Re: NOVAK DJOKOVIC: The Fan Club

by paulcz Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:38 pm

Great job and brilliant game from Nole against Murray Thumbs Up

That was a slaughtering of a nutcase onlive with all grace.

Novak is better of Murray in all aspect of the game. If someone doubts, then needs to look at that match again.

Nadal has a sheer luck not being in the final.

by Daniel Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:56 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34559460

I love how the BBC is so biased even in this. When Murray has this kind of win, they say "thrashed" or "crushed"... but when he is on receiving end, it's "Easily beaten". lol They always report it from his side. The BBC is supposed to be impartial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34551649

Spot the difference?

by noleisthebest Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:15 am

Well, Murray still planning to be number one, he'll need to avoid being beaten so easily though Winking

"All of the players on the tour would like to get to No. 1 in the world. Obviously this year I have a good chance to finish at No. 2, which would be the first time for me.
There's still a lot of possibilities where I could finish at maybe even No. 4, or whatever, if Stan (Wawrinka, who is currently No. 4) plays extremely well between now and the end of the year, and Roger (Federer) as well. Look, the goal is to try to win tournaments, try and win the big events. If you do that, the ranking will go in the right direction.

This year, although I'm a long way behind Novak in the rankings, a few matches can change that significantly.
Grand Slam semifinals and finals, they're the matches that are for big, big points. That's something, if I want to get to No. 1 in the world, need to win a couple more of them. So hopefully next year I'll be able to do that."

What's funny is he gave this interview BEFORE the SF yesterday.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:49 am

noleisthebest wrote:Well, Murray still planning to be number one, he'll need to avoid being beaten so easily though

"All of the players on the tour would like to get to No. 1 in the world. Obviously this year I have a good chance to finish at No. 2, which would be the first time for me.
There's still a lot of possibilities where I could finish at maybe even No. 4, or whatever, if Stan (Wawrinka, who is currently No. 4) plays extremely well between now and the end of the year, and Roger (Federer) as well. Look, the goal is to try to win tournaments, try and win the big events. If you do that, the ranking will go in the right direction.

This year, although I'm a long way behind Novak in the rankings, a few matches can change that significantly.
Grand Slam semifinals and finals, they're the matches that are for big, big points. That's something, if I want to get to No. 1 in the world, need to win a couple more of them. So hopefully next year I'll be able to do that."

What's funny is he gave this interview BEFORE the SF yesterday.

Murray can't be #1 unless Djokovic retires or gets badly injured and stay out for at least 10 months straight. Naah... even then it might not happen, someone else will take it over then.

Murray has done well for his 2 slams. But I will say they were also helped by draws opening up and Djokovic playing poorly. So he won but had some fortunate circumstances.

by paulcz Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:04 am

AMAZING & BRILLIANT & MAGNIFICENT Bubbly

That was the game of THE TENNIS MASTER Thumbs Up

by paulcz Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:44 pm

a bit of praise comes from Andre:

“Does Djokovic resemble myself?” Agassi said. “No, he is even better. He defends really well, while I struggled more in that element of the game. Novak looks totally relaxed when defending, completely calm and the quality of his return is incredible. He is also extremely flexible in his game, which is facilitated by his ability to anticipate his rival’s moves. That is why I think he is a much more versatile player than I was and he is also much more athletic.”

Not bad to hear it from one of the best players ever.

by Daniel Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:01 pm

I don't think Agassi is giving himself enough credit. He played when surfaces were faster and tennis was more towards skill than strength. Racquets, balls, and everything else were different - especially early on. Go and watch some of his matches from the '90s... Djokovic in those conditions against Agassi he'd be like lamb to the slaughter!

by paulcz Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:56 pm

FedererKing wrote:I don't think Agassi is giving himself enough credit. He played when surfaces were faster and tennis was more towards skill than strength. Racquets, balls, and everything else were different - especially early on. Go and watch some of his matches from the '90s... Djokovic in those conditions against Agassi he'd be like lamb to the slaughter!

Here we can write and have a lot of to imagine.
I don't think that Agassi would diminish himself againt Novak, he has no reason for doing that.

