Funny how no one ever mentions how clay hides Rafa's vulnerabilities, the ones, for example, that prevent him winning a title on hardcourt or grass, outdoor or indoor, for years at a time.
When Fed is aggressive he's unbeatable
- Thread starter Mick3391
- Start date
Funny how no one ever mentions how clay hides Rafa's vulnerabilities, the ones, for example, that prevent him winning a title on hardcourt or grass, outdoor or indoor, for years at a time.
Goosehead
Legend
Fed's spine is dying?
someone should shout it out at the final..
"hey fed..ive something to tell you...YOUR SPINE IS DYING" :twisted:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Oh come on. First of all, you don't have to beat 5 top 10 at WTF. The final can be against a guy you played in RR (Tsonga in 2011), so that's only 4. Second of all, it's not because they are ranked top 10 on paper that the players are necessarily in top form or even in form (this is the last event of the season, some players are burned out or injured and end up playing worse than lower ranked players would at that particular time, see Djoko last year for instance) or that the players are at their best on that particular surface (you want to argue about Nadal NOT being a top 10 indoor?).
In a slam, you get whoever is playing their best tennis at that particular moment and on that particular surface (regardless of ranking on paper) and you have to hold the distance too, so have impeccable fitness. + WTF allows one the luxury of losing one match. In a slam, one strike and you're out. Please do not give me this nonsense about WTF being harder. Please. Or I'm gonna start arguing Davydenko was the POTY of 2009. Let's not go there. Please.
Last edited:
That's why I said 4-5 top-8 players to beat. That is very difficult.
Fitness and conditioning are parts of the game. Whoever wins the WTF goes through the same burnout and risk of injuries. It is just a different challenge.
Same in WTF.
WTF requires impeccable focus and determination to beat the best of the best. It is just a different challenge.
A slam allows day breaks between matches. But that is irrelevant. All those "luxuries" are given to all players. The job is still the same - remain the last man standing. It is just a different challenge.
WTF is harder to dominate year after year since there are no random journeymen and everybody is dangerous. The case with Davydenko is a perfect proof.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
]
Davy would give his WTF title, heck he would give 300 WTF titles in exchange for 1 slam title. Him and everyone else. Ask around. Worn out or injured top players are not more of a challenge than a player in the zone at 1 tournament. They can actually be no challenge at all if they're tired enough. Fed won several WTF because he likes the event and the surface. That would be true about other top players on other surfaces and at other events. .[/QUOTE]
Davy would give his WTF title, heck he would give 300 WTF titles in exchange for 1 slam title. Him and everyone else. Ask around. Worn out or injured top players are not more of a challenge than a player in the zone at 1 tournament. They can actually be no challenge at all if they're tired enough. Fed won several WTF because he likes the event and the surface. That would be true about other top players on other surfaces and at other events. .[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Fed always tries to be aggressive. That's his game. Only sometimes his shots don't go in. Of course it has a lot to do with the guy across the net too.
winstonplum
Hall of Fame
smoledman, you must know very, very little about tennis. Even less than the normal 14 year old Nadal-hater. Mustard is probably, consistently, the most intelligent poster on this entire board.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Mustard knows everything about tennis
A slam is more prestigious, shells out more money and more ATP points. I am not comparing any given slam and any given WTF in terms of prestige and difficulty.
All I am saying is this: you can get a cakewalk draw in a slam, like Nadal got in 2010 (and I am sure I can find a "weak field" slam in Federer's collection too). You can get cakewalk draws in multiple slams. You can enjoy the lack of good clay- or grass-courters and win a whole bunch of them.
Winning the WTF multiple times is insanely hard. It is just too damn hard to beat the top-8 pack, over and over again. You can get "lucky" once (like Nadal in 2010 or Federer in 2012), but even that "luck" is pretty relative - they are still top-class players, all of them, no exception. Even Tipsy, who looked like a punch bag to the other 3, would beat the crap out of most tennis players on this planet.
