Couple of Questions - *Warning May Contain 'Era'*

First topic message reminder :

This was pm'ed to me. I would like it if some could exchange views on this without descending into madness.

As you may know a lot of talk on 606v2 is to do with comparing different eras, something which we can all agree that is a very difficult job; taking into account all the variables.

But as I said, this article is not going to about comparing different eras, well not directly anyway.
I believe tennis moves in a cyclical way- we have one generation dominating, then this generation get older and decline, while the younger generation get in their prime and take over. No one can deny that this is the general movement of events, although there may be some discrepancy with players maturing at different ages.

Now I'm sure you will also all agree with me that there will be a time period where one generation are at their prime, and although many have tried I think it is frankly impossible to pigeonhole one particular exact time period- but we can highlight an estimation of the years which we think this was the case.
During the time period where this generation are at their prime, the slams will be shared between the counterparts- the number of slams in a given year is always fixed.
But my main point is this:
-The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them.
Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.
So far I have not really seen anyone able to convince me that competition within a specific generation will not have an influence in watering down/ inflating the stats of different players. The more great players there are who peak at a similar time, the less records each player will be able to accumulate. Common sense, or not?

Now onto the slightly controversial issue of Federer, and this may explain why I wanted to share this article with you guys rather than put it out on the forum.
Let me make one thing clear- when someone tells me a guy has dominated a time period, the first thing which naturally pops into my mind is: Wow, this player must be great, he dominated his able competitors. No one would naturally assume that his competitors all lacked greatness, you assume that Roger just dominated their greatness.
However in the case of Roger Federer, I think there are questions that can seriously be asked, in terms of his challengers. The ones of similar age to him, not the ones who are younger. Trying to argue that Djokovic is better than him, just because Djokovic is dominating now is flawed logic, as Federer is past his prime. But arguing the players who are his age weren't great, in my eyes is a valid question.

I have some questions here:
1/ How was Rafael Nadal able to get to world number 2 so comfortably from 2005, and remain there so damn comfortably. During Nadal's earlier years, his focus in training was mainly clay- he mainly trained on clay when he was younger (something that I think we can all tell ), and his results on the ATP tour seemed to match this- with many of his points coming from the clay events. The most popular surface played on however, was hard courts.
How could Rafael Nadal, a teenager who could only really perform at the highest level on one surface at the time, not only get to number 2; but stay there basically unchallenged? Doesn't this itself show a lot about the other players Federer's age, who at their prime (around the years 24-27), they could not touch a teenager in the rankings who only really accumulated most of his points on one surface.

2/ Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.
I've posted a stats before that you may have seen- showing that between 2004 and 2008 Murray's 4 measly wins against Federer were more than all the Grand Slam finalists he played in that period apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many other players his age. My point was not that Murray is better than Federer, far from it; but the lack of greatness within the players who were in the same generation to Federer- it's no wonder a teenage clay courter could get and stay at number 2.

Lol. JHM, you should know me by now...I only ever define talent in one way...the ability to extract "The W" as the American's would say.
If you look at wins, Connors was so far ahead of Hewitt he's out of sight...

I don't mind you extracting the W as long as you don't take the P

No I have always said a slam win is a slam win and yes lydian there are far too many variables.

I love it apparently it is easier with homogenized conditions for one person to dominate the tour, someone should tell the WTA that. Well I guess since Roger benefitted from both homogenized conditions and a weak era of top level competition some of those records don't look that sparkling.

Frankly Lydian I am a bit perplexed by your posts. As someone who I do respect for his tennis knowledge I find it hard that you believe that Djoko, Nadal, and Murray aren't that much better tennis player's then they were in 07/08. Is Nadal's serve the same now as it was in 07? Is Djokovic's fitness or volleys the same? Is Murray's forehand and mental toughness the same? I think you may be the only tennis commentator I have ever heard that thinks these players haven't improved that much if at all since 07/08.

This leads me to my second point, prior to the mono excuses and the age excuses the closest rivals of federer in the year end ranking were puppy versions of Nadal and Djokovic and not the super talent bunch of Roger's contemporaries. That speaks volumes about which group is great and which group, well not so much.

BB if you think Hewitt is Djokovic's equal or better than just say it, but you do a good job of not pinning yourself down with that position while taking a few fanciful shots at me. The reason you won't give a simple answer is because even you aren't comfortable saying it. But you sure enjoy insinuating it indirectly, well done in the area of evasion you really should have been a politician.

