Tennis Volume 6

[Yukle]

He isn't defending any clay points at all at the moment. With Rafa hurt and Stan the Man in a bit of a rough patch - will he decide to contest the French?

[Calibandar]

Apparently the previously oldest world number was Andre Agassi, at age 33.

Federer now 36.5 years old. 

That said I would still love to see Djokovic come back for real, and Murray, so that we can get some classic face offs again.

[Yukle]

9 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Apparently the previously oldest world number was Andre Agassi, at age 33.

Federer now 36.5 years old. 

That said I would still love to see Djokovic come back for real, and Murray, so that we can get some classic face offs again.

Fed Express is now the oldest man or woman to hold the ranking, as Serena is on maternity leave.

I don't know how the others will go. Part of the reason that Federer is having a resurgence was his willingness to change his racquet and style in response to his age. He doesn't really run for points much and leans more heavily on his serve. He is moving closer to Sampras in many ways, especially the improved second serve, which is now often speedy instead of heavily kicked.

The others in the draw - especially Nadal - are running themselves ragged. Nadal probably knew that keeping up his grinding style would catch up with him, and it seems that it has. A lifetime of abuse to his knees has left him a minor fall away from ending his career.

[Jeor]

Yes, out of the Big Four, Federer is the only one whose style as a pure shotmaker is geared towards shorter points and rapid games.

One might say that Agassi's game was a bit similar. While he obviously didn't have the big serve, and only rarely came to the net, he was the original aggressive baseliner, always looking for extra angles and hitting the backhand up the line, getting his opponent running straight away. He did have some long rallies but his opponent was always doing the running, very rarely him. The fact Agassi had a couple of very lean years in the middle of his career probably contributed to his longevity as well.

Nadal and Djokovic, and to a lesser extent Murray, are all about the long rallies, athleticism and counterpunching. While the counterpunching can be aggressive, one wouldn't say that they are out to shorten the points.

[Yukle]

That’s all true. Agassi was also up against Sampras for a lot of his peak, who was just that good.

Sampras could also have kept going, I reckon. Kudos to him for wanting to go out on such a high, but he was such fun to watch. He lacked Agassi’s off-court charisma, obviously, but he was so slick.

Of course, he now looks clunky compared to Fed, but everyone does.

What a match it would have been had Sampras and Federer met at their peaks on grass.

[Calibandar]

It certainly would have been, on hard court and indoor as well.

I think Djokovic and Murray, if they only just get healthy and recover from this current injury, could come back and be at the top for several more years, they are simply not yet at at age where retirement comes close. Everything depends on their health, and I would not be surprised in the slightest when they come back and challenge for no. 1 position again. And the sport needs it.

Nadal is different to me. Even though he is actually the one still in the top 3 of the world, he is consistently struggling with various injuries. It is still true though that when he plays he reaches such a high level, he is still the world's second best player after Fed ( not taking Murray and Djoker into the equation as they are out).

I say this because sometimes people are too quick to write these players off. It happened with Federer, and I maintained throughout that period that he could definitely still come back even though he was 32/33. I agree that style and his immense talent plays a huge role by the way, don't get me wrong, and I don't see Djokovic and Murray be at this level at age 35/36, but these guys have a few more years to go before they are there.

As for the other crop of quasi contenders. Stan The Man is clearly not in good shape, big question mark on how he will recover. Again, tennis needs him at his best. So far he's taken mainly losses in 2018 against small timers. Nishikori just came back. Cilic to me is never going to get better than he is now and his form will fluctuate a lot as well. I have doubts about Alexander Zverev, I really do. He might be a future no.1 once this entire generation moves on, but for now he is not even close. I think Kyrgios will bounce back this year.

[Yukle]

9 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Nadal is different to me. Even though he is actually the one still in the top 3 of the world, he is consistently struggling with various injuries. It is still true though that when he plays he reaches such a high level, he is still the world's second best player after Fed ( not taking Murray and Djoker into the equation as they are out).

I say this because sometimes people are too quick to write these players off. It happened with Federer, and I maintained throughout that period that he could definitely still come back even though he was 32/33. I agree that style and his immense talent plays a huge role by the way, don't get me wrong, and I don't see Djokovic and Murray be at this level at age 35/36, but these guys have a few more years to go before they are there.

Definitely! I still think Nadal needs to change his style, though, to make it much less strenuous. His knees won't hold out if he keeps up such a brutal playing style. That will mean fading for a while before bouncing back, as Fed did. It was a bit sad when he complained about the hard court schedule. Obviously, he has a point, but he should also remember that he's past his physical peak and even with more on clay and grass he would still need to play in a less demanding style.

