Nadal doesn't dominate Federer, he plays better on breakpoints

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by JennyS, Aug 28, 2009.

  1. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Thought this article was interesting:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/15/the-count-federer-faltered-on-serve-and-in-the-clutch/

    I'm curious how many of the bp's that Nadal faced vs Fed were in the ad court(since so many explain the poor conversion rate as just being due to Nadal being a lefty) & how many were in the deuce court(15-40's do happen sometimes)

    And I wonder what the breakdown is for total points won in the ad court vs points won in the deuce court for the average lefty server.

    We're all told constantly that lefties have the advantage serving in the ad court, you would think are some stats that back this up somewhere, not just the players "feelings."
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
    #51
  2. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    good post.

    but i do think that saying that federer has had chances to make the matches closer..or even win them does have some truth.

    some of it is due to nadal being lefty and exploiting fed's returning in the ad court. Some of it due to nadal's mental toughness / concentration. Some due to federer's passivity on bps in general.

    everyone will have opinions on the relative proportions but i think most informed observers note this details.
     
    #52
  3. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,036
    Nadal has one won twice as many matches, that doesn't say anything?

    I was just pointing out the absurdity of the thread title; Nadal only plays break points better than Roger, but in no way dominates...? it's silly.

    and thanks for the percentages, I didn't realize 19-2 was a much better record than 13-7...
     
    #53
  4. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    *******s claim that Nadal beating Söderling 60 61, was a match Nadal won by a hair.

    So of course ALL of Nadals 13 wins over Federer were matches were Nadal was lucky, and were matches were Federer was actually dominating.
     
    #54
  5. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Actually it does make sense. It was in response to the stating of Nadal's H2H record against Fed. You need to learn the concept of 'context'.
     
    #55
  6. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Kinda like Nadaltards claiming Fed won Madrid and FO because Nadal was injured.
     
    #56
  7. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    I didn't just mention Madrid. And if that is indeed the case, then Fed leads Nadal 15-6. Period.
     
    #57
  8. Baikalic

    Baikalic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    lol? The context of GS count is not relevant to the discussion on their matchup, in particular the play on breakpoints. You need to learn the concept of relevance.
     
    #58
  9. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    You don't seem the understand that I was not addressing the topic of the thread per se, but rather the previous isolated comment. Is english your first language?
     
    #59
  10. cuddles26

    cuddles26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    bruce38 Serena and Nadal are just the two greatest players ever. Just accept it and stop being an idiot.
     
    #60
  11. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Nooooo, you accept they are not. Stinkyhead.
     
    #61
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    But Borg is in GOAT discussion, not Mac. Not b/c 11 > 7, but base on career achievements, records/streaks setting and level of dominant.

    TMF can quit right now. If Nadal end up winning 10 slams in the end, which makes 15 < 10, do you think people think Nadal is a superior player? Afraid not.
     
    #62
  13. cuddles26

    cuddles26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    Serena lost out on additional 2 slams- 2004 U.S Open and 2009 U.S Open, by racist line judges or chair umpires. She lost out on the 2003 French Open by Henin's cheating. So that gives her 14 slam titles. Considering she has much tougher competition than Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court had that is already enough to put her over them. Plus at her best she would overpower and beat them at their best.

    Nadal is much better than Federer. He has proven it by owning Federer head to head. So if Federer is really greatest ever over all past, and Nadal is even greather than him, then Nadal is the greatest ever.
     
    #63
  14. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    If Seles was not stabbed she would have won 10 more slams easily. Guaranteed GOAT. If Nadal was good enough to make it to the USO final this year Fed would have destroyed him. Fed gets to all FO finals, Nadal gets to no USO finals. Can you say skewwwwwed????
     
    #64
  15. cuddles26

    cuddles26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    Even without the stabbing Seles never wins Wimbledon, or if really lucky she wins it once in a year she somehow doesnt play any of Graf, Novotna, Hingis, Venus, Serena, or Davenport. The female GOAT has to win each slam atleast twice (which Serena did by giving her the 2003 French which Henin cheated to win). So no Seles is not the GOAT even without the stabbing with his insufficient Wimbledon record she would still have. Why are you arguing with me anyway. After Venus's loss to Clijsters at the U.S Open you started a thread to complain of racism against the Williams sisters so I know you are a fan of the Williams as well, so why not support Serena over a fat self pity horse like Seles.

    Now onto Federer and Nadal, Nadal is unlucky that his own worst surface- fast hard courts there is killer competition and so many great players. Federer is lucky the current clay court field is horrendous other than Nadal, so despite being not such a great clay courter if something ever happens to Nadal there is nobody in his way.
     
