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.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It was probably on 606v1 when Rafa was No.1 in the world. It happened quite a bit. It's Raonic, er, I mean ironic, that it's come full circle to Fed on v2.

Yes a lot has come full circle as I pointed out earlier on another thread. When Federer was daddy in the slams but was getting beaten by Murray or Djokovic a section of Fed fans insisted it was because he was saving himself for slams or wasn't too fussed about lesser tournaments yet when I suggested that may be the case now with Djokovic people disagreed (many Fed fans) so you see it happens in all areas.

Anyway back to the topic in hand and that of the myth of physicality....

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well in your blinkered world that may be the case but real unbiased tennis fans know differently. I suggest watching an array of shots Novak played yesterday against Isner and still lost and defy you to tell me there was no talent in those shots.

Yeah, right, you open minded, fair and objective Murray fan!

CaledonianCraig wrote: I suggest watching an array of shots Novak played yesterday against Isner and still lost and defy you to tell me there was no talent in those shots.

So you twist posters' words to disprove them? not very noble!

Well I'd say I hold far more credence, fairness and open-mindedness than you Tenez. I think that much is set in stone considering the quantity rather than quality of your posts. And please take your views onto another topic than this one as I'd rather it wasn't locked thanks.

socal1976 wrote:Of course the Tennis players all going to talk about getting fitter. That is the one thing they control. They can't come out and say I want to grow six inches so I can serve like Isner. And they aren't going to say well I have a crap backhand that I need to get better either. Which pro athletes in sports don't talk about getting fitter.

I have been watching tennis for decades and I have never ever heard tennis players talking about getting fitter as much as the players do now. Why is that so? Was their fitness not in their control that they didn't mention about it in almost every interview like today's players? Did they not play tennis and won tournaments? Ahh.. but only they didn't play the out-lasting-iron-man game of endless sea-saw rallys where neither player wants to take a chance for a risky shot because relying on fitness to keep rallying is much less risky these days.

Don't generalize 'sports' with 'tennis'. Tennis is a sport, but its not like all sports are the same.

Or perhaps simply because the sport has evolved in many ways like all sports. Of course players are fitter now and we do hear more about players preparations now as with the internet etc and other media the sport now has far more interviews/ comments/press conferences than in years gone by so you will hear more players spouting about getting fitter because it is reported more.

You want to say that because its all reported more we hear player spouting about getting fitter? If I say something you'll accuse of of throwing insults but this is real poor reasoning. I'm not saying how many times did I hear players talking about fitness, I'm saying how much they talk about it. They talk so much about it as if this is the very core reason which decides the outcome of matches these days.

What has number of reports got to do with what players speak in their interviews about getting fitter. Look at Murray's interviews after a loss when he will almost always mention about getting fitter, stronger. why?? Djo mentioning this gluten free diet and fitness. A young player Nishikori talking about getting more physical to compete with other players. Why would they talk so much about it.

Because the physicality is not a myth. Its very real.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Because the physicality is not a myth. Its very real.

BUt some simply don't want to see it rotla...so it's a waste of time.

They see Nadal crushing Murray 4 consecutive times at slams semis, then on a smaller tournament Murray bagels Nadal 3 weeks later but of course, they can;t quite understand why and praise Murray's sudden new discovered talent completly blanking Nadal's form variation affecting the score so obviously.

And they call me "blinkered".

Is that the two instances you have got - Djokovic and Murray and that suddenly becomes everyone? And the fact we have more outlets for players comments to be reported on then we will hear more comments about everything in general. I am still waiting for an explanation of what happened to this physicality factor in Indian Wells and in the WTF when Federer beat Nadal comfortably in straight sets and this with Fed knocking on the age of 30 and if you listen to some he was at deaths door this week with a cold but he still blew away Nadal.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is that the two instances you have got - Djokovic and Murray and that suddenly becomes everyone?

No. I also mentioned a young and talented player Nishikori who stresses about getting more physical. Read here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Form-And-Fitness/2011/Nishikori-Off-Season-Training.aspx

CaledonianCraig wrote: I am still waiting for an explanation of what happened to this physicality factor in Indian Wells and in the WTF when Federer beat Nadal comfortably in straight sets and this with Fed knocking on the age of 30 and if you listen to some he was at deaths door this week with a cold but he still blew away Nadal.

