GB draw Croatia away in Davis cup

First topic message reminder :

Just saw this on the daviscup twitter page.

Thoughts? Toughy but I think very winnable. A vociferous home support, with the likes of cilic, dodig, karlovic will make it tough but with andy there we have a good shot.

Other ties are:
Japan v Colombia in Japan
Belgium v Israel in Belgium
Australia v Poland in Poland
Germany v Brazil in Germany
Switzerland v Ecuador in Switzerland
Croatia v Great Britain in Croatia
Austria v Netherlands in Netherlands
Spain v Ukraine in Spain

One other point was that Murray didn't finish growing until he was about 19 - he was 6'1 when he turned pro and is now 6'3. As such, his body wasn't well adapted to benefit from the fitness work until later than Djokovic or Nadal (the latter being an unusually early developer, while Nadal was about normal). It's probably only the last couple of years that Andy has really caught up with regard to conditioning, as he was starting from further back (remember the gangly skinny kid who was out-playing Nalbandian until cramp and lack of conditioning got him?).

Lydian and others raise an interesting point about what is talent for a tennis player. For me, Murray has better ability as a shotmaker than Djokovic (because of his greater variety of play), but Djoko has been ahead in terms of physical ability (fitness, speed, flexibility) and since 2011 also in terms of mental strength (and we've discussed in the past how much Djokovic benefitted from the extra confidence he gained during the streak at the start of 2011, making him much harder to beat).

Indeed, a follow on from my last comment on Djokovic is that at the very top of the game one of the most important factors is to learn how to win - there's not much difference in ability (i.e. shotmaking + athletic ability as a package) between Fed, Rafa, Djoko and Murray, but Nadal was virtually born knowing how to win the tough matches (being in a family with pro sportsmen probably helped) whereas it took the other 3 various amounts of time to crack this, and even then I'm not sure Murray is quite at the same level as Djoko and Nadal (while Federer has fallen off his peak, but still sometimes finds a way as shown in the Wimbledon final).

dummy_half wrote: but Nadal was virtually born knowing how to win the tough matches

I think so much of Nadal's mental strength comes from the uniqueness of his game though.

In the tight moments, it's nearly always the player who is able to play 'his' game rather than the one having to adapt who will be successful.

Nadal's style is so idiosyncratic and so effective (and brilliant) that, when the pressure is on, he can usually fall back on movements and tactics that he knows inside out and knows he can comfortably execute.

(This is part of the reason for Fed's relative lack of success against Nadal - the match up means he is rarely able to play his game and is always having to adapt and try to find new answers).

Yet, in 2011, when he came up against a player on whom he couldn't impose his game, suddenly he struggled metally. I would suggest that his losses to Djokovic at Madrid, Rome and Wimbledon were as much due to mental weakness on Nadal's part as they were to brilliant play on Novak's part. He got nervous in the big moments because Plan A wasn't working.

The Rosol match is another example. Rafa couldn't impose his game and lost his cool (shoulder bumping and other shenanigans).

So I'm not arguing that Rafa is not mentally tough - he is. I just don't see it as an innate mental quality, however. It stems from his physical advantages.

I think nadal still had a fantastic amount of stamina at 18-19 a hell of a lot more than djoko or murray did imo.

Btw lydian why do you think djoko plays with nothing to lose now when saving mp's?
He throws more caution to the wind and really goes for the lines more (i.e. fed us open '10 and '11). Why does he not do this more often? Is it because he has nothing to lose so he plays without fear but does that show a weakness in his game, that he is only willing to truly let loose when he has nothing to lose?
The belief that your original game plan is good enough to win, something you stick to whatever the situation for me shows greater belief but then again going for your shots even more could show more strength, oh i dunno!

I think Nadal is innately mentally tough, or at least confident. I dont think any 14-year old beats Pat Cash (admittedly in an exho) because he has a physical advantage.

I think the Rosol match was genuine frustration, but from a combination of factors. I mean he didnt push Soderling, and I imagine that that match was more annoying than the Rosol match.

I'm not sure how much of that I buy HMM, you could argue from an early age Nadal has developed his game to reflect his innate mental traits - not the other way round. For example, when I see 10 juniors being taught FHs in the same way they'll all go on to develop different FHs - some much more effective than others. Some boys are just able to keep it simple, others over elaborate, etc. Its the ability of keeping things simple that leads to a great player - this is what Nadal excels at, I would argue his mental strength was in honing his game in a way he knew innately would work and be reproducible under pressure. However, its more than that. When the pressure is on he has shown the prodigious ability time after time to come up with outrageous winners and shots - that for me is the ability of the mind to focus on getting the ball into court in an awkward position at all costs. Where the will directs, the body, or even ball, follows.

Nadal also neutralises other players, including Federer. Again, this is a strength of Nadal rather than a weakness of Federer. With regard to Djokovic, yes players come along who throw guys out of their stride, like Nadal did with Federer, and it hurts them mentally. I disagree he was losing due to Plan A not working - well, actually that's true - the problem was he hadn't worked out a Plan B. But he did and we saw the H2H was reversing 3-0 to Nadal (shown have been 4-0 at AO12 really but hey...) by the time he was leaving tour last year. It took huge mental resolve to work out how to beat Djokovic again and then execute on that plan - more slices to the FH, acuter use of angles, hit deeper, serve to the FH, etc. The Rosol match is just a bad day at the office, a freak match, nothing can be read into that, plus we know he took 7-8 months off immediately afterwards so we don't know truly what was happening during that match.

Clearly we see the situation from chicken-egg perspectives. You believe his physicality drives his mental strength, I'm of the reverse opinion - that everything is driven by his strong will to win from an early age, even the need to get physically stronger, all part of becoming the better player.

I dont know, Lydian. Nadals game isnt inherently simple. Verdasco, for instance, has a very similar forehand, but it breaks down under pressure.

Nice points LS. Djokovic has talked about the mindset shift he needed to get to the next level. He mentioned that he didn't truly believe he could beat the best a few years back, that he didn't believe in his own ability enough and it cost him at crunch moments in some matches. He just decided he had to throw caution to the wind, to utterly believe in his ability to make those shots under pressure rather than play an inhibited half-way house shot. I think he just decided he'd rather going out in a blaze of glory than regret not having gone for it - and maybe losing anyway. Once that approach works a few times I guess you just become fearless and completely believe you are going to succeed in those moments.

Its actually a trait I don't think Federer and Nadal share with Djokovic. For example, on that USO11 match point the audacity of making that shot both annoyed Federer and threw him off track. It annoyed him because I don't believe Federer would throw caution to the wind in quite the same manner if that point had been reversed. Similarly, Nadal would have likely come back with a more measured response. Its a risky mentality for Djokovic to have you feel, if the 'going for it' approach stops working for him it could dent his confidence more than it would if Federer or Nadal's game weren't clicking the same.

You misunderstand me kingraf, its not that Nadal has a simple game, its that a) he's found a way over the years of making his game simple to execute by cutting out everything that's unnecessary at the technique and tactic level and b) he makes tennis look simple when we know the game is anything but. The best players do that - we go down to the club and wonder why we cant do what they do. Let's not forget they also have unreal ball striking ability too though. Talent is many faceted thing - top pros are talented in just about every measure you can think of. That's why I'm not sure comparing the top 4 is really that useful. To me they're all innately driven to win competitors that share an unyielding will to improve their games to win matches. They hated to lose from an early age so learnt to do whatever it took to get the W over the years. Innate will to win is clearly a mental parameter.

Re: Verdasco, doesn't that prove our point though - the mental strength of someone like Nadal making that FH, when Fernando doesn't?

lydian wrote:Clearly we see the situation from chicken-egg perspectives. You believe his physicality drives his mental strength, I'm of the reverse opinion - that everything is driven by his strong will to win from an early age, even the need to get physically stronger, all part of becoming the better player.

My view isn't actually as clear cut as that.

I'm very cautious about assessing mental strength. It is so closely intertwined with a player's physical ability, I can't be dogmatic about where one ends and the other begins.

It's usually easy to tell when a player loses due to a lack of mental strength. It's less clear cut when saying what proportion of a win was mental strength.

If, for example, a player has an excellent forehand and saves a match point with that shot, how much of that is mental strength and how much is simply being very good at hitting forehands? 50/50? 70/30? 90/10? It's just impossible to say.

That's why I'm hesitant to say that Nadal has extraordinary mental strength. He clearly must be mentally tough, otherwise he wouldn't be a top player.

But if he rips more winners to save break points than let's say David Ferrer, is that because he is mentally tougher or just because he is better at ripping winning shots?

I don't think mental strength is something we can assess in the same way as a shot. We can rate a backhand as 8/10 and a forehand as 7/10 etc but we have no clear way to do that on mental strength. So by extension, it's very hard to rate a player in that way.

Does that make sense?

dummy_half wrote:Lydian and others raise an interesting point about what is talent for a tennis player. For me, Murray has better ability as a shotmaker than Djokovic (because of his greater variety of play), but Djoko has been ahead in terms of physical ability (fitness, speed, flexibility) and since 2011 also in terms of mental strength (and we've discussed in the past how much Djokovic benefitted from the extra confidence he gained during the streak at the start of 2011, making him much harder to beat).

Good points. It's interesting to note, that Murray only ever beats Nole when the conditions are fast - the US Open being a notable exception. I think Andy is more of an instinctive shot maker and hence is more likely to cope with faster conditions (because there is less time to make a decision)

Nole's greater strength and consistency of shot making, means his better on all other surfaces

Clay is looking highly likely...

It is confirmed it will be played on Clay.

There goes GB's chances!

I'd still fancy Murray to dismantle Cilic on clay. When it comes to the crunch, Cilic just doesn't have the bottle to beat Murray/any top player on a big occasion I'm afraid. (Now, when this comes back to bite me I shall laugh with you laughing at me).

On things for certain, Andy will have to play a lot better than than recent dozy performance

Have to say I think Wawrinka has more talent than Cilic, especially on clay - but that means nothing if Murray doesn't turn up

Dodig beat Cilic on clay today 6-4 6-2.