Miami Open - 2019

What next for Federer?  Take clay easy, smile for the cameras at RG and focus on Wimbledon?  Or should he give it a real go?  But "real go" only makes sense for him if he has a chance to win it.  Do we think he does?

I am conflicted.  A lot will depend on how well Djoko and Rafa are playing.  If they are close to their best, Fed may as well tank RG and go fresh to Wimbledon.  But if the two of them by some miracle struggle, I think he has a decent chance to go all the way - worth a shot.

I am still unsure of Fed's baseline game.  2018 and 2019 I have seen him play quite well on occasion, but when the opponent is able to keep the baseline rallies going, Fed is finding it hard to hit through them, and needs to improvise too much.  In Miami he was a little lucky that he played Isner in the final, and that Shapo in the SF had a really bad day, so neither was able to test Fed's ground strokes.

DEC1M7 wrote:

Tenez wrote:No they are not at a lower level than the current top 3. They are at a very similar level. Agut is far from being a great, he is just a journey man ranked 25 like Davydenko was considered by some at the time, but those guys are/were very close to the top 3 levels.
...
To take my example, Agut has improved enough to make him a contender to Djokovic. Sure he won;t win 15 slams now but he can hit harder and as consitently as Djoko.

Alright, wow we really are on different planets.
That's the conclusion you got from watching Agut beating Djokovic? That their levels are close now?
I don't think Agut is in the same stratosphere as Djokovic. Djokovic can hit every shot better than Agut, with more pace, more depth, more accuracy, and is a better mover.
The only reason Agut has beaten him twice this year is because Djokovic didn't care in those tournaments, he was mentally all over the place and missing easy shots. Djokovic even said in his post match conference after Miami that he had been distracted by off-court issues which explains his performance.

Agut has beaten Djoko 3 times in their last 5 encounters. I can accept one or 2 losses but 5 including a SF in SHanghai proves that Djoko is not in a different stratosphere tennis wise. One of those 2 losses included a close match at the FO.

Djoko Nadal and Fed don;t arrive on the court and play their B game cause those guys are ranked 20 in the world. They play their A game and hope they can win. They are of a very similar level even if they win more often than not. I can list a thousand matchs with a thousand players where Djoko and Nadal struggled in the first sets before making the difference over the distance. It is that same stamina that allowed Djoko to overcome Nadal.

Shotwise, There is hardly nothing between Agut and Djoko.....if anything Agut has a pacier FH.

Slippy wrote:Tenez - Davydenko beat Kafelnikov once, in the year Kafelnikov retired. Kafelnikov also, even at his best, had a reputation for losing matches at low level tournaments to lower ranked players from time to time. I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t beat peak Kafelnikov.

But in view of what we know now a 29yo v 20yo has a huge advantage in theory. Kafel strugled to beat a 21yo at 28yo. Imagine he had to face the 2007-9 version.

You guys are denying the obvious.

summerblues wrote:What next for Federer?  Take clay easy, smile for the cameras at RG and focus on Wimbledon?  Or should he give it a real go?  But "real go" only makes sense for him if he has a chance to win it.  Do we think he does?

I am conflicted.  A lot will depend on how well Djoko and Rafa are playing.  If they are close to their best, Fed may as well tank RG and go fresh to Wimbledon.  But if the two of them by some miracle struggle, I think he has a decent chance to go all the way - worth a shot.

I am still unsure of Fed's baseline game.  2018 and 2019 I have seen him play quite well on occasion, but when the opponent is able to keep the baseline rallies going, Fed is finding it hard to hit through them, and needs to improvise too much.  In Miami he was a little lucky that he played Isner in the final, and that Shapo in the SF had a really bad day, so neither was able to test Fed's ground strokes.

If you had told me after AO that Fed would win 2 out of his next three tournaments, including reaching the finals at both IW and Miami I'd have .  Extraordinary is one word.  His career just keeps on giving - although I agree that these tournaments have been a bit unusual and don't give us a very clear picture of where he's at.  I think that may have something to do with the fact that the men's tennis scene is on the cusp of a changing of the guard.  Let's see if Thiem starts to make his move on clay this season.

I'm sure Fed will give any clay tournament he plays a real go - and so far he's only entered up for Madrid.  He won't risk playing on clay without working really hard on different muscle groups for the different movement it requires, and if you go to all that trouble there's no point being half-hearted.  He said that winning at Miami takes the pressure off the clay - I don't think that means he'll take his foot off the gas, but that he can afford to be philosophical about what transpires.  Interestingly, Madrid is the one clay Masters that Nadal has said he may not play - his focus is on MC and Barcelona, and then Rome.  He'll see how he's going before deciding on Madrid.

