ATP 250: Sydney, Auckland

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

I just noticed that my BH is better than Athur Ashe's!

Maybe they should name one of the courts in you club after you

Good idea! I'll raise this at the next committee meeting!



Night all....

Let us know how it goes....and make sure it's that grass one

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

See how close Nalby is to the baseline compared to Murray. In fact he plays most of his shots inside. Murray is 2m behind retrieving....and nowadays with this string technology it pays off.

In Auckland last night:

Ferrer demolished Lacko 6:2 61 (so must have recovered from whatever was bothering him in the last two weeks)
Querrey bt Levine
Monfils edged Haas in 3 sets
&
Kohlschreiber beat Malisse in two close sets

In Sydney:
Benneteau bt Harrison
Anderson bt Istomin
Tomic and Nieminen playing first set tie break, NIeminen just won it.
Seppi Granlloers yet to play.

tomic wins through in 3. winning the hard way, good sign.

Hopefully, Seppi will finish Granollers in two.

you have your wish

I guess the draw is tomorrow (Friday...or late this eve for us...).

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:always good to learn from ya guys .

i was just surprised that knowledgeable posters like LK, CC, Mad for chelsea etc just dismissed nalbandian, obvs they are murray fans but i thought it was plain to see if you look at some of their matches where murray only wins through after being run ragged, its all on nalbo's racket.

Emancipator was the only one who agreed with me and i think perhaps bogbrush might as well.

I am not surprised. Talent is a difficult parameter to measure so it leaves room for debate. To mix things up they try to make us say that we jude talent through beauty of a shot. That's wrong. Talentin tennis is the ease to win point and that is of course linked with the ease to generate powerful and accurate shot. Someone standing close to teh BL for instance can generate easy power....we all can do that but none of us can do it consistently...and in fact very few can. This is what Laver observed in Federer. The only who can keep close to the BL...and as you say Nalby is another who can....but his mind certainly gets fragile under pressure....Talent to be successful needs more mental strength than the physical games of D, M and N.

You are not learning from us...you know already!

haha cheers bud but i still maintain i am!
im sort of a jack of all trades and master of none in terms of playing sport and knowledge of sports. I think tennis is becoming my main one knowledge wise but was late in the game so have a long way to go, but love to learn

Same here. I don't want to sound too arrogant but I am quite confident with my analysis of what we can see and observe. It's what's behind and we don;t see that I'd love to learn. We can only speculate about doping methods, draw rigging and so on but we have no proof apart from LA cases or draw rigging where the odds seem close to a proof in itself.

What we know though is that sport is a business for the organisers as much as teh athletes and talent is just the fun side and too inconsistent a factor that was sacrified for more consistent gains. The problem with talent is that it cannot be improvedmuch unlike the other paramters and this is why players don't bet on it anymore. Even Federer came with a loopier FH in 2007.

I always enjoy and value other people's observations, two pairs of eyes always see better than one.
Yes, even if I disagree with them initially, I always go back and have a think, that's the beauty of a tennis forum.
The main thing is to avoid the " Whose dad is the strongest " debate.

luvsports! wrote:always good to learn from ya guys .

i was just surprised that knowledgeable posters like LK, CC, Mad for chelsea etc just dismissed nalbandian, obvs they are murray fans but i thought it was plain to see if you look at some of their matches where murray only wins through after being run ragged, its all on nalbo's racket.

Emancipator was the only one who agreed with me and i think perhaps bogbrush might as well.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear...

Let's cut to the crux of the matter. Shot making. What is the difference between someone making a shot whilst running compared to a stationary position? Clearly the feel of the ball and the racquet. The mistake you made in your debate LS was 'taking away speed'

I more than most appreciate the shots that Nalbandian can make, but like with Davy he falls way short in terms of consistency. Davy at least looked somewhat an athlete and for me mental fragility cost him a few Slams. Nalbandian simply was not committed enough to push himself after injuries to get back to some top form.

There comes a point when every match a talented player is outgunned by someone with more firepower to dismiss it as stamina. Nalbandian didn't have much of a FH at all. Part of an argument you didn't address. More to the point I felt you didn't want to engage a full debate. For me the likes of Murray and Djokovic have much more variance to their game than Nalbandian. For me talent is touch and synch. Nalbandian for me kinda joins the over-rated club. Take the current crop of talented players in Dimitrov, Dolgopolov, Paire and Fognini. All phenominal in terms ball striking. Dolgo is going nowhere because mentally he just doesn't have the concentration. Fognini another one who is a brilliant ball striker, but mentally can't hold it. Paire and Dimitrov for me physically struggle in the longer matches, though you can see that further physical conditioning would help them in longer matches.

What I think could have reinforced your point about talent v stamina/speed would have been the case of Murray v Nalbandian. Taken 05 Wimbledon and say Cinncy 11 and said look at both players. I have always said Murray's variance has declined as result of increase mass and fitness. That in itself can prove to many that physical conditioning is paramount in today's game.

Anyhow I love a bit of Nalby from 2002-2005

legendkillar wrote:For me the likes of Murray and Djokovic have much more variance to their game than Nalbandian. For me talent is touch and synch. Nalbandian for me kinda joins the over-rated club. Take the current crop of talented players in Dimitrov, Dolgopolov, Paire and Fognini. All phenominal in terms ball striking. Dolgo is going nowhere because mentally he just doesn't have the concentration. Fognini another one who is a brilliant ball striker, but mentally can't hold it. Paire and Dimitrov for me physically struggle in the longer matches, though you can see that further physical conditioning would help them in longer matches.

