The Marinovich Project - Could Explain The Nadal Model

During this week I was laid up with the flu hence not much posting on the board.

What is obvious is 2 things.

Nadal still has the massive target on his back to those with loaded guns.

The LA fingerpointing at everyone successful is the new crap dogmatic way of thinking.

On my week off I watched a documentary called "The Marinovich Project" I implore anyone who is keen to see how exactly a well oiled athlete can be created from youth without all the "doping" nonsense I see daily on the internet.

In question when it seems that Nadal is the sole figure of doping accusations, I think certain things are forgotten which really should aim the finger of curiousity elsewhere.

The documentary in question is brilliant. Todd Marinovich was groomed by his development/fitness fanatic father Marv Marinovich. Now Marv Marinovich is a pioneer in athletic development. This guy changed the way the NFL developed players. As a former footballer himself, he actually suffered through 'Over training' and was then met with a desire to improve his fitness regime and maximise his athletic ability. Post career he studied the Eastern Bloc training methods and incorporated other methods into this and became one of the first 'Strength and Conditioning' coaches. He worked with the Raiders and even founded a training centre which many athletes went to.

Marv then had the idea and notion he could train his son Todd from early age and he begun training Todd the moment he was born. Even before Todd had taken his first steps, Marv was stretching his quads in his crib! Todd at the age 6 ran a mile in 8 minutes! He was on a diet which had no meat or processed foods in it. Simply put, Marv was creating an athlete who was to be years ahead of anyone. Todd himself was playing in national matches at the age of 14 which was unheard of. Todd would run miles each and every day and also do weights. We are talking a teenager here! Todd broke the college record for yards thrown in a season. However, once Todd turned pro, he imploded. A mixture of the strict regime from childhood meant that he yearned for a normal lifestyle and his career was cut short by recreational drug taking. His pro career is not the focus of my point here. It is purely about the development. Todd was seen as light years ahead of anyone in football. A mixture of natural athletic ability and the training and diet program to match meant that kids nutured in the right way can achieve amazing results.

Let's look at the top 4 who have dominated the game in recent times. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Nadal turned pro at 15 whilst Federer, Djokovic and Murray turned pro at 17.

Nadal also has a 'sporting' athletic family. Federer hasn't. Djokovic hasn't. Murray had Judy who was a handy female tennis player.

For me it is clear that Nadal and his accusations are based on results and the brand of tennis he plays which to many seems physically impossible to maintain. Tennis in general at the moment has a massive problem in testing and because of the lack of testing means that the temptation is there to dope and get away with it. Tennis is nowhere near as lax on doping or testing compared with yesteryear, yet those successful in those times are given a free pass. It's clear Lendl was the first to really place emphasis on fitness and conditioning.

This whole LA lovesacks is really annoying. It seems that any successful athlete gets met with the 'Well LA got away with it' narrow minded thinking. Agassi's admission in recreational drug use and the soft approach from the ITF and ATP was exposed. Can't say that really it is the same old structure that still exists. I mean christ should every general in the German outfit be met with "He could become a Hitler" casting aspersions because we believe history explains everything and being obtuse is the way to think to prevent travesties.

Lets look at cycling. I can't recall anyone or ever hearing of anyone who was 'naturally talented' at cycling. Like running the stamina without a doubt is the core element for success. Tennis is not that straightforward. You could place Paula Radcliffe on a tennis court and all the stamina in the world would not stop her getting bagelled by a park standard player.

The Marinovich Project is a must watch for those who have not seen first hand the impact of development. It was an eye opening documentary. With the right structure in place superb athletes can be created and nutured under the right environments. How the athletes stay at their peak is another matter all together.

Yes Nadal doesn't cover himself in glory. Yes his views can be somewhat self-serving, however the guy for me is naturally athletic. Out of the top guys genetically he stands the greater chance of being naturally athletic.

Anyone please watch the documentary. What it can explain is how athletes are created from youth and how they become nearly 90% of the end product to mature into.

Handy for Marv to have his own baby to experiment on.

The documentary is quite brutal and it is often commented how bad of a parent he was. The mother was scared of him and hence why his training program was allowed to continue like it did.

Todd himself in the documentary actually loved sport, but the training regime was what he struggled to cope with and resented. It is strange that once his dad praised him for his accomplishment, he lost the motivation to play sport.

