Rafa vs. Monfils

[brokenshoelace]

What a mental midget Monfils is. He played like a tourist being honored and impressed to play the great Rafa Nadal. He should have taken that out of the equation and take his own game seriously.

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

 

[Denis]

What a mental midget Monfils is. He played like a tourist being honored and impressed to play the great Rafa Nadal. He should have taken that out of the equation and take his own game seriously.

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

 

[brokenshoelace]

What a mental midget Monfils is. He played like a tourist being honored and impressed to play the great Rafa Nadal. He should have taken that out of the equation and take his own game seriously.

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he was exemplary, but sometimes the discrepancy between two players is so huge that it's kind of pointless to touch on mental issues. It's really difficult to have belief when your opponent is playing so well and you feel you have to crush every forehand, and it has to land in, in order to have a chance. This is Monfils -- not Djokovic -- we're talking about.

 

[Denis]

What a mental midget Monfils is. He played like a tourist being honored and impressed to play the great Rafa Nadal. He should have taken that out of the equation and take his own game seriously.

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he was exemplary, but sometimes the discrepancy between two players is so huge that it's kind of pointless to touch on mental issues. It's really difficult to have belief when your opponent is playing so well and you feel you have to crush every forehand, and it has to land in, in order to have a chance. This is Monfils -- not Djokovic -- we're talking about.

Monfils lacks weapons yes, (outside an outstanding first serve, which btw Nadal read like a book tonight), but he has beaten Nadal before. Darcis beat Nadal because he stayed focussed. So did Rosol. The difference between them and Nadal is also intergalactic, but the focus and belief was there.

 

[Denis]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

So Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd (both better players than to be facing so early), and FEDERER in the semis are now easy matches? Just because Nadal is nightmare match-up for Federer doesn't make the match easy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

What a mental midget Monfils is. He played like a tourist being honored and impressed to play the great Rafa Nadal. He should have taken that out of the equation and take his own game seriously.

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he was exemplary, but sometimes the discrepancy between two players is so huge that it's kind of pointless to touch on mental issues. It's really difficult to have belief when your opponent is playing so well and you feel you have to crush every forehand, and it has to land in, in order to have a chance. This is Monfils -- not Djokovic -- we're talking about.

Monfils lacks weapons yes, (outside an outstanding first serve, which btw Nadal read like a book tonight), but he has beaten Nadal before. Darcis beat Nadal because he stayed focussed. So did Rosol. The difference between them and Nadal is also intergalactic, but the focus and belief was there.

That's one difference. The other was that those players were playing on a different surface where it was difficult to break serve. Another difference was that Nadal wasn't playing as well as he did today. A third difference was that they were able to get into the match from the get-go and grow in confidence, whereas Monfils wasn't allowed to breathe. Different matches, different year, different tournament, different players, different circumstances.

 

[Denis]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

So Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd (both better players than to be facing so early), and FEDERER in the semis are now easy matches? Just because Nadal is nightmare match-up for Federer doesn't make the match easy.

Actually it does.

 

[Denis]

So let's say Monfils was not a mental midget, what would have been different about this match? With what weapons would Monfils have done significantly better? What tactics?

I'm not being a jerk but I always read this "mental" thing and it seems to be the de-facto excuse for everything. Monfils and Nadal aren't even in the same galaxy, and the match ultimately came down to one guy being a far better tennis player, rather than Monfils being super impressed to play Nadal. My issue with Monfils is he was overaggressive. But it's a dilemma because he can't just rally with Nadal when the latter is in this sort of form. So the result might have ended up being 6-3 6-4 6-3 instead of 6-1 6-2 6-3, but that's about it.

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he was exemplary, but sometimes the discrepancy between two players is so huge that it's kind of pointless to touch on mental issues. It's really difficult to have belief when your opponent is playing so well and you feel you have to crush every forehand, and it has to land in, in order to have a chance. This is Monfils -- not Djokovic -- we're talking about.

Monfils lacks weapons yes, (outside an outstanding first serve, which btw Nadal read like a book tonight), but he has beaten Nadal before. Darcis beat Nadal because he stayed focussed. So did Rosol. The difference between them and Nadal is also intergalactic, but the focus and belief was there.

That's one difference. The other was that those players were playing on a different surface where it was difficult to break serve. Another difference was that Nadal wasn't playing as well as he did today. A third difference was that they were able to get into the match from the get-go and grow in confidence, whereas Monfils wasn't allowed to breathe. Different matches, different year, different tournament, different players, different circumstances.

