[Blog] Has Rafa Improved Since he was 19?

[El Dude]

All this Rafa talk got me thinking...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yes. In almost every measurable,way.

-forehand steadily became an elite weapon, and for about 3 years, the best on the planet.

-backhand shored up and steady as a rock

-serving variety improved dramatically

-net play has improved leaps and bounds..he has become very instinctual

-court positioning is superior

-maybe most importantly...transition game is deadly

 

[Haelfix]

This is just one of those eye tests that makes things really easy. His peak on clay and grass was in 2008. His 2006-2007 form were about the same as his 2010-2011 form on grass/clay.

However his hardcourt form, especially on the faster stuff has been steadily climbing and from 2009/2010 onward (perhaps not last year) has been at his peak on that surface.

So while he might have lost a bit on grass/clay from his younger years, he's still pretty good there, and his form on hards is at or near his best.

He's a different player now. Much more offensive and dictating than his earlier years. Its not necessarily an improvement as opposed to a change of focus.

 

[tented]

This is just one of those eye tests that makes things really easy. His peak on clay and grass was in 2008. His 2006-2007 form were about the same as his 2010-2011 form on grass/clay.

In 2010, he didn't lose a single match on clay (something which cannot be said for 2008), and became the first person ever to win all three clay-court Masters, plus RG. During those four tournaments, he dropped a total of two sets -- neither at RG. In Monte Carlo, he lost a total of 14 games in five rounds; in three of them, he lost a single game, including the final, which he won 6-0, 6-1.

He had the blip in 2009, because of his knees, but 2010 was clearly a landmark year on clay, topped off with the 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 win over Soderling in the RG final -- a demonstration of how anomalous the previous year's loss was.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, Rafael. Has improved in every aspect of his game especially at the net. His mental approach has been by far his greatest accomplishment.

Oops, LuxnBorg summarizes it better, lol

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is just one of those eye tests that makes things really easy. His peak on clay and grass was in 2008. His 2006-2007 form were about the same as his 2010-2011 form on grass/clay.

In 2010, he didn't lose a single match on clay (something which cannot be said for 2008), and became the first person ever to win all three clay-court Masters, plus RG. During those four tournaments, he dropped a total of two sets -- neither at RG. In Monte Carlo, he lost a total of 14 games in five rounds; in three of them, he lost a single game, including the final, which he won 6-0, 6-1.

He had the blip in 2009, because of his knees, but 2010 was clearly a landmark year on clay, topped off with the 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 win over Soderling in the RG final -- a demonstration of how anomalous the previous year's loss was.

He actual game was better on clay in 2008. That was the year where he found the best balance between defense and aggression on that surface. Nothing will ever top his 2008 FO. The one loss he had was that weird blisters loss to Ferrero in Rome, so while his results were better on clay in 2010, his actual game wasn't mind-blowingly impressive after Monte Carlo 2010, nor did it need to be, in fairness.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

"Since 19" is a long time. He has improved, and I think even declined in some parts, since 19.

 

[El Dude]

Did anyone actually read the blog or are people just responding to the question of the thread title? I ask because the responses are about everything other than what the actual blog is about - which is looking at his results, developmental trajectories, and what they tell us about how his game has changed. In other words, it is an "outside" perspective - what can be gleaned by looking at stats and results, while the responses in this thread such as Luxilon's are all about the "inside" of the game, what is actually happening on court. Obviously that is more important, more central to the sport, but the point of the blog - and my blog entries in general - are to provide a statistical/analytical lens that is too often missing from tennis conversation. That's fine and all and I don't have a problem with my blogs stimulating conversation that is away from what the blog itself discusses, but again the point of the blog entry is to bring forth a different angle, and I wouldn't that lost sight of in discussion resulting from it.

 

[Federberg]

Yes. In almost every measurable,way.

-forehand steadily became an elite weapon, and for about 3 years, the best on the planet.

-backhand shored up and steady as a rock

-serving variety improved dramatically

-net play has improved leaps and bounds..he has become very instinctual

-court positioning is superior

-maybe most importantly...transition game is deadly

Who has a better forehand than Rafa at the moment? I struggle to think of anyone..

 

[Federberg]

superb blog by the way

I admit I responded to Lux's comment before I read it

 

[DarthFed]

Everything except movement is better, but the difference in movement also means he is a little worse on defense and a little less consistent from the baseline. That dude never missed a shot when he was 19-20 years old. An absolute wall who could hit all day any day. But he was just a grinder then with no serve. So overall he is better everywhere except clay. His best days on clay were 05-08 IMO. Even 2010 where he didn't lose a match I don't think he was better than the young Rafa who moved better and never missed.

