Nadal outsmarts Federer to lift 10th Slam

by Simple_Analyst Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:50 am

First topic message reminder :

Rafael Nadale consolidated his status as one of the greatest players argueably the greatest tennis player ever at least age wise when he outsmarted Roger Federer to win a 6th French Open and 10th Grand slam title today. This match reminded me of the many analysis people make about Federer Nadal match ups but the truth today was, not only does Nadal play more tactically against Federer but he also outsmarts him almost every time. Federer played well enough but not good enough to beat the man from Mallorca. One of Federer's strength has been to run away with matches as a front runner and came out all guns blazing to storm to a 3-0 lead having broken Nadal in the 2nd game but even at 5-2 and serving for the set, you could see it coming that soon as Nadal gets into rythm, it's almost game over and it came right away when he broke when Federer was serving for the set.
Having won the 2nd set on tie break Federer came back stronger in the 3rd set withh Nadal helping with some simple forehand errors into the net but the result was never in doubt as Nadal won the 4th set.
The truth is, Federer was not overpowered by Nadal, he was just outsmarted. I thought Nadal did not play that well to be honest, certainly not in the 3rd set but he was still too good enough. A professional tennis player is supposed to know his and his opponents game, exploit it and take any advantages strategically and Nadal does just exactly that against Federer. Talks were of Federer mixing up his shots before the game but Nadal did more than him in that regard. He kept Federer out of finding a comfort zone all match. A great tennis brain i'll say. With a 10-12 win record in Grand slam finals, Nadal is proving too tough to beat in slam finals. Federer unfortunately has fallen 2-6 in their grand slam meetings and no matter how unfair Federer fans might think this is, Nadal has just been better than him consistently throughout their carrers. 17 times now he has beaten him and it's looking more like a one-sided rivalry i'm afraid.
Nadal has shown the importance of going home with the slam title. With credit to Djokovic and his unbeaten runs, it comes to nothing when at the back of that run you fall short of the slam title and it's something he might learn from so we have great competition in the game amongst the top players.
With Wimbledon coming and Nadal having won the last 2 out of 3 and the last 2 he entered, it's going to be difficult for him to get beaten there. He still isn't playing anywhere at his best but we might see a change at Wimbledon. Congratulations to Nadal

by I AM AWESOME Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:54 am

Tom_____ wrote:
I AM AWESOME wrote:
lydian wrote:
I AM AWESOME wrote: Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

No, the lie is stating that Nadal uses that shot. You show me where he played a "medium-high LOB with topspin" in the whole match against Federer's BH? Or any match this year. Another great fallacy. You use the term as specific and intended wummery, as I just quoyed above you called him a "moonball pusher". You and Tenez love winding up the Nadal fans knowing these terms are inflammatory, and quite frankly technically incorrect too.

I suggest you go back and watch most of the Nadal/Federer match ups. All you see is that 99.9% of the balls from Nadal are played to the Federer backhand at near shoulder height with incredible top spin. Now are you telling me that is not ''medium'' height?

No, they aren't medium height particularly - look at the vid i posted, those are medium height lob shots with topspin - moonballs. Nadals shots bounce high due to topspin, but their still hit aggressively and so can't be too high or they'd go out of court. As Lydian said its one of those fallacy's that has spread around about Nadal, when in fact technically you hardly see moonballs in todays game as its not such a viable shot as in the 70s/80s.

So are you telling me that if someone hit a ball to you, shoulder height you'd say that was a ''low'' ball? Shocked

by I AM AWESOME Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:58 am

Hobo wrote:Is it not more to do with the height it goes over the net as opposed to the amount of topspin that is on it, generating the height post bounce.

Think of cricket, a bouncer is over shoulder height after the bounce, a beamer is head height all the way. Is this a similar confusion?

If that is so then I apologise since I was taking the definition of the moonball from what I'd had seen from wikipedia.

