Novak Protects Roger's Legacy

[brokenshoelace]

Careful now, I wouldn't want you to generalize a whole fanbase or even most of one. I kind of remember Nadal fans on this board who were not appreciative of being grouped with autopilot and other over the top Rafalites.

Roger had plenty reason not to like Nole, he was a brash young guy who wasn't afraid to talk a little trash (he said Roger was going down before their 2007 AO 4th rounder), and we all know what his parents were like. But as a fan, aside from his annoying parents, I found all of that intriguing to go along with his humor off the court. And I liked his game from the get go, people incorrectly see him defend great and think he is a grinder like Nadal. Novak has a lot of firepower in his game and the returning is pure sick (except when he's hurting Roger with it). I'm more in line with BB in that the only thing I didn't like was all the withdrawals. To say Nole wasn't an ironman in his younger days is a major understatement and it was no coincidence that he would withdraw near the finish line of a match he was about to lose.

I honestly don't remember many Fed fans "disliking" Nole (huge difference between hate I guess :snicker), rather we all may have had a little extra joy when Roger beat him with his parents in the stands. I find most Roger fans have always "disliked" Murray a lot more and that's due to the difference in their games. Nole is much more of a shotmaker and I find him to be much more exciting to watch than Murray, Rafa, Ferrer, etc.

Wait, Nadal is a grinder now? The f*ck has happened to this place?

What the f*** would you call his style of play? Would you label him an aggressive baseliner? Now just because he is no longer a pure pusher doesn't mean his style isn't by and large that of a grinder. His play is high percentage, kick the ball up high to the opponent's backhand and either wait for a miss or a short reply for an easy put away. He is not an attacking player in the slightest, not even close to being as aggressive as Nole, let alone Roger or others. Nadal in his prime was the greatest defender the game has seen and the most consistent baseliner as well but he's never had what one would call an aggressive baseline game.

You know of many grinders with his forehand whose MO is to try to push you back further as he slowly gains more ground and steps closer to the baseline? This is literally Nadal's gameplan in a nutshell.

Just because it doesn't work against one guy (Djokovic) and he's vulnerable to the occasional hot performance by someone who hits him off the court doesn't mean it's any less true.

"Kick the ball high to the opponent's backhand" is about the most BS disingenuous way of putting it. You do realize the ferocity in which he "kicks the ball to the backhand" and how far behind it pushes most players right?

Also, your non sequitur fallacies are insane. Nobody said he's ass aggressive as Djokovic or Roger. That literally has nothing to do with anything. I said calling him a grinder is dubious.

The part about him being the greatest defender is equally dumb. Yes, he was. Does that make him a grinder? Let's see...who's the greatest defender in today's game? Novak Djokovic. I guess he's "grinded his way" to the FO final then. Just because you're a great defender doesn't mean you're a grinder. Even if you want to call Nadal a grinder, this would literally only apply to 2005-2006. You know of many guys who reach 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals and win 2 US Opens with "grinding"? Yes, even on "slow grass" bla bla bla. Use your head.

The closest things to grinders in today's game would be guys like Simon and Monfils, and even they, when you realize how they can hit the ball at times don't fit the description.

It's sad that the majority of this forum understands nothing about tennis. The problem with the fan bickering, which I enjoy dearly, is it's gotten so tense that people are letting their bias so blatantly cloud their basic understanding of the game. I know you're smarter than this...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking personally I liked Djokovic even back when he started beating Federer.

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Rafa's "problem" is the physical style which means he might not do well in his 30's, that and he has overachieved to even win 5 slams off of his precious dirt.

God, you're turning into Cali. He's overacheieved? Based on what? You didn't think his level of play at the US Open in 2010 and 2013 was phenomenal? Really? You didn't think he looked like a world beater on grass in 2008?

I really don't mind the fan bickering. In fact, I welcome it. But the narratives have been absolute $hit and the logic has been worse.

He overachieved off clay based on the fact his game is not anywhere near as effective off of it. The fact he played awesome in 2010 and 2013 at USO is almost proof. In all the other years he has been on tour he has not come close to that level. And in 2013 he beat a much superior HC player than himself in the final. In 2008 he beat a much superior grass court player than himself in the final. I'd say 5 slams off of clay has been pretty impressive considering his game vs. the competition.

Ah, so just because he's extra awesome on one surface, that means he's overachieved on others. It's hilarious because, let's say, for argument's sake, Nadal was not the clay GOAT. Let's say his game on other surfaces is exactly the way it is/was, but that on clay, he was great but not all time great. As in, he won 2 RG titles (while 5 slams off of clay).

