Raonic and Bouchard 2016 edition

[missinthejets]

It's funny because I was actually thinking that immediately after the match today.
What we see now is almost the exact opposite of what we saw with this rivalry from roughly 2007-2010 where they had some close matches (not including todays' whipping) but Federer eventually wore Djokovic down. Basically prime Federer vs. pre-prime Djokovic whereas now it's prime Djokovic vs. post-prime Federer.

The series would depend on surface like Ser Woof said. Federer definitely wins on grass in Wimbledon but I think Djokovic wins on every other surface. His dominance on Hard Courts now surpasses anything Federer did but would be great matches between the two. Clay was always Federer's big weakness because it's a slower surface which caters to the strength of elite movers and counter-punchers so Djokovic gets the edge there so I'd say 2-1 Djokovic if it was a 3 match series on the 3 different surfaces.

I never thought I'd say in my lifetime that there's a better tennis player than prime Federer but I think Djokovic might very well be it.

I hope to see Raonic get a shot at Djokovic because I think the best way to beat him on this surface is to hit through him like Wawrinka did. Murray is basically a lesser version of Djokovic, similar games but not quite as good in any aspect.

But is that because Nadal showed up on the scene when Federer had a chance to be that dominant? Right now the biggest thing making Djokovic look so dominant is that there is no one to challenge him. Imagine what would have happened for Federers career without Nadal hitting the scene. Hell even before Nadal fell off the map Djokovic while still very good never had that dominance. I just think the competition is so weak right now. It's basically an old man Federer is the only one can even have a shot to consistently challenge the guy but even then I don't think Federer has the belief anymore that he can win a 5 setter. In his prime he never thought he could lose which makes a huge difference. I discount Murray entirely because Djokovic pretty much owns him.

 

[rboomercat90]

I stayed up last night to watch the match. Gotta feel for Raonic. He was the better player for the first three sets until he injured himself early in the fourth. He must be wondering what if...?


I thought the lines people were awful last night. They got more wrong than I've seen all tournament. Good thing tennis lets you challenge. Why is it that tennis is the only sport where the video review isn't a total farce?

 

[SerbianEagle]

But is that because Nadal showed up on the scene when Federer had a chance to be that dominant? Right now the biggest thing making Djokovic look so dominant is that there is no one to challenge him. Imagine what would have happened for Federers career without Nadal hitting the scene. Hell even before Nadal fell off the map Djokovic while still very good never had that dominance. I just think the competition is so weak right now. It's basically an old man Federer is the only one can even have a shot to consistently challenge the guy but even then I don't think Federer has the belief anymore that he can win a 5 setter. In his prime he never thought he could lose which makes a huge difference. I discount Murray entirely because Djokovic pretty much owns him.

When Federer's career started, he had to deal with "old man" Sampras and Agassi who, while a good player, was never a great player. For his first GS, he beat Mark Philipoussis in the final, which is sort of similar to Djokovic beating Tsonga for his first ever GS title. Andy Roddick was also there or there abouts, but as far as great players...

Fed's second GS title was Aussie open where he beat Marat Safin...Safin is the equivalent of Grigor Dimitrov today...hyped to the max without any results. Djokovic beat Murray for his 2nd GS in Australia. Murray was considered Top 4 with Rafa/Fed/Nole....

So, if you're saying Nole's only competition is old man Federer, then its fair to say that old man Sampras was Federer's only competion when he rose to the top.

for his 10 GS titles so far, Djokovic has gone through 3 guys: Federer/Murray/Nadal with the exception of his first GS win.

in his first 10, Federer went through: Philipoussis, Fernandez, Roddick, Safin, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi and Nadal.

first 10 for Nadal: Puerta, Berdych, Soderling, Federer, Djokovic

Not trying to slight him at all, in fact, I respect the hell out of Federer, but starting out, he did benefit by a transition of sorts in mens tennis.

 

[missinthejets]

When Federer's career started, he had to deal with "old man" Sampras and Agassi who, while a good player, was never a great player. For his first GS, he beat Mark Philipoussis in the final, which is sort of similar to Djokovic beating Tsonga for his first ever GS title. Andy Roddick was also there or there abouts, but as far as great players...

