Strange Goings On In Dubai

I've been watching some of the matches in Dubai this week. It's clear that there is now a totally new phenomemen in tennis that I haven't seen before. I noticed it quite a few times. Some players were actually moving forward and hitting the ball before it bounced. Is that even allowed? It seems to me real unfair because they just smash away a winning shot and don't let their opponent play any more shots? Some players were so cheeky that once or twice they did it on the first shot! I thought the idea of the game was to keep trying to miss that net and the first person to fail loses the point. Just smashing away the ball before it bounces is poor sportsmanship that doesn't give the opponent a fair opportunity to keep trying to miss the net. Quite often these players were actually crossing that line in the middle of the court! Aren't they breaking some rules here? I thought the point of that line was that you're not allowed over it, that's always how it seems anyway. I'm a bit worried that these guys are putting themselves in danger by going near the net. They might trip themselves up.

The other thing that concerns me is the matches are so short. At one stage I went to the kitchen and made myself a sandwich then my ma called me then I did a jigsaw and when I came back I was gutted to find I missed three whole points! One set lasted under a hour! This can't be sensible. We all know that everyone has loads of time to waste these days. The punters will be deserting in their droves to watch cricket instead. Something has to be done to stop this. Perhaps a minimum of 40 seconds between points before this gets out of control.

Ha, ha Henman Bill. If you liked the tournament good for u, I thought it was completely uninteresting and I will happily take the taste test between this entire god awful short point fest and the AO final and semi anyday. The fast court proponents must be happy Roger won, in a completely uncompetitive and dull tournament. More excitement in the Murray v. Novak match than this entire tournament combined. What a yawn fest.

lol excellent

Very good Bill. Socal would watch a knitting contest if he was sure Nole would win.

socal1976 wrote:The fast court proponents must be happy Roger won

Not me, I wanted Murray, so I'm disappointed he didn't win, although it was only a 500 event, and I know he can win those, and Masters series, anyway.

I'm surprised you watched it at all if you found it such a god-awful, sleep-inducing, yawn fest. Clearly there was no tennis on offer you found remotely interesting from the world's top players. The Sky commentary mentioned a few times how much the fans enjoyed the whole tournament, especially the great atmosphere the last couple of days.

Funny article by the way HB.

Bogbrush, I actually was a fan of tennis before Novak and will be after Novak. This tournament didn't produce a single half way memorable match. Like i said if tournaments like this are the fast court Nirvana we have been sold, well just wake me up when its over.

reckoner wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Bogbrush, I actually was a fan of tennis before Novak and will be after Novak. This tournament didn't produce a single half way memorable match. Like i said if tournaments like this are the fast court Nirvana we have been sold, well just wake me up when its over.

edited by Mod

I think, although exaggerated at times, Socal represents a sizeable viewpoint at least away from 606v2. Perhaps it is even the majority viewpoint in terms of the tournament organisers of the grand slams.

Lets see what type of tournaments we are given by the fast court events this season Nore Staat. I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that outside of wimby cincy, dubai, paris, and basel are the 4 quickest surfaces. Lets see if the surfaces impact the quality of play.

Nore Staat wrote:I think, although exaggerated at times, Socal represents a sizeable viewpoint at least away from 606v2. Perhaps it is even the majority viewpoint in terms of the tournament organisers of the grand slams.

It's not what I have been hearing in the few tennis clubs I visisted here in London.

I think teh few Nadal Djoko finals have had wow factor for a while due to teh amazing physical prowess it involved....but very quickly it has turned in to a "Euh" factor recently, especially after that AO final.

There are hardly any truly fast court events now. Wimbledon is a slow, high bouncing surface.

How many times do we need to see the same players in the semis before the penny drops universally?

Nore Staat wrote:I think, although exaggerated at times, Socal represents a sizeable viewpoint at least away from 606v2. Perhaps it is even the majority viewpoint in terms of the tournament organisers of the grand slams.

Good point that many will fail to recognise. 606v2 isn't a balanced site at all.

I actually like Nadal - Djokovic slugfests - their last US Open final was excellent - but I want to see some more variety as well. I would be happy to see slugfests at the AO and all clay but Wimbledon and US and a few others speeded up. It's like the art of volleying has gone at times. If Tim Henman were playing today he'd still be the best volleyer on tour.

