Wilander agrees with the kid!

First topic message reminder :

After Shanghai, Djokovic leads 9-7 and some of the sport's greats have no doubt where this rivalry is headed given Nadal's battered knees and Federer's age.

"Are they the next two? Yes, I would think so," said Mats Wilander, the former world No 1.

"I don't think Federer or Nadal are finished by any means, but on hard court, it's these two.

"Whereas the others [rivalries] are a bit one-sided, this one has never been one-sided.

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/tennis-new-dynamic-duo-is-djokovic-murray


I don't like to toot my own horn, ok lets not lie I do. For many years dating back to 08-09 in my sporadic appearances on old 606 as socalfootiefan and FA I was one of the first around to start using the golden age and generation for the muray/novak/and nadal era. Back then it looked like Berdy, Tsonga, and Gazza would play bigger roles but they couldn't keep up with the other three. For quite sometime as well, since the start of the year I have been saying that Murray and Djoko would be the two players that would most likely decide most of the major honors in the next few years. And now Wilander and many others are seeing and saying the same things. Well it is my duty to bring it to you first, before the geniuses in the tennis media catch on. Anyway interestng and somewhat controversial statement by Wilander, which frankly I agree with. He says on hardcourt these two are the best players now and who can argue with the 2012 USO champ (Murray) and the 2012 AO champ (Novak) as the two best hardcourt players on tour. So what do you think are federer and Nadal now 3 and 4 on a hardcourt like wilander is suggesting?

I would like to see Wimbledon made quicker once more and either the Australian Open or US Open have a quicker surface along with one or two Masters hard court surfaces. To be honest I (as a Murray fan) I feel he'd suit those conditions and be able to adapt his game to suit and think Djokovic would not mind that either. They both possess great court speed and are the best returners of serve at the moment in any case so I see no problem with them adapting.

socal1976 wrote:Henman Bill it is hard to rate Nadal that highly on hardcourt

Have you looked at his hardcourt % W:L rate before making that comment?
You'll find he's 9th on the all time record list for achievement at HC slams.

% W–L
1. Roger Federer 88.19
2. Pete Sampras 86.57
3. Jimmy Connors 85.90
4. Novak Djokovic 85.54
5. Ivan Lendl 85.37
6. Björn Borg 84.62
7. Andre Agassi 84.11
8. John McEnroe 83.91
9. Rafael Nadal 82.14
10. Stefan Edberg 80.77

Not bad for a guy you dont rate on HC hey?

socal1976 wrote:Lydian, I got a little upset about the browbeating comment, if you do see the follow up to Timeplease I apologized and retracted that comment. So I extend that on the whining and moaning comment. Again what you proposes just gives the big server and attack player and advantage at on all surfaces, it does not make the clay play slower and the grass play faster. The things you propose would just favor the attacker on every surface. Basically across the board federization of conditions on grass, hardcourt, and clay.

Yes you apologised to TP.
You always go to the extreme, the things I propose help redress the balance - nobody wants serve-fests or ralley-fests.
What's so wrong with wanting more variety?

Lydian the man hasn't won anything in over two years on hardcourt, his finals losses to Novak were competitive and he has won a great deal in his career. But from here on out the trend of not having won a tourney on hardcourts in the last 2 years in my mind clearly puts him at #4.

Don't get me wrong I don't think Nadal is going to comeback and be a shell of himself. I think he will again lift slams and compete for the #1, but I would rank him clearly behind the two slam champions on hardcourt this year and behind federer. The run of finals on hardcourt in 2011 was amazing but can't make up for the fact that all the hardcourt slams and masters have been shared by 3 guys in the last 2 years and Nadal hasn't won any.

By the way you are generalizing I do not always go to the extreme, when pushed I push back and often much harder than I am pushed that I do admit. Again sorry about the whinning comments that was a bit far.

But from here on out the trend of not having won a tourney on hardcourts in the last 2 years in my mind clearly puts him at #4.

The best thing you've said in a while. That he was able to lose to such an off form Federer in Indian Wells proves how much he lacks weapons/creativity on this surface.

Apologies from me, I read the first reply to this article and then thought what is the point of reading the rest as I'm pretty certain there will be those denying the obvious

Even before Rafa's injury, Andy had still won 3 out of their previous 5 matches on hard courts and two out of their previous three Slam hard court matches

And surely there is no argument about Nole's right in the Top 2 (as the best)

One caveat. Roger is probably still the best on the very fast hard courts and hence Paris is very important for him - but we do not have enough of these to make a judgement

Paris wasn't fast last year, I remember the commentary team saying it was like a feather matress.

paris last year was probably the slowest HC on tour which was quite bizarre considering how well the the french players did the previous year when it was probably the fastest HC on tour.

banbrotam wrote:Apologies from me, I read the first reply to this article and then thought what is the point of reading the rest as I'm pretty certain there will be those denying the obvious

Even before Rafa's injury, Andy had still won 3 out of their previous 5 matches on hard courts and two out of their previous three Slam hard court matches

And surely there is no argument about Nole's right in the Top 2 (as the best)

One caveat. Roger is probably still the best on the very fast hard courts and hence Paris is very important for him - but we do not have enough of these to make a judgement

Exactly Banbro, if anything this thread was an exercise to show how far down the road of fedal myopia that many posters have gone down. I mean is it that controversial in the least to rate the 2012 USO champ, and the 2012 AO champ as 1 and 2 on hardcourt? In any other year it wouldn't be controversial in the least, but when the other two guys are federer and Nadal all of sudden just mentioning the obvious gets howls of outrage from people. Andy and Novak have been the best two players on hardcourt all year period and end of story. They got the slams, so what is all the controversy about.

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Apologies from me, I read the first reply to this article and then thought what is the point of reading the rest as I'm pretty certain there will be those denying the obvious

Even before Rafa's injury, Andy had still won 3 out of their previous 5 matches on hard courts and two out of their previous three Slam hard court matches

And surely there is no argument about Nole's right in the Top 2 (as the best)

One caveat. Roger is probably still the best on the very fast hard courts and hence Paris is very important for him - but we do not have enough of these to make a judgement

Exactly Banbro, if anything this thread was an exercise to show how far down the road of fedal myopia that many posters have gone down. I mean is it that controversial in the least to rate the 2012 USO champ, and the 2012 AO champ as 1 and 2 on hardcourt? In any other year it wouldn't be controversial in the least, but when the other two guys are federer and Nadal all of sudden just mentioning the obvious gets howls of outrage from people. Andy and Novak have been the best two players on hardcourt all year period and end of story. They got the slams, so what is all the controversy about.

Very true. When I wrote earlier I hadn't seen the Fed / Murray match. A match in which the Scot was always in charge and it wasn't that bad a Fed performance. Oh sorry of course it was -any time Fed loses to Andy or Nole it's merely a bad Fed performance!!

He served three double faults in a row.

Redharry wrote:He served three double faults in a row.

Wow, I forgot!! So, let's forget all the good play Fed did.

banbrotam wrote:

Redharry wrote:He served three double faults in a row.

Wow, I forgot!! So, let's forget all the good play Fed did.

I haven't, but I think you have forgotten his bad play too.

Redharry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Redharry wrote:He served three double faults in a row.

Wow, I forgot!! So, let's forget all the good play Fed did.

I haven't, but I think you have forgotten his bad play too.

Have we got to a stage, where the moments of bad play - mean we can't appreciated the passages of play when both were playing well

My my. The standards have gone up since the 90's