Coric 18 versus Nadal 18...who would win?

Tenez wrote:very interesting.....

2013 Wimbledon 1/4F Junior Coric v Chung...both same age...now Chung is 122 and will really struggle to get up the ranking while Coric considerably pumped up, probably grew up a bit more too and they are probably going to have very different career.
I really can't stand this Coric, very loud, brash and already at 15 insulting the referee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gZo6baHnzA

That's his cultural blueprint.
He's grown up being told daily he's going to be the next big thing, to the point he now believes it, esp as he's had this breakthrough.
All he cares about is success, not tennis, things have gone to his head and it shows.

The loss to Federer will have definitely put him into his place a bit.

I sense a bit of Nadal in Coric in the way he despises Federer, it's not fully blown as they are not rivals in any way, but it's there - two opposite schools of approaching tennis.

At least Coric is not falsely humble.

At 17 Coric nearly beat Fognini on clay....Won the first set and the secodn went to a TB 3all....so clearly he knows how to move on clay too.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:He won't beat another top 10 player this year (unless they are injured or woefully off form)

I don't know about that.  He might, he might not, but I would give him better than even odds.

But I notice you have given yourself an out...

Given myself an out ?

Bannatyne.

luvsports! wrote:Bannatyne.

И шта ти причаш, ја ништа не знам.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Bannatyne.

И шта ти причаш, ја ништа не знам.

I lost any sense of it since and includsing SB's post.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Bannatyne.

И шта ти причаш, ја ништа не знам.

I lost any sense of it since and includsing SB's post.

I know. Or maybe I don't.
The only thing I know is that I don't know anything.

The claim Coric is even close to Nadal aged 18 is such a delusional fantasy that even in the biggest Nadal hater's wet dream it would be difficult to reach such a loss of grip on reality.

Let's see things in some perspective.
Nadal turned 18 in mid 2004, and 19 in mid 2005.
As a 17 year old he beat Federer in straight sets in Miami. Had some tournament wins in 2004, but had to miss some time off tour due to injury.
Came back in 2005, matched Federer very closely on the hard courts of Miami, then dominated the clay season and won the French Open.
Coric is a decent prospect, certainly compared to other players his age now he's doing well. But he's world number 60, and does not even seem close to winning an ATP 250 event, forget ATP 500, and Masters 1000 is unthinkable. This year he has won 5 matches and lost 7 on the ATP tour.
He's had a few great matches, upsetting Nadal when he had appendicitis, and played well to beat an out of sorts Murray (Murray sometimes just after the AO plays some shockers... remember him losing to Donald Young a few years ago?). Coric has no consistency, a key part of a game, as a player who delivers more often is a better player.

Nadal was marginally better in 2005 (aged 18) than he was in 2014 I feel, but does anyone think Coric's year now is going to be as good as either Nadal's 2005 or 2014 ?
Federer struggled against Nadal in the first 2 sets for both Miami 2004 and 2005, when he was at his prime. And he beat Coric aged 33 for the loss of 3 games. I know some of you like to think Federer is better than he was in 2005, something I disagree with, but the idea that he is better now to the extent he would beat Coric 6-2 6-1, and lose the first 2 sets twice to a lesser player worse than Coric in 2004 & 2005 is so ludicrous it's beyond belief.
You'd not only have to think Federer is better now than in 2005, but miles better. Even the strongest hallucinogens can't induce this sort of logic and rational.

Coric has only lost 7 of the 12 ATP matches so far this year, people need to calm down, he couldn't even win a set against Carreno Busta on his favourite surface.

I can see that Nadal's doubles win this evening has given you wings

Kim Jong-Un wrote:.....

Coric has only lost 7 of the 12 ATP matches so far this year, people need to calm down, he couldn't even win a set against Carreno Busta on his favourite surface.

Don't lose too much sleep over this.

Comparing specific matches over 10 years apart is not going to sort it out. For instance you perfectly know that teh Miami 04 match cannot be set as a reference as Federer was under the weather....and considering than Nadal 05 was much better than 04, explain why Nadal lost then in Miami 05? Explain how come Nadal was good enough in 04 to beat Federer yet was losing to much lesser players right and left...including in that next round v Gonzalez?

So all your arguments don't make any sense if you pick and choose your matches. I could also use the Coric Nadal match in Basle and that would simply be end of discussion.

