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

Daniel wrote:Fed's wimb draw was made to look easier than it was.  It was certainly far harder on and off paper than Nadal's US Open and FO draw.  And harder prob too than Nadal's AO Open draw. That's just a stone wall fact.  Nadal has lucked out big time this year.  I expect the ATP tour finals will have Federer facing Zverev in SF and Nadal in Final.  And a harder group. It couldn't have gotten easier for Lucker this year.,

Yes

Daniel wrote:Yesterday at the club, I performed an experiment.  I made all players stand roughly where Nadal was and I served a short serve with a bit of spin to the centre line.  Not one of the 7 people could get near it - despite knowing I was going to do it.

Nadal v Del Potro/Anderson from that far back would be FORCED to the baseline if they had decided to think outside of the box.  And they never did.

I don't blame Nadal for standing that far back.... HE'S BEING ALLOWED TO!

That's a fascinating idea. If nothing else it would annoy the Hell out of Nadal.

he would probably get to the ball and win the point after a couple of times and server would abandon that idea

what I mean is that could work only in a point or two as much.

naxroy wrote:he would probably get to the ball and win the point after a couple of times and server would abandon that idea

what I mean is that could work only in a point or two as much.

He probably would, but it would rattle snd wear him out if done frequently but randomly.

Daniel wrote:
Yesterday at the club, I performed an experiment.  I made all players stand roughly where Nadal was and I served a short serve with a bit of spin to the centre line.  Not one of the 7 people could get near it - despite knowing I was going to do it.
Nadal v Del Potro/Anderson from that far back would be FORCED to the baseline if they had decided to think outside of the box.  And they never did.
I don't blame Nadal for standing that far back.... HE'S BEING ALLOWED TO!

I am not sure what is the official ettiquete on underarm serving in pro world.

I know in our club if someone has an injured shoulder they always notify of the underarm serving.

I know that the famous Chang's FO underarm serve was looked down on, just like Lendl's volleying into the body of his opponents.

At the end of the day pro tennis is more than ever about winning at any cost, and Nadal is by far the most Machiavellian, so, yes, why not!

I can see a few players being comfortable doing it - Stepanek, Rosol...

Actually this particular era being so samitised and PR-ed, I wonder if that would be even allowed these days vs the Golden Calf.

A discreet, quiet word to the lowly opponent before the match kind of thing...

naxroy wrote:he would probably get to the ball and win the point after a couple of times and server would abandon that idea

what I mean is that could work only in a point or two as much.

Agree and how can one compare 7 friends with Nadal pace wise?

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:he would probably get to the ball and win the point after a couple of times and server would abandon that idea

what I mean is that could work only in a point or two as much.

He probably would, but it would rattle snd wear him out if done frequently but randomly.

Chang won v Lendl like that but there it was the opposite set up. Lendl was the thin margin player and Chang the moonballer so it was Lendl who lost his edge. Nadal does not make mistakes with short balls.

He does not make mistakes with short balls if he gets to them, which he usually does.

However, this USO he was standing so far back, it would've been difficult for him to get to a well placed, short underarm serve.

And it would definitely rattle and wear him out.

I wonder if players even practise those serves...

Wow!
I didn't realise it happens on tour even now!

Llodra, Berdych, Gulbis, JJ, Ljubicic (vs Monfils!!!) Sock...


In the first one, Berd gets time violation and I don't understand why, ismthe umpire telling him he can't serve underarm?

He explained why he was so far back and even mixed it a little with closer positions at certain times.

he said that when being closer to the line, the server has a clearer objective as where to place his shot, but being far behind, not only he has more time to get to the ball, it also makes the opponent doubt where to make the serve, he makes the rival think. and % usually goes down when the server has doubts.

as I said, an underarm serve would do the trick one time, but cannot work as a tactic through the whole match

if the target is to get on nadal´s nerves, I think he handles those situations quite well. you can feel he can get nervous when he is not confident, but rarely the umpire or rival make him lose his mind balance.

