The strong era debate

It's a debate we have discussed many times on other forums and as a tennis forum "OTF" deserves one thread as well on the topic.

It is actually SOcal's post that invited me to debate: "15 in a row for the Big 4 at the 1000 point level, what does that say about tennis?"

I will post my thoughts on this soon but for now I would like to read your views.

I do not subscribe to a 'strong' era, nor to a 'weak' or 'weaker' era.

Wonder who won IW 2010, Miami 2010, Paris 2010. :twisted:

Lubjicic, Soderling and Tsonga ?

I believe in eras being strong and weak in a particular field. Like the Borg Vilas Clerc era was a physically strong era. That was essentially due to the small frames providing players with little incentive to take risk.

The 80s and 90s on the other end benefited players who had talent and could take risks (bigger frames) on fast surfaces. The physical side of that era was not as important as a big serve and a good volley.

Nowadays our era is ridiculously strong physically but we have one player who is immensely talented and can still make the difference at the top. He is the exception to the rule. Federer is extremely fit but not nearly as fit as the other top 4 and achieves through his talent more than through his physique...especially when facing the other top 4. I however think that besides Federer, this era is poor on shot making ability. The 2002-2007 slightly faster conditions gave the chance to amazing ball strikers to do well at the top (Nalby, Safin, Blake, Ljubicic, etc...). The current era is blunting the talent for the benefit of teh more physical players.

Also the strings technology is the real problem as it make hitting a hard shot much easier than it was with natural gut (used at 90% by of players before 2000). A passing shot while on the trame line was extremely difficult then...nowadays with modern strings it's much easier.

In that respect I do not believe we have a strong era. However we have a very talented player out there and very physical ones but this physique is more to do with modern science than natural ability imo. That's all we can say.

Strong/weak era debate is in some ways similar to the GOAT debate, it's futile, yet irresistible!
In order to start any debate it is necessary to lay the reasoning and definition of what strong and weak represent when it comes to talking about eras in tennis.

There are various parameters that can be considered: memorable matches, popularity of the sport, popularity of individual players, presence of charismatic players, and last but certainly not the least : talent among players, esp. presence of prodigies.

For any era to be called strong you need to have a prodigy, if you have two , for me that's enough for it to be called a strong era.

This era has two prodigies: Federer and Djokovic and a few other very attractive players with a lot of skill.

Playing conditions have unfortunately scappered today's top players in showing off their talent as the winning ways are now achieved by playing safe tennis as topspin rules BIG time, and baseline comfort zone has aesthetically transformed tennis from the magical all-court game into a ping-pong competition.

Despite all that, I think this is quite an enjoyable era of tennis, as there are a lot of players I like watching.

noleisthebest wrote:
This era has two prodigies: Federer and Djokovic and a few other very attractive players with a lot of skill.

:lol!:

Do you really think Djokovic is a prodigy? In any way more than Nadal or Murray for instance? I think he is better than Nadal and Murray but only just and more mentally than really tennis wise. Yes Djokovic is a great fighter but do you think his ball striking is out of this world, prodigious? It is in this ping-pong era where long rallies were needed to win that Djokovic thrived. We will never know how he would have done on faster conds like it was prior to 2007.

To me Djokovic is a amazing hard worker having excellent defense to attack skills but I don't see him as a prodigy like Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Rios, Agassi, Pete, Federer are/were (with achievement or not).

Tenez wrote:
:lol!:

Do you really think Djokovic is a prodigy? .

I've been wanting to do this for a loooong time:

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

and of course.... :lol!:

wow3 wrote:Lubjicic, Soderling and Tsonga ?

Close. Lubjicic (IW), Roddick (Miami), Soderling (Paris).

You missed your chance at the last Wimby

Actually after more thinking I think you are right that Djokovic can be considered a prodigy but then I woudl include many more prodigies along him. Gasquet, Hewitt, Medvedev, Kafel, Lendl, Ivanisevic, Nadal (physically), Murray etc....and I woudl say that achievement is not necessarily linked to prodigy. If anything Gasquet was more of a prodigy than Nole.

LF, you wouldn't believe but i wrote Roddick first and then crossed him off with Tsonga.

It is good to see you here. I have already given you a big welcome on another thread. Did u watch Olympics?

For all players, the then currently available technology and training regimens are/were put to maximal use to increase the percentage of winning.

Let us take Borg or Lendl or Vilas. Supremely fit and perhaps the finest athletes during their active years. The Current Top 4 are the same way, Wooden racquets, Graphite core Wood, Carbon-Graphite, BLXs. IIRC, the Donnay Borgs were the most advanced during Borg's days.

The challenge is 'transplanting' technologies in different 'eras', which causes emotional comparisons, and quite illogical and irrational, IMVHO.

wow3 wrote:LF, you wouldn't believe but i wrote Roddick first and then crossed him off with Tsonga.

It is good to see you here. I have already given you a big welcome on another thread. Did u watch Olympics?

It is strange to see Roddick (a peer of Federer) decline much more quickly, but Federer is, as Nadal calls him, a 'blessed freak' with DNA for Tennis.

I am glad to to post on this forum. Thanks for the welcome.

I was glued to publicly-available content for Olympics and available streams. A fantastic event. UK should be proud to have hosted a wonderful OG.

Tenez wrote:You missed your chance at the last Wimby

Actually after more thinking I think you are right that Djokovic can be considered a prodigy but then I woudl include many more prodigies along him. Gasquet, Hewitt, Medvedev, Kafel, Lendl, Ivanisevic, Nadal (physically), Murray etc....and I woudl say that achievement is not necessarily linked to prodigy. If anything Gasquet was more of a prodigy than Nole.

That's because you were so well behaved !

as for prodigies, I think we may have different definitions of what it is, but as far as I'm concerned, a prodigy is a fulfilled talent, one that is able to dominate for a long time.

I should mention Haas in this discussion. He played in the 2000 Olympics and won Silver. He played very well @ Toronto and took a set off of Djokovic, which Gasquet could not.

laverfan wrote:
The challenge is 'transplanting' technologies in different 'eras', which causes emotional comparisons, and quite illogical and irrational, IMVHO.

No I am afraid. The challenge is not the same for all within an era. McEnroe competed a lot v Becker and Edberg but he was completely overwhelmed at the peak of his career cause the new generation (Edberg and Becker) learnt to play the game with graphite frames while Mc learnt it with a wooden racquet. That completely gave the edge to the new generation who could hit through Mc's touch game while Mc lacked the technique to hit as hard as those youngsters.

Same applies when comparing Federer with Nadal, Murray and Djoko. Federer learnt the game at a time it was important to have a big serve and big weapon (FH or/and volley) with small frame and natural gut. He found himself in trouble when the new generation came with lighter racquet, huge spin and amazing athletism. He was talented enough to adapt but no other player on the tour managed to keep up with that new generation.

Here's Nole's take on the subject (yesterday's interview in Cincy)

Q. People talk about this being a special time in men's tennis. Why do you think it's special?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, because of the fact that you have four players who are I think winning 90% of all the major tournaments that you have on the tour. I mean, so many titles and so much competition going on and so many great rivalries, great matches, history and all these things that are I think making this era a golden era.

I suppose you can sum a strong era as one that has strong rivalries.
Even a hard-core Federer fan can't say they enjoyed pre-Nadal period when Fed was steamrolling everyone.

noleisthebest wrote:Here's Nole's take on the subject (yesterday's interview in Cincy)

Q. People talk about this being a special time in men's tennis. Why do you think it's special?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, because of the fact that you have four players who are I think winning 90% of all the major tournaments that you have on the tour. I mean, so many titles and so much competition going on and so many great rivalries, great matches, history and all these things that are I think making this era a golden era.

Do 4 players making up a special era? Do 4 players make up an era? If 4 players are winning 90% of the tournaments it could also mean that the rest of the field is absolutely weak and well below the remain 4. Djo is not often constant with his opinion. After he beat Nadal at Miami last year he said that for him Nadal is the greatest player ever. Maybe he was trying to imply that now he beats Nadal, he too is in that league or maybe even getting better. Some time back he said Federer was the greatest player.

And which was the time when there were no great rivalries and great matches? Every era the histroy is rewritten, record made and broken.

I believe these are the kind of words the journalists try to get from players and will try to publish and creating a sensation and selling news.

The current era is strong in terms of the return game. The retrieving and chasing all and bringing back the shots which once would have been impossible. Federer who has played across generations now said the same

"'I think 15 years ago you had matches like this much more often, when [an outsider] could catch fire and just run you through.
'Today it's virtually impossible because you make so many more returns these days and conditions are so much slower.
"

This is the primary reason why we don't see upsets as often as it was earlier. " Does this mean the current players are better returners than the previous era one?

I don't think so.

1. Everything now is now stacked up against the server. Slow balls slow conditions. The returning is much easier than it ever was.

2. Better string technology allows the players to hit powerful shots from 4-5m behind the baseline. The kind of passes Nadal can get almost standing beside the linesman would never have been possible only few years back. Even Nadal can't do it if he is given those strings to play with.

3. Diet, nutrition and science has allowed supreme stamina to some players. They just can play an outlasting game which an outsider may not be able to cope up with. Some players can play for hours together with not a sign of cramping, but only some.

The era is strong in terms of what science can do. Tennis skill wise, not so much. 3 out of the 4 being talked about primarily relies for winning on stamina and outlasting. A large part of their play is attrition tennis, repeatedly keep doing same thing over and over to until the opponent breaks.

Spot on all the way rotla. It's getting annoying!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:A large part of their play is attrition tennis, repeatedly keep doing same thing over and over to until the opponent breaks.

'Attrition' is a relative concept. Some players are 'tired' in 5 shots, some in 20, some in 30. The question is do you hit an outright winner or rely on an opponent error. Related to that is the notion of 'forced' vs 'unforced' errors.

youtube.com/watch?v=pZSuyr6Wqlk

I think we are all well aware of how much racquet technology/balls/ and to a lesser degree court speed have changed the game.

Yes, it is safer to go for shots now. Much safer. A good racquet CAN hide the absence of a multitude of tennis finesse.
Hide on the baseline, load the shots with top-spin and they are bound to end up in court. Even if you moonball them. Even if you go for the lines (well, most of the time) but ESPECIALLY if you don't.

It is easy to see that a lot of players have taken advantage of this easy route. It's their job, they have dedicated and sacrificed years of their lives training without any guarantee of return, so who can blame them.

I have noticed a particular worsening of the trend in the last 3 years, in fact, mainly by observing players from the immediate "previous" era, such as Hewitt, Ferrer and Tipsarevic.

They have all increased their fitness to stupendous levels and started hitting the ball as hard as the strings will take it. Ready to run all day. Not necessarily playing retrieving tennis, just what they can and are comfortable with. Every one of them is different.

Federer has adapted his game, as well: from an occasional all-courter he has now transformed into a base-liner.

Djokovic has changed the racquet and reduced his flat-hitting ratio by about 30%.

Murray has gone Tisparevic way: he is just bludgeoning the ball as hard as he can, but at least he's got a good backhand with which he can attack from all positions.

Still, all this does not determine whether an era is strong or not. It just defines the game of tennis and how it's played.

This particular era has fantastic players: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych and a lot more, you can add them to your taste.
I am positive they would ALL do well in ANY era.

This particular era has fantastic players: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych and a lot more, you can add them to your taste.
-----------------------------------------------

I actually don't find them more fantastic than Nalbandian, Coria, Safin, Haase, Ljubicic for instance. The Murray Djoko, Djoko Nadal or Murray Nadal matches are in fact poor in great shots but great in amazing long lung-bursting rallies. I find their shots poorer...bar Federer. Delpo has a fantastic FH, I agree, but so had Gonzales. Tsonga has good volleys and is probably the 2nd most talented player of the ones you mentioned but it is that talent that prevents him to go further. The winner in most cases is the fittest player. End of. Not the one able to create variety. Attacking doesn;t pay off.

Of course Djoko did the right thing to adapt to win, but we do not know what doing the right think really means...besides getting fitter. I won;t blame him for that...and as rotla says, "The era is strong in terms of what science can do." I don;t think Djoko or Nadal would have been better athletes than Borg and Lendl in the 80s for instance. Chances are Djoko woudl have been coughing his way to many more losses and Nadal woudl have just been another Borg...at best. At least we know that Borg had a pulse rate of 30/min naturally. I never heard of Nadal having special natural physical ability.

