Roger Federer and Juan Martin Del Potro will be squaring off for the 21st time in their careers and for the first time in more than three years when they collide in the Miami Open third round on Monday.
Federer is leading the head-to-head series 15-5, although it is a more competitive 10-5 on hard courts. After losing three in a row against the Argentine during a stretch from 2012 to 2013, the Swiss prevailed 6-3, 4-6, 6-3 at the 2013 Paris Masters and shortly thereafter at the World Tour Finals in London via a 4-6, 7-6(2), 7-5 decision.
Fast forward to 2017 and Federer is still going strong at 35 years old. In fact, he is arguably playing some of the best tennis of his illustrious career right now. The world No. 6 captured his 18th Grand Slam title at the Australian Open and is coming off another triumph at the Indian Wells Masters. Federer is 14-1 this season following a 7-6(2), 6-3 victory over Frances Tiafoe on Saturday.
This marks another dreadful draw for Del Potro, who is under-ranked at No. 34 in the world and therefore seeded lower than he should be at just about any tournament he enters. The 2009 U.S. Open champion lost to Novak Djokovic in the Acapulco second round and the Indian Wells third round, and now it is Federer who stands in his way prior to the last 16. Del Potro booked his spot in this showdown by beating Robin Haase 6-2, 6-4 on Saturday night.
“I would love to play against him,” Federer said of the 29th seed before the match against Haase had taken place. “I’m happy for him with his comeback, winning at Davis Cup. I should have played him here last year but I was sick. That was a pity.
“It’s better to play him his time around when we’re both better. He was also just on the comeback last year. We’ve had some epic matches against each other: semis at the French (in 2009); Olympic semis (in 2012); finals at the U.S. Open (2009). You name it–we’ve had some really good ones. I’m sure the crowd would love to see it.”
Although the South American-heavy crowd in Miami loves Del Potro, Federer’s fan support at this event–and every other–is second to none. The fans will likely be treated to another win, too, because Federer is still hitting his backhand better and more consistently than at any point during his recent career.
Taking the ball early, the No. 4 seed should be able to dictate the majority of baseline rallies and keep the ball just enough to Del Potro’s vulnerable backhand.
Pick: Federer in 2
[polldaddy poll=9706561]
WWW?
Fed in 3
Tsame as Dimonator.
However I’m now curious who Ricky originally thought would beat #GOAT2.0 before the quarters in his original tournament picks ?.
#Rhetorical
i had Withdraw beating him in straight sets
Was not a bad pick. He would have beaten him too had you not picked him.
However I’m curious who Ricky currently thinks will win Miami?
Aside: Shapovalov has beaten IW Murray slayer Pospisil and How Many Times JJ in succession at a challenger this week to make the final.
with Raonic and Dimitrov out, I have Fed over Nadal
Good. Me too.
You still believe Rafa can get to final??
look at the draw….
Look at the draw? Look at Kohl, what problem he can give to Rafa! We still have Mahut, Sock and Kei!
Roger should prevail but it could go to three sets. Delpo can outhit anyone when on fire, however federer knows how to contain his power and hopefully he’ll be able to do it again. Here is a wonderful article on roger, rafa and djokovic …. enjoy …. http://www.138mph.com/decoding-the-big-three-murray/
I have Fed beating Nish in the final.Glad to see he survived,but I also had Milos going far..
I have Stan over whoever.
I hope Delpo’s mindset is right for this match! Most of the players have too much respect for Fed to fight hard.,,Delpo’s ground strokes can hurt Fed and if he serves well he can make this competitive…
Fed will prevail in the end..Fed in 3
Fed in two
Agree with Benny.
This is not your 2009 Delpo.
#DampSquib
Roger had better not get too confident in his baseline game against delpo. He needs to mix it up, and keep to first-strike tennis. The worst thing he can do is try to slug it out. The other minor worry is that Fed’s 1st serve is not quite up to its usual standard. The second serve is slightly better, but he needs that 1st serve pct. to stay high. A bad serving day and he could easily be out. Also, none of the top players have their usual psychological edge against del Potro: they all know he can beat them when he is on top of his game. That said, edge is still to Fed in his current form.
Fed in straight…maybe 5 & 4.
?
Roger will get through this one somehow but seeing nadal’s performance against kohlschrieber there might not be a Fed v/s Nadal final. Nadal did not play that great but Kohlschrieber’s level dropped disastrously in the 2nd and 3rd set.
Fed getting to final or not is not dependent on Nadal. Fed had to get through his side of the draw first!
*Fed has to…
It’s typical of Kohl, he normally played well in a set and then tailed off. It happened vs Rafa, Djoko and Fed too. Kohl isn’t an easy opponent, it’s just that he couldn’t sustain his high level of play for long, if not he would be in the top ten already by now.
He had also taken a set off Fed at Basel, Halle and Wimbledon, all of Fed’s fav tournaments.
Fed in straights
Fed really trying to take time away from Delpo. He is ultra aggressive. Look at those backhand returns. Players need to realize they NEED to shake the patterns up a bit.
I was going to say the sane thing. Are players not realising what we are able to ? Players are again and again serving to feds bh and fed is crushing returns off that wing by coming over it
Sanju, these players are so much used to those patterns and they believe they are winning patterns for them as well. It is not easy to all of a sudden switch them without actually realizing yourself on the court that they are not working that well.
