Your opinions that majority of people do not share?

[abmk]

First off, I was always talking about slams.

yes, I'm aware. But you also talked about 2007 and peak years. So that should also include non-slam events.

" I think it's more honest to represent 2007-2009 as Federer's less than peak years rather than including it with 2006,2005 as his peak. "

I don't think 2007 was way superior than 2008 or 2009 in terms of form. I never claimed though that 2007 was the same or worse than 2008/2009, hence the use of the word 'roughly.' There is a gap between 2007 and 2008 but not as big of a gap between 2007 and his peak form. 2008-2009 are very similar if you remove AO2008 and realize the 2008FO final was one match, and an anomaly. That is my opinion, and I'll stick to it.

firstly, why should I remove AO 08 ? I won't. Makes no sense to.

2007 AO >>> 2008 AO.

then :
2007 RG >>> 2008 RG . Even before the final, Fed was in clearly better form in RG 07 than in RG 08. .... lost 3 sets to 3 different players in RG 08 as opposed to losing just 1 set in RG 07 with competition being similar at best. yes, final was an anamloy and his form dipped considerably compared to the matches prior. But its an important match in the slam and that performance cannot be ignored.

so explain again, how the difference in 2004-06 in slams & 2007 is bigger than that b/w 2007&2008 ?

Lets take 2006 and 2007 for example :

2006 AO << 2007 AO (inconsistency in AO 2006 due to ankle injury in the end of 05. AO 07 was his best AO)
2006 RG ~ 2007 RG
2006 Wim > 2007 Wim (clearly, but not by a big margin)
2006 USO > 2007 USO (clearly, but not by a big margin)

so better in 2006 in slams, but nowhere near the margin of 07-08.
big difference b/w 06 and 07 only comes in non-slam events, but you weren't even talking abut non-slam events before, were you ?


------------

getting to 2008 and 2009.

2009 AO >> 2008 AO
2009 RG >> 2008 RG [[In RG 2009, he was indeed below par in 2R vs Acusaso and 4R vs Haas, but stepped it up in QF-F (monfils, delpo and Soderling). So significantly and quite clearly better than RG 2008. ]]
2009 Wim ~ 2008 Wim
2009 USO < 2008 USO

still very clearly 2009 over 2008 in slams.

 

[ADuck]

I would say the physical abilities declined slowly throughout 07-09 except for the mono bout, but it also weakened Federer's mental resolve/concentration, causing more dips throughout seasons - some plainly bad matches as well as more frequent patches of bad play in matches he won. That contributed to all those early round five-setters (Tipsy, Andreev, Birdie, Haas) that may have been done in 4 or even 3 in 04-07 when Federer was more consistent and alert under pressure. Although peak ended after AO 07, Federer was still close to it then and able to clutch out big matches better than in 08-09. Margins are small at the top of tennis...

Yep.

I wonder if the difference between 06 and 07 is that big indeed. Certainly the other way at the AO, 06 was frankly Fedr's weakest Slam in 04-07 besides 04 RG as his ankle was still bothering him apparently, while 07 was a truly peak performance, the last of (consistently) Peak Federer pretty much. RG, don't see any difference. Wim & USO, 06 better but not overwhelmingly. Nadal already played Federer close for two sets in 06, not much of a stretch for him do that for the match in 07 since that time he was able to maintain the level from start to finish.

No idea in honesty, but it's just the general feeling I got when I watch him play particularly in the second half of 2007. It sticks out to me like a sore thumb because I do not think he was close to his peak then at all.

 

[abmk]

@ADuck :

Let me complete the 2004 and 2005 comparisions as well :

2004 AO <~ 2007 AO ( less by a small amount , you could put it as similar level)
2004 RG <<< 2007 RG
2004 Wim > 2007 Wim (clearly, but not by a big margin)
2004 USO > 2007 USO (clearly, but not by a big margin)

so again, how is that a "big" margin b/w 2004 & 2007 in slams ?

2005 AO <~ 2007 AO (less by a small amount, but you could put it as similar level)
2005 RG < 2007 RG (by a small margin)
2005 Wim > 2007 Wim (clearly, but not by a big margin)
2005 USO >~2007 USO (greater by a small margin but you could put it as similar level)

so again, how is that a "big" margin b/w 2005 & 2007 in slams ?

 

[abmk]

Yep.

No idea in honesty, but it's just the general feeling I got when I watch him play particularly in the second half of 2007. It sticks out to me like a sore thumb because I do not think he was close to his peak then at all.

you should watch these matches after Wim 07 then :

vs Blake in Cincy 07 final, vs Lopez in USO 07 4R, vs Roddick in USO 07 QF, vs Canas in Madrid 07, vs Roddick in YEC 07, vs Nadal in YEC 07, vs Ferrer in YEC 07.

USO 07 SF was great from the ground and returning wise. only -ve point was serving in 1st and 3rd sets.
USO 07 F wasn't peak level per se because of the UE stretch from 5 all in the 1st set to 1-4 in the 2nd set. Apart from that , played pretty well. But managed to remain pretty clutch in that match and serve well.

 

[ADuck]

you should watch these matches after Wim 07 then :

vs Blake in Cincy 07 final, vs Lopez in USO 07 4R, vs Roddick in USO 07 QF, vs Canas in Madrid 07, vs Roddick in YEC 07, vs Nadal in YEC 07, vs Ferrer in YEC 07.

USO 07 SF was great from the ground and returning wise. only -ve point was serving in 1st and 3rd sets.
USO 07 F wasn't peak level per se because of the UE stretch from 5 all in the 1st set to 1-4 in the 2nd set. Apart from that , played pretty well. But managed to remain pretty clutch in that match and serve well.

Okay

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

vs Blake in Cincy 07 final

Reminds me of the semi vs Hewitt I charted, in that Federer played much better in the final. Loss of consistency is an important part of decline, gotta keep that in mind. Fewer peak matches, more duds.

 

[abmk]

Reminds me of the semi vs Hewitt I charted, in that Federer played much better in the final. Loss of consistency is an important part of decline, gotta keep that in mind. Fewer peak matches, more duds.

similar situation in 05 with semi vs Ginepri and then playing much better vs Roddick in the final.

I would use the IW (canas)/Miami(canas)/Rome(volandri) matches as examples of decline in Bo3 in 07.

 

[Red Rick]

Federer took a little turn for the worse after the 2007 Australian Open in my opinion.

 

[abmk]

Federer took a little turn for the worse after the 2007 Australian Open in my opinion.

he did. But the rest of his 2007 was still wayyy better than 2008 and quite clearly better than 2009.

 

[mike danny]

Why not 2010 USO too ?

2010 USO was just a continuation of Federer's post AO 2010 slump. Any version of Fed pre 2010 would have won that match.

Fed played better in 2011.

 

[Karma Tennis]

The future of Pro Tennis involves stiffer tennis racquets and larger hoop sizes.

 

[jm1980]

Novak Djokovic is a man whose success at the highest level of tennis has come only from his ability to run and chase down balls ceaselessly. Not a patch on the giants of tennis talent such as Laver, Federer, McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal and so forth, who have dominated the game for years. He is dominant only due to his merciless desire to run and win. Nothing more.

 

[trailgraves]

Federer is a better clay courter than Borg

That isnt an unpopular opinion, it is a bad early April Fools joke.

 

[The Safinator]

What are views that most people would not agree on?

Mine would be:

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s

Way to go out on a limb, how courageous of you. How do you go out in public with these controversial opinions!?

 

[Red Rick]

Peak Wawrinka is the most overrated tennis player ever, solely based on having a great matchup with Djokovic when Djokovic is playing average. He literally has never beaten Nadal when Nadal was healthy and playing well, and he's never beaten Federer off clay and way beyond his clay peak.

 

[tudwell]

Peak Wawrinka is the most overrated tennis player ever, solely based on having a great matchup with Djokovic when Djokovic is playing average. He literally has never beaten Nadal when Nadal was healthy and playing well, and he's never beaten Federer off clay and way beyond his clay peak.

It is funny to hear some people say Djokovic has a "match-up issue" with Wawrinka when he leads the head-to-head 19-5.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

It is funny to hear some people say Djokovic has a "match-up issue" with Wawrinka when he leads the head-to-head 19-5.

At the slams. Since 2013 all their matches have five-setters or losses to Stan.

 

[Red Rick]

It is funny to hear some people say Djokovic has a "match-up issue" with Wawrinka when he leads the head-to-head 19-5.

It's funny how people look at all stats as static.

 

[tudwell]

.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

- Djokovic still wouldn't have won the 2013 RG SF even if he hadn't touched the net

- Fed hasn't maximized his possible results at all. Neither has Djokovic. Nadal has, and getting the most out of his skill and body has always been a strength of his

- The Australian Open should be the second most prestigious slam and only loses out in most people's minds due to its location. If the US Open wasn't in the United States everyone would consider it a distant fourth at this point

- Changing to best of 3 sets everywhere wouldn't be great but it wouldn't destroy the game as much as people say

- Servebotting might be dull but it is a perfectly valid way to play the game and having a natural advantage in height is no different to having a natural advantage in reflexes or coordination

- I see no reason why the WTA players just naturally "deserve" to be paid the exact same rate as the men, but I also don't mind if they are and it's a matter for the WTA to decide

- Federer has incredible fitness, mental strength, tenacity, and ability to handle pressure situations, despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Nadal has incredible natural talent, shotmaking ability, and a good attitude to the game despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Djokovic has incredible offensive strength, natural talent, and tennis IQ and is much more than just his physicality despite his detractors saying otherwise

 

[Third Serve]

Peak Tomic is GOAT

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

- Djokovic still wouldn't have won the 2013 RG SF even if he hadn't touched the net

May not have won. The factual statement is that Nadal was the better player after going down a break, as can be seen from the point progression (Nadal holding serve easier than Djokovic). The same is true of the 2006 Rome final 5th set, Nadal was better after going down an early break so Federer didn't really squander the lead by getting broken back. The MPs he had on Nadal's serve is something different.

- Fed hasn't maximized his possible results at all. Neither has Djokovic. Nadal has, and getting the most out of his skill and body has always been a strength of his

Nobody has won 100% matches they could have plausibly won. Nadal is better at that than Djokerer though, and it shows.

- Federer has incredible fitness, mental strength, tenacity, and ability to handle pressure situations, despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Nadal has incredible natural talent, shotmaking ability, and a good attitude to the game despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Djokovic has incredible offensive strength, natural talent, and tennis IQ and is much more than just his physicality despite his detractors saying otherwise

Well that's obvious, takes an exceptional player to become an ATG in any era. On that topic, weak eras are heavily overstated because the overall depth of tour nearly always makes sure you can't coast to big titles while not playing well; show up at half-mast and many regular players can bust your ass.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Thiem will become the biggest failure, next to Dimitrov compared to their potential.

 

[Shaolin]

Peak Tomic is GOAT

Everyone knows that though

 

[BasilashvilitheGOAT]

Nikoloz Basilashvili is the GOAT.

 

[beltsman]

Bull is not the the best volleyer of all time; only top 3 or so.

 

[Sport]

Djokovic will win multiple slams over the next few years once fully fit.

Nostradamus.

 

[Sudacafan]

- Djokovic still wouldn't have won the 2013 RG SF even if he hadn't touched the net

- Fed hasn't maximized his possible results at all. Neither has Djokovic. Nadal has, and getting the most out of his skill and body has always been a strength of his

- The Australian Open should be the second most prestigious slam and only loses out in most people's minds due to its location. If the US Open wasn't in the United States everyone would consider it a distant fourth at this point

- Changing to best of 3 sets everywhere wouldn't be great but it wouldn't destroy the game as much as people say

- Servebotting might be dull but it is a perfectly valid way to play the game and having a natural advantage in height is no different to having a natural advantage in reflexes or coordination

- I see no reason why the WTA players just naturally "deserve" to be paid the exact same rate as the men, but I also don't mind if they are and it's a matter for the WTA to decide

- Federer has incredible fitness, mental strength, tenacity, and ability to handle pressure situations, despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Nadal has incredible natural talent, shotmaking ability, and a good attitude to the game despite his detractors saying otherwise.

- Djokovic has incredible offensive strength, natural talent, and tennis IQ and is much more than just his physicality despite his detractors saying otherwise

Excellent post for this thread: I disagree with almost everything.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Some more:

- The margins between players are usually finer than the scorelines make it look

- It's impossible to compare pre-Open Era players to current players, and even comparing between more recent eras is shaky at best.

- Federer's backhand block return is not a weak shot and is often a very sensible choice depending on the opponent

- The way to beat Fed is to cultivate a particular, simple strategy that works to win points with your particular game, and to stick to it religiously. If you let him bait you into changing tactics or trying to mix it up and match his variety you'll lose, guaranteed

- Djoker's boob-throwing is not offensive or inappropriate. We/the media just have dirty minds

 

[The Green Mile]

I believe Delpo doesn't necessarily suck at the AO (well, at least compared to the other majors) as many on this board do, just that he's been very unlucky with injuries/momentum halting situations when the AO has come around. The dry heat/court conditions/whatever excuses are exaggerated IMO.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

That there is a great difference between majority and some guys on the internet.

 

[LETitBE]

Micheal Jackson is still alive and masquerades under the name Xisca

 

[Sysyphus]

- Changing to best of 3 sets everywhere wouldn't be great but it wouldn't destroy the game as much as people say

agreed

would prefer things to stay the way they are now, but don't understand the apocalyptic circlejerk about this topic in this place.

 

[Sysyphus]

Unpopular opinions that can be backed up with a hint of stats:

- Dimitrov's forehand (when in some form) is underrated and one of the better ones on tour (the Game Insight Group's stats had it as the third most effective on tour on hard court, after Fed and Delpo, suck on that).

- Nadal's backhand isn't mentioned enough when talking about the best ones on tour.

- Despite much ridicule of this sentiment, Humbalito might indeed have the best volleys on tour. Fairly neck-and-neck with Freder:

"When judging the quality of a player’s net game, we ought to consider how brave a player is to go to net as well as how effective they are there. Compared to other players competing against top players at Grand Slams, Rafael Nadal goes to net frequently, play[ing] 1 of every 10 points at net, and has a nearly flawless net game, winning 3 of every 4 net points played. Roger Federer play at net even more frequently, playing 1 of every 7 points at net, and wins 7 of every 10 net points."

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Unpopular opinions that can be backed up with a hint of stats:

- Dimitrov's forehand (when in some form) is underrated and one of the better ones on tour (the Game Insight Group's stats had it as the third most effective on tour on hard court, after Fed and Delpo, suck on that).

Can we see the detailed breakdown of this methodology?

- Nadal's backhand isn't mentioned enough when talking about the best ones on tour.

That should be obvious.

- Despite much ridicule of this sentiment, Humbalito might indeed have the best volleys on tour. Fairly neck-and-neck with Freder:

Nadal's easy/medium difficulty volleys may actually be the best, because they are effective and he rarely bricks them. Hard difficulty / improvisation volleys belong to Fedr.

 

[Sysyphus]

That should be onvious.

It should be obvious that it should be praised more than it actually is??

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It should be obvious that it should be praised more than it actually is??

That it is a very good backhand whose reliability has always been important for Nadal's success, he is no Gonzo.

 

[Sysyphus]

That it is a very good backhand whose reliability has always been important for Nadal's success, he is no Gonzo.

But my opinion wasn't 'Nadal is no Gonzo'... that would indeed be uncontroversial.

 

[Red Rick]

Unpopular opinions that can be backed up with a hint of stats:

- Dimitrov's forehand (when in some form) is underrated and one of the better ones on tour (the Game Insight Group's stats had it as the third most effective on tour on hard court, after Fed and Delpo, suck on that).

- Nadal's backhand isn't mentioned enough when talking about the best ones on tour.

- Despite much ridicule of this sentiment, Humbalito might indeed have the best volleys on tour. Fairly neck-and-neck with Freder:

I don't understand

By what metric does Grigolo's forehand excel?

To me it always looks like "LOOK MOM I'M GONNA RIP IT LIKE 2004 FEDERER OH WAIT MAYBE NOT"

 

[Sysyphus]

I don't understand

By what metric does Grigolo's forehand excel?

To me it always looks like "LOOK MOM I'M GONNA RIP IT LIKE 2004 FEDERER OH WAIT MAYBE NOT"

By managing to hit forehands often and being particularly likely to win points when he does so, also when controlling for strength of opposition.

 

[Red Rick]

agreed

would prefer things to stay the way they are now, but don't understand the apocalyptic circlejerk about this topic in this place.

I think people are just extending their thoughts not to tournaments like Olympics getting Bo3 finals, but the longer trend that eventually leads to Bo3 men's Slams. I don't see how that's any less that catastrophic.

 

[Sysyphus]

I think people are just extending their thoughts not to tournaments like Olympics getting Bo3 finals, but the longer trend that eventually leads to Bo3 men's Slams. I don't see how that's any less that catastrophic.

And that's precisely what i'm talking about

 

[Red Rick]

And that's precisely what i'm talking about

How do you mean?

 

[Sysyphus]

How do you mean?

I really don't see what's unclear

 

[Red Rick]

I really don't see what's unclear

You don't understand the apocalyptic circlejerk.

Do you think Bo3 just won't happen or do you disagree that it's such a huge problem?

 

[Sysyphus]

You don't understand the apocalyptic circlejerk.

Do you think Bo3 just won't happen or do you disagree that it's such a huge problem?

I disagree that it's a problem of the magnitude that the apocalyptic cirklejerk makes it out to be.

 

[Red Rick]

I disagree that it's a problem of the magnitude that the apocalyptic cirklejerk makes it out to be.

It's like the cycling's Grand Tours being reduced from 23 days to a week (the format of other stage races). It's taking the one defining feature that makes it different from lesser events, the one thing that makes all the legendary matches of history so special, and throwing it on a dumpster fire. What does tennis possibly have to gain by going Bo3 in Slams?

Don't get me wrong. Tennis will survive. Because braindead casual fans will barely care, rich yups will still buy the VIP arrangements, and because all the media ever does is make things seem better or worse than they are to people too stupid to know better.

So yeah, tennis will survive. For all the wrong reasons.

 

[Sysyphus]

It's like the cycling's Grand Tours being reduced from 23 days to a week (the format of other stage races). It's taking the one defining feature that makes it different from lesser events, the one thing that makes all the legendary matches of history so special, and throwing it on a dumpster fire. What does tennis possibly have to gain by going Bo3 in Slams?

Don't get me wrong. Tennis will survive. Because braindead casual fans will barely care, rich yups will still buy the VIP arrangements, and because all the media ever does is make things seem better or worse than they are to people too stupid to know better.

So yeah, tennis will survive. For all the wrong reasons.

Ok

 

[Red Rick]

Ok

Now I'm surprised you even find the time to time to watch Bo3

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What are views that most people would not agree on?

Mine would be:

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s

That Murray and Hewitt are pretty much equal in playing level...