One final point - kudos to Isner for avoiding a W/D, and I v. much hope that the price for 'being brave' has not been to exacerbate whatever problem he has.

Yeah, well done to Isner for that.

Daniel2 wrote:https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1107933/Roger-Federer-claim-Stefanos-Tsitsipas-Miami-Open-umpire-Gianluca-Moscarella

We're getting rid of one bell end... Now we have another.

Federer is not a holy cow but he is certainly protected like one. Tsitsipas is not the only to mention it (Cilic, Benneteau etc).

Good on him and any younger player to speak out against anyone. Kyrgios often calls out Nadal's time wasting and being privileged with umpires.

Much better than saying he loves Nadal like Federer and pretend everything is perfect. For money.

Tenez wrote:

Agut has beaten Djoko 3 times in their last 5 encounters. I can accept one or 2 losses but 5 including a SF in SHanghai proves that Djoko is not in a different stratosphere tennis wise. One of those 2 losses included a close match at the FO.
 

You're analysing the matches out of context.
First win came in 2016 Shanghai, in the middle of Djokovic's breakdown. Djokovic's coach Boris Becker soon quit and cited the fact Djokovic had lost focus to the point he wasn't even training properly.
Second win came in Doha this year. A totally irrelevant tournament which only exists as a warm up for Aus Open, and Djokovic had no match practice before that.
And the third win now in Miami was Djokovic not caring enough, he looked disinterested, and admitted he was distracted by off court issues after the match.
The only thing I read from these defeats is Djokovic is temperamental and has a poor attitude sometimes. Agut is just the sort of player who can take advantage of Djokovic on an off day due to his playing style, he doesn't make too many unforced errors, and attacks in a very controlled manner.

I don't really care about the why and how Agut has been challenging Djoko lately. Why and how Kyrgios is also chellenging them like Nishi was challenging them too. Whether they win or lose, it does not really matter as long as it is not a a 62 63.

I don;t have an intention to be right at all cost. My aim is to observe the game as accurately as possible and it is from this observation that I draw my conclusions.

For instance, unlike fanboys, I never said in 2007/09 that Fed was losing to Nadal and Djoko because he was too old. I could see in 09 that he was playing better than in 06. It was already dead obvious....even if his results were not as good.

Likewise, I can see shot wise why an in form Nishi, Kyrgios or Agut and many more can trouble Djoko, Nadal and Federer.

It's dead obvious that Davydenko ended up playing a much better tennis than Kafel.

Likewise you will see in 3 or 4 years those FAA, Shapo and others play at higher level than Djoko and Nadal....in the same way as Shapo and Rublev were hitting the ball 21% faster by standing closer to the baseline than Nadal and Djoko 13 years ago. Those stats just confirm what I observe.

And if you all stick around long enough you will see it with your own eyes like you are seeing now that 26 is certainly not an average age at which players start declining....unless of course you think Lacoste was the best player ever!

summerblues wrote:

Jahu wrote:Tsi for now is a twat, maybe in a few years he matures as a person, couple of days ago he goes and says needs a break from tennis, making Dinara Safina give him a good critique, git.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Interviews/68599/nadal-djokovic-would-never-say-what-tsitsipas-said-safina/

I saw this earlier, was also a little surprised.  He is 20 and have not really done much yet.  Too soon for him to be too tired to play.

Agreed, not only do I think he is overrated and with poor character but he is showing again the latter and that he is part of the people culpable of the former, he thinks he is all that when he is not, this is why he won;'t progress at a higher level than let's say FAA who was on court training on his serve just after losing to Isner when he could/should have won in straight sets as he was serving for both sets...

So some of you think that this 18yo year old Federer would beat Shapo the guy who beat Federer's nemisis at 18?



Some of you have really a poor discernment when it comes to tennis.

On this above clip a quick 14 shot rally takes about 20 seconds....this is roughly 4 more seconds that it took Rublev v Shapo in some of those rallies.

4 seconds out of 20 is pretty huge! Shapo would have loved to have those extra 4 sec v Rosset and I really doubt he would have lost that final.

Ballistic & Majestic.

Jahu wrote:Ballistic & Majestic.

It is. Maybe not as graceful....but if this guy one day surfs a confidence wave....he is going to be hard to stop. Having said that a few others are arriving on the scene and it won't be easy for anyone. and surely they will make each other better.....once more!

