Later Development

I know there is a thread about the young up and coming players and a lot has been made of the weakness of the new crop of players coming through. Now a few months ago I remember saying players today develop later and I was shouted down for it or at least criticised but I stand by it. As I watched the Brisbane International Final yesterday the ex-pro Australian commentator made the same statement with regards Dimitrov. Basically, nowadays we all know the game is a far more physical and physique-based game and you need those attributes as well as the tennis talent to compete at the highest levels. Now unless the likes of Dimitrov, Tomic, Raonic etc were muscle-building and working on their physique from a very early age (which clearly they weren't) then they will find it hard to make inroads against supreme physical specimens that rule the game just now such as Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray. The youngsters have the talent but in my opinion they have yet to develop other aspects of their game such as their physicality and physique and that takes a good year or so. As for future generations it may differ - if the top players of today rule the roost for another five or so years with no further players coming through to break their monopoly then when they have retired the sport may well see lesser physique-based players come through again to take up the mantle. Just a theory of mines and feel free to give your views.

Interesting points CC. I agree with you and so does Grigor.

"I didn't feel that I was far, far from winning the set or even the match," he said. "I think I still need couple of years on the tour to get stronger and be able to hang with these guys all weeks, and especially playing best of five sets."

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-01-07/201301071357555595499.html

I think the problem is more simple than that - the younger guys are simply not as good/talented as the current top guys.

Dimitrov won 3 out of his 4 matches prior to the final in straight sets. He lost the final in straight sets, so it's not as if he has been ground down with long, drawn out matches.

I think the talk about physicality, whilst having a degree of merit, often serves as a smokescreen. Just because certain players are fitter and stronger, doesn't mean they won because they are fitter and stronger. More significant factors are their poor movement (Raonic), poor balance (Dimitrov) and idiocy (Tomic).

At Dimitrov's age (21), Federer, Djokovic and Murray were not as fit or strong as they are now, yet they were winning Masters tournaments. Brisbane, a 250 event, was Dimitrov's first tour level final.

To me, the difference is one of quality, not fitness.

Agree with Murdoch.

The oldies are mainly from the Fed generation - I don't think they're getting any better, which means the youngsters probably wouldn't have been good enough to better them when they, Fed's generation, were themselves youngsters, hence there is a dearth of talent.

I would add Dolgopolopogodopologolov to the idiocy bracket.



emancipator

CC it basically isn't that easy nowadays to break into the upper echelons of the game based on talent alone. The physically demanding nature of the modern game means that unless you are somehow endowed with a similar physique to Nadal or pump iron in the gym as hard as it appears Andy did when he realised his body was letting him down then your body and game are going to need to mature for longer than was necessary in the past.

Very interesting to note that 19 year old Ollie Golding joined Andy in his Florida boot camp recently. Certainly Henman, amongst others, was rather critical of Ollie's apparently relaxed exercise regime so maybe a new toned physique will help the youngster start climbing his way towards the main tour.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying talent is devalued or anything and the new crop of youngsters more than likely will never reach the heights of the youngsters that prededed them but to succeed you need the whole package. The young emerging players of today have failed to develop a physique. Now if we look at Andy and Novak when they burst on the scene as scrawny youngsters they soon realised they had to muscle up and improve their physicality to match the likes of Nadal and Federer and they are now reaping the benefits. None of the promising youngsters of today have either bothered or have got round to tuning up that area of their game and so that already leaves them behind todays top players in at least one or two areas. Another way of putting it is they are like middleweights trying to fight heavyweights in my opinion.

Craig - I agree completely.

If the Andy Murray of today played a 20-21 year old Andy Murray, the now Murray would win very comfortably. He is faster, has more muscle and therefore more power in his serve and ground strokes.

Of course, he has also improved his weaknesses and added a few things to his game. There is more mental maturity too, but the peak in tennis has unquestionably changed. Ten years ago it was maybe 22-24, but is probably 25-27 now.

