How Far Can Nadal Go?

by Tenez Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:56 am

Right...Nadal wrong footed me again. I expected a steady decline but he has played the best tennis of his life in that USO. It helped to have Murray, Federer, Delpo and Djoko sub par but regardless he is playing better than ever. I was wrong-footed by those injuries which though I did not believe in it fully made me doubt in his form, wrong-footed by science again cause when we were looking at his performance 4 years ago, it seemed impossible to get any fitter...yet he has with shots more powerful and stamina getting better.

What I got right though is what I said a few years ago which is slow HC is actually his best surface where his mouvement can best show. His timing has improved (as one would expect with age). The uniqueness of his game (essentially energised ball) make it so difficult for the opposition to train against and find a solution. He is simply playing a different game than what the other guys do. It's not pretty, it's not smart, it's not subtle tennis, it's simply powerful tennis. It will take a giant with brute force to push him back further the baseline. A JJ or Delpo on form. But for now there are nowhere to be seen.

It's going to be interesting to see how Nadal plays from now in those lesser tournaments where a Dodig, a Garcia lopez or a Melzer could beat him. What happens when that ball hasn;t got the same zip? We know he cannot sustain that form all year around.

I thought he would never be able to reach those 17 slams...but clearly with this kind of form it's a real possibilty. It's up to the opposition to step up but so far they don;t have the solution to those new physical highs.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:01 am

I don't know how far he will go but the higher he flies, the greater his fall/crash will be one day.

by gallery play Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:24 am

Tenez wrote:
I thought he would never be able to reach those 17 slams...but clearly with this kind of form it's a real possibilty. It's up to the opposition to step up but so far they don;t have the solution to those new physical highs.

Nadal wants 18 slams, so that’s 5 more. He’s now 27 so he probably has 3 more years to get those. Certainly possible but still a long way, because he can’t afford to slow down. The pressure will grow when he gets real close as we’ve seen in Federer’s case, altough I expect him to handle that well. The key is: can he keep this momentum? (another long period off would close the book) and in what shape will he meet Djoko and Murray next time?
I’d say he has 40% chance to do it, because it’s not completely ‘his’ to lose/win the record

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:33 am

Another thread that JS will jump all over.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:42 am

luvsports! wrote:Another thread that JS will jump all over.

This is not v2 LS, and I could not care less what JS has to say anyway.

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:51 am

How far can Nadal go?

I hope no bloody further!!!

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:07 pm

Despite everything that happened this year, I am confident that Nole will stop the rot in 2014.
In his interview he just gave in Belgrade he said he has learnt his lesson.
Look forward to seeing him play live tomorrow and give him a few words of encouragement smiley

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:12 pm

As for Nadal, with his earlier and earlier exits from Wimbledon and the way they seem to be catching dopers there, I wonder if he will turn up at all, or will it be another "injured knee" joke like it was in 2009....

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:21 pm

Learnt his lesson nitb? Do you have a link please?

If not what did he say and what did he mean by he learnt his lesson?

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:31 pm

luvsports! wrote:Learnt his lesson nitb? Do you have a link please?

If not what did he say and what did he mean by he learnt his lesson?

He mentioned it in the context of how he managed to lose that 3rd set.
I'll dig out the link when I come back (B92 website)

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:38 pm

I remember watching a pre-final interview Wilander had with Nadal... words were irrelevant as they were usual cliches, but the eyes and body language of both were so telling and fascinating.
What a charade....

by Tenez Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:40 pm

Well frankly the lesson he was meant to be taught was given in that FO semi a few months earlier.

A slow learner obviously.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:47 pm

Yes...still, he is the only hope atm, and knowing how proud he is, he won't be able to live with himself until he beats him again.

Nadal clearly has the physical edge now, but Nole still has the game to beat him.
Nadal's facade, however powerful and mighty it looks is still just thin veneer, remember the hopelessness after he won USO 2010 and what followed in 2011?
Nadal's confidence is fragile as it does not come from within.

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:27 pm

To answer the OP:
It is very simple. I don't see Nadal going much further.

In-fact I suspect greatly that this will be the last slam he wins, this is his 'Sampras 2002' if you like.

