2019 Men's US Open Semifinals: Rafael Nadal vs. Matteo Berrettini

[calitennis127]

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.

Watch his highlights against Gasquet, Thompson, and Rublev. He was doing more than just hitting bombs against them. As usual, you are exaggerating the significance of the second and third sets against Gnatal, which you totally misinterpret in the most retarded way possible.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

No, it didn’t make me foolish. Most of the morons on this board did not think Berretini could even make this competitive and he went out there and was clearly the superior shot maker and player for large portions of the first set.

I am pissed that Nadal won the first set tiebreak in his typical BS fashion and that Berretini collapsed with a decisive lead. I am not at all pissed about my prediction. That match was there for the taking for Berretini and I was totally right about that.

Also, it is quite ironic to hear you of all people talking about wasted breakpoints by Nadal. How many big matches (including 2008 Wimbledon and numerous French Open Finals) did Nadal win over Federer in large part because Nadal saved dozens of break points? That was supposedly all about Nadal’s great tennis but when Berretini does it we should all be focused that Nadal was in Berretini’s service games.

Also, are you proud of how Nadal won the first set point down 4-6 with a mishit forehand return?

That must be an example of his insanely good all-around game which Berretini couldn’t compete with! No one can mishit a foreign return like Nadal, no one. He is amazing at it. Downright amazing.

 

[calitennis127]

It really is funny to me how emotionally stale both Broken and Moxie can be. Only Broken can engage in technical analysis of sets 2 and 3 as if human emotions and psychology have nothing to do with it. And then Moxie talks as though sets 2 and 3 were exactly, precisely, identically equivalent to the first set in significance because they counted for the same on the scoreboard.

 

[kskate2]

He outperformed Daniil in Montreal too, AND will tomorrow in the final.

I was referring to Matteo.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

@calitennis127 If your goal is to make everyone hate Berrettini you are really succeeding.

 

[Bonaca]

I was referring to Matteo.

Ups.

 

[Double Bagel]

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.

OK, your logic is absolutely ridiculous. You are seriously saying a mishit by Nadal in the 1st set is the reason why his win was BS? How many players in a given tournament do you think have a mishit throughout the tournament? I would have to say every single one of them in the draw and most likely numerous times. I agree with you that Matteo showed great offensive power and that is his game, but I would not say that Nadal was back on his heels just barely eeking out his points. He most certainly had power behind his shots as well. Yeah he definitely narrowly pulled out that 3rd set.

 

[mrzz]

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.

Answering the bolded part, well, if he is able to do that now and then at least, good on him, because even like that most players still don't come even close to beating them. Still, those guys can be top 20's, but obviously not elite themselves (I mean, not without further development).

That's why I think Soderling was one guy on his way to be truly elite. He did beat Nadal at 2009 by totally red-lining it, but he was clearly developing (actually already developed IMO) his game to a level of sustained aggression when he had to stop around 2 years later.

About nuance, that is why I asked one question to @herios about Berritini, if he had an ample spectrum of variation or if it was centered on the drop shot (and yes, he has very good drop shots). For now it seems to be basically either a hammer or a drop shot. But the guy has room to improve, surely. Let's see if it happens. (as you said, back hand needs to get much better. The slice seems to be strangely good, though).

I get the love with big hitting and big plays. I actually love it just as much as anyone else, but (sadly IMO) is not the most effective thing in tennis. That's how good freaking peak Federer was: he made a whole generation of tennis fans believe that constant shot making is actually effective.

(P.S. I know that matches are different from highlights, but Federer's matches from 204-2007 sometimes seemed to be continuous highlight reels...)

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Answering the bolded part, well, if he is able to do that now and then at least, good on him, because even like that most players still don't come even close to beating them. Still, those guys can be top 20's, but obviously not elite themselves (I mean, not without further development).

That's why I think Soderling was one guy on his way to be truly elite. He did beat Nadal at 2009 by totally red-lining it, but he was clearly developing (actually already developed IMO) his game to a level of sustained aggression when he had to stop around 2 years later.

About nuance, that is why I asked one question to @herios about Berritini, if he had an ample spectrum of variation or if it was centered on the drop shot (and yes, he has very good drop shots). For now it seems to be basically either a hammer or a drop shot. But the guy has room to improve, surely. Let's see if it happens. (as you said, back hand needs to get much better. The slice seems to be strangely good, though).

