Tennis becoming a physical battle rather than one of skill?

The final y’day showed that tennis is increasingly becoming a grueling physical battle rather than one where skill plays a more major role.

It was sad to see both players struggling to be on their feet. The last set was such a letdown with poor Nadal unable to move and Djoker struggling to serve..

The aim of 5 sets is to make sure that the more skilled player wins, not to make the fitter player win.

The ATP should quicken the courts/ playing conditions (balls, rackets etc). Otherwise, we’ll end up with more and more physical players with lesser and lesser career spans.

It was bad to hear that Murray wanted to get stronger physically after losing the semi to Nadal.

Physique and fitness should be a means to hit great shots and not a means to outlast the opposition in, say, a five hour match.

Also, the match contained endless rallies, the kind that one sees in practice, with neither player really keen to hit a winner. No wonder they were fatigued by the end of the match! Is this attractive tennis or attritional tennis?

Tennisanorak wrote:It was bad to hear that Murray wanted to get stronger physically after losing the semi to Nadal.

Murray is just lost - he should be forced to watch himself play Rafa at 2008 and AO 2010 and see just how his game IS good enough to beat Rafa (he had R all over the shop at AO)

GET A FIRST CLASS COACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (not you Tennis! )

time, some players in tennis do not like to change the assets that have made them a household name in their sport; Murray will not change his game for any coach in the world, neither will Federer and neither will Nadal (although the latter 2 probably didn't need it). I did not see much in the way of 'skill' either Tennisanorak; there was two players last nite who wanted to test which guy would break first in the rallies, something that I feel Novak will never be beaten in as he always seems to find that extra gear when the rally becomes rough.. I think it would've helped Nadal had he looked at the way Tipsarevic was playing him for 2 sets with his attack first ideology..

Exactly, Josiah. While one can argue that waiting for the other to break down (in both a rally and in the match itself) takes skill, in my opinion, that is more steadiness and patience rather than outright skill. For me, Federer- Djokovic meetings are more entertaining because the tennis is much more aggressive than passive. Yesterday, there were so many unforced errors from each player in spite of neither going for the kill. This surely isn't how we want tennis played in the future?

I can see plenty of changes in fed's game since Annacone has come. Last year all returns of serve used to be slice, He was not coming to net that often, he wasnt that aggressive. The first serve percentage has improved. Good coach can work wonders e.g. Soderling and to some extent Delpo (injury has halted his rise)

Well yes but since annacone....no slam. I don't think it's Paul's fault but tactic is one thing, the other is to produce it for 3 sets 7 times in a row. Not easy.

Well fed is not getting any younger and 1 final, 2 sfs cannot be deemed as a bad result. And he is the only one coming close to beat this new phenomenon. I think world tour finals is for Roger to take once again.

Tenez, your thoughts on the topic? I am sure you agree with it.

If it came down to only fitness and speed bjorn phau and david ferrer would be winning grandslams. This argument is a not so subtle slight on today's champions and is based on the ludicurous assumption that the top tennis players today lack the technical ability. Tennis has gotten more physical, but so has every other modern sport with the advent of weight training and cross training. All the players on the modern tour for the most part train to play a 5 set match and are fit. The ones that win and distinguish themselves do it on shotmaking. Novak, who doesn't have the benefit of fed's serve hit as many winners as Roger did in the semi. Look at murray he has been unable to win a slam because he relies too much on defense.

These guys are physically supreme but they lead the cicuit as they have add ons to the supreme fitness. More or less all the players are physically fir these days and follows strict regimes but Rafa has shots, Novak has the variety, fed has class to top rest of the field.
Dolg seems to be a good player but because of the disorder he has, he will probably never be able to rule the world. TBF Mardy too has a good game but physically not as strong as Murray, Rafa or Novak.
There is no other player comes to my mind who could be hailed as having a complete game and not featuring in top 10 because he lacks physical fitness.

One of Murray's stated targets is to get 'Physically fitter'
Novak said yesterday "you have to try to go for winners, because he's (Rafa) the fittest player around."
The online press are using words like 'gruelling', 'brutal' and 'fist-fight', one reporter said it was "impossible to imagine a more physical encounter"
Sky Sports said Rafa's best chance of winning was to make it a "solely physical encounter".

