"Federer should do More" - Nadal

by erictheblueuk Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:01 pm

It will be interesting to see how Fed responds to this:-

http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/australianopen2012/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=tennis/12/01/15/TENNIS_Australian_Nadal.html&BID=23811

http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/16877372/rafa-roger-rift-emerges-at-australian-open

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10778931

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:12 pm

Lol this is not going to go well with the Federers

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:29 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol this is not going to go well with the Federers

why? Try not to be condescending as well please it is a nice sunny day and I'm feeling happy atm

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:31 pm

LuvSports! wrote:

why? Try not to be condescending as well please it is a nice sunny day and I'm feeling happy atm

Yes it is sunny today isn't it.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:34 pm

Have they sorted the translation out yet, some were saying earlier that the Spanish - English translation was dodgy.

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:35 pm

yeee tis a beauty hope it lasts no rain please!

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:37 pm

LuvSports! wrote:yeee tis a beauty hope it lasts no rain please!

I love blue skies.

by Guest Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:50 pm

I think this rift could destroy tennis as we know it (translated from the Spinnish).

Maybe Federer thinks that the heavy schedule will sort out the talent from the merely physical (translated from the Tenezish).

by Guest82 Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:42 pm

"I love the game and there's a lot of things I'm grateful for. The game has allowed me to lead a fantastic lifestyle," he said. "But to finish your career with pain all over your body, is that a positive? No.

"Maybe (Federer) has got a super body and he'll finish his career like a rose. Neither myself, nor Murray, nor Djokovic are going to finish our careers like a rose.

"Tennis is an important part of my life, but it's a tough sport. We're not like him where it's effortless to play. All of us, it's a battle."

Nadal said his knees, hips, back and ankles were prone to soreness because "every year the ball flies quicker, there's more intensity. The surfaces are hard."

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:55 pm

Translation:

"I have placed such emphasis on running around like a mentalist and outlasting everyone else that my body hurts, especially now that someone else has come along who does that better than me.
I now think that the guy who has done it all without apparent effort because of his talent should be doing more to shorten the season/events/matches so that I can do more of my stuff".

Yeah, seems reasonable. Cool

by hawkeye Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:27 pm

I've heard the story of how Nadal said something really nice about Federer in Spanish after a RG final. The interpreter got the translation completely wrong and told the packed stadium he had said something bad. Nadal looked confused as he was whistled at and booed...

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:35 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:yeee tis a beauty hope it lasts no rain please!
I love blue skies.

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:46 pm

what the?!?!?

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:07 pm

Nadal is right though. This might seen like fighting for themselves but it's rathet for the future and Murray, Djokovic support this too. Part of the concern is the dominance of the tour by hard courts. This is even more of a concern as the potential injuries they bring.

In 2005 on the ATP tour schedule:
27 Hardcourt; 25 Clay; 10 Carpet; 6
Grass
In 2009:
38 Hardcourt; 23 Clay; 0 Carpet; 6
Grass

1995:
27: Hardcourt; 33: Clay; 18 Carpet; 6:
Grass

Carpet has become extinct and hard courts have increased. At least have some more grass. The WTF for example could be easily played on grass.

I don't know about 2012 yet but seems like 39 or a 40 hc court tournaments alone?

They could change a few things on the tour and schedule.

by erictheblueuk Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:43 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote: The WTF for example could be easily played on grass.

The WTF is moved around the the world and I can't see many places being able to have good standard grass courts ready in November.

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:50 pm

erictheblueuk wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote: The WTF for example could be easily played on grass.

The WTF is moved around the the world and I can't see many places being able to have good standard grass courts ready in November.

Countries in the Southern Hemisphere perhaps an Australia, South Africa or somewhere in south america if the conditions aren't too harsh.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:57 pm

"He finishes his career as fresh as a daisy because he is physically privileged, but neither Murray nor (Novak) Djokovic and I are fresh as a daisy."

If that doesn't summarise what I have been talking about for years (talent v Physique), I am not sure what does.

But what I find particular;y hypocrit here is that Nadal is trying to make Federer look like the egoistic player here even though it is Nadal who is again showing utter egoism wanting teh tour to stop when he is tired and not thinking of all those players trying to make a living on the tour where each additional tourney gives them a chance to add to their earnings.

Doesn't he remember when he was younger and was travelling to south america to earn some money and experience all year round?