In my view players should still keep majority of the balls to Fed’s backhand but just mix it up a bit more.
hahaha Juan martinnnnnn ! what reflexes. That was a fun point. 1-1
The crowd is chanting Delpo Delpo after the point.
Really dumb play by Roger in that first service game by delpo. He tries to do too much on the return too many times, and then misses easy cross-court passes. Sometimes he gets too much caught up in himself on the court; as a consequence, he wasted two break chances. Amazing reflexes by Juan, though.
yeah Roger was overdoing it a bit.
Delpo finally learnt the lesson and throws to big serves to fed’s forehand. 2-2
Most important thing against Roger is not to let him get into a rhythm. And stretching him wide on the FH is a good idea. It’s never easy moving toward that wing, and harder at 35, especially with a delpo missile coming at you.
Rogers 35 is 29 to the rest of the top players.
Age means little.
That was exquisite from Roger. But again, Delpo keeps throwing flat serves to Fed’s backhand and he is waiting!!!
Okay that was cheap from Fed. Deuce
Razor-sharp focus from the Argentine. 3-3. Delpo getting a lot of first serves in when he needs them.
This Fed is so much more competent at the net than the 2006 Fed
This Fed would be competitive with any previous version.
Hell yeah it would!
Nah, this Fed would lose to a peak Rafa or a peak Fed, when both were much quicker and more powerful than this Fed. A 19 yo Tiafoe who served big, hit hard and ran fast could force a TB on this Fed, figure how younger Rafa and Fed who were at least a 100 time better than this Tiafoe would do against this current old man Fed.
That’s mostly the bigger racquet. It improves the serve, the BH and the volley. And Fed is not faster at 35 than 25; no one is. On balance, this version of Fed may be as good as any previous version. Put a larger racquet in the hands of 25 year old Fed, and the younger version would win, probably comfortably.
No one said he was faster.
Please read more carefully.
#Strawman
Younger one would outlast him more often but this one is a more complete player. He is tactically more sound as well. The improved net game is NOT because of the racket. He has worked really hard to improve his net game and it was Edberg who finally put his volley skills right up there. It is not only about the volleys. Net game encompasses more. This fed is a more competent net rusher than the 2006-07 version.
#GOAT2.0 plays too fast to be outlasted.
Larger racquet makes everything easier and it makes having a complete game easier. Lateral movement (what you need to reach wide shots) is mostly a function of foot-speed. A younger Fed is faster, with better lateral movement and greater ability to reach shots when stretched wide.
If Fed had been enjoying these results the last three years without changing racquets, everyone, including me, would think he was juicing. Top male tennis players do not suddenly get significantly better at the age of 32-33. Fed was playing with substandard equipment for much of his career. The last three years he hasn’t, and only God-mode Novak has been able to beat him consistently, in the biggest matches.
To be clear, I am not comparing Fed as he is now to how he was 10 years ago. I agree that this version may be better on balance. I am entertaining a hypothetical about what he would have been like 10 years ago with a larger racquet (and, obviously, time to practice with it, etc). I don’t see how anyone could deny that hypothetical 25 year old version would be better than today’s version.
No, a bigger racquet is a net benefit with some tradeoffs.
He doesn’t need the same speed with improved serve and more power on his ground strokes.
Jeez man, do you even watch tennis?
You do raise an interesting point.
His improvement was not necessarily sudden.
He was off for exactly six months.
There has never been anyone CLOSE to his level in their mid-30s.
The improved serve and more power on his ground strokes is mostly because of the more powerful racquet (Fed calls it “easy power”). He would have enjoyed those benefits 10 years ago as well. In this case, there are few if any downsides to the new racquet. Maybe FH but I can’t see it. Obviously a much larger racquet would bring new problems. Here’s an interesting take on the benefits an extra inch in width can bring -in tennis!:
http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2006/01/the_inch_that_changed_tennis_f.html
Regarding suddenness, I am not talking about the improvement this year, though I agree that he has improved. That is probably mostly due to the six-months rest and the new coach. Maybe time to clear his head as well. But I am talking about the improvement from early-mid 2014, which I think was fairly sudden and quite noticeable, after an adjustment period.
You miss both points.
#ConfirmatoryBias
Ok, Hawk, I tried to take the high road by giving you one last chance to respond like a grown-up -but you blew it. This is the last time I’ll respond to you, so let me give you a little lesson in confirmation bias. It’s real, certainly -though the way you go on about it you’d think it was a scientific breakthrough on a par with solving quantum gravity. It’s not.
The main thing about confirmation bias is that in the real world it has to be *shown*. It’s not enough to link to some website definition: interesting questions can’t be solved by consulting a dictionary. *Showing* confirmation bias means actually engaging with your opponent. You have to consider their claims, offer counter evidence, and specifically show that they’ve systematically ignored or downplayed a class of relevant data or evidence that would undermine their claim. Others here (e.g. Vamos, Lucky) try to do that. But you’re obviously not interested, and you don’t seem to like being challenged very well. That’s ok; I get it.
So, I await your next glib one-liner, hashtag, or video-clip that reveals a bit of your nasty side (incidentally, I’m a fan of tennis, not tennis players. What happens to Roger Federer personally doesn’t concern me any more than the fate of any other random person -not that I wish any of them ill).
Have fun!
Nah, you make arguments based solely on a biased opinion with preformed conclusions.