If I didn't like to see rallies I wouldn't have been sat at my computer at 6am on the 15th February buying French Open tickets. But I don't want to see the same physical challenge at all 4 slams. More balance, please.

What woudl be great is see some attacking SVing games and SHBH with a chance to win. For now they have none.

HB... Very nice.

Good article. If it descends into the usual, write a new one.

I really enjoyed Dubai and watching some S&V. For me it had something almost every other tournament is lacking. Jeopardy !

A while back Charlie Brooks did a show where he looked at what ingredients you need to make a hit reality TV show. Jeopardy was the last and most important ingredient, it keeps the viewer watching because they want to see the outcome. Examples are the vote off or the firing at the end of TV shows. This is what makes reality shows massively popular. Perhaps tennis can learn something from this phenomena.

Someone made the point recently that what was needed was 2 or 3 pivotal moments in a set, and that the grindingly long sets were devaluing those moments. I agree with that entirely. What we need is more drama in each set, not more and more rallies. How about a few upsets even.

In addition to the pivotal set moments (like in the final), I also enjoyed the jeopardy when the players first volley was not put away convincingly. Now the player is at the net completely exposed but the opponent is not used to this position either. What happens next ? Nobody knows, and that's entertainment !

The big point is in decline, but I'm not sure that's major problem. And the crass jeopardy in reality TV is one of things that ruins what would otherwise be a harmless and nice show of some people singing and dancing. Well that's what I think but obviously many disagree, judging by the ratings.

socal1976 wrote:Ha, ha Henman Bill. If you liked the tournament good for u, I thought it was completely uninteresting and I will happily take the taste test between this entire god awful short point fest and the AO final and semi anyday. The fast court proponents must be happy Roger won, in a completely uncompetitive and dull tournament. More excitement in the Murray v. Novak match than this entire tournament combined. What a yawn fest.

I agree the semi's of AO was good and entertaining but pls don't say tats the same case on AO finals too, AO finals was an utter bore fest. Virtually every body wanted it to get over by the end of 3rd set. Nadal did try it hard, but Djoko has got a voice at him now even at half a sleep similar to what Rafa has on Roger.

Lightbreeze, what is this mythical jeopardy that you are talking about. I didn't see a single memorable match or highly played close competition. Very one sided results that favored the big server. There was virtually no jeopardy this tournament. It was a very dull affair.

Yes the tournament was largely dominated by serve, very quick service games and not many breaks.
I don't find 2 min service games thrilling tbh.

Variety is boring.

I think it's all about balance. You say fast tournaments like this are dull, but surely more of a shootout (shorter matches) makes the result more unpredictable and therefore more entertaining.

Imagine top club Man City playing bottom club Wigan. Maybe Wigan have a 10% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = full stadium. Now imagine Man City can extend the game to five hours. Maybe Wigan now have a 0.5% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = empty stadium.

This is the current state of affairs in Tennis. The top players on the slow courts can make the match last as long as they want. Only the semis and final are entertaining simply due to the players being so evenly matched. The early stages of the tournament are just too predictable and dull with the top seeds completely untroubled. Anyone want to guess which 4 players will be the French Open semi-finalists ? That's right, you already know!

P.S. If serving becomes too dominant again, how about replacing the centre marker on the baseline with a couple of markers in order to force the player to serve from a wider position.

Brilliantly funny article HB!

I echo all those above wishing for more variety - its not that I want to see the slow court tournaments disappear, but it would be great to see more balance on the tour.

Looking at the US Open website today, it has a picture of Nadal and Djokovic and says "Grand Slam Season Is Just Getting Started".

It says:
"Secure Your 2012 US Open Seats Today!
The Djokovic-Nadal epic in Australia has marked 2012 to be a year of exciting tennis! Don’t miss out on the grandest Slam of all!"

Doesn't fill me with hope that they are going to change the speeds. I think they fancy another Djokovadal final!

The ATP tour is very interested in its "stars" - http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/02/Features/Facebook-Federer-Surpasses-10-Million-Fans.aspx

H'bill. The USO is all about television. They may want an epic final but as long as it doesn't go on TOO long - hence the tiebreak in the last set. I'm waiting for a year when the USO does go to a tiebreak final set and one player wins it with a lucky netcord at 6-7, or 10-11 or whatever.
The USO of course is where we get Stupid Saturday as well. It took last year's rain to get the leading players to have the final moved to a Monday otherwise some would have had to play quarters, semi and final on successive days.

Lightbreeze wrote:I think it's all about balance. You say fast tournaments like this are dull, but surely more of a shootout (shorter matches) makes the result more unpredictable and therefore more entertaining.

Imagine top club Man City playing bottom club Wigan. Maybe Wigan have a 10% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = full stadium. Now imagine Man City can extend the game to five hours. Maybe Wigan now have a 0.5% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = empty stadium.

This is the current state of affairs in Tennis. The top players on the slow courts can make the match last as long as they want. Only the semis and final are entertaining simply due to the players being so evenly matched. The early stages of the tournament are just too predictable and dull with the top seeds completely untroubled. Anyone want to guess which 4 players will be the French Open semi-finalists ? That's right, you already know!
P.S. If serving becomes too dominant again, how about replacing the centre marker on the baseline with a couple of markers in order to force the player to serve from a wider position.

All very well but three of these four players entered a fast Dubai and all got to the semis along with Del Potro who most people on this forum agree is the player most likely to challenge for a place in the the top 4. So what's the difference.

Calder106 wrote:

All very well but three of these four players entered a fast Dubai and all got to the semis along with Del Potro who most people on this forum agree is the player most likely to challenge for a place in the the top 4. So what's the difference.

I'm not basing my argument on one tournament.
All the players have their base line games engrained in them. For instance, look at Del Potro, running backwards every time he got near the net like he was being repelled by a force field.
H2H histories will also be a factor.

You were making the point about it being boring with the top seeds nearly always getting to the last four. Nothing really changed in that respect in Dubai given the fast conditions.

barrystar wrote:The ATP tour is very interested in its "stars" - http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/02/Features/Facebook-Federer-Surpasses-10-Million-Fans.aspx

Exactly....and for whatever reason teh ATP will never want to upset 20 million people...and their stars! That's why Nadal can keep serving at his own rhythm.

Lightbreeze wrote:I think it's all about balance. You say fast tournaments like this are dull, but surely more of a shootout (shorter matches) makes the result more unpredictable and therefore more entertaining.

Imagine top club Man City playing bottom club Wigan. Maybe Wigan have a 10% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = full stadium. Now imagine Man City can extend the game to five hours. Maybe Wigan now have a 0.5% chance of getting a win or draw. Result = empty stadium.

This is the current state of affairs in Tennis. The top players on the slow courts can make the match last as long as they want. Only the semis and final are entertaining simply due to the players being so evenly matched. The early stages of the tournament are just too predictable and dull with the top seeds completely untroubled. Anyone want to guess which 4 players will be the French Open semi-finalists ? That's right, you already know!

P.S. If serving becomes too dominant again, how about replacing the centre marker on the baseline with a couple of markers in order to force the player to serve from a wider position.

See lightbreeze I have to in part disagree with your comments. The results are not being homogenized by the slower surfaces. And they are not being homogenized by lack of strength in the players ranked 5-25 lets say. The big 4 isn't winning just because of how supposedly slow the surfaces are they are winning because they are better. Look at the women's game same type of conditions and week to week you have no idea who is going to reach the semis.

It isn't just about variety. Variety is great but if it is the kind of variety that has me cheating on my beautiful girlfriend with the considerably less attractive lady of big serve tennis you can count me out.

socal1976 wrote:The results are not being homogenized by the slower surfaces.

Yes they are! Do you think it's a coincidence to have 4 players reaching the last stages of all 4 slams?

socal1976 wrote:The big 4 isn't winning just because of how supposedly slow the surfaces are they are winning because they are better

Again, what do you mean by better? If they were physically superior but not technically, slow surfaces woudl be ideal for them to make the difference with equally or even more skilled players and guarantee them a place in the last rounds. Exactly like slow clay guaranteed Nadal a slam for 4 years until he was finally able to win on ...slow grass or slow HC.

Pace conds are essential in tennis, as a fan of the game you should really have assimilated that.

What do I mean Tenez when I say better is simple, they are more skilled at winning against the competition and with modern technology and conditions. The top guys should be judged by the same standard as we judge other players from the past to present.

Tenez, how do you then describe to topsy turvy results we see from the women often playing on the same exact courts. Why hasn't the homogenization resulted in the same exact women winning?

I understand the differences in conditions. And to an extent we have it now, although you try to portray every court as being equally slow. Or qualitatively the same thing, I don't know if I buy that characterization to the extent that you want to take it.

socal1976 wrote:What do I mean Tenez when I say better is simple, they are more skilled at winning against the competition and with modern technology and conditions. The top guys should be judged by the same standard as we judge other players from the past to present.

But that's not what we do. Guys like Edberg and McEnroe would be the equivalent of Llodra and Stepanek! no kidding. I know you might find that laughable cause you like to gauge a player's greatness by the way his name sound but technically and talent wise, I am not convinced at all the formers woudl be better than the latters.

Tenez, how do you then describe to topsy turvy results we see from the women often playing on the same exact courts. Why hasn't the homogenization resulted in the same exact women winning?

Easy! the topsy/turvy results are simply explained by Serena having a topsy/turvy career! And now finally she is being caught up physically and by more talent players.

socal1976 wrote:I understand the differences in conditions. And to an extent we have it now, although you try to portray every court as being equally slow. Or qualitatively the same thing, I don't know if I buy that characterization to the extent that you want to take it.

The difference in slowness is not significant enough to allow a purely talented player like Llodra and many other players to do well. But more importantly, teh slow pace has prevented talented players to become even better had they been playing much more often on fast surfaces.

Fed played well last week but like Murray and Djoko he is not used to playing on faster surfaces. I am pretty convinced that if he played more often on those kind of surfaces versus Murray, Nadal and Djoko he coudl actually play much better than he did and he is more naturally equipped (eye/hand coordination) to increase the gap between him and the other players.

It happened that he is so good that he still won last week but you can easily imagine that his timing, form and confidence woudl be sky high if he kept on playing on those surfaces....maybe a bit like when he dominated in 2003-2007!

Tenez wrote:But that's not what we do. Guys like Edberg and McEnroe would be the equivalent of Llodra and Stepanek! no kidding. I know you might find that laughable cause you like to gauge a player's greatness by the way his name sound but technically and talent wise, I am not convinced at all the formers woudl be better than the latters.

I think TMF said something about if there were more fast courts that we would see a talent like Llodra flourish just recently - can't remember whether it was pre Dubai?

socal1976 wrote:
Tenez, how do you then describe to topsy turvy results we see from the women often playing on the same exact courts. Why hasn't the homogenization resulted in the same exact women winning?

Because the men are men and the women are ....women. The men being way way fitter and stronger, they can recover quicker and defend for longer.
On a slow court you could be the greatest player who ever lived and still be unable to hit the ball past Nadal or Djokovic. That's just a fact.

time please wrote:

Tenez wrote:But that's not what we do. Guys like Edberg and McEnroe would be the equivalent of Llodra and Stepanek! no kidding. I know you might find that laughable cause you like to gauge a player's greatness by the way his name sound but technically and talent wise, I am not convinced at all the formers woudl be better than the latters.

I think TMF said something about if there were more fast courts that we would see a talent like Llodra flourish just recently - can't remember whether it was pre Dubai?

Yes he said something like that in Dubai. Of course he woudl not go as far as comparing Edberg with Llodra because their achievements are miles apart....but though I cannot say how well Llodra woudl have done then, I am 99.99% sure that Edberg woudl have not done much better than Llodra had he played today.....despite his FO final.

Lightbreeze wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Tenez, how do you then describe to topsy turvy results we see from the women often playing on the same exact courts. Why hasn't the homogenization resulted in the same exact women winning?

Because the men are men and the women are ....women. The men being way way fitter and stronger, they can recover quicker and defend for longer.
On a slow court you could be the greatest player who ever lived and still be unable to hit the ball past Nadal or Djokovic. That's just a fact.

But doesn't that also make Nadal or Djokovic great players for having supreme defensive skills?

amritia3ee wrote:

Lightbreeze wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Tenez, how do you then describe to topsy turvy results we see from the women often playing on the same exact courts. Why hasn't the homogenization resulted in the same exact women winning?

Because the men are men and the women are ....women. The men being way way fitter and stronger, they can recover quicker and defend for longer.
On a slow court you could be the greatest player who ever lived and still be unable to hit the ball past Nadal or Djokovic. That's just a fact.

But doesn't that also make Nadal or Djokovic great players for having supreme defensive skills?

It does. However, it doesn't make for a great spectacle when they can just wear down their lower ranked opponents at will.
I'd prefer watching matches where offensive skills were the deciding factor.

Lightbreeze the reason they can wear down their opponents at will as you portray is for 2 things. One Nadal and Djoko dictates most of the points against those opponents in the baseline exchanges. And two they are extremely fast and fit. YOu and other critics seem to be focusing on the fitness but ignoring the fact that to wear down their opponents they still need to superior in baselines striking. It isn't the case of just running down their opponents shots till they get tired.

As to Tenez' points, I actually don't have a problem in seeing how Edberg or Becker on these conditions would have less success. But then again if they had ample opportunity to train with modern conditions maybe they would have opportunities to adjust their style. Certainly conditions and technology favor a baseline style of play. I prefer that style, I think most fans like the modern game, and I think that there is variety between different types of players.

Now I have stated before I don't mind having a few faster court tournaments maybe with just tweeking the ball a little. And lets see what the quality of those matches are. I would not support wholesale and drastic changes and I would not support favoring the big serve style over the baseline style. I don't think produces consistently enjoyable tennis of the same level as we saw in Dubai were quicker conditions resulted in I think even you will admit a pretty ho hum tournament.

socal1976 wrote:Lightbreeze the reason they can wear down their opponents at will as you portray is for 2 things. One Nadal and Djoko dictates most of the points against those opponents in the baseline exchanges. And two they are extremely fast and fit. YOu and other critics seem to be focusing on the fitness but ignoring the fact that to wear down their opponents they still need to superior in baselines striking. It isn't the case of just running down their opponents shots till they get tired.

I agree with you that they are both great players. No argument from me there.
My problem is that the slow conditions allow them to dictate (against lower ranked players) to such an extent that the result is never ever in doubt.

socal1976 wrote:Lightbreeze the reason they can wear down their opponents at will as you portray is for 2 things. One Nadal and Djoko dictates most of the points against those opponents in the baseline exchanges. And two they are extremely fast and fit. YOu and other critics seem to be focusing on the fitness but ignoring the fact that to wear down their opponents they still need to superior in baselines striking. It isn't the case of just running down their opponents shots till they get tired.

That is actually not true. They don;t dictate at first. They actually do lots of running but in their scrapping and retrieving they do also force the opponent to do its part of the running. And that is enough to blunt the opponent's attacking skills. As the match goes on, the fitter player starts to dictate a bit more. This is why it is so vital for the attacking player to win teh first set and force Nadal and Djoko to more running. They know that if they don't when they are fresh they are never going to be able to dictate after a set or 2.

And the score is very telling. Always closer in the first set or 2 than in the 3rd or 5th.

Djoko has a superior baseline game than Nadal but he doesn't care. He prefers to keep the ball in play and rally with Nadal cause he knows this way he will securely drain Nadal and and when will come the later stages, he will dictate and simply kill Nadal physically.

This is exactly what we saw at the USO. Djoko had a back problem in the 4th but he had already beaten Nadal by making him run no end for 3 sets. He won teh 4th set very easily without being 100%.

In the AO, it was different as I am sure Djoko was not 100% so he tried to go for shots in the first set and in the 4th and that helped Nadal. This is why he said when he was very young, it's not difficult to beat Nadal. What he meant is that if you are fit and can run, Nadal hasn;t got any shot to hurt. ....but the problem is that not many can run as much....bar Murray maybe.

If that is the case how come last year Nadal had such an outstanding percentage of winning the first set Tenez? I don't see in Nadal and Djoko matches against most of the tour that they are just standing back and retrieving from the outset. Nadal dictates with his forehand on his service games very clearly and Novak does it with his groundies off both wings. Last year Nadal was winning a greater percentage of his first sets and was among the tour leaders. I posted it in one of the old threads. The idea that Novak and Nadal win most of their matches by exhausting their opponent is wrong. They usually jump all over the opponent and dictate from the word go of their matches.

They simply do not dictate cause even if I was playing agaisnt them, I woudl go for broke on every single shot. That woudl be my only chance.....and that is what teh opposition does. They might still win first sets cause the going for broke might not work but itwoudl be foolish to deny that the first sets are much more disputed than the remaing 2 or 3....90% of the time.

Well the answer to that litle dispute is in the statistics and is publically available but would be fairly time consuming to actually analyse the data.

I could run a marathon in a quicker time than it takes for Nadal to hit an attractive winner. Nadal on fast hardcourts = lose to Ivan Dodig in Montreal.

Henman Bill wrote:Well the answer to that litle dispute is in the statistics and is publically available but would be fairly time consuming to actually analyse the data.

Wrong henman bill it is on the ATP site were you can check stats of players winning first sets and compare players on different surfaces and various other statistical indexes. So far this year Nadal has played on tournament so I don't think it is as dispositive. Last year, when the ATP had the stats for a whole season I posted it in one of my threads and Nadal had one of the best winning percentages of the first set on the entire tour, same with Djoko.

Tenez your argument doesn't hold water because the player knows he will get tired in sets 2 and 3 he goes for broke and loses the match from the outset, this doesn't sound like a plausible strategy for a top pro on the ATP tour. Why wouldn't he just play his normal game until he gets tired and then go for broke if and when he gets tired. Maybe he wins the first set playing percentage tennis as opposed to erroring himself out of the match in the first half hour. Like I said the anectdotal evidence you produce doesn't jive with the facts. Nadal and Djoko win a huge percentage of the first sets and these first sets aren't usually won by exhaustion due to slow conditions.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez your argument doesn't hold water because the player knows he will get tired in sets 2 and 3 he goes for broke and loses the match from the outset, this doesn't sound like a plausible strategy for a top pro on the ATP tour. Why wouldn't he just play his normal game until he gets tired and then go for broke if and when he gets tired. Maybe he wins the first set playing percentage tennis as opposed to erroring himself out of the match in the first half hour. Like I said the anectdotal evidence you produce doesn't jive with the facts. Nadal and Djoko win a huge percentage of the first sets and these first sets aren't usually won by exhaustion due to slow conditions.

Are you sure you play tennis? Cause if you don't try to hurt and manke a guy like Nadal run, you surely are going to have to do the running instead. Yes they try to play their normal game first but as Nadal, Djoko and Murray retrieve anything they have to go for more at the very begining.

Davydenko is a player that does not need to go for broke. His normal shots carry enough weight and angle to give Nadal his share fo running without having to run too much himself.

Tenez, thankfully I have not had the experience of playing someone who runs like Nadal. But generally speaking the argument you make simply doesn't jive from the facts. Like you said Davydenko has the ability to dictate therefore he makes Nadal do all the running. Most other opponents don't have the same striking ability of Davy and therefore they run more. You said it yourself. So what allows Nadal to wear down his opponents is both the quality of his strikes and his speed in defense. He isn't just chasing the opponents power all game long until he errors. That is how you like to portray it but doesn't jive with the tennis I have watched or the stats. Nadal wins a huge number of first sets which have little or nothing to do with exhaustion or the fear of exhaustion.

No Tenez is right. Nadal only wins points when his opponents get exhausted.
This idea of him 'dictating' baseline rallies is frankly inconceivable. He just plays a lob, the hopes for the rest of the point that his opponent gets tired and hits an unforced error.
Social, you say the ATP said nadal wins one of the highest percentage of 1st sets, this is wrong as it doesn't fit my theory that he only wins when the opponent gets more and more tired. In fact sometimes the opponents are worn out by the warm-up so much so that they are tired immediately. One example of this was the French Open final 2008 where Nadal depended on Federer getting tired in the 1st game to win the match. Or else Fed would have cruised.

Great satire amiritia, Tenez's response to my statistics, which I should hunt down because they are telling of this point is his self described ability to determine by reading the players mind that because he fears he will get tired in set 2 of a three set match that he will play ultra aggressive early on.

Nadal and Djokovic do not win the majority of their matches on superior conditioning. I have watched plenty of matches where Nadal just steam rolls a highly thought of professional from the second the umpire calls time. Yet, Tenez would like us believe that instead of it having to do with Nadal being better than player X it is because Player X (a world class athlete) is scared of getting tired after an hour of tennis.