Wimbledon 2015

the_monkey

Mousewar wrote: »

And Djokovic will definitely win a hatful of slams now. Who's going to stop him? Nadal is fading. Federer can't beat him. Murray's not good enough.
In his post-peak years, Federer had to deal with Djokovic and Nadal - two players who are gonna retire with double figure slam totals. Without them Federer would have about 25 slams now. In his post-peak years, Djokovic is only gonna have to deal with old man Fed, broken-down Nadal, flatters-to-deceive Murray and a whole host of nobodies from the new generation. Honestly, can't see a top looking player anywhere in the 18-25 years group right now. One of the poorest new generations I can remember.

Again, Tennis is a quick changing sport ... don't think Murray isn't good enough to beat Djokovic - he is , and is getting closer lately.

Nadal is done if he sticks with Toni (which he probably will, he is very loyal) but if he gets a new coach - who knows what he could bring out ?

Wavrinka on his day can beat anyone ... Cilic is improving ... Dimitrov needs a new coach but can be great.


There is nothing to suggest Djokovic will just dominate the game now.

walshb

the_monkey wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest Djokovic will just dominate the game now.

Dominate is a bit strong a word. I agree. He can be a force and be a success, but he will be challenged ridiculously hard for every slam.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Was 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012 post peak Federer? Let's say that during peak Federer years he didn't have to deal with Nole and Nadal at their peak?

The disdain for some of the fantastic achievements of some amazing baseliners is pathetic.

BTW, RF is a 7 time SW19 baseline winner!

Compare the court speeds back when Federer was winning Slam after slam to now ,there is no comparison at all,none.

Have a look at this match from the US Open in 2005 between Federer and the best ball striker of all time Agassi ,its like a different sport to whats being played nowadays.

Do you think Djokovics game would work anywhere near as well on those surfaces ?
Of course he would make his game more aggressive ,theres no doubt and he is a great returner but his game wouldnt be anywhere as effective.

mickmackey1

That's a bad example, I remember watching that match and it was blowing a gale at the time.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Compare the court speeds back when Federer was winning Slam after slam to now ,there is no comparison at all,none.

Have a look at this match from the US Open in 2005 between Federer and the best ball striker of all time Agassi ,its like a different sport to whats being played nowadays.

Do you think Djokovics game would work anywhere near as well on those surfaces ?
Of course he would make his game more aggressive ,theres no doubt and he is a great returner but his game wouldnt be anywhere as effective.

This is all guess work, and really, how much faster are the courts and the balls? Some players don't think much, if anything has changed. I'd like to see technical data and empirical evidence to back this claim up. We can only work in the now, otherwise we'd be saying that Nole would get whipped by Rod Laver. You cannot know how Nole would do if he was transported back to these "much faster" courts. Simple. It's a game of tennis today for all players. All equal. All playing on the same courts with the same balls and pretty much the same equipment and technology, with umpires and linesmen that are impartial. This is where we judge them, and recently Nole has been every bit the player Federer is and was. Like it or lump it.

Mousewar

lostcat wrote: »

I've never seen a backboard that returns should be winners with interest.

That's essentially what a backboard does alright. More on the 'interest' part later.

lostcat wrote: »

Is hitting winners at full stretch on the slide not attacking?

Not truly no. They're forced winners in a way. The angle and power has been generated by the attacking player. Djokovic does well to get to the ball but most of the time he's literally just holding his racquet and the racquet and string technology is doing the rest. Djokovic and Nadal are both examples of how technology can turn mediocre players into 'great' ones. The slow courts and balls lets him get to the shot, the technology lets him produce a so-called winner.

lostcat wrote: »

Is calibrating your shots to land within a foot of the baseline time after time purely defensive?

Yes! Again no attempts at winners except when there's absolutely no other choice as with that sliding winners nonsense above. Just clubbing the ball back deep every time = grinder.

lostcat wrote: »

Is finding more offensive angles than your opponent defensive?

Nonsense.

And I'm not buying into all this 'celebrate his achievements' stuff. I don't mind a grinder but shame on tennis for facilitating them winning every bloody tournament. If this was rugby they'd change the rules to bring back attacking play.

