Djokovic comments show how much impact the game changes have made.

Amidst the debates about whether Djokovic played badly, I thought he made a very telling comment;

"It was quite cold and there was basically no air in the balls and a low bounce, which is more suitable to his style of the game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21951628

So the current in-prime #1 believes that in a low bouncing environment he would get soundly beaten by a 35 year old serve & volley veteran. What price, then, of this current crop making the second week at Wimbledon in the 90's?

The point is this: once again we get insight into the staggering effect of changing the game, how it makes one style now look superhuman and appears to diminish past players, yet when the clock is rolled temporarily back by outlier environments or courts it all looks so very different.

Credit, by the way, to Djokovic for explaining the loss in this way and not relying on claims of injury or bad form.

By the way, just saw how Tommy last beat a World #1 in 1999.

Wow.

BB, yes, I spotted that too.

I think there is merit in your point.

I'm in two minds over whether the fact it was Djokovic who struggled makes the case stronger or weaker though.

It has strength because Djokovic is the archetypal player for modern conditions and struggled so greatly under 'old' conditions. Ergo the game is now very different.

But it has weakness almost for the same reason! To me, Djokovic is almost an outlier. His game is so focused around modern conditions, that his ability outside of those conditions is particularly impaired. I don't, for instance, expect Murray or Federer would have struggled quite so much because they are more versatile players.

But your point is fair. If a pretty dominant number 1 can struggle so much under 'old' conditions, we can assume that the reverse was also true - that many players who were excellent under the old conditions would have struggled with the switch to the modern conditions.

True, Djokovic is almost designed for 2013. Murray less so, and Federer is a veteran of 90's development anyway.

bogbrush wrote:By the way, just saw how Tommy last beat a World #1 in 1999.

Wow.

I heard that Statement too, the last time Tommy beat a World No.1 was 14 years back, may be Tommy found the easiest one to beat this time around.

Tommy is a good fast court player we have seen his performance on WIm, Halle, and Queens so if the courts would have been slower it would have favored Djoko more than him, so I kinda find it funny that slow courts suited Haas style and hence the win, it was simple Djoko didn't expect this Haas to turn up and when he did he panicked so early and lost.

HM Murdoch wrote:BB, yes, I spotted that too.

I think there is merit in your point.

I'm in two minds over whether the fact it was Djokovic who struggled makes the case stronger or weaker though.

It has strength because Djokovic is the archetypal player for modern conditions and struggled so greatly under 'old' conditions. Ergo the game is now very different.

But it has weakness almost for the same reason! To me, Djokovic is almost an outlier. His game is so focused around modern conditions, that his ability outside of those conditions is particularly impaired. I don't, for instance, expect Murray or Federer would have struggled quite so much because they are more versatile players.

But your point is fair. If a pretty dominant number 1 can struggle so much under 'old' conditions, we can assume that the reverse was also true - that many players who were excellent under the old conditions would have struggled with the switch to the modern conditions.

HMM, Djoko didn't stuggle this tournament, he was beating the hell out of current crop, he lost for three reasons,

1]He wasn't at his best
2]He least expected this Tommy would turn up
3]He wasn't tested in this entire tournament, in contrast Tommy had some spirited comeback wins.

I think it's the low bounce that's key; one thing that was standard at Wimbledon back in the day.

It makes for a completely different game - the top spinners just can't get their racquets under the ball so easily and the volleyers get all over them.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
HMM, Djoko didn't stuggle this tournament, he was beating the hell out of current crop, he lost for three reasons,

1]He wasn't at his best
2]He least expected this Tommy would turn up
3]He wasn't tested in this entire tournament, in contrast Tommy had some spirited comeback wins.

I have to disagree, at least in part.

He wasn't at his best, certainly, but I don't think there is any element of him being surprised by Tommy. All of us know how talented Haas is, so I can't believe any opponent would be casual about playing him.

I think it's more to do with BB's point about the bounce (Novak always struggles with low bounce).

I also get the sense that Novak is not quite dialled in mentally at the moment. He doesn't look like he has the resolve to really 'go to war' if the going gets tough. Which makes me think he's feeling a little jaded.

And no, that's not an excuse, just an observation.

