsensical the Roger gets tired argument is, frankly it is weak sauce. Just like if I claimed that the reason Novak lost to Nadal in 09 was because he happened to be eating gluten. It is all rather silly was my point, not trying to knock Novak at all. You know that.

socal1976 wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"and Novak only loses when he eats gluten or something"

Socal.....you're calling yourself a Nole fan ?

I was being sarcastic Nitb, trying to show them how nonsensical the Roger gets tired argument is, frankly it is weak sauce. Just like if I claimed that the reason Novak lost to Nadal in 09 was because he happened to be eating gluten. It is all rather silly was my point, not trying to knock Novak at all. You know that.

Says the man with the Fognini excuse.

socal1976 wrote:Raider, you have an interesting post. The facts are as followed as you stated bigger balls started their introduction in 2002. Suprisingly in this same time period luxlon strings come along giving an edge to returners and baseliners. The courts from what evidence I have seen where slowed down also in the early 2000s. Basically, predating or nearly predating all of Roger's grandslams. Roger is a very fit and fast player. I have yet to see him get tired in a match, hell he won some wimbeldons where I could swear he didn't sweat all tournament.

I agree that Roger's game favors fast conditions. But maybe other attacking players like lets say Tsonga, Berdy, or Davy, or Nalbandian would also have been aided by the faster conditions as much or possibly more than Fed. That is the whole point, you guys live in a hypothetical world where Fed is allowed to play on precisely the exact conditions that he trained for and favored. Well sorry that isn't the history of tennis. A lot of guys careers were made or lost when graphite racquets replaced wood. Part of being a top pro is adjusting to new conditions, technology, and training. Fed did it well enough in the real world without having to pretend like he deserves a golden star for playing on slowed down conditions, which he doesn't.

I asked you what exactly are you trying to imply here by saying ( earlier and here again) the Fed won all his 16 slams on slow conditions. Why haven't you answered that? I don't know which all courts you saw were slowed down since 2002. But as I said earlier and as I saw them and see things now I can see most courts until recent years were fast or medium fast. They have all become slow gradually and now very slow. Talking about the last decade, US open courts looked lightening quick in the 03,04, 05,06 finals compared to the 2010,11 finals. So is the case with almost all slams and major tournament. If you can't see the difference in the court speeds, I can't help you. This all trend picked pace with the rise of Fedal battles in about 2005-06. Tournaments trying to cash in the Fedal battles by giving chance to Nadal to reach later stages of the tournaments. The game Nadal produces is easy for the masses to understand. There is always a sympathy factor for the 'defender'.

Wimbledon grass got slower gradually, there was video on espn.go.com called "Evolution of Wimbledon" ( now removed from every source ) where Cahill narrated stats about slowing surfaces and the disappearing of S&V game. There can't be a clear line ( as you say 2002) when exactly the surfaces slowed down and the results started showing effects. The effect are often seen gradual. Compare the kind of game that players played earlier to reach later rounds of wimbledon against what they do in recent years.

Luxlon stings were introduced in 2002 maybe, but that doesn't mean everyone started using it right away. If you are yet to see Fed tired in a match, you should have seen more of his matches.

Anyways you are posting paradoxical statements here. Once you say Roger has won his 16 slams on slow surfaces despite his game favoring fast conditions. Then you say a part of being a pro is adjusting to new conditions. As per you Federer doesn't deserve a golden star for playing on slow conditions. So as per you if Fed didn't adjust to new slow conditions how did he win 16 slams?? If he won 16 slams on slow surface but doesn't deserve a golden star for playing on slow surface, then who does?? He didn't win those in a lottery, I hope you know that.Like I said earlier Fed isn't a one generation player. He started playing in the days to S&V and moved on with baseliners as the conditions and technology changed. His adaptation is remarkable. Now you'll bring out why isn't he winning any slams these days? There are lot of factors, and they have been discussed numerous time in many discussions here. If you didn't get, you won't get it ever.

socal1976 wrote: But maybe other attacking players like lets say Tsonga, Berdy, or Davy, or Nalbandian would also have been aided by the faster conditions as much or possibly more than Fed.

Again what are you trying to imply? That Fed benefited from slowing conditions else if for faster conditions Tsonga, Berdy and your own weak era players like davy and Nalbandian would have got better of Federer? Get real for once, will you? You are beginning to look silly. Give fast conditions right now and even at 30 you'll see who will be winning slams. What is my basis that I have for this?? 6 WTF indoor hard where Fed remained undefeated on 5 occasions. Its still slowed down comparatively yet he can get the better of all the top-8.

You don't even know what are you talking about.

WTF was very very slow last year. Fed likes the surface because of the low bounce. I went to see the WTF last year, I live in London, and was surprised at how slow it was.

socal1976 wrote:Wow, you mean he got tired in six matches in a 13 year pro career sounds like a big conditioning problem. I watched many of those matches listed comedically by tenez, and I didn't see the exhaustion factor certainly not in the two french open losses, he was practically beaten from the first or second set on.

I love how post hoc Tenez just looks at most of Fed's grandslam losses in recent years and just says that he was tired in all of them. How convenient, and this is the same crowd that makes fun of Nadal fanatics who claim every Rafa loss is a result of an injury. So I guess Roger only loses when tired, (lol) Rafa only loses when injured, and Novak only loses when he eats gluten or something. All a bunch of post hoc justifications that might of worked if I hadn't seen pretty much all those matches and vaguely remembered how most of those matches had nothing to do with exhaustion.

