The Strength of Eras debate put to rest.

1 - In general, the latest era is the strongest but won't be as strong as tomorrow's. No player today woudl be as good if they hadn't played and trained versus the previous generation. That applies to Federer, Djoko, Nadal and everybody else.
2 - #1 is true only if the the number of players worldwide (from club level to top professionals) remains the same or increase. IF the pool of players (even at club level drops), it's almost certain, the overall level will drop.
3 - (for Socal) - An era's strength can be characterised by a strength in talent, fitness and technique. Today what makes this era "strong" is their fitness level which can essentially be attributed to science (and their team...more than the player). We know this cause not so long ago we thought Nadal was a physical phenomenon but now we can see that Djoko and Murray - who both were not particular athletes in their youth - can rival phyiscally with Nadal). In terms of technique and talent, Nadal, Murray and Djoko are certainly not stronger than many of the past players but they largely make it up by their amazing court coverage and stamina. There are a lot of players who can strike the ball as well but not many can produce over the distance cause it requires great composure to execute great shot over the distance and as soon as the body starves of O2, the execution drops.
4 - When all players in a couple of years will be as fit as Nadal and Djoko, then the talented players will shine through and expose the "weakness of today's era as being essentially "physical". Djoko has this year with his relative talent clearly exposed the limited skills of Nadal. For now, essentially due to the slow conds, it's the physical players that can consistently get to the last rounds of slams.
5 - #4 explains why youngsters take longer to shine through. They might be more talented but physically it's a very tough world out there. It's become like cycling where the top racers are 24 and over.

In summary, yes there are 3 or 4 players who are strong physically at the top but besides Federer and rare others, the top players are not that great technically. They can't do magic things with the ball except retrieving balls that were not reachable in the past, but since they spend 35 hours per week in the gym instead of on the court, it's clear we are bound to see physical exploit more than technical/talent ones.

I thought I'd re-post this here to highlight the fallacy that we are going through a particularly strong.

I watched the entire match (Davy v Nole)

Davy started off shakily and throughout the match couldn't find any consistency.

However, there were stretches of play were Kolya hugged the baseline and sent Nole sprawling and stretching in total retrieval mode. As is his MO, Kolya took the ball early and took time away from Djokovich. Unfortunately Kolya has no confidence in his second serve at the moment and therefore was rolling in his first serve at around 105 mph. He was basically playing all his service games from a neutral start.

He was also making a lot of uncharacteristic errors. Kolya used to be so solid, hardly ever giving away cheap errors. Nole was steady, nothing spectacular. It;s obvious that he doesn't enjoy playing Kolya because of the latter's ability to dictate rallies and go toe to toe from the baseline.

This match highlighted the ignorance of posters who claim that Kolya is a product of a 'weak era'. Kolya is a fantastic talent, similar to Agassi in his innate ability to take the ball early and use of angles to open up the court. Unfortunately for Kolya he hasn't been the same player since his wrist surgery in early 2010. If the Kolya of 05-09 had played last night, this match would have been a toss up.. it was obvious to me, watching this match, who has the greater technical ability, and it wasn't Djoko. Djoko essentially used his great retrieval skills to draw errors from Kolya.

Davydenko prefectly descibes the case I mention above. Technically, amazing talent. Half the weight of Nadal but the use of his every pound is beautiful to dismantle Nadal's power and stamina. Nalbandian could be even better technically but his mobility is just too bad nowadays.

Before we get started some body tell me. If Djokovic has exposed recently the apparent limited skill of Nadal, what has Nadal been doing to Federer all these years? Surely exposing his lack of proper skill and poor technique expecially on the backhand ?

has exposed recently the apparent limited skill of Nadal, what has Nadal been doing to Federer all these years?
-----------------------------------
He has exposed Federer's lack of power and stamina in this slow and physical era.

Nothing woudl have been exposed had the conds stayed fast like in the 90s. Federer has constantly inflicted lessons to Nadal in Shanghai and London despite pace being average.

I agree Tenez.

The slow conditions have really hurt Federer.

In faster conditions he would be able to use his entire arsenal to full effect. The racket and string technology allows the players of today to play entirely from the baseline, and because the conditions are so slow, this is the ONLY effective strategy today.

However, if conditions were faster, similar to the nineties, the players could still play from the back of the court, but it would also ensure that net play and volleying is also a fruitful tactic.

