grading Nadal's comeback

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 6:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

so far so good in my opinion. 21-2 is the best he has ever started a season. He possesses a 5-1 record vs top ten opposition. And he has won three titles and made finals in every tournament he has entered.

He did concede a stronghold In Monte Carlo, but I'm not sure much can be taken from that in terms of where he is. Firstly the conditions were suitable for Novak to beat Nadal. Secondly, he took a month long break after Indian Wells, while this normally shouldn't mean to much, when you factor in that he had only played for a month, after a seven month layoff, then obviously some rust was to be expected.

I would rate his comeback as an A-minus so far. Thoughts?

by socal1976 Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:11 pm

Yeah, I mean I think we are being a bit harsh with our friend kingraf, I personally think the wet clay thing is a load of hogwash, as if Nadal has never played on damp clay and djokovic is the only guy to figure out that Nadal's forehand has no bite on wet clay.

That being said we all delve into the meaning of big matches and try to get into the details, one man's excuse making is another's analysis. I mean after Fogninni knocked Novak out of RG 2011 I to was left struggling for answers.

by **laverfan** Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:12 pm

kingraf wrote:By no means am I saying that Nadal would have won in the dry, but really? Conditions mean a lot. Pretend we playing a game of cricket: Overcast day, you win the toss, are you gonna tell the opposing captain he can decide, because its all the same?

Give me Lilee and Imran, and I will beat any team with that, except perhaps Gavaskar and Co in the fourth innings.

kingraf wrote:I dont get why tennis fans cant appreciate the science of the game.

This is no longer a scientific line of discovery, KingRaf, but the debate has become an emotional one.

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:15 pm

This thread is not a Nadal-Djokovic thread!!! I just keep getting suckered into speaking about it. But while Im there I must say, the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry has resembled a basketball match at times because both players seem to go on runs against each other. After all in 2009 Nadal lost three times in a row to Djoko (The first time Djoko surpassed Nadal irreversibly). Then Nadal won two straight in 2010, then he lost seven, then he won three. Now he lost again, is Djoko to go on another run?

by lydian Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:16 pm

LF, I've lost count of the number of times I've said well done re: Djokovic winning. He was the better man on the day no doubt. The world continues to turn...

Exactly Socal. It's just the same when Sampras retired, many people became overnight Nadal fans (AIR, Impartial Lion, etc) only to slowly disappear...

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:17 pm

I got dragged into an emotional discussion LF, which frankly I suck at!

by Danny_1982 Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:21 pm

lydian wrote:This thread is just what we needed. Is MC2013 the point where we see Fed fans start to jump ship to Djokovic to maintain their 'love' of Nadal, lol...

I think it will for some. For me, although a Murray fan, I like the other top 4 guys anyway and the way some fans of players post won't change that. I must admit to a slight preference for Novak over Rafa and Roger though.

I guess I like my sportsmen to be drama queens! Laugh

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:23 pm

Maybe its because I played sport (cricket, I digress) at a relatively high level (hoping to get back up there once the ACL heals). But I know first hand that at times the weather makes an absolutely massive difference (I didnt even call it massive). The amount of times Ive been in a team with reasonable pros who pretty much wanted to go home after we lost the toss on a cloudy day. might have clouded my judgement

by **laverfan** Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:26 pm

Most of the Top echelons know how to handle changing conditions.

by socal1976 Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:28 pm

lydian wrote:LF, I've lost count of the number of times I've said well done re: Djokovic winning. He was the better man on the day no doubt. The world continues to turn...

Exactly Socal. It's just the same when Sampras retired, many people became overnight Nadal fans (AIR, Impartial Lion, etc) only to slowly disappear...

Don't worry Lydian, if hypothetically Novak wins RG and Wimby and is playing Nadal in the final of USO a lot of fed fans will instantly learn to appreciate Nadal and wish him well, like our friend BB who found Nadalian religion in cheering for Nadal prior to FO 2012. When Novak had a chance of winning Novak slam all of sudden after thousands of posts otherwise he began to appreciate Nadal and hoped Nadal would win another slam and he would be happy for him. Either way it is ok, it adds a bit of spice to these rivalries. Maybe a few fed fans need something to cheer for or against with great Roger sailing into the sunset. Let them have their fun. By the way I do agree with them on this one for sure, wet clay I don't buy at all. Does it only rain in the spring time in Europe when Novak and Nadal play finals on clay? Did it not rain during the spring of 05-12?

by **laverfan** Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:31 pm

kingraf wrote:Maybe its because I played sport (cricket, I digress) at a relatively high level (hoping to get back up there once the ACL heals). But I know first hand that at times the weather makes an absolutely massive difference (I didnt even call it massive). The amount of times Ive been in a team with reasonable pros who pretty much wanted to go home after we lost the toss on a cloudy day. might have clouded my judgement

Do not need Andy Roberts on such a day, but Marshall, and watch wickets tumble. A good swing bowler on a cloudy day. Imran was a nightmare to play in English weather.