2006 FO is the funniest supposed evidence of exhaustion. Roger blows Nadal out 6-1 in the first set and then gets blown out 6-1 in the next set. I guess that taxing first set of 6-1 just caused him to meltdown in set #2. Here is the funny thing the 4th set went 7-6, where a supposedly tired federer should have been exhausted. Lost in 4 sets the first two sets were breeze toughest set was the LAST SET. Sounds like exhaustion to me. (thinly veiled sarcasm). I won't get into the whole list but a number of those matches had little to do with exhaustion, 09 Australia is another example. Nadal was the one who played the second semi against Verdasco for 5 hours and fed had the earlier and easier semi.

Yes i think it is very unfair to say that all of Rogers losses against nadal were just because he was tired. In that case should we count the H2H as 9-0 or 27-0?
I'm confused. i was also looking at the USO final 2009 606v1 thread earlier and Tenez said Fed only lost because he was tired. It's just silly excuses, in my opinion. We might as just well say that every match he has lost doesn't count.

time please wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Well don't blame me I didn't to bring up the h2h first.
Bogbrush tried to 'break it down' earlier, claiming that fed would be ahead if he wasn't so good on clay.

No he didn't - you are misreading, or misunderstanding. What bogbrush said was that if you took away clay you had two players who had been very competitive over other surfaces, and the fact that Fed has been a very decent claycourter has actually made the h2h worse from his perspective than if he had been the 3rd or 4th best player at RG during the last few years.

That's completely and utterly untrue. Bogbrush said that the H2H is 'nonsensical' as Fed would have been ahead if we didn't count all the matches on nadal's favourite surface. This is mathematically wrong. Your point is absolutely correct that if we did randomly take out all the matches on nadal's favourite surface for no reason then the H2H would have been closer. But why should that mean it is nonsensical? Can you prove this?


And as for my smiley, i was pretending to be upset that Bogbrush had dismissed the H2H as 'nonsensical.' By his logic I could say if Nadal had lost all his matches R1 last year in 2011 he would not have lost to Djokovic at all and therefore the recent H2H is 'nonsensical.' Which is a nonsensical claim.

You have used it before countless times when bogbrush was not there and federer lost. Do you just do it to antagonize federer fans?

I have requested that Nore Staat write a 'canned' script for all Fedal discussions and it should be stickied so posters do not need make any effort to even type, since all the dialogue with poster names will already be there.

BTW, does anyone know the SFinalists at Memphis or Marseilles?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Raider, you have an interesting post. The facts are as followed as you stated bigger balls started their introduction in 2002. Suprisingly in this same time period luxlon strings come along giving an edge to returners and baseliners. The courts from what evidence I have seen where slowed down also in the early 2000s. Basically, predating or nearly predating all of Roger's grandslams. Roger is a very fit and fast player. I have yet to see him get tired in a match, hell he won some wimbeldons where I could swear he didn't sweat all tournament.

I agree that Roger's game favors fast conditions. But maybe other attacking players like lets say Tsonga, Berdy, or Davy, or Nalbandian would also have been aided by the faster conditions as much or possibly more than Fed. That is the whole point, you guys live in a hypothetical world where Fed is allowed to play on precisely the exact conditions that he trained for and favored. Well sorry that isn't the history of tennis. A lot of guys careers were made or lost when graphite racquets replaced wood. Part of being a top pro is adjusting to new conditions, technology, and training. Fed did it well enough in the real world without having to pretend like he deserves a golden star for playing on slowed down conditions, which he doesn't.

I asked you what exactly are you trying to imply here by saying ( earlier and here again) the Fed won all his 16 slams on slow conditions. Why haven't you answered that? I don't know which all courts you saw were slowed down since 2002. But as I said earlier and as I saw them and see things now I can see most courts until recent years were fast or medium fast. They have all become slow gradually and now very slow. Talking about the last decade, US open courts looked lightening quick in the 03,04, 05,06 finals compared to the 2010,11 finals. So is the case with almost all slams and major tournament. If you can't see the difference in the court speeds, I can't help you. This all trend picked pace with the rise of Fedal battles in about 2005-06. Tournaments trying to cash in the Fedal battles by giving chance to Nadal to reach later stages of the tournaments. The game Nadal produces is easy for the masses to understand. There is always a sympathy factor for the 'defender'.

Wimbledon grass got slower gradually, there was video on espn.go.com called "Evolution of Wimbledon" ( now removed from every source ) where Cahill narrated stats about slowing surfaces and the disappearing of S&V game. There can't be a clear line ( as you say 2002) when exactly the surfaces slowed down and the results started showing effects. The effect are often seen gradual. Compare the kind of game that players played earlier to reach later rounds of wimbledon against what they do in recent years.

Luxlon stings were introduced in 2002 maybe, but that doesn't mean everyone started using it right away. If you are yet to see Fed tired in a match, you should have seen more of his matches.

Anyways you are posting paradoxical statements here. Once you say Roger has won his 16 slams on slow surfaces despite his game favoring fast conditions. Then you say a part of being a pro is adjusting to new conditions. As per you Federer doesn't deserve a golden star for playing on slow conditions. So as per you if Fed didn't adjust to new slow conditions how did he win 16 slams?? If he won 16 slams on slow surface but doesn't deserve a golden star for playing on slow surface, then who does?? He didn't win those in a lottery, I hope you know that.Like I said earlier Fed isn't a one generation player. He started playing in the days to S&V and moved on with baseliners as the conditions and technology changed. His adaptation is remarkable. Now you'll bring out why isn't he winning any slams these days? There are lot of factors, and they have been discussed numerous time in many discussions here. If you didn't get, you won't get it ever.

socal1976 wrote: But maybe other attacking players like lets say Tsonga, Berdy, or Davy, or Nalbandian would also have been aided by the faster conditions as much or possibly more than Fed.