Lets look at the best year lleyton had, prior to injuries, hell prior to the rise of Roger: 1 slam, 6 tournament wins and 2 masters titles. Djokovic 41 match win streak, 5 masters title (all time record), 3 slams. But yet to the fed glorifiers this doesn't prove that Djokovic is tougher competition than Hewitt. No his racquet makes him look good, the conditions make him look good, Roger is old and half crippled (lol). So this silly proposition that Hewitt at his best is as good for a shorter period of time as Djokovic is frankly quite silly. Considering that peak Djokovic didn't lose a match on tour for nearly 6 months. Peak Hewitt, at his absolute best is no match when compared to Djoko's best. And lets not even get started in that comparison with Nadal.

Oh but that is right Novak benefitted by dominating a half crippled federer, yeah that Nadal guy and that murray guy were around. I don't want to bash poor hewitt, the guy is a fighter who maximized his talents and I have actually stated and believe that he is an all time great, albeit more of the entry level variety. But the reason this comparison is so instructive for the neutrals is that it clearly demonstrates how far gone some of the more fanatical fed fans are and how far gone they really are. Not seeing the superiority of a guy who couldn't lose for 5 months and pretending that peak hewitt was just as good as peak Djokovic shows you what a potent mix the Federade Koolaid really is once you take a sip.

HM Murdoch wrote:Hewitt was excellent.

2 slams, 2 YE #1s and 2 WTF by the age of 21. And he pretty much owned Federer until about 04.

Bogbrush - I'm always surprised at how highly you rate Hewitt but are so luke warm on Djokovic though. Are the qualities you find most admirable in Hewitt's game not also present in Djokovic?

Djokovic strikes me in many ways an upgraded version of Hewitt. He's the B-29 to Hewitt's B-17 (reference for you aviation buffs there!).

No need to promote Djokovic, that's old. I leave that to others who will volunteer that service every couple of posts. I champion Hewitt because there are some who misrepresent him.
I was the first person to note how a Djokovic is the modern equivalent of a Hewitt but you should have seen the reaction on here! You'd have thought I'd have accused him of murder.

I realise that just saying a player is good without engaging in brainless ranking rants doesn't match some posters ideas of good posting but there you are.

Hewitt and Djokovic are actually very different players.

One is primarily a medium to slow court player, the other medium to fast (4 x Queens titles). One is very suited to the conditions the game has moved in, the other wasn't.

Yes both have a strong will to win but just how are their games similar?

I don't see it at all other than the fact that like everyone else on tour they play a baseline oriented game. Novak hits with much more spin than hewitt and extreme grip on the forehand. I guess they are both fast and good returners.

Lydian, do you really believe that Novak/Nadal/and Murray have not grown as players since 07/08 that post left me scratching my head a bit, please clarify when you get around to it.

In what ways is Novak AO13 better than the guy who won AO08?
In what ways is Nadal RG12 better than the guy who won RG08?
In what ways is Murray US12 better than the guy who was in US08 final?

I'm not interested in what has happened at points in between but compare the same players at those 2 time points above. If you give me a mental- or phyiscal-related answer then that's somewhat irrelevant technique-wise because that's the area I was talking about.

But technique is not all that there is to a player, if that was the case players like Gazza and Nalby would have better career results.

However, I will give you the exact ways they are better.

Nadal
-improved flat forehand and up the line forehand
-much better first serve in term of free points
-more variety to the point where he is really one of the better volleyers on tour
-generally, better at attacking play

Djokovic
-his forehand is heavier and better
-volleys are vastly improved he was really a very poor volleyer
-slice backhand much better it used to be terrible

Murray
-forehand,particularly the up the line forehand
-second serve better yet still needs work
-better court positioning

Now physical state you wanted excluded but being fitter makes you a better tennis player do you deny that and I think in the case of both Murray and Djoko that is the case and it has done wonders for their game. But if you want just technique these areas have improved and I think I am not the only one who has noticed. But I think it is odd to discount physical fitness and mental maturity since these are huge areas in the game of tennis. However I think I fairly answered your questions with the criteria you put forth.

Thanks socal, yes players can improve their mentality and physicality but that's doesn't mean their ball striking ability changes as a result. The best players generally have the best technique (as well as fitness, etc)...so it's worth looking at that over the years.

