Roger Federer

There is useless to speak much about that player. He has set tennis etalon forever and the day when he will say goodbye to tennis should be declaired as the Day of tennis mourning by ATP.
It is obvious that his back is going to hamper him from other great wins. His loss to Benny is not a big loss in his career, but I see this as a break point in his thinking. I hope and think that Fed will cut off an amount of clay sessions and focus on Wimbledon, where he has his chances. I really can not see the probable to see Roger play after 2014 unless there is a miracle with his back. Let's see what US hard courts will bring us and enjoy his beautiful game.

Somebody must get in touch in Fed and tell him about my hula-hoop backache fix

noleisthebest wrote:Somebody must get in touch in Fed and tell him about my hula-hoop backache fix

You can send him a letter to his address. I believe that is ( or was) available on his official web site

paulcz wrote:There is useless to speak much about that player. He has set tennis etalon forever and the day when he will say goodbye to tennis should be declaired as the Day of tennis mourning by ATP.
It is obvious that his back is going to hamper him from other great wins. His loss to Benny is not a big loss in his career, but I see this as a break point in his thinking. I hope and think that Fed will cut off an amount of clay sessions and focus on Wimbledon, where he has his chances. I really can not see the probable to see Roger play after 2014 unless there is a miracle with his back. Let's see what US hard courts will bring us and enjoy his beautiful game.

His clay season is already short with only 3 tournaments in his schedule. About the loss at Rotterdam, its no big deal actually. If he had lost to Delpo it would have been of higher significance as it would have been 3rd consecutive loss to him. Benn had his win due, so Fed should be okay with the result especially with the performance both put in the QF.

As time goes on Fed will have more off days, its expected.

He says the problem with his back can come and go....but it seems nowadays it comes more than it goes.

What scary is that he doesn't play much nowadays. I found it very bzarre that he entered teh AO without having a warm up tournament....not even Kooyoung. I think his back is worse than we thought.

He was also serve volleying on every point almost in his matches in Rotterdham...clearly to cut the running.

To me , his backache is most telling the way he serves.

Will he now play Dubai?? I won't be surprised if he pulls out.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Will he now play Dubai?? I won't be surprised if he pulls out.

I think he'll play. The cash incentive (is their still such a concept in his life in fact?) should be enough.
He will also want to keep on top of his ranking for Wimbledon, esp as he is not playing Miami.

I think in Rotterdam, it was more rust than the backache, or simply lack of motivation.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:His clay season is already short with only 3 tournaments in his schedule. About the loss at Rotterdam, its no big deal actually. If he had lost to Delpo it would have been of higher significance as it would have been 3rd consecutive loss to him. Benn had his win due, so Fed should be okay with the result especially with the performance both put in the QF.

As time goes on Fed will have more off days, its expected.

Quite agree. I can see Fed to tank a match in RG when his body or the draw will not go with him. Wimbledon must be his only target this year.

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Will he now play Dubai?? I won't be surprised if he pulls out.

I think he'll play. The cash incentive (is their still such a concept in his life in fact?) should be enough.
He will also want to keep on top of his ranking for Wimbledon, esp as he is not playing Miami.

I think in Rotterdam, it was more rust than the backache, or simply lack of motivation.

That is the right point, which is worth thinking about. These two things are difficult to recognize fully or rather sizes of their effects. When you are not 100 percent fit, then it is always a big struggle with mind and focus. I still think that if his body works well for him, motivation should not be a problem. Every other a GS win would overwrite history. But Fed´s face showed at AO, that he does not feel well with his body.
On other hand it is hardly believable that Fed is so long on the top, the amount of serves and BL hits with such a swing must have effects to his body.

Interesting observaton of Federer from Raonic:


While discussing the toughest shots he’s faced in tennis, Milos Raonic says Roger Federer’s combination of his backhand slice and forehand, and the way he uses them together, has put him over the top.

