Getting A Set Off Nadal On Clay

One of the ultimate goals in tennis today must be to steal a set when playing Nadal on clay. Some come tantalisingly close but can't quite close it out. In the early rounds of the FO this year Andujar was 5-1 up and I believe also 40-0 up but still failed. Federer must still have nightmares about that first set in the final of the FO and poor Del Potro should be advised not to dwell on the 4th set of the Davis Cup when he served for the set.

This year Nadal has been unusually generous and given away a few unexpected sets. More often than not when a player does claim a set they fizzle out quickly afterwoods. Amost as if they have achieved more than they could expect and can't wait to get off court to talk about it. Or maybe because Nadal decides enough is enough... With this in mind special credit this year should go to Izner who claimed an incredible 2 sets in one match and also Federer and Del Potro who very nearly claimed 2 sets. IMO they should be awarded an engraved plate in recognition of their achievements.

If taking a set off Nadal is an achievment. How should winning an entire match on clay against him be rated? Only 3 players have done this in recent history. Federer in Madrid in 2009. Confidence from this helped enable him to win his first FO and reclaim Wimbledon and the number 1 ranking. Djokovic recognised his achievment when he beat Nadal in Madrid and celebrated in a memorable way... He went on to beat Nadal again in Rome and claim his first Wimbledon, his first US Open and the number 1 ranking. Soderling after his famous victory over Nadal in the 2009 FO went from being a player ranked outside the top 20 to a grand slam contender and a ranking high of 4. IMO Federer, Djokovic and Soderling should be awarded a trophy in recognition of their achievements...

Surprise surprise no Murray???

I see you are taking the Most Bias Poster of the Year Award to new heights.

I have you down as favourite to win again in 2012, 2013......

I think this article has, tragically, come a year or so too late. Djokovic will now be distraught to drop a set on clay to Nadal, so complete was his ownership of the "king" of clay in their meetings at Madrid and Rome (and one can only imagine the destruction that would surely have befallen Nadal had not Federer saved the Spaniard from a further beatdown by the Serb at Roland Garros).

Veteren Federer will indeed be disappointed to have lost those first two sets, but at 30 the former #1 took the 3rd set on his least favourite surface. Taken together with that first set he will feel a good chance to beat the former top clay player in straight sets slipped away.

John Isner, of course, would find this article baffling as the giant American, as comfortable on clay as Bambi on ice, comfortably took two sets off Nadal before tiring.

No, this article had it's time. It's just a pity it isn't 2011.

Even in 2010 Almagro and Gulbis showed Nadal how tennis should be played on clay...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06CdClj1zj4

Lungs made the difference once again.

Clay or no-clay, 2011 was all about Djokovic. Nadal was a poor second. His victory at F.O suffers from Djokovic factor - though no fault of his and he may or may not have won against Djokovic. He is no longer that dominant on clay. One hopes he wins at least one G.S event in 2012 lest he should get demotivated. May be he gets back to dominance as in 2010, but competition is much stronger now.

Nadal only looked good against Delpo when the big man started to miss and play too attacking lets not act like the former clay genie played an unreal level or something. He could've been 2 sets behind to Delpo if the Argie had any sort of form heading into the DC final

Articles used to be lovingly crafted by golf journalists asking who could possibly dethrone Tiger Woods ......

Yep, all sadly out of date now and more than a whiff of yesterday's news about it

In the wake of his 2011 experiences I suspect Rafa's own holiday reading will be more on the subject of "Getting A Win off Djokovic - On Any Surface"

"Getting A Win off Djokovic - On Any Surface"

He couldn't do it against a tired and hurt Djokovic in USO 4th set so I doubt he will do it anytime soon

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal only looked good against Delpo when the big man started to miss and play too attacking lets not act like the former clay genie played an unreal level or something. He could've been 2 sets behind to Delpo if the Argie had any sort of form heading into the DC final

and Nadal was in any sort of form heading into DC final ? Not backing up the gist of the original post on this but your statement is a bit one sided.

hawkeye wrote:IMO they should be awarded an engraved plate in recognition of their achievements.

Federer and Soderling did get the plate that FFT awards to the RG runner-ups.

hawkeye wrote:IMO Federer, Djokovic and Soderling should be awarded a trophy in recognition of their achievements...

Federer got FO 2009, Djokovic got Rome and Madrid 2011 trophies. Soderling did get Paris Masters, but not on clay.

Did Murray get Tokyo on HC or Blue Clay?

Poor Federer did not get anything for his Madrid 2011 efforts.

Yes poor Federer, after that Madrid match I bet he went home and probably cried when he looked at his empty trophy cabinet.

laverfan wrote:Poor Federer did not get anything for his Madrid 2011 efforts.

