The Physicality Myth

First topic message reminder :

For so long now here and on old 606 people have made the excuse of the physicality of tennis now for blunting Roger Federer's challenge in tournaments. Well I don't believe it really is such a big factor (if at all) as some would have you believe. Sure the players are far more physically fit now and so far better equipped to deal with long drawn out. rallies which players become conditioned to in any case.

Last night we saw Roger Federer beat Rafael Nadal and winning 20+ shots long rallies against Nadal with no sign of wilting or this mythological physicality factor kicking in. Why not? As sure as eggs are eggs it should have played out here especially if you consider the longer matches Roger has had here and far more hectic schedule of late compared to Rafael Nadal who must have felt as fresh as a daisy after more than a month out.

Another thing that bothers me about this physicality factor is this. We all know that David Ferrer is much in the Nadal mould who will stick in a rally like a human limpet and loves the long-drawn out rallies. It means to beat him you need the same physicality that you do to beat Rafael Nadal. Well then why is it that Roger Federer has played Ferrer TWELVE times and is yet to be beaten by the Spaniard? Likewise Andy Murray isn't adverse to playing long-drawn out rallies yet Roger Federer has had the upper hand in the major matches they have played in. Similarly, Novak Djokovic plays war of attrition matches but guess what? Roger Federer has won more matches than he has lost against the Serb. Once again what happened to this mythological physicality factor?

And all this on surface speeds not to Federer's liking either. Seems to be doing very well on the surfaces at the moment.

laverfan wrote:As LK mentioned, the Federer 'moonballs' were rather interesting, where he (or Annacone) seems to have watched quite a bit of Nadal-Djokovic matches and have begun to realise that beating Nadal takes a very close image of Nadal's game to beat him.

I will mention this once again, for the sake of emhpasis. The Nalbandian-Nadal match showed Nalbandian's ability to match Nadal and have large net clearances till the time came to pull the trigger. He made mistakes at crucial junctures (with his drop shots) otherwise the subsequent match line-up could have been different.

If we talk about Granpa Federer, than we should also talk about the 'ancient injured relic' that is Nalbandian and give him some credit, too.

If Federer had a Wawrinka or a Gasquet BH, we could have had an alternate history timeline.

It seems funny that some Federer fans refuse to acknowledge that part of the success of Federer defeating Nadal was, well adopting 'Nadalesque' shot making.

As you say Nalbandian played out of his skin in that first set against Nadal and with more fitness and power perhaps may have been the first player since Soderling FO09 to hit through Nadal.

Should Federer be praised for moonballing? Damn right he should. Nadal should also have equal amount of praise for beating Federer like he has.

Federer played the Nadal way and won. Should we count that as a 'tainted' victory.

Are you saying LK that Federer defeated Nadal yesterday by moonballing?

It must have escaped me cause bar the one shot, I certainly have seen Federer take the ball extremely early and attacking, especially considering how windy it was.

That's a statement! But as I am here to learn, please provide link and I will gladly change my mind if need be.

I've already asked Tenes this:-

So Tenez are you claiming Nadal's wins against Federer did not come about because of Nadal's talent but other forces?

And I am presuming he just cannot bring himself to say that talent plays a big part in Rafa's game as well.

Tenez are you really going to tell me that Roger played one moonball throughout the whole match?

I really hope that is what your not suggesting.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tenez are you really going to tell me that Roger played one moonball throughout the whole match?

I really hope that is what your not suggesting.

Did he play 2?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tenez are you really going to tell me that Roger played one moonball throughout the whole match?

I really hope that is what your not suggesting.

Did he play 2?

Please have a look...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOpmGwT-sdY

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tenez are you really going to tell me that Roger played one moonball throughout the whole match?

I really hope that is what your not suggesting.

Did he play 2?

Please have a look...

Is there a high limit to what we can deem as moonballing?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tenez are you really going to tell me that Roger played one moonball throughout the whole match?

I really hope that is what your not suggesting.

Did he play 2?

Please have a look...

Is there a high limit to what we can deem as moonballing?

I bet Tenez gets to choose the hieght! Sigh... Why does Tenez get to decide everything?

No but I saw Federer play very aggressive actually and Nadal says the same in his interview. I saw Fed hit plenty of balls early after the bounce, from his BH.

