US Open, just like the old days

So Nadal makes the semi-final without meeting a seed, indeed without meeting anyone in the top 50. Takes me back to 2008 when he met Murray in the semi and needed to achieve his first ever victory over a seed at the USO to make the final. He didn't, of course. That honour came the following year when a compliant El Mugro rolled over in the traditional manner.

Indeed Nadal will reflect on 2017 as a truly blessed one for Slam tournament draws. He met virtually nobody at the AO until the final (Dimitrov in the semi would normally have been considered a peach semi but he made hard work of it), was granted a Djokovic-free French Open, and met nobody at Wimbledon despite getting dumped out by one of them. The USO has taken the phenomenon to new heights. Admittedly Federer would have paid good money for his route to Wimbledon but his Australian Open was a triumph against a brutal draw, even matching the record for facing 4 top-10 players.

On top of all: USO gave Nadal -by US standards- uncharacteristically slow court, which partly hampered the beloved semi between Federer and Nadal.
 
Otoh: they have an all american Ladies semi, so they won't complain.

bogbrush wrote:So Nadal makes the semi-final without meeting a seed, indeed without meeting anyone in the top 50. Takes me back to 2008 when he met Murray in the semi and needed to achieve his first ever victory over a seed at the USO to make the final. He didn't, of course. That honour came the following year when a compliant El Mugro rolled over in the traditional manner.

Indeed Nadal will reflect on 2017 as a truly blessed one for Slam tournament draws. He met virtually nobody at the AO until the final (Dimitrov in the semi would normally have been considered a peach semi but he made hard work of it), was granted a Djokovic-free French Open, and met nobody at Wimbledon despite getting dumped out by one of them. The USO has taken the phenomenon to new heights. Admittedly Federer would have paid good money for his route to Wimbledon but his Australian Open was a triumph against a brutal draw, even matching the record for facing 4 top-10 players.

I wasn't aware of it...but of course, not surprised.

I've been bleating about this for years. That's why (among many other things) I don't respect the guy/his achievements and never will.

I know the Nadal/balanced  brigade will come back to this and say he can only beat thise who are in front of him conveniently ignoring what led to that amazing "luck".
Year in, year out.

Effectively he can't fluff it form this point, though wouldn't be surprised if he did. Given the sheer randomness of the tournament so far.

Of course, no Nadal fans are going to comment on this thread.

I understand.

Well given to my knowledge only 1 proper Nadal fan treads on this forum, I don't think the field Raffito has faced is a reason his 'fans' have dogged this thread.

A US Open title would be a Brucie bonus given his form post Clay.

I do expect some pre-final jinxing.

Our resident galatic tennis correspondent will re-ignite the GOAT debate no doubt should Rafa win the title.

gallery play wrote:On top of all: USO gave Nadal -by US standards- uncharacteristically slow court, which partly hampered the beloved semi between Federer and Nadal.
 
Otoh: they have an all american Ladies semi, so they won't complain.

they were already messing it up for Borg (v Connors and then McEnroe) when they kept changing the surface and making him play under light which they knew he hated.

We know about the back...but I also felt he was tired.

ROGER FEDERER: Not really. My schedule is similar towards the end of the season. Good thing is that I need a rest. I have a rest now, so that's good. That's actually the thing when I walked off the court, I was, like, Finally, I can rest. Because I'm tired. I put a lot into it. I was not sure I could play, to be honest, so I'm happy I get a rest now.

For score-reader-Daniel:
ROGER FEDERER: I mean, in a way it's been a struggle for everybody here, except maybe Carreno Busta. He's just been cruising. The rest of us have all been fighting something, you know. I'm sure other players are fighting injuries, you know, but they're not talking about it. I unfortunately had to because of the Montreal and Cincinnati situation. Otherwise I wouldn't have talked about it, either.

So he reckons Nadal is struggling with something? I guess he'd know too.

bogbrush wrote:So he reckons Nadal is struggling with something? I guess he'd know too.

Well as he says they would all keep it to themselves if it was the case. I think he is referring to the way Nadal started the tournament. I am pretty sure seeing Nadal's last 2 matches, there seems to be little to trouble him physically.

The only think I saw (and that's something I noticed long ago), is that Rafa tries to kill (physically) the spirit of his opponent in the first set or 2....by showing unwavering power and stamina.....but that arm tires somehow after a set or 2 and the spin becomes a bit less...unfortunately by that time his opponents has indeed a broken spirit and is tired himself. But if you keep plugging a la Djoko, then Nadal can collapse physically and with that he becomes easier to play and move around and kill physically.
Ex Miami05 final fed winning the last 6 games
Wimby 2007 and Ao 17  Fed winning the last 5 games I think
But also a IW/Miami double where Djoko came back twice from a set down....and that was in B03.

So that might be jmdp chance.....his FHs are harder to get to after a few sets in the legs. Stan does that too. But frankly I have very little hope.

Tenez: You've been harping on about injury and back even when there was clearly no sign of one.  He lost.  Get over it. Niggles happen to all players and that's the game.

It's hilarious that you believe he always lies about being injury free... but always tells the truth about having injuries or problems.  You have no logic at all.  Just confirmation bias. 

I am pretty sure seeing Nadal's last 2 matches, there seems to be little to trouble him physically.

That's right... it's a different story when you watch a different player.

Nadal had an easy draw... I would say yes.

at least easier than expected in a slam, but it is not his fault if 5 top 10 players cant enter the tournament, and many of the rest top guys fall before meeting him.
I mean, the expected path since r3 would have been gasquet, berdych, dimitrov, federer to get to the final

did he win RG due to an easy draw? he would have beaten anyone

did he reach AO final due to easy draw? F.mayer, Baghdatis, A.zverev, monfils, raonic, dimitrov... I wouldnt say easy

The thing is, Nadal is having a good year.
he reached the final in 7 of the 13 tournaments he entered this season, being 3 of those finals in hardcourts.

but you can keep complaining about easy draws, slow surfaces, doping or whatever you want to believe to make you feel better.

he is 31, and number 1 again

Everyone knows th old 'you can only beat what's in front of you' line, it's self evident but completely off the point.

To get to a semi while yet to pierce the top 50 might even be unprecedented, I'm not sure.

He's had a piss easy draw and has lucked out all year with them.  That's a fact. Give Federer Nadal's draw this year and he's in  the SF without dropping a set.

well, I hope he can get past delpo

it will be difficult, but nadal is favourite

Nadal is second GOAT so everyone suck it up 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gfEqBdUkfE

If Delpo plays like he has been... Nadal hasn't got a prayer.

the thing is, will Nadal let delpo play like he has been?

The question is the other way around.  Nadal isn't as good as Del Potro is on hard courts - esp at US Open (yeah, he has more slams simply due to Del Potro legacy of injuries. Del Potro slaughtered Nadal here 6-2 6-2 6-2 in 2009).  If Del Potro plays like he just did, he won't let Nadal play.

Daniel wrote:The question is the other way around.  Nadal isn't as good as Del Potro is on hard courts - esp at US Open (yeah, he has more slams simply due to Del Potro legacy of injuries. Del Potro slaughtered Nadal here 6-2 6-2 6-2 in 2009).  If Del Potro plays like he just did, he won't let Nadal play.

Delpo was never injured. No-one is/was injured. Are you trying to find excuses....that's despicable.

Del Potro was injured... that's why he took time out of the game.  Players who are really injured don't play, Tenez.  Fanboys, on the other hand, make excuses for players who do play and then lose.

Is this easy for you? You're a fanboy. 

Daniel wrote:Del Potro was injured... that's why he took time out of the game.  Players who are really injured don't play, Tenez.  Fanboys, on the other hand, make excuses for players who do play and then lose.

Is this easy for you? You're a fanboy. 

Oh I see. In your manichean world, there is no player playing carrying niggle or injuries? Why do you bother watching the game? Is it really to read the score? I wonder, can you actually make the difference between Ndal and Federer's game?

I think Federer was hindered, but I can't believe JMDP exactly went into the match in peak condition.

Del Potros power, when firing, is a threat to anyone. I STILL don't know how Federer got out of that 2009 FO semi-final, and it was clear early on that his serve was really working and the forehand going strong. His backhand wasn't such a liability either.

bogbrush wrote:I think Federer was hindered, but I can't believe JMDP exactly went into the match in peak condition.

Del Potros power, when firing, is a threat to anyone. I STILL don't know how Federer got out of that 2009 FO semi-final, and it was clear early on that his serve was really working and the forehand going strong. His backhand wasn't such a liability either.

You mean Final? I am quite convinced that Fed got tired in that final. He was really in control and played one of the best tennis of his life v Djoko the day before (no 1 day rest then between SF and F) as well as in the first 3 sets of that final he made Delpo look avergae...but made the mistake to let the second set slip by in spite of having points for a double break! He was clearly slightly under par in set 4 and 5.

That's from memory as I have not see the full match since.

Federer beat Delpo in the 2009 french open semi final Tenez, that's what Bogbrush is referring to. That was an almighty escape!

luvsports! wrote:Federer beat Delpo in the 2009 french open semi final Tenez, that's what Bogbrush is referring to. That was an almighty escape!

Wouldn't call it an escape. Both were playing great but it was Delpo who was hanging in. Delpo was in fact a bit lucky to get back in the fifth from 1-3 to 3-3.
Federer had beaten Delpo earlier that year at the AO with 2 bagels hence that "nothing to lose" attitude, which made him dangerous. 
Have to say though that the progression Delpo made that year was huge.

It was a strange year between them. The AO meeting was indeed a complete battering. The FO was terrifying; Federer of course was suddenly the favourite and here was the chance for the career Slam. DelPo was battering the ball from all corners and for periods it was on DelPos racquet.

I was in a right state by the end.

The USO was very annoying, Federer should have won it easily.

luvsports! wrote:Federer beat Delpo in the 2009 french open semi final Tenez, that's what Bogbrush is referring to. That was an almighty escape!

Oh I see. I do not recall fededer being hindered there...though he may have been. That to me was a typical case of Federer not being able to hit through his BH on clay while Delpo was receiving from 4m behind the baseline and yet coudl hammer the ball past Federer. That's the same reason why Federer lost to Soderling teh following year at the FO when the slow muddy conds (was drizzling at times) made it easier for Sod.

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Del Potro was injured... that's why he took time out of the game.  Players who are really injured don't play, Tenez.  Fanboys, on the other hand, make excuses for players who do play and then lose.

Is this easy for you? You're a fanboy. 

Oh I see. In your manichean world, there is no player playing carrying niggle or injuries? Why do you bother watching the game? Is it really to read the score? I wonder, can you actually make the difference between Ndal and Federer's game?  

Yeah, unlike you I actually play the game - and I can appreciate all styles. I don't watch Nadal retrieving ludicrous shots and then jump to "Courts are slow. Nadal is useless."  My dislike of Nadal is nearly entirely his awful attitude on court.  Your dislike seems to be irrational.

Daniel wrote:Yeah, unlike you I actually play the game - and I can appreciate all styles. I don't watch Nadal retrieving ludicrous shots and then jump to "Courts are slow. Nadal is useless."  My dislike of Nadal is nearly entirely his awful attitude on court.  Your dislike seems to be irrational.

My dislike of Nadal's game is not irrational at all. Quite teh opposite, I am stating pretty clearly why I am not a fan of his game. It's a physical, high margin, 1-D riskless approach.

You are in fact the blind fan who attribute Federer's loss to Nadal in 2009 already due to Federer's decline...again not because you can see the subtle changes from 2005 to 2009 but just because you read somewhere that athletes peaked at 26!

Open your eyes, then we may be able to have a proper discussion.

bogbrush wrote:It was a strange year between them. The AO meeting was indeed a complete battering. The FO was terrifying; Federer of course was suddenly the favourite and here was the chance for the career Slam. DelPo was battering the ball from all corners and for periods it was on DelPos racquet.

I was in a right state by the end.

The USO was very annoying, Federer should have won it easily.

I guess you were nervous
Remember the last 2 sets were 6-1 and 6-4, that says something. 
And as i said Fed also unnecessarily spoiled a break in the fifth, because Delpo was toast after 3 sets.
Delpo played great but to me it was a case of how long it would take before he would crack. 
So i was quit surprised he didn't a few months later. But we didn't know that during the FO semi, so personally i had faith throughout that match.

 1-D riskless approach

It's not anywhere near as good as Fed's game, but riskless?  I must have been asleep when he was firing all those winners.  That's risky.  But you make it sound like what he does is easy.  That anyone can do it.  They can't- not to his standard. And if a player is brainlessly giving Nadal all these power shots that he loves to deflect... whose fault is that?  When I play the big hitters at my club, I generally win.  Why?  Because I change my approach/  I do a lot more drop shots and mix up my shots.  I try not to play baseline rallies or to let them use my power.  They have to generate their own and they go mad whinging that it "isn't proper tennis"/.  No doubt you'd be the same.  Whining about a style of play you cannot beat.

but just because you read somewhere that athletes peaked at 26!

Both of those assertions are wrong.  It wasn't "somewhere".  It was a respected scientific journal (that you didn't read). And it wasn't saying athletes peaked at 26. It was stating the scientific facts about biological degradation with age, that has rapid onset towards the end of the 20s, but has already started before that. Peak and physical prime are 2 different concepts and I am tired of you forcing me to repeat myself because you are lazy and disingenuous. The argument as to when athletes are no longer in their PEAK was answered by numerous stats and numerous sports - in tennis it's statistically 29 years of age and older for almost all players.  You're the sorry idiot who thinks players peak in their 30s.

Daniel wrote:... When I play the big hitters at my club, I generally win.  Why?  Because I change my approach/  I do a lot more drop shots and mix up my shots.  I try not to play baseline rallies or to let them use my power.  They have to generate their own and they go mad whinging that it "isn't proper tennis"/.  No doubt you'd be the same.  Whining about a style of play you cannot beat

I don't blame nadal for his game. I blame the TDs for making this riskless game successful.

Both of those assertions are wrong.  It wasn't "somewhere".  It was a respected scientific journal (that you didn't read). And it wasn't saying athletes peaked at 26. It was stating the scientific facts about biological degradation with age, that has rapid onset towards the end of the 20s, but has already started before that. Peak and physical prime are 2 different concepts and I am tired of you forcing me to repeat myself because you are lazy and disingenuous. The argument as to when athletes are no longer in their PEAK was answered by numerous stats and numerous sports - in tennis it's statistically 29 years of age and older for almost all players.  You're the sorry idiot who thinks players peak in their 30s.

Never did I read you say that before. well done. Shame you cannot admit your thinking has moved since we started discussing this. But to be fair I did not expect any less from you. Your argument was that 90% of slams were won between 24 and 27 and that is why and when they peaked. Now you are discretely extending it to 29!!! Nevermind, I will see this as an admission of being wrong...again!

You're just being stupid now. We've had this out 100x.  You ignore the stats, plain and simple.  Your ridiculous theory is players are better in their 30s to 20s and you've stated it numerous times.

Get frequented with the Open Era stats, for once in your life.  And accept biology.

Daniel wrote:You're just being stupid now. We've had this out 100x.  You ignore the stats, plain and simple.  Your ridiculous theory is players are better in their 30s to 20s and you've stated it numerous times.

Get frequented with the Open Era stats, for once in your life.  And accept biology.

If I am being stupid show me where you said players were peaking till 29!!!! You only said it recently and I also pointed out that you had moved your bracket.

Also I never said players peaked in their 30s. I just don;t know when they peak and it varies from player to player....but I know it is not 26!

It's been my argument for as long as I have been here.  I think everyone here will remember me sending you the open era age stats about 20 times.  When are you going to stop this nonsense and admit you got it wrong haha?

2014:
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t747-how-would-federer-have-coped-if-he-was-as-good-as-he-was-in-2005-according-to-tenez-s-theory#43281

There is one of them. 

I'd like to think that Tenez will own up and admit he is wrong when he sees Nadal, Djokovic, struggling to win anything when they are 30+.

I admit Nadal has surprised me on clay - but he's far away from breaking the trend.  And Djok... Well, where is he, Tenez?

But the point is "struggling to win anything when they are 30+"

Is that plain enough for you?

Further down:

If everyone is improving so much, and age doesn't really matter that much, then where are all these 30+ slam winners?

And again

Again, if age didn't matter, we'd be seeing just as many 30+ slam champs as 20+. And that won't happen.  Ever.  Because it is contrary to science.

July this year.
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t1371-why-are-the-youngsters-struggling#78525

2016
https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t967-top-200-atp-players-age-stats#56898

1. The statistics on age cannot be argued with.  34 year olds (and 30+ year olds) hardly ever win Slams

Are you just ignoring people's posts?  I've been ridiculously consistent.  21-27 years old is where most players win their titles.  29+ is when nearly all are more or less finished.  With few exceptions, that's the case.

Oh, and you've deleted a thread or two?  The "top 10" thread from 2016 is gone - but I saved it.