ATP 2017 500,250: Rio, Marseille, Delray

Maybe 8 magic shots in whole match, guess 2017 will be same as 2016, slug fests between these 2, lets hole Stan can turbocharge himself in GS and save us all.

"sir" murray reminded of his place 

What have we learnt today?

1 - Average Djoko is still better than World number 1 Murray.
2 - Djoko still lacking in confidence
3 - What I have always said: Becker was never needed for Djoko to be successful.
4 - Murray, like Nadal has no weapon to trouble Djoko.
5 - Seems like Djoko is allowed to win again.
6 - Djoko dopes.....but Sir Murray has much better products.
7 - 2017 seems like 2006-2016....but I still believe The youngsters will pierce through.....I mean 26+

Tenez wrote:What have we learnt today?

1 - Average Djoko is still better than World number 1 Murray.

Yes, Murray played better than last year, yet still lost to, again, still emotional Nole.

Tenez wrote:
2 - Djoko still lacking in confidence

Yes, and that was a surprise for me.
Djokovic has no reason to feel lack of confidence against Murray, unless he is playing clean...or "cleaner".

Tenez wrote:
3 - What I have always said: Becker was never needed for Djoko to be successful.

Partly. It was obvious Nole hasn't practised  his volleys much since Becker left. They were considerably better under Becker. It cost him several important points...and they can make a difference.

Tenez wrote:
4 - Murray, like Nadal has no weapon to trouble Djoko.

Simple, but true. No serve and no FH. There is only so much rotla's  admired "spinning skill" can do.

Tenez wrote:
5 - Seems like Djoko is allowed to win again.

Maybe that's where the lack of confidence came from. Djokovic was emotionally & mentally unrecognisable to me in the second half of 2016.

Tenez wrote:
6 - Djoko dopes.....but Sir Murray has much better products.

Yes, Murray's battery life looks untouchable atm, I wonder how it would fare in a slam.

Tenez wrote:
7 - 2017 seems like 2006-2016....but I still believe The youngsters will pierce through.....I mean 26+

We have a Dimi-Nishi final in Brisbane. I caught a few points of Dimi this week, he is playing really well and aggressively with his FH.
Nishi also in good form, beat Stan in straight sets, and Stan played well.

Raonic beat Nadal...but still needs that step against the top two.

Anyone below 25-26 is simply too inexperienced for big results, though I'd love to be proven wrong...especially by Pouille. He looks "the readiest".
Kyrgios's  a coward which we saw in Wimbledon against Murray.

Zverev, I am not sure of. Has he played Murray or Djokovic yet?

Tenez wrote:What have we learnt today?

1 - Average Djoko is still better than World number 1 Murray.
2 - Djoko still lacking in confidence
3 - What I have always said: Becker was never needed for Djoko to be successful.
4 - Murray, like Nadal has no weapon to trouble Djoko.
5 - Seems like Djoko is allowed to win again.
6 - Djoko dopes.....but Sir Murray has much better products.
7 - 2017 seems like 2006-2016....but I still believe The youngsters will pierce through.....I mean 26+

That's not really what we learned though:

1. Novak serving at 70-80% first serves is tough to break. Novak playing near his best is able to beat Murray.
2. Sort of - he is clearly more anxious than usual but, when he needed it, he was extremely clutch, which wasn't the case last year. 
3. Agreed.
4. We must have watched a different match - Novak was barely able to lay a glove on Andy's first serves after the first set and Murray's clean hitting was stretching him throughout. The difference between them was Murray made critical errors at key times.
5. Lol
6. No evidence of either point from this match. Both looked slower in the 3rd set and Murray looked flat out tired in dropping his serve near the end. Novak's outward signs of tiredness did seem to distract Andy though - classic mind games from Novak.
7. Maybe - there are a lot of players playing well. Looks like a great season ahead.

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:What have we learnt today?

1 - Average Djoko is still better than World number 1 Murray.
2 - Djoko still lacking in confidence
3 - What I have always said: Becker was never needed for Djoko to be successful.
4 - Murray, like Nadal has no weapon to trouble Djoko.
5 - Seems like Djoko is allowed to win again.
6 - Djoko dopes.....but Sir Murray has much better products.
7 - 2017 seems like 2006-2016....but I still believe The youngsters will pierce through.....I mean 26+

That's not really what we learned though:

1. Novak serving at 70-80% first serves is tough to break. Novak playing near his best is able to beat Murray.
2. Sort of - he is clearly more anxious than usual but, when he needed it, he was extremely clutch, which wasn't the case last year. 
3. Agreed.
4. We must have watched a different match - Novak was barely able to lay a glove on Andy's first serves after the first set and Murray's clean hitting was stretching him throughout. The difference between them was Murray made critical errors at key times.
5. Lol
6. No evidence of either point from this match. Both looked slower in the 3rd set and Murray looked flat out tired in dropping his serve near the end. Novak's outward signs of tiredness did seem to distract Andy though - classic mind games from Novak.
7. Maybe - there are a lot of players playing well. Looks like a great season ahead.

