Who is the best mover for their size?

First topic message reminder :

I wonder if being an inch taller from 6'1-6'2 impacts your movement that much.
For example if it does, you would probably say djoko over nadal.

But for me, the best mover for their size has to be monfils, imo hes the quickest out there. JJ moves very well for his height of 6'8, whereas isner at 6'9 turns slower than the QE2!

thoughts?

JuliusHMarx. Just curious. Why would you think Nadal would make up his foot problems? And why do you think he would suddenly make them up in 2011 and talk about a made up occasion years ago when he consulted a Dr. about them and was told that his career would/could be threatened by them?

socal1976 wrote: Some of us will not turn our eyes from the truth in order to be nice to the Empanada Dave, One shot Andy, Dodgy hip Lleyton, and the Russian playboy. Federer couldn't have assembled a team of "rivals" lol! more suited to the task of racking up grandslams if he was ole Honest Abe Lincoln himself selecting his own cabinet.

Another masterful metaphor from the Socal production line!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No-one was aware of the congenital foot problem until Rafa wrote abut it in his book

Speak for yourself

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote: Some of us will not turn our eyes from the truth in order to be nice to the Empanada Dave, One shot Andy, Dodgy hip Lleyton, and the Russian playboy. Federer couldn't have assembled a team of "rivals" lol! more suited to the task of racking up grandslams if he was ole Honest Abe Lincoln himself selecting his own cabinet.

Another masterful metaphor from the Socal production line!

Thanks Murdoch, by the way Lincoln got way more resistance from his own hand selected secretaries than fed got from the rollover generation. I think virtually every cabinet member tendered his resignation at least once and Lincoln refused to accept most of those letters. If only Nalbandian and Safin put up even that much fight.

I corrected Julian, people, he saw the error of his ways.

Nadal not playing on a surface other tham clay until Wimbledon, I presume? Makes sense since he detests cement, and will probably get the 5-8 seeding either way.

Expect him to have a remarkable season record by RG, (cant see him losing two or more before that). Could give the confidence for an assault on the last three slams.

Socal,
Australia 2005. Safin put together a little more than a fight. Dont know of to many other GS matches a prime Fed lost with match-point.

KR, Safin disappeared after that didn't he?

Of course he did. But he is still a two-slam champion. It baffles me that there is talk of a Big four when one of them only has 1 slam, and won exactly Two sets in his final defeats. Not knocking Murray, honestly not a critique, but the standards seem skewed
since 2008 (apparently this is when it started)
Nadal 8 slams (while missing 4)
Djokovic 6
Federer 5
Murray 1.
That gives Murray 5% of all titles, despite the big guy not being in 20% of the matches.
In some companies 5% doesnt even get you into the shareholders meeting. Again I'm not criticising Andy, but lets not kid ourselves Its still the big 3. Dont tell me about his finals "History doesnt remember the losers"

Ok how about winning the olympics and a very large haul of masters? Kingraf would you like to make a bet, I bet that Murray will finish with more slams than any of fed's competitors prior to the rise of the golden generation. Do you think Murray will stay pat at one or stall at two slams? I think he will most likely win 3 or 4 slams and possibly has a chance at more. He already has more masters titles, and slam finals appearances than Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby, Ferrero, or Safin. He also has one of the highest win percentages against top 10 talent of all time. To me that says a star on the cusp, it doesn't say loser, like your last post implies about history remembering the winners. I think it is safe to say that murray will be more remembered than Fed's contemporaries by a country mile.

socal1976 wrote: I think it is safe to say that murray will be more remembered than Fed's contemporaries by a country mile.

I am amused at this constant denigration of Federer's early peers, but his later peers are the golden generation. No one is asking you to like a specific player, but disliking a set of players, and perhaps by association, there then peer, who happens to be the current golden generation's #2, is rather a stretch, don't you think? You may have your public and private reasons, but a constant drumming makes you a laughing stock, IMO.

The current golden generation is chasing records that they may never have, hence such a denigration devalues someone else's achievements, but at the same time this punditry from the likes of Harman/Overend/Bodo et al, somehow provides a higher value, is a contradiction.

Is Massu's OG somehow inferior to Nadal's OG? Remember what round Murray lost at Beijing Olympics?

Is anyone going to remember that Nadal's 37th Clay title was beating Empanada Dave, a Royal Member of the Rollover Generation?

hawkeye wrote:JuliusHMarx. Just curious. Why would you think Nadal would make up his foot problems? And why do you think he would suddenly make them up in 2011 and talk about a made up occasion years ago when he consulted a Dr. about them and was told that his career would/could be threatened by them?

I've never stated that I think Nadal was making up his foot problems.

I have merely questioned the often contradictory information coming from him and his camp. For example, prior to 2011 there is no mention of the foot problem being congenital. Not that the nature of the injury is that important, but it's not wrong to try to ascertain the facts and the timeline of those facts - which is difficult when dealing with Rafa.
In the 2007 article for instance, Uncle Toni suggests that Rafa is both successfully managing the injury and also that it might be career-threatening.

