Did the AO tell us much or was it an anomaly?

As the dust settles and I start to wish I'd recorded all Roger's matches (I did record the final because I was in the air, against all previous jinxing principles), our thoughts should turn to what if anything this has told us. The questions in my mind are

- Is this a sign of more to come from Roger and Rafa or was it a last stand for them both? Anyone see one or both picking up another Slam this year?
- Might other TD's see the hugely positive reaction to the faster conditions and follow on? To a new generation of TV fans it must have been amazing to see 5 set matches done in 3 hours and to see that short rallies don't need to be on the Ivo Karlovic / John Isner model. I'm looking particularly at you, Wimbledon.
- Along the same lines, will the stratospheric interest in Federer & Nadal resuming hostilities after a couple of years of Murray / Djokovic finally convince everyone of the depth of the crisis the game is in once those two vanish (subject to the next point)?
- Are Dimitrov and Sasha Zverev going to make further strides? Dimitrov in particular showed a level of grit in the semi-final; Zverev has more time but will be squander it or make a breakthrough?
- How bad is Djokovic's slump? When does a bad patch become evidence of decline?

Lot of questions!

bogbrush wrote:As the dust settles and I start to wish I'd recorded all Roger's matches (I did record the final because I was in the air, against all previous jinxing principles), our thoughts should turn to what if anything this has told us. The questions in my mind are
- Is this a sign of more to come from Roger and Rafa or was it a last stand for them both? Anyone see one or both picking up another Slam this year?

It all depends on playing conditions.
Federer can physically make 7 matches only if he doesn't have to hit many retrieved balls over and over.
Nadal is the opposite.
He would thrive with slower condtions especially on clay.

So we'll have to wait and see what Wimbledon decide.

My thinking is that RG will,as always produce anything Babolat/Nadal ask for.

bogbrush wrote:

- Might other TD's see the hugely positive reaction to the faster conditions and follow on? To a new generation of TV fans it must have been amazing to see 5 set matches done in 3 hours and to see that short rallies don't need to be on the Ivo Karlovic / John Isner model. I'm looking particularly at you, Wimbledon.

I have already answered this one, partly.
I don't think Wimbledin, RG or USO will follow AO.
Which is, of course, terrible.

bogbrush wrote:
Along the same lines, will the stratospheric interest in Federer and Nadal resuming hostilities after a couple of years of Murray / Djokovic finally convince everyone of the depth of the crisis the game is in once those two vanish (subject to the next point)?

The younger ones will be good enough to advance to semis and finals of slams  in  a year or two.
I mean mainly Dimitrov, Pouille, Nishikori... a lot will depend on playing conditions. If they stay slow, we are going to see Murray&Djokovic longer at the top

bogbrush wrote:
- Are Dimitrov and Sasha Zverev going to make further strides? Dimitrov in particular showed a level of grit in the semi-final; Zverev has more time but will be squander it or make a breakthrough?

Dimi was such a wonderful surprise vs Nadal, he is on the verge of breakthrough, I think he could do well in RG, too. Young Zverev needs a bit more game. Maybe his older bro could teach bim a trick or two.

bogbrush wrote:
- How bad is Djokovic's slump? When does a bad patch become evidence of decline?

Quite bad.
He can easily come back to his top level, just that his private life is all over the place.
We could see how much stable family meant to Federer, imagine the opposite.

He is far from decline
He is trying to resurrect his fire by playing Davis Cup this weekend, but really...not sure what to think any more.

It told us that Nadal is a very limited player that is, as expected, suffering far more with age than a shot maker like Federer (even a 35 year old Federer). We all knew that. As soon as Nadal lost a step he was in trouble, because his whole game is based around retrieval. It will only get worse for him. But, yes, it's an anomaly. Federer is the greatest player of all time and hence does not fit into the absolute pattern you will see from virtually every other player. He is the second oldest Slam winner for a reason: it's not easy to win Slams at 35. In fact, it's nearly unheard of. What he's done is abnormal.

Could he win another? Yes.  The fact is, the current tour is loaded with mental midgets and underachievers.  Murray is the worst number 1 for a long time, Djokovic is off the boil and aging, Nadal is too (he has a chance at the FO, of course). The players who are likely going to be the biggest winners—Kyrgios and Zverev—are lacking experience, or discipline, or both. But it will come.

I don't expect Federer to win another, and, as I have stated a few times, I believe he will call it quits at the end of this year.  It doesn't matter now. He's done it all. He's broken more records. He really has nothing left to prove. He has no meaningful goals to set. He's conquered tennis.

It just told us that had Federer adopted that racquet earlier and/or had the conds stayed as fast and/or Fed had been of the same generation as Rafa he woudl have reigned supreme amongst this new generation as he reigned over his.

Looking at the future Nishi is still one I think might get there before the rest. Rao was awful. Zverev is certainly improving fast.

Nadal is the one in a bad seat now. I think he was actually the lucky one here cause his game will suffer most v Murray, Djoko, Nishi and other powerful DHBH on slower conds yet is unlikely to go further in the draw with faster conditions. I think he had a lucky draw and could have easily lost to Zverev or any more aggressive player.

