*** Official Tennis Thread ****

**Dominik** · 02-10-2017, 01:01 AM

Letter to my future self

"My biggest phobia at this point in my life is the possibility that someday I’ll look back and feel like I didn’t realize my full potential as a player. That I didn’t get to No. 1. That I didn’t win the multiple Slams."

I don't get Raonic. Why does he keep putting all this pressure on himself to be #1 when the reality is he's lucky to be in the Top 5 defending 0 titles.

Why not focus on winning something instead of worrying about your ranking?

Slams 0
Masters 0
ATP 500 1
ATP 250 7

Even worse is he's only won 3 titles since 2014. I don't want to hate on the guy but they're pretty ordinary numbers for a player in his 10th season.

Letter to Raonic. Forget your ranking and lofty ambitions and focus on winning an event somewhere. Build up some confidence. Have some fun out there. Hope for a soft draw in a slam over the next 3-4 years and you might get lucky.

Otherwise enjoy being Top 5 because in a stronger era it'd be tough to crack the Top 10 when you're not winning anything.

**euron** · 02-10-2017, 04:45 AM

I don't know what he's even done in the past that gave him the idea he would win multipile slams, let alone become world No. 1.

In other news, Nadal and Wawrinka both canceled for Rotterdam, here in the Netherlands. Poor Krajicek always gets big guys to commit, then they all cancel a week beforehand.

Also, there's apparently a Swiss documentary being made about Federer.

**euron** · 02-15-2017, 07:40 AM

Toni Nadal is quitting as Rafa's coach at the end of this season.

I was a little shocked, but after reading it makes some sense. He isn't running Nadal's life like he was 15 years ago. He wants to coach young players at Rafa's new tennis academy, and honestly that makes a lot of sense.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/...-2017-february

**Dominik** · 02-15-2017, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by euron

Toni Nadal is quitting as Rafa's coach at the end of this season.

I was a little shocked, but after reading it makes some sense. He isn't running Nadal's life like he was 15 years ago. He wants to coach young players at Rafa's new tennis academy, and honestly that makes a lot of sense.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/...-2017-february

Nadal was stubborn for so long but no question Novak's dip in form would have given him hope and inspired some changes. Must be thinking it's now or never. Also can't be a coincidence Moya comes on board and he goes past the QF of a slam for the first time in nearly 3 years.

I'd like to see him continue to play more aggressively. Has great hands at the net and probably wins the highest % of any player when he comes in. I saw some positive signs returning Raonic's serve on the baseline. I think if he can continue to improve his serve he's capable of winning a few more big titles.

**Jayarbie** · 02-15-2017, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dominik

Nadal was stubborn for so long but no question Novak's dip in form would have given him hope and inspired some changes. Must be thinking it's now or never. Also can't be a coincidence Moya comes on board and he goes past the QF of a slam for the first time in nearly 3 years.

I'd like to see him continue to play more aggressively. Has great hands at the net and probably wins the highest % of any player when he comes in. I saw some positive signs returning Raonic's serve on the baseline. I think if he can continue to improve his serve he's capable of winning a few more big titles.

Djokovic's peak form ending and Rafa's health improving are probably bigger factors than just the coaching change, but a new voice is definitely a good thing, too.

**Dominik** · 02-15-2017, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Jayarbie

Djokovic's peak form ending and Rafa's health improving are probably bigger factors than just the coaching change, but a new voice is definitely a good thing, too.

Lost 11 of the last 12 to Novak. Couldn't see Nadal beating him again even on clay. However for almost 3 years Nadal hasn't even gone deep enough in slams to face him more than once so Novak hasn't really been a factor.

Look at his losses. Kyrgios. Berdych. Djokovic (RG). Dustin Brown. Fognini. Verdasco. Pattern could have easily continued at the AO with a 3R loss to Zverev.

He made a few adjustments. Serve looked better. No idea what impact Moya had in that time but at that level I'm sure it goes beyond tactics and is more psychological so hearing the right words before a match can make a difference. Lendl has that kind of influence on Murray where he leaves the day to day coaching to someone else.

**Dominik** · 02-16-2017, 02:49 AM

Eugenie Bouchard takes fan on date to Nets game after losing Super Bowl bet

**euron** · 02-16-2017, 08:24 AM

He adjusted his serve last year where he was standing more to the side of the court, which didn't really pay off for him. This year he re-adjusted back to standing closer to the middle of the court.

His serve seemed fine, and even great at times when he served his way out of trouble a couple of times. I mean, he's still not an ace machine but his serve is reliable, varied and helps him set up a lot of points.

Also props to Genie for being a good sport lmfao.

**ohiostate124** · 02-17-2017, 10:19 AM

But did she put out though?

**gomil** · 02-23-2017, 01:03 AM

Just re-opening a topic that has been discussed a thousand time over. I don't believe in the G.O.A.T. concept anymore since it's a moot point but am willing to accept the idea of best player of his/her generation.

This is an interesting analysis conducted by someone on tennis warehouse which made for a cracking read, so I thought it might be worth sharing here even though I've tweaked it a bit (I have a lot of time, lol). This is not necessarily what the Federer v Nadal head to head might have been if they had met but just a breakdown on how they have performed on the tour when in the same tournament; so one either knocks the other guy out or wins it.

Federer v Nadal - Current Updated

Spoiler!

The rivalry with regards to their performance in various tournaments is dead even after the 2017 final. My mind has been blown.

I think I will post the Federer v Djokovic (46-46) & Nadal v Djokovic (45-49) tournament comparisons in a separate thread due to the character limits per post

. Might have to check the numbers again but the margins are not that big anyway so still pretty close.

Peak Slam Encounters -> Federer vs Nadal: 2006, 2007 = 2/2; Federer vs Djokovic: 2007, 2011 = 3/2; Nadal vs Djokovic: 2011, 2012, 2013 = 3/3
Slams Won During Aforementioned Period -> F=6, N=6, D=5

Honestly; I'd say if Nadal played both Fed & Novak and assuming all of them are at their peaks since I believe that the tour has revolved around him for the past decade or so, I'd say his & Djokovic's 4-3 head to head in slam finals might probably be an accurate representation of his win loss percentage across ALL majors against these guys contrary to the larger lead he holds now. Rafa would obviously dominate on clay and hold more majors overall due to that fact but probably find himself convincingly beaten in some of the encounters at the other slams. If there was a slam with indoor and/or fast conditions with relatively lower bounce, he'd probably get find a way to grind (not sure if that's the right word) one out but his losses would probably be just as or even more embarrassing than the beatings he gives out on the red dirt.

Much to my chagrin, I still can't bring myself to writing him off on winning all the slams twice or even a WTF. Would probably be even between Federer & Djokovic in terms of both head to head and number of slams won. Never really been a fan of his but it's incredibly difficult and biased to not appreciate Nadal's game and tenacity. Not even going to get into commenting on how he skips playing though patches of poor form to avoid losing confidence and his mental edge since it's glaringly obvious and it pains me to say this but with the court conditions on his side, it's going to be pretty hard to beat him. With all due respect to Murray, maybe Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro or even Berdych (lol but he has the game) could have been the missing piece in the puzzle; one can only speculate.

Originally Posted by Dominik

Roddick came along at the wrong time. On faster surfaces with that massive serve I believe Djokovic and Nadal would have struggled against him.

Hello.

Spoiler!

**Tuga88** · 02-23-2017, 03:13 AM

I've always said if everyone is at their peak I'd take Nadal every time. Doesn't mean he'd always win but in the long run he would come out ahead imo.

**Dominik** · 02-23-2017, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tuga88

I've always said if everyone is at their peak I'd take Nadal every time.

No question Nadal has had the hardest path to winning his slams since he faced both Federer (2004-2007) and Djokovic (2011-2015) at their peak.

However with all of them at their peak I'll still put my money on Federer.

We know what happens on clay and slow HC but Federer would equalize the situation on faster HC, grass, and indoors. Unfortunately Nadal couldn't keep up his end of the bargain.

Indoors/WTF: *1-5 (2013) | Grass/Wimbledon: 1-2 | Cinci: *1-0 (2013) | US Open: 0-0

Do Nadal fans honestly believe he would somehow have a winning record against Federer at his best tournaments where he won 12 slams, 7 Cincinnati masters, 8 Halle grass titles, and 6 year-end finals?

Nadal beat Federer 13x out of 15 on clay. If they played 15 times on grass, how many does Nadal win? His only win came at 9-7 in the 5th after 5 hours in light so bad they couldn't be photographed without flash.

**Dominik** · 02-23-2017, 05:03 AM

12:00

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis...rguing-9903062

**Jayarbie** · 02-23-2017, 06:03 AM

My money is on Federer as GOAT (or at least for this era). Nadal is clearly the clay GOAT, but when Fed was at his peak and Nadal was only dominant on one surface, Fed made a lot of the clay court finals and lost to Nadal, but Nadal did not make fast court finals with nearly the regularity, which accounts for a lot of the lopsided head to head (some of it is also a stylistic matchup issue for Fed specifically against Nadal playing his OHBH slice into Nadal's 3 million RPM topspin FH). Djokovic is a clear 3rd and Murray 4th in the pecking order for this era.

As for Roddick, it is a shame he came at the wrong time with the wrong game because he'd have won at least 2 or 3 more slams had he not had to face the GOAT on his best surface at Wimbledon every year, but what can you do? If you're not the best, then you're just not THE best.

**gomil** · 02-23-2017, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dominik

However with all of them at their peak I'll still put my money on Federer.

We know what happens on clay and slow HC but Federer would equalize the situation on faster HC, grass, and indoors. Unfortunately Nadal couldn't keep up his end of the bargain.

Indoors/WTF: *1-5 (2013) | Grass/Wimbledon: 1-2 | Cinci: *1-0 (2013) | US Open: 0-0

Even at their peaks? You're more optimistic than I am. How would you rank them though? Sure Federer would lead even more than now post RG but it probably wouldn't be overwhelming especially at the slams compared to the first half where he gets run over. It's good that he tanked USO'13 otherwise we'd probably never hear the end of it from a certain fanbase.

I'm sadly inclined to put a big asterisk on Fed's game though because Nadal finds a way to grind out a win on his worst surfaces whilst Roger just sits there making no changes to his game plan and strategy for the first half of the season.

Roddick absolutely dismantled Nadal in USO'04 so he might not have had as much success on quicker surfaces; who knows. I think he would have adapted. Would his game have been sufficient? Probably not but I feel he'd still fist pump his way to a win or two.

**Dominik** · 02-23-2017, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by gomil

I'm sadly inclined to put a big asterisk on Fed's game though because Nadal finds a way to grind out a win on his worst surfaces whilst Roger just sits there making no changes to his game plan and strategy for the first half of the season.

I get where you're coming from however Nadal not facing him in the second half of the year (a paltry 3 slam meetings from 2006-2008 and none in 9 years) is what contributed to that mental block IMO. He even admitted this recently saying all those clay beatings from 2005-2008 took their toll.

I believe if Federer faced him more often on his terms he'd be a lot more confident. Likewise it might hurt Nadal's confidence to be thrashed more often indoors.

As for the first half of the year it's worth mentioning that their first AO meeting was in 2009. 2004-2007 Federer won 3 of 4. On clay at his peak Nadal was too good, even for peak Djokovic.

If 2008 Nadal played 2006 Federer in all 4 slam finals I still think Roger wins 3 of 4.

At the end of the day it's fun to speculate but they're both great players. What Nadal did at RG will never be matched.

**Ownster8932** · 02-23-2017, 07:40 PM

Who do you all consider to be the superior clay court player between Fed and Djoker?

**Dominik** · 02-23-2017, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ownster8932

Who do you all consider to be the superior clay court player between Fed and Djoker?

Good question. Here comes the tl;dr...

Clay H2H is 4-4. Federer has 5 RG final appearances to Novak's 4.

The knock on Djokovic is he lost to Wawrinka in the final and that was statistically his best season (2015). That would be like Federer losing to Soderling in the 2009 F which didn't happen. Federer lost all his RG finals to Nadal who was at his peak. That being said I think Novak probably would have beaten Nadal in 2011 because he was in his head. Federer prevented that.

Djokovic has won more clay Masters and had better results against Nadal on clay however he wasn't doing that against 81 match clay streak Nadal in 2005-2007. Pre-2011 Novak was 0-9 against Nadal on clay winning one set.

Djokovic picked up some cheap wins after 2014. Meaningless to me because at that stage he was losing to Ferrer and Fognini.

Also worth mentioning that Federer in his prime on clay (2004-2011) wasn't losing to players like Kohlschriber and Melzer who beat Novak in 2009 and 2010. Only losses in those 8 years were to 3x champ Kuerten, 9x champ Nadal, and 2x finalist Soderling.

I think their 2011 RG SF meeting was a fair comparison since it was the last time Federer played him on clay in his 20s. Novak was on a 41 match winning streak and lost in 4.

Cliffs: I give Roger a slight edge because of 2011 but at the end of the day it's very close and could go either way.

**Ownster8932** · 02-23-2017, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dominik

Good question. Here comes the tl;dr...

Clay H2H is 4-4. Federer has 5 RG final appearances to Novak's 4.

The knock on Djokovic is he lost to Wawrinka in the final and that was statistically his best season (2015). That would be like Federer losing to Soderling in the 2009 F which didn't happen. Federer lost all his RG finals to Nadal who was at his peak. That being said I think Novak probably would have beaten Nadal in 2011 because he was in his head. Federer prevented that.

Djokovic has won more clay Masters and had better results against Nadal on clay however he wasn't doing that against 81 match clay streak Nadal in 2005-2007. Pre-2011 Novak was 0-9 against Nadal on clay winning one set.

Djokovic picked up some cheap wins after 2014. Meaningless to me because at that stage he was losing to Ferrer and Fognini.

Also worth mentioning that Federer in his prime on clay (2004-2011) wasn't losing to players like Kohlschriber and Melzer who beat Novak in 2009 and 2010. Only losses in those 8 years were to 3x champ Kuerten, 9x champ Nadal, and 2x finalist Soderling.

I think their 2011 RG SF meeting was a fair comparison since it was the last time Federer played him on clay in his 20s. Novak was on a 41 match winning streak and lost in 4.

Cliffs: I give Roger a slight edge because of 2011 but at the end of the day it's very close and could go either way.

Good post.

I tend to agree. I think Roger's game gets really underrated on clay due to Rafa's dominance; I always get the impression that people don't even really realize that he has been to 5 FO finals and if it weren't for facing Nadal in 4 of them, he could pretty easily have 2-4 more FO and the narrative would be drastically different (I understand that this is hypothetical and that these types of arguments can be made for a lot of players, but still). And to be fair, similar types of arguments could be made for Novak (to an extent), though I don't feel as strongly. Like you said, the people that Federer was losing to on clay during his prime were no chumps- they were really good/great clay courters. The same can't be said for Novak. I also haven't watched/followed Djokovic nearly as much when it comes to clay court season specifically. I just have to think that prime Fed would definitely have the advantage given a past-prime Fed took a prime Novak at the French.

**gomil** · 02-24-2017, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dominik

I believe if Federer faced him more often on his terms he'd be a lot more confident. Likewise it might hurt Nadal's confidence to be thrashed more often indoors.

At the end of the day it's fun to speculate but they're both great players.

Yep, probably one of the reasons he skips the second half of the season is to prevent Djokovic and Federer from gaining some confidence. I mean people do it in sports all the time so it wouldn't surprise me at all. The more and more I look into, the more convinced I am about it.

So many pivotal matches in the past decade:

Spoiler!

- Wimbledon 2002 Final - If Nalbandian wins this, he probably trains harder, makes a few finals and takes a few slams off Fed; Roger had problems figuring him out, their matches were pretty even and EXTREMELY ENTERTAINING
- Wimbledon 2004 Final - If Roddick wins this like he was on track to, he probably takes a few slams off Fed
- Rome 2006 Final - If Federer wins this, it probably puts Nadal on the back foot for the French (remember: Nadal's mental game is probably his most valuable asset); very important match in the course of history; can't overstate this one enough because of the circumstances
- French Open 2006 Final - If Federer wins this and he had chances like not breaking Nadal early in the second, being 0-40 up in he third, fourth set was a tie break he puts a seed of doubt in the back of Nadal's mind and probably takes another major off Rafa on the red dirt
- French Open 2008 Final - Don't think I need to explain this one
- Wimbledon 2008 Final - Change of guard; If Federer breaks at 4-3 30-40 in the fifth, he probably serves it out which doesn't lead to the final nail in the coffin and their 'rivalry' becoming one sided
- Australian Open 2009 Final - The match that sealed the deal; see above
- French Open 2011 Semi - If Djokovic wins this, he most likely wins his maiden RG title by beating Rafa and probably takes a few more clay majors off him; however if he loses, 2011 probably doesn't happen as Nadal wins Wimbledon and maybe even US imo and Djokovic probably doesn't get past 5-6 major titles in his career; this was very difficult to call
- Australian Open 2012 Final - If Nadal wins this, Djokovic goes slamless for another year and who knows how this would have changed things
- French Open 2013 Semi - If Djokovic wins this like he was on course to, he probably wins the USO the same year and Nadal's probably stuck on 11 majors until 2017
- Australian Open 2014 Final - If Nadal doesn't lose to Stan, his pigeons don't see the chink in his armor and he probably cruises past Roger's slam tally comfortably; we all know how this turned out
- Wimbledon 2014 Final - If Djokovic DOESN'T win this, he declines sharply, 2015 and 2016 don't happen and he retires early; this was a MASSIVE final since Novak hadn't added to his slam tally in 18 months.

Originally Posted by Ownster8932

Who do you all consider to be the superior clay court player between Fed and Djoker?

Originally Posted by Dominik

Good question. Here comes the tl;dr...
Djokovic has won more clay Masters and had better results against Nadal on clay however he wasn't doing that against 81 match clay streak Nadal in 2005-2007. Pre-2011 Novak was 0-9 against Nadal on clay winning one set.

Novak had his chances to beat Nadal in Monte Carlo in 2009, was a point away from doing it in the Madrid semi (both went to three) and took Rafa to 5 in 2013 where he should have won. I don't think the Wawrinka loss hurts his resume; let's not forget that Fed had a marshmallow soft draw in 2009 and he narrowly scraped past both Haas and Del Potro whereas Djokovic was coming off difficult matches against both Nadal & Murray.

It's a toss up in my opinion and it's hard to pick especially between these two on this surface but I'm going with Novak in 4 or 5 by extending the rallies and wearing down Roger.

Originally Posted by gomil

Peak Slam Encounters -> Federer vs Nadal: 2006, 2007 = 2/2; Federer vs Djokovic: 2007, 2011 = 3/2; Nadal vs Djokovic: 2011, 2012, 2013 = 3/3
Slams Won During Aforementioned Period -> F=6, N=6, D=5

Would probably be even between Federer & Djokovic in terms of both head to head and number of slams won.

Forgot to add that if AO'08 is also considered, where Djokovic was playing lights out, then it's 3-3 and 6 slams each.

I'd say Federer has a slightly better chance to break through at the AO than Djokovic does at Wimbledon where it's almost a no contest in favor of Roger, Novak has an edge at RG and that they probably end up trading matches at the USO.

**Dominik** · 02-24-2017, 02:13 AM

Wouldn't argue with any of that because the margins are so small.

It's a shame we never got to see Djokovic vs. Federer at the AO on Rebound Ace, both at their peak. That would be interesting. They switched to the current Plexicushion surface after 2007. On the current surface, both at their peak I'd have to go with Novak winning most of those matches.

RG is a toss up.

Wimbledon. Federer comfortably. Ditto for the US Open.

Novak has a really poor conversion rate at the US Open with 2 wins in 7 finals. Offered 23 break points to Federer in 2015. Federer converts a few more of those instead of 4 and Novak would have the one W (2011).

Federer on the other hand had it on lock from 2004-2008 and he came close to winning in 2009 before having a meltdown over Hawkeye which would have been 6 straight.

Great observations about the pivotal matches. Agree that Wimbledon 2014 final was huge for Novak. He loses that and he would have gone slamless in 2014. Self doubt creeps in, confidence is down, might start to question Becker as coach, etc. Instead he pulled out the W and doubled his slam tally over the next 2 years.

**gomil** · 02-25-2017, 05:09 AM

Rebound Ace could go either way. Federer didn't drop a set in 2007 and was a point away from beating Safin at his ABSOLUTE BEST in 2005 so it makes it hard to call. What baffles me is how Djokovic has more wins in finals at Wimbledon than Nadal and at the USO (and the poor championship decider record there like you mentioned). Same for Nadal's edge in finals at New York; he's not beating Djokovic there in 2013 if Novak was fresh.

Looking back, I think I missed a slam for Fed but AO'06 could be disregarded if one argues that he didn't beat a slam champion on the way to the title. Funny thing is that if you include that and disregard AO'08, Federer leads the slam tally with 7 and head to head with Novak, Nadal ends up second with 6 and Djokovic ends up the clear #3 with 5 like you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. If Novak's given that win in 2008, all three remain even in terms of head to head but Roger edges ahead due to winning one more slam. There are so many arguments that could be made for and against these guys.

Interestingly, Borg has a 1-3 slam finals record against McEnroe but John was 3 years younger. On top of that, he was 9-3 in finals in 1980 but made just 6 in 1981 and lost half of them. Lendl took him to 5 at the French. No one is convincing me that he had equally good seasons during that two year period just because he made 3 slam finals and was in his prime at 25 years of age. It doesn't take that much of a drop in level to go from winning everything to losing everything. LOL @ people saying Federer didn't decline in 2008.

**Dominik** · 02-25-2017, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by gomil

It doesn't take that much of a drop in level to go from winning everything to losing everything. LOL @ people saying Federer didn't decline in 2008.

Definitely. Look at Novak after the French. Goes from winning 5/6 slams and almost every Masters in between to his earliest slam loss in 7 years. Shows what a difference even a small drop in level and confidence can make. And it's not like Querrey was some young star on the rise. He's a journeyman.

Also reminds me how short-sighted some people have been over the past 3 years saying that Federer should retire just because he kept coming up against Djokovic in his prime, as if Novak's level couldn't drop, get injured, etc. He knew as long as he was making semis and finals he'd have a chance and it paid off.

Since 2014 in the slams he reached 4 finals and 8 SF. Won one. The same number of slams and finals as world No. 1 Murray with one more SF. No one's been calling for Murray to retire. Anyway it just shows how small the margins are at the top.

**gomil** · 02-27-2017, 10:42 AM

Another follow up, and this is interesting. Connors is 8-15 against Borg who is 4 years younger and 14-20 against Mac who is 7 years younger. Seems familiar to me. He was even with both of them until 1979/1980 when he started to drop off.

Bunch of text....

Spoiler!

Dom, do you think we will see another all out attacker or serve volleyer pop up anytime soon? The last link to the 90s has been Fed who is continuing the good work done by Sampras but it makes me sad to think that no one will be filling those shoes for a while especially with Nadal/Djokovic/Muray coming along and the courts getting slower.

I know contrasting styles is good for sport and actually enjoy defense/tactical play in team sports even though it's been hard for me to be a fan of it in tennis (maybe that's just my bias against it and my nostalgia talking). But at the end of the day, I can only watch so much grind before it eventually gets to me. The ride from the late 1990s to mid 2000s was incredible at the time; still remember coming back from school and staying up late to watch some fantastic attacking tennis. I will however admit that the first half of the Roland Garros final in '07 was probably some of the best tennis I've ever seen; opening two sets were played at an unbelievably high level. It's a bit depressing to think about how much Roger's movement and inside out forehand have deteriorated over the years but I suppose nothing lasts forever.

It's a shame Nalbandian didn't play a few finals against Federer; we could have had chapter 2 of aggressive all courter against clean baseliner (continuing on from Pete & Andre).

**Dominik** · 02-27-2017, 04:27 PM

The casual fan bases everything on slams won but crunching the numbers you see matchups are everything. Davydenko was 6-1 against prime Nadal on hardcourts whereas Federer owned him 19-2 and only lost 5 sets. Nadal never faced him in a slam whereas Federer did 6 times. Put Davydenko in an AO or US Open final against Nadal 5 times and he might win 4 of them.

Another one that comes to mind is Krajicek. Pete won 13 more slams but Krajicek was the last guy he wanted to face in the 90s. Lost 6 out of 7 at one point. He faces him a few more times at Wimbledon and Pete isn't a 7x champ.

re: attacking tennis, when I saw Tsonga at the 2008 Aus Open I thought he'd pick up the torch from Federer. I'd never seen anyone play Nadal that well and that was at the start of his best season. Incredible performance. Had the ability in spades. Just didn't have what it takes mentally week in week out. To answer the question the cupboard is looking pretty bare right now.

The great thing about Nalbandian was he didn't rely on boring tactics like Nadal. He could beat him at his own game. His backhand was equal to Federer's forehand. Could do anything with it. Safin is another one. Those two were ridiculously talented and I really miss watching players like that. Two of my favorite matches were from 2005 when they both beat Federer in 5 sets.

**Jayarbie** · 02-27-2017, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by gomil

Another follow up, and this is interesting. Connors is 8-15 against Borg who is 4 years younger and 14-20 against Mac who is 7 years younger. Seems familiar to me. He was even with both of them until 1979/1980 when he started to drop off.

Bunch of text....

Spoiler!

Dom, do you think we will see another all out attacker or serve volleyer pop up anytime soon? The last link to the 90s has been Fed who is continuing the good work done by Sampras but it makes me sad to think that no one will be filling those shoes for a while especially with Nadal/Djokovic/Muray coming along and the courts getting slower.

I know contrasting styles is good for sport and actually enjoy defense/tactical play in team sports even though it's been hard for me to be a fan of it in tennis (maybe that's just my bias against it and my nostalgia talking). But at the end of the day, I can only watch so much grind before it eventually gets to me. The ride from the late 1990s to mid 2000s was incredible at the time; still remember coming back from school and staying up late to watch some fantastic attacking tennis. I will however admit that the first half of the Roland Garros final in '07 was probably some of the best tennis I've ever seen; opening two sets were played at an unbelievably high level. It's a bit depressing to think about how much Roger's movement and inside out forehand have deteriorated over the years but I suppose nothing lasts forever.

It's a shame Nalbandian didn't play a few finals against Federer; we could have had chapter 2 of aggressive all courter against clean baseliner (continuing on from Pete & Andre).

There will be eventually, but it will be a freak of nature kind of player with Isner's size and serve but Djokovic's flexibility, kind of like Zdeno Chara during the couple years when he was the most dominant force in the NHL.

**x-trainer ben** · 02-28-2017, 07:38 AM

I had to post this link to Serena, how would you react to her?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0780bac2d104b?

**Ownster8932** · 03-01-2017, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by x-trainer ben

I had to post this link to Serena, how would you react to her?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0780bac2d104b?

Gotta say, I've been a pretty harsh critic of Serena at times over the course of her career, but this was pretty cool of her to do. Gave those guys a memory they will never forget, lol.

**x-trainer ben** · 03-02-2017, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ownster8932

Gotta say, I've been a pretty harsh critic of Serena at times over the course of her career, but this was pretty cool of her to do. Gave those guys a memory they will never forget, lol.

I agree celebrity types need to do more of this type of thing.

**Dominik** · 03-03-2017, 06:27 AM

Talk about loving the big occasion. Kyrgios has now won his first meetings vs. Nadal, Federer, and last night Djokovic.

Thread: * Official Tennis Thread **

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Thread: *** Official Tennis Thread ****

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Thread: * Official Tennis Thread **