Re: Ask Tenez Thread

[Tenez]

Fantastic piece Ten.

I think it takes an insight such as that to highlight the massive weaknessesin the system. No problem with the belief in juniors selection of country to develop. You would have to say it must be a consideration if parents have that knowledge and are exposed to doping early on.

What is the FFT's view on developing youngsters who are not French?

Very easy. With €60/year (maybe a bit more nowadays) you are part of the team. No need of a passport ...ask Bagdhatis. A pure French product.

Again the problem is that the FFT is not that good to take those multiple great players from satellite level to Grand slams. But it's also a French mentality problem. The system guarantees you everything to take your own flight but the French expect help at all levels. A lack of maturity a bit (Gasquet, Monfils being typical of wasted careers). They like to show off and entertain but don't realise they shoudl be killers in their own ways. That is the fact they were supported all their lives by the LTA and can't fly on their own.

Murray, Djoko are much more mature. I have always said that...even when Murray's biggest fans were saying that he was weak mentally and immature. Always teh opposite for me.

[noleisthebest]

Just watching livescores ( ) and Paire manages to lose a 5:2 lead to LLodra who is currently beating him in the tie-break.
He has lost too many matches now in which he was ahead.

He seems to have no problem starting focused, but then drops it and it costs him matches very often.
Novak used to be like that (although never as bad), but is now able to come back.
Clearly a problem in the head.

What kind of problem is it? What do you think goes on in his head not to be able to recognise and stop the loss of focus?
Do you think it's fixable?
It would be such a shame for him not to build on his game and talent.
Reminds me a bit of Dolgopolov who stubbornly plays his ultra attacking game and implodes if it's not working.
Paire is not quite the same, but there seems to be a valid comparison between the two.

[Tenez]

Very easy to choke crossing the line. And once you have it makes the problem worse next time around. The key is never to think about the score. That is what they learn more or less. Remember Rao not realising that he was MP down v Tsonga last week?

For Praire the problem is made worse every time and I agree he just gets too nervous now.

The good thing is that it can be cured. Fitness helps keep calm in those moments.

[luvsports!]

in the past tenez i have heard you say something along the lines of "if you use a shbh you are more talented."

Why? Isn't that quite presumptuous?
Is it because it is a more difficult skill to pull off? Is it only at the elite level that this is the case? Is it not the case for people at local clubs for example?

[Tenez]

What I was saying is that you cannot be in the top 100 in the world nowadays with a SHBH without being talented while yuo can be with a DHBH without necessarily being as talented.

You may still have a DHBH player more talented than a SHBHer but being SHBH simply proves your talent. While a DHBH is no proof of talent.

It's very simple, a SHBH has a smaller sweet spot and the timing is simply much harder than with a DHBH. Nowadays as tennis is played from teh baseline, the BH is very tested and if you manage to win matches despites having a SHBH means you have a consistent one and to have a consistant SHBH in today's bouncy spiny balls is simply a proof of talent.

It's like if you can run a 100m under 10s you are fast. As simple.

I woudl say the only exception about SHBH being very talented is when you have a very strong serve a la Karlo to compensate but having said that Karlo was pretty talented but his mobility of course was awful.

[luvsports!]

I didn't know that about the smaller sweet spot.
Why is that?
Does this not apply for club players being more talented with shbh?

[Tenez]

Yes if you have 2 hands on the racquet it makes the racquet much more stable and increases the sweetspot considerably, plus you have more consistent power as you can hit flat from that side. A SHBH often has to topspin to allow for less UEs. Just look at Nadal's BH's cross court....it's actually his pacier shots despite not swinging the racquet as much as on his FH.

At club's level it is much less obvious cause a SHBH is not tested like they are on tour.

Look at Alma, Gasquet, Federer, STan...their talent is simply obvious but likewise their fragile BH makes them mentally fragile....Federer gets away cause he is even more talented than them.

[SayonaRa]

Tenez,

As usual, the curious case of nadal invites speculations. some are convinced he doped for the matches he played upon his return last month. Do you think he did? If so, how come he failed to produce the type of "super-natural" quality of serve as he did in 2010 USO final which many claimed to be the result of PEDs?

[Tenez]

That's probably a question for Vee.

I believe that the extra power Nadal had for 2010 was down to steroids as much as EPO. That would certainly give him that extra power on his serve.

However with Nadal, the pace of serve might not be much related to drugs (not anymore anyway). His arm is so big that a simple flat serve should be enough to send the ball over 130mph. What makes it usually slower is the considerable spin he puts into it. SO just a confident Nadal going for more pace woudl make his serve very fast with a good share of aces ....if he feels like it. Problem is that I do believe he is a fearful player and doesn;t fancy having to play too many second serve so he goes for less pace and more spin in his first serve.

So maybe, the difference in his serve is simply a confidence thing. This should improve as he plays more this year.

