CAMELOT FANTASIES

I hope Rafa proves his uncle wrong and plays until he is 34-35.



I will go one further: Rafa is not training well on the court either. Tony is just saying that. he does not want to **** Rafa off.


Rafa's training on the court is of very short duration these days and he just stands near his backhand side and tries to hit as many forehands as he can.

he is not working diligently on his return of serve which has become a huge liability for him. he cant break serve because he cant get the ball back with depth and pace trying to return those balls from 20 feet behind the baseline.


you cant win if you cant break.



what tony is not telling you is that Rafa goes away in the matches not because he lacks the mental strength but because he lacks his fitness and his physicality.

he is worn out physically which works on his mind. he is unable to push himself physically like he used to.


general masterclass has also hit on this: it is near 80% or more physical. he has lost his fitness and his sheer physical strength (physicality).

so his movement is compromised which further complicates and compounds the matter.


not only is he late on most shots, he cant put any depth or pace on those shots.




so it really does all go back to the some loss of focus. he lost focus a couple of years ago and decided to drop his work on his fitness and also made his practice sessions a lot shorter in duration.

he failed to make needed the adjustments in his training on the fitness front and also with his practice. that led to even more than usual injuries.


I am his greatest fan on the planet. I am calling it like I see it. the reason I know his game and his fitness and his physicality so well is because I was like him on the court.

I played the heavy topspin game based on relentless will and amazing fitness and physicality. I could run for a day.

one day I practiced for 10 hours and then I went for a long run along the lake. I ran over 10 miles.

I routinely rode my bikes for 100 miles at a time. you need mazing fitness and physicality to be able to play this style of game.




he lost some of his hunger and his relentless will to win a couple of years ago. injuries and immense demand on his time made him lose even more focus.

he is just having a hard time getting it back. what he cant back in a short period of time is his fitness and his physicality.

that will take 1 full year of very hard work. by then he is 30+.

Wow, that's some serious training. I don't know what's going on. He made 34 errors in that loss to Verdasco, for Rafa, that's unworldly for him. But, I still think it will take time. By no means do I think he's done.

If RG gets away this will end up being the most trying and most difficult for him.

I am hoping we are able to bag RG somehow and then return a lot stronger physically in 2016.

Nole’s take on Rafa’s Confidence crisis

Novak Djokovic about Rafa, in his press conference at the Miami Open:

Q. Yesterday Rafa, who's always very honest and forthright, was telling us that he actually feels some self doubt for the first time in his career. That he gets nervous on points and anxious, and it's something he's never experienced before. Have you ever had moments like that during matches or any stretch of your career? How did you get through that?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Of course. More or less every single match you go through these moments. I mean, we are all humans and we all go through certain emotional ups and downs. Depending on the, I'd say quality and intensity of the match, that's how your emotions kind of wave during the play. Of course I understand what he's talking about because I'm playing for many years on this high level and I know how much pressure and expectations you have.

So I respect what he has achieved in his career so far very much because I understand what it takes to be there and what it takes achieve as much as he did. He has so much experience and so much success for only 28 years. I'm sure he wants to play for many more years. It's normal to have some periods of crisis, if you want to call it that, where you sometimes feel more doubt than confidence in important moments and you lose a couple of matches.

But it's Nadal that we are talking about, the player that's won 14 Grand Slams and he's one of the best players in the history of the game.
I'm sure that he's somebody that knows exactly how to deal with this particular situation and how to get better.

Nole’s take on Rafa’s Confidence crisis

Novak Djokovic about Rafa, in his press conference at the Miami Open:

Q. Yesterday Rafa, who's always very honest and forthright, was telling us that he actually feels some self doubt for the first time in his career. That he gets nervous on points and anxious, and it's something he's never experienced before. Have you ever had moments like that during matches or any stretch of your career? How did you get through that?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Of course. More or less every single match you go through these moments. I mean, we are all humans and we all go through certain emotional ups and downs. Depending on the, I'd say quality and intensity of the match, that's how your emotions kind of wave during the play. Of course I understand what he's talking about because I'm playing for many years on this high level and I know how much pressure and expectations you have.

So I respect what he has achieved in his career so far very much because I understand what it takes to be there and what it takes achieve as much as he did. He has so much experience and so much success for only 28 years. I'm sure he wants to play for many more years. It's normal to have some periods of crisis, if you want to call it that, where you sometimes feel more doubt than confidence in important moments and you lose a couple of matches.

But it's Nadal that we are talking about, the player that's won 14 Grand Slams and he's one of the best players in the history of the game.
I'm sure that he's somebody that knows exactly how to deal with this particular situation and how to get better.

both nole and uncle tony are wrong.


tony is wrong for a reason. he just does not want to **** rafa off.


nole is being respectful for some reason. but he is sneaky so I don't care what he says.



as I said, rafa is not suffering from a confident crisis. he is suffering from a fitness and physicality crises which he himself brought about.

he cant stay in the battle long enough these days to fight it out and get his wins.


also rafa has no choice but to say the right words to the press. he cant tell the world and the press that he lost some of his hunger and his absolute relentless will to win a while back.

he really cant tell them  that he has far too many other outside interests and that he simply stopped working as hard as he used to.

of course injuries also have made things more difficult. he cant sustain any tennis activity with constant injury and ailments.

this is the strongest player ever lived. even the injuries could not slow him down long enough for him to win 14 majors.


it was just going to catch up with him when he got a slightly older if he did not keep up his fitness and his physicality. his style of play was and is too demanding. that is the nature of heavy topspin players like Vilas, Muster, Borg, and Nadal. they had to nearly make themselves into super humans to be able to play that style of game.


finally also as I have suggested previously that he also failed to innovate and progress/improve his game. he really cant volley still with any kind of confidence. his serve is much worse now than at any time in his career.

his slice never improved. now he has very little confidence in his backhand and almost refuses to hit it. he also wont practice his return of serve.

now everything is harder.


rafa is rafa. he is just going to do things his way with no desire for real change. he has won so much and won so big that he has to--in his own mind---believe that he has to do it his way.

I don't really know now what is going to happen but I can say this with considerable certainty:


if he does not cut back on the hard court activity then this year could be his last. next big injury will finish him.

clay is the wellspring from which he flows anyway. he has to go back there to find his ground game again.

and that is just 1/2 of it. he has to re-dedicate himself to fitness.

Masterclass, first of all great post.

However, I am in the States and I’m not sure if you all have the same commentators as we do, John McEnroe, Pat McEnroe, Mary Carillo, Jim Courier, etc. I need to start here to see if we are getting the same information. But one thing I will say is that the way that it is reported to us regarding the exemption rule, is that they don’t mention it. What they say instead is that Mr. Federer gets to play his own schedule. And this isn’t just recently; they’ve said this for years, which always sounded unfair to me. You can admit that it sounds like favoritism when it is presented in this manner. Do you remember in 2007 when Wimbledon was extremely rainy and Rafa and Novak’s matches were rained out and they didn’t put them back on until the end of the day? It rained the next day and instead of finishing their matches first, they put them on very late in the day, very close to when all of the other matches had been completed. Consequently, on the third day they had to play again.

If I’m not mistaken, and I don’t think that I am, Djokovic ended up retiring in his semifinal and Rafa suffered a knee injury during the final. Even back then they were reporting it as Federer being #1 he was able to receive favorable scheduling because of his ranking. i remember it well because there was a lot of bickering on the tennis boards because this is the way that  it was presented to us, that Federer, by virtue of him being Federer, basically could do whaever he wanted. If that is not true, that is great news, because I never thought that was fair. And the following year people, well Rafa fans, were upset because when Rafa became #1 he was not given the same treatment or privilege that he was "supposed" to according to the pundits and their #1 theory.

Interesting Lady TT, but I'm not too surprised.  I was born in the US and lived there for many years before moving to Europe.  I knew all these former player commentators, and I can say that they were surely not all sweethearts and unbiased in their views.  I take their opinions/conclusions about other players with a grain of salt.  They are more or less paid shills at this point by the ATP and their networks, and generally blow with the wind and are no doubt asked to create as much drama as possible.  It's a shame, because some really know the tech aspects of the game very well.   McEnroe talking about strategy of serving at a certain pace to be able to volley, or returning a certain way for the chip and charge is still well worth listening to. Also, to probably a lesser extent, there is still some professional "jealousy" of current players; they are making so much more money than they did and breaking long standing records that these players set.  So some comments and views can have a slant, if you will, a lot of times to drum up controversy, even trolling, to create more drama and capture more radical fans that they want glued to the tv and sport.  On SkySports, the British based dedicated sports network, there of course announcers who don't bother to hide their Murray bias, and I believe there is probably an edict from that network that says don't say anything bad about Andy, and yet some announcers I think try to be as even-handed as possible.  Then on BBC and Eurosport, there are traditionally some of the old guard like Frew McMillan (South African),  Mats Wilander, Annabel Croft, etc.  There are announcers and journalists that gush over Federer, other ones that do the same with Nadal or Djokovic.  Some of it is quite shameless, but it is what it is.  Many times I'd like to turn the sound off, but I like listening to the ball being hit, so I just ignore the announcers.  Again, I've played and watched enough tennis that I form my own opinion of what is unfolding, and that's fine with me.  But I do like to hear when there is objective news about the players that I don't know about, so sometimes the commentators are helpful in that regard.

Mind you, these commentators you mention and I mention aren't the first ones to show their bias, but I think they may be the most blatant in that regard.  There were commentators in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. In the 60's and 70's commentators were mostly professional journalists or broadcast journalists, not former players.  Many were commentators from other sports doing double duty, mostly football and baseball.  Even they had their favorites, but it was more subtle.  Not the outright cheerleading you see by some today.  Still, they promoted the stars in general to build up fan interest and viewership.  It was/is still a business.  If I can remember, in the USA there was Pat Summerall, Bud Collins, Dick Enberg. Marv  Alpert, Jim McKay, even Brent Musburger.  Sometimes they would have guest commentators that were either retired players, like Bobby Riggs, Tony Trabert, and many Australians, like Cliff Drysdale, John Newcombe, or promoters, like Donald Dell, Jack Kramer.  And these are only the men.  There were many women, especially former players like Billie Jean King, Virginia Wade, Tracy Austin, etc.

What I think we have mostly lost are the professional tennis journalists and other sports broadcasters that did good jobs in investigating back stories and commenting on the actual play.  I guess it, unfortunately, reflects society as a whole. Today people seem drawn to the tabloid type headline journalism instead of what we had in the past, which was brilliant investigative journalism and thoughtful commentary.  People seem too eager today to be told what and how to think via headlines and few blurbs, instead of reading articles that force them to think and make up their own minds.

As for what you say about the favoritism in scheduling, especially in forums, well, it goes almost without saying that forum commentary is usually the most biased thing you will see.  But there is sometimes a grain of truth here and there.  I don't recall the specific instances at Wimbledon you mentioned, but sometimes circumstances can make it appear as if there is favoritism.  I recall several instances of people wondering why a certain player played at a certain time of day, or court, and sometimes it is because of player requests, sometimes for tournament needs like doubles or weather rescheduling, but most times it is usually for network priorities, the business of tennis, when the most fans are going to be present to watch the matches.  You mention Federer.  His global popularity is a bit of a double edged sword. Most of the time he draws the prime time slots for a reason.  He draws the biggest crowds and television audiences, whether he is #1 or #4.  Even in early rounds, center court is often packed.  Nadal is similar but not as much from what I've seen over the years globally, Djokovic and Murray even less.  But I recall maybe 3 years or so ago, when Federer had to play about 9 night matches in 11 days during the Madrid - Rome spell, some of them late night affairs.  I remember him finally saying in Rome that the night schedule was getting to him, especially with the kids, as he preferred earlier matches so he could rest a bit more and then the evening with family and tuck the kids to bed.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Quote from: thetruth on March 31, 2015, 10:56:13 pm

Masterclass, first of all great post.

However, I am in the States and I’m not sure if you all have the same commentators as we do, John McEnroe, Pat McEnroe, Mary Carillo, Jim Courier, etc. I need to start here to see if we are getting the same information. But one thing I will say is that the way that it is reported to us regarding the exemption rule, is that they don’t mention it. What they say instead is that Mr. Federer gets to play his own schedule. And this isn’t just recently; they’ve said this for years, which always sounded unfair to me. You can admit that it sounds like favoritism when it is presented in this manner. Do you remember in 2007 when Wimbledon was extremely rainy and Rafa and Novak’s matches were rained out and they didn’t put them back on until the end of the day? It rained the next day and instead of finishing their matches first, they put them on very late in the day, very close to when all of the other matches had been completed. Consequently, on the third day they had to play again.

If I’m not mistaken, and I don’t think that I am, Djokovic ended up retiring in his semifinal and Rafa suffered a knee injury during the final. Even back then they were reporting it as Federer being #1 he was able to receive favorable scheduling because of his ranking. i remember it well because there was a lot of bickering on the tennis boards because this is the way that  it was presented to us, that Federer, by virtue of him being Federer, basically could do whaever he wanted. If that is not true, that is great news, because I never thought that was fair. And the following year people, well Rafa fans, were upset because when Rafa became #1 he was not given the same treatment or privilege that he was "supposed" to according to the pundits and their #1 theory.

Interesting Lady TT, but I'm not too surprised.  I was born in the US and lived there for many years before moving to Europe.  I knew all these former player commentators, and I can say that they were surely not all sweethearts and unbiased in their views.  I take their opinions/conclusions about other players with a grain of salt.  They are more or less paid shills at this point by the ATP and their networks, and generally blow with the wind and are no doubt asked to create as much drama as possible.  It's a shame, because some really know the tech aspects of the game very well.   McEnroe talking about strategy of serving at a certain pace to be able to volley, or returning a certain way for the chip and charge is still well worth listening to. Also, to probably a lesser extent, there is still some professional "jealousy" of current players; they are making so much more money than they did and breaking long standing records that these players set.  So some comments and views can have a slant, if you will, a lot of times to drum up controversy, even trolling, to create more drama and capture more radical fans that they want glued to the tv and sport.  On SkySports, the British based dedicated sports network, there of course announcers who don't bother to hide their Murray bias, and I believe there is probably an edict from that network that says don't say anything bad about Andy, and yet some announcers I think try to be as even-handed as possible.  Then on BBC and Eurosport, there are traditionally some of the old guard like Frew McMillan (South African),  Mats Wilander, Annabel Croft, etc.  There are announcers and journalists that gush over Federer, other ones that do the same with Nadal or Djokovic.  Some of it is quite shameless, but it is what it is.  Many times I'd like to turn the sound off, but I like listening to the ball being hit, so I just ignore the announcers.  Again, I've played and watched enough tennis that I form my own opinion of what is unfolding, and that's fine with me.  But I do like to hear when there is objective news about the players that I don't know about, so sometimes the commentators are helpful in that regard.

Mind you, these commentators you mention and I mention aren't the first ones to show their bias, but I think they may be the most blatant in that regard.  There were commentators in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. In the 60's and 70's commentators were mostly professional journalists or broadcast journalists, not former players.  Many were commentators from other sports doing double duty, mostly football and baseball.  Even they had their favorites, but it was more subtle.  Not the outright cheerleading you see by some today.  Still, they promoted the stars in general to build up fan interest and viewership.  It was/is still a business.  If I can remember, in the USA there was Pat Summerall, Bud Collins, Dick Enberg. Marv  Alpert, Jim McKay, even Brent Musburger.  Sometimes they would have guest commentators that were either retired players, like Bobby Riggs, Tony Trabert, and many Australians, like Cliff Drysdale, John Newcombe, or promoters, like Donald Dell, Jack Kramer.  And these are only the men.  There were many women, especially former players like Billie Jean King, Virginia Wade, Tracy Austin, etc.

What I think we have mostly lost are the professional tennis journalists and other sports broadcasters that did good jobs in investigating back stories and commenting on the actual play.  I guess it, unfortunately, reflects society as a whole. Today people seem drawn to the tabloid type headline journalism instead of what we had in the past, which was brilliant investigative journalism and thoughtful commentary.  People seem too eager today to be told what and how to think via headlines and few blurbs, instead of reading articles that force them to think and make up their own minds.

As for what you say about the favoritism in scheduling, especially in forums, well, it goes almost without saying that forum commentary is usually the most biased thing you will see.  But there is sometimes a grain of truth here and there.  I don't recall the specific instances at Wimbledon you mentioned, but sometimes circumstances can make it appear as if there is favoritism.  I recall several instances of people wondering why a certain player played at a certain time of day, or court, and sometimes it is because of player requests, sometimes for tournament needs like doubles or weather rescheduling, but most times it is usually for network priorities, the business of tennis, when the most fans are going to be present to watch the matches.  You mention Federer.  His global popularity is a bit of a double edged sword. Most of the time he draws the prime time slots for a reason.  He draws the biggest crowds and television audiences, whether he is #1 or #4.  Even in early rounds, center court is often packed.  Nadal is similar but not as much from what I've seen over the years globally, Djokovic and Murray even less.  But I recall maybe 3 years or so ago, when Federer had to play about 9 night matches in 11 days during the Madrid - Rome spell, some of them late night affairs.  I remember him finally saying in Rome that the night schedule was getting to him, especially with the kids, as he preferred earlier matches so he could rest a bit more and then the evening with family and tuck the kids to bed.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Thanks Masterclass for the wonderful post.

I watched some tennis a few decades ago for a minute, but I didn't understand the game at that time. I really started becoming a fan after watching Pete play and the bias was strong because of course they preferred Agassi over Pete.

I agree wholeheartedly that the commentators actually troll more than the fans and sometimes it gets on my nerves  and sours my disposition. If what they said was true, then that would be grossly unfair in my estimation. So, I am grateful to you for telling about the exemption rules. They put an entirely different spin on it. And like you said, it is difficult to watch tennis without hearing the sound of the ball. Sometimes I try to watch it without sound, but you can't because the sound of the ball against the racket and the feet moving to the ball is a beautiful thing.

I don't begrudge Federer anything, he's done too much for the game no matter who you are a fan of. His contribution to tennis has been immense. As a Rafa fan I must admit I couldn't stand Federer for a long time, but not for his game, accolades, or records, but because I didn't like what I perceived to be his passive-aggressive nature. And in the beginning he wasn't very humble, IMO. There are still times that he irritates me when he makes what I consider to be snide remarks in the press, but I get over it quickly nowadays because one thing I realize is that since his ascension he hasn't changed and I have much respect for that. He is who he is and you know what you get with him. So, after a while you understand that he isn't being haughty but he speaks what he feels. There's nothing wrong with that.

What changed my mind about Federer was the 2008 Wimbledon final. That is the best tennis I have ever seen on a tennis court. That match was sustained brilliance throughout and I found myself OK with whoever won, because both of them deserved it. That had to be a difficult blow for Federer to have played so well and still lose, of course it would have been the same for Rafa as well.

After that match I was able to put things into perspective. With the retirements of Pete and Andre there was a real vacuum in the sports, especially after Lleyton got the chicken pox and the tour had no major stars. Roger stepped up and basically saved the sport, so how can I begrudge him? Then when you see how those two ruled the sport for such a long time while giving major respect to each other, as a fan you have to let the pettiness go.

It's great to know that what those guys say in the booth isn't always correct, because omission does not equate to the truth. From now on I will ask the questions that I need answered instead of assuming that I have the correct information. We can always learn from others and I am glad that you took the time to teach me an important lesson. Much respect. As always.

Thank you for sharing your wonderful perspectives

It's enlightening to novices like myself
I enjoy the game!
Actually all sports especially during what I call ' play off season'
Adrenaline rush
Thank you

Happy to provide them.  It's at least something to think about.
Always glad to have here you as part of the discussion, or just to listen if that's what you want.

Respectfully,
masterclass

2 hours before his semifinal djokovic who already has the greatest return in history was practicing his return of serve.