There is noone on the tour who could integrate both tactics as seamlessly as Federer.

I have no doubt that in another era federer would have been one of the all time great net players, given that that would have been his regular game. Fed beat Sampras s&v on 1st and 2nd serves on the fast W grass, when Sampras was the defending champ. Fed even won W 2003 with s&v tennis.

1. The slower conditions have not hurt federer at all as they started slowing the conditions before Roger won a single slam, Roger has won every single one of his grandslams on slowed down conditions. He is a physically fit as anyone, I don't ever think I have seen the guy tired in a match and in his prime he was as fast as a gazelle. He won almost as many matches with his speed and footwork as with his serve and forehand.

2. Players get judged on results the late 90s early 2000s were complete failures when compared to number ones that held the ranking prior to their rise and the players dominating today. An era that has a large number of one slam wonders and transitional number 1s is the definition of a weak era and it describes exactly the situation we had in the late 90s and early 2000s.

3. Tenez is correct the level of play in tennis does over time go up as in most sports, however this progress is not lineal. Sometimes the talent takes two steps forward and one step back. The early 2000 players represent the step back. It is like the stock market in the longterm it always goes up, but it doesn't always go up every day, or every month, or every year, or even every 5 or 10 years.

Federer's lack of power and stamina? ROFL. So the first 7 meetings between those two with a head to head of 6-1 meant a barely 20 year old Nadal was exposing a physically primed Federer? Should we dig out his physical regime again?
Since 17 nadal has been exposing Federer's lack of skill and technique.

socal1976 wrote:1. The slower conditions have not hurt federer at all as they started slowing the conditions before Roger won a single slam, Roger has won every single one of his grandslams on slowed down conditions. He is a physically fit as anyone, I don't ever think I have seen the guy tired in a match and in his prime he was as fast as a gazelle. He won almost as many matches with his speed and footwork as with his serve and forehand.

2. Players get judged on results the late 90s early 2000s were complete failures when compared to number ones that held the ranking prior to their rise and the players dominating today. An era that has a large number of one slam wonders and transitional number 1s is the definition of a weak era and it describes exactly the situation we had in the late 90s and early 2000s.

3. Tenez is correct the level of play in tennis does over time go up as in most sports, however this progress is not lineal. Sometimes the talent takes two steps forward and one step back. The early 2000 players represent the step back. It is like the stock market in the longterm it always goes up, but it doesn't always go up every day, or every month, or every year, or even every 5 or 10 years.

I agree with statemant 3, i'm not sure about statement 2.

Disagree with the first statement. Roger would have won all of those slams and more if the conditions of the nineties prevailed. Like I said, he is the best equipped to combine both an effective baseline game and an effective net game. Faster conditions would have served to provide him with more options for beating his opponents. I don't believe for a moment that Nadal would have beaten Federer at W 08 if the courts had had played like nineties courts.

The same 90s court where the likes of Kafelnikov; the fast grass court guru was having him for breakfast?

Glad to see a refreshing, new debate - don't think we've had a weak era argument for.....hours.
Before you know it everyone will be contributing something original - socal will be saying the early 2000s were weak, S_A will be saying 2003-2007 were weak and Tenez will be saying 'Rafa's physical game'.
Can I be the first to add "35 year old Agassi", "laundry list", "shank" and "Nadull"?

Does anyone really think that they can change anyone else's mind? And why would you want to?

Simple_Analyst wrote:The same 90s court where the likes of Kafelnikov; the fast grass court guru was having him for breakfast?

Yes when Roger was 18 yrs old, and even then it was 7-5, 7-5, 7-6

emancipator wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:The same 90s court where the likes of Kafelnikov; the fast grass court guru was having him for breakfast?

Yes when Roger was 18 yrs old, and even then it was 7-5, 7-5, 7-6

It is true that right from the start, Roger Federer stood out as a natural talent on lightning fast surfaces .....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=B397

... and this is clearly why he excelled against the likes of Henman on fast surfaces right from the start of his career ......

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=H336


Federer didn't start to become a consistent threat for major titles until:

a) He started weight training with Pierre Paganini one hundred days a year with the aim to be the fittest, fastest and strongest tennis player out there.

b) He switched to a more forgiving racquet to, in his own words, stop him shanking so much.

c) He was one of the first to switch to the (at the time) new Luxilon polyester strings that allow you to hit harder and generate more topsin.

d) The conditions slowed down to allow him to dominate from the baseline.

Just exposes the limited material that can be conjured up for debate.

606v1 -> 606v2, but the usual antagonisms are still there.

Fedal are passe now.

Did anyone watch Christina McHale or Sloane Stephens, or the Azarenka-Williams or Petrova-Stosur match?

I watched what I could of the Willams match, but Azarenko's echoing howls drove me out of the room. I swear she was still shrieking when Williams was hitting the ball.

Did anyone catch Federer's interview on Sky by where he said that the top 4 where more talented that the rest of the field and individual charateristics that separate them from the rest? I thought it was a great insight from how a player of his stature was able to perceive it in such away without being boastful.

As for the women, the day they stop screeching, I might watch.

In terms of Era's and depth again it is down to how the game has evolved. Comparisons are fruitless really.

legendkillar wrote:Did anyone catch Federer's interview on Sky by where he said that the top 4 where more talented that the rest of the field and individual charateristics that separate them from the rest? I thought it was a great insight from how a player of his stature was able to perceive it in such away without being boastful.

As for the women, the day they stop screeching, I might watch.

In terms of Era's and depth again it is down to how the game has evolved. Comparisons are fruitless really.

But federer use the word "talent" for diplomacy cause what he keeps saying at every question on his interviews is that the game is much more physical now. This is how he also explained why guys like Gasquet never delivered on their promising talent.

Also I would like to point out that if 2003-2007 was so weak, how is that players like Fish, Ferrer, Melzer being a number of players who 'late' in their careers who have made the 10? How about players like Nalby, Ljubicic and Ferrero who have made runs back into the top 20 over the last year in the latter stages of their careers? Does that make this era weak?

legendkillar wrote: How about players like Nalby, Ljubicic and Ferrero who have made runs back into the top 20 over the last year in the latter stages of their careers? Does that make this era weak?

Ljubicic at 31 beating a peak Nadal in 2010! Considering that Ljubo is half as mobile as Nadal, what made up for that sluggishness and allowed him to win?

And it was certainly not a one off as Ljubo actually gave another lesson to Nadal on his home soil a few years back but was only saved by Nadal's lungs and a crowd lifting the roof up.

But guys like Socal, don;t see that. They look at teh H2H or scorevboard and draw the wrong conclusions.

My original post doesn't try to prove that this era is poor. As said overall it is the strongest so far but but its strength comes from some modern science which allows the top players to play at a physical level never seen before. It's just a question of time before those physical advantages are spread to the rest of teh ATP. Fanboys see their champions win and don;t want to see the team and science behind. They don;t want to question why a player who was famous for struggling physically in almost all slams becomes suddenly one of the fittest player around and they prefer to attribute the success of their man to his improved serving...even if he carries a shoulder injury!

True; I was watching the other day and they described the octagional strings that now allow control AND loose stringing, something that up tio now was impossible.

But of course when we watch them on court hitting balls that weren't possible before, some on here think this means we're in a Golden era of talent.

Golden Era of Retirements and mug match ups is the best we're going to get for now. Even the WTA has more going for it in terms of talent.

Thing is Tenez, you'll never put it to rest while people have such deep personal needs to elevate one era above another in a vain attempt to elevate their heroes achievements above their prima facia value.

Think what socal would have to handle if he just looked at 3 Slams and took it from there.

Yes bog,

apparently Djokovic has proved this era is the greatest, by elevating himself above 2 of the all time greats. Seems he's never heard of Lendl!

This is true. It seems to me like achievements like Ivans 7 (SEVEN) successive US Open finals just gets lost in the rush to annoint whoever is the latest big thing to Godhood.

Lendl is so far ahead of Djokovic in the greatness stakes that it isn't even a discussion.

Agree - Lendl had some serious competition back then throughout the 80s.
He would have been a monster in this era with his powerful baseline game - his forehand even by todays standards was huge. People forget how good the guy was and the level/depth of competition he had.

There is no era debate to put to rest because for me this is no era debate, all era's (whatever they are) are different, times changes and there are pro- and counter arguments for them all being good or bad. As I've said a few times, if you took Federer or Nadal out of 03-10, it would look a pretty average span of tennis - similar to taking Sampras and Agassi out of the 90-02.