Grace and Stan's BH angles will come later I guess, power he has, he can crush it on both wings pretty good. 

Maybe Shapo and Felix in a few years kicking ass??

Yes but I am not sure we will have to wait too long.

Thank you for the two clips, Tenez. Great illustrations. Case closed!

That's not a good comparison. Federer improved radically after 18, which Shap hasn't really done so far since late 2017. Also Federer is not a hard hitting baseliner, different style to Shap and Rublev.
Show a Nadal vs Djokovic clip from 2007 and compare it to Shap vs Rublev. And the match itself, not highlights which are selective. Shap hits lots of massive shots and UEs so highlights will make him look better than he is.

DEC1M7 wrote:That's not a good comparison. Federer improved radically after 18, which Shap hasn't really done so far since late 2017. Also Federer is not a hard hitting baseliner, different style to Shap and Rublev.
Show a Nadal vs Djokovic clip from 2007 and compare it to Shap vs Rublev. And the match itself, not highlights which are selective. Shap hits lots of massive shots and UEs so highlights will make him look better than he is.

Have you convinced yourself?

Tenez wrote:So some of you think that this 18yo year old Federer would beat Shapo the guy who beat Federer's nemisis at 18?

For a young tennis player, beating a top player in their first meeting, in a close match isn't something too much to read into. Lots of advantages working in favour of the young opponent and on a good day it gets the better of.

18yo Shapo may have beaten Nadal, but 19yo Shapo got plummeted by 38year old. What do you have to say about that?

Winning and losing in tennis are complex things. It's not like archery or shooting or athletics where you are as good as you are. 

------

The tennis that 18-19 yo Shapo plays in 2019 couldn't be played in 1998. That tennis wasn't born back then. But that doesn't mean the 18-19 yo Shapo is 'better' in 2019 against the 18yo Fed in 1998. Better is a relative term. If Fed was also 18yo right now, he wouldn't be playing like 18yo Fed in 1998. 

Shapo will only be compared with whom he beat in his time. And so was the 18yo Fed.

I've always understood that the big change between the Sampras/Agassi generation and those that followed was to do with strings, and, perhaps wrongly, that the changes started to take a real hold on tour in the early 00's.

If that's right, then how Federer played in 1999 is going to look very different to how any youngster plays now, isn't it?

Or am I barking entirely up the wrong tree?

barrystar wrote:I've always understood that the big change between the Sampras/Agassi generation and those that followed was to do with strings, and, perhaps wrongly, that the changes started to take a real hold on tour in the early 00's.

If that's right, then how Federer played in 1999 is going to look very different to how any youngster plays now, isn't it?

Or am I barking entirely up the wrong tree?

You right. (just barking at the wrong tree ) The strings play a huge role...like increasing the racquet size do. Adapting to new strings was the main reason why Federer suddenly took off. It added safety in his shots and with that confidence.

But that is not my point. I am not arguing which of the 2 would have been better had they played exactly in the same era and with same material. That is something very difficult to guess.

What I am saying is that by adapting to those conditions it increased the level of the game acorss all players. In short players played "better" with new strings and larger frames. This meant that Federer 2003 was better than 2001 (pre change).

Now the other element is that Federer trained young against guys who played a very different game at a very different level. Shapo is already facing very young guys who play at a much higher level than Fed was when it started. So on top of having played with advanced technology early on and faced a tougher (or more adapted opponents if you prefer) than Federer gives Shapo and his peers a platform to reach even higher level than Federer, Nadal and Djoko will reach.

This is simply common sense but obviously not everybody has it!

Sorry to say Tenez but you took examples that really do not show much, especially everyone knows Fed was relatively a late bloomer etc. and we are not sure Shapo is YET... One thing we can say is Shapo at 18-19 is worse than Fed at 35-37, no?   OK, Shapo beat Nadal in 2017 but Fed also beat the same Nadal many times that year and Fed beat Shapo rather easily. We may say Fed has improved through time but come one, he is 37, he managed to lose to Millman, KA and Tsi in slams, all of whom manage to lose rather easily against Djoko and Nadal in the same slams. 

Also, this whole argument you are making now is clearly not correct if we are being pedantic about the meaning of "better" as you seem to (at least want to) be. It is a known fact that most tennis shots that Nadal plays are technically not sound even though they yield better results, does it mean he is better than Fed who seems to have the shots that are technically the soundest of the lot? More to the point even, is Fed really better with a larger frame? He has adapted, yes, which has yielded better results, but having a larger sweet spot etc. means that shots he normally would have shanked as they were not hit properly now can even end up as winners (and we have seen a few in Miami this year actually), so he is just being rewarded for playing worse, not better.

It feels to me you contradict yourself quite a bit or at least are not fair to others opinions. You are the first to say not to conclude too much from results, so please do the same. Does Fed have better results with the larger frame against the more physical tennis generations? Yes. Does he play better? No. He still plays pretty damn well, don't get me wrong, but not better, at least not tennis wise. This is the thing with technology, it moves the bar as natural talent gets to a disadvantage, so if a guy manages to get close results with lesser technology, you can conclude he is more talented, but it is pretty much all you can say...

Your entire post sphair is based on what you think is better. For me it is simple, the better player is the one who wins. As much as it hurt me, Nadal was better than federer pre 2014, even if Fed had the better shots.

I have often mentioned that one of the best tennis was the 2000-2005 period. There players knew how to hit winners: Gonzalez, Coria, Safin, Nalbandian, Federer, Ljubicic, etc....Those guys were real shot makers. They could beat Nadal over a set or 2 but over 5 sets they could not.

Nadal had brought the game to such physical levels that it did not really matter how good one was, one had to last the distance. Nadal became number 1 until Djokovic beat him in that department.

Not many players managed to be as physical as those 2. Murray got close but could not last. Tennis wise those 3 will never be remembered for their shots. Not many go back to youtube to watch their 5 hours matches.

This new generation will learn how to be as fit but it looks like they have also outstanding guile, which clearly Nadal and Djoko did not have.

But in any case winning is what defines better in tennis. When I say winning it is not over a single match, it's about winning more often than not. When I talk about level, same level more or less, then I can refer a single match. For instance whether Shapo won or lost v Nadal in Canada he showed he had teh level to play with Nadal.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:For a young tennis player, beating a top player in their first meeting, in a close match isn't something too much to read into. Lots of advantages working in favour of the young opponent and on a good day it gets the better of.

18yo Shapo may have beaten Nadal, but 19yo Shapo got plummeted by 38year old. What do you have to say about that?

Like you, not much you can say about a single match. I can say at 18, Shapo was of similar level on HC than Nadal but Fed's experience really is still too much for the youngsters. As Federer said, Shapo hadn't anything to lose..he was in his first semi of a TMS1000.

Winning and losing in tennis are complex things. It's not like archery or shooting or athletics where you are as good as you are. 

Yes but as I explained, I don;t care as much about W/Ls....It's the way those Ws and Ls happen that really matter for that discussion. It;s about having tight matches. For instance we saw that quite early on that young Djoko was having close matches v Federer....One felt it was a question of time before Djoko got the better of Federer.....even if Djoko was losing a lot v Federer early on. Matches were close enough....even a 3 straight sets USO 07 final win by Federer was close enough.

To me it is just obvious Shapo is way better than Nadal at the same age. Doesn't have to win 12 FOs to be obvious to me.
------

The tennis that 18-19 yo Shapo plays in 2019 couldn't be played in 1998. That tennis wasn't born back then. But that doesn't mean the 18-19 yo Shapo is 'better' in 2019 against the 18yo Fed in 1998. Better is a relative term. If Fed was also 18yo right now, he wouldn't be playing like 18yo Fed in 1998. 

Again, I am not comparing Fed and Shapo in the same conds....neither of us can, we woudl be wasting our time. This discussion is about showing the evolution of tennis.

This is not rocket science. If you play tennis with poor players, your are never going to improve much. Likewise if you are exposed to better players you will improve considerably so. On the tour, this effect makes tennis evolve pretty quickly. McEnroe himself was saying in 1984 that when he looked at his 1980 Wimby match versus Borg it felt he was watching it in slow mo.

Shapo will only be compared with whom he beat in his time. And so was the 18yo Fed.

Sure but the point is it is tougher to win 7 wimbledons now than it was in Kenshaw's time.

Hey eveybroooooouudy!


Let's not argue and try to be clever.
Let's be happy we are all in with the beautiful game of tennis.
It's such a wonderful, wonderful bubble:  Nole, Fed, Rafa, Dennis, Tsits etc etc..

Tennis nation rocks!


And may glorious tennis live forevaaaaa!

p.s.
and eva

p.p.s.
this one is for you, GP


AND EVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Good to see you cheered up!

Tenez wrote:Good to see you cheered up!

About time!

I thought members might like to look back on a bygone era when Federer didn’t have the supreme backhand and dodo seemed to be in slow motion.

