The distinction between power and strength is not subtle.

I would safely bet that I could do more pull ups than Rohit Sharma and a better glute ham raise with more range than him.

But that means nothing other than the fact that I am better than him at glute ham raises and pull ups. I can generate more force or produce more resistance or inertia in those specific positions.

Rohit Sharma is infinitely better conditioned than me. That basically means his heart can pump out blood much more efficiently for the demands of cricket than my heart ever can.

Rohit Sharma eye-hand coordination is unimaginable. His capacity to see a ball, anticipate where it is going and swing a bat it with good result is a capacity that you are born with. He discovered the capacity and honed it effectively.

Rohit Sharma’s actual weapon is power. This is the capacity to swing the bat at the rapid velocity with which he can swing it at ball accurately producing an immense amount of power. This is a capacity you are born with. And you have to hone it with practice.

There are many athletes who are not as strong as a regular gym-goer. May not curl as much. May not squat as much. May not have as deep or heavy a squat.

But to be an effective athlete, power is what they need. And that’s a capacity to produce force very quickly. Some strength helps. But you don’t need an awful lot of it. In fact much less strength is needed than we think.

And power is often task-specific. Federer can swing a racket but not a bat. Chris Gayle may not have the best punch but we know what he does with a bat. Tyson Fury might be hopeless at kicking.

Which is why fitness alone will never explain competence or odds of success.

David Ferrer was one of the fittest and most jacked tennis players of his generation. Verdasco was far more jacked than Djokovic. But on court none of that mattered. They had terrific careers and amazing matches. But the career results tell you why being jacked isn’t the only thing that counts for athletic excellence.