The Mystery And The Magic of Rafael Nadal

[calitennis127]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

It's not difficult to comprehend. But what is difficult to comprehend is why this is one of the very, very few times you have brought up stamina in connection with Nadal as a significant factor (which it absolutely is; it is one of the handful of traits that separates him).

Also, you conveniently ignored my first question, which was "But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?"

Nadal has repeatedly won these types of matches in which he did not look like or prove himself to be the more talented tennis player. He won because of persistence, constancy, consistency, stability, and stamina.

It is astonishing how inflated Nadal's track record of winning is because of those qualities. I don't think anyone could possibly win more matches in which he looked and felt like the inferior player.

In that sense, Nadal is the ultimate anti-Type A Personality player. No one can eclipse him in that department.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Nadal's stamina has failed him in the 2nd half of nearly every year of his career. For example, 2008, Nadal simply fell apart physically, in his physical prime.....could not play the World Tour Finals. 2010, best hardcourt form of Nadal's career (at least until 2013), Nadal did everything right in order to have enough legs left to finish the year on a high (he did not go deep into Canada/Cincy Masters, and played no marathons at the US Open)....yet you can see Nadal's movement/energy drop substantially in the 3rd set of the final of the World Tour Finals vs Federer. Nadal went from 2010 Nadal, to 2011 Nadal. In 2011, Nadal looked half a step slower all year. Whereas fast-forward to 2013, after a 7 month break and a couple of months of rusty (relatively) play, Nadal is moving like its 2010 (after shaking off the recovery pains).

Nadal's stamina (stretched across the year) is not on the level of Federer. Federer, post-age 30, won 26 matches in row from September2011-January2012 (and that included cashing in on an extremely weak Nadal at the World Tour Finals, again). Federer's greatest strength is year-long stamina. Nadal's greatest strength is mental toughness.

 

[Moxie]

I would add this, as a counter-balance. Cali has expressed frustration that Djokovic didn't take out Nadal in the FO SF this year. But Novak was doing to Rafa what Rafa was doing to Fed in that Cincy match: he was playing tough in the big moments, though not playing the over-all better match. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't wish for Novak to have been more opportunistic than he already was, and yet complain that Nadal beat Federer by playing the bigger points better.

No, that is not what I think.

There is a huge difference between the two matches you are discussing. In the French Open semifinal, Djokovic played well below his potential for large portions of the match and he let Nadal get way too far in front. He also - as he has been doing too much lately against Nadal - went into musclehead mode at key moments, convinced that if he made the rallies 30 shots or longer he would win.

In the Cincinnati quarterfinal, on the other hand, Federer was simply playing at a level that Nadal cannot, and as he so often does against Nadal, he let the match slip away.

There is also a very significant similarity between the two matches: they both fall into a pattern of Nadal winning matches in which his opponent showed himself capable of a much higher level than him. This accounts for Nadal's absurd and almost artificially inflated H2H against all top players.

Well, of course that's not "what you think." That's because you "think" that in all cases, Nadal is inferior to most *real* tennis players. It's a shame that you're incapable of watching any of his matches with any objectivity. Djokovic "played below his potential," according to you, above. He's also the guy who has never won the French Open, vs. the guy who's won it 8 times. Yet, not one chance that Nadal was the better player for most of that match?

No...I thought not.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

In the Cincinnati quarterfinal, on the other hand, Federer was simply playing at a level that Nadal cannot, and as he so often does against Nadal, he let the match slip away.

There is also a very significant similarity between the two matches: they both fall into a pattern of Nadal winning matches in which his opponent showed himself capable of a much higher level than him. This accounts for Nadal's absurd and almost artificially inflated H2H against all top players.

Its interesting how the only set Federer won at Cincy was 7-5. That was Federer "playing at a level that Nadal cannot", right? Awfully close score. And the other 2 sets, Nadal won (6-4 6-3). How long was Federer playing at the superior level for? And how much superior was it?

 

[brokenshoelace]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

It's not difficult to comprehend. But what is difficult to comprehend is why this is one of the very, very few times you have brought up stamina in connection with Nadal as a significant factor (which it absolutely is; it is one of the handful of traits that separates him).

Also, you conveniently ignored my first question, which was "But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?"

Nadal has repeatedly won these types of matches in which he did not look like or prove himself to be the more talented tennis player. He won because of persistence, constancy, consistency, stability, and stamina.

It is astonishing how inflated Nadal's track record of winning is because of those qualities. I don't think anyone could possibly win more matches in which he looked and felt like the inferior player.

In that sense, Nadal is the ultimate anti-Type A Personality player. No one can eclipse him in that department.

Nadal did not look like an inferior player against Federer in Cinci. They were evenly matched throughout, and played more or less at the same level. We both know the difference Federer's serve was making in the first set too, which according to you, is not an indicator of talent. You can't have it both ways.

In fact, yes, Nadal has won matches where he was outplayed throughout his career. Many of them too. None this summer though, sorry. The only time he was getting outplayed was the second half of the second set against Djokovic, and the first half of the third. You can say Djokovic was below his level in the other portions of the match, but that would mean that he was outplayed himself, since you know, his opponent was playing better.

 

[calitennis127]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

It's not difficult to comprehend. But what is difficult to comprehend is why this is one of the very, very few times you have brought up stamina in connection with Nadal as a significant factor (which it absolutely is; it is one of the handful of traits that separates him).

Also, you conveniently ignored my first question, which was "But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?"

Nadal has repeatedly won these types of matches in which he did not look like or prove himself to be the more talented tennis player. He won because of persistence, constancy, consistency, stability, and stamina.

It is astonishing how inflated Nadal's track record of winning is because of those qualities. I don't think anyone could possibly win more matches in which he looked and felt like the inferior player.

In that sense, Nadal is the ultimate anti-Type A Personality player. No one can eclipse him in that department.

Nadal did not look like an inferior player against Federer in Cinci. They were evenly matched throughout, and played more or less at the same level. We both know the difference Federer's serve was making in the first set too, which according to you, is not an indicator of talent. You can't have it both ways.

In fact, yes, Nadal has won matches where he was outplayed throughout his career. Many of them too. None this summer though, sorry. The only time he was getting outplayed was the second half of the second set against Djokovic, and the first half of the third. You can say Djokovic was below his level in the other portions of the match, but that would mean that he was outplayed himself, since you know, his opponent was playing better.

No mention of Kohlschreiber or Janowicz?

But, more to the point, why has Nadal repeatedly won these types of matches theoughout his career? If you think about it, a great number of his clay wins over Federer were of this kind.

Please answer the question.

And you are right that the Cincinnati match was more or less evenly played and that Federer's serve helped. But Federer won the first set and had control. Why does Nadal repeatedly win these kinds of matches, over and over again? Both of his wins over Gulbis this year, among many others, fall into that category.3

 

[Kieran]

No mention of Kohlschreiber or Janowicz?

But, more to the point, why has Nadal repeatedly won these types of matches theoughout his career? If you think about it, a great number of his clay wins over Federer were of this kind.

Please answer the question.

And you are right that the Cincinnati match was more or less evenly played and that Federer's serve helped. But Federer won the first set and had control. Why does Nadal repeatedly win these kinds of matches, over and over again? Both of his wins over Gulbis this year, among many others, fall into that category.3

Hey Cali,

I remember Borg used struggle early in tournaments against the likes of Victor Amaya and Vijay Amritraj. Nobody was suckered into actually believing these guys were better than Borg - they just realised that he wasn't going at full speed early doors and might be vulnerable to these kind of dogfights. Pete too. Great players pace themselves, do just what's needed, and move on.

Had Rafa faced either JJ or Kohlschreiber ina slam final, it would obviously be a different match and a much easier victory for Nadal...

 

[Front242]

cali, Toni Nadal even admitted what you're talking about in the thread Moxie translated entitled "Rafa Is Probably the Player with the Most Match Wins Playing Poorly". It is what it is. Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=859

 

[huntingyou]

cali, Toni Nadal even admitted what you're talking about in the thread Moxie translated entitled "Rafa Is Probably the Player with the Most Match Wins Playing Poorly". It is what it is. Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=859

you are wrong and trying to compare what tio said and cali it's a difficult job.

tio has lofty expectations and standards for Rafa, nobody it's harder on him that tio....it was boderline "abusive".

funny thing is, I play tennis for fun and I swear I have to keep the ball going over the net or I lose. I wonder how a guy who get his a** handed to him so often still manages to keep the yellow ball going over the net one more time than his abuser?

 

[brokenshoelace]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

It's not difficult to comprehend. But what is difficult to comprehend is why this is one of the very, very few times you have brought up stamina in connection with Nadal as a significant factor (which it absolutely is; it is one of the handful of traits that separates him).

