So much for Nadal's "decline"

[Numenor]

A "declining" Nadal straight-setted Djoker. A "declining" Nadal won MC without dropping a set.

He is playing just as good as he ever was, there was never any decline.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Numenor

He is playing just as good as he ever was, there was never any decline.

You're wrong.

[gsharma]

Originally Posted by Numenor

A "declining" Nadal straight-setted Djoker. A "declining" Nadal won MC without dropping a set.

He is playing just as good as he ever was, there was never any decline.

Sorry dude, you just don't understand the game of tennis at the higher level if you are going to make such statements. ND played a VERY poor match.

Nadal's backhand is nowhere near his best and I'd even say his return of serve is pretty poor right now.

I saw the match today and as much as Nadal played well, ND's game was totally off. Some of my observations:
- Nadal hit the DTL forehand and backhand regularly. DTL backhand is important otherwise ND just camps on his forehand side
- Nadal's shots had some bite to them today.
- ND played really poor today - there is NO way he'd repeat such a performance if they meet at the FO.
- Nadal's forehand gives absolutely no trouble to ND. ND can cream flat backhand and forehand winners off Nadal's forehand. This is a troubling sign - once ND finds his game, Nadal will run out of gas defending those flat shots.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Sorry but if you in any way believe Nadal had declined, you know nothing about tennis or competition for that matter.

[kishnabe]

I assume *******s will say : Nadal declined 2011 but went on incline in 2012.

[gsharma]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

Sorry but if you in any way believe Nadal had declined, you know nothing about tennis or competition for that matter.

As I pointed out, Nadal's backhand and return of serve are not the same as 2008.

Just because he keeps winning against everyone but ND doesn't mean he hasn't regressed. Nadal's lower level is probably good enough to beat everyone but ND. And these two aren't mutually exclusive.

The logic is straight forward but you have to have an unbiased mind.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by gsharma

As I pointed out, Nadal's backhand and return of serve are not the same as 2008.

And also his mobility around the court was far superior in those days. His movement back then was utterly relentless, not like now, where his movement seems more sluggish.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Originally Posted by gsharma

As I pointed out, Nadal's backhand and return of serve are not the same as 2008.

Just because he keeps winning against everyone but ND doesn't mean he hasn't regressed. Nadal's lower level is probably good enough to beat everyone but ND. And these two aren't mutually exclusive.

The logic is straight forward but you have to have an unbiased mind.

Yes Nadal's BH and ROS are the same as 2008. And yes it does mean he's not regressed if he keeps winning.

I am unbiased, you are not.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

I am unbiased.

10 big laughs

[Hood_Man]

I think the problem is a lot of people have their own ideas on what a decline means. It would be great to see a stat showing how much time Nadal spends on court these days compared to similar scored matches in his pre 2009 seasons for instance.

He certainly plays differently anyway, and he's been a lot more consistent on all surfaces, even clay. Correct me if I'm wrong but since his early loss in Rome 2008 I believe he's reached the final of every clay tournament he's entered (except of course RG 2009 with his knee injury)?

He's not as fast as he used to be, but I think he handles that pretty well.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Originally Posted by Mustard

10 big laughs

Right back at ya

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Consistency and stats are the only things that matter, all else is biased subjective tardism.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by Numenor

A "declining" Nadal straight-setted Djoker. A "declining" Nadal won MC without dropping a set.

He is playing just as good as he ever was, there was never any decline.

I concur. There is no decline at all. Infact, he's the firm favourite for RG now.

[TJfederer16]

Just because he finally picked up his first title since RG last year at his favorite tournament of which he has now won 8 times in a row doesn't mean suddenly he's back to his best, if he hadn't won here then it really would have been huge and i think that would have damaged his mentally a lot considering all the success he's had there. But it is a big title for Rafa nonetheless as this should give him a lot of confidence especially beating Novak in the final, all be it an under par Djoker, going into the upcoming clay tournaments, so will be interesting to see how both matchup against each other when they next meet each other.

[Sentinel]

It's outright painful how Nadal haters disguised as objective fans are discrediting his decisive, flawless win over Djokovic.

[sbengte]

What decline ? Nadal has been playing at his best all of last year as has been proved over and over again with stats. Nothing has changed in Nadal's game , it is funny that Djoker's fluctuating level is fooling people into thinking it is Nadal who is in decline or peaking.

Djoker 1.0 was a non-factor prior to 2011
Djoker 2.0 owned Nadal in 2011
Djoker 1.3 barely managed to get a win against Nadal at AO 2012
Djoker 0.8 who showed up at MC yesterday got straight setted by Nadal.

Bottom line, if Djoker 1.0 or less had showed up in 2011, Nadal would be sitting on 13 slams and 5 more masters with a record breaking 2011 and instead of Nadal decline threads, this place would be swarmed with "Nadal is the most important living person" threads.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by monfed

I concur. There is no decline at all. Infact, he's the firm favourite for RG now.

Wasn't Roger the firm favorite for W in 2008 yet by that point he had declined a little from his 2003-2007 form. Nadal can still win slams and other tournaments yet it does not mean he has not declined a little bit because he has in some areas. It is only normal. He is still better than the majority of the field.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by cc0509

Wasn't Roger the firm favorite for W in 2008 yet by that point he had declined a little from his 2003-2007 form. Nadal can still win slams and other tournaments yet it does not mean he has not declined a little bit because he has in some areas. It is only normal. He is still better than the majority of the field.

FIRM favourite? Not if you're sane! Slight favourite? Sure.
It was called the changing of the guard and not an upset for a REASON.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by sbengte

What decline ? Nadal has been playing at his best all of last year as has been proved over and over again with stats. Nothing has changed in Nadal's game , it is funny that Djoker's fluctuating level is fooling people into thinking it is Nadal who is in decline or peaking.

Djoker 1.0 was a non-factor prior to 2011
Djoker 2.0 owned Nadal in 2011
Djoker 1.3 barely managed to get a win against Nadal at AO 2012
Djoker 0.8 who showed up at MC yesterday got straight setted by Nadal.

Bottom line, if Djoker 1.0 or less had showed up in 2011, Nadal would be sitting on 13 slams and 5 more masters with a record breaking 2011 and instead of Nadal decline threads, this place would be swarmed with "Nadal is the most important living person" threads.

Nailed it.

[Big_Dangerous]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And also his mobility around the court was far superior in those days. His movement back then was utterly relentless, not like now, where his movement seems more sluggish.

I still don't see anyone moving better on the dirt than Nadal, so even if his movement isn't as great as it was in 2008, it's not like the rest of the field is catching up to him.

I think he's put on a lot more muscles in 4 years, to be honest.

So that would certainly impact his movement.