Why there isn't the same crawd of nutters........

Looking for a moment just what's up around the same old corner, outside the 606v2 fishbowl.

I wanted to check if the story of the golden.....(well you know it is difficult for me even to write the two abused little words) .....gathers a minimum of credit on other well established tennis forums. To see if its true what its (of the golde.....) feverish supporters are crying out loud for a while on here, that is so obvious this is the best, most exciting and technically proficient tennis era in the history of earth that, really no need to debate.

The first well established tennis website I came across in my quest was:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?s=456747e333d34423f9064ee733ec060b&t=458295&page=2

Scanned the first four pages (a bit quickly tbh) and if I am not wrong, there's at least a 99% of posters that find the idea either: illogical/ unprovable/ silly/ contrary of truth/ typical of superficial people with little or no knowledge of the game.

So, what's the conclusion?

www.bleacherreport.com/articles/1254491-12-reasons-were-in-the-golden-era-of-tennis-with-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal


www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9826014/Australian-Open-2013-Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-this-is-golden-era-of-mens-tennis-says-Andre-Agassi.html

gameplan.co.in/tennis/?p=124

www.powersharesseries.com/tampa-bay-times-john-mcenroe-on-tennis-golden-era-and-best-of-all-time/

I like how Mac says "They’re (today's players) so used to seeing the same thing all the time, they wouldn’t have got the same old thing (against Mac)."

OMG, he's saying today's game is one-dimensional

kingraf wrote:www.bleacherreport.com/articles/1254491-12-reasons-were-in-the-golden-era-of-tennis-with-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal


www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9826014/Australian-Open-2013-Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-this-is-golden-era-of-mens-tennis-says-Andre-Agassi.html

gameplan.co.in/tennis/?p=124

www.powersharesseries.com/tampa-bay-times-john-mcenroe-on-tennis-golden-era-and-best-of-all-time/

I was interested in hearing a bit of sensible judgement coming from the genuine tennis fan base, outside all the overhyped propaganda of the media......

Oh, so ignore the experts, ask the laymen who agree with your assertion, then pump the misinformation out as gospel?

Who IS an expert at watching tennis?

Well, I meant the people who have played and coached. The vast majority are in awe of this generation, but of course they are feeding us overhyped propaganda, while tennisWarehouse apparently hold the Dead Sea Scrolls, unlocking the myth that this is a golden era, and revealing that, to quote a person....

"The weak era crap is propagated by mostly bitter
Peteclowns and a select few ***** who are jealous
of Fed's success."

The thread goes on to suggest Nadal only had a magical 2010 because Fed had health issues, conveniently ignoring that Nadal has had health issues since 2004.

Heres McEnroe on the matter
"Offensive standouts like Boris Becker or defense-
oriented players like Mats Wilander were one-
dimensional, and they did the other part good
enough," McEnroe says. "Now you have to do
everything. If you can't defend and attack when
opportunity arises, you have no shot."

"I don't like to compare generations, because
everyone has different opportunities, equipment-
wise and so forth," Gimelstob notes. "But in terms
of the quality and what it takes to win points and
tournaments and Grand Slams — it's a new level.
This is the apex, right here."

Agassi:
To Agassi, this generation has "altered certain
rules" of the court.
"Their ability to hurt you on the full stretch seems
almost impossible," he says. "The defensive
movement with the offensive mind-set is a whole
new dimension in my opinion to the sport — and I
thought I knew its limitations."

Sampras
"This generation is incredible," says Pete Sampras ,
who competed in a gilded age of Americans with
Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Michael Chang.
"We're going to probably have three players
winning double-digit majors."

Thes guys are of course propaganda artists, and the true knowledge lies on TW: "It's a streak era. Or maybe it's a weak era? I think we should be told"

I have no problem declaring that I know more about tennis than most journalists. I know of some other posters who are in the same boat.

I know I can read a game better than many commentators.

None of this is being arrogant, it's just a fact.

I am also unburdened by demands to ramp my viewing figures.


This is not an exceptional period for the game. If anything it's worryingly limited, and the foundations have been laid for a very sterile period.

at kr

This article can be used as a learning opportunity, in particular for the younger forumers that probably don't have much of a clue on what was going on in tennis before they were even born.

The point of the article is not another overdone golde.. debate.

The point is to ask yourself why in such great majority the opinions gathered on that thread reject ( imo with some sensible arguments) the idea of a golde....

It's just a sort of poll.....hope you get it know.....