Agassi won Wimbledon once and USO twice, which does not show that he was a player for fast surfaces these days.

I saw Agassi once onlive and could compare him with Safin playing on the same court and Safin played even faster. Agassi was well-ballanced on the court and made a few UE, which is similar to Novak, but IMO his athletics and movement surely are not at the level of Djokovic's and the same is with serve and return.

Agassi's body was very strong and he could play amazing powerful strokes comparable to Stan. But he was not my favorite player, I was on the other side with Pete.

by Tenez Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:06 pm

paulcz wrote:

Agassi won Wimbledon once and USO twice, which does not show that he was a player for fast surfaces these days.

Wow...wow...we are talking about lightening fast Wimby and USO.....compared to current ones. You could not win there from the baseline. Agassi was the sole baseliner to have won Wimby since Borg.....and in fact the only baseliner to have won Wimby since the introduction of medium graphite frame. So it was certainly an exploit. No-one achieved that since the balls got bigger in 2002.

I am not saying that Djoko could not have returned as well.....but when faced against Kevin Anderson, he had a close shave. In teh 90s, with natural strings, Djoko woudl have struggled a lot more v KA....and we know how close that match was already.

by noleisthebest Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:12 pm

Tenez wrote:
Wow...wow...we are talking about lightening fast Wimby and USO.....compared to current ones. You could not win there from the baseline. Agassi was the sole baseliner to have won Wimby since Borg.....and in fact the only baseliner to have won Wimby since the introduction of medium graphite frame. So it was certainly an exploit. No-one achieved that since the balls got bigger in 2002.

I am not saying that Djoko could not have returned as well.....but when faced against Kevin Anderson, he had a close shave. In teh 90s, with natural strings, Djoko woudl have struggled a lot more v KA....and we know how close that match was already.

And neither Borg nor Agassi would have won it with a SBH.

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".

by paulcz Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:56 pm

Tenez wrote:
paulcz wrote:

Agassi won Wimbledon once and USO twice, which does not show that he was a player for fast surfaces these days.
Wow...wow...we are talking about lightening fast Wimby and USO.....compared to current ones. You could not win there from the baseline. Agassi was the sole baseliner to have won Wimby since Borg.....and in fact the only baseliner to have won Wimby since the introduction of medium graphite frame. So it was certainly an exploit. No-one achieved that since the balls got bigger in 2002.

I am not saying that Djoko could not have returned as well.....but when faced against Kevin Anderson, he had a close shave. In teh 90s, with natural strings, Djoko woudl have struggled a lot more v KA....and we know how close that match was already.

Agassi as the sole baseliner, wow, then Lendl had to be ultra super sole baseliner and he played Wimbledon final twice.

To make comparison between different periods does not make a sense and that I always mention.

To pick up a single match of anybody and evaluate a player ability on that is a sheer nonsense. If something should be recommend, then to look better on the game.

According to your logic Federer must be a quite poor returner when he is not able to cope with Nadal's serve as you give him a label as one of the worst servers.

It is enough to listen to some former players about their views on current returners. That gives you a lot.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:17 am

noleisthebest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".

Well... vilas, Clerc, and many others were "baseliners" and so was Muster. All SHBH...but it is true that DHBH took it to new levels (Borg, Chang, Wilander, Nadal and Djoko...).

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:24 am

paulcz wrote:
Tenez wrote:
paulcz wrote:

Agassi won Wimbledon once and USO twice, which does not show that he was a player for fast surfaces these days.
Wow...wow...we are talking about lightening fast Wimby and USO.....compared to current ones. You could not win there from the baseline. Agassi was the sole baseliner to have won Wimby since Borg.....and in fact the only baseliner to have won Wimby since the introduction of medium graphite frame. So it was certainly an exploit. No-one achieved that since the balls got bigger in 2002.

I am not saying that Djoko could not have returned as well.....but when faced against Kevin Anderson, he had a close shave. In teh 90s, with natural strings, Djoko woudl have struggled a lot more v KA....and we know how close that match was already.
Agassi as the sole baseliner, wow, then Lendl had to be ultra super sole baseliner and he played Wimbledon final twice.

To make comparison between different periods does not make a sense and that I always mention.

