Nitto ATP Finals, 2019, London

[Nadalfan2013]

So what’s your point? If Nadal does not end up as number 1, it will obviously be Djokovic. And Djokovic will be closer to Fed’s weeks at number 1. As a Fed fan, I am aware of both scenarios.

My point is that some Fed fans are rooting for Federer’s record to fall.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm not sure of the difference between "tentative" and he was "uncomfortable and his timing was a bit off."

Tentative would mean that he wasn't going for his shots. But he did go for his shots. He just missed. He was not playing it safe the whole time and letting Zverev belt shots all over the place. Nadal went for his shots but did not make them.

Again with the court speed? By all accounts it's fast, not slow.

It's fast only if you hit flat or if you hit a bomb serve. If shots are hit with any topspin at all the court clearly plays slow. Nadal's best on hardcourts normally comes when his shots fly off the court and he get his opponents chasing. It's impossible to do that at the O2 when there is a dead bounce. It's also harder for him to redirect his opponents' shots with surprise CC shots when their shots are sitting up an extra split-second too.

 

[Moxie]

Tentative would mean that he wasn't going for his shots. But he did go for his shots. He just missed. He was not playing it safe the whole time and letting Zverev belt shots all over the place. Nadal went for his shots but did not make them.

I actually don't think he was going for his shots aggressively. He was hitting shots short and to the middle of the court.

It's fast only if you hit flat or if you hit a bomb serve. If shots are hit with any topspin at all the court clearly plays slow. Nadal's best on hardcourts normally comes when his shots fly off the court and he get his opponents chasing. It's impossible to do that at the O2 when there is a dead bounce. It's also harder for him to redirect his opponents' shots with surprise CC shots when their shots are sitting up an extra split-second too.

I'm not sure how you're making the distinction. The court is fast. It doesn't play "slow" in any sense of the word. If you're trying to give it a term, it plays "dead." If it played "slow," he'd do better. I thought even you said that it plays dead. Anyway, Nadal isn't averse to a fast court, but cannot get traction on a court like this.

 

[Moxie]

Sure, definitely he improved since the Laver cup. But, invoking defending champion clause is not much relevant considering he barely qualified for WTF this time at the last minute.

If you want to make so much of the YEC, you shouldn't undersell so hard the guys that are playing it.

 

[calitennis127]

I actually don't think he was going for his shots aggressively. He was hitting shots short and to the middle of the court.

Then re-watch the match. He missed plenty of shots near the sidelines. He also took plenty of big cuts that landed the ball in the net.

The court is fast. It doesn't play "slow" in any sense of the word.

Yes it does, lol. If players have basically an extra second to track shots down, the court is playing slow. Look at all these matches. The only way someone is hitting winners from the back of the court is if they hit flat. That's why Nadal struggles so much to hit winners at this event.

If you're trying to give it a term, it plays "dead."

There is huge overlap between being a slow court and dead bounces.

I thought even you said that it plays dead.

I did, and that's why I am saying it is a slow hard-court. If the bounce dies as much as it does at the O2, the pace of plays slows down. This court is nothing like the US Open court. If you don't hit flat and with massive power, your shots are not going to get through the O2 court very well.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, I know. The court at the O2 arena is terrible for Nadal's game. And yes, he would probably dictate most of the rallies against Zverev at any of the Slams (except maybe Wimbledon if Zverev was serving really well). But time after time we have seen Nadal's forehand not just look pedestrian on indoor hardcourts (particularly World Tour Finals) but even ineffectual.

Now when we look at other players regarded as having great forehands, they of course have their venues where their forehand is better than at others. Federer's forehand, for example, is a nuclear weapon at Wimbledon but not nearly as dominant at Roland Garros. But does Federer have any events on the calendar where his forehand is nearly impotent like Nadal does? Nadal is lucky to get 5 winners in a match with his forehand at the O2 arena.

Today, Zverev hit 14 forehand winners to Nadal's 3 (Nadal had 5 BH winners to Zverev's 3, and Zverev had 11 aces to Nadal's 5 for a total of 28 winners to 13 winners). Does it really make sense to say that someone has the best forehand in the game when at the year-end championships they walk on court after getting the #1 ranking and can't even hit 5 winners in a 2-set match while the opponents hits 14? What kind of "best forehand" are we really talking about in that case?

 

[Moxie]

Then re-watch the match. He missed plenty of shots near the sidelines. He also took plenty of big cuts that landed the ball in the net.

He hit many more mid-court. Sure, he missed the lines, but was far from going for them as much as he should have.

Yes it does, lol. If players have basically an extra second to track shots down, the court is playing slow. Look at all these matches. The only way someone is hitting winners from the back of the court is if they hit flat. That's why Nadal struggles so much to hit winners at this event.

This point makes no sense at all. They don't have an extra second to track shots down, because the court is fast. It doesn't matter if they hit flat or with spin, if they can't get to the shot.

