DAY 10...Another cloudy day!

if federer can come through a match from 2 sets down playing below average  and still beating an inform cilic who was serving lights out,then i would say he could still challenge murray

Question: when did Federer play his best tennis of the match in a fifth set?
I can only think of the Wimbledon 2007 final..
We've seen more often (not very often though) him playing a solid fifth and winning (RG 2009 Semi comes to mind) but in none he played significantly better than the previous sets. I wish he would have done this on many other occasions..

Underwhelming tournament and just flat all round.

Crap all round. Don't want to see any of them winning it.  34,30,29,25. Not a single youngster in sight.

25 is young by tennis standards.  It's an age that many tennis players peak (even though physical prime is earlier). It doesn't last long.  It is disappointing that the other 3 aren't.  But it's slowly changing.

Have a look at what the greats like Federer were doing at 25.

Sorry but Murray is still a manchild, why would you say loudly "no way I'm gonna lose this" obviously to put off your opponent and that's all he can do.

Can't win with grace and just playing tennis, has to use his vile mouth.

Would rather Raonic or Berd win it than him!

He's the most obnoxious tennis player I've ever seen - beating Nadal.  That takes some doing.

bogbrush wrote:Ah, just wonderful to see Federer still able to mix it. I couldn't see him raising his game for today.

I fancy he'll beat Raonic but can't see him beating Murray unless it's very fast conditions and the serve goes  into God node like last year.

he would beat Murray if he had enough rest. Murray has not got the weapons of Cilic so it will be easier for Fed to return and engage in rallies. Murray's shots are less violent so fed will have the chance to manoeuvre Fed a bit more. Problem is Murray will do his best to tire him down.

I think fed would have beaten Murray today....but then again doing it after 2 more gruelling matches will be much tougher for the soon to be 35yo.

gallery play wrote:While watching Murray Tsonga i realized that if Tsonga wouldn't beat Murray, no one left in the draw will.
It was truly crazy what Jo had to do to score a point, but somehow he did frequently which made this match quite a spectacle at times. The first and fourth set Jo played some of his best tennis ever. Amazing firepower by Jo but still it wasn't enough. Murray's acceleration is absurd, he was retrieving Tsonga's open court smashes, just like he returned an awful lot of 136+ mph serves. Only after 2,5 hours he started to lose some speed and yet he was by far the fittest player in the fifth. Tsonga just could not rally any longer and went for broke.

Murray obviously will be all over Berdych and Raonic will be an easier target for Murray than Tsonga. And Federer...well like i said: what did Tsonga have to do to score a point, Fed simply does not have that firepower anymore, let alone the fitness.

But the huge difference between Tsonga and Federer is that federer plays to win and not for show. Tsonga could have won that in 3 or 4 sets had he kept his cool.

The only problem for Federer is himself. How can he recover from today's match? That is the main and only problem.

I think the match with Raonic will not be grueling.

Milo acing and a rare 3-4 shots rally.

Fed ace and keep it short/slice/drop, it will be quick 3-4 sets max.

Cilic did run amazing today for a tall guy, he is much more maneuverable than Raonic, who is improving too.

3:1 for Fed, in 2-3h play max.

gallery play wrote:Question: when did Federer play his best tennis of the match in a fifth set?
I can only think of the Wimbledon 2007 final..
We've seen more often (not very often though) him playing a solid fifth and winning (RG 2009 Semi comes to mind) but in none he played significantly better than the previous sets. I wish he would have done this on many other occasions..

summer 2012 (FO and Wimby).....he had often a bad start because of his back and then started to play better as his body warmed up. I saw some of that at the end of the second set....but that was 4 years ....now he will be completely exhausted for the next 2 matches!

FedererKing wrote:25 is young by tennis standards. ......

Tenez! Get out of that body!

Thinking about it, if the BBC got rid of all brits in their commentary box, the coverage would probably be bearable.

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:25 is young by tennis standards. ......

Tenez! Get out of that body!

Conveniently ignoring the rest of my post....  I've never ever once said that 25 is old.  I've said 29 is FOR A TENNIS PRO - and that it gets worse from then on.  I've said a lot of things about age - but you constantly try to misrepresent me because you are wrong - and the rising stars are all under 30, which you can't explain using your previous arguments.

