Us Open Round 5 (Day 9)- with Game Fixtures

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:48 am

US Open Day 9:

Schedule: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/index.html
Live Scores: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/index.html?promo=subnav

Meanwhle,
Central Game Thread: https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t421-us-open-prediction-game-leaderboard

These are picks for tomorrow, the points next to each name is how many points you get if that player wins:
Murray (1) vs Istomin (9)
Youzhny (4) vs Hewitt (6)
Berdych (3) vs Wawrinka (7)
Djokovic (1) vs Grannollers (9)

Good luck Thumbs Up

by Tenez Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 am

Murray (1) Youzhny (4) Wawrinka (7)
Djokovic (1)

by noleisthebest Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:51 am

Istomin, Youzhny, Wawrinka, Djokovic

I just can't believe Granollers is still in the draw.....

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:07 pm

Muray,
Youzhny,
Berdych but Wawrinka will really run him close. Match of the day for me.
Djokovic.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:14 pm

Will this US open see a player rise up and be able to break his slam duck?

by luvsports! Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:35 pm

murray, hewitt, wawrinka, djoko

by Tenez Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:04 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Will this US open see a player rise up and be able to break his slam duck?

No. Those top 3 are simply too strong still.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:11 pm

Tenez wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Will this US open see a player rise up and be able to break his slam duck?
No. Those top 3 are simply too strong still.

This is indeed a very weak era in men's tennis then. Same 3 contenders for every slam be it Hard or Grass or Clay. Others won't even get a sniff. Terrible times for tennis fans, In all my years of tennis watching this has been the worst period.

by Tenez Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:22 pm

I actually agree. IF it was not for Federer talent and variation we would have had those 3 dominating since 2006 with endless lung busting rallies in finals of all slams.

I woudl not say the era is weak as such...it is simply ridiculously fit leaving no chance for a creative tennis. It's business sport at its best.

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:29 pm

Summerblues wrote:Murray (1)
Hewitt (6)
Wawrinka (7)
Djokovic (1)

Cheers and Good Luck

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:30 pm

Tenez wrote:Murray (1)
Youzhny (4)
Wawrinka (7)
Djokovic (1)

Cheers and Good Luck

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:32 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Istomin (9)
Youzhny (4)
Wawrinka (7)
Djokovic (1)

Cheers and Good Luck

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:32 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray (1)
Youzhny (4)
Berdych (3) [but Wawrinka will really run him close. Match of the day for me.]
Djokovic (1)

Cheers and Good Luck

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:33 pm

luvsports! wrote:murray (1)
hewitt (6)
wawrinka (7)
djoko (1)

Cheers and Good Luck

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:34 pm

My Picks:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Murray (1)
Youzhny (4)
Berdych (3)
Djokovic (1)

by N2D2L Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:34 pm

Gallery Play, TRuffin, Veejay- you guys are all welcome to join.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:51 pm

Tenez wrote:I actually agree. IF it was not for Federer talent and variation we would have had those 3 dominating since 2006 with endless lung busting rallies in finals of all slams.

All 3? Well we can only speculate but I won't say that. Nadal even with those freakish power and stamina at such young age was losing to other players on Hard courts. Djokovic and Murray have simply gone the Nadal way because of the success it brought. Lung-busting game simply flourished because of presence of Fed who himself didn't play it, but if at all could be beaten it was only this way. So if Fed was not the player he was I think some more people would have won slams 1-2 slams. But I don't think the Top-3 would have been dominating.

Tenez wrote:I woudl not say the era is weak as such...it is simply ridiculously fit leaving no chance for a creative tennis. It's business sport at its best.

It might be era of freakish physicality, but I don't think all matches that are won by these 3 simply come down to physicality. Its a lot to do with their winning mindset. Nadal even in 2005 was not going to lose to the might of Federer who was so hugely dominant in those days. Nadal was not among the ones who take up the loss even before the match has started. He knew what he had to do and was hungry to win. What about Fed? He too rose from almost no where and sliced through even single opponent no matter who they were.

