The blatant myth of Nadal wins principally on fitness

First topic message reminder :

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.

julius again I never said fitness isn't important, but it is not how Nadal wins the MAJORITY of his matches. Tenez what this thread shows is that you are so far gone, that you don't even realize when your own arguments have been completely and totally blown out of the water.

For your silly argument to be true answer me how exactly is the talentless moonballer Nadal that you have labelled him win 90 percent of the first sets he plays? Are the world class athletes of the ATP unable to hit with Nadal for even 60 minutes without losing their conditioning?


Give me an adequate answer to that question, which after thousands of posts and million of words you have never been able to. The rest of the ridiculous spin you posted I won't be addressing until you answer this one question, which you refuse to. It is clear for everyone Tenez that your apologist myth has completely been destroyed.

Nobody is denying that playing Nadal in a five setter is a physical fight and that Nadal has a big advantage over most guys in that area. Julius that is why Murray said he has to get fitter, because he foresees playing Nadal in five set matchs. But again does that explain how he wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays? No it doesn't as most of his wins are in 2 sets, and he dominates the vast majority of his opponents from the moment the umpire calls time so it has little to do with grinding them to pieces. Nadal is not a talentless moonballler, however Tenez has shown himself to be a talentless mythmaker.

Socal, why are you reducing Tenez's argument to being one about fitness? He's quite clear that in his view Nadal wins not merely by attrition but by power. So even in the first set it's not that his opponents are puffed out but that they are physically unable to compete in rallies where the ball is coming at them at all angles with great power.

Of course fitness is an issue here as well. But it might be better considered in terms of whether Nadal's opponents crumble more than they would against other victors. Not a statistical analysis I can be bothered to make, but I think it would more reflect a potential counter to Tenez's position than Socal's first set theory.

socal1976 wrote:
For your silly argument to be true answer me how exactly is the talentless moonballer Nadal that you have labelled him win 90 percent of the first sets he plays? Are the world class athletes of the ATP unable to hit with Nadal for even 60 minutes without losing their conditioning?


Give me an adequate answer to that question, which after thousands of posts and million of words you have never been able to. The rest of the ridiculous spin you posted I won't be addressing until you answer this one question, which you refuse to. It is clear for everyone Tenez that your apologist myth has completely been destroyed.

I have given you the answer to your argument many times but you don't want to accept it. I just know you haven't played tennis much, certainly not at a decent level. You would know that a 3 x 5 shot rally played at a fast pace is exhausting and enough to blunt the edges.

Do you really think that 60mn is not enough for conditioning to affect a players game? it takes less than 10 seconds for a sprinter to get breathless, One of the toughest race is the 400m and it takes just over 40s to be completely drained.

Think!

Yes, Tenez the average rally length in the US open final was 7.5 shots and considering the length of time both players take in between sets I still don't find your theory believable that the world class athletes of the ATP tour tire out inf 40 to 60 minutes. Not to mention changeovers and the slow pace of play of both players.

Jarvik, that is precisely tenez's argument he reduces down to fitness and physicality you are making an argument that Tenez doesn't make. He claims Nadal is a talentless moonballer who wins on fitness. He doesn't have a problem with how I characterize his argument, that is precisely how he frames it. He refuses to accept that Nadal's shotmaking is of any consequence.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Tenez the average rally length in the US open final was 7.5 shots and considering the length of time both players take in between sets I still don't find your theory believable that the world class athletes of the ATP tour tire out inf 40 to 60 minutes. Not to mention changeovers and the slow pace of play of both players.

You see now you adknowledge they take time between points to actually recover. You are a very slow learner!

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Tenez the average rally length in the US open final was 7.5 shots ...

This point of yours about the average 7.5 shots in the US open was already busted in an earlier thread, and you are here again bringing it up. If you had the answer to it, why didn't you further debate on my reply. I get this now about you. You keep repeating the same old yap again and again. If you start losing the argument, you leave the thread and again comes up with same trash in another thread. I already said 7.5 shots per seconds is just a mathematical figure and body fatigue doesn't follow that math. Fatigue doesn't follow a linear curve, but increases exponentially with every single shot. Now you really proved you don't know what is linear and what is exponential. 7.5 shots average doesn't mean most of the rallys were in range of 7-8 shots. Since you are a slow learner, let me explain you again. If there are 2 rallys, one of 8+7 shots and another of 2+13 shots then average will be 7.5 for both. But fatigue on the latter will be more. As the number of shots increase, energy expended in hitting every single shot increases and body starts tiring rapidly. Is is so tough to understand? I thought this was common sense, but you proving me wrong. And you say you play decent level of tennis??

