What if Nadal just happens to have the VO2 max of a rower in a football player body?
Funny how Armstronglivs has all these guys having to be near four minute milers and then act like they are doping when the do anything close to that level on a court.
Which is it?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Horses for courses.. Nadal is a fast plough horse suited for working in clay.
Borg used to never get tired either.
True but they weren't playing the same kind of game. Borg used wood racquets that didn't have today's power. The rally was slower. He was more like a middle distance runner on a tennis court, whereas Nadal plays like a 400m runner who can sustain it for a marathon.
A few years ago Agassi said after a Nadal match, that he had seen "marathon matches before, but never matches where players sprinted for a marathon". It doesn't take much to join those dots.
So people aren't allowed to be stronger than Borg?
You're showing your "I can't believe anyone can be better than my era".
i don't really think you are right
Armstronglivs wrote:
asdsasdasddsaa wrote:
I didn't realize Djokovic's poor first serve accuracy and all his unforced errors were the product of Nadal doping...
It was also due to the pressure put on his game by an opponent who returned everything, got to every ball and never missed. Djokovic couldn't find a way through Nadal's game, so he overplayed and missed - as so many of Nadal's opponents do. But to play the way Nadal does, point after point, day after day, year after year, with no signs of aging, takes rocket fuel that would land a satellite on Mars.
I'm sorry, but Djokovic was off right from the start, he must of had a bad nights sleep or something.
Nadal is my favourite player, very humble, but when Djokovic is at his best he is the better than Nadal or Federer at their bests. Nadal on clay is maybe the only exception to this.
I have been saying this for more than a decade. Find old pictures of his body and see how it has changed over time. Better nutrition and workouts, right. Yeah, right.
I played tennis in high school, I also sprinted so I was fairly quick.I was a very defensive player and I ended up having to sprint for a lot of balls( I play more like Gael monfils than Nadal). The 90 secs of rest in between 2 games and 10-15 secs in between points was enough to recover from the 2-5 8-12m sprints had to do to get to the ball.Although I've never played 5 sets I have played 3 and a 70+ point tiebreaker.I'm no way near as fit as an elite tennis player and I can sprint 30 times a set and my level won't drop. You seem to over estimate the fitness required, sure you have to be fit, but drugs are not necessary to play tennis that way.Elite tennis has become way more physical but it is still not one of the most physical sports, its very technical and skill based. Nadal just played better on the day, you have ups and downs. He probably also is more confident going into the French open because hes one more titles there than anyone.
Tennis has become an endurance sport. The equipment is so much better that players can rally for days without beating up their bodies. Back in the days with early graphite rackets that felt like a brick, players' bodies gave out before they hit 30. Now, it is so much easier to hit the ball consistently hard that players can play well into their 30s.
Nadal is just better than Novak on clay. Period. Novak is 0-4 against Nadal in the French Open final. Nadal is just better on the surface. He is able to return everything and that frustrates Novak.
I honestly have a hard time taking the idea of doping in tennis seriously. Like...it's tennis haha, not running or cycling. I can imagine the effects of doping in tennis are much less significant than they are in an actual endurance sport. You gotta be really desperate if you're doping in tennis haha, are old golfers with dad bods out there doping too?? Lol.
rojo wrote:
Armstronglivs,
This might be the dumbest logic I've ever read on here. I'm trying to understand your logic- if there is any
Are you saying that Nadal only dopes for the French Open? If doping is why he dominated yesterday, then why wouldn't he also dope at tournaments not named the French Open and dominate there?
Your logic seems to be missing.
Well, it would be dumb logic if your interpretation is correct. But that isn't what I am saying.
It is my view that Nadal has doped most of his career - which I have followed, along with that of many top players. Others, including coaches, players and even antidoping officials I have talked with have had a similar view.
What I am saying is that the nature of his performance at the French Open, when he didn't just beat the world no.1 player but crushed him like a lowly journeyman, showed a superiority allied with a style of game that I believe is only possible with drugs. But it is also consistent with how he has played over much of his career - which is but one of the reasons there has been longstanding suspicion in the tennis community about whether he is a doper.
There is a view here that tennis is not a particularly demanding sport physically; that it is a skill sport. Yes, it is a skill sport but even a recreational player may find its extended rallies will push them to their physical limit. At the professional level this is even more so, as the game today requires a combination of explosive speed and strength with a high level of aerobic capacity. In that respect it shares similar characteristics with a game like soccer. Even the breaks in tennis don't shield a player from the exhaustion that can strike in matches that can be played over several hours - sometimes 5 or 6 hours.
