MLTC Hygiene Marshall

As of Saturday 1 August, new rules have been in place for small bars to help stop the spread of COVID-19 in NSW.

A Hygiene Marshall (Leone Bray) will be on duty at the club from 2pm to 630pm. The Marshall will be responsible for ensuring all aspects of our COVID-19 safety plan are adhered to including:

  • overseeing social distancing
  • cleaning equipment
  • providing hand sanitiser
  • ensuring accuracy of record keeping.

Thanks in advance for respecting our Hygiene Marshall and for following the rules, which includes signing-in, practicing good hygiene and maintaining social distancing. We’ve got some helpful signage up to remind everyone.   

Please support our committee members who are implementing the state government requirements.

The club  has registered it’s COVID-19 safety plan with the NSW Government and is committed to ensuring the safety of its members and visitors.

Virginia
Secretary MLTC

COVID-19 Registration

Government regulations require that we must register ALL members, players and visitors using the Manly Tennis Centre.

Please scan our QR code at the centre with your phone’s camera app to complete registration each day you visit us.

Only your name and mobile are required. Thank you.

MLTC COVID-19 Update – Courts Available for Play; Clubhouse Closed.

Courts are available for play.

The MLTC Clubhouse is closed but players can access the club’s washrooms.

Member, Player and Staff Basics:

  • If you are unwell or have reason to believe you may be infected with COVID 19 virus, please do NOT attend MLTC before seeking and following medical advice.
  • If you have been travelling recently, especially overseas you must follow Government self-isolation guidelines.
  • Please – no shaking hands or contact with others while at MLTC while this crisis continues
  • Please use our washrooms, soap dispensers and the hand sanitiser on the reception counter to ensure safe hand hygiene.
  • Please do not loiter inside the clubhouse.  There are loads of outside open spaces so please use them.

Coaching and Midweek Competitions

  • All Coaching is ON.  Please check with the Manly Tennis Centre if you have any questions.

Members Social Tennis

  • Members’ social tennis will continue, keeping in mind the above Basics guidance.

The management of MLTC is currently, and will continue, to follow all directives from Federal, State and Local Governments in relation to COVID-19. We will update immediately when/if there is any change.

As at 12.30 pm March 23, current government restrictions mean MLTC can stay open with the measures we have in place.

Craig Withell
President
23March 2020

COVID-19 Update – Coaching, Court Hire & Competitions

Annual Club Championships Entries Now Open

Entries for the club championships are now open.  Events are:

  • Open Men’s singles and doubles
  • Open Ladies singles and doubles
  • Open Mixed doubles
  • A grade Men’s singles and doubles
  • A grade Ladies singles and doubles
  • A grade Mixed doubles.

Open grades are for everyone.

A-Grade is Badge Division 7 or lower for Men; Division 2 or lower and Thursday Badge for Ladies.

Scheduled dates are October 23, 24, 30, 31 November 6, 7, 13, 14 with Finals day on November 20 — COVID permitting.

All events will be a knockout tournament.

Maximum 3 entries per person.

MLTC Club Championships

Scheduled dates are October 23, 24, 30, 31 November 6, 7, 13, 14 with Finals day on November 20 — COVID permitting.
  • Please note separate entry for each player is required.
  • Max 3 events per player including A-grade events. Select all Open events that you would like to enter
  • A-Grade is Badge Division 7 or lower for Men; Division 2 or lower and Thursday Badge for Ladies. Max 3 events per player including Open events. Select all A-Grade Events that you would like to enter
  • If you have selected any Doubles Events above, please confirm the Event and your partner's name. If you require a partner, please confirm the Event and write 'Partner Required'
  • Have you paid your annual club membership fees? Fees MUST BE paid before entering championships.
  • ALL players must adhere to COVID and Vaccination Rules for Community Sports.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

Questions to Denis Crowley
MLTC Club Captain 

COVID-19 102 cases | Manly, NSW

THE number of Covid-19 cases in the northern beaches has risen to triple digits again, with 102 infected people.

Last week the numbers were hovering around the mid 60s, but after no data from NSW Health for a few days cases have shot back up, the report to 8pm on Monday shows.

The highest number of cases are in the 2099 postcode at 25. This area, which includes Dee Why, Cromer, Narraweena and North Curl Curl, also has the highest population in the LGA at 44,119 people.

Covid-19 by northern beaches postcode

  • 25 in 2099 (Dee Why, Cromer, Narraweena, North Curl Curl)
  • 12 in 2093 (Balgowlah, Clontarf, Manly Vale)
  • 10 in 2107 (Avalon, Bilgola, Clareville, Whale Beach)
  • Nine in 2101 (Narrabeen, Elanora Heights, Ingleside)
  • Nine in 2100 (Brookvale, Beacon Hill, Allambie, North Manly, Oxford Falls)
  • Seven in 2086 (Frenchs Forest)
  • Six in 2087 (Forestville, Killarney Heights)
  • Five in 2095 (Manly)
  • Four in 2096 (Curl Curl, Freshwater, Queenscliff)
  • Three in 2097 (Collaroy, Wheeler Heights)
  • Three in 2092 (Seaforth)
  • Two in 2106 (Newport)
  • Two in 2104 (Bayview)
  • Two in 2085 (Belrose, Davidson)
  • One in 2103 (Mona Vale)
  • One in 2108 (Palm Beach, Coasters Retreat, Currawong Beach, Great Mackerel Beach)

There are currently no Covid-19 cases in the 2105 (Church Point, Scotland Island and Elvina, Lovett and Morning bays) and 2102 (Warriewood) postcodes.

