Cincinnati Final: John Isner vs. Rafael Nadal

[Moxie]

Nadal wants everything and even that won't be enough. Don't let the fake humility fool you, he is greedy just like Roger. Rafa's tenacity is the one thing I can admire about him. IMO, Montreal was a much bigger win for him just because he was able to beat Nole there. He didn't face an elite player in Cincy and took care of business on a tough surface for him and that definitely helps the confidence but beating Nole was way more important.

Didn't face an elite player in Cincy?! Has your pessimism about Roger fallen to such depths, Eeyore? At least be kinder than that to old Berdych. Come on...at what altitude have you set the bar for 'elite,' anyway? (And I know you do remember that Federer has reached the top of Everest 17 times.) Personally, I, as a fan, think Cincy was more important because he had never done it, and lots of people thought it was unlikely he ever would.

(As to "fake humility," I'm not sure how one pretends to perceive that another person's heart is insincere, unless they chose to read it that way. And I know you're not the only one who does. It does always seems unnecessarily waspish, to me. You guys don't like the guy, so everything he does irritates you, that's all that is.)

Roger is #7 for a reason. Can't just look at the name and the past glory otherwise JMac and Sampras would be elite players if they decided to make a comeback. Elite right now is the top 3 and possibly Del Po. Ranking isn't everything but aside from those 4 I'd be shocked beyond belief if anyone won the USO. No one in their right mind would consider Ferrer and Berd as real contenders for majors and it'd be the shock of the year if Roger suddenly morphs into great form and takes home the trophy. This is subject to change and it will change once Roger remembers who he is.

So your definition of 'elite' extends only to those players that you see as having a chance at winning a major? Just 3 or 4 guys? That seems overly-rarified to me. But even if one buys into that definition, it seems before-time to leave Roger out.

 

[DarthFed]

Nadal wants everything and even that won't be enough. Don't let the fake humility fool you, he is greedy just like Roger. Rafa's tenacity is the one thing I can admire about him. IMO, Montreal was a much bigger win for him just because he was able to beat Nole there. He didn't face an elite player in Cincy and took care of business on a tough surface for him and that definitely helps the confidence but beating Nole was way more important.

Didn't face an elite player in Cincy?! Has your pessimism about Roger fallen to such depths, Eeyore? At least be kinder than that to old Berdych. Come on...at what altitude have you set the bar for 'elite,' anyway? (And I know you do remember that Federer has reached the top of Everest 17 times.) Personally, I, as a fan, think Cincy was more important because he had never done it, and lots of people thought it was unlikely he ever would.

(As to "fake humility," I'm not sure how one pretends to perceive that another person's heart is insincere, unless they chose to read it that way. And I know you're not the only one who does. It does always seems unnecessarily waspish, to me. You guys don't like the guy, so everything he does irritates you, that's all that is.)

Roger is #7 for a reason. Can't just look at the name and the past glory otherwise JMac and Sampras would be elite players if they decided to make a comeback. Elite right now is the top 3 and possibly Del Po. Ranking isn't everything but aside from those 4 I'd be shocked beyond belief if anyone won the USO. No one in their right mind would consider Ferrer and Berd as real contenders for majors and it'd be the shock of the year if Roger suddenly morphs into great form and takes home the trophy. This is subject to change and it will change once Roger remembers who he is.

So your definition of 'elite' extends only to those players that you see as having a chance at winning a major? Just 3 or 4 guys? That seems overly-rarified to me. But even if one buys into that definition, it seems before-time to leave Roger out.

I think it has been that way for awhile where realistically the majors are between 3-4 players, maybe 5 at the very most. It is often a big step down from there, just look at last year where you had Murray at #4 for most of it and then Ferrer right under him. Even with Ferrer at #4 I hesitate to call him elite because he realistically is not much of a threat to the other top guys except at RG (where he is likely a threat to all but the top 2).

As my post mentioned it is "before-time to leave Roger out" if we are talking about the rest of his playing days. But for THIS USO I have him as the distant #5 favorite behind the top 3 and Del Po.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Question, during the 1set 6-6 all, the forehand that Isner hit for an out right winner, was that the most tremendous ball that has been crushed this summer, what a weapon big John has. It had to been struck over 100 mph

 

[calitennis127]

well hes fav for USO now. like legit. hes playing the best hardcourt tennis ive seen him play

Yeah, I wonder where Broken-Man and El Dude are with their overdone, cliche, and petty "age" analysis.

Wait, what? How is that relevant to anything? Nadal is 27. He's not old. He has mileage and injuries, which has reared its ugly head on him on more than one occasion in his career. How does his current success negate any of that?

Nice job there, covering for yourself and rationalizing your repeated idiotic statements in the past.

What his current success "negates" is your stupid comments in recent years - including at the start of this year - that Nadal "does not move as well as he used to". What was most funny is that you posted a video of him hitting a forehand winner off of his back foot in defense against Federer at the French Open in 2004, asking "how can anyone say that he would hit this shot now?" And I think two weeks later in the IW final he did the exact same thing against Del Potro.

Your whole tone indicated that Nadal could no longer provide the physicality that he once did, etc. etc. What has actually happened is that he has had the best hardcourt season of his career - something you clearly felt was not possible because of a "loss of quickness".

As for El Dude, his analysis on the 22-26 age range tends to be overdone and kind of petty. Nadal is having his best year on hardcourts as a 27-year-old.

 

[calitennis127]

2) In 2011, why was Nadal so much worse at the US Open than he was in 2010? Because he actually played a few opponents in 2011?

Yes, the serve wasn't as good overall, but the most important aspects of his game were all in-tact, as the Murray semifinal displayed. He just couldn't beat Djokovic.

Ok, got you. When Federer loses to Nadal, it's strategic and psychological issues. But when Nadal lost to the guy who had beaten him 5 times in a row that season, now strategic or psychological issues could have been involved.

Where am I suggesting "strategic and psychological issues" as a reason why Nadal lost in the 2011 US Open final?

He simply got dominated because his game wasn't good enough. He was hitting unforced errors. He just couldn't hit a winner to save his life.

Nadal is not the best player of all time, or anywhere close to the best shotmaker of all time. He is the player with the most stamina of all time.

I'll call him the MFOAT: Most Fit of All Time. Or maybe the PTWMSOAT: Player With the Most Stamina of All Time.

I would definitely agree with those designations.

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal's skills and shots are elite but not spectacular.

However, psychologically and mentally he is just of a different breed than everyone else; that includes even Djokovic and Federer. Those two have higher peaks of play than Nadal but Nadal's consistency is awfully unique.

I have to agree. Nadal's consistency is something that we have never seen in tennis before. Added to that is the fact that he is always trying to improve his game. He has a decent serve, and has the wheels to run once he gets into the point, such that his service games look almost as easy as those of better servers.

At the beginning of the 2nd set tiebreaker, Rafa is on the deuce side baseline, He hits a forehand DTL and creates his own angle doing it. Tell me Cali, is there a human on this Earth that could have hit that spectactular shot,, Who creates their own angle on the baseline DTL.. Amazing, IMO

LOL....that was a completely BS shot. Nadal underhit it entirely and it worked out for him by barely getting over the net and landing awfully short.

For all the time Nadal spends on tennis courts grinding away at winning matches, he provides very few eye-poppping shots or much flare at all. Federer is definitely a superior shotmaker - as the hilarious final game of the 3rd set last Friday showed. That game perfectly summed up their series. Federer hitting 6 or 7 dominant winners in one game when he lets loose and goes for it, while Nadal grits his teeth and fights and claws to win those cheap, patchy, error-drawing points until he wins the game.

You want to see incredible angle-generation on a per-set and per-match basis?

Watch Nalbandian clips.

Because of injuries and underachieving, he has spent much less time on court than Nadal throughout his career, but in terms of sensational shots per hour played, his rate would probably be ten times greater than Nadal's rate.

 

[Moxie]

^ Surely you spend too much time pouring over what little there is on youtube as to Nalbandian highlights, and just ignore the massive proliferation of Nadal ones. I ever became a fan because of Nadal's jaw-dropping shot-making. Obviously, certain things are a matter of taste, but you are not the only arbiter of it.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, sista! Anyone who thinks Rafa is great for reasons wholly divorced from his shots isn't paying attention...

 

[brokenshoelace]

well hes fav for USO now. like legit. hes playing the best hardcourt tennis ive seen him play

Yeah, I wonder where Broken-Man and El Dude are with their overdone, cliche, and petty "age" analysis.

Wait, what? How is that relevant to anything? Nadal is 27. He's not old. He has mileage and injuries, which has reared its ugly head on him on more than one occasion in his career. How does his current success negate any of that?

Nice job there, covering for yourself and rationalizing your repeated idiotic statements in the past.

What his current success "negates" is your stupid comments in recent years - including at the start of this year - that Nadal "does not move as well as he used to". What was most funny is that you posted a video of him hitting a forehand winner off of his back foot in defense against Federer at the French Open in 2004, asking "how can anyone say that he would hit this shot now?" And I think two weeks later in the IW final he did the exact same thing against Del Potro.

Your whole tone indicated that Nadal could no longer provide the physicality that he once did, etc. etc. What has actually happened is that he has had the best hardcourt season of his career - something you clearly felt was not possible because of a "loss of quickness".

As for El Dude, his analysis on the 22-26 age range tends to be overdone and kind of petty. Nadal is having his best year on hardcourts as a 27-year-old.

Nadal doesn't move as well as he used to. He used to be faster. He still moves pretty damn well though. Before you call anyone idiotic, grasp this very basic concept.

Nadal does not provide the physicality he once did, which is why he's being more aggressive on hards to compensate, hence the best hard court season of his career. Again, grasp basic concepts before you call anyone an idiot

And finally, I refuse to be labelled an idiot by the moron who suggested Nadal might have taken time off in 2012 to "figure out how to approach the Djokovic match-up" when he did so weeks after beating Djokovic three consecutive times.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal's skills and shots are elite but not spectacular.

However, psychologically and mentally he is just of a different breed than everyone else; that includes even Djokovic and Federer. Those two have higher peaks of play than Nadal but Nadal's consistency is awfully unique.

I have to agree. Nadal's consistency is something that we have never seen in tennis before. Added to that is the fact that he is always trying to improve his game. He has a decent serve, and has the wheels to run once he gets into the point, such that his service games look almost as easy as those of better servers.

At the beginning of the 2nd set tiebreaker, Rafa is on the deuce side baseline, He hits a forehand DTL and creates his own angle doing it. Tell me Cali, is there a human on this Earth that could have hit that spectactular shot,, Who creates their own angle on the baseline DTL.. Amazing, IMO

LOL....that was a completely BS shot. Nadal underhit it entirely and it worked out for him by barely getting over the net and landing awfully short.

Thanks for proving that your tennis knowledge is as shitty as your posts. You just confirmed that you've never touched a tennis racquet in your life if you genuinely thought that shot was "underhit" (I doubt you have any idea what that means). Listen, I'm fine with debating tennis with you, but leave the technical stuff out because you're completely clueless about any of it. And hey, nothing wrong with that.

 

[calitennis127]

^ Surely you spend too much time pouring over what little there is on youtube as to Nalbandian highlights, and just ignore the massive proliferation of Nadal ones. I ever became a fan because of Nadal's jaw-dropping shot-making. Obviously, certain things are a matter of taste, but you are not the only arbiter of it.

Moxie, on a related note, I would like to ask you this question: do you think Nadal won the recent matches against Janowicz, Djokovic, Federer, and Berdych because he had superior shots? Do you think he is a better shotmaker than all four of those guys?

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal doesn't move as well as he used to. He used to be faster. He still moves pretty damn well though. Before you call anyone idiotic, grasp this very basic concept.

Yeah, Nadal moved so much better in that 2008 Australian Open semifinal than he did in Montreal or Cincinnati in 2013. Such a stark contrast there.

To the extent that Nadal, in general, does not move as well as he once did, it would only be to the most negligible, trivial, miniscule degree. Naturally, though, you would make a big deal of it because when Federer was 28, according to you he already had dropped off 10 levels due to decreased racquet head acceleration.

Either way, you are totally missing the point. Nadal did not win the big matches at Indian Wells, Montreal, or Cincinnati with better shots than his opponents. He did not beat Delpo or Djokovic with overwhelming offensive prowess while his movement was lacking. To the contrary, his movement and his defense were absolutely essential and played probably the foundational role. That isn't to say he wasn't offensive, but it is to say that his opportunistic offense would have been irrelevant if he wasn't covering the court supremely well and playing good defense.

Nadal does not provide the physicality he once did, which is why he's being more aggressive on hards to compensate, hence the best hard court season of his career. Again, grasp basic concepts before you call anyone an idiot

Wow, lol. "Does not provide the physicality he once did?"

Hilarious.

Tell the physically exhausted Juan Martin Del Potro and John Isner after their finals against Nadal that Nadal has lost movement and doesn't provide the physicality he once did.

