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

[calitennis127]

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.

Yes I do, and I know that in the bulk of big matches outside of the French Open, Nadal's opponents have hit more winners than him.

Should I dare to mention the 2009 Australian Open when Verdasco hit over 90 winners to Nadal's 50? And then when Federer slacked off and only 70-some to Nadal's 50?

Or how about the 2013 US Open final when Djokovic doubled Nadal's forehand winners? Not to mention all of the MS hardcourt matches between Djokovic and Nadal.

This list can go on and on and on and on.

 

[calitennis127]

Pick a carefully selected match

One does not have to be "careful" in selecting a match where Nadal's opponent outhit him in winners.

 

[calitennis127]

No, Nadal would not have won if Novak went up 2 sets to love.

Kieran, take note: your fellow Nadal-ite Broken is telling you that Cali is right on this one.

What does this have to do anything?

It has to do with an argument Kieran and I had after last year's French Open final. I made the point that I was disappointed in Djokovic for not rising to the occasion in set 2 to take the match when he had Nadal on the ropes - in the sense that had he won that second set, Nadal was toast. This was proven correct in this year's final, when I don't think at all that Djokovic definitely would have won if he lost the second set (which he very easily could have).

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.

And that is what is disappointing. Djokovic did not bring his best when he was basically one set away from winning the French.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, you're completely missing the point of tennis matches if you think the only deciding factor between two players is the number of winners hit. Have you ever actually played the sport, and played a bloke who flashes a winner, then hits the back fence, then a winner, and so on? And you do everything the right way - keep the ball in against him and allow him to hang himself, and you get the victory?

I mean, this insistence in counting winners and then using this as your evidence of how much greater somebody is than Nadal, it shows a gigantic blind spot on your part that you still haven't dealt with...

 

[Kieran]

It has to do with an argument Kieran and I had after last year's French Open final. I made the point that I was disappointed in Djokovic for not rising to the occasion in set 2 to take the match when he had Nadal on the ropes - in the sense that had he won that second set, Nadal was toast. This was proven correct in this year's final, when I don't think at all that Djokovic definitely would have won if he lost the second set (which he very easily could have).

This is more straw-man stuff on your part. You do know what I mean, don't you? It's a strange way of doing business, that you create an argument that holds no relevance, back it up with dodgy evidence which has no bearing at all on your initial position, and then insist that people argue with you.

And when they humour you, then you take this as proof that you were right. :laydownlaughing

Rafa was a different player last year, to this year. And he was a different player in 2008. I only added that because you don't seem to have noticed the decline in his fortunes.

So you then became the bloke I predicted, when I said that eventually when a third-rate Rafa gets beaten by Nole, some Nole-fan would show up here and claim that all seven of Rafa's best-of-five set wins against Nole on the dirt were worthless, because Nole just proved that it was he who was the greater player all along.

You just became that bloke.

And you don't see why that's wrong. Bizarre, buddy, and as I said all along: literally stupid. You cannot know that Rafa would have lost last years final if Nole won the second set - because Nole wasn't good enough to win the second set. Or the third, or the fourth. The better player was Rafa.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp... :cover

 

[calitennis127]

Brother, you're completely missing the point of tennis matches if you think the only deciding factor between two players is the number of winners hit.

Don't lecture me on the nuance of tennis when my favorite player was Nalbandian, a player with far more variety to his game than Nadal. If all I cared about was aces and winners, then my favorite players would be Roddick, Karlovic, Tsonga, and Verdasco. Nalbandian was a master of all the finer skills in baseline in tennis and point construction. Nadal even credited him for having the ability to make his opponents feel like "nothing on the court".

Have you ever actually played the sport, and played a bloke who flashes a winner, then hits the back fence, then a winner, and so on? And you do everything the right way - keep the ball in against him and allow him to hang himself, and you get the victory?

That is one way to win and there are times when it is appropriate. Nalbandian has done it. But this debate is about whether Nadal's forehand is as good as Federer's or Djokovic's, and if it is the main reason for the scale of his success. In the context of that conversation, winners are relevant.

I mean, this insistence in counting winners and then using this as your evidence of how much greater somebody is than Nadal, it shows a gigantic blind spot on your part that you still haven't dealt with...

No, you need to deal with YOUR blind spot of not assigning any value to winners at all.

