Perfection

by Guest Thu 01 Dec 2011, 8:59 pm

First off, apologies if this has been done before.
Just wondering who you would assign the following attributes to when making the perfect tennis player:

Stamina of...
Build of...
Mentality of...
Footwork of...
Serve of...
Service return of...
FH of...
BH of...
Drop shot of...
Volley of...
Slice of...
Lob of...

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 01 Dec 2011, 9:17 pm

Stamina of Nadal
Build of Becker
Mentality of Borg
Footwork of Federer
Serve of Sampras
Service return of Djokovic
FH of Federer
BH of Edberg
Drop shot of Nalbandian
Volley of Mac
Slice of Lendl
Lob of Wilander

I think he'd be doing well

by Tenez Thu 01 Dec 2011, 9:23 pm

Stamina of Djokovic
Build of Federer
Mentality of Wilander
Footwork of Federer
Serve of Karlovic
Service return of Djokovic
FH of Federer
BH of Nalbandian
Drop shot of McEnroe
Volley of Edberg
Slice of Federer
Lob of Wilander

by wow Thu 01 Dec 2011, 9:45 pm

Stamina of...Federer
Build of...Federer
Mentality of...Federer
Footwork of...Federer
Serve of..Federer.
Service return of...Federer
FH of...Federer
BH of...Federer
Drop shot of...Federer
Volley of...Federer
Slice of...Federer
Lob of...Federer
Smile

by Guest Thu 01 Dec 2011, 9:54 pm

I thought someone was going to do that wow, but I will admit, you weren't my choice to do it. Very Happy

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 01 Dec 2011, 9:56 pm

wow wrote:Stamina of...Federer
Build of...Federer
Mentality of...Federer
Footwork of...Federer
Serve of..Federer.
Service return of...Federer
FH of...Federer
BH of...Federer
Drop shot of...Federer
Volley of...Federer
Slice of...Federer
Lob of...Federer
MTO of.. Nadal

by wow Thu 01 Dec 2011, 11:13 pm

YI, I am a die hard fed fan Smile

To add to the list JK has started
Soliloquy of- Andy Murray Smile

by Guest Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:53 am

Ball bouncing: Djokovic
Time between points: Nadal
Snarling: Murray
Walking stick: Federer

by LuvSports! Fri 02 Dec 2011, 2:12 am

i did this pretty much Y I man

by invisiblecoolers Fri 02 Dec 2011, 4:42 am

Stamina of... Nadal [Followed by Fed n Borg]
Build of... Federer
Mentality of... Borg
Footwork of... Federer
Serve of... Ivanisevic [Followed by Roddick]
Service return of... Agassi [Followed by Federer]
FH of... Federer
BH of... Nalbandian [at prime] [If not Djokovic]
Drop shot of... Federer
Volley of... Edberg
Slice of... Federer
Lob of... Hewitt at prime

by legendkillar Fri 02 Dec 2011, 8:33 am

Stamina of... Nadal
Build of... Ljubicic
Mentality of... Sampras
Footwork of... Hewitt
Serve of... Sampras
Service return of... Murray
FH of... Federer
BH of... Agassi
Drop shot of... Djokovic
Volley of... Connors
Slice of... Rafter
Lob of... Wilander

by time please Fri 02 Dec 2011, 9:36 am

Stamina of... Nadal
Build of...Borg
Mentality of... Connors
Footwork of...Federer
Serve of... Sampras
Service return of...Federer in his prime Agassi /as the man for all seasons
FH of... Federer
BH of...Nalbandian a few years ago, Djokovic this year
Drop shot of... McEnroe
Volley of... Edberg
Slice of... Federer
Lob of... All I can think of is Chrissie Evert - am I allowed her?

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:02 am

I am surprised to see so many votes for Nadal's stamina. He woudl certainly have got my vote before 2011, but there is clearly someone in town now who rushes him to shorten points. Essentially cause Nadal himself knows he cannot last the distance versus Djoko.