What is characteristic of the modern game is that the fatigue that used to strike players and was a critical determinant of the outcome has increasingly been removed from the game. No one has shown that more than Nadal. No matter how long or demanding the match, he never tires - even though his opponents do. He runs as fast and hits as hard - if not harder- in the 5th set as he does in the 1st. That is even though his attrition baseline style, with the effort he puts into each massive topspin stroke, is the most energy expensive of any. (It is the complete opposite of how Federer plays - which is one of the reasons why the Swiss's game has endured as long as it has). But when any sportsman is able to eradicate the effects of fatigue in a sport that would naturally impose fatigue there are reasons to suspect the assistance of doping - because that's what doping does.
Another factor that some commenters here don't understand is that clay is the most physically demanding surface, because of its slowness and the difficulty in ending points quickly. Nadal's dominance on the surface - and his relative weakness on other faster surfaces - is due to his ability to outlast any other player over extended rallies, in which he is able to get to every ball and return it with interest, wearing his opponents down.
He is able to do this because his combination of speed and tirelessness far exceeds any other player - with the possible exception of Djokovic.
Yet his dominance on clay also reveals his relative weakness as a player; it doesn't translate to equivalent success on other surfaces that require less physical investment to win a point, let alone a game or match. His off-clay record does not compare with either Djokovic or Federer. Take away Nadal's 13 French titles (the next best was Borg, with 6) and he has only as many majors as players like Wilander, Edberg or Lendl.
So it is his level of physical superiority that enables him to dominate on the slowest and most gruelling surface; yet it isn't just superior to other players - it is in another league. He showed that in the final against Djokovic. How does he do that? Is it realistic that in a game of the smallest margins there should be such a gulf at the physical level, as he shows?
I suggested previously that he peaks for the French - but that doesn't mean I am saying he dopes only for the French. His year typically follows a 'cycle', in which he often starts strongly for the Australian Open but then increases his capacity over the claycourt season from April to June, culminating in the French Open, and then his form plateaus through to Wimbledon and then starts to decline from the US Open through to the end of the year, when he is nowhere near the player that he was in the first half of the year, often losing to players you will have never heard of. Even if he starts his year at a different point, when coming off an "injury" break - and he has so many injuries it seems - his performance moves in a discernible cycle. I have seen this year after year. No one else shows the same.
Over 10 years ago, his injuries and vicissitudes in his form led many to declare his precocious career was over. Agassi was one who said, "he is writing cheques his body can't meet". Yet, here he still is, apparently getting stronger by the year at 34, playing without any discernible diminution in his physical powers. And he does this over other players that themselves are not exempt from doping suspicions. There are some here who say they think Djokovic has likely doped - so what does that suggest about Nadal?
In the last few years I watched Djokovic 'own' Nadal on every occasion they met - his string of consecutive wins over the Spaniard stretched to the horizon. Federer was doing the same (as he showed last in the Wimbledon semi-final in 2019). This year, when Nadal has played no tournaments for months until Rome and then Paris, he has shown a level of play better than any I have seen from him previously, and disposed of a player who had formerly had his measure as though he was barely top-100. To me it was like watching Armstrong contemptuously surpass the very best in the peloton - and tennis may not be very far from cycling as a sport sustained by ped's.
A few years ago I spoke with a high-ranking WADA official whom I knew and expressed the view that what Nadal was then doing was impossible. He said, "Yes, it is - he is on EPO - all the Spaniards are - they've been doing it for years - they've gotten really good at it". When anti-doping can't catch those they believe are doping, that told me where sport is now.
Precious Roy wrote:
Tennis has become an endurance sport. The equipment is so much better that players can rally for days without beating up their bodies. Back in the days with early graphite rackets that felt like a brick, players' bodies gave out before they hit 30. Now, it is so much easier to hit the ball consistently hard that players can play well into their 30s.
Nadal is just better than Novak on clay. Period. Novak is 0-4 against Nadal in the French Open final. Nadal is just better on the surface. He is able to return everything and that frustrates Novak.
You forget that the last time that met at the French Open, Djokovic beat Nadal in a semifinal. He has also beaten Nadal numerous times on clay in other tournaments. Djokovic is also a French Open champion. You might look at my earlier comment about how a player like Nadal is able to get to and return every ball so as to frustrate even a player with the incredible consistent accuracy of Djokovic. Nadal's freakish success on the surface - and comparative limitations on other surfaces - raises the question of why he alone has been able to do that. The previous greatest claycourter, Borg, won 6 French titles, but also was near as successful on grass with 5 Wimbledons - and all done by age 25. Nadal doesn't show that.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
True but they weren't playing the same kind of game. Borg used wood racquets that didn't have today's power. The rally was slower. He was more like a middle distance runner on a tennis court, whereas Nadal plays like a 400m runner who can sustain it for a marathon.