25 years old is one of the best ages to be a pro (you only need to look at Federer at 25 and compare him to now to see it).  So is 26 and 27. Decline is rapid for nearly every pro as they approach 29-30.  Please learn that.  Federer is well outside his physical prime, and nowhere near his peak level (2006).

I am not replying to you again over this, I am going to keep posting the link to my previous posts.

FedererKing wrote:25 is young by tennis standards.  It's an age that many tennis players peak (even though physical prime is earlier). It doesn't last long.  It is disappointing that the other 3 aren't.  But it's slowly changing.

Have a look at what the greats like Federer were doing at 25.

Federer isn't the barometer I am using in this instance. Some of the results are disappointing.

Fritz loses to Wawrinka who is in his 30's
Coric loses to Karlovic again who is in his 30's
Zverev loses to Berdych another in his 30's

These youngsters barely being able to make a dent in the game. It's most saddening.

legendkillar wrote:

FedererKing wrote:25 is young by tennis standards.  It's an age that many tennis players peak (even though physical prime is earlier). It doesn't last long.  It is disappointing that the other 3 aren't.  But it's slowly changing.

Have a look at what the greats like Federer were doing at 25.

Federer isn't the barometer I am using in this instance. Some of the results are disappointing.

Fritz loses to Wawrinka who is in his 30's
Coric loses to Karlovic again who is in his 30's
Zverev loses to Berdych another in his 30's

These youngsters barely being able to make a dent in the game. It's most saddening.

It's not sad. It's just a longer process to reach the top. Once you are at the top you learn so much more by playing the best players more often than it even makes you stronger. All those youngsters would have beaten their older opponents'younger version cause them too have learnt from a stronger base than it was 10 years ago.

Look even at Tsonga....despite all his injuries ad time off....he is playing now better than ever..like Murray.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

FedererKing wrote:25 is young by tennis standards.  It's an age that many tennis players peak (even though physical prime is earlier). It doesn't last long.  It is disappointing that the other 3 aren't.  But it's slowly changing.

Have a look at what the greats like Federer were doing at 25.

Federer isn't the barometer I am using in this instance. Some of the results are disappointing.

Fritz loses to Wawrinka who is in his 30's
Coric loses to Karlovic again who is in his 30's
Zverev loses to Berdych another in his 30's

These youngsters barely being able to make a dent in the game. It's most saddening.

It's not sad. It's just a longer process to reach the top. Once you are at the top you learn so much more by playing the best players more often than it even makes you stronger. All those youngsters would have beaten their older opponents'younger version cause them too have learnt from a stronger base than it was 10 years ago.

Look even at Tsonga....despite all his injuries ad time off....he is playing now better than ever..like Murray.  

I would love to share a bit of your enthusiasm, but even at 1000 and to a degree 500 level too, youngsters just not having a good of it. As much as I would agree yes this current crop of the old guard have exceeded longevity, for youngsters they must feel they have to wait until that guard retires. Can't do self esteem or confidence any good.

... but even at 1000 and to a degree 500 level too, youngsters just not having a good of it.

And that has always been my very point! I have always said that for youngsters to do well they need to come with new weapons and those weapons can only come with new technology or "fitness regime" nowadays.

The reason why Pete, Becker, Agassi, Edberg etc.....and so on were successful young is that they arrived with new technology versus top players who had learnt the game with small wooden frames. I don't think Pete, Edberg or Agassi woudl have beaten McEnroe with a wooden racquet in their young age. Those new larger grahite frames gave them a huge advantage. Nadal also had that huge advantage (physical). Murray and Djoko had to wait a bit more because Nadal had the physical edge for a while and Federer was simply a genius. But the current youngsters have even more work to catch up as they are playing with the same tools as their elder.

Even at the pre-open era which was much less competitive, youngsters struggled to beat the older guard. Laver in his first slam woudl have been lessoned by most players on the pro tour. He had to wait to be 29 to do his GS again in an open playing field.

There is no doubt that those youngsters will end up being better than the current ones.....but they still have to learn.

What might work against the bright future of those youngsters is if huge progress in technology is made and a new generation learn the game with that technology.....then you will have young champions again!

