2017 US Open Final: Nadal vs. Anderson

[GameSetAndMath]

To me his biggest problem was not so much not coming in after every serve (he's not a particularly good volleyer and Nadal would eat that up), but not playing proper 1-2 tennis. Even with someone as limited as John Isner, if you manage to put his serve back in play with a short return, he'll hammer down a forehand and try to end the point then and there. Anderson hasn't shaped his game that way (or at least, wasn't doing it here), and for a man his size whose only real weapon is his serve, that's a giant waste. Too many times was Nadal able to neutralize the point with his return despite how big Anderson's serve was, and despite the return not being anything special.

Yep. I totally agree. The mark of a big server is to win points quickly with 1) Aces 2) Unreturned Serves 3) Serve and Volley Put Away points
and 4) 1-2 punch points. KA was not doing this at all today. I don't have the exact data. But, I would tend to surmise that 80 percentage of his serves ended up with extended rallies (independent of who won the point at the end). Even Isner, Karlovic etc are much better than KA in this regard.

 

[Fiero425]

I've been sweating for many years as Roger has underachieved a lot since age 28. There was light at the end of the tunnel coming into summer HC. Easy, dummy-proof plan was play Cincy, a tremendous tourney for him, as a huge favorite and then go to USO where he figured to be either a clear or heavy favorite. Then the worst happened at Montreal, a tournament he had no business playing especially with no practice leading up to it after Wimbledon. 20-15 would be game over, GOAT sealed. Now he still has work to do as 19 is great now but might be 2nd rate in a couple years if he stands still. Past time for him to become king of New York, wait till USO 2018 to see if he stops wetting the bed here. 5-3 at USO for Fed-Nadal is comical and the main reason that slam chase is close.

Look at the record; 30 is usually the end for top players! Isolated incidences of brilliance is the only thing that have saved them from wasting their time after that like Connors back in '82 & '83, Sampras in '02; now Federer this season approaching 40!

 

[Moxie]

I've been sweating for many years as Roger has underachieved a lot since age 28. There was light at the end of the tunnel coming into summer HC. Easy, dummy-proof plan was play Cincy, a tremendous tourney for him, as a huge favorite and then go to USO where he figured to be either a clear or heavy favorite. Then the worst happened at Montreal, a tournament he had no business playing especially with no practice leading up to it after Wimbledon. 20-15 would be game over, GOAT sealed. Now he still has work to do as 19 is great now but might be 2nd rate in a couple years if he stands still. Past time for him to become king of New York, wait till USO 2018 to see if he stops wetting the bed here. 5-3 at USO for Fed-Nadal is comical and the main reason that slam chase is close.

Darth, you have an awful resentment of things as they are, and a great notion of how things should have been, in the alternate universe. It's not really useful...doesn't change anything. Plus, that's kind Cali territory. Whatever you say, Roger is not an underachiever. That's a risible comment.

 

[Moxie]

Yep. I totally agree. The mark of a big server is to win points quickly with 1) Aces 2) Unreturned Serves 3) Serve and Volley Put Away points
and 4) 1-2 punch points. KA was not doing this at all today. I don't have the exact data. But, I would tend to surmise that 80 percentage of his serves ended up with extended rallies (independent of who won the point at the end). Even Isner, Karlovic etc are much better than KA in this regard.

As I said earlier, JMac said KA should start working on his net game. He doesn't really have one, and that's kind of death for a tall guy with a big serve.

 

[DarthFed]

Look at the record; 30 is usually the end for top players! Isolated incidences of brilliance is the only thing that have saved them from wasting their time after that like Connors back in '82 & '83, Sampras in '02; now Federer this season approaching 40!

None of those guys are Federer and it's getting clear that with nutrition and evolution athletes in most sports can play well into their 30's. As far as sports go it might not be a stretch to say 30 is the new 25. Now Fed at 36 is certainly old but he's still a talented SOB who can play with relentless aggression to hide the fact he can't move too well anymore.

 

[Moxie]

Look at the record; 30 is usually the end for top players! Isolated incidences of brilliance is the only thing that have saved them from wasting their time after that like Connors back in '82 & '83, Sampras in '02; now Federer this season approaching 40!

That changed even this year. Roger has won 3, I think, post-30, and Rafa has just won his 2nd. If Djokovic comes back strong, he'll be looking for more than 1 more, and he has only one more Major as a 30-year-old. Also, Wawrinka has 2 post-30, I think.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, you have an awful resentment of things as they are, and a great notion of how things should have been, in the alternate universe. It's not really useful...doesn't change anything. Plus, that's kind Cali territory. Whatever you say, Roger is not an underachiever. That's a risible comment.

Funny, didn't you say Rafa is owed an AO a couple pages ago? And haven't you whined a lot about him being extremely tired the entire AO final yet you jump all over me when I question Fed's level in 2008 Wimbledon when he lost to a guy who looks helpless on grass now.

Roger at USO is definitely an underachiever. The balls only changed there something like 4-5 years ago, before that it was a fast HC and he should've won more than 5. Losing 2 straight semis from MP's up, losing to DP somehow, getting walloped in 2012 by Berd. 2015 final vs. Nole was pretty weak too, especially since Novak isn't good in NYC usually. He should've done a lot better, the place is basically a house of horrors now.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger has not won the USO for the last nine years in a row. So, it is ok for DF to lament. Considering Roger is supposed to be a top talent in HC play, this is a long streak and so can say he underachieved.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Roger has not won the USO for the last nine years in a row. So, it is ok for DF to lament. Considering Roger is supposed to be a top talent in HC play, this is a long streak and so can say he underachieved.

Wow...I never thought winning 10 hard court slams (most in the Open Era) is underachieving

Oh by the way, while he has not won a US Open in nine years...he has won 2 AO titles in seven years

 

[Moxie]

Funny, didn't you say Rafa is owed an AO a couple pages ago? And haven't you whined a lot about him being extremely tired the entire AO final yet you jump all over me when I question Fed's level in 2008 Wimbledon when he lost to a guy who looks helpless on grass now.

Roger at USO is definitely an underachiever. The balls only changed there something like 4-5 years ago, before that it was a fast HC and he should've won more than 5. Losing 2 straight semis from MP's up, losing to DP somehow, getting walloped in 2012 by Berd. 2015 final vs. Nole was pretty weak too, especially since Novak isn't good in NYC usually. He should've done a lot better, the place is basically a house of horrors now.

There is a difference between a player having one less day of rest before a final, and some vague notion of a lingering mono. One is very specific to a couple of days, and the other is rather unknowable, and stretched across some 6 months. Also, no matter how much you disparage Rafa on grass, there is no denying that he beat Roger, in prime of his career, at Wimbledon. You hate it, but it happened.

You're going to have a hard time convincing reasonable people who aren't tennis nerds that Roger Federer is an underachiever in any way, shape or form. He got surprised a couple of times by Novak in the semis at the USO, but he would have lost to Nadal in either of those finals. And del Potro just beat him in 2009 final. The matches he didn't win, he didn't lose to chumps, of the ones you're lamenting. He lost because he was out-played. End of story. It can happen, even if that doesn't fit your Mighty Fed narrative.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The Federer thing discussed above is weird because on one hand, I can totally understand why someone would feel that Fed having "only" won 5 US Opens, the last of which in 2008 is disappointing, as he has been falling short there for years now. I mean let's be honest, Nadal has 3. Roger should have more than 5. On the other hand however, saying that Roger freaking Federer "underachieved" at anything in his career, is a bit insane.

 

[rafanoy1992]

The Federer thing discussed above is weird because on one hand, I can totally understand why someone would feel that Fed having "only" won 5 US Opens, the last of which in 2008 is disappointing, as he has been falling short there for years now. I mean let's be honest, Nadal has 3. Roger should have more than 5. On the other hand however, saying that Roger freaking Federer "underachieved" at anything in his career, is a bit insane.

It is like saying, "I got a 99 out of 100 but I should have gotten 110 out of 100!"

Also for those fans saying Roger Federer "underachieve" in his career, I wonder what other non Federer tennis player will say about underachieving.

 

[Moxie]

On the other hand, 5 is actually a lot at one Major. Not sure why Roger should have more, looking at the actual tournaments. I'd be more game if you wanted to say that Rafa having 3 and Novak having only 2 is a surprise.

 

[rafanoy1992]

On the other hand, 5 is actually a lot at one Major. Not sure why Roger should have more, looking at the actual tournaments. I'd be more game if you wanted to say that Rafa having 3 and Novak having only 2 is a surprise.

And vice versa too Moxie, Nadal only having 2 Wimbledons and Djokovic having 3 Wimbledons...

 

[DarthFed]

There is a difference between a player having one less day of rest before a final, and some vague notion of a lingering mono. One is very specific to a couple of days, and the other is rather unknowable, and stretched across some 6 months. Also, no matter how much you disparage Rafa on grass, there is no denying that he beat Roger, in prime of his career, at Wimbledon. You hate it, but it happened.

You're going to have a hard time convincing reasonable people who aren't tennis nerds that Roger Federer is an underachiever in any way, shape or form. He got surprised a couple of times by Novak in the semis at the USO, but he would have lost to Nadal in either of those finals. And del Potro just beat him in 2009 final. The matches he didn't win, he didn't lose to chumps, of the ones you're lamenting. He lost because he was out-played. End of story. It can happen, even if that doesn't fit your Mighty Fed narrative.

He barely beat a weak Roger in a majorly down year at Wimbledon. If that was his prime we'd say 2014 was prime for Rafa too despite all his struggles. And Rafa did have 2 days to recover. I don't buy that stamina was his problem, Roger actually hitting his backhand well and returning aggressively is what flipped it. Without the mental baggage Roger would have taken that a lot easier too just like he did on slower hards in IW and Miami.

And in general when someone loses it is because they were outplayed right? Underachieving means you didn't play up to your talent level. And that's what has happened at USO. I also disagree that Fed would have for sure lost to Nadal at USO in 2011. Rafa's level was not impressive at that event. The loss to DP the way it happened was obviously terrible especially since he is obviously a far inferior player even then.

 

[Moxie]

He barely beat a weak Roger in a majorly down year at Wimbledon. If that was his prime we'd say 2014 was prime for Rafa too despite all his struggles. And Rafa did have 2 days to recover. I don't buy that stamina was his problem, Roger actually hitting his backhand well and returning aggressively is what flipped it. Without the mental baggage Roger would have taken that a lot easier too just like he did on slower hards in IW and Miami.

And in general when someone loses it is because they were outplayed right? Underachieving means you didn't play up to your talent level. And that's what has happened at USO. I also disagree that Fed would have for sure lost to Nadal at USO in 2011. Rafa's level was not impressive at that event. The loss to DP the way it happened was obviously terrible especially since he is obviously a far inferior player even then.

Roger wasn't majorly down in 2008, he was only losing a bit more often. He was 26, ffs. That's a prime year, any way you spin it. In 2014 Rafa was 28...that's different. Ask @El Dude.

I don't get the double-speak of what I bolded in your above. Either you were outplayed or you won. Losing to Djokovic or Nadal isn't really under-achieving. It's getting out-played on the day. And I'm sorry, but you like to play the game of "we understand the world as it was at that point," and at that point, Rafa would have beaten Roger at the USO, if they'd met in those finals. He totally had his number. None of those USO's that you lament are ones that you could have otherwise handed Roger. Maybe the del Potro loss in 2009, but del Potro grew larger during that match, and Roger lost his way. Del Potro won that match off of Roger, fair and square.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Wow...I never thought winning 10 hard court slams (most in the Open Era) is underachieving

Point is it is an underachievement for Roger.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger wasn't majorly down in 2008, he was only losing a bit more often. He was 26, ffs. That's a prime year, any way you spin it. In 2014 Rafa was 28...that's different. Ask @El Dude.

I don't get the double-speak of what I bolded in your above. Either you were outplayed or you won. Losing to Djokovic or Nadal isn't really under-achieving. It's getting out-played on the day. And I'm sorry, but you like to play the game of "we understand the world as it was at that point," and at that point, Rafa would have beaten Roger at the USO, if they'd met in those finals. He totally had his number. None of those USO's that you lament are ones that you could have otherwise handed Roger. Maybe the del Potro loss in 2009, but del Potro grew larger during that match, and Roger lost his way. Del Potro won that match off of Roger, fair and square.

Roger was 27 in 2008 so you're talking a one year difference. He did more than just lose a little more often. 68-9 in 2007 and 66-15 in 2008. Losses to Blake, Fish, 2 to Simon, Roddick, Karlovic, Stepanek, 3 to Murray, does that sound like top shelf Roger? He barely even finished #2 that year and didn't win anything aside from USO.

There is no double-speak, Roger deserved to lose those matches but it doesn't mean he didn't underperform in them. He had won 65 straight on grass before the final. Clearly if he had played at any kind of a high level he'd have taken care of Nadal. Same with DP in 2009, he was serving for a 2 sets lead and ended up choking the match away vs a good but not elite talent.

And didn't Rafa totally have Roger's number heading into the AO final this year. Of course you want to automatically hand him the titles in 2010 and 2011 if he had beaten Nole as he should've.

 

[DarthFed]

And vice versa too Moxie, Nadal only having 2 Wimbledons and Djokovic having 3 Wimbledons...

Novak has a much better game for grass than Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

On the other hand, 5 is actually a lot at one Major. Not sure why Roger should have more, looking at the actual tournaments. I'd be more game if you wanted to say that Rafa having 3 and Novak having only 2 is a surprise.

And to answer this question, he should have more because he clearly is stronger than everyone else on fast hard courts. I don't know exactly which year they switched to heavier balls causing much slower conditions but I'm thinking it was within the last 5 years. He should've done a lot better there. But there still is time, and it's past time he takes the kingdom of New York like he finally did at Wimbledon this year. He should have 9-10 Wimby's so hope he makes up for it in 2018.