Australian Open 2016 - Day 11 (and predictions)

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

I thought Nole was always close to Fed, (relatively) he beat him in AO 2008 SF and more often after he got fit, almost regularly in WTF.

In the last 2-3 years Fed gets all sorts of reasons for losses to Djokovic: tired, nothing left in tank, not able to recover, back issues.. etc etc.. when though he always says he is fine physically

And nothing at all for the Fed recovering from the career threatening mono he was suffering in 2007 end and 08 beginning. And nothing also for the lung infection he caught during his trip to Africa. Those were all Djokovic's brilliance.

.
What? There was nothing wrong with Fed in 2007. His mono boot started in 2008. You cannot dismiss a very strong point of the argument (the close matches of Fed/Djoko in 2007) with a 2008 mono. We have to keep some logic in the process. And Fed was not starting to have difficulty v Djoko only but v Murray as well while we know he was already in deep trouble with Nadal's game. Very simply put, with all games which asked the physical question! Not different than the problem he first had with Hewitt...just at an even higher physical level.

Fed is not playing his best tennis, and neither is Nadal. If they were, Djokovic wouldn't have been playing his best, cause they wouldn't have allowed him to. Just like they didn't allow him for so many years.

Fed is declining, Nadal is declining, you will see tomorrow Murray will have also declined, and in fact the all 100 ATP players are also declining...how lucky is Djoko to get away with his slightlly improved 20yo game, isn't it? It doesn't matter whether Nadal and all say teh game moves on and he needs to change his game. Doesn't matter that all players are trying hard to improve, yet they all go backward.

We all noticed how Djoko suddenly took off physically in 2011...well 18 of his 23 wins v Federer come from 2011.

Federer never accumulated such a negative H2H in that period. If anything he reverted his bad H2H v Murray. So clearly that stat alone shows clearly teh progress of Djoko v everybody else including nadal.

It's not all about federer unfortunately.

Tenez wrote:What? There was nothing wrong with Fed in 2007. His mono boot started in 2008. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?_r=0



Mono is not a injury which can be clearly seen. Its often an ongoing illness and not straight-way detected. One may keep thinking its just a normal fever or flu or body ache but its more than that. Its a long lasting disease which causes sickness and diminishes physical ability.

Tenez wrote:And Fed was not starting to have difficulty v Djoko only but v Murray as well while we know he was already in deep trouble with Nadal's game. 

 Murray was easy for Fed. Fed never regarded him his rival even though Murray had +ve h2h. Read some of Fed's interviews after those loses to Murray and then you'll see how much in trouble Fed seemed to be in all those early losses to Murray. I remember Fed even said 'Today I gave him those errors, ya...". Murray is still easy for the older-slower Fed, we saw it many times last year.



Djokovic : He was doing better than Murray for sure. But I don't think Fed as far as 2012 end regarded him as his main rival. Not even after the 2010 and 2011 US open semis loss. Djokovic has only started to worry Fed in the last 2-3 years where Fed is moving into mid 30's and as slowly not playing his best tennis due to multiple reasons.

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]
Mono is not a injury which can be clearly seen. Its often an ongoing illness and not straight-way detected. One may keep thinking its just a normal fever or flu or body ache but its more than that. Its a long lasting disease which causes sickness and diminishes physical ability.
But where does it say he had any of it in 2007? I don't doubt it certainly troubled him in 2008....but not in 2007.

And neither can you with strange arguments like Fed getting tired after 2 games.

Where do I say that? You see you keep meddling things.....

Murray was easy for Fed. Fed never regarded him his rival even though Murray had +ve h2h. Read some of Fed's interviews after those loses to Murray and then you'll see how much in trouble Fed seemed to be in all those early losses to Murray. I remember Fed even said 'Today I gave him those errors, ya...". Murray is still easy for the older-slower Fed, we saw it many times last year.

Wow...How kind from Fed. Was it Xmas? You are accusing me of finding Fed's excuses.....but that one is a gem!

Djokovic : He was doing better than Murray for sure. But I don't think Fed as far as 2012 end regarded him as his main rival. Not even after the 2010 and 2011 US open semis loss. Djokovic has only started to worry Fed in the last 2-3 years where Fed is moving into mid 30's and as slowly not playing his best tennis due to multiple reasons.

