MikeOne wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
MikeOne wrote:
<blockquote>
Broken_shoelace wrote:
FYI, Roger vs. Novak on fast hards is only 50/50 now. If Roger were in his prime he’d have a significant edge.
it’s not that simple. Murray used to kind of own Roger many years ago but lately, Roger had owned him. So using your logic, someone would think ‘If Roger owns Murray now, he would have utterly owned him many years ago’. This, obviously, is not true. So this logic simply doesn’t quite work. Remember, even a pre-prime Nadal was beating Roger on hard courts back during 04-06 and even though it has always been a match-up issue, Rafa was not very good 0n hard courts pre 09, he got much better post 09. Roger used to play a more defensive game back then, rallying more and making opponents miss more. Today, Roger is more offensive and has shortened points, he has changed his game a bit over the years. Roger beats Novak when he plays very offensive and even though he is more inconsistent, he has a better chance of beating Novak playing this style than the style he employed during 04-06. As i point above, Murray had more success against Roger many years ago, when Roger played more defensively and tried to rally more; today, Murray is dusted by Roger often, with his new more recent style. Murray has made Roger look better with age and whilst we know roger’s prime is behind him, his game today matches up better against Andy and Novak, IMO.</blockquote>
The early H2H between Murray and Federer was always kind of misleading. Andy won a few best of 3 set matches but Roger wiped the floor with him in the majors. The past few years we’ve seen Murray win a couple huge matches against Roger but overall Fed has won most of the smaller matches as well as the last two major matchups. Your point is not without merit though. What it comes down to is Murray just isn’t aggressive enough vs. Roger. Even now in longer rallies I don’t think Roger feels like he has to press too much vs. Andy. And I do think Roger serves better than he did in his prime and is playing more aggressive as you mentioned. Basically Andy is struggling to expose Roger’s loss of movement and consistency as compared to the other elite players and even lesser players Novak is a far different story for Roger. Federer has to avoid long rallies at all costs vs. Novak in large part because he doesn’t move as well and he is far easier to push out of position than Nole is and he is also likely to be the first one to miss. Roger’s improved serve and more aggressive game do not make up the difference for what he’s lost IMO. Also a huge factor in that matchup is Roger usually struggles badly on the return. That is the most overlooked aspect of Roger’s decline, it is much easier to win free points off of him than it used to be.</blockquote>
good post, unlike broken who uses simpleton arguments. I think Novak is a rhythm player who likes longer rallies where he can use his superb ball placement, depth and take time away from opponents by taking ball early. He is a bit like Agassi, with much greater defensive abilities. I think Roger today has a very different approach than the tactics he employed back during 04-06. Today he definitely tries to avoid long rallies, comes to net more and tried to serve bigger. This strategy is what i think troubles Djokovic as it disrupts his rhythm. Roger was a very capable offensive player during 04-06 but he had a very different mind set, he felt comfortable engaging opponents in longer rallies and winning by playing consistently and varying his shots, using angles. This strategy got him in trouble against Nadal cause Nadal was able to hang with him and eventual find his bh. Roger tried to counter this by attacking Rafa more but he usually ended up making many UFEs. Whilst Nadal was able to counter Roger’s variety and tactics, most couldn’t and often Roger beat opponents by just being consistent and using defense. How many times did we see Roger engage Hewitt, Blake, Roddick and others in very long rallies, making them drown in UFEs? He did this often and today i seldom see him doing this. When he was on he used a lot of offense too but he really did rely on his consistency and defense much more back then. I believe his 04-06 tactics wouldn’t translate to him doing better against post 11 Djokovic, who knows. Today he is more inconsistent but when he’s playing well, his tactics are more effective vs Djokovic. I don’t think getting into longer rallies and trying to outsmart, outlast Novak would produce positive results more often than his current tactics produce. He really is a different player and although less consistent, more dangerous when he’s on. Just look at his Cincinatti-US Open run this year, never during 04-06 did he have such a Cinci-USO run where he served so well, never. I’m not sure 04-06 Roger would’ve beaten Djokovic and Murray like he did during that run, that was high octane attacking, big serving tennis. let’s also analyze the H2H. Novak first beat Federer back in 07, i believe on indoors. This was baby Djokovic vs prime fed so can i say ‘If baby Djokovic could beat prime roger, what would today’s Djokovic do to 04-06 Federer’? Back then prime federer had a handful with baby Novak and we all know baby Novak destroyed Roger in 08 AO too. Point is, pre-prime Novak was giving prime roger fits.. I don’t believe Roger was far from his prime in 07 or 08, that’s BS.. He didn’t suddenly become old 1 or 2 years after 06, his best year ever. So BABY novak was beginning to trouble prime fed and this was a Novak way before his prime. This is why these simpleton arguments of ‘if roger is 50/50 against Nole now, imagine 04-06 Roger’ really hold no water and can be easily flipped into an contrarian argument. We can do the same with Andy. Baby Andy beat Roger back in 06 at Cincy if i recall. Using a simpleton argument, we would think today’s Andy, almost 10 years later, would surely be annihilating Federer. Well, what has roger done to Murray at slams recently? annihilation.. (Wimby and USO) and he has destroyed him elsewhere as-well. 06 Roger just played a different game of cat and mouse and whilst it was a more consistent game, it wasn’t necessarily the best tactics against players like Murray and Djokovic.</blockquote>
Dude, please don’t fire shots after making silly posts. Simpleton arguments? Coming from the guy who said Murray used to own Federer? And said Federer was more “defensive� LOL. Just because he played longer rallies (because he actually can and wasn’t a 33 year old man), doesn’t mean he was more defensive. Federer keeps the rallies short against Novak now because he has to. He can’t rally with him since he no longer has the same movement, stamina or consistency. But back in the day when Fed could glide around the court and every time he ran around his backhand the point was as good as over, on a fast court like the US Open which Federer owned? You’re telling me the Federer of today, who almost literally has no shot in longer rallies against Novak, has a better chance against Djokovic than 2006 Federer? I use simple arguments? Coming from the guy whose arguments revolved around “longer rallies = Novak wins� Please. Remember 2011? When Roger blitzed Novak in the first two sets at the US Open before running out of gas and had to conserve energy for the fifth (which he should have won)? We’re talking about someone who, at worst, is the second greatest fast hard court player of all time, against Djokovic, who was always hit and miss on fast hards. Remember Fed losing to Murray or Nishikori in his prime at the US Open? Neither do I. Then again, you live in a world where Djokovic post 2011 would beat the greatest clay courter of all time at the height of his powers on clay.
