TomT
Hall of Fame
Yes, agree. I just mentioned the ones I did because they were the most recent vids I watched. Just amazing playing. There's probably a few more who, at their very best, should be on the list. So many great players over the years.
At their best, who would win?
- Thread starter Graphiteking
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
except only nadal can do that consistently and that too mostly on clay and slow , high bouncing surfaces ... didn't work out that well indoors , where he has a grand 1 set in 4 matches ...
others like agassi, nalbandian, djoker, murray,hewitt have tried a lot, but failed most of the times to cause that many problems to federer's BH when he's playing well ..
and regarding volleying , do you think federer would keep on slicing back returns vs volleyers ? doesn't have a decent topspin backhand return ??? really ?? go and watch these matches :
vs sampras @ wimbledon 2001 4R
vs henman @ wimbledon 2003 QF
vs phillippoussis @ wimbledon 2003 F
vs henman @ USO 2004 SF
vs ancic @ wimbledon 2006 QF
he was passing these guys almost at will at times , including on the returning ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
thanks, its what I'd have done in case of rubbish statements against other players as well ...
but again, you have no response to the other points I raised
Again, if you are seriously not biased against federer, I suggest you watch a few more matches of federer @ the peak of his powers ( you clearly haven't watched much in that case )
all tennis players from kramer to nadal are NOT fools to unanimously praise federer's high level of play, you know
kiki
Banned
Borg and Connors were short few months of their first major win, while Nastase was clealry the best player in the world the day 73 Wimbly started...go on with your dirty agenda, newtard.
kiki
Banned
we should use reasonable words and not insults.I wish every poster here would agree on this.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and hewitt himself was the no 1 player @ the time of wimbledon 2002, clueless ...... and nastase being flaky, bombed out ......
go cry and shout how much ever you want ...... anyone who's seen the draws kodes actually faced will immediately notice they were pathetic , depleted ones (in order wimbledon 73, FO 70 and then to a lesser extent FO 71 ) ... there's a darn good reason Kodes isn't rated above many 1 slammers, he wasn't as good as many of them ......unbiased people who watched tennis @ that time and history ( in the form of the draws and matches ) will attest to that .......
kiki
Banned
When Federer won this year´s Wimbledon he did not face Nadal, right? He also won the FO and faced no real champion in his path.But Nadal was there, so was Djokovic and Murray.Was it Federer´s fault if they couldn´t make it to the finals and meet him.Same for Kodes in 73.
Plus Jan had proved he could beat world´s nº 1 Smith and Newcombe, as well as Ashe in their favourite courts and against local crowd.And that shows what a great champion he was.And your sad posts won´t take any of his well deserved glory..
kiki
Banned
Hewitt played and dominated a weak era - I know it hurts you that it has been considered by almost any poster here, the weakest ever- with old farts Agassi and Sampras and baby Fed ( who has slaughtered him at will any time, anyhow, anywhere, by the way).Nobody slaughtered Kodes in a major, not Newcombe, not Nastase, not Ashe, not S Smith when he peaked.But, of course, your iliteracy is up again to take form of ignorant arrogance.As I said, Hewitt won a " glorious" Wimbledon against a fake like Nalbandian and a guy that rassembled remotely a champion only in the Commonwealth world ( except Australia, of course) by name Timmy Henman.woooowww¡¡¡
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, but he faced djoker, the #1 and defending champion and then murray in the finals ......
again , he faced delpo in the FO semis and soderling, who had beaten nadal, in the finals ..
upsets are different from 13 out of 16 top seeds missing and 81 players missing overall
yeah, he beat one, but lost to the other on both occasions, showing he couldn't win majors when facing full draws .....
tsonga has beaten all of federer, nadal, djoker and murray in majors, doesn't mean he's won a major , does it ? because he has to go through full draws and that usually means atleast 2 guys apart from the others .........
abmk
Bionic Poster
henman > anyone kodes faced in the 73 wimbledon ....
if we're just talking whole draws, 2002 wimbledon had sampras, federer, agassi, krajicek amongst others
newk, smith, laver, rosewall etc who would have easily beaten kodes @ wimbledon 73 were nowhere there
kodes wouldn't even come close to dominating any era ..... there is no chance he'd beat a champion like sampras convicingly, let alone thrashing him like hewitt did in the USO 2001 final
of course kodes didn't get beat badly in a major at his prime .... because he didn't face anyone playing GOAT level tennis at that time .....put kodes in the same place as hewitt in the 2004 USO final and he gets a max of 5-6 games ......
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Let aside your anger at the fact that Kodes won 2 RG to your darling´s one ( and without a serious rival in the path, by the way)
kiki
Banned
Hahaha Tim Henman, that terrific player that always lost in the semis¡¡¡ only a Britton would regard him so high.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, no one in their right mind would rate kodes ahead of federer on clay ....federer's level is quite clearly higher and he mainted it for a much longer amount of time
no serious rival ????? del potro playing brilliantly and who'd go onto win the USO that year is not a serious or dangerous player ?
soderling who beat rafa , the clay GOAT on his way to the finals , not a serious or dangerous player ?????
LOL !
kodes faced zero threats in 70 RG
del potro and soderling >>>>>>>>>>>>> franulovic
only 'real' credit to Kodes is beating nastase @ 71 RG ...
get over yourself thinking that anyone is jealous of kodes achievements in any ways ...... I'm just exposing the truth here ..... Kodes is just on the level of a one-slammer and quite inferior to many of them as well ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
henman was just a good grass court player, but still better than the toughest kodes faced @ wimbledon 73 ( taylor ) ........ reality , reality ! tough for you to accept, but that's the reality ...
kiki
Banned
Kodes won 2 RG titles to Fed 1.take away Kodes beating franulovic and Federer beating Soderling ...and you have Kodes beating a terrific player like Nastase.
Curiously, after 1971, he seemed to play much better on grass, reaching 3 major finals there, while never reaching another semifinal at RG.
Henman never did anything good outside grass, as you know.Taylor reached not just a W sf abut also a US sf as well.
Curiously, after 1971, he seemed to play much better on grass, reaching 3 major finals there, while never reaching another semifinal at RG.
Henman never did anything good outside grass, as you know.Taylor reached not just a W sf abut also a US sf as well.
abmk
Bionic Poster
like I said , soderling beat rafa, rafael nadal at RG ..... he is >>>>>>>>> franulovic @ RG
del potro , that year's USO champion was playing darn well , he is >>>>>>>> franulovic @ RG
del potro although not greater achievements wise than nastase or kodes on clay, was playing at a higher level in the semi vs federer than either kodes or nastase in 71 RG ( this was still not peak nastase there although he wasn't that far from it )
and federer has beaten djokovic & moya as well @ RG ( apart from del potro , soderling, nalbandian, davydenko etc )
wrong again as usual, henman reached the semis @ the USO and at RG as well ......
and taylor didn't reach the semi of the US Open ....
henman : 11 titles, 6 GS semis overall, all in full fields, 64.41 win-loss percentage
taylor : 6 titles, 4 semis overall, including in amateur and or severely depleted fields, 56.14 win-loss percentage
blindingly obvious who is the better player, by far ....
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Del Potro never did anything good in life other than his 2009 open win.The Olimpics are just a big exo.
beating Moya on clay is remarkable?
abmk
Bionic Poster
actually, no, he was playing darn well in 2009 RG as well ..... he reached the YEC finals in 2009 ... had an injury that kept him out for most of 2010 ..... after comeback in 2011 is still consistently making the QFs of slams and obviously he's back in the top 8
given, he was a RG champion >> yeah, that is a good win ! but then you didn't even know moya was a RG champion , did you ?????? yet you keep talking about the likes of franulovic ! LOL !
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Good points. Now the question is whether it's a runners game because no one wants to take chances or whether it's a runners game because of the technology. If it's the former there can be less wear and tear if the player is good enough to attack successful and end the points earlier. If it's the latter there isn't that much you can do about it.
My gut feeling is that I see a lot of weak returns off the powerful serves of many players today and even if they don't serve and volley I'm sure they can set up the percentages in their favor with some very powerful approach shots. Usually however I don't see a strong approach shot but a powerful drive to control the point.
The other question is whether some players of the recent past ran a lot and also played a lot of tournaments. I'm think specifically of Guillermo Vilas in 1977 for example. He played a ton of tournaments that year and his style was the long grinding style. Legend has it that he practiced for hours before his US Open final against Connors and still had a lot in the tank.
Level of play is always hard to define. For example I can play perfect chess against weak players because they don't present me with any problems to make mistakes. A top player may very well make fewer errors when he was at his peak but was his competition making it easier for him. Was the player making a lesser amount of errors in those days because he was better or because he was getting better shots to hit. A fast opponent would reach shots that would normally be winners and keep the rally going. This would allow for more errors. I'm sure Federer played better tennis a few years ago but I've just pointing out the problems of using stats as a guide to level of play. Just trying to figure what came first, the chicken or the egg? Doe the player make less unforced errors because he's better or because he's handling easier shots?
Nadal's pure serving stats will never look like that of Federer's yet he holds serve extremely well because of his groundies.
Laver can look great against an Arthur Ashe whose style was made to order for Laver but look bad against Marty Riessen the next day because Riessen's style annoyed Laver.
Stats in tennis can be odd. For example I've notice opponents of the Williams sister tend to have a lot fewer winners than they normally would have against regular opponents. To me it's clear that because they are so fast Serena and Venus return shots that would normally would be winners. Are their opponents playing at a lesser level, probably not. Haven't check Clijster matches but I would guess we would find the same thing because of Clijsters's speed.
What we perhaps can do it use the same opponent to compare past matches with recent matches. Problem is that if we use Nadal I believe Nadal improved greatly around 2008 or perhaps a bit before so using older matches of Nadal against Federer may not really be that valid.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
sure he was, just that IMO, players like hewitt, safin, stich, roddick, murray etc are just clearly better players than him .......
its not like I am comparing kodes to mediocre players and calling him worse than them , is it ?
even players like mecir, rios, nalbandian, tsonga etc are darn good players and highly talented, but they didn't win majors - they faced full fields throughout their careers ....
kodes is nowhere strong enough to be a 3-major champ in full fields .....
the fields in which he won majors were depleted/weak ones with many strong players missing ..... this is a FACT .....kiki refuses to acknowledge this while BSing about "weak era" for federer .... gimme a break !!!!
and kiki even compares him to Vines, #1 player for several years in the 30s !! Again, are you like kidding me ??????
and again and again, just keeps on exposing his ignorance - see the part regarding henman/taylor .....
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
abmk,
I think Kiki's putting us on with some of this with Kodes. I agree with your arguments about Kodes. I think I actually mentioned some of that in my posts. Honestly to mention Vines with Kodes is downright silly. Vines has been called the greatest ever and the reasons aren't bad. Vines (and please don't attack me Federer fans) is a better comparison with Federer than Kodes because so many have called him the GOAT. No one calls Kodes the GOAT. Vines has been argued to be the best athlete in the history of tennis with the best forehand and serve. Vines has also been the top player in the world for many years. Incidentally fyi Vines has the second best winning percentage I believe in majors outside of Bjorn Borg. I'm including Pro Majors in this. Kodes doesn't have that type of resume.
But still I am amused by Kiki's devotion to Kodes. I will say this about Kodes, his best was higher than many top players I've seen. I think his best was higher than Vilas on fast surfaces for example. I've seen Kodes play out of his mind against John Newcombe. Newcombe had to raise the level of his game to defeat Kodes in that US Open final and I can tell you from watching Newcombe that tournament that Newcombe was playing awesome tennis. I don't remember what the predictions were but I'm fairly certain most people didn't give Kodes much of a chance to even make it that close.
Last edited:
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Serena for the women.
As for the men, I have heard numerous times on this forum that Rosol would beat anybody at his best. :lol:
As for the men, I have heard numerous times on this forum that Rosol would beat anybody at his best. :lol:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You're right. It's Rosol. He's totally invincible except maybe against Vince Spadea.
kiki, I think that one Kodes feat is seldom mentioned: His Wimbledon QF five-setter against Connors in the latter's best year.
abmk, I have watched the Federer/Henman video and I must concede that Roger played great bh passing shots.
kiki, I must defend Henman. He seems to be the last of those who really could serve and volley. He even troubled Federer and has a 6:7 balance against Roger.
kiki, I contradict: The Olympics are much more than an exo.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Of course. I've heard that some players consider it as bigger than a major. I forgot who it was but the person said basically that the European players may consider the Olympics bigger than a major.
Yes I agree also with what PC1 wrote about conditions in the past. The past eras were tough in their own way, which I why in my post I didn't make a blanket statement about which era was tougher. I have just been talking about -- for lack of a better term -- leg mileage, ie, the wearing down and slowing down of the legs. In a game that has become all about constant running, the first slight loss in speed, I believe, will have an outsize effect on a player's results. That first slight loss will not be obvious, certainly not to casual observation; but in a game of running and retrieving, the slightest diminishing in a player's court coverage HAS to make a large difference. I can't see how it would be otherwise.
