*Official* Tennis Thread

[social]

No, there are no events on carpet these days (used to be a very quick, low bouncing surface favourable for serve & volley), more slowish, top-spinny HCs, slower balls (I suspect). The strings make it possible to hit freakish passing shots from defensive positions. The technology has made it possible for defensive players to thrive and there doesn't seem to be too many young players aiming to play a classical single-handed BH/serve and volley type game.

Naturally, the standard of volleying has dropped dramatically with players hardly coming to the net, Martina would school most of the best volleyers in the ATP these days. Federer is one of the best out there and he's not exactly a great volleyer, he isn't anywhere near as good as he was at the start of his career. There aren't many others.. Stepanek? Mahut? Dent? Scraping the barrel TBH.

Nah

Recently took my 10yo + Prince in for a makeover and was eyeing off Rafa's Babolat on sale

The pro (former tour player) told me to forget it as mine "was a better weapon."

I asked him how this could be the case and he told me that technology had gone "nowhere" in 15 years due to legislation and any supposed improvements were nothing more than marketing guff

Strings are the same except for durability

 

[chalky]

The Sky commentators were saying that Federer & Murray don't get along with each other. Anyone know the history behind this I've never heard about it before.

 

[Anil]

I don't think that's fair to either Federer or Berdych. Federer is still playing at a relatively high level and Berdych is a top 10 player in the world right now. Your comments don't seem reflective of 2010 at all.

They're not.

If Federer isn't winning every match he plays then tennis sucks and is in a poor state, according to Anil.

so are you saying berdych will beat an in-form federer? very plainly put, he just wouldn't stand a chance...he is competitive against federer only because federer has declined enough and he is playing out of his skin...there is the restof the top 10 and then there is federer and nadal....and when those two are playing at or close to their best, the standard of tennis is just that much greater...and when did i say(seriously that is...) that men's tennis sucked? it's just when you see how well the game can be played...anything less just feels not as good...and that detracts from my enjoyment of the game...

 

[Jono]

So you may has well have not watched any match that didn't involve Fed and Rafa in 2005.

Because if you take the men's top 8 from say April 2010 (before Del Potro and Roddick went downhill with injury), you'll see that this top 8 was of a MUCH higher quality than back in 2004/05.

Unless you think Ljubicic at #3 in the world and Robredo at #5-6 in the world was high quality

 

[vcs]

So you may has well have not watched any match that didn't involve Fed and Rafa in 2005.

Because if you take the men's top 8 from say April 2010 (before Del Potro and Roddick went downhill with injury), you'll see that this top 8 was of a MUCH higher quality than back in 2004/05.

Unless you think Ljubicic at #3 in the world and Robredo at #5-6 in the world was high quality

That argument doesn't really work TBH. You cannot judge whether players were worthy of their rankings at the time by looking at their career achievements. By that logic, Ljubicic won his biggest career title (Indian Wells this year) well past his prime so does that mean the opposition was poor?

In 2005, Roddick/Hewitt were established Grand Slam contenders in their peak years and pretty consistent and old Agassi was still hanging around and going deep in hardcourt majors.

And even now, we still have the occasional Verdasco/Cilic who manages to stay in the top 10 without ever appearing to do anything special.

 

[Jono]

Roddick was most definitely not in his peak in 2005.

And Ljubicic won a Masters title this year sure, and yet he's still ranked far and beyond. Yet without ever winning much he was consistently #3 for a period of 18-24 months in 2005.

You had Federer's ridiculously awesome tennis, Nadal showing he is a gun too, Hewitt in his prime and an on/off Safin, and Roddick who was very good but hardly had a game like he did from 2008/09 onwards, in which he was a better player, but with better players around him too.

 

[vcs]

He had a bit of a slump between Wimbledon 2005 and Cincinnati 2006 (which might have had something to do with the thrashings he received at Federer's hands). He was making too many experiments with his game and coaching staff.

 

[Jono]

The Roddick of 2004/05/06, even when he was consistently making Wimbledon finals, would have gotten beaten badly by the Roddick of 2009/10.

He's leaner, faster, has more variation and is far more mentally tough in general.

Now maybe it's not saying much that he's improved yet will never be close to the top 4 again, but that's due to the talent that has emerged since then.

Look it'd be awesome if we had the top 8 players we have now, PLUS Fed from 2005-2007, but unfortunately players age. But I still think even considering how ridiculously good Fed was back then, the standard of tennis of the top 8 was worse.

Nadal in 2005-06 wasn't THAT good either. He still very much had a weakness on hard courts. It took until 2009 for him to make a hard court grand slam final!

 

[vcs]

Roddick was most definitely not in his peak in 2005.

And Ljubicic won a Masters title this year sure, and yet he's still ranked far and beyond. Yet without ever winning much he was consistently #3 for a period of 18-24 months in 2005.

You had Federer's ridiculously awesome tennis, Nadal showing he is a gun too, Hewitt in his prime and an on/off Safin, and Roddick who was very good but hardly had a game like he did from 2008/09 onwards, in which he was a better player, but with better players around him too.

Seems pretty good to me. How does that show that the quality or depth in tennis was any lower? And I disagree that Roddick had a better game in 2008/09 BTW. He was a better-rounded and more thinking player from 2008/09 onwards, but his forehand was much more of a destructive force in his early career where he won a Slam and gave Federer a headache in Wimbledon 2004 F. Physically, he was a more destructive player in his early career.

 

[vcs]

Well, I disagree with the essential premise that tennis was much weaker (if at all) when Federer was dominating, it's just the natural evolution of the game that makes it appear that way. Also, you have to account for the fact that today's players have been studying Federer/Nadal's games for weaknesses when they were developing into top players.

If I'd been pushed to call any era "weak", I'd give it to the post-Sampras/pre-Federer era when Johansson won a major and nobody was particularly consistent. Also the late '90s when Sampras was not as consistent anymore and Marcelo Rios made it to No. 1. Having said that, it's still not fair on the players who were good enough to make it to the top or win tournaments, regardless.

 

[Jono]

Hang on, never did I say tennis was weak in 2005. And never did I say tennis was MUCH weaker than it is now.

All I am saying is I hate the idea/contention that tennis is worse now because Fed isn't as good as he was in 2005.

In 2005 You had Federer, Nadal and Safin once every 20 matches playing at an absolute premium level.

Now you have Federer (albeit worse than in 2005), Nadal (better than in 2005), Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Del Potro. Below that level there is still Roddick (better than in 2005) and an up coming Berdych. If you watch the game of these players, they are better than Ljubicic, Robredo, Coria who were in the top 8 back in 2005.

 

[vcs]

Also for me there is not enough variety in the styles of players (which is dictated by the prevailing conditions) to really call this a great bunch of players. Nothing can match the late '80s/early '90s in that regard.

 

[vcs]

Hang on, never did I say tennis was weak in 2005. And never did I say tennis was MUCH weaker than it is now.

All I am saying is I hate the idea/contention that tennis is worse now because Fed isn't as good as he was in 2005.

In 2005 You had Federer, Nadal and Safin once every 20 matches playing at an absolute premium level.

Now you have Federer (albeit worse than in 2005), Nadal (better than in 2005), Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Del Potro. Below that level there is still Roddick (better than in 2005) and an up coming Berdych. If you watch the game of these players, they are better than Ljubicic, Robredo, Coria who were in the top 8 back in 2005.

No that is clearly false, but I don't see anyone saying that. But TBH I've only seen people suggesting the opposite in an attempt to diminish Federer's consistency and domination when he was at his peak. Now Nadal has taken over that mantle.

Also the comparison of players is not fair IMO... Hewitt/Roddick/Davydenko etc. are comparable in quality to Djokovic/Murray/Soderling IMO (arguably better). You can take your pick between Verdasco/Berdych/Tsonga and Ljubicic/Robredo/Coria, I don't think there's a whole lot to separate them.

 

[vcs]

Berdych was more an upcoming player in 2004-05, when he made a name for himself by beating Federer and Nadal a couple of times, I'd say he's pretty well established now.

 

[Jono]

Haha he was up and coming for 5 years

Also the comparison of players is not fair IMO... Hewitt/Roddick/Davydenko etc. are comparable in quality to Djokovic/Murray/Soderling IMO (arguably better). You can take your pick between Verdasco/Berdych/Tsonga and Ljubicic/Robredo/Coria, I don't think there's a whole lot to separate them.

Davydenko 2009/10 (before his recent injury) >>>> Davydenko 2005/06

And Robredo and Ljubicic never played tennis of the quality that Verdasco played at the 2009 Aust Open (I didn't even mention Verdasco anyway though) and Berdych played at the French and Wimbledon.

You know Robredo never made a Grand Slam semi, and Ljubicic only made a semi once right? Fair enough not winning Slams with Federer around, but at least make the friggin semis.

 

[NUFAN]

Nah

Recently took my 10yo + Prince in for a makeover and was eyeing off Rafa's Babolat on sale

Oh no! Prince EWS isn't that a little bit too young?

 

[vcs]

Haha he was up and coming for 5 years

Davydenko 2009/10 (before his recent injury) >>>> Davydenko 2005/06

And Robredo and Ljubicic never played tennis of the quality that Verdasco played at the 2009 Aust Open (I didn't even mention Verdasco anyway though) and Berdych played at the French and Wimbledon.

You know Robredo never made a Grand Slam semi, and Ljubicic only made a semi once right? Fair enough not winning Slams with Federer around, but at least make the friggin semis.

That is true. I don't think Robredo has actually ever beaten a player ranked above him.

Davydenko did make an Aus Open QF and two US Open semis in 2006 and 2007.

I know you didn't mention Verdasco but my point was that the outliers in the top 10 like Robredo, Gonzalez and Blake back then weren't any worse than the ones today (Tsonga and Verdasco) and it isn't fair to compare them with Murray/Djokovic/Soderling (who should be compared to Hewitt, Safin and Roddick IMO). Hewitt was very consistent in the Grand Slams, he once went two years losing only to Federer or the eventual champion in the Slams.

 

[Jarquis]

Oh no! Prince EWS isn't that a little bit too young?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

so are you saying berdych will beat an in-form federer? very plainly put, he just wouldn't stand a chance...he is competitive against federer only because federer has declined enough and he is playing out of his skin...there is the restof the top 10 and then there is federer and nadal....and when those two are playing at or close to their best, the standard of tennis is just that much greater...and when did i say(seriously that is...) that men's tennis sucked? it's just when you see how well the game can be played...anything less just feels not as good...and that detracts from my enjoyment of the game...

Where is it written that Berdych isn't supposed to be competitive with Federer? To be honest, it sounds like you're unhappy that Federer is beginning to lose more often.

 

[vcs]

I think the point is that Federer had an 8-1 record against Berdych when he was close to his prime, winning the majority of those matches easily. Credit to Berdych, he's certainly a much-improved player but it cannot be denied that Federer is in his decline.

As for being unhappy that Federer is losing more, is that wrong if you're a Federer fan?