To pick up a single match of anybody and evaluate a player ability on that is a sheer nonsense. If something should be recommend, then to look better on the game.

According to your logic Federer must be a quite poor returner when he is not able to cope with Nadal's serve as you give him a label as one of the worst servers.

It is enough to listen to some former players about their views on current returners. That gives you a lot.

Your reply is again confusing. By hilighting the fact that only one player in 17 years won won Wimbledon from the baseline is not something to ignore. I simply hilighted the difference between the 2 wimbledon eras. If Nadal can win WImbledon, then clearly, this is not the wimbledon your parents have known.

I am not sure what Federer and Nadal have got to do here and less so Federer's returing of Nadal's serve. Federer was never beaten by Nadal's serve??? erm

but like Djoko the fact that those guys can throw long gruelling rallies by retrieving everything. .....but again, that's not the point of this discussion.

by Daniel Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:58 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".
Well... vilas, Clerc, and many others were "baseliners" and so was Muster. All SHBH...but it is true that DHBH took it to new levels (Borg, Chang, Wilander, Nadal and Djoko...).

Watch Borg at Wimbledon. He continually serves and volleys (and approaches the net all the time regardless). You HAD to do back then. Borg did not win 5 Wimbledon titles by playing his clay tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf0yfEfvMHE

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:47 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".
Well... vilas, Clerc, and many others were "baseliners" and so was Muster. All SHBH...but it is true that DHBH took it to new levels (Borg, Chang, Wilander, Nadal and Djoko...).

They never won Wimbledon, though.
Not even Lendl could do it from the baseline. That says a lot about conditions then.

But very interesting. I'll look at some clips when I get some time.
Who were the fitness kings of each era?
Borg, Lendl, Chang, Muster?
I know Nole's Austrian fitness coach that took over himin 2010 used to train Muster.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:12 am

FedererKing wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".
Well... vilas, Clerc, and many others were "baseliners" and so was Muster. All SHBH...but it is true that DHBH took it to new levels (Borg, Chang, Wilander, Nadal and Djoko...).

Watch Borg at Wimbledon. He continually serves and volleys (and approaches the net all the time regardless). You HAD to do back then. Borg did not win 5 Wimbledon titles by playing his clay tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf0yfEfvMHE

yes he was going more to the net...but he was not constantly serve volleying like McEnroe....and more importantly, he was extremely fast on his feet, allowing him to retrieve McEnroes volleys....up to a point anyway.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:17 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Who were the fitness kings of each era?
Borg, Lendl, Chang, Muster?
I know Nole's Austrian fitness coach that took over himin 2010 used to train Muster.

lendl was a fitness king but not for the same reasons. It was to allow him to keep on playing his aggresive game. he lost many finals first because he was exhausted and relied very much on very thin margins. So a bit of emotion and/or tiredness was enough to blunt his edge. Being simply fitter allowed him to keep his deadly, aggressive game sharper longer. ...not the case of the others you list.

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:37 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Who were the fitness kings of each era?
Borg, Lendl, Chang, Muster?
I know Nole's Austrian fitness coach that took over himin 2010 used to train Muster.
lendl was a fitness king but not for the same reasons. It was to allow him to keep on playing his aggresive game. he lost many finals first because he was exhausted and relied very much on very thin margins. So a bit of emotion and/or tiredness was enough to blunt his edge. Being simply fitter allowed him to keep his deadly, aggressive game sharper longer. ...not the case of the others you list.

Yes...amazing how much things have changed since then.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:02 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Who were the fitness kings of each era?
Borg, Lendl, Chang, Muster?
I know Nole's Austrian fitness coach that took over himin 2010 used to train Muster.
lendl was a fitness king but not for the same reasons. It was to allow him to keep on playing his aggresive game. he lost many finals first because he was exhausted and relied very much on very thin margins. So a bit of emotion and/or tiredness was enough to blunt his edge. Being simply fitter allowed him to keep his deadly, aggressive game sharper longer. ...not the case of the others you list.

Yes...amazing how much things have changed since then.

Well what we are seeing today is simply another Borg, a better Nadal....nothing much. We just have to wait for another Federer......Those certainly are much rarer!