Across NSW, Covid cases have also shot upwards with 1022 new cases reported in the 24 hours overnight.

A further 10 people died overnight, eight men and two women, all from Sydney. That takes the total of fatalities in this outbreak across NSW to 255.

www.northernbeachesreview.com.au/story/7439295/northern-beaches-covid-19-cases-back-up-to-triple-digits/

 

Club Newsletter – 20/9/2021 | MLTC

Doubles reminders

As you will see if you open the link to Tennis NSW https://www.tennis.com.au/nsw/news/2021/09/17/covid-19-update-as-at-17-september, many tennis venues are still not allowing doubles as they aren’t able to check proof of double vaccinations. We are extremely fortunate that MTC staff have been willing to do this both for our members and the general public and we thank Scott and Tommy for all their time and efforts in this regard.

We appreciate that it might be a little inconvenient to show your proof of double vaccination every time you play doubles. However, while Scott and Tommy may know you are vaccinated, it is a NSW Health requirement that if the venue were to be checked at any time by Police, everyone playing doubles must have their proof on them, every time.

We will keep monitoring the rules and will update members if anything changes in this regard. Singles play is still available for those who aren’t double vaccinated. Thank you for your cooperation.

Doubles Play Rules

As of Tue 14th Sep, doubles is now allowed under the following conditions:

  1. All 4 players must be double-vaccinated & carry proof every time they play.
  2. Players must show their double-vaccinated status:
  3. On arrival at the club when checking in
  4. If requested by Police at any time
  5. Max court time for doubles is 1.5hrs for members during member’s times.
  6. Please see below for details from NSW Gov website.
  7. Please note – singles play is still allowed for those not fully vaccinated.

 

Other COVID-safe requirements remain in place:

  1. Make a booking before coming to the club on 9977 3159. You must live within the Northern Beaches LGA or within 5km from home to play.
  2. Masks required when arriving/leaving the centre and to/from your court.
  3. Use the QR code to check in.

Fee Dues

We have had a few problems with the Treasurer’s email so if you haven’t received your invoice or do not want to continue your membership please let me know.

Best wishes,
Virginia
MLTC Secretary

www.manlylawn.com.au

Two Golden Slams in One Day | NYTimes

 

The tennis Grand Slam is so rare that only five players can claim one, and no player at all has achieved the feat since 1988. The Golden Slam, winning all four majors and a gold medal in the same year, is nearly impossible. Only Steffi Graf had ever done it.

Until Sunday, when it was accomplished twice.

First came Diede de Groot of the Netherlands, who won the wheelchair competition at the U.S. Open to complete a sweep of the year’s four Grand Slam tournaments to go with her Paralympic gold medal.

Later in the day, Dylan Alcott of Australia completed the same feat in the men’s quad event. (As opposed to those in the wheelchair division like de Groot, quad players also have significant loss of function in at least one upper limb.)

De Groot defeated Yui Kamiji of Japan, the same woman she defeated in Australia, France and at the Paralympics, 6-3, 6-2. Her Golden Slam almost didn’t get started this year: She needed a third-set tiebreaker to beat Kamiji at the Australian Open.

Despite the accomplishment, De Groot, 24, said she felt a little let down by her play: “After such a long time of traveling and just being everywhere in the world, also I think both of us are a little bit tired. I think you could see it in the match, unfortunately.”

Sunday’s Open championship was the 12th in a Grand Slam singles event for De Groot, still behind the record of 21 set by her countrywoman Esther Vergeer in the early part of this century.

Alcott defeated the 18-year-old Niels Vink of the Netherlands, 7-5, 6-2, to complete his own Golden Slam. It was Alcott’s 15th Grand Slam singles title. Because the quad event is only three years old at the French Open and Wimbledon, it was the first chance for any quad athlete to win a Golden Slam.

“Everybody in this room asked me, ‘Are you thinking about the Golden Slam?’” said Alcott, 30. “I’ve said, ‘No, I don’t really care about it,’ all year. Of course I cared about it. It’s nice not to pretend anymore.”

In 1988, Graf said after completing her Golden Slam at the Seoul Olympics: “I’m very excited. It’s something not many people after me will achieve.”

It took 33 years. And then it only took a few hours.

How Much Water Do You Actually Need? | NYTimes

 

If you’ve spent any time on social media or visited an athletic event lately, you’ve surely been bombarded with encouragements to drink more water. Celebrity influencers lug around gallon-sized water bottles as the hot new accessory. Twitter bots constantly remind us to make more time to hydrate. Some reusable water bottles even come emblazoned with motivational phrases — “Remember your goal,” “Keep drinking,” “Almost finished” — to encourage more drinking throughout the day.

The purported benefits of excess water consumption are seemingly endless, from improved memory and mental health to increased energy to better complexion. “Stay hydrated” has become a new version of the old salutation, “Stay well.”

