Talent V Fitness

Djokovic this year is reaping the rewards of his improved fitness. Sticking rigorously to a highly restrictive gluton free diet and using the (contraversial?) egg to simulate high altitude training his transformation has been remarkable. From someone who used to be criticised for taking MTO and retiring from matches with fitness problems he appears to now play tirelessly.

Murray has for a long time now been a fan of the gym admitting that he prefers this sort of work to on court training. During the off season of 2008 he came back transformed from a skinny looking player to IMO one of the fitest if not the fitest on the tour. He added bikram yoga to his routine and has now joined Djokovic in following a gluton free diet. He openly admits that he believes fitness is the key to sucess.

Contrast both players with Nadal. He has made no secret of the fact that he dislikes gym work and does the bare minimum much preferring to practise whilst playing. When asked about special diets he said recently that he doesn't follow one. Most meals involve going to a restaurant and ordering what he likes the look of (sounds like fun to me...). With 10 slams to his name he is doing OK. He is talented enough to be a little more relaxed about fitness.

But in Nadals last 2 matches against Djokovic in the US Open and Murray in Japan his relative lack of fitness has been exposed. Both matches involved final sets where Nadal was clearly struggling physically. He looked unable to compete with his fitter opponants.

Is it time for Nadal to hit the gym and follow a more suitable diet for an athlete or should he continue with the formula that he has had such success with?

I'm not really sure about Federer as I can't remember him talking bout his fitness routine. He doesn't ofen look tired in long mathe though

Looks like what's happened to Rafa is what happens to all the top boys; a player comes along and raises the bar, enjoys success, others take a while to copy and then exceed. Then he finds himself in trouble.

It also happens with targetted tactics, such as when Rafa developed the forehand to backhand routine to neutralise Federer.

It's why they say that getting to the top is easy, staying there is the tricky part.

The best example of this is Robin Hasse- a brilliant player with immense talent, you will never see him starting a match badly or playing badly when he is fit but as the matches stretches on he always ends up on losing side.

Dolg can also be put in the similar category. Dmitrov also seems to possess a good game however fitness issues are letting him down.

I guess Nadal is more of a natural athlete and doesn't need an intense fitness regimen.

In the fitness stakes, I think he's behind Djokovic and Murray. In his 2 losses to Nole at Miami and Indian Wells, he was severally doubled over in exhaustion.

The great thing about Nole's stamina and fitness is the elasticity and freer movement compared to Rafa's more tasking, heavy-footed style. Those 3 have certainly raised the physical bar in the men's game and the younger generation are finding it tough to break through.

It's near impossible imagining another Chang or Becker coming through.

But someone is going to outdo Djokovic in due course. This is how it goes.

It's just such a pity that unless they change the game the answer isn't going to come from virtuosity but from an escalation in the fitness arms race.

Mcenroe had spoken in the past of tennis eventually attracting a certain calibre of athlete it hadn't in the past. The physical transition was always inevitable with the slowing of courts only catalyzing it further. But this changes can be found in most sports - even golf.

Tennis would eventually find a balance that reconciles the physical transformation with the technical side. I actually believe Nole and Murray have this balance already.

Murray's advice to Oli Golding at the Davis Cup after Oli's excellent win in the USO juniors definitely shows that he thinks fitness is the key.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/271899

hawkeye wrote:
I'm not really sure about Federer as I can't remember him talking bout his fitness routine. He doesn't ofen look tired in long mathe though

Federer is extremely fit, always has been. He has subjected himself to punishing regimes at the hands of his personal trainer for the best part of 10 years now - from what I have read his exercises have been imaginatively tailored to replicate closely what he has to do on Court. He's obviously naturally athletic and moves gracefully -but for a player whose footwork is so important fitness is key. You're right, he doesn't talk about it much, nor does he ever look ripped, but he puts in the work for sure. He's also rigorous about not subjecting himself to more than he thinks is good for him - hence he often misses tournaments in his schedule, even 'compulsory' tournaments, citing the need to recover from niggles. That no doubt has a substantial beneficial effect on his fitness.

mthierry wrote:Mcenroe had spoken in the past of tennis eventually attracting a certain calibre of athlete it hadn't in the past. The physical transition was always inevitable with the slowing of courts only catalyzing it further. But this changes can be found in most sports - even golf.

