Broken_Shoelace said:
You know how sometimes we ask "can you read?" and it comes off as insulting? Well, that's not what I'll do here. I'll ask, DID you read? I seriously wonder.
No, I have not read every single post on this thread. If you do read every post before you post, I applaud you, but there are times when I do not have the energy or time or desire to read every single one.
That being said, I know what your general train of thought is from having read your posts for years now.
Broken_Shoelace said:
I mean, you're fascinating, for better or worse, and I'm sure you CAN read, but sometimes I wonder if you're so consumed by your biases and ideas that you refuse to actually digest what's written? Or do you just ignore it so you can repeat the same tired nonsense.
Same tired nonsense? Like what?
Insisting to you that Nadal was as good as ever when you were "unsure" about his form after his return in early 2013?
The fact is, when it comes to age and the modern game, I have been completely ahead of the curve, while pretty much everyone from notable tennis analysts to the likes of you and El Dude have been playing catch-up. The only poster who has actually been as on point in this regard as myself has been MikeOne. Him and I have had repeated arguments with you age-obsessives, and we have won. Mike took Darth to school about Fed's supposed decline, while I have cooked and fried the arguments of you and El Dude with regard to players falling off in the modern game. It's funny how El Dude jumped at the chance to write an article about Nadal's reign on clay "coming to an end" the very moment he lost in Barcelona (an article which was liked by 10+ posters), only for Nadal to steamroll through the Roland Garros draw as easily as ever a couple weeks later.
Broken_Shoelace said:
Because, I mean, there are only like 2096969 posts, including about 6 in this very thread where I mention that Nadal is STILL A FANTASTIC MOVER. So saying "he moved poorly in a 54 shot rally" is A) Irrelevant because of course he still moves great and everyone acknowledges that
While nitpicking in the most trivial manner possible about every point he loses, in a way that none of you ever did 4-6 years ago. Haelfix's utter nonsense is case and point.
Broken_Shoelace said:
and B) Stupid because that's about the 30th time you make a supposedly snarky statement like that.
Which is an attitude that all of you deserve for harping on age so much, even with a wealth of evidence to the contrary of what you are asserting.
I feel the same way about, for example, people being so obsessed about age in a reverse fashion when they discuss college basketball. It doesn't matter how many times a freshman-led or freshman-laden team makes the Final Four. Year after year people will still talk about "experience" as though it is as significant as talent.
I look at the substance of skill and ability over the age number.
Broken_Shoelace said:
(though I'm sure it would have been great to argue about Ferrer's movement as he got older even though we're talking about Nadal
As a general scientific and empirical principle, Ferrer's success is entirely relevant to bring up. You act like it's completed unrelated, but the point of my argument is "if Ferrer can keep his movement, why can't Nadal?" They are both very gifted with regard to quickness and stamina, and Ferrer is one of the prime examples of a player retaining his quickness as he hovers around 30 (and even improving it to a degree). Ferrer shows that it is possible.
Broken_Shoelace said:
or seeing you criticize me for bringing up a point from 2005 to highlight a point even though that's literally all you do with everything -- Nalbandian's level, Nadal's movement, etc...-- including the post above where you brought up the 54 point rally).
LOL.....my arguments about Nalbandian's level never had to do with just single points, but his overall consistent level from the baseline throughout his career. I have never seen any one in the modern game as consistently and effortlessly dominant from the baseline as Nalbandian. Watching his matches, even in the smallest and least publicized venues, was always a breathtaking joy, because his consistent level in rallies was superlative. He was everything that the Top 4 try to be, frankly. What you have seen Nadal do more in recent years as a conscious effort - take control of points with the forehand and not allow his opponents to get a foothold in the rally - is something that Nadal and Uncle Toni had to develop over a period of years, with God knows how much time and effort put into it. Nalbandian on the other hand could go fishing and car-racing for three weeks, and without even thinking about it he could step on the court against the top-ranked players and give them a tennis lesson in point construction. What Nadal (in conjunction with Uncle Toni) has worked his tail off to develop is what Nalbandian could do naturally without hardly any work at all (beyond the point of his basic skills being developed at a young age).
As for Nadal's movement, no, again, this is not about one point. This is about you blocking out so much evidence that it is almost mind-blowing.
First of all - let's get this clear: what Nadal did on the North American hardcourts last year was one of the greatest feats I have witnessed in sports, from a physical standpoint. To dismiss this as just any minor run is silly. Despite his limitations on hardcourts and not being as suited for them as Federer or Djokovic, he did something neither of them have done, which is win the two North American MS Events in two weeks. Why Federer and Djokovic have not done this is frankly not too much of a mystery. Winning one MS event is physically taxing enough; to win two in two weeks, in that heat, is as rough as it gets. You can't do it without being able to recover quickly (of course), nor without winning some long, physical matches along the way. Nadal did both.
It is quite informative to look at how Nadal won in Montreal and Cincinnati, because it so thoroughly demolishes the "his movement has declined" argument.
First - what exactly have you and others argued happens with age to tennis players?
1) They simply are not as quick in general, and they are not as quick as consistently
2) They take longer to recover
3) They are more injury-prone
4) They are slower in reacting to big serves
5) They are less energetic overall
Let's see how these 5 assertions apply to Nadal's North American hardcourt run (a run of 10 matches in less than 14 days, not just 10 minutes or even 40 seconds in one match):
1) Nadal beat Djokovic in the Montreal semifinal by being very quick around the court. It's funny how no one ever brings this up, but no one ever says that Djokovic is declining or slowing down. Everyone agrees that he is in his prime, yet somehow Nadal has been successful against him post-2012 despite not being as good a mover. I find that quite interesting. Here is Nadal winning against the new-and-improved post-2010 Djokovic, but his movement is considerably worse, supposedly.
More broadly, though, Nadal won all of his major matches in this two-week stretch by being a solid rally player and forcing a number of errors, as well as setting up his forehand opportunistically. Of course, I would contend that he should have lost a number of those, but that is besides the point: he made the Janowicz, Djokovic, Dimitrov, Federer, and Berdych matches difficult for his opponents by covering the court extremely well over a duration of time.
2) Nadal pulled off a feat in terms of recovery last year that none of his peers or predecessors ever have with the North American hardcourt swing. This was one of the most impressive we have ever witnessed. Federer in 2006 could not do it. Djokovic in 2011 could not do it. Nadal in 2010 came nowhere close.
Nadal in 2013 did it. And by the end of the week in Cincinnati, he looked like he could play another 5 days in a row too.
3) Going back to 2006 and 2007 (not to mention 2009 and 2012), Nadal had knee/fatigue problems when coming to Canada and Cincinnati. As a 27-year-old in 2013, Nadal was at his physical best without any trace of a knee problem slowing him down or causing him discomfort.
Only God knows what you all would have said if he had a blister problem last summer like he did in Rome in 2008! That would have shown he was a grandfather, wouldn't it have?
4) Nadal did very well in reading Isner's serve when he needed to in the Cincinnati final. No issues there.
5) Winning the two N.A. hardcourt tournaments in a matter of two weeks, in that heat, requires the utmost energy and vitality. For Nadal to have done it was extremely impressive from a physical standpoint, and that accomplishment should put to rest the notion that he had declined athletically from 2010.
Broken_Shoelace said:
This kinda ties into what I've been saying about his movement. There's nothing that regressed about it in terms of split-steps, footwork, getting into position to hit forehands, make tiny adjustments, etc... In fact, there's not much that's regressed (it has, but nothing substantial) about it when sprinting from point A to point B (tracking down drop shots, covering the open court, etc....). Where it has regressed is the explosiveness in that initial step when he doesn't have the benefit of anticipating. In other words, if Nadal is on one side of the court and the opponent is about to hit to the open court, Nadal's movement isn't noticeably hindered since he can still sprint like a rabbit.
But when he's forced to stretch on his forehand side (and he doesn't know the ball is going there) despite being positioned in the middle of the court, and he requires that initial explosion in his step to get to the ball in time to hit a quality shot, he's a split second slow these days. Hence a lot of his replies end up in the bottom of the net whereas in the past, he would at least loop them back in. That's also the reason why his passing shots have regressed (he used to almost never miss one).
I'm sorry, but you are just being selective and seeing what you want to see. Is there some merit to what you are saying about Nadal not always being the quickest in reacting to shots whose direction he is unsure of? Sure.
But is there also a weight of counter-evidence to that? Absolutely. And are you taking into account many matches from 2005-2010 where Nadal was not even close to running down many of the shots his opponents were hitting to the open court? Absolutely not.
First of all, let's look at the Australian semifinal this year with Federer. Nadal covered the court beautifully by the time the second and especially third sets rolled around. He was on top of everything. He was frankly owning Federer in the rallies. Compare that to the 2007 Australian Open quarterfinals (back in the days when you and Haelfix think that Nadal never gave up a winner) against Gonzalez or the 2008 Miami final against Davydenko or my precious Nalbandian IW match of 2009. In those matches, Nadal was often not within 15 feet of the winners being hit. Was he old then too? Was he not getting enough burst?
Maybe it was just that his opponents were hitting great shots and taking advantage of the clear vulnerabilities in Nadal's game, and maybe that hasn't changed.
Furthermore, it is astounding that you and Haelfix are blocking out what Nadal did in the second set of the French Open final against Djokovic. If you want to show me a time when Nadal has ever moved better in his career, I'd like to see it. He became a backboard and really forced Djokovic to up his game. The second-set 2014 French Open Nadal would obliterate the 2006 French Open Nadal, being a more complete player and equally as quick.
Broken_Shoelace said:
On the backhand side, the real problem is bending down low (which again affects the quality of the passing shot).
Funny that you say that, because I have noticed a couple points here and there where Nadal has looked like he is in pain lunging for a low ball on the backhand side. That said, this is something completely minor and it has not been enough of a pattern to really be concerned about it. Nadal's backhand in Melbourne and Paris was a weapon much of the time and he had no issues setting it up. He missed it in Rome at times, but that's just because Djokovic was in control of most of the rallies and Nadal is hardly a natural on that side. But when he has needed to set up the backhand in his last 3 Slams, he has had no issues with it.
Broken_Shoelace said:
Regardless, I actually think he looked better than I thought he would in this first week and he's moving well.
Yeah, what a shocker. I'm glad to see you're pleased with Nadal's form, Broken "Paul Annacone" Shoelace.
Broken_Shoelace said:
So there you have it. By the way, declines in movement are gradual and CAN BE COMPENSATED FOR through other things (an improved serves, being more aggressive, etc... all of which Nadal has done extremely well since 2010).
LOL.....by the same token, "being more aggressive" doesn't mean that a player's movement has declined either. It may just mean that they are more aggressive.
Also, you shoot your own argument in the foot by bringing up the serve now v. 2010. At no point since the 2010 US Open has Nadal ever served anything like he did in the 2010 US Open, so we can say "shoo" to that argument.
Broken_Shoelace said:
So this me actually giving you the courtesy of offering a concrete argument, something nobody bothers with you anymore because frankly, your thing has grown old.
Yeah, it's funny how people don't RE-spond to someone when they hardly post. Doesn't it take a comment to get a response?
Broken_Shoelace said:
Respond in kind, or buzz off, please.
Don't get so testy you Paul-Annacone-clone. Remember that your advice to Federer was to avoid such a mindset at all times, and to be "patiently aggressive" against Nadal, a plan that worked fabulously well (especially in the Cincinnati quarterfinals).