So in short yes Fed could win one or two more (as NITB said depends very much on the conds)...Nadal is unlikely to cause there are better players nowadays on both fast and slow conditions.

Final word to Stan.....woudl he have won another slam had he not got a leg injury? He is getting solid towards the end of slams.

Of everything, the question that most intrigues me is the matter of faster court speed & balls. 

Was this an accident? Pundits & fans have applauded the more entertaining tennis possible on a fair Court (that allows all styles a chances) and I wonder if it will be the start of a return. Without Federer the game is dangerously boring and Zverev beating Murray showed there was another style that can beat the base liners given a fair shot.

Is the tide turning?

Pat Cash said that the AO sped things up to help Kyrgios. Might be true.

Problem is that TDs are big fan of stars and since those stars are based on the last few years of dead slow conds....we are more likely to have more of it. All 3 other slams are really slow. Even in this SO we had a 36 shot rally between Fed and Nadal and covered over 11m on average per point....not sure whether that includes aces or winning serves.

Frankly I don;t see much changing. Woudl love too...but unlikely. Having retrievers like Murray, Djoko and Nadal winning Wimbledon is a disgrace,

- Is this a sign of more to come from Roger and Rafa or was it a last stand for them both? Anyone see one or both picking up another Slam this year?
------


A slam success is a great confidence booster for Fed, that too agaisnt Nadal. And confidence is a great thing. His best chance for the next slam will be wimbledon. If he can reach the finals without having to face any slugfest battle in QF or SF with good form and fitness, I'll back him to win it. 


Nadal must be feeling good too, but having lost to Fed whom he is supposed to beat, its not too much help confidence wise. His best chance is RG and that success mainly depends on how well he has been doing in the 4 tournaments he plays prior to RG. 

Fed's chances to win a slam are more than Nadal's.

bogbrush wrote:Of everything, the question that most intrigues me is the matter of faster court speed & balls. 

Was this an accident? Pundits & fans have applauded the more entertaining tennis possible on a fair Court (that allows all styles a chances) and I wonder if it will be the start of a return. Without Federer the game is dangerously boring and Zverev beating Murray showed there was another style that can beat the base liners given a fair shot.

Is the tide turning?

It wasn't an accident.
I am sure Ozzies did it for Fed (read:tennis).

For that I am eternally grateful to them!

In a way they had an instant reward, too, in two fantastic finals nobody in the world could have predicted, and I am sure all other slam TDs were envious of.

So the answer to your op question, yes, unfortunately it was an anomaly.

Tennis is run by money driven managers and beurocrats.

Craig Tiley, probably backed by legend Laver may be the last of tennis romantics. The other 80% prefer to watch and support sweaty fighter Nadal.

Maybe when Fed retires one day and decides to come back to it, he could run ATP and breathe back life into tennis...

In the meantime, we have AO 2017 to shine like a star in the black night sky.

Just in case you forgot or still think it's a dream...here comes the pinch:

I think if we just for a moment see the past the Federer victory, what this Australian Open has demonstrated is exactly what tennis can be. I think it absolutely encouraged a shotmaking paradise which I haven't seen in many a day. If had something in it for everyone. I don't subscribe to the notion that the 'roadrunner' brigade can't achieve results on quicker surfaces. Andy and Novak were certainly caught cold not just by themselves not quickly adjusting to the conditions but how all of a sudden the field opened up and caught up. Nadal deserves a lot of credit. I know on this forum he is seen as a talentless moonballer, but he absolutely showed he can make adjustments quickly. Take the final. I feel sick applauding this as I hate game blunting, but what he did in the 4th and 5th set with the body serve was in way so intelligent. I wouldn't be cheering anyone who won a Slam by that method, but it was like a throw back to the days when Lendl hit the ball at players at the net. Ugly, but effective. Watching Federer and Nadal trying to outfox each other was entertaining. Despite the result, I thought the match delivered what the rivalry needed. Not just a Federer victory, but a match in which the outcome was unknown throughout.

Change is fresh. This freshness was most welcome and the thing is the whole tennis world has been buzzing about the changes in conditions and how even the 5 setters that seemed breath taking were over in some cases before 4 hours. Another thing I noticed was how happy most the players looked. It appeared that was a spark in their step, well most of them.

I really hope that Wimbledon has the courage to follow the example set by the AO. This has done wonders for the AO which seemingly is the poor relative in the Slam family and I can imagine a lot players will be looking forward to playing there for years to come.

Djokovic and Murray won't go into perma-decline immediately, however I am hoping this AO will give them some food for thought. Agassi's comments on Murray were spot on. Maybe the brand of tennis encouraged by what was on display at the AO might inspire Murray and Djokovic to embrace a more aggressive attacking aspect to their culture.

I still have reservations over Dimitrov/Thiem/Nishi/Raonic. The big difficulty is being be able to re-programme their mindset and eliminate battle scars from defeats gone by. Federer's victory showed that. Play within yourself and not get bogged down by memories of yesterday.

