Roger's reaction to Djokovic defeating Nadal at Wimbly

First topic message reminder :

https://2img.net/h/i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/Emily-b/3-1.jpg

speaks volumes...

Oh I see! The 'out of argument get one over someone attempt'. Lol i'm sure you think a tennis player who benches 150kg of weight and maraton fitness can be overpowered or outlasted.

Unbiased_Educator grumpy? Never!

Beati Pauperes spiritu!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Pete Sampras, never known for his fitness but that did not stop him from a very good 5 set record.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895167&postcount=188

Sampras played 48 five-set matches. Have you heard of Thalssemia? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001613/

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895968&postcount=201

Federer has so far played 33 five-set matches, quite a difference.

Simple_Analyst wrote:He lost Wimby 11 because he last the distance, lol more like he could put racquet to Tsongas balls, panicked and lost.

Give credit to Tsonga for a fantastic match. Federer could not create a BP in the last three sets.

I give credit to Tsonga cause I really like his game and I believe we hsare teh same nationality. But not being able to create BPs when Djoko 2 days later creates plenty at will cause he can stand further back and exocet himself right and left, is a proof of exhaustion or physical problems. I have seen Federer returning Karlovic serve live at Wimbledon....and always won in straight sets. That;s teh ultimate test.

It not just Tsonga's serving. See the contrast in these two matches.

W 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2ewCkgAGE

AO 2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jdu8KYPrE

The contrast in Federer's mouvement is huge actually. But it's the mouvement getting to the serve that is so violent and that's what federer did not seem able to do in his last 3 sets.

For me I put that loss down to Federer being hypnotised by a Nadull fan in the crowd

Tenez wrote:The contrast in Federer's mouvement is huge actually. But it's the mouvement getting to the serve that is so violent and that's what federer did not seem able to do in his last 3 sets.

retrospectively, i think his game was already declining in his match against Nalby. One round later Youzhny was outpacing Federer from the baseline and that was a really bad sign. And if you look real close, he even didn't play well the first 2 sets against Tsonga. Tsonga was very nervous but smelled his chance after a couple of sets.
I see no reasons for a sudden loss of confidence so perhaps he wasn't fit after all.

We'll never know

gallery play wrote: And if you look real close, he even didn't play well the first 2 sets against Tsonga. Tsonga was very nervous but smelled his chance after a couple of sets.

Very true. It was Tsonga throwing his first set for sure....then I went to see Djoko/Tomic live and only caught some of the 5th set v Tsonga.

Certainly a big contrast from his footwork in that FO semi just a couple of weeks earlier.

"Paganini’s three-year plan proved successful. “Today, Roger can reach a maximum speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters,” he recollected in 2003. Federer could run 3,300 meters in 12 minutes, 9,300 meters in 40 minutes and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends. This was an im­mense improvement from before." Lydian

The guy runs 9 plus kilometers in 40 minutes and his problem is fitness? Simple Analyst is correct sampras was not highly conditioned and he had a much better 5th set record than Federer. Roger is the biggest beneficiary of the slower conditions as he has won 16 grandslams on slowed down conditions. If anyone has a gripe about slow conditions it is Andy Roddick and Ivo Karlovic. Not the blazing fast Federer who has won at least as many matches with his speed, as he has with his serve and forehand.

And Tenez you keep trying to build a mountain out of mole hill from the 11 RG semi against Novak. Roger had the same exact balls in his final against Nadal and still lost in 4 sets. I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match. I have never, ever seen the guy cramp. In Miami, set number 3 this year Nadal was hunched over and visibly winded and Djoko also looked very tired. And don't give me this mess about Roger bluffing Bogbrush. Its pretty hard to bluff a leg cramp, I have never seen federer even cramp in a match that I remember. Pete Sampras puked in a tennis match at the USO against Corretja, exhaustion or no exhaustion he won that match. And as SA has pointed out Pete had a good five set record and was never known as a fit player.

socal1976 wrote: I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match.

yeah, but then again, you also saw a really really bad Djoko in the first set of the RG semi

gallery play wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match.

yeah, but then again, you also saw a really really bad Djoko in the first set of the RG semi

Good point. You think he is wearing rose tinted glasses. What exactly are you wearing? Funny how you and Tenez are ignoring Lydian's factual post - conveniently.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

gallery play wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match.

yeah, but then again, you also saw a really really bad Djoko in the first set of the RG semi

Good point. You think he is wearing rose tinted glasses. What exactly are you wearing? Funny how you and Tenez are ignoring Lydian's factual post - conveniently.

