2017 French Open FINAL: [3] Stan Wawrinka vs. [4] Rafael Nadal

Who will win?


  • Total voters
    207

marc45

G.O.A.T.
Brain Game: Nadal's 22 Minutes Of Mayhem

JUNE 11 2017

The Spaniard puts on a flawless display for La Decima at Roland Garros



It was 22 minutes of mayhem.

The match lasted two hours and five minutes, but the torturous time the ball was in play was just 21 minutes and 59 seconds. It must have felt like an eternity for Stan Wawrinka.

Rafael Nadal defeated Wawrinka 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 on Sunday afternoon at Roland Garros. From 2-2 in the first set, it was basically game over.

Overall, Nadal won 94 points to 57 (62%). The average point duration for the match was just eight seconds. Eight seconds of side-to-side, lactic acid domination. Eight seconds of Nadal running Wawrinka to whatever arrondissement of Paris he wanted him to go.

Wawrinka is so dangerous when he gets to step into a ball, but he spent the majority of the 22 minutes out wide on the edges of the court, playing defense against the best clay courter of all time.

Has Nadal ever played a better match than he did this afternoon in Paris? Maybe. Maybe not.

The most influential shot on the court was Nadal’s forehand. He only hit 14 forehand winners, but that was three more than Wawrinka’s 11. When Wawrinka defeated Novak Djokovic to win the Roland Garros title in 2015, Wawrinka crushed 60 total winners. Today he could not even manage a third of that (19). Wawrinka hit 26 forehand winners against Djokovic, but just 11 against Nadal.

The flow of rallies constantly saw Nadal hitting deep, aggressive forehands, while Wawrinka was on defense out wide on the edges of the court. Wawrinka made 20 forced errors on his forehand side and 17 unforced. Wawrinka essentially played the entire match on his back foot.

Backhands

The Nadal backhand was rock solid. He hit five backhand winners, but committed only 14 total backhand errors. Both of those metrics trumped Wawrinka, who managed just three winners on the backhand wing while committing a substantial 28 backhand errors. The Spaniard measured incredible range off the backhand wing, consistently going cross-court to make Wawrinka have to hit defensive forehands on the run.

Serving

When serving in the Deuce court, Nadal won a mind-blowing 91 per cent (20/22) of his first-serve points. On second serve, he won 67 per cent (8/12). That never happens.

Nadal faced only one break point for the match, at 1-1, 30/40 in the first set. As expected, Nadal served out wide in the Ad court, but Wawrinka missed a backhand return wide and long. Nadal then hit a 189kmh ace out wide in the Deuce court, and won the following point off a Wawrinka missed forehand return.

Overall for the tournament, Nadal won 72 per cent of his first-serve points, and a mind-blowing 74 per cent of his second-serve points. The Spaniard won 65 per cent (15-23) of his second serve points against Wawrinka.


Baseline

Nadal won an impressive 60 per cent (370/618) of his baseline points for the tournament, and a lights-out 65 per cent (58/89) against Wawrinka in the final. The primary tactic was to force Wawrinka to hit defensive backhands in Ad court exchanges. Nadal then made the Swiss star hit defensive forehands out wide.

Wawrinka hardly stepped into a ball all afternoon. You’ve got to give Nadal all the credit for creating that dynamic.

Summary

Nadal was +19 in the 0-4 shot rally length, +12 in the 5-8 shot rally length, and just +6 in the 9+ shot rally length. Nadal owned the short points, and won a ridiculously high 90 per cent (18/20) of his points at net. He also never served a double fault.

This is the new version of Rafael Nadal that had the fingerprints of new coach, Carlos Moya, all over it. Rafa didn’t grind. He didn’t wait. He was always on the front foot and always looking to make Wawrinka uncomfortable.

This match was also vintage Toni Nadal. You don’t win 10 Roland Garros titles without an extremely knowledgeable mentor. When it was all said and done, it was Uncle Toni who handed Rafa the trophy. Perfect symmetry for La Decima.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Hey man, I noticed you've posted detailed stats for several matches in the former pros section, great work. Are you just picking the matches yourself and doing it for fun or did someone request stats for certain matches a long time ago and you've been just working on them?

thanks :)
picking the matches myself and doing it for fun.

krosero and Moose Malloy are other 2 guys who do the stats regularly. They've done far more than I do.

this is the compilation of all:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-statistics-1959-present.552865/#post-9947506
 

TheAssassin

G.O.A.T.

abmk

Bionic Poster
Excellent effort and work by all of you. One day if I find free time and some good match that none of you have done yet, I'll try to contribute as well.

let any of us know when you plan to. We can tell you about how we do it for a couple of subjective things - like UEs. ;)
 

TheAssassin

G.O.A.T.
let any of us know when you plan to. We can tell you about how we do it for a couple of subjective things - like UEs. ;)
Yeah those are complicated, official numbers and our own are pretty much never identical. I will pm you at some point during the summer, probably late August/early September, to discuss the more difficult parts of doing stats.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
10 RGs in insane. Mind-bogglingly crazy.

Everyone talks of the strong 90s era clay courters...like muster and kuerten etc.

As talented as they were, they weren't in the same league physically and mentally as nadal (tho muster was unlucky with the car crash).

As an achievement on its own - it is more of an anomaly than federer's 18.
 

Mazz Retic

Hall of Fame
10 RGs in insane. Mind-bogglingly crazy.

Everyone talks of the strong 90s era clay courters...like muster and kuerten etc.

As talented as they were, they weren't in the same league physically and mentally as nadal (tho muster was unlucky with the car crash).

As an achievement on its own - it is more of an anomaly than federer's 18.
I would have loved to see guga v nadal. Of course nadal is the clay goat but that would be a compelling match.
 
It was also an utterly insipid performance by Wawrinka. I dont think he was mentally up for the title at all. Now on to Nadal-I think he is not given enough credit for his dominance of clay. In my opinion, he is up there with Fed for his sheer Grand Slam consistency since 2005.
 
A

AllCourtHeathen

Guest
giphy.gif
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
I would have loved to see guga v nadal. Of course nadal is the clay goat but that would be a compelling match.


I think there are players who could challenge rafa in a one match situation. Djokovic is a good example..kuerten too.

but over the course of a career, nadal is too good on clay.

His B game is so high...certain points today, i thought he was still playing like 3rd gear. solid and controlled.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
That's another way of saying that the match as a match was a dud: it never caught fire and was never interesting. And that's accurate.

I think there are players who could challenge rafa in a one match situation. Djokovic is a good example..kuerten too.

but over the course of a career, nadal is too good on clay.

His B game is so high...certain points today, i thought he was still playing like 3rd gear. solid and controlled.
 

Mazz Retic

Hall of Fame
I think there are players who could challenge rafa in a one match situation. Djokovic is a good example..kuerten too.

but over the course of a career, nadal is too good on clay.

His B game is so high...certain points today, i thought he was still playing like 3rd gear. solid and controlled.
It was scary good. It kind of makes me respect even more the challenge Federer and Djokovic have put up against him particularly the latter.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Let's not pretend he has won last 3 Slams or something. In fact he has won 1 of last 12.

I am not the one pretending anything. You want Fed to win a few more (!) slams to absolutely lock his record out of reach of Nadal or Djokovic. I am saying there is a limit to that. Most people thought 15 was enough. But 2 additional slams were supposed to be 'insurance'. Then, Nadal began to draw closer and AO 2017 got talked about a lot as it could potentially narrow the gap. Fed opened it up but Nadal has restored parity (with the earlier gap). So the race is never ending until Nadal calls it a day. But realistically we cannot expect Fed to go on adding slams and it's a miracle he won AO at his age. Of course I think he has a great chance at Wimbledon this year but it's not a lock nor is it for Nadal.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Arguable on clay but not on hardcourts for me. Not as punishing from defensive positions as before, and missing some of that explosive speed but let's see how he does in the US swing.
Remember Rafa did very well in the AO-IW-Miami swing too. IW doesn't look so good only because he drew Fed so early but at AO and Miami it was literally Fed stopping him from winning the titles. The higher bounce at say Canadian Open or US Open should suit him well and he will also draw a lot of confidence from this big win (and another great clay season as such). I would say forehand is still in getting-back-to-where-it was mode but his backhand is going through the court more. If he can just cut Wawrinka in two with the backhand on clay, wonder what it'll be like on HC. Plus, the bounce on those higher bouncing HC courts should be more to his liking than AO where they didn't kick up so much and were in Fed's strike zone. If Rafa can stay fit, he can probably beat Fed at USO. Let's see...
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
From ATP:

When serving in the Deuce court, Nadal won a mind-blowing 91 per cent (20/22) of his first-serve points. On second serve, he won 67 per cent (8/12). That never happens.

Nadal faced only one break point for the match, at 1-1, 30/40 in the first set. As expected, Nadal served out wide in the Ad court, but Wawrinka missed a backhand return wide and long. Nadal then hit a 189kmh ace out wide in the Deuce court, and won the following point off a Wawrinka missed forehand return.

Overall for the tournament, Nadal won 72 per cent of his first-serve points, and a mind-blowing 74 per cent of his second-serve points. The Spaniard won 65 per cent (15-23) of his second serve points against Wawrinka.



Beat that! @NoleFam
We can only wait and see if he is able to translate some of this to HC, something he has done before. Hm. Looks pretty good so far.


Those are staggering numbers.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
Except that 2008 Nadal was his absolute peak level on clay. Neither Thiem or Stan have ever seen that version of Nadal, nor ever played against it. Roger and Novak did.

so in all his RG's, assuming 2008 = 1, where is 2017 placed? He lost 41 games in 2008 as opposed to 35 games 2017. (One is retirement but guy wouldn't have gotten many games anyway.)

That's just mad.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
This is gonna be HUGE payback for AO 2014. Wawa will do well if he avoids bakery products (routinely inflicted by Nadal this event regardless of opponent)
Somehow, I got fustigated for posting this before the match but lo and behold I was right on the mark. Poor Wawa could not escape bakery products altogether but at least he averted bagel ;)
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Do not write him off. Nadal was in a slump for almost 3 years. Way too soon to write Djoko off. Especially when he has just made a master final and shown some signs of revival toward the end of the clay season.

I agree it's too soon to write off Djokovic but it's also too soon for Djokovic to be in good enough form to win Wimbledon IMO.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
so in all his RG's, assuming 2008 = 1, where is 2017 placed? He lost 41 games in 2008 as opposed to 35 games 2017. (One is retirement but guy wouldn't have gotten many games anyway.)

That's just mad.

And that's your criterion for whether Nadal was peak in 2008 or now, how many games he lost then as compared to now? You utterly neglect to mention his draw this year was a joke until the final. In 2008, he had to go through two ATG's: Djoker in the semis and Fed in the final.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
And that's your criterion for whether Nadal was peak in 2008 or now, how many games he lost then as compared to now? You utterly neglect to mention his draw this year was a joke until the final. In 2008, he had to go through two ATG's: Djoker in the semis and Fed in the final.

No, games lost isn't my criterion for peak Nadal, please do not misunderstand. I was asking where 2017 Nadal's performance you think should be placed if 2008 Nadal is placed at 1.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
And that's your criterion for whether Nadal was peak in 2008 or now, how many games he lost then as compared to now? You utterly neglect to mention his draw this year was a joke until the final. In 2008, he had to go through two ATG's: Djoker in the semis and Fed in the final.

Was the 2008 RG Nadal draw, excepting the sf and f, harder than the 2017 RG Nadal draw?

Was 2008 RG final Fed, regardless of being ATG, better than 2017 RG final Stan?

I don't know the best answer to either.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I agree it's too soon to write off Djokovic but it's also too soon for Djokovic to be in good enough form to win Wimbledon IMO.
yeah, plus idk how we are supposed to rate him if we doesnt play any warm up tournaments. apparently he normally doesnt play, but up to this point we usually have a pretty good idea, now its kind of up in the air. who knows, he might show up and surprise
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
And that's your criterion for whether Nadal was peak in 2008 or now, how many games he lost then as compared to now? You utterly neglect to mention his draw this year was a joke until the final. In 2008, he had to go through two ATG's: Djoker in the semis and Fed in the final.

Both of whom had zero chance against him and he waxed both in straights like they were ranked 200 in the world.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
yeah, plus idk how we are supposed to rate him if we doesnt play any warm up tournaments. apparently he normally doesnt play, but up to this point we usually have a pretty good idea, now its kind of up in the air. who knows, he might show up and surprise

Anything is possible but I have my doubts.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
Still it was only Djokovic in 2008 RG who gave Nadal a little bit of match at all.

Maybe this year, even severely depleted, Djokovic would have taken the most games from Nadal.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Haven't weighed in yet - what a disappointing final. Not in terms of who won (I would have been fine with either player), but just the lack of competitiveness. But, Stan can't feel too bad - that was pretty much classic Rafa, and he's blown out plenty of top players in similar fashion on clay at one point or another - nearly offensive defense, and the ability to change defense into real offense. Stan looked like so many players who lost to Nadal in his prime - there were slivers of potential of him getting into it, but the task was just too monumental - to hit that hard enough, close enough to the lines, and deep enough consistently to win points. Didn't seem like there was much he could do to open the court up enough, especially with Nadal hitting his backhand well. Stan would have needed to have a monumental serving day to get more free points or more easy second shots. There were times where he tried to play slightly more measured after trying to bang his way through the first set, but it did him little good.

Kudos to Stan on a fourth Slam final. Big Kudos to Rafa or climbing all the way back to Slam champion.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Haven't weighed in yet - what a disappointing final. Not in terms of who won (I would have been fine with either player), but just the lack of competitiveness. But, Stan can't feel too bad - that was pretty much classic Rafa, and he's blown out plenty of top players in similar fashion on clay at one point or another - nearly offensive defense, and the ability to change defense into real offense. Stan looked like so many players who lost to Nadal in his prime - there were slivers of potential of him getting into it, but the task was just too monumental - to hit that hard enough, close enough to the lines, and deep enough consistently to win points. Didn't seem like there was much he could do to open the court up enough, especially with Nadal hitting his backhand well. Stan would have needed to have a monumental serving day to get more free points or more easy second shots. There were times where he tried to play slightly more measured after trying to bang his way through the first set, but it did him little good.

Kudos to Stan on a fourth Slam final. Big Kudos to Rafa or climbing all the way back to Slam champion.
From what I understand, Stan couldn't get into the match because Rafa never gave him a chance to step into the ball.

He was running the Stanimal ragged, making Stan do all the running by hitting both his FH and BHs short and out wide with heavy spin.

Stan was on his back foot the moment Rafa warmed up, and as I said earlier somewhere, when you find yourself on your back foot against Nadal--at an RG final on Philippe Chatrier no less--the only way to go from there is down. In flames.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
From what I understand, Stan couldn't get into the match because Rafa never gave him a chance to step into the ball.

He was running the Stanimal ragged, making Stan do all the running by hitting both his FH and BHs short and out wide with heavy spin.

Stan was on his back foot the moment Rafa warmed up, and as I said earlier somewhere, when you find yourself on your back foot against Nadal--at an RG final on Philippe Chatrier no less--the only way to go from there is down. In flames.

Absolutely. I hope my post didn't come across as simply "Stan didn't execute" and that it was otherwise on his racquet. It was Rafa all the way - never let him get into . Stan couldn't do anything because Rafa didn't let him. And the few times Stan had small windows, Rafa slammed them shut.
 
Last edited:

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Imagine Nadal trying to play Djokovic's schedule. Nadal would've ended up in a pine box. LOL

Nobody cares about any of that, i.e . how long a player disappears for. The only thing which matters is how many slams, weeks @ #1 and YE #1s a player ends up with.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Haven't weighed in yet - what a disappointing final. Not in terms of who won (I would have been fine with either player), but just the lack of competitiveness. But, Stan can't feel too bad - that was pretty much classic Rafa, and he's blown out plenty of top players in similar fashion on clay at one point or another - nearly offensive defense, and the ability to change defense into real offense. Stan looked like so many players who lost to Nadal in his prime - there were slivers of potential of him getting into it, but the task was just too monumental - to hit that hard enough, close enough to the lines, and deep enough consistently to win points. Didn't seem like there was much he could do to open the court up enough, especially with Nadal hitting his backhand well. Stan would have needed to have a monumental serving day to get more free points or more easy second shots. There were times where he tried to play slightly more measured after trying to bang his way through the first set, but it did him little good.

Kudos to Stan on a fourth Slam final. Big Kudos to Rafa or climbing all the way back to Slam champion.
Rafa was returning brilliantly. That return position may be too conservative on grass or hc but on clay it allowed him to blunt the power of Stan's serve in a way that Murray couldn't. Of course, that's also down to Stan having to go with different patterns for the leftie. Same old, nothing new there. Stan came, saw and surrendered like many before him.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Still it was only Djokovic in 2008 RG who gave Nadal a little bit of match at all.

Maybe this year, even severely depleted, Djokovic would have taken the most games from Nadal.
Read an article where Toni attributed Nadal's victories over peak Djokovic at RG more to the latter's own psychological issues like wanting RG too badly and putting too much pressure on himself. From a match up perspective, they actually didn't like their chances.
 
Top