As for TD's, will they have the courage to play with conditions? I am crossing my fingers Wimbledon takes note and that maybe the US tournaments. Cinncy/Canada/Flushing Meadows I'd love to see follow suit.

Finally is this a one off for Federer? The guy has always been a serious contender let's be honest. This could well serve as mini rejuvenation in body and mind and he (in those conditions) could win more titles this year.

I am happy to have enjoyed a Slam from start to finish for once.

You've captured precisiely what I was thinking lk; that aspect of my article wasn't a Fed-worshipping fest (the rest was for sure!).

I certainly don't disapprove of Nadals body serve; it's a perfectly legitimate and quite respectable tactic (nothing at all like the endless loopy forehands to the ad court). It was a challenge to Federer who had to anticipate and move, great stuff!

I also agree Djokovic or Murray could have won here. I don't want the game to go to the other end, what was great about this event was that every style had a fair chance and the fans loved it. I am hoping, but not with much confidence, that the TD's take note.

Oh indeed it is a legitimate shot, however from a spirit of the game point of view it is a source of frustration for me. The final was entertaining. Ok maybe it didn't have flying winners aplenty, but those that were it was worth it. You had 2 guys whose rhythm flip flopped all match and yes I would pay to watch that final again.

I certainly do want to see a massive shift that speeds conditions up at all tournaments. What the AO has shown is a small tweak in the right areas totally changes the dynamic of the game. Look at the start of the tournament. The consensus would be: Djokovic will win it, goes out 2nd round. Murray will win it, goes out 4th round. Fuck who will win it? And that is what tennis needs. The enchantment of uncertainty.

I like you don't have the confidence the TD's will do anything as radical. Change is money and no-one likes spending that.

Tennis is and always should be a thinking man's/woman's sport. The very fact it became a sport in which the mindset of approach is: "Why do I need to think about playing 3 or 4 different shots when I can play the same one over and over until either my opponent gives up physically or mentally or even both"

I wish they'd start doing some underarm or short serves against Nadal. He's 50 feet behind the baseline and wouldn't reach the ball.  Even if he did, it would sow the seeds of doubt for future serves.  But no one does it. I do it all the time at the local club.  Nets me quite a few points.  Even when they do return it, I pass them.

I also don't agree that Nadal can make adjustments quickly.

a.  He had a cake walk draw. The easiest of the lot, probably.
b. A 35 year old Federer beat him in the final and should have beaten him 3-0 or 4-1.
c. This surface was not much faster than the normal.  The degree to which it has been "sped up" has been hyped so much one would think they played on a giant treadmill.
d. Nadal didn't do anything differently... at all. He came to the net seldom and only when it was an easy put away. He played the same old baseline game (and was duly criticized for staying so far back, even when it was clear it wasn't working). He played the same old retrieval game.

The difference is - Nadal can't play that game as well as he once could. That's the only thing that's really changed.  Nadal will keep on playing this way because he can do fuck all else. He's totally limited.

Daniel wrote:I also don't agree that Nadal can make adjustments quickly.

a.  He had a cake walk draw. The easiest of the lot, probably.
b. A 35 year old Federer beat him in the final and should have beaten him 3-0 or 4-1.
c. This surface was not much faster than the normal.  The degree to which it has been "sped up" has been hyped so much one would think they played on a giant treadmill.
d. Nadal didn't do anything differently... at all. He came to the net seldom and only when it was an easy put away. He played the same old baseline game (and was duly criticized for staying so far back, even when it was clear it wasn't working). He played the same old retrieval game.

The difference is - Nadal can't play that game as well as he once could. That's the only thing that's really changed.  Nadal will keep on playing this way because he can do fuck all else. He's totally limited.

Difficult to say but Federer scored twice as many aces as his 2009 final. What I think is that the previous years were dead slow hence Djoko and Murray reaching finals regularly. So though it was not electrically fast....It was fast enough to invite taking risk. Which is what the other tournaments fail to provide.

Indeed.  Also...

http://www.606v2.com/t65019p300-australian-open-day-fourteen#3507964

How many Slams did he win against Federer and Djokovic trying that style, Lydian? I'm afraid he couldn't play that standard and win titles. He isn#t talented enough to. That's why he doesn't do it.

If he could, he would.

The proof is in the pudding. I don't say Nadal lacks talent because he can't play a net game or a more aggressive game. Even the worst player in the world can.  The question is, can he win multiple titles like that?  The answer is... NO.  Which is why the poor sucker is doomed as he gets older lol.

Honestly, making some absurd comparison to a match when he was 17 is just that—absurd. Here's the thing... Me and others have been making the prediction about Nadal's lack of shot making being his ultimate downfall (when he reached his late 20s early 30s) for the last decade. And we were right. You can conjure up all these wishful thinking ideas that Nadal chooses not to play that style and can, at any time, turn into a shot making guru - but it's not happening. Because it's just bullshit.  

He's done. If he is anything right now, it's a kipper. The reality is that this arrogant asshole was rolling around on the floor when he beat Dimitrov because he knew he had Federer in the final and expected to win. This loss will have been huge for him. It's the final nail.  I expect and predict that he'll be beaten again at the French Open, because this loss will have crippled him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMAGMG5Orc

Here is the real Nadal... making a ton of excuses. Here's the difference with how a normal person would answer: They'd mention Roger is 35. They'd mention he beat four top 10 opponents. 

