Pat Cash: Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal Are Boring

Pat say what he thinks regardless of how popular it will be. He always has and,probably always will. If you want scripted statements listen to a McEnroe.

Pats right though. These players are boring,now. It,would,be fun to watch a nadal or djokavich play an attacking player. Kind of like the old Rafter vs bruguea matches. Or even the Edberg Chang battles. Heck McEnoroe had some some real battles against conners and Borg.

Most of,this new generation of players like the wta men's matches because that's all they know. It's boring stuff though if you know the history of this game.

Oh really?????? Ok then what he says here is true as well:

Written last year but the points cash makes are still relevant. Interesting read.

Pat Cash questions Federer quality

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the 44-year-old last week for his thoughts on the Australian Open, Cash was as honest and forthright as ever.

He declared the legacy of Swiss legend and world No 1 Roger Federer won't be known until he has weathered the storm he is set to face over the next three years. It's almost blasphemy in the world of tennis to question Federer's greatness, but that didn't deter Cash.

"The next couple of years is the only time he will have been challenged by more than one person," Cash said. "(Rafael) Nadal has a winning edge over him and he has it over him mentally, too.

"I think (Juan Martin) del Potro and Andy Murray are really troubling him lately and I just hope we haven't seen Federer peak when there weren't any challenges."

Pete Sampras, who saw Federer go past him at Wimbledon last year when he claimed his 15th Grand Slam title, was defined by his rivalry with Andre Agassi.

Before that, it was Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. And in Cash's day, he battled the super Swedes, Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg, and Ivan Lendl.

For much of his career, Federer was playing against history - trying to chase down Sampras's 14 Grand Slams. Now that he has got there, the rivals are real - and they are coming to get him.

"It doesn't really make it a fair indication of how good he really is if there hasn't been anyone really to challenge him," Cash said. "It will almost be a false impression of how good he really is.

"But I think over the next few years we'll see how good he really is. You've got to look at who you play. You can't just put a man in a boys' tournament and say, 'Wow, how good is he?'

"Because suddenly you drop another man in there and think, 'He's not as good as we thought he was'. And at the moment for me, that's what is still in question."

THE BATTLE

Federer has appeared in an unprecedented 21 Grand Slam finals and has reached the semi-finals or better of the past 22 major tournaments.

It is a record streak that spans five years. He also holds the record of reaching 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals and has appeared in 17 of the past 18. And the world No 1 has won 16 ATP Masters Series tournaments, one less than Agassi's record.

But, according to Cash, tennis fans should mark down the Australian Open of 2010 as the year the onslaught began. "Because it was a bit of a one-horse race, then a two-horse race for so long. But now I think this is a legitimate challenge there for Federer," Cash said.

"Federer really was in a league of his own for a while, partially because he's so good. He brought a different aspect to the game, but a lot of players have become accustomed to his style now and they have worked him out. "It's going to be not so easy for him any more.

"He's a sensational player and he'll continue to win big tournaments, for sure, but I don't see it as quite as freely. Nadal was injured last year, so you've got to say Federer had a bit of luck in the French Open.

"Federer's amazing because he's so fit. He stays in incredible shape all the time. There's no doubt his shot-making is one of the greatest of all time, if not the greatest. But it's easy to make shots when you're not playing against anybody of your standard.

"Now he's got other players of his standard, so, I think it will be a great challenge for him and hopefully he can stand up to it and stay fit as well."

THE RIVALS

In 2001, Cash lost a claycourt exhibition match to a then 15-year-old Nadal. He knows the Spaniard well and believes only a nagging knee injury robbed the world No 2 of solidifying the pressure on Federer.

But it's Argentine giant Juan Martin del Potro who really excites Cash. The former Australian Davis Cup hero suggested the world No 4 has the high-powered game to bring down Federer, just like he did in last year's US Open final.

"I think del Potro is a very, very good player. I heard he hurt himself this week so hopefully he'll be OK," Cash said. "I think he's a real superstar.