Yes. So? What does that have to do with my point that Monfils attitude towards the game sucked big time. You may not beat Nadal, but you can at least 'try your best' as Nadal would say it. Just focus on every point, every ball. Take it seriously, focus.

 

[Moxie]

Im not saying Monfils would have won or is a better player (not even close), but what about staying focussed and actually having some belief?

Obviously I'm not suggesting he was exemplary, but sometimes the discrepancy between two players is so huge that it's kind of pointless to touch on mental issues. It's really difficult to have belief when your opponent is playing so well and you feel you have to crush every forehand, and it has to land in, in order to have a chance. This is Monfils -- not Djokovic -- we're talking about.

Monfils lacks weapons yes, (outside an outstanding first serve, which btw Nadal read like a book tonight), but he has beaten Nadal before. Darcis beat Nadal because he stayed focussed. So did Rosol. The difference between them and Nadal is also intergalactic, but the focus and belief was there.

That's one difference. The other was that those players were playing on a different surface where it was difficult to break serve. Another difference was that Nadal wasn't playing as well as he did today. A third difference was that they were able to get into the match from the get-go and grow in confidence, whereas Monfils wasn't allowed to breathe. Different matches, different year, different tournament, different players, different circumstances.

Yes. So? What does that have to do with my point that Monfils attitude towards the game sucked big time. You may not beat Nadal, but you can at least 'try your best' as Nadal would say it. Just focus on every point, every ball. Take it seriously, focus.

I don't think Gael wasn't focused, though I would say he didn't have a game plan.

 

[DarthFed]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

That was my point, someone said if Nadal beats Monfils he is guaranteed to make the final which would indicate Gael frickin Monfils is the biggest roadblock. Monfils is a semi-tough 3rd round opponent but most would be happy to see him in the 4th round or later.

Monfils is one of those players that a lot of people seem to hype like crazy just due to some acrobatic shots he will hit.

 

[Denis]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

That was my point, someone said if Nadal beats Monfils he is guaranteed to make the final which would indicate Gael frickin Monfils is the biggest roadblock. Monfils is a semi-tough 3rd round opponent but most would be happy to see him in the 4th round or later.

Monfils is one of those players that a lot of people seem to hype like crazy just due to some acrobatic shots he will hit.

He was ranked no 9 in the world once. He has beaten players like Nadal in the past and he did show enormous potential as a junior. But yeah, I agree with your assessment now.

When it comes to the draw, though, I agree its a relatively easy route as it is looking now. But this is also because there isn't much competition for players like Nadal and Djokovic at the moment.

 

[DarthFed]

Being ranked #9 once, probably 4-5 years ago, doesn't make him a tough opponent. He has beat Nadal a couple times in best of 3 at a tuneup where Rafa barely cares if he wins. That doesn't indicate he is a real threat in a major when it is life and death.

It's mainly an easy path now because DP is cleared out of it and Murray doesn't figure to be up to snuff if he even makes it. If Murray regains his form then this still would be a tough draw in the end. At this point Djokovic and Nadal are ecstatic to see Roger in a semi at a slam, why wouldn't they be? A healthy Murray is what they would hate to see.

 

[Denis]

Being ranked #9 once, probably 4-5 years ago, doesn't make him a tough opponent. He has beat Nadal a couple times in best of 3 at a tuneup where Rafa barely cares if he wins. That doesn't indicate he is a real threat in a major when it is life and death.

It's mainly an easy path now because DP is cleared out of it and Murray doesn't figure to be up to snuff if he even makes it. If Murray regains his form then this still would be a tough draw in the end. At this point Djokovic and Nadal are ecstatic to see Roger in a semi at a slam, why wouldn't they be? A healthy Murray is what they would hate to see.

Yes, I agree with all that. The potential 'potential' was magnified. I also had hopes in that respect. Like I said when the draw came out: I would probably have way to high hopes of Nadal's first opponents, only to wait and see the inevitable final happen.

 

[DarthFed]

DP is always going to be tough for Rafa except for maybe RG. Those ugly topspin cyclones go right in DP's wheelhouse and on top of it DP is pretty steady mentally unlike the other huge hitters. And Murray is Murray, if he somehow warps into top form that semi is almost a pick'em. People forget how much better Murray is now compared to 2 years ago. But I don't think Murray would be ready to win vs. Rafa or Djokovic at this point. He might not even make it though I think he will. Murray would definitely prefer to see Tsonga compared to Roger unless that becomes a long 5 setter.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Monfils is the toughest person in the way of a GS final it is the easiest path in history bar none. This isn't worthy of a poll, but anyways it will be Rafa in an easy 3. Not sure why/how Monfils is being so badly overrated.

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

So Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd (both better players than to be facing so early), and FEDERER in the semis are now easy matches? Just because Nadal is nightmare match-up for Federer doesn't make the match easy.

Actually it does.

Nadal's always been a nightmare match-up for Fed, as early as 2006. Would anyone in their right mind call Federer an "easy" match back then?

Obviously he's no longer the same player, and he's far easier now, but the original point was that match-ups are not arbitrarily designed: If your style troubles a player, more power to you. I bet no other player would be looking at Roger as an easy match, including Novak, who almost never has an easy time dealing with Roger, even this version of Federer. If Nadal can make it look easy, it doesn't make it easy. There's a difference.

 

[DarthFed]

It's not even in the top 10 for being easiest path in history. I'm not even sure it's in Rafa's top 3 easiest paths in history (the US Open wins, both times, saw him go through an easy draw). Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd, and Roger/Murray/Tsonga in the semi make this at the very least a "medium" draw.

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

So Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd (both better players than to be facing so early), and FEDERER in the semis are now easy matches? Just because Nadal is nightmare match-up for Federer doesn't make the match easy.

Actually it does.

Nadal's always been a nightmare match-up for Fed, as early as 2006. Would anyone in their right mind call Federer an "easy" match back then?

Obviously he's no longer the same player, and he's far easier now, but the original point was that match-ups are not arbitrarily designed: If your style troubles a player, more power to you. I bet no other player would be looking at Roger as an easy match, including Novak, who almost never has an easy time dealing with Roger, even this version of Federer. If Nadal can make it look easy, it doesn't make it easy. There's a difference.

Splitting hairs here. Denis' point is that Roger is an easy match for Nadal so for Nadal it is an easy path. Needless to say that's obvious. I bet Rafa would like to see Roger before probably 5-6 other players in a GS semi. Roger would be a tough quarterfinal for Nole but I'd imagine Djokovic is plenty happy if he gets to see Roger in a semi at this point. Not quite as good as seeing Ferrer but a lot better than seeing Murray.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If he gets Roger, it's an easy path considering that Tomic retired.

So Tomic in the 1st round, Monfils in the 3rd (both better players than to be facing so early), and FEDERER in the semis are now easy matches? Just because Nadal is nightmare match-up for Federer doesn't make the match easy.

Actually it does.

Nadal's always been a nightmare match-up for Fed, as early as 2006. Would anyone in their right mind call Federer an "easy" match back then?

Obviously he's no longer the same player, and he's far easier now, but the original point was that match-ups are not arbitrarily designed: If your style troubles a player, more power to you. I bet no other player would be looking at Roger as an easy match, including Novak, who almost never has an easy time dealing with Roger, even this version of Federer. If Nadal can make it look easy, it doesn't make it easy. There's a difference.

Splitting hairs here. Denis' point is that Roger is an easy match for Nadal so for Nadal it is an easy path. Needless to say that's obvious. I bet Rafa would like to see Roger before probably 5-6 other players in a GS semi. Roger would be a tough quarterfinal for Nole but I'd imagine Djokovic is plenty happy if he gets to see Roger in a semi at this point. Not quite as good as seeing Ferrer but a lot better than seeing Murray.

I'm not splitting hairs at all. There's a difference between an easy path because the players you're coming up against are mediocre, and an easy path because you just happen to be better than a very good player (I'm not saying Nadal is so superior to Fed in general, I'm strictly talking about the H2H).

Yes, Roger at this point, is obviously a different story compared to his old self, but still, if you hold a match-up advantage against an elite player, you're still coming up against an elite player.

 

[DarthFed]

Well Roger isn't an elite player at this point either. He has to prove he can become one again. I think it is obvious that Rafa would be quite pleased to see Roger in the semi instead of Murray. He'd probably rather see Roger than Tsonga too.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well Roger isn't an elite player at this point either. He has to prove he can become one again. I think it is obvious that Rafa would be quite pleased to see Roger in the semi instead of Murray. He'd probably rather see Roger than Tsonga too.

Of course Nadal would prefer to play Federer. That however, would not make it "easy," especially since this would mean Federer went through Tsonga and Murray back-to-back, which isn't too shabby, and might qualify him to be back among the "elite."