Injuries...

This is one of the words that comes up more and more often in professional sport: the more money in a sport - the more often and seriously athletes' bodies suffer.
Some did and still probably use stuff they shouldn't, some just train their bodies hard until they snap: an inflamed tendon, a broken muscle, torn ligament...and that's just the injuries to the body!
What about mental fatigue, emotional draining, coping with pressure from all sides: sponsors, fans, "nations"...

Everyone wants better, faster, stronger, more dazzling performances, records broken....as if there is no limit to what a man can do.

So now we have a state of mess in tennis; yes it is the end of season, but players should not be injured en-masse like they seem to be more often in recent years.
If they are not injured, then they need "rest".

Those that can afford it, that is.

A man, professional athlete in his 20 and early 30 should be able to last current ATP season, without problems.

Some suggest courts should be made faster, balls smaller, racquets heavier.

How about get rid of the factor that brought tennis into this spiralling state of misery in the first place: Mr Money?
Make the players hungrier and sponsors less greedy.

Yes, I know it sounds silly....well, that would be MY Christmas wish list

I don't know what the answer is but there is a problem. Even if the top two players turn up for the WTF I have my doubts about what sort of form they will turn up in.

I'm sure the players will sort themselves out.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I'm sure the players will sort themselves out.

How?

Adjust their playing styles, prioritise tournaments in their schedules and even not try as hard sometimes.

surely the majoirty of their injuries are caused by burn out. They play too much the shceudles are packed out and dont have enough time to rest between tournaments

cricketfan90 wrote:surely the majoirty of their injuries are caused by burn out. They play too much the shceudles are packed out and dont have enough time to rest between tournaments

I must confess I'm not a tennis nerd and don't know how many tournaments were compulsory in the past etc, but know for sure that there was a lot less money and pressure.....I mean tennis is nothing compared to football where you can't even change the team for years, as if you are a slave...

Good post NITB.

This is one reasons, the slams and other amateur sports fought hard not to make the sport (or other sports) a professional business.

Money can lead to many things. At the beginning it was good thing to bring professionalism but like everyting too much competition kills the sport.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Adjust their playing styles, prioritise tournaments in their schedules and even not try as hard sometimes.

That will never happen!

This is exactly what we are seeing now. The money is at the very top. So a player can reach the top thanks to an amazing talent and hard work saving the strain on his body OR train like hell and use all methods available to increase his physique and stamina to reach that top and compensate for that lesser talent. Those latters will suffer physically much more than the more talented players. But they can't learn to be more talented.

In the past talented players coudl reach the top with moderate work and huge talent (McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Lendl even...) but now really talented players are a rarity at the top. You can't leave the chance of winning or losing a slam down to talent alone as we know "talent" has a big "form of the day" factor. Those top guys nowadays base their success on their physique which is much more reliable than form of the day/talent. That's why they are amazingly consistent over the peak season...until their body is left without a drop of energy.

We are living a strange time in sports in general.

"We are living a strange time in sports in general. "

and they aren't getting better....just look at athletics...utterly ruined, who cares about it any more...

noleisthebest wrote:"We are living a strange time in sports in general. "

and they aren't getting better....just look at athletics...utterly ruined, who cares about it any more...

Yep, I don;t watch athletics, swinning, cycling anymore. I keep an eye certainly but I can;t care less about the Olympics 2012. I'll be in France anyway like I am at that time of the year anyway.

The problem is that there's been so much cheerleading for the style, mainly pioneered by Nadal, that takes the physical to such an extraordinary level that it'll take a fair time to pull it back because the very top players will veto it.

I think Djokovic would never have gone this far had Nadal not set the physical bar where it is; he (Nadal) had no choice as that was the only way to take on Federer, but Djokovic would I feel have been happy to play Roger at his own game.

The problem is Nadal. And don't forget the last we heard from Team Nadal was that the courts should be slower. No, they have no intention of loosening their grip.

"
The problem is Nadal. And don't forget the last we heard from Team Nadal was that the courts should be slower. No, they have no intention of loosening their grip."

Absolutely. The number of times I suffered for saying that Nadal is the death of tennis

bogbrush wrote:I think Djokovic would never have gone this far had Nadal not set the physical bar where it is; he (Nadal) had no choice as that was the only way to take on Federer, but Djokovic would I feel have been happy to play Roger at his own game.