"The slice looks like easy to return, but he hits it cross short enough so it’s not a drop shot you can comfortably come in on, but short enough to bring you in. He keeps it low, so if you go down the line your margin of error is high, and if you go cross he’s waiting with the rest of the court open. Even if you go at him you are backpedalling. I’ve sort of fared pretty well against it, but it’s what has gotten Roger through a lot of Grand Slams.”

noleisthebest wrote:Interesting observaton of Federer from Raonic:


While discussing the toughest shots he’s faced in tennis, Milos Raonic says Roger Federer’s combination of his backhand slice and forehand, and the way he uses them together, has put him over the top.

"The slice looks like easy to return, but he hits it cross short enough so it’s not a drop shot you can comfortably come in on, but short enough to bring you in. He keeps it low, so if you go down the line your margin of error is high, and if you go cross he’s waiting with the rest of the court open. Even if you go at him you are backpedalling. I’ve sort of fared pretty well against it, but it’s what has gotten Roger through a lot of Grand Slams.”

Milos is right, Fed's slices are very tricky for him, because he is quite tall and sort of a stiff. His body constitution will hamper him to play long matches/many rallies. Although he has improved his timing and body swiftness, he still needs to add up a bit more in this area. When his serve fades out, his BL game is very fragile. I can not see Rao will play such a BL game as Delpo or Berdych, he is a bit clumsy. I would compare him with Richard Krajicek.
Wimbledon and BO3 hard fast surfaces will make him very strong though.

Having seen a part match of Fed with Denis and Mory/Harri, I believe that if Fed body lasts out, then he has surely a chance against Mory. Fed must have an extra motivation, he defends the title. At the moment I am with Fed over Mory in their potential QF.
Mory's match showed that he can play moonballing on each surface. Although the surface is not the fastest, on the condition Fed's serve and move is there, I am with him.

paulcz wrote:Having seen a part match of Fed with Denis and Mory/Harri, I believe that if Fed body lasts out, then he has surely a chance against Mory. Fed must have an extra motivation, he defends the title. At the moment I am with Fed over Mory in their potential QF.
Mory's match showed that he can play moonballing on each surface. Although the surface is not the fastest, on the condition Fed's serve and move is there, I am with him.

But still 3 aces and 2 DFs in his short 2 setter is not good enough. He coudl have beaten Berdych like that as he got 3 MPs last week but it simply is not the normal Federer.

What is interesting is that it contradicts a bit the view that without his serve he is useless.

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:Having seen a part match of Fed with Denis and Mory/Harri, I believe that if Fed body lasts out, then he has surely a chance against Mory. Fed must have an extra motivation, he defends the title. At the moment I am with Fed over Mory in their potential QF.
Mory's match showed that he can play moonballing on each surface. Although the surface is not the fastest, on the condition Fed's serve and move is there, I am with him.

But still 3 aces and 2 DFs in his short 2 setter is not good enough. He coudl have beaten Berdych like that as he got 3 MPs last week but it simply is not the normal Federer.

What is interesting is that it contradicts a bit the view that without his serve he is useless.

Aces do not say the complete picture about serve at all. Fed with Denis won 96% of the first serve and 70% of the 2^nd. Fed won 25/26 of the 1^st serve. This is quite impressive serve statistics and one of the best on this level. In addition to that Denis is not bad returner and has a good long arms. No contradiction with his serve at all.


Otherwise Berd is better returner than Denis, he puts much more pressure on Fed, so their matchup is different story.

paulcz wrote:Otherwise Berd is better returner than Denis, he puts much more pressure on Fed, so their matchup is different story.

Right but despite serving poorly Federer had 3 MPS v Berdych.

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:Otherwise Berd is better returner than Denis, he puts much more pressure on Fed, so their matchup is different story.

Right but despite serving poorly Federer had 3 MPS v Berdych.

Not poor, but not great either and it made the difference. On the top Fed played on his favorite surface, which was not Berd case.

I think Berdych quite like the fast surface too. And Having your best surface but being hampered by the back doesn;t help does it?

Tenez wrote:I think Berdych quite like the fast surface too. And Having your best surface but being hampered by the back doesn;t help does it?

To be a bit slower then it is surely better for Berd. Berd has not been an easy matchup for Fed. Yes, that is nice to speculate about how much it hampers Fed. On the other hand Fed plays and says that he is ok or does not complain about it. If he really struggled then he would not play. Fed's approach is quite opposite against another player, who claims how he is injured and runs and moonball as nobody.

