Tenez: Nadal 'lucky' with his draw

DEC1M8 wrote:

Tenez wrote:I was right once again. The real threat for Nadal in such a depleted draw...was Djokovic and Djoko ended in the opposite draw.

What difference does it make. He will have to beat Djokovic to win the title anyway. There's no difference really between Djokovic, then Federer vs Federer, then Djokovic. Last year he drew Djokovic in the semis, can't remember you saying that he was unlucky then.

yes but meeting Federer in a final after having battled versus Djokovic is not quite the same as playing someone who shortens the points.

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm starting to think that tennis has some serious disadvantages to other sports that's cutting off the supply of new talent that is otherwise going elsewhere. The most obvious one is that football is so incredibly lucractive for even quite ordinary players, and easily accessible for almost anyone on the planet. I don't think it's alone though, there's plenty of other ways a sports-mad young kid can make a guaranteed income. 

Tennis is great so long as you make the elite level, otherwise it's a way to earn what you can at McDonalds.

I can't see another reason why the sport seems to be dying on its feet.

The big issue for me is the conditions all too samey. .......

This is exactly why, experience counts. It's not only "samey" over the 4 slams but over the last 15 years! Imagine if instead of rallying, suddenly one needed to SVIng to win slams....regardless the surface. DO you think Djoko and Nadal would go anywhere?

That's the problem this new Gen is facing....they can't gain the physical advantage and know how to slug it out versus older players.

I have been saying this for years and it is simply more and more obvious.

It's simply the lack of new technology and changing conds which have simply given the advantage to experience, know-how and fitness versus raw talent.

if it  was not for Federer's exceptional talent it would have been obvious to us all 10 years ago....the fact he managed to win slams in those dreadful conditions and still managed to make tennis look simple is beyond real...and that is what not many people actually realise.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm starting to think that tennis has some serious disadvantages to other sports that's cutting off the supply of new talent that is otherwise going elsewhere. The most obvious one is that football is so incredibly lucractive for even quite ordinary players, and easily accessible for almost anyone on the planet. I don't think it's alone though, there's plenty of other ways a sports-mad young kid can make a guaranteed income. 

Tennis is great so long as you make the elite level, otherwise it's a way to earn what you can at McDonalds.

I can't see another reason why the sport seems to be dying on its feet.

The big issue for me is the conditions all too samey. .......

This is exactly why, experience counts. It's not only "samey" over the 4 slams but over th elast 15 years! Imagine if instead of rallying, suddenly one needed to SVIng to win slams....regardless the surface. DO you think Djoko and Nadal would go anywhere?

That's the problem this new Gen is facing....they can't gain the physical advantage and know how to slug it out versus older players.

I have been saying this for years and it is simply more and more obvious.

It's simply the lack of new technology and changing conds which have simply given the advantage to experience, know-how and fitness versus raw talent.

if it  was not for Federer's exceptional talent it would have been obvious to us all 10 years ago....the fact he managed to win slams in those dreadful conditions and still managed to make tennis look simple is beyond real...and that is what not many people actually realise.

The 1st point if the conditions were pure S&V then yes they would struggle, however the wider question is could they make the adjustments in time to catch up with conds? That's a far trickier question given we've seen Nadal try to hit much flatter and Djokovic going bigger on the serve. There's something there that suggests they can adapt. 

As to the point in bold. It still doesn't explain their inherent lack of consistency they have against each other as well as the players ranked well below them! Which is why when you had Murray and Delpo for example who were for the most part consistent thrown in with a streaky Wawrinka, it kept competition healthy. Even as far as Ferrer, Berdych and even Roddick! They weren't so sceptical to defeats to player ranked 100 and below! They made the QF's or even round of 16 much more competitive. Now we are seeing the draws only become competitive at the semi's. 

I agree the lack of new tech has blunted an edge they would have coming on to the pro tour, however the fact their results are woefully inconsistent amongst themselves suggests to me a much lower standard of quality. I think the players coming through now have real gaps in their psyche and even discipline. They are much more likely to throw matches away than say a Berdych to much lower ranked players. 

Get surface specialists. Thiem on Clay for example, fantastic to watch. On grass he isn't sure whether to play on it or get a hamper and blanket out and have picnic given how uncomfortable he looks on it.

@Tenez Homogenisation shouldn’t be used an excuse for the shit next gen.

DEC1M8 wrote:@Tenez Homogenisation shouldn’t be used an excuse for the shit next gen.

They are much better than your shitty player...but they are simply not as fit.

