Masters 1000: Paris

Tenez wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:I know we've been here before Tenez, but I can't resist picking you up on your 'fitness alone' theory. Your argument is not short of chinks, but the really massive one is return of serve. After the serve, this is arguably the most important shot in tennis and no player, however talented, can afford to neglect it. If Novak and Andy owe their positions to fitness alone, how do you explain their superior return games compared to the rest of the tour? Ignoring SHBH players, who I agree have an inbuilt disadvantage on return, why on earth can't all these more talented players return as well as the top two?

You're quite entitled to your dislike of a more counter punching style of tennis, but until you can credibly address the point above, your theory that Novak and Andy are just a set of lungs and legs is hard to take seriously.

Returning doesn't require talent as much as you think. Especially now with those strings, large balls, DHBH, standing further back teh BL and above all this fitness which allows players to "exocet" themselves towards the ball (Agassi expression). All this is of huge help for the returners. You may have notice that servers gets bigger and more powerful too...yet no-one gets close to breaking the serve speed record on tour nowadays because of the conditions.

Try to return Isner serve on the BH with a SHBH close to the baseline a la Federer. Very different than standing further back and having 2 hands on the racket. the standing further helps hugely thanks to the ball slowing down fast after the bounce and having a bigger sweet spot thanks to the DHBH.

"Talented" Ferrer is also an excellent returner, again thanks to his mouvement.

I hope I answered your point above...though I know you do not wish to be proven wrong....who does?

I'm afraid I don't follow any of this reply. The serve speed is measured before the bounce so court conditions are irrelevant. That said, in any event, most of the top serve speeds have been set in the last few years - Groth, Karlovic and Isner are the top three recorded. In general, servers are holding more frequently than 10 years ago.

Fitness is largely irrelevant to returning. Returning is all about anticipation, hand-eye co-ordination and timing - all points which I consider fall within the definition of "talent". I agree that slower conditions and better strings potentially make it easier but that's counterbalanced by the fact that servers in general serve quicker now and can also use the same better strings to generate much higher levels of spin. My feeling is that the serve-return balance has remained relatively balanced and, if anything, is now slightly more in favour of the server. 

Djokovic and Murray were both teenage top tenners before they developed the fitness they have today and Murray particularly was an outstanding returner even then - his first serve return points won percentage in 2006 was the same as it is this year. Regardless of whether you like the way they play, trying to argue they are lacking talent is an desperately flawed argument and one which is simply not sustainable.

He didn't beat Nadal to reclaim the No.1 ranking in 2009.

Fed beat Nadal on clay Madrid 2009 finals... to make the year h2h 1-1 and with wimbledon win got to #1.

Fed also beat Djokovic to regain #1 after wimbledon 2012.

Players should take advantage of the given opportunities. Murray too has and its totally fine. Don't have to get worked up on this.

Slippy wrote:I'm afraid I don't follow any of this reply. The serve speed is measured before the bounce so court conditions are irrelevant. That said, in any event, most of the top serve speeds have been set in the last few years - Groth, Karlovic and Isner are the top three recorded. In general, servers are holding more frequently than 10 years ago.

The balls are the real problems. More than the court but it is both the courts, the balls and the spin which make serves easier to return despite better servers now than then.

Fitness is largely irrelevant to returning. Returning is all about anticipation, hand-eye co-ordination and timing - all points which I consider fall within the definition of "talent".

This is a very false statement. Was kind of true when nat gut and very fast conds were the norm but now it's actually all about fitness. Just watch Federer v Tsonga Wimbledon 2010 1/4F and you will see how Fed returns in the first 2 sets and what happens in teh last 3 when he tears a muscle. But in returning the ability to swftly move is essential. It's more important than a 100m start. It makes the difference between being able to be on the ball and not being able to. It is no coincidence that the best returners have always been the best movers (Borg, Hewitt, Chang, Djoko, Murray, etc...).

Djokovic and Murray were both teenage top tenners before they developed the fitness they have today and Murray particularly was an outstanding returner even then - his first serve return points won percentage in 2006 was the same as it is this year. Regardless of whether you like the way they play, trying to argue they are lacking talent is an desperately flawed argument and one which is simply not sustainable

.

Because they timed their arrival prefectly with the change of conditions like Nadal and earlier Hewitt. Murray was winning everything by pushing the ball and sending very soft balls and preventing the then shot makers to pull winners of it. Watch it again back then you will see,

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

He didn't beat Nadal to reclaim the No.1 ranking in 2009.