Again what are you trying to imply? That Fed benefited from slowing conditions else if for faster conditions Tsonga, Berdy and your own weak era players like davy and Nalbandian would have got better of Federer? Get real for once, will you? You are beginning to look silly. Give fast conditions right now and even at 30 you'll see who will be winning slams. What is my basis that I have for this?? 6 WTF indoor hard where Fed remained undefeated on 5 occasions. Its still slowed down comparatively yet he can get the better of all the top-8.

You don't even know what are you talking about.

Do you have any real factual backing for this slow evolution of surfaces you're talking about rather than a transient change ? Some links would help. You can't confidently assert someone doesn't know what he's saying when your points seem to be made from your perceptions with a lot of conjecturing and presumptions thrown in.

Do you think it's remotely possible the illusion of ever slowing conditions on certain surfaces may have something to do with the near freakish court coverage of Nole, Rafa, Murray and even Federer (whose court speed and stamina is underrated)? Do you think its slightly convenient we hear little about court speed of Wimbledon and the US Open until Nadal wins the tournament? Did you watch Federer-Roddick's Wimby '09 final and come away feeling it was played on "green clay" or does that only apply when Rafa wins it? Do you think the style of play of baseline grinders may just possibly contribute to the illusion of a slow court?

mthierry wrote:Do you think it's remotely possible the illusion of ever slowing conditions on certain surfaces may have something to do with the near freakish court coverage of Nole, Rafa, Murray and even Federer (whose court speed and stamina is underrated)? Do you think its slightly convenient we hear little about court speed of Wimbledon and the US Open until Nadal wins the tournament? Did you watch Federer-Roddick's Wimby '09 final and come away feeling it was played on "green clay" or does that only apply when Rafa wins it? Do you think the style of play of baseline grinders may just possibly contribute to the illusion of a slow court?

Please take a look at this link: http://sports.inquirer.net/13993/federer-unhappy-despite-us-open-win

“Did they make a mistake? Maybe they did paint the court a bit too rough. It’s just unfortunate that maybe all the Slams are too equal,” the 16-time major champion said. “They should feel very different to the Australian Open, and now I don’t feel it really does.”
“The night session just feels like you can take huge cuts at the ball, you can run everything down. It’s great for tennis, but I’m not sure if it’s really what the game needs. The game needs different speed at Slams and so forth. I don’t feel we quite have that at the moment, especially if the U.S. Open is getting slower.”

mthierry wrote:

Do you have any real factual backing for this slow evolution of surfaces you're talking about rather than a transient change ? Some links would help. You can't confidently assert someone doesn't know what he's saying when your points seem to be made from your perceptions with a lot of conjecturing and presumptions thrown in.

I already said the video has been removed due to reasons unknown. But I saw it few times and I remember the contents. If you have any doubts about existence of any such video, here is a link which mentions about it.
http://carlamariasmith.blogspot.in/2011/04/disarmed.html#!http://carlamariasmith.blogspot.com/2011/04/disarmed.html

Since I have seen it a few times, I remember the contents. It was mainly about how the game has changed at the wimbledon which once was dominated by S&V and now S&V has almost disappeared. Cahill stated some facts

wimbledon 2001 Fed vs Pete: 251 points won by S&V and nearly half came from Fed's racquet.
wimbledon final 2007 Fed vs Nadal: only 18 points were won by S&V and nearly all by Federer
wimbledone 2009 final Fed vs Roddick. only 11 points won by S&V.

S&V disappeared due to the change of the grass. Slow balls which get fluffy quickly with play, the ball doesn't zip through the surface quickly and puts the incoming vollyer at a risk of getting passed. Players can play from the back of the court, run around the volley and hit a pass much easily. The new strings allow huge passes even from way back of the courts.

Look at this link where Henman mentions about slowing grass of the grass in wimbledon 2005. He mentions every year gradually its getting slower. The link has a reference "If we go on like this we will have clay-courters winning the title". How true this turned out to be eventually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm

Look at this video where Goran himself mentions that the courts these are a lot slower. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s3RgJyBu8


I can post 1000s of links which will suggest that nearly all courts ( bar a few ) have slowed down gradually. And its not just the links. I can see it myself as well.

mthierry wrote: Do you think it's remotely possible the illusion of ever slowing conditions on certain surfaces may have something to do with the near freakish court coverage of Nole, Rafa, Murray and even Federer (whose court speed and stamina is underrated)? Do you think its slightly convenient we hear little about court speed of Wimbledon and the US Open until Nadal wins the tournament? Did you watch Federer-Roddick's Wimby '09 final and come away feeling it was played on "green clay" or does that only apply when Rafa wins it? Do you think the style of play of baseline grinders may just possibly contribute to the illusion of a slow court?

No. Nadal in 2005-07 didn't have any less freakish court coverage that he had at US open 2010,11. Yet his powers looked feeble against players like Blake ( who belongs to weak era ). If he can run and retrieve like what he did in the Rome 2006 final, and RG ( and so many masters on clay) he could do it anywhere if conditions suited him. But they didn't at US open in those days. Thats why the same freakish court coverage and almost impossible retrievals which could beat the even Fed's might on clay (slow surface ) could easily lose to a Blake, Youzhny. Until the conditions started to suite Nadal's game. And its not just Nadal, its the evolution of the kind of players that come up. The baseline grinders only have their chance when the conditions suite them. If the conditions suite them, they all can play their same game anywhere. So does Nadal, Djo and Murray.

Why have the days of "surface specialists" disappeared completely? Why is it so easy to predict the semis of slams and even other tournaments so easily? Players can play the same game on every surface and still be successful.


Its no illusion that surfaces have been almost homogenized and they all play slow ( some even dead slow like AO 2012, Miami, IW).

On USO....

The answer, according to Chris Widmaier, managing director of communications for the USTA, is no.

"When Jim Curley became the tournament director in 2001, we tweaked the speed, making them slightly slower. After 2002, we did it again.

