23 forehand winners to 3 forehand winners: whose forehand is better?

[Kieran]

Brother, good to see you back, but unfortunately plumbing sinister depths of rank stupidity and inconsistency, which isn't what I normally associate with you.

I think it must be down to over-abundance of under-used grey matter...

Kieran, where exactly is my "inconsistency" here?

As for plumbing depths of inanity, how about your insistence last year that Djokovic did not have Nadal on the ropes in set 2? Isn't it funny how this year Djokovic won the second set and then pummeled Nadal in the third - because Nadal knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down?

That is exactly what I was telling you was the case in 2014 and I was proven right in 2015.

It would be more funny if Novak didn't pummel Nadal this year. Why shouldn't he? FFS has - twice - and Andy Murray has. Who hasn't pummeled Nadal, would be a more interesting question. The way Rafa is now, Nalbandian would take a set off him on clay, and peak Federer might have a shot at getting him to a fifth set.

 

[Haelfix]

Incidentally, forehands aren't isolated from the rest of tennis either. Part of what made Sampras's forehand so deadly was precisely that his serve often setup a very easy fh.

Roger's forehand was partially so great b/c of his great movement and ability to cut the path of the ball off extra early.

Many of the winners he hit in his career, wouldn't be winners if his point of contact was further back in the court.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Please don't overstate this.....it is predictable that you would, but Nadal's losses in the MS events and Slams were to players who all have the game to beat him. Djokovic has been on even par with him on clay since 2011 and is having the best year of his career. And Wawrinka and Murray just had the best clay seasons in their careers.

Nadal has been an elite player for literally 10 years, and at no point did he have results even remotely similar to this year. These players who "have the game to beat him" have never done it with so much regularity before.

He was going clay court seasons while barely dropping sets. Did he not play people with the game to beat him? All you have to do is watch him play.

I firmly believe he'll return to playing great tennis but there is no way to deny he's a shell of himself at the moment. You have an agenda so you'll deny it, but literally no one else is.

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, but a shot can be judged in isolation and should be. All things being equal in terms of set-up, who does more with their shots? That is the question. For as well as Nadal often sets himself up, he does very little with his shots compared to other top players - and you know it.

Can't take a post seriously in which someone is legitimately stating Nadal does "very little with his forehand" compared to other to players.

This is a joke and you should be embarrassed to state something like this.

 

[calitennis127]

Brother, good to see you back, but unfortunately plumbing sinister depths of rank stupidity and inconsistency, which isn't what I normally associate with you.

I think it must be down to over-abundance of under-used grey matter...

Kieran, where exactly is my "inconsistency" here?

As for plumbing depths of inanity, how about your insistence last year that Djokovic did not have Nadal on the ropes in set 2? Isn't it funny how this year Djokovic won the second set and then pummeled Nadal in the third - because Nadal knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down?

That is exactly what I was telling you was the case in 2014 and I was proven right in 2015.

It would be more funny if Novak didn't pummel Nadal this year. Why shouldn't he? FFS has - twice - and Andy Murray has. Who hasn't pummeled Nadal, would be a more interesting question. The way Rafa is now, Nalbandian would take a set off him on clay, and peak Federer might have a shot at getting him to a fifth set.

Without the hip problem, Nalbandian could have beaten Nadal on clay anywhere, and Nadal is lucky he never played him on clay until 2013. It would have shattered a lot of the myths about Nadal's invincibility on the surface. I really wish Nalbandian's hip wasn't screwy in 2008, because he could have really stopped that 2008 run of Nadal in its tracks.

Nadal's form before playing Djokovic at the French this year was fine for the most part; and Nadal fought and made those first two sets pretty difficult for Novak, especially on the big points, which is why Novak's numbers on set points were so poor.

But please stop dodging the issue, Kieran. Do you really think that Nadal would have come back and won the 2014 French Open final if he had fallen behind 2 sets to 0?

Do you seriously believe that?

 

[calitennis127]

No, but a shot can be judged in isolation and should be. All things being equal in terms of set-up, who does more with their shots? That is the question. For as well as Nadal often sets himself up, he does very little with his shots compared to other top players - and you know it.

Can't take a post seriously in which someone is legitimately stating Nadal does "very little with his forehand" compared to other to players.

This is a joke and you should be embarrassed to state something like this.

:laydownlaughing

Oh yeah, I forgot all those legendary performances at the World Tour Finals when Nadal mustered 4 forehand winners in 2-and-a-half hour matches.

The day Nadal has 8 forehand winners in a match at the O2, it will be hailed as the single greatest forehand display in ATP history.