Of course, there is talent, and shot-making ability and mental strength etc. But I don't want to see tennis that is 'solely' a physical encounter, or even where the match is determined far more by stamina that shot-making. Or where neither player can get past a 3rd set without being so fatigued they can no longer play anywhere near their best.

That's why I enjoyed the Djoko-Fed semi-final more than the final.

Julius my question is that who else in today's circuit have that variety and not the fitness which is stopping him from winning?

Michale LLodra? Or anyone else coming to your mind?

Nadals best chance of winning was not outlasting Novak in longer and longer borefest rallies; it was to go for angles making the serb do the running and occasionally going for big shots that had a 50/50 chance rather than his typical 3/4 safety approach which ultimately played right into the hands of the winner.. he wasn't play a headcase tonight like his last 2 matches.

It's a shame Novak was playing against such a 1 dimensional player.. finals should be Roger/Novak from now on

Tennisanorak wrote:Tenez, your thoughts on the topic? I am sure you agree with it.

No. I changed my mind!

As you know some of us have been talking about this for the last 6 years. I personally think it was already a bit dodgy 10 years ago when Hewitt was dominating. He was already then the one testing you essentially physically with no weapon but he was fit enough to win 2 slams including on grass!!!. Nadal took it to new higher levels of fitness but we know that without PRP and the latest science he woudl not have been able to play that game for so long.

People say the season is too long. We clearly see now that the problem is not the season's length, it's the intensity of those matches. Nadal and Djoko can consider themselves lucky to be in a "weak era" of physical players. Cause if there were 10 or 20 other players like them (as there will be in a year or 2), how would they manage to get through 7 rounds of best of 5 matches in a row? Currently they fear Murray a bit and Federer though this one tries to keep the rallies short and that's it. there is no other player than can last the distance against those 2.

As you say, if they don't pace the conds up soon, we might be having a very boring tennis soon with players having shorter and shorter careers. Time we give a better chance to more talented players.

Would people prefer players like rusedski and ivanisivic or sampras or players like Nadal and Djokovic? I personally loathe short point tennis, Nothing is as horrible as watching a serving contest. Is there anything more dull than lets say and Isner v. Roddick or karlovic matchup, I would rather fill out my tax return. With the racquet technology and the bigger, taller players if you sped up the conditions it wouldn't be the artists that would succeed it would be the guys who are two meters tall and can hit the ball 10 miles an hour faster.

Agree, tenez. Guys, the argument is really not that Djoker and Nadal are not talented. They are, of course. But you must agree that their ratio of fitness to talent is very high. More for Nadal than Djoker, actually, since Djoker has a complete game. The only weapon that Nadal really has is his forehand. The rest is basically his ability to retrieve endlessly. He is very good at it, which is why he is ranked as high as he is. The problem will arise when more and more people start adopting this formula and matches like yesterday's where both were content to play 25+ shot rallies become more common. If this hadn't been the final, don't you think these guys would have been deflated for the next match? It's a horrible scenario when the two best players have to try to outlast each other in a final rather than trying to win it based on their tennis shots!

Socal just because the other extreme is worse doesn't make this one less bad is maybe what people are thinking.

That was one of the most physical matches I've seen but I thought there was a fair bit of quality shotmaking as well. I think Nadal even hit his forehand down the line a few times. Its hardly like they were playing it up and down the middle, they were tring to move each other around and make space for a winner.

I wouldn't say its has become physical rather than skill... Both players were still painting the lines with their ground strokes.

But it has become far more influential than it was before. But if the result is players getting to more balls and more exchanges like we saw in the second and third set then you won't see me complaining.

If players are getting to more shots then that can only result in longer points and better matches. I mean, some of those points last night were amazing. If higher levels of fitness means we will see more points like we had last night then i'm all for it.

Danny, it is not sustainable day after day, year after year. Right now, two players play the game. The players coming up, if they model themselves on these two, will burn each other out. Most matches will last very long. Look at the number of unforced errors yesterday- it was by no means high quality tennis. Dramatic and intense, but not any higher in quality than the Fed- Djoker semi.

socal1976 wrote:Would people prefer players like rusedski and ivanisivic or sampras or players like Nadal and Djokovic? I personally loathe short point tennis, Nothing is as horrible as watching a serving contest. Is there anything more dull than lets say and Isner v. Roddick or karlovic matchup, I would rather fill out my tax return. With the racquet technology and the bigger, taller players if you sped up the conditions it wouldn't be the artists that would succeed it would be the guys who are two meters tall and can hit the ball 10 miles an hour faster.

Not a big fan of the Serve and volley only but at least you felt the match could be open as a point there and then make the difference. With Nadal and Djoko we know before it starts who's is going to win. The one who simply can overlast the other.

Talent is not the issue for them. Their shots on average are very conservative even if played at a fast rhythm. you don;t hit 8 shots per rallies on average with risky shots. They are very safe and that is what you fail to see. there is no much skills involved but lots of athletism and running around. It looks like it's played on my wii station.

How cute tenez, an old codger like yourself has a wii and calls it a station. You know you are very adorable sometimes and I don't mean it in condescending manner. I agree with Dany that the tennis today is enjoyable and more so than short point tennis. I don't want faster conditions. I think if you sped up the conditions every dufus who is tall and can hit the ball a few miles an hour harder would start winning slams. Especially in light of the fact that human evolution is making the species taller and stronger with each generation. Fast conditions are great if the average tennis champ is five foot ten and 150 pounds. It aint that great if the average tennis player is 6 foot 3 and thirty to 40 pounds bigger. Slowed down conditions in my opinion saved the game, in your opinion it killed the game.

Socal,

Your language always seems to be in extremes.

No one is arguing for lightining fast conditions or a return to the S&V days.

We want to see some balance. Clearly uniformly slow conditions are not good for the sport or the athletes. It results in less variety and as many have mentioned the game becomes a war of attrition - a survival of the fittest if you like. This in turn will result in further injuries and shorter careers as more players adopt the fitness first approach.

It's was also obvious from yesterdays match that the USO this year played slower than any previous year that I can recall. W is ridiculously slow, and AUS open is a slow HC. The FO played faster this year than normal. Overall there is a clear trend towards uniformity of the conditions.

Don't you find this a little bit sad? Where is the challenge of playing on vastly different surfaces? Or the intrigue in watching a great baseliner go up against a great S&Ver (ala Agassi, Sampras) Or even watching one player who is able to adapt to different conditions using a variety of different styles of play.

Surely variety is the essence of life.

BTW, agree with sentiments of the OP

socal has to oppose fast conditions (or even more so low bounce) because with those in place Nole would struggle to make the semis at Wimbledon.

Nadal wouldn't make the 2nd week.

Emancipator, i think you underestimate how much taller and bigger the players are and how much power they could generate with the new frames and new strings. If anything we need slower conditions to keep what little variety we have. If you had fast conditions could you imagine the kind of serves extremely dull players like Roddick and Karlovic would produce. In away modern man due to hormones in the food, evolution, nutrition and training is growing at an amazing rate and the conditions need to be a bit slower. Not to mention the racquet and string technology. You sped up the conditions and Karlovic's serve might break the sound barrier. Quicker conditions nearly destroyed the game in my opinion in the late 90s. Maybe there was a reason they slowed down wimby and some other tournaments. Wimby was my least favorite slam at that time, it was awful any ogre who could hit a ball 140 miles an hour had a chance.

Tennisanorak wrote:Danny, it is not sustainable day after day, year after year. Right now, two players play the game. The players coming up, if they model themselves on these two, will burn each other out. Most matches will last very long. Look at the number of unforced errors yesterday- it was by no means high quality tennis. Dramatic and intense, but not any higher in quality than the Fed- Djoker semi.

I agree it could be difficult to sustain. Though Rafa has done alright for the last 7 or so years. Whether it is poor tennis depends on what you want from a tennis match. I do like a bit of variety, different spins and paces and that is partly why I like watching Murray... But I thought last night was great. Both players played with controlled aggression (Novak the whole match, Rafa in patches of sets 2 and 3) and I thought it was high quality. The length on Novak's shots was incredibly consistent.

