Rafa / Roger: Single minded determination

I just got 'Rafa' biography (actually my wife did) and I started reading it. I was amazed at the single minded determination of these guys. Remarkable on the way he mentions how he shuts himself out from all thoughts, audience reactions etc etc.

And today morning after Fed beat Tsonga, he was asked about his thoughts on the next match with Novak and Fed had no clue on when it is scheduled. He had to ask whether it is on Sunday and the interviewer told him about the semis and finals schedule - we as fans fret about who is scheduled when and the in-built advantages and disadvantages but these guys are made from different mould... they simply can shut themselves off. Fed came to win the match and he put in his best to do only that.

Oh an by the way, do read 'Rafa' - very honest book not as gripping as 'Open' but it is a good account of the man and how he learned to fight. That should also stop this petty fighting as time and again in the book, Nadal mentions that there is no match between him and Fed in talent - specifically mentions that Fed's serve, volleys and movement are all superior to anybody and the only chance he had to beat Fed was by fighting for each point and thus they devised the way of going for his most natural and easiest shot (top spin forehand) to Fed's weakest link (high on the backhand side) and be patient till infinity for errors. If there is a temptation to go for winner with a 70% chance of making it, dont do it and instead wait for 5 more shots till the probability becomes 85%!

Toni had forseen and Rafa says he understood that he cannot beat Fed on talent alone. As mush as I dislike Nadal's tennis, I can totally understand him as I am made up of the same mould - I would die on court before not putting in my 100%.... with no talent, I would huff and puff and dive and throw myself with all 'comeons' etc (but yeah, I win sometimes because at 6'2" and strongly built, I serve and hit faster than anybody at club:)). But coming back, I just wish I had someone like Toni on my side - he would have made a tennis player of me! Nadal admits that Fed seems to have born as a freak of a nature to play tennis while guys like himself had to develop a way to win against Fed and be patient if that freak of a nature goes on a run - as on talent alone, he is un-catchable!! I respect Nadal for being so frank and saying that he does what he has been taught to do and needs to do to win a match and not to become a guidebook for tennis play - that surely belongs to TMF!!!

Fedex_the_best wrote: not to become a guidebook for tennis play - that surely belongs to TMF!!!

I agree with your sentiments until this bit - whilst everyone would love to play like Fed, if Rafa can't hope to (and the man is obviously possessed of huge talent himself) it is likely that something like his approach is more suitable for most of us to get the best out of our more ordinary talent levels

Yeah, in a way Fed is the last player to follow as a guidebook because his game is unattainable unless you have the stratospheric talent.

Learning to play like Nadal is doable, for a talented player with gigantic discipline and comittment.

Did the book say Nadal's plan as a 17 year old beating Federer was to target his backhand? I'll love to read more.
Well from what I read, Nadal thinks he is not as talented as Federer so he decides to outsmart him on court. One is more talented, the other more smarter. Fair all round.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Did the book say Nadal's plan as a 17 year old beating Federer was to target his backhand? I'll love to read more.
Well from what I read, Nadal thinks he is not as talented as Federer so he decides to outsmart him on court. One is more talented, the other more smarter. Fair all round.

I am dubious about using words like "talent" anyway. Each player needs to sort out what works best for him - I think any fair-minded person would accept that both Federer and Nadal seem to have done that well enough. Thus far in his career Nadal has outstripped Fed's achievements at a comparable age as well as having a commanding H2H against him - it will be interesting when they have both finished to compare their overall achievements.

Nadal admits that Fed seems to have born as a freak of a nature to play tennis while guys like himself had to develop a way to win against Fed and be patient if that freak of a nature goes on a run - as on talent alone, he is un-catchable!!

Certainly but someone like Nalbandian wasn't that far off from Federer. Very comparable talents.

Just watch AO 2003!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq066-sAEW0
Nalbandian won in 4 or 5. Amzing shots. It's just so weird how one went on to win 16 slams and the other none despite being so close talent wise. There you see the difference between those 2 was the mind.

With Nadal the mind is so dependant on him being 120%.
In short Nadal and Toni are saying what I have been saying all along. So obvious to the eye but some can't see it cause they mainly base their views on stats.

What struck me as a little surprising is that although Rafa admits Federer has a greater talent, there is never any sense that he feels bothered about playing him. His attitude always seems to have been "there will be spells where he is amazing but just hang in there and eventually the errors will come". You sense that Rafa knows exactly how to play Fed and as long as he doesn't lose it mentally (as he admits he did in Wimbledon 07), he is confident of winning.

In contrast, whenever Rafa mentions Novak in the book, he seems much more threatened. He says that there are no real weaknesses to target in his game and if he gets on top, there's nothing you can do about it.

Also, Toni's comments on the two were interesting. Toni tells Rafa that Fed is a greater talent but that Novak has the more complete game (both relative to Rafa). Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it suggested to me that Toni knows the limitations of Fed's game and can play on them but is less sure with Novak.

The book ends after USO 10 and I would be surprised if Rafa felt that way about Novak back then. I wonder if a little bit about Novak has been added in recent months. The book was probably being written when Novak was on his hot streak.

HM Murdoch wrote:What struck me as a little surprising is that although Rafa admits Federer has a greater talent, there is never any sense that he feels bothered about playing him. His attitude always seems to have been "there will be spells where he is amazing but just hang in there and eventually the errors will come". You sense that Rafa knows exactly how to play Fed and as long as he doesn't lose it mentally (as he admits he did in Wimbledon 07), he is confident of winning.

Of course, cause Nadal sends a ball difficult to time and creates long rallies that are going to blunt Federer's sharpness over the distance. With Djokovoc, he has a physcal match. Completely different story.

Also, Toni's comments on the two were interesting. Toni tells Rafa that Fed is a greater talent but that Novak has the more complete game (both relative to Rafa). Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it suggested to me that Toni knows the limitations of Fed's game and can play on them but is less sure with Novak.

Federer's weakness in only a relative one compared with those top 2 players and also on slow conds. Let's not forget that he learnt his tennis playing the best players on fast surfaces with a technology that did not allow those loopy shots at the time. If anything he did very well to adpat. Much better than any of his contemporaries.

HM Murdoch, after reading your first few lines, was about to say Nadal confirms what most believe, Federer doesn't have a complete game so N.adal doesn't have to worry much about playing him to say. Toni backs that up perfectly but it's hardly difficult to see.

Wow SA - you can create logic and spin arguments out of nothing! Nadal never says that he is not talented or he will never win against Fed. Only iterates that Fed was born to play tennis. He beat Fed in Miami but admits that he could see what Toni had told him that Fed would always come up with winner out of nowhere and would always do that much more than him.

Never says that Fed will not have an off day - a great player will still lose, albeit more sparinginly!!

And about your other post about Fed not having a complete game - well, Nadal says that if he needs to go to Fed backhand 20 times to induce an error, he would do that 20 times and not 19! Fed's backhand is not as proficient as his forehand and Nadal's forehand is his best shot. So they decided to use his best shot targeting Fed's worst shot and thus try and get couple more points than Fed to result a victory!! When Nadal himself says that Fed does not need to tape his ankle, fingers and run around the room before match while Nadal needs to do his routine, shout 'Vamos, vamos' to bring his mind to focus on tennis - all he is implying is that one guy out there doesnt see tennis as work but was born with all ingredients required to play this sport.

Regarding Novak, there is no way that he would break down his backhand and to break his forehand, Nadal would have to use his worst shot (backhand) which will not measure well. So all in all, Nadal developed a style of play to fight for each ball and be patient and Novak also does the same but he also has a better serve and backhand.

Ask Federer and he would say that Novak is easier to beat than Nadal to beat but ask Nadal and he would always find Novak difficult to beat, now more than ever.

Federer doesn't have a complete game.

In the same way as no player in history has had a complete game.

As always, the problem with Simplistics arguments is that their basic premise is nonsensical. Anyone seen the comedy gold over on his "tie break" thread where his statistics don't have anything to do with tie breaks? It's basically his self-parody thread.

bogbrush wrote:Federer doesn't have a complete game.

In the same way as no player in history has had a complete game.

Depends on what we call a complete game. He was literally unbeaten for 5 years on faster surfaces and reached as many finals on clay where he was essentially only beaten on the distance by not sustaining his complete game long enough.

That's as complete as it gets to me.

Boggo seems to be ranting about something.
Back to Fedex, so uncle Toni told him in that Maimi match? Well Nadal never listened then because he was moving Federer from one wing to another all match with little attention to his backhand.
Coming back to the part on talent, he clearly pays homage to it but reminds us of outsmarting him.

