ATP 500/250 Dubai/Acapulco/Sao Paolo

Tenez wrote:They all do. They all play pragmatic with the skills they inherited. No one is going to serve 2 second serve if they have 1/2 a chance to hit an ace on their first serve!

Yes, but different players play to give themselves the highest possible chance of winning.
Nadal's method has led him to the greatest W/L ratio.

Tenez wrote:Problem with this argument is that it does not hold up as we know slow surfaces require a strong physique for success while fast surfaces do not require necessarily particularly great physical skills.

My point is this, and let me repeat:

Secondly if surfaces were significantly different, and surfaces for the major tournaments, it's likely Toni would change his style to adjust to that. Any guess to how he would cope with that his simply guesswork, all we know is that in the current conditions he has the best W/L record in history.

How can you know how Nadal would fare with a different style of play?

How many time do I need to insist in you keeping a logical mind and not a fanatic one? Can you measure with a naked eye how good are nadal's reflex compared to Djoko? Llodra? Stepanek? Kholi? etc...etc...

Well he has consistently shown incredible timing and reflex on the defence, has the best behind the head backhand smash in the game (which is probably the shot which needs most hand-eye coordination), and can hit banana shots which take perfect timing.

Julia Santamaria wrote:
How can you know how Nadal would fare with a different style of play?

Easy!
He cannot play any other way. Simply doesn't have the ball-striking skill. As easy as that. So he has to make up for it with physicality and all that comes with it.

Do you consider yourself omniscient?

Julia Santamaria wrote:truffin I'm not the only one on this forum who brings up Nadal.

You were in this case and you were the other day--  if it bothers you so much to hear people pound Nadal- why set it up with clearly provoking comments when none are needed? 

IF you just want to rehash the same argument- then I guess that's why you do it- -but don't cry about haters and people picking on Nadal- when it's you that throws out the 1st punch.

truffin1 wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:truffin I'm not the only one on this forum who brings up Nadal.

You were in this case and you were the other day--  if it bothers you so much to hear people pound Nadal- why set it up with clearly provoking comments when none are needed? 

IF you just want to rehash the same argument- then I guess that's why you do it- -but don't cry about haters and people picking on Nadal- when it's you that throws out the 1st punch.

None of my comments are provoking nor 'punches', they are simply accurate.
I think it is clear that people unfortunately apply double standards to Nadal and Federer depending on which player they support. If Nadal had said what Federer said about the Berdych match, or what Federer said about his losses in 2013; he would have been chastised for it.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Yes, but different players play to give themselves the highest possible chance of winning.
Nadal's method has led him to the greatest W/L ratio.

Sense please sense! I do not know any player purposely not giving himself or herself the highest chance of winning. Can you talk in absolute terms instead of providing vague relative statement about your player?

My point is this, and let me repeat:

Secondly if surfaces were significantly different, and surfaces for the major tournaments, it's likely Toni would change his style to adjust to that. Any guess to how he would cope with that his simply guesswork, all we know is that in the current conditions he has the best W/L record in history.

How can you know how Nadal would fare with a different style of play

When will you make sense? You say he plays "pragmatic". If he had the talent to take the ball early and play well on fast turf he would. The fact is he cannot and stands back when he knows he should take the ball earlier. So either he is not very pragmatic or he simply has not got the required set of skills to take the ball early. It's quite ironic to see you try to see flaws in my logic when clearly you have none.

Well he has consistently shown incredible timing and reflex on the defence, has the best behind the head backhand smash in the game (which is probably the shot which needs most hand-eye coordination), and can hit banana shots which take perfect timing.

Again not a way to "measure" reflexes..just the impressions of a fanatic, nothing else. Bear in mind that having a very powerful arm, help tremendously the manoeuvrability of the racquet which is essential for all those shots, in fact reducing the need for timing and reflexes. Look at a table tennis match and see what those guys can do with a ping pong bat!..which is in effect nadal's advantage. But besides the point you clearly lack proper reasoning and come up with "incredible timing and reflexes" from "defense"    which means from 5m behind the baseline yet no nadal to be seen close to the baseline when he needs to!

I think I know why amri thinks Nadal has reflexes cause each time nadal gets to a ball or brings it back his heart jumps in amazement to his players. Everything Nadal does he thinks it's fabulous....hence the difficulty of having a rational discussion.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

truffin1 wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:truffin I'm not the only one on this forum who brings up Nadal.

You were in this case and you were the other day--  if it bothers you so much to hear people pound Nadal- why set it up with clearly provoking comments when none are needed? 

IF you just want to rehash the same argument- then I guess that's why you do it- -but don't cry about haters and people picking on Nadal- when it's you that throws out the 1st punch.

None of my comments are provoking nor 'punches', they are simply accurate.
I think it is clear that people unfortunately apply double standards to Nadal and Federer depending on which player they support. If Nadal had said what Federer said about the Berdych match, or what Federer said about his losses in 2013; he would have been chastised for it.

Right- me mentioning that I wish we weren't moving from a proper fast court Dubai to slow IW- which in no way is saying anything about Nadal- and you immediately replying with a sarcastic comment about Nadal beating Federer in Dubai a whopping 7 years ago-  was not  meant to aggravate Federer fans or cause a reaction...     you really are deep into fanatic ville Ameri.

Tenez wrote:Sense please sense! I do not know any player purposely not giving himself or herself the highest chance of winning.

That is my point. In certain conditions there will always be an 'optimal' gameplan, and it is Nadal who can get closest to that.

Tenez wrote:The fact is he cannot and stands back when he knows he should take the ball earlier.

Standing back means that he has a better chance of covering the length of the court, simple really.

Again not a way to "measure" reflexes..just the impressions of a fanatic, nothing else.

He has probably one of the best half volleys, best behind the head backhand smashes, and can pull of superb reflex shots, all shots which need timing.

You say big muscles help timing; squash and table tennis are both sports which rely on timing and reflexes... yet there is a mix of players at the top with big and small biceps, no clear positive correlation.

Truffin wrote:Right- me mentioning that I wish we weren't moving from a proper fast court Dubai to slow IW- which in no way is saying anything about Nadal

Really? Nothing to do with the fact that Federer has just won Dubai; and Nadal won IW last year and you have predicted Nadal to win IW again this year?

Just some basics Amri:

The closer you are to the net, the faster and harder the ball is coming at you, the more difficult it is to control it and do something with it.

The smaller the racquet, and it gets even harder.

The way Nadal plays tennis - it's the exact opposite. Brute force with zero flair.

Well Nadal has shown time and again he can play reflex volleys, as well as half volleys; and as I have said numerous times has the best backhand smash in the game... but the simple fact is if the playing surface is not conducive to serving and volleying... why would anyone do it?

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:Sense please sense! I do not know any player purposely not giving himself or herself the highest chance of winning.

That is my point. In certain conditions there will always be an 'optimal' gameplan, and it is Nadal who can get closest to that.

Tenez wrote:The fact is he cannot and stands back when he knows he should take the ball earlier.

Standing back means that he has a better chance of covering the length of the court, simple really.

Again not a way to "measure" reflexes..just the impressions of a fanatic, nothing else.

He has probably one of the best half volleys, best behind the head backhand smashes, and can pull of superb reflex shots, all shots which need timing.

You say big muscles help timing; squash and table tennis are both sports which rely on timing and reflexes... yet there is a mix of players at the top with big and small biceps, no clear positive correlation.

Well you failed again on all accounts.
1 - His gameplan does not work very well where using a bit of talent (that is taking the ball earlier) would be much needed. His gameplan works pretty well where physique is most needed. The fact he could win 4 or 5 FO but yet failed to beat a seeded player at the USO before they increased the size's ball (remember, you may be too young enough) but USO was seen as the medium pace in the old days, says a lot about either getting his tactics wrong or simply not having the needed talent.

2 - you repeat the same thing refusing to see the point and the fact. Standing back means having to cover more ground, quite violently on a fast surface, while taking the ball early would send the ball back quicker and put his opponent on the back foot, style Agassi, Nalby or Federer.
So clearly you cannot have it both ways: Either he has talent and gets his tactics wrong or simply he hasn't and makes the most of his physical advantage. What's your answer to that?

3 - You make no sense at all about squash and pingpoing being a timing and reflex sport. None at all. What I am saying is that manoeuvring a 300g racquet at high speed takes great timing and reflexes unless you have a very strong arm.

I am disappointed my your degree of reasoning...I knew you were a fan but I find it sad that your mind can't rationally explain your love of Nadal's game. Thinking it's because of his talent when clearly Nadal's game is about getting rid of the talent factor and bringing the game into a physical fight. I kind of knew that already to be honest but did not quite measure the extent of your fanatism.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Well Nadal has shown time and again he can play reflex volleys, as well as half volleys; and as I have said numerous times has the best backhand smash in the game... but the simple fact is if the playing surface is not conducive to serving and volleying... why would anyone do it?

