Qatar/Brisbane/Chennai

First topic message reminder :

Finally, the wait is over.  The new tennis season is starting tomorrow in Brisbane, with Qatar and Chennai joining in on Monday.

Djokovic will not play until Melbourne, but Rafa, David and Andy are all in action in Qatar.  Other notables include Berdych, Davydenko, Gasquet, Gulbis and Monfils.

In Brisbane, Federer is the No 1 seed (he should enjoy it, there may not be many more tournaments like that).  Overall, the field is much weaker than in Qatar, with Nishikori seeded at No 2 and Simon at No 3.  Still, there are some interesting players to watch.  The field includes Grigorov, Duckworth and Kyrgios, as well as Cilic.

Chennai has the weakest field, with Wawrinka and Youzhny seeded at #1 and #2.  Vasek Pospisil (an ethnic Czech from Canada) and Jiri Vesely (an ethnic Czech from the Czech Republic) being the two youngsters to watch there.

But HMM....WHY did all that 2000s generation of players suffer so much injury when the newer generation playing arguably longer matches since 2008 or so haven't suffered to the same degree? Because they had to adapt to a new game that was more alien to them. They weren't physical beasts from the outset, they were suited to a more attacking/counter-attacking style. The players we're talking about didn't fall off cliffs from a ranking perspective...we know that...they were great players come what may. However, their performances after the "slowdown" didn't match the expectation given they were yet to come into their prime beyond say 2002/3. I'd have expected more from Hewitt and Roddick in their prime had conditions stayed similar after 2003.

HM Murdoch wrote:Wow, I'm somewhat stunned by this thread.

The suggestion is that Hewitt's game was harmed by the slowed conditions? We're saying that a baseline game built around great movement and great return of serve couldn't prosper in slower conditions? Have you seen the top players of recent years?!

Hewitt did just fine under slower conditions. Between US04 and US05 he made 2 slam finals and 2 semi finals. He was a top 5 player until 2006. His decline was more to do with hip pain than conditions.

I know it's easy to argue the path not taken but I'm convinced that had he avoided injury, Hewitt would have a top level career. Look at what David Ferrer has achieved with a not drastically different skill set.

It doesn't take much 'harm' to go from a GS winner to a GS finalist/semi-finalist. Yes, his injuries played a part, but his baseline game was often not based around extended rallies and outlasting the opponent (never got past the QF at the FO) - it was largely based around hitting passing shots past the guy at the net. Which is hard to do if there is no other guy at the net

Lydian, I wouldn't disregard injuries but do we know if the serious injuries of, say, Hewitt and Haas are linked to the conditions? And is that generation being more harmed than the current lot? Rafa and Murray have both carried a lot of injuries, Tsonga and Del Potro have missed large chunks of their career too. I'd say the conditions seem to affect everyone.

As for what was expected from the likes of Hewitt and Roddick, I feel differently to you.

Hewitt looked remarkable when he broke through. In retrospect though, although outstandingly good, I don't think he was a 'special' talent in the way that Federer and Nadal or even Djokovic are. He would have been more successful without injury, of course, but it's hard to imagine him taking slams off Federer and Nadal in 04-08.

As for Roddick, even at the time I thought his game his game was pretty raw. Great serve, powerful forehand but never looked like a great. Had he been born a little later, I think he'd be in that Ferrer-Berdych-Tsonga group of players. I don't see his game as better than those players.

I think that generation of players nearly all had other reasons that stopped them reaching their full potential. Hewitt and Haas were dogged by injury. Safin and Nalbandian were great talents but were not disciplined enough. If you could put Rafa's mentality into one of those players, we'd have had something pretty special. And, aside from letting W09 get away, I'd argue that Roddick probably DID reach his potential.

What it boils down to for me is that generation of players remained there or thereabouts when they were fit and focused. I feel pretty sure that even if conditions were not changed, those players would have yielded to Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray at about the time that they did.

I know I keep coming back to Roddick but that's just because his career was largely uninterrupted. Does finishing #6 in 2007 really represent a shortfall? The presence of Federer, Nadal and an emergent Djokovic makes it very difficult to get above #4. As it was, he missed #4 by just 295 ranking points. He got knocked out of AO in SF by one of Federer's all time great performances. He got knocked out in QF of USO by Federer also. So he was still going deep in slams but getting beaten by a better player.

I just don't see a player struggling with alien conditions. I see a player hitting about the right level.

So when there's talk about how conditions changed things, in what way do people think history changed? Who are the players who would otherwise have been winning the big events or topping the rankings but were deprived of it by the changes?

Or is the debate at the level of people who made the 3rd round of slams might now be making the QFs?

Genuine question. What do we think would have happened in the alternative universe where conditions were not changed?

JuliusHMarx wrote:It doesn't take much 'harm' to go from a GS winner to a GS finalist/semi-finalist.

The emergence of Federer would be enough to move him from a GS winner to GS finalist/semi-finalist!

Players are products of their time coming into the game. Hewitt's time was S&V based play as discussed. Just look at his record against S&V players:
Hewitt 5-4 Sampras
Hewitt 9-1 Henman
Hewitt 3-1 Rafter
Hewitt 3-0 Ivanišević
Hewitt 3-1 Philippoussis
Hewitt 4-3 Rusedski

Anyone who could establish a 5-4 record vs Sampras (beating him on Queen's grass in 2000 & 2001, plus was serving for the match in 1999 too) would have done pretty well at Wimbledon has its speed stayed the same throughout his prime. Likewise USO too where he beat Sampras in 2001. But as we know the conditions changed, S&V players were made extinct so Hewitt couldn't play his natural attacking/counter-attacking flat shots game anymore. He had to become a "grinder" and that played havoc on his body.

I mean, Hewitt and Roddick won Queen's 8 times between them....so had USO and Wimbledon stayed lightening quick wouldn't they have fared even better than they did later on? Nadal is a unique talent no doubt, as is Federer but are Murray and Djokovic any better than Hewitt? I dont think so personally. But they got a head start on modern conditions. Likewise, Roddick was an updated version of  Goran...all huge serve and FH with a rallying BH. Safin was better than that, an all court attacking player. However, all were designed to attack and counteract S&V players...after 2003 they had no-one to face in that way as S&V play was rendered impotent by ITF/ATP.

I like what Sampras said of Hewitt in his book...
"He loved players who served and volleyed and tried to pressure him. Lleyton was one of the few guys who really could resist the onslaught of a high quality attacker. For a period I felt Lleyton might really dominate. His game translated well from surface to surface, but then a few things happened and fewer of them (S&V) were playing into Hewitt's hands. Lleyton liked having a target, but in his era guys stopped coming to the net. Hewitt was a victim of his time"

I quite agree but he wasn't the only 'victim'.

Good stats, Lydian.

I don't think they give the whole story though. I'll offer some more.

Player / Age in 2002 / Year of Retirement
Sampras / 31 / 2002
Rafter / 30 / 2002
Ivanisevic / 31 / 2004
Rusedski / 29 / 2007
Henman / 28 / 2007

That generation of SV players was in its twilight years anyway as Hewitt broke through. Their disappearance is far more to do with their age than the court conditions stopping them playing.

And this is the key point: the emergent generation were already not playing SV. Federer, Roddick, Haas, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin... none were SV in the same way as the guys above.

Hewitt was never going to face a steady stream of SVers for him to pick off. The game had already started to change.

As for your question about Hewitt in relation to Djokovic and Murray, that's a tough one. I'm comparing uninterrupted careers with a career that started brilliantly and then struggled with injury. I'd have to say Novak is better. He does everything that Lleyton did but a bit better and I don't recall Lleyton having a shot at the level of Novak's BH (but maybe time has dimmed my memory!). I'd put Hewitt and Murray probably about equal. Horribly subjective opinion though!

...and good stats back BUT Hewitt was beating these guys from 3 years before that when all were in prime and he was a whipper-snapper!

S&V died out because the new guys coming through were not required to be proponents of it with changing conditions - you think Federer would have stayed a baseliner if conditions were the same as the turn of the century? You think loads of 20-21 year olds coming through in 2000 hadn't been trained to be adept volleyers through the 90s? Come on.

Conversely, so when guys like Hewitt, Nalby, Roddick, Safin were 15yo in 1996, their coaches presciently knew that surfaces were going to slow 6-8 years later so dropped volley coaching, attacking plays, drilled their fitness and defensive skills? Yeah right.