"Since 2003, we've been using the exact same formula. They have been designed to be played at the same speed for the last six years."

John Graham, managing director of DecoTurf in Andover, Mass., confirmed this position on Thursday. While his contract -- recently extended six more years by the USTA -- forbids him from discussing specifics, Graham was happy to provide a fascinating court-speed tutorial.

Since the center court at Arthur Ashe Stadium handles five matches a day -- and the courts are washed when action ends -- the sand tends to wear down as the two weeks progress.

"At the business end of the tournament," Gilbert said, "when they've been played on for so many matches, they quicken up even more."

These subtleties would be lost on club players, but elite players are extremely sensitive to small variations in pace. Changes in temperature, humidity and wind can dramatically affect how the ball moves through the court. Tennis courts are like snowflakes; no two are alike.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/notebook?page=notebook/tennis09032009


And then there is this one...

But it is indeed true that the courts at Wimbledon definitely seem to look slower than in the 90's and the consensus is that the U.S. Open has officially become the fastest surface among the majors.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/464068-need-for-speed-comparing-the-court-speeds-at-wimbledon-and-the-us-open

LuvSports! wrote: Do you just do it to antagonize federer fans?

What are you on about? I was pretending to be upset when I wasn't. Why should that upset anybody.
If you want an example of 'antagonizing' perhaps you can look at tenez's comments to nadal and nadal fans.

amritia3ee wrote:WTF was very very slow last year. Fed likes the surface because of the low bounce. I went to see the WTF last year, I live in London, and was surprised at how slow it was.

It is matter of where you sit and where you see the matches from. Unless one takes a racquet and tennis ball and actually hits on the court, this is just a perception.

Murray went to play in Basel 2011 (instead of Valencia), because Basel and WTF had the same surface in 2011. "Hard, Greenset on Boards" (same as Paris 2010 not Paris 2011).

Basel 2011 - Hard, Greenset on Boards (http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2011/328/mds.pdf)
Valencia 2011 - Hard, Greenset (http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2011/573/mds.pdf)
Paris 2011 - Hard, Acrylic on Wood (http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2011/352/mds.pdf)
Paris 2010 - Hard, Greenset on Boards (http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2010/352/mds.pdf)
Paris 2009 - Hard, Gerflor (http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2009/352/mds.pdf)

(If the year is changed in the Paris link, one can see how the surfaces have changed, for example,
2008, Tsonga won on 'Hard' - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2008/352/mds.pdf
2007, Nalbandian won on 'Hard' - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2007/352/mds.pdf
2006, Davydenko won on 'Taraflex' - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2006/352/mds.pdf
2003, Henman won on 'Taraflex' - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2003/352/mds.pdf)

Please read this one as well... https://www.606v2.com/t8286-court-speed-stats

PS: One interesting factoid, is that Nalbandian beat the USO finalist, Murray, in Paris 2008.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Why is it so easy to predict the semis of slams and even other tournaments so easily?

Because we have an amazing top 4 playing. And according to your surface excuse then how did Nadal beat Fed in Miami 2004? Dubai 2006?

Raider, I will try to keep it short, your post is long and much of it is incorrect.

You ask what I imply by my statement of fact that Roger won all of his slams on slowed down conditions. I am using the Tenez timeline of court slow down. Draw what conclusions you like from this statement. But my point is simple Roger's blazing speed and amazing fitness where enhanced and other parts of his game hurt. Fed fan's seem to forget how many points Roger has won with his speed and defense.

The reason I bring up this fact is that throughout the history of tennis and sports great athletes have had to adjust to changing conditions, technology, and training. And Federer did a great job. So why this obsession with either blaming his losses on slow court conditions or tiredness. It simply doesn't jive with the facts and looks like sore winner conduct from his fans and an attempt to denigrate other players.

The point about Nalby, Davy, and the other players I mentioned was to simply point out that other players on the tour could be helped as much or more by faster conditions. Didn't all of Roger's contemporaries also not have to face slowing conditions?

"When Jim Curley became the tournament director in 2001, we tweaked the speed, making them slightly slower. After 2002, we did it again.

"Since 2003, we've been using the exact same formula. They have been designed to be played at the same speed for the last six years."

John Graham, managing director of DecoTurf in Andover, Mass., confirmed this position on Thursday. While his contract -- recently extended six more years by the USTA -- forbids him from discussing specifics, Graham was happy to provide a fascinating court-speed tutorial.



Raider the expert here conveniently overlooks this telling post by Laverfan and the astute analysis of mthierry. According to the US OPen the courst have had the same speed since 2003. Hence another example of my Maxim "Roger won all of his slams on slowed conditions".

Mthierry points out that little to no support has been produced that proves an ever contininuing conspiracy to A: keep slowing down the courts and B: to lie to everyone about it. The Australian open changed from a slow rebound ace to just as slow Plexicushion. Wimbeldon changed to before Roger's success. The french used new balls last year that all the fed fans said played extremely fast. And the US open has gone on the record to say that there have been no changes since 2002.

The fed extremist and slow court theorists have officially joined the X-files crowd, "they want to believe". The rest of us will have to keep waiting on their facts that conveniently seem to have been taken off the net by the global conspiracy for slow courts and big fluffy tennis balls.

Again I ask the fed fans why the sore winner attitude?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

mthierry wrote:

Do you have any real factual backing for this slow evolution of surfaces you're talking about rather than a transient change ? Some links would help. You can't confidently assert someone doesn't know what he's saying when your points seem to be made from your perceptions with a lot of conjecturing and presumptions thrown in.

I already said the video has been removed due to reasons unknown. But I saw it few times and I remember the contents. If you have any http://carlamariasmith.blogspot.in/2011/04/disarmed.html#!http://carlamariasmith.blogspot.com/2011/04/disarmed.html
doubts about existence of any such video, here is a link which mentions about it.

