Djokovic now indisputedly a better grasscourtplayer than Nadal.....

[Federberg]

Federberg, my main issue with Nadal started in 2009 with his fans. I had actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and I had no problem with him until I started reading the appalling things being said by his fans to me after the Australian Open win in 2009.

Nadal, to me, was the one player who exposed Federer's weaknesses when Federer was being overhyped in the 2003 to 2007 era. It is not that Federer wasn't great, but he was not perfect, and many were making him out to be. People forget that even in 2006 Federer won a slew of close matches and he was lucky that Nalbandian and Safin - the two from his generation who could have de-throned him - were MIA. So Nadal came along and exposed the weak backhand, mental flightiness, and lack of assertiveness that were obvious even when he was winning a ton in the 2003-2007 era.

I always thought that Federer was too passive and too reliant on flow instead of specific tactics and adjustments to be considered perfect, not to mention the clear backhand deficiency and his tendency to over-slice. Federer's backhand slice was viewed as tactical genius when often it was just laziness/playfulness that he could get away with because he was more talented and a better mover than most.

So Nadal came along and was ruthless in attacking the Federer backhand, particularly on clay, and Nadal was generally unfazed and unaffected by Federer's slices. He also never got caught up in the pro-Federer hype of thinking that Federer was an unbeatable deity, but instead he and Uncle Toni saw that there were clearly mental and skill weaknesses to target. By going after the backhand and also trusting that Federer did not have the will or the method to sustain great shotmaking for entire matches against elite defense of the sort Nadal possessed, Rafa and Uncle Toni built a formula for not just beating Federer, but demoralizing and exposing him after people had made him out to be perfect when he wasn't.

All this was well and good, and I had no problem with this. I actually rooted for Nadal to take Federer off the #1 spot because I can't stand when people get more credit than they deserve (which was certainly the case with Federer). So I was happy to see Nadal win at both Wimbledon and Melbourne over Nadal, and that was that.

But then - this is when things changed. I focused on Federer's weaknesses and how Nadal had benefited from them in a post entitled something like "The shot that could have won Federer his 13th and 14th Slams", which I deemed was the aggressive forehand return where he would run around his backhand, particularly on the ad side. On this, I had the full agreement of Darren Cahill and other tennis gurus who were simply flabbergasted by Federer's refusal to run around the backhand or be aggressive at all with the return. Federer was choosing to chip and chip all day, and finally Federer was facing a rival who wasn't shanking balls off the slice or getting over-awed by Federer simply picking up his racket to start the match.

So what was happening in that period was Nadal exposing the Federer weaknesses that had been overlooked by everyone who just kisses up to the winners. Federer was never an ideal tactician or gameplanner, and his backhand could be broken down. His mind-numbingly stupid refusal to attack Nadal's pedestrian serve aggressively was proof positive of this. He chipped and poked his backhand return literally 90% of the time and Nadal was eating him for lunch. So I said as much in my post.

But then, I had two pro-Nadal posters in particular - huntingyou and MikeOne - start telling me that, no, Nadal was actually just as good a shotmaker as Federer (ridiculous) and that Nadal was actually just a better tennis player altogether. MikeOne even went so far as to call Nadal "a perfect tennis player". This was all because Nadal had won. At that point, my feuding with the Nadal fans began because I believed that they were totally misreading why and how Nadal had de-throned Federer.

Since then, I have been considered anti-Nadal, but to be more precise I am anti-interpretation-of-Nadal-fans.

I hate the fact that I agree with a lot of what you've written here Cali! :cry But at his peak Roger refused to make the changes he needed to deal with the problems that Rafa presented to him. I believe as far back as in the old tennis.com forums I did say that there was a perfectly rational reason for this. Why make the adjustment to beat Rafa when you're only losing 4 or 5 matches a year? My putting forward that argument in no way means that I don't agree with the tactical limitations you described in Roger's game at that time.

 

[nehmeth]

I hate the fact that I agree with a lot of what you've written here Cali! :cry But at his peak Roger refused to make the changes he needed to deal with the problems that Rafa presented to him. I believe as far back as in the old tennis.com forums I did say that there was a perfectly rational reason for this. Why make the adjustment to beat Rafa when you're only losing 4 or 5 matches a year? My putting forward that argument in no way means that I don't agree with the tactical limitations you described in Roger's game at that time.

