PDA

View Full Version : Lets put an end to the myth that Nadal is one dimesional


Cesc Fabregas
09-14-2009, 10:08 AM
Nadal is not one dimesional, he uses lots of variety, sure he uses alot of topspin but he unloads on a flat backhand every now and then, he uses the slice backhand more these day. He now attacks the short ball and comes to net and uses different types of volleys drop volleys, short angle volleys, punch vollets and half volleys. He mixes his serve up well, with body serves on big points and uses the drop very well and doesn't overplay that tactic. The guy has many dimesions to his game.

Sentinel
09-14-2009, 10:14 AM
So how exactly do we go about doing this ??

;-)

Seriously, this was an OLD remark of Federer which is no longer true, except when we rib each other.

stormholloway
09-14-2009, 10:21 AM
When he realized how well Del Potro was hitting, did he make any real adjustments? Not that I saw. He's a good volleyer. Maybe he should have worked that in.

Gorecki
09-14-2009, 10:26 AM
finally i can agree with Cesc.

Lets put an end to that myth and finally admit that he is factually Uni-dimensional

It's no longer a myth. it's scientifically proven truth!

dh003i
09-14-2009, 10:31 AM
When he realized how well Del Potro was hitting, did he make any real adjustments? Not that I saw. He's a good volleyer. Maybe he should have worked that in.

I agree. It isn't much good having a more all-around game if he refuses to use it.

I think he should have tried to play with much more variety, slicing the ball a lot more, coming in to net, hitting drop shots, trying to draw Del Potro in to net to be passed. Del Potro was too comfortable sitting back at the baseline.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:32 AM
So how exactly do we go about doing this ??

;-)

Seriously, this was an OLD remark of Federer which is no longer true, except when we rib each other.

Exactly Fed made that remark after 2006 FO. Nadal WAS one-dimensional, but added the flat backhand as a real weapon in 2007. So you can argue that the Federer dig motivated Nadal to improve.

aphex
09-14-2009, 10:32 AM
finnaly i can agree with Cesc.

Lets put an end to that myth and finally admit that he is factually Uni-dimensional

It's no longer a myth. it's scientifically proven truth!

lol

if he wasn't 1-dimensional, he'd be able to try something else with delpo.

nadal has one game. it either works or it doesnt.

JJK947
09-14-2009, 10:36 AM
Nadal volleys well on his own terms for example after a great approach shot, other than that, he is average at best. He hit a few very poor volleys in the first set against del potro, I don't know about the rest of the match.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 10:45 AM
Nadal is not one dimesional, he uses lots of variety, sure he uses alot of topspin but he unloads on a flat backhand every now and then, he uses the slice backhand more these day. He now attacks the short ball and comes to net and uses different types of volleys drop volleys, short angle volleys, punch vollets and half volleys. He mixes his serve up well, with body serves on big points and uses the drop very well and doesn't overplay that tactic. The guy has many dimesions to his game.

Totally agree Cesc. He's one of the most versatile and all surface players out there today. Actually, I wouldn't know many players more versatile than him, allcourters are a dying race. I think Rafa has showed that he can beat anyone on any surface. Although his tactics were still too defensive imo this USO, I think he's had a good year still, with the AO win.

I think that people who call Nadal onedimensional today are just haters. Though I can kind of relate to the original designer of the remark (RF), as in that when the comment was made, Rafa didn't really have a plan B, played the same on all surfaces etc. Don't get me (or RF for that matter) wrong, he was great at it, but he had 1 strategy only really. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's very worthy of some praise how Rafa has the desire to become better and really has made his game a lot more allround over the past few years.

Cesc Fabregas
09-14-2009, 10:50 AM
Totally agree Cesc. He's one of the most versatile and all surface players out there today. Actually, I wouldn't know many players more versatile than him, allcourters are a dying race. I think Rafa has showed that he can beat anyone on any surface. Although his tactics were still too defensive imo this USO, I think he's had a good year still, with the AO win.

I think that people who call Nadal onedimensional today are just haters. Though I can kind of relate to the original designer of the remark (RF), as in that when the comment was made, Rafa didn't really have a plan B, played the same on all surfaces etc. Don't get me (or RF for that matter) wrong, he was great at it, but he had 1 strategy only really. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's very worthy of some praise how Rafa has the desire to become better and really has made his game a lot more allround over the past few years.


Thanks. Great post.

namelessone
09-14-2009, 10:53 AM
The uni-dimensional is thrown around here way too much. Nadal has constantly added weapons to his arsenal and has become a more offensive player that he was in 2005,just not on HC,because his slice is still mediocre and his serve very weak. This 2 things,coupled with the fact that topspin doesn't exactly work on HC,especially fast HC makes him vulnerable to big hitters but that's about the only category of players he is vulnerable against.
And even then,they need to play very solid to beat Nadal.

Nadal's game isn't as simple as some here view it but it isn't overly complicated either. It's just that he hits almost every shot with a lot of spin and people go "well he can only hit topspin to corners and try to wear the other guy out". This is not true,at least not anymore. On surfaces that take spin well Nadal is constantly hitting that forehand,especially to the backhand side of the opponent(most of his adversaries are rightys) in order to do 2 things:

1)hit repeteadly there until he forces an error
2)hit backhand until he gets a weak reply in which case he comes in and finishes it.
3)angle the forehand so as to pull the other guy off-court than run him around a bit until he either makes a mistake or Nadal gets an opening and closes the point.

And don't get me started on his backhand which basically didn't exist up until a few years ago but now is actually a weapon. Nadal needs to improve his serve first,then learn to slice better and then flatten the FH more on HC. His volleys are decent for a guy who comes to net only to shake hands.

Uni-dimensional players don't beat GOAT candidates and they certainly don't have a positive h2h with most of the top players.

BreakPoint
09-14-2009, 10:54 AM
Nadal is one-dimensional. How many times in your life have you seen Nadal serve and volley or chip and charge?

aphex
09-14-2009, 10:57 AM
The uni-dimensional is thrown around here way too much. Nadal has constantly added weapons to his arsenal and has become a more offensive player that he was in 2005,just not on HC,because his slice is still mediocre and his serve very weak. This 2 things,coupled with the fact that topspin doesn't exactly work on HC,especially fast HC makes him vulnerable to big hitters but that's about the only category of players he is vulnerable against.
And even then,they need to play very solid to beat Nadal.

Nadal's game isn't as simple as some here view it but it isn't overly complicated either. It's just that he hits almost every shot with a lot of spin and people go "well he can only hit topspin to corners and try to wear the other guy out". This is not true,at least not anymore. On surfaces that take spin well Nadal is constantly hitting that forehand,especially to the backhand side of the opponent(most of his adversaries are rightys) in order to do 2 things:

1)hit repeteadly there until he forces an error
2)hit backhand until he gets a weak reply in which case he comes in and finishes it.
3)angle the forehand so as to pull the other guy off-court than run him around a bit until he either makes a mistake or Nadal gets an opening and closes the point.

And don't get me started on his backhand which basically didn't exist up until a few years ago but now is actually a weapon. Nadal needs to improve his serve first,then learn to slice better and then flatten the FH more on HC. His volleys are decent for a guy who comes to net only to shake hands.

Uni-dimensional players don't beat GOAT candidates and they certainly don't have a positive h2h with most of the top players.


how many dimensions did Krajicek have?
pray do tell!

Cesc Fabregas
09-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Nadal is one-dimensional. How many times in your life have you seen Nadal serve and volley or chip and charge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Nadal playing all court tennis.

drakulie
09-14-2009, 11:02 AM
nadal is a counter puncher/moonballer, and damn good at it. move on.

GasquetGOAT
09-14-2009, 11:05 AM
Lets put an end to the myth that Nadal is one dimesional

I only agree with the later half of your title.

Like most things in life there is no myth and Nadal is one dimensional.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 11:09 AM
I agree with the people who say Nadal is capable of playing with more than one dimension. He is a pretty good volleyer, albeit he usually comes in when the point is all but over. I think he's developing more tools as he goes along, although at this point he's probably 1.5-dimensional at best.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 11:12 AM
how many dimensions did Krajicek have?
pray do tell!

Why does everybody always put the hate on Krajicek? He was an awesome player, very worthy of a Slam, and not that onedimensional, since he made the semis of 3 grandslams, and 3 times the quarters of the fourth slam. He was awesome, not really versatile, but he had quite some nice shots to choose from.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
When he realized how well Del Potro was hitting, did he make any real adjustments? Not that I saw. He's a good volleyer. Maybe he should have worked that in.

I do agree with this.. There were NO adjustements in Nadal's game and to went back to his defensive pusher moonballer ways.. I never even saw him with any sense of aggression in this match.. Maybe the stomach tear had something to do with it.. But he sure didnt alter his game to at least try and compete.


I think its just comes to down to, he just cant hang with a big monster like Del Potro having a red hot day on this type of service. Nadal will always run into this problem against an aggressive player like Del Potro at the USO. This tournament just isnt his cup of tea. But thats the way things go

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Nadal playing all court tennis.

"The URL contained a malformed video ID."

Wicked sense of humor you have there. :lol:

namelessone
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
Why does everybody always put the hate on Krajicek? He was an awesome player, very worthy of a Slam, and not that onedimensional, since he made the semis of 3 grandslams, and 3 times the quarters of the fourth slam. He was awesome, not really versatile, but he had quite some nice shots to choose from.

It happens because of all the BS elitist crap that's spewed on these boards by supposed tennis lovers who can't respect different styles,even though they claim to love the game. Tennis has always had players who defended well and players who attacked well and on few ocassion players that did both equally good.

If we are debating about what one-dimensional is,please someone give a definition of what makes a "dimension" in tennis. If hugging the baseline or playing behind the baseline and being a percentage player is being uni-dimensional then I have some bad news for you elitists,most players in the ATP play like this and guess what most of them aren't great on the attack and they don't excel in defence either. Most of them get into long rallies and try to outlast the opponent,attacking only when they have lost patience or when they see an opening. Most of the players in the top 100 fall in this grey area,not great attackers,not great defenders but almost all of them percentage players to some degree.

Nadal is a an aggresive counter-puncher that has added weapons to his arsenal as he aged and started conquering different surfaces. If Nadal played like this and had a booming serve,elitists would have been calling him a terrific,exciting player and so on. But because he plays baseline and doesn't have finesse shots or a powerful serve so in their eyes he is somehow an inferior player even though he has a positive h2h with most of the top guys. If this one-dimensional guy beats most of the ATP regardless of surface,what does that say about the ATP? Or what does that say about the multi-dimensional Federer,who lost 13 times to him?

All-rounder
09-14-2009, 11:27 AM
I'm not saying he is 1 dimensional but if he wasn't he would have been able to find a way to beat soderling and Del potro

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:33 AM
I'm not saying he is 1 dimensional but if he wasn't he would have been able to find a way to beat soderling and Del potro

well I dunno if we can accurately critique everything that happened in these matches since Nadal has been playing injured. I believe he has and he isnt one to run to the press and make excuses and why he loses.

But if and when Nadal gets finally 100 percent healthy than we will see how he handles these two.. Nadal has beaten Del Potro. And he systematically abused Soderling on clay before. So lets wait and see what he does when he finally gets healthy again before we pass juddement

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 11:34 AM
well I dunno if we can accurately critique everything that happened in these matches since Nadal has been playing injured. I believe he has and he isnt one to run to the press and make excuses and why he loses.

But if and when Nadal gets finally 100 percent healthy than we will see how he handles these two.. Nadal has beaten Del Potro. And he systematically abused Soderling on clay before. So lets wait and see what he does when he finally gets healthy again before we pass juddement

No credit to Soderling on the win ay? I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

BreakPoint
09-14-2009, 11:39 AM
I
I think its just comes to down to, he just cant hang with a big monster like Del Potro having a red hot day on this type of service. Nadal will always run into this problem against an aggressive player like Del Potro at the USO. This tournament just isnt his cup of tea. But thats the way things go
Or Soderling at the French. Maybe the French isn't his cup of tea any more, either? :shock:

namelessone
09-14-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm not saying he is 1 dimensional but if he wasn't he would have been able to find a way to beat soderling and Del potro

Nadal has problems against one type of players: tall players with good 2 handed backhands and booming serves.And that on fast surfaces with the exception of what happened in RG this year when Nadal wasn't exacty at his best and these aren't my words but that of countless comentators in RG 09' who felt that Nadal didn't arrive at his best here.

And even so it's not like he is losing to nobody's. Soderling lost only to Federer since RG. DelPo is the fastest rising star out there. Djoker also gave Fed quite a tight match even though he lost in straights.

