Are people giving Nadal enough credit?

bank5

Semi-Pro
I'm surprised there aren't more threads talking about how well Nadal played...instead there are a lot more threads about how Federer tanked.

Nadal had only 11 (?) unforced errors -- pretty incredible for a 3 set match on clay against the world's #1.

Nadal won the tournament without a dropping a set-- only a couple of sets were even close.

IMO, Nadal's game has improved and it seems like he's eliminated his weaknesses -- I think that will be considered one of the greatest performances on clay for a long time to come.
 

coloskier

Legend
I'm surprised there aren't more threads talking about how well Nadal played...instead there are a lot more threads about how Federer tanked.

Nadal had only 11 (?) unforced errors -- pretty incredible for a 3 set match on clay against the world's #1.

Nadal won the tournament without a dropping a set-- only a couple of sets were even close.

IMO, Nadal's game has improved and it seems like he's eliminated his weaknesses -- I think that will be considered one of the greatest performances on clay for a long time to come.
As a Fed fan, I think Nadal played FANTASTIC. Fed played badly only because Nadal forced him to play that way. Nadal was unconscious the way he hit some of his shots, unconsciousness that we have only seen from Fed in the past. But, now that the clay season is over and with faster courts on track for the rest of the year, normality will return, with Fed being the presumptive favorite in every tournament for the rest of the year, just like the past 4 years. Only at Wimbledon does Nadal have a chance to win a tournament for the rest of the year, just like last year.
 

larry10s

Hall of Fame
let me start by saying i consider fed GOAT over the past 4 years. that being said if one considers that rafa was soooo close to winning wimbleton last year you have to give him a graet chance to win it this year. the french open final was a demonstration of someone in the zone and walking on water.we saw glimpses of his ability to dominate fed when he came back from 5-1 to win 6 games in a row at hamberg(i think).kudos to rafa from a fed fan
 

ACE of Hearts

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal was lights out, no questions about it!!!!!I did think that Federer gave up on that 3rd set which completly annoyed me!!!
 

tzinc

Semi-Pro
I don't think Nadal has ever had enough credit. They look at him as a clay court specialist but fail to account for his clay court historic dominance you can't do that if you're not a great player. Also, his play on grass and hard court shows he's not a 1 trick pony.
 

raiden031

Legend
Fed admitted that he did not believe he could win during the middle of the match (see post match interview). Basically he gave up mentally because things didn't start off well. Nadal definitely played well, but i would say Fed's performance had more of a role in the outcome than Nadal's performance. Fed just wasn't ready for a battle for whatever reason.

In short, its easy to play flawlessly when your opponent is playing terribly.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
I'm surprised there aren't more threads talking about how well Nadal played...instead there are a lot more threads about how Federer tanked.

Nadal had only 11 (?) unforced errors -- pretty incredible for a 3 set match on clay against the world's #1.

Nadal won the tournament without a dropping a set-- only a couple of sets were even close.

IMO, Nadal's game has improved and it seems like he's eliminated his weaknesses -- I think that will be considered one of the greatest performances on clay for a long time to come.
You forgot to mention that he DID NOT DOUBLE FAULT the entire tournament as well.
 

FEDXFAN

Rookie
Without question, Nadal played lights out and 11 unforced errors would have been a lot more impressive if the ball had come back to him more than 24 times.. (you get my point)

I think Nadals only problem, is people are still trying to compare him to Borg which will not work in Rafa's favor unless he starts reeling off 5 straight Wimbledons like Borg did WHILE he was winning his 4 straight FOs.

No doubt in my my mind, Nadal is one of the 3 top clay court players ever. The other two being Borg and Vilas. BUT, I would like to have seen Borg and Vilas playing with Nadals racquet, and see how Rafa does with a stick of wood in his hand.. This is a totally different game from the Borg-Vilas days and it's really hard, if not impossible, to compare the two.
 

Fedace

Banned
I'm surprised there aren't more threads talking about how well Nadal played...instead there are a lot more threads about how Federer tanked.

Nadal had only 11 (?) unforced errors -- pretty incredible for a 3 set match on clay against the world's #1.

Nadal won the tournament without a dropping a set-- only a couple of sets were even close.

IMO, Nadal's game has improved and it seems like he's eliminated his weaknesses -- I think that will be considered one of the greatest performances on clay for a long time to come.
I think this question mainly comes up cause Rafa tends to look very ordinary during the summer hard court season, and also does not play too many tournaments during summer due to his knee problems.
 

MrAWD

Semi-Pro
From my side of things, I believe that I am don't push him higher mainly because I don't like his game!! To me he is a modern era pusher that wins the matches by making your opponents to make errors. Maybe that is what tennis is (at least on the clay) where you have to be extremely patient to endure, but I personally don't like that kind of game and I hate to play against the opponents who play that way. I think this is more of my drawback through the inability to cope against opponents who play that way, but it is more then obvious that is a great way to win lots of matches! Again, at least on clay!

Now, going to the different surfaces things change dramatically! But there is one exception there as well - finals at Wimbledon! By the end of the second week of torturing the grass on the center court, lots of dirt shows up and gets much closer to the French. And Nadal is just one of the regular top 10 players on those other surfaces.

The last reason (again from my angle only) is that in order to play Nadal's type of the game one has to be extremely fit and young! Since I am in 40s there is none of those capabilities that could poses no more and things will probably just go south from here. Even for Nadal with so much running on the court it gets too much and he at the age of 22 has problems with his knees and has to wrap them up with hope that they will be fine! I don't even have to mentioned the blisters on his feet!

So, I admire the results that he is making but I personally cannot crave for such performance since my body is far from being capable of doing anything similar any more (if it ever was). Those are my reasons why I can't put him all the way up there!

Fedja
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Fed admitted that he did not believe he could win during the middle of the match (see post match interview). Basically he gave up mentally because things didn't start off well. Nadal definitely played well, but i would say Fed's performance had more of a role in the outcome than Nadal's performance. Fed just wasn't ready for a battle for whatever reason.

In short, its easy to play flawlessly when your opponent is playing terribly.
You know, that's a good point. I am so used to seeing pros fight to the last point, which is why I had the same impression during the match that Fed up and quit.

I mean, he tried the stuff he knew how to do, and it didn't work. At all. You could see his mind working: "I am so screwed here."

I have had the same feeling during matches, and it is hard not to cash in your chips. I'm surprised Federer couldn't solve the puzzle, even a little bit.

You know, Roddick has been schooled by Fed many times. I never once got the feeling that Roddick quit. Maybe being dominant for so long has ruined Roger.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
From my side of things, I believe that I am don't push him higher mainly because I don't like his game!! To me he is a modern era pusher that wins the matches by making your opponents to make errors. Maybe that is what tennis is (at least on the clay) where you have to be extremely patient to endure, but I personally don't like that kind of game and I hate to play against the opponents who play that way. I think this is more of my drawback through the inability to cope against opponents who play that way, but it is more then obvious that is a great way to win lots of matches! Again, at least on clay!

Now, going to the different surfaces things change dramatically! But there is one exception there as well - finals at Wimbledon! By the end of the second week of torturing the grass on the center court, lots of dirt shows up and gets much closer to the French. And Nadal is just one of the regular top 10 players on those other surfaces.

The last reason (again from my angle only) is that in order to play Nadal's type of the game one has to be extremely fit and young! Since I am in 40s there is none of those capabilities that could poses no more and things will probably just go south from here. Even for Nadal with so much running on the court it gets too much and he at the age of 22 has problems with his knees and has to wrap them up with hope that they will be fine! I don't even have to mentioned the blisters on his feet!

So, I admire the results that he is making but I personally cannot crave for such performance since my body is far from being capable of doing anything similar any more (if it ever was). Those are my reasons why I can't put him all the way up there!