Tommy Haas can play with the sort of variety to trouble Djokovic. He won't feed him those side to side baseline ralleys that he loves. Djokovic hasn't looked too happy lately either. He wasn't from what I've read happy with the scheduling in IW's and it was speculated that those other two were getting preferential treatment over himself despite him being number 1. I have a little sympathy for him over this but that's just the way it is because people want to watch who they want to watch. Anyway he can probably get a little clay practice in now because that's where the important stuff is about to take place.

Also feel a little sympathy for the tournament owners with so few crowd pullers left. Bet they have fingers crossed they don't lose Serena...

There's merit in this argument although I'm not too certain how much we should read into the anguished comments of a beaten Top player

I do think that whislt Nole is easily the best on high bouncing, slow to medium fast courts - he's usurped by some of his other rivals depending on the surface

It's true to alude that Murray has little problem wiht a low bounce, simply because he had better 'hands'

Sounds like Novak, mighrt be ruling himself out of Wimbledon, as well

It was also quite breezy and Novak always seems to have off days when it is, his timing and movemt is incredible and I think it messes with it a bit. It touches on what Federer said at Madrid, that the top guys are so used to the conditions that don't change when they do they are out of sorts. Whereas in the 90s one week it was lighting quick the next slow and you had to adjust. Even said he admits its why he has the QF streak that he does

Its not just better hands against Djokovic.
He plays with a very extreme western grip.
Imagine picking up a racquet from the floor, then move it further around anticlockwise by 1/8 turn. Now try to play a FH with it.
That's Djokovic's FH grip - when the ball bounces low he cant get around the ball due to grip.

Nadal has the same FH grip as Federer (semiwestern SW) which is why they are both so versatile across surfaces and conditions.
Murray used to have a western grip like Djokovic (due to his clay training in Barca) but wisely changed to SW so is better now but he slips into western sometimes - you'll see him top into the net quite a bit under extreme pressure.

So if conditions were to speed up, ie. lower bounce, Djokovic out of all the top 4 players would struggle the most. Its why he also struggles vs slice the most out of the top 4.

wouldn't the more defensive players struggle more and the attacking players succeed more as the defenders wont be able to retrieve as many shots?

lydian wrote:Its why he also struggles vs slice the most out of the top 4.

Watching the match, I commented to SB about how Haas was very effective with his slices.

CAS wrote:Whereas in the 90s one week it was lighting quick the next slow and you had to adjust. Even said he admits its why he has the QF streak that he does

In S&V days, the court at W would wear out much more evenly, while BL players now turn it into clay at BL only. This is an interesting dynamic.

lydian wrote:Imagine picking up a racquet from the floor, then move it further around anticlockwise by 1/8 turn. Now try to play a FH with it.
That's Djokovic's FH grip - when the ball bounces low he cant get around the ball due to grip.

Nadal has the same FH grip as Federer (semiwestern SW) which is why they are both so versatile across surfaces and conditions.
Murray used to have a western grip like Djokovic (due to his clay training in Barca) but wisely changed to SW so is better now but he slips into western sometimes - you'll see him top into the net quite a bit under extreme pressure.

Marvellous comment, Lydian.

Can you describe the semiwestern SW in the same please (i.e. pick a racquet up an turn it)? All the technical descriptions of grips are a bit lost on me!

And, at the risk of sounding like a Luddite, why would Djokovic persist with grip that is less versatile? Is it tactical or just habit?

yes 2nd that comment on technical descriptions, im clueless on that stuff

He could start charging at this rate, 2 keen volunteers!

I always thought Rafa had a bit more of an extreme grip than Roger, I remember Connors describing it as picking up a frying pan

I love it Miami the court that has been called purple clay by fast court proponents is now the tell tale of how fast conditions impact the game. Djokovic is quick to compliment his opponents so I believe him when he says this was the worst match he played in years. That is something that the OP leaves out of his argument. I watched the interview and the match he could not hit a ball in the court. It had little to do with haas and his variety. Tommy hit the ball right up the middle of the court because like a smart player he did not take any risks which is smart when your opponent is self destructing. I find it perplexing that Novak has reached number one but can't handle a slice backhand. I find it odd that he has won Dubai 4 times but a loss on the purple clay of Miami is proof of how conditions have changed the game. Apparently when Novak plays a stinker it means the conditions have sped up. This must be the corollary to what we witnessed when federer loses the conditions become slow. Any top 100 player would have beaten Novak last night had nothing to do with variety, or his fh grip, or faster conditions.

Djokovic:"I played the worst match in years" that is why he lost not the court, not the opponent, not the newly discovered fast conditions of Miami. Sure conditions and style played a role but the main issue was he was spraying errors on routine balls. The quote I provided from djoko is 90 plus percent of the reason he lost. Bb and Lydian did you watch the match because I find it hard to believe it from what you are posting.

Any top 100 player would have beaten Novak last night

His movement was top notch just came up against a strong era player who's faced the likes of Sampras, Agassi and early Federer in his career.

Djokovic:"I played the worst match in years"

Giving these comments straight after a hammering are not to be taken serious. Played like he did in winning AO just wasn't to be against experienced variety player like Haas.

“I congratulate him. He definitely made great tactics,” said Djokovic. “He used the serve well and he moved around the court really well. He was better".

“I definitely hoped and believed that I could come back. I was fighting. I was trying all the way up to the last ball. There are days where you just don't feel good on the court. Nothing really goes your way. This is one of those days. But all the credit to him for making me play this bad.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/03/13/Miami-Tuesday2-Djokovic-Reaction-To-Haas-Loss.aspx

laverfan wrote:“I congratulate him. He definitely made great tactics,” said Djokovic. “He used the serve well and he moved around the court really well. He was better".

“I definitely hoped and believed that I could come back. I was fighting. I was trying all the way up to the last ball. There are days where you just don't feel good on the court. Nothing really goes your way. This is one of those days. But all the credit to him for making me play this bad.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/03/13/Miami-Tuesday2-Djokovic-Reaction-To-Haas-Loss.aspx

Thats what I have been advocating, Djoko played bad coz Tommy Haas made him play that way, and yes one such days happen for everybody.

Yes Haas hitting the ball up the middle and the incredible tactic of using a slice backhand which must of startled Djokovic caused the loss. Of course Laverfan Djoko is going to give Haas credit, if he didn't he should be criticized for giving federesque postmatch interview. But the determining but for cause of the loss isn't variety, wasn't Haas' brilliance and wasn't the courts or balls either. There wasn't a magical time warp that for that one match turned miami into the year 2000 in terms of conditions. Haas played the ball up the middle of the court and just got one more ball back then Djoko was able to get back on the given day. I find it interesting that when Roger loses the courts in miami are super slow, when djokovic loses it must be because of fast miami conditions and Haas' variety. Sounds to me more like people trying to fit the square piece into th round peg of their ideology. He missed absolute sitters off both wings, backhand and forehand and just could not hit out on his forehand at all without erroring. When Novak gets outplayed I am the first to say it, and in away he was outplayed, Haas was smart he took little risks and worked the ball in the middle of the court and collecting error after error.

Djokovic didn't win a point on Haas' second serve till halfway through the second set, this should tell you how bizarre and off Djokovic's form really was.

socal1976 wrote:

Djokovic didn't win a point on Haas' second serve till halfway through the second set, this should tell you how bizarre and off Djokovic's form really was.

Wow. That's an amazing statistic. One of the best returners ever not winning a second serve point for a set and a half. I didn't see the match but that is an incredibly poor stat for Novak... Considering its his strongest asset.

Just saw a few highlights. Djokovic was again playing before a sparse crowd. I'm not sure how well attended the rest of the matches in Miami have been but for a number 1 ranked player that must have felt a little disappointing. It must make motivation a little difficult.

socal1976 wrote:I love it Miami the court that has been called purple clay by fast court proponents is now the tell tale of how fast conditions impact the game. Djokovic is quick to compliment his opponents so I believe him when he says this was the worst match he played in years. That is something that the OP leaves out of his argument. I watched the interview and the match he could not hit a ball in the court. It had little to do with haas and his variety. Tommy hit the ball right up the middle of the court because like a smart player he did not take any risks which is smart when your opponent is self destructing. I find it perplexing that Novak has reached number one but can't handle a slice backhand. I find it odd that he has won Dubai 4 times but a loss on the purple clay of Miami is proof of how conditions have changed the game. Apparently when Novak plays a stinker it means the conditions have sped up. This must be the corollary to what we witnessed when federer loses the conditions become slow. Any top 100 player would have beaten Novak last night had nothing to do with variety, or his fh grip, or faster conditions.