Having suffered through the first set Fed vs. Nadal, it was quite enough not to be completely mourned by Fed' performance. The match was worse than their RG final in 2008 and was predestined from the 1^st point of the match. Although Fed's game is limited by his back trouble, he lost the match in his head before he appeared on the court. IMO, he should not have played that match. All true tennis fans appreciate Fed's game and now have to suffer by his poor attitude to his greatest opponent, who was out of the game for 7 months of the year and played only two matches on hc. It is very sad to say but it would be better not only for Fed but mainly for all his fans to see him leave than to see him play like that. Nadal swept out with Fed and was better in all aspects of the match, but amount of aces. Only under par Fed's serve kept up him with Nadal in the 1^st set. It looked like as if their roles were completely exchanged unlike what we used to see in the past.
It is better not to imagine how would their match look like on the clay. So, my question is, is it necessary for Fed to go on playing like that? Will not these matches ruin his great achievements and people will talk more about his suffering with Nadal than his great tally of GS?

It is very difficult for such a successful player to say tennis goodbye, but the worse thing is if a player is not able to recognize when his time has arrived.

I am convinced that Fed is clever enough to consider his situation and we will not see him playing after 2014.

paulcz wrote: So, my question is, is it necessary for Fed to go on playing like that? Will not these matches ruin his great achievements and people will talk more about his suffering with Nadal than his great tally of GS?

Nah, I don't think that Federer continuing to play poorly will diminish his legacy and his incredible achievements. However, a reality of Federer's resume, is his poor record against his main rival, it is not the end of the world for Federer, and his many achievements outweigh his poor h2h against Nadal, but, it is a weakness nonetheless. We as Fed fans have to accept the bad with the good.

paulcz wrote:Having suffered through the first set Fed vs. Nadal, it was quite enough not to be completely mourned by Fed' performance. The match was worse than their RG final in 2008 and was predestined from the 1^st point of the match. Although Fed's game is limited by his back trouble, he lost the match in his head before he appeared on the court. IMO, he should not have played that match. All true tennis fans appreciate Fed's game and now have to suffer by his poor attitude to his greatest opponent, who was out of the game for 7 months of the year and played only two matches on hc. It is very sad to say but it would be better not only for Fed but mainly for all his fans to see him leave than to see him play like that. Nadal swept out with Fed and was better in all aspects of the match, but amount of aces. Only under par Fed's serve kept up him with Nadal in the 1^st set. It looked like as if their roles were completely exchanged unlike what we used to see in the past.
It is better not to imagine how would their match look like on the clay. So, my question is, is it necessary for Fed to go on playing like that? Will not these matches ruin his great achievements and people will talk more about his suffering with Nadal than his great tally of GS?

It is very difficult for such a successful player to say tennis goodbye, but the worse thing is if a player is not able to recognize when his time has arrived.

I am convinced that Fed is clever enough to consider his situation and we will not see him playing after 2014.

I'm sure Fed knows what he's doing. His tennis is as good as ever, bar the back problem. If the back was healthy, he'd be fighting for number one again, even with 100% fit Nadal around.
I hope he manages to heal it somehow.

He is too young to retire

[quote="noleisthebest

I'm sure Fed knows what he's doing. His tennis is as good as ever, bar the back problem. If the back was healthy, he'd be fighting for number one again, even with 100% fit Nadal around.
I hope he manages to heal it somehow.

He is too young to retire [/quote]



No it is not, and no he would not. I respectfully disagree with you here.

So, my question is, is it necessary for Fed to go on playing like that?

I guess not, unless he loves the game so much and accepts the pain and the fact he can't no longer win anything of importance. It's up to him.

Will not these matches ruin his great achievements and people will talk
more about his suffering with Nadal than his great tally of GS?

We've been hearing that for more than 6 years. The world is full of idiots

I am convinced that Fed is clever enough to consider his situation and we will not see him playing after 2014.

His legacy is safe, don't worry. I still enjoy watching him play, even this year he's been the most exiting playing to me. The real magic still only comes form this man's racket, simple as that. I just turn off the tv when he loses.