Again it's all about him, him him. Hopefully he will go down the ranking soon and his views won't matter much.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:02 pm

Tenez wrote:
not thinking of all those players trying to make a living on the tour where each additional tourney gives them a chance to add to their earnings.

Doesn't he remember when he was younger and was travelling to south america to earn some money and experience all year round?

He is saying we should reduce mandatory tournaments.

Tenez wrote:
Again it's all about him, him him. Hopefully he will go down the ranking soon and his views won't matter much.

Hopefully you can leave 606v2 soon and your views won't matter much. Not that they matter much now anyway. You're just some sadistic hatah who spends his life spreading hatred about Nadal.

by sportslover Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:21 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
Tenez wrote:
not thinking of all those players trying to make a living on the tour where each additional tourney gives them a chance to add to their earnings.

Doesn't he remember when he was younger and was travelling to south america to earn some money and experience all year round?
He is saying we should reduce mandatory tournaments.
Tenez wrote:
Again it's all about him, him him. Hopefully he will go down the ranking soon and his views won't matter much.
Hopefully you can leave 606v2 soon and your views won't matter much. Not that they matter much now anyway. You're just some sadistic hatah who spends his life spreading hatred about Nadal.

Apart from the other Federer fanboys & girls I doubt if his views matter much at all to anyone else.

And for the person going down the rankings soon his name does start with an R but it isn't Rafa.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:24 pm

sportslover wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:You're just some sadistic hatah who spends his life spreading hatred about Nadal.

Apart from the other Federer fanboys & girls I doubt if his views matter much at all to anyone else.

Too true.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:25 pm

How sad that Rafalitos just can't resist making personal assaults and wishing people off boards. Is it really acceptable for amrit to be calling for a long-standing forum member (who has made a contribution for far longer than any johnny-come-latelys) to be off the forum?

The observation was sound; Nadal is expressing a view that another player is doing wrong unless they agree with his point of view, which is arrogant.

At least one thing comes from this thread, which is that Nadal pretty much agrees entirely with Tenez's many comments about physique v talent. He even uses the same words!

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:29 pm

bogbrush wrote: He even uses the same words!

Yes I also heard him call himself Nadull, a talentless moonballer.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:30 pm

This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:30 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
bogbrush wrote: He even uses the same words!
Yes I also heard him call himself Nadull, a talentless moonballer.

Or maybe you don't know the difference between forum members.

That's not a Tenez expression.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:31 pm

amritia3ee wrote:
sportslover wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:You're just some sadistic hatah who spends his life spreading hatred about Nadal.

Apart from the other Federer fanboys & girls I doubt if his views matter much at all to anyone else.

Too true.

Harsh, I disagree with Tenez about Nadal but he contributes a lot to other threads. Would not wish him to leave.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:33 pm

carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.

As a player in the Council he is there to represent the best interests of the players as he sees the issues. He is perfectly entitled to think that whatever the three-lunged guys at the top think the mass of players are well represented by the status quo. Let's not forget that thy need the events, and if the big boys can bypass them, the money won't follow the event, so damaging the interests of the many in favour of the wishes of the few.

If the players don't like his representation they can get rid of him. They won't though, which leaves Nadal as a moaner on the sidelines.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:40 pm

I don't see what Nadal has said wrong here , if anything he is right. For example Federer has been singing the anthem of slow surfaces especially at USO last year because he is under the delusion faster surfaces will help his againg career and was vocal before the start of Paris 2010 that it was slow yet when it was lightened quick in 2010, he got beat by Monfils of all players. Paris was dead slow last year and ironically he won it this time. This means Federer says it when he thinks it benefits him. A shortened season for example will cut down on his end of season heriocs when others are tired.

And where did Nadal talk about physique and talent? He said Federer is physically ptiviledged.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:41 pm

bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.
As a player in the Council he is there to represent the best interests of the players as he sees the issue. He is perfectly entitled to think that whatever the three-lunged guys at the top think the mass of players are well represented by the status quo.

If the players don't like his representation they can get rid of him. They won't though, which leaves Nadal as a moaner on the sidelines.