I would say Nadal hasn't changed skill level much at all since 08, in fact some shots don't have the same penetration of old and I disagree about the DTL FH. He hits loads more midcourt balls now. His serve is slightly harder but he doesn't win many more free points. In terms of attacking play compare Nadal at Rome 2005 vs Rome 2012, he was much more aggressive back then. He's probably stronger but he isn't particularly better IMO except his serve is more fluid but then he's lefty and right handed.

I also don't see much difference between Djokovic and Murray then and now. Not in huge leap forward terms. Its small differences at best. I think Murray now plays with less variety and the 2nd serve hasn't improved much. With Djokovic I cant tell much difference at all, volleying is a bit better but its not winning him matches, his bread and butter are DTL drills. For them both the biggest change is mindset and conditioning, gluten free, etc.

My point is that surface slowing has stopped technique evolution to the extent that Federer can still ably compete on practically similar footings. Never before have guys 30 plus been able to stay competing against leading players of the generation below on such level terms. It isn't just Federer...Ferrer is staple top 5.

All that's happened in the last 5-6 years is that surfaces have slowed even further, and racquet tech increased, making players focus on physical gains at the expense of technique evolution - this is more the case than happened in the past. This latest generation haven't developed their skills/games to the same extent guys like Sampras and Agassi did, perhaps even Federer if you compare him from 2000 to 2004. This lack of progress has allowed the older guys to tread water more with the generation below more than I would have expected. It's why guys like Haas, Hewitt can still be effective...the skill base of a 2002 player is still on a par with a 2012 player - all that's different is conditioning.

The problem is that tennis skill isnt moving forward anymore, all the conditions changes have taken the onus on raw skill away from the game.

I ask you - are any of these newer guys inc. Djoko & Murray really any better than say Agassi95, Sampras97 or Federer05? I think not. Fitter/stronger? Probably. More skilled? No. Tennis skill evolution was killed dead in its tracks after 2003 and we're seeing the effects of that right now as the over 30s compete like never before...their skill base often making up for the difference in conditioning of the younger guys.

I disagree lydian, I appreciate your comments but Djokovic is technically a superior player to what he was in 07/08. I don't watch Nadal religiously like I watch djokovic, I have seen the man play probably 400 of his matches give or take a couple of dozen and this version of Djokovic would beat Novak of 2008/07 in three or four tough sets. Lets ignore fitness for a second he has completely reworked the forehand. Novak 2007 hit flatter and would break down more often, and eventhough he hit flatter didn't hit as many winners as he does today or lets say late 09 early 2010 was the timeline on the forehand. I doubt that people in 2007 would rate Djoko's forehand in the top 5 or even 10 on tour, it was a good forehand before but not quite this good. His volleying does win him matches I think it helped him win the final against Murray. He said so himself. In the post match press conference he stated that it was one of the key reasons that he won the AO final of 2013. His backhand volley and slice backhand were below par in 2008 not so today.

Again this isn't about the conditions although I am happy to take it there if you like. But I wanted to focus on this specific issue of the improvement in the technical game of Djoko. I may not be qualified to breakdown the technique of all the players, but I think a thousand hours of watching Djoko and years of playing has given me enough knowledge to conclude without question this Djokovic is significantly better than 08. I won't go into murray and Nadal because I am more than confident on this score from having watched his development with intense interest.

You contradict yourself, you say the margins at the top are thin but you discount the improvements that in my mind all three players have made as minor and inconquensential. And then on top of that you discount the physical and mental intangibles which are huge in a tennis match and always have been just to focus on the technique. So in away you are doing a double discount, and this isn't walmart.

And your last paragraph well you set the bar rather high, Agassi 95, sampras 97 and fed 05, those were the signature years of 3 of the absolute greatest players we have ever seen. But I have no doubt that Djoko 2011 depending on the given conditions and technology would give all those guys a run for it and might surprise your preconceived notions. But again we can only speculate on these issues.

lydian wrote:Hewitt and Djokovic are actually very different players.

One is primarily a medium to slow court player, the other medium to fast (4 x Queens titles). One is very suited to the conditions the game has moved in, the other wasn't.

Yes both have a strong will to win but just how are their games similar?

The games of both are laid upon the bedrock of great movement, an excellent return and the ability to not only get to difficult retrievals but do something productive with the return. These are the lynch pins of their game.

Yes, there are technical differences and I consider Novak to have a greater array of weapons, most notably on the forehand.

But they are on the same branch of the tennis family tree. Which of these former number 1s does Novak's game most resemble: Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Hewitt? You'd have to say Hewitt. Djokovic is a development of that template.

lydian wrote:In what ways is Novak AO13 better than the guy who won AO08?
In what ways is Nadal RG12 better than the guy who won RG08?
In what ways is Murray US12 better than the guy who was in US08 final?

I'm not interested in what has happened at points in between but compare the same players at those 2 time points above. If you give me a mental- or phyiscal-related answer then that's somewhat irrelevant technique-wise because that's the area I was talking about.

I agree, in particular I watched some Wimbledon 2007 and I thought Nadal looked better then than he has in the last couple of years. Far more powerful.

I would say Djokovic is more like a faster version of Agassi in my opinion, I loved Andre but Novak is better. Pete has said the same thing about him. Agassi hit flatter and more aggressive on the return but that is a function of the changing times as well as the fact that Andre was not as fast. The key reason being Djokovic's smooth change of direction on both wings that in my mind is only matched and surpassed by Agassi. They also have very western and similar forehands. Novak is fitter and faster and more spin oriented as the times demand. Hewitt in his peak was much more inclined to finish points at net, was not as western on the forehand and did not have the weight of shot of Djokovic. Don't get me wrong a very good to great player done in injuries but not as baseline oriented as Djokovic. There are similarities between Hewitt and Djokovic but Hewitt people forget won wimbeldon really from the forecourt especially in comparison to what we see today, look at his pedigree as a doubles player. Also hewitt not only lacked the weight of shot from the baseline but did not boast the natural change of direction on both wings Novak and Andre possess.

Yes I am sure you agree BB, anything to build up the period Roger dominated although all objective trophy counts leave his contemporaries a bit under endowed. But I forgot we can't look at results and compare players separated by 5 years because that is unfair unless the guy's name is Federer.

Anyone who thinks Djokovic is not a better technical tennis player today than he was in 2007 and 2008, not to mention mentally and physically is simply wrong. They can be wrong because they are blinded by nostalgia, lack tennis knowledge, or simply have not watched the development of the player closely enough.

Socal, the Andre comparison is appropriate too. I may be thinking in broader terms than you. To me, Agassi, Hewitt and Djokovic are all part of the same 'family'. Whilst not lacking attacking prowess, it is their defensive ability that allows them to stand apart from the pack.

Sure there are similarties murdoch but Hewitt, is not the great player from the past that brings to mind djokovic. Hewitt was a much flatter hitter, much more comfortable in the forecourt but lacked the power and not quite as smooth in change of direction. But people are loathe to make the Andre comparison because Andre is seen as so high up in the hierarchy, but in my mind the Hewitt comparison flatters Hewitt and actually is not that analagous. Hewitt is more all court and Djokovic more powerful from the baseline.

As for lydian's query on how Murray has improved now from 2008. Well where do I start ? Forehand has improved vastly, second serve has improved, his temperament has improved greatly and most importantly and crucially he has developed a winning mentality. A sort of mentality that has seen him move from crushing straight set defeats in all of his slam finals into (since Lendl) came aboard into a player who has never failed to win at least a set against the top players in slam encounters. If that isn't improvement then call me Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

socal1976 wrote: you set the bar rather high, Agassi 95, sampras 97 and fed 05, those were the signature years of 3 of the absolute greatest players we have ever seen. But I have no doubt that Djoko 2011 depending on the given conditions and technology would give all those guys a run for it and might surprise your preconceived notions.

All notions are preconceived, lol.
Theories are formulated from observation, not nostalgia or lack of knowledge.

Anyway...the fact you say Djokovic "would give those guys a run for it" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement the game has moved on. Could you imagine saying Agassi would give Wilander 10 years before a run for his money? No, he'd run him off court. Djokovic wouldn't with Agassi or the others. The point is used to illustrate my point (because this is an era thread, not a Djokovic thread) that the level of tennis hasn't evolved since those 3 guys were in prime...and Agassi was 10 years before Federer yet pushed him very hard as a 35 yr old at USO05. 35 year old!