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:07 pm

Both teams playing hardball.

by truffin1 Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:40 pm

Tenez wrote:Right...Nadal wrong footed me again. I expected a steady decline but he has played the best tennis of his life in that USO. It helped to have Murray, Federer, Delpo and Djoko sub par but regardless he is playing better than ever. I was wrong-footed by those injuries which though I did not believe in it fully made me doubt in his form, wrong-footed by science again cause when we were looking at his performance 4 years ago, it seemed impossible to get any fitter...yet he has with shots more powerful and stamina getting better.

What I got right though is what I said a few years ago which is slow HC is actually his best surface where his mouvement can best show. His timing has improved (as one would expect with age). The uniqueness of his game (essentially energised ball) make it so difficult for the opposition to train against and find a solution. He is simply playing a different game than what the other guys do. It's not pretty, it's not smart, it's not subtle tennis, it's simply powerful tennis. It will take a giant with brute force to push him back further the baseline. A JJ or Delpo on form. But for now there are nowhere to be seen.

It's going to be interesting to see how Nadal plays from now in those lesser tournaments where a Dodig, a Garcia lopez or a Melzer could beat him. What happens when that ball hasn;t got the same zip? We know he cannot sustain that form all year around.

I thought he would never be able to reach those 17 slams...but clearly with this kind of form it's a real possibilty. It's up to the opposition to step up but so far they don;t have the solution to those new physical highs.

He's surprised us all... Clearly he's not as talented a tennis player as his success would suggest.. He is very talented, but certainly the least talented of the 5 or 6 Goat conversation players.. but he is probably the toughest matchup players have ever seen. As you said- he simply has a style aided by perfect conditions and technology for that style- that is unique and hard to prepare for. Other players can't recreate that style either as the talents he does have seem to uniquely suit it. There is a difference between the "best" player and the "hardest" player to matchup against. Athletes and those that are knowlegable of sports understand this.

by Tenez Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:15 pm

You see Truffin I think he would struggle to stay in the top 50 of the current ranking on talent alone.

We have to realise that anybody playing that intensely from the age of 5 would develop amazing tennis skills....not talent just skills. It's ony after playing everyday for 20 years that he can take teh ball a bit earlier.....many do it "naturally" from a much earlier age. The style is not even his...it's tony's. I have said it many times but there is hardly anything innate in Nadal when it comes to his shots. Take a bit less zip off his shots and anybody can have a go at him...even injured Darcis.

His talent is actually his mouvement. There it seems quite natural but how much is helped by amazing leg power? And yet his mouvement is quite brutal and not as light as Federer or Borg at their peak.

It's no different than comparing LA with other great racers? We know how having extra energy can help even in tennis. As I said it's only his powerfl spin which prevent the opposition to control the ball the way they do against all other players.

It;s like playing a Safin or JJ on form...the ball simply becomes too hard to control. However for Nadal he turns this power into a spinny ball adding huge margins to his shots and making the ball so hard to control for the opposition. Add to that the fact that loopy shots force the opponent into tough running and that takes the edge and talent out of any player out there....especially in best of 5.

As I said many times, tennis nowadays, in particular for the top 3, is about taking talent out of the equation and bring the game into a physical fight.
It's best demonstrated by all those long slams finals we have had recently. It;s simply the fittest who wins...Talent is just a too fragile and inconsistent factor to let it decide such important thing as winning a slam....unless you have enough of it like Federer.

by truffin1 Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Tenez wrote:You see Truffin I think he would struggle to stay in the top 50 of the current ranking on talent alone.

We have to realise that anybody playing that intensely from the age of 5 would develop amazing tennis skills....not talent just skills. It's ony after playing everyday for 20 years that he can take teh ball a bit earlier.....many do it "naturally" from a much earlier age. The style is not even his...it's tony's. I have said it many times but there is hardly anything innate in Nadal when it comes to his shots. Take a bit less zip off his shots and anybody can have a go at him...even injured Darcis.

His talent is actually his mouvement. There it seems quite natural but how much is helped by amazing leg power? And yet his mouvement is quite brutal and not as light as Federer or Borg at their peak.

