2020 Australian Open QF: Rafael Nadal vs. Dominic Thiem

[brokenshoelace]

lack of ability to hit rally forehand? huh? his rally forehands are very heavy balls with huge margin for errors, which push most players back and they can't get clean hits.

His rally forehand is loopy, wristy, and lacks a lot of direction. It's the main reason he sometimes struggles to get on top of the rallies in spite of his big game. It''s way too spinny WITHOUT being heavy and lacks the angle to compensate. If you knew anything about tennis you'd notice this.

Backhand? you fukn idiot, his bh is more consistent than you can see with your delusions, as unorthodox as it looks. He was able to use it in long rallies against Simon point in and point out, when he decided and needed to be solid. You don't beat Simon by being hit and miss..

His backhand doesn't look unorthodox. It's just not good. You can clearly see him trying to push through it because he's not confident enough hitting through it cross court with power. That's also why he struggles to get opponents on the backfoot in rallies and set up his best shot (the inside out forehand). He has to rely on producing constant shotmaking (which he fails at, most of the time) because unlike say, Thiem, he doesn't push opponents back enough to be able to run around his backhand and hit forehands.

Lack of transition game? he sure doesn't do it often, but when he does it, he knows how and when to approach to put it away....he wins most points when he transitions...

What the fuck do you mean he doesn't do it often? He can't defend and turn rallies around like the rest of the top guys. There is no ""not doing it often" in this case. There's just not doing it well enough. When he's on the backfoot, he typically loses the rally.

Awful point construction? really, how? just look at how he covers the court, his choice of shots, selection of depth and spin, which enable him to hang with the top players......a lot of rallies, he anticipates extremely well and doesn't get wrong footed often at all. Apparently you know nothing about point construction. You just jump to your self-serving delusional conclusions and pretend you actually talk 'insight'......you have any shame? ..

'Re: point construction, read all the above points. But allow me to laugh at your idiocy at "hanging with the top players." Yes, THAT is all you can say about him. He can ""hang" with the top players despite not beating one at a major since 2014, and get his ass handed to him regardless...as he gets his ass handed to him by the weaker players. Please explain how his exceptional point construction hasn't seen him into the QF since 2014. Does he only construct points against good players?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Baiting Ricardo into offering arguments is the easiest way to show what a moron he is. He falls for it, obviously.

 

[brokenshoelace]

show me one 'insight' you have about Nick, apart from the bs of your self-entitled opinion. With these guys' status, they'd just go down on Nick and made up all those praises about him while you are the one with 'insight'. And yeah the big 3 just happen to lose or struggle against Nick, who is really not special and must have them on his payroll. They play him soft so they can bump up his bragging rights. All evidence suggest one thing about you, that you are a worthless idiot.

Just to be clear, other than Kyrgios' 2-0 head to head vs. Djokovic which is too small a sample (and neither match coming at a major), Nadal, Murray and Federer have a combined 16-5 head to head record against him.

 

[brokenshoelace]

so you have evidence that Nick is a liar? see that's the problem, you don't know shit about Nick but continues to fart out of nothing. yeah Nick just pretends he doesn't train, during tournaments.....bla bla bla, just listen to yourself idiot.

If you actually think it's more believable that a tennis professional doesn't train than it is that he claims he doesn't train to justify his massive failures then you're really even stupider than I thought.

 

[Ricardo]

Just to be clear, other than Kyrgios' 2-0 head to head vs. Djokovic which is too small a sample (and neither match coming at a major), Nadal, Murray and Federer have a combined 16-5 head to head record against him.

His rally forehand is loopy, wristy, and lacks a lot of direction. It's the main reason he sometimes struggles to get on top of the rallies in spite of his big game. It''s way too spinny WITHOUT being heavy and lacks the angle to compensate. If you knew anything about tennis you'd notice this.



