The Physicality Myth

First topic message reminder :

For so long now here and on old 606 people have made the excuse of the physicality of tennis now for blunting Roger Federer's challenge in tournaments. Well I don't believe it really is such a big factor (if at all) as some would have you believe. Sure the players are far more physically fit now and so far better equipped to deal with long drawn out. rallies which players become conditioned to in any case.

Last night we saw Roger Federer beat Rafael Nadal and winning 20+ shots long rallies against Nadal with no sign of wilting or this mythological physicality factor kicking in. Why not? As sure as eggs are eggs it should have played out here especially if you consider the longer matches Roger has had here and far more hectic schedule of late compared to Rafael Nadal who must have felt as fresh as a daisy after more than a month out.

Another thing that bothers me about this physicality factor is this. We all know that David Ferrer is much in the Nadal mould who will stick in a rally like a human limpet and loves the long-drawn out rallies. It means to beat him you need the same physicality that you do to beat Rafael Nadal. Well then why is it that Roger Federer has played Ferrer TWELVE times and is yet to be beaten by the Spaniard? Likewise Andy Murray isn't adverse to playing long-drawn out rallies yet Roger Federer has had the upper hand in the major matches they have played in. Similarly, Novak Djokovic plays war of attrition matches but guess what? Roger Federer has won more matches than he has lost against the Serb. Once again what happened to this mythological physicality factor?

And all this on surface speeds not to Federer's liking either. Seems to be doing very well on the surfaces at the moment.

I reckon Rafa did look a bit thinner at the end of 09. Before that his arms, in particular, were enormous and he looked a real physical presence on the court.
Thinness or not, he still had a fantastic 2010, With Djoko he is still the hardest guy to beat over five sets.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:So about Nadal, no on bar the Nadal fans say he has no talent. But what is said is its not his talent that has won him the amount of success he has had till now. With that talent he would still have had good success, but it would never have been anything compared to what it is now. In my opinion, if it was all about talent, Federer's biggest rival should have been Nalbandian. But we all know how poor Nalby's resume looks comapred to that of Nadal. So what has transformed that good success into a glittering success for Nadal. Its his superior physicality, which was far ahead of anyone till last year when Djo turned gluteen-free.

And still physicality is a myth for some??? Get real people.

I agree with all that...in particular the bold bit. Nalby however would lack in mental strength. That was his main downfall....and the reason is that his game is extremely risky. Federer puts more spin than him and thanks to that was allowed to find more confidence.

time please wrote:rotla - please let me make this v clear straight away that I am not going to get drawn into any speculations about certain practices

Not attempting to do it either . That subject is a taboo here.

time please wrote: Yes he did drop weight in 2009 - it was quite noticeable and I think he did so to take the pressure from his knees. He has never since bulked up so much around the legs and arms although he is still strong and has put back on some muscle from November 2009, though his legs look far less weighty to me now and that is no doubt why he has been able to manage his tendinitis.

Good. At least we have some eye witness who can confirm the fact that Nadal did lose weight.

time please wrote: Can I also say raiders, (even though it is none of my business) that I wish you would try and be a bit less combative because when you do make really interesting posts half the people aren't listening to you because you have rubbed them up the wrong way with phrases like 'get real people' - it irritates me and there are many issues that I agree with you about

Agreed. Will try not to do it. Thanks.

sirfredperry wrote:I reckon Rafa did look a bit thinner at the end of 09. Before that his arms, in particular, were enormous and he looked a real physical presence on the court.
Thinness or not, he still had a fantastic 2010, With Djoko he is still the hardest guy to beat over five sets.

His arms and upper body looked enormous this AO 2012. They show it very nicely on those ultra high speed images.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Moved the goalposts? On this topic perhaps but not on tennis in general. Variety is offered by Nadal which Fed fans themselves want to see so they should recognise and accredit the variety he brings.

Anyway back on topic. Talent is needed by the bucketload for Nadal to pull off shots that no one else can master and no it isn't solely the big biceps or else how come anyone else in the sport cannot even come close. Those shots he plays needs great technique and practise as well and years of work to get it where it is.

Talking about tennis in general is a moved goal post.


Again, no one said Nadal has no talent. Everyone is agreeing already. We know he is greatly talented. Why keep saying it again CC? Talk about physicality. Tell us how physicality is a myth which is your OP.