However I don;t think Nadal can cover as much ground hitting as hard without any "help". And That applies to Delpo also in that final.

[SayonaRa]

Our resident doping expert is busy smashing
unfounded allegations from you-know-who at the moment. So I thought I give him
a break. But seriously, VJ, have you say if you get a chance.

Yes, I agree that confidence and the
spin can definitely be joint mental and technical factors influencing the
quality of his serve. First, we know that the confidence was definitely there.
Nadal was overloaded with it, so much so that he won 3 consecutive titles against
all odds, against all forces of nature.

Not that the serve in question
stopped him winning. Obviously not, but I was just puzzled why the amazing confidence/control
that characterised the rest of his game was not extended to his serve. Rather,
he was being fearful like you said, playing it safe by spinning the ball, taking
pace away from it and reducing risk. Could it be that he feels the pressure
more during serve, as he now has to answer to the new 25 sec rule and only two
hits to get it right, whereas with ground hitting he has unlimited time, power
and fitness to run all day knowing he’ll outlast his opponent without the “help.”

Aslo, I read sometime ago that nadal can never ever have a really good serve because he plays with the left (wrong)
hand. Do you agree?





What do you mean by “That applies to
delpo in that final”?

[Tenez]

Aslo, I read sometime ago that nadal can never ever have a really good serve because he plays with the left (wrong)
hand. Do you agree?

Yes I actually agree. Nadal's game is not designed for the well timed, precise technical shots that you woudl expect from a great server.
His strength is the spin he puts on the ball. A well timed pacy and precise shot requires a different grip than he is used to and a feel you woudl typically expect from your natural hand.

But let's not forget that spending 1 or 2 hours a day for 20 years can certainly get you to get close to that feel. However despite having more power than most players on tour, he doesn't get close to having as good as the best serves out there. I don;t think they ever aimed for it as it was not needed at first.

The 25s rule and tougher opponents certainly makes it a strong requirement to improve in that department.

What do you mean by “That applies to
delpo in that final”?

Delpo is also a player who gets " help". Berdych and many others.....you cannot run as much for as long when you have that kind of big frames. It's amazing how doping has simply become a norm nowadays, a chemical war and you cannot blame them (certainly not the post Nadal era) as if they did not they woudl be sitting like me on a desk and moaning about it. They have no alternative nowadays unless you are as talented as Federer but even him we cannot be too sure. I simply have yet to see obvious signs though.

[wilson_nxt]

.

[Tenez]

I am afraid Wilson but you are wrong there. It's well documented that Nadal says himself he is completely uncapable to do anything with his LH bar playing tennis. An ambidextrious person can do lots of the same thing with with both hands. FOr instance they can play billiard or write with either hand. That is what an ambidextrious person can do. Nadal cannot write nor do anything else as he says himself. He even says he is terrible at it with his LH.

Where do you get the "he woudl not get over 75mph with his LH"? This is I am afraid the typical pre-conceived ideas you hear there and then but which have absolutely no foundation. You have generations of LH who learnt to write with their RH because they were simply told to. And writing requires a huge control of very fine mouvements and timing. And they all managed.

You woudl be amazed to see those who lost their main limb can do with the other even starting late in life after an accident...unlike Nadal who switched at 8yo.

Racquet speed and all that is essentially done to power. If Nadal is so great with timing explain why he has to take the ball so late when the ball slows down so much and get much easier to time?

How do you explain that Kholschriber, your cousin, was able to handle Rosol's pace at Wimbledon by standing much closer than Nadal could and dispatch the giant by sending him back pacy balls? Doesn't that requires real talent...as opposed to big muscles?

[Larry Ellison]

We've already debated the LH vs RH topic.
I did some research and found out that since Nadal was very young he played double handed tennis with his left hand as the stronger hand- ie closer to his body- left handed double handed tennis.
There is a difference between left handed double handed tennis, and right handed double handed tennis. You hold the weaker hand close to the strings/ racket head.
Toni only switched him to double handed left handed to single handed left handed.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument though, that would spoil your desperate attempt to convince everyone that, as the new poster of this forum TMF put it, Nadal is a 'rubbish moonballer.'
P.S. Rosol played the life of his match against Nadal, he could not focus the round after- as is expected really.

[noleisthebest]

We've already debated the LH vs RH topic.
I did some research and found out that since Nadal was very young he played double handed tennis with his left hand as the stronger hand- ie closer to his body- left handed double handed tennis.
There is a difference between left handed double handed tennis, and right handed double handed tennis. You hold the weaker hand close to the strings/ racket head.
Toni only switched him to double handed left handed to single handed left handed.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument though, that would spoil your desperate attempt to convince everyone that, as the new poster of this forum TMF put it, Nadal is a 'rubbish moonballer.'
P.S. Rosol played the life of his match against Nadal, he could not focus the round after- as is expected really.

what exactly is your point here?