If Federer wins his 7th WTF (which is not likely, but he has given himself that chance) in my opinion that accomplishment would beat his seven Wimbledons, even if Wimbledon is clearly a more prestigious event and Federer himself would not trade any of his Wimbledon trophies for any of his WTF ones.
Last edited:
kalyan4fedever
Legend
Make the damned courts faster ......The court looks slower than clay .annoying no matter how hard you hit seemed like you always return the ball unless you paint the lines.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
And I think your opinion is crazy. You keep going back to the weak draw argument but I've already explained why "on paper" doesn't always correspond to "in form". (BTW what a year to choose that argument when Fed got such a cushy draw in RR). You think whatever you want but 7 Wimbledon will always remain a bigger achievement. The only difference is that no one else has won 7 WTF. But that would be true of Nadal at RG or Monte-Carlo as well. It is cool to have a record but it doesn't make WTF the most difficult event ever. (And no, Tipsy in the kind of form he showed wouldn't beat many guys, he didn't beat that many in Paris, did he?)
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Let's put it in a different way:
Things that make WTF difficult:
1- All players are top 10
the end
Things that make slams difficult:
1- 7 matches
2- 5 sets
3- you can't lose a match
4- you have to play 7 different players
5- in final rounds, you face most in form players, not just best ranked (they don't always match)
Slams win, no?
WTF is similar to a master in difficulty: you have to play 5 3 set matches in a week. At WTF, the difficulty is top 10 players, in masters, the difficulty is one cannot lose a match. One makes up for the other. (And note that whether in masters or slams, you still have to play 3 rounds vs either top 8 or most in form: quarter to final, even R16 is against highly ranked players- not that much of a difference in level between a #9- Tipsy- and a #14).
Things that make WTF difficult:
1- All players are top 10
the end
Things that make slams difficult:
1- 7 matches
2- 5 sets
3- you can't lose a match
4- you have to play 7 different players
5- in final rounds, you face most in form players, not just best ranked (they don't always match)
Slams win, no?
WTF is similar to a master in difficulty: you have to play 5 3 set matches in a week. At WTF, the difficulty is top 10 players, in masters, the difficulty is one cannot lose a match. One makes up for the other. (And note that whether in masters or slams, you still have to play 3 rounds vs either top 8 or most in form: quarter to final, even R16 is against highly ranked players- not that much of a difference in level between a #9- Tipsy- and a #14).
Last edited:
Let's wrap this conversation up. I don't ask you to agree, however, it is a bummer that you seem to misinterpret what I am saying.
You think I am saying that winning one WTF is harder than winning one slam. Nope, it depends on too many things. I think that winning one FO or one Wimbledon is easier than winning WTF because there are fewer people good on clay and grass, but winning the USO and AO is harder since the field is packed with dangerous hard-court floaters that you are less likely to wait out and sneak by.
Winning multiple WTFs is a whole different statement though. You must qualify multiple times, which is a longevity achievement by itself. Every single match is played against someone very talented, the margins are super-thin, it is very easy to lose, especially in the 3-set format. If you do not lose year after year against top 8 ("on paper", yes, but that "paper" is earned by winning, and you are on the same "paper"), then that is pretty remarkable. It means you are not a freak who earns points by playing a lot beating nobodies, it means you can outgun the big ones too.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Ah sure, you have to be top 8 for several years just to qualify (or top 10, there is often 1 of the top 8 who can't play), it's difficult but I mean several players in current era are doing it. It's extremely difficult to win ANY event 6 or 7 times, no doubt. I'm not trying to argue against that. The surface argument is easy to rebuke. You would be quite right if WTF was on outdoor hard because there, the competition is fierce. Indoor hard is a specialty that has become a rarity (as indoor events have started to diminish in both number and importance), a bit like grass, actually. I'll have to disagree about clay as most players from Hispanic/Latin countries (and that makes a lot of players) have grown up on the surface and are quite expert on it.
ETA: and I don't understand either your insistance on "especially in best of 3 format". Best of 3 is not more difficult than best of 5, it's just different and for some players, best of 3 is easier. Fed would have won WTF 2005 if it had been a best of 3 instead of a best of 5. + "on paper" is earned by winning, sure, but if you qualify by winning several big clay events like Nadal for instance, how is that relevant to WTF? If we made a ranking (top 10) for each surface, each ranking would be different. You could also have gained most of your points between January and July and have your form completely down the drain in November. Talent matters but it's not the only factor. I would say pretty much the top 50 or more are pretty talented on any given day.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Upsets are more common in best-of-3 matches, so winning 7 titles in best-of-3 tournaments is harder than winning 7 of them in best-of-5 tournaments, because the record-contenders are more likely to be upset.
Feather
Legend
That's why he got straight setted by Novak Djokovic in Rome and Roland Garros but managed to bagel him on a fast court Cincinnati. :wink:
true. Slams are most important. Followed by world tour finals. Since 5 sets is so important, might as well rank MS titles with a BO5 final, over MS titles with a BO3 final. But of course, you wouldn't agree cause that doesn't favor Rafa
That is exactly what I meant to say.
Imagine it is not best-of-5 and not best-of-3, but (exaggerating) just a single tie-break. Sure it takes less energy to win, but the odds of winning 6 or 7 are worse since the "randomness" is higher.
If the players are all top-8, then the odds are pretty slim. Winning 6 WTFs against fellow top-8s ranks higher in my book than winning 6 or 7 slams, since in slams it is possible (and quite likely) to sleep through the first week and only meet someone strong in the semis & finals (sometimes just one decent player, as happened at Wimby 2010).
That does not make the WTF more prestigious than a slam. It is just harder to string a few of them together, since it is such a gladiator showdown every time.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
While I'd rather take a couple of Grand Slams (even a single Grand Slam if it happens to be Wimbledon) over 7 WTF titles, I have to admit winning 7 WTF will be tougher to beat than winning 7 Wimbledons or 7 French Opens or 7 US Opens or 7 Australian Opens.
And I totally agree with you on the "randomness" part. Winning 7 of the same Grand Slam (especially if it happens to be the USO or the AO) would be tougher to beat if the WTF was best-of-5 as well. The best-of-3 makes it hard to get multiple wins because the "randomness-factor" will be slightly but significantly higher.
Last edited:
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Logically, I think it's 50-50. But I have a feeling Federer will pull through in 3. But I've been wrong loads of times before
kragster
Hall of Fame
Logically, I think it's 50-50. But I have a feeling Federer will pull through in 3. But I've been wrong loads of times before
Who Are you ? 1200 post since August is typically the sign of a troll reincarnation but quite the opposite you seem to be one of the most reasonable posters out there. Anyway I enjoy your posts, keep up the good work!
Federer20042006
Banned
Yes, I would. It's BS to claim a single digit age as the age in which someone stops growing. Some people stop mid-teens. Others continue into their early 20s.
Source? Oh wait, you don't have one.
Like Barry Bonds? Did Barry Bonds lose muscle mass when he turned 30?
You lose muscle mass by not getting enough exercise/nutrients/steroids/developing certain medical conditions. It doesn't just randomly start at 30.
Actually, tennis is the exception to the rule. In other sports, the top athletes usually retire anywhere from 35-early 40s.
In tennis, yes...a lot of players' bodies take a beating from all the mileage. But there's no magical age when this happens. It's already supposedly happening to Nadal, and he's 26. Some guys are late bloomers. Others simply don't put as much strain on their bodies.
