2017 US Open Semifinals: Nadal vs. Del Potro

[Ricardo]

I don't buy the argument that "several" players are more talented than Rafa. Are Wawrinka and Murray more talented? I'm calling bull on that. And if they're not, who are these several players?

However, I will agree with you and Darth in that I do think Djokovic is more talented. Talent is always difficult to define but the game definitely comes a little easier to Novak.

Firstly my 'several' can refer to Roger and Novak, so at least two qualified already....unlike Moxie who never concedes that anyone can ever be more talent than Rafa, but I know you don't think like such simpleton. I would also call on player like JMac who has proven talent, like Roger and Novak. At this stage the jury is still out on someone like Nick, who displays crazy ability on occasions but is crap on other occasions so he is unproven.

 

[Moxie]

However, I will agree with you and Darth in that I do think Djokovic is more talented. Talent is always difficult to define but the game definitely comes a little easier to Novak.

Talent is difficult to define, though we tried on another thread. It's kind of hard to compare "talented" at the level that those big 3 have reached, I think. I don't agree that the game comes easier to Djokovic than Nadal, though it might look like it. Nadal's game is muscular and somewhat sui generis so it doesn't look as fluid as Roger's, certainly, or even Novak's. I think his mentality and ability to adjust are superior to Djoker's, which is a part of "talent," by general agreement around these parts. For what he came to the game with, and what he's done with it, I have agreed that Roger is both the most naturally talented, and the one who has made the most of his gifts.

 

[DarthFed]

More stupid is to say that Roger and Novak are more talented than him. The first one is so "more talented" that until this year he never found how to resolve for years his losses against Nadal until he got a new coach and even that and surprising us in that fifth set in the AO he couldn't to resolve how to beat Delpo either, he played to him very erratic. And the second one what I can say.... changing coach by coach, first hiring a famous doctor and his chinese medicine, then a coach that I don't remember his name, then Boris and Pepe to find "the peace of his soul" (whatever) then another coach and giving a lay off to all his team. Agreed that he had some good years but because so many effort and so many changes to find "the power source" trying to improve his game he has paid it pretty badly.
They are very talented otherwise they never could got all those achievements, no doubts about it but to measure the talent is not easy at all because the three of them have a great game and their own specialties but none of them have everything perfect. For example I've always said if Rafa would have had the Roger's serve he would have been unstoppable but then maybe he wouldn't have had others good abilities that he has

And Nadal couldn't adjust his game to beat Muller or basically anyone on grass. Do you really want to go there when comparing a 36 year old who was clearly not 100% at this USO to the stable of Rafa slayers at Wimbledon? They even try to make it easy for Rafa at that tournament and it hasn't worked.

 

[Ricardo]

Talent is difficult to define, though we tried on another thread. It's kind of hard to compare "talented" at the level that those big 3 have reached, I think. I don't agree that the game comes easier to Djokovic than Nadal, though it might look like it. Nadal's game is muscular and somewhat sui generis so it doesn't look as fluid as Roger's, certainly, or even Novak's. I think his mentality and ability to adjust are superior to Djoker's, which is a part of "talent," by general agreement around these parts. For what he came to the game with, and what he's done with it, I have agreed that Roger is both the most naturally talented, and the one who has made the most of his gifts.

wrong, Fed is most talented but Nadal has made the most of his gifts. what Nadal doesn't have compared to Fed, in terms of offence, winning more efficiently with more ease (generally less court time with less effort and average number of strokes etc), he makes up for it with more physical commitment, greater intensity and mental toughness. He has turned around more matches where he was outplayed than Federer, who usually cruises to a win, while Nadal had to battle hard more often.

 

[MikeOne]

No-one can explain talent, it's an abstract concept.

The only way to measure talent is to clone a person so that physically and mentally you have two individuals who are identical genetically. Even so, you would need to ensure that both are subjected to the same external factors and train in the exact same manner. THEN, you could see if one person can hit the ball better than the other, all other things held constant.

The problem with these talent debates is that people are biased and will go to great lengths to diminish the talent of the player they don't particularly like. Nadal haters will make Nadal out to be a running bull who wins because he has unparalleled mental fortitude, unparalleled physicality and never gives up. Let me explain why this holds no water.

First and foremost, let's begin at the start of Nadal's career. Nadal was born a natural right hander who was made to play left handed by his uncle, they thought this would be a successful formula. Simple question, isn't this within itself evidence of the talent of Nadal? How many people can get away with this?