As said, I am not trying to be right but I don't remember Federer moonballing much though I know he can use it at times. In my view Fed won yesterday cause he played very aggressive taking the ball early thanks to cool conds (Nadal says so) and Nadal made quite a few UEs, I believe because he tried to take the ball early.....and that doesn't suit him.

Nadal said cool conds = low bounce (= hards to pepper the SHBH?)

Henman Bill wrote:Nadal said cool conds = low bounce (= hards to pepper the SHBH?)

Yes. what I meant. This is the advantage Fed has also in London. That's why I would find it strange to see Federer try to moonball on cool, windy conds as that would invite Nadal to do the same and at this style we know who's going to win.

This is what Federer said in 2006 at MC after Gaudio lost to Nadal 57 61 61 (what I call a biathlon score)


Q. What do you have to do to beat him? What do you have to focus on?
ROGER FEDERER: Play well. It's as simple as that. I've got to make sure I play well, don't give him, you know, many easy shots, and just stay with him, you know, for the entire time. Because I have the feeling that's what guys do, they tend to not take the physical challenge with him, so they go away. That's what I won't do tomorrow.

I remember in his French version of the interview on the same day he said players are under-estimating the physical challenge that is to beat Nadal (which kind of what he says above). I also feel some posters underestimate it here.

After the 2006 MC and Rome marathons, ATP changed the Masters finals to Bo3, IIRC.

MC 2006 was no marathon....was it?

Edit- It was closer than I thought.

But physicality not the whole story and until you understand that and stop underestimating the skills of any of the other top 3 players have, you'll always be in denial.

Federer is as physical as any of them and has the same stamina and strength levels as Nadal or Djokovic, he doesn't have a magical training regime that bypasses building up these facets, its all part and parcel of training to a level that enables Roger to last all those 5 slam setters that he has taken part in. He couldn't do it otherwise, so to deny the other players their skills in place of physicality is denying Federer the same, but you can't and neither would I.

Tenez wrote:MC 2006 was no marathon....was it?

Edit- It was closer than I thought.

2006 ATP Masters Series Rome (305 minutes - 5 sets)
Italy Clay F Nadal, Rafael
6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5) Stats

2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo (230 minutes - 4 sets)
Monaco Clay F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5) Stats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-0-gdQEvcU

Am I underestimating their skills or are you underestimating the role physique plays in tennis.

Put you hand flat mid air and try to keep it still as much as possible. Observe its shaking.
Then run a couple of 400m as fast as you can, stop and try to put you hand still again and observe its shaking again.

What's teh difference?

Now imagine with this shaking hand having to time perfectly a fizzy ball from Nadal jumping at you knowing you need to get it close to the net and line cause anything that is not perfect will be retrieved and force you to run a few more 400ms.

Do you really know what tennis is about Jubba? Who is in denial?.

Alright CC, I'll answer your points and the question you put in your OP. But as I always say, remember those. It's really tiring for me to keep saying the same things again and again.

wrote: Last night we saw Roger Federer beat Rafael Nadal and winning 20+ shots long rallies against Nadal with no sign of wilting or this mythological physicality factor kicking in. Why not?

Do you understand something called probability? This is important to know this for your answer. I'm not sure how many here on 606v2 have studied Advanced Mathematics but I'll try to be as simple as I can. Probability is a chance of happening a random event among a number of possible events. e.g. If a coin is tossed, there are 2 possible events head or a tail. The probability of getting a head is 1/2 or 50%. Hence of getting a tail is 1- 1/2 = 1/2 or 50%. If you take a dice there are 6 possible events i.e. getting number 1-6 and probability of getting a particular number is 1/6 or 16.67%.

These figures are figures of probability and not of certainty. It means that if probability of getting a head is 1/2 or 50% it doesn't necessarily mean that if you toss a coin 10 times, you will have to get head 5 times. Likewise probability of getting a 6 on a dice is 1/6 but it doesn't mean if you throw it 12 times you will necessarily get a 6, 2 times.

Probability of 50% means if the event occurs infinite no. of times, half of those will be heads.

In Fed-Nadal match-up, Nadal's probability of winning a long 20+ rally is very high compared to Fed's due to his physical superiority. Lets say some arbitrary value of .75 or 75%. This means that probability of Nadal winning a 20+ shot rally is 75% and for Fed its 25%. Hence even if the rally is 20+ long Fed still has a chance to win those, but its smaller compared to Nadal's.

