Wimbledon 2014: MOTD Day 11 Fri 03/07/2014 Gentlemen's Semi-final

Oh, Fed will win.
He's got too much variety for Nole on grass.
I'd be surprised if Nole scrambles out on Sunday.

I hope they play a food match. We haven't had many of those in 2014.

FEDERER!!!!  Back where he belongs!!

He played a perfect match against  a  giant server.. something Nadal is incapable of doing.  Blocked back huge serves, drew in the giant and slayed him again and again.  Served focused and let the nerves and Feds suffocating pace strangle Raonic.

Djoko and Dimitrov was great given the conditions. I would have preferred to see Dimitrov in the final- not because it would be easier for Fed, but just the subplots involved, the meaning of Fed making a stand against another generation.

My viewing was ruined by McEnroe though. I should have turned the sound off. He used to be so pro fed until the jealousy took over.. Recently he's said just enough positive things that he could get away with it. I said it after the semi and again- I think he's heard the calls for his head from Fed fanatics and now is just going way overboard just for spite. He spent the entire 1st set talking about how lucky Fed was this tournament, how Raonic was so limited and Fed lucky he didn't face Krygios.. Didn't Raonic beat Kryg?  Raonic with a giant serve and ranked in top ten is less worthy than a guy ranked 144 with a giant serve who lost in the 1st round of a challenger 3 weeks ago? McEnore even went so far to say "I predicted it would be hard for Roger to make it to a slam final and wouldn't win another, but I never thought he could get a draw where he will only have to play 1 top guy to win!"   WTF?  We know he's talking about the supposed big 3...   but what disrespect to Stan and Raonic.. STan's the freaking AO champ and #3 in the world... Murray hasn't made a final of any level tournament in a year! Raonic is top 10!    Finally, Chris Fowler stepped in and said "to be fair, Federer hasn't needed draw luck to win his 17 Majors, he's gone out and earned them the hard way" and McEnroe literly yells at him "I didn't say he doesn't deserve the luck!"   it was horrible.. 

Thank goodness Cahill was on the wrap up show and gave some credit to Federer.

Screw them all- Fed has proven it again- GOAT talent can prevail--

truffin1 wrote:FEDERER!!!!  Back where he belongs!!

He played a perfect match against  a  giant server.. something Nadal is incapable of doing.  Blocked back huge serves, drew in the giant and slayed him again and again.  Served focused and let the nerves and Feds suffocating pace strangle Raonic

Completely agree. Nadal would have stood 5m behind the baseline and fed Rao with easy balls to put away. This is why I disagree with SB and Sphair

Djoko and Dimitrov was great given the conditions. I would have preferred to see Dimitrov in the final- not because it would be easier for Fed, but just the subplots involved, the meaning of Fed making a stand against another generation.

Good point. "Dimi between the older ...but not the very old".

My viewing was ruined by McEnroe though. I should have turned the sound off. He used to be so pro fed until the jealousy took over.. Recently he's said just enough positive things that he could get away with it. I said it after the semi and again- I think he's heard the calls for his head from Fed fanatics and now is just going way overboard just for spite. He spent the entire 1st set talking about how lucky Fed was this tournament, how Raonic was so limited and Fed lucky he didn't face Krygios.. Didn't Raonic beat Kryg? Raonic with a giant serve and ranked in top ten is less worthy than a guy ranked 144 with a giant serve who lost in the 1st round of a challenger 3 weeks ago? McEnore even went so far to say "I predicted it would be hard for Roger to make it to a slam final and wouldn't win another, but I never thought he could get a draw where he will only have to play 1 top guy to win!" WTF? We know he's talking about the supposed big 3... but what disrespect to Stan and Raonic.. STan's the freaking AO champ and #3 in the world... Murray hasn't made a final of any level tournament in a year! Raonic is top 10! Finally, Chris Fowler stepped in and said "to be fair, Federer hasn't needed draw luck to win his 17 Majors, he's gone out and earned them the hard way" and McEnroe literly yells at him "I didn't say he doesn't deserve the luck!" it was horrible..

I did not hear all that but it I agree...there is something weird about Mc and Fed. Jealousy maybe...or simply McEnroe selling the next generation....cheaply.

GOAT talent can prevail

Not GOAT....but exceptional talent. There are about 10 to 15 GOATS...none of them would have survived that physical era.

truffin1 wrote:

Djoko and Dimitrov was great given the conditions. I would have preferred to see Dimitrov in the final- not because it would be easier for Fed, but just the subplots involved, the meaning of Fed making a stand against another generation

I think this line up was better because  Raonic, being an attacker is his a more natural successor to Fed than Dimitrov.