I really can't agree with that and the bold in particular. Just watch the clip I posted a few posts earlier and see how Nalby attacks and manoeuvres Murray. Murray is essentially staying (and winning) the match thanks to his retrieving skills: fitness. And that is how Murray and Djoko very often win. SO yes they are consistent but even this consistency is incredibly helped by those strings that make those shots powerful and safe. Nalby learnt to play with risk cause that was the only way. Pace up conditions again and 64 64 Murray coudl turn in a 6464 Nalbandian. There is a huge difference in talent between a Murray and Nalby...but physically the difference is bigger and this is what tips the match in Murray's favour.

Neither Djoko or Murray could afford to run as much and as long. Besides this inconsistency of attacking players is aggravated by those players able to retrieve what should be irretrievable if it was not for an abnormnal fitness and slow court. Look at Federer he played from 2003 to 2007 with very little UEs but when faced with Nadal this UE count shoot up to ridiculous proportion cause even him had not choice thna to go for broke. Things were much easier for him on faster surfaces or end of year when Nadal was probably cycling down.



Conds are everything and nowadays they certainly favour the players who push teh ball back...and Nalby is not one of them.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:For me the likes of Murray and Djokovic have much more variance to their game than Nalbandian. For me talent is touch and synch. Nalbandian for me kinda joins the over-rated club. Take the current crop of talented players in Dimitrov, Dolgopolov, Paire and Fognini. All phenominal in terms ball striking. Dolgo is going nowhere because mentally he just doesn't have the concentration. Fognini another one who is a brilliant ball striker, but mentally can't hold it. Paire and Dimitrov for me physically struggle in the longer matches, though you can see that further physical conditioning would help them in longer matches.

I really can't agree with that and the bold in particular. Just watch the clip I posted a few posts earlier and see how Nalby attacks and manoeuvres Murray. Murray is essentially staying (and winning) the match thanks to his retrieving skills: fitness. And that is how Murray and Djoko very often win. SO yes they are consistent but even this consistency is incredibly helped by those strings that make those shots powerful and safe. Nalby learnt to play with risk cause that was the only way. Pace up conditions again and 64 64 Murray coudl turn in a 6464 Nalbandian. There is a huge difference in talent between a Murray and Nalby...but physically the difference is bigger and this is what tips the match in Murray's favour.

Neither Djoko or Murray could afford to run as much and as long. Besides this inconsistency of attacking players is aggravated by those players able to retrieve what should be irretrievable if it was not for an abnormnal fitness and slow court. Look at Federer he played from 2003 to 2007 with very little UEs but when faced with Nadal this UE count shoot up to ridiculous proportion cause even him had not choice thna to go for broke. Things were much easier for him on faster surfaces or end of year when Nadal was probably cycling down.



Conds are everything and nowadays they certainly favour the players who push teh ball back...and Nalby is not one of them.

There right there breaks down your argument. You say Murray and Djokovic need fitness to compete and then Nalbandian needs favourable conds.

Simply put Nalbandian does not have the shot locker to compete.

You should add: "Simply put Nalbandian does not have the shot locker to compete...in those conds".

But we were discussing talent and results are certainly not the measuring stick when it comes to talent nowadays...unless you are a one in-a-century genius like Fed.

Up to 2005 (the arrival of Nadal) there was hardly ever discussions on fithness and physique. It was important certainly but we were essentially talking about style, menta strength etc...since then it's fitness, fitness and fitness and it's certainly not Murray and Djoko that will contradict me.

Tenez wrote:

Up to 2005 (the arrival of Nadal) there was hardly ever discussions on fithness and physique. It was important certainly but we were essentially talking about style, menta strength etc...since then it's fitness, fitness and fitness and it's certainly not Murray and Djoko that will contradict me.

What do you think we can realistically expect with the implementation of the 25 sec rule in terms of average rally length?

Why yes Fed is the exception to every rule in tennis with his accomplishments and style of play.

For example I would rate Davy above Nalbandian. If we rolled back the clock and conditions I would be in agreement. We would not see passing shots because the conds and tempo would never allow it. That is why Agassi was so remarkable because he was able to play them with a bit of style.

The Djokovic and Murray dynamics accounts for speed and yes endurance and the conds lend themselves to that. Again however it is evolution. Look at Murray in 2005. He looked a decent talent. Over time he has evolved his game to the conds and it is a fair comment to say that the shots he had then are not ones he relies on now because of the margin for error approach built into his game. Like Roddick. I mean christ in 2001 he had a powder puff serve, but had some solid groundstrokes. Look what that player evolved into.

The talents required this day do require some precision because hitting the ball on the move is a tricky art, but it doesn't look as pleasing on the eye as some yesteryear's play, just that killer/eye pleasing shots are not the norm these days which is a travesty.

legendkillar wrote:. Look what that player evolved into.

Elaborate, please

legendkillar wrote:Why yes Fed is the exception to every rule in tennis with his accomplishments and style of play.

For example I would rate Davy above Nalbandian. If we rolled back the clock and conditions I would be in agreement. We would not see passing shots because the conds and tempo would never allow it. That is why Agassi was so remarkable because he was able to play them with a bit of style.

The Djokovic and Murray dynamics accounts for speed and yes endurance and the conds lend themselves to that. Again however it is evolution. Look at Murray in 2005. He looked a decent talent. Over time he has evolved his game to the conds and it is a fair comment to say that the shots he had then are not ones he relies on now because of the margin for error approach built into his game. Like Roddick. I mean christ in 2001 he had a powder puff serve, but had some solid groundstrokes. Look what that player evolved into.

The talents required this day do require some precision because hitting the ball on the move is a tricky art, but it doesn't look as pleasing on the eye as some yesteryear's play, just that killer/eye pleasing shots are not the norm these days which is a travesty.

But conditions and talent should be 2 different criteria. When Bruguera won 3 FOs and Pete won none...we still knew who was the more talented. It helped then to have other fast surfaces but nowadays we have not and Bruguerra woudl be seen as the great player and Pete a non-consistent loser. That is the problem. But the strings really kills talent cause flat hitting is simply not worth it and this is, in tennis, really the determining factor.

