NADAL WINS SLAM NUMBER 16, MOVES 2 CLEAR OF THIRD PLACED SAMPRAS

bogbrush wrote:

naxroy wrote:Daniel, Nadal is good at analyzing the stats of the game, he knows were points are won or lost, so if he were to face different players trying short serves he would have to decide where to stand on serve. I guess that against big servers he would have to see what gives him more points, standing far back o going to the baseline to avoid the new super dangerous weapon you desire to be implemented: the short first serve

He wasn't suggesting you'd do it every point. Variety. I know, it's not an easy concept for Nadal fans but it happens.

How on earth do you turn Daniel criticising other players for not trying a certain strategy against Nadal as a way to have a dig at Nadal fans?!
I don't know BB- you just seem slightly bitter that Nadal has won 2 Slams this year and hasn't gone into retirement like some Nadal haters would have hoped.

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:Nice to see Nadal is the man to beat, again... at his 31s

Don't flatter yourself, naxroy.
Djokovic, Murray and Stan are injured and not playing. Federer is not fit. Kyrgios, Shapalov, Fognini far away from him in the draw.
TDs giving him sandy, slow, high bouncing surface.

USO was on a level of an 250 ATP event.

Still, enjoy while it lasts!

I am enjoying, with Nadal since 2004 (one of the longest successful careers I can think of)

with Tennis since mid 80s

Didn't really want to see Nadal win but fair enough from his Del Potro showing he'd have beaten a lot of players. Though I think that standing that far back on returns, he should have been no where near winning and if the court was really slowed/bounce made higher then shame on the US open for selling out on their tournament. I was actually glad Fed lost so that they wouldn't get their Fedal match.

I don't mind the standing far back on clay as that's perhaps a more legit tactic there but if that is succeeding on hard courts then I think something is up. I also think that in tennis terms its a far lesser skill than standing on the baseline and I don't even see how he can be compared to Federer.

It's a case of what is tactically best though isn't it bitf?

Against Rublev, the youngster who beat Dimi in straights, he stood closer in on the return, and then did very well on all the rallies after he got the ball back into play, dictating the points.
Against Anderson and JDP, the stats showed he had got a higher percentage of returns into play than any other opponent. Then, because his movement is considerably better than Anderson and JDP, he could win enough of a percentage of the rallies to make it very difficult to hold serve.

Anderson is 6'8 and joint 3rd in 2017 in terms of percentage of service games held (90%). Yet in the first set, Anderson did not even serve that badly, but every single service game went to deuce and he got broken twice.
It's a calculation, if you can a higher percentage of balls back into play, and then if your rallying and movement is good enough to win a certain percentage of those points; it could be tactically the right thing to do. And Nadal did make Anderson's life hell, so he was right. Deserves some credit for that, he was going against what the 'analysts' on Eurosport were saying he should do.

Its sad how much we talk about draw, surface... and how little about his amazing match against delpo for example

DECIMA wrote:I.....
It's a calculation, if you can a higher percentage of balls back into play, and then if your rallying and movement is good enough to win a certain percentage of those points; it could be tactically the right thing to do. And Nadal the slow conds did make Anderson's life hell, so he wasand thats not right. Deserves some credit for that, he was going against what the 'analysts' on Eurosport were saying he should do.

More like it.

Make the court like polished wood and tell me how smart woudl have been Karlovic acing tactic after his straight win in the final!

Can't you bloody see there was something wrong with being able to retrieve from 5m the baseline a 135mph serve? Which probably was 35mph by the time it reached Nadal and the back fence???

But, when was it so slow? Just this season? Last season? 2015? 2014? Or was it just 2010, 2013 and 2017?

naxroy wrote:Its sad how much we talk about draw, surface... and how little about his amazing match against delpo for example

Maybe because we don't think it was amazing...

Federer's matches at AO were amazing.
He played so much great tennis this year, that's worth talking about.
Shapovalov, even Kyrgios (self-loathe )

But really when it comes to Nadal, I find him very irritating to watch.
Try to understand that just as I understand why you think he's amazing.

Anyway, feel free to convert us!

What did you find amazing in that match?

Tenez wrote:
Can't you bloody see there was something wrong with being able to retrieve from 5m the baseline a 135mph serve?

No, because I've had enough of 9 foot players servebotting. Anderson's percentage of service games won this year is third highest in the tour at 90%, it's high enough thank you very much.

naxroy wrote:But, when was it so slow? Just this season? Last season? 2015? 2014? Or was it just 2010, 2013 and 2017?

They painted and poured more sand on courts Days before the event. Can you imagine how soft those courts would play? That's not taking into account how cool Queens was during the fortnight. My understanding was that temperatures were nearly 5 degrees below the average for that time of year.

That makes a hell of a difference!

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Can't you bloody see there was something wrong with being able to retrieve from 5m the baseline a 135mph serve?

