Is Raonic a good step forward for tennis?

So what do you think having seen Raonic probably only lose to Federer due to inexperience on the big points (and his return of serve needs some work too). But clearly this guy has the game to hurt all the top players and you can imagine he'll be challenging for all the top honours very soon. He has a serve that is up in the mid-140s, a huge FH and surprisingly good movement for a large guy...plus he plays an all court game.

Another point is - was it only a matter of time until a "Raonic" arrived anyway to act as foil to the games of the current top 4. Delpo threatened to spill over a couple of years back with his huge brand of tennis but he hasnt quite hit the top heights he threatened after USO 2009 (yet). And we saw that Berdych was another similar huge hitting tall guy who arrived in a flurry and had the potential to dominate but turned out to be too mentally weak to dominate. So is Raonic the real deal this time, and a step forward, or backwards? Could he dominate as a #1 given no guy over 6'2' has ever dominated the #1 position?

I find this hard to judge and feel we need to see more of him before coming to a conclusion.

Although I couldn't actually see last night's match, I was struck by the frequent reference - in both live text commentary and those members here who could watch it - to the fact that this was perhaps the first player Federer has ever faced in his career who has a truly potent serve BUT with an all-round game to back it up. And of course even when Fed has retired this will be the challenge for all those still playing : how to tame a guy like Raonic when he's firing on all cylinders as he was last night ??

I'm very conscious that Raonic does also provoke memories of some of the less attractive features of the 90's..... BUT that is heavily outweighed by my wish to see new blood attacking the established hierachy and I've voted accordingly !

I think he's a step forward. He's the only guy under 25 (maybe the only guy full stop) who's on a significant upward trajectory, and capable of troubling the top players, and the game needs that.

It wouldn't be surprising to see him put it all together for 2 weeks at some point and bag a slam, but as you say, his size counts against him for consistency, durability, longevity. With the game as physically demanding as it is now, I suspect his previous injuries worries are an indicator of things to come. He's not just tall, he carries quite a bit of weight.

Very much a step back. Sure, it is all new and exciting now but if it does reach the stage when he is dominating the game then viewers will be switching off in droves. His game is very effective, very hard to counter and desperately dull. I have yet to see him play a shot with any wow factor. If this is the future then tennis is heading for a very dark place.

Over the last four matches he has held serve 96% of the time against four of the best returners in the game today - on clay! I fear for what his serve will do on the grass.

Different fans find different things dull. Personally, I would rarely watch a David Ferrer match, for example. There will be plenty of people who enjoy Raonic's game.

Good points Born Slippy.

You've got me thinking ...... maybe I voted the wrong way ...!

My rationale in commenting earlier that we need to see more of him is this :
IF his all-round game continues to develop to a point where he is widely deemed to be a truly skilful & accomplished player then it would be unjust to put a plague upon him for the crime of having a powerful serve

Those stats are indeed scary in all sorts of ways. I think I read somewhere yesterday that taking a combined spell of the conclusion to his match against Nalby and then the early stages of the Federer match he won a succession of 44 out of 44 points on serve.

Early days still. We've yet to see how he might fare in the white heat of, say, a Slam SF in front of a capacity crowd. Yesterday, at least, he wasn't quite good enough even with all that power. And he did have the added benefit of an unusual number of UE's by Fed.

Meanwhile ...... like I said ..... you've got me thinking .....

He's a salvation, the game is so stale now with the dominance of retrieval and the same faces.

Variety is the spice of life. Ferrer bores me to death, and watching a player figure out how to handle the power of Raonic is fascinating.

I agree with the final part of the post above. Raonic is like a darth vader of tennis. It's ok if he can use his death grip on the majority of poor schmucks as long as there is a Luke Skywalker around to defeat him. The problem arises if even the very best can't deal with his serve. If that occurs then the Empire will have won.

The above analogy would seem to mean that at some stage Raonic will have to declare that he is Feds dad which would, admittedly, make everything a bit more interesting.

Apologies to anyone who hasn't watched star wars by the way. You probably won't know what I'm on about and I've just given away a key plot twist. Oh well, sure everyone has seen them.

Does Milos have a killer tennis brain? He could be useless in Slam finals. Yet to be proved. I get irritated with all this "Roanic is the future for sure". No, he could be sub-Murray in terms of Slams. I would prefer to watch him in basketball rather than tennis.

Good comments

I'm 2-way on this. If we look at the classic juxta-points I like both Nadal's (but not Ferrer's although admire his work rate and bustle) and Sampras's game. There are things to admire in each. For me, both these players have a certain flare (and Federer too of course) whereas I dont find Raonic's game, impressive though it is, attractive to the eye. But its isnt about style necessarily...its about being effective in relation to winning, Nadal has shown that for example, although I believe he does have his own style in that regard.

But what is different is movement. Nadal, Federer, Novak and Sampras have/had excellent movement in common...all the best players who dominate have graceful and rapid movement linked to amazing foot-eye co-ordination. Thats the foundation point for talent to be shown.

Ok, Raonic moves well for a big guy but he's never going to cover the ground like these other guys. But then doesn he have to? Boom, boom...and the point is won. Boris in his time wasnt the best side to side mover but could overpower opponents. Raonic can do that, and not just with his serve either. One FH winner off a softish ball from Federer was timed at 176kmh...that is massive...around 110mph.

So he has the raw power alright to blow people away and some deft touches too when needed. And more power is where the game will head for those with the size to harness it. It always has. And as the surfaces continue to slow in general (Madrid aside) you'll basically have 2 ways of winning:
1. grinding out ralleys and winning by moving your opponent around until you can go for the winner
2. develop enough power to hit through whatever the slow surface.

So in the Nadal/Djokovic vs. Raonic opposing approaches which one will win out in future? Does raw power always win in the end? I'm not so sure...it hasnt in the past - and I dont class Raonic as another Sampras, Sampras was different due to reasons above around movement, volleying and more innate talent IMO.When you look at the people who have dominated tennis in the past. many of them have been able to soak up others power, and return with their own. For example, Federer himself showed that at critical phases in the match last night he was able to find a way to make the returns and put Raonic under pressure with his own deftness.

But...and its a big but...once Raonic's rawness is replaced by experience and better tactical acumen, will even the magic of Federer's (or Novak's) mercurial returning prove toothless in the face of such overwhelming power? Didnt they think Phillopousis would be the same in the early 90s...only for the others to work him out and find ways to negate his size and power? Plus with huge power comes a prone-ness to injury...like JMDP.

On balance, I dont think he's a major advance besides THAT serve. But he adds a more than welcome addition to the tour for sure. I do believe the current top 4 will find ways to negate his power once they've played him a few times...as talent is talent...but he may get some good early wins before they adapt though. A solid top 6 player I think though...if he can stay injury free.

Born Slippy wrote:I have yet to see him play a shot with any wow factor. If this is the future then tennis is heading for a very dark place.

I must be watching a different game.

11th game. Federer up 40-0. Bad volley. 40-15. Missed FH 40-30. Perfect lob by Raonic. Deuce. Federer second serve. FH winner. Please listen to Koenig/Goodall about a 'virtual match point'. Missed FH by Raonic - back to Deuce. Federer plays a wonderful volley off shoe laces. Federer pulls out. 6-5.

12th game. Beautiful play to 15-40 Federer. Raonic second serve, Federer slice, Federer on the net and volley to Raonic BH. Raonic plays a SHBH DTL (a la Federer - per Koenig/Goodall) .

Just because he can server at 235+ kmph is not dull, he can volley, lob, passing shots. He is using the assets he has to the best of his ability. 6-1 Federer vs 6-5 Raonic, not very different. Federer can also server at 210/220 kmph. Yes, he does lack maturity, but he took out Murray on Clay.

Raonic deserves credit for pushing the 'old man'.

Gutted to have missed this match, but hoping to youtube it tonight... sounds like a cracker from laverfan's comments!

Just seen about 13 minutes of highlights of the Raonic-Fed match. Good to see some serve and volleying. Personally, think Raonic could be good for the game. It was two hours 13 mins last night but I hate to think how long a 7-6 final set tiebreak match would have been between two baseline scrappers.

sirfredperry wrote:Just seen about 13 minutes of highlights of the Raonic-Fed match. Good to see some serve and volleying. Personally, think Raonic could be good for the game. It was two hours 13 mins last night but I hate to think how long a 7-6 final set tiebreak match would have been between two baseline scrappers.

