Re: ATP 500/250 Dubai/Acapulco/Sao Paolo

by N2D2L Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:32 pm

Then why did you just say 'more or less yeah', have you already changed your mind?

by Tenez Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:34 pm

Then I meant on decent form...not on good form. A bit of a nuance I m sure you'd like to spend your saturday eve on!

by N2D2L Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:42 pm

Hmm?
You said this:

Tenez wrote:'So let me get this right, with the exception of Nadal on clay, do you believe that if Federer loses you are 95% sure he is injured?'

More or less. yeah.

by Tenez Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:05 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Hmm?
You said this:

Tenez wrote:'So let me get this right, with the exception of Nadal on clay, do you believe that if Federer loses you are 95% sure he is injured?'

More or less. yeah.

What is not clear? Federer has beaten everybody and still beat anybody. Is it this simple fact which is keeping you in on a sat eve?

by N2D2L Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:13 pm

In what way is that similar to what you just said?

by N2D2L Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:19 pm

Perhaps I can ask a question, and a simple yes or no answer will suffice. Don't answer like a politician and come up with a new line like you have the past 2 times.

Do you believe, with the exception of Nadal on clay, that if Federer loses you are atleast 95% sure it is because of injury? Yes, or no.

by Tenez Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:23 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Perhaps I can ask a question, and a simple yes or no answer will suffice. Don't answer like a politician and come up with a new line like you have the past 2 times.

Do you believe, with the exception of Nadal on clay, that if Federer loses you are atleast 95% sure it is because of injury? Yes, or no.

That's a funny one. You are the politician trying to distort everything.

Where did I say "95% sure it is because injury"? You have such a twisted mind you don't even read the politician answers correctly....let alone understand them.

by gallery play Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:48 pm

Tenez wrote:
gallery play wrote:First title with the new racket. Well done Roj and his team.
Is that humour?

It's Djoko who first congratulated Nadal...and his team.

Well, it's not easy to get Roger's back right, so they're doing a good job. But i'm actually referring to Edberg too. Fed looks inspired and motivated these days.

BTW: until today i saw only a few highlights but from what i saw today i think all this talk in the media about his ultra aggressive play is a bit exaggerated. Today they showed a map of Fed's court positioning of the first and second set. He played the first set 19% inside the baseline and the second set 35%. But i you looked closer, you could see the second set the shots he wasn't playing inside the baseline, he was 2/3 yards behind it, while the first set he was toeing the baseline most of the time, and it didn't work. He had to cut down the errors and threw in more slices and loopy shots. It was this variation which started to hurt Berdych.

by N2D2L Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:58 pm

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Perhaps I can ask a question, and a simple yes or no answer will suffice. Don't answer like a politician and come up with a new line like you have the past 2 times.

Do you believe, with the exception of Nadal on clay, that if Federer loses you are atleast 95% sure it is because of injury? Yes, or no.

That's a funny one. You are the politician trying to distort everything.

Where did I say "95% sure it is because injury"? You have such a twisted mind you don't even read the politician answers correctly....let alone understand them.

Well I asked you, and you said 'more or less.'

by Tenez Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:14 pm

gallery play wrote:
Tenez wrote:
gallery play wrote:First title with the new racket. Well done Roj and his team.
Is that humour?

It's Djoko who first congratulated Nadal...and his team.

Well, it's not easy to get Roger's back right, so they're doing a good job. But i'm actually referring to Edberg too. Fed looks inspired and motivated these days.

BTW: until today i saw only a few highlights but from what i saw today i think all this talk in the media about his ultra aggressive play is a bit exaggerated. Today they showed a map of Fed's court positioning of the first and second set. He played the first set 19% inside the baseline and the second set 35%. But i you looked closer, you could see the second set the shots he wasn't playing inside the baseline, he was 2/3 yards behind it, while the first set he was toeing the baseline most of the time, and it didn't work. He had to cut down the errors and threw in more slices and loopy shots. It was this variation which started to hurt Berdych.

I did not see much of the first set unfortunately but my take is that the main problem again was his serve. He kept being broken cause his serve was quite poor and his FH was producing those unusual UEs.

yes I agree about Edberg probably inspiring him. There were some very good aggressive volleys from him v Djoko too. Really nice.....if only there would be more of those faster courts.

by Tenez Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:54 am

And Gringo Dimitrov does it!

by gallery play Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:50 am

Tenez wrote:
I did not see much of the first set unfortunately but my take is that the main problem again was his serve. He kept being broken cause his serve was quite poor and his FH was producing those unusual UEs.

yes I agree about Edberg probably inspiring him. There were some very good aggressive volleys from him v Djoko too. Really nice.....if only there would be more of those faster courts.

