The perfect player

[Moxie]

Sure. Why not. At least it proves he's not the superman some here make him out to be at 38.

I thought the more significant point was that he was, though, at 36.

 

[DarthFed]

Beating Nadal off clay is hardly a Superman feat.

 

[Front242]

I thought the more significant point was that he was, though, at 36.

How exactly do you make that out? He hit drive backhands instead of slice or chip. He finally got 6 straight months to practice with his new racquet. Yes, he's used it a long time now but the tour is so busy they NEVER get 6 plus months off to practice using new equipment except for injury.

Ljubicic also told him to start hitting the backhand harder and he had those 6+ months to practice and I give him a lot of credit for changing that up as those slice and chip shots were losing him lots of rallies and return points.

Other than that, I see a guy who can play great at times but his level greatly fluctuates not only match to match but set to set. You see it differently obviously since he whooped Nadal a lot in 2017. Fact of the matter is, he should never have lost to him as much as he did and the tactical changes made all the difference. Better late than never and I always claimed years ago he'd get the h2h looking a bit more respectable though it's still poor v Nadal but mostly down to clay and how Federer was always there waiting in the semis or finals.

Nadal chickened out of Indian Wells so Roger missed a likely victory there this year and he probably should have played Montreal and would have had a great chance at another one there but it's all about slams now eventhough I dont think he's gonna win anymore. But who knows. If the AO is fast again he'll have his chances. USO I don't think he has a hope.

Federer will be a heavy favourite against Nadal if they meet at Shanghai or the WTF also.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Sure. Why not. At least it proves he's not the superman some here make him out to be at 38.

There's only one superman in tennis:

 

[Moxie]

Beating Nadal off clay is hardly a Superman feat.

I had been for Roger, esp. at the AO, where he'd lost to Rafa 3 times.

 

[DarthFed]

I had been for Roger, esp. at the AO, where he'd lost to Rafa 3 times.

It's called playing up to ability against Nadal for once in his fucking life. Be grateful he played like a scared little bitch against the vastly inferior player (off clay) for much of their careers, especially 08 and 09 finals. Glad Roger has very slightly made up for lost opportunities.

 

[Front242]

I had been for Roger, esp. at the AO, where he'd lost to Rafa 3 times.

Don't forget the surface was much faster in 2017 than the years he lost to him. This has been forgotten already by way too many. The surface speed made a big difference to Roger's game that year. Make the USO that speed and his chances go way up even now but the USO is getting slower and slower each year along with the awful lack of air circulation.

 

[Front242]

By the way, I am still waiting for people to inform me when has Toni's "illegal coaching" happened. How often? Which majors? When was the last time Nadal was accused of that?

I'm equally still waiting for Front to list me the players have better forehands and backhands than Nadal.

There are many ways to look at this. Nadal's forehand is extremely consistent. It has much more net clearance than guys who hit flatter so he doesn't net the ball anywhere near as much and spin keeps the ball within the lines more than guys who go for broke more. His backhand in the last year or 2 is even more consistent I'd argue than his forehand and he rarely misses with it. Very annoying it must be said to non fans.

Note to all the Nadal fans, I'm saying nice things about him here (unlike many of you) a lot of the time, especially the holier than thou people here who claim Federer fans rarely if ever praise his game. Well, you're wrong, I just did.

But...

And here's the thing. Yes, his forehand and backhand are extremely consistent most of the time (backhand especially as aforementioned) but you can't deny he plays way, way longer matches than Federer, especially against nobodies. This is where the shot making comes into play. No one is saying Nadal can't hit winners or great shots. I hate the prick but he can of course hit winners, but don't fool yourselves. He on average spends well over an hour more on court than Federer per match and sometimes more. While Federer is off the court in 1.5 hours in the early rounds of slams, you often see Nadal out there for 3-4 hours. Now, if his shots are so good, why the hell does he play such long matches? He's often content to rally or else he goes all passive and that's when the short balls rear their (very) ugly head yet again and the ball just goes pop and sits up there waiting to be whacked back with interest, barely making into the middle of the court.

When I think of ability to blast opponents off the court with forehands and backhands, Nadal is not first on my list, let's put it that way. Give me a shout next time you see him blow a very good opponent off the court in a dazzling display of forehand and backhand winners. For the record, I've always maintained the best match he ever played was the Monte Carlo 2010 final against Verdasco where he won 6-0 6-1.

In terms of rally shots and consistency, Nadal is right up there at the top with Djokovic now as neither miss that often under pressure, but rally shots are not the same as shots that can outright win points from nowhere. Federer's forehand is pretty damn pedestrian these days compared his prime years, but rewind to his prime years and if the ball was in his hitting zone on the forehand, the point was over 99% of the time. You can't say the same for Nadal.

There are lots of players out there able to hit more winners off both wings than Nadal but they lack consistency. If consistency and long matches is what you want though, stick with Nadal. For what it's worth, I found Nadal's more aggressive tennis at this year's AO much more watchable than usual (that wouldn't be hard for a non fan) but, then again, he played only 2 decent players there: Tsitsipas and Djokovic. He won the matches against the nobodies pretty easily and definitely hit more winners than usual (mostly 'cos they weren't good opponents it has to be said) but put him up against Djokovic there in the final and, well, you know the rest...

 

[Moxie]

It's called playing up to ability against Nadal for once in his fucking life. Be grateful he played like a scared little bitch against the vastly inferior player (off clay) for much of their careers, especially 08 and 09 finals. Glad Roger has very slightly made up for lost opportunities.

It strains credulity that RF, at 36, finally managed merely to play "up to his abilities" against Nadal, when, what?...if he'd only figured that out he'd have done it sooner, with so much on the line? And not having done more of it in his salad years? Give me a break.

 

[Moxie]

How exactly do you make that out? He hit drive backhands instead of slice or chip. He finally got 6 straight months to practice with his new racquet. Yes, he's used it a long time now but the tour is so busy they NEVER get 6 plus months off to practice using new equipment except for injury.

Ljubicic also told him to start hitting the backhand harder and he had those 6+ months to practice and I give him a lot of credit for changing that up as those slice and chip shots were losing him lots of rallies and return points.

Other than that, I see a guy who can play great at times but his level greatly fluctuates not only match to match but set to set. You see it differently obviously since he whooped Nadal a lot in 2017. Fact of the matter is, he should never have lost to him as much as he did and the tactical changes made all the difference. Better late than never and I always claimed years ago he'd get the h2h looking a bit more respectable though it's still poor v Nadal but mostly down to clay and how Federer was always there waiting in the semis or finals.

Nadal chickened out of Indian Wells so Roger missed a likely victory there this year and he probably should have played Montreal and would have had a great chance at another one there but it's all about slams now eventhough I dont think he's gonna win anymore. But who knows. If the AO is fast again he'll have his chances. USO I don't think he has a hope.

Federer will be a heavy favourite against Nadal if they meet at Shanghai or the WTF also.

You line up reasons why Roger finally got his shit together against Rafa, and you look at us like "Duh?" And yet when we line up reasons in counter-arguments to your doping allegations you also look at us like "oh, no way. Don't be so naive." Etc. Even though Nadal doping at 18 is WAY less likely than a great shift change in Federer's fortunes at 36. Keep living with that.

Nadal "chickened out" at IW and Roger did in Rome, so they're even. (And both had good reasons, if we're not being fan-tards.) You re-writing history and now wishing that Fed had played Montreal does make me laugh, though, I have to say. The confidence that he'd have done better there, when the endless trope amongst Federer fans is that the surface at Cincy serves him better, and yet he didn't get out of the 3rd round there. Basically what you're saying is that, if Rafa won it, and it's on HC, then Roger could have won it if he'd played. That's wishful drinking, if you ask me.

