Djokovic V Nadal: The Secrets of Nole's Success

There have been many thoughts on how/ what Djokovic has changed in his approach to playing Rafa. I, like many others, feel that Nole seems to have "worked out" Nadal, and always seems firmly in the driving seat in their matches these days. Here are my thoughts on this:

1. The Importance of Strength

Novak hits the ball more with strength, as opposed to someone like Federer, who is a technical striker of the ball. This gives him an advantage, particularly against counter-punchers. Consider this common scenario- your opponent hits a short ball, and you move in to hit a winner, either into the open court or by wrong-footing them and going behind. Often the opponent will simply have to guess where you are hitting and hope for the best. However, Nadal, with his exceptional quickness, is able to wait until the last moment and read the shot. This is how he is able to retreive so many seemingly lost causes, and win points he has no right to. Watch when he plays Federer- he seems to move earlier than against Nole. The technical striker will always telegraph the shot more, since he needs to apply body weight to the shot, whereas a strong player like Nole hits more with arms/ shoulders, allowing him to create terrific angles without really signalling it.

2. Punish the Nadal backhand

There's something kind of ironic about this one, given how long Nadal has used the tactic (succesfully) against Federer. To be honest, I only just noticed it, but Nole seems to be serving almost exclusively to Nadal's backhand (look for Youtube clips). This puts him on the back foot from the start of the rally, as he can't hit with the same authority off this wing. Djoko also targets the backhand during rallies, taking Nadal out of his comfort zone, as he can't hit as many winners there.

3. Flat hitting/ Point construction

Nole obviously hits the ball very flat, and also very hard. This is a nightmare match up for an, essentially, defensive player like Nadal. As good a retriever as he is, a good attacking player always has the advantage. Nole's point construction is also superior. To be honest, I never really thought that point construction was a strength for Nadal, he always just seems to hang back and wait for an opening to hit a winner. It's Novak who looks to seize the initiative in the exchanges, and is also more willing to come forward. Combine this with the fact that his defense now seems to be as good, if not better, than Nadal, and it's easy to see why Rafa has had such a hard time.

4. The importance of angles

This one really feeds into the previous point, as it relates to point construction. As good a player as Nadal is, he is not very good at creating angles; he will usually wait for the opponent to create the angle, which he will often hit a winner from (he does this time and again against Federer). Due to Djoko's superior physicality, he is able to play more patiently than Roger, often playing the ball down the middle of the court, and not giving Rafa any angles. Again, this takes Rafa out of his comfort zone, and maybe forces him to force the issue more than usual, resulting in more unforced errors.

5. Psychological Edge

This may be controversial, but I feel this is less important than many believe. I feel that the gulf that currently exists between these players is largely a technical one, based on the elements I have outlined above. Sure, Djoko is confident against Rafa now, and feeling that he doesn't have the answers on a technical level must make Rafa doubt a little more than usual. But I believe that a confident Rafa will still struggle against Nole now, as it seems he will have to completely reinvent his game to counter that of the new improved version of Novak.

TG... welcome to 606v2. Long time since 606. Hope you are doing well.

Hey Laverfan, yeah still can't believe 606 is no more! I always felt this was the best alternative though, so will look to post on here a bit more

TorturedGenius wrote:Hey Laverfan, yeah still can't believe 606 is no more! I always felt this was the best alternative though, so will look to post on here a bit more

Fantastic.

TorturedGenius wrote:There have been many thoughts on how/ what Djokovic has changed in his approach to playing Rafa. I, like many others, feel that Nole seems to have "worked out" Nadal, and always seems firmly in the driving seat in their matches these days. Here are my thoughts on this:

1. The Importance of Strength

Novak hits the ball more with strength, as opposed to someone like Federer, who is a technical striker of the ball. This gives him an advantage, particularly against counter-punchers. Consider this common scenario- your opponent hits a short ball, and you move in to hit a winner, either into the open court or by wrong-footing them and going behind. Often the opponent will simply have to guess where you are hitting and hope for the best. However, Nadal, with his exceptional quickness, is able to wait until the last moment and read the shot. This is how he is able to retreive so many seemingly lost causes, and win points he has no right to. Watch when he plays Federer- he seems to move earlier than against Nole. The technical striker will always telegraph the shot more, since he needs to apply body weight to the shot, whereas a strong player like Nole hits more with arms/ shoulders, allowing him to create terrific angles without really signalling it.

