2014 Masters Series Rome Final: Djokovic v. Nadal

[MargaretMcAleer]

Rafa's 2nd serve was too short...it was just a sitting duck for Novak in this match

 

[nehmeth]

You know, when Rafa was down 3-2 in the third, I told my friend, Rafa will win. He was in street fighter mode, and he did so well to break back. But look at the next two service games, one from each player: where Rafa wanted a fast assertive game, he couldn't. His serve is lame, and against the best returner. He became feeble.

Then Nole got the fast assertive service game to go 5-3 up and effectively kill all momentum stone dead. So there's one area in a very tight match which Rafa has to address as a matter of urgency, because GS titles are won by small margins and having a redheaded stepchild for a serve is only asking for trouble...

Rafa served some pretty hard serves to stay in it, but against Novak, he tries to go for too much and that leaves him hitting that sitter of a 2nd serve. :nono

I just saw that Nadal served at 75%? For anyone else, that would be going for too little.

:snigger

After withstanding Raonic's bombs for three sets on Saturday - Rafa's serves were a little easier to read and respond to.

 

[calitennis127]

Djokovic playing at his best is simply better than Nadal - on any surface. That said, you have to give Nadal credit for forcing a very high level out of Djokovic in key stretches. Those stretches may be on Djokovic's racket, but he does have to be on top of things to win points in those moments.

This isn't borne out by the stats, buddy, and nor does any of it mean that's Nole's "rightful place is as world number one.

I mean, remember Nalbandian, right? Greatest man since Laver, when he played at his best. Was his rightful place as world number one as well... :nono

46 winners to 15 winners. That's a 3:1 ratio.

In the US Open final, it was "only" a 2:1 ratio.

Djokovic at his best is better on all surfaces. In that idealistic sense, he is the rightful #1 player.

Good numbers Cali. But how many error did each player have? Points are won from errors too.

It was actually only 27 (Nadal) to 30 (Djokovic). I don't think much of the unforced error statistic, because it assesses players' low points and lapses and boring moments more than their best moments and what they actually aspire to do when playing tennis.

 

[Kieran]

Cali, please tell me that you don't think that the player who hits most winners in a match is by definition the better player. :nono

It's the player who wins most sets in a match, the player who wins the match, is the better player...

 

[calitennis127]

whoever has the top spot is at his rightful place, nobody got free ranking points from Santa.

I am not saying that Nadal cheated his way into the top ranking. I am just saying that Djokovic playing to his peak is a better player.

you can't ignore Nadal's victories against Djoker, and matches are not validated only when someone thinks the players are playing at his peak - even so, who knows who's really at his peak? Nadal sure didn't look like he was at his peak today......

Oh yeah, I forgot about Nadal's really convincing "win" over Djokovic in the US Open final last year. He just looked like such a better tennis player.

46 winners to 15 winners today - and both players have two-handed backhands. This wasn't just Wawrinka hitting winners for an hour and 15 minutes. Djokovic has much more versatility to his game than the one-handers.

But it's nice to see you agreeing with Kieran - maybe this will knock some sense into Kieran about you.

what i said doesn't concern him, it's just a matter of fact. If you just look at number of winners to decide the better player, you'd have Gulbis probably as a top 5 since he most likely hits more winners than his opponents despite losing.

Meanwhile a guy like Ferrer is totally useless no?

I like and respect Ferrer. But he has not won 10+ Slams.

Look - you and others have always said these things when criticizing my perspective on Nalbandian or Djokovic. The comparison to Gulbis is absurd. Of course you need more to your game than just power and flat forehands. You need defensive skills, movement, a transition game, returns, etc.

And on that point, guys like Djokovic or Nalbandian are well-rounded players. They are not just ball-bashers or guys who get hot for 35 minutes with some nice winners. BUT - unlike Nadal, they play a Type A style and take over rallies with offensive shots. So if the all-around skill is comparable, but they are more offensive, then at their best, they are better.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anybody who actually thought Nadal might win this match, you're a fanboy. There, I said it.

Sorry, but it was never going to happen (unless Novak played the way he played in the first set for the entire duration of the match). Not with that kind of serving (I'm too lazy to scroll back but someone actually said Rafa served well?), and not with that kind of baseline play. He's just not playing well enough to have a response for Novak when Djokovic switches gears, which is a tall order even on the best of days.

Rafa, being the competitor that he is, raised his level in the third. Struck the ball a little harder and went for bigger serves, but if you haven't been playing this way for 3 months, you're not magically going to do it on cue against someone like Djokovic, not consistently anyway. It doesn't help that this inspired Djokovic to play even better.

Rafa's movement has seemed off all year post AO, and his forehand has never looked so harmless on clay. He obviously doesn't have the confidence to go after his backhand either, which means that Novak kills him in FH to BH CC exchanges. Add to that how well Djokovic started hitting his backhand midway through the match, and Rafa never really had a chance.

