The blatant myth of Nadal wins principally on fitness

First topic message reminder :

So far the fed apologists have carved out a wonderful little excuse as to why poor Roger hasn't been doing well recently. His two principal rivals beat him only on fitness and are relatively mediocre talents with little shotmaking ability and talent. Anyone they claim who gets fit enough can win.

But there is one interesting fact that they can not explain and that exposes their silly myth to anyone who has not sipped the apologist Kool-Aid. If Nadal and Djoko simply win on physicality why is it that most of their matches end in two sets? Why is it that they win the first set of virtually every match they play? Are we to assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour lose their wind after 30-60 minutes of hitting? And the only thing that seperates Nadal and Djoko from the rest of the pack is big lungs?

ANOTHER MYTH OF FEDERER APOLOGISTS EXPOSED:

In 68 matches, Nadal has won the first set in 59 of those affairs meaning nadal wins nearly 87 percent of the first sets he plays

In 66 mathces Novak has won 58 of the first sets he has played, for nearly 88 percent of the first sets he has played

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-After-Winning-First-Set-Current-List.aspx

So the physicality as the reason for victory argument is a complete and utter fabrication, willful blindness and group think on the part of the federer apologists, and a smear of the ability of these two great champions.

Unless we are to assume that players who train for 3-4 hour match lose their wind in the first half hour of a match and completely lose their skill. If Nadal and Djokovic are such middling talents why do they win nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play? Can fatigue really play such a factor in the first set of a match when two world class athletes square off?

Certainly, the modern champion has to be fit, because in a grandslam in a 5 set match he has to be able to deliver. But you find me another talentless shotmaker that wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets they play.

Game, set, and match federer apologists.

He is ambidextrous because he is able to use both hands - ambidextrous doesn't mean that you will use each hand an even amount of times.

Two of my relatives draw and write with their left hand and have always done so, but play tennis with their right hands and kick a football with right foot and actually do everything else like a 'righty'

Not even the Machivellian Uncle Toni could have made a left handed player out of a child that didn't favour that hand on occasions.

I didn't know that Dali said that about Cezanne, certainly I knew that everyone said that of Rafa - that he actually had two forehands, however Novak seems to have defeated him this year by forcing Nadal to hit his 'right handed forehand' the majority of times.

Well the definition says differently.

1. Able to use both hands with equal facility.

I am not ambi cause I can scratch my back with my left hand. Nadal doesn't use both hands with equal ease. Ambidextrous is an inate characteristic that clearly Nadal hasn't. Some learn to write with their right hand, it doesn't make them ambi.

nadal learned to play with his left hand and I think that shows an amazing amount of athletic and tennis coordination. Not to mention a great deal of hardwork.

Tenez wrote:Well the definition says differently.

1. Able to use both hands with equal facility.

I am not ambi cause I can scratch my back with my left hand. Nadal doesn't use both hands with equal ease. Ambidextrous is an inate characteristic that clearly Nadal hasn't. Some learn to write with their right hand, it doesn't make them ambi.

Well I'll bow to the definition Tenez - the trouble sometimes with definitions is that you have a black or white explanation and so often there are shades of grey - dyslexia for example has many different degrees from people who struggle with literacy, number recognition even telling left from right - to someone who reads slowly but accurately but muddles the order of letters when writing and has an inability to correct that. I think it is fair to say that Nadal has dextrous ability with both hands that can't be taught - honed maybe, exploited if you will but not taught from scratch. He has a 'talent' or skill in this area that the majority of people don't possess.

socal1976 wrote:nadal learned to play with his left hand and I think that shows an amazing amount of athletic and tennis coordination. Not to mention a great deal of hardwork.

No it doesn't show anything. I belong to a time where teachers were forcing LH pupils to write with their RH. They all managed fine and writing requires a very fine control of muscles.

If Nadal is so skillful how come he can't serve with power and precision?

