2017 Madrid Open Final - [4] Nadal vs [8] Thiem

Who will lift the Ion Tiriac trophy?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Thiem did fine against Rafa today considering his last match finished so late. Nothing extremely impressive as Nadal was not playing all that well and had to come through on some BP to save himself. But I'm not going to hate on Thiem for this performance like I did for his poorer Barcelona performance. He's at least making some moves, not his fault the rest of his generation was subpar.

By complaint is with the whole generation being pathetically weak than any one player. By far the weakest series of generations in history. Never before has there been anywhere near such a gap between all time great players. It's a complete joke that Federer and Nadal have swept the big events so far with barely any challenge from the younger generation, no matter how well they are playing (which is good, but not close to prime level). I expected both Federer and Nadal to have their swansongs and win another major, but I never expected that they would be completely dominating tennis again, as great as they are.
You have zero proof that both Nadal and Fed were not playing at prime level in their respective dominant part of the year. You simply want to believe that everyone else is playing badly, and that this proves that younger players are the weakest ever. So you state again and again that this is fact, based on zero evidence besides your own conclusions based on your feelings about what is happening right now.

No matter how many times I and others state that it MAY be due to other factors, you will have none of it.

Essentially what you are saying is: "This is how I see things, and I know I am right."

There is no one here who is itching more for younger players to break through then me. I don't necessarily like the way things are right now any better than you do. I just postulate different reasons, and one of them is an absolute breakthrough in medicine and treatment that is allowing older players to recover faster. Lack of recovery has always been the main reason why aging players stopped dominating. Going back many decades aging ATGs were extremely dangerous in single matches against younger players but were unable to string together successive wins to go deep in majors and other longer tournaments.

Seeding helps older players. TBs help them, shortening matches. More and more matches decided in three sets helps them. Ice baths, eggs, so many things help them recover.

When I was young my father and his generation would not even walk around the block at my age, and they ate food that was horrible for them. They drank a lot, ate a lot of red meat, lots of salt, and in general they did a lot of things that people today would not even think about doing.

I don't drink, watch what I eat, read everything I can get my hands on about diet, don't go near soda and diet drinks, and I still run at night. There are now quite a few people in their 60s who function more like people in their 50s, and in some cases in their later 40s.

Life expectancy in the US is knocked down by people who do nothing to stay in shape and who are hugely overweight, but around the world life expectancy keeps going up and will probably go up even more.

There is no sharp line any more between "better living through chemistry" and "leading a clean life". For all we know some of the substances that are illegal or that fall into a gray area may increase health and longevity.

I see no reason not to believe that in sports the age of decline is not being pushed back at least a couple years.

But you and others consistently treat this idea as if it is nonsense.

I simply don't agree.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
If they play in Rome again that will be their 3rd meeting in 3 weeks :eek:. Do you by any chance have the stats for the most meetings in some short period of time, Meles? :p
Not my thing. It just happens. Djokovic could clash with Kyrgios 3rd time this year in Rome R16. Here's another:
7/2017 QF Rotterdam I Hard David Goffin Grigor Dimitrov 6-4 1-6 6-3 3.00 - 1.41
6/2017 F Sofia I Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 7-5 6-4 1.40 - 3.00
3/2017 QF Australian Open Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 6-3 6-2 6-4 1.57 - 2.40

Something like the above two examples is a little rarer as they are all early round clashes. On clay I'd say the more interesting is who has clashed with Rafa. We have:
22/2006 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4) 1.65 - 2.20
19/2006 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5) 1.58 - 2.30
16/2006 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)

I'd love to know more about why it took Fed until 2006 to really take over on clay.

Ouch again (one of Rafa's best years):
22/2008 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 1.30 - 3.30
20/2008 F Hamburg Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3 1.63 - 2.50
17/2008 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 7-5 1.51 - 2.81

Djoko losing to the King 4 times! (a bit shocked at the odds on these as Djokovic won an awesome 55.0% of clay points in 2008 including three set match with Rafa and winning Rome, but Rafa had his 2008 reputation. Needless to say Djoko's 2008 stats took a dent to 54.0%):
20/2009 SF Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 3-6 7-6(5) 7-6(9) 1.15 - 7.10
18/2009 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-6(2) 6-2 1.14 - 7.60
16/2009 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 2-6 6-1 1.10 - 9.00
10/2009 Spain v Serbia - DC WG - R1 Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-4 6-1 1.09 - 10.00

2011 Djoko beat Rafa twice, but here's 2012:
22/2012 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5 1.30 - 4.05
20/2012 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-5 6-3 1.75 - 2.25
16/2012 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 6-1 1.78 - 2.20

Last, but not least Rafa's arrival as the King of Clay (cheating here to show Coria who should have won RG in 2004):
18/2005 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-4 3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(6) 1.69 - 2.28
15/2005 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-3 6-1 0-6 7-5 2.19 - 1.72

And now Thiem so far:
18/2017 F Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 7-6(8) 6-4 1.14 - 5.00
17/2017 F Barcelona Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-1 1.25 - 4.00


Thiem may have a big danger match in round of 16 with Pouille. Should be a great match. With Monte Carlo SF (injured or would have been final) and Budapest win Pouille sitting on 54.2% clay court points won so far in 2017.

When you consider how we rate Goffin and Thiem right now on clay Pouille's record is no joke:
38/2016 SF Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(6) 6-1 2.50 - 1.53
17/2016 R64 Madrid Masters Clay Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(4) 2-6 7-6(7) 2.95 - 1.40
1/2016 R16 Brisbane Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(5) 4-6 6-3 5.05 - 1.16
38/2016 F Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 7-6(5) 6-2 2.60 - 1.50
15/2015 R64 Monte Carlo Masters Clay Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-4 4.25 - 1.25

Luca is on fire right now and 5-0 versus Goffin and Thiem plus this:
35/2016 R16 US Open Hard Lucas Pouille Rafael Nadal 6-1 2-6 6-4 3-6 7-6(6)

E0zO1jpsEmuek.gif
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Gary Duane, post: 11206330, member: 712898"]Because of this:

"Nadal will annihilate him today, watch and see"

Did you see a player get annihilated?