Fed is nearly 10 years older than him...he really has spanned several eras in some style.
Beating them all must be  giving him so much satisfaction.
I don't think any other player has faced such huge changes in the game...
Ok a few crazy haircuts along the way, too

truffin1 wrote:FEDERER!!!!  Back where he belongs!!

He played a perfect match against  a  giant server.. something Nadal is incapable of doing.  Blocked back huge serves, drew in the giant and slayed him again and again.  Served focused and let the nerves and Feds suffocating pace strangle Raonic.

Djoko and Dimitrov was great given the conditions. I would have preferred to see Dimitrov in the final- not because it would be easier for Fed, but just the subplots involved, the meaning of Fed making a stand against another generation.

My viewing was ruined by McEnroe though. I should have turned the sound off. He used to be so pro fed until the jealousy took over.. Recently he's said just enough positive things that he could get away with it. I said it after the semi and again- I think he's heard the calls for his head from Fed fanatics and now is just going way overboard just for spite. He spent the entire 1st set talking about how lucky Fed was this tournament, how Raonic was so limited and Fed lucky he didn't face Krygios.. Didn't Raonic beat Kryg?  Raonic with a giant serve and ranked in top ten is less worthy than a guy ranked 144 with a giant serve who lost in the 1st round of a challenger 3 weeks ago? McEnore even went so far to say "I predicted it would be hard for Roger to make it to a slam final and wouldn't win another, but I never thought he could get a draw where he will only have to play 1 top guy to win!"   WTF?  We know he's talking about the supposed big 3...   but what disrespect to Stan and Raonic.. STan's the freaking AO champ and #3 in the world... Murray hasn't made a final of any level tournament in a year! Raonic is top 10!    Finally, Chris Fowler stepped in and said "to be fair, Federer hasn't needed draw luck to win his 17 Majors, he's gone out and earned them the hard way" and McEnroe literly yells at him "I didn't say he doesn't deserve the luck!"   it was horrible.. 

Thank goodness Cahill was on the wrap up show and gave some credit to Federer.

Screw them all- Fed has proven it again- GOAT talent can prevail--

Totally agree, especially about the John McEnroe part, they should only keep the Patrick brother!

Tenez wrote:

truffin1 wrote:FEDERER!!!!  Back where he belongs!!

He played a perfect match against  a  giant server.. something Nadal is incapable of doing.  Blocked back huge serves, drew in the giant and slayed him again and again.  Served focused and let the nerves and Feds suffocating pace strangle Raonic

Completely agree. Nadal would have stood 5m behind the baseline and fed Rao with easy balls to put away. This is why I disagree with SB and Sphair

T, what are you talking about? You disagree with what statement I made? The one when I said your logic was flawed if you used the fact that people who beat Nadal lose the next match proves Nadal is easy to beat? It's all I said. I said that if however you meant many big servers have beat him on grass so he is easy (or easier than Fed) to beat on grass, I agreed. You should re-read what I wrote.

Furthermore, I and a few others here (I didn't bother writing it though) believed the match between Dimi and Nole could go either way and would be close whereas Fed would beat Rao in straight sets. NITB and you seemed to suggest Nole would beat Dimi easier than Fed would beat Rao. This would seem to suggest that you don't appreciate the fact Fed should have no problem against someone like Rao as he has a much better grass technique and as a consequence is a bad matchup for them and they are a good matchup for him as he is talented and can take the ball early. At the same time, as Dimi's talent and grass technique is better than Nole, he can bother him, he might not be 100% mentally and physically ready yet but he could easily push Nole, which is exactly what happened. The other thing that separates Fed from the rest is the fact he is a natural mover on grass, all 3 other SFinalists are not and as a consequence, Fed should always have the edge vs. any of them unless physically too tired or hurt.

But I'm sure you are only trying to reverse jinx...  

holy shit, Fed's in another slam final!

As if the word cup football isn't nerve wracking enough..

I hope the roof is closed, otherwise it will be tough for Federer. Then again, he lost just 1 set until now didn;t he?

gallery play wrote:Then again, he lost just 1 set until now didn;t he?

Yep, only one set and one service break so far this tournament.

Watching him today was like watching 2006 Fed all over again.

Tenez wrote:I don't think nadal is a bad match up everywhere. He is a tough match up where the conds are slow and when he has time to inject power and spin. When Fed is playing on fast surface Federer has been by far the better player.

Ok, fair enough, I agree that if they played on old fashioned conditions, Rafa would have no match up advantage.  But I think that under current conditions he does.  In any event, the original context was the question of whether or not Fed was lucky he did not have to play Rafa here.  I stand by my initial assessment - in Wimbledon these days, conditions give Rafa the match-up advantage.  Roger may perhaps be able to overcome that advantage if he is playing really well, but all in all it is much better for him if he does not have to face Rafa.

noleisthebest wrote:I am not trying to defend the indefensible, just trying to see why everyone so dislikes Djokovic's scrambling and at the same time loves Dimi's.

I was thinking some more about it, and I think maybe it comes down to something like this:

We both enjoy watching attacking all-court players weaving their smooth stylish magic - ergo we are both Federer fans.  But I think we look differently at players who do not quite reach Federer's heights.

I think for you it is more important that a player play attacking game and you are more willing to forgive them gaps in their repertoire while for me it is the other way around - I first care about whether a player possesses all the weaponry, and - in current conditions at least - am more willing to forgive them if they play more cautious game.

That is probably why we have very different opinions about Paire and Dimitrov.  Paire is a player with gaping holes in his arsenal, but he is willing to go on the attack regardless.  You admire him for that.  Dimitrov, on the other hand, has a vastly superior skill set, which matters more to me.  I am willing to live with his more defensive game - mainly because I think the poor thing really has no choice if he wants to succeed.

This difference in what we are looking for in a player I think also provides an answer to your question - and may even suggest why the question may appear puzzling.

You look at Dimi and Nole and see two players playing fairly similar games so you do not really see a reason to prefer Dimi.  In fact, given that Dimi may well be naturally more gifted, you might even hold it against him that he does not try to play more aggressive, while you are more willing to forgive Nole because you do not think he quite has that same option.

I, on the other, look at Dimi and Nole and see Dimi as being far more versatile and closer to a complete player.  So I prefer him.  In addition, I look at current conditions and see conditions that do not allow Dimi to fully express his game.  So, instead of holding it against him that he does not play more aggressively, I feel for him, because - the way I see it - he has to give up his strengths and play the scrambling game to succeed.

sphairistike wrote:T, what are you talking about? You disagree with what statement I made? The one when I said your logic was flawed if you used the fact that people who beat Nadal lose the next match proves Nadal is easy to beat? It's all I said. I said that if however you meant many big servers have beat him on grass so he is easy (or easier than Fed) to beat on grass, I agreed. You should re-read what I wrote.

If I need to tease you to get you back and post more, I'll keep doing it.
Yes, I don't think the mental burden of beating Nadal has anything to do with them being beaten the next round. I agree that it's a factor on some occasions (Fed beating Pete in 01 and then losing after and probably other occasions) but nothing to do when beating Nadal on grass. As I said I predicted Rosol, Darcis and KYr losses after beating Nadal cause they simply were beaten by better players and not nerves. I also mentioned on the other thread that Nadal was mighty close to lose to other players on grass in the past which again would not have fared much better than Rosol or Darcis. Nadals main weapon (topspin) is nullified when a player can wack the ball and prevent him to inject his spin and power....and fresh (or relative fresh) grass just do that. Playing on grass is like having Nadal playing with natural gut strings, or old ball...despite the slaz being the slowest on the tour. All I am saying is it's a technical thing and not mental. You seem to be saying it is the latter and that is where we disagree.
 

Furthermore, I and a few others here (I didn't bother writing it though) believed the match between Dimi and Nole could go either way and would be close whereas Fed would beat Rao in straight sets. NITB and you seemed to suggest Nole would beat Dimi easier than Fed would beat Rao.

I was indeed surprised to see Fed handle Rao quite easily....though I think everybody agrees that Rao seemed overwhelmed by playing on CC, in the semi for first time. I have always questioned Rao's nerve and yesterday was an obvious case again of fragile nerves...and Fed played quite well....and we know his form is certainly an unknown factor nowadays so very difficult to predict here. I predicted Djoko in 3 or 4 and from what I saw it was Djoko completely losing his concentration again which allowed Dimi back in the match when he was a set and break up. Djoko keeps wrong footing me cause he goes regularly off track for some reasons....but when he put his head into it he beat Dimi fairly and as expected Dimi can't quite keep the consistency needed to beat Djoko yet...though I agree he will soon as I also said from the very beginning.  
 

This would seem to suggest that you don't appreciate the fact Fed should have no problem against someone like Rao as he has a much better grass technique and as a consequence is a bad matchup for them and they are a good matchup for him as he is talented and can take the ball early

explained that above. I know fed can beat them all. Just very difficult to predict which Fed will turn up nowadays.
 

At the same time, as Dimi's talent and grass technique is better than Nole, he can bother him, he might not be 100% mentally and physically ready yet but he could easily push Nole, which is exactly what happened. The other thing that separates Fed from the rest is the fact he is a natural mover on grass, all 3 other SFinalists are not and as a consequence, Fed should always have the edge vs. any of them unless physically too tired or hurt.

You say that now but when Djoko was a set and a break up...there was not much to back what you say here. Djoko has a very solid game which clearly contained Dimi and forced Dimi to retrieve more balls than Djoko if anything. It was surprisingly Djoko who kept the center of the court better. ....but it was Djoko who once again let his concentration slip like he has done so many times in the past. I can't quite predict those.....but I know he can suddenly switch on again and give himself other chances.

