Nadal is finished

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallelujah,

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelujah,

Nadal is finished.

After repeated maulings by Novak Djokovic, Nadal is now being destroyed by journeymen.

Nadal's transient dominance is well and truely over.

Or then again, maybe this is an over reaction. what do you think?

emancipator, I don't think the man is finished, but his ability to dominate the tour again is certainly something that is up for debate. I only saw the end of the match and the start of the match, so maybe my view is warped. But, I think Dodig would have troubled a lot of the top guys with the way he played. His serve was just ferocious and he won every big point he needed. Too soon to tell, but I don't know could it be that we are watching Borg in 81? Has Nadal's confidence been totally shattered by his losing streak and loss of the #1 ranking? I don't think we know the answers to those questions. But I don't think he is finished.

Also think it is harsh to call dodig a journeyman he is a good pro and a dangerous player with some weapons. What a stunning turn of events, Murray, Nadal, and Wozniacki out in the second round. And Novak has a huge test next round against JMDP.

How many ranking points lost for Nadal here?

Novak is playing Cilic and not JMDP.

Nadal is clearly not finished. It was a bad result, sure. What could be said is that there may be a few more of these kind of results. The reason for this? Players are probably not so afraid of Rafa now. He has probably lost some of his aura in the same way that Roger did after the startling early years of his domination of the number one spot.
What was unusual in this match was that twice Rafa appeared to be well on course for victory. We've seen him smashed off the court before - Tsonga at the A0 08 sf for example - but it's difficult to recall him losing very often when in winning positions.

What on earth happened to Nadal - first Andy, then Rafa - very rusty from both.

It was a match Nadal should have won and he only has himself to blame for letting Dodig back in, but in the 2nd set Dodig felt he had nothing to lose and started swinging his racquet and it all went in. In the last set and half his serve was huge, and I mean huge. His groundstrokes were hard too...Dodig would have pushed any of the top 4 last night on that performance.
Nadal should have won but hey he didnt played particularly badly, Dodig just played the match of his life. This happens. At least Rafa cant say he's burnt out going into USO now...lots of practice to up the MPH on the serve now for Flushing.

I am not that surprised Nadal lost, simply because Dodig is a tough , quality player.
He was the only player to take a set off Novak (albeit a tie-breaker) at AO. The guy is a younger version of Ljubicic, steady, all-roundr with an excelent serve which worked. He is also not Spanish, so no mental blockage there to go for Nadal.
The thing that did surprise me is that Nadal lost in the first round; he's the last guy you'd expect that to happen to, despite the fact he had one similar loss a few years ago.
Could be a sign of decline, but then again, could be a one-off.
Since it's a new terrirtory, best to wait and see.

Yes Dodig is good but the fact is that he won;t go too far here but he showed once again that on faster conditions (despite Montreal being not that fast), that Nadal is still a limited player. Essentially a moonballer that has been able to bring his clay game to all surfaces thanks to amazing fitness. But when it comes to returning a serve by standing close to the baseline and rush the opponent (like you have - and had to - do against that type of players), he simply comes short. That's where his retrieving game gets exposed every now and then by an attacking player on form.

I dont come on here for days but see the same old record is playing..."essentially a moonballer"..."amazing fitness"..."limited player"...yawn, yawn, yawn. Yeah whatever.

Then just come back when Nadal buys himself a complete game.

Amazing how a guy can win 10 slams and 19 Masters across all surfaces when he's so limited. Tenez, wake up and smell the coffee hey?

It's not the end at all, but in 12 months time I think the slide will be well in progress.

That's just the way it goes for all of them; Sampras, Federer, any of them. It'll be happening to Djokovic before he's even got his#1 shoes properly broken in.

Have to agree with Lydian's post. Nadal went 5-11 on break points he got into a number of Dodig's service games. But Dodig was 3-4 on break points, Nadal won more total points and had more breaks. But Dodig was playing fearless tennis, on match point he hit an absolute corker of a back hand winner that all Nadal could do was watch as it skimmed the line and angled off the court.

BB is a correct, unfortunately for tennis players they are all dealing with a short window, just look at how the landscape of the game changed in the last 8 months. We don't know for sure how it will change in the next 8 months. I give Nadal the benefit of the doubt, as lydian says he could of easily won the match both tiebreakers were very close.

The 2008 Rome loss to Ferrero was partly due to injury. This is 2011. Three years being consistent, and he is being written off for an early loss.

Credit to Dodig for playing a fantastic match and some fabulous serving and net play on crucial points.

lydian wrote:Amazing how a guy can win 10 slams and 19 Masters across all surfaces when he's so limited. Tenez, wake up and smell the coffee hey?

"Tenez the Menace" has yet another attack of verbal Dihorea.

