Match Stats/Report - Nadal vs Medvedev, US Open final, 2019

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Rafael Nadal beat Daniil Medvedev 7-5, 6-3, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4 in the US Open final, 2019 on hard court

It was Nadal's 4th US Open title and he would go onto to finish the year ranked 1. This was Medvedev's first Slam final. He had reached the final of his last 3 hard court events (including a loss to Nadal in Canadian Open) and would go onto reach that stage in his next 2 events also

Nadal won 177 points, Medvedev 164

Serve Stats
Nadal...
- 1st serve percentage (91/159) 57%
- 1st serve points won (70/91) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (36/68) 53%
- Aces 5, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/159) 19%

Medvedev...
- 1st serve percentage (117/182) 64%
- 1st serve points won (76/117) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (35/65) 54%
- Aces 15 (1 not clean)
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (34/182) 19%

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 12%

Medvedev served...
- to FH 53%
- to BH 41%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
Nadal made...
- 144 (73 FH, 71 BH), including runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (5 FH, 1 BH)
- 13 Forced (7 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (144/178) 81%

Medvedev made...
- 124 (37 FH, 87 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 24 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (6 FH)
- 18 Forced (10 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (124/154) 81%

Break Points
Nadal 6/21 (11 games)
Medvedev 5/15 (10 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Nadal 49 (18 FH, 9 BH, 4 FHV, 8 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 9 OH)
Medvedev 54 (20 FH, 13 BH, 7 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 6 BHV, 7 OH)

Nadal's FHs - 2 cc at net (1 a pass), 7 dtl (1 around net post, 1 at net), 4 inside-out (1 pass, 1 at net), 1 inside-in, 1 inside-in/cc, 2 drop shots and 1 lob
- BHs - 2 cc (1 at net), 3 dtl (2 passes, 1 at net), 2 inside-out (1 return pass), 1 running-down-drop-shot dtl at net and 1 net chord dribbler at net (a would be drop shot)

- 7 from serve-volley points, all first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH)

- 3 OHs on the bounce (2 from baseline)... 1 of the baseline ones was from a forced back, serve-volley point

Medvedev's FHs - 5 cc (1 at net), 6 dtl (1 return, 1 pass, 2 at net), 5 inside-out, 1 longline at net, 2 drop shots and 1 running-down-drop-shot dtl at net
- BH - 4 cc (1 return), 5 dtl (1 return pass), 2 inside-out, 1 drop shot and 1 running-down-drop-shot dtl at net pass

- 13 from serve-volley points -
- 9 (3 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)... 1 BHV was a swinging shot
- 3 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 third volley (1 BHV)

- the FH1/2V was a net chord dribbler

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Nadal 71
- 44 Unforced (23 FH, 17 BH, 2 FHV, 2 OH)... with 1 baseline OH on the bounce
- 27 Forced (13 FH, 11 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 OH)... with 1 FH at net, 2 FH running-down-drop-shot at net, 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 flagrantly forced baseline OH pass attempt against a smash at net
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

Medvedev 94
- 58 Unforced (21 FH, 33 BH, 2 FHV, 2 OH)... with 1 FH at net & 1 baseline OH on the bounce
- 36 Forced (19 FH, 11 BH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 2 FH at net & 2 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.5

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Nadal was...
- 53/75 (71%) at net, including...
- 17/20 (85%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 4/10 (40%) forced back/retreated

Medvedev was...
- 48/73 (66%) at net, including...
- 24/31 (77%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 21/28 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 3/3 (100%) off 2nd serve
---
- 2/4 (50%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
A terrific match of action, drama and variety across baseline and net play. Nadal has better of play much of the time, particularly early. Medvedev reaches equality rest of the time by adapting his game to the one Nadal plays. Virtually never does Med dominate proceedings but he takes his chances and picks his moments to snatch 2 equal sets - and has decent shots in the tense decider to boot.

Conditions seem to be on slow side of normal, but bounce is low-ish and slicing is highly effective - which has a huge role to play, particularly for Nadal. Both players are able to retrieve and defend against hard hit wide shots well, again particularly Nadal. Both players have low unreturned rates of 19%, with both serving well.

What makes the match stand out for the period is the plethora of net play, including serve-volleying, to go along with the expected baseline battles. Nadal comes in 75 times, Med 73. That's an approach by either player about 1/4 possible points (i.e. excluding aces and double faults). Both serve-volley a fair amount to - Nadal 24% of the time off first serves, Med 25%. The latter comes in behind 3 second serves too

All that net play springs from both players returning position. Both return from well behind the baseline the overwhelming majority of the time. With returner standing so far back, serve-volley suggests itself as a way to capitilize. Nadal does so from the start, and Med follows suit about half way through the match. Returning from so far back also leaves the returner positioned well behind baseline at start of baseline rallies. Again, Nadal capitilizes early on by coming in to finish points regularly after keeping Med pinned back with heavy shots. When shoe is on the other foot, Med initially plays drop shots to try to capitilize. Without much success. He misses more than he makes and what he makes is run down by Nadal most of the time. Again, half way through the match, he switches to coming to net to finish instead - and is much more successful for it

For all that, bulk of action is still baseline rallies and both play very well from the back. Play is dual winged, both players hitting well. Nadal has slightly more control of play and most common rally is Nadal FH cc - Medvedev BH cc, as he prefers. He does not have a clear advantage on that majority rally. At times, Med's BH breaks down over cluster of points, usually due to Nadal changing paces and throwing in slower, loopier shots or low clinging slices along with his usual top spin shots. Credit Nadal for this. Usually though, the rally is about equal. Med's sweeping BH's is up to trading shots with Nadal's FH and he's able to get ball extra wide or less often, change direction dtl with reasonable comfort. Lots of long rallies and errors don't come easily, very little sloppy play even when they do

Nadal has 23 FH UEs, Med has match high 33 BHs. The extra lot of errors from Med is made up of a couple of loose streaks. He has 5 in a Game 5, Set 4 but manages to hold. He has 4 in 5 points in Game 5, Set 5, where he's crucially broken. And also a not small number of drop shot attempts. Nadal doesn't play much attacking FH inside-outs, generally, his favourite play to finish points or FH inside-out + FH inside-in/cc combos to run his opponent side to side. Just the 2 inside-out winners. Off the FH, he mainly plays cc and when particularly comfortably, dtl attacking shots

Medvedev has match high 20 FH winners - 2 more than Nadal manages. Chief attacking plays are 1-2s with forcefully wide cc's (he has 4 winners with the shot) + inside-out (5 winners). dtl is less effective, largely due to Nadal running ball down and putting the attacking shots back in play. Med's attacking FH combos mainly come from when he starts rally advantageously. The neutral, Med FH - Nadal BH rallies favour Nadal slightly, who hits slightly harder shot. Not enough to beat-down Med's FH, which is steady, but a slight advantage in hitting and consistency. Nadal's also very good at withstanding strong FH cc series of shots with his BH, which is normal for him

With less play along this cc rally, there are fewer UEs. Nadal's BH has match low 17 UEs, Med's FH next with 21

In short, both players' FHs are able to get the better of the others BHs but not by much. Nadal controls play to have more or the rallies be on his FH, particularly credit worthy as Med's very able in changing directions. At times, Med seems a little apprehensive in the BH-FH rallies. Nadal does not when roles are reversed. Good hitting from both off both sides by both players

Great playing numbers for the match -
- Winners - Nadal 49, Med 54
- UEs - Nadal 44, Med 58
- Errors forced - Nadal 36, Med 27

... thus Nadal +41, Med +23 on points ended forcefully/UEs differential. And that's with good hitting and very good movement shown by both and lots of long rallies
 
Last edited:

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
With both players returning from so far back, server has ample advantage on third ball, usually even off second serves. Both players are in the positives in second serve points (Nadal 53%, Med 54%). Even firmly hit returns from that far back gives servers plenty of time to take charge of the rally. Nadal's defensive retrieving is one of the keys to the match. He's able to run down balls after the return, put them in play and after a few shots, get into the rallies (if not neutralize them). Much of his play early on in particular is very similar to how he used to play on hard courts in his early years around 2005-2009. Clay court like tennis, content to let opponent take charge, run around chasing balls from well behind baseline and putting them in play.

Early on, Med slips up occasionally, not least when trying drop shots (which Nadal's position does invite, but Med misses a good number of attempts and Nadal's very quick to run down balls). Later, he comes to net and is much more successful. Some good defence from Med too, particularly when pushed or kept deep behind baseline by Nadal's heavy shots, but this is an area where Nadal is better. Med's movement is as good as it gets for a player of such size

Which brings us to net play. From the get-go, Nadal serve-volleys regularly. He does so almost always out wide in ad court. From rallies, he comes in when Med's well behind baseline. He doesn't face too many tough volleys and is typically very sure in making them. He volleys short or plays drop volleys almost all the time. No easy passes for Med - he's either running forward and across to reach the ball or well behind the baseline when running sideways

Very good thinking from Med to imitate Nadal, with the added advantage that when he's taking net, Nadal can't. He starts serve-volleying more and more as match goes on and coming forward to finish instead of trying to beat down Nadal's wall-like retrieving from the back or playing drop shots. And he has to play more difficult volleys. Nadal's often able to get the ball under the net, if not to the feet - dipped so with top spin, or sliced to drop so

He doesn't look particularly good at net, but misses little. In forecourt -
- Winners - Med 21, Nadal 20
- UEs - Med 4 (including a FH at net), Nadal 3
- FEs - Med 6, Nadal 2

The above numbers are for volley vs pass situations and exclude drop shot and running-down-drop-shot ones. Both players have sizable number of winners and FEs on those. The numbers are a fair reflection of both being very secure up front and the FE number gets to Nadal being the stronger passer

Finally, the serving. Both serve well but the returning is better still. Nadal's return is the standout. Med has the more potent serve and serves at 64% - 7% more than Nadal - and has 15 aces to Nadal's 5. Yet return rates are equal and very high 81%

The high return rates are helped by both players returning from so far behind the baseline. Even so, there's a lot of big serves from Med in particular and Nadal does very well to get so many balls back. In fact, about a third of his low 17 return errors come when he's tiring or more or less giving up the return game (which happens rarely towards the end). And as earlier covered, he's excellent at running around and scampering from well-back starting position

Med's returning is more open to criticism. For one thing, against Nadal's second serve the court position sacrificed and dampened ability to do damage isn't worth the extra consistency of returning from so far back. Nadal serves hefty first serves and Med's way-back returning position has the obvious advantage of allowing him to get a good look and get more returns in play. That's fine. But second serves are just regular second serves, that he should be able to put in play routinely from a normal position. Instead, he takes the overwhelming bulk from way-back too

Nadal dominates his second serve points for first two sets mostly because Med's return leaves him in charge of third ball almost like a first serve. Nadal's willingness and ability to scamper and defend goes well with this type of returning. Med's does not... and Nadal keeps him pinned back with big groundstrokes, beats him down or comes to net to finish points. Just returning orthodoxly from normal position is preferable for Med's game... the second serve is normal and returning it shouldn't be difficult.

Med steps up to attack second serves occasionally and he's almost always at his best when he does. Unlike serve-volleying and coming to net more as match goes on, he doesn't seem to have picked up the return position from Nadal's example. For him, its not a good move

Fitness plays a part in the match. Both fight hard til the end. Nadal shows signs of tiredness from about late in the fourth set and by middle of fifth, is winded after long rallies. Rarely, he he misses the types of returns he'd been making all match and to lesser extent, balls in play. Med appears fresher at the end but likely was feeling the wear and tear of the match too. He calls for trainer after 4th set to look at his thigh and is at his most aggressive coming to net and serve-volleying, looking for shorter points

The umpiring is inconsistent, to Nadal's advantage. In very first game of match, he gives Nadal a time violation for exceeding 25 seconds between points. Under the rules, that means Nadal loses a first serve every time he goes over the clock thereafter on serve or loses the point if he does it on return. Nadal is conscious of the clock, often stealing looks at it while in service motion, but undoubtedly goes over 25 seconds several times in course of match, if only just barely. No further calls from the chair though

By fifth set, when Nadal is visibly tiring and taking relatively long time to get ready even for return points (several times he puts up his hands as Med serves or is about to - including when Med is down break point) or after change overs. Umpire continues to give him leeway. Med ends up winning the few points Nadal holds him on return, thus averting an obvious controversy

Nadal takes over 25 seconds regularly in the fifth set too and loses first serves a couple times, including down break point serving for the match, where he double faults. The crowd gives him a ready made excuse for it making a lot of noise between points, and he's able to delay starting the point and the clock starting as he waits for quiet.

What is the umpire going for? Warning Nadal right off the bat would suggest he was out to strictly enforce the 25 second clock. Thereafter though, he gives Nadal leeway. In the last set, he docks Nadal a couple of first serves - and calls lets when Medvedev serves while Nadal isn't ready. While Nadal is able to take his time as he waits for crowd to be quiet, though they're also making noise on the points he's called for

Vocal crowd at US Open are common. In other matches - for example the '05 and '02 finals - the players just get on with serving. With both players tiring, allowing the crowd to control pace of play to the benefit of one player has plenty of problems. Peculiar and inconsistent job by the chair handling the matter and Medvedev would be well within his rights to have complained about it
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Match Progression
Very eventful first game. Nadal hits a FH winner around the net post second point. Then double faults - he only does so 4 more times in remaining 156 service points. Then is given an official time violation warning, which means he loses a first serve for every further service infringement for rest of match