Nadal is uni-dimensional only on HC because he can't vary his game,due to his lack of weapons for this surface. He can't do anything with the serve,he doesn't have flat shots so he can't dictate play unlike in clay and grass. Every strength Nadal has is denied by this surface. He cannot defend well here because of the fast surface. He cannot use the spin because of the surface. His weak serve is forgiven on clay and grass because the spin makes it kick up on natural surfaces,not so on HC. So to sum it up his counter-punching skills go down here,his serve is weak and his topspin strokes are pretty much denied. The fact that he made 2 semi's here shows just how tough he can be even with playing the wrong game for this surface.

That's why most of his worst defeats have been on HC,whether fast or slow.

namelessone
09-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Or Soderling at the French. Maybe the French isn't his cup of tea any more, either? :shock:

Even Borg lost to Panatta at RG. If Soderling starts to regularly beat Nadal on clay then I will believe that this victory wasn't an exception.

poplar
09-14-2009, 11:45 AM
LOL. I can s&v, I can grind, I can slice and do all sort of things. The problem is I can't do it effectively. For Nadal, the most effective thing is to keep hitting top-spin forehand to his opponent's backhand. If he can handle it, Nadal then go to the net, slice back, and do all sorts of things..but do they work? Not really in his last match.

Most players can do all these things too. But they choose to stick to what they do the best. But I do give Nadal the credit for trying. And he's improving.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 11:49 AM
Every strength Nadal has is denied by this surface.

The same could have been said of Federer and clay. Perhaps Nadal will adjust his game the same way Fed did.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 11:52 AM
No credit to Soderling on the win ay? I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

Soderling deserves some credit no doubt.. So do Del Potro.. THey did what they had to do. But Nadal being injured really all year, helps their cases.


I thinkg Nadal would have been beat vs. Del Potro regardless if he was 100 percent but not to the extent. I dont believe Soderling would have beaten Nadal at the French if Nadal was at the level he was years prior at the French.

Nadal isnt just a great clay player with tons of potential on grass anymore.. Now he was becoming a great player all around so that naturally zaps more energy and and the possibility for injuries came about. He had a brutal schedule after the AO and had to go through hell and back just to win the AO. That leaves him open to more susceptibility.

We'll see how Nadal rebounds next year. But I think he proved alot of people wrong at the USO. Many didnt think he would make a semis appearance after being off for a few months and out of form

aphex
09-14-2009, 11:59 AM
Nadal has problems against one type of players: tall players with good 2 handed backhands and booming serves.And that on fast surfaces with the exception of what happened in RG this year when Nadal wasn't exacty at his best and these aren't my words but that of countless comentators in RG 09' who felt that Nadal didn't arrive at his best here.

And even so it's not like he is losing to nobody's. Soderling lost only to Federer since RG. DelPo is the fastest rising star out there. Djoker also gave Fed quite a tight match even though he lost in straights.

Nadal is uni-dimensional only on HC because he can't vary his game,due to his lack of weapons for this surface. He can't do anything with the serve,he doesn't have flat shots so he can't dictate play unlike in clay and grass. Every strength Nadal has is denied by this surface. He cannot defend well here because of the fast surface. He cannot use the spin because of the surface. His weak serve is forgiven on clay and grass because the spin makes it kick up on natural surfaces,not so on HC. So to sum it up his counter-punching skills go down here,his serve is weak and his topspin strokes are pretty much denied. The fact that he made 2 semi's here shows just how tough he can be even with playing the wrong game for this surface.

That's why most of his worst defeats have been on HC,whether fast or slow.

is that why he requested that fewer matches be played on HC?

namelessone
09-14-2009, 12:08 PM
is that why he requested that fewer matches be played on HC?

HC is the worst surface for the body. This is common knowledge and most ATP pro's will tell you the same thing. We need more natural surfaces in tennis. Bring back the freaking grass. Clay has about a third of the ATP,grass has a very small percentage and HC has the rest. Not exactly equal is it?

namelessone
09-14-2009, 12:15 PM
The same could have been said of Federer and clay. Perhaps Nadal will adjust his game the same way Fed did.

Really? Perhaps you blinked and missed the countless clay finals Federer has reached. Fed doesn't have a worst surface. It is just that he is vulnerbale on clay against Nadal and if ******** shows up then a few more players have chances. But you can't say it is a weak surface when you make 4 RG finals in a row. By comparison Nadal has only 1 HC final and has made only 3 fast HC finals in his career,Madrid 05',Paris 07' and Olympics final.

And besides the serve what shot of Federer's is denied on clay? His movement is very good on clay,his FH is still whipping,perhaps his one-handed BH is somewhat affected but only by a lot of spin. And on this surface he can use the dropshot better. Although it is clear that Fed has some problems with certain shots on clay his strenghts remain. Nadal's strengths on HC are denied,the only shot that can do damage on HC is Nadal's backhand. That's it. His movement doesn't help on HC because the surface is too fast,the FH spin is denied by the true bounce and the serve remains weak.

aphex
09-14-2009, 12:17 PM
HC is the worst surface for nadal's body. This is common knowledge and most ATP pro's will tell you the same thing. We need more natural surfaces in tennis. Bring back the freaking grass. Clay has about a third of the ATP,grass has a very small percentage and HC has the rest. Not exactly equal is it?

fixed.

although he MUST like it since he played singles AND doubles in a HC tourney right after he was "injured"...

namelessone
09-14-2009, 12:22 PM
fixed.

although he MUST like it since he played singles AND doubles in a HC tourney right after he was "injured"...

Right... so countless experts that say HC is the worst surface for the body are just flat out lying or you don't want to accept it because you hate Nadal.
Regarding the injury,choo-choo welcome aboard the drakulie train.

What is so weird about playing doubles after the injury break? He has problems with knees,he rests for 2 MONHTS,his knees get better but now he needs competitional practice. Did you even see who he entered doubles with? With freaking Roig and they lasted a grand total of 2 matches,which were like glorified practices for Nadal who needed the extra matches in order to shake the rust off.

EtePras
09-14-2009, 12:23 PM
One dimensional is a strength. Federer has many dimensions yet all of them together can't get more than 4 games in a match against Nadal on clay in a best of 5 match in a grand slam final.

aphex
09-14-2009, 12:25 PM
Right... so countless experts that say HC is the worst surface for the body are just flat out lying or you don't want to accept it because you hate Nadal.
Regarding the injury,choo-choo welcome aboard the drakulie train.

What is so weird about playing doubles after the injury break? He has problems with knees,he rests for 2 MONHTS,his knees get better but now he needs competitional practice. Did you even see who he entered doubles with? With freaking Roig and they lasted a grand total of 2 matches,which were like glorified practices for Nadal who needed the extra matches in order to shake the rust off.


should i take your word?lol

as far as i remember it's the favourite surface for most players.

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 12:34 PM
Really? Perhaps you blinked and missed the countless clay finals Federer has reached. Fed doesn't have a worst surface. It is just that he is vulnerbale on clay against Nadal and if ******** shows up then a few more players have chances. But you can't say it is a weak surface when you make 4 RG finals in a row. By comparison Nadal has only 1 HC final and has made only 3 fast HC finals in his career,Madrid 05',Paris 07' and Olympics final.

And besides the serve what shot of Federer's is denied on clay? His movement is very good on clay,his FH is still whipping,perhaps his one-handed BH is somewhat affected but only by a lot of spin. And on this surface he can use the dropshot better. Although it is clear that Fed has some problems with certain shots on clay his strenghts remain. Nadal's strengths on HC are denied,the only shot that can do damage on HC is Nadal's backhand. That's it. His movement doesn't help on HC because the surface is too fast,the FH spin is denied by the true bounce and the serve remains weak.

I'm just saying he wasn't an especially strong clay court player. He's said himself he didn't consider himself a real contender at the French until 2005. That forehand dropshot is a new addition to the repertoire. His main strengths, hitting through the court and playing aggressive all court tennis, and his serve, are negated and he's had to adapt in order to make himself the great clay court player he is today.

edit: the clay also greatly diminishes the effectiveness of his slice bh

namelessone
09-14-2009, 12:46 PM
should i take your word?lol

as far as i remember it's the favourite surface for most players.

Read again. I was talking about the toll HC takes on the body not about the favourite surfaces of players. It's only natural that HC is the choice for most players today because many of them find clay movement strange(especially those who didn't grow up on it) and they only see grass for 2 weeks a year. HC is basically 50% of the tour,it would be weird if it wasn't the favoured surface of most players.
HC is favoured because it is cheap to mantain,unlike grass and clay but tennis started out on the natural surfaces and it is scientifically proven than natural surfaces are better for tennis players.

aceX
06-23-2012, 09:59 PM
Nadal is not one dimensional - he is now a very good fast court player.

beast of mallorca
06-23-2012, 11:55 PM
fixed.

although he MUST like it since he played singles AND doubles in a HC tourney right after he was "injured"...

I sure miss Aphex. RIP buddy.

Bud
06-24-2012, 12:08 AM
Federer, the supposed goat, losing consistently to a 1-dimensional dirtballer :lol:

Nadal, as a 1-dimensional player, isn't thrown too much round here no more ;)

ZeroSkid
06-24-2012, 12:34 AM
He is not one dimensional but even if he is does it matter lol

Sentinel
06-24-2012, 07:53 AM
Federer, the supposed goat, losing consistently to a 1-dimensional dirtballer :lol:

Nadal, as a 1-dimensional player, isn't thrown too much round here no more ;)
But he is blue-yellow color-blind, right ?

jackson vile
06-24-2012, 08:48 AM
should i take your word?lol

as far as i remember it's the favourite surface for most players.

Hey Aphex, why you no post no more? Oh that's right...

Sid_Vicious
06-24-2012, 09:00 AM
Hey Aphex, why you no post no more? Oh that's right...
Whoa! You sure showed that permabanned user up. Talk about being a bad*****.

TMF
06-24-2012, 09:03 AM
He is not one dimensional but even if he is does it matter lol

Nothing wrong with being 1D, but it does show Nadal achievements is also like 1D. Most of his wins are on clay, the slow, high bounce surface. He managed to win off clay is when the surfaces got slow down which suit for his type of grinding, defensive game. Despite of the conditions continue change in favor for his style, Nadal can't defend any non-clay events. Nadal is not good on fast surface with low bounce...he only won 1 event on indoor.

Magnus
06-24-2012, 09:09 AM
Nadal is not one dimensional, but his game still bores me because he uses a one dimensional game most of the time. Its rare that Nadal actually plays his multidimensional game, and the FO its extremely boring since he uses only one dimension - retrieve every shot from a few meters behind the baseline.

jackson vile
06-24-2012, 09:10 AM
Nothing wrong with being 1D, but it does show Nadal achievements is also like 1D. Most of his wins are on clay, the slow, high bounce surface. He managed to win off clay is when the surfaces got slow down which suit for his type of grinding, defensive game. Despite of the conditions continue change in favor for his style, Nadal can't defend any non-clay events. Nadal is not good on fast surface with low bounce...he only won 1 event on indoor.

Wrong! All of the surfaces were slowed down starting back in 2001, Federer could not win them when they were fast either. ****s are just sour about Nadal and how all of their lame predictions never came true.

Magnus
06-24-2012, 09:10 AM
Federer, the supposed goat, losing consistently to a 1-dimensional dirtballer :lol:

Nadal, as a 1-dimensional player, isn't thrown too much round here no more ;)

Federer always had trouble with consistent grinders who retrieve his work of art shots. Nadal isn't the only one. Ever hear of Simon? Murray? Perfect example of that.

VPhuc tennis fan
06-24-2012, 09:11 AM
...
TMF, not really directed to you but everyone participating in this thread, in particular those of Rafa's fan.
TROLLING THREAD?
Can someone please correct me? I've seen at least 4 of such threads lately. Propped up to bash Fed basically.
Wow, can someone just be honest and say,'I hate Fed to my guts'. Heh, at least we know where we stand. If you say that, I can take it.
No need to make up thread with the only purpose of bashing Fed.

jackson vile
06-24-2012, 09:15 AM
Federer always had trouble with consistent grinders who retrieve his work of art shots. Nadal isn't the only one. Ever hear of Simon? Murray? Perfect example of that.

Really... really? How many times have the won? How many slams have they won? How many MS have they won? Grow up.

TMF
06-24-2012, 10:02 AM
Wrong! All of the surfaces were slowed down starting back in 2001, Federer could not win them when they were fast either. ****s are just sour about Nadal and how all of their lame predictions never came true.

Surfaces was continuing to slow down and it did NOT end in 2001. USO slow down and people were complaining in 2006. Even Hewitt/Federer complain about AO was too slow, and then it got worse when they change it to Plexi in 2008, which benefit Nadal(slow + high bounce) even further. Many have said the reason why Nadal won the 2009 AO because the surface suits him for his grinding/defensive style.

jackson vile
06-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Surfaces was continuing to slow down and it did NOT end in 2001. USO slow down and people were complaining in 2006. Even Hewitt/Federer complain about AO was too slow, and then it got worse when they change it to Plexi in 2008, which benefit Nadal(slow + high bounce) even further. Many have said the reason why Nadal won the 2009 AO because the surface suits him for his grinding/defensive style.

