The 3rd set of the US Open: Djokovic lost it, Nadal did not win it

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Okay, I just watched the Tennis Channel re-run of the US Open final up through the end of the 3rd set, by which time the outcome was no longer in jeopardy.

What is even more apparent watching the re-run is that the better, more talented hardcourt player lost the match. Plain and simple. Djokovic was utterly dominant late in the second set and early in the 3rd set. His forehand in that stretch was far better than Nadal's has ever been on a hardcourt, and the stats back that assertion up.

At the end of the 3rd set: forehand winners were 21 to 10 in favor of Djokovic, not the player who supposedly has the "best forehand in the game". The winner count near the end of the second set was 34 to 16 in favor of Djokovic, including even the awful, sluggish first set from Djokovic when he played as if he had just rolled out of bed or been watching a movie for 3 and a half hours and needed to loosen up from being stiff.

All of the key moments in the 3rd set came down to Djokovic having lapses and losing points because of lacking focus and being a bit too carefree/sluggish. This is obvious. He gave away the game at 3-2 this way, and then he lost the game at 4-4, 0-40 in that manner as well. Speaking of which....

At 0-40 in Kieran's favorite 4-4 game of all time, Nadal did make a very nice forehand down the line. At 15-40, however, Djokovic went Federer and hit too many rally shots to Nadal's BH side (after having immense success attacking his forehand throughout sets 2 and 3), ultimately losing the point with a forehand that hit the net after a 21-shot rally. At 30-40, Nadal hit quite possibly the luckiest first serve of his life, his first and only ace of the match up to that point. This would be the equivalent of Ivo Karlovic hitting a running backhand lob in the Wimbledon final against Federer in 2005.

At deuce, Djokovic missed a very straightforward backhand in the rally to lose the point. Nadal did absolutely NOTHING special offensively to win the point. NOTHING. Djokovic then won an awkward point at Ad-Nadal off a good forehand to get the match back to deuce. In the subsequent deuce point, Djokovic missed a completely straightforward forehand long. Nadal had put some weight on his last rally shot, but it was up the middle of the court and Djokovic had returned that type of shot from Nadal a million times before. It was a very poor miss from Djokovic and an outright mental lapse. At Ad-Nadal again, Nadal did get a good serve in and Djokovic's BH landed short, leading to Nadal getting an overhead. But by the time this last point occurred, it was obvious that the game had already gone to Nadal because Djokovic knew that he had blown his chances and was playing terribly on the big points. He had just squandered three of them with easy misses, after Nadal had done nothing special in the rallies. Djokovic lost those points; Nadal did not win them.

In review, there were only two points in that entire 10-point game at 4-4 in the 3rd set where Nadal won off of offense in the rallies and "taking it" - points #'s 4 and 10. Point #4 was Nadal playing a loose, nothing-to-lose, go-for-broke type of forehand at 0-40. But I will give him credit there. It was a great shot. Point #10 was just a formality point. That said, neither point had anything to do with how Nadal won that game. The meat of that game was Djokovic making poor errors on points #'s 5 (15-40), 7 (first deuce), and 9 (second deuce) - that is just what the facts bear out. All three points ended on a Djokovic unforced error off of a normal rally shot (especially on the last two). Mix that in with one of the luckiest aces in the history of Grand Slam tennis at 30-40 by Nadal, and you have the outcome of what happened in that game.

In conclusion, the US Open 2013 final loss to Nadal has to be the worst loss of Djokovic's career. He lost a GS final to a completely inferior hardcourt player who he was outplaying and bossing around the court. He had twice as many winners, including twice as many off of the forehand wing. He showed that at its best his forehand is clearly a better hardcourt shot than Nadal's forehand.

Just a terrible loss that overshadows Djokovic's excellent finish to the season. Probably has to be the worst loss of his career, at least in a GS final for sure.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,697
Reactions
14,873
Points
113
No, his poorest showing in a Slam final was v. Murray at Wimbledon this year. Almost no fight at all. He did fight for the USO title, but was out-maneuvered, and out-played. The better player on the day won in both cases.
 

rahulpawar

Club Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
73
Reactions
7
Points
8
I disagree with your assessment that Djokovic lost it and Nadal did not win it. Nadal was playing at a very high level throughout the match especially so at the big points. Even in the second set where Djokovic played his best tennis in the match, Djokovic had to win that 54 shot epic rally to break Nadal. It just shows how well Nadal was playing during the big points. In the third set also Nadal played really well during the big points, if you did watch the re run of the match then you would have noticed that when Nadal was 0-40 down in that game, Nadal had to earn the points to win that game. Djokovic did not give any free points to Nadal during that game.

Then it is not easy to play at a very high level during the entire course of a match and therefore Djokovic's level had to drop at some stage and unfortunately his confidence after losing that game also deteriorated heavily.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Nadal hit the "luckiest serve of his life, the equivalent of Ivo Karlovic hitting a lob winner" -- a quote uttered by the same guy who for years, talked about how underrated Nadal's serve is, how people don't give it enough credit and instead choose to falsely focus on his ground game.

Yup, nothing to see here.

By the way, what kind of self involved deluded fool do you have to be, and what kind of inflated ego do you have when instead of continuing to debate a point in the other thread, YOU CREATE AN ENTIRE THREAD to discuss it when in fact, the thread you created a few days ago essentially tackles the same topic, to an extent. Jesus.

PS: Nadal hitting an ace up the T is something that always happens in key points, and it really highlights the OP's bias. I can't begin to remember how many times Jason Goodall and Robbie Koenig lament players not covering that serve on key points, since Nadal always uses that change up instead of going out wide when break point down. So hardly the luckiest serve of his career.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Broken_Shoelace said:
Nadal hit the "luckiest serve of his life, the equivalent of Ivo Karlovic hitting a lob winner" -- a quote uttered by the same guy who for years, talked about how underrated Nadal's serve is, how people don't give it enough credit and instead choose to falsely focus on his ground game.

Yup, nothing to see here.

By the way, what kind of self involved deluded fool do you have to be, and what kind of inflated ego do you have when instead of continuing to debate a point in the other thread, YOU CREATE AN ENTIRE THREAD to discuss it when in fact, the thread you created a few days ago essentially tackles the same topic, to an extent. Jesus.

PS: Nadal hitting an ace up the T is something that always happens in key points, and it really highlights the OP's bias. I can't begin to remember how many times Jason Goodall and Robbie Koenig lament players not covering that serve on key points, since Nadal always uses that change up instead of going out wide when break point down. So hardly the luckiest serve of his career.

Yeah, thanks for considering context. Hadn't hit an ace the entire match and then hits one there. Please.

Either way, that wasn't the only point in that game. The deciding points were rallies that culminated in a Djokovic error without Nadal doing anything special to draw it.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,036
Reactions
7,325
Points
113
Oh brother! I can imagine how you'd describe things to anyone listening on the radio:

"Djokovic serves, an exquisite stroke to Nadal's backhand - Nadal grunts! Djokovic moves to the side and strikes an aesthetically supreme backhand - Nadal grunts. Novak steps in to drill a splendid forehand crosscourt, wrongfooting Nadal. Nadal trots across the court like a heavy donkey - hee-haw! Hee-HAW! - and reaches the ball with a grunt.

0-15."

Just for anyone who's wondering what the fuss is about, Cali neglected to provide any information, so here are the points in question: Nadal serving at 0-40.

0-40, a huge forehand.

15-40, a cagey rally where Rafa hits five backhand slices (4 in a row) to keep Nole back and Novak makes the error. Should have hit a winner, obviously, but it never occurred to him.

30-40: an ace!

Correction: "The luckiest first serve of his career."

Except, it wasn't. It was gritty and exact and unstoppable. And in those three points, we saw Nadal under pressure take control of the game, bravely and assertively.

Cali, this part you should memorise: "Winner statistics are not indicative of who is the better player."

More points are won in the mundane part of the game called "the rally" and the guy who wins these wins the match. Winners/errors are statistics within the match, but they don't tell the whole story. Quite telling that you mentioned Karlovic. Using your logic, we should all moan about those hideous losses he suffered when clearly he served more aces, etc.

calitennis127 said:
In conclusion, the US Open 2013 final loss to Nadal has to be the worst loss of Djokovic's career.


You missed Wimbledon this year? And last year? And 2008?

And I know you're ignoring all the times when the tough guy Nole pulled out "injured" in mid-match when he was losing. Once, when he heard the ice-cream van on the grounds and saw mommy reach into her handbag. Another time, he had a tiny speck of dust in his eye and had to retire, unfortunately. Once, he retired injured when his shoelace broke. None of these were among the worst, I'm sure... ;)
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
calitennis127 said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Nadal hit the "luckiest serve of his life, the equivalent of Ivo Karlovic hitting a lob winner" -- a quote uttered by the same guy who for years, talked about how underrated Nadal's serve is, how people don't give it enough credit and instead choose to falsely focus on his ground game.

Yup, nothing to see here.

By the way, what kind of self involved deluded fool do you have to be, and what kind of inflated ego do you have when instead of continuing to debate a point in the other thread, YOU CREATE AN ENTIRE THREAD to discuss it when in fact, the thread you created a few days ago essentially tackles the same topic, to an extent. Jesus.

PS: Nadal hitting an ace up the T is something that always happens in key points, and it really highlights the OP's bias. I can't begin to remember how many times Jason Goodall and Robbie Koenig lament players not covering that serve on key points, since Nadal always uses that change up instead of going out wide when break point down. So hardly the luckiest serve of his career.

Yeah, thanks for considering context. Hadn't hit an ace the entire match and then hits one there. Please.

Yeah, I'm sure that means luck, not mental fortitude. I mean, it's not like Nadal is known for clutch play or anything. Not at all. Luck. Pure luck. That's what he's known for.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,163
Reactions
5,848
Points
113
Cali, you do realized (I hope) that part of winning is hanging in there and waiting for, or forcing, your opponent to mess up. Both Rafa and Novak are two of the best ever at this approach and Rafa just did it better.

I think this is something you just fail to understand: that great tennis doesn't have to be attacking, just as karate and kung fu aren't inherently superior to aikido and jujitsu. Actually, I think what you have with Rafa and Novak are players who prefer an aikido or jujitsu approach to the game; they like to force their opponents to defeat themselves, or at least work them into a place where they can strike.

I continue to be amazed how your entire worldview around tennis is skewed just to protect your pet belief that David Nalbandian was a better player than he actually was. This is tantamount to saying, "I'm the greatest novelist in the world because my half-written magnum opus is written on such a high level with moments (that I find to be) of perfection, unlike anything those hacks Hemingway and Joyce and Rushdie spew out."
 

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
31,032
Reactions
10,045
Points
113
Age
55
Location
Tampa Bay
Does it really matter? In the end the scoreline was a victory for Nadal and a loss for Novak. I know it's the quiet before the tennis storm starts again, but good Lord find something more meaningful to discuss.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,036
Reactions
7,325
Points
113
In fairness, Kskate, though I disagree with Cali on what we both watched in that set, I think it's meaningful to discuss how matches are won and lost. It's a fair topic, but Cali has blinders on when it comes to Rafa...
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
All I could determine here was Nadal hit a nice forehand, an ace, Djokovic hit a lame shot into the net and Rafa's sister is tasty.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,036
Reactions
7,325
Points
113
Very tasty. Very, very tasty.

And so is Xisca. Very, very, very tasty! :heart:
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
Back to the topic though, it'll be interesting to see what improvements if any Becker can bring next year as Novak has said he's chosen him for his champion's mentality, something that has been sadly lacking in Novak's head for a few of his biggest matches this year at the slams.
 

Riotbeard

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,810
Reactions
12
Points
38
If only this debate were about just the third set of the USO, but it's not, because I tend to agree with Cali's specific points, but not his overall thesis, that nadal has never won a match, but just waited for a lot people to lose.

I think Novak more or less had the third set (not the whole match) on his racket, but he let rafa back in (which rafa makes very difficult to not do).
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,036
Reactions
7,325
Points
113
Actually, Rafa settled down in that set in the third game. He became more combative and made things harder for Novak. Stickability is a champions quality - I wish Cali would acknowledge this. It's actually what wins close matches, and close sets, and if you have more of it than your opponent on the day, you deserve the credit for the win. Especially when two of the sets weren't even close...
 

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
31,032
Reactions
10,045
Points
113
Age
55
Location
Tampa Bay
Kieran said:
In fairness, Kskate, though I disagree with Cali on what we both watched in that set, I think it's meaningful to discuss how matches are won and lost. It's a fair topic, but Cali has blinders on when it comes to Rafa...

Kieran,
It's meaningful to discuss during or right after the match, not 3 months later because someone can't find anything else to nitpick.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,697
Reactions
14,873
Points
113
kskate2 said:
Kieran said:
In fairness, Kskate, though I disagree with Cali on what we both watched in that set, I think it's meaningful to discuss how matches are won and lost. It's a fair topic, but Cali has blinders on when it comes to Rafa...

Kieran,
It's meaningful to discuss during or right after the match, not 3 months later because someone can't find anything else to nitpick.

In fairness, important matches can get combed over and over. Personally, I don't have a problem with the revisit, if folks are still willing to discuss. The FO semi has clearly got legs, as well. ;)
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Broken_Shoelace said:
Nadal hit the "luckiest serve of his life, the equivalent of Ivo Karlovic hitting a lob winner" -- a quote uttered by the same guy who for years, talked about how underrated Nadal's serve is, how people don't give it enough credit and instead choose to falsely focus on his ground game.

Silly and/or dishonest.

I have given credit to Nadal's serve game based on a) incredibly high first-serve percentage and b) double faults. I have never given him credit for serving like Sampras, and for one important point in that match, he did. That's why I say it was lucky BS.

That doesn't mean he is a "lucky" player in general, but it does mean that that particular point was lucky.

Take Nadal out of this for a second - if any other player was on court for over 2.5 hours with well over 150 total points played and he had not hit a single ace, but then at the end of the 3rd set pulled one out of the hat, would you really have a problem with it being characterized as a bit lucky?

That's what I thought.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Kieran said:
Actually, Rafa settled down in that set in the third game. He became more combative and made things harder for Novak. Stickability is a champions quality - I wish Cali would acknowledge this. It's actually what wins close matches, and close sets, and if you have more of it than your opponent on the day, you deserve the credit for the win. Especially when two of the sets weren't even close...

The first set wasn't close on the scoreboard, but Novak let Nadal off the hook early in the first set when he missed some chances to break. It was closer than the score indicated. And even with that set going 6-2 to Nadal, Djokovic still was leading in winners 34 to 16 at the end of the 3rd set, with over twice as many forehand winners.

As for the 3rd set: if anyone but Nadal was down 2-0 and facing a breakpoint to go down double break, was then down 3-1 with his opponent having twice as many winners as him and dominating the rallies, and then was down 0-40 at 4-4 before sneaking out the set, would you have a problem with someone saying that the opponent of this player lost the set more than that player won it?
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Riotbeard said:
If only this debate were about just the third set of the USO, but it's not, because I tend to agree with Cali's specific points, but not his overall thesis, that nadal has never won a match, but just waited for a lot people to lose.

Against Federer and Djokovic and Del Potro (and Murray at times) I think this. But I do acknowledge Nadal's offensive prowess against pretty much everyone else, without making the absurd hyperbolic statements about how his forehand is other-worldly like everyone routinely does.