Most of today's DBH-ers would seriously struggle in the 80s & 90s era. They play such safe tennis it's hard to imagine them with wooden racquets on fast courts.
They all probably could learn to play, but I am not sure how successful they would be, esp Nadal.

[Larry Ellison]

We've already debated the LH vs RH topic.
I did some research and found out that since Nadal was very young he played double handed tennis with his left hand as the stronger hand- ie closer to his body- left handed double handed tennis.
There is a difference between left handed double handed tennis, and right handed double handed tennis. You hold the weaker hand close to the strings/ racket head.
Toni only switched him to double handed left handed to single handed left handed.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument though, that would spoil your desperate attempt to convince everyone that, as the new poster of this forum TMF put it, Nadal is a 'rubbish moonballer.'
P.S. Rosol played the life of his match against Nadal, he could not focus the round after- as is expected really.

what exactly is your point here?

Most of today's DBH-ers would seriously struggle in the 80s & 90s era. They play such safe tennis it's hard to imagine them with wooden racquets on fast courts.
They all probably could learn to play, but I am not sure how successful they would be, esp Nadal.

My point is that Nadal played LH tennis before Toni changed him to single handed left hand.
And what on earth does wooden rackets and fast courts have to with anything. LOl

[wilson_nxt]

.

[noleisthebest]

Players like Federer and Nadal are unique. Rather than attack and denigrate Nadal we should welcome someone different in a sea of similar players. Roger brings his grace and easy timing, Nadal brings his own brand - they are polar ends of the tennis spectrum and guys like Djokovic and Murray fit in somewhere along that line. But that line is defined by Roger and Nadal, we should recognise that. When they are gone the game will suffer for their loss in my opinion. I dread to see Roger leave the game, but hope Grigor might show us flashes of him, and likewise Nadal. I recognise all these guys as talented players, insanely talented actually - you cannot do what they have done without so many things being and falling into place. They are one-offs and should be seen as such. Guys like Kolhi (I preferred Keifer's and Stich's talent to be honest) are somewhat bit-part actors playing their cameo roles, they have talent but not the brain - that's what separates all these top guys as Grigor and Bernard demonstrated perfectly the other night.

He is all yours, Wilson.
why should we welcome someone just because he is "different", do you enjoy eating junk food because it's different?

[Tenez]

Players like Federer and Nadal are unique. Rather than attack and denigrate Nadal we should welcome someone different in a sea of similar players.

But this is not a fan forum. It;s a tennis forum. I don't denigrate Nadal nor do I give Federer Nadal or any other players special qualities they don't have. They are ALL unique so I tend not dwell too much on that the fact they are unique. Problems with fans is that they want to hear only good things about Nadal.

You could read from me that Nadal was a great addition to the sport simply because he gave Fed a challenge that no-one really could before him. But don;t expect me to say things I don;t see such as "special" talent. I am happy to say "special fitness" certainly but allow me also to be sceptical nowadays about those special fitnesses. I was a big fan of Borg cause at teh time I did not know about doping nor did I suspect him. I believe it was still a time where natural fitness (therefore physical talent) was still a possibilty. I am much more sceptic nowadays when I see all those athletes with no special fitness talent making Borg look like a lazy slug. And teh more you know about doping and the physical side of teh game, the more you understand why players started to go over the 25s threashold, have very irregular results over the years, doing specially well at slams but suddenly getting tired after slams despite 2 months of rest, strange draws etc...

You have to be curious and question everything. I don't take for granted what I am told...including the fact that Nadal is a "a great talent" (I still have to explain why I think that talented or not Nadal certainly doesn;t rely on talent to win but I am busy now). .

[noleisthebest]

T,
what do you think slam distribution would've looked like had the courts not been slowed down, draws not rigged in order to propel Nadal and create Fedal?
I don't think Nadal would've won anything except RG, and he would've not been number one. Just not sure about the others.

[luvsports!]

Surely you know the answer you are going to get nitb?
It's probably what you want to hear from Tenez as well

[noleisthebest]

Surely you know the answer you are going to get nitb?
It's probably what you want to hear from Tenez as well

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but as a Nole fan I was extremely frustrated to see him in Federer's half of the draw 12/12 at all slams bar RG esp at USO.
Nadal has had so many props in his career, if they were all taken away, he would not have been left with much. Unfairness hurts very much esp in sport.

[Tenez]

Question:

What is the difference between hitting hard/power and ball striking ability?