Calm down

DEC1M8 wrote:Calm down

Why don't you change your name to DUODEC1M8?

legendkillar wrote:

The 1st point if the conditions were pure S&V then yes they would struggle, however the wider question is could they make the adjustments in time to catch up with conds? That's a far trickier question given we've seen Nadal try to hit much flatter and Djokovic going bigger on the serve. There's something there that suggests they can adapt.

 
They can improve as again, I keep saying. BUT they ca't adapt. I heard the 3 commentators on teh Beeb saying that Nadal played his best match on grass last year in that semi. But he took him 15 years to get to that level. Imagine if the courts were quick 15 years ago....other players would have reached teh business end of Wimbledon and Nadal and Djoko would have had much less experience on it. Yes we still see Nadal on a par with Kyrgios, imagine if teh court had been faster, Nadal woudl have most likely lost it....in spite of his experience and little difference between Wimby and teh FO nowadays.

As to the point in bold. It still doesn't explain their inherent lack of consistency they have against each other as well as the players ranked well below them! Which is why when you had Murray and Delpo for example who were for the most part consistent thrown in with a streaky Wawrinka, it kept competition healthy. Even as far as Ferrer, Berdych and even Roddick! They weren't so sceptical to defeats to player ranked 100 and below! They made the QF's or even round of 16 much more competitive. Now we are seeing the draws only become competitive at the semi's. 

Fitness explains consistency. It is as simple as that. If you do not have it , you cannot get consistent. In the history of tennis the most consistent players have been the fittest (Borg, Lendl, Nadal and Djoko). Pete was consistent cause he had the conditions that suited his game but on clay where you really need fitness he won 0 slams....not even got to a final. So nowadays, Pete would be another useless "next gen"...He even lost in the first round of Wimbledon as soon as they provided the bigger balls in 2002.....still winning the USO a few months later cause teh pace was decent.

It is obvious that the TDs around teh world have done everything to favour long rallies. probably to help nadal reach Fed in finals. The AO who you praise were the first culprit with providing a ridiculous slow court in 2009. They learnt their lesson in 2012 with a 6 hours finals which bored everybody to death actually followed by Murray v Djoko finals which were even more boring.

I agree the lack of new tech has blunted an edge they would have coming on to the pro tour, however the fact their results are woefully inconsistent amongst themselves suggests to me a much lower standard of quality. I think the players coming through now have real gaps in their psyche and even discipline. They are much more likely to throw matches away than say a Berdych to much lower ranked players. 

You coudl have said the same of Djokovic until he reached 24. However Djoko was lucky that the old generation had trained with a different technology otherwise he would have taken him longer, same for Rafa.

Get surface specialists. Thiem on Clay for example, fantastic to watch. On grass he isn't sure whether to play on it or get a hamper and blanket out and have picnic given how uncomfortable he looks on it.

Doesn't Thiem prove the point? Not a smart player, yet his fitness makes him consistent on a physical surface. Nadal had also a few 1st rounds losses at Wimby against nobodies.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

The 1st point if the conditions were pure S&V then yes they would struggle, however the wider question is could they make the adjustments in time to catch up with conds? That's a far trickier question given we've seen Nadal try to hit much flatter and Djokovic going bigger on the serve. There's something there that suggests they can adapt.

 
They can improve as again, I keep saying. BUT they ca't adapt. I heard the 3 commentators on teh Beeb saying that Nadal played his best match on grass last year in that semi. But he took him 15 years to get to that level. Imagine if the courts were quick 15 years ago....other players would have reached teh business end of Wimbledon and Nadal and Djoko would have had much less experience on it. Yes we still see Nadal on a par with Kyrgios, imagine if teh court had been faster, Nadal woudl have most likely lost it....in spite of his experience and little difference between Wimby and teh FO nowadays.

As to the point in bold. It still doesn't explain their inherent lack of consistency they have against each other as well as the players ranked well below them! Which is why when you had Murray and Delpo for example who were for the most part consistent thrown in with a streaky Wawrinka, it kept competition healthy. Even as far as Ferrer, Berdych and even Roddick! They weren't so sceptical to defeats to player ranked 100 and below! They made the QF's or even round of 16 much more competitive. Now we are seeing the draws only become competitive at the semi's. 

Fitness explains consistency. It is as simple as that. If you do not have it , you cannot get consistent. In the history of tennis the most consistent players have been the fittest (Borg, Lendl, Nadal and Djoko). Pete was consistent cause he had the conditions that suited his game but on clay where you really need fitness he won 0 slams....not even got to a final. So nowadays, Pete would be another useless "next gen"...He even lost in the first round of Wimbledon as soon as they provided the bigger balls in 2002.....still winning the USO a few months later cause teh pace was decent.

