Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Luxilon Borg]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

Uh...I have won MANY matches 2 and 0 hitting the ball down the middle of the court an creating a virtual defensive wall. I have also LOST badly to players who did not go for a single risky shot.

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

I don't play at "country clubs" sorry. I play against ranked juniors, Usta ranked players, and college female players.

None of them are professional tennis players in the top 20, so that argument, in addition to being ridiculous, is completely irrelevant.

And who here has played a top 20 player? C'mon man...you need to lighten up.

 

[Moxie]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

Yup, I retired due to boredom.

I'd rather you wouldn't. I'm trying to figure out what Luxilon Borg has against Rafa, and you're my wingman. He's just about to tell us. I'm dying to hear….

 

[Moxie]

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

Nope, that is not exactly what I meant either.

Hopefully this will clarify:

Nadal hits a LOT of out right winners off his back foot or while backing up. This is absolute proof he is not trying to end the point. He can do this because he is a physical phenom. There is nobody like him.

This makes him seem more aggressive than he really is IMO.

Neither Fed, Djoker, Murray, or Del Po can do this except the odd lucky shot.

The only one I have seen do this is Berdych, on occasion...and he is another monster physically.

OK, that's an interesting point. But what does it mean to you? You kind of say it like it's a bad thing, or a knock on his tennis. There are several things about Nadal's tennis that basically only he can do, because he's very strong, has loads of spin and weird lefty-shots. I realize that his style of tennis doesn't appeal to everyone, but it IS effective. Do you have a beef with it, or are you admiring it in its strangeness? :angel:

Let me clear.. I sit in amazement at what he does.. I am BIG fan.

I have tried to implement many things he does into my game...

I absolutely admire his game's quirks and uniqueness.

He reminds me SO much Of Borg it is scaredy. A 21st century one for sure.

As a (presumed) Borg fan, I was wondering why you're trying to put so much argument into Nadal as a counter-puncher. If it's not that, what are you arguing? Semantics?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

Nope, that is not exactly what I meant either.

Hopefully this will clarify:

Nadal hits a LOT of out right winners off his back foot or while backing up. This is absolute proof he is not trying to end the point. He can do this because he is a physical phenom. There is nobody like him.

This makes him seem more aggressive than he really is IMO.

Neither Fed, Djoker, Murray, or Del Po can do this except the odd lucky shot.

The only one I have seen do this is Berdych, on occasion...and he is another monster physically.

OK, that's an interesting point. But what does it mean to you? You kind of say it like it's a bad thing, or a knock on his tennis. There are several things about Nadal's tennis that basically only he can do, because he's very strong, has loads of spin and weird lefty-shots. I realize that his style of tennis doesn't appeal to everyone, but it IS effective. Do you have a beef with it, or are you admiring it in its strangeness? :angel:

Let me clear.. I sit in amazement at what he does.. I am BIG fan.

I have tried to implement many things he does into my game...

I absolutely admire his game's quirks and uniqueness.

He reminds me SO much Of Borg it is scaredy. A 21st century one for sure.

As a (presumed) Borg fan, I was wondering why you're trying to put so much argument into Nadal as a counter-puncher. If it's not that, what are you arguing? Semantics?

Me..have something against the Bull of Majorca?

No way..saying he is a counter puncher does not imply I am putting him down.

Counter punching is as legit a style as any other...t think we lost the plot here...I think our friend is just argumentative by nature in trying to deny the facts that counter punchers almost all prefer slower court/ by a wide margin.

Wether Rafa is a CP or not is now moot...his record is clear for all to see. The vast majority of his victories are on slow hard court/ and clay.

 

[Moxie]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

 

[Kieran]

I think this thread needs a fresh definition of the term "counterpunching."

Hitting winners off the back foot isn't a sign of counterpunching: it just means you can hit winners off the back foot. Does Nadal not hit equally blast winners off the front foot? Of course. And more frequently, no doubt. His main operation involves gaining the centre and bullying his foe off-court with the forehand.

Period.

And this is aggressive and offensive play, not counterpunching.

He's also played long matches in Paris and Wimbledon and won both (against Nole last year in Paris and versus Roger at Wimbledon). In neither match did he let the opponent take control first and then counterpunch his way out of trouble.

I think it gets too simplistic to define a player this way, but it's wrong also to judge stuff by its outer look: "Rafa is good on clay therefore he's defensive and counterpunches". It's actually the opposite: he's great because he squeezes all options out of his opponent by smart strategic offensive play...