Well, i wish i was wearing rose tinted glasses, so i can laugh all day, just like you!

gallery play wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

gallery play wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match.

yeah, but then again, you also saw a really really bad Djoko in the first set of the RG semi

Good point. You think he is wearing rose tinted glasses. What exactly are you wearing? Funny how you and Tenez are ignoring Lydian's factual post - conveniently.

Well, i wish i was wearing rose tinted glasses, so i can laugh all day, just like you!

What a witty response. I'm shaking my head in admiration of the thought involved in putting together those words.
Now, we await your response on Lydian's post. Afterall, you claimed your hero loses 5 set matches due to exhaustion.on.

lydian wrote:Agree socal, Federer loves slow conditions - he always did well at Hamburg for example, and after all he was brought up on clay. But he's adept on faster surfaces too.

That is an important factor. So are Djokovic (Serbia Open is on clay), Nadal, Murray (who trained in Spain).

lydian wrote:Most players deal with bad backs, its par for the course for a tennis player, they crippled Sampras for much of his later career and arguably cost him at least 2 slams, he didnt moan about it either...and all the players have withdrawn from events afterwards due to being tired, again its nothing unique to Federer. All these players feel it when they get to th business end of events every week.

Managing a calendar schedule is what Federer does the best among the current Top 4.

lydian wrote:"Paganini’s three-year plan proved successful. “Today, Roger can reach a maximum speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters,” he recollected in 2003. Federer could run 3,300 meters in 12 minutes, 9,300 meters in 40 minutes and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends. This was an im­mense improvement from before.

This is publicly documented. What about Nadal, Murray (perhaps the training sessions in Miami), Djokovic (Monte Carlo sessions)?

lydian wrote:As another poster added - two months after starting work with Paganini, Federer won his first ATP tournament. To be the best, Federer understood that he needed to be the fittest, the fastest and the strongest and he worked harder than everyone else to succeed. Same as it ever was, same as it always will be.

IIRC, one of the four French Musketeers (Lacoste, perhaps), said in an interview about the progression of the game (in late 1990s), that, now (at the time of interview during that year's FO), you need to be a very good athlete first, and then a very good Tennis player second.

lydian wrote:Federer is no lightweight ballerina, he worked as hard physically as any other player. Its not just about talent in tennis anymore, hasnt been for years - all the players know this.

Murray, almost without fail, says that he needs to get fitter to compete at the top level. Very clear corroboration of Lacoste's(?) comments.

Rafa has 11 titles - 11 runner-ups on HC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics
Djokovic has 18 titles - 8 runner-ups on HC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics
Murray has 14 titles - 9 runner-ups on HC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray_career_statistics

I certainly don't blame Federer's 5 set defeats on a physical issue, it is more likely that his mind wanders because Federer, like Nole does not think about tennis 24/7 like Nadull does.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

gallery play wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I honestly, have never seen Roger tired in a match.

yeah, but then again, you also saw a really really bad Djoko in the first set of the RG semi

Good point. You think he is wearing rose tinted glasses. What exactly are you wearing? Funny how you and Tenez are ignoring Lydian's factual post - conveniently.

Well, i wish i was wearing rose tinted glasses, so i can laugh all day, just like you!

What a witty response. I'm shaking my head in admiration of the thought involved in putting together those words.
Now, we await your response on Lydian's post. Afterall, you claimed your hero loses 5 set matches due to exhaustion.on.

At least i got the meaning of "rose tinted glasses" right..

My response to Lydian's post? hmm i haven't read the whole thread but it's about Roger's fitness right?
Yes, sure, Federer is fit, and was very fit in his heydays. But the key is: Federer, in essence, does not win matches because of his fitness. Yes it could happen sometimes, when he plays f.i. Ginepri in the boiling heat of Cincy, but that's a exeption. Nadal on the other hand, in general, wins his matches because of his physical superiority. Not just his stamina, it's also that the energy he puts in the ball, is a different type of ball game.

Claiming that Federer performs on the same fitness level as Nadal is...something to laugh out loud about, so go on simple, do your thing!

Lol he did not read all of Lydians post, I guess the article linked as well-conveniently.
You know you can say Federer grows wings and flies. Well, we will laugh at you but no worries, all you have to do is convince yourself it's true.

