PDA

View Full Version : John Isner... a potential top 5 player??


jayoub95
03-16-2012, 02:12 AM
John Isner has been playing really well lately. I can maybe see him inside the top 5 in the future. Any thoughts as to whether he will become a top 5 player or is he just in a phase :-?

joeri888
03-16-2012, 02:13 AM
How old is he?

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 02:17 AM
26 i think.

SStrikerR
03-16-2012, 02:18 AM
He's 26. He's not good enough to make the top 5, but he's definitely a candidate for playing at the tour finals this year.

joeri888
03-16-2012, 02:19 AM
He's 26. He's not good enough to make the top 5, but he's definitely a candidate for playing at the tour finals this year.

This then. Top 5 is too far. Specially with slow courts around. However, he can eb top 8 if Mardy Fish at 30 can. He'll have to compete for some free slots behind probably Del Potro and Ferrer

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 02:22 AM
He is currently 11 and i want to see him in the top 10.

Bobby Jr
03-16-2012, 02:24 AM
No. Not unless the top five/six were ill for the next 9 months.

Isner is pretty overrated. People who see him as a top 5 player are basically just highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.

Nathaniel_Near
03-16-2012, 02:29 AM
No.

Hugely unlikely.

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 02:32 AM
No. Not unless the top five/six were ill for the next 9 months.

Isner is pretty overrated. People who see him as a top 5 player are basically just highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.

Well if he can get to top 8 thats great. I guess it just made me curious to want to know what other peoples predictions of him are. What is his highest slam record??

The Bawss
03-16-2012, 04:41 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

joeri888
03-16-2012, 04:54 AM
Well there's a ton of people that could finish 7 or 8. Isner's just one of them. Raonic, Nishikori, Dolgopolov, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Roddick, Fish, Almagro, Tipsarevic, Melzer, Simon, Monfils can all finish 8th if they have a good year

brettsticker86
03-16-2012, 05:00 AM
i think its possible. for an extended period of time? that's hard to believe, but I think he can crack the top 5 for a short period. I see him making top 10 this year, as long as he stays healthy and confident. with a serve and a forehand like that, if he gets hot, a la roddick 2003, anything can happen. just my opinion.

813wilson
03-16-2012, 05:09 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

And yet the OP is from Australia.....

He does not have many points to defend going into the clay court season - cue the people who will bash his clay game.....

Being ranked higher than last year he should be able to have a better clay season than last. a) he has said publicly he likes clay. b) didn't he take Rafa to 5 at the French last year?

I'd like to see him in the Top 8 by / for the WTF. 5 is asking a lot. Actually, it is asking a lot of pretty good sized group. The fight for 5-8 should be interesting.

Stringer_Steve
03-16-2012, 05:09 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

Really not any more desperate than Brits are for a Wimbledon champion, but hey :???:

That being said, personally I don't see Top 5. Top 10 maybe, but he will need to raise his fitness level and/or vastly improve his return game. It's one thing to drop bombs on your own serve and hold comfortably, and quite another to do so and be able to break serve. Time and time again you see him hold comfortably only to have the match go the distance due to his lack of ability to break his opponent's serve. Although he may eventually win the match, it usually takes such a physical toll on him that he's not nearly as effective the next round. And against the top players, that simply won't get it done.
As he gets better and goes deeper in tournaments, he'll face tougher and tougher competition which doesn't bode well for this formula.

Oceansize
03-16-2012, 05:14 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

As a fellow Brit, the words houses, stones and glass come to mind:)

If any Brit not called Murray wins a match at Wimbledon, the British press are ready to proclaim them as the next GOAT.

PSNELKE
03-16-2012, 05:24 AM
Well if he can get to top 8 thats great. I guess it just made me curious to want to know what other peoples predictions of him are. What is his highest slam record??

His major record is beyond mediocre.

One USO quarterfinal(11) and a R4 appearance(09).
And one AO R4(10).. and that's pretty much it, he wasn't able to get passed the third round more than thrice so far in his career.

Back to topic definately think he could break the Top10, but never the Top5.
Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Muzz, Delpo, Tsonga and Ferrer won't allow him to do so.

OrangePower
03-16-2012, 06:33 AM
Well there's a ton of people that could finish 7 or 8. Isner's just one of them. Raonic, Nishikori, Dolgopolov, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Roddick, Fish, Almagro, Tipsarevic, Melzer, Simon, Monfils can all finish 8th if they have a good year

This.

I think he has a good chance of getting top ten (#10 or #9) in the near future, and maybe sneaking into top 8 (#6- 8 ) for the end of the year if he gets lucky plus gets some good results at Wimby / USO.

But I don't see him making top 5.

Cfidave
03-16-2012, 09:27 AM
Not nearly good enough all around game to make top 5. Too many areas that can be broken down by any of the current top 5. Also not consistent enough in results from week to week. Maybe top 10 if he continues to stay lucky, and keeps first serve percentage up.

monfed
03-16-2012, 09:30 AM
I'd prefer not to imagine the state of tennis if Big John is 5.
I mean it's bad enough that Nadal's been 2 for what feels like forever.

Boricua
03-16-2012, 10:06 AM
His average mobility and average conditioning could be a hindrance. When I say "average" its in a direct comparison to guys like Nadal, Murray, Nole, Fed and Ferrer who are extremely fit. For a big man, Isner is pretty quick and agile.
His big serve and forehand are his weapons.

Isner may be Top 10 indeed if he plays consistently and improves his conditioning.

tistrapukcipeht
03-16-2012, 10:08 AM
No top 5, top 10 maybe, right now He is racking up points, but to know if He is a top 10 caliber He will have to defend the points.

Fish will soon be out of the top 10, that means, He isn't really a top 10. His dream run are coming to an end soon.

brettsticker86
03-16-2012, 10:20 AM
No top 5, top 10 maybe, right now He is racking up points, but to know if He is a top 10 caliber He will have to defend the points.

Fish will soon be out of the top 10, that means, He isn't really a top 10. His dream run are coming to an end soon.

really good point.

decades
03-16-2012, 10:23 AM
Well there's a ton of people that could finish 7 or 8. Isner's just one of them. Raonic, Nishikori, Dolgopolov, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Verdasco, Roddick, Fish, Almagro, Tipsarevic, Melzer, Simon, Monfils can all finish 8th if they have a good year

really? the absolute best part of Andy's season is about over. How is he going to jump 20 spots? Most of those people you mentioned have a only very tiny chance of entering top 10.

kishnabe
03-16-2012, 10:45 AM
Top 10 for sure, especially this year. Somewhere around Wimbledon he could get there.

2012 IW Semi, 2011 US Open QF, 2011 Paris SF...those points are major. He just needs to hope to do well where one of the top 4 fails.....to get huge points.

papertank
03-16-2012, 10:58 AM
No way is he good enough for top 5. Top 10 definitely, but I could never imagine him finishing a year higher than 7 or 8. He has powerful weapons, but also some exploitable weaknesses. In his form right now I don't think he'd ever win consistently enough to make the top 5.

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 05:33 PM
Ok well i guess Isner isn't top 5 material after all. Top 10 for Isner is where i'll leave him for the time being.

okdude1992
03-16-2012, 05:48 PM
i think its possible. for an extended period of time? that's hard to believe, but I think he can crack the top 5 for a short period. I see him making top 10 this year, as long as he stays healthy and confident. with a serve and a forehand like that, if he gets hot, a la roddick 2003, anything can happen. just my opinion.

roddick in 03-04 was a legitimate slam contender and consistently since then, he was top 10. he didn't just "get hot". completely different level than john just a serve isner

to the OP, i think isner can be top 10. maybe even top 8 like fish. but no better

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 06:04 PM
With Ferrer entering 30's and Feds and Fish both 30, thats 3 players in the top 10 nearing the end of their professional careers. Isner needs to keep winning and hold his points and when they retire he will move up to 9 or 8. But he will have to work so hard...

Mustard
03-16-2012, 06:38 PM
If any Brit not called Murray wins a match at Wimbledon, the British press are ready to proclaim them as the next GOAT.

Yep. Nothing the Americans do will ever be as bad as the British press making out that Jeremy Bates was a really serious contender to win the 1992 Wimbledon title after Bates beat Michael Chang 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 in the first round. I cringe at the memory of the press hype.

jayoub95
03-16-2012, 07:43 PM
Another one the Brits ranted about was Henman. Made semis of Wimbledon in 98, 99, 01, 02.

Mustard
03-16-2012, 08:04 PM
Another one the Brits ranted about was Henman. Made semis of Wimbledon in 98, 99, 01, 02.

Henman was much better than Bates, though, and got as high as world number 4 and reached 4 Wimbledon semi finals. Henman was a very good grass-court player but wasn't quite at the elite.

Bates never got into the top 50 during his career. Before 1992 Wimbledon started, Bates was 1,000-1 at the bookies to win the tournament and had threatened to quit tennis altogether just days before the tournament had started. Then Bates beats Michael Chang (the number 7 seed) in straight sets in the first round, and the press hypes him up to the point of possible title challenger. The hype just grew when Bates then beat Javier Sanchez in the second round in straight sets, and then beat Thierry Champion (1991 Wimbledon quarter finalist) in 5 sets. When Bates was knocked out in the fourth round by Guy Forget in 5 sets, there was some controversy because Bates had served for the match and had a match point in the fourth set when somebody in the crowd coughed loudly as Bates started his service toss.

Those Brit fans who moan about Tim Henman and Andy Murray don't know how lucky they are.

stringertom
03-17-2012, 01:07 AM
Mathmatically, Isner is quite capable of reaching very close to top 5 in a short time. He gains big points at IW ('11 R32) and can expect a lot of points gains all the way into the summer ('11 FO 1st round easy to improve on). His problem with consistency will be his biggest obstacle. After his DC win over Fed, he followed up with so-so results at home in Memphis and Delray. Top 5 means clearing all or most hurdles. Can he do that? We shall see.

Fedex
03-17-2012, 01:14 AM
No. Not unless the top five/six were ill for the next 9 months.

Isner is pretty overrated. People who see him as a top 5 player are basically just highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.

I'll highlight my lack of knowledge about tennis.
I've been touting Isner for years.
Ok, maybe not consistent top 5 material but he's a player who can easily cause upsets against the top 4 or sneak a slam.
He's about the last person any of the top 4 want to meet.
Doesn't that say a lot about the guy?

Hood_Man
03-17-2012, 01:23 AM
Those Brit fans who moan about Tim Henman and Andy Murray don't know how lucky they are.

That's a good point actually. For all the talk about the poor state of British mens tennis, in the last 14 Wimbledons we've had a British player in the semi finals 7 times. Not bad!

NamRanger
03-17-2012, 01:31 AM
No. Not unless the top five/six were ill for the next 9 months.

Isner is pretty overrated. People who see him as a top 5 player are basically just highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.



All he has to do is get hot with his serve for a stretch of time and an easy top 5 for a small stint.

Fedex
03-17-2012, 03:50 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

The term projection springs to mind.
We are the most desperate tennis nation on the planet!
We have no right to call the US which has, historically, been the most successful - desperate.
You are just having a laugh.
I love your irony though.

kiki
03-17-2012, 04:19 AM
John Isner has been playing really well lately. I can maybe see him inside the top 5 in the future. Any thoughts as to whether he will become a top 5 player or is he just in a phase :-?

Yes, he could make the starting five on most NBA teams...weak NBA era, just as tennis...

Murrayalmagrofan
03-17-2012, 05:28 AM
Looking at the three top big men on the ATP Tour:

John Isner---6ft 9in---245lbs
Kevin Anderson---6ft 8in---197lbs
Ivo Karlovic---6ft 10in---230lbs

Isner needs to drop another 20-25lbs from his frame. Make a Mardy Fish type of transformation. His movement would be so much better on court, and he'll probably extend his career by putting less weight on his knees. The Top 10 is definitely within his reach, but I feel it'll take a "transformation" for him to reach the top 5. Isner needs to get fully committed - diet, exercise, training, etc.

SStrikerR
03-17-2012, 06:11 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

No American who actively watches tennis would say that, and the op isn't an American. You're a moron.

Don Felder
03-17-2012, 06:17 AM
Kudos to him for making the most of his game and for doing as well as he has after 4 years of college tennis. It's impressive in that respect.

But I really do wish he had more overall game. I saw him try a drop shot against Simon that literally bounced before it made it to his side of the net. Just terrible feel and relatively speaking, not a very good tennis player relative to his peers. But maybe that makes his accomplishments that much more impressive.

tlm
03-17-2012, 06:30 AM
Come on this guy is no top 5 material, he is an overgrown serving dork that should be on a basketball court.

tacou
03-17-2012, 07:28 AM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

struggling to get a win is what great players to do. John got broken 3 times in the first 2 sets. when that happens, he loses 99% of the time, but he found a way to win--and without a single tiebreak!

John could get to top 5 next year or year after for a couple months, but more importantly I think he will be a big threat at the USO and W for the next few years.

John's 26, but remember, he's only in like his 4th full ATP season. considering his game is not very taxing, I could see John playing 4 more seasons at a high level.

his net game, return and BH are constantly improving and his touch is very underrated. more consistent FH + better shot selection = Top 8.

Evan77
03-17-2012, 07:45 AM
Come on this guy is no top 5 material, he is an overgrown serving dork that should be on a basketball court.
rude but funny at the same time. No, he will never get to top 5. just being a good server is simply not enough nowadays...

ark_28
03-17-2012, 08:11 AM
Deuce definitely is a dangerous player way more complete than karlovic and he is starting to make the most of his talents.

sillymonkey
03-17-2012, 08:21 AM
While I wish him every success, I find his game very dull to watch.

tlm
03-17-2012, 08:23 AM
rude but funny at the same time. No, he will never get to top 5. just being a good server is simply not enough nowadays...


Just stating the facts.

NamRanger
03-17-2012, 01:16 PM
Come on this guy is no top 5 material, he is an overgrown serving dork that should be on a basketball court.



Non top 5 material just beat the best slow HC player on Earth. Yep, he's just an overgrown serving dork.

batz
03-17-2012, 01:20 PM
I'll highlight my lack of knowledge about tennis.
I've been touting Isner for years.
Ok, maybe not consistent top 5 material but he's a player who can easily cause upsets against the top 4 or sneak a slam.
He's about the last person any of the top 4 want to meet.
Doesn't that say a lot about the guy?

Fedex said a sooth. Spot on about the big man.

pug
03-17-2012, 01:43 PM
No. Not unless the top five/six were ill for the next 9 months.

Isner is pretty overrated. People who see him as a top 5 player are basically just highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.

Highlighting their lack of knowledge about tennis.....hmmmm.......

The-Champ
03-17-2012, 01:54 PM
I hope gets to the very top. I'm starting to get tired seeing the same 4 people in every final. Plus Isner seems like a very good kid.

Rozroz
03-17-2012, 01:57 PM
Non top 5 material just beat the best slow HC player on Earth. Yep, he's just an overgrown serving dork.

yup. still a serving dork VS a zombie Djoko.
no need to start hyping around.

sureshs
03-17-2012, 01:58 PM
I hope Isner makes it to #1. It is time for tennis to evolve and favor the big and tall players. Isner might end up being the link between the extinct short players and the new breed of tall players. Future generations will debate how short people like Federer and Nadal would fare against the players of their generation, just like we discuss Laver now.

Fedex
03-17-2012, 01:59 PM
yup. still a serving dork VS a zombie Djoko.
no need to start hyping around.

I hope you're not trying to highlight our lack of knowledge about tennis?

USERNAME
03-17-2012, 01:59 PM
Just beat... Djoker? Something it seems like everyone has trouble doing? Strung together good wins at a 1000 event and took out the world #1 on the road to the final, Id say he deserves more than just a look. Also I recall him taking down Fed on clay (be it not the best) in Switzerland... I think Big John is on his way up.

IvanisevicServe
03-17-2012, 02:07 PM
I remember there was a poster here talking about how much "stronger" this era is than a few years ago when Federer was dominating, because Nadal had to play Isner in the first round of the FO last year. Well, turns out the only reason he had to play Isner in round 1 last year is a man named Nicolas Mahut, who physically and mentally drained him for months. If not for that, Isner would've remained in the Top 20. Less than a year later, he's about to be a Top 10 player.

netguy
03-17-2012, 02:09 PM
No, a potential top 9...maybe

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 05:21 PM
John Isner is just full of surprises isn't he.. :)

NamRanger
03-17-2012, 05:28 PM
yup. still a serving dork VS a zombie Djoko.
no need to start hyping around.




Yeah it was all serve. Isner did nothing but serve well and managed to beat Djokovic. Oh wait.

courtking
03-17-2012, 05:30 PM
Simon gave the match away.. and Djokovic choked.. this is a first time in a year that Djokovic showed some mental weakness.... Isner should play basket ball or something.. I think tennis should make a rule anyone over 6.7' serve underhand or something.. this guy is a bore to watch..

NamRanger
03-17-2012, 05:31 PM
Simon gave the match away.. and Djokovic choked.. this is a first time in a year that Djokovic showed some mental weakness.... Isner should play basket ball or something.. I think tennis should make a rule anyone over 6.7' serve underhand or something.. this guy is a bore to watch..



Dude hit some amazing forehands and moved extremely well for a guy his size. Somehow he's "boring." Lol.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 05:40 PM
Simon gave the match away.. and Djokovic choked.. this is a first time in a year that Djokovic showed some mental weakness.... Isner should play basket ball or something.. I think tennis should make a rule anyone over 6.7' serve underhand or something.. this guy is a bore to watch..

Why are you hating against Isner dude... he's not boring to watch at all. You have to give some credit to Isner because you don't just beat the world number 1 without playing some good tennis even if Djokovic choked a bit.

jdubbs
03-17-2012, 05:48 PM
Lol he just struggled to beat Gilles Simon. Quick get him to the hall of fame! It's amazing how desperate the americans are to have another top american player.

Hahahahahahahaha what a djoke.

Hi I'm Ray
03-17-2012, 05:55 PM
The guy has good serves. If you don't lose your service game how can you lose?

Simon didn't give the game away. I was there, Isner clearly started off shakey and gave away a ton of points. Simon moved and hit very well throughout the match, came back and swept Isner in the 2nd, and consistently served in around 124-126mph. Isner gave Simon a lot of unforced error points but he pulled it together in the end and earned that victory.

Isner is already ranked 11 (heard he is moving to at 10 with the victory over Djoko) and has a lot of holes in his game, which means he still has a lot of potential for growth if he can button his game up a bit more. His service game is already good but his serves land too far from the service box line/too shallow and not enough angles, it also looks like he has to hold back a lot on his ground strokes while the other guys hit full out. If he could get his serves in deeper and find more angles, and be able to hit full out on his groundstrokes while keeping it in he could do very well.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 06:06 PM
The guy has good serves. If you don't lose your service game how can you lose?

Simon didn't give the game away. I was there, Isner clearly started off shakey and gave away a ton of points. Simon moved and hit very well throughout the match, came back and swept Isner in the 2nd, and consistently served in around 124-126mph. Isner gave Simon a lot of unforced error points but he pulled it together in the end and earned that victory.

Isner has to work harder on being relaxed and consistent with the groundies. But coming from someone who was there and saw everything i concur with your opinion.

courtking
03-17-2012, 06:20 PM
Why are you hating against Isner dude... he's not boring to watch at all. You have to give some credit to Isner because you don't just beat the world number 1 without playing some good tennis even if Djokovic choked a bit.

I don't hate any body.. but it's just kind of unfair for the other player.. Imagine u serve from the tree down.. Isner just blindly went for broke whenever he has chance.. either hit or miss.. Karlovic and Isner are the 2 most boring guys to watch.. and no.. I don't hate any of them.. Just don't like their games..

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 06:23 PM
I don't hate any body.. but it's just kind of unfair for the other player.. Imagine u serve from the tree down.. Isner just blindly went for broke whenever he has chance.. either hit or miss.. Karlovic and Isner are the 2 most boring guys to watch.. and no.. I don't hate any of them.. Just don't like their games..

Its not his fault he is tall and because of this he has a serve as a weapon. A small player at about 5 ft 9 would have speed and groundies as a weapon. His game is alright and for some reason i enjoy watching the bug guys play so i'll have to agree to disagree with you there.

NamRanger
03-17-2012, 06:25 PM
I don't hate any body.. but it's just kind of unfair for the other player.. Imagine u serve from the tree down.. Isner just blindly went for broke whenever he has chance.. either hit or miss.. Karlovic and Isner are the 2 most boring guys to watch.. and no.. I don't hate any of them.. Just don't like their games..