Don't you see how young players like Raonic, Delpotro, Dimi and many others will lose even from winning positions? Its just not their physicality. They are just scared of the stature of the player and will just not have the courage to take him on.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:08 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
All 3? Well we can only speculate but I won't say that. Nadal even with those freakish power and stamina at such young age was losing to other players on Hard courts. Djokovic and Murray have simply gone the Nadal way because of the success it brought. Lung-busting game simply flourished because of presence of Fed who himself didn't play it, but if at all could be beaten it was only this way. So if Fed was not the player he was I think some more people would have won slams 1-2 slams. But I don't think the Top-3 would have been dominating.
tenez wrote:
I don't think Federer is the reason for Nadal and other type of games. They simply develop games based on how to best exploit current technology and science. Nadal's game for instance is not only efficient versus Fed but versus all other players. If you have the science to make your player run for ever and hit as hard as possible then you have to develop a game that will bring any opponent to those long rallies so the player can make the difference in that physical department. For instance Kholi and Nadal are quite close tennis wise....for a set but over 3...it is not close at all. This is what Nadal, Djkoand Murray have worked on. Making them very difficult to beat in the distance. IT works versus anybody ...including Federer.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:14 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:It might be era of freakish physicality, but I don't think all matches that are won by these 3 simply come down to physicality. Its a lot to do with their winning mindset. Nadal even in 2005 was not going to lose to the might of Federer who was so hugely dominant in those days. Nadal was not among the ones who take up the loss even before the match has started. He knew what he had to do and was hungry to win. What about Fed? He too rose from almost no where and sliced through even single opponent no matter who they were.

Don't you see how young players like Raonic, Delpotro, Dimi and many others will lose even from winning positions? Its just not their physicality. They are just scared of the stature of the player and will just not have the courage to take him on.

I have explained my view enough time on this. When you know you can last the distance your mindset becomes very good/strong. Look at Borg, Chang, Hewitt and so on. KNowing that your opponent can tire and you won't helps the mental side enormously. Look at Nadal versus Djoko in 2011...or Murray crumbling so many times v Djoko before he himself became stronger. Those 3 work essentially on the physical side for a very good reason.

by summerblues Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:54 am

Two bagels from Nole. Poor Granollers.

by summerblues Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:38 am

Andy drops the first set. Intriguing...

by summerblues Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:38 am

I do not care much between Andy and Nole, but I want exactly one of them to lose before the SF Winking

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:40 am

Tenez wrote:I have explained my view enough time on this. When you know you can last the distance your mindset becomes very good/strong. Look at Borg, Chang, Hewitt and so on. KNowing that your opponent can tire and you won't helps the mental side enormously. Look at Nadal versus Djoko in 2011...or Murray crumbling so many times v Djoko before he himself became stronger. Those 3 work essentially on the physical side for a very good reason.

So how does one 'know' that they can last the distance against your opponent? And not only just know but be absolutely confident about it? In fact so much as to base his entire game around this very knowledge?

In Fed and Nadal's meetings, You want to say Nadal from the beginning 'knew' he could outlast Fed and hence simply played the lung-busting stamina game to tire Fed out and make him misfire?

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:07 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
So how does one 'know' that they can last the distance against your opponent? And not only just know but be absolutely confident about it? In fact so much as to base his entire game around this very knowledge?

Very easy, you throw a few long rallies at the first opportunity and you see how your opponent react. But in fact players know from the begining...there are the shot makers and the retrievers....usually they know from the onset who is forced into shortening the rallies, who is not.

ROTLA wrote:In Fed and Nadal's meetings, You want to say Nadal from the beginning 'knew' he could outlast Fed and hence simply played the lung-busting stamina game to tire Fed out and make him misfire?

Yes Nadal says it himself in his bio. He knows that Fed willl start to throw a few errors sooner or later.

by N2D2L Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:35 am

You've read the bio Tenez?

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:15 am

oh no...there were some shorts in v2 some time ago.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:52 am

Tenez wrote:Very easy, you throw a few long rallies at the first opportunity and you see how your opponent react. But in fact players know from the begining...there are the shot makers and the retrievers....usually they know from the onset who is forced into shortening the rallies, who is not.

You are making it look too simple but its far more complicated than that.
A few long rallies won't prove anything. Just a few rallys might show how my opponent normally plays, but my question is not that. My question is how does one 'know' that they can last the distance against your opponent? Its not about one match its about how the entire game-plan is drawn. And it can't be based on looking at a few long rallies, can it?

Let's take Fed-Nadal as an example. Nadal easily won their first meeting? Did he 'knew' he could outlast Federer? Yes or no?

But that was just one match and it might not have been of any significance if Nadal hadn't gone on to become, you know this Nadal. But how it is possible for a 18 year old playing the first time against Federer, the #1 player that he would surely be able to outlast him? Please answer.

Their 2nd meeting was Miami 2005 final. Nadal was 2-0 sets up then Fed scorched the Miami court and won it in 5 handing Nadal a bread-stick. Now even if we assume that after their first meeting Nadal somehow believed he could simply 'outlast' Fed, then this match might have thrown massive doubts in Nadal's mind. But did it? Of course not. Why? We will see that.

In their 3rd meeting RG 2005 semis, at 1-1 sets, how can Nadal simply win it 'knowing' that he would outlast Fed given the loss Nadal suffered at Miami even after 2-0 sets up? Please answer. In the end Nadal might have actually outlasted Fed and won it, possible, but he didn't know it before the match started. Its impossible for a 19 yo playing his first GS semis to draw so much confidence on his own fitness and belief that he could simply 'outlast' the #1 player in the world. What was the reason even to have such a belief? I don't see any.

So my point(s) is:

1. Knowing that you can outlast your opponent is a very good confidence builder in a match. But this knowledge isn't free that any ultra-fit player can so easily have it. No way.

2. Nadal knows that Fed will start to error out with course of the match. But this knowledge has come only after playing many matches. Nadal can't have this without facing and beating Fed a good number of times. Only then he can actually 'know' that he sure can outlast Fed in a long match.

3. Nadal's early wins against Fed were mainly because Nadal isn't any ordinary journeyman player. He always had the winning mindset and wasn't scared of facing anyone even if its a multi-slammer #1 player. He wasn't going to lose the match in the locker room. And this confidence is what made him what he is now. His supreme fitness boosted this confidence, but it wasn't what created it.

4. Our earlier discussion was how weak the new crop of players look compared to the top-3. They just simply are too scared looking at the stature of these 3 and wilt. These 3 also started as any other player, but they just weren't ordinary ones who would accept loss looking at a players ranking. This supreme confidence even if its built on fitness is every ounce earned. Fitness boosted it, but they always had it.

The current new young players when facing the top players are simply chokers who prepare for the losing speech even before the match started. It hasn't entirely to do with fitness.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:37 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Let's take Fed-Nadal as an example. Nadal easily won their first meeting? Did he 'knew' he could outlast Federer? Yes or no?

Whether he knew or not he had no chance but to be the retriever as he did not have the skills to dictate...so he knows he could only win by grinding.

You take a good example cause look at Nadal v Hewitt AO (04?). Nadal knows he coudl not outlast Hewitt from the beginning and triggered many FHs to shorten rallies.

Those guys simply know. It;s like jumping on a ring...you gauge very quickly your chances of outlasting your opponent. Of course...there si a bit of bluff going on too....making your opponent believe you are extremely fit....fitter than you actually are. Nadal ran out of steam in Miami 05 v Federer ...though he clearly leant the lesson to take extra time between points from then on.

The mistake is to consider the distance over 3 or 5 sets. .....That's not what really makes the difference. The difference happens after a few games of long rallies. This is what those guys bet on because this is where you start losing that very important edge to pull winners. Aggressive shots simply become less precise and harder to time. This is why we have seen so many times Federer leading at first (clay or not clay)....just to lose the first set closely and teh remaining ones even more convincingly. No different than what you saw yesterday between Nadal v Kholi or Murray v Istomin.
This is the typical score pattern that shows simply the physical difference between those players and the rest.