If the players are so fit that they are getting to shots that would usually be winners, then it's inevitable that the points are going to be longer, more intense and more often than not decided by the first player to make an error. That's a consequence of fitter players and better defending. Does it mean lower quality? Not for me personally.

The athleticism on show added to the spectacle for me, rather than diminished it. I guess if players start to burn out then they'll have to manage their schedule better. I know players are looking at reducing the amount of mandatory tournaments, maybe that will reduce the impact a bit.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Socal just because the other extreme is worse doesn't make this one less bad is maybe what people are thinking.

That was one of the most physical matches I've seen but I thought there was a fair bit of quality shotmaking as well. I think Nadal even hit his forehand down the line a few times. Its hardly like they were playing it up and down the middle, they were tring to move each other around and make space for a winner.

Ok so what is your complaint? Do you like to watch giraffes who are 6 foot 8 winning titles because they hit the ball 5-10 miles an hour more due to an overgrown pituitary gland and a live arm or what you saw last night. The idea that we would speed up the conditions and return to the 80s style of play is wrong. The modern athlete is bigger taller and is playing with superior technology than ever before. If you sped up conditions it would just be a miles per hour contest among super tall guys who couldn't move battling for grandslams.

It was a fantastic match in some ways, but I have to say that I much preferred the Djokovic/Federer match.

I didn't think watching Rafa weave around at the end of the second, like a heavyweight boxer or wounded bull who has taken too many hits was that great tbh.

How are Rafa's knees still okay? He is right back on his heels most of the time, taking huge slugs at the ball - it is not a wonder that he has been injured, it is just extraordinary that he hasn't been so really seriously, as in needing 3 months off or an op! It wasn't attractive tennis from Rafa, apart from a few great 'gets' - the man himself may be very attractive with on court charisma, but I think if he looked like Stepanek (apologies to family and friends) not many people would be enthralled by 90 percent of his game.

I myself don't have that much of a complaint just pointing out that its not a simple choice between serve only and long rallys which is what you're presenting it as. There is a region in between which involves more variety than either.

time please wrote: It wasn't attractive tennis from Rafa, apart from a few great 'gets' - the man himself may be very attractive with on court charisma, but I think if he looked like Stepanek (apologies to family and friends) not many people would be enthralled by 90 percent of his game.

No but if Rafa had Stepanek's game (and Rafa's fitness) people would say he is a genius.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I myself don't have that much of a complaint just pointing out that its not a simple choice between serve only and long rallys which is what you're presenting it as. There is a region in between which involves more variety than either.

It's socals standard argument to characterise your argument in absurd terms to mock your position. He constantly creates strawmen to knock over - he even accuses me of making weak era suggestions about the current period when he's the weak era theorist and all I've done is scotch this daft idea we're in a Golden Era.

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I myself don't have that much of a complaint just pointing out that its not a simple choice between serve only and long rallys which is what you're presenting it as. There is a region in between which involves more variety than either.

It's socals standard argument to characterise your argument in absurd terms to mock your position. He constantly creates strawmen to knock over - he even accuses me of making weak era suggestions about the current period when he's the weak era theorist and all I've done is scotch this daft idea we're in a Golden Era.

No it isn't a strawman that was exactly where the game was headed in the late 90s before the new balls and slower courts. Wimbeldon for me was unwatchable, and obviously the tournament directors felt that they weren't producing the best product. Now if you returned to the conditions of the late 90s it would be even worse than that time period. Because the players have continued to get taller, stronger, and the technology of racquets and strings has continued to advance. It isn't a strawman we actually saw the trend developing in the late 90s.

And Breakin, that is precisely the problem, how much tinkering do you do, what if you tinker just a little and find the effects to be huge and Ivo Karlovic starts winning wimbeldon. Then now you have the same problem of other people complaining and having to change back. Is being born 6-11 some kind of talent? Do you enjoy watching 200 one and two shot rallies in a row. I almost stopped watching tennis after the Sampras-ivanisivic final of wimbeldon I believe it was 1999.

Agree that it is bad to hear Murray keeping on talking about getting stronger rather than focus on the dimensions of his game. He'll never be as physical as Nadal or Djokovic. His shoulders are too narrow, he doesn't have as good natural muscle definition. He can't match those two brutes like for like in the physicl department. He should just concentrate on being a better player, he already has enough stamina, he's a very fit guy.

