Barcelona Open 2018, ATP 500

[Moxie]

I saw that, but Tennis Channel insists that Nastase's record was 37, and that's why they called it after the first set yesterday. Whichever, Rafa's now. And note the 4 other times he'd gone on a run of 30.

Tennis Channel seems to have corrected itself. It was Coria's record. Just to give El Mago his due.

 

[Moxie]

Klizan will have earned his corn here, that's for sure. Djoker, Feli, now Nadal.

Surprised Dimitrov had so much trouble with Jaziri. You usually only hear about Jaziri when Marrakech comes around.

Dimitrov probably shouldn't have let Jaziri trouble him so much. Relies too much on "talent," imo, and gets muddled as to his game plan...if he ever actually comes out with one. Jaziri maybe pulled a little gamesmanship towards the end of the 3rd. Called the doctor for upset stomach at 5-4, when GD was about to serve to stay in. Had Annacone's head a bit on fire, at the rule. Also, Annacone thinks that Grigor could trouble Rafa, if he'd play him "the right way." Well, that's easier said than done, especially with Grigor.

As to who can beat Nadal going forward this clay season, which seems to be the parlor game we're going to play for the next 6 weeks, I'm going to add Tsitsipas to the list of potentials. I do realize I'm at the risk of bandwagoning him. But he has identified clay as his preferred surface, in the interview you posted above. He has a 1HBH, though @mrzz insists that's not a liability. He's 6'4", which is tall enough to take the high ball, but not so tall that he's not a good mover. He has some soft hands. And he has the arrogance of youth. I'm not saying at RG, but he could spoil Rafa in best of 3, if he falls in his draw early. Just a thought.

 

[britbox]

Tennis Channel seems to have corrected itself. It was Coria's record. Just to give El Mago his due.

I was a bit surprised Coria faded away so quickly... I guess that Gaudio loss and Nadal's emergence messed with his head.

 

[Moxie]

I was a bit surprised Coria faded away so quickly... I guess that Gaudio loss and Nadal's emergence messed with his head.

It's not that cut and dried, but it was similar with Gaudio. The 2004 RG final was a line of demarcation, in a way. The last time, to date, that two pure clay-courters disputed the RG final. The result crushed Gaudio, though it took a little time for the effects to be seen, and it didn't do Gaudio any favors, either. To the extent that most of us care, it was effectively the end of both of their careers. Nadal swept in the next year, and everything was different. In a way, it was rather as quaint as Vinci and Pannetta playing each other in the USO final a few years back. It was the last time that a men's Major looked even vaguely provincial.

 

[mrzz]

He has a 1HBH, though @mrzz insists that's not a liability

Finally someone challenged me on that! I took a look at the stats and the results are surprising. About half the guys (7/14) who have wins against Nadal on clay have 1 handed back hands. This is far above the general ratio of one to two handers.... which is between 10 to 15% in the top 100. Even if count the number of losses -- and in this case the Djokovic's contributes with a few, surely the ratio is above those figures. Unfortunately I don't have the data at hand now, but it is easy to find (google Nadal losses on clay and check on ATP site to see if the guy has a one or two hander if you're not sure). Even if I was quite sure of what I was saying, I confess those numbers were a surprise even to me.

 

[Moxie]

Finally someone challenged me on that! I took a look at the stats and the results are surprising. About half the guys (7/14) who have wins against Nadal on clay have 1 handed back hands. This is far above the general ratio of one to two handers.... which is between 10 to 15% in the top 100. Even if count the number of losses -- and in this case the Djokovic's contributes with a few, surely the ratio is above those figures. Unfortunately I don't have the data at hand now, but it is easy to find (google Nadal losses on clay and check on ATP site to see if the guy has a one or two hander if you're not sure). Even if I was quite sure of what I was saying, I confess those numbers were a surprise even to me.

I think I can help you on this. TC told me today that 13 of Nadal's losses on clay have come to one-handers. He is 396-35 on clay, that means 22 losses to 2 handers. Given that 5 or 6 of those losses to 1-handers on clay were to Roger, that does change the numbers, a bit, as to 1-handers v. Nadal on clay.

 

[mrzz]

I think I can help you on this. TC told me today that 13 of Nadal's losses on clay have come to one-handers. He is 396-35 on clay, that means 22 losses to 2 handers. Given that 5 or 6 of those losses to 1-handers on clay were to Roger, that does change the numbers, a bit, as to 1-handers v. Nadal on clay.