I get the love with big hitting and big plays. I actually love it just as much as anyone else, but (sadly IMO) is not the most effective thing in tennis. That's how good freaking peak Federer was: he made a whole generation of tennis fans believe that constant shot making is actually effective.

(P.S. I know that matches are different from highlights, but Federer's matches from 204-2007 sometimes seemed to be continuous highlight reels...)

Soderling is 1-3 vs Nadal at RG yet nobody talks about those other 3 times. It's ironic how that one time he beat him, Nadal was not 100% and actually withdrew from Wimbledon a few weeks later where he was defending champion. But that's not proof enough I guess. He just made his injury up and lost the no.1 ranking and a chance at another Wimbledon just to make an excuse for RG.

 

[MikeOne]

Cali is angry, that nadal could do things nalbandian never could dream of doing. Berrettini would’ve crushed nalbandian, pummelled him.

As far cali’s critique of nadal’s lack of power.. let’s analyze. Berrettini is a 6’5 power player who’s game is based on bashing the ball. He hit 37 winners vs nadal’s 31! He only hit 6 more winners even though he risked more.

Watch nadal give it to medvedev tomorrow.. cali wil be wishing nadal loses.. he must be in disbelief that nadal can get to 19 slams, 1 below federer! Cali will be getting no sleep tonight!

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Cali is angry, that nadal could do things nalbandian never could dream of doing. Berrettini would’ve crushed nalbandian, pummelled him.

As far cali’s critique of nadal’s lack of power.. let’s analyze. Berrettini is a 6’5 power player who’s game is based on bashing the ball. He hit 37 winners vs nadal’s 31! He only hit 6 more winners even though he risked more.

Watch nadal give it to medvedev tomorrow.. cali wil be wishing nadal loses.. he must be in disbelief that nadal can get to 19 slams, 1 below federer! Cali will be getting no sleep tonight!

Nadal would have surpassed Federer a long time ago if he didn't battle countless of injuries throughout his career. It's nice to see that he will most likely still pass him cause at the end of the day he's always been the true GOAT. Federer after the 2009 AO already could see the future and that's why he broke down in tears. When Federer finally (barely) beat him at the 2017 AO, it was the first time he did it in a slam in 10 years (since WB 2007). You could see the disbelief on his face. lol

 

[Moxie]

BUT

It can be laughed at.

All of your post was excellent, but this was my favorite part.

 

[tented]

 

[brokenshoelace]

His backhand is capable of being much better than you indicated above.

OK I'll pull the Cali: Show me these instances during the match where he able to do damage with the backhand. I mean Nadal himself said that Berrettini needs to improve his backhand in his press conference. Unless you mean it's usually better than this then maybe...except he's usually not trying to hit it off of a Nadal forehand. Big difference.

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.

First of all, I didn't act like he only won points by hitting big serves and forehands. I said the majority of the time in which he was able to be imposing with his forehand was after setting it up with big serves. Case in point, please explain to me since his backhand is "capable of being much better than I indicated above" and since "he got the better of Nadal in plenty of rallies" how come he only managed to take Nadal to deuce on Rafa's serve only once (courtesy of a Nadal double fault) and didn't have a single break point all match? I mean, surely a guy with such a ground game should be able to put more pressure on his talentless Gnat of an opponent? Or was Nadal serving like Pete Sampras? Something doesn't add up here.

Also, to quote Nadal from his press conference: "I was lucky to win the tie break, but not lucky to win the set, because I had many opportunities." Yes Berrettini bottled the tie break...a tie break that should have never been there to begin with. It's not just that Nadal missed all his chances to break...it's that Berrettini didn't have any. When you push your opponent's serve in literally every service game, while he barely gets a sniff on yours, it becomes obvious who's closer to winning the set. Or do you dispute this basic piece of logic too?

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.

So he wouldn't have lost in straight sets like you initially predicted? Odd.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Watch his highlights against Gasquet, Thompson, and Rublev. He was doing more than just hitting bombs against them. As usual, you are exaggerating the significance of the second and third sets against Gnatal, which you totally misinterpret in the most retarded way possible.

