Time machine

First topic message reminder :

During the exiting final of Queens i was wondering what would happen if we send the current top 50 back in time 30 years.
So what would the top 10 ranking be if tennis was played with smaller and heavier rackets and balls?

I’d say the top 4 would survive. Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils are out, simply not handy enough. Sod had very good results on indoor courts, knows how to play under fast conditions but i chose Delpo instead.
Fish is an interesting one, i’ve seen him play live and was impressed with how clean the guy can hit a ball. He looks heavy on the screen but in real live appears to be a very decent player. But he just didn't made it..
I would say some single handed BH’ers would be more succesful and of course the attacking ones.
A big server has to be on my list too.

And now the difficult part, the ranking. BTW: I’m not judging upon the current form, just the bigger picture. My principles: Serve and netplay become more important, fitness and the importance of the DHBH: the opposite

10. Andy Roddick, how to break his serve under those conditions? He’s a top 10 player for 8 years now, so 30 years ago he would he would be one too

9. Youznhy. The guy wasn’t made for these times but would have been very competitive back then. His lack of power wouldn’t have been such a big deal. And i want an extra SHBH on the list.

8. Delpo, Probably the most talented of todays big hitters. Just recall the US open 2009 final and it’s hard to ignore him.

7. Tsonga. 2 words: Yannick Noah

6. Nadal. Week in week out playing on courts like Bercy or Cincy, AND faster balls? Ouch! But hey, there still would be clay and that’s where he would secure his top 10 position

5. Gasquet. See Youznhy, even more talented though. Plenty of room for artists early 80’s

4. Djoko. Two words: Jimmy Conners (don’t worry, i like Djoko much more than Jimbo!)

3. Murray. Under those conditions i rank him higher than Djoko: softer hands! His passive FH wouldn’t have been such a weakness. Even Borg was “placing” the ball with his FH like Andy does so often.

2. Nalbandian. The grinding got the better of his hips, wouldn’t have happened back then. Would have loved the carpet. Proved he can be too fast for my no.1 too on several occasions.

1. Federer. Remove Nadals FH crosscourt, what could have stopped Federer from winning 20 slams?

I know Davydenko should be on the list, but i don’t want to sacrifice Youznhy

Remember, pick your players from todays top 50. This is not meant to be a Nadal-Borg debate.

But why would Nadal hit flat when he won 10 slams playing the way he does. We saw at the USO last year that when hitting flat, he is almost unbeatble of that surface. There is no law which saws a player must hit flat shots in game and no one decides which shots are acceptable in tennis. All personal opinion. A Nadal topspin forehand especially on clay is one of the most amazing shots in tennis past or present.

Good posts by dummyhalf and lydian. Regards to Nadal flattening it out i saw him hit a forehand that they clocked at 109 miles per hour at the AO 2009, it was the hardest groundstroke I had ever seen clocked until JMDP at that USO. Nadal does flatten it out from time to time and when he does it is frightening, because Nadal probably has the best swing speed on tour or at least top three. Generating pace or spin requires swing speed, just different types of swings and grips, you still need velocity on the racquet head.

I don't think it's as simple as him choosing not to hit flatter balls in match play.

If it were that simple, he would have hitten flatter, deeper forehands against Djokovic. That would have given him the depth, forcing Joker off the baseline and would also have meant that without the extra topspin, the ball would not have been in the Djokovic hitting zone.

Infact Nadal himself alluded to the need to hit flatter and deeper against Djokovic in a number of his presssers. The fact that he was bemoaning the shorter forehands indicates that it's not an easy thing to change.

wrt talent for timing. It is easier to time the ball from five feet behind the baseline, on a slow court, with a lot time to make adjustments, than it is to time the early ball, on the baseline, playing on a faster surface. In this respect the likes of Agassi, Fed, Davy etc, have much better timing than Nadal.

Additionally, as we all know, Rafa's extreme topspin creates higher net clearance and makes it easier for the ball to land within the lines. Hence perfect timing is not as crucial for him as say the aforementioned players.

Analyst,

No one is saying that he should change his essential style of play, with lots of topspin in the current era.

The issue was only brought up vis-a-vis his effectiveness with wooden rackets, wherein I suggested that he would have more success with a wooden racket if he could adapt to playing with less spin.

However, having said that, of course hitting flatter and deeper is an effective strategy on faster courts, and we saw Nadal make some of these adjustments at the USO.