So he is choosing not to represent the views of his closest competitors, even though to do so would not disadvantage anyone? A minor change would make no difference whatsoever to those much lower in the rankings so he can't argue that he is representing them. Nadal isn't the only one who has mentioned the length of the season and number of mandatory tournaments. Players, coaches, pundits etc. have all bemoaned the number of injuries especially in the top 20. I am looking forward to hearing Federers side of the story.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:43 pm

"Q. Did you have to say at the meeting last night, Sorry, guys, I'm not going to be the one leading this? At the US Open you were identified as someone who took the initiative.

RAFAEL NADAL: Nothing of strikes. I never take any initiative. I never say anything about strike. I never did.

Q. Last night did you have to say to the guys, I'm not going to be the public face?

RAFAEL NADAL: No. I gived to the rest of the tennis player, like another guys did, my opinion, and that's it.

Q. Were you happy with what was discussed and what was decided at the meeting?

RAFAEL NADAL: I don't know what's decided.

Q. Were you happy with the way the discussion went and what people were saying?

RAFAEL NADAL: I say before, something that happens in the meetings. Everybody have, you know, different thoughts. This time believe a lot of players have similar thoughts.

But I say before, everything that I will say, you know, will write in your words, and I don't want you to write nothing in your words.

I'm the one who in the past talk a lot about the calendar, talk a lot about the Davis Cup, talk a lot about the problem with the US Open. Now I not going to be the one who keep talking about a lot of things because finally if we have the right guys there to fight for us, maybe, but today we don't have that.

Q. If it's not going to be you talking, is there a player taking a leadership role in this movement?

RAFAEL NADAL: First thing, you are talking about movement. I don't know which 'movement'. I don't know what's going to happen.

That's a sport that's an individual sport. So when you are talking about individual sport, what must happen if there is 100, if a super majority thinks one thing, the rest of the players have to support that.

So if a super majority thinks one thing, I will support them that's all in anything. Not in a strike, not in calendar, in anything, because I understand democracy is like this.

Q. When you say you do not want to be seen as the leader...

RAFAEL NADAL: I am not. I don't want to be seen and I am not (laughter).

Q. But are you saying that because after what happened in New York, you were criticized by people for that?

RAFAEL NADAL: No, no, no. You know, when you are talking about Davis Cup, when you are talking about Grand Slams, when you are talking about calendar, when you are talking about a lot of things that can be better for the tour, a lot thinks, most of the players thinks that's the right way. That is not happening. That's talk for talk.

I want to talk when we have real chances to make that happen. When we don't have chances to make that happen, because with how the world of tennis is working today, we don't have any chance on changes because we don't have the support of the structure.

I repeat, is talk for you. I give information for you to write newspapers. But at the end of the day I look like I am the one who always talk about things that must change, and I don't win nothing on that. I just lose time, energy, and the people can think that he's always the one who says the bad things, the negative things.

If I win something on that, I will keep talking. If I don't win something on that, when a lot of things happen, I will not tell you for sure in the past. We are not in that way to change situations even with the support of the super majority of the players. Even like that we didn't win nothing. Sorry, I am tired of keep working on these things. "

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:48 pm

I don't see what Nadal has said wrong here , if anything he is right. For example Federer has been singing the anthem of slow surfaces especially at USO last year because he is under the delusion faster surfaces will help his againg career and was vocal before the start of Paris 2010 that it was slow yet when it was lightened quick in 2010, he got beat by Monfils of all players. Paris was dead slow last year and ironically he won it this time. This means Federer says it when he thinks it benefits him. A shortened season for example will cut down on his end of season heriocs when others are tired.

And where did Nadal talk about physique and talent? He said Federer is physically ptiviledged.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:49 pm

carrieg4 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.
As a player in the Council he is there to represent the best interests of the players as he sees the issue. He is perfectly entitled to think that whatever the three-lunged guys at the top think the mass of players are well represented by the status quo.

If the players don't like his representation they can get rid of him. They won't though, which leaves Nadal as a moaner on the sidelines.

So he is choosing not to represent the views of his closest competitors, even though to do so would not disadvantage anyone? A minor change would make no difference whatsoever to those much lower in the rankings so he can't argue that he is representing them. Nadal isn't the only one who has mentioned the length of the season and number of mandatory tournaments. Players, coaches, pundits etc. have all bemoaned the number of injuries especially in the top 20. I am looking forward to hearing Federers side of the story.

I doubt you will, he won't be interested in this.