And your hastily researched (lack of) “understanding” of confirmatory bias is waaay off and limited at best.
Oh and BTW don’t make promises you can’t keep ?.
VR, the younger peak Rafa and peak Fed would be quicker than this Fed, anticipate better and get to shots quicker with better reflexes and power too.
Fed is playing against an older field now, making him looks good. Against a younger guy like Tiafoe, he was forced into a TB. Tiafoe is definitely not of the same calibre as peak Rafa or peak Fed. The current Delpo isn’t the Delpo of 2009 who was younger, quicker, more powerful and with a formidable FH and also BH that came with easy power.
Djoko isn’t the Djoko of 2015/first half of 2016; Murray is always not a big obstacle for Fed, and so now we are left with only Stan. Stan may be better than Fed on clay now but no way he’s better than Fed on the HCs.
It looks like Fed will at least dominate this early HC season if not also on grass.
Fed is playing against an older field?????
Hahahahahahajaha
He’s much older than all of them!!!!!
#ComfirmatoryBiasIsEverywhere
haha. Juan martin really enjoys hitting backhand slice approach shots. The are usually not good enough though.
Oops 0-30 on Fed serve!
HOLY SHIT. CANNONS from Delpo
Something is fishy in Denmark.
Side note for you, Hawks, that we’ve discussed recently-
Maybe you already know this, but thought I would make sure you know that Fed is, as of now, officially playing Madrid and NOT Monte Carlo…
I didn’t but suspected that would happen.
Roland Garrison will play closer to Madrid than Rome this year.
Calendar slam is still in play.
I guess I should say he is on the ENTRY LIST for Madrid, not on the list for Monte Carlo last I checked. I guess that doesn’t necessarily mean he will definitely Madrid and not Monte Carlo. I, personally, never thought he would play Monte Carlo anyway… My guess is that he will play Rome if he doesn’t go too far in Madrid.
Entry list means he’s now committed.
Can’t back out without penalty unless injured.
I haven’t watched the match. I happened to read somewhere: “Delpo is attended by a physio. Treatment of the left wrist.”
Clinical from Fed. Delpo tried but his forehand is not close to its best level. Esp the running CC forehand. Fed kept him under pressure throughout though! kudos.
So who will stop Fed? I honestly don’t want Rafa to meet him this week lol.
There is only one.
But he’s too “polite” at the moment.
LOL ?
Routine match for #GOAT2.0 over #DELP0.5
No one is even close ATM.
Damp squib as expected.
Congrats to Me.
#GodMode
#Masterclass
#NID
And Muzz has torn his elbow. haha
My only hope is Rafa on clay. Not too confident about that either until I see some good stuff from Rafa.
Also clay will mostly play Madrid Blue this year.
#NID
#CYGS
Congrats @hawks for predicting easy win for Maestro!
Did not see the match, just got back home..but, becomes pretty obvious we are to face weak field filled with those who are either injured or ‘too polite’ to even test the GOAT…
Why weak? Nothing weak about Kygrios, Stan, Kei, Sock. Any of those guys could beat Roger if they’re on top of their game and Fed is a bit off. Didn’t see Rafa yesterday, but everyone says he really stepped it up in the last set. If he sustains that level he can beat Roger too. There is nothing automatic in tennis. What I really don’t understand is anyone who wouldn’t want their player to make the final because they think he might lose. If Rafa makes the final, loses badly to Fed, and his H2H becomes slightly less overwhelmingly in his favour, it’s still a lot better than not making the final. Isn’t it?
Weak because the three winners of more than 80% of slams over the last SEVEN years are injured or not near their best.
You must be more of a golf fan. Am I right?
(Joe probably denies the dreaded Weak Era too. ?)
Thanks hawks! That was exactly my point!
Hello? How many of those players have won slams?
Other than Fed, just a big crybaby who’s on the payroll.
#MirkasRight
Yes, Stan! Big wow! I guess we are supposed to believe the absence of Novak and Murray is no big deal! Just a measly 15 slams between them! The #1 and #2 players in the world out of action.
Stan has 3 slams, all those other guys – 0!
Not winning a slam means you’re a weak player? Roger’s only loss this year is to a player who has never won an ATP tournament, never mind a slam. In what sense is the remaining field weak in a way that would guarantee Fed wins the title? In no sense.
Anecdotal.
Strawman.
Confirmatory bias.
Nothing new.
Actually the reason is that Weak Era does not exist anywhere. The only place where weak era exists is in the head of Rafa fans. The tragedy is that they consider only those years as taugh era where Nadal won multiple grandslams like 2008, 2010 and 2013, else where you would find them labelling as weak era years due to Rafa’s injury, anxiety or slump…bla bla bla…Trust me even if Federer wins calendar slam beating all big 4 in respective finals, you wouls still find them labelling the victories due to ‘weak era’. While they ignore the fact there hasn’t been any weak era except at RG clay where there was abaolutely no competetion apart from Federer upto 2011 and than a littlebit effort from Djokovic post 2011 at RG clay. Apart from Federer upto 2011 and Djokovic from post 2011, there was absolutely crap conpetetion faced by Nadal on RG. Nadal took the biggest advantage of crap competetion at RG over the years. There is absolutely no deny about the brilliance of Rafa at clay, but anyone who watches proper tennia may agree that the competion at RG over the years has been absolutely pathetic apart from Federer upto 2011 and Djokovic onword.
All joking aside Asif.
Do you still think Fed could go undefeated on hard courts this year?
Hawkeye, it was meant to be saying in a funny way considering the way Fed is playing. If course he could be defeated….But wait wait…I hope when he will be defeated again, Hawkeye’s ‘strong era’ will return…Isn’t it?
I reject the whole idea of weak era anything. One could make a case that Federer is one of the greatest clay courters ever; he just happened to come up against a better one. The main point to make against the weak era nonsense -which is limited to Rafa and Novak fanatics- however, is that tennis success is measured in terms of how you do in (the biggest) tournaments. To win a slam you have to beat 7 and it’s never easy. Witness the many times both Rafa and Novak fell, even during their prime, to lesser players at slams.
Absolutely Joe…I agree with you…A true tennia fan would never believe in weak era nonsense…Nature is so perfectly made that the brilliance exists in every era…I mean how many less number of grandslams Federer won compare to Nadal when Nadal won his first slam?
Mine was meant in a funny way too Asif.
Only fed fanatics can think Roger can lose a match on hard court and still be undefeated.
? ? ?
Wow ?. Two fedfans both agreeing that there’s no such thing as the weak era.
What a rare sighting.
Shhh….Denial at work.
Federer had only 4 slams when Nadal won his first slam..A slam winner mean you are in era and competing in that era. So, after Nadal’s first slam win, Federer has won 14 slams but Nadal had won 13 slams…So, I mean….For God sake…..This weak era debate is probabily the biggest mystery being portrayed in a false manner after Bermuda Triangle…
Four players made seven or more slam finals from 2008-13.
In the weak era from 2002-2007, only one made more than four.
That and Thomas Johhannson is undeniable proof of the weak era.
But I forgot your confirmatory bias.
C’mon hawks, weak era ended when Rafa came and made things interesting (2005). If you really wanna play the weak era game, you can’t convince me that 2005-2007 were any weaker than the whole 2nd half of the 90’s. Between the 2005 and 2007, the only guy who won a slam not named Rafa or Federer was Marat Safin who obviously cannot be called weak… I absolutely understand the argument that there was a time where the field was relatively weak, but get out of here with that 2005-2007 was weak garbage… Nobody else won beside Fed and Rafa because they were too good.
Not what I said at all Kev. You a cool guy. Don’t go running strawman arguments putting words in my mouth. I wouldn’t do that to you? 🙂
Defined and backed with irrefutable facts.
Careful, Kevin. You gotta remember: Captain “Hawkeye” Pierce is a sensitive guy. Don’t ruffle his feathers too much or you’ll go from being ‘Kev’ the ‘cool guy’ to being tarred with the dreaded ‘confirmatory bias’ hashtag. Just remember who rules this site, ok?
Hawks, you said “In the weak era between 2002 and 2007”. That includes 2005-2007.
An era is more than just three years now kev.
Hard to conclude much over such a small period of time.
One might be accused of cherry picking.
Damn, Kevin! Now you just fightin’ dirty.
Sorry Joe, as much you might like, I’m not taking sides here. Simply trying to keep this site’s inherent Rafa-bias in check. If this were Tennis-X, I’d be do the same thing with the Fed fanatics. But it just so happens that Tennis-X sucks, and I really enjoy the commentary and entertainment provided by my dude Hawks and the other people on this site! I have no problem with people being Pro-Rafa or Pro-Fed, but I definitely won’t hesitate to speak when I disagree with something, which I’m sure Hawks would appreciate even though he disagrees with me! This site is very Pro-Rafa, so it would be nice to have it be more balanced, as much as some of the Pro-Rafas would hate that. 🙂 There are some people on here who I just haven’t even bothered to call out because they don’t even recognize their bias. Hawks is not one of those. 🙂
Right on kev. This site IS terribly Rafa biased and I’m definitely guilty as charged.
But I like any tennis fan regardless of who they cheer for when they can at least hear where the other person is coming from.
We need more fedfans like yourself and some cool Nole fans too.
I actually don’t mind tennis X because they have a more diverse fan distribution but the moderator is an idiot.
And I call out the crazy rafans when I smell bs just as much as any other fan base.
Just a bit of fun.
Just giving Hawkeye a little back, Kevin. All in good fun, but I’ll try not to drag you into it. Definitely not asking you take sides, and don’t really think of myself on any side, tbh.
I don’t mind giving the Good Cap’n a hard time because he is consistently guilty of what is probably the most common error in reasoning, which is to attack the person rather than what the person says. When you call people names, even if only through a hashtag, or say they’re guilty of confirmation bias without bothering to back it up, those are ad hominem-style attacks. Hawkeye does it most of the time, but particularly when he can’t answer an argument (or can’t be bothered trying). And, even though I’m not going to respond to him personally anymore, I too enjoy the commentary he and other Rafanatics provide. Peace.
Aww poor Joe Myths.
He just are to smrt four mee.
You won’t respond to me anymore huh?
You can’t stop if you tried ?.
Promises, promises.
I complete you. You’re welcome My fan.
Hahahahahaha
Try coming up with something interesting to say and I’ll be more than happy to discuss it but jeez you’re so transparent and close minded. Same tired old arguments with nothing to back it up except for just the parts that fit your confirmatory bias.
#Humb1e
Here’s hoping Kyrgios Kicks Karlovic to the Kurb.
Tickets should be refundable if Karlovic or Isner are playing.
Spectators should be paid to watch them play each other.
Nick has lost just seven points in 11 service games.
Ivo the Eastern Pox on Tennis
Nick is so frustrated with Karlovic ?Unfortunately, the DF in the tiebreak cost him a set. Nick is so much better player out there, yet he ended up losing the second set…that’s what they get when facing one dimensional serve machine..they are indeed ruining tennis…
Both pox on tennis are playing at the same time trying to ruin infinitely more entertaining young guns Kyrgios and Zverev.
Aside: Joe Smith is a misnomer. Should be Joe Myth.
#AlternateFacts
Way to go Nick!
Great patience. No signs of “politeness”.
All aboard the Nick train (or bandwagon if you will).
One Pox cured. One to go.
Vamos Sasha!!!
Could you belive Nick had only 4 UEs in the entire match? He is such a talent and so fun to watch! And he is funny at times…can’t help it, starting to like him again…he makes watching tennis a stress free exercise…
Isner is arguably more boring than Ivo but I could be convinced otherwise.
But probably not by Joe Myths
Isner in Paris end of last year is not more boring but Ivo can be more exciting at times because of his emotion and his net play.
Zverev has survived the Western Pox on ? after a lengthy and honourable battle.
Big cheer from the American crowd.
#GodsCountry
I was really happy to see Zverev beat Isner. That was a tough match and one he could easily have lost. Well done to him!
Two Pox on Tennis cured in one night.
Nobel prize for saving tennis to be shared between Dr. Zverev and Dr. Nick.
Wow, great win by Sasha! Well deserved! Both Sasha and Nick make future champions! It’s just a matter of time! Both of them exhibited some great tennis, really enjoyable to watch…Bravo!
Yes, at least Karlovic has some net game; more entertaining than Isner. But good to see both Kyrgios and Zverev through.
just watching Schwartzman vs Goffin and was curious to see how tall Diego is because he looks pretty short to me…so I went to my ATP application and checked bios and for Schwartz height says N/A…?
5 foot 7. Part of me wanted to see him play Karlovic.
?
Knew a short guy once who liked to say: “tall man, short man” as he moved his hand from a position with forefinger sticking up and thumb pointing out to one with thumb pointing up and forefinger sticking out. Maybe Schwartzmann could use it for some motivation against the giants on tour these days.
Oh my God!Rog perfomance was incredible against Delpo!Very very aggressive…and i picked rafa in my Bracket!…Ermm,i think i’ve been stupid!hehehe….
Yes, Mira. Roger was very good today; I think a bit too aggressive at times and maybe gave del Potro more chances than he should have. As for Rafa, that was a reasonable call and may yet come true. At this point, I’m picking Jack Sock, but if Rafa can get by him, I think he will make the final.
Oh really Joe?I mean if Rafa can pass Jack’s test..there’s still Kei[supposedly] in semi and from our dear poster’s comments rafa has no chance whatsoever against kei![although i’ll stick with my opinion that they’re judging rafa much too soon and not to mention underestimated him]…oh,btw..are u a Rog fan joe?
Thanks for asking, Mira. I am certainly a fan of Roger’s tennis. I like his attacking style. But I do like matches which highlight contrasting playing styles, so like most people I particularly enjoy Rafa-Roger matches. I think Nadal often gains steam during a tournament, so if he makes the semis I think he will have enough to beat Kei (if Kei makes it). I’m curious, because Rafa seems to inspire his fans more than any other player: why do you like Rafa so much?
Hehehe…Good question joe!!..No one ask me that before,it’s a tough question!..Actually,when i first saw him,i’m fascinated with his style…long hair,rugged,sleeveless t shirt[not because of his bulging biceps!Nope!]…very determined attitude..and most of all..i love when he’s always make a very incredible passing winner from all over the court..that’s what i love most about him…
And i’m also a big fan of the Big 4 joe..i am Rafa fan but i love tennis just as much..that means i love the Big 4 as well..and Rog is my 3rd fav behind Andy and in front of Nole…and i have no problem in accepting any of the Big 4 win over Rafa…hurts when rafa lose,,yeah but can’t help but ADMIRE and RESPECT the amazing talent of the Big 4..That’s it joe!
Yes, Mira. We truly have enjoyed a golden age of tennis the last decade or so. When I started watching tennis, in the 1970’s, there was a comparable golden age: Borg, Connors, McEnroe, and then Lendl. Unfortunately, two of those guys were basically finished in their mid-20s; and Lendl and Borg never played in a slam.
One thing I like about the current group is that they all seem basically good people off the court (something I can’t say about Connors and McEnroe). In terms of admiring and respect, I probably have more for Rafa and Novak than the others (though Andy Murray has grown on me). I think Federer has more natural talent than any tennis player ever has, but in some ways I’m more impressed with what Rafa and Novak have done with what they have. Their mental fortitude, in particular (Rafa has always had it; Djokovic took awhile to acquire it) is unbelievable. If you took Federer talent and combined it with Nadal’s mental toughness, that player would almost never lose, imo. Btw, my favourite player -the player I never root against- is Dolgopolov. I love his game and he hits the most outrageous shots. But he isn’t the most consistent player, unfortunately, and I don’t get to see him on tv very often.
Yeah joe..i like Dolgo as well…his tennis..wow!..but,it’s a shame..if only he can back it up with consistency and stay injury free for long…such a talent..although i wish him to make a breakthrough in the future..who knows he maybe one of the late bloomer like stan?
And joe…congrats for Rog win over delpo earlier…i’m scared for Rafa[IF they’re to meet again] when i see Rog playing…his confident and his blasting winners all over the court made me speechless..
Never stupid to pick Rafa MA.
Only stupid to say he’s done being able to be as good as he used to be.
Fed is. I never wrote him off.
Write these guys off at your peril.
Yeah Hawks…never stupid to pick Rafa but on the current circumstances where Rog already showed to the world[since AO] how awesome he is and just ‘schooled’ rafa at IW with ‘scary’ scores..and i said i’m stupid because i picked Rog at first but changed to Rafa because of my loyalty,love and believe in him..and Hawks i’m on top of the group in jalep wildguess and if Rog win again,my a@# will certainly get kick by Kpuppy or magic!Oh no!!!
I’m going to try to provide an argument against the whole “weak era” idea, but first we need to know when it was/is. Any suggestions?
I’d like to help you out but I wouldn’t want you to break your word on my account Joe.
I think we should stop discussing past eras, weak or not… Let’s discuss this current one.
So Hawks-
In order for my prediction of Rafa winning Miami to come true, Fed has to lose at some point in this tournament… I’ve decided that I’m going with him losing in the semifinals to either Zverev, Kyrgios, or your all-time favorite human being, Stanislaw Wawrinka. Knowing you, Hawks, you’d probably pick Donksoy to beat Fed again before you picked Wawrinka to beat him, so I would assume that if you had to pick one of those three guys to take Fed out in the semis it would be Zverev or Kyrgios. 🙂 Which one would you pick to beat Fed if you had to pick one of them?
Kyrgios.
If he plays his best, he’s got a shot.
But #GOAT2.0 should win Miami without much problem as it stands.
Rafa just ain’t Rafa at the moment.
Sorry to interfere, I’m picking Stan to beat Fed here and whoever in the other half of the draw and wins his first Miami title. If Stan is as serious at a Masters the way he is at a slam, he can beat anyone to win it. If Stan can reproduce that kind of tennis that won him his AO title then he can beat anyone in the draw here.
I may be wrong of course but I think he’s the best bet against Fed and Rafa, and the others left in the draw.
Stan is certainly capable of beating Roger on a hard court. He should have done it at the WTF in 2014, but played some dumb serve and volley tennis right at the end. He’s playing well right now, but I thought Fed handled him pretty well in IW; and that was in a final, where Stan usually plays his best tennis. I’m not sure I would bet against Wawa in a slam final, but I think Roger wins if they meet in Miami. I’m picking either Roger or Kygrios to make it to the final.
Ok, since I wasn’t exactly overwhelmed with suggestions, I’m going to rely on the time-frame suggested by Hawkeye above, which says the weak era in men’s tennis existed from 2002-2007. I think that’s the conventional view among those who think there was a weak era. After that, the strong era came into effect, and lasted (I’ll assume) through 2013. To be maximally charitable to Rafa fana, let’s say it lasted through the time of Nadal’s last (sorry: most recent) GS title, which was the 2014 FO.
I’ll also assume that the weak era was defined by a lack of more than one dominant champion (i.e. Roger Federer), whereas the strong era had 3 or 4 dominant champions. More specifically, “dominant champion” includes those who have won multiple GS titles.
Now, the interest in the “weak era” hypothesis isn’t in whether it exists (since depending on how you define things you can make its existence or non-existence a matter of definition), but in what it *shows* assuming it exists. And, I take it, the main thing the weak era is supposed to show is this: Federer won most of his GS titles at a time when it was easier to win them, whereas Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray won most of their’s during an era during which it was comparatively (much) more difficult. I’ll stop there for now and ask what people have to say so far.
Way off on at least three counts. Your confirmatory bias is deafening you My fan.
Hint: Has nothing to to with Fed.
Please read more carefully.
It’s getting awfully closer to a Rafa v/s Roger finals and that’d be great. It’d be tough for Rafa to beat Feds in this mode. How times have changed, talent and mindset it seems beats everything else over time, read it here http://www.138mph.com/decoding-the-big-three-murray/
Neither Roger nor (esp) Rafa is a lock to make the final, Kavita. That was an interesting read, though very pro-Fed, it seemed to me. No doubt he’s the most talented, but (until the AO final two months ago), I wouldn’t have rated Roger’s mental toughness very high. He let Rafa get into his head early on, and in the last few years has done the same with Novak (a player he really had no big problem with prior to 2014, even if Djokovic won some big matches against him).
LOLOLOLOLOL.
So typical.
#ConfirmatoryBias
#JoeMyths
I have doubts that Fed is the most talented. I certainly rate Rafa or even Murray equally talented if not more.
Murray’s weakness is in his more defensive mindset; he was great with his volleying, with his slices, having deft touches at the net; good when playing his junk ball tennis/ changing pace at will. He’s great with his ROS, has a world class DHBH, great athleticism, good tennis brain reading the game so well with great anticipatory skills. It’s no wonder he could beat Fed so often from 2006 to 2009 and also 2010. Fed only managed to overtake Murray in their H2H from 2014 onwards, after Murray came back from back surgery.