 

But what, exactly, does “stay hydrated” mean? “When lay people discuss dehydration, they mean loss of any fluids,” said Dr. Joel Topf, a nephrologist and assistant clinical professor of medicine at Oakland University in Michigan.

But that interpretation “has been completely blown out of proportion,” said Kelly Anne Hyndman, a kidney function researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Staying hydrated is definitely important, she said, but the idea that the simple act of drinking more water will make people healthier isn’t true. Nor is it correct that most people are walking around chronically dehydrated or that we should be drinking water all day long.

From a medical standpoint, Dr. Topf added, the most important measure of hydration is the balance between electrolytes like sodium and water in the body. And you don’t need to chug glass after glass of water throughout the day to maintain it.

We’ve all been taught that eight 8-ounce glasses of water per day is the magic number for everyone, but that notion is a myth, said Tamara Hew-Butler, an exercise and sports scientist at Wayne State University.

Unique factors like body size, outdoor temperature and how hard you’re breathing and sweating will determine how much you need, she said. A 200-pound person who just hiked 10 miles in the heat will obviously need to drink more water than a 120-pound office manager who spent the day in a temperature-controlled building.

The amount of water you need in a day will also depend on your health. Someone with a medical condition like heart failure or kidney stones may require a different amount than someone taking diuretic drugs, for example. Or you may need to alter your intake if you’ve been ill, with vomiting or diarrhea.

For most young, healthy people, the best way to stay hydrated is simply to drink when you’re thirsty, Dr. Topf said. (Those who are older, in their 70s and 80s, may need to pay more attention to getting sufficient fluids because the thirst sensation can decrease with age.)

And despite popular belief, don’t rely on urine color to accurately indicate your hydration status, Dr. Hew-Butler said. Yes, it’s possible that dark yellow or amber urine could mean that you’re dehydrated, but there’s no solid science to suggest that the color, alone, should prompt a drink.

Not necessarily. From a purely nutritional standpoint, water is a better choice than less healthy options like sugary sodas or fruit juices. But when it comes to hydration, any beverage can add water to your system, Dr. Hew-Butler said.

One popular notion is that drinking beverages with caffeine or alcohol will dehydrate you, but if that’s true, the effect is negligible, Dr. Topf said. A 2016 randomized controlled trial of 72 men, for instance, concluded that the hydrating effects of water, lager, coffee and tea were nearly identical.

You can also get water from what you eat. Fluid-rich foods and meals like fruits, vegetables, soups and sauces all contribute to water intake. Additionally, the chemical process of metabolizing food produces water as a byproduct, which adds to your intake too, Dr. Topf said.

COVID-19 UPDATE 17 Sept | TNSW

Dear NSW tennis community

Firstly, we hope that you are all keeping well and safe during these challenging times. We thank you for your patience as we have been examining the current Public Health Order and the impacts on tennis activity throughout NSW.

Tennis NSW has been overwhelmed with requests from the community around the varying levels of restrictions now in place throughout NSW. We are working to present our guidance on tennis activities across NSW in a format that is easy to understand and to update our FAQs, we anticipate this will be available Monday 20 September.

During this week several LGAs across NSW have come in and out of lockdown as local COVID-19 cases emerge. Tennis NSW reminds its community to use the NSW Government’s webpage search that allows you to identify your current rules and restrictions by postcode. Tennis NSW staff will not undertake these searches for you.

In regards to doubles play and double vaccination, Tennis NSW is able to provide the following guidance:

DOUBLE VACCINATION – DOUBLES PLAY

Tennis NSW has received numerous enquiries in relation to whether doubles play is permitted given the partial lifting of restrictions for individuals who have been double vaccinated.

We have engaged NSW Health and NSW Office of Sport to get clarity and confirmation on whether it is the responsibility of the individual or the club/venue to ensure that they are fully vaccinated. Without receiving clarity on ultimately who is liable, then our advice is as follows:

Doubles play at a venue in a Stay-At-Home Area is NOT permitted unless the Club/Venue Operator has means by which they can verify the vaccination status of anyone wishing to play doubles at their venue. Alongside of this, the Club should be implementing all relevant COVID protocols including having a COVID-19 Safety plan, COVID-19 check-in stations and all other necessary protocols to effectively implement the 1 person per 4sqm rule (outdoor courts only) can be adhered to. All play at the venue should be on a ‘Play and Go’ basis and the Club/Venue should not permit any gatherings pre or post play.

We believe that the large majority of our venues across the State are unable to meet the requirements above however, any Club/Venue wishing to implement appropriate processes should conduct their own risk analysis and make a decision based on their own circumstances and resources.

Clubs should also note that we are aware that the NSW Police have interpreted the current Public Health Order differently in different parts of the State and should therefore be prepared to provide evidence of how they are effectively implementing and monitoring the vaccination status of those using their venue should they be asked to.

We believe that in the spirit of the Public Health Order then it is reasonable for a Club/Venue Operator to ask for evidence of a person’s vaccination status prior to play commencing.

DOUBLE VACCINATION – LONGER TERM VIEW

We have also been asked what our position will be longer term in regards to double vaccination and how it will relate to participating in tennis whether it be coaching, court hire or competition.

