Debate over: A robot will be the GOAT

[forehand_dude]

As someone has pointed out, "all time" includes the past, present, and future. Once this is considered, I think we have to admit that a robot is certain to be the GOAT. Robots can be programmed to perform tasks with a level of strength and consistency humans could only dream of. Furthermore, with advances in robot vision, mobility, etc, it is inevitable that robots will one day dominate the sport.

You might object that only humans are allowed to compute on the professional tennis tours. I say nonsense. The sheer entertainment factor of human vs. robot struggle, with the ratings driven demands of tournament directors, guarantees that robots will one day be allowed to compete.

(Some robots have even been programmed to mimic human emotions. For example, they could "scowl" and "yell" at the robot that will umpire the match.)

Personally, I cannot wait for the day when a robot defeats a human in the Wimbledon finals. It has already happened in chess, and it's just a matter of time for tennis.

Since this debate is now settled, there is no need to create any more threads arguing about the identity of the GOAT.

 

[Bloodshed]

As someone has pointed out, "all time" includes the past, present, and future. Once this is considered, I think we have to admit that a robot is certain to be the GOAT. Robots can be programmed to perform tasks with a level of strength and consistency humans could only dream of. Furthermore, with advances in robot vision, mobility, etc, it is inevitable that robots will one day dominate the sport.

You might object that only humans are allowed to compute on the professional tennis tours. I say nonsense. The sheer entertainment factor of human vs. robot struggle, with the ratings driven demands of tournament directors, guarantees that robots will one day be allowed to compete.

(Some robots have even been programmed to mimic human emotions. For example, they could "scowl" and "yell" at the robot that will umpire the match.)

Personally, I cannot wait for the day when a robot defeats a human in the Wimbledon finals. It has already happened in chess, and it's just a matter of time for tennis.

Since this debate is now settled, there is no need to create any more threads arguing about the identity of the GOAT.

Exactly

A robot that would have the court coverage of Nadal, the speed of Monfils, the defensive play of Murray, the clean strokes of Safin, the Forehand of Gonzalez, the Backhand of Gasquet, the slice drop shots of Federer, the volleys of Sampras, the first and second serve of Karlovic, the placement of both first and second serve of Sampras and the mental strenght of Nadal and you have the perfect tennis player

 

[hate machine]

theres no way that artificial inteligence could be used in such a manner for this to happen, maybe in 100000000 years

 

[forehand_dude]

Why not? Logically, the task is quite simple:

1. Identify an object and measure its velocity

2. Predict its future path

3. Move to a location along this path

4. Strike the object in a manner that changes its velocity according to some strategic algorithm (this is the only hard part)

5. Repeat

 

[hate machine]

yes, logically.

baring in mind, there are alot more options and decisions in tennis than in chess. i would be surprised if this happened though, but maybe not in our lifetime.

AI software has only developed to play chess at this point (and other things), so it will take a while

 

[RoddickAce]

Exactly

A robot that would have the court coverage of Nadal, the speed of Monfils, the defensive play of Murray, the clean strokes of Safin, the Forehand of Gonzalez, the Backhand of Gasquet, the slice drop shots of Federer, the volleys of Sampras, the first and second serve of Karlovic, the placement of both first and second serve of Sampras and the mental strenght of Nadal and you have the perfect tennis player

The mental strength of the robot is better, it can just turn off its emotions.

 

[hate machine]

The mental strength of the robot is better, it can just turn off its emotions.

and as well, technology wouldn't suffer with nerves

 

[ChanceEncounter]

theres no way that artificial inteligence could be used in such a manner for this to happen, maybe in 100000000 years

You underestimate the progression of technology.

 

[hate machine]

You underestimate the progression of technology.

im not underestimating, i just think it would take along time to create

 

[FedFan_2009]

Let's enjoy human tennis for as long possible, cyborgs are coming in 50 years...

 

[wilkinru]

the moment a robot could smoke the ball at 150 MPH hitting the corner every single time...is the moment a robot would win.

You dont need AI. You just need a machine that moves to the ball quickly, identifies the ball and wacks into into that corner/side line.

Ball comes back? Do the other side. Then do the middle baseline.

Random(2) - returns 0 1 2. There you go. There is your AI. It wins.

 

[Bloodshed]

The mental strength of the robot is better, it can just turn off its emotions.

Amen to that.

But the robot in order to be more "human" he would need to make UE, DFs and perhaps have a tantrum of Mcenroe, with the German vulgarity of Haas with the sense of humour of both Safin and Ivanisevic.