Seriously, after being up two breaks in the first, how many easy holds did Nadal have in the entire match? 2-3? Every other hold, he either had to save break points or battle back from 0-30. THAT is going to be enough against Djokovic? It was obvious he wasn't playing at the required level to beat Novak all tournament, which made this match easy to predict. The only surprise was how flat Novak came out.

The good news is, the Murray/Novak matches might have played Rafa into some kind of form, and given him a bit of intensity. As long as his confidence isn't too shaken by this loss, he'll be at the FO final, and even if he plays Novak there, it's 50-50 RIGHT NOW (this would change based on how each one of them looks on their way to the final. And I still think Novak has the bigger chance to be upset on the way there). Remember, Novak beat him last year in Monte Carlo too, and outplayed him even worse than today. I just hope Nadal's confidence isn't too shaken. I don't expect him to be in tremendous form in the first week of RG, but if he finds his form in the second, he'll still be the favorite... Yes, even ahead of Ferrer, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Fognini, and whoever else Denisovic mentioned in the other thread.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

rafa having his "girlfriend" in the stands can only befuddle his head.

why don't they get married..so wafa can win again.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, please tell me that you don't think that the player who hits most winners in a match is by definition the better player. :nono

It's the player who wins most sets in a match, the player who wins the match, is the better player...

Like I just explained, if the all-around skills are comparable, but one player hits two or three times the winners routinely, then yes, the player with the higher winner count is better.

Ricardo's comparison of Gulbis to Djokovic (or Nalbandian, or Federer, or Murray) is utterly preposterous. The latter are far more well-rounded.

Nadal has beaten well-rounded top players who hit more winners by weaseling out numerous big victories - like the 2009 AO or the 2013 USO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Glad to see original, non-redundant discussions still taking place, and people actually still falling for them. You know what they say about insanity.

 

[Ricardo]

I am not saying that Nadal cheated his way into the top ranking. I am just saying that Djokovic playing to his peak is a better player.

you can't ignore Nadal's victories against Djoker, and matches are not validated only when someone thinks the players are playing at his peak - even so, who knows who's really at his peak? Nadal sure didn't look like he was at his peak today......

Oh yeah, I forgot about Nadal's really convincing "win" over Djokovic in the US Open final last year. He just looked like such a better tennis player.

46 winners to 15 winners today - and both players have two-handed backhands. This wasn't just Wawrinka hitting winners for an hour and 15 minutes. Djokovic has much more versatility to his game than the one-handers.

But it's nice to see you agreeing with Kieran - maybe this will knock some sense into Kieran about you.

what i said doesn't concern him, it's just a matter of fact. If you just look at number of winners to decide the better player, you'd have Gulbis probably as a top 5 since he most likely hits more winners than his opponents despite losing.

Meanwhile a guy like Ferrer is totally useless no?

I like and respect Ferrer. But he has not won 10+ Slams.

Look - you and others have always said these things when criticizing my perspective on Nalbandian or Djokovic. The comparison to Gulbis is absurd. Of course you need more to your game than just power and flat forehands. You need defensive skills, movement, a transition game, returns, etc.

And on that point, guys like Djokovic or Nalbandian are well-rounded players. They are not just ball-bashers or guys who get hot for 35 minutes with some nice winners. BUT - unlike Nadal, they play a Type A style and take over rallies with offensive shots. So if the all-around skill is comparable, but they are more offensive, then at their best, they are better.

Gulbis hits tons of winners and Ferrer doesn't, the better player wins more...... that's how it is imo. Besides, Gulbis actually has great movement, pretty good defence (when he wants to) and transition and return, he is only seriously lacking in ability to maintain his level over any meaningful length of duration....

 

[Ricardo]

Glad to see original, non-redundant discussions still taking place, and people actually still falling for them. You know what they say about insanity.

you kind of learn to embrace it on these boards.

 

[Ricardo]

Cali, please tell me that you don't think that the player who hits most winners in a match is by definition the better player. :nono

It's the player who wins most sets in a match, the player who wins the match, is the better player...

Like I just explained, if the all-around skills are comparable, but one player hits two or three times the winners routinely, then yes, the player with the higher winner count is better.

Ricardo's comparison of Gulbis to Djokovic (or Nalbandian, or Federer, or Murray) is utterly preposterous. The latter are far more well-rounded.

Nadal has beaten well-rounded top players who hit more winners by weaseling out numerous big victories - like the 2009 AO or the 2013 USO.

I am pretty sure players themselves would rather weasel out wins than lose after hitting 100 winners, and am even more sure that they think winning more means 'better'.

 

[calitennis127]

Anybody who actually thought Nadal might win this match, you're a fanboy. There, I said it.

