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

First topic message reminder :

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.

dummy_half wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Specifically in relation to the slice that Murdoch referred to earlier. Novak himself the other day said a low bouncing ball does not suit his game, or rather doesn't allow him to use his great assets as freely.

Novak makes more errors off slice than any other shot. He doesn't have as good a slice as Murray or Federer and can cough up short balls off slices. In fairness, his slice has improved a fair bit over the last year and his execution of the shot and dealing with slices is probably better that 90% of the tour, so it's only a weakness compared with the other great players around him.

Also, judging by how his volleying has improved over the last year or so, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if in a years time it isn't a weakness. Novak is a master at recognising his relative weaknesses and turning them into strengths. That's why he's such a great player.

Nope, otherwise I would have said so. I guess we will just agree to disagree.

Danny_1982 wrote:Also, judging by how his volleying has improved over the last year or so, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if in a years time it isn't a weakness. Novak is a master at recognising his relative weaknesses and turning them into strengths. That's why he's such a great player.

Good points Danny, and good to hear from a fan of another player.

Even in the last 6 months or so, Novak's net game has improved enormously. It's something he has been specifically working on. His slice has improved too but he definitely still lags Fed and Murray on that count.

Unfortunately the overhead smash is still as awful as ever!

What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

No, I am not, if I was djokovic I would also compliment haas in the media after a loss. It is called professional courtesy and respect. But as a fan who watched the match my honest opinion and I challenge you to watch the match and tell me if haas won on brilliance or playing it safe while Novak self destructed. My honest appraisal of the match is that Haas played his B game a Novak played his F game and Haas won fair and square. If Novak said that in the meida I would criticize him for it, me saying to the 40 or so people who will see it on this website is really immaterial. Even in my club matches after I play a stinker and my opponent and I shake hands, I say "you played great" and leave it at that. Although I am thinking to myself that I played like garbage and you got a bit fortunate, I don't tell him that, does that make me a bad person?

Funny how Djokovic said Haas "played a great match". He must have been lying too.

Danny_1982 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Specifically in relation to the slice that Murdoch referred to earlier. Novak himself the other day said a low bouncing ball does not suit his game, or rather doesn't allow him to use his great assets as freely.

Novak makes more errors off slice than any other shot. He doesn't have as good a slice as Murray or Federer and can cough up short balls off slices. In fairness, his slice has improved a fair bit over the last year and his execution of the shot and dealing with slices is probably better that 90% of the tour, so it's only a weakness compared with the other great players around him.

Also, judging by how his volleying has improved over the last year or so, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if in a years time it isn't a weakness. Novak is a master at recognising his relative weaknesses and turning them into strengths. That's why he's such a great player.

Great post Danny, yes it is a relative weakness his handling of slice but it isn't that bad. And as you pointed out look at how he has improved this area of his game and his volleying. He is now a pretty good volleyer when compared to the rest of the tour, where in the past he was a really bad volleyer. In short, talented players of today would be great in any era and the greats of the past if they played with the tech, training, of today most of them would be very good to great today as well.

socal1976 wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

No, I am not, if I was djokovic I would also compliment haas in the media after a loss. It is called professional courtesy and respect. But as a fan who watched the match my honest opinion and I challenge you to watch the match and tell me if haas won on brilliance or playing it safe while Novak self destructed. My honest appraisal of the match is that Haas played his B game a Novak played his F game and Haas won fair and square. If Novak said that in the meida I would criticize him for it, me saying to the 40 or so people who will see it on this website is really immaterial. Even in my club matches after I play a stinker and my opponent and I shake hands, I say "you played great" and leave it at that. Although I am thinking to myself that I played like garbage and you got a bit fortunate, I don't tell him that, does that make me a bad person?

Well you have to consider that when Fed said it Djokovic was still a top ranked player and they'd played many times so really there's less reason to keep pretending everytime is a great match. This situation is slightly different. I guess you like players to be a certain way which is fair enough, me personally I don't think they should be obliged to answer the same questions everytime in a certain way otherwise the whole exercise becomes completely pointless.

As for the match, I'm actually willing to take your word on this though I intend to catch the highlights at some point. It would seem that a lot of people have got excited over this win and while I agree with them over conditions in general, in this case you know when your favourite player is playing rubbish. It's like when Fed played the same in 2008 and all of a sudden he had some real competition.