Karlovic is nothing without his serve. Isner still a solid tennis player without an amazing serve.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 06:28 PM
Yeah thats true. When Karlovic played Federer in the 2012 AO the only reason why the sets where reaching tie breaks was because Karlovic kept holding his serve but couldn't break Feds serve but because Feds is way better on the baseline he gets the win..

nethawkwenatchee
03-17-2012, 06:32 PM
Alot of Isner hate here. Some are making Isner sound boring other say Djokovic just choked ETC. Let me tell you, Isner has made huge strides with his game and has worked very hard to get to this point in his career. Not long ago I found his game boring but his ground game and movement are dramatically improved and his forehand is actually a big threat (consistancy is still not there yet with other top players but this is headed the right direction for sure)

Please take a look at this tournament alone:

R1 Bye
R2 F.Gill
R3 J. Monaco (22)
R4 M. Ebden (in form w/wins over Kunitsyn, Benneteau (32),Fish (8) )
QF G. Simon (13) (world class mover/ ground game)
SF N. Djokovic (1)

His draw has a bit of everything but I would like to point out that it is heavy on solid movers with great return/ground ability.

* If he wins the final over either Nadal or Federer I would like to nominate Isner for the toughest draw (trophy) of the year to date.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 06:36 PM
He is versing Feds in the finals and i think it could go either way because both of them are playing really well.

coloskier
03-17-2012, 06:37 PM
When Isner beats Djokovic off the baseline like he did today, he is definitely going to go up.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 06:40 PM
Looks really determined and wants that title.

http://www.bnpparibasopen.com/~/media/F44C6BC123A848AEB1CC62356771F777.ashx

http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/John-Isner-battles-past-Gilles-Simon-into-the-semi-finals-BNP-Paribas-Open-2012-137341.jpg

kishnabe
03-17-2012, 06:46 PM
Todd Martin in straight sets.

VOLLEY KING
03-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Looks really determined and wants that title.

http://www.bnpparibasopen.com/~/media/F44C6BC123A848AEB1CC62356771F777.ashx

http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/John-Isner-battles-past-Gilles-Simon-into-the-semi-finals-BNP-Paribas-Open-2012-137341.jpg

I love this kid!!!!

USA!!!!! Finally????

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 07:29 PM
USA only have 2 legit young guns.. Young and Harrison. Roddick's declining and Isner is reaching the point in his career where he has to make it or break it. 26 years old isn't young so i think this is his big chance to shine and go for gold!

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 08:15 PM
Yess! Isner joins the top 10.

citrixscu
03-17-2012, 08:32 PM
Not sure about this one. I'd say he's a 7-9 player, just due to the fact that he relies so heavily on his serve and the 1, 2 punch. Top 5 means grinding out guys like Ferrerrrrr, Tsonga and JMDP on a consistent basis. It's possible, but probably not likely.

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 08:37 PM
If he works harder on his groundies this year then it is possible. Nothing is impossible. You can do anything if you believe and i think Isner is really starting to believe in himself after beating Djokovic and some other big names.

Cfidave
03-17-2012, 08:39 PM
Not sure about this one. I'd say he's a 7-9 player, just due to the fact that he relies so heavily on his serve and the 1, 2 punch. Top 5 means grinding out guys like Ferrerrrrr, Tsonga and JMDP on a consistent basis. It's possible, but probably not likely.

Well put. Isner is playing as well as he possibly can. If his serve drops just a bit, or his groundies just miss the line, instead of just catching, he's going to struggle against the top guys.

Towser83
03-17-2012, 08:44 PM
This then. Top 5 is too far. Specially with slow courts around. However, he can eb top 8 if Mardy Fish at 30 can. He'll have to compete for some free slots behind probably Del Potro and Ferrer

Actually he's said he likes slow courts - and he beat Federer on clay over 5, and took both Nadal and Djokovic to 5 on clay in davis cup, so it seems true.

But I agree, top 8 but not top 5

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 08:50 PM
But I agree, top 8 but not top 5

I wonder what Isners goals are now that he is in the top 10.

Rjtennis
03-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Isner wouldnt be a top 500 player if he had someone like Feds serve. And Fed has a great serve. With that said he has to serve excellent to stay in the top 10 and he isnt cracking the top 5. Isners movement and ground game is very very weak compared to the rest of top 10.

nethawkwenatchee
03-17-2012, 10:30 PM
Isner wouldnt be a top 500 player if he had someone like Feds serve. And Fed has a great serve. With that said he has to serve excellent to stay in the top 10 and he isnt cracking the top 5. Isners movement and ground game is very very weak compared to the rest of top 10.

Isner has always served well but has also added the component of being able to mix it up with great baseline players. I posted earlier in this thread that his road to this particular final is laced with wins over tough defenders with great movement, consistancy and versatility (players who challenge every aspect of his game including both wings from the baseline)

He missed alot of forehands (which is in my opinion his second biggest weapon) against G. Simon and Simon was getting alot of first serves back. His return game and all court coverage show signs of improvement. You don't beat a guy like Giles Simon (and definately not Novak) by only hitting serves and forehands. He's returned well to break serve.

Actually he's said he likes slow courts - and he beat Federer on clay over 5, and took both Nadal and Djokovic to 5 on clay in davis cup, so it seems true. But I agree, top 8 but not top 5

Here are his latest clay court results against the top three... I can assure you that none of these guys takes this guy lightly on slow surfaces either.

Roland Garos - Nadal d. Isner 6-4, 6-7(2), 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-4
Davis Cup - Djokovic d. Isner 7-5, 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(6), 6-4
Davis Cup - Isner d. Federer 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-2

* I'm not ready to annoint this guy yet, and I can promise that it will take everything Isner has plus some good fortune to beat Federer tomorrow, but this guy is with out doubt the strongest American player we have at the moment. He's also proving he deserves these wins (and ranking that will follow if it continues)

jayoub95
03-17-2012, 11:41 PM
Isner has always served well but has also added the component of being able to mix it up with great baseline players. I posted earlier in this thread that his road to this particular final is laced with wins over tough defenders with great movement, consistancy and versatility (players who challenge every aspect of his game including both wings from the baseline)

He missed alot of forehands (which is in my opinion his second biggest weapon) against G. Simon and Simon was getting alot of first serves back. His return game and all court coverage show signs of improvement. You don't beat a guy like Giles Simon (and definately not Novak) by only hitting serves and forehands. He's returned well to break serve.




Here are his latest clay court results against the top three... I can assure you that none of these guys takes this guy lightly on slow surfaces either.

Roland Garos - Nadal d. Isner 6-4, 6-7(2), 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-4
Davis Cup - Djokovic d. Isner 7-5, 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(6), 6-4
Davis Cup - Isner d. Federer 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-2

* I'm not ready to annoint this guy yet, and I can promise that it will take everything Isner has plus some good fortune to beat Federer tomorrow, but this guy is with out doubt the strongest American player we have at the moment. He's also proving he deserves these wins (and ranking that will follow if it continues)

Federer can choke you know by shanking a lot of balls.

niff
03-18-2012, 12:26 AM
Lets hope not.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 01:08 AM
I'm hoping he does. Mostly it happens on the backhand.

jokinla
03-18-2012, 01:12 AM
If he continues playing this way, he certainly can be.

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 01:13 AM
Isner wouldnt be a top 500 player if he had someone like Feds serve. And Fed has a great serve. With that said he has to serve excellent to stay in the top 10 and he isnt cracking the top 5. Isners movement and ground game is very very weak compared to the rest of top 10.

THIS^^^^^^^^
honest truth. he's on a hype now. top 10 or not.

joechiang
03-18-2012, 02:01 AM
A S&V player in top 5 can't be a bad thing.

Raistlin
03-18-2012, 02:06 AM
Don't see why not, clearly he's capable of beating #6, 7, 8 and 9 on a consistent basis if he's playing well. And apparently everyone's switching the #5 position on a regular basis so yes he can be a top 5 player in this era of men's tennis.

mellowyellow
03-18-2012, 04:39 AM
Roland Garos - Nadal d. Isner 6-4, 6-7(2), 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-4
Davis Cup - Djokovic d. Isner 7-5, 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(6), 6-4
Davis Cup - Isner d. Federer 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-2

* I'm not ready to annoint this guy yet, and I can promise that it will take everything Isner has plus some good fortune to beat Federer tomorrow, but this guy is with out doubt the strongest American player we have at the moment. He's also proving he deserves these wins (and ranking that will follow if it continues)

Thanks for pointing out that in each of his hard fought clay matches where he was as fresh as can be he has struggled to win but 1 of those matches, and that guy is 30/31, only fulfilling his DC obligation in that rd. We will see how a real match with huge implications is handled today, trying to back a semi victory over the number 1 and defending champ.

DarthFed
03-18-2012, 10:02 AM
All this Isner hype....i chose a bad time to come back to this forum i see....

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 10:04 AM
All this Isner hype....i chose a bad time to come back to this forum i see....

LOL.
wait a day or two, it will pass ;)

jgrushing
03-18-2012, 10:08 AM
A S&V player in top 5 can't be a bad thing.

People keep referring to Isner as a serve and volley player. He is not; he serves and volleys very occasionally. His typical pattern is generally serve to open the court, hit forehand to open court. He does come to net some but definitely not a S & V player.

rafan
03-18-2012, 10:20 AM
I think Isner has the potential to upset the top four when they are having a bad day but I cannot see him being a constant threat. Anyway we shall have to wait until the slams to see how much he has really improved

VOLLEY KING
03-18-2012, 11:11 AM
I think Isner has the potential to upset the top four when they are having a bad day but I cannot see him being a constant threat. Anyway we shall have to wait until the slams to see how much he has really improved

Ok so let's try and deal with this now.

No problems with the court right ? Fed is mono free and his confidence is sky high .

Can you think of any "reasons" beforehand?

jackson vile
03-18-2012, 11:12 AM
Isner was has been looking scary good, he is running around the backhand hitting inside out forehand and he is 6'9"!:shock:

Fedex
03-18-2012, 11:47 AM
All this Isner hype....i chose a bad time to come back to this forum i see....

LOL.
wait a day or two, it will pass ;)

Too late. He already beat the world number 1 yesterday fair and square.
And also recently beat world number 3 Federer.
And nearly beat world number 2 Nadal last year on clay at Roland Garros!!
And nearly beat world number 4 Murray at last years USO.
Isner is beating and competing with the top 4 on all surfaces.

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 11:53 AM
Too late. He already beat the world number 1 yesterday fair and square.
And also recently beat world number 3 Federer.
And nearly beat world number 2 Nadal last year on clay at Roland Garros!!
And nearly beat world number 4 Murray at last years USO.
Isner is beating and competing with the top 4 on all surfaces.