Lol....how do you think Nadal won a match against Gulbis in Rome this year in which he was out-hit in winners by 46, if he didn't do it with "physicality"?

Are you kidding me? "Does not provide the physicality he once did"?

And finally, I refuse to be labelled an idiot by the moron who suggested Nadal might have taken time off in 2012 to "figure out how to approach the Djokovic match-up" when he did so weeks after beating Djokovic three consecutive times.

I was not the one who suggested it: lindseywagners was.

Naturally, you interpreted my curiosity about her point in the most literal sense possible.

Yes, Nadal had just beaten Djokovic on clay, but what I meant was that Nadal may have taken a little extra time with his rest and rehab to contemplate not just how he would preserve his knees, but how he would tinker with his game to make a real run at being #1 and challenging Djokovic on all surfaces, not just clay.

I don't see why that is such an absurd suggestion to you, but then again, I am talking to Mr. Literal here.

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal's skills and shots are elite but not spectacular.

However, psychologically and mentally he is just of a different breed than everyone else; that includes even Djokovic and Federer. Those two have higher peaks of play than Nadal but Nadal's consistency is awfully unique.

I have to agree. Nadal's consistency is something that we have never seen in tennis before. Added to that is the fact that he is always trying to improve his game. He has a decent serve, and has the wheels to run once he gets into the point, such that his service games look almost as easy as those of better servers.

At the beginning of the 2nd set tiebreaker, Rafa is on the deuce side baseline, He hits a forehand DTL and creates his own angle doing it. Tell me Cali, is there a human on this Earth that could have hit that spectactular shot,, Who creates their own angle on the baseline DTL.. Amazing, IMO

LOL....that was a completely BS shot. Nadal underhit it entirely and it worked out for him by barely getting over the net and landing awfully short.

Thanks for proving that your tennis knowledge is as shitty as your posts. You just confirmed that you've never touched a tennis racquet in your life if you genuinely thought that shot was "underhit" (I doubt you have any idea what that means). Listen, I'm fine with debating tennis with you, but leave the technical stuff out because you're completely clueless about any of it. And hey, nothing wrong with that.

LOL....this is coming from the #1 proponent of ultra-conservative, "high percentage" tennis who thinks that Roger Federer trying to hit some forehands down the line when it is clearly open to him is "too risky" and likely to result in an unforced error 90% of the time because, indeed, Roger Federer doesn't have much shotmaking skill and just picked up a racquet three weeks ago.

Now I think we can both agree that Nadal generally plays a high-percentage brand of tennis. So do you really think that he tried to place the ball where he did on that point on the shot in question? Go to 4:00 of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9KSEn93vo

You'd have to be kidding. That was an ugly and awkward shot to boot.

 

[ClayDeath]

well hes fav for USO now. like legit. hes playing the best hardcourt tennis ive seen him play

Yeah, I wonder where Broken-Man and El Dude are with their overdone, cliche, and petty "age" analysis.

Wait, what? How is that relevant to anything? Nadal is 27. He's not old. He has mileage and injuries, which has reared its ugly head on him on more than one occasion in his career. How does his current success negate any of that?

Nice job there, covering for yourself and rationalizing your repeated idiotic statements in the past.

What his current success "negates" is your stupid comments in recent years - including at the start of this year - that Nadal "does not move as well as he used to". What was most funny is that you posted a video of him hitting a forehand winner off of his back foot in defense against Federer at the French Open in 2004, asking "how can anyone say that he would hit this shot now?" And I think two weeks later in the IW final he did the exact same thing against Del Potro.

Your whole tone indicated that Nadal could no longer provide the physicality that he once did, etc. etc. What has actually happened is that he has had the best hardcourt season of his career - something you clearly felt was not possible because of a "loss of quickness".

As for El Dude, his analysis on the 22-26 age range tends to be overdone and kind of petty. Nadal is having his best year on hardcourts as a 27-year-old.

Nadal doesn't move as well as he used to. He used to be faster. He still moves pretty damn well though. Before you call anyone idiotic, grasp this very basic concept.

Nadal does not provide the physicality he once did, which is why he's being more aggressive on hards to compensate, hence the best hard court season of his career. Again, grasp basic concepts before you call anyone an idiot

And finally, I refuse to be labelled an idiot by the moron who suggested Nadal might have taken time off in 2012 to "figure out how to approach the Djokovic match-up" when he did so weeks after beating Djokovic three consecutive times.

calm down guys and just chill.

that is not the way to win friends and influence people.


we are all gathered here in a spirit of friendship and peace.


lets keep making friends and keep talking tennis.


STAY ON THE SUBJECT.


personal attacks or personal remarks are not cool.


it does not matter how little or how much somebody knows. if that person is here than that person is our guest. and lets find a way to keep that guest and make him our friend so he stays with us.

this does not apply to known trolls who run around damaging forums obviously. I have seen a few of them at MTF.


calitennis just sees things differently.


we all do.


and that is what makes it all so interesting.

 

[calitennis127]

Good post, sista! Anyone who thinks Rafa is great for reasons wholly divorced from his shots isn't paying attention...

Kieran, do you think Nadal's shotmaking is 10 Slams better than his age peer Andy Murray's shotmaking?

 

[ClayDeath]

it is not about the shotmaking.


that was never the objective in this sport.

who really cares about the shotmaking?

can you win? that is all that matters.

the objective is to win tennis matches. it has always been that way.


I myself at my own level have known people at these various tennis clubs in new Orleans who had every shot in the book.

I destroyed them with a limited game.

I did not have the biggest serve and I could not volley well. my slice was not too effective. in fact it was terrible.


some of these cats were even ranked fairly high in the state.

one was in the top 5 in the south. he was Tulane university`s top player.

another one of them was the top player from the university of new Orleans.


they had no answers for my topspin. I was consistent and I could produce in the clutch.



I should add this at the expense of sounding like I am bragging but I also managed to gun down a NCAA singles champion in a practice match on the hard courts. hard courts was my worst surface. it was just a good day for me. he had never seen so much topspin and I hit the ball 10,000 mph. I guess I was out to impress a little bit so I blasted the ball with all my might.
topspin provides you those sky high margins.



that is all you need. who the bloody hell needs 3000 different shots?


you just need to be relatively consistent off both wings. and you have to have solid movement.

that means you have to be a fairly good athlete in this sport.


and you need a forehand of death.

consistency of both wings usually does mean that you have a decent return of serve. and you have to have that obviously.

you cant win if you cant break.

 

[calitennis127]

it is not about the shotmaking.


that was never the objective in this sport.

who really cares about the shotmaking?

can you win? that is all that matters.

the objective is to win tennis matches. it has always been that way.


I myself at my own level have known people at these various tennis clubs in new Orleans who had every shot in the book.

I destroyed them with a limited game.

I did not have the biggest serve and I could not volley well. my slice was not too effective. in fact it was terrible.


some of these cats were even ranked fairly high in the state.

one was in the top 5 in the south. he was Tulane university`s top player.

another one of them was the top player from the university of new Orleans.


they had no answers for my topspin. I was consistent and I could produce in the clutch.

that is all you need. who the bloody hell needs 3000 different shots?


you just need to be relatively consistent off both wings. and you have to have solid movement.

that means you have to be a fairly good athlete in this sport.


and you need a forehand of death.

consistency of both wings usually does mean that you have a decent return of serve. and you have to have that obviously.

you cant win if you cant break.

Thanks for agreeing with me ClayDeath. You made my point very well, and I hope the Nadal fans take note: winning matches and great shotmaking talent are often two very different things.

ClayDeath just explained that very well. I hope Moxie, Kieran, and Broken take note of it. Nadal has won a large number of matches without having superior shots to what his opponents have.

 

[Moxie]

well hes fav for USO now. like legit. hes playing the best hardcourt tennis ive seen him play

Yeah, I wonder where Broken-Man and El Dude are with their overdone, cliche, and petty "age" analysis.

Wait, what? How is that relevant to anything? Nadal is 27. He's not old. He has mileage and injuries, which has reared its ugly head on him on more than one occasion in his career. How does his current success negate any of that?

Nice job there, covering for yourself and rationalizing your repeated idiotic statements in the past.

What his current success "negates" is your stupid comments in recent years - including at the start of this year - that Nadal "does not move as well as he used to". What was most funny is that you posted a video of him hitting a forehand winner off of his back foot in defense against Federer at the French Open in 2004, asking "how can anyone say that he would hit this shot now?" And I think two weeks later in the IW final he did the exact same thing against Del Potro.

Your whole tone indicated that Nadal could no longer provide the physicality that he once did, etc. etc. What has actually happened is that he has had the best hardcourt season of his career - something you clearly felt was not possible because of a "loss of quickness".

