Coric 18 versus Nadal 18...who would win?

I agree with Kimmy. At this rate it just seems that any young player is being touted as being better than Nadal when he was 18/19.

luvsports! wrote:I agree with Kimmy. At this rate it just seems that any young player is being touted as being better than Nadal when he was 18/19.

But it's true.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Kokkinakis is nearly 19, and at that age Nadal had won Masters 1000 and was on verge of winning the French Open.

So still believe that Nadal woudl arrice today with his 2005 tennis and win a TMS1000 and a slam?

luvsports! wrote:I agree with Kimmy. At this rate it just seems that any young player is being touted as being better than Nadal when he was 18/19.

Those who do get through are of course better at the same age. They simply can't make nearly as much of an impact on the tour.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

This is a clip of a 19 year old Nadal vs prime Federer 2006 in a Rome epic 5 setter:

Excellent clip! Compare the pace of those rallies with Kokki v Monaco! Not close. The ball travels much faster now than on this clip.

Problem is, if people watched clips of Nadal not knowing anything about him they could not possibly think he is a great player.

At least those who understand tennis and are not paid to talk/write about it.

LS,

why do you think Nadal is great?
You know those few mates of yours that were playing prediction game here but you said they wouldn't like OTF because "they appreciate Rafa too much"...
I find it funny that some can be so fragile to the point they can't take someone else's diferent opinion.

We all love tennis here.
In fact, I think it's almost endearing how Amri is so fervently entrenched in his defense of Nadal.
One day he'll look back on these days and just smile....

Maybe I am a bit naive and expecting too much...after all it's because "it's an insult to hate Nadal" on v2 that we were banned from it, so it must be a crime not to like him.

So much so, that people there are gagged and not even allowed to mention OTF.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Do you think clean Nadal could've beaten Federer 2006 on clay?

Whether or not a player is clean is entirely irrelevant for this discussion.

Technically speaking yes, as both Nadal and Coric are obvious steroid users.
However, Kimmy ignores that and post clips and paragraphs here about Nadal's wins over  Federer as if he's achieved those with some tennis greatness which he clearly has not.

That's because Nadal brigade think Federer fans dislike Nadal as he's beaten him so many times...

I hope you can see what it is that makes Nadal win playing the way he does. It's a lot easier if you have played yourself but should be obvious anyway. It's hard to sit on the fence when it comes to Nadal, I'm afraid...

It's one thing achieving things in life by cheating but a whole new level boasting about it and even comparing yourself to those who don't  in a superior fashion as if they are equal.

People are free to like who they wish, that's not the point here, we are just trying to point out tennis changes...
It's healthy to have a clear picture and try to view players as objectively as we can.

We don't have to sell anyone here like Johnny Mac does...

It's very easy to see why Nadal is "great". He has "greatly" achieved and he brought on a new (or re-invented rather) way to play tennis. That in itself is "great" even if we might not like the formulae of his success.

Problem is he will have zero chance to last with his game...cause the new generation are simply doing it better than him....that's something we will see in the coming months.

Kim is already preparing his excuses (like everytime nadal lost) by saying Nadal is already declining..which is a joke.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

This is a clip of a 19 year old Nadal vs prime Federer 2006 in a Rome epic 5 setter:

Excellent clip! Compare the pace of those rallies with Kokki v Monaco! Not close. The ball travels much faster now than on this clip.

You didn't answer my question- do you think Kokkinas now would beat Federer 2006 or Nadal 2006 in Rome.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:You didn't answer my question- do you think Kokkinas now would beat Federer 2006 or Nadal 2006 in Rome.

It's not a good question. Federer had trouble handling spinny high bouncy balls on his BH. Every body else he coudl handle. The question is peak Nadal cannot handle Djoko and I am pretty sure 2005 Nadal would not be able to handle this new generation of "djokovics". ....certainly based on the clip above.

I didn't ask you for an opinion on my question, I asked for an answer.
In Rome, could Kokki now beat either Federer 2006 level or Nadal 2006 level ?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I didn't ask you for an opinion on my question, I asked for an answer.
In Rome, could Kokki now beat either Federer 2006 level or Nadal 2006 level ?

Your question is not on topic so I have no interest to speculate on it. Beating Federer on clay won't tell us whether Coric or Kokki are better than Nadal 05.

