ATP Masters 1000: Monte Carlo 2018

Tenez wrote:Let's put it this way, he has not got the best game on clay over a set....but has it over a 3 or more. I have seen better clay game over a set and even very rarely even over B03 and Bo5. Fed has teh best game over a set as well as over B03 and Bo5 outside clay.

There is a reason why a competitive match is not played in one set, and that is sensible reason. So we can't talk about one set, it doesn't matter. One set, half-a-set, one game... one point.. what are we doing here..

if there are other players better for a set, does Nadal  always lose the first set to them? Or he almost always lose a set to them? How many matches Nadal has beaten all of them without dropping a set. I see a lot.

Or is Nadal almost always a slow starter on clay against them? I don't think so.

Fed is a great all-court all-surfaces tennis player, so his game on clay will be good as expected. But is it better than Nadal's? No. and their records on clay h2h and against other opposition says so.

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

gallery play wrote:Nadal is a very reactive player. 9 out of 10 times you see the same pattern: the first 6 games it's a close combat and from then on he does exactly what he has to and walks away with it. 
So best game -whatever that may be- or not, he has everything under control. 

The thing is: a reactive game shouldn't be so effective...

 Maybe then its more than just a reactive game. Its not a secret what he does on clay, but there is none who can consistently beat it. Forget consistently, beating him even once is extremely difficult.

Yes, but it’s still a reactive game, rotla.
Nadal is not a shotmaker.

If he was he wouldn’t be camping 4m behind the baseline.

He’s made the most of current super slow conditions, without them he is like fish out of water...

What kind of a player is he when he likes high bounce, come ooooon!

Have you not seen him play on clay? He hits his passes and corners from 4m, 5m 6m behind the BL, on the run etc.

Agreed that Nadal's winning slams outside of clay is highly attributed to slowing of HC, grass. But we are not going there. We are talking clay, Clay has been and will be and should be slow, high bouncing. And he is primarily a clay courter like a lot of those in the past. And he is the best that has ever been.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

gallery play wrote:Nadal is a very reactive player. 9 out of 10 times you see the same pattern: the first 6 games it's a close combat and from then on he does exactly what he has to and walks away with it. 
So best game -whatever that may be- or not, he has everything under control. 

The thing is: a reactive game shouldn't be so effective...

 Maybe then its more than just a reactive game. Its not a secret what he does on clay, but there is none who can consistently beat it. Forget consistently, beating him even once is extremely difficult.

Yes, but it’s still a reactive game, rotla.
Nadal is not a shotmaker.

If he was he wouldn’t be camping 4m behind the baseline.

He’s made the most of current super slow conditions, without them he is like fish out of water...

What kind of a player is he when he likes high bounce, come ooooon!

Have you not seen him play on clay? He hits his passes and corners from 4m, 5m 6m behind the BL, on the run etc.

Agreed that Nadal's winning slams outside of clay is highly attributed to slowing of HC, grass. But we are not going there. We are talking clay, Clay has been and will be and should be slow, high bouncing. And he is primarily a clay courter like a lot of those in the past. And he is the best that has ever been.

Yes I have, including twice live in RG.

Nadal indeed is a one-off in more than one way.
It pains me to call him Rafa. (I think I managed once or twice, when I was in super mood)

And he is particularly one-off on clay.

His movement indeed is genuinely great. I wouldn't say footwork, just movement. Footwork is Fed's kingdom. Noone comes close to him.

And that's where it ends for me with Nadal.

The rest is his admirable hard work. I think he works like Fed, Nole and Murray put together. And that is something.

You have asked in the past how come noone can replicate his game - I say nobody was prepared to work that hard.
Nadal's shots don't depend on hand to eye coordination, they involve minimal risk.
They rely on power and that hard work, hundreds of thousands of repetitions he has put in every one of his CC or DTL forehands. And now we can see his very improved BH and serve, too.

He has put sooo much work, pain and tears into his game it almost looks watchable, but it never actually does and never will.

He is like a student that prepares for his exams three months while others put in one. He leaves nothing to coincidence.
That is all.

And of course it will bring results and success.

But never the gasps of admiration and tears in the eyes.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Let's put it this way, he has not got the best game on clay over a set....but has it over a 3 or more. I have seen better clay game over a set and even very rarely even over B03 and Bo5. Fed has teh best game over a set as well as over B03 and Bo5 outside clay.

There is a reason why a competitive match is not played in one set, and that is sensible reason. So we can't talk about one set, it doesn't matter. One set, half-a-set, one game... one point.. what are we doing here...