Djoko's game is built to last longer as he spends less energy on his shots than Nadal.

by Guest Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:07 am

Its quite interesting Tenez. A lot of votes for Federer's footwork also.

by legendkillar Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:16 am

Essentially Federer uses very little effort on footwork and that is a large reason for the votes he has on that score. Like Hewitt his footwaork is so clean and tidy. I went for Hewitt because he just edges Federer, ut only just because of the speed element which Federer doesn't have a lot of because he hasn't needed it due to how great the rest of his play is.

Nadal for Stamina is a must. I know 2011 hasn't been his best year, but when at his best it is difficult to see anyone outlast him in rallies.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:24 am

Y I Man wrote:Its quite interesting Tenez. A lot of votes for Federer's footwork also.

Yes, Federer's footwork doesn't surprise me much. WHo would you have voted? Djoko? maybe.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:27 am

legendkillar wrote:
Nadal for Stamina is a must. I know 2011 hasn't been his best year, but when at his best it is difficult to see anyone outlast him in rallies.

2011 would have been his best year if it was not for that one person who can outlast him.....and he didn't show it on one or 2 occasions but 6 times in a row!...and 9 times of the last 11! Nadal is now second best in that department.

by legendkillar Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:40 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nadal for Stamina is a must. I know 2011 hasn't been his best year, but when at his best it is difficult to see anyone outlast him in rallies.

2011 would have been his best year if it was not for that one person who can outlast him.....and he didn't show it on one or 2 occasions but 6 times in a row!...and 9 times of the last 11! Nadal is now second best in that department.

But then by the same method on the FH argument, Nadal's has broken Federer's down in past encounters. The one FH however when at it's best is the most effective and exquisit would be Federer's.

Nadal when his stamina is at it's best is un-matched. Yes Djokovic has defeated him this year, but not down to Stamina, more of the brutal attacking tennis Djoko has played.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:03 am

Nadal's FH broke down Federer's BH and to a much lesser extend Fed's FH. But that's normal cause there is a period of adaption. Nadal was teh only one able to deliver that much spin. They coudl not practice against it, except on high pressure matches. Federer and others however learnt to play that spin and time it better. They evolved. No different than Djoko learmt to last longer than Nadal. It's called being overtaken.

If I had to bet on a player to outlast everybody else now, it woudl be Djoko, no-one else.

by bogbrush Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:32 am

legendkillar wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nadal for Stamina is a must. I know 2011 hasn't been his best year, but when at his best it is difficult to see anyone outlast him in rallies.

2011 would have been his best year if it was not for that one person who can outlast him.....and he didn't show it on one or 2 occasions but 6 times in a row!...and 9 times of the last 11! Nadal is now second best in that department.

But then by the same method on the FH argument, Nadal's has broken Federer's down in past encounters. The one FH however when at it's best is the most effective and exquisit would be Federer's.

Nadal when his stamina is at it's best is un-matched. Yes Djokovic has defeated him this year, but not down to Stamina, more of the brutal attacking tennis Djoko has played.

Are you kidding? At Indian Wells/Miami Nadal has threatened to overwhelm him, and it's only been in the latter stages that he faded away.

Djokovic's biggest weapon over Nadal now is that rafa knows he can't stay with him physically. Everything else is flowing from that.

by sirfredperry Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:33 am

Older posters might vote for Rosewall in the return-of-serve category. He had a modest serve himself but kept things competitive by constant breaks of the other guy.
A little-remembered top British server was Mike Sangster. John Newcombe had a pretty handy serve. I recall his gunslinging duel with Stan Smith in the 71 Wimbledon final.
Of modern-day rivals to the Fed forehand, how about Soderling ? As far as backhands are concerned, John Mac once said Henin had the best BH in ALL of tennis.

by lags72 Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:49 am

Tenez - you are right to highlight the difficulty that Federer has had over the years in coping with Nadal's high topsin balls.

Throughout Federer's career it is only Nadal that has been able to trouble him on a regular basis by attacking his backhand. Other players (understandably) attempt the same tactic but because they cannot hit repeatedly high topsin with the same power, accuracy and consistency as Nadal, then Federer can invariably wait until he gets the chance to unleash his finest weapon in the shape of a winning forehand. But against Nadal (when at his very best) such opportunities don't come very often.