Since I have seen it a few times, I remember the contents. It was mainly about how the game has changed at the wimbledon which once was dominated by S&V and now S&V has almost disappeared. Cahill stated some facts

wimbledon 2001 Fed vs Pete: 251 points won by S&V and nearly half came from Fed's racquet.
wimbledon final 2007 Fed vs Nadal: only 18 points were won by S&V and nearly all by Federer
wimbledone 2009 final Fed vs Roddick. only 11 points won by S&V.

S&V disappeared due to the change of the grass. Slow balls which get fluffy quickly with play, the ball doesn't zip through the surface quickly and puts the incoming vollyer at a risk of getting passed. Players can play from the back of the court, run around the volley and hit a pass much easily. The new strings allow huge passes even from way back of the courts.

Look at this link where Henman mentions about slowing grass of the grass in wimbledon 2005. He mentions every year gradually its getting slower. The link has a reference "If we go on like this we will have clay-courters winning the title". How true this turned out to be eventually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm

Look at this video where Goran himself mentions that the courts these are a lot slower. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s3RgJyBu8


I can post 1000s of links which will suggest that nearly all courts ( bar a few ) have slowed down gradually. And its not just the links. I can see it myself as well.

mthierry wrote: Do you think it's remotely possible the illusion of ever slowing conditions on certain surfaces may have something to do with the near freakish court coverage of Nole, Rafa, Murray and even Federer (whose court speed and stamina is underrated)? Do you think its slightly convenient we hear little about court speed of Wimbledon and the US Open until Nadal wins the tournament? Did you watch Federer-Roddick's Wimby '09 final and come away feeling it was played on "green clay" or does that only apply when Rafa wins it? Do you think the style of play of baseline grinders may just possibly contribute to the illusion of a slow court?

No. Nadal in 2005-07 didn't have any less freakish court coverage that he had at US open 2010,11. Yet his powers looked feeble against players like Blake ( who belongs to weak era ). If he can run and retrieve like what he did in the Rome 2006 final, and RG ( and so many masters on clay) he could do it anywhere if conditions suited him. But they didn't at US open in those days. Thats why the same freakish court coverage and almost impossible retrievals which could beat the even Fed's might on clay (slow surface ) could easily lose to a Blake, Youzhny. Until the conditions started to suite Nadal's game. And its not just Nadal, its the evolution of the kind of players that come up. The baseline grinders only have their chance when the conditions suite them. If the conditions suite them, they all can play their same game anywhere. So does Nadal, Djo and Murray.

Why have the days of "surface specialists" disappeared completely? Why is it so easy to predict the semis of slams and even other tournaments so easily? Players can play the same game on every surface and still be successful.


Its no illusion that surfaces have been almost homogenized and they all play slow ( some even dead slow like AO 2012, Miami, IW).

Err, what you've posted only indicates the slowing of those surfaces rather than the gradual, year-on-year changes you were implying. I was never disputing whether courts are slowed or not. Wimbledon's major changes came in 2001/2002 and conditions have remained steady since. Your serve aand volley stats reflect unique match and match-up dynamics that make those stats ultimately insufficient to portray a wider pattern. You still didn't address the slow evolution surface theory you posited.

Your points about Nadal's earlier losses is also extremely misleading enough to be totally fallacious as it ignores steady improvements in his game over the years. We may as well bring up Fed's earlier stats against the likes of Henman and even Nalbandian and Hewitt. The fact 2005-2007 Nadal struggled against the likes of Youzny, Blake, Tsonga etc doesn't mean the 2008-2012 version wouldn't have beaten them.

Exactly we must realise people acclimatise to different conditions and improve. Just like Federer lost Henman when he was young, Nadal lost to players like blake +youznhy.

socal1976 wrote:Raider, I will try to keep it short, your post is long and much of it is incorrect.

You ask what I imply by my statement of fact that Roger won all of his slams on slowed down conditions. I am using the Tenez timeline of court slow down. Draw what conclusions you like from this statement. But my point is simple Roger's blazing speed and amazing fitness where enhanced and other parts of his game hurt. Fed fan's seem to forget how many points Roger has won with his speed and defense.

The reason I bring up this fact is that throughout the history of tennis and sports great athletes have had to adjust to changing conditions, technology, and training. And Federer did a great job. So why this obsession with either blaming his losses on slow court conditions or tiredness. It simply doesn't jive with the facts and looks like sore winner conduct from his fans and an attempt to denigrate other players.

The point about Nalby, Davy, and the other players I mentioned was to simply point out that other players on the tour could be helped as much or more by faster conditions. Didn't all of Roger's contemporaries also not have to face slowing conditions?

I never get that argument either. Maybe McEnroe or Lendl should have complained Roland Garros was too slow for them to win on. Or Thomas Muster, Rios and Chang that Wimby and Flushing Meadows were too fast. Maybe Nadal should question why there aren't 2 clay slams or why the WTF isn't played on clay or rotated on clay and hard courts.

Every era has its unique challenges. Some Fed fans are seemingly incapable of reconciling that simple fact.

Excellent post mthierry, I have always found it odd that the courts, balls, and modern strings have been existence for all of FEd's grandslam run and yet somehow slowed conditions have held him back. The guy won 16 slams on these conditions they couldn't have been that bad for him, why the sore winner apologist attitude?

I mean do you think it was easy for Connors, Mac, and Borg to adjust to graphite racquets? Or for players to adjust as the game changed from a country club sport to a global big money business?

Why is it that Roger Federer was somehow affronted by having the game change on him? No other athletes in the history of sport have had to deal with that have they?

