Our Great Era Debunked!

First topic message reminder :

Now is a good time to reflect on the previous seasons and get a better understanding of what happened to our game in the last 5 years. We hear of course all the fans of Nadal, Murray, Djoko and even some of Federer say that we are experiencing the strongest era in tennis and they support their belief by belittling the players of the past, particularly the time when Federer was dominant and had no opposition outside clay.

Nowadays, the players we perceived as great in 2006 such as Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzales, Ljubo even are no longer remembered that great and compared to Nadal Djoko and Murray seem inconsistent and erratic. There is something about the way Nadal, Djoko and Murray consistently reach the last rounds of slams, all slams!, that certainly make them look very good even if in Murray’s case, he has not won a slam yet.

However as some of us explained in other threads, the main difference between now and then is that the game is simply played differently and the skills needed now are just different BUT not better than then. To compare the 2 “eras” I have highlited 2 matches played by the best players of those eras from the USO (06 and 11) and highlighted how the game and conditions have changed.

In short I have clocked the number of shots (length of court) played (that is how many times the ball travels the length of a court) on a few rallies and worked out the average time to get a more precise result. And here are the staggering results that you can check for yourself on youtube:


Nadal v Djoko USO 11
# rallies / seconds / time the ball takes to complete a length on average(ex: 1.32sec)
22 in 29s 1.318182s per length
22 in 29s 1.318182
31 in 44s 1.419355
14 in 18s 1.285714
Average 1.34s per length of court

Djokovic Murray AO 2011

14rallies in 19s 1.357142857
12rallies in 16s 1.333333333
18rallies in 26s 1.444444444
Average 1.38s per length

Federer v Blake USO 06
18 in 22s 1.222222
12 16s 1.333333
8 8s 1
12 13s 1.083333
13 15s 1.153846
13 16s 1.230769
8 7s 0.875
Average 1.13s per length of court

What this table says is that the rhythm played in 06 was nearly 20% faster than in 2011!! In some shorter rallies over 50% faster, helped by taking the ball earlier and hitting much flatter. This is a huge difference!!!

So what does that mean? It means that the players then, the best ones were the sharpest ones. Great reflexes, taking the ball early and flat and they were trying to take time away from their opponent to dictate and rushed the opponent into mistakes as opposed to today’s tennis where the retrievers push the opponent into mistakes by giving them smaller targets thanks to amazing retrieving skills that were unseen up to 2006.

But that’s not all. The game was faster, cause the conditions were faster, and that generation learnt their game with natural strings while spin was harder to generate and not as beneficial as hitting flat and shortening the point. Tennis was played at a smooth rhythm and everybody then was playing within the 20s rule. It was understood that there was no other choice so no need to learn a different tennis that could not be sustained over long distances, especially on those fast surfaces where taking risk was rewarding.

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What a lot of people here fail to realise is that the game has seriously changed and the skills are different but certainly not better. When the courts were fast in 2005/06, Nadal was being beaten by Blake…..3 times in a row in fact. Yet Nadal was good enough to have 2 FOs. The very talented Davydenko could not take time away from Blake. The latter holds a 7/0 H2H against the Russian cause whom could take the ball earlier and inject pace was simply better at that time. Davydenko could not handle Blake or Federer but we know he loves Nadal’s slower pace as long as he can handle a fair bit of running with the Spaniard.

For those reasons above, I think it is ignorant to believe that 2003-06 was a weak era. In fact in terms of tennis played under the rules and on fast conditions, it’s been the best tennis we have had and we don’t know how Nadal or Djoko would fare in those. Well I am certainly more optimistic about Djoko’s success than Nadal, especially if we were to apply the 20s rule but I would expect Djoko to lose more often than he did in 2011 being rushed by players who spent their life learning to take time away from their opponents (Nalbandian, Blake, Safin and others). We have to stress as well that in those days, there was no recipe to run as long and as fast while keeping UEs down, so no-one had a choice to play differently than taking risk and the more talented were the better at it. And Federer was simply the best when it came to “skilled” tennis. We wii never know how great his peers would have been without him. But on fast surfaces, it was not Nadal that stopped him from accumulating his slams. It was other very talented players trying their best but falling short. Saying it was a weak era, is as stupid as saying Nadal had a weak era on clay cause no-one was physical enough to fight with him there and noone won anything significant on clay bar Nadal. But as we have seen this year, it’s changing fast now that we have another physical player.

In conclusion, the game evolves and I don’t want to fall in the trap of some posters here, that is belittling today’s era, but we have to recognise that the game changed thanks to a few factors and those changes are extremely important is changing the scenery of tennis when we know small margins can have a huge impact on a game, a match and a career.

Source:
Federer Blake USO 2006 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8
Djokovic Nadal USO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk
Djokovic Murray AO 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpKJYhjEcA
Difference obvious to the naked eye.

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Geddit?

Yes, Gotit...

Screw it, I'm not doing that without admitting it even to make a point. I frigged your post.

Yes, and if someone is doing that, it is pretty

amritia did it to Tenez, check back.

Pathetic. But not surprising.

bogbrush wrote:

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Geddit?

Yes, Gotit...

Screw it, I'm not doing that without admitting it even to make a point. I frigged your post.

Yes, and if someone is doing that, it is pretty

amritia did it to Tenez, check back.

Pathetic. But not surprising.

Mono
Court speed
Colour of court
Court texture
Bounce too inconsistent
Bounce too consistent
....

Another thread spammed by amrit.

Hi everyone
I see this thread is still rumbling on
I think it's fair to say a range of comments have been made
I'm off to bed.

Me too HB I'm checking out of this thread...I would never seek to discuss viral loading, early phase antigens, immunoassays, GF vs CFS residuality, IgG and IgM levels in the calamitous face of lacking a neuroscience degree. I heard this quaification is now 'de rigeur' amongst leadings experts during plenaries at the recent ECCMID congress.
Anyway...perhaps if Federer's 2008 is unequivocably written off to GF and all results thereafter asterisked to that naughty herpes virus, then perhaps his career can now be split into 2 phases according to the following era labels?
"NADAL" (i.e. pre-2008: "No Attributable Defeats And Losses")
"SAMPRAS" (i.e. post-2008: "Slams Affected by Mono - Points and Ralleys Affected Significantly")

Oh hang on, I nearly forgot, I need to throw in a couple of non-contextual smilies to be taken seriously
:Neuroscience BSc's! Hell yeah!:
:Ljubicic is nu-GOAT!:
(sorry, all this mono-talk must be hyper-signalling my amygdala...)

lydian wrote:I would never seek to discuss viral loading, early phase antigens, immunoassays, GF vs CFS residuality, IgG and IgM levels in the calamitous face of lacking a neuroscience degree..... all this mono-talk must be hyper-signalling my amygdala...)

Darn, that's exactly what I was going to say!

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:people her know who takes cheap seats and cheap supports to launch an attack on fellow posters. Do you really do anything other than complaining and mourning on everybodies view point? you along with some fellow posters ruined the reputation of board so badly

Launch an attack on fellow posters??? yeah right...pray tell?
Ruined the reputation of the board so badly??? yeah right...pray tell?

Get a grip, your response on here and other threads regarding me is completey OTT

You need to get a grip Lyd, coz you just end up blabbering anti-fed just coz you hate him, no wonder you have marshelling the wum troops in SA and Amrit.

I have quashed you theory With Sampras - Fed comparision, you being a die hard Sampras fan just can't accept Fed bettered him in every aspect, typical silly attitude of never to accept my cat had four legs just coz you accidentally blabbered once it had 3 legs. Till now you haven't contrinuted anything useful other than useless arguing with repeated points. I actually see SA has more interesting poster than you, atleast he has some sense of humor unlike you bore and vague mentality of arguing.

lydian wrote:
"NADAL" (i.e. pre-2008: "No Attributable Defeats And Losses")
"SAMPRAS" (i.e. post-2008: "Slams Affected by Mono - Points and Ralleys Affected Significantly")

Even on your sleep you worship Sampras right? otherwise why on earth Sampras is discussed as a tennis player post 2008? you talking about champions tour Worshiping player is going beyond terms.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

You need to get a grip Lydian, coz you just end up blabbering anti-fed just coz you hate him.

I'm sorry IC, did Lydian accidentally not accept Tenez's annual list of excuses?
Don't worry I'm sure the doctors were all wrong and Fed did have mono for all his losses in 2008. Anything else you want me to say to cheer you up.
I've decided to asterisk all of Nadal's victories over Fed as the lighting was too poor in all 17 matches Nadal won. However the lighting for Fed's 9 wins were all of top quality. Anything else?
If you are feeling too down feel free to contact the Daily Star problem page and they can supply you with replays of Fed's win over Nishokiri in the Basel final.

@ amrit i never said Nadal's win dont count, he is a legend in my view, n will get the GOAT title even if he makes above 14 GS , I never said his wins are asterisked, neither is Fed's neither is any players, n there is no weak or golden era.

Here is a link to Jim Courier's analysis of Fed's mono, which is from the USO 2008, where, in his view, Fed was still being affected by it.
http://blog.sfgate.com/sportsevents/2008/09/04/strong-words-from-courier/

Now then, I wonder, did his fellow commentators :-
a) agree that there was a possibility Fed might still be affected
b) Firmly but politely disagree with Courier
c) Laugh in a mocking, childish way at Courier and start calling him Dr Jim in the commentary booth

I've no doubt that Fed, was affected during the 2008 US Open, which probably then led to further fitness issues during the autumn / winter hard court season, which you remember Fed famously stating, after his Miami 2009 loss to Nole, that he was "glad to see the back of hard courts"

However, can we be as generous in understanding that his rivals also suffer dips in fitness, which should then also be able to be used to explain a loss

I say this, because I note that there was much glee at the ailments of his rivals, during O2. Judging from some of the comments, you'd think that Fed was the '6 Million Dollar Man'!!

There is no doubt though, that Fed is the most naturally fit of all the Tennis players and arguably the fittest man who's ever played the game

Yes, certainly people should recognise other players ailments.

I would point out, as a matter of detail, that taking pleasure in such a thing is different from pretending it didn't happen.

amritia3ee wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

You need to get a grip Lydian, coz you just end up blabbering anti-fed just coz you hate him.

<blather, bollox>

If you are feeling too down feel free to contact the Daily Star problem page and they can supply you with replays of Fed's win over Nishokiri in the Basel final.

or the annihilation in London, with the crispy, sugar-coated doughnut handed out in the one hour schooling?

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What's the view of posters on this part of the OP? Some have wrongly criticized the figures of average time between 2 shots but surely one cannot question those numbers.

Do they think Djoko and Nadal coudl play their tennis within the tennis rule (20s)?

Tenez wrote:

Another crucial stat when comparing those 2 matches is that Federer and Blake played 8 percent more points in 52% less time! Yes read it again if you wish. That is a staggering average of 34s per point while Djokovic and Nadal spend nearly a minute per point (56s) on average!!!. That includes aces, 2 shots raliies etc...

Who believes here they could play that kind of tennis within the rules? Not me. Can you imagine them doing as much running with 1h25mn to spare without coming up with more UEs under O2 starved muscles?

What's the view of posters on this part of the OP? Some have wrongly criticized the figures of average time between 2 shots but surely one cannot question those numbers.

Do they think Djoko and Nadal coudl play their tennis within the tennis rule (20s)?

Yes. If the rule was enforced

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

I am sure you must be glad we will never know.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

Yes, easily.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

I am sure you must be glad we will never know.

Tenez. That wasn't your initial question. Now that you've asked another, I'll answer

Nole - Assuming that he's playing like he did up to Cincy, then yes. Remember he's cleverly adapated his game to cope with Rafa, i.e. made sure his fitness is at a peak so that his superior skill eventually wins (something a former No.1, looks like taking on board judging by his O2 win over Rafa ) Hence, because fitness would become less of an issue, under these new rules, his skills would be more prominent, given that it would no longer be a a 'war of attrition' due to the shorter time for recovery

Rafa - Would suffer and would struggle to win anything away from the dirt


However, in your usual "let's keep the foot at the throats of the top 2" you fail to see, that this would help Murray enormously, who actually doesn't rely on being super fit any more than Fed does, simply because he uses the Tennis ball intelligently (at his best)

It would also benefit the likes of Tsonga and be a disadvantage the likes of Del Potro

So I'm all for it!!

Now if we could quicken the courts as well..................

I am not sure you answered the question. It;s very simple. Their game is based on having long rallies and "containing" their opponents by retrieving many balls that are not retrieved by other players. Djoko does it more aggressively than Nadal but in substance that is how he won his slams. Murray is no different in that respect except that he doesn't usually go over the 20s which is a very good point. Murray relies on being extremely fit. In fact he is often injured cause he pushes his body too much.

So the question coudl they "contain" or "retrieve" as well if they were to play with the 20s rule? meaning with roughly an hour less time to recover in a 4 or 5 set match?

My response is clearly NO. It;s not even close. It woudl be like asking a marathonian to cut his time by 30mn or so. Simply impossible.

Yes Tenez I'm sure the fact Nadal regularly goes to 25 seconds instead of 20 makes the big difference. You're talking as if they would have no time at all between points- in which case it would make a difference. But a few seconds each time? Maybe if Djokovic bounced it a few less times and Nadal did not pick his shorts they would fit it within 20 sec. Not gonna make a big difference.

I think its somewhat daft to have ATP at 25s for 3 setters and ITF at 20s for 5 setters. They need to be consistent.
I dont think Nadal or Nole would have any problems sticking to 20s/25s - it just needs enforcing! Nadal was playing the same speed at Miami 2004 as Rogers 2011...its not his fault the authorities dont manage the rule properly! Between you and I, I think it would have been better for his game actually and made him more aggressive, he's been far too passive at times, often only stepping it up at crunch moments. Nadal can play very aggressively - as e.g. Miami 2004, FO08, Miami 11 showed. I'm all for the 20s/25s rule.

lydian wrote:I dont think Nadal or Nole would have any problems sticking to 20s/25s - it just needs enforcing! Nadal was playing the same speed at Miami 2004 as Rogers 2011....

he beat Roger in Miami04 (a fully fit Roger of course as you clearly do not want to consider he had flu) but he lost v Callieri and Gonzo.

The fact is that he won nothing of note until he extended his time taking.

So you cannot say he would have no problem cause the fact is he lost 6 games in a row in the last 5 setter he played with the time.


Regarding what is daft or not is not for discussion here are the rules are what they are. I might think it's a bit daft to keep the court size as it is now that players can run faster and longer than ever. We won;t go anywhere with this reasoning.

Tenez wrote:
I might think it's a bit daft to keep the court size as it is now that players can run faster and longer than ever. We won;t go anywhere with this reasoning.

Another point added to Tenez's annual excuses list:
Court size- too small.

Tenez wrote:I am not sure you answered the question. It;s very simple. Their game is based on having long rallies and "containing" their opponents by retrieving many balls that are not retrieved by other players. Djoko does it more aggressively than Nadal but in substance that is how he won his slams. Murray is no different in that respect except that he doesn't usually go over the 20s which is a very good point. Murray relies on being extremely fit. In fact he is often injured cause he pushes his body too much.

So the question coudl they "contain" or "retrieve" as well if they were to play with the 20s rule? meaning with roughly an hour less time to recover in a 4 or 5 set match?

My response is clearly NO. It;s not even close. It woudl be like asking a marathonian to cut his time by 30mn or so. Simply impossible.

Tenez. You're writing nonsense about Nole. He's quite capable of showing us his skills as we saw with that instinctive shot at match point for Fed at the US Open - don't remember that involving a "long rally"

Murray relies on his superb return of serve and also his skills which make it extremely hard for his opponents to compete against him. Consequently, they get fitnees issues. So reducing the amount of time between points benefits him

banbrotam wrote:Tenez. You're writing nonsense about Nole. He's quite capable of showing us his skills as we saw with that instinctive shot at match point for Fed at the US Open - don't remember that involving a "long rally"

Haven't you learnt yet that I don't write "non-sense" but what I say makes actually perfect sense? How many times do you need to burn your fingers? Djoko can play fast no doubt but the difference between having a few more 15-20 shots rallies in a game and match is huge and has a big impact on the need to recover, that is breathing extra O2. Do you really think it is a coincidence that Rafa and Djoko both take a lot of time between points?

Murray relies on his superb return of serve and also his skills which make it extremely hard for his opponents to compete against him. Consequently, they get fitnees issues. So reducing the amount of time between points benefits him

Murray relies also a lot on his soft sliced BH to kill the pace and force the opponent to add pace and precision on the ball. Murray's best shots are when he is well outside the trameline and pulls winners thanks to his speed of legs and ability to cover lots of ground. You are a Murray fan, you shoudl know the strength of his game!

"Murray's best shots are when he is well outside the trameline and pulls winners"

I thought Andy "waits for errors"!!


Merry Xmas Tenez, I've many pubs to go to

banbrotam wrote:"Murray's best shots are when he is well outside the trameline and pulls winners"

I thought Andy "waits for errors"!!


Merry Xmas Tenez, I've many pubs to go to

Same thing! It's called "Waiting for the opponent to commit". Maybe you are coming from the many pubs?

banbrotam wrote:"Murray's best shots are when he is well outside the trameline and pulls winners"

I thought Andy "waits for errors"!!