It's no different than comparing LA with other great racers? We know how having extra energy can help even in tennis. As I said it's only his powerfl spin which prevent the opposition to control the ball the way they do against all other players.

It;s like playing a Safin or JJ on form...the ball simply becomes too hard to control. However for Nadal he turns this power into a spinny ball adding huge margins to his shots and making the ball so hard to control for the opposition. Add to that the fact that loopy shots force the opponent into tough running and that takes the edge and talent out of any player out there....especially in best of 5.

As I said many times, tennis nowadays, in particular for the top 3, is about taking talent out of the equation and bring the game into a physical fight.
It's best demonstrated by all those long slams finals we have had recently. It;s simply the fittest who wins...Talent is just a too fragile and inconsistent factor to let it decide such important thing as winning a slam....unless you have enough of it like Federer.

spot on Tenez.. So many don't understand learned skill vs innate talent. Nadal is perhaps the luckiest Great of all time in that tennis changed from a courts,balls and technololgy (both equipemnt and medical) standpoint that perfectly suited him, vs. perhaps the unluckiest great of all time in Federer who for the bulk of his carreer has been succeeding in a different tennis world than he was brought up and formed in.. I can think of no other great other than Fed where so much was different in the game from what he had been taught as a junior and before.
That' is one of the things that elevate him to the very top IMO... while the know nothings babble on about weak era.. smh.

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:38 pm

Truffin, your argument doesn't stand up to logic:

-You have said Nadal's game is perfect for the current conditions
-This is because his play is very difficult to beat
-You assume that one player can only have one skill set
-How do you not know that one player has a 'un-utilised' skill set?
-I certainly don't know either way, so will not put a degree of certainty. If one player can play perfect tennis for a certain set of conditions, what more do we want from him? And how can you assume that this player wouldn't have been able to adapt for another set of conditions?
-You talk in absolutes- ie Nadal wouldn't have been able to etc. when in reality no one knows for sure either way.

On a separate point:
-You talked about how Nadal matching up well with other players is somehow a negative... surely that's a positive.

by Tenez Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:10 pm

truffin1 wrote:spot on Tenez.. So many don't understand learned skill vs innate talent. Nadal is perhaps the luckiest Great of all time in that tennis changed from a courts,balls and technololgy (both equipemnt and medical) standpoint that perfectly suited him, vs. perhaps the unluckiest great of all time in Federer who for the bulk of his carreer has been succeeding in a different tennis world than he was brought up and formed in.. I can think of no other great other than Fed where so much was different in the game from what he had been taught as a junior and before.

Yes. the other major change I can think off (besides the new string technology and diet allowing such a different game) is the bigger frames in teh 80s which in effect shorten the careers of those who learnt to play with bigger frames. McEnroe being stopped at the peak of his form by players able to whack the ball past him (Becker) or simply having developed better shots thanks to it (Edberg). However Lendl was of the same era and went on to be successful despite the new game....it probably cost him a few Wimbledons though cause I don;t think many could have stopped him at Wimbledon if they had had to volley and serve with a wooden racquet.

But all in all I completely agree about Federer being the unluckiest in that respect....learning to play with a heavy blade on 85inch, nat gut, versus 1990s SVers of human shape and sizes. ....to suddenly be confronted to gladiators with light racquets and crazy strings sending the ball upwards instead of onwards must have been teh toughest challenge. Those guys existed in the 90s (with nat strings) but they were just about successful on clay and even there the flatter hitters like Agassi, Moya, Kafel could kill the moonballers.

I really think something needs to be done to neutralise those strings.

by truffin1 Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Truffin, your argument doesn't stand up to logic:

-You have said Nadal's game is perfect for the current conditions
-This is because his play is very difficult to beat
-You assume that one player can only have one skill set
-How do you not know that one player has a 'un-utilised' skill set?
-I certainly don't know either way, so will not put a degree of certainty. If one player can play perfect tennis for a certain set of conditions, what more do we want from him? And how can you assume that this player wouldn't have been able to adapt for another set of conditions?
-You talk in absolutes- ie Nadal wouldn't have been able to etc. when in reality no one knows for sure either way.

On a separate point:
-You talked about how Nadal matching up well with other players is somehow a negative... surely that's a positive.

