Time machine

First topic message reminder :

During the exiting final of Queens i was wondering what would happen if we send the current top 50 back in time 30 years.
So what would the top 10 ranking be if tennis was played with smaller and heavier rackets and balls?

I’d say the top 4 would survive. Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils are out, simply not handy enough. Sod had very good results on indoor courts, knows how to play under fast conditions but i chose Delpo instead.
Fish is an interesting one, i’ve seen him play live and was impressed with how clean the guy can hit a ball. He looks heavy on the screen but in real live appears to be a very decent player. But he just didn't made it..
I would say some single handed BH’ers would be more succesful and of course the attacking ones.
A big server has to be on my list too.

And now the difficult part, the ranking. BTW: I’m not judging upon the current form, just the bigger picture. My principles: Serve and netplay become more important, fitness and the importance of the DHBH: the opposite

10. Andy Roddick, how to break his serve under those conditions? He’s a top 10 player for 8 years now, so 30 years ago he would he would be one too

9. Youznhy. The guy wasn’t made for these times but would have been very competitive back then. His lack of power wouldn’t have been such a big deal. And i want an extra SHBH on the list.

8. Delpo, Probably the most talented of todays big hitters. Just recall the US open 2009 final and it’s hard to ignore him.

7. Tsonga. 2 words: Yannick Noah

6. Nadal. Week in week out playing on courts like Bercy or Cincy, AND faster balls? Ouch! But hey, there still would be clay and that’s where he would secure his top 10 position

5. Gasquet. See Youznhy, even more talented though. Plenty of room for artists early 80’s

4. Djoko. Two words: Jimmy Conners (don’t worry, i like Djoko much more than Jimbo!)

3. Murray. Under those conditions i rank him higher than Djoko: softer hands! His passive FH wouldn’t have been such a weakness. Even Borg was “placing” the ball with his FH like Andy does so often.

2. Nalbandian. The grinding got the better of his hips, wouldn’t have happened back then. Would have loved the carpet. Proved he can be too fast for my no.1 too on several occasions.

1. Federer. Remove Nadals FH crosscourt, what could have stopped Federer from winning 20 slams?

I know Davydenko should be on the list, but i don’t want to sacrifice Youznhy

Remember, pick your players from todays top 50. This is not meant to be a Nadal-Borg debate.

Again, Tenez if Nadal was so physically fit you would think that he would want to start every point as soon as humanly possible. In fact, I think Nadal's rituals and time in between points would be an advantage to his opponent who according to your analysis is not as fit as nadal. This talk about losing your edge in 5 set matches because it is harder to go for the lines when your tired isn't convincing to me. But I am beyond trying to convince you of otherwise. You have your opinion but in my mind it isn't well supported. As tom, has pointed out there is but a difference of a few seconds between Nadal's time in between points and his opposition's start time.


I have watched several Nadal and Fed matches and never has exhaustion been the reason that Fed has lost. Frankly, as great as he is he hasn't found a formula for dealing with Nadal's cross court forehand to his backhand, and he has failed miserably on the big points especially break point. To me this shows that Rafa is in his head. Whether you want to admit it or not I think it is obvious that Rafa holds a mental advantage and a matchup advantage over federer that has little or nothing to do with fitness. And even if fitness was the issue well then that is on Federer to get fitter, fitness is just a matter of working hard and getting into better shape, and if Rafa works harder at it than Fed does than Fed gets what he deserves.

Good post Tom___ and I made exactly the same point (without those stats - interesting) on another thread last night, i.e. that people dont know the ATP rule.

https://www.606v2.com/t7027p100-time-machine#187388

Socal - we just go around and around with these points. No matter how much you debunk the myths, the same old stuff keeps coming back...

Guys Guys Guys.

There has some been heated comments on here which I haven't deleted. Idea's and opinions of others have been insulted, which I am not happy about.

Please when debating topics, please can you respect the opinions of ALL posters. I know some of you may not agree with the opinions of some posters, but they have the right to state their opinion.

Whether debating points of views or facts, please can you make your comments and refrain from any insults or wumming.

Thank You

socal1976 wrote:Frankly, as great as he is he hasn't found a formula for dealing with Nadal's cross court forehand to his backhand, and he has failed miserably on the big points especially break point.

Respectfully disagree on this generalization. Watch this clip (Time Index : 2:00+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_IJ1A63ss

Laverfan, i have trouble with youtube over here so can't watch you clip. But in general I have seen most of the Fed Nadal matches and eventually Rafa breaks down the fed backhand with his cross court forehand. The matches that Fed comes over the backhand consistently he usually wins or are very close. But that exchange has been the dominant theme of their confrontations.

The clip is from WTF 2010 final match. Fed consistently came over his BH and had Rafa in trouble. W 2011 promises to be fun.

laverfan wrote:The clip is from WTF 2010 final match. Fed consistently came over his BH and had Rafa in trouble. W 2011 promises to be fun.

Was Nadal dropping short that match tho? Nadal has to get his shots deep to nullify the Fed BH, or he gets drilled.

I think the point social makes is generally correct especially on the big points. Hence the poor BP conversion rate Fed has against NAdal.

Nadal looks so tired on this clip! I wonder how Federer managed to lose a set in that final.

Nadal lost that match in that semi final. He shoudl have been fresher than Federer who had a pretty rude schedule from Shanghai to London but he simply can't win easily against the players that challenge him physically. Federer can and is therefore the deservedly winner of that O2!

Tenez wrote:Nadal looks so tired on this clip! I wonder how Federer managed to lose a set in that final.

Nadal lost that match in that semi final. He shoudl have been fresher than Federer who had a pretty rude schedule from Shanghai to London but he simply can't win easily against the players that challenge him physically. Federer can and is therefore the deservedly winner of that O2!

So Federer used his physicality to win? right ok.

'Tenez wrote:
Nadal looks so tired on this clip! I wonder how Federer managed to lose a set in that final.

Nadal lost that match in that semi final. He shoudl have been fresher than Federer who had a pretty rude schedule from Shanghai to London but he simply can't win easily against the players that challenge him physically. Federer can and is therefore the deservedly winner of that O2!


So Federer used his physicality to win? right ok.'

He was saying that basically it was Nadal's inability to put away players in the other matches that led to his loss in the final. Fans can bleat on that he was too tired to win the final, but why was this? Because he was pushed to the limit by Murray; the same Murray that Federer destroyed in the group stage.

Chazfazzer wrote:'Tenez wrote:
Nadal looks so tired on this clip! I wonder how Federer managed to lose a set in that final.

Nadal lost that match in that semi final. He shoudl have been fresher than Federer who had a pretty rude schedule from Shanghai to London but he simply can't win easily against the players that challenge him physically. Federer can and is therefore the deservedly winner of that O2!


So Federer used his physicality to win? right ok.'

He was saying that basically it was Nadal's inability to put away players in the other matches that led to his loss in the final. Fans can bleat on that he was too tired to win the final, but why was this? Because he was pushed to the limit by Murray; the same Murray that Federer destroyed in the group stage.

Indeed!