Nadal mentions injury and tiredness. PISS OFF.

And he's gutted. You can see it.


Also, he's scared shitless of going bald.  Look, I'm going bald too   And it sucks. But I am not an egomaniac narcissist - so I accept it.  Nadal is doing his best to hide it. Like this silly cap.  NADAL: EVERYONE KNOWS.  They can smell a bald guy 1000 miles away.  People love ridiculing bald guys. I get 10 people a year telling me I am going bald (because it makes them feel better about their brainless shit lives).  Like I don't know I am going bald.  You fanny.  Accept it.

Daniel wrote:I also don't agree that Nadal can make adjustments quickly.

a.  He had a cake walk draw. The easiest of the lot, probably.
b. A 35 year old Federer beat him in the final and should have beaten him 3-0 or 4-1.
c. This surface was not much faster than the normal.  The degree to which it has been "sped up" has been hyped so much one would think they played on a giant treadmill.
d. Nadal didn't do anything differently... at all. He came to the net seldom and only when it was an easy put away. He played the same old baseline game (and was duly criticized for staying so far back, even when it was clear it wasn't working). He played the same old retrieval game.

The difference is - Nadal can't play that game as well as he once could. That's the only thing that's really changed.  Nadal will keep on playing this way because he can do fuck all else. He's totally limited.

a. Oh come on now.. Nadal didn't have a calk-walk draw when it came out. SF with Djokovic wouldn't have been easy had it been. Still he beat Raonic (3) and Monfils (6) and an extremely confident and in-from Dimi(15) en-route to the finals. How is that an easy draw? 

b. Fed wouldn't have beaten him sets 3-0 or even 3-1. The 2 sets Nadal won, he was playing better and created lot of chances. Even in 5th he was ahead. So no way it was gonna be 3-0, 3-1 for Fed

c. Who hyped this and why? Did you see Fed's after-match oncourt interviews? In all of those he mentioned about the court being faster. Even some other players. Why do they need to hype? They are best to judge the court pace more than anyone. 

d. He did to a noticeable extent in some matches, perhaps you missed it. He played closer to BL especially on his service games. Nadal is not a retriever ( Murray is ), he is more desensive styled counter attacker. 

No one can keep playing the same game over-n-over and hope to keep winning. It doesn't happen. Everyone needs to innovate. Nadal is limited, but its fine. His limit is too high for any of the players bar Fed.

I really didn't watch that match rotla, the 2nd and 4th sets were plainly down to Federer embarking on one of those spells where he mishits / mires. Frew McMillan even predicted it.

bogbrush wrote:I really didn't watch that match rotla, the 2nd and 4th sets were plainly down to Federer embarking on one of those spells where he mishits / mires. Frew McMillan even predicted it.

In 4th set Nadal was completely dominant, Fed saw 0 BPs and he was in trouble in 3 of his service games, got broken in 1 which proved decisive. So Nadal was clear winner in set-4

In set-2 Nadal started strong, held serve strong and Fed gave some errors for the early break. Then the double break, though Fed created chances to breack back on 2 of Nadal's serve he could only break 1. Nadal is quite good at saving BPs, he has done it throughout his career. So again he was clear winner of 2nd set.

Its difficult for Fed to beat Nadal is straights, Nadal is always going to be difficult player for him. See all of Fed's wins against Nadal, in all those he was required to play extremely good. There is no Fed's win, where he played somewhat ordinary and yet won ( maybe Madrid 2009 where Nadal had 4+ hours battle against Djokovic the previous day). Fed has those against many players. Nadal asks him the toughest questions.

But on the other side Nadal doesn't require himself to play extremely good to beat Fed, his game match-up advantage gives him big edge in their matches and in hence in h2h. Lot of their matches have been close, yet Fed could bring them close in the end, but Nadal was leading mostly.

Daniel wrote:I also don't agree that Nadal can make adjustments quickly.

a.  He had a cake walk draw. The easiest of the lot, probably.
b. A 35 year old Federer beat him in the final and should have beaten him 3-0 or 4-1.
c. This surface was not much faster than the normal.  The degree to which it has been "sped up" has been hyped so much one would think they played on a giant treadmill.
d. Nadal didn't do anything differently... at all. He came to the net seldom and only when it was an easy put away. He played the same old baseline game (and was duly criticized for staying so far back, even when it was clear it wasn't working). He played the same old retrieval game.

The difference is - Nadal can't play that game as well as he once could. That's the only thing that's really changed.  Nadal will keep on playing this way because he can do fuck all else. He's totally limited.

Not sure I agree with any of that because I don't see the relation to Nadal's performance of most of the points probably bar C.

Nadal stood closer to baseline and was certainly hitting much flatter than he did in any previous tournament. Because of his court position in points made it near nigh on impossible to people to open the court up as he would normally do parked behind the baseline.

