ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
+6
Slippy
sphairistike
barrystar
bogbrush
Tenez
raiders_of_the_lost_ark
10 posters
Our Tennis Forum :: Tennis :: Tennis
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Tenez,
Can you please define what is fitness in tennis? How do you know who is fittest? I'm asking this coz I'm not sure we are on the same page with the definitions.
Can you please define what is fitness in tennis? How do you know who is fittest? I'm asking this coz I'm not sure we are on the same page with the definitions.
raiders_of_the_lost_ark- Posts : 3499
Join date : 2012-07-20
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:legendkillar wrote:You cannot put a number on success and then say that's what being fit equates to.
I haven't put an exact number here but given the history of physical players and their success in tennis, a success range can be arrived to in my opinion. Chang, Hewitt and Murray according to me didn't have the game to win slams. But adding the physicality to their tennis strength provided them with some chance ( though limited as it would ). They made good of it.
And this is what I've expressed.
But they did....
Two of them multi slam winners and former world number 1's.
So not sure where you are going with this in your pursuit to lament Tenez's theory. You view on what game can't win slams isn't anywhere near as credible as Tenez's fitness theory.
legendkillar- Posts : 3266
Join date : 2012-10-02
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Fed is eroding my liver with these losses. Expected at his age now but wtffff
Jahu- Posts : 4103
Join date : 2016-02-23
Location : Egg am Faaker See
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Fitter means being able to move better and longer than the opposition but also in the rare case of Nadal being able to ht the ball harder without tiring as much as others would.raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tenez,
Can you please define what is fitness in tennis? How do you know who is fittest? I'm asking this coz I'm not sure we are on the same page with the definitions.
two good examples are Nadal arriving on the scene at 17/18 with a fitness unseen. Listen to Coria describing his matches v 18yo Nadal. Also Djokovic was very fit prior to 2011..but suddenly he manages to up the bar even further and says it himself that he is very surprised how fit he has become thanks to his new regime. That extra fitness allows him to completely turn the table v Nadal.
That is what fitness s all about. Of course they can hit the ball over the net but that is not what separates them from the rest of the field.
That extra fitness gives them also an mental edge. It's basic tennis.
Tenez- Posts : 21050
Join date : 2012-06-18
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Jahu wrote:Fed is eroding my liver with these losses. Expected at his age now but wtffff
Yes and we will have to get used to it. I still look forward to see him in London as he could play the top 2 fresh. That's all there is to it really as I don't think he can win any tournament now.
Tenez- Posts : 21050
Join date : 2012-06-18
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
The bar to him winning things now is Djokovic. He won Australia only 9 months ago.
bogbrush- Posts : 3052
Join date : 2015-03-30
Location : England
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Djoko, Coric, Anderson, the list is growing with relatively unspectacular players.
Tenez- Posts : 21050
Join date : 2012-06-18
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
legendkillar wrote:raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:legendkillar wrote:You cannot put a number on success and then say that's what being fit equates to.
I haven't put an exact number here but given the history of physical players and their success in tennis, a success range can be arrived to in my opinion. Chang, Hewitt and Murray according to me didn't have the game to win slams. But adding the physicality to their tennis strength provided them with some chance ( though limited as it would ). They made good of it.
And this is what I've expressed.
But they did....
Two of them multi slam winners and former world number 1's.
So not sure where you are going with this in your pursuit to lament Tenez's theory. You view on what game can't win slams isn't anywhere near as credible as Tenez's fitness theory.
LK, I didn't dispute their slams victories, I know they did it, multi slams wins and finals. I'm saying is their tennis skills didn't have enough to win slams. I can tell guys who had slam winning games but didn't win. Tsonga, Nalbandian, Coria, Rios to name some. Why?? They lacked something and they couldn't work enough on it.
Similarly the above 3 didn't have the game that would win slams. But they worked on what was needed. They chose to play solid instead of trying to be brilliant ( which they couldn't anyway), cut down their own errors, return as many balls as possible, try to make it difficult for the opponent. The key ingredient to this strategy is being extremely fit.
But this strategy can't bring domination of the field and can bring limited success. The 3 are about limits to what this strategy can do.
Only people with a great game can dominate.
raiders_of_the_lost_ark- Posts : 3499
Join date : 2012-07-20
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
It's been growing since 2007Tenez wrote:Djoko, Coric, Anderson, the list is growing with relatively unspectacular players.
bogbrush- Posts : 3052
Join date : 2015-03-30
Location : England
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1034577/Roger-Federer-injury-Swiss-Indoors-Basel-Open-Stan-Wawrinka-Filip-Krajinovic
ROGER FEDERER says he played through three months of the season with a wrist injury as he attempts to explain his recent poor form.
Jahu- Posts : 4103
Join date : 2016-02-23
Location : Egg am Faaker See
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:legendkillar wrote:raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:legendkillar wrote:You cannot put a number on success and then say that's what being fit equates to.
I haven't put an exact number here but given the history of physical players and their success in tennis, a success range can be arrived to in my opinion. Chang, Hewitt and Murray according to me didn't have the game to win slams. But adding the physicality to their tennis strength provided them with some chance ( though limited as it would ). They made good of it.
And this is what I've expressed.
But they did....
Two of them multi slam winners and former world number 1's.
So not sure where you are going with this in your pursuit to lament Tenez's theory. You view on what game can't win slams isn't anywhere near as credible as Tenez's fitness theory.
LK, I didn't dispute their slams victories, I know they did it, multi slams wins and finals. I'm saying is their tennis skills didn't have enough to win slams. I can tell guys who had slam winning games but didn't win. Tsonga, Nalbandian, Coria, Rios to name some. Why?? They lacked something and they couldn't work enough on it.
Similarly the above 3 didn't have the game that would win slams. But they worked on what was needed. They chose to play solid instead of trying to be brilliant ( which they couldn't anyway), cut down their own errors, return as many balls as possible, try to make it difficult for the opponent. The key ingredient to this strategy is being extremely fit.
But this strategy can't bring domination of the field and can bring limited success. The 3 are about limits to what this strategy can do.
Only people with a great game can dominate.
Djokovic doesn't have a great game. Sampras didn't have a great game. Let me bring this into context with a simple question to you. Would Djokovic have won anywhere near the number of titles he has without that high level of fitness?
Those you mentioned. Bar Nalby who was plagued by injuries, didn't have the mental fortitude to get the job done. It's that simple. Winners know how to win. Losers know how to fuck up the best advantages. It's a case of who has the killer instinct.
You could argue you that great games dominate, however I'd argue the best player in the conditions often or not dominates.
legendkillar- Posts : 3266
Join date : 2012-10-02
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Very interesting. It was clear the way he lost to Kevin there that he was not 100%.Jahu wrote:https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1034577/Roger-Federer-injury-Swiss-Indoors-Basel-Open-Stan-Wawrinka-Filip-KrajinovicROGER FEDERER says he played through three months of the season with a wrist injury as he attempts to explain his recent poor form.
Tenez- Posts : 21050
Join date : 2012-06-18
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Federers fh is really looking poor recently. So up and down. He won't be a threat for Basel/WTF if he keeps this kind of level. Is he close to retirement?
AceofDeath- Posts : 448
Join date : 2015-04-18
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
Tenez wrote:Very interesting. It was clear the way he lost to Kevin there that he was not 100%.Jahu wrote:https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1034577/Roger-Federer-injury-Swiss-Indoors-Basel-Open-Stan-Wawrinka-Filip-KrajinovicROGER FEDERER says he played through three months of the season with a wrist injury as he attempts to explain his recent poor form.
You're as bad as the Nadal fans. It's this simple: If he wasn't fit to play, he wouldn't have. Fitness is a part of the sport. Also, the Express is generally full of shit when it comes to tennis.
Daniel- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-11-06
Re: ATP 1000 Shanghai Masters.
What should I start?Daniel wrote:Tenez wrote:Very interesting. It was clear the way he lost to Kevin there that he was not 100%.Jahu wrote:https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1034577/Roger-Federer-injury-Swiss-Indoors-Basel-Open-Stan-Wawrinka-Filip-KrajinovicROGER FEDERER says he played through three months of the season with a wrist injury as he attempts to explain his recent poor form.
You're as bad as the Nadal fans. It's this simple: If he wasn't fit to play, he wouldn't have. Fitness is a part of the sport. Also, the Express is generally full of shit when it comes to tennis.
Tenez- Posts : 21050
Join date : 2012-06-18
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» ATP Masters 1000: SHANGHAI
» ATP Masters 1000: SHANGHAI
» Masters 1000: Shanghai
» ATP Masters 1000: Shanghai
» ATP Masters 1000: SHANGHAI, THE FINAL
» ATP Masters 1000: SHANGHAI
» Masters 1000: Shanghai
» ATP Masters 1000: Shanghai
» ATP Masters 1000: SHANGHAI, THE FINAL
Our Tennis Forum :: Tennis :: Tennis
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:25 am by Daniel2
» The Bullshit of Rafael Nadal
Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:15 am by Daniel2
» Why Trump's 'tough' stance on radical Islam... could lead to more terrorism
Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:32 am by Daniel2
» Missing Madeline 10 years on..
Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:31 am by Daniel2
» '15 Dubious Weak Era Records'
Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:06 am by Daniel2
» AO 2024 - Sinner baby!!
Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:05 am by Daniel2
» Paris Masters
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:47 pm by noleisthebest
» Alvarez could bring me back to tennis
Wed Sep 20, 2023 10:25 am by raiders_of_the_lost_ark
» IDEMOOOOOOO! ! ! !
Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:47 am by noleisthebest