Roger's reaction to Djokovic defeating Nadal at Wimbly

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 09 Jul 2011, 4:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

speaks volumes... Very Happy

by Simple_Analyst Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:36 am

bogbrush wrote: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.

Oh great! We now dodge the bullet and turn the debate into other direction. So after all the months of singing the chorus to Tenez' lyrics, Bogbrush has now confirmed Nadal's physicality was due to the long time he takes between points. Who would have thought that Laugh

Have to say it is pretty funny seeing Tenez being rediculed yet again by the factual post of Lydian and Socal. I have to admit, after i made mockery of his "highly intelligent" comment that; the harder you hit a tennis ball, the safer it lands in the court, i lost interest in having any meaningful debate with him. He shows an alarming lack of understanding of some basic things possibly because he spends so much time convincing himself on most of them. I'm suprised he doesn't surrender often, the French know when there are defeated in battle, oh don't worry, my mother is French Cool

Anyways, physicality is part of tennis and professional sport whether you like it or not. I really can't see how when a player wins a match using his physical advantage, how that is a bad thing in any way or form. Tennis involvles running and the use of muscles to generate power in hitting a ball over the net and any sensible person should know that means "physical effort". How much of that is used is debatable as there are various actions used. It's like 2 sprinters, one with short legs but the other with long legs. The one with long legs will finish the race in what you'll see as the easiest of efforts but the sprinter with shorter legs will appear harder as he'll put more into it, possibly 3 or 4 sprints more but that is not to say compared to the one with longer legs, he is being more physical. That's how his body is built to run. Federer's game is built to appear more easy on the eye but to think he does'n't use as much physicality is ignonance. A man who lifts 150kg of weight will have an enormous amount of power. Any one who ever lifts will tell you what 150kg is since our friends Tenez and Bogbrush not to forgot the ever "lost" Gallery Play don't seem to understand this concept. Federer could easily train for the Olympics Weight lifting competiton and do really well if he wanted. That's what he has been trained into. To run 9 + Km is under 40 minutes leaves any chance of tiredness in matches very minimal especially in certain period of time. I heard how he got tired against Nadal in their past 4 sets finals at RG, that one is funny.
How about our Federer friends debate on the comments and links provided by Lydian since all they seem to be doing is dodging those facts while pilling up more unsubstantial rubbish rather desperately i have to say.

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:43 am

What's really funny is having Unbiased_Educator siding with Socal and Lydian.

You coudl not have helped "our" case any better.

Many thanks!

by Simple_Analyst Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:51 am

I have another name Very Happy

By the way helping "our" case better?

. You haven't made a case so far in this debate. Funny you can't see we are laughing at you, not with you.

by legendkillar Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:53 am

Guys this is an interesting debate, I just want make sure this doesn't turn into a 'snide' comments at each other.

Please remember to debate 'respectfully' Smile

by gallery play Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:25 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:A man who lifts 150kg of weight will have an enormous amount of power. Any one who ever lifts will tell you what 150kg is since our friends Tenez and Bogbrush not to forgot the ever "lost" Gallery Play don't seem to understand this concept

You obviously haven't ever been in a gym because you kept on saying "benching 150 kg". If you can't tell the difference between benching and knee bending (or lifting and pressing) than your knowlegde of workouts is as bad as it is about tennis.
BTW: 150 kg squad? I wouldn't advice it because i don't think it's a effective exercise for a tennis player, but it's not that shocking to me. Most professional football players are able to do that after a 2 months of training. And perhaps he meant the leg press machine and that's not much at all, but the info isn't detailed so we can't tell.
Anyway, your frequent bluffing is not going to make any impact. Stick to the "LOL-ing", that's where you're better at

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:39 am

Of course but more importantly, what's the point in saying that Federer is fit because so and so? That's ridiculous! What about Gavashivi? Isn't he fit? They are all fit. Extremely fit.

Saying that Federer is fitter than Nadal is what make this trio of Socal, Lydian and Unforced Error really laughable. Not a single commentator has ever come with such aberration.