No, but I saw Thiem get defeated in straight sets. BeatlesFan always talks in absolutes and I agree with you that it is quite silly to do so unless something is completely obvious.

What BeatlesFan was right about in his or her quote in your signature was that Thiem hasn't won a thing worth any significance and Nadal has beat him relatively effortlessly in the past few weeks.

Unlike many other people I have been saying since the HC season that Nadal looks a lot like he did in 2013.

Yes and on clay one could argue he has made some improvements since 2013, i.e. serve, backhand, court positioning.

I am consistent in saying that Nadal has been a force of nature on clay most years since around 2005. Many people made a grave error in assuming that late 2014 through 2016 was what we should now expect from Nadal.

I always thought Nadal would make a comeback at some point. It was only in 2016 where I thought maybe he wouldn't. In 2015 on clay he was awful for his standard but I still had hope at that point.

There is no humiliation in losing two close sets on clay to 2017 Nadal any more than it was humiliating for Nadal to lose seven times in a row to Djokovic when he was all but unbeatable or to lose three in a row to Federer before the clay season.

But I'm not seeing the type of champion in Thiem that I saw in Nadal, Djokovic and Federer so it's a completely different thing.

I was actually rooting for Nadal today, but if Thiem had somehow won I would have been happy for him.

I agree.

I simply don't buy the idea that just because great players win that means that the players who lose, no matter how hard they try, are losers.

It's sour grapes and frankly an insult to younger players who are doing everything they can to break through.

Everyone here - and this includes you - should be open-mindedly looking for reasons for veteran success other than the "young players are hopeless" explanation for why players close to 30 and over 30 are now doing so well and have been doing very well for a few years.

What Nadal is doing right now should be a wake-up call telling people to check their assumptions at the door and to cut more slack for younger players who, for all you guys know, may be dominating in a similar way when THEY get older.

I'm not saying it is so, just saying that it deserves open-minded investigation.

Ok, but I think that the younger players should be doing more. My expectations are different than yours perhaps when I watch a professional sport.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Thiem did fine against Rafa today considering his last match finished so late. Nothing extremely impressive as Nadal was not playing all that well and had to come through on some BP to save himself. But I'm not going to hate on Thiem for this performance like I did for his poorer Barcelona performance. He's at least making some moves, not his fault the rest of his generation was subpar.

By complaint is with the whole generation being pathetically weak than any one player. By far the weakest series of generations in history. Never before has there been anywhere near such a gap between all time great players. It's a complete joke that Federer and Nadal have swept the big events so far with barely any challenge from the younger generation, no matter how well they are playing (which is good, but not close to prime level). I expected both Federer and Nadal to have their swansongs and win another major, but I never expected that they would be completely dominating tennis again, as great as they are.
Somebody's bitterer than everer about no Federer lol.:rolleyes: My take on this year is that Federer and Nadal are in prime form and not weak prime form. Its not peak, but that is what the stats say. People go on an on about neutral rallies and players movement, but these days its all about serve and return. Nadal's known it, commented on it, and finally got it together this year. On clay, his serving is nearly perfect this year with a fantastic backhand. Thiem specializes in abusing average returns. Nadal adjusted his game and gave Thiem virtually nothing he could tee off on. Maybe he had some UEs doing this, but not too many. Nadal has to be slower than he was when 23 years old or even younger in 2008, but he's still very fast and reads Thiem like a book. All of Thiem's shots that work against other opponents (including Federer) are almost neutralized by Nadal and he's forced into playing Nadal's war of attrition. Thiem played a great match today because he took Rafa on at his own game and nearly prevailed.

Other than Nadal, Djokoray are just falling apart before our eyes. On clay the drop is truly alarming and much worse than Nadal's drop in 2015-2016 period. Clayikori may be the only player that did well last year that will find their form in 2017 other than Nadal. Berdych and all the other golden oldies are dropping too. Frankly, its like taking candy from a baby for the younger players. Federer has been smart so far to stay out of the geriatric tar pit that is 2017 clay.

Goffin had a very solid Fall and has continued his momentum for much of the year (4th in the ATP race). His first serve game is a bit better which might easily be missed. He delivered at Rome and RG last year and has continued the momentum to the 2017 clay season. He's marginally better than the player last year, but no way is he anywhere near slam level winning stats.

Thiem had a nice end to the clay season and has continued the momentum into this year with a much more solid return game and somewhat improved returning. Thiem probably put on one of his better games versus in Nadal because he served at 73%. His stats are dropping, but still quite strong and improved over last years ATP 250 heavy clay schedule (no 250s so far;).) He's very marginal for winning a slam on clay, but much better than a player like Kafelnikov. Get rid of Nadal and Thiem seems to have all the tools to win RG.

Pouille is the dark horse this year with great stats, 5-0 record versus Thiem and Goffin plus the US Open triumph over Nadal.

Its nowhere near the domination of the Big 3 on clay in Fed's heyday, but I'm not sure its crazy weak because all of these players are mentally very tough competitors. Its a nice transition year because we have prime Nadal to used as a measuring stick.

You can crap all over it or enjoy a nice crop of talent (including Zverev and Coric) getting stronger by the week.:p

If you'd spouted off in the match thread with this nonsense you'd probably have gotten yourself ostracized.;) A glimmer of hope exists for Denadalization of the draw.:p
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Somebody's bitterer than everer about no Federer lol.:rolleyes: My take on this year is that Federer and Nadal are in prime form and not weak prime form. Its not peak, but that is what the stats say. People go on an on about neutral rallies and players movement, but these days its all about serve and return. Nadal's known it, commented on it, and finally got it together this year. On clay, his serving is nearly perfect this year with a fantastic backhand. Thiem specializes in abusing average returns. Nadal adjusted his game and gave Thiem virtually nothing he could tee off on. Maybe he had some UEs doing this, but not too many. Nadal has to be slower than he was when 23 years old or even younger in 2008, but he's still very fast and reads Thiem like a book. All of Thiem's shots that work against other opponents (including Federer) are almost neutralized by Nadal and he's forced into playing Nadal's war of attrition. Thiem played a great match today because he took Rafa on at his own game and nearly prevailed.

