Who Is The Mentally Toughest Player?

What is mental strength?

Some think players who choke or lack fighting spirit are mentally weak.

Until recently, Nadal has been praised as the mentally toughest player of all time!

Then when results started drying out - according to his fans his mental strength kind of - "weakened".

Can mental strength vary?

Federer missed many BPs yesterday, and some say he is mentally weak, allowing it to happen.

What do you think?

Depends at what stage of their career.  Federer 04-07 was the mentally toughest off clay, and Nadal was the toughest on clay.  After 07-08, Nadal was the toughest on all surfaces, and now it's Djokovic.

Borg is a contender for toughest of all time, also.

Mental toughness isn't something that just stays with you forever, it's affected by big losses and age (see Nadal also).

FedererKing wrote:Depends at what stage of their career.  Federer 04-07 was the mentally toughest off clay, and Nadal was the toughest on clay.  After 07-08, Nadal was the toughest on all surfaces, and now it's Djokovic.

Borg is a contender for toughest of all time, also.

Mental toughness isn't something that just stays with you forever, it's affected by big losses and age (see Nadal also).

There you go..how mental strength can be affected by court surface? SO on dust mental strength turn to dust? I see the logic.

The same logic which says:

You win: you are strong mentally, fit, talented, peaking, move well, etc, technically superior, etc...
you lose: you the opposite of the above.

doesn't matter of course how the execution of a couple of points go.

Would be good to see some match statistics as mentioned the BP conversion and reversed BP, these should be the most relevant - key points of the match.

If I can pick up some players, then I say Nole and Stan, by  chance both my most favorite players.

Those physical players are teh weakest by definition. If they had balls they 'd have an attacking game.

It largely depends on mental strength as a whole. For example Nadal and Sampras fit the winners mentality. It can be big match situations or even the match situation itself. 

I think to play on and remain on top of near the top for over a decade takes a lot of mental strength. I think Connors fit that bill as did McEnroe and in more recent time Federer.

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Depends at what stage of their career.  Federer 04-07 was the mentally toughest off clay, and Nadal was the toughest on clay.  After 07-08, Nadal was the toughest on all surfaces, and now it's Djokovic.

Borg is a contender for toughest of all time, also.

Mental toughness isn't something that just stays with you forever, it's affected by big losses and age (see Nadal also).

There you go..how mental strength can be affected by court surface? SO on dust mental strength turn to dust? I see the logic.

The same logic which says:

You win: you are strong mentally, fit, talented, peaking, move well, etc, technically superior, etc...
you lose: you the opposite of the above.

doesn't matter of course how the execution of a couple of points go.

Not really.  Federer was weaker mentally AGAINST NADAL ON CLAY because, by 2007, he knew he could be hammered against him ON CLAY.  That's basic psychology.  Federer had ultimate mental strength on all other surfaces because he knew he was too good.  Nowadays, he knows he isn't as good, and that he can lose.

You've taken my meaning and rearranged it into what you want it to mean.

Age > decline > play worse > lose more > mentally affected.

Is one route that this works with.  There are others.

How do you think old Djokovic is going to fare once he starts getting hammered (entering his decline soon)? Do you think he will go out there all confident knowing he can be beaten much easier than before? No.

Again. I 'll pick federer cause he can win 17 slams going for minimum margins, highest risks taken. Sure he lost a few more slams from a winning position but he still won most of them all.

Then Wilander. He leads connors 5/0. Never got troubled by Connors gamesmanship and never gave up. he beat Connors (31) when he was himself only 20..on Connors home soil. But above all I have never seen Wilander nervous.....not even as a commentator.

FedererKing wrote:

Not really.  Federer was weaker mentally AGAINST NADAL ON CLAY because, by 2007, he knew he could be hammered against him ON CLAY.  That's basic psychology.  Federer had ultimate mental strength on all other surfaces because he knew he was too good.  Nowadays, he knows he isn't as good, and that he can lose.

You've taken my meaning and rearranged it into what you want it to mean.

Age > decline > play worse > lose more > mentally affected.

Is one route that this works with.  There are others.

Do you realise what you say doesn't make much sense.

So a big guy is stronger mentally versus a weak guy cause he can beat the weak guy up. However the string guy is suddenly weak mentally cause he can be beaten by a stronger guy?

