The Indian Wells Masters 1000 Thread

[temporary21]

Well its both. Murrays physical style came from getting beaten by Nadal, who got his style partly to try and counter Roger. The end of the day theyre still brilliant tennis players, hence their style worked well against other people too. Rogers style was also the prevailing style of the time in 06, he was just the master at it, any counter would be effective against a lot of the tour.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Messi, you always isolate some matches and assume that those were representatives as to how other matches were played out!

1) not every match between Rafa and Fed started by Fed winning the first set. How about Miami 2005 final? Or their first encounter at Miami 2004? Their many clay court encounters where Rafa won in straight sets? Fed clearly had a major issue with Rafa, that of Rafa's ability to exploit Fed's SHBH. You talked as if Rafa only beat Fed by forcing long rallies and tiring Fed! You think Fed was so unfit back then? How come Fed won that five sets Miami 2005 final? Or Fed was able to go five sets with Rafa at Rome 2006 and even had MP vs Rafa?

2). You talked about Dubai 2006, but do you know Dubai was a fast HC, Fed's forte, and so Fed winning the first set wasn't anything unreasonable. Rafa didn't play long rallies with Fed at Dubai 2006, definitely not like when they played on clay. It's just that Rafa raised his level in set two and three, forcing the issue with Fed, and Fed somehow couldn't maintain his high level of set one and so lost that Dubai match. They met at the YEC in Shanghai that year(2006) and had a very good match there (my favorite Bo3 sets HC match between the two) and Fed won in straight sets. It's not about stamina, for Fed was really fit back then, it's more of Fed's skills and abilities on a fast HC.

3). Novak only beat Fed once in 2007, in fact he only started beating Fed in 2007, so even if Novak had set points in that USO final, that doesn't mean that he's going to beat Fed, and certainly that's no proof that he's as good a player as Fed back then in 2007. Fed in 2011 AO also lost in three tight sets to Novak, and even had MPs at their five sets USO match that year, could we say that Fed was as good as Novak that year? Not forgetting Fed was 30 and Novak 24 that year in 2011.

We have to look at their results as a whole during a season, ie results vs others too during the season, to gauge who's the better player that year. Clearly Fed in 2007 was the better player than Novak, and vice versa in 2011.

Fed at 34 is clearly slower than when he's at 26, so whatever upgraded skills that he has now may not compensate for the loss of speed, and power, in tennis movement is important, a step or two slower may result in shanking or mishitting, Fed is now no way as good as his 2005/2006, just watch his matches back then and see the differences. Fed hardly miss anything back then.

[TheMessi]

Well its both. Murrays physical style came from getting beaten by Nadal, who got his style partly to try and counter Roger. The end of the day theyre still brilliant tennis players, hence their style worked well against other people too. Rogers style was also the prevailing style of the time in 06, he was just the master at it, any counter would be effective against a lot of the tour.

I don;t think any player develops his game based on another player. It would be suicidal. One develops his game based on own ability given current technology. Then some adjustment can be done if one player keeps being undone by one player (Nadal adding weight to his racket, or Federer changing his FH)....but not "base the game on beating one". I suspect if Nadal could have beaten Federer or Djoko serve volleying, he would have done so.....but that was probably not an option.

[temporary21]

BLB:
I think 3) misses the point a little. Were not saying Novak was better in 07 than Federer, but that if his lesser self could do it in 07, then his vcurrent prime self would cause him trouble too

Messi: Its not so much countering one player. Its countering a style of play. Aggressive base lining was the norm back then, a more physical counterpunching style was called for to counter this a bit, which soo happened to counter the master of it.

[TheMessi]

Messi, you always isolate some matches and assume that those were representatives as to how other matches were played out!  

