@gomil Yeah you don't win 20 slams, dominate for 4 straight years, rack up all those weeks at No. 1, and play at the highest level for two decades being mentally weak. That argument makes no sense.

Spoiler!
To me what is a more interesting subject right now is how Nadal set a trap for Djokovic that worked to perfection.While everyone else was in the US on hard courts he rolled the dice skipping his second best slam to go all in preparing for the French and no doubt made all the necessary adjustments to dial in his game for the conditions.

He lost in straight sets to his pigeon Schwartzman in Rome, complained about the conditions, and by avoiding Djokovic he denied him the chance to test his clay game before the French. Under normal circumstances of course he would never avoid Djokovic on clay but these were not normal circumstances — it was his first tournament in 6 months.

Where it gets interesting is Djokovic took the bait and started talking up how the conditions wouldn't suit Nadal and his coach Goran blew even more smoke up his ass publicly declaring"Nadal has no chance in these conditions, on this clay and with Novak, who has got into his head."He was grossly over confident and underestimated the threat of a 12x champion which is as moronic as it gets but a team of "yes men" can distort reality for even the very best in the sport. He bought it hook, line, and sinker. No doubt Nadal and the team had a sh*t eating grin when they heard Djokovic and Goran's comments. "He's taking the bait, no?"



All tournament Djokovic was playing way too many drop shots and took that stupid strategy into the final getting slaughtered and needing an hour to win his first game. If Djokovic started the match like the 3rd set then he might have had a chance to make it a contest like many of their previous battles but he was clowning with the drop shot right out of the blocks. Nadal was ready and humiliated him, the perfect revenge for the Aus Open final.

Ultimately this experience will probably help Djokovic assuming he makes changes in his team (e.g. fires Goran) but it serves as a timely reminder never to underestimate the best in the business on his favorite court. Nadal never had a problem with the conditions — he never dropped a set. It was a clever ruse and Djokovic fell for it suffering his worst defeat.

don't usually agree with doms gamesmanship theories but the one above does kinda make sense.

also federer isn't a mental midget, but compared to the other 2 he is def mentally weaker and it cost him. apart from what i said, look at his break point conversion %, which he ranks in the 90's but he is #1 on break points won which shows how many he is able to generate. 2019 he outplayed djokovic but completely fell apart in the tiebreakers.

i've said time and again i want federer to win another wimbledon, just look how hard i was rooting from him ITT during that 2019 match. hopefully he has another run in him next year.

While the same outcome at a slam every year can get boring that beat down was not boring at all. You have to appreciate him stepping up to hand out a thrashing like that and I think Novak deserved it this time for the sheer arrogance in underestimating Nadal on that court. It'll be interesting to see if Djokovic makes any changes to his team. Goran's comments haven't aged well.I wouldn't argue the mental toughness angle but I'd say it's a product of their contrasting styles.

Federer has always been an attacking player whereas it's a more recent development for Nadal shortening the points in his 30s. Nadal and Djokovic have always been more defensive, comfortable playing further behind the baseline running side to side cutting down angles making it almost impossible to hit through them in slower conditions. You can't play like that without being patient and methodical and that clearly builds up mental toughness. They like starving an opponent of winners and as the UEs pile up and they get a BP opportunity they play more aggressively. Federer is more like a boxer looking to end the fight with a KO in the early rounds while Nadal and Djokovic have typically been more than happy to go 12 rounds and win on points. Completely different mindset.

Anyway I wrote a novel but decided to chop it and say let's just appreciate the style of tennis he played to win those 20 slams instead of scrutinizing the close ones he lost. It was exciting to watch. While his attacking style suited the quicker conditions in the 2000s Djokovic and Nadal's styles are more suited to conditions over the last 10 years. It's as simple as that for me.

This saltiness and disbelief in this interview sums up the difference for me. Nadal was never like this in defeat, at least not publicly. 2019 AO was a thrashing but he took it on the chin. Like a sniper he patiently waited for his opportunity to get even on his favorite court.

2:30 "I set it up all perfect."
3:25 Was it luck, risk, confidence? "Are you kidding me?"



He couldn't understand Djokovic hitting a forehand like that when the match was effectively over and then he's walking around with a swagger pumping up the crowd. He's like "you adore this guy don't you? Now watch him lose." And it keeps happening to him.

Check out that sh*t eating grin after he saved the first match point. This is where he began living in Federer's head rent free.

Yeah, I'm with you on this theory. Age might have slowed Rafa down a bit, but he learned how to pick his battles.

Great discussion.



12 mins — Testing and making the switch from the PS 90 to the RF97 frame under Edberg's guidance
17 mins — How Edberg, Sampras, and Federer had a lot of success on grass and hard with the Pro Staff but not on clay
20 mins — Serve and volley
22 mins — Want more S&V? Roger says speed up the courts. He wants more variety.
25 mins — SABR? Thinking about bringing the tactic back in 2021
29 mins — Do you guys keep your old rackets?
31 mins — Roger asks Stefan how many rackets he used a year? Roger uses 50-60.

Sounds interesting. Will have to give it a listen later. Would live to see more variety back in the game. The what if Roger switched rackets earlier question will always be interesting.

It's like the old saying goes, "offense sells tickets but defense wins matches".

Nadal plays with the highest margin out of the big 3; there's a reason why he has 13 French Opens.

I believe Nadal would have been successful in any era and possessed the talent to adapt his game to any conditions but adapting takes years of work and there's no guarantee he would have been the attacking force Federer was. Toni had a plan for clay that clearly paid off right out of the blocks and 15 years on is still paying off. He was also rewarded with slower conditions across the board.

The sport absolutely needs more variety becausethere are no fast courts. Not a single one.Only a handful of medium to medium-fast. If conditions are similar for most of the year then the outcome is too predictable. For the sport to grow attacking tennis needs to be promoted so we can see contrasting styles again like Sampras-Agassi and Federer-Nadal. Once the big names are gone the sport is going to struggle because of it.

Take the ATP Finals for example. They slowed it down like many other tournaments obviously because they were tired of Federer winning and then Djokovic cashed in every year. They juiced it up again and he hasn't won it since. Murray (very comfortable on a fast court). Dimitrov. Zverev. Tsitsipas.

what were the indexes in the courts in the 90s?

I don't know if they kept those stats in the 90s, but the courts were definitely faster. There was a reaction to slow everything down then because the advances in racket technology created the first generation of serve bots in Sampras and Ivanicevic and people complained that one hit tennis was too boring. Now even the grass courts are slowed down so that S&V players don't really have any venue that favors them.

This is what you people are wishing back and creaming your pants over?



really?

you have got to be shiiting me.

[QUOTE=iabs post_id=1619490561]This is what you people are wishing back and creaming your pants over?

[youtube]CUjjfDFQDjc[youtube]

really?

you have got to be shiiting me.[/QUOTE]If you "cream your pants" seeing the courts change color while the conditions stay the same year round then I don't know what to tell you. There have been plenty of boring matches on slow courts with pushers.

Federer and Nalbandian on[b]fast indoor carpet[/b]15 years ago back when it was BO5. Some of the best attacking tennis you will ever see. Serve aside Nalbandian is the only other player I'd put on par with Federer in talent. His backhand was equal to Roger's forehand. Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have had much success against 2005 Federer on a fast indoor court but Nalbandian could go shot for shot and be equally creative in finding impossible angles. Nadal needed slower conditions and a boring strategy to extract errors from his BH hence only 3 career wins after RG vs. Federer. Nalbandian could actually outplay Federer with attacking tennis. Not overpower like Delpo or Berdych but[i]outplay[/i]— very few have done that.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/l3spAGXS_Wc[/youtube]

Tennis on a fast court isn't boring and you don't need to be a servebot to win on it. Nalbandian tore through the "Big 3" without a big serve.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/nWkXdaUNSx0[/youtube]

this was a good listen (srs)

i dont think ive ever heard anyone talk as enthusiastically about racquets and strings lmao

don't think i saw a rally over 5 strokes

great tennis if you're looking to take a nap


fcking lol

So because I said there are ZERO fast courts on a tour that is 90% slow-medium you two proceed to cherrypick the most boring 90s matches and conveniently ignore what I posted?

You know where Nalbandian the out of shape smoker proceeded to smoke the "Big 3" in the one tournament in a feat that has never been repeated. He backed it up a few weeks later in Paris taking out Federer and then Nadal in the final. 2007 Federer won 3 slams and Nadal RG. Djokovic won the AO a couple of months later. No excuses.

Of course it takes a lot more talent to play like that in fast conditions vs. grinding away from the back of a dogchit slow court any old robotic pusher will feel comfortable on.

It's funny how you guys sit back and call this generation "snowflakes" while the old farts pad their totals without ever suggesting anything to improve the sport. I know it might mean Nadal has to skip a few more tournaments in his twilight years but some surface variety could be just what the sport needs right now.

Just a reminder gentlemen.

Slowest HC Masters...



6 months later.

Fastest HC Masters...



The cream rises to the top. Honing his attacking game and building confidence on AO courts that were faster than usual made the difference. Variety is a good thing.

And please no excuses for Nadal in 2017. He almost won 3 slams and finished No. 1.

I think we all know the reason the two cult members don’t want some of the courts sped up.

The AO final changed the dynamic for the rest of the year for the Fedal rivalry. It gave Federer a huge boost in confidence and Nadal a huge sense of doubt. It happens, look how Nadal made Federer his pigeon in the early days (when they were both in their prime) to the point he dethroned him at Federer’s pet slam in the best match of all time, something Fed could never do despite 7 attempts.

I don’t wanna watch matches with an average 3-4 shot rallies. I care not about serve bots. It’s laughable how you make it sound as if these guys are playing in mud, string/ racquet tech and the ever growing human frames that take up a racquet in today’s game would make faster courts a snooze fest.

There is a reason why the most memorable and loudly touted best matches of all time are Wimbledon final 2008, 2009 AO semis Nadal vs Verdasco and 2009 final, AO final 2012. Those were battles of long rallies with exceptional attacking and defensive tennis, you can actually hear the public gasping with every other shot and erupting in euphoric cheers when someone won a single point.

So, no bro. Keep your fast courts, I’m chill.

And lol at the one sentence reply bot. At least be original, pal.

Likewise I don't care for long rallies that end with an unforced error. Of course it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Some of my favorite matches were on clay. Some were indoors. Some were on grass. I hope you get my point.Precisely. And what allowed the dynamic to change? Drum roll...



Had the 2017 AO been another grinder's paradise Federer probably loses that match assuming he even makes the final.

As for "Nadal made Federer his pigeon" this is only true in the first half of the year.Nadal has only 3 winsafterRoland Garros. 2008 Wimbledon. Took 5 hours and ended in darkness. They come back the next day or finish it under lights and it might have been a different outcome. The other 2 wins are from 2013, Nadal's best hardcourt season when everyone took turns bending Rog over. He also went back to his old racket for Cincy after testing a new frame so his game was all over the shop. 2013 ATP Finals = slowest ever court there.

So Fed being his pigeon is purely surface related. Give Federer a fast court and he wins 9 times out of 10 against Nadal leaving room for the occasional choke.

Which brings us full circle.Surface homogenization allowed defensive players like Djokovic and Nadal to race towards 20 slams.

Everyone thinks they're an expert genius, which is why it's so crucial to implement a scoreboard into the mix that displays concrete results, and holds the reckless accountable.

https://ftp.rotowire.com/tennis/article.php?id=46690

This poster gets it: "jboww2121 6 months agothis is why he’s considered a “weak era” champion. because he played at such a high level that they looked weak. i wish people could see how talented guys like hewitt, safin, nalbandian, roddick(we saw it in 2009), and agassi were. compared to a lot of players today these guys were the cleanest ball strikers. but they couldn’t do anything against a player like prime federer 636 likes

"just lol" if the weak era critics here think US Open '19 finalist Medvedev who took Nadal to 5 is better than a prime Lleyton Hewitt who was obliterated here with a couple of bagels.

The way Federer could accelerate on that FH back then is unmatched by any of the Big 3 today. No one can strike the ball and find ridiculous angles like that these days. They're all ballbashers. He eventually started hitting with a lot more topspin to deal with Nadal on slower surfaces and play more percentage tennis in rallies against the army of grinders advancing as all the surfaces were slowed down even further to accommodate them.

I’ve always wondered why this is that difficult to understand for some people. It must just be a pure prisoner of the moment type of thing. We’ve gone through several lost gens at this point full of young players that couldn’t hold a candle to those guys. People seriously don’t remember or didn’t get to see how insane Fed’s forehand was or how fast he was. I feel like we are about to circle around to the same arguments we’ve been having itt and the previous for years. No one is going to convince anyone at this point.

On a sad note, the bouncy cutie pie Julia Goerges has retired

It doesn't help that older matches have been uploaded in potato quality but even then the revisionist history camp will always find excuses.

I saw a comment saying Djokovic and Nadal hit the ball much deeper than Hewitt which allowed Federer to play that way. Utterly clueless about the speed of the court making this task much more difficult against an opponent who takes the ball that early. In the Madrid 2007 video Nadal consistently dropped the ball short because he struggled with the pace of the court and Nalbandian moving forward, whipping the ball into the corners, pushing him back, and taking time away from him. Slowing down the surface equalizes the talent situation and defensive players can cut down the angles and watch the UEs pile up.

Peak Nadal in 2011 and this wasn't anywhere near as fast as that 2004 US Open court. Where's the deep hitting?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6az62bmV5hM

Anyway bring back fast courts and you'll get more results like this. To me it's more exciting because it's less predictable. Nadal and Thiem can't press their ass cheeks against the back wall to return serve either.



Cliffs: speed up the courts. Make tennis exciting again.

I just don’t understand the issue some people have with variety. We aren’t asking for every court to be turned in a fast-rated court. Just some of them so different styles of tennis can simply exist. Clay should be about endurance and point construction. Grass should be about big serves and coming to net. Hard courts should be inbetween. When you watch Wimbledon and you see only the baselines being worn out, there is a problem here.

fcking lollllllllllllllll

Exactly. The sport needs contrasting styles and you'll only see that again when coaches believe it's a viable option. If all the slams and most of the Masters tournaments are slow-medium then these academies will continue to churn out defensive players and go for broke ball-bashers.

I realize Dopey & Copey are terrified of how it could negatively impact Nadal but for the past 4 years he's tweaked his serve and plays more attacking tennis with shorter points so he'll be ready. If anything I think it would help Nadal against Djokovicwho he's had zero success against in 7 years off clay. If it stays the same nothing will change there. Do they want to see Djokovic win practically everything but the French Open? The only way to neutralize Djokovic is with faster conditions. Look at his losses at the end of the year since his 2018 comeback. Khachanov and Zverev in 2018. Tsitsipas and Federer in 2019. 0 ATP Finals titles since 2015 which was the last year it was slow.



Cliffs: Nadal vs. Djokovic off clay these days is like his battle with the Norwood Reaper. He needs all the help he can get.

NaDaL iS a PuShEr