A few years ago Agassi said after a Nadal match, that he had seen "marathon matches before, but never matches where players sprinted for a marathon". It doesn't take much to join those dots.
So people aren't allowed to be stronger than Borg?
You're showing your "I can't believe anyone can be better than my era".
That's not what I am saying. I am responding to your observation that Borg never used to tire either. That is because in the era in which he played the pace of play was slower and thus more aerobic; what I see with Nadal and other players is that they are playing for as long but much faster and more anaerobically - like a 400m runner, as I said, who is repeating that effort again and again.
JoanneFraser wrote:
i don't really think you are right
Youre entitled to your view. Perhaps you could give your reasons for thinking that?
Confuzzled wrote:
I honestly have a hard time taking the idea of doping in tennis seriously. Like...it's tennis haha, not running or cycling. I can imagine the effects of doping in tennis are much less significant than they are in an actual endurance sport. You gotta be really desperate if you're doping in tennis haha, are old golfers with dad bods out there doping too?? Lol.
All sports can benefit from doping. Tennis has to have doping control like any other. But not all sportsmen will use the same kind of drugs. It depends on what they are after. Chess players dope. So do weightlifters. And so do tennis players.
yop wrote:
I played tennis in high school, I also sprinted so I was fairly quick.I was a very defensive player and I ended up having to sprint for a lot of balls( I play more like Gael monfils than Nadal). The 90 secs of rest in between 2 games and 10-15 secs in between points was enough to recover from the 2-5 8-12m sprints had to do to get to the ball.Although I've never played 5 sets I have played 3 and a 70+ point tiebreaker.I'm no way near as fit as an elite tennis player and I can sprint 30 times a set and my level won't drop. You seem to over estimate the fitness required, sure you have to be fit, but drugs are not necessary to play tennis that way.Elite tennis has become way more physical but it is still not one of the most physical sports, its very technical and skill based. Nadal just played better on the day, you have ups and downs. He probably also is more confident going into the French open because hes one more titles there than anyone.
Your fitness level was adequate for the level you played; at a higher level it may not have been enough. It won't be what pro's would need. If you think tennis isn't that hard you should watch a replay of the '96 US open semifinal in which Pete Sampras had to be taken off the court in a wheel-chair and with an intravenous drip.
nope sayer wrote:
The head to head between these two at Roland Garros before today:
Nadal 6 wins
Djokovic 1 win (when Nadal was injured)
This. Incredibly bad take to argue that Nadal’s win yesterday is purely due to doping. Everyone knows Nadal owns on clay.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rojo wrote:
Armstronglivs,
This might be the dumbest logic I've ever read on here. I'm trying to understand your logic- if there is any
Are you saying that Nadal only dopes for the French Open? If doping is why he dominated yesterday, then why wouldn't he also dope at tournaments not named the French Open and dominate there?
Your logic seems to be missing.
Well, it would be dumb logic if your interpretation is correct. But that isn't what I am saying.
It is my view that Nadal has doped most of his career - which I have followed, along with that of many top players. Others, including coaches, players and even antidoping officials I have talked with have had a similar view.
What I am saying is that the nature of his performance at the French Open, when he didn't just beat the world no.1 player but crushed him like a lowly journeyman, showed a superiority allied with a style of game that I believe is only possible with drugs. But it is also consistent with how he has played over much of his career - which is but one of the reasons there has been longstanding suspicion in the tennis community about whether he is a doper.
There is a view here that tennis is not a particularly demanding sport physically; that it is a skill sport. Yes, it is a skill sport but even a recreational player may find its extended rallies will push them to their physical limit. At the professional level this is even more so, as the game today requires a combination of explosive speed and strength with a high level of aerobic capacity. In that respect it shares similar characteristics with a game like soccer. Even the breaks in tennis don't shield a player from the exhaustion that can strike in matches that can be played over several hours - sometimes 5 or 6 hours.
What is characteristic of the modern game is that the fatigue that used to strike players and was a critical determinant of the outcome has increasingly been removed from the game. No one has shown that more than Nadal. No matter how long or demanding the match, he never tires - even though his opponents do. He runs as fast and hits as hard - if not harder- in the 5th set as he does in the 1st. That is even though his attrition baseline style, with the effort he puts into each massive topspin stroke, is the most energy expensive of any. (It is the complete opposite of how Federer plays - which is one of the reasons why the Swiss's game has endured as long as it has). But when any sportsman is able to eradicate the effects of fatigue in a sport that would naturally impose fatigue there are reasons to suspect the assistance of doping - because that's what doping does.
Another factor that some commenters here don't understand is that clay is the most physically demanding surface, because of its slowness and the difficulty in ending points quickly. Nadal's dominance on the surface - and his relative weakness on other faster surfaces - is due to his ability to outlast any other player over extended rallies, in which he is able to get to every ball and return it with interest, wearing his opponents down.
He is able to do this because his combination of speed and tirelessness far exceeds any other player - with the possible exception of Djokovic.
Yet his dominance on clay also reveals his relative weakness as a player; it doesn't translate to equivalent success on other surfaces that require less physical investment to win a point, let alone a game or match. His off-clay record does not compare with either Djokovic or Federer. Take away Nadal's 13 French titles (the next best was Borg, with 6) and he has only as many majors as players like Wilander, Edberg or Lendl.
So it is his level of physical superiority that enables him to dominate on the slowest and most gruelling surface; yet it isn't just superior to other players - it is in another league. He showed that in the final against Djokovic. How does he do that? Is it realistic that in a game of the smallest margins there should be such a gulf at the physical level, as he shows?
I suggested previously that he peaks for the French - but that doesn't mean I am saying he dopes only for the French. His year typically follows a 'cycle', in which he often starts strongly for the Australian Open but then increases his capacity over the claycourt season from April to June, culminating in the French Open, and then his form plateaus through to Wimbledon and then starts to decline from the US Open through to the end of the year, when he is nowhere near the player that he was in the first half of the year, often losing to players you will have never heard of. Even if he starts his year at a different point, when coming off an "injury" break - and he has so many injuries it seems - his performance moves in a discernible cycle. I have seen this year after year. No one else shows the same.
Over 10 years ago, his injuries and vicissitudes in his form led many to declare his precocious career was over. Agassi was one who said, "he is writing cheques his body can't meet". Yet, here he still is, apparently getting stronger by the year at 34, playing without any discernible diminution in his physical powers. And he does this over other players that themselves are not exempt from doping suspicions. There are some here who say they think Djokovic has likely doped - so what does that suggest about Nadal?
In the last few years I watched Djokovic 'own' Nadal on every occasion they met - his string of consecutive wins over the Spaniard stretched to the horizon. Federer was doing the same (as he showed last in the Wimbledon semi-final in 2019). This year, when Nadal has played no tournaments for months until Rome and then Paris, he has shown a level of play better than any I have seen from him previously, and disposed of a player who had formerly had his measure as though he was barely top-100. To me it was like watching Armstrong contemptuously surpass the very best in the peloton - and tennis may not be very far from cycling as a sport sustained by ped's.
A few years ago I spoke with a high-ranking WADA official whom I knew and expressed the view that what Nadal was then doing was impossible. He said, "Yes, it is - he is on EPO - all the Spaniards are - they've been doing it for years - they've gotten really good at it". When anti-doping can't catch those they believe are doping, that told me where sport is now.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rojo wrote:
Armstronglivs,
This might be the dumbest logic I've ever read on here. I'm trying to understand your logic- if there is any
Are you saying that Nadal only dopes for the French Open? If doping is why he dominated yesterday, then why wouldn't he also dope at tournaments not named the French Open and dominate there?
Your logic seems to be missing.
In the last few years I watched Djokovic 'own' Nadal on every occasion they met - his string of consecutive wins over the Spaniard stretched to the horizon.
Did Nadal stop doping when Djok was dominating him?
Horrible logic all around.
Ultra or Die wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In the last few years I watched Djokovic 'own' Nadal on every occasion they met - his string of consecutive wins over the Spaniard stretched to the horizon.
Did Nadal stop doping when Djok was dominating him?
Horrible logic all around.
It isn't about logic. It is about the margins players seek. Djokovic is a better player than Nadal; till this year whatever he may have been taking countered whatever helped Nadal's game. But Nadal now seems to have gained a clear physical edge - which he formerly had over Djokovic from 2005-10. Doping is an arms race that uses constantly changing means to gain advantage without being caught or incurring health issues; it isn't like taking the same medication year in and year out obtained from your local chemist.
One lopsided match proves that?