Yes the top 3 have improved a bit but you don't counter my notion that tennis skill has basically stopped evolving since late 90s/early 2000s - a period from which Federer also emerged. Since around 2005 the game moves forward in other directions beyond racquet skills as conditions slow and tech takes over. It's not the players fault...humans are humans...but the ATP is the culprit for stopping tennis evolution dead in its tracks in early to mid 2000s.

Please disagree with me, tell me why tennis skill is still moving forwards beyond fitness and baseline defence because I don't see much actual technical skill improvement with all the guys who were near the top of the game by 07-08.

Please note: I'm not saying racquet skill levels are now low, but they're not moving forwards as we've seen between 75-85, 85-95, 95-05...my 'notion' is that 05-15 won't be much different to 95-05.

socal1976 wrote:Yes I am sure you agree BB, anything to build up the period Roger dominated although all objective trophy counts leave his contemporaries a bit under endowed. But I forgot we can't look at results and compare players separated by 5 years because that is unfair unless the guy's name is Federer.

That's a bit of an irrational post to be honest.

All I said was that if you watch Rafa from 2007 he seemed to have more flat power to his game than now. I'm pretty certain of it. His flat crosscourt backhand was a Devil, ofetn producing clean winners from neutral positions; we seem much more likely now to get a shorter looped shot.

Yep BB, Nadal was peak around up to around 2010 in my opinion and much more aggressive in his early days when courts were FASTER! Compare his play in 2004 at Miami to last night even! Slower courts have also blunted Nadal's game over time - turned him into a much more defensive player.

It doesn't take Einstein to see whats happened when you cast an eye back over the Open Era. Tennis was becoming more and more aggressive - in my opinion Sampras was at the pinnacle of that Open Era evolution, and possibly, because we'll never know, Federer could have taken that a step further.

But ATP decided around early 2000s that attacking tennis was boring and the game should be played from the baseline because crowds loved Borg and Agassi - although they forgot Borg and Agassi were so popular because they were Robin to Sampras' and McEnroe's Batman. So what happens...all the guys who played and learnt their trade in the 90s suddenly hit a brick wall made of treacle. Their fastcourt honed skills were dumbed down, they were told to go and ply their trade from the back of the court. You're left with Henman sitting on Centre Court 2002 wondering what alien surface he;s playing on, Sampras losing to some Bastl from Switzerland and even Federer having to re-tune his early fastcourt tuned game that hinted it could move on from Sampras. Guys like Hewitt, Roddick and Safin who did well around 2000-1 soon realised the wave of treacle headed their way was going to pose problems to their fastcourt upbringings. Even those guys in the young prime of their careers struggled after the critical period of slowing 2001-3 where Wimb and USO changed out of all recognition. From there it was more of the same as ATP followed suit across the board.

So we went from ultra-aggressive in 99-00 to 'transitional' defensive by 03-04 to ultra-defensive by 07-08. It is any wonder guys who learnt their trade in ultra-aggressive conditions struggled in the mid-late 2000s? How is learning to ralley longer from the back of the court an evolution of tennis? The tennis court has a net across the middle for a reason - to make the game of sending a ball back and forth difficult. Slowing courts down, making racquets the size of dustbin lids and bringing in strings that add more spin than David Cameron is not making the game more difficult...because when things are more difficult, when its a struggle to survive in fast-moving conditions - that's when evolution takes place. When you've got all day to set up a coffee stall at the back of the court and offer drinks to spectators in between shots from 113 yards back you're not going to see tennis advance one iota.

Completely disagree with your post lydian. Especially the part where you discuss the lack of improvement in the top players vis a vis where they were 07-8. Nadal is a bit more of an open question because of how advanced he was at a young age and how injured he has been resulting in up and down form. But I don't think in the case of Djokovic or Murray there is even a shadow of a doubt that their racquet and ball striking skills are much better. You discount Novak's improvements in his volleying, slice backhand, and forehand and say they inconsequential. But I don't know of a single analyst, Djokovic himself included who would buy your view that Djokovic the ball striker is effectively the same as the player he was at 19 years old.