The draw and outcome of the final is irrelevant to the performances he put in.

The conditions playing quicker than normal certainly evened the field out. That's point in all of this. The field was much closer. We could argue a day long about decline, draws and anything else. Nadal adapted, but do realise that adaption doesn't mean he played much better.

So Nadal had a hard draw compared to Fed or Wawrinka?  I don't think so.  Come on.  Admit it.  It was a lucky draw. If he meets Nishikori, Wawrinka, Murray, Djok in a slam, he is likely going out.

Check his (and Djok and Fed) head to head with Monfailure. It was the easiest top 10 he could have faced.

The sets Fed lost, HE lost.  Nadal didn't win them. That isn't even an opinion.  You can look at the first serve % in and the unforced errors compared to set 1. Federer was bottling chances and losing points at an alarming rate. Not because Nadal was playing any better.  He also went from winning 93% of his 1st serves to 56% in set 2.

The draw and outcome of the final is irrelevant to the performances he put in.

I'm sorry, but in the real world, that isn't true. Draws matter. Who you face matters.  Nadal didn't face four top 10 opponents. NAdal didn't face Wawrinka or Nishikori. That's why some of you guys are making the same mistake you always do - predicting that Nadal is "back" and is odds on to win the French Open.  The odds are that if he has a tougher draw (lol not Monfils and mental midget Raonic) - he goes out.

I am not saying he had a tough draw. What I am saying is that despite what is deemed a depleted draw in his section doesn't mean that he can take that for granted. You like anyone knows the cliché luck of the draw and that always has an impact. Imagine if Murray made it to QF's. Might not beat Federer, but could in the process have physically knackered him for SF. Coulda, woulda, shoulda counts for nothing.

Again on this point. I didn't say Nadal "won" those sets he did. As I stated in my take on the AO what Nadal did do was try to blunt Roger's game which for some part had an effect coupled with Federer's dip.

Draws don't matter in relation to performance. You are making the mistake of rating players by their ranking instead of ability. I'll state this for a fact, if Federer had Nadal's draw and still won, people on here would still lord it as a tough draw!

Take on board what I am saying. Nadal adapted his game. Just because he doesn't win the tournament out right means that he is crap. In some cases in the conditions like we saw at the AO, there are other players that thrive and are better at playing in those conditions. As we both saw in his semi. If Dimi really had the grit between his teeth he would've seen that match out. You talk about the conditions not being treadmill quick and that I agree, however the small passages in matches make all the difference to the outcome. Nadal at this tournament even at grinding hanging on mode was still able to come through some brutal matches. Zverev and Dimitrov who are much younger and Dimitrov certainly much more better conditioned physically pushed Nadal. The final showed what the outcome can be if one with not just the talent but enough in mental reserves to win a close match.

I am not in the whole Nadal is back camp as much as I would be in the Federer is back camp. I don't even know what Nadal's game will look like come the Clay season.

As me and BB have said, if other TD's are brave enough to tweak with conditions to liven or speed on conditions, what effect will that have on the rest of the field? Who knows. Some might find a bit of bottle

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I really didn't watch that match rotla, the 2nd and 4th sets were plainly down to Federer embarking on one of those spells where he mishits / mires. Frew McMillan even predicted it.

In 4th set Nadal was completely dominant, Fed saw 0 BPs and he was in trouble in 3 of his service games, got broken in 1 which proved decisive. So Nadal was clear winner in set-4

In set-2 Nadal started strong, held serve strong and Fed gave some errors for the early break. Then the double break, though Fed created chances to breack back on 2 of Nadal's serve he could only break 1. Nadal is quite good at saving BPs, he has done it throughout his career. So again he was clear winner of 2nd set.

Its difficult for Fed to beat Nadal is straights, Nadal is always going to be difficult player for him. See all of Fed's wins against Nadal, in all those he was required to play extremely good. There is no Fed's win, where he played somewhat ordinary and yet won ( maybe Madrid 2009 where Nadal had 4+ hours battle against Djokovic the previous day). Fed has those against many players. Nadal asks him the toughest questions.

But on the other side Nadal doesn't require himself to play extremely good to beat Fed, his game match-up advantage gives him big edge in their matches and in hence in h2h. Lot of their matches have been close, yet Fed could bring them close in the end, but Nadal was leading mostly.

We will all agree on the point / game sequence but what we're discussing is why it went that way. I recall Frew McMillan saying after the 1st set that Nadals best hope was that sometimes Federer starts losing his timing; almost by magic he began shanking and otherwise losing control, and threw away some service games quite badly. 

To my mind it was that which opened the door for Nadal to get back into the match.

On draw they were both happier not to meet Murray and Djokovic, that's obvious.

If we're getting into relative draws I do think that Berdych + Nishikori + Wawrinka > Sasha Zverev + Monfils + Raonic + Dimitrov (frankly Mischa Zverev was as tough as Monfils, the guy is a joke at these events). The most important on there is Wawrinka, the only genuine proven Slam winner, but it's not really all that important.

Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.

Daniel wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Berdych as a top tenner like Monfils and Raonic is a total joke!