What, for you, is evidence of doping?

I'm not sure. How do you think two supremely fit professional athletes who aren't doping would have differed in performance to yesterday's match?

Why do you also think that the one who looked more tired at the end (despite having an easier match the day before) looks to have "untouchable" battery life?

Both have been fit for last 5 years, apart from Andy back operation.

No one can run same tempo 5-6 years and be ready to play 5-6h at any match.

Nadal-->Djoko-->Andy, that\s the circle, Nadal wanted to beat Fed, Djoko to beat Nadal, Andy to beat Djoko, so all snorted the magic saw dust, it just depends what type is Djoko taking, slow acting but long effect, or Andy the more quick reacting but quick to ware off effect.

Btw glad to see Dimi beat Ninja, hope he can kick some ass this year, finally!!!! after 5 years of total disappointment.

Jimmy Connors must have been the Doper of the Universe.

Connors!  And the Dopppperrrrs of the Universe!

I am Jimmy, Prince of the ATP and defender of multiple Slam titles.  This is an opponent, ha, my feeble competition.  Fabulous secret powers were revealed to me the day I held aloft my magic racquet and said "By the power of PEDS GO!"  I HAVE THE POWWEERRRRR!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnBbW3g5y5Q

"Only three others share this secret... my friends Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray!  Together we defend our titles against the evil forces of fair play!!

Damn right.

Slippy wrote:I'm not sure. How do you think two supremely fit professional athletes who aren't doping would have differed in performance to yesterday's match?

Why do you also think that the one who looked more tired at the end (despite having an easier match the day before) looks to have "untouchable" battery life?

So basically you "know" they don't dope but can't explain the reasons for why you think so.

It's not up to him to prove they don't.  You cannot prove a negative.  You cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. It's up to you to provide evidence of YOUR claims.

Anywho, v good win for Dimi. Hope to see him back in the top 10 soon.

dimitrov winning brisbane...could this be the break through year for him?

I hope so, that russian drugged gf he had, just killed his tennis, bet she sucked him dry and he had no power for tennis.

Dimi and Dolgo, 2 hopes I had long ago.

Slippy wrote:I'm not sure. How do you think two supremely fit professional athletes who aren't doping would have differed in performance to yesterday's match?

Why do you also think that the one who looked more tired at the end (despite having an easier match the day before) looks to have "untouchable" battery life?

Do you think Lendl and Borg where lazy bastards? They worked very hard yet could not run nearly as much and as fast.

I know you are going to say that "training technics" have improved over time but you do not know what those "special technics" are. A lot if not everything is brushed under "new training technics" but the fact is those guys fitness has steadily evolved with all sports requiring extreme fitness and we know that all those sports are rigged with doping cases.

At the end of the day you don;t seem a curious fan. Yo do not want to know, let alone suspect. You are just happy your man wins.

I am sure you still think Wiggins is innocent.

Veejay wrote:dimitrov winning brisbane...could this be the break through year for him?

I dunno...according to FK, he is going to decline now.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:dimitrov winning brisbane...could this be the break through year for him?

I dunno...according to FK, he is going to decline now.

Errr... no.  Once again you keep repeating things I haven't said. It's a much tougher subject than you give it credit, but 30+ year old tennis playrs aren't in their physical prime on planet Earth. Dimitrov is 25 - which is usually within peak AND prime. 21-27 are the years where a tennis player is at his best.  The Open Era stats are very consistent on this.  In fact, you would expect Dimitrov to do his very best from this point.  Not from 30+ like you think.


Also, I was the one claiming Dimitrov was going to hit his best years soon, and you were saying he was useless while bigging up Nishikori as the next dominating player.

I have frequently shown you the trends of age v performance.  Federer, Borg, Sampras, McEnroe...  nearly all of them follow a similar trend.  What was Fed doing between ages 25 and 27? Let me know and then stop it with this crap

Daniel you are in denial and you keep moving the goal post. Did you read my reply on the Doha 8 QF players? All on their 30th year and with an average of 33!!!!