I am however convinced that Nadal standing that far back from the baseline would be a killer. Very much so like Nalby was a killer for Nadal in 2006....whereas those Kokki and Coric are much quicker on their feet than Nalby and Kokki can certainly take the ball much earlier than Nadal.

Those guys remind me Cilic when Cilic came on board and could blast nadal off the court before he got injured. I however think that Kokki and Coric play with much better margins than Cilic and won't make as many mistakes on key points.

here are younger players coming up on tour now. You have played some of them. I was wondering, when you look at them play, do you recall yourself at that age, and how do you compare yourself now with when you were that age?
RAFAEL NADAL: ...The ball goes quicker now than before....
=============================
That's exactly what I saw yesterday betwwen Kokki and Monaco. New generation can play fast and safe. Nadal was just playing safe back then....certainly not fast.

Dec 2004

38 Horna, Luis (PER) 925 0 30
39 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 920 0 24
40 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) 905 0 19
41 Llodra, Michael (FRA) 890 0 18
42 Schuettler, Rainer (GER) 885 0 29
43 Volandri, Filippo (ITA) 880 0 27
44 Beck, Karol (SVK) 863 0 30
45 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 863 0 23
46 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 805 0 20
47 Mirnyi, Max (BLR) 800 0 26
48 Malisse, Xavier (BEL) 798 0 26
49 Ferrer, David (ESP) 790 0 32
50 Andreev, Igor (RUS) 781 0 30
51 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 775 0 23
52 Santoro, Fabrice (FRA) 748 0 20
53 Saulnier, Cyril (FRA) 748 0 25
54 Zabaleta, Mariano (ARG) 735 0 25
55 Verkerk, Martin (NED) 709 0 18
56 Costa, Albert (ESP) 705 0 22
57 Schalken, Sjeng (NED) 705 0 21
58 Calleri, Agustin (ARG) 685 0 24
59 Lee, Hyung-Taik (KOR) 681 0 21
60 Koubek, Stefan (AUT) 647 0 29
61 Karlovic, Ivo (CRO) 640 0 29
62 Arazi, Hicham (MAR) 630 0 20
63 Ginepri, Robby (USA) 625 0 25
64 Escude, Nicolas (FRA) 616 0 12
65 Benneteau, Julien (FRA) 593 0 23
66 Rochus, Olivier (BEL) 585 0 28
67 Acasuso, Jose (ARG) 581 0 25

Current ...just to get a comparative of he field then and now.

43 Querrey, Sam (USA) 1,055 0 24
44 Johnson, Steve (USA) 971 0 27
45 Vesely, Jiri (CZE) 958 0 27
46 Thiem, Dominic (AUT) 932 0 25
47 Young, Donald (USA) 929 0 27
48 Monaco, Juan (ARG) 920 0 22
49 Bolelli, Simone (ITA) 919 0 26
50 Stakhovsky, Sergiy (UKR) 919 0 29
51 Janowicz, Jerzy (POL) 905 0 24
52 Sousa, Joao (POR) 902 0 33
53 Granollers, Marcel (ESP) 895 0 27
54 Kukushkin, Mikhail (KAZ) 887 4 29
55 Carreno Busta, Pablo (ESP) 866 -1 30
56 Haider-Maurer, Andreas (AUT) 863 -1 30
57 Estrella Burgos, Victor (DOM) 855 -1 23
58 Sock, Jack (USA) 851 -1 19
59 Lu, Yen-Hsun (TPE) 820 0 25
60 Coric, Borna (CRO) 796 1 21
61 Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) 788 -1 16
62 Pospisil, Vasek (CAN) 785 0 29
63 Schwartzman, Diego (ARG) 780 0 27
64 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 770 0 25
65 Istomin, Denis (UZB) 770 0 28
66 Andujar, Pablo (ESP) 760 0 26
67 Berlocq, Carlos (ARG) 740 0 25
68 Ramos-Vinolas, Albert (ESP) 730 0 29
69 Groth, Sam (AUS) 717 0 28
70 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN)

Both very good posts, T.
I am curious to see everyone's responses.

Interesting you mentioned Cilic, because he certainly looked like a monster winning USO blasting the gizzards of the poor ball.