But I'm sure you are only trying to reverse jinx...  

Not conscientiously but probably unconsciously.

gallery play wrote:holy shit, Fed's in another slam final!

As if the word cup football isn't nerve wracking enough..

I hope the roof is closed, otherwise it will be tough for Federer. Then again, he lost just 1 set until now didn;t he?

Yes...it's going to be a tough match.

I want Argentina to win then my second choice is Holland! Don't want this Brazil to win.

AutumnLeaf....congrats on your win you deserved it!  

summerblues wrote:

gallery play wrote:Then again, he lost just 1 set until now didn;t he?

Yep, only one set and one service break so far this tournament.

Watching him today was like watching 2006 Fed all over again.

His reflex returns were very impressive.....for a 33yo!!!

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don't think nadal is a bad match up everywhere. He is a tough match up where the conds are slow and when he has time to inject power and spin. When Fed is playing on fast surface Federer has been by far the better player.

Ok, fair enough, I agree that if they played on old fashioned conditions, Rafa would have no match up advantage.  But I think that under current conditions he does.  In any event, the original context was the question of whether or not Fed was lucky he did not have to play Rafa here.  I stand by my initial assessment - in Wimbledon these days, conditions give Rafa the match-up advantage.  Roger may perhaps be able to overcome that advantage if he is playing really well, but all in all it is much better for him if he does not have to face Rafa.

I'd say Fed would have no problem beating Rafa on current conds the first week....but certainly much tougher when the grass dries up and becomes a rough rug. That is when the huge balls become even slower than the FO. If you came to Wimby once and see the grass from close range you would know what I mean. The second week the grass being starved of water curls and dries and there is less of it. Huge difference. So I think Fed would have beaten Nadal more convincingly than Kyr but end of 2nd week...under blistering wind like yesterday? much harder.

summerblues wrote:I, on the other, look at Dimi and Nole and see Dimi as being far more versatile and closer to a complete player.  So I prefer him.  In addition, I look at current conditions and see conditions that do not allow Dimi to fully express his game.  So, instead of holding it against him that he does not play more aggressively, I feel for him, because - the way I see it - he has to give up his strengths and play the scrambling game to succeed.

The main problem I have with Djoko is that his shots are actually not very good looking to speak mildly. he is anything but an elegant player but he made the most of his average natural eye/hand ball coordination skills by forcing himself to play relatively close to the baseline and refusing to step back as much as the other "physical players".

gallery play wrote:

I hope the roof is closed, otherwise it will be tough for Federer.

I am not sure a closed roof would be a great advantage. Djoko has a very good record indoors too....and we know he does not like the wind....which probably was a reason he went awol yesterday.

Fed needs to be in the zone....it's one of his last important match I think he will be be relaxed enough....to win? not so sure.

The serve stats are so interesting to read for the last 4 players.
1st serve / 2nd serve speed average (MPH) and difference between 1st and 2nd serve

Djoko : 114 / 94 / 20
Dimi: 122 / 94 / 28!!!
Rao: 127 / 106 / 21
Federer: 117 / 101 / 16!!!!

In short it tells us about gutsyness of the last 4 players. Dimi has an excellent pace on the second serve and can even serve at 138MPH on his fastest serve..meaning he drops down most of his second serve. Murray is probably the worst in that department and shows his lack of guts over the years.

Though Rao being the tallest and having more margins, his 21MPH difference between 1st and 2nd is certainly not a very good stat either.

Fed on the other hand, being the shortest of the 4 has the least difference between 1st and second and has faster 2nd serve than Djoko nad Dimi.

The pace at which one serves his second serve is indicative of pure skills and confidence in that skill.

I watched some of it when I was in pub.  Gonna watch highlights now!  Fed played well?

Interesting discussion about Dimitrov - Djokovic here.

Why I thought the match would be close and could go either way:
1. Dimitrov has an arsenal of shots that can potentially trouble Djokovic.
2. Dimitrov has power.
3. He has improved his consistency.
4. Djokovic is prone to lapses in performance lately.

And how the match really unfolded:
- Djokovic with an extremely high and even for him unusual first serve percentage in the 1st set. I think he didn't hit even one second serve in his first 3 service games.
- Dimitrov with a very loose service game that cost him the set, because of the above
- Djokovic service level coming down to earth again during the second set, Dimitrov got his chances to break and took them on this occasion
- Djokovic showed some vulnerability to low bounce, unsure footing caused some errors though they both do not have the best movement on grass. I noticed in Queens already that Dimitrov slides on it as if it were clay. He even ( almost?) injured himself there. Djokovic does the same. The dust around the baseline swirled up whenever these two slipped around there to the point of hilarity
- Dimitrov doublefaulting in both TBs, succumbing to the pressure there, unable to convert even one of his 4 setpoints
- GSM Djokovic

Fed otoh was the favourite vs. Raonic because of his unique ability to block back big serves deep and low. The only reason I thought it could possibly go the distance is some thrown in loose Fed service game or a point gone the wrong way in a tiebreak. I didn't expect that the Raonic groundgame and poor movement on the surface would be exposed that clearly. 