OP was not intended to discuss court slowdowns or the reverse.

As pointed out, even the same court can play differently on two different days. The 'predictability' of the court does and should remain 'similar' (not identical on a day-by-day basis).

Federer changed from S&V (the famous match against Sampras) to being a baseliner (the W 2008). Players learn to change as the game changes. He has done rather well given the current conditions.

W has a roof, even that and the controlled humidity in a closed environment has a distinct effect. FO and USO do not have a roof, while W and AO do.

AO, for example plays differently during the day vs the night sessions, and some more when the roof is open vs closed.

I would suggest people read history about the W/FO over the years. There is a period where traditional 'clay' courters did not play FO Wimbledon and vice-a-versa due to a large variation. Please read Bud Collins or Lance Tingay articles.

Can we go back to the OP, rather than the usual Fedal debate?

socal1976 wrote:Raider, I will try to keep it short, your post is long and much of it is incorrect.

You ask what I imply by my statement of fact that Roger won all of his slams on slowed down conditions. I am using the Tenez timeline of court slow down. Draw what conclusions you like from this statement. But my point is simple Roger's blazing speed and amazing fitness where enhanced and other parts of his game hurt. Fed fan's seem to forget how many points Roger has won with his speed and defense.

If you leave me to draw conclusions, then fine. But you still didn't answer what are you trying to imply by saying Fed won all his 16 slams on slow surface, but doesn't deserve a golden star for it.

Fed won lot of points with his speed and defense, I agree. There is nothing like black and white as you like to put it. I believe a player would always like to have his strengths enhanced rather than his weakness diminished. If Fed's game is more suited for faster surfaces, he would always have preferred playing on those. A slow surface might help him in his defenses, but thats not what he primarily looks for. Baseline grinders and retrievers always look to defend first. No player tries to look to reduce and defend his weakness rather than going for his enhanced strength. Baseline grinders and retrievers can also play attacking shots, that skill will look enhanced on fast surfaces. Yet their preference would always be what their strength is i.e. slow conditions.

socal1976 wrote: The reason I bring up this fact is that throughout the history of tennis and sports great athletes have had to adjust to changing conditions, technology, and training. And Federer did a great job. So why this obsession with either blaming his losses on slow court conditions or tiredness. It simply doesn't jive with the facts and looks like sore winner conduct from his fans and an attempt to denigrate other players.

If Fed's game are better suited for faster conditions, then slowing surface will always be against him and hence will always be a reason for his loss. Fed's fitness is great but that is in terms of being injury free, economic less taxing to the body game. He is fit but that doesn't mean he has the stamina to play an outlasting game like some other players do. If he did he would have at least tried it in a lot of those Clay and RG losses. Fed's game is based on attack and shotmaking, going for risky tramlines shots. This kind of game is riskier and players lose their sharpness of the shots if they get tired. Thats why tiredness can also be a reason for his losses.

socal1976 wrote:The point about Nalby, Davy, and the other players I mentioned was to simply point out that other players on the tour could be helped as much or more by faster conditions. Didn't all of Roger's contemporaries also not have to face slowing conditions?

Yes and look at where the Fed's contemporaries are right now.

Lets not turn it into surfaces thread, we can continue from right here on on some other "surfaces thread". Just remember where we were.

mthierry wrote:
Your serve aand volley stats reflect unique match and match-up dynamics that make those stats ultimately insufficient to portray a wider pattern. You still didn't address the slow evolution surface theory you posited.

I wish you too and some other posters had seen the Video "Evolution of Wimbledon". It featured a lot of important people like Darren Cahill, Newcombe, Henman, Becker .. ( i don't remeber all, the video was released after wimbledon 2010 ). I'll try to find if its still somewhere. You didn't read the BBC link I posted. Some more people said about the gradual slowing of the wimbledon surface. The S&V stats don't just indicate matchup dynamics. They are about how the game that once won almost all matches on grass, is now so ineffective that players don't even try going for it.

mthierry wrote: Your points about Nadal's earlier losses is also extremely misleading enough to be totally fallacious as it ignores steady improvements in his game over the years. We may as well bring up Fed's earlier stats against the likes of Henman and even Nalbandian and Hewitt. The fact 2005-2007 Nadal struggled against the likes of Youzny, Blake, Tsonga etc doesn't mean the 2008-2012 version wouldn't have beaten them.

Nadal never struggled against anyone on clay even in 2005-07. Do you think with the same game that Nadal had on 2005-07 he would have lost of Blake, Youzhny on clay?? No way. Yet he looked clueless against them on faster surfaces. You want to say Nadal steadily improved his game on fast surfaces? Well keep that point for the moment, we can talk about it.

Lets pause it here. Keep your points, we shall definitely continue it on some "surfaces thread".

laverfan,

I didn't want to turn this into a Fedal or a surfaces thread. It diverted from its path. "In the world of tennis, all roads lead to Fedal".

Also if the words of managing directors of a tournament ( whose main job is controlling business of the tournament) are important considering the surfaces and their pace, then for me the words of players playing on the very surface is just as important.

We can talk all this on another thread which is specifically for surfaces. But i do remember such thread have existed even in past. So it will be same talks all over again. We love to chit-chat, don't we ?

Agree Raiders. For example, in order to have a Federer-DelPo final, Krajicek had hinted at slowing the courts by just changing the paint composition and keeping the surface almost the same (http://www.decoturf.com/tennis/test-results/).

I will try and dig up the Federer interview.

A couple of people I know went to Rotterdam and watched them practice. All of them remarked that the court was slower than say 2009, when Murray beat Nadal. (Nadal has just won the AO, but was injured in the third set and lost 60 in that set).