A little while ago I came across an excellent take on this very point in an article penned by Tom Allsopp. Essentially he's not saying a lot that perhaps we didn't already know, but it's analysed with admirable clarity. Well worth a read for anyone who hasn't already seen it
http://tpatennis.net/a-unique-look-at-why-federer-cant-hit-high-backhands/

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:16 pm

lags72 wrote:Throughout Federer's career it is only Nadal that has been able to trouble him on a regular basis by attacking his backhand. Other players (understandably) attempt the same tactic but because they cannot hit repeatedly high topsin with the same power, accuracy and consistency as Nadal, then Federer can invariably wait until he gets the chance to unleash his finest weapon in the shape of a winning forehand. But against Nadal (when at his very best) such opportunities don't come very often.

In my view, Nadal's strength or Toni's strategy rather was actually not to give Federer any form of consistency on his BH. That was actually Fed's greatest difficulty. When you say power, accurracy and consistency, Federer wish it was! But unfortunately only power was more or less consistent. The length of Nadal's FH has always been very inconsistent like the spin he puts in, providing a variation of balls more or less loopy, nadal himself had little control over, making it particularly hard for Fed to get any rhythm. And if you look at Nadal's CC FH, we can see he is only concerned in maximising the spin in it and some angle to make sure Federer can't turn his BH around his FH.

Let's not forget that Nadal's strategy was to blunt Federer's edge by sending energysed balls difficult to control. In turn inviting Federer to play with safer margins to engage in longer rallies, therefore start a physical battle instead. Fed had no choice to go for broke to preserve as much sharpness for the remaining of the match. That of course adds extra pressure on Federer on the important points, knowing that what he can't take now will be even harder to take after 2, 3 or 4 sets as he edge will drop as the match goes on.

Now Djoko is betting on teh same strategy. Nadal was completely spent when Djoko was injured in that 3rd set in USO. Djoko had killed Nadal in the first 3 sets.

by noleisthebest Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:18 pm

Novak actually makes a statement by not going for Federer's bakchand.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:19 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Novak actually makes a statement by not going for Federer's bakchand.

He won his match at the AO by constantly going at Fed's BH, didn't he?

by legendkillar Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:19 pm

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nadal for Stamina is a must. I know 2011 hasn't been his best year, but when at his best it is difficult to see anyone outlast him in rallies.

2011 would have been his best year if it was not for that one person who can outlast him.....and he didn't show it on one or 2 occasions but 6 times in a row!...and 9 times of the last 11! Nadal is now second best in that department.

But then by the same method on the FH argument, Nadal's has broken Federer's down in past encounters. The one FH however when at it's best is the most effective and exquisit would be Federer's.

Nadal when his stamina is at it's best is un-matched. Yes Djokovic has defeated him this year, but not down to Stamina, more of the brutal attacking tennis Djoko has played.

Are you kidding? At Indian Wells/Miami Nadal has threatened to overwhelm him, and it's only been in the latter stages that he faded away.

Djokovic's biggest weapon over Nadal now is that rafa knows he can't stay with him physically. Everything else is flowing from that.

Are you serious?

So your telling me that Nadal has looked flat against Djokovic because of Stamina?

I hope that is a wind up remark because anyone can see that the reason Djokovic has defeated Nadal is because he pulls the trigger on the junk served up in rallies!

Any other reason than that stated is borderline stupidity

by noleisthebest Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:20 pm

Tenez wrote:
lags72 wrote:Throughout Federer's career it is only Nadal that has been able to trouble him on a regular basis by attacking his backhand. Other players (understandably) attempt the same tactic but because they cannot hit repeatedly high topsin with the same power, accuracy and consistency as Nadal, then Federer can invariably wait until he gets the chance to unleash his finest weapon in the shape of a winning forehand. But against Nadal (when at his very best) such opportunities don't come very often.