In the IW semis, how many such rallys occurred? Only 1-4 at max ( I actually think it was just 1, but lets keep it 4 for making it clear). Now apply the probability logic here. In 4 rallys it doesn't mean nadal will necessarily win 3 and Fed 1. Nadal can win all 4, Fed too can win all 4. Why??? Because this number (4) is very small compared to infinity. As the number of rallys increases and hence starts (theoretically) getting closer to infinity, the rule of probability will start to apply more accurately. In 20 such rally Nadal is highly likely to win even 10. If it goes even more like 50, Nadal will be winning about 35 of those.

I told you its complicated, but try to understand.


Now about physicality in Fed-Nadal's match-ups, I can answer those too. But its also going to be a long post. If you understood the explanation above then I can try it. Because I don't want to waste time in trying to explain things to people who have made up their mind not to get it.

PS: ( as I'm at work).

A long-winded reply and it is you that has made up your mind.

Physicality/physique or call it what you will has always been part of tennis as has players with differing tactics and the way their opponents combat those differing tactics against different opponents. In recent years Roger Federer simply could not fathom out a way of breaking down Nadal which other players could do far more successfully who are perhaps even less of a physical speciman than Federer. Are you following?

However, Nadal's tactics have long been frowned upon.Why? It was highly successful in breaking down Fed's game and getting (big time) into his head which affects confidence and self-belief whilst Nadal's has soared in past encounters. Roger Federer has his own methods/weapons to break people's games down as does every other player in the game but I don't see it being picked apart regardless of what aspects it includes.

The physicality factor is a myth in my opinion otherwise Roger would not have won two of his last three encounters against Nadal at a time when he is now approaching 30 whereas in his mid to late 20's he was getting bad defeats. So what has happened to that physicality factor as, after all, as Fed gets older the effect should get greater if it really exists that is.

Roger Federer lost his matches against Nadal fair and square beaten by tactics and a shot he couldn't deal so I'd say that type of shot (and others in his armoury) takes great talent but some can't bring themselves to see or say this on here. Federer's defeats left mental scars that will only heal when he returns the favour which it looks like he has now begun doin and now the next step is to do it at slams.

In short I recognise the physical aspect of the fgame and the part it plays but the myth that it is the all conquering reason that Nadal has such a good record against Federer is unfair and untrue and one that I dismiss.

Tenez wrote:No but I saw Federer play very aggressive actually and Nadal says the same in his interview. I saw Fed hit plenty of balls early after the bounce, from his BH.

As said, I am not trying to be right but I don't remember Federer moonballing much though I know he can use it at times. In my view Fed won yesterday cause he played very aggressive taking the ball early thanks to cool conds (Nadal says so) and Nadal made quite a few UEs, I believe because he tried to take the ball early.....and that doesn't suit him.

Federer did his share of moonballing in the match. The clever part was that he wasn't playing 2-3 moonball type shots. He would moonball to Nadal at the back of the court, Nadal would play the next shot either short or in the deuce court and this allowed Federer to play aggressive. For me, Federer played the perfect match. Look how many times he had Nadal scampering out of the court with his BH. Federer read the conditions perfectly and was disciplined enough not to try and play flat all the time.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A long-winded reply and it is you that has made up your mind.

Good. For once I did hope that you might get it. But alas.. thats why I didn't try to explain things yesterday.

So keep thinking whatever you want to.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A long-winded reply and it is you that has made up your mind.

Good. For once I did hope that you might get it. But alas.. thats why I didn't try to explain things yesterday.

So keep thinking whatever you want to.

It really is just as well that Roger doesn't buy into this physicality factor myth like some of his fans do otherwise he'd have stuck rigidly to the same old tactics that have failed in the past against Nadal. Truth is, with a far better mental frame of mind and realisation he needed to change his game plan and tactics against Rafa (perhaps helped by Paul Annacone) he did so and has begun winning his matches. That is the truth of the matter and not any invisible physicality factor or else surely Nadal should be on a long continuous winning streak to Roger who nears his 30th birthday.

Whatever !!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Because I don't want to waste time in trying to explain things to people who have made up their mind not to get it.

PS: ( as I'm at work).

Even Nadal understands that. I believe I read him say somewhere that if he had a 60% chance of pulling a winner, he will play another shot until the chance of pulling that winner is over 85% (or something like that). But of course this increasing chance of scoring as teh rally goes on is also helped by his opponent's UEs trying to pull winners in the meantime.

