Masters 1000: Indian Wells

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Rao's serve is not great when facing a good returner.

In the first game, Djoko did amazing retrieving.

Is that a compliment?

Not from me! I never watched tennis for mouvement. I don't mind it when coupled with great shots but when Mouvement is the centrepiece and main weapon, not a fan. On the contrary.

He is not as bad as you make it sound!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Did you see this Djoko fall in that point before Rao's FH?
Was that to take the attention of Rao before he pulled his FH down the line?

No I didn't see it.

No, I didn't see it. Not his style. That's more Murray's repertoire.

Mmmhh The thing is he was far from the ball and the fall looked dodgy.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Rao's serve is not great when facing a good returner.

In the first game, Djoko did amazing retrieving.

Is that a compliment?

Not from me! I never watched tennis for mouvement. I don't mind it when coupled with great shots but when Mouvement is the centrepiece and main weapon, not a fan. On the contrary.

He is not as bad as you make it sound!  

He plays well against players who hit hard but when he has to generate pace himself, it's not looking good at all.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Rao's serve is not great when facing a good returner.
In the first game, Djoko did amazing retrieving.

Is that a compliment?

Not from me! I never watched tennis for mouvement. I don't mind it when coupled with great shots but when Mouvement is the centrepiece and main weapon, not a fan. On the contrary.

He is not as bad as you make it sound!  

He plays well against players who hit hard but he has to generate pace himself, it's not looking good at all.

Well, he is best when in his metronome mode, but far from a robot.

I think he has an excellent feel in the wrist, hence good returning and length in general.

He's got enough in his hands to be able very hard to beat. I think Boris is honing him in the right direction..his slices are notably better, volleys, too.

I actually think his stiff disposition is more a reflection of his inner steel.

If he was able to relax, he'd be different.
The closest we can see that is when he is in the lead and plays with little pressure.

Anyway, the gorgeous maestro is back in Miami so you'll be able to get a fix.

Take the mouvement away and he is struggling to be in the top 10. he makes the court so small for everybody else. That's his strength. All his shots look easy cause he is so quick on the ball.

Rao is not mouving as well as usual.

Tenez wrote:Rao is not mouving as well as usual.

He certainly played better before this final.

But Nole is the wall. It's his era now.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Rao is not mouving as well as usual.

He certainly played better before this final.

But Nole is the wall. It's his era now.

yep a wall. That;s exactly it.

I still think he'll be challenged soon.

Tenez wrote:Take the mouvement away and he is struggling to be in the top 10. he makes the court so small for everybody else. That's his strength. All his shots look easy cause he is so quick on the ball.

And if Raonic didn't have his big serve he'd be doing manual labour somewhere.

You can't start arguments with "if you take away"  - because we can do that to any player.  All I am annoyed with is how current conditions cater to one type of player and not all. 

Djokovic won't be winning for much longer anyway. Age will see to that - as it has every player who ever existed.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:Take the mouvement away and he is struggling to be in the top 10. he makes the court so small for everybody else. That's his strength. All his shots look easy cause he is so quick on the ball.

And if Raonic didn't have his big serve he'd be doing manual labour somewhere.

..helping Nadal cause Nadal without his big guns could only have been a bad electrician!

FedererKing wrote:...
Djokovic won't be winning for much longer anyway. Age will see to that - as it has every player who ever existed.

you might end up believing what you say if you keep saying it.

You might end up believing it too if you bother looking at the Slam winners by age these last 50 years.  And for that matter any winner by age in any physical sport.

It's going to be great fun in the next 2 years as Djok starts to wane and new players are winning Slams.  You'll close your eyes to avoid it, of course, but it will be there whether you do or don't.  But, of course, you've already lined up your excuse... players will have "caught up" to him and are now better than ever.

FedererKing wrote:You might end up believing it too if you bother looking at the Slam winners by age these last 50 years.  And for that matter any winner by age in any physical sport.

It's going to be great fun in the next 2 years as Djok starts to wane and new players are winning Slams.  You'll close your eyes to avoid it, of course, but it will be there whether you do or don't.  But, of course, you've already lined up your excuse... players will have "caught up" to him and are now better than ever.

Do you realise what you are saying? That Djoko will win slams at 29 and 30 and will only start to wane at 30?

That's laughable. You are now supporting my point! while making us believe that it's what you had predicted!

Remember according to you Djoko should have declined in 2011!!! You are 5 years late my friend! and about to be 6 or 7 years late soon!!!That's half his pro career!!!!

No.  That isn't what I am saying.  I suggest you reread the last 2 years here.  Decline isn't something that you just wake up with one day.  It's slow and gradual, and dependent on numerous physical factors.

Djokovic IS declining.  While he can still win and he is still the most dominant player at the current time, he is already not the same player he was.  The weak top 10 at the moment is making him seem better than he is.  That and the fact he is an exception to the rule - he is not playing as badly as most do at his age.  Federer was significantly worse compared to his own best - but they are two different players regardless with different strengths.

What I am saying to you isn't an opinion - even if you think it is. Physical degradation is a fact.  Even when it comes to hearing there is significant loss of frequency range from childhood to being 25.  That's one form of biological degradation that happens due to age.  Tennis is a far more complex situation than one process, but it follows the same trend in that the older you get past physical prime, the worse your potential becomes compared to your potential at your prime.  Federer reached his potential and is the greatest - but his potential best now over a sustained period is significantly lower than what it once was.