Imagine if Nadal could take the ball early with that bicep!

Coric's movement makes him stand out in the sea of modern players, but especially his age and what a few years of stamina and experience may bring.
Puille is a perfect antipod for Coric as they are similar size.

Scary to think that today's fast may look slow in 5-10 years...

Nadal missed a huge chunk of 2004, the whole European clay court season, due to injury.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nadal missed a huge chunk of 2004, the whole European clay court season, due to injury.

What's that got to do with anything?

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I didn't ask you for an opinion on my question, I asked for an answer.
In Rome, could Kokki now beat either Federer 2006 level or Nadal 2006 level ?

Your question is not on topic so I have no interest to speculate on it. Beating Federer on clay won't tell us whether Coric or Kokki are better than Nadal 05.

I am however convinced that Nadal standing that far back from the baseline would be a killer. Very much so like Nalby was a killer for Nadal in 2006....whereas those Kokki and Coric are much quicker on their feet than Nalby and Kokki can certainly take the ball much earlier than Nadal.

Those guys remind me Cilic when Cilic came on board and could blast nadal off the court before he got injured. I however think that Kokki and Coric play with much better margins than Cilic and won't make as many mistakes on key points.  

Why only speculation on these comparisons Nadal, but not for Federer or any other player ?
You didn't even answer my question for either player clearly, do you think Kokki would be able to beat Nadal or Federer in Rome 2006 ?

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nadal missed a huge chunk of 2004, the whole European clay court season, due to injury.

What's that got to do with anything?

Because missing months which include your favourite part of the season due to injury would have a negative impact on rankings.

noleisthebest wrote:Both very good posts, T.
I am curious to see everyone's responses.

Interesting you mentioned Cilic, because he certainly looked like a monster winning USO blasting the gizzards of the poor ball.

Imagine if Nadal could take the ball early with that bicep!

Coric's movement makes him stand out in the sea of modern players, but especially his age and what a few years of stamina and experience may bring.
Puille is a perfect antipod for Coric as they are similar size.

Scary to think that today's fast may look slow in 5-10 years...

The ball was going back and forth faster in 2006/7 than in 2010 /13....on HCs. They decided to slow it down as we know and players like nadal Djoko Murray were simply happy to play slower...but safer.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Both very good posts, T.
I am curious to see everyone's responses.

Interesting you mentioned Cilic, because he certainly looked like a monster winning USO blasting the gizzards of the poor ball.

Imagine if Nadal could take the ball early with that bicep!

Coric's movement makes him stand out in the sea of modern players, but especially his age and what a few years of stamina and experience may bring.
Puille is a perfect antipod for Coric as they are similar size.

Scary to think that today's fast may look slow in 5-10 years...

The ball was going back and forth faster in 2006/7 than in 2010 /13....on HCs. They decided to slow it down as we know and players like nadal Djoko Murray were simply happy to play slower...but safer.

Yes, but now many more players hit it fast (and safe) and even that's not enough. I think the element of muscling on good hitters has made a difference.
Harrison vs Nishi the other night had the same pace as Nishi, and he is nowhere near as clean hitter as him.

I watched Nole vs Tsonga from close up last Wimbledon - the same! Nole's FH was consistently faster and deeper than Tsonga's.
I was really surprised.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Why only speculation on these comparisons Nadal, but not for Federer or any other player ?
You didn't even answer my question for either player clearly, do you think Kokki would be able to beat Nadal or Federer in Rome 2006 ?

It's not difficult to understand. Federer on a good day could handle anyone anywhere...including Nadal as remember fed had 2 MPs on this Rome final....even crushing Nadal 62 in teh 4th set. So the issue Fed had v Nadal was essentialy a fitness, never say die attitude Nadal had. He was the only one who coudl run as much then.....nowadays all those youngsters can.

What's bizarre is that you still cannot see the main obvious points. Those new guys can run as much and as long as your man....but they can do more with the ball that Nadal coudl then.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Why only speculation on these comparisons Nadal, but not for Federer or any other player ?
You didn't even answer my question for either player clearly, do you think Kokki would be able to beat Nadal or Federer in Rome 2006 ?