Other than Nadal, Djokoray are just falling apart before our eyes. On clay the drop is truly alarming and much worse than Nadal's drop in 2015-2016 period. Clayikori may be the only player that did well last year that will find their form in 2017 other than Nadal. Berdych and all the other golden oldies are dropping too. Frankly, its like taking candy from a baby for the younger players. Federer has been smart so far to stay out of the geriatric tar pit that is 2017 clay.

Goffin had a very solid Fall and has continued his momentum for much of the year (4th in the ATP race). His first serve game is a bit better which might easily be missed. He delivered at Rome and RG last year and has continued the momentum to the 2017 clay season. He's marginally better than the player last year, but no way is he anywhere near slam level winning stats.

Thiem had a nice end to the clay season and has continued the momentum into this year with a much more solid return game and somewhat improved returning. Thiem probably put on one of his better games versus in Nadal because he served at 73%. His stats are dropping, but still quite strong and improved over last years ATP 250 heavy clay schedule (no 250s so far;).) He's very marginal for winning a slam on clay, but much better than a player like Kafelnikov. Get rid of Nadal and Thiem seems to have all the tools to win RG.

Pouille is the dark horse this year with great stats, 5-0 record versus Thiem and Goffin plus the US Open triumph over Nadal.

Its nowhere near the domination of the Big 3 on clay in Fed's heyday, but I'm not sure its crazy weak because all of these players are mentally very tough competitors. Its a nice transition year because we have prime Nadal to used as a measuring stick.

You can crap all over it or enjoy a nice crop of talent (including Zverev and Coric) getting stronger by the week.:p

If you'd spouted off in the match thread with this nonsense you'd probably have gotten yourself ostracized.;) A glimmer of hope exists for Denadalization of the draw.:p
I can't call players in prime form when they haven't faced an elite-level player all year (meaning prime or better ATG) and they are well over 30 with heavily declined movement. For you it's easy because you have no idea what these guys were in their prime and thus if the stats are there you have no problem saying they are prime or peak form.

Stats show how good you are against the field. Prime/peak is basically consistency against the field+being able to bring a consistently high level against elite opponents. You can be out of your prime and still be just as good against 98% of the field, but when you actually run into an elite opponent, the deficiencies are exposed. Case in point, Federer in 2015. If a player is young enough and playing high level tennis you can say he's in prime form even if he doesn't have elite opponents to face, but when guys are over 30 and declined I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I love looking at advanced statistics in many other sports, and I adhere by them quite religiously, but it pains me when people do the same in tennis with points/games stats because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game of tennis works. Tennis has probably by far the highest variance in performance level out of any sport and is maybe the most context dependent out of any sport, and as a result it's extremely difficult to quantify so simplistically. Pretty much everything has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Stats to evaluate skills? Not impossible. Stats to evaluate playing level? Very tough.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Not my thing. It just happens. Djokovic could clash with Kyrgios 3rd time this year in Rome R16. Here's another:
7/2017 QF Rotterdam I Hard David Goffin Grigor Dimitrov 6-4 1-6 6-3 3.00 - 1.41
6/2017 F Sofia I Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 7-5 6-4 1.40 - 3.00
3/2017 QF Australian Open Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 6-3 6-2 6-4 1.57 - 2.40

Something like the above two examples is a little rarer as they are all early round clashes. On clay I'd say the more interesting is who has clashed with Rafa. We have:
22/2006 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4) 1.65 - 2.20
19/2006 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5) 1.58 - 2.30
16/2006 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)

I'd love to know more about why it took Fed until 2006 to really take over on clay.

Ouch again (one of Rafa's best years):
22/2008 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 1.30 - 3.30
20/2008 F Hamburg Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3 1.63 - 2.50
17/2008 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 7-5 1.51 - 2.81

Djoko losing to the King 4 times! (a bit shocked at the odds on these as Djokovic won an awesome 55.0% of clay points in 2008 including three set match with Rafa and winning Rome, but Rafa had his 2008 reputation. Needless to say Djoko's 2008 stats took a dent to 54.0%):
20/2009 SF Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 3-6 7-6(5) 7-6(9) 1.15 - 7.10
18/2009 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-6(2) 6-2 1.14 - 7.60
16/2009 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 2-6 6-1 1.10 - 9.00
10/2009 Spain v Serbia - DC WG - R1 Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-4 6-1 1.09 - 10.00

2011 Djoko beat Rafa twice, but here's 2012:
22/2012 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5 1.30 - 4.05
20/2012 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-5 6-3 1.75 - 2.25
16/2012 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 6-1 1.78 - 2.20

Last, but not least Rafa's arrival as the King of Clay (cheating here to show Coria who should have won RG in 2004):
18/2005 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-4 3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(6) 1.69 - 2.28
15/2005 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-3 6-1 0-6 7-5 2.19 - 1.72

And now Thiem so far:
18/2017 F Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 7-6(8) 6-4 1.14 - 5.00
17/2017 F Barcelona Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-1 1.25 - 4.00


Thiem may have a big danger match in round of 16 with Pouille. Should be a great match. With Monte Carlo SF (injured or would have been final) and Budapest win Pouille sitting on 54.2% clay court points won so far in 2017.

When you consider how we rate Goffin and Thiem right now on clay Pouille's record is no joke:
38/2016 SF Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(6) 6-1 2.50 - 1.53
17/2016 R64 Madrid Masters Clay Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(4) 2-6 7-6(7) 2.95 - 1.40
1/2016 R16 Brisbane Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(5) 4-6 6-3 5.05 - 1.16
38/2016 F Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 7-6(5) 6-2 2.60 - 1.50
15/2015 R64 Monte Carlo Masters Clay Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-4 4.25 - 1.25

Luca is on fire right now and 5-0 versus Goffin and Thiem plus this:
35/2016 R16 US Open Hard Lucas Pouille Rafael Nadal 6-1 2-6 6-4 3-6 7-6(6)

E0zO1jpsEmuek.gif
What was wrong with Federer on clay in 2005?
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
You have zero proof that both Nadal and Fed were not playing at prime level in their respective dominant part of the year. You simply want to believe that everyone else is playing badly, and that this proves that younger players are the weakest ever. So you state again and again that this is fact, based on zero evidence besides your own conclusions based on your feelings about what is happening right now.

No matter how many times I and others state that it MAY be due to other factors, you will have none of it.

Essentially what you are saying is: "This is how I see things, and I know I am right."

There is no one here who is itching more for younger players to break through then me. I don't necessarily like the way things are right now any better than you do. I just postulate different reasons, and one of them is an absolute breakthrough in medicine and treatment that is allowing older players to recover faster. Lack of recovery has always been the main reason why aging players stopped dominating. Going back many decades aging ATGs were extremely dangerous in single matches against younger players but were unable to string together successive wins to go deep in majors and other longer tournaments.

Seeding helps older players. TBs help them, shortening matches. More and more matches decided in three sets helps them. Ice baths, eggs, so many things help them recover.

When I was young my father and his generation would not even walk around the block at my age, and they ate food that was horrible for them. They drank a lot, ate a lot of red meat, lots of salt, and in general they did a lot of things that people today would not even think about doing.

I don't drink, watch what I eat, read everything I can get my hands on about diet, don't go near soda and diet drinks, and I still run at night. There are now quite a few people in their 60s who function more like people in their 50s, and in some cases in their later 40s.

Life expectancy in the US is knocked down by people who do nothing to stay in shape and who are hugely overweight, but around the world life expectancy keeps going up and will probably go up even more.

There is no sharp line any more between "better living through chemistry" and "leading a clean life". For all we know some of the substances that are illegal or that fall into a gray area may increase health and longevity.

I see no reason not to believe that in sports the age of decline is not being pushed back at least a couple years.

But you and others consistently treat this idea as if it is nonsense.

I simply don't agree.
So you think this wave of new players has not been the worst in history? Do you want to go generation by generation? I'd be happy to compare.

Proof that Federer is not in prime form? Because a prime/peak ATG in Djokovic beat him like a drum every time the chips were down. Proof that Nadal is not in prime form? Because that same Federer had the easiest stretch of matches against him he's maybe ever had. Why? Because their movement is nowhere near as good as it once was. They've made adjustments to adapt against the rest of the field, but against an elite opponent who can exploit that movement deficit with consistent depth from all positions it's easily exposed. Fortunately for them, after Djokovic fell off a cliff there haven't been any elite opponents.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
...
Ok, but I think that the younger players should be doing more. My expectations are different than yours perhaps when I watch a professional sport.
Excellent post cc, really excellent except for this last line.:rolleyes: You are expecting ATGs to grow on trees and they just don't. Yes some young players have had success at slams, but do you really think a Chang or even a more competent player like a young Sampras would stand a chance these days?

Gary likes to track games stats and I prefer points. Its very easy to go back in time (til 1991 is easy) and track how young players performed and matured on the various surfaces. Players start their prime around age 24 (the year they turn 24) in most cases. Its a slow, steady climb after that to get to peak, etc. This means a player like Thiem is hitting his prime this year. His stats are up nicely and he's doing better, but this is it for Thiem. He's likely to level out around 53.5% this year and he might get a bit higher when Rafa retires in a few years or declines further, but he's not going to match Rafa's prime (nobody has or is likely to ever). But as far as the long run Thiem winning 53-54% in a year on clay puts him in strong contention for RG and he might have some great years with Nadal out of the way or declined. Thiem has to continue his success on grass this year and really make a dent in the later hard court season at his age. Another poor year on hard courts and Thiem will be very restricted on the surface and simply a clay court specialist. This is his year to shine.

Pouille is very much in the same boat, but maybe next year's stats will be prime. Until this clay season, despite some slam results Pouille really has not delivered on the stats before.

Zverev and Kyrgios are tracking along well, but their return numbers the elephant in the room. They must keep improving on return to take it to the next level. A stall in their return numbers for no good reason is not a good thing as tall players tend to peak early and of course pick up bulk later on and can ill afford to lose any movement as they move into their late 20's. Their return numbers are marginal at best and if they don't improve them they'll become sub-Roddick servebots.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Thiem played really well today. He is like wawrinka 2.0.

future RG winner here.

Nadal just proving again that he is a demigod on this surface.
 
Thiem did fine against Rafa today considering his last match finished so late. Nothing extremely impressive as Nadal was not playing all that well and had to come through on some BP to save himself. But I'm not going to hate on Thiem for this performance like I did for his poorer Barcelona performance. He's at least making some moves, not his fault the rest of his generation was subpar.

By complaint is with the whole generation being pathetically weak than any one player. By far the weakest series of generations in history. Never before has there been anywhere near such a gap between all time great players. It's a complete joke that Federer and Nadal have swept the big events so far with barely any challenge from the younger generation, no matter how well they are playing (which is good, but not close to prime level). I expected both Federer and Nadal to have their swansongs and win another major, but I never expected that they would be completely dominating tennis again, as great as they are.
Nobody did
 

Feather

Legend
You have zero proof that both Nadal and Fed were not playing at prime level in their respective dominant part of the year. You simply want to believe that everyone else is playing badly, and that this proves that younger players are the weakest ever. So you state again and again that this is fact, based on zero evidence besides your own conclusions based on your feelings about what is happening right now.

No matter how many times I and others state that it MAY be due to other factors, you will have none of it.

Essentially what you are saying is: "This is how I see things, and I know I am right."

