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

[Kieran]

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?

So what, buddy? He didn't toy with him when it mattered. At the business end of things, the superior player won. I know you're a bloke who sets more store on highlight reels than substance, but a bloke like Rafa is all about the substance. Where it mattered, he was superior. Why are you so against virtues like honesty, patience, perseverance? I thought that as a good Catholic, you'd appreciate these things... :nono

 

[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?

So what, buddy? He didn't toy with him when it mattered. At the business end of things, the superior player won. I know you're a bloke who sets more store on highlight reels than substance, but a bloke like Rafa is all about the substance. Where it mattered, he was superior. Why are you so against virtues like honesty, patience, perseverance? I thought that as a good Catholic, you'd appreciate these things... :nono

So nothing mattered until the match points? And do you not think that Nalbandian demonstrated perseverance after having 4 match points when it was 5-3, falling behind 15-40 when it was 5-4, and then winning a 30-shot rally to get to 30-40 and then find his way again to match point? If that isn't perseverance, what is?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nalbandian is a terrific player who at his best, is a match for anyone from a tennis perspective. He was playing great against Nadal at Indian Wells and dominating the rallies for two sets...then he lost. Moving on.

 

[calitennis127]

Nalbandian is a terrific player who at his best, is a match for anyone from a tennis perspective. He was playing great against Nadal at Indian Wells and dominating the rallies for two sets...then he lost. Moving on.

Why don't you address the original point I was making in posting that IW video, or at least get your Nadal buddy Kieran to address it? Kieran is quite adept at taking conversations off on his preferred tangents, as he did here, but the original question I was posing to you two was why Nadal - at one of those supposed peaks in his powers - was struggling to do much of anything with his forehand in that match?

Nadal was #1 in the world, healthy, and confident off of his recent run in Melbourne. So why wasn't the forehand doing more damage in that match?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nalbandian is a terrific player who at his best, is a match for anyone from a tennis perspective. He was playing great against Nadal at Indian Wells and dominating the rallies for two sets...then he lost. Moving on.

Why don't you address the original point I was making in posting that IW video, or at least get your Nadal buddy Kieran to address it? Kieran is quite adept at taking conversations off on his preferred tangents, as he did here, but the original question I was posing to you two was why Nadal - at one of those supposed peaks in his powers - was struggling to do much of anything with his forehand in that match?

Nadal was #1 in the world, healthy, and confident off of his recent run in Melbourne. So why wasn't the forehand doing more damage in that match?

I'm not saying this to be a jerk but I didn't address the original point because I haven't been keeping up with your posts in this thread, or Kieran's for that matter. I know you never grow tired of this but we do. I've looooong grew tired of arguing with you about Nalbandian, or Nadal for that matter. So aside from the occasional smartass remark, I'm not going to indulge your ridiculous logic.

 

[calitennis127]

Nalbandian is a terrific player who at his best, is a match for anyone from a tennis perspective. He was playing great against Nadal at Indian Wells and dominating the rallies for two sets...then he lost. Moving on.

Why don't you address the original point I was making in posting that IW video, or at least get your Nadal buddy Kieran to address it? Kieran is quite adept at taking conversations off on his preferred tangents, as he did here, but the original question I was posing to you two was why Nadal - at one of those supposed peaks in his powers - was struggling to do much of anything with his forehand in that match?

Nadal was #1 in the world, healthy, and confident off of his recent run in Melbourne. So why wasn't the forehand doing more damage in that match?

I'm not saying this to be a jerk but I didn't address the original point because I haven't been keeping up with your posts in this thread, or Kieran's for that matter. I know you never grow tired of this but we do. I've looooong grew tired of arguing with you about Nalbandian, or Nadal for that matter. So aside from the occasional smartass remark, I'm not going to indulge your ridiculous logic.

So it's ridiculous to ask where Nadal's forehand was in that match? I apologize for asking such an irrelevant question.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why don't you address the original point I was making in posting that IW video, or at least get your Nadal buddy Kieran to address it? Kieran is quite adept at taking conversations off on his preferred tangents, as he did here, but the original question I was posing to you two was why Nadal - at one of those supposed peaks in his powers - was struggling to do much of anything with his forehand in that match?

Nadal was #1 in the world, healthy, and confident off of his recent run in Melbourne. So why wasn't the forehand doing more damage in that match?

I'm not saying this to be a jerk but I didn't address the original point because I haven't been keeping up with your posts in this thread, or Kieran's for that matter. I know you never grow tired of this but we do. I've looooong grew tired of arguing with you about Nalbandian, or Nadal for that matter. So aside from the occasional smartass remark, I'm not going to indulge your ridiculous logic.

So it's ridiculous to ask where Nadal's forehand was in that match? I apologize for asking such an irrelevant question.

I didn't say that. I said you're really redundant so it gets tiring reading the same $hit over and over.

 

[calitennis127]

Things you need to be an all time great with double digit slam wins: Stamina, gameplans, high first serve percentage, and athleticism.

Why do you diminish the value of stamina? It is clearly very valuable. If two players are of relatively equal ability, but one can sustain a good level for much longer, then he has a huge advantage in winning long, drawn-out matches. If you watch the 2010 US Open final, you see that Djokovic was huffing and puffing after long points while Nadal was perfectly fine after them. That is a huge advantage.

Also, I didn't just say "gameplans". I explicitly said a conscious gameplan for big moments and key games. I stand by that. It is often said that at the pro level matches come down to a couple key points. There is truth in that. And if a player has a conscious plan for the big moments that he is a confident in and is capable of executing, it will help him succeed.

