Tennis 2017

[VP]

Why do people keep downplaying Federer's early success?

Reading this forum, you'd think the likes of Roddick and Hewitt were amateurs. Yet Roddick actually has a better head to head with Djokovic while Hewitt beat Nadal four times.

Federer just towered above them because he's ridiculously good (like Nadal and Djokovic) - it's just the nature of greatness.

 

[Enigma_87]

Wawrinka peaked at a different age. Let's not forget him hiring Magnus Norman made a big difference to his game. He would never have won a slam if he didn't make that appointment.

Obviously they peak at different times, but Wawrinka benefited of having no peak Nadal/Federer around and using the void, same as Djokovic and Murray really in the last couple of years.

And once again 2008. Djokovic was not even at his peak back then. How many times? He was retiring nearly every other tournament and was losing in the semis nearly every tournament. Do you think Safin would have beaten him after 2011? No. Just like Federer and Nadal have losing records against him. The guy was a different animal after 2011. So not sure why you bringing losses into 2008 in this.

Djokovic was #3 in the world Safin was done at the top level. I'm bringing up matches that actually happened otherwise everything else is pure speculation of course. Djokovic was a top player in 2008 and his ranking suggests so. He was obviously not the peak one in 2011 but neither was Federer after 2008.

A peak Safin in 2005 against Djokovic in 2011 is a tossup. Safin on his day could've beaten everybody, Federer, Sampras - you name it.

And are you really clinging on to Gonzalez having a 2-1 winning record against Djokovic when all three matches were in 2006 and Djokovic basically just started on tour. That's just ridiculous now. Also the fact Roddick jokes about his h2h against Djokovic because even he knows if he faced Djokovic after 2011 then that 5-4 would be 10-5 in Djokovics favour. Just like Federer and Nadal had winning records against Djokovic before his peak and now he has turned that around.

They are not better players(Gonzo/Roddick) obviously but they have beaten him in the past and have proven that it won't be easy for him as you suggest. Peak Djokovic would obviously beat them most of the time, but they are players that are perfectly capable of taking him out. Gonzo took Nadal who was pretty much at his physical peak in 2007 without breaking a stride at the AO, yet you seem to suggest that he's some kind a bum. He's obviously not consistent enough but that doesn't mean that he's worse then a Cilic for example or Nishikori who were slam finalists/winners in Djoko's era.

Djokovic turned the h2h's around because they(Federer/Nadal) themselves were not at their peak level and he's obviously a great player.

 

[Enigma_87]

Why do people keep downplaying Federer's early success?

Reading this forum, you'd think the likes of Roddick and Hewitt were amateurs. Yet Roddick actually has a better head to head with Djokovic while Hewitt beat Nadal four times.

Federer just towered above them because he's ridiculously good (like Nadal and Djokovic) - it's just the nature of greatness.

I have no idea either. Maybe because he and Rafa swept everything under the sun and people forgot how the other guys were playing at the time.

A guys like Wawrinka and Cilic are winning slams nowadays and somehow they are better than Hewitt and Roddick.

A semi retired Hewitt took Wawrinka to the cleaners at Wimbey 6 months before he won the AO in 14', yet he's probably labeled average due to coinciding with Federer at his peak.

 

[wr8_utd]

I don't think it equates to playing time as he usually enters one grass tournament and doesn't play that many matches either.

IMO he stands a chance at the USO and Wimbey still if he manages to get a decent draw and doesn't meet the top guys.

He can definitely win USO or atleast challenge. He reached finals at Miami and Australia. Grass is something I don't ever see him winning again unless he somehow, miraculously, avoids every big hitter/big server there is and that's unlikley.

 

[wr8_utd]

Why do people keep downplaying Federer's early success?

Reading this forum, you'd think the likes of Roddick and Hewitt were amateurs. Yet Roddick actually has a better head to head with Djokovic while Hewitt beat Nadal four times.