Wrong again, rebound ace bounces higher then plexi so the high bounce theory makes no sense at all since Nadal should have won all of the AO titles when the AO was rebound ace, if that theory is correct.

OddJack
06-24-2012, 10:57 AM
How do you put an end to the truth? You cant. And that's too bad that's bothering you. Nadal and Toni know one strategy and that's for all surfaces.

TMF
06-24-2012, 11:27 AM
How do you put an end to the truth? You cant. And that's too bad that's bothering you. Nadal and Toni know one strategy and that's for all surfaces.


If they continue to dictate how the surface should be play on, eventually every court will be playing like it's on sand.

NamRanger
06-24-2012, 11:30 AM
Federer, the supposed goat, losing consistently to a 1-dimensional dirtballer :lol:

Nadal, as a 1-dimensional player, isn't thrown too much round here no more ;)


That's because neither guy is multidimensional by any stretch of the imagination. Federer stopped being multidimensional in 2005 because the surfaces across the board just kept getting slower and slower, so it's much safer to play from the back of the court. Pro players aren't stupid; they aren't going to play a "nice and pretty" style if it serves no purpose. Federer is no different from Nadal at all; they win because they control the center of the court better than anyone else on the tour. Novak is beginning to do that now with his commanding return on weak serves, along with his increased fitness and great movement/flexibility. Federer may have the potential to be more multi dimensional than Nadal, but really neither guy is multidimensional at all.



Wrong again, rebound ace bounces higher then plexi so the high bounce theory makes no sense at all since Nadal should have won all of the AO titles when the AO was rebound ace, if that theory is correct.


Nadal actually doesn't fair too well on high bouncing, slower, and uniform bouncing surfaces. His record at Miami indicates this. His one win at the AO was an incredible feat, considering that's a surface he actually doesn't like very much at all. He doesn't have the firepower to beat people there, and doesn't have the toolsets to creatively dismantle a guy like a Murray, Federer, etc. He beats most of his opponents there by just retrieving after ball, after ball, after ball, after ball. There's a reason why he gasses really hard after the AO more than any other slam. Prior to what most people think, Nadal is usually the offensive player on both clay and grass, simply because he can get to the ball faster and get in better position, resulting in higher quality shots more often. He just doesn't end the point right away like Federer does because he plays a safer type of game, so his points look more extended.

DRII
06-24-2012, 11:31 AM
TMF, not really directed to you but everyone participating in this thread, in particular those of Rafa's fan.
TROLLING THREAD?
Can someone please correct me? I've seen at least 4 of such threads lately. Propped up to bash Fed basically.
Wow, can someone just be honest and say,'I hate Fed to my guts'. Heh, at least we know where we stand. If you say that, I can take it.
No need to make up thread with the only purpose of bashing Fed.

What is your native language?

DRII
06-24-2012, 11:33 AM
If they continue to dictate how the surface should be play on, eventually every court will be playing like it's on sand.


Actually Federer liked those conditions, did you forget about Madrid already :confused:

TMF
06-24-2012, 11:36 AM
Actually Federer liked those conditions, did you forget about Madrid already :confused:

Madrid is not red clay. Notice Berdych thrive on this surface too because it rewards shot making, huge serve, and lower bounce.

DRII
06-24-2012, 11:42 AM
Madrid is not red clay. Notice Berdych thrive on this surface too because it rewards shot making, huge serve, and lower bounce.

It played like sand (dry, slippery sand)!


It was not that it rewarded shot making, but that the surface severely limited explosive defensive movement!

TMF
06-24-2012, 11:47 AM
It played like sand (dry, slippery sand)!


It was not that it rewarded shot making, but that the surface severely limited explosive defensive movement!

You have never watch the tournament.

To add, Serena also thrive on this surface because it rewards her shot making and her big serve. Serena worst surface is on red clay and isn't built for grinding/defensive game.

Gorecki
06-24-2012, 11:54 AM
let's put an end to the myth that there is a few Nadal fans interested in tennis.

beast of mallorca
06-24-2012, 12:17 PM
^^^
Stupid post from a stupid troll :twisted:

The-Champ
06-24-2012, 12:36 PM
Madrid is not red clay. Notice Berdych thrive on this surface too because it rewards shot making, huge serve, and lower bounce.

yepp, then wimbledon must be really fast and low bouncing, thus he made the final there. :shock:

aceX
06-24-2012, 02:46 PM
yepp, then wimbledon must be really fast and low bouncing, thus he made the final there. :shock:

Berd does sometimes go God mode, though.

Gorecki
06-24-2012, 03:13 PM
^^^
Stupid post from a stupid troll :twisted:

that is really all you can say isnt it? just call "stupid" to anyone who unlike you doesnt have his head stuck in the finely pick(l)ed bum!!!

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 03:59 PM
Federer always had trouble with consistent grinders who retrieve his work of art shots. Nadal isn't the only one. Ever hear of Simon? Murray? Perfect example of that.
really? i thought federer with his supposed versatility, should be able to find a solution to any problem, isn't it? i mean what the heck, since nadal is playing only a single kind of game that is known to anyone, surely federer with his amazing versatility, should be able to find a way to conquer that, no?

aceX
06-24-2012, 04:02 PM
Yeah if Nadal was one dimensional, Federer would have found a counter to that one dimensional play.

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 04:04 PM
Yeah if Nadal was one dimensional, Federer would have found a counter to that one dimensional play.
exactly. after all, federer to magnus and all his other fanboys here, is the god of versatility.

NamRanger
06-24-2012, 04:32 PM
exactly. after all, federer to magnus and all his other fanboys here, is the god of versatility.


That's because Federer isn't all that multidimensional himself. His versatility is vastly overrated; yes he has solid skills at the net and some nice trick shots, but they aren't consistent or strong enough for him to employ those tactics all the time. Not to mention, his stubbornness gets in the way alot too.

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 04:47 PM
That's because Federer isn't all that multidimensional himself. His versatility is vastly overrated; yes he has solid skills at the net and some nice trick shots, but they aren't consistent or strong enough for him to employ those tactics all the time. Not to mention, his stubbornness gets in the way alot too.
well, not to the federer fan boys here... to them, federer has the hands of mcenroe, the power of sampras, the volleys of edberg, the spin of santoro. everything. he has everything.

TMF
06-24-2012, 05:22 PM
yepp, then wimbledon must be really fast and low bouncing, thus he made the final there. :shock:

I'm comparing blue clay to red clay. In blue clay, berdych's serve became a weapon because it's harder to return when it's faster and stay low. Fed, Serena, Del Potro all big servers also can do damage on their serve. On red clay, serve gets neutralize...Nadal can afford to stay way back to return without much of a problem. Plus, on blue clay shot makers were able to hit through players, unlike red clay, it's almost impossible...it's like you're playing against the wall.

SLD76
06-24-2012, 06:23 PM
That's because Federer isn't all that multidimensional himself. His versatility is vastly overrated; yes he has solid skills at the net and some nice trick shots, but they aren't consistent or strong enough for him to employ those tactics all the time. Not to mention, his stubbornness gets in the way alot too.

you are out of your mind.

First of all, how many times do we have to hear analysts and other players mention the fact that roger is the best at mixing up spins and the the height of the ball (i.e., slice, loopy, flat etc)

How many angles on court does roger find?

Shoot, Murray was being abused so much by the looping bh angles Fed was finding in the 2010 AO final that he abandoned attacking the bh and started purposely going to the FH!!!

Third, no he doesnt do it all the time, but Fed can at any time pull out the chip and charge and the serve and volley. Conditions dont favor a full time approach, but riddle me this...when is the last time you saw djoker or rafa or murray pull out the chip and charge??

Who has the best slice in the game? Rafa's slice is effective only because it neutralizes the attack to his bh side. 10/10 he slices the ball to the opponents bh side where they have to make a decision 1) if they hit it as a bh, they either have to find his bh down the line or try and rip it to the fh...... 1) if they run around it, they are committed to the FH and best believe rafa is anticipating this and is already planning a banana shot down the line.

So again, rafa's slice isnt the best, but its adequate at frustrating opponents and tempting them to hit bigger and it pauses the assault on his bh.

meanwhile, roger's slice can find all sorts of angles around the court and be used to pull his opponent in many directions i.e. force them back deep,
pull them up short to net, crazy angles that pull them off the court. Hell, the last few tournaments ive seen fed on the BH do the damn drop short second serve return. Lack of variety my arse.


One wonders what the term "variety" means to you if you think Fed doesnt have any.

Semi-Pro
06-24-2012, 07:10 PM
That's because Federer isn't all that multidimensional himself. His versatility is vastly overrated; yes he has solid skills at the net and some nice trick shots, but they aren't consistent or strong enough for him to employ those tactics all the time. Not to mention, his stubbornness gets in the way alot too.

this is not a very smart poast

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 08:49 PM
you are out of your mind.

First of all, how many times do we have to hear analysts and other players mention the fact that roger is the best at mixing up spins and the the height of the ball (i.e., slice, loopy, flat etc)

How many angles on court does roger find?

Shoot, Murray was being abused so much by the looping bh angles Fed was finding in the 2010 AO final that he abandoned attacking the bh and started purposely going to the FH!!!

Third, no he doesnt do it all the time, but Fed can at any time pull out the chip and charge and the serve and volley. Conditions dont favor a full time approach, but riddle me this...when is the last time you saw djoker or rafa or murray pull out the chip and charge??

Who has the best slice in the game? Rafa's slice is effective only because it neutralizes the attack to his bh side. 10/10 he slices the ball to the opponents bh side where they have to make a decision 1) if they hit it as a bh, they either have to find his bh down the line or try and rip it to the fh...... 1) if they run around it, they are committed to the FH and best believe rafa is anticipating this and is already planning a banana shot down the line.

So again, rafa's slice isnt the best, but its adequate at frustrating opponents and tempting them to hit bigger and it pauses the assault on his bh.

meanwhile, roger's slice can find all sorts of angles around the court and be used to pull his opponent in many directions i.e. force them back deep,
pull them up short to net, crazy angles that pull them off the court. Hell, the last few tournaments ive seen fed on the BH do the damn drop short second serve return. Lack of variety my arse.


One wonders what the term "variety" means to you if you think Fed doesnt have any.
but if he is indeed so versatile, and rafa is so one-dimensional, then why can't federer defeat rafa consistently on clay?

SLD76
06-24-2012, 08:53 PM
but if he is indeed so versatile, and rafa is so one-dimensional, then why can't federer defeat rafa consistently on clay?

why do planets rotate?

by that I mean, its a simple matter of physics.

consistent high fh to the bh negate that shot as a weapon for fed.

and rafa's speed and retrieval ability make it very hard
for fed to create space for winners when one wing of his
arsenal is basically negated. not to mention the slice against
nadal on clay is death unless used perfectly. and against rafa
on clay it is hard to execute it perfectly.

nadal may be one dimensional..but it is an *effective* dimension
against most players anyway, and death to a 1hbh on slow clay.

Magnus
06-24-2012, 10:40 PM
really? i thought federer with his supposed versatility, should be able to find a solution to any problem, isn't it? i mean what the heck, since nadal is playing only a single kind of game that is known to anyone, surely federer with his amazing versatility, should be able to find a way to conquer that, no?

Federer was never patient enough to hang in those rallies, so he just went for it. More often than not, it was a horde of errors. However, the times he did win it was a horde of winners.

Magnus
06-24-2012, 10:44 PM
Really... really? How many times have the won? How many slams have they won? How many MS have they won? Grow up.

Are you for real? We are talking about their success against Roger, not in general. Both Simon and Murray had good results against Roger in the past because both play a grinding game that is very uncomfortable for him. Roger lost to Simon twice in 2008 and was close to losing him in a tight 5 setter years later. Murray beat Fed 4 times in a row and while Fed does own Murray in the slams, Murray was always a tough matchup for him. Both play the same grinding style as Nadal but with less footwork, less spin, and less mental strength.

Grow up.

Magnus
06-24-2012, 10:47 PM
Surfaces was continuing to slow down and it did NOT end in 2001. USO slow down and people were complaining in 2006. Even Hewitt/Federer complain about AO was too slow, and then it got worse when they change it to Plexi in 2008, which benefit Nadal(slow + high bounce) even further. Many have said the reason why Nadal won the 2009 AO because the surface suits him for his grinding/defensive style.

Bascially, all the surfaces changed in order to benefit Nadal. That's what tis been like for years, and it continues to happen. The real fast courts like Cincy - Nadal has never even reached a final while Fed won 4 of them, and Nadal has never won a WTF indoors while Fed has won 6 of them. Fed is just so much better than Nadal on fast courts its not even funny.

Wikky
06-24-2012, 11:23 PM
nadal is a counter puncher/moonballer, and damn good at it. move on.

