Roger's reaction to Djokovic defeating Nadal at Wimbly

by Josiah Maiestas Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:48 am

First topic message reminder :

https://2img.net/h/i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/Emily-b/3-1.jpg

speaks volumes... Very Happy

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:28 pm

Talking about phisicality just imagine what Tommy Haas could have done if not for injury problems... twice he took Federer to 5 sets in the majors, backhand was clean as a whistle...poor Tommy mad

by lydian Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:02 pm

I think we all accept physicality is a feature of the modern game. All the top 10 shall we say are amazingly fit, they just have to be to succeed in these current conditions.

Where I dont agree with others is that Federer is the only one blessed with talent on top of the base layer, shall we say, of physicality. Yes Nadal plays a different game to Federer - but they're all different, they all have prodigious talent. We're not talking Sunday morning club doubles here, these guys are amazing athletes and amazing tennis players.
As LF says, each of the top 10 have their own attributes. Federer has grace and style, absolutely - he makes the game look easy at times, and this attracts its own legion of fans who like that. But Nadal's approach to the game (huge mentality, court craft, oncourt desire, will to win and also amazing shots at pressure points too) attracts a different legion - and that legion is not necessarily any less knowledgeable about tennis. For example, I loved watching Sampras in the 90s (another player who made the game look ridiculously easy at times) and I like watching Nadal in the 00s - they're hardly the same type of player are they? Points of tennis interest can be found in all players. I'm not particularly keen on Federer as I find him quite narcissistic but appreciate his style of play.

We need to get away from tennis snobbery on this forum - accept that physicality is a constant base layer in the game for which all players can last 5 sets easily, and then appreciate the different attributes they bring - after all do we want 10 Nadals, or 10 Federers...hasnt the contrast of styles between Nadal and Federer in itself actually been the best thing for the game as a whole rather than the individual players themselves?

Viva la difference!!!

by carrieg4 Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:22 pm

Lydian

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:33 pm

Dolgopolov will put an end to the phisicality leaders of the game!!!

Dolgopolov is SPARTAN!!! (minus the brutal nature) Wink

by legendkillar Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:44 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:My point is that 'physicality' isn't the dominant factor in today's game and isn't the sole base of a players success.

Of course it is! Watch the size of James Ward or Dan evans compared to Murray. It's like having 1990 players v 2010 ones. Watch the size between Jamie and Andy Murray and tell me their physics is not the dominant factor in their respective success. I believe I even heard Andy say that Jamie was more talented than him.

And it;s because Murray keeps being injured that he hasn't got a slam cause he is constantly walking on the tangent of his phyiscal ability and this is why he keeps saying he needs to improve his fitness.

If physique was not the main factor you woudl not have Nadal, Djoko and Murray regularly reaching the semis. Nadal only lost because he was not physically 100%...until a player who could handle him physically started to beat him.

If James Ward or Dan Evans got to the 'fitness' of a Murray or Nadal they would still struggle. If you look their matches, take James Ward at Queens, did he progress due to fitness? No. He got a cage fighter to help with his 'intensity' levels. They haven't got the 'strokes' in their armour to hurt the players above them. Fitness would not improve them dramatically because all the players would be doing it.

Nadal, Murray, Federer and Djokovic always contest Slams because they have the 'skills and abilities' their shot making is much better than the others.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:56 pm

Nadal, Murray, Federer and Djokovic always contest Slams because they have the 'skills and abilities' their shot making is much better than the others.

Lol so does Gasquet and Santoro but what did they win?

by legendkillar Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:03 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Nadal, Murray, Federer and Djokovic always contest Slams because they have the 'skills and abilities' their shot making is much better than the others.

Lol so does Gasquet and Santoro but what did they win?

Your putting them 2 up with them 4?

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:18 am

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:Did you watch the US-Spain match and Ferrer play Fish? Look at Fish and Ferrer, or Rochus and Djokovic, or Rochus and Isner (Newport).

I was going to make a very crude statement, but will refrain, unless absolutely warranted.

No I did not. What happened?

Go'on we want LF, the most polite poster of 606, to go let it go for once!

I shall refrain, Tenez. It is not very erudite to make risque comments. Smile

I picked the examples that I did to show that physicality is just one of several aspects, but the not the sole differentiator for players' success.