 

[mrzz]

Congratulations (yet again), El Dude.

The interesting thing (which is prob. your point) is that one can make a case, judging solely by the numbers, that, yes, Nadal is basically on a long plateau since he was 19 (but, in fairness, there was not so much room upward).

You touched a point which I guess would be extemely interesting: gauging off his clay results could give a good picture of his evolution, even if these late years could give some strange data, given the low number of matches. Anyway you'll find a way to handle it...

Symmetry would suggest a sudden fall, as opposed to the steady decline everyone expects from Federer (were probably the symmetry argument plays a strong role too). I could buy this theory at least surface wise, but I don't think it will happen at the same time in all surfaces. Maybe it already happened on grass, for example.

It will be interesting to re-visit this analysis one year from now...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yes. In almost every measurable,way.

-forehand steadily became an elite weapon, and for about 3 years, the best on the planet.

-backhand shored up and steady as a rock

-serving variety improved dramatically

-net play has improved leaps and bounds..he has become very instinctual

-court positioning is superior

-maybe most importantly...transition game is deadly

Who has a better forehand than Rafa at the moment? I struggle to think of anyone..

Federer's can be if his timing is impeccable. Joker is his confidence is supreme. But day to day I take Rafa's

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Did anyone actually read the blog or are people just responding to the question of the thread title? I ask because the responses are about everything other than what the actual blog is about - which is looking at his results, developmental trajectories, and what they tell us about how his game has changed. In other words, it is an "outside" perspective - what can be gleaned by looking at stats and results, while the responses in this thread such as Luxilon's are all about the "inside" of the game, what is actually happening on court. Obviously that is more important, more central to the sport, but the point of the blog - and my blog entries in general - are to provide a statistical/analytical lens that is too often missing from tennis conversation. That's fine and all and I don't have a problem with my blogs stimulating conversation that is away from what the blog itself discusses, but again the point of the blog entry is to bring forth a different angle, and I wouldn't that lost sight of in discussion resulting from it.

I see your angles.

To look at these numbers one must look at how his rivals have improved, and even how much the second tier has improved.

Then I guess look at how he has more evenly distributed across surfaces his results may be.

Sorry for taking things in a different direction.

 

[isabelle]

His health hasn't improved...

 

[DarthFed]

^ Nor has his hairline.

 

[shawnbm]

I read your blog yesterday, El Dude, and found the stats (as usual) fascinating and not as much of a surprise as I presume some here concluded. Along with Borg, Nadal is an amazing player who did not peak, yet reached the peak of the game, at a very early age. He has maintained that over the years even though his resume is not as loaded up with clay court points as it was from 2005-2008. He can be said to be more of a complete player insofar as he is more competitive across all surfaces since 2009 up to now than he was in the aforementioned period of time. I too believe his speed and court coverage is not what it was on clay, but he seems to be a better volleyer and can flatten his FH and BH better on hard courts than in the early years. All in all, despite what many say and think, he has proven remarkably resilient and fit for a decade now. It is time for some to simply confess that with all his idiosyncrasies and tenacity, he is--above all else--a great tennis playing machine and one of the best ever. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing as Mac or Roger when they light up a court, but it is effective, just like Connors was effective. He should be given his propers.

 

[Federberg]

I read your blog yesterday, El Dude, and found the stats (as usual) fascinating and not as much of a surprise as I presume some here concluded. Along with Borg, Nadal is an amazing player who did not peak, yet reached the peak of the game, at a very early age. He has maintained that over the years even though his resume is not as loaded up with clay court points as it was from 2005-2008. He can be said to be more of a complete player insofar as he is more competitive across all surfaces since 2009 up to now than he was in the aforementioned period of time. I too believe his speed and court coverage is not what it was on clay, but he seems to be a better volleyer and can flatten his FH and BH better on hard courts than in the early years. All in all, despite what many say and think, he has proven remarkably resilient and fit for a decade now. It is time for some to simply confess that with all his idiosyncrasies and tenacity, he is--above all else--a great tennis playing machine and one of the best ever. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing as Mac or Roger when they light up a court, but it is effective, just like Connors was effective. He should be given his propers.

Totally agree. At this point it's just silly to try to diminish his achievements and capabilities. I think that most here, even his most ardent haters don't really do this. The guy can do everything, and he has to be the most consistently tough competitor of all time

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Nor has his hairline.

Not Here or there, not anywhere You do not like Green Eggs and Rafa

 

[DarthFed]

^ Nor has his hairline.

Not Here or there, not anywhere You do not like Green Eggs and Rafa

Hey don't say that, I have nothing against green eggs