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:37 pm

Ja, but that wasnt the point I was trying to argue. I would never blame a loss completely on conditions. I was trying to say, that the clay was more suited to Noles game than Rafas, which cannot be lie. Its a globally acknowledged fact. I never meant that Nadal on wet clay = a cow on ice. That is of course a lie. But is it a coincidence to say the best Djoker has ever played Nadal on clay was when it was moist?

Even in 2011, he beat him 4 & 4, breaking him in the last game, penultimate game etc, in RG he won EIGHT games on the bounce in the rain, then in MC he pretty much bossed the first set, in a final delayed by rain.

In RG when they came back (drier), he won two games out of seven, then at MC, second set went to tie breaker. Maybe its all coincidental, or maybe Nole turns Super Sayian when it rains (Anyone seen him and Goku at the same place?).

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:42 pm

LaverFan- two years ago ago I came across a guy by the name of Morne Morkel (pre season warm up match in a back yard-esque field), I dont care how much he swings it, there is nothing scarier than a 6'6 pace bowler throwing down missiles!

Interestingly, a year ago I started wearing spectacles in cricket, my average went up, I thought it was because I could see the ball clearly. Turns out its because I could see visual cues in the bowler better!!

by kingraf Wed 24 Apr 2013, 11:46 pm

Socal- from 2005-2010 Nole was not the same player, or must we use the fact that a 21-year old Djokovic had an inferior record to Marat Safin as evidence that 2011 Djokovic < Feds contempraries?

by socal1976 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 12:04 am

kingraf wrote:Socal- from 2005-2010 Nole was not the same player, or must we use the fact that a 21-year old Djokovic had an inferior record to Marat Safin as evidence that 2011 Djokovic < Feds contempraries?

You won't get an argument from me on that one, have in fact been arguing against Lydian who says that outside of stamina Novak isn't any better than 08 and his serve in fact might be worse. By the way till the start of 2011 Novak djokovic had a losing record against top ten players by a pretty big margin, if you check in on the other thread you will see that I have said Novak is much better.

But you are basically conceding my point, it isn't the rain, it is Novak djokovic 2.0 that gives Nadal problems. Because it certainly rained in European springs before Novak started beating Nadal. If his forehand becomes so ineffectual why is that only djokovic seems to feast on it, therefore the rain is not the but for or logical cause of the defeat the matchup is.

After Novak beat Nadal in Madrid 11, Nadal fans many of them claimed it was because of the altitude and that Madrid was too quick. Now we hear the news that Nadal likes a faster clay court, really why didn't he like the faster clay court of Madrid. So let me get this straight, Nadal goes from being the king of clay to the king of dry clay at sea level? You see its not the rain, its not the altitude, it is the opponent. I don't know about this universally known fact that Nadal is weaker on wet clay. He never looked susceptible before djoko 2.0.

by **laverfan** Thu 25 Apr 2013, 12:17 am

kingraf wrote:LaverFan- two years ago ago I came across a guy by the name of Morne Morkel (pre season warm up match in a back yard-esque field), I dont care how much he swings it, there is nothing scarier than a 6'6 pace bowler throwing down missiles!

Plays for SF now, correct? How about Joel Garner at 6'8"?

kingraf wrote:Interestingly, a year ago I started wearing spectacles in cricket, my average went up, I thought it was because I could see the ball clearly. Turns out its because I could see visual cues in the bowler better!!

If you can watch the ball grip and the seam, it helps a lot. Wink

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 12:25 am

Maybe its Novak who gets stronger in the rain, rather than Nadal weakening but there is a distinct change in their matches (you could say 14-2 in terms of games recently) on clay when it pours.

Same reason only Nadal (not even left-handers, just Nadal) punishes Federer on Clay. Styles make fights!

