ATP MASTERS 1000: Monte Carlo

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Now so Stan's BH isn't as good as Fed's because Fed's with his BH has 17 slams and Stan only 1. And there is totally different yardstick to measure who is a better player when comparing Nadal with Djokovic? Let Djokovic get 13 slams and 26 masters, then we'll think about if at all Djokovic is better.

Nadal is not comparable with any other player because of the way he was allowed to win everything he did. Not because he is a great player, because he is not. He does not have a single shot that shows any talent or tennis skill.
We wrote so much about him over the years, there is no point repeating it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Do you really think Fed himself shares the same view i.e. Djokovic is a bigger challenge for him than Nadal? I don't think so. When there was none who could even touch Fed, Nadal was able to beat him consistently. Remember the quotes " Clay is not my problem. My problem is Nadal". Did anything similar from Fed came out ever came out about Djokovic?

Nadal challenges Federer only on physical, not tennis level. Take away dope from Nadal and he couldn't even challenge Granollers, let alone Federer or Djokovic.
He would not be able to physically endure playing tennis from 4m behind the baseline. Why does he do it? Because he is unable to take the ball early, i.e. has zero tennis talent.
It probably takes 5 times more energy to hit the ball from where Nadal is with all that spin than to take it early standing on the baseline like Nishikori. Tiny Nishi soaks up all the pace of the oncoming ball on the rise and hits it with minimal energy sending it back fast. There is no magic or secret, all plain and easy.
That's why Fed has been able to last so long and play so well for so many years.

Multiply Nadal's sweaty effort by 5 hours, and you get a superhuman, highly unnatural amount of energy expanded.

So Nadal first evades talent by standing far behind and wait as much time as possible before he hits the ball. That bit would be fine if it wasn't for the fact he then has that big left bicep to whip the ball as hard as possible and send it back to the other player spinning, gaining height and carrying a lot of energy.
That also would be fine, except that a healthy, fit young man could probably last half an hour playing like that.
I'll let you fill in the blanks with how Nadal can do it over 6 hours year after year.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

nitb wrote:Nadal's challenge came from his physicality, not skill.

So did Djokovic's and he acknowledges it too. I don't know why you being such a good poster, don't find it comfortable to accept it too. 

Nole is not a physical player. His ball is normal. He is a completely different ball-striker from Nadal. His strength is not in pounding the ball with ridiculous muscles from 4m behind the baseline. That's why Federer has close but positive H2H with him and not Nadal.
That's how I see it.

truffin1 wrote:You're not paying attention-   I gave one example with the grass..    Yes, Fed needs certain conditions for his backhand to show it's  FULL might, but so does Stan. Yesterday STan got those conditions so if you watched this one match- Stan's backhand looked better.  I've seen every Stan v/s Fed match for at least past 5 years, and it's very rare that Stan's backhand is the better shot.   My greater point- which is really easy to understand is even under the slow conditions most of the tour is played under-  Federer is going to have a better more varied backhand than Stan.   Grass, hardcourt, indoor- Federer has more variety, more action on it, is able to take it earlier--   that's where he scores over Stan in the BH.  As so/so as Fed's returns can be- he also has a much better ability to hit over the top of his backhand with consistency than Stan does. We could see that yesterday-  tennis channel at one point put up a stat that Stan was over 85% slicing the return with the backhand  and while Federer was around 60% top spin... and Federer is usualy the chip king on returns.   Stan definitely has a weakness on return with the backhand.  He doesn't like to be rushed, and going back to my point-  most of the time Federer can rush him.    Stan has a beautiful powerful backhand.. I love his shot and he can do things with it that Federer can't.... BUT-   Federer can also do and does more things that Stan can't than vice/versa... i.e. overall Fed's backhand is better.

It's just an opinion though............ :-)

We are not always talking about their BH in their h2h. So even if Fad can make him rush on the BH, it doesn't mean Fed's bH is better. Maybe its better in their matchup, but is it also in the larger scheme of things? Let's me for a sec assume Fed's BH being better in their h2h but is it also the story with the entire field?

 Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.

Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.


I'm not saying Stan is a better player, he just isn't. But does he have a better BH? I would say so. Its just like saying does Karlovic has a better serve than Fed? Of course, but Karlovic isn't even close to Fed as a player.

nitb wrote:Nadal is not comparable with any other player because of the way he was allowed to win everything he did. Not because he is a great player, because he is not. He does not have a single shot that shows any talent or tennis skill. 
We wrote so much about him over the years, there is no point repeating it.

See you picked the yardstick of slams to compare BHs of Fed & Stan. Now you don't want to pick the same for Nadal and Djokovic. Now you are saying Nadal's slams are invalid because he was allowed to win everything? What happened, did he get those slams as a gift? 

