Tennis - Mental or Physical?

by legendkillar Mon 13 Jun 2011, 12:37 pm

I have decided to start this thread as I am anticipating more matches involving Nadal and Federer and others. Most threads tend to go down the road of the above question and I have been guilty of going off topic and I want to avoid that happening on all future threads. So I have asked the above question and I hope we can all discuss this and put our views across in a respectful and use logic or any quotes or facts to support your case. It will be interesting and I look forward to the responses. Any WUMing or digs or insults will be deleted. Enjoy Smile

May the debate begin.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 13 Jun 2011, 12:41 pm

In all honesty (like in many sports) great mental and physical conditioning is a necessity. One without the other and you will struggle. For a while Novak struggled with the physical side but not any more and Andy has struggled with the mental side but recently he has improved but yet to win a slam.

by Wooffie Mon 13 Jun 2011, 12:58 pm

Its a combination of many things and excellence on only one aspect does not make you a champion.

by socal1976 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 1:11 pm

Echo the other posters, part of what makes tennis great is that it is both very physically and very mentally demanding. Tennis is strategic, technical, physical and emotional all at the same time. A very pure form of one on one competition.

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 1:44 pm

Oh I can see the posts coming about this one...

Agree its both...its a physical sport but the scoring system is unique and mental pressure. A player in football could be 5-0 ahead and the games over. In tennis, a player can be 2 sets up in tennis (6-1 6-1, ie, 12-2) but the other player can still come back so the pressure is always on.

At the very highest level, I believe its the mind that separates the players not the body - the body after all does the minds bidding.

by dummy_half Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:18 pm

In my opinion there's really 4 interlinked components to a good player :

Physical / athletic ability
Technique (which depends on the body's ability to keep producing shots reliably, especially when tired)
Tactics (where selecting the right shots to play depends more on mental ability than physical)
Mental / psychological strength, including the ability to close out wins (something rather lacking in the WTA) and to bounce back from defeat.

Obviously the top players score highly on all four categories, with some stronger in one aspect than another (e.g. Nadal probably has the best mental strength of the top players, Federer the best technique), but ultimately a weakness in any of the above will limit how far a player will progress in the game. However, I think it is probably the tactical, mental and psychological elements of the game that set the elite players ahead of even the guys in the lower part of the top 10.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:26 pm

How can you have one without the other.... though I think I know that there will be those who will say otherwise Tennis - Mental or Physical? 590675

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:47 pm

Its the ability to stay in the moment under the most extreme pressure that separates the players at the top. You can have all the stamina and talent in the world but if you cant leverage and sustain it at the highest levels you wont be a champion. This obviously gets more differential the higher players compete as the level of pressure rises from other players, media, travel, playing more matches, more physical and mental strain of getting to more finals. Clearly many players can be strong enough mentally to win titles but its the relativity thats important. A guy winning 10 futures events in a row may lose in the 1st round of every slam as the pressure are different when they move up the pyramid to the top. In general, I think we're therefore focusing on the top players in the game with these discussions.

I think stamina, talent, tactics are all of course important and get a player to the "top table" as it were but to really succeed they need an unwavering mindset - i.e. unflinching focus on goals/victory and ability to not lapse or get distracted under pressure. This is why sports psychologists are used by many players - it gives them an edge.

by yummymummy Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:49 pm

I think it's 70% mental and 30% physical !

Todays win by Andy Murray showed that - Tsonga played
like a SilverBack Gorilla but he still lost out in the end !

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:13 pm

I think it is both.. however there is a third element which is often crucial.

MATCH-UP

Tennis moreso than any other sport that I can think of is determined to a large extent by match-up.

For example, if player A and B are both equally strong mentally and physically as deduced by their respective records on the tour, the outcome will most likely be determined by any match-up advantages.

Indeed, if one player has a huge match-up advantage over another player, thus that it allows him to play within a certain comfort zone, whilst simultaneously forcing his opponent to play closer to the margins, then said player will automatically feel mentally stronger, even if physically he is slightly over-matched.

Of-course, a case in point is the Federer-Nadal match-up on clay (and to a slightly lesser extent on other surfaces).