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:A large part of their play is attrition tennis, repeatedly keep doing same thing over and over to until the opponent breaks.

'Attrition' is a relative concept. Some players are 'tired' in 5 shots, some in 20, some in 30. The question is do you hit an outright winner or rely on an opponent error. Related to that is the notion of 'forced' vs 'unforced' errors.

youtube.com/watch?v=pZSuyr6Wqlk

Agreed. When a player knows he can outlast the opponent and 'force' him into an 'error', he is highly likely to do. If you see Badminton you'll know how many rallies a player keeps going for only to kill the opponent's stamina when he just won't have the breath to continue. This was a good ploy in badminton because hitting an outright winner is difficult in badminton given the slow pace of the shuttle, ultra light racquet, smaller court area etc. Hence almost all players employ it in their game, especially in singles.

But playing such a game in tennis was always difficult and far too risky. So risking a UE going for errors was the only option. But again with slowing conditions it has become easier. 'Supreme' stamina of the player allow such a play. Why will they risk going for winners when they can win without it. Nadal kept on doing it and his success has encouraged others to follow. I'm sure everyone would have noticed the change in Djo's game from 2007 to 2011 and his success in 2011 has guaranteed he will play that way. In The AO final this year, he always chose to win points tiring and forcing an error from Nadal, rather than finishing the point early even when he had the chance. He knew Nadal can't hit enough winners which he won't be able to retrieve nor can Nadal outlast him.

Tenez wrote:. Delpo has a fantastic FH, I agree, but so had Gonzales. Tsonga has good volleys and is probably the 2nd most talented player of the ones you mentioned but it is that talent that prevents him to go further. The winner in most cases is the fittest player. End of. Not the one able to create variety. Attacking doesn;t pay off.

Of course Djoko did the right thing to adapt to win, but we do not know what doing the right think really means...besides getting fitter. I won;t blame him for that...and as rotla says, "The era is strong in terms of what science can do." I don;t think Djoko or Nadal would have been better athletes than Borg and Lendl in the 80s for instance. Chances are Djoko woudl have been coughing his way to many more losses and Nadal woudl have just been another Borg...at best. At least we know that Borg had a pulse rate of 30/min naturally. I never heard of Nadal having special natural physical ability.

Delpo is miles better than Gonzo.For a start, he won a slam and beat Nadal and Federer en route. He does not only have a forehand but a game to utilise that forehand with.

I reckon Tsonga would've been great in the 90s, a pure S&Ver.

Although in just about any sport you have two basic options: attack & defence, in tennis you have the option of incorporating both into your game and varying the usage of each as part of individual tactics depending the type of player you are facing. Naturally, the more shots you have in your arsenal - the more you can play with various combinations, I suppose that's where talent shines most, there are plans A, B, C.....

Attacking tennis has always had the ticket of holy grail a bit, and in some ways I understand it: behind an attacker lie courage, gutsiness qualities that are generally desired in "real" life.
Defenders (read fit base-liners in today's tennis) are viewed as cowards, lacking weapons to go forward, which is not necessary true.
I think you can have an equally talented counter-puncher and attacker.
The attacker is usually determined by the immediate advantage of a powerful serve. There are guys who just don't have that weapon. That does not make them less talented, just lacking that shot.

Pete had the serve, Agassi had everything else.

When Lendl turned up on the scene, he was such a contrast to Becker and Edberg, never won Wimbledon, never the classic "attacking " player of that era, kind of 2nd class in those days' tennis conversations (I'm going of f my memory here, not what Wickipedia says), but when you look back on that era now, you can see what a brilliant player he was.

noleisthebest wrote:
Delpo is miles better than Gonzo.For a start, he won a slam and beat Nadal and Federer en route. He does not only have a forehand but a game to utilise that forehand with.

