The blatant myth of Nadal wins principally on fitness

First topic message reminder :

So far the fed apologists have carved out a wonderful little excuse as to why poor Roger hasn't been doing well recently. His two principal rivals beat him only on fitness and are relatively mediocre talents with little shotmaking ability and talent. Anyone they claim who gets fit enough can win.

But there is one interesting fact that they can not explain and that exposes their silly myth to anyone who has not sipped the apologist Kool-Aid. If Nadal and Djoko simply win on physicality why is it that most of their matches end in two sets? Why is it that they win the first set of virtually every match they play? Are we to assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour lose their wind after 30-60 minutes of hitting? And the only thing that seperates Nadal and Djoko from the rest of the pack is big lungs?

ANOTHER MYTH OF FEDERER APOLOGISTS EXPOSED:

In 68 matches, Nadal has won the first set in 59 of those affairs meaning nadal wins nearly 87 percent of the first sets he plays

In 66 mathces Novak has won 58 of the first sets he has played, for nearly 88 percent of the first sets he has played

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-After-Winning-First-Set-Current-List.aspx

So the physicality as the reason for victory argument is a complete and utter fabrication, willful blindness and group think on the part of the federer apologists, and a smear of the ability of these two great champions.

Unless we are to assume that players who train for 3-4 hour match lose their wind in the first half hour of a match and completely lose their skill. If Nadal and Djokovic are such middling talents why do they win nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play? Can fatigue really play such a factor in the first set of a match when two world class athletes square off?

Certainly, the modern champion has to be fit, because in a grandslam in a 5 set match he has to be able to deliver. But you find me another talentless shotmaker that wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play.

Game, set, and match federer apologists.

socal1976 wrote: And Raider, maybe you can keep your insults to yourself, for someone who makes an argument completely devoid of facts or reason you sure get pretty nasty.

Nasty is not what I want to be, so I'll try to be nice. I apologize if I appeared nasty. But I can't agree that my arguments are devoid of facts and reasons. If you think think they are, why don't you answer the questions that I put in my posts. Take them on and answer just as I do to in reply to most posts.


If Nadal wins on fitness why would he take so long in between points, wouldn't he just set a terrifying pace of play quick serving every time to grind his opposition in the dust? Instead he takes the most time in between points giving his opponents time to recover. He beats most of his opposition from the word go...

========================================

This argument is so devoid of reasoning that it sounds funny. . Nadal takes long time between points to gain his own breath and rest a little and NOT to give breather to his opponent. He is worried about his own self than anything else. He takes longer time on important points because he knows, he will have to do a lot more running and scrapping. I can't believe you would say what you just said about Nadal's long time-takings habits. I myself couldn't have imagined it. But you did. Nadal being so generous gives long time to opponent to recover, when its he who does all the running and retrieving. You are a true Nadal 'apologist' and what an excuse you came up with for Nadal's long time taking habits.

He beats opposition from the word go?? Yet he always likes to receive first in the opening game. He is a great shot maker. Yet he stands way behind the court when receiving. He is often the first one to get broken on serve. He is often a slow starter and has trouble holding serve in the beginning. And you say he beats the opposition from the word go??? .

This thread has more running around than a Nadal FH!

Did socal manage to forge any alliances? I mean, that is part of the point of this thread isn't it?

Did socal manage to forge any alliances?

Heard he has connections with Hamas and Hezbollah..

legendkillar wrote:This thread has more running around than a Nadal FH!

Absolutely!

To add my two pennyworth: I don't think Rafa does do all the running and retrieving at all raiders - he used to, and that was probably why was it Agassi or McEnroe had said something about cheques his body wouldn't be able to cash? Nowadays, he can hold fairly firm on the centre of the baseline and send everyone else scurrying for gets. Of course he still makes runs to 'impossible' shots, don't all the top players?
this
Djokovic has been successful against him, imvho, precisely because he has been sending Rafa scurrying from pillar to post, and maybe the 25 year legs have just lost a little of the explosive speed of the 20 year old ones. When Murray beat him in 2008 US and AO 2010, it was striking, particularly in the latter to see that he had Rafa on the run almost constantly as Ferrer did to him this year - when that happens, his body does struggle to cope, but it seems that only Novak can do that to him consistently now.