Even Karlovic did it in that clip!

naxroy wrote:He explained why he was so far back and even mixed it a little with closer positions at certain times.

he said that when being closer to the line, the server has a clearer objective as where to place his shot, but being far behind, not only he has more time to get to the ball, it also makes the opponent doubt where to make the serve, he makes the rival think. and % usually goes down when the server has doubts.

He stands back because he is nit talented i.e. hencan't take the ball early. Simple as that.

naxroy wrote:
as I said, an underarm serve would do the trick one time, but cannot work as a tactic through the whole match

Not necessarily. It would def keep Nadal edgy and on his toes. And those forward sprints are very exhausting.

naxroy wrote:
if the target is to get on nadal´s nerves, I think he handles those situations quite well. you can feel he can get nervous when he is not confident, but rarely the umpire or rival make him lose his mind balance.

Nerves are only oart of the tactic.

As for Nadal being composed, yes, he is quite focused, but we saw how quickly he lost his composure and embarrasssed himself in AO final vs Stan.

He couldn't handle crowd booing him.

naxroy wrote:He explained why he was so far back and even mixed it a little with closer positions at certain times.

he said that when being closer to the line, the server has a clearer objective as where to place his shot, but being far behind, not only he has more time to get to the ball, it also makes the opponent doubt where to make the serve, he makes the rival think. and % usually goes down when the server has doubts.

On a fast court no-one can stand that far back cause the ball flies past you. On a slow court the ball slows down enough to allow the returner to run to it.

as I said, an underarm serve would do the trick one time, but cannot work as a tactic through the whole match

if the target is to get on nadal´s nerves, I think he handles those situations quite well. you can feel he can get nervous when he is not confident, but rarely the umpire or rival make him lose his mind balance.

Agree on this.

bogbrush wrote:
Yes

Didn't respond to my questions though, did you BB?

Firstly who did Nadal not face in the FO or USO, who in the form they were in during the event, would have beaten Nadal at that event? Unless Nadal would have lost to someone else in the draw, the draw itself is not relevant to the result.

Secondly often there's no pragmatic difference between a very easy run in and an easy run in (like Fed @Wimby). If Nadal was genuinely struggling with a very easy draw, then you could argue that and small increase in difficulty could have made a difference. Dropping your serve only once in the final 4 matches, R4-Final, doesn't indicate that. Berdych, Dimitrov (who lost easily to Rublev who Nadal crushed), Raonic (straight sets AO QF, and this court is much worse for servebots than AO), and an injured crying Cilic would have been easily handled at the US. Nuanced analysis needed!

noleisthebest wrote:

naxroy wrote:
as I said, an underarm serve would do the trick one time, but cannot work as a tactic through the whole match

Not necessarily. It would def keep Nadal edgy and on his toes. And those forward sprints are very exhausting.

Interesting idea from Daniel but:
You would need disguise on these serves after the first time. If Nadal got a read on when you would do that, he would run forward and gobble up a short ball. Would be funny to watch though I'll admit.

He doesn't need to do it "the entire match". You throw in 3 great serves and a random short serve (I nver said underarm... it's actually easier to just apply a short serve with a bit of spin) and Nadal's days of sitting that far back comfortably are over. The whole point is that it stops Nadal staying there relentlessly and also shakes him up mentally not knowing what to expect.  That's called tactics.  What Del Potro and Anderson did was brainless.

NITB is also right that forward sprinting is exhausting.  And even if he gets there, he has to hit a winner or he'll be easily passed.  It is not as easy as you think it is from where Nadal is starting.  This isn't an opinion - Nadal would have been screwed being that far back.  FACT.

I am not sure the crowd would support it and again, the one with the thin margins was Kevin and more likely to blunt Kevin's "edge" than Nadal's who has such a safe game.

So what if the crowd wouldn't support it????  It's a legitimate tactic.  It's not cheating or against the rules.  It's a response to someone standing THAT far back which is moronic.

My point was the player with the thin margins is more likely to be affected by emotions generated by that tactic.

Anyway, I don't think one can reverse a 3 sets schooling with a service under arm.

Also Nadal would be able to tell after the first time by the service motion itself, he'd start sprinting before Anderson has even hit the ball, and he'd just take on a short ball and dominate the rally.

if it were an option, someone would be doing it by now... I mean, Nadal has been around quite a while

naxroy wrote:if it were an option, someone would be doing it by now... I mean, Nadal has been around quite a while

It is an option and, no, someone wouldn't be doing it by now because they haven't.  You really need to start researching things before you state opinions. Underarm / short serves have been effectively used before against players stood much closer than nadal is.  Players are CHOOSING not to mix their game up.

Also Nadal would be able to tell after the first time by the service motion itself,

It wouldn't matter.  

a. It takes a lot of energy to keep doing it
b. It sows the seed of doubt and stops him getting comfortable. Nadal is a a rhythm player.
c. He wouldn't be able to stand THAT far back any longer.
d. He would become frustrated.
e. Even if he reached the ball in time, winning the point from that position is difficult.
f. Mixing your game up is what being smart is all about.  The worst thing you can do is brainlessly use the same failing shot against someone that far behind the baseline.

And I disagree you can see the service motion.  As I said, you don't do underarm.  You do the same motion but take all power off and apply spin.  He'd be fucked.

exactly, they are choosing not to do it against him, because they came to the conclusion that it is not a good option.

Not quite.
Many may not have the confidence.

Now that Daniel's mentioned it, I would really like to see it.

Did you see how the unoire reprimanded Berdych for doing it?
I don't understand why.

Why the stigma?

Why is it any less moralistic than to demand the size of ball to suit your game from the organiser, or even worse to win all your titles by abusing time between the points.

Come on, don't kid yourself naxroy!


I go further and say that most don't have the guts to do it.

Same as with s&v.

I agree it's harder than ever now, but we saw hoa M.Zverev totally bamboozled Murrray in AO(?).

I think they dont do it because it wouldnt be effective. But of course its just my opinion

naxroy wrote:I think they dont do it because it wouldnt be effective. But of course its just my opinion

that's obvious...

anyway, that was one idea discussed.

Nadal is now left to win whatever he likes as everyone else is either injured or far away from him in a draw.

Part of me wants it to remain like that.

May TDs reap what they've sown.

As far as I am concerned (or "just in my opinion"), Nadal's titles are fake and I don't respect him in the least.

He killed tennis with his doping and all the rest.

Federer is the GOAT, and Nole owns Nadal. Justice served!

The rest is just junk food for those who want to eat it.

I look forward to NextGen tournament, looks like Rubi, Chung and Shap will be playing.

And hopefully France win Davis Cup this year, we are giving them a virtual w/o by sending our C team.

naxroy wrote:exactly, they are choosing not to do it against him, because they came to the conclusion that it is not a good option.

lol no they didn't.  Not even trying to do it once when he's that far back is because either they didn't think to do it - or are scared of being called cheats and being panned in the media by idiots. I've already told you that it's nearly impossible for Nadal to reach a short serve from that far back - and I've given you the reasons why it doesn't matter even if he does reach it.  Those aren't opinions. Maybe if you played the game, you'd know?

Doing a short slow serve off the same service motion as a 140 mph one is pretty much impossible I'd say. As Decima says, after the first one I would expect Rafa to be easily there for any subsequent serves. That said, I agree something like that could get in his head a bit - it would at least have made him think. 

In any case, Kev was winning a reasonable proportion of points behind his first serve. The real problem for him was that he had absolutely no impact on Rafa's service games. He won 12 points I believe up to the start of the final game - less than an average of 1 per game. It was there that he probably needed to try a few different things.

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

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Yes

Didn't respond to my questions though, did you BB?

Firstly who did Nadal not face in the FO or USO, who in the form they were in during the event, would have beaten Nadal at that event? Unless Nadal would have lost to someone else in the draw, the draw itself is not relevant to the result.

Secondly often there's no pragmatic difference between a very easy run in and an easy run in (like Fed @Wimby). If Nadal was genuinely struggling with a very easy draw, then you could argue that and small increase in difficulty could have made a difference. Dropping your serve only once in the final 4 matches, R4-Final, doesn't indicate that. Berdych, Dimitrov (who lost easily to Rublev who Nadal crushed), Raonic (straight sets AO QF, and this court is much worse for servebots than AO), and an injured crying Cilic would have been easily handled at the US. Nuanced analysis needed!