 

[Kieran]

Without the hip problem, Nalbandian could have beaten Nadal on clay anywhere, and Nadal is lucky he never played him on clay until 2013. It would have shattered a lot of the myths about Nadal's invincibility on the surface. I really wish Nalbandian's hip wasn't screwy in 2008, because he could have really stopped that 2008 run of Nadal in its tracks.

Nadal's form before playing Djokovic at the French this year was fine for the most part; and Nadal fought and made those first two sets pretty difficult for Novak, especially on the big points, which is why Novak's numbers on set points were so poor.

But please stop dodging the issue, Kieran. Do you really think that Nadal would have come back and won the 2014 French Open final if he had fallen behind 2 sets to 0?

Do you seriously believe that?

The bolded part of this is quite touching. I was dabbing eyes reading it. Your love for Daveed knows no limits. It ignores all reason and throws jabs at sanity. It's really heartbreaking to see this. Lucky for young Ralph, that's all I'll say there, and I say it as an act of mercy towards you, just in case you mistake it for me being in agreement.

The italics part is a sign of an inability to form a cogent thought when it comes to Rafa. It's a literally stupid straw man argument that you're having with yourself. Literally. It didn't happen. get over it, Rafa won that final by coming back from only one set down, and he deserved it.

And he wasn't even playing great tennis. Much better than this year, but nowhere near his best...

 

[calitennis127]

Incidentally, forehands aren't isolated from the rest of tennis either. Part of what made Sampras's forehand so deadly was precisely that his serve often setup a very easy fh.

Roger's forehand was partially so great b/c of his great movement and ability to cut the path of the ball off extra early.

Many of the winners he hit in his career, wouldn't be winners if his point of contact was further back in the court.

I don't deny that Nadal has a very good forehand. I have seen him dictate many rallies with it and direct it everywhere. I also have always complimented his inside-out forehand, which has always been money. If there is one shot of his that deserves hype, it is the inside-out forehand.

However, I don't think that his forehand is the key reason for the scale of his success or why he has a very good record against his top rivals. It has contributed to his success, of course, but so have many other things, some of which I believe to be more critical.

 

[calitennis127]

Without the hip problem, Nalbandian could have beaten Nadal on clay anywhere, and Nadal is lucky he never played him on clay until 2013. It would have shattered a lot of the myths about Nadal's invincibility on the surface. I really wish Nalbandian's hip wasn't screwy in 2008, because he could have really stopped that 2008 run of Nadal in its tracks.

Nadal's form before playing Djokovic at the French this year was fine for the most part; and Nadal fought and made those first two sets pretty difficult for Novak, especially on the big points, which is why Novak's numbers on set points were so poor.

But please stop dodging the issue, Kieran. Do you really think that Nadal would have come back and won the 2014 French Open final if he had fallen behind 2 sets to 0?

Do you seriously believe that?

The bolded part of this is quite touching. I was dabbing eyes reading it. Your love for Daveed knows no limits. It ignores all reason and throws jabs at sanity. It's really heartbreaking to see this. Lucky for young Ralph, that's all I'll say there, and I say it as an act of mercy towards you, just in case you mistake it for me being in agreement.

The italics part is a sign of an inability to form a cogent thought when it comes to Rafa. It's a literally stupid straw man argument that you're having with yourself. Literally. It didn't happen. get over it, Rafa won that final by coming back from only one set down, and he deserved it.

And he wasn't even playing great tennis. Much better than this year, but nowhere near his best...

Kieran, why can't you just answer the question?

We had a debate last year about whether Djokovic had Nadal on the ropes in set 2. I argued that he did, because had Novak won the second set, I don't think Nadal had any chance of coming back. You objected to this argument.

What we saw in 2015 was Nadal storm through his first four matches to the quarters. He and Djokovic had two very competitive sets that went on for a while. Djokovic won the second set 7-5, but only after failing to convert on numerous set points and going through a nerve-racking challenge of closing the set out. After winning the wars in sets 1 and 2, Djokovic had a decisive edge, and Nadal knew it - which is why the third set was completely lopsided.

So do you really think Nadal would have won the 2014 final if Djokovic had taken the second set, which he was only a couple games from doing?

Do you think Nadal would have won sets 3 through 5?

 

[Kieran]

Just to help you out, buddy, cos I'm a generous bloke, we can all find your attempts to hijack your own thread with this ludicrous straw man, here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2538&page=5

Now, my argument then remains the same: Rafa wasn't "on the ropes" and he wasn't two sets down. Why you keep this one up, is beyond me. It's literally got no legs. Are we going to race back through the record books of every GS match and see who won the first set, then click an asterisk beside the name of the other guy, if he came back and won in four, on the basis that losing the first set is the same as losing the first two sets - and is therefore an insurmountable deficit?