The downside, if one wants to call it that, is that the most talented players of the next generation may end up in the 50 - 100 rankings simply because they are not capable of being as fit/strong etc as other players. It's not like all players have the same physical potential.
In the past (70s, 80s, 90s) is was more likely that the top players were the most talented. Nowadays, it's still possible, but less likely.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Don't get me wrong - I am not saying talent is devalued or anything and the new crop of youngsters more than likely will never reach the heights of the youngsters that prededed them but to succeed you need the whole package. The young emerging players of today have failed to develop a physique. Now if we look at Andy and Novak when they burst on the scene as scrawny youngsters they soon realised they had to muscle up and improve their physicality to match the likes of Nadal and Federer and they are now reaping the benefits. None of the promising youngsters of today have either bothered or have got round to tuning up that area of their game and so that already leaves them behind todays top players in at least one or two areas. Another way of putting it is they are like middleweights trying to fight heavyweights in my opinion.

I don't think Federer, Nadal or even Djokovic have ever talked about the need to "muscle" up in order to succeed. Of course they all need to be "fit" therefore they will all do gym work but a lot of their training takes place on a tennis court. Murray is the odd one out as he has said he prefers working in the gym to training on the court and when he talks about improvement he says he will do it by getting fitter and stronger. His coach is known for this approach too.

Have you voted in my poll? Who's got the biggest muscles?

https://www.606v2.com/t39085-who-s-got-the-biggest-muscles

I didn't include any younger players but I do agree none look particularly "muscled up" and haven't heard any of them talking about a need to do so. Personally I don't mind as it's not a direction I would like tennis to take. I also don't like it when boxing references are used for tennis as boxing to me shouldn't even be dignified by being called a "sport"...

Say what you want about boxing in terms of it's barbaric nature if you don't like that sort of thing, but to not call it a sport is a bit ridiculous.

It probably fits into the definition of the word 'sport' more than any other, and has been that way long long before most other sports were even thought of.

I really don't buy into this idea that this mercurial area of "talent" is falling victim to the onslaught of physicality.

Richard Gasquet
Nicolas Almagro
John Isner
Marin Cilic

None of these players have fitness of Djokovic/Murray standards. All of them are ranked higher than Raonic, who is the highest ranked of the younger generation.

Fitness is just one component of what makes a tennis player. Even if the younger generation could match the top guys for fitness, there are other serious deficiencies in their games that would stop them winning regularly.

Real talent breaks through regardless. Del Potro won USO 2009 not because he was super fit but because he produced great tennis. Even now, with his fitness still not totally where it should be, he is back in the top ten.

Ability, not fitness, is the key factor.

Sorry but I have no idea how Novak and Rafa developed from scrawny teenagers into raw muscular bound men if they never had a strict fitness and body building regime. All sports develop new angles of developing and the physique and physicality side of tennis has now been in place for about six or seven years. Like I said it may be short-lived in that no youngsters go down the route of building their physique and once the top players of today retire it may revert back to players dominating with less emphasis on physique. In the here and now though I have no doubt that if any of the youngsters of today have ambitions of winning slams over Novak, Roger, Rafa and Andy then not only do the need the talent but they need to tone up their physique and physicality.

HM I am not just talking about physical fitness here but also physique which is important.The physique possessed by the top players of today is key in generating powerful groundstrokes etc. it is akin to the likes of Rafa, Novak etc etc having the power to break down the weaker players almost like them being armed with bazookas compared to lesser physique-based players having pea-shooters.

HM Murdoch wrote:I really don't buy into this idea that this mercurial area of "talent" is falling victim to the onslaught of physicality.

Richard Gasquet
Nicolas Almagro
John Isner
Marin Cilic

None of these players have fitness of Djokovic/Murray standards. All of them are ranked higher than Raonic, who is the highest ranked of the younger generation.

Fitness is just one component of what makes a tennis player. Even if the younger generation could match the top guys for fitness, there are other serious deficiencies in their games that would stop them winning regularly.

Real talent breaks through regardless. Del Potro won USO 2009 not because he was super fit but because he produced great tennis. Even now, with his fitness still not totally where it should be, he is back in the top ten.

Ability, not fitness, is the key factor.

Well... if you want the full story tennis is a combination of mental strength/tactics plus agility/strength plus technique/ability. Now as it becomes a more and more physically demanding sport then this side of the game threatens to overshadow technique. The one constant though I believe in tennis through its development from the wooden racket serve volleyers through to hard hitting baseliners is mental strength. Without that you are pretty much (for want of a better word) a tennis "pygmy" and won't amount to much anyway regardless of your size and ability.

Murray prefers gym to training on the court?

That's news to me. In fact, having read his autobiography and followed him throughout his career, I'd say that's completely untrue.

He does plenty of gym work in the off season, but that's it really. Same as most the top guys.

CaledonianCraig wrote:HM I am not just talking about physical fitness here but also physique which is important.The physique possessed by the top players of today is key in generating powerful groundstrokes etc. it is akin to the likes of Rafa, Novak etc etc having the power to break down the weaker players almost like them being armed with bazookas compared to lesser physique-based players having pea-shooters.

I'm just not so sure it's that clear cut. Yes, much of Rafa's effectiveness comes from his strength and Andy has also benefited from gaining muscle.

But Novak is very lean and is more 'toned' than muscular. His forehand improvement is down to improved technique rather than improved strength. And as for Roger, his power is almost entirely due to to technical precision.

When I watch the younger generation play the top guys, it doesn't generally feel like they are being out-powered. It usually looks like they are being out-played and out-thought.

newballs wrote:
Well... if you want the full story tennis is a combination of mental strength/tactics plus agility/strength plus technique/ability. Now as it becomes a more and more physically demanding sport then this side of the game threatens to overshadow technique. The one constant though I believe in tennis through its development from the wooden racket serve volleyers through to hard hitting baseliners is mental strength. Without that you are pretty much (for want of a better word) a tennis "pygmy" and won't amount to much anyway regardless of your size and ability.

Agreed. The strange thing to me is that if we say that a great tennis player needs:

- mental strength
- physical strength/fitness
- agility
- technique
- good tactical awareness

who of the younger generation is ticking all the boxes apart from strength/fitness? They all have significant flaws in the other areas too. Yet is the fitness elements that gets focused on so prominently.

i am not saying it is the be all and end all - obviously you need bucket loads of talent as well but physicality is also needed in today’s game with good physique. Tennis players of today are much more multi-faceted and have to be in this day and age but I feel the youngsters breaking through have not yet realised that and that has and will hinder their ambitions to really challenge for major honours even those with great talent.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tennis players of today are much more multi-faceted and have to be in this day and age but I feel the youngsters breaking through have not yet realised that and that has and will hinder their ambitions to really challenge for major honours even those with great talent.

I think you may be right. My take on the younger generation is that (adopts Burgess Meredith voice) "they ain't killers".

Even when young, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had a hardness to them. You could tell they were very focused, very driven and would do what was necessary to make their game as good as it could be.

I don't get the same feeling from the younger lot.

HM Murdoch wrote:I think the problem is more simple than that - the younger guys are simply not as good/talented as the current top guys.

Dimitrov won 3 out of his 4 matches prior to the final in straight sets. He lost the final in straight sets, so it's not as if he has been ground down with long, drawn out matches.

I think the talk about physicality, whilst having a degree of merit, often serves as a smokescreen. Just because certain players are fitter and stronger, doesn't mean they won because they are fitter and stronger. More significant factors are their poor movement (Raonic), poor balance (Dimitrov) and idiocy (Tomic).

At Dimitrov's age (21), Federer, Djokovic and Murray were not as fit or strong as they are now, yet they were winning Masters tournaments. Brisbane, a 250 event, was Dimitrov's first tour level final.

To me, the difference is one of quality, not fitness.

Top post. I agree 100%. The amount of time that is spent talking about Andy and Novak's 'physicality' as opposed to their jaw dropping skills, is woefully out of proportion

banbrotam wrote:

Top post. I agree 100%. The amount of time that is spent talking about Andy and Novak's 'physicality' as opposed to their jaw dropping skills, is woefully out of proportion

In Andy's case his physicality is talked about because he has always made it clear that he feels it is important. This is from todays Times (PPV but well worth it)

The world No 3, who won the Brisbane Open tournament on Sunday, bared his toned physique as he trained at Melbourne Park ahead of the Australian Open, evidence that his tough training regime is bearing fruit.

Murray spent December working on his fitness at a gruelling training camp in Miami before flying home for Christmas and then on to Australia via the Middle East. His training in Florida included doubling his weekly weightlifting sessions from two to four, in a bid to boost his shot power.

It is accompanied by a semi naked photograph (cough) of Murray showing off the muscles he has acquired through those doubled weekly weightlifting sessions.

Of course Andy works out as does Rafa unless you are suggesting he was born that way? And he is benefiting from working out as would every player if they either put their mind to it or were willing to put in the hard graft. However, I have made it clear that it is the whole package at the moment that wins slams as in players with the most talent allied with supreme physical fitness, physique and all-round game. Where the current crop of youngsters aren’t developing is on physique and they won’t topple todays top players with such flaws in their make-up in my opinion.

Murray was actually quite physically weak until about the age of 20-21. Yet despite that was in the world top 10. That's how good his talent is.

The one who has concentrated most on physical strength to me is Rafa. At 17 he had the muscles of a 25 year old. Not that being stronger than your opponents is anything to be ashamed of.

The fittest and strongest guys around are the top 4, they are also the most talented... Hence the domination of the tour over the past few years.

i don't believe they are the most talented, but deffo the fittest

I just dont buy the physical argument. I can understand that being a barrier to beating the top 4 but not any lower than that. It just happens we are in a fallow period where the youngsters are failing to make the most of their talent. Tomic, with his talent, would easily be a top 10 player already if he had Nadal's fighting spirit.

Murray and Djokovic, neither of whom were particularly physically imposing, would be around the top 10 if they were 19/20 now.

Yes Born Slippy but even if they lack the real talent which, at the moment, I would agree with they should surely be looking at improving what they can to be as compstitive as possible and that includes physique and physicality.

LuvSports! wrote:i don't believe they are the most talented, but deffo the fittest

No, no no no
It's a ridiculous line of argument (imo).

Look, I honestly don't understand how you don't think Djokovic, Murray, Nadal are talented.
You think they just win because they are fittest and in good condition, that they just keep on playing and lose until their opponent gets tired, after which they win. Well that's a load of cr@p, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it.
To be fair to you LS, you're one of the more open minded posters, so this isn't aimed at you.

You look at talent? You're trying to see talent?
OK, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1apISwdYCrA Does Nadal outlast Federer here? No he clearly doesn't. Federer doesn't win a set- and his semis weren't very long either- why would he get tired? Tomic, Raonic and co. would bloody kill for the immense skill and tenacity shown by Nadal in this link.... They're not even close at this age... not even close.
Or how about this from Murray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0zP1Tqh6I You think he's just waiting for Federer to get tired? No way on earth. It's sublime tennis from both players, and OK Federer is not at his best, but it's a supreme performance from Murray. F*cking brilliant. You don't think this guy is talented? You think this guy just wins because of 'fitness.'

No doubt now, with the surfaces slowing, players have had to adapt their game to get fitter and win in these conditions. No doubt.
But do you honestly believe they're not talented? The skill-set of Nadal in terms of speed and sensational counter attacking play is miles better than anything Raonic can dream off, even if Raonic is superman. Simple.

Yes IMBL I do agree the top players are all immensely talented and allied with great physicality and physique it explains why they are such a force in the sport. As for the earlier poster referring to Ollie Goulding now working out with Andy that is great and shows an awareness of what is now key to being ultra competitive in the current era.

IMBL

Loads of natural talent combined with high levels of fitness = top 4

It Must Be Love wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:i don't believe they are the most talented, but deffo the fittest

No, no no no
It's a ridiculous line of argument (imo).

Look, I honestly don't understand how you don't think Djokovic, Murray, Nadal are talented.
You think they just win because they are fittest and in good condition, that they just keep on playing and lose until their opponent gets tired, after which they win. Well that's a load of cr@p, and I'm frankly tired of hearing it.
To be fair to you LS, you're one of the more open minded posters, so this isn't aimed at you.

You look at talent? You're trying to see talent?
OK, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1apISwdYCrA Does Nadal outlast Federer here? No he clearly doesn't. Federer doesn't win a set- and his semis weren't very long either- why would he get tired? Tomic, Raonic and co. would bloody kill for the immense skill and tenacity shown by Nadal in this link.... They're not even close at this age... not even close.
Or how about this from Murray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0zP1Tqh6I You think he's just waiting for Federer to get tired? No way on earth. It's sublime tennis from both players, and OK Federer is not at his best, but it's a supreme performance from Murray. F*cking brilliant. You don't think this guy is talented? You think this guy just wins because of 'fitness.'

No doubt now, with the surfaces slowing, players have had to adapt their game to get fitter and win in these conditions. No doubt.
But do you honestly believe they're not talented? The skill-set of Nadal in terms of speed and sensational counter attacking play is miles better than anything Raonic can dream off, even if Raonic is superman. Simple.

are your panties in a twist? calm down luv.

i said i don't believe they are the most talented, i didn't say, as you said, "they aren't talented'.
is that so hard to believe? They are very fit, that is obvious and they are talented but for example nalbandian is more talented than any of them, not much in it between him and feds imo.

maybe you need to calm down a bit and stop making mountains out of mole hills hmmm?

It Must Be Love

I wouldn't put Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in the same category...

LuvSports! wrote:
i said i don't believe they are the most talented, i didn't say, as you said, "they aren't talented'.

If you read carefully I actually specifically said this 'isn't against you'.

What you said was they aren't the most talented, I was arguing against people saying they aren't talented at all (as you spotted).

I think Sportslover also made an astute point- atm the top 4 are very fit and very talented.

Look, I honestly don't understand how you don't think Djokovic, Murray, Nadal are talented.

why say that then?
i did read it carefully thanks.

Apologies, I got confused there

LuvSports! wrote:
They are very fit, that is obvious and they are talented but for example nalbandian is more talented than any of them, not much in it between him and feds imo.

Nalbandian... nah.
Not in the mind anyway, not in the mind.
And that's crucial

Sorry but if Nalbandian is more talented than say Andy Murray then how come at Andy's first slam appearance as a scrawny teenager was he able to get a two set lead? Only fitness denied him the win on that day.

Anyway here is how this physicality/physique in players today came into being in my opinion. Roger Federer was supremely fit and the most technically-gifted player around in the mid-2000's and was a dominant force. Now to combat his strengths Rafa would go all out to be in the best physical condition he could including physique. Now this was to work to his advantage as his evident skills coupled with supreme physical conditioning enabled him to compete with and beat Roger Federer. Around this time Murray and Djokovic were touted as great players but their relatively poor physical condition held them back. However, they recognised this and realised that to compete and beat the new kid on the block Nadal and combat Federer much in the same way Rafa had they worked hard to greatly improve their physique and fitness and finally got to where we are today. Now the youngsters coming through today may not have the talent of the youngsters of five years ago but unless they tone up their physique and work on their physicality they will be lesser players in all departments to the top four in the world.

CaladonianCraig

You should check out the papers today. Murray is everywhere exposing his muscles and talking about how important physical fitness is to his game.

Here is one but they are in all the papers.

From the Mail. Muscle-bound Murray shows off bulked-up frame ahead of latest shot at Aussie Open

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/index.html

This article also has a few semi naked pictures of Murray in previous years to demonstrate how this year he is more muscular than before.

Hawkeye give it a rest. If you bid to mock Murray's fitness then you are also mocking Nadal's fitness who incidentally works out as well. Sorry to burst your bubble but your man wasn't born that way.

That article shows that Murray has put in a few pounds this year compared to last, but he's still not as big as he was in 2009.

But do you really think physical fitness is more important to Murray than it is to Novak or Rafa? All marvellous technical players, but perhaps the greatest strength of all 3 is there speed and court coverage. For that you need to be physically fit.

HE, you seem to be implying that others use god given talents to succeed whereas Murray is focussed primarily on fitness and strength. A very naive perspective. Also, even if Murray paid more attention to his fitness than others, I'd say fair play to him. Trying to be as fit and strong as you can be is hardly a bad thing. It didn't do Novak any harm in Australia last year did it.

brilliant! I have HE on my ignore list which means I have no idea what sort of anti-Murray tripe she's currently posing. I suggest you try it, it's most refreshing

anyway, anyone who doesn't think the top 4 are the most talented guys out there is IMHO deluding themselves. People bandy about guys like Nalbandian and Gasquet bit these guys simply don't hold a candle to any of the top 4 I don't think. As many people have pointed out, Murray and Djokovic were scrawny teenagers when they first broke into the top 10 (Nadal is different, he arrived on the senior tour already well developed physically, possibly due to being brought up on clay which is the most physically demanding surface).

There is a valid point made in the OP in that to reach the very top you probably need to be fitter than you needed to be ten years ago or so, but IMO that's hardly a bad thing anyway, and it's not stopping the talented guys from breaking through. Nope, I think the current bunch of youngsters simply aren't as talented as the current top 4, otherwise they'd be making more strides than what they have done so far (Nishikori actually has the best achievements of them all with an ATP 500 title and a slam QF, but that hardly screams out "special talent").

MFC

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but if Nalbandian is more talented than say Andy Murray then how come at Andy's first slam appearance as a scrawny teenager was he able to get a two set lead? Only fitness denied him the win on that day.

Anyway here is how this physicality/physique in players today came into being in my opinion. Roger Federer was supremely fit and the most technically-gifted player around in the mid-2000's and was a dominant force. Now to combat his strengths Rafa would go all out to be in the best physical condition he could including physique. Now this was to work to his advantage as his evident skills coupled with supreme physical conditioning enabled him to compete with and beat Roger Federer. Around this time Murray and Djokovic were touted as great players but their relatively poor physical condition held them back. However, they recognised this and realised that to compete and beat the new kid on the block Nadal and combat Federer much in the same way Rafa had they worked hard to greatly improve their physique and fitness and finally got to where we are today. Now the youngsters coming through today may not have the talent of the youngsters of five years ago but unless they tone up their physique and work on their physicality they will be lesser players in all departments to the top four in the world.

so you think that match ends the debate? a one off decides that outcome, sorry i don't agree.
You have your view that

Only fitness denied him the win on that day

Nalbandian made a lot of uncharacteristic errors in the first couple of sets, coupled with murray playing very well, gave him that two set lead.
After that nalbandian turned on the style winning the next set 6-0 and then late in the fourth set murray received treatment after being broken back and eventually lost 6-4 6-1. Murray didn't give him much rhythm (credit it to him with slices, drop shots, no pace etc) but when nalbandian found his rhythm i think he proved to be too good on that occasion.
that match for me doesn't prove anything though.

I say this because imo nalbandian, shot making, ability and technically gifted wise was the only one who could go toe-to-toe with feds in that department and for me murray isn't able to do this in terms of pure shot making.
If you compare feds vs murray matches and nalbandian vs feds matches, much of the time both are always on top of the baseline with murray (being a counterpuncher) behind it and not going toe-to-toe.

I expect a strong rebuke of course, but for me talent wise nalbandian is just magnificent to watch when he is on song (wtf's '05 final).

Olympics? Shanghai this year? Shanghai in 2010 for that matter? Masters and Madrid 08?

People need to stop confusing "talent" or "shot-making ability" with "has a nice looking BH". Nalbandian has talent, no doubt, but I've never seen him hit a shot which the top 4 couldn't replicate, whereas each member of the top 4 has played shots I couldn't see anyone else making.

Masters 08 was oddly the last time I would say Fed and Murray played a match where they both played well. Since then all their matches have been drubbings one way or the other really.

none of those matches did feds play well, murray played very well in all of them. I am talking about when both are playing well!

just because i don't agree with you doesn't mean i am confused, i could belittle your statements but i don't.

I am guessing you mean things like a nadal banana shot or a murray round the net post or a fully stretching sliding bh from djokovic?
not to the same extent but nalbandian has done them you can see them on youtube.

"a nice looking bh" please! he can do anything with it, angles, inside out etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBdNRP2J9k

you seen them do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt_W9xzl864

this imo is better than murrays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_I2Gy90OdM

of course, the old hat that Federer can't possibly have just been outplayed, he must have played poorly, should have realised that

as for the 360 degree turns, Murray and Nadal do them quite frequently when returning serve, though strictly speaking it's not a "shot" as such. For Murray I was more refering to those remarkable passes he hits when he's running backwards to reach a lob and somehow spins and forces the ball past his opponent.

My point stands re the first video, it's a collection of very fine BHs, but there's none there that I can't see Nadal, Murray or Djokovic replicating (bar the inside out ones for Nadal because he'll be playing a FH from there).

Like I said, talented? certainly. indeed very talented. but not as talented as the top 4, not by a long way...

Totally agree with Luvsports.

Nalbandian is a ridiculous talent, Gasquet should not be mentioned in the same breath as him.

Nalby's BH as well as being a thing of beauty is pure destruction when he's on. He can hit every shot in the book. Far more versatile and creative than Murray's or even Djokovic's. His net play and touch around the net is also better. Look at the 2 drubbings he gave Nadal in 2007, totally outplayed him. Nadal only started beating him when Nalby was basically playing on one leg, even then it was only by the skin of his teeth.

The top three other than Federer are fantastic players but they DO rely heavily on their physicality. There's nothing wrong in admitting that. It seems some people will only be satisfied when all the top four players are declared equal in terms of shot making and natural talent.

The things which held Nalby back were injuries, poor work ethic/fitness and the mental fragility which ensues from that. His propensity for DF's was also a big hinderance.

But in terms of pure talent and creativity and technical brilliance, only Federer can match him. For me they are pretty much equal in those aspects.



emancipator

guess we agree to disagree mfc.

phew glad to see someone agrees with me

Ah right lets run a poll across the tennis globe of who has the most talent - Nalby or Murray and we all know who would come out as the winner in that one and it isn’t Dave. I would just love to hear why this super talented player has been toiling to make his mark in the sport then and dont try the fitness card as he does/has gone fairly deep into tournies before getting beaten. I am presuming the convenient old fitness card will always get played though for ever more with regards Nalby. A talented player yes but he will end up forgotten in the tennis history books due to lack of tangible achievement.

Anyway back to the matter in hand and just pondering whether the current era of tennis could mark the end of the supreme physicality being a big need for success. I say this as should no youngsters wish to hone physique and physicality and they take over the mantle from todays top players then will we lose the benchmark first set by Nadal?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:of course, the old hat that Federer can't possibly have just been outplayed, he must have played poorly, should have realised that

as for the 360 degree turns, Murray and Nadal do them quite frequently when returning serve, though strictly speaking it's not a "shot" as such. For Murray I was more refering to those remarkable passes he hits when he's running backwards to reach a lob and somehow spins and forces the ball past his opponent.

My point stands re the first video, it's a collection of very fine BHs, but there's none there that I can't see Nadal, Murray or Djokovic replicating (bar the inside out ones for Nadal because he'll be playing a FH from there).

Like I said, talented? certainly. indeed very talented. but not as talented as the top 4, not by a long way...

The mental part of the game is imo the most crucial talent when it comes to tennis, and in that aspect Murray is miles miles ahead of Nalby/Gasquet.