You have said it many times that a player declines post 26. It;s there for everybody to check! It;s simple it was your excuse for Federer losing post 2006. Are you denying this?

Daniel wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:dimitrov winning brisbane...could this be the break through year for him?

I dunno...according to FK, he is going to decline now.

Errr... no.  Once again you keep repeating things I haven't said. It's a much tougher subject than you give it credit, but 30+ year old tennis playrs aren't in their physical prime on planet Earth. Dimitrov is 25 - which is usually within peak AND prime. 21-27 are the years where a tennis player is at his best.  The Open Era stats are very consistent on this.  In fact, you would expect Dimitrov to do his very best from this point.  Not from 30+ like you think.


Also, I was the one claiming Dimitrov was going to hit his best years soon, and you were saying he was useless while bigging up Nishikori as the next dominating player.

I have frequently shown you the trends of age v performance.  Federer, Borg, Sampras, McEnroe...  nearly all of them follow a similar trend.  What was Fed doing between ages 25 and 27? Let me know and then stop it with this crap

you would think that an athletes physical prime is around 20/22-27/28..federer was considered a late bloomer,and nadal was considered a teenger,but lately we are seeing players peaking at 27/28
dimtrov is 25 and i would have thought that he is passing his prime but who knows he could just be entering the way things are now
this opens up a very interesting debate... is there a difference between your physical prime and when you peak as a player?
it seems that the answer to that would be yes 
obviously there are a lot of factors that comes into play, training regimes ,diets, drugs and theres the mental side of it all breaking through how much confidence or experience youre playing with etc
i think that its entirely plausible within reason to be past your physical prime and playing the best tennis you have ever played in your career

NITB wrote:

Slippy wrote:I'm not sure. How do you think two supremely fit professional athletes who aren't doping would have differed in performance to yesterday's match?

Why do you also think that the one who looked more tired at the end (despite having an easier match the day before) looks to have "untouchable" battery life?

So basically you "know" they don't dope but can't explain the reasons for why you think so.

They could be doping. I don't know. However, im not the person stating for definite that they are or are not. 

I will ask again - what about yesterday's match could not have been achieved by a supremely fit athlete without drugs?

I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

There has been no goal post moving.  You're just trolling because you are beaten. Be a good sport like Kei and lose gracefully.

NITB wrote:Simple, but true. No serve and no FH. There is only so much rotla's  admired "spinning skill" can do.

If spinning skills can win 14 Slams which in 2nd in the entire history of tennis, then this skill is definitely not as bad as you want it to be.

Nadal now, doesn't have much to trouble Djokovic, but during their earlier encounter.. it was totally Nadal sided. Almost all of their big matches was won by Nadal.

Maybe Djokovic has caught up with Nadal's game. Maybe Nadal not able to bring new gears into his. Players improve.

Lots of factors contribute to winning.

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Oh come on, you can't possibly believe that it takes 2 minutes to recover from a 20 shot rally. 

There were approx 200 points in the match. If we assume they averaged 20 seconds between points, that's around an hour they spent between points. They also had 13 90 second breaks at change of ends - another 20 minutes or so resting plus set changes. Of the 3 hour match, they probably spent half of it doing nothing. Sure, there were some tough rallies but stick a top (clean) 1500m on court and they'd be handled that with no issue.

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Just lol.

I am all for free thinking outside the box, however in the right context. Someone playing defensive does not automatically equate to them being the biggest doper. Crikey I don't think I've ever seen Florian Mayer boff a FH out of anger, however I wouldn't just suspect him of doping because he doesn't play the margins.

LOL but true.

One cannot play safe and energy efficiently....otherwise everybody would play safe. The safer the shots the more energy one requires cause a retriever like Nadal needs to step back which incurrs more running, needs to hit harder to compensate for hitting a slower ball from further back.

But this shoudl not need discussing.....just look at the bodies of those guys (Murray, Nadal) to prove the points....those guys would have looked like monsters in the 90s.

Djoko opted for the long haul. So he doesn;t hit as hard (spins a bit less) but focused on mouvement allowing him to take the ball a bit earlier than the other 2 thanks to more flexibility and speed. He is the steroid players' killer.

Tenez wrote:LOL but true.

One cannot play safe and energy efficiently....otherwise everybody would play safe. The safer the shots the more energy one requires cause a retriever like Nadal needs to step back which incurrs more running, needs to hit harder to compensate for hitting a slower ball from further back.

But this shoudl not need discussing.....just look at the bodies of those guys (Murray, Nadal) to prove the points....those guys would have looked like monsters  in the 90s.

Djoko opted for the long haul. So he doesn;t hit as hard (spins a bit less) but focused on mouvement allowing him to take the ball a bit earlier than the other 2 thanks to more flexibility and speed. He is the steroid players' killer.

That's the real issue. Body size and structure. That alone yes would warrant suspicions. Some players ala Mayer, Simon don't drip with muscle, yet they are by definition retrievers. Just a slower pace and less successful versions of say a Murray or Nadal.

It's not totally outside the realms of possibility or genetics to play the "safety game" without having to uber fit. You just aren't as successful as the ones who are.

Wasn't Murray also a top 10 player before he worked on his fitness? Where were Mayer and Simon ranked at 19? The difference between Murray and those guys is talent, not fitness.

What I'm really looking out for as suspicious is a player who makes massive improvements late in their career, possibly after joining a new coaching team. I would be particularly suspicious if they seemed to be peaking just for the big tournaments and were then able to outlast the very best in the world. None of the big 4 fit that criteria to me. They've all been earmarked as the best of the best since they were 17/18 at latest.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

NITB wrote:Simple, but true. No serve and no FH. There is only so much rotla's  admired "spinning skill" can do.

If spinning skills can win 14 Slams which in 2nd in the entire history of tennis, then this skill is definitely not as bad as you want it to be.

Nadal now, doesn't have much to trouble Djokovic, but during their earlier encounter.. it was totally Nadal sided. Almost all of their big matches was won by Nadal.

Maybe Djokovic has caught up with Nadal's game. Maybe Nadal not able to bring new gears into his. Players improve.

Lots of factors contribute to winning.

Most Nadal's wins over Djokovic have been very close.

As soon as Nole got stronger physically, the game was over.
Nadal is Nole's bunny.

He is only a year older and look how obsolete his game is.

If Nadal really had any talent or quality he'd be able to continue like Federer who is FIVE years older.

Instead, he wore his body down with relentless running and muscling the ball, and now that he can't rely on that body any more...where is his tennis skill?

He is only 30.

Stan is older than him and winning slams.

Slippy wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Oh come on, you can't possibly believe that it takes 2 minutes to recover from a 20 shot rally. 

There were approx 200 points in the match. If we assume they averaged 20 seconds between points, that's around an hour they spent between points. They also had 13 90 second breaks at change of ends - another 20 minutes or so resting plus set changes. Of the 3 hour match, they probably spent half of it doing nothing. Sure, there were some tough rallies but stick a top (clean) 1500m on court and they'd be handled that with no issue.

Oh yes.

20 shots of Nadal, 4m behind the baseline is a world of difference from 20 shots from Federer, Nishi or Goffin.

You cannot begin to imagine how much energy those shots from Nadal consume, Murray is not far behind, except that he strikes the ball flatter than Nadal (everyone does!)

After a 20 shot rally on Sunday, Murray's body  will have gone into anaerobic state, i.e. same/similar as you feel after running a 100m sprint.

A fit athlete can recover fully in about 2 minutes...to fully recover means your heart rate goes down to cooldown mode, like me now sitting and typing this.

But because players don't have that time except in changeovers, they have to recover in 25 seconds.
That means they continue to play on their aerobic threshold. i.e. they are just about able to breathe and not run without oxygen.

Also very fit athletes can run/play in anaerobic state (without oxygen, breathless) for about three minutes.

Clean athletes would struggle to play long rallies hitting the ball that hard.
The equivalent is trying to run 100m sprints every minute with inly 25 seconds to recover.

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Just lol.

I am all for free thinking outside the box, however in the right context. Someone playing defensive does not automatically equate to them being the biggest doper. Crikey I don't think I've ever seen Florian Mayer boff a FH out of anger, however I wouldn't just suspect him of doping because he doesn't play the margins.

Nobody plays safe game because they are born "safe".

They only do because that is the only way they can win. Winning is a job for pros.

I can assure you all pros are capable of playing great attacking tennis, they just don't as they would lose, i.e. miss many of those shots.

Simply because they are not consistent, i.e. not talented enough.

You know yourself when you play, sometimes you hit amazing shots. Why don't you hit them all the time?

Why did Nadal build those big biceps?

Because he couldn't win any other way.

Unfortunately, he was allowed to dope to keeep the "Show" going. After all ATP is a business, too. Who wants to watch the same guy win everything...even if it's Federer?
They deemed it was "boring" like when Pete and Goran were having acefests in the 90s...

So Nadal...was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

Hopefully time will show he won everything by cheating.

Even if it happens in 10-20 years' time, it will be worth it.
Especially to those who played clean.

Daniel wrote:There has been no goal post moving.  You're just trolling because you are beaten. Be a good sport like Kei and lose gracefully.

If anyone's moved their goalposts it's you.
From claiming one starts to decline at 25, to saying Federer at 36 will be in top 10 barring injury.

You are first to come here and brag when you win a bet, but nowhere to be seen when you don't...


Now that you were proven wrong you can't just admit it, you have to mock...as that's all that's left in your repertoire.

NITB wrote:

Daniel wrote:There has been no goal post moving.  You're just trolling because you are beaten. Be a good sport like Kei and lose gracefully.

If anyone's moved their goalposts it's you.
From claiming one starts to decline at 25, to saying Federer at 36 will be in top 10 barring injury.

You are first to come here and brag when you win a bet, but nowhere to be seen when you don't...


Now that you were proven wrong you can't just admit it, you have to mock...as that's all that's left in your repertoire.

well said.

Maybe that's why FK turned into Daniel....to move his goal posts unoticed.

Slippy, the problem is that you do not wish to suspect let alone be curious about the plague which is affecting all sports. Your approach is not very objective, you are just happy to have your man as number 1 and woudl certainly not want to tarnish his image.

We do not have the smoking guns so you can keep ignoring the obvious doping facts....but like Lance, Wiggins and most other retired athletes, they will be found out.

I never mentioned 25 being the be all and end all.  I noted the ATP official statistics 100 times and it's all over this forum.  let me spell it out for you again.  Peak and prime are not the same thing. Physical prime is biologically within the ages 18 to 27. Most studies I have seen place it on average between 21 and 25. It varies. But it is never 30+. Never.  Got that?

The greatest players will nearly always produce their best in their physical prime, because they need EVERYTHING to click to dominate. The tennis statistics are absolutely unanimous on this and you two can keep lying and muddying the water all you like, but those stats aren't going away.  I know you don't like to look at facts. You'd much rather call players dopers without evidence, but, see, people with a brain don't work on magic fantasies.

The stats are clear that the vast majority of players are at their best between the ages of 21 and 27.  I have never once disagreed with this... YOU TWO HAVE. Tenez claimed Federer has been at his best the last few years for a start off. 

As for the greats, the only player to have defied these stats (to a degree) is Andre Agassi (who won three slams at 29).  And even he wasn't winning the majority of his titles in his 30s (he won two in his 30s - the last of which was at 32 years of age). 

You're going to be linked to this post every time you try to change what I have said.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

Stop arguing with facts.

That's the real issue. Body size and structure. 

So going to the gym more than someone else is now a clear sign of doping?  Some players put more work into their build.

There is no way you can claim someone is a doper by body size, any more than you can claim that someone is doping because they are thinner. Some people get fat because they don't work as hard to lose weight - and a lot of it is down to genetics.

Slippy wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Oh come on, you can't possibly believe that it takes 2 minutes to recover from a 20 shot rally. 

There were approx 200 points in the match. If we assume they averaged 20 seconds between points, that's around an hour they spent between points. They also had 13 90 second breaks at change of ends - another 20 minutes or so resting plus set changes. Of the 3 hour match, they probably spent half of it doing nothing. Sure, there were some tough rallies but stick a top (clean) 1500m on court and they'd be handled that with no issue.

NITB believes anything that will agree with him.  One stat that agrees with him is worth 1000 that don't. It's like the 9/11 nuts... you can find 1000 structural engineers who will confirm the towers falling are consistent with structural failure due to metal fatigue, but the nuts will only listen to the one engineer who disagrees.

NITB wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Just lol.

I am all for free thinking outside the box, however in the right context. Someone playing defensive does not automatically equate to them being the biggest doper. Crikey I don't think I've ever seen Florian Mayer boff a FH out of anger, however I wouldn't just suspect him of doping because he doesn't play the margins.

Nobody plays safe game because they are born "safe".

They only do because that is the only way they can win. Winning is a job for pros.

I can assure you all pros are capable of playing great attacking tennis, they just don't as they would lose, i.e. miss many of those shots.

Simply because they are not consistent, i.e. not talented enough.

You know yourself when you play, sometimes you hit amazing shots. Why don't you hit them all the time?

Why did Nadal build those big biceps?

Because he couldn't win any other way.

Unfortunately, he was allowed to dope to keeep the "Show" going. After all ATP is a business, too. Who wants to watch the same guy win everything...even if it's Federer?
They deemed it was "boring" like when Pete and Goran were having acefests in the 90s...

So Nadal...was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

Hopefully time will show he won everything by cheating.

Even if it happens in 10-20 years' time, it will be worth it.
Especially to those who played clean.

So in one sentence it's all pro's can play great attacking tennis and then the next not all of them are talented enough?

Safety is a frame of mind. Yes I agree in the current conditions it's a recipe for success, however just too simplistic to state it's the defining factor.

Look at when Murray plays Isner. If he is not landing his fastest serves above 120mph, he drops his speed off by about 12-15mph. He is playing the percentages in the right way because he knows that losing serve and then trying to break Isner twice would take an enormous amount of energy.

Ok it's bland tennis, however what that does for me is highlight high tennis IQ he has. Murray when playing the big guns does play with a bigger lack of confidence then he does say someone outside the top 10.

Nadal is just a beast. As ROTLA said the spin which is proclaimed here again as something simple and lacking talent has been converted to 14 Slams.

Stan wouldn't have won his Slams without the magic power which literally came out of nowhere.

Daniel wrote:I never mentioned 25 being the be all and end all.  I noted the ATP official statistics 100 times and it's all over this forum.  let me spell it out for you again.  Peak and prime are not the same thing. Physical prime is biologically within the ages 18 to 27. Most studies I have seen place it on average between 21 and 25. It varies. But it is never 30+. Never.  Got that?

The greatest players will nearly always produce their best in their physical prime, because they need EVERYTHING to click to dominate. The tennis statistics are absolutely unanimous on this and you two can keep lying and muddying the water all you like, but those stats aren't going away.  I know you don't like to look at facts. You'd much rather call players dopers without evidence, but, see, people with a brain don't work on magic fantasies.

The stats are clear that the vast majority of players are at their best between the ages of 21 and 27.  I have never once disagreed with this... YOU TWO HAVE. Tenez claimed Federer has been at his best the last few years for a start off. 

As for the greats, the only player to have defied these stats (to a degree) is Andre Agassi (who won three slams at 29).  And even he wasn't winning the majority of his titles in his 30s (he won two in his 30s - the last of which was at 32 years of age). 

You're going to be linked to this post every time you try to change what I have said.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

Stop arguing with facts.

That's the real issue. Body size and structure. 

So going to the gym more than someone else is now a clear sign of doping?  Some players put more work into their build.

There is no way you can claim someone is a doper by body size, any more than you can claim that someone is doping because they are thinner. Some people get fat because they don't work as hard to lose weight - and a lot of it is down to genetics.

So your telling me that anyone can go to the gym and get the chiselled look and pack muscle on without the aid of supplements?

Tenez wrote:Slippy, the problem is that you do not wish to suspect let alone be curious about the plague which is affecting all sports. Your approach is not very objective, you are just happy to have your man as number 1 and woudl certainly not want to tarnish his image.

We do not have the smoking guns so you can keep ignoring the obvious doping facts....but like Lance, Wiggins and most other retired athletes, they will be found out.

Except you have yet to put forward a single fact. There is maintaining a suspicion and there is claiming you can tell who is doping just from watching your TV. 

What facts do you actually have about Murray? Any links to dodgy coaches? Any allegations of secret packages being delivered? Any sudden performance improvement? Even any b2b 5 hour matches? All you seem to be relying on is the, in my view false, belief that you could only get his combination of speed and fitness through drugs. Any scientific evidence to back that up? The simple point is that you have no facts, just a desire to accuse players who are successful and you dislike of being dopers. 

Of course, it is possible that any of the top guys (even Fed) have taken shortcuts to improve fitness. I'm all for the testing regime being tightened up. However, the current "evidence" you rely upon is in your head only.

Daniel wrote:I never mentioned 25 being the be all and end all.  I noted the ATP official statistics 100 times and it's all over this forum.  let me spell it out for you again.  Peak and prime are not the same thing. Physical prime is biologically within the ages 18 to 27. Most studies I have seen place it on average between 21 and 25. It varies. But it is never 30+. Never.  Got that?

The greatest players will nearly always produce their best in their physical prime, because they need EVERYTHING to click to dominate. The tennis statistics are absolutely unanimous on this and you two can keep lying and muddying the water all you like, but those stats aren't going away.  I know you don't like to look at facts. You'd much rather call players dopers without evidence, but, see, people with a brain don't work on magic fantasies.

The stats are clear that the vast majority of players are at their best between the ages of 21 and 27.  I have never once disagreed with this... YOU TWO HAVE. Tenez claimed Federer has been at his best the last few years for a start off. 

As for the greats, the only player to have defied these stats (to a degree) is Andre Agassi (who won three slams at 29).  And even he wasn't winning the majority of his titles in his 30s (he won two in his 30s - the last of which was at 32 years of age). 

You're going to be linked to this post every time you try to change what I have said.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

Stop arguing with facts.

That's the real issue. Body size and structure. 

So going to the gym more than someone else is now a clear sign of doping?  Some players put more work into their build.

There is no way you can claim someone is a doper by body size, any more than you can claim that someone is doping because they are thinner. Some people get fat because they don't work as hard to lose weight - and a lot of it is down to genetics.

i am inclined to believe that this trend of peaking beyond your prime is far more unnatural then it is natural

yes there is,just go to a gym and look at the body builders.theres is no way you can achieve such muscle mass naturally
of course they would like you to believe otherwise

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Just lol.

I am all for free thinking outside the box, however in the right context. Someone playing defensive does not automatically equate to them being the biggest doper. Crikey I don't think I've ever seen Florian Mayer boff a FH out of anger, however I wouldn't just suspect him of doping because he doesn't play the margins.

Nobody plays safe game because they are born "safe".

They only do because that is the only way they can win. Winning is a job for pros.

I can assure you all pros are capable of playing great attacking tennis, they just don't as they would lose, i.e. miss many of those shots.

Simply because they are not consistent, i.e. not talented enough.

You know yourself when you play, sometimes you hit amazing shots. Why don't you hit them all the time?

Why did Nadal build those big biceps?

Because he couldn't win any other way.

Unfortunately, he was allowed to dope to keeep the "Show" going. After all ATP is a business, too. Who wants to watch the same guy win everything...even if it's Federer?
They deemed it was "boring" like when Pete and Goran were having acefests in the 90s...

So Nadal...was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

Hopefully time will show he won everything by cheating.

Even if it happens in 10-20 years' time, it will be worth it.
Especially to those who played clean.

So in one sentence it's all pro's can play great attacking tennis and then the next not all of them are talented enough?

Safety is a frame of mind. Yes I agree in the current conditions it's a recipe for success, however just too simplistic to state it's the defining factor.

Look at when Murray plays Isner. If he is not landing his fastest serves above 120mph, he drops his speed off by about 12-15mph. He is playing the percentages in the right way because he knows that losing serve and then trying to break Isner twice would take an enormous amount of energy.

Ok it's bland tennis, however what that does for me is highlight high tennis IQ he has. Murray when playing the big guns does play with a bigger lack of confidence then he does say someone outside the top 10.

Nadal is just a beast. As ROTLA said the spin which is proclaimed here again as something simple and lacking talent has been converted to 14 Slams.

Stan wouldn't have won his Slams without the magic power which literally came out of nowhere.

i have the greatest respect for magnus norman but his success with wawrinka and solderling like you said,literally came out of nowhere
and then solderling just disappeared...

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

NITB wrote:I would say that after a 20 shot rally of last night's physicality (running left and right, stopping and starting, hitting on the run as well as muscling the ball including the serve - and all this goes about 30% energy expansion more for Murray than Djokovic due to sheer volume of Murray's muscles and all the oxygen those muscles need to function without cramping) a super fit CLEAN 30 year old athlete would get into anaerobic state and need at least two to three minutes to recover fully.

But they do in 25 seconds and keep going.

That is why they also play safe shots, the bigger the doper - the safer the shots.

Just lol.

I am all for free thinking outside the box, however in the right context. Someone playing defensive does not automatically equate to them being the biggest doper. Crikey I don't think I've ever seen Florian Mayer boff a FH out of anger, however I wouldn't just suspect him of doping because he doesn't play the margins.

Nobody plays safe game because they are born "safe".

They only do because that is the only way they can win. Winning is a job for pros.

I can assure you all pros are capable of playing great attacking tennis, they just don't as they would lose, i.e. miss many of those shots.

Simply because they are not consistent, i.e. not talented enough.

You know yourself when you play, sometimes you hit amazing shots. Why don't you hit them all the time?

Why did Nadal build those big biceps?

Because he couldn't win any other way.

Unfortunately, he was allowed to dope to keeep the "Show" going. After all ATP is a business, too. Who wants to watch the same guy win everything...even if it's Federer?
They deemed it was "boring" like when Pete and Goran were having acefests in the 90s...

So Nadal...was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

Hopefully time will show he won everything by cheating.

Even if it happens in 10-20 years' time, it will be worth it.
Especially to those who played clean.

So in one sentence it's all pro's can play great attacking tennis and then the next not all of them are talented enough?

Safety is a frame of mind. Yes I agree in the current conditions it's a recipe for success, however just too simplistic to state it's the defining factor.

Look at when Murray plays Isner. If he is not landing his fastest serves above 120mph, he drops his speed off by about 12-15mph. He is playing the percentages in the right way because he knows that losing serve and then trying to break Isner twice would take an enormous amount of energy.

Ok it's bland tennis, however what that does for me is highlight high tennis IQ he has. Murray when playing the big guns does play with a bigger lack of confidence then he does say someone outside the top 10.

Nadal is just a beast. As ROTLA said the spin which is proclaimed here again as something simple and lacking talent has been converted to 14 Slams.

Stan wouldn't have won his Slams without the magic power which literally came out of nowhere.

i have the greatest respect for magnus norman but his success with wawrinka and solderling like you said,literally came out of nowhere
and then solderling just disappeared...

Wouldn't that not be the more suspicious case? Stan's won 2 titles between August 2006 and April 2013.

There's a special talent right there

I think heavy to very heavy spin like ones Nadal can generate requires great skill to be able to execute consistently. I'm not talking trick spin like mansour bahrami used to get. But in a real match.

 I don't use the word talent.. that has very subjective definition. 

Nadal like Federer is a unique player. Was he assisted with slowing down of traditionally fast surfaces? Perhaps. Still 9 RGs and that surface hasn't changed.

Dope? perhaps. But that is a tennis problem in general which wants to keep clean image and continue growing business.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Dope? perhaps. But that is a tennis problem in general which wants to keep clean image and continue growing business.

But that's the core issue of this discussion if one wants to compare Nadal and federer. If it was all natural strength, then I would call this talent too...a different one than Federer's but a talent in its own right. However I believe that fitness was Nadal's main, if not only strength. It's not the spin of Nadal's shots that incurred all those UEs (many do spin the ball), it was the power of those spinny shots. Like Pete won 0 slam on clay where his serve could not make a difference, I am certain that Nadal woudl have won 0 slams as well without that extra power.

Remember back then we thought Nadal was a 1 in a century physical phenomenon.....now we have 3, just right at the same time as him. In fact many more as we can see more and more 6'3" or more players run like they were 5'9"....as fast and evern longer. That's why I think Nadal was just one player who was ahead of the doping science and having been caught up is clueless about how to make a difference nowadays.

Again, a bit like if Pete had played in today era where strings gave a huge advantage to the server...he would have won as many slams as Llodra.

I have had those discussion for years with Armstrong fans ...I will have more with Murrays and Nadal's....I just know that in our era, if you choose to win based on physical superiority, you have no choice but doping. . IN fact those who want to win with help of talent also need doping..such progress has been made on that "science".

Veejay wrote:i am inclined to believe that this trend of peaking beyond your prime is far more unnatural then it is natural

yes there is,just go to a gym and look at the body builders.theres is no way you can achieve such muscle mass naturally
of course they would like you to believe otherwise

My uncle is a bodybuilder and I can assure you he doesn't dope - yet he naturally has larger muscles than most of them there. He also got accused of doping.  This whole thread is a waste of time.

Daniel, 

this is what Nadal looked when he was 18.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I think heavy to very heavy spin like ones Nadal can generate requires great skill to be able to execute consistently. I'm not talking trick spin like mansour bahrami used to get. But in a real match.

 I don't use the word talent.. that has very subjective definition. 

Nadal like Federer is a unique player. Was he assisted with slowing down of traditionally fast surfaces? Perhaps. Still 9 RGs and that surface hasn't changed.

Dope? perhaps. But that is a tennis problem in general which wants to keep clean image and continue growing business.

Talent in ANY sport  has always been considered the same: hand to eye coordination.
That's it.

In tennis it manifests itself in the ability to hit the ball with the sweet-spot.


To those with talent, it comes easy. To those who don't it means sweat, blood and tears.

I reckon Toni would not have got away with his training techniques here in the "health and safety" UK.

No wonder his nephew is full of ticks.

That trophy in Doha was really beautiful.

The runner up one was equally ugly.

Murray took it to Rod Laver stadium to motovate himself during practice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-4105302/Andy-Murray-takes-Qatar-Open-runner-trophy-Australian-Open-training-Rod-Laver-Arena.html

He must have taken that loss baaaaadly.

If he loses to Djokovic in AO -again, I think he'll combust!

NITB wrote:Daniel, 

this is what Nadal looked when he was 18.

he is about half the muscle mass he was back then today