Nadal

[gaelictiogar]

atleast i can guarantee you, if thats true, the happiest man on earth will be Fed..however you are in for a bit of a surprise...i am sure you wont be here then.

I made two basic predictions on this board some time ago. Both were correct.

I said Federer was no longer the player he was in 2004/07. He isn't. The Fed of then would be favourite to beat the Fed of now. I was correct.

I also said that Nadal woud go the way of the clay court bull with the physical endeavour necessary to wallpaper over his relatively low talent level ensuring a short career at the top. This was easy to predict so I take no pride in saying I was again correct.

Rafa Nadal is no longer relevant at the business end of major championships. the effort needed to dislodge Federer from top spot for the few months he held it has finished his career.

 

[Thrawn]

never ceases to amuse me how obsessed you are of Rafa.Whenever rafa bashing is is on, you are there, like a fly on a shit.

Almost laughed off my chair at this comment. You are the last person on this site to accuse anyone of "being obsessed" with Nadal.

 

[Total Power]

I made two basic predictions on this board some time ago. Both were correct.

I said Federer was no longer the player he was in 2004/07. He isn't. The Fed of then would be favourite to beat the Fed of now. I was correct.

I also said that Nadal woud go the way of the clay court bull with the physical endeavour necessary to wallpaper over his relatively low talent level ensuring a short career at the top. This was easy to predict so I take no pride in saying I was again correct.

Rafa Nadal is no longer relevant at the business end of major championships. the effort needed to dislodge Federer from top spot for the few months he held it has finished his career.

LOL nadal is no longer relevant to grandslam tournaments ROFL.....i wish you can ask this question to Fed and get his reply on this one.

Also i thought he played a fantastic match against muzza and matched him stroke by stroke from the baseline.I will be here to make you eat your words, you have your say for the time being.Adios

 

[Total Power]

Almost laughed off my chair at this comment. You are the last person on this site to accuse anyone of "being obsessed" with Nadal.

i was wondering why arent you here hello my number 1 fan, how are you?

 

[Dr Awkward]

Ah yes Total Power comes out to play... great to see Federer in his 23RD CONSECUTIVE GRAND SLAM SEMI FINAL. Say that slowly so that you can actually comprehend that acheivement.

Anyway I personally think that Rafa will still play and be competitive and probs make it deep into some slams but he has just looked so beatable the last 11 months whereas before he looked like an unstopable machine. I dont think he will ever win another non-clay slam. Just my opinion.

 

[iluvparis]

Sign me up to the Rafa won't win another Grand Slam outside of Paris Club.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Depends if he gets his big forehand back, in other words the flat one down the line which won him the AO last year as it was harder to pick.

 

[Ricketts]

Shady's back!

 

[Power King]

Depends if he gets his big forehand back, in other words the flat one down the line which won him the AO last year as it was harder to pick.

???

Nadal's forehands in the 2009 AO were similar to this years, in that the combo of spin and power was used almost all of the time and won him many huge points. The differences with his forehand this year compared to last are confidence, unforced errors and penetration.

Nadal's flat backhand was much more of a weapon last year too.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

???

Nadal's forehands in the 2009 AO were similar to this years, in that the combo of spin and power was used almost all of the time and won him many huge points. The differences with his forehand this year compared to last are confidence, unforced errors and penetration.

Nadal's flat backhand was much more of a weapon last year too.

Turn it up. He barely hit the ball flat with his forehand this year. It is exactly the reason he lost against Murray. Played his forehand safe (i.e. nowhere near the lines) and Murray thumped him.

 

[Power King]

Turn it up. He barely hit the ball flat with his forehand this year. It is exactly the reason he lost against Murray. Played his forehand safe (i.e. nowhere near the lines) and Murray thumped him.

I agree with this, but still don't recall him not playing a combo a spin/power as opposed to flat power last year...

He obviously hit the lines less this year than last. Much of this stemmed from a lack of confidence

 

[amer]

Yeah been saying it for ages, Nadal has excelled on the strength of his fitness, mental application and brutal top spin, but by the time he gets to the back end of that 23-25 age bracket he'll probably struggle to hold onto a top 3 ranking. His past couple of years have been unbelievable to watch though, the intensity, the work rate.

As far as his record versus Federer goes, much credit should go to him for being able to hold a winning record at all against the greatest player of all time, even if a lot of the matches have been on clay. History will put an asterisk next to the record due to the fact that Federer has tended to make just about every final on every surface, and Nadal hasn't (thus chopping out a large number of potential head to head stats on non-clay surfaces) but still, a lot of credit should go to the bloke. A hell of a lot of credit.

Whatever happens from here - and fwiw I am tipping Nadal not to win another GS outside of Paris - he will forever be remembered as Federer's nemesis, and a god on clay. Anyone would have to be stoked with that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree with this, but still don't recall him not playing a combo a spin/power as opposed to flat power last year...

He obviously hit the lines less this year than last. Much of this stemmed from a lack of confidence

It was almost as if he was playing on clay, just waiting for someone else to make an unforced errors. He should know that on hardcourts you have to win points, not wait for players to loseit, especially Murray who notoriously gives up very few unforced errors.

 

[randyzany]

never ceases to amuse me how obsessed you are of Rafa.Whenever rafa bashing is is on, you are there, like a fly on a shit.

Anyway, did we watch the same match vs Murray? Murray played flawless tennis and i actually tip him to win the title now.Rafa played very agressive tennis and Murray was way behind the baseline for majority.Surely, rafa had his chances which he failed to take, but that match had some awesome shot making. however saying his careers over is a bit rich...specially coming from you i take it with a grain of salt.

2ndly whats your obsession with Nole anyway? what has he done except that 1 slam wonder? he hopelessly went down to an average bloke today blowing a 2-1 lead.Nole is unlikely to win another slam with the arrival or Del Potro and Muzza.His fitness is shit and if the match goes to distance it ALMOST always shows.

All this rafa is finished talk is overreaction considering he always goes deep in the tournaments he play.

Every point and observation gaelictiogar has made about Nadull is absolutely spot on.

The kid has always heavily relied on his boring but brutal defensive game and low-risk deep heavy loopy top spin ground strokes. Which obviously he effectively used to bully and force his opponents to the sides of the court 'til they either made an unforced error or meekly responded with a shot that landed mid court.


Unfortunately now that his body is failing him due to the stresses he's put it under, he's in all sorts of bother. Let's face it other than this predictable (albeit highly successful strategy for 3-4 years) he just doesn't have that many other strings to his bow.

 

[CanonNo1]

Every point and observation gaelictiogar has made about Nadull is absolutely spot on.

The kid has always heavily relied on his boring but brutal defensive game and low-risk deep heavy loopy top spin ground strokes. Which obviously he effectively used to bully and force his opponents to the sides of the court 'til they either made an unforced error or meekly responded with a shot that landed mid court.


Unfortunately now that his body is failing him due to the stresses he's put it under, he's in all sorts of bother. Let's face it other than this predictable (albeit highly successful strategy for 3-4 years) he just doesn't have that many other strings to his bow.

Its simple evolution of a tennis player. The majority of 'greats' (mcenroe, borg, edberg, sampras, federer) did not have a heavy reliance on the the 'nadal' style traits - absurd physical strength coupled with a heavy reliance on their defensive play and ability to 'run' down a ball (maybe coupled with a good shot either server/backhand/forehand)

The annals will show that Nadal is the natural evolution of a Michael Chang type. Chang ran like mad man but didn't really have a killer shot. He lasted about 4/5 years at peak then went downhill, fast. Then Lleyton Hewitt seemed to be the next 'Chang' ... ran all day but was more powerful, had a few more strings (better volleyer/smasher/server) and mentally tough. He too, though, only lasted about 6/7 years (hasn't won a major in close to a decade) and is now suffering - his body his packing up. Then Nadal came along ... very similar to the other two with a heavy reliance on his pysical attributes cooupled with, arguably the best forehand in the game, a better serve, a better backhand and better ability to hit a winner. But ... now we see his body is failing.