I think most with knowledge of a sport can recognize when even a great player has certain skills that work for one thing and not another. In theory- I guess you are correct as there are no absolutes, but I think it's highly likely that Michael Jordan would have been a lesser player if he had to only shoot 3 pointers vs being able to drive and play in the air. There is no guarantee that Nadal couldn't adapt, but it's more than likely that he couldn't.. Certainly other greats like Laver, Agassi who have incredible insights into what skills are needed have said that Nadal would be a lesser player in another era or conditions.

This is an opinion forum so that's my opinion even if it's phrased in absolutes,,, but it's an opinion backed by a lots of knowledge and an opinion that also is echoed by people with even far more knowledge..

There is no shame in being great for your time or the conditons..no one says it is.. It's just a factor when we are talking about places in history. I don't see how I have said him matching up well is a negative.. It's why he's carved out a Clay Goat and all time legacy carreer...

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:43 pm

I think most with knowledge of a sport can recognize when even a great player has certain skills that work for one thing and not another.

No my point is that a player may have un-utilised skill sets that were not needed and hence 'unseen' by you, and you can't be sure whether they have this skill set or not.

Certainly other greats like Laver, Agassi who have incredible insights into what skills are needed have said that Nadal would be a lesser player in another era or conditions.

Where?
Can't recall either of those 2 saying this about Nadal.

This is an opinion forum so that's my opinion even if it's phrased in absolutes,,, but it's an opinion backed by a lots of knowledge and an opinion that also is echoed by people with even far more knowledge..

The knowledge that observed that Nadal was 'gone' from the match in set 3 of the USO final?

by truffin1 Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:15 pm

In what post did I say Nadal was "gone" from the match in Set 3?    Just curious as I don't remember saying that-- certainly not in the context your trying to present.

I understand your point about hidden skill sets that we can't see.. but we can only go by what we do see...   Other than that- your guessing just like you think we're guessing...     It is definitely more likely though that we are correct..

Laver and Agassi have both had interviews-- Laver more extensively several years ago where he talked about how Federer would be just as successful with a wooden racquet in the LAver era, and that of the top players he thought Nadal would have the greatest struggles.   Look it up if you don't believe it.

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:31 pm

truffin1 wrote:In what post did I say Nadal was "gone" from the match in Set 3? Just curious as I don't remember saying that-- certainly not in the context your trying to present.

I was talking about Tenez there Winking

I understand your point about hidden skill sets that we can't see.. but we can only go by what we do see...

If you agree that there may be hidden skill sets we can't see... and that we can only go by what we see; surely you can understand my concerns that it's difficult to make a clear judgement in either direction.

Laver and Agassi have both had interviews--

Can you link me?

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:39 pm

Talking of past greats... I have brought up comments by Wilander and McEnroe before which were roundly dismissed without much thought.

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:50 pm

about nadal?

by N2D2L Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:52 pm

luvsports! wrote:about nadal?

Yes, and Federer too.

by luvsports! Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:55 pm

link me?

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:08 am

Link you what?

by luvsports! Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:15 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:Talking of past greats... I have brought up comments by Wilander and McEnroe before which were roundly dismissed without much thought.

This.

by Tenez Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:22 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
truffin1 wrote:In what post did I say Nadal was "gone" from the match in Set 3? Just curious as I don't remember saying that-- certainly not in the context your trying to present.
I was talking about Tenez there

Yes and I actually maintain. As I explained earlier, Djoko started to throw many short rallies filled with UEs....allowing Nadal to get his second breath. It seems clear now than Djoko was probably even more tired...unless once again felt over confident and thought he could pull winners at this stage. But I can point you a few rallies where Nadal is clearly exhausted....he even fell over....remember?

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:39 am

luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Talking of past greats... I have brought up comments by Wilander and McEnroe before which were roundly dismissed without much thought.
This.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-best-ever-even-first-164644632.html
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=160662

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:40 am

Tenez wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
truffin1 wrote:In what post did I say Nadal was "gone" from the match in Set 3? Just curious as I don't remember saying that-- certainly not in the context your trying to present.
I was talking about Tenez there
Yes and I actually maintain. As I explained earlier, Djoko started to throw many short rallies filled with UEs....allowing Nadal to get his second breath. It seems clear now than Djoko was probably even more tired...unless once again felt over confident and thought he could pull winners at this stage. But I can point you a few rallies where Nadal is clearly exhausted....he even fell over....remember?