Drak the fact that you even bothered opening this threat amazes me.

Sentinel
06-24-2012, 11:31 PM
This isn't a myth, it's a fact. Let's put an end to the myth that this is a myth. :D

NamRanger
06-25-2012, 12:13 AM
you are out of your mind.

First of all, how many times do we have to hear analysts and other players mention the fact that roger is the best at mixing up spins and the the height of the ball (i.e., slice, loopy, flat etc)

How many angles on court does roger find?

Shoot, Murray was being abused so much by the looping bh angles Fed was finding in the 2010 AO final that he abandoned attacking the bh and started purposely going to the FH!!!

Third, no he doesnt do it all the time, but Fed can at any time pull out the chip and charge and the serve and volley. Conditions dont favor a full time approach, but riddle me this...when is the last time you saw djoker or rafa or murray pull out the chip and charge??

Who has the best slice in the game? Rafa's slice is effective only because it neutralizes the attack to his bh side. 10/10 he slices the ball to the opponents bh side where they have to make a decision 1) if they hit it as a bh, they either have to find his bh down the line or try and rip it to the fh...... 1) if they run around it, they are committed to the FH and best believe rafa is anticipating this and is already planning a banana shot down the line.

So again, rafa's slice isnt the best, but its adequate at frustrating opponents and tempting them to hit bigger and it pauses the assault on his bh.

meanwhile, roger's slice can find all sorts of angles around the court and be used to pull his opponent in many directions i.e. force them back deep,
pull them up short to net, crazy angles that pull them off the court. Hell, the last few tournaments ive seen fed on the BH do the damn drop short second serve return. Lack of variety my arse.


One wonders what the term "variety" means to you if you think Fed doesnt have any.


His so called multi dimensionality has never shown up when push comes to shove. The only match where he pulled out every tool in the bag was against Safin at the AO in 2005. Outside of this one anomaly of a match, Federer has been content to stay on the baseline and simply get bludgeoned when things aren't going his way.

Listening to commentators drivel over Federer is one thing; seeing what is really happening is another. Federer's dominance lies in the fact that he can take control and maintain control the center of the court better than anyone. When someone finally came along that could challenge him at this (i.e. Nadal), he found himself without a solution.

Again, Federer fanboys will never cease to amaze me. You can ask Zagor yourself; Federer stopped being a multidimensional player because he figured out he's way more consistent and has better results from the back of the court. His consistent dominance did not occur until he simply stopped attacking the net so often, allowing players like Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc. to pass him when he came to the net while also playing their A-Game. He realized that he is actually better than them at their own game. His habits, his style of play, everything centers around his ability to take the ball early, rob his opponent of time with his forehand and serve. Everything else is secondary and merely compliments his game, and really none of them are consistently strong enough for Federer to employ them in an allcourt style of play.


The last true allcourt player retired with Tim Henman really. You still have a few "holdouts" in Haas, Llorda, and a few other guys, but even they are more baseline oriented than a true allcourt player. If you seriously think Federer is an allcourt player, why don't you watch the majority of his grand slam losses off of clay? He merely stands at the back of the court and ALLOWS himself to be bludgeoned. He does not attempt to change the pace of the match at all. There were only two times I remember him doing this, against Safin when he finally realized that he wasn't going to beat him from the back of the court, and against Djokovic in 2008 when he had mono and he was attempting to cut the length of the points down anyways.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 12:39 AM
The last true allcourt player retired with Tim Henman really. You still have a few "holdouts" in Haas, Llorda, and a few other guys, but even they are more baseline oriented than a true allcourt player. If you seriously think Federer is an allcourt player, why don't you watch the majority of his grand slam losses off of clay? He merely stands at the back of the court and ALLOWS himself to be bludgeoned. He does not attempt to change the pace of the match at all. There were only two times I remember him doing this, against Safin when he finally realized that he wasn't going to beat him from the back of the court, and against Djokovic in 2008 when he had mono and he was attempting to cut the length of the points down anyways.
I don't understand this premise. I'm not going to get into the actual debate because it's gotten too tedious for me, but why should only losses be factored in when gauging a player's versatility? Maybe it could be, that on that very day the player has certain other set of problems that don't allow him to execute as well as he would like to. Do we use the same set of circumstances for all players or is Federer a convenient special case? Moreover, the the debate here is about overall versatility. You seem to be centering the entire debate around Federer's reduced net play which wasn't the premise of the poster you replied to, or the thread, in the first place. Even then, he approaches the net at far greater a frequency than any ofthe top guys right now, save for Tsonga, maybe.

Gorecki
06-25-2012, 01:12 AM
why is everyone wanting to put an end to this gentleman?

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/what-does-mitt-romney-stand-for.jpeg

aceX
06-25-2012, 02:30 AM
http://www.theolivepress.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rafael-nadal-watch-stolen-during-french-open-final.jpg

Nadal is bored of this thread

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 05:36 AM
His so called multi dimensionality has never shown up when push comes to shove. The only match where he pulled out every tool in the bag was against Safin at the AO in 2005. Outside of this one anomaly of a match, Federer has been content to stay on the baseline and simply get bludgeoned when things aren't going his way.

Listening to commentators drivel over Federer is one thing; seeing what is really happening is another. Federer's dominance lies in the fact that he can take control and maintain control the center of the court better than anyone. When someone finally came along that could challenge him at this (i.e. Nadal), he found himself without a solution.

Again, Federer fanboys will never cease to amaze me. You can ask Zagor yourself; Federer stopped being a multidimensional player because he figured out he's way more consistent and has better results from the back of the court. His consistent dominance did not occur until he simply stopped attacking the net so often, allowing players like Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc. to pass him when he came to the net while also playing their A-Game. He realized that he is actually better than them at their own game. His habits, his style of play, everything centers around his ability to take the ball early, rob his opponent of time with his forehand and serve. Everything else is secondary and merely compliments his game, and really none of them are consistently strong enough for Federer to employ them in an allcourt style of play.


The last true allcourt player retired with Tim Henman really. You still have a few "holdouts" in Haas, Llorda, and a few other guys, but even they are more baseline oriented than a true allcourt player. If you seriously think Federer is an allcourt player, why don't you watch the majority of his grand slam losses off of clay? He merely stands at the back of the court and ALLOWS himself to be bludgeoned. He does not attempt to change the pace of the match at all. There were only two times I remember him doing this, against Safin when he finally realized that he wasn't going to beat him from the back of the court, and against Djokovic in 2008 when he had mono and he was attempting to cut the length of the points down anyways.
very very well written, and highly factual. this is the truth -- federer IS A BASELINER. a really good one at that, probably the greatest in history. but he is a baseliner. he is definitely much more attack oriented than say nadal, i don't think that is in dispute. but he certainly isn't michael llodra.

SLD76
06-25-2012, 05:39 AM
very very well written, and highly factual. this is the truth -- federer IS A BASELINER. a really good one at that, probably the greatest in history. but he is a baseliner. he is definitely much more attack oriented than say nadal, i don't think that is in dispute. but he certainly isn't michael llodra.

michael lodra severes and volleys because he *has* too. He knows he cant hang from the back and b/c thats his style, win lose or draw. Just how successful has llodra been again????


Fed *chose* to stick to the baseline because he knew the s/v game was riskier in this era of slowed courts. But its not like fed never s/vs or chip and charges. he mixes it in quite well, especially on a faster surface.


why do I even have to explain this to people.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 05:40 AM
why do planets rotate?

by that I mean, its a simple matter of physics.

consistent high fh to the bh negate that shot as a weapon for fed.

and rafa's speed and retrieval ability make it very hard
for fed to create space for winners when one wing of his
arsenal is basically negated. not to mention the slice against
nadal on clay is death unless used perfectly. and against rafa
on clay it is hard to execute it perfectly.

nadal may be one dimensional..but it is an *effective* dimension
against most players anyway, and death to a 1hbh on slow clay.
so you do agree it is an effective game. then what do you expect nadal to do? give up that game so he can be called "versatile" in your books? seriously what do you want him to do? its like expecting a player with a good serve to NOT serve well, lest he be called one dimensional. seriously what do you expect nadal to do? he is trying his best to win matches and tournaments, and he found a way to do that. you mean he shouldn't?

furthermore you said we shouldn't point to federer's losses as a gauge of his supposed "non-versatility" -- similarly then, don't point to nadal's wins as a measure of his supposed "one-dimensionality". you just haven't seen how he can vary his game.

SLD76
06-25-2012, 05:43 AM
so you do agree it is an effective game. then what do you expect nadal to do? give up that game so he can be called "versatile" in your books? seriously what do you want him to do? its like expecting a player with a good serve to NOT serve well, lest he be called one dimensional. seriously what do you expect nadal to do? he is trying his best to win matches and tournaments, and he found a way to do that. you mean he shouldn't?

furthermore you said we shouldn't point to federer's losses as a gauge of his supposed "non-versatility" -- similarly then, don't point to nadal's wins as a measure of his supposed "one-dimensionality". you just haven't seen how he can vary his game.

whoever said it wasnt effective?

he does the same thing over and over, but he is very good at it, and its good enough to beat 95% of the tour( provided he has the right conditions)

SLD76
06-25-2012, 05:44 AM
so you do agree it is an effective game. then what do you expect nadal to do? give up that game so he can be called "versatile" in your books? seriously what do you want him to do? its like expecting a player with a good serve to NOT serve well, lest he be called one dimensional. seriously what do you expect nadal to do? he is trying his best to win matches and tournaments, and he found a way to do that. you mean he shouldn't?

furthermore you said we shouldn't point to federer's losses as a gauge of his supposed "non-versatility" -- similarly then, don't point to nadal's wins as a measure of his supposed "one-dimensionality". you just haven't seen how he can vary his game.

ok, give me an example of him varying his game? aside from doing the same thing harder and better.

Clay lover
06-25-2012, 05:52 AM
ok, give me an example of him varying his game? aside from doing the same thing harder and better.

One thing he used to do was hit a cr*pload of dropshots. He uses that much less now and has never used it that much against Federer.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:01 AM
ok, give me an example of him varying his game? aside from doing the same thing harder and better.
if you have been really watching nadal, you would have seen that nadal has changed his game subtly. he has added a lot more slice to his game, to give him greater ability to vary the pace of the match. he has also changed his positioning on fast courts. if you see his play in 2010-2011 wimbledon, compared to 2008, he has positioned himself closer to the baseline. his serve too has a lot more variation. he has shown greater willingness to serve to federer's forehand for example.

he has not been able to solve the puzzle of djokovic effectively, because djokovic really has no weakness. compared to playing against federer, nadal really doesn't know how to attack djokovic. thats why he appears somewhat lost on court, and his play looks "one-dimensional" to you. but this has more to do with this particular matchup, than nadal's game overall.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:03 AM
whoever said it wasnt effective?

he does the same thing over and over, but he is very good at it, and its good enough to beat 95% of the tour( provided he has the right conditions)
seriously, i don't think federer -- your mark for multidimensional game -- is really that much varied than nadal. i see him doing the same powerful baseline game since 2003. he tosses in some S&V points, yes, i think thats undeniable. similarly, he does some ridiculous half volleys on the baseline. yes yes, he does those things. but to claim that he isn't doing the same forehand dominated game that he has been doing his entire life on the tour, is truly delusional.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:14 AM
michael lodra severes and volleys because he *has* too. He knows he cant hang from the back and b/c thats his style, win lose or draw. Just how successful has llodra been again????


Fed *chose* to stick to the baseline because he knew the s/v game was riskier in this era of slowed courts. But its not like fed never s/vs or chip and charges. he mixes it in quite well, especially on a faster surface.


why do I even have to explain this to people.
wait wait wait... so you claim that federer only appears to be a baseliner because he "CHOSE" to stay on the baseline in this era of "slowed courts". when he actually has many other tools in his pocket which he isn't showing only.

how come you can't apply that line of thinking to nadal then? maybe nadal also has a whole suite of tools in his pocket too which he is deliberately not showing because of this era of slowed courts. no?

look, nobody denies that federer is more versatile than nadal. that isn't in dispute AT ALL. but to claim that nadal is one dimensional? come on, be reasonable.

SLD76
06-25-2012, 06:15 AM
if you have been really watching nadal, you would have seen that nadal has changed his game subtly. he has added a lot more slice to his game, to give him greater ability to vary the pace of the match. he has also changed his positioning on fast courts. if you see his play in 2010-2011 wimbledon, compared to 2008, he has positioned himself closer to the baseline. his serve too has a lot more variation. he has shown greater willingness to serve to federer's forehand for example.

he has not been able to solve the puzzle of djokovic effectively, because djokovic really has no weakness. compared to playing against federer, nadal really doesn't know how to attack djokovic. thats why he appears somewhat lost on court, and his play looks "one-dimensional" to you. but this has more to do with this particular matchup, than nadal's game overall.

yes as I said, he uses slice to hault the assault to his bh and to put his opponent in an awkward position.,


also, his position on court is not evidence of variety. its evidence of adjusting for tactics. thats like saying fed standing back further to return a big serve is evidence of variety. its not.

his serve is the same, spin it on on slower surfaces where he knows he need not go for much, or go a bit harder on flatter on faster surfaces.