A lot of good points you make there, LK.

I think it's pretty clear that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all have genetic advantages. Andy's success I think is more down to his hard work than inherent advantages.

Fed's hand-eye co-ordination is clearly off the charts and his game was based around shot-making.

Rafa is clearly an incredibly naturally gifted athlete. It's no surprise to see much of his success stemming from power and endurance.

Novak is incredibly flexible and has that lean, wiry build that is quick and light. These are where the big advantages his game are.

Their games flow from these natural advantages as well as, of course, a lot of hard work on the training court. I see nothing in their games to suggest PEDs. They've played the same way and had the same body shapes for years.

I get really cross about how suspicion is now raised by the media about Novak's powers of recovery.

He's obviously right near the end of the spectrum in that regard but I really don't see him doing anything that is redefining human ability. It's all within the scope of ice baths, stretching, massage, nutrition and sleep.

If someone like Eddie Izzard can run 43 marathons in 51 days, I have no difficulty in believing that an elite athlete can play tennis for 5 hours and be recovered 36 hours later.

Indeed HM.

People physically are different in every element. They all don't respond to the same things that others might do.

The thing with LA is I wonder had he not been exposed to steroids when being treated for cancer whether he would've doped like he did. Whilst it was despicable the way he lied, had he not had that exposure, would he have had the temptation?

Like you say Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven't physically massively changed to the point that would make you think 'Yep he is doping'

How athletes manage themselves in adult years I can't say with great accuracy, watching the documentary opened my eyes to how from childhood these athletes can be created. This guy Marinovich said himself physically he could've played for years, though because mentally he hadn't developed as a person, the formula was doomed to failure.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The thing with LA is I wonder had he not been exposed to steroids when being treated for cancer whether he would've doped like he did. Whilst it was despicable the way he lied, had he not had that exposure, would he have had the temptation?

I think in cycling, it was just part of the culture. I saw LA said in the Oprah interview something along the lines that using PEDs was just like having air in your tyres and water in your bottle.

I actually feel a degree of, maybe not sympathy, but at least understanding of why he started using drugs. It's easy to get ensnared in a corrupt culture. What I think is unforgivable is the length he took the lies to - sueing people who were telling the truth etc.

legendkillarV2 wrote:This guy Marinovich said himself physically he could've played for years, though because mentally he hadn't developed as a person, the formula was doomed to failure.

I see a watered-down version of that with Rafa. Even a couple of years ago, he struck me as a child in a man's body. A nice guy but a little... odd.

He seems to have matured since he started reclaiming some authority back from Toni. Or maybe he took the authority back because he matured. Either way, he eventually recoiled, at least to an extent, against the method and structure imposed on him since his youth.

Pretty much agree with that consensus HM.

I can't endorse watching it enough. The results physically were stunning. Mentally though is where it was all lost.

The American fans though, how harsh. Todd was playing a basketball match for his college and had 2 penalty shots near the end to win the match and he was 17 at the time and had been caught with possession of weed and the fans as he was about to shoot were chanting "Marajuanavich"

Brutal

legendkillarV2 wrote:

What is obvious is 2 things.

Nadal still has the massive target on his back to those with loaded guns.

The LA fingerpointing at everyone successful is the new crap dogmatic way of thinking.

True. A good contribution. Thanks for this article.

Great article.

You should share it across different forums

legendkillarv2. Sometimes I think there are two of you. The version that can write thoughtful articles like this and the other one.

Are successful athletes made or born? The old nature nurture debate.

In tennis I can think of 2 stories that illustrate very different routes to success. The Williams sisters (as the story goes) were conceived with the plan to train them up as tennis stars. They were their fathers project and with little experience of coaching or playing he devised and delivered his training program. Their success is "proof" that his method works. Or is it?

One of my favorite stories in tennis is that of Evonne Goolagong. "Discovered" in a dirt poor area of Australia it was as if she was born with natural tennis gifts?

Back to Nadal. You talk about development as an athlete but what stands out to me about him is how he appears to get a thrill from competition. A few times even when he has lost a close match (most recently at the AO in 2012) he's said how much he enjoyed the fight. He's said these are the sort of matches he loves to play. Not the easy wins. I think its obvious he wants to win but he gets real enjoyment out of being challenged. That to me is a little hard to relate to... it's probably one of the things that sets him apart though. Is that something that an individual can be trained for?