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:07 am

Tenez wrote:
Well what we are seeing today is simply another Borg, a better Nadal....nothing much. We just have to wait for another Federer......Those certainly are much rarer!

I don't know about "simply"... 6 hours AO final in 2012!

At least, with everyone having to hit the ball harder now we are not seeing so many endless, safe, dull rallies.

Wait till Little Dragon enters the arena Winking

I want to see Rublev-Chung RG final one day!

That generation timed their entry perfectly. I feel sorry for the "lost" one that are 24-26 now.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:18 am

noleisthebest wrote:I want to see Rublev-Chung RG final one day!

That generation timed their entry perfectly. I feel sorry for the "lost" one that are 24-26 now.

The thing is we don't quite know them....we might end up disliking them like Kyrgios.

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:18 am

Tenez wrote:
Well what we are seeing today is simply another Borg, a better Nadal....nothing much. We just have to wait for another Federer......Those certainly are much rarer!

We aren't going to have another Federer. Only by miracle.

Money has polluted the world on all levels it can't grow/produce anything pure and beautiful any more.

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:32 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I want to see Rublev-Chung RG final one day!

That generation timed their entry perfectly. I feel sorry for the "lost" one that are 24-26 now.

The thing is we don't quite know them....we might end up disliking them like Kyrgios.

Mmmmm...I haven't seen Chung, but have met Rublev.
I didn't notice anything rotten about him.

Thiem looks like a player who won't disappoint.

by Tenez Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:45 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I want to see Rublev-Chung RG final one day!

That generation timed their entry perfectly. I feel sorry for the "lost" one that are 24-26 now.

The thing is we don't quite know them....we might end up disliking them like Kyrgios.
Mmmmm...I haven't seen Chung, but have met Rublev.
I didn't notice anything rotten about him.

Thiem looks like a player who won't disappoint.

It's when the tough gets tougher that you really see who they are. So far so good I agree.....

by paulcz Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Tenez wrote:
paulcz wrote:
Tenez wrote:
paulcz wrote:

Agassi won Wimbledon once and USO twice, which does not show that he was a player for fast surfaces these days.
Wow...wow...we are talking about lightening fast Wimby and USO.....compared to current ones. You could not win there from the baseline. Agassi was the sole baseliner to have won Wimby since Borg.....and in fact the only baseliner to have won Wimby since the introduction of medium graphite frame. So it was certainly an exploit. No-one achieved that since the balls got bigger in 2002.

I am not saying that Djoko could not have returned as well.....but when faced against Kevin Anderson, he had a close shave. In teh 90s, with natural strings, Djoko woudl have struggled a lot more v KA....and we know how close that match was already.
Agassi as the sole baseliner, wow, then Lendl had to be ultra super sole baseliner and he played Wimbledon final twice.

To make comparison between different periods does not make a sense and that I always mention.

To pick up a single match of anybody and evaluate a player ability on that is a sheer nonsense. If something should be recommend, then to look better on the game.

According to your logic Federer must be a quite poor returner when he is not able to cope with Nadal's serve as you give him a label as one of the worst servers.

It is enough to listen to some former players about their views on current returners. That gives you a lot.

Your reply is again confusing. By hilighting the fact that only one player in 17 years won won Wimbledon from the baseline is not something to ignore. I simply hilighted the difference between the 2 wimbledon eras. If Nadal can win WImbledon, then clearly, this is not the wimbledon your parents have known.

I am not sure what Federer and Nadal have got to do here and less so Federer's returing of Nadal's serve. Federer was never beaten by Nadal's serve??? but like Djoko the fact that those guys can throw long gruelling rallies by retrieving everything. .....but again, that's not the point of this discussion.

Ten, if anything is confusing, then dont hesitate and ask for it. I will try to explain it better for you for sure Winking

Just wonder where you got any my ignoration that you wrote about. I only mentioned that if you call Agassi a baseliner, then what would you call Lendl, when he is a decade older than Agassi and went to the net once per year and had really big chance to win Wimbledon final with Cash.