Raider, tiredness may be a reason in many losses for many different players on the tour. But one of the players who loses the least amount of matches due to tiredness is Roger federer. You hinted at one of the reasons yourself, fed plays more short points than anyone and hits a great number of winners and aces.

Fed fans blame stamina for his losses to Nadal, but in actuality very few of the Nadal matchup losses had to do with tiredness. Take wimby 2007, an even more physically gurelling encounter than 08 because O8 had a lot more play stopages due to rain. 2 of the first 3 sets went to tiebreak and Roger wins the fifth set going away. Nobody mentions him getting tired in that match because he won. One unnamed individual on this site exposed the agenda by basically listing every fed loss to Nadal in a grandslam to tiredness. Sorry, that basically is a crock.

So tiredness can be used as an excuse but in Fed's supremely conditioned body who plays the most short points of anyone on tour that is a crock. Especially when losses in 3 and 4 sets back in 2006 start being blamed on tiredness.

As to surfaces, Fed doesn't deserve any merit for doing what every other player on tour his age had to do adjust to changing conditions. In fact that is pretty much every great champion in every major sport who has a long career has to go through, the game and conditions changing on them. It has also not been remotely shown that if conditions were sped up throughout Fed's career that maybe other good fast court players who lacked Fed's speed and defense might be helped as much as OR MORE THAN ROGER. Nadal would be hurt by it, but a host of others might be made more dangerous by faster conditions.

socal1976 wrote:Raider, tiredness may be a reason in many losses for many different players on the tour. But one of the players who loses the least amount of matches due to tiredness is Roger federer. You hinted at one of the reasons yourself, fed plays more short points than anyone and hits a great number of winners and aces.

Fed fans blame stamina for his losses to Nadal, but in actuality very few of the Nadal matchup losses had to do with tiredness. Take wimby 2007, an even more physically gurelling encounter than 08 because O8 had a lot more play stopages due to rain. 2 of the first 3 sets went to tiebreak and Roger wins the fifth set going away. Nobody mentions him getting tired in that match because he won. One unnamed individual on this site exposed the agenda by basically listing every fed loss to Nadal in a grandslam to tiredness. Sorry, that basically is a crock.

So tiredness can be used as an excuse but in Fed's supremely conditioned body who plays the most short points of anyone on tour that is a crock. Especially when losses in 3 and 4 sets back in 2006 start being blamed on tiredness.

As to surfaces, Fed doesn't deserve any merit for doing what every other player on tour his age had to do adjust to changing conditions. In fact that is pretty much every great champion in every major sport who has a long career has to go through, the game and conditions changing on them. It has also not been remotely shown that if conditions were sped up throughout Fed's career that maybe other good fast court players who lacked Fed's speed and defense might be helped as much as OR MORE THAN ROGER. Nadal would be hurt by it, but a host of others might be made more dangerous by faster conditions.

Listen to this very carefully and try to think before you post a garbage. Do not hijack the thread from its main point. I had asked you to Keep all your points with you. If there will be thread which addresses these issues, I'll answer every single one of them. So for the time being, let the thread continue into the direction it intended to. Post a new thread if you want to, I won't back down from any points you bring out in that. You may bring out the reference to what I or you or anyone said in this post. And be sensible in what ever you post.

laverfan wrote:Agree Raiders. For example, in order to have a Federer-DelPo final, Krajicek had hinted at slowing the courts by just changing the paint composition and keeping the surface almost the same (http://www.decoturf.com/tennis/test-results/).

I will try and dig up the Federer interview.

A couple of people I know went to Rotterdam and watched them practice. All of them remarked that the court was slower than say 2009, when Murray beat Nadal. (Nadal has just won the AO, but was injured in the third set and lost 60 in that set).

laverfan

I know you have an excellent tennis knowledge and tennis memory so I am surprised you appear to think that Nadal was only injured in that third set. The injury occured well before that and it is a match that Nadal should have retired from. In fact IMO it was a tournament he shouldn't even have played... It is a match that sticks in my memory as it is one that many Murray fans try to use to pad out his H2H against Nadal. I always like to helpfully remind them of the facts...

socal1976 wrote:Raider, tiredness may be a reason in many losses for many different players on the tour. But one of the players who loses the least amount of matches due to tiredness is Roger federer. You hinted at one of the reasons yourself, fed plays more short points than anyone and hits a great number of winners and aces.

Fed fans blame stamina for his losses to Nadal, but in actuality very few of the Nadal matchup losses had to do with tiredness. Take wimby 2007, an even more physically gurelling encounter than 08 because O8 had a lot more play stopages due to rain. 2 of the first 3 sets went to tiebreak and Roger wins the fifth set going away. Nobody mentions him getting tired in that match because he won. One unnamed individual on this site exposed the agenda by basically listing every fed loss to Nadal in a grandslam to tiredness. Sorry, that basically is a crock.

So tiredness can be used as an excuse but in Fed's supremely conditioned body who plays the most short points of anyone on tour that is a crock. Especially when losses in 3 and 4 sets back in 2006 start being blamed on tiredness.

As to surfaces, Fed doesn't deserve any merit for doing what every other player on tour his age had to do adjust to changing conditions. In fact that is pretty much every great champion in every major sport who has a long career has to go through, the game and conditions changing on them. It has also not been remotely shown that if conditions were sped up throughout Fed's career that maybe other good fast court players who lacked Fed's speed and defense might be helped as much as OR MORE THAN ROGER. Nadal would be hurt by it, but a host of others might be made more dangerous by faster conditions.

Excellent post Social.
Very rude of Raiders to call it 'a garbage.' Bad grammar and not very respectful.

The news that they stopped changing the speed of court in 2003 is compelling, this will only help the top players to stay at the top, there isn't any surprise element at the slams anymore, leaving it too easy for top 4 players to beat big servers. Isner and Karlovic should have been born in early 70's!!!