Sorry Tenez, I like you but on this topic you're deluded.
FedererKing is right.

You keep randomly declare that players are playing better than ever, even when they're not.
How many players actually peaked and had their best player when they were 30+. Let's go through the list of players, in order of rankings:

Djokovic- best years aged 23, 27 so far but have to wait and see
Murray- best year aged 25
Federer- best year aged 34 because he won basel
Nadal- best year aged 30 because he avoided the zika virus
Wawrinka- best year aged 29
Nishikori- best year aged 25 (but tbf, he can improve on that)
Raonic- dull servebot who could peak now, we'll see
Thiem- young, so we don't know again
Berdych- steady around 26-29, declining now he's reached 30
Gasquet- Career high of WN7 came when he was 21
Goffin- too young to know
Tsonga- Best year aged 26 (look up his 2011)
Cilic- Won USO aged 25
Ferrer- Best year aged 31 (fine.. but flopping now he's 34)

So your theory Tenez I'm afraid doesn't hold much water.
What is true is that the current young gen seem to be a bit shit. Kyrgios is the only one with potential, but is a mental headcase.

Agreed.  Although I would say Thiem is definitely going to be a big star from the youngest players.  Goffin too to some degree.  But let's face it, nearly all the older players now on tour had better careers at 25 than 30+.

It's an annoying time to be a Federer or Nadal fan - because when they are beaten (which is all the time now) the press and unknowledgeable fans - and even the players who beat them - treat it like some sort of god performance and a sign that Nadal/Federer have been surpassed.  They haven't.  This rotten lot on tour at the moment wouldn't hold a candle to Federer on grass - or Nadal on clay - in their prime or peak years.  Federer would toss Djokovic off the court, and Nadal would pound him into the ground feet first.

Still, we will get to laugh at the Murray and Djokovic fans in a couple of years - when it's Kyrgios and Raonic and the like laughing at them - blowing their grandpa legs and reflexes off court.

What Federer did last year and the year before is remarkable, despite this weak transitional phase.  To be reaching slam finals aged 34 is not easy. But if the competition wasn't so woeful, he'd have no chance at this age.  The fact is... he does have a chance this year. His very last chance.

Yep, agree on all of that that.

FedererKing wrote:
What Federer did last year and the year before is remarkable, despite this weak transitional phase. To be reaching slam finals aged 34 is not easy. But if the competition wasn't so woeful, he'd have no chance at this age.

True, and Federer probably isn't given enough credit for this. Even though it is a weak transitional phase in tennis, the fact he's even competitive at the top at this age is extraordinary.

Another thing Tenez, you seem to keep misinterpreting the point FK and others make on the precise age people peak.

It's not that everyone has an exact set age that they peak, and then suddenly fall off the cliff aged 27.
But the point is most players reach their best level around 23-28 years old, and there's usually only little fluctuation in their level in these years.
However after players reach 30, there is a big risk that players may encounter a significant downward fluctuation (but on the other side, not much chance of a significant upward fluctuation past 30... how many players massively improve once their 30?)
For what I'm saying to be correct, it doesn't mean that every player reaching 30 would deteriorate immediately. Giving one example of a player who doesn't deteriorate, isn't some sort of great proof that you're right overall.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Another thing Tenez, you seem to keep misinterpreting the point FK and others make on the precise age people peak.

It's not that everyone has an exact set age that they peak, and then suddenly fall off the cliff aged 27.
But the point is most players reach their best level around 23-28 years old, and there's usually only little fluctuation in their level in these years.
However after players reach 30, there is a big risk that players may encounter a significant downward fluctuation (but on the other side, not much chance of a significant upward fluctuation past 30... how many players massively improve once their 30?)
For what I'm saying to be correct, it doesn't mean that every player reaching 30 would deteriorate immediately. Giving one example of a player who doesn't deteriorate, isn't some sort of great proof that you're right overall.

Something you two keep misunderstanding is that the players some face at 23 are very different than those you meet at 30! For 7 years tennis has evolved (technology, fitness and more so playing one -another).

Take Djoko for instance. He coudl not cope with Nadal and Federer at first then became better than both. So the Djoko  of 23 is very different than the djoko of 29 who  held the four slams.