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

Djokovic and Nadal are both examples of how technology can turn mediocre players into 'great' ones. The slow courts and balls lets him get to the shot, the technology lets him produce a so-called winner.

Absolute nonsense making out that a racket makes a player perform exceptional shots. Ridiculous. They all use the same rackets. Technology has changed, but not to the point that players are so much faster and stronger and more complete all round players than years gone by. That's hard work and dedication. Slow courts and balls? Let's see the data to back this up?

The payers today and of recent years are simply better all around specimens. Nadal and Nole are ATG players with exceptional skills and athletic attributes. All round court stars! Serve, serve and volley, play deep, mid court, smash, run and perform high intensity shots on the move. This has F all to do with an improved tennis racket, or a perceived slow court!

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

And I'm not buying into all this 'celebrate his achievements' stuff. I don't mind a grinder but shame on tennis for facilitating them winning every bloody tournament. If this was rugby they'd change the rules to bring back attacking play.

Conspiracy theory nonsense!

MikeSD

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

In reality though Wawrinka isn't considered one of the big 4 and the last time one of the big 4 who wasn't Djokovic won a slam was Rafa at last year's French Open.

Cilic won US 2014!

MikeSD

MikeSD wrote: »

Cilic won US 2014!

Oh big 4, sorry. Maybe the rest aren't that bad though.

Mousewar

walshb wrote: »

Conspiracy theory nonsense!

:rolleyes: I'm not suggesting it's a conspiracy. I'm suggesting they're remiss in their duties to the sport and to the fans by allowing the game to descend into this defensive farce.

Mousewar

walshb wrote: »

Absolute nonsense making out that a racket makes a player perform exceptional shots. Ridiculous. They all use the same rackets. Technology has changed, but not to the point that players are so much faster and stronger and more complete all round players than years gone by. That's hard work and dedication. Slow courts and balls? Let's see the data to back this up?

The payers today and of recent years are simply better all around specimens. Nadal and Nole are ATG players with exceptional skills and athletic attributes. All round court stars! Serve, serve and volley, play deep, mid court, smash, run and perform high intensity shots on the move. This has F all to do with an improved tennis racket, or a perceived slow court!

Total misunderstanding of the impact racquet and string technology has had on the game. Few sports have ever experienced such an upheaval.
Also...can't believe you just referred to 'serve and volley' in relation to Nadal.

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

Total misunderstanding of the impact racquet and string technology has had on the game. Few sports have ever experienced such an upheaval.
Also...can't believe you just referred to 'serve and volley' in relation to Nadal.

I said he can serve and I said he can volley. He is an all round player. Racquet and string development applies to everyone. What is your point with it? You are way exaggerating its impact. It has next to nothing to do with what Nole and Nadal and Federe and some other greats are doing on courts. What is your problem? It seems like you are just coming up with lame excuses to explain why Nole and Nadal ar so successful. Is it that the pretty Federe cannot beat the rough and rigged Nole? It's a real sore loser attitude.

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'm not suggesting it's a conspiracy. I'm suggesting they're remiss in their duties to the sport and to the fans by allowing the game to descend into this defensive farce.

Are you serious? Allowing what to descend exactly? Allowing players make choices and decisions during games? It's conspiracy nonsense. Where is the evidence that the authorities have done anything to drastically or even marginally change the way the game is played? Are we only to allow one style of play, and anything different is not allowed? I watch a lot of tennis, and for me the game today is a lot more diverse and strong and interesting than it was during the so called "faster" balls and courts" times.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Slow courts and balls? Let's see the data to back this up?

Here is a good article from 2011 .
http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

Anyway we are going back over old ground ,it patently obvious that the courts are slower now .

As anyone who has actually stepped on the courts and played on them (US Open or any ATP hard court event courts) from the past and today -- it is quite obvious the courts are much slower. I have - both in the past and regularly today. The courts today - US Open included - have much more sand/grit in the surface mixture today than they did. That is just the truth and it started in the early 2000's and has just gotten even more so since.

I don't think most people out here get a chance to actually hit on courts that are like what ATP/WTA are playing on today. Literally you will wear the sole of your shoe off or a hole in only a few sets - especially if you are a toe dragger. It is like super hard grit sandpaper and the ball sticks to it and bounces up much higher and it's much harder to hit though the court. It didn't used to be like that. The US Open courts were fast and much more like most normal hard courts that you'd find all around the USA.