His backhand doesn't look unorthodox. It's just not good. You can clearly see him trying to push through it because he's not confident enough hitting through it cross court with power. That's also why he struggles to get opponents on the backfoot in rallies and set up his best shot (the inside out forehand). He has to rely on producing constant shotmaking (which he fails at, most of the time) because unlike say, Thiem, he doesn't push opponents back enough to be able to run around his backhand and hit forehands.



What the fuck do you mean he doesn't do it often? He can't defend and turn rallies around like the rest of the top guys. There is no ""not doing it often" in this case. There's just not doing it well enough. When he's on the backfoot, he typically loses the rally.



'Re: point construction, read all the above points. But allow me to laugh at your idiocy at "hanging with the top players." Yes, THAT is all you can say about him. He can ""hang" with the top players despite not beating one at a major since 2014, and get his ass handed to him regardless...as he gets his ass handed to him by the weaker players. Please explain how his exceptional point construction hasn't seen him into the QF since 2014. Does he only construct points against good players?

hold on here potato, which one of the above is your 'insight'? you are just describing the way you feel idiot.

So how convenient is it to discount his wins against Djoker? he is 6-11 against the big 3, and somehow you put Murray in (I am talking the top elites of same standing and Murray is not), and reduced his wins against Djoker. Have you got no shame? am sure if he was lost to Djoker you would certainly include those in his losses.

That's the problem discussing on this forum with idiots like you. You have no conscience and only make it up as whatever suits you. Since i clearly say again, experts opinions matter and yours is bs, you claim you explained your 'insight'. Tell me, who gives a shit about your 'insight'? is there any evidence or credential behind you that shows your 'insight' should be a point of reference? since when does couch seating become an important measure of credential?

think again, why would anyone take your words instead of Rafa, FAA, JMac, Federer's? you keep saying moron, you do know only a moron would take your word against theirs in a tennis discussion.....oh wait, you are the moron.

now try walking up to Rafa, FAA, JMac, Federer and offer them your insight about Nick, you do know that within 10 seconds you'd just leave in a stretcher, with laughing security guards saying "lets get this dumb fuk fat piece of shit outta here and straight to the rubbish bin"...…it will happen exactly that way, this you do know heh?

 

[Ricardo]

If you actually think it's more believable that a tennis professional doesn't train than it is that he claims he doesn't train to justify his massive failures then you're really even stupider than I thought.

another common issue with internet idiot wannabes (but could never be) is, they often get into this phychelogical analysis based on what they themselves actually would think......and usually it simply means how losers think. Sorry but Nick has always been the golden boy since young, he grew up in the upper tennis echelon all his life, there is a lot of difference between the way he would think, and the way bottom feeders here do. You see, the difference here is, whatever bs Nick pulls, people pay millions to see or even sniff, while whatever 'deeply thoughtful insight' you claimed to offer, is just dismissed as bullcrap and gets spat on. Winners like Nick simply don't think like you, you know, though you are probably better equipped at how to think as losers...….as you are obviously used to it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

hold on here potato, which one of the above is your 'insight'? you are just describing the way you feel idiot.

Wait, saying something is technically wrong with his forehand and explaining what it is is describing how I "feel"? Wow. No seriously, wow. Saying how I feel would be discussing Kyrgios' behaviour, not his forehand you inbred bitch.

As far as the rest, yes I'm sure Rafa is going to say "Nick's forehand rally sucks and that's why I made him my bitch in rallies and the only reason he hung with me was his serve."

Honest question, when you sit in your bed at night, does it hurt to be this dumb? Or do you just accept it? I'm serious. Is that why you're so angry? Is that why you hate women? Look, there must be someone out there who doesn't care about intelligence and you'll be able to get laid. No need for the over the top misogyny and small penis energy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

another common issue with internet idiot wannabes (but could never be) is, they often get into this phychelogical analysis based on what they themselves actually would think......and usually it simply means how losers think. Sorry but Nick has always been the golden boy since young, he grew up in the upper tennis echelon all his life, there is a lot of difference between the way he would think, and the way bottom feeders here do. You see, the difference here is, whatever bs Nick pulls, people pay millions to see or even sniff, while whatever 'deeply thoughtful insight' you claimed to offer, is just dismissed as bullcrap and gets spat on. Winners like Nick simply don't think like you, you know, though you are probably better equipped at how to think as losers...….as you are obviously used to it.

Talks about psychoanalysis...

then proceeds to provide a completely arbitrary psychological analysis about how Nick thinks. It's good you lack self awareness, as if you were to actually realize how stupid you are you would legit not show your face in society.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I honestly confess that I take pleasure in baiting Ricardo into saying increasingly stupid things.

 

[Ricardo]

Talks about psychoanalysis...

then proceeds to provide a completely arbitrary psychological analysis about how Nick thinks. It's good you lack self awareness, as if you were to actually realize how stupid you are you would legit not show your face in society.

Note this dim wit, I said there is a difference between how a loser like you think and how a winner like Nick thinks, you don’t get it no? Thought so.

I have not in any way specified how Nick thinks you dumb fuk, all I need to say is it’s not how little shit like you think.

 

[Ricardo]

I honestly confess that I take pleasure in baiting Ricardo into saying increasingly stupid things.

I can see now you are so smashed you’d try to divert focus.

 

[Ricardo]

Put simply, how do you justify your bs against what the pros said? Again, I can say for a fact that you’d just end up where you come from (the bin) if you walk to them with your crap, any argument about that? Think you get away with diverting focus? Talk about my perspective on women or life? I wish I can say good try, but it’s not....you dumb fuk

 

[calitennis127]

Not sure you missed the memo but this was hards, not clay? How has Thiem's strategy fared against Nadal at Roland Garros? Because he was doing the same thing in the final last year....

Not sure you missed the memo but Dominic Thiem is nowhere near the athlete or overall talent that Roger Federer, especially in the 2006-2011 window, is or was. Watch the 2011 Roland Garros final and tell me who looked like the more talented player. It's not even close. Federer was bitching Nadal around repeatedly, even with less-than-ideal strategy.

If Federer in the 2011 Roland Garros final used Thiem's forehand strategy from the 2020 Australian Open, he would have beaten Nadal in straights.

 

[calitennis127]

Too bad that they have youtube in Austria but not Switzerland, I guess, huh? Or that Roger had to play Rafa in his salad years, and Thiem gets him on the rougher side of his career.

Lol.....no matter how much evidence piles up to contradict your beliefs, you will cling to them no matter what. You represent the antithesis of a scientific mindset. Literally 5 months ago Nadal beat a 23-year-old in a 5-set US Open final before having the best comeback of his career at World Tour Finals down 5-1 in the 3rd set (something a young player would stereotypically do) and yet you are still sitting here blaming his loss to Thiem on age.

Seriously?

Not to mention the fact that Nadal has clearly adapted his hardcourt game and is better in certain ways than he was in the past. Yet you totally overlook this and act as though Nadal went undefeated on hardcourts in the good ole days. You mean when Tsonga humiliated him in the Australian Open semifinal? Or Murray beat him at the US Open? Or Delpo hit a trillion winners on him at the US Open in 2009?

Were those the good old days when Thiem would not have had a chance?

Goodness f-ing gracious.

All credit to Thiem for that win, for sure. But any notion that Roger lost so many RG finals to Rafa just because he couldn't figure out his strategy is bollocks.

Coming from someone who doesn't understand the strategic issues being discussed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not sure you missed the memo but Dominic Thiem is nowhere near the athlete or overall talent that Roger Federer, especially in the 2006-2011 window, is or was. Watch the 2011 Roland Garros final and tell me who looked like the more talented player. It's not even close. Federer was bitching Nadal around repeatedly, even with less-than-ideal strategy.

If Federer in the 2011 Roland Garros final used Thiem's forehand strategy from the 2020 Australian Open, he would have beaten Nadal in straights.

Ah yes, Nadal barely losing a match on hard courts to Thiem in 2020 where he blew the first set big time, means he would have lost to Federer on clay in 2011.

Look up "non-sequitur" in the dictionary.

 

[calitennis127]

Ah yes, Nadal barely losing a match on hard courts to Thiem in 2020 where he blew the first set big time, means he would have lost to Federer on clay in 2011.

Look up "non-sequitur" in the dictionary.

Lol.....it is not at all a non-sequitur to say that Thiem's use of the forehand down-the-line and inside-out against Nadal at the Australian Open was also something that Federer could use to good effect against Nadal at Roland Garros because.....wait for it, we saw him do it in numerous rallies. Just check the tape. Unfortunately he did not do it enough and went to his muscleheaded strategy of constant CC forehands when he had far more options.

The specific point I made was about using the forehand down-the-line as well as inside-out. I know Moxie doesn't understand anything about sports strategy, so I would expect that argument to go right over her head. But aren't you supposed to be the guy who prides himself on talking the details of tactics and strategy on a high level? And instead all you can bring up in return is the most simplistic possible retort about surface?

Oh wait, I know what's going on here. For years I have talked about how Nadal's biggest weakness is handling a right-hander's forehand down-the-line. Time after time this has been proven and I know you have seen it on multiple occasions. But you refuse to admit it because you don't want to give me the upper hand in arguments over Nadal. So you deflect and pretend that we never discussed it.

I also made the point that even though Thiem is a very good player, he is nowhere near as talented as Federer - especially not back in 2011 (which was, btw, when numerous people on this board were already calling him "too old"). And Federer was effortlessly dancing around the court and dictating points on Nadal through much of that 2011 final. It was entirely winnable for him, except to obtuse Nadal fans.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....it is not at all a non-sequitur to say that Thiem's use of the forehand down-the-line and inside-out against Nadal at the Australian Open was also something that Federer could use to good effect against Nadal at Roland Garros because.....wait for it, we saw him do it in numerous rallies. Just check the tape. Unfortunately he did not do it enough and went to his muscleheaded strategy of constant CC forehands when he had far more options.

The specific point I made was about using the forehand down-the-line as well as inside-out. I know Moxie doesn't understand anything about sports strategy, so I would expect that argument to go right over her head. But aren't you supposed to be the guy who prides himself on talking the details of tactics and strategy on a high level? And instead all you can bring up in return is the most simplistic possible retort about surface?

Oh wait, I know what's going on here. For years I have talked about how Nadal's biggest weakness is handling a right-hander's forehand down-the-line. Time after time this has been proven and I know you have seen it on multiple occasions. But you refuse to admit it because you don't want to give me the upper hand in arguments over Nadal. So you deflect and pretend that we never discussed it.

I also made the point that even though Thiem is a very good player, he is nowhere near as talented as Federer - especially not back in 2011 (which was, btw, when numerous people on this board were already calling him "too old"). And Federer was effortlessly dancing around the court and dictating points on Nadal through much of that 2011 final. It was entirely winnable for him, except to obtuse Nadal fans.

LOl @ refuse to admit....

Just to cut this nonsense short, you can ask @britbox how much I preach that the key to attack Nadal is to go after his forehand. And the shots he struggles with the most, even more so than the forehand down the line is the inside out forehand (or cross court backhand if you're good enough off that wing) because in addition to attacking Nadal's forehand, the path of those shots means the ball is flying AWAY from Nadal, stretching him out further, and he's not nearly as good at defending from his forehand wing, especially nowadays, as he is from his backhand. But yeah please go on...

 

[britbox]

LOl @ refuse to admit....

Just to cut this nonsense short, you can ask @britbox how much I preach that the key to attack Nadal is to go after his forehand. And the shots he struggles with the most, even more so than the forehand down the line is the inside out forehand (or cross court backhand if you're good enough off that wing) because in addition to attacking Nadal's forehand, the path of those shots means the ball is flying AWAY from Nadal, stretching him out further, and he's not nearly as good at defending from his forehand wing, especially nowadays, as he is from his backhand. But yeah please go on...

Yep, I think it's safe to say you've been pretty consistent with that over the years. Probably pushing a decade.

 

[calitennis127]

LOl @ refuse to admit....

LOL at you acting like you've always been on top of this issue.

Just to cut this nonsense short, you can ask @britbox how much I preach that the key to attack Nadal is to go after his forehand. And the shots he struggles with the most, even more so than the forehand down the line is the inside out forehand (or cross court backhand if you're good enough off that wing)

No, you're still not getting it right. The inside-out forehand can be a great shot against Nadal but it depends on how far into the court you are. Hitting it from too deep or telegraphing it can lead to problems in a rally with Nadal. This happened to Federer when he tried too little, too late in their clay match-up. Also, flattening out the CC backhand or going very short angle with it is such an obvious option for someone like Djokovic against Nadal that you shouldn't act like you were Einstein for noticing it. Imjimmy pointed that out long ago when they were in their early twenties and everyone could see it.

The reasons that the forehand down-the-line are so important are the following: 1) routine CC forehands in a standard rally to Nadal's backhand generally accomplish nothing, 2) Nadal generally does a good job of absorbing the pace of even the biggest CC forehands (we saw this in the French Open finals of Federer v. Nadal when Federer tried clobbering CC forehand after CC forehand to little avail), 3) the forehand down-the-line gives Nadal far less time to anticipate or take a wide angle than he would have in reacting to an inside-out forehand, and 4) Nadal tends to pop up some of his weakest shots when players hit flat to his forehand side.

So no, the inside-out forehand is not more important than the forehand down-the-line. Your inner Annacone is coming out on this issue. You have to fight your inner Annacone, Broken. You just have to fight it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

LOL at you acting like you've always been on top of this issue.

Yes, been on it since 2008 before you ever join the forums, and anyone here can attest. Just because I don't spend every Nadal win parroting what his opponent could have done differently because I won't be able to sleep at night doesn't mean I wasn't. Been saying this long before you showed up buddy, and someone already attested to that.

No, you're still not getting it right. The inside-out forehand can be a great shot against Nadal but it depends on how far into the court you are. Hitting it from too deep or telegraphing it can lead to problems in a rally with Nadal. This happened to Federer when he tried too little, too late in their clay match-up. Also, flattening out the CC backhand or going very short angle with it is such an obvious option for someone like Djokovic against Nadal that you shouldn't act like you were Einstein for noticing it. Imjimmy pointed that out long ago when they were in their early twenties and everyone could see it.

No, I'm not acting like a genius for saying it, I'm saying your analysis left out an important part. Not everything is a dick measuring contest.. If I added a valid point to your analysis, shut the fuck up and take it.

The reasons that the forehand down-the-line are so important are the following: 1) routine CC forehands in a standard rally to Nadal's backhand generally accomplish nothing, 2) Nadal generally does a good job of absorbing the pace of even the biggest CC forehands (we saw this in the French Open finals of Federer v. Nadal when Federer tried clobbering CC forehand after CC forehand to little avail), 3) the forehand down-the-line gives Nadal far less time to anticipate or take a wide angle than he would have in reacting to an inside-out forehand, and 4) Nadal tends to pop up some of his weakest shots when players hit flat to his forehand side.

This is literally the most obvious analysis possible. It's all true, mind you, but acting like you need to actually explain this to me is hilarious. Yes, DTL shots break rally patterns. Yes, Nadal defends worse off his forehand wing. And yes, Nadal's backhand is much better at counterpunching and absorbing pace and it gives him more options since he can slice, he can loop it, he can use his too hander to hit it back with pace, etc... This is all fine but it's amazing and ironic that you call me out for acting like Einstein then proceed to literally, word for word, say what most of us have been saying on here for years. And again, everyone can attest to that. The biggest difference, is you harp on it more because Nadal wins a lot and you get upset a lot and take it out here.