It's not difficult to understand. Federer on a good day could handle anyone anywhere...including Nadal as remember fed had 2 MPs on this Rome final....even crushing Nadal 62 in teh 4th set. So the issue Fed had v Nadal was essentialy a fitness, never say die attitude Nadal had. He was the only one who coudl run as much then.....nowadays all those youngsters can.

What's bizarre is that you still cannot see the main obvious points. Those new guys can run as much and as long as your man....but they can do more with the ball that Nadal coudl then.

So to get this clear: you think Kokki now would beat both Federer and Nadal Rome 2006-level ?
Instead of answering like a politician, perhaps answer the question directly, then do your explaining

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Why only speculation on these comparisons Nadal, but not for Federer or any other player ?
You didn't even answer my question for either player clearly, do you think Kokki would be able to beat Nadal or Federer in Rome 2006 ?

It's not difficult to understand. Federer on a good day could handle anyone anywhere...including Nadal as remember fed had 2 MPs on this Rome final....even crushing Nadal 62 in teh 4th set. So the issue Fed had v Nadal was essentialy a fitness, never say die attitude Nadal had. He was the only one who coudl run as much then.....nowadays all those youngsters can.

What's bizarre is that you still cannot see the main obvious points. Those new guys can run as much and as long as your man....but they can do more with the ball that Nadal coudl then.

So to get this clear: you think Kokki now would beat both Federer and Nadal Rome 2006-level ?
Instead of answering like a politician, perhaps answer the question directly, then do your explaining

Is it me being a politician or you being a slow learner? I said I am convinced (can't prove it though) that Kokki woudl beat Nadal 05. Federer is different as it is down to his form of the day.

You can see that if you had asked whether nadal 05 coudl have beaten Federer 05, the answer is certainly not obvious....even if we have a reference that says yes. Nadal managed to snatch a win in the jaws of defeat. So even then there is no clear answer. The bottom line what is clear is that Federer is simply not used to playing this new powerful game. It really grates him.....and he got that problem later from Djoko and Murray...like he had it before from Hewitt.

Listen.....you will see very soon Kokki and Coric beating Nadal....and no excuse will be allowed!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
Kokki on the other hand, has a W/L ratio of 4-5 this year (before start of IW), and 2-7 last year (i.e. he's lost many more matches than he's won).

Not quite true as Kokki has got to go through Qualif and Qualif matches are not accounted for. It is a bit unfair for him as he arrived on the main draw having played 3 matches on average....so that take time.

The real W-L ratio is actually 15/5 (nadal's is 11/3 this year) and his losses were very close on average. Now I understand why they gave him a WC.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

This is a clip of a 19 year old Nadal vs prime Federer 2006 in a Rome epic 5 setter:

Excellent clip! Compare the pace of those rallies with Kokki v Monaco! Not close. The ball travels much faster now than on this clip.

That is not prime Federer.

Tenez, you can't count qualifying as ATP matches, the main draw is harder to get wins on.

OK Tenez, you've managed to avoid answering my previous question in so many twisted ways, so let me ask you another one:
Do you think Kokki, if he was at his present level, would win the French Open 2005 like Nadal did ?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez,  you can't count qualifying as ATP matches, the main draw is harder to get wins on.

Of course you can. It's actually pretty tough...as tough as for the top seeds to have a WC, a LL or a qualifier in their draw. A qualifier for a 500 might be an automatic entry for a 250. Qualifiers are often amongst top 100 players.

OK Tenez, you've managed to avoid answering my previous question in so many twisted ways, so let me ask you another one:
Do you think Kokki, if he was at his present level, would win the French Open 2005 like Nadal did ?

So you have once again managed not to understand what doesn't suit you. Never mind.

Kokki woudl have been an amazing sensation 10 years ago...no doubt and yes I can see him beat Puerta in teh FO final. Pretty convincingly if anything.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez,  you can't count qualifying as ATP matches, the main draw is harder to get wins on.

Of course you can. It's actually pretty tough...as tough as for the top seeds to have a WC, a LL or a qualifier in their draw. A qualifier for a 500 might be an automatic entry for a 250. Qualifiers are often amongst top 100 players.

OK Tenez, you've managed to avoid answering my previous question in so many twisted ways, so let me ask you another one:
Do you think Kokki, if he was at his present level, would win the French Open 2005 like Nadal did ?

So you have once again managed not to understand what doesn't suit you. Never mind.

