Most net points won in a Grand Slam final since 2000

101 points won at the net today, 51 from Nadal and 50 from Medvedev.

When was the last time there was more than 100 points won at the net in a Grand Slam final?

I checked this year's Wimbledon final and it was 75. Wimbledon 2014 final was 72. (Federer won 51 and 46 NP respectively in both those matches). Federer vs Roddick 2009 W was 80.
Any other suggestions?

After some research it appears the last Grand Slam final with this many points at the net was more than 19 years ago:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20000709-M-Wimbledon-F-Patrick_Rafter-Pete_Sampras.html

And the vast majority of those were not proper net approaches from Nadal. They were forced.

There's a big difference. 

Daniel2 wrote:And the vast majority of those were not proper net approaches from Nadal. They were forced.

There's a big difference. 

Not at all.

'Forced' could be the case when a player uses the tactic of a short slice to bring a player in. Medvedev didn't use that tactic even once as far as I recall. On all those net approaches Nadal could have stayed back.
If you can find a Grand Slam final with more points won at the net since 2000 let me know.

Isner/Mahut 2010 had 208 points won at the net. 

Does the context of this thread have to specifically be a GS Final? Are you trying to offer up a view Nadal can play at the net and more so than his counterparts based on the final?

I thought it was good to see a match with a bit more variety in it. More so on a court devoid of pace. Credit to Med for trying different approaches and credit to Nadal for rising to the challenge of that. Both clearly had different game plans given how the first set panned out.

That's the problem with decima. he cannot read the stats really.

This stat does not show they are skilled Svers but simply stand way too far back. Poor volleying was good enough due to players holding a clay court position rather than a grass/HC one. Once again 80% if not more of those volleys were drop shot or dead. And to me at this game the more skilful was Medv. Nadal missed sitters as he was not sure whether to punch or secure a short volley. 

Any better stat to comment deci?

I like the 4th usopen stat.

Above all when in 2009 after winning Australia some wise posters assured he would never win at NewYork.

legendkillar wrote:Isner/Mahut 2010 had 208 points won at the net. 

Does that not mean they had less net points per game than Nadal vs Med? That match was like 70-68 or something?

Does the context of this thread have to specifically be a GS Final? Are you trying to offer up a view Nadal can play at the net and more so than his counterparts based on the final?

Yeah I was trying to find Grand Slam finals since 2000. Matches at a higher level, with intense pressure.

I thought it was good to see a match with a bit more variety in it. More so on a court devoid of pace. Credit to Med for trying different approaches and credit to Nadal for rising to the challenge of that. Both clearly had different game plans given how the first set panned out.

Yeah obviously this doesn’t mean either player is suddenly a S&Ver like Mahut. But a lot of people have criticised baselines for not venturing to net. Credit when it’s due.

BEL19VE wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Isner/Mahut 2010 had 208 points won at the net. 

Does that not mean they had less net points per game than Nadal vs Med? That match was like 70-68 or something?

Does the context of this thread have to specifically be a GS Final? Are you trying to offer up a view Nadal can play at the net and more so than his counterparts based on the final?

Yeah I was trying to find Grand Slam finals since 2000. Matches at a higher level, with intense pressure.

I thought it was good to see a match with a bit more variety in it. More so on a court devoid of pace. Credit to Med for trying different approaches and credit to Nadal for rising to the challenge of that. Both clearly had different game plans given how the first set panned out.

Yeah obviously this doesn’t mean either player is suddenly a S&Ver like Mahut. But a lot of people have criticised baselines for not venturing to net. Credit when it’s due.

1) Getting into too much micro detail. Isner and Mahut are what you would call grass court players, more so Mahut. Goes to Ten's point about the difference in net play on grass as opposed to slow hardcourt. So if an opponent is drop shotting galore and the opponent puts the ball away, the intent with net play far different as opposed to a player charging the net with the intent of finishing the point regardless of the court position of the opponent. 

2) You won't find any. More over a 5 setter. You might in the 5 setters across a Slam, rather than the final. Which would be a narrow view to take. 

3) In today's game there is too much margin for passing shots at the net. The amount of times I've seen players hesitant to come to the net (even when in control of the point and the odds stack heavy in a net put away) in the event they will get burned. Even Federer struggled with that dilemma against Nadal. Med throwed up a mix in the net play as did Nadal, however there wasn't the aggressive intent for most of the points in terms of them rushing the net to win the point.

Take into account net play prior to the era of homogenization was seen as quite aggressive play. Players would go to the net to win the point even if a return or groundstroke made the point trickier to win. There is a higher degree of risk and skill in such a play. 

Yesterday was more of an example of a different intent. If you are a tennis traditionalist it won't float your boat. I'm undecided, but makes a change to see a real varied match.

naxroy wrote:I like the 4th usopen stat.

Above all when in 2009 after winning Australia some wise posters assured he would never win at NewYork.

Very good point. But how could we have guessed that the USO would introduce larger tennis balls for men in 2010 and add lots of sand in their court paint? 

The problem Nax is you don't know the facts... or like when Nadal cheats you ignore them. 

Hope you learn the basics one day.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:I like the 4th usopen stat.

Above all when in 2009 after winning Australia some wise posters assured he would never win at NewYork.

Very good point. But how could we have guessed that the USO would introduce larger tennis balls for men in 2010 and add lots of sand in their court paint? 

The problem Nax is you don't know the facts... or like when Nadal cheats you ignore them. 

Hope you learn the basics one day.

The good thing, is I am here to learn. Thank you so much for your wisdom

And sorry for Nadal enjoying favourable conditions, not like  for example Sampras winning Slams in conditions that didnt suit him

naxroy wrote:I like the 4th usopen stat.

Above all when in 2009 after winning Australia some wise posters assured he would never win at NewYork.

We weren't banking on another cupcake draw or even further dumbed down conditions.  You're just a silly fanboy who excuses a cheat and who does not play the game.

Daniel, the fact is I've seen you berate so many players for not adding net play to their game.
You've ranted at Del Potro and Cilic. Djokovic who is Wimbledon champion barely ventures to the net. And many others from 'generation useless' as you aptly described them in a thread a few months ago.

So when Nadal and Medvedev do both decide to go to the net, and break the record for the past 19 years for points won at net, you give no credit whatsoever?
Obviously neither player play like Mahut or Stakhovsky, but one could argue that as they're both great defenders, it makes winning so many points at the net even harder.

Another two stats I like:

1- this was the 10th season in which Nadal reaches at least 2 Grand Slam finals

2- Only 3 players in Open Era have more non clay slams than Nadal:

Federer 19
Djokovic 15
Sampras 14


he is tied with Connors, Agassi and McEnroe

and he has already surpassed the likes of Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker...

Not to mention Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Rafter, Stan Smith, Ashe, Murray, Kriek...