Nadal's French Open Dominance

[Federberg]

Yes Nadal is harder to beat at RG. So what? Federer's dominance is more impressive because he is easier to beat and yet he managed 8 titles.

I think Federer's USO dominance is the most impressive because it's the hardest slam to dominate and is thus his greatest record of his plethora of records.

come on man...

 

[atttomole]

I don't think so, Mr Vavrinec lost vs Sergiy, Tomas, Jowill....on grass, I can't imagine Manacor's bull beeing brutalized on his fav surface by those guys to be honest

Yes, but there are reasons why. Some of the reasons have already been mentioned in previous posts. Federer lost against those guys, but was not exactly brutalized though.

 

[monfed]

come on man...

Really? Playing a safe game hitting a 1000 moonballs to the BH and not having to come up with winners is more impressive than a first strike tennis player fending off fast court players, ballbashers who can take you out if you're slightly off form? Ok you can believe that just don't expect others to value the same.

Nadal can win another 10 French opens and I'll still consider Fed's 5 consec USOs more impressive.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, but there are reasons why. Some of the reasons have already been mentioned in previous posts. Federer lost against those guys, but was not exactly brutalized though.

The main reason why, is Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass. Everything else, while absolutely valid, comes second.

 

[atttomole]

The main reason why, is Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass. Everything else, while absolutely valid, comes second.

Its debatable as to which is the main reason why Nadal has done better on clay than Federer on grass. For me, the nature of the surface matters, as discussed before. I can concede that Nadal's game (topspin/physicality etc) is more suited for clay far more than most of his rivals' games on the surface. On grass, its not exactly the same because there are many good severs in men's tennis, which means that someone as good as Federer can be taken out by a Tsonga or a Stakovsky. The matches are not as physically demanding as they are on clay. Without the distractions of fatigue, players know that they can win or lose largely based on how they execute their shots.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Its debatable as to which is the main reason why Nadal has done better on clay than Federer on grass.

It really isn't. This is a new narrative that emerged now. Yes, the nature of the surface matters. We agree about that. But look at the amount of times Roger lost at Wimbledon and compare it to Nadal at the French Open, then look at the matches themselves, and if you seriously think there isn't strong evidence to suggest Nadal is flat out better on clay then there's a fair bit of denial. Again, I ask, how on earth is the nature of the surface why Roger lost to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008 for example? The nature in that match-up should favor Federer! He's got a much better serve, more variety, a much better attacking game, and a better forehand too, especially on that surface. Meanwhile, Rafa is not some huge server/big hitter that just blew Federer off the court. Blaming that loss, as well as the losses to Novak on the nature of the surface is pretty odd. That's a new one.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Its debatable as to which is the main reason why Nadal has done better on clay than Federer on grass. For me, the nature of the surface matters, as discussed before. I can concede that Nadal's game (topspin/physicality etc) is more suited for clay far more than most of his rivals' games on the surface. On grass, its not exactly the same because there are many good severs in men's tennis, which means that someone as good as Federer can be taken out by a Tsonga or a Stakovsky. The matches are not as physically demanding as they are on clay. Without the distractions of fatigue, players know that they can win or lose largely based on how they execute their shots.

I think Nad with his physiqe, is especially "gifted" for the style of play favoured by clay. Historically, we did not have a player of his physical attributes standing out among the field. Maybe that's why his dominance on clay is so unprecedented. Hard to say. As I mentioned before, players of different physique & style suited better for hard/grass/carpet surfaces (like Fed physique) have always been dominant force in tennis. So Nad came in and found that "gap". Of course my theory can be confirmed only if we have another Nad-like man come to this sport and repeat his run. That may not happen for awhile if next gen is not interested, or maybe because Nad's talent is indeed very unique.
Finally, equipment change may overturn future tennis strategy, so Nad record will stand out as unrepeatable and his style an irrelevant antic to future gens. Like we often say Laver would not won a single match today with his play but in his prime, Laver was the most dominant ever with two calendar GS record that still stands.
PS: there is no "a" in front of names in English (as I emphasized above) and placing such indefinite pronoun deliberately sounds unnecessarily diminutive to the people ou recall.

 

[atttomole]

It really isn't. This is a new narrative that emerged now. Yes, the nature of the surface matters. We agree about that. But look at the amount of times Roger lost at Wimbledon and compare it to Nadal at the French Open, then look at the matches themselves, and if you seriously think there isn't strong evidence to suggest Nadal is flat out better on clay then there's a fair bit of denial. Again, I ask, how on earth is the nature of the surface why Roger lost to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008 for example? The nature in that match-up should favor Federer! He's got a much better serve, more variety, a much better attacking game, and a better forehand too, especially on that surface. Meanwhile, Rafa is not some huge server/big hitter that just blew Federer off the court. Blaming that loss, as well as the losses to Novak on the nature of the surface is pretty odd. That's a new one.