Sorry, but it was never going to happen (unless Novak played the way he played in the first set for the entire duration of the match). Not with that kind of serving (I'm too lazy to scroll back but someone actually said Rafa served well?), and not with that kind of baseline play. He's just not playing well enough to have a response for Novak when Djokovic switches gears, which is a tall order even on the best of days.

Rafa, being the competitor that he is, raised his level in the third. Struck the ball a little harder and went for bigger serves, but if you haven't been playing this way for 3 months, you're not magically going to do it on cue against someone like Djokovic, not consistently anyway. It doesn't help that this inspired Djokovic to play even better.

Rafa's movement has seemed off all year post AO, and his forehand has never looked so harmless on clay. He obviously doesn't have the confidence to go after his backhand either, which means that Novak kills him in FH to BH CC exchanges. Add to that how well Djokovic started hitting his backhand midway through the match, and Rafa never really had a chance.

Seriously, after being up two breaks in the first, how many easy holds did Nadal have in the entire match? 2-3? Every other hold, he either had to save break points or battle back from 0-30. THAT is going to be enough against Djokovic? It was obvious he wasn't playing at the required level to beat Novak all tournament, which made this match easy to predict. The only surprise was how flat Novak came out.

The good news is, the Murray/Novak matches might have played Rafa into some kind of form, and given him a bit of intensity. As long as his confidence isn't too shaken by this loss, he'll be at the FO final, and even if he plays Novak there, it's 50-50 RIGHT NOW (this would change based on how each one of them looks on their way to the final. And I still think Novak has the bigger chance to be upset on the way there). Remember, Novak beat him last year in Monte Carlo too, and outplayed him even worse than today. I just hope Nadal's confidence isn't too shaken. I don't expect him to be in tremendous form in the first week of RG, but if he finds his form in the second, he'll still be the favorite... Yes, even ahead of Ferrer, Nishikori, Dimitrov, Fognini, and whoever else Denisovic mentioned in the other thread.

Despite Djokovic hitting 46 winners to his 15, Nadal still almost won. Djokovic has a serious problem putting Nadal away. It almost bit him in Miami, it got even closer to biting him today, and it most certainly bit him in Flushing Meadows.

Nadal was not far off at all from winning the match today - which is what all of you care about most anyway. I find it so funny that Broken is talking like Nadal's form was so bad today, yet when he won the first set in Montreal in basically the same exact way, he was playing untouchable tennis.

Sure, okay.

This is the myth of the untouchable Nadal that the likes of Broken and El Dude prop up. In 2008, Nadal was supposedly a Hercules and invincible, whereas now he he is slow and off his game. Really?

In 2008, he flamed out of Rome with the blister problem and did not win a single match. In Hamburg, he lost a set to Djokovic and was only one loss from ceding his #2 ranking. Not to mention, the Hamburg 2008 final was one of the Federer losses to Nadal on clay that really should have gone to Federer.

Nadal does not win against the elite by having untouchable form. He wins by sucking the life out of his opposition and throwing them off THEIR game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, anyway...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The "winner" stat only tells half of the story. Nadal forces opponents to hit millions of forced errors that does not show in any stat. And most of the so called "unforced errors" (which I don't believe exists except double faults) are forced by Nadal and have exactly the same value as a winner.

 

[Kieran]

Anybody who actually thought Nadal might win this match, you're a fanboy. There, I said it.

Sorry, but it was never going to happen ... Not with that kind of serving ...and not with that kind of baseline play.

Brother, nobody said that Rafa would serve like a eunuch and fail to impose his forehand on the match - and still win. If they did, you're being polite calling them fanboys - and it's not like you to be polite... :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

Broken saying that Nadal is too off his game to beat Djokovic is really original. Never heard that before - except in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and now 2014.

 

[tented]

Brother, nobody said that Rafa would serve like a eunuch and fail to impose his forehand on the match

Other than that, how do you think he did? :laydownlaughing

 

[calitennis127]

Anybody who actually thought Nadal might win this match, you're a fanboy. There, I said it.

Sorry, but it was never going to happen ... Not with that kind of serving ...and not with that kind of baseline play.

Brother, nobody said that Rafa would serve like a eunuch and fail to impose his forehand on the match - and still win. If they did, you're being polite calling them fanboys - and it's not like you to be polite... :snigger

Nadal was very close to winning.

Lol.....this was not a 6-2, 6-1 drubbing.

 

[Fiero425]

Anybody who actually thought Nadal might win this match, you're a fanboy. There, I said it.

Sorry, but it was never going to happen ... Not with that kind of serving ...and not with that kind of baseline play.

Brother, nobody said that Rafa would serve like a eunuch and fail to impose his forehand on the match - and still win. If they did, you're being polite calling them fanboys - and it's not like you to be polite... :snigger

Nadal was very close to winning.

Lol.....this was not a 6-2, 6-1 drubbing.

It may not have been a drubbing, but from what little I saw of the final set, Nole was in complete control and Rafa was "all at sea!" :clap :angel: