Rafa Nadal "My uncle, the philosopher ;)"

First topic message reminder :

My uncle, the philosopher http://bit.ly/1U3FMTt

https://twitter.com/RafaelNadal/status/707618995650822144

Toni Nadal:The future of tennis

I’ll start with a quote from Mario Vargas Llosa’s essay “The civilization of the spectacle”:

"Today, sport has acquired an importance that in the past it possessed only in Ancient Greece. For Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and other frequenters of the Academy, the cultivation of the body was simultaneous and complementary to the cultivation of the spirit. It was believed that both are mutually enriched. The difference with our time is that now, generally, the practice of sports is made at the expense of, and instead of, intellectual work ".

In the past, when we watched players like IlieNastase, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Björn Borg we didn’t just appreciate their different styles, but we marveled at the way they could improvise and produce strategies to defeat each one of their opponents. They prepared each and every point and resolved them in their own way. We admired their talent as tennis players, but we loved their intelligent approach to the game as well.

Today, though, certain developments in the world of tennis are a cause for concern. A few days ago I read that at the recent Australian Open, more than seventy per cent of the points did not last longer than four shots. The statistics are similar at last year’s US Open. These figures may not surprise us, but the people who love this sport have reason to be worried.

There have been no changes in the rules of tennis since it first became a professional sport, even though today’s players are far bigger and more powerful than their predecessors. Not to mention their rackets which have become high technology weapons made out of extralight, lethal materials.

We all know that other sports like Formula 1, football and basketball have introduced changes in order to make the races or the games more entertaining.

I think I can predict where the future of tennis is heading, and I’m afraid I don’t like what I see. If nothing is done, we will soon be witness to the almost total domination of speed and power to the detriment of skills and tactics. Tennis will just become a matter of brute force, rather than a sport in which players need to work on improving their skills, reflect on the game, and apply intelligent strategies.

If the trend continues, those of us who are involved in the game will have to adapt: we’ll have to leave our principles to one side and pursue a new kind of training that ignores reflection and leads to what the wise men of Greece rejected centuries ago: the separation of sport from the cultivation of the spirit.



Toni Nadal

Born Slippy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Your point was that players win matches by chasing down half court balls. That wasn't what happened in that match. Not sure why you need your own point explaining to you though.

Where did I say that chasing half balls occurred in that match?

Again read before commenting.

Lol - so you went off on a complete non sequitur? You were giving that as an example of Murray hitting one winner in a set to support your earlier point about players winning based on defence and how it wasn't entertaining. I agree it wasn't entertaining but just pointed out it isn't a good example of the type of match you were complaining about.

I asked the question of how a set won by one winner displayed a high level of skill of the player who won it? I admit I was being totally @nal by using the 'stats' like many use on here. You suggest the serving, I see it otherwise.

There is a clear divide among posters of those who like the defensive nature of the game which does involve a lot of rallying and those who like the attacking nature which relies a lot less on rallying as per se. The strange thing is posters on both sides of the spectrum are willing to accept a balance of both styles, but seem hell bent on the enforcement that their preferred nature is much better. If we had a hybrid compromise, maybe views and appreciations would change if the game catered for all.

In all sport the greatest affection is for the competitor who attacks, takes risks and is the cause of great things happening.

* Football: people love the old Brazil but despise the Italian catenaccio style despite the latters success
* Cricket: Flamboyant batsmen are the stuff of legend, great defenders command respect for their slow double-centuries

The desire for attacking play isn't a call for ace-fests, it's for the players who take the risks and are the reason even the counterpunchers get watched to get a decent probability of reward for their daring. There's a reason that the most boring match-up in modern tennis is Djokovic v Murray, whereas Djokovic v Federer commands attention, and it isn't (obviously) Djokovic.

Two great attackers can make a spectacle; an attacker and a counter-puncher can too; two counter-punchers is tedious. That's why, in my opinion, it is legitimate to declare the attacking style inherently superior - because the game simply can't function without it.

Born Slippy wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:A simpler test would be to think of maybe 5-10 fittest players in top 100 vs 5-10 best servers and again check their ranking. I doubt the serve will come out as the more important measure of success.

I totally agree. Take Djokovic, yes he has a good serve be he is not up there with the greatest, but he is a Duracell Bunny with an incredible return.
Rafa hasn't a decent serve at all .. but, of course until recently, has not let that stop him.. he too is a great returner and  a great athlete.
I would hate to see the game being dominated by big servers, but at the end of the day I think fitness will win out in the end.

Lastly to illustrate my point  take the time to check out Ferrer's h 2 h against all the big players.. it is quite astonishing.

Ferrer beats the big servers because he is a great returner. What role does fitness play in those wins? He usually wins fairly quickly. You appear to be making the same mistake as SB and conflating great returns, rock solid ground strokes and speed into one category of "fitness".

Oh BS realty??? don't presume to tell me Ferrer is not fit...there cant be a more hardworking player out their on court.
He is well in his 30's now and he never gives in.. I cant go along with your opinion on that. He gives it his all and then some he never stops running

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1343596-top-10-profile-david-ferrer

The spunky Spaniard

I don't disagree with that Haddie but that isn't the point I'm making. Fitness doesn't play a large role in Ferrer beating Isner. His ability to return is what gives him the edge.

Well then yes I agree.. what I was saying above about David's record against the big boys, i.e. those who have big serves, Isner, Raonic, Berdych is quite phenomenal.. the point I'm making is that I feel that players like David will win out in the end against big servers. Lets be fair Rafa's biggest weapon was his top spin, more than any other player ever, but what has happened players have trained and worked to nullify it.
As will players like David against the big servers who will obviously,have some advantage, but unless we get another Pete Sampras.. serve alone will not do it.. and fitness, mobility, returns..will imo win out on the day.
Players will work harder to have a good return of serve.

bogbrush wrote:In all sport the greatest affection is for the competitor who attacks, takes risks and is the cause of great things happening.

* Football: people love the old Brazil but despise the Italian catenaccio style despite the latters success
* Cricket: Flamboyant batsmen are the stuff of legend, great defenders command respect for their slow double-centuries

The desire for attacking play isn't a call for ace-fests, it's for the players who take the risks and are the reason even the counterpunchers get watched to get a decent probability of reward for their daring. There's a reason that the most boring match-up in modern tennis is Djokovic v Murray, whereas Djokovic v Federer commands attention, and it isn't (obviously) Djokovic.

Two great attackers can make a spectacle; an attacker and a counter-puncher can too; two counter-punchers is tedious. That's why, in my opinion, it is legitimate to declare the attacking style inherently superior - because the game simply can't function without it.

Nadal produces more wow shots in one match than most big servers have done in their whole career.

I'll select 2 I found from the last 2 days itself:
Doubles vs Bryan brothers:
https://youtu.be/0y05FdxgW8k

Yesterday against Muller:
https://www.facebook.com/278612362162774/videos/1188414524515882/

Also about how exciting it always is to watch attacking players play each other... I was checking on the stats count for Raonic vs Federer in Indian Wells a few years ago Federer is a player I like watching, Raonic not so much.
67% of the points were decided between 1-3 shots. Imagine that, 2/3rds of the points with basically no action, over in less than 5 seconds.
I checked, Federer vs Gasquet in the US Open last year... and it was 68%. I remember watching the match at the time and thinking it was a bit dull... and now I have the figures to explain it !
Again I love watching Federer, but mainly against people who aren't servebots and can return well enough to start some rallies.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Your point was that players win matches by chasing down half court balls. That wasn't what happened in that match. Not sure why you need your own point explaining to you though.

Where did I say that chasing half balls occurred in that match?

Again read before commenting.

Lol - so you went off on a complete non sequitur? You were giving that as an example of Murray hitting one winner in a set to support your earlier point about players winning based on defence and how it wasn't entertaining. I agree it wasn't entertaining but just pointed out it isn't a good example of the type of match you were complaining about.

I asked the question of how a set won by one winner displayed a high level of skill of the player who won it? I admit I was being totally @nal by using the 'stats' like many use on here. You suggest the serving, I see it otherwise.

There is a clear divide among posters of those who like the defensive nature of the game which does involve a lot of rallying and those who like the attacking nature which relies a lot less on rallying as per se. The strange thing is posters on both sides of the spectrum are willing to accept a balance of both styles, but seem hell bent on the enforcement that their preferred nature is much better. If we had a hybrid compromise, maybe views and appreciations would change if the game catered for all.

I think the distinction is what classifies as "defensive" tennis. I don't think there is a player I would classify as defensive in the top 10. They all try and get on the front foot and ensure they are in control of the rallies. Even Simon will take on anything short and try and seize control. I will accept that I get little enjoyment from watching players fire down aces repeatedly.

The argument isn't which style of tennis is better, it's the extent to which one or other is (or may become) dominant. Laver seems to be of the view that 90% of matches are dominated by 20+ shot rallies. I just don't see that at all.

Players will always use a mix of talents to win matches. But no player in the top 100 is there by fitness alone, trust me. At the top end, fitness is a factor and always has been - Borg anyone? - the top 5 players nearly always have prodigious levels of innate talent/seasoned fitness/innate movement/mental strength...and the mix will vary but they're all there. It's too superficial to focus on any one area...can't see the point of that. If we want to discuss how the 4 areas above vary for key players then yes lets do so but you'll also find the % mix for a top 5 player might be the same for a top 250 player just that the absolute levels are different.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In all sport the greatest affection is for the competitor who attacks, takes risks and is the cause of great things happening.

* Football: people love the old Brazil but despise the Italian catenaccio style despite the latters success
* Cricket: Flamboyant batsmen are the stuff of legend, great defenders command respect for their slow double-centuries

The desire for attacking play isn't a call for ace-fests, it's for the players who take the risks and are the reason even the counterpunchers get watched to get a decent probability of reward for their daring. There's a reason that the most boring match-up in modern tennis is Djokovic v Murray, whereas Djokovic v Federer commands attention, and it isn't (obviously) Djokovic.

Two great attackers can make a spectacle; an attacker and a counter-puncher can too; two counter-punchers is tedious. That's why, in my opinion, it is legitimate to declare the attacking style inherently superior - because the game simply can't function without it.

Nadal produces more wow shots in one match than most big servers have done in their whole career.

I'll select 2 I found from the last 2 days itself:
Doubles vs Bryan brothers:
https://youtu.be/0y05FdxgW8k

Yesterday against Muller:
https://www.facebook.com/278612362162774/videos/1188414524515882/

Also about how exciting it always is to watch attacking players play each other... I was checking on the stats count for Raonic vs Federer in Indian Wells a few years ago Federer is a player I like watching, Raonic not so much.
67% of the points were decided between 1-3 shots. Imagine that, 2/3rds of the points with basically no action, over in less than 5 seconds.
I checked, Federer vs Gasquet in the US Open last year... and it was 68%. I remember watching the match at the time and thinking it was a bit dull... and now I have the figures to explain it !
Again I love watching Federer, but mainly against people who aren't servebots and can return well enough to start some rallies.

BB was talking about "attacking" players rather than 'big servers or servebots'

My interpretation of a servebot (might not be yours) but is someone who just serves either 'aces' or 'un-returnable serves'

If you can achieve something in 1-3 steps rather than 10-11, why is that frowned upon? For me that reeks of efficiency which is never a bad thing.

That's fair comment but is it the kind of tennis you would glue yourself to the tv set for ..over a two week period.. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

There has to be something between that and a slugfest They will all be nodding off in the crowds at Wimbers !!!

Interesting that the Bryan Brothers only just sneaked past Rafa/Fernando 10-8 in the champions tiebreak...just shows what would happen if the top singles players also properly focused on doubles.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
If you can achieve something in 1-3 steps rather than 10-11, why is that frowned upon? For me that reeks of efficiency which is never a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's inefficient..
I'm saying I find rallies which are 1-3 shots long tend to be in isolation quite dull and without action. When was the last time you applauded a point that was over within 1-3 shots ?

Also people keep making the points about variety, but they seem to be ignoring the percentages and the facts.
The stereotype for Nadal vs Djokovic is that it's all long rallies, let's have a look (from tennis abstract.com btw if you want to explore more matches):

Nadal vs Djokovic WTF 2015:
1-3 shot rallies- 50%
10+ shot rallies- 11%
=4.5x more 1-3 rallies than 10+

Federer vs Wawrinka USO 2015:
1-3 shot rallies- 65%
10+ shot rallies- 4%
=16x more 1-3 rallies than 10+

So when people who want play to aid servers more, are they really calling for more 'variety' ??
They aren't happy with there being around 5 times more 1-3 shot rallies than 10+ shot rallies ? It has to be 16 times more ?
I'm the one calling for some variety, I want the number of points in a match decided in 1-3 shots to be 40-45% at-most, rather than dominating to such an extent that it's around two-thirds/ 70% of all the points.

Haddie-nuff wrote:That's fair comment but is it the kind of tennis you would glue yourself to the tv set for ..over  a two week period.. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

There has to be something between that and a slugfest They  will all be nodding off in the crowds at  Wimbers !!!

Let me ask. What is the difference in watching say 1-2 FH's in a rally as opposed to same type of shot but carried out over 10-11 times? If the outcome of the rally is the same, which is a FH winner.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
If you can achieve something in 1-3 steps rather than 10-11, why is that frowned upon? For me that reeks of efficiency which is never a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's inefficient..
I'm saying I find rallies which are 1-3 shots long tend to be in isolation quite dull and without action. When was the last time you applauded a point that was over within 1-3 shots ?

Also people keep making the points about variety, but they seem to be ignoring the percentages and the facts.
The stereotype for Nadal vs Djokovic is that it's all long rallies, let's have a look (from tennis abstract.com btw if you want to explore more matches):

Nadal vs Djokovic WTF 2015:
1-3 shot rallies- 50%
10+ shot rallies- 11%
=4.5x more 1-3 rallies than 10+

Federer vs Wawrinka USO 2015:
1-3 shot rallies- 65%
10+ shot rallies- 4%
=16x more 1-3 rallies than 10+

So when people who want play to aid servers more, are they really calling for more 'variety' ??
They aren't happy with there being around 5 times more 1-3 shot rallies than 10+ shot rallies ? It has to be 16 times more ?
I'm the one calling for some variety, I want the number of points in a match decided in 1-3 shots to be 40-45% at-most, rather than dominating to such an extent that it's around two-thirds/ 70% of all the points.

Again you are emphasising servers. It's not about the serve. It's about attacking shots.

Yes I see what your getting at but I have to say I'm not talking about the same forehand 10-11 times say to your opponents bh, hopefully until they make an error.. that I have to say is as boring .. I'm echoing some comments above.. variety I suppose. Certainly not servbots..as you call them.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Again you are emphasising servers. It's not about the serve. It's about attacking shots.

Be honest though LK, the vast majority of 1-3 shot rallies are decided by the serve (can be unreturnable, or an simple put-away).

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Again you are emphasising servers. It's not about the serve. It's about attacking shots.

Be honest though LK, the vast majority of 1-3 shot rallies are decided by the serve (can be unreturnable, or an simple put-away).

Or a UE.

As much as I love stats, they sometimes don't represent the full picture. I don't take an issue with players who put on a serving clinic, such is the rarity that match is dictated by the server. As you say Federer for example is a fantastic server, not reliant on brute force.

lydian wrote:Interesting that the Bryan Brothers only just sneaked past Rafa/Fernando 10-8 in the champions tiebreak...just shows what would happen if the top singles players also properly focused on doubles.

McEnroe, for one - a chap very keen on doubles - has said in the past that he considers the current doubles standard not very high, citing the absence of the top singles players at most tournaments. Interesting to see that del Potro and Mayer - a scratch pairing - managed to thrash number two seeds Dodig and Melo 3 and 2 at IW.
Andy Murray, I'm sure, would have been a very good doubles player and no doubt some of the other top singles guys would have made a go of it as well.

lydian wrote:Interesting that the Bryan Brothers only just sneaked past Rafa/Fernando 10-8 in the champions tiebreak...just shows what would happen if the top singles players also properly focused on doubles.

Absolutely, the Bryans are false doubles greats. They've never had to win like the great Aussies McNamee & McNarama did, against the very best players. Hell, they got done in the Olympics by Stan & Fed.

Nadal after his match with Zverev

Q. In the final set there was a fabulous point. The crowd yelled. He got a time violation warning. In the past, you said that with our best points in tennis, the crowd is yelling, there should not be time violation warnings. Do you think chair umpire should have a rule where they can put extra time in after long points and when the crowd is yelling?
RAFAEL NADAL: You like this sport?

Q. I love it.
RAFAEL NADAL: Me too. So the real thing is I don't remember -- the best matches I watched, in my opinion, was not the matches that was matches that every point was two, three shots. No. That's the real thing. That's don't involved the crowd to the match.

You know, that's don't -- this is not emotional game, you know, when you hit one, two, three shots and that's it. And the people loves the sport when the sport become emotional.

To become emotional needs drama, needs physical issue, needs long points. And if you let one long points, it's obvious that the rule is not the right one.

But I will not say. Again, everybody knows what I think about it, and that's it. No, no, no, nothing to do. Somebody wanted that rule, and when somebody with a lot of power want the rule, the people who run the sport follow that. So that's it.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=117677

I agree with Toni Nadal - the tennis authorities need to be vigilant about the evolution of the game. The move to make the courts slower and the balls to take on more spin had the desired effect for a time. But the evolution of the athletes playing tennis has caught up and we are now approaching the wham bam thank you ma'am era of tennis all over again. I would like to see them get ahead of that, and for the moment the only viable option would be to make the court bigger, but that would have significant side effects. Net play would be even more difficult, and it would be murder on the women who already struggle to recreate the level of court coverage and defense of the men. Furthermore it would render the history of the game irrelevant to the modern game, and that would be the death of tennis. Another option would be to reduce the length and wide of the service court, while keep the other dimensions the same, but that might have the effect of unduly benefitting only those behemoths who can hit the angles from their exceptional vantage point.

In this there are no easy answers.