How To Challenge The Big 3

[brokenshoelace]

The bolded above is part of my point: the next generation is not the only part of the equation. Everyone who is playing now has the potential to make a mark, not just Generation Next. And we seem to be in a time when players are maturing later, making an impression later in their careers. I don't think it matters so much what generation the ones who snatch prizes from the Big 4 are. They are all the competition faced in this time. However, it is a question as to what happens when the Big 4 are no more. That's where we're looking to the generation after for a star or two.

I agree with that (as I say or hint in the part just below the bolded). I think Broken would at least generally. I think we (mostly Broken) were debating Kieran saying Nishikori is as good as Roddick or Hewitt.

Which I didn't say, so it's all good...

Right, you didn't, you said he was "as bad." And when pressed and asked if he was as good, you dodged the question.

 

[Kieran]

I agree with that (as I say or hint in the part just below the bolded). I think Broken would at least generally. I think we (mostly Broken) were debating Kieran saying Nishikori is as good as Roddick or Hewitt.

Which I didn't say, so it's all good...

Right, you didn't, you said he was "as bad." And when pressed and asked if he was as good, you dodged the question.

No, I didn't dodge the question. I told you it was irrelevant. You introduced these things to reduce the discussion to a level you could understand. I didn't feel the need to join you there because it had nothing to do with the topic.

But looking at it hypothetically, could Nishi win 5 sets from prime Federer over the course of 15 matches? You can play with that hypothesis. What I was dealing with was your contention that somehow the players Roger dispatched in easy straight forward fashion for four years were somehow deserving of more respect than the current bunch of also-rans.

They're not. The fact that Safin was super talented, more so than Nishi!, only highlights how degenerate and wasteful a player he was, as well as being easy pickings for Federer, apart from one notable evening in Oz...

 

[Great Hands]

Just got around to reading these repsonses - some interesting stuff - thanks guys!

there seems to be a bit of disagreement on the challnegers' prospets. some people seem to to be saying that at least some of these 2nd tier have the ability but not the belief, others seem to be saying these guys just don't have the ability, even if they had all teh bleif in the world.

my orignal post wass mroe aloign thel ines of: igf oyu were any of these 2ns tier guys coahes, what woudl you suggest they do to try to imorve? what got me thinking about this thr3ead topic wss that there is a liot of talk about what murray shld be doing. everyone seems to have thier opnions on this. on this forum, th general tings that seem to come up are:

1. imporve his fh technique - specifically the postion of his writst.
2. improve his 2nd serve by injecting more pace, particlurt devfeoping his kick serve
3. and, most common of all - improving his mentality - fniding a coach/psycjogyst/oasychitrist who can stop any negative mentaltiy from affecting his perfroance levels.

murray is rotinely critixed ofr not doing these things.

so I thought - what about some kind of 'plan of action' for other players too?

NIshikori, for exmaple. his serve seems ot be ratehr icnsitstent,. sometnimes it can be a great weapon, other times it's all ovet he place. is there a technical reason for this?

are there techinical or tactical reasons why wawinka just can't seem to maintain a good level of coniststency?i know people have metioend that he needs more time to set up on his groundstkes, so if he;s not in position in time, he can be rushed? can he work on impoving this? his game is also lower percantage than the top guys, sin't it? he goes for mroe wiiners? cld he learn to go for higher percentage plays, especially when he's not playing so well, so he at least makes his ooponent beat him, rather than beatin ghimsefl/ (this is also true of dimtorv, who really shld sit down and analyse his shot seldection in certain situatyions). stan can laso gt down on himself when he's not pplaying well, and not fight as much as he could. how could he resolve this - sports psychopoguist? is he seeign one?

etc etc

i.e. a respeoinse like 'wait for them to decline' is not what i was thinking about here. their coahces can't say that to them. they have to think about how to imporve. it might not work, but they havet o try. so how about: top 3 things to imporve for kei, for exmpale? i.e. i've done top 3 for murray - what baout other guys?

i.e. let's not just stop at murray!

cilic's status as teh luckiest grand slam winner of the last 10 years incresaes. no rafa in the tournanent, a lower-ranmked comeback murray gets novak in quareters and loses, nishi beats novak for him, then he plays a (as i thought) tired fed who'd just played a 5 setter, and then gets a tired and inispeirenced kei who's not only never won a slam befopre, but never eveb been in a gs final before, and who'd just played 2 back to back 5 setters agtqisnt milos and stan followed by a tough 4 setter in the heat of the day against novak. and now i find out fed was injured as well? talk about eh stars aligning for cilic!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Which I didn't say, so it's all good...

Right, you didn't, you said he was "as bad." And when pressed and asked if he was as good, you dodged the question.

No, I didn't dodge the question. I told you it was irrelevant. You introduced these things to reduce the discussion to a level you could understand. I didn't feel the need to join you there because it had nothing to do with the topic.

But looking at it hypothetically, could Nishi win 5 sets from prime Federer over the course of 15 matches? You can play with that hypothesis. What I was dealing with was your contention that somehow the players Roger dispatched in easy straight forward fashion for four years were somehow deserving of more respect than the current bunch of also-rans.

They're not. The fact that Safin was super talented, more so than Nishi!, only highlights how degenerate and wasteful a player he was, as well as being easy pickings for Federer, apart from one notable evening in Oz...

You said one generation was "no worse" than the other. Meaning you directly compared them. You also said Fed's generation "won nothing." Again, these are direct quotes. If that's the level I can understand, I'm more than fine with that. I'd take that over dumbing things down to understand what you're trying to say, since in your vocabulary, "better" or "worse" is defined by how they fared against Federer, and not their tournament results. If that's the level I could understand, law school et all, I think I'm good.

But yes, please continue crying about "personal attacks" when all I said was I feel I'm arguing with Cali, while you feel fit to assess my legal expertise (!?), intellectual ability, and "literal stupidity." You're coming off bad here buddy..."no worse" than this current generation, though.

 

[Great Hands]

You wait for them to decline.

Their coaches can't say that to them, though. They have to think about how to improve. It might not work, but they have to try.

My original post was more along the lines of: if you were any of these 2nd tier guys' coaches, what would you suggest they do to try to improve? What got me thinking about this thread topic was that there has been plenty of talk about what Murray should be doing. Everyone seems to have their opnions on this. On this forum, the general things that seem to come up are:

1. Improve his FH technique - specifically the postion of his wrist.
2. Improve his 2nd serve by injecting more pace, particularly developing his kick serve.
3. And, most common of all - improving his mentality - finding a coach/psychologist/psychiatrist who can stop any negative mentaltiy from affecting his perfroance levels.

Murray is routinely criticised for not doing these things (although he is in fact attempting to do 3).

So I thought - what about some kind of 'plan of action' for other players too?

What would be an equivalent top 3 things to improve for, say, Nishikori? or Dimitrov?

I'm genuinely interested to hear what the very knowledgable people here at Tennis Frontier would suggest as a 'plan of action/improvement' for them, because it doesn't seem to be discussed very much. i.e. Let's not just stop at Murray!

 

[Great Hands]

You wait for them to decline.

Their coaches can't say that to them, though. They have to think about how to improve. It might not work, but they have to try.

My original post was more along the lines of: if you were any of these 2nd tier guys' coaches, what would you suggest they do to try to improve? What got me thinking about this thread topic was that there has been plenty of talk about what Murray should be doing. Everyone seems to have their opnions on this. On this forum, the general things that seem to come up are:

1. Improve his FH technique - specifically the postion of his wrist.
2. Improve his 2nd serve by injecting more pace, particularly developing his kick serve.
3. And, most common of all - improving his mentality - finding a coach/psychologist/psychiatrist who can stop any negative mentality from affecting his performance levels.

Murray is routinely criticised for not doing these things (although he is in fact attempting to do 3).

So I thought - what about some kind of 'plan of action' for other players too?

What would be an equivalent top 3 things to improve for, say, Nishikori? or Dimitrov?

I'm genuinely interested to hear what the very knowledgable people here at Tennis Frontier would suggest as a 'plan of action/improvement' for them, because it doesn't seem to be discussed very much. i.e. Let's not just stop at Murray!

 

[Kieran]

But yes, please continue crying about "personal attacks" when all I said was I feel I'm arguing with Cali, while you feel fit to assess my legal expertise (!?), intellectual ability, and "literal stupidity." You're coming off bad here buddy..."no worse" than this current generation, though.

Look who's crying now, huh?

Seriously, brother, I'm wondering why this affected you, and also how you could so badly misunderstand it. Nobody assessed your legal expertise. It's about your method of debate. I happen to know plenty of lawyers, barristers, etc, and their method of debate is so cool, Kevin Spacey comes off as a hothead beside them. They learn how to. They study it. Losing the head means losing the debate. Getting personal with your opponent means you lost the argument. This is old-fashioned stuff. For you, debate is not calm appeals, wit and generosity. It often involves loud insults, sarcasm (the absolute lowest form of wit ) and sweeping hyperbolic statements, some of them not even accurately reflecting the other persons views.

As for Federer's generation who "won nothing" (which you kindly quoted for us), and the modern players who you call "mediocre" (I suppose this is another relative term), once Federer came of age, the stats speak for themselves. How am I even having to repeat this? Seriously. Hewitt won two slams before that time, then what? Safin won a single major after 2000. And he was an utter basketcase. Outside his 2005 victory (which showed us what he should have been doing), he won a single set out of 19, across 7 matches with Federer.

And yet you consider him, what? A viable threat?

Look at your own posts, look at what you're comparing, and tell me that today's non Big-3 (which include Murray) - the players who are challenging now, all shapes and all sizes - are somehow less effective than the players of all ages and shapes who challenged Federer: the Gonzos and Roddicks, et al. You can't slag one group as "mediocre" and praise the other, when the group you're praising have done nothing to raise them several levels above the others to become "a serious generation."

Now we've gone round this block 27 times already, and yet I'm still having to point out that you started this by insulting the modern players. Think about it.

And relax. Rafa's about to testify in Roma...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not talking about the effectiveness in challenging the big 3 compared to how Roger's generation challenged him. I'm talking about whether they were as good.

You refuse to understand this.

In other words, if Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are clearly better than today's generation (something anyone here who isn't you agrees on), then this clearly means that maybe, just maybe, they couldn't challenge Federer because he was just that good.

Whereas these guys today, well, it's not like they're being stopped by the big 3 otherwise they'd be racking up titles left and right. How about they beat the Fogninis of the world with regularity first, then we'll assess their effectiveness in challenging the big 3, especially when the big 3 are Novak, Rafa with a case of the yips (whatever that is), and Federer with a case of viagra.

Shocked you can't see this point.

 

[Kieran]

Not talking about the effectiveness in challenging the big 3 compared to how Roger's generation challenged him. I'm talking about whether they were as good.

You refuse to understand this.

In other words, if Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are clearly better than today's generation (something anyone here who isn't you agrees on), then this clearly means that maybe, just maybe, they couldn't challenge Federer because he was just that good.

Whereas these guys today, well, it's not like they're being stopped by the big 3 otherwise they'd be racking up titles left and right. How about they beat the Fogninis of the world with regularity first, then we'll assess their effectiveness in challenging the big 3, especially when the big 3 are Novak, Rafa with a case of case of the yips (whatever that is), and Federer with a case of viagra.

Shocked you can't see this point.

I see that point, brother. I disagree. :hug