This is Tennis today:

[Saarbrigga]

Best graphic i ve seen to the subject:

TENNIS TODAY:




RIP serve and volley players (Pete, Goran, Big Mac, Becker, Martina), RIP allrounders (Roger, Steffi). Long live the baseline rapers (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray + the WHOLE women tour).

[beltic caldy]

Agreed

YAWN

[ICEMAN_9588]

I have to agree.
Federer is the only "different" player in the Fab 4, that's why it's ALWAYS better to see Federer vs One of the other 3 than any other match between the first 4 ranked players (I'm including Nadal, even if he'll be passed by Ferrer in the ranking).

Federer gives you a style confrontation, so that's also why his rivalry againts Nadal was so fascinating.
Even if he plays 60 unforced in a Grand Slam match, you won't get bored to watch it.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray...all great players, but substancially, they are identical to each others.
Their match will always be very intense, no doubt about it.
But intensity does not necessarily mean beauty.

[Corbon]

There was a time when the only real challenge for Federer was Nadal on clay. Long gone. Another chance missed to complete a Calendar Grand Slam! No joking, I will be surprised if he wins any major this year.

[ICEMAN_9588]

There was a time when the only real challenge for Federer was Nadal on clay. Long gone. Another chance missed to complete a Calendar Grand Slam! No joking, I will be surprised if he wins any major this year.

Yes, but even if he was winning and winning, you were enjoying to watch his matches.

Now we're still talking about good matches to see, but I often get bored after a while, during a match between Nole and Murray or Rafa.
For instance, last year I missed AO Semifinal between Djokovic and Murray, so I went to Youtube to see full highlights, I picked up a 30 minutes video, I thought "Great, let's watch it".
After like 10 minutes I was wondering "When will it finish?"

Same thing I felt during Djokovic-Nadal finals in 2011.
It's cool to see these kind of rallies, but not to see these on almost EVERY point...

[BrushedBigJJ]

Best graphic i ve seen to the subject:

TENNIS TODAY:




RIP serve and volley players (Pete, Goran, Big Mac, Becker, Martina), RIP allrounders (Roger, Steffi). Long live the baseline rapers (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray + the WHOLE women tour).

First how do define an allarounder? Fed has won 17 grand slams serving and staying back 90-95% of his serve points and a big fat 0 at all his s&v grand slam attempts. Also if you take away Feds slice backhand is he still an allarounder?

Second I classify the top 4 this way:

Murray - baseliner
Djokivic - baseliner
Federer - baseliner
Nadal - backboarder, meaning he finds the backboard and then steps two feet up and that's where he rallies from.


And the uninjured Andy Murray we witnessed today was something to behold. The offensive minded djokivic could barel get a ball by him. And djokivic was slapping balls by everyone else. And Murray can't even slide because he has bad ankles. It would be one thing if they were moon balling each other, but they are really hitting the ball a few feet off the baseline. The way those two move and can hit the ball there's barely any opening to come to the net.

Although Murray's forehand has really improved from wimbeldon last year on he took another step up this year. There was a time in the match (maybe the first set tiebreak ) where djokivic tried to go exclusively at Murray's forehand. It just got him behind in the rallies and he very quickly abandoned that idea. Once that was established it meant you had 2 fast guys with no weak side to pick on, who can and will attack float balls, and will destroy you if you try to go to net. Under those circumstances it's all about who is better at fooling the other guy where they are going to hit the ball.

[ICEMAN_9588]

An all-rounder player is a player that could play also at the net, if he would.

I mean, Federer and Murray are all-rounders, cause when they came to the net, they can play good volleys.
Nadal and Djokovic don't. They have "scholastic" net play (of course, considering they're professionals players), but they're not natural at the net.

The difference is this, to me.
And Federer started going to the net more often than the past cause now he needs to shorten the rallies.

Also considering that in his early years, he constantly used S&V.
But like he said many many times before, tennis became too fast to play permanent S&V, so he adapted to play from the baseline.
But you can't say he is a simple "offensive baseliner".

[Vieira151]

I agree with ICE. Offensive Baseliners are people like Del Potro and Berdych.

[BrushedBigJJ]

And Federer started going to the net more often than the past cause now he needs to shorten the rallies.

Very true

Also considering that in his early years, he constantly used S&V.

Also true, but 0 slam wins when he did this "constantly"

But you can't say he is a simple "offensive baseliner".

I agree with ICE. Offensive Baseliners are people like Del Potro and Berdych.

Never called Federer a simple "offensive baseliner." He wouldnt be called a defensive baseliner either, but he clearly has great defense and offense from the baseline. But so do the other three

And yes, people like Del Potro, Berdych, and Soderling are Offensive Baseliners, no question

[Corbon]

Nadal isn't a natural volley player either, yet he has the best drop shot volley I have ever seen and his regular volleys are strong too. Djokovic is one of the weaker net players, particularly his overhead isn't very strong.

[ICEMAN_9588]

Also true, but 0 slam wins when he did this "constantly"

Yes and no.
Federer "boomed" when he was 22 years old, relatively late.
He was inconstant, just think about the match agst Sampras in Wimbledon. He won, but in the QF he lost in 4 sets to Henman.
In 2003 he won Wimbledon playing a lot of S&V, but in French Open, same year, he was defeated by Horna in 1st round.

You can't just simply consider everything with the victories and, in general, with statistics.

Never called Federer a simple "offensive baseliner." He wouldnt be called a defensive baseliner either, but he clearly has great defense and offense from the baseline. But so do the other three

And yes, people like Del Potro, Berdych, and Soderling are Offensive Baseliners, no question

Of course, he is very well trained, and his defensive skills are understimated cause he's an offensive player.
I think we can define him as an "all-around" modern player.

[ICEMAN_9588]

Nadal isn't a natural volley player either, yet he has the best drop shot volley I have ever seen and his regular volleys are strong too. Djokovic is one of the weaker net players, particularly his overhead isn't very strong.

Dropshot volley is the classical "clay cour-player" volley

[Corbon]

Federer also benefitted from Wimbledon becoming much slower. 2001 final was between Goran and Pat. 2002 final? Yup, two baseliners (Federer lost in Round 1 that year). The official reason was to make the rye grass (from 70% to 100%) more durable, I guess we all know the real reason.

Dropshot volley is the classical "clay cour-player" volley

Sure but when an 80 mph passing shot is flying towards you, you've got to have some great touch to put it back over the net just barely.

[ICEMAN_9588]

Of course, but the mentality of clay court player means that you go to the net after a massive acceleration, so the volley becomes almost a pure formality.
But you also need the courage to play difficoult volleys when the score is close.

I remember AO QF 2010, against Murray, second set (Andy won the 1st 6-3), they were 5-5 and Nadal was facing a break point, he played an amazing dropshot stop-volley.
Or in the AO final 2009, against Federer, 3rd set tie break, Nadal was 5-3 and played a great stop volley (considering the score) after an indisious passing shot by Roger.

For what concerns Wimbledon, yes Federer benefitted from the surface slowing down.
But he was competitive on grass even before 2002, and we all know why. He didn't lose cause he was weak, he lost cause he was inconstant, had a moody character, something he "fixed" in 2003.
I mean, he just prooved to the world he could be one of the greatest.

And furthermore, you have to consider that Wimbledon courts have been slowed down more and more during the years.
Their consistency in 2003 wasn't the same of 2009 or 2010, for instance.

[Saarbrigga]

Don t forget how Federer did play 12 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hWCyyMgbrc

He was able to play S&V on grass in 9 von 10 cases. He was not a 10 of 10 S&V player like Pete, Boris, Big Mac, Edberg etc, but at least a 9. He could do it very good.

Let s put it like this:

Federer profited by slowing the courts down (with higher boucning) against all fast court players which the most of them he never faced:
- Sampras
- Becker
- Goran
- Stich
- Big Mac
- Edberg
- Krajicek
- Rafter
etc.
All of those guys had a realistic chance to beat him on fast courts with flat bouncing (like Wimbledon back in the day).
They all have at least a better service (Sampras, Goran, Krajicek) or a better volley as him, but he has a better defence game than all of them (return, passing shots etc).

On today s conditions, i don t see any of those listed players above could beat the prime Federer, not even in Wimbledon or New York (maybe Pete but just on a day when is first service is at 80%).

On today s contidions, even the prime Federer would have a very hard time against Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, just because the courts are so similar with high bouncing balls.

Back in the days of Sampras (court conditions), a prime Fed would beat the shit out of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic in Wimbledon (all in 3 or 4 sets) and Flushing Medows. Just in Melbourne and Paris he could not. Djokovic would arguably be the best in Melbourne, Nadal in Paris.


Fictional: Let s say Fed, Murray, Nadal and Djokovic in their prime, under the conditions when all courts were different (like in the 90 s in Sampras era).
I would bet money it would be like this:

AUS OPEN:
Djokovic or Murray

ROLAND GARROS:
Nadal

WIMBLEDON:
Federer

US OPEN:
Federer