ATP 1000: Madrid

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Bery might have taken a few sets of Nadal and also beaten him in the past, but I'll rather go with a bit unknown factor that Stan may have which Berdych doesn't.

Agree Stan will have better chance than Tomas would have had. Of course, it is still a tiny chance only.

sphairistike wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5KGP74FPM

Strange interview from Fed. He is showing he is upset to have lost and that Madrid is as important as the FO. He is even a bit aggressive in his answers.

And then it reminded me the day this american woman journalist asked him whether he had tanked the match versus Andy Murray in Cincy's second round in 2007(?) and has a very angry and aggressive response.

To me he's more in a "yeah, well, whatever" kinda mood. Which is not very promising if you ask me.
This was his attempt to be "hard to beat" in Madrid...

I saw that interview too. It seemed that he was saying the truth like for the "I don't know how well he thinks he played..." bit and that the truth to him is he's fed up with all those slam-centric journalists as he does not believe it is good for the sport to see Madrid, which is a master after all, being treated as just a lead-up tournament to RG, nothing less, nothing more... And I believe him when he says that RG is far away and that he has time to start thinking about it... He might also be a bit worried about his own slam form, or maybe not...

That woudl be teh case if he wanted to regain number one. I am sure he wanted to win Madrid like he will want to win Rome but I don't think he cares that much about having an extra tms or not. He certainly does care about his next slam...and that's why he doesn't play much this year.

summerblues wrote:Nole does not necessarily outlast Rafa, nor does he need to. He needs to be able to last as well as Rafa, or at least close to it, and I think he can do it. If he manages that, then his attacking game will always be superior to Rafa's, so the odds will be in his favor.

That's exactly how I see it but ususally what makes the difference is that when Djoko's goes through a patch in the set or match when his attacking game is off, he simply rallies with Nadal, keep the ball in court and destroys Nadal physically.

Like Federer said: "He (Djoko) throws a few long rallies and it gets really tough...." Cincy 2012. Federer knows cause this is how he lost v Djoko himself many times.

Serena is cruising through the final. There is hardly anyone who can even challenge her any bit.

Did you observe this? WTA matches have young men as ball boys. And all the ATP matches have all youthful model-like young women as Ball girls.

Now this can't be a coincidence, can it?

Serena won in st. sets.

Serena posing for the photos with the trophy in one hand and a small dog in the other. ha ha Funny pic

Poor Stan - Playing Nadal with a groin injury is a nightmare. He simply cannot move.

is he?

Wellhe is not moving very well and had the physio on court....But regardless it would not have changed the outcome.

Tenez wrote:Yes quite sound calculation but I would frankly see Nadal close to 100% to win Madrid.

So for me more like 95-99% x 60% x 90% = 51 - 53%

Maybe. In any event, it is 100% now . Also, given that Rafa is drawn to play Ferrer in QF in Rome, it is all simple now - if Rafa wins Rome, he is #4 seed at RG, otherwise he is not.

Tenez wrote:Wellhe is not moving very well and had the physio on court....But regardless it would not have changed the outcome.

Exactly, that match was lost in Stan's head before the start, i.e. similar as with Fed. Half Nadal more active on the court than Stan. There is no way to win with Nadal from the back of the court. There is a big difference against Nole's front positioning.

He is certainly doing well for someone with a knee problem.

Tenez wrote:Poor Stan - Playing Nadal with a groin injury is a nightmare. He simply cannot move.

10 matches in 11 days and some of them long 3 sets. Its was always going to be tough against Nadal and with this added fatigue Stan had not much chance. Still he played well enough.

Nadal win is also fine, he rather moves to #4 sooner than later. Ferru is occupying to far too long and terribly imbalances the draw as we saw in the last 2 slams.

Tenez wrote:He is certainly doing well for someone with a knee problem.

It is horrible to see Nadal winning the final so easily despite playing so terribly on his standard. He can live with his game good 2-3 years on the top unless Nole crashes him soon.

paulcz wrote:

Tenez wrote:Wellhe is not moving very well and had the physio on court....But regardless it would not have changed the outcome.

Exactly, that match was lost in Stan's head before the start, i.e. similar as with Fed. Half Nadal more active on the court than Stan. There is no way to win with Nadal from the back of the court. There is a big difference against Nole's front positioning.

I think we discussed that before. I see it much more as a physical issue not a mental one.

