Very good angle rotla, with plenty of food for thought.

"And with that something else was also seen which wasn't seen before. Tennis turning into a "show" and less like a sport. Changing courts, balls, playing conditions to allowing players to bend and break rules, gamesmanship, a suspected draw system. All trying hard to push certain players to win. This is now done so openly as we saw in the Roland Garros 2012 when the ball provider Babolat slowing balls to the limit so as to almost guarantee that the player who endorses their products wins. This is not a sports any more. A sport doesn't work like that. Its become a "tennis show". "

brilliant paragraph that sums up tennis today.

Regarding the every 5 year change, haven't done the calcs, but would like to believe that Nole is the one that came to stop the rot.
Although he is percieved as a Nadal clone by a lot of Federer fans, he is anything but.

Nadal can't be beaten by a Federer game at the moment due to slowed playing conditions.

Nole is doing it by mixing up both Federer and Nadal strengths: aggression and rallying. He has what Federer does not: bakchand as a weapon to battle Nadal on both wings.

Nole's 2011 is one big hurt in my heart as his fan.
WHat he did last year was something out of this world and he received so little credit for it.
Fed fans didn't like the fact he was dominating , Nadal fans didn't like the fact their guy was being annihilated on all levels and surfacdes. And those two groups and clans are pretty much 90% of tennis wheelers and dealers.

Only now, real tennis fans may begin to understand the magnitude of what Novak did last year.

How many slams would have Nadal amalgamated by now had it not been for Nole?

I posted quite a few opinions on Fed in the Lull before the storm thread, that reflect my opinion on his late career which I hope and expect to last for another 3-4 years in good health and tennis.

It's a very good summary rotla. Not much to add.

On this
-------------------------------------------------------
Are there more takers for Nadal's brand of tennis than there are for Federer's? Are there more people who want to watch Nadal take Federer's record of slams than see Fed being the greatest achiever of Slams?
-------------------------------------------
On this I'd say, it doesn't matter for the bigger picture (of those making $$ on the sport) whether as many people like Federer as Nadal. It's having them play against each other that brings max people interested in the outcome of their matches and this is why it is very likely the draws were rigged for 4 years. It's nothing to do against Federer (though certainly his fans) but that (slowing down/bending rules etc...) was the only way to make sure Nadal woudl be present at the end of the non clay slams. They did not want a Federer Gonzo or another Federer Roddick final.

They wanted to bring the tennis/federer fans in mass with the new tennis fans (Nadal's) together in front of our TVs. And they achieved just that for 4 / 5 years ...at the expense of Federer.

Not to be ignored is the large Hispanic population in the US , Nadal is a hero to a lot of them; when they watch a match it's Nadal the warrior that wins a battle which drives them to following "tennis", nothing else matters to them.
No problemo, so long as it's played by the rules which it has not been for many years due to all the factors mentioned": slowing of conditions, draw rigging, insufficient anti-doping transparency.

@nitb
But why would US population favour Nadal over Roddick or Fish or some of their own countrymen? Is it that they like Nadal's tennis more than that of Roddick?

Because US Hispanic population does not identify with Roddick and Fish in any way.

I also see that most new tennis fans are almost all fans of Nadal. I saw many of them hugely disappointed when Djo was beating him in those 7 of his wins.

Is Nadal's tennis more easy and appealing to even casual tennis fans? Rise of federer brought out many tennis fans and popularised the game, but Nadal brought of "fanatics" additions. So much that the whole tennis changed direction from a artful shotmaking to attrition iron-man game.

Those "new" fans will only know tennis as of the last 5 years at best.
big $$$ won't be wanting to change anything at the moment, the only thing that can save tennis from Nadalisation is Nole beating him like he did last year.

@Only now, real tennis fans may begin to understand the magnitude of what Novak did last year.
--------------------------------------

I do understand and appreciate it. I already told you my take on Djo and what I felt about his game. Djo wins much more now, only I liked the earlier Djo a lot more game wise.

I just don't like the direction tennis is heading into. But most people are happy with it, so this won't stop.

It will as soon as Nadal is finished.

But why would US population favour Nadal over Roddick or Fish or some of their own countrymen? Is it that they like Nadal's tennis more than that of Roddick?
---------------------------
1 - Cause Nadal is much more charismatic than those 2.
2 - At least Nadal can put up a fight whereas any other player was simply crushed Federer with therefore no drama.
3 - As I explained many times, it's easier for the new tennis fan to appreciate the effort of bringing an impossible ball back than to pull a winner with a SHBH down the line.

Of course they woudl have preferred Nadal to be American but a Nadal offering a challenge was always going to be more interesting than an American being crushed.

Besides, I am very convinced that Nadal's "tamed macho" image was appealing a lot to the typical castrating american women. Ok that's a bit far fetched psychology but I think it's pretty true.

"image was appealing a lot to the typical castrating american women:" and not just american

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkkQvM-elj4&feature=player_embedded#!

That's the kind I mean...."Only in America".

Tennis gained popularity like never before and the true successor to the legend Pete Samprass had arrived.
----------------------------------------------------
I couldn't agree with this more. Fed is the reason that I strted to watch tennis again and I was so glad that he kept those uncouth roddick and Hewitt from winning anymore.

"That's the kind I mean...."Only in America".


that was baaaaaaaaaad, and depressing....

I think whilst a number of things have gone Nadal's way (especially the slowing down of courts), Federer whilst being mentally pretty tough (you don't win 16 slams without it), but probably isn't as mentally tough as a Sampras or a Nadal.

How often did we see a player miss break points against Sampras, yet when he had one, he was pretty clinical. Same case with Nadal.

Federer isn't as clinical when it comes to converting and saving break points (dating as far back as his wimbledon meeting with Sampras in 2001). In Federer's prime, he never really needed to be as clinical, as he was able to create so many opportunities to beat his opponent, but as his powers are waning (since 2007), it has become a real problem.

I genuinely beleive that (slow courts or not), Federer lost FO 2007, 2011 and AO2009 in the mind and not on the court. Had Federer been as clinical as a player like Sampras, I feel he would be sitting on at least 19 Slams right now (with 3 French Open wins) and Rafa on 8 slams with no career slam. There would be no comparisons between the legacy of Rafa in comparison to Federer. But so much sport is played in the mind.

I agree on some point JT (Pete being stronger mentally though it coudl be argued too) but above all I think it's impossible to differentiate the mind from the physical side..in tennis.

I actually think Federer is stronger mentally than Nadal at the beginning of a match. He is often the one starting stronger (even v Djoko in fact) but as the match goes on federer is being urged to close sets and Matches and that is tough mentally if you know you lose your physical edge and main weapon (brilliant timing) as the match goes on.

Nadal on the other hand takes heart as seeing Federer shanking more often, and extending the rallies cause Fed has no choice but to play safer as his edge gets blunt. It's exactly what happens when Djoko and Nadal meet. Th eone panicking as teh match extends is Nadal not Djoko.

So in that respect, I think teh slowing down of the court have affected Fed's chance physcally and therefore mentally.

There is nothing more depressing than having to pull 5 winners to get a point. On a faster surface, with no more than 3 or 4 shot rallies, Fed's edge can go on for ever but as soon as he is asked to play 7 or 10shot rallies, his chances of winning and of course his mental go down dramatically.

The problem Fed is facing nowadays is teh same that the problem he was facing prior 2007 v Nadal on clay.

They have made the game extremely physical and the mind intervenes very little in fact...unless you get 2 players of similar power and stamina.

There is nothing more depressing than having to pull 5 winners to get a point. On a faster surface, with no more than 3 or 4 shot rallies, Fed's edge can go on for ever but as soon as he is asked to play 7 or 10shot rallies, his chances of winning and of course his mental go down dramatically.
==========================================

I do agree with this point and has affected not only Federer, but pretty much every attacking player in the game and is one of the reasons why I get so irritated by the tennis in this era.

But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.

But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.
---------------------------------------------

Sampras had an excellent second serve and that certainly helped. In that respect I agree he was very string mentally cause it has nothing to do with physique, it was about taking a big risk on his second serve (something Murray can't do for instance).

However the quality of returning has considerably improved since 2001. Partly due to bigger balls slowing down towards the baseline and the luxilon string technology allowing returners to stand back and swing at the return with max power and spin....something which was not available for Pete and Fed in 2001. Well it was but they prefered both to play natural strings then. Hewitt already was showing what coudl be done returning Pete's serve by standing back and returning dipping balls in Pete's legs thanks to Luxilon.

In short I feel that Pete woudl have struggled to win a slam in Federer's time, especially after 2006. Look, he won 14 slams on fast conds and a fat 0 on clay. Nowadays they are all more or less playing like clay.

Interesting discussion anyway.

@ JT
But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.
-------------------------
That was just 1 game JT, how can things be concluded based on just one game. Pete was a 7 time wimbledon champion, Fed was rookie in comparison. Fed just won the match even when it went to 5 sets itself shows his strong mental side. Though Fed had nothing to lose in that match, but its not easy getting over mentally when facing Pete on grass in wimbledon.

You say you never saw Pete struggle so much on serve, then you surely didn't see any of his matches at FO or clay and that too against opponents I won't even talk about here.

mental side is alright, but its highly dependent of what are the terms of the game. If the match is played on all terms favoring one player, he will have to appear mentally stronger. This is true for everyone, including Nadal and Federer.

mental side is alright, but its highly dependent of what are the terms of the game. If the match is played on all terms favoring one player, he will have to appear mentally stronger. This is true for everyone, including Nadal and Federer.
----------------------------
This is so true. Let's not forget that Federer has the best TB record in the history of the game. That is a real trait of mental strength.

You say you never saw Pete struggle so much on serve, then you surely didn't see any of his matches at FO or clay and that too against opponents I won't even talk about here.
==========================================

Yes, what I meant to say was I never saw Pete struggle so much on serve at Wimbledon.

I'm not denying the fact that Federer is strong mentally. He clearly is. You don't win the amount of slams he has won without being mentally tough.

What I'm trying to say is he was good enough in 2007 to beat Nadal even on clay had he taken his opportunities. How many break points did he have in that 2007 FO Final?

How many crucial double-faults did Federer make in the AO Final 2009. Yes, I do understand that the slower courts means he will make more mistakes in the later sets, but he had the ability to beat Nadal even on slow courts, but he hasn't taken his chances.

How many crucial double-faults did Federer make in the AO Final 2009.
-----------------------------
That's really a match of missed opportunities for Fed. He really should have won that one in 4 if not 3.

But teh amount of balls that came back and woudl have never come back on faster conds.

Weren't those dble faults in the 5th sets essentially? I remember him taking a couple of months break afterwards to rest his back.