Nadal may/ may not have been exhausted... but he still won the match.
I mean seriously, we can't pretend Djokovic won so I don't see how you can maintain your comment.

As for him falling over, IIRB he was backtracking and then slipped on the baseline (like literally on the white line). I don't think he fell over due to exhaustion.

by luvsports! Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:01 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Talking of past greats... I have brought up comments by Wilander and McEnroe before which were roundly dismissed without much thought.
This.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-best-ever-even-first-164644632.html
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=160662

Ahh I remember this.
He is so impetuous McEnroe.
He also said nadal is the best volleyer in the game which is farcical.
Until he reaches 16, closes in a lot on the weeks at no1 & wins some wtf's, i dont see him challenging feds as the statistical goat.

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:08 am

It was Pat Cash who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the game I think.
John McEnroe said while commentating a few years ago that Nadal is better at volleying than Fed, and given he is an expert in this field I trust him.

Oh and considering this USO is his last slam win Nadals never going to challenge for statistical GOAT... but some like McEnroe will still give him the edge, and rightly so.
I think Borg is another one who is right up there... despite not having great stats comparatively.

by luvsports! Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:12 am

Strong words from mats. It is interesting to hear him talk about feds now. He cannot speak highly enough of him.

I thought you would come out with more compelling reads or conclusive evidence JS. This falls way short. But i guess you really agree with this stuff.

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:16 am

With Wilander?

I didn't agree with his comments about Fed 2006, they made me chuckle though.
Now he is really pro-everyone, of course Fed but he also seems to love Tipsarevic and Ferrer.

by luvsports! Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:21 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:It was Pat Cash who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the game I think.
John McEnroe said while commentating a few years ago that Nadal is better at volleying than Fed, and given he is an expert in this field I trust him.

Oh and considering this USO is his last slam win Nadals never going to challenge for statistical GOAT... but some like McEnroe will still give him the edge, and rightly so.
I think Borg is another one who is right up there... despite not having great stats comparatively.

Mcenroe said it as well. Llodra is a far better volleyer than nadal. I think what you do is find someone who says nadal is better at something than feds and you follow it blindly, just to tarnish feds. You won't agree obvs but hey ho.
Head to head, davis cups, OG, masters & win % are more important than around 200 weeks less as no1, 4 slams less, 6 wtf's less, qf and sf streaks that pale in comparsion and a far worse balance across the 4 slams?

He deffo is, but there is a lot of conjecture, variables, intangibles etc with borg and laver for that matter.

I put nadal behind sampras but only just. You deffo won't agree with that!

by luvsports! Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:23 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:With Wilander?

I didn't agree with his comments about Fed 2006, they made me chuckle though.
Now he is really pro-everyone, of course Fed but he also seems to love Tipsarevic and Ferrer.

The way you brought up Wilander and JMAC made it seem as if they had very valid points with that you agreed with but the rest here scoffed at. So why are you saying you didn't agree with them?
SO really it was just noteworthy points from JMAC, in your opinion?

by truffin1 Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:04 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Talking of past greats... I have brought up comments by Wilander and McEnroe before which were roundly dismissed without much thought.
This.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-best-ever-even-first-164644632.html
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=160662

I think anyone who watches Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic matches that McEnroe commentates for realize that McEnroe has become comicaly a "bandwagoner" meaning he lauds whoever he happens to be watching as the greatest.. esp Federer and Nadal.. From my DVR recording of the Fed loss to Robredo - as Federer is packing his bags to leave the court- McEnroe says "I mean- here is arguably the greatest player in the history of the game.. sure some fans can argue Laver, or Sampras, or Rafael Nadal is in the argument now, but Roger has just been so great for so long.. certainly the best I've witnessed...... this is shocking"

Your quotes from Wilander is 4 years old--- I just read an interview last week where all he talks about is how Federer is the greatest player ever....