Whom did you listen to who said Fed was at the death's door with a cold? And why? Fed was not physically 100%, including his family, coach and also a lot of other players including WTA. Didn't you hear anything about the stomach bugs and many players suffering. Why he won in WTF and Indian wells? I can say that but not sure you'll understand it. Its not as black-and white as you like to put it. It has been said many times on 606. Its is a little complicated, I'm at work so can't do it now.

Not sure I agree with the OP.

Saw the Nadal/Federer match and in conditions that favoured Nadal, Federer took him apart. I have never seen Nadal mis-time the ball so many times and his BH up and down the line was played more centrally in the deuce court. Federer was finding the lines and the shotmaking was amazing. Simply put Nadal was out of sorts and Roger actually at times blunted his game. Federer was happy to play the loopy stuff and Nadal even struggled with that.

The final itself Federer couldn't have wished for a better opponent. Isner wasn't going to go down the baseline 15+ shot game. The FH that took Djokovic out couldn't hurt Federer. Isner looked good and it wasn't as if he played poorly. Roger just wasn't going to give anything away and Isner on his return game didn't look like he want to push Federer and was happy to take his chance with TB's like he did with Djokovic.

Simply put. An average game against Federer on all cylinders is not going to work.

The court itself was like a sponge and the fact Nadal and Djokovic both struggled seems to signal a loss of form. You don't just need lungs to win on slow surfaces. Serving above 60% and 4-5 shot rallies can win you a title.

So even a Fed not 100% fit can overcome this mystical physicality factor? Hmmm okay. Pure and simply Fed is far better positioned mentally to tackle a Nadal who is going through a slump in self belief. Fed also is approaching Nadal's serves now with a more aggressive return and even bogbrush alludes to that. Those are the accumulative reasons for Federer's change of fortunes against Nadal.

I dont buy Nadal has a slump of self-belief. Remember he was off tour (by his own choice!) for 6 weeks and his timing was probably brittle coming back to full activity. He had a relatively easy event until meeting Federer who is in great current form, so that and the bad weather for me signalled trouble regarding being match hardened timing-wise. As LK says I've never seen Nadal mistime so many FHs, some got "topped" completely which is weird for him. He'll be fine for Miami. Lets see them both firing on all cylinders before we cast better judgement on where they both are relative to each other.
But Federer is in a great current purple patch, make no mistake...and he's going to be tough to beat anywhere if he keeps this up...the only concern is whether he can sustain this physically given he's putting a fair few miles under his legs already in 2012.

lydian wrote:Lets see them both firing on all cylinders before we cast better judgement on where they both are relative to each other.

If Fed loses next time they meet, will it be accepted that it's because Fed is not firing on all cylinders? I reckon an excuse could be found for either one of them in about 90% of their matches. Tired, ill, injured, under-prepared, over-prepared, slow court, fast court, outdoor, indoor, windy, dark....

Form of the day is everyting for Fed (his timing). That's the main factor determining the Ws and Ls.

If he has a good day like he had in IW, hecan win rather effortlessly. If he struggles with his timing and has to play safer, then he is up for too much running and long rallies which will lead to his defeat, like it has so many times.

lydian wrote:Remember he was off tour (by his own choice!) for 6 weeks and his timing was probably brittle coming back to full activity.

I would disagree with this somewhat. He and Lopez won doubles yesterday and I watched the match. The timing and volleying was pretty good. Isner and Querrey tried big serves, big forehands from the baseline, yet Nadal absorbed quite a bit.

lydian wrote:He had a relatively easy event until meeting Federer who is in great current form, so that and the bad weather for me signalled trouble regarding being match hardened timing-wise. As LK says I've never seen Nadal mistime so many FHs, some got "topped" completely which is weird for him. He'll be fine for Miami. Lets see them both firing on all cylinders before we cast better judgement on where they both are relative to each other.