1) not every match between Rafa and Fed started by Fed winning the first set.  How about Miami 2005 final? Or their first encounter at Miami 2004? Their many clay court encounters where Rafa won in straight sets?  Fed clearly had a major issue with Rafa, that of Rafa's ability to exploit Fed's SHBH.  You talked as if Rafa only beat Fed by forcing long rallies and tiring Fed! You think Fed was so unfit back then? How come Fed won that five sets Miami 2005 final?  Or Fed was able to go five sets with Rafa at Rome 2006 and even had MP vs Rafa?

You saying this. Not me. I read somewhere that in many instances, Fed was often leading in the set and matches v Nadal. But I also gave as an example the few matches versus Nole and Andy. His 3 set record was not good in 2006-09 versus those guys. So it is not an isolated match.

2). You talked about Dubai 2006, but do you know Dubai was a fast HC, Fed's forte, and so Fed winning the first set wasn't anything unreasonable.  Rafa didn't play long rallies with Fed at Dubai 2006, definitely not like when they played on clay.  It's just that Rafa raised his level in set two and three, forcing the issue with Fed, and Fed somehow couldn't maintain his high level of set one and so lost that Dubai match.   They met at the YEC in Shanghai that year(2006) and had a very good match there (my favorite  Bo3 sets HC match between the two)  and Fed won in straight sets.   It's not about stamina, for Fed was really fit back then, it's more of Fed's skills and abilities on a fast HC.

And why do you think so? What makes you say it has nothing to do with stamina?

3). Novak only beat Fed once in 2007, in fact he only started beating Fed in 2007, so even if Novak had set points in that USO final, that doesn't mean that he's going to beat Fed, and certainly that's no proof that he's as good a player as Fed back then in 2007.  Fed in 2011 AO also lost in three tight sets to Novak, and even had  MPs at their five sets USO match that year, could we say that Fed was as good as Novak that year? Not forgetting Fed was 30 and Novak 24 that year in 2011.

I am afraid you are the one taking isolate matches.  It's not about "beating federer or not", it's about being close to Federer, having close results. Nole even took a set of Fed on clay in 2006. The USO07 was very close too. A very close match in 2007 v 20yo Nole, makes me believe it would be pretty one-sided versus Nole 15. It's not difficult to envisage.

We have to look at their results as a whole during a season, ie results vs others too during the season, to gauge who's the better player that year.  Clearly Fed in 2007 was the better player than Novak, and vice versa in 2011.

Yes, that's very easy. There is an ATP ranking!

Fed at 34 is clearly slower than when he's at 26, so whatever upgraded skills that he has now may not compensate for the loss of speed, and power,  in tennis movement is important, a step or two slower may result in shanking or mishitting,  Fed is now no way as good as his 2005/2006, just watch his matches back then and see the differences. Fed hardly miss anything back then.

I am a bit skeptical when I read things like that. A professional sprinter probably loses max half a sec over 100m at 33, if that!...a tennis player only covers 5m at most one way, that 5% of a 100m, which means 5% of half a second slower, so about 2.5 100th of a second. Do you call that "obvious"? How do that compare with being able to anticipate better thanks to playing Djokovic for the 40th time?

Don't you think 40 match experiences are not a bit more helpful that those 0.025 second?

[Belovedluckyboy]

...then applying the same logic, what about Fed beating Novak now at Dubai, or at Shanghai last year? So is the 33/34 Fed as good as the current Novak? Like I said, one or two isolated cases of wins don't prove a thing.

[temporary21]

No of course not. It does mean though that he can still compete. Nobodies saying that one match means ones better than the other, its saying that their prime versions would be a closer call than whats being said. Youre completely missing the point here

[TheMessi]

...then applying the same logic, what about Fed beating Novak now at Dubai, or at Shanghai last year? So is the 33/34 Fed as good as the current Novak?  Like I said, one or two isolated cases of wins don't prove a thing.  

That's exactly what I am saying. Tennis moves up, like all sports. If you don't improve, you very quickly slide down the ranking like almost all Federer's generation players. Federer on the day is as good as Djokovic. But Federer needs fast conditions, otherwise he is simply doomed...like he was in 2005 or 6 versus Nadal already.

[Guest]

Lol Temp21, looks like 'that's exactly what he is saying'.

Not that what he's saying makes much sense.

Federer musta been pretty rubbish in 2007 (and the tour even worse) if he's improved so much and yet only managed one slam in five years (compared to the three he won in a single year back then).

[Guest]

Of course we now also have the super improved Seppi's, Robredo's, Cilic's, and Stakhovsky's of this world.

All of whom combined had 1 win (or is it 0) against Fed until 2013.

Yep this Fed guy just keeps getting better - unlike every other great player who actually declined as they got older.

The guy's so amazing he even defies father time

[Jahu]

Yes, he even shoots 2 x 2 formation

[Josiah Maiestas]

Of course we now also have the super improved Seppi's, Robredo's, Cilic's, and Stakhovsky's of this world.

All of whom combined had 1 win (or is it 0) against Fed until 2013.

Yep this Fed guy just keeps getting better - unlike every other great player who actually declined as they got older.

The guy's so amazing he even defies father time

These people who think he's better now have obviously no respect for how good he was between 2004-2008. Definitely in denial

[Jahu]

Well, how do you make the other top 3 look good now when they beat Fed?

Say that Fed is even better then in 2004-2008, so empower their wins over him.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Messi,
1) you read somewhere? Perhaps you should check the atp website! Like I said, Rafa beat Fed in straight sets on clay many times. Check it out!
2). Fed's records vs Nadal wasn't good, whether it's three sets or fiive sets matches. Back during 2006-2009, Fed was having very good H2H vs Novak, I don't see where you get that Fed didn't have good three sets records vs Novak. Murray OTOH, like Rafa, was giving Fed problems from their second match onwards, but failed at the slams vs Fed.
3) and what has Dubai 2006 got to do with stamina? Perhaps you should check their matches, Fed had beaten Rafa in five sets at Miami 2005, you made it sound like Fed was so unfit!
4) how about a 33/34 yo Fed beating a Novak in his prime in straight sets, at Shanghai last year and at Dubai in 2015? Is a 34 yo Fed as good as Novak at 27??
5) I suggest you watch Fed's matches of 2005/2006 and watch his matches now and see for yourself is Fed as quick now as he's in the past. A split second slow may result in a shank, or a mishit, and you think Novak would play the same way for the 40th time that they meet? That means there's no improvement in Novak! Also, Fed did mention that Novak has improved his movement, which may make the difference there, ie Novak may be quicker than Fed now on the court.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Messi, you make me laugh. So according to you, Fed can't grow old and slows down? So he's as good as in the past or even better now that he's 33/34? Or is it Novak who's moving backwards now, that he's losing to a 33/34 year old player?

[Haddie-nuff]

BLB I would agree with you he IS as quick and amazingly fast given his age... here you can hear a BUT coming... he has not got the same stamina.. If he cannot finish the match in two he can struggle in the third.. and yesterday with the heat his goose gets cooked. In a GS if he encounters five setters I dont think he will cut the mustard.. my opinion of course !!! But he can still give the young guns a lesson

[Belovedluckyboy]

So you see, this Messi, he was saying the Novak of 2015 would trash that Fed of 2007, yet the Novak of 2015 couldn't trash a 33 or 34 year old Fed of 2014/2015. So who has improved through the years? Fed or Novak?

[TheMessi]

So you see, this Messi, he was saying the Novak of 2015 would trash that Fed of 2007, yet the Novak of 2015 couldn't trash a 33 or 34 year old Fed of 2014/2015.  So who has improved through the years? Fed or Novak?

That proves the point that Fed has improved. What is so difficult to understand?!

If Djokovic, by his own admission says he is playing better than ever...and Fed stays with him despite also having close matches in 2007, then Fed must have improved.

[bogbrush]

It comes down to this: if Federer at 33, close to 34, is actually as good or close to his 26 year old self then I must declare yet another unique achievement. He's the first man ever to do it.