I'm not sure what would be a good analogy with the past. But let's say we're talking about a SV era in which everyone makes their living off their volleys. A player who starts to have problems with his volley will surely start falling behind. That much is obvious, I guess; but I'm saying also that problems with volleys in that era will have an OUTSIZE effect on the player's results, because that's where the player is spending all his time: at the net, volleying. By contrast, someone having problems with his volley today may not fall behind his rivals at all, because volleying is hardly an important part of the game today. Today what you have to do is run and cover the court; and in this sort of game you can expect young legs to thrive and dominate.
Hope at least the principle behind my argument is clear.
Lastly I just want to reiterate that Tilden does not make a good comparison here. What he did from 1912 to 1919 -- his mostly unsuccessful efforts in tournaments, and time spent in the military -- is in no way comparable to Federer's full-time efforts on tour up to the same age (26). I'm not saying that Tilden did NOTHING in that time period; but he was largely unsuccessful; and he had time off. That surely saved him from physical wear and tear.
krosero, I can't contradict with your main statements.
But Tilden's little playing in his first years may explain why he was great till 30 or 32 but it cannot explain why he was a force till his forties.
krosero, In Vienna we already have 2013, so I wish you and all other posters a Happy New Year and interesting discussions in the new year.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Happy New Year BobbyOne.
My guess is that Tilden was a force into his forties because he was a genius of the game. But Krosero has a great point, perhaps he had less wear on his body.
Last edited:
Yes all of those are issues that you have to deal with when looking at stats. There is definitely a chicken or egg problem; or to put it most simply, you can't take a player's stats at face value without looking at the quality of the opponent.
Comparing stats across eras is really tricky, not only because conditions change but also because if you look at more than one era you're looking at stats from different statisticians who may have varying methods of counting things like unforced errors, etc.
But the comparison I did upthread, between Federer and Djokovic in their five USO meetings, is free of a lot of the problems associated with stats. You've got the same era, same two players, same stage of the same tournament, same surface.
The argument against Federer seems to be, as BobbyOne wrote, that Federer dominated his main rivals while they were still young and maturing, and began to lose to them regularly when they matured.
The stats for their USO meetings do not support that argument, and even contradict it.
Federer’s winner/error differentials vs Djokovic at USO:
+8 (2007)
+23 (2008 )
+16 (2009)
-16 (2010)
-10 (2011)
Djokovic’s winner/error differentials vs Federer at USO:
-8 (2007)
-4 (2008 )
-2 (2009)
-2 (2010)
+13 (2011)
Djokovic's win in 2010 was when you might say that Djokovic started taking command of this rivalry. That was a kind of turning point. But what stands out the most is the huge drop in Federer's numbers, from the previous year. Djokovic's numbers, from 2009 to 2010, are holding steady. All of which implies very strongly that Djokovic started beating Federer when Federer's level went down: and that's one reason I have a problem with the argument that Federer was more or less still playing the tennis he always played, but started losing because his rivals got better.
I don't see that at all in these numbers.
As for whose peak is higher, Federer's differentials were the highest. Djokovic takes a big jump in level of play in 2011, but even his +13 differential is lower than what Federer had in 2008 and 2009.
Of course what we all wonder next is what was the quality of the defeated opponent. Was Novak just a baby in diapers in '08? Was Federer walking with a cane in 2011?
Obviously, it's easier for Federer to hit 23 more winners than errors in a match if his opponent does not put up much resistance. It's much harder to make all those winners, and make so few errors, if your opponent is putting up a strong resistance with numerous winners and few errors of his own.
But if you combine the differentials, you can find out in which matches the combined level of both players was the highest. That is, you can find out which were the best-played matches.
If you combine the differentials, the best-played of all these matches was 2008. Fed and Djoker, between the two of them, made 19 more winners than errors.
Next best was 2009, followed by 2011. The 2007 match broke even: there were just as many winners as errors in that match. The 2010 match, per the numbers, was the lowest quality of all.
I thought the 2010 match, as I watched it, was not great quality -- not in the first four sets anyway.
Federer not only made a ton of unforced errors: he served at just 52%, his lowest percentage in all five matches.
Just wanted to address this: you're right that this is what happens when Nadal meets Federer. Nadal takes slices and rips them into corners. Djokovic, on the other hand, because he is right-handed, takes Federer's slices with his two-hander. And that is not always easy for him. It was a big problem for him in the '07 USO final. Sometimes Federer's short slice is difficult for him simply because a two-hander finds it difficult to do much with that shot.
That's the funny thing about matchups. What is a liability for Federer against Nadal is a strength for him against Djokovic.