Leaving the Federer match aside, the Nalbandian match was a tough one for Nadal. He was two points from defeat in the second set at 4-5 0-30.

lydian wrote:But Federer is in a great current purple patch, make no mistake...and he's going to be tough to beat anywhere if he keeps this up...the only concern is whether he can sustain this physically given he's putting a fair few miles under his legs already in 2012.

Federer may ease a bit as it gets closer to RG/W/O and take some R&R.

Craig... There is no 'mystical'/'mythical' physicality factor. There is a difference between 'endurance' and 'explosiveness' training. Lydian is far more knowledgeable than I on this subject. Federer's aggressive tennis requires a different type of training vs. the endurance needed on clay. A general statement that both are 'very' fit may not convey the differences, between each. I remember a comment from Lacoste (from an old interview reel) where he says, nowadays, a better athlete makes a better tennis player, but the reverse is not necessarily always true. Do you remember Gasquet-Murray at Wimbledon?

If I may suggest, please watch RG 2011 Fedal final vs. RG 2011 Fedovic SF and you can form your own judgements.

Does this mean I am not giving credit to other players and am a 'Fedworshipper'? No, that is not the case. To me each player is unique. The current Top 4 are amazing players, and it is testament to their consistency that they seem to show up at later stages of tournaments consistently. There may be a differences between the players level of play day-to-day and environment which probably decides the outcome of a match.

ok JHM...lets just assume it was the 'usual' Nadal vs Fededer at IW then.

Timing is key for all these top players...no matter what their strategy or approach. I dont think alot of people who attack Nadal quite understand the specific technicality behind Federer's and Nadal's multi-segment strokes...the amazing utility of stretch shortening cycles in their game, which they use and rely on more than just about any other players on tour....as I described at length on another thread. If you read that and really understood actual stroke technique in the mdoern game at a deep level (to almost high coaching level) then Nadal's timing as much as Federer would be a bigger tipic of discussion on here.

Fair points LF. Yes, I wish this forum would appreciate the attributes of all the top 4 (and beyond) players not just 1 in the main.

Just to echo what lydian said. Nadal's timing against Federer was way off. I have never seen Nadal so visibly irritated then he was on Saturday. Federer clearly took his chances and was under Nadal's skin. Even when Nadal resorted to passive play, he was losing the rallies. There was a BH Federer played in the first set down the line and camera showed the bend on it and it landed in. That type of angle is something that Nadal generates on spin alone, the whole 'Banana FH' he plays. Federer played a stunning length on his BH.

I am surprised by the lack of gloating by Federer fans as for me this was much better than the WTF 2011 as it was in conditions far suited to Nadal. He is used to similar conditions on Clay in Europe. For example the conditions yesterday reminded me of Monte Carlo.

Hmmm
IW 2012 - Rafa was not match-prepared
WTF 2011 - he was not well
Wimby 2006 - he had not yet developed his grass court game
Wimby 2007 - ha still had not yet developed his grass court game
A clay court masters, can't remember which - he was tired after playing Djoko

OK, that's half his losses to Fed excused. Anyone wish to continue?

Then we can start on Fed's excuses. Opposing fans can then mock each other because 'they' always give excuses, but 'we' never do. That should be fun, that's never happened before.

Could it be that the titanic duels Nole and Rafa have fought out in recent months are taking their toll? Both were pretty dead for the last part of 2011 and it looks like the near six-hour AO final has taken a lot out of them.
You will recall that epic four-hour, three-setter the two played on clay in 09. It seemed to finish off Rafa who lost to the Sod at the French and then had to pull out of Wimbledon.
Ironically, the pair may have done themselves a favour by not making the final at IW and preserving a little puff. Not quite sure what Rafa was doing going in for the doubles, though.

It was Madrid 2009 JHM - Djokovic exhausted him in an epic before the final with Fed

You've mentioned how poorly he was during WTF 2011 and IIRC his shoulder was giving him some problems too, but I would like it noted that Murray exhausted him in the first semi before he met Fed in the final at WTF in 2010.

That is 6 out of ten losses very clearly asterixed (very frequently!!!)

Seriously, when two first class players meet, it is usual that if one is one absolutely top class form then the other's game will begin to show cracks. Of course there are times in great matches when you may have two top players both playing unbelievably at the same time but these are short spells during the match and the majority of time in those epic matches we love to remember one player is on while the other is slightly off for the bulk of the match.

lydian wrote:ok JHM...lets just assume it was the 'usual' Nadal vs Fededer at IW then.

Timing is key for all these top players...no matter what their strategy or approach.

Those are generalisations that lead no-where. You might as well say they all need a pair of legs, racquets, shorts and Tshirts too!

Nadal ' s margins are bigger. I think everybody acknowledges that nowadays....which means his timing is less crucial to an extend. Nadal can win matches with his shots not going further than the Tline. His timing will make his shots more or less loopy and deep, without affecting his chances as long as he can retrieve most shots and that the loop, short or long will still provide him a few free points as the focus from Nadal is to make sure his ball has enough rpm to make it risky to attack.

sirfredperry wrote:Could it be that the titanic duels Nole and Rafa have fought out in recent months are taking their toll? Both were pretty dead for the last part of 2011 and it looks like the near six-hour AO final has taken a lot out of them.

I am wondering that too sirfred. They are both young and brilliant and will recover but I do think that mentally, as well as physically, that match must have sucked everything from both of them. At first, I wondered whether it would take its toll on Rafa more because he was the loser in the epic struggle, but I think, especially given his character on court, he almost has nothing to lose against Nole now and that may benefit him.

The effort of holding Rafa off after an exhausting semi with Murray, and the sheer will involved to defend his title must have weakened Nole in the short term.

Murray should be thinking about really stepping up at this time and stealing a march before they both really get their mojo back.

time please wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Could it be that the titanic duels Nole and Rafa have fought out in recent months are taking their toll? Both were pretty dead for the last part of 2011 and it looks like the near six-hour AO final has taken a lot out of them.

I am wondering that too sirfred. They are both young and brilliant and will recover but I do think that mentally, as well as physically, that match must have sucked everything from both of them. At first, I wondered whether it would take its toll on Rafa more because he was the loser in the epic struggle, but I think, especially given his character on court, he almost has nothing to lose against Nole now and that may benefit him.

The effort of holding Rafa off after an exhausting semi with Murray, and the sheer will involved to defend his title must have weakened Nole in the short term.

Murray should be thinking about really stepping up at this time and stealing a march before they both really get their mojo back.

No. That's a myth!

Which bit Tenez? That's a very cryptic reply if I may say

time please wrote:Which bit Tenez? That's a very cryptic reply if I may say

I believe you two say that those long matches may have taken their physical toll on those top 2 players. Which I believe contradicts what the OP says, as for him they are all fit and fitness therefore plays no or negligent role. It's all in the head and racquet for CC.

Aah I see, I read the earlier bit of this thread earlier and so I was just really responding to JHM and sirfred with my posts - but yeah, I see I am contradicting CC

I agree fully laverfan. It is just that we have a segment of fans who would have us believe that Federer's long loaingrun against Rafa was merely down to some unfair physicality imposed by Rafael Nadal. It is akin to the Liverpool manager in the 1980's moaning how unfair Wimbledon's long ball tactics were instead of dealing with the issue at hand and trying to combat that tactic. Same goes for Roger when playing Rafa. So in short no mysterious unfair force but just a damned successful tactic was used. Now Federer is setting about combatting that.

there is a middle ground CC - one where all sorts of commentators label Rafa a physical player because (except on clay) he tends to drag his top opponents into a long physical battle.

It is certainly not 'unfair' imo, it is his style just as Fed's more aggressive play is his.

I think the point from some of the players on this forum about the topspin forehand to backhand tactic is that it demands huge physical strength from the single handed bh to continually hit balls that are spinning, very rapidly, above shoulder height and therefore playing Rafa presents a much bigger physical challenge to Fed than other players do.

I quite like their contrast in styles (or I would if Fed had got the better of Rafa a few more times ) I don't think appreciating how Rafa's game makes life awkward for Fed makes me either a 'worshipper' or 'extremist' or whatever the current mode of expression is just because you cannot really talk about the rivalry of Rafa's game without talking about the physicality of it........when I have time I will post every newspaper article I can find which mentions the exact same thing.

During the Isner-Djoko semi, at maybe 1-1 in the third, the Sky commentators speculated whether Djoko would attempt to turn the final set into a physical battle i.e. force longer rallies, rather than try to keep them short, and win through physical means rather than tennis skills.

It's legitimate approach, of course, and I'm sure it's occurred to Rafa and Djoko during other matches, as their fitness, and style of play, especially Rafa's, makes it a very viable option.

There is middle ground.

Being stubborn to hold up one end of an argument is a bit tedious. Yes there are cynical Federer fans, but most have a degree of balance.

Nadal losing was not down to lack of stamina or even sapping energy levels. Nadal stuggled to play his own brand of tennis.

Nadal's success over Federer in the past has not been due down to lung bursting rallies, but more Nadal forcing the errors and blunting Federer's game. In the early stages of their rivalry was played on Clay and Grass. Once they met on Hard Rafa was able to adapt his game from Clay to Hard.

Let's look at this match. Did anyone not see that CCFH Nadal hit past Federer in the opening game of the match? That was the biggest hint that Nadal was going to attack Federer and that is what he did.

Federer resorted to moonballing if that is what people want to say of Nadal. Federer at times moonballed him off the court. Petchey even marvelled in the power Federer generated off the SHBH behind the baseline when dealing with the looping ball.

To me yes Nadal wasn't at the races, but what I saw was a willingness to play inside the court, hence why he was stretched all over the place.

Yes time please I know of Nadal's shots to top spin that bother Federer and the physical effort that takes but if his pushing the boundaries of fitness etc helped him beat his arch rival then good luck to him.. similarly good luck to Fed if he has found ways of now combatting Nadal. However, there is those and we know who they are that don't paint it as fair and try to paint Nadal as a one-trick pony. That is what bothers me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes time please I know of Nadal's shots to top spin that bother Federer and the physical effort that takes but if his pushing the boundaries of fitness etc helped him beat his arch rival then good luck to him.. similarly good luck to Fed if he has found ways of now combatting Nadal. However, there is those and we know who they are that don't paint it as fair and try to paint Nadal as a one-trick pony. That is what bothers me.

So do you believe now that physicality is not a myth or you still believe it is?

Physicality and fitness has always been a part of tennis so to try to use that as an excuse for one player constantly beating another player is just not on in my book.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Physicality and fitness has always been a part of tennis so to try to use that as an excuse for one player constantly beating another player is just not on in my book.

That's why it's difficult to argue with you. Who's talking about "excuses"...bar you? The rest of us are just trying to explain strengths and weaknesses.....and yes, relative ones of course!

I am not going to rehash articles posted here and elsewhere as to the times it has been brought up as an excuse as they are there as are the sniping at the physical side to Nadal's game.

I know you won't cause you won't find any. It's nothing to do with what's written, it's the way it's perceived. And you perceive many things with fan's eyes. ...when most posters on V2 are essentially interested in analysing players' styles.

As LK mentioned, the Federer 'moonballs' were rather interesting, where he (or Annacone) seems to have watched quite a bit of Nadal-Djokovic matches and have begun to realise that beating Nadal takes a very close image of Nadal's game to beat him.

I will mention this once again, for the sake of emhpasis. The Nalbandian-Nadal match showed Nalbandian's ability to match Nadal and have large net clearances till the time came to pull the trigger. He made mistakes at crucial junctures (with his drop shots) otherwise the subsequent match line-up could have been different.

If we talk about Granpa Federer, than we should also talk about the 'ancient injured relic' that is Nalbandian and give him some credit, too.

If Federer had a Wawrinka or a Gasquet BH, we could have had an alternate history timeline.

laverfan wrote:If Federer had a Wawrinka or a Gasquet BH, we could have had an alternate history timeline.

mmmhhh - I think Fed's BH is at least as good as theirs....but certainly not as good as Nalbandian on bouncy courts.

So Tenez are you claiming Nadal's wins against Federer did not come about because of Nadal's talent but other forces?

