How to win against Rafa --- The tale of two Swiss Blokes

[GameSetAndMath]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, Roger has played great against Rafa for a set and a game too. He's even beaten him over five. Had Roger played Rafa in the final this year, he'd have won too - and quicker than Stan - given how things panned out...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In fairness, Roger has played great against Rafa for a set and a game too. He's even beaten him over five. Had Roger played Rafa in the final this year, he'd have won too - and quicker than Stan - given how things panned out...

Let us not go that path again.

Give credit to the tactics that Stan employed. You are acting as though those were
irrelevant and only your bolded comment is relevant.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, Roger has played great against Rafa for a set and a game too. He's even beaten him over five. Had Roger played Rafa in the final this year, he'd have won too - and quicker than Stan - given how things panned out...

Let us not go that path again.

Give credit to the tactics that Stan employed. You are acting as though those were
irrelevant and only your bolded comment is relevant.

Well, given how things panned out is highly relevant, I agree, since you wouldn't be running this thread had they panned out different. You're being unjust to Federer, who wouldn't have stumbled over the line against a guy who could barely move.

Federer has played great matches against Rafa - not just great sets. Of course I give credit to Stan, but be realistic, do you really have such a low opinion of Federer? The guy has beaten Rafa in slam finals as well, and he's beaten him elsewhere too. He has the second highest number of victories against Rafa and he's beaten him on clay - twice...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In fairness, Roger has played great against Rafa for a set and a game too. He's even beaten him over five. Had Roger played Rafa in the final this year, he'd have won too - and quicker than Stan - given how things panned out...

Let us not go that path again.

Give credit to the tactics that Stan employed. You are acting as though those were
irrelevant and only your bolded comment is relevant.

Well, given how things panned out is highly relevant, I agree, since you wouldn't be running this thread had they panned out different. You're being unjust to Federer, who wouldn't have stumbled over the line against a guy who could barely move.

Federer has played great matches against Rafa - not just great sets. Of course I give credit to Stan, but be realistic, do you really have such a low opinion of Federer? The guy has beaten Rafa in slam finals as well, and he's beaten him elsewhere too. He has the second highest number of victories against Rafa and he's beaten him on clay - twice...

You are attempting to derail this thread by talking about injury stuff ("How things panned
out" is a code for it) and trying to do indulge in various diverting tactics. Folks, let us
not fall for them.

Let us keep the focus on the tactical aspects mentioned in the beautiful article. I know
it is a fairly long article and one must have patience to read through it. However, if you
have read the article in full and if you have seen both the matches at AO, you would see
that the analysis is quite on the mark.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, I'm not. I'm pointing out what Basil Fawlty calls the bleedin' obvious: that Stan playing a great set isn't cause to attack Federer.

I'm not Federer's greatest fan, but give the guy credit, he's played better against Rafa and for longer. Stan was great and I applaud you for starting the thread - they're not your conclusions so you need not defend them - but why bring Roger into it? He can point to a better record against Rafa than any man except one.

It's good to bring up tactics against Rafa, but the better example is Nole.

And why try put my pal Cali outta business?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Actually, I'm not. I'm pointing out what Basil Fawlty calls the bleedin' obvious: that Stan playing a great set isn't cause to attack Federer.

I'm not Federer's greatest fan, but give the guy credit, he's played better against Rafa and for longer. Stan was great and I applaud you for starting the thread - they're not your conclusions so you need not defend them - but why bring Roger into it? He can point to a better record against Rafa than any man except one.

It's good to bring up tactics against Rafa, but the better example is Nole.

And why try put my pal Cali outta business?

I am not talking about Fed's h2h against Rafa in comparison to Wawrinka's h2h against
Rafa. All of us know that Stan has not taken a set against Rafa before. That has nothing
to do with the fact that Stan employed right tactics as illustrated in the article.

I am a Federer fan, as you know. That does not mean that I agree with the
tactics that Fed uses against Rafa. As all of us know, the pattern (I don't even
have to say what is that pattern) just keeps repeating. It is time to change up
the pattern and the questions is how best to change by looking at what works
against Rafa. It is as simple as that.

You are asking Why bring Roger into it as if you don't know. Roger keeps
losing to Rafa. Article is trying to analyze as to why it is so and how he could
possibly change things.

I would like to hear form folks who can comment on the tactics mentioned
in the article. Do you disagree with any of the problems explained and solutions
offered.

 

[Kieran]

My problem with it is simple: I seen Federer play a huge set in Paris against Rafa - first set, 6-1! - and the match turned after this. I have no problem with the tactics but the fact is, they were in force for a set, only. After this, Stan struggled against a crippled man.

So while the discussion of tactics is a great one, I'm not sure Federer can benefit, nor is his record so bad he should be paraded negatively like this...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

If Nadal was 100% would this article have ever been written? Do we need a reminder of the H2H?

Just to address a few points..

EVERYONE gets dictated to by Nada's fearhand...

Wawrinka and Fed are basically reverse images. Federer cannot
do what Stanimal can do with his backhand, but Stanimal's forehand
is no where near as flawless as Feds.

Agree about Fed net approach tactics and execution.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You are going back again and again to the same stuff. I have already explained this
in various other threads. It is difficult to play against opponents who are injured or looks
injured or act like injured. This is what happened to Stan.

Stan's game went down precisely because of that. But, he righted the ship in time.

This is something that happens to all players when facing this situation for the first time.
I already even gave you an example in terms Daniela Hantuchova and Serena match.
See story below.

http://onlineathens.com/stories/070307/sports_20070703044.shtml

To summarize Stan struggled not even "against a crippled man" as you
put it, but "because of a crippled man".

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

If Nadal was 100% would this article have ever been written? Do we need a reminder of the H2H?

This is exactly what I am against. Are you claiming that If Nadal was 100%, he would
have surely won on that day. I am not so sure of that. This is really irritating that people
keep saying this again and again. This is demeaning and not giving proper credit to Stan.

Everybody know the H2H. That does not mean everything remains exactly the same.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

If Nadal was 100% would this article have ever been written? Do we need a reminder of the H2H?

This is exactly what I am against. Are you claiming that If Nadal was 100%, he would
have surely won on that day. I am not so sure of that. This is really irritating that people
keep saying this again and again. This is demeaning and not giving proper credit to Stan.

Everybody know the H2H. That does not mean everything remains exactly the same.

I am a HUGE Stanimal fan, been following him since day 1 when I saw him practice as a skinny rookie with Fed at the US OPEN.

I give him FULL CREDIT for winning the match because Rafa at 25% is still a ridiculous task.

I am however 100% confident that Rafa wins the 2014 AO if healthy. There is no doubt for me.

But, woulda, coulda, shouldas don't matter..and when they look at the record books it WON'T say, Stan W, Champion, with an asterisk...oh he beat an injured player.

I stand by what I said, this article would be in the recycle bin if Nadal plays even 90%,

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

If Nadal was 100% would this article have ever been written? Do we need a reminder of the H2H?

This is exactly what I am against. Are you claiming that If Nadal was 100%, he would
have surely won on that day. I am not so sure of that. This is really irritating that people
keep saying this again and again. This is demeaning and not giving proper credit to Stan.

Everybody know the H2H. That does not mean everything remains exactly the same.

I am a HUGE Stanimal fan, been following him since day 1 when I saw him practice as a skinny rookie with Fed at the US OPEN.

I give him FULL CREDIT for winning the match because Rafa at 25% is still a ridiculous task.

I am however 100% confident that Rafa wins the 2014 AO if healthy. There is no doubt for me.

But, woulda, coulda, shouldas don't matter..and when they look at the record books it WON'T say, Stan W, Champion, with an asterisk...oh he beat an injured player.

I stand by what I said, this article would be in the recycle bin if Nadal plays even 90%,

For any one who reads what you wrote, it is clear that you are placing an asterisk
even though you are saying there is no asterisk. Actually, you made it worse now.
You are saying even a 90% Nadal would have beat Stan that day.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Rafa would have won that day if he was
100% fit. After all did you forget that, Stan was leading by a set and a break before
Rafa started holding his back.

Nobody knows and nobody can claim to predict correctly what would have happened
if Rafa was 100% that day. If we have to purely go by prior H2H, we don't even have
to play matches out right.

Surely, the article would not have been written if Stan had lost. That is not the
same as saying the article would not have been written if Nadal was 100%. By saying
so, you are claiming that Rafa would have definitely won if he was 100%.

We already had so many threads to discuss all these old stuff, "injury",
"asterisk" etc. I thought we can look into the tactics of what works and does
not work against Nadal and why. But, the thread is completely derailed.

p.s. Broken, you wanted examples of people claiming Rafa would have won.
Here you go. LB is an example. If I peer through all those old thread, I will
find many more, but I have better things to do.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Contrary to what Kieran says, I do not find the article as attacking Federer or
trying to demean Federer. It gives a very practical analysis of why things are not
working for Fed against Rafa and what he could possibly do about it.

Kieran could not get over the fact that Rafa lost to Stan and so is shedding
crocodile tears under the guise that the article is attacking Federer.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The following article gives a tactical analysis of how Wawrinka won against Rafa,
while Fed could not. It goes into the tactics and patterns heavily and essentially
puts Cali out of the job.

http://www.tacticaltennisblog.com/two-swiss-one-spaniard-wawrinka-succeeded-federer-failed/

If Nadal was 100% would this article have ever been written? Do we need a reminder of the H2H?

This is exactly what I am against. Are you claiming that If Nadal was 100%, he would
have surely won on that day. I am not so sure of that. This is really irritating that people
keep saying this again and again. This is demeaning and not giving proper credit to Stan.

Everybody know the H2H. That does not mean everything remains exactly the same.

I am a HUGE Stanimal fan, been following him since day 1 when I saw him practice as a skinny rookie with Fed at the US OPEN.

I give him FULL CREDIT for winning the match because Rafa at 25% is still a ridiculous task.

I am however 100% confident that Rafa wins the 2014 AO if healthy. There is no doubt for me.

But, woulda, coulda, shouldas don't matter..and when they look at the record books it WON'T say, Stan W, Champion, with an asterisk...oh he beat an injured player.

I stand by what I said, this article would be in the recycle bin if Nadal plays even 90%,

For any one who reads what you wrote, it is clear that you are placing an asterisk
even though you are saying there is no asterisk. Actually, you made it worse now.
You are saying even a 90% Nadal would have beat Stan that day.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Rafa would have won that day if he was
100% fit. After all did you forget that, Stan was leading by a set and a break before
Rafa started holding his back.

Nobody knows and nobody can claim to predict correctly what would have happened
if Rafa was 100% that day. If we have to purely go by prior H2H, we don't even have
to play matches out right.

Surely, the article would not have been written if Stan had lost. That is not the
same as saying the article would not have been written if Nadal was 100%. By saying
so, you are claiming that Rafa would have definitely won if he was 100%.

We already had so many threads to discuss all these old stuff, "injury",
"asterisk" etc. I thought we can look into the tactics of what works and does
not work against Nadal and why. But, the thread is completely derailed.

p.s. Broken, you wanted examples of people claiming Rafa would have won.
Here you go. LB is an example. If I peer through all those old thread, I will
find many more, but I have better things to do.

I place no asterik. However it is hard not to remember it. I remember that Lendl beat Edberg when Stefan bowed out with back injury mid match. I remember Fed beating Nadal in that 5 setter when Rafa hurt his knee in the 4th. Etc.

Perhaps you are unaware that Nadal said he felt pain in the back PRIOR to the match???

Sorry if you feel the thread is derailed. There have been two players with any decent success against Nadal. Joker and Fed. Everyone can study all the tactics they want, when he is fit he is unbeatable. So is Joker so that is why when they play at their best it is basically a test of wills.

Stan played 3 consecutive brutal 5 setters against Joker, and finally won the last. How many SETS had Stan won from Nadal? Tactics Shmactics.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Contrary to what Kieran says, I do not find the article as attacking Federer or
trying to demean Federer. It gives a very practical analysis of why things are not
working for Fed against Rafa and what he could possibly do about it.

Kieran could not get over the fact that Rafa lost to Stan and so is shedding
crocodile tears under the guise that the article is attacking Federer.

agree completely. not a federer attack at all.

 

[TsarMatt]

It was Wawrinka's first win in over twelve meetings. Besides, as we all know, Nadal was not at 100%. It's a good article, but let's not act like Stan has "figured it out".

 

[Luxilon Borg]

It was Wawrinka's first win in over twelve meetings. Besides, as we all know, Nadal was not at 100%. It's a good article, but let's not act like Stan has "figured it out".

Bingo.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It was Wawrinka's first win in over twelve meetings. Besides, as we all know, Nadal was not at 100%. It's a good article, but let's not act like Stan has "figured it out".

The first sentence is irrelevant in the determination of whether Stan has "figured it out"
or not. If he has only now figured it out (I am not claiming that has figured it out),
his previous 12-0 cannot be and should not be held against him. I am not saying we
should throw out the previous head-to-head from record books; what I am saying is
that often h2h can be broken into two parts, before a turning event happened and
after the turning event happened.

Finally, I am not implying that Stan owns Rafa based on one match or even that
Stan will have a winning h2h against Rafa from now on. The term ``figured it out''
does not necessarily have to mean finding a way to win all the time against Rafa;
it could mean finding the right way to play against Rafa which maximizes one's
chances of winning. In fact, the article also says this part explicitly as it is not
an easy task to tame Rafa.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

It was Wawrinka's first win in over twelve meetings. Besides, as we all know, Nadal was not at 100%. It's a good article, but let's not act like Stan has "figured it out".

The first sentence is irrelevant in the determination of whether Stan has "figured it out"
or not. If he has only now figured it out (I am not claiming that has figured it out),
his previous 12-0 cannot be and should not be held against him. I am not saying we
should throw out the previous head-to-head from record books; what I am saying is
that often h2h can be broken into two parts, before a turning event happened and
after the turning event happened.

Finally, I am not implying that Stan owns Rafa based on one match or even that
Stan will have a winning h2h against Rafa from now on. The term ``figured it out''
does not necessarily have to mean finding a way to win all the time against Rafa;
it could mean finding the right way to play against Rafa which maximizes one's
chances of winning. In fact, the article also says this part explicitly as it is not
an easy task to tame Rafa.

Sensible post.

The bottom line we cannot ignore the history or the circumstances of the match.

But..we also cannot ignore the fact that Stanimal is the well deserved AO 2014 champ, and the current #3 player in the world.