Nadal is one of a kind

[Northern]

On today's tour, yes. Whereas 25 years ago, the answer would be resounding no.

That's all one needs to know about where the tour is today. There isn't a week during the entire tennis calendar when a clay court specialist is at a disadvantage. Never.

Why is it that Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG but has beaten him at Wimbledon? There are still dramatic differences between the surfaces, even if it is true that Wimbledon and hardcourts in general were slowed down (but the AO was actually sped up in 2017, which didn't seem to bother Nadal.)

Why do you think Nadal wasn't more successful when the AO was slower, and was actually more successful at the USO, which played faster? How is it possible for Nadal to have won the full American HC season in 2013, whereas somebody like Federer never could do that?

 

[Gary Duane]

these "experts" need to make up their mind(s). in 2013 when he came back from injury and had something of a renaissance on the hard courts, his aggressive return of serve position was what was pointed to as the reason for his success. then, when he was struggling mightily in 2015, everyone was saying all the court position he was conceding on the return of serve was why he was getting beaten by everybody. now, returning serve from the coach's box is the reason he's beating everybody. uh huh.

It depends on surface.

Return points won on clay:

2008: 50%
2013: 44%
Career: 47%
2018, so far: 48%

This year dipped when he lost, and then in Rome. It will go higher if he wins RG again.

Points win games, games win matches, matches win events and events determine careers.

Compare with HCs:

2008: 41%
2013: 41%
Career: 40%
2017, so far: 40%

These guys won more points in a full year than Nadal has ever won, on HC, according to the ATP, and in this order:

Chang
Djokovic
Agassi
Murray
Chang
Edberg
Courier
Hewitt
Sampras
Federer

I am suspicious of some of the figures for Chang and Sampras, and maybe Edberg's are suspicious, but the rest are pretty solid.

Who won more points than Nadal on clay RETURNING?

NO ONE

 

[Gary Duane]

Why is it that Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG but has beaten him at Wimbledon? There are still dramatic differences between the surfaces, even if it is true that Wimbledon and hardcourts in general were slowed down (but the AO was actually sped up in 2017, which didn't seem to bother Nadal.)

Because differences in surfaces are more about bounce than speed. A ball bouncing to height X and traveling distance Y from the point it hits gives the same amount of time to any player on any surface. These top players all have lightning fast reflexes.

But a low bounce gives less time to react to the path of the ball, or adjust to its spin.

Top returners on fast courts try to step up to the baseline as far as possible. What makes this "fast" is the lower bounce. No one wins on grass standing back 100 feet.

That's why Nadal's 37% of points on return, on grass, look so shabby compared to his 47% of points on clay.

Saying that grass and clay play the same today is just stupid, but it's a myth that gets repeated almost daily in this forum.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Northern]

Because differences in surfaces are more about bounce than speed. A ball bouncing to height X and traveling distance Y from the point it hits gives the same amount of time to any player on any surface. These top players all have lightning fast reflexes.

But a low bounce gives less time to react to the path of the ball, or adjust to its spin.

Top returners on fast courts try to step up to the baseline as far as possible. What makes this "fast" is the lower bounce. No one wins on grass standing back 100 feet.

That's why Nadal's 37% of points on return, on grass, look so shabby compared to his 47% of points on clay.

Saying that grass and clay play the same today is just stupid, but it's a myth that gets repeated almost daily in this forum.

Bingo, thank you. I was hoping for skip to say this, but now he won't get a chance. That is part of the reason why Nadal usually camps way behind the baseline to return. I also think skip is ignoring the offensive portion of Nadal's game, and the fact he has one of the best FH ever, and a BH that is nothing to scoff at. Surely Nadal wouldn't have been so successful at Wimbledon without his offensive game.

 

[reaper]

Because differences in surfaces are more about bounce than speed. A ball bouncing to height X and traveling distance Y from the point it hits gives the same amount of time to any player on any surface. These top players all have lightning fast reflexes.

But a low bounce gives less time to react to the path of the ball, or adjust to its spin.

Top returners on fast courts try to step up to the baseline as far as possible. What makes this "fast" is the lower bounce. No one wins on grass standing back 100 feet.

That's why Nadal's 37% of points on return, on grass, look so shabby compared to his 47% of points on clay.

Saying that grass and clay play the same today is just stupid, but it's a myth that gets repeated almost daily in this forum.

Nadal is one sense a fast court player. He prefers a lively fast high bouncing clay court to one that plays low and slow.

 

[Northern]

Nadal is one sense a fast court player. He prefers a lively fast high bouncing clay court to one that plays low and slow.

Low bouncing courts are what breaks Nadal's game, absolutely.

 

[Sentinel]

23-10 ---> 23-15 after skipping clay for 3 years. According with this progression Fed will have a balanced H2H if he skips clay for the next 5 years. There is still hope for Fed fans.

Actually, if you recall, Federer won the 3 matches of 2017 on HC before taking the clay season off. Not after. And in 2017, he took the clay season off due to injury. That's not skipping.

It's only in 2018 that he skipped it healthy.

 

[Sentinel]

Low bouncing courts are what breaks Nadal's game, absolutely.

Can't stand one mile back, is that it ?

 

[Northern]

Actually, if you recall, Federer won the 3 matches of 2017 on HC before taking the clay season off. Not after. And in 2017, he took the clay season off due to injury. That's not skipping.

It's only in 2018 that he skipped it healthy.

The reason for his skipping clay is irrelevant. I'm saying that if he avoids Nadal during the clay season (for whatever reason) we can project a balanced H2H by Fed's 40th birthday.

 

[Northern]

Can't stand one mile back, is that it ?

Exactly so. But, why is that not legitimate? Each player plays according to his own strengths. If the opponent were good enough, potentially he would be able to take advantage of Nadal's return position.

 

[Sentinel]

The reason for his skipping clay is irrelevant. I'm saying that if he avoids Nadal during the clay season (for whatever reason) we can project a balanced H2H by Fed's 40th birthday.

You ducked that part that the 3 wins happened BEFORE clay.

And it wasn;t "skipping". He happened to be injured at that point so he could not play.
This year he probably thought, if it worked last year why not this year.

 

[skip1969]

I can see what you are saying, that's actually a reasonable point of view. Unfortunately, it makes it hard to compare Wimbledon titles from 20+ years ago to current Wimbledon titles, for example. In the end, the best players adapt to the conditions that are given to them.

By Nadal making clay the core of his resume, this influenced his style (the huge FH swing you mention, his more defensive approach compared to someone like Federer, etc) in ways that obviously marked his potential evolution in other surfaces. But the same could be said of Federer. If surfaces hadn't changed, perhaps we would see people like Isner and Raonic taking more of the "fast" slams, and Federer wouldn't have been so successful either. People like Henman, who were true S/V specialists and who had great success against Federer before surfaces were gradually slowed might have done better than him as well. It is easy to speculate, but it is hard to predict.

Are Nadal and Djokovic "pushers"? Is Federer? I don't think so. I don't think of Nadal or Djokovic as "pushers" or "grinders." They are more defensive than Federer for sure, but they have incredible weapons that preclude any consideration we can make of them using those two terms (which, yes, have a negative connotation.)

I use words like "grinder" and "pusher" because they are in common use on TTW, though I don't attach any negative connotations to them, per se. I often call the ATP a "grinder's tour," not as an insult, but because that's exactly what it has become. And yes, the guys that have dominated the grinder's tour - Fed, Nadal, Novak - can lay claim to selective aggression depending on surface. But I see less and less attacking play as the years have unfolded. Surely, Fed is a perfect example. He rose to the top playing an all-court style. But he reverted to a more passive style. Not his fault. They've all done it. Everyone plays from way back, trying to outlast the other guy, or crack winners from the first row. Nadal from the second or third row.

Thing is, I don't blame any of the players for doing what they do best in order to win. The guys who win everything are the ones who have been able to adapt to the tour the best, so hats off to them. The end product, though, is not setting hearts afire or drawing in fans. Because most people don't want to sit through super long matches where every point is a marathon.

Bingo, thank you. I was hoping for skip to say this, but now he won't get a chance. That is part of the reason why Nadal usually camps way behind the baseline to return. I also think skip is ignoring the offensive portion of Nadal's game, and the fact he has one of the best FH ever, and a BH that is nothing to scoff at. Surely Nadal wouldn't have been so successful at Wimbledon without his offensive game.

I readily accept that Nadal is one of the best players in the history of our sport, while freely admitting that I hate watching his matches. Fan or not, he wasn't the person who changed the tour, so he's got nothing to be sorry about. I don't denigrate his achievements, nor any other player's. Kudos to him and anyone else who can make that money winning on tour.

 

[Gary Duane]

Nadal is one sense a fast court player. He prefers a lively fast high bouncing clay court to one that plays low and slow.

That just supports my point. He can adapt to any speed if he has enough time, and he gets the time from a high bounce. That's the biggest factor for Fedal. For Fed the lower the bounce, the better. Low bounce means he can crowd the baseline. It's far easier to hit a low bouncing ball on the rise. In general players who did very well on grass did very well on carpet. Fed, contrary to intuition, was NOT a strong carpet player before the surface was removed, probably why he was glad to see it go. But he would have become a great carpet player. Nadal would have hated it.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Because differences in surfaces are more about bounce than speed. A ball bouncing to height X and traveling distance Y from the point it hits gives the same amount of time to any player on any surface. These top players all have lightning fast reflexes.

But a low bounce gives less time to react to the path of the ball, or adjust to its spin.

Top returners on fast courts try to step up to the baseline as far as possible. What makes this "fast" is the lower bounce. No one wins on grass standing back 100 feet.

That's why Nadal's 37% of points on return, on grass, look so shabby compared to his 47% of points on clay.

Saying that grass and clay play the same today is just stupid, but it's a myth that gets repeated almost daily in this forum.

Except, almost noone of note says that they play "the same".

 

[Northern]

I use words like "grinder" and "pusher" because they are in common use on TTW, though I don't attach any negative connotations to them, per se. I often call the ATP a "grinder's tour," not as an insult, but because that's exactly what it has become. And yes, the guys that have dominated the grinder's tour - Fed, Nadal, Novak - can lay claim to selective aggression depending on surface. But I see less and less attacking play as the years have unfolded. Surely, Fed is a perfect example. He rose to the top playing an all-court style. But he reverted to a more passive style. Not his fault. They've all done it. Everyone plays from way back, trying to outlast the other guy, or crack winners from the first row. Nadal from the second or third row.

Thing is, I don't blame any of the players for doing what they do best in order to win. The guys who win everything are the ones who have been able to adapt to the tour the best, so hats off to them. The end product, though, is not setting hearts afire or drawing in fans. Because most people don't want to sit through super long matches where every point is a marathon.




I readily accept that Nadal is one of the best players in the history of our sport, while freely admitting that I hate watching his matches. Fan or not, he wasn't the person who changed the tour, so he's got nothing to be sorry about. I don't denigrate his achievements, nor any other player's. Kudos to him and anyone else who can make that money winning on tour.

Who cares about the prize money. You might not like baseline rallies, that's fine. I don't like S/V particularly either, or watching aces. I think there is enough balance in the tour right now that you get to see some all-court play along with long rallies. I find it hard to believe that you find Nadal's matches universally unappealing though, but tastes are something very particular and you are entitled to whatever you like.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Vamosalaplayans screaming "Bingo" at "revelations" that they oppose to in other threads is highly amusing.

Higher bouncing courts are bringing the entire spectrum of surfaces closer to the way clay courts play.

I also see that slowly the vamosalaplayans abandon yet another of their positions, but let it be known:

Northern: "Nadal is not a clay court specialist"

Hahaha

 

[Gary Duane]

Except, almost noone of note says that they play "the same".

I'd go farther. I don't think anyone who really knows something about the game would say something that wrong.

 

[Northern]

The fact Fed has a 15-23 H2H (3-9 in the slams) against a "claycourt specialist" should definitely seal Fed's GOAT aspirations. Not to mention Sampras has 7 proper Wimbledon titles, not 8 "new" Wimbledons, so Fed is not even best on grass. Can you imagine Sampras being schooled in a Wimbledon final by Muster?

Tennis Warty Hands seething...

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't mind the vamosalaplayans dream, fantasise, draw "conclusions", label etc.

In fact, that makes it so much more fun: das Endspiel, when they have to resort to pure helpless trolling.

Hahaha

 

[Rafa's OCD]

It depends on surface.

obviously, but this truism would seem to elude the Darren Cahills of the world (or whatever other commentator you'd like) who simply choose to regard whatever tack happens to be working at that moment as a masterstroke. When it ceases to work, they chide the player for his strategic failure.

 

[Gary Duane]

obviously, but this truism would seem to elude the Darren Cahills of the world (or whatever other commentator you'd like) who simply choose to regard whatever tack happens to be working at that moment as a masterstroke. When it ceases to work, they chide the player for his strategic failure.

I record everything, and some days I know the scores before I get to watch the matches. You would not BELIEVE how stupid these guys sound when you hear their comments at the beginning of a match.

There is a reason why more and more players are moving farther and farther back to return on clay. You copy the guy who is winning everything.

There is also a very good reason why no one but Rafa tries this on grass. It doesn't work.