Imagine how good this guy will be at 40??!!!


Of course, sarcasm aside, it's complete nonsense.

[TheMessi]

So much non sense that there is no point providing arguments to defeat the point. Is that the way arguments gets sorted here? By just dismissing them?

[bogbrush]

Frankly this one is barely worth it. Your argument is based on selective citing of results and subjective assessments of which player is at what level.

Mine is based on the bleeding obvious.

[Josiah Maiestas]

Why wasn't Sampras great at 33? Why wasn't Mcenroe? Federer is though apparently. He's got even better speed and FH apparently.

[Josiah Maiestas]

I will stop posting this thread because I feel an era argument beginning.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Good one Bogbrush! It's bleeding obvious!

[Haddie-nuff]

Why wasn't Sampras great at 33? Why wasn't Mcenroe? Federer is though apparently. He's got even better speed and FH apparently.

Because he is the "GOAT'

[Belovedluckyboy]

So Messi, Fed has improved but what about Novak? Poor Novak, he could trash a 26 yo Fed but couldn't trash a 34 yo Fed. Life seems to be tougher for Novak, now that he's in his prime.

[TheMessi]

Why wasn't Sampras great at 33? Why wasn't Mcenroe? Federer is though apparently. He's got even better speed and FH apparently.

Why? could it be that younger, better, players overtook them? like Nadal overtook Federer before Federer declined? Like Djokovic overtook Nadal before Nadal declined? What's so difficult to understand?

You have no arguments so it is better to laugh at it. Interesting!

[TheMessi]

So Messi, Fed has improved but what about Novak? Poor Novak, he could trash a 26 yo Fed but  couldn't trash a 34 yo Fed.  Life seems to be tougher for Novak, now that he's in his prime.

It takes 2 to tango. Djokovic needs other players to improve, at tennis you cannot improve too much on your own. you need someone on the other side of the net.

I noticed you did not put any counter argument about the "obvious" slowing pace of Federer when I kind proved to you that you would struggle to see with a naked eye a player being 2/100th of a second late on the ball...and if you did it would be compensated by many other factors.

[bogbrush]

Why wasn't Sampras great at 33? Why wasn't Mcenroe? Federer is though apparently. He's got even better speed and FH apparently.

Why? could it be that younger, better, players overtook them? like Nadal overtook Federer before Federer declined? Like Djokovic overtook Nadal before Nadal declined? What's so difficult to understand?

You have no arguments so it is better to laugh at it. Interesting!

So everyone gets better but only lose because even better players come along?

You realise where this logic goes, right?

And all this is to hang on to the idea that players improve to at least 34. I wonder why footballers retire by around that age. Are they all getting better and better at the same rate, so a veteran has to retire because the whole squad have passed their peak level? Or is it just tennis?

Like I say, bleeding obvious.

[TheMessi]

I am not saying Federer is improving. I am saying Fed has improved considerably since 2007. At 33 it is certainly much harder to keep up with the younger players who keep improving faster.....but he has improved since. He had to cause he had a game which was brilliant against the players of his generation but struggled badly against young players who put fitness at the core of their game.

I actually am very surprised some can't see here that he plays better now than in 2007....once you put aside his bad days like v Seppi.

[Haddie-nuff]

Heh folks lets talk MIAMI the draw is out

[socal1976]

So Messi, Fed has improved but what about Novak? Poor Novak, he could trash a 26 yo Fed but  couldn't trash a 34 yo Fed.  Life seems to be tougher for Novak, now that he's in his prime.

It takes 2 to tango. Djokovic needs other players to improve, at tennis you cannot improve too much on your own. you need someone on the other side of the net.

I noticed you did not put any  counter argument about the "obvious" slowing pace of Federer when I kind proved to you that you would struggle to see with a naked eye a player being 2/100th of a second late on the ball...and if you did it would be compensated by many other factors.