I said it when i observed him from close in Rotterdam last month: he's no longer chasing records, this is his farewell tour. It may last for 2 years but also 6 months.

(BTW: Krajicek noticed it too, he said he will only book Federer next year if he's still a contender for the top spot. He said that last year the Federer management wanted a early booking but Krajicek said that that's not going to happen this time. It's a one million euro fee after all.. )

BlueClay wrote:[quote="noleisthebest

I'm sure Fed knows what he's doing. His tennis is as good as ever, bar the back problem. If the back was healthy, he'd be fighting for number one again, even with 100% fit Nadal around.
I hope he manages to heal it somehow.

He is too young to retire

No it is not, and no he would not. I respectfully disagree with you here.

Yes it IS !

gallery play wrote:

His legacy is safe, don't worry. I still enjoy watching him play, even this year he's been the most exiting playing to me. The real magic still only comes form this man's racket, simple as that. I just turn off the tv when he loses.

I said it when i observed him from close in Rotterdam last month: he's no longer chasing records, this is his farewell tour. It may last for 2 years but also 6 months.

(BTW: Krajicek noticed it too, he said he will only book Federer next year if he's still a contender for the top spot. He said that last year the Federer management wanted a early booking but Krajicek said that that's not going to happen this time. It's a one million euro fee after all.. )

Here's a comment someone left on tennis.com this morning:

"I would rather watch Roger play hurt than watch most players on their A game"

BlueClay wrote:

paulcz wrote: So, my question is, is it necessary for Fed to go on playing like that? Will not these matches ruin his great achievements and people will talk more about his suffering with Nadal than his great tally of GS?

Nah, I don't think that Federer continuing to play poorly will diminish his legacy and his incredible achievements. However, a reality of Federer's resume, is his poor record against his main rival, it is not the end of the world for Federer, and his many achievements outweigh his poor h2h against Nadal, but, it is a weakness nonetheless. We as Fed fans have to accept the bad with the good.

Fed is too smug to continue on tour loosing in such an awful style. In regard to his great achievements these losses have enourmous impact to his legacy and fans. If he starts loosing with players out of Top 10, then his process to his retirement is coming soon.

paulcz wrote:

Fed is too smug to continue on tour loosing in such an awful style. In regard to his great achievements these losses have enourmous impact to his legacy and fans. If he starts loosing with players out of Top 10, then his process to his retirement is coming soon.

I disagree here. Although he has his arrogance, when it comes to tennis and playing it, I think he loves it more than winning. Nadal is opposite.
His actual tennis is fine, back is the only problem.
If you were in his shoes you wouldn't want to stop doing something you are so good at and love and enjoy so much "just" because of a bad back.
We don't know how bad it really is, but it must be manageable if he is still playing.

Fans around the world love watching him play and most are not that bothered about him winning any more. At least I am not. Any extra trophies would be just a bonus.

I just with media and journalists would get off his back and stop hassling him about retirement....I get the impression Fed would be quite happy to play even in top 20 if he felt his game was good.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:[quote="noleisthebest

I'm sure Fed knows what he's doing. His tennis is as good as ever, bar the back problem. If the back was healthy, he'd be fighting for number one again, even with 100% fit Nadal around.
I hope he manages to heal it somehow.

He is too young to retire

No it is not, and no he would not. I respectfully disagree with you here.

Yes it IS !

LMAO!

paulcz



<p>Fed is too smug to continue on tour loosing in such an awful style. In regard to his great achievements these losses have enourmous impact to his legacy and fans. If he starts loosing with players out of Top 10, then his process to his retirement is coming soon.

<p>Could be, we will see how it goes for him in the near future.

noleisthebest wrote:
I disagree here. Although he has his arrogance, when it comes to tennis and playing it, I think he loves it more than winning. Nadal is opposite.
His actual tennis is fine, back is the only problem.

I just with media and journalists would get off his back and stop hassling him about retirement....I get the impression Fed would be quite happy to play even in top 20 if he felt his game was good.