High first-serve percentage? Again, if matches on the biggest stage often come down to a couple key points, how is high first-serve percentage not critical? It absolutely is. Serving 80% like Nadal did in 2008 versus, say, 60% could be literally the difference of 15 total points in the match, when you include not just aces but well-placed first serves that allowed a point to be dictated after the return came back.

Athleticism? Again, how is that not important? You remind of the silly basketball fans who told me during the Finals that they "didn't care if JR and Shumpert were combine superstars based on their athleticism and their shooting ability". They said this to me after I objected to the silly nonsense that LeBron had no one who could help him or that Golden State's starting 5 was "more talented". I could only chuckle at this. In sports, how does athleticism not matter? It is very significant, and Nadal is a great athlete. Suggesting that athleticism it isn't critical is very misguided.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Things you need to be an all time great with double digit slam wins: Stamina, gameplans, high first serve percentage, and athleticism.

Why do you diminish the value of stamina? It is clearly very valuable.

It clearly is. But all the running and physical abilities in the world will do you no good if you don't have the weaponry behind them.

Believe it or not, most matches that Nadal wins are not a marathon. And the marathons he won, the high profile ones, have been against freak athletes like Federer and Djokovic who can play for days themselves. The Australian Open final is the one exception, as Federer was clearly tired in that final set and Nadal somehow found the strength to go five sets after the Verdasco match.

Nadal's stamina beat Murray in all those slam matches in which he thoroughly outplayed him? You've seen their 2010 Wimbledon semi? Their 2011 Wimbledon semi? 2011 US Open semi?

 

[Moxie]

I know it gets tiresome to keep making this comparison, but "tiresome" is the watchword, on a Cali thread. If stamina, game plan, high first serve pct., and athleticism were all that were required to win 14 majors, then how come Ferrer has none? (Career 1st serve pct.: Nadal: 69%, Ferrer: 63%, in case you were wondering. By comparison: Djokovic: 65%, Federer: 62%) The answer is big weapons. Which makes the case for Nadal's forehand, in particular, since that's the topic of your thread.

 

[Front242]

Ferrer's increased stamina only came about when he turned 29. He was never a Duracell bunny before that and his results weren't great before that either.

 

[Moxie]

Ferrer's increased stamina only came about when he turned 29. He was never a Duracell bunny before that and his results weren't great before that either.

Both of those sentences are incorrect. One example of the first is Ferrer's defeat of Stepanek in DC finals 2009 (when he was 27.) Down 2 sets to love, he came all the way back to win in 5, which was an amazing display of stamina, mental toughness and will-power. In 2007, at age 25, Ferrer reached #5 for the first time and played Roger in the final of the WTF. He had good results way before age 29.

 

[Federberg]

^Not disagreeing with you about Ferrer's top level credentials Moxie, but winning a 5 setter from 2 sets down isn't exactly an "amazing display" of stamina. That's fairly run of the mill in mens tennis. Having to do that multiple times in a row a la Robredo some slams back, yes that's "amazing"

 

[Moxie]

^Not disagreeing with you about Ferrer's top level credentials Moxie, but winning a 5 setter from 2 sets down isn't exactly an "amazing display" of stamina. That's fairly run of the mill in mens tennis. Having to do that multiple times in a row a la Robredo some slams back, yes that's "amazing"

I get that, but I didn't want to give him Ferrer's whole resume, and I saw that match. I think he was even down a break in the 3rd. When you put all that together, it was a pretty tough-guy performance. It was the best I could think of to tell it in one match example. It's the one that made me a fan. In any case, it can't be said that he didn't display stamina and grit before he turned 29.

 

[Federberg]

^An impressive performance no doubt, but it doesn't rise to the level of a refutation in my view. Mental toughness perhaps, but nothing unique in mens tennis. Seems to me Front was talking about stamina and endurance, and one 5 setter doesn't meet the test in professional mens tennis. For example Federer has had tough guy performances in 5 setters, but then it's universally acknowledged that such performances have subsequently damaged his chances of winning the tournament. It's what you do after that counts

 

[Moxie]

^An impressive performance no doubt, but it doesn't rise to the level of a refutation in my view. Mental toughness perhaps, but nothing unique in mens tennis. Seems to me Front was talking about stamina and endurance, and one 5 setter doesn't meet the test in professional mens tennis. For example Federer has had tough guy performances in 5 setters, but then it's universally acknowledged that such performances have subsequently damaged his chances of winning the tournament. It's what you do after that counts

I'm only addressing Front's claim that Ferrer's "increased stamina" came only after he turned 29, which I don't think is true, and that his results were much poorer before, as well. I don't agree. The thing that changed after 29 for Ferrer was consistency, doing what he did before, only sustaining it for longer, which makes sense to come with maturity.

 

[Front242]

We'll agree to disagree then. No problem

 

[Moxie]

We'll agree to disagree then. No problem

Meaning that you'll make a statement apropos of nothing on the thread, really, and when I show you evidence against, you just prefer to believe your statement, anyway. I guess that means you're actually conceding. :laydownlaughing

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! I didn't necessarily agree with Front's point, but you most certainly didn't refute anything Moxie. As I pointed out your logic was faulty. I suspect he just doesn't want to engage with you uzzled

 

[Moxie]

^Lol! I didn't necessarily agree with Front's point, but you most certainly didn't refute anything Moxie. As I pointed out your logic was faulty. I suspect he just doesn't want to engage with you uzzled

No, probably not. I know you said it was only one match that I mentioned, but Front gave no examples, of anything. And you agree with me on his other point about pre-age 29 results. Front made a blanket statement that he pulled out of his patootie and he won't defend it. A lot of folks know what Front likes to imply about Ferrer, so I put out some evidence to the contrary, that's all. He doesn't have to engage, or defend his stance. :angel: