2019 Australian Open Semifinals: Nadal vs. Tsitsipas

[isabelle]

Tsitsi ate a bagel

 

[lob]

I'm still mostly unimpressed with him and the next gen. The tour hasn't had a good young player since Del Po.

For a 20 year old, he is very impressive. Roger couldn't handle him because of atrocious BP conversion. Clearly it's easy to rattle Roger these days. Nadal puts back balls into play relentlessly and punishes mistakes brutally. He destroyed Stefanos' confidence in that first set, especially as it is Stefanos' first GS Semi. Rafa has had the best return game stats on the tour even in his worst years.

You are however right on aging better. Nadal has always greatly exaggerated his injuries. Given his extremely physical game, Nadal has certainly aged immensely well. He won't play until he is 37 but he won't need to.

 

[Federberg]

Tsitsipas talks about how hard it is to face Rafa's strange game.
“The rest, it kind of felt like in a way it wasn’t tennis so much like the other matches that I played. It felt like a different dimension of tennis completely.

“He gives you no rhythm. He plays just a different game style than the rest of the players. He has this, I don’t know, talent that no other player has. I’ve never seen a player have this. He makes you play bad. I don’t know. I would call that a talent.”

that makes complete sense to me. It's not talent though. It's just the nature of the lefty game played at a level that's never been achieved by any other lefty. I dare say quite a few felt the same way about Mac in his heyday, but of course Rafa is another level. Match ups matter.... I would expect Zverev to eventually have more of a comfort zone playing Rafa than Tsitsipas for example. Doesn't necessarily means he's better than the Greek fella, as I said... match ups matter

 

[lob]

that makes complete sense to me. It's not talent though. It's just the nature of the lefty game played at a level that's never been achieved by any other lefty. I dare say quite a few felt the same way about Mac in his heyday, but of course Rafa is another level. Match ups matter.... I would expect Zverev to eventually have more of a comfort zone playing Rafa than Tsitsipas for example. Doesn't necessarily means he's better than the Greek fella, as I said... match ups matter

Probably the only one handed backhand that handled Nadal well, even if sporadically, is Stan's.

 

[atttomole]

Excellent performance from Nadal. He is clearly in the zone. The fact he can hit winners from pretty much any part of the court makes him formidable. Among other things, he was able to exploit Tsitsipas’s backhand. Whenever he hit the ball to the backhand, he took control of the point and that allowed him to hold serve more easily, even when Tsitsipas retuned his serve. In addition, he was able to take Tsitsipas wide, leaving the court open to finish off the points.

 

[imjimmy]

well Frew McMillan and I totally disagree with your assessment of Rafa’s level of play...my fear is that if some ungodly event like an injury or close roof detours Rafa like at SW19 (2018) semis..you will again rise to be this board’s favorite soothsayer..God help us all if that comes to fruition.

I was at least right on the scoreline. I said Nadal would win in 3 if he played his best. He did and won in 3.
And until this match, I was not particularly impressed with his level. He played great yesterday though. Still, it's not his peak level or anything. And he has played better, actually far better, on hards before, not least in UsOpen 2010/2013. Keep in mind, a one-handed bh player who cannot defend and grind will make Nadal look good. And the fact he has not been broken has less to do with his serve and more to do with his ground game and the opposition.

Will this level be enough against Djokovic on the Serb's favorite surface? I think Nadal will have to raise his level a notch or two to beat Novak, And I think the Spaniard is well aware of that. As he replied in the very first question that JMac asked him that he could and needed to play even better.

 

[imjimmy]

Probably the only one handed backhand that handled Nadal well, even if sporadically, is Stan's.

Just in one match. Otherwise Nadal has dominated Stan very heavily. Before AO 14, I think he had never lost to Stan.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Just in one match. Otherwise Nadal has dominated Stan very heavily. Before AO 14, I think he had never lost to Stan.

He lost 26 sets in 12 matches before that final.