Fed's second GS title was Aussie open where he beat Marat Safin...Safin is the equivalent of Grigor Dimitrov today...hyped to the max without any results. Djokovic beat Murray for his 2nd GS in Australia. Murray was considered Top 4 with Rafa/Fed/Nole....

So, if you're saying Nole's only competition is old man Federer, then its fair to say that old man Sampras was Federer's only competion when he rose to the top.

for his 10 GS titles so far, Djokovic has gone through 3 guys: Federer/Murray/Nadal with the exception of his first GS win.

in his first 10, Federer went through: Philipoussis, Fernandez, Roddick, Safin, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi and Nadal.

first 10 for Nadal: Puerta, Berdych, Soderling, Federer, Djokovic

Not trying to slight him at all, in fact, I respect the hell out of Federer, but starting out, he did benefit by a transition of sorts in mens tennis.

I think you are selling some of the past players short. Safin compared to Dmitrov? Hardly. Safin was more like Wawrinka. Not stylistically but more like when he was on he was ****ing good but he wasn't on all that much. Hewitt was a good player for a time but he played a style that was not sustainable and he broke down pretty quickly. Sampras was clearly near the end and Agassi did what Federer is doing now, good results as an old player but not a huge threat to win. Roddick was a good player too who I think would be looked at more positively if he didn't have to deal with Prime Roger Federer his whole career. There really is a bit of a dead spot in the generation behind Djokovic and Murray, that's undeniable. None of the group of expected players has lived up to what you might normally expect. The fact that Federer as old as he is, is still the second best player in the world is a damning statement about the generation that should be in their primes now. I really do believe that Federer had more challengers than exist currently. The games transition was in large part because of Federer being good at everything as opposed to the more nuanced games that used to exist. Throw in the fact that they started slowing down the surfaces to get more rallies you saw the variety going out of the game as pure serve and volley was harder and harder to do.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

When Federer's career started, he had to deal with "old man" Sampras and Agassi who, while a good player, was never a great player. For his first GS, he beat Mark Philipoussis in the final, which is sort of similar to Djokovic beating Tsonga for his first ever GS title. Andy Roddick was also there or there abouts, but as far as great players...

Fed's second GS title was Aussie open where he beat Marat Safin...Safin is the equivalent of Grigor Dimitrov today...hyped to the max without any results. Djokovic beat Murray for his 2nd GS in Australia. Murray was considered Top 4 with Rafa/Fed/Nole....

So, if you're saying Nole's only competition is old man Federer, then its fair to say that old man Sampras was Federer's only competion when he rose to the top.

for his 10 GS titles so far, Djokovic has gone through 3 guys: Federer/Murray/Nadal with the exception of his first GS win.

in his first 10, Federer went through: Philipoussis, Fernandez, Roddick, Safin, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi and Nadal.

first 10 for Nadal: Puerta, Berdych, Soderling, Federer, Djokovic

Not trying to slight him at all, in fact, I respect the hell out of Federer, but starting out, he did benefit by a transition of sorts in mens tennis.

Federer won his first slam in 2003. By 2005 Nadal was already a slam champion himself and nigh unbeatable on clay. Nadal's style of game (lefty, tons of spin) also made him a nightmare matchup for Fed, not to mention the fact that his best surface by far was clay, while that was Federer's worst surface. Then, as Federer got older not only did he have to deal with the natural decline associated with age, but he also had to deal with Djokovic as well as Nadal. Federer has aged very gracefully and has easily been a better player from the age of 30-34 years old than any other player in the history of the game at the same age, yet he has only won a single slam in that time period because his two main competitors are not only all-time greats in their own right, but they are 5-6 years younger than him.

So yes, Federer benefited from somewhat weak competition for a couple years (much like Novak has now), but the insanely difficult competition he's had since then more than makes up for it.

Djokovic has faced the exact opposite situation. He was a great player for many years but couldn't break through because his main competition was a prime Fed and a prime Nadal. But now later in his career the seas seem to be parting for him. Federer is getting older, Nadal has suddenly become a complete non-factor and there is an all-time low in young talent in the game at the moment. The weak era argument shouldn't be used for either guy because they've both had periods in their careers where the competition was incredibly tough.

I also give Federer some credit for setting a new bar in men's tennis. He brought the game to a new level and it was up to others to match it. Nadal was able to do it, and then after 5 years or so in the shadow of the other two Djokovic finally reached their level in 2011. Novak himself has admitted that he wouldn't be nearly as good today if it weren't for the other two, and Nadal probably wouldn't have been as good if it weren't for Fed.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

As for Raonic, I haven't been a big fan of his in the past as I found his game pretty boring, but he really won me over in this tournament. He showed a lot more variety and even showed some signs that he may in fact be human and not a robot.

It is too bad he lost the semis though, if you want to see some boring tennis watch Djokovic - Murray. Both guys can play some exciting matches when they play against an opponent with a contrasting style, but against each other it is usually painfully boring, especially if Novak dominates as I expect he will. It is like watching the LA Kings play a slightly worse version of themselves.

 

[shoop]

I stayed up last night to watch the match. Gotta feel for Raonic. He was the better player for the first three sets until he injured himself early in the fourth. He must be wondering what if...?


I thought the lines people were awful last night. They got more wrong than I've seen all tournament. Good thing tennis lets you challenge. Why is it that tennis is the only sport where the video review isn't a total farce?

Have you seen where Jack Sock told Hewitt to challenge a call to Hewitt's advantage a couple weeks ago? Completely unexpected, but kinda cool move by Sock.

 

[Cloned]

Serena Williams is human after all.

 

[guymez]

Not surprised at all to see Djokovic win this tournament. He was clearly the man to beat from day 1.

Really too bad that Raonic wasnt in the final though. Its tough not to think that he could have beaten Murray had he not sustained that injury. Still a very impressive showing for Raonic (now #11 in the world) and very much looking forward to watching him and his improved game in the upcoming tournaments.

As for the women...really surprising (and refreshing) to see Kerber upset Serena.

Here's hoping that Bouchard can repair her career and make things interesting this season.

 

[Cloned]

Not surprised at all to see Djokovic win this tournament. He was clearly the man to beat from day 1.

Really too bad that Raonic wasnt in the final though. Its tough not to think that he could have beaten Murray had he not sustained that injury. Still a very impressive showing for Raonic (now #11 in the world) and very much looking forward to watching him and his improved game in the upcoming tournaments.

As for the women...really surprising (and refreshing) to see Kerber upset Serena.

Here's hoping that Bouchard can repair her career and make things interesting this season.

Serena is getting into her mid thirties... one would hope that eventually she will be challenged consistently. Otherwise that just speaks to the poor quality at the top of the women's game.

 

[missinthejets]

Serena is getting into her mid thirties... one would hope that eventually she will be challenged consistently. Otherwise that just speaks to the poor quality at the top of the women's game.

I've said for a long time that no one in the womens game has the mental capacity to win consistently other than Serena Williams. Plenty of people with talent, but they're all head cases who could lose to a qualifier in round one or win it all. Being good day in and day out is important in an individual sport, none of the women really exhibit that trait except for Williams.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

The womens game is like the mens game if Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray never came around. It would just be Federer in his mid thirties still dominating everybody.

I'm a little worried as a tennis fan that the mens game may be headed for a similar situation with Djokovic. He will be 29 this year and yet all of his main competitors are the same age or older. That lack of young talent is really unprecedented. With Fed aging and Nadal declining suddenly the game desperately need some young players to step up. It would be cool if it was Milos, but I'm afraid it may not be for another 3-4 until someone like Coric or Zverev matures.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

The womens game is like the mens game if Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray never came around. It would just be Federer in his mid thirties still dominating everybody.

I'm a little worried as a tennis fan that the mens game may be headed for a similar situation with Djokovic. He will be 29 this year and yet all of his main competitors are the same age or older. That lack of young talent is really unprecedented. With Fed aging and Nadal declining suddenly the game desperately need some young players to step up. It would be cool if it was Milos, but I'm afraid it may not be for another 3-4 until someone like Coric or Zverev matures.

I think the competition in Mens is really good, Djokovic is dominant, Federer still is a worthy opponent, you have Murray, Raonic and many others.

Tennis will forever be a sport that you can only be so dominant for so long when Federer was dominating it was the same story, then new guys always come along and they are coming.

 

[missinthejets]

I think the competition in Mens is really good, Djokovic is dominant, Federer still is a worthy opponent, you have Murray, Raonic and many others.

