Australian Open 2014 - Stan Wawrinka beats Rafa in the final

[Sachin=GOD]

Wawrinka :cheer:

[Cricketics]

Wawrinka has done it. Finally. This guy deserves this. So many semis and finals and now he finaly beat djoker after losing to him in epic last year

[Sachin=GOD]

Awesome!!!!!

[adi B]

stan deserved it,he has been fantastic.the guy knocked out an ATG AO player :adore: so novak,who was supposed to have an easy draw is knocked out while nadal who had a difficult draw now has the easiest path to the semis lol. feel sad for delpo,though all geared up for the clash b/w fed and murray!!

[zep1706]

Stan the man!! Third time lucky for him. Clutch performance under pressure in the fifth set. Novak will be back, perhaps stronger. He is an absolute champion.

[bones]

Novak looks a beaten man, mentally he's gone. But only one thing can re-ignite him, he must win the French Open and he must beat Nadal en-route. But unless miracles happen and Djokovic can re-dicsover that form from 2011, and more importantly the self belief, he's gone. I don't like to say it, but this result has killed the tournament, seriously other than Novak who had the game to take Nadal down? None. All of these guys give up vs Nadal. Anyways congrats to the Nadal fans on the 14th slam, I will exit now and hope to catch you guys again when Indian Wells starts.

[zep1706]

I don't like to say it, but this result has killed the tournament, seriously other than Novak who had the game to take Nadal down? None. All of these guys give up vs Nadal. Anyways congrats to the Nadal fans on the 14th slam, I will exit now and hope to catch you guys again when Indian Wells starts.

Mr. "true tennis lover". :cantstop:

[Muloghonto]

Nadal looks like the overwhelming favourite now but i wouldn't rule out an upset by Federer or Murray versus Nadal. Nadal's already whining about the 'faster conditions' this year at the AO. We know what that means.

[Sooda]

For the sake of a decent tennis tourno we need Murray to beat Fed then Rafa, Murray vs Stan final could be a close match. Rafa will smash Fed in a semi and then Stan if they meet in the final If Stan is fully fit after today he should beat Berdy

[zep1706]

Nadal looks like the overwhelming favourite now but i wouldn't rule out an upset by Federer or Murray versus Nadal. Nadal's already whining about the 'faster conditions' this year at the AO. We know what that means.

That means nothing, he is good enough to win on any surface against anybody. He was asked a question and he gave his opinion. I'd rather somebody speaks his mind than be diplomatic all the time. Federer has also "whined" many times about conditions not being fast enough. Everybody has their preferences.

[Raghav_12]

For the sake of a decent tennis tourno we need Murray to beat Fed then Rafa, Murray vs Stan final could be a close match. Rafa will smash Fed in a semi and then Stan if they meet in the final If Stan is fully fit after today he should beat Berdy

Yes, I am sure all Rafa fans would love Federer to beat Murray. Murray is more likely to pose challenge to Rafa then Federer would. Federer and Stan both would have their single handed backhands targeted by Rafa's top spin. It's extremely difficult to control that heavy top-spin rising to your shoulder height with single handed back-hands.

[Muloghonto]

That means nothing' date=' he is good enough to win on any surface against anybody. He was asked a question and he gave his opinion. I'd rather somebody speaks his mind than be diplomatic all the time. Federer has also "whined" many times about conditions not being fast enough. Everybody has their preferences.[/quote'] Federer would've won atleast 1-2 more French Opens in any era, except maybe the late 70s when Bjorg was at his peak. Nadal, i garantee you, wouldn't have won wimbledon in the 90s, when the old surface was much faster, he wouldn't have won more than 2 Australian+US open combined in any other era too. This is the era of the slow tennis courts and slightly bigger (but not heavier) balls, which means it suits the slow players. Its no coincidence that clay-court specialists like Ferrer is a consistent QF/SF guy at hard court slams. Which is because the ATP took an active & well publicised initiative to slow down the game, so it has more rallies and entertains more. It has succeeded at this but its also made a great clay-courter and average hard court player like Nadal seem like an ATG.

[Muloghonto]

For the sake of a decent tennis tourno we need Murray to beat Fed then Rafa, Murray vs Stan final could be a close match. Rafa will smash Fed in a semi and then Stan if they meet in the final If Stan is fully fit after today he should beat Berdy

You never know with Berdych. He is all balls, all the time. The only guy in the tour who is looking to hit a winner off of everything, everytime, except his 2nd serve. If its his day, he can beat anyone. Outside the top 5, Berdy is the likeliest one to win a slam IMO.

[zep1706]

Federer would've won atleast 1-2 more French Opens in any era, except maybe the late 70s when Bjorg was at his peak. Nadal, i garantee you, wouldn't have won wimbledon in the 90s, when the old surface was much faster, he wouldn't have won more than 2 Australian+US open combined in any other era too.

