Djokovic has my support, TP.
Want to see him surpass them all.
Djokovic (24) - Nadal (22) - Federer (20)
-
think positive
- Posts: 40237
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 339 times
- Been liked: 103 times
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29523
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 259 times
- Been liked: 338 times
UPDATE!
Grand Slam Head to Head Records:
Nadal 10-4 Federer
- 1). French Open 2005 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 2). French Open 2006 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2006 (Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 4). French Open 2007 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 5). Wimbledon 2007 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 6). French Open 2008 (Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 7). Wimbledon 2008 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2009 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2011 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). Australian Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 11). Australian Open 2014 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 12). Australian Open 2017 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 13). French Open 2019 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2019 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-0 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-3 Federer
US OPEN = Nadal 0-0 Federer
Nadal 9-6 Djokovic
- 1). French Open 2006 (Quarter Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 2). French Open 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 4). French Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 5). US Open 2010 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 6). Wimbledon 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 7). US Open 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2012 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2012 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). French Open 2013 (Semi Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 11). US Open 2013 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 12). French Open 2014 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 13). French Open 2015 (Quarter Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2018 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 0-2 Djokovic
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-1 Djokovic
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-2 Djokovic
US OPEN = Nadal 2-1 Djokovic
Djokovic 10-6 Federer
- 1). Australian Open 2007 (4th Round) = Federer (3 sets)
- 2). US Open 2007 (Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 3). Australian Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 4). US Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 5). US Open 2009 (Semi Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 6). US Open 2010 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 7). Australian Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 8]. French Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 9). US Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 10). French Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 11). Wimbledon 2012 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 12). Wimbledon 2014 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 13). Wimbledon 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 14). US Open 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2016 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 16). Wimbledon 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Djokovic 1-1 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
US OPEN = Djokovic 3-3 Federer
Grand Slam Head to Head Records:
Nadal 10-4 Federer
- 1). French Open 2005 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 2). French Open 2006 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2006 (Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 4). French Open 2007 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 5). Wimbledon 2007 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 6). French Open 2008 (Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 7). Wimbledon 2008 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2009 (Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2011 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). Australian Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 11). Australian Open 2014 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 12). Australian Open 2017 (Final) = Federer (5 sets)
- 13). French Open 2019 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2019 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-0 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-3 Federer
US OPEN = Nadal 0-0 Federer
Nadal 9-6 Djokovic
- 1). French Open 2006 (Quarter Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 2). French Open 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 3). Wimbledon 2007 (Semi Final) = Nadal (2 sets up) - Djokovic retired early from injury
- 4). French Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Nadal (3 sets)
- 5). US Open 2010 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 6). Wimbledon 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 7). US Open 2011 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 8]. Australian Open 2012 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 9). French Open 2012 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 10). French Open 2013 (Semi Final) = Nadal (5 sets)
- 11). US Open 2013 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 12). French Open 2014 (Final) = Nadal (4 sets)
- 13). French Open 2015 (Quarter Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 14). Wimbledon 2018 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Nadal 0-2 Djokovic
FRENCH OPEN = Nadal 6-1 Djokovic
WIMBLEDON = Nadal 1-2 Djokovic
US OPEN = Nadal 2-1 Djokovic
Djokovic 10-6 Federer
- 1). Australian Open 2007 (4th Round) = Federer (3 sets)
- 2). US Open 2007 (Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 3). Australian Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 4). US Open 2008 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 5). US Open 2009 (Semi Final) = Federer (3 sets)
- 6). US Open 2010 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 7). Australian Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 8]. French Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 9). US Open 2011 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 10). French Open 2012 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (3 sets)
- 11). Wimbledon 2012 (Semi Final) = Federer (4 sets)
- 12). Wimbledon 2014 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
- 13). Wimbledon 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 14). US Open 2015 (Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 15). Australian Open 2016 (Semi Final) = Djokovic (4 sets)
- 16). Wimbledon 2019 (Final) = Djokovic (5 sets)
AUSTRALIAN OPEN = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
FRENCH OPEN = Djokovic 1-1 Federer
WIMBLEDON = Djokovic 3-1 Federer
US OPEN = Djokovic 3-3 Federer
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
It's a totally different game now even compared with recent times (the 80s), because of the racquet technology. If modern players took the huge swings they do now with the old racquets, there would be a lot of balls flying in all directions, including into the crowd behind them.
I think more serious thought should go into limiting the effects of the technology, but that doesn't look like happening.
I think more serious thought should go into limiting the effects of the technology, but that doesn't look like happening.
Which Strings Generate the Most Spin?
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learnin ... riment.php
"The results ... support those previously obtained by the ITF, and commonly reported by players themselves, indicating that polyester strings generate more spin than nylon strings. Most of our data were obtained using clamped racquets where we found that the outgoing spin from a selected group of polyester strings was 25% greater, on average, than a sample of four nylon strings, at least under the test conditions. Some strings generated more spin when strung at high tension, while other strings generated more spin when strung at low tension."