Tennis will forever be a sport that you can only be so dominant for so long when Federer was dominating it was the same story, then new guys always come along and they are coming.

But when Federer was coming along the new guys were Nadal and Djokovic, no one can touch Djokovic now and Federer is still beating everyone besides him too. The only thing that appears like it can stop Djokovic is father time. Tennis is harsh when you get older but the guy is in amazing shape so who knows. Some day he's going to hit that wall and being close to 30 it's probably coming sooner rather than later, but we might still have 2 or 3 years of Djokovic owning everyone.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

A lot of tennis analysts will talk about the "missing generation" in tennis because the last decade of young tennis players has been extremely weak. When Federer starting dominating there were a lot of really promising young teenagers right around the corner who would very soon start pushing him - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Gasquet, Monfils, Berdych, Wawrinka etc...and while not all of them reached their full potential there were some super elite players to come out of that group. However, the best players to come around in the last decade by comparison are Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov...and that's about it. Solid players sure, but a far cry from the previous generation.

The level of competition at the top has dropped significantly in the past year or two now that Nadal is struggling. Even Murray hasn't been the same since his back surgery.

 

[missinthejets]

A lot of tennis analysts will talk about the "missing generation" in tennis because the last decade of young tennis players has been extremely weak. When Federer starting dominating there were a lot of really promising young teenagers right around the corner who would very soon start pushing him - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Gasquet, Monfils, Berdych, Wawrinka etc...and while not all of them reached their full potential there were some super elite players to come out of that group. However, the best players to come around in the last decade by comparison are Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov...and that's about it. Solid players sure, but a far cry from the previous generation.

The level of competition at the top has dropped significantly in the past year or two now that Nadal is struggling. Even Murray hasn't been the same since his back surgery.

I would argue that Murray was never really worth being included in the big 4. He had basically one season where he was worthy of it but he's always been a clear step behind Djokovic Federer and Nadal when they were winning everything. Now that Nadal is broken and Federer is too old to be a threat to beat Djokovic in 5 sets you really see the rift between Murray and Djokovic and Djokovic and the rest of the field really. I dunno that Wawrinka is really all that far off Murray truth be told, less consistent but his highest level is probably higher than Murrays highest.

Completely agreed about the lost generation. Dmitrov is just not ever going to be as good as expected and Raonic took his sweet time getting to the level he is, but he has also been injured enough he might top out at pretty good but not ever get to the top of the game. I am not a real fan of Nishikori, I just don't think he's got enough tools to ever threaten the top guys consistently either.

It's kind of sad to think where the level was just a couple years ago to where it is now. You always knew there would be a let down when the golden age ended but it's so jarring to see it actually happen.

 

[Cloned]

I would argue that Murray was never really worth being included in the big 4. He had basically one season where he was worthy of it but he's always been a clear step behind Djokovic Federer and Nadal when they were winning everything. Now that Nadal is broken and Federer is too old to be a threat to beat Djokovic in 5 sets you really see the rift between Murray and Djokovic and Djokovic and the rest of the field really. I dunno that Wawrinka is really all that far off Murray truth be told, less consistent but his highest level is probably higher than Murrays highest.

Completely agreed about the lost generation. Dmitrov is just not ever going to be as good as expected and Raonic took his sweet time getting to the level he is, but he has also been injured enough he might top out at pretty good but not ever get to the top of the game. I am not a real fan of Nishikori, I just don't think he's got enough tools to ever threaten the top guys consistently either.

It's kind of sad to think where the level was just a couple years ago to where it is now. You always knew there would be a let down when the golden age ended but it's so jarring to see it actually happen.

Eh, I think it's more a matter of how good the last 30-40 years have been in men's tennis that has setup unrealistic expectations going forward.

I mean there was a run starting in the 70's with guys like Connors, McEnroe, Borg, then the 80's and 90's with Agassi and Sampras, which transitioned to Federer, and then Nadal and Djokovic.

There are probably 5 or 6 generational tennis players in there.

There will be a let down at some point if you have that level of play to live up to.

