Cincy 2010 QF: Rafael Nadal [1] vs Marcos Baghdatis

Who wins?


  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .

namelessone

Legend
The reason why the surfaces issue is brought out is because half of the posts of the *********s are about the H2H !

H2H matters , but its not as important as it is made out to be and frankly there should be enough matches on all surfaces and not much skew for it to be a really important factor ...When one sees it repeated infinitely , naturally one responds at one time or the other ...

Then one should know better.

Nadal has a losing h2h with Davydenko and out of 9 meetings only three come on clay but there is no doubt that Nadal is a much better player overall. You don't see me praying that Davy meets Nadal on clay and grass to even out the h2h and unlike Fedal, Davy and Rafa can met earlier on.

H2H matter only when we are talking about specific match-ups, not the career of a player. Look, Rafa is Fed's achilles heel like Davy/DelPo/Djoker and so on are Rafa's, especially on HC. At the end of the day we know that Fed is more accomplished than Rafa, that Rafa will beat Fed most times(he is I think the only guy that has beat Fed on clay,grass and HC), that Rafa will murder everyone on clay, that Rafa will get beat around on HC a lot and so on. These things are all reflected in h2h between these players but at the end of the day their career says all you need to know about them.

Every player had a "daddy", even Federer. Is it such a bother for some of you that Rafa leads in the h2h? I mean look, it is a match-up issue people, not one of surfaces and such.

Everytime you say 'I wish they played more on fast HC so that the h2h could be more evened out", you are proving the h2h crowd right and you are saying that it does matter to you on some level and in all honesty it shouldn't.
 
Last edited:

namelessone

Legend
Nadal fans were the ones playing the tank card. Nadal fans were the ones giddy at the possibility of playing Fed, because they thought for some odd reason that Rafa would be able to beat Fed on a fast HC, even though he's proven in the past that he cannot. Nadal fans were the ones already exclaiming '15-7 and even on HC'. Check earlier in the thread, I'm not lying. Even some of the balanced Nadal fans like Mustard were playing that game. Please don't make everything so one sided.

I think he said something like Rafa has a edge on Roger whenever they play and that is partially true. From what I've seen, Roger's BH has been atrocious at times(Rafa's has been even worse) but Nadal has comfort zone in Fed's BH unlike with others. I know you will say about the TMC defeats but that was in 06' and 07' when Fed was zoning and Nadal was struggling to reach QF stages of many HC tourneys.
 

Love Game

Talk Tennis Guru
nadal lost?? What happened??

This :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Baghdatis, who has reached the semi-final stage of an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event just once before (Paris 2007), won a stunning 87 percent of points on his first serve, including 30 of his first 32 first serves.

"I was serving pretty big," he said. "Basically I took my chances; other times I played him I had chances and I didn't take them... I was more aggressive. I know that Rafa will not give me the match, so I had to go and take it.

"Break point at the end, he made a double fault because the whole match I was putting so much pressure. So he felt the pressure."

Baghdatis issued an early challenge to Nadal, firing six aces in his first two service games and earning break points in the fifth and ninth games, converting when Nadal uncharacteristically made back-to-back horror backhand errors when under no pressure

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2010/08/33/Cincinnati-Friday-Baghdatis-Beats-Nadal.aspx
 

namelessone

Legend
I don't think Rafa played that bad in this match, compared to the previous two.
He made a lot of errors, but he also hit a lot of forehand winners and his backhand started to look better after the first set.
In a best of 5 match he has more chances, I think. I also want to believe that he didn't give his all in these two tournaments.
With a good draw, I think he's got chances at the US Open (although I don't think he's the favourite).
He reached the semifinals playing bad last year, so if he can raise his game a little, serve a little bit better, hit the backhand better and be more aggressive, I think he can "bully" his way to that title.

What is in Rafa's favour is that it is three out of five and he can get less tentative. He is very nervous on HC from what I see, he has a "I gotta get this ball attitude" and that ruins his calm and execution.

What he really need to cut down on is errors, 19 with Dent, 39 with Benneteau, 40 with Baggy, that's a huge amount of errors with him.

If Rafa defends his SF in USO he should be very,very satisfied. This is the most vulnerable I've seen him on HC since 09', but at least back then he came after injuries and a lot of bad moments. Now he comes of a great winning streak and he looks flat to be honest.
 

2slik

Semi-Pro
How do you define court positioning?

On clay you should stand further back and try to close out angled balls by sliding into your shots. The clip you just showed me doesn't prove your point, quite the contrary. On grass, you need to take balls earlier and Nadal steps up and takes them from near the baseline. And he can't really slide on grass, now can he?