For instance, del potro and berdych are hard hitters but for their frames this is generally expected.
With someone like Blake (who hits the ball very hard and can go toe-to-toe power wise with the guys of 6'5 and 6'6 etc despite being 6'1) I think he has very good ball striking ability, perhaps better than federer or nadal, or is this just the fact he is a power hitter but not a better ball striker? Isner at 6;9 can crush the odd forehand but overall I don't think he is a good ball striker, whereas someone like gulbis at 6'3 i think is.
Smaller guys such as fognini, davydenko and dolgopolov imo are very good ball strikers and ferrer at 5'9 is not, same with someone like murray, troicki, seppi etc at 6'3.

Well this is a good question again and has so many factors to consider that it is actually quite difficult to define “good ball striking” skills. In short we could say it is simply the ability to handle a fast ball and hit a hurting short if not a winner out of it "effortlessly and consistently". Effortlessly is quite important cause one can always replace sheer power by skill power. And likewise handling a fast ball is important cause you could stand 4m behind the baseline until the pace drops and compensate the ball striking skills by sheer power.

And again to hit the ball effortlessly and consistently one needs excellent timing…which is what we call typically “talent”.

Blake in that regards is an excellent ball striker but that great skill deserts him in those pressure moments…like most others in that category (see players below). This is the problem “great ball strikers (let’s call them GBS)” have over those who muscle the ball. Talent is fragile by definition. Federer is probably the greatest in my view though I agree that Blake on form can make it look as easy as Fed…but his footwork and mind makes things more complicated for him. Amongst those GBS I would certainly put other players, Dolgo, Davydenko, Nalby Haas and Gasquet to lesser extend as he refuses to hit a fast ball in general and prefers to stay back where the ball’s pace drops.

Then you have the typical tall player (let’s say group 2) who hit the ball hard and flat. Being tall considerably increases the margins (between net and lines) especially nowadays with those high bounces and that gives them security without having to spin the ball as much. Delpo, Sod, Berdych fall in that category…and so should Murray be (certainly BH) but he chooses to muscle the ball instead. Are those players GBS? I would say not really. They can hit hard but they are not that good at handling fast balls and their size really helps them hit hard more than their own skills. They hardly take the ball early and usually have no such good record v the GBS group…but a good one versus group 3 below.

Then you have those who muscle the ball like Murray, Nadal, Roddick (after 2003), Ferrer…ect…(Group 3). Those we cannot clearly call them ball GBS cause they really spin the ball and do not take the ball early so we can’t quite now whether they have that aptitude to hit a fast ball and hit winners with it..they certainly don’t have the shots to hurt but they have shots to engage in long rally and spinny enough so that it is difficult to attack them and put them away. They typically don’t choose to go for easy winners cause they know their unforced error ratio would not be good enough. Nadal for instance knows he is losing twice as many long rallies as Djoko so he would typically be very tempted to pull winners and very risky shots like Federer does but he knows it’s not his forte so he has no choice to keep the ball in court until he thinks he has no choice but to go for broke in the middle of a long rally.

So those are roughly the 3 main groups I can identify with really one GBS group (the first one). But having said that a player belongs more or less to those 3 groups and rarely can you say they are 100% in one of those groups.

And in the middle of those 3 we could fit Djoko for instance, not a bad ball striker, takes the ball not so early but generally earlier than group 3, tall enough to have some of the group 2 attributes and certainly muscling many balls back when necessary which is usually 3 out of 4 shots.

[Tenez]

I had a discussion v Lydian on the old BBC I could retrieve the link if that is of interest to you. But in short Lydian was saying that topspinning the ball like Nadal required lots of talent cause it was very risky to whip the racquet that fast and yet timing the ball correctly. Whereas I argued that the talent was actually to hit the ball flatter cause that gave you much smaller margins between net and lines yet hitting the ball pacier than a topspin.

Lydian was wrong for 2 reasons:

1 - Nadal takes the ball far back when it's pace is at its slowest so much easier to time.

2- And more importantly The spin is put after or during the impact but at the impact of the racquet this one has quite an open stance (therefore easier to time than if you were trying to find a tengential line of the ball (complicated I know) or let say just to hit the skin of the ball more max spin. But this is not what Nadal does. If he were his shots woudl be even shorter and weaker.

If you analyse Fed and Nadal's FH in slow mo...they are actually quite similar. Yes I know it hurts me to say that but it's true. Both hit the ball with quite an open stance (like everybody else on tour actually) but it is what they do with it going through the ball that separates them and of course how early they take it. Federer aims for deep and close to net, Nadal aims for very high and keeping the ball as long as possible in his racquet to inject the spin. Federer hitting flatter will have to control the ball in less time and that is much harder, more so that he takes the ball early and aims for thinner margins. This is what a GBS does.

Nadal taking the ball later does not take as much risk and goes for bigger margins too.

And finally and but not least is how they generate power. Nadal's power is clearly his big gun while Federer's is down to great footwork (essential as he takes teh ball earlier), and perfect synch (timing) of his legs/body and arm and wrist. It is important to mention that when striking a spinny ball (they all do more or less) power is important to create pace safety in shots. Federer does it thanks to his talent, Nadal essentially thanks to his muscles.