The reason is very simple cause all those guys can run for ever....humans have been built to run but they have not been designed to run for ever AND do something precise with their arms/hands at the same time. It's different muscles. Knowing this professional players like Nadal bet on the fact their shots have power but huge margins and this is what makes the difference between someone like Federer who bets on his precise well timed shots. Nadal, Djoko and Murray muscle the ball a lot, they use power to keep the ball in court while making it difficult/risky to attack.

So this is why they know that as teh match extends those thin margins shots will misfire.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:58 am

Tenez, we are talking different things. Okay please answer the following?

Q. How is it possible for Nadal to 'know' that he can outlast Fed when they first met in a GS at RG 2005 semis?

by gallery play Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:24 am

I'm very much with Tenez on this.

It's why Team Sky has been so strong in the tour le France the last few years. They have all kinds of models backing them up: they just know for a fact that no one can escape if they can maintain a certain wattage going uphill.
Team Rafa follows the same path: if Raf can put a certain 'wattage' in (energy level) they know he almost becomes unbeatable. His style of play and hitting technique (heavy spin thus safe and less prone to a 'bad timing day') backs this strategy.
Early in Nadal's career this was a case of finetuning but soon he knew how to outlast (that's not only running btw) basically anyone so that always remained the pinnacle of his gameplan.

So yes: those guys simply know.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:33 am

I believe I answered that. He knows that his shots have enough margins to be produced over a long period. Toni knows very well that those sharp shots from Fed won't last as long.
It's no different than Wilander winning his first FO in 1982. Look at the scores against Lendl, Vilas...same pattern again.

Those guys simply know that over the distance the percentage shot wins over sharp shot. It's very simple.

by luvsports! Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:37 am

gp - and perhaps the most sophisticated PEDs out there? Even been accused of installing a motor in their bikes!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:21 pm

I am not asking whether Nadal knows it or not? I am not asking what pattern Team-Rafa follows?

You and GP are trying to answer does a player know he can outlast his opponent or not. I'm not disputing it, I'm asking what is the source of this knowledge. It can only come with experience and that's why its possible to 'know' only after a good time has elapsed. But it can't work during the initials meeting.

That's why I asked you how can Nadal simply 'know' he can outlast Fed at RG 2005 semis? Nadal lost their previous meeting after 5 sets. So this wasn't exactly any reason to believe that next time when they meet he just will outlast him. Was he certain that Fed like Miami 2005, would still beat him in the long run?

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:34 pm

The source of this knowledge is simple. high margins shots simply last longer than sharper/risky shots.

Everybody knows that. NAdal says "why pulling a 60% winner after 2 shots when 4 or 5 shots down the line that winner could increase to 80%. He has the high margins shots.....Federer on the other hand his winning percentage declines within a rally (much harder to pull a clean winner after a 15 shots rally) but also as the match extends.

Yes of course there is always a case of that extra running, too much margins giving the shot maker (Fed) easier balls to send in all corners forcing the retriever to do even more running. Nadal got also tired at Wimby 2007 and he may have got tired in Wimby 2008 without the rain breaks. That is essentially the crux of Fed/Nadal match. If Fed plays well then Nadal simply do not touch the ball and can't even force rallies. SO he doesn;t know how well Fed is going to play but he know that the more he stays with him the better his chance.....again proven like in their last encounter.

In that respect there is something that is not 100% secure for Nadal....but in both occasions where Fed won in 5 sets...Nadal was taking less time between points. When Nadal was allowed to take more time, Fed had simply no chance..unless he was simply having a great day.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:55 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I am not asking whether Nadal knows it or not? I am not asking what pattern Team-Rafa follows?

You and GP are trying to answer does a player know he can outlast his opponent or not. I'm not disputing it, I'm asking what is the source of this knowledge. It can only come with experience and that's why its possible to 'know' only after a good time has elapsed. But it can't work during the initials meeting.