Very good point. But we will never know. Would Djoko have been happy to remain number 2 behind Federer for so many years? Or woudl he have been tempted to speed up his way to the top?

Nadal was number 2 for years and there was nothing much he coudl do to overtake Federer despite his huge popularity and it;s clear that the TDs around teh world wanted the rilvary to go beyond clay and helped Nadal by slowing down the conds further.

Nadal had to have his "career slam" too.

"I think Djokovic would never have gone this far had Nadal not set the physical bar where it is; he (Nadal) had no choice as that was the only way to take on Federer, but Djokovic would I feel have been happy to play Roger at his own game."

Spot on, again! I remember those terrible Nole's losses to Nadal, esp in 2008 and 09, Madrid, Queens, Hamburg Olympic Games... they were all very tight losses simply because Nole was not fit "enough". Nadal never liked playing Nole, and now that Novak has solved the "riddle" he knows there's no way out of dead-end road.
Yes, maybe other players will give it all up one day and the game will reset itself naturally, but what if it doesn't....

noleisthebest wrote:"

Absolutely. The number of times I suffered for saying that Nadal is the death of tennis

Nadal was also good for the drama as we woudl have struggled to get anyone to rival Fed for 7 years but then the conds went ridiculously slow in his favour to give him max chance.

noleisthebest wrote:Spot on, again! I remember those terrible Nole's losses to Nadal, esp in 2008 and 09, Madrid, Queens, Hamburg Olympic Games... they were all very tight losses simply because Nole was not fit "enough". Nadal never liked playing Nole, and now that Novak has solved the "riddle" he knows there's no way out of dead-end road.

How many times did I try to explain that to Socal? Those "close" losses were Nadal's trademark wins! Many player lost so closely against Nadal. From PHM (remember him anyone?) to Querrey, Youshny, etc....

All failing on the physical barrier that was Nadal over the distance. The added pressure on important points that if you don;t convert them, you are in for a run with bionic man!

I think the thing with injuries is that the conds of the court certainly hasn't helped. No such thing as easy points anymore and players are finding it difficult to sustain such high levels for consistent periods time. Look at Nadal's 2010 and 2011. He can no longer maintain those standards. I do worry for Djokovic too, he may not fair so good in 2012.

I do wonder if we will start to see players cherry pick tournaments if the ITF and the ATP do not find a compromise over tournaments.

I remember reading that the Tour De France takes 7 years off your life. Mindboggling.

It's all about control - once money gets into a sport those who are putting it in want a return on their investment and returns usually = predictability to a greater or lesser extent. This desire for returns affects everyone - players, administrators, rule makers, tournament promoters, television channels, the lot.

An inevitable part of this desire for a return involves the need for and creation of a "star" system. "Stars" are more marketable outside the solid fanbase of a sport. This is acutely felt in a sport which operates on the 'knock-out' basis without the option of round-robin events. It is essential that the "stars" are there for the bulk of a tournament otherwise the money coming into the sport shrinks (look what they have done in Football to the Champions League).

The existence of a 'star' system and its promotion generates more money for everyone so that if there are ways of 'guaranteeing' success for "stars" and those whose investments depend upon that they tend to creep into the sport: i.e. rewarding styles of play which tend to produce consistent results, unifying conditions across the surfaces, introducing MTO's to assist those who are knackering themselves, increasing the number of compulsory tournaments which the 'stars' will attend. Of course, eventually the sport begins to feed unsustainably on the stars for whom the physical pressure increases in tandem with the amazing rewards.

It may be that this is happening at the moment - it may be that the current top 3-4 are just exceptional and that when the likes of Federer and Nadal and Djoko properly fade we'll be back to patterns we recognise. However, I tend to see the rise of 'attritional' tennis as possibly a sign of all this.

You're between a rock and a hard place Nole.

The prizemoney is defined by the profits the event gets from the media.

Glittering pots of gold and a large silver trophy give the event, like a slam, more aura and guarantee the top players attend.

Or that used to be the recipe.

Now each slam has surpassed its own status as one of the ultimate venues for the professional tennis player. Now, as you say, its all about money, but there will never be a situation where they will earn less.

But, thats in consideration of each slam as an individual.

If they all got together and made it 50% less prizemoney, due to the world financial crisis, then the players would have no say in the matter, but it would have to be across the board and into the Masters and Challenger circuit, otherwise, the lesser tournies would begin to have a closer status to the slams.

Thats where the problems will rise, the journeymen/women who scrape a living off those smaller events, anything less and it would bankrupt them.

If the 4 slams could freeze the money for a few years, quite a few years, then maybe your dream of the perfect balance between staying power on the tour and a fit player may become a reality. And I would love to have that too.

Some really thorough and interesting thoughts, thanks!
It's good to know that others share the same concerns. The $24 000 question is what players think about it (behind the closed doors, of course).

legendkillar wrote:I remember reading that the Tour De France takes 7 years off your life.

There is a theory that you're born with a certain no. of heartbeats...better not use them all up at once! Its a fine line between peak fitness and going over the top such that you're eating into your fundamental reserves and letting loose inflammatory processes all over the place...and inflammation is at the heart of most chronic diseases.

I think the issue is bigger than Nadal. Calling Nadal the death of tennis is frankly ridiculous. Has anyone never heard of the expression "product of your environment"? Nadal is a product, not the creator of the environment. He's also a talented tennis player but I'm not going down that route of discussion. The ITF and ATP decided in their wisdom to start slowng courts down after the serve fests of the 90s...it has nothing to do with Fed v Nadal. The courts were slowing down long before they were in their prime...or in Nadal's case not even on tour. Both Wimbledon and USO slowed dramatically in the early 2000s. They simply wanted longer ralleys in the belief thats what the crowd wanted. So when we talk about the physical game its a direct result of the changes in the early 2000s...then the new breed of players came along...including Federer who embraced the physical age with his new training regime courtesy of Paganini.

Also, these current top players are all beneficiaries of the slowing surfaces...Fed, Nadal, Nole (even Murray trained at Barcelona)...they're all brought up on clay so are very well adapted to the now ubiquitous slow conditions. Nadal isnt the death of tennis, the ATP and ITF are.

"Nadal is a product, not the creator of the environment. "
Well, you certainly can't blame him for trying, and succeeding...it's the consequences it brought, and the have to end. The sooner, the better.

Yes NITB but stop blaming Nadal, or any player in particular for the current game. The tour needs to change before it robs us of all these talents early through chronic injury, Nole particularly.

Lydian

There is a condition out there called 'athletes heart syndrome' which is where the heart is enlarged and is a form bracyardia and I remember reading a cyclist registered 26 beats per minute!!!

Many of the cyclists are superhumanly fit and have low heart-rates...e.g. Miguel Indurain at 28 bpm, even Armstrong is around 34bpm. Borg famously had a low rate too. Their hearts are athletically enlarged but not 'medically' so (i.e. cardiomyopathy/hypertrophy) but for some the enlargement can expose an underlying issue as it the enlargement affect/blocks the conduction of signals from the SA and AV nodes downwards potentially causing sudden death syndrome.

lydian wrote:Yes NITB but stop blaming Nadal, or any player in particular for the current game. The tour needs to change before it robs us of all these talents early through chronic injury, Nole particularly.

Well, Nadal pushed the boundaries in that direction, didn't he? You can't dig your hand in the sand and deny the size of his biceps? Who before or after him ever looked like that in tennis history? Yes, he does have some talent but without that ridiculous fitness , he wouldn't've achieved much.
I remember when Murray made the decision to go Nadal way and piled on 6 kg of muscle over the Christmas off-season. The Nole had a thought, put two and two together, and he had the amazing 2011. Now he is paying for it as he is not as strong in the upper body as non of the other top 4. I marvel at what he actually managed to achieve with his body size, he's got a lot to thank his legs for!

I think Nadal is naturally strong and the biceps are probably something that is very much part of his physique, though gym work will have enhanced.

For me, where he carries such a lot of muscle and weight is on his lower legs - calves, and his lower arms. It is the strength in these two places that allows him to really muscle his shots, especially when you see him pushed back on his heels on the base line - he is able to just power through although the fact he is off balance should weaken those shots.

What I don't understand is how, carrying the weight here, is not affecting his 'dodgy knees', particularly when you see him pushed back onto those heels again and again - received wisdom in 2009 was that he really was carrying too much muscle weight for a tennis player and it was putting undue strain on the knees. The only thing is that he is certainly doing less running with the majority of the field nowadays and just powering his shots from the centre of the baseline.

Carrying this weight has helped his power definitely, but it hasn't helped his stamina with Nole this year because it is quite exhausting to lug around that amount of muscle mass - which is why we haven't seen many players beef up like this in the past.

On the other hand, for Nole's shoulder, going toe to toe with that weight of shot final after final - well that ain't been great either!

NITB, who's to say Federer didnt push the boundaries by adopting his gruelling fitness regime from 2003...and I'm not burying my head in any sand thank you. Again I say that the game has become what it has become due to the conditions, not Nadal but you dont seem to be able to divorce your dislike of the player from the environment he's playing in. And we see Djokovic embracing the same physical approach yet I dont see you denoucing his talent or achievements, seems double standards to me.
And we're back to the what is talent argument again...slower conditions aside (those are outside the players control), the guys who hold up the big trophies are the ones to whom the spoils go. The talent is in winning and professional sport is about winning in the prevailing conditions. The slower conditions allow players like Nadal who have a wide range of attributes to dominate - if it hadnt been him it would have been someone else, and before Nadal it was Federer who was probably the fittest guy on tour...and now Nole is right up there. But as I say you seem to excuse Nole from the physical argument but chose to pin it on Nadal instead when at the end of the day their games arent that different (extended baseline ralleys built on amazing retrieving and dominated with western FHs and DHBHs).

From memory Borg was the first player to realise that being fitter than your opponents gives you an advantage. The fact is, it's happened in all sports. Science is evolving and this is a natural consequence. Ice baths, Nole's egg, even dynamic stretching (less than ten years ago everyone believed in "static" stretching before physical activity - now shown to be pointless). The idea that Nadal is responsible for the "death of tennis" is a joke quite frankly.

Having said that, I am worried that more than ever players seem to be struggling to cope with the season's demands, and the better players are all dropping like flies at the back end of the season. The answer to me though is pretty simple: reduce the calendar. Move AO back a month or two, make it the end rather than the beginning of the first hard court stretch. This allows the season to start later. Then get rid of Asia (or relocate it to February - we don't need two American hardcourt seasons anyway). This allows the season to start earlier. Longer off season = more recovery time, shorter season = less strain on the bodies.

Simple. It won't happen for the other reason NITB (who's quite sensible while not discussing Nadal ) mentioned: money. Too much money in sport is a bad thing, and again this isn't limited to tennis. It results in too much sport being played (considering the current level of "athleticism" of the top sportsmen), and thus more injuries. I don't have a solution for this unfortunately, but I believe that if we were to see another two years that end like this one (ie about 15 withdrawals at the Us Open, and all the top players suffering from exhaustion from then on in), then the tour organisers will come to their senses and things will change.

TP, I think I remember commentators when discussing Murray was that his muscle was mostly in his legs, and that allowed him to move faster around the court (as he didn't have to carry so much upper-body muscle). Don't know if this has any real link to what you're saying, but it seems to be going in the same general direction so I thought I'd throw it out there...

noleisthebest wrote:"
The problem is Nadal. And don't forget the last we heard from Team Nadal was that the courts should be slower. No, they have no initention of loosening their grip."

Absolutely. The number of times I suffered for saying that Nadal is the death of tennis

Nadal the death of tennis?! Good grief thats a bit strong. Just because he has a posative H2H with your favourite.

Like it or not Nadal is one of the most popular tennis players ever. Together with Federer he is responsable for maintaining and growing a worldwide tennis audience. His matches are amongst the most talked about including what many consider the best match ever.

As for slowing the courts down. That stopped many turning away completely from watching mens tennis. In the 90's it had become almost unwatchable with fast surfaces, dominant serves and non existant rallies.

I know your reasons for your dislike of Nadal and it has nothing to do with his tennis.

"I know your reasons for your dislike of Nadal and it has nothing to do with his tennis."

I know you didn't mean to, but this is actually really funny

No it isn't.

barrystar wrote:It's all about control - once money gets into a sport those who are putting it in want a return on their investment and returns usually = predictability to a greater or lesser extent. This desire for returns affects everyone - players, administrators, rule makers, tournament promoters, television channels, the lot.