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Tenez the average rally length in the US open final was 7.5 shots ...

Now you really proved you don't know what is linear and what is exponential. 7.5 shots average doesn't mean most of the rallys were in range of 7-8 shots. Since you are a slow learner, let me explain you again. If there are 2 rallys, one of 8+7 shots and another of 2+13 shots then average will be 7.5 for both. But fatigue on the latter will be more. As the number of shots increase, energy expended in hitting every single shot increases and body starts tiring rapidly. Is is so tough to understand? I thought this was common sense, but you proving me wrong. And you say you play decent level of tennis??

That's Socal.....It doesn't know much about math or tennis but certainly can talk.

I don't think Tenez is reducing everything down to fitness. He's made it clear enough that it's physicality, ie fitness and sheer power, that gives Nadal the edge.

Don't get me wrong, it's a simplistic analysis. Nadal's physical attributes are a necessary condition of his greatness but not sufficient to explain it. It takes more than power to pull off his shots and more than fitness to keep doing it.

And if the response to that, Tenez, is to keep on about my own personal tennis ability or some such rubbish argument, then consider that the opinion of most pros and ex pros relegates your reductive perspective to the lunatic fringe. You take a really important point about physical conditioning and make it the only point. I'm sorry but that simply flies in the face of what most everyone else sees when they watch Nadal in action.

Tenez wrote: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.

All players have had some tough 5-setters on the way to glory. Andreev, Tipsarevic and Haas (twice) took Federer to 5 sets over the years. The cakewalk draw argument is flimsy too, do you really believe that Federer had tough draws for all his slams? I point you to Wimbledon 03 and 09 (08 too although he lost the final), and Australia 2006 for starters. In finals, Federer has beaten players ranked 48, 86, 54 and 25. Nadal gets stick for the apparently easy Berdych final, what of Gonzalez and Baghdatis? You can argue fitness and physicality until the cows come home, but cakewalk draws are really the stuff of fancy.

Jarvik wrote:....then consider that the opinion of most pros and ex pros relegates your reductive perspective to the lunatic fringe. You take a really important point about physical conditioning and make it the only point. I'm sorry but that simply flies in the face of what most everyone else sees when they watch Nadal in action.

No I don;t make it the only point....but the main point. See the parallel I make with Pete. Same thing. He had more than the serve but on the surface his serve was not as potent, his slam count was zero.

Regarding Nadal this is even more so cause if you have enough power and stamina, you can simply destroy the subtle game of your opponent. WHat I mean by subtle is the thin margins required to find pace and depth just above the net that flatter hitters need to maintain. That is hitting the ball not too hard, not too soft.

Nadal's FH is hit at maximum strength...more or less. the differences in power only affect the trajectory but don;t produce errors as his margins are much bigger. However on his BH, you see how he struggles to get that power and precision that other players have. so most of the time he ends up looping it back along the line and that he was get him so exposed versus most players especially Djoko.

Of course he can hit a BH winner crosscourt and sometimes though rarely along the line. You woudl expect that from someone who has hot the ball everyday since the age of 5. It's fair to say that about 50 players have a better BH than him. If he was not that quick himself and able to turn around his BH, he woudl be evern more exposed.

Positively 4th Street wrote: The cakewalk draw argument is flimsy too, do you really believe that Federer had tough draws for all his slams?

No it's not flmsy at all. You can't compare Djoko's draw last year with Nadal! And what has federer got to do in that thread? Federer made his tennis and his draws look easy for 5 years...when Nadal was finding them extremely difficult anywhere bar clay.

socal1976 wrote:
Jarvik, that is precisely tenez's argument he reduces down to fitness and physicality you are making an argument that Tenez doesn't make. He claims Nadal is a talentless moonballer who wins on fitness. He doesn't have a problem with how I characterize his argument, that is precisely how he frames it. He refuses to accept that Nadal's shotmaking is of any consequence.