Using ATP data...

Ferrer - 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) - 160 lbs (73 kg)
Fish - 6 ft 2 in (188 cm) - 180 lbs (82 kg)

Ferrer bt. Fish to clinch DC tie for Spain. Despite the differences, the better player won the match.

Rochus 5 ft 6 in reached the finals of Newport and played Isner 6 ft 10 in.

Rochus - Djokovic (current #1 W/L 48-1) and h2h for your reading pleasure.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R397&oId=D643

Rochus beat Djokovic as late as Miami 2010.

Hope you see the point, Tenez.

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:21 am

lydian wrote:Viva la difference!!!

Agree very much.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:23 am

I could put a few more skillful players who never won GS; Coria, Nalbandian (threw away match points in USO semi), Rios, Grosjean, Haas, Philipoussis (youngest player in top 50 1995)....

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:28 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I could put a few more skillful players who never won GS; Coria, Nalbandian (threw away match points in USO semi), Rios, Grosjean, Haas, Philipoussis (youngest player in top 50 1995)....

Mecir, Schuettler, Kucera, Jiri Novak, Srichaphan, Davydenko, Malisse, ... a pretty long list....

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:37 am

Davydenko is class but he was never a 5 set player to begin with...srichaphan was never past 4th round...Schuettler and Malisse are worthy thumbsup

Mecir before my time.. Jiri and Karol? meh..

by Tenez Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:01 am

lydian wrote:We need to get away from tennis snobbery on this forum - accept that physicality is a constant base layer in the game for which all players can last 5 sets easily, and then appreciate the different attributes they bring - after all do we want 10 Nadals, or 10 Federers...hasnt the contrast of styles between Nadal and Federer in itself actually been the best thing for the game as a whole rather than the individual players themselves?

Viva la difference!!!

A bit of a shallow post if you ask me. They all are good, all have talent and are all physical, all whatever...great!

I thought we were discussing the specifities of tennis players in relative value. Only relative values make sense when discussing players at professional level as well as at our club level actually.

Federer is not a physical player compared to Nadal. THta's clear and likewise Nadal is not in the same planet as Federer talent wise. There is a world of difference...and maybe we can say then "vive la difference". I understand fans don't want to know that their favourite player is relying more on power and stamina than talent. There is a negative image to that....but it's a simple fact that need to be assimilated to engage in a reasonable conversation.

by Tenez Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:06 am

laverfan wrote:Hope you see the point, Tenez.

I am not sure I do actually. Do you see Fish as the more physical player because he is taller and bigger than Ferrer? I don't.

What to draw from Rochus beating Novak? Nothing more than Volandri beating Federer.

I have often had problems reading the meaning of your posts...but I have read I am not only one.

by lydian Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:27 am

Tenez, I'm (and others are) well aware of your arguments about your relative differences between Federer and Nadal, its all you've talked about for 3-4 years. We dont agree on specifics so I'm not about to start down the same repetitive line of discussion again concerning all the minutae, which ultimately dont count at professional level.

I know your basic premise is that Federer has more "talent" than Nadal - a player who relies on "big biceps" and time between points to win matches. We know your well-trod argument. I, and others, disagree about his game being based on strength alone, the interpretation of talent and gamesmenship. Talent is defined in many ways beyond the beauty pagent of stroke making (notwithstanding there are some nice strokes played, e.g. Gasquet - however, no slams). If you look at the big picture rather than minutae for a change, talent is really defined as the application of skills to win tennis matches. Winning tennis matches at professional level is all that ultimately matters. Beyond that, who we prefer to watch is secondary, and even arbitary.

In this regard, there are a number of players who stand head and shoulders above the others at consistently winning matches. Whether you win a match by blasting winners off every serve, or via 10-stroke ralleys matters little, its the "W" that defines who has applied their talent better on the conditions of the day. We can lament slow surfaces, judges not calling time rules, etc, as much as we want but the match results are the match results. You like Federer's style of play, other's like Nadal's style of play, others like Nole's style of play...they all have different relative strengths that are important for them in how they win matches but as I say its the "W" that ultimately determines who's overall "talent" has come to the fore to count, particularly at the very highest levels in winning slams. No point in being a ballerina if its ineffective, no point being a bull in a china shop if its ineffective...neither on its own works, tennis is not that straight forward or black and white. Thats why painting a top player as being 1-dimensional is frankly ridiculous when they are generally winning more matches than their peers across all surfaces. So as I say, talent is about winning...and winning more than your opponents on a consistent basis.