You go on to further discount the importance of improvements in speed, fitness, and mental maturity in regards to both Andy and Novak. So you simply ignore or discount greatly both the technical, physical, and mental improvements to get at what is effectively a counter-intuitive conclusion. That talented tennis players like murray and Djokovic have been playing tennis on a professional level relatviely free of injury, improving their results and yet they have completely by your account stagnated as ballstrikers. Are we to assume that these world class players after 6 years and thousands of hours of play, with good health as well, in their physical peaks stagnated as teenagers? What does Djokovic lack the basic aptitude for tennis or murray for that matter. Again very illogical in my mind. Much of what you argue in the last few posts actually contradicts your own statements in the past. What happened to 10,000 hrs of hard work turning you into a world class player? ARe we to assume that between the ages of 19-25 Murray and Djokovic with the thousands of hours on the court they put in simply stayed the same?

I don't doubt your knowledge of the game, but I do believe that because of preferences you have for changes to be made that you are doing your damnest to put forward a wildly wrong conclusion. I can't think of a single commentator on the game, who would say that Djokovic is the same in racquet skill at 25 as he as 19. Or Murray for that matter. But because you passionately believe the game needs changes to go back to the tennis of your youth you are trying to jam the square peg into the round hole. If you can't see the improvement in the Novak and Andy the players from 19 to 25 I would posit it is because you don't want to see it because it would damage your ideas about the game as a whole and the need for widespread change. Don't get me wrong I don't question your knowledge or integrity by any stretch of the imagination, perception is an interesting and malleable concept.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes I am sure you agree BB, anything to build up the period Roger dominated although all objective trophy counts leave his contemporaries a bit under endowed. But I forgot we can't look at results and compare players separated by 5 years because that is unfair unless the guy's name is Federer.

That's a bit of an irrational post to be honest.

All I said was that if you watch Rafa from 2007 he seemed to have more flat power to his game than now. I'm pretty certain of it. His flat crosscourt backhand was a Devil, ofetn producing clean winners from neutral positions; we seem much more likely now to get a shorter looped shot.

I watched Rafa in 2007 and I don't conclude that at all. His own coach stated that when he broke into the tour he had the worst first serve of anyone in the top 100. I remember the guy struggling to break 115-118 mph on the first serve up till around 2008 and 09. Now he routinely blasts serves close to 130. But I guess the radar guns have also changed in the last 6 years or that 10-12 miles an hour on your first serve is inconsequential as our mutual Lydian would conclude.

Eloquent post socal, though clearly we disagree with each other. Conversely you are trying to jam the square peg of assumed nostalgia into my notions.

Re: Djokovic. I'm referring up to the period where he was nearly 21, not 19. Let's look at what he had achieved by AO 08 through 2007 also:
+ SF at RG07
+ SF at Wimb07
+ Masters title at Canada 07 (beating #1/2/3 seeds on the way)
+ F at USO07
+ W at AO08

Those are some achievements during Fed's peak years and the upcoming Nadal - clearly his technique was always there to achieve that so early on! It was his issue was focus, joking around and stamina/conditioning that was lacking. Then in 2009/10 he tinkered with his serve and that was a disaster, thankfully he got it back again but not before he had gone through a dip of confidence. So, technique wise he always had the shots...I see little discernible difference in shot production, its all mental and physical work - this is what transformed him as a player.

I don't discount importance of fitness, speed, movement - but those aren't the areas of discussion and as I say they are the biggest areas where he's changed so I know why you want to bring them in. The 10,000 hrs of work is not relevant - that's about reaching pro standard...Novak has done that long before 2008. However, when you say Nadal was advanced at a young age - so was Novak, by the end of 2006 as an 18 year old he had reached 14 in the world!

My point is that the improvements we now see in players are physical (and some mental...although physical drives that too) not huge technique leaps. This is because the surfaces don't push the players as technically vs 10-15 years ago due to slowing but clearly they do so physically.

Physicality and speed are revolutionizing modern sports as a whole Lydian so be it with tennis. As for the technical aspects I am sorry, I watched Djokovic volley in 07 and 08, I watched his slice backhand back then, and his forehand as well while good was not like it is today. Of course he was a prodigy like Nadal and Murray we have been talking about them for years. Again at that level the margins are thin, so small TECHNICAL refinements guys like Djoko and Murray have made pay big dividends.

When it comes to Djoko, the guy has taken risks to change his technique and add to his game more than any current pro and that is why he is where he is now. The forehand is not the same forehand of 07 it is a bigger more vertical strike plane, and his serve the risk he took to change is further evidence that the man did not stay pat technically. He reworked the forehand and it paid off, he reworked the serve and it blew up in his face and probably cost him some slams. He brought in woodforde to help him with his volleys. Again I only focus on Djokovic because my base of knowledge on his career exceeds that of other players. I am only using him as an example. The picture here is not of a player staying pat technically or stagnating.