In spring 2010 McEnroe said that he had never seen Nadal as big.

I would just like to say that many players (who see Nadal on a regular basis) noted that he had lost lots of weight in 2009. (even Phillpoussis mentioned 17 pounds or so). How did he get that figure? not sure.

The losig weight to ease his knees was just a theory from some to explain that loss of weight. And that Nadal's camp always refused to admit to that loss of weight...or certainly never acknowledge it nor gave a reason.

And that I believe cause they knew Nadal was going to put it all back on at some stage.

It's important to note that PRP (his knee treatment) was forbidden in 2009 and was finally made legal end of 2009.

Don't go there Tenez. "That thing" can't be discussed on 606v2. I can't even mention it.

Don't worry I am not going there.

I am just trying to clarify some points made.

I have already gone into why its a myth time and again. Physicality is not the sole reason for Nadal's success over Federer as some on here would have us believe. Evidently they do believe or else we wouldn't still be having this debate.

CaledonianCraig wrote:....Physicality is not the sole reason for Nadal's success over Federer as some on here would have us believe. Evidently they do believe or else we wouldn't still be having this debate.

I can't quite follow the logic. Saying "there are other factors", doesn't make the importance of physique in tennis a myth, or even not the most important factor for some players, nor does it prove, for instance, that at equal physique Nadal would still have a superior H2H v Murray, for instance.

Given that the legal use of PRP was passed in 2009 and it is not clear at what stage Nadal was receiving this treatment. Also it has not been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does not constitute the method as a performance enhancing.

Another important point that needs to be made

hawkeye wrote:I suspect that JuliusHMarx and laverfan despite being fair minded and doing their best to be balanced fall a little short of being Nadal "fans".

Is the litmus test, for being a Nadal 'fan', the defence of Nadal against Tenez's 'physicality=legs-and-lungs' argument by vociferously quoting h2h, point construction nuances on clay vs others, Miami 2004/2005 or Dubai 2006 or AO 2009 or W 2008?

If that is the case, I fail the litmus test, and as Amritia3ee remarks, Julius and I do not do enough to bring counter arguments to Tenez's viewpoint.

hawkeye wrote:Nothing wrong with that as we are all entitled to are views but it would make it more difficult to jump to Nadals defence.

Yet you and Amritia3ee have chosen to state it on this thread. My question is that Lydian, for example, has not done that. Why?

hawkeye wrote:Am I way off mark or is there perhaps a little truth in that?

You have already formed a judgement, and now you are asking if I agree or disagree? 'Truth' and 'reality', to quote Qui Gon Jin, are determined by your focus.

I have no desire to defend either Federer or Nadal (or Murray or Djokovic, for that matter) in such GOATness debates, because this is what these boil down to.

The obsession from either side of the 'divide' to impose their views on the other seems to have become the lifeblood of 606v2. It adds no value to Tennis discussions.

BTW, for US audiences, if such arguments are interesting, Tennis Channel is showing the '100 Greatest' which should add fuel to this fire? I would highly recommend watching the series and discussing it. There may be uTube links somewhere. Here is preview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

Perhaps Socal and others can put up a thread for such discussions.

legendkillarV2 wrote: Also it has not been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does not constitute the method as a performance enhancing.

I m not sure how to read a sentence with 2 negatives. Don't 2 negatives make a positive? Are you saying that "Also it has been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does constitute the method as a performance enhancing?"
Mods....help!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Also it has not been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does not constitute the method as a performance enhancing.

I m not sure how to read a sentence with 2 negatives. Don't 2 negatives make a positive? Are you saying that "Also it has been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does constitute the method as a performance enhancing?"
Mods....help!

Despite the presence of some growth factors, current studies on PRP do not demonstrate any potential for performance enhancement beyond a potential therapeutic effect.
Note that individual growth factors are still prohibited when given separately as purified substances as described in S.2.5


http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_61477_original.PDF

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Also it has not been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does not constitute the method as a performance enhancing.

I m not sure how to read a sentence with 2 negatives. Don't 2 negatives make a positive? Are you saying that "Also it has been proven by the World Doping Agency that PRP does constitute the method as a performance enhancing?"
Mods....help!