Disagree there. Well, yes on the BH side but no on the FH. But more importantly, Djoko doesn't even try to hit Nadal off the court like he woudl do against Federer. He is simply happy to rally, taking the ball earlier than Nadal, therefore using Nadal's power without himself using as much energy as Nadal. That is teh key for Djoko. Not the power of Nole's shots.

2. Punish the Nadal backhand

There's something kind of ironic about this one, given how long Nadal has used the tactic (succesfully) against Federer. To be honest, I only just noticed it, but Nole seems to be serving almost exclusively to Nadal's backhand (look for Youtube clips). This puts him on the back foot from the start of the rally, as he can't hit with the same authority off this wing. Djoko also targets the backhand during rallies, taking Nadal out of his comfort zone, as he can't hit as many winners there.

I don;t think he punishes Nadal's BH as much as he exposes Nadal's BH weakness. He doesn't hit that many winners to that side but it certainly makes Nadal toothless, like Federer is when Nadal sends him those high topspin on his BH.

3. Flat hitting/ Point construction

Nole obviously hits the ball very flat, and also very hard. This is a nightmare match up for an, essentially, defensive player like Nadal. As good a retriever as he is, a good attacking player always has the advantage. Nole's point construction is also superior. To be honest, I never really thought that point construction was a strength for Nadal, he always just seems to hang back and wait for an opening to hit a winner. It's Novak who looks to seize the initiative in the exchanges, and is also more willing to come forward. Combine this with the fact that his defense now seems to be as good, if not better, than Nadal, and it's easy to see why Rafa has had such a hard time.

Well again, not that hard. but certainly hits it earlier than Nadal, so keeps the initiative in most rallies.

4. The importance of angles

This one really feeds into the previous point, as it relates to point construction. As good a player as Nadal is, he is not very good at creating angles; he will usually wait for the opponent to create the angle, which he will often hit a winner from (he does this time and again against Federer). Due to Djoko's superior physicality, he is able to play more patiently than Roger, often playing the ball down the middle of the court, and not giving Rafa any angles. Again, this takes Rafa out of his comfort zone, and maybe forces him to force the issue more than usual, resulting in more unforced errors.

Again, Djoko can find angles, more so when he is defending..but it's teh fact he doesn't have to go for lines and too much angle that is actaully his strength. Other players are forced to go for too much angles, not Djoko, he doesn't mind rallying allowing him to "build" points as you say and not rush into mistakes when all the other players feel the need to shorten the rallies.

5. Psychological Edge

This may be controversial, but I feel this is less important than many believe. I feel that the gulf that currently exists between these players is largely a technical one, based on the elements I have outlined above. Sure, Djoko is confident against Rafa now, and feeling that he doesn't have the answers on a technical level must make Rafa doubt a little more than usual. But I believe that a confident Rafa will still struggle against Nole now, as it seems he will have to completely reinvent his game to counter that of the new improved version of Novak.

Well certainly one of the strongest player there....but more so now that his fitness gives him a sense of security.

I disagree with most of that, Novak doesn't muscle the ball, his power comes from his legs and his excellent movement. He doesn't hit the ball very flat or very hard either, there's plenty of topspin on the forehand.

Of course Federer's backhand requires more preparation.

My sense has been that Djokovics superiority primarily comes because Nadals favourite weapons are neutralised, leaving him a bit toothless and having to take risks;

1. The high FH to the Ad court falls into Djokovics BH strength.
2. His can't wear Djokovic down (I suspect the USO final meltdown had a contribution from Federers SF assault).
3. He plays onto Nadals backhand leaving him stretched and unable to attack.

Actually Djokovic doesn't try to beat him up. That's why there's nothing Nadal can do to turn this round.

