Tommy Haas and the Golden Era

I'm sorry, but I just can't help myself!

Here he is, all bust up and most of the way at 35 to drawing a pension, #13 in the World and despatching clay exponent Tommy Robredo is straight sets.

Can you imagine how good this guy must have been in his prime?

Very seriously though, what a super player he is and has been. We could do with a few more like him.

Having a bit of a swan song isnt he?
18-7 for the season, so he hasnt exactly taken the golden children to task, but still very good for him. At 35, he has only played about 800 (Nadal, eight years his junior, has played about 70 less) so he hasnt suffered from the grind that makes players lose interest. Plus he has kept himself in pristine physical condition. Maybe if it wasnt for the mid-career horror in 2002, he might have had a few slams in him

This era is so golden, even the 35 year olds are brilliant!

I really like Haas. How much he might have achieved under different circumstances is one of the great 'what ifs'.

Great player and seems like a nice guy too.

Don't you feel stupid now Banbro?

You who used to ridicule the early noughties on the basis that Haas reached number two in the world in that period

The same Haas, who at thirty five, after multiple injuries and enforced time out, is verging once again on the top ten. Of course, such baseless and assinine comments are not unexpected from you bro, as you clearly have no appreciation of genuine talent. Anyone with even an iota of such can see that Haas is an exceptional talent - one needs only watch him play.

Yes, for indeed I am the emancipator and that means that I never forget.



emancipator - intergalactic tennis historian

Haas has a great game, similar to Fed in many ways but with a flatter forehand and I've seen him hit his backhand slice with a different stroke on an approach shot. Has he not been injured and had other crises, he'd have probably got many victories over Fed, the right way.

This is pretty funny here, Tommy Haas did yeoman's work putting up resistance in the early to mid 2000s mainly from the surgery table. Haas is a good player he has just been snake bitten by injury. When you have to use Haas who missed most of the weak era due to injury as the strong suit of a period you know the guys who were working with both legs weren't all that strong.

Great player, always was, just had terrible circumstances in 2002 when he was making his move.

Oh look! Youzhny beat Almagro.


Score two for the weak era boys!!!

and to top it all off with a trump card.... the doubles pairing of haas and stepanek trounced the youngsters of raonic and dimitrov 6/4 6/4!

Mikhail actually has a 5-0 HTH vs Almagro, not exactly a shock. I just wish I had this info when I was making my picks!

kingraf wrote:Mikhail actually has a 5-0 HTH vs Almagro, not exactly a shock. I just wish I had this info when I was making my picks!

Yeah, always a very good player, lovely clean hitter. When at his best he was a nightmare in particular for Nadal on a speedy court.

He has no chance, sadly, in a game which rewards retrieval and gives little or no payoff for flat, attacking hitting.

He hits very flat and has one of the best SHBHers DTL. Sadly his forehand isn't hard enough nor consistent enough and his serve is a little average. But he could take the ball early and cause people problems...yes he beat Nadal 60 61 if I remember at Chennai around 2008. In some respects he's underachieved for his talent...the problem is he's mentally brittle and as BB says the game moved further away from the advantages his traits would have brought 10 years earlier (conditions he was trained for). But he showed his quality vs Almagro last night for sure...a match of lovely clean hitting in general actually. For a clay courter Almagro doesn't "half" play like a hardcourter...he's abit like Verdasco in that he can hit tremendously flat and hard.

I think Youzhny has done as well as his talent allowed. For all that trouble he gave Nadal, the series stands at 3-9 to Nadal, including a five-set defeat to an 18-year old Nadal in 2005. 3-5 to Djokovic.

Its easy to blame the slowing courts for their lack of succeses vs the big guys, but conditions are the same for both players.

kingraf wrote:I think Youzhny has done as well as his talent allowed. For all that trouble he gave Nadal, the series stands at 3-9 to Nadal, including a five-set defeat to an 18-year old Nadal in 2005. 3-5 to Djokovic.