You old cynic!

I tend not speculate on this because it just turns into a frenzy like pirahna feeding on a corpse!

legendkillarV2 wrote:


You old cynic!

I tend not speculate on this because it just turns into a frenzy like pirahna feeding on a corpse!

Don't worry I just had lunch!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:


You old cynic!

I tend not speculate on this because it just turns into a frenzy like pirahna feeding on a corpse!

Don't worry I just had lunch!

How many Piranha sandwiches did you eat?

Okay I will try to clarify things here.

Is there a physical side to Rafael Nadal's game?

Of course there is and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Does this physicality give him an unfair advantage?

Of course not as there are no limits to how far each player can push themselves in pursuit of physical fitness so it is up to each individual player as to what heights they can reach.

Does Nadal's physicality cause Roger Federer problems?

Yes of course it does (possibly not now) as the amount of top spin and bounce played to Federer's single-handed backhand he couldn't deal with.

Is Nadal's physicality the sole reason why he has had such success against Federer?

No it is certainly is not in my opinion. Federer has had his successes against Nadal and Djokovic is in a opposite position and has the indian sign over Nadal. He has combatted Nadal's style successfully whereas Federer has not as he never formulated a winning plan plus a little matter of a true lack of self-belief/confidence in recent times can't have helped as the defeats piled up. Just like there are lesser players out there with a good record against Nadal so if they can master physicality then I'd fully expect Federer.

Craig,

I think you are stoking the same fire that has been burning for days now. I think most posters have a agreed to disagree and I think stretching this out will lead to exhausting frustration.

I would recommend just walking away

legendkillarV2 wrote:Craig,

I think you are stoking the same fire that has been burning for days now. I think most posters have a agreed to disagree and I think stretching this out will lead to exhausting frustration.

I would recommend just walking away

Yes I think you may be right.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:In my opinion, if it was all about talent, Federer's biggest rival should have been Nalbandian. But we all know how poor Nalby's resume looks comapred to that of Nadal. So what has transformed that good success into a glittering success for Nadal. Its his superior physicality, which was far ahead of anyone till last year when Djo turned gluteen-free.

So ROTLA...Nalby should have been Federer's main rival as talentwise they're comparable-ish...but he wasnt.
Nalby's resume was poor vs Nadal because Nadal has talent + superior physicality.
Therefore, by your logic what Federer had over Nalby was.....talent + superior physicality!!!
And because Federer and Nadal arent miles apart results-wise given they both have physicality over the benchmark of Nalby, it stands to reason their talent levels arent poles apart either. Shock horror...stop press...2 guys with 10+ slams have huge talent and are pretty fit!
Its just that their talent comes in different guises and surface preferences.

I dont think anyone is saying physicality isnt a myth per se. Tennis is a physical sport.
But my central point has always been its a myth to just pin physicality on Nadal when clearly Federer is also uber-uber-fit...
After all, you yourself have said it's something Nalby could never match Nadal on. So whats the difference with Federer then...

Surely its a case of what's (physicality) good for the goose (Nadal) is good for the gander (Federer).
Cant we just drop this and move on...???

From Rafa's biography...

"My endurance too. Endurance: that’s a big word.

Keeping going physically, never letting up, and putting up with everything that comes my way, not allowing the good or the bad—the great shots or the weak ones, the good luck or the bad—to put me off track.

I have to be centered, no distractions, do what I have to do in each moment.

If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait.

There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding;

you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent.

So be alert, be patient, don’t be rash."

The question is this... Why do the odds improve from 70% to 85% by hitting five shots more?

Would like to see a discussion from both sides of the 'great divide'?

PS: The other question is... What does it take for a Tennis player to hit five shots more?

lydian wrote:
After all, you yourself have said it's something Nalby could never match Nadal on. So whats the difference with Federer then...

There isn't. Both Fed and Nalbandian have a 1/3 W/L ratio and both can get very close to Nadal and beat him but both have a pretty bad record when it extends to 3 sets or more.

laverfan wrote:
If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait.

There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding;

you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent.

Again, what we say comes from the horse's mouth. Why woudl Nadal not want to pull a winner at 70% chance? Why does he feel waiting 5 more shots is going to improve his chance? That's weird when yuo think about it....unless you know that the more running going on the better it is for him.