His improvements physically of course make for a better player as does the maturity that takes place in all human being from 19-25. You are the one who eloquently would argue that talent is a lot broader than what some would have you believe. You are the one who said that hardwork makes you look like a genius or worldclass. But in this one area I would posit your conclusions aren't supported even by your own positions. Improvements have been physical, technical, and mental and I think even you concede that but you want to down play and discount the technical area to get to conclusion I believe is not supported by the facts.

No question the Novak the ball striker and murray for that matter are superior to the 07/08 versions of themselves. Remember Djoko was 3rd but he was a distant third, and in his case he had real respiratory issues to boot. I accept that physical improvements and belief were the biggest, not the sole or only material improvements in his case. But it is simply illogical that a player entering his peak as a pro, playing tennis religiously like Djokovic, bringing in the best coaches for technique he could find (and Martin), and not suffering injuries to hurt his progress would simply not improve materially or signifcantly in ball striking. And I have been a witness to those technical improvements and those improvements have been significant and material.

By the way Lydian you aren't going to win the results argument between 07 Djoko and 13 Djoko either. I am well aware that Novak Djokovic is the youngest player in history to reach the semi stage or better at all 4 slams, but thanks for reminding me how brilliant he is.

Also for lydian, are you suggesting Djoko was at his peak in 2007/08? I certainly wouldn't say so and would say he is perhaps at his peak now so surely that suggests he has made improvements physically, mentally and technically. Likewise the same can be said of Andy Murray.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also for lydian, are you suggesting Djoko was at his peak in 2007/08? I certainly wouldn't say so and would say he is perhaps at his peak now so surely that suggests he has made improvements physically, mentally and technically. Likewise the same can be said of Andy Murray.

Of course Craig, wasn't it around 07 and 08 that all of sudden murray started hitting up to high 130s on his serve, did he serve like that when he broke into the game. Was his forehand this good in 08? Neither you or I argue that physical and mental improvements are not a big part of the equation. But to say that their shotmaking has stayed the same after 6 years of play on tour I think is not supported by the facts. This is part of Lydian's subconscious desire in my mind to make a case for the need to regenerate and reform the game, if the two top stars of this period are seen as growing and dynamic players and ball strikers the case for a weakening game takes a hit. Again not questioning his motives or integrity, like I said we all have our biases and different perspectives.

Murray was definitely better in 2008 than he is now. His game has gone backwards.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Murray was definitely better in 2008 than he is now. His game has gone backwards.

Murray's game is less enjoyable to watch these days. Less variety IMO.
I was always struck by, after his big losses, his reply to interviewers was "I need to get fitter", not "I need to work on my serve/technique/volleys etc".
Well, he did get fitter and it worked, which is great, but I think he lost a slight subtlety and elegance to his game.

So are you saying JHM that his forehand hasn't improved immeasurably? Also his second serve has improved as well. Now granted his improvements may not be everyone's cup of tea but it cannot argued it has made him a more complete player - one that has turned him from the nearly man in slams to a slam winner and Olympic champion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray's game is less enjoyable to watch these days. Less variety IMO.
I was always struck by, after his big losses, his reply to interviewers was "I need to get fitter", not "I need to work on my serve/technique/volleys etc".
Well, he did get fitter and it worked, which is great, but I think he lost a slight subtlety and elegance to his game.

Yes, this is true and in that sense lydian's correct. He does have less variety, and his somewhat dismissive attitude towards volleying in particular is notable. But whilst his fitness is undoubtedly the main reason for his improved results in my mind, it's also impossible to ignore the vastly improved forehand in particular. His inside-out/DTL forehand basically didn't exist as an attacking shot before this year, but now he has it in his locker and clearly isn't afraid to pull the trigger on it.

Both are enormous factors in his rise to becoming a slam champion.

What I'm saying is...well, it's in my above post, which I think expresses my views accurately.
If you want my view on his forehand or second serve, then by all means just ask, rather than assume I'm saying something I'm not
Edit - Yes the FH has improved - whether that's technique, or a mental attitude or more muscle, or a combination of all three, it's hard to say.