Yes, winners aren't everything - but they are something. You and other Nadal fans are always trivializing winners, saying that they are not that big a deal. But they ARE significant and they tell us about a player's game, his strengths and his weaknesses, and his potential.

 

[Kieran]

No, you need to deal with YOUR blind spot of not assigning any value to winners at all.

Oh, but I do assign value to a winner - his name is Rafael Nadal. You, on the other hand, have your poor slamless Daveed...

 

[Front242]

If only Nalbandian had availed of the same performance enhancing PRP treatment, eh. Sucks that his shoulder injury became so bad. His mobility was getting better after the hip surgeries. Even Haas hasn't had to end his career 'cos of his shoulder. Not yet anyway.

 

[Kieran]

If only Nalbandian had availed of the same performance enhancing PRP treatment, eh. Sucks that his shoulder injury became so bad. His mobility was getting better after the hip surgeries. Even Haas hasn't had to end his career 'cos of his shoulder. Not yet anyway.

Exactly. Any WADA approved treatments would have helped him, but how do we know he didn't try everything, and still fell lame? The poor chap was blighted, nobody disputes that. He'd never have been a champ of Nadal's stature had he remained totally fit - and slim - throughout his career, but that's neither here nor there...

 

[calitennis127]

No, you need to deal with YOUR blind spot of not assigning any value to winners at all.

Oh, but I do assign value to a winner - his name is Rafael Nadal. You, on the other hand, have your poor slamless Daveed...

That is not a serious argument and you are only deflecting the issue.

 

[Moxie]

Brother, you're completely missing the point of tennis matches if you think the only deciding factor between two players is the number of winners hit.

Don't lecture me on the nuance of tennis when my favorite player was Nalbandian, a player with far more variety to his game than Nadal. If all I cared about was aces and winners, then my favorite players would be Roddick, Karlovic, Tsonga, and Verdasco. Nadal was a master of all the finer skills in baseline in tennis and point construction. Nadal even credited him for having the ability to make his opponents feel like "nothing on the court".

Have you ever actually played the sport, and played a bloke who flashes a winner, then hits the back fence, then a winner, and so on? And you do everything the right way - keep the ball in against him and allow him to hang himself, and you get the victory?

That is one way to win and there are times when it is appropriate. Nalbandian has done it. But this debate is about whether Nadal's forehand is as good as Federer's or Djokovic's, and if it is the main reason for the scale of his success. In the context of that conversation, winners are relevant.

I mean, this insistence in counting winners and then using this as your evidence of how much greater somebody is than Nadal, it shows a gigantic blind spot on your part that you still haven't dealt with...

No, you need to deal with YOUR blind spot of not assigning any value to winners at all.

Yes, winners aren't everything - but they are something. You and other Nadal fans are always trivializing winners, saying that they are not that big a deal. But they ARE significant and they tell us about a player's game, his strengths and his weaknesses, and his potential.

I wouldn't say that Nadal fans "trivialize" winners, but it might seem that way to you, given the kinds of scraps you like to get into making claims about Nadal's (lack of) game, and the convolutions you put yourself through, not to mention the leaps of imagination, to make the case for how many matches, and particularly Slams, that he "shouldn't" have won. You have a very narrow definition of a kind of tennis that you admire, which might be fine if you didn't then extrapolate that to mean that others' approaches are lesser, or even down to not really valid. But on this thread, non-Nadal fans, and even his outright detractors have contributed to say that you're undervaluing the Nadal forehand, and that they don't believe your explanation as to why he's done so well.

It can be really fun to shadow-box with you, but "shadow" might be an operative word. And, oh yes...welcome back.

 

[calitennis127]

I wouldn't say that Nadal fans "trivialize" winners, but it might seem that way to you, given the kinds of scraps you like to get into making claims about Nadal's (lack of) game, and the convolutions you put yourself through,

Please name one convolution. (And thank you for the welcome back.)

 

[Moxie]

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.

And that is what is disappointing. Djokovic did not bring his best when he was basically one set away from winning the French.

You cheezily extracted the first part of Broken's quote as an argument against Kieran, but at least you did finally include the full quote, seen above. I don't agree with Broken that we can be sure that Nadal wouldn't have won the match, had he gone down 2 sets to love. However, as BS points out, going down 2 sets to nil wasn't really that close to happening, so your point is moot, anyway. But that was an odd day, it has to be remembered, the first hot and humid day of the tournament, so the players were fighting that. And Novak was somehow ill. I don't believe you can gauge how it might have gone, even if Djokovic had won the first 2. He was sick, and it was a heavy day. Which isn't really his best thing. For those reasons alone, I would say you can't otherwise predict the outcome of that match, and it gone to 5. And I am within my rights to say that Rafa could have taken it to 5.

You're basing your thesis on how the 3rd set went at RG went this year. You're trying to say that Nadal bailed, because he knew he couldn't win. Firstly, Nadal doesn't bail on matches. Secondly, has it escaped your notice how many matches that Djokovic has won this year by running away with them in the 3rd set? This is much more a function of Novak's year, and Rafa's poor one, than of Nadal's inclination to scarper away when the going gets tough. That's why I think you're wrong to take that match as any proof that Rafa wouldn't have won against Nole in any of the best of 5 that you're trying to re-jigger, even if he had gone down 2 sets to love. It is rather pathetic, though, how many matches you'll argue against Rafa, even though he won them in 4. That's not really a position of strength.

 

[calitennis127]

This is more straw-man stuff on your part.

Where is the straw man, Kieran? Where is the argument I am attributing to you that you never made?

Rafa was a different player last year, to this year. And he was a different player in 2008. I only added that because you don't seem to have noticed the decline in his fortunes.

Kieran, he really hasn't been that far off. His level in the first two sets this year against Djokovic was very much on par with what we have seen from in the past and he could have won both sets. He was not far from winning either. Yes, Djokovic jumped all over him in the first set this year, but let's not forget that Federer beat Nadal 6-1 in the first set of the 2006 French Open final, only to lose, or that Federer jumped out to a 5-1 lead at both Monte Carlo and Hamburg on Nadal in years past, only to lose the set. Not to mention that Federer was up 5-2 with set point in the 2011 final on Nadal before his asinine attempt at a drop shot spun the match around. There is scant evidence that Nadal's level in the first two sets of this year's French Open quarterfinal was leaps and bounds below what we have seen from him in the past, unless one is just putting the fix in for excuses as Federer fans did to explain every loss he had post-2007.

So you then became the bloke I predicted, when I said that eventually when a third-rate Rafa gets beaten by Nole, some Nole-fan would show up here and claim that all seven of Rafa's best-of-five set wins against Nole on the dirt were worthless, because Nole just proved that it was he who was the greater player all along.

Now who is throwing up straw man arguments? When have I ever said anything remotely close to this?

I never said that all of Nadal's previous wins against Djokovic at the French were "worthless". I do, however, believe that Djokovic should have won the matches in 2012, 2013, and 2014. I think he was the better player and lost.

You cannot know that Rafa would have lost last years final if Nole won the second set - because Nole wasn't good enough to win the second set. Or the third, or the fourth.

Kieran, this type of stultifying perspective is one that you can only adhere to out of extreme bias. You for one have had no problem saying that Nadal would have won the 2014 Australian Open final if he didn't hurt his back at the start of the second set against Wawrinka. You have had no problem saying - ad nauseam - that if Nadal hadn't gotten hurt in 2009, Federer never would have won the French or even Wimbledon that year. You have had no problem with people saying that if Nadal didn't miss that backhand early in the 5th set of the 2012 Australian Open, he would have beaten Djokovic. The list goes on and on.

The simple reality here is that everyone around tennis with common sense - including most of all Djokovic and Nadal - knows that it is virtually impossible for either of them to come back from 2 sets to 0 down on the other in a clay court match, given the way they play off of each other in long taxing rallies. Without an injury afflicting the player in the lead, the climb is too steep to come back from 2 set to 0 down. Why else do you think Nadal upped his game in the second set both last year and this year? He knew how vital it was.

Now, as for your argument that "Djokovic wasn't good enough to win the second set last year". Well, yes, that is true if you are simply going by the fact that he lost the set. But if you are approaching it analytically with a broader view, you know that he was capable of bringing a much higher level in that set than he did. And that was the disappointing thing. He and Nadal both knew that the second set was going to likely determine the outcome of the match, and Djokovic did not bring his A game the way Nadal did.