Indeed its funny when you look at Federer, Hewitt and Haas now because they clearly stand out as having much more variety in their game than their baseline-drilled newer opponents. Clearly they came from a different background of training.

Also, the term S&V is a misnomer. For example, Goran wasn't an out & out S&Ver and he could play very well on clay from the back for example. Regarding the transition period we're talking about a bunch of guys who exemplified "attacking tennis" not the defensive tennis exemplified by Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. Attacking tennis involved a lot of net & forecourt play, slice shots, short angles, a variety of return shots. Not everything was topspin heavy. Again, it required a different type of player to do those things compared to those we have now who learnt their tennis under different slower conditions.

The game only changed, out & out attacking players have lessened, because conditions were changing...surfaces, balls & strings...all hitting at the same time, early 2000s.

I don't agree (unsurprisingly) about Novak vs Lleyton. Hewitt has a slightly different skill set, ok perhaps not as good at the back but his forecourt skills far outshine Djokovic's. We'll never know what he could of achieved had he played in 90s conditions for another 10 years but I'm pretty sure he'd have more than 2-3 slams.

There's much I agree with there and there's no argument from me about how slowing the courts changed the prevalent brand of tennis.

But that generation were far from scuppered. As late as 2005/2006, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Blake, Davydenko and Haas were all there in the top ten. They occupy most of the "non-Fedal" spots! And even by 2007, it's only Novak who's jumped them.

It's really only in 08 that they were displaced as a group. But by then they were about 27/28 and you would expect the next to generation to be reeling them in by that point.

So those guys may have been happier on faster surfaces but they did just fine on slower ones.

The bigger problem for them is that between 2004 and 2007, one guy was playing a level of tennis that won 11 of 16 slams!

Yeah he wasn't bad was he...?

I think the only point on which there is substantial disagreement is whether Hewitt etc were scuppered by changing conditions. I don't see that at all. My point is that changing tech/strings etc was already making traxitional fast court tennis obsolete. Hewitt etc were the vanguard of players wiping out the old school players.

I would be surprised if Hewitt played more than 5% of his matches during his stand-out year of 2002 againsg SV. The game by then was already primarily baseline and he beat players in similar style to Murray or Dnokovic do now.

My view is that slowing the courts was fixing a problem already in the process of being resolved. I have no understanding of why they have continued to do so.

This is one of those discussions where there is no black and white, conditions were changing due to strings for sure...whether that on its own would have made the difference we don't know but court slowing and ball size increase was the death knell for sure.

I do believe that S&V could have evolved had surfaces stayed quick but we'll never see that now until speeds go up. What the ATP & ITF did was silly....and I have a feeling they're starting to back pedal a bit given surfaces this year look faster vs 2013 so far. I'm sure the older guys wont bemoaning that!

On a related note, I think it's telling that when we do get faster surfaces, it's usually the same guys who win.

Novak's game is probably the epitome of one that works well under slower conditions. Yet he's won Dubai 3 times, WTF 3 times, China 4 times, 4 time finalist in Cincy... he's performed well at all the faster or lower-bouncing events.

It's disappointing that the conditions don't help a variety of styles flourish. I don't think we would have a load of new winners with faster courts though. The best players generally find a way to win.

What would be good is for conditions to make it fruitful for a player like Novak to develop greater forecourt skills. Which is what seems to be happening anyway, so hopefully the corner has been turned.

HM Murdoch wrote:

What would be good is for conditions to make it fruitful for a player like Novak to develop greater forecourt skills. Which is what seems to be happening anyway, so hopefully the corner has been turned.

If conditions changed to favor forecourt skills Novak would be toast! Federer and Nadal make him look like a novice in comparison. A good tactic against Novak is throwing up repeated high balls until Novak misses miles long or wide, hits the ball in the net... or less than gracefully falls into the net himself.                      

Faster courts would suit Murray though HE and not Nadal. Surely you wouldn't want that?

Novak has probably got his forecourt game as advanced as it needs to be. He's never going to be a natural volleyer but, like Rafa, he has developed himself so he is comfortable going forwards and doesn't miss many easy volleys.

Agree Murray's fast court underpinnings exceed those of Nadal, then Djokovic.