It doesn't matter who Fed considers as "his main rival"! He has to beat them all. They are all his rivals. Again I am not sure of the point. You are discussing this at a psychological when it's all about fitness. And federer never had the choice to keep on rallying like those 3s..he did very well considering he mainly used talent and aggressivity....but you cannot dismiss the physical side of those 3 players and more so the physical state of Djoko....the only player able to stop Fed in teh GS nowadays.

People have forgotten tha Murray started off with a positive H2H against Fed...and that famous match in Shanghai 2008 WTF last RR match...in which he beat an injured Fed not actually needing the win, just wanting to do a Nadal and "get into Fed's head."
The only time I saw Fed receive an MTO.

Murray was so knackerd after that match Davydenko thrashed him in the SF and allowed Nole to win easily in the final.

Murray was on a roll and probably would've beaten Nole and won WTF himself then had he not so desperately wanted to beat Fed (not needing the win at all).
That was when he showed his stupidity which cost him big momentum for the rest of his career.


Of course, Fed demolished him a few months later in AO final reducing Murray to tears and that famous line:
"I can cry like Roger and I wish I could play like him."

But Fed shoukd have changed his racquet there and then after Shanghai...

Does anyone know why he waited that long?

I'm firm on the point. That is that Fed's real struggles against Djokovic has only been since Fed moved into 30s. Before that Djokoic sure had wins on Fed and also some close matches but they were due to not because of Djokovic being close to Prime Fed.

early Losses of Murray doesn't even count. Fed can will be able to beat Murray even 2 years from now.

What finding excuses? I have always been saying Fed doesn't play his best tennis now into his 30s and that's why Djokovic is winning most of their matches. You are saying this 34 yo Fed now is the best Fed ever was and he still loses to Djokovic.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Mono is not a injury which can be clearly seen. Its often an ongoing illness and not straight-way detected. One may keep thinking its just a normal fever or flu or body ache but its more than that. Its a long lasting disease which causes sickness and diminishes physical ability.
But where does it say he had any of it in 2007? I don't doubt it certainly troubled him in 2008....but not in 2007.

And neither can you with strange arguments like Fed getting tired after 2 games.

Where do I say that? You see you keep meddling things.....

Murray was easy for Fed. Fed never regarded him his rival even though Murray had +ve h2h. Read some of Fed's interviews after those loses to Murray and then you'll see how much in trouble Fed seemed to be in all those early losses to Murray. I remember Fed even said 'Today I gave him those errors, ya...". Murray is still easy for the older-slower Fed, we saw it many times last year.

Wow...How kind from Fed. Was it Xmas?  You are accusing me of finding Fed's excuses.....but that one is a gem!

Djokovic : He was doing better than Murray for sure. But I don't think Fed as far as 2012 end regarded him as his main rival. Not even after the 2010 and 2011 US open semis loss. Djokovic has only started to worry Fed in the last 2-3 years where Fed is moving into mid 30's and as slowly not playing his best tennis due to multiple reasons.

It doesn't matter who Fed considers as "his main rival"! He has to beat them all. They are all his rivals. Again I am not sure of the point. You are discussing this at a psychological when it's all about fitness. And federer never had the choice to keep on rallying like those 3s..he did very well considering he mainly used talent and aggressivity....but you cannot dismiss the physical side of those 3 players and more so the physical state of Djoko....the only player able to stop Fed in teh GS nowadays.

Great. and as I said before.. you use Fed's words only when its convenient for your case. Otherwise you trash it off.

noleisthebest wrote:People have forgotten tha Murray started off with a positive H2H against Fed...and that famous match in Shanghai 2008 WTF 

No no.. I'm not one of those people. I clearly know that. And I still think those losses didn't mean anything much on his rivalry with Muray. Murray even now hasn't bothered Fed with Fed winning last 4 of their matches. So the younger and naive Murray may have had some numeric wins, it never counted in the bigger scheme of things. So saying that Murray was troubling even a prime 20060-7 Fed is never the point. 

Murray is now fitter, stronger, faster and with some improved FH . But I'm sure this 34 yo Fed will still take him out if they happen to meet in bo3 or bo5. And hence the younger Fed would keep beating the 2015-16 Murray the way he beat him in USopen 2008 finals.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Great. and as I said before.. you use Fed's words only when its convenient for your case. Otherwise you trash it off.