Let's also consider that Nadal was hyped up as an amazing talent when he was a teenager, everyone talked about him as a very talented player. I remember i saw Rafa back in US open in early 2000s when Rafa was 16 years old and he was being competitive against experienced pros. No-one back then saw Nadal as a muscle brute who was a clay court specialist, everyone saw him as a super talented kid who had a bright future, similar to Gasquet. It was only after 2005 season that people started to speak of Nadal as a clay court specialist.

Let's now consider what he has achieved. Nadal has 16 slams (10 FOs, 1 AO, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledon). He has also made multiple finals at AO, USO, Wimbledon where he lost in finals. NO-ONE and i mean NO-ONE who doesn't possess AMAZING talent can accomplish even half of this.

On aesthetics. Many confuse aesthetics with talent, this is why someone that is fluid is thought of as talented vs someone who is not, not so much. Do fluid strokes and graceful movement have anything to do with talent? There are literally thousands of players who look more graceful and fluid than Nadal in this world and they can't accomplish squat.

Gamewise. Nadal can do it all. Nadal can crush backhands and forehands, just watch how he played Del Po on hards or how he played Wawrinka on clay. In the FO final he wasn't just running down Wawrinka balls, it was Wawrinka who was doing all the running and seeing winners go by, ON CLAY. In this year's USO, Del Po was ready to win the title, he took out Roger and knew that if he could make finals, he could win. He ran into a Nadal that stunned him, Nadal was not just running down balls and making Del Po miss, Nadal had weapons and schooled Del Po.

Rafa has abundant talent, when he is confident, he can beat anyone on any surface. Didn't he beat Federer in 08 Wimbledon? beat Djoker at USO final twice? Nadal has every shot in the book and has even become an accomplished volleyer and good doubles player. I would say that his only semi-weakness is a lack of a huge first serve and i believe this is a product of playing lefty as a natural right hander. If we watch the Giles Muller vs Rafa match in this year's Wimby, the only difference was the serve, Muller basically served his way through the match. Aside from a lack of a huge first serve, Nadal simply can do it all.

Question, if running down balls and hitting with spin is all you need to win 10 FOs, why hasn't anyone else come close? Seems to me that if fitness, mental fortitude are all that counts, there would be hundreds of Nadal's on the tour. It's not that hard to get in shape and be mentally tough, this is overrated.

 

[Carol]

Great article by Tignor

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...-stephens-del-potro-shapovalov-federer/69346/

 

[brokenshoelace]

No-one can explain talent, it's an abstract concept.

The only way to measure talent is to clone a person so that physically and mentally you have two individuals who are identical genetically. Even so, you would need to ensure that both are subjected to the same external factors and train in the exact same manner. THEN, you could see if one person can hit the ball better than the other, all other things held constant.

The problem with these talent debates is that people are biased and will go to great lengths to diminish the talent of the player they don't particularly like. Nadal haters will make Nadal out to be a running bull who wins because he has unparalleled mental fortitude, unparalleled physicality and never gives up. Let me explain why this holds no water.

First and foremost, let's begin at the start of Nadal's career. Nadal was born a natural right hander who was made to play left handed by his uncle, they thought this would be a successful formula. Simple question, isn't this within itself evidence of the talent of Nadal? How many people can get away with this?

Let's also consider that Nadal was hyped up as an amazing talent when he was a teenager, everyone talked about him as a very talented player. I remember i saw Rafa back in US open in early 2000s when Rafa was 16 years old and he was being competitive against experienced pros. No-one back then saw Nadal as a muscle brute who was a clay court specialist, everyone saw him as a super talented kid who had a bright future, similar to Gasquet. It was only after 2005 season that people started to speak of Nadal as a clay court specialist.

Let's now consider what he has achieved. Nadal has 16 slams (10 FOs, 1 AO, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledon). He has also made multiple finals at AO, USO, Wimbledon where he lost in finals. NO-ONE and i mean NO-ONE who doesn't possess AMAZING talent can accomplish even half of this.

On aesthetics. Many confuse aesthetics with talent, this is why someone that is fluid is thought of as talented vs someone who is not, not so much. Do fluid strokes and graceful movement have anything to do with talent? There are literally thousands of players who look more graceful and fluid than Nadal in this world and they can't accomplish squat.