Also, you conveniently ignored my first question, which was "But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?"

Nadal has repeatedly won these types of matches in which he did not look like or prove himself to be the more talented tennis player. He won because of persistence, constancy, consistency, stability, and stamina.

It is astonishing how inflated Nadal's track record of winning is because of those qualities. I don't think anyone could possibly win more matches in which he looked and felt like the inferior player.

In that sense, Nadal is the ultimate anti-Type A Personality player. No one can eclipse him in that department.

Nadal did not look like an inferior player against Federer in Cinci. They were evenly matched throughout, and played more or less at the same level. We both know the difference Federer's serve was making in the first set too, which according to you, is not an indicator of talent. You can't have it both ways.

In fact, yes, Nadal has won matches where he was outplayed throughout his career. Many of them too. None this summer though, sorry. The only time he was getting outplayed was the second half of the second set against Djokovic, and the first half of the third. You can say Djokovic was below his level in the other portions of the match, but that would mean that he was outplayed himself, since you know, his opponent was playing better.

No mention of Kohlschreiber or Janowicz?

But, more to the point, why has Nadal repeatedly won these types of matches theoughout his career? If you think about it, a great number of his clay wins over Federer were of this kind.

Please answer the question.

And you are right that the Cincinnati match was more or less evenly played and that Federer's serve helped. But Federer won the first set and had control. Why does Nadal repeatedly win these kinds of matches, over and over again? Both of his wins over Gulbis this year, among many others, fall into that category.3

The answer to that question is obvious. Mental toughness and physical fitness plays a large part. Nobody, not even the most ardent Nadal fan, ever denied that. You speak as if it's some revolutionary discovery that Nadal is a one of a kind competitor from a mental and physical perspective. The problem is, despite whatever you claim, he wins the large majority of his matches due to playing better tennis than his opponent. Otherwise he wouldn't be where he is right now. In matches where his opponent is able to match him from a tennis perspective (say some matches against Murray like their WTF semi, or many of the wins over Djokovic), that bit of mental edge and the ability to play well in key moments, or defend extremely well under pressure, make that bit of a difference between winning or losing. I never debated that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

 

[shawnbm]

How many events does Rafael Nadal have to win (oh, I guess I should include majors in that) in order for some on these boards to recognize the following: (1) he is a great shotmaker; (2) he is mentally strong in the big moments; (3) he is a player of immense talent; and (4)--the catch-all--he just happens to be one of the best to ever swing a racquet at a ball regardless of era or surface?

 

[Front242]

Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

Petzschner: Wimbledon 2010 (though that win had more to do with MTO abuse than capitalizing on any weak patches from his opponent, but I'll still list it here as he was getting his ass handed to him but won, even if rather dubiously)

Haase: Wimbledon 2010

Andrey Golubev: US Open 2011. Golubev was ahead in every set at times but couldn't maintain the lead, though a lot had to do with him going for too much all match. But still, for most of the match he was completely dictating play.

Gulbis: Rome 2013. Nadal won 1-6, 7-5, 6-4. Gulbis is a name that has quite a few mentions.

Gulbis: Indian Wells 2013.

 

[kskate2]

He's a tremendous competitor. I have not seen anyone like him in all the years I've been watching tennis. What no one has mentioned so far is a large factor in why Nadal wins alot of matches when he's not necessarily playing his best: his low error count. He's not usually donating alot of points and in a close encounter like the RG SF and matches w/ Gulbis this year he plays a higher % in the critical junctures of the match and isn't likely to commit an error, meaning you have to beat him as he's not going to give it away. Gulbis, Brands and to some extent Novak will be more inclined to commit an error because they will go for it on a critical point.

Front,
It may be easier for the guys you mention to outplay Nadal for a period of time because of their serve or ground power, but being able to redline their game for the whole of a match is quite difficult or they would be top 10 already. Let's keep some perspective here. We all know that's what separates the big boys from the wannabees.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

Petzschner: Wimbledon 2010 (though that win had more to do with MTO abuse than capitalizing on any weak patches from his opponent, but I'll still list it here as he was getting his ass handed to him but won, even if rather dubiously)

Haase: Wimbledon 2010

Andrey Golubev: US Open 2011. Golubev was ahead in every set at times but couldn't maintain the lead, though a lot had to do with him going for too much all match. But still, for most of the match he was completely dictating play.