Or are you making it up? When did Federer say he did not consider Djoko as his main rival? Since end of 2007, Djoko is a rival for any player at the top.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:People have forgotten tha Murray started off with a positive H2H against Fed...and that famous match in Shanghai 2008 WTF 

No no.. I'm not one of those people. I clearly know that. And I still think those losses didn't mean anything much on his rivalry with Muray. Murray even now hasn't bothered Fed with Fed winning last 4 of their matches. So the younger and naive Murray may have had some numeric wins, it never counted in the bigger scheme of things. So saying that Murray was troubling even a prime 20060-7 Fed is never the point. 

Murray is now fitter, stronger, faster and with some improved FH . But I'm sure this 34 yo Fed will still take him out if they happen to meet in bo3 or bo5. And hence the younger Fed would keep beating the 2015-16 Murray the way he beat him in USopen 2008 finals.

It doesn;t matter whether they mean anything or not.....it's not the point. Fed was losing to Murray when he was not losing to Kieffer, Gonzo or Blake......so clearly Murray was part of that physical group.

Can't you see that Fed always struggled against that type of player....even when they were the shadow of what they are today?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

What finding excuses? I have always been saying Fed doesn't play his best tennis now into his 30s and that's why Djokovic is winning most of their matches. You are saying this 34 yo Fed now is the best Fed ever was and he still loses to Djokovic.

This.  I agree and it's absurd. Federer is nowhere close to 2006 form or ability. It's also very sad to see that Federer is obviously surrounded by sycophants and yes-men, because he also believes he's playing great. Not having someone address reality is detrimental to improvement - because you'll have none.  I think one of Federer's few weaknesses is arrogance and ego interfering with needed change.  It's too late now anyway at 34, but his change to a larger racquet, for example, came too late.  He should have changed the second he was declining and making more errors because of age... but he left it ages through pure stubbornness and no-one around him having the balls to tell him that he was not the same player and would have to adapt.

Fed is not playing his best tennis, and neither is Nadal. If they were, Djokovic wouldn't have been playing his best, cause they wouldn't have allowed him to. Just like they didn't allow him for so many years.

And this. It's so annoying that so many people can't see how sport works.  If you are not being placed under any pressure, you'll play better.  If your opponent isn't hitting lines or hitting super shots or even having a decent service game, you'll play much better and also win more points regardless.

It doesn't matter what WE believe - the videos speak for themselves.  You can measure how many times Federer used to hit the lines, and how fast his shots were - backhand and forehand, AND you can see the stats in regards to 1st serve %.  These are facts, and nothing Tenez or anyone else says can change them.

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

This doesn't happen anymore or at anywhere near the same frequency as it used to - and that's one of many.

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

This doesn't happen anymore or at anywhere near the same frequency as it used to - and that's one of many.

I just watched those highlights... that's unreal.
I always thought that Roddick Aus Open semi-final was his best performance, but maybe this is actually.

Tenez, do you really think if Federer played like this on Thursday, he'd lose the first 2 sets 6-1 6-2 ?

One point I would add, that NITB's other thread was about, is that I think Djokovic's competition at the top is now very weak. Federer old and not threatening at slams, Nadal not near previous level, Murray still hasn't got back to where he was before the surgery and mentally very poor, and none of the young players have really shown anything great.
So FK, I think your point about the lack of pressure due to this is a good one.

Also, and correct me if I'm being too harsh, but I do think Federer mentally seems to have an issue in a crunch slam match with Djokovic. His serve is really not at the level it is normally, even if you accommodate for Djokovic's great returning. The last time he served well in a Grand Slam match with Djokovic was Wimby 2014, but then his forehand was really off.

After all the losses Federer has had it's clear he's mentally shot.  He also seems to come to matches thinking he has to play a certain way to defeat Djokovic - but that's not the case.  Simon lost because he played absolutely terribly.  100 unforced errors from Djok.  Federer is beaten before he even takes to the court - instantly his 1st serve % IN drops and his first serve basically abandons him for a number of games entirely.  He's shitting himself.

Tenez can't explain that away by saying Djokovic is playing good.  The first serve % IN is not affected by the other player.  It's clear Federer is a bag of nerves against Djok these days.

FedererKing wrote:Federer is beaten before he even takes to the court - instantly his 1st serve % IN drops and his first serve basically abandons him for a number of games entirely.  He's shitting himself.

We can't be too harsh, as he's 34 playing the best returner in the world, but I think you're right.
He chose to return first, and his first serve was totally missing; if he had played that way against Berdych it would have been a much closer QF.

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

This doesn't happen anymore or at anywhere near the same frequency as it used to - and that's one of many.

Give him the same speedy conditions, someone who hits the ball flat and moves like a tree and you will see how good Federer is. he never had and never will have a problem against those players. Watch how he plays Nadal at that time and see whether his BH is that good!

Even Berdych is destroyed with teh same ease in 2016 than in 2006!

I think many people are not able to appreciate tennis Federer is playing right now.
The only way you can is if you play yourself with one hand on your BH.
And even then you'd need to apply your mind to understand what happens on each different shot.

Then you'd need to try the same with different racquets and balls, court surfaces. Not necessarily even clay or grass, though those two were real eye-openers...

That is how I learnt. It was a very sharp larning curve in fact once I applied myself to it.

A few yars ago Tenez challenged me unwittingly in his own patient way...it was the time I struggled to accept Nole was doping.

So much was on the line for my ego: my Serbian patriotism (and let me tell you it was no small thing at the time as I had so many real life circumstances going against it)...my NITB existence...all the things I had said before...but I love truth more, and simply could not bury my head in the sand.

My humility got tested...it took some time...but once I realised what was going on, it was not hard to understand more or less the whole game of tennis.

Once you set your feet in truth, everything clicks into place. And may I say, it was worth it!

What people say on blogs, pundits, paid commentators...it's all engineered sales stuff, it's a product. People do their job to pay bills. Shoe must go in kind of thing...like 6 o'clock news...

"Nadal is the best volleyer!"- MacEnroe

"Bye, bye, good riddance Wayne (Odesnik) - Murray

"I am really happy for Rafa and his 9th RG" - Federer

"I know more than he thinks I do" - Djokovic on ITF's boss....

These are the things people say...everyone trying to put bread on their table.

But the truth is there to be found on a tennis court.

Get a racquet in your hand...you may not have Roger's talent, you may not be 6 ft 1, you may be 65, you may have just started playing...doesn't matter...you'll learn the truth quickly!

Don't let Tom Dick and Harry sell you packaged lies...find out the truth for yourself. The proverbial: You deserve better! applies.


It's liberating. That's where real fun begins!!!

I only understood how crooked and what a machinery of lies TV was once I took part in street riots in Belgrade when I was a student.

I nearly died when bullets hit a building I stood next to and shards of glass rained on me...and then when I got home and poudly wanted to see we tried to stop the war on TV I had a shock to see lies reported about what happened - we were the evil guys who tried to destroy the country!

And from personal experience in tennis - it's exactly the same.

No offence nitb, but i think you use your own experiences at club level as an analogy for the pro game.

I am not offended...I have a tennis trophy sat on table next to me...

Which experience do you (and others) draw your comments from?

Not ones at my former club level as they aren't relevant to pros.

luvsports! wrote:Not ones at my former club level as they aren't relevant to pros.

Oh, LS!!!!

http://www.606v2.com/t20724-whose-dad-is-the-strongest?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
I also lose lot of matches to my granny, its must matter in my playing ability.. since I am losing to a certain type of player, this stat is of great significance to my pro career.
Perfect!!

Sorry but even more weird reasoning from you. It's not the H2H stat that matters as much ...it's the matches and titles Fed lost in the process! Are you saying that Fed did not care about the TM1000 and other WTF he was entering? A player plays for the title....they don;t lose motivation cause they play a crap player. At the end of the day that crap player was causing Fed problem!....more than he does now. But even now Fed has to play his game to beat Murray. An A game with years of experience!

Murray was a real pusher back then, and a pusher plays solid and don't look for flair in play but are okay just to win the point anyhow. A 2005-07 Fed wouldn't care about losses to such players. A long as the match was of Fed's racquet, he never cared about pushers or counter punchers in either win or loss. You are making too big about his loss when himself said otherwise.

Again, you see it from Fed's ego viewpoint....and not the fact that Murray prevented him to win the tournaments he used to win. You are making too much of their perception and egos. Whether Djoko plays Federer, Murray or Batusta Agut in the final of the AO, He will play to win teh AO....and have teh same motivation to win regardless the player he is facing so your argument doesn't hold I am afraid.[/quote]
========================

Oops sorrey messed up that post.....was meant to quote and I edited....not sure how to fix it.

noleisthebest wrote:I think many people are not able to appreciate tennis Federer is playing right now.
The only way you can is if you play yourselfirst with one hand on your BH.
And even then you'd need to apply your mind to understand what happens on each different shot.

..