Like I say, he represents ALL the players (as he did in opposing Nadals call for 2 year rankings) and does so as he sees. If the players don't like how he does that they can remove him.
Their judgement will resolve your point, not your opinion of whether he is adequately representing them.

by Jubbahey Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Tenez wrote:
"He finishes his career as fresh as a daisy because he is physically privileged, but neither Murray nor (Novak) Djokovic and I are fresh as a daisy."

If that doesn't summarise what I have been talking about for years (talent v Physique), I am not sure what does.

But what I find particular;y hypocrit here is that Nadal is trying to make Federer look like the egoistic player here even though it is Nadal who is again showing utter egoism wanting teh tour to stop when he is tired and not thinking of all those players trying to make a living on the tour where each additional tourney gives them a chance to add to their earnings.

Doesn't he remember when he was younger and was travelling to south america to earn some money and experience all year round?

Again it's all about him, him him. Hopefully he will go down the ranking soon and his views won't matter much.

That all depends on how you "read" his comments.

I read them as the tour is tough and the other top 3 apart from Federer are feeling the strain. Federer doesn't, because he doesn't have the need to play such an exhaustive tour like he used to any more. Therefore he's privileged by his career profile at 30yrs of age, whereas the other top 3 aren't because of their need to fulfill their quota and other responsibilities including training.
You may be correct in that as the new millennium has progressed, so has the need to be more physically fit to beat the likes of Federer (and Djokovic last year), but that does not take away the feeling that the tour is also getting too much for the body to sustain.

The balance between physicality and tour stamina has increased, and Roger is now, very near his retirement age, at the beginning of what I see as the limit to being what is essentially a balance between peak physical fitness and intense training programs that may lead to injuries game side, and the length and number of tour events.

Physical fitness is more to do with stamina, not all strength, and the way in which the body can keep producing energy to its muscles without waste. This ability is lessened with long matches and or a long tour schedule, as now the demands are greater in all areas. Federer had the best balance of all tennis pros, then and now, because he understood his limits and how to push them and not expend energy when it would be needed in the latter stages of a slam tournament. Yes, he was privileged in that he had a great metabolism and muscle structure that was perfect for maintaining stamina levels, but that in itself is only half the story, he had a great game as well.

All others have had to follow and play catch up with him, and now the telling point is the length of the tour and the now crazy stamina aspects of the game that Roger has "created" unintentionally through his perfect play, which have compounded themselves and produced a dilemma, how to play at 100% when you need 110% to be at the top of the game at any one time.

This is what Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are talking about and what the future holds for all players trying to find the level needed to be No1 in the years to come as well as right now. Pushing the limits to what may well become the absolute limit and still be able to compete in an unforgiving tour schedule.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:51 pm

Perhaps they could campaign for smaller tennis balls, faster courts, etc so matches would be less physically demanding?

Oh yes, that would be quite something!

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.
As a player in the Council he is there to represent the best interests of the players as he sees the issue. He is perfectly entitled to think that whatever the three-lunged guys at the top think the mass of players are well represented by the status quo.

If the players don't like his representation they can get rid of him. They won't though, which leaves Nadal as a moaner on the sidelines.

So he is choosing not to represent the views of his closest competitors, even though to do so would not disadvantage anyone? A minor change would make no difference whatsoever to those much lower in the rankings so he can't argue that he is representing them. Nadal isn't the only one who has mentioned the length of the season and number of mandatory tournaments. Players, coaches, pundits etc. have all bemoaned the number of injuries especially in the top 20. I am looking forward to hearing Federers side of the story.
I doubt you will, he won't be interested in this.

Like I say, he represents ALL the players (as he did in opposing Nadals call for 2 year rankings) and does so as he sees. If the players don't like how he does that they can remove him.
Their judgement will resolve your point, not your opinion of whether he is adequately representing them.

It is nothing to do with my judgement - he either represents a widely held view or he doesn't. The two year schedule argument is irrelevant as that was Nadal alone so not representative of the majority. If he is representing all players he needs to represent what the majority want - mayble they need a ballot on the issue. Of course he could be quietly doing this and we just don't know yet, hence why I am interested in his view.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:57 pm

carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.

Q1: Is the Davis Cup mandatory? So why did all the moaning players take part to the DC if their schedule was so overloaded?

Q2: You really believe that the problem is the number of mandatory tournaments? The players are required to play 12 tourneys 1 week long for the ATP.
Plus the slams this make a total of 20 weeks work.. Plus the WTF week this makes a total of 21 weeks work: is this unachievable??

I suspect Nadal is much more keen on the change of the ranking system from a one year basis to a two year rolling ranking which would greatly advantage the top guys and him in particular.

Another outrageus claim from a player whose lack of sportmanship never ceases to surprise. Doh

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:58 pm

bogbrush wrote:At least one thing comes from this thread, which is that Nadal pretty much agrees entirely with Tenez's many comments about physique v talent. He even uses the same words!

It's funny how he uses the same players too to describe it.

This is not to say some of those players are not talented but clearly they are not betting on the talent side of their game but on the physical side.

by bogbrush Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:09 pm

carrieg4 wrote:

It is nothing to do with my judgement - he either represents a widely held view or he doesn't. The two year schedule argument is irrelevant as that was Nadal alone so not representative of the majority. If he is representing all players he needs to represent what the majority want - mayble they need a ballot on the issue. Of course he could be quietly doing this and we just don't know yet, hence why I am interested in his view.

A representative is not a mere postman for views, he is there to articulate the best interests of those he stands for, as he sees them.
There are plenty more there to counter his views, and of course we can still have Nadal whinging about how he wants the game to be further rigged in his favour.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:23 pm

Jubbahey wrote:You may be correct in that as the new millennium has progressed, so has the need to be more physically fit to beat the likes of Federer (and Djokovic last year), but that does not take away the feeling that the tour is also getting too much for the body to sustain.

This is the very reason why we do not want to shorten the tour. You think that by shortening the tour, players will be able to rest and arrive fresh and nice for the tournament?

Tha is very wrong. Cause the opportunity to make money and a name of yourself will be more cencentrated so players will work even harder outside tournaments, giving them more freedom to built those glaidators bodies and the matches will get more physical than ever. This is exactly what we are seeining in slams in fact. Those players who bet everything on the physique are better prepared and kill themselves and the competition on the court like Djoko and Nadal have in 2011.

Don't forget they choose to take more time between points to allow that physical game. So they clearly rely on that physical advantage. Nothing prevents Nadal to SV a bit more or go for winners to make the game easier but he chooses not. He doesn;t want to take risk. He wants to win using his strength: his physique. Why? cause maybe he cannot pull a winner easily like Federer or Dolgo can.

What Nadal is asking, besides extending time between points, he also wants to reduce the tour to the glory slams. In a way very similar to Armstrong who wanted to race for the TDF and World Champinship only. Why? cause it gives the advantage to the phyiscal player at the expense of the players who can pull winners more easily.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:58 pm

bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:

It is nothing to do with my judgement - he either represents a widely held view or he doesn't. The two year schedule argument is irrelevant as that was Nadal alone so not representative of the majority. If he is representing all players he needs to represent what the majority want - mayble they need a ballot on the issue. Of course he could be quietly doing this and we just don't know yet, hence why I am interested in his view.
A representative is not a mere postman for views, he is there to articulate the best interests of those he stands for, as he sees them.
There are plenty more there to counter his views, and of course we can still have Nadal whinging about how he wants the game to be further rigged in his favour.

He is more than a mere postman but cannot entirely ignore views other than his own either. If he is going to represent them then he must represent them not dictate to them. I am sure he understands this and would be surprised if he hasn't discussed this issue at length already.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:03 pm

You have to give it to Rafa though, Federer "fresh as a daisy" ? Laugh

Never knew his english has gone that much better.

It's actually the reporter manipulating the words i guess.

by LuvSports! Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:16 pm

Tenez wrote: In a way very similar to Armstrong who wanted to race for the TDF and World Champinship only. Why? cause it gives the advantage to the phyiscal player at the expense of the players who can pull winners more easily.

Armstrong never really took the other grand tours or the world championships seriously as he only competed in the giro and vuelta twice collectively and really just saved himself for the TDF but you can't compare road cycling to tennis.

by banbrotam Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:17 pm

Nore Staat wrote:I think this rift could destroy tennis as we know it (translated from the Spinnish).

Maybe Federer thinks that the heavy schedule will sort out the talent from the merely physical (translated from the Tenezish).

