The strong era debate

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: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.

Thanks rotla !!!!!

noleisthebest wrote:

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...

You don;t need a big upper body to hit a winner. You need timing (taking a risk). By hitting very wristy FH, Djoko puts more energy in his shot that Federer's well timed FH, so I am afraid I don't buy that. Look at Dolgo! He is built like a shrimp but that doesn't prevent him to send bullets.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

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...

You don;t need a big upper body to hit a winner. You need timing (taking a risk). By hitting very wristy FH, Djoko puts more energy in his shot that Federer's well timed FH, so I am afraid I don't buy that. Look at Dolgo! He is built like a shrimp but that doesn't prevent him to send bullets.

I know Fed has a better forehand. Do you think Fed would've won what he did if he looked like Dolgo, though?
I also know that Nole's got a great one as well.

As for "look at Dolgo", his bullets haven't won him much, have they?
I'm pretty sure a lot of players could choose to play wreckless tennis and look good, be a flash in the an of a tournament or two and then disappear.
Dolgo's A tennis is breathtaking and I love it, shame he lacks the upstairs to manage his talent better.

: :

Nice smileys! That's all we need! ;)

As for "look at Dolgo", his bullets haven't won him much, have they?
------------------

No they have not but that is the core of our discussion. His bullets were retrieved by Djoko while the latter played safer. I have not seen him blasting his way to slam wins. He thrives on those slow conds. I really doubt he could do so well on faster conds.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

P.S.
call me ungrateful and greedy, but keep working on them ;)

THANKS R TLA !

Tenez wrote:As for "look at Dolgo", his bullets haven't won him much, have they?
------------------

No they have not but that is the core of our discussion. His bullets were retrieved by Djoko while the latter played safer. I have not seen him blasting his way to slam wins. He thrives on those slow conds. I really doubt he could do so well on faster conds.

he,he,he....

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

P.S.
call me ungrateful and greedy, but keep working on them

THANKS R TLA !

Thanks. I added few but there are many more to be added. I plan to do those tomorrow. Its tennis time now ::

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Thanks. I added few but there are many more to be added. I plan to do those tomorrow. Its tennis time now

OK, then...if you insist

Federer joins our debate:


"Roger Federer counters comments made by John McEnroe and Andre Agassi
that this is the toughest era in men's tennis, with the so-called Big
Four of Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Andy Murray winning
almost every significant tournament.

“I'd say no, but I don't know,” Federer told reporters. “Just because
you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and
Agassi, I don't know who else. Those guys weren't good or what? You
look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the
Lendls. Those weren't good either? I mean, I don't know. So for me I
think that's respectful.

It's just different times and definitely more athletic, there's no
doubt about that. But then again we don't play doubles. We don't play
mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it's more taxing, but we
do play less best of five set tennis than they used to play.

You can't compare really, but we have somewhat of a golden era right
now. I feel that truly. It's nice to see Andy making his move at the
Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last
year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It's definitely good
times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It's very
interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been
greater than right now. But then best ever? The four of us? That's a
really difficult call.”

It's just different times and definitely more athletic, there's no
doubt about that.

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

Isn't it what I have been saying?

I think it's time to debunk that word "athletic".

he means physical. He is a smart guy....he wants to sell the sport. Athletic sounds better than physical.

Tenez wrote:he means physical. He is a smart guy....he wants to sell the sport. Athletic sounds better than physical.

I know what he means.

But what I meant was to demystify the stigma associated with it. to kind of weigh how much advantage it actually has in real pro-match conditions.

On the one hand you have Nadal who epitomises physical tennis and see what it brought him, but then again, tennis is more than physicality and you can't win titles by just being ultra-fit.

What I dislike in all this physical aspect is that it's (apart from making matches longer) it's taking/eliminating finesse and variety. Percentage tennis is no fun, and a lot of players have been sucked into it because they really have no choice with the playing conditions being slowed down.

Somebody somewhere needs to revert the trend because it's gone too far and threatening to dull the game which originally started off as so artistic and imaginative.

noleisthebest wrote:
But what I meant was to demystify the stigma associated with it. to kind of weigh how much advantage it actually has in real pro-match conditions.

On the one hand you have Nadal who epitomises physical tennis and see what it brought him, but then again, tennis is more than physicality and you can't win titles by just being ultra-fit.

It has a huge advantage to have. Not just a little, but HUGE!! There are numerous matches which were only won because the winner was simply able to outlast the opponent. Didn't do anything more because he knew the advantage he had over the opponent. The winner was only looking not to make any errors and keep the rally as long as it can, and the opponent will tire out and start making errors. Haven't we seen such match? That's a long .. long list.

