PDA

View Full Version : The WTA and work ethic, or lack thereof.


Golovinjured.
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:36 AM
I was reading through one of the threads in General Messages about Martina Hingis, and I thought about how much she could have done if she'd put in the extra work. Apparently she's said that her coach/mother always wanted her to work harder on her serve in particular to make it into more of a weapon, but she never wanted to put in that extra effort to make the improvements, and change her game as the game changes.

Fast forward to today. We have the likes of Bartoli, Kanepi and Kleybanova, all fairly overweight in terms of elite tennis players, all well inside the TOP 30. Sure, they all have weapons to make up for their lack of fitness, but you'd have to think they would be doing so much better if they were fitter. Even Davenport, and Seles (post stabbing) had woeful movement and fitness. Seles I can understand, and even Davenport after having her baby, but you'd have to agree that their careers would have been better if they'd improved their fitness. Even Lisa Raymond nowadays, it just boggles my mind how PROFESSIONAL tennis players allow their body to get like this, when in essence their body is their career.

No way am I saying these women are lazy, they work much more than I do. There are exceptions, Dementieva, Venus, Stosur. Women who care about fitness, and work hard to maintain it. But as a whole, when compared to the ATP where almost all of the men are of optimum fitness, it just doesn't seem like the women are enough to keep fit.

So, is there a lack of work ethic on the WTA Tour?


P.S. Sorry to add YET ANOTHER ATP-WTA comparison, but it serves as a benchmark. There's nothing else to compare the WTA to, so I don't see the problem.

SM
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:45 AM
I remember a commentator saying Hingis serve was very very similar to Molik, just she had physical limitations.

Hingis didn't like to train, and quite frankly i doubt it would make much of a difference if she trained harder, as her game came naturally....in fact, if she trained harder she probably would have burned out even earlieR?

with some of the larger players you have mentioned it comes down to genetics, atleast partially for some of them...as an extreme case look at Myriam Casanova

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:47 AM
theres is a lack of work ethic in womens tennis, don't quote me on it but during the indoor season last year im sure chak admitted to not putting in the hours and letting her fitness drop, so even the 'in shape' naturaly players go through spells of not working hard enough or putting the hours in.

dementieva is really what every player should strive to be, imagine if every player on tour was as fit as lena, im not saying as fast but as physicaly strong, then matches would probably improve 20% quality wise just because players wouldn't make stupid mistakes due to poor footwork ect. i hope in 10 years the tour is filled with lena d like players, at least with lena you can say if she never wins a slam theres no question marks over her work ethic or fitness, petrova, bartoli ect when they finish their respective careers will they look back at what could have been had they put in the extra hours?

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Why would one discuss work ethic at WTA? There are individuals that have better or worse work ethic, but it has nothing to do with being overweight or slim, woman or man.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:12 PM
If only Lena would work on her head as hard as she works on her body...

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:15 PM
Why would one discuss work ethic at WTA? There are individuals that have better or worse work ethic, but it has nothing to do with being overweight or slim, woman or man.

thats a very stupid thing to say, work ethic is directly linked to weight, fitness and shape, chances are if you are lazy you will be overweight and have poor fitness, and if you are a hard worker you will be in great shape and fit as a fiddle, there are exceptions (though too many on the wta to be coincidence). there is a problem in womens tennis with committment to training and practice, you cant deny this. there are a number of players who need to put in more hours in the gym and on court, you know who they are , i know who they are.

safina is a great example of being ok fitness wise up untill last year, but putting in the extra work, her body tonned up, she moved better and she will be #1 next week. she wasn't fat or out of shape in her career upto 2008 but as her improved results show she wasn't working hard enough to maximise her tennis, there are many safina type players on tour right now, average fitness and work ethic that could be improved and there tennis would also improve with it.

Zébulon
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:18 PM
Work ethic can be about fitness but how about working on your game ? "Fitter" players than bartoli et al you named don't necessarily work harder, btw... WOrk ethic is way too broad a thing. :shrug: And re: hingis, it's not as if her game really relied on power, right ? It all depends on the player and whther her game requires speed or arm strength or whatever... Some might need to practice a bit less and get a life to balance their head, i dunno... :shrug: I mean, girls nowadays probably work more on their body than during different eras when the athleticism (??) was not the key factor.

barmaid
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Sammy1 said, "dementieva is really what every player should strive to be, imagine if every player on tour was as fit as lena, im not saying as fast but as physicaly strong".....

Your exmple of Elena's work ethics are commendable but what rewards has she attained by being "super fit":confused:? A long and respectable career with "nada" slams and a few titles sprinkled in between. Sometimes just pure talent is the only winning ingredient you need...case in point Serena Williams AO '06 victory when she was overweight, winded and a few others she managed to grab over many "fitter players" but never had the talent to finish her off. Champions are madeup of many things, desire, motivation, skills, fitness, mental toughness and talent...but in giving examples of Elena or Jelena for instance...what you see is what you get...a super fit tennis player with nothing to "hoist"!:help:. I also think that intangibles enter into many situations, Hingis lost to Majoli because she fell off a horse shortly before the RG tournament, Kuzy captured her first slam when Davenport was injured in the semi'-finals and then went on to beat a fit and more experienced Dementieva in the final....Maria who was trained as a tennis prodigy hasn't fulfilled her big expectations due to constant injuries, Henin who worked like a dog on her fitness and was rewarded in capturing her 7 slams but left the scene earlier than expected because I guess she was "burned out"!:sad: Yeah, being super fit can only get you so far....but the thread starter is correct....the current WTA work ethic is far below par and that just leaves the quality of tennis at a C minus level as well.:eek:

Barmaid:wavey:

Golovinjured.
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:42 PM
Sammy1 said, "dementieva is really what every player should strive to be, imagine if every player on tour was as fit as lena, im not saying as fast but as physicaly strong".....

Your exmple of Elena's work ethics are commendable but what rewards has she attained by being "super fit":confused:? A long and respectable career with "nada" slams and a few titles sprinkled in between. Sometimes just pure talent is the only winning ingredient you need...case in point Serena Williams AO '06 victory when she was overweight, winded and a few others she managed to grab over many "fitter players" but never had the talent to finish her off.

Barmaid:wavey:

But it's making the most of what you've got. Elena is far from the most talented on tour, and doesn't have natural ability per se, but by being as fit as possible she's given herself success that otherwise she wouldn't have experienced. If she didn't work as hard to be as fit as she is, she wouldn't have Olympic Gold, or be at #3 in the world. What I'm trying to say is that her fitness has not limited her in fulfilling her talent. I'd say her achievements equal, or even outweigh what her talent should have given her, career wise.

On the other hand, you have Hingis whose achievements, in my opinion, DO NOT equal her talent. Some would say that could come down to her physical work ethic.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:42 PM
Sammy1 said, "dementieva is really what every player should strive to be, imagine if every player on tour was as fit as lena, im not saying as fast but as physicaly strong".....

Your exmple of Elena's work ethics are commendable but what rewards has she attained by being "super fit":confused:? A long and respectable career with "nada" slams and a few titles sprinkled in between. Sometimes just pure talent is the only winning ingredient you need...case in point Serena Williams AO '06 victory when she was overweight, winded and a few others she managed to grab over many "fitter players" but never had the talent to finish her off. Champions are madeup of many things, desire, motivation, skills, fitness, mental toughness and talent...but in giving examples of Elena or Jelena for instance...what you see is what you get...a super fit tennis player with nothing to "hoist"!:help:. I also think that intangibles enter into many situations, Hingis lost to Majoli because she fell off a horse shortly before the RG tournament, Kuzy captured her first slam when Davenport was injured in the semi'-finals and then went on to beat a fit and more experienced Dementieva in the final....Maria who was trained as a tennis prodigy hasn't fulfilled her big expectations due to constant injuries, Henin who worked like a dog on her fitness and was rewarded in capturing her 7 slams but left the scene earlier than expected because I guess she was "burned out"!:sad: Yeah, being super fit can only get you so far....but the thread starter is correct....the current WTA work ethic is far below par and that just leaves the quality of tennis at a C minus level as well.:eek:

Barmaid:wavey:

my point is barmaid lena d has limitations in her game but she has absolutely maximised herself by being as fit, strong and fast as she possibley can be. there are players who can win slams with talent alone but think how much better they could be with lena d style fitness to back up their talent. no matter how talented a player is that extra step, that extra ball back in court, that extra mile is what will maximise their talent.

Golovinjured.
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:47 PM
my point is barmaid lena d has limitations in her game but she has absolutely maximised herself by being as fit, strong and fast as she possibley can be. there are players who can win slams with talent alone but think how much better they could be with lena d style fitness to back up their talent. no matter how talented a player is that extra step, that extra ball back in court, that extra mile is what will maximise their talent.

:yeah:

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:52 PM
thats a very stupid thing to say, work ethic is directly linked to weight, fitness and shape, chances are if you are lazy you will be overweight and have poor fitness, and if you are a hard worker you will be in great shape and fit as a fiddle, there are exceptions (though too many on the wta to be coincidence). there is a problem in womens tennis with committment to training and practice, you cant deny this. there are a number of players who need to put in more hours in the gym and on court, you know who they are , i know who they are.

safina is a great example of being ok fitness wise up untill last year, but putting in the extra work, her body tonned up, she moved better and she will be #1 next week. she wasn't fat or out of shape in her career upto 2008 but as her improved results show she wasn't working hard enough to maximise her tennis, there are many safina type players on tour right now, average fitness and work ethic that could be improved and there tennis would also improve with it.

I honestly believe that it is not stupid thing to say at all. I have been fit my entire life; always between 185 - 190 lbs at 6'3" and I did nothing to be that way. On the other hand I know plenty of people that sweat their asses off in the gym with little to show for it. Yes, some did lose their motivation on the way and yes some have poor diet. However, if someone brings up Kaia Kanepi or others like her and states that she has to have poor work ethic then this person doesn't have a remote idea what does it take to get into top 100. We will never know how much talent some of these players have, but I doubt they got where they are on talent and luck alone.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:03 PM
I honestly believe that it is not stupid thing to say at all. I have been fit my entire life; always between 185 - 190 lbs at 6'3" and I did nothing to be that way. On the other hand I know plenty of people that sweat their asses off in the gym with little to show for it. Yes, some did lose their motivation on the way and yes some have poor diet. However, if someone brings up Kaia Kanepi or others like her and states that she has to have poor work ethic then this person doesn't have a remote idea what does it take to get into top 100. We will never know how much talent some of these players have, but I doubt they got where they are on talent and luck alone.

well i've seen kanepi huffing and puffing after a few games in matches, if you want to tell me she has great work ethic, is in shape and is fit, you're only fooling yourself not me.

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:13 PM
I was reading through one of the threads in General Messages about Martina Hingis, and I thought about how much she could have done if she'd put in the extra work. Apparently she's said that her coach/mother always wanted her to work harder on her serve in particular to make it into more of a weapon, but she never wanted to put in that extra effort to make the improvements, and change her game as the game changes.

Fast forward to today. We have the likes of Bartoli, Kanepi and Kleybanova, all fairly overweight in terms of elite tennis players, all well inside the TOP 30. Sure, they all have weapons to make up for their lack of fitness, but you'd have to think they would be doing so much better if they were fitter. Even Davenport, and Seles (post stabbing) had woeful movement and fitness. Seles I can understand, and even Davenport after having her baby, but you'd have to agree that their careers would have been better if they'd improved their fitness. Even Lisa Raymond nowadays, it just boggles my mind how PROFESSIONAL tennis players allow their body to get like this, when in essence their body is their career.

No way am I saying these women are lazy, they work much more than I do. There are exceptions, Dementieva, Venus, Stosur. Women who care about fitness, and work hard to maintain it. But as a whole, when compared to the ATP where almost all of the men are of optimum fitness, it just doesn't seem like the women are enough to keep fit.

So, is there a lack of work ethic on the WTA Tour?


P.S. Sorry to add YET ANOTHER ATP-WTA comparison, but it serves as a benchmark. There's nothing else to compare the WTA to, so I don't see the problem.