What is this? Why you keep saying this many times? every Fed fans appreciates his tennis, but that doesn't mean I can't say that he is not the player he was. His footwork is slower and he is often not in position to play those shots.. ( see the errors now he makes going for inside-in FH which was once a real threatening shot from him.).. He is often late on lot of balls.. He is slower now, avg serve speed has reduced. Avg ground stroke speed is reduced. % of first serves in often goes very low in Big matches... He looks shaky with his potent forehand and sprays UEs. And he doesn't look confident as he looked earlier.

This all is true facts. Fed is appreciated for what he can do even now. Yes he gets that. But he will also have to take what he can't do right now...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
I also l]ose lot of matches to my granny, its must matter in my playing ability.. since I am losing to a certain type of player, this stat is of great significance to my pro career.
Perfect!!

Sorry but even more weird reasoning from you. It's not the H2H stat that matters as much ...it's the matches and titles Fed lost in the process! Are you saying that Fed did not care about the TM1000 and other WTF he was entering? A player plays for the title....they don;t lose motivation cause they play a crap player. At the end of the day that crap player was causing Fed problem!....more than he does now. But even now Fed has to play his game to beat Murray. An A game with years of experience!

Murray was a real pusher back then, and a pusher plays solid and don't look for flair in play but are okay just to win the point anyhow. A 2005-07 Fed wouldn't care about losses to such players. A long as the match was of Fed's racquet, he never cared about pushers or counter punchers in either win or loss. You are making too big about his loss when himself said otherwise.

Again, you see it from Fed's ego viewpoint....and not the fact that Murray prevented him to win the tournaments he used to win. You are making too much of their perception and egos. Whether Djoko plays Federer, Murray or Batusta Agut in the final of the AO, He will play to win teh AO....and have teh same motivation to win regardless the player he is facing so your argument doesn't hold I am afraid.[/quote[/quote]

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And he doesn't look confident as he looked earlier.

Bizarre. He looked pretty confident when he played Berdych and all other players the previous rounds.

Borg looked very confident until McEnroe arrived. Nadal looked very confident until he played Djoko.....

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And he doesn't look confident as he looked earlier.

Bizarre. He looked pretty confident when he played Berdych and all other players the previous rounds.

Borg looked very confident until McEnroe arrived. Nadal looked very confident until he played Djoko.....

He looks confident to you. He doesn't to me. That must be bizarre as well, isn't it?

No....My point is that Fed looks and looked confident when he knows he has teh game to beat the player. Not confident when he is playing a physical player.

He never looked confident in 2006 when playing Nadal.

Give him a blake on a fast surface today and he will look very confident!

If it was not for Djoko, Fed may be fighting today for his 3 consecutive GS!!!!!

You would not have much arguments left!

Except Federer is 34 and may have lost anyway - like he did to Cilic last time. And the other players Federer has lost too in his 30s that are being conveniently ignored.

FedererKing wrote:Except Federer is 34 and may have lost anyway - like he did to Cilic last time. And the other players Federer has lost too in his 30s that are being conveniently ignored.

Except that he did not lose to any other player in the last 3 slams. he beat all the other top 10 and top 100 convincingly....exactly like in 2006. Sure you might find odd losses when he has a bad back, flue or else to make a point....but that will prove once again that you do not have much arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSidmf9xf24

At 5.26s

When you have a rally like that where fed pulls 2 great FHs, including one on the line and yet he loses the point.....what could he have done better in 2006/7?

Who at 6.58...woudl have returned such a serve in his feet in 2007?

At 10.00 You see a BH as good as in FK clip above versus Blake....the difference is that ......it's coming back when Blake did not even bother trying to get to it!

fed's footwork is great in that 3rd set....

That's what FK, Rotla and others don't realise is that no-one can turn up and win versus this Djoko...One needs to play many matches against him to learn to beat him....Exactl;y what Djoko had to do to be able to beat Federer and reverse the H2H trend. Djko is simply helped by a far superior fitness and DHBH.

This Djoko would have pulverised 2006 Federer. Conditions would have had to be much faster for Fed to have a glimpse of a chance....Though frankly, Fed losing to 21yo Nadal on fast Dubai doesn't give me much hope.

Tenez wrote:This Djoko would have pulverised 2006 Federer. Conditions would have had to be much faster for Fed to have a glimpse of a chance....Though frankly, Fed losing to 21yo Nadal on fast Dubai doesn't give me much hope.