I also agree with icecold above...lets not forget Federer was trained to be a gym-rat like the rest, he's been as much a benefactor of the slow-conditions era as anyone else. Being brought up on clay like Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray (Barcelona academy) has suited his game to slower conditions perfectly - after all, look at Fed's success on the slow clay of Hamburg for example! (he did struggle against a few fast courters, e.g. Henman before Tim was 30 yr old)

bogbrush wrote:Thing is Tenez, you'll never put it to rest while people have such deep personal needs to elevate one era above another in a vain attempt to elevate their heroes achievements above their prima facia value.

Think what socal would have to handle if he just looked at 3 Slams and took it from there.

Sure, though I was not trying to convince the fanboys. Just saying that this strong / weak era is a myth. The day people stops playing the game then we will look back and talk about strong and weak eras.

lydian wrote:
I also agree with icecold above...lets not forget Federer was trained to be a gym-rat like the rest, he's been as much a benefactor of the slow-conditions era as anyone else. Being brought up on clay like Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray (Barcelona academy) has suited his game to slower conditions perfectly - after all, look at Fed's success on the slow clay of Hamburg for example! (he did struggle against a few fast courters, e.g. Henman before Tim was 30 yr old)

Fed never based his tennis on his fitness. He only started to work hard on his fitness when he realised that his talent without the fitness wasn;t going to lead him anywhere. That's teh difference with guys like Hewitt and Nadal who developed their game to impose to their opponent a physical challenge. Can you spot the difference? Fed's game is about winning the point as quickly as possible. This is why he managed to stay relativeley healthy over the years.

To say that he benefited from the slow conds is absurd. Who frankly would have dominated the 2003- 2007 era if the conds were fast? Stepanek? Llodra?

Tenez wrote:when he realised that his talent without the fitness wasn;t going to lead him anywhere.

Yes! Talent without fitness is worthless as is fitness without talent. All it tells us is that in the modern era you need extreme talent AND fitness to be a top pro. To argue anything else is simply farsical - pro-tennis is about winning matches - not about esoteric levels of potential talent. It doesnt count for much if a player has wonderful talent but loses more matches than his rivals. Winning is the talent! How many more times...

Federer is quite adept on fast surfaces, but thats not the point here. The point is that the game has greatly slowed since early 2000s and the surfaces have homogenised allowing players adept at slower conditions to excel across all surfaces. As Federer's major successes have been during the "slow" years and he was brought up on clay it doesnt take Einstein to work out the slower conditions havent been a disaster for him.

Also, regarding fitness and longevity we know Federer has an efficient style but he has still trained very hard to recover and endure well, he's also used machines/device to help him recover between matches. Also, you say he's remained healthy - yes he has but its hardly translated into winning slams across years that is anything outstanding in terms of longevity. His peak period of 2004-2010 really isnt anything unusual compared to previous top players. Sampras and Agassi had success over longer periods, as have many other previous greats. What is your point Tenez other than your usual physical/talent diatribe?

lydian wrote:All it tells us is that in the modern era you need extreme talent AND fitness to be a top pro.

Actually no. In 2002/3 Hewitt was not an extreme talent but was an extremely fit guy and it was enoug to dominate then. At that time, Federer had to be close to Hewitt's fitness to beat him. Actually he did not have to but it certainly made things easier being able to rally with him and not having to rush for winners. Nadal is doing what Hewitt did in 2003. But he did not push the talent bar higher....just the physical one. As I mentioned enough times, Nadal has brought the game to new physical levels not only in terms of stamina but also being able to hit the ball as hard and, as Federer says, with safe margins. giving his opponent not a tough ball to send back, but a tough ball to attack, therefore engaging in rallies or forcing the suicidal shot.

You would have a hard time convincing me, and anyone who knows what it takes to hit flat and to hit top spin that Nadal has talent. Maybe he has, but he is not using it much. That's not what Toni asks him to do.

Here's is a tennis coach's view on top spin vs. flat hitting
http://tennis.about.com/od/strategysinglesdoubles/a/4safeaggressive.htm

Are there other links anyone can find about the relative merits/difficulties?

So the coach thinks it takes more skill and talent to hit topspin than flat. Any sensible person should know this. No wonder Nadal loves his topspin. He knows no one can match his execution of it.

I can't believe this guy is a coach!

Executing a topspin stroke is more difficult than hitting flat, so there's more risk of a mis-hit, and if you generate less topspin than you intend, you'll probably hit long.

That cannot be more wrong actually. Hitting flat is much harder cause if you don;t hit the ball perfectly (not too hard,, not too soft) you either send it long or in the net, plus there is a big difference if you hit it in the sweet spot or slightly outside. Whereas you can even mishit topspinning, chances are the ball will still land in teh court...like Borg and Nadal experience(d) so many times.

This is why we teach the kids to top spin. No one can teach a kid to hit flat like Davenport or Davydenko....that;s simply sheer talent.

Tenez, you may not believe he's a coach, but it does rather seem as though he is. If he's that wrong, it should be fairly easy to find other coaches writing online who disagree with him - do you want to do that, or would you like me to try?

Am I correct in saying Del Potro hits flatter than Federer?

And to prove that this coach is a joke he then says to take the ball early. Now go and topspin a ball early after the bounce and have fun!

Amazing what you can find on the net nowadays. I am going to call myself the new IMF boss from now on. Maybe some will believe me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Tenez, you may not believe he's a coach, but it does rather seem as though he is. If he's that wrong, it should be fairly easy to find other coaches writing online you disagree with him - do you want to do that, or would you like me to try?

Am I correct in saying Del Potro hits flatter than Federer?

I don;t need to read it somewhere JHM. I play teh game and can hit flat and topspin at will from both wings. I know the one I use when I want to play safe.

Ask yourself why second serves have more spin than first ones.

I'll ask myself that after you tell me whether Federer or JMDP uses more topspin.

Here's another link http://topspinsports.com/articles/modern-topspin-and-tennis.html since I'd rather rely on information from respected coaches than someone who, like myself, plays the game and who, like myself, can hit flat and topspin.
Make of it what you will, but surely you can see the logic of who I'd rather get the information from?

Apparently talentless Nadal's forehand topspin averages 3300 revolutions per minute. Shame on him!

Talented flat hitter Roger Federer generates a much more respectable average of 2700 revs per minute. That is more like it! Class!



http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/22/the-count-the-spin-on-nadals-clay-dominance/

DO you understand what you read JHM? Cause the second link you posted confirms that topspinning gives you more margin. and is safer. It's also what Federer says about Nadal in his yesterday interview.

icecold wrote:Apparently talentless Nadal's forehand topspin averages 3300 revolutions per minute. Shame on him!

Talented flat hitter Roger Federer generates a much more respectable average of 2700 revs per minute. That is more like it! Class!



http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/22/the-count-the-spin-on-nadals-clay-dominance/

Ah - the ball's revolution per min measures talent and not power. Are you saying that a very talented kid could put more spin on the ball than Nadal?
More comic stuff to be read here.

Tenez wrote:

icecold wrote:Apparently talentless Nadal's forehand topspin averages 3300 revolutions per minute. Shame on him!

Talented flat hitter Roger Federer generates a much more respectable average of 2700 revs per minute. That is more like it! Class!



http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/22/the-count-the-spin-on-nadals-clay-dominance/

Ah - the ball's revolution per min measures talent and not power. Are you saying that a very talented kid could put more spin on the ball than Nadal?
More comic stuff to be read here.

That isn't the point. The point is that Federer nearly uses as much topspin as Nadal on his average shot so if the use of topspin is a sign of lack of talent then I guess Federer is IYO only slightly more talented than Nadal and a lot less talented than you?

Are you hiding JHM? LOL!

With topspin, you can also clear the net by a wider margin. With practice you get the feel that the more you hit up, the more the ball comes down. That is why I teach this technique to the beginner, the intermediate, the advanced player, and the pros who haven't mastered it yet. It encourages them to hit much harder, even under pressure.

That's from your second link. Yes this one is a coach.

Now, please answer why a second serve is hit with more spin, if its actually harder?

Well you don;t have to answer actually...But is that true that you play tennis?

icecold wrote:
That isn't the point. The point is that Federer nearly uses as much topspin as Nadal on his average shot so if the use of topspin is a sign of lack of talent then I guess Federer is IYO only slightly more talented than Nadal and a lot less talented than you?

Why do I bother teaching you about the game? You don;t want to learn.

Yes Federer uses topspin a lot but unlike Nadal he ueses it to make his flatter shots safer but still Roger hits close the net and lines..and that is very difficult to do but his most riky and deadly shot is still his flater FH with minimum rpm. Nadal is moonballing and only cares about the rpm in the ball, not really where the ball lands. Didn't you notice?

Lol. So Federer hits at 2700 rpm and apparently it is the 2nd after Nadal on tour. He is equally untalented. We dealing with facts here not opinions.

Not hiding, just away from the computer - if that's OK with you?

Truth is I tend to agree with you Tenez, but the reality is rarely as black and white as you paint it. Also you tend to get defensive and somewhat reactionary whenever someone disagrees or shows evidence against your point of view. IMO this dilutes rather than strengthen your arguments.

"Yes Federer uses topspin a lot but unlike Nadal he ueses it to make his flatter shots safer but still Roger hits close the net and lines..and that is very difficult to do but his most riky and deadly shot is still his flater FH with minimum rpm. Nadal is moonballing and only cares about the rpm in the ball, not really where the ball lands. Didn't you notice?"

I agree with that and always have. Fed also uses topspin to create angles to hit winners off shorter balls. I also agree with the 2nd coaching link that says for a flat hitter to learn top spin can take hundreds of hours of practice (see - I do read it!) - that was certainly the case for me when changed from hard courts to low bouncing all-weather courts.

And the example of JMDP vs Fed was to illustrate that flat hitting per se is not harder than top spin, otherwise we'd all be saying that JMDP and Roddick play a more difficult game than Fed, which clearly they don't. It's not that black and white, you see.

Tenez wrote:
Yes Federer uses topspin a lot but unlike Nadal he ueses it to make his flatter shots safer ....

Oh I see. It is what you use the topspin for which is the determiner of talent. Just look at those goalposts go.

..... but still Roger hits close the net and lines..and that is very difficult to do but his most risky and deadly shot is still his flatter FH with minimum rpm.

What's that then about 1800rpm? Roger Federer and in fact no pro male or female hits any shot below the height of the net flat apart from going for a slow angled delicate reply to a drop shot. You do understand that 2700rpm is his average rate of topspin?

Nadal is moonballing and only cares about the rpm in the ball, not really where the ball lands. Didn't you notice?

That is such a stupid reading of Nadal's game. In rallying Nadal very much cares where his ball is landing. He wants it to land short enough to tempt his opponent into losing patience and going for a risky shot but not so short that they can make an easy winner or put him under too much pressure. When on the offensive having got the weak reply that he is looking for he then goes deeper to the lines or hooks that wicked forehand angle close to the sideline to drag the righthander wide on the backhand or blasts the inside out forehand to the other sideline.

You must be absolutely mystified how he manages to hit so many clean winners just by moonballing the ball into the middle of the court.

Do you actually play tennis?

This link shows the amount of rpm generated by some players from the past. Anything above 2000 apparently should be classed 'talentless'.

www.wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Project/usspin-04.html

Also you tend to get defensive and somewhat reactionary whenever someone disagrees or shows evidence against your point of view.

I don't get defensive. Agressive maybe. Have you shown evidence against what I have been saying here? It's simply basic stuff that topspin brings safety in teh shot so when a pseudo coach says it's harder to hit with topspin, I have no reason to be defensive but certainly the absurdity makes me "reactionary" as you say.

There are a few people who know their tennis here. I respect their views and certainly can learn from them. They know who they are.

Icecold...SA's posts are reduced to a single line asking me whether I want to read him or not. You are getting close to joinning him...

This is a semantic discussion, no player on tour hits literally "flat" shots routinely. Some may use less topspin than others but not actually continental grip flat. We're talking top level pro's here, and this constant denigration of a guy who has won 10 slams and 19 Masters as being devoid of talent is just frankly ridiculous and lessen's the posters credibility. If hitting 4700 rpm on a forehand (which is what Nadal can hit) was so easy they'd all be doing it. If it was just about strength, again many could create 4700rpm. But they cant. Talent on tour is present in many ways, not just so-called "flat" hitting which has less and less of a place on the modern tour where success comes down to power (flat) with control (spin). The winning formula is a complex mix. As JHM suggest its not B&W.

BTW, Federer uses more topspin than JMDP - must make him less talented a player I guess using Tenez's rule of thumb. These days it more about the level of work being put on the ball, flat hitting is harder to control but easier to generate. Nadal's type of spin makes the ball easier to control but is more difficult to generate.

If anyone saw Nadal's FHs against Nalby today in sets 1 and 2 they would have seen him in great form leaving Dave in his wake with power, spin and depth. Shots that very few people on tour can play - and yet we're to believe the guy has little talent and plays shots anyone can play. Yeah right.