There is no player on the ATP circuit who just doesn't have any bit of shot making talent. And conversely there is no player who doesn't have any bit of physical side of the game. But we talk about what are their strengths. If we talk about talent of shot-making skills then Nadal in the current set of players won't be at #2. His shots makings are just like lot of players ranked between 1-50 and some even ranked in top 100. But what get Nadal ahead of them is his immense ability to keep pounding hard hitting rallys again and again, endlessly running retrieving almost every single shot. His physical stamina is so dominating that they just don't a way to be able to deal with it.

Tell me one thing. when you or some other nadal 'apologist' as you like to call, gets to know about Nadal's loss, what come to mind at first? Oh it must be some injury, he wasn't a 100%, he was too tired from the previous match? Why it has to be like this? Why the reactions are never like he couldn't time the ball well, had lot of unforced errors going for winners, first serve wasn't kicking in etc etc? After losing to Nadal in Us open semis why did Murray said that he need to work on his fitness. Even earlier he had said he wants to be strong like Nadal. Why didn't he say I want to be shot-maker like Nadal? Why he always hampers on being more fit when he himself is one of the fittest and strongest players on circuit. Because he knows that it was not the shot-making that made the difference, but the physical strength.

When ever its always asked about what are the strengths of Nadal, its always the physical aspects of the game that are brought out. Yet you just don't get it in your head.

On another thread you yourself said if a player can't stay with Nadal, he need to go to the gym. Now this only means you and also being a Nadal 'apologist' knows that it was the strength and stamina of Nadal that the others don't have and must have it if they wanted to win. Clearly you learn slow.

Why you think Djo is beating Nadal on every surface and so dominantly that it never looks like Nadal has any chance. Why is so much hampering of guten free diet and fitness of Djo said these day whenever his domination over Nadal in 2011 is brought out. Djo always had better shot makings skills than Nadal, but didn't have the stamina to stay with him in long rallys. Now when he has it, he makes Nadal look ordinary. If Nadal had any superior shot making talent above the rest like Federer has then he wouldn't look so clueless like he does now. Why is that so. Because all this while Nadal was clearly well above the rest in strength and stamina, so much that on just that physical superiority he would have been able to dominate everyone. Now when that physical superiority is no longer there, he looks clueless. How many winners was Nadal able to get compared to Djo in US open finals? How many times you see the losing opponent has more winners than Nadal? Is this the case when Nadal loses to Djo. No. Djo is ahead of him in every department. Djo has built this domination over Nadal developing his physical side of the game.

Nadal's shot making talent are of course there. A lot of players have it. But it is not what that wins a majority of his matches and keeps him at the top rankings. Its his strength and stamina. In 2009 when he was struggling somewhat with fitness he couldn't beat any top-10 player for a year. And it wasn't even like he was completely match unfit. He was still playing. If he had the shot making talent above the rest, he still would have managed to do better than what he did. The day Nadal is unable to impose himself physically , he starts looking ordinary. That means his shot making talents are just as anyone in top-50.

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote: The cakewalk draw argument is flimsy too, do you really believe that Federer had tough draws for all his slams?

No it's not flmsy at all. You can't compare Djoko's draw last year with Nadal! And what has federer got to do in that thread? Federer made his tennis and his draws look easy for 5 years...when Nadal was finding them extremely difficult anywhere bar clay.

I needed a fellow multislam winner to compare and contrast, Federer was the obvious choice. He also had some 5 setters over the years, but you ignore this in another vain attempt to discredit Nadal. Nadal lost one set on his way to the Wimbledon final in 2008, what a struggle! Prior to Verdasco it was straight sets all the way in Aus 09 too. Clearly, he found it easier on clay, his best surface. Just as Federer found it easier early in his career on grass and hard courts. He struggled at RG in his younger days, that is the fair and proper comparison to make. I'd say finding it difficult is a straight set loss to Luis Horna.

Nadal winning the US sticks in a lot of people's throats as they held out hope it would the one slam he wouldn't win. That is your cross to bear, give it a thousand asterixes if you like but it won't change a thing.

Nadal is hammering the one dimensional Tsonga as we speak... never seen Tsonga lose this BIG before.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal's shot making talent are of course there. A lot of players have it. But it is not what that wins a majority of his matches and keeps him at the top rankings. Its his strength and stamina. In 2009 when he was struggling somewhat with fitness he couldn't beat any top-10 player for a year. And it wasn't even like he was completely match unfit. He was still playing. If he had the shot making talent above the rest, he still would have managed to do better than what he did. The day Nadal is unable to impose himself physically , he starts looking ordinary. That means his shot making talents are just as anyone in top-50.

You have inadvertently shot yourself in the foot here. Yes, Nadal struggled against the top guys in the latter part of 2009 (post-Madrid clearly not the whole of 2009) but if he was the same as a regular top 50 guy how is it that he beat players ranked 19, 45, 45, 31, 18, 33, 13, 11, 24, 25, 15, 37, 41, 27, 15 and 20 during this period losing only to Cilic and Soderling outside the top 10? He did beat 9th ranked Tsonga too, so it is not true that he did not beat a top 10 player for a year. He seemed to lose weight during this time, this is bound to have an effect on any player unless they are too heavy to begin with like Fish was.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal is hammering the one dimensional Tsonga as we speak... never seen Tsonga lose this BIG before.

He certainly is. That gruelling, physical 36 minute first set must have really done for JWT.

He doesn't even get close to Nadal's service games.. has Tsonga ever been bageled before today?

Positively 4th Street,

Its hard to believe the level of reasoning for some people are so low that they just can't understand something so clearly written. You can't even read clearly as I can see from the arguments you put forwards by giving the Today's Tsonga's match. Anyway if you had to understand you sure would have understood it already. If you can't see the point, clearly you are not there to understand it.

And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Positively 4th Street,

Its hard to believe the level of reasoning for some people are so low that they just can't understand something so clearly written. You can't even read clearly as I can see from the arguments you put forwards by giving the Today's Tsonga's match. Anyway if you had to understand you sure would have understood it already. If you can't see the point, clearly you are not there to understand it.

And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

Are you writing about yourself here? Kudos for recognising the flaws in your one-eyed view of things. I'm confident I can read, the less said about your writing the better.

Not a huge crime, was just pointing out the error on which you based your argument.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

And Tsonga had a wrist injury in that match . He pulled out of Valencia the week before and of the remaining matches of the year.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Positively 4th Street,

Its hard to believe the level of reasoning for some people are so low that they just can't understand something so clearly written. You can't even read clearly as I can see from the arguments you put forwards by giving the Today's Tsonga's match. Anyway if you had to understand you sure would have understood it already. If you can't see the point, clearly you are not there to understand it.

And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

As we know, some are more concerned to appear as fair posters sitting on a virtual fence between Nadal and Federer than actually undertsanding the dynamics of the game.

Well sometimes it is that one aspect of your game that can be superior yet take you to the top be it serve, forehand etc. Maybe in Nadals case its fitness. If his shotmaking is only top 50 level then so be it, that's still pretty solid.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

And Tsonga had a wrist injury in that match . He pulled out of Valencia the week before and of the remaining matches of the year.

But Nadal pulling out of Wimbledon means nothing I presume?

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Positively 4th Street,

Its hard to believe the level of reasoning for some people are so low that they just can't understand something so clearly written. You can't even read clearly as I can see from the arguments you put forwards by giving the Today's Tsonga's match. Anyway if you had to understand you sure would have understood it already. If you can't see the point, clearly you are not there to understand it.

And yes, I missed the Tsonga ranked 9 win. Since its such huge crime to miss a solitary top-10 win for almost a year about a match that happened almost 2 years back on forums like 606v2 that I must apologize.

As we know, some are more concerned to appear as fair posters sitting on a virtual fence between Nadal and Federer than actually undertsanding the dynamics of the game.

I, for one, am not concerned with appearing as anything. I am happy that I can enjoy different styles and different players. If you want to take this as me not having as deep an understanding as you, then feel free to do so in your high-handed and patronising way.

As ever socal is engaged in a Trojan Horse tactic.

His real concern here is once again to inflate Djokovics impressive 2011 by deflecting any criticism of the current game.

As it happens, it seems the long season is taking its toll on Djokovic as he notches up another retirement, this time due to something that looks bad.

Would it be cruel to mention that some other players have had massively dominant years without ruining themselves?

Nah BB I think he's actually just defending Nadal it's Federer that he seems to have more animosity towards as Nadal is humble in victory and defeat. I mean who wouldn't considering all the free slams he got at the beginning of his career with no competition around when Djokovic has had to work so hard just to get the same.

At the most US Open, Nadal won all his rounds before the semifinal in straight sets including 3rd round vs Nalbandian, 4th vs Muller, and QF vs Roddick. These three opponents are physically strong players, especially Nalbandian and Roddick. How would one explain Nadal's 6-2, 6-1, 6-3 QF hammering of Roddick? Outlasted him physically until Roddick's body gave up and his legs succumbed? Overpowered him?

