SHANGHAI ROLEX MASTERS - ATP-1000 - OCT. 6 to 13, 2013.

[herios]

" What I give him most credit for is that he clearly knows the limitations in his game on Indoors. He gained 660 points in Beijing and Shanghai and should mathematically secure the year end #1 within the next couple of weeks.

I do not understand why fans keep thinking the events in China, Beijing and Shanghai are indoor events. Every year we have to point that they are in fact outdoors.
I would not make a big fuss about it, unless Didi was not mentioning that these results are relevant to how Rafa fares indoors, because they are obviously not.

 

[calitennis127]

And this match really illustrated why it is preposterous to call Nadal's forehand "the best in the game". I'd love to see someone explain how it is better than, for example, Del Potro's.

OKay, I'll explain. Watch the past six months of tennis. Watch Nadal's matches, and watch Del Potro's matches. That should be more telling, with more elaborate data, than ONE match. I love this: Nadal's forehand looks like a world beater for 6 straight months, and he wins virtually everything in sight accordingly, especially on hards, to the point where even Cali struggled to pick the matches that Nadal won via "bullshit."

Would a match in which your opponent hit 59 winners to your 13 happen to qualify as such? :lolz:

Did Nadal's forehand look like a "world beater" in matches such as the Janowicz Montreal victory and the Federer Cincinnati victory? How about the second and third sets of the US Open final when it was Djokovic who was CLEARLY doing more damage off the forehand?

Then, there is one match, on Nadal's worst surface that is supposed to debunk everything else.

I don't for a second doubt the effectiveness of Nadal's forehand in many - indeed, most - situations. There is no denying it, especially on clay. However, is it flat out, in tennis terms, "the best forehand in the game"? No, it isn't. There are plenty of players, with Delpo at the top of the list, who can do at least as much damage with the forehand as Nadal.

If you want to tell me that Nadal has more stamina and is more relentlessly all over the court for longer periods of time, allowing him to set up his forehand better for longer than pretty much everyone else, then I agree with you. We can agree there.

If you want to just say that "Nadal has the best forehand in the game", then you have to explain the second and third sets of the US Open, or the Shanghai semifinal, or so many matches when Nadal was not hitting many unforced errors but could not penetrate the court.

Nadal has a great forehand overall (of course), but its quality is not the decisive factor in bringing him the extent of his success that he has had. Rather, it is the physical stamina to be at or near his highest level in setting up his shots for very long periods of time that has really set him apart.

There is no denying this, to the rational mind.

You know what this match showed? Nadal's forehand isn't that devastating on this kind of surface, and yes, that is a knock on him.

Oh, I love this here. This is terrific.

Nadal wins Cincinnati one year and suddenly his forehand isn't that devastating for just "two months of the year". It used to be 4 or 5, but now it's only 2, because Nadal finally won Cincinnati once.

Unfortunately for you, only two months of the season is played on this surface. You know what Nadal's entire career showed? That his forehand is pretty devastating everywhere else.

Of course Nadal's forehand is effective in many situations. There is no denying it. But the same can be said for the forehands of many players.

The issue to me here is whether Nadal's forehand is the main reason for the extent of his winning (particularly in the biggest matches of the biggest events against the best opponents) and also whether he has, flat out, "the best forehand" in the game. I don't see at all how Nadal's forehand is a more important factor in his winning, with the margins being thin, than his incredibly high first-serve percentage (which no one talks about enough) or the stamina he has to maintain something near his highest level for 6 hours any time he steps on the court.

Rather, people seem to take it entirely as a slight if you bring up his first-serve percentage or stamina, when in fact those have been utterly vital to his success. Look at the 2009 Australian Open final or his 2008 run on grass or his serving numbers in 2013. Stamina and first-serve percentage are clearly the most immediate, proximate reasons for his success against the best opponents.

This isn't disrespect. This is rational assessment of the empirical reality.

Also Cali, remember their 2011 Wimbledon match? Where Nadal fired off forehand winners at will? How superior did DP's forehand look then? Moral of the story? You can't formulate such a narrative off of one match. But you're too biased to understand that.