[Elsewhere, the author says "polyester strings become popular after about 2005".]
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learnin ... riment.php
"The results ... support those previously obtained by the ITF, and commonly reported by players themselves, indicating that polyester strings generate more spin than nylon strings. Most of our data were obtained using clamped racquets where we found that the outgoing spin from a selected group of polyester strings was 25% greater, on average, than a sample of four nylon strings, at least under the test conditions. Some strings generated more spin when strung at high tension, while other strings generated more spin when strung at low tension."
[Elsewhere, the author says "polyester strings become popular after about 2005".]
SPAGHETTI STRUNG RACQUETS
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/S ... CQUETS.htm
"In 1971 a German horticulturalist, Werner Fischer, invented a new way to string tennis racquets. It generated so much spin on the ball that it was eventually banned by the International Tennis Federation in 1978. One of the problems was that players of relatively low standing were able to beat top players by generating much more spin than the top players could at the time. Ironically, the modern game of tennis has evolved to the point where players like Nadal can now generate almost as much spin as Fisher could in the 1970’s with his spaghetti strings. Modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net since they can easily be passed down the sideline or overhead with a topspin lob. That was one of the reasons that the spaghetti stringing system was banned in the first place."
[I like the bit where he says "modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net".
I wouldn't say the rallies are necessarily "boring", but something has been lost. When you see almost no serve-volleying at Wimbledon, something is very wrong with tennis. It's shameful that the ITF never acted to save it.]
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/S ... CQUETS.htm
"In 1971 a German horticulturalist, Werner Fischer, invented a new way to string tennis racquets. It generated so much spin on the ball that it was eventually banned by the International Tennis Federation in 1978. One of the problems was that players of relatively low standing were able to beat top players by generating much more spin than the top players could at the time. Ironically, the modern game of tennis has evolved to the point where players like Nadal can now generate almost as much spin as Fisher could in the 1970’s with his spaghetti strings. Modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net since they can easily be passed down the sideline or overhead with a topspin lob. That was one of the reasons that the spaghetti stringing system was banned in the first place."
[I like the bit where he says "modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net".
I wouldn't say the rallies are necessarily "boring", but something has been lost. When you see almost no serve-volleying at Wimbledon, something is very wrong with tennis. It's shameful that the ITF never acted to save it.]
R. Cross: "... modern players run back and forth across the baseline in long boring rallies, rarely daring to come to the net..."
C. Walner: "More sand added to the paint on the court slows down the speed of the ball, which is what tennis directors have been wanting for years. But why?
It’s because the fast-paced serve and volley style is not considered exciting for the audience. It’s largely a one-and-done style where the point is won or lost quickly. Baseline rallies, however, are longer, more fun to watch and add drama to the match. This equates to more viewers, increased fan excitement and participation and better revenue."
Walner again: "To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer."
[That's a huge clash of beliefs. Do (some) audiences really believe rallies are more exciting? There is no question rallying is safer. How can avoidance of risk be more exciting?
If Walner is right, the ITF not only did nothing to prevent serve-volleying dying, but actively hastened its death.
What they should really want is variety and differences of style. That is one of many factors that made Borg vs. McEnroe the most compelling rivalry in all tennis -- speaking of which, those two should have been consulted, along with older champs, before the ITF meddled with the game.]
C. Walner: "More sand added to the paint on the court slows down the speed of the ball, which is what tennis directors have been wanting for years. But why?
It’s because the fast-paced serve and volley style is not considered exciting for the audience. It’s largely a one-and-done style where the point is won or lost quickly. Baseline rallies, however, are longer, more fun to watch and add drama to the match. This equates to more viewers, increased fan excitement and participation and better revenue."
Walner again: "To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer."
[That's a huge clash of beliefs. Do (some) audiences really believe rallies are more exciting? There is no question rallying is safer. How can avoidance of risk be more exciting?
If Walner is right, the ITF not only did nothing to prevent serve-volleying dying, but actively hastened its death.
What they should really want is variety and differences of style. That is one of many factors that made Borg vs. McEnroe the most compelling rivalry in all tennis -- speaking of which, those two should have been consulted, along with older champs, before the ITF meddled with the game.]
Walner puts the death of serve-volley tennis down to "slower court speeds, softer balls, better rackets, enhanced string technology, and improved fitness and strength in today’s players".
He says:
"To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer. This allows more time for the baseliner to get to the ball and set up for a big shot.
...
In September 2001, the Independent Newspaper published an article about how the ITF deliberately requested the companies that provide balls to the WTA and ATP to make them slower on fast courts. Interestingly, the ITF also wanted the speed of the balls to be faster on red clay.
...
... three different balls were introduced to the pro game. On hard court surfaces, something called a “type 3” ball was used, which is 6% larger in diameter and moves slower in flight. The ball will come off the racket with the same speed as a standard ball (the type 2 ball) but provide 10% more reaction time to the opposing player. This is because a type 3 ball slows quicker in the air than a traditional type 2 ball does.
...
As the new millennia came and went, even better rackets were being produced. At this point, rackets were so good, that baseline players had lost much of the fear of their opponent’s coming to net.
...
Ultimately, the tennis world was introduced to polyester strings that would forever change the game.
The new polyester strings started to make their appearance in the mid-to-late 1990s. ...
Poly was really the first string to alter the landscape of tennis and disrupt the serve and volley game. Poly is known for allowing a player to generate huge amounts of spin. Passing shots can be as high as 10 feet with them and still land inside the court. With so much spin on the ball, coming to the net is now a hazardous ploy. Today’s players, like Rafael Nadal and Jock Sock, hit with insane levels of RPM (3000+) on their forehand groundstrokes. This causes their shots to dip with so much arch the net player can’t react in time to volley effectively."
https://serveandvolleytennis.com/why-di ... y-die-out/
He says:
"To encourage longer rallies, the ITF (International Tennis Federation), who oversees tennis, decided in the early 2000s to make the courts slower and the balls softer. This allows more time for the baseliner to get to the ball and set up for a big shot.
...
In September 2001, the Independent Newspaper published an article about how the ITF deliberately requested the companies that provide balls to the WTA and ATP to make them slower on fast courts. Interestingly, the ITF also wanted the speed of the balls to be faster on red clay.
...
... three different balls were introduced to the pro game. On hard court surfaces, something called a “type 3” ball was used, which is 6% larger in diameter and moves slower in flight. The ball will come off the racket with the same speed as a standard ball (the type 2 ball) but provide 10% more reaction time to the opposing player. This is because a type 3 ball slows quicker in the air than a traditional type 2 ball does.
...
As the new millennia came and went, even better rackets were being produced. At this point, rackets were so good, that baseline players had lost much of the fear of their opponent’s coming to net.
...
Ultimately, the tennis world was introduced to polyester strings that would forever change the game.
The new polyester strings started to make their appearance in the mid-to-late 1990s. ...
Poly was really the first string to alter the landscape of tennis and disrupt the serve and volley game. Poly is known for allowing a player to generate huge amounts of spin. Passing shots can be as high as 10 feet with them and still land inside the court. With so much spin on the ball, coming to the net is now a hazardous ploy. Today’s players, like Rafael Nadal and Jock Sock, hit with insane levels of RPM (3000+) on their forehand groundstrokes. This causes their shots to dip with so much arch the net player can’t react in time to volley effectively."
https://serveandvolleytennis.com/why-di ... y-die-out/
Death of a tennis art: Is this the end for serve and volley?
June 26, 2012
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/spor ... index.html
'... Lendl believes the bold playing style -- mastered to thrilling effect on grass by legends such as Rod Laver, Stefan Edberg, Martina Navratilova and Pat Rafter -- has been outdated by advances in technology and training.
"The reason the guys don't serve and volley is mainly because of the spin on the ball that is given by the string and also by the strength of the guys and their technique," Lendl told CNN.
...
Yet Pete Sampras, the most lethal exponent of serve and volley ever seen at the All England Club, is less optimistic about the future of the technique.
"It's gone," he told CNN earlier this year.
"I love watching Roger, Nadal, Djokovic, but it's sad to see Wimbledon today with everyone staying back," Sampras said in March.
"I developed the serve and volley game at a young age. I started at 13, 14 -- if you're 20 and don't serve and volley, it's too late."
...
"Technology might be an issue because with these big Babolat rackets, they don't need to volley, you just hit the crap out of the ball. Whereas we grew up with the wood racket, so you had to hit it properly," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion.
"It'd be nice to have someone come up that serves and volleys. It's definitely a lost art, and it's unfortunate." '
June 26, 2012
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/spor ... index.html
'... Lendl believes the bold playing style -- mastered to thrilling effect on grass by legends such as Rod Laver, Stefan Edberg, Martina Navratilova and Pat Rafter -- has been outdated by advances in technology and training.
"The reason the guys don't serve and volley is mainly because of the spin on the ball that is given by the string and also by the strength of the guys and their technique," Lendl told CNN.
...
Yet Pete Sampras, the most lethal exponent of serve and volley ever seen at the All England Club, is less optimistic about the future of the technique.
"It's gone," he told CNN earlier this year.
"I love watching Roger, Nadal, Djokovic, but it's sad to see Wimbledon today with everyone staying back," Sampras said in March.
"I developed the serve and volley game at a young age. I started at 13, 14 -- if you're 20 and don't serve and volley, it's too late."
...
"Technology might be an issue because with these big Babolat rackets, they don't need to volley, you just hit the crap out of the ball. Whereas we grew up with the wood racket, so you had to hit it properly," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion.
"It'd be nice to have someone come up that serves and volleys. It's definitely a lost art, and it's unfortunate." '