I don't agree with any of the highlighted parts. If Federer continues to lose to clowns like Benneteau on a regular basis, he won't play that much longer. I for sure do not see Federer making it to the 2016 Olympics, i think that is silly. I also think that Federer loves winning just as much as he loves tennis. I also definitely do not think that the back is the only issue. We have seen Federer's inconsistency for years now and it will only get worse. Sure he can still come out and play more brilliantly than anybody else at times, but those times are few and far between because of his age.

gallery play wrote:
His legacy is safe, don't worry. I still enjoy watching him play, even this year he's been the most exiting playing to me. The real magic still only comes form this man's racket, simple as that. I just turn off the tv when he loses.

I said it when i observed him from close in Rotterdam last month: he's no longer chasing records, this is his farewell tour. It may last for 2 years but also 6 months.

(BTW: Krajicek noticed it too, he said he will only book Federer next year if he's still a contender for the top spot. He said that last year the Federer management wanted a early booking but Krajicek said that that's not going to happen this time. It's a one million euro fee after all.. )

GP, no worries at all. I am sure that even in 5 years we would admire his shots. I did not want to open money topic on this, but surely it plays a big role and Richard did a good decision for sure.
It is up to Fed, if he decides to play for money and "joy" without a potential to succeed. People are still keen on watching him, so my question aimed to how many such heavy losses we will see before Fed's retirement. I think that Fed should be beyond money in regard to his legacy and fans.

BlueClay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

I'm sure Fed knows what he's doing. His tennis is as good as ever, bar the back problem. If the back was healthy, he'd be fighting for number one again, even with 100% fit Nadal around.
I hope he manages to heal it somehow.

He is too young to retire

No it is not, and no he would not. I respectfully disagree with you here.

I agree with NITB here. He is playing pretty rarely nowadays, can't get a rhythm, yet he plays with half a back of and can still beat or annoy the best players. Imagine if he had no back issue at all and could play his full schedule.

I was amazed as how he beat Stan while clearly be hampered. Nadal woudl have retired with a back like that and coudl simply not win a single point. He still has amazing skills compensating for a poor mobility. And look at Wimbledon 2012...he had just 2 healthy rounds and managed to find that amazing level so quickly...imagine with no back issue at all....

Now saying he woudl be better than in 2009/2010 difficult to say, I think none of us would have the eyes sharp enough to notice a decline in speed and reflexes. He should still play very well.

Likewise, I am not bother by Federer losing...to Nadal or Benetteau, nor Granollers.

If Laver, Borg, Pete had kept playing they woudl have lost every single match till today. They woudl still have the Ws and trophies. That is what counts.

Shoudl have Murray retired after his USO?

Losing is irrelevant. H2Hs will say what they say. That Fed had problems most of the time handling Nadal power. Those more keen to know will find out other factors such as strange draws, ridiculous slow courts suddenly all over the tour, and strange diets allowing players to run for ever.

But those H2Hs will also say that on a good day even if they were rare, Nadal was simply reduce to a spectator.

I am glad that, Federer, despite all that he has achieved so far, still has the hunger to compete, and get up after his losses, dust himself off, and play again against the same people. Very admirable. I expect him to play Rio 2016 (on Clay).

@T.. In some way, I consider Borg weak-minded later in his career, where he could not handle defeat, as well as did victory. And that to after reading If every time he walked into W.

laverfan wrote:@T.. In some way, I consider Borg weak-minded later in his career, where he could not handle defeat, as well as did victory. And that to after reading If every time he walked into W.

Well again you are only as strong mentally as your weapons are strong. Be it McEnroe able to base his game on Borg's one D game, or Lendl starting at 20 to challenge the great Borg on clay thanks to a powerful FH, Borg certainly started to doubt about his ability like they all do at some stage.

I understood that it was not the sole reason for Borg to leave. he had enough of that high pressure since a very young age and the ATP was not very kind with him asking him to go through qualifying in many events.

As said the strongest mentally are essentially the unassuming (Wilander type) or the bully type (Connors/Becker).

But above all when comparing mental strength we need to incorporate the game style. It;s not teh same taking risk and not taking risk. Murray can explain this perfectly I am sure.

An interesting article on Federer's current state of ranking etc....