At this stage, it is too early to provide a definitive position on this matter until we have received further guidance from the NSW Government and the Office of Sport in regards to a roadmap back for Community Sport. There is also the broader matter of whether it will be legally permissible to require all users of a tennis venue or entrants into a tennis competition/tournament to be double vaccinated. We will continue to liaise with Tennis Australia, our other Member Associations and the other State Sporting Organisations in NSW to provide a consistent position across our sport and the wider sports community.

While Tennis NSW can provide guidance, it is the responsibility of the club, coach or venue to undertake its own independent enquiries as to whether that guidance is appropriate to be implemented. We appreciate that many of you are seeking answers for individualised questions that unfortunately we are not in a position to answer. Tennis NSW provides general advice only, and specific advice regarding the circumstances of a particular venue will need to be sought independently.

We are in the process of setting up a dedicated COVID-19 enquiry email address and this will be notified to you when our updated guidance is released next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding COVID-19 restrictions and tennis, please contact us at [email protected] We have a team addressing the large volume of enquiries coming through and we will endeavour to get back to all COVID-19 related enquiries within two business days.

Thank you and stay safe
Tennis NSW

Regular Exercise May Keep Your Body 30 Years ‘Younger’ | NYTimes

The muscles of older men and women who have exercised for decades are indistinguishable in many ways from those of healthy 25-year-olds, according to an uplifting new study of a group of active septuagenarians.

These men and women also had much higher aerobic capacities than most people their age, the study showed, making them biologically about 30 years younger than their chronological ages, the study’s authors concluded.

All of us are aging every second, of course, which leads many of us also to be deeply interested in what we can expect from our bodies and health as those seconds — and subsequent years and decades — mount.

Worryingly, statistics and simple observation suggest that many elderly people experience frailty, illness and dependence.

But science has not established whether and to what extent such physical decline is inevitable with age or if it is at least partially a byproduct of our modern lifestyles and perhaps amenable to change.

There have been hints, though, that physical activity might alter how we age. Recent studies have found that older athletes have healthier muscles, brains, immune systems and hearts than people of the same age who are sedentary.

But many of these studies have concentrated on competitive masters athletes, not people who exercise recreationally, and few have included many women.

So for the new study, which was published in August in the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., decided to look at a distinctive set of older men and women.

“We were very interested in people who had started exercising during the running and exercise booms of the 1970s,” says Scott Trappe, the director of the Human Performance Laboratory at Ball State and the new study’s senior author.

That era, bookended to some extent by the passage of Title IX in 1972 and the publication of “The Complete Book of Running” in 1977, introduced a generation of young men and women to recreational physical activity, Dr. Trappe says.

“They took up exercise as a hobby,” he says.

Some of them then maintained that hobby throughout the next 50 or so years, running, cycling, swimming or otherwise working out often, even if they rarely or never competed, he says.

Those were the men and women, most now well into their 70s, he and his colleagues sought to study.

Using local advertisements and other recruitment methods, they found 28 of them, including seven women, each of whom had been physically active for the past five decades.

They also recruited a second group of age-matched older people who had not exercised during adulthood and a third group of active young people in their 20s.

They brought everyone into the lab, tested their aerobic capacities and, using tissue samples, measured the number of capillaries and levels of certain enzymes in the muscles. High numbers for each indicate muscular health.

The researchers focused on the cardiovascular system and muscles because they are believed inevitably to decline with age and the scientists had expected they would see what Dr. Trappe describes as a “hierarchical pattern” in differences between the groups.

The young people, they thought, would possess the most robust muscles and aerobic capacities, with the lifelong exercisers being slightly weaker on both counts and the older non-exercisers punier still.

But that outcome is not precisely what they found.

Instead, the muscles of the older exercisers resembled those of the young people, with as many capillaries and enzymes as theirs, and far more than in the muscles of the sedentary elderly.

The active elderly group did have lower aerobic capacities than the young people, but their capacities were about 40 percent higher than those of their inactive peers.

In fact, when the researchers compared the active older people’s aerobic capacities to those of established data about “normal” capacities at different ages, they calculated that the aged, active group had the cardiovascular health of people 30 years younger than themselves.

Together, these findings about muscular and cardiovascular health in active older people suggest that what we now consider to be normal physical deterioration with aging “may not be normal or inevitable,” Dr. Trappe says.

However, this study was cross-sectional, highlighting a single moment in people’s lives, and cannot tell us whether their exercise habits directly caused differences in health or if and how genes, income, diet and similar lifestyle factors contributed.

It also did not look at muscle mass and other important measures of health or whether you can begin exercising late in life and benefit to the same extent.

The researchers plan to explore some of these issues in future studies, Dr. Trappe says.

But already the findings from this experiment suggest that exercise could help us “to build a reserve” of good health now that might enable us to slow or evade physical frailty later, Dr. Trappe says.

“These people were so vigorous,” he says. “I’m in my 50s and they certainly inspire me to stay active.”

Regular Exercise May Keep Your Body 30 Years ‘Younger’

 

How Much Exercise Do We Need to Live Longer? | NYTimes


September 15, 2021

To increase our chances for a long life, we probably should take at least 7,000 steps a day or play sports such as tennis, cycling, swimming, jogging or badminton for more than 2.5 hours per week, according to two, large-scale new studies of the relationship between physical activity and longevity. 

The two studies, which, together, followed more than 10,000 men and women for decades, show that the right types and amounts of physical activity reduce the risk of premature death by as much as 70 percent.

But they also suggest that there can be an upper limit to the longevity benefits of being active, and pushing beyond that ceiling is unlikely to add years to our life spans and, in extreme cases, might be detrimental.

Plenty of research already suggests that people who are active outlive those who seldom move. A 2018 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, concluded that about 10 percent of all deaths among Americans 40 to 70 years old are a result of too little exercise. A 2019 European study found that two decades of inactivity doubled Norwegian people’s risk of dying young. 

But scientists have not yet pinned down precisely how much — or little — movement might be most strongly associated with greater longevity. Nor is it clear whether we can overdo exercise, potentially contributing to a shorter life.

Those issues lie at the heart of the two new studies, which look at the links between activity and longevity from distinct but intersecting angles. The first of the studies, published this month in JAMA Network Open, centered on steps. Most of us are familiar with daily step counts as an activity goal, since our phones, smart watches and other activity trackers typically prompt us to take a certain number of steps every day, often 10,000. But as I have written before, current science does not show that we require 10,000 steps for health or longevity. 

Researchers from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the C.D.C. and other institutions wondered if, instead, smaller step totals might be related to longer lives. So, they turned to data gathered in recent years for a large, ongoing study of health and heart disease in middle-aged men and women. Most of the participants had joined the study about 10 years earlier, when they were in their 40s. At the time, they completed medical tests and wore an activity tracker to count their steps every day for a week.

Now, the researchers pulled records for 2,110 of the participants and checked their names against death registries. They found that 72 participants had passed away in the intervening decade, a relatively small number but not surprising given the people’s relative youth. But the scientists also noticed a strong association with step counts and mortality. Those men and women accumulating at least 7,000 daily steps when they joined the study were about 50 percent less likely to have died since than those who took fewer than 7,000 steps, and the mortality risks continued to drop as people’s step totals rose, reaching as high as 70 percent less chance of early death among those taking more than 9,000 steps.

But at 10,000 steps, the benefits leveled off. “There was a point of diminishing returns,” said Amanda Paluch, an assistant professor of kinesiology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the new study. People taking more than 10,000 steps per day, even plenty more, rarely outlived those taking at least 7,000.

Helpfully, the second study, which was published in August in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, settled on broadly similar activity levels as best bets for long life. This study involved data from the decades-long Copenhagen City Heart Study, which has recruited tens of thousands of Danish adults since the 1970s and asked them how many hours each week they play sports or exercise, including cycling (wildly popular in Copenhagen), tennis, jogging, swimming, handball, weight lifting, badminton, soccer and others.

The researchers focused on 8,697 of the study’s Danes, who had joined in the 1990s, noted their activity habits then and checked their names against death records. In the 25 years or so since most had joined, about half had passed away. But those who reported exercising, in some way, between 2.6 and 4.5 hours per week when they joined were 40 percent or so less likely to have died in the interim than less active people.

Translating those hours of exercise into step counts is not an exact science, but the researchers estimate that people exercising for 2.6 hours a week, or about 30 minutes most days, likely would accumulate around 7,000 to 8,000 steps most days, between their exercise and daily life, while those working out for 4.5 hours a week probably would be approaching the 10,000-steps threshold most days.

And at that point, as in the first study, benefits plateaued. But in this study, they then surprisingly declined among the relatively few people who worked out for 10 hours or more per week, or about 90 minutes or so most days.

“The very active group, people doing 10-plus hours of activity a week, lost about a third of the mortality benefits,” compared to people exercising for 2.6 to 4.5 hours a week, said Dr. James O’Keefe, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and director of preventive cardiology at the St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, who was an author on the study.

Both studies are associational, though, meaning they show that physical activity is linked to life span but not that being more active directly causes life spans to lengthen.

Together, however, they provide useful takeaways for all of us hoping to live long and well:

  • Both studies pinpoint the sweet spot for activity and longevity at somewhere around 7,000 to 8,000 daily steps or about 30 to 45 minutes of exercise most days. Doing more may marginally improve your odds of a long life, Dr. O’Keefe said, but not by much, and doing far more might, at some point, be counterproductive.

  • Accumulate and measure your activities “in whatever way works for you,” said Dr. Paluch. “Step counting may work well for someone who does not have the time to fit in a longer bout of exercise. But if a single bout of exercise fits best with your lifestyle and motivations, that is great as well. The idea is just to move more.”

How Much Exercise Do We Need to Live Longer?

Novak’s Grand Slam loss means Federer remains GOAT.

The Serb could have closed the book on comparisons with Federer. He fell short. What now?

Side by side photos of Djokovic on the court looking to his left and Federer on the court holding his racket and fist-pumping
Djokovic in his U.S. Open semifinal on Sept. 10; Federer in his fourth round match at Wimbledon on July 5. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images and Clive Brunskill/Getty Images.

Until Sunday, no one in the past half-century had come remotely close to completing tennis’s Grand Slam in men’s singles: To win even the first three of the four major tournaments in a calendar year had proved too difficult for all the male champions of those five decades. But this past weekend, Novak Djokovic came within not only one tournament but one match of the Slam—an achievement in its own right that, if past is prologue, might not be accomplished again for another 50 years. Ahead of the match, a much-discussed question was whether winning the Slam could cement Djokovic’s claim above his contemporary rivals Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal that he, and not either of them, is the greatest men’s tennis player of all time.

