59 winners to 13 winners: 46 more? Are you kidding me?

[calitennis127]

This figure from the Gulbis-Nadal match is exactly the kind of fact that prevents me from taking anyone seriously when they argue about Nadal's talent being equal to Federer's or my favorite player's, strictly in terms of shotmaking and tennis-playing ability (and not all the practical nuts-and-bolts aspects to "winning matches"). This type of figure also makes it impossible to convince me that the top players shouldn't have done at least a little bit better against him on clay than they have over the years.

What this 59 to 13 figure tells you unambiguously is that the match was on Gulbis's racket. He lost the match, but it was his to lose. That said, my broader point is that I just can't take arguments for Nadal as a Type A shotmaking talent seriously when he has so frequently been out-done to this extent in the winners category.

"But Cali, what about unforced errors?"

"Exactly" is my response. "Exactly". That is the fault of Gulbis, Verdasco, Federer, Djokovic or whoever you might name. They too often make UNFORCED (emphasis on "UNFORCED") errors when playing Nadal on all surfaces, but especially clay.

 

[Haelfix]

Most of those errors are very 'forced' when playing against Rafa on clay. He hits his forehand like a 2nd serve.

And at the end of the day, if matches were only about winners, then the Karlovic's, Blakes, Gulbis and all the other big hitters/servers would rule tennis.

They don't, and instead you see players like Lleyton Hewitt and baby Nadal winning multiple slams.

That should tell you something.

 

[Moxie]

Actually, I noted the winner v. UFEs stat at the end of that match and found it unusual for Nadal. He won the match, but normally he is the one with the much higher percentage of winners to UFEs. Does that change your point?

Also, when players make what we call "unforced errors," v. Nadal on clay, there is an argument that they are "forced," as well, as Haelfix points out. Did you see the article that I posted that many players put no stock in the UFE stat?

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

your point being? i do recommend reading the article Moxie posted on the winner/ue issue. yet still, i don't see a point needing further discussion or offering any insight in why you want do deny Nadal's shotmaking talent.

however, seriously, what is the point? yes, someone who whacks the felt off of every ball will hit a lot of winners, and if he did that without ever letting up, he would win every match. but as is natural and human, we do have to live with let-ups and down phases, and hot-hitting phases are always just that - phases.

so what is the more intelligent thing to do if you want to make the most out of your talent and be succesful at the sport? work on a game that will somehow find the balance between putting balls out of reach and just making the opponent hit one more. the degree by which you shall decide what the right balance is, is "success". success is winning games, sets, matches, tournaments. i don't know how you are so sure that Nadal would not have the 'talent' to shape his game like Gulbis - because it's simply not what he (and his game) have strived for, because doing so would've been a sufficiently dumb decision, winning him bragging rights for a couple of sets at a time, but denying him a plethora of titles and a boatload of cash.

so yup. big news here.

 

[Riotbeard]

you're not wrong cali, but you are not right either. I think you underrate all the other aspects that go into "tennis playing ability" outside of shotmaking. I do think it is hard to argue that THIS match was not on Gulbis's racket. I also agree with your premise that djokovic has matchup advantages even on clay.

 

[Moxie]

you're not wrong cali, but you are not right either. I think you underrate all the other aspects that go into "tennis playing ability" outside of shotmaking. I do think it is hard to argue that THIS match was not on Gulbis's racket. I also agree with your premise that djokovic has matchup advantages even on clay.

I completely agree that this match was much on Gulbis's racquet, especially for the first half of it, and Nadal was guilty of being too passive for most of it. But one match is not a career, either, and Cali is just the guy to pick one that backs up his argument and make hay of it, even if it is anomalous, in terms of who had the most winners.

I also agree that Djokovic is a match-up problem for Nadal, even on clay, and if Rafa plays Novak the way he played Gulbis today, when next they meet, he'll lose in straights. I'm hoping he's taking this as a wake-up call. He's GOT to get his serve together, too.

 

[Mastoor]

It's only 13 winners in 3 long sets and he still won. If he continues like this we can start calling him Carolina Wozniacki of atp or if he prefers - The Ultimate Pusher.

 

[Moxie]

It's only 13 winners in 3 long sets and he still won. If he continues like this we can start calling him Carolina Wozniacki of atp or if he prefers - The Ultimate Pusher.

Oh, for heaven's sake...Gulbis was white-hot at the beginning of that match, and for some of the later parts. Rafa did what champions do, when they have to...he hung on, righted the ship when he needed to, and played the big points better. Mastoor, your boy Djokovic has done the same, more than a few times, and so has Federer. Without a certain amount of grinding and "pushing," Nole wouldn't have ever made the final of last year's RG, right?

Sometimes you "win ugly," as Brad Gilbert says, but it's still a W.

 

[Mastoor]

It's only 13 winners in 3 long sets and he still won. If he continues like this we can start calling him Carolina Wozniacki of atp or if he prefers - The Ultimate Pusher.

Oh, for heaven's sake...Gulbis was white-hot at the beginning of that match, and for some of the later parts. Rafa did what champions do, when they have to...he hung on, righted the ship when he needed to, and played the big points better. Mastoor, your boy Djokovic has done the same, more than a few times, and so has Federer. Without a certain amount of grinding and "pushing," Nole wouldn't have ever made the final of last year's RG, right?

Sometimes you "win ugly," as Brad Gilbert says, but it's still a W.

I said, if he continues like this ... didn't I?

The other thing is that in previous years he didn't have to win ugly on clay, so this really comes as unexpected outcome.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It's only 13 winners in 3 long sets and he still won. If he continues like this we can start calling him Carolina Wozniacki of atp or if he prefers - The Ultimate Pusher.

The Ultimate Pusher

I guess I would know something about that dont ya think:blush:


Rafa is not a pusher or a counterpuncher. Gulbis has a go for broke style that is very high risk like James Blake but gets his results in a different manor. Ernest is a very unorthodox\dangeous player because he dictates the play regardless if its Rafa, Fed or Djoker. There is a reason why he has never been ranked in the top 20 consistently.

Cali.. Only Safin had the type of game that could probably hit more winners than Gulbis when he plays like he did yesterday. Btw,, Congrats to all the Gulbis fans.. his is a real talent.

 

[huntingyou]

so, I have cali on my ignored list.....why do I see this thread?

people we need to improve the functionality

 

[the AntiPusher]

so, I have cali on my ignored list.....why do I see this thread?

people we need to improve the functionality

Righteous HU! Cali is very good at putting "bait "out there for the weak minded such as myself. I am a jedi knight in training and still have to learn the ways of the Force. I hope to be a jedi master such as yourself and others one day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This figure from the Gulbis-Nadal match is exactly the kind of fact that prevents me from taking anyone seriously when they argue about Nadal's talent being equal to Federer's or my favorite player's, strictly in terms of shotmaking and tennis-playing ability (and not all the practical nuts-and-bolts aspects to "winning matches"). This type of figure also makes it impossible to convince me that the top players shouldn't have done at least a little bit better against him on clay than they have over the years.

What this 59 to 13 figure tells you unambiguously is that the match was on Gulbis's racket. He lost the match, but it was his to lose. That said, my broader point is that I just can't take arguments for Nadal as a Type A shotmaking talent seriously when he has so frequently been out-done to this extent in the winners category.

"But Cali, what about unforced errors?"

"Exactly" is my response. "Exactly". That is the fault of Gulbis, Verdasco, Federer, Djokovic or whoever you might name. They too often make UNFORCED (emphasis on "UNFORCED") errors when playing Nadal on all surfaces, but especially clay.

Uh, except when you're making as many winners as Gulbis and hitting the ball so big, you have to make unforced errors. There is no other way around this, unless you play a 2008 AO Tsonga like performance, which happens once in ages.

It's not that you can't be aggressive AND tone down the errors against Nadal (Federer, DJokovic and Davydenko have done it in the past), but: A) Doing it on clay is more difficult and more importantly, B) None of those players were hitting the ball as aggressively as Gulbis was yesterday.

I agree with you, for the record, that the stat is not exactly flattering if you're Nadal, but I find your notion of "just limit the unforced errors" to be the typical simplistic reasoning you always offer.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

btw, i also think that NBA teams should commit to only shooting threes from now on. clearly, if you just keep hitting those threes, and cut the misses down to an absolute minimum, there is pretty much no way you can lose against a team that's stupid enough to give up 33% of possible points in every offense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way Cali, not that I'd expect it from you, but you can add Berdych's win over Novak today to Djokovic's laundry list of matches where he's made to look like a yoyo and moved side to side. This must mean Novak is not an incredibly talented offensive player.

 

[Ricardo]

This figure from the Gulbis-Nadal match is exactly the kind of fact that prevents me from taking anyone seriously when they argue about Nadal's talent being equal to Federer's or my favorite player's, strictly in terms of shotmaking and tennis-playing ability (and not all the practical nuts-and-bolts aspects to "winning matches"). This type of figure also makes it impossible to convince me that the top players shouldn't have done at least a little bit better against him on clay than they have over the years.

What this 59 to 13 figure tells you unambiguously is that the match was on Gulbis's racket. He lost the match, but it was his to lose. That said, my broader point is that I just can't take arguments for Nadal as a Type A shotmaking talent seriously when he has so frequently been out-done to this extent in the winners category.

"But Cali, what about unforced errors?"

"Exactly" is my response. "Exactly". That is the fault of Gulbis, Verdasco, Federer, Djokovic or whoever you might name. They too often make UNFORCED (emphasis on "UNFORCED") errors when playing Nadal on all surfaces, but especially clay.

Uh, except when you're making as many winners as Gulbis and hitting the ball so big, you have to make unforced errors. There is no other way around this, unless you play a 2008 AO Tsonga like performance, which happens once in ages.

It's not that you can't be aggressive AND tone down the errors against Nadal (Federer, DJokovic and Davydenko have done it in the past), but: A) Doing it on clay is more difficult and more importantly, B) None of those players were hitting the ball as aggressively as Gulbis was yesterday.

I agree with you, for the record, that the stat is not exactly flattering if you're Nadal, but I find your notion of "just limit the unforced errors" to be the typical simplistic reasoning you always offer.

Nobody blasted the ball so consistently big like Gulbis in that first set and executed to that standard before, not even Tsonga 2008. The pace he had on his shots, it didn't even matter about the surface, there were some shots that were not far from Rafa yet still went through him for winners because of the sheer velocity.

After that set though, i think everyone agreed that he had to come down from that level.... and they were right.

---

you're not wrong cali, but you are not right either. I think you underrate all the other aspects that go into "tennis playing ability" outside of shotmaking. I do think it is hard to argue that THIS match was not on Gulbis's racket. I also agree with your premise that djokovic has matchup advantages even on clay.

I completely agree that this match was much on Gulbis's racquet, especially for the first half of it, and Nadal was guilty of being too passive for most of it. But one match is not a career, either, and Cali is just the guy to pick one that backs up his argument and make hay of it, even if it is anomalous, in terms of who had the most winners.

I also agree that Djokovic is a match-up problem for Nadal, even on clay, and if Rafa plays Novak the way he played Gulbis today, when next they meet, he'll lose in straights. I'm hoping he's taking this as a wake-up call. He's GOT to get his serve together, too.

Just because Gulbis cleaned him up doesn't mean Rafa did anything wrong in the first set. What is it always down to Rafa doing something wrong when his opponent flat out overpowered him? Nadal too passive? watch the replay and tell us how passive he was compared to set 2 and 3 or even other matches, all there was, was that Gulbis played unbelievable in set 1.

Ever tried to be fair about anything?

 

[Moxie]

---

you're not wrong cali, but you are not right either. I think you underrate all the other aspects that go into "tennis playing ability" outside of shotmaking. I do think it is hard to argue that THIS match was not on Gulbis's racket. I also agree with your premise that djokovic has matchup advantages even on clay.

I completely agree that this match was much on Gulbis's racquet, especially for the first half of it, and Nadal was guilty of being too passive for most of it. But one match is not a career, either, and Cali is just the guy to pick one that backs up his argument and make hay of it, even if it is anomalous, in terms of who had the most winners.