Odd comments, I don't think anyone suggested Miami was fast.

To recap, DJOKOVIC said the LOW BOUNCE baffled him. I suggested this was an aspect of 90's Wimbledon that Djokovic would therefore struggle desperately with.

No, just checked again and nobody mentioned court speed. Curious.

BB, your comments are baffling a low boucing court IE like your own wimbeldon 90s comparison is by definition a fast court, just like a high bouncing court ie like clay is a slow court. Your argument is like me telling someone they have huge backside, a fat stomach, and ten chins and then claimming I never called them fat. No not specifically, but low boucing courts like grass where the ball doesn't rise is part of the definition of a fast court, probably the biggest part. Weather and altitude play a role as well but low bouncing conditions are for the most part the equivalent of a fast court. Look when Djokovic, who is very generous with praise for his opponents states flat out it was the worst match I played in years that is probably the main reason he lost. I watched the match, I don't think you did, there was very little brilliance or variety on display by either man. Tommy to his credit maintained his poise and picked the right strategy to play a player who was just really off and spraying errors. He played safe shots up the middle and waited to collect his errors. Novak just couldn't hit out on his forehand and not hit an error. It happens tennis is a timing game and you can have off nights. Your idea that this tells us anything about the impact of slow or high bouncing conditions is just not supported at all.

Fast? Not at all.

Djokovic stated that the balls had low pressure, which would give the, low bounce and not make them fast. Quite the opposite, as the lower pressure would see more energy lost in friction and be harder to hit fast off the racquet.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:Imagine picking up a racquet from the floor, then move it further around anticlockwise by 1/8 turn. Now try to play a FH with it.
That's Djokovic's FH grip - when the ball bounces low he cant get around the ball due to grip.

Nadal has the same FH grip as Federer (semiwestern SW) which is why they are both so versatile across surfaces and conditions.
Murray used to have a western grip like Djokovic (due to his clay training in Barca) but wisely changed to SW so is better now but he slips into western sometimes - you'll see him top into the net quite a bit under extreme pressure.

Marvellous comment, Lydian.

Can you describe the semiwestern SW in the same please (i.e. pick a racquet up an turn it)? All the technical descriptions of grips are a bit lost on me!

And, at the risk of sounding like a Luddite, why would Djokovic persist with grip that is less versatile? Is it tactical or just habit?

Thanks guys. The semiwestern is easier to get than Western, simply pick up the racquet when it's lying flat on the floor and you have the SW grip, no turn required. That's the grip 80% pros now use....Federer will sometimes go a little Eastern, ie. turn the racquet 1/8 turn clickwise, on some faster surfaces but only for certain shots.

Djokovic was taught tennis on clay and then bouncy hard courts. He was probably taught by coaches who themselves used western grips as they were very in-vogue on clay in the 90s. All the Spanish clay courters would have W grips...Nadal is an obvious exception...infact one guy called Alberto Berasategui who won 14 clay titles had what's called an Hawaiian grip...so as above for the W grip but turn another 1/8 turn anticlockwise! So Djokovic was schooled in that manner and its very hard to change a grip once set, it's almost like trying to change your service motion. For the most part Djokovic wouldn't have encountered too many fast, low bouncing courts growing up so didn't need to change...but he does have the talent to adjust if needed (he's won Dubai 4 times, albeit Dubai bounces nicely) however last night he just couldn't cope with low bounce at all. You'll note he's never won Queens/Halle which are quicker and lower than Wimbledon, infact he was beaten at Halle in 2009 by.....Haas! He doesn't really like the slices and flatter lower balls that guys like Fed, Haas and perhaps now Dimitrov can throw at him, and on a day where they're in flatter/lower conditions he cant quite adjust properly and they can be the undoing of him. Would be interesting to see him play Dimitrov in slicker conditions...

he struggled a lot with tomic in wimby 2011 and he overuses the slice. Djoko wasn;t at his best but he did get drawn into slice battles and lower flatter shots.