The Laver interview I am speaking about you want me to link was a while back, but I'll look for it...
Here's a recent listing of is top 10 though..
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/31380614/Rod-Lavers-10-best-tennis-players-from-the-Open-Era.aspx\\

by truffin1 Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:10 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
truffin1 wrote:In what post did I say Nadal was "gone" from the match in Set 3? Just curious as I don't remember saying that-- certainly not in the context your trying to present.
I was talking about Tenez there

I understand your point about hidden skill sets that we can't see.. but we can only go by what we do see...
If you agree that there may be hidden skill sets we can't see... and that we can only go by what we see; surely you can understand my concerns that it's difficult to make a clear judgement in either direction.

Laver and Agassi have both had interviews--
Can you link me?

okay- but you copied and quoted my comments instead of Tenez when you made the "gone" answer..hence my confusion.
d
I don't agree with your hidden skill sets... I meant I understand what your trying to pull... but as I said- we can only go by what we can see and that's reality.

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:19 pm

okay- but you copied and quoted my comments instead of Tenez when you made the "gone" answer..hence my confusion.

Yes, apologies for that I was unclear, hence I clarified it.

I don't agree with your hidden skill sets... I meant I understand what your trying to pull... but as I said- we can only go by what we can see and that's reality.

This comment doesn't make any logical sense at all.
I'm saying players may/ may not have hidden skill sets that we can't see, and you are responding by saying 'we can only see what we see.'
If not anything you're backing up my point.

by Tenez Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:34 pm

No Julia ...you are the one who is illogical...what the point of talking about skills we cannot see ?

In tennis all skills are needed. If Nadal could hit a winner each time he were to hit the ball, he would...be it in 90s grass or slow current clay or HC. We can see his volleying is nowhere near as deep and sharp as other players for instance...even when he needs to pull some. We can see his FH need to be hit 5 times within a rally to get the opportunity to pull a winner ...on average.

by N2D2L Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:17 pm

No not really, not at all in-fact.

Nadal does what he does because he is pragmatic. Ruthless pragmatism, some may say.
The aim in tennis for him is to be as successful as possible, and thus develop a game which gives him the highest chance of winning at each event.
I feel Nadal's game is nearly perfect for these conditions, since 2008 he leads the slam count by quite a margin. So if this is the case, why on earth would he change anything?

Why would he try to hit winners 3 shots into a rally, why would he suddenly start trying to serve and volley if he thinks it's not ideal for the court conditions? That would be inefficient and frankly pure stupidity.

When he does go to the net, Nadal has a very high ratio of conversions (although I must note that he doesn't go very often)- this is the sign of pragmatism, he will go there when he needs to and thus gives himself the best chance of winning the point.

If you really want examples of good execution, are you aware that Nadal has one of the best 'behind your head' backhand smashes in the game? This is from today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WahVd0duPGU
It's a shot which takes superb hand-eye co-ordination, and if Nadal was bad at it and Federer was far superior- then you would be arguing exactly that no doubt.

You want some more examples of sensational reflexes?
This has to be the one of the best shots I saw all US Open:

And this is stunning too:
I have a library of these links and examples of stunning reflexes. You want more? I can provide them all.

But my main point still stands. Nadal is not an idiot. If he realises that a certain gameplan is going to give him the best chances to win, he will not change it just because another gameplan gives him a better chance to execute other skills on a more regular basis. His primary aim when he comes on the court is to win.

Relating to my earlier point, which you spectacularly failed to understand, it is entirely possible that Nadal if he needed, could have changed his game and adapted well with other skills that he has not utilised (due to not needing to). It's also possible that this may not be the case, I am arguing that judging either way really is pure guesswork.

by summerblues Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:15 am

At the beginning of the season, I would say that it would be "difficult but not impossible" for Rafa to overhaul Roger's slam count. I would still say the same but the odds are a bit better now. To catch up with Roger, he almost certainly needed one or two multi-slam years, and he did get one. He will be 28 next year, and has four slams to go. Not easy, but possible - would give him maybe 30-40% chance.

by gallery play Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:26 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
The aim in tennis for him is to be as successful as possible, and thus develop a game which gives him the highest chance of winning at each event.