Leff wrote:At the most US Open, Nadal won all his rounds before the semifinal in straight sets including 3rd round vs Nalbandian, 4th vs Muller, and QF vs Roddick. These three opponents are physically strong players, especially Nalbandian and Roddick.

I generally don't like using laugh emoticon, but I really had a laugh at this argument. Now I've got the real reason why its so difficult to convince some Nadal 'apologists' as socal like to call, about how much important is the physical aspects of the game for Nadal's success. Clearly they don't understand what is the meaning of "physically strong". Else they wouldn't call Muller, Nalbandian and Roddick 'especially' as "physically strong". This was funny indeed.

What's the definition of "physically strong?"

I would have thought Nalbandian as physically strong. Here is a guy who is known to play 5-set matches and not crash physically in the 5th set.

Roddick always looked physically strong and played like one.

Fernando Gonzalez, Tsonga, Verdasco, Nadal are what I would call 'physical' players.. Djokovic doesn't hit the ball as hard as those 4 however.

If "physically strong" meant "hitting the ball hard," doesn't Roddick qualify the criterion?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Nah BB I think he's actually just defending Nadal it's Federer that he seems to have more animosity towards as Nadal is humble in victory and defeat. I mean who wouldn't considering all the free slams he got at the beginning of his career with no competition around when Djokovic has had to work so hard just to get the same.

Free Slams?? Yes he won those in a lottery, didn't he? Only Nadal and Djokovic have actually earned their slams, Federer won in a lottery, hardly worth mentioning. Animosity towards Nadal? Now we are getting some funny comments.

I really think most of the Nadal or Djo fans who blatantly dismiss Federer or his GS wins, have only started watching tennis only recently. Because for anyone who loves watching tennis as a game its impossible to have an opinion about Federer like they have. A fellow poster newballs said that most people only see the current players as the best ever and now I see what he/she really meant. They only see the current lung busting game and know nothing better. They think the current player are greatest the world has ever seen and are far superior in every aspect of the game. How ignorant.

Leave GS wins, the contribution alone of Federer for the game of tennis itself has been so sooo very huge, that just out of respect a true tennis fan won't say things like this about him.

But hey, fanboys aren't fanboys for no reason.

To be fair to these fanboys, they aren't helped by the media who have a vested interest in promoting the current fare - how better to boost their viewing figures and general excitement than by suggesting this is the "best ever".

There's one thing the commentators soft pedal on, and it's the time delays. And there's a great reason for that; imagine is they were to remind you that you were watching people stand around for close to a minute between points? Better to fill it with waffle* and paint over the cracks.

* Perhaps this is one reason why current commentary is so awful - they're told to speak non-stop to fill the dead time?

Leff wrote:If "physically strong" meant "hitting the ball hard," doesn't Roddick qualify the criterion?

Leff, I assume you are an adult. The thing is if I have to tell you this, then you are not ready understand. If you were were ready to understand it, you already would have on your own. There are far too many threads on this forum where posters are trying numerous times to explain what this "physical side of the game" means and what is "physically strong".

Looks like its only in recent years that you really started watching tennis, isn't it?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Fernando Gonzalez, Tsonga, Verdasco, Nadal are what I would call 'physical' players.. Djokovic doesn't hit the ball as hard as those 4 however.

No. The physical players are Nadal, Djoko and Murray...Hewitt, Chang, Wilander, Borg...before that.

Tsonga, Gonzo and Delpotro are explosive players. Or hard hitters. Not what I call physical.

Verdasco is a special case caus his stamina seems to fluctuate even more than Nadal (Slams v lesser tournaments).

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Leave GS wins, the contribution alone of Federer for the game of tennis itself has been so sooo very huge, that just out of respect a true tennis fan won't say things like this about him.

Not even sarcastically in jest when speculating about the OP's agenda?

ark, I played tennis and still do, and I have been watching tennis for 20 years. I wasn't sure what you had in mind when using certain language. Fries are chips on this side of the pond. You see how Tenez and Josiah had different interpretations. It would have been easier to explain what you meant without getting personal. Let's keep the discussion pleasant and civil.