 

[mrzz]

There is a lot that I agree in @Front242' post above -- but not all, or at least not at all times. Surface and context specific, the description is quite accurate, but there are moments/environments were thing are different. Actually this one of Nadal's best qualities , the precision which he can fine tune his game. Yes, it leads to longer matches, but in a lot of cases those are matches he had basically zero chance of losing it (and no, I am not saying that he wins like that all the time). The physical effort for him maybe is not that big as it seems for us just looking at the time it took. Probably the mental effort to play outside his comfort zone would much larger. Most of us here play tennis and I guess we agree that a match that you can control is a match that, in a lot of ways, is not that demanding. So my point is that some of his matches that take two and a half hours -- those that you could say that could finish in one and a half hour -- are not much more than a practice session effort wise.

Anyway, the point of the post was not that, but actually something I just though about Nadal's baseline shots while reading Front's post. Yes, I agree that Nadal is not an offensive player by nature, but as I guess Fiero just wrote somewhere, he can be aggressive. Also, somewhere MikeOne was posting about how Nadal was not a good counter puncher (and that was a good post, even if I do not agree with it entirely). With all that in mind, what occurred to me is that Nadal's rally shots depend heavily of the time he has to set it up. Duh! this is true for everyone, but is more radical in his case, as I hope I can argue.

Maybe is my selective memory, but think about when Nadal has absolutely zero time to think -- for example a very difficult running forehand -- in those situations he is an excellent (and aggressive) counter puncher. In those situations his forehand is, nowadays and historically, right up there with the best. The "reaction" backhand a tad behind I think, but still quite good.

Other situation when his baseline shots are extremely good is when he has all the time in the world to set it up. In that case, the combination of power, spin and angle is often as deadly as it gets. Very few players are more likely to hit a winner in those situations than he is. In that department the forehand is quite ahead of the backhand.

The moment that his baseline shots look more "pedestrian" is the middle ground -- when he does not have all the time in the world, but also does not need to merely react -- in other words, his bread and butter shots. In this case he will rarely hit a winner -- and that is the context I agree 100% with Front's analysis above. In this situation he is more defense oriented than the opposite (off course, that depends on the surface). Again, the fact that he can navigate that well between those different situations is one of his main qualities.

 

[Moxie]

There is a lot that I agree in @Front242' post above -- but not all, or at least not at all times. Surface and context specific, the description is quite accurate, but there are moments/environments were thing are different. Actually this one of Nadal's best qualities , the precision which he can fine tune his game. Yes, it leads to longer matches, but in a lot of cases those are matches he had basically zero chance of losing it (and no, I am not saying that he wins like that all the time). The physical effort for him maybe is not that big as it seems for us just looking at the time it took. Probably the mental effort to play outside his comfort zone would much larger. Most of us here play tennis and I guess we agree that a match that you can control is a match that, in a lot of ways, is not that demanding. So my point is that some of his matches that take two and a half hours -- those that you could say that could finish in one and a half hour -- are not much more than a practice session effort wise.

Anyway, the point of the post was not that, but actually something I just though about Nadal's baseline shots while reading Front's post. Yes, I agree that Nadal is not an offensive player by nature, but as I guess Fiero just wrote somewhere, he can be aggressive. Also, somewhere MikeOne was posting about how Nadal was not a good counter puncher (and that was a good post, even if I do not agree with it entirely). With all that in mind, what occurred to me is that Nadal's rally shots depend heavily of the time he has to set it up. Duh! this is true for everyone, but is more radical in his case, as I hope I can argue.

Maybe is my selective memory, but think about when Nadal has absolutely zero time to think -- for example a very difficult running forehand -- in those situations he is an excellent (and aggressive) counter puncher. In those situations his forehand is, nowadays and historically, right up there with the best. The "reaction" backhand a tad behind I think, but still quite good.

Other situation when his baseline shots are extremely good is when he has all the time in the world to set it up. In that case, the combination of power, spin and angle is often as deadly as gets. Very few players are more likely to hit a winner in those situations than he is. In that department the forehand is quite ahead of the backhand.

The moment that his baseline shots look more "pedestrian" is the middle ground -- when he does not have all the time in the world, but also does not need to merely react -- in other words, his bread and butter shots. In this case he will rarely hit a winner -- and that is the context I agree 100% with Front's analysis above. In this situation he is more defense oriented than the opposite (off course, that depends on the surface). Again, the fact that he can navigate that well between those different situations is one of his main qualities.