It never looked as if Raonic could come back into the match at any point and Fed must have felt very confident all the way, as I am sure he will feel come the final.

@Tenez I was actually sad that France lost, I don't like our team anymore since 2012.  The locker room pictures with Merkel didn't really help their case. I guess I will support them against Brazil, because Brazil does not look any better though I am sorry for Neymar.

FedererKing wrote:I watched some of it when I was in pub.  Gonna watch highlights now!  Fed played well?

He still can. He was not that impressive cause his talent, like blocking fast serve, is hardly perceptible with a naked eye. Until one faces Rao's serve live, one cannot quite grasp his talent. I saw Fed break Karlo on grass when Karlo was dismissing everybody with his serve. Very impressive.

Tenez wrote:The serve stats are so interesting to read for the last 4 players.
1st serve / 2nd serve speed average (MPH) and difference between 1st and 2nd serve

Djoko : 114 / 94 / 20
Dimi: 122 / 94 / 28!!!
Rao: 127 / 106 / 21
Federer: 117 / 101 / 16!!!!

In short it tells us about gutsyness of the last 4 players. Dimi has an excellent pace on the second serve and can even serve at 138MPH on his fastest serve..meaning he drops down most of his second serve. Murray is probably the worst in that department and shows his lack of guts over the years. (...)

It's interesting that Dimitrov despite taking off so much in his second serve still doublefaulted 8 times (!) in his match vs. Djokovic and on very important points too. So he combines large differential and low consistency.

Raonic doublefaulted on important points too, but he did go for broke on his second serve when he felt that a 125 MpH second serve banged on the line would give him a better chance than an average paced second serve that would come back at him. Raonic' fastest second serve in that match was 133 MpH (!), while the fastest first serve was 139 MpH. Considering that 4 DFs aren't actually a whole lot.

Federer, despite the smallest differential between first and second serve, also had the least DFs (1).

Don't know whether it shows much about "gutsyness" though. Raonic does what he needs to do to give himself the best chance to win the point, even though the risk to doublefault is higher. Federer just has the accuracy and consistency that a small differential works best for him to set the point up in his favour. I guess for most guys the trade off between chance and risk is too costly though, like for Murray and Djokovic, else they would probably go for more on second serve.

FedererKing wrote:I watched some of it when I was in pub.  Gonna watch highlights now!  Fed played well?

He made Raonic look silly and plain. I consider that good play.

Autumnleaf wrote:

@Tenez I was actually sad that France lost, I don't like our team anymore since 2012.  The locker room pictures with Merkel didn't really help their case. I guess I will support them against Brazil, because Brazil does not look any better though I am sorry for Neymar.

Agree with your analysis on the match.

Did not realise they had Merkel's picture in their changing room. Was it the nude picture of Merkel?

Likewise, I'll probably support Germany over Brazil.

Tenez wrote:Did not realise they had Merkel's picture in their changing room. Was it the nude picture of Merkel? 

Haha, that would be too much.   It was the guys who were (half-) naked with Merkel in their midst.   The picture was all over our media and I thought this obvious sucking up to voters and how she is pretending to be a fan despicable.

Nooooo.....football talk

Well, only for old times' sake...if you can't beat them - join them!

I haven't seen any matches, just 5 minutes from an African vs some L.American team last week and it was enough to turn me off.
Haven't things changed!

My last football memory was that disgusting Materazzi head-but Italy-France final...

I have found out the Dutch are still in, so I'll be supporting them, seems they are playing again the same like when I used to call them European Brazilians.

AL, are you German or just living in Germany?
Need to know before I comment on their football...  

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I am not trying to defend the indefensible, just trying to see why everyone so dislikes Djokovic's scrambling and at the same time loves Dimi's.

I was thinking some more about it, and I think maybe it comes down to something like this:

We both enjoy watching attacking all-court players weaving their smooth stylish magic - ergo we are both Federer fans.  But I think we look differently at players who do not quite reach Federer's heights.

I think for you it is more important that a player play attacking game and you are more willing to forgive them gaps in their repertoire while for me it is the other way around - I first care about whether a player possesses all the weaponry, and - in current conditions at least - am more willing to forgive them if they play more cautious game.