There is no one here who is itching more for younger players to break through then me. I don't necessarily like the way things are right now any better than you do. I just postulate different reasons, and one of them is an absolute breakthrough in medicine and treatment that is allowing older players to recover faster. Lack of recovery has always been the main reason why aging players stopped dominating. Going back many decades aging ATGs were extremely dangerous in single matches against younger players but were unable to string together successive wins to go deep in majors and other longer tournaments.

Seeding helps older players. TBs help them, shortening matches. More and more matches decided in three sets helps them. Ice baths, eggs, so many things help them recover.

When I was young my father and his generation would not even walk around the block at my age, and they ate food that was horrible for them. They drank a lot, ate a lot of red meat, lots of salt, and in general they did a lot of things that people today would not even think about doing.

I don't drink, watch what I eat, read everything I can get my hands on about diet, don't go near soda and diet drinks, and I still run at night. There are now quite a few people in their 60s who function more like people in their 50s, and in some cases in their later 40s.

Life expectancy in the US is knocked down by people who do nothing to stay in shape and who are hugely overweight, but around the world life expectancy keeps going up and will probably go up even more.

There is no sharp line any more between "better living through chemistry" and "leading a clean life". For all we know some of the substances that are illegal or that fall into a gray area may increase health and longevity.

I see no reason not to believe that in sports the age of decline is not being pushed back at least a couple years.

But you and others consistently treat this idea as if it is nonsense.

I simply don't agree.


LOL, as if you don't have any agenda.

I have seen you supporting one of the most rabid Roger haters in the Former Player section. :D I don't post there but read almost all the posts there.

As for Roger and Rafa, unless you are extremely biased you can see that they are pale shadows of the great players they were. It's ridiculous when Roger at age 35 and Rafa at age 30 (after playing such a brutal style) will be playing as best as they were when they were in their 20s when they were at the peak of their athletic prowess. You are bitter that Roger and Rafa are doing well. And you overcome that bitterness by saying that they play as best as their best. Whatever that make you sleep well :D
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL, as if you don't have any agenda.

I have seen you supporting one of the most rabid Roger haters in the Former Player section. :D I don't post there but read almost all the posts there.
Name names and give facts. Who am I supporting?

What is my agenda?
As for Roger and Rafa, unless you are extremely biased you can see that they are pale shadows of the great players they were.
Where is my bias? Because I don't agree with you?
It's ridiculous when Roger at age 35 and Rafa at age 30 (after playing such a brutal style) will be playing as best as they were when they were in their 20s when they were at the peak of their athletic prowess. You are bitter that Roger and Rafa are doing well.
Utter nonsense. I could not be more pleased about how well both are playing this year. As much as I hate GOAT debates, to me what Fed has done this year has greatly strengthened his claim to be the GOAT. I also claim that Nadal, this year, is very close to his peak level on clay.

In fact, I have been attacked by fans of Rafa from the time I joined this forum because I've openly said how much I enjoy watching Federer play. Then I got attacked by Fed fans for enjoying Rafa.

I never miss a match of either player.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
So you think this wave of new players has not been the worst in history?
Chicken/Egg. New players are the worst, Big Four is the best ever. I'm not even going to go there. It's a pointless loop.
Proof that Federer is not in prime form? Because a prime/peak ATG in Djokovic beat him like a drum every time the chips were down.
Another loop. You can't prove that Fed would not have won many of those meetings, at a younger age than he is now, if he had made changes to his game back then that he has this year.

These top guys keep reinventing themselves. Murray did it last year, Fed and Nadal both did it this year. For all I know, Djokovic may do it again, though the whole thing with Pepe makes me doubt that at present.
They've made adjustments to adapt against the rest of the field, but against an elite opponent who can exploit that movement deficit with consistent depth from all positions it's easily exposed.
You can't prove you are right about that, and I can't prove you wrong.

The question is this: how much does an improvement in technique/tactics compensate for age?

Answer: not measurable.

The fact is that if Fed has not been really good this year on HCs, and Nadal has not been amazing on clay, again, it means that they are not really playing at a top level. I can't for the life of me think of why people who admire either of them would want to try to prove that. To me it seems insulting to the top efforts both have put in this year so far.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Saw the highlights. The level of tennis was incredibly high. Thiem clearly is the second best player on clay this season.

Yeah, great match! If Thiem had taken his chances to step into the court every time he put pressure on Nadal, he could have done more harm. Instead, he stayed 10 feet behind the baseline and allowed Nadal to hit loopy shots to get back into rallies. Thiem showed a little more patience than he has done in the past, but his game was too one-dimensional. It was power and more power. Nadal took advantage with droppers and angled backhands. Thiem has a larger set of tools, but didn't use them yesterday. First and foremost, I though Thiem played a strong mental match. He didn't surrender.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, great match! If Thiem had taken his chances to step into the court every time he put pressure on Nadal, he could have done more harm. Instead, he stayed 10 feet behind the baseline and allowed Nadal to hit loopy shots to get back into rallies. Thiem showed a little more patience than he has done in the past, but his game was too one-dimensional. It was power and more power. Nadal took advantage with droppers and angled backhands. Thiem has a larger set of tools, but didn't use them yesterday. First and foremost, I though Thiem played a strong mental match. He didn't surrender.

Rafa is so good at the net and runs down drop shots. Thiem tried more first set in Barcelona but with no success. You just have to sort of try to grind Rafa out ala prime Novak. But thats bloody difficult with Rafas BH. Rafa being annoyed at himself when he wasnt able to return first serves. He is a monster to meet on clay these days. Thiem did a good job.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Rafa is so good at the net and runs down drop shots. Thiem tried more first set in Barcelona but with no success. You just have to sort of try to grind Rafa out ala prime Novak. But thats bloody difficult with Rafas BH. Rafa being annoyed at himself when he wasnt able to return first serves. He is a monster to meet on clay these days. Thiem did a good job.