Anyway its so obvious that I don;t understand how can some argue that Nadal's game is not based on longer rallies and therefore his physique. Had he won 6 USOs, 6 Cincy and one FO and 0 MC, they could have a point...but all facts tend to prove our case.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Whatever !!

LOL! Told you it was a waste of time.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Tenez wrote:No but I saw Federer play very aggressive actually and Nadal says the same in his interview. I saw Fed hit plenty of balls early after the bounce, from his BH.

As said, I am not trying to be right but I don't remember Federer moonballing much though I know he can use it at times. In my view Fed won yesterday cause he played very aggressive taking the ball early thanks to cool conds (Nadal says so) and Nadal made quite a few UEs, I believe because he tried to take the ball early.....and that doesn't suit him.

Federer did his share of moonballing in the match. The clever part was that he wasn't playing 2-3 moonball type shots. He would moonball to Nadal at the back of the court, Nadal would play the next shot either short or in the deuce court and this allowed Federer to play aggressive. For me, Federer played the perfect match. Look how many times he had Nadal scampering out of the court with his BH. Federer read the conditions perfectly and was disciplined enough not to try and play flat all the time.

I will have to see it again. He played with more margins due to the wind but from what I saw (and I saw a set twice), I did not see moonballing and certainly not moonballing for teh sake of keeping the rally longer.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Tenez wrote:No but I saw Federer play very aggressive actually and Nadal says the same in his interview. I saw Fed hit plenty of balls early after the bounce, from his BH.

As said, I am not trying to be right but I don't remember Federer moonballing much though I know he can use it at times. In my view Fed won yesterday cause he played very aggressive taking the ball early thanks to cool conds (Nadal says so) and Nadal made quite a few UEs, I believe because he tried to take the ball early.....and that doesn't suit him.

Federer did his share of moonballing in the match. The clever part was that he wasn't playing 2-3 moonball type shots. He would moonball to Nadal at the back of the court, Nadal would play the next shot either short or in the deuce court and this allowed Federer to play aggressive. For me, Federer played the perfect match. Look how many times he had Nadal scampering out of the court with his BH. Federer read the conditions perfectly and was disciplined enough not to try and play flat all the time.

I will have to see it again. He played with more margins due to the wind but from what I saw (and I saw a set twice), I did not see moonballing and certainly not moonballing for teh sake of keeping the rally longer.

Ah ha. Now thats where I see the confusion in our views. Roger's moonballing wasn't for the purpose of prolonging rallies, it was more he knew Nadal was a sitting duck in the conditions which Roger made the best of. During the match Federer never played the same looping shot twice in any rally. When Federer landed a moonball right near the baseline, Nadal hit the return in short into the deuce court to which Roger was able to player flatter strokes and take control in the rally. To me it looked Roger was thinking 3 shots ahead and Nadal wasn't. Simply put, Roger outfoxed Nadal. Roger's moonballs landed near the baseline and his flat stuff which landed short offered Nadal nothing to attack behind.

You could call it poetic justice that Federer served Nadal some Moonpie!

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Because I don't want to waste time in trying to explain things to people who have made up their mind not to get it.

PS: ( as I'm at work).

Even Nadal understands that. I believe I read him say somewhere that if he had a 60% chance of pulling a winner, he will play another shot until the chance of pulling that winner is over 85% (or something like that). But of course this increasing chance of scoring as teh rally goes on is also helped by his opponent's UEs trying to pull winners in the meantime.

Anyway its so obvious that I don;t understand how can some argue that Nadal's game is not based on longer rallies and therefore his physique. Had he won 6 USOs, 6 Cincy and one FO and 0 MC, they could have a point...but all facts tend to prove our case.

You really do fail to get it don't you? Nadal uses a tactic that helped him fell Federer and it is the devil's incarnation and some sort of evil force. Do we see fans of other players on here trying to paint a similar picture blaming Federer for tactics he uses to great effect ....of course not. I have said physicality is part and parcel of the game and has always been the case but it is some people such as yourself who is determined to try and make it out to be far more important than it really is. Similarly, the court speeds......hmmm Fed is doing very well on these terribly slow courts now isn't he? Hmmm another topic??

CaledonianCraig wrote:You really do fail to get it don't you?

Must be that.

Oh and you are also wrong about me praising Federer only. I praise many players, even such as Robredo, Ljubo, Petzchner if you care to check. So many more players than you do probably.

Though I have to come to teh evidence that fed is the most talented. But that's not news, is it?

I find a few things frustrating.

Firstly that most posters fail accept that Nadal's tactics against Federer is to blunt his game and then attack at the very end. It is a tried and tested tactic he has used countless times. Attack the BH and retrieve the FH. Nothing spectacular agreed, but it does take the talent of discipline to play in such a manner for hours in a match. What the WTF and IW showed was that if Nadal will go blow to blow with Federer on flat strokes, he isn't going to win. It was of no surprise that in some rallies that Federer covered more distance because it was Nadal trying to expand the court and work Federer around.

Secondily, Nadal does not use the above tactics against ALL players. Infact when he plays lesser quality opponents he is able to play aggressive and attacking tennis. Tennis is all about peaking and what Nadal does so well is that he is able to incorporate 2 different styles and tactics in a tournament. It comes across that once you have seen Nadal v Federer, that you have seen all that Nadal has to offer and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Lastly Djokovic is the most interesting paradigm in all of this as he is able to play the long lung bursting matches, but he is also able to play the flatter more talented element of the game which is based on high quality shotmaking.

So winning 10 slams is your last tangible piece of proof that Nadal has talent?

Did I say he did not have talent somewhere? Please show me. I am saying the top 8000 players in the world have talent. Your friend says only the top 50, obviously completely disregarding the talent of those above number 50.

Now if you think players are ranked by their talent and number of slams, fine. There is much more it...and it's not a myth.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find a few things frustrating.

Firstly that most posters fail accept that Nadal's tactics against Federer is to blunt his game and then attack at the very end. It is a tried and tested tactic he has used countless times. Attack the BH and retrieve the FH. Nothing spectacular agreed, but it does take the talent of discipline to play in such a manner for hours in a match. What the WTF and IW showed was that if Nadal will go blow to blow with Federer on flat strokes, he isn't going to win. It was of no surprise that in some rallies that Federer covered more distance because it was Nadal trying to expand the court and work Federer around.

Secondily, Nadal does not use the above tactics against ALL players. Infact when he plays lesser quality opponents he is able to play aggressive and attacking tennis. Tennis is all about peaking and what Nadal does so well is that he is able to incorporate 2 different styles and tactics in a tournament. It comes across that once you have seen Nadal v Federer, that you have seen all that Nadal has to offer and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Lastly Djokovic is the most interesting paradigm in all of this as he is able to play the long lung bursting matches, but he is also able to play the flatter more talented element of the game which is based on high quality shotmaking.

Great post legend - but perhaps that is just because I agree with you completely

Jubba - I am sorry but I think that was completely OTT. Tenez is making a very valid point about the different types of stamina needed and how the cc spiny forehand to the shbh of Fed's will wear even the fittest player down over a long match. McEnroe said very much the same at WTF 2010 when he tipped Fed before the title saying that he felt over b03 on a faster court that Fed's game would prevail but that Federer no longer had the stamina over b05 to fight off the superior physical strength of Nadal - that is not quite the same as fitness. So it is a point of view that is out there in the media too.

It is Nadal's great strength - of course he is a very talented shotmaker with a good touch on infrequent visits to the net, but the players fear his ability to really never be beaten and his quite amazing physical stamina - how else would you describe someone who has played through so many injuries so well?

I'm about to remove a few posts on this thread.
Please refrain from further personal judgements on other posters, even if "He started it".

Some posts will be removed, not because they are bad, but because they will be out of context after others are removed. So don't be offended if yours gets removed, when it wasn't that bad - just trying to clean it up best I can.

Tenez wrote:So winning 10 slams is your last tangible piece of proof that Nadal has talent?

Did I say he did not have talent somewhere? Please show me. I am saying the top 8000 players in the world have talent. Your friend says only the top 50, obviously completely disregarding the talent of those above number 50.

Now if you think players are ranked by their talent and number of slams, fine. There is much more it...and it's not a myth.

Tenez my point is you have never said anywhere that I can recall, in around the last five or so years, that Nadal has great talent at all. People have coaxed you into saying it but you cannot bring yourself to do it. Pretty pathetic really. If you think it is not talent that he can produce shots that Federer can't handle then you are a lost cause.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm about to remove a few posts on this thread.
Please refrain from further personal judgements on other posters, even if "He started it".

Some posts will be removed, not because they are bad, but because they will be out of context after others are removed. So don't be offended if yours gets removed, when it wasn't that bad - just trying to clean it up best I can.

I think they are fine. No one died out there as Becker woudl say.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm about to remove a few posts on this thread.
Please refrain from further personal judgements on other posters, even if "He started it".

Some posts will be removed, not because they are bad, but because they will be out of context after others are removed. So don't be offended if yours gets removed, when it wasn't that bad - just trying to clean it up best I can.

I think they are fine. No one died out there as Becker woudl say.

Yeah, but if someone insults you (which they did), then they broke the house rules. Even if you don't mind (and I'm glad you don't), the Mods have to look at the wider picture.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez my point is you have never said anywhere that I can recall, in around the last five or so years, that Nadal has great talent at all. People have coaxed you into saying it but you cannot bring yourself to do it. Pretty pathetic really. If you think it is not talent that he can produce shots that Federer can't handle then you are a lost cause.

No because I don;t think Nadal's talent is what really separates him from the rest. If I though that was the case I would say it but I think it's fairer to say his power and fitness is really what separates him from the rest. I have seen him being able to hit harder than anybody, run faster than his opponent and yet lose the match or being bossed around. He is standing way far back to return cause he probably needs more time to see the ball and needs the ball to slow down after teh baseline to give himself max chance of timing it right. He also makes sure he gives himself max chance to put the ball on court by clearing the net and lines.

Haven't you noticed all that? When you play tennis, do you realise how much more difficult it is to take the ball early after the bounce as opposed to 3 meters after it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm about to remove a few posts on this thread.
Please refrain from further personal judgements on other posters, even if "He started it".

Some posts will be removed, not because they are bad, but because they will be out of context after others are removed. So don't be offended if yours gets removed, when it wasn't that bad - just trying to clean it up best I can.

I think they are fine. No one died out there as Becker woudl say.

Yeah, but if someone insults you (which they did), then they broke the house rules. Even if you don't mind (and I'm glad you don't), the Mods have to look at the wider picture.

I trust your judgement!

As in all sport, it's really about horses for courses. You do what you have to do to get the job done against a particular opponent. Anyone who has played tennis at any level will know that sometimes you really have to do very little to win a match.
For example, if you're playing someone who is terribly erratic then all you have to do is push the ball back and wait for them to self destruct. With a stready retriever you have to play a more attacking game but be careful not to make too many UEs.
If you're up against a better player, unless they are having a really off day you have to take any number of risks otherwise you've had it.
If Rafa knows his best tactic against Fed is by playing on his backhand with heavily top-spun shots, then he would be mad not to do this.
Against Djoko, for example, he has to think of something different and against other players it's something different again.

time please wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find a few things frustrating.

Firstly that most posters fail accept that Nadal's tactics against Federer is to blunt his game and then attack at the very end. It is a tried and tested tactic he has used countless times. Attack the BH and retrieve the FH. Nothing spectacular agreed, but it does take the talent of discipline to play in such a manner for hours in a match. What the WTF and IW showed was that if Nadal will go blow to blow with Federer on flat strokes, he isn't going to win. It was of no surprise that in some rallies that Federer covered more distance because it was Nadal trying to expand the court and work Federer around.

Secondily, Nadal does not use the above tactics against ALL players. Infact when he plays lesser quality opponents he is able to play aggressive and attacking tennis. Tennis is all about peaking and what Nadal does so well is that he is able to incorporate 2 different styles and tactics in a tournament. It comes across that once you have seen Nadal v Federer, that you have seen all that Nadal has to offer and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Lastly Djokovic is the most interesting paradigm in all of this as he is able to play the long lung bursting matches, but he is also able to play the flatter more talented element of the game which is based on high quality shotmaking.

Great post legend - but perhaps that is just because I agree with you completely

Jubba - I am sorry but I think that was completely OTT. Tenez is making a very valid point about the different types of stamina needed and how the cc spiny forehand to the shbh of Fed's will wear even the fittest player down over a long match. McEnroe said very much the same at WTF 2010 when he tipped Fed before the title saying that he felt over b03 on a faster court that Fed's game would prevail but that Federer no longer had the stamina over b05 to fight off the superior physical strength of Nadal - that is not quite the same as fitness. So it is a point of view that is out there in the media too.

It is Nadal's great strength - of course he is a very talented shotmaker with a good touch on infrequent visits to the net, but the players fear his ability to really never be beaten and his quite amazing physical stamina - how else would you describe someone who has played through so many injuries so well?

Thanks TP

Mark Petchey made a brilliant point that in a BO5 that if Federer served below 60%, he would be vulnerable and is more likely to lose the match, this is was a brilliant point which highlighted the consistency in Federer's serving of BO5. Petchey also highlighted that in their encounters that Federer had created 250 BP's compared to Nadal's 309!! I found these points to be superb because of the extra dimension it added to the old Fedal debate.

Anyone who thinks Nadal does not use his stamina to great effect, check the Isner/Nadal encounter at the FO 2011 and tell me that Isner did not flake after the 3rd set which he won. Nadal has got the dogged street fighter attitude that allows him to use brute physicallity to his maximum advantage. Would have Isner beaten Djokovic over 5 sets? Hell no.

The modern player incorporates stamina as an extra weapon should they find an opponent with the same effective weapons as them. Verdassco v Tomic at the AO this year. A classic example of if I wait, the errors and slowing down of the opponent will come.

Federer v Bellucci another classic example of that if Federer raises his level and paints the line that a flat hitting player is going to struggle.

Looks like the calvalry has finally arrived!

I am going to rest now.

Spot on Sirfred. That is way even Fed re-position himself in a defensive mood when he's playing Davidenko.

BTW: I just don't get what do you mean when you were talking about top-spun shots?

legendkillarV2 wrote: Petchey also highlighted that in their encounters that Federer had created 250 BP's compared to Nadal's 309

Is that a typo? 250 vs 209 maybe? Fed had more BPs, but less conversions IIRC.

legendkillar wrote:Anyone who thinks Nadal does not use his stamina to great effect, check the Isner/Nadal encounter at the FO 2011 and tell me that Isner did not flake after the 3rd set which he won. Nadal has got the dogged street fighter attitude that allows him to use brute physicallity to his maximum advantage. Would have Isner beaten Djokovic over 5 sets? Hell no.

Absolutely - it is silly not to recognise that all players have different strengths and different conditions suit all.

After all, if you were having a punt on a horse you consider not only recent form, but you look at the distance a horse does best over, whether it likes firm ground, good to firm or soft, what the weather was doing, how it looks physically in the paddock. You also consider how it has done against horses in the past if the field is similar and if there are any factors to consider as why one horse triumphed over another - was it drawn better, nearer the rails.

Anyone who has been involved with any kind of competitive sport understands this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Petchey also highlighted that in their encounters that Federer had created 250 BP's compared to Nadal's 309

Is that a typo? 250 vs 209 maybe? Fed had more BPs, but less conversions IIRC.

Nadal had more I am afraid JHM. And the better conversion too. It was 309.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Petchey also highlighted that in their encounters that Federer had created 250 BP's compared to Nadal's 309

Is that a typo? 250 vs 209 maybe? Fed had more BPs, but less conversions IIRC.

Nadal had more I am afraid JHM. And the better conversion too. It was 309.

OK - they said something about Fed having 20% more (can't remember) but 20% less (can't remember). Thought it was 20% more BPs, but 20% less conversions. Any idea what it was that I wasn't really listening to?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote: Petchey also highlighted that in their encounters that Federer had created 250 BP's compared to Nadal's 309

Is that a typo? 250 vs 209 maybe? Fed had more BPs, but less conversions IIRC.

Nadal had more I am afraid JHM. And the better conversion too. It was 309.

OK - they said something about Fed having 20% more (can't remember) but 20% less (can't remember). Thought it was 20% more BPs, but 20% less conversions. Any idea what it was that I wasn't really listening to?

They were staggered by how many BP's Nadal had and converted. I didn't hear the 20%. I think Federer had made 240 BP's and converted 155 and Nadal created 309 and converted 221 or something like that. I know it was ridiculous stats. I think the 20% might be how many BP's Federer has generated compared to others against Nadal.

I would tend to believe that with Federer's serve, Nadal woudl have less BPs....but obviously a higher conversion rate.

Nadal can simply open the court so much serving on the add court, especially on Fed's BH, that it has a clear advantage there when it comes to BPs.

If we look at the 2007 FO final as a summary of their encounter...BPs are easier to create for fed, but tougher to convert.

Interesting about the BPs. Does it suggest that left-handers should be better at warding off break points, as most times there'll be serving from the left court on a break point (30-40, van out) ?
In doing so they can use that deadly swinging leftie serve to the backhand of their right-handed opponent. No doubt this helps Rafa, who just has to be one of the best players ever at saving BPs.