Magnus Norman : Rafa and Roger are playing better now than 10 years ago

[TheMaestro1990]

Leo Federer 2047: My dad is moving better than ever!

 

[smalahove]

When evaluating tennis players I always resort to the eye test. To my eyes Fedal are playing some of the best tennis they have in a decade. Both of their backhands have never looked better. Rogers topspin down the line was never this good at any point of his career. He is consistently using top spin on his BH way more than slicing which is a totally new development. He may be a step slower at 35 but his better backhand with the power and consistencyupgrade more than makes up for this.

Nadal has also upgraded his backhand by hitting deeper and with more power. Again as with Fed, this makes up for a little loss of foot speed. Nadal's serve has also improved by a substantial amount giving him more easy points. I understand the point Norman is trying to make and agree with him. I see Fedal playing a better brand of tennis than they have in quite a long time.

I agree.

Imo, when Normann talks about:

"You look at pictures from then and they play further back, they play slower."
"[...] now they’re moving better, taking the ball early, taking time away from the opponent."

He's not saying they're athletically better now than 10 years ago, he's saying:

a) they're playing closer to the baseline, taking the ball earlier and thus playing faster, taking time away from the opponent.

b) they're moving better, (imo) meaning they're better at anticipating and reading the game and positioning themselves.
This point is perhaps the most interesting as it comes both out of necessity and a consequence of point a) above, but also as a consequence of both players improving their backhands tremendously, meaning not only do they not have to run around to play FHs, the improved BHs actually is a better choice as it steals even more time from the opponent. This is the real strength of this iteration of Nadal imo. He hits his improved BH very hard, flat, early and angled (=winner).

 

[metsman]

Sad to say, but most of what you write here is entirely besides anything I've argued.

I've pointed this out explicitly several times by now, but here we go once more: I'm not saying experts aren't often very wrong. Nor am I saying they can't can't in fact have biases or just be consciously motivated. You're also majorly misconstruing what a straw man actually is, but that's for another day..

All I'm arguing is merely about the rational grounds people in here have when they choose to either accept or flat-out disregard the sentiment of an 'expert.' Do they most of the time do so because they have better evidence? Take Berdych for instance, a top player who has played Fed from 04 through this year, and hence knows infinitely more about how it is to actually play him than any of us do. When he made a comment that Fed this year was playing the best he had experienced, Fed fans in here came out in droves to write off what he said as deluded or disingenuous. Again, to be explicit as I'm tired of the straw men: this is not saying that Berdych couldn't be wrong or that he doesn't have motivations of his own. My point is, on what grounds do people choose to either accept or reject his sentiment? Is it because they possess better evidence than he does? Do they have actual evidence that he isn't (or is) truthful? No, of course not. Not in every single case, but probably in 90+ percent of cases people's conclusions can be predictably inferred from their prior belief system and fan base allegiances. And every one is able to see the predictability in when it occurs in other groups than their own. Fed fans don't have any problem recognizing the pattern and motivation behind ND-13 and his fellows' narrative. And people who don't have an interesting in propping up the mid 00s or 90s or whatever easily recognize the pattern behind the nostalgics who do.

Fed fans just so happens to be the by far most populous fan group in here, and so they have made their shared narrative almost into an institutional reality in this place, and come out in droves like some sort of Hydra every time something like this thread is posted. And it's not even that all of their views by necessity are wrong; it's no secret that I like to play devil's advocate to make a point or elicit certain responses. It's about the fact that hardcore fans (of any allegiance) so rarely seem to recognize how extremely predictably they will interpret any bit of reality according to their preference, and how the conclusions rarely have any solid evidence behind at all besides "muh subjective armchair feelz." And yet you can read in this thread that "people who don't agree with my view need a mental professional" and "even trained monkeys would be able to see what I see." And to be explicit once more, to avoid further straw men: yes, there are plenty of people in here who aren't partisan fans or don't fit into this description. This is talking about partisan and fervent fans of any player.

And why is this a theme that I repeatedly hammer on? Because it's largely symptomatic of how things proceed in this sub-forum and why I very rarely bother to post anything straight-faced in it anymore (and I know I'm far from the only one). Most of what goes on here ends up as fan-group trench wars where people parrot predictable views as holy truth according to who they're a fan of, and most threads end up as variations of the same themes that have been hashed out bazillion times before. Which is fine if that's what people like, but I reserve my right to scoff at it like the curmudgeon I am.

For someone who says he doesn't post much straight faced (besides on this topic) it's surprising, to put it nicely, that you think I said those two statements with a straight face. Particularly since, you know, after one of them I made a grinning emoji face.

 

[metsman]

Look. I'm not saying Hewitt isn't extremely talented or that he wasn't a great player in his time. If he had been born in, say, 1992, I'm sure he'd have adapted wonderfully to present-day tennis.

My only point is that if we actually go beyond vague descriptions of how players play and actually look at technique, it's empirically the case that there's been a change in how people in general hit today compared to 2005, just like they hit differently in 2005 to 1990 on average. I'm not picking Hewitt because he's bad or Sock because he's good, but because they showcase the evolution of the game very clearly.

Sports works according to survival of the fittest. Variants and adaptations that are no longer useful or 'fit' enough get weeded out, whereas new adaptations that work gradually become preponderant. It would be completely effing inane to think that the sport magically evolved instantly the minute modern racquets or strings arrived, and that no adaptation and evolution happened after this. Things don't work like that in nature, and nor do they in sport.

As for Hewitt, his way of hitting is largely reflective of the time he grew up in, and it was perfectly sensible and effective for that time. He didn't learn to play tennis with poly or today's typical sticks, and he didn't mature against other juniors who did either. Some of that generation, like Fed, happened to have technique that was more suited to the modern game, and hence it's no surprise that Fed's ascension to dominance followed not long after he made a string and racquet switch from 85-inch full gut to 90-inch hybrid in mid 2002. It's also no surprise that Hewitt's game became less and less ideal after that same period. Yes, we all know about his injuries, but the fact is that his way of hitting also clearly got more and more phased out.

You bring up Nishikori. And sure, Hewitt might've easily been as good or better if he'd been younger today. But the fact is that the comparison only strengthens the point I'm actually making: they don't hit remotely the same (and Nishi doesn't have a flat-hitting technique at all, even for today's standard). If Kei literally played with Hewitt's groundstroke technique, he'd be clearly worse than he is now. But like many in his generation, he's played with poly and modern sticks since he was young, and adapted his game with the changing times. Please tell me you see the difference between these two ways of hitting:

Then look at Sock or Kyrgios forehand and compare with Hewitt. Night and day different way of hitting. And the latter style is close to dead in today's game, whereas the former style is becoming more and more prevalent with the generations that grew up with this gear from the start. If Hewitt's technique was as suited to playing well, it wouldn't gradually become weeded out. And if Sock's general approach to hitting wasn't a successful adaptation to the game, then it wouldn't become increasingly normal. That's just a simple fact of how evolution works.

On the nuts and bolts level the game is simply moving on and evolving. Not completely linearly at the very top, sure, but 12 years is enough to have an empirically meaningful change.

First of all I never compared Hewitt and Nishikori technically, not even close. Merely used Nishi and Goffin to show that it's not impossible for shorter players to handle the greater spin used today.

 

[Sysyphus]

For someone who says he doesn't post much straight faced (besides on this topic) it's surprising, to put it nicely, that you think I said those two statements with a straight face. Particularly since, you know, after one of them I made a grinning emoji face.

Poe's law, eh?

I know you were hyperbolizing, but it's nevertheless in line with the general sentiment I've heard time and time again.

First of all I never compared Hewitt and Nishikori technically, not even close. Merely used Nishi and Goffin to show that it's not impossible for shorter players to handle the greater spin used today.

Well yes, and then it was a non-sequitur from what I argued, wasn't it? I never said anything about Hewitt's shortness or that he wouldn't adapt well if he was younger today. I spoke about his technique only, which is a nice illustration of a biomechanic that is becoming very uncommon on the pro level. The visible changes on the technical level is about as clear as evidence you're going to get that the game keeps evolving. If the adaptations weren't advantageous, they wouldn't gradually begin to proliferate. And it's a lot to do with the fact that while Hewitt et al grew up and learned to play with different gear, guys like Nadal or certainly a Kyrgios have grown up playing the modern gear and game. And Fed and Nadal too, as I think you've noted before, also gently changed their strokes through the years, becoming even more prototypically modern. That in itself doesn't prove that the two of them improved on the whole if other declines offset the adaptations, granted.

anyways, I don't think I'll pursue this topic further. We have a slight difference in opinion over this, which is fine. I apologize for the hints of snark in my opening comments.

