Waiting for Rafa

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah happy to say Nadal will never play as badly as Federer

Federer wasn't like that at 28 by the way so come back to me with that prediction when he's 32/33 if still playing and we'll see!

I'll agree with Nadal2005 (I feel dirty saying that) in that Nadal playing bad still pales by comparison to Federer playing bad as in, he plays a bit better (though that's not saying much) since his UE count isn't as high. There are times when I'm literally waiting for Federer to miss the ball and am surprised when it lands in.

But for Nadal, the problem is when he plays bad, he's so defensive, unwilling to take risks, misses uncharacteristic shots, and generally pedestrian that it makes it so irritating. The main difference between him and others though is that he's probably the most likely player on tour to win a match while playing at a bad level (see matches against Nishikori and Dimitrov at the AO this year).

 

[Federberg]

^That's true, but it comes down to styles. A counter attacking player playing badly still gets the ball in the court. It's just probably put in short, so a decent player should be able to punish them. An attacking player playing badly has much less margin for error

 

[Front242]

^ I don't agree at all :wow:
The other slam events are meaningless to me once Nadal claims the Double Career Grand Slam (as there is no greater versatility achievement in tennis) :celeb:
The only thing left would be another Singles Gold to complete The Double Golden Career Grand Slam :wave

Fixed this for you...the word is IF not once. And there's calendar grand slam which is much more impressive. There's a reason it hasn't been done since Laver achieved it twice. 2 of each would clearly be a great achievement but equally so I wouldn't consider Federer having 12 Wimbledon and 5 other slams as good as an even mix of 5, 5, 5, 2 or 6, 5, 5, 1. Having 12 of one shows utter dominance there but it's nowhere close to the same as showing dominance on 3 of the 4 surfaces.

 

[Front242]

Yeah happy to say Nadal will never play as badly as Federer

Federer wasn't like that at 28 by the way so come back to me with that prediction when he's 32/33 if still playing and we'll see!

I'll agree with Nadal2005 (I feel dirty saying that) in that Nadal playing bad still pales by comparison to Federer playing bad as in, he plays a bit better (though that's not saying much) since his UE count isn't as high. There are times when I'm literally waiting for Federer to miss the ball and am surprised when it lands in.

But for Nadal, the problem is when he plays bad, he's so defensive, unwilling to take risks, misses uncharacteristic shots, and generally pedestrian that it makes it so irritating. The main difference between him and others though is that he's probably the most likely player on tour to win a match while playing at a bad level (see matches against Nishikori and Dimitrov at the AO this year).

federberg put it perfectly and I couldn't post a better response. Federer's game revolves around aggressive attacking tennis and when that's not working the result is slop, poor serving and errors. Nadal when playing badly drops short balls everywhere that are swatted away by any decent attacking player but it still means he commits less errors obviously. When Nadal moon balls like a pro (not a good thing) you know he's gonna lose unless the opponent ufes himself into oblivion.

I agree though and I can say from watching so many of Federer's matches I know when the shanks are coming and when he's serving to stay in a match against anyone remotely good you know he won't hold serve and won't even make his opponent work for the break, he'll gift wrap it with shanks and crap serving. I was frankly amazed at the comeback against Monfils but then again, Monfils is a true specimen that way. Look no further than that 5th set against Murray at RG.

Also agree that Nadal's the most likely to scrape a win playing badly and Toni Nadal even acknowledged that before. It's ugly tennis when he's defensively moon balling his way to a win by frustrating opponents to hit one more ball but it gets the job done. I'd like to see Nadal against this new incarnation of Cilic to see him cope with a guy who lately can't miss and seemingly will not ufe himself out of the match.

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/09/01/toni-nadal-rafa-is-probably-the-player-with-the-most-match-wins-playing-poorly/

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

they claim rafa/wafa was seen hitting a 2hbh today (rafa thread on tt).. vamos.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

^ I also saw that video where he hit a 2H Bhand,still early days yet.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

https://twitter.com/PauFerragut/status/511617603996225536

Toni #Nadal: "Rafa's backhand is on 80%. He will be ready for Astana, Beijing and Shanghai".

 

[Front242]

https://twitter.com/PauFerragut/status/511617603996225536

Toni #Nadal: "Rafa's backhand is on 80%. He will be ready for Astana, Beijing and Shanghai".

Going by past experience I wouldn't bother posting from people with no links to the Nadal camp or actually maybe they only choose to believe the good things so in that case it's fine.

For the record though that Pau Ferragut guy is a "Specialist tennis Breaking Radio. Student of History (UIB)" per google translate.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^That's true, but it comes down to styles. A counter attacking player playing badly still gets the ball in the court. It's just probably put in short, so a decent player should be able to punish them. An attacking player playing badly has much less margin for error

The point being, Nadal playing badly still has a chance of beating a top 10 player. Nowadays, I don't think the same applies for Roger. It's not just about styles. In fact, when Roger plays badly, he tends to miss when he's too tentative, rather than being too aggressive. Even the routine shots start falling apart. Of course, you're not wrong, because Nadal's spin means he's always going to make less errors, but it's not just about "counter attacking" vs "aggressive" per se.