Nadal's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e73vn7e2Ivw

Federer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

[Tenez]

I had a discussion v Lydian on the old BBC I could retrieve the link if that is of interest to you. But in short Lydian was saying that topspinning the ball like Nadal required lots of talent cause it was very risky to whip the racquet that fast and yet timing the ball correctly. Whereas I argued that the talent was actually to hit the ball flatter cause that gave you much smaller margins between net and lines yet hitting the ball pacier than a topspin.

Lydian was wrong for 2 reasons:

1 - Nadal takes the ball far back when it's pace is at its slowest so much easier to time.

2- And more importantly The spin is put after or during the impact but at the impact of the racquet this one has quite an open stance (therefore easier to time than if you were trying to find a tengential line of the ball (complicated I know) or let say just to hit the skin of the ball to max spin. But this is not what Nadal does. If he were his shots woudl be even shorter and weaker.

If you analyse Fed and Nadal's FH in slow mo...they are actually quite similar. Yes I know it hurts me to say that but it's true. Both hit the ball with quite an open stance (like everybody else on tour actually) but it is what they do with it going through the ball that separates them and of course how early they take it. Federer aims for deep and close to net, Nadal aims for very high and keeping the ball as long as possible in his racquet to inject the spin. Federer hitting flatter will have to control the ball in less time and that is much harder, more so that he takes the ball early and aims for thinner margins. This is what a GBS does.

Nadal taking the ball later does not take as much risk and goes for bigger margins too.

And finally but not least is how they generate power. Nadal's power is clearly his big gun while Federer's is down to great footwork (essential as he takes teh ball earlier), and perfect synch (timing) of his legs/body and arm and wrist. It is important to mention that when striking a spinny ball (they all do more or less) power is important to create pace with safety in shots. Federer does it thanks to his talent/timing, Nadal essentially thanks to his muscles.

Nadal's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e73vn7e2Ivw

Federer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

[noleisthebest]

The self-proclaimed v2 tennis guru (who by the virtual fact he is a Nadal fan loses all credibility) has never said anything of any value and shown any tennis intelligence, insight and knowledge.

It's funny how people there can't see it and buy into the suffocating ego-stroking culture that is rife on that forum.

It is not surprising it was he that wanted Tenez kicked out of there. If he had any humility about him he would come here and apologise for it, but just like the player he supports, he'll keep all the undeserving glory for himself while there are fans around him willing to worship the mish-mash of half-truths.

[noleisthebest]

I don't think ball-stirking has anything to do with the height of a player, but the truth is that shorter ones have less options but to go for the ball early, and of course if they are talented enough to be able to do it.

When the ball comes fast at you, you either wait for it further back, give yourself extra time to hit it well which usually results in pushing the ball back in because the ball loses a lot of it speed in the meantime.

The earlier the ball is hit, the less energy you lose hitting it back fast as you use the opponent's ball's momentum and speed. That is where the talent comes in, the ability to control that speed with that extra less bit of time. Not everyone can do it, and those who can usually look effortless and don't need to bash or muscle the ball, it's a beautiful thing to watch. Also shows on the serve. To time the ball in such short time and hit it with the sweet spot is the ultimate achievement in tennis. I am at the beginning of that mountain so can only admire others who are at the top, such as Federer.

Those players naturally attack and I think Gasquet is the only exception there. I saw him practice in O2 from very close up and was amazed at how well he strikes the ball, so much better than Tsonga who was on the other side of the net. So in that respect, a total waste of talent esp as he has decent height for a tennis player.

To me, ball-striking itself is a very good indicator of a player's talent, that's something that probably comes naturally and you can't teach.
Everyone can practise and learn how to hit the ball, esp with new strings technology that allows accuracy of safe spinned bashing which Nadal takes the full advantage of.

Just like a very intelligent and not so intelligent student can pass the same exam except the first one will take a week, the other one a month.
In terms of a tennis game or style comparison, a talented writer will write poems and sharp essays, the less talented one will write copious and endless pages of dull reading.

That is why Federer has been referred to as poetry in motion. Nadal would probably go down as small print under the house insurance contract

[noleisthebest]

And to finish off this "monologue", the further away from the net you are the less talented you are likely to be.
That is why tennis originally was serving and volleying, then slowly started moving away from the net as technology and "evolution" encouraged it.

Now, technology has completely transformed the original axioms on which tennis as a game was formed, some choose to call it "evolution" and being atheists see it as a good thing.

There are still a lot of talented players, but it's harder to spot them as their talent is buried in lower in the rankings and they rarely make it to the later rounds in the tournaments.
There are lot of bad ones in the lower rankings, as well, of course.