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:01 am

I AM AWESOME wrote:
Tom_____ wrote:
I AM AWESOME wrote:
lydian wrote:
I AM AWESOME wrote: Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

No, the lie is stating that Nadal uses that shot. You show me where he played a "medium-high LOB with topspin" in the whole match against Federer's BH? Or any match this year. Another great fallacy. You use the term as specific and intended wummery, as I just quoyed above you called him a "moonball pusher". You and Tenez love winding up the Nadal fans knowing these terms are inflammatory, and quite frankly technically incorrect too.

I suggest you go back and watch most of the Nadal/Federer match ups. All you see is that 99.9% of the balls from Nadal are played to the Federer backhand at near shoulder height with incredible top spin. Now are you telling me that is not ''medium'' height?

No, they aren't medium height particularly - look at the vid i posted, those are medium height lob shots with topspin - moonballs. Nadals shots bounce high due to topspin, but their still hit aggressively and so can't be too high or they'd go out of court. As Lydian said its one of those fallacy's that has spread around about Nadal, when in fact technically you hardly see moonballs in todays game as its not such a viable shot as in the 70s/80s.

So are you telling me that if someone hit a ball to you, shoulder height you'd say that was a ''low'' ball?

When a ball gets to me its irrelevant. A smash shot might pass 20ft over my head, but its not a high ball over the net or a moonball for that matter. Nadal balls bounce higher than most due to the topspin generated from a ball that it hit lowish over the next with heavy topspin. For me theres 4 levels. High, medium, low, flat. Nadal hits low generally, a lot of the successful HC players in recent years hit flat.

To view this simply. If the balls to Feds backhand were proper moonballs (medium lob topspin) then Federer would never have to hit a backhand shot, because he'd have ample time to to run around every single one of them and go for a winner. Nadal shots to Feds backhand a hit hard enough to mean Fed does not have time to run around them - there just hard topspin shots with good depth

by lydian Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:01 am

Yeah because his serve is getting broken all the time isnt it. Yes, he is selectively agressive - often at break point down he'll drive an approach and volley at the net. At key points in late sets he'll really go after shots, like he did towards the end of the first set yesterday. You choose to ignore all those aspects though. Nadal's form this year is nowhere near his form of 2010 and Nole's is sky-high. That's what is giving Nadal a hard time, anyone can see the guy is out of form - like Isner would take him to 5 sets normally right?
Federer and Murray engage in plenty of rallies with Nadal that are 20+ rallies and they are no more tired than Nadal at the end of it. Another fallacy.
When you say "arent very gifted tennis-wise" you reveal your naivety of what constitutes talent. This isnt the days of McEnroe when the players had ages to pluck out gorgeous shots. The game has moved on, and so what it takes to be talented has moved on. The modern physicality of the game was ushered in by Borg and Lendl, modern players have moved this on and use talent in many ways to win matches. Guys like Sampras and Federer play one way and win multi-slams, guys like Lendl, Borg and Nadal play another way and win multi-slams. There is no right or wrong way...only winning. If you dont like the way Nadal plays then tough, switch off. But you are not going to convince other fans of the game the guy has no talent and only plays "moonballs" as you define them by constantly moaning about him. Perhaps you'd like to discuss something else now?

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:04 am

Just to reiterate. on the aggression side of things - i've looked at yesterday's stats and the total winners count was 53-39 to Fed. Aces count 11-4. If they're wrapped up in the winner count, then the mid rally winner count would be 42-35, which is very near even considering Federer is a very aggressive player by most peoples judgement

by lydian Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:06 am

I AM AWESOME wrote: So are you telling me that if someone hit a ball to you, shoulder height you'd say that was a ''low'' ball?

So, conversely, you're telling me that a shoulder high groundstroke is a "moonball" - are you serious?
Nadal puts 4000 RPM on the forehand, it makes every ball rear up at shoulder height if you let it - and the weakness for Federer is that he does let it bounce that high. Do you realise the shot making talent it needs to hit at 4000RPM - a shot no-one else can do. And yet he's the same bodyweight as Federer so dont tell me its about strength otherwise Britain;'s Strongest Man could hit at 20,000RPM. Its about timing, and timing needs talent.

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:07 am

You might also be interested to know that in yesterdays match, for rallies longer than 10 strokes Federer won the points 12-9.

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:14 am

Tom_____ wrote:
Tenez wrote:Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of course! Exactly like a torero! Nadal uses the moleta and strikes once the bull is on his knees...breathless. BUt his bread and butter shots are as agressive as the red cap, just there to make you dizzy but are anything but agressive.

Example of a bread and butter shot by Nadal - a heavy topspin forehand:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UW1_oRrjA

I am speechless! LOL! Yes Bread and butter shots from Nadal, such so that you had to go back to 2007 to find one! LOl!

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:14 am

I AM AWESOME wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Davie wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

I just like to use a favourite comment 'with great power comes great responsibility'

I have seen moonball and moonballer used on this thread. I was told those words would be moderated and haven't.

Please address that.

Thank you

Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

Moonballing as it is called is just by a lob which is looped into play without pace.

Topspin as far as I am concerned is not associated with moonballing.

As you worded as far as you know. It is interpretted differently. Moonballer would be a player that plays that shot all the time, and I can think of many other shots Nadal uses.

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:19 am

lydian wrote:Tenez/I am awesome

I'm not getting into discussions with any forum members who call Nadal, or any other player - and I quote - "He's just a moonball pusher". You make your feelings about players and 'love' of the game clear. And yes, I am also surprised these comments are not moderated despite previous warnings.

Oh I understand perfectly. Calling Federer "shanker" is hurting my feeling so much, like you, I can't bear it.

Unfortunately I prefer those wumming with the truth than those talking little sense with a straight face,and wrse taking themselves seriously.

But that's just me.

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:24 am

Tenez wrote:
Tom_____ wrote:
Tenez wrote:Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of course! Exactly like a torero! Nadal uses the moleta and strikes once the bull is on his knees...breathless. BUt his bread and butter shots are as agressive as the red cap, just there to make you dizzy but are anything but agressive.

Example of a bread and butter shot by Nadal - a heavy topspin forehand:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UW1_oRrjA

I am speechless! LOL! Yes Bread and butter shots from Nadal, such so that you had to go back to 2007 to find one! LOl!

Or maybe i don't have every tennis match this year on tape?

So, by inference you're also saying Nadal doesn't hit heavy topspin shots regularly, such as the term bread and butter implies?

by socal1976 Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:25 am

Moonballing is not what Nadal does, as tom has pointed out moonballing is a defensive type of lob. Nadal uses the spin in an offensive or aggressive manner. He uses the spin not just as a safe shot or a heavy shot to draw errors, it serves that purpose but the it is an attacking shot as well. The spin allows Nadal to generate incredible angles from deep behind the baseline. This allows Nadal to move his opponent off the court and open the court up for an easy winner. Nadal hit a lot of winners in his final against federer, not as many as fed but I would venture to say the most draw dropping winners were hit by nadal. The added spin on his ball maakes nadal probably the most lethal passing shot artist in the history of the game. I have never seen anyone hit the passing shots as well as Nadal, and that is another example of using spin to win the point out right. A moonball is a completely defensive lob, Nadal's groundstrokes are not lobs, they have a great deal of force and generate great angles as well as being safe and drawing errors from his opponents.

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:28 am

Topspin as far as I am concerned is not associated with moonballing.
--------------------------------------

It is LK! Lots of people topspin. Only Nadal sends it that high almost systematically. It's the modern version of moonballing.

Shots don't simply disappear! They evolve with technology (here strings and light raquets) and fitness as well.

I know moonballing carries a negative image but so is Nadal's game as it is based on bringing down his opponents to a physical fight. Hardly ever does he bring the best out of his opponents. This is why knowledgeable crowds rarely support him....a bit like supporting defensive football.

Again. I am not saying it's wrong. And Italian football gave them 5 worldcups!Many have done it before him but what I find a bit annoying is those not calling a spade a spade and pretending they know about tennis.

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:31 am

"I find a bit annoying is those not calling a spade a spade and pretending they know about tennis."

Do you think some other people might be tempted to shout ditto to that comment?

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:34 am

Tenez wrote:Topspin as far as I am concerned is not associated with moonballing.
--------------------------------------

It is LK! Lots of people topspin. Only Nadal sends it that high almost systematically. It's the modern version of moonballing.

Shots don't simply disappear! They evolve with technology (here strings and light raquets) and fitness as well.

I know moonballing carries a negative image but so is Nadal's game as it is based on bringing down his opponents to a physical fight. Hardly ever does he bring the best out of his opponents. This is why knowledgeable crowds rarely support him....a bit like supporting defensive football.

Again. I am not saying it's wrong. And Italian football gave them 5 worldcups!Many have done it before him but what I find a bit annoying is those not calling a spade a spade and pretending they know about tennis.

It isn't. Nadal puts more power into those strokes.

If we go back to that video you posted of the painstaking rally between Wilander and Villas yes that was moonballing till the latter stage of that rally. Hardly any pace or even topspin for that matter could be generated with such a stroke.

I know people view Nadal's game in a negative light, as a Murray fan his game is more defensive than that of Nadal's.

Moonballs for me disappeared once new rackets, strings, balls that made strokes in tennis more power based.

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:37 am

It isn't. Nadal puts more power into those strokes.
-------------------------

That is the evolution of the game, thanks to string and diet in such a way that there is no need to send the ball as high cause the strings allow a much better control despite hitting harder.

Listen LK. I am telling you the truth. Change moonball with "strategic high topspin" if you prefer, but Toni inspired his gam from the Wilander era. He just of course had to port it to our modern times.

by lydian Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:38 am

So, we're being told a player is a 'moonballer' using a technically incorrect definition. Is this what the forum has become? A hate Nadal-fest based on incorrect assumptions and blind views?

Tenez - can you just give it a rest about Nadal and "physical this" and "physical that"...its sooooo boring. Are you able to discuss tennis without mentioning (slating) him?

Anyway, well done to Tenez and I AM AWESOME for replicating the feeling of 606 back again over here...you must be well chuffed with yourselves.
Bravo clap

by Haddie-nuff Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:40 am

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:45 am

Tenez wrote:It isn't. Nadal puts more power into those strokes.
-------------------------

That is the evolution of the game, thanks to string and diet in such a way that there is no need to send the ball as high cause the strings allow a much better control despite hitting harder.

Listen LK. I am telling you the truth. Change moonball with "strategic high topspin" if you prefer, but Toni inspired his gam from the Wilander era. He just of course had to port it to our modern times.

I can't say that Nadal plays 'moonballs' with the frequency that is being implied. Any shot that balloons as high as the strokes played in the 80's is normally played without great control.

I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?

Sampras had the upper hand on Agassi in Grand Slams. A lot of people would call Sampras a serve and nothing else.

Sometimes players just cannot undo or get into a rivals game. Federer has had success over Nadal, I am sure if Federer had got the better over Nadal, we would be celebrating his greatness and not completely dissecting Nadal's gameplay to death.

by lydian Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:48 am

Tenez wrote:Listen LK. I am telling you the truth

by Tom_____ Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:51 am

I think the great issue of deriding Nadals talent in anyway, is that Federer's greatness relies on the quality of opposition. If some one were to argue that any of Feds rivals are not talented, then that person loses the ability to declare Federer himself of great talent imo.

You can't build a sky scraper with 1 floor

by Haddie-nuff Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:53 am

Tom... the wisest words I have heard for a long time Nadal outsmarts Federer to lift 10th Slam - Page 3 1710857839

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:56 am

Can we close this chapter? There is more tennis to be played this season and more stories to unfold and be discussed in a more constructive manner.

Smile

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:00 am

I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?
------------------

There is nothing frustrating about it. Just Federer missing the one or 2 crucial points are frustrating. Because against Nadal, you end up losing against yourself. There is nothing frustrating when Nalbandian or Davydenko take time away from Federer and run him close or beat him. It's beautiful to watch.

I used he word frustration only for those who can;t simply see the obvious and try to dismiss the main point about Nadal's game and that is, listen everybody, his physique!

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:03 am

Tenez wrote:I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?
------------------

There is nothing frustrating about it. Just Federer missing the one or 2 crucial points are frustrating. Because against Nadal, you end up losing against yourself. There is nothing frustrating when Nalbandian or Davydenko take time away from Federer and run him close or beat him. It's beautiful to watch.

I used he word frustration only for those who can;t simply see the obvious and try to dismiss the main point about Nadal's game and that is, listen everybody, his physique!

'Tennis is 95% Mental' Jimmy Connors 8 time Slam winner

by I AM AWESOME Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:09 am

lydian wrote:So, we're being told a player is a 'moonballer' using a technically incorrect definition. Is this what the forum has become? A hate Nadal-fest based on incorrect assumptions and blind views?

Tenez - can you just give it a rest about Nadal and "physical this" and "physical that"...its sooooo boring. Are you able to discuss tennis without mentioning (slating) him?

Anyway, well done to Tenez and I AM AWESOME for replicating the feeling of 606 back again over here...you must be well chuffed with yourselves.
Bravo

I weren't on 606. Smile

by Haddie-nuff Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:09 am

Tenez wrote:I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?
------------------

There is nothing frustrating about it. Just Federer missing the one or 2 crucial points are frustrating. Because against Nadal, you end up losing against yourself. There is nothing frustrating when Nalbandian or Davydenko take time away from Federer and run him close or beat him. It's beautiful to watch.

I used he word frustration only for those who can;t simply see the obvious and try to dismiss the main point about Nadal's game and that is, listen everybody, his physique!

Are you meaning something like this Tenez

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/pilot-pen/waite/070822/Wawrinka-Monfils/Monfils1.jpg

by Tenez Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:10 am

legendkillar wrote:'Tennis is 95% Mental' Jimmy Connors 8 time Slam winner

That was more true at his time thna it is now...though Borg already proved then that the fitter you are the mentally stronger you get.

by legendkillar Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:12 am

Haddie-nuff wrote:
Tenez wrote:I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?
------------------

There is nothing frustrating about it. Just Federer missing the one or 2 crucial points are frustrating. Because against Nadal, you end up losing against yourself. There is nothing frustrating when Nalbandian or Davydenko take time away from Federer and run him close or beat him. It's beautiful to watch.

I used he word frustration only for those who can;t simply see the obvious and try to dismiss the main point about Nadal's game and that is, listen everybody, his physique!

Are you meaning something like this Tenez

That is physique and no talent!!

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/pilot-pen/waite/070822/Wawrinka-Monfils/Monfils1.jpg

by Simple_Analyst Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:13 am

But is there a law in tennis which says a player can't moon ball for absurd argument sake.? Federer then might not be good as you think when he loses 17 times to such a player. Federer loves playing flat hitters whose pace of the ball he feeds off. Nadal doesn't give him that advantage. He misses up the shots and victory becomes a formality.

by Haddie-nuff Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:16 am

legendkillar wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:
Tenez wrote:I can see how frustrating Federer fans find it that Nadal seems to get the better of him, but what would Roddick fans call Federer? A good returner of serve?
------------------

There is nothing frustrating about it. Just Federer missing the one or 2 crucial points are frustrating. Because against Nadal, you end up losing against yourself. There is nothing frustrating when Nalbandian or Davydenko take time away from Federer and run him close or beat him. It's beautiful to watch.

I used he word frustration only for those who can;t simply see the obvious and try to dismiss the main point about Nadal's game and that is, listen everybody, his physique!

Are you meaning something like this Tenez

That is physique and no talent!!

[/quote]

Well exactly my point thanks... so it cant all be about physique can it ?????

Haddie-nuff: Posts : 6936
Join date : 2011-02-28
Location : Returned to Spain