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

[Kieran]

Brother, your straw man is to keep bringing up this "2-set lead" argument with me specifically, and acting as if I ever gave the idea any credence and argued against it. As an idea itself, it's based upon your own inability to tell what you're watching, because if you recall, you started it when you claimed that Rafa was"on the ropes" in the second set, and was somehow lucky to win it.

If you want to check these are your words, I posted the link to the original argument yesterday. And of course, the truth is diametrically opposed to what you're saying, because he was up a break in the second, squandered it, but broke again to win it. Myopically, you attribute all this to the man who lost the set, and give no credit to the bloke who won it. :cover

Talk about not knowing the mindset of these things. :cover

And to clear something up very easily, I never said Rafa would have beaten Stan had his back not gone lame, but I did argue against the gloaters who said the injury didn't affect the outcome because Stan was already so far ahead. This is an unprovable assertion and that's the extent of it...

 

[calitennis127]

I will take umbrage that you say I don't relate to the mindset of players, whereas you are implying that you do.

I am very confident in both of these positions and I stand by them - to put it politely.

I don't see why you would have an especial relationship to their mindset more than I do.

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.

Moxie, like Kieran you have a tendency to fall into stating tepid generalities and avoiding actual substance. Saying that Nadal doesn't "give up" is nothing more than a meatheaded, simplistic sports cliche that ultimately tells us nothing. We can all find examples of our favorite players showing persistence or fighting through adversity; that just comes with the territory. Ultimately, though, it tells us very little about why someone actually wins. For that, we have to turn to specifics.

Now as for my "examples where Nadal has gone out rather meekly in the 3rd", you did not address the questions I asked or give any concrete explanation for why they happened. And that is, I am afraid, because you really do not understand why they happened. All you said was "those are not characteristic".

So allow me to ask you again:

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?

Please answer the questions directly.

But look at his 5th set results. Pretty hefty. Hard to call him out in a theoretical 5th.

Moxie, the fact that you are even saying this shows what I am talking about as far as your inability to relate to the players' mindset. Even Nadal himself would disagree with you there. With the way that Djokovic and Nadal play long rally after long rally on any surface, but especially clay, there is virtually no chance for a 2 sets to 0 comeback. Broken knows this and that's why he acknowledged it. For you to insist otherwise frankly just makes you look like you really don't understand what is going on in the matches in terms of the mental and physical grind.

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, you're all over the place. You're trying to sound condescending, but it only makes your situation worse.

Consider these two things: here you generously tell us that myself and Moxie "have a tendency to fall into stating tepid generalities and avoiding actual substance."

Then in another thread you have the gall to offer up a match against Berdy (FFS) in Miami (FFS) in 2006 (FFS) as an example of how Nalbandian would have handled Wawrinka in this year's French Open final where - lest we forget - we should forget about the stage for a minute. :cover

Now, if this isn't "falling into tepid generalities" - and irrelevance also - and "avoiding actual substance", then I'm a monkey's proverbial... :dodgy:

 

[calitennis127]

Here is Nalbandian against Nadal in one of those stretches (early 2009) where Kieran and Broken completely exaggerate the quality of Nadal's level. This was one of those moments when Nadal was supposedly untouchable, with that amazing forehand clicking.

Well Nalbandian toyed with him at Indian Wells in the rallies at that time. But look, everyone, at how awesome Nadal's forehand was hitting up the middle of the court. Reminds me of the time I went to Cincinnati after Nadal won his first Wimbledon in 2008, expecting to see something special from the Nadal forehand in the semifinal against Djokovic. Before I finished my first cup of lemonade, the score was already 6-1 Djokovic and the forehand that was dominating and producing winners was Djokovic's.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW858OWOoNc[/video]

 

[calitennis127]

Buddy, you're all over the place. You're trying to sound condescending, but it only makes your situation worse.

Consider these two things: here you generously tell us that myself and Moxie "have a tendency to fall into stating tepid generalities and avoiding actual substance."

Then in another thread you have the gall to offer up a match against Berdy (FFS) in Miami (FFS) in 2006 (FFS) as an example of how Nalbandian would have handled Wawrinka in this year's French Open final where - lest we forget - we should forget about the stage for a minute. :cover

Now, if this isn't "falling into tepid generalities" - and irrelevance also - and "avoiding actual substance", then I'm a monkey's proverbial... :dodgy:

Kieran, you do avoid substance. When it comes to Nalbandian, you have no idea what you are talking about in assessing the reasons for his failures.

Second, Moxie did avoid my specific questions, and apparently you are too. Perhaps that is just because you don't understand the specifics very well.

 

[Kieran]

^^ That's not a 6-0 final set I just saw there, no? :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, you do avoid substance. When it comes to Nalbandian, you have no idea what you are talking about in assessing the reasons for his failures.

Second, Moxie did avoid my specific questions, and apparently you are too. Perhaps that is just because you don't understand the specifics very well.

Brother, you just offered a video of a match where Rafa struggled early on - then won 6-0 in the third set as evidence on behalf of his opponent. :cover

This isn't only unwise, but it's an example of selective watching, which - when ya fink about it - is a way of avoiding the obvious truth...

 

[calitennis127]

^^ That's not a 6-0 final set I just saw there, no? :lolz:

Care to explain why it happened? Do you have any idea why it happened?

Someone lost 5 match points at the end of the second set, and he had a bad hip that was about to cause him to go to surgery.

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran, you do avoid substance. When it comes to Nalbandian, you have no idea what you are talking about in assessing the reasons for his failures.

Second, Moxie did avoid my specific questions, and apparently you are too. Perhaps that is just because you don't understand the specifics very well.

Brother, you just offered a video of a match where Rafa struggled early on - then won 6-0 in the third set as evidence on behalf of his opponent. :cover

This isn't only unwise, but it's an example of selective watching, which - when ya fink about it - is a way of avoiding the obvious truth...

Kieran, for someone who is Catholic, you have an astonishingly shallow materialist mindset when it comes to tennis. You lack any kind of imagination or idealism, which is quite strange because one would think that the joy and hope that comes from being Catholic would affect how you view life in general, but I guess not. It's like you have no conception of what it means for a player to prepare properly, or improve, or adjust. It's like all the careers of all these players are just static mathematical laws.

The fact that Nalbandian lost 5 set points at the end of the second set does not at all mean that those points couldn't have been won. Any time a player saves multiple match points, it involves some good fortune, especially if the points in question were long. Just one slip-up can result in losing the point. Nalbandian won a couple matches after saving match points, but I am not standing here banging my chest over it.

But again, you are dodging the issue. Whether you like it or not, Nalbandian got the match to 6-3, 5-3 and match point at a time when Nadal was #1 in the world and fresh off winning the Australian Open and doing well at Rotterdam, a time, in other words, when you and Broken would be touting his forehand as an other-worldly shot. Nalbandian toyed with him for the better part of two sets. Yes, he didn't close the match out on multiple match points, but that doesn't erase what came before either. That Nadal forehand wasn't doing much damage until Nalbandian's energy crashed in the third set and his hip wouldn't allow him to keep fighting.

That was actually one of those vintage big-point/stamina wins of Nadal's career.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, for someone who is Catholic, you have an astonishingly shallow materialist mindset when it comes to tennis.

:laydownlaughing :lolz: :clap :clap

Best point-scoring argument winning sentence ever... :clap

 

[Kieran]

By the way, brother, I happened to check in at about the 6 minute mark of your vid and saw some astonishingly brave and winning forehands by Rafa, just when all seemed lost. I don't think they were because of Daveed's hip, or even Rafa's knees. The sentimentalist in me loved Rafa's adventurous swinging for the fences. The idealist in me admired his courage under fire. The tennis fan in me adored the way he pitched backhand and forehand winners outta reach of the bloke down the other end, who knew the game was up.

It was a good clip, a great advertisement for tennis, and Rafa most especially... :clap

 

[Moxie]

^^ That's not a 6-0 final set I just saw there, no? :lolz:

Care to explain why it happened? Do you have any idea why it happened?

Someone lost 5 match points at the end of the second set, and he had a bad hip that was about to cause him to go to surgery.