I think you've hit the crux of Nadal in this. He likes to have time, but sometimes the less he rallies it helps him. His instincts are great, as is defense to offense. There is a lot to be said for his offensive skills, but his inclination is to bide his time. He doesn't like to pull the rip cord early, and sometimes to his detriment. He definitely can be put on his back foot by players who rush him. Not so much in set-up time, but by taking the ball early. Davydenko did that to him. Nalbandian, Kyrgios and Fognini same. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't you get passed. But surely the notion that Nadal is just defensive, hitting short balls to the mid-court is wrong. But he is more inclined to feel his way into a match by hitting a lot of balls. I think he likes to test his opponent to find the weaknesses, and yes, wear them down a bit. He knows that his heavy ball is hard to hit for a long period of time, and that his intensity is hard to match, point in, point out.

 

[DarthFed]

It strains credulity that RF, at 36, finally managed merely to play "up to his abilities" against Nadal, when, what?...if he'd only figured that out he'd have done it sooner, with so much on the line? And not having done more of it in his salad years? Give me a break.

Actually no, it just goes to show how much Nadal was in his head and combined with stubborn and stupid strategy we saw the results. Those that have been on here awhile know I was pounding the table for years on Federer returning aggressively, especially against the other top guys. Fed could live from the baseline against anyone in his prime except Nadal on clay so he felt no need to adjust his game even when the other elites improved and he himself started to decline. I also mentioned playing more first strike tennis, basically to avoid long rallies with Nadal, Djokovic and even some others at all cost.

For all the talk about Roger's supposed brilliant play in matches like 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO (LOL, funny just typing that nonsense now), his tactics were absolute shit and he played right into Nadal's hands. He basically made Nadal's serve look elite for 10+ years of awful chipped returns which he also happened to miss at a high clip. And we know it's hard to make Nadal's serve look good. Combine that with the mental edge that Nadal earned from beating him so often and voila, you had Roger putting forth embarrassing performances against Nadal on surfaces he should have been a large favorite on. What a difference playing smart and breaking the mental chain makes

 

[Moxie]

Actually no, it just goes to show how much Nadal was in his head and combined with stubborn and stupid strategy we saw the results. Those that have been on here awhile know I was pounding the table for years on Federer returning aggressively, especially against the other top guys. Fed could live from the baseline against anyone in his prime except Nadal on clay so he felt no need to adjust his game even when the other elites improved and he himself started to decline. I also mentioned playing more first strike tennis, basically to avoid long rallies with Nadal, Djokovic and even some others at all cost.

For all the talk about Roger's supposed brilliant play in matches like 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO (LOL, funny just typing that nonsense now), his tactics were absolute shit and he played right into Nadal's hands. He basically made Nadal's serve look elite for 10+ years of awful chipped returns which he also happened to miss at a high clip. And we know it's hard to make Nadal's serve look good. Combine that with the mental edge that Nadal earned from beating him so often and voila, you had Roger putting forth embarrassing performances against Nadal on surfaces he should have been a large favorite on. What a difference playing smart and breaking the mental chain makes

All of your arguments are well-made, but miss the dates and the points. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head until 2009, really, at the AO. That's almost exactly 5 years that he had time to make an adjustment for him, from the first time they played. And even still, afterwards, he could have made changes. I don't think it matters how much you pounded the table for him to make certain changes, he didn't. I will say this again, but if he were able to, such a versatile player, he would have. For you to say that it was down to his lack of strategic choices, well, that also argues against his GOATness. Still, let's face it...did it really take him 14 years to figure out how to beat Nadal? Or did Nadal get worse? Or did Roger find the Fountain of Youth? All I've ever said is that your complete credulity about one makes a mockery of your complete certainty of the "evilness" of the other.