Its easy to blame the slowing courts for their lack of succeses vs the big guys, but conditions are the same for both players.

Yes conditions are the same for both players, however certain conditions favour certain players.

Of course they do, but thats just the way it is. Besides Youzhny has two GS semi's to his name, 2006, and 2010. Kinda splits the two eras imo, which gives further credence to my assertion that he just wasnt quite good enough. At any stage. Haas is of course a different matter all together.

Conditions are the same for both players now but you have to realise that a 31 yr old like Youzhny learnt his craft in a different time and location to Nadal, Djokovic and others.

Many guys of around Youzhny's age learnt their trade from 9-18yo in much faster conditions and older tech than exist today. Learning your technique in faster conditions embues you with different strokes...you learn to take the ball earlier, you hit flatter and use less spin. Also the old strings meant you couldn't play with the same level of spin so you didn't major on topspin. As Luxilon came in around 2001 onwards new players learning the game found they could use 'whip' to much greater effect.

So in much slower conditions these flatter-based techniques are not nearly as effective but its very hard for a player imprinted that way to change their fundamental game in adapting. I'm not saying Youzhny would have been a grand slam champion, and the point doesn't just relate to him but its one of the aspects I always make about the transitional players of the early 2000s - nearly all of them were caught out by the rapidly slowing conditions (slower surfaces, bigger balls, more spin) vs the game they had already imprinted. So their successes before 2003 were much harder to replicate afterwards. Guys like Youzhny are a throwback to technique from a different time but they can still beat the modern players if their riskier flatter game, which they have to redline to hit through the court, is on song from time to time. Guys like Haas are just more powerful versions of Youzhny (well with a little more talent admittedly) and he's definitely been on song for a while now...when executed brilliantly the "old" game is very hard to beat as it takes time away.

The problem with that theory is Youznhy didnt actually have that much success pre-2003.

Yes not really, although he won Stuttgart in 2002 and got to another ATP final that year. However, 2003 was his first full year on tour so you could argue his early promise took some time to further adapt as conditions outside slams started changing particularly from 2003 onwards given 14 of his 18 finals are from 2007. Anyway, its a more general point across ATP...

Go on the golden oldies!

Maggy annoys the hell out of me. Has all the tools but no confidence or bottle and that defeat to Youzhny will hurt given his temperment.

The mid court bashers will just be easy pickings for the ones with more talent and depth to their shots.

lydian wrote:Yes not really, although he won Stuttgart in 2002 and got to another ATP final that year. However, 2003 was his first full year on tour so you could argue his early promise took some time to further adapt as conditions outside slams started changing particularly from 2003 onwards given 14 of his 18 finals are from 2007. Anyway, its a more general point across ATP...

I understand your point Lydian. However what I find strange is that the younger players of today must have been brought up on today's conditions. Therefore why are they not doing so well. I know physicality is a big factor for B05 matches but surely it shouldn't be for BO3. Were Nadal, Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray lucky or just exceptional that they managed to reach top 4 at quite young ages and then stay there for a very extended period ?

kingraf wrote:Of course they do, but thats just the way it is. Besides Youzhny has two GS semi's to his name, 2006, and 2010. Kinda splits the two eras imo, which gives further credence to my assertion that he just wasnt quite good enough. At any stage. Haas is of course a different matter all together.

They slowed the courts down in the early 2000s, pretty much eve single ball Youzhny has hit since becoming a pro has been on slow courts. I mean the way people talk about these slow conditions you would think that they are slowing the courts each and every year and making the slower and slower. The courts and conditions have been fairly consistent for well over a decade now.

I wasny talking about court speeds, mate. I was talking about. Youznhys perfomance in The Federer era vs the Big three/four era

socal1976 wrote: The courts and conditions have been fairly consistent for well over a decade now.

Absolutely not.

socal1976 wrote: The courts and conditions have been fairly consistent for well over a decade now.

Please stop this crap socal. There's a huge difference between courts now and ten years ago. They have been consistently slowed down for over a decade, which means there's a lot of difference between now and ten years ago. Don't take us for fools.

Chydremion wrote:

socal1976 wrote: The courts and conditions have been fairly consistent for well over a decade now.

Please stop this crap socal. There's a huge difference between courts now and ten years ago. They have been consistently slowed down for over a decade, which means there's a lot of difference between now and ten years ago. Don't take us for fools.

Exactly and a number of players have stated as much.

Wimb slowed 2001, USO 2003, balls went bigger from 2002/3 onwards at different stages in different events, poly strings went mainstream in 2003 with new versions and hybrids since, ATP tour events started slowing more 2003/4 onwards through the 00s...AO changed in 07/08...many indoor events have gone from higher to slower speed index...shift from Greenset to DecoTurf medium pace courts, carpet courts went completely in 2009, less top dressing used at FO from 2009/10ish onwards...even IW this year was much slower than last year with more sand in the paint...its been anything but consistent!!!

and breath

So... How about that Federer game. Really helping to strengthen the spine of this debate

USO has been slowed down for a decade, wimby over a decade, and the new balls have been around for over a decade; so basically 90 plus percent of the changes you are talking about came about over a decade ago. According to a cite laverfan produced the USO admits to slowing the courts down after 02 but maintains no change has been made since then.

This whole myth about ever slowing conditions is silly, if they slowed the courts down every year for a decade at this point they would be playing beach volleyball and not tennis.

Socal, come on that's very simplistic thinking from you.
Wimb and USO don't make up 90% of the tennis tour!
The ATP events have been slowing down OVER the past 10 years, not 10 years ago.
Likewise the balls got bigger at different events OVER the past 10 years, not 10 years ago.
Technology has changed OVER the past 10 years, not 10 years ago.

kingraf wrote:So... How about that Federer game. Really helping to strengthen the spine of this debate

Amusingly Federer at the moment is 10th in the Race to London, just one place in front of... Tommy Haas. Does Haas at 35 playing as well as Federer at a younger age suggests that had he not been injured throughout his prime he would in fact have become the GOAT?

Well... yes , obviously. If you ignore the fact that he had never made a slam final, and had only 4-6 tour titles at the age of 24, then I can see how you got to that conclusion.

I like Youzhny, a very entertaining guy and a very entertaining player. He is one of my favorites on tour and he is a talent. But neither Youzhny or Haas are really determinative of the strength or obvious lack thereof in the early 2000s and yes even dating to late 90s. Again it is the quality of the top guys that determine the relative strengths of a period. Haas could have been but suffered huge injury issues. Some want to put down the underperformance to conditions or whatever that is fine, but the record is clear.

emancipator wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

socal1976 wrote: The courts and conditions have been fairly consistent for well over a decade now.

Please stop this crap socal. There's a huge difference between courts now and ten years ago. They have been consistently slowed down for over a decade, which means there's a lot of difference between now and ten years ago. Don't take us for fools.

Exactly and a number of players have stated as much.

How much ever you present it some people won't buy it coz that will devalue their arguments of raising their player to stardom.

kingraf wrote:So... How about that Federer game. Really helping to strengthen the spine of this debate

Well they don't call him GOAT for no reason isint? but even he went down today and the clock is ticking.

socal1976 wrote:This whole myth about ever slowing conditions is silly, if they slowed the courts down every year for a decade at this point they would be playing beach volleyball and not tennis.

Ditto every argument of yours we find it silly.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:So... How about that Federer game. Really helping to strengthen the spine of this debate

Amusingly Federer at the moment is 10th in the Race to London, just one place in front of... Tommy Haas. Does Haas at 35 playing as well as Federer at a younger age suggests that had he not been injured throughout his prime he would in fact have become the GOAT?

I guess you should be awarded Noble Prize for this discovery? , did this talent come by birth or u developed it as the years passed by

Calder106 wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes not really, although he won Stuttgart in 2002 and got to another ATP final that year. However, 2003 was his first full year on tour so you could argue his early promise took some time to further adapt as conditions outside slams started changing particularly from 2003 onwards given 14 of his 18 finals are from 2007. Anyway, its a more general point across ATP...

I understand your point Lydian. However what I find strange is that the younger players of today must have been brought up on today's conditions. Therefore why are they not doing so well. I know physicality is a big factor for B05 matches but surely it shouldn't be for BO3. Were Nadal, Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray lucky or just exceptional that they managed to reach top 4 at quite young ages and then stay there for a very extended period ?

This is an excellent post by Calder that gets lost in the ad hominem attacks launched against my position by some. Chydremion called it by the scientific name "crap". If the argument is that the oldies were hurt by these ever slowing conditions and technology and the murray/djoko/nadal group had an edge in that they were more used to the conditions, well then how do you explain the long and tortuous gesticulation period for the new stars nishikori/tomic/jerzy/and gregor; shouldn't these players naturally more suited to the slower modern game? But there is a simple explanation as to why the golden generation far outgained fed's rollover contemporaries in accomplishment and have out done the younger players who are currently struggling to breakthrough, what is that simple explanation that answers this conundrum? Well that the golden generation is golden, the rollover boys did rollover whether it was through injury or conditions but they did and that the players playing now also aren't losing because of the conditions they just aren't as good as their predecessors either.

Back to my original thesis, new strings, new balls, and slower courts all came into being around 2000-03 that was where the meat of the big slowdown occurred, Youzhny played almost the entirety of his career in stable conditions just like Federer did and the rest of them. By the way all of this is undisputed not mention the reason why they slowed down in the first place, because the tennis was getting unwatchable especially at wimbeldon. The player's revolted at the crappy wimby surface because they all played from the baseline for the most part even during the fast court late 90s and early 2000s.

Good on you BB, a GOAT debate is what's been missing around here.

Henman Bill wrote:Good on you BB, a GOAT debate is what's been missing around here.

I agree BB hates these discussions until he is the one that brings them up of course.

I'd like to see Ivan Ljubicic come out of retirement and win a slam, say the French Open. It would be worth it just to keep BB happy. Although he already made a pretty good contribution to the GOAT debate by winning Indian Wells.

Yes that was the most telling master's event in history supposedly. Nobody claimed Ljubicic wasn't a decent pro, but top 3 or 4 come on now.

If Wimbledon only made changes in the early noughties and then left the conditions to remain constant why is there a video from W 2008 showing how the Federer serve delivered at the same pace in both 2003 and 2008 reaches the Baseline later and at a higher bounce in 2008? Both of course are indicators of slower conditions.

The USO has also admitted in the last few years to adding more grit to their court mixture and/or re-painting their courts closer to the start of the tournament - both of which serve to reduce the court pace.

Additionally, off the top of my head, I recall federer, roddick and djokovic talking about the homogenisation of conditions. Federer has spoken about it just This week. I don't think they were referring to universal speeding up of the conditions when they talked about homogenisation. Various commentators, coaches and ex-players have also bemoaned the slower conditions. Somehow I don't think they would all have decided to jump on the bandwagon in 2013 if the conditions haven't changed since 2003.

The meat of the change the big changes came since 03, by then luxilons were being used, the newer bigger ball was introduced and the courts at a number of tournaments had been slowed down. I haven't seen any appreciable slow down in the last few years that is for sure. The AO went from a slow rebound ACE, it isn't a low bouncing court either hence the name "rebound" to another slow hardcourt the plexicushion. It is a virtual even swap not a radical change.

Here's the video I was referring to. Quite a significant difference between the two serves especially given the average 2008 ball reaches the net first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

emancipator wrote:Here's the video I was referring to. Quite a significant difference between the two serves especially given the average 2008 ball reaches the net first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

while I appreciate the effort, the scientific in me doesn't like it as it's a somewhat lazy comparison, the point seems to be that the two serves are mostly identical because they're hit at the same speed. Of course this isn't the case (nor can it ever be), but the study would have benefited greatly from at least picking two serves which were hit to the same area of the court. Here, one is hit down the middle and one out wide: now the serve out wide will naturally have a slightly larger contact area with the ground which could explain some (most likely not all) the slowing down compared to the other serve. Also, them not being the "same" serve means that one may have had more/less spin than the other which again would change things. Obviously the balls will not have been in identical situations either (or indeed even the same type of ball?). Finally do we know if these serves were produced at roughly the same time in the tournament? Again, the state of the grass would influence greatly on the speed of the bounce, which is precisely what is being measured here.

So while my non-scientific mind says "OK, that does suggest what you're saying is true", my scientific mind says this simply isn't rigourous enough to say anything whatsoever.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

emancipator wrote:Here's the video I was referring to. Quite a significant difference between the two serves especially given the average 2008 ball reaches the net first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

while I appreciate the effort, the scientific in me doesn't like it as it's a somewhat lazy comparison, the point seems to be that the two serves are mostly identical because they're hit at the same speed. Of course this isn't the case (nor can it ever be), but the study would have benefited greatly from at least picking two serves which were hit to the same area of the court. Here, one is hit down the middle and one out wide: now the serve out wide will naturally have a slightly larger contact area with the ground which could explain some (most likely not all) the slowing down compared to the other serve. Also, them not being the "same" serve means that one may have had more/less spin than the other which again would change things. Obviously the balls will not have been in identical situations either (or indeed even the same type of ball?). Finally do we know if these serves were produced at roughly the same time in the tournament? Again, the state of the grass would influence greatly on the speed of the bounce, which is precisely what is being measured here.

So while my non-scientific mind says "OK, that does suggest what you're saying is true", my scientific mind says this simply isn't rigourous enough to say anything whatsoever.

I'm not sure how you worked out that one serve is going out wide and one is going up the middle. They both look to be landing in the same area of the service box to me and they were both launched from roughly the same spot.

I would have thought that the two serves represent the average response of the Federer serve in those two years when pitched into that area of the service box at that pace. Or are you suggesting that they just picked two random serves of the same pace for comparison? If that is the case then obviously it is a meaningless exercise. It can only be meaningful if they used averages for serves at that pace, launched from roughly the same position and landing in roughly the same spot in the service box.

I agree that other variables will affect the speed and bounce and those are not accounted for in this video. It only serves to give a crude picture of some of the changes (ie slowing of conditions throughout the noughties). Of course, when we discuss conditions, the type of ball is part of that discussion.

I'v just looked at the video again and you may be right in that it's just two random serves (can't be hundred percent certain about this), in which case it would be meaningless.

actually on reviewing it does seem they both land in roughly the same area, on first viewing it looked like the paths crossed over early on if you see what I mean which is why I thought one was out wide and the other up the middle. On second viewing it's a cross-over in height rather than depth. Ah the issues of 3D converted to 2D spaces...

You reckon it's the average serve? Could be, anyone speak Spanish? Also interesting that one lands a fair bit shorter than the other one, my guess would be the shorter serve has a smaller contact area with the ground and thus would decrease less after bouncing, no? Particularly as the shorter one seems hit from a (very slightly) greater height. Though that's as I say a guess.

"It can only be meaningful if they used averages for serves at that pace, launched from roughly the same position and landing in roughly the same spot in the service box. "

The problem even with this is the presence of the word "roughly" twice, which could induce a difference (as pointed out above). I'm not saying it's a meaningless exercise, but for me they're a few too many variables to be able to categorically state anything here. Another variable is the weather (or atmospheric conditions) which make a difference to how the grass responds you'd have thought.

Anyway, I would like to know what exactly the experiment entails, it would be easier to draw (at least partial) conclusions then...

PS: in response to your latest post I'm honestly not sure. If it's two random roughly similar serves for me they're too many variables to consider to conclude either way, if it's average of a lot of serves it becomes more interesting...