Everybody is studying Nadal's movement on clay and grass and many people have said that he moves very good on HC as well. He must be a terrific mover if he does not know where and how to stand on court, for specific situations.:)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A68392731

Rafael Nadal won today but he should not be
Masters Series
by Ali Babar (U9363579) 16 May 2010

Rafael Nadal won today in Madrid but he should not be complacent as he can be beaten on clay.Federer proved that if he plays to his best on clay he can beat Nadal on any surface.I am a Rafael Nadal fan but I am not deluded.The big mistake Nadal makes is that he stands far behind the baseline when his opponent is serving and that means he has to remain on the defensive during the time when the rally is played.He is so successfull as he has a tremendous range of shots that bail him out.Also the reason he has lost in US Open and not won US Open so many times is that he stands a long way behind the baseline and has to go on the defensive because of his poor positioning.He should stand nearer to the baseline and play attacking tennis.If he does what I have suggested he will surely win US Open many times and he will be able to win on hardcourts.I remember in 2009 US Open he was standing almost four metres behind the baseline and was literally at the edge of the court when he was playing against Del Potro in the semifinal.
If he stands so far behind the beaseline in French Open 2010 he will not win French Open this year and that will be sad for Nadal fans as well as for Nadal as he is the best clay court player of all time.What do tennis fans think about my suggestions to Nadal?

Mats Wilander said during the Nadal - Verdasco AO 09 SF match that Nadal was standing to deep on the advantage side and all Verdasco was doing was doing a kick serve to Nadal's forehand and then come into the net to finish the point.
 
Last edited:
I think he said something like Rafa has a edge on Roger whenever they play and that is partially true. From what I've seen, Roger's BH has been atrocious at times(Rafa's has been even worse) but Nadal has comfort zone in Fed's BH unlike with others. I know you will say about the TMC defeats but that was in 06' and 07' when Fed was zoning and Nadal was struggling to reach QF stages of many HC tourneys.

That last part of your statement is just not true. Nadal's been a top 10 HC player since 2005 and a top 5 HC player since 2006.

Nadal 2005 - 30-7 on HC (.811) - won Madrid, Canada, Beijing; RU Miami
Nadal 2006 - 25-10 on HC (.714) - won Dubai; SF IW, YEC; QF USO, Cincy
Nadal 2007 - 31-12 on HC (.721) - Won IW; RU Paris; SF Canada, YEC; QF AO, Dubai

To me judging from the way both have played the past 2 weeks, Fed would have won in 2 sets, maybe 3 if he had a brain fart. But of course now we'll never know.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Then one should know better.

Nadal has a losing h2h with Davydenko and out of 9 meetings only three come on clay but there is no doubt that Nadal is a much better player overall. You don't see me praying that Davy meets Nadal on clay and grass to even out the h2h and unlike Fedal, Davy and Rafa can met earlier on.

H2H matter only when we are talking about specific match-ups, not the career of a player. Look, Rafa is Fed's achilles heel like Davy/DelPo/Djoker and so on are Rafa's, especially on HC. At the end of the day we know that Fed is more accomplished than Rafa, that Rafa will beat Fed most times(he is I think the only guy that has beat Fed on clay,grass and HC), that Rafa will murder everyone on clay, that Rafa will get beat around on HC a lot and so on. These things are all reflected in h2h between these players but at the end of the day their career says all you need to know about them.

Every player had a "daddy", even Federer. Is it such a bother for some of you that Rafa leads in the h2h? I mean look, it is a match-up issue people, not one of surfaces and such.

Everytime you say 'I wish they played more on fast HC so that the h2h could be more evened out", you are proving the h2h crowd right and you are saying that it does matter to you on some level and in all honesty it shouldn't.

This is exactly right, namelessone.

I can't count how many times I've seen this phrase on this board. My issue with it is how illogical it is to try to scrap h2h, surfaces, etc., just to give someone an advantage.

Everyone has bad matchups. That's just the nature of tennis.
 

namelessone

Legend
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A68392731



Mats Wilander said during the Nadal - Verdasco AO 09 SF match that Nadal was standing to deep on the advantage side and all Verdasco was doing was doing a kick serve to Nadal's forehand and then come into the net to finish the point.

The reason Nadal stands deep on certain courts is due to the type of shot he plays, topspin everytime. He needs a long wind-up. If he would stay on the baseline on HC with that grip and those shots, he could read a couple of serves but most shots he would bring back would be short and the point would end right there. By standing further back and maybe getting a read on a couple of serves he could send deep balls and see where he goes on from there.

Nadal's biggest mistake on HC is slicing and then taking a step back. Nadal's problem on HC isn't on return of serve, it's what he does once the point gets underway. His ROS wasn't particularly inspiring in any of the SF defeats of this year but he had chances and stayed passive, thus losing.

Is that article supposed to convince me? A Nadal fan saying please Nadal step more into the court cause we want you to win USO and RG in 2010. And he won RG 2010 staying back on serves and coming forwards gradually, you know, as he ALWAYS DOES.

Very little evidence in my eyes.
 
Last edited:

namelessone

Legend
It really is baffling to me how Nadal numerous times runs backwards to hit a FH on 2nd serve returns, even more baffling that guys don't see that and try to come in or even drop shot straight away.

And this shows that Nadal does not trust his BH. I can understand doing the run to hit fh on natural surfaces that take spin but on HC that's plain stupid. You are giving up court position to hit a shot that's not even effective on hardcourts:)

Nadal needs a different coach if he wants to win HC titles. He has made no progress since 2009, quite the contrary, before he was losing to top10 guys, this year he has lost to ljubicic, baghdatis, almost lost to benneteau and I would give almost anyone in the top30 a fair chance against Rafa on hardcourt.

Like I said, I feel that Rafa knows that this is max he can do on HC without making major changes and since he loves natural surfaces this is probably it for him and HC.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Then one should know better.