by Simple_Analyst Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:45 am

If Tenez ever goes to the gym and understands benching 150kg of weight or running 9 km in under 40min, he will shut up about physicality of players. Those two examples alone shows what I believe Federer to be; even more physical than the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. Maybe he needs to improve his technique on some shots i.e. Backhand.
Imagine Federer having the speed of Ljubicic. He will be on zero slams now. Thanks to his military style training and speed he has 16.

by Tenez Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:46 am

Don;t go the talent definition again. Anyone knows Federer is more talented than Nadal...much more talented like anyone sees Nadal being more physical than Federer.

You are trying to make things complicated when they are very simple.

There is no discussion to be had on those simple facts. "W" don't determine talent, never did, never will.

by sportslover Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:50 am

I think it's about time the record was changed!

Nearly all Rafas fans have left so most of the comments are now falling on Stoney ground now Doh

by legendkillar Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:05 am

For me all players are 'talented' whether it be physical or elegant. Like I said before Nadal hits with more power when on the run. We have seen the difference in movements. Nadal is all action, Federer is swifter. Nadal plays with topspin, Federer hits flat. See there is clear difference in talent can be defined.

When people say such and such is more 'talented more than such and such. Physical is talent. Nadal has 'genetic natural' athleticism. In his family has been 'professional' athletes. Federer has 'natural' co-ordination. He is able to match brain to hand a lot more effectively than any other players.

What is talent?

by lydian Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:08 am

sportslover wrote:Nearly all Rafas fans have left so most of the comments are falling on Stoney groud

Some, it sometimes seems, will only be happy when this place becomes a tennis-snobs shrine to Federer at the exclusion of all others.

Tenez, no - you're making it complicated. The bigger picture is that talent on its own is useless if you're not winning.
Yes Federer is mightily talented, but so is Nadal - your attempt to paint him as some thuggish bodybuilder who wields a racquet like a hammer with little talent for subtlety is frankly ridiculous. The proof of talent lies in results, you dont win big tennis trophies without huge talent. I would surmise that a guy who has won 10 slams and 19 Masters by age 25 has a "fair" amount of talent - wouldnt you?

by lydian Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:12 am

legendkillar wrote: Physical is talent. Nadal has 'genetic natural' athleticism. In his family has been 'professional' athletes. Federer has 'natural' co-ordination.

Exactly, talent comes in many guises, to pin it down specifically to one area is too difficult and short-sighted.
Tennis is not snooker, it involves running around and lasting the course as well as playing soft hands volleys at the net. Its the application of physicality/stamina (which we've seen is huge for all the top players), mental strength, tactics, court-craft, defence, attack and various forms of stroke making that all combine to make these players highly talented and formidable to beat.

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:27 am

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:Hope you see the point, Tenez.

I am not sure I do actually. Do you see Fish as the more physical player because he is taller and bigger than Ferrer? I don't.

What to draw from Rochus beating Novak? Nothing more than Volandri beating Federer.

I have often had problems reading the meaning of your posts...but I have read I am not only one.

Physical dimensions of a player or physicality of a player have some bearing on the winner, but are not the only factor in a Tennis match.

by socal1976 Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:08 am

Under Tenez view we should find a person who is an ironman triathlete, who is also fast in a sprint, send them to tennis camp for six months and watch them become the next world #1. If you look at Murray, Djoko, and Nadal they all have weapons that set them apart from the rest of the tour. All the guys on tour are fit. If just being fit and strong was enough to become a tennis millionaire then anyone could do it. Murray has one of the best backhands and returns in the world, Djoko ditto, Nadal has a great forehand and return. If you have physique and lack tennis talent you get nowhere in the tennis world. If you have tennis talent and lack physicality you could become a Nalbandian or Gasquet making a nice living but never winning the big prize. Both are necessary and neither is sufficient to winning on the biggest stage.

As lydian has clearly shown, Federer is a physical and athletic freak. And to this day I have yet to see Roger lose a match because he just broke down due to exhaustion. Laverfan, makes some interesting points in that the game has been getting more and more physical for years and this has resulted in a shrinking of the window players have for success. For example, Gonzalez at 41, or Rosewall, or connors would have a much tougher time having an impact in their later years in a fitter and stronger game that exists today.

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:49 am

There are many multi-sport athletes that dominate more than sport and are very successful at it. Here is a list of some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-sport_athlete

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/76583-the-10-greatest-multi-sport-athletes-of-all-time (bit US-oriented)

It possibly defies the notion of 'talent' in a specific sport.

by Tenez Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:48 am

laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:Hope you see the point, Tenez.

I am not sure I do actually. Do you see Fish as the more physical player because he is taller and bigger than Ferrer? I don't.

What to draw from Rochus beating Novak? Nothing more than Volandri beating Federer.

I have often had problems reading the meaning of your posts...but I have read I am not only one.

Physical dimensions of a player or physicality of a player have some bearing on the winner, but are not the only factor in a Tennis match.

Haven't I mentioned enough times that I am talking in relative values to other players? So though physicality might not be the only factor, we have often noticed, particularly over the last 3 years, that it can easily be the main factor.

by socal1976 Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:01 pm

Not the main factor Tenez. Tennis ability is still by and far the main factor. Being able to hit a tennis ball, hard, with differing spin, and accurately from any position on the court is crucial. Here is one example, how many super fit guys do you see on tour who can't hit a first serve over 110 miles per hour. 110 is still a very, very fast serve. But if you are super fit and have a highly deficient serve you won't make it far. If you are super fit and can't crank a forehand 90-100 mph, well then again you won't get that far. If you are super fit but can't hit a good backhand you won't get very far. You get no points for how many windsprints you can do. As everyone has acknowledged the game has been getting more physically demanding like many other sports. But I would disagree that physicality is the main determination of who wins in tennis. Monfils is an even better physical athlete than Nadal. He is just fast, he is fit, hits the ball harder, and is taller. Yet, he has never won anything because he isn't as strong mentally or technically as Nadal.

by lydian Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:26 pm

I agree...physicality is the base layer in tennis, but its the actual mental and technical ability that differentiates players at the top.
Also, strength and ability to hit hard are not necessarily connected. There is no substitute for innate timing, footwork and co-ordination - strength does not impact on any of these things fundamentally.

by **laverfan** Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:36 pm

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:Hope you see the point, Tenez.

I am not sure I do actually. Do you see Fish as the more physical player because he is taller and bigger than Ferrer? I don't.

What to draw from Rochus beating Novak? Nothing more than Volandri beating Federer.

I have often had problems reading the meaning of your posts...but I have read I am not only one.

Physical dimensions of a player or physicality of a player have some bearing on the winner, but are not the only factor in a Tennis match.

Haven't I mentioned enough times that I am talking in relative values to other players? So though physicality might not be the only factor, we have often noticed, particularly over the last 3 years, that it can easily be the main factor.

One thing I do clearly see and it has been progressive, is that any changes in physicality (especially any slowing down, even ever so slightly) does cause a player to become less competitive in the top echelons of the game. Ferrer is a very good example of steady physicality which has helped him stay in top 10/20 for the last 5+ years.

by kemet Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:08 am

You know Tenez, it's funny that you keep on beating this dead horse about Nadal's physicality, when Bjorn Borg was a similar type of player. Like Nadal, he was a claycourt great who became a extremely good on grass. Bjorn Borg's game was modeled on physicality and he was also used topsin just like Nadal, albeit with a wooden racquet.

It has been acknowledged that Bjorn Borg is one of the game's all-time greats. Do you disagree?

I am not a fan of this style of play, but can appreciate the talent and dedication that it takes to execute it.

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:39 am

kemet wrote:You know Tenez, it's funny that you keep on beating this dead horse about Nadal's physicality, when Bjorn Borg was a similar type of player. Like Nadal, he was a claycourt great who became a extremely good on grass. Bjorn Borg's game was modeled on physicality and he was also used topsin just like Nadal, albeit with a wooden racquet.

It has been acknowledged that Bjorn Borg is one of the game's all-time greats. Do you disagree?

I am not a fan of this style of play, but can appreciate the talent and dedication that it takes to execute it.

I have always said so. Borg is the first real professional tennis player that arrive in a still amateurish tennis world....and I was a bog fan of Borg. However one felt that Borg was naturally fit. a heartbeat of 30, amazing mouvement based on great footwork on slim legs.

I don't see this in Nadal. When yuo say you see the talent, what talent do you mean. PLenty of players strike the ball better than him. If anything I find it amazing that with such physical superiority he still manage to struggle against many much lower ranked players. His wins are often decided by the distance, not by his shotmaking. See him drop a step and he gets bagelled by Lacko. he loses to Garcia Lopez cause he is not 100% despite being still much fitter than GL while not 100%. Same applies versus many players he plays. Look how he struggled in the FO cause he was teh last one to get used to the new ball. Is that talent? How come a talented player only finds out suddenly how to maximise his serve after 15 years of serving every day?

The good thing about Djoko's recent run is that he is proving what I have said for years. Once you can handle the physical side of Nadal, his shots are made to look pretty average and his mental is also collapsing fast.

I don;t dislike Nadal, the player, I am just happy to expose what are his strengths and weaknesses.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:06 am

Nadull is a more intelligent version of Wozniaaaaaaacki Smile

by kemet Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:37 am

Tenez wrote:
kemet wrote:You know Tenez, it's funny that you keep on beating this dead horse about Nadal's physicality, when Bjorn Borg was a similar type of player. Like Nadal, he was a claycourt great who became a extremely good on grass. Bjorn Borg's game was modeled on physicality and he was also used topsin just like Nadal, albeit with a wooden racquet.

It has been acknowledged that Bjorn Borg is one of the game's all-time greats. Do you disagree?

I am not a fan of this style of play, but can appreciate the talent and dedication that it takes to execute it.

I have always said so. Borg is the first real professional tennis player that arrive in a still amateurish tennis world....and I was a bog fan of Borg. However one felt that Borg was naturally fit. a heartbeat of 30, amazing mouvement based on great footwork on slim legs.

I don't see this in Nadal. When yuo say you see the talent, what talent do you mean. PLenty of players strike the ball better than him. If anything I find it amazing that with such physical superiority he still manage to struggle against many much lower ranked players. His wins are often decided by the distance, not by his shotmaking. See him drop a step and he gets bagelled by Lacko. he loses to Garcia Lopez cause he is not 100% despite being still much fitter than GL while not 100%. Same applies versus many players he plays. Look how he struggled in the FO cause he was teh last one to get used to the new ball. Is that talent? How come a talented player only finds out suddenly how to maximise his serve after 15 years of serving every day?

The good thing about Djoko's recent run is that he is proving what I have said for years. Once you can handle the physical side of Nadal, his shots are made to look pretty average and his mental is also collapsing fast.

I don;t dislike Nadal, the player, I am just happy to expose what are his strengths and weaknesses.

Well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:07 am

Yes...or you could have argued my points.

The topspin is actually not a shot that requires special talent. This is why we use more spin in the second serve than the first serve....it just makes the shot safer...and Nadal is the king of the topspin.

by socal1976 Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:38 am

Again Tenez, you see what you want to see and ignore other factors that are inconvenient to your argument. You claim that hitting with spin makes it easier, yes it does make it safer. However, Nadal hits with more spin than anyone ever, he has turned it into both a defensive and offensive weapon, this in itself is highly difficult. Personally, to hit the ball cleanly and get the ball deep with Nadal's grip and swing is very difficult it isn't something that any player can do. That is why when most coaches teach tennis they start out for beginning players teaching them to use the eastern grip, which is the most natural and easy grip to use. (and in fact till recently most champions went eastern). The extreme western grip is something that takes hard work and talent to master to the level Nadal has. In fact, Nadal's use of the grips and his ability to constantly change his grips from serve, to forehand, to backhand, and volley is quite fluid and beautifully executed. John Mcrenoe the incredible tennis talent played basically with one grip the whole time.

You ask how a player can only figure out how to serve after 15 years of serving, again alluding to the fact that until last year Nadal never got in the 120s. Well maybe its because he is serving with his off hand and that he is naturally a right hander. The guy has worked so hard that he has managed to hit a 125 mph serve with his off hand and you still claim that he lacks talent.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:59 am

Socal, all good points but you know arguing with Tenez about Nadal's talent is tantamount to talking to a brick wall.

by socal1976 Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:39 am

Yes lydian I have figured that much out. But at the same time you can hope that others can relate to the arguments you are making and understand them. It is amazing to me and many others that he honestly believes that Nadal wins solely with brute physicality that there are dozens of players on tour with more tennis talent than nadal.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:50 am

Well when you've said the same thing for years you've probably brainwashed yourself that the guy has no talent only strength.
And then we have the article about Federer's physicality which shows he's as much a product of physical training as any top player. Yet Tenez continues to go on about Nadal's physicality when everyone can see the argument has no merit at all. Tenez, here's the link again for you: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004

Remember it said of Federer:...Federer found it easy to motivate himself for these goal-oriented training sessions because they broke up the routine. “Just a little bit of change does me a lot of good,” he said. “Once I’m out on the court, I don’t have any problem getting motivated. If I want to be No. 1, I have to give my all in training.”

Thanks to Paganini, he understood why he was training so hard. He quickly noticed that his improved fitness was helping him to increase his self-confidence. “I feel mentally really good because I know that I am physically prepared and that I can compete.”

“He wants to work hard but he needs a lot of variety,” Paganini said. “He has to see that an exercise is useful to him. He is an artist. If you motivate him, then he turns into a training animal.”

Federer is no different than Nadal when it comes to training physically. He's been specifically trained by Paginini to last over 4 hours at peak performance - “ROGER COULDN'T BE PERMITTED TO CHOOSE THE WRONG TACTIC FOR PHYSICAL REASONS” Paganini said - so no tennis shot or choice of shot is compromised. And yet his 5 set record is poor...but we're meant to repeatedly believe by Tenez its because he gets tired in the last set when many of them dont even get to 4 hours. Yeah right.

Bottom line is that Federer is as much a fitness 'freak' as Nadal, let no-one tell you otherwise.

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:05 am

Are yuo trying to convince yourself Lydian that Federer is as fit as Nadal?

You should have added his quote from last year after his glorious win in 5 set v Falla: "Physically I am perfect!" ...Maybe i'll end up believing him ...and you.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:08 am

Of course he's as fit as Nadal, maybe even fitter - the guy never tires or gets cramp - and we can see why, because he trains like a demon.

Keep 'swimming in the nile' Tenez...

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:11 am

You have such a poor sense of observation, it's comical.

You haven't got much clue about tennis. There is no one single tennis pundit that would compare Fed and Nadal physically.

Sleep tight.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:20 am

No Tenez, despite your attempts to smear me you're the one without a scooby-doo. You're the one who keeps deluding yourself in the face of clear facts and quotes from Paginini and the man himself about his immense training focus.

Also, its funny how you keep bringing up the Falla match. Shall we see what Federer actually said about the match himself rather than your musings:

"I definitely got very lucky out there," a relieved Federer told BBC Sport after winning in three hours and 18 minutes to book a second-round meeting with Serbia's Ilija Bozoljac. "I have lost many matches this year which I should have won, this is one I should have lost but I came through. But that is sometimes how grass court tennis works. It came as a bit of a shock and it's not something I was that prepared for, but you have to draw from experience and physical strength."

Get that Tenez - he relies on his physical strength.
Keep digging that hole for yourself

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:38 am

Beware the beast of the tennis ball! (the one on the right)!

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://allineedisapicketfence.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rogerboat.jpg&imgrefurl=http://allineedisapicketfence.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/picspam-by-pj-monkey-in-the-sun/&usg=__cP2uUb-kwlkfVGnabzRwvpTEeYs=&h=405&w=594&sz=98&hl=en&start=219&zoom=1&tbnid=IpF7mOUlIwqeJM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=196&ei=H28fTsTMLsvE8QOZ5birAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Droger%2Bmirka%2Bboat%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1069%26bih%3D769%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=352&vpy=142&dur=62&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=190&ty=99&page=12&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:219&biw=1069&bih=769

by socal1976 Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:44 am

Roger looks chiselled, slim as a reed. Again I would buy your argument Tenez if I actually had never seen Federer play. I am still trying to remember a single match that he lost because he cramped, or puked, or even looked tired. Keep trying to convince us that a guy that can hit a 125 mile per hour serve with his off hand has no tennis talent.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:40 am

Yep, no fat on the guy. Agree socal, Federer has never looked tired in any matches I've watched him play and I've watched alot, 100s. He doesnt even sweat. But we know why - he follows gruelling fitness regimes.

I notice Tenez refuses to comment on the World Tennis article or even his quote from the Falla match - "you have to draw from experience and physical strength".

Are you hearing what Federer is saying Tenez, or are you going to keep dunking your head in the sand every time you dont like what you hear?

by socal1976 Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:46 am

Lydian, Tenez reminds me a great deal of bruce willis' character in sixth sense, he only sees what he wants to see. I mean who would have ever thought it, tennis as a sport is physical, the sheer horror. I don't have so much of a problem with his physicality argument as I do with his Nadal/Djoko/Murray don't have tennis talent argument. Of course the game is physical, as it should be, but to take it the next step and say that a player who has 10 grandslams is not technically gifted is a bit much.

by Tenez Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:35 pm

socal1976 wrote:Lydian, Tenez reminds me a great deal of bruce willis' character in sixth sense, he only sees what he wants to see.

....Says the man who sees Fognini as the real reason for Djoko's FO loss. Laugh

You too are so funny. So Nadal is as not as fit as Federer but make has a better H2H thanks to his superior talent.

Carry on guys...you might end up convincing yourselves.

by lydian Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:53 pm

Tenez - is that your best come back on this? You're losing this physical argument and you know it.
We're talking Federer in general here and his high level of fitness. When you throw around comments about Nadal's physical nature you have absolutely no proof Federer isnt actually fitter than Nadal. After all, we know Federer is a fitness freak like Nadal, like Djokovic.

Your arguments have been found to hold no water, you have been incessantly going down the physical route of discussion to pigeon-hole Nadal for years only to discover Federer is trained to be a physical freak himself! And yes Nadal has the talent to beat Federer, and has been doing since he was a rookie 17 yr old, and at a time when Federer was actually putting himself through those gruelling military fitness routines! You're going to tell me that a rookie-tour 17yr was fitter than a near-military trained 21yr old who was being actively trained to last hours on a court and lifting huge weights? Yeah right, everyone's going to believe that one...

Once again...Federer does not tire in matches, he never breaks down, never cramps, hardly even sweats! We know directly from him and his trainer that he's trained to last at peak performance for over 4 hours without it affecting his shot selection/ability, and we have seen him play many long matches over the years without tiring - the 5 hour epic with Nadal in Rome being one of them where he looked just as fresh as Nadal at the end. Then we hear from the MAN HIMSELF it was his PHYSICAL STRENGTH that got him through the Falla match you referred to!

Just what pieces of the jigsaw are you missing here? As they kept saying in the film 'Knights Tale' - your arguments of the past 3-4 years have been measured, weighed and found wanting!

You have been labelling the game as highly physical and yet have failed to recognise it was your very own idol who has been leading the physical charge forwards all along!
Oh, the irony...

by carrieg4 Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:11 pm

GSM Lydian / Socal.

by socal1976 Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:27 pm

Lydian, Tenez has lost this argument over and over again. The sources that you have introduced are most damning to his physicality argument, who knows better than Fed's fitness trainer. The fact of the matter is that the game of tennis has been becoming more physical, as Tenez himself admits since the time of borg. Beyond the articles and the quotes of the very player himself, for Tenez's argument to succeed we have to accept something that doesn't fit with what we have seen with our own eyes. If Tenez made a lack of fitness argument about anyone, anyone but Federer it might be believable. The epic battles i have seen the man play, without batting an eyelash. A player who has played 12 years on tour and I can't remember a single time that he has cramped isn't fit enough to hold his own with Andy murray or Rafael Nadal? A guy who runs the equivalent of back to back 6 seven minute miles isn't fit enough to play a 5 set tennis match without his physical fitness resulting in him losing?

by bogbrush Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:47 pm

I always thought the physicality argument had most bearing on Nadal breaking the time rules to recover because of what he puts into his game. This is why Djokovioc is now killing him, because Nadal just can't win many rallies without running himself around and after a couple of sets he flags.

I think Fed is still super-fit, although personally I reckon he's never been the same since 2008, and he definitely covers up any on-court problems as a tactic.

by Sponsored content