But since AO 2014 it's a little respectable 3-5 in Nadals favor

 

[atttomole]

I was at least right on the scoreline. I said Nadal would win in 3 if he played his best. He did and won in 3.
And until this match, I was not particularly impressed with his level. He played great yesterday though. Still, it's not his peak level or anything. And he has played better, actually far better, on hards before, not least in UsOpen 2010/2013. Keep in mind, a one-handed bh player who cannot defend and grind will make Nadal look good. And the fact he has not been broken has less to do with his serve and more to do with his ground game and the opposition.

Will this level be enough against Djokovic on the Serb's favorite surface? I think Nadal will have to raise his level a notch or two to beat Novak, And I think the Spaniard is well aware of that. As he replied in the very first question that JMac asked him that he could and needed to play even better.

I thought he was broken once by Duckworth.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I was at least right on the scoreline. I said Nadal would win in 3 if he played his best. He did and won in 3.
And until this match, I was not particularly impressed with his level. He played great yesterday though. Still, it's not his peak level or anything. And he has played better, actually far better, on hards before, not least in UsOpen 2010/2013. Keep in mind, a one-handed bh player who cannot defend and grind will make Nadal look good. And the fact he has not been broken has less to do with his serve and more to do with his ground game and the opposition.

Will this level be enough against Djokovic on the Serb's favorite surface? I think Nadal will have to raise his level a notch or two to beat Novak, And I think the Spaniard is well aware of that. As he replied in the very first question that JMac asked him that he could and needed to play even better.

I agree with a lot of what you posted.. although I am not a fan of Pouille. I do respect his ability to extend the points..no way he will defeat Novak but if he can push Novak for 3 or more it will be exactly what the Doctor would order for the Dirt Devil on Sunday.

 

[brokenshoelace]

that makes complete sense to me. It's not talent though. It's just the nature of the lefty game played at a level that's never been achieved by any other lefty. I dare say quite a few felt the same way about Mac in his heyday, but of course Rafa is another level. Match ups matter.... I would expect Zverev to eventually have more of a comfort zone playing Rafa than Tsitsipas for example. Doesn't necessarily means he's better than the Greek fella, as I said... match ups matter

"talent" might be a debatable word in this context, but it's far more accurate than the above characterization IMO, which I take a bit of an issue with. Again, "the nature of the lefty game" is not some weird random occurrence. To me, this is what the above post seems to imply, or at least that's what the wording indicates. The nature of Nadal's game was developed by Nadal to be played "at a level that's never been achieved by any other lefty" (your words) and that is definitely a talent. His ability to hit the ball as aggressively, as heavily and as accurately as he is, without sacrificing too much in terms of UE (and I agree with your earlier implication that this is some of the best he's played in terms of aggression and initiative) is definitely a talent. Now where the word "talent" is debatable (and even Stefanos seemed not too sure it's the correct term) is whether that's part of tennis IQ, because to me, that's what makes Nadal so special and that's what Stefanos is really referring to in terms of "making you play bad." Nadal knows how to utilize his game in a way that just makes you play bad. He's almost always choosing the right shot, the right game-plan, and has the mental and physical discipline to execute.

There's a reason why only a few players can really handle his game. When you think about it, the number of players over the years is pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things, and it's interesting that despite losing a step in terms of movement and physicality, it seems like his actual hitting in the rallies has gotten better (from a consistent aggression standpoint), and over the years, fewer and fewer players seem to be able to handle his game, which goes against logic, as you'd think the tour would adapt to his game better over the years. Also, for guys like Stefanos who haven't played him a lot and still haven't adapted, it's especially brutal. He almost makes Nadal's game sound alien-esque but I understand why.

Conversely, it will be a much different story in the final against an opponent built to deal with his game who has played him some 50 times over the years.

 

[imjimmy]

I thought he was broken once by Duckworth.

Right. It was in the beginning. I think I forget to add recently. Or at least I thought I did.

 

[imjimmy]

I agree with a lot of what you posted.. although I am not a fan of Pouille. I do respect his ability to extend the points..no way he will defeat Novak but if he can push Novak for 3 or more it will be exactly what the Doctor would order for the Dirt Devil on Sunday.