 

[hate machine]

a robot must also know

when to move foward,when to move backwards, when to serve, when to sit down, get up, shake hands aswell

 

[ms87]

Exactly

A robot that would have the court coverage of Nadal, the speed of Monfils, the defensive play of Murray, the clean strokes of Safin, the Forehand of Gonzalez, the Backhand of Gasquet, the slice drop shots of Federer, the volleys of Sampras, the first and second serve of Karlovic, the placement of both first and second serve of Sampras and the mental strenght of Nadal and you have the perfect tennis player

actually, a robot should have strokes vastly superior to any of those players.

 

[ms87]

theres no way that artificial inteligence could be used in such a manner for this to happen, maybe in 100000000 years

are you ********?

edit: never mind, I say your next post, and yes indeed you are.

 

[Claudius]

A serve and volleyer robot with a hundred percent success rate at the net.

 

[forehand_dude]

A serve and volleyer robot with a hundred percent success rate at the net.

Creating a robot that holds serve should be pretty easy. Just aim super fast serves at the corners. I think the hard part would be creating a robot that can break serves.

 

[Claudius]

I wonder how hard the ball would need to be hit to be popped when serving. I mean is it possible to serve the ball at 200 mph without popping it?

 

[iamke55]

the moment a robot could smoke the ball at 150 MPH hitting the corner every single time...is the moment a robot would win.

You dont need AI. You just need a machine that moves to the ball quickly, identifies the ball and wacks into into that corner/side line.

Ball comes back? Do the other side. Then do the middle baseline.

Random(2) - returns 0 1 2. There you go. There is your AI. It wins.

But of course according to TW logic, the robot would get destroyed by great players of the past because it has no "variety" and has nothing but power.

 

[ms87]

I think a lot of you underestimate how comically easy to would be for a robot - designed with existing technology - to annihilate a human opponent. Serve? Anything over 100mph to the corners would be an ace. Return? It would be very easy for a robot to hit return winners off of any serve (yes, even 140 to the corners). Do you have any idea what the electronics in a fighter aircraft do?

 

[Toxicmilk]

a robot must also know

when to move foward,when to move backwards, when to serve, when to sit down, get up, shake hands aswell

Are you kidding me?

You underestimate the progression of technology.

+1

 

[ms87]

Are you kidding me?

remember, roughly half of the population has an IQ under 100.

 

[Chopin]

But of course according to TW logic, the robot would get destroyed by great players of the past because it has no "variety" and has nothing but power.

Great post!

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

Exactly

A robot that would have the court coverage of Nadal, the speed of Monfils, the defensive play of Murray, the clean strokes of Safin, the Forehand of Gonzalez, the Backhand of Gasquet, the slice drop shots of Federer, the volleys of Sampras, the first and second serve of Karlovic, the placement of both first and second serve of Sampras and the mental strenght of Nadal and you have the perfect tennis player

Forehand Gonzo? *GASP* But I thought Federerererererererererererer has the GREATEST FOREHAND IN DA HISTORY OF TENNIS?!

You cretinous invalid! You blasphemous ingrate! How dare thee not even recognize Federer's forehand as the current best in tennis.

Now Federer's in real trouble as far as being the most TALENTED in da history of tennis. His forehand isn't even da greatest in da game today...his backhand is possibly the worst in all of tennis, his volleying is average, his serve is solid, and his return is below average.

Jeebus. Jeebus.

By the way, while Federer may act robotic at times, you would think a robot could hit a backhand.

 

[Chopin]

Forehand Gonzo? *GASP* But I thought Federerererererererererererer has the GREATEST FOREHAND IN DA HISTORY OF TENNIS?!

You cretinous invalid! You blasphemous ingrate! How dare thee not even recognize Federer's forehand as the current best in tennis.

Now Federer's in real trouble as far as being the most TALENTED in da history of tennis. His forehand isn't even da greatest in da game today...his backhand is possibly the worst in all of tennis, his volleying is average, his serve is solid, and his return is below average.

Jeebus. Jeebus.

By the way, while Federer may act robotic at times, you would think a robot could hit a backhand.

15 slams > than your posts.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

15 slams > than your posts.

The part that amuses me the most is that you think I hate Federer or don't respect him as a tennis player or whatever.

I LIKE Federer. What I like ABOUT him is that he wins DESPITE not being all that talented or skilled.