If you can't go just by the 2013 Shanghai semifinal, then you also can't just go by the 2011 Wimbledon Round of 16 match.

But if you look at all of Delpo's matches in the aggregate and all of Nadal's matches in the aggregate, there is undoubtedly a legitimate, entirely rational case to be made that Delpo's forehand is AT LEAST as good as Nadal's. This is beyond question.

If you want to consider why Nadal has won a lot more than Del Potro, then you can look at other factors besides the forehand. I'm all on board with doing that. You can start with physical stamina and overall first-serve percentage for starters. There are other factors too, of course, like the fact that Nadal plays the game at a much better pace between points (being more business-like and more purpose-driven), but the point I am making here is that the extent of Nadal's success owes to much, much more than his forehand, which is a great shot but is also entirely overrated by people who just say, flat out, that it is "the best forehand in the game".

No, it is not - not in that all-encompassing sense. No, it is not.

Nadal has the most stamina in the game. That statement is true in an all-encompassing sense, because on any given day he will have at least as much energy to play 5+ hours as his opponent. And only Djokovic and perhaps Murray are truly prepared for those kinds of physicality wars. But Nadal does not walk on to the court every match knowing that his forehand will be a better shot than his opponent's. There are too many players who can do as much damage with the forehand on any given day.

That is the difference between making the exaggerated claim that "Nadal has the best forehand in the game" and the entirely sensible statement that "Nadal has the most stamina of any player on tour".

I hope this clarifies things for you, my friend.

 

[Didi]

I do not understand why fans keep thinking the events in China, Beijing and Shanghai are indoor events. Every year we have to point that they are in fact outdoors.
I would not make a big fuss about it, unless Didi was not mentioning that these results are relevant to how Rafa fares indoors, because they are obviously not.

With my comment about Nadal's limitations Indoors I was not referring to Beijing, just the Shanghai Masters which is played under a closable roof. Last year for example I recall the semifinal between Federer and Murray being played with the roof closed. If that was not the case this year, then obviously you are right and it's technically not an Indoor tournament.

 

[calitennis127]

I do not understand why fans keep thinking the events in China, Beijing and Shanghai are indoor events. Every year we have to point that they are in fact outdoors.
I would not make a big fuss about it, unless Didi was not mentioning that these results are relevant to how Rafa fares indoors, because they are obviously not.

With my comment about Nadal's limitations Indoors I was not referring to Beijing, just the Shanghai Masters which is played under a closable roof. Last year for example I recall the semifinal between Federer and Murray being played with the roof closed. If that was not the case this year, then obviously you are right and it's technically not an Indoor tournament.

Why does indoor tennis have such a bad name in the first place?

The conditions are pure - and therefore ideal. What's wrong with that?

Does that not reflect as well on one's ability as playing in swirling winds in an absurdly oversized Arthur Ashe stadium?

 

[Moxie]

Without quoting the long post above of the conversation between Cali and Broken, and knowing this won't sway Cali at all:

Del Potro has an exceptionally fine and devastating forehand...when it's on. It was on fire today. I think this was one of the best matches he's played since his great 2009. (I didn't pick that year arbitrarily or snark-ily in my earlier post.) And I don't mean he's inconsistent, only that he's had a job of work to get back to his most consistent form, and that includes the best and most reliable of this great FH. After his wrist injury in 2009, there was basically a year off, then about a year and a half to start coming back to his best form. (He's admitted to being very tentative because of his fear of the wrist.) He's been turning it up consistently since about the Olympics last summer. I'd say the best we've seen of him since '09 was the Wimby SF v. Djokovic, and the match today.

