Some similarities between 2006 and 2017

[Fedeonic]

Federer winning Australian Open, Indian Wells and Miami in both years.
Nadal winning Montecarlo, Barcelona, 2nd clay M1000 played (Rome 2006/Madrid 2017) and Roland Garros.
A different player wins his 1st M1000 in the 3rd clay M1000 played (Robredo in Hamburg 2006 and Zverev in Rome 2017).

Could this trend continue all the year or the coincidence ends in Roland Garros? Discuss.

 

[Meles]

Federer winning Australian Open, Indian Wells and Miami in both years.
Nadal winning Montecarlo, Barcelona and the 2nd clay M1000 played (Rome 2006/Madrid 2017).
A different player wins his 1st M1000 in the 3rd clay M1000 played (Robredo in Hamburg 2006 and Zverev in Rome 2017).

Could this trend continue all the year or the coincidence ends in Roland Garros? Discuss.

Those years were transition years of a sort for just about all, but Federer. I'd blame it on technology (Poly strings) making baseline tennis the new game while players (even Baghdatas) who developed games more with gut strings and touch and feel in mind were up against a new coming reality. For clay courters Poly came much earlier, but Fed in 2002 really changed the rest of the tour with his success and adaption to Poly becoming apparent by 2003. Robredo was still also a bit of a throwback like Baghdatis. Nadal was still relatively new in 2006, but already dominant on clay. Better examples would be Berdych in Paris (late 2005), Davydenko 2006 Paris, and Djokovic early 2007 (Miami). All of these featured an overall weak pathway to the title. For 2006 Davydenko was 4th seed and the top 3 seeds withdrew for example. One could say that for Nadal on hard courts he was more of a new player from 2005-2007 breaking through with mainly the slam focused Federer as the big obstacle on hard courts.

Zverev in Rome had a perfect pathway to the final and really only had to beat one strong clay player in the final (about like Nole getting by Nadal in 2007 Miami). Thiem had an opportunity in Madrid, but had Nadal on clay. With Federer out on clay and Murray off his game this has really opened things up as lesser players don't have to play three of the big 4 to win an event.

The door may shut on hard courts again later this year as Federer and the rest of the Poly veterans still have excellent games on hard courts versus the younger players who lack the upper body strength to handle the heavy topspin, hard, high bouncing poly game. Towers like Kyrgios and Zverev still will have a chance as bounce height and their efficient serve games (short matches) will give them more apparent stamina for deep runs on hard courts. Dimitrov is another talent entering his best years at age 25 and he may get some success as he is fully developed and has proven stamina at Auz Open. Those hard court events are just not easy these days with most of the draw playing a heavy baseline game. There is no technological change affecting the game now just a slow evolution.

At this moment with Nadal and Djokovic's loss to NextGen in Rome, Murray's poor play, and Federer's convalescing off clay, we may continue to have unexpected openings in the big events sooner rather than later. On clay and grass it will be more likely this year than on hard as age is no advantage on clay and grass while the younger players are less impacted by the Poly advantages for the older players on hard courts.

Its very different from 2006 in that technology is no aid to the young. The veterans have the better coaches, teams, and everything else. We really got to see Thiem step up versus Nadal in the last few weeks for primo generational matches, but Zverev versus Djokovic was much more about Djokovic's level being low this year. Hopefully we have more great matches and some break through wins by players and perhaps another title or two, but it won't be as easy after Wimbledon.

Amazingly through it all stands Federer blocking the way in both years, adapting his game for later success against an increasingly more and more powerful baseline tennis. Simply a wonderful player.

 

[Fedeonic]

One could say that for Nadal on hard courts he was more of a new player from 2005-2007 breaking through with mainly the slam focused Federer as the big obstacle on hard courts.

Nadal's HC game in 2005-07 was pretty good, pretty much underrated if you ask me, he won 5 HC titles, which 3 of those were M1000s, and still had a respectable 2-3 on hard against the "slam focused" Federer.

 

[Meles]

Nadal's HC game in 2005-07 was pretty good, pretty much underrated if you ask me, he won 5 HC titles, which 3 of those were M1000s, and still had a respectable 2-3 on hard against the "slam focused" Federer.

He didn't win hard court majors until 2009 on the lower bouncing Auz courts (Nole the same). Nadal might have looked pretty good because he was matchup hell for Fed, but his stats against the rest of the tour were not really prime until he was winning slams on hard courts. Nadal also is about as strong as it gets too which didn't hurt him too much in those early years, but he was even stronger (strength) in his later years.

I'd say the most competive surface the big 3 in those earlier years was clay. Djokovic's stats were enviable in that period and Fed was making RG finals. 2007-2009 were some fine years for three of the top players ever seen on clay courts. Its a shame that brute Nadal just eclipses everyone else on the surface. Just when we thought we were done with him here he comes in 2017 with Moya working magic in his game and strategy. Confidence building now, but hopefully popped by Thiem. Clay is generally a young man's surface, but super coach Moya has got the old Bull up and running against all odds.

If we had the right up and coming talent Auz Open could be a breakthrough surface like for Nole and Rafa in 2008 and 2009. As a Thiem fan he's shown some of his best hope in this part of the year on hard courts so maybe he'll be up for the task. Zverev went 5 with Rafa this year and Kyrgios had QF in 2015 so if his head is screwed on right he might be a threat. Goffin, Dimitrov and Thiem were all in the same quarter.

Clay and grass are the best shots. The beast may make like difficult at RG, but more chance at Wimbledon of NextGen success than those hard court masters where the top seeds have byes (Zverev as 8 seed might help him along nicely.) A tall player like Delpo or Zverev isn't at as much of a bounce height disadvantage with Poly, so they should have earlier success than players of normal height.

 

[metsman]

Those years were transition years of a sort for just about all, but Federer. I'd blame it on technology (Poly strings) making baseline tennis the new game while players (even Baghdatas) who developed games more with gut strings and touch and feel in mind were up against a new coming reality. For clay courters Poly came much earlier, but Fed in 2002 really changed the rest of the tour with his success and adaption to Poly becoming apparent by 2003. Robredo was still also a bit of a throwback like Baghdatis. Nadal was still relatively new in 2006, but already dominant on clay. Better examples would be Berdych in Paris (late 2005), Davydenko 2006 Paris, and Djokovic early 2007 (Miami). All of these featured an overall weak pathway to the title. For 2006 Davydenko was 4th seed and the top 3 seeds withdrew for example. One could say that for Nadal on hard courts he was more of a new player from 2005-2007 breaking through with mainly the slam focused Federer as the big obstacle on hard courts.

Zverev in Rome had a perfect pathway to the final and really only had to beat one strong clay player in the final (about like Nole getting by Nadal in 2007 Miami). Thiem had an opportunity in Madrid, but had Nadal on clay. With Federer out on clay and Murray off his game this has really opened things up as lesser players don't have to play three of the big 4 to win an event.

The door may shut on hard courts again later this year as Federer and the rest of the Poly veterans still have excellent games on hard courts versus the younger players who lack the upper body strength to handle the heavy topspin, hard, high bouncing poly game. Towers like Kyrgios and Zverev still will have a chance as bounce height and their efficient serve games (short matches) will give them more apparent stamina for deep runs on hard courts. Dimitrov is another talent entering his best years at age 25 and he may get some success as he is fully developed and has proven stamina at Auz Open. Those hard court events are just not easy these days with most of the draw playing a heavy baseline game. There is no technological change affecting the game now just a slow evolution.

At this moment with Nadal and Djokovic's loss to NextGen in Rome, Murray's poor play, and Federer's convalescing off clay, we may continue to have unexpected openings in the big events sooner rather than later. On clay and grass it will be more likely this year than on hard as age is no advantage on clay and grass while the younger players are less impacted by the Poly advantages for the older players on hard courts.

Its very different from 2006 in that technology is no aid to the young. The veterans have the better coaches, teams, and everything else. We really got to see Thiem step up versus Nadal in the last few weeks for primo generational matches, but Zverev versus Djokovic was much more about Djokovic's level being low this year. Hopefully we have more great matches and some break through wins by players and perhaps another title or two, but it won't be as easy after Wimbledon.

Amazingly through it all stands Federer blocking the way in both years, adapting his game for later success against an increasingly more and more powerful baseline tennis. Simply a wonderful player.

yes in 2002 obviously everyone was looking to the mighty headcase with consecutive R1 slam exits Roger Federer to see what kind of strings he played with LMAO

Adaption to poly was more a thing in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004. By 05-06 everyone was on poly and basically everyone played from the baseline. Difference was that people still played aggressively from the baseline which is why it was still watchable. But yeah keep pretending that Federer had some kind of huge edge on the field because no one else knew how to play with poly for some reason. When the reality is that poly if anything reduced Federer's edge over the field because he was a guy who didn't need poly to come up with crazy angles and hit a heavy ball. Same with a guy like Hewitt.

 

[Meles]

yes in 2002 obviously everyone was looking to the mighty headcase with consecutive R1 slam exits Roger Federer to see what kind of strings he played with LMAO

Adaption to poly was more a thing in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004. By 05-06 everyone was on poly and basically everyone played from the baseline. Difference was that people still played aggressively from the baseline which is why it was still watchable. But yeah keep pretending that Federer had some kind of huge edge on the field because no one else knew how to play with poly for some reason. When the reality is that poly if anything reduced Federer's edge over the field because he was a guy who didn't need poly to come up with crazy angles and hit a heavy ball. Same with a guy like Hewitt.

The very fact that you prefer "watchable" tennis shows you prefer the players who were rendered extinct by Poly. Poly strings had been around since 1997. Don't blame me that Federer completely survived a technology change while everyone else was gone or way down in the rankings quickly after the change.

 

[6-3 6-0]

The very fact that you prefer "watchable" tennis shows you prefer the players who were rendered extinct by Poly. Poly strings had been around since 1997. Don't blame me that Federer completely survived a technology change while everyone else was gone or way down in the rankings quickly after the change.

Rendered extinct by Poly strings? Is that why Hewitt still stuck around after injuries in 2006? Or Roddick made multiple slam finals after 2003? Or Safin did the same and actually won AO '05? What are you on, buddy?

The only thing I agree with you is watchable tennis thing. Its in the eyes of the beholder and all individuals have specific and different tastes.

 

[Bender]

Nadal's HC game in 2005-07 was pretty good, pretty much underrated if you ask me, he won 5 HC titles, which 3 of those were M1000s, and still had a respectable 2-3 on hard against the "slam focused" Federer.

Nadal in 2005 did more on HCs in that one year than all of the @NextGen combined.

So yeah, massively underrated, but explainable because his game in the following years changed to a more patient game, which suits clay better than HCs.

If he continued to evolve his more aggressive 2005 playing style, 2005 may not be as underrated as it is now.

 

[Meles]

Rendered extinct by Poly strings? Is that why Hewitt still stuck around after injuries in 2006? Or Roddick made multiple slam finals after 2003? Or Safin did the same and actually won AO '05? What are you on, buddy?

The only thing I agree with you is watchable tennis thing. Its in the eyes of the beholder and all individuals have specific and different tastes.

When I say extinct I mean well down from the top of the rankings. Lots of players had injury issues like Hewitt, and lots of players complained about Poly causing injury issues. Seems like those extended baseline bashing sessions over those early years might have combined with the harsh nature of the strings. The Poly was kind of a shock to the system for some. James Blake has complained about having to switch to compete and then later problems.

Also, it wasn't a light switch turned on in the Spring of 2003. I think Metsman has said Fed switched Spring of 2002 and he did not get the huge impact that players like Agassi experienced when they first tried the string (famously at Rome which he won in 2003.) One of the big Hewitt advocates whose name I should know very well said he switched in 2004. For Hewitt he felt poly really hurt as everyone else on tour developed a much better baseline game which was something Hewitt dominated with regular strings. Hewitt of course had injury issues. JCF injury issues. Whatever the reasons, a whole bunch of players changed at the top of the game and Pushdick was born lol.

Some players adapted. Baseliners like Ferrer and Davydenko had some success, but one of the big issues with Poly and more and more baseliners is the ball bounce height. Ferrer and Davy had to be fully mature given their height to really compete. Poly has shrunk the talent pool in tennis because it puts a bit of a premium on height. 6' 2" might be the ideal height these days. I think Wawrinka at 6 feet tall is probably the shortest player with any recent slam success.

Call all this what you want. If you think the technology change hurt Federer and he would have done more that's fine. To me its a sign of his greatness that he has adapted to the game over such a long period. Nobody plays like Federer with much success today. Dimitrov may get there and is pretty amazing talent, but its just not an easy game.

The reverse view would be that Federer's game has hardly changed at all and the racquet changes and coaches are all malarkey. Fed is so much worse than 2004-2007 now that the entire tour must have fallen off a cliff for him to still be at the top. Somehow this stretches any sense of credulity, but that seems to be the core philosophy behind the standard Federista propaganda spewed out by many on this site. My study of stats just makes me shake my head at this nonsense.

 

[TheFifthSet]

but Fed in 2002 really changed the rest of the tour with his success and adaption to Poly becoming apparent by 2003.

Gut mains, Poly crosses, 90 sq. inch
racquet.

His game clearly benefitted from the new technology, but at the same time he was probably less dependent on it than anyone else.

 

[6-3 6-0]

The reverse view would be that Federer's game has hardly changed at all and the racquet changes and coaches are all malarkey. Fed is so much worse than 2004-2007 now that the entire tour must have fallen off a cliff for him to still be at the top. Somehow this stretches any sense of credulity, but that seems to be the core philosophy behind the standard Federista propaganda spewed out by many on this site. My study of stats just makes me shake my head at this nonsense.

No, Federer's game has changed but that isn't enough to compensate for the loss of movement/footwork/reflexes and to an extent anticipation. His serve has been a major asset throughout his career, previously it was less noticeable because he had a lethal FH to go with it and ran around his BH to unleash those. To say Federer is playing better than ever at twilight of his career just because he has won a slam recently seems to be core propaganda of many conspiracy theorists on this site

Nevertheless, like you I also expect Djokovic to peak in his 30's and dominate the game like never seen before even surpassing his 2011 standard

 

[Meles]

Nadal in 2005 did more on HCs in that one year than all of the @NextGen combined.

So yeah, massively underrated, but explainable because his game in the following years changed to a more patient game, which suits clay better than HCs.

If he continued to evolve his more aggressive 2005 playing style, 2005 may not be as underrated as it is now.

Maybe, but he wasn't facing a bunch of baseliners using Poly bouncing the ball at impossible ball heights. He was one of the first. It still held him back, but there were a lot of players still in the game who didn't match well with Poly and so it was easier for Nadal coming in on a technology change. Ditto all the big 4.

Its not just technology here. This was a peak crop of players that came in too and have extended careers because of the change in the nature of the game. Until this recent patch of bad play by Djokoray, its been very hard to break through. You can sit here and rip on nextgen players like a broken record as they start beating big 4 players, but that's pretty silly. The reality is the barriers to winning for the young have changed, so they just won't emerge until a few years later than it used to be exacerbated by all these ATGs finding great form on top of the main issue with Poly bounce height on hard courts.

More evidence of the issue with hard courts will be the likely relative lack of success after Wimbledon for NextGen. They will do well on clay and grass and then fall back (maybe some luck on indoor season given those courts often bounce less than the US Open series.)

 

[metsman]

The very fact that you prefer "watchable" tennis shows you prefer the players who were rendered extinct by Poly. Poly strings had been around since 1997. Don't blame me that Federer completely survived a technology change while everyone else was gone or way down in the rankings quickly after the change.

yeah which is why pusher Roddick was sonning Nadal and Djokovic from 08-10 and why Davydenko had his best ever run in late 09 and why geriatric Tommy Haas finished 12 in the world in 2013 after multiple surgeries.

The guys that fell off did so due to injuries/health problems (Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Coria, Johansson) and had major success with poly.

 

[Meles]

No, Federer's game has changed but that isn't enough to compensate for the loss of movement/footwork/reflexes and to an extent anticipation. His serve has been a major asset throughout his career, previously it was less noticeable because he had a lethal FH to go with it and ran around his BH to unleash those. To say Federer is playing better than ever at twilight of his career just because he has won a slam recently seems to be core propaganda of many conspiracy theorists on this site

Nevertheless, like you I also expect Djokovic to peak in his 30's and dominate the game like never seen before even surpassing his 2011 standard

I go with stats buddy and not rhetorical nonsensical logic. Djokovic is way down this year. Federer is doing great.

Your core credibility problem is that everything revolves around Federer. The entire level of the tour apparently in your eyes. Federer has not fallen into these slams by pure luck and rollover draws. He's done it because his game has evolved and adapted brilliantly. Its rather sad as a fan that you have such a negative view of Federer and seem to think its a conspiracy theory that has won him Auz, IW and Miami. This is getting pretty kooky.

I dealt with all you boneheads when I predicted Fed would win Auz this year and you wrung and wrung your hands about it, but he had the level, the draw, and great stats from 2015-2016 that showed he was still a very strong player. You can deny the numbers and claim the rest of the tour has completely fallen apart, but don't drag me along with such a negative and disgusting view of the current game.

 

[Meles]

yeah which is why pusher Roddick was sonning Nadal and Djokovic from 08-10 and why Davydenko had his best ever run in late 09 and why geriatric Tommy Haas finished 12 in the world in 2013 after multiple surgeries.

The guys that fell off did so due to injuries/health problems (Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Haas, Coria, Johansson) and had major success with poly.

Hmmm. Start using Poly and then all have injury issues.

So refresh my memory of Roddick's ranking in his great 08-10 run. He must have been number 2 in the world from your build up. Watching that clown on the tour just made me ill and its was a great thing when he dropped off the tour. Berdych departing the top 10 is a relief on the eyes, but Roddick's departure was heaven.

Davydenko was a mature baseliner who did adapt to Poly fairly well. Still I don't think his height was an asset.

Big serving (ala Pushdick) really helps at slams and it kept Pushdick afloat well enough in those years.

 

[metsman]

When I say extinct I mean well down from the top of the rankings. Lots of players had injury issues like Hewitt, and lots of players complained about Poly causing injury issues. Seems like those extended baseline bashing sessions over those early years might have combined with the harsh nature of the strings. The Poly was kind of a shock to the system for some. James Blake has complained about having to switch to compete and then later problems.

Also, it wasn't a light switch turned on in the Spring of 2003. I think Metsman has said Fed switched Spring of 2002 and he did not get the huge impact that players like Agassi experienced when they first tried the string (famously at Rome which he won in 2003.) One of the big Hewitt advocates whose name I should know very well said he switched in 2004. For Hewitt he felt poly really hurt as everyone else on tour developed a much better baseline game which was something Hewitt dominated with regular strings. Hewitt of course had injury issues. JCF injury issues. Whatever the reasons, a whole bunch of players changed at the top of the game and Pushdick was born lol.

Some players adapted. Baseliners like Ferrer and Davydenko had some success, but one of the big issues with Poly and more and more baseliners is the ball bounce height. Ferrer and Davy had to be fully mature given their height to really compete. Poly has shrunk the talent pool in tennis because it puts a bit of a premium on height. 6' 2" might be the ideal height these days. I think Wawrinka at 6 feet tall is probably the shortest player with any recent slam success.

Call all this what you want. If you think the technology change hurt Federer and he would have done more that's fine. To me its a sign of his greatness that he has adapted to the game over such a long period. Nobody plays like Federer with much success today. Dimitrov may get there and is pretty amazing talent, but its just not an easy game.

The reverse view would be that Federer's game has hardly changed at all and the racquet changes and coaches are all malarkey. Fed is so much worse than 2004-2007 now that the entire tour must have fallen off a cliff for him to still be at the top. Somehow this stretches any sense of credulity, but that seems to be the core philosophy behind the standard Federista propaganda spewed out by many on this site. My study of stats just makes me shake my head at this nonsense.

Federer switched to poly during clay court season in 2002. Also Agassi won Rome in 2002, I'm guessing that was a typo. 2003 was the classic Federer meltdown against Volandri (poly sure was working wonders for him back then huh)

Hewitt in terms of playing level probably had his best stretch from 04 Wimby-05 IW with poly. But he had the misfortune of running into GOATing opponents in 6 different slams from 04-05. Safin had his best stretch late 04-early 05 but then got felled by injuries. Which wasn't a surprise, with his lack of work ethic injuries were always on the table, and he had chronic huge woes in 2003 and 2001 as well. Do you want to blame his 2001 injuries on poly? Roddick turned into pushdick because he overreacted after 04/05 and tried everything to beat Federer. Pushdick was still good enough to go toe to toe on hard with Nadal and Djokovic. And do you want to make the argument that Ferrero got chicken pox because of poly? lol.

Federer is much worse than his prime against elite opponents. Not against the common mugs, which is where 95% of your "stats" are compiled. There are no elite opponents in the field currently hence why he was doing so well. When grandpa Federer faced an elite opponent on big stages you saw what happened. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and lend some context to your stats but you continually show the inability to analyze stats with any kind of context or meaning. A trained monkey can go on tennis-abstract and spew points stats, it doesn't make you special or more knowledgeable, which anyone who has conversed to you about pre-2015 tennis can attest to.

 

[6-3 6-0]

I go with stats buddy and not rhetorical nonsensical logic. Djokovic is way down this year. Federer is doing great.

Your core credibility problem is that everything revolves around Federer. The entire level of the tour apparently in your eyes. Federer has not fallen into these slams by pure luck and rollover draws. He's done it because his game has evolved and adapted brilliantly. Its rather sad as a fan that you have such a negative view of Federer and seem to think its a conspiracy theory that has won him Auz, IW and Miami. This is getting pretty kooky.

I dealt with all you boneheads when I predicted Fed would win Auz this year and you wrung and wrung your hands about it, but he had the level, the draw, and great stats from 2015-2016 that showed he was still a very strong player. You can deny the numbers and claim the rest of the tour has completely fallen apart, but don't drag me along with such a negative and disgusting view of the current game.

Sure you do, by cherry picking stats against entire different field nevertheless which has been pointed out before

Ofcourse he has had it pretty tough at AO, IW and Miami and I am not denying that but that questions the credibility of the entire field allowing it to happen after 6 months of not playing. The sad part is that you post subjective theories (like the one posted in this thread about Poly rendering everyone besides Fed from '03 extinct), exaggerate it and shove it down everyone's throat.

I am extremely happy as a fan and couldn't have asked for a better post 30 career, don't worry about it. But posting nonsense such as playing his best ever tennis at 33-35 or at his very peak of powers sounds very delusional when the guy has the most mileage of any active tennis player and didn't miss a season until 2016. Its rather ironic you're calling names to others and accuse of them having agenda (which is probably true) but having the same yourself

Have a good day

 

[metsman]

Hmmm. Start using Poly and then all have injury issues.

So refresh my memory of Roddick's ranking in his great 08-10 run. He must have been number 2 in the world from your build up. Watching that clown on the tour just made me ill and its was a great thing when he dropped off the tour. Berdych departing the top 10 is a relief on the eyes, but Roddick's departure was heaven.

Davydenko was a mature baseliner who did adapt to Poly fairly well. Still I don't think his height was an asset.

Big serving (ala Pushdick) really helps at slams and it kept Pushdick afloat well enough in those years.

My buildup? I just said he did well against Nadal and Djokovic in that period despite being past his best which is true.

More garbage narratives to debunk:

Hewitt was a little guy with a slight build who played with tons of effort, lower body injuries were always a real possibility. He also struggled with injuries in 2003 before he switched to poly A similar thing happened to Chang as well.
Ferrero got chicken pox. Never knew poly caused that.
Haas' downfall was primarily due to his parents' accident and chronic injuries in late 2002/2003. There's good evidence he was still using gut in 2004.
Safin had injuries issues dating back to 2001, likely because of a lack of commitment and training. The rigors of the pro tour are impossible when you don't work to keep yourself in shape 24/7/365. But yeah obviously poly was the cause here, in 2001
Coria and Pim Pim both had massive shoulder injuries which effectively ended their careers and that was in 2005. Coria like all clay courters had probably been on poly for years. Pim Pim was 6'6", unlikely his shoulder broke down because of all of a sudden balls were bouncing higher. Sounds more like things that were destined to happen for those two.


What's next, Dr. Meles shows that Agassi's back condition was caused by poly?

 

[metsman]

I go with stats buddy and not rhetorical nonsensical logic. Djokovic is way down this year. Federer is doing great.

Your core credibility problem is that everything revolves around Federer. The entire level of the tour apparently in your eyes. Federer has not fallen into these slams by pure luck and rollover draws. He's done it because his game has evolved and adapted brilliantly. Its rather sad as a fan that you have such a negative view of Federer and seem to think its a conspiracy theory that has won him Auz, IW and Miami. This is getting pretty kooky.

I dealt with all you boneheads when I predicted Fed would win Auz this year and you wrung and wrung your hands about it, but he had the level, the draw, and great stats from 2015-2016 that showed he was still a very strong player. You can deny the numbers and claim the rest of the tour has completely fallen apart, but don't drag me along with such a negative and disgusting view of the current game.

Negative view of Federer? He's awed us all with his early season performance and we hope he continues to do the same. Doesn't change the fact that we have eyes and saw the guy at his best and know that he's not at the level he was back then.

This is the guy who recently said Djokovic>Federer or pretty darn close because Djokovic was apparently beating "prime" Federer in 15-16, started watching tennis on tennis-abstract.com, and is lecturing Federer fans about being negative and when his best periods of play actually were. Unreal.

 

[zagor]

.Amazingly through it all stands Federer blocking the way in both years, adapting his game for later success against an increasingly more and more powerful baseline tennis. Simply a wonderful player.

Fed had to adapt to his own diminished physicality, not increasingly powerful baseline tennis, big hitters certainly weren't lacking in 2003-2009 (Safin, Agassi, Gonzo, pre-2005 Roddick, James Blake, Scud, Soderling and Delpo in 2009, Tsonga arrived in 2008 etc.).

Aside from Stan (whom Fed owns on HC, hardly had to adapt) and Berdych in Miami (he wasn't going for it in AO), which big hitter Fed beat in his 2017 HC run? Kyrgios junks the ball half the time (seriously, look up his average groundstroke speed if you don't believe me), Nadal was more aggressive than usual but Fed has been playing him since 2005, Jack Sock maybe?

 

[mike danny]

Federer switched to poly during clay court season in 2002. Also Agassi won Rome in 2002, I'm guessing that was a typo. 2003 was the classic Federer meltdown against Volandri (poly sure was working wonders for him back then huh)

Hewitt in terms of playing level probably had his best stretch from 04 Wimby-05 IW with poly. But he had the misfortune of running into GOATing opponents in 6 different slams from 04-05. Safin had his best stretch late 04-early 05 but then got felled by injuries. Which wasn't a surprise, with his lack of work ethic injuries were always on the table, and he had chronic huge woes in 2003 and 2001 as well. Do you want to blame his 2001 injuries on poly? Roddick turned into pushdick because he overreacted after 04/05 and tried everything to beat Federer. Pushdick was still good enough to go toe to toe on hard with Nadal and Djokovic. And do you want to make the argument that Ferrero got chicken pox because of poly? lol.

Federer is much worse than his prime against elite opponents. Not against the common mugs, which is where 95% of your "stats" are compiled. There are no elite opponents in the field currently hence why he was doing so well. When grandpa Federer faced an elite opponent on big stages you saw what happened. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and lend some context to your stats but you continually show the inability to analyze stats with any kind of context or meaning. A trained monkey can go on tennis-abstract and spew points stats, it doesn't make you special or more knowledgeable, which anyone who has conversed to you about pre-2015 tennis can attest to.

Yeah, 2004 AO, 2004 Wimb, 2004 USO, 2005 AO, 2005 Wimb, 2005 USO. Hewitt was a contender in all of them. Too bad his opponents were peak Fed and GOATing Safin.

 

[Gazelle]

Nadal in 2005 did more on HCs in that one year than all of the @NextGen combined.

So yeah, massively underrated, but explainable because his game in the following years changed to a more patient game, which suits clay better than HCs.

If he continued to evolve his more aggressive 2005 playing style, 2005 may not be as underrated as it is now.

Erm, he was the same old grinder back in 2005, relying on often short dropping topspin and superior fitness. Not the aggressor you make him to be. He had some soft draws in Montreal and Madrid together with some choking opponents that made him have some success on HC that year. He was still exposed often enough on non-clay, especially at the slams.

 

[mike danny]

Erm, he was the same old grinder back in 2005, relying on often short dropping topspin and superior fitness. Not the aggressor you make him to be. He had some soft draws in Montreal and Madrid together with some choking opponents that made him have some success on HC that year. He was still exposed often enough on non-clay, especially at the slams.

It took incredible performances to stop him even in the slams. Hewitt would go on to reach the final of that AO and end the year as no.4 in 2005 and Blake would go on to push the eventual finalist Agassi to the brink.

 

[Gazelle]

It took incredible performances to stop him even in the slams. Hewitt would go on to reach the final of that AO and end the year as no.4 in 2005 and Blake would go on to push the eventual finalist Agassi to the brink.

Nvm, he still played a grinding topspin game, unlike what that other poster said.

 

[Gazelle]

Some more similarities with 2006: Djokovic and Murray winning nothing of note.

 

[zagor]

Erm, he was the same old grinder back in 2005, relying on often short dropping topspin and superior fitness. Not the aggressor you make him to be. He had some soft draws in Montreal and Madrid together with some choking opponents that made him have some success on HC that year. He was still exposed often enough on non-clay, especially at the slams.

Nah, he was more aggressive off the FH side:

 

[Gazelle]

Nah, he was more aggressive off the FH side:

No. He was being aggressive with the forehand, but only after he had worked his way into the rally. That's how he has always played. Against a fellow grinder like Hewitt he could reach the moment where he dared to pull the trigger. Against aggressive ball bashers like Blake he would have been on the back foot like usual back in those days. It's not his game that is different here, just the opponent. Watch his match that same year against Blake at the USO.

 

[Fedeonic]

Could this trend continue all the year or the coincidence ends in Roland Garros? Discuss.

Trend still going, can Federer go on to win Wimbledon, Canada M1000, US Open, 1st fall M1000 and the Masters?

 

[Waspsting]

Trend still going, can Federer go on to win Wimbledon, Canada M1000, US Open, 1st fall M1000 and the Masters?

It's possible but unlikely

In 2006, he'd been playing the way he was for 2 years... just a train going its merry way

2017, he's restructured his game and we have all of 4 tournaments worth of evidence of what he's capable

He was - by some distance - the most impressive player pre-clay season but it won't shock me if that just disappears

For now, he's the favourite for the rest of the season though - Wimbledon and USO included, which I imagine are the priorities he's keyed in on (might not even play all the Masters)

Nadal's favourite for Year End #1

(Djokovic, ironically, might be favourite to announce his retirement)

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Nah, he was more aggressive off the FH side:

I think that Gazelle is right. After 2004, Nadal had left that aggressive approach of his that was so entertaining to watch (at least to me). Compare his matches against Hewitt in Australia in 2004 and 2005 and the difference is huge. Nadal was going for the winners with his FH without previously grinding his opponent to death, his return of serve was also extremely aggressive. Since the beginning of 2005, he had become more patient, moved far back behind the baseline and relied more on his defense. I don't blame him, though, he's been extremely successful since then.

 

[zagor]

I think that Gazelle is right. After 2004, Nadal had left that aggressive approach of his that was so entertaining to watch (at least to me). Compare his matches against Hewitt in Australia in 2004 and 2005 and the difference is huge. Nadal was going for the winners with his FH without previously grinding his opponent to death, his return of serve was also extremely aggressive. Since the beginning of 2005, he had become more patient, moved far back behind the baseline and relied more on his defense. I don't blame him, though, he's been extremely successful since then.

I can't remember much of Nadal from 2004, I watched his match with Roddick at USO and remember him playing Ancic in Milan, in both of those matches he was struggling with his timing a lot (mishitting the ball, dropping it short etc.) but was already a speed demon, I think he was also coming to the net more. Was the difference that drastic between 2004 and 2005?

 

[Deleted member 512391]

I can't remember much of Nadal from 2004, I watched his match with Roddick at USO and remember him playing Ancic in Milan, in both of those matches he was struggling with his timing a lot (mishitting the ball, dropping it short etc.) but was already a speed demon, I think he was also coming to the net more. Was the difference that drastic between 2004 and 2005?

Although it shows only a few points, you can get the idea of Nadal's aggressiveness. He was basically hugging the baseline, while returning and during rallies, and, more importantly, was going for the winners without previously get himself into a safe position to hit one. I like this Nadal much more.