However we know some basic facts when comparing 2005 and 2015.
- It's simply a fact that the game is much tougher now than then. All the players say so, including the world number 1.
- The top 5 players are 5 years older on average than in 2005!!!! The number of young players in the top 100 has never been as low. This shows that Djoko, Nadal, Fed and Murray are playing much better now than in 2005.
- It means than being ranked 60 at 18 in 2015 is most likely a guarantee it requires a better game than being ranked 48 in 2005.
- The problem in taking federer as a reference is that Federer changed his game drastically and has managed to learn how to play those high bouncy lung busting games. He is still holding on tp Djoko who has improved considerably since 2005 but he has also demolished Murray and Nadal on faster or covered courts….including a 60 61 and 63 60 respectively at WTF! So it is no surprise that unless you have Djoko’s serve or returns (which Nadal never had and probably never will have) Coric suffered a similar fate as Murray and Nadal.

However as federer said he can see a huge potential….and unless injury, it’s going to be pretty clear soon.

Tenez wrote:Comparing specific matches over 10 years apart is not going to sort it out.

But as you can see Tenez, I'm not taking a specific match, I also posted his record this year, and he's won 5 out of 12 matches. Most of the players he has lost to aren't even top 30.

Tenez wrote:For instance you perfectly know that teh Miami 04 match cannot be set as a reference as Federer was under the weather....and considering than Nadal 05 was much better than 04, explain why Nadal lost then in Miami 05?

Well of course players have fluctuations in their form, but Miami 04 and 05 was similar in the fact Nadal did really trouble Federer.. and it wasn't just Miami where Nadal troubled Federer, on the clay Nadal was really dominating him, Dubai 2006 Nadal won on a fast court.

Tenez wrote:So all your arguments don't make any sense if you pick and choose your matches. I could also use the Coric Nadal match in Basle and that would simply be end of discussion.

This is a false equivalence you're trying to get away with. Nadal showed he can consistently trouble and beat Federer. Coric played Nadal when Rafa had appendicitis in a very low quality match, and won.. that's very different to what Nadal did against Federer.

Tenez wrote:- The top 5 players are 5 years older on average than in 2005!!!! The number of young players in the top 100 has never been as low.  This shows that Djoko, Nadal, Fed and Murray are playing much better now than in 2005.

No it doesn't... that is an assumption. Djokovic and Murray are better than in 2005, but Federer and Nadal aren't.

Tenez wrote:So it is no surprise that unless you have Djoko’s serve or returns (which Nadal never had and probably never will have) Coric suffered a similar fate (against Federer) as Murray and Nadal.

Do you live in cloud cuckoo land ?
It's no surprise that Coric suffered a similar fate against Federer as Nadal ?? I hate to break it to you... Coric has played 1 match against Federer and could only win 3 games, Nadal has a 23-10 lead in H2H and leads 9-2 in Slams. Only to you does that look like a similar fate. It's true there have been a few one sided matches where one player is out of sorts and the other in top form (i.e. RG 2008 and WTF 2011), but generally the matches are close but Nadal still wins.
The fact you think Coric's humiliation at the hands of Federer is 'suffering the similar fate' to what Nadal experiences against Federer surely exposes you delusion on this matter once and for all.

Kimmy, why don't you make an effort and try to understand what Tenez is saying.
Forget about trying to look right, his depth of knowledge is second to none.
Nadal will come and go, but tennis will stay.

It's quite liberating to take fan blinkers off, and I am talking from personal experience here...

Quite liberating to take the 'Whatever Tenez says is right' blinkers off too NITB

noleisthebest wrote:Kimmy, why don't you make an effort and try to understand what Tenez is saying.
Forget about trying to look right, his depth of knowledge is second to none.
Nadal will come and go, but tennis will stay.

It's quite liberating to take fan blinkers off, and I am talking from personal experience here...

This sounds pretty patronizing no matter what, but coming from you specifically it is a bit rich.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Let's see things in some perspective.
Nadal turned 18 in mid 2004, and 19 in mid 2005.
As a 17 year old he beat Federer in straight sets in Miami. Had some tournament wins in 2004, but had to miss some time off tour due to injury.
Came back in 2005, matched Federer very closely on the hard courts of Miami, then dominated the clay season and won the French Open.
Coric is a decent prospect, certainly compared to other players his age now he's doing well. But he's world number 60, and does not even seem close to winning an ATP 250 event, forget ATP 500, and Masters 1000 is unthinkable. This year he has won 5 matches and lost 7 on the ATP tour.

