Australian Open 2014 - Stan Wawrinka beats Rafa in the final

[Muloghonto]

I have never said Federer won when noone else was around. I said if Nadal was around in his prime he would have had to share a lot of those slams from 2004-07. It's not Federer's fault that his peak was a weak era. Similarly Nadal doesn't control court speed. It is what it is. It's pointless to discuss what he would have done in the 90s. Players are a product of their era. They adjust the game to win in that era, the way Federer went on to become a baseliner from a serve and volleyer. Nadal's shots were a lot flatter when he first came on tour. He changed his game to gain more advantage. It doesn't matter what he would have done in the 90s. He is an all court great in this era and in the history. That's a fact, the rest is speculation. 1CvCxCnOC7Q

Federer came with the baseline game to be an ATG from the baseline. He has the Serve and Volley game to be an ATG serving and volleying in the faster court eras. Nadal does not have a competent serve & volley game to've won wimbledon or the US open in the 90s. Nadal's shots were not flatter when he came on to the tour, they were at their flattest before his first major knee injury in 2009 or so.

Lefties have an advantage in saving break points to the ad court because of the wide serve. There is no other advantage.

That is one advantage. The other is, when they gain a break point, they are on the ad-court, meaning the wide serve is to their forehand, not backhand. This allows them to cheat more to their backhand side (since ground is easier to cover on the forehand side) and the fact that the 'serve out wide' on the ad-court from a rightie is not 'going with the arm', so it has to be sliced (or indicated before serve by a far more closed stance).This is actually a bigger advantage than being able to serve out wide, since you are supposed to win more than 50% of the points on your serve anyways. This is pretty much the reason there is a huge gulf of difference between breakpoint conversion rates for Nadal and Federer/Djokovic/Murray.

[I6MTW]

Tomas Berdych has the best chance to go all the way. He seemed to be the best in form and the most impressive.

[Muloghonto]

Tomas Berdych has the best chance to go all the way. He seemed to be the best in form and the most impressive.

You never know with Birdy. He can go all the way or he can spontaneously combust. He is by far the most aggressive player on tour, he pretty much tries to hit a winner every single ball, except for his second serve. This super-high-risk-high-reward style has enabled him to beat any player on a given day- including Federer, Djokovic,Nadal and Murray but this sort of style is hard to maintain over 5 sets for 7 rounds you need to win a GS.

[I6MTW]

You never know with Birdy. He can go all the way or he can spontaneously combust. He is by far the most aggressive player on tour, he pretty much tries to hit a winner every single ball, except for his second serve. This super-high-risk-high-reward style has enabled him to beat any player on a given day- including Federer, Djokovic,Nadal and Murray but this sort of style is hard to maintain over 5 sets for 7 rounds you need to win a GS.

But I feel he might get lucky and continue his form.

[zep1706]

Federer came with the baseline game to be an ATG from the baseline. He has the Serve and Volley game to be an ATG serving and volleying in the faster court eras. Nadal does not have a competent serve & volley game to've won wimbledon or the US open in the 90s. Nadal's shots were not flatter when he came on to the tour, they were at their flattest before his first major knee injury in 2009 or so.

That's your opinion and I don't agree with you. We have gone over this before so I don't want to repeat it again. But just as a last post, for me a player who is successful in one era is good enough for all era, not just in tennis but in all sports. Eras define style of play, not the other way round. It's ridiculous to think that a Djokovic or a Nadal would have started learning tennis the same if they were born 10 years before. You cannot argue over speculation.

That is one advantage. The other is, when they gain a break point, they are on the ad-court, meaning the wide serve is to their forehand, not backhand. This allows them to cheat more to their backhand side (since ground is easier to cover on the forehand side) and the fact that the 'serve out wide' on the ad-court from a rightie is not 'going with the arm', so it has to be sliced (or indicated before serve by a far more closed stance).This is actually a bigger advantage than being able to serve out wide, since you are supposed to win more than 50% of the points on your serve anyways. This is pretty much the reason there is a huge gulf of difference between breakpoint conversion rates for Nadal and Federer/Djokovic/Murray.