But he lost, to world and tournament No. 2 Daniil Medvedev, in straight sets: 6–4, 6–4, 6–4.

So where does that leave the GOAT debate? How big a deal is Djokovic’s defeat in that final match?

We are clearly near the end of the long era dominated by Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal. Federer is 40 years old, has missed four of the past six majors, has not won a major in more than 3½ years, and recently announced that he would undergo surgery just to give himself “a glimmer of hope” merely “to return to the tour in some shape or form.” Nadal, at 35, is showing his age as well. He has missed three majors in the past 12 months, after having missed only six majors during the previous 15 years. His ranking has dropped to No. 5. The only majors he has played since 2019 are the Australian Open, where he lost in the quarterfinals both this year and last year, and the French Open, where he lost (to Djokovic) this year for the first time since 2016. Even Djokovic, at 34, is showing inevitable signs of age and of the precursors to declining dominance.

So the full book has nearly been written on the case that each of these men will make for the status of GOAT—greatest of all time. Federer, in particular, will almost certainly not be adding to his legacy. And that matters a lot, because it is Federer, not Nadal, who stands between Djokovic and the summit.

For all of Nadal’s greatness, and it is legion, his longest run at No. 1 was 56 straight weeks, whereas Federer’s was 237 straight weeks. In total, Nadal has been ranked No. 1 for about 100 weeks fewer than Federer and even fewer than Djokovic. In addition, Nadal has never won the year-end championship—the most important tournament aside from the Slams—whereas Federer has won it six times and Djokovic has won it five times. Federer and Djokovic achieved tons of success even on their worst surface, clay, but Nadal achieved comparatively little on his worst: the fast indoor courts where his rivals dominated. Nadal also won three majors in a year only once (2010), whereas Federer and Djokovic each did it three times.

Thus the road to GOAT goes through Federer, not Nadal, and we already know what Federer’s complete case is likely to be—namely, what it is now. How does Djokovic’s case compare? In terms of cumulative achievement, it’s already solid. Djokovic has won just as many majors as Federer, nearly as many year-end championships, and more Masters 1000 tournaments. He has spent more weeks at No. 1 than Federer, and he has seven year-end No. 1 rankings to Federer’s five. Given that Djokovic will probably pile up more cumulative achievements before he’s done, why is this a debate? And why is now the time to discuss it, before we see where Djokovic ends up? The answer is the same as the one that supports Michael Jordan’s case in the GOAT argument against LeBron James: Although cumulative career achievement counts a lot toward greatness, so does “peak value”—how great the greatest were at the apex of their talents and dominance. This is a crucial distinction identified decades ago by Bill James when he made GOAT rankings for baseball players.

Djokovic already leads Federer in the most important aspects of cumulative achievement, but he can’t close the case as long as Federer leads in peak value. What’s tricky is that we don’t know how long value must last to count as “peak.” Are we asking who was the best in a single match or tournament? No—that’s too short a time frame. In a 15-year period? No—that’s too long a time frame, because it would be no different from cumulative value. Where in between? That’s debatable, but to me, somewhere from one to five years seems about right.

From 2004 through 2007, Federer dominated tennis at an epic level. He won 11 Grand Slam tournaments, which has never been done in any four-year period by any other player, man or woman. His match-win percentages in those four years were 93 percent, 95 percent, 95 percent, and 88 percent. He reached 10 Grand Slam finals in a row, more than any man before or since. As noted above, in this period he was ranked No. 1 for 237 consecutive weeks, 77 weeks longer than any other player has ever held the top spot for an unbroken stretch of time. He won the year-end championship in three of those four years. Counting that championship along with the Slams, Federer played in 20 crucial tournaments in that four-year stretch. He won 14 of them. Of his six losses, two were by scores of 9–7 in the fifth set, three were to Nadal at the French Open (where Nadal was greater than any player has ever been on a given surface), and the only other one was to Gustavo Kuerten at the French Open (the greatest clay courter of the era preceding Nadal).

Neither Djokovic nor Nadal has done anything like that in a four-year stretch. However, Djokovic has had disconnected years in which he dominated as much as Federer dominated during his four-year peak. For Djokovic, those dominant years were 2011, 2015, and 2021. In each of those years, Djokovic won three majors. In 2011, he also won the first five Masters 1000 events he entered (which is more than Federer has ever won in a single year), losing only one match anywhere until late in the year, when he succumbed to fatigue and injury. In 2015, he was even better, winning six Masters 1000 events and reaching the finals of all eight he played in, while also winning the year-end championship to go along with his three majors and a finals appearance in the lone major he didn’t win. And in 2021, he nearly won the Grand Slam.

The calendar Grand Slam, though confined to one year, is extremely significant. Throughout the history of tennis, it’s the rarest of accomplishments. According to its technical definition—winning Wimbledon plus the Australian, French, and U.S. Opens in the same year—the Grand Slam in men’s singles has been won three times before: by Don Budge in 1938, and by Rod Laver in 1962 and in 1969. (In women’s singles, the calendar Slam has also only been won three times: by Maureen Connolly in 1953, by Margaret Court in 1970, and by Steffi Graf in 1988. Due to certain differences between the men’s and women’s tours before the Open Era, and other complications with comparing the two tours, I’m going to focus specifically on the history of the men’s Grand Slam when trying to put Djokovic’s quest into historical context.)