That's gotta drive you up a wall with your tennis elitist attitude. "Oh my God, this non-Fed hater doesn't believe he is GOD'S CHOSEN. He doesn't believe he's got a great or even average backhand. He thinks he's ordinary skill-wise and gets by through hard work and tenacity. Oh no oh no oh no, it ruins my perfect little world where talent is something we should admire more than heart and courage."

 

[Chopin]

The part that amuses me the most is that you think I hate Federer or don't respect him as a tennis player or whatever.

I LIKE Federer. What I like ABOUT him is that he wins DESPITE not being all that talented or skilled.

That's gotta drive you up a wall with your tennis elitist attitude. "Oh my God, this non-Fed hater doesn't believe he is GOD'S CHOSEN. He doesn't believe he's got a great or even average backhand. He thinks he's ordinary skill-wise and gets by through hard work and tenacity. Oh no oh no oh no, it ruins my perfect little world where talent is something we should admire more than heart and courage."

You simply don't understand tennis then. It's as simple as that.

Find me a single top player, professional commentator, top coach, or former great who will agree with your assessment that Roger Federer is "ordinary skill-wise" and get back to me.

Here's a hint: you're never going to be getting back to me.

"Federer's talent is not of this planet"--Nick Bollettieri

"He [Roger Federer] is the greatest natural talent in tennis I've ever seen."--John McEnroe

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

You simply don't understand tennis then. It's as simple as that.

Find me a single top player, professional commentator, top coach, or former great who will agree with your assessment that Roger Federer is "ordinary skill-wise" and get back to me.

Here's a hint: you're never going to be getting back to me.

Yeah, it's so easy to find those people. Especially because they make those comments all the time to the press when they know they're going against the grain and stuff.



Anyway, how about Darren Cahill? He was once quoted as saying "you could drive a truck through his (Federer's) backhand." He wasn't that impressed when he first saw him play.

 

[Chopin]

Yeah, it's so easy to find those people. Especially because they make those comments all the time to the press when they know they're going against the grain and stuff.



Anyway, how about Darren Cahill? He was once quoted as saying "you could drive a truck through his (Federer's) backhand." He wasn't that impressed when he first saw him play.

Nice try about the Cahill thing but that quote comes from when he saw Federer play at 13. Tough to compare Federer as a child to the Federer of today.

"Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time"--Rod Laver

"He's probably the most talented person to every carry a racquet around."--Andy Roddick

"In more than 30 years of being a fan, spectator, player and coach of this game, Roger is the best tennis player I've seen. "--Daren Cahill

There seems to be a disparity between "average skill set" and most talented player of all time.

Do you really know more than Cahill, Roddick, Laver, Mac, and Bollettieri?

 

[Chopin]

Let's take a step back though--how do you define tennis talent and who, in your opinion, are the top 5 all around players in terms of "talent" in the game today?

 

[Dilettante]

The mental strength of the robot is better, it can just turn off its emotions.

Yeah but knee injuries could be horrendous. "Slam Robot #554 has the rusty tendinitis".

And what about a computer virus in his brain... something like Mono.Win32.Trojan.Badcall

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

Nice try about the Cahill thing but that quote comes from when he saw Federer play at 13. Tough to compare Federer as a child to the Federer of today.

"Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time"--Rod Laver

"He's probably the most talented person to every carry a racquet around."--Andy Roddick

"In more than 30 years of being a fan, spectator, player and coach of this game, Roger is the best tennis player I've seen. "--Daren Cahill

There seems to be a disparity between "average skill set" and most talented player of all time.

Do you really know more than Cahill, Roddick, Laver, Mac, and Bollettieri?

Cahill seems to agree with me: Maybe the best tennis player ever, but not the most skilled.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

Let's take a step back though--how do you define tennis talent and who, in your opinion, are the top 5 all around players in terms of "talent" in the game today?

All the elements of playing tennis in terms of physically being able to do something. Serve power, serve spin, serve accuracy, forehand power, forehand accuracy, backhand power backhand accuracy,, volleying, return of serve, court coverage.


5 Most Talented:

Tsonga
Djokovic
Monfils
Nadal
Verdasco

 

[veritech]

All the elements of playing tennis in terms of physically being able to do something. Serve power, serve spin, serve accuracy, forehand power, forehand accuracy, backhand power backhand accuracy,, volleying, return of serve, court coverage.


5 Most Talented:

Tsonga
Djokovic
Monfils
Nadal
Verdasco

hahhaahaha monfils? verdasco? tsonga? MOST TALENTED? hahaha

 

[OrangePower]

As someone has pointed out, "all time" includes the past, present, and future. Once this is considered, I think we have to admit that a robot is certain to be the GOAT. Robots can be programmed to perform tasks with a level of strength and consistency humans could only dream of. Furthermore, with advances in robot vision, mobility, etc, it is inevitable that robots will one day dominate the sport.