Gulbis: Rome 2013. Nadal won 1-6, 7-5, 6-4. Gulbis is a name that has quite a few mentions.

Gulbis: Indian Wells 2013.

The Petschner/Haase thing is one of those things people kept repeating enough times till they actually believed them. They were tight, competitive matches. Nadal was in danger. But he was in no way getting his ass handed to him. He just was really struggling to find a way to break their serve. I wish Youtube didn't remove Wimbledon videos.

You can't possibly a win a match in straight sets and have your ass handed to you. This defies logic.

Gulbis in Rome this year, I'll give you that.

Gulbis in Indian Wells this year, no. Sorry. Nadal was getting outplayed early, stuck around, and raised it level when it mattered. Whole different story than the 6-1 ass kicking he received from Gulbis in the first set of their Rome encounters.

By the way, winning matches when you're getting outplayed is something all players do. Djokovic did that a ton, as did Roger, even in his heyday, when he was getting outplayed by Davydenko and Nalbandian but won due to serving and defense. Nadal does it more than most, sure, but it's hardly exclusive.

Again, when you get your ass handed to you, you lose. Simple logic dictates that.

 

[Front242]

Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

Petzschner: Wimbledon 2010 (though that win had more to do with MTO abuse than capitalizing on any weak patches from his opponent, but I'll still list it here as he was getting his ass handed to him but won, even if rather dubiously)

Haase: Wimbledon 2010

Andrey Golubev: US Open 2011. Golubev was ahead in every set at times but couldn't maintain the lead, though a lot had to do with him going for too much all match. But still, for most of the match he was completely dictating play.

Gulbis: Rome 2013. Nadal won 1-6, 7-5, 6-4. Gulbis is a name that has quite a few mentions.

Gulbis: Indian Wells 2013.

The Petschner/Haase thing is one of those things people kept repeating enough times till they actually believed them. They were tight, competitive matches. Nadal was in danger. But he was in no way getting his ass handed to him. He just was really struggling to find a way to break their serve. I wish Youtube didn't remove Wimbledon videos.

You can't possibly a win a match in straight sets and have your ass handed to you. This defies logic.

Gulbis in Rome this year, I'll give you that.

Gulbis in Indian Wells this year, no. Sorry. Nadal was getting outplayed early, stuck around, and raised it level when it mattered. Whole different story than the 6-1 ass kicking he received from Gulbis in the first set of their Rome encounters.

By the way, winning matches when you're getting outplayed is something all players do. Djokovic did that a ton, as did Roger, even in his heyday, when he was getting outplayed by Davydenko and Nalbandian but won due to serving and defense. Nadal does it more than most, sure, but it's hardly exclusive.

Again, when you get your ass handed to you, you lose. Simple logic dictates that.

I kinda disagree that when you get your ass handed to you, you lose to a degree. Take the Madrid 2012 final. Fed was being outplayed by Berdych for much of that match with tons of 0-30 service games that he managed to hold and only scraped the win by the skin of his teeth with a couple of timely break points. But for a huge portion of the match he was being thoroughly outplayed.

Re Golubev, losing in straights, he was ahead in each set and had he not played like a mad aggressive nutjob on every point and managed to hold after each break that scoreline could've been ugly, with him winning in straights. Nadal himself said immediately afterwards he felt very lucky to win.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal was being typically humble.

But I agree with my old mucker Front (who is very happy that Dublin won the All-Ireland) to an extent, though not necessarily his description of those matches. A player can be handed his ass for most of a match - then turn it around...

 

[Front242]

Nadal was being typically humble.

But I agree with my old mucker Front (who is very happy that Dublin won the All-Ireland) to an extent, though not necessarily his description of those matches. A player can be handed his ass for most of a match - then turn it around...

Never watched a GAA match in my life But you can definitely be outplayed for most of a match and just wait/hope for a lull and capitalize and break the poor git at the other side of the net, so all you're left with is a quivering bowl of jelly. I can think of many examples.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Credit to him for capitalizing on the first sign of weakness even if he's getting his a** handed to him.

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

Petzschner: Wimbledon 2010 (though that win had more to do with MTO abuse than capitalizing on any weak patches from his opponent, but I'll still list it here as he was getting his ass handed to him but won, even if rather dubiously)

Haase: Wimbledon 2010

Andrey Golubev: US Open 2011. Golubev was ahead in every set at times but couldn't maintain the lead, though a lot had to do with him going for too much all match. But still, for most of the match he was completely dictating play.

Gulbis: Rome 2013. Nadal won 1-6, 7-5, 6-4. Gulbis is a name that has quite a few mentions.

Gulbis: Indian Wells 2013.

The Petschner/Haase thing is one of those things people kept repeating enough times till they actually believed them. They were tight, competitive matches. Nadal was in danger. But he was in no way getting his ass handed to him. He just was really struggling to find a way to break their serve. I wish Youtube didn't remove Wimbledon videos.

You can't possibly a win a match in straight sets and have your ass handed to you. This defies logic.

Gulbis in Rome this year, I'll give you that.

Gulbis in Indian Wells this year, no. Sorry. Nadal was getting outplayed early, stuck around, and raised it level when it mattered. Whole different story than the 6-1 ass kicking he received from Gulbis in the first set of their Rome encounters.

By the way, winning matches when you're getting outplayed is something all players do. Djokovic did that a ton, as did Roger, even in his heyday, when he was getting outplayed by Davydenko and Nalbandian but won due to serving and defense. Nadal does it more than most, sure, but it's hardly exclusive.

Again, when you get your ass handed to you, you lose. Simple logic dictates that.

I kinda disagree that when you get your ass handed to you, you lose to a degree. Take the Madrid 2012 final. Fed was being outplayed by Berdych for much of that match with tons of 0-30 service games that he managed to hold and only scraped the win by the skin of his teeth with a couple of timely break points. But for a huge portion of the match he was being thoroughly outplayed.

Re Golubev, losing in straights, he was ahead in each set and had he not played like a mad aggressive nutjob on every point and managed to hold after each break that scoreline could've been ugly, with him winning in straights. Nadal himself said immediately afterwards he felt very lucky to win.

"outplayed" and "getting your ass handed to you" are not the same. Hence the disconnect.

 

[Front242]

Name me 5 Nadal wins in which "he was getting his ass handed to him." When Nadal gets his ass handed to him, he loses. Like everyone else. There's a difference between that, and finding a way to raise your level, or contribute to your opponent's level dropping, after getting outplayed.

Petzschner: Wimbledon 2010 (though that win had more to do with MTO abuse than capitalizing on any weak patches from his opponent, but I'll still list it here as he was getting his ass handed to him but won, even if rather dubiously)

Haase: Wimbledon 2010

Andrey Golubev: US Open 2011. Golubev was ahead in every set at times but couldn't maintain the lead, though a lot had to do with him going for too much all match. But still, for most of the match he was completely dictating play.

Gulbis: Rome 2013. Nadal won 1-6, 7-5, 6-4. Gulbis is a name that has quite a few mentions.

Gulbis: Indian Wells 2013.

The Petschner/Haase thing is one of those things people kept repeating enough times till they actually believed them. They were tight, competitive matches. Nadal was in danger. But he was in no way getting his ass handed to him. He just was really struggling to find a way to break their serve. I wish Youtube didn't remove Wimbledon videos.

You can't possibly a win a match in straight sets and have your ass handed to you. This defies logic.

Gulbis in Rome this year, I'll give you that.

Gulbis in Indian Wells this year, no. Sorry. Nadal was getting outplayed early, stuck around, and raised it level when it mattered. Whole different story than the 6-1 ass kicking he received from Gulbis in the first set of their Rome encounters.

By the way, winning matches when you're getting outplayed is something all players do. Djokovic did that a ton, as did Roger, even in his heyday, when he was getting outplayed by Davydenko and Nalbandian but won due to serving and defense. Nadal does it more than most, sure, but it's hardly exclusive.

Again, when you get your ass handed to you, you lose. Simple logic dictates that.

I kinda disagree that when you get your ass handed to you, you lose to a degree. Take the Madrid 2012 final. Fed was being outplayed by Berdych for much of that match with tons of 0-30 service games that he managed to hold and only scraped the win by the skin of his teeth with a couple of timely break points. But for a huge portion of the match he was being thoroughly outplayed.

Re Golubev, losing in straights, he was ahead in each set and had he not played like a mad aggressive nutjob on every point and managed to hold after each break that scoreline could've been ugly, with him winning in straights. Nadal himself said immediately afterwards he felt very lucky to win.

"outplayed" and "getting your ass handed to you" are not the same. Hence the disconnect.

Fair enough