ATP Injury/ fitness thread

[Moxie]

Gee I wonder what's wrong with claiming Federer has been lucky and Nadal has been unlucky...

Fact of the matter is Roger has also had his fair share of injuries. It comes off as sour grapes to imply he should be injured as much as Nadal has. Kind of similar to a smoker complaining they are unlucky to get lung cancer while a non-smoker is lucky...Rafa's game leaves him a lot more vulnerable.

Interesting choice of metaphor. No moralizing from you, eh? Roger has had his "fair share" of injuries? I don't know if there is even a "fair share," but let's remember this: He's 36, he's been a professional tennis player for going on 20 years, played 1394 matches and never had to retire out of one of them. Played I think 67 Majors before he missed one. Is that usual? I know you like to think he walks on water, but he doesn't. At a certain point, you have to recognized that he's been blessed with unusually good health, beyond his great tennis skills.

 

[Ricardo]

Interesting choice of metaphor. No moralizing from you, eh? Roger has had his "fair share" of injuries? I don't know if there is even a "fair share," but let's remember this: He's 36, he's been a professional tennis player for going on 20 years, played 1394 matches and never had to retire out of one of them. Played I think 67 Majors before he missed one. Is that usual? I know you like to think he walks on water, but he doesn't. At a certain point, you have to recognized that he's been blessed with unusually good health, beyond his great tennis skills.

Being blessed with unusually good health is in simple terms, good genes. And he is blessed with the ability to play with minimal physical expense, as opposed to Nadal ( or 99% others). At some point you have to admit it’s not really about luck, call it blessed or whatever you want though.

 

[Busted]

Interesting choice of metaphor. No moralizing from you, eh? Roger has had his "fair share" of injuries? I don't know if there is even a "fair share," but let's remember this: He's 36, he's been a professional tennis player for going on 20 years, played 1394 matches and never had to retire out of one of them. Played I think 67 Majors before he missed one. Is that usual? I know you like to think he walks on water, but he doesn't. At a certain point, you have to recognized that he's been blessed with unusually good health, beyond his great tennis skills.

Maybe Roger's just been blessed with a high tolerance for pain. Lots's of guys played long careers with few retirements. John McEnroe played 1,082 matches and only retired 1 time. Nobody certainly ever accused McEnroe of being a robust physical specimen.

And let's be realistic here - Federer's NOT a gym rat like Nadal is. And he doesn't play other sports like Nadal does. Nadal would do himself a huge favor if he didn't spend so much time in the gym over-training and playing golf, doing back flips off his boat, etc. Federer said he doesn't even ski with this kids because he's afraid of getting injured. He said he used to play squash on his day off in between matches - and stopped doing that in 2008 or 2009 to help prolong his career. Nadal takes unnecessary risks off the court and if he wants to prolong his career, then he needs to stop doing all of that stuff. I remember at some point last year the talking heads on ESPN were saying that he used to go the gym (to ride a bike) before matches and Moya had him stop doing that. Yes, he plays a physical style and needs to be really fit to do that - but obviously at nearly 32 all that extra mileage has taken a toll on his body that Roger has escaped. Since he refuses to change very much about his playing style that means he needs to change some things he's doing OFF the court.

 

[Federberg]

2 very good responses to Moxie's unwillingness to look at the blindingly obvious. This isn't about Roger being lucky. It's about being smart. You would think that at some point there would be constructive reflection in order for Rafa to try to figure out what would make him less prone to injury. Perhaps the need for competition even off the tennis court might be a pathology with him. Don't bring Federer into it, there's plenty enough for him to do without complaining about misfortune

 

[Andy22]

Federer skipping the clay court season (chicken) last year helped a lot, with him not getting injured. it also easy not to get hurt then play less events like Federer, Nadal plays more events and thats why he gets injured.the only reason Federer did not play the clay court season is because he wanted to keep the winning streak against Nadal if he played nadal on clay he would have lost.

 

[mrzz]

Things are not so black and white. To begin with, obviously Federer's style allows him to shorter points, but everyone here watch tennis enough to know that his defense is one of the most underrated abilities in men's tennis, specially in his prime. The guy ran like a rabbit you can see loads of those points in youtube, not to mention any full match from those days. Even today his defense is still quite good, and most fellow players when praising his sills always mention his movement. Point is, he indeed ran a lot, probably if, right now, we could sum all the "distance run" in all matches of all tennis players in history, if I would bet in someone to be leading this category, it would be Federer. He has the miles, no doubt about that.

So, on one hand I agree with Moxie, as there is always some luck in not getting injured. However, in a span of 15 and 20 years, "luck" is overrun by statistics, even if it will always be present at some extent. Of course, if you include "good genes" (short expression for a complex idea, but you all know what I am talking about), in the "lucky" department, then for sure Federer is lucky. He is also "lucky" to have all that talent...

Having said that, the main point for me is the mechanics of the movement. The greatest difference between Federer and Nadal, for me, its in this aspect, and is not even close. Yes, Federer spend, on average, less time on court, but I bet that if you make a full career comparison, the average difference is smaller than our selective memory tells us. But, even if we settle on a 20 to 25% difference in favor of Federer (and, considering the more years Federer have, the absolute value is similar), in no way this is comparable to the night and day difference their playing style have.

All Nadal's shots are "harder" to make. His effort to hit a single ball is considerably higher than Federer's, and that is all due to the way they chose to play. Nadal's forehand is built around the top spin, while Federer is built around his wrist and a fully stretched arm. Their backhands are obviously different. Nadal uses much more the body upward movement (to help the top spin), while Federer only "jumps" when he wants to hit it in a downward direction. Federer is much more keen to hit a higher ball without bending the knees, while Nadal will ALWAYS bend the knees and jump to get to it. Nadal moves his whole body to volley (it is always a bit strange to watch, but he does it quite effectively anyway), while Federer only moves his arm. The serve is obviously different and most things above in one way or another show up in the serve, even if Federer also jumps a lot to serve.

Anyway I am not advocating for Federer's style, just highlighting what for me is obvious. If you look this way, it is quite obvious why one style ended up with 10 RG's and other with 8 Wimbs... (which is the most stark difference of their careers). Given that their mechanics is so different, different outcomes are natural... so in this sense I agree that Nadal injuries are a "consequence" of his playing style (and would never use the world "fault" here).

What I don't agree is that he "should" change because of it. This is the most glaring and screaming nonsense I can think of. This whole package that people are asking to change (most times his own fans) is precisely the one that brought him 16 majors. 16! And he is still on the game for more. He kind of invented his playing style and thank the tennis gods he did. I agree that it "costs" more, but that is not a "moral failure" (to use Moxie's term), but rather a big, worthy virtue.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer skipping the clay court season (chicken) last year helped a lot, with him not getting injured. it also easy not to get hurt then play less events like Federer, Nadal plays more events and thats why he gets injured.the only reason Federer did not play the clay court season is because he wanted to keep the winning streak against Nadal if he played nadal on clay he would have lost.

He mentioned multiple times that his knee doesn't feel right on clay after his injury in 2016. And his main goal was to mop up on grass which he did with great ease. I hope he does the same schedule this year with one key change, cut out the one event that helped make Rafa's USO run last year the easiest in history...time for Fed to win 3 slams this year, take over the USO and become King of New York.

Federer has played almost 300 more matches than Nadal in his career but isn't hurt nearly as much. Some bitter Nads fans call it luck, I call it difference in abilities.

 

[Andy22]

He mentioned multiple times that his knee doesn't feel right on clay after his injury in 2016. And his main goal was to mop up on grass which he did with great ease. I hope he does the same schedule this year with one key change, cut out the one event that helped make Rafa's USO run last year the easiest in history...time for Fed to win 3 slams this year, take over the USO and become King of New York.

Federer has played almost 300 more matches than Nadal in his career but isn't hurt nearly as much. Some bitter Nads fans call it luck, I call it difference in abilities.

Then you have a thin weak body like Federer its easy not to get injured, The great nadal has a bigger, body more muscles, more stronger then you have body like that its hard not to get injured. Plus nadals off court events golf, gym, Soccer, does not help.

 

[Federberg]

What I don't agree is that he "should" change because of it. This is the most glaring and screaming nonsense I can think of. This whole package that people are asking to change (most times his own fans) is precisely the one that brought him 16 majors. 16! And he is still on the game for more. He kind of invented his playing style and thank the tennis gods he did. I agree that it "costs" more, but that is not a "moral failure" (to use Moxie's term), but rather a big, worthy virtue.

I sort of agree with this, but let's be clear when folks like me suggest he should make some changes. I'm not talking about how he addresses the ball. I'm talking primarily about scheduling and strategy. I have watched Rafa blow guys off the court. He can do it. But invariably chooses not to. He would rather play an attritional rally and break his opponent down completely. It's actually the main reason for his lack of success in recent years at Wimbledon. People have cottoned on to the fact that if they red line it against him, their odds of success go up dramatically. There are changes he can make without compromising who he is that could reduce the chance of injury. It's entirely up to him. It's dishonest to make the comparison between him and Federer. Different styles, different mentalities. Roger actively wants to get off the court in as short a time as possible. That doesn't mean that Federer can't hang around on court if his offensive style isn't doing it. He can defend extremely well as you've pointed out, but given the choice he won't hang around and that's a big part of the reason why he's less injury prone

 

[DarthFed]

Then you have a thin weak body like Federer its easy not to get injured, The great nadal has a bigger, body more muscles, more stronger then you have body like that its hard not to get injured. Plus nadals off court events golf, gym, Soccer, does not help.

Haha no, if you're as frail as you think Roger is then you get injured easily. If you've seen Roger in person the guy is deceptively well put together. He just has very tiny arms so people seem to think he is built like a 10 year old girl. Nadal is more bulky but let's not act like the guy is built like LeBron or something. His muscle in his earlier years helped his overly physical game but it was always going to come at a price. Rafa has lost a lot of his size over the years but still gets hurt a lot. Think it may have something more to do with how he plays rather than soccer and golf.

 

[DarthFed]

Interesting choice of metaphor. No moralizing from you, eh? Roger has had his "fair share" of injuries? I don't know if there is even a "fair share," but let's remember this: He's 36, he's been a professional tennis player for going on 20 years, played 1394 matches and never had to retire out of one of them. Played I think 67 Majors before he missed one. Is that usual? I know you like to think he walks on water, but he doesn't. At a certain point, you have to recognized that he's been blessed with unusually good health, beyond his great tennis skills.

Well the metaphor does work wouldn't you say? Roger has played many matches where he was hurt and has missed plenty of tournaments over the years as well. He has made a point to finish matches like last year in Montreal so I wouldn't read too much into the fact he hasn't retired from a match. There are probably many players who have not retired from a match that are still frequently hurt.

He had a bad back throughout 2013, knee and back issues in 2016 and a back injury last year. In 2005 he had a bad ankle sprain after USO, 2008 he had mono and a bad back the last couple tourneys that year. They've been there, you're just bitter that he isn't as injured as Nadal.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The clay is the best way for Rafa to get his game jumped started. He probably will not have to face Roger til late Summer

 

[britbox]

The clay is the best way for Rafa to get his game jumped started. He probably will not have to face Roger til late Summer

I thought Acapulco was a pretty strange stop on the Nadal calendar from the get-go.

He'd spent time complaining about the number of hardcourt events on the tour and the detrimental effect on player's health, yet decides to make a relatively obscure tournament (by Nadal standards), his first event on the comeback trail.

It didn't make sense. I could have understood him coming back for Indian Wells - after all, it's a 1000 Masters... but Acapulco? No logical explanation.

Anyway, roll on Monte Carlo for Rafa.

 

[mrzz]

I have watched Rafa blow guys off the court. He can do it. But invariably chooses not to. He would rather play an attritional rally and break his opponent down completely.

I understand your general point but this part is hard for me to accept. First, to play an attritional rally and completely break down the opponent could well be a good long term strategy, as in the next point the guy is more likely to fold. We have seen Nadal break down people, win the first set in 50 minutes but the second in 25. It is one way to do it...

Anyway, this is not my main point. What I question is about him choosing not to do it. It makes no sense to believe that a player rationally chooses to prolong a match he could win faster, so what I guess you mean is that he wrongly chooses his strategy, and that if he would choose a different one he would end up winning faster. But maybe this is a risk/reward relation, he might feel safer approaching the matches the way he does. He would win faster 90% of the time with the "other" approach (which we don't know exactly how would it be), but on the other hand could lose the other 10% that he would win otherwise. I guess these guys always chose winning, and in the end I agree, as there are too many uncertainties to put your chips on what will happen in the long run instead of grabbing what you can right now.

Also, in the specific case of Nadal, given not only his tennis IQ on court, but the sharpness of his analysis off court, I really prefer to believe that he knows what he is doing. I am pretty sure all those guys already tried a gazillion variations in practice and know exactly what could work or not. I am not saying that we should just accept what these guys do as always perfectly right, as people here in general know the game pretty well, but, as I said, in the case of Nadal I am more skeptical than usual about criticism, not to mention that we in general over criticize...

 

[Moxie]

^ Thank you for both of those considered responses, @mrzz. I appreciate that you understood what I was trying to say. I don't say that playing styles aren't a factor, but a little luck is involved in being SO healthy. It's the tone that some folks take, and attitude of moralizing about Nadal that I was trying to address in my original post addressing it, and you can still see it in some of the posts just above. I don't completely disagree with @Federberg, honestly, as to scheduling. Nadal has at times frustrated even his fans with his scheduling. But some things have changed over the years, as to some choices as to how he plays and over-playing. But I think you're very right that players can't just choose to play completely differently than what got them to the dance. Or 16 Majors, as you say.

 

[Moxie]

Being blessed with unusually good health is in simple terms, good genes. And he is blessed with the ability to play with minimal physical expense, as opposed to Nadal ( or 99% others). At some point you have to admit it’s not really about luck, call it blessed or whatever you want though.

I used both terms. And I already said he had good genes. Some may say blessed, but some don't believe in a higher power that bestows such things, so lucky has to suffice, wouldn't you say? It's really the same thing.

Maybe Roger's just been blessed with a high tolerance for pain. Lots's of guys played long careers with few retirements. John McEnroe played 1,082 matches and only retired 1 time. Nobody certainly ever accused McEnroe of being a robust physical specimen.

And let's be realistic here - Federer's NOT a gym rat like Nadal is. And he doesn't play other sports like Nadal does. Nadal would do himself a huge favor if he didn't spend so much time in the gym over-training and playing golf, doing back flips off his boat, etc. Federer said he doesn't even ski with this kids because he's afraid of getting injured. He said he used to play squash on his day off in between matches - and stopped doing that in 2008 or 2009 to help prolong his career. Nadal takes unnecessary risks off the court and if he wants to prolong his career, then he needs to stop doing all of that stuff. I remember at some point last year the talking heads on ESPN were saying that he used to go the gym (to ride a bike) before matches and Moya had him stop doing that. Yes, he plays a physical style and needs to be really fit to do that - but obviously at nearly 32 all that extra mileage has taken a toll on his body that Roger has escaped. Since he refuses to change very much about his playing style that means he needs to change some things he's doing OFF the court.

I'd say that he and Roger both work out in their efforts to keep limber and stave off injury. I don't think either is more of a gym-rat than the other. Also, I don't think Rafa has ever been injured playing golf or doing back flips off of his boat, so I'm not sure what your complaint is with him there. Certainly it's not the equivalent to eschewing downhill skiing. I've had Olympian friends from the Spanish rowing federation. They were actually prohibited from skiing. No such prohibition against golfing or swimming in the Mediterranean. You and Darth are exactly the kinds of moralizers I was complaining about.

 

[Federberg]

Anyway, this is not my main point. What I question is about him choosing not to do it. It makes no sense to believe that a player rationally chooses to prolong a match he could win faster, so what I guess you mean is that he wrongly chooses his strategy, and that if he would choose a different one he would end up winning faster. But maybe this is a risk/reward relation, he might feel safer approaching the matches the way he does. He would win faster 90% of the time with the "other" approach (which we don't know exactly how would it be), but on the other hand could lose the other 10% that he would win otherwise. I guess these guys always chose winning, and in the end I agree, as there are too many uncertainties to put your chips on what will happen in the long run instead of grabbing what you can right now.

You could say the same about Roger with the risk/reward calculation. At a certain point you have to accept that the old way isn't working quite as well so you do something about it. Rafa hasn't done that yet. I for one believe he has the ability to win in a variety of ways. He has chosen not to

 

[Andy22]

Darthfed Rafael nadal USO win was not the easiest in history, he played grand slam champion in the semi finals, Anderson who had made a grand slam Qtr final.

 

[ftan]

Then you have a thin weak body like Federer its easy not to get injured, The great nadal has a bigger, body more muscles, more stronger then you have body like that its hard not to get injured. Plus nadals off court events golf, gym, Soccer, does not help.

There are Fan Boys and then there are these ^^^:suicide:

 

[Andy22]

Nadal also plays more on clay then anyone because he wins most matches, which can also led to injury