Im still waiting for this evidence of Nadal's varied game.

he chip charge a whole lot? rush to not ( aside from an easy put away), serve volley? slice to the fh?

mandy01
06-25-2012, 06:18 AM
wait wait wait... so you claim that federer only appears to be a baseliner because he "CHOSE" to stay on the baseline in this era of "slowed courts". when he actually has many other tools in his pocket which he isn't showing only.

how come you can't apply that line of thinking to nadal then? maybe nadal also has a whole suite of tools in his pocket too which he is deliberately not showing because of this era of slowed courts. no?
.
Because Nadal never employed that sort of play to any of his matches. As recently as Madrid, we saw Federer go all-out S&V against Raonic. I can't imagine Nadal doing that in a single match, in any position, against anyone.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:20 AM
yes as I said, he uses slice to hault the assault to his bh and to put his opponent in an awkward position.,


also, his position on court is not evidence of variety. its evidence of adjusting for tactics. thats like saying fed standing back further to return a big serve is evidence of variety. its not.

his serve is the same, spin it on on slower surfaces where he knows he need not go for much, or go a bit harder on flatter on faster surfaces.


Im still waiting for this evidence of Nadal's varied game.

he chip charge a whole lot? rush to not ( aside from an easy put away), serve volley? slice to the fh?
so it seems your definition of "varied" is actually chip charge and serve volley? no? by that definition, i think nobody but tsonga on the entire tour has a varied game. federer is slightly more varied than nadal, but just a tad. we can agree to disagree on this. i have been trying to hunt for data on all the players' net approaches etc during matches. i am confident if i am able to do that, i can show once and for all that federer essentially hugs the baseline as much as any of the modern players, with the possible exception of tsonga.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:23 AM
Because Nadal never employed that sort of play to any of his matches. As recently as Madrid, we saw Federer go all-out S&V against Raonic. I can't imagine Nadal doing that in a single match, in any position, against anyone.
but if nadal is able to defeat virtually anyone on tour with this particular "style" of play, why should he change it? sure he has blips and loss streaks but you are seriously expecting to deviate from a game style that WORKS? really? so you expect sampras to not serve that well too? really?

SLD76
06-25-2012, 06:26 AM
so it seems your definition of "varied" is actually chip charge and serve volley? no? by that definition, i think nobody but tsonga on the entire tour has a varied game. federer is slightly more varied than nadal, but just a tad. we can agree to disagree on this. i have been trying to hunt for data on all the players' net approaches etc during matches. i am confident if i am able to do that, i can show once and for all that federer essentially hugs the baseline as much as any of the modern players, with the possible exception of tsonga.

no, im saying variety means the ability to adopt many varied tactics and strategies effectively.

why do u think they call fed an all court player?

he can play from the baseline and the net.

he could use all the shots *effectively* and in his prime, could choose which shot to use given the opponent and contidions.


in case you arent aware( and you probably arent)

various tennis tactics include, serve and volley, net play, chip and charge, baseline( either counterpunching, pushing, moonballing or aggressive play) using a variety of spins ( flat, side spin, slice, underspin, topspin)


now, of all these tactics Ive mentioned how many does nadal regularly employ?

Aside from hit fh hard to bh. run around bh to hit fh, run opponent side to side. perhaps come in when there is an easy volley putaway. rinse repeaet.

SLD76
06-25-2012, 06:27 AM
Because Nadal never employed that sort of play to any of his matches. As recently as Madrid, we saw Federer go all-out S&V against Raonic. I can't imagine Nadal doing that in a single match, in any position, against anyone.

basically. fed was even coming behind 2nd serves that match. which is true s/v

SLD76
06-25-2012, 06:28 AM
but if nadal is able to defeat virtually anyone on tour with this particular "style" of play, why should he change it? sure he has blips and loss streaks but you are seriously expecting to deviate from a game style that WORKS? really? so you expect sampras to not serve that well too? really?

nobody said he had to.


but how do you acknowledge he does the same things over and over and yet claim he has variety?

mandy01
06-25-2012, 06:33 AM
but if nadal is able to defeat virtually anyone on tour with this particular "style" of play, why should he change it? sure he has blips and loss streaks but you are seriously expecting to deviate from a game style that WORKS? really? so you expect sampras to not serve that well too? really?
I don't remember saying he should change it. Your argument was that maybe Nadal always had that sort of an attacking game in him which he didn't use because of the conditions. I simply told you, that argument won't stand because Nadal has never used that sort of a game at any point in his career. And unless you have a precedent, that sort of argument just falls apart.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 06:44 AM
nobody said he had to.


but how do you acknowledge he does the same things over and over and yet claim he has variety?
i am saying that if you claim that he is one dimensional, then it is patently unjustified to also claim that federer has a varied game. because they are both baseliners now. sure federer tosses in a few more S&V here and there, but essentially they -- and this includes virtually all the top men now -- have the same game. a game that centers around consistent ground strokes, top spin, consistency and point construction. to claim anything else is just delusion. we can agree to disagree.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 07:01 AM
i am saying that if you claim that he is one dimensional, then it is patently unjustified to also claim that federer has a varied game. because they are both baseliners now. sure federer tosses in a few more S&V here and there, but essentially they -- and this includes virtually all the top men now -- have the same game. a game that centers around consistent ground strokes, top spin, consistency and point construction. to claim anything else is just delusion. we can agree to disagree.
if anything, i think nadal has the most unique game among the top players. nobody else but him expends so much energy trying to generate spin to control the ball as he does. his strokes look unique, his play style is unique. nadal is probably the best in the game now, in using spin to control the ball's flight path. to me, that is why he is the most exciting player to watch. as a passionate player of the game, i know how difficult that is.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 07:03 AM
The question still remains, why couldn't multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer EVER find a way to beat one dimensional Rafa at RG? And this includes when Rafa still had nappy rash and Federer was on super saiyan level 4.

And then YET, one dimensional Rafa was able to beat multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer at Wimbledon.

Please explain how the one dimensional one was able to DEVELOP a game to win on a surface that is VERY different to clay?

The truth is, Rafa is only one dimensional because Federer said that a while ago. BUT when Fed says that he is certainly a better player now than 2005 and that the field has improved since then it's nowhere near true. Maybe he only told the truth from 04-07 too, and his honesty declined from 2008 onwards...

SLD76
06-25-2012, 07:04 AM
i am saying that if you claim that he is one dimensional, then it is patently unjustified to also claim that federer has a varied game. because they are both baseliners now. sure federer tosses in a few more S&V here and there, but essentially they -- and this includes virtually all the top men now -- have the same game. a game that centers around consistent ground strokes, top spin, consistency and point construction. to claim anything else is just delusion. we can agree to disagree.


federer consistently mixes in s/v volley though, as well as the other dimensions of his game that I mentioned.

Im still waiting for the variety of nadal's game to be highlighted.
Since you say I cant "see" it, please enlighten me?

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 07:05 AM
The question still remains, why couldn't multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer EVER find a way to beat one dimensional Rafa at RG? And this includes when Rafa still had nappy rash and Federer was on super saiyan level 4.

And then YET, one dimensional Rafa was able to beat multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer at Wimbledon.

Please explain how the one dimensional one was able to DEVELOP a game to win on a surface that is VERY different to clay?

The truth is, Rafa is only one dimensional because Federer said that a while ago. BUT when Fed says that he is certainly a better player now than 2005 and that the field has improved since then it's nowhere near true. Maybe he only told the truth from 04-07 too, and his honesty declined from 2008 onwards...
LOL, "super saiyan level 4" LOL... that really cracked me up. haha. its true. if indeed he is so super varied, surely he could find a way to crush him no?

SLD76
06-25-2012, 07:16 AM
The question still remains, why couldn't multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer EVER find a way to beat one dimensional Rafa at RG? And this includes when Rafa still had nappy rash and Federer was on super saiyan level 4.

And then YET, one dimensional Rafa was able to beat multi-dimensional, super talented, variety packed Federer at Wimbledon.

Please explain how the one dimensional one was able to DEVELOP a game to win on a surface that is VERY different to clay?

The truth is, Rafa is only one dimensional because Federer said that a while ago. BUT when Fed says that he is certainly a better player now than 2005 and that the field has improved since then it's nowhere near true. Maybe he only told the truth from 04-07 too, and his honesty declined from 2008 onwards...

thats already been explained but you know, feel free to ignore what was already said.

nadal has one style of play...but he does it *extremely* well, and his strengths all target roger's weaknesses.

I didnt know it was that hard to figure out.

but just as roger's game is good enough to beat 98% of the tour as it is also for Rafa.

Please, we also know grass is slower today, no?

Why does super varied rafa always seem to struggle against journeyman during the first few
days of the tourney when the court is still slick and playing somewhat like grass is supposed to?

The_Order
06-25-2012, 07:22 AM
federer consistently mixes in s/v volley though, as well as the other dimensions of his game that I mentioned.

Im still waiting for the variety of nadal's game to be highlighted.
Since you say I cant "see" it, please enlighten me?

LOL yeah right, he doesn't dare S&V against Rafa and Novak, only every now and then to surprise them but certainly not consistently in any single match. Rafa and Novak throw the odd S&V in every now and then too.

Also JMac said Rafa had the best volley out of the top 4. Last I checked Fed was a top 4 player. So one of the greatest volleyers of all time says Rafa is better at it then Fed. How could this be possible? Rafa is one dimensional and Fed is super talented, he's so full of talent he could burst any minute now, there really shouldn't be any comparison but for SOME STRANGE reason, one of the best says Rafa is better in that particular aspect of the sport of tennis.

mind = blown.

SLD76
06-25-2012, 07:26 AM
LOL yeah right, he doesn't dare S&V against Rafa and Novak, only every now and then to surprise them but certainly not consistently in any single match. Rafa and Novak throw the odd S&V in every now and then too.

Also JMac said Rafa had the best volley out of the top 4. Last I checked Fed was a top 4 player. So one of the greatest volleyers of all time says Rafa is better at it then Fed. How could this be possible? Rafa is one dimensional and Fed is super talented, he's so full of talent he could burst any minute now, there really shouldn't be any comparison but for SOME STRANGE reason, one of the best says Rafa is better in that particular aspect of the sport of tennis.

mind = blown.


please, jmac is the king of in the moment hyperbole.

rafa is good at the put away volley.

Id take tsonga as the best volleyer of the top ten.


And who mentioned talent? I said variety, stick to the topic, plz.

I remember Fed blitzing Djoko with the s/v early in their USO semi match last year...i remember some sneak chip and charge too.

But yes, generally speaking, unless u hit the perfect approach, its a dangerous prospect to go to net against djoker and rafa...Fed is not showing a lack of variety for leaving the net game in the bag against them, he is showing good sense.


If nadal played an entire set of s/v tommorow i think id faint from shock.

The-Champ
06-25-2012, 07:40 AM
please, jmac is the king of in the moment hyperbole.

rafa is good at the put away volley.

Id take tsonga as the best volleyer of the top ten.


And who mentioned talent? I said variety, stick to the topic, plz.

I remember Fed blitzing Djoko with the s/v early in their USO semi match last year...i remember some sneak chip and charge too.

But yes, generally speaking, unless u hit the perfect approach, its a dangerous prospect to go to net against djoker and rafa...Fed is not showing a lack of variety for leaving the net game in the bag against them, he is showing good sense.


If nadal played an entire set of s/v tommorow i think id faint from shock.

Boris was commentating the Djoko-ferrero match today and he said, Nadal has an extremely good feel at the net. So yeah, another volley legend who doesn't know what he is talking about. Becker is btw, not in the hyping Nadal team, he is a *******.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 07:48 AM
thats already been explained but you know, feel free to ignore what was already said.

I only ignore it because it's rubbish. I'll explain why...


nadal has one style of play...but he does it *extremely* well, and his strengths all target roger's weaknesses.

But, surely the super talented, variety filled, MULTI DIMENSIONAL Federer could have come up with SOMETHING to counter it? Why did the same thing keep happening over and over and over and over again?

THEN at WIMBLEDON, Rafa (who is one dimensional don't forget) was able to DEVELOP a game that won him the title there. STRANGE.


I didnt know it was that hard to figure out.

Well it kind of is when you keep getting dumb explanations. You guys blow Fed's trumpet like as if he's the most talented player ever to set foot on Earth, yet he can't change things up and turn the tide?


Please, we also know grass is slower today, no?

Hahahahahaha That's a good one. To even suggest that because grass is slower it's anywhere near like clay LOL. You're another tennis expert that doesn't play...

Clay especially at RG is much higher bouncing than grass at WIM. Even though the grass is slower than the past, it still plays like grass because, well it is grass. The ball doesn't bounce anywhere near as high and the movement required is also different because on clay you can slide all over the place, you don't do that on grass because you can slip over due to friction. This is why there are DIFFERENT shoes designed for clay and grass court play. Also clay dissipates more energy on contact than the grass does so it actually bounces through faster. This is because the grass blades act sort of like a spring on impact, when the ball bounces on it, the ball squashes them down, then they spring back up, it happens very quickly but it makes a difference. With clay there can be patches that really hold the ball up.


Why does super varied rafa always seem to struggle against journeyman during the first few
days of the tourney when the court is still slick and playing somewhat like grass is supposed to?

Name these journeymen Rafa ALWAYS struggles against. Better yet name them from 2008 onwards when his grass game was fully developed. I know he had some trouble against Petzschner and Haase in 2010 but name these journeymen from 08 and 11 that he struggled against. There had to be somebody, I mean it ALWAYS happens right? In fact even in 2007 his struggles came against Soderling and Youhzny who were seeded 28 and 14 respectively, hardly what you would call journeyman. Even in 2006, he had only one struggle against Kendrick but in the very next match dealt with Agassi in straights sets and won all the remaining matches in straights sets until he got to the final. Obviously you're talking crap.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 07:57 AM
LOL yeah right, he doesn't dare S&V against Rafa and Novak, only every now and then to surprise them but certainly not consistently in any single match. Rafa and Novak throw the odd S&V in every now and then too.


As per usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Federer usually has upto double the number of net approaches than Djokovic or Nadal in their matches and again, there are stats to back that up. I remember krosero doing the full detailed account of it and Federer actually has a pretty good success rate. Nadal has very good technique but JMac thrives on promoting the current best. He's called Federer the GOAT so I suppose we should buy that too?

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:03 AM
please, jmac is the king of in the moment hyperbole.


But if he said Fed was the best, that would be undeniable wouldn't it?


rafa is good at the put away volley.


And the drop volley and the smash (which is technically a volley since any ball you hit before it bounces is a volley) and drive volleys. He's pretty good at all of them.


Id take tsonga as the best volleyer of the top ten.


Yep definitely has the best drop volley.


And who mentioned talent? I said variety, stick to the topic, plz.


What difference does it make to the point? If he has so much variety how is it that there is even a comparison to the one dimensional Rafa?


I remember Fed blitzing Djoko with the s/v early in their USO semi match last year...i remember some sneak chip and charge too.

But yes, generally speaking, unless u hit the perfect approach, its a dangerous prospect to go to net against djoker and rafa...Fed is not showing a lack of variety for leaving the net game in the bag against them, he is showing good sense.


Ok so now explain what is the point of having all this variety if it doesn't work against the 2 players that you're most likely going to have to beat to win majors?


If nadal played an entire set of s/v tommorow i think id faint from shock.

You'd faint from shock if Fed did as well. There would be a thousand threads created on here about how people think this is a new Fed stretegy for Wimbledon and Olympics this year. Fed's a baseliner that comes forward when the time is right, OR he throws in the odd S&V every now and then to surprise opponents, but his game has been for the most part as a baseliner.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 08:06 AM
In the 2009 AO final, Nadal had a total of 26 net approaches out of which he won 15. Federer had 60 out of which he got 43.
In the 2006 Rome final Federer had 80 net approaches out which he won 60...on clay. And these are just two examples.

I'll cite more. In their recent 2012 AO semi, Federer had 57 net approaches whilst Nadal had 15. Federer won 61% of those points while Nadal won 33%. So much for Nadal being the better volleyer/ net player.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:21 AM
As per usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Federer usually has upto double the number of net approaches than Djokovic or Nadal in their matches and again, there are stats to back that up. I remember krosero doing the full detailed account of it and Federer actually has a pretty good success rate.

I just had a look at the AO12 stats. Out of 276 points played Fed came in 57 times. That isn't consistently coming to the net like was suggested. It also isn't the direct result of S&V which is what we are discussing so I'd imagine there would be even less S&V attempts out of 135 service points played.

At the RG11 final, 273 points played, Fed net approaches 41, counting the net approaches during play, that also reduces the S&V count out of 126 service points from Fed. Again NOT consisteny S&V is it?

In the 2006 WIM final he had 33 net approaches from 119 service points. Again you'd have to subtract quite a few from that net approach number to get the actual S&V points played, but still NOT consistently S&V.


He's called Federer the GOAT so I suppose we should buy that too?

Looks like you've certainly bought it :)

Also as a side note, I will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER let you get the last word in, so keep quoting me and getting angry (even though you're supposed to be having fun) BUT I suggest you think of the mods who have to clean up after the mess we will leave like the last time...

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:23 AM
In the 2009 AO final, Nadal had a total of 26 net approaches out of which he won 15. Federer had 60 out of which he got 43.
In the 2006 Rome final Federer had 80 net approaches out which he won 60...on clay. And these are just two examples.

I'll cite more. In their recent 2012 AO semi, Federer had 57 net approaches whilst Nadal had 15. Federer won 61% of those points while Nadal won 33%. So much for Nadal being the better volleyer/ net player.

Tell all of this to JMac, he's the one that said Rafa is better not me, I just quoted him.

My argument was that Rog doesn't S&V consistently against Rafa and NOvak, and well he doesn't...

mandy01
06-25-2012, 08:28 AM
I just had a look at the AO12 stats. Out of 276 points played Fed came in 57 times. That isn't consistently coming to the net like was suggested. It also isn't the direct result of S&V which is what we are discussing so I'd imagine there would be even less S&V attempts out of 135 service points played.

At the RG11 final, 273 points played, Fed net approaches 41, counting the net approaches during play, that also reduces the S&V count out of 126 service points from Fed. Again NOT consisteny S&V is it?

In the 2006 WIM final he had 33 net approaches from 119 service points. Again you'd have to subtract quite a few from that net approach number to get the actual S&V points played, but still NOT consistently S&V.

Almost nobody plays full S&V. And a big LOL @ the idea of Nadal/Djokovic doing it. The point is Federer comes to the net a LOT more than these guys do. Compared to Federer neither their stats nor their success rate is enough to put either of them above Fed. Federer has also actually played S&V tennis in his early career which Nadal and Djokovic never have.
Also, unless you have an exact bifurcation of how many S&V points Federer played as against Nadal/Djokovic you have no ground to lump them with him.

I couldn't care less about your "I'll have the last word BS." seeing as most people manage to expose your nonsense for what it is. And I couldn't care less who the GOAT is. I only exposed your frivolous attempts at proving that Nadal is somehow the superior net player.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 08:30 AM
Tell all of this to JMac, he's the one that said Rafa is better not me, I just quoted him.

My argument was that Rog doesn't S&V consistently against Rafa and NOvak, and well he doesn't...
Nobody does it. It's not as viable an option as it used to be given the sort of surfaces they're playing on. It doesn't change the fact that Federer still remains the more versatile player out of all the top guys.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:30 AM
Also as a side note, Rafa has had the better net approach points won % against Fed in ALL THREE of their Wimbledon encounters...

WIM 06: Rafa: 67% Fed: 64%
WIM 07: Rafa: 69% Fed: 59%
WIM 08: Rafa: 71% Fed: 56%

mandy01
06-25-2012, 08:32 AM
Also as a side note, Rafa has had the better net approach points won % against Fed in ALL THREE of their Wimbledon encounters...

WIM 06: Rafa: 67% Fed: 64%
WIM 07: Rafa: 69% Fed: 59%
WIM 08: Rafa: 71% Fed: 56%
Post their actual numbers, then we'll see.

TMF
06-25-2012, 08:36 AM
look, nobody denies that federer is more versatile than nadal. that isn't in dispute AT ALL. but to claim that nadal is one dimensional? come on, be reasonable.

If Nadal was versatile, his results should be more balance across all surfaces. Yet, almost everything he wins is on clay due to his limited game. Even when the condition slow down with high bounce surface in favor of his style, he's had some success off clay but still it's totally domintated by clay. Had the surfaces never changed and still stay fast, he might end up like Muster except he'd still have 7 RG + every other clay titles.



Meanwhile, Fed continue to make deep threat on every surfaces for years. Whether the condition have changed to his disadvantage, he finds way to adapt(eg blue clay). Also, young Fed was able to play s/v on fast surfaces, there's no question that he can be versatile if the condition require him to mix up his game. People falsely assumed that Fed isn't versatile because he doesn't employed all the varieties like players in the past generations, that's because the condition has changes....the players adapt to the style that gives them the best chance to win. I have no doubt Fed can be a agressive s/v player in the 80s or 90s. Nadal? I'm not so sure because we never saw him play attacking tennis.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 08:39 AM
If Nadal was versatile, his results should be more balance across all surfaces. Yet, almost everything he wins is on clay due to his limited game. Even when the condition slow down with high bounce surface in favor of his style, he's had some success off clay but still it's totally domintated by clay. Had the surfaces never changed and still stay fast, he might end up like Muster except he'd still have 7 RG + every other clay titles.



Meanwhile, Fed continue to make deep threat on every surfaces for years. Whether the condition have changed to his disadvantage, he finds way to adapt(eg blue clay). Also, young Fed was able to play s/v on fast surfaces, there's no question that he can be versatile if the condition require him to mix up his game. People falsely assumed that Fed isn't versatile because he doesn't employed all the varieties like players in the past generations, that's because the condition has changes....the players adapt to the style that gives them the best chance to win. I have no doubt Fed can be a agressive s/v player in the 80s or 90s. Nadal? I'm not so sure because we never saw him play attacking tennis.
so by that argument, since nadal is almost 5 years younger than federer, then he isn't going to play the S&V game that federer used to, am i right? he is going to play the same game that federer is playing now right? because they all want to win?! so if you havent observed nadal playing S&V, its because that isn't the game that will let him win NOW. just like you yourself have said, why we aren't seeing federer playing S&V now.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:48 AM
Almost nobody plays full S&V. And a big LOL @ the idea of Nadal/Djokovic doing it.

What idea is this? Please point out where I said they do it. Go on. You want to accuse me of saying such a thing, show me where. Oh that's right, your comprehension skills suck and you misinterpret things. Then you have the decency to say that I'm the one doing the misinterpreting. LOL.


The point is Federer comes to the net a LOT more than these guys do. Compared to Federer neither their stats nor their success rate is enough to put either of them above Fed. Federer has also actually played S&V tennis in his early career which Nadal and Djokovic never have.


No that is NOT the point. Keep making stuff up though, it's pretty funny. The point has always been that Fed does NOT consistently S&V.


Also, unless you have an exact bifurcation of how many S&V points Federer played as against Nadal/Djokovic you have no ground to lump them with him.


Rubbish, it is only logical to say that not ALL net approaches in a match are from S&V. So I don't need an exact anything because I have common sense, something you lack.


I couldn't care less about your "I'll have the last word BS." seeing as most people manage to expose your nonsense for what it is. And I couldn't care less who the GOAT is. I only exposed your frivolous attempts at proving that Nadal is somehow the superior net player.

LOL you think I used an opinion as PROOF of anything? LOL. THat guy was so caught up in how much more variety and talent Fed has, yet the fact that a great of the game is even comparing to Nadal must show that Nadal's not sh*t at it. He must be pretty damn good volleyer if greats are comparing him to Fed or saying he's better at it. So much for Nadal being one dimensional when he has a volley good enough to impress one of the greatest to the point where he would say something like that...


Nobody does it. It's not as viable an option as it used to be given the sort of surfaces they're playing on. It doesn't change the fact that Federer still remains the more versatile player out of all the top guys.

First off, if nobody does it, then SLD76 was wrong when he said Fed does it consistently. I was simply pointing this out. At not one stage did I say Rafa had more variety than Fed.

I did say however, what's the point of having the variety to S&V consistently if it doesn't work in this day and age with the surfaces and technology? It's still sort of valuable in the sense that you can do it every now and then to change things up and surprise your opponents, but it's hardly a match winning tactic. THe best it will do for you in terms of helping win the match is force your opponent to keep guessing on the return, so even when you don't S&V, your opponent is still wondering if you will and that can affect the return rhythm. BUt then again Rafa usually returns Fed's serve pretty well so it doesn't seem to be keeping Rafa off guard...

TMF
06-25-2012, 08:54 AM
so by that argument, since nadal is almost 5 years younger than federer, then he isn't going to play the S&V game that federer used to, am i right? he is going to play the same game that federer is playing now right? because they all want to win?! so if you havent observed nadal playing S&V, its because that isn't the game that will let him win NOW. just like you yourself have said, why we aren't seeing federer playing S&V now.

Calm down. I never totally discount Nadal can't play attacking tennis in the faster condition in the past generations. Nadal have been brilliant on slow surfaces, but he never played s/v style so we can't assumed that he would be like Federer. The difference is Fed have prove that he can play s/v, he looks very natural playing this style.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 08:55 AM
What idea is this? Please point out where I said they do it. Go on. You want to accuse me of saying such a thing, show me where. Oh that's right, your comprehension skills suck and you misinterpret things. Then you have the decency to say that I'm the one doing the misinterpreting. LOL.You said they use at as suprise tactic. Well, it's rare for them to do even that.



No that is NOT the point. Keep making stuff up though, it's pretty funny. The point has always been that Fed does NOT consistently S&V.That depends on what you measure against and I was specifically addressing your argument about Nadal, anyway.

Rubbish, it is only logical to say that not ALL net approaches in a match are from S&V. So I don't need an exact anything because I have common sense, something you lack.
Another cop-out. Expected.


LOL you think I used an opinion as PROOF of anything? LOL. THat guy was so caught up in how much more variety and talent Fed has, yet the fact that a great of the game is even comparing to Nadal must show that Nadal's not sh*t at it. He must be pretty damn good volleyer if greats are comparing him to Fed or saying he's better at it. So much for Nadal being one dimensional when he has a volley good enough to impress one of the greatest to the point where he would say something like that...
Only JMac has compared Nadal to Federer and JMac is a commentator. It's his job to promote the current game.


First off, if nobody does it, then SLD76 was wrong when he said Fed does it consistently. I was simply pointing this out. At not one stage did I say Rafa had more variety than Fed.He was not entirely wrong because relatively speaking, Federer will approach the net on a more consistent basis. If you go to compare him to payers from other eras, yes, he doesn't do it.

I did say however, what's the point of having the variety to S&V consistently if it doesn't work in this day and age with the surfaces and technology? It's still sort of valuable in the sense that you can do it every now and then to change things up and surprise your opponents, but it's hardly a match winning tactic. THe best it will do for you in terms of helping win the match is force your opponent to keep guessing on the return, so even when you don't S&V, your opponent is still wondering if you will and that can affect the return rhythm. BUt then again Rafa usually returns Fed's serve pretty well so it doesn't seem to be keeping Rafa off guard...Sure, we're in agreement here.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 08:59 AM
Post their actual numbers, then we'll see.

I did post the actual numbers. They are the winning net approach percentages like I said they were.

If you mean the total net approach points, what's the point? I thought you didn't like hypotheticals. There is no way we can guarantee each other that had Rafa come in more times whether he would've won or lost more points.

But anyway just for fun:

WIM 06: Rafa: 12/18 Fed: 21/33 Fed +15 approaches, +9 points won
WIM 07: Rafa: 18/26 Fed: 30/51 Fed +25 approaches, +12 points won
WIM 08: Rafa: 22/31 Fed: 42/75 Fed +44 approaches, +20 points won

What these prove is that Fed has tried to be more attacking against Nadal in each of their finals. What it does NOT prove is that if Rafa came in an equal amount of times as Fed in each final he would've had a higher/lower winning percentage compared to Fed.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 09:03 AM
Calm down. I never totally discount Nadal can't play attacking tennis in the faster condition in the past generations. Nadal have been brilliant on slow surfaces, but he never played s/v style so we can't assumed that he would be like Federer. The difference is Fed have prove that he can play s/v, he looks very natural playing this style.
then if you agree with me, stop calling / agreeing with people, that nadal is one dimensional! if he is, EVERYONE is now. EVERYONE.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 09:06 AM
I did post the actual numbers. They are the winning net approach percentages like I said they were.

If you mean the total net approach points, what's the point? I thought you didn't like hypotheticals. There is no way we can guarantee each other that had Rafa come in more times whether he would've won or lost more points.

But anyway just for fun:

WIM 06: Rafa: 12/18 Fed: 21/33 Fed +15 approaches, +9 points won
WIM 07: Rafa: 18/26 Fed: 30/51 Fed +25 approaches, +12 points won
WIM 08: Rafa: 22/31 Fed: 42/75 Fed +44 approaches, +20 points won

What these prove is that Fed has tried to be more attacking against Nadal in each of their finals. What it does NOT prove is that if Rafa came in an equal amount of times as Fed in each final he would've had a higher/lower winning percentage compared to Fed.
What I meant is that we need to see the frequency at which they have approached the net on each occasion because generally the more you approach, the more risks yo take and the more likely you are to miss some of those. I agree with your overall point though. Your observation on what their numbers prove, I can agree with.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 09:10 AM
I did post the actual numbers. They are the winning net approach percentages like I said they were.

If you mean the total net approach points, what's the point? I thought you didn't like hypotheticals. There is no way we can guarantee each other that had Rafa come in more times whether he would've won or lost more points.

But anyway just for fun:

WIM 06: Rafa: 12/18 Fed: 21/33 Fed +15 approaches, +9 points won
WIM 07: Rafa: 18/26 Fed: 30/51 Fed +25 approaches, +12 points won
WIM 08: Rafa: 22/31 Fed: 42/75 Fed +44 approaches, +20 points won

What these prove is that Fed has tried to be more attacking against Nadal in each of their finals. What it does NOT prove is that if Rafa came in an equal amount of times as Fed in each final he would've had a higher/lower winning percentage compared to Fed.
nice stats.

exactly, the stats show that federer isn't this all court mythical figure. he approached the net a grand total of 44 points more than nadal out of a total of 413 points played. that is just slightly over 10.6%. 10.6%!!!! and that made him the all court monster that nadal isn't. think about it -- it just means on average, he approached the net once more than nadal out of every 10 points! that's all!

it gets even more ridiculous when one considers how much better federer's serve is compared to nadal, and he still isn't approaching the net much more than nadal. what does this prove??? it just proves that federer is NOT who the fed fans on this forum imagines he is. he really isn't!!!!

The_Order
06-25-2012, 09:14 AM
You said they use at as suprise tactic. Well, it's rare for them to do even that.


Rafa and Novak do it on some of the most important points FWIW.


That depends on what you measure against and I was specifically addressing your argument about Nadal, anyway.


My argument was that Nadal is not as one dimensional as everyone makes out. The fact that a great is even making a comparison to the guy most people perceive as the guy with most variety must show that Rafa has got some pretty good volleying skills.


Another cop-out. Expected.


Ok well can you honestly say that ALL of Fed's net approaches were from S&V? Keep in mind, that number of net approaches stat includes any time Nadal drew him into the net with drop shots or short balls...


Only JMac has compared Nadal to Federer and JMac is a commentator. It's his job to promote the current game.


Don't agree with this. Wouldn't it be better to promote other top 4 players? Everyone knows Rafa and Fed are great, but at the time it wasn't so much the case with Murray and Novak, so wouldn't he try to pump their tyres up a bit more to promote the game rather than pump up a guy that everyone knows is great?


He was not entirely wrong because relatively speaking, Federer will approach the net on a more consistent basis. If you go to compare him to payers from other eras, yes, he doesn't do it.


No he didn't say Fed will approach the net on a more consistent basis, he said Fed consistently mixes in S&V.


Sure, we're in agreement here.

Cannot believe it.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 09:15 AM
nice stats.

exactly, the stats show that federer isn't this all court mythical figure. he approached the net a grand total of 44 points out of a total of 413 points played. that is just slightly over 10.6%. 10.6%!!!! and that made him the all court monster that nadal isn't. think about it -- it just means on average, he approached the net once more than nadal out of every 10 points! that's all!

it gets even more ridiculous when one considers how much better federer's serve is compared to nadal, and he still isn't approaching the net much more than nadal. what does this prove??? it just proves that federer is NOT who the fed fans on this forum imagines he is. he really isn't!!!!
Federer's base game is his serve + FH combination not serve + volley. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The point is he has enough variety in relation with today's conditions.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 09:21 AM
Federer's base game is his serve + FH combination not serve + volley. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The point is he has enough variety in relation with today's conditions.
what i am saying, is that statistics show that federer today doesn't exactly play a different game from the other top players. period. whether he has the latent ability to or not, isn't the question. evidence from footage prior to 2003 suggests he might have the ability, i agree with that. but we simply do not have the opportunities to see other players exhibit their potential latent ability to, given modern day conditions.

in other words, if nadal or any of the top players' game isn't that different from federer, stop calling him one dimensional, unless you are willing to concede that federer's modern game is similarly one dimensional. his modern game ISN'T that different from everybody else's.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 09:22 AM
Rafa and Novak do it on some of the most important points FWIW.
I don't think so. Unless you can post sufficient number of anecdotes.


My argument was that Nadal is not as one dimensional as everyone makes out. The fact that a great is even making a comparison to the guy most people perceive as the guy with most variety must show that Rafa has got some pretty good volleying skills.I don't think Nadal is one dimensional and I also think he has very good technique on his volleys despite not being a natural. He's really worked on that part. But the nature and number of his approaches relative to Fed still make it a bit suspect.



Ok well can you honestly say that ALL of Fed's net approaches were from S&V? Keep in mind, that number of net approaches stat includes any time Nadal drew him into the net with drop shots or short balls...
Again, the onus doesn't lie on seeing as I'm NOT the one drawing the comparison.


Don't agree with this. Wouldn't it be better to promote other top 4 players? Everyone knows Rafa and Fed are great, but at the time it wasn't so much the case with Murray and Novak, so wouldn't he try to pump their tyres up a bit more to promote the game rather than pump up a guy that everyone knows is great?
I think as a commentator, JMac's a bandwagoner as most others. I don't know why he can't promote the other guys but that tendency exists in him. So I don't buy much of what he says.


No he didn't say Fed will approach the net on a more consistent basis, he said Fed consistently mixes in S&V. In that case you're right.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 09:23 AM
Federer's base game is his serve + FH combination not serve + volley. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The point is he has enough variety in relation with today's conditions.
but at least you acknowledge that federer's game is primarily just serve + FH. i respect that. the other fed fans on this forum are so deluded, they genuinely think federer does the tweener every 3 points, and the drop shot every 4.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 09:27 AM
but at least you acknowledge that federer's game is primarily just serve + FH. i respect that. the other fed fans on this forum are so deluded, they genuinely think federer does the tweener every 3 points, and the drop shot every 4.Most players have a base. And the rest of their game is centered around it. So no, Federer doesn't do s&v because it's his FH that is the bigger weapon.
Also, I have no time for people who say Nadal is one-dimensional especially now. They have no clue what they're talking about.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 09:29 AM
What I meant is that we need to see the frequency at which they have approached the net on each occasion because generally the more you approach, the more risks yo take and the more likely you are to miss some of those. I agree with your overall point though. Your observation on what their numbers prove, I can agree with.

I did put the frequency:

eg. Rafa 12/18 in 06 final

But ok I'll do the maths too:

That means Rafa came in 18 times in the whole match. THat's 18/246 points played or 7.3% of the time. FOr Fed 33/246 = 13.4%

for 07:

Fed: 51/323 = 15.8%
Rafa: 26/323 = 8%

for 08:

Fed: 75/413 = 18.2%
Rafa: 31/413 = 7.5%

So in 08 (I'll use this as it is the biggest discrepancy) Fed came to net 10.7% more of the time, so Analysis King was correct when he said Fed approached the net once more in every 10 points, which is around once more every 2 games. It's even less for the other years...

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 09:39 AM
I did put the frequency:

eg. Rafa 12/18 in 06 final

But ok I'll do the maths too:

That means Rafa came in 18 times in the whole match. THat's 18/246 points played or 7.3% of the time. FOr Fed 33/246 = 13.4%

for 07:

Fed: 51/323 = 15.8%
Rafa: 26/323 = 8%

for 08:

Fed: 75/413 = 18.2%
Rafa: 31/413 = 7.5%

So in 08 (I'll use this as it is the biggest discrepancy) Fed came to net 10.7% more of the time, so Analysis King was correct when he said Fed approached the net once more in every 10 points, which is around once more every 2 games. It's even less for the other years...
the really funny thing is that back in 06, i too thought that federer was an all court player, the last bastion of S&V play etc etc. until one day my good friend, a federer fan no less, told me "wat are you smoking?! federer is a baseliner." this was in response to me saying that federer has an advantage on grass over nadal as he is an S&V player. that really made me watch him more and it finally dawned on me that i really bought into all the media hype on federer. the media wanted to create the contrast between federer and nadal, as that creates interest. everyone likes rivalries and creating contrasts between the players help to maintain rivalries. just as they did with pete and andre, boris and ivan, borg and mcenroe. it was all just hype.

The_Order
06-25-2012, 09:49 AM
I don't think so. Unless you can post sufficient number of anecdotes.

FWIW = From What I've Witnessed. There's an opinion that I have that is impossible to prove because there is nothing available that shows WHEN they decide to S&V. I just reckon I've seen them do it when down BP or in a tight game. It isn't often, but I didn't say that, I said they throw it in here and there.


I don't think Nadal is one dimensional and I also think he has very good technique on his volleys despite not being a natural. He's really worked on that part. But the nature and number of his approaches relative to Fed still make it a bit suspect.


His number of net approaches is understandably lower. Rafa has never had the big serve to come in behind so that doesn't allow him to S&V as much and also he tends to stick with what works against certain players. If he's playing Fed, he believes he'll win the baseline contests and so he sticks to that, he'll only come in when necessary. If it works why change? It is interesting looking at those numbers that Fed has actually tried to be more aggressive against Rafa over the years because he knows his game has NOT worked too well against Rafa in the past.


Again, the onus doesn't lie on seeing as I'm NOT the one drawing the comparison.

What comparison? It's common sense that not all net approaches are from S&V and even if they were (which they aren't, I'm just playing devil's advocate) then those numbers still disprove that Fed S&V consistently.


I think as a commentator, JMac's a bandwagoner as most others. I don't know why he can't promote the other guys but that tendency exists in him. So I don't buy much of what he says.


I don't get JMac's commentary very often, in fact maybe a few times over the years, but I do also recall Newcombe and Fred Stolle mentioning that Rafa's volley technique was quite solid.

TMF
06-25-2012, 09:55 AM
then if you agree with me, stop calling / agreeing with people, that nadal is one dimensional! if he is, EVERYONE is now. EVERYONE.

But in my previous post I've stated why is it Nadal can't win on fast surfaces/low bounce but continue his success on slow surfaces especially on clay. Even though the game has change and courts continue to slow down, there are still some fast surfaces to deal with. Nadal never won Cinci., WTF, and only 1 event on indoor. If Nadal is versatile, he should be able to figure out.

Keep in mind Nadal was titleless for a year, and he finally break out of the drought was when clay season comes around.

analysis_king
06-25-2012, 10:07 AM
But in my previous post I've stated why is it Nadal can't win on fast surfaces/low bounce but continue his success on slow surfaces especially on clay. Even though the game has change and courts continue to slow down, there are still some fast surfaces to deal with. Nadal never won Cinci., WTF, and only 1 event on indoor. If Nadal is versatile, he should be able to figure out.

Keep in mind Nadal was titleless for a year, and he finally break out of the drought was when clay season comes around.
are you referring to 2011? lets look at that year in perspective. did nadal really do badly in non-clay tournaments? or was it a case of being stopped in the final each time by the same guy who was having an absolutely monster year?

nadal's clay game is largely untouchable, that is why he is able to win on clay whenever. good form, bad form, he wins it. because his clay game is usually so far above everybody else's. nobody is saying that he is better than federer on hard court or carpet, etc... but please put things in perspective. most players go through entire careers without winning a single masters series tournament, let alone specific ones. nadal has won 5 masters series titles on hard courts. how does that even remotely tie in with a moniker as "one dimensional"? and i havent even started talking about grass!

NamRanger
06-25-2012, 03:16 PM
I don't understand this premise. I'm not going to get into the actual debate because it's gotten too tedious for me, but why should only losses be factored in when gauging a player's versatility? Maybe it could be, that on that very day the player has certain other set of problems that don't allow him to execute as well as he would like to. Do we use the same set of circumstances for all players or is Federer a convenient special case? Moreover, the the debate here is about overall versatility. You seem to be centering the entire debate around Federer's reduced net play which wasn't the premise of the poster you replied to, or the thread, in the first place. Even then, he approaches the net at far greater a frequency than any ofthe top guys right now, save for Tsonga, maybe.


No; it is a consistent problem. Federer knows he must play more aggressive, and get to the net against the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. He is better at the net than they are, and has better hands. However, during his pinnacle peak he refused to do so, particularly against Nadal. He also has played into the hands of Del Potro, Berdych, etc. various times when he loses to them, refusing to come to the net when he needs to. He only plays "allcourt" tennis when he's either toying with his opponent or blowing them out. When push comes to shove, he stays on the baseline and tries to control the center of the court through his phenomenal forehand. How many points has Federer clutched in slams with his netskills, his prowess with his defense, his creativity with lobs, soft angles, etc. ? Like.... literally a handful. How many times has Federer been able to win a clutch point by dictating with his forehand or his serve? Countless.

It's not a knock on Federer; his all court skills are simply overrated, and anyone that argues against it is just lying to themselves. He dominated because he was the best controller of the baseline, not because he was a great allcourt player. He was NEVER a great S&V player, this is by his own admission. He attempted to do it for a long time, and simply couldn't. He found better success when he understood that he was a much better player from the baseline than he thought he was. When Federer began to play a more patient game, that was when his success started. It's no coincidence that as Federer drifted more and more towards a dedicated baseliner, that his win percentage and success overall rose.

Neither Nadal or Federer are "multi-dimensional" by any stretch of the imagination. Federer has more explosive weapons, and he may have slightly more refined skills at the net and such, but they are dedicated baseline controllers first, everything else is merely an asset that compliments their style. Sampras in contrast to Federer, not only had explosive weapons, he also was an excellent defender and a great player around the net (though not as good as say Rafter, McEnroe, or Edberg). Sampras had a multitude of ways to beat you, and used the entire court to beat you. Federer in contrast does no such thing because he doesn't have the toolset. Federer's volleys for example would be passable at best during the 90s; he bricks so many and leaves so much time for his opponent to take advantage of that he really looks average if not subpar compared to quite a few players during the 80s and 90s.

mellowyellow
06-25-2012, 04:26 PM
Neither Nadal or Federer are "multi-dimensional" by any stretch of the imagination. Federer has more explosive weapons, and he may have slightly more refined skills at the net and such, but they are dedicated baseline controllers first, everything else is merely an asset that compliments their style. Sampras in contrast to Federer, not only had explosive weapons, he also was an excellent defender and a great player around the net (though not as good as say Rafter, McEnroe, or Edberg). Sampras had a multitude of ways to beat you, and used the entire court to beat you. Federer in contrast does no such thing because he doesn't have the toolset. Federer's volleys for example would be passable at best during the 90s; he bricks so many and leaves so much time for his opponent to take advantage of that he really looks average if not subpar compared to quite a few players during the 80s and 90s.
This has got to be the most worthless drivel I have read on these forums... Comparing completely different times in surface, string, and court speed history is useless. One could also argue that those guys for S&V were good base-liners. How would they compare to today with slowdown in full affect and extreme ball trajectory up and down over the net? Players develop out of Necessity today, not out of a fondness for a particular style. None of those guys woulfd win a slam today :oops:

NamRanger
06-25-2012, 05:32 PM
This has got to be the most worthless drivel I have read on these forums... Comparing completely different times in surface, string, and court speed history is useless. One could also argue that those guys for S&V were good base-liners. How would they compare to today with slowdown in full affect and extreme ball trajectory up and down over the net? Players develop out of Necessity today, not out of a fondness for a particular style. None of those guys woulfd win a slam today :oops:



Players play to the tools that they have. If Federer had the tools necessary to beat Nadal (which was quite necessary; he needed to rob Nadal of time by taking to the net once taking control of the point with his forehand), he would have done so a long time ago. However, he got passed countless of times because his net skills are simply not that good.

JustBob
06-25-2012, 06:21 PM
Players play to the tools that they have. If Federer had the tools necessary to beat Nadal (which was quite necessary; he needed to rob Nadal of time by taking to the net once taking control of the point with his forehand), he would have done so a long time ago. However, he got passed countless of times because his net skills are simply not that good.

Ridiculous. No amount of net skills would make consistently charging the net a winning strategy in modern tennis.

mellowyellow
06-25-2012, 06:42 PM
Their is also another side not usually mentioned. out of almost necessity to be good from the back court, the strings and racquets used do not compliment net play, in general.

above bored
06-25-2012, 08:14 PM
Nadal does play in a one dimensional style. Why is this even controversial, because of his success? Style and success are two completely different things. He is the modern day Bruguera, only better.

mellowyellow
06-25-2012, 08:19 PM
Brugera def could have won HC slam with the current state of the game, maybe even Wimby the year it was so dry and cracked up...

Ripster
06-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Federer has the tools. If he played in the 90's he would play a lot different than he does now I'm sure. A lot more serve and volley and more of an attacking game. Players adapt to what works at the time.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 09:21 PM
C'mon Nam, you're seriously exaggerating a great deal now.

No; it is a consistent problem. Federer knows he must play more aggressive, and get to the net against the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. He is better at the net than they are, and has better hands. However, during his pinnacle peak he refused to do so, particularly against Nadal. He also has played into the hands of Del Potro, Berdych, etc. various times when he loses to them, refusing to come to the net when he needs to. He only plays "allcourt" tennis when he's either toying with his opponent or blowing them out. When push comes to shove, he stays on the baseline and tries to control the center of the court through his phenomenal forehand. How many points has Federer clutched in slams with his netskills, his prowess with his defense, his creativity with lobs, soft angles, etc. ? Like.... literally a handful. How many times has Federer been able to win a clutch point by dictating with his forehand or his serve? Countless. I don't have all the stats obviously. But if you take Rome 2006 for example, Roger had won 60 out of 80 approaches against Nadal on clay. It's also totally unfair to say Federer's "played into" the hands of Delpo or Berdych. Neither of the guys really started troubling Federer till he was somewhat off his prime years. Federer had to serve horribly for Delpo to get his teeth into the final at the USO. And Berdych? Boy, the first time he troubled Roger, he only stretched him to five sets. It wasn't until 2010, when Federer was clearly injured that he managed to beat him in a major. Do you want me to start bringing up Pete's early losses in majors? Of course there is no point because looking at your quote below it's clear you're never going to be fair about this.


Neither Nadal or Federer are "multi-dimensional" by any stretch of the imagination. Federer has more explosive weapons, and he may have slightly more refined skills at the net and such, but they are dedicated baseline controllers first, everything else is merely an asset that compliments their style. Sampras in contrast to Federer, not only had explosive weapons, he also was an excellent defender and a great player around the net (though not as good as say Rafter, McEnroe, or Edberg). Sampras had a multitude of ways to beat you, and used the entire court to beat you. Federer in contrast does no such thing because he doesn't have the toolset. Federer's volleys for example would be passable at best during the 90s; he bricks so many and leaves so much time for his opponent to take advantage of that he really looks average if not subpar compared to quite a few players during the 80s and 90s.WOW, just WOW. I wrote a lengthy reply to this initially but man, the bolded bit and the sheer double-standard in it is so disgusting to read that I don't even want to get into it. You're right, Roger is really a one-trick pony. While pete is a SUPREME Serve & volleyer, A SUPREME defender, a SUPREME offensive baseliner, yada, yada. Infact, other than the FOREHAND, Roger really doesn't do anything better than Pete at all. Did I fan your ego adequately? Or should I, as the quintessential ******* also proceed to call myself a bunch of names whole so that you holier-than-thou, self-proclaimed experts with no other authority to back you up (oh but then I guess, you the very mighty, ARE authoirty on tennis), are able to sleep better at night?


You are too heavily biased Nam (no matter what you like to pretend). And after reading the part I just highlighted, I have no desire to discuss any further. I've seen enough of this anti-Federer propoganda on the Former Pro Player Section and in this place.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 10:28 PM
Players play to the tools that they have. If Federer had the tools necessary to beat Nadal (which was quite necessary; he needed to rob Nadal of time by taking to the net once taking control of the point with his forehand), he would have done so a long time ago. However, he got passed countless of times because his net skills are simply not that good.Why don't you back this up with actual numbers? I'll tell you why not. It is too convenient to simply make proclamations and act like an authority because everybody and their brother can be an expert on a message board.

mandy01
06-25-2012, 10:50 PM
Federer has the tools. If he played in the 90's he would play a lot different than he does now I'm sure. A lot more serve and volley and more of an attacking game. Players adapt to what works at the time.

Does Federer use variety in rallies? Does he mix up spin, pace, strokes, etc? Yes, he does. Better than anyone. So many players who have actually played Federer say that Federer gives you no two balls alike.

Does Federer defend effectively and consistently (Of course I'm sure PETE SAMPRAS does that better but still) against players playing more aggressively than him in a given situation? Sure.

Does Federer employ a mix of aggressive shots from the back-court and net play against the more defensive players? Yes.

Does Federer force players to come to the net on his terms when they're not comfortable enough? Yes, he does.

But let's ignore all that. Federer is a one-trick pony with serve and forehand as his only two skills on a tennis court. We'll throw in the footwork but who cares. I'm sure it's not better than PETE SAMPRAS. :rolleyes:

mandy01
06-25-2012, 11:05 PM
Anyhow, this is an interesting thread on play styles and I'd say more balanced than the sort of drivel you see on this forum.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=58284&page=12

TMF
06-25-2012, 11:15 PM
Wow. One trick pony Federer was able to surpassed Sampras, who had a complete package. Fed even beat Sampras in 2001 by playing 1 dimensional game. Sampras should have learn to be 1D, maybe he could have won 20 slams in the 90s.