Originally Posted by Rozroz
LOL.
wait a day or two, it will pass

Fedex
03-18-2012, 12:06 PM
Originally Posted by Rozroz
LOL.
wait a day or two, it will pass

Win or lose today, Isner has already more than proven what he can do.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 01:48 PM
Isner lost!! Oh well he had a good run.

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 01:55 PM
Win or lose today, Isner has already more than proven what he can do.

if this is all he can do, it's still a borefest.
if you like his game so much, then good luck to you.

kiki
03-18-2012, 01:56 PM
in today´s weak era, journeymen called Ferrer, Fish or Issner cane asily reach nº5...and stay there forever.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 01:59 PM
in today´s weak era, journeymen called Ferrer, Fish or Issner cane asily reach nº5...and stay there forever.

:confused:

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:01 PM
:confused:

What part of my statement you didn´t get?

fed_rulz
03-18-2012, 02:02 PM
in today´s weak era, journeymen called Ferrer, Fish or Issner cane asily reach nº5...and stay there forever.

for someone who whines a lot about the "weak era" of today, you sure seem to watch a lot of matches in this era..

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:03 PM
What part of my statement you didn´t get?

How is this a weak era?? and what do you mean by journeyman??

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 02:05 PM
for someone who whines a lot about the "weak era" of today, you sure seem to watch a lot of matches in this era..

errr.. he likes Tennis.. so... errr... he want to watch some matches.. like..
errr.. for fun?

fed_rulz
03-18-2012, 02:07 PM
errr.. he likes Tennis.. so... errr... he want to watch some matches.. like..
errr.. for fun?

how is it fun if he's disgusted with the state of tennis.. so disgusted, that he constantly has to whine...

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:12 PM
for someone who whines a lot about the "weak era" of today, you sure seem to watch a lot of matches in this era..

I have watched Ferrer and Fish.I have enough with a glance...

Just to remind you other nº 5 ranked guys: Orantes,Vilas,Wilander,Becker,Edberg,Ivanisevic ( not to mention guys like Okker or Roche)

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:13 PM
How is this a weak era?? and what do you mean by journeyman??

1/This is the weakest competitive era since the start of Open tennis, back in the late 60´s

2/Journeyman: honest players with no touch of greatness, usually doggy competitors than cannot aspire to be remembered once they´re retired.

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 02:14 PM
how is it fun if he's disgusted with the state of tennis.. so disgusted, that he constantly has to whine...

so he likes to whine, he likes his childhood heroes or whatever..
this is an endless debate, no?

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:16 PM
so he likes to whine, he likes his childhood heroes or whatever..
this is an endless debate, no?

Not at all.I like true tennis and true champions

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 02:17 PM
I have watched Ferrer and Fish.I have enough with a glance...

Just to remind you other nº 5 ranked guys: Orantes,Vilas,Wilander,Becker,Edberg,Ivanisevic ( not to mention guys like Okker or Roche)

So if Federer, Nadal or Djokovic sweep the field clean and win everything on sight it's a weak era.

But then when a player like Isner beats the world #1 to reach the final of MS event he's a clown and the era is weak? Interesting statement.

How can both statements be true?

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:19 PM
So if Federer, Nadal or Djokovic sweep the field clean and win everything on sight it's a weak era.

But then when a player like Isner beats the world #1 to reach the final of MS event he's a clown and the era is weak? Interesting statement.

How can both statements be true?

Even Borg lost to unknown Bruce Manson at Indian Wells.nº 1 loses from time to time.

Weak era when all players play the same tennis and yet just 3 manage to win the big titles.and a nº4 player that stays there for years is a complete failure.

Rozroz
03-18-2012, 02:19 PM
Not at all.I like true tennis and true champions

i'm not arguing at all. i can agree that today's players maybe have less colorful characters, and it's somewhat more 'pale'.
i just think that any era debate about tennis quality is futile. it's really a different type of tennis today, better or worse.

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:20 PM
i'm not arguing at all. i can agree that today's players maybe have less colorful characters, and it's somewhat more 'pale'.
i just think that any era debate about tennis quality is futile. it's really a different type of tennis today, better or worse.

On that, I fully agree.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:22 PM
1/This is the weakest competitive era since the start of Open tennis, back in the late 60´s

2/Journeyman: honest players with no touch of greatness, usually doggy competitors than cannot aspire to be remembered once they´re retired.

I understand the journeyman part but i don't know why you think this era of tennis is the weakest... of course your entitled to your own opinion but i think it is really competitive since the top 4 have been the exact same names for 4 years. Look at the young guns in the top 40, Tomic, Dolgopolov, Nishikori, Raonic and they are all competing for top 15. It really isn't that weak IMO.

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 02:23 PM
Even Borg lost to unknown Bruce Manson at Indian Wells.nº 1 loses from time to time.

Weak era when all players play the same tennis and yet just 3 manage to win the big titles.and a nº4 player that stays there for years is a complete failure.

And strong era is when Rios clinches the #1 spot without winning a slam in his life?

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:24 PM
I understand the journeyman part but i don't know why you think this era of tennis is the weakest... of course your entitled to your own opinion but i think it is really competitive since the top 4 have been the exact same names for 4 years. Look at the young guns in the top 40, Tomic, Dolgopolov, Nishikori, Raonic and they are all competing for top 15. It really isn't that weak IMO.

I have posted that many times before.I won´t try you to understand it, you need to have watched tennis for 40-35 years and then you´d understand.If not, it is a futile discussion.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:28 PM
I have posted that many times before.I won´t try you to understand it, you need to have watched tennis for 40-35 years and then you´d understand.If not, it is a futile discussion.

If it really is a weak era then i think murray would have won a slam or been number 1 by now... don't you think.. but the top 3 are too strong for any top 20 players to compete with.

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:30 PM
If it really is a weak era then i think murray would have won a slam or been number 1 by now... don't you think.. but the top 3 are too strong for any top 20 players to compete with.

You are beginning to catch it, mate

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 02:30 PM
I have posted that many times before.I won´t try you to understand it, you need to have watched tennis for 40-35 years and then you´d understand.If not, it is a futile discussion.

So you are 50 years old I reckon?

How many pro players were there in the 60's and 70's then?

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:32 PM
So you are 50 years old I reckon?

How many pro players were there in the 60's and 70's then?

Jajajaja you are completely clueless...I can give you the name of a club of posters you´d feel like home...

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:34 PM
You are beginning to catch it, mate

What about the rest of the 7 in the top 10. There is competitiveness between them and the top 20 and lets not forget the top 4 have their occasional loss to lower ranked players..

rodrigoamaral
03-18-2012, 02:39 PM
definately 6 or 7, if he can have consistent results in slams, then yes top 5!

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:39 PM
What about the rest of the 7 in the top 10. There is competitiveness between them and the top 20 and lets not forget the top 4 have their occasional loss to lower ranked players :-/

This happened in any time.Here is the top 10 in what I call competitive eras:

197:Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase,Kodes,Smith,As he,Gimeno,Okker,Roche

1979:Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Vilas,Ashe,Higueras,Solomo n,Pecci

1981:Mc Enroe,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulatis,Clerc,Tan ner,Mayer,Kriek

1985:Lendl,Mac,Wilander,Connors,Becker,Edberg,Noah ,Cash,Mecir,Gomez

1993:Sampras,Agassi,Edberg,Courier,Becker,Bruguera ,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic,
Rafter or Krajicek

I could also mention 1975, 1995...

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 02:39 PM
Jajajaja you are completely clueless...I can give you the name of a club of posters you´d feel like home...

I've asked you 2 simple questions no? Clueless about what I didn't make a statement?

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:42 PM
This happened in any time.Here is the top 10 in what I call competitive eras:

197:Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase,Kodes,Smith,As he,Gimeno,Okker,Roche

1979:Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Vilas,Ashe,Higueras,Solomo n,Pecci

1981:Mc Enroe,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulatis,Clerc,Tan ner,Mayer,Kriek

1985:Lendl,Mac,Wilander,Connors,Becker,Edberg,Noah ,Cash,Mecir,Gomez

1993:Sampras,Agassi,Edberg,Courier,Becker,Bruguera ,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic,
Rafter or Krajicek

I could also mention 1975, 1995...

They are strong era's.. definitely 1993 but don't forget that todays top 3 do get beaten by the remaining 7 on odd occasions and they most definitely have no problem in taking the matches to 5 sets even if they lose :-|

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:46 PM
They are strong era's.. definitely 1993 but don't forget that todays top 3 do get beaten by the remaining 7 on odd occasions and they most definitely have no problem in taking the matches to 5 sets even if they lose :-|

Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time

Now, just compare...

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:49 PM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time

Now, just compare...

I don't need to compare anything because i agree to disagree with you. And you brought this irrelevant topic of weaknesses in era's to this thread which is about John Isner...

kiki
03-18-2012, 02:51 PM
I don't need to compare anything because i agree to disagree with you. And you brought this irrelevant topic of weaknesses in era's to this thread which is about John Isner...

...I made a mistake: Connors won 8 slams ( + 3 YEC), not 7 slams

and nº 12 is Jarryd, who won a YEC...but I imagine you never had the lesser idea about those players, do you?

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 02:51 PM
1993:Sampras,Agassi,Edberg,Courier,Becker,Bruguera ,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic,
Rafter or Krajicek

I could also mention 1975, 1995...

at what point Rafter was top ten in 1993?
Or you mean #110?

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 02:57 PM
...I made a mistake: Connors won 8 slams ( + 3 YEC), not 7 slams

and nº 12 is Jarryd, who won a YEC...but I imagine you never had the lesser idea about those players, do you?

You bringing this topic to the thread has resulted in people arguing over who is right. I wasn't even alive in 1993 so how would i possibly know what was going on then??.... all that i have done is stated that this era of tennis is not as WEAK as you think it is.

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 03:00 PM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time

Now, just compare...

1/Lendl: 2 slams
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams
3/Wilander: 4 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams
5/Becker: 1 slam
6/Edberg: 1 slam
7/Cash: 0 slam ( and 0 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 0 slam
10/Mecir: 0 YEC ( and 0 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time


The correct numbers in 85.

23 slams in total between those guys. Djokovic, Delpo,Nadal,Federer between them have 32.

kiki
03-18-2012, 03:02 PM
at what point Rafter was top ten in 1993?
Or you mean #110?Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time
12/Jarryd: 1 YEC win

Now, let´s see...Murray is nº 4: 0 slams, 0 YEC, Ferrer is nº 5: 0 slams, 0 YEC...do you need me to continue embarrasing you?