I think they slowed down the courts just in time. Who wants to watch Isner and Karlovic (nothing against them personally). Wait a minute. Didn't Isner just beat Federer on clay? I think the courts need to be a bit slower...

hawkeye wrote: Who wants to watch Isner and Karlovic (nothing against them personally).

I do ( nothing against you personally) . I love watching them every time the those big servers pull out a courageous 125mph second sever to save a break point. A massive kicker so high that the returner has to take it 2 ft above his shoulders. Hit a 135 mph ace down the T which no one in the world can even touch. An angle almost impossible to achieve on serve. I loved watching Becker, pete, Goran, krajicek, Philippoussis, rafter, Federer, Karlovic, now Isner as well.

Ace fests= boring

amritia3ee wrote:Ace fests= boring

Not as boring as having the semi finals always the same names??

I'm not saying there shouldn't be slow surfaces, there should also be 1 or 2 of the slams playing quickly and not long rallies all the time, tennis needs some surprising results and that won't happen when it's so difficult to get winners.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ace fests= boring

Not as boring as having the semi finals always the same names??

How can you compare thrilling semis such as Djoko-Muzz and Nadal-Fed with an epic Djoko-Nadal final to ace fests?

hawkeye wrote:I know you have an excellent tennis knowledge and tennis memory so I am surprised you appear to think that Nadal was only injured in that third set. The injury occured well before that and it is a match that Nadal should have retired from. In fact IMO it was a tournament he shouldn't even have played... It is a match that sticks in my memory as it is one that many Murray fans try to use to pad out his H2H against Nadal. I always like to helpfully remind them of the facts...

The intent was to show the court speed variations, not Nadal's second set injury. I agree, he should not have played Rotterdam. This year he has taken off February, which is good.

Regarding the Murray H2H, there is a similar match between Federer(back injury)-Murray at TMC 2008, which Federer should not have played. I have posted the video link in one of my earlier posts.

amritia3ee wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ace fests= boring

Not as boring as having the semi finals always the same names??

How can you compare thrilling semis such as Djoko-Muzz and Nadal-Fed with an epic Djoko-Nadal final to ace fests?

At AO the players needed chairs at the trophy ceremony, at FO, the players will need stretchers, the kind used to move Azarenka.

barrystar wrote:This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H, but to compare and contrast the two men's careers at the same age

Barrystar, the crown only wants Fedal debates, instead of watching the Marseilles final.

Aghhh... How can anyone enjoy watching ace fests? A game of tennis should involve some interaction so as far as I'm concerned its "just not tennis". I like many (judging from viewing figures) didn't watch much mens tennis during the 90's because of this. It was just so Zzzzzz...

laverfan

Not only do you have an excellent tennis knowledge and memory but you are also honest. There is a lot of rubbish talked about that match.

hawkeye wrote:Aghhh... How can anyone enjoy watching ace fests? A game of tennis should involve some interaction so as far as I'm concerned its "just not tennis". I like many (judging from viewing figures) didn't watch much mens tennis during the 90's because of this. It was just so Zzzzzz...

What some of us are advocating is a balance, not one extreme of ace fests vs. chairs at the trophy ceremony. There should be variation and different skills, not just a singular style and very similar matches on all surfaces.

hawkeye wrote:Not only do you have an excellent tennis knowledge and memory but you are also honest.

I will keep this one tucked away, HE (), so I can use it when SA shows up.

hawkeye wrote:There is a lot of rubbish talked about that match.

Not very likely to change, I think.

Which match?

hawkeye wrote:Aghhh... How can anyone enjoy watching ace fests? A game of tennis should involve some interaction so as far as I'm concerned its "just not tennis". I like many (judging from viewing figures) didn't watch much mens tennis during the 90's because of this. It was just so Zzzzzz...

laverfan

Not only do you have an excellent tennis knowledge and memory but you are also honest. There is a lot of rubbish talked about that match.

Have to echo Amiritia and Hawkeye here. Big serve tennis is so dull. I really like the modern power baseline game. Yes it takes speed and fitness so what this is world class sport that should have world class athletes. But it is the point construction and combination of good defens and offense that we have today that is gripping. And the fans agree, I don't ever see the fans standing up and giving an ovation 135 mile an hour ace up the T. But after some of these long points with great gets the fans literally stand up and give a standing Ovation. Maybe we could experiment with conditions, slightly at some smaller events and see how it impacts play. Maybe add a grass court masters to incentivize variety. Wimbeldon in the late 90s was basically unwatchable for me. The slower conditions have made for great matches like Fed and Nadal 07 and 08 and Roddick-Fed 09. 3 straight years the slowed conditions resulted in epic finals all three of these finals were better than basically any final we got in the speedy court 90s.

Nice job Raider of ducking my post. Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues. Now they don't want to talk about it. But of course there agenda was skillfully exposed not by me, but by Tenez. The post of his where he basically chalks up every Roger grandslam loss post 2005 to tiredness exposed this bizarre agenda better than any analysis I could have done.

socal1976 wrote: Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues. Now they don't want to talk about it. But of course there agenda was skillfully exposed not by me, but by Tenez. The post of his where he basically chalks up every Roger grandslam loss post 2005 to tiredness exposed this bizarre agenda better than any analysis I could have done.

Don't worry if you continue successfully making logical points they'll then accuse you of 'not debating in the right spirit' or not being a 'real tennis fan.'

oh I have had plenty of that from the extremist fed crowd amiritia. I don't let it get to me. I find there weird fixation with big balls, slow tennis courts, and fitness most amusing. You mean today's champions have to be fit, why the outrage of requiring modern day athletes to be physically fit. I don't however categorize Julius in that group however. He is generally a good intentioned poster, makes some good points.