E.g.
Wrong comment: McEnroe said so

Right comment: for me vast majority of people in the thread think the golde.....is a fake because.......

kingraf wrote:Well, I meant the people who have played and coached. The vast majority are in awe of this generation...

The vast majority are in awe of whoever is at the top at the time. They were in awe of Hewitt, Keurten, Safin and Roddick when they won slams.
There are exceptions, of course. Wilander never rated Fed that much, Rusedski thinks Borg is a greater clay courter than Rafa, Becker thinks Mac would have beaten Fed on grass, Mac thinks Sampras would have beaten Fed on grass, Laver thinks only Fed would have been able to play with a wooden racket/gut strings and let's not talk about Virginia Wade's view of Murray.

Julius I disagree, I think wilander loves feds game which is odd because he I think was a true grinder.

Maybe he's changed - I was thinking of Wilander's 'Federer has no balls' quote, which I took to be symptomatic of Wilander generally not regarding fed as highly as many others do.

My problem with that JK, is that for some reason, in an age where Runners run faster, footballers move faster, with more technique, Cricketers pull off the most spectacular catches, rugby locks can now run like centers, it seems far fetched to suggest tennis has similarly developed and we now find ourselves in a golden era. My argument is not swayed by journos, more sports science. Of course people should get a clue about earlier eras to compare accurately (Im fortunate here because working in a sports field I have a marathon of archives to go through). Some of their arguments do hold water, but I wouldnt listen to a group of arm chair top gear fans tell me a Vettel is rubbish if he got endorsements from past greats (some of whom have no affiliation with the sport any more) stating that he may just be the greatest of them all.

So why do you think Borg, Bradmann, Ali', Jordan, Pele', Woods, Nicklaus were the sportmen getting at the latter stages of the GOAT contest. Is this because there is a general lack of knowledge in nearly each section of the board?

Each case is a litte different.
I'll answer them individually

Ali- Always claimed to be the greatest HW, not the greatest boxer, and very few people in the boxing world have him as the undisputed GOAT boxer

Nicklaus and Woods both making the latter rounds was remarkable.
Bradman is an obvious case, in cricket, unlike tennis, stats is king, and an average of 99.94 outshines any asterisk, real or imagined that people could put on him The equivalent would be if Roger got to 25 Slam wins.

Jordan also stands alone and is probably the only other guy more universally acclaimed in his own sport than Bradman

The GOAT awards quite obviously had a little bias (and vote rigging). How else do you explain how Ali, whose record actually has a parallels in boxing (sadly lesser known blokes) beat a guy about 40% ahead of his nearest rival?

The assertion that we're in some golden age of tennis is because of just 4 players who as Federer himself astutely states are hard to displace because current conditions "protect them". If we were to remove the comfort blanket of slow conditions everywhere and we still see the same 4 players dominating all year round then I might believe the assertion. Otherwise for me its just a "golden age of condition homogeneity" that allows the strongest/fittest ralleyers to dominate. Oh hang on...I'm being miserably nostalgic and myopic again...tut tut, slapped wrist.

People seem to quickly forget the skills and challenges guys had and faced before 2000. For example, you will never ever convince me Djokovic is more (or even similarly) talented than Agassi for example having watched and studied both players closely from the start of their careers. The myopia constantly I see is the ubiquitous 'the latest is the greatest' mentality of the media and many forum observers.

kingraf wrote:Each case is a litte different.

ding ding

kingraf wrote:Oh, so ignore the experts, ask the laymen who agree with your assertion, then pump the misinformation out as gospel?

They are not expert views they are media hype, its simple as that.

lydian wrote:The assertion that we're in some golden age of tennis is because of just 4 players who as Federer himself astutely states are hard to displace because current conditions "protect them". If we were to remove the comfort blanket of slow conditions everywhere and we still see the same 4 players dominating all year round then I might believe the assertion. Otherwise for me its just a "golden age of condition homogeneity" that allows the strongest/fittest ralleyers to dominate. Oh hang on...I'm being miserably nostalgic and myopic again...tut tut, slapped wrist.

People seem to quickly forget the skills and challenges guys had and faced before 2000. For example, you will never ever convince me Djokovic is more (or even similarly) talented than Agassi for example having watched and studied both players closely from the start of their careers. The myopia constantly I see is the ubiquitous 'the latest is the greatest' mentality of the media and many forum observers.

Roddick on his prime made a bunny out of Djokovic's prime, I would have been surprised if Agassi would have lost more than 2 matches out of 10 against Nole on any surface.