When you mention a single match between Novak and KA, then it is quite weird why you wonder why I hinted Fed’s poor returning of Nadal’s poor serve as you are always saying. My take was to discuss Agassi’s praise to Novak (highlights his returning quality) and put a bit comparison among the best current players. So I expected your statement about Fed’s difficulties with Nadal’s serve instead getting a bit odd question or maybe it was not a question, “Federer was never beaten by Nadal’s serve???“ I am quite sure that I have not said it. Where did you take that?

by Daniel Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:45 pm

Tenez wrote:
FedererKing wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but baseliners did not exist until DBH was "invented".
Well... vilas, Clerc, and many others were "baseliners" and so was Muster. All SHBH...but it is true that DHBH took it to new levels (Borg, Chang, Wilander, Nadal and Djoko...).

Watch Borg at Wimbledon. He continually serves and volleys (and approaches the net all the time regardless). You HAD to do back then. Borg did not win 5 Wimbledon titles by playing his clay tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf0yfEfvMHE
yes he was going more to the net...but he was not constantly serve volleying like McEnroe....and more importantly, he was extremely fast on his feet, allowing him to retrieve McEnroes volleys....up to a point anyway.

He was still doing it an awful lot. It's not fair to call him a baseliner and leave it at that. By today's standards he was a net player on grass.

by Tenez Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:44 am

Borg was a baseliner. There is no going around that simple fact. Nadal also volleys, he is still a baseliner.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:10 am

I wonder what made Borg choose DBH?

by Tenez Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:50 am

Lendl was also a baseliner.....but made the stupid error, under Roche, to rush the net on every point at Wimbledon. And therefore lost both finals to Becker and Cash.

So I expected your statement about Fed’s difficulties with Nadal’s serve instead getting a bit odd question or maybe it was not a question, “Federer was never beaten by Nadal’s serve???“ I am quite sure that I have not said it. Where did you take that?

Well you say above that "Federer's return must be quite poor in comparison as he coudl not cope with Nadal's serve....". I was just saying that Fed has generally no problem returning Nadal's serve....it's what comes after that he struggles with.

Fed returned unbelievable at USO and Wimbledon this year....even during in the first sets of Wimby and USO final. When he tires, he gets less efficient for sure...

Anyhow I am not sure where the discussion is going..

by Tenez Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:53 am

noleisthebest wrote:I wonder what made Borg choose DBH?

Smae reason as most baseliner.....it is a safer shot. If yuo have quick feet, then it's clearly a better choice. Borg was not the first to have a DHBH.....but certainly it was rarer then.

You had one the Mayer brothers (Gene?) who had 2 hands on FH and BH then....before Santoro.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:19 pm

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I wonder what made Borg choose DBH?

Smae reason as most baseliner.....it is a safer shot. If yuo have quick feet, then it's clearly a better choice. Borg was not the first to have a DHBH.....but certainly it was rarer then.

You had one the Mayer brothers (Gene?) who had 2 hands on FH and BH then....before Santoro.

I've always associated baseline tennis with a DBH.
Do you become a baseliner because of DBH or the other way round?

Organically speaking, baseline tennis is for less talented, weaponless players.

There is no reason to spend time on it otherwise.

Do you think Borg was overhyped?

by Tenez Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:54 pm

Borg was not overhyped...no more than today's players are overhyped.

It's all about putting them into context. Borg had it easy as he was the first real pro versus amateurs, Pete had it easy as on those fast surfaces, a good serve could get him out of trouble and was never asked to run the miles, Fed had it easy cause he first played in a era where new techno and fitness was not pushed as in his second part. Djoko has it easy cause the others have not caught up yet with his fitness....etc...etc...

..or you can see the tremendous effort it took them to each to achieve what they achieved.

I tend to think however that those who choose the physical route have it easier as the harder they work on their fitness, the easier it is on their mental side.

Those trying to develop their shot making ability, have certainly an easy start (talent) but they need to work very hard on making those thin margins consistents and worse have to produce those thin margins under stress...which is the ultimate mental challenge.

by noleisthebest Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:09 pm

That's a very nice post, T.

I do appreciate the effort players put into their game.
Tennis is such a tough sport: expensive, demanding physically, emotionally...testing in every way.