And what what the reason he was picked for showering those gifts and not anyone else? Nadal was nothing in 2004 and then almost out of no where he starts getting free Slams and TMS from ITF/ATP?

nitb wrote:Nadal challenges Federer only on physical, not tennis level. Take away dope from Nadal and he couldn't even challenge Granollers, let alone Federer or Djokovic. 
He would not be able to physically endure playing tennis from 4m behind the baseline. Why does he do it? Because he is unable to take the ball early, i.e. has zero tennis talent.
It probably takes 5 times more energy to hit the ball from where Nadal is with all that spin than to take it early standing on the baseline like Nishikori. Tiny Nishi soaks up all the pace of the oncoming ball on the rise and hits it with minimal energy sending it back fast. There is no magic or secret, all plain and easy. 
That's why Fed has been able to last so long and play so well for so many years. 

Multiply Nadal's sweaty effort by 5 hours, and you get a superhuman, highly unnatural amount of energy expanded.

So Nadal first evades talent by standing far behind and wait as much time as possible before he hits the ball. That bit would be fine if it wasn't for the fact he then has that big left bicep to whip the ball as hard as possible and send it back to the other player spinning, gaining height and carrying a lot of energy. 
That also would be fine, except that a healthy, fit young man could probably last half an hour playing like that.
I'll let you fill in the blanks with how Nadal can do it over 6 hours year after year.

My point was Nadal is  biggest challenge to Federer and not Djokovic. So I was expecting you to backup your initial point that Djokovic is a bigger challenge for Fed. Can you say why?

I explained in detail the difference between Nadal and Nole (and all other players).
Nadal challenges EVERYONE with one thing only: not tennis skill but physical power.
In my books that does not count for much and I don't respect anything Nadal has won, it's like a black hole in the history of tennis for me.
I'd be interested to know what you think Nadal challenges Federer with?
What skill allows him to have such excellent H2H against him (and everyone else bar Nole)?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:....

Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.

Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.

That's very true! So how do you explain that Fed has a much much better record than Stan versus those very guys? The BH is actually is the final test for consistency and Fed is much more consistent than Stan from that side. On clay as well as on any other surface. Stan has more power from that wing. No doubt but he is (certainly was) simply not consistent enough against those guys who keep plugging his BH.

It's very much like Gasquet's BH....very impressive and nice on the eye...but they don't make up for the advantage of taking the ball early, having more control and variety.

But yes I understand why some would think it's better....however it is not.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.
Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.[/b]

Fed does not always run around his BH.
It's elementary knowledge that BH is everyone's weaker shot, if it appears it is not, it does not say much about their FH.
Gasquet and Stan both have average FH, although Stan has improved his a lot.
Of course players are going to target Fed's BH, they all want to avoid his quick and deadly FH. You'd do the same!
But that does mot mean there is anything wrong with his BH.

There is more to BH than just blasting it off from the baseline. Just look how Fed volleys with it. His BH is so versatile and complex, he can do anything with it, incl blast it away.

Just because Stan was physically fresher in the final and managed to beat Fed does not change anything in the big picture.
It's no coincidence he lost to him so many times before.

Stan talks about his chances at RG and being number one, as he currently leads in the race:

"The No. 1 this year last won two Grand Slams and five Masters 1000s in a year. You have to win almost every tournament you play to be No. 1. So when I will play Rome or Madrid, I'll think about trying to go as far as I can in the tournament and nothing else.

I  play well on clay. It's normal that I would be a favorite for the French Open, but I don't think so because I'm very far from players like Rafa, Novak, and Roger.

I just think the big four will always be the big four: Rafa, Novak, Roger, and Murray. They won all the tournaments since many years and you cannot change that.

When I go into a match against them, I always think I can beat them. I'm on the court to win. Now I'm more consistent and I have better results, but I still can't compare myself with Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic."

All I can say is, times have changed and for better!
Instead of barking about Nadal, we are now arguing about SBHs

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:....

Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.

Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.

That's very true! So how do you explain that Fed has a much much better record than Stan versus those very guys? The BH is actually is the final test for consistency and Fed is much more consistent than Stan from that side. On clay as well as on any other surface. Stan has more power from that wing. No doubt but he is (certainly was) simply not consistent enough against those guys who keep plugging his BH.

It's very much like Gasquet's BH....very impressive and nice on the eye...but they don't make up for the advantage of taking the ball early, having more control and variety.

But yes I understand why some would think it's better....however it is not.

Having a better record and having a better BH are not the same things. Karlovic must have a terrible records against all top players, but does this mean he doesn't have a better serve than all those guys out there? He still has the best serve out there in tennis circuit, probably best ever. Now his poor h2h records against them doesn't make his serving any less, because tennis matches are not only about serving. Results are not based on a single criteria. The same way tennis matches aren't only about a BH. So Stan may still have poor h2h against most of those guys compared to Fed, but that doesn't mean his BH will also have to poor compared to Fed's.

Gasquet's BH is totally different, its loopy and he needs lot of time to make it. He can produce some good angles, but its breakable. 

