So much for Nadal's "decline"
- Thread starter Numenor
- Start date
Mustard
Bionic Poster
You're wrong.
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
Banned
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
Bionic Poster
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
Banned
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
Bionic Poster
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
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.
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
Banned
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Consistency and stats are the only things that matter, all else is biased subjective ****ism.
M
monfed
Guest
I concur. There is no decline at all. Infact, he's the firm favourite for RG now.
TJfederer16
Hall of Fame
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.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
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.
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.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
M
monfed
Guest
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
monfed
Guest
Nailed it.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Warmaster
Hall of Fame
In 2010,2011 and 2012 Nadal has reached his peak. Never before has he been this consistent against THE FIELD. HE couldn't handle Djokovic last year, but he was still in his peak as evidenced by his results.
Ofcourse Nadal and his fans like to say that he's declining and injured, it makes him look like such a warrior! Vamos!
Ofcourse Nadal and his fans like to say that he's declining and injured, it makes him look like such a warrior! Vamos!
PrinceMoron
Legend
MC Nadal looked huge to be honest, almost to the point where he needs surgery so he can play.
And no, that is a Dunlop.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I think he has learned how not to move so much. Gone is the 'go for all the shots' which didn't help his knees and was exhausting. I have a feeling he seems to know how to pace himself more
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
2008 Nadal facing the same field as he did in Monte Carlo this year would be throwing bagels and breadsticks everywhere.
CDestroyer
Professional
Absolutely. Nadal and his fruity worshippers better enjoy this win. Djokovic was at 40 % yesterday. His grandfather meant a great deal to him and I imagine it was just another tennis tournament and seemed insignificant in restrospect.
He will bounce back and continue destroying that butt digging mongril soon.
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
The terrible Djokovic who Nadal played yesterday would never have beat him in the USO or AO finals- probably not even Wimby, where Nadal was horrible
But Nadal WAS better than last year (though I think he still would've lost)- and I love how Nadal can add 15 MPH to his serve in a week and no commentator sees anything at all suspicious about this, can't exactly say he's adjusting for faster surface in MC
But Nadal WAS better than last year (though I think he still would've lost)- and I love how Nadal can add 15 MPH to his serve in a week and no commentator sees anything at all suspicious about this, can't exactly say he's adjusting for faster surface in MC
Last edited:
..so how come Djokovic didn't make the French Open last year?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
You do understand that service speed, strings and racket aside, is 100% based on technique and nothing to do with strength right?
That is why Milos, a little tiny skinny young boy, can serve 130+
Have you seen the size of Milos' legs? If not, go look.
Serve has everything to do with strength and technique. It involves leg strength, core strength, shoulder strength/flexibility etc.
zagor
Bionic Poster
No way! You see, he is able to have peak form here and there, that is all
Well peaking here and there resulted in him reaching 4 slam finals in a row (with 5th coming in soon at FO this year) something he never managed to do during his mythical peak.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
This is so laughable. Nadal is in his peak in 2012? Really....... in 2012? Wasn't he supposed to be done by 2010 at the very latest according to everyone on here years ago? He is still in his prime, but NOT his peak and his highest level is behind him.
kragster
Hall of Fame
C'mon, you are being silly. The ability to win slams and finals when you are outside your prime(not just your peak) is only reserved for the great Fed and hence the convenient saying "if god mode Fed shows up" to justify any results that go against a decline theory. For all other mere mortals like Rafa, winning a final necessarily means you are in your bestest primest peakest form (although paradoxically we have another set of threads from the same ****s talking about how awful Nole played).
Any talks of Rafa's decline or lack of it should be reserved until the end of 2012. Then we have a solid 2 yrs of data since 2010 to evaluate results. Until then he has neither declined nor 'reclined'.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I believe that even Venus got all the way up to 129 mph. So you a wrong, a player can have very little strength and be extremely skinny to the point of looking anorexic and still serve into the 120+ range.
Tennis is a technique sport, not a strength sport.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Ehm, according yo everyone here years ago Fed was done and dusted in 2008 yet some people still claim he's playing as good as ever at the age of 30-31 so what?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not really, Sampras, Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, arguably Andres Gomez etc. are all the examples of players winning slam(s) past their prime (and if you're including just finals then you can add Roddick and Ljubicic on that list for winning IW and Miami in 2010).