Yes is not simple as Nadal just changing to hit flatter but if he wants to make it a consistent part of his game, he can and i'll not be suprise if he changes his grip and style of play as well as flatter shots once again at the USO. That might become a problem for others as Nadal can adopt their play on hc but when clay comes they can't play his kind of shots. Many are wondering where Nadal's USO serve has gone but according to and interview with uncle Toni, they agreed he returns to his pre USO serving.
With regard to Nadal against Djokovic, I thought Nadal played too many short balls lacking in length to Djokovic in their matches.

emancipator I agree with your points, I used to be a really flat ball striker and I changed to a more western grip with bigger strokes, I still take the ball relatively early I stand close to the baseline. But now that I hit with more spin sometimes I frame groundstrokes and find that even when I frame it the ball goes in and usually wins the point because when it bounces it veers left and right and kicks up like a mother.

socal1976 wrote:But now that I hit with more spin sometimes I frame groundstrokes and find that even when I frame it the ball goes in and usually wins the point because when it bounces it veers left and right and kicks up like a mother.

Do you use more energy while hitting flat vs spin? What about timing (framing the ball is perhaps a lack of timing)?

Nadal is not just a topspin, lobbing, hit it forever player.

For those of you who think so, are just wiping the a4se of generalisation.

Why not expand your vision if you want to pick out all his bad points and criticise his lobbying habits, for a start, he is not the only player who relies heavily on this tactic at certain times in a game, in fact on clay it is the respected way to play, if you know anything about or have watched tennis over the last 4 decades.

Secondly, he's not a one dimensional player as we have seen on innumerable occasions on court during a match. Instead of droning on about the same shot you seem to think he plays all the time, watch him and see for yourself, he plays a varied game and his accuracy to the lines shouts talent. If you can't see that then you opinion is clouded by your insane dislike of him.

Bla bla bla .... m00nb4lling ... bla bla bla .... physical ... bla bla bla ... topspin ... bla bla bla ... go out and do something more worthwhile than spending hours on a forum posting stupid, inaccurate comments about a great player who has won a ton of slams and has provided, with another great player some of the best slam finals you'll ever see.

Or find something else to bang on about day after day after day....zzzzzzzzzzzz.....

tenez wrote..."and you may not have realised that the harder he hits them, the safer they get"

ROFLOL and splitting my sides and spilling my guts all over the floor ...

That just goes to prove what an complete "L" you are Tenez. You have obviously never hit a tennis ball with a tennis racquet in your life.

Hey Jubba,

Easy there tiger. Can we just calm down a bit?

Thanks

Just calling him a Learner Legend, I mean really, the harder you hit a ball the safer they get !!!

I know, the faster I drive my car, the safer it I become or the faster a bullet comes at my head the safer I feel.

Wow, Einstein was really thick wasn't he ?

It was a comical remark, but I would treat with the disdain it deserves

I know we have a "blasphemy" filter Legend, how about a "Farcical post" filter and replace the sentence with "L alert!"

Oh child Jubba,

hey to you too,

Thou dost require a chill pill,

Ye may be 99 years old but ye are still nought but a twinkling in comparison to emancipator.

I may make thee a disciple

emancipator wrote:Oh child Jubba,

hey to you too,

Thou dost require a chill pill,

Ye may be 99 years old but ye are still nought but a twinkling in comparison to emancipator.

I may make thee a disciple

Its not even midnight yet

Keep laughing Jubba! you are only laughing at your Legendary ignorence.

Clearly you are still playing with a wooden racquet, I mean those used to walk on snow. I'll give you a clue, as yuo pretend to play the game....try to topspin a ball slowly.....then little by little swing faster...tell us then which shot you control better, the slower swings or the faster ones? Proceed again with a pacy ball coming at you..and try to swing slowly...and let me know how successful you are.

The harder Nadal hits the ball the more the ball will clear the net and the more it will stay in the court...basic notion of topspinning...that clearly you haven't got.

Lol, funny interpretation. What Tenez fails to understand is generating that amount of topspin doesn't just come from how hard the ball is hit but importantly from racquet swing, motion involved with the arm etc. If That's hard to understand perhaps you should follow other sports. Ever wonder why so many players hit a harder forehand than Nadal but can't get that much spin?

It's all in racquet head control before and after impact with the ball. Hitting harder if anything will rush the shot and control of the ball. Nadal will hit harder when he runs around his backhand to gain more power on the shot and get the ball closer to the baseline. His cross court forehand does the opposite, he hits less harder and swings to generate as much topspin which creates those angles or crazy bounces on clay, if he hits harder, the ball will go out or will have less spin. Timing, racquet head control and swing motion creates those balls and of course power.

It's all in racquet head control before and after impact with the ball. Hitting harder if anything will rush the shot and control of the ball. Nadal will hit harder when he runs around his backhand to gain more power on the shot and get the ball closer to the baseline. His cross court forehand does the opposite, he hits less harder and swings to generate as much topspin which creates those angles or crazy bounces on clay, if he hits harder, the ball will go out or will have less spin. Timing, racquet head control and swing motion creates those balls and of course power.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol, funny interpretation. What Tenez fails to understand is generating that amount of topspin doesn't just come from how hard the ball is hit but importantly from racquet swing, motion involved with the arm etc.

Thanks. it never occured to me that the racquet swing pace had nothing to do with how fast the arm was swinging. I really thought they were related somehow.

That's the part you failing to understand racquet swing to generate topspin on a shot in the case of Nadal doesn't need to be hard. The motion action, timing are all crucial. Good to see as usual you've come back with no worthy response and completely failing to counter all points I raised including why players who hit harder forehands than Nadal can generate 4200 rpm on balls.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:But now that I hit with more spin sometimes I frame groundstrokes and find that even when I frame it the ball goes in and usually wins the point because when it bounces it veers left and right and kicks up like a mother.

Do you use more energy while hitting flat vs spin? What about timing (framing the ball is perhaps a lack of timing)?

Laverfan you definetly use way more energy on the ball hitting it with a western and with bigger swings. I used to be a very early ball striker, with very compact swings, hitting the ball totally flat. But now I swing faster, bigger, and take the ball maybe a fraction later although I still pretty much hit the ball quite early. The thing is that when you take a big swing with more spin its actually harder to hit the ball cleanly, but even if you don't hit the ball just right you still come up with a pretty decent shot. And if anything I have found hitting with more spin has helped me to hit more winners, I can place the ball better and hit angles that just aren't possible with a flat shot. I am not Nadalesque obviously with my spin, I would say that I went from a dead flat hitter to sort of semi western hitter that hits both with spin and flat.

Simple_Analyst wrote:That's the part you failing to understand racquet swing to generate topspin on a shot in the case of Nadal doesn't need to be hard. The motion action, timing are all crucial. Good to see as usual you've come back with no worthy response and completely failing to counter all points I raised including why players who hit harder forehands than Nadal can generate 4200 rpm on balls.

I have called you Wyse a few times cause I thought you were Wyse Analyst but clearly you are not. Wyse was a savvy tennis poster.

If you played the game, you'd know that it's easier to swing swiftly on a faster ball than swing "slowlier" and flatter.

All the great ball strickers of this world have a comparative slower swing motion: McEnroe, Mecir, Becker, Federer....they have this slow "cat like" timing..only seen in the very best players.

Now you are going to say that Fed's racquet's speed is phenomenal...sure he can also swing extremly fast but on his best FHs, those who don;t come back and have that added pace, they are slower racquet swing, ball taken early and much flatter and that is the shot that gave him his first 10 slams or so. Those became very risky as players, especially Nadal, added more topspin than ever to make sure this stroke of genius was pushed to the limit....hoping to get UEs from that. And the way to do that was to hit senselessly, making sure to maximise topspin. What is very clear when you watch Nadal v Federer is that Nadal doesn't care that much where the ball lands as long as it gets on Fed's BH ball going 2 meters over the net falling inside the service line (how safer can this shot be?) but what he makes sure is that it has the max amount of spin. In fact Nadal hits so hard that he can't even control how much spin he puts in it and therefore never sends quite the same ball which makes it even harder to get a rhythm out of it.

But don't get fooled, this kind of game can only be played with special stamina and power. Apply the 20s rule and you might see him going completely out of breath like he did in Miami 2005....or evn in that Wimbledon 5 setters he lost by missing a few easy FHs in that 5th set cuse he could not swing as fast (another proof that it is easier to time the ball with a fst swing than a slow one).

Lol so you backing my point that spin generated on a ball is the swing motion. Answer the simple question, why can't players with bigger and harder forehands than Nadal not generate as much spin as him?. What do you make of my comment above regarding Nadal running around his backhand to hit a forehand and his cross court shot. Next time you'll be telling me the harder a slice shot is hit, the safer it is or the harder a drop shot is the safer it is. Lol

the simple question, why can't players with bigger and harder forehands than Nadal not generate as much spin as him?
-----------------------------------------------

Three things: First, I don't think there is a bigger gun in the men's game than Nadal's.

Secondly, why would they want to topspin like Nadal when they can actually flatten the ball and hit it harder with less effort? Why woudl Delpotro or Soderling want to hit the ball with more spin when they can flatten winners more easily?


Thirdly, I can answer my second point: hitting constantly with heaving topspin is pretty tiring and more so is that a heavy topspin makes the ball land short and therefore invite the opponent into longer rallying...which of course neither Delpo or Soderling are keen about.

Does that answer your question Simple?

A bigger gun than Nadal? What's that? A bigger forehand? You'll be completely wrong. Even a flat out forehand from Nadal as we saw at the USO is no where near that of big forehands in the game.
So you saying by flattening the ball they hit harder. Sure with the likes of Soderling who has lost so many times to Nadal, if hitting the ball harder according to your wierd logic is safer as it generates more spin, why wouldn't he apply this to target Federer's backhand? If hitting the ball harder is safer as it generates more spin you say Soderling, Del Potro should all be generating rpm in excess of 4200 should they wish but guess what, they cannot. They don't have the swing motion/action of Nadal together with accurately timing the shot to produce that much spin. If Federer is known to struggle with high bouncing topspin shots on his backhand, more fool them when they hit flatter to it when according to you, they could hit harder to generate a Nadal-like topspin.
Of course heavy topspin is tiring but so is flat hitting, they both require power and strength, easy to see. Del Potro and Soderling are not keen on rallying so why they don't play topspin like Nadal? Lol.

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Of course heavy topspin is tiring but so is flat hitting, they both require power and strength, easy to see. Del Potro and Soderling are not keen on rallying so why they don't play topspin like Nadal? Lol.

You Boromir?

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Of course heavy topspin is tiring but so is flat hitting, they both require power and strength, easy to see. Del Potro and Soderling are not keen on rallying so why they don't play topspin like Nadal? Lol.

You Boromir?

Lol. You chickening out?

I'm playing a recretional tennis match this weekend and i'll keep in mind your laws of physics that the harder i hit the ball the safer it will be and land in the court.

Aaah Boromir, son of Denethor, Steward of Gondor.

What a stray individual this fella was! His lust for power made him blind to reality.

I do suspect that he may have been the Uneducated and Biased one.

He may also have been Powerless Cat of the Land.

There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the earth.

Tenez wrote:But don't get fooled, this kind of game can only be played with special stamina and power. Apply the 20s rule and you might see him going completely out of breath like he did in Miami 2005....

And therein lies the crystallised thesis of all that Tenez stands for on every forum I've seen him on. Just what is this "special stamina" you refer to Tenez?

Oh here we go with that hugely defining moment of one match in Miami 2005 again....lets not let facts get in the way such as Nadal being just 18 yrs old and had been on a long clay run in South America (he used to have a different playing schedule back then). You always pick this match Tenez as though its some form of definitive piece of evidence...what about the other 24 matches Nadal and Federer have played where Nadal is within 20secs? Or the other 100s of matches Nadal has played within 20secs? The 20s rule is misinterpreted by watchers of the game which I'll come to later. You always pick minutae and then extrapolate and generalise them across a players future career to suit your argument. But besides that anyway, Nadal rarely looks tired inbetween points across the years...as does Federer rarely, as do many others. Many of the top players can last sets of multi-stroke ralleying if need be. Your assertion that Nadal needs long breaks to sustain his physical game is not borne out by what we see across the years and 100s of matches, but instead you pick ONE match when the guy was young, tired from a long run, and a long 5-set match in itself. Its ridicuolus cherry picking.

And then you really surprise me. What do you think Mecir...McEnroe...Becker...and even Federer (and also Sampras, you missed him in the list I noted) have in common? They all play the game "old school". Their tennis strokes and FH technique are literally old school - mainly Continental or Eastern FHs. Fed's is known to be just off Eastern. Now Fed has a great FH, dont get me wrong, but its based on old grip techniques which in the modern quicker game are not as reliable to use and result in balls hit long or shanked more as the player tries to get more top to keep them in.

Additionally, Federer's groundstrokes principally came out of learning to play the game with old technology - a 85sqin Prostaff racquet - that many of the old school also used. All the players above played with smaller, heavier racquets that encouraged the use of Conti/Eastern FHs and flatter shots. Federer took that old school to its pinnacle using a slightly more extreme Eastern grip but its still ol school derived. And they all developed forearms like PopEye to cope with those racquets.

So stroke production, like racquets, like strings, has come on alot since the 80s/90s. Nadal's basic FH technique is not flawed, its the future of tennis - its being able to exert maximum power with maximum control because maximum flat hitting does not have maximum control. Because of this need to balance power and control modern players are moving towards the use of semi-western and increasingly so, western grips. Nadal's grip is the same as Nole, and many others. He doesnt need to be fitter than those guys because of the grip, it the same. However, what is unique to Nadal is the amount of whip and timing he gets to create that prodigous RPM. But it doesnt need more power, its simply better timing. Otherwise, if it was simply power and strength then many powerful tennis guys could generate it. But they cant. We need to drop this baloney about Nadal needing to be stronger and fitter to play his strokes...its a complete fallacy. Also, his racquet is lighter than Federer's so takes less energy to wield. Its a talent of timing, not power. Sure he's strong, but no more than Fed, Nole or Andy. Indeed, Fed underwent a 3 YEAR high intensity strength and fitness programme - the results of which argulably pushed guys like Nadal, Nole, Murray down the fitness route in later years. So we cant say Nadal changed the "physical" side of the game when it was actually Federer who set the new bar and recognised the important of strength in the game as an overall need.

So Tenez, I hope that you firstly quote this reference: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004 whenever you talk about the physicality of Nadal.

The other fallacy is the 20s rule. Nadal's ralleys tend to be longer than most creating drama and applause. The umpire waits for the applause to die down before calling the score, then Nadal has 20secs. Many stats show Nadal by and large sticks within the time allowed - its why he's rarely warned! Again, its another fallacy perpetuated by some quarters to justify their "house of cards" set of points. This is because many people dont understand how the score is actually called - i.e. its not based on time elapsed after the ball went out of play.

lydian wrote:
The other fallacy is the 20s rule. Nadal's ralleys tend to be longer than most creating drama and applause. The umpire waits for the applause to die down before calling the score, then Nadal has 20secs. Many stats show Nadal by and large sticks within the time allowed - its why he's rarely warned! Again, its another fallacy perpetuated by some quarters to justify their "house of cards" set of points. This is because many people dont understand how the score is actually called - i.e. its not based on time elapsed after the ball went out of play.

Yes of course! Nadal always gets 20 seconds extra applause! He's not wasting time, he just waits patiently for the audience to silence so he can start his 20 secs of preparation time...


BTW: Nadal is not warned often enough, but he's by far the most warned player in tennis, fact.

Oh I understand, whereas the other players always serve when the crowd is still roaring its appreciation right? Complete cobblers

Next you'll be telling us that Nadal is orchestrating the crowd to cheer longer giving him extra time too

Nadal is always on the upper end of time between points. He has these OCD routines he goes through, etc, like his water bottles, all the players know that its just Nadal's idiosyncracies and mental preparation that he's always had from being a young player. Djokovic pushes it probably even more so - and I would say he gets warned more. However, none of it is connected to trying to buy stamina between points - and besides which dont the other guys need to benefit from the supposed extra time Nadal gets between points because, as we are told by Tenez, they are physically inferior to Nadal's "special stamina". If anything with his superior stamina he should be serving immedaitely for the next point to give the other guys no time to recover!
Seems like another oxymoron point to me

Again, its all cobblers built on hot air and a concerted desire to knock the guys' abilities and achievements.

lydian wrote:
Next you'll be telling us that Nadal is orchestrating the crowd to cheer longer giving him extra time too

This longer cheer for Nadal was your idiotic idea, so you can't use that against me

I'm knocking the guys abilities for saying he's the most warned man in tennis? Too much blindly defending Nadal kills your rationality i'm afraid

No GP, my idea is not idiotic - its ATP rules that play can start up to 20s after the umpire calls the score. All players wait until the crowd has settled for obvious reasons - thats where you idea is idiotic that he stands there taking his time for the crowd to settle down as though he's abusing the situation. All the players wait for crowds to settle.
Its just that Nadal tends to have longer ralleys which the crowd appreciate with more cheers, etc - because they tend to like and appreciate the battle of longer ralleys which Nadal often creates.

And again no GP, its not blind defence - its the opposite. Its standing up to the constant blind tirade the guy faces about how he abuses the game, how he abuses his physicality attributes , no talent, etc, etc, etc. All this against a guy who probably shows the most humility in the sport. Oh yes I forgot - thats just an act isnt it.

Quite frankly I'm sick of standing up to it...but trust me I'm quite happy to move on.

Suprisingly i've never seem to have a problem with how long a player takes between points and why a wastle almost no time in arguing over it.

lydian wrote:No GP, my idea is not idiotic - its ATP rules that play can start up to 20s after the umpire calls the score. All players wait until the crowd has settled for obvious reasons - thats where you idea is idiotic that he stands there taking his time for the crowd to settle down as though he's abusing the situation. They all do!
Its just that Nadal tends to have longer ralleys which the crowd appreciate with cheer, etc - because they tend to like and appreciate the battle of longer ralleys.

And again no GP, its not blind defence - its the opposite. Its standing up to the constant blind tirade the guy faces about how he abuses the game, how he abuses his physicality attributes , no talent, etc, etc, etc. All this against a guy who probably shows the most humility in the sport. Oh yes I forgot - thats just an act isnt it.

Quite frankly I'm sick of standing up to it...but trust me I'm quite happy to move on.

The longer cheer argument is nonsense, and definitely not an excuse for Nadal to take as much time as he does over and over again

The 20sec issue isnt clear cut (and its 25sec on ATP, 20sec ITF slams). One problem is that some of the perceived extra time can be attributed to cheering overhang shall we say, and the other can be that the players are often at the baseline going through routines as part of the their service motion which is after 20/25sec limit. The other issue is the almost ubiquitous use of the towel between points, not just for the face anymore but for whole body rubdowns - seems unnecessary to me and I blame Rusedski for it!

I think the time Nadal takes is kind of OCD linked in general and I think he wants more time to gather himself in times where every point is important. I have no beef in him and others being told to speed up - I think time with a sports psych might help him address some of his OCD tendencies, but I dont buy he takes extra time to enter into gamesmanship or buy more recovery time (as stated above I believe thats a complete oxymoron).

Nadal's basic FH technique is not flawed, its the future of tennis -

LOL! I think they are all studying Djoko's ATM.

Hi GP - I know it's not your style to argue much on a tennis board like I do,...but when you do, you are doing a great job.

Why would anyone study Djokovic's forehand? It has been on tour for many years and not much has been made of it. You seem to be on hope with Djokovic, be careful, you'll get disappointed. Nadal's forehand is revolutionary but good luck to anyone practicing that shot.

I have tried Nadal's forehand can't get the ball past the service line or over 20 miles per hour. I think it is a revolutionary shot but in my opinion I don't see every player being able to use it, even the top pros. It is very difficult to time the low balls.

One thing i have never understood about Tenez's time between points argument is this. If Nadal's principal strategy is to drive his opponents to exhaustion and he is the fittest player on tour. Well then if this is true then wouldn't it be better for Nadal to rush in between points and not give his opponents time to catch their breath. To grind his opponents to a pulp with a pace of play that has them catching their breath.

socal1976 wrote:If Nadal's principal strategy is to drive his opponents to exhaustion and he is the fittest player on tour. Well then if this is true then wouldn't it be better for Nadal to rush in between points and not give his opponents time to catch their breath. To grind his opponents to a pulp with a pace of play that has them catching their breath.

At last a good question on this matter. Very easy to explain. I never said Nadal's plan was to drive his opponents to exhaustion....but to blunt their sharpness by making them run in long rallies. Federer and most players can run 5 sets but it's playing well in the 4th and 5th set that is tricky for attacking players. That is the key. If you lose your edge, going for lines becomes a risky business so you play with more safety which in turns plays in Nadal's hands. However he has a less energy friendly game so if he wants to last the distance (4 or 5 sets), he has no choice than to make sure he takes an extra hour between points.

Look no further than teh Miami 2005 final match for the bst explanation. Federer was rushed for 2 sets, played poorly trying to adapt to that new opponent and found himself 2 sets down....However Nadal who was doing as much if not much more running and started to get exhausted in the 4th set. Which means, as you experience yourself, his topspin became shorter and less accurate...giving Federer easier shots to attack...which of course forced Nadal in doing more running....and guess what he lost the last 6 games! completely out of breath.

2 weeks later he added a well timed routine between point to control the time he was taking, helping him to win more gruelling 4 and 5 setters versus Coria in MC and Rome!!!

Look no further than the Miami 2005 final match for the best explanation. Federer was rushed for 2 sets, played poorly trying to adapt to that new opponent and found himself 2 sets down....However Nadal who was doing as much if not much more running and started to get exhausted in the 4th set. Which means, as you experience yourself, his topspin became shorter and less accurate...giving Federer easier shots to attack...which of course forced Nadal in doing more running....and guess what he lost the last 6 games! completely out of breath.

2 weeks later he added a well timed routine between point to control the time he was taking, helping him to win more gruelling 4 and 5 setters versus Coria in MC and Rome!!!

Oh deary me. I cannot believe now the number of times this one match in March 2005 is trotted out as “evidence” of some farcical theory of it being the day that changed tennis. Because as has been pointed out across numerous threads, Rafa’s work ethic, aptitude, mental strength, guts, tactics, fighting spirit … but most of all … talent … has resulted in him winning 10 Grand Slams, 18 Masters, the Olympic Gold and the Davis Cup. And yet still because an 18 year-old-boy on the cusp of his career in 2005 lost a 5-setter against a 23 year-old-man and Grand Slam champion it seemingly changed the face of history because at the next tournament, the wily Old Uncle whispered “Rafael. Take a few extra puffs between points and that will make you a Champion, my son.”

The only time I can remember Rafa looking really tired (and literally gasping for breath at the end of a point) was in the 2008 USO S/F fourth set against Murray and that was after a rain break before the match was concluded.

In fairness if a player is not 100% then that accounts for a lot!

Tenez wrote:Keep laughing Jubba! you are only laughing at your Legendary ignorence.

Clearly you are still playing with a wooden racquet, I mean those used to walk on snow. I'll give you a clue, as yuo pretend to play the game....try to topspin a ball slowly.....then little by little swing faster...tell us then which shot you control better, the slower swings or the faster ones? Proceed again with a pacy ball coming at you..and try to swing slowly...and let me know how successful you are.

The harder Nadal hits the ball the more the ball will clear the net and the more it will stay in the court...basic notion of topspinning...that clearly you haven't got.

Well that just about wraps it up for me, you are completely delusional. Of course the slower you hit the ball the less topspin you get, that's obvious to anybody, but that was not what you were saying. In fact, you get more control on the slower ball than a fast one, again that's obvious to anyone who has played tennis, the "fact" is, the harder you hit the ball, the less accuracy and less control you have over the shot. DOH!

There is a middle ground between speed and accuracy for topspin shots and Nadal has nailed that. Any faster and he is in danger of hitting long or into the net. Any slower and he doesn't get the depth and speed to allow him to hit the ball with any strength.

Again, this is all obvious, why you can't see that you are talking rubbish as usual is beyond me, there are so many posters on here that have played the game and know what it means to co-ordinate timing and body position to hit the ball with any kind of decent topspin requires tremendous concentration and above all talent, something which you eternally want to negate in Nadal's game.

Lastly, the reason no-one else wants to "copy" Nadal's topspin game is that they can't. His preparation for it shows an incredibly short backswing and rotation of the wrists at and just before impact, it is a swing that is almost impossible to teach without changing a persons natural swing completely. If any club player tried to copy it, he would be in danger of hurting his wrist, if you don't believe me......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

A good thing to notice is his flattening of the racquet to near horizontal, just before he shifts his weight from left to right through the right shoulder and right hip.

Now watch Andy Murray hit a forehand, this is how you normally teach a forehand topspin shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYFpNsJ-gFY&feature=related

Maybe you'll see the light one day, if you actually watch Nadal instead of slagging him off all the time.

I think the diet and fitness levels of the modern day guys would still see em pull through.

Not to mention eric that weightlifting was virtually unknown of in the tennis world by top pros until the late 70s.

Tenez wrote: At last a good question on this matter. Very easy to explain. I never said Nadal's plan was to drive his opponents to exhaustion....but to blunt their sharpness by making them run in long rallies. Federer and most players can run 5 sets but it's playing well in the 4th and 5th set that is tricky for attacking players. That is the key. If you lose your edge, going for lines becomes a risky business so you play with more safety which in turns plays in Nadal's hands. However he has a less energy friendly game so if he wants to last the distance (4 or 5 sets), he has no choice than to make sure he takes an extra hour between points.

Look no further than teh Miami 2005 final match for the bst explanation. Federer was rushed for 2 sets, played poorly trying to adapt to that new opponent and found himself 2 sets down....However Nadal who was doing as much if not much more running and started to get exhausted in the 4th set. Which means, as you experience yourself, his topspin became shorter and less accurate...giving Federer easier shots to attack...which of course forced Nadal in doing more running....and guess what he lost the last 6 games! completely out of breath.

2 weeks later he added a well timed routine between point to control the time he was taking, helping him to win more gruelling 4 and 5 setters versus Coria in MC and Rome!!!

Absolute and utter cobblers, and the fact your whole "Nadal Thesis" is pinned on this is laughable.
This argument has been broken down and debunked so many times.
You go on and on about 1 single tennis match when the guy was 18 years old.
Shall we analyse some of Federer's matches when he was 18 or even 20 years old? This is just so petty and pathetic.

So what you're saying is that up to Miami Nadal played at "normal" speed and he suffered because his stamina in long matches couldnt handle his play right? Therefore lets look at his earlier long matches.
If we look at Nadals other 5-set matches before Miami 2005 we get:

- AO 2005 vs Hewitt - Nadal lost an extremely close match in 4 hours. Hewitt ranked 3
- AO 2005 vs Youzhny - Nadal won in 3 hrs 40mins, Youzhny ranked 15
- USO 2004 vs Heuberger - Nadal won in 3 hours
- Wimb 2003 vs Ancic - Nadal won in 3 hours

So why didnt Nadal run out of gas in all these earlier matches when he was not using his new "service delay" technique?
They were all long matches for a young player (3 -4 hours).
We havent even looked at the 4 set matches where you said he started to run out of gas from but I would expect the same pattern.

Lets face it Tenez, your "theory" is just complete rubbish...none of these "arguments" of yours ever stand up to scrutiny

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: At last a good question on this matter. Very easy to explain. I never said Nadal's plan was to drive his opponents to exhaustion....but to blunt their sharpness by making them run in long rallies. Federer and most players can run 5 sets but it's playing well in the 4th and 5th set that is tricky for attacking players. That is the key. If you lose your edge, going for lines becomes a risky business so you play with more safety which in turns plays in Nadal's hands. However he has a less energy friendly game so if he wants to last the distance (4 or 5 sets), he has no choice than to make sure he takes an extra hour between points.

Look no further than teh Miami 2005 final match for the bst explanation. Federer was rushed for 2 sets, played poorly trying to adapt to that new opponent and found himself 2 sets down....However Nadal who was doing as much if not much more running and started to get exhausted in the 4th set. Which means, as you experience yourself, his topspin became shorter and less accurate...giving Federer easier shots to attack...which of course forced Nadal in doing more running....and guess what he lost the last 6 games! completely out of breath.

2 weeks later he added a well timed routine between point to control the time he was taking, helping him to win more gruelling 4 and 5 setters versus Coria in MC and Rome!!!

Absolute and utter cobblers, and the fact your whole "Nadal Thesis" is pinned on this is laughable.
This argument has been broken down and debunked so many times.
You go on and on about 1 single tennis match when the guy was 18 years old.
Shall we analyse some of Federer's matches when he was 18 or even 20 years old? This is just so petty and pathetic.

So what you're saying is that up to Miami Nadal played at "normal" speed and he suffered because his stamina in long matches couldnt handle his play right? Therefore lets look at his earlier long matches.
If we look at Nadals other 5-set matches before Miami 2005 we get:

- AO 2005 vs Hewitt - Nadal lost an extremely close match in 4 hours. Hewitt ranked 3
- AO 2005 vs Youzhny - Nadal won in 3 hrs 40mins, Youzhny ranked 15
- USO 2004 vs Heuberger - Nadal won in 3 hours
- Wimb 2003 vs Ancic - Nadal won in 3 hours

So why didnt Nadal run out of gas in all these earlier matches when he was not using his new "service delay" technique?
They were all long matches for a young player (3 -4 hours).
Lets face it, your "theory" is just complete rubbish...none of your "arguments" ever stand up to scrutiny

Aside form the topic being discussed here i'm also a bit bored with this long break thing between points. Now, i'm not sure you'll remember this, but back when the 606 board went from the super duper board to the more basic one we used before it closed, there was a breakaway forum some people went to. On this forum the 20s rule was discussed to the n'th degree and eventually some one found out from the ATP how the rule is applied. It all revolves around the fact that the traditional rules do not account for cheering from the crowd and so in these big tournaments the umpires have to account for the crowd cheering. Basically a point is not deemed to have officially ended until the umpire shouts out the score. Now the thing with baseline play is that it produces longish rallies that can frequently end in a build up of excitement in the crowd and a long applause. The umpire waits for the crowd noise to settle before shouting the score and officially ending the point. It is at this point the 'timer' is started, not the moment the ball goes out of play. The umpire does this to give the server 20s of quiet time to prepare to serve. He could shout over the crowd if he wanted to, he does have the benefit of a loud speaker afterall, but apart from times when he thinks the crowd are being overly long in applause, he seldom does this and waits for natural quiet.

To test this, a few years back i timed gaps between points for service from Roddick and Nadal. I assume most people would be happy for Roddick to be used an as example of some one who is medium/fast during service games. I choose a particular match that people were moaning about for Nadals speed, his includes a match point opportunity that people said he slowed for. So i have tried to be particularly mean to Nadal here.

I timed it two ways: Exact time from when the ball goes for a winner/out of play/into the net until when the serve is struck

Roddick (s):
16
26
16
15
26
30
25

Average = 22 seconds

Nadal:
27
27
22
32
28
32
25
30

Av. = 28 seconds.

So you can see Nadal averages an extra 6 seconds over Roddick in this comparison.

Now the same points, but timed from when the umpire shouts the score out for the last point to the serve being struck (as the rule is applied)

roddick:
11
21
15
20
25
24
25

Av. 20.1 seconds

Nadal:
24
19
23
21
27
20
24
17
23

Av. = 22 seconds

So you can see that due to applause and crowd noise Nadal actually has around 6 seconds of free time while they settle before the umpire shouts out the score. Roddick on the other hand, hitting mainly service winners/short points only gets around 2 seconds of free time due to applause. Naturally around match points etc etc the crowd takes ages to settle and so it may appear players take longer on these points, but the contributing factor is often the crowd, especially if some silly fan shouts out randomly, as the timer get reset in that case, hence the 40s gaps we sometimes see.

I also timed Nalbandian who took an identical time to Nadal, as do many of the other players. I don't think the umpires are bothered about 10% over the time restriction


You might have noticed that many of the commentators have largely shut up about how long Nadal takes; i'm fairly sure some one has told them how this rule is applied. Now by all means if you choose to disagree with the rule the way it is implemented, then fine, but it isn't simply one player being let off the hook repeatedly.