Hitting the ball on the move doesn;t actually require talent. IT requires a ridiculous abdominal belt, legs, lungs and again the right strings. With Nat gut I'd agree that it'd require huge talent cause you could not generate pace topspinning and therefore players then (Pete's or Korda's FH for instance) had to be hit flat close to net and not too hard to throw it out or soft in the net. It had to be a perfect shot. Now you just hammer the ball and the margins are huge...especially for players who are trained to whack the ball all day.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Up to 2005 (the arrival of Nadal) there was hardly ever discussions on fithness and physique. It was important certainly but we were essentially talking about style, menta strength etc...since then it's fitness, fitness and fitness and it's certainly not Murray and Djoko that will contradict me.

What do you think we can realistically expect with the implementation of the 25 sec rule in terms of average rally length?

I think it could do some damage but will it really be implemented versus the top players? and if so, will be implemented in the important points? Could be another way to destabilise the lower ranked players (like we saw with Cilic).

And above all it;s in the slams it needs to be implemented. There for sure the 20s rule would be completely detrimental.

We have the semi-final pairs now (isn't everyone so excited )

In Auckland
Querrey-Kohlschreiber
&
Ferrer-Monfils

In Sydney
Benneteau-Anderson
&
Seppi-Tomic


A Monfils Tomic match could be interesting....shame they are in different torunaments...

Tenez wrote:I think it could do some damage but will it really be implemented versus the top players? and if so, will be implemented in the important points? Could be another way to destabilise the lower ranked players (like we saw with Cilic).

And above all it;s in the slams it needs to be implemented. There for sure the 20s rule would be completely detrimental.

I think the only one that would moan is Murray, but not even he would complain too much in a match. Fortunately, he is only number 3 and despite all the media & the Empire behind him, still not the weight that would tip the scales.
That's why it's great Nadal is out at the moment, by the time he (and that is IF he) comes back, it should all be already settled.

I am pleasantly surprised by that move which was obviously triggered by the AO 12 final. A lot of tennis fans made noise about it on blogs, that gets fed to commentators and so on...

I hope nobody has to play another 6 hour long match in their career like that.

I also hope AO takes some pride in its tennis tradition and follows suit. I'm sure all the greats Laver etc will have already voiced their opinions on that topic behind the scenes.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think it could do some damage but will it really be implemented versus the top players? and if so, will be implemented in the important points? Could be another way to destabilise the lower ranked players (like we saw with Cilic).

And above all it;s in the slams it needs to be implemented. There for sure the 20s rule would be completely detrimental.

I think the only one that would moan is Murray, but not even he would complain too much in a match. Fortunately, he is only number 3 and despite all the media & the Empire behind him, still not the weight that would tip the scales.
That's why it's great Nadal is out at the moment, by the time he (and that is IF he) comes back, it should all be already settled.

I am pleasantly surprised by that move which was obviously triggered by the AO 12 final. A lot of tennis fans made noise about it on blogs, that gets fed to commentators and so on...

I hope nobody has to play another 6 hour long match in their career like that.

I also hope AO takes some pride in its tennis tradition and follows suit. I'm sure all the greats Laver etc will have already voiced their opinions on that topic behind the scenes.

I don;t think any would moan bar Nadal but those 3 (yes including your man) would be affected. We woudl probably see more aces and risky shots...but at this game Murray and Djoko are not the best on tour.

Isn;t it curious that the ITF (slams) did not validate the rule?

Tenez wrote: I don;t think any would moan bar Nadal but those 3 (yes including your man) would be affected. We woudl probably see more aces and risky shots...but at this game Murray and Djoko are not the best on tour.

Isn;t it curious that the ITF (slams) did not validate the rule?

I think Nole will be just fine . He played well within 25 secs against Fed in the WTF O2 final.
Murray will be more interesting.
I suppose they play most like that when they face off, so AO could bring another Djokovic Murray semi
Murray just got used to his new "power" game and extra fitness, it will be interesting how that affects his game if he can't benefit from it as he normally does.
He couldn't last even 3 sets in their WTF match last November. He completely ran out of steam mid 2nd set. Novak is very, very good at absorbing other people's game like that. You really need to take him out of his comfort zone in order to beat him. I only saw Fed do that in Wimbledon.

noleisthebest wrote:He couldn't last even 3 sets in their WTF match last November. He completely ran out of steam mid 2nd set. Novak is very, very good at absorbing other people's game like that.

What does that tell you about Djoko?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:He couldn't last even 3 sets in their WTF match last November. He completely ran out of steam mid 2nd set. Novak is very, very good at absorbing other people's game like that.

What does that tell you about Djoko?

I knew you'd ask that !

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Why yes Fed is the exception to every rule in tennis with his accomplishments and style of play.

For example I would rate Davy above Nalbandian. If we rolled back the clock and conditions I would be in agreement. We would not see passing shots because the conds and tempo would never allow it. That is why Agassi was so remarkable because he was able to play them with a bit of style.

The Djokovic and Murray dynamics accounts for speed and yes endurance and the conds lend themselves to that. Again however it is evolution. Look at Murray in 2005. He looked a decent talent. Over time he has evolved his game to the conds and it is a fair comment to say that the shots he had then are not ones he relies on now because of the margin for error approach built into his game. Like Roddick. I mean christ in 2001 he had a powder puff serve, but had some solid groundstrokes. Look what that player evolved into.

The talents required this day do require some precision because hitting the ball on the move is a tricky art, but it doesn't look as pleasing on the eye as some yesteryear's play, just that killer/eye pleasing shots are not the norm these days which is a travesty.