SHBH can be the best when it can hit DTL shot with authority, because that where the Double hander and lefties like Nadal handcuff the SHBH players. Fed can't get out of this, the DTL shot is not an easy one for him. If constantly put under pressure, his return startsto get shorter and shorter. Then he either will make an error or a brilliant shot, but he misses more often and this game-play becomes worth it. The 3rd set that Murray won was completely on this pattern, Nadal we have been seeing over the years.

Stan's BH can't be handcuffed, it's just too strong. He make strong DTL shots and even cross-courts. That's why its a better shot than Fed's. Fed may show some magic, but Stan will be able to do more off that wing.

noleisthebest wrote:I explained in detail the difference between Nadal and Nole (and all other players).
Nadal challenges EVERYONE with one thing only: not tennis skill but physical power.
In my books that does not count for much and I don't respect anything Nadal has won, it's like a black hole in the history of tennis for me.
I'd be interested to know what you think Nadal challenges Federer with?
What skill allows him to have such excellent H2H against him (and everyone else bar Nole)?

The question was how is Djokovic a tougher challenge for Fed than Nadal. The difference between Nadal and Djokovic is a different answer. Nadal's wins and records count or not in your opinion is again a different answer.

Discussion about what skill Nadal has to get that +ve h2h against most players is a different topic. We can get to that, but can we get done with this first?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I explained in detail the difference between Nadal and Nole (and all other players).
Nadal challenges EVERYONE with one thing only: not tennis skill but physical power.
In my books that does not count for much and I don't respect anything Nadal has won, it's like a black hole in the history of tennis for me.
I'd be interested to know what you think Nadal challenges Federer with?
What skill allows him to have such excellent H2H against him (and everyone else bar Nole)?

The question was how is Djokovic a tougher challenge for Fed than Nadal. The difference between Nadal and Djokovic is a different answer. Nadal's wins and records count or not in your opinion is again a different answer.

Discussion about what skill Nadal has to get that +ve h2h against most players is a different topic. We can get to that, but can we get done with this first?

Nole has beaten Federer almost as many times as Nadal and on all surfaces except grass, including indoors, despite turing pro several years after Nadal.
I don't know the ins and outs of Fedal H2H but have a  feeling most of Nadal's wins over Federer came on clay where his physicality I described in my first two posts on this page gave him the unfair advantage.

Now it's your turn to answer the question which skill Nadal beats Federer with?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:....

Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.

Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.

That's very true! So how do you explain that Fed has a much much better record than Stan versus those very guys? The BH is actually is the final test for consistency and Fed is much more consistent than Stan from that side. On clay as well as on any other surface. Stan has more power from that wing. No doubt but he is (certainly was) simply not consistent enough against those guys who keep plugging his BH.

It's very much like Gasquet's BH....very impressive and nice on the eye...but they don't make up for the advantage of taking the ball early, having more control and variety.

But yes I understand why some would think it's better....however it is not.

Having a better record and having a better BH are not the same things. Karlovic must have a terrible records against all top players, but does this mean he doesn't have a better serve than all those guys out there? He still has the best serve out there in tennis circuit, probably best ever. Now his poor h2h records against them doesn't make his serving any less, because tennis matches are not only about serving. Results are not based on a single criteria. The same way tennis matches aren't only about a BH. So Stan may still have poor h2h against most of those guys compared to Fed, but that doesn't mean his BH will also have to poor compared to Fed's.

Gasquet's BH is totally different, its loopy and he needs lot of time to make it. He can produce some good angles, but its breakable. 

SHBH can be the best when it can hit DTL shot with authority, because that where the Double hander and lefties like Nadal handcuff the SHBH players. Fed can't get out of this, the DTL shot is not an easy one for him. If constantly put under pressure, his return startsto get shorter and shorter. Then he either will make an error or a brilliant shot, but he misses more often and this game-play becomes worth it. The 3rd set that Murray won was completely on this pattern, Nadal we have been seeing over the years.

Stan's BH can't be handcuffed, it's just too strong. He make strong DTL shots and even cross-courts. That's why its a better shot than Fed's. Fed may show some magic, but Stan will be able to do more off that wing.

 
I see the point you make but there is a difference when making a parallel between Karlo's serve and a SHBH. Karlo's serve is good cause he leaves the opponent with no answer and it is not a shot his opponents can avoid in the sense that they will have to face it each time Karlo serves.. Whereas a BH is the most tested shot in tennis, the shot opponents go at systematically. As NITB says, BH is almost always, if not always, the weaker shots when compared with FHs. THis is why for years, 10 years precisely, we have not had a SHBH winning a slam.....if it was not for Federer.
 
Federer's BH looks weak compared to his FH, and likewise Stan's BH looks good compared to his FH, but Fed's BH it is still a great shot, in fact the better of the 2,  and the ONLY one who could sustain the constant attacks of Nadal, Djoko and other road runners for the last years. Gasquet's Stan, Youzhny's and all other SHBH were being beaten because their SHBH was simply not consistent enough. Watch any Nadal or Djoko match v Stan, they still attack his BH, despite being the strong shot, and Stan does not get beaten by Nadal because he has less winners than Nadal, only because he makes more UEs, and those come from the BH.
 