Djokovic has no trouble at all with Nadal's pounding crosscourt forehand. Nadal can whale away at it all day, and Novak has no trouble with it, and in fact he gets grooved, because he's always getting the same topspin shot. And when Djokovic gets grooved he's at his most dangerous. But Federer's slices don't allow Djokovic to swing away with the two-hander in the same way; Federer's changes of pace keep Novak from getting into rhythm.
Yes, I agree that Tilden's longevity into his 40s can't be explained by what he did before 1919. He had longevity genes, no doubt about that: he lasted far longer than almost any of his peers.
We are couple of hours away from midnight still. Happy New Year!
krosero, Your arguments are convincing. On the other hand, fact remains that Federer handled Nadal better when Rafa was young and had more problems with him when Nadal was in his prime. Maybe there is a difference between Nadal and Djokovic, both against Federer.
krosero, fine analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the three top players of the last few years. It probably explains why Nadal did better against Federer than Djokovic did.
Yes, Tilden must had have a special gene. It's almost unbelievable that he lead 5-2 in the deciding set in the 1946 Kalamazoo tournament against world's pro champion, Riggs, before losing that third set only by 6-8. Big Bill was 53 at that time! Maybe a model for aging Roger...
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I'm interested.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Depends on the case,.
Yes, but you're not playing in an extremely competitive field of the best professional chess players in the world now, are you?
It doesn't has to be either-or, it could be a combination of several factors.
Indeed, for example I'd say that the main reason Fed is having significantly more trouble with big hitters today (and in the last few years) than in his best days is because he's nowhere near as fast as he was.
Federer's best tennis came in 2004-2007, more than a few years ago.
Stats don't tell the whole story and are open to interpretation but their value in determining various things shouldn't be dismissed either.
It's a valid question but I don't think it has a simple answer, not usually anyway.
Everyone knows that holding serve is a combination of the effectiveness of your serve as a shot and the game backing up that serve.
We've had this discussion before, by and large people don't believe Fed declined in 2008 because of his losses to Nadal but the significant drop in the performance against the field (even excluding Nadal).
Of course the counter argument might be that the field has improved and made Fed look weaker as a consequence but for that theory to hold up we'll have to believe that Mardy Fish, James Blake, Stepanek, Karlovic and Roddick all somehow tremendously improved their games in 2008, needles to say I find the theory that Fed's level dropped to be far more plausible.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Actually I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me on any point.
I used to play tournament chess years ago so I did play some really top players in the past. I would talking about non tournament players for example who would allow me to defeat them easily in let's say a known book line.
Happy New Year to you and everyone here.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I think I already replied to your post comparing Vines to Federer ... I don't quite agree with it ..
yeah, well Vilas wasn't exactly that good a fast court player, was he ? apart from maybe the 74 Masters where he beat newk, nastase and borg ..
see , I could easily give examples from the present-day where even slamless players have shown much higher/higher levels of play
tsonga looked untouchable in AO 2008 until the finals where his form dipped a bit ..... especially that performance vs nadal in the SF ........ nadal looked totally helpless trying to counter his serving, groundstrokes and amazing volleying ....he was in similar sort of form vs federer in wimbledon 2011 QF ..even for a chunk of the 2012 QF @ the FO vs djoker as well (djoker barely managed to escape , saving MPs)
see davydenko's form in the end of 2009 and early 2010 for another example ..... he defeated almost every top player - fed,nadal, delpo etc ... to win the YEC .. then won doha beating fed/nadal back to back ..... he was a like a machine with his groundstrokes at that time ... finally it was federer who finally stopped him ... he did a drastic change in tactics mid-way through the 2nd set in the 2010 AO QF , that resulted in a letdown for davydenko for some time ..... and then a fierce competitive 4th set that federer finally clinched
see nalbandian @ paris/madrid 2007 and YEC 2005 for another example as well ...... he was playing real well ..... it looked like he understood the geometry of the court as well as anyone and some of the angles were downright ridiculous
he was playing well @ quite a few majors as well : USO 2003, AO 2004, FO 2004, AO 2005, USO 2005, AO 2006, FO 2006 ...
then soderling's runs in FO 2009/2010 where he beat nadal in 2009 and then federer in 2010 ( apart from a host of other good CCers or in-form players - ferrer, gonzales, berdych, davydenko etc ... ) ...... it looked almost impossible to defend against him at times ...
only thing is while he stopped one of fed/nadal at one event, the other one was there to stop him ....
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I wasn't saying the level of play between Vines and Federer were the same but that they are similar in that many have called them the GOAT, they both have forehands called the best ever, both are excellent athletes and great serve. Don't know how you can disagree with that. I know the obvious stuff about Federer have more margin for error and things like that. Vines also was known to have a great second serve.
As far as Kiki's devotion to Kodes is concerned, you're right. Bottom line.
Incidentally as far as Vilas is concerned he did win a few grass majors and some hard court tournaments in his career so he pretty decent as a grass player. I did see the Masters win on grass and Vilas played extremely well that tournament.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing on this specific issue, was just giving my 2 cents.
Yeah but that's the point, unless we're talking about the time the tours were divided/split (and even then it's debatable) the same analogy can't be used for any pro IMO because he has to succeed in a highly competitive professional field, he doesn't face any amateurs.
Happy New Year to you and everyone here.
Likewise! I wish everyone good health first and foremost, nothing's more important than that.
I saw those numbers on Tennis Channel during the Shanghai Masters (Djoker-Murray).
At 1-all in the second set, Murray had run 1,511 meters, Djokovic 1,679.
At the start they had run a graphic saying that Murray had run 143,962 meters in the 2012 season.
Here are some insane stats for Nadal-Coria at Rome '05, in the press reports:
In five hours and 14 minutes - the longest ATP final since 1990, when the tracking of such records began - Nadal and Coria uncoiled a total of 2,800 strokes, an average of 55 a game (including serves and service faults). During one intense burst, Nadal broke Coria's serve to take the third set in a 21-minute game that spanned 11 deuces and 223 strokes. In all, the two played 378 points - 190 for Nadal and 188 for Coria.
The radar gun in Rome added to the story of two players growing weary as the match wore on. In the first set, according to the Tennis Channel, which televised the match, Nadal hit his ground strokes an average of 77 mph. In the first three games of the fifth set, he averaged just 69 mph. Coria, meanwhile, sprinted the width of the court, including the doubles alleys, three and a half times - about 126 feet - during one 13-stroke rally at 5-all in the final set, after 4:49 of play.
"I'm a little bit disappointed because I ran for five hours just to lose with two points," Coria said after the match.
The radar gun in Rome added to the story of two players growing weary as the match wore on. In the first set, according to the Tennis Channel, which televised the match, Nadal hit his ground strokes an average of 77 mph. In the first three games of the fifth set, he averaged just 69 mph. Coria, meanwhile, sprinted the width of the court, including the doubles alleys, three and a half times - about 126 feet - during one 13-stroke rally at 5-all in the final set, after 4:49 of play.
"I'm a little bit disappointed because I ran for five hours just to lose with two points," Coria said after the match.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Since 1 mile equals 1609.34 meters, Murray ran 89.45 miles in 2012. Over a period of let's say 11 months, that's not that bad. That is 8.132 miles per month. To be honest that doesn't seem horrible to me on the legs. My assumption is that would be much higher than average. I would think Djokovic would be higher considering he won more matches.
Still curious about Vilas in 1977 when he played 159 matches.
Last edited:
Well in any comparison with the past, one thing to keep in mind is that Murray played a majority of his matches on hard court. Hard was not the predominant surface in the past. Vilas is an interesting example, because he played an enormous amount of tennis in '77; but a solid majority of his matches were on clay.
And because the new equipment has increased the power and speed of shot in the game, a baseline war of attrition in today's game requires more running at high speeds. That's simply because the ball is traveling faster on average.
That's not to say that claycourt tennis in the 70s was not grueling; nor is it to say that all the claycourt matches of that period were as slow-paced as you would sometimes see when Borg played Vilas. Borg was content to keep the ball in play because he knew he could defeat Vilas easily that way; not all claycourt tennis of the era was so deliberate and slow.
But I don't think that players in those claycourt battles were running all-out as much as the current players on clay.
And that's just clay. Nowadays you've got long rallies taking place on hard court -- rallies of a length that you would typically only see on clay in past eras. On fast hardcourt surfaces they weren't having wars of attrition back then. Maybe Borg and Vilas were. But all the net players of the day certainly weren't; even a baseliner of the times like Connors, though he rallied a lot, would choose to end the point rather earlier than you see today, by coming into net.
I don't know, the game I see today, especially on hard courts, is sometimes painful to watch. Enjoyable from the sheer point of view of athleticism, of course. But I often wince when see the full-on splits, hardcourt sliding, and unbelievably difficult turns of direction that are so common today.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. When I see Clijsters or Djokovic doing the splits it almost hurts me to watch it.
forzamilan90
Legend
Similar threads