It is obvious that the TDs around teh world have done everything to favour long rallies. probably to help nadal reach Fed in finals. The AO who you praise were the first culprit with providing a ridiculous slow court in 2009. They learnt their lesson in 2012 with a 6 hours finals which bored everybody to death actually followed by Murray v Djoko finals which were even more boring.

I agree the lack of new tech has blunted an edge they would have coming on to the pro tour, however the fact their results are woefully inconsistent amongst themselves suggests to me a much lower standard of quality. I think the players coming through now have real gaps in their psyche and even discipline. They are much more likely to throw matches away than say a Berdych to much lower ranked players. 

You coudl have said the same of Djokovic until he reached 24. However Djoko was lucky that the old generation had trained with a different technology otherwise he would have taken him longer, same for Rafa.

Get surface specialists. Thiem on Clay for example, fantastic to watch. On grass he isn't sure whether to play on it or get a hamper and blanket out and have picnic given how uncomfortable he looks on it.

Doesn't Thiem prove the point? Not a smart player, yet his fitness makes him consistent on a physical surface. Nadal had also a few 1st rounds losses at Wimby against nobodies.

It's not that simple. Cameron Norrie quite comically and famously said last year "I won't lose a match down to fitness." so on that basis, he must be pretty crap given the losses he has racked up. The players are fit. Not in the bracket of a Nadal or Djokovic fit, but fit nonetheless. The issue really is around their consistency and frankly average quality. Dan Evans prime example of a talent wasted due to poor attitude. 

Djokovic ironed out many deficiencies in his game and in fact made improvements. When I say that I am talking improvements that complimented his durability. The strings that Nadal took advantage of are available to all players. Simply there is no-one (as commentators say) that hits a ball with the spin he does. Why are others not seeking to do the same? Harrison for example used the same strings as Nadal and is 2nd the Nadal in terms of RPM on the ball. Yet he is nowhere in the game of relevant note. Because he has a shit attitude. 

The next gen no-one really is standing out and providing the consistency in results and performances that suggest the next leap. FAA might be the one exception no-one thought much of that actually delivers on the early promise. 

When it comes to the 2020 Prediction thread, how many will be bold and brave and equally silly enough to think anyone outside the Big 3 will win a Slam?

Fitness is crucial in top level sport. Tenez's great discovery.

LK Nadal would have had no more success today than most other next gen. This is the reality.

The most consistent Next Gen are the fittest ones. Zverev was consistent last year, like Chung was consistent until he got injured and FAA and Tsi are the most consistent cause they are the best movers, hence fittest this year.

When Nadal and Djoko are not 100% they get beaten by anybody like the next gen. Their main strength is that they have learnt to be fit and reached level of fitness no one else has yet managed.....but it is obvious that shots for shots, they have not the array of weapons that the next gen has.

A sport which somehow resembles tennis is tennis table so I checked what happens there where skills plays a great role.....and just saw that Ma Long won a 3rd world championship....at 30. So it seems that even there experience counts.

We’ve had this same debate many times before.
But in case this time people get carried away, let’s not forget according to Tenezs theory, the youngsters of today would beat Federer 2007 in straight sets.

DEC1M8 wrote:We’ve had this same debate many times before.
But in case this time people get carried away, let’s not forget according to Tenezs theory, the youngsters of today would beat Federer 2007 in straight sets.

Yep! If young Nadal, Djoko and Murray could, I cannot why this new gen could not.

Tenez wrote:LK Nadal would have had no more success today than most other next gen. This is the reality.

The most consistent Next Gen are the fittest ones. Zverev was consistent last year, like Chung was consistent until he got injured and FAA and Tsi are the most consistent cause they are the best movers, hence fittest this year.

When Nadal and Djoko are not 100% they get beaten by anybody like the next gen. Their main strength is that they have learnt to be fit and reached level of fitness no one else has yet managed.....but it is obvious that shots for shots, they have not the array of weapons that the next gen has.

This had me smiling.

The essence of consistency is that it applies over extended periods of time. You can't be consistent last year but not this year, that just means you had a good year last year, a poor one this year and you're just not consistent.

And good movement does not mean fittest. Sure there's a correlation but not such causation as to merit the word "hence".