Essentially, Djoko is beating Rafa at Rafa's own game, which is why it hurts Nadal so much. Finally, here is a guy prepared to outlast, outrally and outrun Nadal who always felt he had more miles in the tank than anyone else.
Yes, Rafa can from time to time to be blasted off a court - think here merely of Tsonga in AO in 08, Murray in the USO and just last week Mayer playing out of his skin. But he's never really been "outlasted" on court...until Djoko.

Where once he was blasted
Now he is outlasted
With more miles in the tank
We have Djoko to thank
Beating Rafa at his own game
Jeez this poem is lame

Rafa Nadal
If you want lame, JH Marx, try this

Rafa Nadal
He's no pal
Of wily Nole
Who now reigns solely
At the top of the tree
For eternity
Unless our Andy
Ever so dandy
Can come at the death
But don't hold your breath

Thankfully, it's not quite yet time for

Fed's dead baby

Dietary and training regimen changes should also be factored in to the Djokovic-Nadal equation.

laverfan wrote:Dietary and training regimen changes should also be factored in to the Djokovic-Nadal equation.

Agreed.

Just compare their diets. Nole is gluten-free while Nadal loves to eat junk food loaded with carbs and chocolate. Now Murray is also gluten-free.

eraldeen wrote:

laverfan wrote:Dietary and training regimen changes should also be factored in to the Djokovic-Nadal equation.

Agreed.

Just compare their diets. Nole is gluten-free while Nadal loves to eat junk food loaded with carbs and chocolate. Now Murray is also gluten-free.

As long as Nadal's metabolism can handle such food, at his age, he can burn it.

laverfan wrote:

eraldeen wrote:

laverfan wrote:Dietary and training regimen changes should also be factored in to the Djokovic-Nadal equation.

Agreed.

Just compare their diets. Nole is gluten-free while Nadal loves to eat junk food loaded with carbs and chocolate. Now Murray is also gluten-free.

As long as Nadal's metabolism can handle such food, at his age, he can burn it.

It seems Nadal's digestive system bogs down with cooler temperatures...after the USO.

Tenez wrote:

TorturedGenius wrote:There have been many thoughts on how/ what Djokovic has changed in his approach to playing Rafa. I, like many others, feel that Nole seems to have "worked out" Nadal, and always seems firmly in the driving seat in their matches these days. Here are my thoughts on this:

1. The Importance of Strength

Novak hits the ball more with strength, as opposed to someone like Federer, who is a technical striker of the ball. This gives him an advantage, particularly against counter-punchers. Consider this common scenario- your opponent hits a short ball, and you move in to hit a winner, either into the open court or by wrong-footing them and going behind. Often the opponent will simply have to guess where you are hitting and hope for the best. However, Nadal, with his exceptional quickness, is able to wait until the last moment and read the shot. This is how he is able to retreive so many seemingly lost causes, and win points he has no right to. Watch when he plays Federer- he seems to move earlier than against Nole. The technical striker will always telegraph the shot more, since he needs to apply body weight to the shot, whereas a strong player like Nole hits more with arms/ shoulders, allowing him to create terrific angles without really signalling it.

Disagree there. Well, yes on the BH side but no on the FH. But more importantly, Djoko doesn't even try to hit Nadal off the court like he woudl do against Federer. He is simply happy to rally, taking the ball earlier than Nadal, therefore using Nadal's power without himself using as much energy as Nadal. That is teh key for Djoko. Not the power of Nole's shots.

2. Punish the Nadal backhand

There's something kind of ironic about this one, given how long Nadal has used the tactic (succesfully) against Federer. To be honest, I only just noticed it, but Nole seems to be serving almost exclusively to Nadal's backhand (look for Youtube clips). This puts him on the back foot from the start of the rally, as he can't hit with the same authority off this wing. Djoko also targets the backhand during rallies, taking Nadal out of his comfort zone, as he can't hit as many winners there.

I don;t think he punishes Nadal's BH as much as he exposes Nadal's BH weakness. He doesn't hit that many winners to that side but it certainly makes Nadal toothless, like Federer is when Nadal sends him those high topspin on his BH.