Well, that's the point: Stepping up to the baseline is a must, or he will defend every shot you hit. Nadal doesn't run down a drop shot if you hit it from the net ;) Thiem had many opportunities where he hit some really bouncy shots into the corners. That's when he needs to attack, at least one out of three times, so that Rafa doesn't know what's going on on the other side of the net. He can't hit his loopy shots back if you storm the net. That's my point. If a coach could speak to Thiem during the match yesterday, I am quite sure he would have changed his tactic. He would also be less exhausted.

Rafa played great. But he is not unbeatable :)
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, that's the point: Stepping up to the baseline is a must, or he will defend every shot you hit. Nadal doesn't run down a drop shot if you hit it from the net ;) Thiem had many opportunities where he hit some really bouncy shots into the corners. That's when he needs to attack, at least one out of three times, so that Rafa doesn't know what's going on on the other side of the net. He can't hit his loopy shots back if you storm the net. That's my point. If a coach could speak to Thiem during the match yesterday, I am quite sure he would have changed his tactic. He would also be less exhausted.

Rafa played great. But he is not unbeatable :)

Its so easy to stand on the sideline and tell top players what to do :p
When Rafa is so good at the net its not tempting to hit dropshots from the net. As I can recall Thiem did that too second set yesterday with no success (And not everybody is as good as Gulbis at hitting dropshots from the back..had to mention him, miss him on tour lol)
Good luck to Thiem solving the riddle of Rafa on clay!
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, he had set point :)
Thiem was some cm away from winning the set(or a break) as I can remember. Thiem did not give up or fold, and thats something good as he has been folding to top players. He has been overhitting under moderatpressure and been obvious he has had some mental blocks, but now he is better. Yesterday was a big positive, and I believe he can do even better shot placement with more confidence. Hope its something he can transfer to HC too.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
So when Thiem is 27 years old and Nadal is 34 and possibly retired that's when Thiem will start to win clay Masters 1000s or perhaps the FO? We have to wait until the demise of Nadal for that to happen? Didn't Thiem himself recently say that he can't think of being #1 as long as Fedal are playing? This is the type of player who excites most people on this board these days? :confused: What happened to youngsters competing well enough with legends and winning? :mad:

Apparently we have to get excited nowadays when 'youngsters' save setpoints. Nvm if they still predictably lose the match. Low standards these days.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
High quality straight sets win, very entertaining match. A shame I missed it live, but the time difference was too much. Rafa is a damn beast, and if he can keep this kind of form up, it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to defeat him in the upcoming weeks. Straight sets doesn't do Thiem's performance justice, just like it didn't do Goffin's performance either. Both played a great match.

People fawn over Rafa, Fed and Djoker but then crucify any of the young guns who can't beat them in the biggest tournaments? Come on. Sometimes, the best players ever are simply too good on the day. Though it's not always the case (I'm looking at you Raonic).

Thiem did great in his 1st Masters final, and is back to his career high of #7.
Very nice post. :)

It's just unfair to guys like Thiem and Goffin to diminish their achievements, as if there could have been ANYONE who would've been able to stop Rafa in this beastly form.

In fact, these complaints about 'the rest of the field being dire' very much resemble the nausating claims of certain folks that Fed's ultimate peak - 2004-2007 imho - was merely due to all the other players being weaklings, which, much to my annoyance, still pop up once in a while.
NO - just like with Rafa on clay right now (and during most of his clay reign), those other players weren't 'weak', it was more than anything else, a matter of one certain player being better than everybody else, which made the others look 'weak'.

But nothing lasts forever, and I can well see Thiem and Goffin - and hopefully some others, too - make a dent in this and future seasons.
 

Charleneriva

Hall of Fame
Not my thing. It just happens. Djokovic could clash with Kyrgios 3rd time this year in Rome R16. Here's another:
7/2017 QF Rotterdam I Hard David Goffin Grigor Dimitrov 6-4 1-6 6-3 3.00 - 1.41
6/2017 F Sofia I Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 7-5 6-4 1.40 - 3.00
3/2017 QF Australian Open Hard Grigor Dimitrov David Goffin 6-3 6-2 6-4 1.57 - 2.40

Something like the above two examples is a little rarer as they are all early round clashes. On clay I'd say the more interesting is who has clashed with Rafa. We have:
22/2006 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4) 1.65 - 2.20
19/2006 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5) 1.58 - 2.30
16/2006 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)

I'd love to know more about why it took Fed until 2006 to really take over on clay.

Ouch again (one of Rafa's best years):
22/2008 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 1.30 - 3.30
20/2008 F Hamburg Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 6-7(3) 6-3 1.63 - 2.50
17/2008 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5 7-5 1.51 - 2.81

Djoko losing to the King 4 times! (a bit shocked at the odds on these as Djokovic won an awesome 55.0% of clay points in 2008 including three set match with Rafa and winning Rome, but Rafa had his 2008 reputation. Needless to say Djoko's 2008 stats took a dent to 54.0%):
20/2009 SF Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 3-6 7-6(5) 7-6(9) 1.15 - 7.10
18/2009 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-6(2) 6-2 1.14 - 7.60
16/2009 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 2-6 6-1 1.10 - 9.00
10/2009 Spain v Serbia - DC WG - R1 Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-4 6-1 1.09 - 10.00

2011 Djoko beat Rafa twice, but here's 2012:
22/2012 F FO - RG Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5 1.30 - 4.05
20/2012 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 7-5 6-3 1.75 - 2.25
16/2012 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6-3 6-1 1.78 - 2.20

Last, but not least Rafa's arrival as the King of Clay (cheating here to show Coria who should have won RG in 2004):
18/2005 F Rome Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-4 3-6 6-3 4-6 7-6(6) 1.69 - 2.28
15/2005 F Monte Carlo Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Guillermo Coria 6-3 6-1 0-6 7-5 2.19 - 1.72

And now Thiem so far:
18/2017 F Madrid Masters Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 7-6(8) 6-4 1.14 - 5.00
17/2017 F Barcelona Clay Rafael Nadal Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-1 1.25 - 4.00


Thiem may have a big danger match in round of 16 with Pouille. Should be a great match. With Monte Carlo SF (injured or would have been final) and Budapest win Pouille sitting on 54.2% clay court points won so far in 2017.