Murray has been remarkably consistent his whole career - but unfortunately for him he has been consistently second-best to whoever was in their purple patch.

[Jeor]

I think with Murray and Djokovic it's just as much a struggle for motivation as it is physical. Both of them have kids now and while Federer is obviously comfortable touring with his family, it's not for everyone. At the very least they probably need to cut back on their schedules, Federer only plays about 15 tournaments a year and I think most of the others still go for 20+ when they're fit.

Zverev looks a bit mentally fragile for me. He's got great shotmaking ability and a solid ground game but he seems to blow hot and cold. He's still got lots of years in him though so he may be able to put it together.

Dimitrov is the guy who should be making waves right now. He's 26, in his prime as a tennis player and a bit younger than the Cilics and Nishikori's of the world. He really should be winning Slams and pushing No. 1 but just hasn't quite got there.

[Yukle]

Whoever does rise up, I think the chances of them being as dominant as any of the big four are fairly remote. Federer and Nadal have spoiled us by making us now expect that a world number one will clean up 10 titles per year like clockwork.

After Sampras and Agassi stepped down, things became a lot more even for a while. Hewitt was the closest thing to a dominating force in that time and in his 80 weeks on top, I think he notched up 12 or so titles over two years, including 2 grand slams.

My guess is that's what'll happen again; players winning more than one major a year will be much less common and the masters will be split between a pack of great players, not just 2 or 3.

[Mladen]

I sincerely doubt anyone will come close to this level at the age of 37. What separates Federer from the rest of the field is number of factors. The first one being his incredible talent, ability to finish matches as quickly as possible and the fact that he hadn't spent his body in way and the last, but certainly not the least - Mirka. As Federer said, IIRC, at AO, "as long as she wants and is comfortable in touring, I am in". That just speaks volumes about the incredible support he is given 24/7. Especially having in mind they have 4 kids.

As for the rest of Big Four (I mean, there was always just a Big Three), Murray and Djokovic can return and even be part f conversation who is going to be number 1, but I am not sure about reaching Federer's longevity. Nadal's strenuous career has not been kind to his knees and I can't imagine that being any better as the years pass. 

And then there is the rest of the field, which is all over the place. It is not like they can't beat Federer or Nadal, they can, but they can't do it on somewhat regular basis. Just look at poor Dimitrov's score against Federer (0/7).  Wawrinka played against Federer more than 20 times, and won only 3(!) times. Cilic, Raonic, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Zverev, they simply can't hope for some great results against the Big Three. Not to mention that each of them can beat the other one whenever they want. That is one of the reasons why the ATP points are so widely distributed.

Long ago, Federer became a benchmark in talent and excellency in tennis. This is just raising the bar so high that it becomes unimaginable anyone will ever get there. 

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

This is just raising the bar so high that it becomes unimaginable anyone will ever get there. 

That's been said for every single athlete who dominated their sport.

I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt - someone will get there. And they will get there in such a manner that people witnessing it will laugh their asses off reading things like.  

[3CityApache]

Probably not in our lifetime. But eventually - who knows, perhaps someone will get there indeed. Although I have recently read an article by a certain profesor of anatomy who says professional sportsmen are really close to reaching natural barriers of our bodies, which will prevent them from breaking new records. Our bodies get stronger, but not nearly as fast as the records were being broken for the last couple of decades. He argues, that we may be witnessing some of the last world records in many sports.

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, baxus said:

That's been said for every single athlete who dominated their sport.

I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt - someone will get there. And they will get there in such a manner that people witnessing it will laugh their asses off reading things like.  

Well, records are there to break them. Certainly one day someone will break his records. The thing is, with this playfield, with these players, it is most certainly unimaginable. I can't think of scenario in which Novak or Rafa gets to Roger's numbers, let alone Andy, Wawrinka and the rest. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I've honestly never understood the logic of "The Big Four." Murray's name doesn't belong next Fed's, Nadal's and Joker's. Fed and Nadal are the two best players of all time, and Joker is in the top 5 already and could easily finish up as the third best ever. Murray is not in their stratosphere. 

[Mladen]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've honestly never understood the logic of "The Big Four." Murray's name doesn't belong next Fed's, Nadal's and Joker's. Fed and Nadal are the two best players of all time, and Joker is in the top 5 already and could easily finish up as the third best ever. Murray is not in their stratosphere. 

I think it more has to do with what Murray was expected to do, not what he realistically did. When Djokovic and Murray started there was already a duo of Federer and Nadal. Djokovic quickly rose to number 3, so he needed a foil - Murray was a natural choice. But, he never rose to occasion. Yes, he is a great player and he can win anyone when his head is in the right place, but simply greatness was always far from his grasp. 

[Mladen]

OK, I need to ask this... So, sorry for derailment

@baxus, how are your tennis talks these days? I find excruciatingly painful talking about tennis with my fellow countrymen these days (months, years, a decade ). So, I hope you are having a better time than I am.

[baxus]

56 minutes ago, Risto said:

OK, I need to ask this... So, sorry for derailment

@baxus, how are your tennis talks these days? I find excruciatingly painful talking about tennis with my fellow countrymen these days (months, years, a decade ). So, I hope you are having a better time than I am.

I just don't talk to people about tennis.

It's kind of easy since a lot of them have lost the will to talk about it anyway and I've lost the will to talk to most of our fellow countrymen about it long before so it's not a problem.

Everything's going as was predicted long ago - once Djokovic retires everyone will stop watching tennis. This injury (or injuries) have just given us a taste of what's to come. The worst part will be hearing everyone say "I knew he'll win again" when/if his injuries are taken care of and he gets back to his winning ways.

[Mladen]

47 minutes ago, baxus said:

I just don't talk to people about tennis.

It's kind of easy since a lot of them have lost the will to talk about it anyway and I've lost the will to talk to most of our fellow countrymen about it long before so it's not a problem.

Everything's going as was predicted long ago - once Djokovic retires everyone will stop watching tennis. This injury (or injuries) have just given us a taste of what's to come. The worst part will be hearing everyone say "I knew he'll win again" when/if his injuries are taken care of and he gets back to his winning ways.

Well, that's true... IDK, tennis has always been part of family's Sunday lunch conversations. With Djokovic, that intensified multiple times, but the quality of those conversation hasn't increased. The thing is, now, we spend time talking about:

1. meditation v Christianity

2. chia seeds

3. do vegans get enough protein?

4. Wow, Nadal won 10th RG

5. googling the treatments elbow injuries

6. What a weak year it was

7. Wow, Federer won 20th GS

8. Are chia seeds that good???

9. Someone has to be using PED, right... No, it's not Nadal, it's Federer

Sorry for the rant...  But the things I hear from people around me (and worse, these are not some hillbillies, but highly educated individuals) are not just crazy, they get to the whole new level I was never aware of.

 

 

[baxus]

Tennis was never really my thing, though I did watch it on occasion. With the whole Djokovic thing, it started boring me and people who thought they knew everything about tennis (despite barely knowing which end of the racquet to grab) just flat out annoy me.

The worst part is that this Djokovic induced frenzy revealed how poor our nation's sport culture is and how much people allow their sentiment to skew their views on sports and athletes and their reasoning in general.

I mean, there are way too many people in Serbia who say that Federer only has so many GS titles because "there was no real competition when he won most of them" and then say that Djokovic is GOAT because he has won more matches against Federer than he's lost. So many people are quick to say that Federer and Nadal's long absences due to injuries must be because they were caught doping while Djokovic turning from a player who could barely play the fifth set without a medical timeout into a god damn superman is due to gluten-free diet.

There are countless other examples and I don't want to go into that rabbit hole. Let me just say that I can't wait for Djokovic to retire so we get a break from "news" about him and his family.

[Calibandar]

On 22-2-2018 at 0:10 PM, Risto said:

I sincerely doubt anyone will come close to this level at the age of 37.

Not going to happen. What Fed is doing here is unique. 

On 22-2-2018 at 11:44 PM, Tywin et al. said:

I've honestly never understood the logic of "The Big Four." Murray's name doesn't belong next Fed's, Nadal's and Joker's. Fed and Nadal are the two best players of all time, and Joker is in the top 5 already and could easily finish up as the third best ever. Murray is not in their stratosphere. 

I think this is too harsh on Murray. He's been part of Big 4 for good reason, he's always been a strong challenger for the top guys, he belongs in that conversation, especially the last two years before his current injury. He had a phase a while ago when he was best in the field and this was after people thought there would be no end to Djokovic' endless wins. This was only two years ago remember, he seemed unbeatable. Federer was not yet back to his current level, Nadal was playing but losing to Djoker and dealing with injuries, and at some point Murray took over ( partly because Djoker lost steam?).

Anyway, I think he belongs in there because the term Big Four refers to the fact that these 4 guys dominated the field the last decade. Would I put him at 4, out of those 4? Yes, but that doesn't mean he is out of place there in terms of how good he is in the context of this generation of players.