Federer just towered above them because he's ridiculously good (like Nadal and Djokovic) - it's just the nature of greatness.

Not downplaying but you have to admit having Andy Roddick as your biggest "rival" on your way to Slams is a lot easier having to play Nadal, Murray and Federer (if you're Djokovic).

 

[MullerUtd]

Federer would have won less than 11 slams if he had peak Djokovic to contend with.

Nadal lost like three or four finals in other slams where he didn't even play badly to Djokovic. Just Djokovic was better and I'm convinced Nadal would have beaten any other play on that day.

So that's where the argument comes in. Djokovic is the best hard courter out the three and sadly for Nadal he had to face him in finals at his peak.

How many Slams has Fed won in the last 7 years? I think it's just 2-5? He won a lot of his Slams in a much easier. Not using it to downplay his achievements but it's just true. Djoko has had it most difficult to win his Slams and then Rafa. Djoko is a better all court player than Nadal and if he'd gotten those 3-4 years playing with Roddick as #2 he'd probably have another 4-5 Slams.

Federer was beating Djokovic at slams well beyond his peak. I don't see Djokovic anywhere close at taking Wimbledon off peak Federer. Same goes for the USO, he needed to save match points to fend off 30 years old Federer.

Most of his wins over him at the AO came when they shifted from Reboud Ace to Plexicushion which goes to Djokovic favor.

They shifted from 2008 onwards. In 2007 at Rebound Ace Federer beat Djokovic in straights.

Djokovic would have won more if he had 50 year old Agassi on one leg, Hewitt, Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals.

But he no doubt played in a tougher era at his peak. He lost US open finals to Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Not really the same field as facing Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzalez.

Funny you would mention Wawrinka as he was pretty much a journeyman before 2014 where his highest achievement was a USO SF. He lost before the QF's 31 out of 35 times. Yet in a much tougher era he's 3 times slam winner and a slam finalist. Federer is 20-3 against him, yet he's considered a tougher opponent than Agassi, Hewitt or Safin who have significantly better record against him?

A pretty much done Safin schooled #3 in the world Djokovic at Wimbey in 2008, he has a losing record to Gonzales and Roddick who most proclaim as weak competition.

Either way it's a bit irrelevant as Djokovic still had to go through a peak Federer at the time (or Safin) if he wanted to win a slam. And I don't like his chances tbh.

Edit: for the record, competition or not if Djokovic manages to equal Nadal in slams I'd put him in front of him in terms of greatness due to being more dominant #1, more weeks at #1 and of course YET titles.

What Bojan said is right, I always held this firm belief that Federer would have won lesser slams with peak Djokovic to contend with, but of course you can say I'm biased as I'm a Djokovic fan. Basically, swap Nadal with Roddick and Djokovic would have gotten more slams and he could beat Federer slams count by now, put peak Djokovic in Federer's peak era and I am pretty sure he would have won less slams. Wawrinka is a strange one, he was a journeyman like you mentioned before 2014, but he was a late bloomer and on his day, he could beat anyone. He beat peak Nadal and Djokovic in a slam final and I think he knocked out Federer in a semi-final as well. I consider him as a tougher opponent than Agassi, Heweitt or Safin.

I'm really upset that Djokovic is out, not just because I've lost quite a lot of money but I'm his biggest fan as well. I can't remember the last time Djokovic retired, it's really RARE to see Djokovic retire considering he is supposed to be the fittest player on tour. I think the last time I saw him retire was in the 2009 Australian Open. I didn't watch the match yesterday as I was in the plane, but how did Djokovic play? Would he have any chance of winning if he continues? Saw his Round of 16 match and I was worried for his shoulder injury and seems like my fear came true, although it's nothing to do with his shoulder but his elbow. I'm starting to think he could have played with an elbow injury for more than a year and perhaps that also attributed to his poor form? Respect to him for playing through his elbow injury. It might not have been as serious as it was when he was forced to retire, but playing on a full schedule, without sounding out shows his 100% commitment to the sport. I think he really wanted to win this Wimbledon to get his career back on track. A year ago, there are debates on him surpassing Federer #17 slams, now he would be lucky to get 1 or 2 more. He's now gone five consecutive Grand Slam tournaments without a title after winning six of the previous eight. One thing I'm sure is the days of Nole's dominance is over.
Wishing my man a speedy recovery and hope he can recover in time for the US Open.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Funny that we have to discount Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and '50 year old Agassi' but no one seems to mention the fact that 4 Slams Nole won was against over the hill Federer as well.

