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

[calitennis127]

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.

I had just watched the re-run on Tennis Channel. This was a match from 3 months ago, not 30 years ago.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Actually, it's the time of year for reviews and previews...

 

[Kieran]

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.

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Here's Rafa chucking one down the T - as he does - in a tourney where he only lost serve FOUR times, and it's a lucky ace. I'd love to know the speed gun on that one. It seemed a bit butch and pacey...

 

[Kieran]

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.

Buddy, number of winners isn't an indication of much, other than being a tasty statistic. How many points were won by both players by the end of the third set - then locate the winners-stat in there. See how the match is really breaking down.

By the way, you love quoting the winners statistics: in the 3rd set, Novak was better in that stat by 17-5.

And the so-called "unforced errors?" He was 6-17. So rafa made only 6 UFE's in a set that you say he was lucky to win?

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?

It was a close set, and Rafa snuck it, no doubt about it, but he won it by breaking down his opponent. Look at the final game of the set. It's virtually a snapshot of the whole set: Nole bashed out two forehand winners - balanced neatly by two UFE's - just like the story of the set. What happened in the other two points?

Well, they rallied. By your hypothesis, winners are a more valid sign of who's playing better than rallies, but in that set, actually it was Rafa being superior in the rally that won it for him. I particularly love the forehand that wins it. Rafa is combative and strong in this point, a great return and beautiful sequence of backhands - until Nole gives him a fairly deep shot onto the forehand and Rafa thumps it so hard and deep that Nole almost cracks in two.

A gift of this point is Rafa's immortal reaction, the Fist Pump of All Fist Pumps, which may yet become my avatar:

 

[huntingyou]

If we want to talk luck, what about second set 4-4 on Nadal's serve with game point:

- Rafa hits a great body serve that jams Novak, somehow he frames the return "successfully", clip the net and then clip the outside line on the ad court.

If it wasn't for "luck"; Rafa would have a 5-4 advantage with ALL the momentum to probably take the set.

BTW, Kieran last post was dead on. Winners don't tell the whole story, especially when it comes to Rafa since his heavy topspin give players a micro-second to put the frame on the ball. On set point in the third set, for all purpose and technicalities that DTL forehand by Rafa was a WINNER. The stat sheet says otherwise though...it might even say (GULP) UFE

 

[Kieran]

Painstakingly, I've done some of the stat-work on this third set, since I wasn't brainy enough to find them elsewhere. I found some - but not total points won, which I've clumsily itemised below.

The end total of points won was ND 32:34 RN.

Here's how it broke down, with number of points won in each game:

ND 4 5 4 4 1 3 1 4 4 2 32
RN 0 3 6 1 4 5 4 1 6 4 34

The winners/ UFE breakdown is this:

ND 17/17
RN 5/6

So of the 32 points Nole won, he got 6 freebies and 17 winners: 23 of them. The rest were in the grind.

And of his 34 points, Rafa won 5 from winners and 17 from UFE's.

Now, somehow, this transforms in Cali's mind to evidence that Nole was the better player and he threw it away. Why? Because Rafa benefitted charitably from Novak's UFE's, while Nole dominated with his winners. Let's scan this differently.

Rafa gave little away - 6 UFE's! - and Novak was driven to despairing swipes for winners, which he missed. Evidence: the last game of the set. Personally, I'm not a huge subscriber to the concept of UFE's - I think a lot of them are caused by players aiming too hard and high due to pressure. And as HuntingYou points out above, the forehand Rafa hit on the final point of the set was a killer but is probably included in Novak's UFE's, which makes how they measure a "winner" to be dubious too.

But any way you scan these stats, Rafa won more points than Novak, and actually only looks like he was outplayed because he was still stung in the first game and got brutally swept aside. After this game, it was a fair fight, with Rafa statistically the stronger...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

And you'd think wrong (as you often are). How can that have been a lucky ace? He aimed for the line, fired it hard up the T, and what do you know, it hit the line. It's not like he wanted to hit it out wide and it accidentally went the other way. The fact that he didn't hit any other ace means he wasn't serving as well as he could and Novak had a good read on his serve. Newsflash, it's actually NOT the norm for an ATP player (including Nadal) to hit only 1 ace in a long 4 set match. Also, your "had any other player" hypothetical is so stupid it's not even funny, since this ISN'T any other player...it's a player who's known for being arguably the most clutch tennis player in history. Him hitting an ace on break point is not an accident. Here's a fun test for you, watch how many of Nadal's aces come at break points... You'd be shocked at the number. You think that's an accident? Get out of here dude...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Here's Rafa chucking one down the T - as he does - in a tourney where he only lost serve FOUR times, and it's a lucky ace. I'd love to know the speed gun on that one. It seemed a bit butch and pacey...

This post is awesome.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Nor did I describe Nadal's forehand at 0-40 down in the 4-4 game of the third set as lucky. I complimented it as a great shot. No one is making anything of that or noticing it at all.

Nor did I reduce Nadal's year to the 30-40 ace. Nor did I even reduce that game to that shot. I only said that one point in that game was lucky, and everyone is getting so hung up on the word "lucky".

Also, the major difference between Djokovic's forehand WINNER off the ground (often a foreign notion to Nadal when he plays the other members of the Big 4, and Delpo, in the biggest matches) at the end of the 2011 USO semi and Nadal's ace in the 2013 USO final is that Djokovic, to that point, had hit an array of scintillating forehand winners over the course of a 5-set match. The shotmaking between him and Federer was at an outstanding/sublime level throughout. On the match points down, Djokovic didn't all of a sudden do something he hadn't done all match - which is what Nadal did at 30-40, 4-4 in the 3rd set of the 2011 US Open final.

That is why Djokovic's shot was more so just going for it, and Nadal's once-in-a-blue moon ace was more or less a BS shot on that occasion.

Here's Rafa chucking one down the T - as he does - in a tourney where he only lost serve FOUR times, and it's a lucky ace.

Okay, so as far broader context goes, which is more significant - the fact that Nadal did not lose serve much to Tommy Robredo and Ivan Dodig and 140-pound power hitter Richard Gasquet, or that Djokovic was repeatedly in his service games for over two hours, had broken him multiple times, and Nadal had not hit an ace in a little under 3 hours of play?

Care to tell me which was more significant when Nadal hit his ace?

Yeah, I thought so.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Here's Rafa chucking one down the T - as he does - in a tourney where he only lost serve FOUR times, and it's a lucky ace. I'd love to know the speed gun on that one. It seemed a bit butch and pacey...

This post is awesome.

Yeah, and I just awesomely tore it to pieces.

You're welcome.

 

[calitennis127]

If we want to talk luck, what about second set 4-4 on Nadal's serve with game point:

- Rafa hits a great body serve that jams Novak, somehow he frames the return "successfully", clip the net and then clip the outside line on the ad court.

If it wasn't for "luck"; Rafa would have a 5-4 advantage with ALL the momentum to probably take the set.

BTW, Kieran last post was dead on. Winners don't tell the whole story, especially when it comes to Rafa since his heavy topspin give players a micro-second to put the frame on the ball. On set point in the third set, for all purpose and technicalities that DTL forehand by Rafa was a WINNER. The stat sheet says otherwise though...it might even say (GULP) UFE

Why is everyone so hyper-sensitive about the word "luck", which I associated with merely one point in a 10-point game in the 3rd set?

Get over it.

My point was not so much that Nadal was "lucky" in general as that Djokovic did not close out a set that should have been his. Djokovic is the better, more talented hardcourt player and he did not put his foot down in that set as he should/could have after being a mere one point away from a double break.

That's all I am saying and I think that all rational people should be able to agree on something that obvious.

Kieran would have no problem with someone saying that Nadal was within a whisker of winning the 2007 Wimbledon final, and that Nadal missed by ever-so-slim margins at the start of the 5th set when he did not convert on his four break points (two in two separate games) - and that was a set Nadal lost 6-2. I am sure Kieran would nod at anyone who suggested that the Wimbledon 2007 5th set was a set Nadal could have very well taken - and, again, he lost it 6-2.

But when I say that when Novak Djokovic, a superior hardcourt player to Nadal, gave away a set that he led 2-0 and was one point away from a double break in, a set that he led 0-40 on Nadal's serve at 4-4 - when I say Djokovic gave this set away I am committing blasphemy?

Yes, whatever.

 

[rahulpawar]

You are in no way committing blasphemy but the problem is that you are not giving the due credit which nadal deserves for winning that 3rd set.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Here's Rafa chucking one down the T - as he does - in a tourney where he only lost serve FOUR times, and it's a lucky ace. I'd love to know the speed gun on that one. It seemed a bit butch and pacey...

This post is awesome.

Yeah, and I just awesomely tore it to pieces.

You're welcome.

The same way you tore my post to pieces with your stupid "had it been any other player" hypothetical...

 

[brokenshoelace]

If we want to talk luck, what about second set 4-4 on Nadal's serve with game point:

- Rafa hits a great body serve that jams Novak, somehow he frames the return "successfully", clip the net and then clip the outside line on the ad court.

If it wasn't for "luck"; Rafa would have a 5-4 advantage with ALL the momentum to probably take the set.

BTW, Kieran last post was dead on. Winners don't tell the whole story, especially when it comes to Rafa since his heavy topspin give players a micro-second to put the frame on the ball. On set point in the third set, for all purpose and technicalities that DTL forehand by Rafa was a WINNER. The stat sheet says otherwise though...it might even say (GULP) UFE

Why is everyone so hyper-sensitive about the word "luck", which I associated with merely one point in a 10-point game in the 3rd set?

Because it is stupid, even by your standards, to associate the word luck with an ace, which by definition, is a shot the opponent has very little to do with (if he doesn't read it right). It's a shot that is completely on your racket. The serve is the shot you have control over the most, so by definition, it can't be lucky.

We're hung up over it because nobody takes you seriously when you're so biased. We're hung up over it because you seem to think Novak's loss to a guy who was playing the best hard court tennis out of anyone that year up until that point, a guy who had beaten him twice in a row, including once a month earlier on the same surface, and very much the best player in the world at that moment, was the "worst of his career."

Yeah sure... Worse than losing to Kohlschreiber at the FO in 2009. Buddy, it wasn't even his worse loss THIS YEAR.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If we want to talk luck, what about second set 4-4 on Nadal's serve with game point:

- Rafa hits a great body serve that jams Novak, somehow he frames the return "successfully", clip the net and then clip the outside line on the ad court.

If it wasn't for "luck"; Rafa would have a 5-4 advantage with ALL the momentum to probably take the set.

BTW, Kieran last post was dead on. Winners don't tell the whole story, especially when it comes to Rafa since his heavy topspin give players a micro-second to put the frame on the ball. On set point in the third set, for all purpose and technicalities that DTL forehand by Rafa was a WINNER. The stat sheet says otherwise though...it might even say (GULP) UFE

Why is everyone so hyper-sensitive about the word "luck", which I associated with merely one point in a 10-point game in the 3rd set?

Get over it.

My point was not so much that Nadal was "lucky" in general as that Djokovic did not close out a set that should have been his. Djokovic is the better, more talented hardcourt player and he did not put his foot down in that set as he should/could have after being a mere one point away from a double break.

That's all I am saying and I think that all rational people should be able to agree on something that obvious.

Kieran would have no problem with someone saying that Nadal was within a whisker of winning the 2007 Wimbledon final, and that Nadal missed by ever-so-slim margins at the start of the 5th set when he did not convert on his four break points (two in two separate games) - and that was a set Nadal lost 6-2. I am sure Kieran would nod at anyone who suggested that the Wimbledon 2007 5th set was a set Nadal could have very well taken - and, again, he lost it 6-2.

But when I say that when Novak Djokovic, a superior hardcourt player to Nadal, gave away a set that he led 2-0 and was one point away from a double break in, a set that he led 0-40 on Nadal's serve at 4-4 - when I say Djokovic gave this set away I am committing blasphemy?

Yes, whatever.

Nadal was never "within a whisker" to win the 2007 Wimbledon final.

 

[Kieran]

I like the way Cali tells you what Kieran would have said. It would save me actually saying it - if that was what I would have actually said. Fact is, if there was a moment in the 2007 Wimbledon final where I look back and wonder, it's not the fifth set, but the fourth, where Rafa was 4-0 up and Roger was shrieking like a squashed cat - then the MTO happened.

No guarantee exists that Rafa would have gone on to win, however, since I think he was a year away from being ready and maybe needed that loss to firm him up for 2008. But I still harbour a fantasy "what-if" about that disastrously timed MTO which helped Roger regroup.

But...he would have regrouped anyway, regardless of the 4th set score. He took a toilet break after the 3rd set in 2006 and came back stronger. The chap isn't exactly a pushover. As for the break-points, Rafa played them nervously and Roger showed his greater experience and calmness. It's "the calm" that wins slams, yaknowhatimean?

 

[Kieran]

Cali, I remember you making a fuss when I described Novak's forehand winner on match point down to Federer in 2011 as a "Hail Mary forehand", you said that I'd reduced his whole year of stunning improvements to a wild shot from a desperate corner. And you didn't describe that blinding forehand as lucky.

Nor did I describe Nadal's forehand at 0-40 down in the 4-4 game of the third set as lucky. I complimented it as a great shot. No one is making anything of that or noticing it at all.

Nor did I reduce Nadal's year to the 30-40 ace. Nor did I even reduce that game to that shot. I only said that one point in that game was lucky, and everyone is getting so hung up on the word "lucky".

Also, the major difference between Djokovic's forehand WINNER off the ground (often a foreign notion to Nadal when he plays the other members of the Big 4, and Delpo, in the biggest matches) at the end of the 2011 USO semi and Nadal's ace in the 2013 USO final is that Djokovic, to that point, had hit an array of scintillating forehand winners over the course of a 5-set match. The shotmaking between him and Federer was at an outstanding/sublime level throughout. On the match points down, Djokovic didn't all of a sudden do something he hadn't done all match - which is what Nadal did at 30-40, 4-4 in the 3rd set of the 2011 US Open final.

That is why Djokovic's shot was more so just going for it, and Nadal's once-in-a-blue moon ace was more or less a BS shot on that occasion.

Here I am, tore to pieces, like Rafa against Nole, but still struggling on. :snigger

First things first, you're not paying attention: I never reduced Novak's year to a wild swing of the stick on match-point down. You said I did, but I didn't. Nor did I say the "Hail Mary Forehand" was lucky - he was playing at such a level of confidence and skill all year in 2011 that it was a calculated low-percentage shot that he felt he had every right to pull off.

But let's look at the serve. One ace. The whole match.

And it was "once in a blue moon" lucky shot.

Okay, let's roll it back: Novak had one season where he's Iron Man and so we accept - and expect - he'll bash out the miracle forehand on match point down - but we won't call it lucky.

Rafa is Iron Man and he chucks in an ace at 30-40, but it's called a fluke. Isn't this a bit weird? And inconsistent? I mean, if you told somebody that Rafa served only one ace, they'd most likely laugh and say, "I bet it was on a huge point!" Of course it was: Iron Man threw thunder at the problem and it went away. Sampras would have served exactly the same. Other than this, Rafa served better than Nole throughout the match, evidenced by how few times he was broken - and how often Novak was. Novak lost his serve 7 times in that match - that's 3 times more than Rafa dropped in the whole tourney.

You're fixated on winners, Cali, but it's like looking at the trees, you know? And not seeing the forest.

You get me yet?

Why is everyone so hyper-sensitive about the word "luck", which I associated with merely one point in a 10-point game in the 3rd set?

Because you brought it up in the thread and it's right to discuss it? Because you forgot to mention luck when Novak sneaked a point out of Rafa falling over in the same game?

Because it wasn't luck but trousers that won that point with the ace?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Because you forgot to mention luck when Novak sneaked a point out of Rafa falling over in the same game?

I actually completely forgot about that. Great observation. Nadal fired a huge forehand up the line which Novak somehow retrieved, and as he was getting into position to fire the next (in complete control of the rally), he stumbled. But of course, one unforced error by Novak and a "lucky ace" by Nadal are more vital points.