Fedja
I too used to look at nadal as a great Pro "pusher", but no more. He hits so hard and with spin and to all the right places to suit his game. His all court abilities just get better and better too. He just crushed maybe the GOAT and never has lost at RG. His last RG was his most impressive as well. WOW!

Making finals at Wimby makes him much more than just another top 10er off the clay.

By the way, some of the most fit athletes in the world are in their late 30, early 40s' so don't give up.
from a Fed Fan who loves the all court game
 

MrAWD

Semi-Pro
I too used to look at nadal as a great Pro "pusher", but no more. He hits so hard and with spin and to all the right places to suit his game. His all court abilities just get better and better too. He just crushed maybe the GOAT and never has lost at RG. His last RG was his most impressive as well. WOW!
Oh he hits as hard as the best out of them, there is no question about that. But most of his shots are high top spin balls on the right handed backhand side and he keeps doing it all and all over again. Please don't take me wrong here! It is very hard to do what he is doing and all hats for that!! But, from my own view (and experience) playing someone with that style of game (from my level of course) is a very boring endeavor and it makes me not wanting to play tennis for a while!! Of course, all of that is from my little world and how it affects me!
Making finals at Wimby makes him much more than just another top 10er off the clay.
True, but that happened once. Right? If he would go and do it again, then we would all know it wasn't just a fluke!

By the way, some of the most fit athletes in the world are in their late 30, early 40s' so don't give up.
Oh, I am not giving up at all! I am playing the best tennis of my life right now. But, I am also realistic and know what kind of stress regular pounding of the ball does to my body and I know I have to be really careful in pushing myself further then this. That type of the game that Nadal plays is meant only for young guys! Agassi played in mid thirties at excellent level and there is no way that Nadal will be able to do so and keep this kind of level! That is the main reason why I don't like his game! His game not him, since he is one of the nicest guys out there and it is hard to find a guy more humble then he is!!

Fedja
 

DavidGarcia

Hall of Fame
No doubt in my my mind, Nadal is one of the 3 top clay court players ever. The other two being Borg and Vilas. BUT, I would like to have seen Borg and Vilas playing with Nadals racquet, and see how Rafa does with a stick of wood in his hand.. This is a totally different game from the Borg-Vilas days and it's really hard, if not impossible, to compare the two.

Tennis has evolved too much. If you play tennis yourself or watched the 80's, 90's and current tennis you would know that tennis is a much more demanding sport that used to be in the past.

The new generataion hit faster, harder, etc.......

I dont know how Nadal would have played with a wooden racket but either know how Borg-Vilas would have played with today's rackets.

Tennis is also a much more popular sport these days. There are more players out there who play and wanna make it proffesionally.

I think today's tennis has nothing to do with old generation. A clear example is what Fed brought into the game. He seemed to overplay Sampras old style and brough a new much more aggresive tennis
The new generation at my tennis club are just getting much more stronger than my generation. They seem to hit harder, much more heavy spin and better touch on the ball. Players just keep improving the game.

I dont know I could go on and on....but I'd stick to today's tennis as a much stronger game.

PS, I used to play with a wooden racket and now I do with a new Wilson nBlade so I have experience with both.
 
Last edited:

Benhur

Hall of Fame
In short, its easy to play flawlessly when your opponent is playing terribly.
No. It's easy to *win* when your opponent is playing terribly - all you have to do is play bit less terribly than him. But his playing terribly does not make you play "flawlessly."

On the other hand, it's easy to LOOK terrible when your opponent is playing flawlessly. Federer didn't play his best, but he was far from playing "terribly." The intensity and assuredeness of Nadal's aggressive play is what Federer could not match. Whenever he tried to settle into a rally, Nadal took control of most of the points. I lost count of how many times Nadal would pin him to his backhand side, hitting one hard crosscourt forehand after another, often 6 or 7 in a row, all landing almost on the same spot on the deep left side of Federer's court. Federer knew that Nadal was going to go there, and Nadal knew that Federer knew, and still kept daring him to either run around the forehand, or keep hitting backhands until he missed. And of course he would eventually miss.