Is that your last argument? Another vague statement? Are the other players getting the ball whacked between their eyes before they can move the racquet?

You should pay me for the tennis and logic lesson I just gave you.

Tenez wrote:You should pay me for the tennis and logic lesson I just gave you.

What's your refund policy?

Tenez wrote:The fact he could win 4 or 5 FO but yet failed to beat a seeded player at the USO

When he was younger and far before his prime he trained mainly on clay, and his movement on clay was far superior to his movement on hard courts. He moved on hard courts when he was younger like he was playing on clay... and it did not serve him well.
When he got older he learned to accustom to various surfaces.

Tenez wrote:So clearly you cannot have it both ways: Either he has talent and gets his tactics wrong or simply he hasn't and makes the most of his physical advantage. What's your answer to that?

He's got his tactics absolutely spot on. The current conditions have an 'optimal' way of playing on them, and Nadal is the closest to that optimal way. Nadal could be the best serve and volleyer in the world, but what use would that be?

I kind of knew that already to be honest but did not quite measure the extent of your fanatism.

I am actually quite balanced, it is you unfortunately who is the Nadal hating fanatic, and yet you cannot see it!

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Truffin wrote:Right- me mentioning that I wish we weren't moving from a proper fast court Dubai to slow IW- which in no way is saying anything about Nadal

Really? Nothing to do with the fact that Federer has just won Dubai; and Nadal won IW last year and you have predicted Nadal to win IW again this year?

nope- it was purely and clearly stated as me wishing we didn't have to move to the ridiculous slow hard courts of IW ...yes, Federer had just won Dubai and I as a fan would prefer to see him playing on faster courts this week/next week- but that has nothing to do with Nadal-   and I didn't say a thing about Nadal winning IW until a couple of hours ago- so I don't think you had that on your mind as a reason when you made your remark a few days ago..     Just admit you were trying to create a reaction and move on...

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:You should pay me for the tennis and logic lesson I just gave you.

What's your refund policy?

Don't worry I am insured against slow learners.

He's got his tactics absolutely spot on. The current conditions have an 'optimal' way of playing on them, and Nadal is the closest to that optimal way. Nadal could be the best serve and volleyer in the world, but what use would that be?

Spot on? but he still fails on average to win a quarter of slams he enters. He has entered or tried to enter since 2001 53 slams and has won 13 of them....of which 8 are on clay. Are you saying he does not wish to win those faster slams?

I am actually quite balanced, it is you unfortunately who is the Nadal hating fanatic, and yet you cannot see it!

How can you be balanced and "love" a player whos is everything but balanced? Monomanic with OCD compulsions, playing an extreme physical tennis to the point of being injured or having to pull out of 1 slam out of 4..at least, etc...

Federer is a pretty balanced player and is the one I like so at least according to our preferences I am not sure you are the balanced one...Though in your deformed world anything can re-interpreted.

truffin1 wrote:

nope- it was purely and clearly stated as me wishing we didn't have to move to the ridiculous slow hard courts of IW ...yes, Federer had just won Dubai and I as a fan would prefer to see him playing on faster courts this week/next week- but that has nothing to do with Nadal-   and I didn't say a thing about Nadal winning IW until a couple of hours ago- so I don't think you had that on your mind as a reason when you made your remark a few days ago..     Just admit you were trying to create a reaction and move on...

Why would you say a slow court is 'manufactured', and yet you don't apply that term to fast courts. Both slow and fast hard courts are manufactured... there is no supreme commandment which orders either to be more valid than the other.
The fact you say the slow one which Nadal won last year is 'manufactured', and not the court Federer just won; shows how you interpret the events. And I am not a fortune teller, I did not know you would predict Nadal to win this year's IW, but that just backs what I was saying further.

Tenez wrote:
Spot on? but he still fails on average to win a quarter of slams he enters. He has entered or tried to enter since 2001 53 slams and has won 13 of them.

This is an absolutely ludicrous argument.
Firstly he did not enter any slams in 2001, I really think you're off the mark there.
Secondly when he was younger he was mainly accustomed to playing on clay, and his movement on other surfaces was pretty poor. It's when he got older he started training more on other surfaces that he adjusted to those courts.
Look, even with the skewed way you are looking at it, winning 25% of slams entered is a pretty good return, when you consider he is competing against all other professionals.

Tenez wrote:
How can you be balanced and "love" a player whos is everything but balanced?

What? What on earth does whether a player is balanced or not, have to do anything with whether someone is balanced?

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Spot on? but he still fails on average to win a quarter of slams he enters. He has entered or tried to enter since 2001 53 slams and has won 13 of them.

This is an absolutely ludicrous argument.
Firstly he did not enter any slams in 2001, I really think you're off the mark there.
Secondly when he was younger he was mainly accustomed to playing on clay, and his movement on other surfaces was pretty poor. It's when he got older he started training more on other surfaces that he adjusted to those courts.
Look, even with the skewed way you are looking at it, winning 25% of slams entered is a pretty good return, when you consider he is competing against all other professionals.

Tenez wrote:
How can you be balanced and "love" a player whos is everything but balanced?  

What? What on earth does whether a player is balanced or not, have to do anything with whether someone is balanced?

But on non clay slams he has won a poor amount and only because they were ridiculously slowed so like the rest of the players none have trained on grass. So there is no excuse for using a bit of talent and adapt as 3/4 of slams are not on clay. Not a very pragmatic choice to concentrate on learning on slow courts when 3/4 were a fot faster back then..and even less pragmatic not to use talent and take the ball earlier when needed.

You seem so confused and irrational that you don't even see the logic of simple points.

Tenez wrote:Not a very pragmatic choice to concentrate on learning on slow courts when 3/4 were a fot faster back then

He grew up in Spain, and that was the norm there.
Again you seem to be indicating that there's a lack of success for Nadal... there isn't really. Apart from a very few players in history, who can say they are as successful as Nadal?
The tactics he uses are clearly the right one, and hence he has the highest W/L ratio.

To ignore that and go on about his results from 2001 is illogical.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

truffin1 wrote:

nope- it was purely and clearly stated as me wishing we didn't have to move to the ridiculous slow hard courts of IW ...yes, Federer had just won Dubai and I as a fan would prefer to see him playing on faster courts this week/next week- but that has nothing to do with Nadal-   and I didn't say a thing about Nadal winning IW until a couple of hours ago- so I don't think you had that on your mind as a reason when you made your remark a few days ago..     Just admit you were trying to create a reaction and move on...

Why would you say a slow court is 'manufactured', and yet you don't apply that term to fast courts. Both slow and fast hard courts are manufactured... there is no supreme commandment which orders either to be more valid than the other.
The fact you say the slow one which Nadal won last year is 'manufactured', and not the court Federer just won; shows how you interpret the events. And I am not a fortune teller, I did not know you would predict Nadal to win this year's IW, but that just backs what I was saying further.

IW was a medium fast court and has been slowed down drastically from where it used to be in order to help a certain style of play and player- hence manufactured slowness.   Dubai has been and was intended to be a medium fast court and hasn't been tinkered with to help or hurt certain players or styles of play-- hence not manufactured.        You just can't see the forrest for the trees when it comes to this stuff.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:Not a very pragmatic choice to concentrate on learning on slow courts when 3/4 were a fot faster back then

He grew up in Spain, and that was the norm there.
Again you seem to be indicating that there's a lack of success for Nadal... there isn't really. Apart from a very few players in history, who can say they are as successful as Nadal?
The tactics he uses are clearly the right one, and hence he has the highest W/L ratio.

To ignore that and go on about his results from 2001 is illogical.

No it's you ignoring the fact that 95% of players learn tennis on clay or slow surfaces and less than 0.1% learn tennis on grass when young. So when they arrive to play at Wimbledon it's a new experience for them and the more talented do better. Nadal only adapted to slow grass cause the ball were so slow that he could afford to stand back.

You do not want or wish to see that one doesn't learn to take the ball early....you either can or can't. Look at the American players, they train on fast cement all year round but it doesn't not make them good at taking the ball early. They are not bad but compared to Federer who leant on clay they are not close despite having more training. This is why I don't buy your excuse. Andujar takes the ball early for instance and he trained in Spain too. If he was fitter than Nadal he would be much better .

truffin wrote:IW was a medium fast court and has been slowed down drastically from where it used to be in order to help a certain style of play and player- hence manufactured slowness. Dubai has been and was intended to be a medium fast court and hasn't been tinkered with to help or hurt certain players or styles of play-- hence not manufactured. You just can't see the forrest for the trees when it comes to this stuff.

See: why to help a 'player'.?
Perhaps the crowd simply preferred longer rallies?

Tenez wrote:So when they arrive to play at Wimbledon it's a new experience for them and the more talented do better.

Well Nadal actually reached his first Wimbledon final at a younger age than Federer.

Andujar takes the ball early for instance and he trained in Spain too. If he was fitter than Nadal he would be much better .

How's Pablo doing in the rankings? Surely taking the ball earlier doesn't need fitness?