Clearly this version would have no chance today.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_T-n0L1uI

bogbrush wrote:I thought members might like to look back on a bygone era when Federer didn’t have the supreme backhand and dodo seemed to be in slow motion.

Clearly this version would have no chance today.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_T-n0L1uI

All Federer's shots are a lot faster today than in that clip.

Not to mention his opposition....

Yeah, those rallies were toothless weren’t they? And who did James Blake ever beat?

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, those rallies were toothless weren’t they? And who did James Blake ever beat?

It was good for that era, but Nole would eat Fed alive if he played like that now.
Even Raonc looks like Speedy Gonzales compared to poor, old, scrambling Blake.

bogbrush wrote:I thought members might like to look back on a bygone era when Federer didn’t have the supreme backhand and dodo seemed to be in slow motion.

Clearly this version would have no chance today.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_T-n0L1uI

I know these are highlights, but still insanely good.

Yes BB. This is the very same clip GP sent us 4 or 5 years ago to make his case. But Blake is amongst that generation of great shot makers I mention in my previous post. The one who grew up with nat strings and was hitting flat and big. The ball was coming at you with pace but no high bounce, no spin with an easy read on it. Fed grew up with those kind of shots and were easier to time that the spinier and slower balls Nadal and Djoko was sending whcih was difficult to add pace to. Plus this looked like an indoor match, made the timing easier. Fed in 2011 even bagelled Nadal on HC indoors in london shows even more how Fed kept improving versus that new gen.

Same with volleying, volleying a spinless ball was much easier than one deeping in your feet....especially if you wanted to volley with pace and not be a sitting duck at the net on the next shot.

The spin changed the game.

Tenez wrote:Yes BB. This is the very same clip GP sent us 4 or 5 years ago to make his case. But Blake is amongst that generation of great shot makers I mention in my previous post. The one who grew up with nat strings and was hitting flat and big. The ball was coming at you with pace but no high bounce, no spin with an easy read on it. Fed grew up with those kind of shots and were easier to time that the spinier and slower balls Nadal and Djoko was sending whcih was difficult to add pace to. Plus this looked like an indoor match, made the timing easier. Fed in 2011 even bagelled Nadal on HC indoors in london shows even more how Fed kept improving versus that new gen.

Same with volleying, volleying a spinless ball was much easier than one deeping in your feet....especially if you wanted to volley with pace and not be a sitting duck at the net on the next shot.

The spin changed the game.

I love playing flat hitters, my speciality!

Spin is a lot tougher, esp on footwork...it really has killed the joy of game in a way.
Nothing worse than having a ball dip at your feet on the baseline....

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I thought members might like to look back on a bygone era when Federer didn’t have the supreme backhand and dodo seemed to be in slow motion.

Clearly this version would have no chance today.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_T-n0L1uI

I know these are highlights, but still insanely good.

The foot speed is incredible and we forget how good Fed was at defending and counter attacking.

Pretty much anything short was pounded for a winner. The inside out FH was a killer - just doesn't have the foot speed to get into position to hit that shot as often.

Anyway, anyone with half a brain cell can see that that Federer, good as the current one can still play at times, would annihilate the older version.

Thank God for that post (and summerblues earlier), sometimes it’s good to know white really can be white and the Sun does indeed set in the West.

Emancipator wrote:The foot speed is incredible and we forget how good Fed was at defending and counter attacking.

Pretty much anything short was pounded for a winner. The inside out FH was a killer - just doesn't have the foot speed to get into position to hit that shot as often

Indeed.  When I watch vintage Fed I am always thinking that the "floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" phrase should have really been about him.

The final set of the 2017 AO final is some of my all time favorite Fed footage.  Of course the drama, the emotions, the ending are there, but also the quality of play is great.  Yet, it pales in comparison to some of 2004-06 Fed.

And Shapo, Tsitsipas and the crew pale in comparison to Fed's 2017 AO

So you guys obviously think that :

- Fed 2004-6 would beat peak 2011 Djokovic and peak Nadal (whatever you think that is). I say peak Djoko 2011 and Peak
Nadal cause for you, it's clear peaking means winning most.

- The top 100 2006 players are roughly better than those 10 years on. Since for instance Fed and Nadal cut through
their slams draw with more ease in 2015 and 2019 respectively than they could in their " peak time".

- that Nadal at 30 has declined faster than Federer at 35!! (That's also bloody interesting).

- that fresh legs do not compensate for 10 years of experience. Funny that considering that the whole 100 top players is oldest
now than ever in the open era. We must therefore see a decline across all players.....not just Nadal and Federer. This is why
mostly +30 players can win slams nowadays.