I read somewhere ages ago a story from when Rafa was very young. Rafa's father has quite a few brothers and he was the first to have a child (Rafa). So as a baby he was a novelty and they all enjoyed playing with him. One of the games was a sort of piggy in the middle game were the brothers threw a ball about and Rafa tried to get it. They said that most small children would have got frustrated at being sort of teased in this way... (I can imagine) but Rafa just loved this game (Ha ha! I can imagine). Some might use this story to "prove" that even as a small child Nadal had a strong competitive streak? But also his Uncles could have been inadvertently training him to be competitive by playing with him in this way? Another idea is that Rafa as a child did have a natural competitive streak so that when his uncles first played this game he responded to it well. The Uncles would be encouraged to play again and Rafa would gain from the experience and become more competitive. And this cycle could be repeated in a loop. From my very distant past in physcology this is one theory about how nature can influence nurture.

LKv2... Very nice article. Would have been even better if it did not reference the daily dross on v2, which posters may consider a Tennis discussion.

The question is whether the manufactured vs genetic inclination of a person towards athleticism is better understood. The current Top 4 reflect such a dichotomy, which is partly responsible for the never-ending cycle of debates. Pretty certain that Nadal/Murray would have been equally good Footballers as Tennis players, while Djokovic could have been a US NFL QB.

US ST6 goes through some very tough physical and mental conditioning. They produce a better soldier, perhaps, but do they produce a better human?

Should I even mention Chris Dorner in this thread?

Of course it's possible to attain the level of athleticism and fitness of Nadal and Djokovic and Federer and Murray without drugs.

I don't detect any sensible person saying otherwise.

The point sensible people take is a more nuanced one:

a. There is increasing evidence of drug-taking in sport generally
b. The current physicality of tennis means that there is an obvious temptation to gain an advantage by taking drugs - it's not the same as swimming, cycling, or running, but the temptation is there for all to see
c. One possible explanation for the extraordinary physical conditioning of the top 4 (and others) is PED use
d. Any sport would want to eliminate skepticism about the possibility in c. above with a strict testing regime involving testing blood as well as urine and doing it truly randomly and frequently - and in particular any sport where someone like Fuentes had said he had treated participants in that sport whose identities have not been revealed
e. The regime in tennis is inadequate and complacent and some of the top 4 have been responsible for clumsy utterances about doping - we also have the fact that Agassi's positive test was only uncovered when he chose to reveal it and the fact that the ATP accepted a pretty limp excuse (I accept it was a recreational drug, and like others I am more concerned by PED's)
f. The ITF/ATP are slightly conflicted because they sell their sport so heavily on the back of those they ought to be testing rigorously
g. LA is merely the most recent example of a player who cheated, was not detected by one of sports' tougher regimes, and managed to bully fellow competitors, journalists, and authorities into not exposing him for many years and sold himself (and was accepted by many) a saint because of his charitable foundation. I.e. what athletes say is not significant.

Personally I think that careful skepticism (not lazy or jaded cynicism) is the order of the day, I have never said that I think that X or Z, is taking PED's, I don't know and I hope not. However, I do want to feel that if any of the top 4 (or any other tennis player) is taking drugs there's a good chance that they'll be caught or shopped by someone who knows - and I am nowhere near having that confidence. I think that the players are waking upt to this too, not before time.

HB and IMBL

HE - The Williams Sisters is an interesting story. I draw the parallel with Marinovich and Nadal purely because a) The family link. Athletes within the genetic pool. b) They exceeded levels in their very early years. eg Nadal turned pro at 15 and Marinovich enrolled into the NFL draft at 21 despite normally such green players making the jump from second tier football until they are 23. He was in the first round of draft picks which for a 3rd string QB was unusual.

LF - I think there is a good argument that Manufactored athletes/Naturally gifted athletes can mix and even offer up hybrids. For example is Federer a natural athlete? Probably not. However he is the perfect mix of hand/eye co-ordination and hand skills that really are the foundations for a top player. Improved fitness certainly helps with the consistency he has been able to develop. Nadal/Djokovic for example to me more of the natural stamina breed, though that has enabled them to hone their eye/hand skills over time. HM touched on it brilliantly that Nadal early on in his career seemed a bit 'robotic' as a person and in recent time has certainly found his own identity and helped himself not be seen as Toni's 'puppet'

Chris Dorner is a good example of casting aspersions that everyone in the US Army will go psycho even with the culture that already exists with their lax gun laws.

legendkillarV2 wrote: For example is Federer a natural athlete? Probably not. However he is the perfect mix of hand/eye co-ordination and hand skills that really are the foundations for a top player. Improved fitness certainly helps with the consistency he has been able to develop.

Federer himself says he always knew he had it in his hands, he did not know when he was younger about his mind and his legs - in other words he understood the need to work on his fitness and the mental side of his game to make the best of his hand-eye co-ordination.

Nature or nurture?

Jim Courier squashed Agassi when the latter whined after one of his RG beatings from Courier about the difference between true talent and grinders who worked hard - Courier said that the ability to get down and do the necessary work was itself a talent, and who's to disagree?

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: For example is Federer a natural athlete? Probably not. However he is the perfect mix of hand/eye co-ordination and hand skills that really are the foundations for a top player. Improved fitness certainly helps with the consistency he has been able to develop.

Federer himself says he always knew he had it in his hands, he did not know when he was younger about his mind and his legs - in other words he understood the need to work on his fitness and the mental side of his game to make the best of his hand-eye co-ordination.

Nature or nurture?

Jim Courier squashed Agassi when the latter whined after one of his RG beatings from Courier about the difference between true talent and grinders who worked hard - Courier said that the ability to get down and do the necessary work was itself a talent, and who's to disagree?

That is question. However, I think it can easily be both.

Agassi had an axe to grind with Courier which I found bizarre. It seemed Courier was a representation of everything Agassi rebelled. I remember Agassi quoting his lack of focus for the defeat than Courier maybe just playing better.

For anyone to reach the top of a sport there has to be both 'nature and nurture' - I agree, I don't believe either can suffice on its own.

Agassi was a classic example of nurture - tennis balls on strings in his cot and so on - the amateur psychologist in me suggests he may have been bringing out his dislike for the very same traits in others which he found so disconcerting or difficult to deal with in himself. I know I do it - when I think I see in my son the same character failings that I have it drives me crazy.

I find Agassi a tad bizarre. Never quite got to the bottom of his motivation to continue playing in light of the injuries he had and also the eternal dislike for the game. He certainly in his book came across that he would never deny his children the freedom of choice that he was denied himself. The Marinovich capitulation was really spectacular and that he lost motivation once he achieved his father's praise and respect.

How many of the athletes develop as people and able to marry a good mix of personal time and professional time is truly amazing. Especially in tennis with the length of the season and travelling.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Pretty much agree with that consensus HM.

I can't endorse watching it enough. The results physically were stunning. Mentally though is where it was all lost.

The American fans though, how harsh. Todd was playing a basketball match for his college and had 2 penalty shots near the end to win the match and he was 17 at the time and had been caught with possession of weed and the fans as he was about to shoot were chanting "Marajuanavich"

Brutal

Todd grew up close to me and was the highest rated quarterback in the country as a high schooler, we all knew who he was when he was 15 or 16, and that he was destined for the NFL and that his father was training him like a robot he is about my age as well and grew up in orange county like me. To me he has always been a story of athletic tragedy, he did make it to the pros and sign a big contract but he blew up under the regimintation. His father stretching his quads in the crib is just weird.

To me I think all of the top 4 train incredibly hard and all are top rated athletes. I echo a lot of murdoch's comments although I think Andy is as physically talented as Djokovic or Nadal if you look at how tall he is and how fast he moves and most importantly the first step he has at that size. Still I think it is a little weird how angry everyone is at lance like he is the first cyclist to dope and to lie about it. As you say it is a corrupt culture. Is he the angel everyone made him out to be no, but this sort of nasty venom seems to ignore everyone else who was basically doing the same thing and also lying about it.

Ok, I admit. There has never been any drug use in sports and there never will be. Is that what you want to hear? Now keep dreaming.

Chydremion wrote:Ok, I admit. There has never been any drug use in sports and there never will be. Is that what you want to hear? Now keep dreaming.

