Who will end up with a better career: Lleyton Hewitt or Dominic Thiem?

[abmk]

Time to start disliking rude or wilfully biased people, oh well you can't because you'd have to dislike yourself and that's unfathomable.

I base what I say on facts/reality. Being a little biased is not the same as extreme bias with a propaganda. I don't usually start off with rudeness either. Only when someone starts it or says something utterly nonsense.

I remember you using this exact "didn't do much wrong" phrasing commenting on Falla vs Federer Wimbledon 2004 2R, ha. Not making UEs is enough, doesn't matter if you let the opponent have his way with you... I thought Hewitt was actually better in the Hamburg match. Clay suits his game the least and gives the most excuse for inability to hit through Fed, I thought he did his bet by maintaining good depth on the ball, it just didn't bother Federer at all in the absence of massive pace or spin. Overall I thought Hewitt fought well initially but after Federer kept tearing him down, lost his belief for a while starting with faltering at the end of Wim 04 quarter and didn't regain it for a year, but USO 05 showed he found the will to fight Federer again, buckling up after Fred trolled him with the 2nd set to take the next. Shame that ended up being the last of prime Hewitt.

Never thought of a comparision of those 2 matches. When I say didn't do much wrong for Falla, I meant for Falla's standards. I obviously held/hold Hewitt to a higher standard unless there is a specific comparision for some reason.

Look at what I followed up that statement of "Falla didn't do much wrong" with. Not my fault if you didn't pay enough attention to the 2nd part

Flawless stuff from fed (everything was clicking). falla didn't do much wrong tbh, just didn't have overpowering weapons.

 

[mike danny]

Off clay.

Of course. When I'm speaking of Hewitt and Roddick I am always taking clay out of the equation because they were poor on the surface.

 

[Patogen]

Address the actual points. Oh wait, you can't.

No I can't, because there are no actual points. Just half-baked assumptions. How the hell do I know how peak Ferrer would have fared against that crew at that particular time. Nonsense mate.

 

[Red Rick]

Roddick should have beaten him there. Sad scenes.

2012 was when 250 wins made me go legit "nice" cause I'd any win at that point.

 

[RS]

Of course. When I'm speaking of Hewitt and Roddick I am always taking clay out of the equation because they were poor on the surface.

Hewitt was solid on clay but yeah obviously Hewitt was better overall and off clay.

 

[Red Rick]

Of course. When I'm speaking of Hewitt and Roddick I am always taking clay out of the equation because they were poor on the surface.

Hewitt destroyed Roddick on clay.

Roddick came into their RG match unbeaten on the surface, retired from the match, and was never the same again, obviously.

Spoiler

seriously Roddick vs Chang the round before puts any Drunkovic dancing to shame.

 

[Patogen]

Of course. When I'm speaking of Hewitt and Roddick I am always taking clay out of the equation because they were poor on the surface.

Hewitt was not "poor" on clay though.

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt destroyed Roddick on clay.

Roddick came into their RG match unbeaten on the surface, retired from the match, and was never the same again, obviously.

Spoiler

seriously Roddick vs Chang the round before puts any Drunkovic dancing to shame.

A shame I never saw the match with Chang.

The match with Hewitt was tight until that fall from Roddick.

 

[abmk]

No I can't, because there are no actual points. Just half-baked assumptions. How the hell do I know how peak Ferrer would have fared against that crew at that particular time. Nonsense mate.

Umm, this isn't about a hypothetical for instance:

Did Sampras win YEC in 98? No
Any masters titles in 98? No
Hewitt did win YEC in 01 and 02. Also won IW in 02.



blake and haas are easy 3R, 4R opponents for you? which la la land are you in?
Roddick played fairly well.



not mighty, but sure as hell better than ferrer on any grass

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

his only good perf in a slam in 2012 vs any of the top 4.
got beaten convincingly in straights by Djoko at AO.
mediocre&got thrashed by Nadal at the FO
got 1st set easily vs Windovic and then got dominated with wind gone.

First two sets vs Djokovic at AO were fairly well-fought, Djoko was always ahead but not breezing through his service games, at least Ferrer was making him play unlike the following year. Nadal also dominated everyone at RG excluding Rainovic (but including Dryovic, 10 game differential). The USO match was a big disappointment though, Ferrer's best chance with basically a freebie set lead and he wilts like this.

 

[Patogen]

I'm sorry I can't read when there's nothing worth reading.

No problem. Now you can start not replying to what you haven't read and you won't have to save your face with excruciatingly witty comebacks.

 

[Patogen]

Umm, this isn't about a hypothetical for instance:

Well, gotta give it to you. This is not the half-baked assumption variety. It is the miss-the-point-completely stuff. I'm sure you'll be coming up with more.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Can you people stop being rude or are you enjoying it?

 

[abmk]

Well, gotta give it to you. This is not the half-baked assumption variety. It is the miss-the-point-completely stuff. I'm sure you'll be coming up with more.

Cool story bro.

 

[Patogen]

Wow, Ferrer actually owns Hewitt in H2H.

Go!

 

[zagor]

Well, old Djokodal <<< peak Fed. Thiem hasn't had a single ATG in his prime to deal with. He won mostly on account of being a generation younger than Djokodal.

Really starting to regret Zverev didn't win that WTA serving chokefest of a slam final.

 

[Red Rick]

A shame I never saw the match with Chang.

The match with Hewitt was tight until that fall from Roddick.

Last few games are on the youtubez

 

[mike danny]

Really starting to regret Zverev didn't win that WTA serving chokefest of a slam final.

Nah, Thiem was the more deserving winner there. Zverev's draw to the final was one of the weakest I have ever seen and he still dropped 6 sets on his way. If he had won the title, it would have been one of the lowest levels for a slam winner.

 

[mike danny]

Lol at "Hewitt pushing Federer at USO 09". He won one set, pumped his fist, looked at his coach for encouragement and proceeded to get trumped.

The 3rd set ended 7-5...

 

[mike danny]

Wow, Ferrer actually owns Hewitt in H2H.

Go!

Yeah, after Hewitt was over the hill.

 

[abmk]

Really starting to regret Zverev didn't win that WTA serving chokefest of a slam final.

It will probably be insufferable if Thiem wins another slam off clay, won't it?

 

[zagor]

Nah, Thiem was the more deserving winner there. Zverev's draw to the final was one of the weakest I have ever seen and he still dropped 6 sets on his way. If he had won the title, it would have been one of the lowest levels for a slam winner.

Zverev was a far better player in the final until he started choking.

 

[zagor]

It will probably be insufferable if Thiem wins another slam off clay, won't it?

Oh yes. Hype is off the charts already as it is.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I base what I say on facts/reality. Being a little biased is not the same as extreme bias with a propaganda. I don't usually start off with rudeness either. Only when someone starts it or says something utterly nonsense.



Never thought of a comparision of those 2 matches. When I say didn't do much wrong for Falla, I meant for Falla's standards. I obviously held/hold Hewitt to a higher standard unless there is a specific comparision for some reason.

Look at what I followed up that statement of "Falla didn't do much wrong" with. Not my fault if you didn't pay enough attention to the 2nd part

You're clearly more than a little biased, mate. There's a certain fedcentric narrative your observations and stat reasoning seeks to back, only it's fifty times more subtle and less basic than poor Lew's effort (still think the guy is legit cuckoo), but less subtle than say Waspsting's djoko bias (I can see it and respect him for how nicely he keeps it down, there's barely a less biased poster among the frequently posting ones). Yeah you usually attack/expose those who are still significantly more biased/trollish, which some of the more moderate fedfans like NatF enjoy, but the fanbase radicalisation on this board is getting on my nerves and your activity is effectively promoting it. I trust you realise it but don't think that's much of a problem if any. It instantly sours the discourse though when you or anyone goes on the offensive, just like IRL. It's only fair big time trolls/arseholes like say weakera get their due, but c'mon give the newcomer some benefit of the doubt before deducing he's another jеrk.

 

[Red Rick]

Nah, Thiem was the more deserving winner there. Zverev's draw to the final was one of the weakest I have ever seen and he still dropped 6 sets on his way. If he had won the title, it would have been one of the lowest levels for a slam winner.

What you mean a guy who's 106th out of 128 guys in an entire draw on 2nd serve is not MOST DEFINITELY THE WEAKEST SLAM FINALIST EVER

 

[RS]

You're clearly more than a little biased, mate. There's a certain fedcentric narrative your observations and stat reasoning seeks to back, only it's fifty times more subtle and less basic than poor Lew's effort (still think the guy is legit cuckoo), but less subtle than say Waspsting's djoko bias (I can see it and respect him for how nicely he keeps it down, there's barely a less biased poster among the frequently posting ones). Yeah you usually attack/expose those who are still significantly more biased/trollish, which some of the more moderate fedfans like NatF enjoy, but the fanbase radicalisation on this board is getting on my nerves and your activity is effectively promoting it. I trust you realise it but don't think that's much of a problem if any. It instantly sours the discourse though when you or anyone goes on the offensive, just like IRL. It's only fair big time trolls/arseholes like say weakera get their due, but c'mon give the newcomer some benefit of the doubt before deducing he's another jеrk.

Your post here used quite a few insults though directly other posters

 

[abmk]

You're clearly more than a little biased, mate. There's a certain fedcentric narrative your observations and stat reasoning seeks to back, only it's fifty times more subtle and less basic than poor Lew's effort (still think the guy is legit cuckoo), but less subtle than say Waspsting's djoko bias (I can see it and respect him for how nicely he keeps it down, there's barely a less biased poster among the frequently posting ones). Yeah you usually attack/expose those who are still significantly more biased/trollish, which some of the more moderate fedfans like NatF enjoy, but the fanbase radicalisation on this board is getting on my nerves and your activity is effectively promoting it. I trust you realise it but don't think that's much of a problem if any. It instantly sours the discourse though when you or anyone goes on the offensive, just like IRL. It's only fair big time trolls/arseholes like say weakera get their due, but c'mon give the newcomer some benefit of the doubt before deducing he's another jеrk.

I shouldn't make one thread in response to the significant amount of trolling against Fed or fed's era/overblowing of Djokovic? Really? Never said I was the calmest guy. Even you have insulted other posters or been snarky on occasions. I get your point regarding radicalisation, but you aren't entirely fault-free either

My thread prior to the Federer-Djokovic prime one was this - about Djokovic Wawrinka 2013 4R match, praising points in that match.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/another-2-best-points-ever.686642/

Sometimes the sh*posting goes over a limit , so I made the other thread.

As far as this newcomer guy goes, I trust my BS meter on him seeing the pattern of his posts. You can come back in some more days and let me know if I am wrong on him or admit I was correct.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Your post here used quite a few insults though directly other posters

I don't bother being decent to those who consistently show no willingness to be decent in any environment no matter if you go out of your way to speak softly. Basically treating them as substandard, harsh of course but I'm no saint to turn the other cheek.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I shouldn't make one thread in response to the significant amount of trolling against Fed or fed's era/overblowing of Djokovic? Really? Never said I was the calmest guy. Even you have insulted other posters or been snarky on occasions. I get your point regarding radicalisation, but you aren't entirely fault-free either

As far as this newcomer guy goes, I trust my BS meter on him seeing the pattern of his posts. You can come back in some more days and let me know if I am wrong on him or admit I was correct.

I'm not fault-free at all obviously... you felt it was a good reminder, do you think I forget? -_- The apparent futility of trying to make a good impact gets me more often these days and I take to easy thoughtless trolling because everything is going down the drain anyway. It's borne out of desperation rather than conceit, I'm strongly neurotic isn't that visible from my posting attitude? The opposite of what you are or seem like, because you're always posting with strong self-confidence and I've never seen you make a self-deprecating joke or something; that should be a healthier way to live so I hold my tongue saying "I wish you were more like me" but a bit more acceptance wouldn't hurt probably c:

This Patogen gut only has 30 messages yet, I'm holding my judgment yet treating him as an honest actor unless further activity shows consistent radical bias. I was kinda annoyed at you because I wanted to probe him for more opinions in a friendly environment then you came with angry replies and ruined the chance.

Actually I checked on Patogen's messages and he doesn't seem like a bad actor, only overly critical of Hewitt that's all. Nothing that couldn't be fixed in a good-natured discussion. I'm seriously telling you, you've got much.too trigger-happy with all this ideological fanbase warfare. Take a step back and don't attack people the first time they say something antifederer propaganda would agree with, it may not be related.

 

[The Guru]

See. Lleyton's results are actually incredibly impressive given how little talent he had. But even at his best, when I thought he was gonna rule the tour for years to come, there was one thing that didn't sit well with me. Even at his best, during his major-winning years in the deaf era, as a No.1, he had a real iffy W-L percentage. Here was a guy who could give the old guard a hard time, who was mentally ahead of his more talented peers, but he was capable of losing to just about anyone as well.

Even at his best, his W-L percentage topped out at 82%. Basically, even at his best, Hewitt lost every fifth match, which is laughable for a lasting No.1 and it shows you what state the tour was in when a guy like that could sit on top longer than a couple of weeks.

And guess what. Ferrer 2012 reached 84%. In a far more competitive era. Again, when you overcome the obstacle of understanding context, we should actually apologize to Ferrer for the Hewitt comparison.

Your premises are solid but you're conclusion doesn't follow from them. Hewitt was hurt severely by the changing of the game but that doesn't mean he wasn't talented. It means the game shifted away from what he was talented at. So yes he was unimpressive in 04 and beyond because of these changes and injuries but that doesn't mean he wasn't talented it just meant that tennis stopped rewarding his talents as much as they used to. It's not Hewitt's fault he had no way of knowing these changes would come. You're being way too hard on him.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Your premises are solid but you're conclusion doesn't follow from them. Hewitt was hurt severely by the changing of the game but that doesn't mean he wasn't talented. It means the game shifted away from what he was talented at. So yes he was unimpressive in 04 and beyond because of these changes and injuries but that doesn't mean he wasn't talented it just meant that tennis stopped rewarding his talents as much as they used to. It's not Hewitt's fault he had no way of knowing these changes would come. You're being way too hard on him.

Shouldn't the nadal and ********, particularly the former, be then regarded less impressively since the game changed towards rewarding their talent even more?

 

[The Guru]

Well, old Djokodal <<< peak Fed. Thiem hasn't had a single ATG in his prime to deal with. He won mostly on account of being a generation younger than Djokodal.

What an asinine statement. Low 30s Djokodal are absolutely at an ATG level. Who would you rather have in your way Wilander or low 30s Djokodal? Thiem has absolutely faced some tough competition. He's faced peak Djok in a slam semi. As well as a prime/peak level Rafa at RG 17. Then you have your more run of the mill older Djokodal which are both tough competition.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Well, old Djokodal <<< peak Fed. Thiem hasn't had a single ATG in his prime to deal with. He won mostly on account of being a generation younger than Djokodal.

Lelelelel

 

[The Guru]

Shouldn't the nadal and ********, particularly the former, be then regarded less impressively since the game changed towards rewarding their talent even more?

I mean this helped Federer too and yes they are all fortunate, however, the game changed before they reached their prime so it's different. If the change happened in the middle of their careers and they started winning more because of it I would consider that more luck. However, it happened before and they spent years training to become better at the modern game. It's not like Steve Nash where they remove the hand check and all the sudden he's an MVP calibre player out of nowhere in his 30s.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I mean this helped Federer too and yes they are all fortunate, however, the game changed before they reached their prime so it's different. If the change happened in the middle of their careers and they started winning more because of it I would consider that more luck. However, it happened before and they spent years training to become better at the modern game. It's not like Steve Nash where they remove the hand check and all the sudden he's an MVP calibre player out of nowhere in his 30s.

Clearly hurt Federer more since he was going to be better than his contemporaries anyway but lost a lot to Djokodal in older age.
The change happened when Djokodal were already set in their basic tracks, you can't just rewrite a teenage player either.

 

[The Guru]

You're clearly more than a little biased, mate. There's a certain fedcentric narrative your observations and stat reasoning seeks to back, only it's fifty times more subtle and less basic than poor Lew's effort (still think the guy is legit cuckoo), but less subtle than say Waspsting's djoko bias (I can see it and respect him for how nicely he keeps it down, there's barely a less biased poster among the frequently posting ones). Yeah you usually attack/expose those who are still significantly more biased/trollish, which some of the more moderate fedfans like NatF enjoy, but the fanbase radicalisation on this board is getting on my nerves and your activity is effectively promoting it. I trust you realise it but don't think that's much of a problem if any. It instantly sours the discourse though when you or anyone goes on the offensive, just like IRL. It's only fair big time trolls/arseholes like say weakera get their due, but c'mon give the newcomer some benefit of the doubt before deducing he's another jеrk.

I leave the site for a few months and somehow you've become the moderate of the Fedfan brigade. The radicalization is very easy for me to see as someone coming back after a while. We used to butt heads a bit but now you're one of the more if not the most respectful of them all. Maybe you have gotten better, I think you have tbf, but I think it's mostly everyone else has gotten much worse. The echo chamber has made many quite dogmatic. Rational Djoko/Nadal fans get viciously attacked because they threaten the dominant narrative. We get treated worse than the trolls (Sport/Lew types) because they can just be dismissed. Anytime someone like me or NoleFam provides a rational argument using logic that doesn't fit the dominant narrative we get shouted down and insulted. It's sad to see. Discourse is quite toxic.

 

[RS]

I leave the site for a few months and somehow you've become the moderate of the Fedfan brigade. The radicalization is very easy for me to see as someone coming back after a while. We used to butt heads a bit but now you're one of the more if not the most respectful of them all. Maybe you have gotten better, I think you have tbf, but I think it's mostly everyone else has gotten much worse. The echo chamber has made many quite dogmatic. Rational Djoko/Nadal fans get viciously attacked because they threaten the dominant narrative. We get treated worse than the trolls (Sport/Lew types) because they can just be dismissed. Anytime someone like me or NoleFam provides a rational argument using logic that doesn't fit the dominant narrative we get shouted down and insulted. It's sad to see. Discourse is quite toxic.

Still yet to list ratings on my other thread lol.

 

[The Guru]

Clearly hurt Federer more since he was going to be better than his contemporaries anyway but lost a lot to Djokodal in older age.
The change happened when Djokodal were already set in their basic tracks, you can't just rewrite a teenage player either.

Watch 07ovic vs 11ovic and tell me there aren't massive technique changes pretty much across the board. There is some truth to what you're saying but then again the game was changing as they were young teenagers too. They probably used poly before joining the junior tour.

 

[The Guru]

Still yet to list ratings on my other thread lol.

I'm not sure which thread you're referring too but I'm pretty sure I did ratings of slam final opponents on one of your threads a while back you can look at those if you're curious. To be honest, I don't really want to partially because of the effort and partially because I know that people's heads will explode from saltiness and I don't want to deal with that.

 

[RS]

I'm not sure which thread you're referring too but I'm pretty sure I did ratings of slam final opponents on one of your threads a while back you can look at those if you're curious. To be honest, I don't really want to partially because of the effort and partially because I know that people's heads will explode from saltiness and I don't want to deal with that.

I made a new one I can send you the link lol.

If you don’t want to fine.

 

[Red Rick]

Watch 07ovic vs 11ovic and tell me there aren't massive technique changes pretty much across the board. There is some truth to what you're saying but then again the game was changing as they were young teenagers too. They probably used poly before joining the junior tour.

I miss 2007ovic.

Would at least just take huuuge cuts on occasions.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I leave the site for a few months and somehow you've become the moderate of the Fedfan brigade. The radicalization is very easy for me to see as someone coming back after a while. We used to butt heads a bit but now you're one of the more if not the most respectful of them all. Maybe you have gotten better, I think you have tbf, but I think it's mostly everyone else has gotten much worse. The echo chamber has made many quite dogmatic. Rational Djoko/Nadal fans get viciously attacked because they threaten the dominant narrative. We get treated worse than the trolls (Sport/Lew types) because they can just be dismissed. Anytime someone like me or NoleFam provides a rational argument using logic that doesn't fit the dominant narrative we get shouted down and insulted. It's sad to see. Discourse is quite toxic.

Ah yes you must think yourself squarely on the rational fair side hohoho.
I was pissed off for a while at the time, didn't work and I'm less pissed off now, more dejected. The quality of tennis is going down and so is the quality of tennis discussion, or any online discussion really all sites I frequent seem to get worse or maybe I get .more demanding but I don't think that's the case.

I'm not humouring NFam anymore though as I see him as unwilling to challenge the core assumptions he's holding so he's ultimately in the same boat as the bigger bias generators.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Watch 07ovic vs 11ovic and tell me there aren't massive technique changes pretty much across the board. There is some truth to what you're saying but then again the game was changing as they were young teenagers too. They probably used poly before joining the junior tour.

Basically Djokodal would never become as good at net as Federer, they are straight up less talented in that regard. Like he'd never hit his topspin BH as good as them f.e. The game changes favoured Djokodal more than Federer, then.

 

[The Guru]

Ah yes you must think yourself squarely on the rational fair side hohoho.
I was pissed off for a while at the time, didn't work and I'm less pissed off now, more dejected. The quality of tennis is going down and so is the quality of tennis discussion, or any online discussion really all sites I frequent seem to get worse or maybe I get .more demanding but I don't think that's the case.

I'm not humouring NFam anymore though as I see him as unwilling to challenge the core assumptions he's holding so he's ultimately in the same boat as the bigger bias generators.

I do consider myself rational and fair. I have a different perspective than you but I also consider you rational though not always fair. Tennis is something that it's possible to take different perspectives on. Debating those different perspectives is what's fun about talking tennis. At least if you're not talking with irrational holier-than-thou assholes. You view the game more valuing the serve and aggression while I think the pillars of quality are movement and consistency. We understand our differences and they are rational and fun to discuss and for the most part it stays away from the personal and other nonsense. Sadly, that's not the case with many others here.

 

[The Guru]

Basically Djokodal would never become as good at net as Federer, they are straight up less talented in that regard. Like he'd never hit his topspin BH as good as them f.e. The game changes favoured Djokodal more than Federer, then.

This is probably fair but the net rushing big-serving aggressive Federer is not peak Fed. Peak Fed played more or less like peak Djok, controlling the baseline through consistent penetrating shots and defending like a boss when needed. Federer has more talent at the net no doubt but Djoko is the better passer and returner. Regardless, I think it's a pointless argument. The game changed. It happens. Games change. It's really not worth discussing who would've won more if the surfaces were like what they were in the 90s. Thank god they aren't because tennis would be far more boring (personal opinion leave me alone.)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I do consider myself rational and fair. I have a different perspective than you but I also consider you rational though not always fair. Tennis is something that it's possible to take different perspectives on. Debating those different perspectives is what's fun about talking tennis. At least if you're not talking with irrational holier-than-thou assholes. You view the game more valuing the serve and aggression while I think the pillars of quality are movement and consistency. We understand our differences and they are rational and fun to discuss and for the most part it stays away from the personal and other nonsense. Sadly, that's not the case with many others here.

Movement is the crux of the game but it is subdivided into many smaller categories. I'll say flatly it's incorrect to consider Djokovic a better mover than Federer because of his better lateral movement when Federer has better forward movement and footwork, bur you don't hear a comparison between them on all of these fronts.

Aggression is action, defence is reaction. At a sufficiently high level action always wins, obviously you can't keep getting to line-painters. The question is whether a given.player is capable of maintaining a level of aggression sufficient to subdue the opponent's defence enough to win, along with defending the opponent's aggression enough. You seem to think that not even peak Federer could manage that and have a positive slam score with peak Djokodal. The problem I have with this and y'all who say so is that this clearly relegates Federer to thirdwheelerer as he's nothing going for him anymore. Peak = weak era, overrated, inferior; prime = basically same schit; consistency = Djokovic better and uninjured Nadal as good; longevity = it's going to be close and what's so great about the longevity of being a third wheel anyway; mentality = lol need I say more. What is left? Trick shots, artistry, pretty backhand, the typical ballerina clichés. Yeah I'm not going to accept this and I'm going to want you to realise where this is going and own up to it, that you ultimately think fedr is an overrated third wheel, in which case I'm not about to consider you very fair let's say.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This is probably fair but the net rushing big-serving aggressive Federer is not peak Fed. Peak Fed played more or less like peak Djok, controlling the baseline through consistent penetrating shots and defending like a boss when needed. Federer has more talent at the net no doubt but Djoko is the better passer and returner. Regardless, I think it's a pointless argument. The game changed. It happens. Games change. It's really not worth discussing who would've won more if the surfaces were like what they were in the 90s. Thank god they aren't because tennis would be far more boring (personal opinion leave me alone.)

I still can't see any rationale for dissing the prior surface balance that isn't based on narrow-mindedness. Conditions were obviously more varied to a significant degree than now, and variety is the spice of life.

 

[mike danny]

What an asinine statement. Low 30s Djokodal are absolutely at an ATG level. Who would you rather have in your way Wilander or low 30s Djokodal? Thiem has absolutely faced some tough competition. He's faced peak Djok in a slam semi. As well as a prime/peak level Rafa at RG 17. Then you have your more run of the mill older Djokodal which are both tough competition.

Where did I say they aren't ATG level? Just that they are easier to beat than peak Fed.

Sure, RG 2017 Nadal played at a great level, but that's about it. Thiem in 2016 was hardly that good anyway.

Doesn't change my overall point though: that Thiem hasn't had a peak ATG to deal with while in his own prime and his great record against Djokodal is mostly due to being a genetation younger than them.

 

[mike danny]

I leave the site for a few months and somehow you've become the moderate of the Fedfan brigade. The radicalization is very easy for me to see as someone coming back after a while. We used to butt heads a bit but now you're one of the more if not the most respectful of them all. Maybe you have gotten better, I think you have tbf, but I think it's mostly everyone else has gotten much worse. The echo chamber has made many quite dogmatic. Rational Djoko/Nadal fans get viciously attacked because they threaten the dominant narrative. We get treated worse than the trolls (Sport/Lew types) because they can just be dismissed. Anytime someone like me or NoleFam provides a rational argument using logic that doesn't fit the dominant narrative we get shouted down and insulted. It's sad to see. Discourse is quite toxic.

Well, when we see stuff like Wimb 2009 = AO 2020, then sorry if we disagree.

 

[The Guru]

Movement is the crux of the game but it is subdivided into many smaller categories. I'll say flatly it's incorrect to consider Djokovic a better mover than Federer because of his better lateral movement when Federer has better forward movement and footwork, bur you don't hear a comparison between them on all of these fronts.

Aggression is action, defence is reaction. At a sufficiently high level action always wins, obviously you can't keep getting to line-painters. The question is whether a given.player is capable of maintaining a level of aggression sufficient to subdue the opponent's defence enough to win, along with defending the opponent's aggression enough. You seem to think that not even peak Federer could manage that and have a positive slam score with peak Djokodal. The problem I have with this and y'all who say so is that this clearly relegates Federer to thirdwheelerer as he's nothing going for him anymore. Peak = weak era, overrated, inferior; prime = basically same schit; consistency = Djokovic better and uninjured Nadal as good; longevity = it's going to be close and what's so great about the longevity of being a third wheel anyway; mentality = lol need I say more. What is left? Trick shots, artistry, pretty backhand, the typical ballerina clichés. Yeah I'm not going to accept this and I'm going to want you to realise where this is going and own up to it, that you ultimately think fedr is an overrated third wheel, in which case I'm not about to consider you very fair let's say.

I think Djokovic's movement is better than Federer's but you're right that there are subcategories of movement and Federer is better at some aspects of it. However, if sliding technique is part of footwork (which I think it is) flatly saying Fed has better footwork is a bit much. Overall, it's safe to say Djokovic is the best mover of this century and Borg is probably his only contender for GOAT mover. Nadal is a GOAT tier mover too of course but like everything else his movement drops off when he's not on clay.

I think taking things to their logical extremes in the abstract just doesn't work here. You can say if someone redlines they'd be unbeatable. I can just as easily say if someone is a human ball machine they'd be unbeatable. It's far more nuanced than one being action and the other reaction.

I think Fed is the third best I've said that many times before. Ultimately, someone is third and we disagree on who that is but that doesn't make me unfair. You may not like that but Djokovic is often called the third wheel and I feel that it's wrong but I won't call it unfair. I do think the term third wheel is a poor descriptor regardless because no one is the third wheel because they are all so close. There is no 3rd wheel; there's a third place. As a fan you don't want that to be the fate of your player but that doesn't effect its truth value.