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

Tenez wrote:About Nadal volleys one thing is interesting is that I never saw him punch a volley long in the corner.

How's this second volley?, probably the most important point of the final-
https://youtu.be/D53Qcb7g6V8?t=8m56s

I've set it at the right time, 8min56sec.
His volleying as a whole was fantastic yesterday, 16/16.

This is what I mean. They are contained volleys...and he needs 3 volleys to make a point!

He finished the point at the net but that's not what I call really volleying.

Here you have the whole collection....



And there are plenty of similar clips on youtube.

The second one was very deep and set up the smash.

Volleying shouldn't necessarily be about finishing the point immediately, also about being intelligent at the net.

DECIMA wrote:The second one was very deep and set up the smash.

Volleying shouldn't necessarily be about finishing the point immediately, also about being intelligent at the net.

Eh If you are skilled at the net, you don't need to be intelligent. If anything volleying is about reflexes and skills...the brain should not come into play. Like many of Federer's they simply are going away from teh player. What's intelligent in sending the volley back to teh player? You are giving him another look at passing you.

the first one you are talking about he has just the reflex to bring it in court.

Nadal's advantage is that he has the power to manoeuvre his racquet like a pingpong bat. That gives him good reflex cause imagine yourself moving a pingpong bat swiftly, and then do the same with a tennis racquet. Not the same strain...plus helps control the ball....this is why 90% of his volleys, if not more are drop volley...much less risky than to go low over the net, deep and angled.

Tenez wrote:
Eh If you are skilled at the net, you don't need to be intelligent.

Disagree with this on so many grounds. Firstly, whether it's the right time to come in. Then having the understanding that it's not always about finishing the point immediately. Of course at times you can finish the point off and then you should, but it's also important to know when to hit the volley deep to set up the next put away volley.

Tenez wrote:
the first one you are talking about he has just the reflex to bring it in court.

It was a great volley, landed on the line, to set up the smash.
Nadal does have very good reflexes, hence why he's one of the best in the world at this shot, the backhand smash:

He's not a good volleyer.  He also misses a lot of put away approach shots.  The commentators keep repeating that he is to make it so.  He only comes to the net to put an easy ball away.  That's not proper volleying.

So he only comes to the net when he knows he will win the point in doing so, so he makes a good decision, sounds like what a good player should do

16/16 in the final

naxroy wrote:So he only comes to the net when he knows he will win the point in doing so, so he makes a good decision, sounds like what a good player should do

Yes but that's not what I call a volleyer, and certainly not a volleyer who can punch volleys.

naxroy wrote:So he only comes to the net when he knows he will win the point in doing so, so he makes a good decision, sounds like what a good player should do

That's what ALL players do.  Volleying means taking risks.  To cut a point short - especially against a defender.  Sampras, Federer, Dustin Brown and many others deploy it - but far less than they used to.  Nadal hasn't got the skill to do this because he hasn't got the fine tune reflexes required to do it.  That's also why he stands miles behind the baseline.  He is a defender - not an attacker.  He has a lot of ability, but it isn't in fed or Sampras' league.

Nadal can't serve and volley to save his life.  Did he even do ONE serve and volley in the whole tournament?

Well he indeed did, at least in match point yesterday

So basically once or twice? He isn't a volleyer and he isn't very good at it either, which is why he doesn't do it.  Which is why he's losing so much on grass these days - because it requires better reflexes and more attacking mindset.

Well, I think he is a pretty good volleyer, but of course its not a pilar in his game, he just uses it from time to time, and more now than years before

Some forehands, backhands, and even some net play to enjoy from Rafa in 2017- needs to be updated though!

Nadal is the only player in open era to have won three times the roland garros - us open double

naxroy wrote:Nadal is the only player in open era to have won three times the roland garros - us open double

Wow naxroy- that's amazing

When Bogbrush wrote a thread titled Nadal breaking record at USO, this must have been what he meant!

That's a double?

Interestingly, I see Toni Nadal has come out and recognised that this was a cupcake draw.

bogbrush wrote:That's a double?