When you look at Andy Roddick and the adjustments he made to his game to "beat Fed" (didn't work), you almost have to give old Roger a nod and say he probably made the best choice.

 

[Federberg]

I hate the fact that I agree with a lot of what you've written here Cali! :cry But at his peak Roger refused to make the changes he needed to deal with the problems that Rafa presented to him. I believe as far back as in the old tennis.com forums I did say that there was a perfectly rational reason for this. Why make the adjustment to beat Rafa when you're only losing 4 or 5 matches a year? My putting forward that argument in no way means that I don't agree with the tactical limitations you described in Roger's game at that time.

When you look at Andy Roddick and the adjustments he made to his game to "beat Fed" (didn't work), you almost have to give old Roger a nod and say he probably made the best choice.

Yes I agree. I always felt that Roger's attitude was rational. Fans and media wanted to focus on the Fedal rivalry. But I'll repeat what I always say to that.... you play tennis to win tournaments not to beat an individual. Judging by Rogers achievement he got it spot on

 

[Riotbeard]

^^^Interesting! IMO, no one has been hyped and made into a tennis Gawd more than Nadal with all his glaring weaknesses and inability to sustain top form, often taking months away from the tour! He has never defended a title off the clay surface and this season, he couldn't even do that! He may very well make some kind of comeback, but it won't be anything as successful as 2013! IMO he's as done as can be; falling to pros he owned like the Spanish Armada and F3! Losing a match with points to close it out and failing against someone like Milos showed me all I needed to back up my thoughts on the matter! As most know, I've never cared for Nadal; some of the ugliest tennis played in comparison to the grace and fluidity of a Federer!

You don't say :laydownlaughing

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federberg, my main issue with Nadal started in 2009 with his fans. I had actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and I had no problem with him until I started reading the appalling things being said by his fans to me after the Australian Open win in 2009.

Nadal, to me, was the one player who exposed Federer's weaknesses when Federer was being overhyped in the 2003 to 2007 era. It is not that Federer wasn't great, but he was not perfect, and many were making him out to be. People forget that even in 2006 Federer won a slew of close matches and he was lucky that Nalbandian and Safin - the two from his generation who could have de-throned him - were MIA. So Nadal came along and exposed the weak backhand, mental flightiness, and lack of assertiveness that were obvious even when he was winning a ton in the 2003-2007 era.

I always thought that Federer was too passive and too reliant on flow instead of specific tactics and adjustments to be considered perfect, not to mention the clear backhand deficiency and his tendency to over-slice. Federer's backhand slice was viewed as tactical genius when often it was just laziness/playfulness that he could get away with because he was more talented and a better mover than most.

So Nadal came along and was ruthless in attacking the Federer backhand, particularly on clay, and Nadal was generally unfazed and unaffected by Federer's slices. He also never got caught up in the pro-Federer hype of thinking that Federer was an unbeatable deity, but instead he and Uncle Toni saw that there were clearly mental and skill weaknesses to target. By going after the backhand and also trusting that Federer did not have the will or the method to sustain great shotmaking for entire matches against elite defense of the sort Nadal possessed, Rafa and Uncle Toni built a formula for not just beating Federer, but demoralizing and exposing him after people had made him out to be perfect when he wasn't.

All this was well and good, and I had no problem with this. I actually rooted for Nadal to take Federer off the #1 spot because I can't stand when people get more credit than they deserve (which was certainly the case with Federer). So I was happy to see Nadal win at both Wimbledon and Melbourne over Nadal, and that was that.

But then - this is when things changed. I focused on Federer's weaknesses and how Nadal had benefited from them in a post entitled something like "The shot that could have won Federer his 13th and 14th Slams", which I deemed was the aggressive forehand return where he would run around his backhand, particularly on the ad side. On this, I had the full agreement of Darren Cahill and other tennis gurus who were simply flabbergasted by Federer's refusal to run around the backhand or be aggressive at all with the return. Federer was choosing to chip and chip all day, and finally Federer was facing a rival who wasn't shanking balls off the slice or getting over-awed by Federer simply picking up his racket to start the match.