Fed beat Nadal on clay Madrid 2009 finals... to make the year h2h 1-1 and with wimbledon win got to #1.

Fed also beat Djokovic to regain #1 after wimbledon 2012.

Players should take advantage of the given opportunities. Murray too has and its totally fine. Don't have to get worked up on this.

Not getting worked up. It's that if the impression Murray has had to work any less to obtain the No.1 which I am assuming was the gripe of your statement, I'll think you'll find that many No.1's in the past have had what could loosely be called an easier route to the No.1 ranking. I would like to think many here would agree that the journey of the No.1 ranking begins once obtained. The greatness of the No.1 ranking and how it is rated really is by how the player performs under that ranking.

I have stated in other threads that Murray has been an opportunist. Doesn't rile me like it does most on here

He is number 1 and as he says the ranking does not lie.

However it's also a fact Djoko sudden drop of form after RG has a lot to do with it. Murray was there in the waiting for this to happen and in that respect deserves it.

I won't quote Tenez as it will get very long. Some points to consider:

1. How do you explain serve hold percentages increasing if it is now easier to return?

2. Agassi seems to be missed from your list of great returners. It's balance and co-ordination (assets often also present in great movers) which are important to a returner - not fitness. How do you explain the stick insect junior version of Murray back in 05-06 being just as good at returning as now? 

3. So before they had great fitness, they were winning everything because their style of play was too awkward for the other players? If it was so easy to be Murray or Djokovic (great fitness and bunt it back) why have no other players outside Fedal come close to matching them in 10 years? Why do they win most matches in straight sets? The reality is that they have exceptional groundstrokes combined with great serves and good movement. Why is Paolo Lorenzi not WN1 if it's all about running and fitness? Whether you like the way they play is one thing but trying to deny their obvious talent is another.

Indeed the rankings don't lie and a lot has relied on the drop in form from Djokovic, however given his performances last year, that was a tall order to follow. The rankings reward consistency and Andy certainly had that in spades in the tail end of the season.

Think it's rare that an established number 1 is ceremoniously de-throned by an all conquering streak than a decline in form.

legendkillar wrote:Indeed the rankings don't lie and a lot has relied on the drop in form from Djokovic, however given his performances last year, that was a tall order to follow. The rankings reward consistency and Andy certainly had that in spades in the tail end of the season.

Think it's rare that an established number 1 is ceremoniously de-throned by an all conquering streak than a decline in form.

Nole did his dethroning just like that: by an incredible all conquering streak. He felled Nadal when he was at physical strongest, and he managed to do it twice.

Isn't it strange to have number one win 1 and number two 2 slams in the same year?

Anyway, the opportunity opened for Murray and he took it. He knows he isn't better than either Federer, Nadal or Nole.

Slippy wrote:

3. So before they had great fitness, they were winning everything because their style of play was too awkward for the other players? If it was so easy to be Murray or Djokovic (great fitness and bunt it back) why have no other players outside Fedal come close to matching them in 10 years? Why do they win most matches in straight sets? The reality is that they have exceptional groundstrokes combined with great serves and good movement. Why is Paolo Lorenzi not WN1 if it's all about running and fitness? Whether you like the way they play is one thing but trying to deny their obvious talent is another.

sorry to butt in ,

Murray and Djokovic don't have exceptional groundstrokes.

In tennis, forehand is your main shot, players are measured by their FH.

it's only with the rise of string/spin technology that DBH rose as a "weapon" (which it is for both Murray and Djokovic), and is fast becoming another FH.
when hitting a DBH, a player uses his opposite arm to create pace and direction, i.e. Djokovic will use his left arm in 80% of all that comes in that shot.

DBH is a physically very constraining and unnatural shot, hence it can never match a good FH...that is why Djokoivc and Murray have limits with attacking with it.

Why do they need to attack with the BH anyway?

Because their FHs are not good enough.

Especially Murray's which is a loopy, weak shot.

Under Lendl he has developed its easiest attacking form ; the CC FH and I haven't seen him use it against many players, he uses it only when he absolutely has to - against Nole, Federer.
Otherwise his FH gets punished with interest.

Djokovic"s FH is better as he has more variation with it and goes for it more. Unlike Murray, Djokovic wants to be a shotmaker just can't, though he can play well when in the lead.

So in short, amazing groundstrokes are those that are used in shotmaking, not percentage tennis.

Nothing amazing about returning the ball to your opponent waiting for an UE.

Though, both players have matured their timing (esp Nole) and have decent variety of shots.

Murray's serve is still far from great. It's a very muscled shot, same as Nadal's.

Nole's always had a decent serve.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Indeed the rankings don't lie and a lot has relied on the drop in form from Djokovic, however given his performances last year, that was a tall order to follow. The rankings reward consistency and Andy certainly had that in spades in the tail end of the season.

Think it's rare that an established number 1 is ceremoniously de-throned by an all conquering streak than a decline in form.

Nole did his dethroning just like that: by an incredible all conquering streak. He felled Nadal when he was at physical strongest, and he managed to do it twice.

Isn't it strange to have number one win 1 and number two 2 slams in the same year?

Anyway, the opportunity opened for Murray and he took it. He knows he isn't better than either Federer, Nadal or Nole.

Exactly. Djokovic did knock Nadal right off his perch as did Nadal did to Federer. They are exceptional cases in modern time. Borg did to Connors, Wilander to Lendl, Agassi to Sampras.

Other times there is transitional phases when eventually someone cements there own dominance.

I wouldn't say that Nadal ever dethroned Federer.
He was in his shadow too long.

Federer was not Nadal's nemesis - Djokovic was.

After all, Nadal never managed to win WTF.
And 9 of his slams come from RG, surface that constitues 30% max of the entire season.

Slippy wrote:I won't quote Tenez as it will get very long. Some points to consider:

1. How do you explain serve hold percentages increasing if it is now easier to return?

2. Agassi seems to be missed from your list of great returners. It's balance and co-ordination (assets often also present in great movers) which are important to a returner - not fitness. How do you explain the stick insect junior version of Murray back in 05-06 being just as good at returning as now? 

3. So before they had great fitness, they were winning everything because their style of play was too awkward for the other players? If it was so easy to be Murray or Djokovic (great fitness and bunt it back) why have no other players outside Fedal come close to matching them in 10 years? Why do they win most matches in straight sets? The reality is that they have exceptional groundstrokes combined with great serves and good movement. Why is Paolo Lorenzi not WN1 if it's all about running and fitness? Whether you like the way they play is one thing but trying to deny their obvious talent is another.

1 - Where do you get this information from? and 10 years ago is 2006..that 's already the beginning of the end for Federer who is already struggling versus young retrievers. 2006 is exactly the arrival of those youngsters who have learnt to play with those new strings and exactly when the tour started to slow down everywhere to hope for a Federer Nadal final which is what everybody wanted to see. Things started to slow down earlier in fact but was made worse after 2002 to help nadal further.

2 - Agassi was first mentioned. He certainly had to use his reflexes (or meth) but that's before the strings were changed. So for Agassi, there was no standing back....cause the further back the less likely you were going to put your racquet on the ball. That's exactly what modern returners can do. Stand back and use that swift mouvement. Djoko is the best in the business cause he is tall, light and flexible and as I said DHBH. It all makes sense when you know the details.

3 you will be answered in due time.....but I did not say it was easy to be fit like Murray and Djoko. It's a realy dedication, team work and will power...

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Indeed the rankings don't lie and a lot has relied on the drop in form from Djokovic, however given his performances last year, that was a tall order to follow. The rankings reward consistency and Andy certainly had that in spades in the tail end of the season.

Think it's rare that an established number 1 is ceremoniously de-throned by an all conquering streak than a decline in form.

Nole did his dethroning just like that: by an incredible all conquering streak. He felled Nadal when he was at physical strongest, and he managed to do it twice.

Isn't it strange to have number one win 1 and number two 2 slams in the same year?

Anyway, the opportunity opened for Murray and he took it. He knows he isn't better than either Federer, Nadal or Nole.

Exactly. Djokovic did knock Nadal right off his perch as did Nadal did to Federer. They are exceptional cases in modern time. Borg did to Connors, Wilander to Lendl, Agassi to Sampras.

Other times there is transitional phases when eventually someone cements there own dominance.

It's not exceptional. It has always been the case. Helped essentially by more competition (open era) and new technologies. And th ereason it is not quite happenening to Djoko and Murray is that competition is probably more a constant nowadays (I don't expect tennis membership worldwide to increase spectacularly like in Borg's time) but more importantly is that there has been little if no technology and conditions changes for the last 16 years! The main changes are in the "training and drug industry" which clearly helps those in the know over those who don't.

noleisthebest wrote:I wouldn't say that Nadal ever dethroned Federer.
He was in his shadow too long.

Federer was not Nadal's nemesis - Djokovic was.

After all, Nadal never managed to win WTF.
And 9 of his slams come from RG, surface that constitues 30% max of the entire season.

Nadal did. However, injury (or other theories) prevented Nadal actually being a mainstay as a No.1.

What Djokovic did was de-throne Nadal in a quite brutal fashion when you see how he dominated Nadal in that crazy year of 2011.

Regardless of what spectators might make of Nadal's achievements, he was the man who took the throne from Federer.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Indeed the rankings don't lie and a lot has relied on the drop in form from Djokovic, however given his performances last year, that was a tall order to follow. The rankings reward consistency and Andy certainly had that in spades in the tail end of the season.

Think it's rare that an established number 1 is ceremoniously de-throned by an all conquering streak than a decline in form.

Nole did his dethroning just like that: by an incredible all conquering streak. He felled Nadal when he was at physical strongest, and he managed to do it twice.

Isn't it strange to have number one win 1 and number two 2 slams in the same year?

Anyway, the opportunity opened for Murray and he took it. He knows he isn't better than either Federer, Nadal or Nole.

Exactly. Djokovic did knock Nadal right off his perch as did Nadal did to Federer. They are exceptional cases in modern time. Borg did to Connors, Wilander to Lendl, Agassi to Sampras.

Other times there is transitional phases when eventually someone cements there own dominance.

It's not exceptional. It has always been the case. Helped essentially by more competition (open era) and new technologies. And th ereason it is not quite happenening to Djoko and Murray is that competition is probably more a constant nowadays (I don't expect tennis membership worldwide to increase spectacularly like in Borg's time) but more importantly is that there has been little if no technology and conditions changes for the last 16 years! The main changes are in the "training and drug industry" which clearly helps those in the know over those who don't.

Think you've missed my point. I am specifically looking at when 1 player who dominates the No.1 ranking for a prolonged period of time and is later usurped by someone else who then cements a period of domination. Wilander and Agassi might not have dominated for years at a time, but they remained there for a sustained period.

I do agree sometimes you get what I would call intermittent periods due to the competition eg Mac/Borg/Connors in late 70's early 80's, Lendl/Mac/Connors mid 80's Lendl/Wilander/Edberg/Becker later 80's and early 00's with Safin/Agassi/Hewitt/Roddick.

My main point was the long periods of domination that are broken by 1 player who then exerts some domination themselves.

noleisthebest wrote:

Slippy wrote:

3. So before they had great fitness, they were winning everything because their style of play was too awkward for the other players? If it was so easy to be Murray or Djokovic (great fitness and bunt it back) why have no other players outside Fedal come close to matching them in 10 years? Why do they win most matches in straight sets? The reality is that they have exceptional groundstrokes combined with great serves and good movement. Why is Paolo Lorenzi not WN1 if it's all about running and fitness? Whether you like the way they play is one thing but trying to deny their obvious talent is another.

sorry to butt in ,

Murray and Djokovic don't have exceptional groundstrokes.

In tennis, forehand is your main shot, players are measured by their FH.

it's only with the rise of string/spin technology that DBH rose as a "weapon" (which it is for both Murray and Djokovic), and is fast becoming another FH.
when hitting a DBH, a player uses his opposite arm to create pace and direction, i.e. Djokovic will use his left arm in 80% of all that comes in that shot.

DBH is a physically very constraining and unnatural shot, hence it can never match a good FH...that is why Djokoivc and Murray have limits with attacking with it.

Why do they need to attack with the BH anyway?

Because their FHs are not good enough.

Especially Murray's which is a loopy, weak shot.

Under Lendl he has developed its easiest attacking form ; the CC FH and I haven't seen him use it against many players, he uses it only when he absolutely has to - against Nole, Federer.
Otherwise his FH gets punished with interest.

Djokovic"s FH is better as he has more variation with it and goes for it more. Unlike Murray, Djokovic wants to be a shotmaker just can't, though he can play well when in the lead.

So in short, amazing groundstrokes are those that are used in shotmaking, not percentage tennis.

Nothing amazing about returning the ball to your opponent waiting for an UE.

Though, both players have matured their timing (esp Nole) and have decent variety of shots.

Murray's serve is still far from great. It's a very muscled shot, same as Nadal's.

Nole's always had a decent serve.

I'm curious why you support Novak. From reading various recent comments, you appear to think he is on PEDs and willing to throw matches upon request. Now you seem to be saying you don't even think he has a decent game?

In fact, Novak is one of the all-time great baseliners. When anywhere near his best he is metronomically consistent, hitting to a constant incredible length and with great accuracy. He can change the direction of his shots at will. He may not hit that many winners but he forces errors with his great depth and consistency. This isn't due to fitness/movement (though that obviously helps). It is due to his hard work on his technical game and his underlying talent. The likes of Stan, Berdych, Tsonga and the like simply couldn't play that sort of game as their groundstrokes aren't good enough. You simply don't get to be the world number 1 by just waiting for errors.

I support Nole because he is my countryman and until recently showed
a big heart.
He managed to succeed against all odds and a very difficult path compared to other top players. And that character showed im the way/spirit he played amd fought esp when pressed against the wall.

I am particularly proud that he alone was the only one who was able to sent Nadal into history and beat him 3:0 on Philip Chatrier. And I was there to witness it.

WHat difficult path has Djoko had compared to others?

He grew in above average rich family, lived 10 meters from a tennis court in a Mountain resort where his father had a restaurant, run away from Serbia once he made some money, etc etc, nothing against odds there, just a lucky kid with all necessary conditions to succeed. .

If you mean that difficult path in a sense that Fed and Nadal were in front of him, that's something else.

Always funny to hear you who don't live in Serbia stating how Djoko had it tough, poor, etc etc, when he had none of that, just an imagined propaganda to soften fans hearts with Djoko suffering stories for kids.

I bet Andy with no father, had it tougher and probably with less money than Djoko.

Stop these Djoko legends!!! No one is buying them, no one ever did 

Yahoo,
greed and envy are not good for you!


Anyway...why don't you show Nole how easy he had it and try to do the same.

Which country was it you are from...?

How can I show Nole how easy he had it? Bit of wifes having a coffee statement this one 

Anyone can lookup Noles history, from birth to now. 

And anyway DJoko is as Serbian as Roanic is Canadian, he is half-Montenegrin, half Croat, just born in Belgrade.

What country am I, has nothing to do with Djoko talk, stop this shallow comparison talk and don't jump on every critique that we make for Djoko, 6-7 years of same defense from you for him, ain't doing him much good 

Sorry for the slow response and thanks Slippy for carrying the torch. Tenez, you suggest that returning is easier in absolute terms. I think that's debatable, but I'm prepared to concede. What you completely fail to explain is why Novak and Andy are relatively better than the rest. String technology and conditions are the same for all. Ultimately, the idea that great returning is anything to do with fitness is a really weak argument.

By the way, stand by the courage of your convictions NITB. Nole is undoubtedly an all time great. The approval of Tenez (or lack of) really is of no consequence.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Sorry for the slow response and thanks Slippy for carrying the torch. Tenez, you suggest that returning is easier in absolute terms. I think that's debatable, but I'm prepared to concede. What you completely fail to explain is why Novak and Andy are relatively better than the rest. String technology and conditions are the same for all. Ultimately, the idea that great returning is anything to do with fitness is a really weak argument.

Just done a quick check of the percentage return games won by the 20th best returner each year:

2000 - 27.2%
2005 - 26.7%
2010 - 24.8%
2015 - 23.2%

As you can see, the figures suggest that returning is steadily becoming harder.

It's a very crap standard at the moment. Nishikori is useless in the latter stages of tournaments, and Raonic has no balls. He can't win a match against Djok / Murray when he's basically handed it. Big bottle jobs.

Can't wait for the true new era - Kyrgios is good enough if he gets his shit together, Thiem will improve. Change is coming... but by looks of it, still at least a year away.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Sorry for the slow response and thanks Slippy for carrying the torch. Tenez, you suggest that returning is easier in absolute terms. I think that's debatable, but I'm prepared to concede.

It's not about being right or wrong it's about understanding the dynamic of the game today. And it's actually very clear to me.

What you completely fail to explain is why Novak and Andy are relatively better than the rest. String technology and conditions are the same for all. Ultimately, the idea that great returning is anything to do with fitness is a really weak argument

Isn't it obvious why they are better? What don't you see that everybody sees? they are simply fitter and last longer! As simple as that. They bring lots of balls back and force the opponent into making UEs. It's bloody obvious, especially after what we saw this week.

It also helps them to be older, more experienced. I don;t think one second that Raonic woudl have lost against those 2 had he had another 4 years of experience like Murray and Djoko have. Murray and Djoko are more professional. they base their games on fitness and not on one shot or 2 like Raonic. They are so consistent thanks to their fitness that they are always at the business end of those big tournament. Like Nadal was.

That's why they are better and not because they have better shots. Or let's put it this way, they have safer shots, less flashy but more consistent so the opposistion has essentially one choice hitting through and hope for the best, or become as fit as they are. Currently no-one is as fit as them.

Djoko will thrash Murray tonight because he is fitter.

Slippy wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Sorry for the slow response and thanks Slippy for carrying the torch. Tenez, you suggest that returning is easier in absolute terms. I think that's debatable, but I'm prepared to concede. What you completely fail to explain is why Novak and Andy are relatively better than the rest. String technology and conditions are the same for all. Ultimately, the idea that great returning is anything to do with fitness is a really weak argument.

Just done a quick check of the percentage return games won by the 20th best returner each year:

2000 - 27.2%
2005 - 26.7%
2010 - 24.8%
2015 - 23.2%

As you can see, the figures suggest that returning is steadily becoming harder.

Makes sense to me. It's the stats before 2000 which woudl be interesting. 2000 is the arrival of those new strings. The servers were still with those nat gut for most of them and were surprised to see the ball coming back while before they had an easy volley to put away. Guga and then hewitt arrived with those new string and started to send the ball back in the feet of the servers. Pete, Goran, Safin, were the first to suffer.

from then on we had a dominance of returners. If it was not for Federer we woudl have had a whole decade of retrievers winning slams bar the odd champion like Safin.

But those stats don;t actually tell the whole story about serving and returning. What does 2016 says? There is hardly any difference between 2005 and 2015.

1995 it was obviously even easier to break serve. The 20th best returner broke 29.4% of the time. That would be good enough for 9th in 2016.

I think those 20 best returners stats are actually falsing the debate. Who cares about the best 20 returners? None of them were good enough to beat the best servers. in the 90s Pete, Rafter, Edberg, Becker, Stich and Lendl were all big servers and winning almost everything outside clay. Nowadays, nor Murray, Nadal or Djoko have great serves yet they win everything.

That's the reality.

Tenez wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Sorry for the slow response and thanks Slippy for carrying the torch. Tenez, you suggest that returning is easier in absolute terms. I think that's debatable, but I'm prepared to concede.

It's not about being right or wrong it's about understanding the dynamic of the game today. And it's actually very clear to me.

What you completely fail to explain is why Novak and Andy are relatively better than the rest. String technology and conditions are the same for all. Ultimately, the idea that great returning is anything to do with fitness is a really weak argument

Isn't it obvious why they are better? What don't you see that everybody sees? they are simply fitter and last longer! As simple as that. They bring lots of balls back and force the opponent into making UEs. It's bloody obvious, especially after what we saw this week.

It also helps them to be older, more experienced. I don;t think one second that Raonic woudl have lost against those 2 had he had another 4 years of experience like Murray and Djoko have. Murray and Djoko are more professional. they base their games on fitness and not on one shot or 2 like Raonic. They are so consistent thanks to their fitness that they are always at the business end of those big tournament. Like Nadal was.

That's why they are better and not because they have better shots. Or let's put it this way, they have safer shots, less flashy but more consistent so the opposistion has essentially one choice hitting through and hope for the best, or become as fit as they are. Currently no-one is as fit as them.

Djoko will thrash Murray tonight because he is fitter.

You're completely sidestepping the question. The challenge is to explain specifically why their return shots are superior. It's the first shot of the rally, so clearly has nothing to do with fitness in long rallies.

Your point about experience being a factor at present may be true, but actually undermines your overall argument. If you care to remember, both players rose to prominence at a very young age and displaced the previous generation from the top of the rankings, with the exception of Federer of course, astonishingly quickly, despite having a deficit of experience. Their rise up the rankings also came at a time when their physiques and fitness levels were far below what they are today. If such a prodigious rise is not a clear sign of talent, then the only other explanation I can think of is that Federer's generation must have been seriously lacking. Is that your contention?

looks like the match so far is going to be a lot closer then you say tenez

Veejay wrote:looks like the match so far is going to be a lot closer then you say tenez

Yes....Djoko lacks so much confidence. It's scary.