An inevitable part of this desire for a return involves the need for and creation of a "star" system. "Stars" are more marketable outside the solid fanbase of a sport. This is acutely felt in a sport which operates on the 'knock-out' basis without the option of round-robin events. It is essential that the "stars" are there for the bulk of a tournament otherwise the money coming into the sport shrinks (look what they have done in Football to the Champions League).

The existence of a 'star' system and its promotion generates more money for everyone so that if there are ways of 'guaranteeing' success for "stars" and those whose investments depend upon that they tend to creep into the sport: i.e. rewarding styles of play which tend to produce consistent results, unifying conditions across the surfaces, introducing MTO's to assist those who are knackering themselves, increasing the number of compulsory tournaments which the 'stars' will attend. Of course, eventually the sport begins to feed unsustainably on the stars for whom the physical pressure increases in tandem with the amazing rewards.

It may be that this is happening at the moment - it may be that the current top 3-4 are just exceptional and that when the likes of Federer and Nadal and Djoko properly fade we'll be back to patterns we recognise. However, I tend to see the rise of 'attritional' tennis as possibly a sign of all this.

Great post Barry. Glad to see some can see beyond the sport's curtains.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:TP, I think I remember commentators when discussing Murray was that his muscle was mostly in his legs, and that allowed him to move faster around the court (as he didn't have to carry so much upper-body muscle). Don't know if this has any real link to what you're saying, but it seems to be going in the same general direction so I thought I'd throw it out there...

That's exactly what I was trying to say MFC - Rafa is built like a strong sprinter to really power through, but he is carrying too much muscle mass across his torso (look at the 'barrel shape' of his upper body), his lower arms and his lower legs (not his upper) to be a marathon runner - think of the great marathon runners, or even middle distance runners and how they are built compared to the sprinters.

It just takes more oxygen, higher blood pressure etc to push that amount of muscle around over a long period and the latter is clearly going to be detrimental to an athlete's long term health.

This is why Agassi said that Rafa 'was writing his cheques that his body couldn't cash', or was that McEnroe? - because the amount of exertion he was putting into every match, and the muscle that he was lugging around just didn't add up in received fitness wisdom. It was to no-one's great surprise when he said that his knees had gone in 2009, but this seems a problem of the past. At first, he lost a lot of weight below his knees and in his forearm and over the shoulders, and while his game initially lost a little oomph as a result, it seemed that his knees responded positively. However, he is once again very muscled over shoulders, lower arm and lower leg and I can't quite understand how his body is managing it - but I think that we saw that he couldn't sustain that exertion over 4 sets with another player who really could handle his weight of shot - Nole, built more like a middle distance runner was able to last the distance better, however I think dealing with the brute force of Rafa's shots over the season has probably contributed to the shoulder problem.

lydian wrote:NITB, who's to say Federer didnt push the boundaries by adopting his gruelling fitness regime from 2003...and I'm not burying my head in any sand thank you. Again I say that the game has become what it has become due to the conditions, not Nadal but you dont seem to be able to divorce your dislike of the player from the environment he's playing in. And we see Djokovic embracing the same physical approach yet I dont see you denoucing his talent or achievements, seems double standards to me.
And we're back to the what is talent argument again...slower conditions aside (those are outside the players control), the guys who hold up the big trophies are the ones to whom the spoils go. The talent is in winning and professional sport is about winning in the prevailing conditions. The slower conditions allow players like Nadal who have a wide range of attributes to dominate - if it hadnt been him it would have been someone else, and before Nadal it was Federer who was probably the fittest guy on tour...and now Nole is right up there. But as I say you seem to excuse Nole from the physical argument but chose to pin it on Nadal instead when at the end of the day their games arent that different (extended baseline ralleys built on amazing retrieving and dominated with western FHs and DHBHs).

You're right, Fed also pushed the fitness boundaries, but in his case the fitness allowed him to last longer on the tour not to outlast an opponent in a match by draining him out of all his energy.
Federer did raise the bar by the sheer power of his talent and attacking game, but it was hard to follow him.
Uncle Toni thought of a plan and executed it perfectly with Nadal.
Nole sat in no-man's land until he improved his fitness. Nole is the key figure in the whole story: he showed what was needed to beat Nadal and did it, just like Nadal did to Federer. Now look how much it cost him and what is the cause of that cost: the unrealistic fitness exertion.
I am not blaming Nadal per se, but he did set the trend which, unlike Federer's was FOLLOWABLE. Very costly, though.
He's had to pay for it with his knee tendonitis, Nole with his shoulder tendontis, Murray (time will tell), Delpo with his wrist, Davydenko after the short rise at the end of 2009 simply collapsed as his relatively small body couldn't cope any more. then you have Fish who loses weight and also goes fitness way, lasts under a year and crashes out...it's not good, is it?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:From memory Borg was the first player to realise that being fitter than your opponents gives you an advantage. The fact is, it's happened in all sports. Science is evolving and this is a natural consequence. Ice baths, Nole's egg, even dynamic stretching (less than ten years ago everyone believed in "static" stretching before physical activity - now shown to be pointless). The idea that Nadal is responsible for the "death of tennis" is a joke quite frankly.

But what's the point in watching a sport where science can take the athlete to a level none of the spectator and fan can identify in any way? Do I care if people can run a 100m in 5 sec thanks to some bionic legs and radioactive beetroots? I want to watch a sport practiced by the best athletes I can compare myself with. Athletes who eat and drink like I do. Not the lab which will give me glory, cancer and mutant children.

Nadal and now the whole tour is playing like it was not possible 20 years ago.....but in 3 years, they will all be as fit as Nadal like now they all run faster and last longer than Borg. Showing clearly than the traits we admire in athletes, natural health and skills, can be acquired by all as long as you have the best labs behind you.

But worse, it;s the talent side of the sport which is completely becoming irrelevant. Can anyone appreciate the amazing skills of a leander Paes? His skills have been obsolete on the single's tour 10 years ago cause the physical side took already then too much importance. Yet he was talented enough to beat Pete Sampras in his hey days. How many talents like him have we ignored or overlooked because of the game becoming more physical thanks to some obscure labs pushing the physical bar constantly higher?

Having a player able to reach the final 4 of all or most slams with a sliced BH, a loopy FH and/or big legs is, as NITB says, the death of the sport.

noleisthebest wrote:
You're right, Fed also pushed the fitness boundaries, but in his case the fitness allowed him to last longer on the tour not to outlast an opponent in a match by draining him out of all his energy.
Federer did raise the bar by the sheer power of his talent and attacking game, but it was hard to follow him.
Uncle Toni thought of a plan and executed it perfectly with Nadal.
Nole sat in no-man's land until he improved his fitness. Nole is the key figure in the whole story: he showed what was needed to beat Nadal and did it, just like Nadal did to Federer. Now look how much it cost him and what is the cause of that cost: the unrealistic fitness exertion.
I am not blaming Nadal per se, but he did set the trend which, unlike Federer's was FOLLOWABLE. Very costly, though.
He's had to pay for it with his knee tendonitis, Nole with his shoulder tendontis, Murray (time will tell), Delpo with his wrist, Davydenko after the short rise at the end of 2010 simply collapsed as his relatively small body couldn't cope any more.

That's the key. Federer never pushed the physical boundaries. He had to be as fit as the best guys of the time to compete with them. It was not goood enough to beat Hewitt 2 sets to love in Australia in their 2003 DC semi (or final). He had to win a 3rd set and that meant to be as fit as hewitt so that his talent could make the difference. Fitness was Hewitt's main weapon. Not Federer's. It would be absurd to deny that Fed's weapons were his shot making and talent which he has in abundance over his rivals. That's why I always disagreed with Lydian on this very point. Lydian can talk about Nikishouri's "obvious talent" but will have more difficulty in talking about Federer's which is more "obvious" than Nikishouri or anybody else on tour.

Today's physical game is killing the talent side of the game. Only because Djoko can get close to Nadal physically can his superior talent be expressed when facing Nadal. It's actually obvious to all now. It doesn;t mean that DJoko is the most talented player out there though. He is the one with the best physical/talent ratio...before he got injured that is.

Reading some of the comments it does stir up some interesting points.

Some want some form of elitism, and yet not want there to be such a gulf in the game which separates the elite from the rest.

Going back to the points regarding the impact of 'physicallity' on the game. Yes there is no doubt that the standards in the game have changed. It has had to. Whether people like it or not, I am not a fan of the 'we should feel we should all be able to do it' because then it doesn't make it a 'professional' sport.

Has Nadal killed the sport? No. Has he raised the bar? Yes. But then Federer did before him, Sampras prior to that and Borg and Laver, The list becomes exhaustive. The point remains the same. As time evolves, as does standards.

Tennis is a trend like all other sports. Football moved from toothless combover shin hacking beer drinking slow pokes to theatrical gazelle jumping machine training rice eating grass gliding speed demon poster boys. Same with any other sport. Golf, Cricket, Rugby. All affected by change and trends. Tennis has had to adopt from a sport for the middle class pimms drinkers to athletes to grace the courts.

There is however exceptions to the rules by where 'beyond exceptional talent' shines through and conquers all. Federer being one of those, but then you have players which are not far from that in the likes of Nadal and Djokovic.

Trend is change whether we like it or not. As time passes by, Courts may speed up again, balls may become smaller and faster. When the time comes, and change is upon us, as sheep we will follow a new breed of shepherds.

Yep, there have been many times when players have had to get fitter to compete with players who have naturally high levels of stamina (like the basts who could run the school marathon when I could only, just, walk over the finish line) Lendl being a player who recognised that you had to be able to last all those possible 5 setters in slams to have a chance of winning it.

I wonder if, now, we are on the thresh-hold of the capacity to achieve a balance between fitness versus talent without permanent injury ?

Jubbahey wrote:Yep, there have been many times when players have had to get fitter to compete with players who have naturally high levels of stamina (like the basts who could run the school marathon when I could only, just, walk over the finish line) Lendl being a player who recognised that you had to be able to last all those possible 5 setters in slams to have a chance of winning it.

I wonder if, now, we are on the thresh-hold of the capacity to achieve a balance between fitness versus talent without permanent injury ?

Absolutely. Not only ON but slightly above the treshold. Even Federer.

The parallel between hovering at No4/3 and not having any career threatening injuries (aka Murray) might well pave the way to understanding the consistency that Federer had for so many years.

noleisthebest wrote:
Absolutely. Not only ON but slightly above the treshold. Even Federer.

This threshold has been moving. It was not the same in the 70s that it is now. PLayers have always played at the threshold or even just above of their physical capacity. But that threshold keeps moving up thanks to better treatment, preparation, and science in general. I don't think any past players played with energy and effort to spare. Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, had all niggling injuries already back then.

I thought we had reached that threshold in the beginning of 2000 seeing a lot of players injured, Safin, Hewitt, Nalby, etc....cause I thought ligaments could not heal or be treated well but look at how much phsyically teh game has progressed since thanks to PRP and other methods.

One thing for sure is that the game woudl not be as physical if they were just eating pasta and beef like the rest of us.

Personally I'm not convinced.

I think that these top players are becoming so rich and entitled that they almost feel they transcend the sport and should be allowed to do whatever they want.

They get a bit tired at the end of the season, and they feel that a person of their high standing shouldn't feel like that so things need to change. A lot of these injuries are just run of the mill, everyday niggles, that people in most sports suck up and live with. Not these guys.

Nowhere near as much money in say marathon running, but these athlete's bodies are put through so much more than a tennis player's, but with a fraction of the moaning.

djlovesyou wrote:Personally I'm not convinced.

I think that these top players are becoming so rich and entitled that they almost feel they transcend the sport and should be allowed to do whatever they want.

They get a bit tired at the end of the season, and they feel that a person of their high standing shouldn't feel like that so things need to change. A lot of these injuries are just run of the mill, everyday niggles, that people in most sports suck up and live with. Not these guys.

Nowhere near as much money in say marathon running, but these athlete's bodies are put through so much more than a tennis player's, but with a fraction of the moaning.

Footballers moan, No winter break

Cricketers moan, Too much cricket

I could go on.

Comparing marathon runners to tennis players is a bit of an extreme. Both physical requirements are much different.

It has to be said. Djokovic and Murray couldn't have been "injured" that badly last week if they were able to play this week. I also feel a little uncomfortable with the financial enticements on offer to Djokovic just to turn up this week.

hawkeye wrote:It has to be said. Djokovic and Murray couldn't have been "injured" that badly last week if they were able to play this week. I also feel a little uncomfortable with the financial enticements on offer to Djokovic just to turn up this week.

Coin the term 'Precaution'

Might help your man Nadal pulling out of Paris eh?

.