Nadal is a product of this era, it's not the other way round. There are very few players, if any in the tennis history who have a heart stronger than Nadal and more will and desire to improve and get better. If he was playing in the 1990s he would have shaped his game in a way that would enable him to win then. If you see videos of his early years he used to hit his shots a lot flatter. The argument that he wouldn't be successful in the 1990s is highly hyperbolic and can at best be termed as bullshit. Secondly I love how Fed fanatics talk about surface homogenization as if he played in some different era. Federer also benefited from it as much as anyone. He is also a predominantly baseliner, at least that's what he become from 2003-04 after his initial failure as a serve and volleyer. The process of surface homogenization began even before Federer had won his first slam. (Wimbledon 2001, US open 2003, Australian Open has always been played on a slow rebound ace, they slowed it further from 2008 with plexicushion but rebound ace was only slightly faster)

[Muloghonto]

Nadal is a product of this era, it's not the other way round. There are very few players, if any in tennis history who have a heart stronger than Nadal and more will and desire to improve and get better. If he was born in the 1990s he would have shaped his game in a way that would enable him to win then. If you see videos of his early years he used to his his shots a lot flatter. The argument that he wouldn't be successful in the 1990s is highly hyperbolic and can at best be termed as bullshit. Secondly I love how Fed fanatics talk about surface homogenization as if he played in some different era. Federer also benefited from it as much as anyone. He is also a predominantly baseliner, at least that's what he become from 2003-04 after his initial failure as a serve and volleyer. The process of surface homogenization began even before Federer had won his first slam. (Wimbledon 2001, US open 2003, Australian Open has always been played on a slow rebound ace)

Nadal does not have a serve anywhere close to whats necessary to've succeeded in the 90s. This is not about tailormaking your game for the era, there is a good reason why some players succeed at hard courts, some at grass only and some at clay only. Not because they chose it but because their games are suited for it. Nadal also does not have a forehand big enough to slap average service returns for straightaway winners. And he is a very mediocre volleyer. Without those three attributes, you dont win very often on the faster courts. Those of us who are old enough remember Michael Chang. Nadal is the modern Michael Chang but not even Chang (who was the most agile player in tennis history Ive seen ) was good enough to win by counterpunching in the era of fast courts. Federer didnt benefit as much from the surface homogenization because Federer is a prime serve and volley expert. That he is the best and most complete player ever has let him stay competetive in the era of slow courts, with the rest closing the gap between them and Federer. Wimbledon did not re-lay the surface till 2006 or 2007 and US open didnt re-do their surface till 2006 or so. If the surfaces had stayed the same, we'd still see the primier serve and volleyer in the game win the most slams on grass and hard courts. We'd not have seen the best claycourt player ever have as many slams on the faster grass and hard court as Becker or Edberg! PS: 'initial failure' as a serve and volleyer ? Federer defeated Pete Sampras in wimbledon by exclusively serve and volleying. He is rated as one of the top 5 serve and volleyers ever, even Becker rated Federer as a better serve and volleyer than himself. Anyone who understands anything about tennis would tell you that there are barely 2-3 players who'd beat a 40 year old Sampras on grass today and Nadal is definitely not one of them!

[zep1706]

Nadal does not have a serve anywhere close to whats necessary to've succeeded in the 90s. This is not about tailormaking your game for the era, there is a good reason why some players succeed at hard courts, some at grass only and some at clay only. Not because they chose it but because their games are suited for it. Nadal also does not have a forehand big enough to slap average service returns for straightaway winners. And he is a very mediocre volleyer. Without those three attributes, you dont win very often on the faster courts. Those of us who are old enough remember Michael Chang. Nadal is the modern Michael Chang but not even Chang (who was the most agile player in tennis history Ive seen ) was good enough to win by counterpunching in the era of fast courts.

That's your opinion. Nadal has improved every aspect of his game and he is a complete player now. Check his serve stats before commenting. Ignorance is bliss. His avergae first serve speed was 115 mph in the last match. That's better than what Agassi had who was reasonable successful in the 1990s. Nadal is modern Michael Chang? Yeah now we know your unbiased objectivity. :hysterical: :hysterical:

Federer didnt benefit as much from the surface homogenization because Federer is a prime serve and volley expert.

Except that he has hardly served and volleyed in the last 10 years.

Wimbledon did not re-lay the surface till 2006 or 2007 and US open didnt re-do their surface till 2006 or so.

Now I know that you don't have much knowledge on this issue. You can google it yourself but let me know if you need any source.