Okay, I can see why you might not think Agassi is an expert (not really), but Sampras? So what, he just sat at home stroking his cat and figured the Golden Era myth could really use his endorsement? Why? Who qualifies as an expert in your opinion? If two guys with 22 grand slam titles and 35-odd years of pro-level tennis Is not an expert than there is no such thing

ex·pert ( k spûrt )
n.
1. A person with a high degree of skill in or
knowledge of a certain subject.

Ah good, an era discussion.

It seems very simple to me.

At the top of the game, this has clearly been a strong era. Fed, Rafa and Novak have all made (and are making) a significant mark on the game.

How they measure up to the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, Mac, Becker etc is something that can be debated but they merit a place in the conversation.

There is, however, no strength in depth. There is a lack of players at the level of, say, Courier, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Chang etc. i.e. not quite 'greats' but very fine players with notable achievements.

And the lack of impact being made by young players is abject.

So I'd say this is 'gold plated' era. It has a veneer of quality but it's nothing special below the surface.

lydian wrote:For example, you will never ever convince me Djokovic is more (or even similarly) talented than Agassi for example having watched and studied both players closely from the start of their careers.

Out of curiousity, why not?

It's just a different era. Its an era where slower conditions mean a much more physical contest of power and "big gets" from 6 feet behind the baseline. The old "eras" wern't "silver" eras if you like comparatively, it was just a different game, more about the touchy feely stuff, the net game, the slice etc.
Tennis in many ways is just a game of territory. Its about forcing the other guy into bad territory and putting yourself in control. Back in the day the forecort was the high ground and everywhere else was no mans land, the changes in the game have switched that around a little. It just makes the game different.

HAVING SAID THAT... weve been fortunate to have the Fed Nadal Rivalry, which is a real rare contest, 2 (reasonably) evenly matched guys, both who play almost the polar opposite, who competed for history nearly every time they played. It ahs made tennis a bit more exciting, and ill be honest with Federer seemingly a bit more part time, and starting to get just a lil old ive missed him a bit, it's nice to have an old fashioned ish player of high quality around.

I dunno, i dont think ive said anything new there, its an unanswerable question to be fair, just thought id ramble

A few reasons, Agassi:
+ achieved the career grand slam under the most polarised conditions in the history of the game - this is more impressive then any career grand slam we could see from anyone thereafter (lightning fast grass, slow slow clay, medium rebound ace, ultra-fast decoturf and even fast indoors). Agassi was a master of surface adaptation and that takes a lot of talent.
+ hit the ball far earlier, harder and generated easy power with his strokes
+ handled slice with ease and had a good slice himself
+ was the better ball striker, a better shotmaker from anywhere and everywhere on the court
+ had much more variation on serve - slice, huge kicker, flat down the middle (not his preferred serve though)
+ had a very compact windup on both sides and played from inside the baseline (able to take the ball early) whereas Djokovic has a very long windup on both sides and often plays well behind the baseline
+ shock horror...had a better return of serve - he handled huge servers given the speeds of courts back then. Djokovic has been served off the park by Isner, Roddick, Federer (e.g. Wimb2012). Hewitt, Nalbandian and Murray were/are at least as good returners than Djokovic in my opinion
+ had longevity, let's see if Djokovic spans near 20 yrs in the top 10 (means he didn't have to rely on amazing running, stamina, etc, had the ability to blow opponents off court 1988-2006)

This doesn't mean Djokovic doesn't have unreal ability because he clearly does, but when discussing innate ball-striking talent and surface adaptation therein Agassi was on a different level for me.

Lydian, interesting. I don't agree with every last detail but it's a good analysis

I note that your assessment is largely confined to ball striking ability.

By discounting movement, agility and athletic ability though, I think you are not accounting for much of what makes Djokovic the player he is. These things give him the ability to hit shots and winners that I think would have been beyond the ability of Agassi.

For what it's worth though, I think I'd currently consider Agassi the superior player too... with the significant caveat that Novak is not done yet!

I don't dispute Djokovic is a better mover than Agassi, his "rubberness" is quite astounding. Agassi made up for that with unreal hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes...and to be honest he DIDNT have to run like Novak does because he moved people around before they could do the same to him as he stood inside the baseline orchestrating ralleys with his ability to drive balls off practical half-volleys. This meant he cut out angles early so didn't have to run as far.

Yes, Novak isn't done yet and may win more slams, etc, but his "talent" level wont change, at near 26 his die is somewhat cast and it remains to be seen whether he can get back to winning 2+ slams a year. Great player though who will figure in historical discussions after his career, that's not in question.

kingraf wrote:Well, I meant the people who have played and coached. The vast majority are in awe of this generation, but of course they are feeding us overhyped propaganda, while tennisWarehouse apparently hold the Dead Sea Scrolls, unlocking the myth that this is a golden era, and revealing that, to quote a person....

"The weak era crap is propagated by mostly bitter
Peteclowns and a select few ***** who are jealous
of Fed's success."

The thread goes on to suggest Nadal only had a magical 2010 because Fed had health issues, conveniently ignoring that Nadal has had health issues since 2004.

Heres McEnroe on the matter
"Offensive standouts like Boris Becker or defense-
oriented players like Mats Wilander were one-
dimensional, and they did the other part good
enough," McEnroe says. "Now you have to do
everything. If you can't defend and attack when
opportunity arises, you have no shot."

"I don't like to compare generations, because
everyone has different opportunities, equipment-
wise and so forth," Gimelstob notes. "But in terms
of the quality and what it takes to win points and
tournaments and Grand Slams — it's a new level.
This is the apex, right here."

Agassi:
To Agassi, this generation has "altered certain
rules" of the court.
"Their ability to hurt you on the full stretch seems
almost impossible," he says. "The defensive
movement with the offensive mind-set is a whole
new dimension in my opinion to the sport — and I
thought I knew its limitations."

Sampras
"This generation is incredible," says Pete Sampras ,
who competed in a gilded age of Americans with
Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Michael Chang.
"We're going to probably have three players
winning double-digit majors."

Thes guys are of course propaganda artists, and the true knowledge lies on TW: "It's a streak era. Or maybe it's a weak era? I think we should be told"

Yes, I love it Kingraf, Tennis warehouse and nutters online are now the experts, all the legends have it wrong and all the paid journalists. We have had our share of these "experts" over the years ourselves. Another excellent post, Kingraf. The Federer fans must pretend that the soft early 2000s competition of aged Agassi with the rollover boys was something special while knocking down today's players. We have seen this trend among Roger's cult online followers for many years. These guys probably play the Rolex commercials on endless loop as they make love to their wives.

lydian wrote:A few reasons, Agassi:
+ achieved the career grand slam under the most polarised conditions in the history of the game - this is more impressive then any career grand slam we could see from anyone thereafter (lightning fast grass, slow slow clay, medium rebound ace, ultra-fast decoturf and even fast indoors). Agassi was a master of surface adaptation and that takes a lot of talent.
+ hit the ball far earlier, harder and generated easy power with his strokes
+ handled slice with ease and had a good slice himself
+ was the better ball striker, a better shotmaker from anywhere and everywhere on the court
+ had much more variation on serve - slice, huge kicker, flat down the middle (not his preferred serve though)
+ had a very compact windup on both sides and played from inside the baseline (able to take the ball early) whereas Djokovic has a very long windup on both sides and often plays well behind the baseline
+ shock horror...had a better return of serve - he handled huge servers given the speeds of courts back then. Djokovic has been served off the park by Isner, Roddick, Federer (e.g. Wimb2012). Hewitt, Nalbandian and Murray were/are at least as good returners than Djokovic in my opinion
+ had longevity, let's see if Djokovic spans near 20 yrs in the top 10 (means he didn't have to rely on amazing running, stamina, etc, had the ability to blow opponents off court 1988-2006)

This doesn't mean Djokovic doesn't have unreal ability because he clearly does, but when discussing innate ball-striking talent and surface adaptation therein Agassi was on a different level for me.

Please from any position on the court did Andre hit the ball out wide like Djokovic no way, no how. Most of your points are just anectodal and opinion based. Agassi, too had many a day when he was served off the park by Sampras. I would take Novak's forehand and backhand on the run and stretched wide over Andre's any day of the weak and twice on sunday. Funny, Djokovic is one of the earliest ball strikers and takes the ball extremely early, early than pretty much anyone else this doesn't find its way in to your analysis. He also similar to Andre, has the most fluid change of direction on both sides I have ever seen, him and Andre are right there in this regard. In regards to Djokovic's serve, I would take Novak's second delivery over Andre's anyday of the week and again twice on sunday.