It is not a new narrative. I have always seen it that way, but I have rarely been involved in this particular topic. I conceded that Nadal's style of play is perfect for clay because of his forehand and physicality. The only player who can match Nadal's physicality on clay is Djokovic. In addition, Djokovic has the game to trouble Nadal. If you remove the physicality from his game, Djokovic is toast versus Nadal. As I pointed out earlier, the requirements of playing on these two surfaces are different. We know very well that if Nadal takes the first set at RG, its almost impossible for the opponent to win the match, because he has to be ready to play long points without missing, and very few, if any, can do that against Nadal. It becomes a battle of attrition whose outcome is obvious. Only one player can do that versus Nadal, and that is Djokovic. If I am not mistaken, Nadal withdrew from RG 2016 because he was injured. He might have been able to play, but he knew how much it would take physically to win at RG. Who knows? On grass, one can still come back from behind to win the match as long as they can hold their serve. That explains why Federer has lost more on grass than Nadal.

I think that Federer's loss to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008 was in large part due to the hiding he received at RG a few weeks earlier. Nadal had a clear psychological advantage, which was not a surprise given how many times Federer had lost to Nadal on clay even before RG 2008. I have a feeling that if Djokovic had played the final at RG in 2011, he would have beaten Nadal for the same reasons. Many Nadal fans, I think, generally feel the same way. While I was happy that Roger snapped Djokovic's winning streak in 2011, I was also disappointed because everybody knew he was going to lose to Nadal. In 2014 and 2015, it was evident that Federer did not play his best tennis and he seemed to struggle with consistency.
The narrative is not new, just that it has rarely been discussed.

 

[atttomole]

I think Nad with his physiqe, is especially "gifted" for the style of play favoured by clay. Historically, we did not have a player of his physical attributes standing out among the field. Maybe that's why his dominance on clay is so unprecedented. Hard to say. As I mentioned before, players of different physique & style suited better for hard/grass/carpet surfaces (like Fed physique) have always been dominant force in tennis. So Nad came in and found that "gap". Of course my theory can be confirmed only if we have another Nad-like man come to this sport and repeat his run. That may not happen for awhile if next gen is not interested, or maybe because Nad's talent is indeed very unique.
Finally, equipment change may overturn future tennis strategy, so Nad record will stand out as unrepeatable and his style an irrelevant antic to future gens. Like we often say Laver would not won a single match today with his play but in his prime, Laver was the most dominant ever with two calendar GS record that still stands.
PS: there is no "a" in front of names in English (as I emphasized above) and placing such indefinite pronoun deliberately sounds unnecessarily diminutive to the people ou recall.

I agree. Nadal's talent is unique. Like I said in my previous post, only a peak Djokovic can give Nadal a run for hi money on clay. However, I am not sure if a special physical talent is required to play on grass apart from knowing the basics and a good serve/volley. Abilities may vary. We have the great Roger, and the likes of Murray/Djokovic who are also good on grass.

 

[Moxie]

I agree. Nadal's talent is unique. Like I said in my previous post, only a peak Djokovic can give Nadal a run for hi money on clay. However, I am not sure if a special physical talent is required to play on grass apart from knowing the basics and a good serve/volley. Abilities may vary. We have the great Roger, and the likes of Murray/Djokovic who are also good on grass.

Good lord. You said above that Nadal's success on clay is his physicality and his forehand. Now you say the above about grass. Surely both are a bit reductive. Do you really think that's how a guy gets 11 wins at RG, or 8 wins at Wimbledon? This IS a new narrative approach to why, perhaps, Roger hasn't been as dominant at Wimbledon as Rafa at RG, and it does seem petulant and ridiculous, between the lot of you for trying it, starting with GSM.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I hope I do not get crucified for this take (I probably will) but in my opinion part of the reason that Nadal is SO dominant on Clay especially at RG is his "every single point" mentality. The thing about playing Nadal on Clay especially at RG is that he literally does not give you an inch or a breather. You think you he will relax once he gets the lead but it is actually the opposite. Once he has the lead, he will pounce on you until you physically and mentally not able to keep up with him. Even if you are ahead, it does not feel "safe" to play tennis because you know he will continue to pummel you. That's why you see a lot of players get demoralized after losing the 1st set against Nadal not because they played "bad" per say but because they know it is only the beginning of the suffering they have to endure.

 

[Fiero425]

People know my feelings on this so called rivalry! It has "NEVER" been real in the true sense of the word! I had curtailed some of my viewing of tennis around 2000; more so with the retirement of Hingis! I still have no idea who Massú* is even though he won the Olympics in 2004! The mindless aggression of players on both tours just wasn't very entertaining at the time! Federer's is measured in a lot of ways; esp. in the last year and a half when I thought "he was done" with winning Wimbledon in '12! There were years of futility unable to break thru Djokovic's defenses; even on grass twice ('14,'15) where he should have been favored! I'm still SMH and wondering where has this player been since 2012? He's not only winning majors again, he's embarrassing the one person that's owned him for the most part, "lock, stock, & barrel!" Rafa even had a lead in Australia last year hoping to complete his "Double Career Grand Slam!" All 3 of Fedalovic are deficient at one of the majors with Nadal being nipped again and again in finals since '12! It was a fantasy with Fedal being little more than a marketing RIVALRY, all of us being conned into making excuses for Roger by saying Nadal was stealing some of their matches with his gamesmanship! I was believing it even though Roger's the seasoned vet and should've been able to steal 1 match off "the BULL" in RG! This new Roger has "been on a tear," knocking Rafa off several times in a row! I'm shocked people aren't asking more questions! Both are aging, but still leading the tour which is good for them, but IMO embarrassing for the game! This isn't the 70's or 80's where the top players could hang in there this long and still compete for #1! NEXT GEN?