You might object that only humans are allowed to compute on the professional tennis tours. I say nonsense. The sheer entertainment factor of human vs. robot struggle, with the ratings driven demands of tournament directors, guarantees that robots will one day be allowed to compete.

(Some robots have even been programmed to mimic human emotions. For example, they could "scowl" and "yell" at the robot that will umpire the match.)

Personally, I cannot wait for the day when a robot defeats a human in the Wimbledon finals. It has already happened in chess, and it's just a matter of time for tennis.

Since this debate is now settled, there is no need to create any more threads arguing about the identity of the GOAT.

Yes... but... then the debate will just shift to *which* robot is the GOAT... the Fed-bot or the Samp-bot

 

[Mafia13]

All the elements of playing tennis in terms of physically being able to do something. Serve power, serve spin, serve accuracy, forehand power, forehand accuracy, backhand power backhand accuracy,, volleying, return of serve, court coverage.


5 Most Talented:

Tsonga
Djokovic
Monfils
Nadal
Verdasco

What element of the above stated does Fed not have? And how long have you been watching tennis, a year? Fed's court coverage is one of the best in the game because of his ability to read the game so well, his forehand is both deadly and accurate, as is his serve(50 aces anyone?). His backhand is a solid shot as are his returns, although they were better 2004-2008.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

hahhaahaha monfils? verdasco? tsonga? MOST TALENTED? hahaha

You're laughing? Why? What about these players makes this somehow ridiculous?

The fact of the matter is you're a complete imbecile. Even the biggest Federer fans recognize that you're a worthless dolt.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

What element of the above stated does Fed not have? And how long have you been watching tennis, a year? Fed's court coverage is one of the best in the game because of his ability to read the game so well, his forehand is both deadly and accurate, as is his serve(50 aces anyone?). His backhand is a solid shot as are his returns, although they were better 2004-2008.

Yes, Federer has great court coverage...possibly top 5. But that doesn't make up for his weaknesses.

His backhand is not solid. It's far from even being average. It's one of the weakest in tennis, and players just pummel it.

Andy Roddick has always been thought to have a weak backhand, yet nobody on this board even bothers "laughing" at me for saying Roddick has a better backhand than Federer anymore...after how much better Roddick hit it throughout Wimbledon than Federer. I guess they just hadn't been bothering to watch, but it's there for all to see.

Federer can not hit a backhand down the line to save his life. If a player comes in and sets up and prevents the cross-court backhand, it's coming right back to him, because Federer can not hit the down-the-line. Period.

In a rally, Federer's backhand is the weakest stroke of any of the ground strokes on the court, time and time again.

His forehand is nowhere near what it once was, either. I admit that in 2006 and prior, it was a remarkably potent shot and probably an all-time great one.

Anyway, here's how it breaks down:

Tsonga: Better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, much better volleys, even in court coverage, better serve power, and better in return of serve.

Verdasco: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, better backhand, probably worse volleys, worse court coverage, much better serve power, better in return of serve.

Djokovic: Better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, even volleys, even in court coverage, better serve power, and better return of serve.

Monfils: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, better backhand, worse volleys, better court coverage, better serve power, better return of serve.

Nadal: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, worse volleys, better court coverage, worse serve power, much better return of serve.


I don't think any of the above is too hard to follow...so I would ask what makes Federer more talented when all of these players are better than him in most physical aspects of the game?

Federer wins with intangibles, and it's sad that more people don't see it.

 

[veritech]

You're laughing? Why? What about these players makes this somehow ridiculous?

The fact of the matter is you're a complete imbecile. Even the biggest Federer fans recognize that you're a worthless dolt.

three of those "most talented" players on that list have done NOTHING. each had just one deep run in a major. you would think the game's most talented players would achieve more.

please, enlighten me, on how these players are much more talented than the roger federers, the david nalbandians, and the marat safins.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

three of those "most talented" players on that list have done NOTHING. each had just one deep run in a major. you would think the game's most talented players would achieve more.

please, enlighten me, on how these players are much more talented than the roger federers, the david nalbandians, and the marat safins.

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH TALENT. How many freak'n times do I have to say this?

Talent is an INNATE ability. It is not the same as winning.

You're a complete idiot who apparently thinks that those who do the most winning are automatically also the most TALENTED.

Winning does not = talent. Capiche?