3. Flat hitting/ Point construction

Nole obviously hits the ball very flat, and also very hard. This is a nightmare match up for an, essentially, defensive player like Nadal. As good a retriever as he is, a good attacking player always has the advantage. Nole's point construction is also superior. To be honest, I never really thought that point construction was a strength for Nadal, he always just seems to hang back and wait for an opening to hit a winner. It's Novak who looks to seize the initiative in the exchanges, and is also more willing to come forward. Combine this with the fact that his defense now seems to be as good, if not better, than Nadal, and it's easy to see why Rafa has had such a hard time.

Well again, not that hard. but certainly hits it earlier than Nadal, so keeps the initiative in most rallies.

4. The importance of angles

This one really feeds into the previous point, as it relates to point construction. As good a player as Nadal is, he is not very good at creating angles; he will usually wait for the opponent to create the angle, which he will often hit a winner from (he does this time and again against Federer). Due to Djoko's superior physicality, he is able to play more patiently than Roger, often playing the ball down the middle of the court, and not giving Rafa any angles. Again, this takes Rafa out of his comfort zone, and maybe forces him to force the issue more than usual, resulting in more unforced errors.

Again, Djoko can find angles, more so when he is defending..but it's teh fact he doesn't have to go for lines and too much angle that is actaully his strength. Other players are forced to go for too much angles, not Djoko, he doesn't mind rallying allowing him to "build" points as you say and not rush into mistakes when all the other players feel the need to shorten the rallies.

5. Psychological Edge

This may be controversial, but I feel this is less important than many believe. I feel that the gulf that currently exists between these players is largely a technical one, based on the elements I have outlined above. Sure, Djoko is confident against Rafa now, and feeling that he doesn't have the answers on a technical level must make Rafa doubt a little more than usual. But I believe that a confident Rafa will still struggle against Nole now, as it seems he will have to completely reinvent his game to counter that of the new improved version of Novak.

Well certainly one of the strongest player there....but more so now that his fitness gives him a sense of security.

I actually agree with the sentiments of the points Tenez has made.

I think the article is a bit over-analytical in areas which have been commented on by most posters here over the season.

LF makes a great point about the diet too.

Nadal is unable to handle a much more aggressive form of himself in Djokovic.

BTW, where is SoCal1976?

Another one that's probably left LF - hasnt logged on here for 3 weeks...

I think people do get busy with work in between. It is not easy to keep coming to the forum on regular basis. I mostly come around during slams but I keep on reading the stuff here.

Hope not, socal is a good poster to have around.

Hopefully he is just on holiday or something and will return soon.

socal will be back when Nole is back.

emancipator wrote:socal will be back when Nole is back.

Probably right. If not though, will you lead the search to locate him? Much like your pursuit of the ethereal boo.

Hope so, Emancipator. Perhaps, just busy with work is Socal, and nothing serious.

Since this was a Djokovic discussion, I was hoping to 'see' him on here.

Djoko and Nadal now both know that Djoko has the fitness and mental strength to soak up the best that Nadal can give him in addition to hitting Nadal with his variety and technical ability (which he's had for a long time now).

I think Djoko is in Nadal's head. I hope he can stay uninjured and I want them to contest the RG Final next year to really see where their rivalry is at.

I dont think that Nadal might be able to beat Nole even at RG. First people were saying that Nole will not beat Nadal in a slam as five setter is a different game, I remember very clearly that despite of being no. 1 at Wimby Nole was the second favourite during the finals. Same doubts were there at US open finals but like you said that Djoko is is in his head and will stay there.

IMO a win for Nadal is very unlikely, he can olny hope for fed or murray to take him out and then get another shot at another slam.

I think that nadal is going to fade rapidly as compared to fed who is still at no. 4 in his 31st year.

Since the end of 2007 Nadal has gone 8:2 vs. Federer. Obviously it's not directly comparable, but provided Djoko keeps his fitness I think that he could be as dominant over Nadal in the next few years. The current dynamics of their match-up seem to me to be worse for Nadal than the Nadal vs. Fed match-up was.

This should be interesting...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/10/Features/Djokovic-Rates-Highly-In-AskMen-Poll.aspx

barrystar wrote:Since the end of 2007 Nadal has gone 8:2 vs. Federer. Obviously it's not directly comparable, but provided Djoko keeps his fitness I think that he could be as dominant over Nadal in the next few years. The current dynamics of their match-up seem to me to be worse for Nadal than the Nadal vs. Fed match-up was.

The only worrying part of predicting the Nadalovic rivalry is the physical exertion that Djokovic has gone through and his injuries at Cincy and DC are the negatives in an otherwise stellar year. Shanghai withdrawal (unlike Federer) is also not a very good omen.

In contrast, Federer in 2004-2007, managed 3-slams-a-year (except 2005) relatively injury-free.

wow wrote:I think that nadal is going to fade rapidly as compared to fed who is still at no. 4 in his 31st year.

Expecting Nadal to be in the upper echelons of the rankings at 31 is not the right comparison. Nadal was a slam winner at 19 and achieved a lot and a high ranking at a young age compared to Federer. One way to view longevity is number of years winning a slam: Federer had 8 until this year, Nadal has 7 including this year.

That said, I will concede that Nadal may fall down the rankings more quickly as his game requires repeated execution more often than not and a slight drop in level will have a more discernible impact. It shouldn't be forgotten that Nadal was a bit of a wunderkind though (joint most titles as a teenager), and expecting him to start earlier and also last as long may be a bit of a stretch.

laverfan wrote:

barrystar wrote:Since the end of 2007 Nadal has gone 8:2 vs. Federer. Obviously it's not directly comparable, but provided Djoko keeps his fitness I think that he could be as dominant over Nadal in the next few years. The current dynamics of their match-up seem to me to be worse for Nadal than the Nadal vs. Fed match-up was.

The only worrying part of predicting the Nadalovic rivalry is the physical exertion that Djokovic has gone through and his injuries at Cincy and DC are the negatives in an otherwise stellar year. Shanghai withdrawal (unlike Federer) is also not a very good omen.

In contrast, Federer in 2004-2007, managed 3-slams-a-year (except 2005) relatively injury-free.

In the future people will look back with better perspective at what's going on now and I believe it will be seen as the time when the game became too physically demanding. I don't think a player using this style can stay without injury for long at all.

It'll be changed in the next three years, of that I am confident.

What will change it do you think?

A few things:

1. Post Federer, I believe the viewing figures for tennis will decline rapidly. I think this would happen anyway but it will alarm the sport to the extent that it will make it look at itself.
2. Injuries will become a bigger issue than ever. This has started to be noticed already, with the USO devastation and the obvious cost to Djokovic since then. This will explode as 5/6 Djokovic style players arrive and we get USO final type matches through an event, rendering players incapacitated before the final.
3. It will dawn on the sport that there's no new players coming through, which (especially after Federer) will exacerbate the viewing crisis.

So are you saying that because of those points above, they will pace up the game?

I think it's going to be 2 folds. pace up the game to allow more variety and a closer control of players diet, like it happened in cycling this year.

I think there needs to be some variables taken into account when looking at generations in any sport.

With regards to the state of the current game compared with other generations there are factors such as technology and player conditioning as well as the current schedule.

If for example the current schedule is reduced, then we may see a return to the game where 'fitness' is not such a disadvantage to players that cannot maximize or increase there stamina beyond the levels as the top players. Take Mayer who recently took out Nadal, a reduced schedule would suit his game and increase his chances possibly at Slams, that is obviously is conds are changed in line with this.

For me with tennis and Federer. Federer is a one off. Not only will he be considered the greatest of all time in the tennis terms, but also in sporting terms too. If you did a list of top 10 sportsmen of all time, he would feature in there. If you pre-Federer, I don't think even Sampras or Laver or even Rosewall would've touched such a list.

The game pre-Federer was struggling in terms of viewing and the perception of the sport. I know some fans were tired of the relentless booming serve being such a factor in determining matches. In the 80's players such as McEnroe, Connors and Becker provided more 'swashbuckling' encounters which appealed to the public because it gave a sense that tennis could be played in a such a 'un-tidy' manner that they themselves could replicate that on their local court.

The current game yes we do see long and punishing rallies. Not only does it bring out the steel in players, but also the brains. If players are able to end rallies alot quicker with jaw-dropping shots, makes the game more remarkable for it. Which is why Federer is a one off.

I think viewing figures will decline if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic god forbid all declined at the same time. I think Nadal, Murray and Djokovic and still draw crowds, just a case of whether the upcoming players can do the same.

The question is what makes tennis interesting? It can actually be a very boring game to watch (never to play). To me, watching is only worthwhile if (i) you care who wins, or (ii) the actual ball hitting is inspiring.

Here's when, for me, tennis had abnormally high interest levels:

1. Connors to McEnroe, encompassing Borg and Nastase and including the front end of Lendls career.

The game was very personality driven at this point. There were "bad boys" firing the rivalries. The game was also played in a manner (as lk says) that viewers felt was at least accessible. McEnroe provided the inspiration, he and Connors the antagonism. Lendl "worked" as a counter to McEnroe. After McEnroe he was less interesting.

2. (a) Federer, then (b) Federer and Nadal

2(a) worked because again as lk says, Federer is a freak of the sport, transcending tennis and in doing so bringing the sport to many new followers (he won many awards that were not just tennis). There was no personality based attraction in that period.

2(b) worked because Nadal was a big contrast to Federer and provided a focus for younger and female fans just as Federer was looking too "establishment" for some kids. Nadals clothing helped that process. Again, no antagonism (indeed it's been a love-in).

The time in between them (from Lendl sans McEnroe, through to Sampras) saw the game sink because there was no great personalities to raise the game which suffered as the pace made some of it (especially Wimbledon) very boring. Wimbledon would have been more interesting if Pete had been throwing racquets at his rivals, but let's be honest he had a personality by-pass.

The time post Federer is looking ready to sink back badly; there are no bad boys, Hawkeye has killed off the main source of on-court controversy, time delays are corrosive, the game is making rallies very similar and supporting steadiness over flair, brains are great but they're not very exciting.

I agree with most of your post LK. However a lighter schedule woudl actually not benefit the lower ranked players on the financial front and not on the result side either.

We have to understand that a lighter schedule will in effect make the game more physical and not less, contrary to the general belief.

There is a big gap in weeks between Wimbledon and the US summer series. Look at Nadal for instance. He played 10 matches from July 4th till Monday Sept 12th. That's only 10 matches in 10 weeks!!! Yet, Nadal was completely exhausted in that 10th (USO final).

If you make a lighter schedule , they will simply work harder in between tournaments and that will make the tournaments even more physically intense, cause the opportunity to score points and make money becomes more crucial as it gets rarer. Imagine if they had to play 8 GS a year, they simply woudl have to pace up for them, making each slam less physically demanding.

And finally, yes, I agree Fed is a one-off but when that "one-in-a century" talent comes up and can't get to express his talent in the finals anymore cause the game is too physical, then I say there is something wrong with the game. I personally want to see what is rare, not what can be achieved by many through hard work and diet.

I think the thing with the Federer and Nadal encounters has always been more Nadal blunting the game of Federer than largely going out there and outplaying the guy. While fitness can play a large part in encounters, I think Nadal has had the greater success in their rivalry down to Nadal's sheer discipline to attack Federer's weakness's, which in large encounters has been the BH. Now we have Djokovic doing the same to Nadal. Federer the only time in my view was completely outplayed by Nadal was the 2008 French Open Final when Federer just went out all guns blazing and left his defence in the locker.

Take past rivalries, such for example as Connors and McEnroe who disliked each other, as a crowd you felt drawn to it. Anything could happen. Federer and the Nadal feud had the potential to be a great one, until Nadal just became a beast in Federer's mind. The period between 2005-08 was the height of their rivalry, largely because Roger was still in his peak and Nadal was not the defensive force he became post 08.