- When All top players and commentators mention they have improved, they are just hallucinating.

- it doesn't matter whether Shapo and Rublev hit the ball at a 20% higher tempo than Djoko and Nadal 2011....they still "pale"
compared to the old guard.

I personally know that white is white and the sun sets in the west. I don;t need to find confidence in numbers.

No, nobody equated it to winning most. We base it on the evidence of our eyes on the performance.

If you now remove that error from your opening basis for your hypothesis could you revise it from the new base.

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:The foot speed is incredible and we forget how good Fed was at defending and counter attacking.

Pretty much anything short was pounded for a winner. The inside out FH was a killer - just doesn't have the foot speed to get into position to hit that shot as often

Indeed.  When I watch vintage Fed I am always thinking that the "floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" phrase should have really been about him.

The final set of the 2017 AO final is some of my all time favorite Fed footage.  Of course the drama, the emotions, the ending are there, but also the quality of play is great.  Yet, it pales in comparison to some of 2004-06 Fed.

And Shapo, Tsitsipas and the crew pale in comparison to Fed's 2017 AO

Indeed, and this clip shows how the “Neo backhand” of 2017 was a complete myth. Sure, he had declined into excessive chipping and slicing and 2017 showed a long-overdue return to hitting over the ball, but the clip showed how frequent his use of the driven topspin backhand had previously been and how staggeringly effective it could be.

But against Nadal? 
It was a weapon in 2017 vs Rafa, not before then.

Nadal older than 30 was nowhere near the player he was in 2010/2013.
Federer older 30 was not playing at that sublime high level he was in that clip posted of him vs Blake.

Both players have done well to manage their decline well, although partly helped by the fact the next gen turned out to be crap.

No drama here SB:

It's a joke cause here you can see that it is not only the BH that has improved, it's a more powerful FH as well... ad of course the serve is easier power as Federer himself says.

But you guys know better than him and Berdych who played him many times.

Frankly, some here have gone South....probably thinking it was the West!

And the volleying....going there more often than in the whole 2006!

Re-read this now Eman.....with you other "half"! :

"Anyway, anyone with half a brain cell[/b] can see that that Federer, good as the current one can still play at times, would annihilate the older version."

I expect the " Yeah but Berdych was declining too while Blake was at his peak" kind of ridiculous comments now!

I am ready!

Federer's tennis in AO17 was nuts.
Which is why I had to have that black racquet.

The whole wave/level and desire lasted him till the end of Miami.

And that particular match vs Berdych was probably the peak of tennis ridiculousness and madness. Maybe the final vs Kyrgios (was it Miami or IW?), too.

Those who advocate Federer's tennis vs Blake was better than in 2017 are either trolls or...it's quite amazing they can't see what looks glaringly obvious.

Not so much for the sake of tennis but life in general.

p.s.
I feel I've been round this circle more than I wanted to, still had to make this comment as the quality of tennis and the stratospheric ecstasy he was hitting while playing, I couldn't help it.

luvsports! wrote:But against Nadal? 
It was a weapon in 2017 vs Rafa, not before then.

I would say two main reasons:

1. Bigger racquet gave Fed extra consistency/power and made that BH possible
2. Rafa in 2017 was not quite at the same level as Rafa in prior years - e.g., Rafa in 2009 AO final.

Also, I still think - as I had mentioned earlier - that our disagreements with Tenez are not quite as big as they appear. When I say that 2006 Fed is better than 2017 Fed I am talking about the raw ability stripped of the benefits of bigger racquet and of the benefits of having an extra 10 years to see and understand Rafa's game.  What I mean is something like this:

Give 2005/06 Fed a bigger racquet, tell him how he needs to play to beat Rafa, give him some time to prep for it, and he will do it better than 2017 Fed did.

On the other hand, if you give 2017 Fed the racquet that 2005/06 Fed was using and ask him to reproduce what he was doing vs Blake, he will not be able to.

If I understand BB correctly, he also means something similar, and I would not be surprised if Eman means something like that too.  However, I am not 100% sure how much even Tenez would disagree with it.  To me it seems that the biggest difference may be semantical - that when Tenez says that 2017 Federer is "better" than 2005/06 version, he may be including any improvements resulting from using a bigger racquet and any strategy adjustments resulting from having experienced extra 10 years of current conditions and seen what Rafa/Nole can do in them.

I am sure we do have some genuine differences with Tenez, but I am just not sure they are as big as they appear.