The blatant myth of Nadal wins principally on fitness

So far the fed apologists have carved out a wonderful little excuse as to why poor Roger hasn't been doing well recently. His two principal rivals beat him only on fitness and are relatively mediocre talents with little shotmaking ability and talent. Anyone they claim who gets fit enough can win.

But there is one interesting fact that they can not explain and that exposes their silly myth to anyone who has not sipped the apologist Kool-Aid. If Nadal and Djoko simply win on physicality why is it that most of their matches end in two sets? Why is it that they win the first set of virtually every match they play? Are we to assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour lose their wind after 30-60 minutes of hitting? And the only thing that seperates Nadal and Djoko from the rest of the pack is big lungs?

ANOTHER MYTH OF FEDERER APOLOGISTS EXPOSED:

In 68 matches, Nadal has won the first set in 59 of those affairs meaning nadal wins nearly 87 percent of the first sets he plays

In 66 mathces Novak has won 58 of the first sets he has played, for nearly 88 percent of the first sets he has played

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-After-Winning-First-Set-Current-List.aspx

So the physicality as the reason for victory argument is a complete and utter fabrication, willful blindness and group think on the part of the federer apologists, and a smear of the ability of these two great champions.

Unless we are to assume that players who train for 3-4 hour match lose their wind in the first half hour of a match and completely lose their skill. If Nadal and Djokovic are such middling talents why do they win nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play? Can fatigue really play such a factor in the first set of a match when two world class athletes square off?

Certainly, the modern champion has to be fit, because in a grandslam in a 5 set match he has to be able to deliver. But you find me another talentless shotmaker that wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play.

Game, set, and match federer apologists.

socal - I am a Fed fan who thinks Rafa is a supremely talented player. I do think his fitness does give him an edge, just as Fed's ability to place a serve accurately gives him one - that is not a criticism of either, it is recognising different attributes and skills. For the record, I think Rafa's fitness is obviously hard work but also a natural atheletic ability, a talent in other words.

However, your argument about winning in 2 or 3 overlooks the fact that often (not always) rallies or games are longer and more brutal physically when Rafa plays (exception being on clay when it's over fairly quickly if all well). For instance the final of US took longer than the Djokovic/Federer semi. It is the sheer effort of taking a set from Rafa or how long it can take to win a game that is different.

I have to say I think Novak is a completely different player from Rafa, and that to my amateur eyes he has always had the more exciting game - his new belief, rediscovering his serve and sorting out his health problems have made it easier for him to prevent Nadal wearing down his game in the end.

I do wish, sometimes, that Novak and Fed had been Nos 1 and 2 - I think we would have had a far better rivalry. For a start, their matches are fantastic viewing and while Fed had the upper hand, it was only just and now it's Novak, but you still feel Fed could beat him on some days. The Fedal rivalry became a little predictable as, it seems, is the Nadalovic is. Much as I like Novak's playing, I don't think I want to watch another slugfest as a final with Nadal weaving about like he is punch drunk. If only the semi had been the final imo.

The title of your thread is comical Socal but I am sure its content is even more so though I have not read it and have no intention to.

time please it does seem that Federer's match up with Djokovic ensures exciting really closely fought matches. In the past Federer always seemed to have the edge but now Djokovic has managed to turn the tables.

Nadal does rely on the sheer physicality of his game at times to see him through and that, allied with his fierce determination and mental strength, gave him the edge over Djokovic. Now that Novak has added a lttle more steel to his game though Rafa seems to have no answers (the third set were the actions of a desperate man indeed).

It's difficult to see Federer though beating both these guys again in a slam if the draw requires it except perhaps on grass if he manages to keep his level of play high enough. If he was a few years younger he might have been able to raise his game to new heights and re-establish himself as top dog again but it's difficult to see anyone tasking that mantle away from Novak for the foreseeable future.

The US Open final first set took a stonking 1 hr 24 mins.. for EIGHT GAMES, your defense has just been quashed, pillaged and ransacked. If that is not a battle in fitness then I don't know what is, the fact that each set lasted on average 1 hour 2.5 minutes with only 1 tiebreak thrown in shows exactly what both players intentions are, i.e to make each point last as long as possible! Your lack of logic on this subject can only confirm you are being humourous

Yes, yes keep telling us apologists how Nadal wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays because he tires his opponents out in 30-60 minutes. Stop talking about the USO final, that was clearly a battle of fitness, but it is a five set match between the two best retrievers on tour something that will become a contest of fitness. How do you explain the other 50 some odd matches that the players lose the first set. One match is not a trend, especially when compared with the irrefutable numbers I produced.



JM I am not kidding and the numbers are there for everyone to see, Tenez and BB's ridiculous argument that Nadal and Djoko are just fit grinders with no shotmaking ability is destroyed by the fact that they win the 90 percent of the first sets they play. If the rest of the players can't hit with them for an hour then pardon my french they are p***ies who don't deserve to ever win a tennis match on the ATP tour.

Timeplease nobody is claiming fitness isn't an important part of Nadal and Djokovic's game. But the ridiculous big lungs argument and that Nadal wins principally on fitness and is a mediocre shotmaker with no talent has been totally exposed by the numbers. Please find me another mediocre shotmaker who wins nearly 90 percent of THE VERY FIRST SET THEY PLAY. Long points is not an adequate explanation as these players are super fit and train for 4 hour matches.

Tenez wrote:The title of your thread is comical Socal but I am sure its content is even more so though I have not read it and have no intention to.

Yes because it shatters irrevocably your warped view of tennis and exposes you as a mythmaker, exactly what I mean by willful blindness. Show me another talentless grinder who wins nearly 90 percent of the first set they play tenez.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:The title of your thread is comical Socal but I am sure its content is even more so though I have not read it and have no intention to.

Yes because it shatters irrevocably your warped view of tennis and exposes you as a mythmaker, exactly what I mean by willful blindness. Show me another talentless grinder who wins nearly 90 percent of the first set they play tenez.

Do us a favour Socal. Pick up a racquet and hit some balls then you come back and we discuss.

Tenez, I'd kick ur tail on the tennis court I am a 5.0 rated amateur, about a notch under an open player. Been hitting balls since I was six. Although in the last year have only been able to play a couple of times because of a back injury. Take the blinders off and stop sipping the apologist kool aid. You don't like Nadal fine, don't like his style of play fine. But try being half realistic with some of your analysis. Supposedly, Nadal is just another top 50 player with big lungs who wins by grinding his opponents into dust, yet how come the tour is losing 90 percent of the first sets they play against Nadal? Shouldn't they be fresh enough after half and hour or 40 minutes to beat this talentless moonballer? You still haven't even attempted to answer the question because you have no answer.

If the other more talented players lose their wind against Nadal and Djoko in 60 minutes than they are girly men who should remove what is left of their gonads and sign up for the WTA.

Of course.

Socal does have a point regarding their opponents being wimps, that is what is wrong with many of todays tennis players; lack of stamina and patience. There are more than 1 way to skin a cat

Exactly, JM, you are proffessional athlete if you can't play a set with some longer points and you lose your stamina after 40-60 minutes then you don't have an excuse. In actuality, it doesn't just come down to stamina and speed alone, it never has never will, if that was the case David Ferrer and Juan monaco would have 20 slams between them.

I alluded to this on another thread. Nadal and Djokovic take care of most players pretty easily most of the time, they are clearly talented. When they play each other it is often a war of attrition, and in other tight matches their fitness comes to the fore. It is ludicrous to suggest that all of the routine wins are based on fitness and physicality.

JM makes a good point. Some players seem cowed by the fact it is going to be tough against Nadal and Djokovic and wilt too readily.

Positively 4th Street wrote:JM makes a good point. Some players seem cowed by the fact it is going to be tough against Nadal and Djokovic and wilt too readily.