Agreed but following similar logic right handed players have an advantage of creating more break point chances against lefties or while serving it is easier to get a game point. At 30-30 or 40-40 it is the same effect in reverse.

[Raghav_12]

26-27 is over the hill by tennis standards, where historically most ATG form comes between the age of 21 and 25. Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams by the age of 26. Becker won 5 of his six slams by the age of 24. Borg retired at the age of 24 or 25 with 11 slams John McEnroe won all 8 of his slams by the age of 25 Courier never won a slam after the age of 24. You kids simply havnt been watching tennis for long enough to compare or contrast between the eras. Which is why you guys are 'stats men'- a persuit of those too inexperienced or too ignorant to form an actual opinion from observation.

Lol.. Becker won first grand slam at the age of 17 and Federer won after turning 22. Still you comparing their examples to show how they would have peaked around the same age. All great players start winning grand slams pretty early. Becker won at the age of 17, Sampras 19, McEnoroe at 19 or 20. Borg at 18, Nadal at 18. Edberg at 19. Agassi too reached Grand Slam finals multiple times as a teenager. This comparison itself shows that Federer hasn't been a real prodigy as all other great of recent times. This also shows that Federer started winning anything of significance only when great of earlier era either retired like Sampras or went into decline like Agassi or Rafter. Your suggestion that Federer was over the hill by 26 is nothing but laughable considering the fact he really started winning anything only after turning 22. But I admit in those 3-4 years, he feasted enough at the expense of Davydenko's, Safin's, Roddiks etc with great regularity.

[Muloghonto]

That's your opinion and I don't agree with you. We have gone over this before so I don't want to repeat it again. But just as a last post, for me a player who is successful in one era is good enough for all era, not just in tennis but in all sports. Eras define style of play, not the other way round. It's ridiculous to think that a Djokovic or a Nadal would have started learning tennis the same if they were born 10 years before. You cannot argue over speculation.

This is competetive sports, which means when you shift era, you have to account for playing against players of that era as well as the conditions. Its ridiculous to think that Hayden, who averaged 50+ in an era when first innings scores were routinely 450+ against bowlers like Anderson and Ishant will 'adapt' and do the same in an era where 275 was the average first innings score against Marshall and Holding. Similarly, when you take players out of the era in tennis, you gotto factor the conditions and the opposition. In the 80s and 90s the surfaces were a lot faster. There were a lot more big servers who routinely won service games with 2 stroke rallies. Against Sampras it used to be 'serve- ace, serve-service winner, serve-ace, serve-weak return-bam, put away, game sampras'. Federer has all the tools to thrive in the faster era, Nadal does not.

Agreed but following similar logic right handed players have an advantage of creating more break point chances against lefties or while serving it is easier to get a game point. At 30-30 or 40-40 it is the same effect in reverse.

Creating break point chances are nowhere as important as finishing break point chances. You can create a dozen break point chances with the rightie deuce-side of court but it does no good when the leftie just hammers a wide serve (he is serving with the arm, so it can be as flat as it gets) on to your backhand to seal the deal. While the leftie just needs 2-3 break point opportunities to hammer a wide serve from the rightie back to his backhand side. The ad side of the court is where the games are won or lost and this is the side that favours the leftie, which is why it is commonly accepted that lefties get a slight favour from the rules.

[Raghav_12]

For the first 3-4 years, Nadal mostly beat Federer at clay. Remember, Nadal is the best claycourter ever and clay is Roger's statistically worst surface. Their head2head is 22-10 in Nadal's favour but most of that 'dominance' is due to clay, where Nadal holds a 13-2 lead. Take away clay and its 9-8 in Nadal's favor. One big reason the stats are so lopsided is because Federer was unbeaten on grass for like a 6 year period (where he won every single grass tournament he entered- Halle, Queens Park, Wimbledon, Gerry Webber,etc) and Nadal wasnt good enough to face Fed. Its only in Wimbledon, the slowest grass court (due to the grass transplant) where Nadal has managed to go deep enough to face Federer at his peak. If Nadal was the same age as Fed, it would've been a lot closer record because Nadal was nowhere good enough a hard court/grass player till 2009 or so, so Federer would've chewed him up on all but clay. He also wouldn't have had nearly as many slams because if Nadal was 5-6 years older, he'd have to face hall of famer claycourters like Guga Kuerten, Tomas Muster or Albert Costa. Those guys would've ensured that Nadal, despite being the best claycourter ever, would've lost atleast 2-3 more French Opens.