This is the way it is -- no judgement -- but it is the fact of the matter. Courts in general have become much more gritty and slow and the style of play that is successful reflects that.

Mousewar

walshb wrote: »

I said he can serve and I said he can volley.

Barely

walshb wrote: »

He is an all round player.

That's a ridiculous statement

walshb wrote: »

Racquet and string development applies to everyone. What is your point with it?

The poster I responded to (i.e., not you) listed various parts of Djokovic's game that apparently showed how attacking he was. I argued that these shots were more down to technology than any great ability on Djokovic's part.

walshb wrote: »

You are way exaggerating its impact.

I'm really not. Half the great shots you see from Djokovic and Nadal were literally impossible before certain advancements, particularly string tech. Especially those heavy repetitive shots to the baseline.

walshb wrote: »

What is your problem? It seems like you are just coming up with lame excuses to explain why Nole and Nadal ar so successful. Is it that the pretty Federe cannot beat the rough and rigged Nole? It's a real sore loser attitude.

I'm the sole voice of dissent against the awfulness of modern tennis! Remember that 6 hour AO final between Djokovic and Nadal - that's where the sport is headed. Six hours of gutless, low risk, ball-bashing every game.

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm the sole voice of dissent against the awfulness of modern tennis! Remember that 6 hour AO final between Djokovic and Nadal - that's where the sport is headed. Six hours of gutless, low risk, ball-bashing every game.

That for me was a sensational match, and it wasn't just slog slog slog. Pretty appalling comment to make as regards them being gutless.

Mousewar

walshb wrote: »

That for me was a sensational match, and it wasn't just slog slog slog.

We'll leave it there so.

Oh wait - you edited. Yes, just bashing the ball back relentlessly without having the guts to try to win the point instead of not losing it = Gutless. Just because they ran a lot doesn't impress me. I can watch a marathon if I want to see a load of huffing and puffing.

loyatemu

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm the sole voice of dissent against the awfulness of modern tennis! Remember that 6 hour AO final between Djokovic and Nadal - that's where the sport is headed. Six hours of gutless, low risk, ball-bashing every game.

there have always been hard-hitting baseliners, but in the past they would have struggled outside of the clay-court season against more versatile players.

Ironically the courts and balls at Wimbledon were slowed down to get away from the sort of rapid-fire serve and volley wins that Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc specialised in because they were deemed boring. Maybe we should just go back to wooden rackets.

the_monkey

I thought this was that crazy priest .... that would have been hilarious ... unfortunately not tho ..

Wicklow Brave

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm the sole voice of dissent against the awfulness of modern tennis! Remember that 6 hour AO final between Djokovic and Nadal - that's where the sport is headed. Six hours of gutless, low risk, ball-bashing every game.

I actually find the baseline rallies that Djokovic and Nadal have when they play quite gripping tbh. OK the 6 hr AO final was extreme but generally I would far prefer to watch Nadal v Djokovic in their pomp then two serve-volleyers playing stop, start tennis and 3 shot rallies. Maybe that's just me. I think there needs to be a balance. Federer is the perfect model in that regard but you are giving Nole and Nadal zero credit, very unfair.

Mousewar

Wicklow Brave wrote: »

OK the 6 hr AO final was extreme but generally I would far prefer to watch Nadal v Djokovic in their pomp then two serve-volleyers playing stop, start tennis and 3 shot rallies..

Well, how about we go back twenty years and you can watch baseline rallying at RG, serve and volley short points at Wimbledon, and then something between the two at the USO and AO. That's all I'm suggesting. Some actual depth of variety in the play. At the moment, it's baseline grinding every single tournament.

lostcat

Federer plays first strike tennis, but can't you can play aggressive tennis without playing first strike tennis? Isn't Djokovics return of serve one of the most attacking shots in tennis at present?

I could pull up a mountain of 'sampras v becker or whoever on fast courts' clips when the only time the server played the ball twice in a point was when he had to make a second serve. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable at the time...

I found that 6 hour AO final (the polar opposite of the above) fascinating. I wouldn't like to see it every week, but I wouldn't like to see sampras play becker every week either.

