Mustard
Bionic Poster
About the same, I'd say, although he played much better against Nadal in 2008. In both tournaments he had come back from 2 sets down in an earlier round match, against Melzer in 2008 and Haase in 2011.
About the same, I'd say, although he played much better against Nadal in 2008. In both tournaments he had come back from 2 sets down in an earlier round match, against Melzer in 2008 and Haase in 2011.
C
celoft
Guest
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Oh dear banned again! Well if you're back again, read this.
Here you say the AO is clearly his wost surface because he lost in the quarters 2 years instead of making the semis like the US open.
However here you imply he lost in the quarters at least in part because he got injured.
So but for that injury another semi for him and maybe a final. The other year recently where he missed a semi was when he lost to Murray - who he lost to at the US Open, the only difference was he drew him in the quarters at the AO and the semis at the US Open. Luck. Not to mention the fact that Murray was more inexperienced in 2008 and Nadal got injured in the 3rd set in Australia. You can't just use weak evidence to try and make out Nadal is at a huge disadvantage in Australia compared to the US Open. using "evidence" like this, just before the US Open 2011, Wimbledon was a better surface for Djokovic than the US Open.
stormholloway
Legend
At their best Rafa clearly has the bigger forehand. The backhands are closer. Rafa's is bigger. Djokovic's maybe more steady.
Djokovic is just moving so well and is so fit right now.
Djokovic is just moving so well and is so fit right now.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Logic flaw there. Yannick Noah wouldn't be considered among the best baseliners ever, but yet his only major win came at the French Open.. despite his game being better equipped for faster surfaces.
That's like saying Federer is the best serve and volleyer because he has 6 wimbledons.. that's a flawed argument.
Ok. Nadal isn't S&V though. He won RG because of his baseline game. Until Djokovic can prove himself at RG, I'll stick with Nadal. How many of the last 30 FO winners were baseliners ? Probably 28. Being a S&Ver doesn't mean you can't win FO, but it hasn't been done since Noah.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
No. All it means is that, Nadal's style of baseline play works really really well on clay. It has worked much less well on grass (despite impressive achievements) and even less well on faster hard courts. Though you will see more net play on the faster surfaces on the whole, the entire calendar year is more or less a baseline game.
Having a great baseline game is not just about having incredible consistency and durability - attributes of attrition that help one to win on clay in general - but also about how quickly and fatally one can strike, variety, and other things I can't think of right now. In general, faster surfaces favour a more aggressive style of baseline play than the clay courts, hence why Roger Federer has seen amazing success on the courts of Wimbledon and the US Open as well as many other tournaments of faster conditions; his baseline game has likely been superior to Nadal's in those sorts of conditions.
It goes without saying that to win on any surface requires all these properties, but certain kinds of surfaces will lend themselves to some sort of attribute bias.
Having the best baseline game is not just about consistency and durability, it isn't just about who can last the longest and who can defend and absorb the attacks of others; it's also about who can strike the strongest and can strike most frequently in an unanswerable fashion.
Right now, Djokovic has an excellent strength in both the defensive and offensive sides of baseline play. Nadal at his best has more defensive strengths than Djokovic but probably less strength offensively. Federer at his best is quite clearly weaker than both defensively and stronger than both offensively.
In short, the clay = Nadal wins argument is naive, I reckon.
***
As an extension to this basic argument, it would be reasonable to conclude that the best baseline players in history are those who have seen the greatest success across a variety of conditions. S & V players can force the issue as much as they like, there's almost always going to be a lot of baseline play in any match. To have major successes on all surfaces you must have an excellent all around and versatile baseline game - one that can adapt fluidly to changing conditions. Going by this, it would be possible to come up with a shortlist of the best baseline players of the Open Era. A list - which is only based on achievements attained during the Open Era (sorry Laver and Rosewall) - might go something like:
Agassi, Borg, Federer, Lendl, and Nadal.
Are these the best of the best? Some names have been left out, I'm sure you will have noticed. Jimmy Connors for his lack of even a Roland Garros final, Novak Djokovicfor the very same reason, and Mats Wilander for not getting close to a final on the faster grass of Wimbledon. Connors did have a lot of success on faster clay variants but on slow red clay he struggled. Though I appreciate that he boycotted Roland Garros out of anger for some time, I find it difficult to include him in the very elite group of the very best baseline players in the Open Era.
Achievements attained are ultimately the tangible evidence of excellence from a player, and in this list I cannot include Novak Djokovic. It goes to show that even though we can argue that Djokovic's peak baseline game is equal to or better than Nadal's, ultimately what matters is sustaining those excellent levels. Nadal and Djokovic are roughly the same age, but what has been revealed thus far is that Nadal has been a superior baseline player to Djokovic across the board for more or less the whole of their concurrent careers.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Federer's baseline game has definitely not proven to be stronger than Nadal's on grass on the whole. In the 2006 Wimbledon final their baseline games were about equal, but this was peak Federer vs far from peak Nadal. In the 2007 Wimbledon final Nadal's baseline game was better by a huge margin even though Federer won. Same in the 2008 Wimbledon final which Nadal won. Federer has been more dominant at Wimbledon due to his serve and abiilty to finish more points at net better (and being more clutch on important points in the Wimbledon finals than Nadal so far) but his baseline game on grass is not superior.
okay, then it depends on surface. At the French Open I like Nadal and at the US Open I like Djokovic. But since I view Roland Garros as where the best baseliner in the game wins, that's why I voted for Nadal. Maybe the best vote is "too even to call." I just go by who wins the matches. Also I was probably favoring Nadal since his game is more of a traditional defensive baseliner style..
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I predicted such a rebuttal and it is fair, but it pertains to the match-up and not the overall thorough results against the field and across the board. You could be right, though you might not be. It's certainly arguable as to who has had the best pure baseline game on grass out of the two throughout their careers on grass, but on the much more prolific hard courts my assertions are harder to dispute.
Please also offer your opinions on the extension of my previous post, if you would.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It's the option which I chose.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Why was Nadal's baseline game better by a huge margin in 2007? Personally I don't feel that Nadal ever came close to Federer's 04-06 in terms of his grass court baseline play.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Just gonna throw this out there...
Against the field, Federers baseline variety and finesse has proven to be more effective against the field than Nadal's more attritional style, however if a player has tremendous defensive abilities then they shift an imaginary threshold point further along the imaginary line of aggressive to defensive baseline properties.
Crudely put:
o = condition of match game style required for Roger to be more likely the winner.
Federer against the field on the whole:
The match-up condition line
Offensive <---------|--o-------------> Defensive
...Against Nadal:
The match-up condition line
Offensive <-----------o-|------------> Defensive
Due to the match-up, Nadal can sway the line past the threshold to give himself a good chance for victory, but Nadal himself would have his own general threshold point along the line against the rest of the field to try and force upon matches in order to have the greater chance of victory, but achieves his more defensive trait driven threshold point slightly less frequently against the field than Federer on grass, and thus on the whole may not be a better pure baseline player than Federer on grass.
I appreciate that this is a crudely put theory and that my example exists in a primitive manner, but the thought itself is worthy of consideration. It's basically a way of trying to quantify the importance of 'match-up' vs 'against the field' variables.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon is green clay. Perfect for Nadal's game. Nadal complains about how taxing the sport is but doesn't have the ability to finish points and rather, is stuck in endless rallies because he can't find ways to shorten points. His baseline game was built on clay throughout his years where basically chasing balls and defending were his 'weapons'.
On Wimbledon grass nowadays, we get up to 20 shot rallies. It's basically like watching clay court tennis.
DeShaun
Banned
This is a no brainer. Nole's.
He hits for very good pace off both wings more easily than Rafa.
Rafa hits a few 100mph winners but cannot sustain the speed of Novak's game in any way neutralizing. Rafa must go for winners against Novak who is able to make Rafa play real not calculated defense longer than he likes.
Novak is just bigger off both wings.
He hits for very good pace off both wings more easily than Rafa.
Rafa hits a few 100mph winners but cannot sustain the speed of Novak's game in any way neutralizing. Rafa must go for winners against Novak who is able to make Rafa play real not calculated defense longer than he likes.
Novak is just bigger off both wings.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
^^^^Agreed. Nole better off of both wings, more consistent and more power/easier power. 7 in a row across all surfaces and in GS finals didn't happen by accident.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
I guess we'll find out in the next 9 months of 2012. So far, it looks like they are the same level with one break in the 5th set deciding them. But Rafa is the better clay and grass player.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
This is actually not correct. If Nadal's baseline game was inherently better than Fed's he would be able to dominate in the same way even if he was right handed. I would think Nadal's baseline game only looks better than Fed's because of the LH spin to BH matchup advantage he has. Without that, Nadal has very little chance despite having a high margin game.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
It's a shame you'll never know for sure. All we can do is speculate.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
They're both scheduled to play in Halle (more of a "true grass" court than Wimbledon). We may find out then.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
Good idea, I would like for Rafa to win the grasscourt head-to-head over Federer. 2-1 Federer leads so far.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Well, Nadal can only tie it there. Of course, if they both go deep at RG, either one or both might pull out. I believe Roger has 6 titles there (either 5 or 6), so it won't be easy for Rafa.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
*******S
If Nadal wins easily:
- "wussy backhand abuse; real men give balls to their opponents' strongest wings"
- "Halle grass is green clay; now all courts play the same"
- "peak ralph beat old man fred so this doesn't count, peak fred would beat peak Ralph with his eyes closed and hitting nothing but tweeners"
If Nadal loses:
- "ralph can't win on real grass"
- "not even ralph's backhand abuse tennis could save him from fred's real tennis"
If Nadal barely wins:
- "peak, doped ralph barely beat old man fred on grass"
- "peak, doped ralph barely beat old man fred with mental block on grass"
- "ralph is doping"
...etc.
*******S:
If Nadal wins:
- "peak rafa is unbeatable"
- "rafa's dominance of fred is complete"
If Nadal loses:
- "rafa's injured"
- "rafa's tired"
- "rafa's in decline" <--- until I see obvious signs of decline, this one is the most ridiculous
Last edited:
RAFA2005RG
Banned
Yeah, going for his 7th Roland Garros. Maybe he should just lose in the QF of Halle and then beat Federer at Wimbledon and the Olympics. Either way, plenty more years to do this.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
True, online people are capable of anything :shock:
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
That "green clay" comment was one Nadal himself used to describe Wimbledon. Tim Henman also noted something similar. It's not just people here.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
That would be silly but being honest Nadal is huge favourite there at this point in their careers, federer lost to Hewitt the last time he played, hasn't made a wimbledon semi in 2 years and is going to be 31. Its a shame they never had the chance to meet more than once a season on grass when that match up favoured federer but these days it favours Nadal.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
And now Roland Garros is producing more winners per error than the Australian Open, albeit due to the faster balls. It evens out. Federer's game is more suited to Roland Garros than Rafa's game is now.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Even if the balls are lighter and are moving faster, clay will always allow defensive players time to retrieve. Federer's game has always been well-suited to clay, it's just been that Rafa's game is a better fit on clay than Roger's.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
This.
Federer is easily the second best clay player of the past decade. It's just that Rafa is the best clay player of all time and that it so happens that Rafa is a nightmare matchup for Federer.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't matter who described it, the moment Nadal wins anything outside of clay, that surface is automatically described as "<colour> clay".
Normally, this could be a valid point seeing how all surfaces have slowed down in the past few years.
Problem is they hold the opposite opinion when these tournaments kick off, right up until Nadal gets into the final/wins the title.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Final in 2011 proved that I guess.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Which tournaments can you recall people calling fast, then when Nadal wins them people call the <insert color> clay?
RAFA2005RG
Banned
Exactly. Federer looked more threatening than ever. Rafa is still the better player, but the surface suits Federer more than Rafa now.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
nadalwon2012 said:
It s not necessary to bring up his torn muscle talking of his QF loss to Ferrer. Fact is Ferrer simply outplayed him and it is annoying to hear repeatedly that he lost because of injury. If he came into the match with an injury, maybe it was a different matter but he was fully fit when the match began. If he injured himself, it was because Ferrer was playing like a maniac on that day and he ran Nadal around in that 2nd or 3rd game of the match until Nadal just couldn't keep up.
RAFA2005RG
Banned
Rafa managed to make it 5-5 in the 1st set, so Ferrer's 'maniac' tennis wasn't that amazing. Rafa's injury came in the 2nd game of the match. So even with Rafa's injury, Ferrer struggled to put him away. And Rafa said he would have retired in the 1st set if it wasn't a Spaniard. Oh yeah, Rafa couldn't keep up alright, he was struggling to push off each time he had to change direction.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
The surface still suits Nadal more than Federer. Granted that the faster conditions have aided Federer more than before, but overall the conditions are still better for Nadal. He's the one who is holding RG, not Federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL wut ????
ha ha ha ha
wait .......
ha ha ha ha
Nadal has more options ? Are you kidding me ?????
Djoker has more of a balance b/w aggression and defense from the baseline. He can play from miles behind the baseline as well as from the baseline taking it on the rise...
How on earth does Nadal have more options ???
Nadal has the better FH at his peak, though not by much; djoker has the better BH by some distance .....movement , nothing much to separate really
However one factor that Nadal clearly has the edge on is his ability to 'murder' those slices....
People talk about nadal's spinny and high bouncing FHs to federer's BH a lot, but they tend to ignore that the other main edge he has : he takes away federer's best form of defense on the BH side, that is the slice ......
Bender
G.O.A.T.
The particular one I had in mind should be USO
Wimbledon is definitely another one that people dismissed Rafa until he won it
Last edited:
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
You cannot consider this as a fluke/Nadal injury aided win for Ferrer because it wasn't the first time that happened at a slam.
Anyway, you said that no one beat Nadal in the last 8 slams except Djokovic/Ferrer. You may want to remember that going into the AO 2008 semi final, Fed hadn't been beaten in the last 14 slams by anyone other than Nadal/Safin . Didn't do anything for him. Bottom line is past trends mean nothing when it comes to future results.
Another banned tennis poster or another ignorant fool who has no idea how precise a professional tennis player's schedule has to be
Trying to utilize one match-up to justify a player's effectiveness against the field is quite hilarious. Federer's baseline game at Wimbledon is better.
Federer at his best would hardly ever struggle at Wimbledon, and the only player to do it was a player that was notoriously a bad match-up for him in 2007 and in 2008 (2008 being his off year).
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Federer was also outplayed by Roddick off the ground in the 2009 and 2004 Wimbledon finals, especialy 2009. The main reasons he won was superior nerve, a career serving day in the 2009 final, Roddick's vastly inferior return of serve, and in 2004 his all court skills. I am not saying Roddick is overall better off the ground on grass than Federer of course, but this probably wouldnt happen twice to someone who has the best ground game on grass either.
How many Wimbledon finals did Federer dominate from the baseline. 2003 against Philippoussis which is hardly an achievement, and 2005 vs a passive pushing Roddick.
Nadal's baseline game was effective enough vs the field he didnt lose to anyone except Federer at Wimbledon from 2006-2010, and as already noted his losses to Federer had nothing to do with an inferior baseline game on the surface.
How many Wimbledon finals did Federer dominate from the baseline. 2003 against Philippoussis which is hardly an achievement, and 2005 vs a passive pushing Roddick.
Nadal's baseline game was effective enough vs the field he didnt lose to anyone except Federer at Wimbledon from 2006-2010, and as already noted his losses to Federer had nothing to do with an inferior baseline game on the surface.
Last edited by a moderator:
Federer was NOT outplayed on the ground in the 2004/2009 finals, the reason why it looked that way was because Roddick was almost always ahead in the point ON his serve. When it was on Federer's serve, Roddick still couldn't find his way into points except on very few and rare occasions.
This is patricularly true in the sets that Federer won; he was absolutely dominating off the ground. And Federer's ground game is the best on grass because the results dictate that he has the best ground game. Just like how the results dictate that Nadal has the best claycourt baseline game (outside of arguably Borg). To even fathom that a 2 slam grass wonder like Nadal has a better baseline game on grass would be like me saying that Nalbandian or Rios have better baseline games than Nadal on HCs.
Last edited:
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
This is an important and good distinction. Federer has the best GROUND game on grass, but I would still place Sampras as the slightly better all-around grass-court player (or at least place them on par with each other).
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
It isnt the same since all Nadal has is a baseline game. Federer has one of the best baseline games, but also an amazing serve and some ability to finish points at the net. Anyway Nalbandian and Rios when playing their best probably do have a better baseline game on hard courts than Nadal, they are just nuts, always injured, and have iffy at best motivation.
I dont understand your first point. By that logic Sampras would have a better ground game on grass than Federer since he has a superior Wimbledon record, but I doubt you feel this is true. Or Sampras would have a much better ground game on grass than Agassi since his Wimbledon record is light years better. There are many more factors to ones record on a surface than their baseline game.
kragster
Hall of Fame
I don't think this is the best comparison. We know that Fed's OVERALL game is much better on grass and Nadal's OVERALL game is much better on clay. I haven't looked at the stats so I don't know the numbers like baseline winners/service winners etc but it's entirely possible that certain elements of Fed's grass game are worse than that of Rafa's and certain elements of Rafa's clay game are worse than Federer. It's the entirety of the package that makes each of them so formidable.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
No it isn't. Rafa's game is still more suited to clay than Federer's. If we were talking about the Federer from 2006, then maybe he could have an advantage, but not today's Federer. Nadal may be less suited than he WAS, but he still has the advantage.
What I posted had nothing to do with surface change but the fact Federer is not the same player he was and has lost his ability to play on grass as well as other surfaces. Don't know why, he just has.
It's funny because if any Fed fans suggested that Federer was at any point a better clay court player than Nadal, they would be laughed at as delusional *******s- but a nadal fan comes up with this to make it look like he's at a disadvatage vs Federer at RG? Gimme a break :lol:
Last edited:
Juan Ma Del Pony
Professional
Somebody referring to Rafa's impressive grass court pedigree as "2 Slam wonder"...wow....now I've really heard it all!
I might just stick to Match Results discussions from now on, GPPD seems like a never-ending loop of one or two people talking sense, troll coming in, one poster responding to troll, more sensible people coming in, then more trolls, etc, etc...
I might just stick to Match Results discussions from now on, GPPD seems like a never-ending loop of one or two people talking sense, troll coming in, one poster responding to troll, more sensible people coming in, then more trolls, etc, etc...
Similar threads
- Poll