Because ball-striking is not enough any more, as the athleticism prevails and is the norm leading this "evolution" further to its full cycle, we are now in this dull vacuum where something needs to give before things (if ever) start "reverting", or devolutioning.
In fact, evolution brings nothing better: food, cars, clothes quality, houses, music, just about everything was better in the past. Sports included. It's a battle of who can have their blood conduct oxygen more and faster these days. Not just that exclusively, but enough to have allowed average players to win.

[Tenez]

I don't think ball-stirking has anything to do with the height of a player, but the truth is that shorter ones have less options but to go for the ball early, and of course if they are talented enough to be able to do it.

Taller people are simply helped in their flatter hitting...like it helps their serve too. Being taller is a bit like being closer to the net, you have more of a target. So it doesn't make them good ball strickers but it certainly helps them it hard and consistently which is one part of being being a good ball stricker.

[noleisthebest]

I don't think ball-stirking has anything to do with the height of a player, but the truth is that shorter ones have less options but to go for the ball early, and of course if they are talented enough to be able to do it.

Taller people are simply helped in their flatter hitting...like it helps their serve too. Being taller is a bit like being closer to the net, you have more of a target. So it doesn't make them good ball strickers but it certainly helps them it hard and [/b[b]]consistently which is one part of being being a good ball stricker.

Yes, Berd fits that category, but I prefer the lighter touch of Dolgopolov. To hit with minimal power and achieve the same goal is a lot harder to achieve and sweeter to watch.

[noleisthebest]

I have just realised, you still haven't answered my question

[Tenez]

which one?

[noleisthebest]

which one?

this one:

T,
what do you think slam distribution would've looked like had the courts not been slowed down, draws not rigged in order to propel Nadal and create Fedal?
I don't think Nadal would've won anything except RG, and he would've not been number one. Just not sure about the others.

[sphairistike]

I don't know about T's answer to you nitb, but I'd start by saying maybe he would not have lost Wimbledon in 2008 and would have had 7 in a row, and 8 total, best ever! (And I'm being conservative). He would have had the calendar Grand Slam in 2009. (Again, just being conservative). For the rest, I'll let T answer, but already with that, imagine all the extra records he'd have, as I said 7 Wimbledons in a row for a total (record breaking) of 8 at least, 6 USO in a row for a total (record breaking) of 6 at least, a record 5 AO, a total of at least 20 slams and as said before a calendar Grand Slam, actually, it's even more than that as it would be 6 slams in a row from USO 2008 to AO 2010 both included, and that is post peak!

[noleisthebest]

I was hoping Novak's name to be mentioned once or twice, too

[sphairistike]

Sorry Nitb, I saw Fedal and focused on Fed

Do you think Novak could have had more slams had there been faster? I think he would have lost both SFs in USO vs. Fed in 2010 and 2011 and Fed might have been on 8 USOs in a row!! Imagine that! I don't know which one he would have won he hadn't. To be fair I think he would have had the same number of AOs but that's all. No Wimbledon, no USO most likely. No talk of potential Grand Slam, neither for Nadal of course as he'd be only on his FO wins. So really, if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure T would agree, Nole would be on AOs only, Rafa on FOs only, Murray on nothing most likely. Only USO 2012 would be a ? for me...

[Tenez]

I don't know about T's answer to you nitb, but I'd start by saying maybe he would not have lost Wimbledon in 2008 and would have had 7 in a row, and 8 total, best ever! (And I'm being conservative). He would have had the calendar Grand Slam in 2009. (Again, just being conservative). For the rest, I'll let T answer, but already with that, imagine all the extra records he'd have, as I said 7 Wimbledons in a row for a total (record breaking) of 8 at least, 6 USO in a row for a total (record breaking) of 6 at least, a record 5 AO, a total of at least 20 slams and as said before a calendar Grand Slam, actually, it's even more than that as it would be 6 slams in a row from USO 2008 to AO 2010 both included, and that is post peak!

Yes. I agree about Wimbledon for sure. In fact I believe Nadal woudl have lost all those key close matches at Wimbledon (Querrey, Youshny, Petzchney....) meaning he would have had much less experience on grass than he had in that 08 final and like all clay specialist he would have struggled reaching the 1/4F at his peak. We just need to see that at the USO he never managed to beat a seed until they slowed the conds down terribly,so Wimby being much faster back then would have been unplayable for someone already standing 5m being those slower courts.

I am unsure about Fed beating Delpo in 2009. The fact is he should have beaten him regardless and did not. Maybe we can say that slower 2009 made his matches longer v Djoko in the semi and that was crucial in his loss in 5 v Delpo.

My view is that it'snot so much the courts but the ridiculous fitness players were able to display which prevented Federer to win 30 slams more or less. Had players been as fit as they were before Nadal's time, I could not see Fed losing much bar the odd match like FO 2010 due to bad luck and rain. And I woudl say the second main factor was string technology. Without it Nadal would not have won a single FO.