What makes tennis - like anything else - interesting is a contrast of styles. Federer v Djokovic is currently the most enjoyable pairing on tour, for this reason. Djokovic v Murray (for instance) is terrible to watch, for the same reason.


In terms of courts speed and racket alloys and so on, the sport, like all sports, evolve(you might say devolve, whatever). And in all fairness I think calling Nadal and Djokovic gutless for playing 6 hours it is rather off the mark! A different type of guts, perhaps?

yerwanthere123

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm the sole voice of dissent against the awfulness of modern tennis! Remember that 6 hour AO final between Djokovic and Nadal - that's where the sport is headed. Six hours of gutless, low risk, ball-bashing every game.

You're not the only one, I agree with you. Others on here have said the same thing.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

When Djokovic was on talking to Sue Barker after winning yesterday he was comparing himself to Federer and he was saying that he can't play as fast as Fed, he needs time to construct the points whereas Fed can rattle through a service game in less than a minute. It seems very few players now can play like Fed in that respect. When he's on form he can hit a winner from anywhere at any point of a rally with any shot he wants. Most of the rest of them seem to want to have these long rallies and wait for the opponent to get impatient and make a mistake.

Someone mentioned rugby above and I suppose it's a pretty good comparison. Watch the Northern Hemisphere teams play tactical possession rugby and compare it to the Southern Hemisphere's free attacking rugby. Both have their merits and a good tactical battle can be very entertaining but if you were trying to sell the sport to a newbie it's be Southern Hemisphere rugby you'd be showing them.

Wicklow Brave

Mousewar wrote: »

Well, how about we go back twenty years and you can watch baseline rallying at RG, serve and volley short points at Wimbledon, and then something between the two at the USO and AO. That's all I'm suggesting. Some actual depth of variety in the play. At the moment, it's baseline grinding every single tournament.

Out of interest, if the courts were like what they were 20 years ago, what current players do you think would be winning the Slams?

walshb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Someone mentioned rugby above and I suppose it's a pretty good comparison. Watch the Northern Hemisphere teams play tactical possession rugby and compare it to the Southern Hemisphere's free attacking rugby. Both have their merits and a good tactical battle can be very entertaining but if you were trying to sell the sport to a newbie it's be Southern Hemisphere rugby you'd be showing them.

Absolutely. Federer is pure beauty on the court. I don't find Nole's tennis to be all that appealing. I would not pay to watch him, but at his best he is a hell of a physically gifted player. And folks making claims like Roger at his best easily beast Nole is not accurate. It's nowhere near a given. Just not near as pretty as RF, but then again, who is, or was?

Mousewar

Wicklow Brave wrote: »

Out of interest, if the courts were like what they were 20 years ago, what current players do you think would be winning the Slams?

Well, RG would be as it is.
Wimbledon - it's hard to say as the slowing down has eradicated an entire breed of player. Kids haven't been schooled in serve and volley for years now so the type of player that would win a faster Wimbledon don't exist. Tim Henman would probably have won one - he was a big victim of the courts slowing down. If you instantly made it fast again today then I'd say you'd be looking at the likes of Federer and Tsonga and presumably Cilic (might struggle with his movement a bit though) and maybe Berdych. Also, how would you stop Karlovic? Then, I'd like to see how the likes of Mahut would get on.
Then with the USO and AO you'd be looking at a wide field of candidates including Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and the others mentioned above, as well as Stan.

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

In reality though Wawrinka isn't considered one of the big 4 and the last time one of the big 4 who wasn't Djokovic won a slam was Rafa at last year's French Open.

Why is there even a big 4.

Murrays won the same amount of Grand Slams as Wawrinka.

Surely it should be a Big 3.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Why is there even a big 4.

Murrays won the same amount of Grand Slams as Wawrinka.

Surely it should be a Big 3.

Well, when it was named the big 4 those 4 guys were the ones dominating. Murray has a decent Masters record and at Slams he was nearly always in the SF or Final.

From Wimbledon 2004 until Murray won the US Open in 2012 there were only 2 of those 32 slams not won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Depending on how you measure your Big 4 I would argue whether Murray should be included or not. I'm pretty sure the name came about because they were the Top 4 players for so long and nobody else got anywhere near them, ranking wise.