In short if you know your opponent is fit enough to retrieve balls on each side lines it gives you little hope but to have to rally ad infinitum with your opponent...And when that opponent is Nadal...it's certainly not good for the mind.....So yeah from that perspective you might say it's in the mind.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Poor Stan - Playing Nadal with a groin injury is a nightmare. He simply cannot move.

10 matches in 11 days and some of them long 3 sets. Its was always going to be tough against Nadal and with this added fatigue Stan had not much chance. Still he played well enough.

Nadal win is also fine, he rather moves to #4 sooner than later. Ferru is occupying to far too long and terribly imbalances the draw as we saw in the last 2 slams.

Ferrer really made a school boy error on that 15/30 point at 4/% 2 set. He had the whole court to wack a FH and give him 2 MPs...So in my view he is not that far from Rafa....in a BO3 at least....in his case I really think that versus Nadal...it's essentially in the mind. He has the fitness to rally with Nadal...but he doesn't know it.

Tenez wrote:
Ferrer really made a school boy error on that 15/30 point at 4/% 2 set. He had the whole court to wack a FH and give him 2 MPs...So in my view he is not that far from Rafa....in a BO3 at least....in his case I really think that versus Nadal...it's essentially in the mind. He has the fitness to rally with Nadal...but he doesn't know it.

Against Nadal, I don't think its fitness that decided the winner. I think Nadal is just a better tennis player. Ferrer has some wins over Nadal, but those were a very long time back and all of them were close.

Still the Rome draw is straightforward enough. Whoever among the 2 reaches the semis will seed #4 at RG.

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:

Tenez wrote:Wellhe is not moving very well and had the physio on court....But regardless it would not have changed the outcome.

Exactly, that match was lost in Stan's head before the start, i.e. similar as with Fed. Half Nadal more active on the court than Stan. There is no way to win with Nadal from the back of the court. There is a big difference against Nole's front positioning.

I think we discussed that before. I see it much more as a physical issue not a mental one.

In short if you know your opponent is fit enough to retrieve balls on each side lines it gives you little hope but to have to rally ad infinitum with your opponent...And when that opponent is Nadal...it's certainly not good for the mind.....So yeah from that perspective you might say it's in the mind.

Just from knowing to play against a retriever Stan needed to step up, but he did not do it. As I say round and round again there is no way to beat Nadal from the back of the court. Every match is unique, that one Nadal played really bad. If Stan did not play so passive and more at the front, he could cause a lot of damage on Nadal. The problem was mental approach with a lack of self-confidence. So that mind again. So surely more mental lapse than fitness was a decisive factor today.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Ferrer really made a school boy error on that 15/30 point at 4/% 2 set. He had the whole court to wack a FH and give him 2 MPs...So in my view he is not that far from Rafa....in a BO3 at least....in his case I really think that versus Nadal...it's essentially in the mind. He has the fitness to rally with Nadal...but he doesn't know it.

Against Nadal, I don't think its fitness that decided the winner. I think Nadal is just a better tennis player. Ferrer has some wins over Nadal, but those were a very long time back and all of them were close.

Still the Rome draw is straightforward enough. Whoever among the 2 reaches the semis will seed #4 at RG.

Surely Nadal is stronger mentally and moves better than Stan, but today's Nadal looked a bit "talentless" too often. Stan's SHBH against Nadal's FH moonballs that is like a crash between a train with a car.

paulcz wrote:
Just from knowing to play against a retriever Stan needed to step up, but he did not do it. As I say round and round again there is no way to beat Nadal from the back of the court. Every match is unique, that one Nadal played really bad. If Stan did not play so passive and more at the front, he could cause a lot of damage on Nadal. The problem was mental approach with a lack of self-confidence. So that mind again. So surely more mental lapse than fitness was a decisive factor today.

So for you it's a mental thing not being able to hit an average of 2 aces, paint 3 lines and hit volley winners in opposite corners per game?

YOu are asking someone to execute all his shots 10 times riskier than Nadal's cause anything less would be returned with a vengence and then call him mentally weak if he fails to execute those ridiculously risky shot.

PLease explain how you go to the net or take the ball early when you have mooballs skidding off the baseline...let alone pulling a winner out of them?

BTW we saw in MC final again that when Djoko started to be more aggressive in that 2 set he failed and went a break down. He was saved by throwing those long rallies again killing Nadal at his own game.

I have only seen a few points at the very end of the match and think I got the picture....
We all know that Stan is The Man (even his trainers say so!!!) and none of us really expected Stan to be the SuperMan, but I hope (for his sake) that he at least tried.

One look at Nadal's strutting, line cleaning etc reassured me of how the match went, though....