Just because something did not happen does not mean it could not realistically have happened - believe it or not, Federer very easily could have won that 2006 Rome final; he just missed those two forehands. And Nadal very easily could have won the 2007 Wimbledon final if he converted any one of those four break points early in the fifth set (to be fair).

Why is this so hard for you to grasp... :cover

It is not hard for me to grasp that Djokovic lost the second set. What is apparently hard for you to grasp is that a) Djokovic was not prepared for the moment to seize that match with a coherent, aggressive gameplan in the second set, and b) a comeback from 2 sets to 0 down was highly improbable, to say the least.

 

[calitennis127]

You cheezily extracted the first part of Broken's quote as an argument against Kieran, but at least you did finally include the full quote, seen above. I don't agree with Broken that we can be sure that Nadal wouldn't have won the match, had he gone down 2 sets to love.

I'm sorry, but that just amounts to fan-boyism/fan-girlism. There is no objectivity in saying that whatsoever, and what both you and Kieran betray in this matter is an inability to relate to the mindset of the players on the court. Even if you just listen to the announcers who are former players or coaches - like McEnroe, Gilbert, Cahill, Annacone, etc. - they constantly talk about crucial moments that the players understand are much more important than just numbers registering on the scoreboard. The players have a sense of the flow of the match and what is empirically likely.

So let me express this to you very clearly: with as physically and mentally taxing as their sets are on clay especially, there is no way that either of them would be climbing back from 2 sets to 0 down on a slow clay court. And I am saying that the other way as well for Djokovic.

However, as BS points out, going down 2 sets to nil wasn't really that close to happening, so your point is moot, anyway.

All that was required was 15-20 minutes of Novak's best tennis.

But that was an odd day, it has to be remembered, the first hot and humid day of the tournament, so the players were fighting that. And Novak was somehow ill. I don't believe you can gauge how it might have gone, even if Djokovic had won the first 2. He was sick, and it was a heavy day. Which isn't really his best thing.

He was sick enough to be out there and play through many long rallies and win the first set. That is not a legitimate excuse.

And I am within my rights to say that Rafa could have taken it to 5.

And it is within my rights to say that would have been very unlikely.

You're basing your thesis on how the 3rd set went at RG went this year. You're trying to say that Nadal bailed, because he knew he couldn't win. Firstly, Nadal doesn't bail on matches.

"Bailing" on a match doesn't have to mean quitting. It can simply mean losing energy and spunk because you know that the outcome is inevitable. It can be subconscious.

Secondly, has it escaped your notice how many matches that Djokovic has won this year by running away with them in the 3rd set? This is much more a function of Novak's year, and Rafa's poor one, than of Nadal's inclination to scarper away when the going gets tough.

Okay, then do you think that when Federer won the third set of the 2007 Hamburg final 6-0 it was all because of his game at that time and had nothing to do with Nadal's fatigue from the win streak?

Do you think that when Nadal lost the fourth set of the 2011 US Open final 6-1 it was all because Djokovic was just that much better that day? That would be ridiculous to argue. The first three sets were wars, even the first two. Nadal's energy after the third set had sunk and he knew he didn't have what it took to finish the match out; hence, the lopsided 4th.

That's why I think you're wrong to take that match as any proof that Rafa wouldn't have won against Nole in any of the best of 5 that you're trying to re-jigger, even if he had gone down 2 sets to love.

It's funny how you are completely ignoring my even-handed point that I am not at all convinced that Djokovic would have won the quarterfinal this year if he had lost the second set. I think he was in much more danger than people realize, based on the flow of the match and the psychological state of the players.

It is rather pathetic, though, how many matches you'll argue against Rafa, even though he won them in 4. That's not really a position of strength.

You are saying that only because you do not relate much to the mindset of the players on the court and the drain they experience during the matches or the mental hurdles they are fighting. You are only looking at the scoreboard.

 

[Moxie]

You cheezily extracted the first part of Broken's quote as an argument against Kieran, but at least you did finally include the full quote, seen above. I don't agree with Broken that we can be sure that Nadal wouldn't have won the match, had he gone down 2 sets to love.

I'm sorry, but that just amounts to fan-boyism/fan-girlism. There is no objectivity in saying that whatsoever, and what both you and Kieran betray in this matter is an inability to relate to the mindset of the players on the court. Even if you just listen to the announcers who are former players or coaches - like McEnroe, Gilbert, Cahill, Annacone, etc. - they constantly talk about crucial moments that the players understand are much more important than just numbers registering on the scoreboard. The players have a sense of the flow of the match and what is empirically likely.

So let me express this to you very clearly: with as physically and mentally taxing as their sets are on clay especially, there is no way that either of them would be climbing back from 2 sets to 0 down on a slow clay court. And I am saying that the other way as well for Djokovic.

You are exactly as biased as you accuse us of being. And worse, you're always inventing sets and matches that players "should" have won. To give Rafa an extra set beyond the ones he actually did win is not that much of a stretch, compared to theorizing about how another player would have done, HAD he won the 2nd set, which he didn't. Additionally, on clay, it was very hard to put Nadal out in the 5th, should it reach there, theoretically, before this year. Doesn't make statistical sense.

 

[BalaryKar]

From what I saw of that match, each of those 3 forehands was way more dominating than any and all of those 23 forehands. Similar on the lines of the Queens 08 semis where the losing player at the end of 0-6 1-6 had more dominating winners than the winner

 

[Moxie]

However, as BS points out, going down 2 sets to nil wasn't really that close to happening, so your point is moot, anyway.

All that was required was 15-20 minutes of Novak's best tennis.

And all that was required for Rafa to win those sets you dispute, was 15-20 minutes of his best tennis. Who produced it at the critical moments? That one cuts both ways, except that when the slashing and cutting is done, it's not theoretical, but real, and the one who has produced it in the big moments at the end of sets in their biggest matches has by and large been Nadal.

 

[BalaryKar]

You cheezily extracted the first part of Broken's quote as an argument against Kieran, but at least you did finally include the full quote, seen above. I don't agree with Broken that we can be sure that Nadal wouldn't have won the match, had he gone down 2 sets to love. However, as BS points out, going down 2 sets to nil wasn't really that close to happening, so your point is moot, anyway. But that was an odd day, it has to be remembered, the first hot and humid day of the tournament, so the players were fighting that. And Novak was somehow ill. I don't believe you can gauge how it might have gone, even if Djokovic had won the first 2. He was sick, and it was a heavy day. Which isn't really his best thing. For those reasons alone, I would say you can't otherwise predict the outcome of that match, and it gone to 5. And I am within my rights to say that Rafa could have taken it to 5.

Here is the catch! Let us even agree that Nadal goes 2 sets down, and wins sets 3 and 4. Now, after a lot of grinding and Nadal replicating the 2013 5th set performance wins the fifth set and thereby the match too. Will we have to then look at some game of set 3 where Djokovic would have dominated by winning at love, and then zooms to a 40-0 lead in Nadal's serve next game. Now, Nadal somehow struggles and brings it to duece, gives 2 more break points and saves both of them and is at advantage now. Somehow, Djokovic hits an amazing forehand winner and after duece draws one more break point. After a long long rally, Nadal still saves it and goes on to retain the game after starving off 6 break points. Now, the drained Djokovic is down 15-30 and surges ahead 40-30, and commits an UE to bring it to duece, and then double faults his way to a break point. The ever opportunistic Nadal brings a cracker of a forehand and steals the game to go up a break. Are we then to say that if only Djokovic could have managed to maintain the aggression over these two games, he would have won the FO? Where does the buck stop?

The most important question then is this. What happened to those 23 forehand winners in the final against Wawrinka?

 

[Moxie]

It is rather pathetic, though, how many matches you'll argue against Rafa, even though he won them in 4. That's not really a position of strength.

You are saying that only because you do not relate much to the mindset of the players on the court and the drain they experience during the matches or the mental hurdles they are fighting. You are only looking at the scoreboard.

I will take umbrage that you say I don't relate to the mindset of players, whereas you are implying that you do. And I surely would be offended if you think I'm only looking at the scoreboard. Like any real fan, I watch the matches, and sweat through them with the players. I don't see why you would have an especial relationship to their mindset more than I do. But if you have been watching Nadal play over the last 10 years, you will know that he's not really one to give up. You have found a few examples where he's gone out rather meekly in the 3rd, but those are not characteristic, and make whatever reason you like, as you have. But look at his 5th set results. Pretty hefty. Hard to call him out in a theoretical 5th.