Murray’s first serve is good even if low in %, his second serve used to be a liability but he has improved that lately. His FH wasn’t great In the past, and it’s after Lendl became his coach that he had improved that shot, and with that won his first two slams. However, Murray seems to have lost those varieties under Lendl, a trade off I feel for winning those slams.
Can’t say I agree at all. I don’t know of any objective polls, but I would be very surprised if most tennis observers didn’t think Roger is the most talented in terms of pure tennis skills. I don’t think it’s that close, myself, and it’s a big part of why Fed makes things look so (deceptively) easy. I rate Murray a clear step below, with Nadal and Novak in between. Of course, that is only one part of tennis success.
Now, in terms of who is the best overall athlete, that could well be Rafa. Maybe he could have been a professional soccer player; I doubt any of the others could have played another sport at a very high level. But I’d put him and Novak at the top, with Murray right with them, especially after Lendl turned him into a beast.
Pure tennis skills? That could be acquired if one is talented enough. Murray also has pure tennis skills! His ROS is better than Fed’s even when his serve is not as good. He’s able to change pace at will when the other three big four members couldn’t do the same. He’s able to read the game better than anyone else except Rafa.
Fed makes it looks easy but that doesn’t mean it is easy, and he’s helped very much by his great serve. Of course having a great serve is very much a tennis skill; but others have theirs too which Fed may not have.
I mean pure tennis talent, if there is such a thing. Here we really are trading opinions. You rate Murray much higher than I do. I can see your points about Rafa; certainly with a better serve he would be a more formidable player. And Roger’s serve has been so good at times that he would almost be rightly described as a serve-bot if the rest of his game wasn’t so good.
Anyway, I don’t see how it matters one way or the other. Suppose I’m right and Fed is more talented but less mentally tough than Nadal. Is that supposed to be more pro-Fed than thinking the reverse? I don’t see why it should be.
Have been busy lately and waited this long to respond only because I wanted to see if the picks and predictions at the 138mph.com blog made sense. Hindsight is generally 20:20 and it seems now that the blogger does make sense. The blog is unabashedly pro Roger but they are predicting correctly and therefore make for an interesting read to say the least. Their new article already predicts Kyrgios as the next number 1, so let’s see how long it takes for that to come true!!!
Rafa – without attending a proper tennis academy and not having a technical coach (Toni is not one); not having the so called ideal stroke production technique, not having a great serve,having a congenital left foot issue, he was still able to get the better of a Fed at his peak. Not forgetting he didn’t grow up to play in the S&V era but picked up his volleying skills playing doubles and he certainly had/has deft touches and good feel at the net even when playing with looser strings. Imagine he has a great serve, no physical issue, how much more formidable he can be. Imo he’s no less talented than Fed.
Sorry. I tend to agree with the writer as explained in the last post of the series that Roger can retool and reinvent his game whereas the others cannot and that’s what makes Roger superior to them all in talent. Rafa and Novak both have a style and they’ll live and die by it, or let’s say they have a limited range which cannot sustain higher level play after 30. I am waiting to see if either NOvak or Rafa will even play beyond 31-32, and if they do how well they’d be doing. My guess is tat they’d be done and dusted by the time they are 32. We’ll see.
I didn’t say anything about pro-Fed; just don’t agree about Fed having more ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent than say Murray or Rafa. We can’t even agree what is ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent in the first place.
I think many have short changed Rafa and also Murray. We have talked about Rafa many times so I’m not going into that again. I like to talk about Murray; I find him interesting and boring at the same time. Like I mentioned, Murray has all the skills and varieties; he could be an interesting touch and feel player but imo he’s too defensive minded and likes to play the cat and mouse game instead of going all out attack unlike Fed. His game style may not appeal to many, esp those who prefers all out attack kind of tennis.
Murray isn’t blessed with good physical gifts the likes of Rafa and he has to work very hard to become what a physical beast he is now. I do feel that if he’s a more offensive minded player plus having the physical fitness he has now, he could very well become a very good and very watchable attacking player with all the varieties that he has. Alas, he has decided that he wants to carry on with his cat and mouse game, and it’s not easy to change that defensive mindset he’s having all along, and so to many he remains a very boring player to watch and he plays a physical game, more so than Djoko’s or Rafa’s imo as they both are comparatively more offensive minded.
I do feel the slowing down of the courts had made the trio become more defensive baseliners, comparing to the times when they were just upstarts. Watch their earlier matches, all three were more aggressive; even the most defensive of the three i.e. Murray, was making forays to the net at Wimbledon during 2005/2006. Djoko played his paint the line tennis, certainly not a defensive game style; Rafa was not afraid to step inside the court or moved to the net whenever possible.
It’s not only Fed adapting to slower conditions; the trio had to adapt too. They all played juniors in the 1990s to early 2000; they certainly did play on quicker courts during junior days, I guess they too changed the way they played and decided to adopt a baseline game not unlike Fed (even though Fed moved into the forecourt more often than they did).
Nadal is one of the most talented players, no doubt. But, 99 percent of people would believe that talent wise Roger Federer is, hand down, the greatest talent on earth. Nadal’s pure game had been historically based on hard word, stamina, athleticism, running, sublime defense (though he can play attacking tennis but not a strength). In fact, he had to work hard to make things decent for him. And remember hardwork almost never decieves you and there is no shame in doing hardwork. In a nutshell, Nadal is said to be a man of hardwork and Federer is said to be man of smart work.
It all depends on what ‘talent’ is for you.
‘Shot making talent’ ? yes, Federer perhaps has the highest shot-making talent because of the varieties he has and his ability to take balls on the rise, play amazing defense, pull off unusual shots etc.
But, shot-making is not the only talent. Maintaining high intensity for long periods, mental fortitude etc are also equally important forms of talent.
Nadal is not too far behind in shot-making talent either. What he can do with his forehand, nobody has ever seen before. It is far bigger than athleticism or physicality.
You will see loads of highlights/points of the year from both Federer and Nadal but you won’t quite see Djokovic pulling off Miraculous shots. DJokovic can do jaw-dropping defense, counter-punching and be consistently aggressive but he is very less likely to pull off magical/miraculous shots.
You just need to look at the toughest shots in tennis to get a good idea: the high backhand smash. Federer and Nadal are the best in that shot and they are ridiculously good at it. Djokovic struggles to clear the net with those quite often! Murray would also hit magnificent ones but they are usually drop shots.
Remember, Nadal was not your typical clay courter. He grew up on clay but as a young player, he was quite effective at the net. He was so unlike most of the other Spaniards and had great movement to the forecourt and solid volleying skills. His overhead has been incredibly strong as well right from the start. You’d also see the young Rafa pulling off some great drop shots etc. He even made it to the USO 2003 doubles’ semi finals at age 17. Watch his ventures to the net against Federer in Miami 2004- so wonderful to watch.
I am not sure if Nadal is the best example of hard work and hard work. If you really want that example, Ferrer is a far better example.
Rafa’s shot-making talent is incredible. Yes, his physical strength, athleticism have often overshadowed his shot-making talent but never to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXoq4vaZ6Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkC7d-mrkMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTX9hKRkljQ (The point at 29 sec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqk24MFolY
few examples of pure ‘genius’ from Rafa that I remembered off the top of my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKpFoAXf5VM
^The whole collection is touch of magic from Rafa. Would never see a Ferrer or even a Djokovic pulling these off.
I haven’t touched on the tweener winners as they are already quite popular lol
oops one comment above is awaiting Moderation. waiting for Ricky to approve it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKOtINV-_cs
Okay I am going to stop with this one haha. This one has some of my favourite ones as they show the pure skills he possesses. He is just not an amazing retriever, but his finishing skills are just out of this world. He can do anything from anywhere on the court.
I know the list can go on and on for Federer as well. I am NOT running a competition here for that haha.
Just to close this one off from mt side, sharing this lovely toying Fed did to M.Zverev this AO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJg6dEQTOs
Pure genius!!
No will accept. I agree with the writer that mindset plays an important and if you are aggressive in mindset then that’s what you are and for someone with a defensive mindset aggression will not come naturally and sooner or later or under pressure the player reverts to his/her natural defensive run left & right at the baseline style of play.
“. We can’t even agree what is ‘pure’ tennis skills or talent in the first place.”
That’s all that needs to be said.
You guys are killing me… All of you are have confirmatory bias, and you will never agree with each other. And as much as you all don’t want to believe it, there is not a correct or incorrect answer to any of this shit. You’re beating a dead horse.
Haha.. there would always be bias and that as fine as long as there is no blind bias! That really puts me off. Bias would always be there and it makes it fun because they give rise to motivated debates. What I get annoyed with is illogical arguments.
I would always try to build up Nadal’s case but I am happy to give credit to his rivals where due. See above how I expressed my opinion that Fed has the highest shot-making talent 🙂
Sorry, VR, I meant to mention in that comment that you had the right idea.
no worries kevin, understood 😉
on another note, I also sent you an email response 🙂
I’ve won and lost thousands over the years gambling on tennis and the one major thing I can tell all of you is mentally sound players are better to back regardless of talent. You can have all the talent in the world but if you’re not mentally sound on match day, you’re nothing. Benoit Paire, B.Tomic, E.Gulbis and the really unstable Nick Kyrgios have all the talent in the world but they’ve proven time and time and time again they’re just not right upstairs. Murray got even bigger because why? Not talent because he always had talent, it’s all mental.
agreed. Tomic hasn’t won a best off three sets match since last September now?
He has more than enough shot-making talent to win matches but lacks the other talents.
Brad B gets it.100% agree.
But Nick’s mental strength is on the right path.
He would have lost that match to Isner six months ago.
I didn’t talk too much about Djokovic and perhaps mentioned his limitations only. If there are any Novak fans reading, I would like to say that their guy also is a huge shot-making talent. His ROS, his unmatched ability to change direction of the ball off both wings (I have never seen anyone better than him at this) and his ability to take balls on the rise with his backhand are just insane.
One thing I would add is that from 2011-16, Novak was the mentally strongest player in the world (not sure what has happened lately). Rafa has (I think) always had it, and Roger and (especially) Murray are at least a cut below. But Novak transformed himself from a player I never (circa 2007) would have called mentally strong, into a rock.
Weaker than any of the players mentioned above, in my view, is Monfils. Talk about talent -tennis and pure athleticism. But the guy is a mental midget on the court. In that respect only, he reminds me of myself.
Vamosrafa said it exactly right by saying, “It all depends on what is talent to you”.
Agreed! See Fedfans and Rafans can agree when they are also tennis fans.