So, Cali, you can say that DP has a better FH than Nadal, but that's because you judge a shot you like, such as Nalbandian's BH, by its best performance. You may not like Nadal's FH, (OK, you really really don't,) but it hasn't abandoned him, or been absent, for any real period of time. It's a money shot. (Quite literally.) It's won him a lot of titles. And don't start in with his stamina...that we've all heard ad infinitum. I don't really know how anyone can call a particular shot by one player "THE best in the game" at the top level, but to denigrate Nadal's FH, as you are working so hard to do, is to deny what can be seen with your own eyes. Rafa's is very different than Juan Martín's, and I don't ignore the devastation that JM can wreck with it, when he's on form, but so does Nadal's, and it happens more often. You can't say it's better just because it pleases you more. If "better" is judged by consistency and results, and those do have to be in the equation, (since you're working up some kind of formula,) then Rafa's is the superior.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Would a match in which your opponent hit 59 winners to your 13 happen to qualify as such? :lolz:

No. Luckily, it was just one match. It looked like a world beater in the vast majority of his other matches, including the three wins over Djokovic, a guy who has previously made Nadal look quite ordinary.

Did Nadal's forehand look like a "world beater" in matches such as the Janowicz Montreal victory and the Federer Cincinnati victory? How about the second and third sets of the US Open final when it was Djokovic who was CLEARLY doing more damage off the forehand?

Actually, it absolutely looked like a world beater against Federer. That's just one of those matches where you seemed to be watching a different one, just like the Murray-Nadal matches at Wimbledon. Not saying this to be provocative. Against Djokovic? It looked like a world beater for two sets, and didn't for two. Call it even. You choose to attribute more importance to the sets in which it didn't, since it enhances your argument. But, by doing that, you'd be neglecting a simple concept in tennis: When your opponent raises his level, your game will likely drop. Likewise, when Nadal was playing at a high level, Novak's game dropped. Of course, you only focus on the former, and treat it like some kind of irrefutable evidence.

I don't for a second doubt the effectiveness of Nadal's forehand in many - indeed, most - situations. There is no denying it, especially on clay. However, is it flat out, in tennis terms, "the best forehand in the game"? No, it isn't. There are plenty of players, with Delpo at the top of the list, who can do at least as much damage with the forehand as Nadal.

If you want to tell me that Nadal has more stamina and is more relentlessly all over the court for longer periods of time, allowing him to set up his forehand better for longer than pretty much everyone else, then I agree with you. We can agree there.

If you want to just say that "Nadal has the best forehand in the game", then you have to explain the second and third sets of the US Open, or the Shanghai semifinal, or so many matches when Nadal was not hitting many unforced errors but could not penetrate the court.

Nadal has a great forehand overall (of course), but its quality is not the decisive factor in bringing him the extent of his success that he has had. Rather, it is the physical stamina to be at or near his highest level in setting up his shots for very long periods of time that has really set him apart.

There is no denying this, to the rational mind.

What you're saying isn't completely wrong. But you can't pick and choose sets in an entire career that are supposed to highlight a point, when the vast majority of that career highlights another point. You want me to explain Nadal's forehand being the best in the game while using the Shanghai semi? OKay, why not you explain how Nadal's forehand ISN'T the best in the game while watching the final set of the Djokovic match in Montreal, or their French Open semi? Or Nadal's entire US Open run? The fact is, even "the best forehand in the game" will likely have either off days, off sets, or just run across an opponent who is playing a superior level that he nullifies it. Watch Federer in his prime (who had a superior forehand to Nadal), and watch some of his matches with Davydenko (which he won all of them), or indeed, Nalbandian, and see how, for stretches, those two were able to make Fed's forehand look ordinary. Does that say anything less about Roger's forehand?

You want to bring up Del Potro? Please explain his entire year. Watch his matches and tell me this is the best forehand in the world. I'm using your logic here. It looked quite pedestrian so often, does that make it any less devastating in general?

As far as stamina and physical ability go, I don't deny their impact on Nadal's results for a solitary second. I just don't justify every single one of his wins.

Nadal wins Cincinnati one year and suddenly his forehand isn't that devastating for just "two months of the year". It used to be 4 or 5, but now it's only 2, because Nadal finally won Cincinnati once.

Yes, it used to be. However, since 2010, Nadal has improved his game tremendously on fast North American hard courts and it shows. He adopts a more offensive position on court, takes the ball slightly earlier, and hits with more ferocity and slightly less spin. Players improve, that much I don't have to explian. And no, it's not about him winning Cinci one year. It's about winning the US Open in 2 of his last 3 appearances there, and reaching the final in the other. It's about him going through the North American summer this year. It's about the visible adjustments he's made to his game there. Yes, being more offensive in general allowed his forehand to be more devastating on that surface. Watch how much he struggled with that shot at the US Open in 2007 and 2008, and compare it to 2010, 2011 and 2013. You can't tell me things haven't changed.

So no, it's not about Nadal "winning Cincinnati one year." It's particularly ironic seeing you mock this line of thinking anyway (even though I'm not really using it) since I could easily say "Nalbandian wins Madrid and Paris one year, and now he's the most talented player of all time."

But hey, at least now you refer to Nadal's forehand as "great," as opposed to "nothing special" so I genuinely give you props there, and no I'm not being sarcastic. It makes debating these things with you more sensible.

Of course Nadal's forehand is effective in many situations. There is no denying it. But the same can be said for the forehands of many players.

The issue to me here is whether Nadal's forehand is the main reason for the extent of his winning (particularly in the biggest matches of the biggest events against the best opponents) and also whether he has, flat out, "the best forehand" in the game. I don't see at all how Nadal's forehand is a more important factor in his winning, with the margins being thin, than his incredibly high first-serve percentage (which no one talks about enough) or the stamina he has to maintain something near his highest level for 6 hours any time he steps on the court.

Rather, people seem to take it entirely as a slight if you bring up his first-serve percentage or stamina, when in fact those have been utterly vital to his success. Look at the 2009 Australian Open final or his 2008 run on grass or his serving numbers in 2013. Stamina and first-serve percentage are clearly the most immediate, proximate reasons for his success against the best opponents.

This isn't disrespect. This is rational assessment of the empirical reality.

OK, stamina and physicality have been instrumental to Nadal's success (though not significantly more instrumental than they were to DJokovic's success in 2011, especially given the number of marathons he had to go through that he would have never been able to before that).

However, I do want to comment on the first serve percentage thing. Nadal continuously posts really good first serve percentage numbers. It is obviously important too. However, how does that make him any different than any other great player? Federer? His first serve percentage in his prime, was generally in the high 60's, which is pretty healthy, albeit not as high as Nadal's first serve percentage on average. The difference? Federer makes loads of more aces and service winners, gets a crap ton more cheap points, and gets a LOT more easy returns that he just puts away on the next ball. Hell, there's a reason Nadal has always said he'd like to have Federer's serve. So yeah, Nadal posts high numbers on his serve, but on average, throughout his career, his serve has not been a weapon per se (with the exception of some notable tournaments such as Wimbledon and the US Open in 2010, or even the US Open this year). However, even when he has served better than normal and got more cheap points (such as the tourneys I just mentioned), it wasn't an unusual amount of cheap points compared to Federer, Sampras, or even Djokovic (or any other great for that matter). They were unusual numbers for Nadal himself, because he normally doesn't produce as many.

So yeah, again, posting good serving percentage is important, but it's hardly as telling or unique as you make it out to be. Just imagine Federer's serve not being what it is? Would he have won so much, or looked so dominant? If anything, Nadal deserves credit for winning so much IN SPITE of his serve. Sure, he's managed to make the most out of it, with good placement and good serving percentage. Hell, he's made it quite tricky to deal with on grass. But overall, it's really nothing special compared to most other greats.

If you can't go just by the 2013 Shanghai semifinal, then you also can't just go by the 2011 Wimbledon Round of 16 match.

Absolutely, 100% agree with you there, and that's EXACTLY my point. I didn't use the Wimbledon example to say Nadal has a better forehand. I used it to say that you can't say Del Potro has a better forehand based on the Shanghai match, since one match is not indicative enough. That was precisely my point and I'm in full agreement with you there.