To be fair to the OP he's referring to the comments DJOKOVIC himself made...i.e. that he suffers when its low bounce. Hence the talk of slice, etc.
We all know it wasn't Novak;s best match but its the comments post-match that are referred not the match itself.

socal1976 wrote: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.

I watched the match from start to finish, and still I thought this quote may have been a bit harsh on Haas as well as Djokovic. In fact, I went back and watched it a second time, and by my count here are some statistics, versus how they were tabulated the broadcast.

Haas

Winners = 13 (13)
Forced Errors = 27 (N/A)
Unforced Errors = 18 (22)

Djokovic

Winners = 7 (7)
Forced Errors = 18 (N/A)
Unforced Errors = 24 (30)

I recognize that forced errors are a category that aren't typically reported, but I called a forced error any time a shot

1) was so hard it caused an error (no matter where the shot was played)
2) forced a player a long way behind the baseline after forcing him in front on the previous shot
3) forced a player to cover more than half the distance across the court if he had to move at all for the previous shot
4) a service winner from a good/hard/deep/well placed/heavily spinned serve (and not a simple return dumped in the net or long)

Thus I had a different tally. Furthermore, there are two stats that I found interesting: at the end of the first set Hass had divided topspin backhands vs slice backhands 55% to 45%, and the distribution of placement, although not enumerated, was clearly all over the court - and if you accept the philosophy of the 4 dimensions of tennis, then he was doing quite a lot right.

It is fair to say also that Djokovic didn't play well, and made an unusually high number of unforced errors, but juxtapose this against the paucity of winners, it has to be assumed that Haas had something to do with that. After all when a player defends well, stretching points out, reaching balls that would get past most, it can elicit unforced errors (even by my definition), resulting from trying to finish off a point that you have an advantage in. We see this all the time with Nadal, Murray, and often Djokovic himself, so what's good for the one has to be good for the other.

Finally I have to agree also that we should read too much into this result because it is just one match, but as with any #1 player, we're always on the look out for the formula to take them off the mantle, and given the style of play both Federer and Murray have displayed against Djokovic when they've won, it would seem Haas was playing in that vein.

Nice analysis MMT1.
I watched the match too, and the one vs Simon last night and what strikes me about Haas is that he plays a different brand of tennis than the current pros are used to. He's a throwback to the days of variety, placement and spin/slice and the current young guys aren't comfortable with it at all. Simon was kind of bamboozled by Haas's power and variance, he couldn't handle the slice particular well either. He was made to look puny and one dimensional by Haas, embarrassing almost. My synopsis is that guys like Haas show the way to throw these DHBH ralleying guys out of their stride through intelligent shot selection. Dimitrov plays like Haas and that gives me encouragement although Haas for me has one of the best DTL SHBH I've seen - a very hard shot for the singlehander to do.

Yes it wasn't Djokovic's best match but Haas has maybe unearthed something the other guys can use, and maybe will use. If they can. Haas also shows us the variety that players used to have some years back...and it's a joy to see it again. There is still a place for aggressive play in the pro game, ie. out and out attacking. Sampras has always said so too - it just needs someone to be bold enough to do it but once someone does and it works then others will follow. That's why for me Dimitrov's success is crucial for the future of the sport...he really is the next Federer/Haas.

I personally think Dimitrov has the most aesthetically pleasing FH on tour, it is wobbly, but boy its pretty.

MMT1 wrote:

socal1976 wrote: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.

I watched the match from start to finish, and still I thought this quote may have been a bit harsh on Haas as well as Djokovic. In fact, I went back and watched it a second time, and by my count here are some statistics, versus how they were tabulated the broadcast.

Haas

Winners = 13 (13)
Forced Errors = 27 (N/A)
Unforced Errors = 18 (22)

Djokovic

Winners = 7 (7)
Forced Errors = 18 (N/A)
Unforced Errors = 24 (30)

I recognize that forced errors are a category that aren't typically reported, but I called a forced error any time a shot

1) was so hard it caused an error (no matter where the shot was played)
2) forced a player a long way behind the baseline after forcing him in front on the previous shot
3) forced a player to cover more than half the distance across the court if he had to move at all for the previous shot
4) a service winner from a good/hard/deep/well placed/heavily spinned serve (and not a simple return dumped in the net or long)

Thus I had a different tally. Furthermore, there are two stats that I found interesting: at the end of the first set Hass had divided topspin backhands vs slice backhands 55% to 45%, and the distribution of placement, although not enumerated, was clearly all over the court - and if you accept the philosophy of the 4 dimensions of tennis, then he was doing quite a lot right.

It is fair to say also that Djokovic didn't play well, and made an unusually high number of unforced errors, but juxtapose this against the paucity of winners, it has to be assumed that Haas had something to do with that. After all when a player defends well, stretching points out, reaching balls that would get past most, it can elicit unforced errors (even by my definition), resulting from trying to finish off a point that you have an advantage in. We see this all the time with Nadal, Murray, and often Djokovic himself, so what's good for the one has to be good for the other.

Finally I have to agree also that we should read too much into this result because it is just one match, but as with any #1 player, we're always on the look out for the formula to take them off the mantle, and given the style of play both Federer and Murray have displayed against Djokovic when they've won, it would seem Haas was playing in that vein.

Come on MMT1, the guy hits 4 times more errors than winners and you dispute my claim that this was a case of Djokovic self destructing? I find it interesting that people look at these numbers and would have any doubt about djokovic playing his F game. I have seen Haas play better before as well so I give him credit for doing what he had to do to get the W. But frankly the Djoko forehand looked pathetic on the night, about as bad as I have ever seen it. Now if you want to credit that to Haas' slice backhand go ahead but djokovic has played other great slice backhands and never put together a string of suc poor shots. There will be a lot of people who agree with you on your post, but I am used to being in the minority and I disagree with them. Haas played smart but he didn't burn up the winner numbers either 13 winners in 18 games actually proves that he was playing it safe the whole night. Nothing wrong with playing it safe and collecting unforced errors when your opponent can't hit the broadside of a barn. I am a little disconcerted by Djoko's form in these two masters but other than that the numbers you produce actually supports my conclusion. Djoko's first point on Haas' second serve came halfway in the second set, this has little to do with Haas' legendary slice backhand.

I take nothing away from Haas, he kept his poise is playing great in the tournament, but nor am I going to conclude that he played some wondorous match when frankly anyone in the top 100 would stand a good chance of beating Djoko on that type of form.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

Socal, perhaps being ungracious about a Novak defeat is allowed

However, the so called 'graceful' GOAT has no business being so ungracious about a significant victory for the then 22 year old Nole

Mind you he'd done it the year before with Andy

Socal also has a point. Djoko would have had no slams if he'd played like that in the past 27 months.

And Andy would have at least two more

Finally, and perhaps explaining Socal's disquiet - I think some of us are getting irritated with the pumping up of certain players and the talking down of others - simply to keep alive the myth that 2002 was some great year for Tennis

It wasn't - I remember watching and despairing at the thought of 10 years of Roddick / Hewitt sharing the slams

banbrotam wrote:Finally, and perhaps explaining Socal's disquiet - I think some of us are getting irritated with the pumping up of certain players and the talking down of others - simply to keep alive the myth that 2002 was some great year for Tennis

It wasn't - I remember watching and despairing at the thought of 10 years of Roddick / Hewitt sharing the slams

Obviously that statement about Roddick and Hewitt doesn't count as "the talking down of others" and couldn't possibly irritate anyone

A lot of good comments, will mostly echo some of what was already said here:

I do not think this match will signal anything extraordinarily new about the right approach to play Nole. Nole has always had trouble against good slices. If anything, he has improved over time. Federer used to be able to get quite a few points off Nole by slicing (and often also brining Nole in towards the net) but it has become more difficult over the years.

Nevertheless, Nole will never be entirely comfortable dealing with slices so players will always be well advised to try that strategy. There will be days where it will work. Also, let's not read too much into that one match. I do not think that he "would have lost to any top 100" player but put him and Tommy on the same court under the same conditions ten different times, and Nole will win maybe eight of them. He was a fair bit off his best.

Finally, I would say I really enjoyed the match. I really like watching "classical" tennis players - such as Haas or Feds. The match reminded me yet again of what tennis used to be like and what it could be like too. So much more to my liking than what we typically get these days. Sadly, Dimitrov is the only player from the new generation who plays similar style. I really hope he makes it big or else I will start losing interest in the game to some extent.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously that statement about Roddick and Hewitt doesn't count as "the talking down of others" and couldn't possibly irritate anyone

You took this right out of my mouth.