Guess what.... the fact he isn't winning slams all year like he used to proves this.  All you need to do is look at some videos with Nadal, Federer sometime and see how the both of them are now slower, more sluggish, make more enforced errors, and are generally not as good in nearly all depts.  This is

A 

FACT.

Djokovic will come to a point in the next two years where he'll have a physical issue caused by his body being unable to recover as it once would have, or else will start making more errors and lose confidence.  Both of these things are caused by age.  What follows is a loss of confidence and with it more losses.  Nadal is a prime example. He's making errors now he never would have.  He isn't hitting as deep as he used to and is allowing his opponent to capitalize. This is due to age leading to losses leading to lack of confidence leading to ever more losses.

It's a physical and psychological issue that affects every player as they get older. Federer is doing amazingly well considering his age, but using him as an example is stupid because there hasn't been a player as good as him since the start of tennis.

When you look at the bigger picture of all players these last 50 years, you will see that hardly any win slams in their very late 20s, let alone 30s.  This is a statistical fact also.  When are you going to just accept it?  One way or another, I will be proven right because the history of tennis and science is behind me.  You have nothing except some ridiculous belief that has no proof at all - and your argument is absurdly narrow-minded.  No study on earth would look at a current top 10 and say "this is a trend".

FedererKing wrote:No.  That isn't what I am saying.  I suggest you reread the last 2 years here.  Decline isn't something that you just wake up with one day.  It's slow and gradual, and dependent on numerous physical factors.

Djokovic IS declining.  While he can still win and he is still the most dominant player at the current time, he is already not the same player he was.  The weak top 10 at the moment is making him seem better than he is.  That and the fact he is an exception to the rule - he is not playing as badly as most do at his age.  Federer was significantly worse compared to his own best - but they are two different players regardless with different strengths.

What I am saying to you isn't an opinion - even if you think it is. Physical degradation is a fact.  Even when it comes to hearing there is significant loss of frequency range from childhood to being 25.  That's one form of biological degradation that happens due to age.  Tennis is a far more complex situation than one process, but it follows the same trend in that the older you get past physical prime, the worse your potential becomes compared to your potential at your prime.  Federer reached his potential and is the greatest - but his potential best now over a sustained period is significantly lower than what it once was.

Guess what.... the fact he isn't winning slams all year like he used to proves this.  All you need to do is look at some videos with Nadal, Federer sometime and see how the both of them are now slower, more sluggish, make more enforced errors, and are generally not as good in nearly all depts.  This is

A 

FACT.

How can you say Djokovic is declining? What can't he do now which he could in 2007 or 11?
He is better than ever in EVERY possible aspect of his tennis/fitness.
If he is declining how come noone younger can beat him?

FedererKing wrote:
Djokovic will come to a point in the next two years where he'll have a physical issue caused by his body being unable to recover as it once would have, or else will start making more errors and lose confidence.  Both of these things are caused by age.  What follows is a loss of confidence and with it more losses.  Nadal is a prime example. He's making errors now he never would have.  He isn't hitting as deep as he used to and is allowing his opponent to capitalize. This is due to age leading to losses leading to lack of confidence leading to ever more losses.

It's a physical and psychological issue that affects every player as they get older. Federer is doing amazingly well considering his age, but using him as an example is stupid because there hasn't been a player as good as him since the start of tennis.

When you look at the bigger picture of all players these last 50 years, you will see that hardly any win slams in their very late 20s, let alone 30s.  This is a statistical fact also.  When are you going to just accept it?  One way or another, I will be proven right because the history of tennis and science is behind me.  You have nothing except some ridiculous belief that has no proof at all - and your argument is absurdly narrow-minded.  No study on earth would look at a current top 10 and say "this is a trend".

Djokovic will start losing once he loses a step.

That will be his physical decline. But his shots will still be improving.

You keep moving the goalposts. From memory, until recently you were claiming players start declining  around 25-26.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Rao is not mouving as well as usual.

He certainly played better before this final.

But Nole is the wall. It's his era now.

yep a wall. That;s exactly it.

I still think he'll be challenged soon.

I'd like to see him play Zverev.

luvsports! wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Nole was playing crap as shown by his UE count. Same with Rafa.

But LS!!!

They are pros...they don't play crap unless they are injured.
Especially low risk players like Nole and Nadal.

Think!!!

Why did Nole play crap?
Why did he make those UEs? (in the first set)

Are you saying people can't have off days?

As I said, they are pros. Pros don't have off days. They only underperform if injured or distressed for some reason (death of someone close).

Can you imagine a heart surgeon have an off day?

noleisthebest wrote:Pros don't have off days. They only underperform if injured or distressed for some reason (death of someone close).

What? Everybody has off days (yes, including the heart surgeon). Anything can happen - you can have a bad night's sleep, ate the wrong thing, attacked by some minor infection, have a headache, any number of things, really. It's beyond our control, we are not perfectly programmed and maintained robots. If you don't have off days, are you even human?

On another note: Seems I passed on a riveting final here with lots of exciting shotmaking and drama.  Nothing new here - Raonic' glaring weaknesses got exposed - again. One of the most embarrassing performances in a MS1000 final ever. His netgame has certainly improved, but I expected that on the IW court it wouldn't help him much, if he can't dominate with his serve.

And that's the best Generation Useless has to offer. He'll make top 10 easily soon enough, already No. 2 in the race. Nishikori has regressed since his 2014, same, but worse for Dimitrov who has lost to players younger than him twice this year already. 

None of them look likely to take over the tour at any moment now - and it certainly isn't because they are too young and inexperienced - those guys are seasoned pros by now.