And those who are able to separate themselves from the rest and dominate...I can only relate to those with talent, I don't know what drives those who don't have much, where they draw their confidence from.

When a DBH bludgeons a SBH (like Nole did to Fed in Wimbledon), in my brain I dismiss it, that tennis doesn't count - it's cheating.

And those with a DBH know it, too. So they can't delude themselves. What is all their fake confidence worth then?

And who cares for millions of facebook fans?
I gather their bank accounts must give them plenty of comfort.

I don't blame them, of course, they are trying to make a living and back in their junior years must have stood out from the rest.
It's just painful to read and listen to so much nonsense comparing apples and oranges.

by Daniel Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:53 pm

Tenez wrote:Borg was a baseliner. There is no going around that simple fact. Nadal also volleys, he is still a baseliner.

Did you watch that video I posted? On grass, he was not a baseliner. He is serve and voilleying almost every serve, and coming to net on loads of points. Nadal doesn't do that at all.

by paulcz Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:11 pm

Tenez wrote:Lendl was also a baseliner.....but made the stupid error, under Roche, to rush the net on every point at Wimbledon. And therefore lost both finals to Becker and Cash.

So I expected your statement about Fed’s difficulties with Nadal’s serve instead getting a bit odd question or maybe it was not a question, “Federer was never beaten by Nadal’s serve???“ I am quite sure that I have not said it. Where did you take that?
Well you say above that "Federer's return must be quite poor in comparison as he coudl not cope with Nadal's serve....". I was just saying that Fed has generally no problem returning Nadal's serve....it's what comes after that he struggles with.

Fed returned unbelievable at USO and Wimbledon this year....even during in the first sets of Wimby and USO final. When he tires, he gets less efficient for sure...

Anyhow I am not sure where the discussion is going..

I see it differently. If anything then I need to point out that it is just Nadal's lefty serve into Fed's BH, from which derived overall game and Fed was gradually losing the ground in their matches. Nadal has been very comfortable on the serve and that gave him a lot confidence. When comparing Fed's return with Novak's than here I see quite the difference in favour of Novak.

It is Fed's bad luck, that he did not meet Nadal for about two years, when he serves and returns better than ever with a help of the bigger frame. Let's hope that they meet at TM in London.

I dont think that the discussion was going nowhere, just there were mentioned some statements, which needed to be explained.

by Tenez Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:31 pm

no I disagree there as well. fed coudl time Nadal's serve fine.....for a set....but then he quickly got tired and he started shanking. It's the long rallies that took Fed's edge off....nothing else.

by luvsports! Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:54 am

Fed gets tired after a set? Poor fitness there then.

by Tenez Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:07 am

luvsports! wrote:Fed gets tired after a set? Poor fitness there then.

No it's not. We have had this discussion for years. A couple of 25 shot rallies is enough to blunt the edge of a player who relies on thin margins whereas it is fine if your game can afford bigger margins. The SHBH in itself is "thin margin". Just look at all Fed/Nadal encounters, Fed is a break up in the first set 3 times out of 4 roughly.

by noleisthebest Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:22 am

I think it's hard for people to understand it unless they've experienced it themselves.
Even on amateur level.

The sheer physicality the single arm has to sustain in today's hard hitting pro tennis, starting with having to receive with only one arm.

That is the reason nobody is bothering with a SBH any more - medicine has won!

by luvsports! Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:18 am

But by that logic he should be spent by the first set and not be able to win sets later on. He has done that so many times in his career/

by Tenez Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:27 pm

luvsports! wrote:But by that logic he should be spent by the first set and not be able to win sets later on. He has done that so many times in his career/

It's not a "logic". It's a statistical fact first. Of course he can win sets afterwards. His opponent is not a robot and can tire too.....but the fact is he has end up losing a lot of matches where he was leading, in particular, against guys like Murray, Djoko and Nadal.

Look also at the Djoko v Stan H2H scoring....it's even more obvious.....except of course for that FO final where Djoko did not choke but was tired down by Stan depth of shots...and probably down to the SF match v Murray match too.

by paulcz Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:48 pm

Tenez wrote:no I disagree there as well. fed coudl time Nadal's serve fine.....for a set....but then he quickly got tired and he started shanking. It's the long rallies that took Fed's edge off....nothing else.

There was much written about Nadal serves into Fed's backhand. Just to check their stats of matches and you see how many points have been won by serving into Fed's BH. It is nothing special to serve to opponent BH (all players have weaker BH side), but lefty Nadal's serve into Fed's BH characterized their matches and Nadal following devastation of Fed's BH went on afterwards.
SHBH is not just made for hitting high spinny balls and only way to return it is to slice it. Slices played into Nadal's moonballing lefty FH were just what Nadal needs.

Fed has been a superior athlete and played many won 5 setters, so that no way he started shanking his return after the first set. If anything has effect in it, then it is an effort to hit return more powerful with a higher risk, just to change course of return and there is a mental pressure on the returner. But shanking due to tiredness on return after the first set is pure nonsense.

by noleisthebest Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:38 am

paulcz wrote:
Tenez wrote:no I disagree there as well. fed coudl time Nadal's serve fine.....for a set....but then he quickly got tired and he started shanking. It's the long rallies that took Fed's edge off....nothing else.
There was much written about Nadal serves into Fed's backhand. Just to check their stats of matches and you see how many points have been won by serving into Fed's BH. It is nothing special to serve to opponent BH (all players have weaker BH side), but lefty Nadal's serve into Fed's BH characterized their matches and Nadal following devastation of Fed's BH went on afterwards.
SHBH is not just made for hitting high spinny balls and only way to return it is to slice it. Slices played into Nadal's moonballing lefty FH were just what Nadal needs.

Fed has been a superior athlete and played many won 5 setters, so that no way he started shanking his return after the first set. If anything has effect in it, then it is an effort to hit return more powerful with a higher risk, just to change course of return and there is a mental pressure on the returner. But shanking due to tiredness on return after the first set is pure nonsense.

Of course it is, Paul.
One of the main reasons nobody is teaching and using SBH any more.

Do you really think Nole and Murray would be as good returners with one hand?

by Daniel Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:58 pm

Wawrinka has just killed Djokovic at French Open with one... so it can be done. Also, Federer's backhand was much better in his prime. It's a complete liability these days.

Edit.

And you are telling us this Djokovic is the bestest ever. So how did a one handed player beat this Terminator?

by Tenez Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:18 am

FedererKing wrote:Wawrinka has just killed Djokovic at French Open with one... so it can be done. Also, Federer's backhand was much better in his prime. It's a complete liability these days.

I think most people, and federer himself tend to believe it is the other way around.

by Daniel Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:03 am

Tenez wrote:
FedererKing wrote:Wawrinka has just killed Djokovic at French Open with one... so it can be done. Also, Federer's backhand was much better in his prime. It's a complete liability these days.
I think most people, and federer himself tend to believe it is the other way around.

I don't think so, and the videos are the ultimate proof. There's really no getting away from it when you watch his Slam matches from 2004-2007. The backhand was hitting winners down the line AND at a much faster pace - and he was shanking far less even though he was using a smaller racquet.

The only reason he changed racquet is because through decline, his timing was becoming poorer. Federer may delude himself that he is now a better player on the backhand, but his Slam drought and those pesky videos say otherwise.

It's the greatest myth around that Fed's backhand was weak. Any weakness like that would not result in 17 slams. The only weakness he had with it was against Nadal - a left hand player who hits ridiculous top spin. Just because one man on slower surfaces (mainly clay) was able to find a weakness in his backhand does not make it a weak backhand. It was more than up to the task against every other player and that's why he is the most successful player there has ever been.

Today, that backhand does diddly squat in terms of hitting winners. Every so often it does, but even then it's without the same authority and pace. It's not anywhere close to how it used to be - but that's what happens when hand-eye coordination goes down the pan DUE TO AGE.

by noleisthebest Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:08 am

Bigger racquet was for more consistency, not better timing as balls are coming back from super-fit percentage players over and over now with only one aim: to tire a SBH-er, not outplay him.
Almost all players are now playing with 100" racquets, DBH...equivalent of a machine gun compared to a bow and arrow against a SBH-er armed with natural strings on a 85-90" racquet.