But conditions and talent should be 2 different criteria. When Bruguera won 3 FOs and Pete won none...we still knew who was the more talented. It helped then to have other fast surfaces but nowadays we have not and Bruguerra woudl be seen as the great player and Pete a non-consistent loser. That is the problem. But the strings really kills talent cause flat hitting is simply not worth it and this is, in tennis, really the determining factor.

Hitting the ball on the move doesn;t actually require talent. IT requires a ridiculous abdominal belt, legs, lungs and again the right strings. With Nat gut I'd agree that it'd require huge talent cause you could not generate pace topspinning and therefore players then (Pete's or Korda's FH for instance) had to be hit flat close to net and not too hard to throw it out or soft in the net. It had to be a perfect shot. Now you just hammer the ball and the margins are huge...especially for players who are trained to whack the ball all day.

For me conditioning/fitness is a criteria because I would never class it as something like talent. We can agree that the talent lies within shot making/touch/feel/movement. Sampras was the perfect animal. He might not have had the groundstrokes of Bruguera, but what he had was the best serve I have ever seen and was a superb volleyer. Because however his weakness was with the groundstrokes I don't think is fair to say he was any less talented than Bruguera because their talent and strength lie in 2 different areas/styles.

Hitting the ball on the run nowadays yes should be simple because of the conds, but put a wooden racquet with natural gut and the old white balls and Djokovic and Murray would struggle to make any passing shot. It is a pick your poison in terms of the brand of tennis. I would say that yes today's strings and racquets and balls makes it far easier for players to control the shots they play and thus limits the amount of touch/feel they really require, but that is not the fault of them as players. Topspin has certainly changed the face of the game because it allows players to be extremely passive. I like you Ten love to watch any talented player, but it does require a degree of talent to succeed in today's game. It might not be a talent I enjoy watching, but it is a talent still.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:. Look what that player evolved into.

Elaborate, please

An un-co-ordinated ball bashing hulk!

legendkillar wrote:For me conditioning/fitness is a criteria because I would never class it as something like talent. We can agree that the talent lies within shot making/touch/feel/movement. Sampras was the perfect animal. He might not have had the groundstrokes of Bruguera, but what he had was the best serve I have ever seen and was a superb volleyer. Because however his weakness was with the groundstrokes I don't think is fair to say he was any less talented than Bruguera because their talent and strength lie in 2 different areas/styles.

Pete's groundstrokes were actually better than Bruguera on faster surfaces. The advantage bruguera had on clay was his fitness and willingness to moonball all day. Pete's were more agressive and risky and on clay it paid less. Clay emphasises the physical factor like no other surfaces....well that was true at the time but is not anymore as they all play the same thanks to those new strings and bigger ball. So if like me you do not consider fitness conditioning like a talent, you cannot say that Bru and Pete had talent lying in 2 different areas. One was more talented than the other but the other was simply more physical.

I would say that yes today's strings and racquets and balls makes it far easier for players to control the shots they play and thus limits the amount of touch/feel they really require, but that is not the fault of them as players

I am not saying it's their fault but because of it we have to be much more careful when talking about talent and have the honesty nowadays to completely detach it from results when assessing it. During last Wimbledon Kholshriber proved very clearly how he was more talented than Nadal by handling a pacing ball better than Nadal. He was able to stand closer, hit flatter and unsettle the big Rosol without having to move as much as Nadal. That is where talent can still be observed. Likewise when yuo see Dolgo moving and and being a step ahead of Djoko ....until he gets tired and nervous knowing the challenge and pressure to produce a risky tennis for 3 sets...things neither Djoko and Murray attempt on their run to finals.

Topspin has certainly changed the face of the game because it allows players to be extremely passive. I like you Ten love to watch any talented player, but it does require a degree of talent to succeed in today's game. It might not be a talent I enjoy watching, but it is a talent still.

It requires essentially an amazing fitness which nowadays has little to do with "innate" talent but a lot with teh team you have behind you ...so on that one the degree of talent is "negligeable"....especially as explained many times teh aim of those physical players is to blunt their opponent's talent by sucking the live out of their bodies.

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:. Look what that player evolved into.

Elaborate, please

An un-co-ordinated ball bashing hulk!

Pretty succinct and to the point

Overnight results from:

Auckland
Ferrer demolishes Monfils 6:1 6:2 (and like the true grinder exposes lack of Monfils' post-injury match fitness/stamina)
Kohlschreiber bt Querrey 6:4 7:6

So we have a final of Ferrer & Kohlschreiber in Auckland. Should be interesting. Kholi, please dispatch Ferrer in 3.


Sydney
Anderson squeezes past Benneteau in 3
same as
Tomic against Seppi 7:6 (10) 6:4

So, in Sydney, the Anderson Tomic final. Tough to call, Tomic has a bit more variety in the game, but his returning could be exposed. I don't even remember what it's like, but just think that would be his weak spot in this match.

Pete's groundstrokes were actually better than Bruguera on faster surfaces. The advantage bruguera had on clay was his fitness and willingness to moonball all day. Pete's were more agressive and risky and on clay it paid less. Clay emphasises the physical factor like no other surfaces....well that was true at the time but is not anymore as they all play the same thanks to those new strings and bigger ball. So if like me you do not consider fitness conditioning like a talent, you cannot say that Bru and Pete had talent lying in 2 different areas. One was more talented than the other but the other was simply more physical.

Pete had the better FH, Bruguera had the better BH for sure. This the whole of my point. Pete essentially was a flat hitter whereas Bruguera more of a topspin player. Put Pete on today's conds and he would struggle to make the QF's of any Slam or Masters event.