Check Berdych's record against Federer - then check Monfils against Fed, Djok, and Nadal. He is always a banana skin. Monfils is a bye.

Any reason as to why you don't want me to check Berdych's record against Djokovic as well as Nadal?  

Berdych is a joke. Proper mug in every sense.

Ah, no answer to what I said? Berdych is a hard match up for Federer.  Monfils is a bye for Nadal.

It's that simple.  Federer also had to face Nishikori and Wawrinka. You know as well as I do that Fed's draw was 2x harder.

Berdych has beaten Nadal 4 times, once in a Slam.
Berdych has beaten Federer 6 times, two times in a Slam (including Wimbledon)
Berdych has beaten Djokovic twice, once in a Slam (Wimb SF).

A mug?  I do hope you are joking.  Mugs don't reach finals at Wimbledon. Mugs don't beat the best players in Slams.

Guess what Monfils has done against those players in Slams?

Nothing.  HE'S LOST EVERY MATCH.  Currently

0-5 v Federer
0-3 v Nadal
0-4 v Djok

So let's not try and pretend that Nadal's draw was even comparable to Fed's. 

Berd WAS a hard match up. That hasn't been the case since 2013/14.

Excuses.  he poses more of a threat to Federer than Monfils does to Nadal.

Im not making an argument. I'm pointing out the facts. Monfils of late is more of a threat going by the amount of sets he's taken.

The facts are that Monfils hasn't won a single match in slams against Djok, Fed, and Nadal.

Berdych has won 4.  That's the end of your argument.  "Sets won" is a barometer of success in your head only.

Chill.
I said from 13/14 onwards. Back in the day Berd was a huge threat to Feds and beat him in slams. 

I just said now he is not a threat at all.

Daniel wrote:Ah, no answer to what I said? Berdych is a hard match up for Federer.  Monfils is a bye for Nadal.

It's that simple.  Federer also had to face Nishikori and Wawrinka. You know as well as I do that Fed's draw was 2x harder.

Berdych has beaten Nadal 4 times, once in a Slam.
Berdych has beaten Federer 6 times, two times in a Slam (including Wimbledon)
Berdych has beaten Djokovic twice, once in a Slam (Wimb SF).

A mug?  I do hope you are joking.  Mugs don't reach finals at Wimbledon. Mugs don't beat the best players in Slams.

Guess what Monfils has done against those players in Slams?

Nothing.  HE'S LOST EVERY MATCH.  Currently

0-5 v Federer
0-3 v Nadal
0-4 v Djok

So let's not try and pretend that Nadal's draw was even comparable to Fed's. 

You have this knack of arguing an argument no-one is making.

Berdych is a mug. That's my opinion and not one of the Benitez's facts that it's not. I could quite easily argue that Baghdatis wasn't a walkover as he reached a Slam final and mugs don't reach Slam finals supposedly.

As I stated earlier in my argument, the draw had zero effect on Nadal adapting his game. It's that simple and I am not wasting anymore time diverting to sub debates I could care less for.

Nadal was playing well enough to win another slam like he did in 2013. the difference is that this time he did not encounter Djoko or Murray...and surprisingly he faced a federer who was more consistent on his BH. There were in all 3 key conds that prevented Rafa to win:

- Had Fed been any less consistent on his BH he would have lost that final
- Had Fed got just a single day rest like Rafa he woudl have lost
- Had teh conditions been as slow as previous years he may have lost.

So for once luck was not on Rafa's side.

But it is fair to say as hilighted by some of you that when Federer was on, he was considerably better than Rafa.....like in the past actually be it in clay or HC. The difference is that last weekend Fed was able to sustain it for 3 sets....most likely thanks to his extra day rest.

Draws are irrelevant here as Djoko and Murray lost to unseeded players down to pression and faster conditions. And Rafa beat 2 tough players to get to the final.....like Federer.

And you have a knack at pretending you aren't making the argument you are LK.  Calling him a mug after I say Federer's draw was clearly harder than Nadal's is an agenda on your part.

And, as I have pointed out, he isn't a mug.  If you think mugs reach the finals of Wimbledon, then you are stupid.

You wouldn't have been predicting a straight setter for Federer before the match.  Only after the fact are you so sure.

Point out in a clear manner how Nadal adapting his game is related to the draw? That would progress the argument which has got stuck on draws which I don't know how I've got suckered into.

Ok so tell me how Berdych reaching a final in 2010 relates to the his level of play nearly 7 years on? Because that would really defeat your biological decline facts theory.

Daniel wrote:And you have a knack at pretending you aren't making the argument you are LK.  Calling him a mug after I say Federer's draw was clearly harder than Nadal's is an agenda on your part.

And, as I have pointed out, he isn't a mug.  If you think mugs reach the finals of Wimbledon, then you are stupid.

You wouldn't have been predicting a straight setter for Federer before the match.  Only after the fact are you so sure.

I can see your point with Berdych, but bottom line is both Nadal and Federer made it to the final and FEDERER WON!!!!!

Berdych only appears to be more dangerous because of his past results. He hasn't done anything significant for a long time.