That fitness regime kicked in long before Nadal was on the scene.
Never saw Federer struggling against Nadal in 5 sets at Rome for over 5 hours on clay in the heat.
He's brittle in close match situations, especially 5 sets. He had psychological training for panicing when he was younger. He's a great front runner but chasing the game or when it gets close. He's never looked spent in a match to me and I've seen him 100s of times play over the years.
Nadal's arms are not particularly different to any other player, have you seen him without a shirt on, look no different than most other players - hardly a bodybuilder.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol

That's my man! I knew you could do it

I have to say that now I have seen that article posted by lydian, to put it bluntly sh!ts on the facts that physical factor is the only factor in player success. This has for me shown and 'proven' that talent is the dominant factor.

Can I now say that this will put the physical arguement to bed

lydian wrote:That fitness regime kicked in long before Nadal was on the scene.

I was not asking about the timing. It did kick in 2001 as you quoted for Federer. I was more interested in the regimen.

http://www.strengthspeedagility.com/rafael-nadals-training-program/

lydian wrote:Never saw Federer struggling against Nadal in 5 sets at Rome for over 5 hours on clay in the heat.

Both are very fit athletes to play at the level they do. Federer trains in Dubai in heat.

lydian wrote:He's brittle in close match situations, especially 5 sets. He had psychological training for panicing when he was younger. He's a great front runner but chasing the game or when it gets close. He's never looked spent in a match to me and I've seen him 100s of times play over the years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gle4wlWQKw

lydian wrote:Nadal's arms are not particularly different to any other player, have you seen him without a shirt on, look no different than most other players - hardly a bodybuilder.

"As many people have wondered, Nadal’s left arm is actually bigger than his right, in what one would call a “Popeye arm”. Even Nadal confirmed it, telling Men’s Fitness “My left arm is much more developed than my right arm. This is because I play lefty and that's sort of my gym, the tennis court. That's where I have fun.” Even though he has bigger biceps, triceps and forearms than his fellow tennis players, Nadal says he does the same workouts that any tennis player would do."

Perhaps genetics and heredity can explain that.

http://www.muscleprodigy.com/rafael-nadal-workout-arcl-1326.html

Thanks LF, Nadal has an intense workout regime but I would expect most of the top players to do similar. Its a physical game for sure, always has been and always will be - fitness standards/methods will continue to rise.

I thought this quote from the article....

Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a “coordinated creativity,” high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play. “Roger couldn’t be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons,” Paganini said.

..... is telling. Federer was trained to last for 4 hours+ and be able to execute physically the right shot. Its a myth he gets tired because it doesnt fit his fans view that his talent doesnt have big flaws in close matches. Its clearly not fitness thats the issue and as I say I've never seen him tired.

Lydian... You did notice the 'athletic shortcomings' statement from Paganini.

Edit: “Athletically, he had great shortcomings. There was enormous po tential for improvement, especially in legwork and body building,” Paganini recalled. “His problem was that his enormous talent allowed him to cover up his athletic shortcomings.”

But remember Laverfan, his enormous talent wasn't winning him tournaments.

legendkillar wrote:I have to say that now I have seen that article posted by lydian, to put it bluntly sh!ts on the facts that physical factor is the only factor in player success. This has for me shown and 'proven' that talent is the dominant factor.

Can I now say that this will put the physical arguement to bed

Have to second this motion by legendkillar. To this day, and this is the funny thing about the "Federer only loses because of fitness apologists"; Federer is the ONE GUY I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN TIRED IN A MATCH!. I have read articles in sports illustrated how Fed trains in Dubai's heat, he gets like half a dozen challenger level players and flys them out. Basically they have to change hitting partners with him because these young kids are just run ragged, he goes threw three and four hitting partners per workout.

There are some myths, that are clearly myths of their own creation that GP, Tenez, and BB want to posit about the physicality factor:

1. Roger was hurt by the slowed down conditions: WRONG! They started slowing down the conditions before Roger, Rafa, or Nole ever won a single slam. The new strings play a role but Roger has used the luxlons like everyone else. So in analyzing Roger v. Rafa or Nole it is completely irrelevant that the conditions are slowed down. Roger has won 16 slams on the slower conditions.