Rafa can play his bread and butter shot all day long - the cross-court forehand - Roger has to counter with his weaker side - the SHBH. In order to change the momentum of a rally, Roger would need to either take the ball ridiculously early (before the height becomes problematic) or stand metres behind the baseline (from where it is impossible to create the depth and power required to dictate). Even if he manages either of these, he would then need to hit the ball hard enough and with enough angle to stretch Rafa out on his forehand side, or conversely hit the down the line BH over the highest part of the net.

All of these are extremely high-risk strategies.

Ultimately, this nightmare match-up affects Roger both mentally and physically throughout the course of a match.

by yummymummy Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:37 pm

Like I saId emancipator - 70% MENTAL

zen

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:39 pm

Yes Yummy - thanks for the analysis Wink

by yummymummy Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:40 pm

emancipator wrote:Yes Yummy - thanks for the analysis

by Josiah Maiestas Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:51 pm

There isn't 1 clear winner between them

Nadal is mainly physical whereas Federer is all about accuracy and touch, which I guess he would have good mentality to produce it.

by socal1976 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 4:59 pm

Personally, I will say this, the greatest mental competitor I have seen on the tour is Jimmy Connors. I know I have mentioned him a great deal on the threads. But if you put Jimmy's heart into anyone in the top 20 today that player would win 20 slams. Connors had the ugliest groundstrokes in the history of tennis, at least since the death of the continental forehand grip. He couldn't hit a serve over 100 miles an hour if his life depended on it. He was quick but not really fast like Nadal or Borg. He wasn't tall, didn't have particularly great hands. Yet, the man is among the handful of greatest players ever. And it all comes down to the mentality. Connors is proof that in tennis you can win by just being mentally stronger than your opposition. he was also a grade a pr***.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:16 pm

Socal I cannot believe that anyone could not say that Nadal has incredible mental strength of any player I have ever seen.. as well as being physical... I would put Nadal against Connors any day of the week. Connors as good as he was .. was prone to tantrums and temper as McEnroe and Agasssi would testify. He played too much to the crowd to be completely mentally focussed.
Connors was a showman.. as well as a brilliant tennis player. He loved the limelight and the attention. I would not put him in the same category as Nadal

by yummymummy Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:21 pm

Do you know folks ? The ONE tennis player I would stake my
life on (if necessary) would have been Hewitt !

That never say die and *don;t give up* attitude was very
refreshing Hug

by socal1976 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:29 pm

Nadal, is a great competitor haddie, but compare him physically and athletically to jimmy connors. Jimmie had literally nothing. Nadal had a better serve, is taller, is faster, hits the ball harder. Yet with all of these things going Jimmy connors is easily one of the 10 greatest tennis players of all time. Just look at Jimmy's body and nadal's. connors made a grandslam final at nearly 40, in the mid 90s when the rest of the players were serving in the 200kph and connors couldn't serve as hard as I could. The fact that he had tantrums and was a real jerk added to his persona and his ability to win. When you played jimmy especially in new york at the USO you knew you were in for a mental and physical battle.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:35 pm

Thats not what you said Socal you said Jimmy Connors was a great mental competitor... I disagree totally... you obviously remember a different Connors to the one I remember in that regard. He was in deed a great tennis player but I believe he could have been even better he was more than a jerk on court (and I liked him) But the mental strength to win (or rather not to lose) I would still put him up against Nadal- Agree to disagree me thinks. Exerpt from Wikapedia

His on-court antics, designed to get the crowd involved, both helped and hurt his play. Schwartz said, "While tennis fans enjoyed Connors' gritty style and his never-say-die attitude, they often were shocked by his antics. His sometimes vulgar on-court behavior—like giving the finger to a linesman after disagreeing with a call or strutting about the court with the tennis racket handle between his legs; sometimes he would yank on the handle in a grotesque manner and his fans would go wild or groan in disapproval—did not help his approval rating. During the early part of his career, Connors frequently argued with umpires, linesmen, the players union, Davis Cup officials and other players. He was even booed at Wimbledon – a rare show of disapproval there—for snubbing the Parade of Champions on the first day of the Centenary in 1977."^[6] His brash behavior both on and off the court earned him a reputation as the brat of the tennis world. Tennis commentator Bud Collins nicknamed Connors the "Brash Basher of Belleville" after the St Louis suburb where he grew up.^[7] But Connors himself thrived on the energy of the crowd, positive or negative, and manipulated and exploited it to his advantage in many of the greatest matches of his career.