At the USO all sorts of players might well have beaten him. Power hitters for one (of whom he faced nobody until JMDP). He was obviously struggling in the earlier rounds - dropping sets to useless players, or have you forgotten that? - when the succession of powder puff opponents was a huge relief.

It's a weak argument to suggest that rather than focus on facts (the record-breaking easy draw he actually experienced) you want to divert to speculation (the idea that he'd have beaten the rest anyway). All you'll do is say "ah but he lost to...." and thereby "prove" Nadal would have beaten him. It's not logical. Focus on the draw that happened. It's not easy, I know, because there's never been such an obscure run to a Slam trophy.

Your case is further undermined by the earlier suggestion he'd have handled Berdych, Cilic or Raonic at Wimbledon when he lost to a far inferior player than them.

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

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

Nadal himself uses variety if required

I simply doubt that mixing standard serve with short serve would gain more points to nadal´s rivals

naxroy wrote:Nadal himself uses variety if required

yes 10% of his FHs are down the line.

Imo the best option if your opponant returns 6 yards behind the basline, is S&V. NAdal was lucky Delpo and anderson don't do that. 
Against Muller Nadal looked foolish with the same strategy.

Sigh.

The one server I would hazard would trouble Nadal is Isner. Look at the FO 2011 and how Nadal struggled to deal with the kicker serve. However, I think that was the event different balls were used. Raonic used to good effect in IW in 2015.

Whilst variety seems to be the method suggested, one needs to consider how long you would give such a plan against Nadal on slower conditions? Sure you could throw in slices, volley's or S&V, but Nadal plays such a brutal game on length and depth to his groundstrokes. So it's not so much about trying to get Nadal further in the court, but ensuring you yourself are not pushed behind the baseline. The closest I saw to that against Nadal on Clay or Slower conds was that FO encounter with Isner. He was unlucky not have won, but of all the players you think about in relation to variety, Isner is the closest I saw who nearly beat Nadal on Clay with a near S&V approach.

Renzo Olivo in the name of Daniel!!!

The only way to beat him on this very slow surface was to outlast him like a fit Djoko or Murray can do. Federer too can when fit but with different tools.

Nadal thrives on these surfaces...except when faced with someone who is not afraid of the running and engage in those 7+ shot rallies.

Then you see Nadal's shots getting shorter and shorter as teh match advances and it makes it easy and easier to attack.

On faster surface anybody can get him, really anybody!

Watch this and see How strong Nadal is at first and after 3 sets he is like a bull who has had his neck sliced by the picadors.

Tenez wrote:The only way to beat him on this very slow surface was to outlast him like a fit Djoko or Murray can do. Federer too can when fit but with different tools.

Nadal thrives on these surfaces...except when faced with someone who is not afraid of the running and engage in those 7+ shot rallies.

Then you see Nadal's shots getting shorter and shorter as teh match advances and it makes it easy and easier to attack.

On faster surface anybody can get him, really anybody!

Watch this and see How strong Nadal is at first and after 3 sets he is like a bull who has had his neck sliced by the picadors.

BTW, have we ever seen a match with such a poor shot quality? Maybe Monfils v Murray FO 2007 or 08!

A complete gutless match with fitness being the sole differentiator between those 2.

Pretty much go along with that Ten. That approach seems to have been most effective way in slow conds. I would argue that 2011 Djokovic was much more aggressive than the 14/15 version that also beat Nadal.

Poor shot quality? Djokovic/Simon AO 2016 over a BO5. Hard viewing that was. Murray and Ferrer Miami 13/14? Awful match. The worst I've seen in a BO3.

The clip shows that on the slow surface Nadal is beaten with:
drosphots (nod to Daniel's short/underarm suggestion), angles and good fitness.

Nole adds great returns and frontrunner's ability to this mix.

As for gutless shots, they usually came back in this clip, which is why Federer struggled vs Nadal before neo-backhand.