Nadal has a losing h2h with Davydenko and out of 9 meetings only three come on clay but there is no doubt that Nadal is a much better player overall. You don't see me praying that Davy meets Nadal on clay and grass to even out the h2h and unlike Fedal, Davy and Rafa can met earlier on.

H2H matter only when we are talking about specific match-ups, not the career of a player. Look, Rafa is Fed's achilles heel like Davy/DelPo/Djoker and so on are Rafa's, especially on HC. At the end of the day we know that Fed is more accomplished than Rafa, that Rafa will beat Fed most times(he is I think the only guy that has beat Fed on clay,grass and HC), that Rafa will murder everyone on clay, that Rafa will get beat around on HC a lot and so on. These things are all reflected in h2h between these players but at the end of the day their career says all you need to know about them.

Every player had a "daddy", even Federer. Is it such a bother for some of you that Rafa leads in the h2h? I mean look, it is a match-up issue people, not one of surfaces and such.

Everytime you say 'I wish they played more on fast HC so that the h2h could be more evened out", you are proving the h2h crowd right and you are saying that it does matter to you on some level and in all honesty it shouldn't.

@ bold part, the other way is true too, fed has beaten rafa on every surface too ....just saying

yes, it can become a bother at times when half the posts related to fed/nadal are about the H2H ...the thing is some of these are dumb enough not to realise its a matchup issue and that federer is the superior player ; some ( many ?) keep on repeating ad infinitum that the H2H shows that nadal is the better player :roll:

and what's wrong with wishing that fed beats nadal ?

if someone keeps on saying rafa is a moonballer etc again and again and again, won't you reply even once ?

would you like it if say nadal went 5-10 vs del potro ,losing 3-4 times to him in slams ? its one thing to accept its a bad matchup, another thing not to dislike it ...

so if such a topic is repeated infinite no of times, you are bound to respond ! and if you can have fun in that process , why not ? :)
 

CMM

Legend
What is in Rafa's favour is that it is three out of five and he can get less tentative. He is very nervous on HC from what I see, he has a "I gotta get this ball attitude" and that ruins his calm and execution.

What he really need to cut down on is errors, 19 with Dent, 39 with Benneteau, 40 with Baggy, that's a huge amount of errors with him.

If Rafa defends his SF in USO he should be very,very satisfied. This is the most vulnerable I've seen him on HC since 09', but at least back then he came after injuries and a lot of bad moments. Now he comes of a great winning streak and he looks flat to be honest.

He played bad, but not like in the 2009 season. He was very passive then, but now he lost because he made a lot of unforced errors. Hopeffuly, he can do something about this.
There are also many factors that can influence the tournament:
the draw, the weather (in the last two years the rain disturbed his matches; the rain Gods have to pick someone else this time :) ), the Super Saturday (I hate that :evil: ) and many others.
We'll see.
 

2slik

Semi-Pro
The reason Nadal stands deep on certain courts is due to the type of shot he plays, topspin everytime. He needs a long wind-up. If he would stay on the baseline on HC with that grip and those shots, he could read a couple of serves but most shots he would bring back would be short and the point would end right there. By standing further back and maybe getting a read on a couple of serves he could send deep balls and see where he goes on from there.

Nadal's biggest mistake on HC is slicing and then taking a step back. Nadal's problem on HC isn't on return of serve, it's what he does once the point gets underway. His ROS wasn't particularly inspiring in any of the SF defeats of this year but he had chances and stayed passive, thus losing.

Is that article supposed to convince me? A Nadal fan saying please Nadal step more into the court cause we want you to win USO and RG in 2010. And he won RG 2010 staying back on serves and coming forwards gradually, you know, as he ALWAYS DOES.

Very little evidence in my eyes.

http://tennis-prose.com/articles/i-see-nadal-totally-dominating-professional-tennis-for-five-years/

Tom Michael · July 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Now that the conversation is going in the direction of the US Open, I want to say that Nadal is not necessarily the clear favorite in my book yet. He is the greatest athlete in all of tennis. However, athleticism alone does not win US Opens. It is strategy. Nadal has increased options on the court because he improved his serve and variety off both strokes over the years. To win the US Open, he needs to put it all together. My major issue with his strategy on the court is his running around the backhand on the deuce side of the court to hit a forehand. When he does this, he is literally outside of the doubles tram lines, and off the court, making him vulnerable to down the line forehand winners by righties. He lost to Youzhny in the 2006 US Open quarters because of this stupid habit. He lost a few points at Wimbledon doing this, too, but fortunately, they were not too crucial. However on hard courts, with a truer bounce, the edge Rafa has on movement is not enjoyed. Many poor movers have a chance on hard court against Rafa because they employ better strategy, and do not give up the width of the court like Rafa does.

So the simple conclusions are these. Rafa, stop running around your backhand, especially on the deuce side of the court. You can selectively run around the backhand on the ad side because it is easier to recover back to the middle once hitting a forehand on this side. Ultimately, hit enough backhands, up to 30-40% of your shots. Do not limit the % backhand hit to only 20. This is self-defeating. Use more close-stance hitting on the backhand, instead of the open-stance, particularly when the ball comes deep down the middle. This is better for true counter-punching. Rafa’s open-stance backhand (which is great when pulled wide on the court) is actually an offensive stroke, but he needs to counter-punch more in some neutral rallies on hard courts. It does not make sense to generate extra pace on the hard courts, when the surface provides so much pace on its own.