by socal1976 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 5:54 pm

Haddie, i agree that Nadal is a great competitor. But Jimmy, hands down in terms of mental toughness. Jimmy was not only mentally tough, he had something that Nadal doesn't have. He could get inside his opponents heads and psyche them out with his antics. Jimmy connors playing to the crowd and creating disturbances often resulted in his opponents falling apart not jimmy. His last run at nearly 40 in the US open shows how he basically played everyone, his opponents, the officials, the fans. He won it on sheer guts.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:04 pm

Yes well as I say Socal that is your memories of him. Its not mine and Ill hand it to you for being such a great fan.But if I agree with you then we will both be wrong Very Happy

I still say that Nadal is the most mentally strong player Ive ever seen.and you dont think HE has got inside some oponents heads.. come on I can name a few !!!

Anyway enough Socal... we wont change each other´s mind so Tennis - Mental or Physical? 3610695981

by braveheart101 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:23 pm

[quote="Haddie-nuff"
I still say that Nadal is the most mentally strong player Ive ever seen.and you dont think HE has got inside some oponents heads.. come on I can name a few !!!

I'd say its about 60% physical and 40% mental. Murray, at the start of his career, wasn't physically strong enough unlike Nadal. Now he is one of the fittest players on tour but still lacks mentally. He obviously has the game to beat any of the top players but is reluctant to play an attacking game alot of the time but rather just waits for his opponent to make mistakes. I remember how he played when he beat Nadal in US Open semi 3 years ago and am amazed he doesn't always play that type of match so that has to come down to the fact that he isn't mentally strong enough.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:23 pm

Like there are different aspects of being physical (stamina, agility, powerful, explosiveness etc....), there are different aspect of mental strengths (gutsy, tenacious, bold or courageous, etc...). One may have stamina and less power and others may be gutless but tenacious.

It is important to understand those differences before arguing over the original post.

by socal1976 Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:27 pm

Haddie, cheers, again Rafa is certainly inside a few players heads (ahum, Federer) and he is a great competitor no doubt. But athletically and physically he is so much more talented, and even technically as a tennis player he is so much more gifted than Jimmy. But I agree I won't change your mind, and that is fine by me. Lets just say that both of them were great competitors, nadal in my mind no doubt is the toughest mental competitor, today.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:29 pm

braveheart101 wrote:
I'd say its about 60% physical and 40% mental. Murray, at the start of his career, wasn't physically strong enough unlike Nadal. Now he is one of the fittest players on tour but still lacks mentally. He obviously has the game to beat any of the top players but is reluctant to play an attacking game alot of the time but rather just waits for his opponent to make mistakes. I remember how he played when he beat Nadal in US Open semi 3 years ago and am amazed he doesn't always play that type of match so that has to come down to the fact that he isn't mentally strong enough.

Exactly! And there is no point one can be mentally strong without being phyiscally prepared. This is exactly what we saw with Djokovic's recent transformation.

Once you know you can last the distance and not afraid of running long rallies with Nadal, then you get strategic options that were no available before. Djoko could win before versus Nadal but he had to have a good day at the office and lots of pression on those crucial points he was given. Now he has less pressure on those cause he is physically better prepared and know he can get other opportunities in the rally, in the game or in the set.

Huge difference!

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 6:34 pm

Tenez wrote:Like there are different aspects of being physical (stamina, agility, powerful, explosiveness etc....), there are different aspect of mental strengths (gutsy, tenacious, bold or courageous, etc...). One may have stamina and less power and others may be gutless but tenacious.

It is important to understand those differences before arguing over the original post.