My fear for Nadal against Novak is this: The only time when Rafa has had success against Novak on hards is when he was serving significantly better especially in 2010 and to a lesser extent in 2013 . So Novak will be in every one of his service games at this time.
Second thing is that Nadal's backhand and movement towards that side is not as good as it used to be during the years I mentioned.

One of the biggest problems that Nadal has against Novak is the Serb's relentless attack on Nadal's backhand. Novak has this cc forehand which is many times short and angles away . That is not a weapon against a right hander . But it is against Nadal , as it pushes Rafa wide on the backhand. When Nadal plays his best he can flatten out his backhand and respond cc or even DTL sometimes. But he isn't hitting it that well right now and it is easy for Novak just to place the ball on Rafa's backhand to control the point or to hit deep into Nadal's forehand and open him up.

Lastly and most importantly, let's not ignore the surface.The decoturf at the US open takes Nadal's spin much better than the court here. He can push his opponents wide and back with the spin and the bounce. The plexicushion at AO just doesn't respond to the spin in the same way nor does it bounce as much. Lot of times Rafa's ball just sits up or Nadal starts looping to get depth. So at any given time this surface will be less favorable for Nadal than playing in the US open, which explains why he has a great record there.

 

[rafanoy1992]

My fear for Nadal against Novak is this: The only time when Rafa has had success against Novak on hards is when he was serving significantly better especially in 2010 and to a lesser extent in 2013 . So Novak will be in every one of his service games at this time.
Second thing is that Nadal's backhand and movement towards that side is not as good as it used to be during the years I mentioned.

One of the biggest problems that Nadal has against Novak is the Serb's relentless attack on Nadal's backhand. Novak has this cc forehand which is many times short and angles away . That is not a weapon against a right hander . But it is against Nadal , as it pushes Rafa wide on the backhand. When Nadal plays his best he can flatten out his backhand and respond cc or even DTL sometimes. But he isn't hitting it that well right now and it is easy for Novak just to place the ball on Rafa's backhand to control the point or to hit deep into Nadal's forehand and open him up.

Lastly and most importantly, let's not ignore the surface.The decoturf at the US open takes Nadal's spin much better than the court here. He can push his opponents wide and back with the spin and the bounce. The plexicushion at AO just doesn't respond to the spin in the same way nor does it bounce as much. Lot of times Rafa's ball just sits up or Nadal starts looping to get depth. So at any given time this surface will be less favorable for Nadal than playing in the US open, which explains why he has a great record there.

While I totally agree with your assessment about Nadal at AO and at USO...I would say that another big reason Nadal has a better results in USO over AO is simple: "luck".

I know is not a smart way to use luck as a factor when determining a player's success at any particular slam (especially to a technician like you and Broken). But in any sport, luck plays an important role on how a certain events folds out (it is not the main reason but can be a big reason).

Just look at Nadal's finals appearances at AO:

2009 - He played a 5 hour match in the semifinals against Verdasco and miraculously somehow beat Federer in the final with less than 48 hours to recover

2012 - He got outplayed by Djokovic from sets 2, 3 and first half set 4. And with some luck, he was able to save virtually match points (he was down 0-40 on his own serve). In addition, he was able to break Djokovic in the 5th set. Then, the luck he was able to get in the fourth set unfortunately turned on him when he miss that easy backhand pass at 30-15 and you know the story.

2014 - we know what happened to him after the first set (though he got outplayed in the first set)

2017 - Now, in this match, I would not say luck played a big role in this match (I thought Federer was the better player in the fifth set) but he still had a 3-2 lead and had a game point on his serve.

Overall, if "luck" was his in favor in two out of three finals (2012, 2014, 2017), he would have the same AO title as with USO.

One more thing: Nadal is currently 61-12 (84%) at AO and 58-11 (84%) at USO. The only difference between the two is that he has 2 less AO titles than US Open titles.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal from the press conference:

"Probably the backhand worked today better than it did during the tournament."

Just throwing this out there, considering plenty were on my case for saying that shot hasn't looked too good, it feels like even Nadal agrees. But there are few overly sensitive members here that think if you say anything other than Nadal played lights out every match then you're hating. And then when he finally does play lights out, it's somehow an indication that a previous assessment was wrong. Well, no. He wasn't playing great earlier, but solid enough and down to the level of competition, but he picked it up in the semis and played great. Both can be true.

