Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a *stronger* tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he was,
but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will seriously
be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:29:32 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a *stronger* tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he was,
but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

Self-rating is irrelevant. He obviously wants his younger competition to see him as ageless and invincible.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean?

A better question is why do you care so much?

Given what we are seeing with Novak who will seriously
be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

Let's talk about it when he actually accomplishes this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 10:06:38 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:29:32 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a *stronger* tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

Self-rating is irrelevant. He obviously wants his younger competition to see him as ageless and invincible.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean?

A better question is why do you care so much?

Given what we are seeing with Novak who will seriously
be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

Let's talk about it when he actually accomplishes this.

Slavs inferiority complex to Germanic people?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Whisper <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's overall a *stronger* tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their

ipads. The faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year
at 37.

Didn't Federer say the same?

Also Undecided said he is better, stronger, and faster than ever
being 60 years old than he was 20 years old. So what does this
tell you about him when he was 20 years old?

So really, I believe it :)


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a stronger tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he
was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will
seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

I would agree with Gracchus here. We need to take this statement with a
grain of salt. It depends on the individual player, their physical
condition etc. For example, Sampras said the same thing: that the
Sampras of the 2002 USO would beat the Sampras of 1990 easily. And yet
Sampras never played another professional match ever. WOuld the Edberg
of 1996 beat the Edberg of 1987 or 1988 ? Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ? They all had the benefit of experience and they
were only 30 yrs,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Shakes wrote:

Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ?

*Becker of 1986.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 10:06:38 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:29:32 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a *stronger* tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

Self-rating is irrelevant. He obviously wants his younger competition to see him as ageless and invincible.

Yes, it's true that Djokovic, as an older player, doesn't want to seem weak but it's also true that although he's declined in some aspects(very little), he's added other things to his game which compensate. In some ways, he is better today than he was at
25. He's stronger mentally, he is a fantastic spot server now, etc. He just never stops wanting to improve. It's unbelievable. When he loses to a player, he must study the tapes obsessively as it's rare to be able to beat him twice in a row. His tennis
IQ is off the charts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:42:45 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a stronger tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he
was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will
seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

I would agree with Gracchus here. We need to take this statement with a grain of salt. It depends on the individual player, their physical
condition etc. For example, Sampras said the same thing: that the
Sampras of the 2002 USO would beat the Sampras of 1990 easily. And yet Sampras never played another professional match ever. WOuld the Edberg
of 1996 beat the Edberg of 1987 or 1988 ? Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ? They all had the benefit of experience and they
were only 30 yrs,

Forget talking about those old relics of the past(Sampras, Becker, Edberg.) This isn't 1980! It's 2023 and professional athletes have come a long way since then. They have better everything nowadays to keep them fit for much longer. There's no better
example of that than Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal.

What we thought in the 80s and 90s, i.e. that professional athletes are finished at age 30-31, doesn't hold true today at all. It's not an apt comparison.

Djokovic IS better in many ways today than he was in his 20s. It's obvious!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/11/2023 8:42 am, Shakes wrote:

Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's
overall a stronger tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he
was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The
faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he
actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will
seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

I would agree with Gracchus here. We need to take this statement with a
grain of salt. It depends on the individual player, their physical
condition etc. For example, Sampras said the same thing: that the
Sampras of the 2002 USO would beat the Sampras of 1990 easily. And yet Sampras never played another professional match ever. WOuld the Edberg
of 1996 beat the Edberg of 1987 or 1988 ? Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ? They all had the benefit of experience and they
were only 30 yrs,

Maybe AI can tell us who would win 1990 USO Sampras v 2002 USO Sampras?
I suspect 2002 Sampras would win that particular matchup. Sampras prob
never served better in a slam final and was superb at the net and
massive experience to draw on v the teenager. 1995 USO Sampras would be
a tighter match, not sure who wins.

If Federer really was that far past his best (tennis best, not physical
best) at only 27 then he can't be a goat anyway lol. Laver won calendar
slam at 31 in open era and Novak will have more slams after age 30 than
before 30.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/11/2023 8:44 am, Shakes wrote:

Shakes wrote:

Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ?

*Becker of 1986.

Becker was inconsistent so hard to pin his best down to particular
years, but the Becker of 1986 Wimbledon final may have been the best
version. It kinda reminded me of Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final, just
supreme stuff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 01:15:33 UTC, Court_1 wrote:

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:42:45 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:

Whisper wrote:

Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's overall a stronger tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he
was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better.

It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The faster chips are overkill and add nothing to performance.

So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will
seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37.

I would agree with Gracchus here. We need to take this statement with a grain of salt. It depends on the individual player, their physical condition etc. For example, Sampras said the same thing: that the
Sampras of the 2002 USO would beat the Sampras of 1990 easily. And yet Sampras never played another professional match ever. WOuld the Edberg
of 1996 beat the Edberg of 1987 or 1988 ? Or the Becker of 1996 beat
the Becker of 1996 ? They all had the benefit of experience and they
were only 30 yrs,

Forget talking about those old relics of the past(Sampras, Becker, Edberg.) This isn't 1980! It's 2023 and professional athletes have come a long way since then. They have better everything nowadays to keep them fit for much longer. There's no better

example of that than Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal.

What we thought in the 80s and 90s, i.e. that professional athletes are finished at age 30-31, doesn't hold true today at all. It's not an apt comparison.

Djokovic IS better in many ways today than he was in his 20s. It's obvious!

hmmm reckon the 2011 version of Djoker would be very tough one to beat, he was peak fitness and like a human baseboard during that time. Remember Sinner should've beaten Djoker at Wimbledon and Alcaraz did beat him, so 2011 version Djoker prob would have
too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 01:15:33 UTC, Court_1 wrote:> On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:42:45 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote: > > Whisper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Novak says he'd beat the 10 yr younger version of himself as he's > > > overall

a stronger tennis player. So he may not be as fast as he > > > was, but he has more strengths that make him overall better. > > > > > > It's a bit like when Apple add M1, M2, M3 chips to their ipads. The > > > faster chips are overkill and add nothing to
performance. > > > > > > So when PWL says Federer was past his peak at age 27 what does he > > > actually mean? Given what we are seeing with Novak who will > > > seriously be shooting for a golden calendar slam next year at 37. > > > I would agree with
Gracchus here. We need to take this statement with a > > grain of salt. It depends on the individual player, their physical > > condition etc. For example, Sampras said the same thing: that the > > Sampras of the 2002 USO would beat the Sampras of 1990
easily. And yet > > Sampras never played another professional match ever. WOuld the Edberg > > of 1996 beat the Edberg of 1987 or 1988 ? Or the Becker of 1996 beat > > the Becker of 1996 ? They all had the benefit of experience and they > > were only 30
yrs,> Forget talking about those old relics of the past(Sampras, Becker, Edberg.) This isn't 1980! It's 2023 and professional athletes have come a long way since then. They have better everything nowadays to keep them fit for much longer. There's no
better example of that than Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal. > > What we thought in the 80s and 90s, i.e. that professional athletes are finished at age 30-31, doesn't hold true today at all. It's not an apt comparison. > > Djokovic IS better in many ways
today than he was in his 20s. It's obvious!hmmm reckon the 2011 version of Djoker would be very tough one to beat, he was peak fitness and like a human baseboard during that time. Remember Sinner should've beaten Djoker at Wimbledon and Alcaraz did beat
him, so 2011 version Djoker prob would have too.




If we approach it "objectively", Alcaraz was meant to defeat Djokovic at FO, not Wimbledon.

Both results were kinda anomalies, outliers. Djokovic surprising Alcaraz on clay, and surprisingly losing to Alcaraz on grass.



Alcaraz was good enough to defeat Djokovic on clay, but he was not good enough to win Wimbledon against this year's Djokovic who is still near his best. Maybe he will be in 2024, but in 2023 he wasn't.

He won because of wind, Djokovic's level drops and his powers wane in windy conditions and he becomes vulnerable. If he had to play all the time in such conditions he'd have like 6-7 slams at most.

He can't play his superb defense and precise game which is understandable.



He lost 2 five setters in recent years, 2019 FO semi vs Thiem and 2023 Wim final vs Alcaraz.

And both were affected by the wind.





https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/article/thiem-djokovic-roland-garros-semifinal

THIEM BEATS DJOKOVIC IN FIVE
SATURDAY 8 JUNE 2019 - IAN CHADBAND

Dominic Thiem destroyed Novak Djokovic’s dream of once again holding all four Grand Slam titles simultaneously by earning the most dramatic of five-set semi-final triumphs over the world No.1 at Roland-Garros on Saturday.

It took the Austrian nearly four-and-a-quarter hours over two windy, rain-interrupted days, but Thiem was eventually left exultant to set up the chance to avenge his defeat in last year’s Paris final against Rafael Nadal by earning a nail-biting 6-2, 3-
6, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5 triumph over the Australian Open, US Open and Wimbledon champion Djokovic that extinguished all hope of a second ‘Novak Slam’.





https://sportstar.thehindu.com/tennis/djokovic-vs-alcaraz-wimbledon-final-2023-analysis-mistakes-what-went-wrong-grand-slam-final/article67091023.ece

Sunday’s summit clash was played with the Centre Court roof open and while the wind was not as strong as per the weather warnings issued by the Met Office, it was enough to affect Djokovic. He took a lot of time between serves, even during the first
set which he won 6-1, hoping for the wind to stop. It eventually resulted in chair umpire Fergus Murphy giving him a time violation.






Wind and overhead are the areas where he's quite mediocre.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)