Indian Wells 2015

[Moxie]

WOW! Carol is Kieran and Tented is trying to deceive us. Evil never ceases in Nadal camp.

How is that all connected to the strange fall Nadal had at Miami? And why am I loosing my hair over this?

"Evil?" :devil Really...come on, Mrzz...you're losing your objectivity. :smooch

 

[mrzz]

WOW! Carol is Kieran and Tented is trying to deceive us. Evil never ceases in Nadal camp.

How is that all connected to the strange fall Nadal had at Miami? And why am I loosing my hair over this?

"Evil?" :devil Really...come on, Mrzz...you're losing your objectivity. :smooch

No. I am only starting to see the truth. Thou shall not deceive me with smooth words and merry emoticons.

 

[Moxie]

WOW! Carol is Kieran and Tented is trying to deceive us. Evil never ceases in Nadal camp.

How is that all connected to the strange fall Nadal had at Miami? And why am I loosing my hair over this?

"Evil?" :devil Really...come on, Mrzz...you're losing your objectivity. :smooch

No. I am only starting to see the truth. Thou shall not deceive me with smooth words and merry emoticons.

Ok, well, how about I try merry words, and smmoooth......


...............................jazz?

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88K9yfJwOh0[/video]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

We also should practice what we preach, because you've applied the "should" logic to many Federer losses. Off the top of my head, the US Open 2009 loss to Del Potro.

Regardless, I only watched the first two sets, and I actually agree Nadal didn't play that badly (I missed the third so I can't comment). It's not easy to play with no rhythm. The terrible aspect was the return and that's what cost him in the tie break.

Despite the win, I'm actually left completely underwhelmed by how garbage the rest of Raonic's game is (excluding the serve).

The fact that you don't find the rest of Raonic's game impressive is what should concern you and all of us non Raonic fans. Rafa played well enough to win, couldn't take his chance. Roanic out gutted him and stepped up at key moments. I was very impressed actually. I'm not a fan, but this guy has weapons in his forehand, serve and his volleying is getting better. He was able to stay with Rafa in long rallies as the match progressed. He really believes. Someone like Dimi tries, but he believes. I think Roger will beat him today, but if Raonic were to win that match it would tell me he's ready to win slams

Raonic's net game is horrible. His movement around the net and his touch are quite sub-par. Maybe it is improved as you suggest, but that isn't saying much.

Raonic can win a slam by catching fire at the right time if the circumstances are right just like Cilic did (ie no Nadal, Murray loses early, Roger and Djokovic have shocking performances in the semis, and you face Kei Nishikori in the final). The likelihood of that happening is increasing as the usual suspects' consistency declines. But if you think his game is there as off now I'd strongly disagree.

Raonic's backhand is average at best, and the little things, such as the decision-making as to when to run around it is highly questionable.

Sorry, but the main reason this was anything other than a routine straight set win for Nadal was that awful second serve return on match point.

If people are legitimately impressed with Raonic's game then it's a testament to the state of the tour at the moment.

Those who watched 2013 Canada match of Raonic vs. JMDP would disagree with the
bolded comment.

 

[Federberg]

We also should practice what we preach, because you've applied the "should" logic to many Federer losses. Off the top of my head, the US Open 2009 loss to Del Potro.

Regardless, I only watched the first two sets, and I actually agree Nadal didn't play that badly (I missed the third so I can't comment). It's not easy to play with no rhythm. The terrible aspect was the return and that's what cost him in the tie break.

Despite the win, I'm actually left completely underwhelmed by how garbage the rest of Raonic's game is (excluding the serve).

The fact that you don't find the rest of Raonic's game impressive is what should concern you and all of us non Raonic fans. Rafa played well enough to win, couldn't take his chance. Roanic out gutted him and stepped up at key moments. I was very impressed actually. I'm not a fan, but this guy has weapons in his forehand, serve and his volleying is getting better. He was able to stay with Rafa in long rallies as the match progressed. He really believes. Someone like Dimi tries, but he believes. I think Roger will beat him today, but if Raonic were to win that match it would tell me he's ready to win slams

Raonic's net game is horrible. His movement around the net and his touch are quite sub-par. Maybe it is improved as you suggest, but that isn't saying much.

Raonic can win a slam by catching fire at the right time if the circumstances are right just like Cilic did (ie no Nadal, Murray loses early, Roger and Djokovic have shocking performances in the semis, and you face Kei Nishikori in the final). The likelihood of that happening is increasing as the usual suspects' consistency declines. But if you think his game is there as off now I'd strongly disagree.

Raonic's backhand is average at best, and the little things, such as the decision-making as to when to run around it is highly questionable.

Sorry, but the main reason this was anything other than a routine straight set win for Nadal was that awful second serve return on match point.

If people are legitimately impressed with Raonic's game then it's a testament to the state of the tour at the moment.

I believe I said his net game is getting better. I think it's far from horrible, but clearly he's starting to work on it. What I see in him is less about technique although it's definitely improving, but his decision making is much much better. Watch him a few more times and compare to just a year ago. This guy keeps making little adjustments to get better, and that for me is what makes him dangerous. This isn't an Isner or Karlovic, this is a guy who just a year ago would not have been able to handle extended rallies against Rafa, but now he was actually winning some of them. To say that he has the mentality and ambition to win, and the tools under the favourable circumstances to pull it off is not an indictment of the tour. It is an acknowledgement of what is there for all to see.. if you want to see it..:blush:

I'm no fan of his, haven't forgiven him for the cheating incident, but I'm still able to assess his game on its merits..

 

[brokenshoelace]

I believe I said his net game is getting better. I think it's far from horrible, but clearly he's starting to work on it. What I see in him is less about technique although it's definitely improving, but his decision making is much much better. Watch him a few more times and compare to just a year ago. This guy keeps making little adjustments to get better, and that for me is what makes him dangerous. This isn't an Isner or Karlovic, this is a guy who just a year ago would not have been able to handle extended rallies against Rafa, but now he was actually winning some of them. To say that he has the mentality and ambition to win, and the tools under the favourable circumstances to pull it off is not an indictment of the tour. It is an acknowledgement of what is there for all to see.. if you want to see it..:blush:

I'm no fan of his, haven't forgiven him for the cheating incident, but I'm still able to assess his game on its merits..

He's dangerous, he's no Isner or Karlovic and is clearly better.

But if a guy with a phenomenal serve, an allegedly improving but sub-par net game, Okay-ish movement (relative to the elite movers, and obviously it's not his fault given his size), a big but inconsistent forehand, and an average at best backhand is actually a threat to win slams nowadays, it is an indictment of the tour.

Let's be real: Does a guy like Raonic have any chance of winning a major between 2004 and 2013?

That's a 10 season stretch right there in which there is no way that Raonic in his current state would have been considered a threat to win majors. Go deep and cause the occasional upset? Sure. Win? No way.

The fact is, these "favorable circumstances" are likely to be present now because the dominant players are declining but also, because the A-/B+ tier is extremely underwhelming.

Years ago, Raonic in his current state would not even be one of the 8 favorites when you had guys like Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych (yes, Berdych), Tsonga and others. And let's not even get into what would have happened 10 years ago, with Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Dayvdenko, and co...

So yeah, sorry, Raonic being a potential threat to win majors now is a reflection of a weakening tour.

Hopefully, guys like Krygios and others actually deliver because tennis risks being in for a gloomy few years post-Fedal and once Djokovic/Murray start pushing 30, which isn't that far into the future.

That's not me refusing to see Raonic's improvement. That's me refusing to ignore the obvious.

 

[Federberg]

^ I won't disagree that a comparison with the dominance of the Big 3 from 2004 - 13 would be unfavourable for Raonic, but come on.. you could say that when putting up any player from almost any era against those 3!

I would rather just look at his chances in the next few years without resorting to comparisons with such titans. It's unfair, and not really to the point. The point is that he has a good chance to win slams in the next few years, based on his improvement trajectory. It's entirely possible that he'll clean up some of the weaknesses in his game, although movement will never be up to scratch given his size.

But to dismiss him would be like looking at Vettel 5 years ago and shaking your head saying he's no Senna? It's just not the point in my view. You're in danger of making me sound like a fan.. I'm not.. can't stand the guy, I don't even particularly like watching him play. But I have to respect the improvements he's trying to get into his game

 

[nehmeth]

But if a guy with a phenomenal serve, an allegedly improving but sub-par net game, Okay-ish movement (relative to the elite movers, and obviously it's not his fault given his size), a big but inconsistent forehand, and an average at best backhand is actually a threat to win slams nowadays, it is an indictment of the tour.

Question here. With the level of racquet and string technology today, wouldn't speeding up the courts ensure that these types of players would win regularly?

 

[Federberg]

^that's a very good point nehmeth. If court speeds are faster the Raonic's of this world would probably have more success. Perhaps it's less an indictment of the tour and its supposedly high level and just the circumstances that exist right now. Let's face it, one of my all time favourite players Stefan Edberg had an extremely limited forehand, even I have to admit that he would probably be killed at the moment with sustained base line play. I mean.. even Murray's forehand looks better than his!

 

[mrzz]

Ok, well, how about I try merry words, and smmoooth......


...............................jazz?

Hahaha, very nice try, Moxie.

 

[mrzz]

Years ago, Raonic in his current state would not even be one of the 8 favorites when you had guys like Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych (yes, Berdych), Tsonga and others. And let's not even get into what would have happened 10 years ago, with Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Dayvdenko, and co...

So yeah, sorry, Raonic being a potential threat to win majors now is a reflection of a weakening tour.

Honestly, I do not think that the Raonic "supporters" here think he is a threat to win majors just now. Ok, maybe an outside threat. I think most consider him a "future" threat, and in this "future" people are projecting that he keeps improving, as he has been doing.

And don't forget that most people here give a lot of credit to his resolve to win (me included). A cold blooded big server with an OK all around game would be a threat on fast surfaces in any era, I would guess. The only exception to the rule is an era which contains a prime Federer, who is the ultimate big server killer (and still a very good one).

Anyway, I agree with the tour level analysis. But there are a lot of health issues affecting this, maybe more than the expected average.

Btw, I am very far from rooting for Raonic too...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I won't disagree that a comparison with the dominance of the Big 3 from 2004 - 13 would be unfavourable for Raonic, but come on.. you could say that when putting up any player from almost any era against those 3!

I would rather just look at his chances in the next few years without resorting to comparisons with such titans. It's unfair, and not really to the point. The point is that he has a good chance to win slams in the next few years, based on his improvement trajectory. It's entirely possible that he'll clean up some of the weaknesses in his game, although movement will never be up to scratch given his size.

But to dismiss him would be like looking at Vettel 5 years ago and shaking your head saying he's no Senna? It's just not the point in my view. You're in danger of making me sound like a fan.. I'm not.. can't stand the guy, I don't even particularly like watching him play. But I have to respect the improvements he's trying to get into his game

Notice how I explicitly didn't limit my conversation to "the 3 titans" and brought up Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, others. That's what my whole argument is founded upon. Raonic isn't even in their league. Forget about the top 3.

The F1 analogy is ludicrous so I'm leaving that one alone.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But if a guy with a phenomenal serve, an allegedly improving but sub-par net game, Okay-ish movement (relative to the elite movers, and obviously it's not his fault given his size), a big but inconsistent forehand, and an average at best backhand is actually a threat to win slams nowadays, it is an indictment of the tour.

Question here. With the level of racquet and string technology today, wouldn't speeding up the courts ensure that these types of players would win regularly?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

A) No surface speed would ever "ensure" that Raonic wins because Raonic and winning is never a "sure" thing, if you catch my drift. Even on faster surfaces, give me Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro, any day of the week. And yeah, give me Nadal, Murray, Djokovic (actual US Open and Wimbledon champions) any day of the week. I've seen Nadal vs. Raonic on faster surfaces and it wasn't pretty. Raonic actually struggles more in the rallies because he doesn't have time to line up his shots and his movement gets exposed quicker since once Nadal pulls the trigger he can't get back in the rally. The serve would be even more difficult to deal with obviously, but that's sort of a given when playing Raonic, on any surface.

B) The reason I don't understand the question is I don't get how it's relevant to what I'm saying. My issue with Raonic's current skill set will be present irrespective of surfaces. Faster surfaces won't make his backhand or movement any better.

 

[Federberg]

It's not ludicrous, it makes perfect sense. No worries if you disagree, that's what forum debates are all about.

The idea that Raonic is not in Tsonga or Berdych's league IS ludicrous however..

 

[brokenshoelace]

^that's a very good point nehmeth. If court speeds are faster the Raonic's of this world would probably have more success. Perhaps it's less an indictment of the tour and its supposedly high level and just the circumstances that exist right now. Let's face it, one of my all time favourite players Stefan Edberg had an extremely limited forehand, even I have to admit that he would probably be killed at the moment with sustained base line play. I mean.. even Murray's forehand looks better than his!

Yeah Edberg and Murray in the same sentence as Raonic! Please, let's move on from more awful analogies and focus on the issue at hand:

OK, let's say surfaces are as fast as they were in the 90's.

Does Raonic have a chance if you put him in say, 2004, 2005 or 2006? Forget winning majors because one guy had a stranglehold on them. Let's talk about making finals. You'd pick him over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko? Really? Please, save me the "supposedly" high level nonsense, there's nothing "supposed" about it. It's an indisputable fact.

Of course the real elephant in the room is Raonic just beat Nadal so any attempt at criticizing him is immediately attempted to be counter-balanced by the usual suspects in fear of another Nadal loss being attributed to Nadal's level and seeing his opponent discredited. As a result, we read the most ludicrous suggestions and beating around the bush.

The truth is my issues with Raonic's game are irrespective of the Nadal match. That was one match. It doesn't affect the general narrative.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's not ludicrous, it makes perfect sense. No worries if you disagree, that's what forum debates are all about.

The idea that Raonic is not in Tsonga or Berdych's league IS ludicrous however..

No, the F1 analogy is flat out ridiculous because Sebastian Vettel was the best driver in the world during that five year stretch and winning the title every year. Raonic is a top 10 player who's never made a Grand Slam semi final. It's a flawed analogy at best. One has proven his brilliance...the other is someone who, by your admission, needs the right circumstances to maybe make a major final. It's an absolutely preposterous comparison.

As far as Berdych and Tsonga...we're talking about guys who actually made it to a Grand Slam final, and were quite consistent in making it deep at majors (especially Berdych). We're also talking about guys with a far more complete, less flawed game than Raonic.

Tsonga's serve isn't in Raonic's league but it's deadly. His forehand is better, he's a far better athlete, moves better, has a better backhand, and an infinitely better touch. As off now, he's also had the better results, so until Raonic proves otherwise, the only ludicrous thing here is your willfully obtuse arguments.

 

[Federberg]

It's not ludicrous, it makes perfect sense. No worries if you disagree, that's what forum debates are all about.

The idea that Raonic is not in Tsonga or Berdych's league IS ludicrous however..

No, the F1 analogy is flat out ridiculous because Sebastian Vettel was the best driver in the world during that five year stretch and winning the title every year. Raonic is a top 10 player who's never made a Grand Slam semi final. It's a flawed analogy at best. One has proven his brilliance...the other is someone who, by your admission, needs the right circumstances to maybe make a major final. It's an absolutely preposterous comparison.

As far as Berdych and Tsonga...we're talking about guys who actually made it to a Grand Slam final, and were quite consistent in making it deep at majors (especially Berdych). We're also talking about guys with a far more complete, less flawed game than Raonic.

Tsonga's serve isn't in Raonic's league but it's deadly. His forehand is better, he's a far better athlete, moves better, has a better backhand, and an infinitely better touch. As off now, he's also had the better results, so until Raonic proves otherwise, the only ludicrous thing here is your willfully obtuse arguments.

My reference was about before he became a world champion... when he started out, it would have been too easy to dismiss him because he's no Senna. But who could be.. anyway.. getting caught up with detail and not the larger point is fruitless..

I'm willing to state right here and now that I think Raonic stands a better chance of winning a slam than Berdych and Tsonga. Having a more complete game is always helpful, but having the mentality of a winner is far more important in my view. Something Raonic has. Time will tell!

And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Raonic get to the Wimbledon semi last year? :snicker

 

[mrzz]

F1 analogies are not good because of the car/driver combination. The day we start saying that player A won because of racquet X, then we can start the topic again.

Anyway I see that Federberg's point had nothing to do with F1 per se, but rather with the cross-eras comparison. But this is exactly Broken's point, so...

 

[Federberg]

^that's a fair point mrzz I was fairly sure my point was obvious, glad you got it! But I can concede the car/driver combo might taint the analogy.

 

[herios]

Broken sounds like he is just pissed off that Raonic defeated the all mighty Rafa. Therefore he is now trashing Milos left and right.
So be it, little do I care.
I will just enjoy it whenever the guy with the "horrible" game will defeat the "butt picker", and others who he considers better players than him.