ATP World Tour Finals LONDON 2013

And this is why Nadal sweats so much.

http://sun.menloschool.org/~dspence/biology/chapter4/chapt4_5.html

Look at the burning reaction of ATP (not the tennis association but the muscle energy molecule) and look at what it produces (water and heat) when broken down. It also requires lots of O2 (hence the extra time needed between points).

So the extra buckets of sweat are actually proof that Nadal burns more energy than any other player I can think of. What is the definition of talent? making things look easy, making things effortlessly....roughly the opposite of what nadal does.

The proof is in the bucket!

I think there would be a lot of interest and Fed would certainly relish the idea, not sure Nadal would though, even on clay.

noleisthebest wrote:I think there would be a lot of interest and Fed would certainly relish the idea, not sure Nadal would though, even on clay.

Nadal is a professional so if there is $$ in it he will play it!

Tenez wrote:And this is why Nadal sweats so much.

http://sun.menloschool.org/~dspence/biology/chapter4/chapt4_5.html

Look at the burning reaction of ATP (not the tennis association but the muscle energy molecule) and look at what it produces (water and heat) when broken down. It also requires lots of O2 (hence the extra time needed between points).

So the extra buckets of sweat are actually proof that Nadal burns more energy than any other player I can think of. What is the definition of talent? making things look easy, making things effortlessly....roughly the opposite of what nadal does.

The proof is in the bucket!

Berd is another player that never used to sweat much and now....he is up there with Nadal.

As for the definition of talent, even my mum who started following tennis when Nole turned up is in awe of Federer and said the same as you, she actually mimics his light hand movement and says he directs the ball with such easelike he's got a conductor's baton.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think there would be a lot of interest and Fed would certainly relish the idea, not sure Nadal would though, even on clay.

Nadal is a professional so if there is $$ in it he will play it!

Do you reckon?
Even at the cost of complete humiliation?

Of course. It would not compromise his record...And I think he honestly admits that Federer is more of a natural player which is the word he uses to say more talented.

Julia Santamaria wrote:FK, do you know who got the most forehand winners in the USO 2013?

a.  I said generally.
b. He was in the final. Totals are not fair.  Averages are.  Any player who reaches the final will normally hit more winners than a R1 opponent, does that mean they are better than Federer with their forehand? 


2 FH and 2 BH winners in a best of 3 match is plain awful, whichever way you want to wrap it up.  Nadal is one dimensional.  I have nothing against you admiring him for his speed and strength, but please try not to distort history and statistics in order to make him out to have raw ability.  I appreciate that he has a physical style, my problem is he shouldn't be succeeding with it off the dirt.

Julia Santamaria wrote:FK, do you know who got the most forehand winners in the USO 2013?

Doesn't not mean much I am afraid!

First, he has played more matches than 126 other players so that helps that stat, secondly, it's very much down to who he plays (people who can run or not) and thirdly the stat I saw was that despite playing poorly he still had less FH v Djoko in this match alone.

FedererKing wrote:See the reason I don't think Nadal is a prolific doper is because he isn't that stupid.  It's possible he HAS done it, along with a lot of others, but what guy is going to risk public humiliation and the removal of all his awards by continuing to dope...?  He certainly wouldn't dope all year round that would be suicide.  It's just very far fetched in my view for doping to be that prolific.

I bet to differ, FK. What do you think of Veejay’s analysis?

Julia Santamaria wrote:From 606v2:

legendkillerv2 wrote:I myself like Rafa. He has a vulnerability about him. Yet this is a guy that writes to the ball girls and boys of every Slam to thank them. Rafa for me is a nice guy. Respectful of his fellow players. Yes sometimes his comments can cause controversy, but he is a lovely guy. Whenever me and my nephew have seen him play, he has always granted my nephew an autograph. He does love the fans and always gives them more than enough of his time.

This is like a plea bargaining between nadal the defendant and his fans without a real trial.

Hmmm, let's see how "lovely" he's really is when tested on court. How about that famous bump this “lovely” guy hit Rosol with in W change-over or that equally shocking dash to the loo at IW, or that on-court coaching he STILL needs to have in order for him to win even as the new #1? Yeah, so very lovely!

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:FK, do you know who got the most forehand winners in the USO 2013?

Doesn't not mean much I am afraid!

First, he has played more matches than 126 other players so that helps that stat, secondly, it's very much down to who he plays (people who can run or not) and thirdly the stat I saw was that despite playing poorly he still had less FH v Djoko in this match alone.

:laugh:Pushy arguments with twisted stats means nothing I'm afraid!

He was the second best player in the event, and lost comfortably in the final on his weakest surface.
Incredible how some Federer fans think 6-3 6-1 6-0 is a close match, while others call 6-3 6-4 a crushing.

Julia Santamaria wrote:He was the second best player in the event, and lost comfortably in the final on his weakest surface.
Incredible how some Federer fans think 6-3 6-1 6-0 is a close match, while others call 6-3 6-4 a crushing.

I don't call the former a close match, but I can\t even remember it.  So I can't say it was crushing although the score would suggest it.  You seem to keep harping on about scores though, and as I have said, scores do not tell you the full picture.  The ATP finals was a crushing defeat of Nadal, regardless of the score.  The fact that he only had 4 winners in the entire thing indicates it, and if you watch the final, you see Djokovic playing with Nadal like a toy.

OK, I've just checked- the 4 winners statistic is a load of nonsense.
He actually hit around 10 winners during the match.

So according some Federer fans:
-6-3 6-1 6-0 is a close match (I've seen that said by Fed fans on other forums)
-6-3 6-4 is a crushing, if not for the scoreline because you can just make up a nonsense '4 winners' statistic which is a total load of BS considering he actually hit more than double that.

You aren't reading what I am writing.

You said he had '4 winners in the entire thing which indicates it is a crushing'; and that statistic turned out to be a total lie and he has more than double those winners.

Away from these petty squabbles, here is my assessment of the wtf lineup:
Group A:
1) Nadal - A very good tournament for the world no1, cantered to a group win without really getting out of 3rd gear. Not up to his usual lofty standards but with the form he was in, earnt his final spot, before a deserved win by djokovic. 8/10.

2) Wawrinka - An impressive debut for the perennial swiss no2. Showed good resilience in his wins over Berdych and Ferrer (although he should have won both in 2) but still doesn't quite have enough between the ears when facing nadal (his best effort vs rafa) and djoko. Semi showing fully deserved. 7.5/10.

3) Berdych - His match against Stan personified why Big Bird for me will never make the step to masters let alone GS wins. In the important moments he went missing horribly and despite showing encouraging signs vs nadal, all too often the big man was found wanting. 5/10.

4) Ferrer - Cream crackered knackered. 7 straight weeks took its toll but the spaniard made a LOT of UE's. Almost took advantage of a nervy wawrinka but his lack of ball striking ability and weight of shot was ruthlessly exposed here, looked out of place, the world no 3! 3.5/10.

Group B:
1) Djokovic - Another trophy, another unbeaten WTF's and another win to add to his brilliant winning steak post US open. Produced his best performances at the tail end of the tournament after solid but unspectacular group stage wins. Didn't play as well as last year but showed much promise for 2014 with his convincing victory vs nadal. 9/10.

2) Federer - getting close to recapturing something like some good form in recent weeks but still making far too many errors, thrown in with all too frequent lapses in concentration. Another win vs delpo would have helped his confidence but perhaps the best he could have hoped for in a tough group and with 2 players playing better than him. 7/10

3) Delpo - Seemed to like ferrer, run out of gas somewhat but still for me needs to trying and rally less and take more risks to trouble the best more often. Progress but still some way to go. 6/10.

4) Gasquet - Was right up against it before the tournament had begun with the draw. Produced some brilliance against delpo and novak but his poor court positioning and fh were exposed. Did well to get here but until he addresses this, he won't go any higher. 5.5/10.

I don;t think Djoko's easiest opponent deserves such a score LS. Gasquet, Delpo and Federer did much better v Djoko than Nadal...despite Djoko not being as tired than in that final!!!

Nadal purposedly lost to Ferrer in Paris to get some extra days rest, was very lucky to have a tired Ferrer and a tired Federer (played 3 sets the day before while he was resting yet managed to make a very close first set), had by far the easiest group and as I said Djoko won against him more convincingly than any others.

But sure he still retrieves enough an extra balls to reach the final.

I disagree with those saying Nadal did not play his best in that Final. I think his tactics were very clear which was to hit as hard as possible like he did in the US and I personally was extremely impressed by his energy level....in fact he forced so much that he almost injured himself in that second set. The difference between there and the 2 US defeats is that there was no element to disturb Djoko's timing and the bounce may have been a bit lower. However Nadal was really ready for that final, had more rest than Djoko and yet fell very short versus a very tired real world number 1.

Going by his record at the WTF's before, and the fact he lost just one match, i thought 8 was a reasonable score.

Nadal played best as he possibly could, it's just that people are not used to seeing him being so hopeless as Nole served and returned very well, so Nadal rarely had the initiative and had to create it himself.
We all know how "great" he is at that...and Nole had no trouble moving to the net which helped him a lot as it conserved the little energy he had left in his legs.
So, long rallies were definitely a thing to avoid in that match for Novak. Ocassional ones were OK.
However, this latest version of genetically modified Nadal unless stopped by WADA (does anyone believe it's going to happen?), is going to be difficult to outmuscle once he gets his "happy" high bounce.
Nadal was so superior physically in that match, there were points he looked superhuman, it was disturbing to see on a tennis court.
Nole did very well to keep his focus and composure, but I think part of it was he knew the conditions suited him better than Nadal.
Australia is going to be very tough and as far as I am concerned not a lot to look forward to in 2014.
Unless and until TDs speed things up, instead of enjoying good tennis in SFs and Fs of slams, we'll all only be enjoying and looking forward to Nadal's losses.

The problem with Nadal is he went through life thinking he could out run and out last players, and then he met someone with more will, more power, excellent stamina, and more skill.  Djokovic.  In short, when both are at their best, Djokovic is going to win the majority of times.

Nadal's body is going to die on him.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that's the case now.
It was in 2011, but it is not any more.

Nadal has moved up a level in his physicality in those 7 months he was "recovering".
He may not necessarily have more energy to last in longer rallies, if Nole plans those long rallies sparingly and well, they are still good tactics against Nadal, but not exclusive any more.
Te difference now is that Nadal is hitting the ball harder (read faster) than before, so he is kind of effectively shortening the time he needs to exhaust his opponents and then start hitting his "winners".

His limited talent does not allow him to take the ball early and attack, so the only thing he CAN do is hit the ball harder and run fast. And last.

As things are, conditions in which Nadal thrives in are ahead of him, nearly 6 uninterrupted months...as I said before, Nole's only chance is in good serving, returning and keeping that focus and composure.
His wins agains Nadal have never been easy and never will be.

luvsports! wrote:Away from these petty squabbles, here is my assessment of the wtf lineup:
Group A:
1) Nadal - A very good tournament for the world no1, cantered to a group win without really getting out of 3rd gear. Not up to his usual lofty standards but with the form he was in, earnt his final spot, before a deserved win by djokovic. 8/10.

2) Wawrinka - An impressive debut for the perennial swiss no2. Showed good resilience in his wins over Berdych and Ferrer (although he should have won both in 2) but still doesn't quite have enough between the ears when facing nadal (his best effort vs rafa) and djoko. Semi showing fully deserved. 7.5/10.

3) Berdych - His match against Stan personified why Big Bird for me will never make the step to masters let alone GS wins. In the important moments he went missing horribly and despite showing encouraging signs vs nadal, all too often the big man was found wanting. 5/10.

4) Ferrer - Cream crackered knackered. 7 straight weeks took its toll but the spaniard made a LOT of UE's. Almost took advantage of a nervy wawrinka but his lack of ball striking ability and weight of shot was ruthlessly exposed here, looked out of place, the world no 3! 3.5/10.

Group B:
1) Djokovic - Another trophy, another unbeaten WTF's and another win to add to his brilliant winning steak post US open. Produced his best performances at the tail end of the tournament after solid but unspectacular group stage wins. Didn't play as well as last year but showed much promise for 2014 with his convincing victory vs nadal. 9/10.

2) Federer - getting close to recapturing something like some good form in recent weeks but still making far too many errors, thrown in with all too frequent lapses in concentration. Another win vs delpo would have helped his confidence but perhaps the best he could have hoped for in a tough group and with 2 players playing better than him. 7/10

3) Delpo - Seemed to like ferrer, run out of gas somewhat but still for me needs to trying and rally less and take more risks to trouble the best more often. Progress but still some way to go. 6/10.

4) Gasquet - Was right up against it before the tournament had begun with the draw. Produced some brilliance against delpo and novak but his poor court positioning and fh were exposed. Did well to get here but until he addresses this, he won't go any higher. 5.5/10.

Excellent assessment, and I agree.
Infact I'd have Djokovic at 9.5, he was superb when it counted.