Otherwise, all we'd have to do is go look at those in order of most majors won and those would be your most talented players ever. There would be no such thing as a "young player with LOADS OF TALENT."

As for Nalbandian and Safin...Safin is retiring at the end of the year and Nalbandian is fat and out of shape. In shape and in their primes, sure, they'd make the list. But then with Nalbandian, other than making 2-3 deep runs in majors, "HE DID NOTHING"...in your book, that means he can't be that talented.

 

[veritech]

That has NOTHING TO DO WITH TALENT. How many freak'n times do I have to say this?

Talent is an INNATE ability. It is not the same as winning.

You're a complete idiot who apparently thinks that those who do the most winning are automatically also the most TALENTED.

Winning does not = talent. Capiche?

Otherwise, all we'd have to do is go look at those in order of most majors won and those would be your most talented players ever. There would be no such thing as a "young player with LOADS OF TALENT."

As for Nalbandian and Safin...Safin is retiring at the end of the year and Nalbandian is fat and out of shape. In shape and in their primes, sure, they'd make the list. But then with Nalbandian, other than making 2-3 deep runs in majors, "HE DID NOTHING"...in your book, that means he can't be that talented.

the point i was making is that there are a TON of more talented players on the tour than monfils, verdasco, and tsonga. it's laughable that you believe that these three have better serves and federer and better forehands than federer, who is HIGHLY regarded as the most talented player in the sport with one of the greatest forehands of all time.

and regarding nalbandian, 5 major QF's, a handful of major SF's, 1 major final, 2 MS titles, and 1 YEC title. right. compare that to tsonga, verdasco, and monfils.

and no need to get mad, just a forum. don't bring your tears here.

 

[Mafia13]

Yes, Federer has great court coverage...possibly top 5. But that doesn't make up for his weaknesses.

His backhand is not solid. It's far from even being average. It's one of the weakest in tennis, and players just pummel it.

Andy Roddick has always been thought to have a weak backhand, yet nobody on this board even bothers "laughing" at me for saying Roddick has a better backhand than Federer anymore...after how much better Roddick hit it throughout Wimbledon than Federer. I guess they just hadn't been bothering to watch, but it's there for all to see.

Federer can not hit a backhand down the line to save his life. If a player comes in and sets up and prevents the cross-court backhand, it's coming right back to him, because Federer can not hit the down-the-line. Period.

In a rally, Federer's backhand is the weakest stroke of any of the ground strokes on the court, time and time again.

His forehand is nowhere near what it once was, either. I admit that in 2006 and prior, it was a remarkably potent shot and probably an all-time great one.

Anyway, here's how it breaks down:

Tsonga: Better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, much better volleys, even in court coverage, better serve power, and better in return of serve.

Verdasco: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, better backhand, probably worse volleys, worse court coverage, much better serve power, better in return of serve.

Djokovic: Better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, even volleys, even in court coverage, better serve power, and better return of serve.

Monfils: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, better backhand, worse volleys, better court coverage, better serve power, better return of serve.

Nadal: Much better forehand than 2007 and beyond Federer, much better backhand, worse volleys, better court coverage, worse serve power, much better return of serve.


I don't think any of the above is too hard to follow...so I would ask what makes Federer more talented when all of these players are better than him in most physical aspects of the game?

Federer wins with intangibles, and it's sad that more people don't see it.

Fed's forehand is still great, it can have it's off days, but it's still a great shot. You're right,it isn't hard to follow, but if they are so more talented than Fed, then why does Fed have a winning record against all of them except Nadal? Have you ever actually seen Monfils hit a backhand? For pro standards it's not that great of a shot and definitely much worse than Fed's. You also can't argue that these wins came in Fed's prime because his win over Tsonga was in late 2008(1-0 record, 6:4, 6:1 was the score), he has a 3:0 record against Verdasco(2 wins coming post 2008 ), a 5:0 record against Monfils(Fed's last win came a month ago, and it was a relatively easy one, also Monfils doesn't have nearly as good a forehand as Fed IMO).

 

[Dilettante]

By the way, using robot players won't end the infinite debate baseline Vs volley, talent vs no talent, etc.

TT posters will find a way to get the debate alive. Maybe hardware vs software?

"Robonadal isn't talented because he has great hardware but no talent at all: he works with a crappy Windows 3.11", "Robosafin would win everything if it was not for his sudden message errors", "Roboroddick is underrated because he plays under Linux".

It would last forever. It WILL last forever.