Ok. It is of course a great achievement to get even one set off Nadal on clay. In recognition of this and because I'm not mean when it comes to praise (unlike some others here) Federer should get a gold embossed certificate for his efforts in Madrid. Of course its only fair that all the other players who managed to steal a set should also get the prize. IMO Andujar should get one too as he was so so close. Of couse the real prize for managing to take a set is the bragging rights. Anyone who can get one set can boast that they only need to be more consistant and they will be able to get that all important career changing win...

Y'know, the trick to being respected as a provocative writer on a forum is that you actually read responses and formulate astute and ascerbic responses.

You're just rewritten the article.

Nole looks to be able to out-nadal Nadal on clay this year. If the trend continues Nole might win the FO next year. Nadal's best chance of winning a slam might be at Wimbledon since it will be hard for Nole to overachieve again and win another slam on his worst surface(grass) in 2012, kinda like Nadal would have overachieved by winning the AO again in 2010/2011 on his worst surface. I believe the AO is Nadal's worst slam now, he can't even make it past the QFs anymore.

Clay courts should be banned. Roland Garros should be moved out of Europe and Shanghai should be made a grand slam.

Nah, you cant beat the feeling of Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros.
Who can forget the flashing backhand of Guga in Paris...
Clay is a natural surface whereas hardcourt is artificial, destroys the joints and is taking over the tour.
We already have 6 Masters out of 9 on hardcourt, 2 slams on it and World Tour Finals, we dont need more!
The world has gone DecoTurf mad...

It's Lawn Tennis.

Everything else is a contrivance.

Fans of players other than Nadal have no choice but to favour hardcourts. This is because Nadal rules clay and other players don't stand much of a chance of even getting a set off him there...

hawkeye wrote:Fans of players other than Nadal have no choice but to favour hardcourts. This is because Nadal rules clay and other players don't stand much of a chance of even getting a set off him there...

The opposite. I love clay. That's the only surface providing Federer some challenge.

hawkeye wrote:Fans of players other than Nadal have no choice but to favour hardcourts. This is because Nadal rules clay and other players don't stand much of a chance of even getting a set off him there...

Did you take a very long holiday from tennis and TV? I don't know if anyone's told you, but Djokovic handed two straight sets hidings in the two matches they played on clay this year. John Isner, a man with a serve and nothing else who shouldn't be troubling any decent clay expert took two sets off him in one match at Roland Garros.

Your understanding is way, way, out of date.

Hidings? Really? Your conclusion is way, way over the top.

You see the standard is so high that Nadal losing to matches
On clay to the same player is unheard of. To be fair, Djokovic has been the only player to actually beat Nadal on clay without * next to the win.

Sorry Simplistic, but the OP has structured this discussion, there's no point making lame efforts to change the grounds of debate.

And, 4th St, yes certainly that second match was a hiding. I watched it and the outcome was never in doubt.

I see 'keyboard warrior' Boggo has a problem with my chilled fact. The usual 'call a name, grin on the face' attempt does not make my * claim less true. Good for Djokovic, if only others could also give Nadal a hiding on clay..... As it is, they barely manage 3 games in a clay slam final.

No grin, and the only chilling facts on this thread are that the days when anyone could make the claims the OP makes are long, long gone and are never to return.

It's a shame the OP's timing is so bad, but no surprise whatsoever to see Simplistic trailing along behind an old bandwagon headed in the wrong direction.

That may be so, but Nadal still won the one clay title that mattered most.

Positively 4th Street wrote:That may be so, but Nadal still won the one clay title that mattered most.

Which has got what to do with the original article?

I think Pos4th's point is that wrt OP, that its nigh on impossible getting 3 sets off Nadal at the French Open in one match. Its only been done once!

Whether it will be this hard next year we will see...personally I dont think Rafa can play worse on clay than last year considering he won FO shockingly out of form (I mean Isner...almost as embarassing as Utd having to play Europa Cup now).

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But it's still got nothing to do with the original article, which is hopelessly out of date.

I think 4Sts comment roughly translates as "yeah, ok, the original statement is rubbish so let's talk about something else".

The original article was tongue-in-cheek I thought and I didn't take it that seriously. The kernel of truth in it is, though, that Nadal has an extraordinary record on clay, having won RG twice without dropping a set and even winning several matches in straights last year (I think?) despite being way below his best.

My response may have been a bit off topic (how many threads stay resolutely on topic?) but I felt you were making too much of those two defeats. Talk of 'long, long gone' and implying he's not a 'decent clay expert' due to the Isner match was a bit fanciful in my opinion. I appreciate that you may have been trying to show the OP the error of his ways, but, as I say, I took it as a bit of fun, with talk of 'engraved plates'.

Why oh why is Nadal always "way below his best" whenever anyone is addressing a less than perfect achievement?

The reality is that Nadal had a great 2011 but players have developed strategies to counter him, just as he was almost specifically designed to counter Federer, with one player doing it 7/7 and a few others starting to look promising in their effect.

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Fans of players other than Nadal have no choice but to favour hardcourts. This is because Nadal rules clay and other players don't stand much of a chance of even getting a set off him there...

Did you take a very long holiday from tennis and TV? I don't know if anyone's told you, but Djokovic handed two straight sets hidings in the two matches they played on clay this year. John Isner, a man with a serve and nothing else who shouldn't be troubling any decent clay expert took two sets off him in one match at Roland Garros.

Your understanding is way, way, out of date.

So you think Nadal is no longer a "decent clay expert"?

I never claimed that Nadal was unbeatable. Of course he can lose. He isn't some sort of superman he is just very very good. But to win even a set off him on clay is an achievement. You just have to look at the reaction of both players and commentators alike to see how it is regarded. Federer's reaction after winning in Madrid in 2009, Djokovic's wild celebrations after this years win in Madrid and even some commentators reaction after Murray won a set this year are just a few examples I can remember. Some get carried away when a player gets some sort of win over Nadal on clay and try and claim that they have somehow found the key to beat him consistantly. I disagree. They have just proved he is human.

If you read through the comments you will see that I gave Isner full credit for the RG match. He has just the sort of game that can trouble even the very best players as he doesn't allow them to play their game. I also gave credit to Djokovic and indeed any player who has claimed a win, a set or even come close to winning a set.

I don't think my understanding is out of date as the article was prompted by the last match played this season. Del Potro got a set off Nadal, he all but got 2 sets. But could he get a win? Nadal remains much more than decent on clay.

BB - I might ordinarily agree with you that Nadal cant be below his best all the time when losing BUT at French Open he really was below his best. So are you telling us that the Isner match was a normal representation of Nadal's prowess on clay?

Plus his timing hasnt been great most of 2011...never seen him hit as many midcourt balls in my life. He;s also been very frank and open in his interviews, even looking jaded most of the year. If you think on average it was the same Nadal as 2010 then you must have been watching a different player to me.

Of course I do remember you ascribing Federer's loss at Wimbledon on 606 in 2008 to mono from January...

bogbrush wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:That may be so, but Nadal still won the one clay title that mattered most.

Which has got what to do with the original article?

I don't think the comment by Positively 4th Street is off topic. It shows how difficult it is to get a win against Nadal on clay. Come to think of it Nadal probably won the two titles that mattered most to him this year. The second with the Spanish team.

lydian wrote:BB - I might ordinarily agree with you that Nadal cant be below his best all the time when losing BUT at French Open he really was below his best. So are you telling us that the Isner match was a normal representation of Nadal's prowess on clay?

I don;t think he was below his best. It simply took him longer than others to get used to the new balls. Those balls were harder, flying off the racquet quicker therefore not allowing him to inject the spin he usually feels comfortable with. It's a bit like he was playing like in the USO. That made him excessively cautious on all his shots, more than usual, if that's possible.

As he went on the rounds, he probably lowered his string tension to grip the ball a bit more and regained confidence.

But his match v Isner could be forgiven as Isner is a good server...but his match versus Pablo Andujar was abysmal. The most gutless match I have seen between 2 players. This is where you really question Nadal's mental strength.

Anyway I disagree that Nadal was below his best. He simply doesn't adapt as quickly as others. Let's stop finding him excuses.

Tenez wrote:I don;t think he was below his best. It simply took him longer than others to get used to the new balls. Those balls were harder, flying off the racquet quicker therefore not allowing him to inject the spin he usually feels comfortable with. It's a bit like he was playing like in the USO. That made him excessively cautious on all his shots, more than usual, if that's possible.

If he wasn't comfortable at first then surely he was below his best? That looks like a long paragraph that means precisely the same thing. Yes, there are reasons why but if he was ill-at-ease then surely he wasn't at peak performance!

Tenez wrote:
Anyway I disagree that Nadal was below his best. He simply doesn't adapt as quickly as others. Let's stop finding him excuses.

Like you writing off Federer's grass defeat to Berdych, and his Miami defeat, and ...
At least be consistent if you're going to criticise!

Tenez

I can remember Nadal's interviews from this year FO. He was playing poorly, he knew he was playing poorly and all the talk was of how poorly he was playing. Who knows why and who's making excuses.

I think everyones expectation of Nadal is too high. He has to not only win but win with style. Unless he plays at his very best all the time he is in decline. What was it that Federer once said about "creating a monster"? Nadal should steal that line...

dbl

Of course he was playing poorly. That much was clear to anyone with eyes. Any reasonable defence of Nadal is lampooned as making excuses, which is not the preserve of Nadal fans I might add.

We Nadal fans are small in number on here, but we must fight the good fight to give balance to the forum.

lydian wrote:BB - I might ordinarily agree with you that Nadal cant be below his best all the time when losing BUT at French Open he really was below his best. So are you telling us that the Isner match was a normal representation of Nadal's prowess on clay?

Plus his timing hasnt been great most of 2011...never seen him hit as many midcourt balls in my life. He;s also been very frank and open in his interviews, even looking jaded most of the year. If you think on average it was the same Nadal as 2010 then you must have been watching a different player to me.

[b]Of course I do remember you ascribing Federer's loss at Wimbledon on 606 in 2008 to mono from January...[b]/

Absolutely, unless you think Glandular Fever is something you shake off quickly. Maybe Robin Soderling should just pull himself together and stop making such a fuss.


As for Nadal 2011 v 2010, yes I don't see any difference, just that one player has worked him out.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Like you writing off Federer's grass defeat to Berdych, and his Miami defeat, and ...
At least be consistent if you're going to criticise!

No you are mixing things as usual. Federer lost art Wimbledon because he was injured. Nadal did not lose, nor was injured. Please be coherent. Furthermore while injured, Federer fought like lion, while Nadal fully fit played like ....

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

I can remember Nadal's interviews from this year FO. He was playing poorly, he knew he was playing poorly and all the talk was of how poorly he was playing. Who knows why and who's making excuses. ...

Lydian

hawkeye wrote:But to win even a set off him on clay is an achievement. You just have to look at the reaction of both players and commentators alike to see how it is regarded. Federer's reaction after winning in Madrid in 2009, Djokovic's wild celebrations after this years win in Madrid and even some commentators reaction after Murray won a set this year are just a few examples I can remember.

Do you have secret footage, because i've seen players winning a hawkeye challenge reacting more enthusiastic than Fed did in Madrid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLdMfZRjWM

You can't blame Federer for any over-the-top celebrations though. It was a suprise to him as it was to us he managed to beat Nadal despite the Spaniard's hindrance by physical exhaustion that day.

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:Like you writing off Federer's grass defeat to Berdych, and his Miami defeat, and ...
At least be consistent if you're going to criticise!

No you are mixing things as usual. Federer lost art Wimbledon because he was injured. Nadal did not lose, nor was injured. Please be coherent. Furthermore while injured, Federer fought like lion, while Nadal fully fit played like ....

Excuses are excuses. That was, and remains, my gripe with your post. As usual you allow your favourite player slack and your nemesis none. I can only put your obsession down to bitterness for those slam final defeats.

Simple_Analyst wrote:You can't blame Federer for any over-the-top celebrations though. It was a suprise to him as it was to us he managed to beat Nadal despite the Spaniard's hindrance by physical exhaustion that day.

Lovely of you to join us. Could you perhaps add to our pleasure by explaining what on Earth you're talking about?

Positively 4th Street wrote:Excuses are excuses. That was, and remains, my gripe with your post. As usual you allow your favourite player slack and your nemesis none. I can only put your obsession down to bitterness for those slam final defeats.

It's your refusal to see the difference between an injury and no injury (or lack of discernment?) that is certainly revealing some bitterness from your side. I could see that Nadal was injured at AO11 1/4f. I have no problem with calling excuses as long as they are justified.

But it's so typical of Nadal fans to find excuses when Nadal himself hasn't got any valid to provide.

Lovely of you to join us. Could you perhaps add to our pleasure by explaining what on Earth you're talking about?

Something to do with bee's and honey. Or the first Roman conquest who knows?

Tenez wrote: It's your refusal to see the difference between an injury and no injury (or lack of discernment?) that is certainly revealing some bitterness from your side. I could see that Nadal was injured at AO11 1/4f. I have no problem with calling excuses as long as they are justified.

But it's so typical of Nadal fans to find excuses when Nadal himself hasn't got any valid to provide.

My original post only stated that Nadal was not at his best at the start of Roland Garros 2011, which is borne out by his struggles early on against Isner - unless you think that Isner had 'worked his game out'? I did not attribute it to injuries or make an excuse for him, just think he was not at the top of his game. Reasons for that are most likely change of balls and the preceding clay losses to Djokovic. He knew there was a lot on the line at RG. You should try not to tar all Nadal fans with the same brush.