 

[metsman]

Poe's law, eh?

I know you were hyperbolizing, but it's nevertheless in line with the general sentiment I've heard time and time again.

Well yes, and then it was a non-sequitur from what I argued, wasn't it? I never said anything about Hewitt's shortness or that he wouldn't adapt well if he was younger today. I spoke about his technique only, which is a nice illustration of a biomechanic that is becoming very uncommon on the pro level. The visible changes on the technical level is about as clear as evidence you're going to get that the game keeps evolving. If the adaptations weren't advantageous, they wouldn't gradually begin to proliferate. And it's a lot to do with the fact that while Hewitt et al grew up and learned to play with different gear, guys like Nadal or certainly a Kyrgios have grown up playing the modern gear and game. And Fed and Nadal too, as I think you've noted before, also gently changed their strokes through the years, becoming even more prototypically modern. That in itself doesn't prove that the two of them improved on the whole if other declines offset the adaptations, granted.

anyways, I don't think I'll pursue this topic further. We have a slight difference in opinion over this, which is fine. I apologize for the hints of snark in my opening comments.

I think where we disagree is that you believe that guys like Kyrgios/Sock with their unorthodox technique enabling high spin generation indicate an evolution in the game. However, for me, I really only buy that the game has evolved when these kinds of players with their heavy spin actually make it to the very top, as of right now they aren't close. In fact the most promising younger players such as Zverev or going even younger FAA hit more traditional balls with more traditional technique, which you could approximate 10 years ago. Personally, I believe the guys who develop this extreme standing behind the baseline spin the crap out of the ball routine do it to take advantage of their strengths and compensate for some areas in which they lack (precise footwork maybe could be an example). I see this as an adaptation to modern strings to allow certain players to reach greater heights than they would otherwise be able to, but I don't see this as an improvement in the level of the sport because these players aren't really at the very top of the sport. And honestly, considering that Fed/nadal are dominating the game today and Djokovic was just dominating the game, for the game to actually be better it would have to follow that current Fed/Nadal or 2015-2016 Djokovic are better than say 2007/2008 Fed/Nadal. And this is something I can't get behind. I do weigh the movement aspect of the game a ton, and I see Federer/Nadal changes as a way to compensate for that declined movement rather than an absolute improvement to their games. Federer today definitely plays with less margin on the BH than he used to and he takes advantage of the bigger frame to do that. You can say his BH is better than his old BH, but his old BH fitted into his old game better (basically hit with high margin with liberal use of the slice to change pace and allow him to set up his forehand) and that old game was more potent from more areas of the court because of how good his forehand was. Level-wise I still much prefer their prime levels because I think that level would be better suited to deal with an elite opponent who can consistently move them around the baseline. Fortunately for them, in 2017 that elite opponent has not really existed as Djokovic has fallen off and while the younger guys are doing better, they still have not risen to that level. If Djokovic had not existed and Fed had swept up a bunch of slams from 2014-2016 then we might think that was a peak version of Fed but Djokovic showed us it was not, unless of course you think that a peak version of Fed would look similarly helpless on big stages against Djokovic, but their 2011-2012 results on big stages when Fed's movement was a little better and as a result could compete off the baseline more disproves that. As a result, by a combination of that and their changes allowing them to have more consistent success against lesser players, it feels like 2006-2007 again. I really don't think they are better than they were back then though.

 

[jimmy0slams]

More accurate to say that the competition is a lot less skilled than it was 10 years ago.

#WeakEra

 

[okdude1992]

Yes, Thiem, Sock, Kyrgios and Kokk have flawed forehands that are de-evolutions.

No offense, but the general sentiment is pretty absurd.

Sports at the top level works like natural selection. If the general tendency toward more extremely modern forehand techniques wasn't adaptive to the game, then they wouldn't become more preponderant throughout the game, and increasingly with younger generations who are more fully adapted to the modern game. Simple as that. Likewise, if the more conservative styles found at the top in 2005 were still effective enough, then they wouldn't be gradually weeded out. Again, very simple fact of natural selection.

Sure, there were examples of fantastic forehands then, and some of the most extreme variants today may not ever become the standard, but the general trend of adaptation in the game is plainly clear.

Usually I agree with you Sys, but that's a terrible comparison. The guys from the early to mid 2000's didn't get weeded out. They got old/injured. Not to mention calling Safin/Nalbandian/Rodick/Blake/Gonzalez/Moya/Davydenko etc style conservative? That's the only absurd thing here!

The younger crop (aka lost generation) are measurably worse than their predecessors. Besides ATG Federer and Nadal you have guys like Wawrinka, Cuevas, Lopez, Karlovic, Muller playing some of their best tennis ever recently. Far past prime Tsonga, Berdych still near the top of the game and Ferrer as well until last year. Not to mention Djokovic, Murray, Monfils, Gasquet, Isner are also over 30.

Why have the lost boys had so little success if their technique is somehow superior? Is it purely mental/physical issues? I think not. If you believe having an extreme grip, and a ton of extra movement on the backswing makes a forehand more 'modern' and therefore better, you are sorely mistaken. Federer took tennis to a new level in 2004-2006, over an entire decade ago. Nadal and Djokovic at various points have shown a similar level, and it can be said they changed the game. But I don't think either really raised the bar higher than Fed (and I say that as a big Nadal fan). Nobody else has even come close. So yea, I fail to see any evolution.

Also to be clear, I never meant to imply Thiem has a bad forehand. It's actually quite good. But it's not more modern (actually quite similar mechanic), and certainly not better than Fernando Gonzalez' forehand

 

[okdude1992]

They are definetely moving worse, but the lesser movement has forced them to develop shots they didn't previously master so well. Rog is/was still serving and volleying as good as ever and now maybe is hitting his backhand better than ever. Same goes for Rafa, the movement and forehand have declined, but he hasn't hit the backhand this well since early 09 (AO 09 especially) and hasn't served this well since US 2010, also his net game is still as good as ever. So they have compensated, but that what made them so special in the past (the movement and forehand) is slowly but surely fading.

Spot on. Federer and Nadal have adapted superbly. Which is a further testament to their greatness.

I think the prevailing wisdom would say that with diminished athleticism, movement, and forehands, Nadal and Federer are not the players they were. Still very very good, and perhaps more well rounded than ever though.

 

[clayqueen]

Nadal is irrelevant out of clay for last 3 years. The person stopping Fed is Novak and not Rafa

Some of you say these things not because you believe them but because it makes you feel good.

H/C this year:

Djokovic:
AO - 2nd round
Acapulco - 3rd round
I/W - 3rd round

On the other hand, Nadal has made 3 h/c finals this year.

 

[Meles]

IMO, prime Fernando Gonzalez, Carlos Moya, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Ferrero etc all had better, more reliable, more technically sound forehands then the players you mentioned. If anything the younger players of today are a de-evolution and most have major flaws in their games.

The one area where tennis has really evolved, especially with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is the defensive aspect of the game (which has dominated he last 10 years).

Pre-Poly forehands to the last. Roddick adapted his forehand to the new reality and hung on, but was never the same again.

The best new players are all about offense these days. Even Fedal of late have notably adapted in this department.

 

[smoledman]

Magnus Norman is an idiot.