Fitness in tennis is determined by the power and stamina of a player puts in playing a point. Nadal is a bit like a 100m racer with the stamina of a marathonian, or a heavyweight boxer with the stamina of a featherweight. So of course he needs that extra time in between points and once ran out of steam quicker than Federer cause he did all the running, spent twice as much energy on every shot and did all that without taking more than 20s between points.

Federer like everybody else, bar Djoko have no choice than trying to shorten the points. It's obvious but once again, lacking arguments, the trio tells us how fit is Federer. Very shallow.

by Simple_Analyst Fri 15 Jul 2011, 12:00 pm

gallery play wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:A man who lifts 150kg of weight will have an enormous amount of power. Any one who ever lifts will tell you what 150kg is since our friends Tenez and Bogbrush not to forgot the ever "lost" Gallery Play don't seem to understand this concept

You obviously haven't ever been in a gym because you kept on saying "benching 150 kg". If you can't tell the difference between benching and knee bending (or lifting and pressing) than your knowlegde of workouts is as bad as it is about tennis.
BTW: 150 kg squad? I wouldn't advice it because i don't think it's a effective exercise for a tennis player, but it's not that shocking to me. Most professional football players are able to do that after a 2 months of training. And perhaps he meant the leg press machine and that's not much at all, but the info isn't detailed so we can't tell.
Anyway, your frequent bluffing is not going to make any impact. Stick to the "LOL-ing", that's where you're better at

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly make me laugh, you suprise me. Do you know what is pressing? Mr fitness trainer. He said Federer can press 150kg of weight while doing knee bends. Now can your genius tell us how other than pressing with the weight on his shoulder or lifting with the weight above his head with his arms supporting (in basics for you) could he possibly do that? So you say details of the exercise was not giving yet assumes it could not involve 150kg of bench pressing? Of course he could bench press at that weight easily.

by Simple_Analyst Fri 15 Jul 2011, 12:25 pm

Let us even consider the possibility of Federer leg pressing 150kg of weight and for a professional sportman, a possible 10's of sets at a time, it even supports the evidence Federer doesn't get tired especially his legs any easier than Nadal or Djokovic. His legs are subjected to almost twice his body weight of 85kg (150kg). Even when running full speed in a match, his upper body weight can never put a similar weight on his legs. He will certainly not get tired in a 4 hr match.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri 15 Jul 2011, 1:02 pm

It's that chinese herbal medicine he's been taking, come on ATP check Federer out he's been leg doping!!! Federer the Elastic Band Cool

Federer the Man of Iron Very Happy

by gallery play Fri 15 Jul 2011, 1:34 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Just when I thought you couldn't possibly make me laugh, you suprise me. Do you know what is pressing? Mr fitness trainer. He said Federer can press 150kg of weight while doing knee bends. Now can your genius tell us how other than pressing with the weight on his shoulder or lifting with the weight above his head with his arms supporting (in basics for you) could he possibly do that? So you say details of the exercise was not giving yet assumes it could not involve 150kg of bench pressing? Of course he could bench press at that weight easily.

You called it benching, not me
150 kg bench press? Federer? And considering him doing 10 reps of 150kg squad?
Stop it Simple, for your own good. Each post you write you look more foolish

Try to figure out why a heavy spinning ball is a percentage shot instead

by luciusmann Fri 15 Jul 2011, 1:58 pm

As a regular gym goer, if you can leg press 150 kg (which isn't too hard), it certainly DOESN'T mean you can bench press 150kg (for your chest). If he was able to bench that much, he would have a reasonably muscular chest too, more like Nadal's (or what Nadal's used to be like) but he doesn't. It's fantasy Federer would do 10 reps of 150 kg on the bench press.

by gallery play Fri 15 Jul 2011, 2:09 pm

luciusmann wrote:As a regular gym goer, if you can leg press 150 kg (which isn't too hard), it certainly DOESN'T mean you can bench press 150kg (for your chest). If he was able to bench that much, he would have a reasonably muscular chest too, more like Nadal's (or what Nadal's used to be like) but he doesn't. It's fantasy Federer would do 10 reps of 150 kg on the bench press.