 

[atttomole]

Good lord. You said above that Nadal's success on clay is his physicality and his forehand. Now you say the above about grass. Surely both are a bit reductive. Do you really think that's how a guy gets 11 wins at RG, or 8 wins at Wimbledon? This IS a new narrative approach to why, perhaps, Roger hasn't been as dominant at Wimbledon as Rafa at RG, and it does seem petulant and ridiculous, between the lot of you for trying it, starting with GSM.

No. The reason I said that about grass was an attempt to contrast it from clay, where physicality is required. It is clear that if a player has a good serve on grass, they have a higher chance of beating the greatest grass courter than they have of beating the greatest clay courter. More attributes are needed to take down Nadal on clay. That is why Roger lost to Stakovsky, Tsonga, Berdych etc.

Grass also requires excellent technique, as the great Federer has shown, but you know that someone serving out of their mind has a higher probability of beating Federer at Wimbledon. As you have seen, those players that eliminated Roger did not end up winning Wimbledon because they were not good enough, but that limited game they have was enough to beat Roger. Roger has the biggest repertoire of tennis skills, which help explain his success on more surfaces.

Saying that not much is needed on grass is not reductive at all.

 

[Carol]

France continues honoring Nadal

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, yeah, there isn't much to be said about this that hasn't already been said, or is there?

Due to the lack of think-pieces and editorial columns about Rafa's recent FO win, I've been doing a lot of thinking about Nadal's Roland Garros dominance over the past few days, and took a look at some of his numbers at the tournament over the years. Some things stood out to me that don't get enough attention, but understandably so, as when you mention that a guy won a major 11 times, you can pretty much leave it at that. Nevertheless, here we go:

-- Nadal has defended his French Open title 8 times. Yes, this sounds obvious enough as he's won it 11 times and pretty much wins it every year, but that is still preposterous.

-- Nadal is not only 11-0 in French Open finals, he's had zero five-setters over the course of those finals. I honestly think this stat might be the most impressive out of all of Rafa's FO achievements. It's one thing to win it eleven times, but going 11-0 in the finals is nuts (think about it, if just to sound smart, you predict that Rafa would lose the final every year, and think that eventually you'll get it right and look like a genius, you would be wrong 11 times). Moreover, somehow avoiding a fifth-setter despite playing Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic a combined 6 times, as well as guys like Soderling and Wawrinka, is just outrageous. This means that over 11 finals, Nadal was never close to losing, and the closest he's been was having some tightly contested 4th sets against Puerta (where Puerta had set points, in Rafa's first ever RG final), Federer in 2006 where it went to a 4th set tie-break and...that's really about it.

-- Nadal is 86-2 at Roland Garros, putting his win percentage at an obscene 97.7%

-- In what is probably my favorite Rafa stat at Roland Garros, Rafa's SET win/loss record Garros is 238-25. This puts his SET win percentage at 90% which, obviously enough, is beyond absurd. He loses fewer than 2 sets per tournament on average, including the times he didn't win the tourney.

-- Among his 86 wins, only 2 have gone to a fifth set, and I'd argue that only one of them was close enough to where the outcome was in doubt (Djokovic in 2013, obviously), as after being down 2-1 to Isner, he won the 4th set handily (6-2), and broke early in the fifth.

In 2006, following a straightforward loss to Nadal in the quarter-finals, a young Novak Djokovic famously and defiantly proclaimed that he didn't think Nadal was unbeatable, he thought he was in control, and that Rafa was beatable (said with a lot of emphasis). Technically, Novak was right, as Nadal did go on to lose twice over the next 12 years at Roland Garros, one of which to Novak himself (improving Novak's h2h vs. Rafa at the FO to a respectable 1-6). However, if it is indeed impossible for a tennis player to be unbeatable in the literal sense, with a 97.7% win percentage, Nadal at the French Open is as close as you can possibly get.

Ideally, I'd like to subsequently look at some of the less celebrated aspect of Nadal's game/mentality that make him such an unbeatable force later on in the thread. But more on that tomorrow, hopefully.

To update this:

-- Nadal has now defended his RG title 9 times.

-- Nadal is now 12-0 in FO finals, and has still never had a five setter in those finals.

-- Nadal is now 93-2 at Roland Garros. Just utterly ridiculous. And if he wins it next year, it would take his record to 100-2 (barring a walkover...and not the type Federer usually provides him with there... OK, OK, I'm kidding). His current winning percentage at RG is 97.9%.

-- Among those 93 wins, only 2 have gone to 5 sets. Honestly, this still sounds like the most insane stat to me.

-- Rafa's SET win/loss record at RG is now 259-27 meaning he's won a RIDICULOUS 90.5% of the sets he's played in Paris.