Add Gasquet to the classical players SB, he's ripping winners left and right tonight. That SHBH is a joy to behold, such easy power on it too.

lydian wrote:Add Gasquet to the classical players SB, he's ripping winners left and right tonight. That SHBH is a joy to behold, such easy power on it too.

Yes, I am enjoying it. I hope he wins, and I love his BH. But somehow I enjoy watching Haas - when he is playing like he has been playing this week - even more. To me, Haas is more of an all-court player than Gasquet. By necessity or otherwise, Gasquet's style is a bit more influenced by today's tennis - more baseline play and more topspin off that BH. But I am not complaining, if he wins I will be happy.

banbrotam wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

Socal, perhaps being ungracious about a Novak defeat is allowed

However, the so called 'graceful' GOAT has no business being so ungracious about a significant victory for the then 22 year old Nole

Mind you he'd done it the year before with Andy

Socal also has a point. Djoko would have had no slams if he'd played like that in the past 27 months.

And Andy would have at least two more

Finally, and perhaps explaining Socal's disquiet - I think some of us are getting irritated with the pumping up of certain players and the talking down of others - simply to keep alive the myth that 2002 was some great year for Tennis

It wasn't - I remember watching and despairing at the thought of 10 years of Roddick / Hewitt sharing the slams

PS this post NOT directed at Break in the fifth or MMT1 who talked about my views of the djoko/haas match in a cool and collected manner.

Banbro, of course I am in full agreement. And I remember the period in question a great many tennis fans where worried with Pete leaving with Andre ageing that we would have to watch the other assembled players of that era and thankfully then we had a burst of great talent enter the game. I am accused of repetitive and hostile posts but every single time ljubi, blake, ferrer, haas, davy, nalby win a big match over a young star you can bet your bottom dollar that people will start their wind up posts dissing today's current player laughing at the idea of the strong period we have seen and collectively trying to rub my face in it. Then I respond with objective facts that show how underperforming those players were and then the same people who started the era hijacking become angry, terrorized, annoyed, and disgusted at my fascination with weak era conversations. We saw an example of this hypocrticial behavior this very week with Novak's loss to Haas. Others start the weak era conversation but expect me to sit there and take their drivel, if I don't I am terrorizing and bringing down the website (see Wei Keira thread and all the merry bandwagon jumpers who days before were railing against wind up posts and in favor of civility). I should actually thank Invisible for posting that obvious wind up post and doing a second thread to taunt my substantive one, and all the bandwagon jumpers who yucked it up, it proves how shallow, biased, and hypocritical their criticisms and holier than thou preaching really is. They are for civility, and against wind up posts, and against repetition, as long as you agree with them. The management and julius excepted I actually do believe them when they say they want to make this place a better and more civil place. But some of the others want that until they have an opportunity to crow and taunt someone whose views they don't like. Then they unload like a drunken dick Cheney on a hunting trip, but like dick cheney they miss their target completely and embarass themselves. Thank you IC for exposing the double standard in its hauntingly naked glory.


It is funny that if you read any paid tennis journalists talk about the tennis today they USE THE SAME EXACT VERBAGE AS I USED YEARS AGO, in talking about golden generation and golden age. Whatever, I have plenty of real friends I don't need to bow down and kiss fed's backside to win virtual friends.

Obviously Djokovic doesn't know what he's talking about when he discussed his weakness with the low bounce.
Obviously Djokovic would have done great on the low, fast bouncing courts of Wimbledon in the 90's.

BB, what are you doing awake at this hour, a bit of insomnia? I am worried about you, but nice to see you late or early depending on the time zone, have you tried gingko biloba? I would recommend liquor but I know your hatred of intoxicants.

I'm not sure I'd say Djokovic suffers on low bouncing courts per se. I would have said the O2 is low bouncing and slow. That's one of the reasons Fed has been able to cope comfortably with Nadal there. Djokovic, of course, won there in 2012 beating both Federer and Murray reasonably comfortably.

It sounds to me as though this may have been Djokovic getting caught out by a change in conditions mid tournament. That, combined with the fact Haas does play the type of game which can trouble him if he is a little out of form, probably best explains this defeat.

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously that statement about Roddick and Hewitt doesn't count as "the talking down of others" and couldn't possibly irritate anyone

You took this right out of my mouth.

I've got historical facts to back up my despair. Roddick and Hewitt never won another Slam - so how exactly am I talking them down? I've not said that I don't admire them as players - but simply, for me, given that was all we had then it wasn't much to look forward to

Now, we have a situation of a remarkable quartet of players, who all have notable wins over most of the players who were around in 2002 - more significantly they started beating them when (according to some on these boards) the conditions were still 'faster'. Some of them are barely halfway through their careers - remarkable what they've achieved given the players they've faced

However, when one of the two youngest members loses badly - suddenly it's as though they never played a decent match in their lives and 'proof' that they would have had no chance in the good old days, despite clear evidence to the contrary

Now that is talking down

I think I'd admire people more if they admitted to it. After all, it's not a bad human trait - we all appreciate people more at the tail end of their careers or when they've retired. Witness the reaction to Michael Owen's retirement a player who got about the same amount of praise, during his career, as Nole and Andy are now

banbrotam wrote:

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously that statement about Roddick and Hewitt doesn't count as "the talking down of others" and couldn't possibly irritate anyone

You took this right out of my mouth.

I've got historical facts to back up my despair. Roddick and Hewitt never won another Slam - so how exactly am I talking them down? I've not said that I don't admire them as players - but simply, for me, given that was all we had then it wasn't much to look forward to

Now, we have a situation of a remarkable quartet of players, who all have notable wins over most of the players who were around in 2002 - more significantly they started beating them when (according to some on these boards) the conditions were still 'faster'. Some of them are barely halfway through their careers - remarkable what they've achieved given the players they've faced

Now that is talking down
I think I'd admire people more if they admitted to it. After all, it's not a bad human trait - we all appreciate people more at the tail end of their careers or when they've retired. Witness the reaction to Michael Owen's retirement a player who got about the same amount of praise, during his career, as Nole and Andy are now

You mean a remarkable quartet with 32 soon to be 33 Roger Federer and one slam winner Andy Murray versus a bunch of outsiders composed of 32 yers old Sampras and Agassi, multi slam winner Hewitt and young Federer and roddick? My question for you is: if you don't enjoy, or have no interest in the game, why do you keep commenting stuff around it??

The other side of the coin banbro is that some posters endlessly talk down Fed's early opponents in a deliberate attempt to talk down Fed/wind up Fed fans, disguising it as objective, fact-based analysis.

When one of Fed's aging early opponents beats one of the top players, posts are made to point out that these players aren't the useless, no-shot, talentless players that they are made out to be.

I too would admire both sides more if they admitted to it. I'd admire them more if they didn't go on about it all the time in the first place.

feds isnt that old JK, hes a vibrant, up and coming youngster of 31. Haas is positively ancient compared to feds

JuliusHMarx wrote:The other side of the coin banbro is that some posters endlessly talk down Fed's early opponents in a deliberate attempt to talk down Fed/wind up Fed fans, disguising it as objective, fact-based analysis.

When one of Fed's aging early opponents beats one of the top players, posts are made to point out that these players aren't the useless, no-shot, talentless players that they are made out to be.

I too would admire both sides more if they admitted to it. I'd admire them more if they didn't go on about it all the time in the first place.

I agree. The "he's got a hard slam draw / he's got an easy one again" is quite pathetic

I've always believed in fair play, probably because as a black youth growing up in Yorkshire in the 60's/70's I demanded and got it. Hence, I particularly get irked by the 'talking down' of Novak actually - he deserves far more respect than he gets

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
You mean a remarkable quartet with 32 soon to be 33 Roger Federer and one slam winner Andy Murray versus a bunch of outsiders composed of 32 yers old Sampras and Agassi, multi slam winner Hewitt and young Federer and roddick? My question for you is: if you don't enjoy, or have no interest in the game, why do you keep commenting stuff around it??

Roger is 31 nearly 32

Sampras retired in 2002. Agassi was also at the end of their career. Or did you think they had 10 years left?