Nole's weapon vs Nadal is his BH as it's a very versatile shot - he can do anything with it: angles, dtl, flat, spinny, dropshots.

My wish for him if he ever comes back is to flatten his FH...there is no other choice.

On faster, agree, he is easy to beat, esp now which is why Kyrgios, Shapovalov and Fognini have been kept from him at USO despite the slow conditions.

noleisthebest wrote:...
Nole's weapon vs Nadal is his BH as it's a very versatile shot - he cando anything with it: angles, dtl, flat, spinny dropshots.

I am not a fan of his BH. It's not a flat pacy clean shot. It is well controlled though but certainly not oen of teh best DHBH in my view.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...
Nole's weapon vs Nadal is his BH as it's a very versatile shot - he cando anything with it: angles, dtl, flat, spinny dropshots.

I am not a fan of his BH. It's not a flat pacy clean shot. It is well controlled though but certainly not oen of teh best DHBH in my view.

yes, Nishi and Fognini strike it more cleanly, but if I could choose, I'd def take Nole's, great variety as well as consistency.

legendkillar wrote:Pretty much go along with that Ten. That approach seems to have been most effective way in slow conds. I would argue that 2011 Djokovic was much more aggressive than the 14/15 version that also beat Nadal.

Poor shot quality? Djokovic/Simon AO 2016 over a BO5. Hard viewing that was. Murray and Ferrer Miami 13/14? Awful match. The worst I've seen in a BO3.

I remember that.
It was painful.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...
Nole's weapon vs Nadal is his BH as it's a very versatile shot - he cando anything with it: angles, dtl, flat, spinny dropshots.

I am not a fan of his BH. It's not a flat pacy clean shot. It is well controlled though but certainly not oen of teh best DHBH in my view.

yes, Nishi and Fognini strike it more cleanly, but if I could choose, I'd def take Nole's, great variety as well as consistency.

Yes, I 'd rather have an average BH that wins than a great one which loses....but that's because Djoko is simply fitter and moves better than them.

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

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

yes, him and his team!

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

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

USO was on a level of an 250 ATP event.

Still, enjoy while it lasts!

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Pretty much go along with that Ten. That approach seems to have been most effective way in slow conds. I would argue that 2011 Djokovic was much more aggressive than the 14/15 version that also beat Nadal.

Poor shot quality? Djokovic/Simon AO 2016 over a BO5. Hard viewing that was. Murray and Ferrer Miami 13/14? Awful match. The worst I've seen in a BO3.

I remember that.
It was painful.

Terrible match. Had the feeling of a practice hit.

bogbrush wrote:
At the USO all sorts of players might well have beaten him. Power hitters for one (of whom he faced nobody until JMDP).

Go on then, name some names. Which power hitters could have beaten him at this year's USO.

bogbrush wrote:He was obviously struggling in the earlier rounds - dropping sets to useless players, or have you forgotten that?

He got off to some nervy starts, but from set 2 onwards he steamrolled his opponents. Not sure if you watched the matches, but he was also playing better and better as the tournament went on.

bogbrush wrote:It's a weak argument to suggest that rather than focus on facts (the record-breaking easy draw he actually experienced) you want to divert to speculation (the idea that he'd have beaten the rest anyway).

Come on, for someone as intelligent as you that's as a disappointing sentence.
The facts are that he won the US Open. Whether he would have won or lost with a slightly harder draw is speculation, both ways. If he would have won anyway with the Rao-Berdy-cryin'Cilic run in, the difference in difficulty of draw between what Fed had at Wimby and Nadal had at USO is irrelevant. Only if you say he would have lost at the USO with the same level of competition Fed had at Wimby, does the difference in level of competition between Fed's run in and Nadal's run in become relevant. And that is pure speculation too.

bogbrush wrote:
Your case is further undermined by the earlier suggestion he'd have handled Berdych, Cilic or Raonic at Wimbledon when he lost to a far inferior player than them.

I never said that, and have clarified twice now that's not what I'm saying. Not sure how you're still confused on this one.

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

One man of a few