Firstly, can you leave out Bartoli? She did get herself in shape, she is very fit. Even though she had the best success of her career when everyone said she was "fat". Appearing to have a bit more fat on you does not make you unfit. Bartoli played LOADS of tennis that Wimbledon and didn't appear to be physically struggling.

Davenport did not have woeful fitness, wtf is that all about? She had bad movement due to her height that's all.

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:13 PM
well i've seen kanepi huffing and puffing after a few games in matches, if you want to tell me she has great work ethic, is in shape and is fit, you're only fooling yourself not me.
No Sammy I would not say she is fit, but I would have hard time to assume that she has poor work ethic. She did not get where she is sitting on her ass and doing nothing so did not Tsonga (this is the other point I was trying to make, that poor work ethic has nothing to do with male female).

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:17 PM
No Sammy I would not say she is fit, but I would have hard time to assume that she has poor work ethic. She did not get where she is sitting on her ass and doing nothing so did not Tsonga (this is the other point I was trying to make, that poor work ethic has nothing to do with male female).

so you assume all players that reach the top 100 are hard workers, i find that kind of funny womens tennis is good but its not that good that lazy/unfit players cant make it.

Chris 84
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:19 PM
I was never a big fan of Davenport, but when she first appeared on the scene, she was overweight and looked out of place as a sportswoman. However, she was skilled enough to get to the top 20 or so in that condition and was always a danger.

She then must have worked her ass off, cos she lost a lot of weight and improved her fitness hugely and reached form that got her to number1 in the world and made her a Grand Slam winner. I respect what she did a lot, and to include her as someone who may have been lazy or lacking in work ethic seems very unfair to me.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Firstly, can you leave out Bartoli? She did get herself in shape, she is very fit.

you must be kidding :tape:

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:24 PM
I was never a big fan of Davenport, but when she first appeared on the scene, she was overweight and looked out of place as a sportswoman. However, she was skilled enough to get to the top 20 or so in that condition and was always a danger.

She then must have worked her ass off, cos she lost a lot of weight and improved her fitness hugely and reached form that got her to number1 in the world and made her a Grand Slam winner. I respect what she did a lot, and to include her as someone who may have been lazy or lacking in work ethic seems very unfair to me.

davenport and pierce are examples of how important fitness and putting in the hours is. both are hugely talented ball strikers but that alone will never be enough both needed to be in sumpreme shape when winning slams or being top 5. davenport and pierce would have never won slams without getting in great shape because fitness and strength maximises talent.

Kipling
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Fitness is important, but I think it is also overrated, at least when people start suggesting that everyone should conform to a certain standard.

Everyone's body is different. Being able to move well enough to defend and having the stamina to last through a grueling three set match are important. Looking like Dementieva, or Craybas, or whomever is not.

Bartoli plays better with some weight on her, as it gives her the power she needs to compete with bigger hitters. If she lost 15-20 pounds, she'd be overpowered. Same for my fave, whom everyone likes to call "fat". She isn't. She's sturdy, built like her Dad, and at 5'5" she'd be hopelessly overmatched if she didn't have some weight behind her shots. I don't want her to be another Hingis clone, a la Radwanska. To win majors now, you have to have the muscle to hit hard and sustain 2 weeks of physical pounding. I have made a ton of Serena jokes, but the fact is, she doesn't suffer with the extra weight. She is still very athletic, has good endurance for long matches and lengthy tournaments and her weight just makes her shots more forceful.

Advocates will toss Safina into the argument, and to be sure, her ranking has come way up since she started her fitness regimen. But at 6' tall she has natural advantages over smaller players who need some way of compensating. Someone who is 5'5 and has the same figure, proportionally, as Safina simply won't be competitive.

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:35 PM
so you assume all players that reach the top 100 are hard workers, i find that kind of funny womens tennis is good but its not that good that lazy/unfit players cant make it.
Well Sammy perhaps we can go pick five promissing 10 year olds and you will get at least one of them in top 100. If you do that and I don't care if you actually get any of them to top 100 but won't give up until they are 20 I will say that you know what it means.

CJ07
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:36 PM
I seriously fail to understand how you can be a professional athlete and be out of shape. Its embarassing to the sport. Also, if you're in top physical shape, you're giving yourself the best chance possible to succeed. If Serena were in the shape she was in 2002-03, she would winning most every match.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Fitness is important, but I think it is also overrated, at least when people start suggesting that everyone should conform to a certain standard.

Everyone's body is different. Being able to move well enough to defend and having the stamina to last through a grueling three set match are important. Looking like Dementieva, or Craybas, or whomever is not.

Bartoli plays better with some weight on her, as it gives her the power she needs to compete with bigger hitters. If she lost 15-20 pounds, she'd be overpowered. Same for my fave, whom everyone likes to call "fat". She isn't. She's sturdy, built like her Dad, and at 5'5" she'd be hopelessly overmatched if she didn't have some weight behind her shots. I don't want her to be another Hingis clone, a la Radwanska. To win majors now, you have to have the muscle to hit hard and sustain 2 weeks of physical pounding. I have made a ton of Serena jokes, but the fact is, she doesn't suffer with the extra weight. She is still very athletic, has good endurance for long matches and lengthy tournaments and her weight just makes her shots more forceful.

Advocates will toss Safina into the argument, and to be sure, her ranking has come way up since she started her fitness regimen. But at 6' tall she has natural advantages over smaller players who need some way of compensating. Someone who is 5'5 and has the same figure, proportionally, as Safina simply won't be competitive.

blah, blah, blah henin is 5 foot 5 and has 7 slams, go watch videos of her in 2001, she was skinny, she bulked up 'MUSCLE' to win slams, having extra flab is not the answer. rezai's power dosen't come from those 'extra 10-15 pounds' it comes from her hitting flat and trying to smack the hell out of the ball every shot, those 'extra 10-15 pounds' do however prevent her from getting to more balls to smack the shit out of.

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:49 PM
you must be kidding :tape:

Does she look unfit here?

http://img.skysports.com/09/01/800x600/Marion-Bartoli-Brisbane-2009_1774502.jpg

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:51 PM
So, is there a lack of work ethic on the WTA Tour? There's a matter of kinds of work.

If Marion Bartoli spends six hours every day, hitting on court, lifting weights and stretching, while Venus only spends fours hours, but Venus lives on fruits and vegetables, while Bartoli follows the Monica Seles diet, who has better 'work ethic'? (NOTE: I have no idea of the two players actual training regimens.)

Is Amelie Mauresmo's work ethic any less because she isn't built like a body-builder anymore?

Venus Williams happens to be one of the fortunate few who lose weight when they get out of shape. I think it was OZ 2001 when she showed up looking like she'd been a prisoner of war or something. She was gaunt. Serena, OTOH, has genes more like the rest of us.

Does an NF lineman have less work ethic than an NFL wide receiver? Or are they just different people, with different body types, doing different jobs?

Who has superior work ethic, Svetlana Kuznetsova or Ana Ivanovic? How do you know?

Who has superior work ethic, Serena Williams or Jelena Jankovic? How do you know?


As for the ATP, what they teach in bio class these days, right or wrong, is that women naturally have more body fat than men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage).* So I expect the men to be generally leaner. It doesn't mean they work harder. It means they don't have to work as hard to get lean.

*Wikipedia is far from a perfect source, but it's a start.

nevetssllim
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:56 PM
I've always had the impression that Bartoli was someone who was one of the grafters on the tour...

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 01:57 PM
There's a matter of kinds of work.

If Marion Bartoli spends six hours every day, hitting on court, lifting weights and stretching, while Venus only spends fours hours, but Venus lives on fruits and vegetables, while Bartoli follows the Monica Seles diet, who has better 'work ethic'? (NOTE: I have no idea of the two players actual training regimens.)

Is Amelie Mauresmo's work ethic any less because she isn't built like a body-builder anymore?

Venus Williams happens to be one of the fortunate few who lose weight when they get out of shape. I think it was OZ 2001 when she showed up looking like she'd been a prisoner of war or something. She was gaunt. Serena, OTOH, has genes more like the rest of us.

Does an NF lineman have less work ethic than an NFL wide receiver? Or are they just different people, with different body types, doing different jobs?

Who has superior work ethic, Svetlana Kuznetsova or Ana Ivanovic? How do you know?

Who has superior work ethic, Serena Williams or Jelena Jankovic? How do you know?


As for the ATP, what they teach in bio class these days, right or wrong, is that women naturally have more body fat than men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage). So I expect the men to be generally leaner. It doesn't mean they work harder. It means they don't have to work as hard to get lean.

its the word 'ethic' that should be focussed on, if bartoli does 8 hours on court then eats like a pig (not that she is, its just a turn of phrase), then venus does 4 hours a day on court and eats a healthy balanced diet, who has the better 'ethic', obviously venus. because work ethic to be in shape and super fit is all encompassing, its working out, training, on court practice, healthy diet and lifestyle (no drink, early nights sleep ect).

Veritas
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:07 PM
I remember a commentator saying Hingis serve was very very similar to Molik, just she had physical limitations.

Hingis didn't like to train, and quite frankly i doubt it would make much of a difference if she trained harder, as her game came naturally....in fact, if she trained harder she probably would have burned out even earlieR?

with some of the larger players you have mentioned it comes down to genetics, atleast partially for some of them...as an extreme case look at Myriam Casanova

The physique is not an issue that's impossible to overcome. Just look at Henin. She's slightly shorter than Martina, yet she was able to outhit bigger opponents and generate enormous pace with her groundstrokes. Aside from her fitness, the power she had was really down to her technique. I remember a commentator mentioning that Henin's backhand generated power by the way she rotated her body and the angle which she held her racquet. Therefore, Henin didn't need the muscles that someone like Serena Williams has to plough through her shots.

Granted, fitness is important and there is a chance that the body could wear down too much from "over" training. But these are professionals we are talking about, people who know how to work their bodies. Martina was never unfit in her career, but she was also rarely at her physical peak and that hindered her game style. She relied on shot variety and placement to execute her tactics, but when she couldn't run fast enough or endure long enough, her concentration was severely affected. Case in point were that matches just before her retirements. Her "tactics" there were tired and recycled because I think her brain was relying too much on routines that she was used to, rather than adjusting her game plan to every point that she played. Hence that's why her signature tactics, such as drop shots, were ineffective because they were easily anticipated by her opponents.

Now, back to the work ethic issue - what was more pressing in Martina's case was to make changes to her game, not just her body. That meant, for example, changing the way that she hit some of her shots and probably not hitting the ball so early as to give herself more time to decide where to hit the ball.

But I'll admit that it's hypocritical for any of us to chide Martina or any other player for failing to make the changes that we think were necessary. It's so easy to identify and criticise, but it's an entirely different matter to execute it. The biggest hurdle isn't so much the actual work, but the mental side of it all. Martina was probably too scared to risk changing what had been a very successful playing style into another which she hadn't tried before, and which wouldn't have been able to guarantee her more success.

Patrick345
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:12 PM
I was reading through one of the threads in General Messages about Martina Hingis, and I thought about how much she could have done if she'd put in the extra work. Apparently she's said that her coach/mother always wanted her to work harder on her serve in particular to make it into more of a weapon, but she never wanted to put in that extra effort to make the improvements, and change her game as the game changes.

Fast forward to today. We have the likes of Bartoli, Kanepi and Kleybanova, all fairly overweight in terms of elite tennis players, all well inside the TOP 30. Sure, they all have weapons to make up for their lack of fitness, but you'd have to think they would be doing so much better if they were fitter. Even Davenport, and Seles (post stabbing) had woeful movement and fitness. Seles I can understand, and even Davenport after having her baby, but you'd have to agree that their careers would have been better if they'd improved their fitness. Even Lisa Raymond nowadays, it just boggles my mind how PROFESSIONAL tennis players allow their body to get like this, when in essence their body is their career.