That completely defeats Lydian's point that Federer is as fit as Nadal. Though once again, it was completely obvious that was not the case to any average fan.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I suspect that JuliusHMarx and laverfan despite being fair minded and doing their best to be balanced fall a little short of being Nadal "fans".

Is the litmus test, for being a Nadal 'fan', the defence of Nadal against Tenez's 'physicality=legs-and-lungs' argument by vociferously quoting h2h, point construction nuances on clay vs others, Miami 2004/2005 or Dubai 2006 or AO 2009 or W 2008?

If that is the case, I fail the litmus test, and as Amritia3ee remarks, Julius and I do not do enough to bring counter arguments to Tenez's viewpoint.

hawkeye wrote:Nothing wrong with that as we are all entitled to are views but it would make it more difficult to jump to Nadals defence.

Yet you and Amritia3ee have chosen to state it on this thread. My question is that Lydian, for example, has not done that. Why?

hawkeye wrote:Am I way off mark or is there perhaps a little truth in that?

You have already formed a judgement, and now you are asking if I agree or disagree? 'Truth' and 'reality', to quote Qui Gon Jin, are determined by your focus.

I have no desire to defend either Federer or Nadal (or Murray or Djokovic, for that matter) in such GOATness debates, because this is what these boil down to.

The obsession from either side of the 'divide' to impose their views on the other seems to have become the lifeblood of 606v2. It adds no value to Tennis discussions.

BTW, for US audiences, if such arguments are interesting, Tennis Channel is showing the '100 Greatest' which should add fuel to this fire? I would highly recommend watching the series and discussing it. There may be uTube links somewhere. Here is preview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

Perhaps Socal and others can put up a thread for such discussions.

laverfan

I was questioning why the moderators don't do anything to keep topics on track and stop them from repeatedly getting hijacked by the few (very few!) posters who always manage to twist the discussion to their own favourite monalogue. I was prompted to do this after reading the post by Jubbahey at 7.07pm and the quote from Lydian at 7.46pm yesterday and the comments by amritea3ee.

I was certainly not requesting that moderators should "jump to Nadal's defence" (and of course I wasn't suggesting they should be Nadal fans!) but rather why they didn't intervene and make it easier for discussions rather than repetative monalogues to take place... I was speculating that it might be because the moderators were not exactly fans of Nadal and didn't want to intervine to do so they might feel they were or be seen to be "jumping to Nadal's defence". I hope I've made myself clear...

HE, I think that would verge on censorship. AFAIK the house rules don't say anything about repetition.
I don't like seeing the same thing repeated, I think it detracts from the forum, but I don't think it's up to the mods to use 'moderator powers' to steer the course of any debate. In that scenario, I'm just a poster and I can join in/ignore the debate as I wish, as long as I keep an eye out for any rules being broken.

laverfan wrote:From Rafa's biography...

"My endurance too. Endurance: that’s a big word.

Keeping going physically, never letting up, and putting up with everything that comes my way, not allowing the good or the bad—the great shots or the weak ones, the good luck or the bad—to put me off track.

I have to be centered, no distractions, do what I have to do in each moment.

If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait.

There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding;

you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent.

So be alert, be patient, don’t be rash."

The question is this... Why do the odds improve from 70% to 85% by hitting five shots more?

Would like to see a discussion from both sides of the 'great divide'?

PS: The other question is... What does it take for a Tennis player to hit five shots more?

I like that quote.

The odds improve because rather than go for a winner off any ball you've waited until you've managed to get a weaker or more favourable ball from your opponant to hit a winner from. I think Nadal is being quite conservative with the odds. Going for a winner from some positions will have far lower odds than 70%. For example that infamous Djokovic shot at the US Open last year had way less than a 70% chance of going in (judged by Federer).

Any player can hit 5 or more shots. They hit far more balls than that in training. In a a match situation its more difficult because of whats at stake. To be patient and not be rash but also not be too patient is the difficult task. To judge the odds and play the odds is what Nadal is talking about. I think he (usually) does this quite well...

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I think that would verge on censorship. AFAIK the house rules don't say anything about repetition.
I don't like seeing the same thing repeated, I think it detracts from the forum, but I don't think it's up to the mods to use 'moderator powers' to steer the course of any debate. In that scenario, I'm just a poster and I can join in/ignore the debate as I wish, as long as I keep an eye out for any rules being broken.

Point taken Fair enough... I think I had had enough of it last night.

It's quite amusing that it required a lot of repeating the same stuff ad nausea from both sides to finally have everybody agree that Physique is no myth in tennis.

Maybe some need to have things repeated many times until it sinks in.

this was after Davydenkos defeat in the semis of the 2007 US Open to Federer

Q. What do you think of tomorrow's final?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: It's like Djokovic play very well from baseline and he beat him already in Montréal. But it's five set match. I don't know who be physically better, Djokovic or Federer.
It's like because I saw Federer was really tired in the first set. If he play long rally and moving right-left, it's for him also tough. That's was if Djokovic can physically very well, like Nadal, just hitting baseline long rally, can get chance, good chance, to beat him.

Tenez wrote:It's quite amusing that it required a lot of repeating the same stuff ad nausea from both sides to finally have everybody agree that Physique is no myth in tennis.

Maybe some need to have things repeated many times until it sinks in.

It is a myth that it is the only reason that Nadal can beat Federer is because of physicality in my opinion.

lydian wrote:
So ROTLA...Nalby should have been Federer's main rival as talentwise they're comparable-ish...but he wasnt.
Nalby's resume was poor vs Nadal because Nadal has talent + superior physicality.
Therefore, by your logic what Federer had over Nalby was.....talent + superior physicality!!!
And because Federer and Nadal arent miles apart results-wise given they both have physicality over the benchmark of Nalby, it stands to reason their talent levels arent poles apart either. Shock horror...stop press...2 guys with 10+ slams have huge talent and are pretty fit!
Its just that their talent comes in different guises and surface preferences.

This tripe is not my logic, its yours. Stop putting words in my mouth. I only said if it was all about talent, then Nalbandian would have been Federer's biggest rival. I said this because in my opinion in terms of talent, Nalbandian comes closest among his peers. This strange conclusion equation is yours. This is incorrect because it makes so many assumptions and overlooks many factors, and trying to imply math into tennis. It doesn't work like that.

You are using the kind of logic that once banbro and CC used to show how Murray is already ahead of Federer by virtue of his 5 set loss against #1 where as Fed suffered a 4 set loss to #2.

Tenez

I thought you were busy telling everyone Nadal is a POOR SPORTSMAN. I don't know how you have the energy and stamina to keep this up (on several different threads) day in day out... in fact night in night out too. I can only presume it has something to do with christmas presents.

Will you only give up when we all surrender, sling nasty names at Rafa and he leaves the court forever weeping (not before handing all of his trophies to Federer, asking politely for an autograph and of course Federer refusing) Will you be happy then?

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a myth that it is the only reason that Nadal can beat Federer is because of physicality in my opinion.

.

Yes okay. But i think Murray is on his way to be GOAT. He will go down in history as the greatest player ever to hold a tennis racquet. Its only a matter of time, till Murray truly peaks.

Go get yourself a coffee now.

Na not a coffee I need something stronger after reading some of your views.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Na not a coffee I need something stronger after reading some of your views.

deleted

There you go again - any good points you make about how someone's game matches up to someone elses is completely undone by this kind of insinuation imvho

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

I thought you were busy telling everyone Nadal is a POOR SPORTSMAN. I don't know how you have the energy and stamina to keep this up (on several different threads) day in day out... in fact night in night out too. I can only presume it has something to do with christmas presents.

Are you obsessed by me HE? 1 - I did not create the thread "poor sportman" and I usually don;t write such threads even if I can happily participate. 2 - I actually defend him there in the first instances. I am one of the milder poster on this thread.

hawkeye wrote:Will you only give up when we all surrender, sling nasty names at Rafa and he leaves the court forever weeping (not before handing all of his trophies to Federer, asking politely for an autograph and of course Federer refusing) Will you be happy then?

I know why my views are important to you. You know deep down I make sense and you find it difficult to reconcile your love of Nadal with my (our) views.