2. Roger isn't fit or fast enough: Lydian pretty much destroys this mythology with this post. Can anyone tell me when they remember Federer ever cramping or when he has been short of breath. I don't think the guy's heart rate goes up until the second set. Roger Federer is not the poor talented artist fighting against Nadal and Djoko who are ruining the game with physicality. Roger Federer is an athletic freak along with being a great tennis player. He is as fast as a sprinter, and as fit as a long distance runner. And he hardly ever wastes even a half step of energy inefficiently. Frankly, I have never seen him lose a match to Nadal because he was tired. Rome 05 as lydian has indicated, maybe even a better match than wimby 08 was 5 and change in length and Federer was hardly sweating. Federer along with Nadal, Agassi before them, Lendl before that, and Borg before that; is one of the key reasons the game has been getting more physical for years. Roger is one of the guys who lifted the athletic and physical bar.

3. Roger would win even more slams if conditions were quicker and "fairer": Maybe, but that is a pretty weak hypothetical who is to know that Roger wouldn't be losing some wimbeldons to big servers who would also be benefitted from faster conditions.

Did i say all that Socal?
My point is: Federer is not making the difference with his physique, unlike other top players.
Just ask yourself how Federer will be remembered.

What physique are you talking about, Djokovic outside of his legs is as skinny as a bean stalk. Roger will be remembered for his speed that is for certain. I think Lydian basically destroyed the fitness and physicality argument. Does a guy with a fitness problem run nearly 9 and half kilometers in 40 minutes?

Simple_Analyst wrote:But remember Laverfan, his enormous talent wasn't winning him tournaments.

Which is why the 'athletic shortcomings' were addressed by Paganini.

I for one will never understand how physicality is used as a way to undermine any sportman. Sport is physical.

socal1976 wrote:Roger will be remembered for his speed that is for certain.

This is getting ridiculous...

I know reading others posts well isn't your best quality so i'll make my point again: Federer is fit but not to the extend of todays opponents. And fitness is definitely not the pinnacle of his game.

I keep being reminded of Ken Rosewall and his longevity. From 1953+ to 1980, an amazing 27+ years' career. What did it take Rosewall to keep up with the multiple generations of players who he played against.

None of the current Top 4 will last as long as Rosewall, as far as I can tell. Pancho Gonzalez @ 41 playing Wimbledon against Charles Pasarell (17+). Connors was willing to get beaten for the love of the sport of Tennis. s of Tennis.

Gallery play those that saw federer play will always remember his speed and movement, I have seen the guy play a number of times live and have always been impressed with his easy speed. It is at least as big a part of his success as his forehand and his serve.

GP - Thanks for keeping teh common sense going here while I was playing tennis.

LF you are not doing a bad job either.

Socal you are purposedly trying to ignore the main valid points. Your sense of observation is actually very poor.

Listen to GP like I do. He is one I listen to with an open mind when he says something.

Thanks for the compliments about my poor sense of observation. If you have watched federer play for years and never noticed how fast and fit the guy is then maybe it is your sense of observation that is poor. Name me the last match federer suffered a leg cramp in? I know I can't remember any. You have propounded numerous theories in your physicality argument all of which are completely unsupported by anything other than your own anectodes and opinions. Lydian has thoroughly won this argument. The details of Federer's bruthal workout regimen and high level athleticism and physicality completely outweigh your opinions. Again, Lydian's facts outweigh your unsupported opinions and mythmaking.


I mean I would almost believe your argument, if I had never had the pleasure of watching Federer play. Federer as much as nadal has pushed the athletic and physical bar higher, now that he is older all of sudden there is a problem with the added physicality of the game and conditions need to be sped up to make it fair.

socal1976 wrote:Federer is the ONE GUY I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN TIRED IN A MATCH!.

I have. Just watch TMC 2008 against Andy Murray. At the level these players play, does sitting down on a linesperson's chair between services games count as being tired? He also had back issues. The assumption is that when one is tired, one just takes a break from Tennis or walks out of the court in the middle of a match. That is not what happens. The tired player makes more errors or loses service games or loses the set or the match. Federer has never retired once a match has started. Blake (Paris 2008) was a walk-over right before TMC 2008.

socal1976 wrote:I have read articles in sports illustrated how Fed trains in Dubai's heat, he gets like half a dozen challenger level players and flys them out. Basically they have to change hitting partners with him because these young kids are just run ragged, he goes threw three and four hitting partners per workout.