I never made a claim about Nadal and altitude (painting us all with the same brush, no?), nor did I say Nadal can only play on fast (or slow) clay. half the things being argued against me are things I have never said or agreed with!

The whole 'Why is it only against Nole that this (weather) comes up?' angle is odd, but I'll answer it: because Nole is the one guy close enough to beat Nadal. Same reason Nadal beat Fed, or Nastase beat Connors. I completely agree that he never looked susciptible before Novak 2.0, but thats because it didnt matter until Nole 2.0. Whereas Nole 1.0 might have had similar advantages, Nadal could just outlast him, thus it didnt matter. In many ways, what Im saying is a mega compliment to Nole. But Nadal knows his game, as well as the game of tennis better than you and I, and his actions are wonderful cues: At 2-2 in the third in RG he just wanted to get off by any means necessary, because I think he realised what the state of play was, thats why the next day when it started drizzling he was begging the ball boys to save the balls, Nole on the hand couldnt be bothered.

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 12:28 am

Apparently athletes get their cues from the bowler/pitcher/server then use their muscle memory/brain to "see into the future"

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1188950

by Henman Bill Thu 25 Apr 2013, 2:27 am

A- is about right. I agree.

A big plus point has to be the lack of a reccurence of the injury or other injuries so far.

by summerblues Thu 25 Apr 2013, 3:11 am

About A- for me. In fact, it may partly be just optics why I do not give him an A. If he had lost IW final and won in MC, I might have even given him an A. But after having won MC so many times, the loss there feels like a bit of a letdown, so A- it is for me.

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 8:25 am

must say this, English is not my first or even third language, so I will sometimes (rarely) make translational errors, I'm not too sure if thats what happened here, but what I think Ive been saying, and what people have come out and said I said are two different things, so I assume that somewhere I lost something in translation

by Danny_1982 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 8:50 am

Kingraf - English is your second language? I would never have guessed as your grammar and sentence structure is very good. What is your first language?

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:03 am

I am South African, so I first learnt my native language, SePedi, then I learnt my maternal grandmothers language, Xhosa, went to an Afrikaans pre-school, so I learnt that afterwards. I only started learning english due to tv. soapies my mum watched, as I only went to an english-medium school at age 9-10. I can speak about five African languages, then Afrikaans and English, and I have basic (Pretty much Google translate quality) understanding of Tamil (my best friend is a tamil who emigrated to South Africa, thus his family have tried, with mixed success to teach me the language)

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:07 am

its not much of an accomplishment in South Africa, most kids can speak a large majority of our eleven languages by the age of eight-nine, you have to if you live in the urban areas, as your street is pretty much a melting pot of cultures and its considered disrespectful to engage with your elders (neighbours) in a language that isnt theirs.

by bogbrush Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:09 am

He's done well, but he's not played anyone really until losing. Off clay he got Federer who'd barely limped to the quarters on his back.

I give him a B, maybe B+

by Danny_1982 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:10 am

Impressive. My fiancé speaks 5 languages fluently and 1 basic. She is not English though, so the common theme is us Brits are pretty lazy when it comes to learning other languages. I've given Portuguese a go and can get by, but I'm far from fluent.

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:20 am

I think it just gets tougher as you get older, my dad spent some formative years in Madrid.Thus I am trying to learn the language to go there. My knowledge absorption seems to be at the same level as a rock!

by kingraf Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:24 am

English South Africans also seem to be a little lazy when it comes to linguistics. 98% cant speak a native language, despite being born and raised here. They barely acknowledge Afrikaans, and some speak a quite disturbing rendition of their own language... Maybe its a Anglo problem¿

by **laverfan** Thu 25 Apr 2013, 1:33 pm

There is a very interesting statistical viewpoint that some of us may be interested in.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/04/17/Brain-Game-Djokovic-Stops-Nadal-Runaround.aspx

@KingRaf/Danny... I find learning phonetic languages easier than languages like English. 46% of the world speaks Indo-European languages.

@KingRaf... If you are experimenting with Tamil, perhaps I can entice you to try Sanskrit. Wink

But overall pretty impressive.