Kokki woudl have been an amazing sensation 10 years ago...no doubt and yes I can see him beat Puerta in teh FO final. Pretty convincingly if anything.

So you think he would have won the French Open 2005 then ?!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Tenez,  you can't count qualifying as ATP matches, the main draw is harder to get wins on.

Of course you can. It's actually pretty tough...as tough as for the top seeds to have a WC, a LL or a qualifier in their draw. A qualifier for a 500 might be an automatic entry for a 250. Qualifiers are often amongst top 100 players.

OK Tenez, you've managed to avoid answering my previous question in so many twisted ways, so let me ask you another one:
Do you think Kokki, if he was at his present level, would win the French Open 2005 like Nadal did ?

So you have once again managed not to understand what doesn't suit you. Never mind.

Kokki woudl have been an amazing sensation 10 years ago...no doubt and yes I can see him beat Puerta in teh FO final. Pretty convincingly if anything.

So you think he would have won the French Open 2005 then ?!

Of course he coudl have...had he been trained against today players...problem is that 10 years ago,...you could only train against the then players.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand...Nadal would have annihilated Laver, Borg, McEnroe but does it mean he is a better tennis player?

noleisthebest wrote:I don't see why it's so hard to understand...Nadal would have annihilated Laver, Borg, McEnroe but does it mean he is a better tennis player?

Very good point.

A bit of substantial information for you Kim as clearly there are things ytou can't see...the clock doesn;t lie!


I picked 3 rallies of each match (Fed v Nadal in Rome 06 and Kokki v Monaco yesterday)! To get some decent number one needs to get long rallies from the baseline as the clock I use is the one on Youtube.

On average the match between Nadal and Federer is 20% slower than Kokki v Monaco!!!!! Do you realise what it is 20% slower?

To give you an idea, on one of the long exchange from the baseline, a 20 shot rally takes 6 seconds less nowadays than in 2005!!!!

We know for sure that Kokki could have handle a 20% lower pace.....nothing guarantees us that Nadal coudl have handle a 20% faster pace then.  

12 17 1.416666667 14 16 1.142857143 12 17 1.416666667 19 23 1.210526316 20 30 1.5 12 15 1.25 1.444444444 1.20112782

Good work, T!

Time is a fascinating thing in tennis.
It's so fast , brain actually lags behind.

That's I once said tactics don't exist in tennis, all Fed does must be pure instinct.

Either that or the reactive, learnt ball-striking patterns that most other players do now.

But even that is so tough because of physicality.

It's crucial to grasp this concept of speed and how tough it is on players now.

6 seconds is eternity in tennis.

Tenez wrote:A bit of substantial information for you Kim as clearly there are things ytou can't see...the clock doesn;t lie!


I picked 3 rallies of each match (Fed v Nadal in Rome 06 and Kokki v Monaco yesterday)! To get some decent number one needs to get long rallies from the baseline as the clock I use is the one on Youtube.

On average the match between Nadal and Federer is 20% slower than Kokki v Monaco!!!!! Do you realise what it is 20% slower?

To give you an idea, on one of the long exchange from the baseline, a 20 shot rally takes 6 seconds less nowadays than in 2005!!!!

We know for sure that Kokki could have handle a 20% lower pace.....nothing guarantees us that Nadal coudl have handle a 20% faster pace then.  

12 17 1.416666667 14 16 1.142857143 12 17 1.416666667 19 23 1.210526316 20 30 1.5 12 15 1.25 1.444444444 1.20112782

Thank you Tenez, I'm sure your sample size of 3 rallies proves your case.
However I have also dug up some previous research done by a tennis scholar, and this is what he found:

"I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!!"

Edit: Tenez, do you remember who wrote that?

noleisthebest wrote:I don't see why it's so hard to understand...

I understand what Tenez is saying, I just disagree.

I disagree that Kokkinakis now, at his level, would be able to beat Federer on any surface in 2005, I don't believe that Kokkinakis at his current level would be able to dominate the clay court period like Nadal did when he was younger.
Kokki is not even in the top 100, and I think Tenez is getting very carried away.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't see why it's so hard to understand...

I understand what Tenez is saying, I just disagree.