No, because I've had enough of 9 foot players servebotting. Anderson's percentage of service games won this year is third highest in the tour at 90%, it's high enough thank you very much.

When did a servebot win a slam last?

If it was not for federer we woudl have had 13 years of lung busting scrappers unable to hit a gutsy shot on the court, yet winning the last 40 out of 45 slams.

naxroy wrote:But, when was it so slow? Just this season? Last season? 2015? 2014? Or was it just 2010, 2013 and 2017?

Does it matter? It's slow enough to have allowed Nadal to win when he coudl not beat Shapo or injured Kyrgios on "normal HC" weeks before.

LOL, his play massively improved from the warm-up events Tenez.
Nadal is a confidence player, and he got better and better as the tournament went on. The way he was playing at the end, it would have taken a world class opponent on a good day to even have a competitive match.

DECIMA wrote:LOL, his play massively improved from the warm-up events Tenez.
Nadal is a confidence player, and he got better and better as the tournament went on. The way he was playing at the end, it would have taken a world class opponent on a good day to even have a competitive match.

Is that a nervous "LOL" as your argument is so poor? Was he allowed to stand 5m behind the baseline v Kygios in Ciny? and if so how many serve did he return?

The last time Fed won the US Open, he lost early in both Toronto and Cincy (in fact did even worse than Nadal this year, winning 1/3 matches at the warm up events). Look it up.

World class players have a habit of upping their game when it's needed, and that's what Nadal did this year. In the final 4 matches of the US Open, he only dropped his serve once. JDP beat Fed, lost to Nadal in 4.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:But, when was it so slow? Just this season? Last season? 2015? 2014? Or was it just 2010, 2013 and 2017?

Does it matter? It's slow enough to have allowed Nadal to win when he coudl not beat Shapo or injured Kyrgios on "normal HC" weeks before.

Nadal has won 3 times in canada and once in cincy, and some of those wins didnt mean a win at usopen later on, was usopen faster than canada those times?
I think the whole slow court is just a reason since nadal wins slams and masters east and west

surfaces have to be different when he is 53-8 on clay finals and 21-27 on hardcourts and grass

grass and hardcourts are not as fast as you wish? whatever,  but they are no doubt faster than you try to make it look

You can only play on the surfaces you're given, and personally I much prefer slower courts.
Means that serve bots and big servers have it harder, and players with better baseline game and groundstrokes do better- I like more rallies.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Didn't really want to see Nadal win but fair enough from his Del Potro showing he'd have beaten a lot of players. Though I think that standing that far back on returns, he should have been no where near winning and if the court was really slowed/bounce made higher then shame on the US open for selling out on their tournament. I was actually glad Fed lost so that they wouldn't get their Fedal match.

I don't mind the standing far back on clay as that's perhaps a more legit tactic there but if that is succeeding on hard courts then I think something is up. I also think that in tennis terms its a far lesser skill than standing on the baseline and I don't even see how he can be compared to Federer.

Try and explain that to our Nadal fans here...

I just want to know what is it he is consuming that is giving him so much expendable energy.
Surely, there must be a catch in it somewhere down the line health-wise.

I never said Nadal is comparable to federer, of course for me, federer is the best ever. but still I am a rafa fan

btw, cheking stats, even if rafa is mainly considered a claycourter, if you count slams, masters and wtf on hardcourts, carpet or grass, you get a nice list of great players, and Nadal happens to be 10th in that list. I am saying not counting any of his clay titles. (open era)

	m1000	slam	wtf
fed	20	18	6	44
novak	22	11	5	38
sampras	10	14	5	29
mcenroe	17	7	3	27
agassi	16	7	1	24
lendl	14	5	5	24
becker	13	6	3	22
murray	12	3	1	16
connors	8	7	1	16
nadal	8	6		14
edberg	7	6	1	14
borg	7	5	2	14

so yes, after almost 50 years, only 9 players have a better hardcourt CV than Nadal

bogbrush wrote:

naxroy wrote:Daniel, Nadal is good at analyzing the stats of the game, he knows were points are won or lost, so if he were to face different players trying short serves he would have to decide where to stand on serve. I guess that against big servers he would have to see what gives him more points, standing far back o going to the baseline to avoid the new super dangerous weapon you desire to be implemented: the short first serve

He wasn't suggesting you'd do it every point. Variety. I know, it's not an easy concept for Nadal fans but it happens.

This. naxroy can't get it into her head. It's because she has never played the game to any real standard.

Also, as I mentioned before, there is less pressure on Nadal.  He knows he has a massive part of the season on clay.  Imagine that was all on grass instead - Fed's favourite surface?

massive part of the season on clay?

37 hardcourt tournaments 55%
22 clay tournaments 33%
8 grass tournaments 12%

Nadal will play a total of 19 tournaments in 2017 (if he meets schedule)
only 5 on clay (26% of all he plays)

so no, its not that a massive part of the season is on clay, it is that he wins almost everything he plays on clay, because he is the best claycourter in the history of tennis, and he is as dominant there, as no other has ever been in any other surface.

nadal has won 53 clay tournaments, he entered 90 in his whole career

90 tournaments in 15 seasons, an average of 6 per season, which represents no more than 30% of the tournaments played in a normal year (no injuries)

Federer, who is super dominant on grass has won 17 titles of the 41 grass tournaments he played

an impressive 41,4% of wins, but not quite as high as nadals ratio on clay 58,8% having played whice as many

8 grass tournaments... None of them Masters 1000.  2 of which occur at the same time (halle and queens) and maybe more. Last I looked, Federer hasn't mastered whole body mitosis. Let me guess, you're a liberal too?    Federer is also the most successful grass player.

You honestly comparing the clay season to grass?  Get away from fanboyism, girl; it's destroying your mind.

No, she's talking about ratio of tournaments won to tournaments entered, as she clearly said, not tournaments won per grass tournaments overall.

You're misinterpreting what she's saying, and then being very harsh based on that. Not fair on Naxroy.

There is no misinterpretation.  She is trying to make an equivalency between grass and clay that does not exist.

That's the end of it.

I made the point that the clay season is massive compared to grass. And it is.  Count the points for both (that can be entered - not simultaneous) and then come back and defend that idiot., 

What?

She literally just listed the number of tournaments and showed that the percentage of clay tournaments at 33% is nearly 3 times the percentage that are on grass.
She never said it was comparable to grass as her own numbers show.

You also said: "Last I looked, Federer hasn't mastered whole body mitosis."
Naxroy said above that post that Federer won 41.4% of grass tournaments he entered, did you get confused and think she was saying Federer has won 41.4% of grass tournaments itself (and thus bring up the fact he can't play more than one grass tournament a week)? If not, what were you referring to?

Daniel wrote:then come back and defend that idiot.,  

Sorry, I think you're just being rude for no reason here.
All Naxroy did was post some stats showing clay formed 33% of tour, hard courts were nearly double that, and grass was just more than a third of that.
Never said anything making clay and grass equivalent as you spuriously claimed, in fact she didn't even say anything remotely controversial. No need to be rude!

And on the topic of people being impolite, let's have a look at remarkable lack of comprehension:

bogbrush wrote:

naxroy wrote:Daniel, Nadal is good at analyzing the stats of the game, he knows were points are won or lost, so if he were to face different players trying short serves he would have to decide where to stand on serve. I guess that against big servers he would have to see what gives him more points, standing far back o going to the baseline to avoid the new super dangerous weapon you desire to be implemented: the short first serve

He wasn't suggesting you'd do it every point. Variety. I know, it's not an easy concept for Nadal fans but it happens.

-Naxroy is clearly stating here that after playing a few big servers who use the 'short serve' as variety, Nadal would try and figure out if he was winning statistically more points standing back (better for big serves, but would need a lot of pacy forward sprints for the short serve), or standing on the baseline.
-At no point did Naxroy indicate that her understanding was Daniel was suggesting that big servers would do the short serve on every point.
-After this show of incomprehension, Bogbrush ironically goes on the attack.
-Says variety is not an easy concept for Nadal fans, attacking both Naxroy's intelligence and the intelligence of Nadal fans in general in one line. Notice, at no point had Naxroy similarly attacked Bogbrush, so a completely unprovoked insult. Unpleasant, and ironic as it was based on lacklustre interpretive skills.

I repeat:

I made the point that the clay season is massive compared to grass. And it is.  Count the points for both (that can be entered - not simultaneous) and then come back and defend that idiot.,

well well, I think my english wouldnt have allowed me to expose my intentions better than what DECIMA did, so thanks for that.

ok, maybe the first missinterpretation here was by my side, as Daniel said:

"there is less pressure on Nadal.  He knows he has a massive part of the season on clay.  Imagine that was all on grass instead - Fed's favourite surface?"


He clearly compared clay to grass seasons, while I simply read that clay season was massive.
My point was, as numbers show, that clay is not a massive part of the season, as hardcourts are almost double in number, but it is true that Daniel was comparing specifically clay with grass, and the same numbers I posted show this is of course the case.

that said, the core of Daniel´s message is that Nadal plays without preassure because he has clay season to keep himself top in the rankings, and my point was: that happened due to Nadal incredible ratio of tournament won by tournaments entered (on clay), and not because clay season is too long, as it has been proved with numbers that it is only 30% of the season.

grass season is too short and I wish it was longer too, as I love tennis on grass, but Federer cannot say that hardcourt is not favourable to him, so in truth he has almost 70% of the season in quite nice conditions for his performance.

Now Tenez will come and say that hardcourts nowadays, being so slow, dont favour federer at all, but please, one debate at a time.

And one unimportant last point: Several tournaments in the same week happens in all surfaces, not just grass
there are about 70 tournaments throughout the season and rarely a player attends more than 25.

normal season of a top 5 player is:

around 12 Hardcourt tournaments, 5 on clay and 2 on grass

which represent a similar % to the that seen in the total exisisting tournaments.


Why did I come with federer´s win ration on grass? well, as I had said that nadal was as dominant on clay as no one has been in any surface, I supposed someone would bring Fed´s ruling on grass, and I myself wanted to compare both ratios.

naxroy wrote:..Why did I come with federer´s win ration on grass? well, as I had said that nadal was as dominant on clay as no one has been in any surface, I supposed someone would bring Fed´s ruling on grass, and I myself wanted to compare both ratios.

It's very simple. You typically win on grass through quality shot making, you win on clay through long physical rallies. If you are fitter, you are almost guarantee to win on clay.

reasons for dominance can be debated, but the dominance is there. and in the case of Nadal and clay, it is unmatched as I already exposed.

see, its not only he won 53/90 tournaments he entered...

take clay masters and roland garros since nadal won his first monte carlo in 2005, in total there have been 52 main tournaments on clay in these 13 seasons. Nadal has won 32 of those 52. the rest of the players alltogether, during 13 years, have won 20.

I understand, seeing these numbers, that some have reasons to really hate him or at least pray for his retirement

Again, it's the way you win as well as the wins which matter to some of us. We understand there is no one-way to win but we don't have to like all ways of winning.

And records have also to be scrutinised cause what does HC record means when the USO is now designed to keep the big names down its business end?

Before they increased the ball size at the USO, Nadal had an extremely poor record, yet could win the FO convincingly.

Also the comparison between Nadal and Federer is biased as technolgy wise they don't belong to the same generation. It;s like comparing wooden racquet players (Borg, McEnroe, Lendl) with larger graphite racquet players (Becker, Pete and Edberg). It's simply not fair....yet in spite of that Federer lessoned Rafa 3 times this year and it's just a shame Federer is injured cause we are not really looking at the real number 1 here. Or at least it is a number 1 who cannot beat a 35yo number 2. That's bad!

Daniel wrote:I repeat:

I made the point that the clay season is massive compared to grass. And it is.  Count the points for both (that can be entered - not simultaneous) and then come back and defend that idiot.,

But he never said the clay season was similar compared to grass? In fact he literally showed the data where the clay tournaments were nearly 3 times the grass tournaments. I don't see why you're getting confused here, but your confusion is leading you to be impolite in turn.

naxroy wrote:reasons for dominance can be debated, but the dominance is there. and in the case of Nadal and clay, it is unmatched as I already exposed.

see, its not only he won 53/90 tournaments he entered...

take clay masters and roland garros since nadal won his first monte carlo in 2005, in total there have been 52 main tournaments on clay in these 13 seasons. Nadal has won 32 of those 52. the rest of the players alltogether, during 13 years, have won 20.

I understand, seeing these numbers, that some have reasons to really hate him or at least pray for his retirement

Numbers I don't think we'll see again by any player on any surface, incredible.

In response to Tenez´s last post:

well, Federer for sure owned Nadal in the first part of the season and then we were not lucky enough to see them meet again.

Of course, both have been the best of the year, but federer decided not to play on clay and had a not so good American HC Tour

Is Nadal an undeserved number 1 at this point? well, he has won 2 slams and played another final, and he has won 2 masters and played another final, so even if one can feel that federer could be a more proper number one, its undeniable that rafa put together quite a solid performance.

As for the ways of winning, nothing to add, all of us have our preferences.

Regarding the need to put records into context, I agree too, but the record will still be there. its a matter of how much importance you want to add or take from such record, we all do that in one direction or another and of course always based on our perspective, which is normal, and its the origin of any debate and the main purpose of a forum.

naxroy wrote:In response to Tenez´s last post:

well, Federer for sure owned Nadal in the first part of the season and then we were not lucky enough to see them meet again.

Of course, both have been the best of the year, but federer decided not to play on clay and had a not so good American HC Tour

Is Nadal an undeserved number 1 at this point? well, he has won 2 slams and played another final, and he has won 2 masters and played another final, so even if one can feel that federer could be a more proper number one, its undeniable that rafa put together quite a solid performance.

As for the ways of winning, nothing to add, all of us have our preferences.

Regarding the need to put records into context, I agree too, but the record will still be there. its a matter of how much importance you want to add or take from such record, we all do that in one direction or another and of course always based on our perspective, which is normal, and its the origin of any debate and the main purpose of a forum.

fair enough. Enjoy Nadal's glory!