 

[goldenyama]

Creating a robot that could hold serve 100% of the time would be easy - then all it would have to do would be win one point in the tiebreaker of each set and you would have an unbeatable robot.

 

[Dilettante]

It's named Ivo Karlovic.

Future is today.

 

[martini1]

Theoretically it is possible but with today's commercial tech (minus those so called top secret military stuff) a two legged robot has yet to move as quickly in all directions like a top pro player. A wheeled / tracked may also have problem to have such high torque and stops on a dime.

The easiest robot to build would be one with a crane like arm that can cover the entire court. But it would be so unfair to anything across the court lol imagine going from 10 ft behind baseline to the net in like 0.3 sec. haha

 

[jelle v]

Federer can not hit a backhand down the line to save his life. If a player comes in and sets up and prevents the cross-court backhand, it's coming right back to him, because Federer can not hit the down-the-line. Period.

:facepalm:

Seriously.. I mean.. do you even watch tennis..? How many Federer-matches have you seen in your life? What you are saying here is utter BS..

You are not so unbiased as you want us to think I guess.. Verdasco, Monfils and Tsonga more talented than Federer? This is very very sad.. Djokovic? I'm a big fan but Djokovic does not have more talent than Federer imo, not by a long shot.

Furthermore, this is one argument no one will ever win, because recognizing talent is a matter of opinion I think.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

the point i was making is that there are a TON of more talented players on the tour than monfils, verdasco, and tsonga. it's laughable that you believe that these three have better serves and federer and better forehands than federer, who is HIGHLY regarded as the most talented player in the sport with one of the greatest forehands of all time.

and regarding nalbandian, 5 major QF's, a handful of major SF's, 1 major final, 2 MS titles, and 1 YEC title. right. compare that to tsonga, verdasco, and monfils.

and no need to get mad, just a forum. don't bring your tears here.

Didn't say they have BETTER serves than Federer. They just hit it harder and with more spin and are just as accurate. That makes them more talented servers. They're not as intelligent serve-wise as Federer, otherwise they'd be better servers than he is.

And yeah, I'll take their forehands over Federer's. So would Darren Cahill.

OLD Federer (2006 and prior) would be debatable, since his old forehand was an all-time great shot. It isn't even close to what it used to be. It's downright ordinary right now and he's become a defensive player and a pusher.

And Nalbandian's career is significantly longer than that of Tsonga and Monfils (not to mention, much of his success came during a very weak period in tennis). Verdasco is a new player since his psyche transplant. Let's give them a couple of years before we start comparing results.

 

[UnbiasedTennisFan]

:facepalm:

Seriously.. I mean.. do you even watch tennis..? How many Federer-matches have you seen in your life? What you are saying here is utter BS..

You are not so unbiased as you want us to think I guess.. Verdasco, Monfils and Tsonga more talented than Federer? This is very very sad.. Djokovic? I'm a big fan but Djokovic does not have more talent than Federer imo, not by a long shot.

Furthermore, this is one argument no one will ever win, because recognizing talent is a matter of opinion I think.

Been watching tennis for 28 years.

Djokovic...already explained. His forehand is superior now (didn't used to be, but certainly is now...more penetrating, more powerful, more accurate). His backhand has always been vastly superior. His serve talent is a little better than Federer...he doesn't serve as well because he's not the intellectual server Federer is, but in terms of generating pace and spin, he's superior talent-wise. Volleying is about even...maybe a slight edge to Federer. Court coverage is about even...both are very quick and cover the court well. Djokovic has a far superior return of serve...Federer ranks near the bottom this year, and for good reason. You serve to his backhand, the only thing he can do is block or slice it back short. You do something with the short ball, point over.

 

[Mafia13]

Been watching tennis for 28 years.

Djokovic...already explained. His forehand is superior now (didn't used to be, but certainly is now...more penetrating, more powerful, more accurate). His backhand has always been vastly superior. His serve talent is a little better than Federer...he doesn't serve as well because he's not the intellectual server Federer is, but in terms of generating pace and spin, he's superior talent-wise. Volleying is about even...maybe a slight edge to Federer. Court coverage is about even...both are very quick and cover the court well. Djokovic has a far superior return of serve...Federer ranks near the bottom this year, and for good reason. You serve to his backhand, the only thing he can do is block or slice it back short. You do something with the short ball, point over.

You still haven't answered my question. If these 4 players(Verdasco, Djokovic, Tsonga, Monfils) are so superior in almost every aspect of the game than Fed(your words) then why does none of them have a wining head-to-head against Fed and in fact 3 of them have never even beaten Fed.