Yes and I think more and more players will latch onto this strategy, Nadal has a very good slice and used this a lot more vs Djokovic to his FH last year before he left tour. You may also wonder about IW which was very high bouncing...he was doing fine until he played Delpo..and guess what Delpo had to do loads of due to sore wrist...slices! And they won him a load of points...even Petchey commented that Delpo's makeshift strategy was working wonders. Delpo also hits very flat so he can hit through any surface and make the ball skid through...either way - flatter shots or slices - Djokovic was getting a lot more lower balls from Delpo and didn't like it at all.

Federer more versatile than Djokovic, yes fair enough. Murray more versatile than Djokovic, hardly !

If Murray was so versatile why can he only compete on Hard courts and Grass. Djokovic is a consistent threat on all surfaces including clay where he has won masters titles (beating the king of clay twice) and reached final of French open. Murray has yet to win any tournament on clay as has certainly never looked like winning the French. Dont even recall seeing him in a masters final on clay in his career?? that along with Djokovic's superior achievements on all surfaces suggest to me he is more versatile than Murray.

No-one doubts Djokovic is a fantastic ball-striker and is versatile. After all, he was brought up on clay so moves naturally on the surface - we see that - infact he moves on other surfaces like they are clay too! Interestingly, out of the current top 6 (and I include Del Potro as 6th rather than Berdych)...5 of them were raised on clay. The only one who wasn't? Murray. He went to Barcelona at 14 to learn more ralley based tennis but by then his movement wasn't natural to clay and he struggles more than the others innately.

However, I disagree that Murray is less versatile per se. His stroke production itself is more versatile than Djokovic but his movement isn't. Murray is a very good learner and adapter, so it wouldn't surprise me if he starts to get better results on clay. We saw how he pushed Nadal quite hard at Monte Carlo for a set and half.

All we're saying here is that in "traditional" conditions against aggressive players who use slice, low flat hitting he struggles more, and opponents could use that more against him. People will have seen how Haas beat him...Federer included, and don't think they wont be scratching their chins wondering how to do it themselves. Knowing and doing it are 2 different things and it still takes a very talented player indeed to beat Djokovic on any surface.

lydian wrote:Yes and I think more and more players will latch onto this strategy, Nadal has a very good slice and used this a lot more vs Djokovic to his FH last year before he left tour. You may also wonder about IW which was very high bouncing...he was doing fine until he played Delpo..and guess what Delpo had to do loads of due to sore wrist...slices! And they won him a load of points...even Petchey commented that Delpo's makeshift strategy was working wonders. Delpo also hits very flat so he can hit through any surface and make the ball skid through...either way - flatter shots or slices - Djokovic was getting a lot more lower balls from Delpo and didn't like it at all.

Thanks for the insight, Lydian.

As a I recall, Novak also struggled enormously against the slices that Fed and, particularly, Andy were throwing at him at Wimbledon and Olympics respectively.

I suspect the genie may be out of the bottle on this one. The struggle with slice was so pronounced v Del Potro, I really expect it to be a "go to" tactic when people play Novak now.

Funny how it works - they all get figured out eventually! Fed and high balls to the backhand, Novak and low bounces... there's no such thing as the perfect player.

...and good insight there too HMM - that the strength of a player also becomes their weakness in other areas. A lot of it is due to grips...there is no perfect grip (although many think it semiwestern now) that suits all courts. This is why is was so hard to win all the slams 20 yrs ago...eastern grip for grass was best (Sampras, Henman)...western for clay (Muster, Moya, et al)...semiwestern for hardcourt (Agassi). Now the courts have merged the semiwestern grip can dominate all slams...hence we see Nadal and Federer do so well.

Djokovic loves to feed off even pace, he's brutal at accelerating that pace into killer shots. His emergence as a front runner has brought further attention onto his game and as you say many have latched onto the slice go-to-tactic. It'll be interesting to see how consistent this approach now becomes against him. The problem is that many players simply are not good at slice though...its a shot that's been drop from many coaches and players armouries. Perhaps this tactic might see the emergence of the slice which can only be good for the game's variety...and from their we might see other old/new shots come into play.

That's the beauty with tennis - the constant need to differentiate and overcome does change the dynamic. I'm glad to see the age old tactic of "mixing it up" is finally coming back.

nadal.... just get as fit or fitter than him

If only it was that easy.

lydian wrote:Now the courts have merged the semiwestern grip can dominate all slams...hence we see Nadal and Federer do so well.

This is very interesting. A common sentiment is that the increasing uniformity of the courts has played into the hands of Fed's opponents but the man himself has also benefitted greatly from it.

lydian wrote:Perhaps this tactic might see the emergence of the slice which can only be good for the game's variety...and from their we might see other old/new shots come into play.

That's the beauty with tennis - the constant need to differentiate and overcome does change the dynamic. I'm glad to see the age old tactic of "mixing it up" is finally coming back.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

On the one hand, Djokovic's game is the template for success on modern conditions, so many will imitate it.

Yet his mastery of that particlar style of play is such that if a player has aspirations of regularly beating him, then they pretty much have to develop greater variety. Playing Djokovic on his terms is unlikely to yield much success.

Lydian I do agree with you to an extent. However, sometimes a player just does not perform on the day and Djokovic did play woeful the other day. He has faced that style of play before from Haas and beaten him numerous times.

I do agree that this is the way to play against Djokovic, that is slice and low bouncing balls. However there is also the need for Djokovic to play as poorly as he did on the day. Some days like with all players, the timing is just off. Just as much as Federer has the playing style to hurt Djokovic over the years, the same could also be said the other way around. Djokovic has adapted to find a solution to Federer's style which he really struggled with before.

What is really strange is how Federer has never seemed to have a plan B for facing Nadal. I know that Nadals forehand is a nitemare for a one handed backhand but i am amazed Federer has never figured out another way of adapting over the years. Bear in mind that we are not just talking clay here but also outdoor hard courts and he did beat Federer at Wimbledon in that classic and brought him close the year before too.

What i am saying is every player has a weakness per se but in the case of Haas vs Djokovic match, i think it was a combination of great play from Haas but equally just a really off day for Djokovic. I have a feeling if they met again and same tactics were used, Djokovic playing better would still win. I am not convinced with the argument that Novak would have lost to the top players in the 90s with faster surfaces and lower bounce. You adapt to the environment you are playing in and with the talent of Federer / Nadal / Djokovic / Murray, i have no doubt they all would have adapted to the conditions of the time, they are simply that good and their movement is sensational!

slashermcguirk wrote:What is really strange is how Federer has never seemed to have a plan B for facing Nadal. I know that Nadals forehand is a nitemare for a one handed backhand but i am amazed Federer has never figured out another way of adapting over the years.

I think part of this was just bloody-mindedness.

I get the feeling with Federer that, during his prime especially, he had a clear idea on what was the "right" (almost in a moral sense) way to play -and that was his way!

He's become more adaptable in recent years (possibly the influence of Annacone) but that sense of right and wrong is still there. Hence his very obvious ire at 'The Shot' in USO11!

HM Murdoch wrote:..
On the one hand, Djokovic's game is the template for success on modern conditions, so many will imitate it.

Yet his mastery of that particlar style of play is such that if a player has aspirations of regularly beating him, then they pretty much have to develop greater variety. Playing Djokovic on his terms is unlikely to yield much success.

This is why I found Andy's tactics against Djoko in the AO final so frustrating - he tried out-Djokovic him, which is surely the wrong way to go when Andy has more versatility in terms of shot making. What made it even more frustrating was that against Federer, Andy played a much more varied game that would have given him a better opportunity of threatening Novak.

Murray only plays his best against Fed and that's only sometimes. He could have been the best of all 4 of them if he'd kept moving forward from 2008.

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I take away two main points from Djokovic's comments:

First, it lends credence to Federer's claims over the last couple of years that conditions in the game have (1) changed for the slower and (2) become monolithic across tournaments resulting in (3) monolithic styles of play on tour. There are probably a few people who simply assumed this was all just sour grapes, and that may still be the case, but if Djokovic's explanation is to be believed, then logically one would have to also conclude that, ulterior motives aside, there is some truth to Federer's comments as well.