In 2005-06 Fed played with aura of invincibility that is now with Djokovic. And that is a very BIG thing. That's the only thing that is winning all the big points to Djokovic in all is success in 2015-16. Its not that Djokovic gives no chance to any of his opponent. They do get chances, quite a lot of them as well. Remember USopen 15 final, Fed got 24 Bps but converted only 3(?). 

Its because while the opponent is doubtful about taking them, Djokovic is certain he can defend those. That's what this aura does.

So you can't say Fed 05-06 would have been pulverised to current Djokovic.  There is no way that this aura would have been possibly be with 2 players at the same time. And whoever had it would have won.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:This Djoko would have pulverised 2006 Federer. Conditions would have had to be much faster for Fed to have a glimpse of a chance....Though frankly, Fed losing to 21yo Nadal on fast Dubai doesn't give me much hope.

In 2005-06 Fed played with aura of invincibility that is now with Djokovic. And that is a very BIG thing.

But that is my very point! That aura of invincibility cannot be measured and is very much relative to who you play! Fed lost that invincibilty v Nadal, as soon as he played Nadal in 2006!!!! First on clay and then everywhere.  That invincibilty can only carry you so long that you are not troubled with your standard game. When McEnroe came on Borg and prevented Borg to throw his endless baseline game by cutting it short at the net, Borg lost that aura too....and all the other top players when they faced a "better" (more efficient) game. In the examples I show above in the video, it is very clear that no-one asked the same questions as Djoko back then. If Djoko had been as good as now, fed's invincibility aura could not have helped him. It was already running short v a 20y Djoko.

I am sorry but that is not difficult to understand.  

That's the only thing that is winning all the big points to Djokovic in all is success in 2015-16. Its not that Djokovic gives no chance to any of his opponent. They do get chances, quite a lot of them as well. Remember USopen 15 final, Fed got 24 Bps but converted only 3(?).

. Djoko's main confidence comes from his fitness, like fed's was from his superior FH, Serve and every other shots which were not returned.....the day they started to come back....then he had a new problem. The day Djoko will be put away by a better player, his confidence will disappear very quickly. We saw that at Wimby 15 v Kevin Anderson.....luckily he knew he coudl rely on his fitness and eventually on Kevin to choke a bit.....but the day he faces a player with confidence in his aggressive game, Djoko will turn into a Nadal.....someone who we thought was strongest mentally, but then has lost all his confidence cause his game is no longer a big issue for others.

Its because while the opponent is doubtful about taking them, Djokovic is certain he can defend those. That's what this aura does.

Yes and again, it takes a huge effort and defense skills to defend like Djoko. No-one else, hence his confidence....the day someone does it better or can ace and volley him easily, that confidence will collapse....as easy as that.

Fed has not lost that confidence when he plays other players....he beats them as convincingly as before if you noticed.

So you can't say Fed 05-06 would have been pulverised to current Djokovic.  There is no way that this aura would have been possibly be with 2 players at the same time. And whoever had it would have won.

Read above. You are basing your argument on a false card I am afraid. "confidence" like everything is a very relative value. A lightweight boxer may have all the confidence in the world as long as he faces lightweight boxers.....the day he has to jump on the ring versus an heavyweight, that confidence is going to be destroyed, and that is a survival reflex cause if he keeps his confidence on the ring, it's his body that will get destroyed.

tenez wrote:A lightweight boxer may have all the confidence in the world as long as he faces lightweight boxers.....the day he has to jump on the ring versus an heavyweight, that confidence is going to be destroyed, and that is a survival reflex cause if he keeps his confidence on the ring, it's his body that will get destroyed.

Sorry T, Fed back in 05-06 was the biggest heavyweight boxer out there who handed   to others at will. He didn't even give them any chance whatsoever, especially in slams. He was that good. That's why Nadal's credibility is so much to be able to take him on an down on clay.


Even with the current Djokovic, a lot of players Do get their chances. Murray too had his, but couldn't convert due to lack of confidence. If Fed had taken even half of his chances available at USopen 15, he would have been winning it. 


So who would have won? We can never know for sure. But longevity of Fed's domonance till now is more than Djokovic.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

tenez wrote:A lightweight boxer may have all the confidence in the world as long as he faces lightweight boxers.....the day he has to jump on the ring versus an heavyweight, that confidence is going to be destroyed, and that is a survival reflex cause if he keeps his confidence on the ring, it's his body that will get destroyed.