    #65
  16. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Hey just because I see that people's views on Serena are affected by her race does not mean I think she's GOAT. She's maybe in the top 5. Moreover, Seles would have won W many more times as she was just entering her prime and Graf was on her way out. Seles would have won each slam at least 3 times if not 4. Serena would not come close to that.

    Nadal is simply not good enough to get the hardcourt finals. He's also only had one AO. That you think the current field is worse at clay than hardcourt is completely subjective. Counter arguments can be made for all. Fed is simply head and shoulders above Nadal. It's not even close.
     
    #66
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212

    LOL. How much tougher competition did she have when one of the best player[Henin] on the tour retire, Clijsters retire, and Sharapova was non-existent after the shoulder injury. The competition was depleted in 2008. And Serena isn’t even leading the tour in total titles, weeks at #1. Martina 18 GS and 332 weeks at #1 dwarfs Serena.

    Nadal was beaten by Federer on his best surface(clay). Did Nadal showed up at the final on Roger’s best surfaces(us open series)?

    Sure, he can dominate Federer by getting eliminated in his half of the draw?
     
    #67
  18. navratilovafan

    navratilovafan Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    830
    ROTFL at this pile of junk statement. How could Seles have won W "many more times" first of all when she couldnt even win it once, heck couldnt even come close to winning it once. You have to win it first, before you can win it "more times". Your statement Seles would be able to win Wimbledon 3 times or maybe 4 is insanely ridiculous. It is obvious you either didnt even follow tennis around then and only know of Seles what you hear, or you are blinded by some kind of Seles fanaticsm. Monica in her last 3 Wimbledons before the stabbing was humiliated 6-2, 6-1 by Steffi Graf in one, lost in the quarters to Garrison in another, and wimped out one with a fake injury of some sort while being fined for not giving sufficient explanation for missing Wimbledon in due time. Yet she was suddenly going to improve so rapidly on grass to win the next 3 Wimbledons over Graf? After the stabbing when she was still making semis and finals of the other 3 slams she was losing 2nd and 3rd rounds of Wimbledon to the likes of Studenikova, Testud, Lucic, players she was destroying on clay and hard courts. Yet the stabbing not happening was going to miracelously make her so much better on grass 3 of these would turn into wins? You are talking out of your ass thinking Monica could ever win Wimbledon multiple times. Her lack of grass court aptitude before and after the stabbing both is plainly evident. Cuddles insane as he is, atleast is right on one thing. Seles would have been super lucky to win Wimbledon even once without the stabbing, and probably would not have even done that.

    As for Serena she along with Seles is #9 or #10 all time.

    1. Graf or Navratilova
    3. Evert or Court
    5. Wills Moody
    6. Connolly
    7. Lenglen
    8. Billie Jean King
    9. Serena or Seles

    Dont look now though before Henin makes a successful comeback and bumps them both down yet another spot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
    #68
  19. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Seles was only 20!!!! When she was stabbed. Her whole career was ahead of her and she had already won 8 slams! You are a ******.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
    #69
  20. cuddles26

    cuddles26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    If Henin is the best player on tour how come she has to use cheating to beat Serena even on her own best surface and Serena's worst during the only year both are in their primes together? Serena won almost all her slams with Henin, Clijsters, and Sharapova all active and near the top, or people like Hingis, Davenport, Venus, also or instead. The only ones she didnt are the 3 in 2008 and 2009. So for 70% of her slams she had incredible competition and still won. Also I disagree the competition is weak even without those 3. There are many really talented Russians- Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Safina, Petrova, Zvonareva, and Serbs like Jankovic and Ivanovic, up and comers like Azarenka and Wozniacki, and many other really talented players. The womens tour has never had such depth, these players would all be slam winners in any other era but today it is so tough with Serena and others in their way.

    You want to talk about weak competition look at Martina Navratilova. 82-86 Chris Evert, Hana Mandlikova who was pretty good, and then a bunch of talentless clowns the rest of the top 10. Shriver is a joke who couldnt move or hit a forehand yet she was #4 so long during that time.
     
    #70
  21. navratilovafan

    navratilovafan Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    830
    Last I checked Monica was not killed by the knife. She still had every opportunity to come back, get in SHAPE, and win many more slams if she was good enough and determined enough. The fact she couldnt be bothered to get back in professional shape, and also couldnt handle her old rival Graf and new wave power hitters like Davenport, Venus, and Serena, when she came to tennis at only 21 is her own problem.

    Anyway I am speaking specifically of Seles at Wimbledon here. If Monica was already dominating on certain surfaces yet struggled so much on grass that she either lost well before the final or was completely destroyed whenever she met someone like Graf, she wasnt miracelously going to morph into this grass court guru overnight. If after the stabbing she was making semis and finals of other slams still, yet couldnt get past nobodies in the 2nd or 3rd round of Wimbledon who she was handing out bagels and breadsticks to on other surfaces this would not amazing be transformed into a bunch of Wimbledon titles just by taking away the stabbing either. Stop kidding yourself and get out of lala land.
     
    #71
  22. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    How can you ALREADY been dominating W when the last one you played was when you were only 19 and you had arguably the greatest grass courter in Graf to contend with? Get a clue dude. After the stabbing she was never the same even if she won another slam. Any tennis fan who actually watched and has a clue would know that. She was a completely different player.
     
    #72
  23. JeMar

    JeMar Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,698
    I think it's funny that it seems like complete idiocy and liking Nadal kinda go together on this site.

    That's not to say that all our Nadal fans are idiots, it just seems that all our idiots are Nadal fans.
     
    #73
  24. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    ROTFL when was Monica ever going to dominate Wimbledon!?! 1993-1996 when Graf, a much better grass court player was still around. 97-99 when Hingis, Novotna, Davenport, Venus, all bad matchups for Monica and better grass court players were all doing really well at Wimbledon. 2000-2002 when the Williams sisters took over Wimbledon (and forget any crazy idea of Monica even without the stabbing hanging with them on any fast court by then). You are the one who looks like clueless delusional Selestial.
     
    #74
  25. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Nadal has beaten Federer on HC(AO and their first meeting in Miami in 04'),grass and clay. Federer has beaten Nadal on HC,clay and grass. Nadal doesn't have fast HC weapons so it's even more impressive that he makes 2 consecutive semi's in Cincy and USO,one of the fastest courts around. As another user said there are a lot of players who are great on HC and as this surface denies his main strengths it's tough for Nadal to hang with big hitters and big servers on this surface.

    And I'm pretty sure grass is Roger's best surface,with 7 consecutive wimbledon finals and 6 titles there. And Nadal was the only one to hand him a defeat there.

    Regarding their weak surfaces,the two are about the same in handing out defeats on the other guy's weak surface: Nadal beat Fed 3 times on HC,Nadal's weak surface(Miami 04',Dubai 06' and AO 09') and Fed beat Nadal 2 times on clay,Fed's worst surface(Hamburg 07',Madrid 09')
     
    #75
  26. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,026
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    Federer used to be really good at those big points while his prime. Maybe 2004-2007. His opponents had like a mental blockade in their heads, you often saw that. Playing a little bit less aggressive if it's close, playing a little bit different.
    With Nadal, the same happened with Federer. It's not that Nadal is way better than Federer. Or has "unbelievable skills". I think if anything, the mental toughness of Nadal combined with Feds shakiness at those points give Federer a hard time.

    In the Federer - Roddick rivalry it is a little bit the same, most games are pretty close but if it counts, Fed makes the point. And well, Nadal is better than Roddick of course.
     
    #76
  27. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Better matchups?? Hingis, Novotna? Where do you come up with this crap? Pull it out of your ***? Another idiot. Please spare us.
     
    #77
  28. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    ROTFL fool for your information Seles is 5-15 vs Hingis, stabbing or no stabbing that is a hideous head to head especialy since they started playing when Hingis was only 15 years old and most of Hingis's wins are total blowouts. Even at the peak of her career Seles had a super hard time beating a pre-prime Novotna in their only 2 meetings, 1 of them on a very slow hard court which Novotna never exceled on. Their overall head to head is 4-4 even with half of their matches being on clay, Novotna's worst surface by far, and 0 matches on grass. So just imagine the two playing on grass at any point in their careers.

    It is funny to see someone like you who obviously knows nothing about tennis trying to sound informed and insulting others.
     
    #78
  29. TheTruth

    TheTruth G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,672
    Geez, always a reason Fed is still better. So ridiculous. Nadal plays Federer darn good. Give it a rest. That's all there is to it.
     
    #79
  30. TheTruth

    TheTruth G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,672
    That's a great, objective and reasonable post. I see you're still keeping your head on straight!
     
    #80
  31. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    You are such an idiot, it's not even LOL. If Seles was never stabbed she would have owned both of those do nothings, neither of which came close to getting as many Majors in much longer careers. You have problems.
     
    #81
  32. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Bruce38 must be Seles's mom.
     
    #82
  33. Bhagi Katbamna

    Bhagi Katbamna Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,076
    WTF? He usually finds a way to win against everyone except Nadal(and DelPotro at the US Open this year) even when he's not playing his best.
     
    #83
  34. EtePras

    EtePras Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    733
    13-7 isn't domination? That's almost as one-sided as the ratio of achievements of white people to... oh wait, can't say without offending mods lol
     
    #84
  35. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    This thread is stupid on so many levels. The biggest differntiator between the greats and the very good, the champions and the almost champions, the winners and the finalists and semifinalists, is playing those big points bigger, playing bigger and bolder when it matters most. That is why Sabatini and Graf have gone to 3 sets in over half their matches and yet Graf has 22 slams and Sabatini 1. If Nadal wins the vast majority of his matches thus far with Federer, as well as the vast majority of their really big matches, because he consistently plays much better on breakpoints, then there is no more emphatic way to prove your superiority over an opponent than that.
     
    #85
  36. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    You just proved yourself wrong. You contend that Graf played the bigger points better, hence she has a 22-1 lead in slams. Yet you say Nadal plays the bigger pointer, however it's 15-6 for FED!....Explain that one. Yeah you'll bring up the H2H slams record. But the point is you don't become great by playing big points against only one player, you have to do it against ALL players....the field if you will. This is what Fed does, but Nadal does not. THIS is the difference between them. QED.
     
    #86
  37. Tshooter

    Tshooter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,148
    Why not go one further and put aside mere break points. Nadal just gets lucky on all those match points. :???:
     
    #87
  38. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    My thoughts:

    a) Federer had a few years to play, in his early prime, without Nadal as a ready threat. He won a lot in years with little competition. Just looking at the way they BOTH dominated a similar field just a year or two later shows this. Nadal has not been able to play without Federer. If he had, he'd have a few more Wimbledons and be up to like 10 slams at 23. Say what you will, but a 30-something Agassi doing so well in the 2000s shows something about the field.

    b) The field for hard courts is MUCH stronger than the field for clay. Federer is just a better player so he beats the weaker clay court opponents. It is much harder for Nadal to win on his least favorite surface (and he did win a HC slam in 09) after playing a full schedule on his favorite surface, with the strong HC opponents.
     
    #88
  39. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Then how do you suppose Nadal got to the last TWO USO semis? The last one apparently "injured". How strong can the hardcourt field be if he is able to do this? Contradictions...
     
    #89
  40. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    No I'm pointing out that he IS that good if he makes it that far in his worst surface. Semi-finals with a much deeper, stronger HC field is just as good as Finals in FO for Fed
     
    #90
  41. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Equally you can say Fed is THAT good that the rest of the clay field appears not so good. That you think the HC field is stronger than the clay field is completely subjective. The only hard data are results. Fed gets further on his worst surface than Nadal on his worst. Hence, Fed is better. Moreover, Nadal has only done it two times on HC. Fed has done 4 CONSECUTIVE finals in FO - same as Nadal on FO.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2009
    #91
  42. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,012
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I'm betting Bruce38 is JulesB actually.
     
    #92
  43. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    They've both won ONE GS on their worst surfaces. Getting to the finals on clay, with a weaker clay field (which is not subjective, as most of the top players' best surface is HC not clay), is not that big of a deal. You make it sound like it's huge.

    Nadal/Fed are much better than the rest of the field, but the rest of the field is better on HC, thus making it harder for Nadal to reach finals. Winning the actual Slam is all that matters in this case.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2009
    #93
  44. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    Nadal's worst surface is fast hardcourt, not slow like AO. Nadal has not won on his worst surface. The amount the rest of the field "worsens" on clay (if that is even true), it the same amount by which Fed worsens on clay compared to hardcourt. You can't prove otherwise.
     
    #94
  45. tennisMasta1

    tennisMasta1 New User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    When both players retire we will see that Nadal has overachieved and Federer has underachieved relative to their skill level. Nadal does not have any skills to dominate opponents and wins by wearing them down, most definitely on clay. Given that his number of titles and grandslams are staggering.

    Federer on the other hand can dominate his opponents in virtually any department of the game. He can outhit on forehands, outsmart on backhands and all around the court, and can outserve his opponents. Given that the number of losses - even though they are so very close and he was injured on some occasions - is staggering.
     
    #95
  46. ceberus

    ceberus Guest

    13-7, nuff said. You don't win a match only on break points saved.
     
    #96
  47. bruce38

    bruce38 Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,850
    15-6 "nuff" said. Positive h2h's against one player don't get you slams, which is what really counts.
     
    #97
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    What? It doesn't matter which slam you think it's tougher, semifinal <<<<<< final. Period. This is the second time I've encountered a poster saying losing before reaching the final >= to losing in the Final. LOL

    For the record, there's been 10 different players have won the USO in the past 20 years, but 14 for RG. So you can't say winning the USO is harder than the FO.
     
    #98
  49. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    It is harder for Nadal to win the USO than for Federer to win French, because right now the field for HC is much stronger than the field for clay. Nadal's worst surface is HC plus the stronger field = harder than Fed to win FO. I didn't SAY that winning either one is harder.
     
    #99
  50. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    I never said that about Federer and not trying to prove it.

    Federer is able to get to the FO finals more frequently because the field is worse on clay. Not because he's better on his worse surface than Nadal is on his worst surface.
     

Share This Page