Mental Toughness and Nadal

by barrystar Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 16:23

Very interesting article here about what the Djoko-Nadal rivalry tells us about Nadal's mental toughness. I say interesting I guess in part because it echoes something I've been saying. If you have reliable tools to fall back on which you know can do the job against your opponent (i.e. Nadal's f/h to the b/h vs. Federer, and knowing that as the match gets longer your chances improve against pretty much everyone pre-Djoko 2011) onlookers may gain an exaggerated perception of the relative importance to your success of that elusive quality "mental toughness". To put it another way, mental toughness needs to have some foundations on which to rest and the more reliable those foundations, the better. If a game relies upon more delicate timing it's more difficult to win back the 'mojo' by gutsing it out, which is one of the reasons why I have always been astonished by the ability of Tiger Woods to win at will at his height - golf is a very difficult game to 'try harder' at.

Now, vs. Djoko, Nadal has not yet devised a 'go-to' tactic and the 'one more heave' at USO and Aus left him agonisingly short, in the latter case against a Djoko who was not on his absolute best form.

As the author says, if these two face one another in the MC final one of two impressive 7-in-a-row streaks has to go and the other will become an even more impressive 8-in-a-row.

Ps. - this is not an invitation to bicker about relative mental toughness of Fedal, it's about how different ways of playing the game can give different impressions of the contribution of 'mental toughness' to the player's success in a way which is not necessarily accurate. If it were easy to do what Nadal has done in the game everyone would do it, but they don't.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1143242-how-novak-djokovic-has-forced-us-to-reevaluate-rafael-nadals-mental-toughness

For those who can't link, it's here.

There was a time in tennis where no one was considered tougher to beat than Rafael Nadal. He never wavered, he never gave up the fight and he would force you to earn each and every single point.

Moreover, when the big points came along, you could be sure that Rafa would find his best tennis and make you earn it even more.

While a lot of that description is true, some of it is also part of the Rafa mythology. His on-court intensity makes it easy to associate him with the ultimate warrior, who never, ever gives up. Which is not always true.

Still, you will be hard pressed to find observers and fans who do not consider Rafa among the best competitors the sport has ever seen. And who regard him among the most mentally tough in clutch situations.

His entire rivalry with Federer is not only defined by the Rafa cross-court forehand to the Federer backhand, but also by how Rafa always edges out the close ones, saves and wins a higher percentage of the breakpoints and so on and so forth.

When Roger wins against Rafa, he usually does so in pretty dominant fashion. When the match is close, it's a pretty good bet, that it will go Rafa's way in the end.

This bolstered the conception of Rafa being the ultimate master of mental toughness and clutchness. When he can edge out the player who many considers the best of all time, again, and again and again, surely, Rafa must be the toughest mental customer in town.

Why do I then claim that Novak Djokovic' ascendancy has forced us to reevaluate those conceptions and beliefs?

To put it shortly: it's one thing to be mentally clutch against a player you know how to beat and where you have the tools to do so. It's quite another to be mentally clutch once you're in the "underdog" position and another player has shown consistent dominance over you.

In all of Rafa's career, he's faced little adversity on the tennis court. He's never had to face a player, who would consistently beat him. Sure, Federer would win here and there. Sure, Rafa would get upset on hard court by lesser players in his early years. But no one dominated him.

In fact, Rafa was the perfect prodigy, ready to dominate his surface of choice from the get go. At the peak of Federer's powers, a teenage Nadal with a very simple game could still beat him on clay (and hard).

He got to No. 2 in the world as well as winning his first slam as he turned 19. Since then, the trajectory of his career has only been upward (a part from injury setbacks). And he's never faced a player, who would consistently beat him or even play even with him in the most important tournaments.

Until last year, that is.

Novak Djokovic presented Rafa with the challenge he's gone his whole career without. And so far, while not exactly shying away from it, Rafa has not been able to solve it. To his credit, he's not gone away yet. And he was as close as ever in breaking Djokovic stranglehold in the Australian Open final.

Some of the problem is probably mental, which is why we should reevaluate his mental clutchness, at least ever so slightly.

As many of his matches with Djokovic over the past year bears witness to, Nadal is not the one coming up with the goods when it matters. Many of his fans where shocked by the backhand he put into the net at 30-15, 4-2 in the final set of the Australian Open. Many fans also complained about how he failed at crucial times in their Wimbledon final.

That said, he still wins and saves his fair share of the breakpoints. So it's quite possible that he's almost as mentally clutch as before, but Djokovic is just his equal or better.

Or perhaps Djokovic is just the better tennis player at the moment, which Nadal—mental clutchness or not—can do little about.

Let's also not forget that it's easier to be mental clutch in situations, where you feel you have the upper hand and has the game and the tools to win.

Nadal used to be able to count on the basic truism in men's tennis: the longer the point goes, the longer the match goes, the more I favor my own chances.

That truism is no truism against Novak Djokovic these days—and that is, in my opinion, what robes Nadal of his heralded confidence and clutchness: he's got no safe strategy to fall back on.

In this respect, Djokovic does present a unique challenge to the Nadal psyche.

How does one go on court against a player, who's beaten you seven straight times in a row—and in pretty convincing fashion no less—and still maintain the believe that you will win this time around?

That's the challenge Nadal is up against.

To his advantage, he's got the perfect setting this week in Monte Carlo to right his ship. He's won there every single year since 2005. Djokovic has just made the final once, losing to Nadal in 2009.

Seven straight titles, seven straight defeats. Which one of those numbers will weigh heavier on Nadal's mind if he's to meet Djokovic in the final?

Hopefully, we'll get to see them square off this coming Sunday and find out.

And learn more about the mind of a champion in the process.

by Tenez Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 16:53

I haven't read the whole post but it's obvious one is mentally as strongs as his weapons allow him to be. Once those weapons find their match, the mental side is also challenged.

There was always great comfort for Nadal knowing that as the match went on Federer (and all his opponents) were having their weapons blunt...while his were getting stronger. Borg had the same "mental" edge thanks to his physical edge.

Once a player was able to shorten rallies and take away his main strength (stamina), we saw him lose that mental edge.

Lendl was saying the same and I think now all players know that on those slow courts the best way to get a strong mind is to get strong legs and big lungs.