So what was happening in that period was Nadal exposing the Federer weaknesses that had been overlooked by everyone who just kisses up to the winners. Federer was never an ideal tactician or gameplanner, and his backhand could be broken down. His mind-numbingly stupid refusal to attack Nadal's pedestrian serve aggressively was proof positive of this. He chipped and poked his backhand return literally 90% of the time and Nadal was eating him for lunch. So I said as much in my post.

But then, I had two pro-Nadal posters in particular - huntingyou and MikeOne - start telling me that, no, Nadal was actually just as good a shotmaker as Federer (ridiculous) and that Nadal was actually just a better tennis player altogether. MikeOne even went so far as to call Nadal "a perfect tennis player". This was all because Nadal had won. At that point, my feuding with the Nadal fans began because I believed that they were totally misreading why and how Nadal had de-throned Federer.

Since then, I have been considered anti-Nadal, but to be more precise I am anti-interpretation-of-Nadal-fans.

I hate the fact that I agree with a lot of what you've written here Cali! :cry But at his peak Roger refused to make the changes he needed to deal with the problems that Rafa presented to him. I believe as far back as in the old tennis.com forums I did say that there was a perfectly rational reason for this. Why make the adjustment to beat Rafa when you're only losing 4 or 5 matches a year? My putting forward that argument in no way means that I don't agree with the tactical limitations you described in Roger's game at that time.

OK, I'll bite...What are these changes that Roger "refused" to do? I'm curious to hear how you think he should have played Nadal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is true, had him as one even before winning yesterday seeing as how he destroyed Nadal in the final in 2011.

Yeah, agreed Darth, but it really is too bad that Djokovic flamed out against Berdych in the Wimbledon semis in 2010. He could have gotten started with his 2011-and-onward role a lot sooner. Nadal was never all that impressive from a tactical or skill perspective on grass and it was clear that, Nadal serving 82% aside, Djokovic fundamentally had more game for the surface from a young age.

Djokovic's win over Nadal at Wimbledon in 2011 was one of the easiest Slam titles he has earned. The first two sets were over in the blink of an eye. And people forget that Djokovic beat Nadal pretty good in the first set of their 2007 semifinal as well. So it really is too bad that he did not get by Berdych in 2010; beating Nadal in that final probably would not have been overly difficult and a victory there really could have sent Djokovic sky-high even before the start of 2011.

You see ladies and gentlemen, Nadal was not impressive in 2010 on grass despite winning Wimbledon, but Djokovic, who that year, was taken to five sets in the first round at Wimbledon by Olivier Rochus, and straight setted by freaking Thomas Berdych on grass, was. He also would have beaten Nadal, as evidenced by what happened in their US Open final. Yes, Todd Martin serve Djokovic would have beaten Nadal that year.

Newsflash, the 2011 Wimbledon final is irrelevant because DJokovic was not playing at that level in 2010. That's such a dumb argument. If he was, he would have gotten past Berdych.

 

[brokenshoelace]

That said, LMAO @ "the misfortune" of playing Safin in the second round. You ever followed Safin's performances on grass?

So what? Everyone knows that Safin was inconsistent but had exceptional talent that could translate to all surfaces, and especially the faster ones where a premium is placed on power. Djokovic was playing very well in 2008 and Marat Safin, in case you are unaware, is a much tougher second-round opponent for a top-seeded player than most other second-round opponents for top-seeded players. On any given day, he could raise his level and beat the best. Everyone knows this.

And you could say the same about Novak's "otherworldly" victory over Kevin Anderson this year.

Are you serious? We can put this argument now in your Monfils-stamina treasure chest of colossal errors.

There is a huge difference between struggling with someone like Anderson or Karlovic at Wimbledon versus struggling with someone like Haase or Petzschner. There is a reason that Karlovic gets at least to the Round of 16 every year. When you are 6-10 with a 140 MPH serve at Wimbledon, you are tough to beat because you take away any normal rhythm to the match. Nadal struggled with Haase, Petzschner, and Youzhny because - despite his immense stamina capacity - his baseline game was not as great as you and others ever wanted to believe.