Federer, was showing no signs of becoming the player is was in 2002

So I despaired, because at the time it appeared that only Hewitt and Roddick had the resolve to dominate and found little inspirational about their. It didn't stop me watching thoough - where on earth have I said that I had "no interest in game"

Could be a good idea if you can avoid getting mixed up about a players age and the comments of a contributor

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The other side of the coin banbro is that some posters endlessly talk down Fed's early opponents in a deliberate attempt to talk down Fed/wind up Fed fans, disguising it as objective, fact-based analysis.

When one of Fed's aging early opponents beats one of the top players, posts are made to point out that these players aren't the useless, no-shot, talentless players that they are made out to be.

I too would admire both sides more if they admitted to it. I'd admire them more if they didn't go on about it all the time in the first place.

I agree. The "he's got a hard slam draw / he's got an easy one again" is quite pathetic

I've always believed in fair play, probably because as a black youth growing up in Yorkshire in the 60's/70's I demanded and got it. Hence, I particularly get irked by the 'talking down' of Novak actually - he deserves far more respect than he gets

Not just that banbro Murray doesn't get the respect he deserves and neither do other players of this generation who have had success. I often find it interesting that everything is dismissed about the tennis we see today on the 606-inspired sites. The matches are boring, the players lack ball striking skills, the conditions need to be changed radically to speed things up, etc. In actuality this little microcosm's opinion of what we have witnessed the last few years is different than what every commentator and ex-pro who looks at this period reports. After Murray v. Djoko 2012 AO and Nadal v. Djoko 2012 AO it reached a fever pitch of people talking about how boring and awful the tennis is and how the players today could not compete in fast conditions, and how they lacked ball striking compared to the past. Personally, I find those posts to be repetitive and dull and found the tennis of the late 90s and early 2000s to be uninspiring. And outside this bubble of EX-606 land you will struggle to find any commentator or large group of fans that views the game the last few years or the players in this manner.

banbrotam wrote:

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Obviously that statement about Roddick and Hewitt doesn't count as "the talking down of others" and couldn't possibly irritate anyone

You took this right out of my mouth.

I've got historical facts to back up my despair. Roddick and Hewitt never won another Slam - so how exactly am I talking them down? I've not said that I don't admire them as players - but simply, for me, given that was all we had then it wasn't much to look forward to

Now, we have a situation of a remarkable quartet of players, who all have notable wins over most of the players who were around in 2002 - more significantly they started beating them when (according to some on these boards) the conditions were still 'faster'. Some of them are barely halfway through their careers - remarkable what they've achieved given the players they've faced
However, when one of the two youngest members loses badly - suddenly it's as though they never played a decent match in their lives and 'proof' that they would have had no chance in the good old days, despite clear evidence to the contrary

Now that is talking down

I think I'd admire people more if they admitted to it. After all, it's not a bad human trait - we all appreciate people more at the tail end of their careers or when they've retired. Witness the reaction to Michael Owen's retirement a player who got about the same amount of praise, during his career, as Nole and Andy are now

banbrotam wrote:Roger is 31 nearly 32

Sampras retired in 2002. Agassi was also at the end of their career. Or did you think they had 10 years left?

Federer, was showing no signs of becoming the player is was in 2002

So I despaired, because at the time it appeared that only Hewitt and Roddick had the resolve to dominate and found little inspirational about their. It didn't stop me watching thoough - where on earth have I said that I had "no interest in game"

Could be a good idea if you can avoid getting mixed up about a players age and the comments of a contributor ..

[/quote]

Right....just to start and hopefully finish this quickly: did you know when Pete Sampras won his last slam?? Just to refresh your memories: it was US Open 2002.....As a consequence, I suppose your desperation began, I guess, pretty much at the end of that year, as I can't quite understand how can someone being desperate about the tennis situation when both Sampras and Agassi are playing and winning slams (and by the way they both were younger than Federer current age that year....).

That was the top 10 at the end of 2001:

1 Lleyton Hewitt AUS 4,365
2 Gustavo Kuerten BRA 3,855
3 Andre Agassi USA 3,520
4 Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 3,090
5 Juan Carlos Ferrero ESP 3,040
6 Sébastien Grosjean FRA 2,790
7 Patrick Rafter AUS 2,785
8 Tommy Haas GER 2,285
9 Tim Henman GBR 2,100
10 Pete Sampras USA 1,940

and that was the top 10 aqt the end of 2002:

1 Lleyton Hewitt AUS 4,485 1 1 =
2 Andre Agassi USA 3,395 2 10 +1
3 Marat Safin RUS 2,845 2 11 +8
4 Juan Carlos Ferrero ESP 2,740 2 11 +1
5 Carlos Moyà ESP 2,630 5 32 +14
6 Roger Federer SUI 2,590 6 14 +7
7 Jiří Novák CZE 2,335 5 29 +22
8 Tim Henman GBR 2,215 4 11 +1
9 Albert Costa ESP 2,070 6 42 +31
10 Andy Roddick USA 2,045 9 17 +4

which you should now, are both relevant for understanding who were the top guys in year 2002.

Hewitt, Kuerten, Agassi and Kafelnikov (end of 2001), Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Ferrero, Moya, Federer (end of 2002). What make you think those weren't remarkable players?Hardly a desperate situation tennis wise. You come across as a "man on a mission" who hasn't bothered much about the game before your hero appeared on the scene.

Agassi was older than Roger is now JK, Sampras was a shell of himself in 2001 and Rafter was not the same player either with a lot injuries. That is the whole point of the discussion you look at the names and don't look at the state they were in as players. The three biggest names on the lists you provided were way passed their primes that is the whole point that in that period the stars were on the way out and weren't replaced by comparable talent for years to come. We may have that situation on the current in short order, everything that is golden doesn't last forever. But with Nadal, Djoko, and Murray humming away it may not happen for another couple of years.

Not to mention that Fed was not nearly the player in 02 that he was in in 04-07, and not even the player he was in 08-2012 but that point is more debatable.

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The other side of the coin banbro is that some posters endlessly talk down Fed's early opponents in a deliberate attempt to talk down Fed/wind up Fed fans, disguising it as objective, fact-based analysis.

When one of Fed's aging early opponents beats one of the top players, posts are made to point out that these players aren't the useless, no-shot, talentless players that they are made out to be.

I too would admire both sides more if they admitted to it. I'd admire them more if they didn't go on about it all the time in the first place.

I agree. The "he's got a hard slam draw / he's got an easy one again" is quite pathetic

I've always believed in fair play, probably because as a black youth growing up in Yorkshire in the 60's/70's I demanded and got it. Hence, I particularly get irked by the 'talking down' of Novak actually - he deserves far more respect than he gets

Not just that banbro Murray doesn't get the respect he deserves and neither do other players of this generation who have had success. I often find it interesting that everything is dismissed about the tennis we see today on the 606-inspired sites. The matches are boring, the players lack ball striking skills, the conditions need to be changed radically to speed things up, etc. In actuality this little microcosm's opinion of what we have witnessed the last few years is different than what every commentator and ex-pro who looks at this period reports. After Murray v. Djoko 2012 AO and Nadal v. Djoko 2012 AO it reached a fever pitch of people talking about how boring and awful the tennis is and how the players today could not compete in fast conditions, and how they lacked ball striking compared to the past. Personally, I find those posts to be repetitive and dull and found the tennis of the late 90s and early 2000s to be uninspiring. And outside this bubble of EX-606 land you will struggle to find any commentator or large group of fans that views the game the last few years or the players in this manner.

Not just that - Roddick, Safin and Hewitt don't get the respect the deserve and neither do other players of that generation who have had success. I often find it interesting that everything is dismissed about the tennis we saw back then. The matches were boring, the players lacked ball striking skills, the conditions needed to be changed radically etc. In actuality this little microcosm's opinion of what we have witnessed the last few years is different than what every commentator and ex-pro who looks at that period reports. After Hewitt won Wimby he was declared to be capable of winning 10 Wimby's and his play at the US Open was described as highest level ever played. Now we have a fever pitch of people talking about how boring and awful the tennis was and how the players of back then could not compete in current conditions, and how they lacked ball striking compared to the present. Personally, I find those posts to be repetitive and dull and found the tennis of the late 90s and early 2000s to be just as inspiring as it is today. And outside this bubble of EX-606 land you will struggle to find any commentator or large group of fans that views the game back them or the players in this extreme and disrespectful manner.

socal1976 wrote:BB, what are you doing awake at this hour, a bit of insomnia? I am worried about you, but nice to see you late or early depending on the time zone, have you tried gingko biloba? I would recommend liquor but I know your hatred of intoxicants.

I'm on PT right now, on a skiing holiday.

Good for you, don't break anything, enjoy your holliday and where are you skiing?

JHM, very amusing satire, but I struggle to find the weght of opinion deeming the early 2000s and lae 90s as a golden period in tennis. Remember there was a reason they slowed down the courts, because many fans were saying how the power game was ruining men's tennis. And I can't remember large numbers of legends and commentators calling that period a golden period or generation like we do today. In almost every other article it is mentioned. Nice comedy though, I expect my royalty to be posted forthwith.

Socal, tell me if you are drunk first please. Agassi in 2002 was same age of Federer in 2013 while Sampras was younger.

That's the top ten at the end of 2002, that's a fact.

1 Lleyton Hewitt AUS 4,485 1 1 =
2 Andre Agassi USA 3,395 2 10 +1
3 Marat Safin RUS 2,845 2 11 +8
4 Juan Carlos Ferrero ESP 2,740 2 11 +1
5 Carlos Moyà ESP 2,630 5 32 +14
6 Roger Federer SUI 2,590 6 14 +7
7 Jiří Novák CZE 2,335 5 29 +22
8 Tim Henman GBR 2,215 4 11 +1
9 Albert Costa ESP 2,070 6 42 +31
10 Andy Roddick USA 2,045 9 17 +4

Most of them excellent/ exceptional players. Agassi and Sampras were past their prime?? So is Federer now. For me the debate is already closed.

Yes the debate is closed anyone who thinks Sampras was in his prime in 2001 really can't be reasoned with. I like a wee drink in the evenings mainly on the weekends, but if you believe a 32 year old agassi was in his prime and Pete was in his prime in 2001, I want whatever it is your smoking.

socal1976 wrote:JHM, very amusing satire, but I struggle to find the weght of opinion deeming the early 2000s and lae 90s as a golden period in tennis. Remember there was a reason they slowed down the courts, because many fans were saying how the power game was ruining men's tennis. And I can't remember large numbers of legends and commentators calling that period a golden period or generation like we do today. In almost every other article it is mentioned. Nice comedy though, I expect my royalty to be posted forthwith.

I struggle to find anyone other than yourself who is so routinely disrespectful of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc.
No-one disrespects any past or present great players the way you do. No-one actually says half* the things you say they do.
And no-one slowed down the courts because players lacked talent.

* percentage may not be exactly 50%

socal1976 wrote:Good for you, don't break anything, enjoy your holliday and where are you skiing?

Whistler, it's been good but really hotting up today. The lower slopes will be slush. We should be out ages ago but I've had work to do. Off now!

banbrotam wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What about when Fed lost to Djoko here in 2009 and he, in your eyes, ungraciously said that Novak's worst was better than his worst i.e acknowledging that they both played poorly. Are you now being as ungracious as you've said Fed was?

Socal, perhaps being ungracious about a Novak defeat is allowed

However, the so called 'graceful' GOAT has no business being so ungracious about a significant victory for the then 22 year old Nole

Mind you he'd done it the year before with Andy

Socal also has a point. Djoko would have had no slams if he'd played like that in the past 27 months.

And Andy would have at least two more

Finally, and perhaps explaining Socal's disquiet - I think some of us are getting irritated with the pumping up of certain players and the talking down of others - simply to keep alive the myth that 2002 was some great year for Tennis

It wasn't - I remember watching and despairing at the thought of 10 years of Roddick / Hewitt sharing the slams

Wow we really do see the world completely differently... My point was that neither Socal nor Fed was being ungracious. Lol the "then 22 year old Djokovic" as if he's a child who's feelings need to be managed so carefully. Fed has every business saying the truth as he calls it when he wants; that's my issue with things these days is that everything has to always be so sugarcoated (not just in tennis) and ultimately it just wastes everyones time. I'm sure Djokovic wouldn't have been happy with his level of play either so where's the point in complementing anyone's good play when it didn't exist. What if they both hit a double fault on every serve but Novak managed to serve properly for one game each set and won. Is Fed still expected to go through the whole "he was better on the day..." crap? What you're saying is you expect him to lie and pretend that it was a good match or at least a better on than it was. I'm sure when you've scaled the heights both of these players have, a day where you're playing so bad doesn't feel good even if you win so I'm not sure how this was a significant victory.