It's also clear that the foot injury was not well known prior to 2011.

I also don't buy into the theory that the foot injury is the sole (pun not intended) cause of the knee issues, given that many journalists/pundits believed and stated that his style of play would lead to such problems, without referring to his foot issue.

I also don't like Rafa stating that he's worried that his knees will be so worn out by the end of his tennis career that he won't be able to play football in the park - as if he doesn't have a choice about whether to continue playing tennis or not. Woe is he.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
I also don't like Rafa stating that he's worried that his knees will be so worn out by the end of his tennis career that he won't be able to play football in the park - as if he doesn't have a choice about whether to continue playing tennis or not. Woe is he.

If Nadal is worried then he can damn well say so.
Just because an alternative choice exists which also has negative repercussions, he shouldn't be worried? What type of ridiculous logic is that.

Ah, well if he can damn well say so, then obviously it's far more important than I thought.

Let's put it this way - if he was really worried he would stop playing. Unless success on the court is more important to him, in which case he could damn well say so.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ah, well if he can damn well say so, then obviously it's far more important than I thought.

Any reason for randomly quoting and underlining one word of my comment. out of my sentence the one you've chosen is probably the least important too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Let's put it this way - if he was really worried he would stop playing. Unless success on the court is more important to him, in which case he could damn well say so.

If his injury is so bad that he has to retire... then that really should worry him. Why wouldn't it?
Your logic really is bizarre.

No, your failure to see my point is bizarre. I put it down to loving Rafa too much.

Julius, I don't 'love' any tennis player I can assure you of that.
Of course bringing that up to try and divert the attention from the gaps in your logic isn't getting you anywhere either.

Nadal has come out and said he is worried about his knee, and the fact if he plays more the condition and pain in his knee could get worse. The other alternative is of course stop playing tennis, which for a passionate player like Nadal will not be great for him either.
It is human nature to be worried about your health, but of course people who don't like Nadal will continue to try and demonise him... for simply being worried about serious pain he may have to encounter in the future.

It is normal to be worried about your health, and I know there are some who may hate Nadal to the extent they want him to face pain (either quit tennis or see his knee give him serious pain later on), but I don't see why Nadal has to share this view.

There's no point trying to claim gaps in my logic when there are no gaps. It's not my fault you can't see that.

Take a look at my original statement "I also don't like Rafa stating that he's worried that his knees will be so worn out by the end of his tennis career that he won't be able to play football in the park "
It's not even a logic-based argument - it's my opinion. I don't like it when he comes out and says that. Yes, he can say what he damn well wants to - and so can I. I say he has a choice. If he's really that worried he could choose to stop playing. There's no logic gap in that statement.

JuliusHMarx wrote: I say he has a choice. If he's really that worried he could choose to stop playing.

No, because I think that prospect itself worries him.
It's like choosing between a rock and a hard place.
When Nadal comes out saying he is worried about the rock, you can't say 'ah, but he can choose the hard place.' Because that would be painful for him too. Why wouldn't he be worried about something that will be painful for him either way??
I see it's your opinion, but you're not really backing yourself up well here.

Well, if you really think playing professional tennis is a rock and retiring with millions of pounds and living a life of luxury is a hard place, then I guess I can't argue against that.
But if Rafa views it like that, then he needs to get out more. It's the 'woe is me' aspect of it I object to, as though he is being forced to do something that will damage his health. He's not. He actually has 2 great choices to choose from.

The direct choice between retiring from tennis early and having the knee cause huge pain for him in the future... will be very painful choice either way. So he is correct to be worried about that issue.

Of course as you say there's many things he can say he's very grateful for... the money and the success etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's also clear that the foot injury was not well known prior to 2011.

The foot problems of 2004/5 are well documented prior to 2011, I have given media reports earlier today (did you bother to read them?) outlining precisely the problems he had, the need for customised insoles, and the issues those orthotics would create for him. What do you mean by well known?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I also don't buy into the theory that the foot injury is the sole (pun not intended) cause of the knee issues, given that many journalists/pundits believed and stated that his style of play would lead to such problems, without referring to his foot issue.

Since when are journalists/pundits a measure of empirical truth? Its clear you believe the foot-to-knee issues to be pure fabrication - you have inferred as much by saying there was no mention until 2011 - so it seems that you wish to label his knee issues down to his style of play but you have no proof that's the case. What is clear is that he's had foot issues since 2004. Toni in 2005 is down on record as saying Rafa needed specially modified insoles to protect his left foot and that they overloaded strain onto his legs - leading him to pull out of AO2006 - and being a future cause of tendinitis...which has since, by pure coincidence of course, occurred. Just because English speaking media failed to pick up on those Spanish press articles doesn't make them false.

........... anyway back to the topic, lets say we all agree with me (in a socal like way) that monfils is the best mover for his size

lydian wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's also clear that the foot injury was not well known prior to 2011.

The foot problems of 2004/5 are well documented prior to 2011, I have given media reports earlier today (did you bother to read them?) outlining precisely the problems he had, the need for customised insoles, and the issues those orthotics would create for him. What do you mean by well known?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I also don't buy into the theory that the foot injury is the sole (pun not intended) cause of the knee issues, given that many journalists/pundits believed and stated that his style of play would lead to such problems, without referring to his foot issue.

Since when are journalists/pundits a measure of empirical truth? Its clear you believe the foot-to-knee issues to be pure fabrication - you have inferred as much by saying there was no mention until 2011 - so it seems that you wish to label his knee issues down to his style of play but you have no proof that's the case. What is clear is that he's had foot issues since 2004. Toni in 2005 is down on record as saying Rafa needed specially modified insoles to protect his left foot and that they overloaded strain onto his legs - leading him to pull out of AO2006 - and being a future cause of tendinitis...which has since, by pure coincidence of course, occurred. Just because English speaking media failed to pick up on those Spanish press articles doesn't make them false.

By well known, I mean that the mention of it in Rafa's book brought a number of 'revelatory' type articles in newpapers and on the web i.e. 'we didn't know this before'. Perhaps it was well known in Spain, given that the links you found were in Spanish.

"Since when are journalists/pundits a measure of empirical truth?" And since when are posters on an internet forum? I include myself, of course. (And your statement presumably also applies to Spanish journalists?)
I have never claimed or stated the "the foot-to-knee issues to be pure fabrication". Hence my use of the term "sole cause", which you quoted, but may not have actually read

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:JuliusHMarx. Just curious. Why would you think Nadal would make up his foot problems? And why do you think he would suddenly make them up in 2011 and talk about a made up occasion years ago when he consulted a Dr. about them and was told that his career would/could be threatened by them?

I've never stated that I think Nadal was making up his foot problems.

I have merely questioned the often contradictory information coming from him and his camp. For example, prior to 2011 there is no mention of the foot problem being congenital. Not that the nature of the injury is that important, but it's not wrong to try to ascertain the facts and the timeline of those facts - which is difficult when dealing with Rafa.
In the 2007 article for instance, Uncle Toni suggests that Rafa is both successfully managing the injury and also that it might be career-threatening.

It's also clear that the foot injury was not well known prior to 2011.

I also don't buy into the theory that the foot injury is the sole (pun not intended) cause of the knee issues, given that many journalists/pundits believed and stated that his style of play would lead to such problems, without referring to his foot issue.

I also don't like Rafa stating that he's worried that his knees will be so worn out by the end of his tennis career that he won't be able to play football in the park - as if he doesn't have a choice about whether to continue playing tennis or not. Woe is he.

Julius. You might not have known about Nadal's foot problems but how well known exactly do you think athletes physical problems should be? If you want to find out more I'm sure you could. Having such problems from such an early age (was it 18 or 19) was bound to have later repercussions. And physical problems at any stage can be both potentially career threatening and being managed. Of course all of Nadal's injuries are minutely discussed now because he is an all time great who has not played for 8 months. He is also only 26 and it would be huge news if his career was cut short. But things were a little different earlier in his career.

Playing pro tennis is not healthy exercise in fact it is the opposite. Those that think that Federer or any other player floats above the courts without doing damage are mistaken. Players may adopt different styles but they all run about a lot and hit tennis balls and far as how damaging this is on the body they will all pay a price later in life not just Nadal. The price would be less if they didn't play predominantly on hard courts. Whats wrong with wanting better conditions?

Of course Nadal doesn't have to continue to play neither does Federer. However it would not just be "woe" for them if they felt forced to stop prematurely (although I can understand they would be a little sad if they felt unable to continue doing something they had a unique talent for) but it would be a little bit "woe" for us...

Yes, it would be 'woe' for us as well. I don't want Rafa to have to quit. I'd pretty much stopped watching clay court tennis until he showed up.

But these players live an extraordinarily privileged life-style and sometimes fall into the trap of expecting everything to turn out the way they want it to, and then have a rather unbecoming moan when it doesn't. They forget how lucky they are in the first place. Foot injury, back injury (presumably Fed's back injury is caused by his style of serving) etc. Tough. Hell, they're lucky to have otherwise supreme fitness potential, superb hand-to-eye coordination, optimum height etc. And the top players are rich enough to pack it all in whenever they feel like it and not have any financial worries if injury cuts short their careers. None of them are unlucky in the cards life has dealt them.

We all know that and you know, I think guys like Nadal never forget how "lucky" they are to have got where they are in terms of core attributes they were born with. However, don't forget how hard these guys have worked to get where they are too. When faced with career threatening injuries for a pursuit they have poured their entire life into, 1000s upon 1000s hours of practice when others were taking it easy, it's not surprising they speak out when things don't go their way. To get to this level, what they have achieved is the culmination of their life's work since they were 4 or 5. Yes they (some of them) can retire in comfort, but do you think any of them were driven to succeed by money or status? Guys like Nadal live for the battle, to test their developed skill against others...when they face the prospect of not being able to, or perceive things to be a barrier to that, we shouldn't be surprised these guys shout out. None of us know the pressure of being one of the worlds best sportsmen in their field. We may see it as luck but I'm sure they don't beyond being blessed with good genetics.

Unlike your comment about believing journalists, I posted actual comments Toni made in the press in 2005 about the feet, orthotics, etc. From the horses mouth. No you didn't claim actual fabrication...as I said, its clear you infer it and have done for some time now, you dont believe the foot stuff one iota. You believe the knee issues are caused by his style of play and the "foot story" came out in 2011 as a convenient cover. Perhaps you also believe his absence from tour is due to a silent ban and hence all of it is fabrication. Regardless, fine, any of that would be your opinion. However, I've tried to demonstrate that issues not related to style of play were being discussed way back in 2005/6 by Toni's words captured in the press.

You either believe him and that's what happened then and since, or not. Presumably not, and nothing I or others post will make any difference. Often we believe what we want to believe. Fair enough...that's the beauty of forums. Would be dull if we all agreed anyway.

lydian wrote:We all know that and you know, I think guys like Nadal never forget how "lucky" they are to have got where they are in terms of core attributes they were born with.

That is an accident of genetics, if you will.

lydian wrote: However, don't forget how hard these guys have worked to get where they are too. When faced with career threatening injuries for a pursuit they have poured their entire life into, 1000s upon 1000s hours of practice when others were taking it easy, it's not surprising they speak out when things don't go their way.

There are ordinary people (who do not win Wimbledon), but work equally hard to earn a living. If Nadal practices 1000s upon 1000s of hours practicing that DHBH, I work with children who are special needs. It is a choice which they, and in some cases, joint families make. If I remember, there is the 2% difference theory between Nadal/Federer/Djokovic/Murray and DelPotro/Tipsarevic/Berdych/Tsonga/Monfils floating around on v2 somewhere. So if Nadal works 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000 hours, Berdych perhaps works 999,998 hours, not a significant difference to someone outside. BTW, which others are taking easy? Berdych (interviewed by Darren Cahill after beating Federer @USO, admitted to running in parking lots for fitness with Krupa, and then turned towards the crowd the hard work is paying off), Ferrer runs marathons with Piles.

lydian wrote:To get to this level, what they have achieved is the culmination of their life's work since they were 4 or 5. Yes they (some of them) can retire in comfort, but do you think any of them were driven to succeed by money or status? Guys like Nadal live for the battle, to test their developed skill against others...when they face the prospect of not being able to, or perceive things to be a barrier to that, we shouldn't be surprised these guys shout out.

Soldiers are trained for battle, as is Nadal or Murray, or Federer or Djokovic. Cilic and Ancic are perhaps better educated. Gladiators trained for battle, and glory, fame and fortune followed, because there were always spectators willing to pay to watch, in a way, live vicariously.

lydian wrote:None of us know the pressure of being one of the worlds best sportsmen in their field. We may see it as luck but I'm sure they don't beyond being blessed with good genetics.

Even regular people, who have not been trained like soldiers to excel at one specific sport, handle their daily lives and stress. I agree there are differences of scale.

Ask an Autistic child, what genetics gave him/her. Then you begin to see that such genetic gifts are in themselves worth millions on paper.

lydian wrote:Unlike your comment about believing journalists, I posted actual comments Toni made in the press in 2005 about the feet, orthotics, etc. From the horses mouth. No you didn't claim actual fabrication...as I said, its clear you infer it and have done for some time now, you dont believe the foot stuff one iota. You believe the knee issues are caused by his style of play and the "foot story" came out in 2011 as a convenient cover. Perhaps you also believe his absence from tour is due to a silent ban and hence all of it is fabrication. Regardless, fine, any of that would be your opinion. However, I've tried to demonstrate that issues not related to style of play were being discussed way back in 2005/6 by Toni's words captured in the press.

Stories like these put a different spin on facts which may be well known otherwise - http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/6885099/rafael-nadal-considered-golf-career-sidelined-career-threatening-injury

lydian wrote:You either believe him and that's what happened then and since, or not. Presumably not, and nothing I or others post will make any difference. Often we believe what we want to believe. Fair enough...that's the beauty of forums. Would be dull if we all agreed anyway.

JHM is just trying to evenly balance the information he has with what others in the forum know. Consider this an information exchange process.

lydian wrote:...as I said, its clear you infer it and have done for some time now, you dont believe the foot stuff one iota. You believe the knee issues are caused by his style of play and the "foot story" came out in 2011 as a convenient cover. Perhaps you also believe his absence from tour is due to a silent ban and hence all of it is fabrication. Regardless, fine, any of that would be your opinion.

Except that it's not my opinion and never has been. That's one of the problems with the forum IMHO. Whenever someone tries to take any reasonable middle ground, others try to portray them in a different, more extreme light. If you choose to think I'm lying i.e. not stating my actual opinion, then there's nothing I can do about that.

No-one is disbelieving the injuries that Nadal has. I think the question is why has it only become common knowledge now when at the moment it is unclear whether Nadal will return to past glories and form? He has had knee injuries before and yet this only really became 'common' knowledge when his form isn't what it is and neither is his health. I know links were posted in Spanish, but as Julius pointed out he really isn't going out of his way to find that information out and plus many universal/national tabloids or news sections never picked up on this story before.

Rafa unfortunately has had many conflicting stories about comebacks and the extent of injuries. That is what many people remember as common knowledge and not an article printed on a Spanish website. Look at last year. Toni was saying he could return at the USO, WTF, DC and Rafa himself hoped to be fit for the AO. You can see why there is an element of sceptism surrounding Rafa. Comments made in the past have raised eyebrows.

I don't think Rafa is a bad guy or has a nasty bone in his body. Sometimes he is guilty of foot and mouth.

LF, thank you for the time to respond in that way but I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
Yes, I kind of know all that, especially the medical bits - trust me
Genetic gifts are only such if you fully apply them in the way they are best expressed - pardon the genetic pun.
Many people aren't lucky enough to find out what they could be truly great at. Tennis guys were lucky enough to find picking up a racquet suited them. Luck is all around us, but as Gary Player said the harder I try, the luckier I get.

The real talent behind all these guys is that they are prepared to put in the 10,000 hrs of practice from 8-18 (3hrs per day average). In any field only a minute fraction will apply themselves like that, many will fall by the wayside with each passing year. They have luck in genetics but they have to apply them. Having done that for year upon year from childhood - not as a soldier in adulthood - it is literally their life's developmental work. They know they live a charmed life at the top but injury is their constant nemesis. Nadal is changing his style to play more clay...

JHM, I'm not saying you are lying but it seems clear to me that you feel Nadal is doing so.

LK, agree information around Nadal can be conflicting but the information about his feet and strain on his legs with orthotics has nonetheless been out there in the press. Why didn't English speaking media pick it up? Who knows. Nadal wasn't quite the global phenomenon he is now back in 2004/5 so perhaps interviews in Spanish weren't picked up as they would be now? But the assertion that these feet stories have only just come out now is patently untrue. That's my point, and whether they are common knowledge or not is neither here nor there. I see the scepticism surrounding Nadal - all the time - and much of it isn't Rafa's foot in mouth as you put it, but his uncle. However, the information regarding potential strain on his legs from needing modified shoes was pretty much there from the start and he hasn't contradicted that. What has been discussed and conflicted more in recent times is the actual damage to the knee itself and when he might return. That's different.

What I will say lydian I was very surprised it wasn't picked up by the English press in 2009 when he pulled out of Wimbledon as defending champion which I don't think had happened before? I think maybe Goran pulled out in 2002. In 2009 thought it was a massive story and maybe the press could've looked at it more then in detail. Strange as Rafa was a big name and world no.1 at the time (I think)

lydian wrote:LF, thank you for the time to respond in that way but I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Nadal/Murray/Djokovic/Federer and many others at the top are privileged, gifted, very narcissistic. In certain sense, they can throw a tantrum if things do not go there way. If the experience from the past and UT's genius is what it is, this HC-hurts-my-body statement should never have been made publicly and/or privately. The tour is flexible, but it is not private property. If a player's preference is a specific surface, so be it.
If the search for 'greatness' requires playing on HC, that is the price Nadal (like countless many others) must pay. As I always say, the tour is not a specific players, but the players' calendar is their own.

lydian wrote:Yes, I kind of know all that, especially the medical bits - trust me
Genetic gifts are only such if you fully apply them in the way they are best expressed - pardon the genetic pun.
Many people aren't lucky enough to find out what they could be truly great at. Tennis guys were lucky enough to find picking up a racquet suited them. Luck is all around us, but as Gary Player said the harder I try, the luckier I get.

There is no other way for me to express this, but nature has a way of balancing boons and banes. Remember Achilles.

lydian wrote:The real talent behind all these guys is that they are prepared to put in the 10,000 hrs of practice from 8-18 (3hrs per day average).

No, it is the environment which facilitates this to a very large extent. Pele, to me, playing on the streets of Rio is a diamond. You do realise that playing HOrse Polo is limited to a few. Tennis is now a common sport, but getting to higher levels does require enormous support. Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

lydian wrote:In any field only a minute fraction will apply themselves like that, many will fall by the wayside with each passing year. They have luck in genetics but they have to apply them. Having done that for year upon year from childhood - not as a soldier in adulthood - it is literally their life's developmental work. They know they live a charmed life at the top but injury is their constant nemesis. Nadal is changing his style to play more clay...

But that choice of playing more clay, should not be used to denigrate other choices which other people make. Why was the issue of HC injuries not raised within PC? Why this public media trial of ATP?

BTW, this is still a discussion, not an attack/defend one, correct? If you feel otherwise, I will stop.

There are too many factors for me in the whole ATP tour HC is what can shorten careers. We have yet to see anyone retire from the sport in an early age due to the rigours and impact HC is having on the players. I think why Nadal comes under for some criticism that being the most successful Clay courter of all time is calling for change, but isn't really looking at all surfaces and is for his more favoured surface Clay. Grass barely got a mention.

Nadal not being able to play a full HC schedule is not a failing of the ATP. It is just bad luck that his injuries prohibit his participation on HC. I don't think the ATP should be scrutinised or portrayed as not doing enough to improve player health on court. I think the tournaments if anything need to look at the surface their tournament is played on and weigh up if a surface change would benefit them.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think the tournaments if anything need to look at the surface their tournament is played on and weigh up if a surface change would benefit them.

Elsewhere, I did analysis to show a 61-36% HC-Clay split on the ATP tour (ignoring grass). Will it ever be 50-50, perhaps unlikely. The Hamburg histrionics come to mind. Madrid changed from HC to Red Clay to Blue Clay to ?.

With Rio on the cards, clay is already a prominent surface. I would leave it at that. Nadal's personal medical issues are just that.

Murray is an HC player primarily as is Djokovic.

Will Murray (HC/Clay/Grass - 21,0,3) start complaining if we reversed the split? Or perhaps Djokovic (HC/Clay/Grass - 27,6,1)?

Federer (HC/Clay/Grass - 52,10,12) and Nadal (HC/Clay/Grass - 11,37,3) are numbers which clearly show surface affinity.

I did see your stunning piece of analysis on the court surface variation on the current tour.

Well would Murray and Djokovic indeed bemoan a further swing towards Clay and Grass? Who knows.

As Jack Nicklaus once said on conditions "You have to adapt yourself to the course and conditions. The course and conditions doesn't adapt to you. If you don't adapt yourself, your not going to win"

I'd say it's very likely that all this talk of change to the percentage split of surface will ebb away once Rafa has chosen to retire, whenever that might be.

I don't remember it being a major talking point in the past, and most fair-minded people would accept that the ATP tour calendar cannot - and should not - be built around the interests and welfare of one player ; however big a name that player that might be.

lk : your analogy of Jack Nicklaus definitely strikes a chord ! I was always a huge admirer of Big Jack, not only for his stellar achievements, but even more so for his immaculate behaviour throughout his playing career. A true icon of his sport. It's simply impossible to imagine him ever throwing his toys out of the pram in the way that certain players did at last year's Madrid. Sure.... he might well comment (where justified) on a particular course not having been properly prepared to Championship standard ; but threatening/bullying tournament directors with talk of I won't be back next year .....? Never !

I agree that HCs have not been proved to have stunted anyone's career although there is data to suggest they are more injury causing (hardly a leap of faith that point).

But with Nadal surely its obvious?

He sees HCs as the reason why his career has been badly affected - the surface causing his weakened tarsal to break resulting in all the bother he's had since.

ATP will never change anything in the absence of clear injury-data on HCs. The only argument that can win is for more variety but that isn't going to work either. Nadal can shout as much as he likes but ATP will never listen...and they also know the true reasons behind his dislike for the surface.

LF, I say "The real talent behind all these guys is that they are prepared to put in the 10,000 hrs of practice...".

You say "No", then say "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration".
Which completely corroborates my point - 99% perspiration = 10,000 hours!
Don't you think the talent is in wanting to push yourself daily to perspire for 10 years to be the best?

lydian wrote:I agree that HCs have not been proved to have stunted anyone's career although there is data to suggest they are more injury causing (hardly a leap of faith that point).

This is a debate of style vs surface. The Har-tru study (like the Marlboro nicotine study) is questionable. There are exceptions to the rule. 33-yo Agassi, 34-yo Haas took breaks. Agassi is (HC/Clay/Grass - 46/7/1).

lydian wrote:But with Nadal surely its obvious?

Are you agreeing that it is the style or are you saying Nadal would have had significantly more titles, if, for arguments sake, lets us say, Clay was 100%. Yet, a what-if. There is no way to predict how other players adapt to a 100% clay tour and provide Nadal more competition, correct?

lydian wrote:He sees HCs as the reason why his career has been badly affected - the surface causing his weakened tarsal to break resulting in all the bother he's had since.

So, stop playing on it.

lydian wrote:ATP will never change anything in the absence of clear injury-data on HCs. The only argument that can win is for more variety but that isn't going to work either. Nadal can shout as much as he likes but ATP will never listen...and they also know the true reasons behind his dislike for the surface.

No one, except perhaps UT and the quest for greatness, is pushing Nadal to force himself to play on a surface he dislikes. Do you keep going back to a restaurant that has food that you dislike, Lydian? Let me give you another example, Dog Meat is a delicacy, as is Shark meat, but there are people who oppose such, as a food source.

lydian wrote:LF, I say "The real talent behind all these guys is that they are prepared to put in the 10,000 hrs of practice...".

You say "No", then say "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration".
Which completely corroborates my point - 99% perspiration = 10,000 hours!
Don't you think the talent is in wanting to push yourself daily to perspire for 10 years to be the best?

There are many ordinary people, who also dedicate thousands of hours to a specific pursuit. Nadal's choice of profession has the added benefit of prominence. Yesterday, CBS featured a person, who has followed The Who (rock band) for all his life ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/the-who-tickets-1979-providence_n_1724651.html ). Is that any less effort than Nadal's? 10K of physical pursuit vs 10K hours of working life, the only difference being prominence. It should not be a disqualification for the application into halls of greatness, should it?

PS: Do you know who this person is - Sharan, Divij?

lags72 wrote:I'd say it's very likely that all this talk of change to the percentage split of surface will ebb away once Rafa has chosen to retire, whenever that might be.

I don't remember it being a major talking point in the past, and most fair-minded people would accept that the ATP tour calendar cannot - and should not - be built around the interests and welfare of one player ; however big a name that player that might be.

lk : your analogy of Jack Nicklaus definitely strikes a chord ! I was always a huge admirer of Big Jack, not only for his stellar achievements, but even more so for his immaculate behaviour throughout his playing career. A true icon of his sport. It's simply impossible to imagine him ever throwing his toys out of the pram in the way that certain players did at last year's Madrid. Sure.... he might well comment (where justified) on a particular course not having been properly prepared to Championship standard ; but threatening/bullying tournament directors with talk of I won't be back next year .....? Never !

Lags there is this gem from one of his books:

Besides worrying about head movement, foot action and development of a wide swing arc, Grout realized that Jack had to learn to curb his temper. When the appropriate occasion presented itself, Charlie Nicklaus made a point that his son would never forget.

On the 15th hole at Scioto, Jack hit an 8-iron shot into a green-side-bunker. Furious, he promptly threw his club up the fairway. Charlie Nicklaus marched over to his son and said, "Young man, that will be the last club I'll ever see you throw or hear of you throwing a club, or you're not going to be playing this game."

@LK... Federer had temper issues, very similar to these. Nadal has yet to break a racquet publicly.

lags72 wrote:
I don't remember it being a major talking point in the past, and most fair-minded people would accept that the ATP tour calendar cannot - and should not - be built around the interests and welfare of one player ; however big a name that player that might be.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I am against one surface basically dominating all the major tournaments on tour. At the moment the ATP tour is built around the interests of players who can play well on hard courts.
We have an absolutely ridiculous imbalance at the moment. Hard Courts as I say dominate all the major tournaments. There are many clay tournaments, but most of these are 250 or 500 status (not big tournaments at all): in terms of Masters and Slams I believe hard courts has more than double clay. And then grass has basically totally been rejected from the tour, apart from Wimbledon there is not even a ATP 500 tournament on grass.
So you're right in saying we shouldn't be building the interests for one player. We should have a split 33.3% across the surfaces, and reach a balance which is simply non existant at the moment.

LF, what is your point about the 10,000 hours thing? You've lost me now.
Yes many people dedicate themselves to many things...point being?
We're talking tennis greatness here, the point made by JHM was that these guys are lucky.
Yes they are in the first place, but they also make their luck too through dedication to their "art". I couldn't give a monkeys about filming The Who or whittling pieces of stick into intricate shapes. The world is full of able people but we're talking about the top 4 tennis players amongst millions of people who play the sport.

You missed the point of what I was saying about the "But with Nadal surely its obvious?" point. No problem.
Please, lets leave it there, I think we're pretty much done with this topic.

laverfan wrote:@LK... Federer had temper issues, very similar to these. Nadal has yet to break a racquet publicly.

I have had temper issues myself in sport. I recall once in a football match being sent off for having a cursery moment. Never done it again afterwards.

During tennis matches I have had that moment of talking to the racquet, blaming the racquet, confiding in the racquet only to the abuse it physically. Once the cost of a replacement racquet hit, I was able to (begrudgingly because I do want to vent at times) get a reign on my emotions

I wonder how much (if any) protest there was when the US Open shifted to clay then hard from grass and the AO shifted from grass to hard? And of course all the other tournaments that switched from natural surfaces to hard courts.

Tennis as we know it used to be referred to as "lawn" tennis. I'm guessing that clay was brought in as an easier to maintain and all year alternative. I wonder how and why hard courts became the dominant surface. Was it just because they are cheap?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

I have had temper issues myself in sport. I recall once in a football match being sent off for having a cursery moment. Never done it again afterwards.

During tennis matches I have had that moment of talking to the racquet, blaming the racquet, confiding in the racquet only to the abuse it physically. Once the cost of a replacement racquet hit, I was able to (begrudgingly because I do want to vent at times) get a reign on my emotions

You had temper issues and "cursery moments". Your kidding me (cough...). You should try lining up water bottles. I've heard it's a good technique for keeping emotions in check.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:
I don't remember it being a major talking point in the past, and most fair-minded people would accept that the ATP tour calendar cannot - and should not - be built around the interests and welfare of one player ; however big a name that player that might be.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I am against one surface basically dominating all the major tournaments on tour. At the moment the ATP tour is built around the interests of players who can play well on hard courts.

So a 61-36% split is imbalanced?

It Must Be Love wrote:We have an absolutely ridiculous imbalance at the moment. Hard Courts as I say dominate all the major tournaments. There are many clay tournaments, but most of these are 250 or 500 status (not big tournaments at all): in terms of Masters and Slams I believe hard courts has more than double clay.

Do I need to repeat my analysis here, yet again, IMBL?

It Must Be Love wrote:And then grass has basically totally been rejected from the tour, apart from Wimbledon there is not even a ATP 500 tournament on grass.

Sun comes up in the East everyday?

It Must Be Love wrote:So you're right in saying we shouldn't be building the interests for one player. We should have a split 33.3% across the surfaces, and reach a balance which is simply non existant at the moment.

Why should it be 33.33%? It would reduce Clay by 3% from 36% to 33%?

lydian wrote:LF, what is your point about the 10,000 hours thing? You've lost me now.
Yes many people dedicate themselves to many things...point being?

Nadal's dedication to Tennis is not that different from anyone else's. Touting his hours upon hours argument has no bearing on his desire to play HC to achieve greatness.

lydian wrote:We're talking tennis greatness here, the point made by JHM was that these guys are lucky.
Yes they are in the first place, but they also make their luck too through dedication to their "art".

As do others. Tennis is no different from Curling, it is a matter of prominence and money.

lydian wrote:I couldn't give a monkeys about filming The Who or whittling pieces of stick into intricate shapes. The world is full of able people but we're talking about the top 4 tennis players amongst millions of people who play the sport.

Understood. I personally dislike the idea of exalting players, due to personal subjectivity.

lydian wrote:You missed the point of what I was saying about the "But with Nadal surely its obvious?" point. No problem.
Please, lets leave it there, I think we're pretty much done with this topic.

Sure. IMBL has rejoined the fray, so lets us see where it goes.

hawkeye wrote: I wonder how much (if any) protest there was when the US Open shifted to clay then hard from grass and the AO shifted from grass to hard? And of course all the other tournaments that switched from natural surfaces to hard courts.

Tennis as we know it used to be referred to as "lawn" tennis. I'm guessing that clay was brought in as an easier to maintain and all year alternative. I wonder how and why hard courts became the dominant surface. Was it just because they are cheap?

Look at the advantage AO and USO have over FO and Wim. They can play night matches. Imagine a Grass night match without a roof. Dancing on Ice!! The AO more than anything as an emerging Slam has had to change to HC so they can get the best from their conditions. I could never imagine the AO being on grass nor the US Open. There could be an argument for Clay, but that would be a Nadal bashfest. If you changed a HC Slam to Clay then it would stand the reason to move other tournaments over. The tennis calendar would be in chaos.

You had temper issues and "cursery moments". Your kidding me (cough...). You should try lining up water bottles. I've heard it's a good technique for keeping emotions in check.

If I am having a good match I comfort myself at the change of ends by listening to birds singing and remaining in the zone.

A bad day is towel over the head and moaning!

I don't know I like the idea of a grass masters and more tourneys on grass, don't think I agree with changing the majors and their surfaces. We should have 25 outdoor hardcourt, 25 percent indoor hardcourt, 25 percent clay, 25 grass. Stil either way you cut it hardcourts are going to be the dominant surface. In the alternate we could play some of the indoor events on clay at end of the season. The asian swing on clay anyone with? With Paris, london, and basel on indoor hardcourt.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
I absolutely agree. Which is why I am against one surface basically dominating all the major tournaments on tour. At the moment the ATP tour is built around the interests of players who can play well on hard courts.

So a 61-36% split is imbalanced?

Yes... clearly. Not only that, in terms of really important tournaments (Masters 1000, WTF, Slams), Hard Court has more than double the amount of clay. Grass only has Wimbledon. If that's not unbalanced, then...

I really don't understand you though sometimes Laverfan. You try and refute my point by randomly quoting a stat which basically backs up my point perfectly accompanied by a laugh smiley face. I don't get it.