Stan's BH can't be handcuffed, it's just too strong. He make strong DTL shots and even cross-courts. That's why its a better shot than Fed's. Fed may show some magic, but Stan will be able to do more off that wing

Frankly, how often does Stan pulls winners with DTL BH? You will see that those great shots hardly win a match....though there are those we remember. The winner is the consistent player.
 
And again, the simple fact is that despite having allegedly a better BH, being much fresher, more powerful, a tired Fed could have won in 2 straight sets! and only lost cause he simply burnt out. The match does not support the theory of Stan having a better BH, if anthing.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

truffin1 wrote:You're not paying attention-   I gave one example with the grass..    Yes, Fed needs certain conditions for his backhand to show it's  FULL might, but so does Stan. Yesterday STan got those conditions so if you watched this one match- Stan's backhand looked better.  I've seen every Stan v/s Fed match for at least past 5 years, and it's very rare that Stan's backhand is the better shot.   My greater point- which is really easy to understand is even under the slow conditions most of the tour is played under-  Federer is going to have a better more varied backhand than Stan.   Grass, hardcourt, indoor- Federer has more variety, more action on it, is able to take it earlier--   that's where he scores over Stan in the BH.  As so/so as Fed's returns can be- he also has a much better ability to hit over the top of his backhand with consistency than Stan does. We could see that yesterday-  tennis channel at one point put up a stat that Stan was over 85% slicing the return with the backhand  and while Federer was around 60% top spin... and Federer is usualy the chip king on returns.   Stan definitely has a weakness on return with the backhand.  He doesn't like to be rushed, and going back to my point-  most of the time Federer can rush him.    Stan has a beautiful powerful backhand.. I love his shot and he can do things with it that Federer can't.... BUT-   Federer can also do and does more things that Stan can't than vice/versa... i.e. overall Fed's backhand is better.

It's just an opinion though............ :-)

We are not always talking about their BH in their h2h. So even if Fad can make him rush on the BH, it doesn't mean Fed's bH is better. Maybe its better in their matchup, but is it also in the larger scheme of things? Let's me for a sec assume Fed's BH being better in their h2h but is it also the story with the entire field?

 Its almost universally known that Players almost always try to keep the ball on Fed's BH, serve on Fed's bh, try to break the BH down. Why? Why do they have to keep doing it if Fed's BH was so strong. Why would Fed almost at every half an opportunity tries to run around and take it on the FH. Why can't he blast it off on the BH. Fed's BH weakness looks so obvious and prone to breaking down.

Now, is it also the case with Stan? I don't think so.


I'm not saying Stan is a better player, he just isn't. But does he have a better BH? I would say so. Its just like saying does Karlovic has a better serve than Fed? Of course, but Karlovic isn't even close to Fed as a player.

Your reasoning that players pick on Fed's BH is proof that Stans is better makes no realistic sense- again under the context of the entirety of the game.  They pick on Fed's backhand because he'd (esp in his prime) eat them up if they went everywhere else. It's the only tried and true pattern that could defeat him, and lets face it-  he won a whole lot more than he lost.    They don't pick on Stans backhand as much because there are other ways to beat him, other things to pick on--  Stan like most players can be stretched out easier than Fed, can be rushed, is less consistent, has a relatively average return, forehand breaks down..  They're hitting at him from all angles..  What choice do they have with Federer? Pick at arguably the most feared forehand in tennis history?  

You mentions things about Stans backhand that are better than Fed-  yes, he does handle the high ball to backhand better, prob because of the way he's built... but how do you explain Stan's poor backhand return? Federer's is much better even if the the players are trying to spin it high to his shoulders.  Stan does not blast the bh on return- he slices and blocks almost exclusively.  Why? Because he needs much more time than Federer to unleash the backhand even though it's more compact.       Stan's backhand breaks down in  different way than Federer's.   Feds because of the high ball, but Stans breaks down if he does not have a lot of time to set it up.  Federers backhand is much more consistent.   Federer's backhand is much more varied.   Stan can hit some blistering winners with the backhand, but it's not or hasn't been a consistent weapon.

I'm not saying Federer has the greatest  SHBH, but my opinion is it's better than Stans.  Like any player- Stan may flatline and have his be a better shot on a given day, but week in and week out- I would take Fed's backhand over Stans.

Under heavy conditions (slow hc and clay) Stans BH is much more effective. His BH is quite a bit more powerful hence he hits BH winners from 2-3 yards behind the baseline, and that's where you end up with high bouncing balls. 
Also because of that power it's easier for Stan to neutralize the rally or even counterpunch. Once Fed's BH is under pressure in a rally, it remains under pressure. 
On grass or other low bouncing fast surfaces Stan does not have the handiness and anticipation skills to really get in the right position, so basically in the second part of the season Feds skills are more effective.

If Fed had Stans BH, i reckon he would have won 4-5 RG titles, but maybe a few less Wimbledon titles.
If Stan had Fed's BH, i'm not sure he would have one more titles than he did now..