It sounds like it was Uncle Toni outsmarting him - I think we all agree Toni has a very clever tennis brain.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Federer doesn't have a complete game.

In the same way as no player in history has had a complete game.

Depends on what we call a complete game. He was literally unbeaten for 5 years on faster surfaces and reached as many finals on clay where he was essentially only beaten on the distance by not sustaining his complete game long enough.

That's as complete as it gets to me.

Indeed, his game is far more complete than anyone I've ever seen, but against the standard Simplistic wants to apply of course he isn't.

I have huge respect for Pete Sampras, but when you look at their respective RG records it really brings home what a different animal Federer is from.... anyone, ever.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It sounds like it was Uncle Toni outsmarting him - I think we all agree Toni has a very clever tennis brain.

Well yes certainly...but you need the legs, arms, lungs and a lot of the modern science to allow such a game to be successful nowadays. They had disappeared in the 90s (bar on clay) because those kind of games did not pay off then. What Toni did was reinventing a game and adapting it to modern times with modern technologies. Very smart in that respect but we will have to see the end of Nadal's career to really be able to assess it...and I am not talking about his slams count.

Julius well Toni points it out like any coach would do and Nadal proceeds to do the outsmarting on the court. They outsmart Federer both off and on the field, now that's one intelligent partnership.

It's not outsmarting here. It's over-powering and outlasting.

Very different. It's not that Federer was surprised to see the ball coming on his BH, was it?

Tenez wrote:It's not that Federer was surprised to see the ball coming on his BH, was it?

Even our goldfish could see that coming.

Tenez wrote: reached as many finals on clay where he was essentially only beaten on the distance by not sustaining his complete game long enough.

I presume you saw FO 2008....distance had nothing to do with it. Nadal is simply a better player on clay hands down.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: reached as many finals on clay where he was essentially only beaten on the distance by not sustaining his complete game long enough.

I presume you saw FO 2008....distance had nothing to do with it. Nadal is simply a better player on clay hands down.

How many times do I have to explain this match to you? Clearly you are a bit like SA..you simply don;t want to see it the way it is.

1 - This match, in particular the score, was, more than any other match, decided on physical matters. It happened in 2008 when Federer was not 100% AND at the end of a GS. Federer knew he had not the fitness to rival and therefore played like a kamikase.

2 - #1 is true cause this score is simply a one off very badly representing the 20 other tight fights they have had on clay, including 2 this year despite Federer being 30 and Nadal at his very peak!.

3 - How many time shoudl I tell you that the strategy of a match is not decided on the length of a match but on the length of rallies and whoever cannot sustain to play long rallies without losing his edge will be forced into hitting riskier shots. Matches don't have to be 5 sets long to be physical. Yesterday's match between Djoko and Tsip was sorted over 2 sets, what happens after is simply routine. Same when Nadal plays Muller or Nalbandian.

Tenez you talk some utter rose-tinted twaddle at times about physicality.

Federer played 3 x 4 set matches that FO, he was hardly taxed in his previous matches that year but then ran into the juggernaut called "The Nadal 2008 Clay Machine". In 2008 Nadal on clay was at the peak of his powers (not the 2011 variant that was all at sea yet Federer still couldnt beat). Federer was simply utterly outclassed in that match against the clay-peak Nadal. Yes other matches have been close - but Federer's wins over Nadal on clay are well documented as Nadal being utterly tired (e.g. less than 24hours after beating Djokovic over 4hrs, and when Nadal was at the end of a huge consequetive clay win streak in 2007). But for 2011 you simply cant compare this years Nadal to the 2008 one - they're chalk and cheese. Like Isner would have taken Nadal to 5 sets in 2008 when Nadal was barely losing games never mind sets...?

I'm not even going down the mono 2008 thing - it didnt stop Fed playing 5 sets against Nadal at Wimbledon for over 5 hrs. Oh dont tell me it was mono that cost him that match as well right? But then it didnt stop him winning USO.

And then your point 3 contradicts itself because Federer has played Nadal for hugely long matches with hugely long ralleys - Rome 06 / SW19 08 / AO 09, etc. Mind you he was beaten each time by the iron will of Nadal, not physical restrcitions given Federer is as fit as any other player on tour. You seem to constantly want to paint Federer as some fragile gazelle who runs out of steam after a few long ralley's. Sorry, the facts and his personal training regime dont support your convenient viewpoint!

No problem SA...err Lydian sorry.

Tenez wrote:No problem SA...err Lydian sorry.

Come on Tenez - play the ball not the man there. You both disagree in strong terms on what is a matter of Judgment, you aren't going to persuade one another so leave it there.

lydian wrote:Sorry, the facts and his personal training regime dont support your convenient viewpoint!

What facts? the fact he is number 1 of all time in TBs wins (showing his composure under pressure) But lower than 110th in 5 sets matches? You cannot be serious.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:No problem SA...err Lydian sorry.

Come on Tenez - play the ball not the man there. You both disagree in strong terms on what is a matter of Judgment, you aren't going to persuade one another so leave it there.

Yes, It's a matter of good reasoning and judgement. I honestly don't think I am being challenged there by Lydian.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:No problem SA...err Lydian sorry.

Come on Tenez - play the ball not the man there. You both disagree in strong terms on what is a matter of Judgment, you aren't going to persuade one another so leave it there.

Yes, It's a matter of good reasoning and judgement. I honestly don't think I am being challenged there by Lydian.

Well fair do's - but don't spoil your position by going for the man.

Certainly. ....but do I remember you had the same difficulty restraining when addressing SA points earlier today?

Tenez wrote:Certainly. ....but do I remember you had the same difficulty restraining when addressing SA points earlier today?

I'd say not guilty as charged - I said that one point he made was from the playground, but I was attacking his reasoning, or lack of, and not directly him personally. I did not say that he was an idiot, just that his argument was idiotic. You compared Lydian to S_A, which I'd say is a bit different.

Where are all the videos of the FO 2008 final on Youtube? Somebody paid to have them removed

Obviously, we would have seen the physically spent Federer in less than 2 hours

Then the 17 year old Nadal also physically spent Federer in 2 straight sets in Miami. ROFL.

Well if you happen to play more tiebreaks than all players besides 2 or 3 in the history of the sport, you are bound to be some where near the top. That's hardly suprising. When we get to the pressure situations is when the mentally weak fold.

These are the tie-breaker statistics. As far as I can tell they only start relatively late, perhaps in the 1990's (no sign of Lendl and lowish numbers for Edberg & Becker compared to others), and the ranking is based on % wins, not purely how many were played. There are those who would say that maintaining the highest percentage over the largest number of tie-breaks is impressive (although the differences are small). The first two columns are, respectively, the % and numbers for the current year - where Nadal fares best - the second two columns are the career % and numbers over the period chosen.

1. Roger Federer .667 - 15-8 .659 - 301-156
2. Novak Djokovic .667 - 6-5 .650 - 117-63
3. Pete Sampras .000 - 0-0 .637 - 274-156
4. Andy Roddick .522 - 9-8 .624 - 289-174
5. John Isner .600 - 27-19 .624 - 113-68
6. Rafael Nadal .733 - 13-7 .614 - 132-83
7. Michael Stich .000 - 0-0 .601 - 134-89
8. Stefan Edberg .000 - 0-0 .601 - 107-71
9. Andy Murray .667 - 9-3 .600 - 87-58
10. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga .588 - 18-12 .600 - 87-58
11. Jacco Eltingh .000 - 0-0 .598 - 79-53
12. Gael Monfils .686 - 14-5 .597 - 92-62
13. Fernando Gonzalez .500 - 1-2 .595 - 150-102
14. Sergi Bruguera .000 - 0-0 .595 - 110-75
15. Marcos Baghdatis .522 - 9-8 .592 - 84-58
16. Nicolas Escude .000 - 0-0 .592 - 84-58
17. Marcelo Rios .000 - 0-0 .590 - 124-86
18. David Nalbandian .667 - 3-0 .590 - 115-80
19. Goran Ivanisevic .000 - 0-0 .589 - 239-167
20. Thomas Muster .000 - 0-0 .583 - 116-83
21. Andre Agassi .000 - 0-0 .577 - 169-124
22. Carlos Moya .000 - 0-0 .576 - 223-164
23. Jim Courier .000 - 0-0 .576 - 147-108
24. Sebastien Grosjean .000 - 0-0 .574 - 139-103
25. Karel Novacek .000 - 0-0 .568 - 67-51
26. Tommy Robredo .545 - 3-2 .567 - 135-103
27. Todd Martin .000 - 0-0 .566 - 184-141
28. Stefan Koubek .000 - 0-0 .566 - 90-69
29. Boris Becker .000 - 0-0 .564 - 127-98

On the tie-break statistics it is clear that having one big weapon, usually a serve, but perhaps a forehand (Gonzalez at 13) is a real help - viz Roddick, Isner, Stich, Tsonga. Fed and Sampras also have good serves, but you could not characterize either of them as pure servers.