I agree with most of what you are saying but you will find a great deal of Federer myopia and anger at anyone who puts any perspective on Federer that is outside the party line. In many ways Fed is better his backhand in my mind is better especially in terms of being able to come over and hit with topspin a kicking serve. He also in my mind is more tactically astute and varied. And if is serve isn't better it isn't much weaker. And lets remember Fed was faster than 98 percent of the tour in his peak, but he never relied on his speed that much. It was a weapon in his game. But you don't all of sudden go from being blazing fast to slow over the course of few years. Especially without serious injury issues. Fed is still faster than 85 percent to 90 percent of the tour. He still gets to balls that players at 23 would dream of getting to. Tennis isn't sprinting, speed is a big weapon but you don't need world class sprinter speed.

[socal1976]

I will say this, I don't think he is better now than he was at 26, I think he is a notch below his level of the mid-2000s but his degradation and the level and pace of degradation has been overstated dramatically for years. Apparently, every post- 07 defeat can now be chalked up to Mono and then Federer is over the hill. As opposed to looking at the actual improvement in others to explain Fed's drop in form. Mainly Nadal and then Djokovic lifting their form, especially in Nadal's case on the faster surfaces.

[Haddie-nuff]

Socal

It isnt all about speed I think a blind man would notice that Federer is up there with the best.. but stamina come on no !!.. and thats bleeding obvious !!!!

[socal1976]

Socal

It isnt all about speed I think a blind man would notice that Federer is up there with the best.. but stamina come on no !!.. and thats bleeding obvious !!!!

What stamina issues, how many matches have you seen Federer be physically bothered or lose as a result of loss of stamina? I don't believe in anyway how some have made it that Federer lost to Djokovic because he got tired. It was a two hour match with very few lengthy rallies and a lot of free points on serve. Novak was playing a blinder and Roger was fortunate to even win the second set and was get dominated early on. But already we are hearing all this nonsense about how tired and winded he gets. The guy is as fit and as fast as a whistle, maybe at a lower level than a few years ago but I have rarely if ever seen Fed's fitness lose him a match.

[Haddie-nuff]

Socal

It isnt all about speed I think a blind man would notice that Federer is up there with the best.. but stamina come on no !!.. and thats bleeding obvious !!!!

What stamina issues, how many matches have you seen Federer be physically bothered or lose as a result of loss of stamina? I don't believe in anyway how some have made it that Federer lost to Djokovic because he got tired. It was a two hour match with very few lengthy rallies and a lot of free points on serve. Novak was playing a blinder and Roger was fortunate to even win the second set and was get dominated early on. But already we are hearing all this nonsense about how tired and winded he gets. The guy is as fit and as fast as a whistle, maybe at a lower level than a few years ago but I have rarely if ever seen Fed's fitness lose him a match.

I dont think even BB would agree with you there, if you look at some of his comments on yesterday's match. But jury is well and truly out on that one for me ..lets see how right you are when it gets to tight matches in a GS. Your boy will outlast him for sure

[bogbrush]

Federer didn't lose because he was tired, but he obviously faded physically.

And you're out of order to falsely characterise and misrepresent posters attitudes, as you did in your 6.27 post. That's just a road to a blazing argument.

[TheMessi]

So Messi, Fed has improved but what about Novak? Poor Novak, he could trash a 26 yo Fed but  couldn't trash a 34 yo Fed.  Life seems to be tougher for Novak, now that he's in his prime.

It takes 2 to tango. Djokovic needs other players to improve, at tennis you cannot improve too much on your own. you need someone on the other side of the net.

I noticed you did not put any  counter argument about the "obvious" slowing pace of Federer when I kind proved to you that you would struggle to see with a naked eye a player being 2/100th of a second late on the ball...and if you did it would be compensated by many other factors.