I was hugely impressed to see the scoreline in the Nalbandian vs Nadal match laver - very well done to 'the ancient injured relic'!

This is getting funny. Got back from work and looked to see do I still have to reply to CC why did he win WTF and IW against Nadal, but looks like I would only be wasting words. CC has made up his mind not to get it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This is getting funny. Got back from work and looked to see do I still have to reply to CC why did he win WTF and IW against Nadal, but looks like I would only be wasting words. CC has made up his mind not to get it.

Get what? That Nadal uses top spin on shots which Federer's single-handed back-hand struggles to deal with? Nadal has a weapon that works very well in helping him to wins over Federer and that weapon needs talent and technique as well as physique but sadly some can't recognise that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Get what? That Nadal uses top spin on shots which Federer's single-handed back-hand struggles to deal with? Nadal has a weapon that works very well in helping him to wins over Federer and that weapon needs talent and technique as well as physique but sadly some can't recognise that.

No the rule is only shots Federer play take talent.
Everything else is either luck, fluke or fitness.

amritia3ee wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Get what? That Nadal uses top spin on shots which Federer's single-handed back-hand struggles to deal with? Nadal has a weapon that works very well in helping him to wins over Federer and that weapon needs talent and technique as well as physique but sadly some can't recognise that.

No the rule is only shots Federer play take talent.
Everything else is either luck, fluke or fitness.

You're aware, I presume, that that has never been the argument?

JHM, don't you realise that Amritia tends not to follow the theme of a thread? He just posts random jibes. He is also very good at spreading misinformation.

I wish you lot would stop harping on about "all the players talk about is getting fitter" etc.

If you listen to them, that's not all they say about improving their game.

"April 6, 2011: "You have to believe on the court. In the end, it’s mental. In these moments against a great champion like Rafa, you have to believe. It’s all about stepping in and taking your chances. I always believed, but it’s a process of learning."
— Novak Djokovic, who had lost five of six tiebreakers and five of six finals against Rafael Nadal before defeating him 4-6, 6-3, 7-6 (7-4) in the thrilling Sony Ericsson Open final.

OR...

""It could get into my mind. I could start thinking, 'I can't play against this guy, his game doesn't suit me'. I could start accepting the fact that I have been losing against him, but that would be a bad thing for me to do."
-- Roger Federer on Rafael Nadal.

Many of them talk about improving their service speed and accuracy and getting stronger in the head, its not all about applying more physicality into their game, but of trying to create an all round, efficient machine to tackle any situation or player. Half the battle is trying to work out which tactics to employ or when to change up during a match. Stamina and strength do not make a champion, thats a simple recipe for failure.

Your first quote is right on. When Nadal, Djoko and Murray face up, there is more to it than physique. That's for sure.

With Djoko not backing down on the physical side, the mental side, along with the relative talent play both a great role.

Regarding the second quote, Federer had the same problem with Nalby and Hewitt up to 2003 included. He says his mind was really down when he knew those guys were in his draw and was resigned to lose. That's when he decided to get stronger physically to actually get tougher mentally. There is no point being strong mentally if one is not up to the task physically. This is why we seeso many players folding when facing Nadal, Murray and Djoko.

Then came Nadal and Fed was faced again with a new physical challenge.

Stamina and strength do not make a champion, thats a simple recipe for failure.

It was a very successful recipe until Djoko managed to raise the bar physically and able to rally with Nadal. That's why we have a staggering 7/0 since those 2 met on relative equal physique.

Unfortunately federer still can't spend 5 hours playing like them. His only choice is to play short risky points. It works some days, it doesn't others but he has no other choice....and that of course has a big impact on his mental strength. He coudl reverse it v Hewitt and Nalby but against Nadal, it's simply beyond him.

It's nothing new, in a way physique was Borg, Wilander, Chang, Hewitt main weapon. When the tour caught up with them physically, they quickly dropped down the ranking as other got more weapons and similar physique.

All this will be proven again when we start to see the new generation having, imo, better weapons that most at the top, but failing now cause physically not up to the task. When they'll beef up, they will overtake them. Quicker than some think.