We'd still be waiting for a result...

Yep cracking game reckoner as LF says. That game early in the 2nd set was key when Federer staved off BPs otherwise it could have been goodnight Vienna. Like Sampras did, this guy puts the others under pressure because they know if they lose their serve breaking his is nigh on impossible! Up until the 2nd set Raonic had gone 44 consequetive first serves without dropping the point in Madrid!

lydian wrote:But...and its a big but...once Raonic's rawness is replaced by experience and better tactical acumen, will even the magic of Federer's (or Novak's) mercurial returning prove toothless in the face of such overwhelming power? Didnt they think Phillopousis would be the same in the early 90s...only for the others to work him out and find ways to negate his size and power? Plus with huge power comes a prone-ness to injury...like JMDP.

On balance, I dont think he's a major advance besides THAT serve. But he adds a more than welcome addition to the tour for sure. I do believe the current top 4 will find ways to negate his power once they've played him a few times...as talent is talent...but he may get some good early wins before they adapt though. A solid top 6 player I think though...if he can stay injury free.

Federers return was more or less toothless last night. He got out-aced 3-1, Raonic won 96% or whatever of 1st serves. Basically, Federer hung super-tough on his own serve and took a couple of opportunities on his.

bogbrush wrote:Basically, Federer hung super-tough on his own serve and took a couple of opportunities on his.

BPs Federer 1/2 Won. Raonic 1/8 won. Raonic's lack of experience or Federer's experience, made quite a difference last night.

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Basically, Federer hung super-tough on his own serve and took a couple of opportunities on his.

BPs Federer 1/2 Won. Raonic 1/8 won. Raonic's lack of experience or Federer's experience, made quite a difference last night.

Yep.

This guy is already ready to beat a top player at a big event, it won't surprise me when it happens. Defintiely one of the first things the big boys will look for when the draws come out.

Not sure I agree with that BB...for me Fed looked rusty at the start (ok and Raonic's serve was huge though) after his 6 week lay-off. No surprise there. As the match went on Fed got better at reading his serve, then returning it. From mid 3rd set on he was regularly returning the first, and scoring points on it.
After all, the speed of Raonic's serve is not different to say Roddick and some others like Karlovic or Isner. What makes a great serve is variety and placement, and Raonic still has some way to go there...he was serving to Fed's BH nearly all the time but Fed started to read it and make good returns. But Raonic does have the surprise-factor on it still.

All that said, clearly this guy is a phenomenon as he's not just about serve, he's a very talented attacking player with many options and is no doubt going to be a nightmare to anyone who faces him. He can only get better - scary! But my point is that Fed did start to read the serve and in future, the surprise factor for his serve will diminish as the top 4 play him more. After all, thats what happened to Roddick...and Fed had no problem with Roddick (besides SW19 2009).

Fed only won 8 points off the 1st serve all match; 0, 4 and 4 in each set.

Yes, and the better impact on 1st serves started from about mid 2nd set as he started to get an eye in...my point is that he was returning the first serve more too, especially later in the 3rd...ok not always winning the point..but nonetheless returning it. And at the crunch moments those returns were made to count. Lets not forget Fed was rusty too...geez, here I am defending Fed! lol

I think we agree Raonic is going to be massive in the game but I'm not sure he's the 2nd coming of Sampras that many people seem to suggest.

Raonic is eventually taking over the game no prisoners allowed. Nadal will obviously duck him if the opportunity arose. Chicken

Raonic has a sweet personality and mental stability.
However, his physical build will be his biggest obstacle. With that hight and not as flexible body, many players in any sport are prone to injuries.
Also, at the age of 21 he is 25th on the ATP? How high on the list Nadal and Nole were at that age? Too bad, wrong timing for Raonic, way too many better/consistent players in this era. From time to time, Raonic can beat anyone, but overall btw. 10th-15th place. Ryan Harrison more complete player for example at the age of 19.

Raonic is a real deal, but how far he takes his talent and how lucky he gonna be from injury all matters and only time says that.

Hmm .... some strange reasoning there wrt Harrison.