 

[Front242]

All of your arguments are well-made, but miss the dates and the points. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head until 2009, really, at the AO. That's almost exactly 5 years that he had time to make an adjustment for him, from the first time they played. And even still, afterwards, he could have made changes. I don't think it matters how much you pounded the table for him to make certain changes, he didn't. I will say this again, but if he were able to, such a versatile player, he would have. For you to say that it was down to his lack of strategic choices, well, that also argues against his GOATness. Still, let's face it...did it really take him 14 years to figure out how to beat Nadal? Or did Nadal get worse? Or did Roger find the Fountain of Youth? All I've ever said is that your complete credulity about one makes a mockery of your complete certainty of the "evilness" of the other.

He absolutely was in his head in 2008, hence why it carried over to the 2009 AO. Federer was leading 5-3 in set one of the final at Monte Carlo 2008 and 4-0 in set 2 and lost the match 7-5 7-5. An awful loss. I don't think anyone could class that as anything but being in someone's head. The shit tactics and performance of Federer at RG 2008 was the beginning of the downfall.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well you seem to think they all use PEDs so not sure what you're harping on about to be honest. He gets to the business end of a long match, bottles it and ruins his legacy and then loses to Rublev on one of his most successful courts and a fast surface. But yeah, good year for him. No slams..2 matches practice before the USO. Anything else to add that I may have missed?

He was 1 point away from winning a major at nearly 38. He choked, but that has nothing to do with age. He choked matches away when he was younger.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just FYI, the idea that Nadal spends an hour or more on court than Federer ON AVERAGE is utterly laughable. I'd gladly be provided with stats to be proven wrong but for the time being, it's a statement that shows a lack of understanding of tennis, and how far bias can cloud a narrative. It's honestly ridiculous.

And by the way, Nadal dispatches of inferior players with complete ease. In fact, these days, he often makes them look completely helpless. His game is a nightmare for those unequipped to deal with his spin, and most players aren't.

 

[Ricardo]

All of your arguments are well-made, but miss the dates and the points. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head until 2009, really, at the AO. That's almost exactly 5 years that he had time to make an adjustment for him, from the first time they played. And even still, afterwards, he could have made changes. I don't think it matters how much you pounded the table for him to make certain changes, he didn't. I will say this again, but if he were able to, such a versatile player, he would have. For you to say that it was down to his lack of strategic choices, well, that also argues against his GOATness. Still, let's face it...did it really take him 14 years to figure out how to beat Nadal? Or did Nadal get worse? Or did Roger find the Fountain of Youth? All I've ever said is that your complete credulity about one makes a mockery of your complete certainty of the "evilness" of the other.

definitely before 2009. He was beating Federer many times already and in the 08RG loss you can visibly see that Fed was totally not himself. He wasn't fighting and was just going through the motion, then of course he was rather flat to start his Wimbledon final. He was at the stage where he never doubted himself until then, against an opponent with the perfect type of game to beat him....and he wasn't used to changing his game just to cope with someone. All that is cause enough for Nadal to be in his head already, certainly before 09.

 

[Moxie]

definitely before 2009. He was beating Federer many times already and in the 08RG loss you can visibly see that Fed was totally not himself. He wasn't fighting and was just going through the motion, then of course he was rather flat to start his Wimbledon final. He was at the stage where he never doubted himself until then, against an opponent with the perfect type of game to beat him....and he wasn't used to changing his game just to cope with someone. All that is cause enough for Nadal to be in his head already, certainly before 09.

That's fine, if you think so. I don't see how the timing of this really affects my argument. Darth says that what made the difference for Roger in 2017 was finally making adjustments to accommodate a player who had been beating him since 2004. I still don't see why that took so many years, and finally worked when Roger was 35.

 

[Front242]

That's fine, if you think so. I don't see how the timing of this really affects my argument. Darth says that what made the difference for Roger in 2017 was finally making adjustments to accommodate a player who had been beating him since 2004. I still don't see why that took so many years, and finally worked when Roger was 35.

That was mostly done to stupid stubbornness on Roger's part. He never tried hitting the backhand harder and taking the ball earlier really till 2017. His tactics against Nadal were all wrong before then, always blocking back backhand returns and slicing a lot in rallies. Allowed himself to get pinned on his backhand side and bullied. Maybe it took Ljubicic to show him the light.