AUSTRALIAN OPEN, Melbourne, ATP GRAND SLAM

[teddytennisfan]

This "observation" starts because people use their eyes

yes -=- like BBC told everyone ''THE RUSSIANS DID IT". that kind of ''eyes".

 

[Federberg]

no -- your counter example doesn't work.

rafa challenged roger at grass 3 times -- in finals -- proving rafa was nearly as good as roger on 2 first occasions -- the second of which was a mere few points at the fifht. no different than TWO GRASS PLAYERS ..

ON CLAY -- the supremacy of nadal is legendary over roger. everyone knows that.

therefore the WIN by rafa --
1 out of 3 in wimbledon is a BETTER measurement and argument that rafa was or could be as good as roger was on grass

of ONE HAMBURG on clay by roger over rafa in CLUMPS of defeat on clay..as an argument that roger was or could be as good as rafa on clay.

SINCE people like to use roger as the standard of ''completeness"

then how come he LOST TO RAFA ON ALL SURFACES far , far more often than rafa lost to roger?
and dont' give us this ''rafa won most of them on clay" nonsense

because ROGER'S 2 wins out of 3 on grass could also be used against rogerwinning over rafa on grass. "roger won mostly on grass". TWICE out of 3

Focus on your point mate. You were making the argument that Rafa was a better volleyer than Roger. If you don't even know what you're debating it just gets pointless

 

[Tennis Fan]

oh i know that.


nonetheless -- roger got beaten to the punch.

doesn't matter what the 'intent' is.

REPUTATION isn't the same as actuality.

at net -- roger got beat - at the time when he was supposed to be the best ''at the net". by some 'baseliner".

THAT'S what collapses the argument.

in contrast -- but with the same result -- sampras when he was in hisdecline at wimbleodn got 'beat at the net" BY roger -- did that make sampras suddenly ''not the best?"

or roger ''better?" as rafa was over roger at their best days in wimbledon?

my point is -- the argument itself can be twisted any which way. and - imo -- having seen players from the days of mcenroe - to becker and sampras and roger and nadal and djokovic..

along with the changes in the game - the styles or preferences of players..

to single out a particular characteristic of roger that OTHERS in their times DO NOT DO much about -- that is -- regularly , ore or less, INITIATING an attack game towards the net -- does NOT by itself elect roger as more complete than the players who elect baseline game because that is how the game has evolved.

in the days of sampras -- a becker or sampras COULD play the baseline about as well as ''pure baseliners" -- particularly on more 'neutral ground" such as the hardcourts that at least gave them some equal opportunities to showcase their most characteristic features -- and therefore showed

a becker , a sampras, an ivanisevic more or less adept at both back and front.. in contrast to baseliners who were clearly not very adept as much at the net or in initiating it.

they were - in other words - NOT A RARITY so as to show people players who were ''complete"

and NOT because they were the only ones...

in the case of roger -- hardly anyone really did that -- and when ''someone did it' -- it was roger, THUS is born the IDEA of ''most complete ever" or more complete THAN his rivals.

WHEN YOU are a singer able to sing ten notes compared to a choir that sings 9 notes -- you are taken as 'exceptional'' even if the differences are almost nothing really.

I couldn't agree more. Using that kind of logic you can take any trait and elevate it to make it "better, more complete, the greatest" ever, but it doesn't work that way because it's used on faulty reasoning, and because it is pleasing to some people.

 

[Tennis Fan]

no -- your counter example doesn't work.

rafa challenged roger at grass 3 times -- in finals -- proving rafa was nearly as good as roger on 2 first occasions -- the second of which was a mere few points at the fifht. no different than TWO GRASS PLAYERS ..

ON CLAY -- the supremacy of nadal is legendary over roger. everyone knows that.

therefore the WIN by rafa --
1 out of 3 in wimbledon is a BETTER measurement and argument that rafa was or could be as good as roger was on grass

of ONE HAMBURG on clay by roger over rafa in CLUMPS of defeat on clay..as an argument that roger was or could be as good as rafa on clay.

SINCE people like to use roger as the standard of ''completeness"

then how come he LOST TO RAFA ON ALL SURFACES far , far more often than rafa lost to roger?
and dont' give us this ''rafa won most of them on clay" nonsense

because ROGER'S 2 wins out of 3 on grass could also be used against rogerwinning over rafa on grass. "roger won mostly on grass". TWICE out of 3

This is true. I don't think people realize that they are only cherry-picking the things that they like about Roger, and discounting all of the areas where Federer is deficient. It doesn't work that way, which is why non-Federer fans don't agree with said analysis.

 

[mrzz]

Teddy, sorry, but you are missing the mark. The H2H on grass between Federer and Nadal has no bearing on the discussion about who is the better volleyer. Why? Because both of them have played hundreds of matches on grass, against a lot of opponents. Federer `s statistics are better, even considering that he attacks the net as part of the strategy, not only to finish points on which the player already is with the upper hand.

Do you wanna see for yourself? Select the highlights of 10 different matches each, whatever surface, and see/count for yourself.

If you want to argue about the most complete player, and if you, and the people who seem to agree with you, say that some have "faulty reasoning", why don´t you look at the success rate of each player? See the distribution of surfaces each one has had success. Complete players should have a lot of success on a lot of environments, right?

 

[Carol]

I think Nadal and Muzz are the smarter players of the tour (it doesn't matter how inconsistent Muzz looks to be and Nadal and his injuries) and that why I like them more than anyone else. Muzz loss yesterday surprised me a lot and more now that he seems to be more consistent than the previous years. He and Nadal can change the game figuring out what to do depending the opponent game but yesterday he looked not having any clue while Masha knew perfectly well how to play him

 

[brokenshoelace]

And I thought reading Teddy's posts about politics was bad...

 

[Carol]

Hmmmm I see worse......

 

[brokenshoelace]

In sport, there's a syndrome that I like to call "underrated for so long it's become overrated." Meaning, a player, or an aspect of a player's game is underrated for so long, that people keep saying how underrated they are until they become overrated.

Nadal's volleys fit the description perfectly. After he really improved that aspect in 2008, Nadal's volleys became the most underrated element of his game. However, as people started picking up on it, and kept repeating how underrated his volleys are, they became overrated, because people became oblivious to his limitations around the net (namely, punch volleys, and his occasional heavy handed drop volleys due to his inability to just swing volley the ball away). John McEnroe laughably calling Nadal's volleys the best on tour (while ignoring that he almost exclusively attacks the net after excellent approach shots that give him more or less gimme volleys) is a case in point.

The "underrated for so long it's overrated" syndrome applies to other athletes in other sports as well. Namely, Paul Scholes, Michael Carrick, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is true. I don't think people realize that they are only cherry-picking the things that they like about Roger, and discounting all of the areas where Federer is deficient. It doesn't work that way, which is why non-Federer fans don't agree with said analysis.

What are these deficiencies?

 

[Carol]

Since two years ego and playing doubles more often I think Rafa has better volley than Roger so far

 

[Vince Evert]

Phewwwww !!!! I had to stop watching portions of that match as I have to look after my ticker (following bypass surgery two months ago). Thanks Christ Roger was able to step up in the 5th.

 

[Vince Evert]

Roger please mate, do yourself (and us too) a favour. The next time your in a tight four setter and you got BP (s) and the opponent hits/nurses a second-serve in to your backhand wing, DON'T BECOME TENTATIVE and SLICE IT BACK IN THE NET. COME OVER THE BACKHAND & LET RIP !!! YOU SHOULD'VE WON THIS THING IN FOUR.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since two years ego and playing doubles more often I think Rafa has better volley than Roger so far

No, he really, really doesn't. This literally isn't based on anything. Not numbers, not eye test, not nothing. And I say this as a Nadal fanboy. I'd like to see someone actually raise an argument, a real one, for Nadal having better volleys that isn't just absolute claims. As in, technical aspects that make Nadal's volleys better. Federer has a slightly better overhead (though it's close), miles better punch volleys, and better drop volleys. It's not even close.

 

[Carol]

 

[Carol]

These ones was in 2013, now he is doing even better, if he would have better serve he would do it many times more

 

[Tennis Fan]

What are these deficiencies?

Everyone has deficiencies. Period. There is no perfect player.

 

[Carol]

Everyone has deficiencies. Period. There is no perfect player.

Totally agreed!

 

[Tennis Fan]

No, he really, really doesn't. This literally isn't based on anything. Not numbers, not eye test, not nothing. And I say this as a Nadal fanboy. I'd like to see someone actually raise an argument, a real one, for Nadal having better volleys that isn't just absolute claims. As in, technical aspects that make Nadal's volleys better. Federer has a slightly better overhead (though it's close), miles better punch volleys, and better drop volleys. It's not even close.

Federer misses more volleys than he makes from what I see, so I don't get this faith in his volleys, at all. What's funny though, is if the commentators say something about Roger, then it's true, but if they say similar things about the others, then it's not true and nothing anyone says means anything. IMO, if he was so good at it, then why did he stop serving and volleying? He himself said he was an aggressive baseliner. And that's straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I don't get into comparing and saying who's best at this and that, as I think it's silly. But, what I don't understand is that if Roger's volleys are so good and great why he keeps that weapon in his arsenal most of the time. That doesn't make sense. Evidently, he doesn't have the same faith in it as his fans do. Mischa trusts his volleys, which is why he uses them match in and match out.

And I also don't buy the theory that Nadal only comes in on "gimmes." That's ludicrous, what that means is that he's good as sensing an opportunity and his astuteness regarding volleys allows him to make more than he misses. How is that a bad thing, or less than? I've seen Federer flub many a volley, so no, I don't think his volleying is that great and many of the greats have made mention of that fact as well.