But if you look at all of Delpo's matches in the aggregate and all of Nadal's matches in the aggregate, there is undoubtedly a legitimate, entirely rational case to be made that Delpo's forehand is AT LEAST as good as Nadal's. This is beyond question.

Okay, I can't sit here in good conscience, and pretend that what you just said is absolutely ridiculous. It's not, and a case can definitely be made. However, where I would disagree with you is on the "on average" part. On average, Nadal's forehand has been far more consistently good. In part, this is due to Del Potro struggling to regain his form after his 2009 injury, but even 4 years later, it just hasn't been consistently devastating, and his results prove that. What I would say is, when comparing their respective highs, yes, there is a case to be made that DP's forehand is at least as good as Nadal.

In fact, I'd flat out say Del Potro has a better down the line forehand, and a better running forehand. If you look at what it was in 2009, his rally forehand was becoming ridiculous too. However, he hasn't used it to the same effects since (not consistently), and there's a clear case to be made that Nadal has a better forehand on clay and grass. On hards, it's debatable and I won't sit here and pretend otherwise.

 

[calitennis127]

Broken, again, this comes down to our fundamental difference about how much footwork should be incorporated into the defining of one's tennis "shot".

Let me be this blunt: Nadal is generally quicker than Del Potro and he can move at full intensity for longer than Del Potro. This means that he can set himself up to execute his best shots for longer periods of time. Hence, his forehand can be at or near its optimal level for substantially longer periods of time. This is not intended at all to be a demeaning statement. This is meant to be an objective judgment. I don't see how anyone who has watched Nadal and his rivals over the years can disagree with it.

But, fundamentally, does Nadal's superior stamina mean he has a better forehand, or that he is generally quicker in his court coverage and more able to go at full speed for longer than Del Potro? You talk like this is a case of "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" But I am saying that one definitely came first, and is more fundamental, and that is the overall quickness and stamina.

So, ultimately, what separates Nadal from Del Potro? Does Nadal have more titles and more overall success because he has a better forehand? I suppose you can argue that in a practical sense, Nadal has won more matches than Del Potro, so therefore his forehand is better. But this argument is suspect. It implies that Nadal has won more matches because his forehand is better than Del Potro's. I disagree with this characterization because it doesn't define the basic difference accurately. Nadal doesn't hit the ball cleaner than Del Potro or have a better overall technique than Delpo or hit with more precision than Delpo (which to me would mean having a "better forehand"); rather, he is more of a rare physical specimen in being able to hit his shots relentlessly and ruthlessly for longer periods of time than pretty much everyone else, including Del Potro.

This is why whenever Nadal loses a first set the question that is always raised is "will the opponent keep it up?", implying (rightly) that if the level does not sustain itself, Nadal is ready to play another 5 hours at full strength and he will take control of the match. It's an issue not so much of skill or game as it is of simply being able to go longer at full intensity.

So why does the fact that Nadal is more spry, more energetic, more physically relentless, and more able to play for long periods mean that he has a "better forehand" than Del Potro? If you're going strictly by technique and potential to be effective within a point, I don't see how this argument can be made so definitively, that Nadal "has the best forehand in the game" or a "better forehand than Del Potro". To your credit, you have acknowledged this on Nadal v. Del Potro, but at the same time, I don't agree with your fundamental characterizations at work here. So hopefully we can clarify these things.

If you think about it, the idea that Nadal just has a "better forehand" than Del Potro is absurd. Translated to the realm of specific results, the argument would be that Nadal's forehand, in terms of quality, is 12 Slams better and 8 MS hardcourt titles better. Does anyone seriously believe that? Really?

This is what I mean. Fundamentally, what separates Nadal and the degree of his success from others and what they have achieved are factors other than shotmaking. That isn't to say his shotmaking is poor; it obviously isn't. Very often it is impressive and Nadal does have a formidable repetoire of weapons that do damage. But his skills are not 11 Slams better than Andy Murray's skills or 12 Slams better than Delpo's skills. I would say that his stamina and capacity to concentrate/persist are levels above the likes of Murray or Delpo, however.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The reason why I don't think this debate will lead anywhere, is that I don't agree with the basic criteria you're using, nor do I agree with some of the parameters. For instance, you're grouping quickness and stamina together, when they are vastly, VASTLY two different things. Nadal happens to have both, but that doesn't mean you can group them together. Sure, his stamina allows him to maintain a level of intensity that is almost unparalleled and thus, his forehand is consistently good for longer periods of time throughout a match.

Quickness however, is another issue. More than quickness, is actual footwork, which while related, is a different subject still. The fact that Nadal has superior footwork can absolutely lead to his shot being counted as "better." We've had this debate before and you seem to separate footwork from the actual stroke. I don't see how this is realistic in the real world. A forehand is not just about the arm motion.

And finally, this is my biggest issue:

"If you think about it, the idea that Nadal just has a "better forehand" than Del Potro is absurd. Translated to the realm of specific results, the argument would be that Nadal's forehand, in terms of quality, is 12 Slams better and 8 MS hardcourt titles better. Does anyone seriously believe that? Really?"

Nobody believes this because it implies that the forehand is the one and only deciding factor when it comes to winning titles. Nadal's forehand isn't 12 slams better than DP's because so many other factors contribute to winning slams. I'm sure you agree, so I don't see why this is even relevant.

 

[Denis]

Footwork is usually the really underrated aspect of the game IMO. This is what really has made Federer and Nadal excel over the others, especially players like Del Potro. Their court positioning is truly phenomenal.

 

[kskate2]

I do not understand why fans keep thinking the events in China, Beijing and Shanghai are indoor events. Every year we have to point that they are in fact outdoors.
I would not make a big fuss about it, unless Didi was not mentioning that these results are relevant to how Rafa fares indoors, because they are obviously not.

With my comment about Nadal's limitations Indoors I was not referring to Beijing, just the Shanghai Masters which is played under a closable roof. Last year for example I recall the semifinal between Federer and Murray being played with the roof closed. If that was not the case this year, then obviously you are right and it's technically not an Indoor tournament.

Why does indoor tennis have such a bad name in the first place?

The conditions are pure - and therefore ideal. What's wrong with that?

Does that not reflect as well on one's ability as playing in swirling winds in an absurdly oversized Arthur Ashe stadium?

There's nothing wrong w/ indoor tennis except it's only played in a handful of tournaments each year. The real barometer of measuring a player's talent and preparation is how well they adjust to the conditions (wind, sun, heat, humidity, shadows, rain delays, etc.).

 

[Front242]

Yeah but to be the best you have to adapt to every surface. That's why even if Fed, Nadal and Sampras all had the same amount of slams, it'd be an obvious knock on Sampras having not won RG. Likewise winning indoor tournaments proves you can win on that surface.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I do not understand why fans keep thinking the events in China, Beijing and Shanghai are indoor events. Every year we have to point that they are in fact outdoors.
I would not make a big fuss about it, unless Didi was not mentioning that these results are relevant to how Rafa fares indoors, because they are obviously not.

With my comment about Nadal's limitations Indoors I was not referring to Beijing, just the Shanghai Masters which is played under a closable roof. Last year for example I recall the semifinal between Federer and Murray being played with the roof closed. If that was not the case this year, then obviously you are right and it's technically not an Indoor tournament.

no, shanghai is an outdoor tourney just like Wimbledon and the Australian open.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah but to be the best you have to adapt to every surface. That's why even if Fed, Nadal and Sampras all had the same amount of slams, it'd be an obvious knock on Sampras having not won RG. Likewise winning indoor tournaments proves you can win on that surface.

Agreed. The best win on all surfaces, though everyone has surfaces that suit them better than others. Roger has been, and is, until proven otherwise, the best on indoor HCs. It's not Rafa's best, but he has won, and occasionally had otherwise quality results on them. In the long-term conversation, it will be a knock on Pete that he never won RG or had a great clay game.