The physical argument has gone around and around, but in summary it seems that Rafa is exceptionally strong in his core and that is why he can belt a heavy win while on the run, and why he can keep a really heavy hitting rally going ad infinitum. I think they way he plays the game has changed quite noticeably over the last few years - but that may be my impression - I am not the greatest fan, so I don't watch absolutely everytime he plays.

Raider, for your's and tenez thesis to be correct we would have to assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour tire within 40-60 minutes of the first set against Nadal. It simply isn't the case. You make anectodal points about him often being a slow starter, I bring hard evidence that he wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets he plays. And what does him standing further back on his return of serve have anything to do with this argument? He stands further back because he takes a bigger more spin generating swing on the return, yet he manages to have the second highest break percentage on the ATP tour, how does that prove he lacks shotmaking ability?

Nadal takes more time between points not to give his opponent more time to recover, that is just what his routine and what suits him. But if his strategy was to truely bring to bear his fitness then he should do the opposite, he should rush his opponents between serves and make them play a combination of long points with little time in between points.

I don't find the principal assumption of your argument and Tenez's convincing that players that train for 4 hour matches die of exhaustion in half an hour to an hour on the court, no matter whether they have to play a few more marathon points or not. Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me.

bogbrush wrote:Did socal manage to forge any alliances? I mean, that is part of the point of this thread isn't it?

BB, you are bordering on paranoia. This site has more fed fans now and hardly any Rafa fans you and Tenez made sure of that chasing away the Rafa fans. What does this have to do with alliances? I think the proof is in the pudding, the talentless moonballer wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays. Either that is because the world class athletes of the ATP tour can't hit for 40-60 minutes without losing their fitness or that Rafa is just better than them.

socal1976 wrote:Raider, for your's and tenez thesis to be correct we would have to assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour tire within 40-60 minutes of the first set against Nadal. It simply isn't the case. You make anectodal points about him often being a slow starter, I bring hard evidence that he wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets he plays. And what does him standing further back on his return of serve have anything to do with this argument? He stands further back because he takes a bigger more spin generating swing on the return, yet he manages to have the second highest break percentage on the ATP tour, how does that prove he lacks shotmaking ability?

Nadal takes more time between points not to give his opponent more time to recover, that is just what his routine and what suits him. But if his strategy was to truely bring to bear his fitness then he should do the opposite, he should rush his opponents between serves and make them play a combination of long points with little time in between points.

I don't find the principal assumption of your argument and Tenez's convincing that players that train for 4 hour matches die of exhaustion in half an hour to an hour on the court, no matter whether they have to play a few more marathon points or not. Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me.

Good week end? Any chance you picked up a racquet and try to play a bit of tennis?

If there is one thing this debate does not centre on is the fact that if Nadal was just a lung merchant he would have beaten Djokovic the last 6 times. He hasn't, and has been beaten not by a player lasting longer, but by a better shot playing and keener tactical opponent.

In many ways it proves that he is not the fittest player on tour or the best atm.

You don't have to be a marathon runner to be able to play football in the Premier league.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Did socal manage to forge any alliances? I mean, that is part of the point of this thread isn't it?

BB, you are bordering on paranoia. This site has more fed fans now and hardly any Rafa fans you and Tenez made sure of that chasing away the Rafa fans. What does this have to do with alliances? I think the proof is in the pudding, the talentless moonballer wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays. Either that is because the world class athletes of the ATP tour can't hit for 40-60 minutes without losing their fitness or that Rafa is just better than them.

I'm just trying to help, because your basic thesis is essentially a mixture of misrepresentation and misunderstanding. It would be much more sensible if it was just a case of you making a few alliances.

Jubbahey wrote:
You don't have to be a marathon runner to be able to play football in the Premier league.

Why do they swap the best players then for fresher less talented ones towards the end of the match?

What part is misrepresentation, the part where the supposed talentless grinder wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays, so are we to assume that the ATP tour pros can't hit with him for an hour without losing their conditioning? If anything it is this ridiculous winning with big lungs argument that has been completely refuted. If he is so talentless why exactly does he win 87 percent of the first sets he plays, does conditioning determine the very first set of a tennis match? Frankly, it is a side issue for me, if the atp tour pros are such weaklings that after 60 minutes of play they lose their conditioning then they deserve to lose.

Tenez you keep talking about how the rest of the tour will just get as fit as nadal and he won't win anymore, well he won his first grandslam 7 years ago and won one just this year, when is the tour going to catch on and become as fit as Djoko and Nadal? It takes them 8 years to figure it out?

socal1976 wrote:Tenez you keep talking about how the rest of the tour will just get as fit as nadal and he won't win anymore, well he won his first grandslam 7 years ago and won one just this year, when is the tour going to catch on and become as fit as Djoko and Nadal? It takes them 8 years to figure it out?

It could be an ethical problem as Djoko himself said, interestingly, last year at the very same time...just before his 2011 amazing run!

As usual you can't think beyond your boilerplate response that you regurgitate over and over again. What does your last point mean? Is that a veilded accusation of PEDs? It is funny the lengths that you will go to smear Nadal and to a much lesser extent Djokovic. When you lose an argument first you start attacking the poster and claim he has never played tennis and knows nothing about it, then you start throwing out cryptic references to "ethical" problems.

You lost buddy, you claim Nadal wins on big lungs and superior fitness yet he wins the first set of virtually every match he plays (87 percent). To assume your ridiculous arguments are true we have to believe that worldclass athletes trained for a 4 hour match lose their conditioning in first 60 minutes. I ain't buying it and a lot of other people aren't buying it. But don't worry you got BB, your fellow apologist to gulp dow the kool-aid with you, along with a couple of others.

socal1976 wrote:
Nadal takes more time between points not to give his opponent more time to recover, that is just what his routine and what suits him. But if his strategy was to truely bring to bear his fitness then he should do the opposite, he should rush his opponents between serves and make them play a combination of long points with little time in between points.

Its funny you are still pursuing with this argument of yours. Is this what you do in your tennis matches (as you say you play tennis)? Work your way based on opponent's weakness and forget about your strength and that you yourself are equally vulnerable? This now shows why such simple things don't get in your head. "... he should do the opposite, he should rush his opponents between serves and make them play a combination of long points with little time in between points????

How will he do that when he himself is doing most of the running and needs a breather more than the opponent. I already said this, but you have an excuse already... slow learner.


"You make anectodal points about him often being a slow starter, I bring hard evidence that he wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets he plays."

Your 90 first set wins is the point to argue that Nadal is not a slow starter?? Do you know what is meaning to start of a match? Is the end of the 1st set called 'start' of the match that by winning it, the player is a very quick starter?? Read the lines what I wrote before and after the slow starter comment. Read.. Reading carefully is not bad for your health.

You make me feel like I'm talking to a 5 year old.

socal1976 wrote:As usual you can't think beyond your boilerplate response that you regurgitate over and over again. What does your last point mean? Is that a veilded accusation of PEDs? It is funny the lengths that you will go to smear Nadal and to a much lesser extent Djokovic. When you lose an argument first you start attacking the poster and claim he has never played tennis and knows nothing about it, then you start throwing out cryptic references to "ethical" problems.

You lost buddy, you claim Nadal wins on big lungs and superior fitness yet he wins the first set of virtually every match he plays (87 percent). To assume your ridiculous arguments are true we have to believe that worldclass athletes trained for a 4 hour match lose their conditioning in first 60 minutes. I ain't buying it and a lot of other people aren't buying it. But don't worry you got BB, your fellow apologist to gulp dow the kool-aid with you, along with a couple of others.

It's not me saying, It's Djoko himself. And the fact you don't even ask a source just shows you don;t want to know. Like everything you come up with you have no intention of learning, just imposing your absurd views which noone who plays the game at a decent level woudl agree.

Keep talking cowpat! Some of us are having fun.