I disagree that Kokkinakis now, at his level, would be able to beat Federer on any surface in 2005, I don't believe that Kokkinakis at his current level would be able to dominate the clay court period like Nadal did when he was younger.
Kokki is not even in the top 100, and I think Tenez is getting very carried away.

How about the rest of my comment you quoted?
Is Nadal better than Laver, Borg and Mac?

It's similar with Kokknakis etc...tennis is moving on and changing all the time.

It's always been a very difficult sport to play as it demands everything of a player: prime coordination, footwork, anticipation, fitness, focus, calmness...
Right now the stress is on physicality, that's where Nadal is the king, but others are catching up.
That's why he is not dominating everyone like in 2010.
Not because he is declining but because others have/are catching up.

Just like he and Toni studied Fed's game and built a plan how to beat it, so are others doing the same with Nadal.

It was Nole who caught up first. The rest are now following which is why Nole can't repeat his 2011 any more.
Times, they are a changin' ....

Oh...I am proud Kim you are keeping my posts at hand.

I have just done a quick average of Mimai05 final. 1s31 per rally...so about 10% slower than Kokki/Monaco.

Nadal coudl not win any tournament outside clay before 2007 except for this Dubai tournament which means Nadal coudl not handle rallies played at a faster pace. Something Kokki and Coric obviously can do.

And the table you dug up shows certainly that the courts were slowed down to allow Nadal to get further in tournaments. That is very clear cause it was known that Nadal coudl not win in environment where a length of rally was played under 1.15s...if not 1.25s.

Djoko and Murray were players who coudl also thrive under those slower conds..though they made the rallies slower simply by exchanging long baseline spinny shots.

Yep, well your two tables seem to contradict each other don't they.
It's a bit convenient how when you argue one thing your data with the sample size of like 2 rallies backs up what you're saying, but the next day when you're looking at it from another angle, your new data with a small sample size shows something else.

NITB, I acknowledge tennis progresses, especially with new technology; the question is I don't think the rate of progression is that fast for the world number 120 now to be at the same level as the worlds number 1 and 2 from 2005.

Why not?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Yep, well your two tables seem to contradict each other don't they.
It's a bit convenient how when you argue one thing your data with the sample size of like 2 rallies backs up what you're saying, but the next day when you're looking at it from another angle, your new data with a small sample size shows something else.

They don't contradict each other at all...they show different conds and players.

The bottom line is you did not even realise that the Rome final was played 20% slower than Kokki's yesterday match.

That's because you are unable to point out the difference in level. Whereas for me it's clear and just need to clock the rallies to prove what I see.

Yes, but because you saw 2 rallies where Monaco-Kokkinakis was faster than Fed-Nadal Rome 2006, doesn't mean that the former match was of higher quality or played at a higher level.

On the whole I think you're right that tennis does progress over time, in particular with new technology coming in. However you have exaggerated the rate of change to such ludicrous levels that you're coming across to me as totally delusional. Neither Monaco nor Kokkinakis would touch Nadal on clay in 2006 or Federer on any surface in 2006.

I will leave this now, I want to see what some others (Luvsports, Summerblues etc.) have to say on this before coming back on the thread.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Yes, but because you saw 2 rallies where Monaco-Kokkinakis was faster than Fed-Nadal Rome 2006, doesn't mean that the former match was of higher quality or played at a higher level.

On the whole I think you're right that tennis does progress over time, in particular with new technology coming in. However you have exaggerated the rate of change to such ludicrous levels that you're coming across to me as totally delusional. Neither Monaco nor Kokkinakis would touch Nadal on clay in 2006 or Federer on any surface in 2006.

I will leave this now, I want to see what some others (Luvsports, Summerblues etc.) have to say on this before coming back on the thread.

It's like saying there is hardly any difference between the first iphone and the iphone 6.

noleisthebest wrote:Maybe I am a bit naive and expecting too much...after all it's because "it's an insult to hate Nadal" on v2 that we were banned from it, so it must be a crime not to like him.

So much so, that people there are gagged and not even allowed to mention OTF.

It's more the fact they never go on forums at all. It;s just something they don't choose to do, nothing against OTF at all, they really enjoyed the game.
Also they don't really follow tennis bar one.

Are yuo saying only one poster is serious about tennis on v2?

OK then

They were doing well for someone who doesn't follow tennis.