In fact, I'd rather Fed have played Berdych than Monfils...because all Monfils is able to do is drain Fed (remember USO 2014?) Berdych can't.

Tenez wrote:It just told us that had Federer adopted that racquet earlier and/or had the conds stayed as fast and/or Fed had been of the same generation as Rafa he woudl have reigned supreme amongst this new generation as he reigned over his.

Looking at the future Nishi is still one I think might get there before the rest. Rao was awful. Zverev is certainly improving fast.

Nadal is the one in a bad seat now. I think he was actually the lucky one here cause his game will suffer most v Murray, Djoko, Nishi and other powerful DHBH on slower conds yet is unlikely to go further in the draw with faster conditions. I think he had a lucky draw and could have easily lost to Zverev or any more aggressive player.

So in short yes Fed could win one or two more (as NITB said depends very much on the conds)...Nadal is unlikely to cause there are better players nowadays on both fast and slow conditions.

Final word to Stan.....woudl he have won another slam had he not got a leg injury? He is getting solid towards the end of slams.

Now that the dust has settled, I am beginning to see it like that, too.

Both he and Federer had 6 months off almost simultaneously, but the effect those 6 months had on both were different:

*Federer rested his body and reset his mind.
Can we say that Ljubicic helped his BH stability?

Ljubicic at best was a very good server and SBH baseliner...just what Fed maybe needed and Edberg could not add.

*Nadal...didn't come across as someone who rested much, quite the opposite: he must have worked very, very hard to be able to reach AO final (despite a little luck with the draw).

Let's not forget the ball was fast!

As I always thought, he'll never be comfortable and natural on the baseline, but he's made an amazing progress...to be able to combine his bicep muscle and footwork and produce this result.

He didn't look physically impaired in the least.

Who knows when balls go back to their fluffy, heavy old selves how his game will adapt, I think he won't complain.

I suppose I've been scarred by him so much I'll never relax until he officially retires!  

Edberg already helped with the BH..but yes Ljubo BH was excellent too. Ljubo did beat Nadal in 2010 his last TM1000 tournament isn't it? (BTW if Nadal were to lose to Ljubicic today we would hear how Nadal's form dropped dramatically since his 2010 form. )

I think it's good to have Rafa around. This AO final was great cause Federer beat Rafa there...not Dimi, not Djoko, not Murray. We know he can beat them all....but Rafa a bit less than the others.

Tenez wrote:Edberg already helped with the BH..but yes Ljubo BH was excellent too. Ljubo did beat Nadal in 2010 his last TM1000 tournament isn't it? (BTW if Nadal were to lose to Ljubicic today we would hear how Nadal's form dropped dramatically since his 2010 form. )

I think it's good to have Rafa around. This AO final was great cause Federer beat Rafa there...not Dimi, not Djoko, not Murray. We know he can beat them all....but Rafa a bit less than the others.

Absolutely!

The win stopped all mouths once and for all!

From now on, for Fed it's all like playing with house money...

And their rivalry will be unsurpassed.
The blacker the sky, the shiner the stars.

legendkillar wrote:Point out in a clear manner how Nadal adapting his game is related to the draw? That would progress the argument which has got stuck on draws which I don't know how I've got suckered into.

Ok so tell me how Berdych reaching a final in 2010 relates to the his level of play nearly 7 years on? Because that would really defeat your biological decline facts theory.

Well, it would do, except BERDYCH IS YOUNGER THAN FEDERER. He's 31. More than capable of playing the odd match to a very high standard.  I am not saying he is always going to bring his A game, but you're dreaming if you think Federer wanted to meet Berdych early in the draw - or Nishikori in the 4th round. For that matter Melzer in the first round is a bit much too. 

I haven't made the argument that Berdych is a world beater.  I am making the argument that he is a tough match up for Federer and a better player than Monfailure can hope to be.

Nadal didn't adapt his game.  That's also the point I am making. He just got a shit easy draw that made him look better than he actually is. He played the same tennis he always does.

Monfils or Berdych at this point in time is like splitting hairs. Neither are gonna challenge the best.

Monfils, however, is a special kind of stupid. Only this guy could hit 30 shots in a rally to set himself up for the put away and then brain fart it all away with a drop shot into the net.

Must have seen him do that a thousand times.

Monfils is a coward. That guy doesn't deserve to win. He has no balls. The moment the finish line approaches, the moment he senses glory, he craps his pants.

He is the GOAT of mental midgets.

And don't think we can't see through you oh Mr Monfils. All that showmanship is nothing but camouflage for your ineptititude and gutless, ballsless play. You want everyone to call you super talented. Hell no. You ain't shit.

Federer might win W

Nadal might win RG

Federer and Nadal both have a shot at the USO

Neither of them have any chance of beating Djokovic if he comes back in 2015 form - but I think he probably won't

Murray is shit. He's only number one by default. He woulda got humiliated by Fed in the quarters in these slightly faster conditions and lucky for him he lost before that match or he'd never be able to play it down. The supposed number one player in the world being humiliated by a 35 year old.