I read and reread your post Raider, the state of california certifies that I am not slow in terms of reading comprehension they tested me for 8 hours for 3 straight days its called the bar examination. What you, tenez, and BB post rests on crucial assumption that i don't find plausible. The crucial assumption that world class tennis players who train hours day lose their fitness in the first set of matches. I understand that one long point can be much harder physically than several short points, but it still doesn't convince me that Nadal and Djoko win the first set because their opponents lose their conditioning.

Look at the Dodig match, Nadal blasted him during the first set and lost two tight sets in set 2 and 3, why didn't dodig lose his conditioning? Shouldn't he have been done by the second hour? The principal assumption that your argument and tenez's rests on makes no sense and I don't buy it. If you want to mix another half dozen insults in your next post it still won't make sense.

When Nadal is taking a breather in between his points what is his opponent doing? Is he jumping on a treadmill? No he is getting a breather as well. I never said Nadal takes time to help his opponents that is a straw man you have created for yourself.

Tenez clarify your post and provide the quotation that you are talking about, don't be all cryptic because your silly apologist argument has been exposed for everyone to see. I don't need to justify myself or my views to you, I don't have as high an opinion of your knowledge as you do. Its quite pathetic that you have to resort to personal insults when you have nothing to say. Your basic assumption that Nadal is a talentless moonballer with big lungs has irrevocably been crushed. So now you get into the nasty personal stuff to cover and change the subject, sorry I won't be changing the subject.

Don't bother Socal, they can't hear you.

Jarvik, I know it really is a waste of time, I am probably done with this thread. I just wanted to say my piece and I did. Its fine with me if you like federer and his game more than Nadal, he isn't my favorite player, but I don't like to see people make things up and run with it despite the facts. For the record I agree that fitness is a big part of the game and maybe a bigger part of today's game then in the past. But I don't buy the idea that Nadal is not talented or a good shotmaker and that he wins solely or principally on fitness.

Hmmmmmmm not sure why people bang the same drum. As far as the football argument was brought in gives me a chance to say this. Are quick lungbusting players remembered as greats? No. Zidane is widely regarded by both fans and pundits and fellow professionals as the greatest player of his generation and one of the best. Yet he wasn't the quickest. He played with flair and style. Similar to dear old Roger. Regardless of how many times he is beaten by Nadal or how many players make it to the top of the ranks with an edge on their conditioning will not diminish or take away Roger's claim to the greatest there has ever been.

So please, stop Flip arguing over this fitness thing as it is old, tiresome and done to death. Leave it behind.

LK, I don't want to argue it because I also feel it is a silly argument. It has no basis in fact. I have yet to see Roger lose to Nadal because he cramped or threw up his cookies or even looked like he was tired. And I agree with you, Roger doesn't need this type of factless mythmaking to elevate his legacy in the game.

socal1976 wrote:Jarvik, I know it really is a waste of time, I am probably done with this thread. I just wanted to say my piece and I did. Its fine with me if you like federer and his game more than Nadal, he isn't my favorite player, but I don't like to see people make things up and run with it despite the facts. For the record I agree that fitness is a big part of the game and maybe a bigger part of today's game then in the past. But I don't buy the idea that Nadal is not talented or a good shotmaker and that he wins solely or principally on fitness.

Hi socal. You can but try. This debate has ran its course, most people realise that the top guys are all talented and it's only the extremists who remain opposed. By their very nature they will not debate the issue, worse still they get personal and say that everyone else does not understand.

Positively 4th Street wrote:This debate has ran its course, most people realise that the top guys are all talented ..

I am bit shocked by the lack of honesty of some posters here and their poor debating skills.

The tread is about Nadal winning PRINCIPALLY on fitness. We have expressed our views pretty articulately without once mentioning that Nadal had no talent but yet those who certainly lack proper arguments and knowledge of the game coudl not find anything better than to grossely "extremise" our views.