I don't think in those terms it can be very misleading. Had Federer converted one of his double BPs in that USO final Fed woudl have won in an easy 3 setter (more easily than Fed v Gonzo AO07) and Delpo would have no slams...just a final like Gonzo. So is Federer messing up those 2 BPs what determines Delpo being better than Gonzo? Not for me. Another day Fed would have converted them. while another day Gonzo coudl have converted the SPs he had in that AO final.

We cannot judge a player being better than the other down to a point there and then making such a huge difference. It's like saying Murray is now better than Djoko cause he beat him last time around. Tomorrow might see a different result.

Delpo has a bigger FH than Gonzo but I don;t think Delpo coudl have afforded to stand 3m behind the baseline pre 2007. He woudl have been been constantly rushed. Like Gonzo was rushing Berdych then.



Having a big shot is one thing, being able to be well placed to execute it, is another one.

Pete had the serve, Agassi had everything else.

---------------------------------------

Pete had actually a very complete game. He did beat Agassi from the back of teh court at teh USO02. Agassi was the 1D for me, the typical bolitieri game with a hit and hope flavour (no luxilon then to add spin and security).

Tenez wrote:
I don't think in those terms it can be very misleading. Had Federer converted one of his double BPs in that USO final Fed woudl have won in an easy 3 setter (more easily than Fed v Gonzo AO07) and Delpo would have no slams...just a final like Gonzo. So is Federer messing up those 2 BPs what determines Delpo being better than Gonzo? Not for me. Another day Fed would have converted them. while another day Gonzo coudl have converted the SPs he had in that AO final.


Delpo has a bigger FH than Gonzo but I don;t think Delpo coudl have afforded to stand 3m behind the baseline pre 2007. He woudl have been been constantly rushed. Like Gonzo was rushing Berdych then.



Having a big shot is one thing, being able to be well placed to execute it, is another one.

I have never been a fan of Gonzo, to me he was a bit of one-dimensional player.

As for IFs and BUTs, I generally don't like to indulge in those, but since you're in the mood, how about 7 set points Nole had against Fed in his first slam USO final back in 2007?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I don't think in those terms it can be very misleading. Had Federer converted one of his double BPs in that USO final Fed woudl have won in an easy 3 setter (more easily than Fed v Gonzo AO07) and Delpo would have no slams...just a final like Gonzo. So is Federer messing up those 2 BPs what determines Delpo being better than Gonzo? Not for me. Another day Fed would have converted them. while another day Gonzo coudl have converted the SPs he had in that AO final.


Delpo has a bigger FH than Gonzo but I don;t think Delpo coudl have afforded to stand 3m behind the baseline pre 2007. He woudl have been been constantly rushed. Like Gonzo was rushing Berdych then.



Having a big shot is one thing, being able to be well placed to execute it, is another one.

I have never been a fan of Gonzo, to me he was a bit of one-dimensional player.

As for IFs and BUTs, I generally don't like to indulge in those, but since you're in the mood, how about 7 set points Nole had against Fed in his first slam USO final back in 2007?

Lets not change goal-post from Gonzo-Delpo to Fed-Djokovic. We should stick to the argument at hand.

rotla,
what's your definition of a strong era?

As for IFs and BUTs, I generally don't like to indulge in those, but since you're in the mood, how about 7 set points Nole had against Fed in his first slam USO final back in 2007?

---------------------------------------

It's not about IFs and Buts actually. It's the other way around. I take the matches and trophies (slams here) down to something we can actually value. Exactly like that last year USO semi. One point going either way is never going to be a good argument to value strength between players.

You say Delpo is much better but there is no base for saying that. Gonzo lead Berdych 10 sets to 5 and Berdych has a similar style than Delpo. I could go on with more tangible results and facts than simply a slam going one way down to a single point.

The way he plays, I actually see Delpo more as an all-court player compared to almost pure baseline from Berdych.
Delpo has a forward moving mind and Berd doesn't.

as for last year's USO semi, I don't see your point. What is the difference in Fed not using his match points compared to Novak not using his 7 set points )? remember that was his first slam final and he was quite inexperienced on that level)

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Agreed. When a player knows he can outlast the opponent and 'force' him into an 'error', he is highly likely to do. If you see Badminton you'll know how many rallies a player keeps going for only to kill the opponent's stamina when he just won't have the breath to continue. This was a good ploy in badminton because hitting an outright winner is difficult in badminton given the slow pace of the shuttle, ultra light racquet, smaller court area etc. Hence almost all players employ it in their game, especially in singles.

The shuttle reaches speeds of 200mph+ compared to a Tennis ball at 120mph+ (on the serve) and 100 mph(non-serve). Two distinct differences. Very little or no top-spin. No DHBH. It is a 'chess' game, unlike Tennis played like a Roman circus with gladiators. Much less effort is required in turning the direction of a shuttle as compared to a tennis ball, purely in terms of the momentum and kinetic energy of the ball. And Badminton does not allow a towelling break/breather, or a sit down/eating break after every eight points (on average). You get a drink break in a 21-point game or a court changeover.

I have never been able to find this interview on UTube, but Rene Lacoste had said that the game was evolving towards good athleticism (was on Tennis Channel Signature Series in the US). Nowadays, you have to be a good athlete first, a good tennis player second, compared to 20-30 years ago, where good tennis skills were more important, fitness was second. (Paraphrased by me).

Did you watch Lee Chong Wei v Lin Dan?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But playing such a game in tennis was always difficult and far too risky. So risking a UE going for errors was the only option. But again with slowing conditions it has become easier. 'Supreme' stamina of the player allow such a play. Why will they risk going for winners when they can win without it. Nadal kept on doing it and his success has encouraged others to follow. I'm sure everyone would have noticed the change in Djo's game from 2007 to 2011 and his success in 2011 has guaranteed he will play that way. In The AO final this year, he always chose to win points tiring and forcing an error from Nadal, rather than finishing the point early even when he had the chance. He knew Nadal can't hit enough winners which he won't be able to retrieve nor can Nadal outlast him.

Nadal is not the sole proponent of this style. Lendl, Borg, Wilander, Vilas, Ferrer, Murray, Djokovic vis-a-vis Laver, McEnroe, Mecir, Gerulaitis, Federer are prime examples. Nadal has just continued a tradition.

noleisthebest wrote:
as for last year's USO semi, I don't see your point.

The point is that a point cannot determine who is better than who. One won the slam the other did not. The best I'd be ready to say is that Fed and Nole were very even.

The winner is not necessarily the better player.....otherwise the better player woudl win everytime.



SO in short had Delpo won 4 slams I woudl be inclined to believe that he was a better (comparatively) player than Gonzo....One slam there an then will not be enough for me to make a fair assessment. Is Jonathan as good as Delpo cause he also has a slam?. I'd rather assess a player by his game in the given conds and of course his overall career result.

Ljubicic and Nalby for instance were essentially the only players able to challenge Fed on HC pre-2007. It did not allow them to win much but the fact is their shot making ability was the only thing causing Fed trouble on the faster conds.

Regarding Delpo, I really think the slower balls help him hugely. Not only to get to the ball but he has the power and spin to hit through though slow balls while they actually prevent the less powerful players to hurt him. Provide faster balls and the situation might be very different. Delpo might struggle getting to them and then control them.

I agree, Delpo definitely has limitations and he is in a different league from the others of this era who did win more than one slam.

I suppose I like watching him play, and he is such a character, he doesn't have to be a complete package like Fed for example.

That's the problem with Federer, he is making a lot of other players look worse than they would be had he not been around.

That's the problem with Federer, he is making a lot of other players look worse than they would be had he not been around.

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

Yes and that particularly applies to the old generation who faced his genius without being physically "equipped" to retrieve his shots and rally with him: Safin, Gonzo, Nalby, Ljubo, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko and many more.

The new generation was trained while young by him, they knew they had to work much harder to get to those balls and knew the only way to get him was sustaining the longer rallies to draw the shank (the UE) over the distance.

How they managed to get that extra gear physically is the question mark but I suspect they will pay by having a shorter career than him, or certainly more injury prone.

I genuinely believe Nole did not benefit from slowdown of conditions, only Nadal did, and now Murray may as well.

Look at last year and how it cost Novak, he ended up with a torn muscle in the back , that was nothing but pure wear and tear of those bruising finals against Nadal, and they would NOT have been that bruising had the conditions been faster.

Nole does like slower hard courts as his game is based on him bossing points from the centre of baseline.
I have noticed him moving the game forward again now, and the return of his serve reliabliity has helped a lot in that direction.

I don't like Nole being complacent which he often does and chooses to grind opponents (esp. lower ranked ones), it's an easy option he's learned o use more often now, he'd save his body more if he could keep the focus and move forward more.
I'm pretty sure he is very aware of it, and is working on it with his coach.
As you know well, it's very mentally draining to be attacking all the time esp on slower surfaces, so it's not only Federer that's suffering.

But if you look at all Djoko's slams they were won by outlasting Nadal and Federer...not oversmarting them. It's this overlasting ability he has that has enabled him to win past guys like Tsip, Dolgo, Baghdatis, Federer, Ferrer, Murray, Tsonga, Nadal etc...and containing their shots. I have not seen him dictating from the back and winning a slam doing just that all the way!

More than anyone I woudl say his strength is about retrieving th eextra shot.

So I can;t agree with you here. Sorry! You 'll have to pull the handbag again!

How about the fact that his winners are not enough as the slow conditions are allowing Nadal &co to retrieve?
Don't tell me you haven't noticed Nole's going for corners, lines and angles....he certainly doesn't beat Fed by sending him balls down the middle of T line.

Tenez wrote:You 'll have to pull the handbag again!

This is where I need a FUMING smiley (this one is too happy for the occasion :bom:) ....Tenez, can we do anything about adding a few more smileys, I can't use about 95 of what we have....
I mean when can one use these: :P :cherry: :albino: :geek: ?

noleisthebest wrote:How about the fact that his winners are not enough as the slow conditions are allowing Nadal &co to retrieve?
Don't tell me you haven't noticed Nole's going for corners, lines and angles....he certainly doesn't beat Fed by sending him balls down the middle of T line.

No but he beats Fed by keeping sending balls on his BH until an UE is drawn. Unlike Nadal, Murray and Nole have not the power and spin to hurt Federer's BH so they chose to rally longer and in 70% of cases it is Federer who has to be creative and break that routine.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:You 'll have to pull the handbag again!

This is where I need a FUMING smiley (this one is too happy for the occasion :bom:) ....Tenez, can we do anything about adding a few more smileys, I can't use about 95 of what we have....
I mean when can one use these: :P :cherry: :albino: :geek: ?

I agree. I am not sure how to though. We will try to get some better ones. ...though I can easily think who I woudl use the pig for!

Tenez wrote:

No but he beats Fed by keeping sending balls on his BH until an UE is drawn. Unlike Nadal, Murray and Nole have not the power and spin to hurt Federer's BH so they chose to rally longer and in 70% of cases it is Federer who has to be creative and break that routine.

Well isn't going for the backhand the mother of all tactics?
I actually did pay attention in their recent matches to particularly that aspect, and Nole often goes for Fed's forehand. When he was able to break it (if he gets the sniff he can) those were his best wins.
It would be great to see them play the USO final, just to settle some handbag issues ONCE AND FOR ALL 8)

I'll look up and try to add all the smileys which are possible to be added.

BUt look at Nole's FH, it is a very wristy shot and uses the angles a lot. The spin of the ball allows him to find angles and make Federer run without really looking at unbalancing him. It's more about sending him right and left. Delpo does try to hit through Fed. Djoko very rarely.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I'll look up and try to add all the smileys which are possible to be added.

Cool! I went through a list and was not impressed by what they had....Maybe we can import some.

Tenez wrote:BUt look at Nole's FH, it is a very wristy shot and uses the angles a lot. The spin of the ball allows him to find angles and make Federer run without really looking at unbalancing him. It's more about sending him right and left. Delpo does try to hit through Fed. Djoko very rarely.

Well it's a bit ridiculous to expect Nole to hit through Fed, I keep telling you about that upper body strength he doesn't have...

Ahh figured out how to add new ones. I'll have to do some work to create them. I'll add all the ones that were available in original 606. Give me 1 day to work on it.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I'll look up and try to add all the smileys which are possible to be added.

Cool! I went through a list and was not impressed by what they had....Maybe we can import some.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH all the ones from v2 plus JA 606 pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase