2016 Australian Open 1R: [5] Rafael Nadal vs Fernando Verdasco

WWW?

  • Rafa in 3

    Votes: 17 23.3%
  • Rafa in 4

    Votes: 20 27.4%
  • Rafa in 5

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • Fernando in 3

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Fernando in 4

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • Fernando in 5

    Votes: 23 31.5%

  • Total voters
    73

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Both are bad. But losing to Dasco in the 1st round is very bad. The fact that he played him in the 1st round shows that Dasco was just garbage for a very long time, otherwise he would not have dropped this much in the rankings.

Overall, Fed has the tougher draw. This was established from the very start.
Only real threat Fed has before the semis is Kyrgios, who could very well not even reach him

Dimitrov will not bother Fed in a million years and Dolgo is just in bad form
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Rafa is determined to change NOTHING.

Disagree. He has experimented with a new stick and during the autumn indoor season last year, he was coming to the net much more often.

Of all the top players of the Open era, the only two who radically changed their games were Lendl (on grass) and Connors (who started volleying consistently). It's very rare that it happens.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Only real threat Fed has before the semis is Kyrgios, who could very well not even reach him

Dimitrov will not bother Fed in a million years and Dolgo is just in bad form

Everything is predictable on paper until the last point of the match is played out..
 
I can't believe he keeps losing these matches by such small margins every time. He was known to be a mental giant, but how did he become mentally weaker than Verdasco and Fognini, seemingly overnight? All 5 set matches, all close matches, and he loses almost all of them.The only close match that he won that I can remember was his last match against Rosol. But that wasn't at a big tournament.
He knows something we dont... and its not good. I hope he regains his FO crown in 2016 but yeah not looking good
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
if Nando can play like this in remaining rounds of aussie open, then he CAN win this slam. but Sadly he won't.................and won't keep up this level.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
3rd or 4th. Some days Wawrinka is ahead, some days Nole. Wawrinka's "attitude" is frustrating, if it was better then maybe it would be clear.

I dare say that an on form Ronnie might be the most excellent thing in sport?
 

La Grande

G.O.A.T.
I dare say that an on form Ronnie might be the most excellent thing in sport?

Maybe :) He likes to "get on with it" like Roger, and does so gloriously. Messi, Roger, Ronnie, Steph Curry... an odd bunch of sporting generals that put on a show.

But back to your point, Snooker is one of those sports you can basically perfect, like, shut your opponent out completely. And it's so damn classy man. To watch Ronnie ignore the other man slumped in his chair and get a century break in 5-10 minutes is a wonderful thing.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Maybe :) He likes to "get on with it" like Roger, and does so gloriously. Messi, Roger, Ronnie, Steph Curry... an odd bunch of sporting generals that put on a show.

But back to your point, Snooker is one of those sports you can basically perfect, like, shut your opponent out completely. And it's so damn classy man. To watch Ronnie ignore the other man slumped in his chair and get a century break in 5-10 minutes is a wonderful thing.

It is indeed.

When I think of Messi I think of brilliance; Djokovic it's excellence; Ronnie it's art.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Mehh.. he's great and maybe it's just me.. isn't he a tad annoying? Doesn't detract from his achievements and talent of course..

Absurdly talented when on but Vettel keeps mentally on it more consistently than Hamilton. Both are annoying - lol! Hamilton is a force of nature though when he's on song and it's emphatic stuff.
 
Disagree. He has experimented with a new stick and during the autumn indoor season last year, he was coming to the net much more often.

Of all the top players of the Open era, the only two who radically changed their games were Lendl (on grass) and Connors (who started volleying consistently). It's very rare that it happens.
You forgot about Borg (at Wimby, a natural baseliner and clay-courter, who consistently served and volleyed at Wimby to beat natural grass courters including Connors and McEnroe).

Anyway, Djokovic has changed his game. So has Federer. So has Wawrinka and so has Murray. Plenty of players have changed their games radically.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Do you think he needs to at least equal Hendry's World Championship record?

I don't think he has to, no (for me to personally see him as the greatest that is). He's at 16 TC events right now and Hendry has 18. If he surpasses that total by a couple or more then I might be swayed, especially given Ronnie's incredulous longevity at the highest level, in which he's consistently adapted his game to meet the demands of the times. Ronnie will never have the dominance of Hendry or S.Davis. The amazing thing about Ronnie is that he's won majors over a span of more than 20 years now.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I don't think he has to, no (for me to personally see him as the greatest that is). He's at 16 TC events right now and Hendry has 18. If he surpasses that total by a couple or more then I might be swayed, especially given Ronnie's incredulous longevity at the highest level, in which he's consistently adapted his game to meet the demands of the times. Ronnie will never have the dominance of Hendry or S.Davis. The amazing thing about Ronnie is that he's won majors over a span of more than 20 years now.
Yeah I pretty much agree although I do think he needs at least one more World Championship. With his talent he should really have a few more titles already but he's never exactly been the most professional of players over the years, certainly nowhere near as dedicated as Davis and Hendry were in their pomp and that's what ultimately might end up costing him.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Yeah I pretty much agree although I do think he needs at least one more World Championship. With his talent he should really have a few more titles already but he's never exactly been the most professional of players over the years, certainly nowhere near as dedicated as Davis and Hendry were in their pomp and that's what ultimately might end up costing him.

Might cost him, as Hendry's stubbornness might end up costing him in these trivial GOAT matters. S.Davis has a good enough excuse, as the game was taken out of his hands quite suddenly and into Hendry's wheelhouse with changing table conditions. I think Davis did all he could.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Might cost him, as Hendry's stubbornness might end up costing him in these trivial GOAT matters. S.Davis has a good enough excuse, as the game was taken out of his hands quite suddenly and into Hendry's wheelhouse with changing table conditions. I think Davis did all he could.
Davis was always my favourite player and tbh I still think he has a pretty decent argument of being the greatest himself.
 

La Grande

G.O.A.T.
Might cost him, as Hendry's stubbornness might end up costing him in these trivial GOAT matters. S.Davis has a good enough excuse, as the game was taken out of his hands quite suddenly and into Hendry's wheelhouse with changing table conditions. I think Davis did all he could.

What's the story here? I'm not a Snooker historian and I wasn't alive in the 70's or 80's
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Ronnie also has the argument of playing in a stronger era than Hendry ever did considering his prime coincided with Higgins' and Williams'.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
What's the story here? I'm not a Snooker historian and I wasn't alive in the 70's or 80's

In the late 80s the game was transitioning with much faster snooker baize being used and the transition was pretty quick also. Davis was still the best in the world for a while behind Hendry after Hendry ascended but such a change can be the difference between winning and losing. The game started to become a scorers game and Hendry was the perfect prototype for dominance for a game that would have changed regardless of his presence - meaning the changing conditions were always bound to have a profound effect on the way snooker would be played. Hendry got hauled in by some decline and also the rising class of '92 in Williams, Higgins and O'Sullivan, the latter two of which developed thorough all-round games. Hendry's stubbornness cost him in that the game he had built for the rigours of his era needed to include more contingency as the new generation ascended, and he more or less refused to master safety play and tactics. He had solid safety and tactics by all means, but he needed to take those aspects to new levels and he didn't. He dominated hard for many years and lost some hunger.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Davis was always my favourite player and tbh I still think he has a pretty decent argument of being the greatest himself.

On pure level, I don't think so - and I'm trying to account for all the changes in the game and eras and competition yadda yadda. In terms of his potential to excel in any era, I had a discussion recently where we suggested that Davis born into Ronnie's era (or later) would have developed into a better scorer and still been a superb tactician, and would have been well suited to being the #1 today against similarly complete players such as Selby, Robertson, O'Sullivan, Higgins and others. On the flipside, we suggested that Hendry would struggle more in the era because beating such players on the trot with an almost purely attacking game would not be sustainable. However we were probably being unfair, becauase if Hendry came along later he'd have probably built a winning formula for a different circumstance.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
On pure level, I don't think so - and I'm trying to account for all the changes in the game and eras and competition yadda yadda. In terms of his potential to excel in any era, I had a discussion recently where we suggested that Davis born into Ronnie's era (or later) would have developed into a better scorer and still been a superb tactician, and would have been well suited to being the #1 today against similarly complete players such as Selby, Robertson, O'Sullivan, Higgins and others. On the flipside, we suggested that Hendry would struggle more in the era because beating such players on the trot with an almost purely attacking game would not be sustainable. However we were probably being unfair, becauase if Hendry came along later he'd have probably built a winning formula for a different circumstance.
I think Davis' incredible safety game would have enabled him to excel in any era and it's not like he wasn't capable of being a great attacking player as well. I'm not so sure that Hendry would've achieved as much had he been born a few years later considering there are now so many more players such as the ones you mentioned who are also able to rack up century after century which would frustrate the Scot who hated sitting down for too long!
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
speed up the tables!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-World-Snooker-trying-stop-winning-title.html

When they installed a presumably thicker and slower cloth for the 2013 final, we saw a record number of centuries in the WSC final (tied record, Ronnie had a chance to break it in the last frame but missed one of the low value colours on 80-odd). When the tables are too fast it becomes incredibly hard to control the cueball. The sweet spot and you get centuries galore - fast enough to split the balls and recover bad position and not too fast as to be playing on ice.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I think Davis' incredible safety game would have enabled him to excel in any era and it's not like he wasn't capable of being a great attacking player as well. I'm not so sure that Hendry would've achieved as much had he been born a few years later considering there are now so many more players such as the ones you mentioned who are also able to rack up century after century which would frustrate the Scot who hated sitting down for too long!

Yes, but when on, Hendry is still the most brutal attacking force ever seen in Snooker, including Higgins or O'Sullivan, or Ding, Trump, White, or anyone else. Hendry was a good attacking player and potter, but would've have been a better one had he been part of the class of '92 Trifecta.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
speed up the tables!i'm also a believer in outdoor snooker where the weather effects every part of the game!

Haha. It would drive the players insane. Snooker players definitely experience some of the most consistent conditions around in sports. Sometimes the pockets can be more generous - Ronnie stated that the 2016 Masters table had generous pockets.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Yes, but when on, Hendry is still the most brutal attacking force ever seen in Snooker, including Higgins or O'Sullivan, or Ding, Trump, White, or anyone else. Hendry was a good attacking player and potter, but would've have been a better one had he been part of the class of '92 Trifecta.
Can he still be classed as the most brutal given that Ronnie has now surpassed him for most century breaks? I guess if you're talking about a certain period of dominance then yeah, there's been nobody better.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
Haha. It would drive the players insane. Snooker players definitely experience some of the most consistent conditions around in sports. Sometimes the pockets can be more generous - Ronnie stated that the 2016 Masters table had generous pockets.
Surfers should be paid far more,they never stay on the same surface for even a second,have some of that!:)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Can he still be classed as the most brutal given that Ronnie has now surpassed him for most century breaks? I guess if you're talking about a certain period of dominance then yeah, there's been nobody better.

Ronnie is the best break-builder overall, in that he constantly can make big breaks at a clip of say a 9 out of 10 rating. Peak Hendry produced more 10 out of 10 stuff though - most centuries ever at 1 WSC, most centuries in a best of 19 match.. things like that.

Go to cuetracker for more stats. You can see Ronnie gets centuries at a faster rate than Hendry and many modern day players also do the same. None of them though have bettered Hendry's best and most brutal levels of attacking play though. Hendry managed a 147 against Ronnie in a deciding frame of a significant snooker final, albeit not a ranking event (IIRC). Hendry is the most brave attacker that Snooker has seen - Ronnie gets it done in a greater variety of ways and produces the best clearances I've seen from difficult positions.

I kinda liken Hendry to Sampras and Ronnie to Federer in terms of how they played.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Ronnie is the best break-builder overall, in that he constantly can make big breaks at a clip of say a 9 out of 10 rating. Peak Hendry produced more 10 out of 10 stuff though - most centuries ever at 1 WSC, most centuries in a best of 19 match.. things like that.

Go to cuetracker for more stats. You can see Ronnie gets centuries at a faster rate than Hendry and many modern day players also do the same. None of them though have bettered Hendry's best and most brutal levels of attacking play though. Hendry managed a 147 against Ronnie in a deciding frame of a significant snooker final, albeit not a ranking event (IIRC). Hendry is the most brave attacker that Snooker has seen - Ronnie gets it done in a greater variety of ways and produces the best clearances I've seen from difficult positions.
Hendry's also the best long ball potter I've ever seen. Man it used to frustrate me so much how many of those he used to make in his pomp. :D
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Hendry's also the best long ball potter I've ever seen. Man it used to frustrate me so much how many of those he used to make in his pomp. :D

Yeah. I think Hendry firing would destroy Selby almost every time. Hendry would down even most of the difficult tempters.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
The guy was like a machine out there. Merciless and without feeling. :eek:

Frustrating that he lost some drive because it would have been interesting to really see him try to go at the class of '92 for longer, much like Federer has tried in tennis. Yes, he kept playing for many years after his prime but he stopped "trying". He stopped trying to improve and went backwards.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Frustrating that he lost some drive because it would have been interesting to really see him try to go at the class of '92 for longer, much like Federer has tried in tennis. Yes, he kept playing for many years after his prime but he stopped "trying". He stopped trying to improve and went backwards.
I'm glad he did Nathaniel - the guy had won more than enough already!
 
Top