Respect to Nadal

[Denis]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Nadal's A-game was in the 5th set of Roland Garros this year, when he hit 22 winners. Very hard to hit 22 winners a in a set vs Djokovic (on a slow surface especially) unless you have a ferocious attacking game.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal's A-game, when he's in this relentless mode, is the best in the world. He makes others have to play immense tennis just to keep up with him. He breaks their backs, and necks, and will power. There were a few of us who felt that after Nole's miraculous seven wins, Nadal would force him to go to dark places in future to succeed against him - and that Novak wouldn't be able to. However, the nature of their rivalry is similar to this match: momentum shifts are common. Nole will turn it around some day and Nadal will be holding the plate. But as long as Rafa is fit and motivated, he'll be hard to stop on any surface, against anybody.

But looking at it, I think this is the greatest rivalry I've ever seen...

 

[Kieran]

Congrats to Nadal on an absolutely amazing comeback and a well deserved US Open title.

I am obviously disappointed that Novak couldn't maintain his second set level, but at least it hasn't disappeared entirely. It was a very exciting match, and if Novak is on he is probably the only one who can challenge Nadal. Here is to more finals between the two, and I hope Novak can take a fair share of wins from those.

Nice to see you, Denisovich, and nice post!

 

[Kieran]

The way Nadal has turned around the rivarly with Djokovic is simply remarkable. I mean he lost 6 straight finals in 2011 and suffered a truly cruel and heartbreaking loss in Melbourne 2012, one which many greats would have never recovered from. 7 straight finals losses would have left many greats mentally and emotionally broken for the rest of their careers and who can blame them? Eventually everybody finds his match and nemesis, this is just the nature of sports and even more so in tennis. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Not Nadal. This freak simply refuses to accept defeat, he thrives on setbacks, works harder than ever before, is happily willing to dig deeper than anybody else and comes back even more determined like a possessed modern-day version of Spartacus with meticulous planning, precision and willpower unlike anything I've seen before in any sports. I'm not really a fan of these endless Goat debates but one thing is now for sure, Nadal deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Sampras and Federer. They are truly the 3 top dogs of the Open Era. In which order? Can't really care less.

Great post, Didi! Rafa is a great example of how a player re-sets the defaults on a losing streak. He dominates this era by dominating his rivals. He wins his majors going through them, not around their absences and upsets. He's a genuine sporting phenom and I think his 7 month hiatus may actually prolong his career...

 

[19USC66]

I'm a Fed person also, but I believe "Nole" has clearly slipped some from his great 2011 form. I don't believe there is a GOAT. However, I do believe Nadal is the greatest champion ever on the ATP tour. Nevertheless, tennis players will understand my next comment. Federer is the greatest tennis player ever. When a player i.e. Nadal whacks everyone and no one holds an edge vs Rafa head to head. He is the best of his time, but not the best tennis player. I consider Nadal a hybrid. No one does it the way Rafa Nafal does and I am not so sure anyone would care to try. UGH painful. I don't know what the man eats, but whatever it is...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

 

[Denis]

But looking at it, I think this is the greatest rivalry I've ever seen...

I agree I think. Although I really enjoy the Djokovic - Federer rivalry too in terms of tennis. Too bad they haven't played that many GS finals. Federer and Nadal may have played the greatest match ever, but their rivalry has never fully materialized in actual matches between the two IMO.

 

[Denis]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

Sure, that's true. But I think a lot in the match depended on Djokovic hitting too many UE's. If he keeps that in check he can eventually overpower Nadal. Like he did in that 53 shot rally in the second set to take the break. So the match was on Djokovic's racket IMO. He handed it to Nadal by hitting too many UEs.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

On hards, yes. It's important to note though, that during the moments you're referring to, it was far from Nadal's A game.

 

[Kieran]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

Sure, that's true. But I think a lot in the match depended on Djokovic hitting too many UE's. If he keeps that in check he can eventually overpower Nadal. Like he did in that 53 shot rally in the second set to take the break. So the match was on Djokovic's racket IMO. He handed it to Nadal by hitting too many UEs.

No Denisovich, this is a fallacy that a lot of Fedfans cling to as well: the match is on his racket against Nadal and if only for them pesky UE's he'd have won, as if Nadal is a passive beneficiary of his opponents carelessness.

Nadal forces his opponent to go for too much and they miss. Why they're called "unforced errors" is a mystery, or perhaps it's a media thingy to distinguish then from impossible to hit shots, which are called forced errors. Djoker's best wasn't good enough to keep Rafa down, especially in the third set, when he was standing deep for returns and playing less aggressively than he did in the first and fourth sets. Nadal is forcing Djoker to go for even more - and he isn't able to, at present.

He did in 2011 and Oz 2012, but that looks more like an anomaly than a standard, to me...

 

[britbox]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

Sure, that's true. But I think a lot in the match depended on Djokovic hitting too many UE's. If he keeps that in check he can eventually overpower Nadal. Like he did in that 53 shot rally in the second set to take the break. So the match was on Djokovic's racket IMO. He handed it to Nadal by hitting too many UEs.

No Denisovich, this is a fallacy that a lot of Fedfans cling to as well: the match is on his racket against Nadal and if only for them pesky UE's he'd have won, as if Nadal is a passive beneficiary of his opponents carelessness.

Nadal forces his opponent to go for too much and they miss. Why they're called "unforced errors" is a mystery, or perhaps it's a media thingy to distinguish then from impossible to hit shots, which are called forced errors. Djoker's best wasn't good enough to keep Rafa down, especially in the third set, when he was standing deep for returns and playing less aggressively than he did in the first and fourth sets. Nadal is forcing Djoker to go for even more - and he isn't able to, at present.

He did in 2011 and Oz 2012, but that looks more like an anomaly than a standard, to me...

I agree on the UFEs - I've always thought the term was a little silly.

I don't think going for too much was Djokovic's undoing. These matches are usually determined on a small number of critical points. The momentum swing following Djokovic's failure to convert on that triple break point opportunity in the third set was massive. That was a set where you felt Djokovic probably played the better tennis. Nadal has a habit of winning those critical points more often than not and it's by design not luck.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I think even non-tennis fans are aware that the "unforced errors" in a Nadal match are produced under immense pressure and actually a result of Nadal taking the opponents legs out and also making the court seem smaller which forces the opponent to hit too close to the lines. Djokovic can't maintain and overpower Nadal because Nadal takes away his power by pushing Djokovic to the physical limit, and psyching him out somewhat with incredible retrieving skills.

In the days before the 2011 US Open, Nadal said he wasn't physically ready to play the US Open because a foot injury at Wimbledon (vs Del Potro) prevented him from training until Canada, but that he'd try his best. So that year Nadal didn't have the physicality to push Djokovic to the physical limit (Nadal ran out of gas in the 4th set). Nadal 2010 and 2013 was very well prepared physically and won the physical battle by preventing Djokovic from playing more than a set and a half of quality ball-striking. Nadal is taking the match off Djokovic's racquet by taking his legs out. Agassi also did this to opponents.

An added factor is mental toughness/sharpness. In 2011 Nadal made some comments suggesting that he was experiencing mental fatigue and not feeling the same passion that he did in 2010. I think that hurt Nadal when it came to the big points vs Djokovic (for example, 2011 Wimbledon was the most unclutch performance I've ever seen from Nadal). Here in 2013, after the 7 month break, Nadal is mentally fresher than ever, and has the mental strength to lift himself on the big points. And Djokovic is the player lacking in sharpness mentally.

 

[Didi]

Djokovic gifted this match to Nadal. He had it on his plate in the third set, but the gnat won because of persistence and petty practicality of winning cheap points by being consistent.