This is your kind of perspective though

Obviously not every player that looks promising turns out great and it is quite possible Coric will go nowhere.  However, the heart of this topic is not about whether Coric will go as far as Nadal (Tenez himself agrees that likely not) but about the comparison of their games at Coric's current age.  On top of that, Tenez is not talking about who is better relative to their cohort, but rather who is better on an absolute level.  So, if tennis as a sport may have improved over the last 10 years, it could well be that say a player at #100 now is better than a player at #50 10 years ago.

I still tend to agree with you that Rafa is the better of the two, but it is nowhere near as obvious as you make it sound.

The main problem is that you are giving Rafa credit for things he achieved when he was older than Coric is now.  Coric is now 18 years and 4 months.  All those slam and M1000 victories of Rafa came after he was that age.

Look at Rafa's results through his 18 years and 4 months.  Yes, they will be better than Coric's. but not by a landslide.  He won exactly one tournament - at 18 years and 2 months in Sopot on clay where the highest ranked opponent he beat was at #88.  If you look at his results over 4 months from the time he turned 18 to the time he was 18 years and 4 months, you will find very up-and-down results and no lack of cheap losses (including to a #116 player on clay).

Is Coric likely to get to 14+ slams?  Obviously not.  Is he currently playing better tennis than Rafa was at the same age?  I agree with you that not, but it is certainly nowhere near as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Kimmy, why don't you make an effort and try to understand what Tenez is saying.
Forget about trying to look right, his depth of knowledge is second to none.
Nadal will come and go, but tennis will stay.

It's quite liberating to take fan blinkers off, and I am talking from personal experience here...

This sounds pretty patronizing no matter what, but coming from you specifically it is a bit rich.

Rich or not, it's the truth.
Life is too short for beating about the bush.

It's all about weapons. In 2005 being strong, hitting hard for long was a new weapon no-one else had. It simply was good enough to stay ahead of the pack....even to beat the best player.

In the 90s a big serve, a good second serve even, was the best weapon. Enough for Pete to win 14 slams...however on clay he hardly reached a semi final or 2 at the FO. That's why weapons are so important. Pete would go nowhere with his serve nowadays.

Coric clearly has not got that new weapon...he simply improved on those brought by Nadal...but his weapons look clearly better than Nadal's did 10 years ago....unfortunately they are not bringing anything "new".

Summerblues, Nadal had a foot injury just before he turned 18 which meant he had to miss the whole European clay court season in 2004; despite that his 2004 looks better than Coric's 2014. (Coric however to be fair was born in November, so if you want you can adjust by 5 months... still Nadal has better results despite missing what is his favourite part of the season).
However after Nadal's injury hit 2004, in 2005 he won 4 Masters Series 1000s and 1 Grand Slam. His W/L record was 79-10. Coric's W/L record so far in 2015 is winning 6 matches and losing 8 matches. Forget matching Nadal's 2005, that's probably not even going to match Nadal's injury hit 2004.

Obviously we can wait and give Coric a few months, Summerblues as you rightly pointed out Nadal really took off after he was 18 years 9 months, but frankly I see no signs that Coric will do even nearly as well within the next year.

in terms of the absolute game and players improving, Nadal 2005>Nadal2014, Federer is not as good now as he was in 2005. Djokovic and Murray are better now than in 2005, and competition at the top is probably slightly harder now than in 2005 (although if Djokovic gets a serious injury... we're heading for a very weak era); but there is nothing to suggest Coric is even close to where Nadal was.
He can't even beat Tomic, he can't beat Carreno Busta, he's lost more matches this year than he's won... it's embarrassing to even think the two can be compared.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Summerblues as you rightly pointed out Nadal really took off after he was 18 years 9 months, but frankly I see no signs that Coric will do even nearly as well within the next year.

Yes, Rafa took off older than where Coric is now.  I agree with you that if we are here one year from now, asking whether Coric or Rafa were better at the same age chances are it will be a clear Rafa win then.  Even so, Coric is at an age where players can improve very quickly, so he has at least a bit of a chance (remember, he may not need to be quite as successful as Rafa was then to be playing comparably well).