Tennis would eventually find a balance that reconciles the physical transformation with the technical side. I actually believe Nole and Murray have this balance already.

Not judging by the state of Djokovic halfway through the 3rd set of the USO final. Clearly the demands of the game have outstripped his physical prowess, just less so that his rivals.

That match was Nadals until the cramps set in.

bogbrush wrote:Clearly the demands of the game have outstripped his physical prowess, just less so that his rivals.

That would mean the demands of the game have outstripped everybody's physical prowess, wouldn't it?

[quote="JuliusHMarx"]

bogbrush wrote:

mthierry wrote:Clearly the demands of the game have outstripped his physical prowess, just less so that his rivals.

That would mean the demands of the game have outstripped everybody's physical prowess, wouldn't it?

Yes and no - it depends upon whether the match turns into an attritional struggle or not, which in turn depends upon the sort of match they play. The Fed vs. Djoko match didn't outstrip either player's physical prowess - Fed matches rarely turn on a player being physically exhusted; whilst Nadal and Djoko win a few of their matches by grinding opponents into submission, especially if they aren't right on their games.

I messed up the quote thingy to make it look like mthierry's quote instead if BB's - fixed it now, but it cascaded into barry's post.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Clearly the demands of the game have outstripped his physical prowess, just less so that his rivals.

That would mean the demands of the game have outstripped everybody's physical prowess, wouldn't it?

Based on the USO final, yes. That match was decided by which player could stand up properly as they entered the 4th set.

And this on an allegedly fast court.

Insane.

The demands of that particular match certainly outstripped the physical prowess of both players. But that isn't the same as the demands of tennis (the game) outstripping every player's physical prowess.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The demands of that particular match certainly outstripped the physical prowess of both players. But that isn't the same as the demands of tennis (the game) outstripping every player's physical prowess.

Yes and no - I think what Bogbrush is getting at is that the fact that the USO final was played on a fast surface is quite probably indicative of what is going to be needed to win a slam in the future. Of course, the match may prove to be an exception - we don't know - but it seems likely given the way the game is moving that in order to win a slam most players are going to need to be capable of lasting out at least one marathon like that. That would be fairly characterised as a demand placed by the game on a player who wants to be successful - of course players who can't do that will be able to earn a living and win other tournaments, but they still can't meet the ultimate demand of the sport. For my part I doubt that the match will prove to be a one-off - the history of their careers suggests that Djoko and Nadal can even turn a best-of-three setter into a marathon as they did in Madrid 2009.

There was oohing and aahing about that match, but were such matches to become a regular feature I think people would get fed up. The play feels attacking becasue it is attacking and unbelievably fast compared to attritional matches of the past, but once spectators get used to the fact that certain players can regularly return even 'attacking' shots with interest, they'll want to see something 'extra' or at least different - tennis has always been able to throw up variety of styles and types of match with different conditions but that is changing. Also, time is limited in life - 4hrs+ is a long time to devote to a tennis match on a regular basis.

That's pretty much how I see it barry. It's one thing when two players do this as they rarely meet, but once the game evolves to having 4, 5 or more doing that you'll have;

* players having to survive two or three such matches
* spectators getting jaundiced (either through boredom or liver failure through the interminable matches).
* loads of injuries (as if USO '11 didn't have enough!)
* calls for shorter matches, 5-5 tie breaks, no-advantage games, that sort of thing. Awful.

It's not a sustainable result. The sport will have to bring in changes to make it harder to retrieve everything, it's inevitable.

Yeah, the oohs and ahhs were very much of the 'how did he get that ball back' variety as opposed to the 'how did he hit that shot' variety.
Time will tell I guess whether this type of match becomes too common for the spectators to enjoy or for the players to endure.
But the game has been at mini-crossroads before and managed to sort itself out. Heck, I hear most of the gentlemen players wear short trousers these days.