As for El Dude, his analysis on the 22-26 age range tends to be overdone and kind of petty. Nadal is having his best year on hardcourts as a 27-year-old.

No need to insult El Dude's analysis...it's not "petty," he's showing us numbers. You can argue methodology or conclusions drawn, but he's not offering unfounded opinion, (as most of us do,) he's providing statistical data, which he offers for all of us to derive conclusions from.

Nadal's current HC form is not due to raising his physical prowess, but reacting to its limitations, IMO. Because his knees will always be an issue, and because he realizes to compete for HC titles he needs to be more aggressive, he has improved his placement on serve, and his positioning on the court. These are adjustments that come from a player's intelligence about the game and maturity. It doesn't at all say that his tennis body is not aging...I would say it says the opposite.

^ Surely you spend too much time pouring over what little there is on youtube as to Nalbandian highlights, and just ignore the massive proliferation of Nadal ones. I ever became a fan because of Nadal's jaw-dropping shot-making. Obviously, certain things are a matter of taste, but you are not the only arbiter of it.

Moxie, on a related note, I would like to ask you this question: do you think Nadal won the recent matches against Janowicz, Djokovic, Federer, and Berdych because he had superior shots? Do you think he is a better shotmaker than all four of those guys?

I think he is at least as good a shotmaker as they are, except Federer, who has all the shots. But as to the rest, they are just different skills, though Rafa tends to continually add more to his arsenal. And when his land in and theirs don't, including Federer's, yes...he's better.

Good post, sista! Anyone who thinks Rafa is great for reasons wholly divorced from his shots isn't paying attention...

Kieran, do you think Nadal's shotmaking is 10 Slams better than his age peer Andy Murray's shotmaking?

Kieran never posts during Slams, so don't be waiting for a reply to this.

 

[ClayDeath]

you are not just not catching on mate.


where did I say that nadal does not have sublime shotmaking ability?



I am not going to burst your little bubble but he actually he does. I will let you keep your little fantasy that nadal is not a great shotmaker.



he plays the percentages. he plays the game very much like a chess match.

he constructs the points and then he pulls the trigger.

the man wins matches. that is the only objective in this sport.



he is required to kill so he kills. what else is there?



can you argue with his success:


1. he wins 97% of all his matches on the red clay for the last 10 years. for a bloody decade.


2. he wins better than 98% of his matches at RG

3. he wins 100% of his finals at RG

3. he has a winning record against ALL of the top 30 players

4. he has 21 wins against roger

5. he has 21 wins against nole

6. he wins 90% of all his matches at slams



who would you rather be? some pretty dazzling shotmaker or somebody who knows how to win matches.



now it turns out that nadal does have sublime shotmaking ability. he is also smart enough to know those shots tend to be low percentage.

so he brings them out when he absolutely has to. he constructs and builds the points in his favor and he waits for his opportunities.


I think the problem you may have is with his style of play.





would you like to be in nadal`s shoes?


yes or no?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Nadal's skills and shots are elite but not spectacular.

However, psychologically and mentally he is just of a different breed than everyone else; that includes even Djokovic and Federer. Those two have higher peaks of play than Nadal but Nadal's consistency is awfully unique.

I have to agree. Nadal's consistency is something that we have never seen in tennis before. Added to that is the fact that he is always trying to improve his game. He has a decent serve, and has the wheels to run once he gets into the point, such that his service games look almost as easy as those of better servers.

At the beginning of the 2nd set tiebreaker, Rafa is on the deuce side baseline, He hits a forehand DTL and creates his own angle doing it. Tell me Cali, is there a human on this Earth that could have hit that spectactular shot,, Who creates their own angle on the baseline DTL.. Amazing, IMO

LOL....that was a completely BS shot. Nadal underhit it entirely and it worked out for him by barely getting over the net and landing awfully short.

Thanks for proving that your tennis knowledge is as shitty as your posts. You just confirmed that you've never touched a tennis racquet in your life if you genuinely thought that shot was "underhit" (I doubt you have any idea what that means). Listen, I'm fine with debating tennis with you, but leave the technical stuff out because you're completely clueless about any of it. And hey, nothing wrong with that.

confirmed that you've never touched a tennis racquet in your lifeBS, Welcome to the party , Pal.. His posts have made that very evident that he has never stood across the net in and played tennis at a very competitive level