 

[Moxie]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Rafa is a punch counter.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils NOT a counter puncher? Now you gone crazee.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

Yup, I retired due to boredom.

I'd rather you wouldn't. I'm trying to figure out what Luxilon Borg has against Rafa, and you're my wingman. He's just about to tell us. I'm dying to hear….

I'm not sure he has anything against Rafa, or why you took it that way. But his whole notion of counter-punching is false, and he gets lost in his own arguments.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Uh...I have won MANY matches 2 and 0 hitting the ball down the middle of the court an creating a virtual defensive wall. I have also LOST badly to players who did not go for a single risky shot.

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

I don't play at "country clubs" sorry. I play against ranked juniors, Usta ranked players, and college female players.

None of them are professional tennis players in the top 20, so that argument, in addition to being ridiculous, is completely irrelevant.

And who here has played a top 20 player? C'mon man...you need to lighten up.

Dude, you really don't get any argument do you? Someone mentioned Nadal crushing Monaco, and you said that doesn't mean anything because you've crushed people while playing defense (or got crushed by someone playing defense, I don't recall). My point is, that is in irrelevant argument since we're talking about tennis at the elite level, with Juan Monaco being a top 20 player (or was at the time). I didn't say you have to play a top 20 professional tennis player to have this conversation. It's irritating because seemingly obvious sentences get misinterpreted...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

I don't play at "country clubs" sorry. I play against ranked juniors, Usta ranked players, and college female players.

None of them are professional tennis players in the top 20, so that argument, in addition to being ridiculous, is completely irrelevant.

And who here has played a top 20 player? C'mon man...you need to lighten up.

Dude, you really don't get any argument do you? Someone mentioned Nadal crushing Monaco, and you said that doesn't mean anything because you've crushed people while playing defense (or got crushed by someone playing defense, I don't recall). My point is, that is in irrelevant argument since we're talking about tennis at the elite level, with Juan Monaco being a top 20 player (or was at the time). I didn't say you have to play a top 20 professional tennis player to have this conversation. It's irritating because seemingly obvious sentences get misinterpreted...

FYI, I saw that match against Monaco. He simply created a wall and let Monaco implode. Monaco is in deep shit against Rafa any way you slice it. He can't hit through him, he can handle the topspin, and he is not nearly as quick. On his best day he is toast, no matter the surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

FYI, I saw that match against Monaco. He simply created a wall and let Monaco implode.

Stop. Just stop.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

Yup, I retired due to boredom.

I'd rather you wouldn't. I'm trying to figure out what Luxilon Borg has against Rafa, and you're my wingman. He's just about to tell us. I'm dying to hear….

I'm not sure he has anything against Rafa, or why you took it that way. But his whole notion of counter-punching is false, and he gets lost in his own arguments.

Yep, I think I made it clear I am a huge Rafa fan. I have studied his practice sessions in person like one would dissect a great masterwork of the renaissance. He is a pure an utter genius of a unique variety.

 

[lacatch]

Anyone have an update on how the courts are playing in Melbourne?

 

[britbox]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils is primarily a counter puncher.

 

[britbox]

Anyone have an update on how the courts are playing in Melbourne?

See the first post in the thread... it was from a couple of days ago.

 

[Goldenboy]

Roger Rasheed says Melbourne is slower than Brisbane.

https://twitter.com/roger_rasheed

"Hit on Margerat Court Arena today, when finished it will be superb, will add great atmosphere this year. Court is slower than Brisbane btw".

 

[Moxie]

^ I get it. The argument is semantic. Perhaps a defining of terms deserves it own thread. These things do get thrown around, and people understand them differently. However counter-punchers are described may depend on how they may or may not like slow/fast courts. I will say this, as you do, Rafa prefers a slower one. Then the balls also feature. We'll see soon how Melbourne is playing.

Indeed we shall see. Congrats to Rafa on title 61 on slow hard court. :clap

And I don't care what ANYONE says, Monfils is a counter puncher!

Ha! And I completely disagree with you on Monfils. He's a player that works on inspiration and imagination. When he's feeling it, it has nothing to do with the opponent. Often, more to so with the crowd. It just LOOKS like counter-punching, when he's not inspired, but when he is, he's dangerous on all fronts.

Monfils is primarily a counter puncher.

I think you have to wait until we define terms. Someone who hits some such high-risk shots can't be categorized as a counter-puncher, even if you qualify it with "primarily."