He serves pretty well on the second serve and has improved his first a great deal since he first came on tour. He gets broken a great deal when he plays Novak but Novak breaks everyone at a higher percentage than they are used to. Roger is a great returner and he has had more problems breaking Nadal than Andy Roddick. How many break points did he fail to convert in the 08 wimby final?

socal1976 wrote:nadal learned to play with his left hand and I think that shows an amazing amount of athletic and tennis coordination. Not to mention a great deal of hardwork.

No, it just takes hard work. You can train yourself to do anything like that with practise. I, for example, can write fluent mirror handwriting just about as fast as I can write normally - joined up, not separate letters. I did it because as a kid I saw it on a programme and they said not many people could do it so I decided to crack it. It took a few days.

BB, some people have better coordination than others Nadal for all tenez and your arguments that he is not a great technical tennis player has managed to be able to hit a 125 mile per hour serve, which a lot of players can't hit with their natural hand, with his off hand. There are good players on tour who can't hit the ball as well with their natural hand. So that shows that he has pretty good coordination and ball striking skills. He isn't an overwhelming server in terms of a first serve, but he has gotten a lot better. Novak eats his serve up but he does that to a lot of people. He broke Carlos Berlocq 10 times in a row!

Yes, let's talk about Djokovic again.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:nadal learned to play with his left hand and I think that shows an amazing amount of athletic and tennis coordination. Not to mention a great deal of hardwork.

No, it just takes hard work. You can train yourself to do anything like that with practise. I, for example, can write fluent mirror handwriting just about as fast as I can write normally - joined up, not separate letters. I did it because as a kid I saw it on a programme and they said not many people could do it so I decided to crack it. It took a few days.

Oh come on BB - learning to do mirror writing as a child is hardly comprable to learning to play tennis with your off hand and then winning 10 slams and getting to No. 1 - the former might involve a touch more skill?

Just think about what some of you are saying.. if it is so easy to be successful in this game just by having impressive fitness levels and no natural talent, then why aren't 800/1500 metres runners trying to give tennis a go? It pays much more than being an olympic athlete

barrystar wrote:Oh come on BB - learning to do mirror writing as a child is hardly comprable to learning to play tennis with your off hand and then winning 10 slams and getting to No. 1 - the former might involve a touch more skill?

It certainly does require skills but not as much as one might think. By standing further back than other players, Nadal gives himself an easier ball to time. By muscling the ball as hard as he can he also increases the the safety margins (net and lines)while making the ball a tough one to attack. Nadal's game is not a piece of crystal fine art.

If you can handle that spinny ball and can run as much and as long as Djoko or Davydenko, then Nadal is easy pray. His game is not going to take time away from you...just your breath.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Just think about what some of you are saying.. if it is so easy to be successful in this game just by having impressive fitness levels and no natural talent, then why aren't 800/1500 metres runners trying to give tennis a go? It pays much more than being an olympic athlete

Precisely, why aren't the east africans dominating tennis like they do the marathon. Thousands of people run marathons and do iron man competitions all over the world all those people are in better shape than Novak and Rafa. If it just came down to fitness any one of the top pros could get really fit for a period of weeks and or a couple of months and win a grandslam, especially if they happen to be in good shape in regards to injuries as well. But that isn't what is happening 2 guys keep winning everything. And it comes down to both their shots, their speed, their fitness, and their championship mentality. But unfortunately, Tenez and BB highly overemphasize the fitness aspect.

It's an unwinnable debate because it's about a question of the degree to which Nadal relies on fitness to win matches, rather than whether he does or not per se.

The thread was started as a provocation, the usual suspects have been provoked, the traditional 606 Fedal belittling battle lines drawn. All good clean fun because no winners/losers emerge.

I disagree Jarvik, it is clear logically in my mind that Nadal doesn't win 90 percent of the first sets he plays because the other guys fitness breaks down. Players that train for four hour matches don't lose their fitness from playing a few longer points in the first hour. To equate the two arguments as Holly Wilaboobie for tat, and on equal footing when one rests on an obvious logical fallacy is incorrect in my opinion.

For sure Nadal is much more 'alive' in the 2nd half of a match when he has sterner competition, but as have been pointed out by socal, he very rarely loses the 1st set of a MS or GS match, so clearly there is some proficiency and flair although he doesn't hit as many winners as a Tsonga or a peak Blake.

Nadal's stamina wasn't exactly helping him overcome Novak in the last 2 slams

I don't know about Djokovic's and Nadal's fitness, but this thread is a testament to the tenacity, endurance and ability to grind out points of all on this thread!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:For sure Nadal is much more 'alive' in the 2nd half of a match when he has sterner competition, but as have been pointed out by socal, he very rarely loses the 1st set of a MS or GS match, so clearly there is some proficiency and flair although he doesn't hit as many winners as a Tsonga or a peak Blake.

Nadal's stamina wasn't exactly helping him overcome Novak in the last 2 slams

Exactly, JM no one says that fitness isn't part of Nadal's game and a big part of it. But he beats most of his opponents because he is better than them from the outset of the match. I still don't believe the fitness proponents have logically explained away how world class athletes tire in one hour from playing a few longer points. Especially, in light of the breaks between points, changeovers, and because these athletes train for 4 hour matches, even some more intense rallies in the first hour will not result in them completely losing it. Nadal's strategy is to hit winners but instead of just hitting winners he looks to hit as many winners as he can with as few errors. He has great talent but like you have said before there are different ways to skin a cat.

For example, In a match lets say fed hits 40 winners and has 30 unforced errors. For a plus ten in winners to errors. Nadal on the otherhand has matches where he hits 28 winners with just 15 errors. For a plus 13 in winners to unforced errors. Not as aggressive but it doesn't mean he wins just on fitness he wants winners and safety. Plus his thermonuclear spin on the ball forces more errors as the ball jumps and moves and is tougher to time. Those errors he draws are not just as a result of exhaustion but also because a heavy spinning ball is tougher to time.

It's not a question of belittling Nadal. It's about explaining what makes him the strength he has been for the last 6 years, IN PARTICULAR, on the surface that favours his physical game: clay.

I can simply say that those who disagree have no clue of what it takes to beat Nadal and clearly have not played againt fit consistent players. Anyone who has knows how physical tennis can be....even at club level, let alone at this professional level. They are even considering going on strike! What else do you need to understand it's a physical sport???.

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:nadal learned to play with his left hand and I think that shows an amazing amount of athletic and tennis coordination. Not to mention a great deal of hardwork.

No, it just takes hard work. You can train yourself to do anything like that with practise. I, for example, can write fluent mirror handwriting just about as fast as I can write normally - joined up, not separate letters. I did it because as a kid I saw it on a programme and they said not many people could do it so I decided to crack it. It took a few days.

Oh come on BB - learning to do mirror writing as a child is hardly comprable to learning to play tennis with your off hand and then winning 10 slams and getting to No. 1 - the former might involve a touch more skill?

I think the point was about learning to do things the wrong way round was tough. It's not, it's just about forming the neural paths through repetition, and my little example was just to show that something so odd can be learned in a few days - Rafa spent his whole childhood learning to swing a racquet with his "wrong" arm so it's no big deal.

After that you need other stuff to be a top player, but actually mastering playing with the left isn't hard. I can hit left handed backhands too, though not forehands (and no, I'm not left handed! )

Tenez wrote:It's not a question of belittling Nadal. It's about explaining what makes him the strength he has been for the last 6 years, IN PARTICULAR, on the surface that favours his physical game: clay.

I can simply say that those who disagree have no clue of what it takes to beat Nadal and clearly have not played againt fit consistent players. Anyone who has knows how physical tennis can be....even at club level, let alone at this professional level. They are even considering going on strike! What else do you need to understand it's a physical sport???.