I still think Nadal's worst level is better than Federer's worst level, as in, he actually has a better chance of winning the match.

I just realized we're debating whose "worst level" is better. Now that's a new one.

 

[Moxie]

^That's true, but it comes down to styles. A counter attacking player playing badly still gets the ball in the court. It's just probably put in short, so a decent player should be able to punish them. An attacking player playing badly has much less margin for error

The point being, Nadal playing badly still has a chance of beating at top 10 player. Nowadays, I don't think the same applies for Roger. It's not just about styles. In fact, when Roger plays badly, he tends to miss when he's too tentative, rather than being too aggressive. Even the routine shots start falling apart. Of course, you're not wrong, because Nadal's spin means he's always going to make less errors, but it's not just about "counter attacking" vs "aggressive" per se.

I still think Nadal's worst level is better than Federer's worst level, as in, he actually has a better chance of winning the match.

I just realize we're debating who's "worst level" is better. Now that's a new one.

:laydownlaughing to bolded above. Nadal has always played with more margin for error. Federer can get disgusted by his own poor play, which can hurt him. TBH, Nadal has no such qualms about "winning ugly," because he's done it enough. To paraphrase Darth here: it's all about the W, and in that, I think Rafa has the edge over pretty much everyone, if, on a bad day, it comes down to the will to win.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I just realize we're debating who's "worst level" is better. Now that's a new one.

Actually Uncle Toni has long spoken about that as being a key to success :idea:
Your worst has to be better than the other guy's worst, because players are rarely at their best.

 

[Kieran]

They're rarely at their worst too. Better to play at your best, just in case they do...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

The number of times a player plays his best tennis really varies depending on the player.
Some players may only do it once every 3 years.
Sampras for example rarely played his absolute best tennis (1999 Wimbledon Final was certainly one of his best).

 

[Front242]

The number of times a player plays his best tennis really varies depending on the player.
Some players may only do it once every 3 years.
Sampras for example rarely played his absolute best tennis (1999 Wimbledon Final was certainly one of his best).

Doesn't really matter if he rarely played his absolute best when he won 14 slams I reckon.

 

[Federberg]

^That's true, but it comes down to styles. A counter attacking player playing badly still gets the ball in the court. It's just probably put in short, so a decent player should be able to punish them. An attacking player playing badly has much less margin for error

The point being, Nadal playing badly still has a chance of beating a top 10 player. Nowadays, I don't think the same applies for Roger. It's not just about styles. In fact, when Roger plays badly, he tends to miss when he's too tentative, rather than being too aggressive. Even the routine shots start falling apart. Of course, you're not wrong, because Nadal's spin means he's always going to make less errors, but it's not just about "counter attacking" vs "aggressive" per se.

I still think Nadal's worst level is better than Federer's worst level, as in, he actually has a better chance of winning the match.

I just realize we're debating whose "worst level" is better. Now that's a new one.

I agree re: worst levels. And frankly best levels the same probably applies now. Unless Roger is having one of his great serving days... it would have to be a really great serving day!

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as "best level" goes, if we're talking about literally the absolute best a player can play, it only happens once in a blue moon, even for the greats. How often has Nadal played as good as the 2008 FO final (or that entire tournament in general) or the 2010 Monte Carlo final? How often has Fed played at his 2006 YEC level, or his 2007 AO level?

No two players can play "at their best" at the same time either, since when one is playing his best level, said best level should ostensibly be good enough to prevent the opponent from playing his (otherwise your best level is really not that great). Realistically, what we see more is great players being able to play at a great level (though not necessarily their best) when it matters (majors, finals, etc...), and when coming off against one another, what makes a great match great is when they both play at a high level (again, not necessarily their best) and take turns playing great tennis (which in a way is them playing great "at the same time").

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Doesn't really matter if he rarely played his absolute best when he won 14 slams I reckon.

Exactly, and that's what the Uncle Toni philosophy is all about.
Winning without needing your best is perhaps the best measure of a man
And Sampras was the man.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The number of times a player plays his best tennis really varies depending on the player.
Some players may only do it once every 3 years.
Sampras for example rarely played his absolute best tennis (1999 Wimbledon Final was certainly one of his best).

Doesn't really matter if he rarely played his absolute best when he won 14 slams I reckon.

Absolutely. That's the thing about being a great player. Honestly, when you look carefully and examine their runs towards a title (let's limit this to majors for the sake of simpler data), you'd realize that on a match-to-match basis, they more often than not did NOT play their best level...often because they don't need to, and are experience enough to navigate through tournaments that way, raise their level when it matters, etc...

 

[Front242]

^ Also no need for a great player to try and exert too much energy to beat a nobody in the early rounds of slams as they'll need the energy for the later rounds against better players so hence why they don't play their best there.

 

[isabelle]

According to uncle Toni, Nadal'll play the Asian tour, Basel, Bercy and Masters....lets' see what happened, if he can really play and if he doesn"t pick up another injury before the end of season