Rio Open - 500

[Kieran]

^^ @GS&M

That sounds about right, now we just have convince Cali.

Actually, he came close to agreeing with this during Oz, that Rafa beats players because he's better in the rally. And it's true: Rafa shrinks the court so they have little space to manoeuvre. And from where he places his opponent, they have few options in their reply. So he forces the error, which is true. He wins the points, it's not just a matter of his opponent losing them...

 

[Moxie]

Sorry but Andujar was the one who reached match point first and it was total lack of focus that caused those 2 poor errors as opposed to anything else. Andujar knows this and so does everyone who watched the match. I never thought he'd win but he did beat himself. Nadal didn't win by 2 points he won with winners, but by 2 points Andujar donated like a dirty old man in a sperm bank.

What two winners?

Keep in mind that Nadal had one winner in the entire 1st set.

That is not a significant stat for Nadal, because that's just not how he plays.

This is not usual. Nadal tends to have a lot of winners. He just doesn't tend to have many UFEs.

 

[Moxie]

Contrary to what Kieran and Moxie may say, it is not because
of some weird way of counting. Indeed, they do count gently tapping a ball into
open court as a winner. I also agree that there is some flxibility in what you define
a winner as. My defintion would be that a winner is a shot to which the opponent
simply does not stand a chance in returning the ball back to you. But, whatever
the definition may be, I believe they do apply the definition consistently to both
players in a match. In other words, there is no conspiracy out there to make Rafa
look bad.


Finally, I would like to venture a guess that nobody in the entire ATP
would have as much share of his points coming from forced errors as
Rafa does. That consistent heavy top-spin forehand shots repeatedly
coming at the opponent, eventually makes the opponent commit an
error, which I guess should be classified as a forced error.

I thought I would put this theory out which would explain as to
why Rafa's winners count is typically low. It is because his forced error
count would be extremely high.

I wasn't making any point about the winners, and how they're judged, just giving Kieran props because Annacone said what he did, which is that it's subjective. I do agree with you on the UFEs. I think Rafa forces errors. But I do think you're wrong that Rafa doesn't often have a high winner count. He very often does. What is always low is his UFE count.

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry but Andujar was the one who reached match point first and it was total lack of focus that caused those 2 poor errors as opposed to anything else. Andujar knows this and so does everyone who watched the match. I never thought he'd win but he did beat himself. Nadal didn't win by 2 points he won with winners, but by 2 points Andujar donated like a dirty old man in a sperm bank.

What two winners?

Keep in mind that Nadal had one winner in the entire 1st set.

That is not a significant stat for Nadal, because that's just not how he plays.

This is not usual. Nadal tends to have a lot of winners. He just doesn't tend to have many UFEs.

Nadal has repeatedly won matches throughout his career when his opponents have hit many more winners. There are scores of examples of this, the Gulbis Rome match being the most obvious.

So again, let me repeat: That is not a significant stat for Nadal, because that's just not how he plays.

 

[Moxie]

Sorry but Andujar was the one who reached match point first and it was total lack of focus that caused those 2 poor errors as opposed to anything else. Andujar knows this and so does everyone who watched the match. I never thought he'd win but he did beat himself. Nadal didn't win by 2 points he won with winners, but by 2 points Andujar donated like a dirty old man in a sperm bank.

What two winners?

Keep in mind that Nadal had one winner in the entire 1st set.

That is not a significant stat for Nadal, because that's just not how he plays.

This is not usual. Nadal tends to have a lot of winners. He just doesn't tend to have many UFEs.

Nadal has repeatedly won matches throughout his career when his opponents have hit many more winners. There are scores of examples of this, the Gulbis Rome match being the most obvious.

So again, let me repeat: That is not a significant stat for Nadal, because that's just not how he plays.

Still, I think we'll both agree that only two winners was an unusual stat for him. He was having a bad night, and managed to win. That's it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you look at the stats of most Nadal matches, you will notice that he has
very few winners.

This is untrue. Please check out the stats for "most" Nadal matches and provide evidence.