Mental strength is about giving it all on the court, regardless of the opponent and regardless whether you win or lose.

I found it impressive that Federer never retired in a match.
I think he is also the only (top) player who has been able to do it.

I would also expect the player with the best W/L TB ratio to be amongst the mentally strongest.

...and who is that?

And how about for the women?

Graf? Nav? Evert? Serena? Henin?

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:

Not really.  Federer was weaker mentally AGAINST NADAL ON CLAY because, by 2007, he knew he could be hammered against him ON CLAY.  That's basic psychology.  Federer had ultimate mental strength on all other surfaces because he knew he was too good.  Nowadays, he knows he isn't as good, and that he can lose.

You've taken my meaning and rearranged it into what you want it to mean.

Age > decline > play worse > lose more > mentally affected.

Is one route that this works with.  There are others.

Do you realise what you say doesn't make much sense.

So a big guy is stronger mentally versus a weak guy cause he can beat the weak guy up. However the string guy is suddenly weak mentally cause he can be beaten by a stronger guy?

Mental strength is about giving it all on the court, regardless of the opponent and regardless whether you win or lose.

It makes perfect sense.  If you keep losing, you start to doubt yourself and make mistakes.  If you know your opponent is better than you at the present time, it's possible to show up already resigned to defeat, as Federer did.  It's clear you have no understanding of human psychology. We can go around in circles with me saying you don't understand, and you saying I don't.  The bottom line is - you don't.

I look at players like Nadal who are now losing to opposition they once never would have, and seeing how their aura has fallen away.  I know that their results and decline have made them doubt themselves and that only makes their results worse (and their opponents become stronger, knowing they have a chance to win).  You look at Nadal's losses, for example, and conjure up all manner of reasons - all of which ignore the route cause of natural decline.  

The Nadal of 2006 would smoke the Nadal of 2015 on clay and grass
The Federer of 2006 would smoke and stamp on the Federer of 2015 on all courts.

You won't agree to this because you can find some obscure anomaly or statistic to back your point up (your point being that players get better and better and better, but opposition also gets better).  But I can find 100 videos and more statistics that prove otherwise. It's not reasonable to hold that position for a ton of reasons. The one I have mentioned numerous times is Nadal being beaten at Wimbledon 4 times in a row by rank 100s. That isn't an anomaly - it's a rule. And why is he losing like that? Physical decline leading to poorer results leading to loss of confidence leading to even poorer results. Something ALL SPORTSMEN face.

luvsports! wrote:And how about for the women?

Graf? Nav? Evert? Serena? Henin?

Seles was tough as nails.

Tenez wrote:I would also expect the player with the best W/L TB ratio to be amongst the mentally strongest.

...and who is that?

Give us a clue!

Tenez wrote:Again. I 'll pick federer cause he can win 17 slams going for minimum margins, highest risks taken. Sure he lost a few more slams from a winning position but he still won most of them all.

Then Wilander. He leads connors 5/0. Never got troubled by Connors gamesmanship and never gave up. he beat Connors (31) when he was himself only 20..on Connors home soil. But above all I have never seen Wilander nervous.....not even as a commentator.

Yes, but how would Wilander look if he had to play Nadal in say...2013?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I would also expect the player with the best W/L TB ratio to be amongst the mentally strongest.

...and who is that?

Give us a clue!

Got to be Izzy for the sheer number of them he has played

Chris Akabusi?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Again. I 'll pick federer cause he can win 17 slams going for minimum margins, highest risks taken. Sure he lost a few more slams from a winning position but he still won most of them all.

Then Wilander. He leads connors 5/0. Never got troubled by Connors gamesmanship and never gave up. he beat Connors (31) when he was himself only 20..on Connors home soil. But above all I have never seen Wilander nervous.....not even as a commentator.

Yes, but how would Wilander look if he had to play Nadal in say...2013?

Win or lose he would have done his best. I have never seen him choke. I have seen them all get nervous (Nadal, Djoko, Borg, etc..) That's what sets him apart really. he has as many slams as McEnroe with a 1/5th of Mc talent. You will not find a player bar Connors with such a winning slam count. Connors however used the crowd to win 5 of his 8 slams so in a way he was clearly cheating on court as well as in the locker room. I woudl not call that mental strength.

It's very important to consider teh style when considering mental strength. Players who don;t flatten shots and take risks cannot be considered as mentally strong. They specifically don't base their game on mental and shot making strength on on fitness.

luvsports! wrote:Chris Akabusi?

Of course it was Coria I had in mind!

Just saw this:

http://www.606v2.com/t60534-is-fed-mentally-not-the-strongest

v2 are clearly reading what we say here, shameless copyright infringing...

My question in the OP about relation with BPs and mental strength was just a bait, and they swallowed it hook, line and a copy of Fisherman's Weekly!

The idea that Federer got to 17 Slam titles without being mentally strong for large parts of his career is laughable. I'd agree he is no longer mentally strong against certain players, but at his peak he was a force that couldn't be overcome.

When the going gets tough - the tough get going. (I don't care it sound cheesy!)

Fed in the USO15 final, nearly won it...if anyone gets going when it's tough - it's him.

Where is Roddick?
Where is Hewitt?
Where is Marat?
Where is Nalbandian?

How mentally strong would novak or Nadal be if they had to take those ridiculous risky shots Federer is taking?

They would be wrecks. This is why they are so fit. To avoid having to rely on their talent and mental strength.

If you understand that, you understand what is professional tennis.

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw this:

http://www.606v2.com/t60534-is-fed-mentally-not-the-strongest

v2 are clearly reading what we say here, shameless copyright infringing...

My question in the OP about relation with BPs and mental strength was just a bait, and they swallowed it hook, line and a copy of Fisherman's Weekly!

Why did you post the link? I had no choice but go and tell it as it is there.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw this:

http://www.606v2.com/t60534-is-fed-mentally-not-the-strongest

v2 are clearly reading what we say here, shameless copyright infringing...

My question in the OP about relation with BPs and mental strength was just a bait, and they swallowed it hook, line and a copy of Fisherman's Weekly!

Why did you post the link? I had no choice but go and tell it as it is there.

Just admit it, you're having fun on there Tenez.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw this:

http://www.606v2.com/t60534-is-fed-mentally-not-the-strongest

v2 are clearly reading what we say here, shameless copyright infringing...

My question in the OP about relation with BPs and mental strength was just a bait, and they swallowed it hook, line and a copy of Fisherman's Weekly!

Why did you post the link? I had no choice but go and tell it as it is there.

Just admit it, you're having fun on there Tenez.

Oh yeah...questioning the pre-conceived ideas is of great pleasure.

But their Temp moderator is a joke there. He can't even moderate him/herself.

Just be thankful to HM Murdoch who's currently giving you a tennis debating lesson on there

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw this:

http://www.606v2.com/t60534-is-fed-mentally-not-the-strongest

v2 are clearly reading what we say here, shameless copyright infringing...

My question in the OP about relation with BPs and mental strength was just a bait, and they swallowed it hook, line and a copy of Fisherman's Weekly!

Why did you post the link? I had no choice but go and tell it as it is there.

?
But you go to v2 every day, anyway...

While you are there, can you send a PM from me to JohnyJeep, Barry, Socal and Jeremy Kyle to post here a little, as well.

No I had not been there since.

Something I had forgotten about when discussing in forums is "ganging". Good thing we don;t have that here.

Makes you stronger for it Tenez  ! I like it. For one, I know I am right on drugs in sport and I will stick to my guns!

luvsports! wrote:Makes you stronger for it Tenez  ! I like it. For one, I know I am right on drugs in sport and I will stick to my guns!

I must say you are doing a very good job over there. I don;t need to post there...just to support your points.

Haha cheers. The thing is, I am not quite as sure as you are and I still need to learn more about the game. My views evolve quite a lot and we don't agree on everything BUT some key stuff we do!

Tenez wrote:Something I had forgotten about when discussing in forums is "ganging". Good thing we don;t have that here.

Quoi ?

Kim you started 2nd year yet?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:Something I had forgotten about when discussing in forums is "ganging". Good thing we don;t have that here.

Quoi ?

We are a group pro-fed (or pro talent) but I don;t think any of us feel comfort in numbers. It just happened that you are posting in a forum where people are not very impressed by Nadal's game.

I don't mind numbers, but cannot stand modding=mobbing.

Anyway...I have spent weeks here by myself from time to time...now that's what you call mental toughness!

It's only tennis.
And I it!

luvsports! wrote:Kim you started 2nd year yet?

Nope, start in October

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:Something I had forgotten about when discussing in forums is "ganging". Good thing we don;t have that here.

Quoi ?

We are a group pro-fed (or pro talent) but I don;t think any of us feel comfort in numbers. It just happened that you are posting in a forum where people are not very impressed by Nadal's game.

I'm not saying people on here try a 'mob' effect on purpose- but I doubt that happens on v2 either. Perhaps you're being a bit oversensitive.

It's natural for people who agree with each other to back each other up.

I am stunned to see mods on v2 unable to moderate themselves but pouring oil on the fire instead of debating. And they think they are smart.

Tenez wrote:I am stunned to see mods on v2 unable to moderate themselves but pouring oil on the fire instead of debating. And they think they are smart.

You are stunned?


Maybe just have short memory...

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am stunned to see mods on v2 unable to moderate themselves but pouring oil on the fire instead of debating. And they think they are smart.

You are stunned?


Maybe just have short memory...

Well I remember an idiot in particular The big boss) but he doesn't seem to mod tennis anymore.

I am trying to find the USO11 full version. Not easy.

I had however a look at USO07 final and both players (Djoko is particular) look very sluggish in comparison to today.

Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MXNd7YqeFY

full match (in Russian):

http://sport-videoarchive.org/load/tenni_grand_slam/tennis_us_open_1985_2012/us_open_2011_polufinal_novak_dzhokovich_rodzher_federer/222-1-0-3948

Yes I saw that one but it is a hiligh. It doesn't show what happens as well.

But in almost every crush time situation, it is Federer who takes the risk and execute.

1 - TB. Fed is ahead 6/4, yet Djoko swings freely again cause he has nothing to lose from there.
2 - 2 set. Federer keeps attacking and his risky shots gives him the second set.
Federer tries to keep going but from 2 sets up, Djoko starts to play more freely again as nothing to lose anymore and Fed probably trying to save energy for the decider.
3 - 3/4 Djoko serving, Crush time again, very high pressure moment cause should he lose fed woudl be serving for the match. Djoko collapses again with a DF at 0/30! and 0/40 tries to be aggressive and pushes a FH long. Loses his serve to love
Fed serves and Djoko tries his best but again finds himself 40/15 down.
It is only when Djoko has no more hope that he starts to swing freely and even choses a side.
The rest we know what happens, the crowd gets mad, Fed is rattled and collapses mentally as his physical energy is drained and he loses another USO semi he should have won.
But Djoko here on 3 key crush times of the match was the mentally weaker player despite taking less risk in his shots.  It is Federer who executes the thin margins best and finds himself with the first MPS.

Autumnleaf wrote:full match (in Russian):

http://sport-videoarchive.org/load/tenni_grand_slam/tennis_us_open_1985_2012/us_open_2011_polufinal_novak_dzhokovich_rodzher_federer/222-1-0-3948

Thanks AL. We can check the DF in teh 5th now I guess.
This 8th game in the 5th clearly shows that Djoko is the one collapsing under pressure.

Another match that Fed would have most likely easily won with his larger frame racquet. Not only fed was going for thinner margins, but also had a much less forgiving racquet to do so.

Yet at peak Djokovic, having learnt to play with new techn is still very much on a par versus 34yo Federer.

I cannot see a 28yo Federer having any trouble versus any 34yo players.

Hey Ten,

Try to tough it out. It's good seeing you back on there. I think because you add so much weight to your opinion, I just think for some it's too much detail for them to take on board all at once  some just prefer a more simplistic opinion and view.

It's an interesting debate brought to the table. I think it's just too generic sometimes to laud all players despite differences in talent, ability and skill. Which I think is the easiest route to sign off on when one doesn't have the patience or capacity to debate the points raised. It's like a curtain call act in some respect.

I say keep the fight up Ten. You have the right to an opinion. I think feathers get ruffled in this game of chess when some think 'Check' and you find a new move that thwarts it. 

legendkillar wrote:  some just prefer a more simplistic opinion and view.

In that case they would love what Tenez was saying, lack of nuance and simplistic is the DNA of the argument Tenez is making here.