I feel Nadal's game is nearly perfect for these conditions, since 2008 he leads the slam count by quite a margin. So if this is the case, why on earth would he change anything?

Why would he try to hit winners 3 shots into a rally, why would he suddenly start trying to serve and volley if he thinks it's not ideal for the court conditions? That would be inefficient and frankly pure stupidity.

When he does go to the net, Nadal has a very high ratio of conversions (although I must note that he doesn't go very often)- this is the sign of pragmatism, he will go there when he needs to and thus gives himself the best chance of winning the point.

If you really want examples of good execution, are you aware that Nadal has one of the best 'behind your head' backhand smashes in the game? This is from today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WahVd0duPGU
It's a shot which takes superb hand-eye co-ordination, and if Nadal was bad at it and Federer was far superior- then you would be arguing exactly that no doubt.

You want some more examples of sensational reflexes?
This has to be the one of the best shots I saw all US Open:

And this is stunning too:
I have a library of these links and examples of stunning reflexes. You want more? I can provide them all.

But my main point still stands. Nadal is not an idiot. If he realises that a certain gameplan is going to give him the best chances to win, he will not change it just because another gameplan gives him a better chance to execute other skills on a more regular basis. His primary aim when he comes on the court is to win.

Relating to my earlier point, which you spectacularly failed to understand, it is entirely possible that Nadal if he needed, could have changed his game and adapted well with other skills that he has not utilised (due to not needing to). It's also possible that this may not be the case, I am arguing that judging either way really is pure guesswork.

So one day a giraffe decided to have a long neck in order to survive? Things is: nature picked the long necks, just like the tennis conditions picked Nadal.
I know how you're going to react so here's my answer in advance: Federer is the crocodile here, a old one tough

by Tenez Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:13 am

LOL! Like your parallels GP.

I think Nadal developped his game to win the FO. When you are spanish this is "the" achievment. And he knew that in order to do so, he had to take the game away from talent....and skills (which also weaken as the rallies extend).

He must have been shuffed that the tennis world loved him an wanted to help him achieve other slams which woudl have been unthinkable with this type of game....having said that the physical phenomenon that he is he would have been tough to play even on "medium pace" USO of the 90s. What really helped him is also clearly those strings which gave a new life to those moonballers.

by noleisthebest Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:31 am

Tenez wrote:
Yes. the other major change I can think off (besides the new string technology and diet allowing such a different game) is the bigger frames in teh 80s which in effect shorten the careers of those who learnt to play with bigger frames. McEnroe being stopped at the peak of his form by players able to whack the ball past him (Becker) or simply having developed better shots thanks to it (Edberg). However Lendl was of the same era and went on to be successful despite the new game....it probably cost him a few Wimbledons though cause I don;t think many could have stopped him at Wimbledon if they had had to volley and serve with a wooden racquet.

But all in all I completely agree about Federer being the unluckiest in that respect....learning to play with a heavy blade on 85inch, nat gut, versus 1990s SVers of human shape and sizes. ....to suddenly be confronted to gladiators with light racquets and crazy strings sending the ball upwards instead of onwards must have been teh toughest challenge. Those guys existed in the 90s (with nat strings) but they were just about successful on clay and even there the flatter hitters like Agassi, Moya, Kafel could kill the moonballers.

I really think something needs to be done to neutralise those strings.

Any idea of what actually CAN be done?
Masses seem to want more and more power....

by luvsports! Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:36 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:It was Pat Cash who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the game I think.
John McEnroe said while commentating a few years ago that Nadal is better at volleying than Fed, and given he is an expert in this field I trust him.

Oh and considering this USO is his last slam win Nadals never going to challenge for statistical GOAT... but some like McEnroe will still give him the edge, and rightly so.
I think Borg is another one who is right up there... despite not having great stats comparatively.

You are missing my point.
I put statistical goat as I see the GOAT term as kind of pointless as imo you can't compare era's and trying to do so is futile.
If you do compare, you go by the stats (which don't tell the full story but are the yardstick nowadays), hence why i put that.

by N2D2L Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:26 pm

Yes, I do understand why you put that LS- I didn't contradict you.

As you said yourself though despite being the yardstick it's not necessary that they tell the full story.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31