When facing someone so deeply in the zone you have two main choices:

1) keep playing within yourself and hope the other fellow will cool off. If he doesn't, you know he will blow you away.

2) try to counter the avalanche by pulling the trigger much more often than you normally do.

Federer wisely chose the second, because the first option would have been even worse. Of course he could have made a lot fewer errors by playing a bit safer - but the torture and the blowout would have been even worse, and it would have looked even more embarrasing. It was obvious Nadal was in the zone throughout the match, and putting a ball past him meant going for broke. Federer went for broke on many shots, made a few, and unsurprisingly missed a lot of them. He also tried coming to the net a few times and was burned most of the time. No matter what he tried, Nadal had the answer. I am pretty sure he would have triple-bagled the majority of players below the top 10 the way he played yesterday.

He was definitely better than last year. The thought that, at barely 22, he may still improve is kind of scary.

So yes. Federer LOOKED pretty bad. But if you focus on how Nadal was moving and hitting, you will understand better why he looked bad.
 

tennis-hero

Banned
hes good on clay

he doesn't win anything else

he's played well on grass but this year djokovic is a better hard court and grass court player then nadal

wimbeldon will be between djokovic and feds

in the Us nadal would get beaten by murray, yes andy ' defend and hope they make a mistake' murray
 

Blue Drop

Rookie
An incredible tournament by Nadal. No question.

Last year's French was more interesting, b/c Fed seemed to have more chances. But then Nadal came right back and met him in the finals of Wimbledon -- and that was also close.

Good stuff!
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
i will be interested to see next year whether or not rafa is no. 1 seed or not (assuming he is still ranked no. 2 by a similar margin).

imvho, i think that the rg seeding committee will have some 'splaining to do next year if nadal isn't the top seed (provided that the above is true). the man has won the last 4 rg titles convincingly, has an unearthly record on clay and owns the no.1 player on the surface.

what more does he have to do be the top seed there?:evil:
 

wta_fan

Rookie
Nadal deserves all the credit after pulling off another terrific clay season. But is just that the bigger shocker of this whole Roland Garros tournament (maybe the year's after Henin retirement) was Federer terrible play. I like this guy but with only one title so far (a Tier III) just makes you wonder....
 

FEDXFAN

Rookie
Tennis has evolved too much. If you play tennis yourself or watched the 80's, 90's and current tennis you would know that tennis is a much more demanding sport that used to be in the past.

The new generataion hit faster, harder, etc.......

I dont know I could go on and on....but I'd stick to today's tennis as a much stronger game.

PS, I used to play with a wooden racket and now I do with a new Wilson nBlade so I have experience with both.
I agree with most of this, and it is sort of what I was trying to say. BUT, there are a few greats back there like a Borg, that without question could compete with these guys today given today's technology, and their youth back.
I saw Borg, Mac, Conners, and Lendal play live, and I have seen today's great play live. On the whole, you are right, most are bigger, faster, stronger, just like every other sport today, BUT - there are a few of those guys that could do some real damage today..
 

ksbh

Banned
Great description of the match ... & awesome post! Thanks for the read.

No. It's easy to *win* when your opponent is playing terribly - all you have to do is play bit less terribly than him. But his playing terribly does not make you play "flawlessly."

On the other hand, it's easy to LOOK terrible when your opponent is playing flawlessly. Federer didn't play his best, but he was far from playing "terribly." The intensity and assuredeness of Nadal's aggressive play is what Federer could not match. Whenever he tried to settle into a rally, Nadal took control of most of the points. I lost count of how many times Nadal would pin him to his backhand side, hitting one hard crosscourt forehand after another, often 6 or 7 in a row, all landing almost on the same spot on the deep left side of Federer's court. Federer knew that Nadal was going to go there, and Nadal knew that Federer knew, and still kept daring him to either run around the forehand, or keep hitting backhands until he missed. And of course he would eventually miss.