Also, for those who think Federer prefers fast courts this is what he had to say in Brisbane recently:

“Obviously the margins are smaller on a quicker court,” Federer said on Friday. “Because let’s say the first game I do get broken because he hits a few good shots and maybe I serve one, maybe two maximum serves not perfect, you’re right away in trouble, which on a slower court is not going to happen that quickly. So I feel probably a bit more confident on a slower court against a normal player. Against top guys, they can also play very well on the faster courts as well.”

Its a fallacy that Federer is some kind of fast court guru, he's never liked playing guys who can take the game away from him.

lydian wrote:
”

Its a fallacy that Federer is some kind of fast court guru, he's never liked playing guys who can take the game away from him.

Spot on lydian.   

It would also go some way to explain why it took him (relatively speaking) so long to win his first slam when courts were faster and there were more adept fast court players around.

Exactly and thanks CC. Or conversely put, once the overall tour pace started to match his natural (medium-fast, not outright fast) game he flourished.

Additionally, from a technical point of view he plays with SW grips so can adapt to slow or faster courts pretty well but despite that we cannot forget he was raised on clay. You simply cant get away from your junior/learning underpinnings in tennis...those early years up to 13/14 set up his muscle & mental 'tennis memory' for life. Those slower court underpinnings, albeit yes he loves to attack, means he inherently likes to build up a point over a 2-5 shots...ok, not Nadal length rallying...but left and right a couple of times then pull the 'big one'...i.e. usually groundstroke, not net/volley, in the main. This is play more suited to slower courts, as he says his preference lies.

For quite a few years now he gets into trouble when he tries to pull the trigger too early and then shanks/overshoots/misses too much. I feel that happens because he's trying to run counter to his natural/inherent game which is to build (short) points. Hiring someone like Edberg (and Annacone before him) is to help him shorten points further because his natural instinct isn't to do so....but he knows he has to because he can't live with Nadal or Djokovic (or probably Murray either) at point construction any more. So for me he's stuck between a rock and a hard place now, having to embrace a style of play that isn't natural to him. Lets see what Stefan can do!

As I said earlier, he was the one who said he panicked moving forwards and volleying...it's not a natural part of his tennis DNA, and when players do play like that against him he can go into panic mode himself rather than having the point construction time he prefers. Federer's modus operandi is all about being in control, when that control is taken away from him by those who attack him with short points he can break down early on.

A perfect example of this was Stakhovsky at Wimbledon this year...completely took the game away from Federer (as Benneteau did the year before but couldn't see it through). I also remember it happening against Stepank on clay at Rome (which is a faster clay court) who gave him no time to settle. There are lots of other examples including his dislike in playing guys like Berdych who can also play very aggressive short, flat hitting points. This is also why he struggled against those guys on faster courts early on...Hewitt, Henman, etc. Once the general pace on tour slowed down a bit he could revert to his inherent underpinnings, take take control more by building short points, and keep his opponents on the move and away from the net...which meant they didnt have time to kill the points or unleash their flatter shots.

So I'm just wanting to make this point to those who feel he's some fast court/volleying guru who would have loved the old conditions. I don't agree...hence why he struggled against the old style players Hewitt at Brisbane, and Halle before that. And please don't mention WTF as an example of fast court prowess as that is relatively slow, what's in his favour there is simply low bounce which suits his SW grips. Plus he does have a great serve on any surface...a much underestimated part of his game...although again on fast courts players can turn it against him like Hewitt did last weekend.

Of the Big 4, who would have suffered most/least had the courts/conditions not slowed down?

Which one/two players outside the Big 4 would have gained most?

Q1. Djokovic - extreme western FH (Nadal is SW) so would have really struggled with much lower bounce, plus his volley, slice & overhead skills are nowhere as good at the other 3 and have taken until 26 years old to become ok, he wouldn't have had that time on fast courts.
Q2. Murray - brought up on faster courts, great variety, slice & OH, one of the best volleyers on tour, exceptional mover around the net. Its no coincidence his brother is an adept net player in doubles.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Of the Big 4, who would have suffered most/least had the courts/conditions not slowed down?

Which one/two players outside the Big 4 would have gained most?

My view on the "traditional conditions" (by that I mean the court variety we have seen from biginning of modern era till 2000 circa), is difficult to imagine Nadal winning slams oustside clay. He would have never turned into a S&V player which was the requirement to win W (like Borg did for instance). He would have grabbed 3-4 RG and maybe 1 HC but I am not sure.

Djokovic: I don't see him winning wimbledon either. OTH he would have been less competitive on pure fast courts were proficiency at the net was required: 3 to 4 slams all on HC.

Federer: I think he would have been more adaptable to S&V but probably more challenged by grass court specialist the likes of Stich and Krajchek. No slams on RG but nearly as effective on HC: 10 to 12 slams.

Murray: difficult to see him winning W with S&V. I think maybe 1 slam on hc.

The point is that all of them would have won less slams as the game on fast conditions was by its nature more erratic and harder to control.

I think you could be right there J_K - the slams may well have been more shared out with players outside the Big 4 (who wouldn't have become the Big 4!)
Likely that a big server or two would have won Wimby (Roddick?), maybe Hewitt would have got one or two more HC slams.

Don't see it myself.

Hewitt had injuries, Nalby and Safin were not disciplined enough.

I think it's also easy to forget how much better than the rest Federer was in his prime. I don't see that shortfall as being made up by the surface.

Possibly Roddick may have grabbed a Wimbledon or two.

I think Fed has put in enough volleying performances in his time, especially in these non-ideal conditions, to show that he could've made it if the conditions were faster. I remember him winning big points at the end of the first set against Nadal of all people at AO 2012 by making some great volleys under a lot of pressure. My memory is a little hazy but didn't he beat Sampras by mostly serving and volleying too and weren't his first couple of Wimbledons mostly serve and volley? He changed with the times as the surfaces slowed and became more baseline which was probably made easier by his clay background but if his dream from when he was young was to win wimbledon, wouldn't he have been good at volleying all along?

I also think his return against servers like Roddick is up there with the very best. Djokovic and Murray are better returners overall because they can return those serves well as well as serves like Nadal's which Fed struggles with. This means though that faster conditions wouldn't hurt his return of serve that much either so in the end I think his strengths are amplified more than his weaknesses and that he'd be at least equal to what he is now in faster conditions. I don't know if the same is true for the rest because we haven't had much chance to see.

By the way, I'm not disputing this but how is everyone so sure Murray is great at volleying when he hardly ever comes to the net or at least the least often of the top 4?

Murray used to come to the net a lot more. It was certainly part of his modus operandi when he first burst on to the scene. He was never an out and out aggressor but it was his go to change up. I think I recall him beating Nalby in Paris a few years back by switching to an almost exclusive SV game. He has obviously decided (post Lendl particularly) that that isn't the way forwards. I can't say I agree but he has won two slams in that period. However, I think there is enough evidence that he is a highly competent volleyer.

I agree with Lydian here. Djokovic would struggle most on really quick courts (albeit as HM says he hasn't done badly at places like Dubai) and Murray has been harmed the most as he has had to try and adapt his game to meet the more natural slow court players at their own game - sadly with the loss of a lot of the flair/genius he is capable of producing.

Fed is a natural at the net - didn't he win junior wimbledon serve volleying? I'm not sure where all this talk of him being a slow court player has come from - clay was always his weakest surface. His record at RG up to 2005 is pretty dire. He misses a fair few easy volleys but, like Murray, I suspect he would have cut those errors down if SV had been his approach throughout his career. I think its probably right that he was the last player primarily SVing to win Wimbledon.

Despite Lydian know so much more than me about tennis, I don't agree re Feds not being able to adapt to faster conditions.

Like Bitf says, he beat Sampras on a fast wimby aged 19 and ran Henman very close in the qf.
He had a winning record against Sampras, Ivanisevic & Krajicek who all won on fast wimbledon surfaces.
I think Feds has better timing, hand eye co-ordination and volley skills than any of the other 3.

I Don't have stats to back this up, so feel free to ignore this, but I feel the others only come to the net when they are likely to win the point. Nadal is very good at those low dinked volleys when the opponent is retrieving a very good angled shot or lefty serve off the court, but that is all we see, very good but a limited volley set exhibited.

I could be wrong but Feds earliest tournament successes (reaching finals and winning titles - aged 18-20) were predominantly on indoor carpet surfaces, were they not fast?

He was brought up on serve and volley I think. Perhaps you could say if the others had been brought up on that they would be better in that department or in faster conditions than feds, so maybe you could say Feds is better there because he benefited from learning that trade when it was around, compared to the other 3 who didn't have that option. Conjecture for sure.

Federer has the best attack imo, seen by his higher winner ratio, therefore I feel he would be more successful than the others. Against those players some of those shots may not come back as they do now.
My badly put response but hey ho.

BS I dont actually think he S & V'd that much in the wimby 03 final.

Just saying we HAVE to consider that there would be smaller balls and less advanced, controllable rackets.
Wouldn't that make it harder to hit passing shots, topspin shots or shots way outside the court?

I didn't know he won junior Wimby. This is from wiki - junior slam results
Australian Open: SF (1998)
French Open: 1R (1998)
Wimbledon: W (1998)
US Open: F (1998)
 
Also won the Wimby doubles in 1998
 
Seles recalls first seeing him when she played mixed against him in Jan 2000 - and instantly thought that he would go on to "dominate the sport" - presumably with whatever the conditions were at the time, since she wouldn't have known back then that they would change.

Born Slippy wrote:I agree with Lydian here. Djokovic would struggle most on really quick courts (albeit as HM says he hasn't done badly at places like Dubai)

I think Novak is fine with fast courts. I see no evidence that he struggles in fast conditions. The bigger problem for him, at least in theory, is a low bounce.

Even then I'm not so sure. Beijing is low-bouncing and that worked strongly in his favour v Nadal. Rafa couldn't get his topspin going at all.

In fact, I think there's a case that Rafa would be the most affected by a change back to previous court conditions. He has a pretty big swing on his forehand. If the ball is coming at him quicker, he'd need a smaller swing or to stand a bit further back, both of which will affect his normal patterns.

I also think that those who play closer to the baseline have a better chance, something Feds and Djoko do more than Murray and Nadal.
Nadal in the last year has moved closer but predominantly stood a good couple of metres behind the baseline.

Well Fed was v. nearly 20 in 2001...but hey...no need to split hairs. I have no axe to grind vs him or desire to denigrate his game, this is an open discussion plus it would seem somewhat churlish to deny his talents given all he has achieved in the game.

Anyway, some nice points there LS and I quite agree Fed had the capability of being a v.good volleyer. HOWEVER. We're talking preference here, not raw ability. Preference of play tends to direct ones ability right? Back around 98-01 you had to volley more to compete on tour but he hated volleying. Yes, Federer did S&V a lot in his 2001 Wimbledon match against Sampras but then again lots of players S&Ved on both 1st and 2nd serves back then. If you watch the match Fed only S&Ved on 1sts, didn't S&V on 2nds so a lot of that match was won from the baseline too. Federer also commented that he realized he S&Ved whenever in panic and decided to stay more at the baseline and then won his 1st Wimbledon (of course, Wimbledon surfaces had slowed by then too).

You mention Feds earlier career. If you watch Fed vs Agassi at Basel 98 on Youtube, Federer stayed at the baseline almost 100% on an indoor carpet. Baseline play was always his preference, indeed I was impressed how he completely crushed Michael Chang from the baseline when they first met at AO 2000.

But Federer also admitted back then he didn't have a big enough serve to S&V properly, he said he could add a little more power to it but he didn't want to risk hurting his arm. Federer's whole game is built around moderation - which is a good asset he has. Also, technically Federer isn't the best at lateral movement at the net, and is a much better BH volleyer than FH volleyer...he drops his wrist far too much and you'll see him dump loads of volleys into the net. Guys these days know to attack him on the FH side when he's at net. Against Sampras you'll see he served almost 75-80% to his BH to get the CC replies so he could BH volley...and fair enough, smart play...but like I say he S&Ved out of necessity back then, not preference.

Fed has said many times in different ways down the years that he prefers to play/is more confident at the baseline (and in the latest Brisbane interview above) from where he can go on the attack after short exchanges. So slowing of courts to a medium-fast level was always going to suit him more than if they sped up further. I don't see what's so controversial about that. He's not a claycourter like Nadal, but he's not a Sampras either. His preferred surface is HC and the speed of HCs from 2003 onwards was just perfect for him.

In terms of raw timing...who knows. You cant say whether he had better hand-eye co-ordination than say Sampras, or vice-versa. Pointless going there, I've seen Sampras (and others) pull off some outrageous reflex shots...the memory on the older guys can fade rather too rapidly. But Federer does have some wonderful shots too, inc. those outrageous baseline half-volleys he's made all his own. His talent has never been in doubt and that's not the topic of debate here...I first watched him in 1998 and knew the "kid" was going to go far, everyone did...just like they did when watching the 16yo Nadal...or the 18yo Sampras. With some of these guys you just know...it doesn't stop us debating their preferred styles of play and adaptability to changing conditions. Federer adapted by far the best of that early 80s born generation....others didn't. Some of that down to inherent talent, some of it down to the styles they had learnt the game under.

Good points Lydian but my response was also about in relation to the top 4 and how I thought feds would have the most success on the fast surfaces compared to Nadjokorray... :P

Fair enough, sorry I didn't respond to that bit.
Maybe LS...although I think Murray would have been a beast on truly fast courts given he's 6'3 with a 130+mph serve, moves like a cat (...this is the guy who can run 100m in 10.6 right?) and is very adept at the net. It would be close between them but I'd give the edge to Murray...then Fed...then Nadal...then Djokovic.

I think with old conditions we'd also see more of the old Murray - less reliant on fitness and more on his natural talent/variety of play - which would work in his favour.

But it's almost impossible to look at how these guys play on the occasional fast court now and say that's how they would have played when the tour was generally faster - the whole learning process would have been different.

No need to apologise Lydian .
Really? 10.6?? Murray is slower than Djoko, Nadal and deffo Monfils. Where did you get that stat from surely that isn't true.
Agree to disagree.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But it's almost impossible to look at how these guys play on the occasional fast court now and say that's how they would have played when the tour was generally faster - the whole learning process would have been different.

Good point.

For all the speculation about speed and bounce though, it's still more to do with reflexes, hand-eye and agility. The top guys would still be the top guys.

I don't agree they would still be the top guys if it is still all about reflexes and hand-eye, but yes for agility.
I may be wrong in saying what you are getting at, sorry if I am, but I feel there are more talented players further down the rankings than the current top 4.
For me someone like Dolgopolov, Llodra, goffin, dimi etc have more talent than the top guys. Rankings doesn't always equate to talent.
Again soz if im creating a strawman here.

LS, wow, that's a bold statement!

By what measure do Dolgo, Llodra, Goffin and Dimi have more talent than the top guys?

Before I say can I just ask do you think the most talented are always at the top and are guaranteed success?

The way I would like to put it as that the top guys at present are like seb vettel in the unstoppable Red bull.
People say Vettel isn't as talented as Alonso, Raikkonen or Hamilton. But thanks to the equipment that has been given to him, along with his own prodigious skill, he is winning everything.
This is how I feel about the state of the game today with the players at the top.

When I get back from a few errands I will give it a go.

We're getting back to the definition of talent, which no-one agrees on. Is it simply the ability to win, or is it hand-eye co-ordination or perfect technique etc.

Who has better hand-eye coordination. A top tennis player or a top juggler?

I would say, however, that if the guy with the most natural hand-to-eye and ball-striking talent is only 5 foot 4 and 120 pounds, he's not going to win slams.

I'm really not keen on the idea of 'talent' as an entity in it's own right. It's too hard to pin down and there are different types of talent.

Even if we define it as the elements that do not depend on the lungs or the muscles, then I still view the players you mention as being behind the top guys.

I'd accept that someone like Gasquet, if he were given the height and strength of Andy, could perhaps become a serious contender. He's at a good level already, a physical boost may take him to the next level.

But Goffin is ranked 111 and Dolgo 55. Even if they went up two or three levels, they're still not at the top.

Dimi is 6'3, almost 13 stone with a well proportioned frame. He's got the build. If he has greater talent than the top guys, why is he ranked 23 and never gone beyond the 3rd round of a slam?

Sorry buddy, don't see it.

I agree HMM and this sounds like the same old hackneyed Tenez argument being trotted out again. LS, you're spending too much time with the guy, you're turning into a mini-Tenez I fear

Talent is undefinable, nebulous and ambiguous. Is it physical, mental, etc? My position on it is always the same. Professional tennis players cannot be comparatively judged by their talent only simply by how many matches they win. You can compare matches won, etc, but you cannot compare talent itself because there is no metric unit of it. For professionals, winning is the only talent they take seriously. Armchair warriors love to discuss who is the most "talented" but Ferrer couldn't give 2 monkeys if Goffin is so called more talented than him when he's the one making it to the next round, earning more money and ranking points in the process. Ferrer has a suite of villas, cars, money in the bank, etc...Goffin is still playing challengers and being supported by the Belgian TA.

I'd rather look at the most successful than the most "talented". Lets talk real world achievement, not the promise of unfulfilled potential - unless its a true up and coming young player of course. I always prefer the guy who worked his butt off compared to the lazy genius types like Dolgo, Stakhovsky, etc.

But to HMM's point...just how is Dimitrov more talented than Nadal or Djokovic? I'd love to know how a guy with 1 title, nearing 23 yo and never getting past R3 of a slam and peaking at #22 can be deemed more talented than a guy who by the same age had nearly won 4 slams, 2 Wimb finals, 10 Masters titles and 23 titles in all...plus just a few months of being ranked #1.

Am I living in a parallel universe?

1) I am not a mini-Tenez. I have my own thoughts thanks!
2) You said that cannot compare talent itself but then say how is dimitrov more talented than nadal or djokovic.

I have this view across all sports. Just because you win at the top, I don't think makes you the most talented.

lydian wrote:I agree HMM and this sounds like the same old hackneyed Tenez argument being trotted out again. LS, you're spending too much time with the guy, you're turning into a mini-Tenez I fear

Talent is undefinable, nebulous and ambiguous. Is it physical, mental, etc?.

But why? Talent is common sense, straightforward, I dare say basic concept in every sport. In football you know talented players from the way they touch the ball, dribble opponents and shoot. Often it's not the biggest guy or the most athletic, Maradona kind of.

In tennis equally there is obviously talent, but you just can't be so sure to find the most talented on top. While in team sport, to compensate for a Maradona, you have two guys who run their socks off, in tennis a player is alone and need to have the full package. I suspect the most talend guys, we have never heard of.

LuvSports! wrote:1) I am not a mini-Tenez. I have my own thoughts thanks!
.

It could be a lot worse. You could be a mini-Socal ( I know one......)   

Just kidding obvs   

There are people who think the most 'talented' person should win out in the end, as though that's the 'fair' way or justice etc. but that's ignoring the nature of sport.
 
If the most talented artist in the world painted 3 truly great pictures and then drank himself to death in an fit of artistic self-pity, should we consider him greater (and be more of a fan) than an artist with less talent, but who came up with several hundred very, very good works?
I suspect we might be able to be fans of them both.
 
It's the competitive nature of sport that makes us support one player above another, and be competitive fans. Which might be ironic because it's also the competitive nature of sport that ensures that it's not always the most 'talented' that wins or gets supported.

LuvSports! wrote:No need to apologise Lydian .
Really? 10.6?? Murray is slower than Djoko, Nadal and deffo Monfils. Where did you get that stat from surely that isn't true.
Agree to disagree.

I remember someone on the TV saying Nishikori was the fastest player on court. Those you've mentioned may well beat Murray over 100m but his acceleration is awesome. I've always wanted to see a 100m race between the fastest tennis players but I appreciate that because of the risk of pulling a hamstring it will never happen.

^^ I remember watching a documentary with the Murray team last year in which his fitness trainer said his acceleration has been measured and is as good as Usain Bolt! Some statement that.

I personally think Novak would be pretty close in terms of acceleration too.

LuvSports! wrote:1) I am not a mini-Tenez. I have my own thoughts thanks!
2) You said that cannot compare talent itself but then say how is dimitrov more talented than nadal or djokovic.

I have this view across all sports. Just because you win at the top, I don't think makes you the most talented.

I know LS, just pulling yer leg!

You can take it as a compliment anyway

If you read my post I was merely asking you why you felt Dimi was more talented than the top 4...

It strikes me you only judging talent by ball striking ability, isn't that a little short-sighted?

Unlike 'knowledgeable' posters from other forums who witter on about what constitutes talent like its fact from the beauty of their armchairs I work with some of UKs top juniors so have a pretty good idea what needs to stand out in those who may go on to become professional down the track.

So, a question for you....what raw 'talent' do you think National Tennis Associations are looking out for in boys say under 9 in formal Talent ID schemes? (from these by & large will be the boys who stand out at 18)