World Tour Final: 2016

Greg Sharko or someone equally numbers loving should do profiles of top 30 players and include:

avg shots per point
avg metres covered per point
avg number of long rallies (15-20+ shots) per set (esp 1st set) per match
avg time between the points
winners per total number of shots ratio

(Have I missed anything?)

I think that should be a decent x-ray showing who relies on fitness and who on talent (shotmaking)

Also, it would be good to see all this data for Murray, Nadal and Djokovic vs each other and the rest of the field (separately), as I am sure it would look very different.


I also understand it is difficult for people who don't play tennis to understand fully small nuances that make a big difference in a match.

Even some coaches in my club are brainwashed with "how hard these guys work on their fitness", thinking they are some kind of aliens and super species (which they are with all the chemical help, if Steffi Graf was having 8 big brufens EVERY day, I don't want to know what runs through Murray's veins)

I am sure they all do, yet look at the difference in how they play and who are the ones that easily and consistently win on fitness!

Originally, tennis has created to be a game based on shotmaking not outlasting.

And the first rule they break is the time between points. Murray has averaged 30s between point.....very much like old Nadal. Precious time to oxygenate those extra red cells. Unless you think Murray has suddenly caught an OCD?

Yes the 20/25 seconds rule is so interesting...created for natural gut strings and small sweetspots.

There is a growing discrepancy between technology and format of the game now  and although it should be self regulating in a way, we can see tennis taking off in a way nobody enjoys (both players and fans).

But the money is good so everyone is quiet...

Pundits are blabbing non-stop now and playing a big part in keeping it all together for the sake of $$$ however you can see it's all bursting at the seams.

Tenez wrote:This is an approach you were forgiven to have in the 90s. But now 99% of them dope or use special ways to legally dope (egg chamber, TUEs, etc...).

No need to read the minds, just the performance. If the game is based on fitness as opposed to shot making there is no choice but dope to get to the top...no different than cycling.

I know it chatters your idea of sport and more so of your idols but it's only because fans are gullable and credulous than they systematically dope.

If Wada says probably 9/10 dope you can be sure it's likely to be 99% if not 100%.

You HAVE to back that up with a source to say that.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:This is an approach you were forgiven to have in the 90s. But now 99% of them dope or use special ways to legally dope (egg chamber, TUEs, etc...).

No need to read the minds, just the performance. If the game is based on fitness as opposed to shot making there is no choice but dope to get to the top...no different than cycling.

I know it chatters your idea of sport and more so of your idols but it's only because fans are gullable and credulous than they systematically dope.

If Wada says probably 9/10 dope you can be sure it's likely to be 99% if not 100%.

You HAVE to back that up with a source to say that.

i think that tenez means that if they say that then the likelihood would most probably be more 
i think that is a fair assumption cause in my opinion its impossible to compete on pure adrenaline alone taking into consideration how competitive sport is today and the level,standard or benchmark that athletes needs to achieve to be able to compete
edited
sports,especially seen in tennis is often a game of catch up ,you see a player ahead of the pack dominating the game and then the others start improving catching up and over taking that player, thats how sport evolves
if hypothetically you have 10 out of 20 athletes doping and getting away with it,it forces the other 10 clean athletes to consider doping too,simply to catch up and be able to compete at that level

that reminds me does anyone know anything about nadal suing the former french sports minister for her comments about him serving a silent ban for failing a drugs test?

found some info on the above:
case is set to be heard 17 july 2017 in paris 

http://en.as.com/en/2016/06/28/other_sports/1467116775_518421.html

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:This is an approach you were forgiven to have in the 90s. But now 99% of them dope or use special ways to legally dope (egg chamber, TUEs, etc...).

No need to read the minds, just the performance. If the game is based on fitness as opposed to shot making there is no choice but dope to get to the top...no different than cycling.

I know it chatters your idea of sport and more so of your idols but it's only because fans are gullable and credulous than they systematically dope.

If Wada says probably 9/10 dope you can be sure it's likely to be 99% if not 100%.

You HAVE to back that up with a source to say that.

they said that a couple of years ago.....it must be on one of the thread here or on thasp.

I think you can't be at the top w/o doping, but just would like to see the proof.

luvsports! wrote:I think you can't be at the top w/o doping, but just would like to see the proof.