[Tenez]

Sorry Nitb, I saw Fedal and focused on Fed

Do you think Novak could have had more slams had there been faster? I think he would have lost both SFs in USO vs. Fed in 2010 and 2011 and Fed might have been on 8 USOs in a row!! Imagine that! I don't know which one he would have won he hadn't. To be fair I think he would have had the same number of AOs but that's all. No Wimbledon, no USO most likely. No talk of potential Grand Slam, neither for Nadal of course as he'd be only on his FO wins. So really, if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure T would agree, Nole would be on AOs only, Rafa on FOs only, Murray on nothing most likely. Only USO 2012 would be a ? for me...

Yes I agree. But again without the string technology enabling to maximise his strength which his is retrieving I could not see him win the AO either....except maybe in 2008 v Tsinga.

[noleisthebest]

Sorry Nitb, I saw Fedal and focused on Fed

Do you think Novak could have had more slams had there been faster? I think he would have lost both SFs in USO vs. Fed in 2010 and 2011 and Fed might have been on 8 USOs in a row!! Imagine that! I don't know which one he would have won he hadn't. To be fair I think he would have had the same number of AOs but that's all. No Wimbledon, no USO most likely. No talk of potential Grand Slam, neither for Nadal of course as he'd be only on his FO wins. So really, if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure T would agree, Nole would be on AOs only, Rafa on FOs only, Murray on nothing most likely. Only USO 2012 would be a ? for me...

Yes I agree. But again without the string technology enabling to maximise his strength which his is retrieving I could not see him win the AO either....except maybe in 2008 v Tsinga.

I wish you had read the question before answering it.

[noleisthebest]

Sorry Nitb, I saw Fedal and focused on Fed

Do you think Novak could have had more slams had there been faster? I think he would have lost both SFs in USO vs. Fed in 2010 and 2011 and Fed might have been on 8 USOs in a row!! Imagine that! I don't know which one he would have won he hadn't. To be fair I think he would have had the same number of AOs but that's all. No Wimbledon, no USO most likely. No talk of potential Grand Slam, neither for Nadal of course as he'd be only on his FO wins. So really, if you ask me, and I'm pretty sure T would agree, Nole would be on AOs only, Rafa on FOs only, Murray on nothing most likely. Only USO 2012 would be a ? for me...

Thanks, Sphair.
My question was referring more to the conditions existing in 2007 when Novak actually played that USO final against Fed which was the last time they were in opposite halves of the draw on fast (non-clay) surfaces in slams , i.e. before sponsors started tailoring Nadal's "Champion's" future which culminated with his calendar slam achievement.
Had draws not been rigged, I think Novak would have won at least one if not two more USOs: 2008,9 10...

Nole has always played well there. It's the sheer travesty of draw rigging that makes him and Nadal have the same number of USO titles, with Nadal only ever reaching that one final though all the years he has been on the tour and never having to meet Nole or Fed in the semi on top of that.

[sphairistike]

One thing I forgot to add and something people might have a tendency to forget, bar Rafa and really only at the French before the slowing down of surfaces, Roger was unbeatable at a Slam final in the sense that anytime he went that far, he was a lock for the win, started changing in 2008 at Wimbledon, which in turn happened at the slowed down AO 2009 and eventually at USO the same year. But can you imagine had the surfaces remained the same speed wise, Nole or anyone else could play as well as they could, they knew once they got to the final, they would lose, and more often than not not win more than one set, at least that's the way I see it. So I agree with the fact that Nole always did well at USO, but had the surfaces not slowed down, being on the other half would have just meant meeting a better, stronger, Roger in a Slam final and hence ultimately a loss. So being on Fed's half of the draw was more of a benediction in disguise as Fed was still beatable in SF, not in final though. Actually, if we look at Fed's results in slam since January 2004, SF was the only round he ever lost at bar vs. Rafa in final at the French... then the surfaces slowed down and it started happening at Wimbledon 2008

[noleisthebest]

One thing I forgot to add and something people might have a tendency to forget, bar Rafa and really only at the French before the slowing down of surfaces, Roger was unbeatable at a Slam final in the sense that anytime he went that far, he was a lock for the win, started changing in 2008 at Wimbledon, which in turn happened at the slowed down AO 2009 and eventually at USO the same year. But can you imagine had the surfaces remained the same speed wise, Nole or anyone else could play as well as they could, they knew once they got to the final, they would lose, and more often than not not win more than one set, at least that's the way I see it. So I agree with the fact that Nole always did well at USO, but had the surfaces not slowed down, being on the other half would have just meant meeting a better, stronger, Roger in a Slam final and hence ultimately a loss. So being on Fed's half of the draw was more of a benediction in disguise as Fed was still beatable in SF, not in final though. Actually, if we look at Fed's results in slam since January 2004, SF was the only round he ever lost at bar vs. Rafa in final at the French... then the surfaces slowed down and it started happening at Wimbledon 2008

You conveniently forget that Nole won AO 2008 trouncing Federer in the SF enroute. He also lost to him in the 2007 USO final in a very close match, due to sheer inexperience, in my opinion.

