It's BS because, among other things, Nadal saved set point at 6-4 with a forehand mishit on the return. The way that he weaseled his way out of the first set was vintage Gnatal. He truly lived up to the nickname. The other guy was showing much greater offensive firepower but Nadal scraped, clawed, and eeked his way into narrowly pulling it out.
2019 Men's US Open Semifinals: Rafael Nadal vs. Matteo Berrettini
- Thread starter rafanoy1992
- Start date
It's BS because, among other things, Nadal saved set point at 6-4 with a forehand mishit on the return. The way that he weaseled his way out of the first set was vintage Gnatal. He truly lived up to the nickname. The other guy was showing much greater offensive firepower but Nadal scraped, clawed, and eeked his way into narrowly pulling it out.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,605
- Reactions
- 14,763
- Points
- 113
Really? Because you've been trying to sell the notion that he was basically a talentless flash-in-the-pan for more than a decade now. In your version, there wouldn't have been so much success, so I'm not clear how you understand it.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,605
- Reactions
- 14,763
- Points
- 113
The reason Nadal rarely "chokes" is that he has excellent physical stamina and maintains a constant level. He forces his opponents to play great offense to beat him (which is entirely possible), but if they collapse in a key moment like Berretini did in the tiebreak, they inevitably become discouraged and depressed. Then Nadal keeps chugging along at the same level while his opponents wallow in despair from having choked in a key moment.
As for this match, I'm sorry, I don't think Berretini has much to be proud of tonight. Getting Nadal to a tiebreak on hardcourts is nothing special for a player of his ability. Nadal did not dethrone Federer and Djokovic did not dethrone Nadal by losing big matches and listening to the conventional wisdom that said they had to lose the match. This was an excellent opportunity for Berretini, plain and simple. The US Open court is perfect for his game and he had the 1st set tiebreak in the palm of his hands on multiple occasions. To have the first set won with that serve and that forehand would have put him in excellent position to win the match.
The 1st set tiebreak was a total disaster and this was a huge missed opportunity for Berretini. No moral victories. A total disappointment in a match he should have won decisively.
Nadalfan2013
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 2,768
- Reactions
- 1,426
- Points
- 113
Lol.....I never said he was "talentless." I said that he has overachieved to a ridiculous extent in the biggest matches against the best opponents. That is very different than saying he is "talentless."
Do I think he should have 12 French Open titles? Absolutely not.
Do I think the clay series with Federer should have been so lopsided and that Federer did "everything he possibly could" against Nadal? Absolutely not. I think Federer for much of that series was a pansy and an idiot in how he approaches those matches.
Do I think Djokovic should have lost either of the US Open finals to Nadal? Absolutely not.
But does that mean I think Nadal is "talentless"? No. I just think he is a huge overachiever for reasons other than tennis skill (having to do with himself and his opponents). In my view, his shotmaking talent warrants something in the range of 5-10 Slams, mostly on clay.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,605
- Reactions
- 14,763
- Points
- 113
As to the first bolded above, is that your technical analysis? As to the second bolded, Berrettini has only played 2 matches on Ashe, and he was playing Challengers earlier this year, so I'm not sure where your certainty about his game or what suits it comes from.
Simple: carryover from the first two sets. Nadal forces his opponents to produce a high offensive level in order to beat him (and many players have done so). Berretini was doing this for much of the first set. So to play at the level Berretini was and to be that close to winning the first set and then lose it causes a huge emotional spiral. Nadal's opponents know that while outplaying Nadal is entirely possible, it is also physically taxing. So the understanding of what will be required physically to come back against him often causes discouragement. Then you see the errors start and that's where you get the lopsided scorelines.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,605
- Reactions
- 14,763
- Points
- 113
Um, you have absolutely refused ever to acknowledge that Rafa's achievements are about "talent." I have asked you point blank and you've said "no." You've given ground on athletic, and mentally sturdy, but you have never given an inch on a "talented tennis player." Are you changing that? Is he a talented tennis player, in your estimation? Point-blank question.
Of course, you've been forced to move the goal posts across the years from your early estimation of him, by dint of being too ludicrous, given his increasing achievements, but you haven't moved it much. And your assessment is still pretty ridiculous. Based on your above, you're still putting it down to "luck." 18 Majors. Luck? Really? OK, you give him 5-10. That put's 8-13 in the "luck" category.
Moxie, allow me to try my best to be polite in answering your first question: I hope you know that when you're pushing yourself to the cardiovascular max and you're playing a competitive game with a ball, sustaining your energy level has a lot to do with your emotions over the scoreline. If you're going all-out, for example, in trying to win a tight tiebreak against an opponent like Nadal who plays great defense and you come up short, it is emotionally debilitating - especially if you feel that you gave it away by shooting yourself in the foot.
My certainty about what surface suits Berretini's game comes from watching it. Clearly he has an excellent serve and forehand while his backhand is shaky. The US Open court is fast enough that it allows him to hit a great number of winners but also just slow enough that he has time to set up his shots without being as quick as Djokovic or Federer. He is like Wawrinka in that he benefits from having a little bit of extra time to set up his shots. That said, I don't think the Australian Open court is as good for him because it is too slow and too defensive. It's hard to see him outlasting Djokovic in Melbourne, for example, with that backhand weakness and without being able to hit bombs through the court as regularly as he can in NY.
Yeah, when you're comparing him to Djokovic and Federer, and I stand by that. I consider both of them to be significantly more talented than he is. I also think Nadal has won numerous matches against Top 10 players for reasons other than talent. But that still makes him more talented than 97% of tennis players.
Correction: less talented than Djokovic, Federer, and a small handful of others.
Point-blank answer: yes, he is more talented than 98% of the guys on tour, but not so talented that he should have 12 French Open titles and as many US Open titles as Djokovic. The reasons he has that level of outlandish achievements do not have to do with tennis talent.
There are numerous occasions in which both Djokovic and Federer should have annihilated him on clay and other surfaces and did not do so.
To be precise, I haven't moved it at all.
"Luck" is the wrong word. "Overachieving" is more appropriate, and that goes hand-in-hand with his main rivals underachieving.
This is some historically dumb shit said right there.
"A glass is full from a mere half because it's halfway empty."
Like... zoom out.
Being wrong, and insisting on being correct despite being wrong. Overestimating one's relevance. Add a lot of pseudo-knowledgeable blabber, and here you are, the representation of the DK effect's downside at its finest.
You have a very narrow-minded view on what talent is, which results in confusing talent with elegance, and consequently, you come off as daft, saying some historically dumb shit you can unmistakably detect by two qualities:
It can't be refuted.
AND
It can't be proven either.
BUT
It can be laughed at.
It's not that Nadal overachieves despite the supposed lack of talent compared with the other top guys, because he's less talented.
It's that you have wrongly decided without any rational base that he's less talented than the other top guys (bias basically), which results in you being proven wrong again, again and again, and in a desperate attempt to save your face, instead of admitting your mistake like smart people do, you keep re-blabbering halfwit nonsense which only exacerbates the already painful state of affairs.
Overachieving is by its nature a short-term matter. Because it is LUCK. You can overachieve for a year or two. If you have won something twelve times in twelve different years, it's not overachieving. It's an achievement. As a matter of fact, Nadal is so good on clay, Federer, Djokovic and Wawrinka overachieved by even getting one RG title apiece.
Zoom out and look at yourself, clown.
Bonaca
Major Winner
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reactions
- 867
- Points
- 113
We have been through this a lot of times.
I, as a big Novak Fan, want to share my thoughts about him.
Nadal is not only talented, he is in some way unique. In case of tennis skills i would say he is lesser talented than the other two, but his biggest weapon, in my opinion, is his physical and mental strength AND CONSISTENCY. Looking at this he is a century talent, bigger than the other two.
For me the other kind of talent is more impressing.
His playing style is made for clay, but his physical abilities are the reason for his tremendous success on the other surfaces.
I don't know if he really has a neurotic disorder, think i read that in the past. I can imagine it helps him to work that hard, training means mostly repeating shots, combinations and so on... and he does this massively like a machine.
And so is he playing all the time, like a robot till the last point. He is the toughest to beat, no doubt about it. Like Serena i guess in her prime years. Don't watch a lot WTA since Monica.
I really dislike him, not because of that or his wins against the other two, only for his behavior on court. I can't stand him watching.
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Oh wow, I knew this thread would be filled with @calitennis127 backtracking and looks like, I'm right. I haven't read his replies yet so I'll get to them when I do.
For now I will say this:
His nonsensical prediction aside, he did have a few good points about Berrettini aside from the obvious praising of the forehand (namely talking up his touch, and it is really good) but his overall excitement about him was blinded by his bias for what he considers to be the standard for a talented tennis player and his dislike of Nadal (yeah yeah it's his fans he hates, bla bla).
However, his scouting report failed to mention a few key things:
1- Berrettini's backhand is putrid. No spin, very little direction or control, and often fails to clear the net when he tries to do something with it. Kyrgios-like in how bad it is and I'd say maybe even worse. No player with that backhand is ever going to be a match-up problem for Nadal. Not saying he can't beat him, but he'll need a really hot day in every other aspect of his game. Because that backhand is just awful and helps Nadal settle down a lot since he knows he doesn't have to take risks with his own forehand (notice how little Rafa actually changed direction with his forehand and going up the line, because he knew he can just pummel the backhand).
2- Berrettini's movement is pretty sub par compared to the top 3, and as a result he has zero transition game. Absolutely zero. Not once was he able to turn defense into attack, or hit some deep defensive lob that gets him back in the point. Nothing. Actually there was one down the line backhand winner out of nowhere from an improbable position late in the match. That's it. You're absolutely not going to beat Nadal with that movement.
3- As always, people overrate the importance of shotmaking and neglect the importance of having penetrating, steady, consistent rally shots that can hurt the opponent. Yes, when he runs around his forehand and starts pummeling the ball, he was able to put Nadal on the back-foot. However, notice how many times he was able to do that on Nadal's serve...close to zero. He had zero break points and only took one of Nadal's service games to deuce. Why is that, other than Nadal serving and playing well? Well, a few reasons:
- Berrettini's return game is nothing special.
- Berrettini's forehand is still really reliant on his own serve because his rally shots are generally not good enough to be able to set it up. In other words, yes, Berrettini was able to hurt Nadal with his forehand after setting it up with huge serves. But he doesn't have a good enough ground game, and no amount of Cali tap-dancing is going to change that point about the match. His cross court rally forehand really is so forgettable, to where some comparisons to Del Potro (who has one of the best cross court forehands on tour) were lazy and laughable.
4- Berrettini's ability to hit winners in general is reliant on the serve. Think about how many 1-2 punch combos, how many big serves followed by a drop shot winner, etc... it's not because his forehand isn't big enough to finish a point - of course it is. But it goes back to the above. Meanwhile, Nadal was never really forced to even go for winners because Berrettini's defensive ability is so poor and his backhand is so bad that so many rallies ended quickly because he either couldn't fully retrieve a Nadal penetrating shot or just made a backhand error.
5- While I like Berrettini, he's 23. He's still young but not exactly super young or anything. The reason I bring that up is that like many of the next gen dudes, it seems to me he doesn't really know how to properly construct a point. We've had wars about the big 3 around here, discussing their individual shots, abilities to hit winners, etc...But one thing all 3 of them have is the ability to construct points perfectly, and for the most part, excellent shot selection. It's a point Lendl, Mac, Wilander and Becker brought up in that podcast that Tented linked the other day about the next gen, and it's such a good one. Kyrgios is the main culprit: he's got a lot of power, a lot of flash, ability to hit tough shots...yet he has to rely on all of that because his ground game is poor and he lacks the ability to do some of the slightly more "basic" things as well as the top guys. Meanwhile, if you look at someone like Del Potro at that age, he never had that problem.
6- Also I'd like to add that Berrettini's placement on his forehand is nothing special. Hand-eye coordination isn't especially striking. Lack of angles is one glaring example. Compare that to Nadal...
7- Berrettini definitely blew that first set tie-break, but the only reason we were there is Nadal failing to convert on 2929292 break points. For someone with such a big serve, it's quite something that he faced a break point in almost literally every service game throughout the match, which tells you a lot. I'm not sure if Cali will portray the match as Berrettini bossing Nadal around but I'm excited about his replies earlier. I'll go back and read.
8- With all that being said, I REAAAALLY like Berrettini's mentality.
For now I will say this:
His nonsensical prediction aside, he did have a few good points about Berrettini aside from the obvious praising of the forehand (namely talking up his touch, and it is really good) but his overall excitement about him was blinded by his bias for what he considers to be the standard for a talented tennis player and his dislike of Nadal (yeah yeah it's his fans he hates, bla bla).
However, his scouting report failed to mention a few key things:
1- Berrettini's backhand is putrid. No spin, very little direction or control, and often fails to clear the net when he tries to do something with it. Kyrgios-like in how bad it is and I'd say maybe even worse. No player with that backhand is ever going to be a match-up problem for Nadal. Not saying he can't beat him, but he'll need a really hot day in every other aspect of his game. Because that backhand is just awful and helps Nadal settle down a lot since he knows he doesn't have to take risks with his own forehand (notice how little Rafa actually changed direction with his forehand and going up the line, because he knew he can just pummel the backhand).