Nadal's fitness is his backbone/launch-pad from which he (like many others) exerts his game but untangling talent and fitness into assessable units of ability is too complex a dissection in my opinion. Fitness has to be such a strong part of any top players game today - is that even debatable? This isnt snooker. As we know Federer trained like a gym rat to be able to survive with, literally, the fittest. Djokovic has clearly done the same, and Murray too. Nadal however, is genetically (I suspect) amazingly fit - its a talent in its own right - why denigrate it?

However, the guy not only has supreme fitness but supreme talent too (like all the top 3-4). I dont see why the thread is really even arguing the point given the guy has won as much as he has and been top 2 for 6 years running...surely its just a no-brainer about his fitness/stamina/endurance and talent/shot-making capability. People comment on playing tennis to a high level, I bet if anyone knocked up with Nadal for 10-15 minutes they would be left in mo uncertain terms about his talent level. You simply cant stay top 2 for 6 years without amazing talent, or fitness to be able to exert that talent. Isnt this an argument of splitting hairs amongst the top 3-4 players?

This thread is just another battle ground for the pro-Nadal vs anti-Nadal posters. One will never convince the other no matter how much evidence is supplied.

Tenez wrote:I am bit shocked by the lack of honesty of some posters here and their poor debating skills.

The tread is about Nadal winning PRINCIPALLY on fitness. We have expressed our views pretty articulately without once mentioning that Nadal had no talent but yet those who certainly lack proper arguments and knowledge of the game coudl not find anything better than to grossely "extremise" our views.

Hi Tenez,

I hope you don't think I am dishonest or lack debating skills. For what its worth I enjoy debating with you most of the time, and believe that there is a kernel of truth in some of what you believe. Raiders, on the other hand, was rude to several posters, if you want to align yourself with him that is your prerogative. One thing that does you no credit though is to belittle those who don't share your views as lacking 'knowledge of the game', when it is in fact that they lack your view of the game.

Tenez wrote:I am bit shocked by the lack of honesty of some posters here and their poor debating skills.

The tread is about Nadal winning PRINCIPALLY on fitness. We have expressed our views pretty articulately without once mentioning that Nadal had no talent but yet those who certainly lack proper arguments and knowledge of the game coudl not find anything better than to grossely "extremise" our views.

Tenez did you not say Nadal's talent level is no better than a top 50 player with big lungs? you are the one takes the argument to extremes, you do that all by yourself. If you had said that Nadal while being talented is not as good a shotmaker as federer, I would agree with you. Didn't you say that once the rest of the tour got as fit as Djoko and Nadal they wouldn't be deemed great and wouldn't win? Is this not word for word statements that you have made?

Regardless I am not going to change your opinion, and I don't care if you respect my knowledge of the game or my opinions. I don't need your approval. Go on believing what you like unlike you I don't need to attack you personally to try to get my point across.

lydian wrote:Nadal's fitness is his backbone/launch-pad from which he (like many others) exerts his game but untangling talent and fitness into assessable units of ability is too complex a dissection in my opinion. Fitness has to be such a strong part of any top players game today - is that even debatable? This isnt snooker. As we know Federer trained like a gym rat to be able to survive with, literally, the fittest. Djokovic has clearly done the same, and Murray too. Nadal however, is genetically (I suspect) amazingly fit - its a talent in its own right - why denigrate it?

However, the guy not only has supreme fitness but supreme talent too (like all the top 3-4). I dont see why the thread is really even arguing the point given the guy has won as much as he has and been top 2 for 6 years running...surely its just a no-brainer about his fitness/stamina/endurance and talent/shot-making capability. People comment on playing tennis to a high level, I bet if anyone knocked up with Nadal for 10-15 minutes they would be left in mo uncertain terms about his talent level. You simply cant stay top 2 for 6 years without amazing talent, or fitness to be able to exert that talent. Isnt this an argument of splitting hairs amongst the top 3-4 players?

This thread is just another battle ground for the pro-Nadal vs anti-Nadal posters. One will never convince the other no matter how much evidence is supplied.

This is the most sensible post I have seen on this thread.