Well JHM don't you think it a bit weird? I mean if Murray had or has regressed since 2008 yet he has become more successful then is his success down to what? Merely physical improvement or mental strength improvement? Surely there has to be more to it than that?

I can see the argument that Murray is using less variety. It is my hope that, now he is well on the way to resolving the major issues in his game, his confidence will improve and his natural variety will re-assert itself. I could be wrong.

CC, there doesn't have to be - there are quite a few players who would improve greatly with more fitness and/or mental strength. Tsonga, Berdych and Gasquet are easy examples. Tim Henman as well - c'mon Tim!
Murray himself has said (as he worked his way up) that improving his fitness was the key to improving his results. Not to say there aren't other factors, but it was the one he kept emphasizing. That doesn't surprise me because his technique was always there.

Fair enough JHM. The mental side of his game has improved immeasurably since Lendl came on board for me. If you look at his slam finals record pre-2012 then he won no sets at all. Since Lendl came along that has changed. In his big matches he has NEVER failed to win at least a set - Djokovic (in AO Semi in 2012 lost 3-2), Wimbledon 2012 Final against Federer lost in four sets), Olympic semi V Djoko won in straight sets, Final V Federer won in straight sets, US Open Final V Djokovic won in five sets and AO 2013 Semi beat Federer in five sets and lost to Djoko in final in four sets.

After Wimbledon 2008, Murray had to get fitter. I remember a journalist compared it to Watching Dublane FC vs Real Madrid. Thats how far the chasm between Nadal and Murray was. Tbh I dont think it has closed to the point of it being a 50-50 on natural surfaces.

Anyway, cross era discussions are difficult in any sport which doesnt have a stopwatch, measuring tape, or Michael Jordan. To much "I think" for any real headway to be made.

But the fact of the matter is that a 20 year old Nadal with little grass experience made the Wimbledon final. A 20-year old Djokovic made the USO final, A 21-year old Murray made the USO final. At the time Roddick was 25-27 (prime). I excuse Hewitt and Safin because they were handed bodies incapable of withstanding a gentle breeze. defeating a 35-year old Agassi does not look that awesome when we see how iffy a 31+ Fed looks. Fact is from 2004-2007 Fed had no rivals, a fact he (reportedly, yet to see the quote) acknowledges. It wasnt even the fault of his rivals. Grow up idolizing Sampras, yet play on court speeds Sampras couldnt penetrate. It says more about Feds adaptabilty that he was so dominant. Criticizing a player for the strength of his era is like criticizing a man for the family he was born into.

kingraf, it's not so much criticizing Fed as trying to denigrate his acheivements, usually because posters don't like him or don't like his fans, or as a tool to place their own personal favourite as a greater player.

Well, no English teams in the Champions League QF, only 1-2 in Europa League, does that somehow make Manchester Uniteds iminent league title less relevant than the 2008 one?

In cricket they say no Test Wicket is a gimme. Well, that is exponentially true of Slams.

I do feel that works both ways though JHM. As in that you will get posters who 'big up' the early 2000's to enhance Federer and talk down the here and now and speak of their player's demise to denigrate the successful players of today.

And I have said time and again that a slam win is a slam win no matter when it was and who it was against so cannot see how that is damaging Federer in anyway.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I have always said a slam win is a slam win and yes lydian there are far too many variables.

This statement is contradictory.
Surely if there are many variables, we can't just equate all the slams as equal?

That said, the competition in 2004-06ish was not great. If a 34-year old Fed makes a slam final 2015 then I dont know.

Looking at the majority of his opponents
Mark Philopousis
Andy Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
Marat Safin
Young Rafa
Vintage Agassi.

Hardly guys I expect to be rolling through the current tour (including Rafa and Agassi)

All Slams are created equal, but some (d. Nadal Wimbledon 2007) are more equal than others (Hewitt USO 2004)

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I have always said a slam win is a slam win and yes lydian there are far too many variables.

This statement is contradictory.
Surely if there are many variables, we can't just equate all the slams as equal?

At the end of the day the history books and human memory equate a slam win as a slam win. I mean off the top of your head can you tell me which of Borg's slam wins were of any more perceived value? I cerainly can't and people only take into account the amount he won. That is why in my eyes a slam win is a slam win. The variables remark was more to do with rating eras - akin to trying to prove with great assertion how many stars are in our galaxy. An impossible ask.

wimbledon 1980. As well as RG 1981