Radek Stepanek Officially Joins Team Djokovic

[brokenshoelace]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

How can you tell me with any certainty Fed and Rafa are not as great now? I think it's possible they are greater now. Smarter, fitter, just as hungry. Playing with more experience and more shots and refined weaknesses.

There's nothing about providing tennis opinions that can be said with certainty, however, I'm doing my best to provide arguments instead of general, vague statements.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

To my eyes, and the results certainly support the notion, Fed and Rafa both played incredible tennis this year and quite possibly it was their best seasons. In Miami I asked Del Potro if Fed is better now or earlier in is career and he wasn't sure either. That article is archived somewhere on the site. So far I have not heard one single top player or any player say that Fed is not as good now as he was in his younger days. Not one. But if you want to be the authority to tell us that Fed is not as great now as he was, same with Rafa, you are free to share that opinion.

 

[Fiero425]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Not related: But Jan Michael Gambill's brother is in a heap of trouble... http://www.krem.com/news/local/spok...suspect-i-didnt-lay-a-finger-on-her/495253047

Very disappointing! Talk about taint! Jan Michael is such a nice guy and a real doll! Shocking! o_O

 

[brokenshoelace]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

To my eyes, and the results certainly support the notion, Fed and Rafa both played incredible tennis this year and quite possibly it was their best seasons. In Miami I asked Del Potro if Fed is better now or earlier in is career and he wasn't sure either. That article is archived somewhere on the site. So far I have not heard one single top player or any player say that Fed is not as good now as he was in his younger days. Not one. But if you want to be the authority to tell us that Fed is not as great now as he was, same with Rafa, you are free to share that opinion.

I am no authority to tell you how well Federer and Nadal are playing (but I actually bother to offer arguments, instead of just using superlatives), but I do believe anyone, myself included, has the authority to point out that the results certainly DO NOT support that they've had their best seasons. This isn't even subjective as we can simply compare Nadal's results this year to his results in 2010 and 2013, and compare Federer's results this year to his results in say, 2006, and we deduce that those seasons were better. Unless you have the authority to change math and inform us that winning 2 majors is better than winning 3, and not winning the WTF is better than winning it. In which case, sure, yeah, you're right.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Federer's backhand is much better now than it was then. Nadal is more offensive now and not all defense and grinding. Yes I do think it's possible both are actually better today. Smarter, fitter, more experience, and incredibly both are still so driven and hungry for more success. Nadal's burning desire this year looked more intense than I have ever seen it before. Yes I think they actually "want it" more now than ever before. Federer too. Their competitive fires have never been stronger. Physical peaks in top athletes have changed, Klitschko brothers were both dominant in their late 30s. Bernard Hopkins was still elite world class in his late 40s. Jaromir Jagr is still an NHL force over age 40. Yes I think Fed and Rafa are at their best now. I don't see any physical decline at all. Even when Fed was asked if he's better now than before, he's not sure. He said in some ways he's better now. I will dig up the exact quotes he said in Miami when Peter Bodo asked him.

 

[Mastoor]

I am so happy that both Agassi and Stepanek are in his team. They started with training a week ago and Nole announced many innovations in his game, so i guess he wanted to imply we need to be patient to see the best things from him.

 

[mrzz]

I am so happy that both Agassi and Stepanek are in his team. They started with training a week ago and Nole announced many innovations in his game, so i guess he wanted to imply we need to be patient to see the best things from him.

Hey, Mastoor, haven't seen you post about tennis in a while!

Innovations? I always wanted to see him playing with a one handed backhand! Seriously... did someone mention something specific? Or rather do you have some idea of what could it be?

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Mastoor I can easily see Djokovic regaining no. 1 and dominating again. Agassi and Stepanek are born winners and I'm sure they will do everything humanly possible to rebuild their broken titan.

 

[Ricardo]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Federer's backhand is much better now than it was then. Nadal is more offensive now and not all defense and grinding. Yes I do think it's possible both are actually better today. Smarter, fitter, more experience, and incredibly both are still so driven and hungry for more success. Nadal's burning desire this year looked more intense than I have ever seen it before. Yes I think they actually "want it" more now than ever before. Federer too. Their competitive fires have never been stronger. Physical peaks in top athletes have changed, Klitschko brothers were both dominant in their late 30s. Bernard Hopkins was still elite world class in his late 40s. Jaromir Jagr is still an NHL force over age 40. Yes I think Fed and Rafa are at their best now. I don't see any physical decline at all. Even when Fed was asked if he's better now than before, he's not sure. He said in some ways he's better now. I will dig up the exact quotes he said in Miami when Peter Bodo asked him.

If they are both at their peak game and physique-wise, why do they produce much inferior results compared to their best years? don't tell me competition improved, if anything this year we have seen top players in hiding like never before. It has not happened in history of the game that a player is literally BETTER at 36 than when he was 26. Nothing wrong with promoting Fedal but come on let's be realistic.

 

[mrzz]

If you take the whole year in consideration, 2016 Federer is quite far away from, say, 2005 Federer -- even if, yes, some aspects of his game improved. But what I guess confuses a bit the picture is that in some particular tournaments Federer looked monstrously good -- Australian Open and IW come to mind. I recently rewatched some long highlights of the Berdych match at AO and the shots there were just absurd. But the thing is that he hardly repeated such performances in the second half of the year.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I cannot say that this was his best season, but his success rate this season, makes it one of the best seasons of his life. I am not going to rank them but this has been one crazy season.

Won 7 out of 12 tournaments entered (58%)
Won 5 out of 8 big tournaments entered (62%)
91.23% win rate
AO + Sunshine double
2 slams
3 masters
4-0 against Nadal (only mentioned to bring out the uniqueness)
GS final win against Nadal

This was better than 2009.

Better seasons were 04-07.

So this was the 5th best season of his life.

I went by the no. of slams first and then the masters titles won in a season.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

I can't say for sure Fed's highest level of play came this year. But you can't say it didn't.

 

[Fiero425]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

I can't say for sure Fed's highest level of play came this year. But you can't say it didn't.

Even with the added competition, I can't say Fed's playing at his highest level now! His schedule was curtailed this past season, 2 other top players were gone half the year and injured before leaving, but he still only took 2 majors when he won 3 in 3 other seasons! If he had continued his roll through the FO, it might have totally changed the dynamics of the season; win/losses for other players would also be made different than it occurred! No doubt this past season was magical for Fed, but only because he went 5 years with nothing but runner-up checks at the majors and YEC! SORRY! :whistle:

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you take the whole year in consideration, 2016 Federer is quite far away from, say, 2005 Federer -- even if, yes, some aspects of his game improved. But what I guess confuses a bit the picture is that in some particular tournaments Federer looked monstrously good -- Australian Open and IW come to mind. I recently rewatched some long highlights of the Berdych match at AO and the shots there were just absurd. But the thing is that he hardly repeated such performances in the second half of the year.

There were matches at the Australian Open where Roger played some of his absolute best tennis ever (Berdych comes to mind, as does the final set against Nadal)...but when you look at the Wawrinka semi, where he really was lucky to win and looked pretty mediocre, it's the sort of performance that would have never ever ever happened in his prime in the semi finals of a major. And of course, on a match-to-match, week in and week out basis, Roger isn't anywhere near the best he's ever been.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Okay this might not have been the greatest season of Federer's career but he still might have played his greatest highest level of tennis this year. Those four in a row dominant wins over Nadal, the No. 1 player for the year, were very impressive and a feat Fed never accomplished before, beating a top form Nadal FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Okay this might not have been the greatest season of Federer's career but he still might have played his greatest highest level of tennis this year. Those four in a row dominant wins over Nadal, the No. 1 player for the year, were very impressive and a feat Fed never accomplished before, beating a top form Nadal FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

Tennis can be really vague at times. When you say prime Nadal, some could say he never primed up opposite Federer in those 4 matches. But could it not be because Roger was totally in his head everytime by virtue of the upperhand he had over him in this mental aspect this year.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Shivashish; Rafa "never primed up" - maybe because Federer prevented him from playing his best. Because we know Rafa is the best player in the world this year and he always tries to play his very best. He just couldn't do it vs Federer.

 

[mrzz]

There were matches at the Australian Open where Roger played some of his absolute best tennis ever (Berdych comes to mind, as does the final set against Nadal)...but when you look at the Wawrinka semi, where he really was lucky to win and looked pretty mediocre, it's the sort of performance that would have never ever ever happened in his prime in the semi finals of a major. And of course, on a match-to-match, week in and week out basis, Roger isn't anywhere near the best he's ever been.

We are in agreement I know but I would not say "lucky" for the Wawrinka match. He was half a step slower (which adds up to our general point) but on the fifth set he saved the early break points by his own merit. The potential crucial break on the fifth game (just rewatched the last set) was saved on a Wawrinka error, but they were both exchanging deep and high back hands and Wawrinka was the first to miss (that is, it was not an easy volley at the net), so he saved that on merit. He broke on the very next game on a poor game by Wawrinka, but he forced the issue on all returns (fast returns to the body), and had some merit there. The break came on a double fault, at 15-40, so that was a gift (but, as I said, he was forcing the return). From then on it was one way traffic. All this to say, it was by the skin of his teeth, but "lucky" is a bit unfair.

Anyway my point here is different (and again in agreement with our general point). I just rewatched long bits of the 2004 US Open final. What a f*ck!!! That is the very definition of winners out of nowhere. Two 6-0 sets in a major final against a major winner, who was playing his usual level. That was just absurd. The 2017 backhand maybe is 10% better, but the 2004 forehand is on another planet.

 

[brokenshoelace]

We are in agreement I know but I would not say "lucky" for the Wawrinka match. He was half a step slower (which adds up to our general point) but on the fifth set he saved the early break points by his own merit. The potential crucial break on the fifth game (just rewatched the last set) was saved on a Wawrinka error, but they were both exchanging deep and high back hands and Wawrinka was the first to miss (that is, it was not an easy volley at the net), so he saved that on merit. He broke on the very next game on a poor game by Wawrinka, but he forced the issue on all returns (fast returns to the body), and had some merit there. The break came on a double fault, at 15-40, so that was a gift (but, as I said, he was forcing the return). From then on it was one way traffic. All this to say, it was by the skin of his teeth, but "lucky" is a bit unfair.

"Lucky" is always unfair because matches are never won due to a single reason, and there are two opponents sharing the court (meaning someone would have to do something right, someone would have to do something wrong, etc...). Even if something insane happens like a terrible call by the lines-judge on a breakpoint or something, you can always argue that "lucky" or "unlucky" are unfair terms because there were plenty of other points played. In short, you know what I mean... I'm sure a Stan fan would call your assessment very one-sided (and it sort of is) because they can point out to Stan playing well below his level, and at some key points in the game, not through Roger's doing... Basically, Roger was there for the taking and Stan failed to capitalize. I guess that's a more diplomatic way of putting it.

 

[Federberg]

"Lucky" is always unfair because matches are never won due to a single reason, and there are two opponents sharing the court (meaning someone would have to do something right, someone would have to do something wrong, etc...). Even if something insane happens like a terrible call by the lines-judge on a breakpoint or something, you can always argue that "lucky" or "unlucky" are unfair terms because there were plenty of other points played. In short, you know what I mean... I'm sure a Stan fan would call your assessment very one-sided (and it sort of is) because they can point out to Stan playing well below his level, and at some key points in the game, not through Roger's doing... Basically, Roger was there for the taking and Stan failed to capitalize. I guess that's a more diplomatic way of putting it.

You have to factor in the mental variable in that match up. Stan has only ever beaten Roger on clay. Saying Federer was lucky is as futile as saying he was unlucky many times against Rafa. At a certain point we just have to bow to the data