Nadal nowhere near his best

I must say, as a Nadal fan I'm very pleased that he survived the first week and is now into the QF.
When he lost in Doha R1, I thought considering the fact he's only played a handful of matches in 6 months, means he will be so rusty that he won't be competitive at all in Australia. But he's improved a lot from his performance against Berrer, and his latest 3 sets win over Anderson was his best play this year so far.
He was sick in his match against Tim Smyzcek, not sure sure why, but he seems to have recovered from that bug as well. Also I think Nadal has been pretty lucky with the way his draw has turned out so far- for example he avoided Rosol in R3 (after Rosol lost to Sela in R2).

So I'm already very happy with the tournament, and Nadal has exceeded my expectations, but I'm very wary that Nadal's level is nowhere near his best. I'm not sure if you guys have watched him so far, but he randomly makes ridiculous unforced errors on his forehand, easy stuff that he wouldn't normally miss in a million years. His movement has been ok, but when on the defence his shots haven't actually been great. For example he's normally very good at finding precision in passing shots, but he's kept missing them.
Against Anderson he made 25 unforced errors, only 1 less than Kevin himself; this for a player like Nadal is pretty alarming.

So overall despite being very pleased with his progress in the tournament (if you had told me before the tournament he would lose in the QF I would happily take it), I am very wary that Nadal still seems off his game; and with the high level from Berdych and Murray in this tournament- he faces a mountain to climb to progress further in his draw.

I think you are selling him a bit short. No he isn't near his best but I could still see him putting a run on and reaching the final. He has had his way with Murray and Berdy his whole career so the onus will be on those two to show they can beat him. But overall a fair analysis.

if smyczek can trouble him, anyone can

but lets see tomorrow.

I have to say IMBL this is an improvement on your last criticism .. then " his game is in tatters".. so at least he has made some improvement. This just has to be a wind up.. really?? what were you expecting of him this tournament?? it is obviously more than a true fan of his would expect, and more than he expected of himself.

Some sort of eulogy going on here?

Can we say enough of the jinxing please?

Nadal struggling in a Slam is not uncommon.

It’s widely observed that Nadal gets better as the Slam rolls on.

What we don’t need is he is to win here an over-zealous fanfare of ‘Wow what a result. He won the AO without playing his best’ I can’t think of a player who has won a Slam playing 7 bad matches.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we say enough of the jinxing please?

Nadal struggling in a Slam is not uncommon.

It’s widely observed that Nadal gets better as the Slam rolls on.

What we don’t need is he is to win here an over-zealous fanfare of ‘Wow what a result. He won the AO without playing his best’ I can’t think of a player who has won a Slam playing 7 bad matches.

This.

Federer won the AUS 2006 just a few weeks after coming off crutches iirc - does anyone care? No. Hell does anyone even remember?

Nadal has had an entire off season to practice and get ready. As LK has already stated Rafa has struggled before in the early rounds; it's not indicative of anything. If he wins, fair play to him. Likewise if he loses then his opponent deserved it.

This article is just another pre-emptive strike. 1) Jinx and 2) Get the excuses in early should Nadal lose.

Nadal nowhere near his best, Fed over the hill, Murray not yet back to how he was and Djoko probably not at his previous best. There are only 2 words to describe it....

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal nowhere near his best, Fed over the hill, Murray not yet back to how he was and Djoko probably not at his previous best. There are only 2 words to describe it....

Unbelievable Jeff?

Nadal has had an entire off season to practice and get ready.


That is not entirely true em.. however I do get your drift

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal nowhere near his best, Fed over the hill, Murray not yet back to how he was and Djoko probably not at his previous best. There are only 2 words to describe it....

Unbelievable Jeff?

It wouldn't be anything to do with extractions from bovines would it ??

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal nowhere near his best, Fed over the hill, Murray not yet back to how he was and Djoko probably not at his previous best. There are only 2 words to describe it....

Unbelievable Jeff?

Magic darts.

Not sure I'd go as far as to say nowhere near his best.

Was understandably rusty coming in to the tournament and was quite lucky to come through the Smyczek match - was clearly ill and it affected him for a couple of sets, but whatever medication he was given by the doctor had a positive effect before the 5th set (and Smyczek let a chance go by playing too passively against an apparently ill player in set 4). Since then he's looked to be performing pretty well. Will be interesting to see quite how well, when he comes up against genuinely top level players, especially if his movement is a little below its usual extraordinary standard.

Interesting comment about forehand errors - I saw Nadal V Verdasco in a warm-up exhibition match, and Rafa looked to be struggling to control his in to out forehand, frequently missing long, so suggesting that he wasn't generating quite as much topspin as normal. Whether this was an issue relating to fitness (maybe that his back is still a bit stiff and not allowing him to rotate as much as normal and not generating his usual racket speed), or was the result of a deliberate attempt to flatten out the shot to make it more aggressive is unclear, but he was certainly missing a lot more than normal on what is for me his best shot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Nadal nowhere near his best, Fed over the hill, Murray not yet back to how he was and Djoko probably not at his previous best. There are only 2 words to describe it....

Unbelievable Jeff?

Magic darts.

Tungsten ton?

This is not grass where he can be put out to dry by a strong server. You know Tomas will wilt under pressure and then he will be confident to reach the final again.

in australia 2014 I did think nadal was hot favourite... but not in 2015


of course anything can happen

emancipator wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we say enough of the jinxing please?

Nadal struggling in a Slam is not uncommon.

It’s widely observed that Nadal gets better as the Slam rolls on.

What we don’t need is he is to win here an over-zealous fanfare of ‘Wow what a result. He won the AO without playing his best’ I can’t think of a player who has won a Slam playing 7 bad matches.

This article is just another pre-emptive strike. 1) Jinx and 2) Get the excuses in early should Nadal lose.

Exactly. Amri at his finest.

emancipator wrote:

Nadal has had an entire off season to practice and get ready. As LK has already stated Rafa has struggled before in the early rounds; it's not indicative of anything. If he wins, fair play to him. Likewise if he loses then his opponent deserved it.

This article is just another pre-emptive strike. 1) Jinx and 2) Get the excuses in early should Nadal lose.

How can Nadal possibly be at his best? Returning in a best of five slam after having surgery a couple of months ago of course he isn't. That doesn't mean he can't win because Nadal playing at less than his best is still a tricky player. If he doesn't win though it will hardly be a disaster because he will improve the more matches he plays throughout the year. This years AO would be nice but Nadal doesn't have to win this slam this year. His goal now should be to stay healthy and give himself the best possible chance of winning three or more slams in the next few years. Desperation, excuses, making the most of golden opportunities and gloating about single wins is for other players not for the likes of Nadal (or Federer)

Novak isn't at his best either. If he wins following his bout of bubonic plague this will be the greatest slam win ever, like a one legged man winning an ass kicking contest.

And obviously Fed wasn't at his best either it seems. Looks like all eyes are on Murray then HE

Haddie-nuff wrote:And obviously Fed wasn't at his best either it seems. Looks like all eyes are on Murray then HE

Haddie you tease?

When was Murray at his best? It has never happened. He is always in physical agony, recovering from injury, battling his mental demons, hurt because journalists aren't nice to him, devastated about a coach deserting him, annoyed that he wasn't born in a different era or has just got up on the wrong side of the bed. If it wasn't for that he would be a multi slam winning all time great

socal1976 wrote:Novak isn't at his best either. If he wins following his bout of bubonic plague this will be the greatest slam win ever, like a one legged man winning an ass kicking contest.

Novak? Is he playing in Australia? Can't say I've noticed

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak isn't at his best either. If he wins following his bout of bubonic plague this will be the greatest slam win ever, like a one legged man winning an ass kicking contest.

Novak? Is he playing in Australia? Can't say I've noticed

I take that as a danger sign myself.
He is quietly going about his business.

Do I tease??? of course isnt this whole thread a wind up !!!!???

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak isn't at his best either. If he wins following his bout of bubonic plague this will be the greatest slam win ever, like a one legged man winning an ass kicking contest.

Novak? Is he playing in Australia? Can't say I've noticed

I take that as a danger sign myself.
He is quietly going about his business.

Do I tease??? of course isnt this whole thread a wind up !!!!???

IMBL, a WUM? Surely you jest Haddie?

Good article IMBL. It just about accords with my thoughts on Rafa's current status. Not sure why people are having a go at you for it.

Tonight is the first real test. I have a strong suspicion Berdych will win but part of me thinks, based on past experience, this may be the time in the tournament when Rafa starts to look an entirely different beast.

Yes of course I jest JM ( ) I would not accuse my fellow Rafa fan of such a thing  ....cough

Good article??

Yep.

Haddie-nuff wrote: what were you expecting of him this tournament?? it is obviously more than a true fan of his would expect, and more than he expected of himself.

Haddie, if you're indicating I'm not enough of a true Nadal fan here, that's fine by me; maybe a fair comment, who knows ?
But look; to Haddie and everyone else who is making personal comments, I am just going to let it go. If you want me to respond to personal comments send me a PM

emancipator wrote:

Federer won the AUS 2006 just a few weeks after coming off crutches iirc - does anyone care? No.

This appears to me to be a fairly unintelligent line of thinking; if you think that comparison itself means what I'm saying in the OP is wrong.
-Firstly Nadal's issues are mainly rust and lack of competitive match play, he's only played a handful of competitive matches in the last 6 months. Practice is all well and good, but it doesn't replicate match play.
-Secondly different players react differently to injuries and time without playing. Some players recover from injuries faster, some players take more time to get back to their best.
-Thirdly it may even be that the same player reacts differently to having time out and injuries at different stages of his career. For example Nadal may take more time coming back from a knee injury than back injury, etc.

So just one comparison of a player coming back to his winning Slams after being on crutches, doesn't mean Nadal is at his best.

Oh and btw, before people flood me with a plethora of platitudes, I acknowledge and agree with the following: The player who wins a match deserves to win a match; it's your job to turn up to a tournament in the best possible shape; you can only beat who is in front of you... etc.

Born Slippy wrote:Good article IMBL. It just about accords with my thoughts on Rafa's current status. Not sure why people are having a go at you for it.

Tonight is the first real test. I have a strong suspicion Berdych will win but part of me thinks, based on past experience, this may be the time in the tournament when Rafa starts to look an entirely different beast.

Thank you Born Slippy.
I have stayed up late to watch every Nadal match so far in this tournament, I find it bemusing that some people just assume I'm wrong about what I've observed so far. I do think Nadal's level has been good, better than I thought; and I also thought his match against Anderson was his best so far. His serve out-wide has been working well, and his backhand has actually been solid.
However the reason I don't think he's at his best is his forehand is really misfiring, and Nadal's forehand is in many ways his best shot. He hasn't played many matches in the past 6 months, but since he's come back this year, his forehand still doesn't look like what it was at its best.

dummy half wrote:Interesting comment about forehand errors - I saw Nadal V Verdasco in a warm-up exhibition match, and Rafa looked to be struggling to control his in to out forehand, frequently missing long, so suggesting that he wasn't generating quite as much topspin as normal. Whether this was an issue relating to fitness (maybe that his back is still a bit stiff and not allowing him to rotate as much as normal and not generating his usual racket speed), or was the result of a deliberate attempt to flatten out the shot to make it more aggressive is unclear, but he was certainly missing a lot more than normal on what is for me his best shot.

Yes, I noticed that in the exhibition match too, and that feature has actually stayed for Nadal in all the matches. And as a Nadal fan, it's not pleasant viewing. Some easy putaways barely reaching halfway up the net, this isn't the Nadal who's won 14 Slams. His forehand is normally a very effective and reliable shot.

Fed, in fairness, post crutches, had returned to the Masters Cup and only lost because he ran out of gas versus Nalby in the final. He then won Doha before Oz. Seems to me its slightly different circumstances.

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Federer won the AUS 2006 just a few weeks after coming off crutches iirc - does anyone care? No.

This appears to me to be a fairly unintelligent line of thinking; if you think that comparison itself means what I'm saying in the OP is wrong.
-Firstly Nadal's issues are mainly rust and lack of competitive match play, he's only played a handful of competitive matches in the last 6 months. Practice is all well and good, but it doesn't replicate match play.

Now you're really flip flopping Amri.  Being dishonest with yourself and us.      "mainly rust and lack of competitive match play"    This and other things you are now saying seem to indicate your worries were because of the rust and not playing much past six months and it you thought it would take him awhile to get back to his best.

Aren't these your words from recent past recent posts here and elsewhere

"With Nadal already past his best and in permanent decline"

"he won't be winning any more titles anyway"

"However, his career at the top of the able bodied singles tour is over"

"he's no longer able to play against the able bodied players, he's bound for the wheelchair tour"

You also blamed your belief in his inability to ever win again squarely on his "half bionic knees and half bionic back"

Which is it? Is a 29 year old coming off appendix surgery finished and never to win again,  or will competitive match play and knocking off rust get him near of at the top again?  It would be helpful to everyone keeping track if you kept on one course.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote: what were you expecting of him this tournament?? it is obviously more than a true fan of his would expect, and more than he expected of himself.

