Are we ready to accept that who wins tomorrow is a better player?

[Dolgopolov85]

Which is why I asked. I have played both sports, was pretty crappy at TT, much better at tennis, albeit neither at national league level and not going to because I am past the age for all that. There is no comparison. Maybe your TT experience biases you to attach too much importance to strokes? Fed may still have the strokes but ultimately if you are too tired to get to the ball halfway through the match, there's no point in having all those amazing shots. Basically tennis is a lot more physical.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I can't comment on Federer's fitness as I did not measure it and I don't know his current parameters. However, for his style of play, fitness is secondary issue (somehing like commenting on fitness of Karlovic). Regarding Seppi vs Djokovic, I wrote an essay on this forum (if you are interested you can find it) to explain why, for me, Seppi was just few points from winning (I am sure that most people playing tennis at serious competitive level would agree with me).

Not comparable with the style of Karlovic. Fed plays a lot, lot more from the ground. Frankly, have you watched many of Fed's matches from his peak years, 2004-07? Fed used to play defender against Roddick or Hewitt. He was confident of outlasting them physically apart from also outplaying them shots wise. He didn't need to risk getting passed by serve-volleying all the time. He would bide his time and wait for them to come to the net and strike.

 

[ABCD]

Which is why I asked. I have played both sports, was pretty crappy at TT, much better at tennis, albeit neither at national league level and not going to because I am past the age for all that. There is no comparison. Maybe your TT experience biases you to attach too much importance to strokes? Fed may still have the strokes but ultimately if you are too tired to get to the ball halfway through the match, there's no point in having all those amazing shots. Basically tennis is a lot more physical.[/QU
You are talking about playing at recreational level. Competitive table tennis is highly physically demanding sport; if interested you can read paper J Sports Sci Med. 2013 Sep; 12(3): 362–370. Of course that I play tennis, but well below my table tennis level.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Um, if even recreational level demands at least a modicum of fitness, would it not be CRUCIAL at the pro level? I have only once had the occasion to watch pros live in the stadium and they play way harder, move way faster, there's no comparison. That was WTA. Now consider that we are talking about the top tier of ATP in an era where four great players are snapping at each others' heels. Even a slight loss of endurance or foot speed would be critical at that level. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Anyhow, the claim that fitness is secondary for Fed's style tells me you don't know very much about Fed's style at all and have not watched his epic Wimbledon clashes against Nadal. 20-25 stroke rallies don't demand stamina and endurance? It doesn't matter if he has modified his style NOW. The effort expended back then is bound to have made its impact on his physical condition and people who have watched him for a long time can see that he runs out of steam once the match gets long. He almost seems to panic now when he senses the match is not going to end soon and it seems to kill his spirit. You are talking about a player who went what 20-18 or something like that in the final set at Wimbledon in the 2009 finals against Roddick. Performed a somewhat similar feat in a losing cause the previous year against Nadal...both five setters obviously.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

And pl don't repeat back what Fed said or what Cahill said. I am not interested in the appeal to authority argument. I have heard this broken record many times before from players getting past their best and their publicity managers, the media, etc. I recognise it now as well for what it is. If you have a more logical argument to make, I am all ears, else I am done.

 

[pame]

Is there anybody here who has his or her life or a career categorized on one day's output?

 

[ABCD]

Is there anybody here who has his or her life or a career based on one day's output?

There are many professions like that. Soldiers, police force, politicians etc.

 

[pame]

There are many professions like that. Soldiers, police force, politicians etc.

nothing more to say to you.. refuse to deal with dishonest and specious arguments, but I will wonder aloud at all the 5-star generals who built their careers on one day.

 

[ABCD]

nothing more to say to you.. refuse to deal with dishonest and specious arguments

What are you talking about? Please, expand.

 

[pame]

What are you talking about? Please, expand.

no.. go your way rejoicing. Carry on smartly

 

[ABCD]

no.. go your way rejoicing. Carry on smartly

Sorry if I offended you in any way. If this happened, it was inadvertently.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Djokovic is a better player than the current Federer who's REALLY playing well. That will accept. But he better bring his form from previous matches unlike wimbledon where his level was nowhere close to SF. Wasn't bad at all. But wasn't close to what we were expecting.