Tenez wrote:

DEC1M8 wrote:We’ve had this same debate many times before.
But in case this time people get carried away, let’s not forget according to Tenezs theory, the youngsters of today would beat Federer 2007 in straight sets.

Yep! If young Nadal, Djoko and Murray could, I cannot why this new gen could not.

Because the new gen are shit and would get battered by Fed 2007.

Also it’s such nonsense that Nadal is relying on fitness and movement against the current young gen.
Anyone watching him, for example in the Aus Open when he destroyed Tiafoe and Tsitsi; and French where he’s beaten Thiem 3 years in a row... it’s clear the young gen are better movers and fitter than him.
It’s not like Nadal is trying to engage in long rallies, or going 2 sets down and relying on stamina to come back. He is beating them because he’s playing aggressively from the baseline and controlling the points.

Tenez wrote:LK Nadal would have had no more success today than most other next gen. This is the reality.

The most consistent Next Gen are the fittest ones. Zverev was consistent last year, like Chung was consistent until he got injured and FAA and Tsi are the most consistent cause they are the best movers, hence fittest this year.

When Nadal and Djoko are not 100% they get beaten by anybody like the next gen. Their main strength is that they have learnt to be fit and reached level of fitness no one else has yet managed.....but it is obvious that shots for shots, they have not the array of weapons that the next gen has.

Case in point Ten, Zverev good last year, crap this year. If history tells us anything Tsitsy and FAA could follow the pattern. However, Tsitsy lost to a nobody in Stuttgart. So when I talk consistency Ten I mean actually stringing together deep runs in tournaments. These guys not even doing it in ATP 500 events! 

Thiem and Zverev have gone a step further winning 1000 events, but it needs to be sustained. 

It's not that they will get better with age, but more eventually the Big 3 will retire!

As for Nadal. I need you to hear me on this. On clay, no matter the field, he destroys anyone 9/10. I know you dislike like him right to the core, but he was built for Clay. He would succeed in any era with that game (wooden racquets and much more tighter fitted shorts!). 

Nadal since his return from that lay off has taken more risk into his game which in turn has made him vulnerable to big hitters and even those more capable of retrieval. Even with those changes, he is still up there. This next gen have everything to succeed against Nadal and the others, yet they are still so far off. 

I could give someone like Gasquet the speed of Bolt, the endurance of Gebrselassie and the mental fortitude of Wayne Gretzky and he would still lose in straights to Nadal! Most players in tennis Ten just don't have it between the ears.

legendkillar wrote:The next gen no-one really is standing out and providing the consistency in results and performances that suggest the next leap. FAA might be the one exception no-one thought much of that actually delivers on the early promise. 

No one thought of FAA?  He has been spoken of highly for years.  He was mentioned as a possible future superstar when he was 14.  I heard of him before I heard of Shapovalov.

But other than that, I agree with you on substance - that he might outshine other youngsters.

Somehow, he seems to exude more focus and discipline than most other youngsters.  Funnily, another youngster that to me looks similarly focused is Coric, but his shots are too lightweight to allow him to be a top player.  Whereas FAA has serious firepower.

I am just not convinced his game translates so well to grass (in spite of his results a couple of weeks ago).

summerblues wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The next gen no-one really is standing out and providing the consistency in results and performances that suggest the next leap. FAA might be the one exception no-one thought much of that actually delivers on the early promise. 

No one thought of FAA?  He has been spoken of highly for years.  He was mentioned as a possible future superstar when he was 14.  I heard of him before I heard of Shapovalov.

But other than that, I agree with you on substance - that he might outshine other youngsters.

Somehow, he seems to exude more focus and discipline than most other youngsters.  Funnily, another youngster that to me looks similarly focused is Coric, but his shots are too lightweight to allow him to be a top player.  Whereas FAA has serious firepower.

I am just not convinced his game translates so well to grass (in spite of his results a couple of weeks ago).

Nothing was said of him that I hadn't heard in relation to other players. I remember Monfils being tipped as a monster for the future and look how that turned out. 

It's the one striking thing I have seen with him is how much composure he shows for a youngster. 

Coric for me just looked like a bundle of nervous energy. When the going gets tough he capitulates.

FAA certainly looking like promise that will deliver.

If you go as far back as Monfils or Gasquet, or even Dimi, yes they were similarly hyped.

What I meant was that FAA was more hyped from an earlier age than the current crop of youngsters - more than Zverev, Shapo, Tsitsipas or Thiem.

So your "no one thought much of" sounded odd.

Maybe it should have been more like "I did not think much of".