In the long run Rafa is more likely to add to his slam total than Fed. 5 years younger and NO super talents on the horizon. There is a window of about 2-3 years in which the slams are up for grabs. Fed is too old to take advantage now. This year will very likely be his last slam winning year. I think he needs to get 19 or Rafa and Novak are still very much in the race for the slam total.

All it takes is for Rafa to get the French and suddenly he'll only be three behind and more confident than he has been in 3 years - and we know when Rafa plays with confidence he's basically unbeatable.

He looked almost like the old Rafa against Raonic. Fearsome.

Federer was lucky that Dimitrov took the sting out of Nadal or it would of ended in tears for him. I think Rafa knew this and that's why he was so upset. This is definitely one that got away. No way that Rafa Nadal should be losing to a 35 year old in a slam final, especially not one that he usually beats in his sleep.

Still, knowing Rafa he will take great strength and confidence from this. He could go on a tear. Federer fans need to get their voodoo dolls out again.

TMF wrote:In the long run Rafa is more likely to add to his slam total than Fed. 5 years younger and NO super talents on the horizon. There is a window of about 2-3 years in which the slams are up for grabs. Fed is too old to take advantage now. This year will very likely be his last slam winning year. I think he needs to get 19 or Rafa and Novak are still very much in the race for the slam total.

All it takes is for Rafa to get the French and suddenly he'll only be three behind and more confident than he has been in 3 years - and we know when Rafa plays with confidence he's basically unbeatable.

He looked almost like the old Rafa against Raonic. Fearsome.

Federer was lucky that Dimitrov took the sting out of Nadal or it would of ended in tears for him. I think Rafa knew this and that's why he was so upset. This is definitely one that got away. No way that Rafa Nadal should be losing to a 35 year old in a slam final, especially not one that he usually beats in his sleep.

Still, knowing Rafa he will take great strength and confidence from this. He could go on a tear. Federer fans need to get their voodoo dolls out again.

Rafa has much less left in the tank now than when he used to beat Federer in slams. His match with Dimitrov went on longer because he isn't as quick around the court because he's older, duh!

I don't think he will be getting to the final of the French anyway, so nothing to worry about probably.

He still has plenty in the tank to beat Federer when both are fresh. Expect more routine beatdowns and normal service to resume should they meet more frequently this year.

TMF wrote:He still has plenty in the tank to beat Federer when both are fresh. Expect more routine beatdowns and normal service to resume should they meet more frequently this year.

The backhand of Fed was what cost him more slams against Nadal in the past. Nadal is the one who is getting owned if they keep meeting and Fed is fit.

AceofDeath wrote:

TMF wrote:He still has plenty in the tank to beat Federer when both are fresh. Expect more routine beatdowns and normal service to resume should they meet more frequently this year.

The backhand of Fed was what cost him more slams against Nadal in the past. Nadal is the one who is getting owned if they keep meeting and Fed is fit.

Don't be silly. Perfect example of how fans get carried away.

The FH to BH dynamic is still the same the moment they step onto a slower higher bouncing court (the majority on tour). Federer will be pinned into his BH corner and thumped as usual. Federer fans better hope they don't meet in Miami, IW or clay this year - it's gonna be a swift return to reality. There is no escaping that matchup. Or do you really think that after 12 years of losing Federer has finally found a winning formula? Get real.

The only difference in Oz was the unique circumstances . Slightly faster court but more importantly lighter and faster balls. On top of that Nadal had less than 48 hours to recover after a 5 hour match. Those elements combined allowed Federer to hit through him.

Even then Federer almost fluffed his lines.

Even in Basle in 2015, when Nadal was playing the worst tennis of his career, Federer in his home town, on a fast indoor court, got extended to 3 sets.

Federer is for me the most talented player of all time and I think he's been hurt the most by the slow conditions but in this matchup Nadal is the better player - no question about it.

legendkillar wrote:

Daniel wrote:Ah, no answer to what I said? Berdych is a hard match up for Federer.  Monfils is a bye for Nadal.

It's that simple.  Federer also had to face Nishikori and Wawrinka. You know as well as I do that Fed's draw was 2x harder.

Berdych has beaten Nadal 4 times, once in a Slam.
Berdych has beaten Federer 6 times, two times in a Slam (including Wimbledon)
Berdych has beaten Djokovic twice, once in a Slam (Wimb SF).

A mug?  I do hope you are joking.  Mugs don't reach finals at Wimbledon. Mugs don't beat the best players in Slams.

Guess what Monfils has done against those players in Slams?

Nothing.  HE'S LOST EVERY MATCH.  Currently

0-5 v Federer
0-3 v Nadal
0-4 v Djok

So let's not try and pretend that Nadal's draw was even comparable to Fed's. 

You have this knack of arguing an argument no-one is making.

Berdych is a mug. That's my opinion and not one of the Benitez's facts that it's not. I could quite easily argue that Baghdatis wasn't a walkover as he reached a Slam final and mugs don't reach Slam finals supposedly.

As I stated earlier in my argument, the draw had zero effect on Nadal adapting his game. It's that simple and I am not wasting anymore time diverting to sub debates I could care less for.

Go on LK my son!