Basic analysis will show that those players that rellied on their physical ability to run down balls (As their key strength) ulitmately had short(er) careers than those who had a killer winning shot of shot making ability.

The pure shot making geniuses, who relied more on skill, talent and ability to hit a winner from all angles, seemed to have longer lasting careers with more success.

The problem pro-rafa fans seem to have is coming to terms with this. No one suggests that Rafa is no good, in fact the contrary, he is a bloody good tennis player. But, if your body fails because your game style was just too brutal, then this must be factored in.

You can't just say "Rafa has beaten Fed more times" therefore Fed is not the best player ever. It's an illogical argument. The facts remain, that Federer has put himself in a position to be beaten by Rafa far more times than the reverse. 22 Grand Slam Finals is testament to this.

Just can't see how you could confidently predict Nadal won't win another grand slam, but with the likes of Murray finding form, JMDP, Tsonga, Federer, Davy finding form, Soderling and Verdasco lurking around with big games or styles of play that trouble him, it is going to be tougher.

For me, he's a danger - a big danger, if he gets fit. The query is ... can he get fit again?

 

[NMFC ALWAYS]

His grand slam record against Fed is pretty good, although admittedly a lot of those wins against Fed would've been on clay courts.

Regardless of what surface they have played on , it's 5-2 Nadal's way in the big ones . Two losses against him that were almost 3- 4 years ago , He's just getting started folks so words of a fadeout are ludicrous . Federer is the greatest player of all time IMO , but this blokes got the wood on him in Grand Slam Finals . That's where you make your name in Sport , on the biggest of stages !

Absolute GUN .

 

[CanonNo1]

and with 22 Slam Finals ... Roger says hello.

To put it in numerical terms, Federer has finalled 23 out of the 43 slams he has played, by my rough calculations thats 51% and has finalled 4 times in ALL slams (4 AUS, 4 FO, 7 WIM, 6 US).

Compared to Nadal, who has finalled 8 out of 23 (about 35%) and only finalled on 3 slams (1 AUS, 4 FO, 3 WIM, 0 US), usually by the time US Open comes around he is done.

So, if slams are "where you make your name" its a no contest.

 

[Power King]

and with 22 Slam Finals ... Roger says hello.

To put it in numerical terms, Federer has finalled 23 out of the 43 slams he has played, by my rough calculations thats 51% and has finalled 4 times in ALL slams (4 AUS, 4 FO, 7 WIM, 6 US).

Compared to Nadal, who has finalled 8 out of 23 (about 35%) and only finalled on 3 slams (1 AUS, 4 FO, 3 WIM, 0 US), usually by the time US Open comes around he is done.

So, if slams are "where you make your name" its a no contest.

Head to head, nadal has the wood over federer in slams. Nadal's bigger problem is when he faces other opponents in trying to get to the final, rather than federer himself.

Just can't see how you could confidently predict Nadal won't win another grand slam, but with the likes of Murray finding form, JMDP, Tsonga, Federer, Davy finding form, Soderling and Verdasco lurking around with big games or styles of play that trouble him, it is going to be tougher.

I think it's a fair point to suggest nadal won't win another slam that isn't held on clay, however if he wins another french open(s), this is still a prestigious achievement and shouldn't be ignored.

On a sidenote, I'd bet my pubic hairs that Soderling will never final in a slam ever again. Am also very confident that Tsonga and Davydenko will never win a grand slam. As for verdasco, can't see him being a genuine challenger after 2011...

 

[NMFC ALWAYS]

and with 22 Slam Finals ... Roger says hello.

To put it in numerical terms, Federer has finalled 23 out of the 43 slams he has played, by my rough calculations thats 51% and has finalled 4 times in ALL slams (4 AUS, 4 FO, 7 WIM, 6 US).

Compared to Nadal, who has finalled 8 out of 23 (about 35%) and only finalled on 3 slams (1 AUS, 4 FO, 3 WIM, 0 US), usually by the time US Open comes around he is done.

So, if slams are "where you make your name" its a no contest.

No doubting Rog is the greatest of all time , he is a magician .

All i'm saying is , whether we like it or not , Nadal has the wood over him in Grand Slam Finals .... Every great always has one nemesis !

To those who question his ability to win Grand Slams apart from the French Open in the future are a tad deluded . He is 23 and nearing his peak ...LOOK OUT !

 

[NMFC ALWAYS]

I don't think any Tennis fan will ever forget his wins in Wimbledon 08 and last years Aussie Open . Against the Greatest of all time in Grand Slam Finals , Rafa has proved his immense status in the game to be legit .....

 

[gaelictiogar]

At last we are having some kind of sensible discussion about Nadal instead of the usual pro or anti slanging match. The man has 40 plus weeks at number one and 6 slam titles. A superb achievement and he will always be remembered for a game which game Federer, the greatest player we have seen so much trouble.

Some very good players have had games which have troubled some great players on certain surfaces. Nastase with 2 slams in 4 finals has a 6-1 hard court H2H VS Connors with 8 slams in 15 finals. Is Nastase a greater player? Certainly not. Did he trouble Connors especially on hards? Yes.

Vilas, who never reached number one, has a 5-2 H2H VS Mcenroe who had 7 slams in 11 finals and 160 weeks at number one. Is Vilas greater than McEnroe? Nowhere near but he had a superb clay game that troubled McEnroe.

The same is true for the Nadal Federer rivalry. Like Nastase and Vilas Nadal has been very very good player, almost great with a game set up to trouple Federer especially on a certain surface. However that does not make him a greater player any more than Vilas outranks McEnroe or nastase outranks Connors. Vilas, Nastase and Nadal are top players of their eras. Nadal possibly better than that and possibly deserving a placenear the bottom of the all time great list. However Connors, McEnroe and Federer are uncontested all time greats near the top of the list with 48 slam finals between them.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Excuse me I forgot to say the Vilas 5-2 H2H was on clay.

 

[gaelictiogar]

In two matches on clay Sampras never took a set from Chang. In 3 matches against Courier he trails 1-2. In 5 against Agassi he trails 2-3.

I wonder what Pete's H2H VS those players would look like if he had continued to final consistently against all of those players on a surface whith suited them more than him.

 

[likka]

Head to head, nadal has the wood over federer in slams. Nadal's bigger problem is when he faces other opponents in trying to get to the final, rather than federer himself.

So Rafa lost to the same opponents that Federer has consistently beaten Slam after Slam to reach finals?

 

[Dr Awkward]

At last we are having some kind of sensible discussion about Nadal instead of the usual pro or anti slanging match. The man has 40 plus weeks at number one and 6 slam titles. A superb achievement and he will always be remembered for a game which game Federer, the greatest player we have seen so much trouble.

Some very good players have had games which have troubled some great players on certain surfaces. Nastase with 2 slams in 4 finals has a 6-1 hard court H2H VS Connors with 8 slams in 15 finals. Is Nastase a greater player? Certainly not. Did he trouble Connors especially on hards? Yes.

Vilas, who never reached number one, has a 5-2 H2H VS Mcenroe who had 7 slams in 11 finals and 160 weeks at number one. Is Vilas greater than McEnroe? Nowhere near but he had a superb clay game that troubled McEnroe.

The same is true for the Nadal Federer rivalry. Like Nastase and Vilas Nadal has been very very good player, almost great with a game set up to trouple Federer especially on a certain surface. However that does not make him a greater player any more than Vilas outranks McEnroe or nastase outranks Connors. Vilas, Nastase and Nadal are top players of their eras. Nadal possibly better than that and possibly deserving a placenear the bottom of the all time great list. However Connors, McEnroe and Federer are uncontested all time greats near the top of the list with 48 slam finals between them.

Good post. Unfortunately many Fed haters cannot comprehend that a H2H record does not = superiority.

Federer also has a poor H2H against Murray. He needs to start fixing that tonight.