Second, it brings to mind the absolute certainty that is often expressed in the blogosphere that such and such modern player would EASILY destroy players of the past because the game has evolved so much. It's true that the game has evolved, and if you put a past player into a time machine and brought him to the present, he would certainly struggle to adapt, but the opposite could be said of a modern player making the opposite journey in a time machine. In all likelihood, he would also struggle to adapt to past conditions as well.

If Djokovic is so strong today, but would have a hard time beating Boris Becker at Wimbledon in 1986 with early composite racquets and natural gut strings, and grass that actually plays like grass, why then why would we assume that he is playing the game better than anyone has ever played it? With conditions that are only partially mimicked by the ones we saw him struggle with the other night, would he struggle similarly if we put him in a time machine? If he would, can it logically be argued that he would "clean up"?

The argument that the modern game is the pinnacle of how the game has ever been played in its history, and thus any player at the pinnacle of the modern game is necessarily the best player or playing the best tennis in history, may not be a good one.

Just a thought...

.... and an excellent thought at that!

"The argument that the modern game is the pinnacle of how the game has ever been played in its history, and thus any player at the pinnacle of the modern game is necessarily the best player or playing the best tennis in history, may not be a good one. "

I think most of us would accept that the top players of today are the finest athletes to have ever played the sport and that as such they would be a difficult match up for the greats of the past. However, the moves towards homogenisation of playing surfaces / conditions and the benefits of modern racket technology has certainly led to a decrease in the diversity of styles of play and an increased opportunity for:

1 - A small number of players to establish a near monopoly at the top of the sport (because now if you are the best hard court player, you will be very close to the best grass court or clay court player - of the big 4, only Murray on clay would not be in a subjective top 4 of surface specialists)

2 - As a consequence of this one style, all surfaces technique, individual players are able to rack up bigger numbers of tournament wins (including Slams) than was realistic in the past.

I do think that all of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would have found a way of being competetive in (for example) 90s conditions, but that they would probably have had to specialise more - Nadal would still have been a (the) clay great, but I doubt he'd have enjoyed as much success on other courts, while I suspect that Federer and Murray would have been much more successful with serve & volley on faster courts but (at least for Federer) would have been less successful on clay.

I give more creedence to djokovic playing the worst match in years, which he said himself. I just think it is funny how we have one match on a notoriously slow hardcourt being used as evidence of how changing conditions change the result. Djokovic wouldn't be the same type of player today if he played in 80s but he still would be widly successful, players from the past who have great athletic and tennis talent also if they grew with modern training and conditions would be successful in today's game. Hell Wilander was the biggest grinder in the history of the game and he won 7 slams in the 80s. Cream has a tendency to rise to the top.

This argument that Haas did anything special that gave Djokovic unique issues is not belied by the actual videotaped evidence of the match, Haas won most of his points on Djokovic errors by just hitting his normal routine shot up the middle of the court. Djokovic plays the way he did that night any top 50 or 100 guy could beat him. It just happened to be Haas, he could have just as easily lost to Seppi or Simon.

What about the winners haas hit? Many were great shots. Be more like your man, graceful in defeat and not disingenuous to haas.

Are you claiming I am lying, Luvsports? I watched the match and was not impressed by either player. This was not Wawrinka for a set and half blasting winners left and right this was one player self destructing. I have won matches 6-0 and 6-1 where I have done nothing special to win because my opponent can't keep the ball on the court. Credit to haas he played it safe and smart and selected the right tactic for an opponent that day who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. This is all ideological, one match in miami to prove how changing condtions impact the game, it is proof of nothing. Except that if your opponent errors himself into oblivion you can win. Did you watch the match? Where you startled by Haas' level of play, I have seen Haas play better matches like when he beat Djoko at wimby that was a great performance. This was haas' B- game beating Novak's F game.

Frankly, it is the same tired ideology about how slow conditions have ruined the game and we need to change everything to bring back serve and volley being dressed up as analysis.