It simply puts Murray at nº 13 and Ferrer at nº 14 in the 1985 ranking

Did you finally get why I talk about a weak era?
LMAO¡¡¡¡

Did you finally see why I talked Murray and Ferrer being just journeymen
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL¡¡¡¡

kiki
03-18-2012, 03:10 PM
1/Lendl: 2 slams
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams
3/Wilander: 4 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams
5/Becker: 1 slam
6/Edberg: 1 slam
7/Cash: 0 slam ( and 0 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 0 slam
10/Mecir: 0 YEC ( and 0 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time


The correct numbers in 85.

23 slams in total between those guys. Djokovic, Delpo,Nadal,Federer between them have 32.

wrong, look at any pedia...

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 03:11 PM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time
12/Jarryd: 1 YEC win

Now, let´s see...Murray is nº 4: 0 slams, 0 YEC, Ferrer is nº 5: 0 slams, 0 YEC...do you need me to continue embarrasing you?

It simply puts Murray at nº 13 and Ferrer at nº 14 in the 1985 ranking

Did you finally get why I talk about a weak era?
LMAO¡¡¡¡

Did you finally see why I talked Murray and Ferrer being just journeymen
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL¡¡¡¡

How many slams did all the top ten had in 85 bar Mac,Wilander and Connors?

Did you fail at math? Or you just pluck random names out of the hat?

How many slam finals had Cash, Gomez and Mecir in 85 again?

wrong, look at any pedia...

Ah sorry your source for what is weak and strong era is wikipedia. My appologies..

Can you use your source and answer the above questions?

kiki
03-18-2012, 03:13 PM
You bringing this topic to the thread has resulted in people arguing over who is right. I wasn't even alive in 1993 so how would i possibly know what was going on then??.... all that i have done is stated that this era of tennis is not as WEAK as you think it is.

I just wanted you to understand that you live in the weakest ever pro tennis era, and this is not your fault or my merit,.It is just as simple as that.it is not your fault to be born after 1993 or mine to be born quite before.it´s just life and we are in a discussion forum.If somebody had watched greats like Tilden,Budge,Kramer,Pancho and told me...1980´s was a weak era compared to 1930´s or 1940´s, at least, I´d listen.That is the problem with many newtards on this forum.of course I know it is a loss battle, but who is right is right undependently of the opinions of the others.

kiki
03-18-2012, 03:25 PM
So you are 50 years old I reckon?

How many pro players were there in the 60's and 70's then?

How many pro players in the 70´s??? are you kidding me? more than 2.000 or 3.000.

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 03:41 PM
How many pro players in the 70´s??? are you kidding me? more than 2.000 or 3.000.

ok that was a good start. I guess you know how many are now? Or at least have a good idea.

All you have posted above is incorrect. In 85 only the top 4 were multiple slam winners.

Cash, Mecir and Gomez never played a slam final. After 85 Connors and Mac were past it.

In the current standings we have only Fish, Tipsarevic and Ferrer who haven't played a slam final. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are not on the slide like Connors and Mac. And yet we have 3 slams left to be played in 2012.

I don't know what you're trying to do but the last page all you post is pure drivel.

You pick names out of the hat, some of them weren't even top 100 in the years you mentioned, post wrong slam count in 85, some players even had 5 full years before they won theirs, but yet you put it up in 85. And in the same time you compare it to 2012 where Murray is 25 and has like 5 good years before he calls it a day, Tsonga is 26, Delpo is 23, Nadal is 26, Djokovic is 25, shall I continue?

Nostradamus
03-18-2012, 03:44 PM
Isner might reach top 5, 98.9 % sure, he will. Only if he stays away from injury. If injury free then he will be top 5

Princeofwails
03-18-2012, 03:47 PM
I have noticed too that he seems to have stepped up his game to play right with the big boys. He will be tough to beat on the grass courts if he keeps up the good play and can work on his return game. To beat Djok. is no small feat. I saw him play today and he hits a very heavy forehand too. Not sure about his staying power though.

Mainad
03-18-2012, 03:52 PM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time
12/Jarryd: 1 YEC win

Now, let´s see...Murray is nº 4: 0 slams, 0 YEC (and 3 slam finals)
Fixed that one for you. So how does that put him behind, for instance, Curren and Jarryd who made less slam finals or none at all?

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 04:07 PM
Isner might reach top 5, 98.9 % sure, he will. Only if he stays away from injury. If injury free then he will be top 5

MIGHT reach top 5.... he has to start making R16 and QF's in slams from now on but it's possible if he wants it. He has to compete with Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic etc...

Enigma_87
03-18-2012, 04:07 PM
Fixed that one for you. So how does that put him behind, for instance, Curren and Jarryd who made less slam finals or none at all?

he's skewing the numbers. He posted the career slam count of all those above. Yet he posts Murray number, being 24 years old.

This is how the year end top ten looked like:

1. Ivan Lendl
2. John McEnroe
3. Mats Wilander
4. Jimmy Connors
5. Stefan Edberg
6. Boris Becker
7. Yannick Noah
8. Anders Jarryd
9. Miloslav Mecir
10. Kevin Curren

Between Noah, Jarryd, Mecir and Curren only Noah had played slam final at the time.

And #8 Jarryd has 1 slam SF to his name. For those who don't know him he's mainly a doubles player that reached career high #5 in the most competitive 85'.

Compared to the current #5 Ferrer, who has double the titles Jarryd has and has played 1 SF more being still active.

Polaris
03-18-2012, 05:29 PM
I doubt if he will reach top 5. Maybe, he might touch #5. It is hard to imagine that he will trouble Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, and Federer consistently enough. Further, if Del Potro gets into a groove, he will also bother Isner. John is also at this awkward age of 26, so he will have to improve his ground game very quickly before the twilight years set in. But, I hope he makes a big splash at Wimby.

I could be way off the mark, but I see more potential for Raonic and Tomic. Both these players also have top-10 potential.

jayoub95
03-18-2012, 07:39 PM
I doubt if he will reach top 5. Maybe, he might touch #5. It is hard to imagine that he will trouble Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, and Federer consistently enough. Further, if Del Potro gets into a grove, he will also bother Isner. John is also at this awkward age of 26, so he will have to improve his ground game very quickly before the twilight years set in. But, I hope he makes a big splash at Wimby.

I could be way off the mark, but I see more potential for Raonic and Tomic. Both these players also have top-10 potential.

Yeah 26 is getting old in tennis. If he was 24 he would have a much better chance of achieving top 5. His ranking progress is steady though which is good.

tacou
03-19-2012, 03:28 AM
Yeah 26 is getting old in tennis. If he was 24 he would have a much better chance of achieving top 5. His ranking progress is steady though which is good.

remember though this is only John's 5th full season. a lot of players his age are playing their eighth or ninth season.

If John picks up 400 points or so during the clay season he could get a top8 seed for wimbledon?

Pocky
03-19-2012, 03:35 AM
all the man has in comparison to the top 10 is a bigger serve

kiki
03-19-2012, 04:29 AM
Fixed that one for you. So how does that put him behind, for instance, Curren and Jarryd who made less slam finals or none at all?

Jarryd won a YEC, which Murray never has.I agree for lost finals in majors, Curren lost LESS finals than Murray.I´ll give you that Murray ranks ahead of Curren...but Ferrer,Tipsarevic,Fish,Tsonga,Berdych...

Enigma_87
03-19-2012, 04:57 AM
Jarryd won a YEC, which Murray never has.I agree for lost finals in majors, Curren lost LESS finals than Murray.I´ll give you that Murray ranks ahead of Curren...but Ferrer,Tipsarevic,Fish,Tsonga,Berdych...

So how come Jarryd, a player that never played in a slam final, that has worse GS results than Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych can be #5 in the world in that fierce competition in 85?

How can he finish top ten? Also he won that YEC in 86, up to 85 he didn't achieve anything worth of notice.

Mainad
03-19-2012, 06:56 AM
Jarryd won a YEC, which Murray never has.I agree for lost finals in majors, Curren lost LESS finals than Murray.I´ll give you that Murray ranks ahead of Curren...but Ferrer,Tipsarevic,Fish,Tsonga,Berdych...

But you put Curren above Jarryd because he had been in 2 slam finals. And Curren only lost less slam finals than Murray because he MADE less slam finals...lol!!

kiki
03-19-2012, 10:26 AM
But you put Curren above Jarryd because he had been in 2 slam finals. And Curren only lost less slam finals than Murray because he MADE less slam finals...lol!!

what about Tipsarevic,Tsonga, Fish and the others ? The would kill to have Curren or Jarryd´s records and class....

volleygirl
03-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Non top 5 material just beat the best slow HC player on Earth. Yep, he's just an overgrown serving dork.


Awesome point Nam

kiki
03-19-2012, 02:28 PM
So how come Jarryd, a player that never played in a slam final, that has worse GS results than Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych can be #5 in the world in that fierce competition in 85?

How can he finish top ten? Also he won that YEC in 86, up to 85 he didn't achieve anything worth of notice.

Jarryd was never a top 5 ranked player...never at all...and, he never deserved more than 11 th or 12 th...now, who is today´s nº 11 or 12 ? what has he got comparative to a Jarryd Masters SF, W SF and WCT winner...other than a top doubles player for 1o years???

kiki
03-19-2012, 02:29 PM
But you put Curren above Jarryd because he had been in 2 slam finals. And Curren only lost less slam finals than Murray because he MADE less slam finals...lol!!

ask my question, jerk¡¡¡

jayoub95
03-20-2012, 12:13 AM
remember though this is only John's 5th full season. a lot of players his age are playing their eighth or ninth season.

If John picks up 400 points or so during the clay season he could get a top8 seed for wimbledon?

If he can do that, that will be great for him but i reckon being seeded 8 in a slam will add lots of pressure and he'll probs choke or something. He probs is already aiming for top 5 and i sure hope he proves half the people on this thread who reckons he can't wrong :) ...

Enigma_87
03-20-2012, 03:12 AM
Jarryd was never a top 5 ranked player...never at all...and, he never deserved more than 11 th or 12 th...now, who is today´s nº 11 or 12 ? what has he got comparative to a Jarryd Masters SF, W SF and WCT winner...other than a top doubles player for 1o years???

for someone that claims to be knowledgeable in tennis for the last 30-40 years, you should know that Jarryd was #5 in 85 that was his career high. He was #6 for most part of 85.

So how come a doubles player got to #5, and was #6 for most part of the year in that tough competition?

tata
03-20-2012, 03:18 AM
My thoughts on the OP. I think isner needs to tidy up his return game. The guy is no doubt hard to break but he plays WAY too many extended matches with tiebreakers. It aint gonna be healthy for him in the long run.

joeri888
03-20-2012, 03:35 AM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)

11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time
12/Jarryd: 1 YEC win

Now, let´s see...Murray is nº 4: 0 slams, 0 YEC, Ferrer is nº 5: 0 slams, 0 YEC...do you need me to continue embarrasing you?

It simply puts Murray at nº 13 and Ferrer at nº 14 in the 1985 ranking

Did you finally get why I talk about a weak era?
LMAO¡¡¡¡

Did you finally see why I talked Murray and Ferrer being just journeymen
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL¡¡¡¡

It's just a testimony of how strong Federer and Nadal have been.

And how much tougher it is to stay at the top for long. It's become way more physical. Connors was still high in 1985, but already quite at age.

Also, you count slams that werent won yet at the time. Who says Delpo wont win 5 slams? Isner will nick a few? Maybe Murray and djjokovic will both win 5 more?

kiki
03-20-2012, 05:08 AM
It's just a testimony of how strong Federer and Nadal have been.

And how much tougher it is to stay at the top for long. It's become way more physical. Connors was still high in 1985, but already quite at age.

Also, you count slams that werent won yet at the time. Who says Delpo wont win 5 slams? Isner will nick a few? Maybe Murray and djjokovic will both win 5 more?

My point was 1985 was a far more competitive era and, second, second class players like Mecir or Noah still were good enough to win something big.Which is not the case today.

One can say it´s because Nadal/Djokovic/Federer are so inmensely good and another can say that they look so good and won so much because of lack of competitiveness.I accept they are great players, but I´ll take the second line of thinking.

goober
03-20-2012, 08:22 AM
I think Isner can make it top 5 at some point but he won't last there long if he does. If he gets on a hot streak anything can happen. Hey James Blake made top 5 and I never thought he would.

VOLLEY KING
03-20-2012, 08:30 AM
I think this is the new Isner. Just take a look at what he has done recently....

First he took Rafa to a close five sets at the French Open, then he beat Federer, then he beat Joker and then almost beat Fed again if not for a mishit passing shot by Fed.

Fedex
03-20-2012, 09:51 AM
Take, for example 1985:

1/Lendl: 8 slams + 7 YEC (Masters or WCT Finals)
2/Mc Enroe: 7 slams + 8 YEC
3/Wilander: 7 slams
4/Connors: 7 slams + 3 YEC
5/Becker: 6 slams + 4 YEC
6/Edberg: 6 slams+ 1 YEC
7/Cash: 1 slam ( and 2 slam finals lost)
8/Noah: 1 slam
9/Gomez: 1 slam
10/Mecir: 1 YEC ( and 2 slam finals lost)
11/Curren: 2 slam finals, beating all the big guys of the time
12/Jarryd: 1 YEC win

Now, let´s see...Murray is nº 4: 0 slams, 0 YEC, Ferrer is nº 5: 0 slams, 0 YEC...do you need me to continue embarrasing you?

It simply puts Murray at nº 13 and Ferrer at nº 14 in the 1985 ranking

Did you finally get why I talk about a weak era?
LMAO¡¡¡¡

Did you finally see why I talked Murray and Ferrer being just journeymen
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL¡¡¡¡

Regarding bits in bold, by your logic, Murray is ahead of Jarryd, Curren and Mecir.
You can't say Mecir made 2 Slam finals therefore is ahead of Murray because Murray won 0 Slams whilst neglecting to mention that Murray made 3 Slam finals. In addition to his 22 ATP titles including 8 Masters 1000s.

You mad ROFLer you.

JSummers
03-20-2012, 09:56 AM
Put it into perspective. Top 5 means, after:
Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray, ... he is the best of the bunch.

No.

mattennis
03-20-2012, 10:10 AM
It is not about strong or weak eras, it is just variety of conditions versus homogeneous conditions.

In any era with great variety of conditions you will see more players winning GS tournaments (and not only one or two players winning everything) and all the tournaments and points more distributed among more players.

In any era with very homogeneous conditions (like the last decade and the future it seems) you will see less players winning GS tournaments and the very best one or two players winning almost every GS tournament.

It is not a coincidence that in all the Open Era, only Laver (in 1969 ) and Sampras (in 1993/1994) had won 3 consecutive GS tournaments, and all of a sudden, in the last 5 years Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have done it too.

And I bet we will see many more players in the near future winning 3 consecutive GS tournaments.

Different eras/conditions make different results. Simply.

That is why you can not compare Nadal to Edberg,Becker or Wilander, or compare Djokovic to these same players.

You can talk about the best, second best, etc...of EACH ERA, and besides that, all is subjective.

For example, for me Roger Federer is the best tennis player of the Open Era, but I know that that is a totally subjective opinion that I have and I can not pretend to be able to "prove" it in one way or another.

Exactly the same applies for those who think that Laver or Rosewall is the best ever, or that Gonzalez is the best ever, or Kramer...

OrangePower
03-20-2012, 11:33 AM
It is not about strong or weak eras, it is just variety of conditions versus homogeneous conditions.

In any era with great variety of conditions you will see more players winning GS tournaments (and not only one or two players winning everything) and all the tournaments and points more distributed among more players.

In any era with very homogeneous conditions (like the last decade and the future it seems) you will see less players winning GS tournaments and the very best one or two players winning almost every GS tournament.

This is exactly correct.

In past eras, different surfaces suited different players, and as a result slams and tournaments in general were shared more amongst the top players.

Look at greats like Sampras, J-Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Borg, etc... they all had their weak surfaces. None of them had a career GS. Think about it. Subsequent to 1961, how many men have a career grand slam? Exactly no-one until Agassi did it (completing it in 1999), and wow, since then, already Federer and Nadal, and most likely Djokovic sometime over the next few years. Coincidence?

But now the surfaces play more similar, so the elite players can hog all the major tournaments. Does not mean the field is weak, just that the very best players can win everything regardless of surface.

OrangePower
03-20-2012, 11:34 AM
Back on topic, I don't think Isner will make top 5, but I hope I'm wrong since I like him. I think he tops out at 6-8.

jackson vile
03-20-2012, 11:36 AM
You make a really good point, and Federer himself talked about this as well. Since 2001 the surfaces became homogenized and it has done a great deal to help players win multiple slams in a calendar year for sure.


This is exactly correct.

In past eras, different surfaces suited different players, and as a result slams and tournaments in general were shared more amongst the top players.

Look at greats like Sampras, J-Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Borg, etc... they all had their weak surfaces. None of them had a career GS. Think about it. Subsequent to 1961, how many men have a career grand slam? Exactly no-one until Agassi did it (completing it in 1999), and wow, since then, already Federer and Nadal, and most likely Djokovic sometime over the next few years. Coincidence?

But now the surfaces play more similar, so the elite players can hog all the major tournaments. Does not mean the field is weak, just that the very best players can win everything regardless of surface.

jackson vile
03-20-2012, 11:38 AM
Back on topic, I don't think Isner will make top 5, but I hope I'm wrong since I like him. I think he tops out at 6-8.

You don't think that he can be top five if he keeps playing like that, or are you talking about what is most likely to happen? His trend shows that he will make it to the top five at some point, and he has proven that he can play well on clay. With the FO being faster than ever he will be able to pick up more points much like Delpo did before his injury, and once the second part of the hard court season starts up (almost all of tennis is hard courts) will allow him to pick up even more points.

FlashFlare11
03-20-2012, 11:42 AM
You don't think that he can be top five if he keeps playing like that, or are you talking about what is most likely to happen? His trend shows that he will make it to the top five at some point, and he has proven that he can play well on clay. With the FO being faster than ever he will be able to pick up more points much like Delpo did before his injury, and once the second part of the hard court season starts up (almost all of tennis is hard courts) will allow him to pick up even more points.

I don't think he'll be top 5 because his movement isn't really that great. Commentators during the Federer-Isner match mentioned that Djokovic didn't really take advantage of that weakness in Isner's game, and that was why he lost. He has trouble with low balls and handling slice, and also mixing up the pace of shots gets him off balance.

jackson vile
03-20-2012, 11:48 AM
I don't think he'll be top 5 because his movement isn't really that great. Commentators during the Federer-Isner match mentioned that Djokovic didn't really take advantage of that weakness in Isner's game, and that was why he lost. He has trouble with low balls and handling slice, and also mixing up the pace of shots gets him off balance.

You think his movement is not great?!!!! The guy is 6'9" and was running around his backhand hitting inside out forehands. He was able to hit Novak off the court, and more.

How tall are you? I am 6'4", I had to drop a good amount of weight and more a lot on my speed in order to be able to hit the inside out forehand.

Also, I am a Novak fan. He lost because he was outplayed, he should have fought harder to give himself a better chance. Although, that wouldn't have helped all that much because Isner was simply amazing.

FlashFlare11
03-20-2012, 11:54 AM
You think his movement is not great?!!!! The guy is 6'9" and was running around his backhand hitting inside out forehands. He was able to hit Novak off the court, and more.

How tall are you? I am 6'4", I had to drop a good amount of weight and more a lot on my speed in order to be able to hit the inside out forehand.

Also, I am a Novak fan. He lost because he was outplayed, he should have fought harder to give himself a better chance. Although, that wouldn't have helped all that much because Isner was simply amazing.

I mean comparatively (to the top 5), his movement isn't as good as their's. For them, their entire game is predicated on movement. I'd love to see Isner in the top 5, but I just don't think he'd make it that far. But I do hope that he does!

I'm 6'0" and I get caught out of position more often than I'd like trying to hit an inside-out forehand. I need to work on my footwork and speed a bit more. Nice to know you actually play tennis, though! You have my respect, Jackson vile.

Isner played a great match, and all to him. I'm not taking anything away from his win, I just think that Novak should have tactically played a better match.

OrangePower
03-20-2012, 12:28 PM
You don't think that he can be top five if he keeps playing like that, or are you talking about what is most likely to happen? His trend shows that he will make it to the top five at some point, and he has proven that he can play well on clay. With the FO being faster than ever he will be able to pick up more points much like Delpo did before his injury, and once the second part of the hard court season starts up (almost all of tennis is hard courts) will allow him to pick up even more points.

I don't think he will be top 5 just because I don't see whose place he takes over the next few years.

John is 26, so his window is maybe 4 years. Djokovic / Nadal / Murray are 24/25, so he can't count on them weakening much or retiring over the next few years. It will be very hard for John to overtake them. Then, Fed is 30, but at this rate he may be around for as long as John still! Ferrer is older and probably won't be top 5 in a few years, but then competing for a top-5 spot we will also have Tsonga and Berdych (both same age as John), and Delpo (23). And that's before all the younger players who will be coming up(Raonic, etc, and probably others we don't know yet).

So I think it's unlikely given who else he is competing against for top-5, and the timeframe he has.

jackson vile
03-20-2012, 12:33 PM
I mean comparatively (to the top 5), his movement isn't as good as their's. For them, their entire game is predicated on movement. I'd love to see Isner in the top 5, but I just don't think he'd make it that far. But I do hope that he does!

I'm 6'0" and I get caught out of position more often than I'd like trying to hit an inside-out forehand. I need to work on my footwork and speed a bit more. Nice to know you actually play tennis, though! You have my respect, Jackson vile.

Isner played a great match, and all to him. I'm not taking anything away from his win, I just think that Novak should have tactically played a better match.

Oh, I get what you are saying. I agree, if you want it you have to fight to the death for it one way or another. Nothing worse than leaving a match knowing that you should have done more.

Even more off topic, have you tried losing weight to help with your foot work. That helped me a lot. At one point I got all they way down to 176lbs, I went the Novak route.

FlashFlare11
03-20-2012, 12:48 PM
Oh, I get what you are saying. I agree, if you want it you have to fight to the death for it one way or another. Nothing worse than leaving a match knowing that you should have done more.

Even more off topic, have you tried losing weight to help with your foot work. That helped me a lot. At one point I got all they way down to 176lbs, I went the Novak route.

Funny you bring up weight loss. I initially started playing tennis (and only started watching after that) to help with weight loss (I used to weigh 240 lbs). I now weigh around 158 lbs. I need to build up my lower body, though. I do more endurance training and running than anything else. Any suggestions for good drills and exercises to increase foot speed?

jackson vile
03-20-2012, 01:06 PM
Funny you bring up weight loss. I initially started playing tennis (and only started watching after that) to help with weight loss (I used to weigh 240 lbs). I now weigh around 158 lbs. I need to build up my lower body, though. I do more endurance training and running than anything else. Any suggestions for good drills and exercises to increase foot speed?

I do band work on court or at the gym, Federer did this (not sure if he still does). It will really depend on you, some people need more strength. Others are strong and need to focus more on speed.

I don't have an exact video for you, however this video is some what similar. However, you want to have two bands attached together, one to you and one to another person. I am sure you are familiar with cone drills where you run forward and backward, or sided to side. You want to have tension before you start, then the other person will release some of that tension as you accelerate. Once you are changing direction, coming back around the cone and back towards the direction you just ran from, your partner will give you a slight pull backwards. This will slightly over accelerate you and this will force you to move backwards.

This training helps you with 1) first step speed/power 2) acceleration 3)speed during change of direction 4) ability to move in revers/backwards faster.

Running backward actually helps you run forwards faster, and over acceleration helps you run faster as well.

If strength is an issue I would recommend looking into one legged/unilateral exercises ie one legged squat, split squat ect.

FlashFlare11
03-20-2012, 01:16 PM
I do band work on court or at the gym, Federer did this (not sure if he still does). It will really depend on you, some people need more strength. Others are strong and need to focus more on speed.

I don't have an exact video for you, however this video is some what similar. However, you want to have two bands attached together, one to you and one to another person. I am sure you are familiar with cone drills where you run forward and backward, or sided to side. You want to have tension before you start, then the other person will release some of that tension as you accelerate. Once you are changing direction, coming back around the cone and back towards the direction you just ran from, your partner will give you a slight pull backwards. This will slightly over accelerate you and this will force you to move backwards.

This training helps you with 1) first step speed/power 2) acceleration 3)speed during change of direction 4) ability to move in revers/backwards faster.

Running backward actually helps you run forwards faster, and over acceleration helps you run faster as well.

If strength is an issue I would recommend looking into one legged/unilateral exercises ie one legged squat, split squat ect.

Wow, that sounds like it really helps with explosiveness. I would think resistance training would. Thanks for the detailed description! I hope to incoporate some of this (or as much of this as possible)!

How much time do you spend playing tennis or training a week? Do you have a coach or a fitness trainer?

VOLLEY KING
03-20-2012, 01:40 PM
I think this is a moot point because Isner I think has beaten everyone in the top 5 so why shouldn't he make it?

I'm not sure if he has beaten Nadal but I know he came awfully close at the FO no less .

.

kaku
03-20-2012, 01:50 PM
I think this is a moot point because Isner I think has beaten everyone in the top 5 so why shouldn't he make it?

I'm not sure if he has beaten Nadal but I know he came awfully close at the FO no less .

.

Never beaten Murray and Nadal

tlm
03-20-2012, 02:05 PM
Non top 5 material just beat the best slow HC player on Earth. Yep, he's just an overgrown serving dork.

Okay so he wins 2 tiebreaks to beat joker one time, please let me know how many more times he beats a top player. Also let me know when he wins something okay. He could not even give fed a challenge in the final, guess why because his big serve was not working then. So ya he is just an overgrown serving dork.

Mainad
03-20-2012, 02:25 PM
I think this is a moot point because Isner I think has beaten everyone in the top 5 so why shouldn't he make it?

I'm not sure if he has beaten Nadal but I know he came awfully close at the FO no less .

Isner's H2H v the top 5:

v Djokovic 1-2
v Nadal 0-3
v Federer 1-3
v Murray 0-2
v Ferrer 1-3

Negative H2H against all of them although Nadal and Murray are the only top 5 players he hasn't yet beaten.

OrangePower
03-20-2012, 02:27 PM
I think this is a moot point because Isner I think has beaten everyone in the top 5 so why shouldn't he make it?

I'm not sure if he has beaten Nadal but I know he came awfully close at the FO no less .

.

No doubt he can beat the top players on occassion. Question is, can he beat them consistently while not losing to the rest of the field, so that he catches up to them in ranking points? I just don't think that's going to happen. I would be happy to be wrong.

Swissv2
03-20-2012, 02:28 PM
Ok, here's my perspective about Isner in the top 10 from what I have seen so far of him in person and on TV.


He badly needs to improve his ground strokes, volley skills, and shot selection. His serve, when on, is a dangerous factor - a weapon that he can use to get him a lot of cheap points - but if, and only if, he has a high serve percentage. Unfortunately, after the rally gets going, his game goes down exponentially.

Big Isner to top 5? Almost looks like a new Andy Roddick to me.

Rozroz
03-20-2012, 02:30 PM
Karlovic+Roddick=Isner

VOLLEY KING
03-20-2012, 04:37 PM
No doubt he can beat the top players on occassion. Question is, can he beat them consistently while not losing to the rest of the field, so that he catches up to them in ranking points? I just don't think that's going to happen. I would be happy to be wrong.

Don't box him in to an image.

Players change and improve. Just take a look a joker.

Isner didn't become the #10 player in the world overnight. He has been on a tear since the FO.

When he took Nadal to five sets it's whn he started to believe.

Same with Fed....it was not until he beat Sampras that he started his climb.

Same with Nadal....when he took Fed to five sets at Wimbledon he knew he could do it and came back the next year to win it.

John is now #10 in the world and he believes in himself now . He is ready to make his move.....and he is a threat on all four surfaces .

If I were one of the big four I certainly would not want to face him . You could even see that Fed was under big pressure in that first set. He was really working hard and won the set by the closest of margins.


.

VOLLEY KING
03-20-2012, 04:40 PM
Isner's H2H v the top 5:

v Djokovic 1-2
v Nadal 0-3
v Federer 1-3
v Murray 0-2
v Ferrer 1-3

Negative H2H against all of them although Nadal and Murray are the only top 5 players he hasn't yet beaten.

And Federer is 0-4 against rafter.

Players change. You have to start looking at John in a new way. He has earned it. He is not the same old isner .

The guy actually won points against Fed from the baseline!!


.

Rjtennis
03-20-2012, 04:58 PM
No doubt he can beat the top players on occassion. Question is, can he beat them consistently while not losing to the rest of the field, so that he catches up to them in ranking points? I just don't think that's going to happen. I would be happy to be wrong.

That is what i think. He way be able to pull off some big upsets, but can he win a large tournament by beating 2 of the top 4 and another member of the top 10. And could he ever do it at a slam in a best of 5 format? That is a big ask, and I dont think he has the movement, endurance and groundstrokes to pull it off. There are just a lot of holes in Isner's game. His serve is rockstar plus 100, but if that slips in the slightest the rest of his game cannot hold up. His return game against Fed in the second set was nonexistent. He probably only won a few return points in the entire set.

NJ1
03-20-2012, 05:00 PM
He could make 5 as there's a clear (and official) gulf in quality after the big four which offers the opportunity. Isner or Tsonga should replace Ferrer sooner than later.

Enigma_87
03-20-2012, 05:03 PM
And Federer is 0-4 against rafter.

Players change. You have to start looking at John in a new way. He has earned it. He is not the same old isner .

The guy actually won points against Fed from the baseline!!


.

Federer is 0-3 against Rafter, and all losses came when he was under 21 years of age.

Isner doesn't have the game to be top 5. Ferrer is better and more consistent overall. Same goes for Berdych and possibly Tsonga(if he stays injury free).

I don't think Isner has the endurance to make it to the latter stage of the GS event or to repeat his final showing at IW.

I may be wrong, but his win over Djokovic is a bit deceiving. Djokovic is not the same like last year and he's more prone to shocker exits.

VOLLEY KING
03-20-2012, 05:29 PM
And Isner was younger as well.

Players change . Federer, Nadal, Joker are all not the same as they were. In fact Joker has only reached his new level one year ago.

Federer Also was about Isners age . ( although fed lost to rafter the same year and I think the same Wimbledon as he beat Sampras ).

So why not isner breaking through now? He is about the right age....

As far as endurance Isner cannot be questioned .....certainly not after his record match against Mahut.

jayoub95
03-20-2012, 05:43 PM
And Isner was younger as well.

Players change . Federer, Nadal, Joker are all not the same as they were. In fact Joker has only reached his new level one year ago.

Federer Also was about Isners age . ( although fed lost to rafter the same year and I think the same Wimbledon as he beat Sampras ).

So why not isner breaking through now? He is about the right age....

As far as endurance Isner cannot be questioned .....certainly not after his record match against Mahut.

Yeah true that. The match went for like 11 hours over the period of 3 days :lol:

Enigma_87
03-20-2012, 05:50 PM
And Isner was younger as well.

Players change . Federer, Nadal, Joker are all not the same as they were. In fact Joker has only reached his new level one year ago.

Federer Also was about Isners age . ( although fed lost to rafter the same year and I think the same Wimbledon as he beat Sampras ).

So why not isner breaking through now? He is about the right age....

As far as endurance Isner cannot be questioned .....certainly not after his record match against Mahut.

Federer,Nadal,Djokovic can't be compared to Isner. Isner is 27 he's not very young you know.

As for endurance. That match was one off and it was a serve fest.

OddJack
03-20-2012, 05:55 PM
Bookmark this thread guys.

Isner's reign in top 10 will not last long. He is going to work hard, he is going to improve and he is going to win or go deep in some tournaments but he will be crippled by injuries and will never be the same.

OddJack
03-20-2012, 05:59 PM
And Isner was younger as well.

Players change . Federer, Nadal, Joker are all not the same as they were. In fact Joker has only reached his new level one year ago.

Federer Also was about Isners age . ( although fed lost to rafter the same year and I think the same Wimbledon as he beat Sampras ).

So why not isner breaking through now? He is about the right age....

As far as endurance Isner cannot be questioned .....certainly not after his record match against Mahut.

That match was not about endurance. First of all it was a serve fest. Second of all he simply went away after that match for some time.

Isner will never win a Major either.

kaku
03-20-2012, 06:02 PM
That match was never about endurance. It was a serve fest where Isner bombed some aces to hold, blew some return points for Mahut to hold, and it went on for 100+ games. Isner ran as much in that 100+ game fifth set than Nadal or Novak did in a 12 game set.

jdubbs
03-21-2012, 05:17 AM
It is human nature to think that a trend will continue indefintely. That is why the average investor pours his money in at the top of the market every time without fail.

Anybody with sense can tell that something has changed in Isner this year. His condidence is off the charts, and he's beating top 5 players now. His game looks radically improved from last year.

All of this was said about Djokovic before he made his run. I dont expect Isner to win as much as Novak, but top 5 is attainable. He can beat anybody in the top 10 on a given day.

VOLLEY KING
03-21-2012, 05:26 AM
That match was not about endurance. First of all it was a serve fest. Second of all he simply went away after that match for some time.

Isner will never win a Major either.

The isner Mahut match was never about endurance??

Now I have heard it all. :shock:

How about Isners 5 set match against Nadal on the red clay of Roland Garros.....was that about endurance ?

I think the one thing isner has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that he has endurance both physically and mentally in spades.



.

GoaLaSSo
03-21-2012, 06:22 AM
John Isner has been playing really well lately. I can maybe see him inside the top 5 in the future. Any thoughts as to whether he will become a top 5 player or is he just in a phase :-?

I don't feel like he can be a consistent top player, but he can beat anybody.

If Isner serves out of his mind, he can beat anybody on the tour. He is a very dangerous match for all of the big players.

If Isner doesn't serve quite as well or if a player has a wonderful returning day, he can be beaten by a lot of players.

To me this seems like a consistent 8-20 player, not a 1-8 player. :shock:

Bobo96
03-21-2012, 06:36 AM
He's not there yet. He will need to get more consistent, and then anything could happen.

Lets see, he beat djokovic, he beat fed and he took rafa to five sets at the FRENCH OPEN!!!

He is definately capable.

kiki
03-21-2012, 07:28 AM
Regarding bits in bold, by your logic, Murray is ahead of Jarryd, Curren and Mecir.
You can't say Mecir made 2 Slam finals therefore is ahead of Murray because Murray won 0 Slams whilst neglecting to mention that Murray made 3 Slam finals. In addition to his 22 ATP titles including 8 Masters 1000s.

You mad ROFLer you.

...and Mecir won a YEC title and Murray none.That is what puts Milos ahead of Andy.LOL

kiki
03-21-2012, 07:35 AM
It is not about strong or weak eras, it is just variety of conditions versus homogeneous conditions.

In any era with great variety of conditions you will see more players winning GS tournaments (and not only one or two players winning everything) and all the tournaments and points more distributed among more players.

In any era with very homogeneous conditions (like the last decade and the future it seems) you will see less players winning GS tournaments and the very best one or two players winning almost every GS tournament.

It is not a coincidence that in all the Open Era, only Laver (in 1969 ) and Sampras (in 1993/1994) had won 3 consecutive GS tournaments, and all of a sudden, in the last 5 years Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have done it too.

And I bet we will see many more players in the near future winning 3 consecutive GS tournaments.

Different eras/conditions make different results. Simply.

That is why you can not compare Nadal to Edberg,Becker or Wilander, or compare Djokovic to these same players.

You can talk about the best, second best, etc...of EACH ERA, and besides that, all is subjective.

For example, for me Roger Federer is the best tennis player of the Open Era, but I know that that is a totally subjective opinion that I have and I can not pretend to be able to "prove" it in one way or another.

Exactly the same applies for those who think that Laver or Rosewall is the best ever, or that Gonzalez is the best ever, or Kramer...

Your points seem to make sense to me; I agree that the fact courts are all over the same is a big conditioner...but then, shouldn´t the other players, who also have the advantage of playing the same basic court as the champions, have made any progress?

mattennis
03-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Your points seem to make sense to me; I agree that the fact courts are all over the same is a big conditioner...but then, shouldn´t the other players, who also have the advantage of playing the same basic court as the champions, have made any progress?

Think about rallying (rally races). They have several races each year, on asphalt, on sand/gravel, on ice.

If you had one year with only asphalt races, there would be less different winners, because the best driver on asphalt would win almost all the races.

What have been taking place in tennis in the last decade is as if in Rallying they try to make sand/gravel and ice/snow as similar to asphalt as possible.

It would kill rallying essence (that is the existence of very different conditions so that you have kind of specialists on ice/snow, specialists on gravel/sand, specialists on asphalt).

That is exactly what they have done to tennis, they have killed its essence (the four clearly different conditions that allowed very different players and styles to triumph in their "best" place, and the thrilling that it was to see a great player competing in his "clearly worst" place against lesser players with styles much more suited to that situation).

Do you remember Nadal-Muller last year at Wimbledon 3rd Round? Nadal won 7-6 7-6 6-0, but he suffered a lot in the first two sets, even though today's Wimbledon (and balls there) are much more suitable for his game than in the 90s or 80s.

It was fun to watch Lendl suffering a lot in the first rounds at Wimbledon many years (he won many close 4 setters and 5 setters there in the first rounds along the years), it was fun to watch Becker or Edberg trying to defeat claycourt specialists in RolandGarros year after year.

Even when playing on the same court, it had nothing to do playing against Borg than against McEnroe. For example, look at these to links:

1) Lendl against Borg on indoor carpet, long and powerful baseline exchanges between them, the two best top-spin powerful baseliners of that time fighting hard on the final of the best indoor carpet tournament, The Masters (Borg was just amazing, the best tennis athlete ever possibly): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk

2) Lendl against McEnroe, on the same indoor carpet few years later. Nothing to do with the other match. McEnroe would not give you ANY rythm at all, he would pressure you all the time, not giving you any time or space even to be able to think. That was the beauty of the sport back then, totally different playing styles, totally different players, so not only you had to be able to play on totally different conditions, but you had as well to be able to defeat totally different playing styles players: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph43gRUqdFM&feature=related

Boricua
03-21-2012, 09:34 AM
Stamina in Slams. In a best of five, in a semifinal or final, he could be in trouble. Remember his 5 setter against Nalbandian? If its a long match with a lot of rallies, he will get tired. He has to loose some weight and improve his fitness.

kiki
03-21-2012, 09:38 AM
Think about rallying (rally races). They have several races each year, on asphalt, on sand/gravel, on ice.

If you had one year with only asphalt races, there would be less different winners, because the best driver on asphalt would win almost all the races.

What have been taking place in tennis in the last decade is as if in Rallying they try to make sand/gravel and ice/snow as similar to asphalt as possible.

It would kill rallying essence (that is the existence of very different conditions so that you have kind of specialists on ice/snow, specialists on gravel/sand, specialists on asphalt).

That is exactly what they have done to tennis, they have killed its essence (the four clearly different conditions that allowed very different players and styles to triumph in their "best" place, and the thrilling that it was to see a great player competing in his "clearly worst" place against lesser players with styles much more suited to that situation).

Do you remember Nadal-Muller last year at Wimbledon 3rd Round? Nadal won 7-6 7-6 6-0, but he suffered a lot in the first two sets, even though today's Wimbledon (and balls there) are much more suitable for his game than in the 90s or 80s.

It was fun to watch Lendl suffering a lot in the first rounds at Wimbledon many years (he won many close 4 setters and 5 setters there in the first rounds along the years), it was fun to watch Becker or Edberg trying to defeat claycourt specialists in RolandGarros year after year.

Even when playing on the same court, it had nothing to do playing against Borg than against McEnroe. For example, look at these to links:

1) Lendl against Borg on indoor carpet, long and powerful baseline exchanges between them, the two best top-spin powerful baseliners of that time fighting hard on the final of the best indoor carpet tournament, The Masters (Borg was just amazing, the best tennis athlete ever possibly): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk

2) Lendl against McEnroe, on the same indoor carpet few years later. Nothing to do with the other match. McEnroe would not give you ANY rythm at all, he would pressure you all the time, not giving you any time or space even to be able to think. That was the beauty of the sport back then, totally different playing styles, totally different players, so not only you had to be able to play on totally different conditions, but you had as well to be able to defeat totally different playing styles players: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph43gRUqdFM&feature=related

Man¡¡¡ Man¡¡¡ you are preaching to a convert one¡¡¡ I fully agree with each single letter you just wrotte.I think tennis is really going downwards with that situation, and it is so far more boring, much more if compared to the 70´s and 80´s ( and some 90´s, too)

FlashFlare11
03-21-2012, 09:45 AM
There needs to be a place for serve-and-volleyers, big servers, and big hitters to thrive. Grinding shouldn't be the only way to win everywhere (which is what the trend is, seeing that four of the top five players are grinders). It isn't fair to players like Llodra, Stepanek, Isner, Karlovic, etc. (three of them are older and once were able to thrive at Wimbledon or on USO hardcourts).

kiki
03-21-2012, 04:10 PM
There needs to be a place for serve-and-volleyers, big servers, and big hitters to thrive. Grinding shouldn't be the only way to win everywhere (which is what the trend is, seeing that four of the top five players are grinders). It isn't fair to players like Llodra, Stepanek, Isner, Karlovic, etc. (three of them are older and once were able to thrive at Wimbledon or on USO hardcourts).

Sorry for your generation, you´ll never see a real S&V...by the way, do you really care about it?