So what would that make Del Potro, one slam and no Masters - very very very limited!

sirfredperry wrote:Nadal is clearly not finished. It was a bad result, sure. What could be said is that there may be a few more of these kind of results. The reason for this? Players are probably not so afraid of Rafa now. He has probably lost some of his aura in the same way that Roger did after the startling early years of his domination of the number one spot.
What was unusual in this match was that twice Rafa appeared to be well on course for victory. We've seen him smashed off the court before - Tsonga at the A0 08 sf for example - but it's difficult to recall him losing very often when in winning positions.

Agreed. The Nadal postmortems are premature. I also agreed that the aura of invincibility has gone. In this way, Novak has been the main fator. Novak has shown that Nadal can be beaten at his own game and outlasted. The match with Dodig was extremely long and Dodig still found a way to prevail. The rest of the tour is slowly coming to the realization that it is possible to best Rafa in long grinding battles.

Luckily for Rafa, he is an amazing shotmaker and is capable of attacking tennis. Going into the Open, he should focus on what worked for him last year (his serve was amazing) and possibly aim for shorter points. That way, he won't seem so predictable and it could keep his opponents off balance.

I think the windows for players peak-periods are getting shorter and shorter too. In the 80s, a player might have peak dominance for 8-10 years, in the 90s its down to 5-7 years, then now may even be down to 3-4 years. The sport is becoming more and more competitive all the time and players will become dethroned more quickly too. The pace of the tour is another major factor too...they burn out much quicker at the top now.

We have to realise that Nadal has been in amazing form from 05-10 - then is a long time in the scheme of things. How long has Djokovic been in peak form? Nadal cant be expected to go on like Agassi or Federer because his success started much earlier. His decline will come, maybe quite soon, and it should be no surprise given what he's given us to date. He may be only a year older than Nole/Andy but he's almost a different era player really.

I'm sceptical that Nadal is finished but I really didn't expect this, as soon as I saw this thread I thought, no, he can't have lost that early! With fairness, I can't see his excuses for losing in the first round he plays in, he's had a nice long break after Wimbledon to get himself together and the last time he went out this early @ Cinni was in 2006, a long time ago.

As I think many said after Wimbledon, including me, this doesn't mean we should write off Nadal but if the losses this early in tournaments continue, I think the talk of decline will become endemic. What I think this proves more is my view that Nadal is woeful post Wimbledon (that he runs out of steam to put it). 3 titles in just 7 years post Wimbledon. To put that in context, over the last 7 years he's participated in 30 tournaments post Wimbledon on the ATP 1000 Masters series, USOs & World Tour Finals and he's won just 3, or just 10% of the available titles. I'm not even going to mention Federer's record because it was so much more accomplished. If he repeats an early exit next week, I don't bet on Nadal on getting to the final of the USO, maybe earlier, not even the semis.

Any thoughts on what happened to him? Is it a collapse in confidence?

lydian wrote:I think the windows for players peak-periods are getting shorter and shorter too. In the 80s, a player might have peak dominance for 8-10 years, in the 90s its down to 5-7 years, then now may even be down to 3-4 years. The sport is becoming more and more competitive all the time and players will become dethroned more quickly too. The pace of the tour is another major factor too...they burn out much quicker at the top now.

We have to realise that Nadal has been in amazing form from 05-10 - then is a long time in the scheme of things. How long has Djokovic been in peak form? Nadal cant be expected to go on like Agassi or Federer because his success started much earlier. His decline will come, maybe quite soon, and it should be no surprise given what he's given us to date. He may be only a year older than Nole/Andy but he's almost a different era player really.

Spot on Lydian

Nadal won his first slam less than 2 years after Federer. He plays a demanding game and has been at the top for a long time already. I'm surprised when I read people saying he should be approaching his peak years, there is no single peak and early starters tend to be early peakers, like Becker. Not saying he's had it, far from it, just that we may already have seen the very best of him.

lydian wrote:He may be only a year older than Nole/Andy but he's almost a different era player really.

Be careful, your are implying the notion of an 'era' does exist, which allows 'era' theories/hypotheses to be put forth.

Indeed LF and I expected socal to pick up on that too. I guess I mean "period" of play. Nadal comes from an earlier period than Nole/Andy.

Some telling stats there luciusmann, and given how he slogs himself across the clay season and up to Wimbledon its no wonder he's often knackered after it. That's just the way he decides to play his calendar. But he has achieved amazing results in the game nonetheless and these can never be taken away from him if he retired tomorrow. I dont think he's quite done yet but he seems to have a few technical deficiencies in his game at the moment compared to earlier years. They showed the final of him playing Agassi the other day (think 05) and if you watched Nadal then compared to now he was actually a better player with more venom and angle on his forehand. I think he's lacking confidence to be aggressive at the moment, too many mid-court balls as usual, not going to the lines enough. I am starting to wonder if he does actually need a new technical coach...

I think we should all be grateful that the short-lived days of the Nadal are coming to their end.

Never have I seen a more boring exponent of this great sport.

There is no room in this sport for time wasters and gamesmanship.

As for the person who said that the Nadal is a great shotmaker:

Really? oh really? Since when did moonballing 3 or 4 times in each rally become great shot making.

Also, to the poster who seems to think that dominance at the top is becoming shorter and shorter, where is your evidence Mister?

If anything the evidence for the 2000's suggests the contrary as we've just had the most enduring duopoly at the top of the game ever. Fed has been a top player for 9 years. Even the Nadal has been a top player for nearly seven years. Djokovic, likewise has been a top three player for four years.

Oh I just realised; it's Lydian spouting guff as usual.

But the fact remains that Nadal is not a player who rushes his opponents. He gives them time on and off the court. Whereas if you keep Dodig on his toes, he is going to produce those UEs thick and fast. But yet again we hear that he played extraodinarily to beat Nadal. ....wrong. He simply had the time to adjust and pull winners. Of course Nadal will win 9 out of 10 against those guys but on faster surfaces many have a chance against him.

Djoko is a much safer bet when it comes to handle those kind of guys. First of all he has a better eye/hand coordination so he will bring more serves back and take the ball earlier (as Nadal says), which means that Dodig woudl have to deal with a pacier ball.

And we're supposed to treat your posts credibly right emancipator when you use the term moonballer, Nadull, etc.

When I talk about peak periods I mean in top 20-30 before falling off the radar. For example, Y/E top 5 periods:

Connors - 14 years
Lendl - 11 years
McEnroe - 9 years
Becker - 9 years
Wilnder - 6 years
Edberg - 9 years
Sampras - 10 years
Agassi - 8 years
Federer - 8 years (2 more?)
Nadal - 6 years (2 more?)
Djokovic - ?
Murray - ?

However, if you look at longevity in Top 25, the time periods at the top between the generations of players are more marked. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to work out players of yesteryear lasted at the top longer...

La pauvre Emancipator - I suspect space sickness

Or maybe too much

Or maybe too much time spent on the threads.

Or maybe not enough

lydian wrote:And we're supposed to treat your posts credibly right emancipator when you use the term moonballer, Nadull, etc.

When I talk about peak periods I mean in top 20-30 before falling off the radar. For example, Y/E top 5 periods:

Connors - 14 years
Lendl - 11 years
McEnroe - 9 years
Becker - 9 years
Wilnder - 6 years
Edberg - 9 years
Sampras - 10 years
Agassi - 8 years
Federer - 8 years (2 more?)
Nadal - 6 years (2 more?)
Djokovic - ?
Murray - ?

However, if you look at longevity in Top 25, the time periods at the top between the generations of players are more marked. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to work out players of yesteryear lasted at the top longer...

This will be Fed's 9th year ending in the top 5, and the Nadal's 7th year. Most likely they will both be top 5 next year too.

So where exactly is the decline?

Djokovic will complete his 5th yr in the top five this year. I'm pretty sure he'll end up with at least 2-3 more.

Murray doesn't count. He is not a great player (relative to your list) by any stretch of the imagination, but even he will have managed 4 yrs in the top five by the end of this year.

So where is the trend showing a decline in dominance at the top? If anything, the game is more top heavy now than it has been in the recent past (90's).

emancipator wrote:
As for the person who said that the Nadal is a great shotmaker:

Really? oh really? Since when did moonballing 3 or 4 times in each rally become great shot making.

There is a shot that Nadal played where Dodig tumbled and rolled at the opposite end of the court under the Rolex game clock. And Nadal walked to the net to make sure Dodig was not seriously hurt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s60xGp_Qr_w

Edit: Third set TB at 4-4.

emancipator wrote:I think we should all be grateful that the short-lived days of the Nadal are coming to their end.

Never have I seen a more boring exponent of this great sport.

There is no room in this sport for time wasters and gamesmanship.

As for the person who said that the Nadal is a great shotmaker:

Really? oh really? Since when did moonballing 3 or 4 times in each rally become great shot making.

Also, to the poster who seems to think that dominance at the top is becoming shorter and shorter, where is your evidence Mister?

If anything the evidence for the 2000's suggests the contrary as we've just had the most enduring duopoly at the top of the game ever. Fed has been a top player for 9 years. Even the Nadal has been a top player for nearly seven years. Djokovic, likewise has been a top three player for four years.

Oh I just realised; it's Lydian spouting guff as usual.

I am not a Nadal fan, but to say he is not an amazing shotmaker is to ignore the incontrovertible evidence. Speaking of incontrovertible evidence, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZTv745bWo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEe4KnP9gOg

Like it or not, some of his shots are out of this world.

I am a Federer fan, but I can appreciate great shot making when I see it.

A highlight reel does not constitute a career.

Any of the top 20 could produce an equally entertaining highlight reel.

In terms of slam champions and all time greats, the Nadull is most definitely not an amazing shotmaker.

Most of his points are won by endless retrieval resulting in an error from his opponent and the occasional winner on the stretch from the Nadull himself (and said winner is of course always preceded by endless retrieval).

It is therefore no surprise that as his powers of retrieval wane, so does his success.

[quote="lydian"]I think the windows for players peak-periods are getting shorter and shorter too. In the 80s, a player might have peak dominance for 8-10 years, in the 90s its down to 5-7 years, then now may even be down to 3-4 years. The sport is becoming more and more competitive all the time and players will become dethroned more quickly too. The pace of the tour is another major factor too...they burn out much quicker at the top now.

quote]

Lydian, our temperate sage is making a strong era argument here, just saying I know there is another thread for these types of arguments. I will take a small issue with what you are saying we have had unprecedent stability at the top with Fed and Nadal, nothing like it in a long time. Also we don't know yet how long Djokovic can dominate he has been on lethal form now for 8 months so we shouldn't assume that he will be a shorterm #1 or a longer term one. But the competition and athletic level has certainly gone up even in the last few years. Roger and Rafa really pushed it there and Novak to some extent has taken the baton and is running with it.

Yep, I am right once again. Dodig is a good player but hey not better than Tsiparevic!

How many times have we heard after a player beats Nadal how great that player played. Frankly, I just saw a resume of the match and Dodig played ...just like Dodig..a 40+ ranked player! What's amazing in that match is to see Nadal poor returning skills and his inabilty to rush such a poor mover. There was nothing outstanding from Dodig yesterday.

Nadal's game is so limited so that just a bit of pace is enough to trouble him...bit like Isner on clay this year.

Yesterday's loss has nothing to do with Nadal losing his aura. There are plenty of low ranked players who have beaten and even more so who have been very close to beating him....and that even at his peak. However beating him over 5 sets is much more challneging due to his fitness.

sirfredperry wrote:Nadal is clearly not finished. It was a bad result, sure. What could be said is that there may be a few more of these kind of results. The reason for this? Players are probably not so afraid of Rafa now. He has probably lost some of his aura in the same way that Roger did after the startling early years of his domination of the number one spot.
What was unusual in this match was that twice Rafa appeared to be well on course for victory. We've seen him smashed off the court before - Tsonga at the A0 08 sf for example - but it's difficult to recall him losing very often when in winning positions.

I am not persuaded very much by this comparison. Federer lost his aura of invicibility mainly to Nadal and partly to Djokovic, the very best of the game. I prefer to say he lost his edge to these two player, while he mantained a relevant edge to most of the others. Nadal lost unexpectedly what really can be considered as an invicible aura rather than a clear edge to other players. In many occasions we have seen Nadal playing at the same level or sometimes below his oponent's level (as for example with Ferrer) and yet being able to win the match. The question is: has Nadal still an apprecible edge to the top players once he's lost his aura of invincibility?

Tenez wrote:Yep, I am right once again. Dodig is a good player but hey not better than Tsiparevic!

How many times have we heard after a player beats Nadal how great that player played. Frankly, I just saw a resume of the match and Dodig played ...just like Dodig..a 40+ ranked player! What's amazing in that match is to see Nadal poor returning skills and his inabilty to rush such a poor mover. There was nothing outstanding from Dodig yesterday.

Nadal's game is so limited so that just a bit of pace is enough to trouble him...bit like Isner on clay this year.

Yesterday's loss has nothing to do with Nadal losing his aura. There are plenty of low ranked players who have beaten and even more so who have been very close to beating him....and that even at his peak. However beating him over 5 sets is much more challneging due to his fitness.

Come on Tenez did you see the 19 aces from Dodig and some of the winners he was hitting. A guy ranked in the 40s on his day can beat anyone under the right circumstances. He caught Nadal coming off a long vacation on his worst surface, and he did play well. I think it is a bit unfair to Dodig to claim that he didn't play particularly differently than he usually does. He turned in a great performance. The odd thing that hurt Nadal was in the past Nadal was seen as a very clutch performer. He was the guy to make the comeback, he was the guy to play the big points better. So far this year that hasn't really been quite the case of years past. Losing 2 masters to Djokovic in back to back weeks after being up a set in both really has to hurt but I wonder what the cause is?