 

[Meles]

I think where we disagree is that you believe that guys like Kyrgios/Sock with their unorthodox technique enabling high spin generation indicate an evolution in the game. However, for me, I really only buy that the game has evolved when these kinds of players with their heavy spin actually make it to the very top, as of right now they aren't close. In fact the most promising younger players such as Zverev or going even younger FAA hit more traditional balls with more traditional technique, which you could approximate 10 years ago. Personally, I believe the guys who develop this extreme standing behind the baseline spin the crap out of the ball routine do it to take advantage of their strengths and compensate for some areas in which they lack (precise footwork maybe could be an example). I see this as an adaptation to modern strings to allow certain players to reach greater heights than they would otherwise be able to, but I don't see this as an improvement in the level of the sport because these players aren't really at the very top of the sport. And honestly, considering that Fed/nadal are dominating the game today and Djokovic was just dominating the game, for the game to actually be better it would have to follow that current Fed/Nadal or 2015-2016 Djokovic are better than say 2007/2008 Fed/Nadal. And this is something I can't get behind. I do weigh the movement aspect of the game a ton, and I see Federer/Nadal changes as a way to compensate for that declined movement rather than an absolute improvement to their games. Federer today definitely plays with less margin on the BH than he used to and he takes advantage of the bigger frame to do that. You can say his BH is better than his old BH, but his old BH fitted into his old game better (basically hit with high margin with liberal use of the slice to change pace and allow him to set up his forehand) and that old game was more potent from more areas of the court because of how good his forehand was. Level-wise I still much prefer their prime levels because I think that level would be better suited to deal with an elite opponent who can consistently move them around the baseline. Fortunately for them, in 2017 that elite opponent has not really existed as Djokovic has fallen off and while the younger guys are doing better, they still have not risen to that level. If Djokovic had not existed and Fed had swept up a bunch of slams from 2014-2016 then we might think that was a peak version of Fed but Djokovic showed us it was not, unless of course you think that a peak version of Fed would look similarly helpless on big stages against Djokovic, but their 2011-2012 results on big stages when Fed's movement was a little better and as a result could compete off the baseline more disproves that. As a result, by a combination of that and their changes allowing them to have more consistent success against lesser players, it feels like 2006-2007 again. I really don't think they are better than they were back then though.

One thing that really warps all of our views is the shear excellence of the Big 4; bigger, faster, more athletic than all players the game has seen. Nadal is an 800 pound gorilla on clay that has eclipsed everything else in the game. The one thing that stands out for these players is their combination of size and speed. Even in their dotage Fedal still have athletic advantages over the rest of the tour.

The game has been changing and power can overcome speed and defense, but Fedal have adapted magnificently with power games of their own that make them amazingly relevant with little threat of rapid decline as its a gradual fade at this point with their movement.

Djokoray's pushery may be their undoing. No longer able to defend, they've not added enough offense to their game to keep their movement from being exposed. They are suddenly looking much like Nadal from 2014 to 2016. We saw Federer affecting a solution and knew what Nadal needed (a serve game which Moya has provided in spades.) Djokovic did add a potent 2nd serve (a Wawa secret) for his peak run, but both Murray and Djokovic seem to be regressing to more defensive games. A solution is not clear.

Sysy has made some great, great posts in this thread. This Big 4 dynamic clouds everything. Perhaps we all thought their dominance was something to do with Poly strings homogenizing everything, but it is becoming increasingly clear just how awesome the Big 4 were and continue to be. Thiem, Zverev, Pouille, and even an injury riddle Kyrgios continue to make impressive empirical strides this year, but it is clear they are not Fedal level talent. Is it fair to expect them to be?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So because we don't see a wind-up forehand like Hewitt's today without much spin (Murray until RECENTLY hit without much spin either) that's somehow meant to illustrate an "evolution" that's taken place..

Pros seldom used Hewitt's forehand technquie at the time either. It was rather unique at the top level. The main reason Hewitt fell in the rankings was because whenever he started to play well/without injuries, his body would give out. If his technique was that inferior he would not have been able to defeat top players like Wawrinka or Del Potro with his supposed dinosaur-like technique in his later years.

 

[masao]

you need to realize that for the majority of people here peak Fed is like some mythical creature, which obviously is far from the reality.
Peak Federer needed five sets to beat an 18 year old baby Nadal in Miami 2005. He lost in 2004 and also lost in Dubai 2006. Those are facts.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

you need to realize that for the majority of people here peak Fed is like some mythical creature, which obviously is far from the reality.
Peak Federer needed five sets to beat an 18 year old baby Nadal in Miami 2005. He lost in 2004 and also lost in Dubai 2006. Those are facts.

Nadal lost to guys like Davydenko and Gonzalez at the time.. If he was as great as you're making out why didn't he beat them like Federer did?

Don't use the "baby" excuse either; if he was good enough to defeat Federer he certainly should have been good enough to defeat them.

 

[metsman]

One thing that really warps all of our views is the shear excellence of the Big 4; bigger, faster, more athletic than all players the game has seen. Nadal is an 800 pound gorilla on clay that has eclipsed everything else in the game. The one thing that stands out for these players is their combination of size and speed. Even in their dotage Fedal still have athletic advantages over the rest of the tour.

The game has been changing and power can overcome speed and defense, but Fedal have adapted magnificently with power games of their own that make them amazingly relevant with little threat of rapid decline as its a gradual fade at this point with their movement.

Djokoray's pushery may be their undoing. No longer able to defend, they've not added enough offense to their game to keep their movement from being exposed. They are suddenly looking much like Nadal from 2014 to 2016. We saw Federer affecting a solution and knew what Nadal needed (a serve game which Moya has provided in spades.) Djokovic did add a potent 2nd serve (a Wawa secret) for his peak run, but both Murray and Djokovic seem to be regressing to more defensive games. A solution is not clear.

Sysy has made some great, great posts in this thread. This Big 4 dynamic clouds everything. Perhaps we all thought their dominance was something to do with Poly strings homogenizing everything, but it is becoming increasingly clear just how awesome the Big 4 were and continue to be. Thiem, Zverev, Pouille, and even an injury riddle Kyrgios continue to make impressive empirical strides this year, but it is clear they are not Fedal level talent. Is it fair to expect them to be?

They are not Fedal level talents, and probably you can't expect them to be. (Although it is fair to expect a talent like that come around once every 10-20 years). However the problem is that are they even Murray or Delpo level talents? Heck, are they even Roddick/Hewitt talents?

 

[Steve0904]

I would have to fundamentally disagree with Mr. Norman, but that's not to say both can't still produce scintillating performances on par with their best days (but in a different way/style). The major difference between now and then is day in day out consistency. Of course Federer and Nadal don't cover the court as well as they did when they were 23, but they use the variety in their games to still play at an incredibly high level from time to time. It's obvious but it probably warrants saying.

The problem for Fedal is that in tennis you need that consistency or you're gone from a tournament. You don't get a 7 game series to make 3 "mistakes" in and still possibly win it 4-3 for example.

 

[Meles]

They are not Fedal level talents, and probably you can't expect them to be. (Although it is fair to expect a talent like that come around once every 10-20 years). However the problem is that are they even Murray or Delpo level talents? Heck, are they even Roddick/Hewitt talents?

Well Thiem stepped up nicely on clay this year and really delivered. He's now in his prime and we'll see if his game starts to translate more particularly to hard courts. Very interestingly Thiem has foregone the July clay season this year including ATP500 Hamburg. He'll be the top seed at Washington in July. Thiem won't win anything big on hard courts this year, but if he has a decent end to the season that will be a huge advance over the debacles in 2015 and 2016. Thiem should have a better serve game and endurance on clay next year so he's primed to be an RG contender for years to come.

Zverev's serve game is improving faster than expected and he's very competent on all surfaces (something he has over Roddick, Hewitt, and Murray). If Zverev finds a bit better return game he's going to have a very fine career. That is a huge if as he's stalled this year. Zverev continues to make steady progress with his net game and that may be enough to put him over the edge to greatness.

Pouille simply has a knack for winning big matches (Delpo Wimby and Nadal at US Open last year stand out, but many others.) His serve game has taken a step up this year and he'll be in his early prime by next year if not the end of this year. His stats have a ways to go so he's not Roddick/Hewitt talent to my eyes, but he may snag some big titles in the years to come.

A healthy Kyrgios may yet be a force this year. Murray is the only player he can't handle so far on tour so it's just a matter of time. Kyrgios is in his prime this year (taller player, earlier prime) and we'll see how the rest of the season pans out. Bags of talent, so we'll see if he can start putting big runs together.

The big difference with these players and the lost generation (Dimi, Nishi, RaoMug, Goffin, et al) is these four play well in big matches and have a champion mentality. They have more complete games than the lost generation players; even more complete than Hewitt and Roddick (Hewitt a bit light on serve and Roddick very light on return.)

Fedal are ATGs beyond even the likes of Sampras. Don't hold your breath on seeing Big 4 type players. Their combination of size and speed just does not come around that often. I don't think we'll see a top player below six feet for the foreseeable future which shrinks the talent pool tremendously.

 

[Rago]

Nadal and Federer from a decade ago would be serving up fresh bagels and breadsticks to the guys who won the first two slams this year.

 

[metsman]

Well Thiem stepped up nicely on clay this year and really delivered. He's now in his prime and we'll see if his game starts to translate more particularly to hard courts. Very interestingly Thiem has foregone the July clay season this year including ATP500 Hamburg. He'll be the top seed at Washington in July. Thiem won't win anything big on hard courts this year, but if he has a decent end to the season that will be a huge advance over the debacles in 2015 and 2016. Thiem should have a better serve game and endurance on clay next year so he's primed to be an RG contender for years to come.

Zverev's serve game is improving faster than expected and he's very competent on all surfaces (something he has over Roddick, Hewitt, and Murray). If Zverev finds a bit better return game he's going to have a very fine career. That is a huge if as he's stalled this year. Zverev continues to make steady progress with his net game and that may be enough to put him over the edge to greatness.

Pouille simply has a knack for winning big matches (Delpo Wimby and Nadal at US Open last year stand out, but many others.) His serve game has taken a step up this year and he'll be in his early prime by next year if not the end of this year. His stats have a ways to go so he's not Roddick/Hewitt talent to my eyes, but he may snag some big titles in the years to come.

A healthy Kyrgios may yet be a force this year. Murray is the only player he can't handle so far on tour so it's just a matter of time. Kyrgios is in his prime this year (taller player, earlier prime) and we'll see how the rest of the season pans out. Bags of talent, so we'll see if he can start putting big runs together.

The big difference with these players and the lost generation (Dimi, Nishi, RaoMug, Goffin, et al) is these four play well in big matches and have a champion mentality. They have more complete games than the lost generation players; even more complete than Hewitt and Roddick (Hewitt a bit light on serve and Roddick very light on return.)

Fedal are ATGs beyond even the likes of Sampras. Don't hold your breath on seeing Big 4 type players. Their combination of size and speed just does not come around that often. I don't think we'll see a top player below six feet for the foreseeable future which shrinks the talent pool tremendously.

they still have to produce consistent top results. Being complete doesn't mean anything.

 

[hipolymer]

Magnus Norman is an idiot.

Yeah he's clearly the idiot, and you, supreme internet-poster-of-vast-knowledge, are the expert

 

[Meles]

they still have to produce consistent top results. Being complete doesn't mean anything.

Patience. They are all on a roll of late so at least they're heading in the right direction.

 

[Meles]

Nadal and Federer from a decade ago would be serving up fresh bagels and breadsticks to the guys who won the first two slams this year.

On grass, 2007 Fed and Rafa would be superior though I'd like to see Nadal with his new and incredible serve game before making the call. If you think they'd be handing out bagels and breadsticks on grass you're seriously delusional. 2007 Nadal went five sets with Soderling. Fed was more solid, but didn't dominate Gasquet in the SF so I doubt 2007 Fed and Nadal would be dominating the 2017 versions.

 

[Rago]

I doubt 2007 Fed and Nadal would be dominating the 2017 versions.

Can't believe I just read that. The main reason for their resurgence this year is their biggest rival going on a very long mental vacation. The field is weak. If Djokovic shows up with 80 % of his level from the first half of last year, this Fedal nostalgia becomes toast.

 

[clayqueen]

Can't believe I just read that. The main reason for their resurgence this year is their biggest rival going on a very long mental vacation. The field is weak. If Djokovic shows up with 80 % of his level from the first half of last year, this Fedal nostalgia becomes toast.

It's just like pre 2011 now and that's normal.

 

[Meles]

Can't believe I just read that. The main reason for their resurgence this year is their biggest rival going on a very long mental vacation. The field is weak. If Djokovic shows up with 80 % of his level from the first half of last year, this Fedal nostalgia becomes toast.

Now I know you're dreaming. Like that Djoko's decided to play Eastbourne next week.

 

[Rago]

Now I know you're dreaming.

The level of play required in general to win big events this year has been below par. The competition has been garbage so far.

Unless you believe that Nadal in 2007 would be facing 16 break points against pigeons like Fognini on clay like he did in Madrid. Or Federer losing to guys like Donskoy on a relatively fast surface after having match points.

 

[Meles]

The level of play required in general to win big events this year has been below par. The competition has been garbage so far.

Unless you believe that Nadal in 2007 would be facing 16 break points against pigeons like Fognini on clay like he did in Madrid. Or Federer losing to guys like Donskoy on a relatively fast surface after having match points.

So you think Fedal are playing worse than 2014-2016 (13 for Fed)?

Pushers Murray and Djokovic getting blown off the court these days doesn't make 2017 weak.

 

[Rago]

Pushers Murray and Djokovic getting blown off the court these days doesn't make 2017 weak.

The question is whether Fedal were playing better a decade ago or not. So Djokovic losing to Istomin at his wheelhouse, a guy he's owned is not an anomaly? Got it. And to add to that, the last time Novak lost in Indian Wells before the semis was 2010, his worst year.

 

[Meles]

The question is whether Fedal were playing better a decade ago or not. So Djokovic losing to Istomin at his wheelhouse, a guy he's owned is not an anomaly? Got it. And to add to that, the last time Novak lost in Indian Wells before the quarters was 2010, his worst year.

Kyrgios isn't it?

Well overall I think Federer is competitive with his old self on hard courts. Nadal is probably going to prove out superior on clay and hard to 2007. Grass they are probably weaker.

 

[Rago]

Kyrgios isn't it? Well overall I think Federer is competitive with his old self on hard courts. Nadal is probably going to prove out superior on clay and hard to 2007. Grass they are probably weaker.

Was referring to Australia regarding that loss to Istomin. Anyways, I could care less if they end up having the better results this year relatively but I'd laugh if someone came up to me and said that they are playing better than they were a decade ago.

 

[kandamrgam]

Lol, 2013 Nadal wasn't anywhere near the best version of nadal on clay.

2008,12, 07, 10 were clearly better. Arguably 2006 too.

As far as good offense beating good defense goes, jeez, fed/djoko were bad at offense, no , esp fed, no ? That's why they lost so many times at Rg to rafa.
Newsflash : that doesn't apply on clay.

Djoko 13 takes a set max off rg 08 Nadal.
Only 11 djokovic could maybe take it to 5, but I doubt it and he would most certainly lose in any case.

I don't get this talk of nadal's offensive arsenal being poor in 07. That's ridiculous
His groundstrokes were heavy and more than offensive enough.
If anything , he leaked quite a few errors vs them in the RG SF - thiem just wasn't playing well enough to capitalize.

He was getting rushed by big hitting in the CC season as well. See matches vs.fognini and vs thiem(Madrid, Rome)

Only the last 2 sets and 2nd half of 1st set of the RG final was tennis resembling his best tennis on clay .. otherwise, it was a ridiculously easy draw before the SF.

Some points I disagree, some points u didn't get me. I don't get the need for condescending tone though. I don't have an agenda here.

By good offence beating good defence what I meant is if you have an equally good offensive game vs defensive game the offender comes on top more often than the defender. The game is on the attacking player's racquet; for the defensive player he has to hope. Of course it is harder to be consistently hitting the opponent off the court more than it is for say someone like Rafa to keep defending. In other words of comparable level of offence vs defence offence wins. And for this reason I have always maintained the controversial opinion here that post 2011 Djokovic (slightly worse defensively compared to 2005-2009 Nadal but slightly more aggressive) would have better chances against 2005-2009 Nadal than the Nadal that followed it. 2008 Nadal is the only one I am doubtful of and that is because of his improved offence, but again I won't be arguing if someone says djoker 2011 can beat that version of Nadal. I told you it would be Fed fans here who will get worked up on this

I find it too shallow when commenters here say like: "Nadal's best on clay was during the 2005-2008 period and hence if Djokovic struggled against post peak clay Nadal at RG he would be getting beaten even worse by peak clay Nadal" I find such statements completely disregard the game styles.

Fed presents a different challenge. There's no way, even today Nadal's offence matching any version of federer's offence. That matchup is clearly different. Nadal ought to be defensively at his best to stand a chance. That's why I was clear in my last post that 2007 Nadal stands better chance against federer than 2017! And then there's the matchup issue which always proved tough for Fed on any surface.

Takes to me to the most important point. I was comparing Nadal vs Nadal there. Comparable game styles. And hence my point 2008 Nadal would lose to 2013 Nadal.

I disagree on which versions of Nadal were better, and also about 2007 Nadal being 'offensive enough'. Enough for what? I've just watched French Open 2007 final couple of days back. Something more to disagree I guess.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Well overall I think Federer is competitive with his old self on hard courts.

 

[abmk]

Some points I disagree, some points u didn't get me. I don't get the need for condescending tone though. I don't have an agenda here.

By good offence beating good defence what I meant is if you have an equally good offensive game vs defensive game the offender comes on top more often than the defender. The game is on the attacking player's racquet; for the defensive player he has to hope. Of course it is harder to be consistently hitting the opponent off the court more than it is for say someone like Rafa to keep defending. In other words of comparable level of offence vs defence offence wins. And for this reason I have always maintained the controversial opinion here that post 2011 Djokovic (slightly worse defensively compared to 2005-2009 Nadal but slightly more aggressive) would have better chances against 2005-2009 Nadal than the Nadal that followed it. 2008 Nadal is the only one I am doubtful of and that is because of his improved offence, but again I won't be arguing if someone says djoker 2011 can beat that version of Nadal. I told you it would be Fed fans here who will get worked up on this

I find it too shallow when commenters here say like: "Nadal's best on clay was during the 2005-2008 period and hence if Djokovic struggled against post peak clay Nadal at RG he would be getting beaten even worse by peak clay Nadal" I find such statements completely disregard the game styles.

Fed presents a different challenge. There's no way, even today Nadal's offence matching any version of federer's offence. That matchup is clearly different. Nadal ought to be defensively at his best to stand a chance. That's why I was clear in my last post that 2007 Nadal stands better chance against federer than 2017! And then there's the matchup issue which always proved tough for Fed on any surface.

Takes to me to the most important point. I was comparing Nadal vs Nadal there. Comparable game styles. And hence my point 2008 Nadal would lose to 2013 Nadal.

2008 nadal easily takes down 2013 nadal in 4 sets I think, 2008 nadal had clearly better defense and he measured his offense better ( even if he was not as offensive as he was in 2013), its about knowing when to pull the trigger. Its not about who is more offensive, its about who can measure the offense better

Other point is 2011+ nadal did not have equally good defensive game as 2005-09 nadal. It was still very good of course, but not as good enough.


djoko of 2011+ would have a better chance vs 2005 nadal than vs 2011-13 nadal, 06 is dicey, I'd say about even, by 07 onwards, nadal's offense on clay was improved, more than enough and djoko would struggle vs the heaviness of his strokes.

I disagree on which versions of Nadal were better, and also about 2007 Nadal being 'offensive enough'. Enough for what? I've just watched French Open 2007 final couple of days back. Something more to disagree I guess.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

that's funny. I just started watching the 2007 final after the 2017 final and felt that nadal was clearly better in 2007 as a whole compared to 2017.

offensive enough to keep any big hitting from running away with the match and to keep relentless pressure on the other player.

For the whole match :

federer hit 37 winners and forced 57 errors from nadal, total of 94 (UE count = 54), so +40
nadal hit 30 winners and forced 52 errors from federer, total of 82 (UE count = 25), so +57

that's not too far off.

in the last 2 sets where nadal played his very best, he hit 44 winners+forced errors to 40 winners+forced errors from federer ; even with nadal's better defense, he was there offense wise with federer.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nadal-french-open-2007-final-stats.592930/

if anyone says that's poor offensive arsenal, I gotta say, what the hell are you on about ?

a lot of the balls that were winners vs stan or thiem in the 17 or forced errors from stan or thiem for example were coming back with interest from federer in the 07 final

nadal hit 23 winners and forced 37 errors from thiem, total of 60 (UE count = 22), so +38.
about the same stats considering the length of the matches vs a much, much worse playing opponent in thiem.

only the RG final in 17 is comparable his general form on clay in 07.

--------

in the 2013 match vs Gulbis at Rome, Nadal hit only 13 winners to 59 winners from Gulbis. Now that was a match where he was extra-defensive and could have been blown off-court, but somehow survived.

RG 07 was nowhere near in comparison.

 

[kandamrgam]

2008 nadal easily takes down 2013 nadal in 4 sets I think, 2008 nadal had clearly better defense and he measured his offense better ( even if he was not as offensive as he was in 2013), its about knowing when to pull the trigger. Its not about who is more offensive, its about who can measure the offense better

Other point is 2011+ nadal did not have equally good defensive game as 2005-09 nadal. It was still very good of course, but not as good enough.


djoko of 2011+ would have a better chance vs 2005 nadal than vs 2011-13 nadal, 06 is dicey, I'd say about even, by 07 onwards, nadal's offense on clay was improved, more than enough and djoko would struggle vs the heaviness of his strokes.



that's funny. I just started watching the 2007 final after the 2017 final and felt that nadal was clearly better in 2007 as a whole compared to 2017.

offensive enough to keep any big hitting from running away with the match and to keep relentless pressure on the other player.

For the whole match :

federer hit 37 winners and forced 57 errors from nadal, total of 94 (UE count = 54), so +40
nadal hit 30 winners and forced 52 errors from federer, total of 82 (UE count = 25), so +57

that's not too far off.

in the last 2 sets where nadal played his very best, he hit 44 winners+forced errors to 40 winners+forced errors from federer ; even with nadal's better defense, he was there offense wise with federer.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nadal-french-open-2007-final-stats.592930/

if anyone says that's poor offensive arsenal, I gotta say, what the hell are you on about ?

a lot of the balls that were winners vs stan or thiem in the 17 or forced errors from stan or thiem for example were coming back with interest from federer in the 07 final

nadal hit 23 winners and forced 37 errors from thiem, total of 60 (UE count = 22), so +38.
about the same stats considering the length of the matches vs a much, much worse playing opponent in thiem.

only the RG final in 17 is comparable his general form on clay in 07.

--------

in the 2013 match vs Gulbis at Rome, Nadal hit only 13 winners to 59 winners from Gulbis. Now that was a match where he was extra-defensive and could have been blown off-court, but somehow survived.

RG 07 was nowhere near in comparison.

Let me summarise by points. This is becoming an endless typing contest.

1. 2008 Nadal vs 2013 Nadal on clay is tough. If I have to bet my money is on 2013. I'm doubtful Nadal 2008 could have had a higher gear like Nadal 2013 against djokovic in the semis. Again remember I'm measuring direct h2h, not against whole tour. Sure enough 2013 version is more susceptible to surprise losses owing to weaker defence. My ultimate comparison of Nadal's level would be based on how he matches up against Djokovic 2.0. Latter got the complete manual to destruct Nadal's very game. Clearly we disagree I think.

2. I have used the word 'equally' there but what I meant is 'comparable'. Djokovic 2.0 and Nadal 2.0 all have more or less comparable game styles. Sorry about that but I thought I was very clear about that in the explanation that followed.

3. Nadal has had 82 W+FE against federer in 2007 match which had 255 points. Nadal in 2017 against Thiem had 60 from 155 points. Clearly indicates Nadal in 2017 was better offensively. Was 2007 level enough for me? No I don't think. You think otherwise. Mind you 2017 is not even the best Rafa I'm talking about. Would love to see some similar stats from his 2011, 2013 matches.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[abmk]

Let me summarise by points. This is becoming an endless typing contest.

1. 2008 Nadal vs 2013 Nadal on clay is tough. If I have to bet my money is on 2013. I'm doubtful Nadal 2008 could have had a higher gear like Nadal 2013 against djokovic in the semis. Again remember I'm measuring direct h2h, not against whole tour. Sure enough 2013 version is more susceptible to surprise losses owing to weaker defence. My ultimate comparison of Nadal's level would be based on how he matches up against Djokovic 2.0. Latter got the complete manual to destruct Nadal's very game. Clearly we disagree I think.

nadal's 08 level itself was higher than 2013 nadal. Only something like nadal's 5th set vs djoko after he went down a break is 08 RG level nadal

Djokovic 2.0 doesn't have the complete manual to destruct peak nadal's game (lets say 07-08 here) on clay.

a 2011 nadal, who was slower and had an exploitable BH, even on clay ? sure.; not 07-08 nadal.