In my view, Nadal's strength or Toni's strategy rather was actually not to give any form of consistency on Fed's BH. That was actually Fed's greatest difficulty. When you say power, accurracy and consistency, Federer wish it was! But unfortunately only power was more or less consistent. The length of Nadal's FH has always been very inconsistent like the spin he puts in, providing a variation of balls more or less loopy, nadal himself had little control over, making it particularly hard for Fed to get any rhythm. And if you look at Nadal's CC FH, we can see he is only concerned in maximising the spin in it and some angle to make sure Federer can't turn his BH around his FH.

Let's not forget that Nadal's strategy was to blunt Federer's edge by sending energysed balls difficult to control. In turn inviting Federer to play with safer margins to engage in longer rallies, therefore start a physical battle instead. Fed had no choice to go for broke to preserve as much sharpness for the remaining of the match. That of course adds extra pressure on Federer on the important points, knowing that what he can't take now will be even harder to take after 2, 3 or 4 sets as he edge will drop as the match goes on.

Now Djoko is betting on teh same strategy. Nadal was completely spent when Djoko was injured in that 3rd set in USO. Djoko had killed Nadal in the first 3 sets.

I think Federer would do well to learn to play short cross-court angles, that's how Nole ususally gets Nadal out of the court.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 12:27 pm

noleisthebest wrote:

I think Federer would do well to learn to play short cross-court angles, that's how Nole ususally gets Nadal out of the court.

Yes, though Federer has been showing us how to beat Nadal convincingly over the years, including last week, but it's doing it over 5 sets and more often than not that's been the problem. It was Djoko's problem too before 2011.

Executing perfectly consistently for 5 sets requires amazing stamina that Federer never had on clay.

by noleisthebest Fri 02 Dec 2011, 1:22 pm

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:

I think Federer would do well to learn to play short cross-court angles, that's how Nole ususally gets Nadal out of the court.

Yes, though Federer has been showing us how to beat Nadal convincingly over the years, including last week, but it's doing it over 5 sets and more often than not that's been the problem. It was Djoko's problem too before 2011.

Executing perfectly consistently for 5 sets requires amazing stamina that Federer never had on clay.

Tenez, Fed's history against Nadal at RG is not that great, when did they even get to 5 sets?
His cross court shots from the baseline mostly go for the corners and Nadal retrieves those on clay easily. He needs to aim for shorter angles FROM the baseline.

by Jeremy_Kyle Fri 02 Dec 2011, 1:42 pm

It is also worth mentioning:

Approach shot of: Becker/ Rafter

Smash shot of: Noah/ Edberg

FH passing shot of: Lendl/Courier

BH passing shot of: Borgh/Nadal

Drive volley of: Guga/ Agassi

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 9:35 pm

Watching Delpo play today made me reflect on best shots here. And the conclusion is that best shots are not much without creating the extra time to be on the shot and know where to hit that shot. So either we incorparate the "time" factor into the perfect shots or we create another section about the player who can create more time for himself before executing his shots.

I'll explain further. Delpo's FH is hit harder, probably deeper than Federer and could in theory claim the title of best FH. But the fact is that Federer simply sees the ball earlier and can pick his spots later than Delpo would. I even suspect that Federer can modify spin/angle while hitting through the ball at the last moment. Ferrer knows where Delpo is going to hit his FH or even better, by his placement can invite delpo to hit where Ferrer is running. Federer on the other hand has got quick hands and let Ferrer choose which way to run before hitting his FH rushing or wrong footing Ferrer more than Delpo's faster FHs. Federer does this by taking the ball earlier, taking time from his opponent (which can be called "creating time for himself).

In terms of creating time Federer is certainly the best I have seen with Nalbandian very close, McEnroe of course, Mecir, Edberg, Rios and Medvedev but those are from different times so it would be difficult to rank them amongst the modern players.