Federer's somewhere in-between. He's clearly not as explosive as he used to be, but then that started in 2007/2008. That said, he's not this walking cripple some fans are making him out to be. There's no way he'd ever be beating guys like Murray and Djokovic if that were the case.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I don't understand what you mean. BO5 would always favor Rafa but there is no more BO5 in master events. It's not like players have a choice. I would rank a BO5 master over a BO3 master if there was any but there aren't. Players cannot play matches that do not exist, they play the way the tour is now. I can't fault Fed for not winning Grand Slam Cup for instance because it doesn't exist anymore and no one can win an event unless it's being played.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Is that a stat? Do you have the numbers to prove it? It could also be because players invest more energy and motivation in slams than in other events or that so few players have the fitness to last over 5 sets that the few who do hold their ground. In that case, it is actually harder to be one of the few. Randomness or not, it's easier to dominate best of 3 events than best of 5. Vilas dominated Buenos Aires (8 wins) but he could never dominate any slam. Is that because Buenos Aires (as a best of 3) is tougher to win than a slam???
(and I have plenty of other examples at your disposal.) Lesser players dominate best of 3 events. Only the very best manage to dominate slams.Ah, now you decided to ask me for a source? And in the same sentence immediately concluded I did not have one? LoL, what a loser.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/ol...ging_body/changes_in_the_body_with_aging.html
Here's your source. "Most bodily functions peak shortly before age 30 and then begin a gradual but continuous decline".
"Loss of muscle mass begins around age 30 and continues throughout life. By age 75, the percentage of muscle mass is typically half of what it was during young adulthood."
"Muscles cannot contract as quickly because more fast-contracting (fast-twitch) muscle fibers are lost than slow-contracting (slow-twitch) muscle fibers."
Source? Oh wait, you don't have one.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He started aggressive in the final but Djoko forced Fed to play rallies and the aggression turned into shanks like it often does when Fed gets bullied by a superior baseliner.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That statement is not true, if applied to an individual, whose body maxed its potential for one particular purpose (sport).
What are those sports? :shock:
Golf?
Federer20042006
Banned
Here's Terrell Owens, who turns 39 in December:
Wow, look at all that lost muscle mass!!!111
Um, football, baseball, basketball, hockey.
Ever heard of them?
Federer20042006
Banned
Here was Barry Bonds in 1986 (age 22):
Here was Barry Bonds in 1993 (age 29):
Here was Barry Bonds in 2002 (age 38 ):
Here was Barry Bonds in 1993 (age 29):
Here was Barry Bonds in 2002 (age 38 ):
Here's Terrell Owens, who turns 39 in December:
Wow, look at all that lost muscle mass!!!111
Um, football, baseball, basketball, hockey.
Ever heard of them?
Anecdotal evidence means nothing. A man at 70 can take steroids and build muscle.
Like it or not, the body produces huge amounts of Growth Hormone and Testosterone up to a point where it slows down. This varies with everyone, 30 is not a cut off date by any means.
You see some teenagers with tons of natural muscle and body hair, then ten years later they are burned out, they got a huge amount of Testosterone release early. Others get less but over a longer period of time, they last longer. Same deal with Growth Hormone. We grow until we start to devolve, at what age for each person is different.
I read a fascinating study by scientists who say that 50 IS the new 30. The reasons they gave were too many to name, but you can see it. Look at any "Twilight Zone" from the early 60's. Serling always gave the persons ages, "This is Joe Smith, 29 years old", we just laugh, because the guy looks 50. Do you look as old as your dad at your age? Look at Tom Cruise, John Stamos, 50 and 49 respectively, but you wouldn't guess them over 30, and it's more than anecdotal evidence, we see this everywhere, of course with exceptions.
30-35 most athletes involved in reflex sports highly dependant on eye/hand coodination like Tennis and Boxing quickly devolve, for the exact reason the original poster said, the nervous system gets "Burned out".
A giant defensive lineman, barring injuries can last longer and be more efficient then for example a Tennis player.
High performance boxers like Joe Frazier and Wilfred Benitez were shot at 26, same deal with some Tennis players. Others who didn't have styles that depend on contant high energy and performance last much longer. Hopefully you can see how that translates to Tennis. The Nadals burn out quicker than a Federer because of playing style.
Similar threads