When facing someone so deeply in the zone you have two main choices:

1) keep playing within yourself and hope the other fellow will cool off. If he doesn't, you know he will blow you away.

2) try to counter the avalanche by pulling the trigger much more often than you normally do.

Federer wisely chose the second, because the first option would have been even worse. Of course he could have made a lot fewer errors by playing a bit safer - but the torture and the blowout would have been even worse, and it would have looked even more embarrasing. It was obvious Nadal was in the zone throughout the match, and putting a ball past him meant going for broke. Federer went for broke on many shots, made a few, and unsurprisingly missed a lot of them. He also tried coming to the net a few times and was burned most of the time. No matter what he tried, Nadal had the answer. I am pretty sure he would have triple-bagled the majority of players below the top 10 the way he played yesterday.

He was definitely better than last year. The thought that, at barely 22, he may still improve is kind of scary.

So yes. Federer LOOKED pretty bad. But if you focus on how Nadal was moving and hitting, you will understand better why he looked bad.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Thinking on this some more . . .

One thing we did not get to see was what Nadal had done if Plan A hadn't worked so brilliantly. Plan A was simply to send everything to Fed's BH and wait either for the error or for the court to be open for a winner.

But that didn't necessarily have to work. Had Nadal needed to adjust and go to his Plan B (whatever that was) and won with that, I think I would have been even more impressed.

Still, I'm plenty impressed as it is.
 

Dash

New User
I think Nadal showed he could not only zero in on opponents' backhands but also hit hard, deep or sharp angle to others' forehand corner. It becomes harder and harder for his opponents to hang on to his BH or make a FH down the line shot without risk.
A lot of credit should be given to Nadal, when Roger hit FH errors on deuce court.

Thinking on this some more . . .

One thing we did not get to see was what Nadal had done if Plan A hadn't worked so brilliantly. Plan A was simply to send everything to Fed's BH and wait either for the error or for the court to be open for a winner.

But that didn't necessarily have to work. Had Nadal needed to adjust and go to his Plan B (whatever that was) and won with that, I think I would have been even more impressed.

Still, I'm plenty impressed as it is.
 

MRG

New User
I too used to look at nadal as a great Pro "pusher", but no more. He hits so hard and with spin and to all the right places to suit his game. His all court abilities just get better and better too. He just crushed maybe the GOAT and never has lost at RG. His last RG was his most impressive as well. WOW!

Making finals at Wimby makes him much more than just another top 10er off the clay.

By the way, some of the most fit athletes in the world are in their late 30, early 40s' so don't give up.
from a Fed Fan who loves the all court game
If you really think one who just had 46 winners over Federer in a 3 setter Grand Slam final is a pusher, I have nothing to say.

IMHO, Pusher normally bored his opponents into mistakes and will normally not hit many winners in a match.
 

dh003i

Legend
No. It's easy to *win* when your opponent is playing terribly - all you have to do is play bit less terribly than him. But his playing terribly does not make you play "flawlessly."

On the other hand, it's easy to LOOK terrible when your opponent is playing flawlessly. Federer didn't play his best, but he was far from playing "terribly." The intensity and assuredeness of Nadal's aggressive play is what Federer could not match. Whenever he tried to settle into a rally, Nadal took control of most of the points. I lost count of how many times Nadal would pin him to his backhand side, hitting one hard crosscourt forehand after another, often 6 or 7 in a row, all landing almost on the same spot on the deep left side of Federer's court. Federer knew that Nadal was going to go there, and Nadal knew that Federer knew, and still kept daring him to either run around the forehand, or keep hitting backhands until he missed. And of course he would eventually miss.

When facing someone so deeply in the zone you have two main choices:

1) keep playing within yourself and hope the other fellow will cool off. If he doesn't, you know he will blow you away.

2) try to counter the avalanche by pulling the trigger much more often than you normally do.