I'll grant you this: Nalbandian winning the first two sets (for example, against Baghdatis in Oz) is proof that even the very greatest of all players can win the first two and then lose, even against the most ordinary players we've seen. Based on this, I think you're still wrong, mate, to be thinking up "if" scenarios when the reality was much more interesting - and historic...

 

[calitennis127]

Just to help you out, buddy, cos I'm a generous bloke, we can all find your attempts to hijack your own thread with this ludicrous straw man, here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2538&page=5

Now, my argument then remains the same: Rafa wasn't "on the ropes" and he wasn't two sets down. Why you keep this one up, is beyond me. It's literally got no legs. Are we going to race back through the record books of every GS match and see who won the first set, then click an asterisk beside the name of the other guy, if he came back and won in four, on the basis that losing the first set is the same as losing the first two sets - and is therefore an insurmountable deficit?

I'll grant you this: Nalbandian winning the first two sets (for example, against Baghdatis in Oz) is proof that even the very greatest of all players can win the first two and then lose, even against the most ordinary players we've seen. Based on this, I think you're still wrong, mate, to be thinking up "if" scenarios when the reality was much more interesting - and historic...

Kieran - comparing Nalbandian-Baghdatis to Djokovic-Nadal on clay is absurd. The latter is much more physically taxing, with long drawn-out points, long games, and a much more challenging mental grind. Being two sets to love down in that type of match - on clay no less - is much different than for Baghdatis to be down 2 sets in a hardcourt match with a quicker pace and a player who is known to be very combustible on his own serve leading. There is no comparison there.

There is no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down. He knew it and Djokovic knew it. That is why the second set last year was so crucial (and crucial this year I might add). Had Djokovic won set 2 last year, that match was done. And had Nadal won set 2 this year, I am far from convinced that Djokovic would have won.

So Kieran - let me ask you one more time. In your opinion, would Nadal have won the French final last year if he had fallen down 2 sets to 0?

You refuse to answer the question. Perhaps it is because you don't understand that psychological thresholds are crossed at key moments in matches. There is a reason Nadal did nothing in the third set this year; he knew he didn't have a chance.

 

[Front242]

I'll answer it. No, Nadal would most definitely not have won the next 3 sets. Neither guy played particularly well last year and the 4th set was the biggest bucket of $h1t I've seen in years in a final.

 

[Kieran]

Just to help you out, buddy, cos I'm a generous bloke, we can all find your attempts to hijack your own thread with this ludicrous straw man, here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2538&page=5

Now, my argument then remains the same: Rafa wasn't "on the ropes" and he wasn't two sets down. Why you keep this one up, is beyond me. It's literally got no legs. Are we going to race back through the record books of every GS match and see who won the first set, then click an asterisk beside the name of the other guy, if he came back and won in four, on the basis that losing the first set is the same as losing the first two sets - and is therefore an insurmountable deficit?

I'll grant you this: Nalbandian winning the first two sets (for example, against Baghdatis in Oz) is proof that even the very greatest of all players can win the first two and then lose, even against the most ordinary players we've seen. Based on this, I think you're still wrong, mate, to be thinking up "if" scenarios when the reality was much more interesting - and historic...

Kieran - comparing Nalbandian-Baghdatis to Djokovic-Nadal on clay is absurd. The latter is much more physically taxing, with long drawn-out points, long games, and a much more challenging mental grind. Being two sets to love down in that type of match - on clay no less - is much different than for Baghdatis to be down 2 sets in a hardcourt match with a quicker pace and a player who is known to be very combustible on his own serve leading. There is no comparison there.

There is no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down. He knew it and Djokovic knew it. That is why the second set last year was so crucial (and crucial this year I might add). Had Djokovic won set 2 last year, that match was done. And had Nadal won set 2 this year, I am far from convinced that Djokovic would have won.

So Kieran - let me ask you one more time. In your opinion, would Nadal have won the French final last year if he had fallen down 2 sets to 0?

You refuse to answer the question. Perhaps it is because you don't understand that psychological thresholds are crossed at key moments in matches. There is a reason Nadal did nothing in the third set this year; he knew he didn't have a chance.

:laydownlaughing

I have answered the question: it's a straw man. You know what these are, right? :cover

The fact that Rafa was 4-2 up in the second, then lost serve, but then broke again to win it, suggests that he was the better player in that set. This is reality.

Do you agree?

Would he have won, had he dropped the first two sets? How can we know? He didn't go two sets down, so your own conclusion is based only on your low opinion of the man, not on anything that actually happened. What actually happened is that he won in four.

As for comparing last year with this year, you're exposing your prejudice again here. Rafa this year wasn't anywhere near as good as he was last year - and he wasn't too great last year either. You're making false comparisons, all to suit your own faked conclusions. That's your prerogative, buddy, but don't expect everybody to be so literally stupid...

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, but a shot can be judged in isolation and should be. All things being equal in terms of set-up, who does more with their shots? That is the question. For as well as Nadal often sets himself up, he does very little with his shots compared to other top players - and you know it.

Can't take a post seriously in which someone is legitimately stating Nadal does "very little with his forehand" compared to other to players.

This is a joke and you should be embarrassed to state something like this.

:laydownlaughing

Oh yeah, I forgot all those legendary performances at the World Tour Finals when Nadal mustered 4 forehand winners in 2-and-a-half hour matches.

The day Nadal has 8 forehand winners in a match at the O2, it will be hailed as the single greatest forehand display in ATP history.

Care to dig up his forehand winner count in those 14 majors he won?

You're aware of how statistics work, right? Because the way you choose your sample indicates otherwise.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just to help you out, buddy, cos I'm a generous bloke, we can all find your attempts to hijack your own thread with this ludicrous straw man, here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2538&page=5

Now, my argument then remains the same: Rafa wasn't "on the ropes" and he wasn't two sets down. Why you keep this one up, is beyond me. It's literally got no legs. Are we going to race back through the record books of every GS match and see who won the first set, then click an asterisk beside the name of the other guy, if he came back and won in four, on the basis that losing the first set is the same as losing the first two sets - and is therefore an insurmountable deficit?

I'll grant you this: Nalbandian winning the first two sets (for example, against Baghdatis in Oz) is proof that even the very greatest of all players can win the first two and then lose, even against the most ordinary players we've seen. Based on this, I think you're still wrong, mate, to be thinking up "if" scenarios when the reality was much more interesting - and historic...

Kieran - comparing Nalbandian-Baghdatis to Djokovic-Nadal on clay is absurd. The latter is much more physically taxing, with long drawn-out points, long games, and a much more challenging mental grind. Being two sets to love down in that type of match - on clay no less - is much different than for Baghdatis to be down 2 sets in a hardcourt match with a quicker pace and a player who is known to be very combustible on his own serve leading. There is no comparison there.

There is no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down. He knew it and Djokovic knew it. That is why the second set last year was so crucial (and crucial this year I might add). Had Djokovic won set 2 last year, that match was done. And had Nadal won set 2 this year, I am far from convinced that Djokovic would have won.

So Kieran - let me ask you one more time. In your opinion, would Nadal have won the French final last year if he had fallen down 2 sets to 0?

You refuse to answer the question. Perhaps it is because you don't understand that psychological thresholds are crossed at key moments in matches. There is a reason Nadal did nothing in the third set this year; he knew he didn't have a chance.

What does this have to do anything? No, Nadal would not have won if Novak went up 2 sets to love. Except he was never up in the second set. Nadal broke early, then Djokovic got the break back, then Nadal broke again and won the set.

Dumb point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll answer it. No, Nadal would most definitely not have won the next 3 sets. Neither guy played particularly well last year and the 4th set was the biggest bucket of $h1t I've seen in years in a final.

Nadal was great in sets 2 and 3. Novak was solid in set 1. This revisionist history bull$hit needs to stop. Set 4 was a mess. Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean it was a bad match. It was a disappointing performance by Djokovic but hardly the worst final in recent memory. It wasn't even the worst final last year.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I honestly think this forum is amazing: We have someone spreading the same flawed nonsense for literally 6 years running now.

Pick a carefully selected match, ignore the majority of others, make a sensationalized contrarian (stupid) point. Rise, rinse, repeat.

And we, like real idiots, continue to entertain the notion.

 

[Front242]

I'll answer it. No, Nadal would most definitely not have won the next 3 sets. Neither guy played particularly well last year and the 4th set was the biggest bucket of $h1t I've seen in years in a final.

Nadal was great in sets 2 and 3. Novak was solid in set 1. This revisionist history bull$hit needs to stop. Set 4 was a mess. Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean it was a bad match. It was a disappointing performance by Djokovic but hardly the worst final in recent memory. It wasn't even the worst final last year.

Did I say it wasn't a good match? No. I said, set 4 was crap. Neither guy played particularly well but I never said it wasn't a good match. Bar set 4 I quite enjoyed watching it actually so stop making up things I didn't say. At least we both agreed set 4 was crap. I didn't actually say anything else above re the rest of the match at all, anywhere.

 

[Kieran]

The fact is, we don't know if Rafa would have lost had he gone two sets down last year, because he was the better player in that match. So good, in fact, that he didn't go two sets down...

 

[Puppet Master]

Although it is vulgar, there is a saying in my mother tongue that goes something like this:
If grandma had a d$ck then she would be grandpa.
I think this suits the situation perfectly . I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.