Well if your point is that Nadal has the best record on clay...then we all agree. My point is that he has not, on the day, the best game on clay. He relies on form dropping over the distance....and that is extremely efficient on clay where it is easier to extend rallies. Djoko has consistently beaten Nadal on clay but other players have beaten him fair and square too...including Federer in Madrid on Nadal's home soil.

if there are other players better for a set, does Nadal  always lose the first set to them? Or he almost always lose a set to them? How many matches Nadal has beaten all of them without dropping a set. I see a lot.

Or is Nadal almost always a slow starter on clay against them? I don't think so.

I have hilighted how Nadal was more often than not a break down in the first set or a set down v Federer on clay (At least up to 3 or 4 years ago when I exposed the stats).

Fed is a great all-court all-surfaces tennis player, so his game on clay will be good as expected. But is it better than Nadal's? No. and their records on clay h2h and against other opposition says so.

Well they had enough close matches to make me believe that he woudl get teh better of him, on the day (again), with his new racquet. But then we can only speculate there.

Nadal is a defender - and a gutless one at that.  But he is the best at that style and it's netted him a lot of clay tournaments.  It shouldn't have netted him any grass - but that's thanks to the organizers systematically ruining the surfaces.

Nadal is a one trick pony and always has been.  He has no real net game or volley or touch.  He runs at the baseline and uses power strength and most of all consistency with heavy top spin to keep it deep and safe.  That's it.  He's as dull as dishwater.  

As for what Tenez said regarding players coming to the net.  He's wrong.  NITB is right - they don't do it, 'cause they are brainless.  Del Potro is brainless too.  Time and time again a massive forehand out wide and he waits for nadal to do a flick back.  Some of these players are 6 feet 6 and there is NOTHING stopping them coming to the net to put away points - or try to force mistakes - or take players like Nadal out of their comfort zone.  These losers can't think outside the box and even do massive serves when Nadal is stood 100 feet behind the baseline.

Short serves, short balls, net approaches, and drop shots are alien to them.  Zverev has a ton of talent, but there he is - along with the rest - sat on the baseline trying to outrally Nadal on clay.  The fuckin imbecile.  Del Potro fares better only when he hits max mode - where he comes out with a demon forehand and serve.  Anything less and Nadal just feeds on all the mishits.  At least Del Potro has a pair of balls.

Nadal also has no-one on clay to rival him.  No clay court specialist.  The only real rival he had there was Djokovic, who is now looking finished.  So the only thing that will stop Nadal is a. an off day b. a rare occasion where someone like Del Potro blows him off court or c. old age.

Certainly not Generation Never.  Thiem the worthless sack of dog poo.  Zverev - tethered to the baseline without a brain cell.  Del Potro - just as brainless.  Cilic - clumsy ape.  Nishikori - oh just go away.

They're all as one dimensional as Nadal - except Nadal is much better at defence than they are at attack or variety.  An old codger still remains Nadal's main rival off clay.  What a useless generation this is.

Tenez wrote:Well if your point is that Nadal has the best record on clay...then we all agree. My point is that he has not, on the day, the best game on clay. He relies on form dropping over the distance....and that is extremely efficient on clay where it is easier to extend rallies. Djoko has consistently beaten Nadal on clay but other players have beaten him fair and square too...including Federer in Madrid on Nadal's home soil.

That's not my point. My point was we are not going to dissect a match into a set or a game or a points just to make a case for Nadal's opponent to have played better even though lost.

Djoko has NOT beaten Nadal consistently on clay. The longest winning streak he had on him on clay is 3 matches and he did it only once. Nadal has beaten him 6 consecutive times, another 3 st. times.  Their h2h on clay is 14-7. Peak Djok can beat Nadal, we know that. But he too can't keep it consistently like Nadal can.

Fed beat Nadal in Madrid 2009, fine. Fed is good enough on clay to beat him 1-2 times, but its not a pattern or indicative of anything like his game is superior to Nadal. There will be a few exception, Nadal has lost matches on clay, but that doesn't mean t others have a better game.  None have beaten Nadal consistently enough to say this. But Nadal has. 

So there is not enough basis for this claim.

Tenez wrote:I have hilighted how Nadal was more often than not a break down in the first set or a set down v Federer on clay (At least up to 3 or 4 years ago when I exposed the stats). 

Against Fed on clay, out of the 15 meetings Fed has only won the first set only 3 times. 

Nadal has beaten Fed without losing a set 5/15 times. Fed has beaten Nadal in st. set only 1 time ( Madrid 2009).


They last played on Clay 2013 Madrid, so its still 5 years old. 

Being a break up or down doesn't matter, clay produces more breaks as compared to other surfaces. So someone being broken 1st in the set doesn't mean anything big. The end of the set is the 1st point of some result.

So Fed being a set up or even winning a set against Nadal on clay on most occasions is not true. Nadal being a slow starter, and then winning the match as it goes on is NOT correct. He is in control from the beginning, the opponent can have some good patches in between. But none can keep it consistently enough to beat him regularly. And unless one does, his game can't be called superior to Nadal's on clay.

We are only talking clay, nothing else.

What stats did you expose, I would like to relook if possible.

noleisthebest wrote:He is like a student that prepares for his exams three months while others put in one. He leaves nothing to coincidence. 
That is all.

This reminded me of a childhood incident. Some bottom scrappers in my class were talking among themselves. When the names of toppers were being announced and cheers and awards. These tiny souls were murmuring in the backbenches

 'There is no big deal, They study for the whole year and get 95%, can they study for 1-2 days and get 40% like we do. No they can't. But we do'.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Well if your point is that Nadal has the best record on clay...then we all agree. My point is that he has not, on the day, the best game on clay. He relies on form dropping over the distance....and that is extremely efficient on clay where it is easier to extend rallies. Djoko has consistently beaten Nadal on clay but other players have beaten him fair and square too...including Federer in Madrid on Nadal's home soil.

That's not my point. My point was we are not going to dissect a match into a set or a game or a points just to make a case for Nadal's opponent to have played better even though lost.

Djoko has NOT beaten Nadal consistently on clay. The longest winning streak he had on him on clay is 3 matches and he did it only once. Nadal has beaten him 6 consecutive times, another 3 st. times.  Their h2h on clay is 14-7. Peak Djok can beat Nadal, we know that. But he too can't keep it consistently like Nadal can.

Consistency is your point I am afraid. And that's your main argument. My point is that other players can produce a better game than him on clay. And Djoko has demonstrated that many times by making Nadal look stupid on clay. But by nature, Nadal and his high margins shots will always be the most consistent player on clay. It is not difficult to understand. Playing against him on clay is like scoring penalties with much narrower goal posts. It's hard...but a few have found the lines. We cannot ask them to find them consistenly though.

Fed beat Nadal in Madrid 2009, fine. Fed is good enough on clay to beat him 1-2 times, but its not a pattern or indicative of anything like his game is superior to Nadal. There will be a few exception, Nadal has lost matches on clay, but that doesn't mean t others have a better game.  None have beaten Nadal consistently enough to say this. But Nadal has. 

again, Imagine how those close matches on clay would have gone had Federer played young and fresh with his larger frame. Knowing Nadal's main strength was that FH into Fed's BH where on clay it gets even harder. Yet Fed was close on many matches on clay...There is room for discussion here.

Tenez wrote:I have hilighted how Nadal was more often than not a break down in the first set or a set down v Federer on clay (At least up to 3 or 4 years ago when I exposed the stats). 

Against Fed on clay, out of the 15 meetings Fed has only won the first set only 3 times.[/quote]But Fed was a break up in many of those. I know I have made the search once. A typical case, Hamburg 2008 (was even 5/1 up) but also in MC and other tournaments.

Nadal has beaten Fed without losing a set 5/15 times. Fed has beaten Nadal in st. set only 1 time ( Madrid 2009).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:He is like a student that prepares for his exams three months while others put in one. He leaves nothing to coincidence. 
That is all.

This reminded me of a childhood incident. Some bottom scrappers in my class were talking among themselves. When the names of toppers were being announced and cheers and awards. These tiny souls were murmuring in the backbenches

 'There is no big deal, They study for the whole year and get 95%, can they study for 1-2 days and get 40% like we do. No they can't. But we do'.

hehe, funny how that memory came to you...I have another one...of someone who put next to no effort and had  
the name read out in classrooms followed by a few who sweated their backsides to come second and third in a national competition.

In short, you didn't understand my analogy.
I'll quote a tennis coach from my club (who plays for GB senior team): you can train a monkey to play tennis. Talent is secondary.

bogbrush wrote:Funnily enough, as I have tickets for Wimbledon Day 1 to see Federer, I realised the other day I might actually be watching him play Djokovic or Murray. It is still 32 seeds this year so probably not Djokovic but it could be Murray.

At the rate things are going Nole could conceivably be unseeded at Wimbledon.