CAS wrote:this was after Davydenkos defeat in the semis of the 2007 US Open to Federer

Q. What do you think of tomorrow's final?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: It's like Djokovic play very well from baseline and he beat him already in Montréal. But it's five set match. I don't know who be physically better, Djokovic or Federer.
It's like because I saw Federer was really tired in the first set. If he play long rally and moving right-left, it's for him also tough. That's was if Djokovic can physically very well, like Nadal, just hitting baseline long rally, can get chance, good chance, to beat him.

Good find CAS. A connaisseur this Davydenko.

hawkeye wrote:The odds improve because rather than go for a winner off any ball you've waited until you've managed to get a weaker or more favourable ball from your opponant to hit a winner from.

Your are missing my point. With an aggressive mindset, these five more shots is extra effort in a match, especially one in the later stages of a tournament. With a percentage mindset, from 70% to 85%, the assumption is that the opponent cannot turn defence into offence which is also a risk that the player wanting the 85% certainty takes.

hawkeye wrote:I think Nadal is being quite conservative with the odds. Going for a winner from some positions will have far lower odds than 70%. For example that infamous Djokovic shot at the US Open last year had way less than a 70% chance of going in (judged by Federer).

There is also the nothing to lose mentality, which is clearly reflected in the post-match interview.

hawkeye wrote:Any player can hit 5 or more shots. They hit far more balls than that in training. In a match situation its more difficult because of whats at stake. To be patient and not be rash but also not be too patient is the difficult task.

5 more shots per point for a minimum of a 6-3 set (assuming a break at love) 36 points x 5 = 180 shots. Think about someone winning a point in serve-and-winner scenario. Do you see any difference in effort required?

hawkeye wrote:To judge the odds and play the odds is what Nadal is talking about. I think he (usually) does this quite well...

There is no such thing as 100% certainty of a winner, except an ace.

BTW, off-topic, Davydenko just beat James Blake in Miami. Blake had a 7-0 h2h before today.

I was hoping this thread would be done and dusted and yet there is still room for sniping

Hello



so this is where you all are



emancipator

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait.

There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding;

you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent.

Again, what we say comes from the horse's mouth. Why woudl Nadal not want to pull a winner at 70% chance? Why does he feel waiting 5 more shots is going to improve his chance? That's weird when yuo think about it....unless you know that the more running going on the better it is for him.

That completely defeats Lydian's point that Federer is as fit as Nadal. Though once again, it was completely obvious that was not the case to any average fan.

Sorry to rain on your gloating parade but it doesnt defeat that point one iota (whatever an iota is...). Nice try Tenez.
Nadal is simply referring to waiting for a better shot, i.e. poorer reply from Federer, to go for the winner.
Not all roads lead to Rome, or in this case physicality, you know - despite how much you will them too!
The problem you always have Tenez regarding their comparable fitness is.......Rome 2006.
Both went toe-to-toe for over 5 hours in the heat on physical clay. Did Federer wilt?
No not one iota (...can someone tell me what an iota is please?).

Anyway C+ for effort.

Lydian - In tennis you don't "wait" for a better shot. Nadal may use the word "wait" but what he means is that he has to retrieve more balls and hit them as hard and spiny as possible so his opponent can't hit winners from. It's therefore a serious physical challenge for him to "wait" for a better shot. It's no coincidence that his career has been plagued with physical injuries. He would not have had to retire a few times if he just had to "wait".

However, the good thing about his tactic is that while he covers 200m, his opponent has still to cover at least 100m, and that's Nadal's reward. THose 100m times a few rallies, tend to pay as the match goes on as losing the subtle timing in Federer's game brings Nadal much easier points down the line and as LK says Nadal can even end up dictating when Fed has nothing left in the tank (AO09 for instance).

You blame me for repeating constantly the same stuff but frankly, you are not doing much on your side from preventing it while always talking about the same things, here the Rome final. I have already explained many times that 5 sets played by Nadal hitting the ball like a donkey and running like a rabbit is not the same as 5 set by Fed who is known to hit the ball effortlessly and doesn't have to run as much as Nadal. This why they can both play close 5 setters at times and that even if they both play 5 sets, the chance of Nadal winning it is not 100%. it may happen that Federer hitting blue patches might make Nadal run too much and too fast giving Federer shorter and weaker balls he can in turn attack more easily. We saw that again at SW19 07 when Nadal hit the wall at 2 all and Federer managed to win 4 games in a row. His task becoming easier as Nadal's shots had lost their deadly spin and depth.