I would not consider Jesse Levine, Ricardo Berankis, Yves Allegro, Stefan Koubek, Philip Kohlschreiber as college kids. . BTW, He is not the only one who trains like that. Search and you will find many such examples.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/training-with-federer-in-dubai/

socal1976 wrote:1. Roger was hurt by the slowed down conditions: WRONG! They started slowing down the conditions before Roger, Rafa, or Nole ever won a single slam. The new strings play a role but Roger has used the luxlons like everyone else. So in analyzing Roger v. Rafa or Nole it is completely irrelevant that the conditions are slowed down. Roger has won 16 slams on the slower conditions.

The point is not when you start winning slams, the point is when you start playing on the surface and how you adjust to the changes. For example, Federer won 1998 W Boy's Singles, the same year as Sampras's second W title beating Ivanisevic in five sets.

W 2001 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_m0mwdXn_o (Look at the S&V being played).

W 2003 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX30JIMNITk (some more S&V and two great players).

W 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEzQ2YHHkpg

socal1976 wrote:2. Roger isn't fit or fast enough: Lydian pretty much destroys this mythology with this post. Can anyone tell me when they remember Federer ever cramping or when he has been short of breath. I don't think the guy's heart rate goes up until the second set.

Lydian strengthens the argument even more by clearly stating what it takes to win a slam from a physical strength and stamina perspective. Borg had the slowest heart rate of tennis players that I can recall. Navartilova was second.

socal1976 wrote:Roger Federer is not the poor talented artist fighting against Nadal and Djoko who are ruining the game with physicality. Roger Federer is an athletic freak along with being a great tennis player. He is as fast as a sprinter, and as fit as a long distance runner. And he hardly ever wastes even a half step of energy inefficiently. Frankly, I have never seen him lose a match to Nadal because he was tired. Rome 05 as lydian has indicated, maybe even a better match than wimby 08 was 5 and change in length and Federer was hardly sweating. Federer along with Nadal, Agassi before them, Lendl before that, and Borg before that; is one of the key reasons the game has been getting more physical for years. Roger is one of the guys who lifted the athletic and physical bar.

The differences in fitness, stamina, speed at such a level can determine the outcome of a match. If one equates sweating profusely to athletic effort, I would venture to say Roddick should win the next 10 slams. There are towels that players carry. Anyone recall the Rafa T-shirt size saga @ 2011? I did quote one of the four French Musketeers in a previous reply regarding athleticism and tennis. Watch the link of Tsonga-Federer @ AO 2010 and watch Fed sweat. The 'sweating' characteristics of players are not an indication of the players abilities or lack thereof.

socal1976 wrote:3. Roger would win even more slams if conditions were quicker and "fairer": Maybe, but that is a pretty weak hypothetical who is to know that Roger wouldn't be losing some wimbeldons to big servers who would also be benefitted from faster conditions.

He did. Ancic in 2002. The what-if scenarios are not very useful, because they just fan the fan wars in the 'my-dad-is-bigger-than-yours' style debates. Came close to losing to Falla.

SoCal... If we replace Federer in this argument with, let us say Djokovic, what is the difference between Djokovic 2011 and Djokovic 2008?

Laverfan, I just don't buy it, I have watched Federer play at least a couple of hundred times and I have never once in a match said that Roger's problem is that he isn't fit enough. Clearly a man who runs 9 and half kilometers in 40 minutes is ready for a 4 hour tennis match. Having a back injury or a sore back is different than being tired, being winded, or having your conditioning give out. I really don't have a problem with any of the points you make in your posts, as you point out on faster conditions federer lost to ancic at wimbeldon in 2002, maybe he would have lost to Roddick in 09. That is the whole point, this entire Roger is hampered by slow conditions argument is a farce. The supposed green clay of wimbeldon has yielded the man six wimbeldons.


As to your reference to Djokovic, I actually don't think fitness is the main reason Novak is winning matches. Its his serve, between the second half of 09 and 10 he played with his service motion and it resulted in Novak having one of the worst serves of any of the top players on the tour. In 2010 he was barely in the top 50 for percentage of service games that Novak held. In 2011 he is holding at 89 percent and is #2 on the ATP tour. The fact that with a completely off kilter serve that Djokovic was able to finish in the top 3 in 2009 and 2010 should have alerted tennis observers that if in 2011 Djokovic fixes his serve he is going to get significantly better much faster. Novak is fitter in 2011 than in 2008. But his serve is better than it has been, his forehand is better, his volleys are better. If Novak had the conditioning of a marathon runner and was throwing in double faults like the last two seasons he would be lucky to be #3 in the world right now.