It's even a fantasy that Federer would do 1 rep of 150 kg on the bench. Just as it's a fantasy that he would do 10 reps 150 kg squad. This means he could do 1x 190 kg..and if that was the case, Pagnini would have been an idiot!

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm

Tenez, funny how you go on about logic but then twist others to suit you.
I recall anyone saying Federer is fitter than Nadal - but by the same token you cant prove that he isnt. Nor that Nadal is fitter than him. Federer is to all intents and purposes is at least as fit as Nadal and the rest of the modern players - all the evidence and observation points to it. So cut the "trio" clap-trap.

The point of this whole discussion which I note, as usual, you have tried to move back onto Nadal (infact are you even capable of talking about tennis without talking about Nadal?), is that you have being going on and on for years about how Federer is some kind of delicate ballerina with all this immense talent but tires easily in long matches who has overcome the new breed of players who are just basically muscle machines with little skill.

But your theory is blown out of the water with the fitness and strength approach that Federer and his trainers have admitted to using from a young age to become the best. I state to you again, Federer is referred to as training like an animal, and has stated he relied on physical strength to get through the Falla match. You squirming around and moving the goal posts doesnt change the fact that Federer is no lightweight ballerina, he's a heavyweight fitness machine like the rest of the current breed. This is why you cant keep going on about physicality without having to apply the same to Federer.

Regarding Nadal's fitness in matches, yes he plays longer ralleys, that's his style. If he oversteps 20/25s (ITF/ATP) then the umpire needs to pull him or anyone up on it. We've covered that multiple times too. Again you have no proof that Nadal pushes the time for recovery - as usual conjecture on your part. You're good at making stuff up, but not backing it up with facts. And dont point to 1 match at Miami in 2005 again because thats been debunked numerous times.

Time to change the record Tenez.

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 3:00 pm

But your theory is blown out of the water with the fitness and strength approach that Federer and his trainers have admitted to using from a young age to become the best.
-------------------------------------

More non-sense. Do you know the other players' regime to compare it with? Do you know whether their diets are the same? How on earth a bit of information on Roger's training is going to give us information on how he coudl fare against his toughest opponent?

I base my knowledge on what I see and what everybody can see...and the results....not what Rossini, Verdi and Pagnini say. But as you don't have any sense of observation, you keep discussing the unarguable.

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:42 pm

Tenez...right, so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of what you SEE over what Paginini and Federer himself actually say they do? Hmmm, that sounds (in)credible doesnt it...

We dont need to know the other players schedules, different athletes have different schedule customised to suit the needs of their own bodies. You cannot compare schedules directly other than the fact they are doing them intensely!

However and again what you seem to miss, or rather gloss over, is that Paginini and Federer set out with a SPECIFIC STRATEGY of being able to play FOR AT LEAST 4 HOURS AT PEAK ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE AND NOT HAVE SHOT SELECTION AFFECTED. This overall objective renders minutae of training schedules as somewhat arbitary. Therefore, if that is their OBJECTIVE, they will have trained to the point where Federer achieved this. Then its a question of maintaining it.

Since then we have been able to confirm this objective has been achieved through what we see - because we never see Federer breaking down physically and he goes toe to toe with anyone. Indeed, never mind 'not breaking down', he's able to use his physicality to get into position for all his shots just about all the time whilst not tiring. This is what he has trained himself to do Tenez - by his own volition to last for hours by 'training like an animal'. So dont go telling us about what you think you see with your own rose tinted Federer vision that ignores what the man himself says.

Besides which, Rome 2006 for 5 hours in summer heat told us all we needed to know about the relative fitness levels of Federer vs Nadal.

by time please Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:44 pm

While it is very true that Roger Federer is as fit, if not fitter than anyone else in the game - in fact he seemed to tire much less easily than some in his pomp, and to a degree that is still true now. He has played the late second semi for the last two USO and fatigue is not an excuse that has been made for him. It is interesting that the 'super fit' Rafa was the one who was fatigued with the first (albeit v competitive) semi at the WTF (I just love that acronym!) and the ol' man was never going to be given the same excuse playing the 8pm semi even if he hadn't come through it so easily.

