I only properly reply to intelligent posts.oh look someone is triggered by the reality pointed fed beat 3 slam champs each in AO 04, Wim 04 and USO 04 and his era weak era delusions about fed's prime have been questioned.
also triggered that I pointed out Djokodal vulturing in the inflation era by far the most - 10 slams and 7 slams respectively. couldn't even reply to that.
Dude?dude, you wouldn't know what an intelligent post is if it danced in front of you wearing Dobby's tea-cozy.
Anyways, I thought I should give you a 2nd chance and took if you off ignore, but back to ignore you go, delusionally ignorant fella.
I wrote some of them.You have read all of the Federer literature?
You are the foremost scholar?
Federer is your preferred subject matter?
Obviously.Federer is your preferred subject matter?
Not only occasionally, but at all times?
Is it though? Nadal can surely limit the UFE more than he did in that match (part of it is because he had to play more aggressive than he'd like which is not his natural game, same with 09 F), and Verdasco/Federer were not as UFE prone in 2009 against a faster Nadal, albeit the court was a bit quicker.
Who used to be Federer's coach when he won his first major.
That, I believe, is actually Peter Lundgren who coached Fed during his early years on the tour, including at Wimbledon 2003.
Scud Paris 00 final vs Murray Paris 16 final?
How often does that happen in real life matches though? Most "old-school" all-court attacking tennis or baseline attacking tennis matches have really high winners/FE counts.
Yep, I'm quite sure this has everything to do with Nadal quaking in his boots at the prospect of facing his pigeon and nothing to do with him being a clear half a step slower and being forced to lower his intensity on several occasions throughout the final due to the residual effects of his marathon second semi.
Unfortunate that years of seeing Djokovic show up like a zombie to major finals and play with nonexistent or inconsistent intensity, sometimes after a tough semi that was 100% his own doing to begin with (or was he tired there as well), has predisposed you to think this would happen to others as well.
Really? Name me another predominantly baseline attacking match at this level. There are extremely few to begin with on HC. I already gave 04 AO SF which was not low in UFE. 04 TMC SF by the same guys, definitely more error prone. 04 USO QF first 3 probably a similar error rate (low winners but more forced errors due to Agassi's movement and Fed's weaker backhanding, neither of which are the case in this match), but of course 05 AO went to a next level of cleanness in the last 2 sets. 13 AO was not on this level, but still lots of UFE. 04 AO QF featured a good number of UFEs from Fed at least. On HC, you'd probably have to bring up matches like 05 USO F (where Federer played extremely short points on serve with Agassi's movement and Fed's BH same dynamic as 04 but even more extreme), and 08/09 USO SF (which is nice but simply not at this level of baseline play, and the rallies were probably a bit more error prone anyways).
That's because we actually know enough about the game to credibly construct such arguments. Most others make only first order reddit tier arguments (in terms of narrative and stats). It's pretentious to say but it's true.
lol I was waiting for someone to say this quiet part out loud
The main point is that tennis has morphed over the last 20 years to become much more a sport for general public consumption, to compete with soccer, basketball, UFC (which is shockingly popular among the youth) etc. What does this mean, it means a lesser emphasis on more classical and traditional styles, less appreciation of skill/fundamentals, and more encouragement and manufacturing of over dramatized narratives and gladiatorial play to provide easy entertainment. No one watches soccer or basketball to appreciate minute details, they watch it because it's a good show with lots of easy stimuli. A similar thing is happening in baseball as well, commonly said to be a boring sport unless people are hitting 500 foot home runs and flipping the bat to the moon. Old school romanticization of the game has fallen by the wayside in favor of easy stimulus and eye popping highlights to attract a younger crowd. The new school does not want to watch a pitcher carve people up for 8 innings conserving his stuff and hitting his spots, instead they'd watch him throw as hard as he can for 5 innings before handing it off to 6 different relievers who do the same. They dress this up as "analytics".
You'd be a lot happier if you were comfortable engaging with your own peers too, you know?
Sorry man it’s ttw. Nobody agrees.
Perfectly summed it up. That's what I loved about tennis. The contrast between the old and new styles with Fedalovic. Empire vs Rebels.
Theodoros Koku—[redacted]
Take your time.
Michael G.
Three true outcomes make the game more "exciting" as it produces tons of short highlights you can share on social media, etc. Younger people with no attention span don't want to watch a pitcher perfectly locate his spots and induce a bunch of weak contact and put up a 8ip, 2er, 1bb, 5K line. When people say baseball is boring, that's what they refer to. And baseball television audience is quite old but other forms of media are not, there's significant youtube/social media/podcast, etc. presence. So in a way it's worked.