Yeah, but that was because the early hitting was troubling him more than Berdych. For now i think the part that got the most benefit out of the racket change is the volley.

On Grigo: he’s now winning many close matches. Which means his head and fitness are finally in good shape. He’s heading for a great year.

by Tenez Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:17 am

Don't you think those UEs came from an expected stiffness after his 3 setter from the day before? That would explain it nicely....very similar to FO 2012..even Wimby 2012.

by bluenose Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:00 pm

I just have to get it off my chest that there are 2 things about watching Berdych that drive me crazy. First the stiff-legged stork-like approach to the service line because it is so ugly and strange, and second the choice he has made to enable him to stay close to the baseline. He so often squats and hits, and every time I cringe because I expect him to blow out his knee. Surely this is a bad strategy?

by Tenez Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

bluenose wrote:I just have to get it off my chest that there are 2 things about watching Berdych that drive me crazy. First the stiff-legged stork-like approach to the service line because it is so ugly and strange, and second the choice he has made to enable him to stay close to the baseline. He so often squats and hits, and every time I cringe because I expect him to blow out his knee. Surely this is a bad strategy?

Yes that's so robotic! Especially coupled with that rigid bouncing of the ball straight after.

Huge legs muscles for sure.

by Tenez Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:10 pm

Nice interviews from Fed and Djoko here.

http://www.dubaidutyfreetennischampionships.com/News/Interview-Transcripts/Interview-Transcripts.aspx

Again Fed blames his poor serving for his poor match v Step. And to me that was also the case when he got broken twice, even thrice in that first set and a half v Berdych.

by truffin1 Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:04 am

Fed after the title giving some more insight into last year
Injury, scheduling,etc

ROGER FEDERER: No, it's not.

Q. No, it's not. Okay. And are you happy with this year's schedule in that regard?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, when you win you don't have to talk schedule. It's like Stan winning the Australian Open. He can pull out till whenever he wants to at this point. You make 2,000 points, it's so much points that you have a cushion for a long, long time. Actually then you can just do whatever you feel like.
So that's what winning tournaments does. Winning solves everything, you know, for that reason. When you don't win, I don't want to say you panic, but you usually start readjusting your schedule.
I have never really done that, to be quite honest. I believe in the long‑term plan. And I announced earlier I was not going to play Miami, and at the end I couldn't play Miami anyway if I wanted to because I was injured.
The injury, it took me three weeks probably, and out of those seven weeks I was looking forward to taking two weeks off and then training for five weeks basically, and I could only train for like two weeks. So actually, instead of coming out of the training block strong and fit like a fiddle, I came out like, you know, halfway.
That's why my results were mediocre. I think they were okay. I mean, I did play the finals in Rome and quarters in Paris, won Halle. It was okay, but I realized I'm missing training, I'm missing things, my confidence is not there.
So the rest I took, I had to take it at the end, and I believe my results would have been different could I have trained 100 percent, because then many things happened with my mind, I lost confidence in my movement. The back issue didn't quite go away really ever through that entire stretch.
But I did decide to play Hamburg and Gstaad, added that to the schedule, but then got hurt again in Hamburg, should not have finished the tournament there, should not have played Gstaad, but I was like, I'm already here. It's not crazy bad, but it's bad enough that I shouldn't be playing but I want to play.
And then from then on I just had to take a clear decision that I will just not play when I feel this way anymore in the future. That's the promise I made to myself.