But Rafa has been more 'physical' than the other players. He has dropped a lot of muscle around the lower leg and the upper body, and I would guess that he has been advised that the strain that his very muscled upper torso was creating for his legs, particularly his suspect knees, was enormous. While he still generates enormous power with his shots, maybe a few years ago, carrying more weight, he would not be having the same problems with Nole, but then he probably would have broken down altogether. He is quite extraordinary how he can be right back on his heels to power a massive forehand, and it is his physicality that allows him to do that. Having lost quite a lot of muscle in 2009 post RG he struggled to generate the same power. That is not a criticism, it is just fact and when you see Federer and Nadal play live, the difference in shot making is marked - Fed is pure speed and timing and Rafa is very accurate and then when he steps up the 'power' quite formidable. Rafa's shots look much heavier than Fed's live, but so much slower I couldn't quite believe it - in fact it just goes to show how these players have such superior hand eye co-ordination to us lesser mortals - sitting sideways to the court, I often didn't see Federer's ball in flight!

In other words, they are both extremely fit, but they probably both concentrate on some different (while many the same) aspects of gym work to compliment their different games. Roger needs speed to make sure he reaches the ball so that he can time it accurately, and Rafa needs all of that and a lot of upper body strength for his harder hit balls

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:13 pm

lydian wrote:Tenez...right, so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of what you SEE over what Paginini and Federer himself actually say they do? Hmmm, that sounds (in)credible doesnt it...

It's not only what I SEE...it's what everybody sees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Send me a quote from someone other than your funny trio, I mean, what we call a pundit that says Federer is fitter than Nadal.

We dont need to know the other players schedules, different athletes have different schedule customised to suit the needs of their own bodies. You cannot compare schedules directly other than the fact they are doing them intensely!

Typical useless piece of information from you to make you sound serious and knowledgeable but no substance.

lydian wrote:However and again what you seem to miss, or rather gloss over, is that Paginini and Federer set out with a SPECIFIC STRATEGY of being able to play FOR AT LEAST 4 HOURS AT PEAK ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE AND NOT HAVE SHOT SELECTION AFFECTED. This overall objective renders minutae of training schedules as somewhat arbitary. Therefore, if that is their OBJECTIVE, they will have trained to the point where Federer achieved this. Then its a question of maintaining it.

WHat Federer and Paganini says is nothing special. Does Pagnini says that playing 4 hours with Nadal is the same as playing 4 hours with Isner? So what's your point? You are misinterpreting what they say to save your absurd comments. What do you expect them to say? " We are going to train just hard enough to be able to fight for Nalby donuts? Think!

Besides which, Rome 2006 for 5 hours in summer heat told us all we needed to know about the relative fitness levels of Federer vs Nadal.

That was a time when Nadal was still human....not the 2008 and plus versions. In 2006, his shots were short and Federer made him run a fair bit back then. yet...who won at the end despite doing all the running? Who had still enough energy to retrieve Federer's powerful shots despite having covered twice as much ground? You should pick better example for your arguments.

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:20 pm

Tenez wrote: That was a time when Nadal was still human....not the 2008 and plus versions

Care to elaborate on those comments for us Tenez?

by time please Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:45 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol Federer fans, a player who ask the link by Lydian has the military regime of a Navy seal loses 5 set matches from exhaustion? Mentally toughness has never been Federer's strength, you can convince yourself other wise. Pete Sampras, never known for his fitness but that did not stop him from a very good 5 set record. He lost Wimby 11 because he last the distance, lol more like he could put racquet to Tsongas balls, panicked and lost.

Actually, as a 'Federer fan', I would agree that he has not quite the same gritty mental toughness as Nadal. To say, however, that it isn't a strength is a sweeping statement that only the simplest of analysts would presume to make - he has loads, as do all top sportsmen.