That's why I asked you how can Nadal simply 'know' he can outlast Fed at RG 2005 semis? Nadal lost their previous meeting after 5 sets. So this wasn't exactly any reason to believe that next time when they meet he just will outlast him. Was he certain that Fed like Miami 2005, would still beat him in the long run?

Nadal's very style of play screams at the opponent that he is physically ready to grind them to death: he stands behind the baseline and retrieves the ball endlessly. His left arm is unnaturally huge. He jumps at the coin toss and then sprints to the baseline to tell you that he is there to last and outlast.
He would not play like that if he did not know he could physically sustain it.
He does not have the shotmaking talent or courage to step into court and take the destiny in his own hands like Federer does, so he and his team do with him the best they can with what they have: an excellent athlete with excellent focus who can pound the ball safely back in court till hell freezes over.
A bit like with talentless people at work, they'll sit at their desks until midnight looking busy whereas talented ones will just deliver effortlessly in normal working hours.
They know they can't do it any other way so they choose the only way available.
Nadal has unfortunately been allowed to abuse medical advances which allowed him to last longer, so that's how he knew he could last.
That is what killed and buried tennis.

Take away medicine from top players and you'll get a different picture, they have a very unfair advantage which they should not.

How did he know in 2005?
He is only one year older than Nole and Murray and compare the size of them at the same age....
He had no other choice but to play like he did and "work" on it, it obviously paid off as it was left unchecked for the sake of tennis "popularity" and profitability.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:10 pm

Tenez, you have answered everything. But not what I asked. I wanted to know about RG 2005 semis.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:16 pm

I think you need to rephrase your question rotla.

Maybe it's best if you explain why you disagree in a bit more detail, state your case kind of thing, then the question will formulate itself.
Otherwise it does not come across clear what exactly you want to know (to me, at least, as the way I read your question looks very well answered by Tenez).

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:20 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
How did he know in 2005?
He is only one year older than Nole and Murray and compare the size of them at the same age....
He had no other choice but to play like he did and "work" on it, it obviously paid off as it was left unchecked for the sake of tennis "popularity" and profitability.

If Nadal had no choice that doesn't mean he 'knew' that he would outlast Fed. If Nadal has no choice but to play his lung-busting game, does Fed have any other choice than to shorten the rallies and finish quickly? See so this lack of choice works both ways. But it doesn't mean that Fed 'knows' that he can shorten the points and paints the lines and hence enjoying a massive confidence booster when facing retrievers.

Our argument is entirely based on the Tenez's point that 'knowing' that he will outlast the opponent is a massive confidence booster when facing opponents. While I agree to this I find it hard to believe that this knowledge was always with Nadal especially when facing Fed. In fact such a knowledge can only help with experience and not initially. Nadal didn't win their 2005 meeting because he 'knew' he would be outlsting Fed. Come on. How can he even think this when only recently he lost a 5 setter even after being 2-0 sets up.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:30 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I think you need to rephrase your question rotla.

Maybe it's best if you explain why you disagree in a bit more detail, state your case kind of thing, then the question will formulate itself.
Otherwise it does not come across clear what exactly you want to know (to me, at least, as the way I read your question looks very well answered by Tenez).

Okay. Tenez say the current crop of young player have no chance when facing the top-3 only because of their physicality. I disagree, they are just not of winning mindset and lose even before the match starts.

Tenez says: When you know you can last the distance your mindset becomes very good/strong.

While I agree but not entirely, especially if the players are meeting for their first few matches. I said Nadal's confidence when facing Fed in their 1st few meetings wasn't due to him 'knowing' he can outlast Fed.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:30 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tenez, you have answered everything. But not what I asked. I wanted to know about RG 2005 semis.

Cause I am not sure the question is very clear.

He doesn;t know he will win but he knows his chances increases as the match extends, provided he can take enough breathing between points. And as I said Nadal versus federer has no other option than dragging the match on as he is not skilled enough to dictate. So there is no question, it is just so.