Sorry T, Fed back in 05-06 was the biggest heavyweight boxer out there who handed   to others at will. He didn't even give them any chance whatsoever, especially in slams. He was that good. That's why Nadal's credibility is so much to be able to take him on an down on clay.
Even with the current Djokovic, a lot of players Do get their chances. Murray too had his, but couldn't convert due to lack of confidence. If Fed had taken even half of his chances available at USopen 15, he would have been winning it. So who would have won? We can never know for sure. But longevity of Fed's domonance till now is more than Djokovic.

That's because Djokovic does not smother anyone with a weapon. That's why he looks beatable to you. And even he has dealt quite a few bagels last year.

Nadal was very similar - many players had a chance against him, too.

It was more of a wrestling than tennis competition. I bet younweren't imoressed with the way Nadal do in the same way as you were with niw Fed did it. And hiw do you exolain that difference?

It's different tennis.

You know yourself when a better player beats you and when you lose to a worse player just because you make a mistake as they send you million junk or easy balls in order to draw an error. That's the only way they know...as they don't have weapons.

Of course you will be more impressed with the properly better player who beat you with big shots.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Sorry T, Fed back in 05-06 was the biggest heavyweight boxer out there who handed   to others at will. He didn't even give them any chance whatsoever, especially in slams. He was that good. That's why Nadal's credibility is so much to be able to take him on an down on clay.

Nope. At that time they were all lightweights. Look at Nadal! he was the first heavyweight to come to the scene....and already he made federer shake. Fed was simply born 5 years too early. he was good enough to overtake the middleweights like Hewitt....but the power and fitness of Nadal and later Djoko would simply be too much for him. Again you fail to explain Federer's loss of confidence already in 2006 when facing Nadal. Fed was onl;y 25.....far from his peak! Look djko is 29 soon and has never played as well.

There are too many facts out there to dismiss now Rotla.

Even with the current Djokovic, a lot of players Do get their chances. Murray too had his, but couldn't convert due to lack of confidence. If Fed had taken even half of his chances available at USopen 15, he would have been winning it. 

The chance to what? win a set? yeah...but that's not the issue with those heavyweights. It's to win 5. that's the real challenge. It's not about nice and smart shots....it's about being able not to make an easy mistake after a 36 shot rally....and thus after 3, 4 or 5 sets!

So who would have won? We can never know for sure. But longevity of Fed's domonance till now is more than Djokovic.

I have told you. had Federer been born at the same age of Djoko, learning to play with a bigger racquet and new strings, Djoko would have never been number 1! Problem is that Fed learnt to play on fast conds versus Svers, with a 85inch racquet. He has gone a long way to catch up those heavyweights and none of them is close talent wise, in fact talent wise, Blake, the tree, had much more talent than Djoko or Nadal but in tennis nowadays, talent doesn't get you very far as Fed said in his interview in Melbourne.

Tenez, you really need to start looking at some videos of Federer 2004-7 instead of ignoring them.  You're making yourself look foolish.

FedererKing wrote:Tenez, you really need to start looking at some videos of Federer 2004-7 instead of ignoring them.  You're making yourself look foolish.

It doesn't matter. I will only look foolish to people who are even more foolish.

I told you I was foolish like you back in 2006 and thought players were peaking at 26/27. It's because I actually looked at Fed 2006 that I realised that Fed 2010 was a better version than 2006.

But unlike you, when I compare Fed 2005 with 2010, I also look at who is on the other side or the net. You are only looking at Fed....in fact not even. You are only looking at his Ws and Ls.

Have you looked at the points i make in the video I posted above? You have no answer to it!

For you Tenez, a heavy weight in tennis is just who is the fittest and fastest. Not for me. Djokovic is a heavyweight with different set of attributes, Fed was a heavyweight with different. They both were able to land body blows to opponents using different weapons. 

Just because the weapons are different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other. Nadal was a heavy weight with very different weapons unlike anyone and that's why was able to take Fed down on clay.

Tenez wrote:The chance to what? win a set? yeah...but that's not the issue with those heavyweights. It's to win 5. that's the real challenge. It's not about nice and smart shots....it's about being able not to make an easy mistake after a 36 shot rally....and thus after 3, 4 or 5 sets! 

No. 24 Bps in a match is a lot of chance. If Fed could have taken even 50% of them, he would have won in st. sets. That was not the cases with Fed in 05-06. The opponents never even got any chance at all.  


Even Anderson in W15, and Cilic in W14 had their enough chances to beat Djokovic. But just there is this thing about confidence, the aura is almost impossible to break through.




And that's all there is.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:For you Tenez, a heavy weight in tennis is just who is the fittest and fastest. Not for me. Djokovic is a heavyweight with different set of attributes, Fed was a heavyweight with different. They both were able to land body blows to opponents using different weapons. 

Just because the weapons are different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other. Nadal was a heavy weight with very different weapons unlike anyone and that's why was able to take Fed down on clay.

You are defying the very principle of sport. you win you are better. As simple as that. It doesn't get into the details of who has the better shots, is the fittest, the mental force or who is the nicer person. It simply let the "better" one, on the day,  get to the next round. The cup only goes to the winner.  It doesn't matter what the weapons are. I believe we agree on who is the more talented player, or even on who has dominated tennis more than any other player.....even my point is that fed's game now is overtaken by a more efficient game....over 5 sets. On the day fed can probably still beat Djoko, just..for 2 sets but I don;t think he is capable of beating Djoko at the end of a slam. And I am even more certain that his 2006 would have much less of a chance. As I said it woudl be unfair to ask him to catch up with 10 years of tennis evolution. ...something Nadal himself cannot even do.

No. 24 Bps in a match is a lot of chance. If Fed could have taken even 50% of them, he would have won in st. sets. That was not the cases with Fed in 05-06. The opponents never even got any chance at all.  

Yes I like to think that Fed can still beat Djoko in a slam. He can over 2 sets....but it's a lot more difficult over 5....especially at 34.

Even Anderson in W15, and Cilic in W14 had their enough chances to beat Djokovic. But just there is this thing about confidence, the aura is almost impossible to break through.

Because they have not got tennis wise what it takes. Once they will be confident in their shots, djoko will be beaten....and if beaten convincingly, will lose that confidence.

Confidence is something you build. not something granted by magic. And in tennis that confidence is as good as your opponents let you build it. Isn't Nadal the best example of rise and fall of confidence? But frankly all top players experience it when there is a new kid on the block.  

Tenez wrote:
Confidence is something you build. not something granted by magic. And in tennis that confidence is as good as your opponents let you build it. Isn't Nadal the best example of rise and fall of confidence? But frankly all top players experience it when there is a new kid on the block.  

Regarding confdence, Nole has reached very strong place and it will take some performance to take him down.

And it isn't going to be grinding tennis a la Simon, it will have to be an attacker with weapons.
You simply don't beat the best defender with defence.

He really has plugged all his holes and worked hard on them, esp conquering demons from outside: the crowds, media...there is no Achilles heel in him for 2016, including his heart!

And that is quite an achievement for someone as emotional as him.

The oracle called NITB has spoken.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Confidence is something you build. not something granted by magic. And in tennis that confidence is as good as your opponents let you build it. Isn't Nadal the best example of rise and fall of confidence? But frankly all top players experience it when there is a new kid on the block.  

Regarding confdence, Nole has reached very strong place and it will take some performance to take him down.

And it isn't going to be grinding tennis a la Simon, it will have to be an attacker with weapons.
You simply don't beat the best defender with defence.

Disagree actually..everything gets surpassed. In a few years even someone with more talent than Fed will come around. Coric looks aa good pretender to surpass Djoko as I believe he is better than Djoko at that same age. Moving much better certainly.

He really has plugged all his holes and worked hard on them, esp conquering demons from outside: the crowds, media...there is no Achilles heel in him for 2016, including his heart!

I'll give him 6 months before he finds his new master.

And that is quite an achievement for someone as emotional as him.

Just hard work. Asap he will get beaten or in trouble those emotions will come back to haunt him.

Tenez wrote:
Disagree actually..everything gets surpassed. In a few years even someone with more talent than Fed will come around

Do you really think so?

Tenez wrote: Coric looks aa good pretender to surpass Djoko as I believe he is better than Djoko at that same age. Moving much better certainly.

Yes, Coric reminded me of Nole from that 2006 clip I posted on the other thread. Very similar minus the brain. Just born in the wrong era. And already having more steroid in his body than Nole will ever have.

Tenez wrote:Just hard work. Asap he will get beaten or in trouble those emotions will come back to haunt him.

Not sure those fears and insecurities will ever come back. He's matured.
Confidence will go, that I agree with.

"A few years" 

It took Federer a decade to come along, and Sampras isn't even as talanted as Borg, who came along in the 70s.  And even he isn't comparable to Federer.  It takes a lot longer than "a few years".

A lot of the records in tennis stood for decades until Federer came along.  The idea another Federer will pop up in 20 years, let alone 3, is absurd.