Also, I should add that in 2011, Isner even won the first two sets on Nadal at Roland Garros on the back of big serving. So are you going to try to say that Nadal wasn't very good on clay that year because he struggled with an irregular kind of match against a 6-10 big-serving opponent?

Regardless, 3 > 2 however way you slice it, so you're right. Now if only you realize that 14 > 0 and save us a lot of BS Nalbandian threads.

I posted one and it was about why we should miss Nalbandian's baseline excellence in light of how Djokovic flopped in the Roland Garros final after the first set. I stand by what I said because it is true. If you enjoy great tennis, then you should miss seeing Nalbandian's baseline game.

But, since you are playing a numbers game, try this one: 18 to 3. That is how many winners Nalbandian had to Nadal in the first 40 minutes of their US Open match. Not quite the 59-13 job Gulbis did at Rome, but man, those numbers are telling!

Haase and Petzschner have huge serves.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I hate the fact that I agree with a lot of what you've written here Cali! :cry But at his peak Roger refused to make the changes he needed to deal with the problems that Rafa presented to him. I believe as far back as in the old tennis.com forums I did say that there was a perfectly rational reason for this. Why make the adjustment to beat Rafa when you're only losing 4 or 5 matches a year? My putting forward that argument in no way means that I don't agree with the tactical limitations you described in Roger's game at that time.

When you look at Andy Roddick and the adjustments he made to his game to "beat Fed" (didn't work), you almost have to give old Roger a nod and say he probably made the best choice.

Yes I agree. I always felt that Roger's attitude was rational. Fans and media wanted to focus on the Fedal rivalry. But I'll repeat what I always say to that.... you play tennis to win tournaments not to beat an individual. Judging by Rogers achievement he got it spot on

This implies that Roger could have actually made the adjustments to beat Nadal but chose not to. We have no idea whether that's the case, and we have no idea whether by doing that, it would have meant losing his edge over the rest of the players. The Roddick example is really bad because he's an extremely limited player and can in no way be compared to Federer. He was all serve and forehand so when he changed his forehand, he suffered. For Federer, the changes required against Nadal (irrespective of whether they would have been reflected with results) were in no way so severe as to hamper his game against the others.

That's an odd narrative right there.

Also, I take serious issue with this idea that nehmeth put forward earlier, stating that Federer by choice, didn't make the adjustments. This is literally based on nothing and you can actually see Federer trying to play Nadal different since 2008, which is funnily enough when he started having his worst results against him (and never stopped). He was doing better when he was just playing his game in 2006-2007.

I know it's been years but we all have pretty good memories. Let's not re-write history just because Nadal is an easy target right now.

I am not saying Roger always played Nadal the right way and there is nothing he could have done, but there are serious implications in this thread that had he made the changes, the h2h would have been significantly different, which is delusional.

 

[Federberg]

^No it does NOT imply that. Please don't start trying to read more into what I said than I actually said :cover For all we know he makes an adjustment to try to counter Rafa and becomes vulnerable to the rest of the field. Strategically it would have made no sense whatsoever which is why I have always agreed with what Roger did.

And you should know by now I care less about the H2H. It's ALL about winning trophies for me. Fanboys can worry about the H2H

 

[brokenshoelace]

^No it does NOT imply that. Please don't start trying to read more into what I said than I actually said :cover For all we know he makes an adjustment to try to counter Rafa and becomes vulnerable to the rest of the field. Strategically it would have made no sense whatsoever which is why I have always agreed with what Roger did.

And you should know by now I care less about the H2H. It's ALL about winning trophies for me. Fanboys can worry about the H2H

Well, in this case h2h and trophies go hand in hand since they were playing finals for the most part, hence, the winner of the match-up actually wins the trophy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nehmeth said:

"When you look at Andy Roddick and the adjustments he made to his game to "beat Fed" (didn't work), you almost have to give old Roger a nod and say he probably made the best choice. "

To which you (Federberg), responded:

"Yes I agree"

You're right, it does not imply Roger chose not to make these adjustments. It flat out claims he chose not to.