"I think Andy Murray is a real superstar, also (Novak) Djokovic has a lot of potential as well. He's a real danger player. So there's a handful now."

The new wave will get their crack at the master this week at the Australian Open. Last year, it was Nadal who brought down the Swiss maestro. This year, the world No 1 is facing an ambush.
 

Emiliano55

Professional
I agree with Pat. In my opinion, seeing Djokovic-Nadal playing the same exact match on all surfaces gets boring over the time

However, there is too much snobism involved in tennis.
3 years ago, poeple 'had' to say Roger was the best of all time. Now people 'have' to say Rafa-Djokovic duel is epic.
 
I agree with Pat. In my opinion, seeing Djokovic-Nadal playing the same exact match on all surfaces gets boring over the time

However, there is too much snobism involved in tennis.
3 years ago, poeple 'had' to say Roger was the best of all time. Now people 'have' to say Rafa-Djokovic duel is epic.

Well I can't say that Feds non Nadal slam finals were at all interesting except maybe a couple . The last Roddick one was great.....but philopusis , Baghdatis , Fernandez , Agassi, Hewitt etc etc may have been the most boring slam finals in history .
 

Emiliano55

Professional
Well I can't say that Feds non Nadal slam finals were at all interesting except maybe a couple . The last Roddick one was great.....but philopusis , Baghdatis , Fernandez , Agassi, Hewitt etc etc may have been the most boring slam finals in history .

The final against Agassi at the USO was just great. Those first 3 sets, in my opinion, were some of the best tennis I have EVER seen. So I guess you are just throwing some names in there without actually having seen the matches.

However, I don't get what Federer's slam finals have to do with the topic. We are talking about how Nadal-Djokovic duel get boring with time to some people.
 
what is boring is the fact that cash could do so little on the court.

he would have won just about nothing in the modern game.
 
The final against Agassi at the USO was just great. Those first 3 sets, in my opinion, were some of the best tennis I have EVER seen. So I guess you are just throwing some names in there without actually having seen the matches.

However, I don't get what Federer's slam finals have to do with the topic. We are talking about how Nadal-Djokovic duel get boring with time to some people.

Watching grandpa Agassi on a wheel chair and basically having to give up because he really couldn't walk is not my definition of excitement .

Lets face it the most exciting player of all time is Nadal. Don't believe me? Here's the evidence :

2008 Wimbledon greatest match as all time .

2013 semi final FO is regarded by most experts as the greatest clay court match of all time .

Nadal Joker AO is regarded as one of the greatest matches of all time .

*** all surfaces and all Nadal.

*** furthermore if you choose to respect Cash then you cannot just pick and choose those opinions that you like . Cash also said that Federer lacked quality competition pre Nadal.....so that was even more boring and is am asterisk on his record.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Huge fan of Djokovic.
However bigger fan of Tennis.
Love the Djokovic/Murray/Nadal grindfests @ the AO and FO.
Just dont want them playing that way at the Wimbledon or USO.
If the courts at Wimbledon and USO were changed to a low bouncing composition these top guys would be forced to change their game to adapt to the courts or they would be out of the draw.
This would be so much more exciting for tennis.
Now we know we will prob get a a couple good SF's at Wimbledon and USO and all liklihood the final will be a grindfest and or a blowout.
 

Emiliano55

Professional
Watching grandpa Agassi on a wheel chair and basically having to give up because he really couldn't walk is not my definition of excitement .

Lets face it the most exciting player of all time is Nadal. Don't believe me? Here's the evidence :

2008 Wimbledon greatest match as all time .

2013 semi final FO is regarded by most experts as the greatest clay court match of all time .

Nadal Joker AO is regarded as one of the greatest matches of all time .

*** all surfaces and all Nadal.

*** furthermore if you choose to respect Cash then you cannot just pick and choose those opinions that you like . Cash also said that Federer lacked quality competition pre Nadal.....so that was even more boring and is am asterisk on his record.

Why is it that you always bring your Nadal biased opinion to every single topic ?

Again, we are not talking about Nadal's greatness here. Go take some coffee and think before posting.
 

cknobman

Legend
I'm not going to agree with any part of Pat's comments that refer to questioning how good this generation of players is vs past generations.

But I do think this statement really hit the nail on the head for me “What is getting mundane is watching the same tactic in every single match of every single grand slam for the last five or six years. Nowadays they all settle down and say ‘OK, this is going to be two hours of baseline rallies.’ The guy who outlasts the other one wins. It’s taken a lot of the skill out of tennis.”

I, from the standpoint of a fan, I am not alone in this. Many people I know dont watch tennis now the way we used to. I do have a lot of Murray, Nadal, and other player fans for friends too (some of them absolutely hate Federer). We used to have big parties to watch all the semi's and final's. Someone would host and we would all get together to watch because we were excited to see what would happen.
Now we dont have the parties anymore and there is much less interest in wanting to watch the matches.

Why? Because no one wants watch to watch pong for 4+ hours and just wait for one person to get tired over the other. At least when Federer or Sampras made finals you were likely to see some different stuff. Even my friends who hated Federer were more interested in seeing him play in a final (to root against him) than watching Novak play Rafa or Murray.
 
Why is it that you always bring your Nadal biased opinion to every single topic ?

Again, we are not talking about Nadal's greatness here. Go take some coffee and think before posting.

I'm not ....cash says that Fed lacked competition . That's not an opinion that's in fact what he said.

But your biased stance only chooses to recognize those positions which you support.

Today's matches may bore cash but that doesn't mean Fed did not bore him even more . The fact that he says fed lacked competition and therefore dominated everyone could not have been to intersting to cash.....otherwise he would not have stated that Feds competition during the weak era was so pathetic.
 
Last edited:
what guys like the clay warrior, nole, and andy murray are showing the world today is that they pretty much can do it all while the players of the past simply could not and never had to.

also you have to have played the game at a fairly high level to fully know and understand exactly what these players are doing on the court.

pat cash is just a fool who is looking to make controversial remarks so he can show up in the news.

the matches between nadal and roger and between nadal and nole are being called some of the greatest matches ever played.

nadal does not volley as well as roger and also does not have as big a serve as roger so there are very few free and easy points for him.

so he fights them with a more robust ground game which requires a whole new dimension.

and he fights them with his relentless will. he cuts off their spirit and their balls with this will.

he takes away their will with his will.
 

AngieB

Banned
Lets face it the most exciting player of all time is Nadal. Don't believe me? Here's the evidence :
I've witnessed the best and worst professional tennis has had to offer throughout the years. Bjorn Borg was a much more exciting and popular player than Rafael Nadal. A lot of that had to do with the meteoric rise in tennis popularity in the 1970's and Bjorn won Wimbledon several more times.

This must be the first time ever that I've heard someone describe a clay-court GOAT as "exciting" to watch. On what planet do you watch tennis?

AngieB
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
I'm not going to agree with any part of Pat's comments that refer to questioning how good this generation of players is vs past generations.

But I do think this statement really hit the nail on the head for me “What is getting mundane is watching the same tactic in every single match of every single grand slam for the last five or six years. Nowadays they all settle down and say ‘OK, this is going to be two hours of baseline rallies.’ The guy who outlasts the other one wins. It’s taken a lot of the skill out of tennis.”

I, from the standpoint of a fan, I am not alone in this. Many people I know dont watch tennis now the way we used to. I do have a lot of Murray, Nadal, and other player fans for friends too (some of them absolutely hate Federer). We used to have big parties to watch all the semi's and final's. Someone would host and we would all get together to watch because we were excited to see what would happen.
Now we dont have the parties anymore and there is much less interest in wanting to watch the matches.

Why? Because no one wants watch to watch pong for 4+ hours and just wait for one person to get tired over the other. At least when Federer or Sampras made finals you were likely to see some different stuff. Even my friends who hated Federer were more interested in seeing him play in a final (to root against him) than watching Novak play Rafa or Murray.

I am wid you, man.
I watched Sampras vs Safin USO 2000 the other day and that was a 3 setter and it was interesting.
Can not say the same about these 3 set grind fest losses.
Sampras even in a loss went out on his shield in that match. But with the low bounce surfaces players had a swinger hit a winner chance right to the end. Now you set up a winner and slug a ball it just comes back as a floater. reset.
 
Why is it that you always bring your Nadal biased opinion to every single topic ?

Again, we are not talking about Nadal's greatness here. Go take some coffee and think before posting.



the man believes in his player.

there is nothing wrong with that mate.

he is being passionate about the sport.

the way I look at it, he is just chatting up tennis. this is invariably better than being dead about the sport.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
what guys like the clay warrior, nole, and andy murray are showing the world today is that they pretty much can do it all while the players of the past simply could not and never had to.

also you have to have played the game at a fairly high level to fully know and understand exactly what these players are doing on the court.

pat cash is just a fool who is looking to make controversial remarks so he can show up in the news.

the matches between nadal and roger and between nadal and nole are being called some of the greatest matches ever played.

nadal does not volley as well as roger and also does not have as big a serve as roger so there are very few free and easy points for him.

so he fights them with a more robust ground game which requires a whole new dimension.

and he fights them with his relentless will. he cuts off their spirit and their balls with this will.

he takes away their will with his will.

With the speed these men have at the top the play will never go back to the hit serve, one or two stroke rally tennis. Make a court low bounce and you will see some variation in play IMHO. These men will adapt or go away.
 

Emiliano55

Professional
I'm not ....cash says that Fed lacked competition . That's not an opinion that's in fact what he said.

But your biased stance only chooses to recognize those positions which you support.

Today's matches may bore cash but that doesn't mean Fed did not bore him even more . The fact that he says fed lacked competition and therefore dominated everyone could not have been to intersting to cash.....otherwise he would not have stated that Feds competition during the weak era was so pathetic.

Saying Federer lacked competition (which I also agree) does not mean he thinks Federer was boring.

Again, you are just mixing things up, as you tend to do for what I have read in these forums.

I don't care what Cash said in the past, I just said I agree with the guy in this specific matter. To me, Djokovic and Nadal are just boring to watch over the time.

And also, I'm glad an ex-player expressed his honest opinion about this subjet. It seems all the other guys like to be politically correct when they talk about it.
 
nobody is stopping anybody from rushing like a fool to the net.

the fact of the matter is that with the runaway speed and the power in the game, you cant pay your mortgage if you do that.

now you have to craft points and go in for the kill when the chances are the highest of success.

you pretty much have to guess from the baseline, let alone at the net.

you just cant volley what you cant see.
 
Boring? Not to me. It's enthralling tennis.

that dude in your avi happens to be one of my most favorite players of all times.


in fact here is my list:

1. vilas
2. muster
3. clay warrior (nadal)
4. bruguera
5. kuerten



I just took a close look at your avi and realized who it was.
 
Saying Federer lacked competition (which I also agree) does not mean he thinks Federer was boring.

Again, you are just mixing things up, as you tend to do for what I have read in these forums.

I don't care what Cash said in the past, I just said I agree with the guy in this specific matter. To me, Djokovic and Nadal are just boring to watch over the time.

And also, I'm glad an ex-player expressed his honest opinion about this subjet. It seems all the other guys like to be politically correct when they talk about it.

well watching fed destroy a bunch of girl scouts was boring. Things didnt really get exciting until wimby 2007 & 2008 when Federer actually had some competition......prior to that the weak era was quite boring.

I think Cash Echoes that

"Federer's amazing because he's so fit. He stays in incredible shape all the time. There's no doubt his shot-making is one of the greatest of all time, But it's easy to make shots when you're not playing against anybody of your standard.

"Now he's got other players of his standard, so, I think it will be a great challenge for him and hopefully he can stand up to it and stay fit as well."
 
Last edited:

President

Legend
Nadal Djokovic is actually a pretty good matchup, they have enough of a contrast of strengths and weaknesses and have such different stroke production that it is a watchable match. They both have different objectives they try to achieve in each point and the shotmaking is typically good. A real awful matchup is Djokovic vs Murray, its just horrendous to watch. They are real mirrors of each other.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
well watching fed destroy a bunch of girl scouts was boring. Things didnt really get exciting until wimby 2007 & 2008 when Federer actually had some competition......prior to that the weak era was quite boring.

I think Cash Echoes that

"Federer's amazing because he's so fit. He stays in incredible shape all the time. There's no doubt his shot-making is one of the greatest of all time, But it's easy to make shots when you're not playing against anybody of your standard.

"Now he's got other players of his standard, so, I think it will be a great challenge for him and hopefully he can stand up to it and stay fit as well."

Federer was way better than those guys. Why is that his fault? He FORCED Nadal and Djokovic to become that good. IF he wasnt there they would be the same level as hewitt and haas.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Watching grandpa Agassi on a wheel chair and basically having to give up because he really couldn't walk is not my definition of excitement .

Lets face it the most exciting player of all time is Nadal. Don't believe me? Here's the evidence :

2008 Wimbledon greatest match as all time .

2013 semi final FO is regarded by most experts as the greatest clay court match of all time .

Nadal Joker AO is regarded as one of the greatest matches of all time .

*** all surfaces and all Nadal.

*** furthermore if you choose to respect Cash then you cannot just pick and choose those opinions that you like . Cash also said that Federer lacked quality competition pre Nadal.....so that was even more boring and is am asterisk on his record.

Except for the wimby 2013 one Nadal's matches are pretty boring. No winners are hit and the rallies are too long. Its the same point over and over again.
Its thanks to Federer that the wimby 2008 match was exciting. Nadal has intensity but not excitement.
 
Federer was way better than those guys. Why is that his fault? He FORCED Nadal and Djokovic to become that good. IF he wasnt there they would be the same level as hewitt and haas.

fault has nothing to do with the topic or anything at all.

why do people bring up "fault" ?
 
Last edited:
Except for the wimby 2013 one Nadal's matches are pretty boring. No winners are hit and the rallies are too long. Its the same point over and over again.
Its thanks to Federer that the wimby 2008 match was exciting. Nadal has intensity but not excitement.


then just watch the old matches or go take up another sport.

bass fishing comes to mind. so easy to follow and very little stress if any.


the objective of this sport (tennis) is to win matches.


mahut and isner hit plenty of winners in their match a few years ago at Wimbledon. go watch that match about 1000 times to get your fill of winners.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Novak is definitely boring. The most boring player I have ever seen.

Nadal can be boring when he chooses to play too far behind the baseline and not use his athleticsm and power and weapons to greater aplomb. When he does utulize all he has in his game he is exciting to watch though.

Murray is defintely more boring than Nole on average...
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
He couldn't take a set from either player in his prime.

Cash was actually one of the top players in his prime. Won Wimbledon once and was twice a Aus Open runner up losing in 5 sets for both matchers to Edberg and Wilander on grass. His career was ruined permanently by a snapped Achilles tendon. He made a comeback but was was never the same player again, the calf muscles on the injured leg were puny compared to his non-injured leg. What could have been for him maybe added a bitter streak to his character which by the sound of things is still there today.

On the old fast Wimbledon grass he'd be favoured by some to beat prime Nadal and Novak.
 

reaper

Legend
Cash is right. Ideally in tennis on a neutral surface when a great attacking player meets a great counter puncher, with both at their top, the great attacking player should win. The game was played along those lines until about 10 years ago, when the slowing of conditions tilted the balance to defence.
 
Top