Haddie, if you're indicating I'm not enough of a true Nadal fan here, that's fine by me; maybe a fair comment, who knows ?
But look; to Haddie and everyone else who is making personal comments, I am just going to let it go. If you want me to respond to personal comments send me a PM

I would hardly call that a "personal comment" Maybe a thicker skin is required.  But you do leave yourself wide open to such comments when I have two bookmarked comments made by you before the AO even started.. i.e. that "his game is in tatters" and that you felt he would not win another slam.
Dont now get indignant because you are now doing your usual U turn; you are suggesting that you are "worried" about him?????. Nadal fans I have been in contact with on other sites are only too happy that he has come this far. If his game is not to your liking, I think I am safe in saying its not to his either.  There are enough "have a go" posters on this forum without you opening the door for them and I dont think  any of that takes a PM.  If Im wrong in my assessment of this article so are others it seems

Amrita is a pessimist. Sooner everyone accepts that the better. Threads like this are boring, the responses are always the same.

kingraf wrote:Amrita is a pessimist. Sooner everyone accepts that the better. Threads like this are boring, the responses are always the same.

Its not his pessimism that bothers me KR its his duplicity.. over and over and over

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Federer won the AUS 2006 just a few weeks after coming off crutches iirc - does anyone care? No.

This appears to me to be a fairly unintelligent line of thinking; if you think that comparison itself means what I'm saying in the OP is wrong.
-Firstly Nadal's issues are mainly rust and lack of competitive match play, he's only played a handful of competitive matches in the last 6 months. Practice is all well and good, but it doesn't replicate match play.
-Secondly different players react differently to injuries and time without playing. Some players recover from injuries faster, some players take more time to get back to their best.
-Thirdly it may even be that the same player reacts differently to having time out and injuries at different stages of his career. For example Nadal may take more time coming back from a knee injury than back injury, etc.

So just one comparison of a player coming back to his winning Slams after being on crutches, doesn't mean Nadal is at his best.

Oh and btw, before people flood me with a plethora of platitudes, I acknowledge and agree with the following: The player who wins a match deserves to win a match; it's your job to turn up to a tournament in the best possible shape; you can only beat who is in front of you... etc.

Your missing his point entirely.

What he is saying is that when Federer won the AO in 2006, there wasn't so much focus on his injury months before hand. Should Nadal win the AO, why should it be treated as some gladiatorial and miraculous effort? I know that a Nadal success down under will lead to euphoric ad nauseam.

Not by me LK ..I will be privately  thrilled... and publicly surprised believe me

I've already said, if people want to talk about me personally, I'm not going to respond here; we won't get anywhere anyway... and there's a PM function for personal discussions.
Not sure why people seem more keen to make negative comments about people personally rather than discuss the topic of the thread (how close Nadal is to his best... especially considering many forehand unforced errors which aren't typical).

The thing is Haddie if Rafa wins, he will be the first to have won each of the 4 slams twice in the Open Era. That feat will take the back seat as I think other points that will take precedent over it

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Your missing his point entirely.

What he is saying is that when Federer won the AO in 2006, there wasn't so much focus on his injury months before hand. Should Nadal win the AO, why should it be treated as some gladiatorial and miraculous effort? I know that a Nadal success down under will lead to euphoric ad nauseam.

I said that Nadal is not really close to his best, well not on his forehand anyway.
Federer's circumstances in late 2005 and early 2006 were different to Nadal's now (Nadal has had barely any games in the last 6 months), and as I said to eman, different players react differently to injuries/ time out of the game. Also I never mentioned the world gladiatorial or miraculous; although I am very pleased with his progress so far already; his game has improved more than I thought it would from his collapse against Berrer.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The thing is Haddie if Rafa wins, he will be the first to have won each of the 4 slams twice in the Open Era. That feat will take the back seat as I think other points that will take precedent over it

The bookies have Djokovic as clear favourite, with Murray as second favourite.

Anyway, LK, on the actual topic of the OP, what do you think of what you've seen of Nadal so far ?
As I said I think on the forehands he's made far too many silly mistakes; and he made 25UEs against Anderson... which is not normal for Nadal at all.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The thing is Haddie if Rafa wins, he will be the first to have won each of the 4 slams twice in the Open Era. That feat will take the back seat as I think other points that will take precedent over it

Yes LK I was aware of that but have made no mention of it. Im sure it hasn't escaped many Rafa fans' notice.
However I have no expectations .. only hope.