No one is arguing... Tenez Ill leave that to you

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 8:40 pm

There is no relation what so ever with physicality and mental strength, totally different things. Some players past and present were and are just mentally tougher than others. Nadal, Borg, Sampras to name a few showed these characteristics throughout their careers. For his ability to run away with matches, Federer has shown time and again, mentally he is not as tough. Often crumbles under pressure too often in tight situations.

by legendkillar Mon 13 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:There is no relation what so ever with physicality and mental strength, totally different things. Some players past and present were and are just mentally tougher than others. Nadal, Borg, Sampras to name a few showed these characteristics throughout their careers. For his ability to run away with matches, Federer has shown time and again, mentally he is not as tough. Often crumbles under pressure too often in tight situations.

Really? So if someone has fitness and can't be bothered to use it, that is not a connection between the mental and physical side of things?

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 8:49 pm

Tenez wrote: It is important to understand those differences before arguing over the original post.

People on this forum have opinions and are free to express them - they dont need to be told how, where and when they can express them.

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 8:54 pm

Some might argue that mental is an extension of physical (after all the brain is a physical entity), other might say physical is an extension of mental (the brain tells the body what to do).

Strength in either accentuates the other. Surely this is all common-sense though? At the highest level (say top 5) these guys are all strong physically and mentally, its only under the very severest pressures that we see the differences exhibited - and I believe the differences that count to be largely mental. Or conversely, I think the more 'basic' physical and skill differences differentiate players lower down the batting order, mental differences lower down can be overridden by larger gaps in skills and fitness.

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 8:56 pm

Legendkiller, what do you mean? I just said physicality and mental toughness are two different things.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 9:49 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:There is no relation what so ever with physicality and mental strength, totally different things. Some players past and present were and are just mentally tougher than others. Nadal, Borg, Sampras to name a few showed these characteristics throughout their careers. For his ability to run away with matches, Federer has shown time and again, mentally he is not as tough. Often crumbles under pressure too often in tight situations.

Have you seen Nadal win a match when injured, even very slightly injured? If anything he is in panic mode if there is an extra layer of bandage aroung his foot. Take Nadal's muscle coat away, like in Fall 2009 and watch him lose every single set v top 10 players..(bar an injured Tsonga of course). I did not see much mental toughness then nor did he have the mental strength to enter Wimbledon in 2009 because he was not 110%. The last 2 matches he had played was a destruction of Hewitt in 3 sets and a good close battle v SOd at the FO. Nothing really alarming, yet he refused to defend his title.

Federer last year entered Wimbledonwith a groing injury and managed to reach teh quarter final. That is talent andmental toughness.

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 9:59 pm

Tenez wrote:Take Nadal's muscle coat away

Go on, admit it, you love Nadal really dont you?

With comments like that any objectivity you have in talking about Nadal is completely lost.

Besides which, what is this mysterious "muscle coat" when Federer and Nadal are both 6'1' tall and weigh 85kgs? Please explain.

Everytime I see Nadal without a shirt on I think, wow - what a muscle coat. Not.

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:07 pm

So what do you make of Federer pulling out of Halle then over a groin? Lack of talent and mental toughness?
Have I seen Nadal beat any player when injured? Many times and for panicking over a bandage, didn't stop him thrashing Federer many times even with a bandage.
You seem to lack an understanding of mental toughness.

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:08 pm

So what do you make of Federer pulling out of Halle then over a groin? Lack of talent and mental toughness?
Have I seen Nadal beat any player when injured? Many times and for panicking over a bandage, didn't stop him thrashing Federer many times even with a bandage.
You seem to lack an understanding of mental toughness.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:09 pm

How do you know they re 85kg each? DOn't tell me you are looking at the ATP stats, are you? Look at Serena's and Sharapova's, lighter than Tinkerbell.....if you were to believe the hype.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:13 pm

So what do you make of Federer pulling out of Halle then over a groin? Lack of talent and mental toughness?

I make it "Wimbledon focus"

Have I seen Nadal beat any player when injured?

examples? Wimbledon 2010 v Petzchner maybe? Laugh

Another example of Nadal's dubious mental toughness...looking for gamesmanship at a crucial moment.

And some wonder why I am not a big fan?