 

[RF20Lennon]

So Roger admits publicly that he is playing his best game ever,but fedfans here are so smart and know so much of tennis that they say that he is not,so if he losses they will say "whatever roger is 34" but if he wins it will be "roger at 34 not playing his best tennis wins us open"... Nice strategy fedfans

You may use that strategy in 6 years. You're welcome

 

[sunny_cali]

And pl don't repeat back what Fed said or what Cahill said. I am not interested in the appeal to authority argument. I have heard this broken record many times before from players getting past their best and their publicity managers, the media, etc. I recognise it now as well for what it is. If you have a more logical argument to make, I am all ears, else I am done.

Don't feed the troll -- i am wondering which banned account this is. Perhaps "objectivity" ?

 

[tennisaddict]

If Novak wins a major at 34 beating Vesely or Thiem, I will accept that Novak is a better player than Fed.

OP, you need to wait for 6 years.

 

[mctennis]

If Djokovic wins tomorrow, I will accept that 28-year-old Djokovic is a better USO player than 34-year-old Federer.

Whomever wins will be the BEST player on that day and in that match, only. Different days may produce different results.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

I can't comment on Federer's fitness as I did not measure it and I don't know his current parameters. However, for his style of play, fitness is secondary issue (somehing like commenting on fitness of Karlovic). Regarding Seppi vs Djokovic, I wrote an essay on this forum (if you are interested you can find it) to explain why, for me, Seppi was just few points from winning (I am sure that most people playing tennis at serious competitive level would agree with me).

Had a quick scan through your posts but couldn't find it. But there is no way someone who did not win one set was close to winning a match requiring 3 sets. I did not watch that match but it's not possible. He may have been a few points from winning 1 set, but that is not close to winning a match, especially not against Djokovic.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

I prefer Djokovic,

but if Federer wins tomorrow,

I will happily say "Federer is a better player than Djokovic".

Happily? c'mon…..

 

[ABCD]

Had a quick scan through your posts but couldn't find it. But there is no way someone who did not win one set was close to winning a match requiring 3 sets. I did not watch that match but it's not possible. He may have been a few points from winning 1 set, but that is not close to winning a match, especially not against Djokovic.

Have you ever played a meaningful match (a match with significant consequences)? You are winning (lets say 6:4, 6:4 and serving for the match) and you realise that you are hitting a wall. That your game is unlocked by your opponent, you are physically and emotionally drained. On the scoreboard you are more than fine, but inside you know that if you don't win next point you are done; you start anticipate losing. Remember USO SF 2011 when after a single shot everything changed. On the scoreboard, it was not a big deal, just one MP went astray (there was another one and plenty more opportunities), but inside you just know that you are lost. If you are on the other side of this story, although you are losing you know that you will win. If this has ever happened to you, I know that you would understand. This is why sometimes you hear roars from players at moments that might not seem particularly important; those are hidden inside moments that make you or break you.

 

[ABCD]

Happily? c'mon…..

Happily.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

Have you ever played a meaningful match (a match with significant consequences)? You are winning (lets say 6:4, 6:4 and serving for the match) and you realise that you are hitting a wall. That your game is unlocked by your opponent, you are physically and emotionally drained. On the scoreboard you are more than fine, but inside you know that if you don't win next point you are done; you start anticipate losing. Remember USO SF 2011 when after a single shot everything changed. On the scoreboard, it was not a big deal, just one MP went astray (there was another one and plenty more opportunities), but inside you just know that you are lost. If you are on the other side of this story, although you are losing you know that you will win. If this has ever happened to you, I know that you would understand. This is why sometimes you hear roars from players at moments that might not seem particularly important; those are hidden inside moments that make you or break you.