Truffin; I think Nadal is rusty and I do think he's going to improve from the level he is at now; which won't be surprising given how few matches he's played in the last 6 months.
In terms of Nadal's overall career, I'm not going to go into it in detail here as this thread isn't about that, and I can't predict the future for sure, but I think when a player reaches around 29 years old he is going to be permanently declining. Peak age for a tennis player is between 24-27 imo, you may disagree.

The bookies have Djokovic as clear favourite, with Murray as second favourite.

WOW is that supposed to come as a huge surprise.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Your missing his point entirely.

What he is saying is that when Federer won the AO in 2006, there wasn't so much focus on his injury months before hand. Should Nadal win the AO, why should it be treated as some gladiatorial and miraculous effort? I know that a Nadal success down under will lead to euphoric ad nauseam.

I said that Nadal is not really close to his best, well not on his forehand anyway.
Federer's circumstances in late 2005 and early 2006 were different to Nadal's now (Nadal has had barely any games in the last 6 months), and as I said to eman, different players react differently to injuries/ time out of the game. Also I never mentioned the world gladiatorial or miraculous; although I am very pleased with his progress so far already; his game has improved more than I thought it would from his collapse against Berrer.

He's not a million miles from his best. This is the thing. It's rust in his legs. The more matches he plays, the better. He is facing Berdych. A player who even when Rafa is not at his best, doesn't push him. That's why it is met with scepticism. Say if he was playing Nishikori, then I think we could have a discussion in the realms of how Rafa's low level would far against a player on the rise. I say we re-visit this discussion post QFs as his next opponent be Kyrgios or Murray who had recent victories over him

Haddie-nuff wrote:The bookies have Djokovic as clear favourite, with Murray as second favourite.

WOW is that supposed to come as a huge surprise.

I never said it was a huge surprise ?
Bookies rarely spring 'surprises' anyway; they normally all have similar odds to each other and pretty predictable.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Your missing his point entirely.

What he is saying is that when Federer won the AO in 2006, there wasn't so much focus on his injury months before hand. Should Nadal win the AO, why should it be treated as some gladiatorial and miraculous effort? I know that a Nadal success down under will lead to euphoric ad nauseam.

I said that Nadal is not really close to his best, well not on his forehand anyway.
Federer's circumstances in late 2005 and early 2006 were different to Nadal's now (Nadal has had barely any games in the last 6 months), and as I said to eman, different players react differently to injuries/ time out of the game. Also I never mentioned the world gladiatorial or miraculous; although I am very pleased with his progress so far already; his game has improved more than I thought it would from his collapse against Berrer.

He's not a million miles from his best. This is the thing. It's rust in his legs. The more matches he plays, the better. He is facing Berdych. A player who even when Rafa is not at his best, doesn't push him. That's why it is met with scepticism. Say if he was playing Nishikori, then I think we could have a discussion in the realms of how Rafa's low level would far against a player on the rise. I say we re-visit this discussion post QFs as his next opponent be Kyrgios or Murray who had recent victories over him

I agree with you on one thing for sure, the more matches he plays the better.
Berdych is an interesting one, as Nadal has really dominated Berdych for the past few years. Berdych is also quite consistent and predictable, he always plays to a quite high level but (with the exception of Wimbledon 2010) never at such a level to threaten winning a slam. The thing which worries me about Nadal is his forehand. Against any player, and especially one who can generate pace like Berdych, it's really crucial to Nadal in order to turn defence into attack. He needs it to fire and be reliable, which it hasn't been so far.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The thing is Haddie if Rafa wins, he will be the first to have won each of the 4 slams twice in the Open Era. That feat will take the back seat as I think other points that will take precedent over it

The bookies have Djokovic as clear favourite, with Murray as second favourite.

Anyway, LK, on the actual topic of the OP, what do you think of what you've seen of Nadal so far ?
As I said I think on the forehands he's made far too many silly mistakes; and he made 25UEs against Anderson... which is not normal for Nadal at all.

Nadal is rusty. Yes the UE count is high, but he is playing Anderson. Not someone I recognise as someone who could hit through Nadal. At no stage in that match did I feel Anderson was in control.

One performance is not something I would be too concerned with.