You wouldn't be saying this. So in other words, the fact that he's so great on clay somehow counts against him because he's not as great on other surfaces (and how can he be? He'd have 25 slams by now if he were), even though he's still pretty damn good.

A 10 year old could spot the flaws in that logic. By the way, at the US Open, Nadal won it in 2010, reached the final in 2011, skipped it in 2012, won it in 2013, and skipped it last year. In 2008 and 2009 he reached the semis. I mean, what overachieving are we talking about? Should he win it every year? At Wimbledon, he made 5 straight finals. Again should he win all of them?

Anyway, I guess by the same logic, Roger overachieved on clay because his game on that surface is not nearly as good as it is on others (in before Darth agrees), and Novak is about to overachieve today, especially since he beat a "vastly superior clay courter" along the way, to use your logic.

This is too dumb.

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing
Oh BS...BS, even if you make some good points sometimes you can be so insufferably arrogant when people disagree with you. Learn to be civil and you'll have a more enjoyable time putting your points forward

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing
Oh BS...BS, even if you make some good points sometimes you can be so insufferably arrogant when people disagree with you. Learn to be civil and you'll have a more enjoyable time putting your points forward

Did you come up with that advice before or after you told me I had no brain cells?

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing
Oh BS...BS, even if you make some good points sometimes you can be so insufferably arrogant when people disagree with you. Learn to be civil and you'll have a more enjoyable time putting your points forward

Did you come up with that advice before or after you told me I had no brain cells?

You know the time lines.. clearly after I haven't checked, but didn't you come up with 'no brain cells' and then I merely sponsored the observation for you? No matter.. :snicker

Try to be a bit more civil... you never know, you might like it!

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing
Oh BS...BS, even if you make some good points sometimes you can be so insufferably arrogant when people disagree with you. Learn to be civil and you'll have a more enjoyable time putting your points forward

Did you come up with that advice before or after you told me I had no brain cells?

You know the time lines.. clearly after I haven't checked, but didn't you come up with 'no brain cells' and then I merely sponsored the observation for you? No matter.. :snicker

Try to be a bit more civil... you never know, you might like it!

When I'm given that advice by someone who practices what they preach, I'll consider taking to heart. Nevertheless, your valuable life lessons are appreciated.

 

[Front242]

Speaking personally I liked Djokovic even back when he started beating Federer.

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

Now that you've finished pointing out the coincidence go back and read it properly as I said Nalbandian had the better of Federer for quite some time early in their careers and I was a great fan of him. The reason I and others dislike Nadal is much less about their h2h than you think despite us all saying so. I dislike his style of play (gee hard to grasp I know!), stalling, gamesmanship, his and his fanbase's excuse making after so many of his losses, the nonsense notion that if he misses an event he should be gutted as it's clear he was going to win it. The list is endless and I'm getting bored typing already.

 

[Kieran]

Speaking personally I liked Djokovic even back when he started beating Federer.

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

Now that you've finished pointing out the coincidence go back and read it properly as I said Nalbandian had the better of Federer for quite some time early in their careers and I was a great fan of him. The reason I and others dislike Nadal is much less about their h2h than you think despite us all saying so. I dislike his style of play (gee hard to grasp I know!), stalling, gamesmanship, his and his fanbase's excuse making after so many of his losses, the nonsense notion that if he misses an event he should be gutted as it's clear he was going to win it. The list is endless and I'm getting bored typing already.

I think there's hope for you yet! I did a word count and about 80% of what you wrote is delusional. We'll make a Rafa fan of you yet when you learn to watch the bloke without blinkers on...

 

[Front242]

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

Now that you've finished pointing out the coincidence go back and read it properly as I said Nalbandian had the better of Federer for quite some time early in their careers and I was a great fan of him. The reason I and others dislike Nadal is much less about their h2h than you think despite us all saying so. I dislike his style of play (gee hard to grasp I know!), stalling, gamesmanship, his and his fanbase's excuse making after so many of his losses, the nonsense notion that if he misses an event he should be gutted as it's clear he was going to win it. The list is endless and I'm getting bored typing already.

I think there's hope for you yet! I did a word count and about 80% of what you wrote is delusional. We'll make a Rafa fan of you yet when you learn to watch the bloke without blinkers on...

Nothing is delusional except that maybe you can't accept that people don't like how he plays. The rest you can't argue with I'm afraid. He does stall opponents A LOT. He even stalls the damn coin toss while he adjusts his water bottles and his pants ffs. He does resort to gamesmanship, more so in the past though. He and his fans DO make a ton of excuses. Sorry, nothing delusional there at all.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, it was the style thingy I was giving you credit for. Some people just don't appreciate what he does, even though what he does is stupendously exciting and swashbuckling and daring and exhilarating to watch. Who couldn't appreciate the huge depths of fiery soul Rafa plunges into every time he plays? The drama and white-knuckle fortitude when he's out of position, off court and still chasing, turning a perilous hole in the ground into a shiny, fragrant mint-topped mountain, just by flicking the wrist and sending the clipper down the line, or even better, bending the banana shot around the back of the umpires throne, to swerve and curl and ferociously dip, and actually finally become an improbable crosscourt winner?

He's exciting, bro. It's fine you don't like him, you're a card carrying Fedfan, but you still have to appreciate that the sport is much more exciting for having him...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Speaking personally I liked Djokovic even back when he started beating Federer.

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

Now that you've finished pointing out the coincidence go back and read it properly as I said Nalbandian had the better of Federer for quite some time early in their careers and I was a great fan of him.

Yeah, you're right, Nalbandian/Federer rivalry is very similar to Federer/Nadal rivalry...in no shape or form at all.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He's exciting, bro. It's fine you don't like him, you're a card carrying Fedfan, but you still have to appreciate that the sport is much more exciting for having him...

What's exciting about seeing your favorite player always lose to your least favorite player?

 

[Federberg]

Speaking personally I liked Djokovic even back when he started beating Federer.

He "started beating Federer" around the same time he "started beating Nadal." Before that, Federer was largely getting the better of him.

Everything you said in your post could be true, but I'm pointing out the coincidence.

Now that you've finished pointing out the coincidence go back and read it properly as I said Nalbandian had the better of Federer for quite some time early in their careers and I was a great fan of him. The reason I and others dislike Nadal is much less about their h2h than you think despite us all saying so. I dislike his style of play (gee hard to grasp I know!), stalling, gamesmanship, his and his fanbase's excuse making after so many of his losses, the nonsense notion that if he misses an event he should be gutted as it's clear he was going to win it. The list is endless and I'm getting bored typing already.

I think you speak for a lot of us on these boards. Not much can be added! :clap

 

[DarthFed]

Wait, Nadal is a grinder now? The f*ck has happened to this place?

What the f*** would you call his style of play? Would you label him an aggressive baseliner? Now just because he is no longer a pure pusher doesn't mean his style isn't by and large that of a grinder. His play is high percentage, kick the ball up high to the opponent's backhand and either wait for a miss or a short reply for an easy put away. He is not an attacking player in the slightest, not even close to being as aggressive as Nole, let alone Roger or others. Nadal in his prime was the greatest defender the game has seen and the most consistent baseliner as well but he's never had what one would call an aggressive baseline game.

You know of many grinders with his forehand whose MO is to try to push you back further as he slowly gains more ground and steps closer to the baseline? This is literally Nadal's gameplan in a nutshell.

Just because it doesn't work against one guy (Djokovic) and he's vulnerable to the occasional hot performance by someone who hits him off the court doesn't mean it's any less true.

"Kick the ball high to the opponent's backhand" is about the most BS disingenuous way of putting it. You do realize the ferocity in which he "kicks the ball to the backhand" and how far behind it pushes most players right?

Also, your non sequitur fallacies are insane. Nobody said he's ass aggressive as Djokovic or Roger. That literally has nothing to do with anything. I said calling him a grinder is dubious.

The part about him being the greatest defender is equally dumb. Yes, he was. Does that make him a grinder? Let's see...who's the greatest defender in today's game? Novak Djokovic. I guess he's "grinded his way" to the FO final then. Just because you're a great defender doesn't mean you're a grinder. Even if you want to call Nadal a grinder, this would literally only apply to 2005-2006. You know of many guys who reach 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals and win 2 US Opens with "grinding"? Yes, even on "slow grass" bla bla bla. Use your head.

The closest things to grinders in today's game would be guys like Simon and Monfils, and even they, when you realize how they can hit the ball at times don't fit the description.

It's sad that the majority of this forum understands nothing about tennis. The problem with the fan bickering, which I enjoy dearly, is it's gotten so tense that people are letting their bias so blatantly cloud their basic understanding of the game. I know you're smarter than this...