We all know who can wipe that grin off his face, so look forward to seeing it next Saturday.

Sorry Stan, you've had your chance and blew it

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:
Just from knowing to play against a retriever Stan needed to step up, but he did not do it. As I say round and round again there is no way to beat Nadal from the back of the court. Every match is unique, that one Nadal played really bad. If Stan did not play so passive and more at the front, he could cause a lot of damage on Nadal. The problem was mental approach with a lack of self-confidence. So that mind again. So surely more mental lapse than fitness was a decisive factor today.

So for you it's a mental thing not being able to hit an average of 2 aces, paint 3 lines and hit volley winners in opposite corners per game?

YOu are asking someone to execute all his shots 10 times riskier than Nadal's cause anything less would be returned with a vengence and then call him mentally weak if he fails to execute those ridiculously risky shot.

PLease explain how you go to the net or take the ball early when you have mooballs skidding off the baseline...let alone pulling a winner out of them?

BTW we saw in MC final again that when Djoko started to be more aggressive in that 2 set he failed and went a break down. He was saved by throwing those long rallies again killing Nadal at his own game.

Ten, I wonder why you can not get it what a player needs to have in order to outplay Nadal, which is really hard work. Actually only thing you need is to look at how Nole plays with Nadal.

To step up to the court, dictate rallies, mix it up the game, focus on BH and go for volleys. You need to have great feeling from both wings, superb move and great winning mentality in particular. That is what Nole has as nobody else on the tour.

Nole finished up his great MC match by his active game and going for winners when it is possible, Ten look at the TB more carefully

noleisthebest wrote:I have only seen a few points at the very end of the match and think I got the picture....
We all know that Stan is The Man (even his trainers say so!!!) and none of us really expected Stan to be the SuperMan, but I hope (for his sake) that he at least tried.

One look at Nadal's strutting, line cleaning etc reassured me of how the match went, though....

We all know who can wipe that grin off his face, so look forward to seeing it next Saturday.

Sorry Stan, you've had your chance and blew it

Nitb, I really appreciate your eye for the game perceptions. I also struggled to watch it, but Nadal played so badly that Stan had quite a lot of chances, but he did not take them, unfortunately.

paulcz wrote:
Nitb, I really appreciate your eye for the game perceptions. I also struggled to watch it, but Nadal played so badly that Stan had quite a lot of chances, but he did not take them, unfortunately.

Thanks Paul

paulcz wrote:To step up to the court, dictate rallies, mix it up the game, focus on BH and go for volleys. You need to have great feeling from both wings, superb move and great winning mentality in particular. That is what Nole has as nobody else on the tour.

Yes that is pretty much what Stan showed versus Nole at the AO13. So no tennis fan doubts than STan has skills in plenty...What got him though is his smaller lungs capacity.

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:To step up to the court, dictate rallies, mix it up the game, focus on BH and go for volleys. You need to have great feeling from both wings, superb move and great winning mentality in particular. That is what Nole has as nobody else on the tour.

Yes that is pretty much what Stan showed versus Nole at the AO13. So no tennis fan doubts than STan has skills in plenty...What got him though is his smaller lungs capacity.

No doubt about Stan's skills, his first serve is one of the best and also his SHBH. But especially his FH and mental side is not that prime as other TOP players have.

In the comparison with best movers his body is a bit "stocky", so that results in his superior SHBH, but on the other hand that means his worse move and also stamina. Every body has pros and cons.

noleisthebest wrote:

paulcz wrote:
Nitb, I really appreciate your eye for the game perceptions. I also struggled to watch it, but Nadal played so badly that Stan had quite a lot of chances, but he did not take them, unfortunately.

Thanks Paul

Dare il benvenuto, Nitb

Paul....Paul...how can you ask me to watch the MC TB to prove your point????

The first 6 points leading to 5/1 Djoko are all UEs from Nadal with Djoko keeping the ball in court!!!

Look at 17mn and 44mn30s and see how Djoko loses twice his service game.....by attacking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubpgo2QMmv4

I am not sure how to argue this further? We do not see the reality from the same angle.

Tenez wrote:Paul....Paul...how can you ask me to watch the MC TB to prove your point????

The first 6 points leading to 5/1 Djoko are all UEs from Nadal with Djoko keeping the ball in court!!!

Look at 17mn and 44mn30s and see how Djoko loses twice his service game.....by attacking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubpgo2QMmv4

I am not sure how to argue this further? We do not see the reality from the same angle.