Same when Nadal played Djoko in 2011...it just took a few rallies for Nadal to understand it was in his best interest to shorten the points, take a risk before the rally extends too much.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:42 pm

Tenez wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tenez, you have answered everything. But not what I asked. I wanted to know about RG 2005 semis.
Cause I am not sure the question is very clear.

He doesn;t know he will win but he knows his chances increases as the match extends, provided he can take enough breathing between points. And as I said Nadal versus federer has no other option than dragging the match on as he is not skilled enough to dictate. So there is no question, it is just so.

So didn't Fed know that his chances increases as the rallys are shorter and points finish quickly? Its the same knowledge, right? If this knowledge alone gave Nadal the winning mindset, how come it didn't help Fed's confidence.

How come it was Nadal who on the basis of this very knowledge was able win but Fed wasn't?

This is only because Nadal had something that the current crop of young players just don't. Courage not to be bothered by the opponent's stature but play his own game.

by luvsports! Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:51 pm

I see exactly what raiders is getting at btw.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:53 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I think you need to rephrase your question rotla.

Maybe it's best if you explain why you disagree in a bit more detail, state your case kind of thing, then the question will formulate itself.
Otherwise it does not come across clear what exactly you want to know (to me, at least, as the way I read your question looks very well answered by Tenez).
Okay. Tenez say the current crop of young player have no chance when facing the top-3 only because of their physicality. I disagree, they are just not of winning mindset and lose even before the match starts.

Tenez says: When you know you can last the distance your mindset becomes very good/strong.

While I agree but not entirely, especially if the players are meeting for their first few matches. I said Nadal's confidence when facing Fed in their 1st few meetings wasn't due to him 'knowing' he can outlast Fed.

That's the whole "beauty"!

All you need to do is see how they play and you get the answer, last shot-making slam was won by Federer last Wimbledon. Every other one has been won based on longer rallies enabled by superior fitness which we all know is not achieved on the treadmill any more.

Why have Raonic and Dimitrov changed their playing style since last year and are now base-line scramblers most of the time?
Why are they failing?
Simply because they are not as good and fit athletes as Murray and Nadal are at the moment, and partly Djokovic.

Tennis is not about hand to eye coordination any more, it is EXCLUSIVELY athletic ability and endurance competition now.
What is more difficult to be: a fit athlete who can safely rally for ever or defend your serve at the net?

If doctors were not in the picture, then Murray and Nadal would have zero slams and Dimitrov and even Raonic would be easily strolling into the semis of slams as they both originally played attacking tennis.
Nadal would not even win a single RG.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:59 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
So didn't Fed know that his chances increases as the rallys are shorter and points finish quickly? Its the same knowledge, right? If this knowledge alone gave Nadal the winning mindset, how come it didn't help Fed's confidence.

How come it was Nadal who on the basis of this very knowledge was able win but Fed wasn't?

This is only because Nadal had something that the current crop of young players just don't. Courage not to be bothered by the opponent's stature but play his own game.

Rotla!

How can anyone play their own game if the ball is being pushed back at you ad nauseum? Just look how they play...
Andy Murray, I only saw a few points form him, but he is a scary sight now. The most horrible tennis played by a fitness hybrid.
Last night I could not even watch Granollers Djokovic more than 5 minutes. It was dead boring.
There is nothing wrong being a counter-puncher, but a doped counterpuncher has an unfair advantage where he can physically outlast you and you can be as brave as you like, it's like a junior playing against an adult almost. It's a thin line and tennis momentum is such a fragile and fine thing with a player who attacks.
Your opponent knows it.
You know it.
That's why Nadal regularly beats Federer now.
I truly admire Federer even bothering any more.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:13 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Tenez wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tenez, you have answered everything. But not what I asked. I wanted to know about RG 2005 semis.
Cause I am not sure the question is very clear.

He doesn;t know he will win but he knows his chances increases as the match extends, provided he can take enough breathing between points. And as I said Nadal versus federer has no other option than dragging the match on as he is not skilled enough to dictate. So there is no question, it is just so.
So didn't Fed know that his chances increases as the rallys are shorter and points finish quickly? Its the same knowledge, right? If this knowledge alone gave Nadal the winning mindset, how come it didn't help Fed's confidence.

How come it was Nadal who on the basis of this very knowledge was able win but Fed wasn't?

This is only because Nadal had something that the current crop of young players just don't. Courage not to be bothered by the opponent's stature but play his own game.

Disagree I am afraid. The answer is very simple. pace conditions!

Nadal felt that on clay his chances were better (helping his mental)...on faster surfaces like the USO he could not beat a seeded player for years and appeared weak mentally when facing Blake, Youshny or others. Only when the USO slowed down did he get more confident (or mentally stronger there.....as you say), which again brings us back to that physical side.

Nadal would never have been a mentally strong player with natural strings for instance. No more than Pete never felt strong mentally on clay.

As I said Nadal so often, if not always, starts his matches with fears so I completely disagree about his mental strength.

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:18 pm

having said all that I agree that winning so many slams, being so fit, and improving with age and experience will make you mentally very strong...but like everything with Nadal...it;s "acquired" and not innate...in fact it is obvious he is full of fears and superstition.

by N2D2L Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:35 pm

A question for you Tenez:

How did Nadal win the first 4 sets he played against Federer.

First 2 came in Miami 2004, then the next 2 came in Miami 2005. How did he win these 4 sets in a row?

Just to clarify: This is not me asking you why he collapsed in Miami 2005 (in the final 3 sets), I have already seen your debate with Lydian over the time taken issue etc.
I am asking very specifically how he managed to take the first 4 sets he played against Federer.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:46 pm

Then we have to agree to disagree here. Nadal is more than just an ultra-fit player. Yes his main weapon is his fitness but he doesn't win matches alone on that. If that be the case then Nadal wouldn't have ever been able to beat Djokovic after those 7 straight losses. But he did.

Superstitious ? Yes.

Full of Fears? Well he may fear cockroaches or lizards, but he doesn't fear anyone on the tennis court. Never did. I saw how he faced the might of Federer and the manner he rose to the challenge and didn't blink for a second. It would always take a special player to do it.

I don't like Nadal for 1000s of reasons, but I can give credit for what he truly deserves. Lots of players on the ATP circuit might be doped, sure they are. But they are not going to become Nadal. Because dope alone can't get it.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:14 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Then we have to agree to disagree here. Nadal is more than just an ultra-fit player. Yes his main weapon is his fitness but he doesn't win matches alone on that. If that be the case then Nadal wouldn't have ever been able to beat Djokovic after those 7 straight losses. But he did.

Superstitious ? Yes.

Full of Fears? Well he may fear cockroaches or lizards, but he doesn't fear anyone on the tennis court. Never did. I saw how he faced the might of Federer and the manner he rose to the challenge and didn't blink for a second. It would always take a special player to do it.

I don't like Nadal for 1000s of reasons, but I can give credit for what he truly deserves. Lots of players on the ATP circuit might be doped, sure they are. But they are not going to become Nadal. Because dope alone can't get it.

Of course he does...that's why he is so far behind the base line, he particularly fears Novak, have you already forgotten this?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sBoUSWSmBHc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsBoUSWSmBHc

by Tenez Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:54 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I don't like Nadal for 1000s of reasons, but I can give credit for what he truly deserves. Lots of players on the ATP circuit might be doped, sure they are. But they are not going to become Nadal. Because dope alone can't get it.

Same story...players at this level are a mixture of athletism, talent, mental strength, hard work and probably other thing.

But often one weapon allows them to dominate. Pete without his serve would not have achieved nearly a third of what he has, Fed without his genius would have been another Youzhny, Djoko without his athletism would struggle versus Tsiparevic.....and Nadal without his fitness? .....he simply doesn't bother entering tournaments cause he knows dodig or Darcis could beat him.

Fitness is everything in Nadal's game!

I don;t have a problem giving credit where credit is due...but to me the credit is to his coach and his "team". He is playing better now but his 12 slams were won moonballing, no different than Wilander in 82 just with new technology and fitness.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30