I agree with most of what you are saying but you will find a great deal of Federer myopia and anger at anyone who puts any perspective on Federer that is outside the party line. In many ways Fed is better his backhand in my mind is better especially in terms of being able to come over and hit with topspin a kicking serve. He also in my mind is more tactically astute and varied. And if is serve isn't better it isn't much weaker. And lets remember Fed was faster than 98 percent of the tour in his peak, but he never relied on his speed that much. It was a weapon in his game. But you don't all of sudden go from being blazing fast to slow over the course of few years. Especially without serious injury issues. Fed is still faster than 85 percent to 90 percent of the tour. He still gets to balls that players at 23 would dream of getting to. Tennis isn't sprinting, speed is a big weapon but you don't need world class sprinter speed.

Yep, Socal. Fans just want to hear their player is "best"....the details they don't care. they pick and choose what suits them.

[Haddie-nuff]

Are you talking to me what 6.27 post.. falsely characterising whom

[Belovedluckyboy]

Messi, if according to you, Fed has improved and he has not slowed down as he aged, how come he still shank or mishit his shots more often now? Slow down may mean slower in his reflexes, not exactly pure speed. Fed could still sprint around the court relatively quickly compared to most guys, but his timing of his shots may be a bit off that he shank his shots more these days.

So according to you Djokovic has improved but by not as much as Fed, so that now he couldn't trash Fed but could trash the Fed of 2007??

BTW, I agree with SoCal, that Fed is now a notch below his level of mid 2000, and so he lost 12 out of 19 times when he played against Novak from 2011, where in the past he won 13 out of 19 times they played.

[socal1976]

Are you talking to me what 6.27 post.. falsely characterising whom

I am not aware of directing any arguments at you Haddie, so I don't know why you would think so.

[Haddie-nuff]

Not your style socal
BB?????

[Haddie-nuff]

Federer didn't lose because he was tired, but he obviously faded physically.

And you're out of order to falsely characterise and misrepresent posters attitudes, as you did in your 6.27 post. That's just a road to a blazing argument.

What is this ????

[bogbrush]

I meant socal saying "every post 2007........" 6.27 is the post time, and only he made one stamped so.

That's not what I say, or others.

[Haddie-nuff]

OK I thought you were speaking to me

[temporary21]

Ok Im gonna give my two cents on the new Federer, then ill make a Miami thread, since the draw is out.

33/34 year old Federer is definitely not as good at 26 year old federer, no doubt about that. What hes done though is carved himself a little niche of a gameplan. Hes sacrificed the power hitting and long rallies of old, as he is definitely slower now, for a more rushdown type of game.

This new Federers game is quite effective for two reasons. 1, hes pretty good at it, I can say with comfort now hes the best volleyer on tour, which he wasnt 3 years ago.

2 his style is very awkward now, noone else really plays quite like him anymore, no other game around puts that much pressure on you all the time. The result is its catching people out.

At some point people are gonna suss it out a bit, and then Federer may well decline a bit more, but for now its a good little niche he found for himself.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Actually a net rushing Llodra also put lots of pressure on his opponent especially on a quick court. I remember Paris Masters in 2010, where Llodra beat Davy, Novak before reaching the SF. Llodra played beautifully during that tournament, consistently playing well and his opponents felt so rushed as they literally had half a court to work with, when Llodra was always at the net guarding it with his wide wingspan.

Stepanek too, when he's playing well, could give his opponents problems too, just like at Dubai last year vs Fed, and at IW last year vs Rafa.

[temporary21]

Yeah but thats 2 guys, one has retired and the other has dropped right off the radar. Also and I mean no disrespect to them, theyre not as good at it as Federer is, Feds rushdown is much improved over theirs.

[Haddie-nuff]

His FH is now not as good as his BH imo (which has previously been so exploited)
Novak discovered that yesterday by serving to his FH Fed made more errors.and not allowing him to chip the   bh return
only my  amateur observations you understand

[HM Murdock]

I think Messi's theory is probably right.

For instance, Rod Laver is playing better than ever, but Federer has raised his own game even further. It makes Rod look like he has lost a step.

[Sponsored content]