Federer wisely chose the second, because the first option would have been even worse. Of course he could have made a lot fewer errors by playing a bit safer - but the torture and the blowout would have been even worse, and it would have looked even more embarrasing. It was obvious Nadal was in the zone throughout the match, and putting a ball past him meant going for broke. Federer went for broke on many shots, made a few, and unsurprisingly missed a lot of them. He also tried coming to the net a few times and was burned most of the time. No matter what he tried, Nadal had the answer. I am pretty sure he would have triple-bagled the majority of players below the top 10 the way he played yesterday.

He was definitely better than last year. The thought that, at barely 22, he may still improve is kind of scary.

So yes. Federer LOOKED pretty bad. But if you focus on how Nadal was moving and hitting, you will understand better why he looked bad.
Yes, this is exactly right. And Nadal would've even more thoroughly dominated Djokovic playing like that than he did Federer (as we know Federer's a better clay-courter than Djokovic; see his win over Djokovic at MC).

The fact of the matter is, that while Federer is a really good, even great player on clay, Nadal is an all-time great, possibly the best-ever on clay. And he improved his game on clay as well.

He served, what 100% to Federer's backhand...McEnroe kept saying Federer should guard his backhand on return even more, but then that'd put him in horrible position to be aced if Nadal hits to forehand. It isn't as easy as it looks. Protecting your weaknesses means sacrificing something. What if Federer stood such that Nadal couldn't serve to his backhand -- he could always hit it with his forehand? Then, that would mean Nadal would serve on the other side, way way away from him, and it'd be an easy ace. E.g., lets say Federer's backhand side is on the outside of the return box, his FH on the inside of it. So he stands way outside the court, so even if Nadal hits it to the outside of the court, he's still returning a forehand. Well, then what Nadal does is hit an ace down the middle.

Look, arguably the best strategy for Federer -- when Nadal's in backhand serving mode -- is to stand as far over protecting his backhand as he can, but such that Nadal still opts to serve 100% to his backhand, with no serves to FH. This way, Federer knows what he'll need to be doing to return, knows where the serve is going, etc. In many ways, that's better than uncertainty.

But the issue is, Nadal is just a better player on clay. Federer did try everything. The only thing that worked was him playing perfectly when he played aggressive. And you can't fault the guy for not playing perfectly; that's enormous pressure. Plus, Nadal's topsin makes it hard to play perfectly, even at net; and his scrambling abilities make you even have to volley very hard, being more prone to errors.

So yea, Federer tried everything, just didn't work; what can you do but say, "too good". Just like last year, Nadal played out of his mind at the Wimbledon finals, and Federer didn't play his best (although still played very good), but Fed still won; just have to say, "too good".

What Federer really needs to do to beat Nadal on clay is improve his backhand returning high extreme topspin. If he can do that, without hindering his backhand on other surfaces, is a question.
 

MrAWD

Semi-Pro
If you really think one who just had 46 winners over Federer in a 3 setter Grand Slam final is a pusher, I have nothing to say.
I said that Nadal is a pusher not 5263! And I didn't say just pusher but rather modern era pusher!
IMHO, Pusher normally bored his opponents into mistakes and will normally not hit many winners in a match.
And how is that different from what he does out on the court? He would bore you to death with the high top spin balls on your backhand. If your backhand is one handed then you are in even more trouble! Eventually, you send a short ball and Nadal makes a winner.
Also whenever he is out of shape the return is high looping ball deep in the court. On the surface such as clay, it is not that easy to take advantage of such a ball compared to the faster surfaces.

Fedja
 

anointedone

Banned
So yes. Federer LOOKED pretty bad. But if you focus on how Nadal was moving and hitting, you will understand better why he looked bad.
Umm no. If you watched Federer play throughout the entire tournament, unless you wear the blinders many TW posters seems to, you would see he already looked pretty bad. I said so many times and I predicted the rout before the final on here. Federer looked awful all tournament long, struggling to beat one of the worst semifinalists in recent memory Gael Monfils, so the final spanking was inevitable and should not have been surprising. In his French Open form this year if Federer were to have played a top 5 player who was reasonable fresh for the match he would never have been in the finals in the first place.