John Lloyd spoke recently about the difficulty of playing Borg.
Basically saying players knew they could never be as fit as Borg and knew they could never outlast him in rallies. So they had to play a different sort of game to they way they would play against other players, and it was difficult against Borg when you're not playing your natural game e.g. having to go for more winners/risky shots from the outset.
I think it's reasonable to say that Rafa's superior fitness can effectively beat some opponents before the match starts and lead to a straight sets victory for Rafa, even if he doesn't have to use his fitness during the match.

Positevly, I will say that you were an inspiration to the thread, you were the one who first voiced this opinion, not that it hadn't ever occurred to me but you put it so succinctly and eloquently that it made perfect sense.

Julius completely disagree, if Djokovic and Nadal didn't back up their fitness and speed with shotmaking they would be david Ferrer or if lucky Bjorn Phau. There is no secret to fitness, if you want to be fit just work out a lot, and eat right and you can be as fit as nadal. Do you see the hundreds that turnout for Iron man contests all those people are fitter than Nadal and Djokovic. It is the combination of speed, fitness, and shotmaking that seperate these two from the pack. If it was just fitness any idiot could win a slam with mediocre talent.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:JM makes a good point. Some players seem cowed by the fact it is going to be tough against Nadal and Djokovic and wilt too readily.

John Lloyd spoke recently about the difficulty of playing Borg.
Basically saying players knew they could never be as fit as Borg and knew they could never outlast him in rallies. So they had to play a different sort of game to they way they would play against other players, and it was difficult against Borg when you're not playing your natural game e.g. having to go for more winners/risky shots from the outset.
I think it's reasonable to say that Rafa's superior fitness can effectively beat some opponents before the match starts and lead to a straight sets victory for Rafa, even if he doesn't have to use his fitness during the match.

Julius - well put. That was what I was trying to get across. Federer had the same daunting effect, albeit for different reasons.

I do think that with some players their lack of fitness or mental toughness leads to an exaggerated view of their flair or shotmaking, and the reverse for Nadal and Djokovic.

I think what Djokovic and Nadal have over the rest of the field is consistency in their shots combined with the fact that the rest of the tour doesn't seem talented enough to hit through them consistently so that makes winning any set off of them difficult.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I think what Djokovic and Nadal have over the rest of the field is consistency in their shots combined with the fact that the rest of the tour doesn't seem talented enough to hit through them consistently so that makes winning any set off of them difficult.

Bitf, your analysis is at least bordering on the realistic. But, I will say this people underestimate the level of shotmaking both players have. Both guys have weapons, Djokovic in particular doesn't just defend and wait for people to hit threw him. He can hit winners off of both wings. You don't get to the absolute top with middling talent, period end of story.

I will agree that fitness aside both players actually have features of their respective games that make it difficult for the standard opponent. For Nadal I think its the weight of his topspin forehand and for Djokovic I actually do believe he has a fairly agressive game though I might not have seen enough of his typical matches this year to verify that. Saying that I think their consistency is at least an equal factor to these things.

Michael Chang joined Stosur gym, pumped iron, and became Rafael Nadal. He learned spanish too.

Everything can be reduced to a mundane explanation.

Nadal is a sporting beast. He's made for sport. You can imagine him being great at pretty much any sport. See 1:22 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZOb_nhK-N8

You don't win 10 grandslam tournaments simply because you are a large cargo ship.

socal1976 wrote:Julius completely disagree....

Which bit do you disagree with - John Lloyd's view of playing Borg, or the idea that for some of today's players the same view could be held about playing Rafa i.e. they are at a disadvantage before they start because they know he is fitter than them?

It is generally recognised that Rafa is the fittest player on the tour. I'm pretty sure I could train as hard as him and never be as fit as him. The same must be true for some other players, surely?

I've never denied that he has shot-making talent as well, but the top players often talk about 'small margins' and it may be that Rafa's extra fitness (a 'freak of nature' as Agassi called him) gives him that extra margin that made the difference between, say 10 slams and 7 slams, or 18 Masters and 13 Masters, fewer weeks at No 1, or whatever.

If Djoko had been on a gluten free diet from 4 years ago (if that is what has made him fitter) would Nadal have a positive H2H against him? Or would the evenness in fitness, coupled with Djoko's greater shot-making ability have given him the lead by now? Maybe even produced some Djoko-Fed FO finals?

Leff, that is the running consensus by the apologists that Nadal is really just a glorified top 50 player with big lungs and 10 grandslam titles.

Julius I think that its a shame that its taken Djokovic this year to become the Djokovic we now know. Tennis could have been way more interesting over the past few years if he had ditched the gluten sooner.

"Freak of nature" sounds unkind but Nadal simply has amazing natural fitness and stamina. After all he beat Pat Cash at age 14 on clay (and Cash is a pretty fit guy), then beating seasoned top 50 claycourters on clay by age 15-16. And the way he came back to beat Federer in a 5 set match in 2009 at AO only 36 hrs after beating Verdasco in a 5 hour brutal match was nothing short of amazing. Verdasco (a supremely fit guy himself) said he could barely walk on the Sunday, and yet Nadal was out there in another 4+hour brutal match.

Also, the way he lasted in the USO final despite all the explosive movements he had to make shot after shot plus the high humidity was almost as amazing as Nole actually winning the title. Nadal is a gifted competitor who would have excelled at just about any physical sport. However, he obviously has a talent for tennis and is ambidextrous too (he didnt need to be told to switch arms to serve by Toni, he could already play shots with either arm). Clearly Nadal's fitness is a talent - and talent is talent, whether it be that or the ability to play touch volleys - its all part of tennis. Tennis is not a beauty pagent of shot making ala Gasquet. Its about winning, and right now Nadal and Novak know how to win and then some...

If we ignore the actual matches between Nadal and Novak the two of them have now considerably raised the tennis bar in overall terms....future players are going to have to be supremely talented and supremely fit. This was always going to be the way tennis went...every nuance of the game would be pushed forwards. Of course the slowing courts have meant longer ralleys but their is still talent to be employed out there. Its just a different game than 10-20 years ago. I miss the old days and the variety of surfaces but I dont see the ATP/ITF changing back any time soon.

Socal, I think most of the top ATP 100 would agree Nadal and Djokovic are supremely talented despite what the "armchair warriors" on here say.

Julius, I disagree about players so fearing Nadal's fitness that they get out of their comfort zone and lose the match. The same type of aura of invicibility that Fed has Nadal has, players tighten up against him in crucial situations similar to what Djoko had a problem with because deep down they know they can't win. When you have to deal with the spin of 5000 rpm ball that is dancing and exploding off the court it isn't easy to hit a winner off that ball, if you try to take that ball early you will make more errors. It has nothing to do with fitness has to do with the ball accelerating and decerlerating through the air.

Djokovic's biggest problem against nadal in the past was that his serve stank in 09 and 10, in 2008 and 2007 when his serve was strong he gave Nadal a lot of trouble beat him in indian wells on way to the crown. Remember in 09 when he played nadal in a four hour match in madrid and had match points, he served slightly better he wins that match. Novak has grown as a player not just in fitness, his serve, forehand, volley, and return are all stronger than what they have been in the last two years. Paricularly his serve.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, I disagree about players so fearing Nadal's fitness that they get out of their comfort zone and lose the match. The same type of aura of invicibility that Fed has Nadal has, players tighten up against him in crucial situations similar to what Djoko had a problem with because deep down they know they can't win. When you have to deal with the spin of 5000 rpm ball that is dancing and exploding off the court it isn't easy to hit a winner off that ball, if you try to take that ball early you will make more errors. It has nothing to do with fitness has to do with the ball accelerating and decerlerating through the air.

Djokovic's biggest problem against nadal in the past was that his serve stank in 09 and 10, in 2008 and 2007 when his serve was strong he gave Nadal a lot of trouble beat him in indian wells on way to the crown. Remember in 09 when he played nadal in a four hour match in madrid and had match points, he served slightly better he wins that match. Novak has grown as a player not just in fitness, his serve, forehand, volley, and return are all stronger than what they have been in the last two years. Paricularly his serve.

Well whatever it was I wish he'd sorted it sooner.

socal1976 wrote:Leff, that is the running consensus by the apologists that Nadal is really just a glorified top 50 player with big lungs and 10 grandslam titles.

Tennis is a beautiful sport. You cannot win several majors because you have one weapon, whether it is your service or your physique.

Socal, I think most of the top ATP 100 would agree Nadal and Djokovic are supremely talented despite what the "armchair warriors" on here say..lydian

Of course lydian that is what drives me insane about the apologists and their arguments. Nadal is both a tennis freak and an athletic freak. Think about how much hard work and aptitude it would take for any one of us to hit a serve 125 miles per hour with our off hand? Most people don't have the ability to hit that serve with their natural hand. The passing shots I have seen Nadal hit, I have never seen anyone else hit, not murray, not djokovic, not federer. He is the best I have ever seen period. The idea that he can only win by grinding down superior players is a myth propogated to diminish him as a player.

He's been playing from a young age with his off hand so its no more amazing than anyone else hitting a serve over 125 mph.

Leff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Leff, that is the running consensus by the apologists that Nadal is really just a glorified top 50 player with big lungs and 10 grandslam titles.

Tennis is a beautiful sport. You cannot win several majors because you have one weapon, whether it is your service or your physique.

Exactly, Leff, I find it amusing that of all people the Fed apologists claim that poor Roger has a problem with fitness and that is why he loses to Nadal. I don't think I have ever seen Roger sweat in a match, the guy is as fit as a long distance runner and faster than gazelle. Speed is a talent, you are pretty much born fast or you are not so in that respect Nadal is very talented. And in terms of ball striking, I have tried to mimic Nadal's forehand grip and it is a nightmare, and I am not a begginer or novice I can't get the ball over 20 miles per hour over the service box. You have to hit with a frighteningly extreme to generate that kind of spin. Now imagine doing that with your left hand when you are righty, then having some internet mythmaker claim you aren't particularly gifted at hitting a tennis ball.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:He's been playing from a young age with his off hand so its no more amazing than anyone else hitting a serve over 125 mph.

Really, break in the fifth, it is pretty amazing to me and it takes incredible athletic coordination to do something like that. First off just to hit the 125 mile an hour serve is hard enough, and now imagine the level of ball striking and yes practice and commitment it takes to get there. In fact, it was so difficult that Nadal as much tennis as he has played couldn't hit that serve until last year, eventhough he has played tens of thousands of hours of tennis. When he first broke on the tour I think I had a faster first serve than he did.

Not disputing the difficulty of reaching 125mph. He puts other kind of work on the ball in the form of spin so its natural that his serve was slower.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, I disagree about players so fearing Nadal's fitness that they get out of their comfort zone and lose the match. The same type of aura of invicibility that Fed has Nadal has, players tighten up against him in crucial situations similar to what Djoko had a problem with because deep down they know they can't win. When you have to deal with the spin of 5000 rpm ball that is dancing and exploding off the court it isn't easy to hit a winner off that ball, if you try to take that ball early you will make more errors. It has nothing to do with fitness has to do with the ball accelerating and decerlerating through the air.

If players feared Borg for his fitness, is it not possible that they fear Nadal for the same reason. Why would Murray say, after losing to Rafa at the USO, "I need to get physically fitter". Even if you think he's wrong, he clearly thinks it is necessary to take Rafa on.
You're right it isn't easy to hit a winner off Rafa's spin, but if a player thought he could outlast Rafa in a rally he wouldn't feel the need to go for a winner.
You say "it has nothing to do with fitness'. Tenez says 'it has everything to do with fitness'. I think it's partly to do with fitness, especially with Rafa. Once again - he is acknowledged as the fittest player on the tour and many people believe it is a significant factor in his success. That does not deny his other talents.
It is necessary to take a view diametrically opposed to those you consider 'Fed apologists' in order to argue against them?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would Murray say, after losing to Rafa at the USO, "I need to get physically fitter". Even if you think he's wrong, he clearly thinks it is necessary to take Rafa on.

This thread has the benefit of sorting those who have played tennis at a decent level or simply understand it from those who talk a lot about it but haven't got much understanding of the dynamics of the sport. I have never heard a player or even the worse commentators and journalists say that Nadal's main (or principal) strength is not his fitness.

The world of tennis knows that Socal!...so what are you on about? (I guess I should read your OP)

Tenez.. the way socal see's it is that fitness will not be enough if you are spraying shots and play without tactics. I think this debate needs to be nipped in the bud and put to sleep

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Tenez.. the way socal see's it is that fitness will not be enough if you are spraying shots and play without tactics. I think this debate needs to be nipped in the bud and put to sleep

We are talking about players who have hit the ball 4 hours a day since the age of 5 so of course he can hit a ball. They all can!

Regarding tactics, Nadal has won 10 slams playing the same tactic....and has lost 6 straight times v Djoko doing so too.

To win a major tournament, you have to win seven rounds in a field of the world's best 128 players of that time. This has been so when my father was watching in the seventies and when his father was watching in the fifties.

You do not win several grandslam tournaments just because you are fit and you can outlast your opponents.

Mr. Nadal is not just a robot who keeps on returning your shots until become exhausted and die.

There are other events like the marathon where cardiopulmonary fitness is very important. There is skill even there.

Indeed Leff - Nadal, like Djokovic and Federer have supreme fitness AND talent in abundance. Sure Nadal is fit, amazingly so (a god given talent), but there's alot more to his overall ability than just that. Fitness will only ever get any player so far on its own without actual talents concerning incredible ball striking, mental fortitude and physical movement.

When Nadal was fourteen, Spain’s tennis federation recognising his talent invited him to Barcelona for training. His parents said “No, he will be staying with his family, on the tiny island of Majorca, and his uncle will be his coach”. That arrangement remains largely in place to this day.

The point is that Nadal was not manufactured by some national tennis machine as many top 100 players were - his talent was honed in a private and unique family set-up. In other words transcendent talents can’t be trained.

Leff wrote:You do not win several grandslam tournaments just because you are fit and you can outlast your opponents.

Who said there aren't skills? Gasquet is also super fit. What's the point?

You could also say one doesn't win 14 slams with a serve only. Sure you need other skills but the fact is on the surface where the serve was neutralised Pete's other skills were not good enough to win him a slam on clay! That is a fact.

Likewise, I cannot see how nadal would win a slam in the 90s outside clay. he hasn't got the natural skills, quick reactions, needed to win on fast conditions. If he can't impose his physical game, he is simply doomed. Look how far back he stands to return a serve...to start with.

[quote="Tenez"]

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would Murray say, after losing to Rafa at the USO, "I need to get physically fitter". Even if you think he's wrong, he clearly thinks it is necessary to take Rafa on.

This thread has the benefit of sorting those who have played tennis at a decent level or simply understand it from those who talk a lot about it but haven't got much understanding of the dynamics of the sport.



This is such a weak argument. Would you dismiss a film critic’s review because s/he has never been a writer, actor or director? Do you really think personal experience is a condition of competence to comment on something? On anything? Think about it.

The problem with the one-trick pony posters on this forum is that when others don’t accept that their blinkered analyses they start attacking the person rather than the argument. I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s generally accepted to be a pretty feeble level of debate.

lydian wrote: Nadal, like Djokovic and Federer have supreme fitness AND talent in abundance. Sure Nadal is fit, amazingly so (a god given talent), but there's alot more to his overall ability than just that.

Nadal was not manufactured by some national tennis machine as many top 100 players were - his talent was honed in a private and unique family set-up. In other words transcendent talents can’t be trained.

Concur with both points, Lydian.

Nadal's fitness is one of the many strengths of Nadal. The top three players have their own unique strengths. Federer has splendid footwork that keeps his in position for most returns and hence his game looks rather effortless. Novak has developed brilliant down-the-line shots that take your breath away, and he is playing lovely drop shots as well, and he returns the serve better than anybody else. Nadal has his original style of heavy top-spun shots.

There was a time many played with the same style (Courier, Agassi, Seles...), and they were all manufactured in the Bollettieri camp. Glad the top players today have different styles.

Nadal has won 2 Wimbledon titles along with 1 Australian and 1 US Open. Adequate proof that he can win on non-clay surfaces as well.

True, his game could be more lethal if he could volley just as Pete's game would have been more complete if he could something other than serve and volley on clay.

Leff wrote:Nadal has won 2 Wimbledon titles along with 1 Australian and 1 US Open. Adequate proof that he can win on non-clay surfaces as well.

That doesn't prove anything. All surfaces play the same more or less. That's why you have all the same players making the same semis in the 4 slams.

True, his game could be more lethal if he could volley just as Pete's game would have been more complete if he could something other than serve and volley on clay.

He has won Wimbledon and the AO battling 5 setters against guys like Haase, Petzchner, Verdasco and twice v Federer and what made the difference? his fitness again. His USO10? a cake draw and a tired Djoko. Djoko became fit in 11 and turned the table last week v Nadal. Very simple.

It's absurd to deny the importance of Nadal's superior fitness in his slams wins. It's exactly like denying the share of Pete's serve in his 14 slams success....actually, it's worse....cause Pete certainly was a more complete player actually.

Tenez wrote: It's absurd to deny the importance of Nadal's superior fitness in his slams wins.

It's also absurd, is it not, to deny the importance of Nadal's superior talent in his slams wins?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: It's absurd to deny the importance of Nadal's superior fitness in his slams wins.

It's also absurd, is it not, to deny the importance of Nadal's superior talent in his slams wins.

So he has superior talent and superior fitness? That's interesting. One wonders how Dodig managed to kick his @ss recently. being bagled by Lacko as well? oh dear! Losing to the talentueux but less fit Ferrer? Poor guy. being lessoned by old Ljubo? I feel sorry. What's the point having superior talent and physique then?

If all courts had played as slow as the FO in teh 90s, it's "talented" Bruguera who would have 14 slams....and maybe Pete woudl have got none.

You have lost the argument and you know it.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: It's absurd to deny the importance of Nadal's superior fitness in his slams wins.

It's also absurd, is it not, to deny the importance of Nadal's superior talent in his slams wins.

So he has superior talent and superior fitness? That's interesting. One wonders how Dodig managed to kick his @ss recently. being bagled by Lacko as well? oh dear! Losing to the talentueux but less fit Ferrer? Poor guy. being lessoned by old Ljubo? I feel sorry. What's the point having superior talent and physique then?

If all courts had played as slow as the FO in teh 90s, it's "talented" Bruguera who would have 14 slams....and maybe Pete woudl have got none.

You have lost the argument and you know it.

Everyone can have a bad day at the office Tenez! He is not my favourite player, but the guy is a supreme athlete and player, very talented, and of course very fit!

I don't think there is much more mileage to be got out of this argument, is there?

Tenez wrote:

Leff wrote:Nadal has won 2 Wimbledon titles along with 1 Australian and 1 US Open. Adequate proof that he can win on non-clay surfaces as well.

That doesn't prove anything. All surfaces play the same more or less. That's why you have all the same players making the same semis in the 4 slams.

....actually, it's worse....cause Pete certainly was a more complete player actually.

All surfaces play the same more or less? So, why was Pete so miserable at RG? How was Pete a complete player if he couldn't adjust his game to slower courts?

The same small group of players showing up in the semifinals a every major suggests that these top players have all-round skills which enable them to adapt, and not that all courts are of the same speed and bounce.