Ten, I am not sure where you looked at the TB, please look at this link with open eyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U-ct2leqYk

Here you have the analysis of TB as follows:

1^st point Nadal did not return

2^nd Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

3^rd Nadal winner after short return

4^th Nole dominates, Nadal passive

5^th Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

6^th Nadal dominates, Nole passive

7^th Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

8^th Nole winner




Conclusion: in addition that Nole stood more about 1,5 meter more in the court at average in TB and dictated nearly all their rallies, Nole was clearly more active in 5 points and Nadal in 2, once Nadal did not return. So, the result is absolutely clear. Ten, you need to look at this more carefully.

Yes clearly what I see is what everybody sees...even worse than what I first described. Nadal makes 5 UEs and whacks a winning point. No aggressive winners from Djoko at all. AT 5/1 up Djoko feels the win is near, opens his shoulders, relaxes and only FINALLY attacks! he did not play as agressive in the first 6 points as he has in the last 2....If anything he showed in that TB that he was ready to rally and this is why Nadal went for uncharacteristically UEs...while we know that against everybody else Nadal woudl have never made 5 UEs in the first 6 points of a TB!!!

Why does Nadal do those UEs v Djoko but not against everybody else? cause Nadal knows Djoko has teh legs and lungs no-one else has!!!!

What answer do you have to that?

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:Ten, I am not sure where you looked at the TB, please look at this link with open eyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U-ct2leqYk

Here you have the analysis of TB as follows:

1^st point Nadal did not return

2^nd Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

3^rd Nadal winner after short return

4^th Nole dominates, Nadal passive

5^th Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

6^th Nadal dominates, Nole passive

7^th Nole dominates, Nadal forced to error

8^th Nole winner




Conclusion: in addition that Nole stood more about 1,5 meter more in the court at average in TB and dictated nearly all their rallies, Nole was clearly more active in 5 points and Nadal in 2, once Nadal did not return. So, the result is absolutely clear. Ten, you need to look at this more carefully.

Yes clearly what I see is what everybody sees...even worse than what I first described. Nadal makes 5 UEs and whacks a winning point. AT 5/1 up Djoko feels the win is near and opens his shoulders, relaxes and FINALLY attacks! he did not play as agressive in the first 6 points as he was in the last 2....If anything he showed in that TB that he was ready to rally and this is why Nadal went for uncharacteristically UEs...while we know that against everybody else Nadal woudl have never made 5 UEs!!!!! in the first 6 points of a TB!!!

What answer do you have to that?

Then you can not distinguish errors from forced errors. Nole outplayed Nadal so clearly at this tie-break and was more active player, which is obvious. Nadal hanged on the court in nearly all points they played in that TB. Look at the players and ball positioning, that should give you the explanation, perhaps you can see it.

I estimate that Nole had about a half more winners than Nadal in that match, was more than a half more often at the net than Nadal, that should also help you in the recognition what is behind Nole's success with Nadal.

paulcz wrote:
Then you can not distinguish errors from forced errors. Nole outplayed Nadal so clearly at this tie-break and was more active player, which is obvious. Nadal hanged on the court in nearly all points they played in that TB. Look at the players and ball positioning, that should give you the explanation, perhaps you can see it.

I estimate that Nole had about a half more winners than Nadal in that match, was more than a half more often at the net than Nadal, that should also help you in the recognition what is behind Nole's success with Nadal.

I don't know if anyone is following our conversation here but I'd be curious to see Who does not see 5 UEs and one near-winner from Nadal in those first 6 points of that TB. Maybe the point at 2/1 could be discussed but in anycase Nadal is pretty famous from retrieving if not pulling winners from that position....and the other 4 are clearly UEs.

It's clear that we will never agree on the most basic piece of "evidence".

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:
Then you can not distinguish errors from forced errors. Nole outplayed Nadal so clearly at this tie-break and was more active player, which is obvious. Nadal hanged on the court in nearly all points they played in that TB. Look at the players and ball positioning, that should give you the explanation, perhaps you can see it.

I estimate that Nole had about a half more winners than Nadal in that match, was more than a half more often at the net than Nadal, that should also help you in the recognition what is behind Nole's success with Nadal.

I don't know if anyone is following our conversation here but I'd be curious to see Who does not see 5 UEs and one near-winner from Nadal in those first 6 points of that TB. Maybe the point at 2/1 could be discussed but in anycase Nadal is pretty famous from retrieving if not pulling winners from that position....and the other 4 are clearly UEs.

It's clear that we will never agree on the most basic piece of "evidence".

It's hard work....

Nice way to stay neutral....

oh i can top that neutrality.

(Clears throat)
"I think both have good and equal points so I will find the closest fence and sit on it and hope the splinters from said fence doesn't hurt my fence sitting behind too much"

How about that ey?!?!

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:
Then you can not distinguish errors from forced errors. Nole outplayed Nadal so clearly at this tie-break and was more active player, which is obvious. Nadal hanged on the court in nearly all points they played in that TB. Look at the players and ball positioning, that should give you the explanation, perhaps you can see it.

I estimate that Nole had about a half more winners than Nadal in that match, was more than a half more often at the net than Nadal, that should also help you in the recognition what is behind Nole's success with Nadal.

I don't know if anyone is following our conversation here but I'd be curious to see Who does not see 5 UEs and one near-winner from Nadal in those first 6 points of that TB. Maybe the point at 2/1 could be discussed but in anycase Nadal is pretty famous from retrieving if not pulling winners from that position....and the other 4 are clearly UEs.

It's clear that we will never agree on the most basic piece of "evidence".

As you say that evidence is clearly seen in players positioning and ball placing and that was nicely analyzed e.g. Richard Schonborn. If the player is not able to step up into the court due to his a lack of timing, then there is no help on the court even if his lungs are as silos especially vs. such a player as Nadal is.

If you watched the match between Nadal vs. Stan there was shown the statistics how many balls played Nadal from the inside of the court in that match vs. the match in Monte Carlo with Nole. In that Madrid final played Nadal twice as much balls from the inside the court vs. MC with Nole, even though he played pretty subpar and could not time his shots as usual. The same statistics also used Richard Schonborn in his analyses in matches between Nadal and Nole.

You did not look at the TB properly, Nadal due to his positioning run about a half as much as Nole and therefore he was always a step behind on the ball. Due to that he did so many Ues, that is not only case of TB, but it is typical for their matches.

Ten, you are not able to properly judge how important for the game is the player positioning and from that deriving dictating the game on the court. Every player who played tennis on the competitive level knows that this is a crucial factor for the game and on the top level this is by far more visible, because all players can hit the ball very well. Nole dominates in this area with Nadal evidently, which is not case of other players.

But as one our tennis coach said, if you are not able to get it, please forget that and play your game. There are by far worse things than that

Right...what I see is that most players, be it ALmagro, Ferrer, a mobile Stan, Federer, Gulbis, Soderling can really cream Nadal on clay like Djoko, even more convincingly actually ....for a set or half of it only though....What you clearly cannot see is the fact none can rally as much with Nadal like Djoko does.Those many 10 and 20 shots rallies are killling all those players mentioned, however they don;t kill Djoko...they kill Nadal in fact....and this is why Nadal is the one doing those UEs.

I got intrigued so had a look at the first six points of that TB. I see it exactly as Tenez. Out of those 6 points, the only point where either player is really aggressive is the third point where Nadal is aggressive and wins the point. Out of Nole's 5 points, to me four are unforced errors by Nadal. The only one which I classify as "uncertain" is the point played at 2-1 where I cannot quite decide whether I would view the error as forced or unforced.

paulcz, you must be watching a different TB . I have no clue how you classify that fifth point as a forced error. You may as well call a double fault a forced error then.

Good. that's a bit of a relief! I was starting to question my own objectivity.

Now please SB, revisit Miami 04 and 05...and please tell me that Nadal is playing fast between points! ....like everybody else can see.

Just watched the TB and for me it goes 1) rafa UE, 2) rafa UE (3) djoko forced error (tad sloppy mind but he slips) 4) more a poor error from rafa despite djoko having the upper hand, that slice was abysmal!
5) nadal went for the big shot e.g. UE
6) same again another UE
7) djoko forces nadal into the error/close to being a winner (wasn't due to nadal's defence)
8) djoko winner.

Exactly....Djoko forces the issue at 5/1 up and not before. It;s in fact a very trademark of his game. watch the USO 2011 semi first TB...he throws a long rally hoping to blunt Federer's edge. Does it again in Cyncy's 2nt set TB in 2012.

Djoko banks his wis on long rallies. ....unless he has nothing left to lose (MPs down for instance) there he goes for broke and hope for the best.

Ten, SB, LS, so I processed a review of the active played balls by both at that TB as follows:

I see as clearly that Nole forced Nadal to errors in 1st point (serve), 4,7, a played a winner 8. Nadal forced Nole to UE at 3 and did UE at 5 (but when under a big pressure and Nole dictated the game from the start), at 6 that was clear his UE.

So the score looks like that:
Nole active balls: 1 4 7 8
Nadal active balls: 3 6

So point 5 is not assigned to anybody and point 2 neither, although it is clear that Nole played both about 1 meter more at front of the court against Nadal. In addition to the players positioning and ball placing it is obvious that Nole was much more active player and dominated clearly in this TB.

summerblues wrote:I got intrigued so had a look at the first six points of that TB. I see it exactly as Tenez. Out of those 6 points, the only point where either player is really aggressive is the third point where Nadal is aggressive and wins the point. Out of Nole's 5 points, to me four are unforced errors by Nadal. The only one which I classify as "uncertain" is the point played at 2-1 where I cannot quite decide whether I would view the error as forced or unforced.

paulcz, you must be watching a different TB . I have no clue how you classify that fifth point as a forced error. You may as well call a double fault a forced error then.

Summerblues, I knew that somebody would call me on that fifth

I did not want to write much about that fifth point, but that point was played not only by great Nole's shots but also by his intelligence. Even at the score 3:1, Nole played actively balls to corners from the start of the point, but he was patient, which is a mark of self-confidence. After the rallye got to the cross pattern, which Nadal practically does not change from that BH side, Nole waited for Nadal running around that BH and was in the middle position where Nole dominates and frustrated after a lot of running did UE. That ball was played great hands and also intelligence.

Tie-breaks can not be driven wild aggressivity, but cleverness. That TB was brilliantly played and there is nothing to blame Nole in it. I looked at that once more and no regret for that. So SB, please look at that once more if you find some time. It is really tennis from tennis textbook.

Tenez wrote:Now please SB, revisit Miami 04 and 05...and please tell me that Nadal is playing fast between points! ....like everybody else can see.

Hehe, I do not think so. That one was very simple. You stated Nadal was within 25s on at least 90% of points. Lydian called you on it, and you refused to admit it was untrue. I don't understand why because I think it would be far better for your own argument to concede this point and instead try to emphasize points where you were on more solid ground. By denying the plain fact, you just make people more suspicious of your other statements - even those that may be correct.

In any event, we agreed to disagree on this one, and I suspect we should probably keep it that way.

paulcz wrote:Tie-breaks can not be driven wild aggressivity, but cleverness. That TB was brilliantly played and there is nothing to blame Nole in it. I looked at that once more and no regret for that. So SB, please look at that once more if you find some time. It is really tennis from tennis textbook.

But I agree that Nole played that tie break well. I just do not think he was very aggressive in it - that is all. I personally prefer attacking tennis but - unlike Tenez () - I have no ideological issues with patient or even outright defensive tennis.

summerblues wrote:

paulcz wrote:Tie-breaks can not be driven wild aggressivity, but cleverness. That TB was brilliantly played and there is nothing to blame Nole in it. I looked at that once more and no regret for that. So SB, please look at that once more if you find some time. It is really tennis from tennis textbook.

But I agree that Nole played that tie break well. I just do not think he was very aggressive in it - that is all. I personally prefer attacking tennis but - unlike Tenez () - I have no ideological issues with patient or even outright defensive tennis.

I do not have ideological issues with those playing patient tennis (I liked Coria's game a lot for instance) but I do have issues with the way they can achieve that nowadays....However I have less of an issue when this patient game is done against the guy who won 11 slams being himslef the most patient. I just have issues with not calling a spade a spade.

Reading through this thread is a total gutbuster it's so hilarious. You people are clueless about tennis. Unbelievable stupidity about the sport, and you all should be embarrassed.

I also like how Nadal is painted as some beast who bullies his way to victory, while Novak is some angel who wins because he is Jesus Christ who walks on water. I wonder if he kissed his cross when he was shouting filth at the crowd in IW, and in Madrid? I wonder if he kisses his mother with the same mouth he used to tell the crowd to "lick his c*ck", and "f*ck your mother's c*nt". I wonder what his mother would think about him telling the people watching him practice in Rome that his penis is as big as his tennis racket(in his dreams). None of you are disgusted by this type of behavior? Probably not considering the handful of perpetually banned, and outcasted individuals who post here, would probably lick Novak's sweaty buttcrack if he asked them to.

And you folks need to realize that Nadal is a damn good tennis player and that he is better than Paire, Ferrer, and just about everyone out there playing right now. I know that's hard to admit but living in denial certainly doesn't help already sick minded people like yourselves.