2017 US Open Final: Nadal vs. Anderson

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

Exactly, I don't see why you are not getting the point. For anyone else winning 5 USO would be an overachievement. We are not talking about absolute numbers and whether they are good enough for a generic player. We are talking Roger here. He is supposed to be a top talent in HC tennis. However, he has lost nine years in a row after winning five times consecutively. That for sure is an underachievement for Roger

 

[rafanoy1992]

Exactly, I don't see why you are not getting the point. For anyone else winning 5 USO would be an overachievement. We are not talking about absolute numbers and whether they are good enough for a generic player. We are talking Roger here. He is supposed to be a top talent in HC tennis. However, he has lost nine years in a row after winning five times consecutively. That for sure is an underachievement for Roger

Okay, GSM because you love numbers, how many US Open do you think should Federer have right now, seriously?

That's the problem with some of the Fed fans here, they think Federer should win every single major because he is the mighty Federer!

I will tell you this: I wish Nadal has some of Federer's underachieving records!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Okay, GSM because you love numbers, how many US Open do you think should Federer have right now, seriously?

That's the problem with some of the Fed fans here, they think Federer should win every single major because he is the mighty Federer!

I will tell you this: I wish Nadal has some of Federer's underachieving records!

I don't have specific numbers for you. Also, I am not the one who thinks Fed should win everything out there.

But, don't you think a player of Roger's level who won five times in a row and who is still playing quite well in the circuit, not winning even once in the last nine years is an underachievement. Come on.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not GSM but I think 7 USO's would've been reasonable. 2009 USO clearly got away vs a guy who should've been overmatched on a decent day. Then at least one more between 2010-2012. I won't even bring up this year, clearly his level sucked here like 2013 but that was due to the mother of all stupid decisions. We can title it how to go from USO favorite to easy road kill in one arrogant and short-sighted move.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

I think like life, it just all balances out it seems to me! Rafa has his 10 FO's, but the rest of the majors, he's been lacking! Federer had 2 nice runs at the biggest tourneys of the season with 2 "5 in a row" runs at Wimbl & The USO! His luck may have run out and it began dribbling in his waning years; waited 2, then 5 years before winning something significant! I think Fed's deal with the :demon: may have transferred to Nadal who I never saw as #1 again! To me it just proves how gutless the rest of the tour has been to let these aging greats still own them!

 

[rafanoy1992]

I don't have specific numbers for you. Also, I am not the one who thinks Fed should win everything out there.

But, don't you think a player of Roger's level who won five times in a row and who is still playing quite well in the circuit, not winning even once in the last nine years is an underachievement. Come on.

Personally, I do not think it is an underachievement at all, honestly. I mean I would have understand if he only won 1 or maybe 3 US Opens but to win 5 US Opens (which is tied most in the Open Era) and reach 7 US Open finals is not an underachievement even for Federer's standards.

If you want to talk about underachievement at the US Open, I would say Djokovic has underachieve at the US Open considering the fact he was probably the best hard court player from 2011-2016.

 

[Fiero425]

Personally, I do not think it is an underachievement at all, honestly. I mean I would have understand if he only won 1 or maybe 3 US Opens but to win 5 US Opens (which is tied most in the Open Era) and reach 7 US Open finals is not an underachievement even for Federer's standards.

If you want to talk about underachievement at the US Open, I would say Djokovic has underachieve at the US Open considering the fact he was probably the best hard court player from 2011-2016.

Nole just got beat; same with Lendl who played 8 straight finals winning only 3 in a row! He was the best HC player at the time, but by that time of the year, he was probably exhausted due to the way he plays the game; same with Rafa! Borg never got much of a sniff even when it was on clay! He just had bad luck, injuries, and other times he got beat! It happens! That's why they play the match through and wait for the end of the tourney! You just never know even with the favorites!

 

[Moxie]

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.

You yourself will admit that was a turnaround in Roger's strategy and game, his wins this year. In 2010/11, Roger would have fallen to Rafa all but surely. You really should cop to that.

 

[DarthFed]

You yourself will admit that was a turnaround in Roger's strategy and game, his wins this year. In 2010/11, Roger would have fallen to Rafa all but surely. You really should cop to that.

Not at all, if the tourney was still a fast hard court and I think it was, I'd have given Fed a chance in 2011 at least. Rafa was playing way better in 2010 and almost certainly would've taken that final though it should be said a weak WTA serving Nole gave him some trouble in that final. In 2011 Fed played better than Nadal for much of it aside from clay season. That might not have transferred to the USO final but that wouldn't have been a foregone conclusion, far from it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Personally, I do not think it is an underachievement at all, honestly. I mean I would have understand if he only won 1 or maybe 3 US Opens but to win 5 US Opens (which is tied most in the Open Era) and reach 7 US Open finals is not an underachievement even for Federer's standards.

If you want to talk about underachievement at the US Open, I would say Djokovic has underachieve at the US Open considering the fact he was probably the best hard court player from 2011-2016.

You are focusing on the 5 USO which he won. But, what I am saying is that considering he won 5 in a row, it is an underachievement that he did not win any for the next nine years. If he had just retired or has been a shell of himself just hanging around in the circuit, it is a different story. He has been an elite player for the most part of the next nine years as well, but he still did not win USO even once. That is certainly an underachievement as it does not jibe with the general expectation.

I also agree that Novak winning less US Open than Rafa is a travesty.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not GSM but I think 7 USO's would've been reasonable. 2009 USO clearly got away vs a guy who should've been overmatched on a decent day. Then at least one more between 2010-2012. I won't even bring up this year, clearly his level sucked here like 2013 but that was due to the mother of all stupid decisions. We can title it how to go from USO favorite to easy road kill in one arrogant and short-sighted move.

7 USO's is a lot. This is where you display your fan-ishness. Every USO you're talking about he lost to a quality player. I know you think he's better than they are, but that level only exists in your mind. He can't win everything. He obviously can't, even though he can win quite a lot. You can't line up a stat sheet or a "Federer-of-the-mind," and say that that should be how the world should have worked. I've cranked about a few losses for Nadal. You have a raft of them for Roger. That's pretty cranky, and also a lot of parallel universe, when your man has won so much.

 

[Moxie]

Sleep beckons, so I have to stop arguing the parallel universe with you guys. Rafa and Roger split the two Majors this year. That's a hell of a thing. And keeps them at the same distance they started from at the beginning of the year, in terms of Majors. Very interesting year, so far.

 

[DarthFed]

7 USO's is a lot. This is where you display your fan-ishness. Every USO you're talking about he lost to a quality player. I know you think he's better than they are, but that level only exists in your mind. He can't win everything. He obviously can't, even though he can win quite a lot. You can't line up a stat sheet or a "Federer-of-the-mind," and say that that should be how the world should have worked. I've cranked about a few losses for Nadal. You have a raft of them for Roger. That's pretty cranky, and also a lot of parallel universe, when your man has won so much.

Quality players sure but most of these losses have been vs guys pretty far from elite. The fact of the matter is matches such as Berd in 2012, Nole in 2010, and DP in 2009 were all large upsets. On paper DP this year, Cilic in 2014 and Robredo in 2013 were all enormous upsets too but given circumstances such as Fed's form/health and Cilic playing crazy good in 2014 they were more understandable. Federer is by far the best player on fast HC and that has continued into his 30's but he has stunk the place up at this event since winning it in 2008. Now of course it does hurt that they turned this into an event that plays medium-slow but only 2 finals and 3 semis in 9 years, it's crazy.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Unlike other posters, I don't claim that other players who defeated Roger at USO don't deserve to do so or anything like that. Roger lost fair and square. But, that does not mean I should not say Roger underachieved. Underachievement means that Roger's results did not cope up with the reasonable expectations that folks had for him after his five consecutive wins.

Also, personally I would like Roger to win one more at least so that he can hold the USO record without sharing it with anyone else.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't agree with Darth re: Wimbledon because it implies that a player, even one of Fed's caliber, shouldn't lose, ever, when he's that good. Even the GOAT is going to lose. You can't win all the time, as cliched as that sounds, because it ignores how sports and athletes work. They're not machines and they'll have an off year. Hell, even an off day costs you a tournament. So as good as Roger is on grass, seeing his level at the years in which he lost, I wouldn't say he underachieved at Wimbledon. Now if you argue that he should have been playing better, you're asking too much. He's a guy who was winning 3 slams a year routinely, so yes, he's going to experience a dip in level in his late 20's and early 30's, and it took him a while to fully adjust. Darth is almost literally asking him to be a machine.

However, Roger has underachieved at the US Open, no doubt about it. He should have won it in 2009 and really let that final slip from him by relaxing (I think it was a direct result of finally winning RG and breaking the slam record at Wimbledon). He even mentioned repeatedly that he wasn't that upset about it. Add to that the blown match points to Novak in back-to-back years, and you can definitely make a case for him underachieving. Now, I don't like the argument that "5 US Opens is too few for Roger" and leaving it at that. In theory, it isn't too few, but he should have won at least one more in 2009 and put himself in a position to win a couple of others in 2010 (although he wasn't beating Nadal that year) and 2011.

I'd also argue he would've been an underdog in the final in 2011 but it would have been close and definitely possible, as opposed to 2010 where he would have had no shot, and the general feeling was that Rafa was going to crush him (everyone was anticipating a Fedal final) due to how they had looked at that tournament, and how sub-par Fed had been since the AO.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't agree with Darth re: Wimbledon because it implies that a player, even one of Fed's caliber, shouldn't lose, ever, when he's that good. Even the GOAT is going to lose. You can't win all the time, as cliched as that sounds, because it ignores how sports and athletes work. They're not machines and they'll have an off year. Hell, even an off day costs you a tournament. So as good as Roger is on grass, seeing his level at the years in which he lost, I wouldn't say he underachieved at Wimbledon. Now if you argue that he should have been playing better, you're asking too much. He's a guy who was winning 3 slams a year routinely, so yes, he's going to experience a dip in level in his late 20's and early 30's, and it took him a while to fully adjust. Darth is almost literally asking him to be a machine.

However, Roger has underachieved at the US Open, no doubt about it. He should have won it in 2009 and really let that final slip from him by relaxing (I think it was a direct result of finally winning RG and breaking the slam record at Wimbledon). He even mentioned repeatedly that he wasn't that upset about it. Add to that the blown match points to Novak in back-to-back years, and you can definitely make a case for him underachieving. Now, I don't like the argument that "5 US Opens is too few for Roger" and leaving it at that. In theory, it isn't too few, but he should have won at least one more in 2009 and put himself in a position to win a couple of others in 2010 (although he wasn't beating Nadal that year) and 2011.

I'd also argue he would've been an underdog in the final in 2011 but it would have been close and definitely possible, as opposed to 2010 where he would have had no shot, and the general feeling was that Rafa was going to crush him (everyone was anticipating a Fedal final) due to how they had looked at that tournament, and how sub-par Fed had been since the AO.

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying about Wimbledon. Clearly even I don't expect that he should win it every single year since 2003. I'm mostly just talking the finals record and even the final performances as a whole. I'd say he was more than a little subpar at 2 he lost (08 and 15) and 2 he won (04 and 09). I give Novak full credit for 2014, aside from slow hards that was absolutely his best performance ever and he even said as much and Roger at 33 still had chances. But overall with someone of his caliber on grass you'd expect 10-1 at the very least in finals. Rafa at RG is 10-0, Borg at RG was 6-0, Sampras 7-0 at Wimbledon and Nole 6-0 at AO. That shows the point, the legends on their strongest surfaces usually smothered everyone in finals. This is not the case for Fed at Wimbledon. But 8 wins is still great, he's done a tremendous job at putting himself into position at Wimbledon but not a good job beating vastly inferior grass court players in the final.