I think there is the question of desire nowadays. I know Fed still has it, but has he quite the same he did - he thinks so, the rest of us are unsure. As Mats Wilander said, you never know when the desire is going to just fade a very little (or in Wilander's case evaporate after his most stellar year) and a very little fading is all it takes to lose a little edge - that and anno domini, of course Very Happy

by Simple_Analyst Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:33 pm

This is better. First Gallery play cherry picks my comment without shame. Did you answer my simple question? Which possible exercise could Federer be doing with 150kg of weight while knee bending? Head shaking?
You really don't know the details do you? And yes Federer could be able to bench 150kg. He has a well built upper body and chest. I bench up to 118kg so far and you doubt if a pro sportman could do 150kg? More fool you!

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:38 pm

lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote: That was a time when Nadal was still human....not the 2008 and plus versions

Care to elaborate on those comments for us Tenez?

Not what you think. His physical transformation actually happened early in 2005 but it was a gradual process starting probably even earlier.

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:48 pm

If winning is the yardstick for fitness, then a qualitative assessment can be made of relative fitness of two athletes. For example, if multiple athletes competed in the same athletic endeavour, say a 100m dash, and time to finish was the only crtierion, one could say, that Usain Bolt is faster than Roger Bannister.

As more parameters, like playing style, surfaces, environmental factors get added in the sport of Tennis, then the picture that emerges can be subjectively interpreted where the crux of this debate seems to lie.

The Federer-Djokovic AO 2011 vs. Nadal-Djokovic W 2011 matches are both slam finals, but are very different. Comparing W 2007 final vs. W 2008 final also can lead to erroneous subjective statements.

One method to compare is to possibly give the Paganini regime to Nadal or Forcades regime to Federer and see how they perform.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41256620/ns/sports-tennis/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqXGVU5KoRQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02p-EtMZZF8

by yummymummy Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:50 pm

Oh for Gods sake Tenez - Is Physicality the word you learnt
over the past two weeks? and WHY are you trying out all the
different contexts that the word can be applied to ?

ALL TENNIS PLAYERS ARE PHYSICALLY FIT !

The Difference lies between the ears ! Tennis Nous - On court
thinking - deciding in a fraction of a second WHERE to place the
ball - All These attributes add up to a champion !

Now FIND another equally febrile argument!

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:51 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:I bench up to 118kg so far and you doubt if a pro sportman could do 150kg? More fool you!

Very interesting, mud-slinging and name calling. Good debating skills SA. thumbsup

I am glad that no one's ancestry has been brought into this debate so far. laughing

by yummymummy Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:56 pm

Neanthertal maybe ?

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:58 pm

yummymummy wrote:ALL TENNIS PLAYERS ARE PHYSICALLY FIT !

The Difference lies between the ears !

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

by legendkillar Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:59 pm

I am amazed the debating on this thread is continuing. Frankly if people argue and disagree with the facts in front of them from the 'top' people in that profession, then there must be sense lacking.

Players are fit. Players are physical. Matches are not won by MTO's. It is won with a racquet and ball. Surely that is as about as simple as it can be put.

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:05 pm

yummymummy wrote:Neanthertal maybe ?

Very good Yummy. thumbsup

and

This debate has travelled far beyond the outer reaches of the Milky Way. Time for a chocolate/tea break. laughing

by yummymummy Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:35 pm

Tenez wrote:
yummymummy wrote:ALL TENNIS PLAYERS ARE PHYSICALLY FIT !

The Difference lies between the ears !

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

For Heavens sake Tenez - PLEASE don't share yours _ EVERYONE is sick and tired
of your same old same old - Try a different subject !

by socal1976 Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:16 pm

Tenez wrote:Of course but more importantly, what's the point in saying that Federer is fit because so and so? That's ridiculous! What about Gavashivi? Isn't he fit? They are all fit. Extremely fit.

Saying that Federer is fitter than Nadal is what make this trio of Socal, Lydian and Unforced Error really laughable. Not a single commentator has ever come with such aberration.

Tenez I have never said Federer is fitter than Nadal, what I have said is that Federer doesn't lose to nadal because he lacks the fitness to play a 5 set match. Nadal is super fit to and younger, my point is completely different. If you can find one place I have said Fed is fitter than Nadal, ill accept your silly argument, but you won't find it because it doesn't exist. What I have said is that fed doesn't lose because of his socalled, nonexistant deficiency in fitness. As quite frankly, you and the apologists have been touting over and over again. Every Federer loss is the exact same thing, he got tired, Federer was giving (fill in the name) a lesson and then somehow he was grinded down by a physical brute like Nadal. Unfortunately, Tenez bizarro world looks nothing like reality. The reality that I and other fans have witnessed is a Roger Federer that can go to battle on the court all day long. A player who has never, ever cramped in the hundreds of matches of his I have seen in the last decade.

by yummymummy Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:35 pm

LK will you please lock this thread down .

It;s way off topic and becoming boring (yawn)

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:38 pm

socal1976 wrote:The reality that I and other fans have witnessed is a Roger Federer that can go to battle on the court all day long. A player who has never, ever cramped in the hundreds of matches of his I have seen in the last decade.

I beg to differ.

Lack of cramping in 100s of matches is not equal to non-existence of fitness deficiencies. It means a heightened awareness of one's physical limitations to not overstretch and overtax the body. It also illustrates a more efficient use of available resources, which is related to Tenez's physicality hypothesis. My favourite example is David Ferrer. The closest he has come to cramping is in a match against Rochus in 2006.

I would suggest reading the following link to understand better what causes cramping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramp

Cramping (based on the attached link) is related to deficiencies in relaxing muscles which are 'paired'.

"Skeletal muscles work as antagonistic pairs. Contracting one skeletal muscle requires the relaxation of the opposing muscle in the pair. Cramps can occur when muscles are unable to relax properly due to myosin fibers not fully detaching from actin filaments. In skeletal muscle, both ATP (energy [Adenosine Triphosphate]) and magnesium must attach to the myosin fibers for them to disassociate from the muscle and allow relaxation — the absence of either of these in sufficient quantities means that the myosin remains attached to actin. An attempt to force a muscle cramped in this way to extend (by contracting the opposing muscle) can tear muscle tissue and worsen the pain. The muscle must be allowed to recover (take in Mg and resynthesize ATP), before the myosin fibres can detach and allow the muscle to relax."

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:38 pm

Tenez wrote: Not what you think. His physical transformation actually happened early in 2005 but it was a gradual process starting probably even earlier.

Maybe not what I thought you thought, but I dare say you think it most of the time about him.
In 2004/5 Nadal was 17-19 yrs old, and then you state he underwent physical transformation.
Let me give you a clue, its called growing up! And please dont say early 2005 is Miami.
What did you expect to happen to him as he went from being a 17 yr old...to shrink?

Why are you so obsessed with physicality? Is it because Federer first got you into the topic after you followed his gruelling physical regimes?

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:39 pm

yummymummy wrote:LK will you please lock this thread down .

It;s way off topic and becoming boring (yawn)

Sorry Yummy. Sad

by Tenez Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:42 pm

lydian wrote: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...

Bump...

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:44 pm

I'm not sure technicality about cramping aids this discussion. Neither does comparing 100m sprinters. Bolt might beat another by 0.2s but it doesnt make him fitter, just faster.

The goalposts are getting shifted here. The point is that Federer is a physically-trained machine like Nadal and Djokovic, plus Murray. We dont have to say who is fittest, just that they both train to last for hours on court to not lose physical peak performance. Federer's results show that,
And ONCE AGAIN, against Falla he said it was his physical strength that got him the victory. I dont mind Tenez talking ad nauseum as he does about physical this, physical that as long as he now includes Federer in the same breath.

by lydian Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:48 pm

lol....Tenez, bump all you like but explain how Federer went toe to toe with Nadal for 5 hours in the heat with Nadal at Rome 2006 and was as fresh as Nadal at the end only losing in the final set tiebreak.
If that doesnt dispel your theory nothing does - never mind what Federer has said about himself.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the use of the word "maybe"...

by **laverfan** Fri 15 Jul 2011, 9:56 pm

lydian wrote:I'm not sure technicality about cramping aids this discussion. Neither does comparing 100m sprinters. Bolt might beat another by 0.2s but it doesnt make him fitter, just faster.

I am just pointing out the 'never cramping' is not the same as being fitter. Better 'fitness' leads to being 'faster', correct?

lydian wrote:The goalposts are getting shifted here. The point is that Federer is a physically-trained machine like Nadal and Djokovic, plus Murray. We dont have to say who is fittest, just that they both train to last for hours on court to not lose physical peak performance.

What I had suggested (by swapping fitness programmes) is to eliminate the differences in training regimen and 'normalise' this discussion.

lydian wrote:Federer's results show that, And ONCE AGAIN, against Falla he said it was his physical strength that got him the victory. I dont mind Tenez talking ad nauseum as he does about physical this, physical that as long as he now includes Federer in the same breath.

Can we draw the same conclusion in Nadal vs. Isner (FO 2011) or Federer vs. Tsonga (W 2011) or Isner vs. Mahut (W 2010)? Erm

by Guest Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:14 pm

Federer is very fit he just can't handle Nadals kickers to his backhand, but it is true to say now that he is in decline and there must be a chance that he won't win another slam - unless Djoko, Nadal and Del Potro all get injured. I worry about Djoko's ankles he seems to contort his body as he slides on all the courts including the hard courts - he must be one of the most flexible players on tour.

by Guest Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:58 pm

yummymummy wrote:LK will you please lock this thread down .

It;s way off topic and becoming boring (yawn)

If posts or articles do not break site rules, no action is taken.

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Jul 2011, 1:30 pm

yummymummy wrote:It;s way off topic and becoming boring (yawn)

Will this thread come back to life, if I post? Erm

by lydian Sat 16 Jul 2011, 3:13 pm

Just to expand further...

Its not quite the same, how one maintains one's electrolyte balance for sustained periods may be related to many things - 'fitness' being one of them, diet being another, and inherent underlying biochemistry another. For example, top athletes have much higher concentrations of mitochondria than others - some of this is achieved by training and diet, some by genetic predisposition. I suspect many of the top players were born with a high level of mitochondria compared to their peers who cant quite seem to endure as well as they do no matter how hard they train. Increased mitochondrial concentration/functioning affects strength/stamina and recovery powers. Being fitter doesnt necessarily mean faster, just being able to sustain that speed for longer. Innate speed is determined by a number of factors, again many of them genetically based, e.g. ratio of fast twitch fibres. However, training can increase the number of fast vs slow muscle fibres so better training can increase speed, but not necessarily by making yourself fitter per se. In general, you can transform about 45% of your muscle fibres from slow to fast, the rest you cant change - thats genetics. There is an interesting paradox though - if you train at endurance too much you will convert fast twitch fibres to slow, so you effectively become slower! Its a balance you have to strike in training, and you have to decide what type of athlete you want to be - explosive speed or endurance athlete. So you can imagine that genetics will greatly help some people be much better athletes that others due to high levels of fast and slow twitch fibres to give speed and endurance. You cant artificially give yourself a high number because one has to come at the expense of the other.

So when you have top players like Nadal, Federer and Djokovic - they again are probably genetically graced with high numbers of both fibres, whereas many of their lower ranked peers probably struggle with the balance more.

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Jul 2011, 5:09 pm

This one probably came down to fitness and recovery time.

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

Also shows how competitive the top echelon of tennis is.

I think you are referring to this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MINEr61bfU&feature=related

Corretja contributed to Sampras's win by his errors. And Corretja looks the fitter of the two.

lydian wrote:However, clearly fitness is an important base layer than becomes more important in longer matches but again we cant say every 5 set match is won by the fitter player.

Agree with that. I recall Muster winning matches on pure fitness and less on skills.

by lydian Sat 16 Jul 2011, 5:54 pm

Just to expand further...[I somehow overwrote my original email above....grrr]

Its not quite the same, how one maintains one's electrolyte balance for sustained periods may be related to many things - 'fitness' being one of them, diet being another, and inherent underlying biochemistry another. For example, top athletes have much higher concentrations of mitochondria than others - some of this is achieved by training and diet, some by genetic predisposition. I suspect many of the top players were born with a high level of mitochondria compared to their peers who cant quite seem to endure as well as they do no matter how hard they train. Increased mitochondrial concentration/functioning affects strength/stamina and recovery powers. Being fitter doesnt necessarily mean faster, just being able to sustain that speed for longer. Innate speed is determined by a number of factors, again many of them genetically based, e.g. ratio of fast twitch fibres. However, training can increase the number of fast vs slow muscle fibres so better training can increase speed, but not necessarily by making yourself fitter per se. In general, you can transform about 45% of your muscle fibres from slow to fast, the rest you cant change - thats genetics. There is an interesting paradox though - if you train at endurance too much you will convert fast twitch fibres to slow, so you effectively become slower! Its a balance you have to strike in training, and you have to decide what type of athlete you want to be - explosive speed or endurance athlete. So you can imagine that genetics will greatly help some people be much better athletes that others due to high levels of fast and slow twitch fibres to give speed and endurance. You cant artificially give yourself a high number because one has to come at the expense of the other.

So when you have top players like Nadal, Federer and Djokovic - they again are probably genetically graced with high numbers of both fibres, whereas many of their lower ranked peers probably struggle with the balance more.

by yummymummy Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:03 pm

laverfan wrote:
yummymummy wrote:It;s way off topic and becoming boring (yawn)

Will this thread come back to life, if I post?

Go on Laverfan - Give us a post Laugh

I just don;t understand why so many peeps are pandering to Tenez's obsession about
PHYSICAL FITNESS vomit

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:04 pm

Be careful, someone will push this towards genetic superiority and we will have more discussions.

The African runners from Kenya, Ethiopia, Morocco do support that view point. There are likes of Paavo Nurmi as well.

by lydian Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:06 pm

laverfan wrote: Corretja contributed to Sampras's win by his errors. And Corretja looks the fitter of the two.

I think it was also Sampras mental toughness to keep belting aces down at crunch points too, and push himself despite throwing up on court.

by yummymummy Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:11 pm

HA - One nail hit on the head Lydian Hug

MENTAL strength is what separates the Men from the boys !

by lydian Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:14 pm

yummymummy wrote:I just don;t understand why so many peeps are pandering to Tenez's obsession about
PHYSICAL FITNESS

Its not pandering per se just discussing fitness but not in the way Tenez always goes on about it. We shouldnt be afraid to discuss fitness on this forum as its an important element of any physical sport.
The discussion also highlights that a players fitness ability is achieved both through genetic "talent" and "training" to enhance what they have. In this regard, guys like Nadal and Federer are both graced through genetics (speed and endurance) and then enhance that with training - and its gruelling regimes for both of them.
But of course this is only a small part of the overall "talent" picture...stroke making, footwork/movement, tactics, etc, etc.

by lydian Sat 16 Jul 2011, 6:18 pm

laverfan wrote:Be careful, someone will push this towards genetic superiority and we will have more discussions.

lol, yes but genetic superiority is the basis of all talent. Our genetic coding drives everything - physically and mentally.
Then training enhances that further. For example, we know Federer is a great mover genetically, training has enhanced his speed and endurance. Nadal is very strong and fast, again training has enhanced that. But the level of training will be tailored to maintaining peak performance for a number of hours. But fitness training is only one part of the ability to win matches.
At the end of the day, these top tennis players have to be talented in all areas of the game, they cant make it into the top 3-4 now if they have obvious and exploitable weaknesses in any one area of talent - either technique, fitness or mental capability/strength.
These discussions are difficult because there are so many factors we cant squeeze into a small cup to summarise how good one player is over another. When posters try to pigeon a top player into a narrow category of ability its a disservice to their overall talent across many areas.

by Sponsored content