The Strength of Eras debate put to rest.

First topic message reminder :

1 - In general, the latest era is the strongest but won't be as strong as tomorrow's. No player today woudl be as good if they hadn't played and trained versus the previous generation. That applies to Federer, Djoko, Nadal and everybody else.
2 - #1 is true only if the the number of players worldwide (from club level to top professionals) remains the same or increase. IF the pool of players (even at club level drops), it's almost certain, the overall level will drop.
3 - (for Socal) - An era's strength can be characterised by a strength in talent, fitness and technique. Today what makes this era "strong" is their fitness level which can essentially be attributed to science (and their team...more than the player). We know this cause not so long ago we thought Nadal was a physical phenomenon but now we can see that Djoko and Murray - who both were not particular athletes in their youth - can rival phyiscally with Nadal). In terms of technique and talent, Nadal, Murray and Djoko are certainly not stronger than many of the past players but they largely make it up by their amazing court coverage and stamina. There are a lot of players who can strike the ball as well but not many can produce over the distance cause it requires great composure to execute great shot over the distance and as soon as the body starves of O2, the execution drops.
4 - When all players in a couple of years will be as fit as Nadal and Djoko, then the talented players will shine through and expose the "weakness of today's era as being essentially "physical". Djoko has this year with his relative talent clearly exposed the limited skills of Nadal. For now, essentially due to the slow conds, it's the physical players that can consistently get to the last rounds of slams.
5 - #4 explains why youngsters take longer to shine through. They might be more talented but physically it's a very tough world out there. It's become like cycling where the top racers are 24 and over.

In summary, yes there are 3 or 4 players who are strong physically at the top but besides Federer and rare others, the top players are not that great technically. They can't do magic things with the ball except retrieving balls that were not reachable in the past, but since they spend 35 hours per week in the gym instead of on the court, it's clear we are bound to see physical exploit more than technical/talent ones.

Tenez wrote:

icecold wrote:Let's face it, Lindsay Davenport or Justine Henin had better timing and were better ball strikers than Roger Federer will ever be, especially on the backhand side.

Indeed. Say no more.

Way to quote the guy out of context tenez. He said that technically speaking and timing wise their backhands are better but obviously they wouldn't get a game off Roger because he is so much more powerful and stronger, you didn't quote that part did you. I would technically take both those players backhands over Roger's any day of the week and twice on sunday. Roger is stronger then they are and obviously can hit the ball much, much, much harder. But technique wise you take Henin's backhand and put it in Roger's body and he might have won 22 slams.

socal1976 wrote:SA, I think Fed did develop early on in his career, but he very much stagnated by his mid 20s and refused to try different tactics against Nadal. And as you have pointed out he didn't exactly have very difficult competition until the arrival of Nadal and the development of Murray and Novak. I wouldn't be as harsh as you are I think Fed did make changes when he was young but when had all that success against weaklings like Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Robredo, and ljubi he got a little too complacent and comfortable in his game. A clearly inferior level of top talent in the early 2000s to what had come before (ie pete, andre, Courier, Becker, and Edberg) and clearly inferior to the current dominant stars Novak and Nadal. Annacone at the end of last year did get him to be more aggressive off the return and the backhand but it was a case of too little to late. Still Roger was so head and shoulders over his contemporaries that maybe and understandably he became stubborn and complacent in his approach to the game.

Silly me, he did developed on in his career. He employed Paganini.

Davenport a better ball striker than Federer?

I appreciate the pros and cons of the argument you guys are having, but the above statement is like saying Murray has a better serve than Sampras ever did.

socal1976 wrote: He said that technically speaking and timing wise their backhands are better

Socal tried to rescue his friend but sinked with him.



But now is the time he can show he can change his views! (I am really having fun).

So why use that stupid argument where Nadal and Djokovic are concerned? I don't buy it for a minute but if you seriously believe that Federer is owned by Nadal only because he cannot compete physically then tough. That is no excuse.

The bottom line is he is not as good a tennis player as Nadal and the area where he is deficient is totally irrelevant.[/quote]



Outside of clay, Federer has beaten Nadal about the same number of times that Nadal has beaten Federer. So Nadal hardly owns him. As for who is the better player, that cannot be proved hence these endless debates. The fact that Federer has won several more slams might be seen as some indication. Or the fact that while Federer has been good enough to get to all those clay finals against Nadal (then beaten by the better clay player) while Nadal hasn't been good enough to get to all the non-clay finals to meet Federer - that might tell a neutral observer something as well. Then again, the overall h2h is obviously strongly in Nadal's favour.

Nadal is the better clay player, Federer is arguably the better tennis player. They are both two of the greatest players in the Open era.

Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

bogbrush wrote:Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

LOL! They probably meant that Fed should have moved to the DHBH and Hawaian grip....in the middle of a rally of course.

bogbrush wrote:Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

Yes and then lost to another S&V'er Henman the very next round, the shock of it!
Transitional tennis? I missed it. He got fitter than the likes of Hewitt by employing Paganini and most credit goes there. Remember he grew up playing on slow clay just like most European players. Tell me about it that he was learning S&V on European clay

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

LOL! They probably meant that Fed should have moved to the DHBH and Hawaian grip....in the middle of a rally of course.

Lol indeed. the last time i checked, Tsonga, a player who uses the double handed backhand was hitting winners past the stage-fright Federer at Wimbledon using a Single handed backhanded; now that's talent. Not too hard after all is it? More comedy from Tenez

Or the fact that while Federer has been good enough to get to all those clay finals against Nadal (then beaten by the better clay player) while Nadal hasn't been good enough to get to all the non-clay finals to meet Federer

Yes, he got blasted off the court by the likes of Gonzalez (who Fed beat in straights at the final), Youzhny (what's he ever won?), Ferrer (never even won a MS) James Blake ( )

What a laugh, very exhausting lol.

It's a bit misleading to talk about Nadal not making hard court finals ealier in his career, certainly if it's in comparison with Federer. It took Federer eight attempts and until he was 24 to reach a RG final; clay is his weakest surface, as hard courts are Nadal's (amongst slam surfaces). We could look at the list of players who beat Federer in his early days at RG and it doesn't read a great deal prettier than Gonzo, Youzhny and Ferrer.

No contest that Federer is a better hard court player than Nadal. Their respective records tell us that, looking at Nadal's early results in the hard court slams does not.

Positively 4th Street wrote:It's a bit misleading to talk about Nadal not making hard court finals ealier in his career, certainly if it's in comparison with Federer. It took Federer eight attempts and until he was 24 to reach a RG final; clay is his weakest surface, as hard courts are Nadal's (amongst slam surfaces). We could look at the list of players who beat Federer in his early days at RG and it doesn't read a great deal prettier than Gonzo, Youzhny and Ferrer.

No contest that Federer is a better hard court player than Nadal. Their respective records tell us that, looking at Nadal's early results in the hard court slams does not.

I think that is a very fair point Positively.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

LOL! They probably meant that Fed should have moved to the DHBH and Hawaian grip....in the middle of a rally of course.

Lol indeed. the last time i checked, Tsonga, a player who uses the double handed backhand was hitting winners past the stage-fright Federer at Wimbledon using a Single handed backhanded; now that's talent. Not too hard after all is it? More comedy from Tenez

And most of us regard Tsonga as talented. My point never mentioned JWT.

What exactly is your point (apart from the one at the top of your head)?

...and round and round the Mulberry bush we go....

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah Federer didn't adapt much.

Apart from when he was 19 he played full on S&V tennis to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, then through the next few years played the transitional tennis (acknowledgements to lydian there) and finally now plays in the ping pong era.

No, nowhere neat the adaptation of Djokovic who plays exactly today as he did the day he arrived, except he's now much fitter.

Where do they get these people from? The day centre?

LOL! They probably meant that Fed should have moved to the DHBH and Hawaian grip....in the middle of a rally of course.

Lol indeed. the last time i checked, Tsonga, a player who uses the double handed backhand was hitting winners past the stage-fright Federer at Wimbledon using a Single handed backhanded; now that's talent. Not too hard after all is it? More comedy from Tenez

And most of us regard Tsonga as talented. My point never mentioned JWT.

What exactly is your point (apart from the one at the top of your head)?

Exactly, which confirms Federer is not as talented as Tsonga doesn't it?

Don't leave Tenez out to dry, have his back on this an tell him you can actually switch grips between rallies and hit winners now and then off it.

lol - same old rubbish

As for Tenez instead of you guys fighting fire with fire why dont you take a collection and get him a one way ticket on Eurostar back to Paris!

Hello



This looks like a busy place.

Is BOO lurking here?

BOOOOOOOOO00000000000ooooooooooooooooo................

time please wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:It's a bit misleading to talk about Nadal not making hard court finals ealier in his career, certainly if it's in comparison with Federer. It took Federer eight attempts and until he was 24 to reach a RG final; clay is his weakest surface, as hard courts are Nadal's (amongst slam surfaces). We could look at the list of players who beat Federer in his early days at RG and it doesn't read a great deal prettier than Gonzo, Youzhny and Ferrer.

No contest that Federer is a better hard court player than Nadal. Their respective records tell us that, looking at Nadal's early results in the hard court slams does not.

I think that is a very fair point Positively.

Thanks tp. It's a bit lazy to compare someone on their best surface with another on their worst, just as it is flawed to use a head-to-head that is strongly biased towards one surface to definitively judge two players.

sportslover wrote:lol - same old rubbish

As for Tenez instead of you guys fighting fire with fire why dont you take a collection and get him a one way ticket on Eurostar back to Paris!

Can't refrain you racial pulsions for long? Let's not forget your initial pseudo was Britain one and only. You can't hide your colors for long, can you.

socal1976 wrote:I think the deluded faction of federrettes who claim that Nadal and Djokovic aren't talented at hitting a tennis ball and win on lungs alone are frankly the deluded ones. I know the world's number one player is not talented at hitting a tennis and you have the gall, audacity, and sheer cluelessness to call other people deluded. This may be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard by any person, the world #1 tennis player isn't that talented at hitting a tennis ball, but ivan ljubicic is. Do you guys work for monty python or something.

Firstly, my post did not say they were NOT talented as such. Of course they are talented. However it is my view that what separates Djokovic and Nadal from the masses is their sub human fitness levels rather than their skill and finesse. I feel there are many more talented/skillful players out there but sadly they are overwhelmed by consistent tom-bludgeonry rather than being outplayed. I guess if your knee injections and space capsules can make you into a super human then so be it.

Nothing deluded about my comments. It is you who is deluded, reading things that aren't there so you can bump your gums! Go and have a drink of water!

Josiah, Can you read the pm I sent you on Sunday please.

Tenez wrote:

sportslover wrote:lol - same old rubbish

As for Tenez instead of you guys fighting fire with fire why dont you take a collection and get him a one way ticket on Eurostar back to Paris!

Can't refrain you racial pulsions for long? Let's not forget your initial pseudo was Britain one and only. You can't hide your colors for long, can you.

lol - Yes and Britain still has only one world class player.

And you still can get over a Spaniard!

And what have the French players won (say in the last three years!)

And so nothing changes.

sportslover wrote:

Tenez wrote:

sportslover wrote:lol - same old rubbish

As for Tenez instead of you guys fighting fire with fire why dont you take a collection and get him a one way ticket on Eurostar back to Paris!

Can't refrain you racial pulsions for long? Let's not forget your initial pseudo was Britain one and only. You can't hide your colors for long, can you.

lol - Yes and Britain still has only one world class player.

And you still can get over a Spaniard!

And what have the French players won (say in the last three years!)

This is a tennis forum. No one is attempting to rank nationalities in any specific order of merit. We are talking tennis style.

"We are talking tennis style....."

Which on your part usually involves Federer being great and Nadal being talentless.

lydian wrote:"We are talking tennis style....."

Which on your part usually involves Federer being great and Nadal being talentless.

As I said nothing changes.