Nadal broken 6 times against lowly opponent

I had to turn in at 3-3 1st set but even at that stage I could see Nadal was going to have trouble. Golubev was playing flat, attacking tennis and had a chance. As it turned out he just failed to take a set, but broke 6 times. A low 1st serve % looked to have hurt a bit, as he himslef dropped serve 8 times.

Nadal served very big, just as big as last year, but from open play what little I saw was not impressive. His opponent didn't seem at all overwhelmed in the rally. It most closely reminded me of the type of match Nadal used to have with Youzhny, where it was he who looked to be dictated against. How many times was Nadal broken in the USO last year? I seem to recall him protecting the serve very effectively.

Close examination shows how precarious Nadals positions was;

Golubev served at 40-0, 5-3 2nd set,
Had 5-2 double break lead in 3rd.
Golubev is no star; he lost 17 straight matches earlier this year.

1st round and all that, but not a great start for the defending champion. Still, a wins a win they say.

He was broken more times last night than he was in the whole tournament last year.

Still, it would be unwise to write him off. I seem to remember him going to five sets against Robin Hasse (?) at Wimbledon a few years ago and then strolling through the second week.

Belief, confidence which form a part of mental toughness is so very vital in a tennis match. Golubev played the game better, hit better shots, but never actually believed that he can win againts Nadal. That confidence was never going to be any high after having a terrible year. Thats why he failed just at the moment when he was not to. Losing like winning is also a habit and very hard to shrug off.

No one is writing Nadal off. He is #2 player not for nothing. But this match was an ugly win. 14 break of serves in 3 sets suggests that both players struggling to hold serve. Overall winners to UEs for Golubev 41 to 59 and for Nadal 18 to 16. Also in the 75 min 2nd set Nadal's winners' to UEs were like 4 and 4. So basically Nadal just held his ground and watched what Golubev does. Golubev lost and so by default Nadal took the win with a big fist-pump.

It's far too early to say for sure but I thought on the limited amount I saw last night he was getting bullied about the court. It wasn't even as if the serve was a liability - that was excellent, back ober 130mph and accurate - but in rallies he was weak.

The shocking thing is that his opponent is in no kind of form at all.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Golubev played the game better, hit better shots, but never actually believed that he can win againts Nadal

Hasn't that been the case in so many matches v Nadal? It's to be able to hit a "better shot (winner)" when it matters that is difficult and allowed Nadal to win so many slams. How many BPs, SPs and MPs Nadal saved in his career? I think he holds the record of those by a very long margin. And then...at the end his stamina always makes the difference. He has got a terrible game but fans don't see it cause he often ends up winning regardless. It;s when someone can stay with him physically like Djoko or Murray can do that suddenly fans realise how one dimensional his game is.

Nadal kind of admits to a limited game in his autobiography. In it he speaks of how one of his main strengths is endurance, not just in the sense of keeping going physically but in the sense of being patient and willing to do the same things over and over. He says that if it takes twenty identical shots high to opponent's backhand to break it down, he will take twenty shots, he won't get bored or anxious and try something different.

This a pretty limited approach to the game but it still requires skill. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

It does mean though that if he comes up against a backhand that doesn't break down i.e. Djokovic this year, then he doesn't have many options left.

Get over it, he won, there is no rule in tennis which says a player can't win a match after getting broken for x number of times. It's clear to see Nadal has not been as his best for some months now so I don't see what is there to be writing about. What was he supposed to do? Donate victory to his opponent because was playing better? Or award him the 3rd set because he cruely saved 7 set points in set 2?
Funny it seems only Federer fans have alot to say on Nadal. You should blame Federer for allowing the so-called 'limited' game of Nadal humiliate him so many times. As Djokovic has shown, if you a good enough, you can beat Nadal consistently.

Nadal got bossed around like a muppet in sets 2 and 3, against a guy with a more woeful record than BP Oil, Nadal was just a pidgeon

Simple_Analyst wrote:Get over it, he won, there is no rule in tennis which says a player can't win a match after getting broken for x number of times. It's clear to see Nadal has not been as his best for some months now so I don't see what is there to be writing about.

Er..... what's to write about is that he got bossed about for long periods by a journeyman, and dropped serve more times in that match than in the event last year.

However, to make you happy here's the article you signed on looking to read:

"In a Mens singles 1st round match yesterday, Raphael Nadal beat Andrey Golubev by the score of 6-3, 7-6, 7-5"

HM Murdoch wrote:Nadal kind of admits to a limited game in his autobiography. In it he speaks of how one of his main strengths is endurance, not just in the sense of keeping going physically but in the sense of being patient and willing to do the same things over and over. He says that if it takes twenty identical shots high to opponent's backhand to break it down, he will take twenty shots, he won't get bored or anxious and try something different.

This a pretty limited approach to the game but it still requires skill. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

It does mean though that if he comes up against a backhand that doesn't break down i.e. Djokovic this year, then he doesn't have many options left.

I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

Golubev could and really should have won in straight sets, but for a guy with a decent speed of serve he really does offer up a lot of break points (22) in 3 sets!!

Looks like a decline for Nadal..

He says that if it takes twenty identical shots high to opponent's backhand to break it down, he will take twenty shots, he won't get bored or anxious and try something different.

Good. So from the horse's mouth!

I dont think it requires much skills but it certainly requires an amzing physique. One might call that skill....I don't. It's more like a team work (coach, physio, diet, etc...).

Looking at the reports by most posters, Nadal had a bit of a stinker last night. Seems that Djokovic has destroyed his confidence. I am sure Djokovic or Federer will fancy their chances against him.

bogbrush wrote:I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

Or on the other end, it's very smart to be successful and make a fortune based on really average skills.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

Or on the other end, it's very smart to be successful and make a fortune based on really average skills.

Well isn't that what Uncle Toni is for?

But think about the sheer boredom of the philosophy!!!

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Nadal kind of admits to a limited game in his autobiography. In it he speaks of how one of his main strengths is endurance, not just in the sense of keeping going physically but in the sense of being patient and willing to do the same things over and over. He says that if it takes twenty identical shots high to opponent's backhand to break it down, he will take twenty shots, he won't get bored or anxious and try something different.

This a pretty limited approach to the game but it still requires skill. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

It does mean though that if he comes up against a backhand that doesn't break down i.e. Djokovic this year, then he doesn't have many options left.

I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

I must admit, charming though he is, I have wondered recently about whether Rafa is the brightest light in the harbour. One of the few extracts I have read from his autobiography talks about his sometimes combative, yet always close, relationship with Toni - he recounts Toni shouting instructions about playing a shot more aggressively during the final of last year's USO, and when the shot didn't come off, Toni responding 'I didn't mean now' ......now someone clearly should remove Toni from courtside because that is on court coaching whether Rafa wants to listen or stick two fingers at his uncle and I just don't know whether it is complete arrogance or just blissful ignorance about the implications of that revelation that Rafa should have used that anecdote in the book. Personally, I think it is the latter.
I also think that a child that allows themselves to be 'programmed' and accept it so passively as Rafa has allowed himself to be by Toni, and possibly his father as well, is probably not a MENSA canditate. Having said that, there is recognition now for the intelligence of the rapid eye hand co-ordination of top athletes (I think Beckham was the example - bless! ) and how that is a pretty superior evolutionary skill to have! I would, however, like to see Rafa win a Masters or Slam without Toni courtside - just once.

I must say, that was one of the most horrible chokefests I've ever seen...

Nadal looks like a shadow of his former self, almost like a shell. He even managed to mishit the ball (actually completely missed the ball) shot into the crowd after the post-match interview.
The Golubev guy....just amazing....with all that pathetic backhand and serving managed to serve for both 2nd and third set at lest 2 or 3 times...and choke it all away....

bogbrush wrote:
Well isn't that what Uncle Toni is for?

But think about the sheer boredom of the philosophy!!!

Yes and this is why I have said all along that Toni was a very smart coach. He did not pick the best talent out there to make a champ. he chose his nephew. That is a huge challenge unless you have a plan..and a team behind.

And yes this unexciting tennis is often what gives those players a short career cause it's all about winning and not creativity. This is why Borg, Wilander, Chang, Hewitt etc....had short careers. Well a mixture of boredom and physical strain.

Whereas guys like Nastase, McEnroe, Federer enjoy the game and like play against the new generation cause what they like above all is the game and the winning probably comes second. As Federer says I never chose to play tennis for the money.

Someone should inform the crowds that fill the stadiums world wide to watch Nadal that he is playing a boring style of tennis that they would be better off seeking entertainment elswhere. They should also inform Nadal that he's just making himself look stupid by playing the way he does. Maybe Golubev could give him some coaching tips.

At least Nadal recognises the problem with his serve. When it was pointed out to him afterwoods that his serve was broken 6 times he responded that it would now be impossable for him to win (the tournament). I'm sure other players in the draw will be sleeping easier with this news.

... No wonder all the Nadal fans abandoned this site.

There was no problem with his serve, I thought it was the best and fastest all season, and right up there with last year.

The problem was what happened when the ball came back.

I watched the entire match.

Nadal started off serving well but as the match progressed his serving deteriorated both in percentage and speed.

As for the rest of the match; Golubev dictated pretty much every point and they were all won or lost on his raquet, incredible winners followed by abject errors. He had Nadal on a string and Rafa was in ultra-defensive mode playing around 2-3 metres behind the baseline.

Unfortunately for Golubev, he choked big time at the crucial junctures. He could barely find a first serve and he simply froze whenever he looked like taking a set. Rafa didn't do anything special to pull sets 2 and 3; he just put the ball in play and waited for the errors.

Golubev's choking was the worst I've ever seen on the ATP, even worse than Fernando 'The Fiasco' at Cinci.

Why are Nadal fans getting bitter about an 'observation' by some posters?? This isn't like previous threads about fitness or doping nonsense. Anyone who is anyone can see Nadal is clearly not playing the tennis of 2010. The drop in form has been quite dramatic by his high standards.

Geesh I have seen stuff about Murray all the time and I don't go 'I am jumping to another site for the sake of ass kissing opinions'

I don't mind balance in a disucussion, provided it is sensible.

I haven't seen the match, but the one theme all the posters here (bar one) have acknowledged Nadal's drop in form at an early stage in a Slam.

I bow to your knowledge, emancipator - if you saw the whole match. Up the halfway through the 1st set I was very impressed with his serve.

However, what you say about the pattern of rallies, that was apparant from the start.

Kudos to emancipator for staying up late and watching the match

A fine effort indeed.

legendkillar wrote: Anyone who is anyone can see Nadal is clearly not playing the tennis of 2010. The drop in form has been quite dramatic by his high standards.

ehhh. No! Nadal struggled very similarly in teh first round last year. You fail to see that Nadal almost always struggles like that in his first rounds of slams.

legendkillar wrote:Why are Nadal fans getting bitter about an 'observation' by some posters?? This isn't like previous threads about fitness or doping nonsense. Anyone who is anyone can see Nadal is clearly not playing the tennis of 2010. The drop in form has been quite dramatic by his high standards.

Geesh I have seen stuff about Murray all the time and I don't go 'I am jumping to another site for the sake of ass kissing opinions'

I don't mind balance in a disucussion, provided it is sensible.

I haven't seen the match, but the one theme all the posters here (bar one) have acknowledged Nadal's drop in form at an early stage in a Slam.

I have found that Nadal fans are generally the most thin skinned for some reason.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Nadal kind of admits to a limited game in his autobiography. In it he speaks of how one of his main strengths is endurance, not just in the sense of keeping going physically but in the sense of being patient and willing to do the same things over and over. He says that if it takes twenty identical shots high to opponent's backhand to break it down, he will take twenty shots, he won't get bored or anxious and try something different.

This a pretty limited approach to the game but it still requires skill. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

It does mean though that if he comes up against a backhand that doesn't break down i.e. Djokovic this year, then he doesn't have many options left.

I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

I'm no psychologist but that seems like an odd deduction. Playing without a plan and just on instinct could be viewed as being more base. Concentrating on a plan shows resolve and mental strength. I'm not sure playing style and intelligence are related, in any sport.

Nadal did struggle last night, Golubev was always going to play that way as it was his only chance. Think he'll get better as the tournament goes on, definitely needs more depth on his groundstrokes. Some were landing in the service box, and deserve to be whacked for winners.

I'm not sure playing style and intelligence are related, in any sport.

Intelligence is a big word but it is clear that playing style and personality are related. And personality is related to Intelligence.

Since Einstein Relative theory we know that everything influences everything.

Tenez wrote:

I'm not sure playing style and intelligence are related, in any sport.

Intelligence is a big word but it is clear that playing style and personality are related. And personality is related to Intelligence.

Since Einstein Relative theory we know that everything influences everything.

As I said above, definitely not an area of expertise for me so am interested in your views. Sporting persona and general personality can be quite different, 'white-line fever' changes some people greatly. How much of say, Federer and Nadal's personalities can we truly know from the snapshots of their behaviour that we observe?

I'm curious as to how personality relates to intelligence. More personality implies greater intellect? Or the other way around? I've spent a lot of time in and around universities and haven't discerned a pattern.

bogbrush wrote:
I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

A propensity for repetitive behaviour that doesn't produce positive results could be a sign of low intelligence but surely only the truly stupid would change a winning formula or fail to take action to change a losing formula?

Tenez wrote:He has got a terrible game but fans don't see it cause he often ends up winning regardless.

I guess there must be more than a few thousand professionals and would be professionals who wish they had a game as terrible as Nadal's .......

Tennis is a fun sport to watch because its not just about athletic ability. Its a game. Its not always won by the strongest, fittest or fastest. Its won by the player thats better at playing the game.

Playing the game well involves figuring out what tactics work against a particular opponant. If targetting one area of an opponants game for example Federers backhand produces results. The problem is solved. It would be stupid to stop doing it whilst it still produces results.

In the match against Golubev Nadals tactic appeared to be keep the ball in play and wait for errors. He was a bit lucky not to lose a set but he didn't really look in danger of losing the match as his errors always outnumbered his winniers. He played the correct tactic. So did Golubev. The only way he had chances against Nadal was to tee off and go for winners with his fingers crossed.

Didn't see it all but it looked like a fun match to watch. Swings in the score. Some spectacular winners from boh players and amazing mental strength from Nadal. The huge crowd on Ashe appeared to enjoy it too.

legendkillar wrote:Why are Nadal fans getting bitter about an 'observation' by some posters?? This isn't like previous threads about fitness or doping nonsense. Anyone who is anyone can see Nadal is clearly not playing the tennis of 2010. The drop in form has been quite dramatic by his high standards.

Geesh I have seen stuff about Murray all the time and I don't go 'I am jumping to another site for the sake of ass kissing opinions'

I don't mind balance in a disucussion, provided it is sensible.

I haven't seen the match, but the one theme all the posters here (bar one) have acknowledged Nadal's drop in form at an early stage in a Slam.

Ever since losing the moderator title Legendkiller has only gotten worse and senseless with an insight as expansive as a comment by yummy. Was someone proof reading your comments when you were a moderator?
Did not see any bitter Nadal fan here. Why should we when he actually won the match? Get angry won? All I see a gathering of hybrid Fedfans crying because Nadal won a match. The crowd seems to have had their value for money yesterday over an entertaining match.

Tenez wrote:

I'm not sure playing style and intelligence are related, in any sport.

Intelligence is a big word but it is clear that playing style and personality are related. And personality is related to Intelligence.

Since Einstein Relative theory we know that everything influences everything.

That's a gross generalisation - "personality" can mean anything. There are many "types" of personality.

Evidence shows that people with more openness and less extraversion tend to have higher cognitive functioning.

Did not see any bitter Nadal fan here. Why should we when he actually won the match? Get angry won? All I see a gathering of hybrid Fedfans crying because Nadal won a match. The crowd seems to have had their value for money yesterday over an entertaining match.

five in a row Nole >>> Nadal

[quote="Positively 4th Street"]

Tenez wrote: How much of say, Federer and Nadal's personalities can we truly know from the snapshots of their behaviour that we observe?

A very basic starting point would be, an attacking player is someone who wants to take his destinity in his hands or could be a lazy person who prefers to go for broke than work hard. A retriever is someone who typically doesn't like to take risk for instance, therefore works hard on his fitness to make his style can absorb the the best what a risk taker has to give.

Of course those are gross generalisations but much more information can be drawn if we care observing. A bullfighter can read the character of a bull by the way it pulls out of the box. The bullfighter has to pay attention to it as his life depends upon it.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Did not see any bitter Nadal fan here. Why should we when he actually won the match? Get angry won? All I see a gathering of hybrid Fedfans crying because Nadal won a match. The crowd seems to have had their value for money yesterday over an entertaining match.

five in a row Nole >>> Nadal

I learn something new every day; you are a Feder.... I mean Djokovic fan? That's a new discovery.

lydian wrote:
That's a gross generalisation - "personality" can mean anything.

What does that mean? explain!

I'll even add that Anything can mean personality and much more.

Thanks for your enlightening input AGAIN Lydian!

icecold wrote:

Tenez wrote:He has got a terrible game but fans don't see it cause he often ends up winning regardless.

I guess there must be more than a few thousand professionals and would be professionals who wish they had a game as terrible as Nadal's .......

You have to be at the top to attract this negative/repetitive type of comment.

Don't be surprised if he doesn't win it guys, irrespective of his first round performance.

And if he does I hope Tenez & Co aren't lol

I learn something new every day; you are a Feder.... I mean Djokovic fan? That's a new discovery.

you are obsessed with Federer? Not me though, I'm obsessed with Dolgopolov

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=outbollocksed

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Why are Nadal fans getting bitter about an 'observation' by some posters?? This isn't like previous threads about fitness or doping nonsense. Anyone who is anyone can see Nadal is clearly not playing the tennis of 2010. The drop in form has been quite dramatic by his high standards.

Geesh I have seen stuff about Murray all the time and I don't go 'I am jumping to another site for the sake of ass kissing opinions'

I don't mind balance in a disucussion, provided it is sensible.

I haven't seen the match, but the one theme all the posters here (bar one) have acknowledged Nadal's drop in form at an early stage in a Slam.

Ever since losing the moderator title Legendkiller has only gotten worse and senseless with an insight as expansive as a comment by yummy. Was someone proof reading your comments when you were a moderator?
Did not see any bitter Nadal fan here. Why should we when he actually won the match? Get angry won? All I see a gathering of hybrid Fedfans crying because Nadal won a match. The crowd seems to have had their value for money yesterday over an entertaining match.

Ever since returning, your comments have become more ridiculous.

For your info I didn't 'lose' the mod title.

Your insight is up there with the ROTA.

Maybe you are the same posters given how your comments are utter rubbish and not backed up with any logic?

icecold wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

A propensity for repetitive behaviour that doesn't produce positive results could be a sign of low intelligence but surely only the truly stupid would change a winning formula or fail to take action to change a losing formula?

I simply can't imagine an intelligent person being content to do exactly the same thing endlessly. Intellectual restlessness would surely set in.

bogbrush wrote:

icecold wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I've often though, not meaning to be cruel at all, that I can't imagine a person of high intelligence being prepared to play their career like that. I must stress I'm not being nasty, but that kind of propensity for programmed behaviour does tend to tally with low intelligence.

A propensity for repetitive behaviour that doesn't produce positive results could be a sign of low intelligence but surely only the truly stupid would change a winning formula or fail to take action to change a losing formula?

I simply can't imagine an intelligent person being content to do exactly the same thing endlessly. Intellectual restlessness would surely set in.

All these tennis players are fools! Instead of doing something more mentally challenging they spend their lives endlessly hitting fuzzy yellow balls over a net. We must be fools also for watching them do it.

bogbrush wrote:I simply can't imagine an intelligent person being content to do exactly the same thing endlessly. Intellectual restlessness would surely set in.

Sprinters, swimmers, discus/javelin/hammer throwers, archers, shooters, darts players (ok, maybe those). I've probably missed a few unintelligent athletes out. Feel free to add them in.

BB has a point. It's not simply doing a repetitive move that is boring and debilitating. It's doing it while one has the choice to do something different. Someone jogging has no choice but to keep throwing his right and left legs forward in a very rhythmic way. However he may have the choice to run in circle in the stadium or leave the stadium and venture in the countryside.

I remember Federer playing Robredo once (was it at the AO?) and Federer chose to play exactly like Robredo (BH slices until one breaks down). It was his choice. I doubt Nadal has a choice. Or let's put it this way, he can't afford a different choice. A bit like Karlo could not decide to rally if he wanted to.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I simply can't imagine an intelligent person being content to do exactly the same thing endlessly. Intellectual restlessness would surely set in.

Sprinters, swimmers, discus/javelin/hammer throwers, archers, shooters, darts players (ok, maybe those). I've probably missed a few unintelligent athletes out. Feel free to add them in.

tell me what you think of football: a barbaric game played primarily using the feet.

I am a bit puzzled. This started as a thread to highlight that below par 1st round performance to repetative actions required for sport in general. If it doesn't meet the intellectual challenges of individuals. Just don't watch it or participate in any sport.

I can only assume boredem has settled in.

Bring on Round 2 and lets hope for some better tennis.

Tenez wrote:Someone jogging has no choice but to keep throwing his right and left legs forward in a very rhythmic way.

Or to stop jogging and play chess instead.

I can't agree with the theory put forward here:

tennis style = intelligence.

I propose instead tennis style = talent.

Lat's not forget that there are millions at stake and where there are millions there are always highly intelligent and capable individuals who would do nealrly everything to grab them.

Also Mats Wilander was a lot of more boring to watch than Nadal and I think he is highly intelligent.