PS: 'initial failure' as a serve and volleyer ? Federer defeated Pete Sampras in wimbledon by exclusively serve and volleying. He is rated as one of the top 5 serve and volleyers ever, even Becker rated Federer as a better serve and volleyer than himself.

And then he got beaten by Henman in the next round who always used to lose against Sampras at Wimbledon. A nobody like George Bastl beat Sampras the next year. What's the point again? The fact is when he serve and volleyed he hardly won anything. McEnroe rates Nadal as the best vollyer right now? Do you agree with him? I don't. Similarly I don't agree with Becker either.

[Muloghonto]

That's your opinion. Nadal has improved every aspect of his game and he is a complete player now. Check his serve stats before commenting. Ignorance is bliss. His avergae first serve speed was 115 mph in the last match. That's better than what Agassi had who was reasonable successful in the 1990s. Nadal is modern Michael Chang? Yeah now we know your unbiased objectivity. :hysterical: :hysterical:

Agassi was not the dominant player of the 90s. Agassi also had the distinction of being the best service returner in history till Nole and Ferrer came around. This is pretty much the only reason Agassi was the only baseliner making it deep in the grand slams in the 90s. Except for a season & half of 'flash in the pan', courier was the only baseliner in the 90s who amounted to anything outside of clay. Nadal does not have a great service return. A 110-115mph serve is at best, barely competetive in the 90s era. Nadal is the modern day Chang- he is better because he puts far more revs on the ball, but they are essentially the same players: players who grind you down by playing excellent defence and putting the ball back than outright winners. Like Chang, Nadal hardly ever has more winners than his opponents. Like Chang, Nadal hardly ever has more errors than his opponents. Like Chang, he is the most agile guy on court in his era. By the way, i realize that Nadal has improved his hard court game. Which is why i said that he'd win 2-3 hard court slams in the 90s at best and not a single one on grass. But the way Nadal played circa 2009 or 2010, he'd not have won a hard court slam if it were 10+ years prior.

Except that he has hardly served and volleyed in the last 10 years.

Because the surfaces got slower, making serve & volley far more risky. If Agassi and Sampras played in this era, we'd see Sampras with 8-9 slams and Agassi with 10-12. Why would Federer continue to serve and volley on the slower surfaces, when his baseline game is amongst the best ever ?

Now I know that you don't have much knowledge on this issue. You can google it yourself but let me know if you need any source.

Wimbledon didnt slow down till 2006 or so. You also failed to take into consideration the bigger balls of the same weight, making it a whole lot slower!

And then he got beaten by Henman who always used to lose against Sampras at Wimbledon in the next round. George Bastl beat Sampras the next year. What's the point? The fact is when he serve and volleyed he hardly won anything.

He hardly won anything early on because he was carefree (in his own words) and not until his coach died did he actually take tennis seriously enough to win. Federer early on was inconsistent. But still a primier serve and volleyer. No different than Goran Ivanisevic in this case, who was always inconsistent but one of the top 5 serve & volleyers in the game in his era. I dont think it is disputable that Federer's game suits the faster era far more than Nadal. he has a flatter forehand, a significantly stronger serve at his prime and about 10x better the volleyer. If you think you could win on hard courts & wimbledon in the 90s or earlier by serving at 115mph, average service return, zero serve & volley ability and a forehand that is tailormade for clay, you clearly didnt see tennis of that era. PS: McEnroe has always shot off his mouth to stir the pot, people like Becker are far more reserved. There are many a former player who've rated Federer as one of the best serve & volleyers ever. Given how bloody good Becker was, if Becker can even think of comparing himself to Federer on serve & volley, that puts Federer in the top 5-7 serve and volleyers, automatically. The only S&V players in becker's ballpark are Sampras, Edberg & McEnroe!

[zep1706]

Agassi was not the dominant player of the 90s. Agassi also had the distinction of being the best service returner in history till Nole and Ferrer came around. This is pretty much the only reason Agassi was the only baseliner making it deep in the grand slams in the 90s. Except for a season & half of 'flash in the pan', courier was the only baseliner in the 90s who amounted to anything outside of clay. A 110-115mph serve is at best, barely competetive in the 90s era.

Again half baked biased opinion. Nadal's top speed hovers around 125 mph and average around 115 mph. That's as good as Federer. Give me stats or your personal opinion has no value. Show me a match where Federer has much higher speed. http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1401ms.html

Nadal does not have a great service return.

Half baked knowledge. Nadal has the best return of serve stats on tour last year. Your claims are laughable. He is definitely no Djokovic or Agassi but but he is just a level below them just like everyone else including Federer. 2013 return of service stats --

Wimbledon didnt slow down till 2006 or so. You also failed to take into consideration the bigger balls of the same weight, making it a whole lot slower!

You should do some research before making outrageous claims. Let me help you with it. Wimbledon-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm US open ---- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-speed-bumps-on-a-hardcourt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Now if you have anything different to say back that up with valid source and no blog links or personal opinions please.

He hardly won anything early on because he was carefree (in his own words) and not until his coach died did he actually take tennis seriously enough to win. Federer early on was inconsistent. But still a primier serve and volleyer. No different than Goran Ivanisevic in this case, who was always inconsistent but one of the top 5 serve & volleyers in the game in his era. I dont think it is disputable that Federer's game suits the faster era far more than Nadal. he has a flatter forehand, a significantly stronger serve at his prime and about 10x better the volleyer. If you think you could win on hard courts & wimbledon in the 90s or earlier by serving at 115mph, average service return, zero serve & volley ability and a forehand that is tailormade for clay, you clearly didnt see tennis of that era.

Again you only have excuses and nothing else to show for it. My point still stands. A guy who hasn't played serve and volley for majority of his career for whatever reason can never be top 5.

[Muloghonto]

Again half baked biased opinion. Nadal's top speed hovers around 125 mph and average around 115 mph. That's as good as Federer. Give me stats or your personal opinion has no value. Show me a match where Federer has much higher speed. http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1401ms.html

Google is your friend. Use it. Between 2003 and 2009, Federer's average serve was in the 120-121mph range. Yes, a 32 year old Federer's serve is comparable to a 27 year old Nadal's. A 27 year old Federer's wasn't.

Half baked knowledge. Nadal has the best return of serve stats on tour last year. Your claims are laughable. He is definitely no Djokovic or Agassi but but he is just a level below them just like everyone else including Federer.

Half baked knowledge is that of a stats-only person like you. Because stats don't tell you whether the service returned was just lobbed back into court, smashed back for a winner or a stinging service winner. Nadal's service return is not good enough to make him competetive in the 90s era. As you said, he is no Agassi. And only reason Agassi remained competetive in the 90s is because of his stunning service return. Without a monster serve or a great serve & volley game or a crazy service return like Agassi/Nole, you ain't doing much on the grass or hard courts of the 90s! Points won returning first serve is irrelevant to the idea of who is a better service returner for a fast surface. For a fast surface, you need to hit service return winners. because a mid-court average return will be smashed back by the server and go in the 'points lost returning first serve' column. Same return on slower surfaces will result in a longer rally, resulting in a higher chance of the point being eventually won. Nadal's service return is a claycourter's return. he wont win points off of them like Nole or Federer or Ferrer do, with outright service return winners.

You should do some research before making outrageous claims. Let me help you with it. Wimbledon-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm US open ---- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-speed-bumps-on-a-hardcourt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Now if you have anything different to say back that up with valid source and no blog links or personal opinions please.

The fact that US open played a bit slower than the years past in 2011 does not invalidate the fact that it has been playing a whole lot slower since the early 2000s.

Again you only have excuses and nothing else to show for it. My point still stands. A guy who hasn't played serve and volley for majority of his career for whatever reason can never be top 5.

A guy who has the best serve and volley game in the business today and has earned comparisons from top 5 serve and volleyers themselves is good enough to be considered a top serve and volleyer. Your position makes no sense because you lack actual understanding of the sport. When you are left without stats, you are clueless. Which is why you cannot answer my question: Why should Federer play serve & volley in an era of slow courts, when his baseline game is good enough to be #1 ? It doesnt matter how good your serve & volley is- not even Becker or Edberg were foolish enough to serve & volley exclusively at the French Open. So why would Federer on surfaces that are closer to clay in terms of speed than grass of the 90s ? That Federer played serve & volley till 2002 and even now, he plays Seve & Volley occasionally (last match vs Tsonga he served & volleyed almost as much as a S&V guy from the 90s) and still consistently has more net points than any other player except Raonic & Cilic show that he is a far more competent serve & volleyer than Nadal.

[zep1706]

@Muloghonto I went through your post the bottom line is that whatever you said is your personal opinion. Whenever I made a claim I backed that up with stats. You failed to do so. I don't have time to argue with you over your personal opinion. I simply don't care about your opinion.

The fact that US open played a bit slower than the years past in 2011 does not invalidate the fact that it has been playing a whole lot slower since the early 2000s.

You didn't read the article. It says that it was slowed down in 2003. And no Federer's average first serve speed was never over 120 mph. At best it was about 116-117 even when he was at his peak. Speed wise there is not much difference between him and Nadal. Federer has a better serve because he places it better. Also FYI when you make a claim and someone disagrees it is customary that you provide a source. "Google is your friend" is not enough. Come back at me when you have the proof to back it up. I will be more than ready to correct myself. Till then so long!