Same if you have to jump on a ring against Mike Tyson. You are either built for it and can do it or you can't and the idea of having to freaks you out.

by Henman Bill Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 16:56

Yes very interesting article. I still think Nadal is mentally tough. Having said that watching his forehand implode on centre court in the Wimbledon final was a surprising and interesting experience. I think Djokovic had got at him mentally like no-one before, having said that Djokovic's superior game is what's deciding the matches mostly!

by lydian Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:01

All these guys in top 3 are extremely mentally tough, you just have to be...some of it is innate...the ability to stay focused in the moment...things like this you cant teach...its like natural leaders, etc. But it can be built on...or detracted from. This is more than a mental test for Nadal, its a test of his whole game...and how he can adjust, or if he can adjust...whats needed to beat Djokovic is not so much mental as adjustments to on-court strategy, technique, etc...guess I'm saying its not all mental. But to still be top 2 after 6-7 years shows durability of mental strength I would say....he's still pretty much at the top of the game.

by Josiah Maiestas Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:08

They are all strong in the mind, especially the top 25-30, it's just that Nadal has been lucky to
push his body further without injuries.

by barrystar Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:22

I agree that they are all as tough as anything mentally, my point is that mental toughness always follows from the game you have and the match-up you face as well as the confidence you can have in your preparation. As Lydian says, every contest is a test of your entire game - indeed of everything you bring to the Court including your physical well-being on the day. I think that too much is made of 'mental toughness' as a deciding factor in matches or as an essential character or weapon of an individual player and I think it's because people like making moral judgments about players.

by Tenez Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:31

barrystar wrote:I agree that they are all as tough as anything mentally, my point is that mental toughness always follows from the game you have and the match-up you face as well as the confidence you can have in your preparation. As Lydian says, every contest is a test of your entire game - indeed of everything you bring to the Court including your physical well-being on the day. I think that too much is made of 'mental toughness' as a deciding factor in matches or as an essential character or weapon of an individual player and I think it's because people like making moral judgments about players.

I would say the exception is Federer and Djoko. Both are extremely strong mentally for different reasons:

1 - Fed has an extremely fragile game and that would typically make him extremely fragile mentally. Yet he is able to produce his porcelain game in the toughest conds. Despite losing that USO 11 to me he showed he was stronger than Djoko.
2 - Djoko is string cause he refuses, even more than Nadal, to believe he is out until he is out but his choice of shots are not as gutsy as Fed on the big points. He almost pulls them when he has no other solutions. Like in those MPs against him.

3 - Wilander is in my view one of the toughest ever mentally.

by lags72 Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:42

It's a well-written article, with careful analysis and very little that can be challenged (certainly not always the case with a lot of the Bleacher offerings .....!)

The turnaround in the Djokovic/Nadal rivalry is perhaps one of the more remarkable in recent history. There have been other examples of course involving legends of the game : I can remember Connors initially having the better of Borg until Borg hit his best years, following which Jimbo could rarely beat him. Borg himself was later to find McEnroe something of a problem, but of course sadly that particular rivalry was ended prematurely. Rafa has troubled Federer in a way that nobody else has managed to do, or certainly not with the same consistency. I suppose it's fair to say that only Sampras went through his career without suffering a string of defeats to any one player - although age caught up with him pretty sharply when he was losing to all & sundry in his last couple of years on tour

More than anything, the stellar performances by Novak throughout 2011 and continuing into this year's AO have proved one of the great truisms of sport: that there is always a new challenge to be faced - and sometimes when least expected. Given that Rafa was so impressive in dealing with Federer, even from an early age, it became commonplace for pundits & observers to think that if he can handle even the great Federer so competently, then surely nobody else would worry him for the rest of his career. Rafa was spoken of as the new king. But ..... fast forward just a short time and Rafa - having spent so long at no. 2 but eventually snatching the top spot from Federer - then loses it again (and fairly promptly), only this time to Novak.

0-7 against Djoker changed everything in the space of just a few short months, very unhappy months for Rafa. And along with that sequence of (mostly) heavy defeats, any illusions as to the invincibility of Rafa were shattered forever.

There has been much made - both in this Bleacher article and elsewhere - about the fact that Rafa was so very very close to finally taming Novak in this year's AO. And yet I wonder how much confidence Rafa can really take from that. He played impressively well, he battled and battled, he left everything on the court, he stuck with Novak in a way that he wasn't able to do in the 2011 encounters. And yet ........STILL it wasn't quite enough. Just how much more does he have to give ...??

For all these reasons the next couple of years at the top level of the game should (hopefully) be fascinating ; and specifically the way Rafa attempts to prove that Novak cannot continue to damage his title count - and perhaps even his overall legacy - in the way he has been doing this past twelve months or so .......

by noleisthebest Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:45

I saw the link for that article a few days ago (googled Djokovic and saw it there with a covering sentence), didn't go on to read it as that one sentence summed it up perfectly.

I posed a similar question a while ago, mainly curious to see how Nadal copes with being dethroned.

I remember it took Federer about a year to come round and stop saying how he still felt number one, he hired Annacone and came back in style (The Finger).
Nole has suffered under Fedal 3-4 years, which is why he is hanling pressure as number one with relish and pleasure (see his interview at tennistv if you can)
Nadal is really coming up all grumpy and with even more excuses, hthreatening with players' strike, resigning from players' council, demanding two years ranking.
I must say I did not expect it.

I think he finds it difficult because he's been such a hero in Spain, and is a bit thin-skinned and vain: he is the player that did not like Djokovic's immitation (fair enough), yet remember when he beat Nole in Rome, I think it was 2010, and the presenter on the court hassled Nole to imitate Nadal, Nole was highly reluctant and only after Nadal kind of "encouraged" him, he went and did a muted version of the 2007 USO one.

Nadal himself probably could handle this better, but he has to feed the beast called media and that's the difficult bit.

by noleisthebest Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:53

Very interesting article in today's Telegraph, similar topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/9207346/Monte-Carlo-Masters-2012-Rafael-Nadals-feet-of-clay-leave-Spaniard-at-risk-as-Novak-Djokovic-threatens.html

by noleisthebest Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 17:58

I was staggered to realise that Nadal played Monte Carlo in 2003!!!

That's a looong time ago, and his spirit is probably tired.

He has achieved an awful lot, and before 2011 definitely did not bank on 2011.
But now that Nole happened with 7:0, it can't be easy to find motivation especially if your body is letting you down.

He does the very opposite from what Federer did in his position: he is playing silly number of tournaments subjecting his body to even more stress and pressure, rather than cherry-pick them.
Or maybe he doesn't have that option.

by hawkeye Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 18:56

noleisthebest

Poor Rafa with his broken spirit and tired body. It's amazing he can still drag himself to the court let alone hit tennis balls. If it wasn't for that wicked uncle Toni forcing him to stick to the ATP tour schedule he would spend his entire time weeping whilst watching the new shiny, modified, gluten free, oxygen enhanced version 7:0 Djokovic do amusing impessions of him on court...