In a way Del Potro and Murray has the ingredients to be a Connors/McEnroe mark II. It is a shame that injury has ruined any chance of this. Murray and Djokovic yes could be a good rivalry if Murray could get his game up to scratch.

Nowadays we are blessed with the occassional theatre matches which brings 2 strangers together who don't play each other week on week. E.g Isner v Mahut Wimbledon 2010

legendkillar wrote:I think the thing with the Federer and Nadal encounters has always been more Nadal blunting the game of Federer than largely going out there and outplaying the guy

I stopped enjoying Federer/Nadal encounters really at W 2007, even though Fed squeaked through that, precisely because of your point above legend. For any Fed fan, few encounters have been much fun since and not just because Fed has been beaten more often than not, it is because of the bludger effect of Rafa on his game. I have enjoyed watching Fed play Djokovic win or lose - and even while I fully expect that the h2h has to be going in Novak's favour, the game they play together is far more enjoyable to watch than the 'other' match up. Roger vs Andy is not so good either - one plays well while the other disappoints, it never seems to be a quality encounter.

I do enjoy Novak vs Rafa and enjoy Rafa's tennis in this match up and always have done so in the past when Rafa had the upper hand. The one exception is the US Open final where, apart from the 3rd set, it was hugely disappointing to see the two top players of the year floundering around in the 4th, one injured and the other exhausted - but the crowd seem to love it!

It has been a linear progression of physicality and athleticism from the days of Borg and even earlier. So has new talent shown up. Nadal is part of the that linear progression, lest we forget Vilas, Lendl, et al.

There are many in the younger generation (Raonic, Tomic, Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Harrison, Young) who seem to have blend of talent and physical attributes to be great players. Will they be? Only time will tell.

Some good points. I'd argue Agassi created some high interest points too. I found his rivalry with Sampras good to watch...less so Becker/Edberg.

Clearly the Nadal-Federer rivalry has been the most prominent one I can think of in the Open Era even though they didnt play as often as say Mac- Lendl, but the sheer number of huge finals between Fed/Nad is on a higher level.

LK - I would also say Federer was completely outplayed by Nadal at Miami 2004. Winning that match had nothing to do with stamina.

Anyway...I think we all agree what needs to change:
1. Yes the schedule needs to be evened out, back to back Masters should be outlawed
2. Faster surfaces...but in general to reintroduce the variance between slams again
3. Less hardcourt events - like we need 2 North American HC seasons?
4. More carpet based events
5. Dont know how diet can be controlled...?
6. Change the balls back to how they used to be

A good point made about how Djokovic may have won USO but the effect in doing so on him has been massive - makes you wonder for his career longevity.

I don't think we can talk about "linear" progression when talking about the arrival of Borg and Rafa. More like vertical progression. Nadal arrived 7 years ago at 18 with a stronger physique than anybody else and to that date hasn;t been surpassed...not even by Djokovic.

lydian,

That is just the one performance that we can agree yes, aside from clay. Which when looked at suggests that Nadal hasn't blown Roger away on many occassions. I didn't say it was due to stamina either, more that Nadal blunted Roger's attack which if closely looked at we could agree. Like I said it takes massive discipline to attack a players weakness over a 2-3 hour match.

LF, I do agree with the points that Borg you could say was the first in line of a number of players who had for me 'natural' stamina and fine conditioning. When you look at the success that Borg had over such players as Vilas and Connors, and that when people reflect on the 1981 Wimbledon Final and the performance that McEnroe produced to defeat him and that there was a way to defeat Borg, but it took such a performance that back in the 80's it was difficult for any player to find the performances of that ilk to repeat week in week out.

Again when looking at players like Harrison, Raonic, Tomic, their progression will always be measure against the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Becker, Agassi in terms of how they progress up the rankings and title victories by a certain age. Yes that seems unfair by the names mentioned before them, but that is what the top level is measured by.

Nah! I disagree. Typical of Lydian's perspective again on Nadal's first match v Federer. Federer had just won IW the week before losing only one set to Agassi in his 6 matches there and literally steamrolling the opposition.