No way am I saying these women are lazy, they work much more than I do. There are exceptions, Dementieva, Venus, Stosur. Women who care about fitness, and work hard to maintain it. But as a whole, when compared to the ATP where almost all of the men are of optimum fitness, it just doesn't seem like the women are enough to keep fit.

So, is there a lack of work ethic on the WTA Tour?


P.S. Sorry to add YET ANOTHER ATP-WTA comparison, but it serves as a benchmark. There's nothing else to compare the WTA to, so I don't see the problem.

Well players like Kanepi, Wozniak can make a healthy living without making any adjustments to their fitness or gameplan. They lack the drive to be the best they can be and make more money than most of us can dream of. I was only half kidding when I said, you take every fairly athletic 10 year old girl with a strong mentality and desire and you can make her a top 100 player.

Helen Lawson
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:21 PM
The last time I walked around a tournament, it was 5 years ago or so, but the unfit girls were the exception. For every unfit one, you have 5 who are in perfect shape, training their butts off to be the best they can. I think people are focusing on a few of the exceptions, but I haven't watched in a long time.

The better question might be, at least for the ones near the top with talent, why don't they want more? Is the money too much for achieving so little in relation to what they can do? I'm taking like Lena D, Sveta, Dinara, Jankovic, even Ivanovic. They all could be multiple slam winners, and can get head coach, 10 strategy people, etc. Have they made so much money they don't care, or what? It seems they are all underperforming, but don't seem interested in changing that.

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:26 PM
its the word 'ethic' that should be focussed on, if bartoli does 8 hours on court then eats like a pig (not that she is, its just a turn of phrase), then venus does 4 hours a day on court and eats a healthy balanced diet, who has the better 'ethic', obviously venus. because work ethic to be in shape and super fit is all encompassing, its working out, training, on court practice, healthy diet and lifestyle (no drink, early nights sleep ect).Now substitute 'Serena' for 'Bartoli'.


Do you really think Venus and Serena's training regimens are THAT different? Two different body types, same exact training regimen, will yield different results. Serena is far from the leanest player on tour. But she's the most successful. OTOH, until she got ultra-lean, Henin never won a slam. How can you argue one standard fits all?

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:38 PM
Now substitute 'Serena' for 'Bartoli'.


Do you really think Venus and Serena's training regimens are THAT different? Two different body types, same exact training regimen, will yield different results. Serena is far from the leanest player on tour. But she's the most successful. OTOH, until she got ultra-lean, Henin never won a slam. How can you argue one standard fits all?

i thought venus and serena didn't train together anymore, and i have to say i've seen pictures of venus on the running tracks but haven't seen any of serena doing that kind of thing. serena openly admits hating the gym work. i also don't know what they eat in relation to each other, i read an interview with serena where she was eating spare ribs covered in some sauce and she said she shouldn't have, then theirs the serena eating a burger video thing and she did say she she had a mcdonalds after winning the oz open, correct me if any of this is wrong. obviously they have different bodies but im willing to bet venus's diet is better and she puts more hours into the gym, hence venus always looking trim and serena even for her body type looking a few pounds overweight sometimes. talent wise theres no comparisson serena is by miles the better player, but shes only 3 slams ahead, a fully fit, in great shape serena should beat venus as 2002-2003 showed.

The Daviator
Apr 13th, 2009, 02:46 PM
When Davenport was 'unfit' and 'out of shape' she actually had her best results - 1998/1999/2000, Linds reached her 'peak' shape in 2004/2005 and played great but won no big titles :(

Helen Lawson
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Serena had a video posted before she went to AO, and she's eating a hotdog with all the toppings, and she's also unsteady on her feet at the time like maybe she's had a few. The gal likes to eat and the older she gets, the more her body will become like Oracene's, so it will be uphill for her to be in good shape. Venus is built like Richard, so genetics, etc. plays a role. Remember that story, a couple of juniors or qualifiers got stuck in Jacksonville on 9/11 coming back from NYC after the US Open with a grounded plane, Venus was grounded there, too, and one of the girls knew Venus somehow and Venus rented a van and they all drove the rest of the way, these other girls were from South Florida. The point of the story is, the girls wanted to stop at McDonalds and Venus was like shocked they ate McDonalds and indicated she hadn't eaten McDonalds or any junk food in several years.

Inktrailer
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:11 PM
I don't think there's one standard way of training or conditioning that works for everyone, or that all players should be building the muscles up too much. But there are times when you watch a match and you can see that one of the players just hasn't been looking after themselves as much as you'd expect a professional sports player to do. I've just watched PEnnetta-Kvitova and it's clear that Kvitova needs to lose something from her stomach, and really there's no excuse for that as it's not helpful in any way. Being naturally thin doesn't necessarily mean you're fit and being naurally bigger doesn't mean you're unfit. And please stop bashing Marion, this is her from the recent Monterrey final, she does put the work in, she HAS to as she isn't a natural athlete.
http://tenfem.streetreporters.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/bartoli-monterrey.jpg

Christinawww
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:24 PM
from today's match:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/ChristinaWWW/Kvitova.jpg

Volcana
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:31 PM
talent wise theres no comparissonstop right there. Venus was an age-group track star. She's taller AND faster. (Well, pre-injuires to both.) If you want to argue raw genetics, VENUS was the one born with more physical 'talent'. So why is Serena better? I think Richard had it right. 'Serena's meaner'

Venus doesn't come out on court looking for revenge. Serena, OTOH, may be looking to pay Maria Sharapova back for Wimbledon 2004 when they're both playing shuffleboard in the WTA old folk's home.

tennismaster8820
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:32 PM
from today's match:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/ChristinaWWW/Kvitova.jpg

:tape: :help:

Inktrailer
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Ha, thanks Christina, that's exactly it! Though for the comparison with the men, if you put her in shorts and an untucked t-shirt she'd probably get away with it.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:43 PM
stop right there. Venus was an age-group track star. She's taller AND faster. (Well, pre-injuires to both.) If you want to argue raw genetics, VENUS was the one born with more physical 'talent'. So why is Serena better? I think Richard had it right. 'Serena's meaner'

Venus doesn't come out on court looking for revenge. Serena, OTOH, may be looking to pay Maria Sharapova back for Wimbledon 2004 when they're both playing shuffleboard in the WTA old folk's home.

tennis talent, serena has better technique than venus on just about every shot, plus serena at her fittest is as fast as venus. when you compare the 2's serve, forehands and slice you can see serenas are much better and the technique is much better.

The Dawntreader
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:49 PM
tennis talent, serena has better technique than venus on just about every shot, plus serena at her fittest is as fast as venus. when you compare the 2's serve, forehands and slice you can see serenas are much better and the technique is much better.

Volley, footwork, touch? Can we really say Serena has the edge over Venus in those areas?

Sorry sammy, but i love playing devil's advocate:lol:

LeonHart
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:50 PM
First off, I think it's very ignorant to say Hingis had a poor work ethic. It's not a coincidence that Hingis made the finals of the Austrailian Open 6 times IN A ROW. Each start of the season she looks fitter than she had the previous year, and it's her great work ethic during the off season that sets her apart from the other players during those years.

Secondly, while her serve was an "attackable" part of her game, it was not as horrible as people keep saying it is. I have noticed that it has gone downhill as her career has moved forward though. Plus it's not easy to hit big serves when you are as short as Martina was. Justine hit her serves a bit harder but look how many double faults she would hit per match.

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:50 PM
Volley, footwork, touch? Can we really say Serena has the edge over Venus in those areas?

Sorry sammy, but i love playing devil's advocate:lol:

That's why he said "just about" sorry I'm joining in too :devil: :lol:

The Dawntreader
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:59 PM
That's why he said "just about" sorry I'm joining in too :devil: :lol:

We're just devil crazy:lol:

I still think Venus's backhand is better, she can switch the direction easier.

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:02 PM
tennis talent, serena has better technique than venus on just about every shot, plus serena at her fittest is as fast as venus. when you compare the 2's serve, forehands and slice you can see serenas are much better and the technique is much better.

Volley, footwork, touch? Can we really say Serena has the edge over Venus in those areas?

Sorry sammy, but i love playing devil's advocate:lol:

That's why he said "just about" sorry I'm joining in too :devil: :lol:
This conversation went entirely towards talent. Do you believe you can get to the top 100 in WTA on talent alone and stay there for meaningful period of time? From what I saw through closer and more distant relationships with people that are trying to make it; it is pretty hard work. I think one has to be oblivious of the work required to call anyone in the top 100 that she has poor work ethic.

Having said that I don’t deny that some of the players have weight problem, and it is a problem, but it says little about their work ethic. It could be genetic or psychological (related to being overworked or lonely or pressure). Don’t kid yourself these women work hard, but they are people with their problems.

Orbis
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:11 PM
Some people, even with loads of training, simply won't be able to run around the court like a rabbit. I agree though, some players really aren't putting enough effort into fitness and such. But some people have different things to compensate. Look at Lindsay Davenport, I mean come on, no matter how much she trained it was unlikely her fitness would make her too much quicker. Yet she could still beat the shit out of most players with amazing ball striking. Seles is a different story because she was pretty quick before the stabbing, but her circumstances were unique.

Dave.
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:13 PM
We're just devil crazy:lol:

I still think Venus's backhand is better, she can switch the direction easier.

All the stuff you said she does better. Footwork-wise it's not even comparable :tape: :lol: I think Serena puts her whole game together better though and her weaknesses don't become so obvious.

This conversation went entirely towards talent. Do you believe you can get to the top 100 in WTA on talent alone and stay there for meaningful period of time? From what I saw through closer and more distant relationships with people that are trying to make it; it is pretty hard work. I think one has to be oblivious of the work required to call anyone in the top 100 that she has poor work ethic.

Having said that I don’t deny that some of the players have weight problem, and it is a problem, but it says little about their work ethic. It could be genetic or psychological (related to being overworked or lonely or pressure). Don’t kid yourself these women work hard, but they are people with their problems.

No I don't. You simply don't get far if you don't work hard. Those that might appear out of shape are working just as hard if not harder than everyone else.

I agree with your post, weight problems can be a big thing on the WTA. It's not an easy life. You're right, overweight does not equal lazy or not working hard in most cases. There are a number of other reasons like you said for some players not being in their best physical shape.

croat123
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Hingis lost to Majoli because she fell off a horse shortly before the RG tournament

Majoli would have beaten a healthy Hingis (or a healthy whoever else) on that day...she was on fire.

Back on point: Did anyone else notice Stephanie Cohen-Aloro's belly today?? :o

LDVTennis
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:18 PM
Serena had a video posted before she went to AO, and she's eating a hotdog with all the toppings, and she's also unsteady on her feet at the time like maybe she's had a few.

I'm imagining your Martini glass, but with a hotdog sticking out of it ... :lol::lol::lol:

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:38 PM
i still believe a player can make the wta top 100 without being fit or in shape, just through good ball striking.

and i maintain serena when fit and in shape is better than venus in all departments.

these are obviously my opinions but 10>7 and kvitova seem to back up my theories, *stokes the pot*

bobbynorwich
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:38 PM
IMO, work ethic in tennis is a lot more than physical conditioning. A player can work hard to be super fit but still have a lousy work ethic if she neglects to:

1. Work on improving weaknesses in technique and strategy
2. Study up on her opponents
3. Put in the effort to analyze reasons for losses
4. Regenerate mentally
5. Avoid lifestyle excesses (drugs, alcohol, excess partying, etc)
6. Stay consistent in dedication to her career

A player has a great work ethic if she does everything possible to consistently play her very best tennis. It's not just about getting into top physical condition.

serenus_2k8
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:43 PM
i still believe a player can make the wta top 100 without being fit or in shape, just through good ball striking.

and i maintain serena when fit and in shape is better than venus in all departments.

these are obviously my opinions but 10>7 and kvitova seem to back up my theories, *stokes the pot*

No not a chance. Any respectable player would beat somebody who was unfit...

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:47 PM
No not a chance. Any respectable player would beat somebody who was unfit...

seles herself has admitted she was not fit or in shape after the stabbing, she was still miles better than most on ballstriking alone. capriati is another example of a great player who could easily win without putting in any preperation or match fitness/practice.

kvitova is living proof you can still belt a ball without thinking or being fit and make the top 100/50 on the wta.

pav
Apr 13th, 2009, 06:56 PM
I think it is a bit unfair to just pick out a few players as exceptions, seems mainly ones with muscle definition . I think the majority are hard workers and train well, Elena Dement. for examle was questioned on her body when she was in Auckland, and said while she did some running, she avoided any gym work and said " I guess I have to thank my parents for having a great body" or words to that effect.

Patrick345
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:24 PM
IMO, work ethic in tennis is a lot more than physical conditioning. A player can work hard to be super fit but still have a lousy work ethic if she neglects to:

1. Work on improving weaknesses in technique and strategy
2. Study up on her opponents
3. Put in the effort to analyze reasons for losses
4. Regenerate mentally
5. Avoid lifestyle excesses (drugs, alcohol, excess partying, etc)
6. Stay consistent in dedication to her career

A player has a great work ethic if she does everything possible to consistently play her very best tennis. It's not just about getting into top physical condition.


Well said.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2009, 07:42 PM
I think it is a bit unfair to just pick out a few players as exceptions, seems mainly ones with muscle definition . I think the majority are hard workers and train well, Elena Dement. for examle was questioned on her body when she was in Auckland, and said while she did some running, she avoided any gym work and said " I guess I have to thank my parents for having a great body" or words to that effect.

Really? Because in another recent interview she said she likes working out in the gym more than working on the court and I've also read she has one of the most demanding workout regimens of any player on the tour--she does lots of natural resistance work like stair steps, using bands, squats and stuff like that. I don't think she lifts weights or uses a lot of machines, which may have been what she was talking about. Sometimes her English really IS a little fuzzy.

Tennis is also a very weird sport. The points themselves are anarobic, and you get lots of breaks. At the same time, you have to be out there actually playing for two or three hours at a time. A player who overtrains for the anarobic aspects of the game could easily find herself gassed in a third set, it seems to me.

Alizé Molik
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:14 PM
sammy01 i can always count on you to slag off marion whenever you get the chance :D

as for bartoli, she's not stuffing her face like a pig, her father is a doctor, and she is the weight that he tells her to be, simple as that, to play the game that she plays you do need some muscle behind your shots, and she has that, we've all seen the crazy videos of her resistance training etc. etc. but the weight behind the shots does help, if you're moving forward through the ball and there's more weight behind it then there's going to be more force going through to the ball.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:22 PM
sammy01 i can always count on you to slag off marion whenever you get the chance :D

as for bartoli, she's not stuffing her face like a pig, her father is a doctor, and she is the weight that he tells her to be, simple as that, to play the game that she plays you do need some muscle behind your shots, and she has that, we've all seen the crazy videos of her resistance training etc. etc. but the weight behind the shots does help, if you're moving forward through the ball and there's more weight behind it then there's going to be more force going through to the ball.

good because i can always count on poster like you to defend out of shape players ;)

Alizé Molik
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:41 PM
good because i can always count on poster like you to defend out of shape players ;)

yes you can! i love me my big divas :drool:

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:45 PM
as for bartoli, she's not stuffing her face like a pig, her father is a doctor, and she is the weight that he tells her to be, simple as that, to play the game that she plays you do need some muscle behind your shots, and she has that, we've all seen the crazy videos of her resistance training etc. etc. but the weight behind the shots does help, if you're moving forward through the ball and there's more weight behind it then there's going to be more force going through to the ball.

Good for her but it's embarassing for the tour that such out of shape player could be a top-tenner.
Not that it doesn't happen on ATP though, Fat Dave was top-10 too.

Alizé Molik
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:57 PM
Good for her but it's embarassing for the tour that such out of shape player could be a top-tenner.
Not that it doesn't happen on ATP though, Fat Dave was top-10 too.

yawn. who cares if its embaressing..let the players step up then and improve it.

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 03:58 PM
I think there's always been a disparency throughout tennis history of trim, fit players and those who were not so inclined. I agree that there is some issues that could be addressed with players regarding weight. Some could easily lose a few pounds with a better work ethic, but sometimes body shapes play a big role. I mean there must be some girls on tour with under-active phyroid conditions? That in itself makes it very difficult to lose body fat to a substantial degree. However yes there must be some girls on tour who are just plain unmotivated, seemingly at leasy.

I do think the top 20 for the most part, shows why they are top 20 in terms of fitness. The top 10 especially is especially hard to break into without an above average fitness level. Safina and Zvonareva worked immensely hard to be in the required shape to be in the elite for example.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:07 PM
I think there's always been a disparency throughout tennis history of trim, fit players and those who were not so inclined. I agree that there is some issues that could be addressed with players regarding weight. Some could easily lose a few pounds with a better work ethic, but sometimes body shapes play a big role. I mean there must be some girls on tour with under-active phyroid conditions? That in itself makes it very difficult to lose body fat to a substantial degree. However yes there must be some girls on tour who are just plain unmotivated, seemingly at leasy.

I do think the top 20 for the most part, shows why they are top 20 in terms of fitness. The top 10 especially is especially hard to break into without an above average fitness level. Safina and Zvonareva worked immensely hard to be in the required shape to be in the elite for example.

i just find it sad that there are girls on tour that don't get in the best shape possible, tennis is about sprinting around the court as fast as possible, as much as how you hit the ball, mentality ect. could you imagine a female 100 meter sprinter lining up at the olympic games in kleybanovas shape, or bartolis, no those 2 will never be fast, but they can sure as hell be fitter. if all the 100 meter runners i see in athletics have 6 packs and are ripped why aren't all tennis players?

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:12 PM
i just find it sad that there are girls on tour that don't get in the best shape possible, tennis is about sprinting around the court as fast as possible, as much as how you hit the ball, mentality ect. could you imagine a female 100 meter sprinter lining up at the olympic games in kleybanovas shape, or bartolis, no those 2 will never be fast, but they can sure as hell be fitter. if all the 100 meter runners i see in athletics have 6 packs and are ripped why aren't all tennis players?

To be fair on Bartoli, she looks in much better shape this year. Well at least the last time i saw her in the Australian season.

serenus_2k8
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:16 PM
Plus you can meet thin women who are dreadfully unfit and bigger women who are fitter than they look.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:18 PM
To be fair on Bartoli, she looks in much better shape this year. Well at least the last time i saw her in the Australian season.

she still had no muscle deffinition when i saw her in dubai and was carrying extra pounds.

serenus_2k8
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Bartoli is definitely thinner. And if she can beat the other women being as unfit as you say then shame on them.

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:21 PM
she still had no muscle deffinition when i saw her in dubai and was carrying extra pounds.

Maybe she could do with some dust :haha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcVZg2tVswk

Craig.
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:23 PM
Does she look unfit here?

http://img.skysports.com/09/01/800x600/Marion-Bartoli-Brisbane-2009_1774502.jpg

No, she looks like a witch :tape:

serenus_2k8
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:27 PM
^Her arm looks gross, but it proves she is in better shape there.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:38 PM
for me this is a true athlete, she is in amazing shape which her sport demands but is also a master of using that great fitness/strength to perfect the technical side of her sport. i believe tennis in 10 - 15 years tennis will demand the players be in this kind of shape

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/uploaded_images/Yelena-Isinbayeva-723914.jpg

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:42 PM
for me this is a true athlete, she is in amazing shape which her sport demands but is also a master of using that great fitness/strength to perfect the technical side of her sport. i believe tennis in 10 - 15 years tennis will demand the players be in this kind of shape

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/uploaded_images/Yelena-Isinbayeva-723914.jpg

Yeah but it's hard to compare track and field athletes to tennis players. Isinbayeva has to be muscular to aquire the sheer strength to hurl over a pole:lol:

Tennis players don't nessecarily such bulk.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:51 PM
Yeah but it's hard to compare track and field athletes to tennis players. Isinbayeva has to be muscular to aquire the sheer strength to hurl over a pole.

Tennis players don't nessecarily such bulk.

It's lean muscle, not the kind of mass (in fat or muscle) you see on the WTA Tour.

She wouldn't be able to vault herself in the air if she had the kind of bulk you see on the WTA tour.

Much, much different body type. Isinbayeva has long legs, virtually no hips, and her shoulders are wider than her waist/butt. It's the ideal body for a female athlete. See Dara Torres. Her proportions are similar.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Yeah but it's hard to compare track and field athletes to tennis players. Isinbayeva has to be muscular to aquire the sheer strength to hurl over a pole:lol:

Tennis players don't nessecarily such bulk.

they will if tennis keeps going the way it is. womens tennis has become a who hits harder battle with the newer rackets and as safina has shown getting in amazing shape is the best way to do this. venus and serena when in their best shape wouldn't look out of place on a 100 meter track, neither would dementieva, add in jankovic and you can see tennis today demands the players to be in great shape to go with the hitting, which is why players like bartoli, kleybanova, kvitova ect annoy me so much. its so plain to see being in great shape is a huge advantage in tennis, look at safina and zvonereva 2 years ago neither was in bad shape but both are in miles better shape now and both are at career highs. i would bet my bottom dollar the 3 players i named as not in great shape got in safina type shape they would instantly move up the rankings, it would be damn hard work to get in safinas shape (which is the one thing i admire about safina, that she has put the hard work in) but the results would be instant and more than worth it.

AndreConrad
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:00 PM
Yeah but it's hard to compare track and field athletes to tennis players. Isinbayeva has to be muscular to aquire the sheer strength to hurl over a pole:lol:

Tennis players don't nessecarily such bulk.
She would also probably not have all necessary attributes for tennis players. Pole volters are phisically well developed in general sense. Later in their career them make excellent decathlon competitors, however you have to add reflexes, shot making the feel for the field, and last but not the least oponent psychology. All I am trying to say in pole volting there is not much beyond physical abilitiies and technique.

Leo_DFP
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:01 PM
Fast forward to today. We have the likes of Bartoli, Kanepi and Kleybanova, all fairly overweight in terms of elite tennis players, all well inside the TOP 30. Sure, they all have weapons to make up for their lack of fitness, but you'd have to think they would be doing so much better if they were fitter. Even Davenport, and Seles (post stabbing) had woeful movement and fitness. Seles I can understand, and even Davenport after having her baby, but you'd have to agree that their careers would have been better if they'd improved their fitness. Even Lisa Raymond nowadays, it just boggles my mind how PROFESSIONAL tennis players allow their body to get like this, when in essence their body is their career.


I'm sorry, I have a big problem in this post in your criticism of Davenport. She dropped about 30 pounds between the years 1996 and 2000. That is not a small feat for an athlete, especially since athletes often maintain the same weight and cannot go up or down much without making significant changes to diet or muscle/weight training. Davenport worked so hard on her fitness, movement, and foot speed again in 2004 (after her problematic foot injury of 2003 that set her back), which is when she started beating the Williams again and announced herself as an elite player. Davenport, while a natural athlete, just will never be a natural mover. If you think she didn't work her ass off, though, to improve her movement to what it was between 1998-2005, then you're wrong.

Leo_DFP
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:04 PM
Plus you can meet thin women who are dreadfully unfit and bigger women who are fitter than they look.

Yep. Size does not equal fitness. Kuznetsova and Nalbandian have often been considered two of the fittest players and best long-match players on their respective tours, despite carrying a bit of extra chunk/weight around the mid-section. Serena is still one of the best athletes in tennis, even with her larger frame (although I do think her knee pain would be lessened if she lost weight and was back to her size of 2001-2002).

alfonsojose
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:04 PM
Fitness is important, but I think it is also overrated, at least when people start suggesting that everyone should conform to a certain standard.

Everyone's body is different. Being able to move well enough to defend and having the stamina to last through a grueling three set match are important. Looking like Dementieva, or Craybas, or whomever is not.

Bartoli plays better with some weight on her, as it gives her the power she needs to compete with bigger hitters. If she lost 15-20 pounds, she'd be overpowered. Same for my fave, whom everyone likes to call "fat". She isn't. She's sturdy, built like her Dad, and at 5'5" she'd be hopelessly overmatched if she didn't have some weight behind her shots. I don't want her to be another Hingis clone, a la Radwanska. To win majors now, you have to have the muscle to hit hard and sustain 2 weeks of physical pounding. I have made a ton of Serena jokes, but the fact is, she doesn't suffer with the extra weight. She is still very athletic, has good endurance for long matches and lengthy tournaments and her weight just makes her shots more forceful.

Advocates will toss Safina into the argument, and to be sure, her ranking has come way up since she started her fitness regimen. But at 6' tall she has natural advantages over smaller players who need some way of compensating. Someone who is 5'5 and has the same figure, proportionally, as Safina simply won't be competitive.
:haha: ask her knees. She would be able to play more tournaments healthy and it would be a consistent no.1. But right now she just appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ... appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ... appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ...

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:05 PM
She would also probably not have all necessary attributes for tennis players. Pole volters are phisically well developed in general sense. Later in their career them make excellent decathlon competitors, however you have to add reflexes, shot making the feel for the field, and last but not the least oponent psychology. All I am trying to say in pole volting there is not much beyond physical abilitiies and technique.

don't you think theres also a huge amount of mental strength in pole volting? i mean yelena talks to her pole before each jump, shes never told what shes says but im pretty sure its all mental preperation and routine, which are also very important in tennis.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:05 PM
for me this is a true athlete, she is in amazing shape which her sport demands but is also a master of using that great fitness/strength to perfect the technical side of her sport. i believe tennis in 10 - 15 years tennis will demand the players be in this kind of shape

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/uploaded_images/Yelena-Isinbayeva-723914.jpg

Unfortunately, there's another event that's preempted this from happening. The evolution of the women's game has put more and more reliance on a two-handed backhand and a forehand powered from the core, not the shoulders or pure racquet speed as in the men's game.

In other words, the women players of today generate most of their power not from racquet speed and rotation (like the men), but leverage. That leverage comes from the size and mass of the core (including the butt). It is no surprise to me, therefore, that some of the top women have the kind of bodies they do. Such big bodies are the source of power on the women's tour.

On the men's tour, big bodies never prevail because the foot speed of the men's game has a regulating force. One of the primary reasons, in fact, why the women's game has gotten so one-dimensional is that with the bigger bodies the foot speed of the women's game has diminished, even among the very top players.

Leo_DFP
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:07 PM
for me this is a true athlete, she is in amazing shape which her sport demands but is also a master of using that great fitness/strength to perfect the technical side of her sport. i believe tennis in 10 - 15 years tennis will demand the players be in this kind of shape

http://www.thegmanifesto.com/uploaded_images/Yelena-Isinbayeva-723914.jpg

Doubt it. That's what people said about women's tennis when the Williams came along circa 1997-1998. I think that the sport did take a big step forward in terms of fitness and strength because of them, but as we've seen, there are still "larger" players who can make it big (no pun intended). And look at the Williamses now! They're not nearly the Amazons they once were in stature. Venus is skinnier and less muscular, while Serena is larger and less muscular. But in many ways they are much better tennis players now than they were a decade ago.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Yep. Size does not equal fitness. Kuznetsova and Nalbandian have often been considered two of the fittest players and best long-match players on their respective tours, despite carrying a bit of extra chunk/weight around the mid-section. Serena is still one of the best athletes in tennis, even with her larger frame (although I do think her knee pain would be lessened if she lost weight and was back to her size of 2001-2002).

since when has sveta been known for winning long matches or been known as one of the fittest, if anything sveta been known as someone who gets tierd in longer matches and the tierdness effects her shot selection (she starts going for too much).

Leo_DFP
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:11 PM
since when has sveta been known for winning long matches or been known as one of the fittest, if anything sveta been known as someone who gets tierd in longer matches and the tierdness effects her shot selection (she starts going for too much).

Are you kidding? Sveta is fitter than most of the girls on tour. When she loses long matches, it is because of her tennis and her shot selection but not her lack of energy. Look at her match against Azarenka in Miami - Kuzzie had more energy at the end, but less guts. Azarenka continued to go for her shots and won.

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:12 PM
http://girlcameltoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/serenawilliams2.jpg

I think it's arguable that Serena in 2002-03 was one of the most physically impressive athletes the tour has ever seen. Noone has bettered it since, not even Serena herself.

AndreConrad
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:14 PM
don't you think theres also a huge amount of mental strength in pole volting? i mean yelena talks to her pole before each jump, shes never told what shes says but im pretty sure its all mental preperation and routine, which are also very important in tennis.
There is some mental strength required and concentration, but not as much as in tennis. In pole vaulting there is only you, the pole and the heights. You have couple of minutes to concentrate, but the moment you start the run is yours nothing will change on the way. I know because I actually used to be a pole vaulter, only up to juniors nevertheless I took part in these competitions and what is more important in training. The training is much more focused on technique and physical abilities because there only one way (more or less) to beat the height. In tennis there is many more ways and strategies therefore you can pick you strength and develop that. Obviously it is better if you are versatile which comes with age. Usually young players have one or two "sharp" weapons that they use and with time their game becomes more sophisticated.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:16 PM
Are you kidding? Sveta is fitter than most of the girls on tour. When she loses long matches, it is because of her tennis and her shot selection but not her lack of energy. Look at her match against Azarenka in Miami - Kuzzie had more energy at the end, but less guts. Azarenka continued to go for her shots and won.

we've been watching a different sveta then, cus i've seen her dead on her feet in several matches and lose because of it. sveta beats the other top players in straight sets of she loses.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:23 PM
they will if tennis keeps going the way it is. womens tennis has become a who hits harder battle with the newer rackets and as safina has shown getting in amazing shape is the best way to do this. venus and serena when in their best shape wouldn't look out of place on a 100 meter track, neither would dementieva, add in jankovic and you can see tennis today demands the players to be in great shape to go with the hitting, which is why players like bartoli, kleybanova, kvitova ect annoy me so much. its so plain to see being in great shape is a huge advantage in tennis, look at safina and zvonereva 2 years ago neither was in bad shape but both are in miles better shape now and both are at career highs. i would bet my bottom dollar the 3 players i named as not in great shape got in safina type shape they would instantly move up the rankings, it would be damn hard work to get in safinas shape (which is the one thing i admire about safina, that she has put the hard work in) but the results would be instant and more than worth it.

Safina has gotten in better shape, but her movement is still an impediment. And, as long as that is true, she's still going to have to rely on what leverage she has (height/core) to get an edge in the points. Even there, she's at a disadvantage because her forehand is quite inadequate.

In tennis, as the men have shown, the rotation and elevation on the forehand are the true measure of athleticism in the game. All the men use their feet to set up the shot, particularly on the inside-in from the backhand corner. All the men jump or elevate into the shot. If they use the double-bend arm position, they rotate upward at a forward angle almost as if pole vaulting. If they use the straight-arm position, they rotate upward, but more in a vertical position as if attempting a jump shot.

If there were better athletes in the women's game, the kind you would actually see on a 100-meter track, you'd have better forehands in the women's game.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:23 PM
http://girlcameltoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/serenawilliams2.jpg

I think it's arguable that Serena in 2002-03 was one of the most physically impressive athletes the tour has ever seen. Noone has bettered it since, not even Serena herself.

she looks amazing there, thats the reason she was so dominant because she knew she was as fast, fit and strong as she could be, she could be mentaly strong because she knew it was upto her tennis, as her fitness side was better than everyone else.

thats also something a lot of people don't realise being fit and being able to play for over 3 hours is a huge mental advantage, one dementieva has used to grind out many wins. i remember sam smith commentating on the IW match between henin and lena d and sam said 'the last thing henin wants is to get into a 3 setter grind of a match with lena, as lena will back herself to outlast anyone'

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:29 PM
she looks amazing there, thats the reason she was so dominant because she knew she was as fast, fit and strong as she could be, she could be mentaly strong because she knew it was upto her tennis, as her fitness side was better than everyone else.

thats also something a lot of people don't realise being fit and being able to play for over 3 hours is a huge mental advantage, one dementieva has used to grind out many wins. i remember sam smith commentating on the IW match between henin and lena d and sam said 'the last thing henin wants is to get into a 3 setter grind of a match with lena, as lena will back herself to outlast anyone'

Exactly, the reason why Graf was so dominant in the late 80's especially, was because of her unflinching fitness. She was the quickest tennis player EVER, so it must've given her so much confidence to just go out and play a match and focus solely on her tennis, because she knew her fitness level was going to be sustained.

I mean has anyone ever seen a match where Steffi has looked out of it physically? Not that i can recall.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Exactly, the reason why Graf was so dominant in the late 80's especially, was because of her unflinching fitness. She was the quickest tennis player EVER, so it must've given her so much confidence to just go out and play a match and focus solely on her tennis, because she knew her fitness level was going to be sustained.

I mean has anyone ever seen a match where Steffi has looked out of it physically? Not that i can recall.

exactly, graf was a great example of players knowing the only way to beat her was to outplay her, no one was going to wear her down or run her into the ground, she only had to focuss on her tennis and getting it to the level required.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:42 PM
http://girlcameltoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/serenawilliams2.jpg

I think it's arguable that Serena in 2002-03 was one of the most physically impressive athletes the tour has ever seen. Noone has bettered it since, not even Serena herself.

Big, muscular, yes... But not necessarily the most bio-mechanically impressive athlete.

Just look at the picture. If she were as good an athlete as you think she is, she would be more erect through the stomach and back just before contact. In fact, at this stage of the shot, you would begin to see her straighten out through the back as she began to elevate and rotate through the shot.

For comparison purposes, she this picture of Nadal at link --- http://tennis.about.com/od/forehandbackhand/ss/nadalbackhand_4.htm

See how erect through the back and stomach he is at the same stage of his two-handed backhand. He's not fighting the shot with his body, his body is the shot.

CJ07
Apr 14th, 2009, 05:59 PM
She also seems to be hitting off the back foot.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 06:12 PM
She also seems to be hitting off the back foot.

With the open stance backhand, this is sometimes unavoidable. The load tends to stay on the back foot.

WSfan
Apr 14th, 2009, 06:23 PM
Big, muscular, yes... But not necessarily the most bio-mechanically impressive athlete.

Just look at the picture. If she were as good an athlete as you think she is, she would be more erect through the stomach and back just before contact. In fact, at this stage of the shot, you would begin to see her straighten out through the back as she began to elevate and rotate through the shot.

For comparison purposes, she this picture of Nadal at link --- http://tennis.about.com/od/forehandbackhand/ss/nadalbackhand_4.htm

See how erect through the back and stomach he is at the same stage of his two-handed backhand. He's not fighting the shot with his body, his body is the shot.

You are comparing two different photos.. it is obviously clear that serena's shot is only bouncing knee high compared to the Nadal photo. So you will get the arching of the back if it's that low to the ground.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 06:46 PM
You are comparing two different photos.. it is obviously clear that serena's shot is only bouncing knee high compared to the Nadal photo. So you will get the arching of the back if it's that low to the ground.

yep you are right, in the photo of serena shes hitting a much lower ball and slightly on the backfoot. her base (legs) are solid as a rock, her waist is slightly bent but ready to rotate through the shot, her core body strength is fully shown in the photo as shes hitting it both open stance and fighting against hitting the ball, i.e forcing her bodyweight/muscle forward when the ball is forcing her back.

in the photo of nadal hes much more upright and taking the ball infront of himself, as the shot off his opponent is obviously not powerful or pushing him on the back foot. if like in the serena photo he was on the backfoot being forced back the ball would be more level with his body and his arms more bent to absord the pace/power of his opponents shot.

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Big, muscular, yes... But not necessarily the most bio-mechanically impressive athlete.But does the theory speak, or the results?

Who is a more 'bio-mechanically impressive athlete' active on the WTA tour today, and why is that they're results are worse?

pav
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:06 PM
[quote=miffedmax;15416135]Really? Because in another recent interview she said she likes working out in the gym more than working on the court and I've also read she has one of the most demanding workout regimens of any player on the tour--she does lots of natural resistance work like stair steps, using bands, squats and stuff like that. I don't think she lifts weights or uses a lot of machines, which may have been what she was talking about. Sometimes her English really IS a little fuzzy.


I thought they hinted she must work out a lot and she more or less said running was the main thing for her, they probably get sick of all the questions and give any old answer! she has got one hell of a body!

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:07 PM
You are comparing two different photos.. it is obviously clear that serena's shot is only bouncing knee high compared to the Nadal photo. So you will get the arching of the back if it's that low to the ground.

The bounce is immaterial.

Nadal's posture on the shot wouldn't be any different if the ball were a bit lower. If the ball were lower, he would be more bent at the knees, not his back. The angle of his shoulders would also be different, down and toward the net with his back still straight, but behind the line of his shoulders. That's the way you want to do it if your aim is to continue to elevate and rotate into the shot no matter how low the ball is.

Do your own photo study of Serena's backhand. You'll see that the position of Serena's back on the shot does not vary with the bounce. It varies with how well she is in position to hit the shot and in the end it really may not matter much at all because Serena generates power on the backhand from the leverage in her core/butt. Nadal generates power with rotation and elevation, much different biomechanics, thus a much different shot profile.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:17 PM
The bounce is immaterial.

Nadal's posture on the shot wouldn't be any different if the ball were a bit lower. If the ball were lower, he would be more bent at the knees, not his back. The angle of his shoulders would also be different, down and toward the net with his back still straight, but behind the line of his shoulders. That's the way you want to do it if your aim is to continue to elevate and rotate into the shot no matter how low the ball is.

Do your own photo study of Serena's backhand. You'll see that the position of Serena's back on the shot does not vary with the bounce. It varies with how well she is in position to hit the shot and in the end it really may not matter much at all because Serena generates power on the backhand from the leverage in her core/butt. Nadal generates power with rotation and elevation, much different biomechanics, thus a much different shot profile.

stop talking crap, this is nadal hitting a lower backhand thats putting him on the backfoot, its pretty much the same as serenas, bent waist, bent knees body weight pushing forward even though the balls pushing him backwards, the only difference is serenas arms are bent more to absord the power, nadals are more straight as he can take the power without needing to bend his arms because hes is physicaly stronger.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00W84oM50ogsj/340x.jpg

http://girlcameltoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/serenawilliams2.jpg

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:21 PM
yep you are right, in the photo of serena shes hitting a much lower ball and slightly on the backfoot. her base (legs) are solid as a rock, her waist is slightly bent but ready to rotate through the shot, her core body strength is fully shown in the photo as shes hitting it both open stance and fighting against hitting the ball, i.e forcing her bodyweight/muscle forward when the ball is forcing her back.

in the photo of nadal hes much more upright and taking the ball infront of himself, as the shot off his opponent is obviously not powerful or pushing him on the back foot. if like in the serena photo he was on the backfoot being forced back the ball would be more level with his body and his arms more bent to absord the pace/power of his opponents shot.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of ball that the opponent hit. Out of these pictures, you've concocted some fiction about the speed and spin of the ball, the conditions of the match, and even the quality of the opponent. Pure fiction!

If Nadal's or Serena's mechanics changed as much as you think they do to adjust to the opponent, the spin/pace of the ball, and the conditions of the match, there would be no consistency to any of their strokes. What a joke!

Both of them have established a consistent shot profile. That profile may change slightly to adjust for varying conditions of play, but fundamentally it remains the same. In Nadal's case, his posture on the backhand shot is fundamentally the same across all permutations of the shot. Heck, he'll even take a wide split on his backhand stance just to maintain that straight back position on the two-hander. He won't lunge.

soomaal
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:21 PM
stop talking crap, this is nadal hitting a lower backhand thats putting him on the backfoot, its pretty much the same as serenas, bent waist, bent knees body weight pushing forward even though the balls pushing him backwards, the only difference is serenas arms are bent more to absord the power, nadals are more straight as he can take the power without needing to bend his arms because hes is physicaly stronger.


Damn, you owned him/her! :hearts::hearts:

Dodoboy.
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:30 PM
tennis talent, serena has better technique than venus on just about every shot, plus serena at her fittest is as fast as venus. when you compare the 2's serve, forehands and slice you can see serenas are much better and the technique is much better.

:lol:

Christinawww
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Are you kidding? Sveta is fitter than most of the girls on tour. When she loses long matches, it is because of her tennis and her shot selection but not her lack of energy. Look at her match against Azarenka in Miami - Kuzzie had more energy at the end, but less guts. Azarenka continued to go for her shots and won.

did you see her against Wozniacki? She was totally out of breath in between points. I was afraid she would faint

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:43 PM
:lol:

its true, they both move in different ways, venus takes huge strides, serena is a powerful mover, but you watch their matches from 2002 serena is just as fast as venus and given her powerful frame can do more with the ball on the dead run. venus moves better now but thats more to do with serenas fitness and poor footwork.

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2009, 07:50 PM
Safina has gotten in better shape, but her movement is still an impediment. And, as long as that is true, she's still going to have to rely on what leverage she has (height/core) to get an edge in the points. Even there, she's at a disadvantage because her forehand is quite inadequate.

In tennis, as the men have shown, the rotation and elevation on the forehand are the true measure of athleticism in the game. All the men use their feet to set up the shot, particularly on the inside-in from the backhand corner. All the men jump or elevate into the shot. If they use the double-bend arm position, they rotate upward at a forward angle almost as if pole vaulting. If they use the straight-arm position, they rotate upward, but more in a vertical position as if attempting a jump shot.

If there were better athletes in the women's game, the kind you would actually see on a 100-meter track, you'd have better forehands in the women's game.

A number of women players who have worked out with men have said the biggest difference between the way men and women play isn't how hard they hit the ball, but how fast they move.

Essentially, your argument boils down to that if women were as big and as fast as men, they'd play tennis like men.

Thank you for that insight.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:00 PM
stop talking crap, this is nadal hitting a lower backhand thats putting him on the backfoot, its pretty much the same as serenas, bent waist, bent knees body weight pushing forward even though the balls pushing him backwards, the only difference is serenas arms are bent more to absord the power, nadals are more straight as he can take the power without needing to bend his arms because hes is physicaly stronger.


You're the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. It's really pathetic that you didn't even try to figure out what was the right answer.

Here is an excerpt from an article by John Yandell. You can find more of his stuff on Tennisplayer.net, the site he founded. I strongly recommend you subscribe.

The article is titled, "The Two-Handed Backhand: Hitting Stances." I am quoting from the section of the article, subtitled "Developing the stances" in which he is discussing the common elements between the stances. In this context, he is discussing pro-level players. His primary example is Nadal:

When we compare the three stances there is one commonality that stands out however. This is the posture of the players. Open, Neutral or Closed, the torso alignment is remarkably similar. On the vast majority of balls, the players stand almost perfectly upright. They may lean slight forward and dip the left shoulder slightly at the start of the forward swing. One shoulder or the other may be slightly higher at contact reflecting the relative dominance of the arms. But relatively speaking they stand quite erect. Thee one thing they don't do is bend over to the side toward the ball.

This is true or even especially true on the balls hit from a Closed Stance. Notice how upright the torso stays and how it is perfectly centered between his feet. You can see the same thing in the other stances even if it doesn't look as dramatic.

There are photos that accompany this text, but I can't post those. This is a copyrighted site and you will have to subscribe to see the photo and video analysis for yourself. Again, I highly recommend you do that. I will post the caption to that photo analysis. It says, "Great posture is a commonality across the stances."

You've, of course, just read what he has to say. And, I imagine you'll seize on the fact that he says "on the vast majority of the balls." By putting the emphasis there, of course, you would be ignoring the overall point of this section which the caption, "Great posture is a commonality across the stances," tries to convey. Furthermore, there's this clear refutation of your point about low balls or any ball -- "they don't bend over to the side toward the ball." In the previous sentence, Yandall tells us why those pro players with the exemplary backhands don't bend over because they adjust by "lean[ing] slight[ly] forward and dip[ping] the left shoulder." Now, who in this discussion said that before? Oh yeah, it was me. This is how I put it, "[t]he angle of his [Nadal's] shoulders would also be different, down and toward the net with his back still straight, but behind the line of his shoulders."

So, what do you have to say now! Looks like you've been owned. And, not just by me. But, by all the pro tennis coaches at Tennisplayer.net

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:01 PM
its true, they both move in different ways, venus takes huge strides, serena is a powerful mover, but you watch their matches from 2002 serena is just as fast as venus and given her powerful frame can do more with the ball on the dead run. venus moves better now but thats more to do with serenas fitness and poor footwork.

:eek: How do you know so much about Serena's game/physique as a non-fan? Impressive.

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:02 PM
You're the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. It's really pathetic that you didn't even try to figure out what was the right answer.

Here is an excerpt from an article by John Yandell. You can find more of his stuff on Tennisplayer.net, the site he founded. I strongly recommend you subscribe.

The article is titled, "The Two-Handed Backhand: Hitting Stances." I am quoting from the section of the article, subtitled "Developing the stances" in which he is discussing the common elements between the stances. In this context, he is discussing pro-level players. His primary example is Nadal:

When we compare the three stances there is one commonality that stands out however. This is the posture of the players. Open, Neutral or Closed, the torso alignment is remarkably similar. On the vast majority of balls, the players stand almost perfectly upright. They may lean slight forward and dip the left shoulder slightly at the start of the forward swing. One shoulder or the other may be slightly higher at contact reflecting the relative dominance of the arms. But relatively speaking they stand quite erect. Thee one thing they don't do is bend over to the side toward the ball.


This is true or even especially true on the balls hit from a Closed Stance. Notice how upright the torso stays and how it is perfectly centered between his feet. You can see the same thing in the other stances even if it doesn't look as dramatic.
There are photos that accompany this text, but I can't post those. This is a copyrighted site and you will have to subscribe to see the photo and video analysis for yourself. Again, I highly recommend you do that. I will post the caption to that photo analysis. It says, "Great posture is a commonality across the stances."

You've, of course, just read what he has to say. And, I imagine you'll seize on the fact that he says "on the vast majority of the balls." By putting the emphasis there, of course, you would be ignoring the overall point of this section which the caption, "Great posture is a commonality across the stances," tries to convey. Furthermore, there's this clear refutation of your point about low balls or any ball -- "they don't bend over to the side toward the ball." In the previous sentence, Yandall tells us why those pro players with the exemplary backhands don't bend over because they adjust by "lean[ing] slight[ly] forward and dip[ping] the left shoulder." Now, who in this discussion said that before? Oh yeah, it was me. This is how I put it, "[t]he angle of his [Nadal's] shoulders would also be different, down and toward the net with his back still straight, but behind the line of his shoulders."

So, what do you have to say now! Looks like you've been owned. And, not just by me. But, by all the pro tennis coaches at Tennisplayer.net


:weirdo: :bs: Sammy01 was right on the money.

Kart
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Hingis' lack of success in her comeback wasn't because of a lack of fitness.

In 2001, she was lean and super fit compared to years before. I think it was that year, it's been so long now I forget.

Anyway the point is that it made no difference to her slam winning potential in that she contended as much as ever but players still overtook her.

What she needed then and needed in her comeback was an adaptation to her game. You can be fit enough to run all day long but it's not going to win you that much more if you shots aren't causing problems for your opponent.

Regarding work ethic on the tour in general though I agree there are a lot of players around nowadays that could probably improve their results if they were fitter. However, at the very top level, all the women are fit so it's going to require more than that to make inroads at elite level.

It strikes me though that one of the things that separates those fit top ten players from the rest is that they want it enough to work for it off the court as well as on it.

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Hingis' lack of success in her comeback wasn't because of a lack of fitness.

In 2001, she was lean and super fit compared to years before. I think it was that year, it's been so long now I forget.

Anyway the point is that it made no difference to her slam winning potential in that she contended as much as ever but players still overtook her.

What she needed then and needed in her comeback was an adaptation to her game. You can be fit enough to run all day long but it's not going to win you that much more if you shots aren't causing problems for your opponent.

Regarding work ethic on the tour in general though I agree there are a lot of players around nowadays that could probably improve their results if they were fitter. However, at the very top level, all the women are fit so it's going to require more than that to make inroads at elite level.

It strikes me though that one of the things that separates those fit top ten players from the rest is that they want it enough to work for it off the court as well as on it.

Hingis put on lots of muscle and had a very intensive training regimen during the off season before the 2001 season started. You could tell that she had put on some weight and added some muscle, but for me, she looked a little slower in some of her reactions and being as alert as she once was.

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:08 PM
its true, they both move in different ways, venus takes huge strides, serena is a powerful mover, but you watch their matches from 2002 serena is just as fast as venus and given her powerful frame can do more with the ball on the dead run. venus moves better now but thats more to do with serenas fitness and poor footwork.

Serena can stop-start better than Venus on the run. Serena is fundamentally stronger than Venus so she has the nessecary strength to manouvre herself more fluidly out of position and still hit a great shot. Also with Venus being so tall, it's hard for her to change direction like Serena does.

However i still think Venus has better hands on the run. Everyone comments on Venus's reach, but it means jack if you can't do anything with the ball when you get there. Venus has such great control when she meets a ball on full stretch and she's a genius at re-directing the ball from seemingly impossible positions. It's quite a talent she has.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:10 PM
:eek: How do you know so much about Serena's game/physique as a non-fan? Impressive.

1. who said i was a non-fan

2. i wouldn't be much of a womens tennis fan if i didn't know much about the 10 time grand slam champion world number 1.

im a fan of serena on court, what i dislike is stupid fans of hers who are blinded by their devotion and her off court antics.

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:13 PM
Serena can stop-start better than Venus on the run. Serena is fundamentally stronger than Venus so she has the nessecary strength to manouvre herself more fluidly out of position and still hit a great shot. Also with Venus being so tall, it's hard for her to change direction like Serena does.

However i still think Venus has better hands on the run. Everyone comments on Venus's reach, but it means jack if you can't do anything with the ball when you get there. Venus has such great control when she meets a ball on full stretch and she's a genius at re-directing the ball from seemingly impossible positions. It's quite a talent she has.

Serena, at her fittest, is faster off the mark than Venus. She's more explosive in that sense. Venus has better lateral movement particularly on the backhand side but Serena at her fittest was better and faster at getting into net when it came to dropshots and shortballs.

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:15 PM
Serena, at her fittest, is faster off the mark than Venus. She's more explosive in that sense. Venus has better lateral movement particularly on the backhand side but Serena at her fittest was better and faster at getting into net when it came to dropshots and shortballs.

Yeah for sure, Serena at her absolute best was faster than everyone on tour. Her footwork can detract from this though at times, especially nowadays.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Serena can stop-start better than Venus on the run. Serena is fundamentally stronger than Venus so she has the nessecary strength to manouvre herself more fluidly out of position and still hit a great shot. Also with Venus being so tall, it's hard for her to change direction like Serena does.

However i still think Venus has better hands on the run. Everyone comments on Venus's reach, but it means jack if you can't do anything with the ball when you get there. Venus has such great control when she meets a ball on full stretch and she's a genius at re-directing the ball from seemingly impossible positions. It's quite a talent she has.

venus's hands have deffinately improved over the years, but shes still very wooden when it comes to defensive shots on the strech, she also, like you said, struggles to turn like serena being so long limbed.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:19 PM
A number of women players who have worked out with men have said the biggest difference between the way men and women play isn't how hard they hit the ball, but how fast they move.

Essentially, your argument boils down to that if women were as big and as fast as men, they'd play tennis like men.

Thank you for that insight.

No, the biggest difference is that the men are more agile in their movement. Speed is relative. It would only matter in a men's tennis vs. women's tennis argument if the men played against the women. The women aren't having to contend with the men. They only have to contend with each other. Under those conditions, they should still be able to mirror the style of play of the men. But, they don't.

And, for your information, there have been periods in the history of the sport when the women played just like the men and they weren't as big or as fast as the men back then either.

There was a time when serve and volley was the predominant style on both the men's and women's tours. Court, BJK and Navratilova were as skillful at volleying as any of the men. They certainly weren't as big as the men, but that didn't stop them from playing like the men.

There was even a time when the No. 1 female player in the world played a similar style of tennis to Lendl, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, etc. with their big serves and big forehands from the middle of the court to the backhand corner. Imagine that a women playing just like the men do today. Who was that amazing woman?

So, if I am reading you correctly, aside from the sarcasm, there wasn't really much thought that went into your post. :lol::lol::lol:

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:21 PM
venus's hands have deffinately improved over the years, but shes still very wooden when it comes to defensive shots on the strech, she also, like you said, struggles to turn like serena being so long limbed.

Yeah, I was going to say that Venus is definitely the fastest player on tour and she'd do well in the 200m or track in general. But, while good at defending, there are so many balls that she shanks into the net or balls that go long. They say most fast players should be wrong footed, but with Venus I think a better strategy is keeping her on the run because she really isn't all that great at "defending." Jankovic isn't nearly as fast as Venus but she does so much more when on the run as far as keeping the ball deep into the court and consistently returning balls from difficult positions while on the run.

CJ07
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:22 PM
I love it how Serena fans try to make Venus look like a junior.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:23 PM
venus's hands have deffinately improved over the years, but shes still very wooden when it comes to defensive shots on the strech, she also, like you said, struggles to turn like serena being so long limbed.

Nothing more to say! What a shock!

Let's hope this means you're busy subscribing to Tennisplayer.net. Maybe, next time, you won't be so misinformed.

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:24 PM
I love it how Serena fans try to make Venus look like a junior.


Whose saying that? :rolleyes: I am just saying that while Venus is incredibly fast her defense is really not that top notch as someone like JJ or Serena even though they are slower. She's still good, don't get me wrong, but someone as fast as Venus should be potentially winning matches on defense alone if her offensive game isn't on.

Dave.
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:24 PM
1. who said i was a non-fan

2. i wouldn't be much of a womens tennis fan if i didn't know much about the 10 time grand slam champion world number 1.

im a fan of serena on court, what i dislike is stupid fans of hers who are blinded by their devotion and her off court antics.

Exactly. I'm sure you know more about her game than alot of her fans anyway. ;)

I'm in the same boat as you regarding liking Serena.

Craig.
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Yeah, I was going to say that Venus is definitely the fastest player on tour and she'd do well in the 200m or track in general. But, while good at defending, there are so many balls that she shanks into the net or balls that go long. They say most fast players should be wrong footed, but with Venus I think a better strategy is keeping her on the run because she really isn't all that great at "defending." Jankovic isn't nearly as fast as Venus but she does so much more when on the run as far as keeping the ball deep into the court and consistently returning balls from difficult positions while on the run.

For once, :yeah:

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Exactly. I'm sure you know more about her game than alot of her fans anyway. ;)

I'm in the same boat as you regarding liking Serena.

:rolleyes:

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Nothing more to say! What a shock!

Let's hope this means you're busy subscribing to Tennisplayer.net. Maybe, next time, you won't be so misinformed.

no i've said all i needed to say to you, i have given you pictures to prove my point. you are quoting some random shit thats so over technical its defeats its own point as most people wont understand it. i showed you 2 pictures both where serena and nadal are hitting similar backhands, with open stance. they are both bending slightly at the waist, both bent kneed to absord a powerful shot at them, the only difference being serenas arms are more bent as shes not as strong as nadal to take the impact of a hard shot straight armed. i don't need to quote some random over technical crap to make my point.

Dave.
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:30 PM
For once, :yeah:

:o


you can stop :rolleyes: GP, it was a compliment to Sammy not an insult :)

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:31 PM
Whose saying that? :rolleyes: I am just saying that while Venus is incredibly fast her defense is really not that top notch as someone like JJ or Serena even though they are slower. She's still good, don't get me wrong, but someone as fast as Venus should be potentially winning matches on defense alone if her offensive game isn't on.

I didn't say that exactly. I still think in terms of athletic ability and footspeed, Venus is the best mover on the tour right now. Dementieva, Serena and Jankovic are right up there though.

Craig.
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:35 PM
:o


you can stop :rolleyes: GP, it was a compliment to Sammy not an insult :)

Huh? :rolleyes:

I was agreeing with him/her.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I didn't say that exactly. I still think in terms of athletic ability and footspeed, Venus is the best mover on the tour right now. Dementieva, Serena and Jankovic are right up there though.

the difference is the 3 other players you mentioned have good feel when defending, jankovic especialy can soften her grip on the racket and 'bunt' or chip shots back into court, dementieva can change grip to hit very effective sqaush shot forehands and serena can hit effective slices and blocked/chipped forehands. venus on the run usualy goes for a winner as she knows she just dosen't have those sorts of skills. in some ways its a shame venus dosen't have those sorts of connecting shots, but in other ways venus knows her strengths and weaknesses and plays her shots accordingly, hence her going for low percentage winners when dragged out of court.

G1Player2
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I didn't say that exactly. I still think in terms of athletic ability and footspeed, Venus is the best mover on the tour right now. Dementieva, Serena and Jankovic are right up there though.

Venus is faster than all three by far. But, Dementieva and JJ especially can get more balls back in play consistently. Venus can GET to more balls however but that doesn't necessarily mean they always go back in with interest.

Craig.
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:39 PM
that's what the :o for, never mind :lol: :p

:rolls: I get it ;)

The Dawntreader
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:40 PM
Venus is faster than all three by far. But, Dementieva and JJ especially can get more balls back in play consistently. Venus can GET to more balls however but that doesn't necessarily mean they always go back in with interest.

Of the three mentioned, Venus to me is the only one who gets balls back with as much interest. Dementieva has that skill too, but on a much lessened scale to Venus.

This is purely my opinion, so it's nothing universal by any means:lol:

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I love it how Serena fans try to make Venus look like a junior.

Don't let that bother you. There's what some misinformed fans say here and then there's the actual truth.

On tennisplayer.net, there is an article on Venus' backhand, not Serena's. That's just not because Venus' posture on the backhand is better than Serena's. It is also because Venus' backhand is the more unique shot of the two. Venus's two-handed backhand is more like a left-handed forehand. Interesting read.

Kart
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Hingis put on lots of muscle and had a very intensive training regimen during the off season before the 2001 season started. You could tell that she had put on some weight and added some muscle, but for me, she looked a little slower in some of her reactions and being as alert as she once was.

I'm sure you're probably right about that. It does kind of prove the point though that fitness wasn't going to change her results a great deal.

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:46 PM
No, the biggest difference is that the men are more agile in their movement. Speed is relative. It would only matter in a men's tennis vs. women's tennis argument if the men played against the women. The women aren't having to contend with the men. They only have to contend with each other. Under those conditions, they should still be able to mirror the style of play of the men. But, they don't.

And, for your information, there have been periods in the history of the sport when the women played just like the men and they weren't as big or as fast as the men back then either.

There was a time when serve and volley was the predominant style on both the men's and women's tours. Court, BJK and Navratilova were as skillful at volleying as any of the men. They certainly weren't as big as the men, but that didn't stop them from playing like the men.

There was even a time when the No. 1 female player in the world played a similar style of tennis to Lendl, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, etc. with their big serves and big forehands from the middle of the court to the backhand corner. Imagine that a women playing just like the men do today. Who was that amazing woman?

So, if I am reading you correctly, aside from the sarcasm, there wasn't really much thought that went into your post. :lol::lol::lol:

Speed relative to the ball is the issue, not relative to the other player. A faster player can position himself (or herself) better to hit a better return, using you own logic and argument from your previous post.

So, aside from being a condescending ass, there wasn't much thought that went into your post.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 08:49 PM
I'm sure you're probably right about that. It does kind of prove the point though that fitness wasn't going to change her results a great deal.

hingis did get fitter, but her main problem was her mindset, she just wouldn't take the risks. i used to want to shake her sometimes when she would roll in 1st serves, or just put the 2nd in the box, she had ability to do more with the serve and groundstrokes, but she just couldn't abide missing or making mistakes. her stubborness to not miss that made her a champion ultimately stopped her from progressing and moving her game forward in later years.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:17 PM
no i've said all i needed to say to you, i have given you pictures to prove my point. you are quoting some random shit thats so over technical its defeats its own point as most people wont understand it. i showed you 2 pictures both where serena and nadal are hitting similar backhands, with open stance. they are both bending slightly at the waist, both bent kneed to absord a powerful shot at them, the only difference being serenas arms are more bent as shes not as strong as nadal to take the impact of a hard shot straight armed. i don't need to quote some random over technical crap to make my point.

The pictures you provided do not prove your point. In fact, they prove my point. In that photo of Nadal, he is NOT bending to the side or over; he isn't balancing himself on his back leg like Serena is. He's exactly as he is described in the Yandall article from Tennisplayer.net.

If he were bending over or to the side as much as Serena is, he would not have been able to maintain equal balance on both feet. That's why in the photo of Serena, it is clear that her right foot has left the ground. Both of Nadal's feet are in contact with the ground, with the balance of the weight about to be transferred to his front foot. You can see that clearly in the picture.

Who knows how Serena ended her stroke? But, you can clearly predict how Nadal ended his stroke because the balance and posture is impeccable throughout.

As to the random shit, just because you admit you can't understand it does not mean it is not true. In fact, based on this exchange, it probably means it is more true. But, hey, thanks for the laugh. Stupidity like this always draws a chuckle. :lol::lol::lol:

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:39 PM
So Serena and Nadal don't hit the same backhand? Neither do Dementieva and Murray. Or Roddick and Ivanovic. Do you have a point? Nobody hits a flawless stroke. Nobody.

Do us all a favor and go back to tennisplayer.net.

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:39 PM
The pictures you provided do not prove your point. In fact, they prove my point. In that photo of Nadal, he is NOT bending to the side or over; he isn't balancing himself on his back leg like Serena is. He's exactly as he is described in the Yandall article from Tennisplayer.net.

If he were bending over or to the side as much as Serena is, he would not have been able to maintain equal balance on both feet. That's why in the photo of Serena, it is clear that her right foot has left the ground. Both of Nadal's feet are in contact with the ground, with the balance of the weight about to be transferred to his front foot. You can see that clearly in the picture.

Who knows how Serena ended her stroke? But, you can clearly predict how Nadal ended his stroke because the balance and posture is impeccable throughout.

As to the random shit, just because you admit you can't understand it does not mean it is not true. In fact, based on this exchange, it probably means it is more true. But, hey, thanks for the laugh. Stupidity like this always draws a chuckle. :lol::lol::lol:

blah, blah, blah, everyone in this thread has disagreed with you yet again, isn't there a point when you will say 'well maybe its me' :wavey:

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:41 PM
Speed relative to the ball is the issue, not relative to the other player. A faster player can position himself (or herself) better to hit a better return, using you own logic and argument from your previous post.

So, aside from being a condescending ass, there wasn't much thought that went into your post.

On your part, this is bordering on incoherent.

Your original argument was that there was no insight to what I said because in essence all I was arguing was that women cannot play like men because they are not as big or as fast as men.

I said this was wrong because what I was really saying was that at a different relativistic scale there is nothing stopping women from playing in the style that the men play. I even gave you examples of periods in which the women played exactly like the men. I see you ignored that part of my post.

So, what do you say? You tell me that IT (who knows what) has to do with the "[s]peed relative to the ball [...], not relative to the other player." What does that mean? It is gibberish.

Whatever it means, it certainly didn't stop Martina N. from playing in a style very similar to the men of her era. And, she wasn't the only woman who played like this in her era. There was also Hana Mandlikova, among others.

Now, if Martina had wanted to join the men's tour and play a serve and volley game, she would not have had much success. Under those circumstances, she might even have become a baseliner. But, Martina didn't have to compete against the men. Against other women, she was fast and strong enough to serve and volley and to even hit diving stab volleys, just like Boris Becker.

I don't know how, but I think I am actually beginning to understand what you are trying to say. It seems like you think that the ball on the women's tour is traveling just as fast as it is on the men's tour, but that the women cannot run around it to hit a forehand because they simply aren't as fast as the men. That's completely ridiculous.

Hey, this has been fun, but your nonsense is starting to get to me. :D

Dav.
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:46 PM
People will always find something to bother themselves over and it creates an aura of negativity. How do you think the recession has become everyone's excuse? People are now afraid to spend because of all the talk and it makes the situation worse. Complaining about the tour does no good either. Just stop and enjoy the aspects of the sport you like.

LDVTennis
Apr 14th, 2009, 09:55 PM
blah, blah, blah, everyone in this thread has disagreed with you yet again, isn't there a point when you will say 'well maybe its me.'

No, because I am right. You're wrong.

All the credible evidence is on my side. Plus, when I have the time, I get a kick out of proving stupid people like you wrong, particularly if they are as obstinate in their ignorance as you have been --- :lol:

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:03 PM
:haha: ask her knees. She would be able to play more tournaments healthy and it would be a consistent no.1. But right now she just appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ... appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ... appears, kicks ass, gets no.1, injuries show up, disappears, lost no.1 to a more consistent player ...

just so you get it right instead of looking like the idiot you are...serena's knee started giving problems IN her prime...she had surgery after wimbledon 03...so instead of laughing about serena's weight being the cause of her knee problems then check the origin of the problem :wavey:

maybe you could look at it as serena's knee problem lead to her not being able to work the same way she did...but hey you can laugh at the non facts you like to believe

sammy01
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:04 PM
No, because I am right. You're wrong.

All the credible evidence is on my side. Plus, when I have the time, I get a kick out of proving stupid people like you wrong, particularly if they are as obstinate in their ignorance as you have been --- :lol:

i thought you were leaving :help:, i get a kick out of seeing everyone in this thread basicaly laugh at you as per usual, you thinking you are right will never change, whether you are right or not is another thing which you really don't need to worry your fuzzy little brain with. ignorance is bliss hence you being on cloud 9.

bye then.

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:04 PM
No, because I am right. You're wrong.

All the credible evidence is on my side. Plus, when I have the time, I get a kick out of proving stupid people like you wrong, particularly if they are as obstinate in their ignorance as you have been --- :lol:

don't you have another forum that is ever so better than here :scratch: how comes you're still here trying to prove "idiots" wrong??

Craig.
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:07 PM
Kimmy :worship:

Sammy :worship:

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:15 PM
On your part, this is bordering on incoherent.

Your original argument was that there was no insight to what I said because in essence all I was arguing was that women cannot play like men because they are not as big or as fast as men.

I said this was wrong because what I was really saying was that at a different relativistic scale there is nothing stopping women from playing in the style that the men play. I even gave you examples of periods in which the women played exactly like the men. I see you ignored that part of my post.

So, what do you say? You tell me that IT (who knows what) has to do with the "[s]peed relative to the ball [...], not relative to the other player." What does that mean? It is gibberish.

Whatever it means, it certainly didn't stop Martina N. from playing in a style very similar to the men of her era. And, she wasn't the only woman who played like this in her era. There was also Hana Mandlikova, among others.

Now, if Martina had wanted to join the men's tour and play a serve and volley game, she would not have had much success. Under those circumstances, she might even have become a baseliner. But, Martina didn't have to compete against the men. Against other women, she was fast and strong enough to serve and volley and to even hit diving stab volleys, just like Boris Becker.

I don't know how, but I think I am actually beginning to understand what you are trying to say. It seems like you think that the ball on the women's tour is traveling just as fast as it is on the men's tour, but that the women cannot run around it to hit a forehand because they simply aren't as fast as the men. That's completely ridiculous.

Hey, this has been fun, but your nonsense is starting to get to me. :D

I'm glad to see you're able to read simple English. Congratulations.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. I based my statement on a remark by a WTA player who regularly trains with male players. Are you in postiion to contradict it? Because if you are not a professional tennis player who regularly works trains with pro tennis players of the opposite gender, then no, you are not.

Ordinarily, I'd make some kind of effort to find the interview and cite it. But frankly, you're not worth the effort.

Dav.
Apr 14th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Trying to appear more intelligent than others by being condascending exposes your own insecurity and weaknesses in your argument. Normally I try to refrain from personal insults but your questioning of others' intelligence called for it.

bandabou
Apr 18th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Don't let that bother you. There's what some misinformed fans say here and then there's the actual truth.

On tennisplayer.net, there is an article on Venus' backhand, not Serena's. That's just not because Venus' posture on the backhand is better than Serena's. It is also because Venus' backhand is the more unique shot of the two. Venus's two-handed backhand is more like a left-handed forehand. Interesting read.

And now on to the serve...

bandabou
Apr 18th, 2009, 04:23 PM
On the men's tour, big bodies never prevail because the foot speed of the men's game has a regulating force.

Interesting that you, of all people, say this.I guess this explains the demise of Roger Federer! Despite the "perfect" game ( well, you used to say this...till Nadal started to win more..then Nadal became the one with the perfect game, but that aside), seems like Roger's gut has been getting bigger and bigger...

bandabou
Apr 18th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Exactly, the reason why Graf was so dominant in the late 80's especially, was because of her unflinching fitness. She was the quickest tennis player EVER, so it must've given her so much confidence to just go out and play a match and focus solely on her tennis, because she knew her fitness level was going to be sustained.

I mean has anyone ever seen a match where Steffi has looked out of it physically? Not that i can recall.

'93 Oz open F..Steffi looked death tired that day, after the match.

Vanity Bonfire
Apr 18th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Interesting that you, of all people, say this.I guess this explains the demise of Roger Federer! Despite the "perfect" game ( well, you used to say this...till Nadal started to win more..then Nadal became the one with the perfect game, but that aside), seems like Roger's gut has been getting bigger and bigger...

Maybe he has swapped diets with Mirka.

The Dawntreader
Apr 18th, 2009, 04:45 PM
'93 Oz open F..Steffi looked death tired that day, after the match.

Well to be fair on Steffi, that was a lung-busting match. Incredible match.

bandabou
Apr 18th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Well to be fair on Steffi, that was a lung-busting match. Incredible match.

It was...can you believe that Monica only won one more major after that?

Sharapower
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:22 AM
Interesting conversation…
I think the title is a little bit misleading, I’d say it’s more about diet-discipline than work-ethics; although, as professional, following an appropriate diet is arguably part of the job, but I mean, I think at least 95% of players work hard, albeit not necessarily on the right things. It’s more that they are misguided than they lack work-ethics.
Whatsoever, failing to keep their weight in the optimal range is indeed inexcusable and unprofessional for pro-players. This is not a matter of the amount of workout. Actually, workout stimulates appetite, so spending more time at the gym might quite well make you heavier, eventually, if you don’t follow a strict diet, hence JJ stating she made 7 kgs of extra muscle only to find out it made her slower and hindered her game that’s normally based on defense, therefore on her speed.

Daniela-Is-Mine
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:46 AM
Such big bodies are the source of power on the women's tour.

On the men's tour, big bodies never prevail because the foot speed of the men's game has a regulating force. One of the primary reasons, in fact, why the women's game has gotten so one-dimensional is that with the bigger bodies the foot speed of the women's game has diminished, even among the very top players.

I wasnt going to respond to this thread but then read this an laughed...

Your tellingg me Venus, Daniela, Maria S, Vika, everyones favorite lefty Ball basher Benesova, and Dinara now are some of the hardest hitters on your because of the HUGE FAT CELLULITE RIDDEN BODIES!!

dumb

azinna
Jul 18th, 2009, 08:35 PM
^ It was indeed a very puzzling theory. Especially since it's the improved defense of several top players that has generated an upsurge of unforced errors in Big Babes tennis since the 90s.....