Seriously Cali, don't you ever get bored of repeating the same stuff over and over again every single time Nadal wins a match? I salute you for your stubborness but you are like Bill Murray in the famous movie called Groundhog day. In case you haven't seen the movie yet, it's about a desperate weatherman who finds himself living and going through the same day over and over again. The funny thing is that no matter what he does, he even tries to commit suicide, he wakes up every single morning to the same old song on the radio and the same day starts all over again.

In your case, it's not "I got you babe" from Sonny & Cher that comes out of the radio, it's a furious version of "Argh, this mentally persistent gnat was gifted yet another major. Knock, knock, knockin' on yet another gifted major...I can't stand this gnat anymore." to the melody of Bob Dylan's Knocking on Heaven's Door.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

Sure, that's true. But I think a lot in the match depended on Djokovic hitting too many UE's. If he keeps that in check he can eventually overpower Nadal. Like he did in that 53 shot rally in the second set to take the break. So the match was on Djokovic's racket IMO. He handed it to Nadal by hitting too many UEs.

Let me preface my post with the following:

- Djokovic was clearly below his best throughout the match (with the exception of some phases) and made too many unforced errors.

However, there is a problem with some of what you said:

The way Novak played in 2011, especially against Nadal, is inhuman. Going in 30+ strokes rallies, while being the aggressor, and almost never missing, with that sort of physicality, is really dumbfounding. However, I think, like many, you're still hung up on his 2011 level, and want to see THAT. The mere fact that you say "all he has to do is keep the UE in check" and proceed to cite a 54 stroke rally as an example really highlights my point... it is damn near impossible to that over and over for an entire match (not necessarily the 54 stroke part, since that's an extreme example, but the consistent aggression). The level of focus, physicality, and execution required is huge.

Now keep in mind, Novak is absolutely capable of doing that. He's shown it before. But we'll both agree that his level, on average, is not his 2011 level. That was an all time great year. You can't possibly expect that every single time he plays Nadal. Now, to be clear, Djokovic does not necessarily need to play that well to beat Nadal on hards. He took him to the limit in Montreal without necessarily playing his 2011 level. But still, to just simplify matters and limit them to "keep the UE in check" in a best of five set match against Rafael Nadal is a bit of a stretch. Yes, Novak could, and should have played cleaner. But as Nadal said, when asked about Novak making too many unforced errors: You have to separate some UE's from others. An unforced error after an 20+ stroke rally is understandable. I can see why you're spoiled in that regard, since Novak routinely engaged in such rallies in 2011, and almost never missed. But again, with such aggression, it's a huge ask for him to do it all set long.

What really hurt Djokovic is not the overall number of UE's. He was being aggressive, so that can be forgiven. What hurt him is the silly, quick errors in key moments. THOSE are the unforced errors that hurt. And those didn't come after 20+ rallies. The other thing that hurt him is the now customary slow start. He can get away with it against most, but against Nadal, it becomes an uphill battle.

Keep this in mind, Novak's 2011 level is not the norm, until proven otherwise. With that said, he's far removed from that form at the moment, and that's the problem. He can play better than this without necessarily matching his 2011 highs.

Djokovic didn't have the match on his racket, by the way. He had the third set on his racket when he led by a break. That's the only definition of "having the match on his racket." Once he got broken back, it was no longer on his racket, and not on Nadal's. When he led 0-40 on Nadal's serve, Nadal saved two of those points with winners (one forehand DTL after a deep return by Novak, and one with his only ace of the match).

Novak really outplayed Nadal from the second half of the second set, till the second half of the third (when he gifted him the break back). It's quite convenient to ignore the two sets he was thoroughly outplayed him. And before anyone points it out, yes, he wasn't playing well at all in those two sets, but that means he got outplayed, since you know, his opponent actually played better.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Djokovic gifted this match to Nadal. He had it on his plate in the third set, but the gnat won because of persistence and petty practicality of winning cheap points by being consistent.

Seriously Cali, don't you ever get bored of repeating the same stuff over and over again every single time Nadal wins a match? I salute you for your stubborness but you are like Bill Murray in the famous movie called Groundhog day. In case you haven't seen the movie yet, it's about a desperate weatherman who finds himself living and going through the same day over and over again. The funny thing is that no matter what he does, he even tries to commit suicide, he wakes up every single morning to the same old song on the radio and the same day starts all over again.

In your case, it's not "I got you babe" from Sonny & Cher that comes out of the radio, it's a furious version of "Argh, this mentally persistent gnat was gifted yet another major. Knock, knock, knockin' on yet another gifted major...I can't stand this gnat anymore." to the melody of Bob Dylan's Knocking on Heaven's Door.

sorry, but i'm not on board with the reference. in the movie, the world is repetitive as Bill Murray undergoes a transformation. his views and attitude change, which in the end sets him free.

so Cali definitely isn't Billy Murray's misanthropic reporter - he's the alarm clock radio, always playing that same song over and over again.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I prefer not to think about what happened after 4-2 in the third set. It was bad, really bad. The good thing from the second and early third set is that I am now convinced that Djokovic's A game is better than Nadal's A game. The problem is consistency indeed.

i usually appreciate your posts. but i never bought into the A game brouhaha - there's tons of nuances in every point, and i don't see what can be achieved by putting A,B,C categories over that.

Sure, that's true. But I think a lot in the match depended on Djokovic hitting too many UE's. If he keeps that in check he can eventually overpower Nadal. Like he did in that 53 shot rally in the second set to take the break. So the match was on Djokovic's racket IMO. He handed it to Nadal by hitting too many UEs.

No Denisovich, this is a fallacy that a lot of Fedfans cling to as well: the match is on his racket against Nadal and if only for them pesky UE's he'd have won, as if Nadal is a passive beneficiary of his opponents carelessness.

Nadal forces his opponent to go for too much and they miss. Why they're called "unforced errors" is a mystery, or perhaps it's a media thingy to distinguish then from impossible to hit shots, which are called forced errors. Djoker's best wasn't good enough to keep Rafa down, especially in the third set, when he was standing deep for returns and playing less aggressively than he did in the first and fourth sets. Nadal is forcing Djoker to go for even more - and he isn't able to, at present.

He did in 2011 and Oz 2012, but that looks more like an anomaly than a standard, to me...

I agree on the UFEs - I've always thought the term was a little silly.

I don't think going for too much was Djokovic's undoing. These matches are usually determined on a small number of critical points. The momentum swing following Djokovic's failure to convert on that triple break point opportunity in the third set was massive. That was a set where you felt Djokovic probably played the better tennis. Nadal has a habit of winning those critical points more often than not and it's by design not luck.

Pretty much.

Again, regarding unforced errors, it's tough to criticize a guy for unforced errors when you're engaging in 20+ rallies, covering every inch of the court, hitting preposterous shots from insane angles, all the while being aggressive. Yeah, you're going to miss on occasions. Likewise, if you're trying to end the points earlier, and you know who you're up against, you're also going to miss sometimes.

Not saying Djokovic shouldn't have played a cleaner match, but still...

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, if I never hear the term "the match is on his racket," it would be too soon. Nadal had the match on his racket in the FO semi this year when he twice served for the match in the 4th set and got broken. Djokovic had their 2009 Madrid match on his racket when he had match points on his serve in the tie-break (and even those were saved by insane winners from Nadal, proving that, shock and horror, your opponent sometimes has something to do with it).

But "he had the match on his racket" when he lost it in 4 sets, including a 6-2 and a 6-1 set? Yeah, no. Sorry. He was close to winning the third set and didn't play the big points well. He should have played them better. Yes. That's a better way of putting it.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Djokovic's 2011 level was dependent on Nadal giving him shorter balls to work with. Nadal hit deeper in 2010 and 2013, and that made the difference.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic's 2011 level was dependent on Nadal giving him shorter balls to work with. Nadal hit deeper in 2010 and 2013, and that made the difference.

Except Novak's 2011 didn't simply hinge on Nadal. He displayed that level against other players too, something he's not doing today, not even against the "lesser" guys.