Doubt Harrison will be regarding himself as "more complete" whilst he's ranked in the 60's with no titles and not even a Final to his name as yet. Raonic has 3 titles and has made two other Finals, and he's not that much older.

On his 20th birthday - Raonic -156th
On his 20th birthday - Harrison - 61st
Harrison - the ideal hight (needs to loose weight a bit), right country behind him, guy with many various moves and elements, focused….

I hear what you say but what's passed is in the past, and we are where we are .....

Raonic 23rd and climbing ; Harrison at 61

Everyone see the reality from their own perspective. Harrison is younger, but for his age is better ranked then Raonic and he has more promising elements to do better than Raonic.

Sampras was a unique & prodigious player with immense natural talent. Add to that he was quiet & never outwardly or directly smug or arrogant. Yet, we have a lot of the top players with far less talent who are infinitely more smug & arrogant.

I'm not gping to name the 2 top players who are the worst for this, as their fans won't give it a rest.

Raonic has an amazing serve & lovely game but to label him as a Sampras-clone is ridiculous. Sampras' serve was a thing of beauty & the power from it came naturally due to timing rather than brute force. Also, and more importantly the Sampras forehand was a pure, flat & powerful shot. Raonic's, like every player on the Tour now is the same, all wrist & Western grip. Sampras' was a Continental grip forehand which meant it went deeper & flatter through the court & passed the net at a lower trajectory. It was a riskier shot than the current top players but unlike theirs, was a shot of conviction rather than one borne out of inbuilt safety.

Unfortunately, we now have a homogenised circuit, with far less variety than in the past. This is why the top players are able to be successful at most tournaments, including the majors without a noticeable change in their games. In my opinion this isn't good for tennis & cheapens the variety & difficulty of winning the Grand Slam.

Agree with pretty much most of that G-t-G.
Sampras's serve was a once in a generation/Open Era thing...it wasnt just the serve itself but when he could produce it, especially on 2nd serve (timed at average speed 118mph one whole USO!!).

Raonic is a modern-style player with a big serve - clearly aided by height...its by no coincidence that most huge servers are themselves huge! Again, Sampras at 6'1' was amazing as he had less court to look at for a serve that huge and accurate. But more than that, there is no way Raonic will ever move around the court like Sampras. The differences between the 2 players are actually many and varied.

With players like Nadal and Novak dominating you're going to get next-generation differentiation through someone coming along who wins by power-play. Its almost the only way to beat these guys as its nigh on impossible to beat them at their own game. So Raonic comes along and asks new questions...but until he starts beating them regularly (and at all) we dont know if his brand of tennis is going to cut it or not. As I said, he's a good addition to the tour, and I like to watch attacking tennis (as well as other types) but he's not raising the innate talent bar any further for sure and I believe will get found out for movement in due course once the top guys come onto his serve - and they will.

graf_the_greatest wrote:Sampras was a unique & prodigious player with immense natural talent. Add to that he was quiet & never outwardly or directly smug or arrogant. Yet, we have a lot of the top players with far less talent who are infinitely more smug & arrogant.

I'm not gping to name the 2 top players who are the worst for this, as their fans won't give it a rest.

are you alluding to fedal?

It's always a step forward when a new player starts to compete at the top level. It is up to those that run the game to make adjustments if it is deemed that the sport is being diminished / or contravened in any way.

If I can make a shameless plug for my second favourite player, Pancho G (after Laver, of course), there is a lot of analysis on Sampras and Federer serves ( GtG to mention Federer).

There is a Signature series episode on US Tennis Channel (perhaps clips on UTube) where Sampras discusses influences on his playing style and what elements from Pancho's game inspired him, serve being one of them, volleying being the other.

I will try and find clips.

Well, I caught the Fed v Raonic match finally and I agree that Raonic looks like a player on the cusp of great things. He's still quite raw but will hopefully make an interesting addition to the top echelon as he matures.

I haven't been able to watch any of the matches at Madrid apart from catching a bit of the Delpo v Dolgopolov atm, but I think Raonic has to be good for the game - it is great to see a whole lot of different styles and that is what he is offering.

Watched the recording of the close match he lost to Ferrer at Barcelona and I found his lightening quick strike very exciting - in fact that match provided a great contrast of styles and, much as people are reporting about the match vs Federer, one felt that Ferrer came through on the big points because of his vast experience.

It is always interesting to watch a young talent begin to break through.

He is someone different to talk about so I welcome him by the buckets!

I agree - it's been a bit too stale at the top for a while now - we need disruptive players like Dolgo and Raonic to mix things up.

Good comments. Who do you think is likely to win big first (Masters or Major)...Dolgo or Raonic?

Raonic, one would think? But really hard to call this sort of thing. Who would have predicted that Del Potato would win a slam before Murray?

Soon guys like Raonic, Del Potro and maybe even Dolgopolov or Berdych will become serious contenders at the Slams. Then we may look back on the years of 2010 and 2011 as a - dare I say it? - weak era where Slams were divided between only 2/3 players.

Please please ..... I beg you ..... no 'era' talk ..... !!

At least the Blue Claygate affair has a freshness about it.

But another weak era debate....? Oh no. Please no.

Re Berdych : I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I somehow feel if he were going to be a serious (or should that be 'regular') contender at the Slams then he would have done so by now ......

But the others .... hopefully yes, we do need some new faces in the Finals. Delpo's already done it of course but given the extent to which he was portrayed as 'the next best thing', he won't want to end his career tagged as a one-Slam man.

yes lags but the real question is who is the GOAT...

reckoner wrote:yes lags but the real question is who is the GOAT...

Oh reckoner, come on, I'm disappointed in you. That's an easy one. No debate .... surely ...

He's from Spain. Very impressive on clay.

Step forward Fernando Verdasco !!

(in the world of sport, you're only as good as your last result )

lags72 wrote:

reckoner wrote:yes lags but the real question is who is the GOAT...

Oh reckoner, come on, I'm disappointed in you. That's an easy one. No debate .... surely ...

He's from Spain. Very impressive on clay.

Step forward Fernando Verdasco !!

(in the world of sport, you're only as good as your last result )

Good point lags, good point.

Have I mentioned my longstanding admiration for Verdasco's incredible talent by the way? And isn't he clever to play tennis full time and supervise the production of the world's leading hot sauce?

lydian wrote:Good comments. Who do you think is likely to win big first (Masters or Major)...Dolgo or Raonic?

Hate to say it but Tomic would seem the more likely.

I would love for Raonic to break through the glass ceiling. Just to show that success in tennis has not succumb to lung bursting rallies that dominated the Australian Open this year.

Ah yes, that's the one ..... Fernando Tabasco.

Not only indispensable for a perfect Bloody Mary, but I always like to add a dash to my (home-made) bolognese .......

Interesting LK, I'd probably put Raonic before Tomic but adding his name is a good call. And of course we forget that JMDP is still "young" too.

I dont want to see any more AO-like finals either...they need to speed the courts up...but can you imagine the damage Raonic would do on even faster courts? They'd be screaming for them to slow them down again! In that respect Raonic may be one reason they keep them the current speed....

Raonic has an aura of inevitably about him, he doesnt get that animated when he beats the bigger players as he wants to keep aiming upwards. Raonic will be difficult to stop once he makes the top 10 (he clearly will).

And here I thought you guys understand tennis better then average. Yes, Raonic can win GS the same way as Del Potro did. Meaning when stars overlap in a perverted way and everyone gets stomach virus.

To remind ourselves,
Federer out of rhythm, not playing Monte Carlo, played a very bad match and Raonic with 21 aces still cannot win??? The win was basically gifted to him with a ribbon, and he failed.

Federer vs. Raonic
Aces: 7 vs. 21
Double Faults: 2 vs. 1
1st Serve%: 64% vs. 63%
1st Serve Points Won: 79% vs. 86%
2nd Serve Points Won: 52% vs. 59%
1st Return Points Won 14% vs. 21%
2nd Return Points Won: 41% vs. 48%
Total Service Points Won: 69% vs. 76%
Total Return Points Won: 24% vs. 31%
Total Points Won: 49% vs. 51%

But I have sympathy for you. You think Raonic is that prosperous because he beats Andy. Sure, I may think like that if he ever beats Novak.