2- Berrettini's movement is pretty sub par compared to the top 3, and as a result he has zero transition game. Absolutely zero. Not once was he able to turn defense into attack, or hit some deep defensive lob that gets him back in the point. Nothing. Actually there was one down the line backhand winner out of nowhere from an improbable position late in the match. That's it. You're absolutely not going to beat Nadal with that movement.
3- As always, people overrate the importance of shotmaking and neglect the importance of having penetrating, steady, consistent rally shots that can hurt the opponent. Yes, when he runs around his forehand and starts pummeling the ball, he was able to put Nadal on the back-foot. However, notice how many times he was able to do that on Nadal's serve...close to zero. He had zero break points and only took one of Nadal's service games to deuce. Why is that, other than Nadal serving and playing well? Well, a few reasons:
- Berrettini's return game is nothing special.
- Berrettini's forehand is still really reliant on his own serve because his rally shots are generally not good enough to be able to set it up. In other words, yes, Berrettini was able to hurt Nadal with his forehand after setting it up with huge serves. But he doesn't have a good enough ground game, and no amount of Cali tap-dancing is going to change that point about the match. His cross court rally forehand really is so forgettable, to where some comparisons to Del Potro (who has one of the best cross court forehands on tour) were lazy and laughable.
4- Berrettini's ability to hit winners in general is reliant on the serve. Think about how many 1-2 punch combos, how many big serves followed by a drop shot winner, etc... it's not because his forehand isn't big enough to finish a point - of course it is. But it goes back to the above. Meanwhile, Nadal was never really forced to even go for winners because Berrettini's defensive ability is so poor and his backhand is so bad that so many rallies ended quickly because he either couldn't fully retrieve a Nadal penetrating shot or just made a backhand error.
5- While I like Berrettini, he's 23. He's still young but not exactly super young or anything. The reason I bring that up is that like many of the next gen dudes, it seems to me he doesn't really know how to properly construct a point. We've had wars about the big 3 around here, discussing their individual shots, abilities to hit winners, etc...But one thing all 3 of them have is the ability to construct points perfectly, and for the most part, excellent shot selection. It's a point Lendl, Mac, Wilander and Becker brought up in that podcast that Tented linked the other day about the next gen, and it's such a good one. Kyrgios is the main culprit: he's got a lot of power, a lot of flash, ability to hit tough shots...yet he has to rely on all of that because his ground game is poor and he lacks the ability to do some of the slightly more "basic" things as well as the top guys. Meanwhile, if you look at someone like Del Potro at that age, he never had that problem.
6- Also I'd like to add that Berrettini's placement on his forehand is nothing special. Hand-eye coordination isn't especially striking. Lack of angles is one glaring example. Compare that to Nadal...
7- Berrettini definitely blew that first set tie-break, but the only reason we were there is Nadal failing to convert on 2929292 break points. For someone with such a big serve, it's quite something that he faced a break point in almost literally every service game throughout the match, which tells you a lot. I'm not sure if Cali will portray the match as Berrettini bossing Nadal around but I'm excited about his replies earlier. I'll go back and read.
8- With all that being said, I REAAAALLY like Berrettini's mentality.
Last edited:
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
HAHAHAHA. Amazing. Stamina. Equally amazing is a set he should have lost when he had multiple break points in like all of Berrettini's service games while the other dude barely got a sniff.
Get real: You stuck your head out there, which I respect, your prediction made you foolish, and now you're pissed.
Last edited:
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
And that's why you're my favorite poster here because you look at tennis the way I do. If a guy has to red-line his game to beat the elite, then I'm not buying any stock (same guy who needed 5 sets to beat Monfils). Yeah, his forehand is huge, but he has to hit it huge and paint the lines over and over to beat someone like Nadal, and he offers little else in terms of ground game. People get so enamored with big hitting. Tennis is a much more nuanced sport.
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
Yes he was, but that is literally the only thing he does better: A bigger serve and a pacier forehand. That's it. Nothing else. Absolutely nothing else (okay I guess a better forehand drop shot?). Is that the standard now? Who hits the ball harder?
Bonaca
Major Winner
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reactions
- 867
- Points
- 113
Excellent summary and analyse !
By the way, you can copy that to almost any other player not named Roger or Novak. With some little adjustments.
His backhand is capable of being much better than you indicated above. For you to act like he only won points by hitting big serves and forehands is ridiculous. He got the better of Nadal in plenty of rallies during the first set and he should have won the set.
It would have been a much different match had he won the set. Nadal may have found a way to come back and pick up another BS win, but it would have been much more difficult.
