Respect to Nadal

[calitennis127]

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.

This is misunderstanding the 5th set entirely. To look at it in tennis terms as Nadal's offense taking over is absolutely moronic. But I can expect nothing less of statheads and in-the-moment observers who have no concept of momentum or psychology in athletic competition, probably because they have never played sports.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Thank you for this post, Denisovich.

Unfortunately, this is now the the custom with Nadal winning matches. There are two or three players every tournament who can say this and show it, but they still lose to him. In Montreal, it was Janowicz and Djokovic. In Cincinnati, it was Federer, as well as Dimitrov and especially Berdych to a lesser extent. At the US Open, it was Kohlschreiber and Djokovic.

Nadal wins off of consistency. His modest demeanor almost conceals his ambition. Looking at his face, you'd never think he was as successful as he is. It's almost as if he doesn't trust himself to win because he doesn't think he is that good. So his mentality is to scrap and claw for every point he can.

What Nadal really needs is to get whipped 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 at a Slam. That is long overdue. That is what his playing style deserves, and if Djokovic had balls, that's what he would have done to him from the start of the final. Instead, he played the so-called "high percentage" rally style, and predictably the nuts-and-bolts cheap-point winning machine took the first set 6-2. Once the match opened up, Novak showed who had the better forehand and was slapping Nadal side to side all over the place - showing who really has the SUPERIOR FOREHAND.

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal's A-game, when he's in this relentless mode, is the best in the world.

If you are talking tennis, this statement is laughable.

If you are talking psychological force to win individual points and basically be a "winner", I agree with you.

When Nadal puts his mind to winning, he is a freight train. But when someone like Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer or Nikolay Davydenko or Juan Martin Del Potro starts going for it and executing offense, Nadal goes from freight train to a box of freight that he is being hurled around at port.

He makes others have to play immense tennis just to keep up with him. He breaks their backs, and necks, and will power.

Was this the case in the match against Kohlschreiber, when Kohlschreiber was b*tching Nadal around and hitting winners all over the place on him?

Was Kohlscreiber "keeping up with him"? I think he was.

Nadal won that match because of stamina. He could keep a higher level longer than Kohlschreiber. But when Kohlscreiber was at his best, he was clearly the better shotmaker. That was a vintage Rafael Nadal stamina-persistence victory.

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.

There was nothing "miraculous" about Djokovic's seven wins against Nadal. It was actually the world properly alighned.

But as long as Rafa is fit and motivated, he'll be hard to stop on any surface, against anybody.

Nadal is always fit, so that isn't even a question mark. And I agree with you that he will be hard to deal with always - but not primarily because of his tennis game, with its loopy, butt-ugly forehand shots "staying in" over and over.

 

[Moxie]

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.

This is misunderstanding the 5th set entirely. To look at it in tennis terms as Nadal's offense taking over is absolutely moronic. But I can expect nothing less of statheads and in-the-moment observers who have no concept of momentum or psychology in athletic competition, probably because they have never played sports.

Nadal2005RG makes a specific point about Nadal's winners, and what it says about aggression. All you offer in response is derision, but no actual riposte. Rather funny to deride "stat-heads," since they have actual "stats," or "in-the-moment observers," since they're recounting what they saw, with they're own eyes. I know you like to go back and run it all through the Cali-meter, and turn it into something else, but don't give others a hard time because they're reporting what they saw, and what the stats told them.

Not sure where you're going with "momentum and psychology" in terms of that match, but surely it's worth a paragraph, and not a sniffy toss-off.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

This is misunderstanding the 5th set entirely. To look at it in tennis terms as Nadal's offense taking over is absolutely moronic. But I can expect nothing less of statheads and in-the-moment observers who have no concept of momentum or psychology in athletic competition, probably because they have never played sports.

LOL, but of course. Momentum! Nadal fails to serve out the 4th, loses it, can't shake it off immediately, gets broken in the first game of the fifth by playing an awful game. Momentum was definitely on his side...

 

[brokenshoelace]

What Nadal really needs is to get whipped 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 at a Slam. That is long overdue. That is what his playing style deserves, and if Djokovic had balls, that's what he would have done to him from the start of the final.

:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

 

[Ricardo]

What Nadal really needs is to get whipped 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 at a Slam. That is long overdue. That is what his playing style deserves, and if Djokovic had balls, that's what he would have done to him from the start of the final.

:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

well it's not impossible.


IF......

we put Djoker, Murray and Fed on the same side so Fed takes the fh side, Murray the centre and Djoker covers the bh. That should do the trick

 

[NADAL2005RG]

LOL. The Cali poster questioned if Djokovic had balls.

Djokovic has been described as the most mentally tough player in the game over the last 3 years. At worst, he is 2nd best mentally (Nadal #1 mentally, in 2013 at least).

 

[Loveall]

I suppose touching the net and eventually losing the break was all down to Nadal winners too? The 5th set was not all about winners. Had Novak held for 5-2 who knows what would have happened.

Who asked him NOT to hold Serve. I am sure it was not me.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

What Nadal really needs is to get whipped 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 at a Slam. That is long overdue. That is what his playing style deserves, and if Djokovic had balls, that's what he would have done to him from the start of the final.

:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing
:laydownlaughing

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

well it's not impossible.


IF......

we put Djoker, Murray and Fed on the same side so Fed takes the fh side, Murray the centre and Djoker covers the bh. That should do the trick

Trust me, Nadal will still find Roger's backhand...it is in his dna...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

The guy keeps proving people wrong...They say he is a dirt devil, he goes ahead and wins a couple of wimbys...They say but he is not that good on hards, he goes and has one of the best hard court seasons ever...after a 6 months break.

This kid is pretty good eh?

I think you are making a major mistake in talking about him strictly in terms of "winning matches" and "results" - as if he is just any other player out there who is going after titles.

The truth is that what separates Nadal is some kind of transcendent mental profile. Kieran picked up on it a while ago and he is right. The consistency, constancy, persistence, intensity, and concentration - combined with infinite stamina - is a bizarre combination. It is weird, but it is in a competitive sense a chunk of idealism.

In terms of stamina and mental persistence, Rafael Nadal is an ideal. In other ways, he isn't. But in those he is.

We all can only learn from it.

How did you get from what I wrote that I am only talking about "winning matches" ? I talked about proving people wrong...and that includes you. Nobody, repeat, nobody achieves what Nadal has achieved so far with just "stamina" and " persistence"...The guy plays tennis...he is a tennis player. He usually has better strategy than his opponents. And , this might come as a surprise to you, he can actually hit the ball really good.

How has he proven me wrong? When have I ever guaranteed that he won't win a match?

I never have. I simply state what should happen if his opponents don't make petty mistakes and/or play to their potential.

If Nadal has proven anyone wrong, it is the so-called tennis "experts" of the board like imjimmy and broken who claim that Nadal is no longer as quick as he once was. They look like such asses for their repeated comments to that effect that it isn't even funny.

As for stamina and persistence: you misunderstand my point. I have never said that that is all Nadal has. Rather, I have maintained that this is what accounts for his H2H success against other top players and the degree of his achievements. His tennis skills don't explain those things nearly as much as the stamina and persistence qualities. That is the point.

As for his ball-striking, I complimented it on the match thread.

The H2H domination is also because Nadal uses his brain more than most players, and figures out why he was losing to the player, reverses the trend.

For example, Tsonga slaughtered Nadal 62 63 62 at the 2008 AO. Since then, Nadal has won their last FIVE outdoor hardcourt meetings.

Soderling beat Nadal at 2009 Roland Garros. After that, Nadal beat Soderling in straight sets at 2010 and 2011 Roland Garros.

Murray beat Nadal at 2008 US Open and 2010 Australian Open. Nadal beat Murray at 2010 World Tour Finals and 2011 US Open.

And this is despite Tsonga/Murray improving over the years.

And sure it took Nadal 7 losses before he reversed the trend vs Djokovic.....but those 7 losses all occurred within a 10 month period. Since the 2012 AO, Nadal has won 6 of their last 7 meetings.

 

[shawnbm]

Rafael Nadal wins because he is able to continue to play his game for longer periods of a match than the other guys these days--regardless of surface now. He doesn't dump the FH in the net as often as Nole, or overhit it as much as Roger has these last few years. His BH doesn't produce as many winners as other guys' do, but he makes less errors than they do and he makes guys hit extra shots. The one area he is better at than anyone (Murray may be his equal) is hitting a passing shot. He is the best or tied for first on that one, so that means rushing the net against him is dangerous. So, the next question is whether they can stand toe-to-toe with him on the baseline and mid-court areas, and hardly anyone can anymore. His shots are very well grooved and have a greater margin or error--kind of like comparing the ball flight of Borg with that of Connors. Borg would mishit terribly at times and the ball would go in. Jimmy would mishit and it was over. Perhaps credit goes to his physicality and strength or his coaching (or both), but the end result is he is a formidable player for the ages.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

If we are talking about guys shanking the ball in the 1st or 2nd set, its not like they shank due to tiredness. So that consistency is less to do with physicality/strength, and more to do with technique/talent. If we're talking about maintaining a standard in the 4th or 5th set, then that's about physicality/strength. But when I see Federer shanking the ball in the 1st or 2nd set, I don't think "he lacks physicality/strength".