Both are great players, Novak is better. Andre only finished world #1 one time in his career, one time. He was always Pete's second fiddle. Don't get me wrong big Andre fan, one of the ten best players of the modern era, but he is no Novak Djokovic. And yes, I said it,I know nostalgics across the internet are having heart attaches and seizures as we speak but it will become apparent in a few years.

Haha...how did I know socal would refute this and call me nostalgic...again.

So you're telling me in this era Djokovic takes the ball earlier than Federer, Nalbandian and Davydenko?
I didn't say he cant and doesnt take the ball early...but not as early as Agassi did.

Are you also telling me he could have won on Wimbledon ultrafast courts with that extreme Western grip and inability to handle slice? Yeah right.

Is there any limit to Novak's abilities socal?
Seemingly not.

No but when you claim that it Novak has been served out the park by big servers on their day and then ignore the fact that Pete Sampras made a living of doing that to Andre, I wonder where your objectivity is. Or when you claim that Andre hit the ball better than Novak from anywhere on the court and you ignore Novak's obvious superiority when pulled wide to Agassi, then I do wonder about the value of the rest of your analysis. Also the fact that Djokovic since 2011 has by the numbers one of the top 3 or 4 second serves on tour and this gets ignored in your analysis, I again wonder about your objectivity.

I have given my reasons for why I believe Agaasi had more ball-striking talent than Novak. Quite a number of them actually. I don't particularly care if you doubt my objectivity as you have done for some time even when I lay out facts clearly.

Ok, Novak hasnt literally been served off the park...neither was Agassi although you have to realise Novak never had to face a server like Sampras who was 140+ with 5000 rpm. Djokovic has had trouble with Isner, Karlovic (won their only HC match), Roddick (5-4 up H2H) and other big big servers. He's great at returning guys in the 115-135 range but not so above.

Why? This is the objective bit. Djokovic needs big swings on the ball except for his BH which he can stab at but he'd still rather take big swings. This causes him problems against the biggest servers who take time away from him. In my opinion, Murray and Federer have more versatility in returning, especially when the ball is 135mph and above. Murray in particular is way better in returning massive serves due to SW forehand and smaller swings. Also, when a huge serve goes out really wide this is when guys with a good one-handed slice return better too. Murray and Federer has great slices and can control a fast ball out wide to the BH extremely well, as we know Djokovic's slice isn't the best so he struggles more. As a result Djokovic also gets mentally frustrated with big servers because he can't take the big cuts on the ball he likes/needs.

Lets look at taking early balls. Taking an early ball means hitting it up on the rise after hitting the floor, almost half volleys really. This is again where Djokovic can struggle on the FH side because he has an extreme Western grip. Whether its a very hard serve or hard hit groundstroke - Djokovic will struggle to take the ball as early as a guy with a semi-Western or Eastern forehand grip. Note Federer and Agassi have semi-Western grips, they can get under a low rising ball much better. Otherwise, please explain to me how a Western grip can take a ball as early or earlier than a semi-Western, I'm truly intrigued to know how you can confound the physics needed.

These reasons alone mean Agassi had an inherent advantage over Djokovic in returning (SW grips, short takeback) huge serves and taking hard hit ground strokes early without even getting into the areas of unreal hand-eye coordination and reflexes.

Is that objective enough for you?

Novak isn't good at returning guys who serve over 135. Ok he is 3-1 against Isner, lost one match to him after he broke him twice and didn't lose his serve the whole match and lost two close tiebreakers. He has trouble with Querrey? As for Roddick, Novak beat Roddick the first three times he played him. Roddick beat Novak 4 times in 09 when Novak had no serve, the last time they played Novak whitewashed him. Early on Roddick was Novak's pigeon, the Todd martin serve slump encompasses every single victory Roddick had over Djokovic. Novak 2.0 played Roddick once an beat him real easy. Novak is 10-5 against Tsonga another 135 plus guy having won I think the last 6 times he has played him. He owns Del Po and Berdy as well another two guys who serve over 135. So one loss to Isner where you dismantle him in on set and lose two close tiebreaker sets is equal to trouble?

So your whole last post is just wrong, he has no trouble with isner, querrey, Tsonga, berdych, or Del Potro all who serve over 135. He never had trouble with Roddick till todd martin and never played for the last two years of Roddick's career except once and he beat him senseless.

I have a western grip and have no problem taking the ball early on the forehand side. So you don't like a western forehand grip and therefore it is inferior to an eastern or semi-western? He takes the ball early very well off the forehand. How you take it early just like anyone else who takes a ball early with other grips, you shorten your backswing no different for any grip, the angle of the wrist as well plays a role. Drop the wrist back a little and give it a little flick through contact, no rocket science to it. He hits half of his forehands from inside the baseline how can he do that if a western grip precludes you taking the ball early.

Lydian, it seems you are arguing that returning faster serves makes you a better returner; which is not the case.

Just as important in assessing the returner is what they do with the return.

Could it not be argued that Novak's western grip hinders him against really heavy serves but allows him to be more dangerous against all other serves? I don't have any numbers but it strikes me that Novak hits more service return winners than pretty much anyone else on tour.

Is having a weakness against the 5% of the tour with real sledgehammer serves not more than offset by being more potent against the remaining 95%?
(I'm personally not convinced that he does have a problem with big servers but I'm running with the principal!)

And does it not speak volumes in the 'talent' debate that Novak, with his 'hindrances' of big swing and western grip, is still widely viewed as one of the best returners in the game?

To be clear though, I'm on the fence in the Agassi v Novak "best returner" debate. I can see arguments for both! I'm just surprised about some of your assessments of Novak.

Murdoch he has no weakness against the big servers, or guys that serve over 135, the numbers just aren't there. He beat Tsonga 6 times in a row. Does berdych lack a big serve he owns Tomas. How about Del Po, does he have trouble because he lost a match to isner or querrey, he owns massive h2h advantages on all these guys. He beat Roddick the first 3 times he played him and Roddick was fortunate to play exactly one match against post 2011 Novak before he retired. Every single Roddick win was during the Martin related serve slump, if he had so much trouble why did he beat Roddick the first three times he played him.

Novak Djokovic last 4 years in returning on the ATP tour 2010 #1, 2011 #1, 2012 #2, 2013 #2. Do you think this is because he can't return a fast serve?

Socal, no, I don't really see him as having a problem with huge servers.

The only time recently that springs to mind is v Isner at IW last year... but Isner's serve was just insane that day, it was awesome.

I'm happy to accept that someone like Andy is better against huge servers because of his style. But that's just one facet of what I think a returner is judged on.

The fact is Murdoch, watch that Isner match, Novak broke him twice in one of the sets. Novak lost two tiebreaks sets that were close. By the way the claim by Lydian is that guys over 135 he doesn't return as well. Tell that to Berdych, Del Po, or Tsonga who he has beaten now what 6 times in a row. If you look back to his own serve problems in 09 and 10 that encompasses the vast majority of his losses to Roddick and Tsonga. Why? well if you can't hold your own serve it is going to be very difficult to beat a top server. By the way he is also 7-2 against Ljubicic another huge server well over 135 miles an hour that he has no trouble with.

It isn't even nitpicking it is based around one career H2H against Roddick and a one loss to Isner. What about the rest of the matches.

The posts above are all well and good, with some good points, but we were looking at differences between Agassi and Djokovic, not how Djokovic performs against 90% of the current tour. We're looking at things that affect the ability to take early balls and returns.

Lets discuss grips further in practical terms by comparing the use of them when surfaces were different, it illustrates the point. In the 90s we saw no-one with a Western grip do well at fast, low bouncing Wimbledon where the best simply had to take the ball early. French Open Western grip champion Muster could hardly win a match on low bouncing Wimbledon. Conversely, Eastern/Conti grip guys like Sampras, Becker and Henman by and large struggled on clay.

Agassi had a semi western grip which is the best of both worlds, allowing him to get to fast low balls, and play high shots on slower surfaces. Under extreme pressure he had the grip and ability to meet all surface conditions.

We all know Djokovic struggles with low slice. Why is that? Socal tells he can cope no problem but Novak struggles with slice due to his Western grip. If he struggles with slice which is low why are we to believe he's adept at taking fast balls on the rise which like slice are also low. It doesn't add up.

Remember these points are in comparison to Agassi's ball striking ability. I'm not saying he's a crap player but he's simply not as good a ball striker as Agassi was across all conditions, angles, speeds, etc. No way.

Yes and Andre struggles with doing a full split from a dead run and hitting a backhand pass. It is interesting that you are talking about Andre having a semi-western forehand, I have read he had an eastern I will provide you the link. By the way the players are playing in the conditions that they are playing in. Maybe Novak wouldn't be as good with a wooden racquet on a dodgey grass court, who knows. But on the current tour he is playing on he has won every single master's event except one, has one all of the faster tournaments and the lower bouncing tournaments. I can't measure how Djokovic would do on hypothetical faster conditions nor do I want to, on the current tour he has won on every kind of surface at an even more consistent and frightening pace than Agassi. He has won on the fastest and the slowest courts on tour.