seriously I love your posts for the comedy you provide. Nadal Reached Wimbledon final in 2006, stretched Federer to 5 sets in 2007, defeated Federer in 2008. But he was not a good grass-court player until 2009. :hysterical::hysterical: This year on 1st April, I am going to like all of your posts.

[Raghav_12]

19 year old clay courter Nadal beating all court specialist Federer in his best year (2006) on a fast hard court. h3BgTGHBZzk 17 year old clay courter Nadal beating Federer on a hard court in 2004. He was streamrolling everyone else. NEJJpfcxHAM 18 year old clay courter taking Federer to 5 sets on a hard court. 2Jur1hp7Xng

:two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[zep1706]

seriously I love your posts for the comedy you provide. Nadal Reached Wimbledon final in 2006, stretched Federer to 5 sets in 2007, defeated Federer in 2008. But he was not a good grass-court player until 2009. :hysterical::hysterical: This year on 1st April, I am going to like all of your posts.

Clay courter Nadal reached Wimbledon final before (at age 20 and then again at 21) than all court player Federer did( at 22).

[Raghav_12]

Clay courter Nadal reached Wimbledon final before (at age 20 and then again at 21) than all court player Federer did( at 22).

haha.. nice catch.. wait they'll come up with some lahori-logic..

[zep1706]

haha.. nice catch.. wait they'll come up with some lahori-logic..

Imagine Nadal playing Mark Philippoussis in the final instead of Federer. Would have won Wimbledon at 20. :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

Lol.. Becker won first grand slam at the age of 17 and Federer won after turning 22. Still you comparing their examples to show how they would have peaked around the same time. All great players start winning grand slams pretty early. Becker won at the age of 17, Sampras 19, McEnoroe at 19 or 20. Borg at 18, Nadal at 18. Edberg at 19. Agassi too reached Grand Slam finals multiple times as a teenager. This comparison itself shows that Federer hasn't been a real prodigy as all other great of recent times. This also shows that Federer started winning anything of significance only when great of earlier era either retired like Sampras or went into decline like Agassi or Rafter. Your suggestion that Federer was over the hill by 26 is nothing but laughable considering the fact he really started winning anything only after turning 22. But I admit in those 3-4 years, he feasted enough at the expense of Davydenko's, Safin's, Roddiks etc with great regularity.

Federer was a slow starter but peaked right away after winnig his first slam. Next year he won 2, the year after he won 3. Becker won 2 slams in his first two years but didn't really peak till 89-90 when he finally challenged Lendl for #1 ranking. I didn't say Federer was over the hill by 26, again don't misquote me just to try and win an argument. I said that tennis players in general peak by 26. Federer & Agassi are the exception to the case (but then again, Agassi had a year off to keep the mileage on his body lower) and it remains to be seen what Murray, Djokovic or Nadal do after 26/27. Federer did win wimbledon when Sampras was still active, albeit, in his last year. But it is to be expected, that is how tennis has always gone. Lendl, Wilander, Edberg,Becker didnt win much either before McEnroe,Borg and Connors peaked or retired.Sampras, Agassi didn't win much either before Edberg, Lendl, Becker peaked or retired. There are very few greats who overlap eras, they tend to work in bunches. Becker was the only one who sort of bridged the gap between Lendl/Wilander era and the Sampras/Agassi era and that too because he won very young. In any other era, Safin & Roddick would've won more, Safin's hardcourt game was easily as good as Djokovic's though not as consistent. FYI it was Federer who ended Hewitt's dominance, who for a period dominated the heck out of Sampras, Agassi. Its a fallacious argument to say that 'so-n-so won so many slams because others were not good enough to win'. Because it does not say anything about the quality of those players, by that argument, everytime somoene wins 2-3 slams a year, it must be because of a poor field, not because they did amazingly well those years. Federer was a little late to win his first slam but then again, he did not take tennis very seriously till his coach died. He himself said so. The same was seen in Sampras, who fluked a wimbledon win vs Agassi ( easily the worst GS final Agassi ever played), didnt do squat for 2 years and then all sorts of controversy arose for him being a #1 without winning a GS for a couple of years. He too said that it was the loss to Edberg in the US open finals that lead him to focus on his career and 'figure out' what it takes to be #1. The rest is history. In anycase, Federer too won 13 of his 17 slams by the age of 27. My point was, 27+ is considered over the hill and not at your peak anymore in tennis. This is true for virtually all the players I've seen- Agassi is the only exception.

[bones]

Can someone tell me, how it's possible for someone who wasn't winning everything before an injury comes back after a 8month lay off and then win everything in sight? I mean let's look at Murray, the guy had a back injury not a serious one and was back on court within a few weeks. Yet he is nowhere near optimum form. But Nadal is out for 8 months and then comes back to win everything? Drug abuse on an unprecedented scale.

[zep1706]

Can someone tell me' date=' how it's possible for someone who wasn't winning everything before an injury comes back after a 8month lay off and then win everything in sight? I mean let's look at Murray, the guy had a back injury not a serious one and was back on court within a few weeks. Yet he is nowhere near optimum form. But Nadal is out for 8 months and then comes back to win everything? Drug abuse on an unprecedented scale.[/quote'] Yeah when everything else doesn't work, let's talk about drugs. :hysterical: Did you miss the fact that he worked his way up on clay playing small tournaments. Was defeated by Zeballos of all people on clay?

[Muloghonto]

seriously I love your posts for the comedy you provide. Nadal Reached Wimbledon final in 2006, stretched Federer to 5 sets in 2007, defeated Federer in 2008. But he was not a good grass-court player until 2009. :hysterical::hysterical: This year on 1st April, I am going to like all of your posts.

Did you watch those matches or are you too young to remember ? Nadal is a much better hard court/grass court player now than he was in those years.He only got there because the courts are slow. If you transported Nadal back to the 90s. the Nadal of 2007/2008 would win ZILCH outside of clay. If you transported Nadal of the last 3 years to the 90s, he'd win a GS or two outside of the French. Level of play and results are not always directly correlated. You can win GS being mediocre, you can lose GS yet play your best tennis ever.

[Raghav_12]

Can someone tell me' date=' how it's possible for someone who wasn't winning everything before an injury comes back after a 8month lay off and then win everything in sight? I mean let's look at Murray, the guy had a back injury not a serious one and was back on court within a few weeks. Yet he is nowhere near optimum form. But Nadal is out for 8 months and then comes back to win everything? Drug abuse on an unprecedented scale.[/quote'] who wasn't winning anything before injury dude.? Before losing in Wimbledon early he had reached to finals of 5 consecutive grand slams.. winning 2 of them.

[Muloghonto]

Imagine Nadal playing Mark Philippoussis in the final instead of Federer. Would have won Wimbledon at 20. :hysterical:

And if Nadal played Wimbledon against Sampras, Edberg, Becker, he wouldn't have ever made it past QF.

[zep1706]

And if Nadal played Wimbledon against Sampras' date=' Edberg, Becker, he wouldn't have ever made it past QF.[/quote'] If Nadal was in place of Federer from 2004-07 he would have won 3 calendar year grand slams in that weak era. Two can play this game.

[Muloghonto]

Clay courter Nadal reached Wimbledon final before (at age 20 and then again at 21) than all court player Federer did( at 22).

Clay court Nadal played those years when only two serve and volleyers of quality existed in men's tennis- Roddick and Federer. When Federer was 20, there was Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Henman, Krajicek. all of whom would've tooled Nadal on the faster wimbledon courts. If Agassi couldnt win a wimbledon against any of them with a better serve & much better return, Nadal wouldn't have either.