ATP MASTERS 1000: Monte Carlo

FedererKing wrote:feared in these conditions, yes.  Put Fed on true grass with the proper conditions, and Stan's backhand would be way too 1 dimensional.

Put him on ice rink and he won't be able to move. Put him on a Tar road and I don't know what will happen. Why discuss about where to put him? We have to discuss surfaces where tennis is played today. 

gallery play wrote:I think consistency isn't  the decisive factor.
I realize the pro-Stan arguments may appear a little opportunistic because a year ago Stan hardly was a top 10 players but let's judge him on how he plays today. In that case I would say Stan's BH is a real weapon (one that is feared) and Federer's BH not (one that can surprise but is not feared).

Edit: nitb, this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO6t8nkZ97Q
 

Nope. I always felt Stan BH was a real weapon and better than Fed's. Stan's results were poor  earlier due to other factors.

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:I think consistency isn't  the decisive factor.
I realize the pro-Stan arguments may appear a little opportunistic because a year ago Stan hardly was a top 10 players but let's judge him on how he plays today. In that case I would say Stan's BH is a real weapon (one that is feared) and Federer's BH not (one that can surprise but is not feared).

Edit: nitb, this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO6t8nkZ97Q
 

I do not think either are weapons. They score points but far and few in between....and often outnumbered by UEs from that side. But I'd say this of many BHs, including DHBH...bar Nalby, Davydenko and sometimes Murray and Djoko.

If we look at the first 2 sets (clip below) , before Federer collapsed in the 3rd, it's very difficult to objectively call a BH better than the other. One thing I noticed while watching it is that Fed though hitting slightly less powerfully has a much better depth than Stan on average. When Fed tires in the 3rd, Fed's BH falls short and Stan can then release his powerful BH.

Let's have a better look next time they play, but I doubt I will see Federer losing many BH rallies v Stan. For me Fed has actually a better one...even on those 2 first sets here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY7WJhqrvXc

Here is one for you GP. You may find 70 BH winners....... in a single match here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxRcr3rxINs

Why do I have to look at only the first 2 sets, the match doesn't get over in the first 2 sets. If Fed's BH glory can only last for the 1st 2 sets, I can't call it better. If the BH starts to tire and returns become shorter, is it not a weakness in his armour?

 If we are into cherry picking then almost all players for a short time on a given day could look GOAT material. 

The clip about Blake, this match can't be used as a testimony. Fed was a nightmare opponent for Blake. Fed could just do everything what Blake did and 100 times better plus much more.  If you put Fed against a player who has a in many ways a similar game to Fed's, Fed is the best and by far. That was the problem with Blake when facing Fed. Blake a very aggressive player, but against Fed, before he could even think about it, Fed would finish the point. 

But his test comes when he faces players who have a different game. Can Fed do all those he did against Blake with his BH against Nadal? No way. He may not be able to do it even against Murray.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
The clip about Blake, this match can't be used as a testimony. Fed was a nightmare opponent for Blake. Fed could just do everything what Blake did and 100 times better plus much more.  If you put Fed against a player who has a in many ways a similar game to Fed's, Fed is the best and by far. That was the problem with Blake when facing Fed. Blake a very aggressive player, but against Fed, before he could even think about it, Fed would finish the point. 

But his test comes when he faces players who have a different game. Can Fed do all those he did against Blake with his BH against Nadal? No way. He may not be able to do it even against Murray.

The thing is, Fed would bagel Nadal on that court. Where was Nadal at TMC 2006? He had won two RGs by then, didn't he?
Abywy, Fed did bagel Nadal in WTF London a few years later, on a much slower court....

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

gallery play wrote:I think consistency isn't  the decisive factor.
I realize the pro-Stan arguments may appear a little opportunistic because a year ago Stan hardly was a top 10 players but let's judge him on how he plays today. In that case I would say Stan's BH is a real weapon (one that is feared) and Federer's BH not (one that can surprise but is not feared).

Edit: nitb, this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO6t8nkZ97Q
 

Nope. I always felt Stan BH was a real weapon and better than Fed's. Stan's results were poor  earlier due to other factors.

I can agree with that but the reality is actually very different!

Have you watched the recent encounters of nadal v Stan on clay? (Mardrid 2013, or FO 2013)? Look you have below the whole match but just in the first game you see how Stan struggles from that side and how much Nadal targets it. You can even see how Stan tries to turn around his BH and hit a FH at the first opportunity! The FO13 encounter is even more of a one way traffic!

It reminds me how some team captains in our club select their players. They always go for those who have great/beautiful shots and ignore the consistent players. The fact is when comes a league match they don't understand why those great shots don't bring the wins cause they often overlook the many UEs which come with it. And Stan has a sensational BH, when the ball is rather short but over a match, he will produce more UEs from that side. Stats will say just that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdRGffNwE0g

Unlike you, I'd say his other shots are underestimated because of some of his BHs. His real weakness is actually his mouvement....meaning he even plays less FH, than Fed, and not as well positioned when he does.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Why do I have to look at only the first 2 sets, the match doesn't get over in the first 2 sets. If Fed's BH glory can only last for the 1st 2 sets, I can't call it better. If the BH starts to tire and returns become shorter, is it not a weakness in his armour?