And in regards to returner the guys who serve 135 or more he just beat Isner and Querrey, at altitude, on the fastest surface that Jim Courier could cook up.

Andre Agassi's Eastern forehand grip is well suited to his trademark skill, hitting on the rise, and his preference for hitting with less topspin than most of his peers. The Eastern forehand grip works better with balls intercepted low and early than the more Western grips. When Agassi would hit later and higher, he would sometimes shift his grip toward the Semi-Western.

http://tennis.about.com/od/playersmale/ss/photo-tour-male-pro-forehand-grips_8.htm

So basically your thesis is that eastern grip and semi western players are innately superior to western forehands who can't handle the low ball. His grip is really what it amounts to why Agassi is better? The results don't count but because he doesn't have your preferred grip? You can hit low balls with western grips, you can hit early, and you can hit flat, it is a little harder sure but with practice it isn't that big of a hurdle. By the way you can hit heavy spin with an eastern, see Pete Sampras and Federer.

By the way Andy Roddick another fast court player of some repute has a grip just as western on his forehand as Djokovic. He managed to do ok on the fast courts. I also find it interesting that you talk about how weak the western is for the low ball but fail to mention that the western gives you an advantage on the high ball. So you question how Djokovic can handle slice as well as Andre on the low bounces, well what makes you think Andre with his handicap of an eastern/semi western grip could handle the high ball like Djokovic? Wouldn't novak have an advantage over Agassi on the high ball, but instead you post about how Andre hits better from all areas of the court, not the high ball he doesn't, if afterall grips are so determinative as you seem to be making them. No way Agassi in wide position hits better than Djokovic. NO way he hits the high ball better than djokovic.

Again, Socal I'm not saying he can't return well....geez.
I'm saying at the very highest level with the very fastest serves he has some technique quirks that for me mean he wouldn't return quite as well as Agassi or Murray who's technique is just that little bit better for returning....they have shorter take backs and as I'm saying on the other thread have grips that make it easier to take low balls.

However, most guys don't serve like Isner, Roddick. We say that Murray handled Roddick's serve much better than Djokovic. After all, why was Murray 8-3 up on Roddick but Djokovic was 5-6 down? Andy has SW FH grip and is better out wide on the BH side, plus shorter take backs. Personally I think Murray would have been even more of a beast of a player 15-20 years ago.

Remember this is a comparative discussion not that Djokovic isn't a great all round player right now.

How would you compare their backhands? I'm rubbish at identifying grips but Novak's BH grip looks less unusual?

Those people saying Eastern are just plain wrong.
Similarly Roddick's Western assumption is wrong. He started out semi western then went more towards Western later in his career, not fully though, as surfaces slowed...he tried to adapt.

Socal, what do all these similarly looking grips have in common?

















Yep, they're all semi-western.


Then compare to Djokovic's Western grip, look at the angle of the wrist and compare to Roddick above. Not the same at all.



Try and imagine playing that 12 inches above the ground, it's no wonder he struggles with slice.

Yep, HMM Djokovic's BH grip is classic Conti/Eastern combo. Same as Agassi and Murray although he does have a big swing on it. It's clearly a great shot, his only weakness relatively is a poorer slice vs say Murray. So if he is pulled out to the extreme on that wing Murray will have better control. Otherwise I'd say they're similar when a fast serve is in reach of 2 hands. It's the forehand side I believe Djokovic isn't as strong/versatile on for the reasons given. Anyway, perhaps enough said on all this, I still maintain Agassi was the best ball-striker (best I've ever seen) for a few reasons. If Djokovic or Murray are even near him, they're not too far off although I think Federer is nearer, then that's not bad at all plus they have other attributes.

Again, Lydian I didn't say that you claim he was a bad player. Again you state that Andre because of his semi-western has an edge on the Novak with the low ball but you don't make the jump that Djokovic with the more western swing would have an edge in handling the higher balls. Besides the grip doesn't determine your ability to hit a certain type of shot as some sort of impenetrable wall. Because you have an eastern doesn't mean you can't handle a high ball well because you have proper timing and training, just because you have a western doesn't mean you can't the low ball well with proper training and timing. If Andre hits the low ball better, Novak certainly hits the high ball better ask Nadal about that. And I think even you would concede he doesn't hit the ball as well on the stretch or pulled out wide.