Have you sent him the flowers and chocs yet?

by Tennisanorak Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 19:01

I've always found mental toughness to be elusive to define and overrated. It struck me as funny that in his initial years, Rafa's toughness depended on whether the surface was clay or not. This was clearly a case of the spirit feeding off the game. As he improved across surfaces, he became mentally tough everywhere. So ultimately, I strongly believe that it is the match-up between two players that determines the mental toughness. If you're a big server playing a bad returner, you're likely to go for an ace more than if you were playing a great returner like say Murray. To the onlooker, this appears to be mental toughness in one case and lack of it in the other case, though the player and his mind remains the same. Ultimately, tennis is about how you hit the ball. It really is that simple.

by noleisthebest Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 19:06

hawkeye wrote:noleisthebest

Poor Rafa with his broken spirit and tired body. It's amazing he can still drag himself to the court let alone hit tennis balls. If it wasn't for that wicked uncle Toni forcing him to stick to the ATP tour schedule he would spend his entire time weeping whilst watching the new shiny, modified, gluten free, oxygen enhanced version 7:0 Djokovic do amusing impessions of him on court...

Have you sent him the flowers and chocs yet?

Why should I send him flowers and chocs? He hasn't changed gender yet and in my books flowers and chocks go to ladies.

by barrystar Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 20:09

lags72 wrote:There has been much made - both in this Bleacher article and elsewhere - about the fact that Rafa was so very very close to finally taming Novak in this year's AO. And yet I wonder how much confidence Rafa can really take from that. He played impressively well, he battled and battled, he left everything on the court, he stuck with Novak in a way that he wasn't able to do in the 2011 encounters. And yet ........STILL it wasn't quite enough. Just how much more does he have to give ...??

To my mind that was the most shattering defeat of the lot, he was close but it wasn't enough. He missed that point for 40-15 with what was pretty much an UE. He's never done a thing like that in a really tight match with Federer, or not at least since 2008. Djoko has got under his skin because Nadal knows that he cannot extract enough from his current game to beat Djoko if the latter is on any sort of form. The current run of 7-0 is far worse than anything he ever did to Fed, and even as a Fed fan I feel he has dominated Fed since 2008, and arguably during 2006 too (not in 2007). I'm only an amateur armchair psychologist, but I'd have thought that the AO defeat was probably the most dispiriting of the lot.

by barrystar Tue 17 Apr 2012 - 20:47

lags72 wrote: I suppose it's fair to say that only Sampras went through his career without suffering a string of defeats to any one player -

True - but Sampras was sufficiently poor on the surfaces that did not suit him to be taken by all-comers. If you look at his record vs. Agassi, which was 20-14, namely convincing without being dominant, it's pretty consistent (but not 100%) that on the slower stuff Agassi generally won and on the quicker stuff Sampras generally won. I'm not saying that Agassi was a better player than him, but Agassi got through to face Sampras on surfaces which suited Sampras better more often than the other way around, especially in the slams with 7 meetings and 7 Sampras wins at the USO & Wimbledon vs. 3 meetings and 3 Sampras losses at Aus Open and RG. In the majority of Sampras's really important meetings with his main rival Sampras benefited from knowing that he was on more favourable ground than Agassi where he could hurt him and that helped. Similarly Nadal's 18-10 vs. Federer includes a 12-2 clay tally and his 7-2 slam tally includes 5-0 on clay - as many have said, if Fed could have lost a few more SF's on clay he'd have been a worse player but would not have been so obviously dominated by Nadal.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 8:11

Tennisanorak wrote:I've always found mental toughness to be elusive to define and overrated. It struck me as funny that in his initial years, Rafa's toughness depended on whether the surface was clay or not. This was clearly a case of the spirit feeding off the game. As he improved across surfaces, he became mentally tough everywhere. So ultimately, I strongly believe that it is the match-up between two players that determines the mental toughness. If you're a big server playing a bad returner, you're likely to go for an ace more than if you were playing a great returner like say Murray. To the onlooker, this appears to be mental toughness in one case and lack of it in the other case, though the player and his mind remains the same. Ultimately, tennis is about how you hit the ball. It really is that simple.

Real good post Tennisanorak. clap

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 11:02

I think a lot of Nadal's mental toughness comes from the fact that his 'Plan A' allows a great deal of room for error. If you are looping shots over the net, you can mis-hit one and it will still likely clear the net. If a player is hitting flatter, mis-hits go into the net. (If I recall correctly, this is something Nadal talks about in his book). Likewise with the standing well back behind the baseline and taking the ball later, there is less chance of error.

For years Nadal has had the reassuring situation that his game, whilst being less risky than his opponents, is effective enough to beat most people most of the time. That's a nice thing to know in a pressure situation!

Where Nadal has been found wanting is when Plan A doesn't work. Throughout 2011 v Djoko, it became increasingly clear that he had to try a different approach but I can't recall any significant attempt to do so. I believe this was partly due to lacking confidence in his ability to try something different i.e. take risks.

To his credit, he did at least try something different in AO final and stepped into the court a little more for spells but by the end he had reverted to type and was playing way back again.

To me, mental toughness is the ability to play the required shots (whatever they may be) when under pressure. In that regard I think:
Djoko - definitely has this ability.
Nadal - has it but only with a limited range of shots.
Fed - I have my doubts. Nadal set up camp in his head years ago and when you see the way he collapsed when serving for the match v Djoko at USO, he certainly seems to have some mental demons.
Murray - one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

by noleisthebest Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 11:14

Very good observation HM

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 11:22

HM Murdoch wrote:
To me, mental toughness is the ability to play the required shots (whatever they may be) when under pressure. In that regard I think:
Djoko - definitely has this ability.
Nadal - has it but only with a limited range of shots.
Fed - I have my doubts. Nadal set up camp in his head years ago and when you see the way he collapsed when serving for the match v Djoko at USO, he certainly seems to have some mental demons.
Murray - one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

Djoko: Only 1 good year has brought you to this conclusion? What about year on year where he was failing to deliver on so many occasion? On occasions when he used to quit matches? Don't jump to conclusions, he is on the way sure. But is yet to be tested.

Fed: Very incorrect. Its takes massive mental strength to keep dominance year on year for so long. He has a bad match up with nadal on clay ( Nadal's best surface) but still runs in very close. Look at how dominant he is against Nadal when playing in his best surface (indoor hard). And about US open loss, it wasn't any mental daemons. Had it been those, he would have been reluctant to go for his play. He just relaxed a little too early, and Djo went into make-or-break mode which worked that time.

by noleisthebest Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 11:32

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
To me, mental toughness is the ability to play the required shots (whatever they may be) when under pressure. In that regard I think:
Djoko - definitely has this ability.
Nadal - has it but only with a limited range of shots.
Fed - I have my doubts. Nadal set up camp in his head years ago and when you see the way he collapsed when serving for the match v Djoko at USO, he certainly seems to have some mental demons.
Murray - one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

Djoko: Only 1 good year has brought you to this conclusion? What about year on year where he was failing to deliver on so many occasion? On occasions when he used to quit matches? Don't jump to conclusions, he is on the way sure. But is yet to be tested.

Fed: Very incorrect. Its takes massive mental strength to keep dominance year on year for so long. He has a bad match up with nadal on clay ( Nadal's best surface) but still runs in very close. Look at how dominant he is against Nadal when playing in his best surface (indoor hard). And about US open loss, it wasn't any mental daemons. Had it been those, he would have been reluctant to go for his play. He just relaxed a little too early, and Djo went into make-or-break mode which worked that time.

He's been tested enough by being under Federer and Nadal for 3/4 years and not giving up, dealing with all the problems he had and overtaking them is SOME style.

He has matured significantly.

by Guest Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:07

Nadal for is the toughest player mentally I have seen since Sampras. The position Nadal finds himself in isn't so much the lack of toughness, but the lack of intelligence and execution. Right now Djokovic has the game to grind out baseline battles as he is physically ahead of Nadal. He also has the variety of shots he can play so he is able to hit through Nadal ahead of all the guys on tour.

When he was Federer's tormentor, Federer was just hitting a ball against a wall to put it bluntly and for Federer to vary pace just ruined the rythym of his game. Not so much Federer was mentally de-stablised by Nadal, but hadn't the game to adjust in a way that matches and exceeds Nadal.

Nadal physically is not the brute he once was. Djokovic is able to take advantage because his physical condition has come on leaps and bounds and exceeded Nadal's. Djokovic is not a player that Nadal can outlast or out hit anymore. I see the same resignment that Federer had of Nadal. It is acceptance that there is nowhere in his game he can penatrate Djokovic's and expand beyond that.

When Nadal's game against Federer became compacted because of the surface speed, Federer had better success and could compete. Nadal's game was always to stretch Federer across the court, he can't do that with Djokovic because he has the game to retrieve and get back everything. Nadal cannot think beyond 15+ shot rallies.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:11

="raiders_of_the_lost_arkDjoko: Only 1 good year has brought you to this conclusion? What about year on year where he was failing to deliver on so many occasion? On occasions when he used to quit matches? Don't jump to conclusions, he is on the way sure. But is yet to be tested.

Fed: Very incorrect. Its takes massive mental strength to keep dominance year on year for so long. He has a bad match up with nadal on clay ( Nadal's best surface) but still runs in very close. Look at how dominant he is against Nadal when playing in his best surface (indoor hard). And about US open loss, it wasn't any mental daemons. Had it been those, he would have been reluctant to go for his play. He just relaxed a little too early, and Djo went into make-or-break mode which worked that time.

Djoko - I'm talking present tense. Mental toughness is something that can be learned and, right now, Djoko is the mentally toughest player on the tour.

Fed - the dominance was due to his amazing talent, not his mental toughness.
To say the USO defeat was due to relaxing is a bit of a reach. His game fell apart at the business end of the match! He lost two match points, double faulted when facing break point and then went on to lose his next service game too!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:27

HM Murdoch wrote:
="raiders_of_the_lost_arkDjoko: Only 1 good year has brought you to this conclusion? What about year on year where he was failing to deliver on so many occasion? On occasions when he used to quit matches? Don't jump to conclusions, he is on the way sure. But is yet to be tested.

Fed: Very incorrect. Its takes massive mental strength to keep dominance year on year for so long. He has a bad match up with nadal on clay ( Nadal's best surface) but still runs in very close. Look at how dominant he is against Nadal when playing in his best surface (indoor hard). And about US open loss, it wasn't any mental daemons. Had it been those, he would have been reluctant to go for his play. He just relaxed a little too early, and Djo went into make-or-break mode which worked that time.

Djoko - I'm talking present tense. Mental toughness is something that can be learned and, right now, Djoko is the mentally toughest player on the tour.

Fed - the dominance was due to his amazing talent, not his mental toughness.
To say the USO defeat was due to relaxing is a bit of a reach. His game fell apart at the business end of the match! He lost two match points, double faulted when facing break point and then went on to lose his next service game too!

There are lots of talented players out there. Just not enough mentally strong to turn that talent into success. To say that Fed's dominance over the years has been due to talent and not mental toughness is incorrect in my opinion. Talent may take a player to the top, but mental toughness will allow him to use that talent to stay there. How many times we see players reach their top rankings only to be toppled next year. Even a player like Nadal couldn't manage to stay at top for long enough. Being the hunted and still coming on top requires more than just talent.

by barrystar Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:32

HM Murdoch wrote:I think a lot of Nadal's mental toughness comes from the fact that his 'Plan A' allows a great deal of room for error.

Could not agree more with that

For years Nadal has had the reassuring situation that his game, whilst being less risky than his opponents, is effective enough to beat most people most of the time. That's a nice thing to know in a pressure situation!

And that.

Where Nadal has been found wanting is when Plan A doesn't work. Throughout 2011 v Djoko, it became increasingly clear that he had to try a different approach but I can't recall any significant attempt to do so. I believe this was partly due to lacking confidence in his ability to try something different i.e. take risks.

Or maybe just the sheer difficulty of 'turning the ship around' to develop a different tactic that is even more effective against the very top players - it's damn difficult because first you've got to think it out, then you've got to groove the physical execution endlessly in practice whilst you've got other things to practice, and then you've got to change your mindset to enable you to think clearly enough to know how and when to use it in a pressure situation, and even then it may not work - certainly if not executed to perfection it may make you more vulnerable against a larger number of players who you can always beat with plan A - perhaps it's just sheer difficulty and not lack of confidence?

To me, mental toughness is the ability to play the required shots (whatever they may be) when under pressure. In that regard I think:
Djoko - definitely has this ability.
Nadal - has it but only with a limited range of shots.
Fed - I have my doubts. Nadal set up camp in his head years ago and when you see the way he collapsed when serving for the match v Djoko at USO, he certainly seems to have some mental demons.
Murray - one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

Djoko - right now I agree that he's the toughest mentally on tour, he's seen the mountain and gone out and climbed it, fair play too him. If you are making an overall career assessment that needs to wait, as I think you recognise.

Nadal - I agree with you, but that's true of all seemingly 'mentally tough' players, Sampras knew he could rely on his 2nd serve and his fantastic forehand and net play - but he couldn't tough it out to an RG final and he couldn't beat Agassi at the Australian Open. He was tough where he knew his weapons would have no answer.

Federer - I think you are being a bit unfair because he has a very particular bad match-up vs. Nadal and it's only natural for a few 'cracks' to appear when competing in his 30's against some of the highest quality and most powerful tennis ever played but he's still playing to >80% w/l and winning tournaments. People say that his success is down to talent - of course, his ability to execute amazing tennis has been the basis of his success, but the will and ability to do that again and again and again owes a huge amount to mental toughness. Arguably the more complex a game the more mental toughness required because you face genuine shot selection choices at the toughest moments. Don't forget the opponent - his biggest clutch failing has been those many missed bp's vs. Nadal when Nadal has his lefty outswinger to the sbh, usually on clay. There's no disgrace in losing to Djoko these days - and the RG SF is the best win anyone has managed against Djoko in the last 16 months. A playe who has racked up such consistent statistics as Fed during the last 10 years through all the niggles minor illnesses and down days has to have married his talent with huge mental toughness; it's just not so obvious to us because he has made it look so easy so frequently.

Murray - I think he knows that he can't rely upon his 2nd serve and his forehand which puts far too much pressure on the good parts of his game. If he can improve on those then his 'mental strength' will improve with that.

by hawkeye Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:44

Both Nadal and Federer are great under pressure. They have proved it by being so strong for so long. Playing when everyone expects you to win must be very different than snatching a win when you have little to lose. For Djokovic it's still early days as he's had little experience of this sort of pressure. Murray plays his best when he is the underdog.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:46

="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"
There are lots of talented players out there. Just not enough mentally strong to turn that talent into success. To say that Fed's dominance over the years has been due to talent and not mental toughness is incorrect in my opinion. Talent may take a player to the top, but mental toughness will allow him to use that talent to stay there. How many times we see players reach their top rankings only to be toppled next year. Even a player like Nadal couldn't manage to stay at top for long enough. Being the hunted and still coming on top requires more than just talent.

I do agree with you in that sense. To be the hunted is harder than being the hunter and Federer handled that for years. To me though, that's a different kind of toughness. It's the kind of toughness where if you have a bad tournament, you make sure you bounce back in the next one. 'Resilience' might be the way to describe it.

I think Federer lacks toughness in big moments (as opposed to longer periods) though. The last time I can recall him winning when under real pressure from his opponent was v Roddick at Wimbledon in 09. Since then he let US09 v Del Potro get away from him, he's been 5-2 up in the 1st set v Nadal at RG11 and lost 7-5, and we've already mentioned US v Djoko. In all of those, his game just deserted him at key moments.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:48

HM Murdoch wrote:I think a lot of Nadal's mental toughness comes from the fact that his 'Plan A' allows a great deal of room for error.

And what I have been saying for the last 10 years of posting?

Retrievers are really helped mentally by their style (Borg, Wilander, Chang, Hewitt, etc..), especially when it comes to crushing times like BPs, SPs and even MPs cause the oppponent (the attacking players) has to deliver the risky (fine margins) shots under pressure while knowing that those risky shots will become harder to produce as tiredness creeps in, so there is an urgency added to the fact that if they don't get the BPs or SPs now, it will be much harder a set or 2 later.

The Federer Nadal matches on clay are a perfect example of that.

by Guest Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:56

I actually agree with that Tenez.

I guess the less diplomatic way of putting may not have got the rub on some posters on here Wink

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 12:57

HM Murdoch wrote:To me, mental toughness is the ability to play the required shots (whatever they may be) when under pressure. In that regard I think:
Djoko - definitely has this ability.
Nadal - has it but only with a limited range of shots.
Fed - I have my doubts. Nadal set up camp in his head years ago and when you see the way he collapsed when serving for the match v Djoko at USO, he certainly seems to have some mental demons.
Murray - one of the biggest weaknesses in his game.

BUt I am with ROTLA there. This part is in a way contradicting your first sentence of your post. To play the "required shot" is more down to physique than mental toughness. If you watch how Federer breaks Nadal in that first BP in London WTF 2011, it's key to understand what was Federer's approach there. He rallied until he forced Nadal into a mistake. Or even better the way Djokovic does it time and again versus Nadal. On all the big points Djoko doesn;t go for winners, he waits for Nadal to get some mileage in the rallies and then pull the trigger or wait for Nadal to pull it. There is no rush...but to do that it is a physical ability more than a mental.

This is exactly why Djoko was able to reverse the negative H2H versus Nadal. Not because he got stronger mentally but because he managed to rally with Nadal, so he had to get physically stronger....and that is what made him mentally much stronger. Not the other way around.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 13:06

I think being a repetetive player like Nadal is doesn't require mental toughness it just means
you have absolutely no other way of playing. He doesn't play any different on grass than he does
on clay.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 13:31

BUt I am with ROTLA there. This part is in a way contradicting your first sentence of your post. To play the "required shot" is more down to physique than mental toughness. If you watch how Federer breaks Nadal in that first BP in London WTF 2011, it's key to understand what was Federer's approach there. He rallied until he forced Nadal into a mistake. Or even better the way Djokovic does it time and again versus Nadal. On all the big points Djoko doesn;t go for winners, he waits for Nadal to get some mileage in the rallies and then pull the trigger or wait for Nadal to pull it. There is no rush...but to do that it is a physical ability more than a mental.

This is exactly why Djoko was able to reverse the negative H2H versus Nadal. Not because he got stronger mentally but because he managed to rally with Nadal, so he had to get physically stronger....and that is what made him mentally much stronger. Not the other way around.

Tenez, what you say is true as a general principle but with many of Fed's wobbles, I don't think physicality comes into it. If we consider USO v Djoko, where did it go wrong?:
Match point 1: Amazing return by Djoko, can't criticise Fed too much.
Match point 2: Puts Djoko's return into the net. His second shot of the rally.
Deuce: He goes long on his third shot of the rally.
Adv Djoko: Ace.
Deuce: Misses his 4th shot in the rally.
Adv Djoko: Double fault.

None of that was Fed being ground down, his game just started wobbling and it was one way traffic after that.

Even if we assume that Fed was attempting to go for shots and trying to shorten the rallies, he was still missing them under pressure. Out of six points, the only one he won was an ace! Yet just minutes before he had been playing great tennis. Surely that must have been a mental issue rather than physical one?

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 13:44

HM Murdoch wrote:
BUt I am with ROTLA there. This part is in a way contradicting your first sentence of your post. To play the "required shot" is more down to physique than mental toughness. If you watch how Federer breaks Nadal in that first BP in London WTF 2011, it's key to understand what was Federer's approach there. He rallied until he forced Nadal into a mistake. Or even better the way Djokovic does it time and again versus Nadal. On all the big points Djoko doesn;t go for winners, he waits for Nadal to get some mileage in the rallies and then pull the trigger or wait for Nadal to pull it. There is no rush...but to do that it is a physical ability more than a mental.

This is exactly why Djoko was able to reverse the negative H2H versus Nadal. Not because he got stronger mentally but because he managed to rally with Nadal, so he had to get physically stronger....and that is what made him mentally much stronger. Not the other way around.

Tenez, what you say is true as a general principle but with many of Fed's wobbles, I don't think physicality comes into it. If we consider USO v Djoko, where did it go wrong?:
Match point 1: Amazing return by Djoko, can't criticise Fed too much.
Match point 2: Puts Djoko's return into the net. His second shot of the rally.
Deuce: He goes long on his third shot of the rally.
Adv Djoko: Ace.
Deuce: Misses his 4th shot in the rally.
Adv Djoko: Double fault.

None of that was Fed being ground down, his game just started wobbling and it was one way traffic after that.

Even if we assume that Fed was attempting to go for shots and trying to shorten the rallies, he was still missing them under pressure. Out of six points, the only one he won was an ace! Yet just minutes before he had been playing great tennis. Surely that must have been a mental issue rather than physical one?

This USO11 semi, like the USO10 are not good examples cause one point in each match sorted the outcome. Both Federer and Djoko knew the match was over, when Djoko went for broke. That certainly has had a psychological impact on Federer who thought (like Djoko before that return) that the match was over.

To me what's important is that in that 1st TB, 2nd set and finally 5th set, so in short each time there was pressure cause the first set was really important, so was the second and 5th, it was Federer who held his nerves while Djoko collapsed even double faulting when surrending his break in the 5th (watch his poor serving there).

I am not saying that Federer collapsed physically after failing to close the match but frankly what is clear is that Djoko like Fed both thought the match was over. Djoko took a gamble that completely turned the match around but I woudl have been more impressed if he had played this shot to give him SPs and MPs, but he did not.

It's a bit like Gasquet suddenly playing his game cause he is 2 sets and a break down v Roddick at Wimbledon. The admission that it's over and can then play freely. Djoko took a gamble and played freely cause the match was virtually over.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 14:08

Tenez wrote:That certainly has had a psychological impact on Federer who thought (like Djoko before that return) that the match was over.

Again, I agree with virtually all of your analysis but this is the key part for me. Fed took a hit but it wasn't a punch he was able to roll with. You could see the wind come out of his sails. Remember, all that game did was get things back on serve at 5-4 to Fed, it's not as if the match was over. Fed's game had gone though, you could see that he didn't believe he could win it anymore.

The game before, Djoko had been broken to love (if I recall correctly?) and was one game from defeat but was able to regroup and get the match back.

Also, there seems to be a school of thought that Djokovic went for broke in this match and got lucky. Maybe that's true on one shot. But after that shot, he still had another match point to save, a deuce to negotiate, two more service games and a break to find. The fact he managed all of those things is not luck, it's finding the shots and the game when under pressure,

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 14:12

HM Murdoch wrote:
Tenez wrote:That certainly has had a psychological impact on Federer who thought (like Djoko before that return) that the match was over.

Again, I agree with virtually all of your analysis but this is the key part for me. Fed took a hit but it wasn't a punch he was able to roll with. You could see the wind come out of his sails. Remember, all that game did was get things back on serve at 5-4 to Fed, it's not as if the match was over. Fed's game had gone though, you could see that he didn't believe he could win it anymore.

Yes but it was a big mental blow and then you start to feel the fatigue much more. Add the fact the last year's semi must have been in his head from that moment too and finally we know that Federer hasn't got the same stamina as Djoko and Nadal far from it in fact. I cannot see Federer do a Nadal AO09 or Djoko AO12. He is clearly not in that league physically, whatever others might want us to believe.

by sirfredperry Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 14:57

I'm sure Fed's physical situation will benefit from Djoko entering Monte Carlo as there's a good chance that Nole and Rafa will meet in the final, have a very long match and exhaust each other.

by lags72 Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 15:38

HM Murdoch - I was pretty much with you on your very first post (11.02am) but your subsequent comments have changed my view somewhat.

For me 'mental toughness' is a very complex concept and nigh-on impossible to define. But one thing I do feel sure of, is that it is not about what happens on any individual point, or even in any individual match, but far more about how a player performs through the trajectory of his career, in good times and bad.

One of the main reasons I liked the Bleacher article referenced by the OP is that it looks at how Rafa had handled himself prior to 2011, and then contrasted this with how he performed during all those consecutive finals vs. Djoker, and how the series of defeats might (or might not ...?!) have affected him for the longer term.

I simply don't agree with a theory whereby one match (eg USO SF 2011) can somehow provide proof that Djoker is mentally tough and Federer isn't. But I do accept - without stopping to even think about it - that both these guys are tough. As of course is Rafa, without any doubt. Sure, there is maybe room for endless debate about their respective 'grades of toughness' but I don't believe there are any hard & fast conclusions to be reached on that. All said & done, nobody will convince me that any multiple Slam winner - not least those of the quality of these three who have all been at the top of the game now for so many years - is anything but mentally tough.

We so often tend (like Bleacher) to talk about 'clutch' situations in a Final or Semi, and self-evidently these can be defining moments when it comes to determining the winner or runner-up in a Slam. But let's not forget all the earlier rounds which don't always get the same attention from either the media or even ourselves, keen fans though we may be. Players who have come through seven rounds to win a Slam may have shown mental toughness at various stages. I still remember Borg being taken to five sets by unfancied players in R1 and R2 of at least two of his Wimby triumphs. This could have affected his confidence, as great a player as he was, but he pulled through and lifted the trophy on both occasions. He showed mental toughness (and of course he was also ice-cool, so Borg packed a heady cocktail ....) even when dealing with 'lesser' challenges.

Back on the old 606 I recall UE/SA starting his infamous thread on "deciding set tie-breaks and mental toughness." But rather than look at the bigger picture he focussed relentlessly on a couple of matches where Federer (his pet subject, as many of you will know..!!) had held MP's and then lost. As the thread progressed he got himself into a complete & utter mess with his irrational stance, and ended up as a figure of fun.

So I'm making the case that any multiple Slam winner is - by definition - 'mentally tough'. And some might argue that a guy who has won more Slams than anyone in history, and has spent the most consecutive number of weeks at Number One, is the toughest of them all. It is ultimately about consistency over long periods, and when facing players of all ranges of ability ; it's not about 'collapsing' when holding MP's in a specific glamour match. No player will go through his career without some sort of collapse, so Federer was not the first great champion to fail to cross the finish line after getting himself to within an inch of the tape, and he sure won't be the last. It doesn't tell us that he's not mentally tough. Likewise - Rafa at this year' AO. The fact he just came up short doesn't tell me he's no longer mentally tough.

One player who was always considered the archetypal tough guy is Lleyton Hewitt. But even in his prime, when ranked number 2, he famously got dumped out in the first round of Wimby when attempting to defend his title. (I believe he is the only player in history to suffer such a loss, so not his favourite accolade Erm

). Was it just a really, really bad day at the office ? - or justification for people to say " hmm..you don't look so tough now, do you" ..... ??

For me, Rafa has always been a mentally tough player but his confidence will have been badly dented by the defeats of 2011 and confidence and toughness are surely inextricably linked. But where does one characteristic/quality end and the other finish ...?

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 16:36

lags72, I wasn't holding up that one point or even that match as 'proof' of one player being tough and another not. I was offering as just one example of what I see as a weakness in Fed. I could have given other examples but I think that would have made for a rather tedious (or more tedious!) post.

I do disagree on success being the main measure of mental toughness though, for two reasons:

1) Accomplishments are permanent but mental toughness is not. A multi-slam winner is always a multi-slam winner but mental toughness can be lost, confidence can ebb and flow.

2) Success can come without mental toughness being tested. If someone is simply much better than the rest of the field and can win at a canter, does make them mentally tough?

To me, mental toughness is producing the goods when the pressure is on.

A good example is the penalty shoot out in football. We can see great players lose their nerve and mediocre players keep theirs. At that moment, it doesn't particularly matter who has the biggest medal collection, it is who can handle the pressure better.

by barrystar Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 16:43

I agree with lags72 that if you are looking for the elusive concept of mental toughness consistency across a wide array of conditions and against a wide array of opponents is a helpful indicator because you want if possible for your view not to be distorted by that element apparent toughness which arises from the player's ability to resort to a few tried and trusted strokes/tactics which work in only certain conditions and against certain opponents.

It goes without saying that all of Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are mentally tough - all great champions have to be.

A player's record in big finals is quite interesting the result of Djoko's recent splurge means that Fed, Nadal, and Djoko are fairly similar in w/l these days. But looking back I think particularly of Lendl who got into 19 Slam finals and won only 8 of them - he was known as a big money winner who flunked it on the biggest stage and he was the only male slam winner who established himself as No. 1 before winning his first slam. Was he a mentally tough player who got the absolute best out of his frame and his game, or a flat-track bully who had an unfortunate record of bottling it at the final hurdle? As Lag72 says it's very subjective.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 16:53

barrystar wrote:I agree with lags72 that if you are looking for the elusive concept of mental toughness consistency across a wide array of conditions and against a wide array of opponents is a helpful indicator

Is this not simply a measure of who is the best though?

Is the world 150 who plays to the best of his ability on every point but still loses not mentally tough?

Was Sampras not mentally tough enough to be as successful on clay?

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 16:59

I actually think Federer is (or perhaps more accurately has become) the most mentally fragile of the three being discussed.

I think being anointed as the greatest ever so early in his career added a heap of expectation that he struggled with thereafter. He's said himself "I've created a monster" with regard to this expectation that everyone seemed to have that he would win every tournament and anything else would be sub-par.

Obviously we'll see the tale of the tape in years to come for Nadal and Djokovic, but as it stands they are younger, have less expectation to win and are less likely to succumb to pressure.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:05

HM Murdoch wrote:Was Sampras not mentally tough enough to be as successful on clay?

Good point. That's why I keep saying you are as strong mentally as your weapons allow you to be. On fast surfaces having 2 1st serve was a huge mental help. On slow courts big lungs boost considerably the mental edge.

To me mental strength is about delivery the risky shots under pressure.

Pete's second serve is a perfect example cause though he made many, he still took risk on them, knowing he could also double fault. I remember in particular that MP saved on second serve ace v Corretja at that USO 1/4 or semi. That is gutsy, if not like Djoko's return bording on the "well I have nothing else to lose".

Federer in my view has produced those shots very often but not at MP but BPs, GPs, SPs. It's the nature of his game. He is the only really attacking player using creativity, touch and play the same in all situations, whether it;s a BP or a Championship point.

That's what was so obvious again when seeing him live v Tsonga in London a few months ago, His arm never got tight. He played through the motion without playing any more defensive than he usually does.

McEnroe woudl be also a very gutsy player in my book.

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:07

ermmm so it's "gutsy" to lose two US Open finals when holding match point, is it?

wow. gutsy definition of gutsy there.

by kemet Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:11

Tenez wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:Was Sampras not mentally tough enough to be as successful on clay?

Good point. That's why I keep saying you are as strong mentally as your weapons allow you to be. On fast surfaces having 2 1st serve was a huge mental help. On slow courts big lungs boost considerably the mental edge.

To me mental strength is about delivery the risky shots under pressure.

Pete's second serve is a perfect example cause though he made many, he still took risk on them, knowing he could also double fault. I remember in particular that MP saved on second serve ace v Corretja at that USO 1/4 or semi. That is gutsy, if not like Djoko's return bording on the "well I have nothing else to lose".

Federer in my view has produced those shots very often but not at MP but BPs, GPs, SPs. It's the nature of his game. He is the only really attacking player using creativity, touch and play the same in all situations, whether it;s a BP or a Championship point.

That's what was so obvious again when seeing him live v Tsonga in London a few months ago, His arm never got tight. He played through the motion without playing any more defensive than he usually does.

McEnroe woudl be also a very gutsy player in my book.

While I agree that Roger has not produced risky shots at MP very often, I think you are forgetting this shot in the Wimbledon 2008 final

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegHMhTqw78

That was the mark of a champion, who refused to relinquish his crown without a fight against another worthy champion whose game is tailor-made to defeat his (Federer's, that is). Unfortunately, it was not to be Roger's day that day, but so it goes sometimes. Rafa was simply not to be denied that day.

by barrystar Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:16

HM Murdoch wrote:
barrystar wrote:I agree with lags72 that if you are looking for the elusive concept of mental toughness consistency across a wide array of conditions and against a wide array of opponents is a helpful indicator

Is this not simply a measure of who is the best though?

Is the world 150 who plays to the best of his ability on every point but still loses not mentally tough?

Was Sampras not mentally tough enough to be as successful on clay?

Well those are fair points and perhaps what they show is that mental toughness is not something one can easily isolate from other aspects of any particular player's game and that what it really amounts to is a nice basis for (sometimes heated) debate.

You point out someone who is good at clutch points, and I'd agree that's a good starting point, but it's got to be someone who is consistently good (or bad) at clutch points to mean anything, as you rightly accept one or two clutch points does not really tell us the full picture. If someone has a consistent record of winning big tournaments and lots of matches with a good w/l % over their career it's difficult to avoid the notion that they have won or saved loads of bp's, gp's, sp's, mp's and are mentally tough.

Perhaps its easier to illustrate with examples.

I'd say that Sampras, Courier, Wilander, and Connors are exmples of players were were mentally tough because you always felt confident that they'd make their opponent beat them. Guga was one for winning lung-busting 5-set matches and he had a magnificient 2000 to get to y/e No. 1. Nadal too is obviously a tough cookie. I also felt at the time that Lendl was somewhat brittle and lacking in the cojones department at the biggest moments for such a successful player, Agassi too. Djoko certainly seems ballsy now, but he seemed a bit flakey before USO 2010.

I feel that Fed has got to be mentally tough given what he has achieved and that the appearance of effortlessness is a deceptive part of his game (as with McEnroe), but of all the players mentioned above you least associate gutting out a win with him and his record in matches which go to 5 sets is poor compared to the other standards he has set.

by kemet Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:21

As for Rafa's mental toughness, well, despite the strident objections of his most ardent detractors, it is well established that he has pitbull-type never-say-die philosophy. I agree that one is only as tough as his weapons, which makes his rivalry with Novak more compelling. What I do admire about Rafa is that he still believes he can beat Novak and honestly should have already been on 11 slams, were it not for the uncharacteristic unforced error at 4-2, 30-15 in the 5th set of the AO Final.

However, that error has revealed a psychological vulnerability which his fans and detractors have hitherto not seen. Rafa, as has been pointed out on here is now in the role of Roger Federer, i.e. one facing another player with a game that blunts his strongest weapons.

I really would like to see how Rafa would handle Novak in a RG final, even if it has to come at the expense of Roger Federer.

by barrystar Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:31

kemet wrote:
I really would like to see how Rafa would handle Novak in a RG final, even if it has to come at the expense of Roger Federer.

An MC final would be a very interesting aperitif

As a Federer fan I'd like to see how Rafa would handle Novak in an RG SF with Federer waiting in the final for the winner but looking at the rankings now Fed has next to no chance of getting to No. 2 before RG, he's 400 points behind with the MC result to be added to Nadal's tally meaning that the gap is likely to get to at least 1,000 before Rome and Madrid where Nadal is defending 1,200 which he's likely to be able to do, as well as 500 at Barcelona which he probably does not need to defend.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 17:38

kemet wrote:
Tenez wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:Was Sampras not mentally tough enough to be as successful on clay?

Good point. That's why I keep saying you are as strong mentally as your weapons allow you to be. On fast surfaces having 2 1st serve was a huge mental help. On slow courts big lungs boost considerably the mental edge.

To me mental strength is about delivery the risky shots under pressure.

Pete's second serve is a perfect example cause though he made many, he still took risk on them, knowing he could also double fault. I remember in particular that MP saved on second serve ace v Corretja at that USO 1/4 or semi. That is gutsy, if not like Djoko's return bording on the "well I have nothing else to lose".

Federer in my view has produced those shots very often but not at MP but BPs, GPs, SPs. It's the nature of his game. He is the only really attacking player using creativity, touch and play the same in all situations, whether it;s a BP or a Championship point.

That's what was so obvious again when seeing him live v Tsonga in London a few months ago, His arm never got tight. He played through the motion without playing any more defensive than he usually does.

McEnroe woudl be also a very gutsy player in my book.

While I agree that Roger has not produced risky shots at MP very often, I think you are forgetting this shot in the Wimbledon 2008 final

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegHMhTqw78

That was the mark of a champion, who refused to relinquish his crown without a fight against another worthy champion whose game is tailor-made to defeat his (Federer's, that is). Unfortunately, it was not to be Roger's day that day, but so it goes sometimes. Rafa was simply not to be denied that day.

I am not saying Roger is not producing risky shots at MPs. I am saying he plays the same (pretty risky shots - probably less risky for him than other players but still risky) all matches and all year round. He doesn;t play safe retrieving and then when he has nothing to lose goes for broke. Not his style.

by HM Murdock Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 19:17

barrystar wrote: If someone has a consistent record of winning big tournaments and lots of matches with a good w/l % over their career it's difficult to avoid the notion that they have won or saved loads of bp's, gp's, sp's, mp's and are mentally tough.

Yes, I can certainly accept that.

What frustrates and saddens me about present day Fed is that we as fans look on and see a great player, now in his thirties and at the start of a slow decline, playing younger players in their prime. We attach so many conditions to our expectations i.e. "he needs to win the first set to stand a chance", "he needs to keep the points short", "he needs to serve perfectly". If those conditions aren't met, we know in our heart of hearts that the writing is on the wall and he will likely lose.

I've got the sense over the last 18 months or so (at the slams anyway) that Fed probably feels the same. Maybe it's not realistic to expect him to feel differently but it's still sad to see.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012 - 19:24

HM Murdoch wrote:
What frustrates and saddens me about present day Fed is that we as fans look on and see a great player, now in his thirties and at the start of a slow decline, playing younger players in their prime. We attach so many conditions to our expectations i.e. "he needs to win the first set to stand a chance", "he needs to keep the points short", "he needs to serve perfectly". If those conditions aren't met, we know in our heart of hearts that the writing is on the wall and he will likely lose.

That was true for young Federer when he played Nalbandian and Hewitt and it was true then as soon as Nadal burst into the scene....when Federer himself was still at his peak.

The amazing thing when considering Federer is that he seems able to handle Nadal better now than at his peak. Well not much in it for sure...despite Nadal really playing much better than 2005 - 2007.

by Sponsored content