Post of the year for me. But beware as you're not allowed to challenge our most cerebral poster censored

by banbrotam Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:20 pm

bogbrush wrote:How sad that Rafalitos just can't resist making personal assaults and wishing people off boards. Is it really acceptable for amrit to be calling for a long-standing forum member (who has made a contribution for far longer than any johnny-come-latelys) to be off the forum?

The observation was sound; Nadal is expressing a view that another player is doing wrong unless they agree with his point of view, which is arrogant.

At least one thing comes from this thread, which is that Nadal pretty much agrees entirely with Tenez's many comments about physique v talent. He even uses the same words!

Which begs the question is Tenez actually Nadal Run

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:21 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
Tenez wrote: In a way very similar to Armstrong who wanted to race for the TDF and World Champinship only. Why? cause it gives the advantage to the phyiscal player at the expense of the players who can pull winners more easily.

Armstrong never really took the other grand tours or the world championships seriously as he only competed in the giro and vuelta twice collectively and really just saved himself for the TDF but you can't compare road cycling to tennis.

And why do you think he did not take the other tours seriously? All past champions before him did.

In that respect it is similar to tennis. Lance was essentially betting and preparing everything for the TDF.

Have you heard about "cycling down"?

by banbrotam Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:29 pm

bogbrush wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:This isn't about who has a physical game, no way am I getting back into that debate, it is about the chair of the players council representing not only himself but the other players too. Federer is already in a position where he can manage his schedule due to length of time on tour and number of matches played. He has taken advantage of this to skip tournaments without penalty. Others cannot do this. If there were fewer mandatory tournaments then players who were consistently reaching the finals could manage their schedule better without sacrificing too much. This wouldn't stop lower ranked players from entering as many tournaments as they wanted so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Federer took the post on the council and should use it to represent all widely held views, not just his own. Another discussion about playing styles is fudging the issue. If Nadal is alluding to the two year schedule though he is on his own.
As a player in the Council he is there to represent the best interests of the players as he sees the issues. He is perfectly entitled to think that whatever the three-lunged guys at the top think the mass of players are well represented by the status quo. Let's not forget that thy need the events, and if the big boys can bypass them, the money won't follow the event, so damaging the interests of the many in favour of the wishes of the few.

If the players don't like his representation they can get rid of him. They won't though, which leaves Nadal as a moaner on the sidelines.

But Fed was agreeing at around the time of the US Open that something needed to be done. But it's as though he then realises this means risking his image and hence prestige, so he keeps his head down

You surely can't deny that a player like Fed constructively criticising the tour on an ongoing basis, would get far further then the other three put together

I continue to be disappointed with Fed off the court, he says one thing one minute and then contradicts himself by his actions. Whether it be the "man up" comments at the O2 or this - he gives the impression of being more interested in his legacy than the future of the game

Now we all know that Nadal must be in a poor state, because he's obviously getting desperate - realising that his body and his game won't last another two years (you can almost smell the dramatic press conference as he quits, citing 'rigours of the tour'!!) so he is being just as hypocritical. However, let's not forget , like it or not, Fed has an important role to make

by **laverfan** Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:32 pm

Two forums discussing the same news item, with the same rift lines along player fandom.

Federer is going to retire in a couple of years, what impact will such calendar discussions have in a few years?

Fedal debates strewn like shells on a beach.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:34 pm

laverfan wrote:Two forums discussing the same news item, with the same rift lines along player fandom.

To be fair I am winning the debate on both forums.

Actually no, but on MTL I've debated his case much better, haven't had the time to do it properly on v2.

by banbrotam Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:36 pm

It's not a 'Fedal' debate fore me. More one of it Roger wants to be seen as more than just a great Tennis player - as he clearly does with his other 'global activities' - then surely he should be a bit more vocal and pro-active about the game that gave him this superstar status

by hawkeye Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:39 pm

laverfan

I don't know what you mean by 2 forums but when Federer retires do you really think that will be the end of Federer and Nadal discussions?

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:44 pm

laverfan wrote:Two forums discussing the same news item, with the same rift lines along player fandom.

Federer is going to retire in a couple of years, what impact will such calendar discussions have in a few years?

Fedal debates strewn like shells on a beach.

The trouble is I am not a fan as such of either. I seem to be defending Federer in one debate and defending the other players in another Erm

.

My head is spinning.

by Sponsored content