That isnt to take away from Nadal who played one of the most incredible French Opens in history. However Federer's play was not made to look so bad strictly by Nadal. It looked extremely bad the entire tournament long, long before he played Nadal.
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Nadal would've even more thoroughly dominated Djokovic playing like that than he did Federer
No he wouldnt have. Djokovic was playing far superior tennis to Federer at this French Open. Federer can thank his lucky stars he did not face Djokovic since he would have suffered the embarassment of being straight setted by Djoko on his worst surface if they had. If he struggled so hard to beat Monfils, Djokovic would have spanked him.
 

DavidGarcia

Hall of Fame
I agree with most of this, and it is sort of what I was trying to say. BUT, there are a few greats back there like a Borg, that without question could compete with these guys today given today's technology, and their youth back.
I saw Borg, Mac, Conners, and Lendal play live, and I have seen today's great play live. On the whole, you are right, most are bigger, faster, stronger, just like every other sport today, BUT - there are a few of those guys that could do some real damage today..
Yes, those old legend could compete with today's pro players but they would have to change their way of playing big time, their grip (old easter europe grip wont get you too far), etc.
Serve and volley is pretty much killing yourself these days therefore they would have to focus on a more agressive play with more pace, spin and power/control. Server would also have to be more accruate and with more kick (spin). Old days serves were way too weak.
I have also watched live Borg, Mac, Fed, Nadal, Joker and Borg and Mac will not stand a chance against Fed, Nadal and Joker playing the same way they used to 10/15 years ago.
 
Last edited:

FEDXFAN

Rookie
Yes, those old legend could compete with today's pro players but they would have to change their way of playing big time, their grip (old easter europe grip wont get you too far), etc.
Serve and volley is pretty much killing yourself these days therefore they would have to focus on a more agressive play with more pace, spin and power/control. Server would also have to be more accruate and with more kick (spin). Old days serves were way too weak.
I have also watched live Borg, Mac, Fed, Nadal, Joker and Borg and Mac will not stand a chance against Fed, Nadal and Joker playing the same way they used to 10/15 years ago.
This is such an interesting point and I've thought about it so much, not only in tennis but in other sports too. Looking at tennis only, I think Laver was the first "real athlete" in tennis that could probably compete today with today's equipment. But you are right, their style of play would have to keep up with the times. Also, I think due to the depth today only a few of the older greats could make it, and they all came after Laver. Looking at those guys from before the mid 60s, no chance.
Can you imagine a Wimbledon today with Laver, Mac, Borg, Samparas, Fed, Nadal, Jok, Becker, and Edberg all 20 years old, and all in the draw. Damn, I'd pay some big money to see that..
 

FEDXFAN

Rookie
^^Opps, let's put Agassi in that draw too..pick your age with him, he was so damn up and down it was hard to predict..
 

pmerk34

Legend
Fed admitted that he did not believe he could win during the middle of the match (see post match interview). Basically he gave up mentally because things didn't start off well. Nadal definitely played well, but i would say Fed's performance had more of a role in the outcome than Nadal's performance. Fed just wasn't ready for a battle for whatever reason.

In short, its easy to play flawlessly when your opponent is playing terribly.

It's never easy to play flawlessly
 

pmhong

New User
On the other hand, it's easy to LOOK terrible when your opponent is playing flawlessly.
Nadal's demolition of Federer reminds me of Hewitt's demolition of Sampras in US open. Sampras couldn't do anything against Hewitt that day. Hewitt was in the zone, returning Pete's serve and passing Pete every time he came to the net. Pete lost in 3 sets. I thought Pete didn't play terribly that day, but Hewitt played flawlessly as Nadal did against Fed.
 

FEDXFAN

Rookie
^^^I've watched tennis for 50 years. I've never seen any of the "greatest" players that didn't have days they sucked. My God, get over it.. Fed sucked Sunday, and Nadal played great. Life goes on.. Nadal will have those days too just like every other great player has had..
 
Top