 

[Federberg]

^It's early morning here, and I shouldn't even be on the forums :snicker I'm not sure what specific point you're trying to make. But for clarity.. I don't believe Roger should have made adjustments, to talk about what would have happened if he tried is woulda coulda. I applaud the fact he focussed on what was important which is winning tournaments. He did that tremendously successfully. There is no revision of history here, so I'm not sure why you're making an issue of this

 

[isabelle]

Back in 2010, I took lot of heat from prisoners of the moment and those who have at various times vastly overrated Nadal's level and clearly misunderstood his success (because, for example, they hilariously think Gael "gasp for breath" Monfils has as good of stamina as Nadal) when I opined that Djokovic would have defeated Nadal in the Wimbledon final of 2010 had he not had that sorry loss to Berdych.

Since that time, everything that has happened with these two at Wimbledon has only reinforced my point. Djokovic had one of his easiest Slam finals in 2011 against Nadal at Wimbledon. Djokovic has also beaten Federer in two Wimbledon finals and gotten to another final and semifinal. Meanwhile, Nadal has struggled mightily with the likes of Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis. For the stat zealots among us, Djokovic now has three Wimbledons to Nadal's two.

I know there are some people who think that Nadal produced other-worldly tennis with his 5-set victories over Robin Haase and Philip Petzschner at Wimbledon in 2010, but I was not as impressed. I just wish that Djokovic had not flamed out in the 2007 semifinal against Nadal after winning the first set (something people forget about) and that in 2008 he had not had the misfortune of drawing Safin in the second round so that this could have been apparent to all much sooner:

Djokovic is just a better grasscourt player than Nadal.

Absolutely my dear, Nole is a better grasscourt player than Nadal but it's easier than beeing a better claycourt player than him !! Grass is the worst Nadal's surface with indoor

 

[brokenshoelace]

^It's early morning here, and I shouldn't even be on the forums :snicker I'm not sure what specific point you're trying to make. But for clarity.. I don't believe Roger should have made adjustments, to talk about what would have happened if he tried is woulda coulda. I applaud the fact he focussed on what was important which is winning tournaments. He did that tremendously successfully. There is no revision of history here, so I'm not sure why you're making an issue of this

The point I'm making is Roger did try to make adjustments, and failed. Those adjustments were actually necessary to win tournaments, considering there was a guy that was stopping him from winning some of them, who he had to overcome. It seems like you're presenting adjustments to Nadal and winning tournaments as a mutually exclusive propositions. They aren't. Roger couldn't overcome Nadal (on the whole) despite the fact that he did make adjustments (whether they were the right adjustments are a different issue, but some of them were), and that didn't stop him from beating other players.

Many in this thread are presenting the theory that Roger REFUSED to make adjustments, which is flat out factually incorrect.

 

[Federberg]

^Ah! I see your point. I don't disagree that he made some adjustments. But not the wholesale tactical changes that some advocated. He certainly didn't just stick his head in the sand and pretend Rafa didn't exist! I would contend that at his peak he really didn't need to adjust his game much for the rest of the tour, thus the specific focus on "adjustments" were Rafa-centric. But I'm not disagreeing with you

 

[calitennis127]

OK, I'll bite...What are these changes that Roger "refused" to do? I'm curious to hear how you think he should have played Nadal.

Okay, I'll bite back. And I will mimic Broken's attempt to aggrandize himself by sounding like he is taking time out of his important day to altruistically post on the board for everyone's pleasure, even though he posts more than anyone else. So let's all just bite, bite, bite, and bite some more. Yum.

Only a mind that is wooden, constrained, in-the-box, and utterly unimaginative could insist that Federer did make major changes in how he approached Nadal, or that he did pretty much everything he could do. But we are talking about the resident cornball on the board, who doesn't think that any match in tennis history could have conceivably turned out any different than it did. The irony of this is that Broken's favorite player and his uncle-coach are nothing like he himself. Their imagination and desire to make major adjustments led to Nadal's success off of clay. If they were anything like Broken, they would not have achieved what they did off of clay because, remember, it was only eccentrics, radicals, and trolls back in 2006 who thought Nadal could beat Federer on grass one day.

It is just plain dumb that Broken either does not remember or does not acknowledge that Federer at one time was allowing Nadal to spin mild first serves in to his backhand side upwards of 80% of the time. This enabled Nadal to have a decisive edge in most rallies with Federer. Even Darren Cahill, who is normally very cautious about condemning players' tactics in harsh terms, was exasperated by the time of the 2009 Australian Open. He was imploring Federer to run around the backhand and mix it up a little bit to at least give Nadal something to worry about on the return instead of feeling comfortable that every Federer return would be a tame chip return or block return.

On top of this, Federer's approach in rallies left plenty to be desired. He did exactly what Broken wanted, which is of course why he failed. He was "patiently aggressive" and mostly went cross-court with his forehand. There were numerous opportunities for him to do much more with the forehand than he did, particularly going down-the-line when that opportunity was just begging to be utilized. Instead, Nadal absorbed whatever mild heat Federer was throwing at him with the CC forehand until he could turn the rally around and pound Federer's backhand.

In general, what Federer did was approach the match with attention to minutiae and focus on clichés like "executing on the big points" when something more was needed from him against Nadal. So he ended up winning 40-50% of rallies, but hardly ever winning the decisive ones. Because he was not aggressive enough with very realistic and makeable shots on the forehand side, he allowed Nadal to repeatedly shift the rallies to his own backhand weakness.

There is no way Federer should have gone 2-13 against Nadal on clay. That is a shameful record for him and he was capable of doing much better.

 

[calitennis127]

When you look at Andy Roddick and the adjustments he made to his game to "beat Fed" (didn't work), you almost have to give old Roger a nod and say he probably made the best choice.

What changes in your estimation would have helped Federer against Nadal but hurt him against the field?

 

[calitennis127]

Many in this thread are presenting the theory that Roger REFUSED to make adjustments, which is flat out factually incorrect.

Yes, significant adjustments, as opposed to the trivial ones that you think were major attempts at strategic overhaul on Federer's part.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, I take serious issue with this idea that nehmeth put forward earlier, stating that Federer by choice, didn't make the adjustments. This is literally based on nothing

Do you get ESPN in Lebanon? In case you do not know, this American sports channel features tennis analyst Darren Cahill, among others. Even the very temperate Cahill was exasperated during the 2009 Australian Open final with Federer's refusal to run around the backhand, which allowed Nadal to serve 90% of the time to the backhand.

and you can actually see Federer trying to play Nadal different since 2008, which is funnily enough when he started having his worst results against him (and never stopped).

The best Roland Garros showing Federer had against Nadal was in 2011, a match he should have won.

I am not saying Roger always played Nadal the right way and there is nothing he could have done, but there are serious implications in this thread that had he made the changes, the h2h would have been significantly different, which is delusional.

Of course it is. Anything ambitious, creative, or out-of-the-box is "delusional" to you. Good thing you weren't part of the Nadal camp in 2006 when they set their sights on winning Wimbledon one day and everyone said they couldn't do it. Good thing you weren't part of the Djokovic camp at the end of 2009 when no one would have thought he could be sitting on 9 Slams by 2015, including 3 Wimbledons and hundreds of weeks at #1 (with numerous missed opportunities - particularly the losses to Nadal - along the way as well).

 

[Kieran]

Oh brother, you're smoking weeeed if you can find a slam match between Fedal since 2007 that "Federer should have won." And in your defence, you cite one from Paris? :laydownlaughing

Thank the Lord for Roger's sake that Rafa was heading into his clay-winter then (albeit, one where he was still the best player and clay, and would be for the next 3 years after this ).

And you still can't get over the fact that Rafa tends to beat Nole at slams, eh? Well, newsflash: Nole has done very well beating Rafa 4 times at majors, including those exceptional shirt-splitting victories in 2011-2012, but otherwise, your remark that Nole suffered "numerous missed opportunities - particularly the losses to Nadal" only betray prejudice, not knowledge, or understanding.

Prejudice only, bro... :nono