That is probably why we have very different opinions about Paire and Dimitrov.  Paire is a player with gaping holes in his arsenal, but he is willing to go on the attack regardless.  You admire him for that.  Dimitrov, on the other hand, has a vastly superior skill set, which matters more to me.  I am willing to live with his more defensive game - mainly because I think the poor thing really has no choice if he wants to succeed.

This difference in what we are looking for in a player I think also provides an answer to your question - and may even suggest why the question may appear puzzling.

You look at Dimi and Nole and see two players playing fairly similar games so you do not really see a reason to prefer Dimi.  In fact, given that Dimi may well be naturally more gifted, you might even hold it against him that he does not try to play more aggressive, while you are more willing to forgive Nole because you do not think he quite has that same option.

I, on the other, look at Dimi and Nole and see Dimi as being far more versatile and closer to a complete player.  So I prefer him.  In addition, I look at current conditions and see conditions that do not allow Dimi to fully express his game.  So, instead of holding it against him that he does not play more aggressively, I feel for him, because - the way I see it - he has to give up his strengths and play the scrambling game to succeed.

There are a lot of points for discussions here, but I'll stick with the Paire  paragraph.
I actually think Paire is a better player than Dimi. He has a better serve, better BH, better volleys.
Dimi moves better, because he is "fitter", and he has a better FH.
Dimi is "just" more successful. As you know, I don't equate success with quality esp in today's playing conditions.
It's not that I dislike Dimi, he is a nice guy and I nostalgically have huge respect for him for keeping his SBH, but tennis wise, his presence on the court is a bit clownish and unmasculine. (Yikes, now I'm in trouble!).

On the other hand, I have an even huger respect for Paire who refuses to become a road-runner. He was playing some excellent tennis last year and nearly got to last 8 or 16 in RG. Then he got injured, and is still slowly coming back.
As you know, being an outright attacker and instinctive player is very hard and costly, and the fragile momentum necessary for it is so easily upset in these slow conditions.

Metaphorically, Dimi's got to put his food down on the court and brave out like Federer or Paire do. Once and if he does that we'll have the real measure of his talent.
For now, as far as I am concerned, his talent is hypothetical. Yes, he'll still be successful if he doesn't , but that success is his, not mine.


He has belief, and I said long time ago that's his big weapon. I still believe that a better, proper coach could transform him into an attacker.
I mean look at the miracle Lendl achieved with Murray!
Alright, Murray is still a pusher, but while Lendl was with him, even recently against Nadal in Rome, he learnt how to play his CC FH aggressively. He never, ever used to do that before Lendl.

@NITB native German, glad you didn't notice from any weird expressions of mine.  I've only ever shortly worked in the UK and spent a lot more time in Eastern Europe.  Don't let that influence any comments of yours though, since I feel I share the German sentiment of a certain schizophreny with regards to National Pride (which includes in our sportsmen/ teams). 

There were historically very few moments when National Enthusiasm expressed itself in an exclusively positive way, namely 1989 and the 2006 Fifa WC. These were very special moments in time, now is not.

No, I don't have any problem with anyone's national pride, on the contrary.
It's just that I don't rate German football that highly. Flairless grind.
I've been there a few times myself, esp during my 18 months of living in Switzerland.
In fact, we drove to that special castle/hotel near Baden-Baden to welcome England's football team during the Munich World Cup in 2006.
Sven surely knew where to pick his spot.
I'll never forget the fabulous huge fruit salad/ice-cream cup I had there.
And the apple strudel with champagne in The Platzl...

noleisthebest wrote:There are a lot of points for discussions here, but I'll stick with the Paire  paragraph.
I actually think Paire is a better player than Dimi. He has a better serve, better BH, better volleys.
Dimi moves better, because he is "fitter", and he has a better FH.

I will need to watch Paire more carefully to discuss this in any detail, though from what I remember his volleys and serve did not strike me as better than Dimi's.  Even his BH is overrated - yes he can hit it well up the line, but he does make his fair share of errors with it.

And, very importantly - and this one I remember well - he has no forehand.

noleisthebest wrote:but tennis wise, his presence on the court is a bit clownish and unmasculine.

What do you mean with that?  To me, as it happens, the term "clownish" describes Paire's game reasonably well.  Dimi's game - his shots as well is overall court presence - is far closer to "classic" tennis.  Paire's is a bit of "hit and hope, let's have fun and not take tennis too seriously" game.

noleisthebest wrote:like Federer or Paire do.

From where I stand, putting Federer and Paire in one sentence is like doing the same with Bach and "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Dimitrov is going to be a Slam champion, and probably more than once.  Paire is not. :P

FedererKing wrote:Dimitrov is going to be a Slam champion, and probably more than once.  Paire is not. :P

Indeed

But, in fairness to nitb, she knows that. That is not what she means when she says Paire is a "better" player. She uses the term "better player" in a somewhat peculiar way, but that is not what I wanted to argue about here.