Have to say on our tiny island, Zverev and Thiem were the biggest hype. Even Edmund had more said about him. 

I don't think it sounded odd given no-one on this forum, 606 and Tennis Warehouse made much rumblings of FAA.

It's clear now, the toughest draw was for Federer by far. Nadal, had one tough player but he self-imploded.

Pouille was a former 1/4F here and Nishi is certainly the player in form....especially when he has nothing to lose (v Fed for instance).

Nishikori

I'd say the way the draw has panned out that Federer's side ran more to form than not. The first 2 rounds were a bonus. You'd have to argue that Federer's path is much more trickier than Nadal's or Djokovic's.

That said, Nishi will be a W/O. He surely can't get through a tournament playing all the matches!

DEC1M8 wrote:Nishikori

You right! Souza or Sandgren are scary in comparison. Wow....nadal won;t sleep!

Tenez wrote:

DEC1M8 wrote:Nishikori

You right! Souza or Sandgren are scary in comparison. Wow....nadal won;t sleep!

Nadal's biggest threat in his quarter was Kyrgios who he got rid off in R2. R4 is easy, and QF against Querrey should be fine.

DEC1M8 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

DEC1M8 wrote:Nishikori

You right! Souza or Sandgren are scary in comparison. Wow....nadal won;t sleep!

Nadal's biggest threat in his quarter was Kyrgios who he got rid off in R2. R4 is easy, and QF against Querrey should be fine.

Kyrgios managed to make it a tight match without being focused....Nadal's time wasting managed to unsettle this talented but unprofessional player. Djoko or Federer would have faced a tougher Kyrgios cause both don't force the server to play at their rhytme.

Nadal is a disgarce in that respect. You know it but you don;t care cause you like his chocolate eyes.....like 50% of the audience.

Click the YouTube link in the OP at the top of the first page.
Kyrgios smashed the ball at Nadal, said he did it with the intention of hitting Nadal on the chest, and then didn’t apologise on court.
Give me a break if you want me to sympathise with Kyrgios.

DEC1M8 wrote:https://youtu.be/YQEJIA3NXIs?t=363

Repost

Tenez wrote:

DEC1M8 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

DEC1M8 wrote:Nishikori

You right! Souza or Sandgren are scary in comparison. Wow....nadal won;t sleep!

Nadal's biggest threat in his quarter was Kyrgios who he got rid off in R2. R4 is easy, and QF against Querrey should be fine.

Kyrgios managed to make it a tight match without being focused....Nadal's time wasting managed to unsettle this talented but unprofessional player. Djoko or Federer would have faced a tougher Kyrgios cause both don't force the server to play at their rhytme.

Nadal is a disgarce in that respect. You know it but you don;t care cause you like his chocolate eyes.....like 50% of the audience.

What unsettled him was the constant attempting to unsettle and rattle Nadal. Went on for far too long doing it and ultimately affected his focus. Became more important to him than winning the bloody match!

Got no issue with it. It's not a trick what works twice. As Rosol found out and now Kyrgios.

Rosol, poor sad joke

Tsonga a threat?  You silly pillock.

And Nadal cheated again. The time rule repeatedly broken.

Kyrgios was the main threat in Nadal’s quarter. I still believe he’s significantly the hardest player any of the top 4 will have to face before the semis.
Tsonga was meek, and now Sousa and Querrey should be comfortable for Nadal.

Biggest threat from now to top 3 getting to semis is Nishikori for Fed. I doubt that will be an issue though, given it’s... Nishi.

If Nadal had tried to hit Kyrgios on the chest with a 100mph shot, admitted he was trying to do so, and then said he shouldn’t apologise for it as Kyrgios is rich... you’d all be going apeshit.
Don’t be a hypocrite

From twitter:
wimplyton pace, a history (circa 2005):
2005: just fine
2006-2007: getting a bit slow
2008: clay
2009: perfect
2010: clay
2011: we thought clay but hc.
2012: perfect
2013-2015: certainly not clay. hc?
2016: too grassy, cancel
2017: perfect
2018: 2011 redux
2019: clay (hc pending)

naxroy wrote:From twitter:
wimplyton pace, a history (circa 2005):
2005: just fine
2006-2007: getting a bit slow
2008: clay
2009: perfect
2010: clay
2011: we thought clay but hc.
2012: perfect
2013-2015: certainly not clay. hc?
2016: too grassy, cancel
2017: perfect
2018: 2011 redux
2019: clay (hc pending)

LOL.

I am dreaming of:
2019: perfect