My adopted country scoffs at the effort required to learn more than one language, unlike the Europeans or other parts of the world. Crying or Very sad

by Johnyjeep Thu 25 Apr 2013, 1:46 pm

kingraf wrote:by stating that it is a ridiculous thing to say (conditions playing a role) you are intimating that conditions are inconsequential. In tennis, and on clay matches can get changed big time due to conditions. Soderling beat Federer in RG10 largely because the conditions meant that his game was better equipped. Its not excuses, its basic science.

By no means am I saying that Nadal would have won in the dry, but really? Conditions mean a lot. Pretend we playing a game of cricket: Overcast day, you win the toss, are you gonna tell the opposing captain he can decide, because its all the same?

I dont get why tennis fans cant appreciate the science of the game.

Hi Kingraf,

I was going to comment last night re your cricket analogy mentioned earlier but I was too tired! As it’s carried on this morning I will make this observation.

There is a fundamental difference between conditions of cricket and tennis and therefore they cannot be compared directly.

In tennis they are both competing on the same discipline i.e. tennis. Hitting the ball back in between the lines and over the net. The external conditions have far more impact on cricket than they do in tennis. I'm sure you know this if you played at a high level, but while batting and bowling are part of the same sport, the disciplines on show are completely different. A bowler on a green top and/or overhead cloud has superior environmental conditions at his disposal than the batsman does. He is immediately therefore at an advantage (or should be) over the batsman. Bowlers from both teams are not competing directly against each other. Cricket is not a bowl-off.

In tennis, the environmental conditions are the same for both players at exactly the same time. If Nadal cannot adapt then that is a flaw in his game and rightly deserves criticism from other commentators. It should not be used an excuse/reason for his loss. Djokovic is playing Nadal in the same conditions, at the same time, at exactly the same discipline. It bears no resemblance to advantageous conditions in cricket what so ever.

Surely we are now not going to have to say that the ‘king of clay’ is only in fact the ‘king of dry clay’. Because that’s getting ridiculous.

That being said…I would give his comeback an A. I think he has being exceptional (I did watch him at MC) after a 7 month lay-off. But he has played enough now to be back into the swing of things. If he has reached the final of all competitions (five is it?) he has entered, to say he is still feeling the effects of his lay-off is pretty weak. He didn’t win everything before his lay-off. So he’s not going to after either. At what point can we say he is 100% back? His performance will degrade naturally as he gets older. So he will lose more anyway.

by Johnyjeep Thu 25 Apr 2013, 1:53 pm

@ Socal I've just read your post! I didn't plagarise your:

So let me get this straight, Nadal goes from being the king of clay to the king of dry clay at sea level?

I promise Smile

But i'm glad I'm not the only one who is reading it like this lol

by lags72 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 2:01 pm

Hi Johnyjeep, your post (1.46pm) makes for a great read and is very well-expressed. Do you have cause to write 'professionally' at all, by any chance ....?

And whilst I'm in effusive complimentary mode, I was pleased to note that you have awarded Rafa the same rating as I did ...... Wink

by CAS Thu 25 Apr 2013, 4:14 pm

all opinions are based on bias, at the end of the day no avid Rafa fan is going to admit Djokovic is just better than Nadal, no avid Federer fan will admit Nadal is just better than Federer. No avid McEnroe fan will admit Lendl was better and no avid Borg fan would admit McEnroe was better. This is Djokovic's time, its been coming over Rafa for a while, just like Rafa was knocking on Federer's Wimbledon door.

None of them ever rose together at the same time, same with McEnroe, Borg and Lendl. Lets see who made the most of their time in the sun when they are all (hopefully) sitting next to each other at Centre Court 15/20 years from now having a good chin wag whilst watching the new "best ever" take the game by storm.

by hawkeye Thu 25 Apr 2013, 4:27 pm

CAS wrote: No avid McEnroe fan will admit Lendl was better

I wouldn't describe myself as an "avid" McEnroe fan but this is so wrong! Lendl was just in the right place at the right time. Sometimes that's how things happen.

by CAS Thu 25 Apr 2013, 4:33 pm

hawkeye wrote:
CAS wrote: No avid McEnroe fan will admit Lendl was better

I wouldn't describe myself as an "avid" McEnroe fan but this is so wrong! Lendl was just in the right place at the right time. Sometimes that's how things happen.

I didn't say it was, I preferred McEnroe myself but thanks for helping prove my point

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 25 Apr 2013, 4:48 pm

CAS wrote:all opinions are based on bias, at the end of the day no avid Rafa fan is going to admit Djokovic is just better than Nadal, no avid Federer fan will admit Nadal is just better than Federer. No avid McEnroe fan will admit Lendl was better and no avid Borg fan would admit McEnroe was better. This is Djokovic's time, its been coming over Rafa for a while, just like Rafa was knocking on Federer's Wimbledon door.

None of them ever rose together at the same time, same with McEnroe, Borg and Lendl. Lets see who made the most of their time in the sun when they are all (hopefully) sitting next to each other at Centre Court 15/20 years from now having a good chin wag whilst watching the new "best ever" take the game by storm.

I was an avid Lendl fan, I don't have a problem in admitting that Mcenroe at his peak was a far better player. I am also quite an avid Federer fan, but nontheless I am of the opinion that Borg at his peak was a stronger player.

by lydian Thu 25 Apr 2013, 5:04 pm

Lendl was more successful for sure but most people feel McEnroe had much more natural talent...Lendl however worked to make the most of his, something McEnroe cant quite say he did.

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 25 Apr 2013, 5:23 pm

Winning a slam in my view is already nearly a top achievement for any tennis player. To state that a champion who won 7 didn't make the most of his profession, well that's quite a statement........it's just like saying Steve Jobs did't have a big career because Bill Gates made a lot more money Smile

by lydian Thu 25 Apr 2013, 6:22 pm

McEnroe himself says he didn't practice hard enough, mainly using doubles as practice, nor was he amongst the fittest either - had he been fitter he would have probably won that 84 RG final. He then went AWOL in 1985 at 26 years old - right at his prime to never come back the same - he would never win another slam or Masters level event again. He also didn't bother with Australia Open much and his clay preparation wasn't exactly deep either. I would say he didn't make as much as he could have done if he'd fully committed to the tour.

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 25 Apr 2013, 6:40 pm

I play many doubles, and I can tell you that even at my level can be very tiring after 2 h or so of play......Furthermore, ever heard of players retiring from the double to keep their energy for the latter stage of a slam ? AO: if he didn't bother, why do you bother Rolling Eyes

RG: in that final he played some player I seem to remember. Ok you win.

by socal1976 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 7:48 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:@ Socal I've just read your post! I didn't plagarise your:

So let me get this straight, Nadal goes from being the king of clay to the king of dry clay at sea level?

I promise

But i'm glad I'm not the only one who is reading it like this lol

Great minds think a like Johnny. That is my whole problem with the wet clay analogy. After Novak won in Madrid 2011, we heard all this talk about how Nadal didn't like the altitude and the speed the ball moved through the court, also at altitude the bounce should be higher. Then after Nadal lost 8 games at RG we heard how Nadal didn't like slow condition clay court and the lower bouncing surface. Apparently the guy who romped through the clay court season the last 8 years is more like gollidlocks on clay court as opposed to the king of clay. The ball has to move through the air at the right speed and kick up to the right height. I mean I never heard of all these requirements and disadvantages Nadal had prior to Djokovic beating at Madrid. So if these things are a factor they are very minor factor.

Then we have the myth of the 2012 RG final and the 8 straight games being due to the rain. It rained before the match when Nadal won 2 straight sets, it was drizzling at times during the match, and it wasn't the balls getting heavier because they bring new balls in every 7 games. When Nadal won the first two sets the court was wet and drizzling was occurring. When Nadal loses a set and goes down a break in wet conditions now it is because of the rain. It is a very insulting and counter factual argument. The match was delayed because of rain at the outset and it didn't stop Nadal from getting 2 sets up. After watching Djoko win the 11 of the last 12 points of the match and having two set points for 6-0 set at MC this year people need to put that silly excuse for the 8 straight games at the FO final to bed. He didn't win 8 straight games because of the rain. Henman bill was at that final and he stated that there was a light drizzle through most of the match and that he was surprised that they stopped the final to begin with because he had no umbrella and was hardly getting wet. When Nadal wins on clay in wet conditions it is because he is so great, when Novak wins 8 straight games in the same match all of sudden it is because of the rain.

by Johnyjeep Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:12 pm

lags72 wrote:Hi Johnyjeep, your post (1.46pm) makes for a great read and is very well-expressed. Do you have cause to write 'professionally' at all, by any chance ....?

And whilst I'm in effusive complimentary mode, I was pleased to note that you have awarded Rafa the same rating as I did ......