If you start with the premise that Nadal is supremely talented then your theory does belittle him. And Nadal being supremely talented is the opinion of those - to use your highly dubious measure - who have played tennis at the highest level. The point being, when you say that those who disagree with you lack your experience at playing this game, the fact that those with the most experience disagree with you simply blows your argument out of the water.

I'd be interested in an explanation as to how your personal experience condition works generally - historians, critics, journalists, they're all unqualified apparently! To be honest, and I don't know your debating experience beyound discussing this one point in tennis, but it's generally seen as a sign of weakness to address the (supposed) personal experience of those one's debating with. It tends to be when someone is on the losing end that they evoke this argument, as if to admit that the facts on the table are not sufficient themselves to win the day. That sounds rude, and I don't mean to be. It's clear that, straw men (eg that Nadal wins only through superior fitness) aside, this is a question of the degree to which physicality explains Nadal's wins and as such it's not ever going to be decided. But the personal experience thing is really just a red herring, otherwise there's very little that many of us can have a considered opinion on irrespective of whether, eg for this debate, we've played games against pros (I have, as many average club players have) or not.

Jarvik wrote:
If you start with the premise that Nadal is supremely talented then your theory does belittle him. And Nadal being supremely talented is the opinion of those - to use your highly dubious measure - who have played tennis at the highest level. The point being, when you say that those who disagree with you lack your experience at playing this game, the fact that those with the most experience disagree with you simply blows your argument out of the water.

As explained, talent or supreme talent is irrelevant here. He might be the most talented player ever, he woudl still not use his talent skills as explained in his own book. I have never heard a commentator saying Nadal was more talented than X or Y player. Have you? I keep hearing how dedicated, relentless, powerful, fit Nadal is.

The thing is talent is probably one of the most cherished quality of a player so when someone keeps winning, the fans can't help trying to attribute those wins to talent. It certainly not always teh case, certainly not in Nadal's case whoe whole game is actually based on blunting his opponents talent.

Everybody says his game has safe margins, Djoko, Federer and every single commentator. DO you know what that mean?

Tenez reminds me a bit of Nadal - his tenacity means that he manages to get back every argument thrown at him. I'm enjoing this rally...

Tenez wrote:The thing is talent is probably one of the most cherished quality of a player so when someone keeps winning, the fans can't help trying to attribute those wins to talent. It certainly not always teh case, certainly not in Nadal's case whoe whole game is actually based on blunting his opponents talent.

Everybody says his game has safe margins, Djoko, Federer and every single commentator. DO you know what that mean?

Well obviously that's true otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. The whole thing is based on socal wanting to attack any suggestion that Djokovic is winning in an era that is dependent on physical proess, he wouldn't care unless fans want toa ttribute stuff to the most desirable quality - talent.

To be honest, and I don't know your debating experience beyound discussing this one point in tennis, but it's generally seen as a sign of weakness to address the (supposed) personal experience of those one's debating with.

It's typically not my style, but it seems that for some, especially some here who I noticed a long time ago, have little understanding of today's dynamic of the sport, and despite the many explanation refuse to see it, essentially for fanboy reasons.

I have played a fair bit of tennis, at not a too good level, but good enough to understand what is the physical dimension of th egame, that is not having to pick up the ball in the corner of the court after a 3 shot rally but a 7 or 8 shot rally played at a fast tempo. It's simply a different game from the nice SVing I grew up with or the nice FH winner or drop shot after a 4 rally exchange, or even v the moonballer of the local club where you can force him do the running most of the time.

Toni had a plan and a smart one. If you think I am belittling Nadal, I can tell you that you are seriously belittling Toni's part in Nadal's success. One thing for sure Nadal, doesn't! He knows he owes him a lot!

I must say, I can't imagine Nadal playing tennis HIS own way...If he did, he'd look a lot more like Nole but less elegant and less successful.

Well NITB, we have seen Federer adapting his game from SVing and rallies hit with natural strings to Nadal's and other physical games helped by modern technology. He adapted his FH and BH to cut down the shanking while keeping a reasonable pace on his shots. His tennis is good enough to keep up with the new generation when all his peers of his generation slipped by the side of the ranking and he still can beat the best players out there for a set or 2 at the age of 30. I have no doubt that had the game not turned so physical he would still be the number one in the world now.

I simply cannot see Nadal adapting to Djoko's game, nor to the young generation coming. That's where he'd need a lot of talent!

"I simply cannot see Nadal adapting to Djoko's game, nor to the young generation coming. That's where he'd need a lot of talent! "

hence the "less successful" bit in my verdict on it.

"I have no doubt that had the game not turned so physical he would still be the number one in the world now."

In his prime, Federer always looked fitter than his peers, he was literally eating them for breakfast. He has a fantastic built for tennis and is quite strong. The fact that he doesn't run around thanks to his wrist is a testament to that particular unique talent he has.
The thing that has been baffling me is how and why he crumbled under Nadal's game.
Why does he cave in to him and goes so fiercely against Novak?

Yes, Federer became very fit in 2003 when he understood that he'd go nowhere without being much fitter. This is what annoys me cause look at Nalbandian with so much talent who was fit but not that fit and dedicated as Federer, how he simply coudl never achieve. Federer woudl have been the same despite his amazing talent. Fed was constantly beaten by Hewitt!!! Can you seriously compare Hewitt's talent with Federer? yet teh H2H at that time was 8/1 or something in Hewitt's favour.

What we have today, is the same situation but instead of Hewitt we have Nadal and Federer was never able to equal Nadal's fitness like he managed to versus Hewitt.

Djoko more tahn anyone understood that and knew he had no choice but to get fitter. I am pretty sure he understood that a long time ago actually but only recently did he give himself the means to keep rallying without having to gasp for air like fish out of water.

The thing that has been baffling me is how and why he crumbled under Nadal's game.
Why does he cave in to him and goes so fiercly against Novak?

It's the quality (energy) of the ball sent. It's very simply that extra spin in it. Nadal's doesn;t care where he places the ball as long as it's roughly cross court, and has maximum spin in it. Federer has an excellent record v Lefty but none can sent that spinny ball.

Well he can handle it but not over the distance. That's call blunting the talent and bring the player down to a physical fight.

Jarvik makes excellent points but tenez won't be swayed. And of course Jarvik it is extremely weak debating skills to attack someone making the opposing point of view. Tenez writes a great deal with really little substance or logic behind it. To believe his argument you have to accept HIS FUNDAMENTAL fallacious assumption that world class athletes trained for a 4 hour match lose their fitness against Nadal in 30-60 minutes because of some longer points. It makes no logical sense because tenez is trying to dress up a pig and sell us something that we all know isn't true. Nadal beats most of his opponents because he is better not because he is fitter. That is why he wins 90 percent of the first sets he plays.

socal1976 wrote:Jarvik makes excellent points but tenez won't be swayed.

On the hand you sound like someone who can be swayed.

Maybe you may want to start picking up a racquet and start playing. Once you have done that, I am sure you will have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

Tenez, i have played plenty of tennis, and like Jarvik stated when you start attacking your opponent as opposed to his logic that is the first sign that you don't have the facts to back up your claims. If you lived in America you would make an excellent rightwing republican. The second sign is when tenez starts making unsubstantiated claims of doping. What next Nadal is the second gunmen on the grassy knoll and he killed president kennedy with his fitness and not a gun?

I really don't care what your opinion of me or my tennis knowledge is, if your tortured logic is what tennis knowledge passes for you can keep it. I actually don't have a high opinion of your knowledge or analysis, but I respect your dogged ability to keep arguing the world is flat. Nobody but a few ardent apologist friends of yours accepts your fallacious assumption that ATP athletes lose their fitness in one hour playing Nadal and that is the main reason he wins.

You need experience to base your logic, logic without experience is useless! That's exactly what you are missing. I am not attacking you. I can see clearly you don't have that basic experience which can give you a proper view of what the game is. It will help you confirm what all those to players have been saying for years but that you don;t want to admit: "you need to be extremely fit to beat Nadal cause he plays a physical game".

I and others have explained to you extensively why your non-sense 60mn (now 30mn LOL!) theory is absurd. But you don;t want to see it. So I have no other option to invite you play the game a bit more. Then you come back wiser.

Tenez, of course you have to be extremly fit to beat Nadal in a five set match, no one disputes that. But that has nothing to do with your point that Nadal wins principally or almost entirely on fitness. What about all the two set matches he wins? What about the fact that he wins nearly 90 percent of the first sets. World class athletes do not lose their fitness in one hour give or take against Nadal. Certainly, longer points take more out of you, but these guys train all day and train for 4 hour matches, a more intense first hour is not going to cause them to lose the first set. Look at Nadal's last match, he beat Tsonga 6-0, 6-2,6-4 if anything it looked like Nadal was getting more tired as the match wore on. Did he win this match as well on fitness? And being winded and losing it are two different things, you can catch a second wind in a few seconds or minutes when you hit the limit of your fitness you start cramping or tiring to the point that then your performance falls off and there is no more second wind.

I think it has to be agreed that t physciality has come to the stage where it's begun to harm the game.
What does it say about the game when a superb 24 athlete like Novak is falling to bits and it's not even the end of a season.
Courts need to be be sped up asap in my opinion.
that would cut out all the talk of long season and strike as well.

Tenez wrote:You need experience to base your logic, logic without experience is useless!

Do you really believe that logic without experience is useless? It's an extraordinary claim.

Tenez wrote: I am not attacking you. I can see clearly you don't have that basic experience which can give you a proper view of what the game is.

Do you really think that this is not attacking?

I wonder if we could have Federer and Nadal read this thread, I mean a penny for their thought....

noleisthebest wrote:I wonder if we could have Federer and Nadal read this thread, I mean a penny for their thought....

Oh... I was kind of thinking/hoping that Socal was Nadal and Tenez was Federer all along!

Jarvik wrote:

Tenez wrote:You need experience to base your logic, logic without experience is useless!

Do you really believe that logic without experience is useless? It's an extraordinary claim.

Of course you need experience to apply logic on this real world. They don't hire logical commentators, they hire commentators who have experience and basic logic! To apply logic on tennis you need to understand all the parameters which can influence a match.
If for you logic is : " he has won more slams therefore he is more talented", then surely we don't have the same concept of logic!

Jarvik wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wonder if we could have Federer and Nadal read this thread, I mean a penny for their thought....

Oh... I was kind of thinking/hoping that Socal was Nadal and Tenez was Federer all along!

Federer and Nadal say the same thing. They perfectly know what's their respective strength.

noleisthebest wrote:I think it has to be agreed that t physciality has come to the stage where it's begun to harm the game.
What does it say about the game when a superb 24 athlete like Novak is falling to bits and it's not even the end of a season.
Courts need to be be sped up asap in my opinion.
that would cut out all the talk of long season and strike as well.

Indeed. Djoko could hold his own on faster surface. He was only stopped by federer in the last 5 or 6 USO when the USO had still a decent pace.

noleisthebest wrote:I think it has to be agreed that t physciality has come to the stage where it's begun to harm the game.
What does it say about the game when a superb 24 athlete like Novak is falling to bits and it's not even the end of a season.
Courts need to be be sped up asap in my opinion.
that would cut out all the talk of long season and strike as well.

For the second day on the run you're getting one of these

Djokovic may even end up paying a high price to topple Nadal

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think it has to be agreed that t physciality has come to the stage where it's begun to harm the game.
What does it say about the game when a superb 24 athlete like Novak is falling to bits and it's not even the end of a season.
Courts need to be be sped up asap in my opinion.
that would cut out all the talk of long season and strike as well.

For the second day on the run you're getting one of these

Djokovic may even end up paying a high price to topple Nadal

You do realise that Novak's first signs of injury were in Cincinnatti; don't remember him playing=defeating Nadal in that tournament. His injuries only seemed to rear it's head during his first set with Berdych, you guys are acting like it's Rafa that brought this to happen.

I don't imagine he suffered the injury in the USO final; he's driven himself to a great height to have the fitness needed and that's what could hurt him.

So yourself!

BB,


I know it's silly, but how does one go about making torunament directors speed up the surface

noleisthebest wrote:BB,

I know it's silly, but how does one go about making torunament directors speed up the surface

http://organizationasg.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dog-gun-at-head-contact1.jpg

the only way

Tenez wrote:It's the quality (energy) of the ball sent. It's very simply that extra spin in it. Nadal's doesn;t care where he places the ball as long as it's roughly cross court, and has maximum spin in it. Federer has an excellent record v Lefty but none can sent that spinny ball.

Well he can handle it but not over the distance. That's call blunting the talent and bring the player down to a physical fight.

This is quite correct, and all the commentators agree with this that the revolutions on Rafa's balls are causing the ball to spin with 2 or 3 times the normal amount of revolutions. To do that consistently over the course of a 3 -5 set match requires immense physical strength.

I think this argument is getting a little entrenched and people on both sides aren't properly listening to good points that some one on the other side of the fence makes (apart from NITB).

Rafa is very talented and he is very fit, as are Federer and Djokovic. The latter two are probably as fit as Rafa but they have a different physical strength and they do not have that upper body physicality that can spin balls so ferociously - if Federer could he would be able to deal with that spinny ball to his backhand ad infinitum. Djokovic rarely lets the ball go to Rafa's forehand.

time please wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's the quality (energy) of the ball sent. It's very simply that extra spin in it. Nadal's doesn;t care where he places the ball as long as it's roughly cross court, and has maximum spin in it. Federer has an excellent record v Lefty but none can sent that spinny ball.

Well he can handle it but not over the distance. That's call blunting the talent and bring the player down to a physical fight.

This is quite correct, and all the commentators agree with this that the revolutions on Rafa's balls are causing the ball to spin with 2 or 3 times the normal amount of revolutions. To do that consistently over the course of a 3 -5 set match requires immense physical strength.

I think this argument is getting a little entrenched and people on both sides aren't properly listening to good points that some one on the other side of the fence makes (apart from NITB).

Rafa is very talented and he is very fit, as are Federer and Djokovic. The latter two are probably as fit as Rafa but they have a different physical strength and they do not have that upper body physicality that can spin balls so ferociously - if Federer could he would be able to deal with that spinny ball to his backhand ad infinitum. Djokovic rarely lets the ball go to Rafa's forehand.

Don't agree with this..

Novak is quite happy to rally against the Nadal FH. Many of their matches involve numerous and long FH (Nadal) to BH (Novak) CC exchanges. Infact it is the dominant pattern of play. Novak, unlike Fed, can deal with the high ball to his BH and usually pounds away at the Nadal FH, stretching him out wider with each shot and then drilling a winner down the line into the open court. This is the dominant pattern of exchanges between them and it is also the main reason why Rafa has struggled so much against Novak. The CC FH is Nadal's bread and butter, his staple shot; the go-to in any rally in order to seize the initiative. He no longer has that option against Novak, hence has to try and play outside of his comfort zone.

Yes you're right emancipator - I don't know quite how I came up with that gem! I understand that Nole's DHBH copes better with the forehand, but I did think in the first 2 sets at USO that he was actually serving all the time to Rafa's backhand?

To be quite honest, I do switch off a bit when Rafa plays so I should just have shut up!

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

Watch at 3mn32sec...just an example of Nadal dominating the rally but uncapable of putting the ball away. Nadal is on the baseline, Djoko is 3m behind.....yet Nadal can't win teh point.

Some thought Nadal had the best FH in teh world. It's probably the least incisive FH in the top 50. Though Murray is not far off.