What I am saying is that even in the aspects where she thinks Paire is better (serve, volleys for example), he is not and that she is deempasizing the importance of aspects where Paire is clearly inferior (like forehand).

In short, I am saying she sees Paire's game through rose-tinted glasses.

I did say Dimitrov has a better forehand, so I am not de-emphasising anything.
Everything else, I still stand by.
Paire would clean Dimi in faster conditions. He is a very gutsy player but unfortunately this era does not reward gutsiness.
On top of it all, he's had a bad knee injury and struggling to come back atm, which is such a shame as he was making a decent break-through last year.
Again, another young casualty of fitness era.

A player is as good as how quickly he can finish his point and how little he scrambles.

Dimitrov is too defensive and spends a lot of time far behind the baseline, simply because his BH is weak.

His court coverage is very good and that's what's keeping him at the top, not his FH.

His game is very similar to Nole's except that Nole's BH is far stronger, and his movement quicker.
Not to mention returning.

Dimi needs a proper, distinctive weapon, a signature shot and from what I have seem, he hasn't got one.

noleisthebest wrote:I did say Dimitrov has a better forehand, so I am not de-emphasising anything.
Everything else, I still stand by.

What I mean by de-emphasizing is the way you presented it - you listed Paire's serve and volley as being superior and his FH as being inferior without pointing out that Paire's serve and volley are - if at all - at most marginally superior while his FH is massively inferior.

noleisthebest wrote:Paire would clean Dimi in faster conditions.

One more of those statements where I am pretty certain you are wrong but which is admittedly hard to properly "prove".

noleisthebest wrote:A player is as good as how quickly he can finish his point and how little he scrambles.

What do you mean by this?  Is it a definition or are you trying to say something more substantive?  As a definition, there is nothing to argue about - as I said before, if you choose to call a table with four corners "round", then that is your prerogative.  However, I imagine - and hope - that you do not simply state this as a definition but that you are trying to say something more substantive.  If so, what are you trying to say?

noleisthebest wrote:Dimitrov is too defensive and spends a lot of time far behind the baseline, simply because his BH is weak.

I agree with this to some extent, but I would also point out that his BH would look far better in faster conditions.  In fact, contrary to your assumption, he would do better in faster conditions than he does now.  His BH would look much stronger in those conditions - it is miles more versatile than Nole's or Paire's BHs - no matter how good those are considered to be.  Also, he volleys well and can hit overheads.

I am having a sense of deja vu here.

The quality of a player is measured by how quickly he can win a point.

When conditions were more tennis/player friendly, that's how matches were generally won.

You serve, and attack as soon as you can using your weapon which is usually your FH.
If you don't your opponent will.

In today's tennis this is becoming a thing of the past which Federer put so well the other day, so now we have the so-called "percentage tennis" players : fit and well-"nutritioned", equipped with racquets and strings that give them great power and control (spin), players like Granollers win titles and often making them look better than they are. Nadal is the ultimate case in point.
That was never going to be the case 20 years ago.

However, there are still players who play that "old" proper tennis, whose mindset is to end the point as quickly as possible. Even on clay.

Paire os one of them and Dimi is not.

You are right when you say Dimi's FH is superior. I'd say his court coverage, too.
Dimi's got the hands and  a lot of variety but if you compare him to Federer or Haas, or any other SBH-er, he uses those skills to scramble.
As I said before, he plays DBH game using with a SBH.
Paire, on the other hand does the opposite: he plays a SBH tennis with his DBH, which is very unique.

Your argument is that Dimi wants to win so he is playing like this because of the conditions.
This is where I am suspicious as he is the only SBH-er that does it, even Thiem is an all-out attacker.
Id the oldies like Federer, Robredo or Haas (&others) don't scramble in today's conditions and still win, neither should Dimi.
He is forming a bad habit.

noleisthebest wrote:I am having a sense of deja vu here.

The quality of a player is measured by how quickly he can win a point.

When conditions were more tennis/player friendly, that's how matches were generally won.

Yeah, fair enough about deja vu.  We have done this one again and again so probably time to leave it soon.  But I have to say I am still not quite clear on what you mean by "quality".  I suspect you mean one of the two things - but I do not know which one:

A. You literally mean "quality" = "how quickly one can win a point", i.e., you mean this as a definition.  In this case there is really nothing to discuss because your statement is then correct by definition.

B. You mean something closer to "quality" = "how successful one would be in the old style tennis conditions".  In this case the statement that "quality is measured by how quickly one can win a point" has substance and as such can be discussed.

noleisthebest wrote:Your argument is that Dimi wants to win so he is playing like this because of the conditions.
This is where I am suspicious as he is the only SBH-er that does it, even Thiem is an all-out attacker.
If the oldies like Federer, Robredo or Haas (&others) don't scramble in today's conditions and still win, neither should Dimi.