Thanks, Moxie.

13/35 ~ 0,37 (~ means approximately), so around 37% of those losses came to one handers, which is surely above the ratio of one to two handers. So I could have a case that this is an asset and not a liability against Nadal (as I said, I thought it was neutral).

By the way Federer has only two clay wins against Nadal, so if we were to discount them the ratio would go down to a still healthy 33% (and I do not know why we should discount them). On the other hand, if we take the Djokovic clay losses out, the ratio goes up to around 46%. If we take them both out, it is around 39%. Anyway you look at it, it does not seem a liability.

 

[Carol]

Klizan on playing Rafa: "Nadal seems to be in a great form, but he is also human, nobody is unbeatable. He is a legend. Win or lose , to face him a quarter-final is to feel proud"

 

[Moxie]

Thanks, Moxie.

13/35 ~ 0,37 (~ means approximately), so around 37% of those losses came to one handers, which is surely above the ratio of one to two handers. So I could have a case that this is an asset and not a liability against Nadal (as I said, I thought it was neutral).

By the way Federer has only two clay wins against Nadal, so if we were to discount them the ratio would go down to a still healthy 33% (and I do not know why we should discount them). On the other hand, if we take the Djokovic clay losses out, the ratio goes up to around 46%. If we take them both out, it is around 39%. Anyway you look at it, it does not seem a liability.

OK, I guess I really did know that only 2 of those losses were to Roger. But anyway, the losses to 1-handers is actually in their favor, proportionate to the field. Interesting. And I'm going to stop listening to Jason Gimelstob, who says that there are no one-handers that can beat Nadal on clay...period.

 

[Carol]

Yesterday this video has touched Rafa, Uncle Toni and all the crowd in Barcelona

 

[Moxie]

There really has never been another coach like Toni Nadal. To take a toddler to a junior, and a junior to a Major winner I think is unprecedented, in the men's game. To be the coach overseeing 16 Majors...I don't think anyone else can claim that, on the men's or women's side.

 

[britbox]

3 Match Points. The kid isn't blinking.

 

[herios]

Something is brewing....
Stefanos is leading Dominic

 

[britbox]

GSM... only caught the last game...

 

[britbox]

Something is brewing....
Stefanos is leading Dominic

Big statement from young Stefanos. One to watch!

 

[herios]

I did not see this coming. But this is great to see a gutsy young player to defeat so emphatically a well established player on his favorite surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm more on @mrzz's side when it comes to the one handed backhand thing. I don't think it's an exact science, but there are definitely pros and cons. I actually think that contrary to popular belief, one handers have an easier time at dealing with high balls. The problem though, is that with the exception of Federer, most one handed backhand players stay far back behind the baseline because of their long backswings (Gasquet and Wawrinka are very obvious examples) to have the time to take big cuts at the ball, which against Nadal on clay, is just a bad recipe as it gives him all the time in the world to dictate.

However, in terms of actual numbers (Nadal's record vs. one handers) I always chuckle when I read them. As obvious as it sounds, it all depends on the player. Not every one handed backhand player is equal. Playing Federer is not the same as playing Feliciano Lopez. The line that I always found silliest is when commentators (particularly Robbie Koenig) would bring up Nadal's record vs. lefties. Yeah, no shit, Nadal has an incredible record vs. lefties, because the best lefty not named Rafael Nadal in the past decade is like...Verdasco. So his record vs. those players is not indicative of the match-up (where Nadal is actually uncomfortable playing against lefties because his usual pattern of point construction works less effectively and you can clearly see him struggle to get the same depth on his shot especially outside of clay), but simply due to Nadal being a much better player than those guys.

 

[isabelle]

Thiem's very disappointing

 

[britbox]

Thiem's very disappointing

He's having a disappointing season, that's for sure. In the past, we've put his flameouts down to overplaying. Don't think he has that excuse this year.

 

[herios]

He's having a disappointing season, that's for sure. In the past, we've put his flameouts down to overplaying. Don't think he has that excuse this year.

I think the disappointment is due to the too high expectations towards him.
I always considered him a pretty good player, but not great.
His results aside clay were always rather pedestrian, and on clay he excelled mainly due to probably a weak field in general.
I think the way he got hammered last week by Nadal kind of says it all. He is not that great as perceived in general .