So to go back to teh main point, It does not matter when you peak if others are taking the game to higher levels...you still have to move on with the game.

For nadal for instance, he made teh most of Djokovic being younger and this is why Nadal himself was successful younger...Cause nadal woudl not have won much had he arrived on tour now Cause Djoko woudl have never let him won a slam. But at the same time, it is Nadal who helped Djoko become so consistent and develop the right game.

The fact is in tennis you are very unlikely to peak at 25-26....though it might be the best age "circumstance wise"  to win slams.

Tenez wrote:

... but even at 1000 and to a degree 500 level too, youngsters just not having a good of it.

And that has always been my very point! I have always said that for youngsters to do well they need to come with new weapons and those weapons can only come with new technology or "fitness regime" nowadays.

The reason why Pete, Becker, Agassi, Edberg etc.....and so on were successful young is that they arrived with new technology versus top players who had learnt the game with small wooden frames. I don't think Pete, Edberg or Agassi woudl have beaten McEnroe with a wooden racquet in their young age. Those new larger grahite frames gave them a huge advantage. Nadal also had that huge advantage (physical). Murray and Djoko had to wait a bit more because Nadal had the physical edge for a while and Federer was simply a genius. But the current youngsters have even more work to catch up as they are playing with the same tools as their elder.

Even at the pre-open era which was much less competitive, youngsters struggled to beat the older guard. Laver in his first slam woudl have been lessoned by most players on the pro tour. He had to wait to be 29 to do his GS again in an open playing field.

There is no doubt that those youngsters will end up being better than the current ones.....but they still have to learn.

What might work against the bright future of those youngsters is if huge progress in technology is made and a new generation learn the game with that technology.....then you will have young champions again!

That's a fantastic point actually and one despite how impacting it was get's overlooked so easily. However, I do question the rollover from McEnroe/Borg/Connors to Becker/Wilander/Lendl/Edberg and whether that is subject to massive changes in tech. Might not be so sure.

No one disagrees with Tenez that changes in technology can give an advantage to certain generations over others, but it doesn't mean his slightly wacky theory holds any ground.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

... but even at 1000 and to a degree 500 level too, youngsters just not having a good of it.

And that has always been my very point! I have always said that for youngsters to do well they need to come with new weapons and those weapons can only come with new technology or "fitness regime" nowadays.

The reason why Pete, Becker, Agassi, Edberg etc.....and so on were successful young is that they arrived with new technology versus top players who had learnt the game with small wooden frames. I don't think Pete, Edberg or Agassi woudl have beaten McEnroe with a wooden racquet in their young age. Those new larger grahite frames gave them a huge advantage. Nadal also had that huge advantage (physical). Murray and Djoko had to wait a bit more because Nadal had the physical edge for a while and Federer was simply a genius. But the current youngsters have even more work to catch up as they are playing with the same tools as their elder.

Even at the pre-open era which was much less competitive, youngsters struggled to beat the older guard. Laver in his first slam woudl have been lessoned by most players on the pro tour. He had to wait to be 29 to do his GS again in an open playing field.

There is no doubt that those youngsters will end up being better than the current ones.....but they still have to learn.

What might work against the bright future of those youngsters is if huge progress in technology is made and a new generation learn the game with that technology.....then you will have young champions again!

That's a fantastic point actually and one despite how impacting it was get's overlooked so easily. However, I do question the rollover from McEnroe/Borg/Connors to Becker/Wilander/Lendl/Edberg and whether that is subject to massive changes in tech. Might not be so sure.

LK, I have been saying this for years!

DONALD TRUMP wrote:No one disagrees with Tenez that changes in technology can give an advantage to certain generations over others, but it doesn't mean his slightly wacky theory holds any ground.

DT, Do you know what professional tennis is? Professionals tennis players shave their legs nowadays to go faster! That's how desperate they are in looking for edge! So I can assure you that technology makes a huge difference....and consolidate what we observe here, in the top 10 as well as the top 100!

Just get on with it!

Tenez wrote:

DONALD TRUMP wrote:No one disagrees with Tenez that changes in technology can give an advantage to certain generations over others, but it doesn't mean his slightly wacky theory holds any ground.

Professionals tennis players shave their legs nowadays to go faster!

Is that what your wife tells you?