I also agree that Djokovic is a match-up problem for Nadal, even on clay, and if Rafa plays Novak the way he played Gulbis today, when next they meet, he'll lose in straights. I'm hoping he's taking this as a wake-up call. He's GOT to get his serve together, too.

Just because Gulbis cleaned him up doesn't mean Rafa did anything wrong in the first set. What is it always down to Rafa doing something wrong when his opponent flat out overpowered him? Nadal too passive? watch the replay and tell us how passive he was compared to set 2 and 3 or even other matches, all there was, was that Gulbis played unbelievable in set 1.

Ever tried to be fair about anything?

---

I said that the match was mostly on Gulbis's racquet. I didn't say Rafa did anything particularly wrong, but it's normal to critique a player after a match. I don't see how much fairer I'm supposed to be. You're reading too much into my response.

 

[Riotbeard]

---

you're not wrong cali, but you are not right either. I think you underrate all the other aspects that go into "tennis playing ability" outside of shotmaking. I do think it is hard to argue that THIS match was not on Gulbis's racket. I also agree with your premise that djokovic has matchup advantages even on clay.

I completely agree that this match was much on Gulbis's racquet, especially for the first half of it, and Nadal was guilty of being too passive for most of it. But one match is not a career, either, and Cali is just the guy to pick one that backs up his argument and make hay of it, even if it is anomalous, in terms of who had the most winners.

I also agree that Djokovic is a match-up problem for Nadal, even on clay, and if Rafa plays Novak the way he played Gulbis today, when next they meet, he'll lose in straights. I'm hoping he's taking this as a wake-up call. He's GOT to get his serve together, too.

Just because Gulbis cleaned him up doesn't mean Rafa did anything wrong in the first set. What is it always down to Rafa doing something wrong when his opponent flat out overpowered him? Nadal too passive? watch the replay and tell us how passive he was compared to set 2 and 3 or even other matches, all there was, was that Gulbis played unbelievable in set 1.

Ever tried to be fair about anything?

---

I said that the match was mostly on Gulbis's racquet. I didn't say Rafa did anything particularly wrong, but it's normal to critique a player after a match. I don't see how much fairer I'm supposed to be. You're reading too much into my response.

---

But Moxie, this is the internet. We are supposed to read too much into your posts, and then yell at each other. What I took away from your post is that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, and you didn't even mention him!

 

[BalaryKar]

When the tortoise got the brains of a man and the engine of a ferrari, I expect it to beat the rabbit on a routine basis. Nothing surprising here.

I understand where is Cali is coming from and it typically sucks a fan of aggressive tennis players to watch Nadal winning, especially the way he has Gulbis for breakfast, Federer for launch, and the entire Berdych school for dinner. I think somewhere Berdych may write a chapter on why he should not have "ssshhhhhed" at Madrid

 

[calitennis127]

By the way Cali, not that I'd expect it from you, but you can add Berdych's win over Novak today to Djokovic's laundry list of matches where he's made to look like a yoyo and moved side to side. This must mean Novak is not an incredibly talented offensive player.

How many times have I said that Federer is a more talented shotmaker than Djokovic, particularly to Mike?

Plenty.

This is another reason that I have always complimented the talent of Nalbandian vis-a-vis the Top 4. The only one of them who is close to being as much of a natural when it comes to offensive shotmaking is Federer. Djokovic's level has impressed me many times but never really blown my socks off either.

My point about Djokovic being a superior shotmaker is usually in comparison to Nadal and, whenever we discuss it, in comparison to Murray.

---

Most of those errors are very 'forced' when playing against Rafa on clay. He hits his forehand like a 2nd serve.

And at the end of the day, if matches were only about winners, then the Karlovic's, Blakes, Gulbis and all the other big hitters/servers would rule tennis.

They don't, and instead you see players like Lleyton Hewitt and baby Nadal winning multiple slams.

That should tell you something.

Yeah, it does, namely that there are practical nuts-and-bolts realities that go into winning matches that don't have to do with having extraordinary talent.