nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Novak Djokovic is called the most clutch player of all time. He is also called the most complete player of all time. Both of these things are debatable. I can say the young Nadal was more clutch, but Novak throughout his career has been maybe the best we have seen. What is inarguable is both of these things are at least partially true.
There are many players that are called mentally weak. eg. Andy Murray and his passiveness, if he just fixed this, he would be an atg. Zverev with his forehand, Sinner with his serve and Tsitsipas with his backhand and return. Then comes this guy Alcaraz, who is great at everything. And nobody is calling him mentally weak.
What is the connection? Completeness gives a player more options to win pressure points. Tennis is about pressure points, you can win most categories but lose the match if you lose the pressure points. This is visible by the 2019 Wimbledon finals. This allows Djokovic to play his game instead of taking unnecessary risks. For some fans, this makes him boring because he can play his own game in pressure points.
Going back to Australian Open 2009, it was a medium pace surface. The ball was not flying through the court. Rafa had to play his own game vs Roger, while Roger was trying to use variety of shots to stay in the points. Roger dominated many points but on pressure points Nadal could always play his own game. It was not easy for Nadal, he had to play at razor thin margins but Nadal had a proven method to win the pressure points. Nadal saved most of the important points to win set 1 and 3. Federer had to compete with Nadal's whipping fh and he had no answer to it.
Just 3 years later, in Australian open 2012, it was pretty slow surface. Rafa had advantage with court speed. Both Nadal and Djokovic were playing at razor thin margins. There was no proven method to win pressure points. This made the match into who had better consistency, and who was better physically. The extreme movement by both followed by incredible hitting is not repeated by anyone.
There is preference by some fans between first match or the other. But what we can unquestionably say is the first match had better variety while the second match was more razor thin margins. For some people, having more variety will always be more entertaining. But this Federer was not having tool to beat Nadal on 2009 surface, let alone even slowed further 2012 surface. And on important points, having completeness didn't mean throw 5 different shots when opponent is throwing only 1 shot, whipping fh.
There are many players that are called mentally weak. eg. Andy Murray and his passiveness, if he just fixed this, he would be an atg. Zverev with his forehand, Sinner with his serve and Tsitsipas with his backhand and return. Then comes this guy Alcaraz, who is great at everything. And nobody is calling him mentally weak.
What is the connection? Completeness gives a player more options to win pressure points. Tennis is about pressure points, you can win most categories but lose the match if you lose the pressure points. This is visible by the 2019 Wimbledon finals. This allows Djokovic to play his game instead of taking unnecessary risks. For some fans, this makes him boring because he can play his own game in pressure points.
Going back to Australian Open 2009, it was a medium pace surface. The ball was not flying through the court. Rafa had to play his own game vs Roger, while Roger was trying to use variety of shots to stay in the points. Roger dominated many points but on pressure points Nadal could always play his own game. It was not easy for Nadal, he had to play at razor thin margins but Nadal had a proven method to win the pressure points. Nadal saved most of the important points to win set 1 and 3. Federer had to compete with Nadal's whipping fh and he had no answer to it.
Just 3 years later, in Australian open 2012, it was pretty slow surface. Rafa had advantage with court speed. Both Nadal and Djokovic were playing at razor thin margins. There was no proven method to win pressure points. This made the match into who had better consistency, and who was better physically. The extreme movement by both followed by incredible hitting is not repeated by anyone.
There is preference by some fans between first match or the other. But what we can unquestionably say is the first match had better variety while the second match was more razor thin margins. For some people, having more variety will always be more entertaining. But this Federer was not having tool to beat Nadal on 2009 surface, let alone even slowed further 2012 surface. And on important points, having completeness didn't mean throw 5 different shots when opponent is throwing only 1 shot, whipping fh.