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/04/next-few-months-will-tell-us-lot-about-roger-federer/46973/#.UVxQjY7RfzI

Unfortunately Fed is completely out of his sort when playing with Nadal, that their matches have lost status of high attractivity and they are more about if Fed is able to win at least a couple of game points. Nadal is absolutely dominating on the court, there is nothing what Fed can change or think of on as a new thing the court. Fed is completely owned mentally and it is still getting worse. That is pretty bad matchup for the Great. Nearly all our tennis club players have lost their interest to watch their matches.

paulcz wrote:Unfortunately Fed is completely out of his sort when playing with Nadal, that their matches have lost status of high attractivity and they are more about if Fed is able to win at least a couple of game points. Nadal is absolutely dominating on the court, there is nothing what Fed can change or think of on as a new thing the court. Fed is completely owned mentally and it is still getting worse. That is pretty bad matchup for the Great. Nearly all our tennis club players have lost their interest to watch their matches.

I think I have only seen three of those matches: the WTF 2010 final (live, had the ticket bought in advance, was hoping to see Nole ) and this year's IW and now Rome. I never liked Fedal. Manufactured, genetically modified and over-hyped match-up.

noleisthebest wrote:To me , his backache is most telling the way he serves.

Totally agree,and his game largly depends on his first serve
Once that clicks into place,its sets him up for the rest of his grounds strokes,if his serve isnt working,his game seems to implode from unforced errors
His second serve makes him very vulnerable to be broken as he loses more points on his second serve then wins

paulcz wrote: Nearly all our tennis club players have lost their interest to watch their matches.

What took them so long?

gallery play wrote:

paulcz wrote: Nearly all our tennis club players have lost their interest to watch their matches.

What took them so long?

Tbh only a couple of my tennis friends is even able to watch Nadal's matches. I need to admit that I really struggle to watch even Nole's matches with Nadal. That is my the heaviest internal fight to talk myself into watching it. I get scared of watching only a couple of Nadal's pictures

Don't tell me, because Djokovic is such an artiste compared to Nadal?
Haha, of course. This forum is like a parallel, or rather inverse, universe at times.

wilson_nxt wrote:Don't tell me, because Djokovic is such an artiste compared to Nadal?
Haha, of course. This forum is like a parallel, or rather inverse, universe at times.

Of course he is. Anyone is.

Don't tell me, you are secretly into Nadal's forehand....

Not particularly, it can never match the grace or early rise ability of Federer's.
But then neither can Djokovic's ugly almost-Hawaiian FH grip which struggles with low balls or his generic looking i-Robot backhand and wooden putaway-only volleys. He's very effective but completely anodyne to watch in my opinion. As a Fed fan I know which player is capable of more variety. I bet I know the answer Federer himself would give too. However, no point arguing this with the world's biggest Nadal hater, lol

wilson_nxt wrote:Not particularly, it can never match the grace or early rise ability of Federer's.
But then neither can Djokovic's ugly almost-Hawaiian FH grip which struggles with low balls or his generic looking i-Robot backhand and wooden putaway-only volleys. He's very effective but completely anodyne to watch in my opinion. As a Fed fan I know which player is capable of more variety. I bet I know the answer Federer himself would give too. However, no point arguing this with the world's biggest Nadal hater, lol

I knew you were a closet Nadal fan. No need to hide behind what Fed would say....
As far as I am concerned, tennis would have been a lot better and healthier if Nadal had never picked up a racquet. He has done such damage to it, I hope it recovers one day.

I didn't know you felt THAT strongly about it nitb, i knew you didn't like him but this is pure vitriol! Each to their own i guess .

I loved their match ups back in the day, I just hate how easily at times nadal beats feds and I really do not like nadal's tennis but I respect what he has achieved.

luvsports! wrote:I didn't know you felt THAT strongly about it nitb, i knew you didn't like him but this is pure vitriol! Each to their own i guess .

I loved their match ups back in the day, I just hate how easily at times nadal beats feds and I really do not like nadal's tennis but I respect what he has achieved.