Gamewise. Nadal can do it all. Nadal can crush backhands and forehands, just watch how he played Del Po on hards or how he played Wawrinka on clay. In the FO final he wasn't just running down Wawrinka balls, it was Wawrinka who was doing all the running and seeing winners go by, ON CLAY. In this year's USO, Del Po was ready to win the title, he took out Roger and knew that if he could make finals, he could win. He ran into a Nadal that stunned him, Nadal was not just running down balls and making Del Po miss, Nadal had weapons and schooled Del Po.

Rafa has abundant talent, when he is confident, he can beat anyone on any surface. Didn't he beat Federer in 08 Wimbledon? beat Djoker at USO final twice? Nadal has every shot in the book and has even become an accomplished volleyer and good doubles player. I would say that his only semi-weakness is a lack of a huge first serve and i believe this is a product of playing lefty as a natural right hander. If we watch the Giles Muller vs Rafa match in this year's Wimby, the only difference was the serve, Muller basically served his way through the match. Aside from a lack of a huge first serve, Nadal simply can do it all.

Question, if running down balls and hitting with spin is all you need to win 10 FOs, why hasn't anyone else come close? Seems to me that if fitness, mental fortitude are all that counts, there would be hundreds of Nadal's on the tour. It's not that hard to get in shape and be mentally tough, this is overrated.

I wouldn't say Nadal has every shot in the book but that's a great post.

 

[MikeOne]

I wouldn't say Nadal has every shot in the book but that's a great post.

this is why i pointed to a lack of a huge first serve. If i were to compare Federer and Nadal, the serve is the main difference. Take Federer's superior first serve away and Federer prob would be sitting on 11-12 slams or even less, Federer has used his serve with tremendous success in winning many of his slams. The fact that Nadal has won 16 slams without a big first serve is tremendous. I also think Djoker's 12 slams is a big achievement without a big first serve but Djoker has a better serve than Nadal.

What gets Nadal in trouble at Wimby is a lack of free points on first serve, his opponents are under less pressure due to this. The guys that have beaten him at Wimby have used first serves to beat him - Sam Q., Giles Muller, Federer, Kyrgios etc... The first serve is Nadal's biggest problem and i really think it has something to do with him being a natural right hander, i think it's very difficult to develop a huge first serve for him. He did somehow manage to have one during his 13 USO run though but that was was one tournament.

 

[the AntiPusher]

No-one can explain talent, it's an abstract concept.

The only way to measure talent is to clone a person so that physically and mentally you have two individuals who are identical genetically. Even so, you would need to ensure that both are subjected to the same external factors and train in the exact same manner. THEN, you could see if one person can hit the ball better than the other, all other things held constant.

The problem with these talent debates is that people are biased and will go to great lengths to diminish the talent of the player they don't particularly like. Nadal haters will make Nadal out to be a running bull who wins because he has unparalleled mental fortitude, unparalleled physicality and never gives up. Let me explain why this holds no water.

First and foremost, let's begin at the start of Nadal's career. Nadal was born a natural right hander who was made to play left handed by his uncle, they thought this would be a successful formula. Simple question, isn't this within itself evidence of the talent of Nadal? How many people can get away with this?

Let's also consider that Nadal was hyped up as an amazing talent when he was a teenager, everyone talked about him as a very talented player. I remember i saw Rafa back in US open in early 2000s when Rafa was 16 years old and he was being competitive against experienced pros. No-one back then saw Nadal as a muscle brute who was a clay court specialist, everyone saw him as a super talented kid who had a bright future, similar to Gasquet. It was only after 2005 season that people started to speak of Nadal as a clay court specialist.

Let's now consider what he has achieved. Nadal has 16 slams (10 FOs, 1 AO, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledon). He has also made multiple finals at AO, USO, Wimbledon where he lost in finals. NO-ONE and i mean NO-ONE who doesn't possess AMAZING talent can accomplish even half of this.

On aesthetics. Many confuse aesthetics with talent, this is why someone that is fluid is thought of as talented vs someone who is not, not so much. Do fluid strokes and graceful movement have anything to do with talent? There are literally thousands of players who look more graceful and fluid than Nadal in this world and they can't accomplish squat.

Gamewise. Nadal can do it all. Nadal can crush backhands and forehands, just watch how he played Del Po on hards or how he played Wawrinka on clay. In the FO final he wasn't just running down Wawrinka balls, it was Wawrinka who was doing all the running and seeing winners go by, ON CLAY. In this year's USO, Del Po was ready to win the title, he took out Roger and knew that if he could make finals, he could win. He ran into a Nadal that stunned him, Nadal was not just running down balls and making Del Po miss, Nadal had weapons and schooled Del Po.