Why? The average distance ran in a 3 set match is about 2km. Does that seem beyond the bounds of human fitness levels? What you are suggesting is that every top tennis player has unilaterally decided that they have to dope - they are unlikely to know whether anyone else is doping. 

I can see it in cycling where there will be a direct correlation to performance and the fitness required to compete is closer to the bounds of human fitness levels. However, tennis is nowhere near that level. 

As I said above, I'm sure some players are doping - there will be some willing to take the risk to possibly gain an extra edge. However, I would be very surprised if it was all the top players. 

As for Tenez's WADA quote, it doesn't exist. If WADA said 90% of all athletes dope it would be headline news.

Slippy wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I think you can't be at the top w/o doping, but just would like to see the proof.

Why? The average distance ran in a 3 set match is about 2km. Does that seem beyond the bounds of human fitness levels? What you are suggesting is that every top tennis player has unilaterally decided that they have to dope - they are unlikely to know whether anyone else is doping. 

I can see it in cycling where there will be a direct correlation to performance and the fitness required to compete is closer to the bounds of human fitness levels. However, tennis is nowhere near that level. 

As I said above, I'm sure some players are doping - there will be some willing to take the risk to possibly gain an extra edge. However, I would be very surprised if it was all the top players. 

As for Tenez's WADA quote, it doesn't exist. If WADA said 90% of all athletes dope it would be headline news.

Sprinting though. Not easy jogs. That is a big difference.
For me the peak dopage was Aus '12. The recovery from the previous match was insane from Novak. And the ability to still hit just as hard from the start at the end did not seem natural at all.
You know over the years 0 tests have been carried out for EPO. None. I know because I asked Dr Stuart Miller of the ITF himself. I don't see much of an effort to catch anyone. 
None of the marathon matches and superhuman recoveries raise an eyebrow to you?
The game has 100% become more fitness and conditioning orientated, no?

Tennis definitely tests for EPO, albeit arguably not enough. If Miller said it never has, then he was confused in some way. 

EPO obviously can help tennis players and I'm sure some players are using it. What I disagree with is the suggestion that it is impossible to get to the top clean. I don't believe that at all - the level of fitness needed just isn't that high. 

Agree with you about Oz12. That, to me, is the most suspicious recovery I've ever seen in tennis. I struggle to think of too many others at or near a similar level though.

Slippy wrote:Tennis definitely tests for EPO, albeit arguably not enough. If Miller said it never has, then he was confused in some way. 

EPO obviously can help tennis players and I'm sure some players are using it. What I disagree with is the suggestion that it is impossible to get to the top clean. I don't believe that at all - the level of fitness needed just isn't that high. 

Agree with you about Oz12. That, to me, is the most suspicious recovery I've ever seen in tennis. I struggle to think of too many others at or near a similar level though.

No he isn't. Also you say he was confused. I used the data of theirs and put it to him and he was sweating like a gypsy with a mortgage.
 In some years, tennis has not carried out one test for EPO. Google it. 

You say it is suspicious, but leave it at that?

Slippy wrote:Tennis definitely tests for EPO, albeit arguably not enough. If Miller said it never has, then he was confused in some way. 

EPO obviously can help tennis players and I'm sure some players are using it. What I disagree with is the suggestion that it is impossible to get to the top clean. I don't believe that at all - the level of fitness needed just isn't that high. 

Agree with you about Oz12. That, to me, is the most suspicious recovery I've ever seen in tennis. I struggle to think of too many others at or near a similar level though.

what would your definition of clean be slippy?
no drugs as in competing just on pure adrenaline and whatever you body gives you naturally,or no banned substances,or competing on whatever is legal and available to you?
i strongly have to disagree with your part  that the level of fitness required isnt that high
some of these grand slam finals have neared 7 hours on court,thats after 6 previous matches that could easily go the distance,you think about how your fitness level is going to cope with that kind of mental fatigue ...then theres the hours you put in in practice 
the only way you can naturally increase you fitness and stamina level is by doing more exercises that will help improve it
the way the game is played today,the fittest player can win,not the best shotmaker.that to me says something

luvsports! wrote:

Slippy wrote:Tennis definitely tests for EPO, albeit arguably not enough. If Miller said it never has, then he was confused in some way. 

EPO obviously can help tennis players and I'm sure some players are using it. What I disagree with is the suggestion that it is impossible to get to the top clean. I don't believe that at all - the level of fitness needed just isn't that high. 

Agree with you about Oz12. That, to me, is the most suspicious recovery I've ever seen in tennis. I struggle to think of too many others at or near a similar level though.

No he isn't. Also you say he was confused. I used the data of theirs and put it to him and he was sweating like a gypsy with a mortgage.
 In some years, tennis has not carried out one test for EPO. Google it. 

You say it is suspicious, but leave it at that?

Your initial post suggested that there had never been a test, in any year, hence my confusion. That said, I'm still not quite sure there is any individual year there were no EPO tests - albeit it has been ridiculously low on occasion (20 or so I think in one year). My understanding is that they are now required by WADA to test for EPO in at least 1 in 10 tests though - is that right? 

As for Oz12, it would probably be about a 6-7/10 flag for me but can I go further than that and say it's impossible a 24 year old Novak managed, on 36 hours rest, to recover without using banned substances? I don't think I can. Hence, suspicious but no more than that.

You might think that 2012 was the peak of doping but it's not. Today is though not as much as tomorrow.

As I showed you on a few stats though 2011 and 12 were gruelling, they were played at a slower pace than today and besides this WTF they kept on the clock much more tightly than in the past...meaning players simply can't run as much and have to cut rallies short. But at the end of the day, tennis is tougher now than then. Sustaining a fast paced rally today v Stan or Nishi is tougher than rallying with Nadal and Ferrer where the ball takes some time to travel.

The devil is in the detail....and the pace being faster nowadays makes life much tougher for Nadal. I sent you the stats...the tempo of rallies is at least 15pc faster than in 2009. This extra space is much more energy consuming and again sorts the "best" athletes out.

Just look at this very simple fact. MURRAY lost the first set quite convincingly to Nishi and Raonic yet he outlast them...and killed Nishi physically very convincingly too...despite being probably 20pc heavier than Nishi. There is no physiological explanation to it.

But if you arequire a Murray fan...you will always want to find excuses or arguments...like millions of fans were supporting Lance.

Is that a simple fact though? If we take Kei,that was the 4th time they've played this year and it was the first time Kei had won the first set. 

Murray smashed him up 61 in the first set of their US Open match before Kei won in 5. The match before that Murray won the first set 61 at the Olympics. Even at the WTF Kei won 3 of the last 4 games! 

If anything, their matches this year suggest that Kei has the edge in fitness. His problem against Murray is that his serve is vastly inferior and tends to get destroyed by Murray when he's playing well. 

As for Raonic, Murray's now beaten him 7 times in a row - most of them easily. The fact that Raonic managed to stay with a visibly under-par Murray for 3.5 hours is hardly evidence that he beat him on fitness. If Raonic had taken his matchpoint deep in the 3rd set would you have said he was fitter than Murray?

Slippy wrote:Is that a simple fact though? If we take Kei,that was the 4th time they've played this year and it was the first time Kei had won the first set. 

Murray smashed him up 61 in the first set of their US Open match before Kei won in 5. The match before that Murray won the first set 61 at the Olympics. Even at the WTF Kei won 3 of the last 4 games! 

If anything, their matches this year suggest that Kei has the edge in fitness. His problem against Murray is that his serve is vastly inferior and tends to get destroyed by Murray when he's playing well. 

As for Raonic, Murray's now beaten him 7 times in a row - most of them easily. The fact that Raonic managed to stay with a visibly under-par Murray for 3.5 hours is hardly evidence that he beat him on fitness. If Raonic had taken his matchpoint deep in the 3rd set would you have said he was fitter than Murray?

No because his game revolves around his serve and fh.
Murray's greatest strengths lie in his movement and ability to get many balls back.

More conspiracy garbage...

Daniel wrote:More conspiracy garbage...

Typical of short people. They are the last ones to know when it rains.

Short people usually have faster reflexes  - and height doesn't affect brain power.  Anyone with a brain knows that.

3:28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwyTMByZoQ&t=3m28s