Merry Xmas Tenez, I've many pubs to go to

All the best banbro and I hope that Andy and Bradford have a great 2012.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

Yes, easily.

Not a surprising reaction, coming from the guy who posted yesterday that it made no sense that a player could be unfit for singles yet fit for doubles.

I doubt you have actually played the game.

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

Yes, easily.

Not a surprising reaction, coming from the guy who posted yesterday that it made no sense that a player could be unfit for singles yet fit for doubles.

I doubt you have actually played the game.

Why did you switch from 3rd person to 2nd person when talking about me?

Still making excuses about his Olympics loss are we? He was fine in his singles and doubles; just had a bad match against Blake thats all. Stop making excuses.

You think doubles is as physically demanding as singles.

You think an athlete can remove an hours resting time from within a 3-4 hour activity and not suffer impairment.

You really have not the slightest clue what you're writing about, honestly. Clueless.

Of course doubles is less physically demanding than singles. I was just saying the Fed was fine and fit for both events.

And how exactly does around 5 seconds between each point accumulate to 1 hour. That would mean they would need to play 720 points.

Nooooo

You said it showed he was fit.

Oh dear, keep this up and you'll be trying for a Simplistic award like he got for his final set tie breaks thread

amritia3ee wrote:And how exactly does around 5 seconds between each point accumulate to 1 hour. That would mean they would need to play 720 points.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Yes. If the rule was enforced

So you think they coudl still play their game and dominate like they do if they were to do as much running in 1h less breathing time?

Yes, easily.

Here you are, confirming your belief that they could do just as well with an hours less resting.

This gets better by the minute - now you can't remember what you've typed inside the same page

Keep this up and you might be able to steal the award for 'who can make up the biggest number of excuses in the shortest possible time-frame' from Tenez.
Get a grip, he was fine for the Olympics. Stop making bitter excuses.

amritia3ee wrote: Keep this up and you might be able to steal the award for 'who can make up the biggest number of excuses in the shortest possible time-frame' from Tenez.
Get a grip, he was fine for the Olympics. Stop making bitter excuses.

Sorry kiddo, you said doubles proved he was fit for singles. Yep, you did. Hard to fathom, but you did.

Like I say, you can't ever have picked up a racquet to come up with that prize effort

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote: Keep this up and you might be able to steal the award for 'who can make up the biggest number of excuses in the shortest possible time-frame' from Tenez.
Get a grip, he was fine for the Olympics. Stop making bitter excuses.

Sorry kiddo, you said doubles proved he was fit for singles. Yep, you did. Hard to fathom, but you did.

Like I say, you can't ever have picked up a racquet to come up with that prize effort

I misworded my statement. Playing doubles does not mean he was fit for singles, but the fact was he did not look tired at all in the doubles- nor in the singles. He just played a bad match vs Blake,

amritia3ee wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote: Keep this up and you might be able to steal the award for 'who can make up the biggest number of excuses in the shortest possible time-frame' from Tenez.
Get a grip, he was fine for the Olympics. Stop making bitter excuses.

Sorry kiddo, you said doubles proved he was fit for singles. Yep, you did. Hard to fathom, but you did.

Like I say, you can't ever have picked up a racquet to come up with that prize effort

I misworded my statement. Playing doubles does not mean he was fit for singles, but the fact was he did not look tired at all in the doubles- nor in the singles. He just played a bad match vs Blake,

Oh you "misworded"? Then spent the best part of a day defending your statement, until you finally have to disown it because it's patent nonsense.

If by "misworded" you mean "wrote a load of bollox but because I haven't got my friend Simplistic to tell me the answers I'm stuck" I'm in full agreement.

Comedy Gold.

Facts:
-Single is more tiring than doubles.
-You're continuous excuses to try and explain why Fed lost to blake are tiring.

Just accept it- he had a bad day and lost.

Tenez wrote:Please read the post again. I am not trying to prove that the conds are faster. I don;t prove annything. I simply highlight with facts that the game in the later stages of the USO was played at a faster rate than in 2011. The conclusions are obvious for us to make. What is proven is that Fed v Blake played at a faster rate than Djoko v Nadal.

That's all I am saying...plus a few things you should work out for yourself.

Yes Mono is well documented for just giving you bad days. Again, it's about knowing!

Talking about being "flawed" how about you not picking on Pete's illness that apparently makes you weak physically but yet Pete has the best 5 setter record of since Lendl!

Please read my post again. I did not claim that you were trying to prove anything, but your OP states that you are highlighting how conditions and the game have changed does it not? They have, in my view, but your analysis is comparing apples and oranges.

I just find it entertaining that you are willing to give some players, well Federer, the benefit of the doubt and explain away losses but will do nothing of the sort for others. I would be embarrassed to be so hypocritical!

Where did Sampras come in to this? Not from me so I have no idea why you have thrown that in.

amritia3ee wrote:Facts:
-Single is more tiring than doubles.

Well, thanks for that seismic piece of insight!

"Tiring" that's the least of it!! Try "doesn't involve hardly any running", or "is played primarily in a completely different part of the court"

It's a totally different game to all intents and purposes. If you doubt that, ask why the Bryan brothers didn't make it in singles (hint: it wasn't because they couldn't have got fit).

Honestly, you really don't understand the sport do you?

???
-Singles is more tiring than doubles, obviously.

Other differences include more people on the court at one time.

I still don't see why you can't accept Federer played a bad match against Blake and lost
Maybe you don't want to.

amritia3ee wrote:Other differences include more people on the court at one time.

Good, we're making progress. Just look out that you don't "misword" your posts, but i like that you're keeping it safe.

That makes a lot more sense than you saying fitness for doubles proves fitness for singles.

Tenez wrote: Haven't you learnt yet that I don't write "non-sense" but what I say makes actually perfect sense? How many times do you need to burn your fingers?

Tenez, thats a very arrogant and superior thing to say.

We have been over this so many times - you have no proof that Nadal extends matches to extend recovery.
You say Nadal hadnt won anything of note by Miami 2004 - hardly surprising when he was 17 is it?
Until the authorities impose the 20s/25s rule this is all just hot air...Nadal will take the time he wants (he's just that kind of character) until he's told differently. Its a bad habit he's got himself into, but a bad habit nonetheless because as I've shown you he's been playing at the same speed since he was at least 17 years old - and given that he's been playing at the same speed from 2004 to 2011 you have no proof as I say that he does this to promote recovery. Or are you saying Nadal was already needing more time to recover at 17 years old as a rookie on tour?
You would have to time a fair number of his matches between 04-11 to show a change of approach that is linked to wanting more time to recover. The problem for you is that I, for one, have shown he was playing just as slow at Miami 2004 as Rogers 2011...do you want me to dig the data out again?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: Haven't you learnt yet that I don't write "non-sense" but what I say makes actually perfect sense? How many times do you need to burn your fingers?

Tenez, thats a very arrogant and superior thing to say.

We have been over this so many times - you have no proof that Nadal extends matches to extend recovery.

You set the tone with sentences like that killing the debate before we can have a proper discussion. The proof is actually very clear because it happened overnight and you know that. You have much less proof to say it's a "bad habit". An Habit he did not have in March 2005 but he suddenly gained In April a few weeks later after losing 6 games in a row in a 5 setter v Federer. But again, there are a few things you do not wish to see/acknowledge so I don't see much point discussing further. Sorry.

I dont need your apologies, but thanks all the same.

1. Show me categorical proof Nadal didnt have this "habit" before March 2005?
2. Explain to me why he was taking as much time a year earlier in 2004 between points as he does today?
3. So your whole "Nadal thesis" is built off one match? A match for which you havent even provided a break down of the time taken between points? So we just have to take your word for it then?

I'm prefectly happy to acknowledge lots of things - when there is clear evidence! Show me the actual proper evidence of this Tenez, not more hot air and opinions...!

Tenez, you think their breaches of the 20 (or 25) second rule add up to a whole hour over a match? Sounds like an exaggeration to me...how many points is the average 4-5 set match, 400? In an hour there are 3600 seconds, so you think an average of 9 seconds over per point? Never seemed that much to me and I timed it a few times, for sure you get some points 9 seconds over, or more, but not point after point. I can believe half an hour maybe.

Where they would really benefit from that extra time is against each other. But they are both doing it so no net benefit. Against non top 4 players they'll win anyway. Against Federer..hm. I could see it making a difference yes. Only a small one but when you talk about matches decided by tiny margins. Would be nice if they enforce the rule a bit more.

You do actual feel more of a workout after 5 minutes of singles than you do after 30 minutes of doubles to be sure. Maybe Amritia made an error in that, at most a tiny one not worth going on about. I think the debating is getting a bit nasty at the moment. Just a predictable tedious Federer vs Nadal battle, uncivlised debate, rude. Bit like 606 v1 all over again. Hope things change on here to make it more worthwhile.