The fact that Tenez keeps repeating that Novak can't play on fast surfaces does not mean that's true.
Novak is a completely different league as a player from both Nadal and Murray and CAN play on fast hard courts very well.

Take a peek and enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-CVScwShVY

He is not that great on grass, I admit that.

[luvsports!]

I think even feds admitted that novak could have won that us open 07 final in straight sets!

[sphairistike]

I am not saying he could not have won it had Fed not been a beast in Slam finals and as you said, he beat Fed in the SF in AO, as Fed was only beatable in SFs back then, he was getting to all SFs and could only lose then, AO2005 is another example when he lost, so what? Fed said the truth when he said Novak could have won that final, but he also knew deep down that he, himself, could not lose a slam final, except at FO vs. Rafa. Didn't mean others could not give him a tough match as a few of the top players could, but he was confident that in the end, he'd have the W next to his name and yet another slam if he reached the final. I'm awaiting a counter-example...

[noleisthebest]

Sphair,
I am not trying to debate Federer here at all. I am fully aware of how good he is. I am not even trying to compare Novak to him because they are two very different players.

All I am trying to to is dispel this myth of Novak being a talentless road-runner, that all he can do is scrap balls and rally to death....occassionaly opening his shoulders and hitting a winner when he is 6:0 6:0 5:0 40:00 up

He is not a classic attacking player, but plays an aggressive base-line game. That's where Tenez and Paul get lost in translation and keep arguing about nothing.

He, just like Federer suffered because of the slowed down conditions. We know who benefited, though.

[sphairistike]

I never meant to imply anything bad about Novak and his talent(s). I was just trying to answer your question on the slam distribution. IMHO, only Fed would have added to the tally and in a way that would have made any GOAT debate non-existent. Maybe Novak would have started winning more earlier than 2011 or maybe not as really end of 2010 is when he changed his diet to get rid of physical issue and that he boosted his confidence. But from that point on he has been winning bunch of slams anyways and some of them due to his road running abilities but that can be attributed to the courts/balls/conditions being slow so he most certainly would have used other abilities otherwise. But slam distribution wise, I can only see Fed benefiting to a meaningful extent and Rafa being the one left as a one trick pony...

[noleisthebest]

I never meant to imply anything bad about Novak and his talent(s). I was just trying to answer your question on the slam distribution. IMHO, only Fed would have added to the tally and in a way that would have made any GOAT debate non-existent. Maybe Novak would have started winning more earlier than 2011 or maybe not as really end of 2010 is when he changed his diet to get rid of physical issue and that he boosted his confidence. But from that point on he has been winning bunch of slams anyways and some of them due to his road running abilities but that can be attributed to the courts/balls/conditions being slow so he most certainly would have used other abilities otherwise. But slam distribution wise, I can only see Fed benefiting to a meaningful extent and Rafa being the one left as a one trick pony...

Fair enough.
I think Novak would've sneaked at least one or two more USOs. Nadal definitely would not have won either AO or USO and had the time violation rule been applied properly from "day one" I am not sure he would have won that many RGs either.

[noleisthebest]

Sphair,
I am not trying to debate Federer here at all. I am fully aware of how good he is. I am not even trying to compare Novak to him because they are two very different players.

All I am trying to to is dispel this myth of Novak being a talentless road-runner, that all he can do is scrap balls and rally to death....occassionaly opening his shoulders and hitting a winner when he is 6:0 6:0 5:0 40:00 up

He is not a classic attacking player, but plays an aggressive base-line game. That's where Tenez and Paul get lost in translation and keep arguing about nothing.

He, just like Federer suffered because of the slowed down conditions. We know who benefited, though.

And to my great and distress, I end up being branded a "neutral".

[sphairistike]

Sphair,
I am not trying to debate Federer here at all. I am fully aware of how good he is. I am not even trying to compare Novak to him because they are two very different players.

All I am trying to to is dispel this myth of Novak being a talentless road-runner, that all he can do is scrap balls and rally to death....occassionaly opening his shoulders and hitting a winner when he is 6:0 6:0 5:0 40:00 up

He is not a classic attacking player, but plays an aggressive base-line game. That's where Tenez and Paul get lost in translation and keep arguing about nothing.

He, just like Federer suffered because of the slowed down conditions. We know who benefited, though.

And to my great and distress, I end up being branded a "neutral".

Indeed, I read that in the other thread! to you my dear nitb!

[noleisthebest]

Thanks Sphair, at least somebody understands....

Things one has to suffer for the love of tennis

[Sponsored content]