07-08 nadal would run djokovic ragged more than he runs nadal ragged on clay.

2. I have used the word 'equally' there but what I meant is 'comparable'. Djokovic 2.0 and Nadal 2.0 all have more or less comparable game styles. Sorry about that but I thought I was very clear about that in the explanation that followed.

comparable in terms of defense and offense ? still not sure about that.

3. Nadal has had 82 W+FE against federer in 2007 match which had 255 points. Nadal in 2017 against Thiem had 60 from 155 points. Clearly indicates Nadal in 2017 was better offensively. Was 2007 level enough for me? No I don't think. You think otherwise. Mind you 2017 is not even the best Rafa I'm talking about. Would love to see some similar stats from his 2011, 2013 matches.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

Thiem was playing far worse than federer, offensively, defensively, everything.

Compare with federer itself in 07. He wasn't that far off as far as winners+forced errors go in the whole match. In fact, he was ahead in the last 2 sets.
You said rafa's offense couldn't begin to compare with federer's. Well, he wasn't that far off here as far as winners+forcing errors goes.


here, 2013 nadal vs djokovic himself :

nadal had 61 winners and forced 41 errors from djokovic , i.e 102 winners+forced errors
djokovic had 54 winners and forced 60 errors from nadal, i.e 114 winners+forced errors.

nadal lagging behind by 12, the exact same as the 07 RG final
consider the 2 opposing forces : djoko 13 being a better defender than fed 07 and fed 07 being more offensive than djoko 13.

its not a significant difference either way...
so again, how was nadal's offensive arsenal poor in 07 and great in 13 ?

now take, 2008 nadal vs djokovic :

nadal had 23 winners and forced 56 errors from djokovic, i.e 79 winners+forced errors
djokovic had 34 winners and forced 41 errors from djokovic, i.e. 75 winners+forced errors

surprise, surprise , isn't it ?

not really, considering nadal dictated the match more.

(this is by my count : https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vic-french-open-2008-semi-final-stats.558246/

the winners field in the official stats are wrong for RG 08, they have the number of 1st serves instead of winners)

 

[kandamrgam]

nadal's 08 level itself was higher than 2013 nadal. Only something like nadal's 5th set vs djoko after he went down a break is 08 RG level nadal

Djokovic 2.0 doesn't have the complete manual to destruct peak nadal's game (lets say 07-08 here) on clay.

a 2011 nadal, who was slower and had an exploitable BH, even on clay ? sure.; not 07-08 nadal.

07-08 nadal would run djokovic ragged more than he runs nadal ragged on clay.




comparable in terms of defense and offense ? still not sure about that.




Thiem was playing far worse than federer, offensively, defensively, everything.

Compare with federer itself in 07. He wasn't that far off as far as winners+forced errors go in the whole match. In fact, he was ahead in the last 2 sets.
You said rafa's offense couldn't begin to compare with federer's. Well, he wasn't that far off here as far as winners+forcing errors goes.


here, 2013 nadal vs djokovic himself :

nadal had 61 winners and forced 41 errors from djokovic , i.e 102 winners+forced errors
djokovic had 54 winners and forced 60 errors from nadal, i.e 114 winners+forced errors.

nadal lagging behind by 12, the exact same as the 07 RG final
consider the 2 opposing forces : djoko 13 being a better defender than fed 07 and fed 07 being more offensive than djoko 13.

its not a significant difference either way...
so again, how was nadal's offensive arsenal poor in 07 and great in 13 ?

now take, 2008 nadal vs djokovic :

nadal had 23 winners and forced 56 errors from djokovic, i.e 79 winners+forced errors
djokovic had 34 winners and forced 41 errors from djokovic, i.e. 75 winners+forced errors

surprise, surprise , isn't it ?

not really, considering nadal dictated the match more.

(this is by my count : https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vic-french-open-2008-semi-final-stats.558246/

the winners field in the official stats are wrong for RG 08, they have the number of 1st serves instead of winners)

1. I don't know what's not clear about my point on offence vs defence. Against aggressive players you need great defence to avoid surprise losses. Which is why it think Isner couldn't have pushed Nadal to five sets during 05-09 timeframe. But when you pit Rafa vs Djokovic or Rafa vs Nadal who are the kind of players who wouldn't outhit but outsmart you, you would need the better offence. One reason why Murray is toothless against djoker, Nadal etc. When 05-09 Nadal meets 10-13, 17 Nadal it's not the defensive advantage of the former that's going to make the difference but the offensive advantage of the latter, I believe. Even if you disagree (which we can discuss), I hope my point is clear.

2. If Nadal wasn't far off Fed in the stats department (in 2007 final), are you hinting Nadal's offence is 'almost' as good as Federer's? Interpreting and quantifying stats are difficult. We both know how different Nadal's game is compared to Federer's (subjective to our own understandings) and what they rely on to win matches but perhaps it is that 12 extra (W + FE in 2007 final) that distinctly defines games of Nadal and Federer. 12 seem small but at least in my interpretation of their games there is a world of difference. That's how big each of the 12 that constitutes to it is. My eye test tells me Nadal has improved offensively over the years. When margins are small to even more stress my point I have to point that there's a definite increase in ratio of winners Nadal's producing over those matches in comparison.

Sure enough FE are indicative of offence as well and I don't know how's that skewing those results in favour of your point and against my subjective understanding of Nadal's game but surely a shift in balance towards more winners and lesser FEs is more indicative of Nadal's improved offence, right? Let me get into numbers:

2007 FO final: Nadal 30 W, 52 FE (winning 136 of 255 points)
2008 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 57 FE (winning 108 of 198 points)
2013 FO semi: Nadal 61 W, 41 FE (winning 177 of 335 points)
2017 FO semi: Nadal 23 W + 37 FE (winning 94 of 155 points)

When we account those overall number of points played and points won by Nadal against his Will/FE clearly the aggression level shows 2008 > 2017 > 2007 > 2013. But you have a good point to say that FedEx was better than Thiem, but so was Djokovic 2013 than Federer 2007.

Instead when I only account for winners, 2013 > 2017 > 2007 ~ 2008. For me the sheer number of winners Nadal went for against a very good defender in djokovic in 2013 better explains he was offensively on a different level compared to 2007. You can ignore 2017 since Thiem wasn't spectacular, the reason for which I chose to ignore 2008 final against FedEx as well.

The gradual shift in Nadal's reliance on winners from forced errors tells me he has improved offensively.

I'm fully aware these are only a few matches. Who has whole season records?

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[abmk]

1. I don't know what's not clear about my point on offence vs defence. Against aggressive players you need great defence to avoid surprise losses. Which is why it think Isner couldn't have pushed Nadal to five sets during 05-09 timeframe. But when you pit Rafa vs Djokovic or Rafa vs Nadal who are the kind of players who wouldn't outhit but outsmart you, you would need the better offence. One reason why Murray is toothless against djoker, Nadal etc. When 05-09 Nadal meets 10-13, 17 Nadal it's not the defensive advantage of the former that's going to make the difference but the offensive advantage of the latter, I believe. Even if you disagree (which we can discuss), I hope my point is clear.

your point is clear. But :

a) I don't agree with that necessarily being true on clay, which is the slowest, most high bouncing surface.
b) Murray doesn't have an ATG FH to take control of points from the baseline, nadal did , even from 2005 onwards.

2. If Nadal wasn't far off Fed in the stats department (in 2007 final), are you hinting Nadal's offence is 'almost' as good as Federer's? Interpreting and quantifying stats are difficult. We both know how different Nadal's game is compared to Federer's (subjective to our own understandings) and what they rely on to win matches but perhaps it is that 12 extra (W + FE in 2007 final) that distinctly defines games of Nadal and Federer. 12 seem small but at least in my interpretation of their games there is a world of difference. That's how big each of the 12 that constitutes to it is. My eye test tells me Nadal has improved offensively over the years. When margins are small to even more stress my point I have to point that there's a definite increase in ratio of winners Nadal's producing over those matches in comparison.

Sure enough FE are indicative of offence as well and I don't know how's that skewing those results in favour of your point and against my subjective understanding of Nadal's game but surely a shift in balance towards more winners and lesser FEs is more indicative of Nadal's improved offence, right? Let me get into numbers:

2007 FO final: Nadal 30 W, 52 FE (winning 136 of 255 points)
2008 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 57 FE (winning 108 of 198 points)
2013 FO semi: Nadal 61 W, 41 FE (winning 177 of 335 points)
2017 FO semi: Nadal 23 W + 37 FE (winning 94 of 155 points)

When we account those overall number of points played and points won by Nadal against his Will/FE clearly the aggression level shows 2008 > 2017 > 2007 > 2013. But you have a good point to say that FedEx was better than Thiem, but so was Djokovic 2013 than Federer 2007.

Instead when I only account for winners, 2013 > 2017 > 2007 ~ 2008. For me the sheer number of winners Nadal went for against a very good defender in djokovic in 2013 better explains he was offensively on a different level compared to 2007. You can ignore 2017 since Thiem wasn't spectacular, the reason for which I chose to ignore 2008 final against FedEx as well.

The gradual shift in Nadal's reliance on winners from forced errors tells me he has improved offensively.

I'm fully aware these are only a few matches. Who has whole season records?

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

There are no full season records. You will have to search match by match.

The difference b/w fed 07 and djoko 13 is much much lesser than the difference b/w fed 07 and thiem 17 (talking about the respective matches)

I'm aware that nadal from was more offensive later on than what he was from 2007-09. Which is what those winners stats show.
But by pointing towards the forced errors stat, I just wanted to show that the difference is not as big as you make it out to be, i.e that nadal was pretty good enough offensively earlier itself. Saying his offensive arsenal was poor in 07 is terribly incorrect.

earlier on, he used to make the opponents run left right and force errors from them ( more so the BH wing than FH wing); from 10 onward, it was more about hitting winners (at the cost of more UEs) mainly due to his defense going a tad down.

Now if it was a player mainly just having extraordinary defense, running everything down, but not able to control the baseline to force errors from the other player, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here.

 

[NoleFam]

The level of play required in general to win big events this year has been below par. The competition has been garbage so far.

Unless you believe that Nadal in 2007 would be facing 16 break points against pigeons like Fognini on clay like he did in Madrid. Or Federer losing to guys like Donskoy on a relatively fast surface after having match points.

This is pretty much true but nobody is saying it because their favorites are winning. The big complaint when Djokovic was dominating was that the field was weak. At least Djokovic had inform Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic, Nishikori, a budding Thiem, etc. in his field to deal with. Now with Djokovic, Murray, Raonic, Tsonga, Nishikori and Berdych all out of form this year, you're only left with Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, and Thiem on that list who have been for the most part in form so far this year. Also, Wawrinka as usual only shows up for the Slams. The first half of the year was nothing spectacular quality wise especially when the two dominate players of last year completely went off the rails.

 

[NoleFam]

So you think Fedal are playing worse than 2014-2016 (13 for Fed)?

Pushers Murray and Djokovic getting blown off the court these days doesn't make 2017 weak.

In my opinion, Nadal is much more in form and Federer is basically around the same level as 2015 Wimbledon - 2016 AO. I usually agree with your posts and think you are mostly on point in your assessments but you completely went off the script in saying that 2017 Fedal would be challenging their 2007 versions consistently, and that Murray and Djokovic are getting blown off the court this year because they are pushers. You cannot see that their levels have seriously dropped since around RG last year? Also, when you resort a 12 time GS champ and a guy who held 4 majors, the WTF, and 5 Masters tournaments all at once to nothing more than a pusher, you begin to lose credibility.

 

[abmk]

This is pretty much true but nobody is saying it because their favorites are winning. The big complaint when Djokovic was dominating was that the field was weak. At least Djokovic had inform Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic, Nishikori, a budding Thiem, etc. in his field to deal with. Now with Djokovic, Murray, Raonic, Tsonga, Nishikori and Berdych all out of form this year, you're only left with Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, and Thiem on that list who have been for the most part in form so far this year. Also, Wawrinka as usual only shows up for the Slams. The first half of the year was nothing spectacular quality wise especially when the two dominate players of last year completely went off the rails.

Murray was just top 10 level in 2014 ( coming off back injury), not top 3, top 4 level.
Only in 15,16 he was.

Federer wasn't there in 2016 for most part.
Nadal wasn't playing well in 15-16 and was absent in 2nd half of 2014.

You missed Zverev in the list for 2017 btw.
Dimi also did well at the start of the year, Nishi gave federer a tough match at the AO as well.

Basically its just about the same in 2017 as it was in 2015-16.

Difference is that 2015-16 were djokovic's peak years.
17 is not for fedal.
So people are willing cut more slack for fedal dominating weak competition than they are for peak Djokovic.

Pretty sure there's been talk of weak era for peak fed from 2004-07 ( which is rubbish considering only 06 was relatively weak, 04,05,07 were strong) and 2010 for nadal ( when neither of fed, murray, djoko were playing particularly well)

 

[Meles]

In my opinion, Nadal is much more in form and Federer is basically around the same level as 2015 Wimbledon - 2016 AO. I usually agree with your posts and think you are mostly on point in your assessments but you completely went off the script in saying that 2017 Fedal would be challenging their 2007 versions consistently, and that Murray and Djokovic are getting blown off the court this year because they are pushers. You cannot see that their levels have seriously dropped since around RG last year? Also, when you resort a 12 time GS champ and a guy who held 4 majors, the WTF, and 5 Masters tournaments all at once to nothing more than a pusher, you begin to lose credibility.

I'm just feeding the Federerista beast with the pusher comment.

I considered Federer's level very, very high especially on hard courts in 2015 into early 2016. In 2017 some parts of his game are declined from that period, but the new backhand has been a revelation in my mind. I'd still rate Peakovic higher, but 2017 Fed would have been a bitter better in those three slam encounters from 2015-2016. That backhand is pumping new life into Federer's game on grass.

Djokovic and Murray's game have definitely been down in 2017 and still have not fully recovered. Murray is at least getting points and is likely to make SF at Wimby, but Nadal will be his doom. Djokovic is probably closer to his 2012-2014 form now then say 2010, so he could win Wimby.

The game is changing. Fedal have adapted. It is much more about first strike tennis with great serving and returning. Djokoray are struggling with this new reality to some extent and their pusher/grinder instincts won't serve them well. Nole needs his 2nd serve back. Murray needs his aggression in spades.

Nobody on tour is really a pusher to my eyes save maybe Arthur DeGreef (can really moonball.)

We can agree to disagree on Fedal 2007 versions versus 2017. The case for 2017 (Nadal's serve) gets better and better as this year goes on. Ditto for Federer. The overall tour is much stronger than 2007.

 

[kandamrgam]

your point is clear. But :

a) I don't agree with that necessarily being true on clay, which is the slowest, most high bouncing surface.
b) Murray doesn't have an ATG FH to take control of points from the baseline, nadal did , even from 2005 onwards.



There are no full season records. You will have to search match by match.

The difference b/w fed 07 and djoko 13 is much much lesser than the difference b/w fed 07 and thiem 17 (talking about the respective matches)

I'm aware that nadal from was more offensive later on than what he was from 2007-09. Which is what those winners stats show.
But by pointing towards the forced errors stat, I just wanted to show that the difference is not as big as you make it out to be, i.e that nadal was pretty good enough offensively earlier itself. Saying his offensive arsenal was poor in 07 is terribly incorrect.

earlier on, he used to make the opponents run left right and force errors from them ( more so the BH wing than FH wing); from 10 onward, it was more about hitting winners (at the cost of more UEs) mainly due to his defense going a tad down.

Now if it was a player mainly just having extraordinary defense, running everything down, but not able to control the baseline to force errors from the other player, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here.

I'm trying to find the significance of the 12 that separated fedal in 2007. The more I think of it I just do not know how to interpret those stats.

2007 FO final: Nadal 30 W, 52 FE (winning 136 of 255 points)
2008 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 57 FE (winning 108 of 198 points)
2008 FO final: Nadal 46 W, 11 FE (winning 92 of 144 points)
2013 FO semi: Nadal 61 W, 41 FE (winning 177 of 335 points)
2017 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 37 FE (winning 94 of 155 points)

When you count just winners, you come to the conclusion Nadal's aggression levels were similar in both 2007 final as well as 2008 semis (two decent quality matches). This goes against my eye test

When you account both W and FE, it would seem Nadal vs Thiem in 2017 was better in terms of aggression than vs Federer in 2008 (more so considering Thiem played better). Perhaps it is, maybe Fed was an error machine in 2008 that Nadal didn't have to go for winners. Very difficult to draw conclusions.

Thinking about it I have come to two conclusions:

a. Dissimilar matches can't be compared. Two defenders like Nadal vs Djokovic 2.0 will have different winner/error dynamic compared to matches like Safin vs Federer or Federer vs Nadal. It's best to not compare Nadal vs Djokovic 2013 match to Nadal vs Fed 2007 or 2008.

b. Disregarding FE completely when assessing offence is not honest (though it must be a highly subjective number. I worry if it's even consistent across statisticians, tournaments, years), at the same time putting FE on the same footing as W isn't entirely correct as well. Far from a mathematician, but I think if we give twice the weightage to winners when compared to forced errors we will get a better result.

Something like, W/TP x 2 + FE/TP (where TP is total points)

Regardless, we both agree Nadal's offence has improved since 2007. The crux of the argument is how big of an improvement and if 2007 game would be winning against Djokovic 2011+. I think no, you think yes. Hard to find evidence with numbers.


Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[abmk]

We can agree to disagree on Fedal 2007 versions versus 2017. The case for 2017 (Nadal's serve) gets better and better as this year goes on. Ditto for Federer. The overall tour is much stronger than 2007.

that's hilarious.
federer won AO in 07 losing 0 sets; he lost 7 sets at this year's AO.

and he actually played on clay in 07, making RG final and winning Hamburg

He won wim 07 beating peak nadal on grass.

the only thing he's done better in 17 is winning IW-Miami.


nadal on clay was better in 07 compared to 17.
Only thing he's done better this year is reach AO final in contrast to QF in AO 07

I highly doubt he's going to reach the level he did in Wim 07 final vs federer (or even wimb 07 QF vs berdych)

the tour was stronger in 07 with peak fed, peak nadal on clay/grass(not yet peak on HC though), djokovic, roddick, davydenko, nalbandian etc.

 

[abmk]

I'm trying to find the significance of the 12 that separated fedal in 2007. The more I think of it I just do not know how to interpret those stats.

2007 FO final: Nadal 30 W, 52 FE (winning 136 of 255 points)
2008 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 57 FE (winning 108 of 198 points)
2008 FO final: Nadal 46 W, 11 FE (winning 92 of 144 points)
2013 FO semi: Nadal 61 W, 41 FE (winning 177 of 335 points)
2017 FO semi: Nadal 23 W, 37 FE (winning 94 of 155 points)

When you count just winners, you come to the conclusion Nadal's aggression levels were similar in both 2007 final as well as 2008 semis (two decent quality matches). This goes against my eye test

When you account both W and FE, it would seem Nadal vs Thiem in 2017 was better in terms of aggression than vs Federer in 2008 (more so considering Thiem played better). Perhaps it is, maybe Fed was an error machine in 2008 that Nadal didn't have to go for winners. Very difficult to draw conclusions.

Thinking about it I have come to two conclusions:

a. Dissimilar matches can't be compared. Two defenders like Nadal vs Djokovic 2.0 will have different winner/error dynamic compared to matches like Safin vs Federer or Federer vs Nadal. It's best to not compare Nadal vs Djokovic 2013 match to Nadal vs Fed 2007 or 2008.

b. Disregarding FE completely when assessing offence is not honest (though it must be a highly subjective number. I worry if it's even consistent across statisticians, tournaments, years), at the same time putting FE on the same footing as W isn't entirely correct as well. Far from a mathematician, but I think if we give twice the weightage to winners when compared to forced errors we will get a better result.

Something like, W/TP x 2 + FE/TP (where TP is total points)

Regardless, we both agree Nadal's offence has improved since 2007. The crux of the argument is how big of an improvement and if 2007 game would be winning against Djokovic 2011+. I think no, you think yes. Hard to find evidence with numbers.


Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

1. as nadal's offence as has improved, his defense has decreased after 2009. Its a major reason why djokovic was able to beat him at his own game of outdefending, outlasting , even on clay in 2011. That would not have happened to 06-09 nadal on clay.

2. the 2008 final stats are wrong. For 2008, the RG site has # of first serves in the winners column. That's why I linked the 2008 RG semi from my own stats.

3. your eye test is not wrong regarding RG 2008 semi and RG 2007 final. He was more aggressive in 2008 compared to 2007.
80 forcing plays (23W+57 FEs)/198 = 40.4%

82 forcing plays(30W+52 FEs)/255 = 32.1%
that's why don't take the winners only.

4. I don't think making forced errors half as important as the winners to determine aggression level is the solution either. It may not be 1:1, but sure as hell isn't 0.5:1.

 

[Meles]

that's hilarious.
federer won AO in 07 losing 0 sets; he lost 7 sets at this year's AO.

and he actually played on clay in 07, making RG final and winning Hamburg

He won wim 07 beating peak nadal on grass.

the only thing he's done better in 17 is winning IW-Miami.


nadal on clay was better in 07 compared to 17.
Only thing he's done better this year is reach AO final in contrast to QF in AO 07

I highly doubt he's going to reach the level he did in Wim 07 final vs federer (or even wimb 07 QF vs berdych)

the tour was stronger in 07 with peak fed, peak nadal on clay/grass(not yet peak on HC though), djokovic, roddick, davydenko, nalbandian etc.

The year isn't done. Don't make me laugh that the tour was stronger in 2007 especially early (2006 was a weakish year.) The mighty Canas wiped Federer out on the IW/Miami swing. You can black mark 2017 because Fed skipped clay, but otherwise both Nadal and Fed have done more. Djokovic showed up in early 2007 and did impressive things against a really weak field on hard courts. The rest of the top 10 was forgettable including Roddick.

 

[abmk]

The year isn't done. Don't make me laugh that the tour was stronger in 2007 especially early (2006 was a weakish year.) The mighty Canas wiped Federer out on the IW/Miami swing. You can black mark 2017 because Fed skipped clay, but otherwise both Nadal and Fed have done more. Djokovic showed up in early 2007 and did impressive things against a really weak field on hard courts. The rest of the top 10 was forgettable including Roddick.

That's hilarious. roddick went SF at AO (l to fed), qf at wimby, qf at USO ( l to fed).. The USO one was very high quality match.

Nalbandian won Paris/Madrid beating fedalovic and others. That indoor run is highly talked about.

Gonzalez had a great run at the AO - a very memorable one. Also beat fed at the YEC.

Davy went qf at AO, SF at RG and SF at USO.

Ferrer had a good run at the USO making SF and a great one at the YEC (did not lose a set in RR and SF)

Oh and yeah, put AO 07 fed in 2017, he doesn't lose more than 2 sets I think. actually that may be a bit generous in terms if sets lost. If he plays like he did in the semi in 07, Stan's done in straights. Even nishi would probably be done in straights, given the way fed did in 4R vs djoko.

Might lose a set to nadal in the final, may win in straight sets as well.

But lets be on the safe side and say he loses 1 set overall

 

[Meles]

That's hilarious. roddick went SF at AO (l to fed), qf at wimby, qf at USO ( l to fed).. The USO one was very high quality match.

Nalbandian won Paris/Madrid beating fedalovic and others. That indoor run is highly talked about.

Gonzalez had a great run at the AO - a very memorable one. Also beat fed at the YEC.

Davy went qf at AO, SF at RG and SF at USO.

Ferrer had a good run at the USO making SF and a great one at the YEC (did not lose a set in RR and SF)

Oh and yeah, put AO 07 fed in 2017, he doesn't lose more than 2 sets I think. actually that may be a bit generous in terms if sets lost. If he plays like he did in the semi in 07, Stan's done in straights. Even nishi would probably be done in straights, given the way fed did in 4R vs djoko.

Might lose a set to nadal in the final, may win in straight sets as well.

But lets be on the safe side and say he loses 1 set overall

Pushdick blows chunks; only early Roddick is worth of respect. Ferrer?

If Roddick made SF of Auz; you know it was weak.

 

[abmk]

Pushdick blows chunks; only early Roddick is worth of respect. Ferrer?

Roddick was hitting the cover of the ball in their USO 2007 match.