Fair enough, if you just say suspicious (as opposed to, say, certain), I can see why you could be so.  I would counter though that - with the exception of Federer - Dimi is likely to become more successful than all those attacking SBHers - so maybe it is them who are doing the wrong thing.

To be honest, the game is so muddled up at the moment as we have several generations playing different tennis:

we have young tall players that bring lot of power (Raonic, Vesely, JJ, Piere-Herbert, Kyrg)
the super-fit group - Nole, Nadal, Murray, Ferrer, Robredo, Haas etc...and that group is getting bigger by the day almost as the tour is catching up very fast - Dimi almost out-scrambled his way past Nole into the Wimbledon final! and extra fitness enabled Stan to win AO, among other things, too.

Then there is a large group of talent-limited players that play hybrid percentage tennis and are happily existing in top 50, even 100, such as Granollers, Monaco, Matosevic, Troicki, Anderson,  Haase, Istomin etc..the players whose matches noone wants to watch more or less.

Then, the group of very watchable talented players, mainly DBH-ers that have made the most of current strings technology: Nishikori, Fognini, Gulbis, Dolgopolov, we all love them!

Then there are French players, every one of them talented and playing nice creative tennis, and thank God for them!

Then the charming "oldies" that cling to old school: Stepanek, Federer, Darcis, Llodra, that play tennis without any compromise, simply because their talent allows them to, and they are the best to watch. Apart from Federer who is the only one that reaches finals and plays top guys thus forced to hit more shots than he'd like to due to slow conditions,  this group don't know what "rallying" is. I'll also add Golubev here...

So, not easy to divide players into straight-forward groups of shot-makers and counterpunchers as it once used to be the case.

Which group do you think Dimi and Paire belong to?
And which group(s) think give us "quality"?

noleisthebest wrote:Which group do you think Dimi and Paire belong to?

I do not categorize players that way, so I would not necessarily have them in any of your groups, but if I am forced to, I will put Paire into the "Stepanek's" group and Dimi into "Haas's" group.  However, some of the players you put into a common group I would not.

noleisthebest wrote:And which group(s) think give us "quality"?

As you know, the way I use the term quality, it can come from any player or "group" as long as players from that group play tennis that wins matches.

But you still did not tell me how you define quality.  In my previous post I gave two guesses - A and B.  Which ones is it? Or is it something different still (and what)?

Sorry SB, you've lost me here completely!

I know we had this conversation about "quality" some time ago, but I can't remember on which thread and in which context.

Was it quality of tennis?
Were we talking about talent?

I have a blank!

And yes, I still need a holiday, but this time it's only a day away, cote d' Azur, here I come

noleisthebest wrote:Sorry SB, you've lost me here completely!

I know we had this conversation about "quality" some time ago, but I can't remember on which thread and in which context.

I am just referring to what we were talking about three posts back on this thread - there I was hypothesizing what you may mean by "quality" and I was hoping you would provide more clarity...

...but enjoy your vacation now and we can reconvene when you are back

I can confirm that I am enjoying my holiday!
Much needed peace and quiet.
Day 6 , and I have perfected my routine to a tee, the toughest part is shaking off sand from my towel...
I don't know how I'm going to go back to the cruel reality of daily grind, but have another 8 days to think of something...maybe I'll by a lottery ticket, win millions and never come back!

Now back to "quality"...
Yes, I'd say the quality of a player is determined by how quickly he can win a point. No wasting of shots, just singleminded pursuit of ending the point as soon as possible.

You have to have a weapon for that style of play. And it's impossible to do it without having one as finishing points quickly means attacking.

Now, because of strings, fitness and general slowness of courts and esp high bouncing balls it's become exceptionally hard to succeed and win playing quality tennis.

Stan was the last player who won a slam by playing full on attacking tennis.

Nole mixes thing up and is trying to attack when he lands his first serve, but his FH is still a mixed shot he uses 60% for rallying and 40% to attack. He is improving there but it's not coming to him easily.

Quality players are loose and relaxed in their body.

A strange example of such a player is Monfils who has everything he needs for attacking but chooses to counterpunch, he seems to enjoy physical side of playing: moving around, acrobatics, similar to his dancing prowess.

There are a lot of talented players who are unable to succeed attacking as retrieving is forcing them to hit more shots and that is physically and mentally very exhausting. They are physically incapable of sustaining the level (Dolgo). Some can do it for stretches and than fade out (Gulbis). Some can't do it even the whole match but still play loose and creative tennis (Fognini).
Then there is Federer.

But all this would look different in "old" playing conditions where timing was more important than spin.

Maybe this is not a perfect answer, but that's all that came to my holiday mind  

Thank you for your response. I will have follow up questions.

But that will be later. For now, I will join you in France instead...