Some great strawmen being created here, especially from lydian as far as I can see.

I reckon Fed is superfit. However, he is human and tires like another, and being past his physical peak he probably slows a little more than he used to.

Federer does bluff within an event, anyone trying to contradict me there is wrong. Remember after Falla "I'm perfect", when he obviously wasn't. It's a smart move, why on Earth advertise your troubles - it may only lead to someone exploiting them and build the opponents confidence.

Other than that I'm certainly not saying he's a Krishnam, gliding around on talent without physical excellence, and smashing that strawman to pieces is fun if you like that sort of thing.

Bogbrush that is exactly what you and tenez and gallery play have been saying. Roger loses because of lack of fitness and physicality. It simply isn't true, no one is creating a straw man. What exactly is your position? I for one have been reading your guys posts for months what would ever make me think that way? Seriously, all we hear about is the game is physical, the conditions are too slow, I addressed those points because those points have continually been brought out by you and others.

I find it amsuing that when facts and articles are presented about the 'fitness' issue that posters seem to want to 'dance' around these facts and articles. The most impressive thing about Roger's movement on court is the 'effort' and how easily he can glide around the court. His movement is so good because of his balance. How he is able to side step with ease is unique when compared with the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray.

Roger is a fit speciman and his conditioning is top peak. He hasn't had any major injuries which has resulted in a long term absence from the game. I would find it difficult for anyone to remember a shot he hasn't been able to chase down due to tiredness or lack of speed in a match. Roger's side stepping on court is something to behold and that is the factor that seperates him from the rest. Nadal and Murray are always on the run on court because their power base in their strokes come from momentum of their speed work. Roger on the other hand is able to hit clean winners from almost a stand still position which is where a majority of his power comes from. Djokovic is a mix of in between the 2. He doesn't nearly do anywhere near the amount of running of a Nadal or Murray. He can hit winners from a standstill or running position.

socal1976 wrote:I just don't buy it, I have watched Federer play at least a couple of hundred times and I have never once in a match said that Roger's problem is that he isn't fit enough.

I have very clearly stated that differences in individual fitness are the determining factor at this level since there is no quantitative measure of fitness differences between individual players except by playing a match and determining a winner.

socal1976 wrote:Clearly a man who runs 9 and half kilometers in 40 minutes is ready for a 4 hour tennis match. Having a back injury or a sore back is different than being tired, being winded, or having your conditioning give out. I really don't have a problem with any of the points you make in your posts, as you point out on faster conditions federer lost to ancic at wimbeldon in 2002, maybe he would have lost to Roddick in 09. That is the whole point, this entire Roger is hampered by slow conditions argument is a farce. The supposed green clay of wimbeldon has yielded the man six wimbledon [titles].

I am very certain, other Top 10 players can do the same physical exertions. Ferrer's coach Javier Piles runs marathons for fun. Ferrer's fitness is an example.

The conditions, whether faster or slower (an entire debate has been going on for years on that subject), are both a boon and a bane for players. At some point in a tennis career, when the players go through a bell curve of fitness, speed, skills, being faster than others is a boon, but as other players develop and reach the same levels, natural aging factors cause it to become a bane. Tennis players have a certain window of opportunity to compete at this level. I need to find a link to post here, which is a study of tennis careers and their longevity. In general, from the 1950 onwards, Tennis careers have been shorter as we approach 2000 s. Anecdotal examples of Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall, Connors are not sufficient to prove my point.

socal1976 wrote:As to your reference to Djokovic, I actually don't think fitness is the main reason Novak is winning matches. Its his serve, between the second half of 09 and 10 he played with his service motion and it resulted in Novak having one of the worst serves of any of the top players on the tour. In 2010 he was barely in the top 50 for percentage of service games that Novak held. In 2011 he is holding at 89 percent and is #2 on the ATP tour. The fact that with a completely off kilter serve that Djokovic was able to finish in the top 3 in 2009 and 2010 should have alerted tennis observers that if in 2011 Djokovic fixes his serve he is going to get significantly better much faster. Novak is fitter in 2011 than in 2008. But his serve is better than it has been, his forehand is better, his volleys are better. If Novak had the conditioning of a marathon runner and was throwing in double faults like the last two seasons he would be lucky to be #3 in the world right now.

My question was Djokovic 2008 vs. 2011 (not the 09/10 Todd Martin era). There is a touch of Agassi in this whole saga, which brings up the what-if scenarios.

socal1976 wrote:Bogbrush that is exactly what you and tenez and gallery play have been saying. Roger loses because of lack of fitness and physicality. It simply isn't true, no one is creating a straw man. What exactly is your position? I for one have been reading your guys posts for months what would ever make me think that way? Seriously, all we hear about is the game is physical, the conditions are too slow, I addressed those points because those points have continually been brought out by you and others.

To be clear, my position is:

* Roger is extremely fit, though not so much as in his prime.
* If he was less fit then tough, it's a competition. I had no sympathy with Djokovic when he was bailing out all the time.
* Roger is mortal and does get tired, contrary to silly ideas that he doesn't.
* He does bluff.
* Slowing down the game helps baseliners and hurts volleyers. Federer happened to straddle both eras and would succeed in both.

Those are facts (imo). Opinions are;

* The new players who are tailored entirely to the new game have a better fit to conditions than Federer, who needs some pace to get the winners he plays for.
* The game would be a better spectacle if it was harder to make great returns off extreme reaches because we'd see a better reward for net play.

Yes but BB - all players are mortal, thats not stating anything new.

Roger is trained to be extremely fit - there is no disputing that. He's amongst the very fittest on tour and has worked hard to be so. As the article stated, Paginini trained him to play at peak performance for at least 4 hours - across any condition. So when you talk about new players tailored to the game - he's one of them! The article blows all your theories out of the water - he's a conditioned athlete just as much as Nadal, Djoko or Murray is. But you dont like to accept it because it doesnt suit your argument about all the other players being just "physical" and his success just coming from "sheer talent". Federer has been trained to be a winner like the others, and they all have prodigious talent too. Sure Federer has underlying graceful movement, absolutely, but his fitness has been honed to last the course of long matches - his physical coach has said so!

Re: your last point - the game would be a better spectacle if the surfaces were faster, or indeed more like they were in 80s/90s - the slowing of the game has led to physicality being a bigger factor in tennis - and as much of the slowing down occured in early 2000s, the need to get stronger and fitter was as big a deal for Federer as it was for anyone else - as the article shows. They're all conditioned specifically for these slower conditions from the early 2000s onwards.

legendkillar wrote:I find it amsuing that when facts and articles are presented about the 'fitness' issue that posters seem to want to 'dance' around these facts and articles. The most impressive thing about Roger's movement on court is the 'effort' and how easily he can glide around the court. His movement is so good because of his balance. How he is able to side step with ease is unique when compared with the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray.

His amazing footwork is what got him to where he is now.

legendkillar wrote:Roger is a fit speciman and his conditioning is top peak. He hasn't had any major injuries which has resulted in a long term absence from the game. I would find it difficult for anyone to remember a shot he hasn't been able to chase down due to tiredness or lack of speed in a match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2ewCkgAGE . Just watch the last three sets. Lots of winners from his opponent which he fails to retrieve. Are they due to injury, or lack of speed - you decide? The Falla match with a thigh wrap comes to mind.

legendkillar wrote:Roger's side stepping on court is something to behold and that is the factor that seperates him from the rest. Nadal and Murray are always on the run on court because their power base in their strokes come from momentum of their speed work. Roger on the other hand is able to hit clean winners from almost a stand still position which is where a majority of his power comes from. Djokovic is a mix of in between the 2. He doesn't nearly do anywhere near the amount of running of a Nadal or Murray. He can hit winners from a standstill or running position.

Watch Djokovic (the Elastic Man) hit winners while doing a split (a la Jelena Jankovic, or is it the other way ) in the W 2011 final. I do not recall Federer in that specific position in any matches that I have seen.

The Top 10 are amazing players, each in their individual rights. Was it Becker who said that, on a given day, these guys are capable of beating each other, depending on who is having a better day at the office.

I don't dispute Djokovic plays strokes whilst on the run, but nowhere near the amount of say Nadal or Murray. Nadal and Murray cannot generate the same power of Federer or Djokovic from a standstill position.

In terms of retrieving, I meant from being over-stretched. So essentially if Roger is being move around the court, it is has been rare that I have seen him run off his feet trying to retrieve shots.