Agree is not just being ultra fit. There is not sport which only depends only on being ultra-fit to determine the winner. But tennis is a physical sport, and a gruelling one. There is no upper cap to how long will the match last ( like Football with 90m cap, hockey with 70m cap). In a match a player will always try to play to his advantage. I see nadal and Murray also being very aggressive at times and looking to hit shots first in a rally. But it depends on their opponent and more on the match situation.

noleisthebest wrote: What I dislike in all this physical aspect is that it's (apart from making matches longer) it's taking/eliminating finesse and variety. Percentage tennis is no fun, and a lot of players have been sucked into it because they really have no choice with the playing conditions being slowed down.

Somebody somewhere needs to revert the trend because it's gone too far and threatening to dull the game which originally started off as so artistic and imaginative.

Absolutely. I saw the AO 2012 final and how much it lacked in tennis skills and imaginative play. See a few rallys and you've seen it all. The commentators on my channel were saying just the above.

...but we do play less best of five set tennis than they used to play.

Lendl, Borg, Vilas were very athletic. It is not just the current Top 4.

Unlike Chess, Tennis has always been a physical sport and will always be.

I see very little difference between Borg and Nadal or Vilas (he played 199 professional matches in a season (1977) which includes both singles and doubles) and Nadal.

McEnroe played more singles and doubles than any of the current Top 4.

and the depth I think has never been greater than right now.

How many slams have been won in the last 10 years by players not named Fedalovic?

Ferrer, the most physical player on tour has never been to a slam final. Is he athletic? No. Is he physical? Very much so. Rugby players are physical.

Very good points rotla. Important to stress the physical side of the sport in today's era.

Steve Tignor at tennis.com:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/08/its-not-about-racquet/39058/

Great article.

I like those bits in particular:

To me, all sports lovers and sportswriters should think the opposite; we should care. Who wants to believe an athlete is heroic when he or she is really anything but? Sports is meaningful to us, as opposed to being merely entertaining, because it isn’t fiction.

This week, in a mea culpa post for the New Yorker’s website, Specter wrote of Armstrong, “He was the great American—a man of principle who also won. Now I am afraid he is nothing.” Nothing more than a man who “did not even have the decency to admit his guilt.”

summerblues wrote:Steve Tignor at tennis.com:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/08/its-not-about-racquet/39058/

Thanks SB. Steve T. never lets down and a glass of best house red

Tenez wrote:Great article.

I like those bits in particular:

This week, in a mea culpa post for the New Yorker’s website, Specter wrote of Armstrong, “He was the great American—a man of principle who also won. Now I am afraid he is nothing.” Nothing more than a man who “did not even have the decency to admit his guilt.”

I can understand at times that an athlete can dope to increase his chances to win. Its very tough to keep losing when there is a very tempting short-cut available right in the corner. But when he is caught and every thing is so clear, he still continues to deny and accuse everyone else of plotting against him? Not only he was a poor sportsman, he couldn't even remain a good human being.

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Steve Tignor at tennis.com:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/08/its-not-about-racquet/39058/

Thanks SB. Steve T. never lets down and a glass of best house red

For someone who did not used to drink...you start early nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:Steve Tignor at tennis.com:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/08/its-not-about-racquet/39058/

Thanks SB. Steve T. never lets down and a glass of best house red

For someone who did not used to drink...you start early nowadays.

ooooh YOU!!!!!!!

P.S.
It IS my birthday to day, so I can

OOOOOOOHHHHHH NITB is the birthday girl today!!!!!!!



Have a good one indeed!!!

Thanks


and on tap for all

Look who you share birthday with!!!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/worlds-oldest-person-besse-cooper-turns-116-154351161--abc-news-topstories.html

Wishing you as many years....

Amazing thinking some born in 1800s are still amongst us.

Happy birthday NITB!

Thanks Sphair !

Tenez wrote:Look who you share birthday with!!!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/worlds-oldest-person-besse-cooper-turns-116-154351161--abc-news-topstories.html

Wishing you as many years....

Amazing thinking some born in 1800s are still amongst us.

He,he ....that's what I am being told all the time, that I'll live over a 100....

maybe I need to start smoking ... instead of going of to the gym....

http://c.cslacker.com/2814l.jpg

I'd love to be a toothless 100 year old blogger going on about the golden era of tennis when Nolewasthebest

Djokovic's take on the current era. Its the interview from yesterday after the final.

Djokovic said he savoured being part of the 'Big Four' of men's tennis, along with Federer, Nadal and Murray.

"Us four, we are taking this game to another level, and it's really nice to be part of such a strong men's tennis era," he added.

"It's a privilege to be part of this era. It's obvious that the four of us, you know, we get to the later stages of every single grand slam.

"Andy winning tonight makes it even more competitive and more interesting for people to watch it."

Yeah....but I think it;s sad to mix Federer with the other 3 as he has a completely different kind of tennis. He is not from the same generation and technically is far more complete and talented.

You just have to see the muscly FH of Murray or the terrible slice of Djoko to see the gap that separates them technically.