The part about him being a great defender is that it is a big part of why he's had such a crazy amount of success despite the fact he is not an aggressive player, doesn't have a big serve, etc. And I mentioned that because the natural response is "how can someone be a grinder and win so much". I know that defense has nothing to do with grinding, maybe try to read a little clearer before going on a tirade little baby. And after all that whining you notably refrain from labeling Nadal's game? Again, I am not saying he is a pusher (that is Bautista Agut, often Monfils, and insert average clay courter here like Monaco). But are you going to call him an aggressive baseliner (like Roger, Nole, Stan)? Big hitter (like Berd, Soderling, DP)?

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's not an aggressive player? :laydownlaughing :lolz:

 

[DarthFed]

God, you're turning into Cali. He's overacheieved? Based on what? You didn't think his level of play at the US Open in 2010 and 2013 was phenomenal? Really? You didn't think he looked like a world beater on grass in 2008?

I really don't mind the fan bickering. In fact, I welcome it. But the narratives have been absolute $hit and the logic has been worse.

He overachieved off clay based on the fact his game is not anywhere near as effective off of it. The fact he played awesome in 2010 and 2013 at USO is almost proof. In all the other years he has been on tour he has not come close to that level. And in 2013 he beat a much superior HC player than himself in the final. In 2008 he beat a much superior grass court player than himself in the final. I'd say 5 slams off of clay has been pretty impressive considering his game vs. the competition.

Ah, so just because he's extra awesome on one surface, that means he's overachieved on others. It's hilarious because, let's say, for argument's sake, Nadal was not the clay GOAT. Let's say his game on other surfaces is exactly the way it is/was, but that on clay, he was great but not all time great. As in, he won 2 RG titles (while 5 slams off of clay).

You wouldn't be saying this. So in other words, the fact that he's so great on clay somehow counts against him because he's not as great on other surfaces (and how can he be? He'd have 25 slams by now if he were), even though he's still pretty damn good.

A 10 year old could spot the flaws in that logic. By the way, at the US Open, Nadal won it in 2010, reached the final in 2011, skipped it in 2012, won it in 2013, and skipped it last year. In 2008 and 2009 he reached the semis. I mean, what overachieving are we talking about? Should he win it every year? At Wimbledon, he made 5 straight finals. Again should he win all of them?

Anyway, I guess by the same logic, Roger overachieved on clay because his game on that surface is not nearly as good as it is on others (in before Darth agrees), and Novak is about to overachieve today, especially since he beat a "vastly superior clay courter" along the way, to use your logic.

This is too dumb.

More great reading from you here. And has often been the case over the years you are putting words in people's mouths. Now, where did I say because he is awesome on one surface that means he's overachieved on the others? Concentrate on the words...he's had a lot of success off of clay despite the fact his game does not translate that well off of it compared to other guys he's gone up against.

Nadal has almost never had a big serve, and for the most part he's not an aggressive hitter, yet for I'd say 3 of those tournaments (Wimby 08, USO 2010 and USO 2013) he stepped up and played very aggressive. In the US Opens he served huge and even his backhand became a big weapon. Now the fact that the serve and backhand are usually not as big, and not huge weapons means that he has done well in stepping up in the biggest moments. And yes, Nole of 2013 was a better HC player "on average" (not that year because Nadal was in insane form that he was never going to maintain which is part of my point), Roger of 2008 was still a better grass court player "on average". The Nadal of 2015 is not a better clay court player on average than Nole is right now. Nadal has been dreadful from the start this year so that's an idiotic comparison on your part.

 

[brokenshoelace]

What the f*** would you call his style of play? Would you label him an aggressive baseliner? Now just because he is no longer a pure pusher doesn't mean his style isn't by and large that of a grinder. His play is high percentage, kick the ball up high to the opponent's backhand and either wait for a miss or a short reply for an easy put away. He is not an attacking player in the slightest, not even close to being as aggressive as Nole, let alone Roger or others. Nadal in his prime was the greatest defender the game has seen and the most consistent baseliner as well but he's never had what one would call an aggressive baseline game.

You know of many grinders with his forehand whose MO is to try to push you back further as he slowly gains more ground and steps closer to the baseline? This is literally Nadal's gameplan in a nutshell.

Just because it doesn't work against one guy (Djokovic) and he's vulnerable to the occasional hot performance by someone who hits him off the court doesn't mean it's any less true.

"Kick the ball high to the opponent's backhand" is about the most BS disingenuous way of putting it. You do realize the ferocity in which he "kicks the ball to the backhand" and how far behind it pushes most players right?

Also, your non sequitur fallacies are insane. Nobody said he's ass aggressive as Djokovic or Roger. That literally has nothing to do with anything. I said calling him a grinder is dubious.

