Cincinnati Final: John Isner vs. Rafael Nadal

[brokenshoelace]

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.

The point was suggested by someone else, but you brought up the "Novak approach" narrative, which sounds completely retarded. Seven whole months to figure out how to approach a match-up, without playing a single match of tennis. Yeah, sure.

Also LOL at using Nadal being able to "out-physical" Del Potro and John freaking Isner as proof that he's still as physical as ever... Could it be that he's still more physical than those guys, just not as much as he once was? Oh, and another MAJOR LOL at using the serve fest that was the Isner match in Cinci as any indication of physicality.

Nadal didn't beat Gulbis by being more physical. He beat him by keeping the ball in some more, which isn't necessarily a result of physicality, at least not in that match, especially since the first 2 sets were generally a breeze and it didn't boil down to an issue of physicality.

But then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks a 7-6 7-6 routine straight set victory was decided by physicality.