It's the time that Federer "creates" which makes him look like he is never rushed. It is this same sense of anticipation and quick reaction which has contributed to Federer's underated return skills. Agassi looks like a better returner cause he makes it look like he just put the racquet at teh last second thanks to amazing reflexes. Whereas someone like Federer will react earlier without this rush factor therefore he makes some outstanding returns look like routine ones. We saw that again last week when he returned some of Tsonga's 1st serve like they were 2nd serve. Just have a look at the 3 breaks he creates in the 3 sets. They don;t look much but most other players would have returned them with 2 hands and standing a further 2m behind Federer's position.

by Manojchandra Fri 02 Dec 2011, 10:50 pm

'Perfect' thread.

by lydian Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:04 pm

Tenez wrote:Yes, though Federer has been showing us how to beat Nadal convincingly over the years, including last week, but it's doing it over 5 sets and more often than not that's been the problem

This is patently untrue. The facts show:
Winning in 2 sets: 5-4 Nadal
Winning in 3 sets: 4-2 Nadal
Winning in 4 sets: 5-1 Nadal
Winning in 5 sets: 3-2 Nadal

So Federer has always had a problem beating Nadal, whether it be in 2, 3, 4 or 5 sets.

Tenez wrote:Executing perfectly consistently for 5 sets requires amazing stamina that Federer never had on clay.

Stamina-wise, as I keep repeating Federer has been specifically trained to not break down shot-wise for over 4+ hours:
Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a “coordinated creativity,” high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play. “Roger couldn’t be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons,” Paganini said..
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004

The Rome 2006 5+ hour match went on to demonstrate Federer's stamina perfectly.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:10 pm

You keep making this very simple mistake Lydian, time and time again.

Running for 4 hours stopping every 10 or 20 s and 2mn every other game is not difficult. I can even do it. It's keeping the edge, sharpness that is.

But you'll never learn, will you?

by lydian Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:14 pm

Then please explain:
1. His stamina and sharpness in living with Nadal at Rome 2006 for over 5 hours in the heat? (narrowly losing in TB in 5th set)
2. His losing H2H record over 2, 3, 4, and 5 sets? You said it's just 5 sets thats the problem.

by Tenez Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:26 pm

Admit that you come to me for discussion more than teh other way around.

I can't remember the other stat I found out a month or so ago but out of the 17 losses of Federer v Nadal, he was a set up or a break up with SPs) on more than half of those. Meaning had he been able to keep the intensity of the first games or set he would hold a reverse H2H v Nadal.

It's no surprise that Nadal's H2H v Fed is so one sided on clay, the surface where Nadal's phyique get a clear advantage.

But hey...as said, you'll never learn.

by lydian Fri 02 Dec 2011, 11:41 pm

Nadal has won the first set in 16 out of their 26 matches.
In the 17 losses, Nadal won the first set 14 times.
Your facts are wrong. Thats why I counter you. No other reason.
Plus you cannot counter the Rome match - it doesnt fit your story vs Nadal.

by Tenez Sat 03 Dec 2011, 12:01 am

lydian wrote:
Plus you cannot counter the Rome match - it doesnt fit your story vs Nadal.

I have answered that one 100 times including 2 posts aboves...but hey..You'll never learn.

by Tenez Sat 03 Dec 2011, 12:09 am

lydian wrote:Nadal has won the first set in 16 out of their 26 matches.
In the 17 losses, Nadal won the first set 14 times.

No not wrong. cause as I say, Hamburg 08, FO 11 and others had Fed leading with breaks and even SPs. I am not going to look into details again at midnight but the points are valid.

You are grossly mixing the ability to run for 5 sets with the ability to pull well timed, sharp shots over 5 sets. You are also grossly comparing Fed and Nadal stamina because both can run for 5 sets but completely overlooking the respective energy spent by those players.

You need to develop your sense of observation.

by lydian Sat 03 Dec 2011, 12:43 am

100s of times? I've never seen your Rome explanation. If Nadal uses more energy than Federer then shouldnt he be the one losing loads of sharpness in a 5 hour match? So now because I show Federer lost the 1st set in most of their losses, you move the goalposts to say he had break points instead...oh come on, this is really scraping the barrel now. What about break points Nadal had? Why dont you look at the Rome match, you'll find the BP opportunities and conversions were pretty similar, infact Federer converted 40% (4/10), Nadal 33% (3/9).

Also, your arguments only ever take into account that Federer loses sharpness, not Nadal (and yet you say Nadal doesnt like long ralleys either because he gets tired...hey?). Or that its only Federer who has well timed shots, not Nadal. Its abit of a 1-dimensional examination dont you think?

But then your central point is wrong. You argued Federer often wins the first set (which he doesnt) but then lets them slip due to a loss of sharpness after that first set. So we're supposed to believe that this athlete, who Paganini specifically trains on fitness/strength for 140-160 days a year to sustain peak performance for hour after hour, loses sharpness after one set? Djokovic's recent improvment in conditioning showed he can match Nadal's stamina, so it stands to reason that Federer's gruelling regime from 2000 can have achieved the same thing. But even if the sharpness myth was true its not what happens anyway. As I showed Nadal has won the 1st set in 14/17 of Fed's losses. Its not even like they were particularly long sets he lost - only 4 out of the Nadal's 14 first set wins went to 7-5, none to 7-6. Most went to 6-2 or 6-3 or 6-4. So the sharpness argument lacks any credibility because of the high level conditioning, and because the facts show Nadal has a leading H2H in their matches across 2, 3, 4 or 5 sets, and nearly always after winning the first set. So its not like Nadal only ever wins in 3 or 5 sets is it. Yes Nadal is amazingly fit, but so is Federer...for which the Rome match showed us that incontroversially.

In all your 1000s upon 1000s of posts about Nadal, you always completely overlook the POSSIBILITY that perhaps, just perhaps, he has been mentally stronger than Federer when it's truly counted, or he's sometimes played tactically better matches, or sometimes just simply outplayed him, or has been able to target and exploit Federer's technical weaknesses like no other player due to adherence to an excellently executed strategy, which in itself requires mental fortitude. You never countenance these things as potential factors in the 17 wins. Instead you prefer to apply a 1-dimensional stamina focus as the basis for Nadal's wins - despite Nadal having a better H2H across 2, 3, 4 or 5 set wins. That makes your 'Fedal' arguments lack any credibility and this is why I always counter you!

by Manojchandra Sat 03 Dec 2011, 5:37 am

AND I thought only Rafa and Novak played a match of attrition at US Open 2011.

by Tenez Sat 03 Dec 2011, 1:21 pm

lydian wrote:
Also, your arguments only ever take into account that Federer loses sharpness, not Nadal (and yet you say Nadal doesnt like long ralleys either because he gets tired...hey?). Or that its only Federer who has well timed shots, not Nadal. Its abit of a 1-dimensional examination dont you think?

You see, you are a fan of Nadal but don't understand his game, his strategy. Nadal plays with bigger margins. Every single commentator says that, including Federer and Nadal. Nadal banks on that simple characteristic of his game to make the difference over the distance. As the game goes on, his shots will get more or less spiny more or less loopy but as safe as at the beginning and he can run like all players for 5 hours thanks to the time taken between points and games wheras his opponents lose harpness and then are left with rallying with Nadal who will send them running in all corners if they can't pull clean winners. It happens that Nadal's game is so energy consuming that sometimes, despite taking 50s in between points, he is completely drained too and loses a tough match (Wimbledon 07, USO 11) and more so if he doesn't take that extra time (Miami 05). His shots become shorter, less spiny cause less energy and he becomes an easy prey for his opponent, almost any opponent can beat him when he is not “slam” ready as seen many times. The attacker then takes full command and makes Nadal run, without doing much running himself as he is a step ahead thanks to Nadal's short less spiny shots.

But then your central point is wrong. You argued Federer often wins the first set (which he doesnt) but then lets them slip due to a loss of sharpness after that first set. So we're supposed to believe that this athlete, who Paganini specifically trains on fitness/strength for 140-160 days a year to sustain peak performance for hour after hour, loses sharpness after one set?

You come with the same points which have absolutely no qualitative or quantitative value. How can we compare Pagnini’s training with the others? They do their best to max Fed’s physical training. Certainly. But that doesn’t give Federer wings like it does to Nadal and now Djoko. Federer is not playing “the wait for my opponent to fatigue” cause he knows against those 2 he’ll tire and shank first. But you refuse again to acknowledge that very simple fact.

In all your 1000s upon 1000s of posts about Nadal, you always completely overlook the POSSIBILITY that perhaps, just perhaps, he has been mentally stronger than Federer when it's truly counted,.

I don’t overlook that. I know that Nadal is anything but stronger mentally. Or more precisely he is as strong mentally as he is physically superior. Nadal is always the one starting nervously, scared to see Federer going strong. Only when he sees Fed shanking more often that Nadal gets more confident. When Nadal is not 120% physically he gets beaten my many players and when he is challenged by Djoko physically, he is always the first to crack mentally.

But hey…you’ll never learn…cause you don’t want to!

by Fedex_the_best Sat 03 Dec 2011, 1:56 pm

Manojchandra wrote:AND I thought only Rafa and Novak played a match of attrition at US Open 2011.

Apt comment Very Happy

Btw, does anyone know what time is the Davis Cup doubles today?

by noleisthebest Sat 03 Dec 2011, 1:59 pm

Fedex_the_best wrote:
Manojchandra wrote:AND I thought only Rafa and Novak played a match of attrition at US Open 2011.

Apt comment
Btw, does anyone know what time is the Davis Cup doubles today?

I've just had a look at Davis Cup useless website myself and couldn't find the time anywhere....I'm assuming either 2 or 3 PM

by lags72 Sat 03 Dec 2011, 2:12 pm

Doubles at 16.00 local time, according to Spanish press
http://www.mundodeportivo.com/20111201/tenis/rafa-nadal-abrira-la-final-de-la-davis-ante-monaco_54238711739.html

by legendkillar Sat 03 Dec 2011, 2:13 pm

Having read through all the comments and seen the 2 sides to the argument, I find that the one piece of statistical information is always missing from matches, and that is the average amount of strokes per rally. This would be a good gauge and would easily help substantiate 'strategies' that players incorporate against each other and how they vary. For example the US Open, Federer averaged 2.9 strokes per rally whereas Djokovic averaged 4.2 and Nadal averaged 5.6. The final between Nadal and Djokovic averaged 6.9 strokes per rally. This in itself no doubt shows that for this particular match was a last man standing contest. When you look at the stats in general for the tournament what it tells you is that Federer and Nadal failed in both trying to be too aggressive and too defensive. Djokovic's average however shows the best of both and hence showing that he had the right mix to win the title.

However back to the Nadal and Federer debate, I can't see how one can base Nadal's Stamina on just one season, given that for 6 seasons previously not a player alive could outlast him, however I then cannot see how one performance can only be used to demonstrate Federer's Stamina. Bottom line is Federer is fit and has stamina, I urge you to compare his match with Wawrinka in Paris and Nadal in London. Granted the surface helped Federer in Paris, but Wawrinka was working him all over the court and Federer was still retriving shots galore and hence that is what got him through that match. When he battered Nadal in London, a faster surface (but not by much) he was able to dictate points in a fast fashion compared to Paris.

The argument with Federer and Stamina is not what is the point either side is trying to match. The quality of tennis that both players produce is solution. Nadal is able to play 'his' quality of tennis for a longer duration compared to Federer and 'his' quality of tennis. This in turn bares no relation to Stamina I might add.

More to the point of the H2H between Nadal and Federer conds are the deciding factor. Nadal will always win on Clay. Partly yes because he is mentally more comfortable on Clay than Federer which would suggest toughness, but Federer has the upper hand on the Hardcourts. Grass however paints the better picture to which I think is the surface that would bring the 'better' tennis out of the 2 players. Slightly slower than Hardcourts, but quicker than Clay. Nadal's game on Clay is sponge like and it is just to absorb as much pressure as possible then go on the attack. Federer's game on Hardcourts is pure elegance and is to attack and control the tempo of the game. Nadal's stamina on Hardcourts is in-effective as a 'weapon' as is Federer's attacking on Clay. Their Grass H2H is really the closest measuring stick for me to both players individual games.

by Sponsored content