His 2011 was indeed up there as one of the most dominant year ever, but to say he'd steamroll everyone else in the mid 2000s with that form is a strech. The likes of Nalbadian, Gonzalez were no mugs and Roddick, Safin etc... is as good as any on their day.

 

[wr8_utd]

Funny that we have to discount Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and '50 year old Agassi' but no one seems to mention the fact that 4 Slams Nole won was against over the hill Federer as well.

His 2011 was indeed up there as one of the most dominant year ever, but to say he'd steamroll everyone else in the mid 2000s with that form is a strech. The likes of Nalbadian, Gonzalez were no mugs and Roddick, Safin etc... is as good as any on their day.

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

 

[Bojan11]

Obviously they peak at different times, but Wawrinka benefited of having no peak Nadal/Federer around and using the void, same as Djokovic and Murray really in the last couple of years.


Djokovic was #3 in the world Safin was done at the top level. I'm bringing up matches that actually happened otherwise everything else is pure speculation of course. Djokovic was a top player in 2008 and his ranking suggests so. He was obviously not the peak one in 2011 but neither was Federer after 2008.

A peak Safin in 2005 against Djokovic in 2011 is a tossup. Safin on his day could've beaten everybody, Federer, Sampras - you name it.



They are not better players(Gonzo/Roddick) obviously but they have beaten him in the past and have proven that it won't be easy for him as you suggest. Peak Djokovic would obviously beat them most of the time, but they are players that are perfectly capable of taking him out. Gonzo took Nadal who was pretty much at his physical peak in 2007 without breaking a stride at the AO, yet you seem to suggest that he's some kind a bum. He's obviously not consistent enough but that doesn't mean that he's worse then a Cilic for example or Nishikori who were slam finalists/winners in Djoko's era.

Djokovic turned the h2h's around because they(Federer/Nadal) themselves were not at their peak level and he's obviously a great player.

When did I say Gonzalez was a bum? I said he would lose to peak Djokovic in a final. Not sure how you got from that I called him a bum.

Nadal in 2011 was at his peak and Djokovic swatted him in every tournament. It took Nadal two years to figure out Djokovic.

Djokovic between 2006-2010 had a few funny losses. Pretty sure he lost to Melzer in a slam after leading two sets. So just because he was world number 3 doesn't mean he was some super consistent player. He was like 20 when he played Safin in 2008 and got a loss. Federer lost to worse players than Safin at 20.

 

[Enigma_87]

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

Federer had numerous injuries and back issues himself. He's not immune to them as everybody seems to think since he so damn consistent.

He was and it was pretty evident. Federer of 2013 and 2016 was a mere shadow of the dominant force he was 10 years ago. Yet he was always up there because, well he's the best.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

I'd say he very much entered decline post 2010. That's when his losses, previously unthinkable, against the like of Berdych and Tsonga came thick and fast. He managed 2012, playing an inspiring tourney but that's about it for peak Federer tennis, until the renaissance this year following a lenthy break. And I dont even think the current version, good as it is, measure up against the 04-07 version.

And it's not just my opinion. Ex pros are all in agreement that he lost a touch of his magic as the years gone by, just look at all sports sites and journals, you can read heaps of obituaries around 13,14, prior to him shutting them up temporarily in '15.

 

[MullerUtd]

Funny that we have to discount Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and '50 year old Agassi' but no one seems to mention the fact that 4 Slams Nole won was against over the hill Federer as well.