You can hit a hard ball by hitting flat with a good timing. Remember Arias? He was not a big guy. Or/and by having big swings like Soderling/Delpo. Those guys in fact have to hit hard and shorten the points cause they know that if they keep rallying, they'll get tired very quickly. That's why we cannot say they are "physical" players.

Why not use straight-forward terms like big-hitters, high-endurance players, and fast movers?

Chang and Wilander would have been amused to hear that Djoko is like them!

Well Djoko's game is actually more balanced between defence and attack....but clearly someone who banks a lot on his physique. It was so clear v Federer and Nadal. This is why we call them physical players. Even though he is more agressive than Nadal, he chose to make him run in that final instead of shortening the point. His strategy changed a bit when his back hurt though.

No Tenez, you are talking about players with high Endurance and Stamina, not necessarily physically strong, Nadal has great stamina and endurance, doesn't mean he physically hits you off the court with winners though?

Tenez wrote:

No. The physical players are Nadal, Djoko and Murray...Hewitt, Chang, Wilander, Borg...before that.

The only thing common between Djoko and Wilander is that both play tennis.

...and, they are both men.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:No Tenez, you are talking about players with high Endurance and Stamina, not necessarily physically strong, Nadal has great stamina and endurance, doesn't mean he physically hits you off the court with winners though?

"Physical" has the advantage to encompass more than stamina. It's also athletism (scrapping around the court), and shots are also hit with power but that power is not necessarily converted into pace but spin of the ball to make sure the ralliy goes on like Nadal's shot or Murray's FH. But more importantly, physical players are those who want to bring the game to a physical battle. A hard hitter is trying to make the game shorter, physically easy for him as well as his opponent. Pace and execution of shots not physique is going to decide the outcome. Stamina is too restrictive.

Soderling for instance can win matches thanks to the pace of his shots. As explained the pace is not automatically generated by a powerful physique...even if it can help.

Leff wrote:...and, they are both men.

They both are/were able to outlast anybody on the tour. Which is essentially what we are discussing here.

Tenez wrote:
They both are/were able to outlast anybody on the tour. Which is essentially what we are discussing here.

Now then, isn't that 'endurance'?

Leff wrote:ark, I played tennis and still do, and I have been watching tennis for 20 years. I wasn't sure what you had in mind when using certain language. Fries are chips on this side of the pond. You see how Tenez and Josiah had different interpretations. It would have been easier to explain what you meant without getting personal. Let's keep the discussion pleasant and civil.

I apologize if the language appeared harsh. I was little upset with some other posters here, and maybe I over reacted. Lets keep it nice.

Raiders, tenez and the rest of the apologists who must make pathetic excuses why there hero loses to a certain spainiard have done it again. It is clear that no level of facts or reason can convince them. Their answer as to why Nadal the socalled talentless moonballer wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays is beyond ridiculous. That playing a few longer points causes world class athletes who train for 4 and 5 hour matches to lose their fitness in 40-60 minutes. Tenez brings up the ridiculous argument of a sprinter who tires after 10 seconds. A tennis match with numerous breaks in between points and changeovers is not the same thing. Tenez must argue that Nadal's opponents who train for 4 hour matches lose their wind in 40-60 minutes if you find that believable well you are officially a federette apologist, I don't find it believable.

If the rest of the more talented ATP tour players are such wimps that they lose their fitness against Nadal in 60 minutes they never deserve to win a single match. As lydian has said this isn't snooker it is a sport. And Raider, maybe you can keep your insults to yourself, for someone who makes an argument completely devoid of facts or reason you sure get pretty nasty. If Nadal wins on fitness why would he take so long in between points, wouldn't he just set a terrifying pace of play quick serving every time to grind his opposition in the dust? Instead he takes the most time in between points giving his opponents time to recover. He beats most of his opposition from the word go, but still we hear this nonsense about fitness as the principal cause of victory. It is a myth made up by apologists who need to create a justification for why their hero loses to a certain spaniard. Really quite sad coming from grown men.

The idea that a guy with 10 slams lacks tennis talent and shotmaking ability is really quite silly and what is even more silly is the idea that all those first sets Nadal wins is a result of his opponents tiring out after 60 minutes of work. They have no answers unless if you accept the assumption that athletes of a world class nature can't play an average of 2 or 3 shots per point more for EVEN A SINGLE MEASLY SET, THAT IS THERE ANSWER AND IT DOESN'T HOLD WATER.