 

[Federberg]

Huge congratulations to Rafa. I actually sort of like the symmetry of Fedal cleaning house this year. Obviously I would have preferred 3 for my guy, but to all the doubters of these two titans, back in your box!

 

[imjimmy]

Many congratulations to Rafa and all his fans. Winning the 16th slam, 4th hardcourt slam and 6th non-clay court slam - great achievement. Rafa further proves himself as an all-surface champion.
Especially great because watching Nadal in 2015-2016 - I had doubts when he would win the next slam, much less 2 in a year.

Looking at the final: Nadal won in straights without playing special tennis. I thought he played great against JMDP in the SF, but different story in the final. I was surprised by Anderson's lack of 1-2 punch tennis and his artrocious net play. He failed to punish Nadal for the Spaniard's short returns and again failed to attack Rafa's serves. Hard to understand why he was standing so far back receiving serve given the slower pace of Nadal's serve.

Nadal's movement looked super yesterday and he was perfect (literally 16/16) at the net. However, I'm sure Nadal knows, as well as anyone, that to have success next year (outside of clay) he will have to play similar to what he did in the SF as opposed to in the final.

Overall Nadal looked very happy in his post championship match interviews - and so we should be, all of us - his fans.

Finally as Rafa wisely said --
Nadal:"I don't need the motivation to be catching Federer at 19, I am happy at 16 as long as I am happy and healthy" #usopen

So let's enjoy this amazing year and his accomplishments without any debates. Because with age and injuries - we never know when it might be the last slam.

 

[Jelenafan]

Getting back to Rafa in this thread, I do think that his 16 for 16 at net shows that he could improve his forays to net for the next year in that he could have more set up plays and be more net aggressive. Probably better overall for his game, to be, say 25 for 31 and mix things up even more.

What the final showed is that he's opportunistic with his net play, particularly his "serve and volley" which I would say was more pulling wide and then proceeding to net. Still very impressive.

A lot has been said how Moya has helped him mix up his serve more so it would be fun to see what Moya would do unfettered as far as helping to shape Nadal's game. I do know from interviews that he's reined in some of Nadal's insane training regimen, emphasizing quality over sheer quantity as far as practice.

 

[imjimmy]

Getting back to Rafa in this thread, I do think that his 16 for 16 at net shows that he could improve his forays to net for the next year in that he could have more set up plays and be more net aggressive. Probably better overall for his game, to be, say 25 for 31 and mix things up even more.

What the final showed is that he's opportunistic with his net play, particularly his "serve and volley" which I would say was more pulling wide and then proceeding to net. Still very impressive.

A lot has been said how Moya has helped him mix up his serve more so it would be fun to see what Moya would do unfettered as far as helping to shape Nadal's game. I do know from interviews that he's reined in some of Nadal's insane training regimen, emphasizing quality over sheer quantity as far as practice.

That's a good point. Nadal definitely has great touch at the net.

Another important thing would be to take more risks and make his shotmaking a little unpredictable. Right now, Rafa only does this when forced. As in the Del Potro match, he started to change patterns when he saw that he wouldn't win playing his usual way.

I believe that Rafa's predictability led to the losses against Federer in 2017. At the AO final, and then at IW/Miami where Federer grew even more confident and won in straights. Fed used to be camped out on his backhand side waiting for Nadal's cc forehand and on the forehand side waiting for Nadal's cc backhand.

Nadal has to use his off-forehand (i/o and DTL) and the DTL backhand more so that he can transition to offense earlier in the point. He did that very well against Del Potro in the SF, but the question is whether he can instill the courage to do this more frequently.

The more he does this, the more natural it would get and then he could use this during big matches against Fed/Novak etc. That would be the key to 2018 for Rafa..