Kim Jong-Un wrote:He can't even beat Tomic, he can't beat Carreno Busta, he's lost more matches this year than he's won... it's embarrassing to even think the two can be compared.

Again, this is unfair, you are implicitly giving Rafa benefit of the hindsight knowing how well he ended up doing when he was a bit older.  Rafa had that Sopot win in 2004 but outside of that his results in 2004 did not look much better than what Coric is doing now.  After that Sopot tourney, Rafa's last 10 matches in 2004 (Aug-Dec 2004, , i.e. a touch older than Coric now) were 5W-5L, with losses to players ranked #2, #113, #75, #23, #23 - not all that different from Coric's losses this year.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:in terms of the absolute game and players improving, Nadal 2005>Nadal2014, Federer is not as good now as he was in 2005. Djokovic and Murray are better now than in 2005, and competition at the top is probably slightly harder now than in 2005 (although if Djokovic gets a serious injury... we're heading for a very weak era); but there is nothing to suggest Coric is even close to where Nadal was.
He can't even beat Tomic, he can't beat Carreno Busta, he's lost more matches this year than he's won... it's embarrassing to even think the two can be compared.

Do you realise this goes against what all ATP player are saying?

Here you not only lack knowledge.....but humility..to think you know better than the players on the tour is ...stupid actually. And it is no coincidence that in 2015 we have 0 players in the top 5 younger than 25 and only one in the top 10 who is 24.

Compare that with 2005 when no player was older than 24 in the top 5 (Hewitt). Imagine if nowadays Rao was teh oldest in the top 5, followed by Dimi, Kirgios, Harrison and Young....What woudl that tell you about Nadal Djoko and Murray?

The game is much tougher now. Digest it.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Summerblues as you rightly pointed out Nadal really took off after he was 18 years 9 months, but frankly I see no signs that Coric will do even nearly as well within the next year.

Yes, Rafa took off older than where Coric is now.  I agree with you that if we are here one year from now, asking whether Coric or Rafa were better at the same age chances are it will be a clear Rafa win then.  Even so, Coric is at an age where players can improve very quickly, so he has at least a bit of a chance (remember, he may not need to be quite as successful as Rafa was then to be playing comparably well).

Kim Jong-Un wrote:He can't even beat Tomic, he can't beat Carreno Busta, he's lost more matches this year than he's won... it's embarrassing to even think the two can be compared.

Again, this is unfair, you are implicitly giving Rafa benefit of the hindsight knowing how well he ended up doing when he was a bit older.  Rafa had that Sopot win in 2004 but outside of that his results in 2004 did not look much better than what Coric is doing now.  After that Sopot tourney, Rafa's last 10 matches in 2004 (Aug-Dec 2004, , i.e. a touch older than Coric now) were 5W-5L, with losses to players ranked #2, #113, #75, #23, #23 - not all that different from Coric's losses this year.

If we take average performance (in terms of results) of Nadal when he was 18, and Coric from what he has done so far being 18... Nadal clearly comes out on top by a long way.
For Coric to catch up in terms of average performance, he needs to really improve dramatically in the next 6-7 months... and frankly I just don't see it happening. Of course you can point out that we should wait until he turns 19 to know for sure, and I agree on that.

Also you seem to be constantly leaving out the fact that in 2004 Nadal had to miss the whole European clay court season due to injury, and instead given his W/L ratio when he just came back from injury. If you take his whole 2004, despite him missing his favourite part of the season, his W/L ratio when 17/18 is better than Coric's 2014 or 2015.
There is just no way to spin it, as much as anyone tries, to show that Coric's results are better than Nadal's.

Another question is whether the standard of play has improved, and even if it has, not to the extent that Coric can claim to be matching Nadal (unless the youngster seriously improves in the next few months...)

Tenez, it is true that competition at the top between 2003 and 2007 was pretty weak, and Nadal/Djokovic got to numbers 2 and 3 in the rankings in 2007 when they were far younger than prime while players Federer's age who were at prime years were struggling, so perhaps you're right that nowadays we do have slightly stronger competition.
However I still feel that Federer was better in 2005 than now, and Nadal was better in 2005 than 2014/2015.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:There is just no way to spin it, as much as anyone tries, to show that Coric's results are better than Nadal's.

Obviously Nadal's results were better, but not nearly as much as you were suggesting (should I say spinning?) with the tone of your posts.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Another question is whether the standard of play has improved,

It is not only about improvement, but also about general style of play.  There is no question that players at the top are now older than they used to be.  It is conceivable that there is something about today's game that makes it harder for youngsters to succeed (though I personally am not convinced of that).  If so, you need to further adjust comparisons to reflect that.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez, it is true that competition at the top between 2003 and 2007 was pretty weak, and Nadal/Djokovic got to numbers 2 and 3 in the rankings in 2007 when they were far younger than prime while players Federer's age who were at prime years were struggling, so perhaps you're right that nowadays we do have slightly stronger competition.
However I still feel that Federer was better in 2005 than now, and Nadal was better in 2005 than 2014/2015.

More stupidity from you. it was not weak...it was a generation which learnt to play tennis with natural gut strings....without synth  strings Nadal would not have done better than Bruguera....if fact Bruguera lost his reign on the FO versus Luxilon. There is no point having big muscles and extra lungs with nat gut...so Nadal would have got nowhere. A bit like Nadal uncapable of winning a seeded player at the USO until they slowed it down and provided bigger balls.

This new generation coming will probably  show the lack of variety of nadal, Djoko and Murray. In 10 years time it will be no different than it was 10 years ago. the only guy capable to beat the current number one on form is still Federer..it's certainly not your one dimensional player.

I think it would be good if people tried different racquets and different strings in order to appreciate other eras and ways of ball striking.
It's difficult to understand implications and consequences thoroughly otherwise.

When McEnroe first came along as a commentator, he would like to get into explaining how everything is much easier with today's equipment (strings etc) and how - as a result - players today can look much better without actually being much better.

You could literally feel how his professional co-commentators (at least here in the US) were nervous whenever he started on that - obviously they would not want to go into that because they have a product to sell and that kind of commentating does not advance the sales.  Since then, McEnroe has adjusted and now he is much more mindful of presenting today's game in a positive light.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:There is just no way to spin it, as much as anyone tries, to show that Coric's results are better than Nadal's.

Obviously Nadal's results were better, but not nearly as much as you were suggesting (should I say spinning?) with the tone of your posts.

Please read what I'm writing.
We can look at average performance when 18 years old: for this Nadal is better in his 12 months than Coric has been for his 4 months (since turning 18) on average. Nadal comes easily on top here, by miles.
We can look at performance before 18 years 4 months. Despite the fact Nadal missed the European clay court season, his W/L ratio is still better (he won 30/47 matches in 2004) than Coric (7/13 in 2014 and 6/14 in 2015). On this despite injury in favourite part of season, Nadal still narrowly comes out on top.
So whatever way you look at it, Nadal is above Coric. If you look at it the first way in terms of average when aged 18 Nadal is miles ahead, if you take into account performance until 18y4months specifically Nadal is still ahead... but when answering Tenez's question in the OP it's wrong to ignore (as you did) that Nadal did win Masters 1000 and enter the French Open 2005 when 18.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Another question is whether the standard of play has improved,

It is not only about improvement, but also about general style of play.  There is no question that players at the top are now older than they used to be.  It is conceivable that there is something about today's game that makes it harder for youngsters to succeed (though I personally am not convinced of that).  If so, you need to further adjust comparisons to reflect that.

Yes, and even if you make those adjustments, I think Coric has a lot to do within the next few months to try and show he can match Nadal. I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!), but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

You;re responding to yourself?

luvsports! wrote:You;re responding to yourself?

My quoting mucked up, I never respond to myself on internet forums, don't worry.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
My quoting mucked up, I never respond to myself on internet forums, don't worry.

Oh really ?

First sign of madness Kim. Schizophrenia per chance? Hearing voices in your head.

summerblues wrote:When McEnroe first came along as a commentator, he would like to get into explaining how everything is much easier with today's equipment (strings etc) and how - as a result - players today can look much better without actually being much better.

You could literally feel how his professional co-commentators (at least here in the US) were nervous whenever he started on that - obviously they would not want to go into that because they have a product to sell and that kind of commentating does not advance the sales.  Since then, McEnroe has adjusted and now he is much more mindful of presenting today's game in a positive light.

Probably.

It was an art to hit the ball hard and precisely. In fact it was so tough that most of it was done on a stationary ball (on serve0...once the ball was in play, it was a lot of hit and hope. And the best at those were simply the best players...and they all had some style as technique was important to actually generate pace with the racquets of then.
Nowaday, it's the other way around. with those new string a flick of the wrist guarantees the ball over the net. In fact the harder one hits, the safer the shot as the spin clears the net and keep the ball within lines. When I see Djoko's serve or grounds shots, they simply look wrong to me....but great mouvement. As Federer said it has become a sport of mouvement.

The arrival of larger graphite racquets is another technology advance which allowed those who learn to play with it to overtake quickly those at the top who had learnt the game with wooden racquets...and there again, one sees the average age of players at the top drop considerably (with arrival of Edberg, Becker, Pete, Agassi) pushing the old school out , bar Lendl who already got a no prisoner FH with a small wooden racquet.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Please read what I'm writing.

???

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!),

Again, you are spinning, plus you are throwing in backhanded ad hominem attacks.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

Never bothered you before

Kim Jong-Un wrote: I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!), but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

What reality? young Coric beating peak Nadal? It happened you know.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:When McEnroe first came along as a commentator, he would like to get into explaining how everything is much easier with today's equipment (strings etc) and how - as a result - players today can look much better without actually being much better.

You could literally feel how his professional co-commentators (at least here in the US) were nervous whenever he started on that - obviously they would not want to go into that because they have a product to sell and that kind of commentating does not advance the sales.  Since then, McEnroe has adjusted and now he is much more mindful of presenting today's game in a positive light.

Probably.

It was an art to hit the ball hard and precisely. In fact it was so tough that most of it was done on a stationary ball (on serve0...once the ball was in play, it was a lot of hit and hope. And the best at those were simply the best players...and they all had some style as technique was important to actually generate pace with the racquets of then.
Nowaday, it's the other way around. with those new string a flick of the wrist guarantees the ball over the net. In fact the harder one hits, the safer the shot as the spin clears the net and keep the ball within lines. When I see Djoko's serve or grounds shots, they simply look wrong to me....but great mouvement. As Federer said it has become a sport of mouvement.

The arrival of larger graphite racquets is another technology advance which allowed those who learn to play with it to overtake quickly those at the top who had learnt the game with wooden racquets...and there again, one sees the average age of players at the top drop considerably (with arrival of Edberg, Becker, Pete, Agassi) pushing the old school out , bar Lendl who already got a no prisoner FH with a small wooden racquet.

Thanks, T.

And those wooden racquets were so heavy and much smaller head, they required a lot more timing and careful placement, it was all about coordination i.e. talent, there was no confusion about what talent was then.

I tried Mac's Dunlop Maxply racquet only a tiny bit and actually enjoyed it, there is something teal about them.

The graphite one was a bridge between wooden and modern ones, closer to modern. Lighter, too.

All I can say the old guard would have no problem adjusting to modern strings, not sure it would be the case the other way round.
Except the oldies' racquet talent would be so marginalised in this era and most would be inadequate competing with this super fit race of giants.

New generations are now trained everywhere to hit the ball with spin, safely. That's why youngsters can't break through, they simply don't have physical strength to cope, not to mention gain experience in competing.

I would love to see Nadal play Federer with wooden racquets. Clay or grass, doesn't matter.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Please read what I'm writing.

???

My point is that there are two ways of looking at it (i.e. when considering Coric's 18 results vs Nadal 18 results).
You can look at Nadal's average results when 18 vs Coric's average results when 18 (so far); and it's obvious that Nadal is miles ahead on this regard.
Or you can look at results so far on ATP tour till exactly 18 years 4 months, and even here, despite missing the European Clay court season in 2004, Nadal is ahead, but not by as much.
Even if you take the latter approach, it's only fair to acknowledge that Coric has a lot to improve in terms of results in the next few months to catch up, and personally I feel it's very unlikely.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!),

Again, you are spinning, plus you are throwing in backhanded ad hominem attacks.

I was talking about NITB, not you, and I don't think hating Nadal is exactly an insult on this site, probably more like a compliment !
And no, talking about Carreno Busta or Tomic is not misrepresentative. Think about it, if Coric had been destroying the tour but had 2 rare losses to Tomic and Carreno Busta then you could accuse me of spin in only highlighting those matches. But if you see Coric's matches this year (winning 6, losing 8), most of his losses are of similar if not lower ranking than Carreno Busta or Tomic.

summerblues wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

Never bothered you before

I base my analysis on logic and rational, and you can see again in this debate every position I hold is fair and reasonable.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote: I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!), but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

What reality? young Coric beating peak Nadal? It happened you know.

Look, this is just getting a bit embarrassing. That match is not representative of young Coric vs peak Nadal, and you know it.
Nadal had appendicitis and played probably the worst match I've ever seen him play in his whole career, and the quality of the match was awful, even Coric seemed gripped by nerves and was making many silly unforced errors.
Your positions in general are unreasonable, but this line in particular is especially so. Lucky for you I'm here to point it out to you, as no one else will !

noleisthebest wrote:And those wooden racquets were so heavy and much smaller head, they required a lot more timing and careful placement, it was all about coordination i.e. talent, there was no confusion about what talent was then.

told you..wooden racquets unfortuanetly were wrong for the open era as a fit athlete like Borg was almost impossible to shake off with ....very much like todays top players with those new strings. Borg, Clerc, Vilas were always lung busting rallies and this is why they introduced the 20s rule then.

However to beat those guys with a wooden racquet certainly required talent but only McEnroe was gifted enough for those. A guy like Nastase or Guerulatis, extremely talented too would never last teh distance v Borg.

All I can say the old guard would have no problem adjusting to modern strings, not sure it would be the case the other way round.
Except the oldies' racquet talent would be so marginalised in this era and most would be inadequate competing with this super fit race of giants.

Problem with the old guard is that they were drawn from a very small pool of people having the chance to train all days to become professional. Today we have 100 000 if not millons of youngsters playing the game at a very decent level.....so competition is much fiercer than then and I very much doubt those former players could make a name of themselves now.

We can still use shortcuts nowadays (very hard training with knowledgeable team, doctors, money and so on can really help a youngster)....but they are no guarantee of success.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote: I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!), but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

What reality? young Coric beating peak Nadal? It happened you know.

Look, this is just getting a bit embarrassing. That match is not representative of young Coric vs peak Nadal, and you know it.
Nadal had appendicitis and played probably the worst match I've ever seen him play in his whole career, and the quality of the match was awful, even Coric seemed gripped by nerves and was making many silly unforced errors.
Your positions in general are unreasonable, but this line in particular is especially so. Lucky for you I'm here to point it out to you, as no one else will !

Oh I see Nadal had ap...appen....appendicitis...overnight? cause the day before he crushed his opponent. Maybe Coric had flatulence yesterday when losing to Tomic but it's so embarrassing he can't give that as an excuse.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote: I know it must be exciting and salivating for Nadal haters at the prospect of Tenez arguing that the world number 60 who can't beat Carreno Busta or Tomic is better than Nadal (wow!!!!), but sometimes an unfortunate thing called reality comes in the way.

What reality? young Coric beating peak Nadal? It happened you know.

Look, this is just getting a bit embarrassing. That match is not representative of young Coric vs peak Nadal, and you know it.
Nadal had appendicitis and played probably the worst match I've ever seen him play in his whole career, and the quality of the match was awful, even Coric seemed gripped by nerves and was making many silly unforced errors.
Your positions in general are unreasonable, but this line in particular is especially so. Lucky for you I'm here to point it out to you, as no one else will !

Oh I see Nadal had ap...appen....appendicitis...overnight? cause the day before he crushed his opponent. Maybe Coric had flatulence yesterday when losing to Tomic but it's so embarrassing he can't give that as an excuse.

Not sure how well versed you are in the symptoms of appendicitis (well on the evidence so far... not very), but the symptoms can fluctuate and get worse within a 24 hour period.
It is a pretty serious condition, not comparable to flatulence Tenez.
Honestly just watch the match, how on earth you can say that's peak Nadal I simply can't comprehend, it is Nadal's worst performance of his career for me, and Coric did not even play well, he played better next round but was knocked out by Goffin.

Tenez wrote:
   told you..wooden racquets unfortuanetly were wrong for the open era as a fit athlete like Borg was almost impossible to shake off with ....very much like todays top players with those new strings. Borg, Clerc, Vilas were always lung busting rallies and this is why they introduced the 20s rule then.
However to beat those guys with a wooden racquet certainly required talent but only McEnroe was gifted enough for those. A guy like Nastase or Guerulatis, extremely talented too would never last teh distance v Borg.