The part about him being the greatest defender is equally dumb. Yes, he was. Does that make him a grinder? Let's see...who's the greatest defender in today's game? Novak Djokovic. I guess he's "grinded his way" to the FO final then. Just because you're a great defender doesn't mean you're a grinder. Even if you want to call Nadal a grinder, this would literally only apply to 2005-2006. You know of many guys who reach 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals and win 2 US Opens with "grinding"? Yes, even on "slow grass" bla bla bla. Use your head.

The closest things to grinders in today's game would be guys like Simon and Monfils, and even they, when you realize how they can hit the ball at times don't fit the description.

It's sad that the majority of this forum understands nothing about tennis. The problem with the fan bickering, which I enjoy dearly, is it's gotten so tense that people are letting their bias so blatantly cloud their basic understanding of the game. I know you're smarter than this...

The part about him being a great defender is that it is a big part of why he's had such a crazy amount of success despite the fact he is not an aggressive player, doesn't have a big serve, etc. And I mentioned that because the natural response is "how can someone be a grinder and win so much". I know that defense has nothing to do with grinding, maybe try to read a little clearer before going on a tirade little baby. And after all that whining you notably refrain from labeling Nadal's game? Again, I am not saying he is a pusher (that is Bautista Agut, often Monfils, and insert average clay courter here like Monaco). But are you going to call him an aggressive baseliner (like Roger, Nole, Stan)? Big hitter (like Berd, Soderling, DP)?

The "natural response" is not natural at all. Plenty of players have been successful without being too aggressive.

I'd call him an aggressive baseliner, yes. Not as aggressive as Nole, but they play completely different. It's not like there's a label and a criteria list to be met before you can be branded as an aggressive baseliner, a pusher, etc... Tennis is far more nuanced. And Federer is an all court player. At least know how your favorite player plays.

 

[brokenshoelace]

He overachieved off clay based on the fact his game is not anywhere near as effective off of it. The fact he played awesome in 2010 and 2013 at USO is almost proof. In all the other years he has been on tour he has not come close to that level. And in 2013 he beat a much superior HC player than himself in the final. In 2008 he beat a much superior grass court player than himself in the final. I'd say 5 slams off of clay has been pretty impressive considering his game vs. the competition.

Ah, so just because he's extra awesome on one surface, that means he's overachieved on others. It's hilarious because, let's say, for argument's sake, Nadal was not the clay GOAT. Let's say his game on other surfaces is exactly the way it is/was, but that on clay, he was great but not all time great. As in, he won 2 RG titles (while 5 slams off of clay).

You wouldn't be saying this. So in other words, the fact that he's so great on clay somehow counts against him because he's not as great on other surfaces (and how can he be? He'd have 25 slams by now if he were), even though he's still pretty damn good.

A 10 year old could spot the flaws in that logic. By the way, at the US Open, Nadal won it in 2010, reached the final in 2011, skipped it in 2012, won it in 2013, and skipped it last year. In 2008 and 2009 he reached the semis. I mean, what overachieving are we talking about? Should he win it every year? At Wimbledon, he made 5 straight finals. Again should he win all of them?

Anyway, I guess by the same logic, Roger overachieved on clay because his game on that surface is not nearly as good as it is on others (in before Darth agrees), and Novak is about to overachieve today, especially since he beat a "vastly superior clay courter" along the way, to use your logic.

This is too dumb.

More great reading from you here. And has often been the case over the years you are putting words in people's mouths. Now, where did I say because he is awesome on one surface that means he's overachieved on the others? Concentrate on the words...he's had a lot of success off of clay despite the fact his game does not translate that well off of it compared to other guys he's gone up against.

He adapted, adjusted, and mad his game translate to other surfaces. How is that overachieving? Did you see him play on grass the way he plays on clay and one regardless? No. That would have been overachieving.

This really makes no sense. Can you watch his game at the US Open and think "man, this really shouldn't be working on hards?" No? Didn't think so.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And yes, Nole of 2013 was a better HC player "on average" (not that year because Nadal was in insane form that he was never going to maintain which is part of my point), Roger of 2008 was still a better grass court player "on average". The Nadal of 2015 is not a better clay court player on average than Nole is right now. Nadal has been dreadful from the start this year so that's an idiotic comparison on your part.

Oh Jesus, the irony. Novak in 2013 was not a better HC player that year (you said it yourself)...nor is Nadal better clay court player than Novak this year. It's literally the same. Yet you think it's not idiotic to call Novak a vastly superior hard court player in 2013, but it's idiotic to call Nadal a vastly superior clay court player this year?

I take back the part where I implied you're smarter than this.