Yes absolutely Super D Boon - I fear that if he spends any more time in the gym he will be kn*ckered before he gets to the court.

There is another very fine player who is struggling due to lack of physical prowess: Robin Hasse. I always enjoy his matches. I knew that Murray was going to get a tough match against him. Hasse can beat Nadal and Murray in 3setter but will always struggle in slams.

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator, i think you underestimate how much taller and bigger the players are and how much power they could generate with the new frames and new strings. If anything we need slower conditions to keep what little variety we have. If you had fast conditions could you imagine the kind of serves extremely dull players like Roddick and Karlovic would produce. In away modern man due to hormones in the food, evolution, nutrition and training is growing at an amazing rate and the conditions need to be a bit slower. Not to mention the racquet and string technology. You sped up the conditions and Karlovic's serve might break the sound barrier. Quicker conditions nearly destroyed the game in my opinion in the late 90s. Maybe there was a reason they slowed down wimby and some other tournaments. Wimby was my least favorite slam at that time, it was awful any ogre who could hit a ball 140 miles an hour had a chance.

Once again you've missed the point entirely..

I'm not advocating lightning fast conditions or even very fast conditions.

I'm arguing against the uniformity of the conditions. I agree that AUS should remain a slow HC and that the FO should be slow clay.

By the same token, I believe that W should be played on faster grass and the USO should be played on fast HC's.

This would not suddenly result in S&V giants as you seem to suggest but rather would allow a variety of styles to flourish. Racquet and string technology will always ensure that the baseliner has a good chance against the volleyer simply because of the pace, control and spin that they can now produce on the passing shots with today's technology. The baseline game will continue to dominate from now on because of this technology.

Incase you haven't noticed, virtually all the players on tour play the same kind of game - the power baseline game. Every match is a repeat of the previous. Two guys slugging it out from the baseline, grunting and sweating with exertion. The ATP is now just a more powerful version of the WTA.

Surely it would make tennis more interesting to have some diversity. I think one of the best tournaments last year was the Paris Masters where the faster conditions allowed a player like Llodra to S&V with some success. It didn't stop a baseliner from winning the tournament though.

It's no surprise that Djokovic plays exactly the same game at AUS, FO, W and USO.

Emancipator, I like the modern game, don't want them tinkering with it because I don't think it is broken. Fans enjoy the longer rallies more, just listen to them stand and cheer at the end of a 25 or 30 shot rally. I don't like a match that is completely grinding like a ferrer match, I like aggression and players going for winners. Basically, I enjoy the powerbaseline game. I find S and V very dull as a dominant style, nothing I loathe more than big serve tennis.

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator, I like the modern game, don't want them tinkering with it because I don't think it is broken. Fans enjoy the longer rallies more, just listen to them stand and cheer at the end of a 25 or 30 shot rally. I don't like a match that is completely grinding like a ferrer match, I like aggression and players going for winners. Basically, I enjoy the powerbaseline game. I find S and V very dull as a dominant style, nothing I loathe more than big serve tennis.

Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I happen to think that there is room for BOTH, or a mixture of styles.

People might want to see 25-30 rallies occassionally, between the top few players, but are they going to want to watch a 3 hour, 3 set match between world No 10 and world No 20. Or 128 of such matches in every GS. Isn't the uniformity of players/matches one of the reasons why the WTA is struggling at the moment?

The final didn't really reflect the modern game in that it had a much higher average rally length that usual. The issue is that the modern game will change without anyone tinkering. As more and more players hit the gym harder, some other tinkering will be required to keep the modern game as it is now.

In teh 70s and beginnnig 80s you had guys who could rally for ever on clay. They decided to enforce a 20s rule to prevent players taking too much time between points.

Rafa and Nadal are simply not playing within the rules. This time warning each and nothing after is a joke!

"Currently they fear Murray a bit and Federer though this one tries to keep the rallies short and that's it. there is no other player than can last the distance against those 2. "

You forget that tennis is played outside slams as well, i.e. best of 3 sets. So the physicality vs. skill arguments doesn't hold water. Still.

Let's play Devil's advocate: who ARE the more "skilled" players than Novak at the moment and what's stopping them from beating him in two sets.