I really don't feel it as vitriol. Just the truth. Don't you agree?
Wasn't tennis starting to get back on its feet last year when he was out of competition: courts getting faster, time violation penalty reintroduced/enforced...
Just imagine if he was able to have it his way: 2 years protected ranking, as much time between the points as you like, no hard-courts to protect his knees, no testing in the morning disturbance whatsoever. "Show must go on" type of guy....
Not to mention the "levels" of fitness he took tennis to and all that followed. And draw-rigging. And special super slow layer of sand paint done for him in IW...and million of other things.

Nothing good for me.

Some say he brought tennis popularity. Maybe. But at what cost?

Perhaps Nadal is responsible for global warming, recessions and the Westernised birth rate decline too? Agree with luvsports, this just comes across as bitter vitriol with no rationality about it whatsoever, almost zealotism really. I'm a closet Nadal fan? Hahah, don't make me laugh. Yes I appreciate his overall dedication to the task, he's certainly an overachiever but his legacy isnt a patch on Federer's. No-one can top the mid-photo grace and ability of Roger, the ease of play and ability to always stay calm under pressure. But he's struggling with age and fitter opponents after battling through 3-4 generations of players and amassing more titles and accolades than anyone else ever will. However, if I had to chose between Nadal and Djokovic I'd choose the Spaniard each time because like Roger at least he brings something different/unique to the game with his actual tennis. Roger has his sheer depth of variety, unreal early ball taking, OHBH, crop-cutter backhand slice and top-draw net attacking prowess. Nadal has that crazy 4H spin, banana passing shots and unorthodox 2HBH. What difference does Djokovic bring? Nothing about his game stands out as unique - his 4H and 2HBH are both generic, he cant slice well or handle it either, he cant volley well from midcourt. He's just an unreally fit and flexible roadrunner with generic shots, that's what he does. The only people who appreciate his tennis game are other Serbians or cybertronic researchers. If you wanted to develop a factory machine that could churn out 10,000 square lumps of butter an hour, 365 years a year, you'd call it the Djokovic Dairy machine. Tell me any part of his game that is unique from a tennis perspective that is not linked to his generic gymnastic flexibility or newly found superman fitness?

wilson_nxt wrote:Perhaps Nadal is responsible for global warming, recessions and the Westernised birth rate decline too? Agree with luvsports, this just comes across as bitter vitriol with no rationality about it whatsoever, almost zealotism really. I'm a closet Nadal fan? Hahah, don't make me laugh. Yes I appreciate his overall dedication to the task, he's certainly an overachiever but his legacy isnt a patch on Federer's. No-one can top the mid-photo grace and ability of Roger, the ease of play and ability to always stay calm under pressure. But he's struggling with age and fitter opponents after battling through 3-4 generations of players and amassing more titles and accolades than anyone else ever will. However, if I had to chose between Nadal and Djokovic I'd choose the Spaniard each time because like Roger at least he brings something different/unique to the game. Roger has his sheer depth of variety, unreal early ball taking, OHBH, crop-cutter backhand slice and top-draw net attacking prowess. Nadal has that crazy 4H spin, banana passing shots and unorthodox 2HBH. What difference does Djokovic bring? Nothing about his game stands out as unique - his 4H and 2HBH are both generic, he cant slice well or handle it either, he cant volley well from midcourt. He's just an unreally fit and flexible roadrunner with generic shots, that's what he does. The only people who appreciate his tennis game are other Serbians or cybertronic researchers. If you wanted to develop a factory machine that could churn out 10,000 square lumps of butter an hour, 365 years a year, you'd call it the Djokovic Dairy machine. Tell me any part of his game that is unique from a tennis perspective that is not linked to his generic gymnastic flexibility or newly found superman fitness?

Good question and I understand where you are coming from.
It's unfair to compare him to Roger, it's unfair to compare anyone to him for that matter.

Personally, I love the way he plays the game with that mad intensity and tons of heart and grit, to me it's quite inspirational, the way he doesn't let you breath in a point with his court-coverage, and I don't mean the retreiving bit. His game has been changing over the years, not a lot to those who watch him in the finals against Nadal, though.
I do find his shots quite elegant, as well, he is a well-balanced athlete and quite coordinated in his movement.

With Nadal, for me EVERYTHING is a turn-off. The ugly FH, the vulgar grunting, the antics, the cowardly, bullying game....just to mention a few