It's easy to explain if you observe the game unbiased and pay attention to details.

Unbiased? You Tenez? Never. You openly and freely admit you have a dislike to Nadal so I'd say that makes you very biased.

Out of all the sections here on v2, the tennis section is the only section where the contributors constantly argue, bicker, try to get one over on another and throw insults. Why?

I have taken a back seat regarding the section recently and have just been looking in, but come on, it is a mess. Who in their right mind would want to join this section and start contributing? If it was me looking in, I would run a mile.

Maybes you are happy to have a player bashing section, because that is what tennis on v2 has become. Its a joke.

Apologies Gav but the topic was not set up as a player-bashing one but rather one to say why a player (Nadal) shouldn't be bashed (sort of).

I know Craig, its ok, I was just speaking in general and rather than making a new topic, I posted on this thread.

I dont know why its like this, it just is.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The odds improve because rather than go for a winner off any ball you've waited until you've managed to get a weaker or more favourable ball from your opponant to hit a winner from.

Your are missing my point. With an aggressive mindset, these five more shots is extra effort in a match, especially one in the later stages of a tournament. With a percentage mindset, from 70% to 85%, the assumption is that the opponent cannot turn defence into offence which is also a risk that the player wanting the 85% certainty takes.

hawkeye wrote:I think Nadal is being quite conservative with the odds. Going for a winner from some positions will have far lower odds than 70%. For example that infamous Djokovic shot at the US Open last year had way less than a 70% chance of going in (judged by Federer).

There is also the nothing to lose mentality, which is clearly reflected in the post-match interview.

hawkeye wrote:Any player can hit 5 or more shots. They hit far more balls than that in training. In a match situation its more difficult because of whats at stake. To be patient and not be rash but also not be too patient is the difficult task.

5 more shots per point for a minimum of a 6-3 set (assuming a break at love) 36 points x 5 = 180 shots. Think about someone winning a point in serve-and-winner scenario. Do you see any difference in effort required?

hawkeye wrote:To judge the odds and play the odds is what Nadal is talking about. I think he (usually) does this quite well...

There is no such thing as 100% certainty of a winner, except an ace.

BTW, off-topic, Davydenko just beat James Blake in Miami. Blake had a 7-0 h2h before today.

laverfan

Its still playing the percentages. Of course if you don't go for the low percentage winner then your opponant can but if your on equal terms in a ralley then they will be taking the biggest risk. Of course they could pull it off but chances are (if you play the percentages well) they won't be able to do so consistantly enough to win the match. The only time its worth taking a big risk when in a bad position in the ralley is when you have no other option. When the point is lost unless you do something drastic. Thats when its worth taking a gamble as there is nothing to lose. Strangely enough that's when Nadal plays his highest risk, lowest percentge shots. It looks spectacular when he pull it off and gets the biggest oohs an ahhs from the crowd. However far from being flamboyant he is just playing within the percentages and being very sensible. That he can pull so many of these low percentage shots off at critical stages of a match shows the level of his skill.

Of course it would save a whole lot of effort going for sevice or return winners all the time. You win some you lose some... but thats not really
tennis. Is it? The aim of the game is to win and not get the game over with as soon as possible. Anyway I don't think Nadal is saying you always have to play a minimum of 5 shots per ralley. Just that if it takes that long to get the right ball it pays to be patient and wait.

When Djokovic played "that shot" he had a whole lot to lose. However he wasn't in a losing position in the ralley so to play that very low percentage shot was crazy. I definately understand where Federer was coming from when he described it as such. I though the same myself before he opened his mouth

Of course theres no such thing as 100% certainty of a winner. Nadal never said that (neither did I). But there is a higher percentage on some shots over others.

Playing the percentages isn't about taking no risks. It's about taking strategic calculated risks.

lydian wrote:(...can someone tell me what an iota is please?).

Apart from the Greek alphabet as shown here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_letters_used_in_mathematics,_science,_and_engineering

'iota' is also used in Complex Number Theory as the square root of minus 1, an 'imaginary' number - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

Or, as Popeye said - "Why, Iota...."