His 2011 was indeed up there as one of the most dominant year ever, but to say he'd steamroll everyone else in the mid 2000s with that form is a strech. The likes of Nalbadian, Gonzalez were no mugs and Roddick, Safin etc... is as good as any on their day.

Do you really think that Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez are in the same level as the Murray, Nadal, Djokovic? Granted, I haven't follow tennis closely in that era but I believe there's a reason why the term Big 4 existed. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Wawrinka is a better player than them.

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

You made a good point. It's no coincidence that peak Djokovic's decline has coincided with Federer winning slams again.

 

[Bojan11]

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

He's so over the hill that he's playing some of the best tennis of his career currently in his wheelchair.

 

[Enigma_87]

When did I say Gonzalez was a bum? I said he would lose to peak Djokovic in a final. Not sure how you got from that I called him a bum.

Nadal in 2011 was at his peak and Djokovic swatted him in every tournament. It took Nadal two years to figure out Djokovic.

Djokovic between 2006-2010 had a few funny losses. Pretty sure he lost to Melzer in a slam after leading two sets. So just because he was world number 3 doesn't mean he was some super consistent player. He was like 20 when he played Safin in 2008 and got a loss. Federer lost to worse players than Safin at 20.

You seem to imply that Federer had an easy ride in his peak due to playing with Gonzalez in finals, whilst that Gonzalez of 2007 is just as dangerous as any version of Wawrinka in the last couple of years.

Have you seen Gonzalez's run in 2007? He was hitting winners all over the court. He dismantled Nadal and was pretty unplayable beating some top players to the final.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

6-1 6-1

:/

 

[Red Pavan]

Worst semi-final ever.

 

[Bojan11]

Do you really think that Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez are in the same level as the Murray, Nadal, Djokovic? Granted, I haven't follow tennis closely in that era but I believe there's a reason why the term Big 4 existed. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Wawrinka is a better player than them.



You made a good point. It's no coincidence that peak Djokovic's decline has coincided with Federer winning slams again.

Wawrinka is better than Gonzalez, Hewitt or Baghdatis.

I'd say him and Roddick were even. Roddick would easily take him on grass and Wawrinka would take him on clay. But hard courts it's even.

 

[Enigma_87]

Do you really think that Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez are in the same level as the Murray, Nadal, Djokovic? Granted, I haven't follow tennis closely in that era but I believe there's a reason why the term Big 4 existed. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Wawrinka is a better player than them.

Djokovic and Nadal of Djokovic era should be compared to Nadal and Federer of Federer's era if you are looking at fair comparison.

Wawrinka is not better player than Safin and never has been. If Wawrinka is so better player in all of them, how come Federer is 20-3 in their H2H - a lot better to what his H2H with Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt looks like?

 

[Bojan11]

You seem to imply that Federer had an easy ride in his peak due to playing with Gonzalez in finals, whilst that Gonzalez of 2007 is just as dangerous as any version of Wawrinka in the last couple of years.

Have you seen Gonzalez's run in 2007? He was hitting winners all over the court. He dismantled Nadal and was pretty unplayable beating some top players to the final.

No im implying that Djokovic at his peak had a tougher era to contend with before you got defensive.

 

[VP]

Over the hill Federer that is on course to win 2 of 3 Slams at 35? It's a myth that Fed was over the hill for the last 6 years or so. He's just not been able to keep up with peak Rafa or peak Novak. Now that there is no peak Djoko around, he's back to winning Slams. Djoko has stopped Fed many many times in recent years.

Oh come on. This is just shameless. You really can't see that Federer this year is playing far better than the 4-5 years before this?

If there can be peak Rafa and peak Djoko, why can't there be peak Federer? And last 3-4 years were definitely not peak Federer.

Not downplaying but you have to admit having Andy Roddick as your biggest "rival" on your way to Slams is a lot easier having to play Nadal, Murray and Federer (if you're Djokovic).

It's easier for sure but you definitely cannot use it to say Djoko's the better player.

 

[MemphisDepay]

Isn't this the tennis 2017 thread? Can we not have a seperate thread for this debate?

 

[Enigma_87]

No im implying that Djokovic at his peak had a tougher era to contend with before you got defensive.

I haven't got defensive or at least not my idea.

Depends on when do you see Djokovic peak?

2011 is pretty strong year in terms of competition, but 2013 -2016 I'd argue it's worse than what Federer faced.

 

[Red Pavan]

Isn't this the tennis 2017 thread? Can we not have a seperate thread for this debate?

There are 3 posts in the last 3 pages that are relevant to current tennis. Not to worry.

 

[Bojan11]

Djokovic and Nadal of Djokovic era should be compared to Nadal and Federer of Federer's era if you are looking at fair comparison.

Wawrinka is not better player than Safin and never has been. If Wawrinka is so better player in all of them, how come Federer is 20-3 in their H2H - a lot better to what his H2H with Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt looks like?

Again misleading stats.

Hewitt picked up 7 victories against Fed before Fed won his first slam. Nalbandian was a good player but he was never really a big threat for slams. He was capable of pulling up the big upset but he wasn't consistent enough. He also won like the first five meetings vs Fed and Fed had only won Wimbledon at that time. Maybe you should look at these h2hs.

 

[MemphisDepay]

Anyway hope this semi final will be a lot better than the first. I fancy Konta to win although I'd prefer Venus winning. Hope Venus brings her A game.

 

[MullerUtd]

Djokovic and Nadal of Djokovic era should be compared to Nadal and Federer of Federer's era if you are looking at fair comparison.

Wawrinka is not better player than Safin and never has been. If Wawrinka is so better player in all of them, how come Federer is 20-3 in their H2H - a lot better to what his H2H with Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt looks like?

Funny you mentioned that those players are better because they have a better H2H than Wawrinka against Federer but are you aware that Wawrinka leads Safin H2H 3-1? And that was back in 2007-2008 when he was still a journeyman like you said. Stanimal could beat anyone on his day but I don't see that for Safin.

 

[Giggsy92]

From what I've seen Venus is serving incredibly well, will be tough for Konta on the return but I think she'll have the upper hand once they get into the rallies so I'd make her the slight favourite. Rooting for Venus though, she's done incredibly well to get this far given all the off-court distractions going on.

 

[wr8_utd]

Oh come on. This is just shameless. You really can't see that Federer this year is playing far better than the 4-5 years before this?

If there can be peak Rafa and peak Djoko, why can't there be peak Federer? And last 3-4 years were definitely not peak Federer.

It's easier for sure but you definitely cannot use it to say Djoko's the better player.

Federer is playing better tennis definitely but he's also not having to deal with Djokovic anymore who has been a big thorn in his side for ages. The "over the hill" Federer would have won more Slams in the past 5 years or so if Djokoo wasn't around being incredible.
Also, I'm not saying Djoko is the better player anyway but he's definitely had it tougher. I feel all of Nadal, Murray and Djoko have had it tougher as they had no real weak era where the second best player was someone like Roddick.

He's so over the hill that he's playing some of the best tennis of his career currently in his wheelchair.

It's ridiculous to suggest he's been over the hill since 2011 or whatever. He's not your typical player who ages badly. Even Nadal with his style of play has managed a great season at 30+.

Do you really think that Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez are in the same level as the Murray, Nadal, Djokovic? Granted, I haven't follow tennis closely in that era but I believe there's a reason why the term Big 4 existed. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Wawrinka is a better player than them.


You made a good point. It's no coincidence that peak Djokovic's decline has coincided with Federer winning slams again.

Djoko stopped Fed from winning a couple of Slams atleast. I love Nadal but the only reason he himself has had such a good season is because Murray and Djoko have been non existent this season and I can admit that. If those two were around in their form of last year, I doubt Nadal would have made the AO final at all.