 

[CupofOil]

I would argue that Murray was never really worth being included in the big 4. He had basically one season where he was worthy of it but he's always been a clear step behind Djokovic Federer and Nadal when they were winning everything. Now that Nadal is broken and Federer is too old to be a threat to beat Djokovic in 5 sets you really see the rift between Murray and Djokovic and Djokovic and the rest of the field really. I dunno that Wawrinka is really all that far off Murray truth be told, less consistent but his highest level is probably higher than Murrays highest.

Completely agreed about the lost generation. Dmitrov is just not ever going to be as good as expected and Raonic took his sweet time getting to the level he is, but he has also been injured enough he might top out at pretty good but not ever get to the top of the game. I am not a real fan of Nishikori, I just don't think he's got enough tools to ever threaten the top guys consistently either.

It's kind of sad to think where the level was just a couple years ago to where it is now. You always knew there would be a let down when the golden age ended but it's so jarring to see it actually happen.

I don't think it's a "lost generation". It's just that we've been spoiled by having three "generational" tennis players all overlapping each other in the past 15 years so of course this next generation will pale in comparison. There's a ton of talent out there, it's just a matter of them getting over the mental hurdle of beating the big players and some like Dimitrov are just plain overrated or Kyrgios who has unbelievable talent but is a complete headcase. I also think the lack of an American Star is hurting the game also. The Sampras/Agassi and previously McEnroe/Connors golden age of American Men's tennis seems like so long ago now.

The women's game has been in shambles for a couple of decades now. The Hingis/Williams sister rivalry was the last great era I can remember in the women's game. Now the greatest rivalry of Serena/Sharapova is a Djokovic/Murray-esque domination almost completely mirroring each other in that Serena and Djokovic are similar stylistically to their rival but better at every aspect including the all important mental advantage.

I still love watching the majors but there's no big rivalry right now and no teenage sensation on the verge of breaking through so the game is in a bit of a rough patch now and the drama isn't nearly as great as it was even a few years ago.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

Prime Federer vs Prime Novak

Who wins in a best of 3 series, 5 sets each match?

Would depend on court surface. Prime Fed probably wins easily on the faster courts, but Djokovic probably wins on the slow courts. Unfortunately for Fed, almost all the courts on tour have slowed down dramatically in the last 10 years or so (even Wimbeldon). Court homogenization is a big reason why it is possible for a guy like Djokovic to dominate every surface because there is hardly any difference anymore. 90% of the tour is play on slow-medium courts.

Look no further than the Cincinnati Masters. That is one of the few tournaments left that still plays on a fast hard court and, not surprisingly, the only one Novak has yet to win. Last year a 34 year old Federer beat Djokovic during the best year of his career in straight sets without even facing a break point at Cinci because of the fast courts. In the rare occasion when they play on a fast surface, Roger is still better than Novak even at this stage in their careers. But on the slow courts Djokovic's athleticism is just too much to handle.

 

[missinthejets]

I don't think it's a "lost generation". It's just that we've been spoiled by having three "generational" tennis players all overlapping each other in the past 15 years so of course this next generation will pale in comparison. There's a ton of talent out there, it's just a matter of them getting over the mental hurdle of beating the big players and some like Dimitrov are just plain overrated or Kyrgios who has unbelievable talent but is a complete headcase. I also think the lack of an American Star is hurting the game also. The Sampras/Agassi and previously McEnroe/Connors golden age of American Men's tennis seems like so long ago now.

The women's game has been in shambles for a couple of decades now. The Hingis/Williams sister rivalry was the last great era I can remember in the women's game. Now the greatest rivalry of Serena/Sharapova is a Djokovic/Murray-esque domination almost completely mirroring each other in that Serena and Djokovic are similar stylistically to their rival but better at every aspect including the all important mental advantage.

I still love watching the majors but there's no big rivalry right now and no teenage sensation on the verge of breaking through so the game is in a bit of a rough patch now and the drama isn't nearly as great as it was even a few years ago.

Truthfully I kind of liked Justine Henin against Williams. For a smaller girl Henin could generate a lot of power and was a real talented player, she just didn't stick around very long.

I do say it's a lost generation though, none of those guys even hit the level of Murray or Wawrinka or even Berdych. Maybe the younger guys coming up will hit a good level but the ones that should be in their prime now are wanting.

 

[guymez]

Serena is getting into her mid thirties... one would hope that eventually she will be challenged consistently. Otherwise that just speaks to the poor quality at the top of the women's game.

Fair point.