Interestingly, I see Toni Nadal has come out and recognised that this was a cupcake draw.

its was an easier than average path to the final, no doubt about it. but a slam is always a slam (see wimbledon 2000 for sampras)

80,44,99,78,56,237,21 sampras wimbledon 2000
85,121,59,64,53,28,32 nadal usopen 2017

naxroy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's a double?

Interestingly, I see Toni Nadal has come out and recognised that this was a cupcake draw.

its was an easier than average path to the final, no doubt about it. but a slam is always a slam (see wimbledon 2000 for sampras)

80,44,99,78,56,237,21 sampras wimbledon 2000
85,121,59,64,53,28,32 nadal usopen 2017

Also remember the point I made, reading into the rankings for Del Potro and Anderson is just unintelligent analysis.
JDP I'd say was a medium-tough match, Anderson easy (and very easy for a slam final), but both JDP and Anderson missed tournaments due to serious injury which meant they couldn't accumulate ranking points. Anderson was ranked 10 in 2015 before his injuries I believe.

They made a court as slow as the FO but easier to run on that clay...so I remember once saying that Nadal's best surface was that type. Problem is that Djoko and maybe Murray love it too.

DECIMA wrote:

naxroy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's a double?

Interestingly, I see Toni Nadal has come out and recognised that this was a cupcake draw.

its was an easier than average path to the final, no doubt about it. but a slam is always a slam (see wimbledon 2000 for sampras)

80,44,99,78,56,237,21 sampras wimbledon 2000
85,121,59,64,53,28,32 nadal usopen 2017

Also remember the point I made, reading into the rankings for Del Potro and Anderson is just unintelligent analysis.
JDP I'd say was a medium-tough match, Anderson easy (and very easy for a slam final), but both JDP and Anderson missed tournaments due to serious injury which meant they couldn't accumulate ranking points. Anderson was ranked 10 in 2015 before his injuries I believe.

You mean the JMDP who was impaired after two arduous battles after his illness, in which case he was pretty much batting his ranking.

"Easier than average" is being disingenuous. This wasn't just a cupcake, it was a great big triple-tier iced cake with a cherry on top.

bogbrush wrote:
You mean the JMDP who was impaired after two arduous battles after his illness, in which case he was pretty much batting his ranking.

Well he was playing well enough to beat Federer in the QF.
A shame Federer didn't win the semi, or we could have had a much hyped semi-final.


Not denying it wasn't an easy path, but as I said, do you honestly think anyone Federer faced in his Wimbledon draw would have had a decent chance against Nadal here at the USO? Nadal was actually playing very well, tactically perfect, in the last week of the tournament.

But it's not the draw as much as the conds which really bothers me here. Nadal can lose against anybody on slightly faster conds like we saw in Montreal and Cincy. Even an injured Kyrgios could beat him there as Kyrgios coudl inject some pace.

The conds never allowed any of his opponents to feel confident to go for shots cause even pacy shots on the line were retrieved...Unless he was facing a guy with similar fitness....or at least who can do more with less (Djoko and Murray), there was no-one who coudl beat him here. He had to be beaten at his own game....and we know he is not even the best at his own game nowadays. Hence the lucky draw for sure...on top of it.

Tenez wrote:But it's not the draw as much as the conds which really bothers me here. Nadal can lose against anybody on slightly faster conds like we saw in Montreal and Cincy. Even an injured Kyrgios could beat him there as Kyrgios coudl inject some pace.

1/ Montreal was slow.
2/ I'm not sure we can read that much into Montreal and Cincy. Nadal is a confidence player, and plays these events to have some match play under his belt going into the USO.
3/ For the Kyrgios match, I don't like making excuses, but he did have to play 2 matches in one day. At age 31, that may have been a factor, because he was playing so badly.
4/ There's nothing inherently wrong with slow conditions. Some people like the quicker courts as we had in AO, it's a case of opinions. I prefer it as it means less of an advantage for those very tall players with huge serves.

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:But it's not the draw as much as the conds which really bothers me here. Nadal can lose against anybody on slightly faster conds like we saw in Montreal and Cincy. Even an injured Kyrgios could beat him there as Kyrgios coudl inject some pace.

1/ Montreal was slow.

Not this year...and certainly not as slow as USO.

2/ I'm not sure we can read that much into Montreal and Cincy. Nadal is a confidence player, and plays these events to have some match play under his belt going into the USO.

You mean "not a confident player". he clearly wanted to win v Shap! I have not seen the match v Kyrgios but I doubt he woudl have liked to lose against him. Nadal play full throttle in Canada and Cinciy like he does it on clay. No problem. No excuse there. He lost faor and square and his bad start at the USO shows again how nervous he is and more so when on faster conds.

3/ For the Kyrgios match, I don't like making excuses, but he did have to play 2 matches in one day. At age 31, that may have been a factor, because he was playing so badly.

I don't mind excuses if they are valid. Fair enough.

4/ There's nothing inherently wrong with slow conditions. Some people like the quicker courts as we had in AO, it's a case of opinions. I prefer it as it means less of an advantage for those very tall players with huge serves.

There would be nothing wrong with slow conds if it had always been like that. Players would develop a game for those conds. But slowing it down purposely to make sure one player qualifies and increases teh chance to meet Fed there or simply that this popular player gets far is very wrong to me. I personally would not like teh FO to be sped up for federer to win there. (they did it for Pete there but to no avail!)

Tenez wrote:Not this year...and certainly not as slow as USO.

Well I watched a few matches at Montreal, including Federer-Ferrer, and it seemed slower than US. Not seen the official hawkeye data though.

Tenez wrote:You mean "not a confident player". he clearly wanted to win v Shap!

Yeah, he definitely wanted to win, he hates losing even in crappy 250 events. Even what I was saying about him needing these matches for confidence, he only builds that if he plays trying to win at a good intensity. So not taking away credit from Shap.
But he does have another gear he finds in Slams throughout his career, probably as subconsciously he is more desperate to win and the reward is greater.

DECIMA wrote:...
But he does have another gear he finds in Slams throughout his career, probably as subconsciously he is more desperate to win and the reward is greater.

That other gear is actually that extra set needed in slams. Remember the data? He can win over 40% of those matches where he lost the first set, I think it is probably over 50% when it comes to slams matches only. Knowing it will take huge effort and luck to beat him in Bo5, especially in very slow conds.

History will not remember how he did win all those slams....but some of us will!

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
You mean the JMDP who was impaired after two arduous battles after his illness, in which case he was pretty much batting his ranking.

Well he was playing well enough to beat Federer in the QF.
A shame Federer didn't win the semi, or we could have had a much hyped semi-final.


Not denying it wasn't an easy path, but as I said, do you honestly think anyone Federer faced in his Wimbledon draw would have had a decent chance against Nadal here at the USO? Nadal was actually playing very well, tactically perfect, in the last week of the tournament.  

Yeah, he played well enough to beat a below-par Federer but it pushed him even further. By the semi he played a lights out 1st set... then disintegrated. 

I told you, Federer got a great draw to Wimbledon. Nothing like as easy as Nadal at the USO, but definitely on the easy side. For a few years he was thwarted by Djokovic so any absence of him has to be good! I would argue that Federer kind of warranted a gentler one considering the beast he got at the Australian. By the way, on that basis what chance would you give Muller against Nadal at Wimbledon?

I'm not trying to take away his USO or anything, but I do think it's has the same kind of meaning as a football team beating Real Madrid after they have 3 players sent off in the first 5 minutes; great result going into the books but not necessarily something to draw conclusions from.

Tenez, do you really think tournaments as USopen change their surface only to favour Nadal?

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:...
But he does have another gear he finds in Slams throughout his career, probably as subconsciously he is more desperate to win and the reward is greater.

That other gear is actually that extra set needed in slams. Remember the data?

Yeah of course best of 5 will help Rafa, but let's not get too carried away here. In French Open I don't think anyone even got 4 games in a set, here at the USO once he got going, from R4 to Final he only dropped his serve once.

In terms of data, I haven't looked it up, but would be interesting to see sets dropped per slams won. I think Nadal would have quite a good ratio in his 16 slam wins. Even at USO, from my memory he only dropped 3 sets combined in 2010 and 2013 where he had to face Djoko twice in finals.

bogbrush wrote:
Yeah, he played well enough to beat a below-par Federer but it pushed him even further. By the semi he played a lights out 1st set... then disintegrated. 