We are not talking about inexperience amateur players playing a league/or tournament or whatever, we are talking about professional tennis players. One of them being the best in the world at the moment and among some of the best to have played the game and the other a solid, if unspectacular professional. If Seppi couldn't finish the job 3 years earlier at the French from 2 sets up, on Djokovic's least successful surface from a grand slam point of view and Seppi's best at that point, it wasn't happening if he managed to get 1 set up at the US Open now. Although Djokovic won that set 6-3 so it doesn't look like he was ever close to going ahead. Was he close to making it one set all? Hardly would say that's a few points from winning.

US Open 2011 it was 2 sets all and 5-3. Not really comparable, especially given Djokovic was having the best year of his career. If you really thought Djokovic was that mentally fragile that he'd break down after losing a set against Seppi and would be incapable of coming back then I don't know what to say to you.

 

[ABCD]

We are not talking about inexperience amateur players playing a league/or tournament or whatever, we are talking about professional tennis players. One of them being the best in the world at the moment and among some of the best to have played the game and the other a solid, if unspectacular professional. If Seppi couldn't finish the job 3 years earlier at the French from 2 sets up, on Djokovic's least successful surface from a grand slam point of view and Seppi's best at that point, it wasn't happening if he managed to get 1 set up at the US Open now. Although Djokovic won that set 6-3 so it doesn't look like he was ever close to going ahead. Was he close to making it one set all? Hardly would say that's a few points from winning.

US Open 2011 it was 2 sets all and 5-3. Not really comparable, especially given Djokovic was having the best year of his career. If you really thought Djokovic was that mentally fragile that he'd break down after losing a set against Seppi and would be incapable of coming back then I don't know what to say to you.

I don't think that he was mentally fragile, he was just been read by Seppi. If you forget about points, he was outplayed by Seppi. If it was 2:1 for Djokovic, for me it would be 60:40 Seppi.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I can't comment on Federer's fitness as I did not measure it and I don't know his current parameters. However, for his style of play, fitness is secondary issue (somehing like commenting on fitness of Karlovic). Regarding Seppi vs Djokovic, I wrote an essay on this forum (if you are interested you can find it) to explain why, for me, Seppi was just few points from winning (I am sure that most people playing tennis at serious competitive level would agree with me).

You're saying this because you've never watched Federer in his prime. Back in 2005-2006, which are his peak years, he was predominantly a baseliner, because he had the athleticism and the fitness to go toe-to-toe from the baseline with the best of them. He could play for 5 hours and keep his level up. The same is not true now, which is why he has had to reinvent his game to try and keep up with players in their physical prime like Djokovic and Murray. Saying, "but fitness is secondary to Federer's style of play," is ludicrous when it's actually the other way around. Federer has adapted to a style of play that isn't as reliant on fitness as it used to be. Doesn't mean it is no longer relevant, because it is, especially in best-of-5.

 

[TMF]

If Novak wins a major at 34 beating Vesely or Thiem, I will accept that Novak is a better player than Fed.

OP, you need to wait for 6 years.

Nole may not even good enough to make the final in the next 6 years.

 

[Defcon]

What does better mean? Better results? Consistency? Talent?

At this moment, Djoker has better consistency and results - I don't think any Fed fan will deny that.
Fed is the more talented of the two - I don't think any Nole fan will deny that.

 

[ABCD]

You're saying this because you've never watched Federer in his prime. Back in 2005-2006, which are his peak years, he was predominantly a baseliner, because he had the athleticism and the fitness to go toe-to-toe from the baseline with the best of them. He could play for 5 hours and keep his level up. The same is not true now, which is why he has had to reinvent his game to try and keep up with players in their physical prime like Djokovic and Murray. Saying, "but fitness is secondary to Federer's style of play," is ludicrous when it's actually the other way around. Federer has adapted to a style of play that isn't as reliant on fitness as it used to be. Doesn't mean it is no longer relevant, because it is, especially in best-of-5.

He was excellent baseliner for 2005 crop of players, but not for crop of players fully developed in the last few years (Djokovic, nadal, Murray and probably some others); Seppi is great baseline player. He cleverly adjusted his game to beat some players that he couldn't beat from baseline alone and he is great ("better than ever" if you prefer). The main disagreement between two of us is that you believe that physicality is the major thing and I don't. For Federer, it is not important that he is physically in best possible shape; it is important that he is in good enough shape. I didn't see that he had any physical issues in W14 and W15 finals.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

He was excellent baseliner for 2005 crop of players, but not for crop of players fully developed in the last few years (Djokovic, nadal, Murray and probably some others); Seppi is great baseline player. He cleverly adjusted his game to beat some players that he couldn't beat from baseline alone and he is great ("better than ever" if you prefer). The main disagreement between two of us is that you believe that physicality is the major thing and I don't. For Federer, it is not important that he is physically in best possible shape; it is important that he is in good enough shape. I didn't see that he had any physical issues in W14 and W15 finals.

Yes, I agree. Just like Djokovic was better than ever in 2005, but he was getting his clock cleaned by that crop of players. Once they declined, Djokovic was able to win more because the current crop of players is much weaker.

 

[ABCD]

You're saying this because you've never watched Federer in his prime. Back in 2005-2006, which are his peak years, he was predominantly a baseliner, because he had the athleticism and the fitness to go toe-to-toe from the baseline with the best of them. He could play for 5 hours and keep his level up. The same is not true now, which is why he has had to reinvent his game to try and keep up with players in their physical prime like Djokovic and Murray. Saying, "but fitness is secondary to Federer's style of play," is ludicrous when it's actually the other way around. Federer has adapted to a style of play that isn't as reliant on fitness as it used to be. Doesn't mean it is no longer relevant, because it is, especially in best-of-5.

Just one additional argument: Federer feels that he is in such good physical shape that he criticizes players forced to retire.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Just one additional argument: Federer feels that he is in such good physical shape that he criticizes players forced to retire.

He hasn't criticized them. He said their being unprepared is not an excuse, because they knew what the weather in NY would be like this time of the year. Work on your comprehension.

 

[ABCD]

Yes, I agree. Just like Djokovic was better than ever in 2005, but he was getting his clock cleaned by that crop of players. Once they declined, Djokovic was able to win more because the current crop of players is much weaker.

In my book, Djokovic is now better than ever. For me, he is better now than in 2011.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

In my book, Djokovic is now better than ever. For me, he is better now than in 2011.

Your book sounds fascinating. Are you a bestselling author?

 

[ABCD]

He hasn't criticized them. He said their being unprepared is not an excuse, because they knew what the weather in NY would be like this time of the year. Work on your comprehension.

"He said their being unprepared is not an excuse, because they knew what the weather in NY would be like this time of the year." This is a definition of criticism. You need to improve comprehension if you are still in primary or secondary school. If not, you are fine.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

"He said their being unprepared is not an excuse, because they knew what the weather in NY would be like this time of the year." This is a definition of criticism. You need to improve comprehension if you are still in primary or secondary school. If not, you are fine.

I don't think that a comprehension of a written text is your strongest point

I suggest that you should have more fate in Federer.

 

[ABCD]

Your book sounds fascinating. Are you a bestselling author?

Guess my biography, and I will guess yours. Then, we can tell each other how close we were.
Age:
Education:
Country:
Occupation:
Tell me if you want to play.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

I don't think that he was mentally fragile, he was just been read by Seppi. If you forget about points, he was outplayed by Seppi. If it was 2:1 for Djokovic, for me it would be 60:40 Seppi.

Ridiculous. Seppi had 3 more sets to win. Even if he was getting a read on Djokovic he'd need to keep that up for two more sets if he was close to winning one, and assume that Djokovic would not make any changes.

A few points from winning is just ridiculous, it's mind boggling buffonary. You are digging a deep, deep, grave for your credibility.

In my book, Djokovic is now better than ever. For me, he is better now than in 2011.

Can't beat presentism can you? Suppose Nadal is playing better than ever too.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Guess my biography, and I will guess yours. Then, we can tell each other how close we were.
Age:
Education:
Country:
Occupation:
Tell me if you want to play.

No, thank you. I just want to know more about your book.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Can't beat presentism can you? Suppose Nadal is playing better than ever too.

Exactly right. People are starting to get with the script now. When will the others see the light???

 

[ABCD]

Ridiculous. Seppi had 3 more sets to win. Even if he was getting a read on Djokovic he'd need to keep that up for two more sets if he was close to winning one, and assume that Djokovic would not make any changes.
A few points from winning is just ridiculous, it's mind boggling buffonary. You are digging a deep, deep, grave for your credibility.
Can't beat presentism can you? Suppose Nadal is playing better than ever too.

I gave you my honest opinion and this is the way you repay me for my polite answers and discussion? Nadal highest level I watched was FOSF 2013. Regarding credibility I don't have any, neither is required for this forum.

No, thank you. I just want to know more about your book.

I have written few books, but you probably didn't read them. They are in specialist subjects.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I have written few books, but you probably didn't read them. They are in specialist subjects.

Are they titled, "How to lose your credibility in one day" and "12 is the best age to be"?

 

[Slice'n'dice]

I gave you my honest opinion and this is the way you repay me for my polite answers and discussion? Nadal highest level I watched was FOSF 2013. Regarding credibility I don't have any, neither is required for this forum.



I have written few books, but you probably didn't read them. They are in specialist subjects.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you come out with such ridiculous statements it's hard to believe that you are serious.

 

[ABCD]

Are they titled, "How to lose your credibility in one day" and "12 is the best age to be"?

No, this was written by someone else. You should really brush up your comprehension. If not, I am afraid you might fail your exams. However, you have a future as a proof reader.

 

[ABCD]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you come out with such ridiculous statements it's hard to believe that you are serious.

Fine. You can just politely disagree, conclude I am not your cup of tea and find someone else you prefer communicating with.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

You should really brush up your comprehension.

I don't think that a comprehension of a written text is your strongest point. I suggest that you should have more fate in Federer.

 

[ABCD]

That's my point. You seem to be a good proof reader (even if you don't know what does it mean).

 

[The_18th_Slam]

That's my point. You seem to be a good proof reader (even if you don't know what does it mean).

I don't know what you think it means, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Some D grade fishing in this thread...

 

[torpantennis]

1) Federer is the undisputed better player, peak-to-peak.
2) Regardless of the final, 33-34yo Federer is the better player on decoturf than 27-28yo Djokovic.
3) If Federer wins the final, then 33-34yo Federer is the UNDISPUTED better player on decoturf than 27-28yo Djokovic

 

[BringBackSV]

Every loss and every match counts no matter the form. No one gets a free pass. And Fed still isn't playing better than Nadal this year, Nadal's opponents just all went up and played the matches of their lives, they deserve all the credit in the world.

Fed is in great form, says as much and is now in his second Slam final. Some Fed fans though want to keep pretending it wouldn't mean much.

 

[BringBackSV]

He is definitely playing best as he can at this age, but best of career when he is:
1) atleast 5 years past his physical prime?
2) His fitness is exposed once the match is long enough?
3) lost power , precision of his biggest weapon: FH?

Gimme a F'ing break

Physically he is a bit diminished but he makes up for it with smart scheduling and smarter play. His fitness has diminished somewhat but his fifth set record was not great to begin with. He's lost some power on the forehand, he does not dictate as well with it but he serves better, holds serve easier, volleys better (and smarter) and his backhand looks great. He's not the same physically but I feel he's been able to nearly make up for that by being smarter. Of course at some point he will hit a wall and his physical decline will be too significant but it clearly has not happened yet.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Physically he is a bit diminished but he makes up for it with smart scheduling and smarter play. His fitness has diminished somewhat but his fifth set record was not great to begin with. He's lost some power on the forehand, he does not dictate as well with it but he serves better, holds serve easier, volleys better (and smarter) and his backhand looks great. He's not the same physically but I feel he's been able to nearly make up for that by being smarter. Of course at some point he will hit a wall and his physical decline will be too significant but it clearly has not happened yet.

Yes, just like Nadal has made up for his decline by being mentally stronger, having a better backhand, and being a much better tactician now than he ever was. But it's just that the field is too strong these days.