Nadal however had lost to great Callieri at IW's 3rd round.

So a week later, Fed goes through the first round with a tough 3 setter v Davydenko and imo fancies going out early, like he did in Cincy v young Murray a year or two later. Nadal went on to lose his next match to Gonzo who went on to lose to Coria who went on to lose to Roddick.

An insignificant match were Federer probably observed the young player's game and chose to go back home instead of fighting another 5 matches. But sure some want to see "outplayed" as it suits them but the real story is far from that actually.

I was always a bit cross with Fed for dumping that match to Murray that time - he'd have gone through the year losing only to one person otherwise.

Tenez, listen to 10:05-10:12 in the following clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umZ0lmtOdh0

So that's just "typical of my perspective" right? Why does every discussion with you have to end in a bl**dy argument? Why does every Federer loss have to have exceptional circumstamces attached to it? Nadal outplayed Federer in that match - simples {click}.

I dont care what Federer did the previous week - by that rule of thumb I presume you would concede Federer's win over Nadal at Madrid 2009 was due to the 4hr match Nadal had played against Djokovic less than 24 hrs previous! Or Fed's win over Nadal at Hamburg was due to Nadal 81 clay match win streak...and on and on. Sometimes you just have to accept the W.

lydian wrote:Tenez, listen to 10:05-10:12 in the following clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umZ0lmtOdh0

So that's just "typical of my perspective" right? Why does every discussion with you have to end in a bl**dy argument? Why does every Federer loss have to have exceptional circumstamces attached to it? Nadal outplayed Federer in that match - simples {click}.

I dont care what Federer did the previous week - by that rule of thumb I presume you would concede Federer's win over Nadal at Madrid 2009 was due to the 4hr match Nadal had played against Djokovic less than 24 hrs previous! Or Fed's win over Nadal at Hamburg was due to Nadal 81 clay match win streak...and on and on. Sometimes you just have to accept the W.

Yes trying hard Lydian...but you are so unlucky they did not cut the first 15s of that clip! It says exactly what I said 2 posts up.

And Federer won IW05, MIami 05 and IW06 and Miami 06....where was Nadal? How come he can "outplay" Federer at 18 and not at 19.20?

Federer wasn't exactly throwing away matches like confetti in 2004-2006 so I don't go along with him fancying an early exit against Nadal in their first encounter. Federer did the IW-Miami double in the following 2 seasons too, which hardly lends credence to him wanting to bow out. He was happy to fight for another 5 matches then.

Another attempt to rewrite history from our learned friend Tenez...

Agreed Positively 4th.

You're the one Tenez who is trying hard to denying the talent that is Nadal. I dont have to do anything, the facts speak for themselves...

Interesting you mentioned Miami. The first time they met there Nadal outclassed him and the last time they played there Fed was outclassed again (6-3 6-2), their record on hardcourt is 4-4 which isnt even Nadal's preferred surface, take it to clay and its 12-2, only on grass has Federer fared better (1-2) but thats only because he hasnt faced Nadal on grass since 2008. Nadal beats your man in slam finals across all surfaces, is 7-2 up in H2H slam matches, and is 9-3 in H2H Masters matches. And yet you want us to believe this guy has little talent despite your man being a "once in a century freak talent". You've also spinned stories about Nadal serving faster pre-Miami 2005 than after to serve your agenda against him and yet I've proved you completely wrong with analysis of that 2004 Miami match where Nadal served on average at over 27 seconds. You just seem to either make it all up or deny the obvious as you go along...its ridiculous!

Don't be daft lydian, anyone knows there's a massive match-up issue in this rivalry otherwise how could Nadal have a good record v Federer through 2005-8 yet be unable to beat a seed at the USO and hardly ever make it to the appointments with Federer while he was turning up for his defeats on clay regularly?

It's not about "the talent that is Nadal" it's the match-up.

Without a match-up edge, he's having his head handed to him for a year or two now by a guy who is only just battling through Slam epics with Federer.