Is Fed mentally not the strongest?

First topic message reminder :

As a Fed fan, I think it's correct to give the man his due, but also to criticize him if there is an objectve weakness in his game.

Now the two big finals made me wonder a lot on this issue. Wimbledon; Fed played unreal tennis against Murray and before that match, in all tournament serve was on fire, on par with the very best years. In the final: serve misfiring, few aces and easy winner. Overall Fed looked somewhat tight, fh and bh didn't flow as freely.

US final: again the serve let him down causing the loss of the first set. Many many opportunities wasted in the third and never able to capitalize when Djokovic dropped his level to get that important lead 2 sets to one. Overall Fed looked uncomfortably tight during these two finals, naver able to relax enough to let the fh flow and dictate.

Obviously , this is not the prime Federer of 2004-2007, whose edge was so vast during those years that he was able to possibly hide such weakness. On the other hand this is a player that at 34 can compete at the very top. Nadal and Djokovic certainly seems to have shown more mental fortitude on the most important matches, even when there was seemingly no edge between them.

On a more serious note though, one key point you have missed Tenez, and something which I have seen both Federer fans and non-Federer fans acknowledge; is that Federer's problems in big points can be due to passivity.
On the break points, you never saw the SABR, in fact he barely turned onto his forehand, choosing to reply with the backhand slice. He did the same against Nadal too, break point down always with the safe backhand slice which isn't even deep; and then the opponent dictates the point.

To assess mental strength we need an objective empirical test to quantify it in absolute terms.  

So here I have devised what I believe to be a fool proof test.  The measurement units for mental strength will be in seconds.  

And the measure will be how long they can remain seated in the front row of a best to twenty set match up between Azarenka and Sharapova.

TheMessi wrote:How many slams Nadal and Djoko have won which included a key 4 or 5 setter on the way to winning the tournament? And again the fitter player won those longer matches. Federer went through his 20 somthing consecutive semi hardly losing a set...and showed that again this year at Wimby and USO...being 34.

I had a really vivid dream in 2004, that a 23 year old Federer took 5 sets to beat a 34 year old Agassi in the US Open quarter final.

I had a really similar one a year later, that a 24 year old Federer took 4 sets to beat a 35 year old Agassi in the US Open final.

Federer was brutal in those years though. He only dropped 3 sets in both tournaments, and only played 3 TBs in 2004 and 4 TBs in 2005.

That's way better than the 3 sets dropped and the 1 TB played by Novak this year.

And who could forget the 27 year old Federer's wonderful 2009: 5 sets to beat that young whippersnapper Tommy Haas in the 4R of Roland Garros, followed by 5 sets to beat JMDP in the SF.

But they were just the apperitif to his classic 2009 Wimbledon final when he spent over 4 hours beating super fit Andy Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. (That was when he won with one break of serve in 38 return games).

It's a good job he didn't have to rely on his fitness in those matches.

Interesting debate. I think fitness probably does play a small role in Fed's defeats by Novak. However, the prime issue is that Novak simply has more reliable baseline shots. If they get in a rally the likelihood is that Fed will either break down or eventually get moved out of position. He therefore has no option but to try and get the points over quickly by playing a more high risk game.

^The prime issue is that 28 year old Djokovic is quicker than 34 year old Federer and, being 6 years younger, he can maintain his level for longer.

I don't see anything unusual in this at all.

It's only a problem if you hold the view that Federer has not declined and is playing better than ever.

In that case, you'd have to find other reasons (usually something related to choosing fitness over talent) to explain the situation.

I would also like to add that Djokovic and Federer are very well matched tennis wise as well. Though this is only a problem is you think that there is a "wrong" way to play and are happy to see someone lose to somehow justify this idea.

TheMessi wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The crucial thing here is fed has a better record against Djokovic in best of three on a fast surface. I am assuming you remember his loss to Novak at IW and I doubt anyone would make him a favorite at Rome or Monaco or Miami.

At least Soc you try to respond to my points so I will respond. IW is indeed one of the slowest HC surface. I am sure you are aware of that. Fed had beaten Djokovic in Shanghai and Dubai a few weeks before. So this again woudl confirms my point.

I mean it is so simplistic to put down every Fed loss to fed getting tired because he is old or losing because he has to go for too much. I mean your arguments aren't even internally consistent. I mean Djokovic and Nadal win on fitness? Most matches are over three sets and do you know the vast majority of them Nadal and Djokovic win the first set. So are you claiming that players including Federer get tired in a set or half a set? I mean was Federer tired when he lost the first set here or at wimbeldon? I am Djokovic fan but I first defended Nadal on this point. By the way Federer fans have been saying he is getting tired and losing because he is old since 09 at the very least if not before. I mean I guess if you keep making the same guess like the guy who marks B all the time down the column on the exam you are bound to be right eventually.

I am not saying it is about getting tired, it's more like the fear of getting tired....as clearly it was visible in the end of the 3rd set in Wimbledon and USO. That adds pressure on all BPs. Fed used to be a very fit player when compared to his generation. he woudl still be very fit if compared to the player of his generation. For some reasons he never caught up with the likes of Nadal, Djoko and Murray. In fact no-one else did...so far as I can see guys like Coric and others will.

The fact is fitness plays a role in a relatively small number of matches and at the least you could admit that Djokovic and Nadal beat 99 percent of the tour from the first ball and fitness doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think that is so far from the truth. Fitness plays a huge role in every match. Djoko woudl not have passed Dolgo at Cincy without it, and there are plenty other examples.  How many slams Nadal and Djoko have won which included a key 4 or 5 setter on the way to winning the tournament? And again the fitter player won those longer matches. Federer went through his 20 somthing consecutive semi hardly losing a set...and showed that again this year at Wimby and USO...being 34. Besides as I have said before a couple of long rallies are enough to destroy the edge a player relying on his sharpness. It is a very clear tactic used by Djokovic at the beginning of a TB....knowing the player will not have a 90s break till the end of the long game.  