All the top 10 can beat each other on a given day on their best form.

My point is that 'physicality' isn't the dominant factor in today's game and isn't the sole base of a players success.

lydian wrote:Yes but BB - all players are mortal, thats not stating anything new.

Roger is trained to be extremely fit - there is no disputing that. He's amongst the very fittest on tour and has worked hard to be so. As the article stated, Paginini trained him to play at peak performance for at least 4 hours - across any condition. So when you talk about new players tailored to the game - he's one of them! The article blows all your theories out of the water - he's a conditioned athlete just as much as Nadal, Djoko or Murray is. But you dont like to accept it because it doesnt suit your argument about all the other players being just "physical" and his success just coming from "sheer talent". Federer has been trained to be a winner like the others, and they all have prodigious talent too. Sure Federer has underlying graceful movement, absolutely, but his fitness has been honed to last the course of long matches - his physical coach has said so!

Re: your last point - the game would be a better spectacle if the surfaces were faster, or indeed more like they were in 80s/90s - the slowing of the game has led to physicality being a bigger factor in tennis - and as much of the slowing down occured in early 2000s, the need to get stronger and fitter was as big a deal for Federer as it was for anyone else - as the article shows. They're all conditioned specifically for these slower conditions from the early 2000s onwards.

Lydian.

They are all very well-trained and physically very adept. These players have adapted to conditions as they change, and conditions have changed to adapt to the players styles. It is a controlled feedback loop. Otherwise the popularity of Tennis would plummet.

Players leave their mark on Tennis history and retire. We, as fans, are blessed to see such a wide array of styles, personalities, skills, talent, (choose the 'bucket' where your subjective opinions want to put players in specific categories) etc..

legendkillar wrote:My point is that 'physicality' isn't the dominant factor in today's game and isn't the sole base of a players success.

Of course it is! Watch the size of James Ward or Dan evans compared to Murray. It's like having 1990 players v 2010 ones. Watch the size between Jamie and Andy Murray and tell me their physics is not the dominant factor in their respective success. I believe I even heard Andy say that Jamie was more talented than him.

And it;s because Murray keeps being injured that he hasn't got a slam cause he is constantly walking on the tangent of his phyiscal ability and this is why he keeps saying he needs to improve his fitness.

If physique was not the main factor you woudl not have Nadal, Djoko and Murray regularly reaching the semis. Nadal only lost because he was not physically 100%...until a player who could handle him physically started to beat him.

They're all conditioned specifically for these slower conditions from the early 2000s onwards.

Yes but "more or less" that is the crucial point. Even Gavashili or whatever his name is, is extremely fit.

The main difference is that some trained to win points efficiently while some other trained to bring the game in to a physical battle, helped by the slowing of the conds.

Federer's array of shots is his real strength, not rallying ad nausea like the current top 2. Federer's fitness is there to allow him to keep rallying with the best ones so that his shot making can still make an impact. Otherwise he woudl simply have become another Laender Paes. That was the challenged he faced already in 2002 v Hewitt and Nalby.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:My point is that 'physicality' isn't the dominant factor in today's game and isn't the sole base of a players success.

Of course it is! Watch the size of James Ward or Dan evans compared to Murray. It's like having 1990 players v 2010 ones. Watch the size between Jamie and Andy Murray and tell me their physics is not the dominant factor in their respective success. I believe I even heard Andy say that Jamie was more talented than him.

And it;s because Murray keeps being injured that he hasn't got a slam cause he is constantly walking on the tangent of his phyiscal ability and this is why he keeps saying he needs to improve his fitness.

If physique was not the main factor you woudl not have Nadal, Djoko and Murray regularly reaching the semis. Nadal only lost because he was not physically 100%...until a player who could handle him physically started to beat him.

Did you watch the US-Spain match and Ferrer play Fish? Look at Fish and Ferrer, or Rochus and Djokovic, or Rochus and Isner (Newport).

I was going to make a very crude statement, but will refrain, unless absolutely warranted.

laverfan wrote:Did you watch the US-Spain match and Ferrer play Fish? Look at Fish and Ferrer, or Rochus and Djokovic, or Rochus and Isner (Newport).

I was going to make a very crude statement, but will refrain, unless absolutely warranted.

No I did not. What happened?

Go'on we want LF, the most polite poster of 606, to go let it go for once!