Positevly, appreciate the vote of confidence. This is a very polarizing issue although I don't understand the mindset of denigrating a player with 10 slams eventhough you don't like his style of play. Especially, when you try to diminish his talent and accomplishments. I don't like Roger in a lot of ways but I am happy to admit the man as the greatest player of the modern era, I am Novak fan and have quite a few hurt feelings and tough losses to Roger in my mind to ever really like the guy. But you won't find me saying he is anything but a supreme talent.

Positively 4th Street wrote:One thing that does you no credit though is to belittle those who don't share your views as lacking 'knowledge of the game', when it is in fact that they lack your view of the game.

I am afraid but on this occasion, whoever has run around with a racquet, not even necessarily at that good a level knows that timing and shot precision goes down at the rallies go on. Hence the famous drop shot or kamikase FH attempt to shorten the rally.

This is why those who invented the game allowed for a break every other game and not at the end of the set or after one hour as the OP could suggest. And those rules were set up long before the game became that physical. Why? because shot selections is very much influenced not on the length of the match but the length and pace of the rallies.

I have played enough tennis at a much slower pace to understand how physically demanding those faster rallies are.

Raiders might be rude but he certainly knows his tennis and his an honest debator.

Socal and others might be nicer but simply don;t understand the game, in particular what it takes to keep playing with Nadal.

There's probably an underlying reason that threads like these attact so many posts. It's almost as if the posters are defending their philosophy on more than just tennis through their favourite players tennis style. If this wasn't the case you'd just have some people saying 'I think Nadal wins because of his physicality' and others saying they don't think that and that would be the end of it.

Tenez, is it only someone who shares your views that constitutes an honest debator? Where do we go next after you've convinced everyone of Nadal's superior physicality?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Tenez, is it only someone who shares your views that constitutes an honest debator? Where do we go next after you've convinced everyone of Nadal's superior physicality?

Yes, here is Tenez's test for knowledge of the game, if you agree with him you have knowledge of the game. If you disagree with him then you have never played tennis, and you don't know anything about the game. In his own mind he is the holy grail of tennis knowledge and how closely your opinions mirror his, well that is how knowledgeable you are.

Tenez wrote:Raiders might be rude but he certainly knows his tennis and his an honest debator.

Socal and others might be nicer but simply don;t understand the game, in particular what it takes to keep playing with Nadal.

I don't think anyone on here is dishonest. You laud raiders honesty because he shares your viewpoint, I don't think socal or others are being dishonest.

My summary is that we differ in the relative contribution of fitness to Nadal's success. I think the other constituent parts of his game are better than you do, which is fine.

They're all supreme talents...this is why the objective behind these discussions is frankly ridiculous.

Tennis is not like middle distance running, or Olympic rowing where fitness is the main thing. Tennis, like golf, is a highly technical sport...you simply cannot be at the global head of these technical sports for so long without having supreme technical talent. We also know what a perfectionist Nadal is, do people not think that tennis always suited his nature because he could always apply his attention to detail to a technically detailed sport? Nadal is no tennis "caveman", for one thing his net game shows great touch and his ability to learn and adapt his game from one surface to another is another reflection of his talent.

I find the comments about who's played the better tennis and at what higher level to be almost akin to "my dad is bigger than your dad". There's always an assumption in these discussions that there is one perfect way to win a match...there isnt and we should embrace all the ways in which the top guys play the game. If the game as a whole is moving in a direction we dont like, blame the ATP/ITF for surface/ball changes, not the players who merely are products of the environment. Longer ralleys are here to stay...so the game will be championed by those players who can win using a mix of technical talent, tactics and fitness.

Precisely, positvely, I don't believe that fitness is irrelevant it is a big part of the modern champions game. I just don't believe that his fitness wins him the majority of his matches or that he beats federer principally on fitness. Have you ever seen Roger cramp in a tennis match? Have you seen him puke on the tennis court like other champions have when they hit the wall? Of course fitness is important in modern tennis as lydian has stated it isn't snooker, you can't drink a beer and smoke cigarette while you play in the US open.