I am not saying it's their fault but because of it we have to be much more careful when talking about talent and have the honesty nowadays to completely detach it from results when assessing it. During last Wimbledon Kholshriber proved very clearly how he was more talented than Nadal by handling a pacing ball better than Nadal. He was able to stand closer, hit flatter and unsettle the big Rosol without having to move as much as Nadal. That is where talent can still be observed. Likewise when yuo see Dolgo moving and and being a step ahead of Djoko ....until he gets tired and nervous knowing the challenge and pressure to produce a risky tennis for 3 sets...things neither Djoko and Murray attempt on their run to finals.

That is something Federer has made a career out of doing. Peaking. Yes Murray and Djokovic don't have to play spectacular tennis to advance. It isn't just grinding the opponent down. Djokovic and Murray are very savvy in picking the right moments in matches to turn the pressure on once they have control of the match. Djokovic more so. Federer too has had opponents make many errors in matches, but also has had a standard of fitness to soak up pressure and be able to defend when need be. Federer's extrordinary talent alone has seen him win title after title.

It requires essentially an amazing fitness which nowadays has little to do with "innate" talent but a lot with teh team you have behind you ...so on that one the degree of talent is "negligeable"....especially as explained many times teh aim of those physical players is to blunt their opponent's talent by sucking the live out of their bodies.

Yes player blunting tactics have become the norm because of the conds. However, Murray and Djokovic have demonstrated that they can play aggressive tennis. Murray normally plays his best attacking tennis when under the cosh, similar to Djokovic. The annoyance with many observers is that they don't do this from the off. Yes it is down to energy, but because they are not like Federer they would still require an extra 2-3 shots to win a point.

legendkillar wrote:

Yes player blunting tactics have become the norm because of the conds. However, Murray and Djokovic have demonstrated that they can play aggressive tennis. Murray normally plays his best attacking tennis when under the cosh, similar to Djokovic. The annoyance with many observers is that they don't do this from the off. Yes it is down to energy, but because they are not like Federer they would still require an extra 2-3 shots to win a point.

Funny how you see Nole and Murray as similar/same players. Although there are some similarities, to me they are worlds apart in terms of game and approach.
Their similarities lie only in the fact they both play defense well and have good BH they use in the same way.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Yes player blunting tactics have become the norm because of the conds. However, Murray and Djokovic have demonstrated that they can play aggressive tennis. Murray normally plays his best attacking tennis when under the cosh, similar to Djokovic. The annoyance with many observers is that they don't do this from the off. Yes it is down to energy, but because they are not like Federer they would still require an extra 2-3 shots to win a point.

Funny how you see Nole and Murray as similar/same players. Although there are some similarities, to me they are worlds apart in terms of game and approach.
Their similarities lie only in the fact they both play defense well and have good BH they use in the same way.

I was saying similar styles. Djokovic has the heavier FH/BH, Murray has the better use of the slice. Both move in different ways. Djokovic much more economical.

Their approach to matches is the same. Never have they started as the aggressor in any match I can remember.

legendkillar wrote:Pete had the better FH, Bruguera had the better BH for sure. This the whole of my point. Pete essentially was a flat hitter whereas Bruguera more of a topspin player. Put Pete on today's conds and he would struggle to make the QF's of any Slam or Masters event.

But again, the slow surface makes Bruguera's better (that is more consistent, especially DHBH), cause on faster surface, Pete's BH was more damaging.

BTW...Pete woudl struggle winning a round nowadays. His serve woudl be returned with rather ease and Basle showed us what to expect then. But that's beyond the point here.

That is something Federer has made a career out of doing. Peaking. Yes Murray and Djokovic don't have to play spectacular tennis to advance. It isn't just grinding the opponent down. Djokovic and Murray are very savvy in picking the right moments in matches to turn the pressure on once they have control of the match. Djokovic more so. Federer too has had opponents make many errors in matches, but also has had a standard of fitness to soak up pressure and be able to defend when need be. Federer's extrordinary talent alone has seen him win title after title.

But I am sure you know what "picking the righ moments" means. It means they have a choice and to have the choice means you have to be prepared to run for ever. When people go for broke against those guys, it's not because they are tired, it's because they know they will be tired soon if they keep rallying with them. A lot has to do with peceived fitness....knowing you strength is your shot making ability and that the more the rally and match goes on the less likely you will be able to pull a winner. Look at Djoko's game. He makes it so clear. Even when he is in a good position to hit a good clean winner, he gives himself teh choice to push teh ball back to force his opponent into more running. What has talent got to do with such types of play.

Yes player blunting tactics have become the norm because of the conds. However, Murray and Djokovic have demonstrated that they can play aggressive tennis. Murray normally plays his best attacking tennis when under the cosh, similar to Djokovic. The annoyance with many observers is that they don't do this from the off. Yes it is down to energy, but because they are not like Federer they would still require an extra 2-3 shots to win a point.

Of course they can play aggressive....but they play aggressive when their opponent is on the ropes or when they have no other choice (essentially v Federer). But this is not how they win their bread and butter points. We are all talking percentage here. We can also say they go to the net sometimes....it doesn't make them SVers.

Murray now starts/tries to start his matches as an aggressor (with his own limitations , of course) but as it's not a modus operandi for him, he retreats back into his shell when it doesn't work.
It's so much easier to just rally and wait for the safe moment to put the opponent out of misery in these playing conditions.
Novak is trying to build a solid case of a plan B aggressor game, as he really is and always will be a base-liner. As that's not his natural game, he'll never be using it as a plan A, like Fed.
Nole knows how taxing on the body AO SF and final were, plus the wear and tear he must have sustained in that insane 2011 run.

Despite the popular belief, Nole takes pride in his tennis, loves it and is improving and building his game in the right direction, circumstances allowing, of course. Tennis is a job to them all, in the end.

But I am sure you know what "picking the righ moments" means. It means they have a choice and to have the choice means you have to be prepared to run for ever. When people go for broke against those guys, it's not because they are tired, it's because they know they will be tired soon if they keep rallying with them. A lot has to do with peceived fitness....knowing you strength is your shot making ability and that the more the rally and match goes on the less likely you will be able to pull a winner. Look at Djoko's game. He makes it so clear. Even when he is in a good position to hit a good clean winner, he gives himself teh choice to push teh ball back to force his opponent into more running. What has talent got to do with such types of play.

Because if it wasn't talent, they would all do it and there would be more players contesting the prizes than the same 4 it has been for the last 4 years. Djokovic and Murray don't share the same confidence as others to go for big shots all the time. I have no problems with percentage play, I mean gosh I have done it when I haven't been able to hit a winner for love nor money. For Murray and Djokovic it is their strength. Look at Nadal v Soderling 2009 FO. Look at Soderling's confidence to bash winner after winner. The only time I have ever seen Federer play with confidence like that over Nadal was the WTF 2011.

When I watch Murray and Djokovic in earlier rounds it is formality. The same with Federer. The increased intentisty and aggression only comes out when the quality of the field improves. Yes you will likely see more flashes of brilliance from Federer than the rest.

Of course they can play aggressive....but they play aggressive when their opponent is on the ropes or when they have no other choice (essentially v Federer). But this is not how they win their bread and butter points. We are all talking percentage here. We can also say they go to the net sometimes....it doesn't make them SVers.

Well yes I agree, but like I said Murray and Djokovic have the talent to play very expansive and aggressive tennis, but the self belief required to play that consistently is another thing. Look at the Agassi/Sampras rivalry. If Agassi had 1-2 more ounces of self-belief he could've demolished Pete.

Yes Murray and Djokovic can venture to the net, it makes the competent, but it is not a tactic they can use point after point. Federer has only in recent time incorporated it into his game as more prominent feature of his game. Djokovic and Murray are not effective volleyers enough to implore such a tactic.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/galleries/2013-01-08/201301071357620881412.html

Somewhere in this tons of muscles...there is talent...so I am told!

If Murray was same size as Nadal, his arm would look bigger.

It's ugly all that muscle!!

He does have talent. Just he has forfeited some of it for mass!!

[quote="legendkillar"]

Because if it wasn't talent, they would all do it

. I am afraid not. It's very clear it's about fitness and the know how of how to get that fit. Djoko and Murray coudl not stay with Nadal...now they can. It's as simple as that. And yes...in 2 years time many more will be as fit as Murray and Djoko but some new "technology" will push the physical barrier even further. Djoko was an asthmatic player who could not last a match v Roddick and Federer....now he can outrun Nadal. What's teh "innate" part in that????

When I watch Murray and Djokovic in earlier rounds it is formality. The same with Federer. The increased intentisty and aggression only comes out when the quality of the field improves. Yes you will likely see more flashes of brilliance from Federer than the rest.

Again I see more brillance in Ljubicic (v Murray) than in Murray.

If Agassi had 1-2 more ounces of self-belief he could've demolished Pete.

Different times. Those were the times Mental strength was almost everything cause physics hardly played a role. Who had the guts to go for more without going for too much.

Yes Murray and Djokovic can venture to the net, it makes the competent, but it is not a tactic they can use point after point. Federer has only in recent time incorporated it into his game as more prominent feature of his game. Djokovic and Murray are not effective volleyers enough to implore such a tactic.

Well I am not saying saying they should go to the net, just that because they go to the net every full moon, doesn't make them SVers. Likewise, their aggressive tennis is not what sums them up. It's their retrieving game and fitness that characterises them...and this is what makes them winners nowadays.

legendkillar wrote:It's ugly all that muscle!!

He does have talent. Just he has forfeited some of it for mass!!

Well that's my very point. His talent compared to all the other players on tour woudl not have made him as successful. But being able to run this big body like Ferrer can while hitting hard pacy balls with the safety (thanks to muscles) is what made him a top player. This pictures speaks more than anything we can talk about. Put his brother Jamie next and see the difference.

I am afraid not. It's very clear it's about fitness and the know how of how to get that fit. Djoko and Murray coudl not stay with Nadal...now they can. It's as simple as that. And yes...in 2 years time many more will be as fit as Murray and Djoko but some new "technology" will push the physical barrier even further. Djoko was an asthmatic player who could not last a match v Roddick and Federer....now he can outrun Nadal. What's teh "innate" part in that????

So essentially what do their fitness comes down to? Genetics or talent? Or for an even dirtier word, drugs? this is the whole thing, if it is not talent and it's not genetics we are leaving it open to something sinister which again if they can do so can the rest. Was the Nadal of 2011 fitter than the 2008, 2010 model? I don't think he was. The 2011 Djokovic pushed himself to the very limit and played phenominal tennis. He hasn't re-captured that form. The thing with Djokovic he wasted a good 1-2 years by trying so many different things before settling on the fundementals that won him his first Slam. Same with Murray. Wasted so much of their careers chasing a different path rather than sticking with a formula which made them a top player. Look at Roddick. I believe if he didn't go on the quest to try and blast Roger from the court that he might have had better success if hadn't soley focused on force.

Well I am not saying saying they should go to the net, just that because they go to the net every full moon, doesn't make them SVers. Likewise, their aggressive tennis is not what sums them up. It's their retrieving game and fitness that characterises them...and this is what makes them winners nowadays.

I don't ever envisage Djokovic or Murray becoming SVer's, only with age once the legs get slower. The talent for today's game is being able ro rally for long periods. Requires yes fitness, but also a mental strength to maintain the discipline. Like I say, not the most eye catching talent, but a talent none the less.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's ugly all that muscle!!

He does have talent. Just he has forfeited some of it for mass!!

Well that's my very point. His talent compared to all the other players on tour woudl not have made him as successful. But being able to run this big body like Ferrer can while hitting hard pacy balls with the safety (thanks to muscles) is what made him a top player. This pictures speaks more than anything we can talk about. Put his brother Jamie next and see the difference.

I would like to ask Murray that when setting out to become a tennis player did he ever think he would end up looking like body builder to play the game

legendkillar wrote:
So essentially what do their fitness comes down to? Genetics or talent? Or for an even dirtier word, drugs? this is the whole thing, if it is not talent and it's not genetics we are leaving it open to something sinister which again if they can do so can the rest. Was the Nadal of 2011 fitter than the 2008, 2010 model? I don't think he was. The 2011 Djokovic pushed himself to the very limit and played phenominal tennis. He hasn't re-captured that form. The thing with Djokovic he wasted a good 1-2 years by trying so many different things before settling on the fundementals that won him his first Slam. Same with Murray. Wasted so much of their careers chasing a different path rather than sticking with a formula which made them a top player. Look at Roddick. I believe if he didn't go on the quest to try and blast Roger from the court that he might have had better success if hadn't soley focused on force.

All that fitness could be put in its rightful place by changing conditions of play, just balancing all the parameters out a bit, everyone would benefit: players would last longer and enjoy their careers more, fans would watch more interesting tennis.
Having said that, funny when Fed came on the scene and started dominating like nobody before him, annihilating everyone even before the opponents stepped on the court, it was a bit boring, a one man show.
Maybe that's why they slowed it all down, when Nadal turned up, milked it with all his might. 2010 was just so bad/bleak tennis-future wise. In "short":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3c4o-7PH44

The joy of dancing turned into a nightmare. This clip sums it up for me why I can't watch Nadal/Murray -Djokovic slam matches

I don't think it was boring when Federer swept the competition to one side. When we look at talented players like Ljubicic, Blake, Davy and Nalby we essentially come back to the same issue. Lack of consistency. Don't get me wrong lovely players to watch, but limited by consistency. I lose the count the amount of times watching Ljuby and Davy on so many occasions try and force the issue in a match and literally hit themselves out of the match with a wave of UE's.

Djokovic and Murray have yes limited the margins for error, but change the conds and they would struggle.

legendkillar wrote:I don't think it was boring when Federer swept the competition to one side. When we look at talented players like Ljubicic, Blake, Davy and Nalby we essentially come back to the same issue. Lack of consistency. Don't get me wrong lovely players to watch, but limited by consistency. I lose the count the amount of times watching Ljuby and Davy on so many occasions try and force the issue in a match and literally hit themselves out of the match with a wave of UE's.

Djokovic and Murray have yes limited the margins for error, but change the conds and they would struggle.

Federer is a player who doesn't need the opposition in order to be enjoyed (probably the only one), still if you love tennis you've got to love seeing a battle and there was very little of that going on with him being so superior.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't think it was boring when Federer swept the competition to one side. When we look at talented players like Ljubicic, Blake, Davy and Nalby we essentially come back to the same issue. Lack of consistency. Don't get me wrong lovely players to watch, but limited by consistency. I lose the count the amount of times watching Ljuby and Davy on so many occasions try and force the issue in a match and literally hit themselves out of the match with a wave of UE's.

Djokovic and Murray have yes limited the margins for error, but change the conds and they would struggle.

Federer is a player who doesn't need the opposition in order to be enjoyed (probably the only one), still if you love tennis you've got to love seeing a battle and there was very little of that going on with him being so superior.

Why yes there is nothing like watching the Maestro in full flow.

Yes I like a battle and I think the Djokovic/Nadal battles of 2011 were actually entertaining from the perspective that Djokovic dominated and bullied Nadal as it were and Nadal to his credit didn't just lie down. 2012 and beyond just became the marathon year for matches which I think exhausted everyone playing and watching!

legendkillar wrote:
So essentially what do their fitness comes down to? Genetics or talent? Or for an even dirtier word, drugs? this is the whole thing, if it is not talent and it's not genetics we are leaving it open to something sinister which again if they can do so can the rest.

It doesn't matter what we have got to leave it to. It's life LK. Nothing else. Professional sport requires professional measures. In 2013 you cannot expect the physical side of the sport to be left to "mother nature". And besides you don;t have to believe it's illegal drugs...just science....and science has nothing to do with the player's "innate" talent.

Was the Nadal of 2011 fitter than the 2008, 2010 model? I don't think he was.

Of course he was even fitter in 2011. If it wasn;t for Djoko, He would have won 3 slams (maybe 4 if not injured) and all the TMS you coudl think of. That's what I fiond bizarre with your jedgement, you even judge someone's fitness by his results but clearly tennis is a game where the opponent has a big say. And Djoko simply took off physically and challenged Nadal by playing a more energy efficient game (not difficult) thanks to amazing acquired fitness himself.

The 2011 Djokovic pushed himself to the very limit and played phenominal tennis. He hasn't re-captured that form.

Again it's not up to him only and even when he dominated 2011, there were a lot of very close matches which meant he never quite distanced himself from the rest like Borg, Lendl and Federer could in their prime.

The thing with Djokovic he wasted a good 1-2 years by trying so many different things before settling on the fundementals that won him his first Slam. Same with Murray. Wasted so much of their careers chasing a different path rather than sticking with a formula which made them a top player. Look at Roddick. I believe if he didn't go on the quest to try and blast Roger from the court that he might have had better success if hadn't soley focused on force.

I don;t think they wasted anything. They had been talking about getting fitter since 2007 and they "worked" hard to get there. If anything Djoko's shot got poorer (less risky) and his fitness got better in the meantime. That is what makes the difference now.

I don't ever envisage Djokovic or Murray becoming SVer's, only with age once the legs get slower.

Those 2 will get nowhere once they lose a step. Like Nadal. They have not got the talent to win like Fed without being 120%. And their career end will prove my point. They will not win anything after 27. You have read it here first.

Those 2 will get nowhere once they lose a step. Like Nadal.

==========================

And I should add like Chang, Borg, Wilander, Hewitt, Bruguera etc....Muster being the only exception thanks to having rested all his prime years.

It doesn't matter what we have got to leave it to. It's life LK. Nothing else. Professional sport requires professional measures. In 2013 you cannot expect the physical side of the sport to be left to "mother nature". And besides you don;t have to believe it's illegal drugs...just science....and science has nothing to do with the player's "innate" talent.

Well no. You are admant that fitness is not a talent or genetics. Nothing like fitness is intangible Ten. It can be measured. There are those who are fit and those who are not. Simply Murray and Djokovic can play shots that the others can't and that does come down to talent. It cannot be dismissed as an entity that is so simple and yet immeasurable and difficult to replicate.

Of course he was even fitter in 2011. If it wasn;t for Djoko, He would have won 3 slams (maybe 4 if not injured) and all the TMS you coudl think of. That's what I fiond bizarre with your jedgement, you even judge someone's fitness by his results but clearly tennis is a game where the opponent has a big say. And Djoko simply took off physically and challenged Nadal by playing a more energy efficient game (not difficult) thanks to amazing acquired fitness himself.

What I saw with Nadal was what I saw in Federer. Fear. Come the US Open Nadal was not pushing himself anywhere near the lengths he was in 2010. For me he looked a step slower because Djokovic if anything shortened the rallies they engaged in. Rome and Madrid for me are classic examples of this.

Again it's not up to him only and even when he dominated 2011, there were a lot of very close matches which meant he never quite distanced himself from the rest like Borg, Lendl and Federer could in their prime.

The results may have looked close, but the matches Djokovic looked a class apart.

I don;t think they wasted anything. They had been talking about getting fitter since 2007 and they "worked" hard to get there. If anything Djoko's shot got poorer (less risky) and his fitness got better in the meantime. That is what makes the difference now.

There was Djokovic who tinkered with his serve when he didn't need to. His focus and mindset were not in the same place. Frankly he was battling himself between 2009-2010 and it was evident in his attitude. Murray wasted time with MaClaghan and Correjta and despite getting fitter didn't change anything in his overall game. It has only been since then he has utilised his FH more. When players tinker with such elements it takes time.

Those 2 will get nowhere once they lose a step. Like Nadal. They have not got the talent to win like Fed without being 120%. And their career end will prove my point. They will not win anything after 27. You have read it here first.

Nadal is the interesting case because it is only recently he has declined in a big way. Granted I agree that Murray and Djokovic with their current tennis won't age like a fine wine, but looking at Ferrer there are lessons their depending on their health and stamina in general.

legendkillar wrote:Well no. You are admant that fitness is not a talent or genetics. Nothing like fitness is intangible Ten. It can be measured. There are those who are fit and those who are not. Simply Murray and Djokovic can play shots that the others can't and that does come down to talent. It cannot be dismissed as an entity that is so simple and yet immeasurable and difficult to replicate.

Well clearly you do not want to see it. There are those who are naturally fit, those who are not. Sure. But in professional sport there are those who are naturally fit and become fitter and those who are not that fit who become very fit too, if not fitter than the innately fit. No-one can come to the fitness level needed to reach the top without the hard work, so Djoko and Murray's fitness is not natural cause clearly they did not have it in their youth. I cannot remember a journalist praising Djoko and Murray's fitness when they were 20.

What I saw with Nadal was what I saw in Federer. Fear. Come the US Open Nadal was not pushing himself anywhere near the lengths he was in 2010. For me he looked a step slower because Djokovic if anything shortened the rallies they engaged in. Rome and Madrid for me are classic examples of this.

Yes teh fear that Djoko, like Nadal v Federer, was not getting tired and coudl go on for ever. What woudl Federer be scared of if not Nadal's fitness? If Federer was scared why would he almost always start the strongest player v Nadal and then...panick while ahead, him known to be such a good front runner? Same with Nadal v Djokovic, Nadal was the one leading in IW and MIami 2011. I can't think why suddenly while leading he woudl be scared. I am afraid your point is not cutting it.

The results may have looked close, but the matches Djokovic looked a class apart.

That's exactly what I disagree with. The matches looked very very close....but the streak of invincibilty was certainly impressive. 2 different things.

There was Djokovic who tinkered with his serve when he didn't need to. His focus and mindset were not in the same place. Frankly he was battling himself between 2009-2010 and it was evident in his attitude. Murray wasted time with MaClaghan and Correjta and despite getting fitter didn't change anything in his overall game. It has only been since then he has utilised his FH more. When players tinker with such elements it takes time.

At the end of the day if you look at the players of the tour objectively, There is nothing that distinguish Murray and Djoko's groundstrokes from the rest. Quite teh opposite if anything. They legs and lungs however certainly makes the difference.

Nadal is the interesting case because it is only recently he has declined in a big way. Granted I agree that Murray and Djokovic with their current tennis won't age like a fine wine, but looking at Ferrer there are lessons their depending on their health and stamina in general.

Nadal was actually better in 2011 and even 2012 than ever. He admits it himself. But again the opposition caught up. Look at 2010, Nadal's best season and check his tennis...certainly not as good as 2011 and this was confirmed by a few tennis commentators....and Nadal himself. But again we have to disregard results to have an objective view cause unlike running against the clock, tennis play against each other and the opponents have their say in the results. YOu are not saying that Djoko only won everythng cause Nadal went down a notch....likewise, Nadal did not win everything cause possibly Djoko went up a few gears...especially physically.