Interesting.
Is that where "Borgisback" came from?

I still prefer that era, simply because it was more human. It was captured so well in that documentary.

I feel sorry for current generation...OK, money is good for some, but so much work and sweat is going into it all.
It's become very demanding in many ways.

Federer's book on it all would make an interesting read.

Tenez wrote:
Problem with the old guard is that they were drawn from a very small pool of people having the chance to train all days to become professional. Today we have 100 000 if not millons of youngsters playing the game at a very decent level.....so competition is much fiercer than then and I very much doubt those former players could make a name of themselves now.
We can still use shortcuts nowadays (very hard training with knowledgeable team, doctors, money and so on can really help a youngster)....but they are no guarantee of success.

Yes, but so many of those thousands hide behind the strings and "hard work". Tennis has become a game of mechanical baseline ball-striking - Nishikori is a prime example (ok and all RRs, as well).

I watched the first few mins....remember Tuslane (from 3min50 to 4mn20? He was talked as the new Borg and it was very funny cause he was young and believed the story...so he copied Borg's game but also mimicked his maneurism. It's pretty clear on this clip. I saw Tulasne last in that Isner Mahut Match at Wimbledon.

Regarding your last point....so woudl have the old guard. I do think there are more talented players now than ever....just that they are not at the top ....bar one.

I don't remember him, but looking at the clip I can see what you mean.
I suppose we all start inspired by a player & wanting to win Wimbledon...
Right now, I am inspired by a 90-year old woman in the club.
She actually still runs and has all the shots: summer, winter, nothing's stopping her!

Watching some tennis in the last day or so, I really didn't enjoy it.
Players are swinging at the ball so hard, and it then comes back just as fast.
It's become so hard to play the game.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

I was talking about NITB, not you, and I don't think hating Nadal is exactly an insult on this site, probably more like a compliment !
And no, talking about Carreno Busta or Tomic is not misrepresentative. Think about it, if Coric had been destroying the tour but had 2 rare losses to Tomic and Carreno Busta then you could accuse me of spin in only highlighting those matches. But if you see Coric's matches this year (winning 6, losing 8), most of his losses are of similar if not lower ranking than Carreno Busta or Tomic.

Here's where fandom becomes destructive.
Why would "hating Nadal" be an insult anywhere, especially an insult to you?
Why do you take people's dislike of Nadal personally?

Even mothers don't defend their children blindly. Do you see where the problem is?

I was saying calling someone a Nadal-hater is not an insult.

Kokkinakis is another one much ....much better than Nadal at the same age. Not close actually on this one. Serve, BH, volleys, able to take the ball much earlier yet covering easily as much ground as Nadal.

Though he looks like a pizzaiolo!

Kokkinakis is nearly 19, and at that age Nadal had won Masters 1000 and was on verge of winning the French Open.
Kokki on the other hand, has a W/L ratio of 4-5 this year (before start of IW), and 2-7 last year (i.e. he's lost many more matches than he's won).
In general he's really struggled to deal with players in the top 100, and is ranked outside the top 100.

Even you think that the game has progressed throughout the years... you have to have some perspective and think to yourself, to what extent ?
On clay, when Nadal was 18, he was ahead of Federer aged 23/24. So do you also think Kokki is ahead of Federer aged 23/24 on clay ?

This is a clip of a 19 year old Nadal vs prime Federer 2006 in a Rome epic 5 setter:


Do you think Kokkinas now, who has won 6/18 ATP matches in the last 2 years, and is not even in the top 100, could beat Federer 2006 on clay ? Could beat Nadal 2006 on clay ?
'Not close actually on this one'... yep you got that part right.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
Do you think Kokkinas now, who has won 6/18 ATP matches in the last 2 years, and is not even in the top 100, could beat Federer 2006 on clay ? Could beat Nadal 2006 on clay ?
'Not close actually on this one'... yep you got that part right.

Do you think clean Nadal could've beaten Federer 2006 on clay? Or anyone else for that matter....
That's the question you need to dwell on.

noleisthebest wrote:Do you think clean Nadal could've beaten Federer 2006 on clay?

Whether or not a player is clean is entirely irrelevant for this discussion.