Stan never played with a small racquet, either.

by Tenez Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:42 am

FedererKing wrote:I don't think so, and the videos are the ultimate proof. There's really no getting away from it when you watch his Slam matches from 2004-2007. The backhand was hitting winners down the line AND at a much faster pace - and he was shanking far less even though he was using a smaller racquet.

Against Nadal, Djoko and Murray? Why was he losing to those 20yo then already? I am afraid you clearly don't want to see the reality. Or rather you see it I guess, but can't admit it. You have dug yourself in a hole. I am not sure how else to put it.

Imagine if Djokovic was losing to a 20yo nowadays, not once, twice but thrice or more (like Fed was beaten by Nadal, Murray and Djoko)?......Would not that tell you something about this 20y tennis player? Would you expect that 20yo to lose regularly when he is 27/28 against a 34yo Djokovic?....like Murray and Djoko lost to Federer twice this year?

If Djoko gets beaten by a 20yo now.....expect him to be crushed to smithereens by that youngster when he peaks ...unless Djoko improves dramatically too by the time he is 34. .

by Daniel Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:03 am

Not in Slams, he wasn't. And that's where he was at his best. Also, 2006 is statistically the greatest year by any player of the Open Era (if you discount Rod Laver at the start), Slams and overall.

You can keep bringing up exceptions, but I'll keep reminding you of rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Roger_Federer_tennis_season

Go and have a look at how good he was in that year. None of what you're saying can explain why he was so dominant then, but can't win a single Slam now. Need I remind you that Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal could not stop Federer from winning three of four Slams 2004, 2005,2006 and 2007. What I am saying here is no opinion - there are ample videos online that you can watch from this time to see how good his backhand used to be compared to now - and many other parts of his game.

Players don't improve in their 30s. They physically decline (and so does reaction speed) and this is a scientific fact. I don't think you'll find one professional trainer who disagrees.

It really doesn't matter what you think. The professionals don't agree with you on the whole and Djokovic won't equal or beat 17 Slams.

by Tenez Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:45 am

FedererKing wrote:

Players don't improve in their 30s. They physically decline (and so does reaction speed) and this is a scientific fact. I don't think you'll find one professional trainer who disagrees.

It really doesn't matter what you think. The professionals don't agree with you on the whole and Djokovic won't equal or beat 17 Slams.

Is this a disguised admission of your defeat? You started with peaking being between 24/25....then 26/7 ....now you say 30?

Good I am glad I keep making you move the goal post.

Regarding physicality, you are mixing things up as I have told you many times. We decline physically the day we are born! not at 25! we are more flexible at birth than at 25..we even have flexible skull at birth. Recovering power is best at birth as well. Our maximum brain cells is at 16yo...from that age brain cells stop multiplying and keep dying without being replaced. So again, according to you we should be smarter at 16, right? Scientists would be finished by the time they are 18? The eye lens and vitreous body is never as clear and sharp than at 16 too. yet young teenagers are at a higher risk of being ran over by car cause their brain with their max cells don't gauge the speed of a moving object (cars here) as well as adults.

As I said you do not realise that the brain keeps learning long after 30. The brain has less cells but nerves from sensors (eyes, muscles, joints) to brain cells turn from paths to motorways. In other words the more you repeat a move the more nerves and brain are going to allocate attention and energy to that move. In tennis that is crucial! Anticipation becomes a second nature. Timing is essential and timing those new shots from new and improving players is key.

If you look at the 2006 list you posted, you can see that Federer went through Wimbeldon and USO this year with more ease than in 2006....or very similar....the problem is Djoko.....not age.

Being younger woudl have certainly helped him in finals, no doubt, but without his todays knowledge and timing, he woudl have struggled even more versus Djokovic. he already had very tight 3 sets v Djoko in USO 2007...when Djoko was only 20. And that was not fluke as he had actually beaten fed 3 weeks before in Canada.

You have no argument to explain how federer seems to have stuck with Djoko' 8 years of constant progress since.

You just stick to slams Ws and Ls....even those don't even make sense.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30