Great post lydian, even with the slower conditions unless you are very talented at hitting a tennis ball you are not going to be a great tennis player. I mean this is not even open to debate it is as obvious as obvious can be. Tennis isn't an ironman competition, if you can't hit a good enough serve or have weak strokes you will get beat up and will have no chance of succeeding on tour. And the top guys the top 3-5 players on tour are all very gifted and talented ballsrikers and all of them are fit athletes as well. Neither on its own sufficient for grandslam success and both factors are necessary for tennis success.

Tennis is regressing into an *I can hit harder than you*

boring non-spectacle !



Bring back the good old days when players used subtelty

and *dink* shots to out=think their opponent !

The variety of *tennis* played today is the equivolent of

a WWF bout

There is less variety yummy for sure, but its STILL a highly technical sport no matter how hard they are hitting it. The old days of guise and wile are long gone I'm afraid.

Yep socal, ball striking is important in any era of tennis and always will be - whilst a player holds a racquet with strings and is hitting a fast moving ball there is always going to be innate talent involved in being the best at that sport, even if fitness does become more important (but when wasnt it relatively important in the Open Era for the top players?).

True lydian, vilas, borg, and lendl were all early proponents of physical tennis the game is a sport we aren't watching poker or billiards. Some players use their ballstriking talent to impart huge spin and angles on the ball, other players take the ball earlier using a shorter, flatter swing. It doesn't mean that one player is talented because he takes the ball earlier and one player who hits the ball later and with a bigger swing isn't talented. The modern champion has to be a great ball striker if you look at all of the big 4 they all have certain swings and shots that they do better than almost anyone else on tour or at least in the top 5. Fed has the serve and forehand. Nadal the return and forehand. Andy and Novak the backhand and return. These guys are all top 5 in these categories on tour. It is the weapons that set them apart. Not the big lungs, because anyone can get fitter if that is all it took to be number #1. If fitness was all it took David Ferrer or juan monaco would have 10 slams a piece.

During an interview after he bulldozed Rosewall in the final of Wimbledon (did the same at the US Open), Connors said his motto was to beat the hell out of tennis balls.

Correcting the above. Connors' championship match win over Rosewall was at Wimbledon (not again at the US).

Yep, and Lew Hoad was also a physical powerhouse. But Hoad and Connors were highly talented too. Tennis is always going to be a sport where talent has to be married to fitness because its a physically demanding sport - always has been, always will be. Borg, then Lendl took the physical aspects of the game to new levels in their times but no-one disputes they werent supremely talented as well. In this era Nadal and Djokovic have again upped the physical bar...but again with an underlying talent for the game. But to say someone just wins tennis matches due to fitness is an anethema to the game - and if Nadal is called talentless then so should Borg, Lendl, Hoad, etc....

Bou what EXACTLY are we calling *talent* these days Lydian ?

Is it just the ability to thwack the ball as hard as possible, or

is it the ability to *out-think and bamboozle* your opponent ?



Of the top 4 players I do prefer Murrays' tennis because he has

the knack of getting inside a players head and breaking down

their game plan.

I wish Murray still had that knack yummy, I'm afraid I haven't seen it lately. At one time he did take his game to the others in the top three, but in the last two years he has seemed a little lost and to have lost his game in the process.

Time to spend more hours on the court, and less in the gym!

Yes - it's a mind game thing TM !



The physical side is there - just not the mental ability at the

moment !

In the first few years of Lendl's career, he was like a machine without brains. Once he started winning majors, he looked intelligent.

Murray is too mechanical now. He doesn't outsmart the opponent.

[quote="socal1976"]

Leff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Leff, that is the running consensus by the apologists that Nadal is really just a glorified top 50 player with big lungs and 10 grandslam titles.

Now imagine doing that with your left hand when you are righty, then having some internet mythmaker claim you aren't particularly gifted at hitting a tennis ball.

He's ambidextrous..so it's nothing in fact they tend to have better skills with their left hands. Ditto Phil Mickelson and Bob Charles in golf.

Nadal is not ambidextrious. he can't do anything with his left hand bar play tennis. It's a learnt skills. Ambis are born with the ability to use either hand. That's not Nadal's cases.

Un fact, as Dali said once of Cezanne, Nadal has 2 left hands!