Explain to me how was the second set any different to the first other than Nadal actually managing to convert on one of the break points. It's not like Berrettini came out dejected or tired. He held his serve by saving multiple break points (as he did in the first set), but at some point, something's gotta give. Nadal kept putting the pressure and actually converted, while still not giving Berrettini a prayer to break. So how was it any different? I agree the third was about momentum and a player accepting that it's a foregone conclusion...but that often happens when the vastly superior player is up 2 sets to love, so nothing new there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, it didn’t make me foolish. Most of the morons on this board did not think Berretini could even make this competitive and he went out there and was clearly the superior shot maker and player for large portions of the first set.

I mean the morons on this board who didn't think Berrettini would make it competitive were still closer to reality than you. He made it competitive for a set...and lost in straights, as most of the morons on this board predicted. You predicted the guy who lost in straights would win in straights. So...yeah. I give you credit by the way, for seeing talent in Berrettini, as I did earlier in the thread. But I wouldn't be calling anyone a moron after predicting he'd beat the 18 time GS champion in 3 sets.

I am pissed that Nadal won the first set tiebreak in his typical BS fashion and that Berretini collapsed with a decisive lead. I am not at all pissed about my prediction. That match was there for the taking for Berretini and I was totally right about that.

You were totally right that the "MATCH" was there for the taking? The match? Because of a competitive first set... Not sure you understand the rules of tennis buddy.

Also, it is quite ironic to hear you of all people talking about wasted breakpoints by Nadal. How many big matches (including 2008 Wimbledon and numerous French Open Finals) did Nadal win over Federer in large part because Nadal saved dozens of break points? That was supposedly all about Nadal’s great tennis but when Berretini does it we should all be focused that Nadal was in Berretini’s service games.

Ahhh, this is the Cali who has no idea what nuance is that I know and love. The big difference, is that while Federer did indeed fail to convert on countless break points, Nadal had countless break points as well...and converted. As in, both players were in each other's service games, but one played the big points much better (and no, they're not all about Nadal. Federer screwed up plenty). However, in this match, Nadal missed so many break points while his opponent couldn't dream of getting one, making it clear who the better player is, and the one closer to winning. Big difference, as I'm sure you can tell.

Also, are you proud of how Nadal won the first set point down 4-6 with a mishit forehand return?

Proud that he won a set against some no name? No, that's normal.

 

[calitennis127]

So he wouldn't have lost in straight sets like you initially predicted? Odd.

I said Berretini in 4 and that's what I voted.

 

[calitennis127]

Ahhh, this is the Cali who has no idea what nuance is that I know and love. The big difference, is that while Federer did indeed fail to convert on countless break points, Nadal had countless break points as well...and converted. As in, both players were in each other's service games, but one played the big points much better (and no, they're not all about Nadal. Federer screwed up plenty).

Oh please.....lol. Talking "nuance" as if nuance to you is anything other than some boring rehashing of a cliche. If you really want to get detailed (which I welcome), then you will see that Federer was in Nadal's service games far more than the other way around in the 2007 French final and the 2008 Wimbledon final. And Federer did not convert on the breakpoints.

However, in this match, Nadal missed so many break points while his opponent couldn't dream of getting one, making it clear who the better player is, and the one closer to winning. Big difference, as I'm sure you can tell.

By this stupid logic, after 2 sets today we'd have to think that Nadal was completely "the better player" over Medvedev because he was more in Medvedev's games during those first two sets - when anyone with a brain could see that Medvedev simply played bad in the first set and gave it away with his moronic decision to stand 45 feet behind the baseline when returning on the ad court.

As always, you are completely blind to emotions. Yes, Berretini is not as good a defender as Medvedev, and yes, he is more reliant on offense than the Big 3 and Medvedev. But he still can do more than just blast big shots. And the reason that I was so disappointed about his collapse in the tiebreak is that it sucked all the air out of the tires psychologically. The match would have opened up big-time had Berretini won the first set and you would have seen more variety from him.

You fail to understand the nuance of human emotions. That is one nuance that you have always failed to understand.

Proud that he won a set against some no name? No, that's normal.

Way to avoid the question. You know that Nadal's return down 6-4 in the tiebreak was lucky mishit bullshit.

 

[Moxie]

Jesus, this match is way over...you still arguing about it? Rafa won the title. Berrettini had no chance. Get over it.

 

[calitennis127]

Jesus, this match is way over...you still arguing about it? Rafa won the title. Berrettini had no chance. Get over it.

I hadn't read those posts until now. If this match no longer concerns you, then stop reading this thread. Get over it.