I'm blushing lags72 Hug

I wish I did! Alas no, my sporting knowledge and opinions are shared solely with readers of 606v2 and my friends down the pub on a weekend!! To be honest, even at its worse, its more friendly on here than it is with my mates after 6 or 7 pints lol And my girlfriend just point blank stops listening to me (assuming she ever does in the first place!) when I start talking about cricket/football/tennis/athletics/snooker/darts.

Yes Rafa has done remarkably well for me. I just don't understand how anyone could not give him full marks. I think we expect too much from individuals these days, especially Tennis stars. I don't know whether Federer and Nadal built up these monsters to the extent where any loss has to be explained away by a reason. Sometimes the other guy is just better than you on the day. Accept it and move on. Doesn't make for great debate I'll grant you!

@Socal..yes I agree entirely. It seems that some people have their favorite and base their argument/reasoning/logic to suit that player. When that same argument/reasoning/logic is then used to discredit the player, heels are dug in and its twisted around again. It makes for painful reading at times.

My favorite player is Federer. I also really enjoy watching Tsonga, Gasquet (when he doesn't stand on the line-judges shoe-laces) to a lesser extent and recently Dimitrov who I think is extremely close to making a major break through. Federer, because I think his game is fantastic and his mental application to want to keep playing is astonishing. However, when he loses, he loses to the better player. No excuses. No player has even won a tennis match, never mind a tournament, by being the worse player. It is just impossible thanks to the way the game is scored.

For me so much of elite sport is determined by what is in between the ears as oppose to skill level. In terms of skill, and physical attributes I suppose, you could probably throw a blanket over most of the top 100. What separates the best are the powers of concentration; the ability to read a match to know when to produce your best tennis; the sacrifices to make off the field to give your body and mind the best chance of success and the determination to want to keep practicing. You're not telling me a chap like Ferrer (and I'm not picking on him because I have nothing but admiration for what he has achieved) is any more talented than many of the guys below him. He just takes them to the cleaners when it comes to application.

by invisiblecoolers Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:48 pm

CAS wrote:all opinions are based on bias, at the end of the day no avid Rafa fan is going to admit Djokovic is just better than Nadal, no avid Federer fan will admit Nadal is just better than Federer. No avid McEnroe fan will admit Lendl was better and no avid Borg fan would admit McEnroe was better. This is Djokovic's time, its been coming over Rafa for a while, just like Rafa was knocking on Federer's Wimbledon door.

None of them ever rose together at the same time, same with McEnroe, Borg and Lendl. Lets see who made the most of their time in the sun when they are all (hopefully) sitting next to each other at Centre Court 15/20 years from now having a good chin wag whilst watching the new "best ever" take the game by storm.

Perfectly said thumbsup

by socal1976 Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:48 pm

Exactly, Johnny, I think that here on this site we do tend to analyze the details of a match and look at various factors for why player A won and why Player B lost. One man's excuse is another man's analysis so I actually don't mind these discussions that much because if we didn't have them what else would we have to do but congratulate the winner and move on. So while I don't buy the wet clay excuse or reasoning at all I do understand why people like to talk about and dissect a match up. But even when giving context to a victory or defeat we have to be objective and logical, sometimes easier said than done.

I just find this whole wet clay/dry clay logic to be wrong. Djokovic has beaten Nadal on all three surfaces since 2011 and in a variety of conditions. So what advantage is gained or not gained from wet clay doesn't make that much of difference. The fact is that the matchup of Novak 2.0 vs. Nadal is a bad matchup for Nadal.

As for my favorites Djoko is my favorite but I also like Gasquet he would probably be my second favorite player, and youzhny as well, love his personality and quirky antics as well as his beautiful backhand.

by invisiblecoolers Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:53 pm

lydian wrote:Lendl was more successful for sure but most people feel McEnroe had much more natural talent...Lendl however worked to make the most of his, something McEnroe cant quite say he did.

Very similar to Nadal's success over Fed, Nadal enjoyed more success on their H2h but Fed is much more talented than Nadal, but however Nadal worked his way to make the most out of his Very Happy

, something similar could happen in Djoko- Rafa rivalry as well. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Thu 25 Apr 2013, 9:57 pm

socal1976 wrote:When Nadal wins on clay in wet conditions it is because he is so great, when Novak wins 8 straight games in the same match all of sudden it is because of the rain.

Welcome to the world of Fanboyism if you are already not a part of it. thumbsup

by lags72 Fri 26 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm

lydian wrote:McEnroe himself says he didn't practice hard enough, mainly using doubles as practice, nor was he amongst the fittest either - had he been fitter he would have probably won that 84 RG final. He then went AWOL in 1985 at 26 years old - right at his prime to never come back the same - he would never win another slam or Masters level event again. He also didn't bother with Australia Open much and his clay preparation wasn't exactly deep either. I would say he didn't make as much as he could have done if he'd fully committed to the tour.

Interesting point there lydian wrt the trajectory of Mac's career - or at least the latter stages of it.

In his autobiog, Mac emphasises just how much the shock early retirement of Borg had impacted on his own psyche, saying that it took him a good while to regain his hunger/motivation.

I think a lot of folk were never aware - and if they were, have perhaps forgotten over time - that Mac's prime, Slam-winning years ended at pretty much the equivalent age that Borg chose to withdraw from the sport ; and 26 y.o. is undoubtedly premature (especially so by today's standards when we saw Fed winning Wimbledon last year aged a few weeks short of 31 ........ )

by Haddie-nuff Fri 26 Apr 2013, 1:54 pm

lydian wrote:McEnroe himself says he didn't practice hard enough, mainly using doubles as practice, nor was he amongst the fittest either - had he been fitter he would have probably won that 84 RG final. He then went AWOL in 1985 at 26 years old - right at his prime to never come back the same - he would never win another slam or Masters level event again. He also didn't bother with Australia Open much and his clay preparation wasn't exactly deep either. I would say he didn't make as much as he could have done if he'd fully committed to the tour.

Which is the reason (or part of the reason) That Rafa lost at Monte Carlo.. he went home to Mallorca for another 5 weeks jollies didn´t he.. admitted he never practiced and probably never picked up a racket.. Waited until he got to Monte Carlo before he did any training or practicing at all and that he admitted. Rafa lost in part because a fully honed Nadal didnt go out on that court to play Nole and it showed. Nothing to do with wet or dry clay Rafa has played enough on both over the years. And thats from one of his biggest fans. Sorry Rafa but you were simply not good enough on that day. You cant be so ambivilent against the world No.1 lets hope you dont make the same mistake again.

by lydian Fri 26 Apr 2013, 1:59 pm

Good points Haddie. You know I wonder what effect the 8 months away had on Rafa...its a long time to wonder about life and lose a little bit of the fire in the belly. Time will tell, but I hope he doesn't, or rather hasn't, lost the fire like McEnroe did. On the other hand, he's still short of match experience against the very best...he showed he was adjusting in the 2nd set so there's hope yet.

by Haddie-nuff Fri 26 Apr 2013, 2:09 pm

I am as you know Lydian one of his biggest fans but I speak as I find, (I can also be one of his harshest critics) Rafa doesn´t appear to be hungry enough.. he has tasted it all before .. there is a difference in Rafa´s demeanour as a whole.. I just hope that Rafa the warrior has not been replaced by Rafa the showman; winning will of course be the most important part of his comeback... but what has made Rafa who he is IS HOW he wins.

by Jeremy_Kyle Fri 26 Apr 2013, 2:13 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I don't want to get into the same old argument against rafa fans.....Nontheless, it is fair to say that they are more picturesque than average. Their ability to analyse Rafa defeats in the smallest details and to find reasons behind each defeat, is where they really stand apart.

For example here I am listing some of the adverse circumstances Rafa had to battle against, that the rafa fans promptly identified:

- The rustiness: Rafa was deemed to be rusty during the final

- The wet clay: even though it wasn't raining, the clay did look very wet

- Lack of important matches against top players

- Rafa had niggles and pain (infomation was taken from a dedicated and well informed blog)

- The enforcement of 25 sec rule played against him.

- Rafa forgot all the technical variation he successfully put in place to counter Djokovic in 2012.

- Rafa didn't move as well as usual

- Play got delayed by rain

- I mean a guy takes seven months off plays for a month, then takes another month off, so eight months off out of nine, but of course thats a mere footnote, on the binliography

- Uncle Tony coaching lacks tactical awareness

- Rafa didn't practice hard enough before MC, preferring instead to have a jolly time with his friends

- Rafa wasn't motivated enough.

- Please feel free to add......

by Sponsored content