When you consider how we rate Goffin and Thiem right now on clay Pouille's record is no joke:
38/2016 SF Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(6) 6-1 2.50 - 1.53
17/2016 R64 Madrid Masters Clay Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(4) 2-6 7-6(7) 2.95 - 1.40
1/2016 R16 Brisbane Hard Lucas Pouille David Goffin 7-6(5) 4-6 6-3 5.05 - 1.16
38/2016 F Metz I Hard Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 7-6(5) 6-2 2.60 - 1.50
15/2015 R64 Monte Carlo Masters Clay Lucas Pouille Dominic Thiem 6-4 6-4 4.25 - 1.25

Luca is on fire right now and 5-0 versus Goffin and Thiem plus this:
35/2016 R16 US Open Hard Lucas Pouille Rafael Nadal 6-1 2-6 6-4 3-6 7-6(6)

E0zO1jpsEmuek.gif

LOL, Meles. Thanks for the info, really :D. I have to admit I was more teasing you than being serious about the stats. But since you're being you it's such a thorough and enthusiastic reply once again. :p
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Apparently we have to get excited nowadays when 'youngsters' save setpoints. Nvm if they still predictably lose the match. Low standards these days.

That's true but despite the bigger picture you still gotta have appreciation for a quality match which this final certainly was. Don't have to completely view it through the prism of "emerging young player facing an aging great" but just enjoy some good display of CC tennis.

Even a match that is relatively predictable in result can be high quality, have some brutal rallies and great points. Heck, I know I loved Fed-Davydenko matches just for the way they matched-up from the baseline.
 
2

2HBH-DTL

Guest
not sure if goffin can pull through this match or not. not enough rest between madrid and rome.

edit: wrong freaking thread.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I can't call players in prime form when they haven't faced an elite-level player all year (meaning prime or better ATG) and they are well over 30 with heavily declined movement. For you it's easy because you have no idea what these guys were in their prime and thus if the stats are there you have no problem saying they are prime or peak form.

Stats show how good you are against the field. Prime/peak is basically consistency against the field+being able to bring a consistently high level against elite opponents. You can be out of your prime and still be just as good against 98% of the field, but when you actually run into an elite opponent, the deficiencies are exposed. Case in point, Federer in 2015. If a player is young enough and playing high level tennis you can say he's in prime form even if he doesn't have elite opponents to face, but when guys are over 30 and declined I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I love looking at advanced statistics in many other sports, and I adhere by them quite religiously, but it pains me when people do the same in tennis with points/games stats because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game of tennis works. Tennis has probably by far the highest variance in performance level out of any sport and is maybe the most context dependent out of any sport, and as a result it's extremely difficult to quantify so simplistically. Pretty much everything has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Stats to evaluate skills? Not impossible. Stats to evaluate playing level? Very tough.
Sounds like you basically grossly under value Djokovic's game in 2015-2016.:rolleyes:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
What was wrong with Federer on clay in 2005?
I don't know. He had more success later on clay. What took him so long to flourish on clay when he was solid on the surface and started dominating elsewhere from 2003 into 2004? Lost to Kuerten in 2004, etc. Dumped first round in 2002 and 2003.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
It's just unfair to guys like Thiem and Goffin to diminish their achievements, as if there could have been ANYONE who would've been able to stop Rafa in this beastly form.

But Nadal is not in beastly form, that's simply a misnomer. He's quite declined from his 2013 level on clay and his speed is significantly less than peak level. Nobody would have expected Thiem or Goffin to get anywhere near Nadal in 2008 or 2010 or 2013. But Nadal is now 31 and he HAS declined. It's just nobody out there (except Fed) is good enough to exploit this.

Djoker of early 2016 form would have beaten Nadal at every clay tournament this year and probably not lost a set. Stanimal in beast clay form would defeat him too. So there are players who could have stopped Nadal this Spring.
 

Fintft

G.O.A.T.
But Nadal is not in beastly form, that's simply a misnomer. He's quite declined from his 2013 level on clay and his speed is significantly less than peak level. Nobody would have expected Thiem or Goffin to get anywhere near Nadal in 2008 or 2010 or 2013. But Nadal is now 31 and he HAS declined. It's just nobody out there (except Fed) is good enough to exploit this.

Djoker of early 2016 form would have beaten Nadal at every clay tournament this year and probably not lost a set. Stanimal in beast clay form would defeat him too. So there are players who could have stopped Nadal this Spring.


Seems rigged to me.

a) From the last game alone, a couple of subtle things Thiem did:
  1. Got himself wrong footed more than usual, also forgetting to split step etc.
  2. Got himself aced out 2 times in a row, preceded by another winning 1st wide serve by Nadal on the deuce side.
  3. Slowed down when chasing a high drop shot.
  4. Returned a couple of short balls down the middle of the court.
  5. He did show though, that if he wanted he could have beaten Nadal with his 1HBH alone.
b) So Nadal will win now all the clay events, something that he was bitter about that he couldn't do in his prime when he complained that the clay season is too condensed?
 