Rafa has abundant talent, when he is confident, he can beat anyone on any surface. Didn't he beat Federer in 08 Wimbledon? beat Djoker at USO final twice? Nadal has every shot in the book and has even become an accomplished volleyer and good doubles player. I would say that his only semi-weakness is a lack of a huge first serve and i believe this is a product of playing lefty as a natural right hander. If we watch the Giles Muller vs Rafa match in this year's Wimby, the only difference was the serve, Muller basically served his way through the match. Aside from a lack of a huge first serve, Nadal simply can do it all.

Question, if running down balls and hitting with spin is all you need to win 10 FOs, why hasn't anyone else come close? Seems to me that if fitness, mental fortitude are all that counts, there would be hundreds of Nadal's on the tour. It's not that hard to get in shape and be mentally tough, this is overrated.

As the 1st Deacon says to the Reverend, "PREACH", You aint telling nothing but the Lord's word."

AMEN

 

[Federberg]

this is why i pointed to a lack of a huge first serve. If i were to compare Federer and Nadal, the serve is the main difference. Take Federer's superior first serve away and Federer prob would be sitting on 11-12 slams or even less, Federer has used his serve with tremendous success in winning many of his slams. The fact that Nadal has won 16 slams without a big first serve is tremendous. I also think Djoker's 12 slams is a big achievement without a big first serve but Djoker has a better serve than Nadal.

What gets Nadal in trouble at Wimby is a lack of free points on first serve, his opponents are under less pressure due to this. The guys that have beaten him at Wimby have used first serves to beat him - Sam Q., Giles Muller, Federer, Kyrgios etc... The first serve is Nadal's biggest problem and i really think it has something to do with him being a natural right hander, i think it's very difficult to develop a huge first serve for him. He did somehow manage to have one during his 13 USO run though but that was was one tournament.

Excellent posts. Pretty much agree with everything you've written. Although I would take issue with your comparison of Federer and Nadal. I don't agree that the main difference between the two is just the serve. Yes Roger's serve is better, all time great frankly, but it's the intention that separates them. It's not that Rafa isn't an attacking player, he is when he wants to be, but I don't feel his intent is naturally attacking. And it's also a different kind of attack. There's a purity of attacking intention in the way Roger plays. I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. I actually believe this is why Roger has tended to be less susceptible to early shocks. He is far more likely to take the racket out of the opponents hands than the converse

 

[the AntiPusher]

Great article by Tignor

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...-stephens-del-potro-shapovalov-federer/69346/

Tignor's pick of Murray to win shows that he picks with something other than a tennis mind however this is one time for Nadal fans, the kiss/curse of death live up to his legend.

 

[MikeOne]

Excellent posts. Pretty much agree with everything you've written. Although I would take issue with your comparison of Federer and Nadal. I don't agree that the main difference between the two is just the serve. Yes Roger's serve is better, all time great frankly, but it's the intention that separates them. It's not that Rafa isn't an attacking player, he is when he wants to be, but I don't feel his intent is naturally attacking. And it's also a different kind of attack. There's a purity of attacking intention in the way Roger plays. I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. I actually believe this is why Roger has tended to be less susceptible to early shocks. He is far more likely to take the racket out of the opponents hands than the converse

I'm not saying they play similarly, i'm speaking about quality of shots. Their shot making outside of the serve are of similar quality, even if the style is different. Nadal hits with more spin, Federer uses more pace but is Federer's forehand of a higher quality than Nadal's? backhand? Federer's slice and volleys are slightly better but Nadal's volleys are very underrated. I have seen Nadal play doubles and he is very good at the net. He has also improved his slice a lot.

The big difference is the first serve. Federer's serve has allowed roger to get through matches when off the ground he didn't have much of an advantage.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not saying they play similarly, i'm speaking about quality of shots. Their shot making outside of the serve are of similar quality, even if the style is different. Nadal hits with more spin, Federer uses more pace but is Federer's forehand of a higher quality than Nadal's? backhand? Federer's slice and volleys are slightly better but Nadal's volleys are very underrated. I have seen Nadal play doubles and he is very good at the net. He has also improved his slice a lot.

The big difference is the first serve. Federer's serve has allowed roger to get through matches when off the ground he didn't have much of an advantage.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that attacking intent/ style is the decisive difference between the two. If you have two players who for all intents and purposes have a similar quality of shot, but one is more defensive or counter-attacking, and the other is super aggressive, they are likely to have quite different match outcomes. It may well be the case that they are both better than the field, but the style difference is going to have an empirically different impact on the guys they play against. I'm simply arguing that the playing style difference between the two is of profoundly more importance than Roger's serve..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There seems to be a propaganda to make Roger look like just a big server. Just couple of weeks someone attempted that as well (is it Nekro or Strokes or both). That is not going to work. Most people can see the truth.

 

[MikeOne]

There seems to be a propaganda to make Roger look like just a big server. Just couple of weeks someone attempted that as well (is it Nekro or Strokes or both). That is not going to work. Most people can see the truth.

this is more pointing out a weakness in Nadal's game rather than making Federer out to be 1 dimensional server. Nowhere did any of my posts make Federer out to be just a server. It's more of a Nadal weakness, his lack of a good first serve is something that stands out to me when i compare him to Federer who ontop of a well rounded game, has had a tremendously effective serve.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Okay, just to point one thing out, in the interest of fairness, yeah Nadal's volleys are underrated (are they though? We've been calling them underrated since 2008... at what point do they stop being such?), but Federer's all around net game is light-years better. It's a bit disingenuous to portray it as if the gap isn't that big.

 

[MikeOne]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that attacking intent/ style is the decisive difference between the two. If you have two players who for all intents and purposes have a similar quality of shot, but one is more defensive or counter-attacking, and the other is super aggressive, they are likely to have quite different match outcomes. It may well be the case that they are both better than the field, but the style difference is going to have an empirically different impact on the guys they play against. I'm simply arguing that the playing style difference between the two is of profoundly more importance than Roger's serve..

Nadal is an extremely offensive minded player, his problem is not that he is not offensive minded, it's the way he hits the ball. Nadal uses angles and spins to move opponents around and is ALWAYS looking to attack. Nadal rarely, if ever, just rallies to the middle of the court when he has a shot he can attack, he almost always goes on the offense. This is in stark contrast to guys like G. Simon, Murray and Hewitt. These players have gotten into the habit of just rallying during parts of matches, not really going for winners or corners. Next time you watch Nadal play, pay attention to how aggressive he is, any ball he can attack and he POUNCES on it, goes for lines, goes for winners. The issue he has is that since he uses spins, the ball doesn't penetrate the court as much but this doesn't mean he is not offensive. Hitting flat and hitting winners aren't necessarily the only criteria for being offensive. Offense is a mindset, going on the attack, irrespective of how flat a player hits and irrespective of whether cold winners are flying through the court.

I remember i once saw Hewitt vs Feliciano Lopez when i went to USO one year. I was surprised by Hewitt, Feliciano was on the offensive 99% of the match yet it was Hewitt hitting winners, but it was counterpunching, defensive tennis. Feliciano was hitting out and Hewitt was running down balls and using Lopez's pace to re-direct the ball and hitting plenty of winners. Hewitt seldom took the offense from the first strike, he waited for Lopez to attack and then used his pace to produce winners. This was a exhibition in effective defensive tennis. Nadal is a completely different player than Hewitt, he does not do well when attacked, Nadal is a terrible counterpuncher. Nadal, unlike Hewitt, is always trying to dictate and always trying to generate his own pace. The reason some think Nadal is more defensive is that he is prone to be attacked by a player that can take ball on the rise and hit flat, Nadal is forced to play defense but he likes to dictate. Players also play extra aggressive against Rafa to avoid being moved all over the court, we saw what happened to Wawrinka at FO this year.

this is something Brad Gilbert said recently:

“The biggest misconception in the history of the world is about Rafa. He has never been a defensive player for one second,” the ESPN analyst said. “He’s an offensive machine, who’s willing to play defense. But the basis of his game is relentless offense. Even if he’s eight feet behind the baseline, he’s relentless on offense that’s willing to play defense.”

 

[Front242]

One thing to also point out is that while both Federer and Nadal's forehand have regressed, Federer's has definitely downgraded much more. Earlier this year he was hitting way more backhand winners than forehand. Federer's forehand used to be the most deadly shot in tennis. In his prime if you hit the ball to his forehand or he managed to get his forehand on a ball, 90% of the time the point would soon be over. These days it's far from that.

Both he and Nadal also hit far more shanks these days and Nadal has the short ball problem for years and his forehand down the line used to be much better. That's not to say they don't both hit gems from time to time on their forehands, 'cos clearly they do, but both used to be way better. I'd say both Federer and Nadal have better backhands than forehands now in 2017.

 

[Federberg]

Nadal is an extremely offensive minded player, his problem is not that he is not offensive minded, it's the way he hits the ball. Nadal uses angles and spins to move opponents around and is ALWAYS looking to attack. Nadal rarely, if ever, just rallies to the middle of the court when he has a shot he can attack, he almost always goes on the offense. This is in stark contrast to guys like G. Simon, Murray and Hewitt. These players have gotten into the habit of just rallying during parts of matches, not really going for winners or corners. Next time you watch Nadal play, pay attention to how aggressive he is, any ball he can attack and he POUNCES on it, goes for lines, goes for winners. The issue he has is that since he uses spins, the ball doesn't penetrate the court as much but this doesn't mean he is not offensive. Hitting flat and hitting winners aren't necessarily the only criteria for being offensive. Offense is a mindset, going on the attack, irrespective of how flat a player hits and irrespective of whether cold winners are flying through the court.

I remember i once saw Hewitt vs Feliciano Lopez when i went to USO one year. I was surprised by Hewitt, Feliciano was on the offensive 99% of the match yet it was Hewitt hitting winners, but it was counterpunching, defensive tennis. Feliciano was hitting out and Hewitt was running down balls and using Lopez's pace to re-direct the ball and hitting plenty of winners. Hewitt seldom took the offense from the first strike, he waited for Lopez to attack and then used his pace to produce winners. This was a exhibition in effective defensive tennis. Nadal is a completely different player than Hewitt, he does not do well when attacked, Nadal is a terrible counterpuncher. Nadal, unlike Hewitt, is always trying to dictate and always trying to generate his own pace. The reason some think Nadal is more defensive is that he is prone to be attacked by a player that can take ball on the rise and hit flat, Nadal is forced to play defense but he likes to dictate. Players also play extra aggressive against Rafa to avoid being moved all over the court, we saw what happened to Wawrinka at FO this year.

this is something Brad Gilbert said recently:

“The biggest misconception in the history of the world is about Rafa. He has never been a defensive player for one second,” the ESPN analyst said. “He’s an offensive machine, who’s willing to play defense. But the basis of his game is relentless offense. Even if he’s eight feet behind the baseline, he’s relentless on offense that’s willing to play defense.”

I was desperately trying to avoid calling Rafa a defensive player, and to be honest I don't think I did (for the record I've watched Rafa live in 2 slam finals, Wimbledon 07 and RG 09, in both cases he felt like the aggressor against Roger, so take it from me I don't call him defensive ever). This was why I tried to refine my description to "intent" as opposed to style at first. It's just a basic fact that Roger has extreme attacking intent, while Rafa's aggression is expressed in a more attritional way (there is nothing wrong with this, and to an extent it's a relative thing). The point is when you do that you increase the likelihood that your opponent is going to get a chance at a shot that takes the racket out of your hand. I think that history has proved this to be the case with Rafa. in any case, the point is however you want to categorise them, it's the difference in their intent or style which is the most profound. Not the serve. Frankly if it was just about the serve then for my point not to have any weight Federer would have to have an absurdly high ace advantage over Rafa. In fact while he does have an ace advantage over Rafa it's not really material in the context of a match. What makes Rogers serve such a killer is the set up, it enables him to instantly dominate the rally even if it's put into play. I hope you see my point now?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was desperately trying to avoid calling Rafa a defensive player, and to be honest I don't think I did (for the record I've watched Rafa live in 2 slam finals, Wimbledon 07 and RG 09, in both cases he felt like the aggressor against Roger, so take it from me I don't call him defensive ever). This was why I tried to refine my description to "intent" as opposed to style at first. It's just a basic fact that Roger has extreme attacking intent, while Rafa's aggression is expressed in a more attritional way (there is nothing wrong with this, and to an extent it's a relative thing). The point is when you do that you increase the likelihood that your opponent is going to get a chance at a shot that takes the racket out of your hand. I think that history has proved this to be the case with Rafa. in any case, the point is however you want to categorise them, it's the difference in their intent or style which is the most profound. Not the serve. Frankly if it was just about the serve then for my point not to have any weight Federer would have to have an absurdly high ace advantage over Rafa. In fact while he does have an ace advantage over Rafa it's not really material in the context of a match. What makes Rogers serve such a killer is the set up, it enables him to instantly dominate the rally even if it's put into play. I hope you see my point now?

I don't recall Rafa playing in RG 09 finals.