 

[Enigma_87]

Funny you mentioned that those players are better because they have a better H2H than Wawrinka against Federer but are you aware that Wawrinka leads Safin H2H 3-1? And that was back in 2007-2008 when he was still a journeyman like you said. Stanimal could beat anyone on his day but I don't see that for Safin.

He was also 0-5 against Gonzo in those years. Obviously if you spread it around you have players beating other players and some are more suited to play others. Personally having watched both in their respective peaks, Safin is tier above Wawrinka although he doesn't have his slam count. He's even less consistent, but when he was on, he was really on. He beat two of the GOAT's Federer and Sampras in slam finals at their peak(or close to it in Sampras case) and has even bigger game than Wawrinka. When he was off, he was shadow of a player, his personality also played a huge part in his game.

 

[Piratesoup]

He beat two of the GOAT's Federer and Sampras in slam finals at their peak(or close to it in Sampras case) and has even bigger game than Wawrinka. When he was off, he was shadow of a player, his personality also played a huge part in his game.

AO 2005 was a SF. And what a match it was.

The Djokovic-Federer-Major-Wins-Debate cuts both ways, btw.: With peak Djokovid around, Federer would've possibly won fewer majors. If Federer was 5 years younger, Djokovic would have possibly won fewer majors. Pointless discussion Overall since it's all already happened the way it has.

 

[Enigma_87]

Again misleading stats.

Hewitt picked up 7 victories against Fed before Fed won his first slam. Nalbandian was a good player but he was never really a big threat for slams. He was capable of pulling up the big upset but he wasn't consistent enough. He also won like the first five meetings vs Fed and Fed had only won Wimbledon at that time. Maybe you should look at these h2hs.

No matter how you break it Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin had better results than Wawrinka against Federer. Nalbandian beat peak Federer at the TMC. He beat him in Paris in Madrid (also Nadal and Djokovic) in straight tournaments - during Fed's peak. His H2H with him is 8-11, a lot better than 3-20. He also had him to the ropes at RG before injuring himself.

 

[wr8_utd]

Yeah it's worked out how it has and there's nothing to be about it but I would love it if Nadal had had 2-3 years without having to constantly deal with Fed, Djoko and Murray. That would be pretty nice for sure.

 

[Enigma_87]

AO 2005 was a SF. And what a match it was.

The Djokovic-Federer-Major-Wins-Debate cuts both ways, btw.: With peak Djokovid around, Federer would've possibly won fewer majors. If Federer was 5 years younger, Djokovic would have possibly won fewer majors. Pointless discussion Overall since it's all already happened the way it has.

Usually finals I mean QF's onwards, but it's irrelevant either way depending on which side of the draw you are.

Either way it is a bit pointless as at the end slam count and weeks #1 is what it matters most. Variations and permutations are merely subjective point of view.

 

[Red Pavan]

Whenever Venus and Serena walk on to the court, they enter a new world. They are completely zoned in.

 

[MemphisDepay]

Whenever Venus and Serena walk on to the court, they enter a new world. They are completely zoned in.

Wrong thread pal

 

[Red Pavan]

Wrong thread pal

 

[MemphisDepay]

Venus takes the set after saving a couple of break points the game before.

 

[MemphisDepay]

Pretty sure the reason loads of Konta matches go on for ages is because she takes forever to serve. Even the way she bounces the ball, it's like it's a specific ploy to be as annoying as possible.

 

[kps88]

Could someone help me estimate what time the second men's semi finals could start tomorrow? I know it's dependent on how long the first one would take but even a rough guess assuming the first one is done in three sets would be very helpful.

 

[MemphisDepay]

Could someone help me estimate what time the second men's semi finals could start tomorrow? I know it's dependent on how long the first one would take but even a rough guess assuming the first one is done in three sets would be very helpful.

Impossible to say. Querrey and Cilic have played each other twice at Wimbledon and both times it went 5 sets. The last one was like 5 hours long or something. I assume you're looking at 3 hours minimum and probably longer.