LaDecima

New User
Nice user name. Wecome aboard.:D Looking forward to Thiemination of La Decima.;) Friday in Rome QF is another practice session for Thiem against the champ.
If rafa is cute he will suffer a surprise defeat before the qf!! No need for another war with thiem
 
Seems rigged to me.

a) From the last game alone, a couple of subtle things Thiem did:
  1. Got himself wrong footed more than usual, also forgetting to split step etc.
  2. Got himself aced out 2 times in a row, preceded by another winning 1st wide serve by Nadal on the deuce side.
  3. Slowed down when chasing a high drop shot.
  4. Returned a couple of short balls down the middle of the court.
  5. He did show though, that if he wanted he could have beaten Nadal with his 1HBH alone.
b) So Nadal will win now all the clay events, something that he was bitter about that he couldn't do in his prime when he complained that the clay season is too condensed?
2FABA0FC00000578-3377831-image-a-14_1451409762473.jpg
 
I would agree with that, and I think it's actually down to one very simple factor: positioning.
In an earlier comment on the thread, I mentioned the dimensions of Court Philippe Chatrier and I'll expand on it now. This is a very deep court, much deeper than most of the other courts on tour and it lulls a lot of players into a false sense of security, thinking that they can stand comfortably behind the baseline and run more balls down by sliding around at the back of the court. In effect, they feel they have more time and can use defensive plays to work their way into points.
Against Nadal on Chatrier, this is not going to be a winning strategy (or a particularly competitive one) unless you have completely unrivalled speed and endurance. We saw Thiem standing well behind the baseline on many points earlier today, and he hit most of his backhands well after the bounce on the downward trajectory. He tends to do this to a greater extent on critical points, which (at RG in particular) would automatically hand over control of the point to Rafa. Goffin, on the other hand, hugs the baseline a lot more and uses his two-hander to consistently redirect the ball off the front foot, meaning that it can actually get returned to Nadal with interest - sustaining this is a little easier and can actually rush Rafa more effectively, so even though Thiem probably hits a heavier ball in isolation, it's somewhat negated by his positioning and he exposes himself to drop shots and shorter balls.

I think Thiem is looking good overall against the field though. Would back him to come through the draw and would probably favour him slightly in a H2H situation against Goffin.
yes, this positioning thing is crucial... hitting so many backhands that far back as they drop is no way to deal with nadal. Take it on the rise and come in closer. It might just take him needing more muscle as he gets older it will come...
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't know. He had more success later on clay. What took him so long to flourish on clay when he was solid on the surface and started dominating elsewhere from 2003 into 2004? Lost to Kuerten in 2004, etc. Dumped first round in 2002 and 2003.
Federer was good on clay in 2005 was my point.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Sounds like you basically grossly under value Djokovic's game in 2015-2016.:rolleyes:
by saying that prime Federer wouldn't have lost to him like that on big stages? No I don't. Case in point, 2011-2012. If you're saying that it was normal that prime Federer lost to Djokovic like that, you're basically saying Djokovic is better.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
by saying that prime Federer wouldn't have lost to him like that on big stages? No I don't. Case in point, 2011-2012. If you're saying that it was normal that prime Federer lost to Djokovic like that, you're basically saying Djokovic is better.
Pretty much or darn close.;)
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Its so easy to stand on the sideline and tell top players what to do :p
When Rafa is so good at the net its not tempting to hit dropshots from the net. As I can recall Thiem did that too second set yesterday with no success (And not everybody is as good as Gulbis at hitting dropshots from the back..had to mention him, miss him on tour lol)
Good luck to Thiem solving the riddle of Rafa on clay!
Knowing what you should do and DOING it, against perhaps the best clay player in history, are two very different things. ;)
 
Rafa is so good at the net and runs down drop shots. Thiem tried more first set in Barcelona but with no success. You just have to sort of try to grind Rafa out ala prime Novak. But thats bloody difficult with Rafas BH. Rafa being annoyed at himself when he wasnt able to return first serves. He is a monster to meet on clay these days. Thiem did a good job.
You cannot outgrind Nadal on clay. The way Djokovic used to beat him is to keep on the baseline and not back off. Then on Nadal's serve hit the return hard at Nadal's feet or his forehand side and put him on the defensive from the beginning of the point. That is tough to do unless you are named Djokovic.
 

ppmishra

Rookie
Yes, nadal's speed has declined but he is compensating with accurate aggressive serving and attacking tennis on both wings. His backhand was superb at Madrid and while his play cannot be compared to 2010 or 2013, he is incorporating elements of both years and the results are obvious, plus there were tactical changes against djokovic so its a combination of factors. Of course, the one big question mark is Stan because he is so dangerous at majors regardless of how he is playing now.
 

every7

Hall of Fame
Not a chance will Nadal let anybody have anything. It's not in his DNA. He wants to sweep the clay season and win all five clay events, something he has never done.

Agree, Nadal thrives on momentum and aggregating match wins. He seemingly always needs that top-up in confidence. The only way I can imagine him "letting someone have something" is if he rested through a tournament. If he is in the draw, he wants to win the whole thing.
 

ppmishra

Rookie
You cannot outgrind Nadal on clay. The way Djokovic used to beat him is to keep on the baseline and not back off. Then on Nadal's serve hit the return hard at Nadal's feet or his forehand side and put him on the defensive from the beginning of the point. That is tough to do unless you are named Djokovic.
Yes, djokovic could do this consistently because rafa was predictable to perfection both with his serving and where he was going to hit his fh, of course these were not the only parameters but for the life of me I never understood why he played like this against Novak in 2011 and 2015. Sorry, I know this is a nadal thiem thread but its also to highlight the stark difference in his strategy in this final vs those years.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Yes, djokovic could do this consistently because rafa was predictable to perfection both with his serving and where he was going to hit his fh, of course these were not the only parameters but for the life of me I never understood why he played like this against Novak in 2011 and 2015. Sorry, I know this is a nadal thiem thread but its also to highlight the stark difference in his strategy in this final vs those years.
So Moya has changed that?
 

ppmishra

Rookie
Saw the highlights. The level of tennis was incredibly high. Thiem clearly is the second best player on clay this season.
Lest people forget, this was one match where rafa was struggling in the beginning and playing too defensively to cope with thiems spin and pace. That is a rare sight and it was a bruising hard fought match for the most part.
 

ppmishra

Rookie
So Moya has changed that?
It appears to be the case, and time will tell if he implements this game plan. It is definitely implementing shades of 2012 (serving wide to a righty forehand), 2010 ( serving bigger but certainly not 135 mph 2013 (taking the ball early, staying on the baseline). What I like is this will yield results on faster surfaces.
 
Top