Well but that only shows the more tie breaks you play, the better your chances are off toping the list. A career overall tiebreak record should never be used in this. Tie break in a 1st set will never even be considered a pressured moment at any point of any match not even in a 1 and a half set match *wink*. Tie breaks in 1st and 2nd sets are pretty match irrelevant and i can bet on it if we can accurately compile all 3rd set in a 3 set match and 5th set tie breaks, Federer will be down the least as usual.

Now lets talk about Nadal's book.

Yawn. This superb thread covers this topic in depth:

https://www.606v2.com/t13448-deciding-set-tie-breaks-and-implications-on-mental-toughness

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well if you happen to play more tiebreaks than all players besides 2 or 3 in the history of the sport, you are bound to be some where near the top. That's hardly suprising. When we get to the pressure situations is when the mentally weak fold.

That's not at all correct. If you play more tie-breaks than other players and lose them all, then you'd be at the bottom. You only get to the top by having the highest winning percentage.
The ATP Reliability Index classifies tie-breaks as pressure situations.
Given the difference in players' winning records after winning/losing the first set, then a first set tie-break is very clearly a pressure situation, as the winner of that will far more often than not win the match.
For a 3-set match, a 2nd set tie-break will determine either match over, or a final set - again, clearly a pressure situation.

Welcome to the board reckoner, you feeling at home already. Since joining the forum today, your transition has been admirable.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well but that only shows the more tie breaks you play, the better your chances are off toping the list. A career overall tiebreak record should never be used in this.

The figures don't really bear that out, but in fairness there may be a certain logic to this because if players are better at tie-breakers they may feel more comfortable letting a set get to a tie-breaker knowing that they have a good chance of taking the set.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Tie break in a 1st set will never even be considered a pressured moment at any point of any match not even in a 1 and a half set match *wink*. Tie breaks in 1st and 2nd sets are pretty match irrelevant and i can bet on it if we can accurately compile all 3rd set in a 3 set match and 5th set tie breaks, Federer will be down the least as usual.

I guess your logic depends upon 3rd and 5th sets being "deciding sets" properly so called?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Now lets talk about Nadal's book.

By all means - I was responding to your post of 1.42pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well if you happen to play more tiebreaks than all players besides 2 or 3 in the history of the sport, you are bound to be some where near the top. That's hardly suprising. When we get to the pressure situations is when the mentally weak fold.

That's not at all correct. If you play more tie-breaks than other players and lose them all, then you'd be at the bottom. You only get to the top by having the highest winning percentage.
The ATP Reliability Index classifies tie-breaks as pressure situations.
Given the difference in players' winning records after winning/losing the first set, then a first set tie-break is very clearly a pressure situation, as the winner of that will far more often than not win the match.
For a 3-set match, a 2nd set tie-break will determine either match over, or a final set - again, clearly a pressure situation.

So you are then agreeing now that a 2nd set tie break can also be a decider? What a change of tone
Clearly a tie break in the 1st set can never be referred to as a pressure situation. I mean does the match finish after the first set? The opponent has hope after a first set tie break and that will not have too much bearing on his mind when playing it comparing to tie breaks in the 2nd set in a 3 set match.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Welcome to the board reckoner, you feeling at home already. Since joining the forum today, your transition has been admirable.

Thanks! You must be the special one they told me about?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you are then agreeing now that a 2nd set tie break can also be a decider? What a change of tone
Clearly a tie break in the 1st set can never be referred to as a pressure situation. I mean does the match finish after the first set? The opponent has hope after a first set tie break and that will not have too much bearing on his mind when playing it comparing to tie breaks in the 2nd set in a 3 set match.

No, I'm not agreeing, since that isn't what I said. I would hope that when you re-read, you will realise your mis-interpretation. Unless it was a deliberate mis-interpretation?

Are you seriously arguing that winning the first set of a match is not important?

reckoner wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Welcome to the board reckoner, you feeling at home already. Since joining the forum today, your transition has been admirable.

Thanks! You must be the special one they told me about?

Well he's the one with special needs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you are then agreeing now that a 2nd set tie break can also be a decider? What a change of tone
Clearly a tie break in the 1st set can never be referred to as a pressure situation. I mean does the match finish after the first set? The opponent has hope after a first set tie break and that will not have too much bearing on his mind when playing it comparing to tie breaks in the 2nd set in a 3 set match.

No, I'm not agreeing, since that isn't what I said. I would hope that when you re-read, you will realise your mis-interpretation. Unless it was a deliberate mis-interpretation?

Are you seriously arguing that winning the first set of a match is not important?

He's not seriously arguing anything.

Once that if realised all the nonsense falls into place. Even the hilarious gyrations on the now-classic "Tie Break" thread, where he actually thought the ATP statistics for deciding set wins was tie breaks in any set except the first.

Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you are then agreeing now that a 2nd set tie break can also be a decider? What a change of tone
Clearly a tie break in the 1st set can never be referred to as a pressure situation. I mean does the match finish after the first set? The opponent has hope after a first set tie break and that will not have too much bearing on his mind when playing it comparing to tie breaks in the 2nd set in a 3 set match.

No, I'm not agreeing, since that isn't what I said. I would hope that when you re-read, you will realise your mis-interpretation. Unless it was a deliberate mis-interpretation?

Are you seriously arguing that winning the first set of a match is not important?

Yes not as important as winning the final set of the match. Why? A player obviously loses a match in the final set be it 3rd in a 3 set match or the 5th. Ask yourself where the pressure will be at the most, the 1st set of a 5 set match or the 5th set. A player can easily comeback from losing the 1st set.

I agree that there is more pressure in a 5th set tie-break than a 1st set tie-break. But that does not preclude a 1st set tie-break being a pressure situation. That is because winning the first set, as players often state, is extremely important. I'm sure you can see that.

Statistics show that players do not, in fact, easily come back from losing the first set, whereas they do show that they far more easily go on to win the match after winning the first set.

JuliusHMarx wrote: I agree that there is more pressure in a 5th set tie-break than a 1st set tie-break. But that does not preclude a 1st set tie-break being a pressure situation. That is because winning the first set, as players often state, is extremely important. I'm sure you can see that.

Statistics show that players do not, in fact, easily come back from losing the first set, whereas they do show that they far more easily go on to win the match after winning the first set.

I agree that there is more pressure in a 5th set tie-break


Well then we can talk about the book.

OK. It'll be easier if we just pretend I didn't write anything apart from that 1 sentence.

I'll wait until the book is out in paperback.

I saw the one sentence.

What do you have to say abouth the book then? There are some extracts from it publshed in the article.

It's hard to say without having read much of, but from various extracts I've seen it seems to re-iterate some of what Rafa's said before and confirm what we can see from his on-court manner.
He's a nice guy, works hard to get the most from his talent, is himself driven, and is also driven by Toni, and has a host of insecurities. And doesn't consider the fitness regimes of top tennis players (possibly all top athletes, can't remember exactly) to be healthy, as they push the body too far.

JuliusHMarx wrote: And doesn't consider the fitness regimes of top tennis players (possibly all top athletes, can't remember exactly) to be healthy, as they push the body too far.

I think it's pretty much the case with all elite sport that the participants ask too much from their bodies.

What is absolutely crucial is to understand the need for core strength and stability and that by concentrating on the specific action of the sport (i.e. rowing on one side of a boat, hitting a ball with one hand, running round a track always in the same direction) you may create an imbalance within your body that will end your career quickly so that training is needed to create a balance.

My view is that women's tennis in particular is a sport where too many participants ask too much of their bodies too much of the time, which is one of the reasons for it being so patchy - look at the great players who have had to miss long periods through injury or end their careers early - Hingis, Henin, Serena being the most obvious examples.

Tenez, your argument would hold water if Federer was losing all those 5 setters to someone like Nadal who is clearly very fit/strong. However, when you look at Federer's 5 set losses, and an article looks at them all up to end of 2009 (not sure what there have been since but they probably follow pattern) http://www.ubitennis.com/english/sport/tennis/2010/06/11/344075-when_federer_gets_fifth_what_happens.shtml
It can be seen that Federer has lost 5-setters to a variety of players.

So, from what you're saying I presume all these guys who beat him were simply fitter?

I'll forget your SA comment.