OK, you could put it that way; but I think you have to give credit to Rafa for his performance against JDP, I thought it was fantastic. Some sublime tennis in sets 2 and 3. Del Potro according to the commentators had recovered from his cold before the Federer match, hence he could play so well in the QF. And the Fed match was only 2 and a half hours, which is probably the length of an average best of 5 match at USO. I think you are being unfair here, but only a little bit unfair.

bogbrush wrote:I told you, Federer got a great draw to Wimbledon. Nothing like as easy as Nadal at the USO, but definitely on the easy side.

Yeah but I don't think there's a big difference for Federer and Nadal between easy draw and very easy draw. There's a difference between medium draw and very hard draw, but with the opponents they had Fed and Nadal would both clearly win Wimbledon and US even if the opponents swapped over.
You ask about Muller, Tenez and a few commentators did say they watered the courts on the Sunday, so on the Monday they played the ball was bouncing lower; with a tall big server like Muller that means the serve skids through... so of course he would have a fighting chance.

But even the most ardent biased Nadal hater would struggle to say that any of Fed's opponents at Wimby (or their hard court specialist equivalents) would realistically have a chance against Nadal at the US Open.
Rafa dropped his serve once in the 4 matches from Round 4 to the final. Maybe with slightly harder opponents he would have dropped his serve a couple more times in the final 4 matches? Cilic would have been tough but in the final he mentally choked, broke down; and frankly I think it's possible he may have even faked the injury to cover his tears.

bogbrush wrote:
great result going into the books but not necessarily something to draw conclusions from.

Yeah fair enough, no one is arguing he's a shoe in for 20 slams suddenly. Actually some dumb pundits are, but they just base their predictions on the last slam. If Djokovic wins AO they'll declare he will win 20 too no doubt.
But I do think we can analyse how Nadal played; it was better than 2015 where he struggled even against crap players. In terms of a comparison on rest of the year, serve was better than it had been all year, baseline game was probably marginally best than other hard court displays this year but hard to tell. Returning I thought was actually really good and clever tactically, but everyone seems to disagree with me on this one.
Also last point, Bogbrush you and Federer fans did seem very reluctant to do analysis on level of competition to win a Slam. If I said 'competition doesn't matter, this USO win for Nadal was as hard as 2013 vs Djoko' then you could accuse me of being hypocritical, but instead I'm slightly perplexed to how easily some changed their mind on this issue. I do indeed have some quotes from old threads, but I will bring it out later, save that debating trump card for a rainy day

naxroy wrote:Tenez, do you really think tournaments as USopen change their surface only to favour Nadal?

Yes I do. For a very simple reason. It makes business sense.

As mentioned even the FO was speeding up the conds to help Pete go far in the tournament as the organisers had enough of those Berasategui / Bruguera finals!

No different than a theatre or a movie will want to have big names to guarantee sales, a tournament director (TD) will do anything to keep his big names down the rounds.

GalleryPlay gave the example how Nadal played in Rotterdam under the condition they were playing with his preferred brand.

With Djoko, Murray out, not nearly as big favourite as Nadal anyway, you can be sure that the TD of the USO woudl not want a lower ranked player to dispose of Nadal before the business end of the tournament.

naxroy wrote:Tenez, do you really think tournaments as USopen change their surface only to favour Nadal?

And also it's just a question of adding a bit of send in the paint...so not a big deal. As it was mentioned, this is something they do just days before the tournament starts and can do it differently at Arthur Ash than other courts if needed (not sure it was the case here but that is what some players and commentators (Brad Gilbert) seem to think).

But also the balls have almost more of an impact than the surface itself. Larger ball, just a 1mm in radius increases friction by over 6% and makes the bounce more vertical.

Anyway, you can be sure if there is a way to increase ticket sales and TV audience, they will facilitate it. Only an ignorant fanboy or fangirl will think this world is pure of such manipulations.

Yeah but if you had different allegiances, you would be claiming that the decision to re-water the courts on the Wimbledon middle Sunday was a conspiracy to help Federer. He is a big name too you know

DECIMA wrote:Yeah but if you had different allegiances, you would be claiming that the decision to re-water the courts on the Wimbledon middle Sunday was a conspiracy to help Federer. He is a big name too you know

The effects of watering the courts were positive for Fed. But i think they had no other choice: from day one the grass was worn out. They just did what any gardener would do on dying grass: put some water on it. Maybe they put some fertilizer on it too, who knows.
I must say i was surprised with what i saw the second monday, it still wasn't that fast for a GC though.

Nevertheless: if you're looking for an counter argument, Wimbledon is not the right one. I would rather say that the AO conditions were ideal for Federer. But Federer hadn't played for 6 months so who could have guessed he would make it far?

gallery play wrote: But i think they had no other choice: from day one the grass was worn out. They just did what any gardener would do on dying grass: put some water on it. Maybe they put some fertilizer on it too, who knows.
I must say i was surprised with what i saw the second monday, it still wasn't that fast for a GC though.

Tenez would be saying it's all part of the plan, make the grass such that they have to water it on the middle Sunday.

naxroy wrote:So he only comes to the net when he knows he will win the point in doing so, so he makes a good decision, sounds like what a good player should do

Yep, just like there are many more things he does or doesn't in order to play safe. He became the fittest, strongest, fastest player i've ever seen, just to eliminate the element of risk in his game. You may admire him for playing a different ball game, many don't.

DECIMA wrote:

gallery play wrote: But i think they had no other choice: from day one the grass was worn out. They just did what any gardener would do on dying grass: put some water on it. Maybe they put some fertilizer on it too, who knows.
I must say i was surprised with what i saw the second monday, it still wasn't that fast for a GC though.

Tenez would be saying it's all part of the plan, make the grass such that they have to water it on the middle Sunday.

With Federer winning 7 times, they don't need to help ( A bit like at the FO which was the only slam which did not put Djoko in Fed's draw from 2008 to 11). However, they would also have loved another Fedal and I would not be surprised if they tried to do so at first, but the excessive heat that first week did push the boat a little bit too far. They had to water it at some stage.

gallery play wrote:

naxroy wrote:So he only comes to the net when he knows he will win the point in doing so, so he makes a good decision, sounds like what a good player should do

Yep, just like there are many more things he does or doesn't in order to play safe. He became the fittest, strongest, fastest player i've ever seen, just to eliminate the element of risk in his game. You may admire him for playing a different ball game, many don't.

Well said, GP!

DECIMA wrote:

Yeah but I don't think there's a big difference for Federer and Nadal between easy draw and very easy draw. There's a difference between medium draw and very hard draw, but with the opponents they had Fed and Nadal would both clearly win Wimbledon and US even if the opponents swapped over.
You ask about Muller, Tenez and a few commentators did say they watered the courts on the Sunday, so on the Monday they played the ball was bouncing lower; with a tall big server like Muller that means the serve skids through... so of course he would have a fighting chance.

But even the most ardent biased Nadal hater would struggle to say that any of Fed's opponents at Wimby (or their hard court specialist equivalents) would realistically have a chance against Nadal at the US Open.

Also last point, Bogbrush you and Federer fans did seem very reluctant to do analysis on level of competition to win a Slam. If I said 'competition doesn't matter, this USO win for Nadal was as hard as 2013 vs Djoko' then you could accuse me of being hypocritical, but instead I'm slightly perplexed to how easily some changed their mind on this issue. I do indeed have some quotes from old threads, but I will bring it out later, save that debating trump card for a rainy day

I can't see how you can say that about Nadal at Wimbledon when he lost to Muller who is a class blow Cilic etc. In fact I'd have very strongly fancied Cilic over Nadal. I agree by the way, I think in the final he had some kind of mental breakdown as he saw it going away and the foot was if not an absolute fake, some sort of deflection.

Federer's Wimbledon was one of his easiest, as evidenced by the fact it's his first not dropping a set. You can have easier and harder ones but they all count. Federers AO 2017 was a monster of a draw, I mean Berdych, Nishikori, Stan and Rafa!!

I must be clear, a win's a win and that's that. We seem to agree on the projecting forward.

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.,

To clarify, I'm saying I think Nadal would have beaten Fed's Wimby opponents (or their hard court specialist equivalent) at the USO.
I asked a question earlier: who out the people who entered the US Open do you feel would have beaten Nadal? I honestly don't think anyone would have. So the draw (as in the draw they do 2 days before the event starts) was more or less irrelevant.

In terms of Cilic's break down in the final; I do think it was a mental choke like Sabine Lisicki on the biggest stage. But i just checked and it turns out he didn't enter the Montreal due to the injury sustained during the Wimbledon final, so I was wrong to assume he was faking the injury.

I didn't see too much of the US Open and my impression may be tainted by the fact I think most of the matches I did watch involved either DP or Fed. However, was it really as slow as is being suggested on here? 

Both Anderson and DP - neither of whom made any impression this year on clay - made the SF or better. Ferrer got turfed out in R1, Youhzny was hitting through Fed with some ease and Zverev put on a SV masterclass against Isner. Do we have any data - other than "it looked slow" to properly assess the situation?

What kind of data do you want? Have you seen where Nadal was standing on his returns? There would be no point standing that far back if it was a pacy court. Th ereason one stand that far back is to make sure the ball slows down by the time it reaches the back of the court. When the court is fast players have no choice but to stand closer to the baseline.


And again, watch the first point of the final....in one of the clip above....once you hit a great serve wide and good FH down the line yet see the ball coming back, you know there is a problem with attacking tennis. We almost had a Nadal v carreno Busta final if it was not for Busta getting tired....2 clay specialists.

Busta getting tired??

From what- dropping 0 sets before the semi?

So the court was slow... slower than when?
Because i remember when nadal won AO in 2009 people saying it was slow court, that he would not win in Usopen, but a year later he won there and it was said to be slow too, so I dont understand

I had never heard of wimbledon being slower untill nadal got to his second final there, but it seems surface has been changed in 2002, so why did I only hear about such change 5 years later?

Tenez....  that may be true to some extent, but let's not be under any illusion...  Del Potro and Anderson are brainless.  They both decided to play a baseline rally game with Nadal, the ultimate defender... They are 6 feet 6, and 6 feet 8, respectively. Why weren't they coming to the net?  Why were they not trying to shorten points at all?  Why did they continue to serve hard wide serves when Nadal was 50 metres behind the baseline?

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!

naxroy wrote:I had never heard of wimbledon being slower untill nadal got to his second final there, but it seems surface has been changed in 2002, so why did I only hear about such change 5 years later?

Surface is almost irrelevant on grass as long as there is grass. The 2 factors which affect pace there is how hard the courts are (rain or not) and once again bigger balls which they started to use in 2002. But then due to boring final between baseliners (Hewitt v Nalbandian), they reverted to faster balls. Until Nadal came along and then again Wimbledon wanted its Fedal final too or simply were preventing to have too many ace fest.

Daniel wrote:Tenez....  that may be true to some extent, but let's not be under any illusion...  Del Potro and Anderson are brainless.  They both decided to play a baseline rally game with Nadal, the ultimate defender... They are 6 feet 6, and 6 feet 8, respectively. Why weren't they coming to the net?  Why were they not trying to shorten points at all?  Why did they continue to serve hard wide serves when Nadal was 50 metres behind the baseline?

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!

On slow conds it's not a question of brain but legs and lungs. When was the last time a Serve volleyer won a slam? 2001 (fast grass)! 16 years ago! Federer goes to the net but 1) you need skills of a-one-in-a-century and 2 he wins many points from the baseline, most likely more than by SVing. So how woudl Delpo and Anderson win SVing nowadays at the USO? Kyrgios and Shapo did not have to SV to beat Nadal in Cincy and Montreal.

It;s exactly like saying Stan and all Nadal's opponents were stupid not to have SV v Nadal at the FO.

Rewatch that first point of the USO Final. It sets the tone. I also just noticed that the camera is even widening its angle to include Nadal in the frame!!! So funny!