If you like stick to your thesis that Novak's forehand grip makes him a worse player than Agassi, when he wins more slams than Agassi, has more masters, has more weeks at number 1 and more year end #1s then I will conclude that his western grip FH isn't all that debilitating. At this stage, and at this age barring a wilanderesque burnout he will pass AA in all these categories. He already has one more year end #1 than AA ever had.

It is these types of arguments that really make me think that you are biased by nostalgia. It is ok, don't take it as an insult we have our biases I know I do, no one is 100 percent objective than he wouldn't be human.

socal1976 wrote:It is these types of arguments that really make me think that you are biased by nostalgia. It is ok, don't take it as an insult we have our biases I know I do, no one is 100 percent objective than he wouldn't be human.

Dont take it as an insult? lol, its not like you havent said that a dozen times. Socal, you need to stop being personally assumptive and judging what the hell I am. You know some of us on here get sick and tired of hearing how the sun shines out of Novak's derrière in all areas of the game. It's like Djokovic has to be the best ever at everything...defence, attack, early ball, return of serve, mental strength, fitness...yes, we get it - for you he's the best player ever without any weaknesses. I find myself being increasingly over-zealous in response and that has to stop, I don't like the way it's going because its colouring my enjoyment of posting.

Some of us see tennis elements done better by others, e.g. Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, or other current players like Murray. Others see some elements done better by those not even playing the game anymore. Nobody is best at everything. But to say anything that doesn't ultimately support Djokovic's greatness and his current results gets met with cries of myopic nostalgia or driving the game down. In saying Agassi is, IMO, the best ball striker it doesn't mean he has the best FH, BH or serve, he hadnt. It meant I thought he hit the ball cleaner and earlier than anyone I've seen since I've been watching, studying and teaching the game. I try to reason why that is but you jump to all sorts of defensive positions if I don't basically anoint Djokovic as the best. Not only is Djokovic's extreme grip perfect for high balls, it's perfect for low sliders too given he's right up there amongst the best at taking the ball early as you said earlier. Clearly he handles slice with aplomb.

But you know, despite all this who really cares at the end of the day? None of these guys are our brother or nephew, it's not really that important that we feel we have to validate their greatness. So to be honest I'm kind of conceding defeat in that I'm just going to shut up with any futher comparisons regarding old/new Nadal, Agassi, surfaces, variety, etc, etc, because its obviously all an affront to the ascension of Djokovic into GOATdom and I'm frankly tired of defending my non-Djokovic views with you. So, enjoy Rome Socal...your man really shouldn't have a problem lifting the trophy given his prowess in all areas. Ciao.

Lydian, first off, I don't claim Djokovic is the best at everything. I rate both Federer and Nadal to have better forehands and Andre and pete as well, have stated it numerous times. I have on numerous occasions also stated that Murray is a better volleyer, has a better slice backhand and bigger first serve.
I feel you are building a strawman which can be as irritating to me, as my assumptions are to you. I have said on numerous occasions that Federer is the best most complete player I have seen, he isn't my favorite but there you have it.

The exact statement of yours that I took exception with in this debate, is that you said that Andre was better at hitting the ball from all areas than Djokovic. He isn't better in all areas of ball striking on the points that I noted ie, the high ball, pulled wide etc. I never said Djokovic was better than Agassi in every area, I noted 3 areas of ball striking I deem him to be better, you are the one who made the conclusive statement that in all areas of the court Andre is better.

If you feel like you want to end this conversation that is well and good. It is best we move on because I don't want to bring down your enjoyment. I simply don't understand why you get so upset that I mention inconsistencies I see in your argument. And I am not the one saying nor have I ever said Djokovic is the best at everything. So please refrain from painting it that way.

There you go again assuming, trust me I'm not upset, more bemused I guess but it's not the end of the world.

Yes his extreme W will be an advantage high up, I mean ball striking from most angles of the court, not just straight up and down the middle. I've never seen a better DTL BH, his running FH wasn't too shabby either but it's clean ball striking I'm talking about when it comes to the discussion. Hitting shots far outwide is a different point concerned with athleticism and as I said to HMM clearly Djokovic is a better mover. It's not the inconsistencies Socal you point out, please do I'm no wise old sage on all aspects of tennis, it's that you never give ground and twist facts, or move the goalposts to other areas. I throw huge amounts of detailed analysis at you and you don't concede any of it. So lets not bother hey?

As I say, enjoy Rome, I will.