There is huge overlap between being a slow court and dead bounces.

This I think is just completely wrong. A dead bounce is characteristic of grass, for example, which is fast. And the slower HCs tend to have a bit more bounce. It's one of the things that makes them slow.

I did, and that's why I am saying it is a slow hard-court. If the bounce dies as much as it does at the O2, the pace of plays slows down. This court is nothing like the US Open court. If you don't hit flat and with massive power, your shots are not going to get through the O2 court very well.

You just made the argument for a fast-paced court.

 

[Moxie]

I could go on:

 

[Carol]

If someone had wetting to see Nadal playing well then it's because doesn't have any idea what is to get an injury a few days ego, no having enough time to practice and playing having the fear that the injury could reproduce again. Fortunately Nadal has said that he feels very well but has played very bad against a very good player and hopes to lift the level for the next match. I'm sure he will

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I know. The court at the O2 arena is terrible for Nadal's game. And yes, he would probably dictate most of the rallies against Zverev at any of the Slams (except maybe Wimbledon if Zverev was serving really well). But time after time we have seen Nadal's forehand not just look pedestrian on indoor hardcourts (particularly World Tour Finals) but even ineffectual.

Now when we look at other players regarded as having great forehands, they of course have their venues where their forehand is better than at others. Federer's forehand, for example, is a nuclear weapon at Wimbledon but not nearly as dominant at Roland Garros. But does Federer have any events on the calendar where his forehand is nearly impotent like Nadal does? Nadal is lucky to get 5 winners in a match with his forehand at the O2 arena.

Today, Zverev hit 14 forehand winners to Nadal's 3 (Nadal had 5 BH winners to Zverev's 3, and Zverev had 11 aces to Nadal's 5 for a total of 28 winners to 13 winners). Does it really make sense to say that someone has the best forehand in the game when at the year-end championships they walk on court after getting the #1 ranking and can't even hit 5 winners in a 2-set match while the opponents hits 14? What kind of "best forehand" are we really talking about in that case?

What you fail to acknowledge is that all of the Big 3 have failings and weaknesses. Maybe there is no especial time of the year when you could say that Federer's main weapons fail him, but they do fail him. Even his fans acknowledge that he can shank like a weekender. Same with Djokovic...runs the table, then disappears for 2 years. Can barely hit an overhead to save himself from embarrassment. Is Rafa's forehand one of the greatest ever? Yes, it is. So is Roger's. Is Novak's BH one of the greatest ever? For sure. Whatever failings, they are all-time greats. You're just putting up another thread because you can't stand Rafa, let's face it.

 

[Andy22]

nadal was injured in zverev match hopefully he can be at 100 percent in the next two matches which he will because hes a goat.

 

[Moxie]

nadal was injured in zverev match hopefully he can be at 100 percent in the next two matches which he will because hes a goat.

You just make it worse to say that he was injured. Everyone claims that that's all Nadal fans ever say. He played like crap. Is that too hard to say?

 

[Carol]

Nadal wasn't injured, he has said that he can't blame the injury and any physical problem but he made many errors because his preparation wasn't the best, he was lack of rhythm (even a blind person could see that) so he has to improve his game to have any option in this tournament

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Nadal wasn't injured, he has said that he can't blame the injury and any physical problem but he made many errors because his preparation wasn't the best, he was lack of rhythm (even a blind person could see that) so he has to improve his game to have any option in this tournament

Yep just read that from his press interview from the match.Hopefully he will improve in his next match

 

[Carol]

Yep just read that from his press interview from the match.Hopefully he will improve in his next match

Crossing fingers!

 

[Bonaca]

It shows how much money matters for him .

Really? I m not sure about that. He said in interview he would like to tie Roger and Novak with YE 1. If he wins two out of 3 RR matches he would save it if Novak didn’t win every match. Before tournament, that’s good odds.

 

[Bonaca]

He has more money than he can ever spend, and he doesn't even live a lavish lifestyle. Now, I'm sure he's happy to make money for his foundation so it can keep doing good work for kids in disadvantaged circumstances, but I doubt he'd play this tournament for any other reason than to try to win it and to get the YE#1. He's been forced to let his #1 go before, due to injury, and I'm betting that he didn't want to let this chance go without a fight.

Absolutely moxie, money isn’t the drive for all 3, at least not anymore!

 

[Bonaca]

You are on a roll. Got two out of two

At least for one prediction I’m not unhappy

 

[Moxie]

Absolutely moxie, money isn’t the drive for all 3, at least not anymore!

Given their ambition and competitiveness, I don't think it ever was. They had a lot of money before they even thought about caring.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Interestingly, now Sasha is an answer to the trivia question - Name a player to have beat all members of Big Three in WTF?

I was wondering whether the answer is unique or not. I think it is unique.