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:20 pm

And some wonder why I am not a big fan? Tennis - Mental or Physical? 3497602689

Well would you believe THAT

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:22 pm

You want me to dig up for you? Don't have the time. And is it some sort of morale victory that a player wins injured? Strange.
You using Wimbledon and dismissing halle as it doesn't fit your bill. After the thrashing Berdych gave Federer at SW19, may be he should stay at home next time.

by Haddie-nuff Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:26 pm

By point of interest Rafa never defended his title at Wimbledon.. had nothing to do with injury or being beaten by THE SOD it was nothing other than he went home to where he was needed his mother and father had separated and were divorcing. He thought it more important . OH ye with a selectiive memory.

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:33 pm

Dont go on about Nadal's "dubious mental toughness" when he has the best 5-set record of all time and Federer is languishing down in 92nd place. Completely laughable logic as usual.

It would seem "dubious" reflects your interpretation of facts Laugh

by legendkillar Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:35 pm

Putting the Fognini issue to one side. When we talk of players pulling out of tournaments due to injuries or fatigue doesn't impact on credibility of physical or mental toughness. It's the players that decide whether they are able to give 100%. Ask any player and they will want to face a player playing at 100%, not 85% or 50%.

SA. i wasn't asking about the relation of physical and mental strength. This thread is to decide on opinion what makes a tennis player successful. Which of the 2 contributes the most.

by Simple_Analyst Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:44 pm

Federer 92nd of 5 set matches? Not suprising and says it all doesn't it? A bit of a mental midget under pressure. I bet the likes of Sampras, Borg, Connor to name a few are some where near the top.

by lydian Mon 13 Jun 2011, 10:46 pm

Tenez wrote:How do you know they re 85kg each? DOn't tell me you are looking at the ATP stats, are you?

And you know what they "actually" weigh by what reasoning Tenez?
Dont tell me...you're watching 2 same size TV sets and comparing them right? Laugh

by icecold Mon 13 Jun 2011, 11:39 pm

legendkillar wrote:I have decided to start this thread as I am anticipating more matches involving Nadal and Federer and others. Most threads tend to go down the road of the above question and I have been guilty of going off topic and I want to avoid that happening on all future threads. So I have asked the above question and I hope we can all discuss this and put our views across in a respectful and use logic or any quotes or facts to support your case. It will be interesting and I look forward to the responses. Any WUMing or digs or insults will be deleted. Enjoy

May the debate begin.

One of the reasons I love tennis is that to be very good requires you to have a wide variety of physical and mental skills and even the tiniest chinks in the armour can be punished ruthlessly by an astute and talented opponent. So IMO the short answer to the question is you cannot afford to have any major mental or physical weaknesses if you want to get to the top.

Having said that, you can be mentally as hard as nails but if you don't move well or have poor hand eye co-ordination then you will get absolutely nowhere. The reverse isn't true. Some physically talented but very flaky players can have days when they are switched on and wipe the floor with even the best overall players. Players like Gulbis, Monfils, Gasquet and Safin spring to mind as physically talented but mentally brittle players.

What cannot be ignored is the link between a healthy body and a healthy mind. Having the feeling that you are fitter, faster and stronger than all of your opponents helps you to relax and stay calm in matches and gives a tremendous boost to confidence. We have all seen in Djokovic this year how improved confidence and the ability to stay calm in important moments can take a great player's game to an almost unbeatable higher level.

We also saw it in a young and somewhat under-achieving Federer that once he started to take his fitness seriously, his mental strength improved and the tournament wins followed.

Federer’s 2000 season—his second as a professional—taught him the bitter lesson that spectacular strokes and talent by themselves weren’t enough to win tournaments and get to the top. He had to work on his physical fitness. Although fitness training was something he didn’t particularly like, he hired a fitness coach, Pierre Paganini, an old acquaintance from his time with the Swiss Tennis Federation at Ecublens, to join Lundgren as part of his team. Training with the 43-year-old Paganini 100 days a year proved to be a stroke of luck.

The bald, bespectacled man (Paganini) was a former soccer player as well as a smart, professional and unobtrusive worker—and he quickly deduced what Federer was lacking.

“Athletically, he had great shortcomings. There was enormous potential for improvement, especially in legwork and body building,” Paganini recalled. “His problem was that his enormous talent allowed him to cover up his athletic shortcomings.” At the same time, however, he also had to defend his position in the world rankings and he could not afford to just work on basic conditioning. “I had a time table of three years to bring him up to the best physical condition.”

Paganini’s goal, however, was not to transform Federer into a muscle-man. “A tennis player is not a sprinter, a marathon runner or a shot-put thrower,” he said. “But he does have to have something from all of them and he does have to be able to summon all of these qualities when playing.” Because Federer was a creative player who often improvised many different shots during a match, he had to be able to execute many different movements, unlike a player like Hewitt, who tended to play the same style and hit the same type of shots repeatedly. Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a “coordinated creativity,” high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play. “Roger couldn’t be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons,” Paganini said.

Every day brought fresh challenges for Paganini to keep the young firebrand’s morale high. “Roger is not a workaholic that you can hit 3,000 backhands to and he hits them and feels good doing it. Training has to be fun for Roger,” said Lundgren.
“He wants to work hard but he needs a lot of variety,” Paganini said. “He has to see that an exercise is useful to him. He is an artist. If you motivate him, then he turns into a training animal.”

In Biel in December of 2000, Federer received a two-week preview of what his new training work would entail. Paganini developed special exercises for him that he termed “integrated fitness training.” Federer, for example, ran on the side of the court until he was exhausted and then immediately ran back onto the court to play tennis. “The natural reflexes and all the bad habits that are the hardest to break kick in when one is in an exhausted state,” Paganini said, explaining his method. “And then the coach goes to work on them.”

While many tennis players only concentrated on building fitness in December, the only tournament-free month of the year, Federer punctually worked on his fitness training the entire year. Paganini was immediately enthused by the professional dedication shown by his protégé. “He was really motivated for such exercises and this surprised me,” he said. “But he is, after all, a natural athlete.” Paganini, who called Federer “naturally coordinated,” said Federer accepted the fact that fitness work and practicing would not always be fun. “He noticed that he was there to acquire something that would later serve him on the tennis court.”

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

Federer found it easy to motivate himself for these goal-oriented training sessions because they broke up the routine. “Just a little bit of change does me a lot of good,” he said. “Once I’m out on the court, I don’t have any problem getting motivated. If I want to be No. 1, I have to give my all in training.” Thanks to Paganini, he understood why he was training so hard. He quickly noticed that his improved fitness was helping him to increase his self-confidence. “I feel mentally really good because I know that I am physically prepared and that I can compete,” he said after the first extended training session with Paganini.

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

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004

by legendkillar Mon 13 Jun 2011, 11:44 pm

Welcome to the forum icecold Smile

Enjoy the debates.

Some good analysis thumbsup

by icecold Mon 13 Jun 2011, 11:46 pm

legendkillar wrote:Welcome to the forum icecold

Enjoy the debates.

Some good analysis

Thanks. I finally got around to joining and I am glad I did. There seem to be some nice debates going on here.

See you around.

by Tenez Mon 13 Jun 2011, 11:56 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:By point of interest Rafa never defended his title at Wimbledon.. had nothing to do with injury or being beaten by THE SOD it was nothing other than he went home to where he was needed his mother and father had separated and were divorcing. He thought it more important . OH ye with a selectiive memory.

That's a good one! Never heard that excuse before. So the warm up at Queens v Wawrinka was on the other hand more important than his parents divorce and Wimbledon?

by Tenez Tue 14 Jun 2011, 12:00 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:.
You using Wimbledon and dismissing halle as it doesn't fit your bill.

You comparing Halle with Wimbledon certainly deprive me of ammunitions.

by legendkillar Tue 14 Jun 2011, 12:07 am

Tenez wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:By point of interest Rafa never defended his title at Wimbledon.. had nothing to do with injury or being beaten by THE SOD it was nothing other than he went home to where he was needed his mother and father had separated and were divorcing. He thought it more important . OH ye with a selectiive memory.

That's a good one! Never heard that excuse before. So the warm up at Queens v Wawrinka was on the other hand more important than his parents divorce and Wimbledon?

I thought Nadal pulled out of the Queens in 2009?

by Sponsored content