This is where your claim to "understanding the mindset" of players falls down. Nalbandian had 5 MPs in the 2nd set of that match, didn't convert any, then lost the set. To say he lost the 3rd because of his hip, rather than having his heart ripped out and collapsing to lose the final set, (at love,) is not so plausible, and smacks rather of excuse. (He had hip surgery 2-3 months later. That is true.) Nadal had lost in their first two meetings, but finally made the adjustments to beat him, and never lost to him again (5 subsequent meetings,) which, in itself, makes the argument for Rafa having adjusted to Nalbandian's game. David was very fine for 1 and 3/4s of a set, and so, it appeared, was his hip. I stayed up and watched that match, and I don't remember any call to the trainer. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

A great player wouldn't have let that match slip away, or would at least have made a match of the 3rd. And the "mindset" of a champion was to dig in, figure out, make his opportunities and then take them, which Nadal did. Another thing you forget to mention about this match is that there was only one break in the 1st set, and a break and break back in the 2nd. I would say that was generally what we'd consider a close match, but certainly not outrageously one-sided. I have never understood why you persist in using this match as an example of Nalbandian's game v. Nadal. A well-played set and a half, with no W at the end, and no subsequent wins doesn't really prove much.

 

[calitennis127]

^^ That's not a 6-0 final set I just saw there, no? :lolz:

Care to explain why it happened? Do you have any idea why it happened?

Someone lost 5 match points at the end of the second set, and he had a bad hip that was about to cause him to go to surgery.

This is where your claim to "understanding the mindset" of players falls down. Nalbandian had 5 MPs in the 2nd set of that match, didn't convert any, then lost the set. To say he lost the 3rd because of his hip, rather than having his heart ripped out and collapsing to lose the final set, (at love,) is not so plausible, and smacks rather of excuse.

I explicitly said that he had just "lost 5 match points at the end of the second set". I figured that any knowledgeable tennis fan would understand what I meant when I said that. Of course he hit an emotional low. That is typically what happens when someone fails to close out a match after having match points. I took it for granted that you and others would know that's what I meant.

I'm glad, though, that you at least recognized that losing match points would cause an emotional drop.....:clap

(He had hip surgery 2-3 months later. That is true.)

Not only is that true, it is immensely significant. Nalbandian almost pulled out of the Bercy final against Tsonga because his hip was hurting so bad. He knew that he was going to be having surgery that spring at some point. He was just thinking about Davis Cup.

Either way, I am not blaming the loss on the hip. I am blaming other, much more typical reasons in Nalbandian's career, and I am simply saying that in the lopsided third set the hip was a factor.

Nadal had lost in their first two meetings, but finally made the adjustments to beat him, and never lost to him again (5 subsequent meetings,) which, in itself, makes the argument for Rafa having adjusted to Nalbandian's game.

Here you go again with more vintage Moxie generalities that are not backed by any specifics. In case you forgot, the 2012 Indian Wells match between Nalbandian and Nadal followed the exact pattern as the 2009 match did, except with a more competitive third set. Nalbandian won the first set in straightforward fashion and then lost a tight second set after collapsing on his own serve at the end. Furthermore, Nalbandian won the first set of their Miami match in 2010, and he schooled Nadal with a winner count of 18 to 3 at one point in the first set of their US Open match. To say that Nadal "figured him out" makes no sense. Nalbandian did the same things tactically to Nadal in their last 5 matches that he did in their first two matches.

A great player wouldn't have let that match slip away, or would at least have made a match of the 3rd.

Then you must consider Nalbandian a "great player", since that is exactly what he did in their 2012 match at Indian Wells after failing to close out the second set. He came back and made it 4-5, 15-40 in the third set.

And the "mindset" of a champion was to dig in, figure out, make his opportunities and then take them, which Nadal did.

And which Nadal has failed to do on numerous other occasions, so what is your point?

Another thing you forget to mention about this match is that there was only one break in the 1st set, and a break and break back in the 2nd. I would say that was generally what we'd consider a close match, but certainly not outrageously one-sided.

When Nalbandian was up 6-3, 4-2 in the second set on Nadal in the 2009 match and schooling him in the rallies, Jason Goodall remarked that Nalbandian was "toying with Nadal" in the rallies - which he was. He was one point away from winning the match 6-3, 6-3 (or 6-3, 6-4 since he had match points in two separate games). And I'd love to hear you say that Nadal winning matches by that scoreline was not "lopsided".

I have never understood why you persist in using this match as an example of Nalbandian's game v. Nadal. A well-played set and a half, with no W at the end, and no subsequent wins doesn't really prove much.

Yeah, if you can't look at tennis specifics and just want to talk in generalities.

Speaking of specifics.....why have you not answered my questions? I will keep posting them until I get a reply.

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?