 

[lob]

It could still go either way. Their matches are too close to call. I don't see a favorite going in. The surface is fair to both their games. RN wants this more than ND. At SW19, ND had to play his best match of the year to eke out the SF.

On to the greatest rivalry in the history of tennis.

 

[imjimmy]

While I totally agree with your assessment about Nadal at AO and at USO...I would say that another big reason Nadal has a better results in USO over AO is simple: "luck".

I know is not a smart way to use luck as a factor when determining a player's success at any particular slam (especially to a technician like you and Broken). But in any sport, luck plays an important role on how a certain events folds out (it is not the main reason but can be a big reason).

Just look at Nadal's finals appearances at AO:

2009 - He played a 5 hour match in the semifinals against Verdasco and miraculously somehow beat Federer in the final with less than 48 hours to recover

2012 - He got outplayed by Djokovic from sets 2, 3 and first half set 4. And with some luck, he was able to save virtually match points (he was down 0-40 on his own serve). In addition, he was able to break Djokovic in the 5th set. Then, the luck he was able to get in the fourth set unfortunately turned on him when he miss that easy backhand pass at 30-15 and you know the story.

2014 - we know what happened to him after the first set (though he got outplayed in the first set)

2017 - Now, in this match, I would not say luck played a big role in this match (I thought Federer was the better player in the fifth set) but he still had a 3-2 lead and had a game point on his serve.

Overall, if "luck" was his in favor in two out of three finals (2012, 2014, 2017), he would have the same AO title as with USO.

One more thing: Nadal is currently 61-12 (84%) at AO and 58-11 (84%) at USO. The only difference between the two is that he has 2 less AO titles than US Open titles.

Actually the only one I would count unlucky in that list would be the AO 2014.
AO 2012 - Djokovic was gassed after the Murray match. I couldn't believe he could play another 6 hour match against Rafa. His match against Murray in the SF was absolutely brutal and took him to the limit. Consequently, he was sleeping through set 1 almost. Nadal was rested and had Djokovic been fresh, I believe Novak would have pulled that in 4.

AO 2017: Fed was just better in set 5. The only bad luck for Nadal was having to struggle with Dimitrov for 5+ hours in the SF.

Also in AO, Nadal has NEVER looked unplayable. Where as in UsOpen 2010 and UsOpen 2013 - he looked like the best hardcourt player.
In UsOpen 2013, he had won Montreal and Cincy as well. He won three consecutive tournaments and really looked unstoppable. In UsOpen 2010 he was serving 135 mph bombs and I recall how in one game he blasted like 4 consecutive service winners against Novak. Not to mention he beat Novak in 4 sets, didn't have to even go to a 5th.

In general, Nadal's spin is just more effective at the UsOpen. He almost always plays less defense over there. AO, he usually ends up doing a lot of running as his forehand doesn't penetrate as well and the ball sits up.

 

[Denis]

Hats off to Nadal, he is on a mission. Only one guy in the planet that can stop him here and he’s still in the tournament. Novak will need to bring nothing less than his absolute best if he manages to get past Pouille.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is the most informative press conference I've ever heard from Nadal. Some of the highlights that I've found most interesting:


"Q. You're clearly moving forward very well, taking short balls, all the opportunities you can. How would you rate the way you're doing that now compared to the rest of your career?

RAFAEL NADAL: Is always the same: we can't compare the rest of my career with today. I am playing well today. I am doing a lot of things well. The results say during my career I did a lot of things very well, too. We can't say now I am playing better than never, no. I did a lot of things well during my career.

Today I have to adapt my game to the new time and to my age, that's all. That's what I did during all my career, just try to adapt my game with the circumstances that I went through. That's the only reason why at this moment I still here competing at high level.

I know during that 15, 16 years, 17 years of tennis, professional tennis career, I going to lose things on my way, so I need to add new things. That's what I tried to do during all my career, to improve the things that I can improve."



And the following, which I think is the single most informative answer Nadal has ever given:



"Q. How aggressive you were. How is your aggression going?

RAFAEL NADAL: I was aggressive because I am playing well, no? Is nothing new that I am aggressive. The problem with myself is because I had a lot of success on clay people probably think I am not aggressive. I really believe that people thinks that are completely wrong. That's the real thing, no?

Of course, I am not doing serve and volley. I am not hitting winners every ball. But I play all the shots with a goal. There is not better way to be aggressive than hit every shot with the goal to create damage on the opponent. That was my goal during all the career.

Today I can do that damage little bit earlier than before because during this event I have been serving great. So when you serve great, then the first ball normally is a little bit easier. That's probably the only reason. I had the determination to make that happen. That's all.

I can't play like Roger when I don't have the serve of Roger. You know, Roger have a lot of free points, have lot of times that he starts with the serve, then he have a not-very-difficult forehand. Was not my case during all my career because I never had that serve.

But today I'm serving better. That's why I'm able to create more winners on the first ball. That's the only reason. For the rest of the things, I always tried to be aggressive. I have my mentality. You can't go against the way you understand the sport. I can't play trying to hit winners every ball if I don't understand the sport that way. You can't deal with the pressure. The mental part have to go in front of the game. That's what I did during all my career."


This was also interesting re: pre-tournament preparation:


"Q. You obviously didn't complete that many tournaments last year. You haven't played an official event since the US Open. Do you think the people like us kind of overrate the fact that you haven't played for nearly four months coming into this event, that perhaps it's not as relevant as we might think?

RAFAEL NADAL: No, it is relevant. Is normal that you believe and you have doubts about me, because I have doubts about me. Of course, is not a problem for me. I really understand 100% because I have the same doubts.

Is true that if that happens 10 years ago probably will be a much more difficult situation for me because I needed always to be on rhythm, to play good tennis. Since awhile, I understand of course it's better because you feel more confident on yourself. You feel more safe when you are on rhythm.

I believe that when you are older, you lose less the tennis when you are playing less. You don't need that many matches to play well. That's something that happened for the last two years for me. Probably one of the reasons is because I am practicing well when I am not competing, then that allow me to be back on action a little bit quicker. That's all. It's not a big reason.

Of course, is an issue. Is not easy to be back after four months, five months, and play the way I am playing. Of course, I didn't expect that at all."

 

[Moxie]

"talent" might be a debatable word in this context, but it's far more accurate than the above characterization IMO, which I take a bit of an issue with. Again, "the nature of the lefty game" is not some weird random occurrence. To me, this is what the above post seems to imply, or at least that's what the wording indicates. The nature of Nadal's game was developed by Nadal to be played "at a level that's never been achieved by any other lefty" (your words) and that is definitely a talent. His ability to hit the ball as aggressively, as heavily and as accurately as he is, without sacrificing too much in terms of UE (and I agree with your earlier implication that this is some of the best he's played in terms of aggression and initiative) is definitely a talent. Now where the word "talent" is debatable (and even Stefanos seemed not too sure it's the correct term) is whether that's part of tennis IQ, because to me, that's what makes Nadal so special and that's what Stefanos is really referring to in terms of "making you play bad." Nadal knows how to utilize his game in a way that just makes you play bad. He's almost always choosing the right shot, the right game-plan, and has the mental and physical discipline to execute.

There's a reason why only a few players can really handle his game. When you think about it, the number of players over the years is pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things, and it's interesting that despite losing a step in terms of movement and physicality, it seems like his actual hitting in the rallies has gotten better (from a consistent aggression standpoint), and over the years, fewer and fewer players seem to be able to handle his game, which goes against logic, as you'd think the tour would adapt to his game better over the years. Also, for guys like Stefanos who haven't played him a lot and still haven't adapted, it's especially brutal. He almost makes Nadal's game sound alien-esque but I understand why.

Conversely, it will be a much different story in the final against an opponent built to deal with his game who has played him some 50 times over the years.

This is well-described. I would add to this something that Tiafoe said after he played him for the first time the other night: "Point in, point out, I've never seen anyone so locked in." I think that also "makes you play bad."