Both players return from about 10 feet behind baseline. Nadal makes most of it by serve-volleying or coming to net after keeping Med there with heavy groundies. He varies his groundies smartly, throwing in loopier balls on occasion to throw of Med's rhythm and uses FH inside-out to attack, which Med is good at defending against. Med for his part hits moderately wide to start rallies and Nadal is very good at retrieving balls and resisting being forced into error. Med goes in for drop shots and misses regularly, or Nadal runs them down

Players trade breaks early - Nadal broken first to 30 when he mishits a routine FH, Med broken to same score missing 3 BHs (a third ball drop shot attempt, a mishit and stumped by Nadal's pace changing balls). Nadal has better of play, keeping most rallies on his FH and Med survives 12 and 14 points holds (saving 3 break points) leading up to serving to send set into tiebreak. There, he's broken - couple of effective FH inside-outs by Nadal (one setting up a BHV winner, 1 an outright winner) and on break point, a smart lob that draws a BHOH error

Nadal continues to get better of play in second set, remaining more consistent off the ground and throwing in more change of pace shots, including low slices. Both players occasionally step up a bit more to return serve. Med does so more often, but Nadal is more effective hitting flat returns when he does. Med starts getting genuinely loose in straining to attack from the back (as opposed to being outlasted or outplayed by Nadal in tough rallies). Still good lot of drop shots and approaches from both players - more drop shots from Med, more successful at net from Nadal. Nadal gets the break mid way through set with some strong groundstrokes

Play changes to equality in third set, with Med stepping up his game, becoming more consistent off the ground, working Nadal over from the back in the same way Nadal had been working him and serve-volleying more. There's some superb point construction from both players, hitting 4-5 shots to set up finisher and good defence too (step up for Med from earlier, Nadal about the same)

2 crucial OH misses from Nadal prove very costly. Up a break and at deuce, he misses a putaway OH to raise a third break point for Med, in which Med draws a BH error by mixing up his shots - just as Nadal had been doing when important points went into long rallies. Med's at net 7 times (4 of them serve-volleys) in a 10 point service game where he has to save 2 break points. Early in game, he misses a putaway FHV. On his second break point, Nadal misses an OH on the bounce from the baseline. Med hits a swinging first volley BHV serve-volleying point after and goes on to hold. He breaks to end the set - a particularly well played game with FH dtl's doing damage and finishing with a BH inside-out winner

Balance of play changes to equality in the 4th set. Nadal's returning drops a touch - just the normal amount after playing for so long, giving up the odd return error to balls he had been getting in play. Med starts serve-volleying more regularly and playing more decisively with 1-2 court opener-hitting into it stuff. Med's more proactive approach forces Nadal to be more reactive - all credit to Med for that

Still, Nadal holds more easily and looks more of a threat to break. He serves 29 points in set to Med's 36. Particularly crucial is Med holding game 5 after saving 2 break points in a game where his BH lets him down with 5 UEs, including 3 bad ones. He saves 1 break point 2nd serve-volleying to Nadal's FH to draw an error and the second with a surprise BH inside-out - both very bold plays. Nadal misses an uncharacteristic low percentage BH dtl winner attempt after that and Med holds

Med breaks to end the set from 40-15 down. Couple of bad Nadal FH misses - a winner attempt into open court against a decent return and a regulation shot - couple of great passes from Med (including a return on break point) seals the set

5th set is a tense affair, not least because of the time Nadal takes between point. He's slow to come out after changeovers, keeps the server Med waiting frequently, holds up his hands after Med has served a number of times (including when Med is down break point) and takes plenty of time between his own service points. Crowd making plenty of noise between points complicates the shot clock too. Med undergoes treatment on his leg at changeover between sets and is treated at other changeovers. Of movement and looking tired, its Nadal who is worse off

Nadal saves 3 break points in his first service game - including one with a first 'volley' BH1/2V winner serve-volleying and another after having been docked his first serve for taking too long. And then breaks twice to lead 5-2 - the first in a long game of baseline rallies from 40-0 down, the second in a game Med serve-volleys in and from 30-0 down. He can't serve it out first time after getting into more time trouble and double faulting twice - the second time on break point after again having a first serve docked.

Med's under the gun again next game and struggles through a 12 point hold, saving 2 break & match points, the second with a second serve-volley to Nadal's FH to leave Nadal to serve for the match a second time. That last game is another tense one, with Med coming to net and having a break point. From 30-40 down, Nadal reels off 3 points with an approach, a drop shot play and finally an unreturned serve to end the match

Summing up, great match of action, of fight, of drama and of variety. Both players return from well behind the baseline, allowing server to commandingly start baseline rallies. Nadal leads the way - as server, he hammers Medvedev down from the back or comes to net to finish or serve-volleys to good effect. On return, he's very good at getting tough serves back in play and good at scampering and defending at start of rallies and manages to find his way into them reasonable amount of the time, with Medvedev less able to put him away with beat down shots and missing a good lot of drop shots

As match wears on, Medvedev takes on Nadal's strategy, serve-volleys a lot or comes to net to finish points rather than drop shot. And is much better for it

Both players volley securely. Nadal's passing is stronger so Medvedev has to make harder volleys to be as successful

Baseline play is hard hitting, dual winged and cross court based. Both get slightly better of the other when they have ball on FH and Nadal is able to keep the ball on his FH more often than not. Both play strongly off their BHs too and rallies are tough, with sloppy errors being infrequent

Nadal mixing up pace of his shots - throwing in loopier, slower balls or excellent slices - from time to time troubles Medvedev and he's better at defending and retrieving on the whole.

Match could have been over in straights, but for couple easy OH misses from Nadal, who's sizably the better player for most of 3 sets. Remainder of match is neck and neck, with Medvedev utilizing net play more and more and looking fresher of the two by end. Nadal holds his nerve to see out the decider. He's the better player for most of match and for no significant portion is he the worse

@aldeayeah - thoughts?

Stats for '17 final between Nadal and Kevin Anderson - Match Stats/Report - Nadal vs Anderson, US Open final, 2017 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Stats for Australian Open final between Nadal and Novak Djokovic - (15) Match Stats/Report - Djokovic vs Nadal, Australian Open final 2019 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
 
Sadladev is simply incapable of hitting with consistent authority over BO5 to seriously trouble an ATG level opponent. Just compare this to the 2009 final in terms of shotmaking potency, really a significant gap in level.
 
I want true epick quality, not what passes for epeak due to appearing exciting.
You know, this concerns any player, for a simple example a feeble returner makes a good server look even better than he is, even if his serves are good by themselves so it's easy to indulge in overrating them further. After all, only by applying criticism can you distill the goodest of goods and find proper appreciation for them based on understanding and knowledge.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
I want true quality, not what passes for quality due to appearing exciting.
You know, this concerns any player, for a simple example a feeble returner makes a good server look even better than he is, even if his serves are good by themselves so it's easy to indulge in overrating them further. After all, only by applying criticism can you distill the goodest of goods and find proper appreciation for them based on understanding and knowledge.
What you want is to rain on other people’s parades. It was a great match full of plot twists, variety, drama, and excellent shot making. Based on the eye test and the stats this was one of the best schlem finals in a while. Certainly the best USO F in a long time.
 
What you want is to rain on other people’s parades. It was a great match full of plot twists, variety, drama, and excellent shot making. Based on the eye test and the stats this was one of the best schlem finals in a while. Certainly the best USO F in a long time.
You're right I don't like seeing matches overrated because that naturally leads to better matches being underrated and that can't be had at all.
Eye test is how the middling/inconsistent intensity is apparent. Knowledge lends you power to see so acquiring more knowledge would be a good option for ya.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
You're right I don't like seeing matches overrated because that naturally leads to other matches being underrated and that can't be had at all.
Eye test is how the middling/inconsistent intensity is apparent. Knowledge lends you power to see so acquiring more knowledge would be a good option for ya.
It really doesn’t. I’ll tell you something mind blowing, you can like and appreciate this match while still appreciating older matches.



Crazy concept I know.
 
It really doesn’t. I’ll tell you something mind blowing, you can like and appreciate this match while still appreciating older matches.



Crazy concept I know.
But overappreciating a match means underappreciating other matches in comparison. If everyone is special than no one is. In a more extreme form, you get r/tennis where kinda decent tennis is praised as amazing - what praise shall actually amazing tennis receive?
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
But overappreciating a match means underappreciating other matches in comparison. If everyone is special than no one is.
Again, no it doesn’t. That’s an incredibly overly simplistic and black and white way of looking at things. The 2019 USO F was a great match point blank period. Liking this match doesn’t change the fact that 09 F was awesome too for example.
 
Again, no it doesn’t. That’s an incredibly overly simplistic and black and white way of looking at things. The 2019 USO F was a great match point blank period. Liking this match doesn’t change the fact that 09 F was awesome too for example.
Do not confuse like/dislike with great/meh. Preferences are anyone's domain but this is a thread purporting to give an objective assessment so it is proper to point that out. If that final was great than almost any final was... heck, the 04 final is probably better by average quality because of how unreal Federer was in spurts. I don't like matches strictly according to their quality either, one can separate n'est-ce pas?
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
Do not confuse like/dislike with great/meh. Preferences are anyone's domain but this is a thread purporting to give an objective assessment so it is proper to point that out. If that final was great than almost any final was... heck, the 04 final is probably better by average quality because of how unreal Federer was in spurts. I don't like matches strictly according to their quality either, one can separate n'est-ce pas?
By the same token, you shouldn't confuse something you don't like as a meh match. By any "objective assessment" it was a great match as the numbers show. You had 2 of the game's best defenders hitting winners from every area of the court. They both served and returned well while mixing up tactics. Again, I don't get the point of you coming in here just to dump all over the match.

As far as the bolded goes:



Just about anything would have been better than watching Hewitt get dunked on for the billionth time like he was in 04.
 
By the same token, you shouldn't confuse something you don't like as a meh match. By any "objective assessment" it was a great match as the numbers show. You had 2 of the game's best defenders hitting winners from every area of the court. They both served and returned well while mixing up tactics. Again, I don't get the point of you coming in here just to dump all over the match.
Yeah like cheap s&v winners based on soft returns. Epic stuff returning from another galaxy.

Just about anything would have been better than watching Hewitt get dunked on for the billionth time like he was in 04.
The highest peak is sure superior to the mehfest, even if the opponent was goofing for parts - but then I very much doubt sadlad could've even gotten to TB against the actual Peak Fred (or joe or nad, either) in a slem final. Oldal should've won in straights if he didn't drop the ball, common stuff these days. What's lad got to bother a peaking ATG with if his attacking ability is middling?
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
Yeah like cheap s&v winners based on soft returns. Epic stuff returning from another galaxy.
What's so funny is that so many people whine and cry about players not coming to the net anymore. Then when Nadvedev did S&V you don't like how they did it.

Anyone can downplay a match if they want to. The 09 F for example was way moar error prone. Ol' Rog only got 50% 1st serves in play which is terrible for a guy with his serve. He won a one-sided 1st set (Delpo was an error machine) was up a break in set 2 serving for a 2-0 lead and somehow blew it. During the entire match he had a brain dead "strategy" of hitting to Delpo's forehand because he wanted to prove his was better. He should have won that match is straights too. Instead, he lost in 5 while completely collapsing in the deciding. Much wow, so amazeballz.

The highest peak is sure superior to the mehfest, even if the opponent was goofing for parts - but then I very much doubt sadlad could've even gotten to TB against the actual Peak Fred (or joe or nad, either) in a slem final. Oldal should've won in straights if he didn't drop the ball, common stuff these days. What's lad got to bother a peaking ATG with if his attacking ability is middling?
Yes, cuz watching one guy with an obviously limited ceiling get obliterated is so much fun :rolleyes: Hewitt only got to a TB cuz Ol' Rog's level went down several notches compared to the 1st and 3rd sets. The Mad Lad would have lost, but he's not getting double bagelled, that's for damn sure. His serve alone would have prevented that.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Thanks @Waspsting !

I watched most of the match (missed a chunk of the 4th set.) What has stuck with me was Med's brilliant play at the tail end of the third set.

Reading your analysis, it's interesting how Nadal's advantage seemed to be mostly tactical (being more willing to go to the net). If Med had the right tactics from the start, this could have been a quite difficult match.

I also think the court was quite slow (in a "dead" way, not in a high bounce way) and it got yet slower as the match progressed. Neither player's favorite conditions and it turned into a bit of a grindfest because of that.

I certainly wouldn't have been thrilled to watch a Murrovic match on that court lol
 

yokied

Hall of Fame
Yep, bravo Waspsting. It’s not one that many of us have fond memories of, but Med had his chances here and his inability to dedjokodal draws is not your problem.
 
What's so funny is that so many people whine and cry about players not coming to the net anymore. Then when Nadvedev did S&V you don't like how they did it.
It's better than the softish back-and-forth obviously but coming in to expose the palpable flaw doesn't make the play great as the difficulty isn't too hard.


Anyone can downplay a match if they want to. The 09 F for example was way moar error prone. Ol' Rog only got 50% 1st serves in play which is terrible for a guy with his serve. He won a one-sided 1st set (Delpo was an error machine) was up a break in set 2 serving for a 2-0 lead and somehow blew it. During the entire match he had a brain dead "strategy" of hitting to Delpo's forehand because he wanted to prove his was better. He should have won that match is straights too. Instead, he lost in 5 while completely collapsing in the deciding. Much wow, so amazeballz.
The 09 final is leagues removed from the best matches ever yet still at least a half-notch above the 19 spectacle... What it tells us, oh what. The game was actually based on aggressive hitting y'know, although it wore down with increasing errors over time. The decade younger final had as much weakness with less potent hitting.

Yes, cuz watching one guy with an obvious limited ceiling get obliterated is so much fun :rolleyes: The Mad Lad would have lost, but he's not getting double bagelled, that's for damn sure. His serve alone would have prevented that.
Murray didn't get double bagelled in 08 either, so what, how much better than Hewitt did he perform eh? Hewitt's loss was slightly disrespectable somehow I think, since there's little difference between an uncompetitive 6-0 and 6-2 - easy domination either way, with multiple 0/15 breaks - but a bigger one between nicely saving SPs to at least force a breaker and failing to force one by getting broken to love serving to get there. The same goes for the recent AO final now that I think of it, same scoreline except different set order and also getting broken to love at 5-6 in the lone close set.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
It's better than the softish back-and-forth obviously but coming in to expose the palpable flaw doesn't make the play great as the difficulty isn't too hard.
Lol softish, is that why despite being better defenders they hit moar winners than Fedpo did :unsure: Also, who gives a damn how hard you hit if the ball is going out moar often than it's going in?

The 09 final is leagues removed from the best matches ever yet still at least a half-notch above the 19 spectacle... What it tells us, oh what. The game was actually based on aggressive hitting y'know, although it wore down with increasing errors over time. The decade younger final had as much weakness with less potent hitting.
They're pretty comparable in level, but I give the edge to 2019 due to it being the much cleaner F with moar variety and actual tactical adjustments. Again, it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you're spraying all over the court like an untrained dog.

Murray didn't get double bagelled in 08 either, so what, how much better than Hewitt did he perform eh? Hewitt's loss was slightly disrespectable somehow I think, since there's little difference between an uncompetitive 6-0 and 6-2 - easy domination either way, with multiple 0/15 breaks - but a bigger one between nicely saving SPs to at least force a breaker and failing to force one by getting broken to love serving to get there. The same goes for the recent AO final now that I think of it, same scoreline except different set order and also getting broken to love at 5-6 in the lone close set.
Murray didn't get bagelled because he played a much worse Ol' Rog. Sure, if he played 04 Ol’ Rog he’d get bagelled, but his 2nd serve (which got pummeled) isn't in the same ballpark as the Mad Lad's. Unlike Murray, the Mad Lad showed some actual guts in his first F. And anyone will tell you it's much less humiliating to lose a set 6-2 than it is 6-0. There's a reason we have a slang term for 6-0 sets. Lastly, the Mad Lad clearly played better in the USO 2019 F than he did in AO F this year. At the USO he was the underdog and fought like hell to push it to 5. Whereas at the AO he came into the F with realistic expectations to win (especially against an injured Joker) and crumbled under the pressure. After a competitive 1st set he rolled over and was making routine rally shot errors. He was like a completely different player.
 
Lol softish, is that why despite being better defenders they hit moar winners than Fedpo did :unsure: Also, who gives a damn how hard you hit if the ball is going out moar often than it's going in?


They're pretty comparable in level, but I give the edge to 2019 due to it being the much cleaner F with moar variety and actual tactical adjustments. Again, it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you're spraying all over the court like an untrained dog.


Murray didn't get bagelled because he played a much worse Ol' Rog. Sure, if he played 04 Ol’ Rog he’d get bagelled, but his 2nd serve (which got pummeled) isn't in the same ballpark as the Mad Lad's. Unlike Murray, the Mad Lad showed some actual guts in his first F. And anyone will tell you it's much less humiliating to lose a set 6-2 than it is 6-0. There's a reason we have a slang term for 6-0 sets. Lastly, the Mad Lad clearly played better in the USO 2019 F than he did in AO F this year. At the USO he was the underdog and fought like hell to push it to 5. Whereas at the AO he came into the F with realistic expectations to win (especially against an injured Joker) and crumbled under the pressure. After a competitive 1st set he rolled over and was making routine rally shot errors. He was like a completely different player.
The concept of ballstriking potency is still at large.
Okay let's speak in examples.
quality point

lesser quality point

see?
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
The concept of ballstriking potency is still at large.
Okay let's speak in examples.
quality point

lesser quality point

see?
Hey, if points ending in failed passing shots is your cup of tea then by all means go for it. I'll take the 2019 point that ended in a well set up FH winner every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
So you don't see that ballstriking quality was better in the former point.
Again, who cares how hard or “cleanly” you hit the ball if it goes out of bounds or into the net. Besides, you make it sound like Nadvedev were shanking/patty caking the ball. They were striking the ball very cleanly while hitting moar winners despite the fact that they were playing on a slower court against better defenders.
 
Again, who cares how hard or “cleanly” you hit the ball if it goes out of bounds or into the net. Besides, you make it sound like Nadvedev were shanking/patty caking the ball. They were striking the ball very cleanly while hitting moar winners despite the fact that they were playing on a slower court against better defenders.
Yes Medal were fairly softballing compared to Fedpotro's hitting. Hitting soft but deep balls is Medvedev's style, his technique doesn't allow him to hit directly through opponents except when he gets particularly hot (parts of sets 3 and 4 of the 19 final qualify, sure). Nadal took a long time to calibrate his attack too. Peakdal would've simply run around the softish balls and shredded lad with inside-out forehands from start to finish.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
Yes Medal were fairly softballing compared to Fedpotro's hitting. Hitting soft but deep balls is Medvedev's style, his technique doesn't allow him to hit directly through opponents except when he gets particularly hot (parts of sets 3 and 4 of the 19 final qualify, sure).
Tennis isn’t a game about who can hit the ball the hardest. If it was, guys like Basilashvili and Gulbis would be way moar successful. Nadvedev hit moar winners than either Ol’ Rog or Delpossum while hitting fewer errors. I couldn’t care less if Fedpo hit harder, they still missed way moar shots wide, long, or dumped them into the net. So again, if you like watching harder hit errors over “soft” well constructed rallies that turn into sizzling winners then good for you.
 
Tennis isn’t a game about who can hit the ball the hardest. If it was, guys like Basilashvili and Gulbis would be way moar successful. Nadvedev hit moar winners than either Ol’ Rog or Delpossum while hitting fewer errors. I couldn’t care less if Fedpo hit harder, they still missed way moar shots wide, long, or dumped them into the net. So again, if you like watching harder hit errors over “soft” well constructed rallies that turn into sizzling winners then good for you.
If UE % is the lone defining factor then the Federer-Roddick USO double is a paragon of quality. Not to mention old style s&v matches. Tennis is a percentage matrix game and you're missing this.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
If UE % is the lone defining factor then the Federer-Roddick USO double is a paragon of quality. Not to mention old style s&v matches. Tennis is a percentage matrix game and you're missing this.
I never said it was the lone factor, besides a lot of people consider the 07 USO QF to be a great match. What you can’t seem to grasp is that “clean ball striking” doesn’t matter if you’re shots are going out moar often than they’re going in. Most points in tennis end in an error. Therefore, it makes sense that a match that has a positive W/UFE ratio is typically a good indicator of a high quality match. Which the 2019 USO F was.

I just don’t get the point of you getting so bent out of shape over people enjoying/considering it a high quality match. No one else came into the thread to dump on another match to elevate this one.
 
I never said it was the lone factor, besides a lot of people consider the 07 USO QF to be a great match. What you can’t seem to grasp is that “clean ball striking” doesn’t matter if you’re shots are going out moar often than they’re going in. Most points in tennis end in an error. Therefore, it makes sense that a match that has a positive W/UFE ratio is typically a good indicator of a high quality match. Which the 2019 USO F was.

I just don’t get the point of you getting so bent out of shape over people enjoying/considering it a high quality match. No one else came into the thread to dump on another match to elevate this one.
It's certainly implied, we know how this works, please. For example, positing 2019 F > 2009 F by level necessarily implies that 2019 Nadal >= 2009 del Potro > 2009 Federer, and 2019 Medvedev >= 2009 Federer too. Which is bull so there's an error.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
It's certainly implied, we know how this works, please. For example, positing 2019 F > 2009 F by level necessarily implies that 2019 Nadal >= 2009 del Potro > 2009 Federer, and 2019 Medvedev >= 2009 Federer too. Which is bull so there's an error.
Says who? You? I can’t trust your logic when earlier in the thread you said that by appreciating a “lower quality” match it means we’re appreciating a “higher quality” match less.

Pretty struck errors > well constructed winners FTW.
 
Top