Keep serving well, with the improved variety, placement, and speed, to win cheap points, and force one-two combination putaways. Stay healthy, and move fearlessly on the court. Use slice to return first serves back in the court. Hit the ball deep.

With Rafa, I am not always sure what strategic play he uses to win on hard courts. He may regress to attacking with the forehand, but he needs to be selective with this stroke. Even though I emphasize him hitting his backhand, and it is a good stroke, it is not a great stroke. And it is because he does not vary the stances like I explained above. He needs to be aware of when to vary the stances, and even when to slice. To me Nalbandian is the master of the backhand. What is funny is that Rafa has the ability to make his backhand comparable to the great David. Because he has a comparably pretty swing, but not the best judgment and footwork on this stroke. So ultimately, it is going to come down to how he handles this side. Fortunately his will to win makes him stingy on points, but his opponent can still take advantage of bad strategy. And Rafa is a prime suspect to employ it.


Author comment by Scoop Malinowski · July 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Tom were you at that Nadal 2006 match vs. Youzhny? I was there and at love-40, triple set point for Nadal in the third set (to go up 2-1) I was literally getting up and ready to go when out of nowhere Youzhny suddenly started smashing winners all over the court. It was like lightning striking, like Sugar Ray Leonard knockout combination of punches and it shocked Rafa who just was shellshocked. He even had a lead in the tiebreak and Youzhny again came back with some electrifying winners. I mean, it wasnt bad strategy on Rafa’s part it was just that the opponent stepped it up and made the big shots. This can happen on hard courts. I don’t think Rafa’s tactics can be called stupid at all, he is the smartest player in tennis, the most intelligent competitor the sport may have ever produced. Hard courts has been the trickiest surface for him to master but he has won a Masters Series, Olympics and Australia and rest assured he will figure out how to win in New York and will win more than one U.S. Open. If not, I will buy you a bologney sandwich and a Coke at the 2015 US Open.


Tom Michael · July 5, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Actually Scoop, I was there. Youzhny did hit outrageous winners. But those winners were mostly down the line ones. But the down the line forehand winners from Mikael should have been limited if Nadal did not hit forehands from the deuce side of the court literally standing in the doubles alleys even off the court. Nadal should have hit backhands from those locations, even if he missed them, because he ended up losing the match hitting predominantly forehands from the wrong locations. And because he avoided hitting backhands, when he decided to actually hit one, he missed a makeable one for a passing shot winner into the net at set point up (6-5) in the 3rd set tie-break.

Youzhny opened up on his shots because he saw opportunity based on the targets on the court Nadal showed him. Nadal’s poor court positioning hitting inside out forehands from the deuce side doubles allies to the righty’s forehand is not smart. The righty sees opportunity to hit that forehand down the line, once the ball was short enough, and Nadal was still literally off the court hitting that nutty forehand.

Trust me! I am not ready to crown Nadal the smartest tennis player yet. That title actually goes to Federer, Nalbandian, and Hewitt. Rafa is emotionally the smartest player, and of course, he is the greatest athlete tennis has seen. But his tennis IQ is very good, but not the best.
 

Love Game

Talk Tennis Guru
jeez,

2 does not follow from 1 because nadal has accomplished far more than federer on clay AND has a winning H2H ( who/what on earth gave you the idea that federer has accomplished more than nadal on clay ? :shock:)

1 is true has nadal has accomplished more than del potro on hard courts, but he has a losing H2H ( I don't agree with "by far" but yeah, nadal's the superior HC player )

1 is similar to davydenko-nadal as nadal has accomplished more on hard courts, but still has a losing H2H

If their HC accomplishments were very close ( either nadal-del potro or nadal-davydenko ), then the H2H could come in as a tie-breaker ...

The accomplishments matter the most

You're correct. 2 does not follow from 1. It wasn't meant to. It's what is known in logic as reductio ad absurdum. This is a process of refutation on grounds that "absurd" and untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. The item at issue is PAgony's statement. If you disagree with a proposition (as I did with the statement of P Agony), you accept the form of the statement (as I did with #3 in my post), thus "accepting the item at issue" and then crafting an exact parallel to test whether that leads to (is reduced to) an "absurdity," something no one would agree with. I see I succeeded, because you do not agree with it yourself.

What I need is for PAgony to answer my initial question, since s/he's the one who made the statement with which I disagreed, also challenging Mustard's attempt to explain what PAgony "really meant," so to speak. I can only go on what someone writes, not what they "really mean," as I cannot read minds.

Logic is all about "true" statements. Those are the building blocks: Individual true statements with one subject and one predicate. Once an exact parallel is shown to lead to an "absurd" conclusion (as you point out #2 did), then you know that the original on which it is based is not true.

My contention is:

Nadal cannot be truthfully stated to be "BY FAR superior" to delPotro on HC despite their H2H on HC any more than Federer can truthfully be stated to be "BY FAR superior" to Nadal on clay despite their H2H on clay.

A more general way of stating this challenge to PAgony's statement is:
How can Player X be called "by far superior" to Player Y on surface Z, when Player Y actually has a winning record over Player X on surface Z?


__________
3164y8p.jpg
 

jack_kramer

Banned
An awful finish to the N. American HC season for Rafa. Here is my diagnosis:

1. Lack of intensity, hunger.
2. Poor serving.
3. Poor return of serves.
4. Lack of depth on groundstrokes.
5. Careless UE's on big points.
6. Lack of confidence on HC.

No way in hell is Rafa winning the USO this year! And with Donkey struggling and Del Pony injured, this was an excellent opportunity for him to complete the career GS. Alas, I fear he may suffer the same fate as Borg and never win in the Big Apple :x
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
wow - just got up, logged on, and I find Baggy has beaten Rafa:shock: Was Rafa bad or was Baggy just having a good day?
 

namelessone

Legend

Other than that running to hit fh move, which is stupid, I don't see anything wrong with Nadal's position on ROS. He stays deep because he needs time to hit, to do something with those shots, he has a long windup on both fh and bh and the balls stay pretty low on this surface so he needs all the time he can get. Staying closer on fast hc would result in a lot of misses and netted points.

If Rafa has shorter strokes, then I would conceed your point.

Nadal's problem is once the point starts. I have seen many,many,many times Nadal stay deep on ROS, get a ball deep and if he can't dictate with angled fh right away(which kinda stands up on these fast courts insted of blasting off like on clay and grass), and the ball gets on his BH trouble starts. He starts slicing and gets pushed deeper and deeper behing the baseline and obviously loses the point. Or he loops it deep with the bh but that gets blasted away too. If his forehand would be more effective(less spiny) and his BH actually existed, he would approach HC with a lot more confidence. Rafa's best HC matches have been those where he has used that flatter CC BH. When he gets his body into that it is a very powerful shot.
 
Last edited:

namelessone

Legend
wow - just got up, logged on, and I find Baggy has beaten Rafa:shock: Was Rafa bad or was Baggy just having a good day?

Rafa was mediocre, squandered quite a few chances from what I've read but Baggy was unusually crisp in the tight moments, especially on serve, and he won. His first victory over Rafa I might add, even though they have never met on clay(how funny is that) and Rafa lead 6-0 before this.

Not a good sign for Rafa, not at all.
 

2slik

Semi-Pro
Other than that running to hit fh move, which is stupid, I don't see anything wrong with Nadal's position on ROS. He stays deep because he needs time to hit, to do something with those shots, he has a long windup on both fh and bh and the balls stay pretty low on this surface so he needs all the time he can get. Staying closer on fast hc would result in a lot of misses and netted points.

If Rafa has shorter strokes, then I would conceed your point.

Nadal's problem is once the point starts. I have seen many,many,many times Nadal stay deep on ROS, get a ball deep and if he can't dictate with angled fh right away(which kinda stands up on these fast courts insted of blasting off like on clay and grass), and the ball gets on his BH trouble starts. He starts slicing and gets pushed deeper and deeper behing the baseline and obviously loses the point. Or he loops it deep with the bh but that gets blasted away too. If his forehand would be more effective(less spiny) and his BH actually existed, he would approach HC with a lot more confidence. Rafa's best HC matches have been those where he has used that flatter CC BH. When he gets his body into that it is a very powerful shot.

I guess his positioning is fine then....for an early round exit at this year's US Open
 

jones101

Hall of Fame
Even with this loss, Rafa is still one of the favourites IMO for the open, he is very good on HC and extremely consistent. The draw could open up for him too.
 

TheLoneWolf

Banned
wow - just got up, logged on, and I find Baggy has beaten Rafa:shock: Was Rafa bad or was Baggy just having a good day?
Rafa made a lot of UE, and Baghdatis serve was on fire. I am not concerned about Rafa's chances at the UO. Not because of this defeat.
 

rafan

Hall of Fame
Even with this loss, Rafa is still one of the favourites IMO for the open, he is very good on HC and extremely consistent. The draw could open up for him too.

They forget that this is the guy that won the olympics and Australian open on a surface by his own comments he does not favour. I don't care if the surface is slow or fast or the sun is shinning or rain falling. If Nadal really wants a tournament he will win it. He was obviously not happy yesterday and wanted out. He looked in a thoroughly bad mood. What I call "I wish I was back in Majorca" mood !
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for the responses guys. It sounds like Rafa still hasn't found his groove on hards yet. Plenty of time for him to find it before/during the USO though.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL at those saying marcos would only score 3 games or something... :rolleyes:
bravo champion for proving them wrong, with a second #1 scalp this year ! :D
(et hop, a 2nd bowl of cereals to celebrate it this morning... and more food for the cat too !)
smiley90.gif
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
3 out of top 4 are out. None of them like playing at Cincy and Nadal looked as if he just wanted out of there ....

And Marcos played an absolutely in the zone match.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I thought Rafa was going to win, but kudos to Marcos for knocking him out. He just went for it, and showed the huges difference between Rafa on hard courts compared to clay.

He is still one of the favorites for the US Open, but he is the one who is most prone to upsets on this surface out of the big four. And at the US Open, he always runs into a red hot player who takes it to him, and something tells me that there a few players that would want to face him there.
 

P_Agony

Banned
I'd put Hewitt over Nadal TBH. A USO title, another final, AO final, and 2 YEC titles, as well as 2 IW titles. Nadal has a few more MS titles, but Hewitt did better overall in the slams all things considered.

Fair enough. So we have Fed, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt and Nadal in the top 5. How about Agassi though, didn't he win an HC slam in that decade? Other titles?
 

P_Agony

Banned
But everyone knows Rodge is #2 on clay. What is excuse is there for the h2h being so lopsided? That doesn't make sense.

If they met on hardcourts, it appears the h2h could actually be worse. They're 4-5 on hardcourts so it's illogical to assume Fed would win all of their hardcourt matches. He has a slim margin there and on grass.

Clay is his best chance to even out the h2h since they meet there the most. Then, when you consider that Fed grew up on the clay and beats everyone else on the clay, how do people justify the h2h as somehow being unfair?

The only way I would understand that logic is if Fed had a wider margin of victory on hard or grass, but he doesn't. It's a one win difference in an odd numbered h2h. If Nadal wins their next hc or grass meeting, they're even, so how is Roger disadvantaged?

I heard the commentators saying that this evening and was blown away by how inane that argument is. #1 and #2 on a surface should not result in such a bad h2h.

Fed is least comfortable on clay and his game is not suited for clay as well as the other surfaces (taking the ball ultra-early, standing very near the baseline, short points). Fed's BH is also a huge liability on clay. The fact he's so good on the surface is just a proof on how good and balanced he is overall. But still, Nadal's CC FH to Fed's BH is just a key for Nadal to win their matches on clay and even outside the clay. Matchup issues.
 

P_Agony

Banned
I can see that interpretation, so perhaps it's ambiguous, b/c what he wrote was, "DP is an excellent player and his GS win was remarkable (beating Fedal back to back), but as far as results go, Nadal is BY FAR the superior HC player."

How can Player X be called "by far superior" to Player Y on HC, when Player Y actually has a winning record over Player X on HC ... especially in recent times such as 2009 ... and especially too when Player X turned professional 4 years PRIOR to Player Y????

Splain me that K? :)

I'll give you Nadal vs. Federer as an explanation because that is the best example:

Nadal owns Federer H2H therefore Nadal is the far superior player in their specific matchup.

Federer owns Nadal in overall results therefore Federer is the far superior player results-wise

Same can be said for DP. Yeah, DP owns Nadal on HCs (3 consecutive wins, ouch), but Nadal is the superior player in terms of overall accomplishments on the surface. Davy owns Nadal as well on HCs, but has never even won a slam or reached a slam final on HC (or any other surface), so are you telling me Davy is an overall better player than Nadal on this surface? No! He's better in their matchup, but overall he hasn't been as consistent.
 

The-Champ

Legend
erm ... I havent read far enough to see if anyone asked you this question, but .......

question: are there arabs in sweden who wear christian crosses around their necks and regularly make the sign of the cross in public? :shock:


yes...there are christian arabs in sweden. Dont know about crosses though. Baggy's mom is christian lebanese.
 

iriraz

Hall of Fame
Compared to the other losses in the past against Murray or Del Potro who played really agressive while Nadal kept the ball short in this match he made way to many errors.I don`t remember in a 5 set match when Nadal made over 40 errors not even thinking in a 3 setter.
It`s always tough for Nadal in these faster hardcourts like Cincinnati,Us Open or indoor tourneys.He does better in the slower hardcourts like Australia,Miami or Indian Wells.
So quarters or semis in these faster tournaments shouldn`t be considered bad results.Every top player has his tournaments where he struggles:Roddick or Murray on clay,Nadal at Cinci or Us Open while Federer never did well at Paris Bercy
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame


Nadal seems to be saying exactly the same as this poster (Tom Michael) regarding his habit of running around the backhand too much. In a postmatch interview that appeared today in El Pais, Nadal is acknowledging his most urgent task is to improve his confidence with the backhand. He explains that, if he can do that, “my movement will improve because I won’t have to run around the backhand, and I will cover the positions better.”
Says that when Baghdatis was returning well to his backhand, he was always starting the point from a bad position because of the "many adjustements" he had to do to start the rally (I suppose he means he was running around the backhand on the return of serve too - I did not watch the match)

http://tinyurl.com/2f6ztgg
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
They forget that this is the guy that won the olympics and Australian open on a surface by his own comments he does not favour. I don't care if the surface is slow or fast or the sun is shinning or rain falling. If Nadal really wants a tournament he will win it. He was obviously not happy yesterday and wanted out. He looked in a thoroughly bad mood. What I call "I wish I was back in Majorca" mood !

His last HC win was nearly a year and a half ago (IW 2009 vs Murray - and that was with 35 mph gusting winds which definitely affected Murray's game). His performance on the surface appears to be deteriorating, not improving. Prior to that IW title in 2009 he'd won 4 HC titles within the previous 4-5 months (late 2008 to early 09)

Has he ever gone 18 months without a HC title in his entire career?
 

ballboy48

Banned
But everyone knows Rodge is #2 on clay. What is excuse is there for the h2h being so lopsided? That doesn't make sense.

If they met on hardcourts, it appears the h2h could actually be worse. They're 4-5 on hardcourts so it's illogical to assume Fed would win all of their hardcourt matches. He has a slim margin there and on grass.

Clay is his best chance to even out the h2h since they meet there the most. Then, when you consider that Fed grew up on the clay and beats everyone else on the clay, how do people justify the h2h as somehow being unfair?

The only way I would understand that logic is if Fed had a wider margin of victory on hard or grass, but he doesn't. It's a one win difference in an odd numbered h2h. If Nadal wins their next hc or grass meeting, they're even, so how is Roger disadvantaged?

I heard the commentators saying that this evening and was blown away by how inane that argument is. #1 and #2 on a surface should not result in such a bad h2h.

YOUR illogic arises from your assumption that 5-4 is cast in stone and that all future matches should be based on that. Ridiculous. 9 matches is hardly a large sample. A better barometer of how most matches would have ended up on HC had they met more in Fed's prime is their overall effectiveness on HC against the field. Moreover, few of those 9 HC meetings were on the fastest surface, eg. Cincy and the most important one USO.
 
Last edited:

Fifth Set

Professional
Good match but also one of the funnier post-match interviews.

Brad gets Marcos to kiss the court with him, at which point booth announcers start making fun of Brad. Fowler: "Is that noted germaphobe Brad Gilbert putting his mouth on the tennis court?" P-Mac: "Where's the Purel when you need it?"
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You're correct. 2 does not follow from 1. It wasn't meant to. It's what is known in logic as reductio ad absurdum. This is a process of refutation on grounds that "absurd" and untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. The item at issue is PAgony's statement. If you disagree with a proposition (as I did with the statement of P Agony), you accept the form of the statement (as I did with #3 in my post), thus "accepting the item at issue" and then crafting an exact parallel to test whether that leads to (is reduced to) an "absurdity," something no one would agree with. I see I succeeded, because you do not agree with it yourself.

What I need is for PAgony to answer my initial question, since s/he's the one who made the statement with which I disagreed, also challenging Mustard's attempt to explain what PAgony "really meant," so to speak. I can only go on what someone writes, not what they "really mean," as I cannot read minds.

Logic is all about "true" statements. Those are the building blocks: Individual true statements with one subject and one predicate. Once an exact parallel is shown to lead to an "absurd" conclusion (as you point out #2 did), then you know that the original on which it is based is not true.

My contention is:

Nadal cannot be truthfully stated to be "BY FAR superior" to delPotro on HC despite their H2H on HC any more than Federer can truthfully be stated to be "BY FAR superior" to Nadal on clay despite their H2H on clay.

A more general way of stating this challenge to PAgony's statement is:
How can Player X be called "by far superior" to Player Y on surface Z, when Player Y actually has a winning record over Player X on surface Z?


__________
3164y8p.jpg

jeez ! that's one hell of a logic fail !!

get this first:

a player being superior to another is based on accomplishments, not H2H

nadal has better accomplishments AND a leading H2H vs federer on clay

nadal's superiority to federer on clay is not based on the H2H, but rather the fact that he has accomplished much more on clay, the H2H is secondary

del potro does NOT have better accomplishments than nadal on hard courts ... neither does davydenko

so inspite of them having a leading H2H vs rafa on hard courts, they are not better on hard courts ...

rating players based on only H2H is dumb ...

suppose on a surface

A leads B in their H2H => A is better than B
B leads C in their H2H => B is better than C
C leads A in their H2H => C is better than A

which leads to a fallacy

who is the superior player ?
 

P_Agony

Banned
A leads B in their H2H => A is better than B
B leads C in their H2H => B is better than C
C leads A in their H2H => C is better than A

which leads to a fallacy

who is the superior player ?

Exactly, tennis is not transitive. This isn't math. H2Hs are affected by mathcups, current health, surface, and other factors. Therefore, to me, the only way to determine a player's superiority is by the number of titles he won all things considered.
 

aphex

Banned
Exactly, tennis is not transitive. This isn't math. H2Hs are affected by mathcups, current health, surface, and other factors. Therefore, to me, the only way to determine a player's superiority is by the number of titles he won all things considered.

no. not just to you.
to any rational human being.

(unfortunately this excludes many posters here)
 

Love Game

Talk Tennis Guru
jeez ! that's one hell of a logic fail !!

get this first:

a player being superior to another is based on accomplishments, not H2H

nadal has better accomplishments AND a leading H2H vs federer on clay

nadal's superiority to federer on clay is not based on the H2H, but rather the fact that he has accomplished much more on clay, the H2H is secondary

del potro does NOT have better accomplishments than nadal on hard courts ... neither does davydenko

so inspite of them having a leading H2H vs rafa on hard courts, they are not better on hard courts ...

rating players based on only H2H is dumb ...

suppose on a surface

A leads B in their H2H => A is better than B
B leads C in their H2H => B is better than C
C leads A in their H2H => C is better than A

which leads to a fallacy

who is the superior player ?

moha ! you have promise in thinking process, but you do not show how my reasoning is wrong, and that's what you need to do to win an argument. youre all over the place, spraying shots here and there, putting forth your own thoughts helter skelter without showing how they relate to my statements, which are:

2ennvw1.gif

A1:
Nadal cannot be truthfully stated to be "BY FAR superior" to delPotro on HC despite their H2H on HC any more than Federer can truthfully be stated to be "BY FAR superior" to Nadal on clay despite their H2H on clay.

A2:
A more general way of stating this challenge to PAgony's statement is:
HOW can Player X be called "by far superior" to Player Y on surface Z, when Player Y actually has a winning record over Player X on surface Z?

HOW? That is the question.


In order to show that one of my statements is false, which is what you must do to disprove it (as I did with PAgony's statement), you need to deal specifically with my statement and show why/how that statement is false.

It's not enough to make some argument of your own that proves your points. That's fine, but it isnt a revelation of why my claims (A1 and A2 above) are wrong. That you have not done.

For example, you keep mentioning the word "accomplishments." Where did the word "accomplishments" come from? Neither I nor PAgony said anything about accomplishments in our statements. The word "accomplishments" the way you use it is undefined and nonspecific. Logic is like math/algebra. In order to arrive at a solution, you must spell out each and every element of the equation yourself. In logic, if youre going to produce a net, you have to weave every strand of that net yourself (as I did in A1/A2).

Once again you start out by showing what's wrong with #2, when I've already pointed out that #2 is "illogical," and the very fact that it is shows that #1 is also illogical. That was my point to begin with.

"rating players based on only H2H is dumb" ??? where did that come from? Again, it has nothing to do with any statement of mine in A1/A2. It's your statement, not mine, and counters not a single one of my statements in A1/A2.

"suppose on a surface
A leads B in their H2H => A is better than B
B leads C in their H2H => B is better than C
C leads A in their H2H => C is better than A
which leads to a fallacy
who is the superior player ?"


You've got a glimmer of something going on there, but it's not anything that has anything to do with my A1/A2. Nothing. Again, all it does is confuse the issue by piling on new, undefined, unrelated elements, because you have not defined the terms, and you have not shown the relations.

I'm glad you know it's "fallacy," because your conclusion "C is better than A" is (as you've conceded) invalid. It doesn't show anything about my A1/A2, and you havent shown any connection.


3164y8p.jpg
 

rafan

Hall of Fame
His last HC win was nearly a year and a half ago (IW 2009 vs Murray - and that was with 35 mph gusting winds which definitely affected Murray's game). His performance on the surface appears to be deteriorating, not improving. Prior to that IW title in 2009 he'd won 4 HC titles within the previous 4-5 months (late 2008 to early 09)

Has he ever gone 18 months without a HC title in his entire career?

So?!! Hard surfaces are no longer his scene. If all they gave to him in the end was a couple of injured knees then he has moved on. It doesn't mean to say he couldn't win on HC surfaces - he has learned to live with that situation rather than have to give up a brilliant career completely. The main thing is that he has survived and is back and is number one - when so many have not
 

Love Game

Talk Tennis Guru
I'll give you Nadal vs. Federer as an explanation because that is the best example:

Nadal owns Federer H2H therefore Nadal is the far superior player in their specific matchup.

Federer owns Nadal in overall results therefore Federer is the far superior player results-wise

Same can be said for DP. Yeah, DP owns Nadal on HCs (3 consecutive wins, ouch), but Nadal is the superior player in terms of overall accomplishments on the surface. Davy owns Nadal as well on HCs, but has never even won a slam or reached a slam final on HC (or any other surface), so are you telling me Davy is an overall better player than Nadal on this surface? No! He's better in their matchup, but overall he hasn't been as consistent.

thx for answering, P_Agony. Just now saw this post, was busy answering another. ........ It's just a half-hour to Fish/Roddick, so I'll respond after that, because I need to think about what youre saying, and I've got another task to finish before the match! :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
With both Del Potro and Tsonga injured and not playing, this may be Nadal's best opportunity ever to win the US Open. But I don't think it'll happen.

We all know both Del Potro and Tsonga would have spanked Nadal at the USO. :)
 

namelessone

Legend
With both Del Potro and Tsonga injured and not playing, this may be Nadal's best opportunity ever to win the US Open. But I don't think it'll happen.

We all know both Del Potro and Tsonga would have spanked Nadal at the USO. :)

Man BP, your hate for Nadal is making you type some really really stupid things.

Tsonga? The lone guy that managed to lose to Nadal when Nadal was way worse than he is now?

Tsonga hasn't beaten Nadal since 2008 when he caught fire for one match. Their h2h is 5-1.
Nadal has beaten him at USO 2007(fast), IW 2008(slow HC), Rotterdam 09'(again a fast surface), Paris 09'(fast again) and Miami 2010(slow HC). You may notice that there are no clay matches or it would have looked uglier. Tsonga lacks consistency and hasn't had any big scalps for quite a while unless you count djoker with ilness in this year's AO(and that was in five).

Nadal has to hit a new low to lose to tsonga on whatever surface in three out of five, especially when Tsonga is very erratic and has a oh-so-exploitable backhand.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
How about Agassi though, didn't he win an HC slam in that decade? Other titles?

In the noughties?

Agassi won the following titles on hardcourt in the noughties:

Australian Open: 2000, 2001, 2003
Indian Wells: 2001
Miami: 2001, 2002, 2003
Cincinnati: 2004
Madrid Indoor: 2002
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Has he ever gone 18 months without a HC title in his entire career?

From 2002 until his first hardcourt title at 2005 Montreal?

Apart from that and the present run, the longest period between hardcourt titles for Nadal was the 16 months from 2007 Indian Wells to 2008 Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Top