Well simply to make an honest judgement. Like picking fed's performance in 2013 would not be a fair representation of Fed's success over the years. If you want to compare apples with apples, you don't compare a BH when a player is simply exhausted or injured. I could pick up the match of how Fed fared v Golubev compared to Stan just a few weeks ago. I think picking up the first 2 sets is not even fair as fed was already knackered before he started as admitted but at least it shows that Stan has no obvious advantage from that side.

The clip about Blake, this match can't be used as a testimony. Fed was a nightmare opponent for Blake. Fed could just do everything what Blake did and 100 times better plus much more.  If you put Fed against a player who has a in many ways a similar game to Fed's, Fed is the best and by far. That was the problem with Blake when facing Fed. Blake a very aggressive player, but against Fed, before he could even think about it, Fed would finish the point. 

That was just posted in the same spirit as GP's. But still it shows the extend of Fed's BH variety and consistency....on a faster surface.....which we never saw from Stan.

But his test comes when he faces players who have a different game. Can Fed do all those he did against Blake with his BH against Nadal? No way. He may not be able to do it even against Murray.

And the fact again says that Fed did 100times better v Nadal than Stan did..and same v Djoko and Murray despite all targeting (as you say) Fed's BH!.


V Murray: Murray winning 8/10 encounters before back injury!
v Djoko: 3/15 in Djoko's favour
v Nadal: 1/12

Tenez wrote:And the fact again says that Fed did 100times better v Nadal than Stan did..and same v Djoko and Murray despite all targeting (as you say) Fed's BH!.

Fed has better results against these players in comparison to Stan, but those are NOT because of Fed BH. In fact his losses against them have a lot to do with his weaker BH.

Stan's comparatively poor record against those are there, but its not because of his BH. His BH is a solid weapon against just anyone. That's not the case with Fed. Fed's BH has a painted target on it, something Stan's isn't. 

We are only talking about BH and only BH. Not about the result.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And the fact again says that Fed did 100times better v Nadal than Stan did..and same v Djoko and Murray despite all targeting (as you say) Fed's BH!.

Fed has better results against these players in comparison to Stan, but those are NOT because of Fed BH. In fact his losses against them have a lot to do with his weaker BH.

Stan's comparatively poor record against those are there, but its not because of his BH. His BH is a solid weapon against just anyone. That's not the case with Fed. Fed's BH has a painted target on it, something Stan's isn't. 

We are only talking about BH and only BH. Not about the result.

Certainly but it's clear that Fed's BH is very much part of this result cause as you say those players keep targeting it.....like they target Stan's BH.
 
On the tour, this slow tour, as Agassi says you cannot hide a weak shot. This is what professionals do. They target the weaker shot. And that is 99% of the case the BH.
 
Fed places his BH better, has better depth, gets to it better and is even more consistent (thanks to his spinny, slower one).
 
I have pointed the clip of Stan v Nadal on clay at Madrid 13 and check the result of Stan v Nadal at the FO13. If you do not watch that, then the discussion is going to be endless cause your "impression" or "feel" (as you say) needs to be backed up by a closer look.

Rotla - Really weird to have the thread on Barcelona disappearing like that!!!

Tenez wrote:Rotla - Really weird to have the thread on Barcelona disappearing like that!!!

Yes I thought nitb might have deleted it. I don't know what happened.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And the fact again says that Fed did 100times better v Nadal than Stan did..and same v Djoko and Murray despite all targeting (as you say) Fed's BH!.

Fed has better results against these players in comparison to Stan, but those are NOT because of Fed BH. In fact his losses against them have a lot to do with his weaker BH.

Stan's comparatively poor record against those are there, but its not because of his BH. His BH is a solid weapon against just anyone. That's not the case with Fed. Fed's BH has a painted target on it, something Stan's isn't. 

We are only talking about BH and only BH. Not about the result.

Certainly but it's clear that Fed's BH is very much part of this result cause as you say those players keep targeting it.....like they target Stan's BH.
 
On the tour, this slow tour, as Agassi says you cannot hide a weak shot. This is what professionals do. They target the weaker shot. And that is 99% of the case the BH.
 
Fed places his BH better, has better depth, gets to it better and is even more consistent (thanks to his spinny, slower one).
 
I have pointed the clip of Stan v Nadal on clay at Madrid 13 and check the result of Stan v Nadal at the FO13. If you do not watch that, then the discussion is going to be endless cause your "impression" or "feel" (as you say) needs to be backed up by a closer look.

Certainly. So for now, we'll leave it here, but will bring it up in some time.