It's better than stans, but not against Nadal. It's just a case of match up. Against most players, Fed's bh is greater than Stan's. Of course, Fed isn't the same as old.. so at this moment in time, Stan's is more consistent.

truffin1 wrote:You mentions things about Stans backhand that are better than Fed-  yes, he does handle the high ball to backhand better, prob because of the way he's built... but how do you explain Stan's poor backhand return? Federer's is much better even if the the players are trying to spin it high to his shoulders.  Stan does not blast the bh on return- he slices and blocks almost exclusively.  Why? Because he needs much more time than Federer to unleash the backhand even though it's more compact.       Stan's backhand breaks down in  different way than Federer's.   Feds because of the high ball, but Stans breaks down if he does not have a lot of time to set it up.  Federers backhand is much more consistent.   Federer's backhand is much more varied.   Stan can hit some blistering winners with the backhand, but it's not or hasn't been a consistent weapon.

I'm not saying Federer has the greatest  SHBH, but my opinion is it's better than Stans.  Like any player- Stan may flatline and have his be a better shot on a given day, but week in and week out- I would take Fed's backhand over Stans.

Agree. To me the key is that Fed has less power than Stan cause he simply adds spin and consistency to it, plus he takes the ball earlier and therefore does not whack the ball as much.

And this is where I don't quite agree with GP is that even in slow wet clay, Federer was still 3 points away from beating Stan yet another time. Stan has more power and that is about it. But where I agree with GalleryPlay is that this power is crucial v Nadal. All the niceties and varieties of Fed's BH are useless v Nadal on slow courts whereas a powerful BH keeps Nadal on his toes. However having said that I don't think that Fed with Stan BH would have been consistent enough to trouble Nadal. As Truffin says there would have been many more UEs coming from that side than we had with Fed, despite his famous shanking reputation. The thing is seeing Fed shanking was something which annoyed and surprised us all. Seeing Stan shanking or simply drawing an UE with his BH is simply business as usual. How many points does Stan win with his BH v Nadal (prior to AO14)? not many!

This is I believe their last encounter on clay...just a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2fQZr2Y0nA

Stan produces only 2 or 3 BH winners in the whole match. Actually a clean BH winner and a forced error, maybe a 3rd winner but I am not sure. So he does not cope much better than Fed on the high bounce and Stan's winners come essentially from his FH. This is a summary so there might not be all the good points there though I believe that Stan's BHs usually make the cut as they are nice and impressive....but the reality is that there are far and few in between...Otherwise he would have a much better record.

Actually they played a few weeks later on clay at the FO and the score is ridiculously one sided. Frankly even on clay Fed's BH seem to withstand Nadal's attacks much better than Stan.

Stan has obviously worked very hard with Norman, got fitter, big match experienced, so his game which has not changed is just more consistent now, hence better results.
I don't remember anyone raving about Stan's BH 5 years ago, and that was the same shot.
In my opinion Gasquet has a better BH than Stan, but the rest of his game lets him down, mainly serve and FH which are good but not good enough.
When Gasquet is playing well, it's very nice all court tennis.

His 5 set match with Stan in RG last year was an instant classic.
If Gasquet spent a bit of time on his FH, he'd probably be able to move closer to the base-line and play more aggressively, take the pressure of his BH, like Stan has managed to.

Fed is the Daddy for both. He can hit any shot with his BH from any inch of the court. How quickly people forget....


And all these with the smaller racquet...

This clip shows how much more consistent Federer is on that side. Many of those BHs look fluky actually, many while Fed is really stretch on the BH side, yet we know with Fed that is going to do something with the ball. When Stan is stretched his BHs are very unlikely to come back.

They look flukey because he is so natural and coordinated he can do anythig with the racquet, Stan's BH is a drilled, hard practiced shot, which is why he has so much less variety on it.
I have  seen so many crazy one-off BHs from Federer over the years, he just knows instinctively what to do with the ball whichever part of the court he finds himself in.

Still, I can see why many prefer/like Stan's power, it's a similar thing as people saying how Nadal has a great FH.

noleisthebest wrote:They look flukey because he is so natural and coordinated he can do anythig with the racquet, Stan's BH is a drilled, hard practiced shot, which is why he has so much less variety on it.I have  seen so many crazy one-off BHs from Federer over the years, he just knows instinctively what to do with the ball whichever part of the court he finds himself in.

But that's Stan's advantage. I wish Federer were using flatter more solid BH at times. He certainly could have had a better H2H v Nadal...But for that he would have needed to learn play with a bigger frame. I think nowadays on a good day he generates enough power and is closer to Stan pace wise thanks to that new racquet but he still has an old technique.

noleisthebest wrote:Still, I can see why many prefer/like Stan's power, it's a similar thing as people saying how Nadal has a great FH.

But I do as well. It is essential when you play v roadrunners. This is what makes the difference....problem is that Stan gives many cheap point from that side...even if he hurts more when he is on the ball.

Good point. Do they play with the same grip?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Still, I can see why many prefer/like Stan's power, it's a similar thing as people saying how Nadal has a great FH.

But I do as well. It is essential when you play v roadrunners. This is what makes the difference....problem is that Stan gives many cheap point from that side...even if he hurts more when he is on the ball.

I have never been a huge fan of Stan, for me he is the same player as aways, simple, basic game, with not a lot of grace.
Since he got fitter and started playing more confidently, esp on his FH, he is more competitive and watchable.
I like him, but am surprised when people start comparing him to Federer.
It's a big of a bandwagon thing at the moment I suppose, and why not...At last a "new" face to lift trophies, esp after the despair of 2013.
It will be interesting to see him play Nadal on clay this year.
It's great to have another successful SBH to inspire children and juniors.

noleisthebest wrote:Good point. Do they play with the same grip?

I don't know. Looks a bit different. But the main difference is the follow through. Stan is very much in control of the racquet head all the way through whereas Fed throws it and let it go (and finishes higher too). I think Fed had a Yonex or a Head he would have a different BH. They are lighter on the Head and have a bigger sweetspot even at same size. Makes a difference when hitting flat.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Still, I can see why many prefer/like Stan's power, it's a similar thing as people saying how Nadal has a great FH.

But I do as well. It is essential when you play v roadrunners. This is what makes the difference....problem is that Stan gives many cheap point from that side...even if he hurts more when he is on the ball.

I have never been a huge fan of Stan, for me he is the same player as aways, simple, basic game, with not a lot of grace.
Since he got fitter and started playing more confidently, esp on his FH, he is more competitive and watchable.
I like him, but am surprised when people start comparing him to Federer.
It's a big of a bandwagon thing at the moment I suppose, and why not...At last a "new" face to lift trophies, esp after the despair of 2013.
It will be interesting to see him play Nadal on clay this year.
It's great to have another successful SBH to inspire children and juniors.

I am a fan of what is natural and efficient. And Stan's BH certainly makes the list. It's a great compact piece of timing and technique. It's like a Porsche. We do not have may great shots like that on the tour...though Kholi, Haas, Gasquet and others have great BHs too.

I remember watching Stan v Gasquet at the last FO and i agree that Gasquet had teh better BH....but collapsed physically and mentally...against a player who is not famous to be strong mentally either.

You are right! Stan seems to drive the swing/racquet through and kind of have longer time on the ball, a heavier contact.
I don't think Fed would have any problem doing the same if he wanted to, but I can't see him do it.
He is more about the placement than bashing. It would disturb the entire balance of his finely tuned flow, particularly his movement.

I hope it all comes together for him this Wimbledon!

Tenez wrote:
I am a fan of what is natural and efficient. And Stan's BH certainly makes the list. It's a great compact piece of timing and technique. It's like a Porsche. We do not have may great shots like that on the tour...though Kholi, Haas, Gasquet and others have great BHs too.

I remember watching Stan v Gasquet at the last FO and i agree that Gasquet had teh better BH....but collapsed physically and mentally...against a player who is not famous to be strong mentally either.

I think in that match Stan's fitness made the difference in the end. The 5th set was heroic from both, I loved it!

noleisthebest wrote:...He is more about the placement than bashing.

It was not really a choice with a 90inch racquet. It's a bit like McEnroe pushy shots. Had he learnt with a a larger frame McEnroe woudl have whacked the ball like Pete and Becker.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...He is more about the placement than bashing.

It was not really a choice with a 90inch racquet. It's a bit like McEnroe pushy shots. Had he learnt with a a larger frame McEnroe woudl have whacked the ball like Pete and Becker.

But I'm glad he didn't!
He preserved the soul in his game.

Even in this generation, with new technology, it is still possible to distinguish artists from bashers, even though all players hit the ball hard. Some are just a bit kinder to it  

The problem for me is that technology is taking away the beauty of ball-striking away more and more...
Those players are a dying breed. Even the talented ones have to bash to make up for the lack of speed of courts and balls.
And then they wilt away as the match progresses, like Gasquet.
Mannarino is now just a connoisseur's treat on a side court in Wimbledon...
Nothing natural except athleticism seems to be a bonus now. Maybe only serve.
Maybe that explains why Golubev is a "now you see me now you don't" type of player...
He beat Paire yesterday in 2 sets, second set 5:1!!?

noleisthebest wrote:The problem for me is that technology is taking away the beauty of ball-striking away more and more...

I do not think so. It has not got to be to be precise. It's true that the game has become more physical and it is easier to send a ball back now than it was before luxilion. But at the same time, those strings give lots more options than in the past. One can still choose to hit flat but can also give the ball spin and therefore there should be more variety. Servers can vary serve better, a talented server will be able to make the most of those. The talented player will always be the one who exploits those strings (and other technologies) better than the other players. I am really in favor of advance of technology. When I look at a Courrier Edberg match, I am in part glad the game moved from there. It is now more spectacular in many ways. Even the flatter hitters can hit flatter but still add some security in their shots.