But the technical definition of the Slam is misleading; it underplays how rare the feat has been. When Budge won the Slam in 1938 and when Laver won it in 1962, those four tournaments allowed only amateurs to play, even though professionals were typically the world’s best players. Thus Budge and Laver may well not have been the world’s best, and they certainly did not need to beat the best, in order to win those “Grand Slams.”

The bottom line is that no man except Laver in 1969 (and no woman but Graf in ’88) has ever done the equivalent of what Djokovic was trying to do now: win four giant international tournaments, on three continents and varying surfaces, where all the best players are allowed to compete and choose to do so if they’re physically able. In 150 years, that has been done once by a man. And even that once wasn’t the equal of what Djokovic’s feat would have been. When Laver won in 1969, three of the four majors were held on the same surface, grass, so winning the Grand Slam didn’t require as much versatility as it does today. And one of those majors, the Australian Open, didn’t even field a full complement of competitors. What’s more—and I would argue, most important—is that every sport gets deeper and better as time goes on. So it’s always harder and thus more impressive to dominate later in a sport’s lifespan than earlier. Simply put, what was at stake on Sunday was whether Djokovic could complete the greatest feat in the history of men’s tennis.

Assuming that the Grand Slam eludes him, even if Djokovic adds to his total number of majors in the coming years, there will still be a plausible case—as there is for Jordan when he’s compared to LeBron—that Federer was greater.

So, what slipped through Djokovic’s fingers on Sunday? The answer is: (i) the greatest single-year achievement in the 150-year history of tennis, and (ii) closing the book on the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic rivalry and, for all realistic purposes, on the debate about who is the greatest player of all time.

Read full article —>

slate.com/culture/2021/09/djokovic-federer-goat-debate-grand-slam.html

Regular Exercise May Keep Your Body 30 Years ‘Younger’ | NYTimes

The muscles of older men and women who have exercised for decades are indistinguishable in many ways from those of healthy 25-year-olds, according to an uplifting new study of a group of active septuagenarians.

These men and women also had much higher aerobic capacities than most people their age, the study showed, making them biologically about 30 years younger than their chronological ages, the study’s authors concluded.

All of us are aging every second, of course, which leads many of us also to be deeply interested in what we can expect from our bodies and health as those seconds — and subsequent years and decades — mount.

Worryingly, statistics and simple observation suggest that many elderly people experience frailty, illness and dependence.

But science has not established whether and to what extent such physical decline is inevitable with age or if it is at least partially a byproduct of our modern lifestyles and perhaps amenable to change.

There have been hints, though, that physical activity might alter how we age. Recent studies have found that older athletes have healthier muscles, brains, immune systems and hearts than people of the same age who are sedentary.

But many of these studies have concentrated on competitive masters athletes, not people who exercise recreationally, and few have included many women.

So for the new study, which was published in August in the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., decided to look at a distinctive set of older men and women.

“We were very interested in people who had started exercising during the running and exercise booms of the 1970s,” says Scott Trappe, the director of the Human Performance Laboratory at Ball State and the new study’s senior author.

That era, bookended to some extent by the passage of Title IX in 1972 and the publication of “The Complete Book of Running” in 1977, introduced a generation of young men and women to recreational physical activity, Dr. Trappe says.

“They took up exercise as a hobby,” he says.

Some of them then maintained that hobby throughout the next 50 or so years, running, cycling, swimming or otherwise working out often, even if they rarely or never competed, he says.

Those were the men and women, most now well into their 70s, he and his colleagues sought to study.

Using local advertisements and other recruitment methods, they found 28 of them, including seven women, each of whom had been physically active for the past five decades.

They also recruited a second group of age-matched older people who had not exercised during adulthood and a third group of active young people in their 20s.

They brought everyone into the lab, tested their aerobic capacities and, using tissue samples, measured the number of capillaries and levels of certain enzymes in the muscles. High numbers for each indicate muscular health.

The researchers focused on the cardiovascular system and muscles because they are believed inevitably to decline with age and the scientists had expected they would see what Dr. Trappe describes as a “hierarchical pattern” in differences between the groups.

The young people, they thought, would possess the most robust muscles and aerobic capacities, with the lifelong exercisers being slightly weaker on both counts and the older non-exercisers punier still.

But that outcome is not precisely what they found.

Instead, the muscles of the older exercisers resembled those of the young people, with as many capillaries and enzymes as theirs, and far more than in the muscles of the sedentary elderly.

The active elderly group did have lower aerobic capacities than the young people, but their capacities were about 40 percent higher than those of their inactive peers.

In fact, when the researchers compared the active older people’s aerobic capacities to those of established data about “normal” capacities at different ages, they calculated that the aged, active group had the cardiovascular health of people 30 years younger than themselves.

Together, these findings about muscular and cardiovascular health in active older people suggest that what we now consider to be normal physical deterioration with aging “may not be normal or inevitable,” Dr. Trappe says.

However, this study was cross-sectional, highlighting a single moment in people’s lives, and cannot tell us whether their exercise habits directly caused differences in health or if and how genes, income, diet and similar lifestyle factors contributed.

It also did not look at muscle mass and other important measures of health or whether you can begin exercising late in life and benefit to the same extent.

The researchers plan to explore some of these issues in future studies, Dr. Trappe says.

But already the findings from this experiment suggest that exercise could help us “to build a reserve” of good health now that might enable us to slow or evade physical frailty later, Dr. Trappe says.

“These people were so vigorous,” he says. “I’m in my 50s and they certainly inspire me to stay active.”

Regular Exercise May Keep Your Body 30 Years ‘Younger’

 

Doubles Play is BACK!

Northern Beaches have confirmed we can resume doubles play under the following conditions.

  • Players must be double vaccinated.
  • Players must have with them at the time of playing proof of their double vaccination.
  • ALL players must show their proof of vaccination to MTC staff before playing.
  • Playtime for double should be 1 1/2 hours for members during member time.

After your game you must leave the courts immediately.

MLTC Secretary
www.manlylawn.com.au

Daniil Medvedev wins US Open as Novak Djokovic falls short of a Grand Slam.

Daniil Medvedev won his first Grand Slam title by defeating Novak Djokovic, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4.
Credit…Ben Solomon for The New York Times

Novak Djokovic said he was going to play this match as if it were the last of his career, that he was going to pour every ounce of his heart and soul into trying to do what few thought could ever be done again.

It was not enough.

With a startling display of power and creativity, Daniil Medvedev upset Djokovic, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, in the final of the U.S. Open on Sunday, ending Djokovic’s bid to become the first man in 52 years to win all four Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year. It was one last twist in a tournament that overflowed with stunning performances.

For at least another year, Rod Laver will remain the lone member of the most exclusive club in modern men’s tennis, and the 2021 U.S. Open will forever belong primarily to an 18-year-old British woman named Emma Raducanu, who went from being the 150th-ranked player to a Grand Slam champion in the most unlikely tennis tale of them all.

This was supposed to be Djokovic’s moment, the day that he would finally surge past Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and officially become the greatest player of all time.

Instead, whatever spirits pull the strings of this uniquely exasperating sport intervened in the form of a lanky 25-year-old Russian, a neighbor of Djokovic’s in their adopted home of Monaco who is sure now to create any number of awkward encounters at Monte Carlo’s cafes and grocery stores and at the local tennis club where both of them train.

Medvedev started fast, breaking Djokovic’s serve in the first game of the match and giving Djokovic few chances to take the first set. That was not supposed to matter. Djokovic, 34, had been shaky early in matches for two weeks, before raising his level and storming back for win after win. Surely, he would flip the script once more.

And he had the opening, three break points on Medvedev’s first service game, and then another with Medvedev serving at 1-2 in the second set, when the sound system malfunctioned and interrupted one of Medvedev’s serves, giving him a fresh chance to save the game.

When Medvedev took that point and then another, the weight of it all finally broke the man who had seemed unbreakable. Djokovic dismantled his racket with a violent smack on a court that had delivered him so many championships before.

A game later, Medvedev curled a backhand onto Djokovic’s toes as he charged to the net, and when Djokovic’s volley floated long, the chance to crush a dream was just a few more games and one set away.

“He was going for huge history,” Medvedev said. “Knowing that I managed to stop him, it definitely makes it sweeter.”

Djokovic had beaten Medvedev most recently in a lopsided battle in February for his ninth Australian Open title, a moment that seems a lifetime ago, when no one was talking about anyone winning a Grand Slam.

And yet, when the draw for the U.S. Open came out two weeks ago, it looked daunting for Djokovic. Matteo Berrettini, the big-serving Italian, loomed in the quarterfinals. Alexander Zverev, the talented German who knocked off Djokovic at the Olympics and was the hottest player in the world at the start of this tournament, was likely to be his semifinal foe. And if Djokovic could get through those players, he was most likely going to meet Medvedev, the world’s second best player, whose game, a beguiling mix of power and spins, seems to grow more dangerous with each passing month. He was a fitting final obstacle for Djokovic in the hunt for their sport’s biggest prize.

Medvedev stands 6 feet 6 inches tall and is as skinny as a bamboo pole. At first glance, he looks like nobody’s idea of a professional athlete. He will scurry around the court creating shots that few can see coming, then bomb an ace or pound a flat backhand down the line.

Coming into the tournament, conventional wisdom held that the only way to beat Djokovic was to take the racket out of his hands with so many unreturnable balls that one of the greatest defenders in the sport would not be able to survive the onslaught.

Medvedev did that and so much more, pushing Djokovic back on his heels and handcuffing him at the net on those handful of points that decide every tennis match, with history on the line and 23,000 fans desperate to witness it.

For Djokovic, the loss delivered a disappointment that practically no one but Serena Williams could understand. She had been the last player to enter the year’s final major championship with a shot at the Grand Slam. She, too, fell to an underdog, Roberta Vinci of Italy, on the same court in Arthur Ashe Stadium, in the 2015 semifinals.

On a personal level, this loss most likely stung Djokovic in a way that Williams may never have felt. Djokovic has spent most of his adult life chasing legends who claimed this sport as their own just a few years before he burst onto the scene. He proved early on that he could be the equal of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, then sagged back, only to come back stronger and repeat the cycle time and again.