Again this is a never ending argument for those that are true believers. You are doing precisely what I said people who make this argument always do. They fit their fitness round peg into any shaped hole they can find. The fact is are you claiming that Federer loses a BP in the first set or second set because he is scared of getting tired in the 5th set? There is no logical correlation. I mean why would an experienced pro lose a key point that could win him the first set because he is scared he will get tired at the end of the match? It is not like he plays reckless or wild on BP if anything he becomes to passive and willing to rally.

A couple of long rallies can wind you for a short period of time they do not destroy your fitness when you are relatively young world class athlete. There is nothing prohibitive about the level of fitness Murray, Djoko, or Nadal reach. In football the players run like 10k or more in 90 minutes while in tennis players run maybe a third or 40 percent of that over 4 and 5 sets with many more breaks in between and lengthy periods of rest between sets and at changeovers.

I mean Federer's baseline game is to play quick points. He would have to be among the most feeble pros to not be able to play 3 or 4 sets of tennis playing the style that he plays and getting all the free points he gets on serve. He doesn't play that style because he is scared of getting tired he plays that style because it suits his skill set. Give me his serve, his hands at net, his forehand and his ability to transition with the half volleys, overheads, and drive volleys he has and I would play the same way whether I am 23 or 33. With some slight adjustments I am sure.

I honestly don't care that much if Federer loses because he is too weak physically. If that is the case he doesn't train hard enough or well enough. Tennis is not billiards or golf or snooker. It has always had a physical element. If it makes you more comfortable to think that he loses to inferior players that are just fitter than him because he is old have at it. I mean I won't lose much sleep over it.

But what I will say is that you ignore the fact Nadal and Djokovic beat the vast majority of the tour from the getting go and that they win first sets in most of the matches. And maybe that this is because they are better tennis players and better at hitting returns, backhands, serves, and forehands than their opponent. And if Djokovic is good enough to beat 98 percent of the tour with his shots and not his lungs alone, I am sure he is good enough when he plays well to do it to Federer. I mean you would have us believe that Novak when he puts a beat down on a great pro 6-3 and 6-1 that the other guy lost his serve in the first and the match because he was scared how tired he was going to be if the match went to a deciding set and not because Novak is just a better player and ball striker.

I have said my piece and if you don't want to accept what I say that is fine, but I find your points simplistic and over generalized to the extreme. But like I said if it makes you feel better to claim that Nadal and Novak's wins are simply down to fitness even though at their peak they beat most opponents in the from the drop of the hat on then have at it. If Fed loses because he can't play tennis at a world class level and repeat the same for the 3 to 4 hours he deserves to lose.

HM Murdock wrote:

TheMessi wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

TheMessi wrote:I suggest people watch again the Djoko Fed USO semi 2011 to see who is mentally tougher. The winner is Djokovic, we know that. But look at the key moments of the match. To me it is quite obvious who is mentally stronger.

Let me guess - is it the one who couldn't take 2 MPs on his own serve and then double faulted on break point?

Exactly. I wanted to give you a head start. Now watch it from beginning with an open-mind.

Wow, you're right.

Federer was the one going for his shots. His 49 winners was much better than Djokovic's 48 winners.

And Djokovic's grinding clearly took its toll. I mean, OK, Federer was fit and healthy enough to break to love in the 8th game of the 5th set.

But he was so exhausted by the 9th game that he couldn't win those grinding rallies of 1, 2 and 5 shots that came after he reached match point.

I wish I'd opened my mind sooner!

Hilarious but absolutely true. I mean the guy is fit enough to get up a break late in the 5th and have two match points on his serve to win the match. Then magically almost instantaneously he fears fatigue or gets fatigued and therefore Novak blasts his serve a hundred miles and hour right on the line, because Fed is fatigued of course and wins the match.

socal1976 wrote:

TheMessi wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The crucial thing here is fed has a better record against Djokovic in best of three on a fast surface. I am assuming you remember his loss to Novak at IW and I doubt anyone would make him a favorite at Rome or Monaco or Miami.

At least Soc you try to respond to my points so I will respond. IW is indeed one of the slowest HC surface. I am sure you are aware of that. Fed had beaten Djokovic in Shanghai and Dubai a few weeks before. So this again woudl confirms my point.

I mean it is so simplistic to put down every Fed loss to fed getting tired because he is old or losing because he has to go for too much. I mean your arguments aren't even internally consistent. I mean Djokovic and Nadal win on fitness? Most matches are over three sets and do you know the vast majority of them Nadal and Djokovic win the first set. So are you claiming that players including Federer get tired in a set or half a set? I mean was Federer tired when he lost the first set here or at wimbeldon? I am Djokovic fan but I first defended Nadal on this point. By the way Federer fans have been saying he is getting tired and losing because he is old since 09 at the very least if not before. I mean I guess if you keep making the same guess like the guy who marks B all the time down the column on the exam you are bound to be right eventually.

I am not saying it is about getting tired, it's more like the fear of getting tired....as clearly it was visible in the end of the 3rd set in Wimbledon and USO. That adds pressure on all BPs. Fed used to be a very fit player when compared to his generation. he woudl still be very fit if compared to the player of his generation. For some reasons he never caught up with the likes of Nadal, Djoko and Murray. In fact no-one else did...so far as I can see guys like Coric and others will.

The fact is fitness plays a role in a relatively small number of matches and at the least you could admit that Djokovic and Nadal beat 99 percent of the tour from the first ball and fitness doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think that is so far from the truth. Fitness plays a huge role in every match. Djoko woudl not have passed Dolgo at Cincy without it, and there are plenty other examples.  How many slams Nadal and Djoko have won which included a key 4 or 5 setter on the way to winning the tournament? And again the fitter player won those longer matches. Federer went through his 20 somthing consecutive semi hardly losing a set...and showed that again this year at Wimby and USO...being 34. Besides as I have said before a couple of long rallies are enough to destroy the edge a player relying on his sharpness. It is a very clear tactic used by Djokovic at the beginning of a TB....knowing the player will not have a 90s break till the end of the long game.  

Again this is a never ending argument for those that are true believers. You are doing precisely what I said people who make this argument always do. They fit their fitness round peg into any shaped hole they can find. The fact is are you claiming that Federer loses a BP in the first set or second set because he is scared of getting tired in the 5th set? There is no logical correlation. I mean why would an experienced pro lose a key point that could win him the first set because he is scared he will get tired at the end of the match? It is not like he plays reckless or wild on BP if anything he becomes to passive and willing to rally.

A couple of long rallies can wind you for a short period of time they do not destroy your fitness when you are relatively young world class athlete. There is nothing prohibitive about the level of fitness Murray, Djoko, or Nadal reach. In football the players run like 10k or more in 90 minutes while in tennis players run maybe a third or 40 percent of that over 4 and 5 sets with many more breaks in between and lengthy periods of rest between sets and at changeovers.

I mean Federer's baseline game is to play quick points. He would have to be among the most feeble pros to not be able to play 3 or 4 sets of tennis playing the style that he plays and getting all the free points he gets on serve. He doesn't play that style because he is scared of getting tired he plays that style because it suits his skill set. Give me his serve, his hands at net, his forehand and his ability to transition with the half volleys, overheads, and drive volleys he has and I would play the same way whether I am 23 or 33. With some slight adjustments I am sure.

I honestly don't care that much if Federer loses because he is too weak physically. If that is the case he doesn't train hard enough or well enough. Tennis is not billiards or golf or snooker. It has always had a physical element. If it makes you more comfortable to think that he loses to inferior players that are just fitter than him because he is old have at it. I mean I won't lose much sleep over it.

But what I will say is that you ignore the fact Nadal and Djokovic beat the vast majority of the tour from the getting go and that they win first sets in most of the matches. And maybe that this is because they are better tennis players and better at hitting returns, backhands, serves, and forehands than their opponent. And if Djokovic is good enough to beat 98 percent of the tour with his shots and not his lungs alone, I am sure he is good enough when he plays well to do it to Federer. I mean you would have us believe that Novak when he puts a beat down on a great pro 6-3 and 6-1 that the other guy lost his serve in the first and the match because he was scared how tired he was going to be if the match went to a deciding set and not because Novak is just a better player and ball striker.

I have said my piece and if you don't want to accept what I say that is fine, but I find your points simplistic and over generalized to the extreme. But like I said if it makes you feel better to claim that Nadal and Novak's wins are simply down to fitness even though at their peak they beat most opponents in the from the drop of the hat on then have at it. If Fed loses because he can't play tennis at a world class level and repeat the same for the 3 to 4 hours he deserves to lose.

I think Cinncy is a good example of what TM is saying. Djokovic in his encounters with Dolgo and Goffin didn't take the match to them as Murray didn't against Dimitrov. What Murray and Djokovic did so well was hang in there. Get the ball in the court and the other 3 would press and make the mistake.

Now what I will say is that in those matches it's hard to say that a lack of confidence in the other's fitness or what that caused the implosions, but what is evident is the stamina to hang on in those matches and the mental capitulation of the opponent contributed to Djokovic and Murray winning those respective matches when they were nowhere near their best or looked the better player.

What I saw was Goffin/Dolgo/Dimitrov going for more when the situation called for a less is more approach. Now whether the sudden lack of confidence or touch of madness was due to the fear factor of the stamina possessed by Murray/Djokovic de-railed them is purely speculative. Either way IMO they created an un-necessary urgency in the match that wasn't required. Now could that be under-pinned by the aura of fitter players?

That is the point LK you can not surmise it is down to fitness or whether the guy just choked. I mean in all sports we see the case of the also ran playing a great match only to choke it away on a braindead play or two at the end. I mean did they get tired or did they just choke because they got nervous against a huge favorite? At the end of the day, I just don't see this fitness level of tennis as being anything prohibitive to a reasonably young and healthy world class athlete. And then how do you explain the fact that in most matches Djoko, Murray, Nadal don't struggle and win from the opening bell. I mean is the guy just getting beat by a better ball striker or is he so scared in a three set match of getting winded that he chokes under the aura of the fitter player in the first two games? To me I know which scenario is more likely. But frankly I don't lose much sleep over fitness v. talent argument. The guy who wins is better. Whether he is better because of conditions, youth, fitness, weapons, or because he has more balls really doesn't change anything for me. If you aren't fit enough train more, period end of story. If you lose because you can't play three hours of world class tennis you deserve to lose.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Tenez?

Yeah, TheMessi is Tenez - I've known that for quite a while.

How do you know? Are you sure?

Classic stuff from Tenez, but, if you want to step it up a notch, get him to explain why Novak's incredible return game has nothing to do with talent. It will truly blow your mind.....

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

TheMessi wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The crucial thing here is fed has a better record against Djokovic in best of three on a fast surface. I am assuming you remember his loss to Novak at IW and I doubt anyone would make him a favorite at Rome or Monaco or Miami.

At least Soc you try to respond to my points so I will respond. IW is indeed one of the slowest HC surface. I am sure you are aware of that. Fed had beaten Djokovic in Shanghai and Dubai a few weeks before. So this again woudl confirms my point.

I mean it is so simplistic to put down every Fed loss to fed getting tired because he is old or losing because he has to go for too much. I mean your arguments aren't even internally consistent. I mean Djokovic and Nadal win on fitness? Most matches are over three sets and do you know the vast majority of them Nadal and Djokovic win the first set. So are you claiming that players including Federer get tired in a set or half a set? I mean was Federer tired when he lost the first set here or at wimbeldon? I am Djokovic fan but I first defended Nadal on this point. By the way Federer fans have been saying he is getting tired and losing because he is old since 09 at the very least if not before. I mean I guess if you keep making the same guess like the guy who marks B all the time down the column on the exam you are bound to be right eventually.

I am not saying it is about getting tired, it's more like the fear of getting tired....as clearly it was visible in the end of the 3rd set in Wimbledon and USO. That adds pressure on all BPs. Fed used to be a very fit player when compared to his generation. he woudl still be very fit if compared to the player of his generation. For some reasons he never caught up with the likes of Nadal, Djoko and Murray. In fact no-one else did...so far as I can see guys like Coric and others will.

The fact is fitness plays a role in a relatively small number of matches and at the least you could admit that Djokovic and Nadal beat 99 percent of the tour from the first ball and fitness doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think that is so far from the truth. Fitness plays a huge role in every match. Djoko woudl not have passed Dolgo at Cincy without it, and there are plenty other examples.  How many slams Nadal and Djoko have won which included a key 4 or 5 setter on the way to winning the tournament? And again the fitter player won those longer matches. Federer went through his 20 somthing consecutive semi hardly losing a set...and showed that again this year at Wimby and USO...being 34. Besides as I have said before a couple of long rallies are enough to destroy the edge a player relying on his sharpness. It is a very clear tactic used by Djokovic at the beginning of a TB....knowing the player will not have a 90s break till the end of the long game.  

Again this is a never ending argument for those that are true believers. You are doing precisely what I said people who make this argument always do. They fit their fitness round peg into any shaped hole they can find. The fact is are you claiming that Federer loses a BP in the first set or second set because he is scared of getting tired in the 5th set? There is no logical correlation. I mean why would an experienced pro lose a key point that could win him the first set because he is scared he will get tired at the end of the match? It is not like he plays reckless or wild on BP if anything he becomes to passive and willing to rally.

A couple of long rallies can wind you for a short period of time they do not destroy your fitness when you are relatively young world class athlete. There is nothing prohibitive about the level of fitness Murray, Djoko, or Nadal reach. In football the players run like 10k or more in 90 minutes while in tennis players run maybe a third or 40 percent of that over 4 and 5 sets with many more breaks in between and lengthy periods of rest between sets and at changeovers.

I mean Federer's baseline game is to play quick points. He would have to be among the most feeble pros to not be able to play 3 or 4 sets of tennis playing the style that he plays and getting all the free points he gets on serve. He doesn't play that style because he is scared of getting tired he plays that style because it suits his skill set. Give me his serve, his hands at net, his forehand and his ability to transition with the half volleys, overheads, and drive volleys he has and I would play the same way whether I am 23 or 33. With some slight adjustments I am sure.

I honestly don't care that much if Federer loses because he is too weak physically. If that is the case he doesn't train hard enough or well enough. Tennis is not billiards or golf or snooker. It has always had a physical element. If it makes you more comfortable to think that he loses to inferior players that are just fitter than him because he is old have at it. I mean I won't lose much sleep over it.

But what I will say is that you ignore the fact Nadal and Djokovic beat the vast majority of the tour from the getting go and that they win first sets in most of the matches. And maybe that this is because they are better tennis players and better at hitting returns, backhands, serves, and forehands than their opponent. And if Djokovic is good enough to beat 98 percent of the tour with his shots and not his lungs alone, I am sure he is good enough when he plays well to do it to Federer. I mean you would have us believe that Novak when he puts a beat down on a great pro 6-3 and 6-1 that the other guy lost his serve in the first and the match because he was scared how tired he was going to be if the match went to a deciding set and not because Novak is just a better player and ball striker.

I have said my piece and if you don't want to accept what I say that is fine, but I find your points simplistic and over generalized to the extreme. But like I said if it makes you feel better to claim that Nadal and Novak's wins are simply down to fitness even though at their peak they beat most opponents in the from the drop of the hat on then have at it. If Fed loses because he can't play tennis at a world class level and repeat the same for the 3 to 4 hours he deserves to lose.

I think Cinncy is a good example of what TM is saying. Djokovic in his encounters with Dolgo and Goffin didn't take the match to them as Murray didn't against Dimitrov. What Murray and Djokovic did so well was hang in there. Get the ball in the court and the other 3 would press and make the mistake.

Now what I will say is that in those matches it's hard to say that a lack of confidence in the other's fitness or what that caused the implosions, but what is evident is the stamina to hang on in those matches and the mental capitulation of the opponent contributed to Djokovic and Murray winning those respective matches when they were nowhere near their best or looked the better player.

What I saw was Goffin/Dolgo/Dimitrov going for more when the situation called for a less is more approach. Now whether the sudden lack of confidence or touch of madness was due to the fear factor of the stamina possessed by Murray/Djokovic de-railed them is purely speculative. Either way IMO they created an un-necessary urgency in the match that wasn't required. Now could that be under-pinned by the aura of fitter players?

But that really isn't what Tenez is saying. The nub of his argument is that Novak only reached the top of the game due to fitness. Surely you don't agree with that. Complete tosh if you ask me and, as HMM already said, an insult to tennis and, frankly, an insult to Federer too.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

TheMessi wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The crucial thing here is fed has a better record against Djokovic in best of three on a fast surface. I am assuming you remember his loss to Novak at IW and I doubt anyone would make him a favorite at Rome or Monaco or Miami.

At least Soc you try to respond to my points so I will respond. IW is indeed one of the slowest HC surface. I am sure you are aware of that. Fed had beaten Djokovic in Shanghai and Dubai a few weeks before. So this again woudl confirms my point.

I mean it is so simplistic to put down every Fed loss to fed getting tired because he is old or losing because he has to go for too much. I mean your arguments aren't even internally consistent. I mean Djokovic and Nadal win on fitness? Most matches are over three sets and do you know the vast majority of them Nadal and Djokovic win the first set. So are you claiming that players including Federer get tired in a set or half a set? I mean was Federer tired when he lost the first set here or at wimbeldon? I am Djokovic fan but I first defended Nadal on this point. By the way Federer fans have been saying he is getting tired and losing because he is old since 09 at the very least if not before. I mean I guess if you keep making the same guess like the guy who marks B all the time down the column on the exam you are bound to be right eventually.

I am not saying it is about getting tired, it's more like the fear of getting tired....as clearly it was visible in the end of the 3rd set in Wimbledon and USO. That adds pressure on all BPs. Fed used to be a very fit player when compared to his generation. he woudl still be very fit if compared to the player of his generation. For some reasons he never caught up with the likes of Nadal, Djoko and Murray. In fact no-one else did...so far as I can see guys like Coric and others will.

The fact is fitness plays a role in a relatively small number of matches and at the least you could admit that Djokovic and Nadal beat 99 percent of the tour from the first ball and fitness doesn't have anything to do with it.

I think that is so far from the truth. Fitness plays a huge role in every match. Djoko woudl not have passed Dolgo at Cincy without it, and there are plenty other examples.  How many slams Nadal and Djoko have won which included a key 4 or 5 setter on the way to winning the tournament? And again the fitter player won those longer matches. Federer went through his 20 somthing consecutive semi hardly losing a set...and showed that again this year at Wimby and USO...being 34. Besides as I have said before a couple of long rallies are enough to destroy the edge a player relying on his sharpness. It is a very clear tactic used by Djokovic at the beginning of a TB....knowing the player will not have a 90s break till the end of the long game.  

Again this is a never ending argument for those that are true believers. You are doing precisely what I said people who make this argument always do. They fit their fitness round peg into any shaped hole they can find. The fact is are you claiming that Federer loses a BP in the first set or second set because he is scared of getting tired in the 5th set? There is no logical correlation. I mean why would an experienced pro lose a key point that could win him the first set because he is scared he will get tired at the end of the match? It is not like he plays reckless or wild on BP if anything he becomes to passive and willing to rally.

A couple of long rallies can wind you for a short period of time they do not destroy your fitness when you are relatively young world class athlete. There is nothing prohibitive about the level of fitness Murray, Djoko, or Nadal reach. In football the players run like 10k or more in 90 minutes while in tennis players run maybe a third or 40 percent of that over 4 and 5 sets with many more breaks in between and lengthy periods of rest between sets and at changeovers.

I mean Federer's baseline game is to play quick points. He would have to be among the most feeble pros to not be able to play 3 or 4 sets of tennis playing the style that he plays and getting all the free points he gets on serve. He doesn't play that style because he is scared of getting tired he plays that style because it suits his skill set. Give me his serve, his hands at net, his forehand and his ability to transition with the half volleys, overheads, and drive volleys he has and I would play the same way whether I am 23 or 33. With some slight adjustments I am sure.

I honestly don't care that much if Federer loses because he is too weak physically. If that is the case he doesn't train hard enough or well enough. Tennis is not billiards or golf or snooker. It has always had a physical element. If it makes you more comfortable to think that he loses to inferior players that are just fitter than him because he is old have at it. I mean I won't lose much sleep over it.

But what I will say is that you ignore the fact Nadal and Djokovic beat the vast majority of the tour from the getting go and that they win first sets in most of the matches. And maybe that this is because they are better tennis players and better at hitting returns, backhands, serves, and forehands than their opponent. And if Djokovic is good enough to beat 98 percent of the tour with his shots and not his lungs alone, I am sure he is good enough when he plays well to do it to Federer. I mean you would have us believe that Novak when he puts a beat down on a great pro 6-3 and 6-1 that the other guy lost his serve in the first and the match because he was scared how tired he was going to be if the match went to a deciding set and not because Novak is just a better player and ball striker.

I have said my piece and if you don't want to accept what I say that is fine, but I find your points simplistic and over generalized to the extreme. But like I said if it makes you feel better to claim that Nadal and Novak's wins are simply down to fitness even though at their peak they beat most opponents in the from the drop of the hat on then have at it. If Fed loses because he can't play tennis at a world class level and repeat the same for the 3 to 4 hours he deserves to lose.

I think Cinncy is a good example of what TM is saying. Djokovic in his encounters with Dolgo and Goffin didn't take the match to them as Murray didn't against Dimitrov. What Murray and Djokovic did so well was hang in there. Get the ball in the court and the other 3 would press and make the mistake.

Now what I will say is that in those matches it's hard to say that a lack of confidence in the other's fitness or what that caused the implosions, but what is evident is the stamina to hang on in those matches and the mental capitulation of the opponent contributed to Djokovic and Murray winning those respective matches when they were nowhere near their best or looked the better player.

What I saw was Goffin/Dolgo/Dimitrov going for more when the situation called for a less is more approach. Now whether the sudden lack of confidence or touch of madness was due to the fear factor of the stamina possessed by Murray/Djokovic de-railed them is purely speculative. Either way IMO they created an un-necessary urgency in the match that wasn't required. Now could that be under-pinned by the aura of fitter players?

But that really isn't what Tenez is saying. The nub of his argument is that Novak only reached the top of the game due to fitness. Surely you don't agree with that. Complete tosh if you ask me and, as HMM already said, an insult to tennis and, frankly, an insult to Federer too.

If the tactic of a player is to keep the ball in court and keep playing long rallies, what would that require?

I am not saying that tactic is the be and end all of all tennis matches played by Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. 

I accept that high levels of fitness can provide high levels of success in the modern game and current conditions.  However, it's not the fault of the top players who possess the strengths to be at the top of the game.

I don't agree with Tenez completely, as I see it that most of the top pros lack the mental fortitude to succeed.

Henman Bill wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Tenez?

Yeah, TheMessi is Tenez - I've known that for quite a while.

How do you know? Are you sure?

OMG really ???

I'm really upset. When he first came on the forum and announced he was new to tennis, I thought it was great, a chance to educate someone who doesn't know much about the sport just yet. And now it turns out he isn't new to tennis, but I still have to educate him about the sport. How upsetting

Socal, I don't want to quote you; as the quoting posts are getting too long; but I think you've made a great point. Nadal and Djokovic I'm sure break their opponents first in the first set; not when the other player is tired.
I think Tenez's view is a bit simplistic; but at the same time it's true fitness and stamina are a positive attribute in Nadal and Djokovic's game. Their main strength though is their baseline game, and the ability to produce shots with incredible reliability.

Whether The Messi is Tenez, or the King of Spain, or the Queen of Sheba it should make no difference.  At the end of the day we are just responding or not responding to individual comments.  Personally I thought Tenez was fine, I either agreed with him or I didn't.  In general he seemed to be highly knowledgeable of the game - I seem to recall he coached kids to play tennis.  What's not to like about that.

Is the historical intention of his posting, including this one, to continuously degrade and talk down players he doesnt like with either a one eyed or plain lying view.
Its the idea that Novaks game is somehow "inferior", thats its all down to fitness and that somehow this isnt something feds used before,like a snob looking down on lower classman, that people are dissapointed with, because in fact thats only one facet as to why.

I see it as pub talk.  At the end of the day tennis players have one set of existence, we the 606v2 community have a separate existence & we give our opinions.  Different people different opinion.  Novak may be winning because of his superior fitness or his superior mobility or his superior talent set or his superior mental strength or his superior diet or his superior egg chamber or a combination of the above and these may be counteracting an inferior fitness or an inferior mobility or a ... or a combination of the above et cetera.  Horses for courses - either you like this player or that player or this style of tennis or that style of tennis ... it matters not to me - I am glad we can all differ.  But these are really inconsequential matters.  Anyway that is my opinion and I would be disappointed if there weren't alternative opinions. Thank you for your time in listening to my witterings & whose round is it now?

This.

I don't have any problem with anyone voicing their opinions. I mean Nore Staat, I just think those opinions are wrong and not supported by the facts.

@IMBL- it is clear that in most matches right from the outset Djokovic or Nadal when he was playing well would take command of a match. I mean a large percentage of matches these guys play go two sets. The hypothesis that top pros lose the early on in the match because they play scared of getting tired later on in the match is really silly. Somehow a second game break is chalked up to the fear of getting exhausted, it really is laughable in my mind. And if those guys are good enough to regularly beat top pros with their shots they can do the same thing to Federer with their shots. I mean Federer lost both first sets against Djoko at Wimby and the USO and neither contest was particularly physical with a lot of long rallies in those first sets, we are supposed to believe that the only reason Fed lost those sets was because he was playing desperately and frightened of getting tired later on.

I seem to recall you're a lawyer (?).  A lawyer and a scientist will have perhaps differing opinions as to the meaning of a fact.  To a scientist only those quantities which can be measured have any meaning.  Everything else is bar room talk.  If we are still talking about "mental strength" - since it hasn't been objectively measured it lies firmly amongst the pork scratchings, Stellois Artois's and Proper Ales. But that's just my opinion. I think I have had one too many - so I'll be off

It's never my round. As a fan I don't like unnecessary disrespect of great players. Based particularly on untruth

Again, that is your view it is an untruth. TheMessi disagrees.

I see all viewpoints on this. Different opinions are good. But when any poster assumes an air of superiority over others and is dismissive of others intelligence and knowledge of the game, however politely, I don't think that benefits the forum.

Its true opinions are opinions, I will never be convinced in any way that any great player, plays the wrong way or wins primarily through something seen as "less noble". Thats a viewpoint I will always counter.
People can win for different reasons, and sometimes in analyses certain factors played a more major part match to match, but there is no right way as I see it

The way I see it Fed's skill set is closer to "classical" tennis and Nole and Rafa are closer to what one might call "modern" tennis.  TBH, skimming through this debate it strikes me that at some level most seem to agree with some version of that and a lot of the discussion is centered more on personal preferences than substance - i.e., people either take the view that classical shot making game is inherently superior in some sense or they take the view that all games styles are equally worthy.

But of course, that discussion can never lead anywhere substantive because it is ultimately not about substance.  Neither the notion that classical game is preferable nor the notion that all game styles are equally valid is "correct" or "incorrect".

temporary21 wrote:Its true opinions are opinions, I will never be convinced in any way that any great player, plays the wrong way or wins primarily through something seen as "less noble". Thats a viewpoint I will always counter.

It is fine to counter it if such is your preference but it is a perfectly valid opinion and a big part of sports discussion in many sports revolves just around that.  You are a cricket fan so you should know it from cricket too - discussions about T20 vs test cricket are quite similar in spirit.  I know little about cricket but have many colleagues who are big fans.  And there are good many "purists" among them who view test cricket as being more "real" cricket than T20.  To them, skills required to succeed in T20 are not quite "true" cricket skills.  You may not agree with such viewpoints but there is nothing wrong with them.

Those kinds of discussions ultimately obviously do not have right or wrong answers, but they are a perfectly valid part of sports conversation.

BTW, 6 of Fed's BPs on Sunday were at 15-40, i.e., with Nole serving to the deuce court. Fed only won one of those - which is exactly in line with (and no better than) his overall BP success percentage.

Nore Staat wrote:I seem to recall you're a lawyer (?).  A lawyer and a scientist will have perhaps differing opinions as to the meaning of a fact.  To a scientist only those quantities which can be measured have any meaning.  Everything else is bar room talk.  If we are still talking about "mental strength" - since it hasn't been objectively measured it lies firmly amongst the pork scratchings, Stellois Artois's and Proper Ales. But that's just my opinion.  I think I have had one too many - so I'll be off

Yes and as a lawyer, although I haven't practiced in many years I know that anything is possible but many opinions are implausible. First if an argument is internally inconsistent and doesn't make sense even based on its own assumptions you are safe to assume it is wrong. That is how I feel about the arguments made by Messi. And if its Tenez, great I never wanted the guy kicked off here anyway, I actually like his energy and passion for the game. That being said he is about as wrong on most things as one can be. Not all matters of Opinion are equal, one looks at the arguments and evidence produced. And the evidence produced is horrifically weak.Especially, since people dropping BPs in the first set is put down to this fear of getting tired later in set #4 or 5.

I mean these scenarios are not really complimentary to Roger. I mean he is so mentally weak and fragile the terror of getting tired impacts him so much that he loses points at the start of the match. Or that he loses to talentless lung merchants who run all day and only win on speed and fitness. Or that despite playing almost as many short points as Isner who outweighs him by 50 pounds he can't get through three hours of tennis without wilting to fatigue or even funnier the fear of fatigue. I mean if all of this is true about Roger he shouldn't have worn a cream colored leisure suit to Wimbeldon instead he should have come out in a cream colored skirt and heels.

I think though before everyone does the eye roll gig and think oh here we go again, just think about the time that has elapsed since Ten made his point years ago fitness being a very decisive factor in matches.

What I will say despite being a partisan Murray fan, is that I like other posters here are clambering for a change in the game. There is an element of disgruntlement amongst some posters about the current state of the game and that our breaths are not being taken away by 'wow' factor shotmaking.

We might not want to admit being in denial despite being 'supporters' of other players that fit the mould as described by Ten, but what is clear is that we are looking for something with more flair and creativity about it and what we are finding is that in the current crop of top players we are not quite finding that edge.

Everyone has an opinion no doubt, but sometimes seeing the game from someone else's viewpoint which you might not agree with, will at least at some point have you thinking "oooooh that's interesting"

I thought it was John Lloyd who made the point about fitness being a very decisive factor in matches - back when he was playing Borg.
Or was it Lendl, who basically said he had the comfort of knowing he was able to outlast his opponents in 5-setters if necessary.
Or maybe it was Navratilova....
Fitness in sport isn't a 21st century concept!

Or definitely maybe...

Well we are talking 2 players from different and separate generations, which granted doesn't make it a new concept as such. 

When you get 3 in the same generation, you see why the point is made about the fitness element.

It's all chicken and egg.

If the internet had been around in the 70s, you can bet that the Borgamaniacs and the Mac-pack would have been at each other's throats.

Did you know that Mac lost the FO final against Lendl from 2 sets up because he got heat stroke, or sun stroke, or something like that. Could have been a career grand slam if only they'd had the attention to detail they have these days. A simple baseball cap would probably have won him that match.

Oh I have no doubt. Borgmaniacs, the Mac-pack and the Connorites all would've been full of hatred for each other.

I did hear that. Being full of hair like I'm not I am amazed he got sunstroke with a head of hair like that!

temporary21 wrote:Is the historical intention of his posting, including this one, to continuously degrade and talk down players he doesnt like with either a one eyed or plain lying view.
Its the idea that Novaks game is somehow "inferior", thats its all down to fitness and that somehow this isnt something feds used before,like a snob looking down on lower classman, that people are dissapointed with, because in fact thats only one facet as to why.

Sorry but this is just plain stupid. He's got his views you might not be agreed, who cares.

My problem with Tenez's point about fitness is that it is presented at a level as superficial as "John was the smart one, Paul was the cute one, George was the grumpy one and Ringo was the funny one".

Nobody doubts that fitness counts and I don't think anybody would doubt that Djoko, Nadal and Murray are fitter than Federer.

But Tenez takes it to a place where Federer only wins by playing high risk shots and the others only win by being fit. Only Federer wins by talent, the others win with lungs.

I'm not offended by it, I just don't think it's coherent.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Is the historical intention of his posting, including this one, to continuously degrade and talk down players he doesnt like with either a one eyed or plain lying view.
Its the idea that Novaks game is somehow "inferior", thats its all down to fitness and that somehow this isnt something feds used before,like a snob looking down on lower classman, that people are dissapointed with, because in fact thats only one facet as to why.

Sorry but this is just plain stupid. He's got his views you might not be agreed, who cares.

Yes, suggestions of lying are way too strong. Wacky or not, I don't think there's much doubt that Tenez is a true believer of his 'fitness is everything' theory. Nothing wrong with the debate either, although Tenez's one track mantras can get a bit tedious after a while. Of course, we can just stop paying attention if we get bored, so not a problem really.

That is true, occasionally tedious, yes, but lying, what for?

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think though before everyone does the eye roll gig and think oh here we go again, just think about the time that has elapsed since Ten made his point years ago fitness being a very decisive factor in matches.

What I will say despite being a partisan Murray fan, is that I like other posters here are clambering for a change in the game. There is an element of disgruntlement amongst some posters about the current state of the game and that our breaths are not being taken away by 'wow' factor shotmaking.

We might not want to admit being in denial despite being 'supporters' of other players that fit the mould as described by Ten, but what is clear is that we are looking for something with more flair and creativity about it and what we are finding is that in the current crop of top players we are not quite finding that edge.

Everyone has an opinion no doubt, but sometimes seeing the game from someone else's viewpoint which you might not agree with, will at least at some point have you thinking "oooooh that's interesting"

MM, but the problem is that fitness isn't a deciding factor in the majority of matches. It is a factor, it is an advantage, no question. But the funny thing is that for Federer it rarely if ever is. For Nadal I could believe fatigue is a factor, why because he asks more of his body than any tennis player I have ever seen. The guy runs probably twice as much as he has to due to his court position behind the baseline and his insistence on running around every backhand. But for Federer. I mean I have taken poops that are more physically exerting than most Federer service games. Has the guy every cramped in 1300 some odd matches on tour. If anyone can show me a video of Fed's 15 year pro career where he is cramping I would like to see it. Not to mention that he plays about 3/4  to 2/3 of regular pros schedule nowadays. I have seen Novak break down physically, I have seen Murray cramp in a match; these so-called titans of fitness who are so legendary for their fitness yet out of all these guys the only one I haven't ever, ever seen actually cramping is Federer. I can hardly even remember him sweating.

Seeing it from someone else's point of view is all well and good. Not liking the style of play of the modern game is quite understandable. Even I have favored speeding up the balls and courts at some events. But to borrow a line from one of my all time favorite movies the Outlaw Josie Wales, "Senator we have saying where I am from don't piiss down my back and tell me it is raining." There are ways of making points about lack of variety that actually make sense and then there is mythmaking. This is just mythmaking plain and simple.

HM Murdock wrote:My problem with Tenez's point about fitness is that it is presented at a level as superficial as "John was the smart one, Paul was the cute one, George was the grumpy one and Ringo was the funny one".

Nobody doubts that fitness counts and I don't think anybody would doubt that Djoko, Nadal and Murray are fitter than Federer.

But Tenez takes it to a place where Federer only wins by playing high risk shots and the others only win by being fit. Only Federer wins by talent, the others win with lungs.

I'm not offended by it, I just don't think it's coherent.

I don't think Tenez just restricts the view to being Federer as the only risk taker out there. I think the point he presents is that Federer being the best of the shotmakers in his matches with the roadrunners is that when his A game breaks down or his performance declines in a match, that he hasn't had the reserves in stamina to revert to like a 'retrieving' game and grind down opponents.

Now depending how extreme the views are presented does have quite the impact on how posters present their own views. I can't say I 'totally' agree with the fitness is the [i]only[i] key to success, but it is quite a compelling argument and does have a place on the table.

I see it with a Murray, Djokovic or Nadal that they can play attacking shots. They might not have the eye-catching finesse of a Federer winner, but none the less they are attacking winners. When a such high risk approach is not paying off in consistency, they can revert to a real risk adverse game as they have the stamina to see that kind of match out. Which in some sick way is quite impressive.

I am much like you on the subject HM. I see the role fitness plays, but I don't feel it needs to be the defining or blanketing USP of these players entirely.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:That is true, occasionally tedious, yes, but lying, what for?

Is that Kyrgios in your pic?

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am much like you on the subject HM. I see the role fitness plays, but I don't feel it needs to be the defining or blanketing USP of these players entirely.

The thing I think Tenez misses is that the narrative isn't fixed.

There are Djoko matches like his ones against Goffin and Dolgo, where he really is doing little more than retrieving. They were terrible matches but he was in rotten form in Cincy: serve not working, ground strokes inaccurate, struggling with the conditions. That passive retrieving is kind of a last resort. His fitness gets him out of jail in those conditions and the knowledge that he can do that adds to his perceived "mental strength", I expect.

But then you get matches like USO 11 SF or the recent Wimbledon finals where there isn't much difference in their winner count and Federer actually covers more ground than Djokovic but the narrative remains fixed that Federer is playing aggressive tennis and Novak is relying fitness.

If the same conclusion is drawn every match, irrespective of what actually happened on court, then it's not really talking about tennis. It's not conversation or debate. It's just preaching a philosophy.

Yes, and Tenez picks the matches where Djokovic or Murray struggle as evidence that they only win by fitness. Both were struggling in Cincy (ironically seemingly due to the difficulty in recovering their fitness following Canada). There was no way Murray was fitter than Dimi in the match he won against him - he was just much tougher mentally. Same for Novak versus Goffin.

Tenez's view is way too simplistic and is designed purely as an argument why Federer never loses a match on tennis ability. Everyone acknowledges that fitness plays a role in tennis and that (or mental strength) may often be the difference between two well-matched opponents. However, in circumstances where Fed has lost the first set to Novak in both recent slam finals before roaring back to take the 2nd, it would seem to me that it has to be acknowledged that they are very evenly matched tennis-wise - on quicker courts. As it should be, Novak's fitness and mental strength has then proved the difference in the end.

Then thats where we disagree, I dont personally think Tenez actually believes exactly what he says, exactly because he beats on it like a worn out drum.

On the flip side, any suggestion that Roger won through fitness or an opponent being tired, which sometimes he has benefited from is met with anger and dismissive opinion, not "its his opinion" deal with it. If you what you all say is true, ill remember it.

Getting a bit visceral here.

Born Slippy wrote:Yes, and Tenez picks the matches where Djokovic or Murray struggle as evidence that they only win by fitness. Both were struggling in Cincy (ironically seemingly due to the difficulty in recovering their fitness following Canada). There was no way Murray was fitter than Dimi in the match he won against him - he was just much tougher mentally. Same for Novak versus Goffin.

Tenez's view is way too simplistic and is designed purely as an argument why Federer never loses a match on tennis ability. Everyone acknowledges that fitness plays a role in tennis and that (or mental strength) may often be the difference between two well-matched opponents. However, in circumstances where Fed has lost the first set to Novak in both recent slam finals before roaring back to take the 2nd, it would seem to me that it has to be acknowledged that they are very evenly matched tennis-wise - on quicker courts. As it should be, Novak's fitness and mental strength has then proved the difference in the end.

I don't think it was mental strength that got him through that match at all. One player towards the end wasn't making his shots into play and the other did. So in conclusion that does take a level of fitness to achieve that. Dimitrov has worked on his fitness a hell of a lot and he can match Murray in the court coverage stakes. The fact Murray hung in there yes is testament to some mental strength, but also a high level of fitness. The fact he can be 2 breaks down playing toilet tennis by all accounts and win points to more than Murray's mental strength. The mental strength of his opponent for one and also his stamina. You touch on his exploits in Canada, yet here he is on fumes coming through a brutal 3 setter.

If we take Federer vs Djokovic at Wimbledon this year. The first 2 sets went to TB's and even though that came out 1-1, everyone here said the same thing, the war was already won. The fact it was said with that certainty and the outcome after the 2nd was to most here's expectations says a lot.

I don't know why 'fitness' is seen as a controversial word in both for and against arguments.

The fitness thing is a bit like the "hard work" thing was for me at school.

I used to take great pleasure in never doing any revision, or even much homework, at school, yet still getting very good grades. The pleasure wasn't in the grades, but in rubbing other peoples noses in it when it suited me. I took it to the max in my Economics A level when my teacher soberly advised me to do no work and concentrate on other subjects as an "F" was inevitable. I took his advice, but got a "B" (this was a long time ago when a B was quite a high grade). He was quite unhappy as it happened, especially when I sought him out after results were issued to remind him.

At this point I imagine that posters will be shocked virtually to disbelief to hear that the young bogbrush behaved in this sort of way, but it's absolutely true!  

My point is that for me it was a badge of honour that I did this without resorting to the grubby business of studying, and anyone who got very good grades (or, shock, better than me) was immediately dismissed as a "hard worker". Similarly, us Federer fans can point to a 10-Slam winner like Djokovic and shake our heads regretfully, muttering "runs a lot" while celebrating the one pure way to win Slams.

That was almost said with a Piers Morgan like smugness BB

Come on LK, let's do this to BB!
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/scrubs/images/c/c7/2x19_Hanging_wedgie.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090720010519