You know me chdremion, I am the only guy who really doesn't care about doping in sports anymore. I just assume they all do it and it frees my mind to enjoy the sports. Enjoy the sausage and don't stop to think how the sausage is made.

socal1976 wrote:

Chydremion wrote:Ok, I admit. There has never been any drug use in sports and there never will be. Is that what you want to hear? Now keep dreaming.

You know me chdremion, I am the only guy who really doesn't care about doping in sports anymore. I just assume they all do it and it frees my mind to enjoy the sports. Enjoy the sausage and don't stop to think how the sausage is made.

Same here.

socal1976 wrote:I echo a lot of murdoch's comments although I think Andy is as physically talented as Djokovic or Nadal if you look at how tall he is and how fast he moves and most importantly the first step he has at that size.

I don't think Andy lacks talent, I just don't think he has the 'genetic' advantages of the other three.

Fed's hand-eye, Rafa's athleticism and Novak's flexibility are natural gifts that they have to a greater degree than probably anyone else on the tour.

I can't think of any natural physical attribute of Andy that is as highly developed.

Of the four of them (in fact arguably of the whole tour?) he has changed his body the most.

Doesn't make him a lesser player today, I just think he had fewer physical advantages at the time he started out.

Didn't Novak work on his flexibility? I vaguely remember him becoming more flexible from 2010 on, Mc Enroe commented on it at Wimbledon 2010.

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't think of any natural physical attribute of Andy that is as highly developed.

Is the best tactical brain in Tennis today considered a physical or a non-physical attribute?

Murray would probably make a very brilliant International Grandmaster in Chess ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess) ).

legendkillarV2 wrote:Indeed HM.

People physically are different in every element. They all don't respond to the same things that others might do.

The thing with LA is I wonder had he not been exposed to steroids when being treated for cancer whether he would've doped like he did. Whilst it was despicable the way he lied, had he not had that exposure, would he have had the temptation?

Like you say Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven't physically massively changed to the point that would make you think 'Yep he is doping'

How athletes manage themselves in adult years I can't say with great accuracy, watching the documentary opened my eyes to how from childhood these athletes can be created. This guy Marinovich said himself physically he could've played for years, though because mentally he hadn't developed as a person, the formula was doomed to failure.

Just to correct something.. Armstrong was doping before the cancer diagnosis and treatment.. One of the despicable things he did was completely villify, sue for defamation,etc the wife of a close friend of his who testified that she was in the hospital room when he was 1st diagnosed with cancer and she heard him tell the Doctor that he had taken steroids for several years. He denied he ever said that and tried to ruin the ladys reputation... Now of course, we know it was true. He was exposed prior to the cancer when he was an up and coming rider..

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't think of any natural physical attribute of Andy that is as highly developed.

Is the best tactical brain in Tennis today considered a physical or a non-physical attribute?

Murray would probably make a very brilliant International Grandmaster in Chess ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess) ).

Please explain 'tactical brain' to me. It's something often associated with Murray but I've never seen a clear definition of it.

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I echo a lot of murdoch's comments although I think Andy is as physically talented as Djokovic or Nadal if you look at how tall he is and how fast he moves and most importantly the first step he has at that size.

I don't think Andy lacks talent, I just don't think he has the 'genetic' advantages of the other three.

Fed's hand-eye, Rafa's athleticism and Novak's flexibility are natural gifts that they have to a greater degree than probably anyone else on the tour.

I can't think of any natural physical attribute of Andy that is as highly developed.

Of the four of them (in fact arguably of the whole tour?) he has changed his body the most.

Doesn't make him a lesser player today, I just think he had fewer physical advantages at the time he started out.

I think Murray has impeccable hands as well Murdoch I think he gets lost in the shuffle because he isn't in my opinion as good as Novak and certainly not as good as nadal but I do view him as an athletic or physical talent of the highest order

He probably is the fastest six foot three tennis player I have ever seen who can hit a nearly 140 mph serve

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't think of any natural physical attribute of Andy that is as highly developed.

Is the best tactical brain in Tennis today considered a physical or a non-physical attribute?)

Hmm, not sure I agree with that claim.

But if he does have the best tactical brain but is less successful than the other 3, then his physical gifts must be inferior.

So either way I'm right!

socal1976 wrote:

I think Murray has impeccable hands as well Murdoch I think he gets lost in the shuffle because he isn't in my opinion as good as Novak and certainly not as good as nadal but I do view him as an athletic or physical talent of the highest order

He probably is the fastest six foot three tennis player I have ever seen who can hit a nearly 140 mph serve

He has great hands but I would argue other players are as good or better (Fed being one of them).

There are also quicker players (Novak) and his serve certainly isn't a natural gift, it's the product of a lot of work and a lot of weights lifted!

Andy as an overall package us superb. I just don't think there is a specific gift or talent in which he stands alone.

Natural talent make the great players stand out at an early age...by 18 all the top 4 were in the top 75...for me that the defining crown of talent. They had that little bit extra...and its not movement, ball striking or anything else. They just wanted it more. That's the talent. People talk about talent as if its some elusive, mercurial substance. Its not.

I'm going to be slightly controversial here. We put people far too high onto pedestals. Its human nature to marvel at others and ultimately deify them into beings us lesser mortals aren't fit to tie the shoelaces of. Yes these guys are talented at hitting a ball and moving but there are talented people all around us...its just that many never had the chance to pick up a racquet early enough, or to be funded through junior years when coaching and travel costs a packet, support through junior ITF years, etc. Not everyone has the backing of Gulbis. I can tell you that if you take just about any guy who can train for 15 years 4-5 days a week they've got a good chance of being a good pro player. If you train 10,000 hrs at anything you will become world class.

The true talent of these guys is in a) sticking to a routine of training for 10,000 hrs, b) having the determination to learn and succeed, and c) having a lot of luck along the way in terms of access to facilities, money, coaches, etc.

I have spoken to many senior LTA coaches about British tennis. A lack of talent many people on here say. That's rubbish in terms of UK. We have plenty...and facilities are much better than they were. We're pumping out a lot of great 12-14 yr olds now. So why only 1 player in the top200...Murray? Answer - British kids don't want it enough. They're too complacent...too "give it me on a plate". The talent of wanting to succeed in this country isn't nurtured enough, that early seed becomes complacent somewhere down the track. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps the psychological side isn't kept hungry enough through teen years. Simply put, kids/juniors from other countries simple want to win more...it seems to be more in their culture, in their blood. Maybe this will change in future, London 2012 started to make people believe we can win. Belief is everything in powering talent. You have to believe you can win, and you have to want it badly. Very badly indeed. That is the aura that the top 4 give off more than anything else. That is their talent.

Most kids who are good at football at a young age also tend to be good at tennis too. I could wager most premiership footballers would have been great tennis players too....have you noticed that all the top 4 were good footballers too? Yes, they're talented but its not like they're freaks or something. They've just put the miles in, got some good basic physical characteristics and importantly have that will to win...that's the most important thing of all. They have it, top footballers have it, top "anyone" has it. They could have probably been great at most things they pursued with their 10,000 hrs. In our case they chose tennis. Innate will to win is what drives them from an early age to succeed, to train, to prevail through difficulty and setbacks. That's the talent to me...and many many people around us are very driven to succeed...they just didn't get access to tennis facilities when they were young.

Yes the top 4 stand out but in real terms they are just a fraction of a % technically better than the top 20, who are a fraction of a % better than the top 100, etc, etc. Its the mind that separates them the most...their mind drives them to get to balls others wont chase or cant get too, to develop their game to the highest level possible, to never budge an inch.

John McEnroe said once that he wasn't the best volleyer in the World, but he was definitely the best volleyer in the World when it mattered.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find Agassi a tad bizarre. Never quite got to the bottom of his motivation to continue playing in light of the injuries he had and also the eternal dislike for the game. He certainly in his book came across that he would never deny his children the freedom of choice that he was denied himself. The Marinovich capitulation was really spectacular and that he lost motivation once he achieved his father's praise and respect.

How many of the athletes develop as people and able to marry a good mix of personal time and professional time is truly amazing. Especially in tennis with the length of the season and travelling.

He carried on playing tennis because he could not do anything else. As a child he was uneducated he was kept away from school serving 2.500 tennis balls pèr day.. and then had to pick them up himself. His brother was his manager because he was basically illiterate. He hated Wimbledon because he felt he would be out of place there with all the British la de dahs .. his attitude to that changed of course. He hated tennis but it was the only thing he could earn money at It wasn´t until he was about 25yrs old that he actually enjoyed what he was doing.. Hence (Ive seen it with my own eyes !!) why he built his tennis academy in Las Vegas.. where the kids are not only trained at tennis but are educated at the same time. I think it true to say that he has hardly ever picked up a racket since he retired

We wonder what is happening to the youth we hope will be coming through the ranks in the not too distant future... we have all had our views about the likes of Tomic and Raonic... but here is an example of why such discipined training is so necessary when very young... this poor little rich boy quite frankly makes me Wasted.. Now at the age of 24yrs old he thinks its time to take it seriously.

http://tennis.si.com/2013/02/13/ernests-gulbis-rotterdam-marijuana/?sct=obnetwork

Fair opening post LK, however the fact you believe Marinovich is the inspiration to Nadal without facts is very immature. The flu has clearly affected your thinking..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Fair opening post LK, however the fact you believe Marinovich is the inspiration to Nadal without facts is very immature. The flu has clearly affected your thinking..

I didn't say inspiration you muppet!

I was running parallels with the development within the family and how it could explain in part his amazing athletism.

lydian.

Really liked your thoughtful post and I do agree with much that you said. However for me it's because I'm well aware that we are all mere mortals that I'm impressed what mere mortals can achieve. If that makes sense? For example watching Rafa play Del Potro in the final of the Davis Cup in Spain. Rafa looked very much the "mere mortal" that he is. In fact he looked like a very young man put in a situation that could in slightly different conditions be considered cruel. All that expectation on his shoulders. No matter how technically proficient it's very difficult to perform in such conditions. Empathizing with skill at this level it's difficult not to be impressed. In fact appreciating skill in others doesn't always mean you put them on a pedestal. Sometimes it can indicate an understanding of the difficulty of the task and what is possible for mere mortals.

bogbrush. I've never heard that quote from McEnroe. How true! Ha ha.

Lydian

A few thoughts on your post:

"The true talent of these guys is in a) sticking to a routine of training for 10,000 hrs, b) having the determination to learn and succeed, and c) having a lot of luck along the way in terms of access to facilities, money, coaches, etc."

Agree with a lot of this, although I do think that there is an argument as to what sets the very best (so the likes of the top 4) ahead of the very good (i.e the guys who are good enough to make a good living as a pro) is at least in part inherent abilities - Federer has better hands and skill to improvise a shot than most anyone else, Nadal is fundamentally very quick as is Djokovic. If I trained for 10000 hours, I would not be able to become as skilled or as fast as any of them...

Your point about luck is something that is interesting - former England cricketer Ed Smith has written a book on the subject of luck / chance / fate and the role it plays in someone's success or failure. It's something I would describe perhaps as 'luck of opportunity' - would Henman (to pick an example) have made the upper echelons of men's professional tennis if he had been born to a working class family rather than a comfortably middle class one with their own tennis court in the garden and a family history of having played at Wimbledon? Similarly, would Murray be a tennis player if his mother hadn't been, and would he have been the player he is now if Jamie hadn't had the problems he had with the LTA coaching?

"I have spoken to many senior LTA coaches about British tennis... So why only 1 player in the top200...Murray? Answer - British kids don't want it enough. They're too complacent...too "give it me on a plate". The talent of wanting to succeed in this country isn't nurtured enough, that early seed becomes complacent somewhere down the track. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps the psychological side isn't kept hungry enough through teen years. Simply put, kids/juniors from other countries simple want to win more.."

Now this I'm not so sure about. Murray certainly doesn't lack the competetive desire, and we produce plenty of other sportsmen in other events who have the 'will to win' in bucket loads. Yes, the juniors coming through the LTA system probably are disproportionately from families of above-average wealth (not necessarily rich, but at least with an amount of disposable income to fund tennis or other relatively pricey hobbies), but that doesn't in itself remove the will to win, and indeed the private school system is still pretty good at promoting competetive sport (I also don't think in most cases things are as bad in state schools as is made out). Hell, going back to my example of Henman, he was clearly a very determined competitor (look at how well he did in 5 set matches), and was good enough to reach the upper levels of the game despite not being blessed with terrific inate athleticism.

I wonder if the problem with LTA player development is the lack of a role model to aspire to - while Murray and Henman both made the top 10, they were both products of individual (family-managed) development. Who was the last LTA developed male player to be solidly within the top 100?

For every Gulbis (wealthy family, talent but lacking motivation) there's a Federer (at least comfortably middle class family, talent and with great motivation to be successful).

All this does raise interesting questions about motivation and competetiveness. Is 'will to win' a natural mindset or does it come from environment and nurture (the comments about Nadal and the games he played with his extremely competetive family as a child suggests that nurture probably plays a role at least in reinforcing what is already there)?

bogbrush wrote:John McEnroe said once that he wasn't the best volleyer in the World, but he was definitely the best volleyer in the World when it mattered.

Nice one from Johnny Mac

Shades of another John, as in Lennon and an altogether different context ......

When asked (soon after they had hit the big time) whether he thought Ringo was now "the best drummer in the world", Lennon responded with trademark acerbic wit :
"I'm not even sure he's the best drummer in the Beatles"

Well, he wasn`t was he? Paul Mac was. In fact, musically he was the greatest beatle.

Paul needed John and John needed Paul. Together they were better than the sum of their parts...

kingraf wrote:Well, he wasn`t was he? Paul Mac was. In fact, musically he was the greatest beatle.

Dont agree he was nothing without Lennon

True, they created better music together. In fact, I rate George Harrison a better single artist then both. While Lennons band attempts in the 70s was well, not the Beatle. That said, as a musician, Macca is better than Lennon. Was better on the instruments, and spent much more time with the engineering the recording process. He even showed Harrison how to better play the drumsn Lennon preferred spending more time about halfway to oblivion on the couch while this was happening. I'm not taking anything away from Lennon, but Macca was simply genius.

I actually think Agassi is more of a 'Marinovich Project' than Rafa. Wasnt Andre's dad in the Iranian Olympic team? Maybe evidence that the eyes were always tuned in genetically. The games played as a kid helped, no doubt. In any case, Andre was a serious talent. Serving wasnt his best trait, but there is a video of him serving into a baseball mitt. Another one of him bewildering baseball players. And who can forget the Hit 4 Haiti exho where he was only a mile off the intended speed? H

Again I dont agree Lennon at the conception was the brains behind the Beatles and not enough credit was given to George Harrison Paul was the "pretty boy " He may have had slightly more talent then but what he had he´s lost I wish he would hang up his guitar and gracefully retire.

In tennis terms.

Federer is Paul (conventional, loved by the oldies, multi talented and smells of roses), Nadal is Lennon (unconventional, loved by the young, multi talented and outspoken) Together they are better than the sum of their parts.

Djokovic is George. Multi talented but no matter what he does will always be in the shadow of Federer and Nadal. One player can't compete with two. Still he gets a lot of reflected light just by being in their company so is thought more highly of than he would be without them.

Lots of players could have been Ringo if they were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Murray gets the job. What is he best at? Whatever it is it's bettered by Federer and Nadal... But luckily Rafa would never say this. Maybe Federer would though but he would do it in such a nice way that no-one would notice.

conventional, loved by the oldies !!!!!
unconventional, loved by the young, multi talented and outspoken !!

Generalisation HE doesnt apply to me l

But then I would be an exception to that rule lol

Haddie-nuff. You must be young at heart...

I'm 18 and I prefer Macca...

Regardless Each to their own H-N, but Macca was more than just a pretty boy, he was the most disciplined musician in the group, creating the majority of melodies and harmonies. Lenmon, for his careless ways, was actually the intellectual, and it often led to better lyrics. It's a very publicised fact that Lennon was at a stage jealous of Macca.

I personally prefer George Harrison because of his forays to expand his musical horizons. The phase with Ravi Shankar was astonishing, as was the Traveling Wilburys one.

Also this forgotten one - http://www.spinner.com/2009/09/03/original-beatles-drummer-pete-best-tells-his-side-of-the-fab-fou/

kingraf. Maybe the young/old bit is more to do with conventional/innovative?
Both of course can be good but when you get the two poles working together it can be special.

And I always thought that it was Macca that was jealous of Yoko Ono...

laverfan. George Harrison always had to go that extra mile to get any attention. It spurred him on creatively and was immensely admirable.