The problem is not the racquet technology as much as the establishment trying to push the conds to favour some players over others. It woudl be so easy to balance the advance technology with court surface and balls...but they don;t really want to. A fractional decrease in ball size or a slightly faster surface and we have a completely different ranking!

The technology may enhance and prolong talent and consistency, but on the other hand for every Fognini and Dolgopolov we have ten Granollerses and Andersons, plus the semi hybrids a la Isner and Verdasco.
I suppose balls are a part of a ball-striking process as much as the strings, and instead of maximising the potential of the new strings they are making game and players ridiculous.
I really don't enjoy watching sweaty, grunting efforts, contorted faces hitting life out of balls.
It is particularly ugly in women's tennis.
Racquets are too light for pros in my opinion. Balls - big and bouncy...and as a result we have the game in which players look so poweful they need a football pitch not not a tennis court any more...

You always had that in the past. Pete was the robotic player who thanks to his consistency on serve was able to beat more talented players. Wilander is another stricking example. It;s normal that with money and professinalism, the gap between talent and hard work would narrow. Borg was really the first to narrow that gap dramatically while faced against artists like Gerulatis or Nastase.

To me one of the richest artists period is actually post Pete (though Pete had tremendous talent too). From Rios to Coria! (1998/2005)!
Korda, Guga, Medv, Rios, Henman, Goran (for a bit), Agassi, Nalby, Blake, Coria, Gonzalez, Safin, etc...all artists making the most of the new strings....until a bit of extra fitness exploited those strings in an even better way. Yet the USO was fast enough to keep Nadal at bay....thouhg Hewitt was showing the way already then.

98/2007 is in my view one of the best era for talents at the top.

Do people remember the Nystrom, Sundstrom, Wilander, period? They were doing ok outside clay too.

For me it's not robotic vs talented, it's the power and physicality of modern ball-striking. It's gone over the top and empowered DBH-ers to almost eradicate all court tennis.
The natural balance is gone.
Players now need more and more room outside the court, that was never the case in the past.

noleisthebest wrote:...The natural balance is gone.

Nature hates stillness, by definition it is a constant change of balance.

Nadal, Djoko and Murray are the foundation for new and better talents to express themselves.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...The natural balance is gone.

Nature hates stillness, by definition it is a constant change of balance.

Nadal, Djoko and Murray are the foundation for new and better talents to express themselves.

If you insist

...so long as the "new" talent are not 3m giants serving from the trees bashing the ball away...it will take another genius to be born to make tennis easy on the eye.

Whatever it takes nature will find a way. I like to think we are better than Dinosaurs...or if you prefer, better than the Romans who were celebrating men killing each other in the Coliseum.

Tennis wise, I thought McEnroe's talent could never be surpassed but now we have plenty of McEnroes out there, even Llodra is much better than Mc ever was....and without all the players who took the game from Borg to Hewitt, we would not have seen what "nature" could do in the form of Federer.

I am glad you are an optimist.
I look forward to Federer's successor then.
However, when I look where all other sports are in their "evolution" (athletics, football, gymnastics, swimming etc) I wonder if our optimism is justified.

Tenez wrote:Whatever it takes nature will find a way. I like to think we are better than Dinosaurs...or if you prefer, better than the Romans who were celebrating men killing each other in the Coliseum.  

I hope you get the reaction...

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I explained in detail the difference between Nadal and Nole (and all other players).
Nadal challenges EVERYONE with one thing only: not tennis skill but physical power.
In my books that does not count for much and I don't respect anything Nadal has won, it's like a black hole in the history of tennis for me.
I'd be interested to know what you think Nadal challenges Federer with?
What skill allows him to have such excellent H2H against him (and everyone else bar Nole)?

The question was how is Djokovic a tougher challenge for Fed than Nadal. The difference between Nadal and Djokovic is a different answer. Nadal's wins and records count or not in your opinion is again a different answer.

Discussion about what skill Nadal has to get that +ve h2h against most players is a different topic. We can get to that, but can we get done with this first?

Nole has beaten Federer almost as many times as Nadal and on all surfaces except grass, including indoors, despite turing pro several years after Nadal.
I don't know the ins and outs of Fedal H2H but have a  feeling most of Nadal's wins over Federer came on clay where his physicality I described in my first two posts on this page gave him the unfair advantage.

Now it's your turn to answer the question which skill  Nadal beats Federer with?

If Djokovic has beaten Fed almost as many times as Nadal, how does it mean Djokovic is a bigger challenge for Fed? Fed:Djokovic 18:16 , Fed: Nadal 10:23 if I remember correctly. I'm not currently looking at how Nadal is beating Fed? Its physicality, its dope or freebies from ATP/ITF its still a challenge for Fed and I see that its far bigger than Djokovic has ever managed. 