Q. Don't take it the wrong way, but my colleagues did mention that you're coming back. Does Roger Federer think that he's coming back as a 2.0 or are we seeing the rise of a Roger Federer as dominating world tennis again?
ROGER FEDERER: Who knows? I'm just happy that I'm healthy again and that I can focus on tactics and not focus on am I feeling all right, you know, when I wake up tomorrow or am I going to feel better tomorrow, that kind of stuff.
I went through that weeks and months, like every day I hoped there was going to be a little improvement. I only started to feel that improvement halfway through sort of the US Open maybe, so it was a long time. I was fighting it, you know, all the way from Indian Wells really.
So it was a long stretch through a couple of Grand Slams and a few Masters 1000s. So in that sense, yes, I could come back from like an injury. Like Murray's is like a comeback but it's not a comeback as such because I didn't fall out of the top 100 or anything like that.
If you look at it, I had an okay, consistent season last years. I didn't win many tournaments, you know, but still, you know, I gave myself chances and, you know, I fought my way through and I played while I was injured. Always a dangerous thing to do, but I think I can ‑‑I know when it's too dangerous and when it's not.
For that reason, I'm just happy that now it's clear, I don't have to think of it, and I can just play tennis. When you can play that way, you're more free, you have an open mind. That's when usually you are more successful but not always.
That's why you have to take them when you can, and this week I did. I'm very happy.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:10 am

So actually, instead of coming out of the training block strong and fit like a fiddle, I came out like, you know, halfway.

If this was Nadal who had said it, Nadal haters would be out like a hawk claiming that Nadal is taking away credit from his opponents and blaming his defeats on the consequences of injury on his training.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:45 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
So actually, instead of coming out of the training block strong and fit like a fiddle, I came out like, you know, halfway.
If this was Nadal who had said it, Nadal haters would be out like a hawk claiming that Nadal is taking away credit from his opponents and blaming his defeats on the consequences of injury on his training.

There is a huge difference can't you see? Federer only talks about it after the event...specifically not to take the credits from his opponents. He makes people think he is just "aging" while those who know a bit more guessed it a long time ago that there is something bad physically.

Nadal shows the world he has a problem with his back on a slam's final like Federer never will. It was clear Fed's back was hurting in that AO09 final, he even took 2 month to rest it but he did not make a meal of it on the court and did not steal Nadal's moment.

If Nadal was behaving with more respects for his opponents, his opponents and the tennis fans would have more respect for him.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:04 am

Tenez wrote:
There is a huge difference can't you see? Federer only talks about it after the event...specifically not to take the credits from his opponents.

Really:
"I'm unhappy with the way I'm playing, I couldn't play the way I wanted to," added the Swiss, who needed five sets to overcome Alejandro Fall in the first round and four to oust Ilija Bozoljac in the second. "I'm struggling with a little bit of a back and a leg issue. They don't allow me to play the way I would like to.
"For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today."

And I remember FK for chastising Nadal for avoiding talking about injuries just after, but talking about it months later; so when Federer does it it's a good thing, and when Nadal does that it's bad?

Tenez wrote:He makes people think he is just "aging" while those who know a bit more guessed it a long time ago that there is something bad physically.

That's simply not true, at the end of 2013 he talked about how his injuries meant he was affected during the middle of the season; and in the AO 2014 he talked about how nice it was to be fit unlike the 2013 AO (so taking away credit indirectly from Murray for the 2013 win), if you want the quotes I will bring it up. I don't mind that though, Federer can bring up his injuries if he wants, I don't mind even if that's politically incorrect. It is you guys who mind... only if the player you dislike is doing it.

Nadal shows the world he has a problem with his back on a slam's final like Federer never will.

He had a back spasm and then couldn't serve more than 100mph, what do you expect him to do, wear an invisibility cloak?

It was clear Fed's back was hurting in that AO09 final, he even took 2 month to rest it but he did not make a meal of it on the court and did not steal Nadal's moment.

Well according to you every match Federer has lost apart from Nadal on clay you are 95% sure Roger is either exhausted or injured... so of course you have an injury excuse lined up here. If I was making up nonsense injuries or saying Nadal must have an injury every match he loses apart from indoor hard (similar to what you said about Roger), everyone would be saying how disgraceful it is I'm taking away credit from his opponents.
How do you decide which part of Roger is injured for each loss by the way? Do you pick a body part at random?

If Nadal was behaving with more respects for his opponents

No, no; look the only way Nadal can get respect back from his haters is if he starts losing to Federer. As long as he keeps on beating Federer, his haters will always make up wacky theories and use double standards.
I mean the hypocrisy is unreal, Nadal and Federer could do exactly the same thing yet you will crucify Nadal for it but praise Federer.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:21 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:I'm unhappy with the way I'm playing, I couldn't play the way I wanted to," added the Swiss, who needed five sets to overcome Alejandro Fall in the first round and four to oust Ilija Bozoljac in the second. "I'm struggling with a little bit of a back and a leg issue. They don't allow me to play the way I would like to.
"For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today."[/i]

Oh that must have hurt Falla! be serious a bit JS. We all remember the "I am perfect physically" right after the interview...but more importantly, no MTO, no disruption and the crowd, including you thought Falla was playing great. That's all that matters, not many will read the interview and if they do, They will not read anything into the "I could not play the way I wanted". So once again you show how biased you are by comparing this vague sentence in a post match interview with Nadal's one injured-man show in that AO final!!!!!

That's simply not true, at the end of 2013 he talked about how his injuries meant he was affected during the middle of the season; and in the AO 2014 he talked about how nice it was to be fit unlike the 2013 AO (so taking away credit indirectly from Murray for the 2013 win), if you want the quotes I will bring it up. I don't mind that though, Federer can bring up his injuries if he wants, I don't mind even if that's politically incorrect. It is you guys who mind... only if the player you dislike is doing it.

Well exactly well after the event. He has pain from IW and probably before but only talks about it at year end..when no-one remembers who he played then. And Likewise I don't mind him talking about injuries I wish he could do it a bit more.

Nadal shows the world he has a problem with his back on a slam's final like Federer never will.

He had a back spasm and then couldn't serve more than 100mph, what do you expect him to do, wear an invisibility cloak?

Well according to you every match Federer has lost apart from Nadal on clay you are 95% sure Roger is either exhausted or injured... so of course you have an injury excuse lined up here. If I was making up nonsense injuries or saying Nadal must have an injury every match he loses apart from indoor hard (similar to what you said about Roger), everyone would be saying how disgraceful it is I'm taking away credit from his opponents.
How do you decide which part of Roger is injured for each loss by the way? Do you pick a body part at random?

It's not me it's the stats that say that more or less. (besides you are still misreading what I wrote). Federer has been winning 9 matches out of 10 when healthy on average in his healthy patches. Check for yourself.

No, no; look the only way Nadal can get respect back from his haters is if he starts losing to Federer. As long as he keeps on beating Federer, his haters will always make up wacky theories and use double standards.
I mean the hypocrisy is unreal, Nadal and Federer could do exactly the same thing yet you will crucify Nadal for it but praise Federer

Who said that? Typical of a fan's view.....You are the al quaeda of the tennis forum! Laugh

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:43 am

I think you've messed up your quoting a bit, anyway;

Tenez wrote:
For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today.
Oh that must have hurt Falla! be serious a bit JS. We all remember the "I am perfect physically" right after the interview...but more importantly, no MTO, no disruption and the crowd, including you thought Falla was playing great.

This was right after the Berdych loss by the way, sorry if I didn't make that clear.
And yes, I think if people watched the Federer interview right after the match, how could it not be seen as taking credit away from Berdych?

Tenez wrote:So once again you show how biased you are by comparing this vague sentence in a post match interview with Nadal's one injured-man show in that AO final!!!!!

But there are different types of injury.
Federer did not have a muscle spasm, but his back was hindered which meant he could not play freely.
That's different to have quite literally having a back spasm on court, which means he can't serve above 100mph on average.
Look, if this was any other player and he had a back spasm on court (and they are painful if you haven't experienced one yourself) and then couldn't serve... you would be sympathetic to him. But yet you can never apply the same standards to Nadal... what exactly do you expect him to do?
Yes he looked glum, but would you not look glum if you were in that painful situation?
As I said if any other player had a back spasm in that situation you would not criticise him... but different rules for Nadal.

Well exactly well after the event. He has pain from IW and probably before but only talks about it at year end..when no-one remembers who he played then.

Nadal has been criticised on this forum for doing exactly this, but for some reason you didn't defend Nadal then?

It's not me it's the stats that say that more or less. (besides you are still misreading what I wrote). Federer has been winning 9 matches out of 10 when healthy on average in his healthy patches. Check for yourself.

That's not what you said, at all; show me the quote.
You said: the chances of Federer being injured if he lost to Berdych were 20/1; and when I asked you whether you were 95% sure of him being injured against any opponent he loses to apart from Nadal on clay you said 'more or less'.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:59 am

Federer again saying between the lines that there is something not quite right physically, essentially affecting his serving.

Q. Why was it so tough?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, I think I started well, you know. Just normal, solid. I don't think Tomas played a great game to get broken in the first set, and then after that, my serve, you know, didn't help me. I think the game I got broken I might have made one serve, if that, on the first serve. He returned well on the second. You know, I was still looking for my rhythm on the serve, and it's been a bit of the case this whole week it's been like this.
So that's something I maybe have to clean up a little bit, but then again, you know, the ball comes to you on this court, and then if you strike it well it's just hard to get rhythm.
I was struggling with half volleys, I was struggling with my forehand, and then it's just ‑‑everything happens very, very quickly, and you can really forget about trying to look for rhythm in these conditions against Berdych, and that's what makes it hard then for quite a long time.
So I was looking for better serving, actually, because I think that's what let me down the most in the beginning, got me down in the match, of course, being broken three times in what, five, six service games. It's just not something you can normally do against a top guy.

Typical symptoms of those periods when he struggles with his back. The good news is that it can go away during matches.

by Daniel Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:26 pm

Nadal makes a song and dance about injuries (that suddenly go or weren't even there) in way too many matches, and he blames it in post match interviews for losses. He is classless. Trying to compare it to that interview is a joke LOL.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:08 pm

Well if a player has a style that is more prone to injury, of course he will have more matches where he is injured? Common sense, no?

And wait, are you trying to say this interview isn't trying to take credit away from his opponent:
For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:15 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Well if a player has a style that is more prone to injury, of course he will have more matches where he is injured? Common sense, no?

And wait, are you trying to say this interview isn't trying to take credit away from his opponent:
For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today.

Interesting admission. Using talent doesn't hurt...on the contrary, it saves your body injuries!

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:18 pm

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Well if a player has a style that is more prone to injury, of course he will have more matches where he is injured? Common sense, no?

And wait, are you trying to say this interview isn't trying to take credit away from his opponent:
For the last five or six days the back has been really bad. It's normal that the back tends to get stiff in the grass-court season but it's just not nice when it doesn't go away and you can't play freely. That's what I was missing today.

Interesting admission. Using talent doesn't hurt...on the contrary, it saves your body injuries!

Then why according to you has Federer suffered from such injury problems throughout his career. What about Nalbandian who's career was hindered by injury? What about Haas who's progress during his 20's was spoilt due to injury? What about Del Potro who now faces a long spell in the sidelines out?

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:26 pm

Because Federer is not talented enough. Had he been more talented, he would have been able to hit more aces, shorten the rally much more on many occasions, whack that BH flat DTL and CC and he would been as Fresh as Llodra at 32 but with all those slams and more.....though having said that he has by far the best record of runs in slams and that in the most physical era so surely he has some talent and it still helps him flirt with the top 3 top players on a given day.

I'd like to see where nadal is at 32. I am happy to bet my house that he won't be in the top 20....50 even.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:30 pm

Yes but Nadal started his career much earlier for his age than Federer, already playing professionally when he was young.

In terms of number of years playing professionally, Nadal has already played as many as most current players who are aged 30.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:39 pm

According to your logic, Nadal is more talented than Federer:

-You believe Nadal's injuries are fake; and that him taking time out was not due to injury
-You believe Federer has really struggled with back injury in the past few years, and have said most of his defeats are down to injury
-You believe players who get injured less are more talented
-Therefore according to your logic Nadal is more talented than Federer

Now we will see, how you quickly 'adjust' what you were saying so it coincidentally matches your preconceptions.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:45 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Yes but Nadal started his career much earlier for his age than Federer, already playing professionally when he was young.

In terms of number of years playing professionally, Nadal has already played as many as most current players who are aged 30.

I disagree. Nadal missed so many slams or lost so early in some of them. Plus though you are not a pro you still train very hard to become a pro very. Playing the tour early is just an advantage to gain experience....it does not how hard you train.

As I showed in the other thread, Federer played more matches per year on average at his peak..quite a bit more.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:47 pm

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Yes but Nadal started his career much earlier for his age than Federer, already playing professionally when he was young.

In terms of number of years playing professionally, Nadal has already played as many as most current players who are aged 30.
I disagree. Nadal missed so many slams or lost so early in some of them. Plus though you are not a pro you still train very hard to become a pro very. Playing the tour early is just an advantage to gain experience....it does not how hard you train.

As I showed in the other thread, Federer played more matches per year on average at his peak..quite a bit more.

Nadal trains very hard, probably with higher intensity than most professionals.
And I think becoming a pro early means you have to train more when you are younger... hence why WTA brought in measures to limit the number of pro tournaments juniors can play.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:52 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:According to your logic, Nadal is more talented than Federer:

-You believe Nadal's injuries are fake; and that him taking time out was not due to injury
-You believe Federer has really struggled with back injury in the past few years, and have said most of his defeats are down to injury
-You believe players who get injured less are more talented
-Therefore according to your logic Nadal is more talented than Federer

Now we will see, how you quickly 'adjust' what you were saying so it coincidentally matches your preconceptions.

You simplify things to the absurd. I believe there had been some silent bans.....mentioned as injuries but we have seen Nadal pulling out of tournaments because of injuries too. You are again trying to drown the fish.

The fact is you admit that Nadal's game is prone to injury. This i what you said, correct therefore instead of trying to find flaws logic just admit that Nadal's style is more physical than talent. This is the simplest thing we can all observe...even the die hard fans....bar you the Djihadist of tennis forum.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:00 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal trains very hard, probably with higher intensity than most professionals.

caugh caugh....of course...though he says he hates training and hardly does, certainly says he doesn't go to the gym. But for your peace of mind you want to believe that he works very hard and that is why he is very fit. You are so young and innocent...ignorant should I say.

And I think becoming a pro early means you have to train more when you are younger... hence why WTA brought in measures to limit the number of pro tournaments juniors can play.

Any athlete and doctors will tell you that you should not train too hard otherwise you arrive on court or ground too tired. We are not stupid here....we don't believe the working too hard. Last time we saw how Nadal trained he was in an oxygen tent, not running like a rabbit and lifting weights.

Nothing tires more than a tennis match. training is peace of cake in comparison. Listen to Federer, he has played 14 matches in the last 45 days and says it's too much already.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:13 pm

Tenez wrote:
I believe there had been some silent bans.....mentioned as injuries but we have seen Nadal pulling out of tournaments because of injuries too.

So do you think his time out was a 'silent' ban, or injury? Are you trying to have it both ways?

The fact is you admit that Nadal's game is prone to injury.

Yes, that's what I think; you on the other hand have indicated his injury problems are not genuine... unless it doesn't suit you in the argument at which point you suddenly switch back to believing they are genuine.
I don't believe bring prone to injuries means you are less talented, the tennis players who are also prone to injuries in the last decade or so are players like Nalbandian, Haas, and Del Potro (well potro we are to see whether his injury is as bad as he said). And in football Messi has been suffering from injury of late, he is also not talented?
I mean Ferrer has faced less injury problems in his career than Nalbandian and Federer have; you said in your own words you thought Federer got injured as he was 'not talented enough'... so according to you do you think Ferrer is less talented than Federer? Or will we have another quick 'adjustment' of your views which conveniently back the players you like.

caugh caugh....of course...though he says he hates training and hardly does, certainly says he doesn't go to the gym.

How closely do you follow Nadal? Not as closely as me clearly.
His training his very intense, his hitting partners and people who attend say he hits the ball as if he is playing a match for real, I've watched training sessions of both Nadal and Federer, and Nadal takes them much more seriously.
As for going to the gym, there are photos every day of Nadal in the gym from the various Nadal fan pages I follow.

Backtrack of the year coming up:

Tenez wrote:
In terms of number of years playing professionally, Nadal has already played as many as most current players who are aged 30.
Plus though you are not a pro you still train very hard to become a pro very. Playing the tour early is just an advantage to gain experience....it does not how hard you train.

Few minutes later:

Tenez wrote:Nothing tires more than a tennis match. training is peace of cake in comparison.

So wait... it is tennis matches which are tiring? So therefore Nadal playing tennis matches since he is young would mean that there is more wear and tear on his body? Or not... I mean you change your mind every 10 minutes depending on the argument so it's hard to debate anything you say.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:22 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Tenez wrote:
I believe there had been some silent bans.....mentioned as injuries but we have seen Nadal pulling out of tournaments because of injuries too.
So do you think his time out was a 'silent' ban, or injury? Are you trying to have it both ways?

Honestly are you stupid? How many times did Nadal not enter a tournament because of injury? 20 times? which one are you referring too? Cannot you conceive that silent ban and injury are not exclusive? One can have a silent ban once and an injury another time...and even have both at the same time. I don't mind arguing with you but if your are trying to dumb down any debate I will stop very quickly. So sharpen your arguments or it's over.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:33 pm

Tenez wrote:
Honestly are you stupid? How many times did Nadal not enter a tournament because of injury? 20 times?

Nadal has not actually taken many extended periods off the game, there was his time taken off in 2012, a few months in 2009, and for a foot injury in 2004.

Tenez wrote:
So sharpen your arguments or it's over.

I could say the same back to you, I mean how many times have you backtracked in the last 30 minutes.
Take the easy route out if you wish.

by noleisthebest Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:49 pm

Tenez wrote: You simplify things to the absurd. I believe there had been some silent bans.....mentioned as injuries but we have seen Nadal pulling out of tournaments because of injuries too. You are again trying to drown the fish .

What a great expression, haven't heard it before.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:55 pm

So let's go back to basics as you clearly avoided to answer the main point here.

1 - can using ball-striking talent save your body? In other words, Is a winner (be it an ace, a FH, a BH, etc...)saving your body effort and therefore possible injury? yes or no?

2 - Would nadal not have liked to play more winners (be it an ace, a FH, a BH, etc...) to save his body and make it less prone to injuries?

3 - Is the reason for not using more talent instead of physique a strategic choice or simply not a choice but doing with what he was given. Obviously one player can guarantee much success going the physical route but one would have to be stupid to believe that Nadal could have hit winners in those matches he lost. Did he want to lose to Rosol? Did he want to lose v Federer in Wimbledon 2007? would he have served aces had he could instead of trying to engaging in those long rallies in that 5th set?

If it's a strategic choice them on those many occasions he lost (and he lost twice as many more slams than he won), it's a bad strategy.

The alternative is that he chose the physical route cause it was for him the best way to gurantee success. There was no guarantee he could have won a slam with short points only. It seems to me clearly he did not even have a choice as Toni said that tennis was less natural for him than others.

So everything explains itself. Nadal plays a physical game cause that's his strength. It brought him a great career on slow surfaces everywhere but when things speed up and he needs to use a bit more talent then his record is very poor as on faster surfaces one needs more talent than physique.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:00 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote: You simplify things to the absurd. I believe there had been some silent bans.....mentioned as injuries but we have seen Nadal pulling out of tournaments because of injuries too. You are again trying to drown the fish .
What a great expression, haven't heard it before.

Yes a French expression only it seems though I thought I read it here..but probably did not:

google:
'Noyer le poisson' is an idiomatic expression. Arguing over and over a subject with some nonsence in order to confuse the audience/person. The point is to have someone getting totally confused.

Doesn't it sum up Amri's "rhetoric" skills?

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:05 pm

Nadal plays a pragmatic game, which will give him the highest percentage chance of winning the match.

His record is second to none, quite literally, in terms of matches won as a ratio to matches played he is right at the top, above Borg who is in second place.
In terms of how he would do on faster surfaces, I'd say two things; firstly it is unfair to use how he did when he was very young and extrapolate that to how he he would play on those surfaces at his prime. Secondly if surfaces were significantly different, and surfaces for the major tournaments, it's likely Toni would change his style to adjust to that. Any guess to how he would cope with that his simply guesswork, all we know is that in the current conditions he has the best W/L record in history.

As for his talent, he has shown he has incredible reflexes (I have the videos if you wish), as well as superb hand-eye coordination, for example he probably has the best backhand smash of all time- which is a shot which needs perfect timing.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:07 pm

Tenez, I mean it is true you seem confused; although that's down to you more than me.

What about your backtrack over Nadal playing more matches; one minute you indicate it's the training that would mean more wear and tear and playing tour matches is 'just an advantage'; and then you backtrack and say 'training is a piece of cake in comparison to matches.'
I mean this isn't the first time, you simply change your argument and your mind depending on what the debate is.

by truffin1 Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:24 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
So actually, instead of coming out of the training block strong and fit like a fiddle, I came out like, you know, halfway.
If this was Nadal who had said it, Nadal haters would be out like a hawk claiming that Nadal is taking away credit from his opponents and blaming his defeats on the consequences of injury on his training.

Because Nadal says it year after year after year.. Boy who cried wolf..

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:33 pm

truffin1 wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
So actually, instead of coming out of the training block strong and fit like a fiddle, I came out like, you know, halfway.
If this was Nadal who had said it, Nadal haters would be out like a hawk claiming that Nadal is taking away credit from his opponents and blaming his defeats on the consequences of injury on his training.

Because Nadal says it year after year after year.. Boy who cried wolf..

Well someone who gets injured more often is more likely to, that's simply common sense. How many examples can you find of him blaming defeats on injuries immediately in the post-match interview?

by noleisthebest Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:34 pm

Tenez wrote: Yes a French expression only it seems though I thought I read it here..but probably did not:
google:
'Noyer le poisson' is an idiomatic expression. Arguing over and over a subject with some nonsence in order to confuse the audience/person. The point is to have someone getting totally confused.

Doesn't it sum up Amri's "rhetoric" skills?

You are being a bit generous here.
To me, Amri's problem is not of rhetoric, but thinking nature...your replies and refusing to let the fish drown make a very enjoyable read, though.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:36 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal plays a pragmatic game, which will give him the highest percentage chance of winning the match.

They all do. They all play pragmatic with the skills they inherited. No one is going to serve 2 second serve if they have 1/2 a chance to hit an ace on their first serve!

His record is second to none, quite literally, in terms of matches won as a ratio to matches played he is right at the top, above Borg who is in second place.

Clearly second to one as proved and agreed by all bar you....but again no one disputes that. The question is how did he achieve that record? Try to keep up a logical reasoning and drop the fanatic side for a moment if you can. the question was this record achieved with hard work and physique or ease and talent? Obviously a mixture of both but we are talking in relative terms here.

In terms of how he would do on faster surfaces, I'd say two things; firstly it is unfair to use how he did when he was very young and extrapolate that to how he he would play on those surfaces at his prime. Secondly if surfaces were significantly different, and surfaces for the major tournaments, it's likely Toni would change his style to adjust to that. Any guess to how he would cope with that his simply guesswork, all we know is that in the current conditions he has the best W/L record in history.

Problem with this argument is that it does not hold up as we know slow surfaces require a strong physique for success while fast surfaces do not require necessarily particularly great physical skills. Therefore you cannot prove that Nadal lesser success on fast surfaces is done to training as it may simply be because on slow surfaces a physical player will have the advantage while not so much so on fast surface. So again flawed logic from Amri.

As for his talent, he has shown he has incredible reflexes (I have the videos if you wish), as well as superb hand-eye coordination, for example he probably has the best backhand smash of all time- which is a shot which needs perfect timing.

How many time do I need to insist in you keeping a logical mind and not a fanatic one? Can you measure with a naked eye how good are nadal's reflex compared to Djoko? Llodra? Stepanek? Kholi? etc...etc...
The only measuring stick I can think off I how early can he take the ball when he needs to...especially on faster surface as he lost quiet a few matches there by standing too far back, admitted by himself and Toni.

So You have made 0 valid point and still usuing too emotional concepts such as "great record", "great reflexes", where you train when most youngsters train on slow surfaces with softer balls, "nadal plays a pragmatic tennis" Laugh

, like the others are fools just trying to look good on the camera!

I am trying to keep you out of the water so we can hopefully have a sensible discussion.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:37 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
To me, Amri's problem is not of rhetoric, but thinking nature...

Pretty ironic thing to say considering you don't believe that evolution is real.

by truffin1 Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:39 pm

Why do you constantly bring up Nadal when no one even mentioned him. Federer didn't say a think about Nadal in the interview that I posted, but you immediately answer with a biased statement you know is clearly going to create arguments-- then you start crying about haters.. Maybe if you didn't hate in the 1st place with your reply- no one would be talking about Nadal.

Same thing other day- I mention its too bad we're moving from proper fast hard courts to manufactured slow IW (a fact) and you immediately go on about Nadal beating Federerer in 2006... Has nothing to do with my comment-- so then we start another round of Fed vs. Nadal fan bashing-- all because you are absurdly obsessed with proving something about Nadal that you can't.

by Tenez Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:42 pm

truffin1 wrote: you are absurdly obsessed with proving something about Nadal that you can't.

Yep a real fan.

by N2D2L Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:44 pm

truffin I'm not the only one on this forum who brings up Nadal.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31