 

[calitennis127]

By the way, brother, I happened to check in at about the 6 minute mark of your vid and saw some astonishingly brave and winning forehands by Rafa, just when all seemed lost. I don't think they were because of Daveed's hip, or even Rafa's knees. The sentimentalist in me loved Rafa's adventurous swinging for the fences. The idealist in me admired his courage under fire. The tennis fan in me adored the way he pitched backhand and forehand winners outta reach of the bloke down the other end, who knew the game was up.

Kieran, this is what I mean. For you to think that Nadal saving 5 match points was just a matter of him reaching for a new level and amping it up with the forehand with Nalbandian not knowing what to do is frankly just silly. I will grant you this: on 3 of the 5 match points, Nadal won them by being aggressive with the forehand. However, one of the points was won because Nalbandian's forehand return was out by an inch, and another was won because Nadal hit a backhand looper on the run that barely stayed in the court. It skidded off the line and bounced up on Nalbandian, so he hit his reply very short and Nadal came in for an easy backhand winner.

To say that some luck didn't play a role in those two points for Nadal is simply a sign of complete bias. We are talking about a matter of maybe 2 inches total. Nadal's backhand especially was not hit well and he was lucky it barely caught the line.

As for your point about the forehand catching fire and Nalbandian not responding, if you remember the details of the match, you will remember that the in the first game of the second set Nadal was very aggressive with his forehand and won the first game decisively. He also did one of those fist pumps you love so much. And Nalbandian's response was to come out and win 5 of the next 7 games to get a 5-3 lead and multiple match points. Furthermore, one of the best points Nalbandian played in the match was when he was down 15-40 at 5-4 in the second set and he won a rally of over 30 shots. So shocking that he would rise to the occasion and win a big point like that, isn't it?

And, if I may ask, if Nadal could so easily turn it on with the forehand to take control of the match, why did he wait so long? He sure didn't wait to take control against Murray and his other opponents in that tournament. Why did he wait against Nalbandian? Do you think he wasn't trying until the match points?

Clearly, this is not the case if you take a look at how he started the second set - with multiple forehand winners in his first service game. Nalbandian's response was to own him in the subsequent games in numerous rallies.

 

[Kieran]

He did a fist pump? Cool! I love them! :clap

Buddy, sometimes it's hard to shrug off an underdog. Bloke like Daveed, with nothing to lose and playing above himself, takes time to get a grip on him, sometimes. Then, once Rafa has fist pumped his way through the crisis, he crushed him in the end.

I didn't see the fist pump and now I'll have to go watch it all again...

 

[Front242]

You've completely missed the point there. Nadal was the underdog.

 

[Kieran]

You've completely missed the point there. Nadal was the underdog.

:laydownlaughing :lolz: :clap

 

[calitennis127]

He did a fist pump? Cool! I love them! :clap

Buddy, sometimes it's hard to shrug off an underdog. Bloke like Daveed, with nothing to lose and playing above himself, takes time to get a grip on him, sometimes. Then, once Rafa has fist pumped his way through the crisis, he crushed him in the end.

I didn't see the fist pump and now I'll have to go watch it all again...

So why do you think Nadal waited until match point to start playing? He didn't do that in any other match that tournament. It seemed like he really tried to take control at the start of the second set with aggressive forehands and Kieran-endearing fist pumps, but then he just continued to have his behind handed to him.

 

[Kieran]

He did a fist pump? Cool! I love them! :clap

Buddy, sometimes it's hard to shrug off an underdog. Bloke like Daveed, with nothing to lose and playing above himself, takes time to get a grip on him, sometimes. Then, once Rafa has fist pumped his way through the crisis, he crushed him in the end.

I didn't see the fist pump and now I'll have to go watch it all again...

So why do you think Nadal waited until match point to start playing? He didn't do that in any other match that tournament. It seemed like he really tried to take control at the start of the second set with aggressive forehands and Kieran-endearing fist pumps, but then he just continued to have his behind handed to him.

Well, there was one behind handed to somebody, and that was in the third set. I think Rafa was trying hard all along, but you're ignoring the fact that he's a Big Stage player. We never say, forget about the stage for a minute with Rafa, because he'll bring it everywhere. And when the situation got Captain Kirk-grim, he became even more heroic.

Seriously, you should love that element in him, the suffering, the grace under pressure, and the giant heart. Being a good Catholic, and all that...

 

[calitennis127]

Well, there was one behind handed to somebody, and that was in the third set.

Why do you think Jason Goodall said in the middle of the second set that Nalbandian was toying with Nadal?