What skill is Nadal beating Fed with is a different topic.

truffin1 wrote:Your reasoning that players pick on Fed's BH is proof that Stans is better makes no realistic sense- again under the context of the entirety of the game.  They pick on Fed's backhand because he'd (esp in his prime) eat them up if they went everywhere else. It's the only tried and true pattern that could defeat him, and lets face it-  he won a whole lot more than he lost.    They don't pick on Stans backhand as much because there are other ways to beat him, other things to pick on--

No. This is not my reasoning. I think players picking on Fed's BH is a proof that Fed's BH is a weaker shot. There may be other ways of beating Stan, which might be easier than constantly plugging it on the BH trying to break it. If Stan BH was just as breakable as Fed's it's quite surprising not many player who try the same tactic with Fed don't look to do it with Stan. If it was a breakable as Fed's, this tactic would have been tried by many players and successfully. But they look for something else, simply because it's just not as breakable. Give it on the Fed's BH and you can keep him at bay. That's why Fed's BH is weaker compared to Stan's. Stan overall tennis is well below Fed's I agree, but only BH side, He is definitely better.

truffin1 wrote:You mentions things about Stans backhand that are better than Fed-  yes, he does handle the high ball to backhand better, prob because of the way he's built... but how do you explain Stan's poor backhand return?

Handling a high ball on the BH is an extremely difficult thing to do for a SHBH, especially balls which have the kind of spin Nadal can generate. That alone is a major plus for Stan's case.

Stan BH return isn't any poorer than Fed, Stan as an overall player itself ins't very consistent. Fed's BH return is any better? I don't think so. those 1/17 BP conversion at RG 2007 final and a lot of those Fed missed on the BH return or returned poor. Almost everytime a player is facing a BP, he is most likely to serve on Fed's BH. If his BH return was good, why would they do that. 

truffin1 wrote:Federers backhand is much more consistent.   Federer's backhand is much more varied.   Stan can hit some blistering winners with the backhand, but it's not or hasn't been a consistent weapon.

Consistent? Almost 70% of the UE's Fed makes are off his BH wing. Is that % so high for Stan's BH? I don't think so.

I think consistency isn't  the decisive factor.
I realize the pro-Stan arguments may appear a little opportunistic because a year ago Stan hardly was a top 10 players but let's judge him on how he plays today. In that case I would say Stan's BH is a real weapon (one that is feared) and Federer's BH not (one that can surprise but is not feared).

Edit: nitb, this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO6t8nkZ97Q
 

feared in these conditions, yes. Put Fed on true grass with the proper conditions, and Stan's backhand would be way too 1 dimensional.

gallery play wrote:I think consistency isn't  the decisive factor.
I realize the pro-Stan arguments may appear a little opportunistic because a year ago Stan hardly was a top 10 players but let's judge him on how he plays today. In that case I would say Stan's BH is a real weapon (one that is feared) and Federer's BH not (one that can surprise but is not feared).

Edit: nitb, this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO6t8nkZ97Q
 

I do not think either are weapons. They score points but far and few in between....and often outnumbered by UEs from that side. But I'd say this of many BHs, including DHBH...bar Nalby, Davydenko and sometimes Murray and Djoko.

If we look at the first 2 sets (clip below) , before Federer collapsed in the 3rd, it's very difficult to objectively call a BH better than the other. One thing I noticed while watching it is that Fed though hitting slightly less powerfully has a much better depth than Stan on average. When Fed tires in the 3rd, Fed's BH falls short and Stan can then release his powerful BH.

Let's have a better look next time they play, but I doubt I will see Federer losing many BH rallies v Stan. For me Fed has actually a better one...even on those 2 first sets here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY7WJhqrvXc

Here is one for you GP. You may find 70 BH winners....... in a single match here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxRcr3rxINs

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: No. This is not my reasoning. I think players picking on Fed's BH is a proof that Fed's BH is a weaker shot. There may be other ways of beating Stan, which might be easier than constantly plugging it on the BH trying to break it. If Stan BH was just as breakable as Fed's it's quite surprising not many player who try the same tactic with Fed don't look to do it with Stan. If it was a breakable as Fed's, this tactic would have been tried by many players and successfully. But they look for something else, simply because it's just not as breakable. Give it on the Fed's BH and you can keep him at bay. That's why Fed's BH is weaker compared to Stan's. Stan overall tennis is well below Fed's I agree, but only BH side, He is definitely better.

You probably mean "the" weaker shot. Cause the alternative is Fed's FH, probably the best shot in tennis history. So "the" alternative for his opponents is kind of obvious: They would all go for the BH. With Stan, the thing is they still go for the BH as Stan still scores and hurts 3 times as much with his FH than BH...but certainly he looks more proportionally balance when compared to Fed as Fed's FH certainly makes his BH look comparatively weaker.

Consistent? Almost 70% of the UE's Fed makes are off his BH wing. Is that % so high for Stan's BH? I don't think so.

You'd be surprised. But then again those 70% might mean that Fed is very consistent from the FH. What would be interesting is to know how many BH UEs they pull on average per match.....and that stat in my view is clearly in Fed's favour. Just a look at those first 2 sets confirms that.