That said, just because Nadal had issues with one single player over the past year or so doesn't automatically mean everyone has to buy the decline theory (not to mention that paradoxically some of those same Nards who lament their hero's decline since 2011 also claim 30 year old Fed is playing as good as ever).
Nailed it, zagor. Also, don't forget the Nadal ****s who claimed that Nadal was making progress against Djoker at the AO 2012, and that Djoker was playing as well as he ever was. The former may have been true, but the latter certainly wasn't; anyone could see that the Novak of 2012 isn't the same as the Novak of 2011.
kragster
Hall of Fame
It's an endless cycle of using the same flawed arguments on the pretext that 'the other camp used this argument'. I think the underlying issues, as any Safin fan will attest to, is that everyone wants to believe that 'when their player is playing his best' no one can beat them. Anything that goes against this has to be rationalized to injury/not feeling well/matchup/surface etc.
I think making a definitive statement 'Nadal HAS declined' or 'Nadal HASN'T declined' begets a high standard of proof from either side and it's the main reason I'm non committed on the topic. Like I've said. What we know
Nadal 2010 >Djoker 2010 > Field ( for the moment let's exclude Federer from this discussion)
Djoker 2011 > Djoker 2010/Nadal 2011 > Field
As you can see, through none of these can you make the mathematical inference of Nadal 2011 vs Nadal 2010. Even if we assume that Djoker 2011 > Nadal 2010 based on the fact that Djoker had a better year, we could still have
Djoker 2011> Nadal 2011>Nadal 2010>Djoker 2010>Field
OR
Djoker 2011 > Nadal 2010>Nadal 2011>Djoker 2010> Field
Both of these would be equally valid until proven otherwise. Anyways I don't even know why there is this huge premium associated with 'peak', it's not like you get extra points for slams won outside your peak. At the end of your career the sum total of your accomplishments (preprime, prime and postprime) is what will be looked at.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Rafa is not declining, he is still in his prime. Most finals played for Fed: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. He had a "compact" prime. Rafa is having a different type of career, his best years are not in a block but intermittent. Most finals played: 2005, 2008, 2011. In 2011, Rafa made as many finals as in 2008. He just happened to lose more of them because he developed a block against Djoko. If not, he would have won more than in 2010 (still 3 slams but more masters).
billnepill
Hall of Fame
No, Djokovic was just better in 2011. Mental block might have occurred in AO 2012
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Whatever you want to call it, doesn't make a difference. It was not decline is my point.
As much as I don't like to give excuse to DJ, he was not himself, he wasn't really playing. That is a fact.
But I will only give him this once, next time Nadal beats him, that will be because Nadal is the better player.
Nadal declining has nothing to do with whether he is the favorite at RG or not. He could beat most guys on one leg on clay with the amount of topspin and purchase he gets from the surface. Only a handful have the capability of putting up any sort of fight against him.
But that doesn't in anyway mean, he hasn't declined, albeit ever so slightly.
But that doesn't in anyway mean, he hasn't declined, albeit ever so slightly.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Disagree with you there. Federer was the firm favorite. He had won W 5 times in a row prior to that and in 2006 and 2007 defeated Nadal there. Sure some people thought Nadal may win but Roger was the favorite.
My point was only that Federer had declined a little post 2007. He was still able to win slams but he was not the same player he was from 2003-2007. Nadal is still in his prime but he has declined a little in certain areas as well. Not a big decline but slight in certain areas.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Yep, totally agree.
M
monfed
Guest
Contradiction and actually even Federer fans had their doubts in WB 2008 especially since Ralph took Fed to 5 sets in 2007. Not to mention Fed was thrashed senseless by the bull in RG 2008 which further dented his confidence and was playing on him(confessed by Roger himself), was in the slump of his career. I mean Ralph was on course to hand Federer a straight sets beatdown on GRASS. Heck even the bookmakers odds were 55-45,that's not firm favourite by any means. Agree to disagree then.
That decline was enough for Ralph to usurp Federer at WB 08. Heck even 07 was a tightrope battle for Federer at WB 07, RG was the usual washout.
Again no decline, so agree to disagree.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
No, dude. I remember the betting odds very well before the final - Federer stood at 1,7 compared to 2,0 for Nadal, it was pretty much dead even - a slight advantage for Fed given he won the previous 5 editions.