Tennis HAS become more physically demanding, but even more so mentally.
You seem to be alludint that Murray isn't winning because he isn't fit enough.
Are you serious?
Watch the replay of the AO 2011 final, Murray's problem is not fitness, it's his inadequate shot selection because of his mentality. He simply does not attack enough. He seems to be playing properly only in tie-breaks.

Also, tennis is not about showing our skill off, that's your club player mentality. Tennis is about winning. And winning. And winning.


Novak is winning because he is supremely talented, athletic, intelligent and fast. He is also mentally unquenchable and hard as a competitor. He has always been like that.
He wasn't winning , though. So he added what he needed in order to win and improved his fitness.
Why is he beating Nadal so easily now? Because he has improved his fitness and thus allowed his superior skill set not to be hindered by the lack of oxygen in his legs.
Anyway, I deliberately chose Novak in this whole argument other than Nadal, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Nole fan.
People are also deluded if they think that Federer is fit any less than Nadal or Djokovic. ON the contrary.
Federer has tons of game an variety, but he is not perfect. Nadal has showed it and capitalized on it. Not because he is fit, but because he spotted the weakness and exploited it.
Novak has done the same to Nadal.
That's the nature of the game, because the driving fuel is the desire to WIN.

I wouldn't fret too much over the physicality of the game, tennis regulates itself naturally. I am convinced that it will never be dominated by 2m tall blokes, either.
The main difference does not come from fitness but from racquet technology, and I don't really mind it at all. I enjoy the speed of it.

NITB fitness do play a big pasrt and the team behind a player. I was watching a short video on youtube regarding djoker's team and it is a very close knit team. Djoko regards Vajda as his father. And IMO its rafa's team losing to Novak's team and it was probably the same case in fed v rafa and same case in Andy V Nadal. I am sure if Andy gets a good coach he should be winning slams as well but he does not have a mentor, coach as good as Uncle Toni or Vajda.

Another point I have made before is that physicality do play major part in tennis. Dolgo and Hasse are 2 fantastic players and so is Llodra however they might not be able to stamp same kind of authority as Nadal and Djoko are doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyKFFTgJ6rE
djoker and his team. very smart guys, only ones to out think toni nadal.

You may be the biggest fan of him NITB, but is he really mentally unquenchable? after getting back into the match in his semi final, his mindset became not to make any errors rather than carry on his ruthless play, that to me tells that Novak isn't exactly the most confident, or as you say mentally unquenchable. Not to mention he plays at tortoise speed which cannot help his attacking rhythm.

Have to agree with Nitb, I think people underestimate the shot making and talent of Djokovic. The first coach he had was a lady who coached Seles, she came to his little mountain village to give a tennis camp. After a couple of days she went and told his parents that if Novak dedicated himself to the sport he would be a top 10 player for many years and could even become #1. At that time Djokovic was like 8 or 9 and hadn't had any structured tennis.

Novak has one of the 10 best forehands in a tour replete with monster forehands, one of top 3 or 5 backhands on tour, and is clearly the best returner. His serve has gone from a liability to being a very good weapon, especially his second serve. He is the best drop shotter in the world, and has one of the best backhand lobs if not the absolute best. He is one of the best if not best at changing direction on the ball. His shotmaking is spectacular. As he displayed in the fed semi where both guys where hitting every slightly short and mid court ball for a winner.

Josiah,

Novak' mental unquenchability does not mean he can't lose a match now an then.

If you can't see it already, look back on his career, 5 years being denied and still going. At THAT level.
And not just going, but going for it. And grabbing it.

His 2011 season is nothing short of breathtaking, and it will take tennis world all of the newly prolonged off-season to digest it: Novak has smashed just about any carefully nurtured and preserved little establishment and institution Fedal era have had to offer.
Observe the manner in which he did it.

Is it the ghost of NITB who is speaking here?

It's not the ghost, but the battered, old, hardened and not so chummy NITB now.
Apologies.

I have always found you to be very chummy Nitb. When your guy is on top the critics will start coming out of the woodwork, as Nole fans we have to understand and expect that.

I know Socal, I've had years of that.

I"m just taking a MTO right now, have to keep up with Nole!