Strategy to Defeat Rafael Nadal Parera

[TTMR]

For all the talk that "Nadal struggles with x" that we see echoed throughout this forum, the reality is that there is only one truly effective way to defeat Nadal:

Hit as hard as possible, at the lines, multiple times a rally, over and over again, for 3-5 hours*.

There is no grand strategy, no great hidden secret or mystery, no tapestry to be unwoven, no hidden safe to be unlocked.

The ten times Federer has defeated Nadal (which, when put this way, is actually damn impressive), this is what he has done. Those rare times Murray has defeated Nadal, this is what he had to do, and did. Soderling, Rosol, Del Potro--that's what they did.

Does Nadal "struggle" with big servers? No, contrary to myth, he owns them all.

Does Nadal "struggle" with big hitters? No. The Soderlings and Del Potros could never replicate their feats, and Rosol hasn't been good enough to play Nadal again, and we all know what would happen if he did.

Does Nadal "struggle" with grinders? Nadal is better than the grinders at grinding, and certainly better than the grinders at shotmaking.

The fact that the only successful method is so difficult is why Nadal leads the head to head against every top player. He may have the odd losing head to head here or there to lower ranked players in a limited sample size, but we all know if they played Nadal enough times, he would figure them out, or their level would decline.

For almost any player on tour, you can figure out a "matchup issue" that they possess. With Nadal, you cannot. All you can do is pray and hope you get hot enough, for long enough. That truth is so intimidating most players fold within a few minutes of stepping out on court. Some, like Kohlschreiber, can go on for whole sets. But eventually reality emerges and that tightrope on which you are walking turns out to be even wobblier than you think.

*Djokovic succeeded at outNadal-ing Nadal in 2011. Since then, Nadal has been the better Nadal, and where Djokovic has prevailed or kept matches close, it was due to the hitherto unseen reverberations 2011 had on Nadal's psyche. I suspect as the past fades further and further into memory, this tenuous hold Djokovic maintains will likewise erode.

 

[objectivity]

good points raised overall. i think this explains very well james blake's relative success against nadal. and why ernest gulbis always seems to give nadal problems as well.

 

[ultradr]

true all court game. and prepare to go to distance.

 

[dh003i]

" Hit as hard as possible, at the lines, multiple times a rally, over and over again."

That isn't a strategy, that's just being in the zone. That's why players like Soderling who have beaten Nadal this way haven't done so consistently. That's why Federer didn't win the FO 2006, despite starting out in the zone and making everything in the first set, blowing Nadal off the court.

The times that Federer has beaten Nadal, it has not been because he has been in the zone the entire match. I really don't think that has happened much for Federer against Nadal. When he beats Nadal its a combination of him playing well and executing the right strategy.

People like to talk about the AO 2009, and yes Nadal deserves credit for breaking through there and beating Federer. However, what people tend to forget is that Federer essentially had that match on his racket despite serving awfully (very similar to the USO 2009).

 

[EatMyForehand]

I also think the best way to beat nadal is pound away at his backhand. The set fed won in Cincy he was going at his backhand. The problem is, nadal will hit one or two winners on the bh side, causing players to get discourage.

Yes he will hit winners, but chances are he will commit more mistakes on the bh side.

 

[bullfan]

Very good assessment.

One thing that is pretty intimidating when Nadal plays is focus on winning the First set.

I do not think Novak or Stan will be able to do that to Nadal this year should Nadal prevail against Gasquet, which I expect.

I'll be surprised to see Nadal not win USOpen this year.

 

[HailDjokovic]

I agree with you bro, in order to beat nadal you need to have an all court game and PLENTY shotmaking/balls. I truely believe that the only person who can beat nadal with a 50/50 chance everytime is djokovic. He has a satisfactory all court game and when his shotmaking is on its danger for nadal. But its impossible to keep up that constant level with nadal's top spin and stubborness

 

[helloworld]

No bro. There is no strategy to beat Nadal. The only way to beat Nadal is to hope that he is injured.

 

[HailDjokovic]

No bro. There is no strategy to beat Nadal. The only way to beat Nadal is to hope that he is injured.

oh yeah i forgot nadal was injured the whole 2011 season

 

[Tennis_Monk]

good points raised overall. i think this explains very well james blake's relative success against nadal. and why ernest gulbis always seems to give nadal problems as well.

I think too much is read into James Blake Vs Nadal H2H. Blake won their first 3 matches (all in 2005/2006) and never since.

I am of the opinion that during 2005/2006 Rafa isnt a matured Hard court player and also needed little bit of time to figure out Blake.

 

[bullfan]

oh yeah i forgot nadal was injured the whole 2011 season

No he wasn't, and he never claimed to be. Novak had a phenomenal 2011.

 

[Morj]

Excellent analysis. However, I would wait to see the Djoko-Nadal USO final first before giving a conclusion as to whether Nadal has truly surpassed Djoker.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Play better than him.

Strategy also applicable to other players.

 

[Day Tripper]

Reality check - Nadal has only won one slam in a year for the last three years. Djokovic is still leading the pack for now.

The best method for defeating Nadal would be better drug testing.

 

[BreakPoint]

I think the only chance to beat Nadal right now is to put in a call to Jeff Gillooly. :shock: :wink:

 

[BreakPoint]

Does Nadal "struggle" with big servers? No, contrary to myth, he owns them all.

Actually, I do think Nadal has trouble with big servers. He may not always lose to them, but he does struggle with them. Guys like Isner, Karlovic, Roddick, Del Potro, Mahut, etc.

 

[Blinkism]

So, basically, the best strategy to beat Nadal is also the best strategy to beat every player ever.

 

[veroniquem]

*Djokovic succeeded at outNadal-ing Nadal in 2011. Since then, Nadal has been the better Nadal, and where Djokovic has prevailed or kept matches close, it was due to the hitherto unseen reverberations 2011 had on Nadal's psyche. I suspect as the past fades further and further into memory, this tenuous hold Djokovic maintains will likewise erode.

Lol you're selling Djoko short here. About half of Novak's wins over Rafa happened before 2011 and he is the player who has beaten Rafa the most times to date (15 times vs 10 for Fed and 6 for Murray) and the only one of the 4 who leads Nadal on hard (11-6) . The dynamic between the 2 is a bit more complicated than just "the 2011 effect".
I agree with your overall point though that there is no magic formula to beat Nadal and Nadal is the most successful player over the tour, the only top player with a leading head to head vs all top 10. When Rafa plays at the maximum of his abilities he is as close to unbeatable as I have ever seen on a tennis court including the best.

 

[Defcon]

Reality is simple - with modern slow courts, defense beats offense every single time.

Nadal has perfect defense, enough offense to take advantage when he needs to, and will never ever break mentally or give up.

With no advantage to hitting hard due to slow courts that make it possible to get everything back, you can't eat a player like that.

Novak is a ore offensive minded version of Rafa, with the balance tilted more to offense, less ability to turn the point around with one shot, les topspin and more variety.results are predictable - he loses a little more, but matches up well with Rafa.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Nadal doesn't have a single 90+% winning season.

He isn't that hard to beat. The current era just sucks.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

So, basically, the best strategy to beat Nadal is also the best strategy to beat every player ever.

Pretty much. That's also the case with Djokovic and Murray.

There's no secret strategy. They're all-around players. You have to be able to play solid offense and defense, make fewer mistakes than they do or hit more lines or hit harder. There's no magic bullet besides just playing your game and playing it well.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal has the perfect combination for a top player: steely resolve, obsessive and dogged motivation, unbreakable mental in general, a very high capacity for handling pain and working harder than normal, uncompromising discipline (thank you uncle Toni), superior athletic abilities to begin with, a very high level of "learnability" (which enabled him to play lefty as a righty to start and keeps helping him to tweak his game whenever needed), a superior support system ( uncle coach, relative already in pro sport).
And all of that produced: the ultimate champ.

 

[Sentinel]

Nice post, TTMR. But your last para is a little unclear. The hitherto unseen reverb stuff.

 

[mptennis]

I also think the best way to beat nadal is pound away at his backhand. The set fed won in Cincy he was going at his backhand. The problem is, nadal will hit one or two winners on the bh side, causing players to get discourage.

Yes he will hit winners, but chances are he will commit more mistakes on the bh side.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw that. In the Cinci match, Fed had a distinct game plan. He kept the ball to Nadal's backhand and very rarely opened up the court, thus preventing Nadal from ripping his forehand high into Fed's backhand.

I struggle with my one hander and after watching that match I've been using a similar strategy with relative success. Not giving opponents the angle to hit out wide to my BH, since its awful on the run.

 

[doobiedoodoo]

Watch Djokovic 2011 matches against Nadal.

 

[sbengte]

Nadal has the perfect combination for a top player: steely resolve, obsessive and dogged motivation, unbreakable mental in general, a very high capacity for handling pain and working harder than normal, uncompromising discipline (thank you uncle Toni), superior athletic abilities to begin with, a very high level of "learnability" (which enabled him to play lefty as a righty to start and keeps helping him to tweak his game whenever needed), a superior support system ( uncle coach, relative already in pro sport).
And all of that produced: the ultimate champ.

You forgot to add to that doctors who can perform miracles by healing several career ending injuries and completely curing broken knees without surgery making him play better than he did before the injury. (What the likes of poor Delpo or even Fed and Murray would give to get such doctors).

Indeed, our Raphla is fortunate.

 

[Magnus]

For all the talk that "Nadal struggles with x" that we see echoed throughout this forum, the reality is that there is only one truly effective way to defeat Nadal:

Hit as hard as possible, at the lines, multiple times a rally, over and over again, for 3-5 hours*.

There is no grand strategy, no great hidden secret or mystery, no tapestry to be unwoven, no hidden safe to be unlocked.

The ten times Federer has defeated Nadal (which, when put this way, is actually damn impressive), this is what he has done. Those rare times Murray has defeated Nadal, this is what he had to do, and did. Soderling, Rosol, Del Potro--that's what they did.

Does Nadal "struggle" with big servers? No, contrary to myth, he owns them all.

Does Nadal "struggle" with big hitters? No. The Soderlings and Del Potros could never replicate their feats, and Rosol hasn't been good enough to play Nadal again, and we all know what would happen if he did.

Does Nadal "struggle" with grinders? Nadal is better than the grinders at grinding, and certainly better than the grinders at shotmaking.

The fact that the only successful method is so difficult is why Nadal leads the head to head against every top player. He may have the odd losing head to head here or there to lower ranked players in a limited sample size, but we all know if they played Nadal enough times, he would figure them out, or their level would decline.

For almost any player on tour, you can figure out a "matchup issue" that they possess. With Nadal, you cannot. All you can do is pray and hope you get hot enough, for long enough. That truth is so intimidating most players fold within a few minutes of stepping out on court. Some, like Kohlschreiber, can go on for whole sets. But eventually reality emerges and that tightrope on which you are walking turns out to be even wobblier than you think.

*Djokovic succeeded at outNadal-ing Nadal in 2011. Since then, Nadal has been the better Nadal, and where Djokovic has prevailed or kept matches close, it was due to the hitherto unseen reverberations 2011 had on Nadal's psyche. I suspect as the past fades further and further into memory, this tenuous hold Djokovic maintains will likewise erode.

Wrong. Consistently hitting to Nadal's BH gets results. Hight topspin FHs to Nadal's BH gets the job done just like it does for any other players, especially as Nadal's BH has never been more than mediocre.

Problem is, Nadal being a lefty and extremely quick around the court, makes it tough to hit to his BH without going for the lines, and if you go for the lines consistently, you will miss more than a few.

There is one player who consistently managed to hit angles to Nadal's BH, that's Davydenko. Nadal's matches with him on HC were really straighforward. Davydenko returned the serve, and the second he had a chance with the FH, he went for short angles to Nadal's BH with a lot of patience. Nadal would keep missing a lot of those or just leave too much space for Davy to hit a winner to the FH side. This startegy hasn't been working on clay because its slower and Nadal is quicker on clay, simple as that.

If Nadal would be right handed, he'd have far less titles and far less success versus the top players, even on clay.

 

[Brett UK]

ok, yet to see a real strategy posted here so I will share my thoughts:

Point 1) Nadal moves great but he is used to people being scared of his forehand. As a result he anticipates that shots are going to his backhand

Strategy: Be prepared to hit wide to his forehand to take away his benefit of anticipating early, and to open up the back hand court. It can backfire with the ball coming to his forehand wing so you need to be a great mover to get away with it.

Point 2) Break points, Nadal is a great poker player: He plays patterns leading up to break points and then he switches on break points. He also anticipates that opponents are more likely to go to his backhand on the big point. Strategy: Expect Nadal to switch patterns, and surprise him by switching your own.

Point 3) Nadal is the best player of passing shots that I have ever seen. He loves a target. Strategy: When you are up in the rally don't close it out at the net. Keep working and working and working it. This is a difference between Djokovic strategy compared to Federer strategy. Also if you are at the net look out for the backhand to go cross court. Get ready for a forehand volley.

the above strategy is for a Murray or Djokovic or prime Fed who could foot it with Nadal. If you are a level or two below then you should hit out. Hit first serves speed even on second serve, when playing return games take huge risks as you only need 1 break per set if you are holding serve. Don't let him feel like he has control of the match, and hope that you steal a break in 3 of 5 sets. I would advise Gasquet to take the hit out and hope approach...he will still likely lose but he might as well play in a way that Rafa would not want him to.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

The fact of the matter is that there isnt a real strategy against these top players.

Most of these top players, especially RP Nadal are very adept at switching things and tactics as the match flows.

Coming up with a good strategy against Nadal is easy. executing it for best of 5 sets is not. Nadal (and most of Big 4) has many levers and options to go to and quickly will negate any strategic advantages.

I agree with posters who indicated Djoker's 2011 examples. So far, that seem to be the most reliable plan , while it lasted.

With all due respect to Davydenko, assuming for a second that he can still beat nadal today, I see that as a one-off and unsustainable for others. It is like Roger of 2005-2007. Nadal beat him consistently but no one else did with regularity.

 

[ilovetennis212]

There is one player who consistently managed to hit angles to Nadal's BH, that's Davydenko. Nadal's matches with him on HC were really straighforward. Davydenko returned the serve, and the second he had a chance with the FH, he went for short angles to Nadal's BH with a lot of patience. Nadal would keep missing a lot of those or just leave too much space for Davy to hit a winner to the FH side. This startegy hasn't been working on clay because its slower and Nadal is quicker on clay, simple as that.
.

Good point.
In Add to that,
Davydenko is 6-1 to nadal in hard court.
Because he was retrieving much earlier than nadal.
Davydenko ran all around the court and used to takes balls early.

Nadal doesn't hit his first shot as deep baseline or line-painting winner.
He always set up the rally to his pace first and hit a incredible winner.
So there is a slight chance that you can be aggressive from the first shot and takes early. That is the only way to beat nadal.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Nadal doesn't have a single 90+% winning season.

He isn't that hard to beat. The current era just sucks.

That's because he is injured quite often. He gears up only for the slams.....

Anyway I think a guy by the name of Roger Federer would disagree with you .....he told me to tell you that Nadal is extremely hard to beat and that you shouldn't be a sore loser.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Good point.
In Add to that,
Davydenko is 6-1 to nadal in hard court.
Because he was retrieving much earlier than nadal.
Davydenko ran all around the court and used to takes balls early.

Nadal doesn't hit his first shot as deep baseline or line-painting winner.
He always set up the rally to his pace first and hit a incredible winner.
So there is a slight chance that you can be aggressive from the first shot and takes early. That is the only way to beat nadal.

Nadal and Davy are 5-6

Never met in a slam or even a best of 5.

All matches are not created equal......Nadal knows this and gears up for the slams . Davy would be toast on grass clay and hard in a slam.

Nadal is just a different player in the slams.....in fact he is undefeated in the slams since 2008 against Fed on all surfaces .

There's slam Nadal and meaningless tournament Nadal.
Just not the same player.

 

[objectivity]

Problem is, Nadal being a lefty and extremely quick around the court, makes it tough to hit to his BH without going for the lines, and if you go for the lines consistently, you will miss more than a few.

wait a minute -- why is it harder hitting cross-court to get to Nadal's BH (than hitting inside-out to get to a right hander's BH)? makes no sense. I thought the argument was that Nadal could get to Federer's BH easily because Nadal's natural FH cross-court stroke plays into Federer's BH?

 

[Rock Strongo]

I think one would have to be tall-ish, be able to launch shots consistently and to hit corners just to move him. That and have the ability to hit the ball on the rise with considerable pace, effectively nullifying his spin. Had Joachim Johansson (broken record) not been forced to quit due to injuries, it would've created an interesting matchup.

 

[objectivity]

i still believe the best way to beat nadal, is for one to be extremely solid across all parts of the game. like novak. he has no discernible weakness in his game. nadal is a player that thrives on picking out the weakness in the opponent, and he will pound out that weakness till it becomes glaringly obvious. against federer, he attacks the 1HBH. against murray, he attacks the suspect FH. against most other players, he exploits their movement by moving the ball from corner to corner. problem for nadal is that djokovic since 2011, has really ironed out the kinks in his FH. nadal's previous strategy of attacking djokovic's FH has been neutralized. and nadal's new strategy -- not quite sure if its really solved to be honest -- is to play his BH down the line more. that is the one adjustment he has made. lets hope that will work on sunday!

 

[ilovetennis212]

Nadal and Davy are 1-6 in hard court.
Just not the same player.

Don't worry nadal will win US open and I'm rooting for him.
But we are talking about the strategy to beat nadal.
Don't get mad. dark knight
Good point to Magnus.

 

[TennisCJC]

Hit every ball hard at the lines consistently beats everyone.

Nadal is a great player but he has a few things that can be exploited.

As mentioned by someone above, hitting to his backhand by a R handed player takes the Nadal's CC FH to your BH out of play to a certain degree. Basically, a righty going DTL off his BH gives Nadal the high percentage shot to go CC. If Nadal goes back DTL with his BH, it usually does not have the spin or pace of his FH. Federer uses this a lot in matches against Nadal.

Also, when Nadal stands way back to return serve, wide serves can be effective. Djoko and Federer use this a lot.

When Nadal stands way back, Federer will S&V a bit and it pays off. Federer used this a lot indoor where the wide serve stayed low and wide.

Djoko was using short and wide CC shots off both sides effectively a year ago when Djoko beat Nadal 6 or 7 times in a row. Djoko would hit a CC FH wide and then go hard to open court on the next ball. Djoko also would step in and take the shorter loopier ball to BH cross court and wide to Nadal's FH.

So, to beat Nadal:

1. serve wide when he stands way back to return, then play to open court. Occassionally, go up the middle to keep him honest.
2. mix in S&V when he stands way back to return
3. play his BH if you are righty to tempt him into going CC which is his high percentage play but it goes into your FH which is what you want
4. step in and hit the short loopy balls with authority
5. play modern attacking tennis - if you hurt him with your shot, he has a tendency to float the next ball back high to reset the point. Be willing to follow your good shot in to pick the floater off. Djoko has had many opportunities to do this and has chickened out many times and backed up.
6. run around his relatively short 2nd serve and hit FH; especially effective on deuce court because you'll be in the middle of the court after you hit your shot.

 

[Engelworks]

It seems difficult for people to put away the point against Nadal because they all hit heavy topspin and the ball sits up more for Nadal to hit back. I personally think the way to beat him is to take the ball early and flatten out your strokes. That's why he always struggled with Blake and that's why Nalbandian absolutely thrashed Nadal before he got fat and lazy.

Gasquet's forehand is super loopy and that will work against him when he plays Nadal tomorrow, but if Gasquet could flatten out his forehand like he does his backhand I think he'd have a really good chance.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Don't worry nadal will win US open and I'm rooting for him.
But we are talking about the strategy to beat nadal.
Don't get mad. dark knight
Good point to Magnus.

Is appreciate it of you would not change my quote and pretend that I said something when I didn't.

For the record my quote was :

Nadal and Davy are 5-6

Never met in a slam or even a best of 5.

All matches are not created equal......Nadal knows this and gears up for the slams . Davy would be toast on grass clay and hard in a slam.

Nadal is just a different player in the slams.....in fact he is undefeated in the slams since 2008 against Fed on all surfaces .

There's slam Nadal and meaningless tournament Nadal.
Just not the same player.

As far as beating Nadal I have no problems with trying to figure that out.

I've noticed that his biggest weakness is the drop
Shot . Tsonga exposed this in a big way....especially since Rafa stands so far back.

 

[objectivity]

It seems difficult for people to put away the point against Nadal because they all hit heavy topspin and the ball sits up more for Nadal to hit back. I personally think the way to beat him is to take the ball early and flatten out your strokes. That's why he always struggled with Blake and that's why Nalbandian absolutely thrashed Nadal before he got fat and lazy.

Gasquet's forehand is super loopy and that will work against him when he plays Nadal tomorrow, but if Gasquet could flatten out his forehand like he does his backhand I think he'd have a really good chance.

exactly. same goes for ernest gulbis and why nadal struggles against him. they dare to take the ball early and flatten it out. of course its rather hit and miss. but it still beats hitting inside-out top-spin FHs into nadal's FH as a certain former no. 1 likes to do.

 

[AtomicForehand]

Nadal has the perfect combination for a top player: steely resolve, obsessive and dogged motivation, unbreakable mental in general, a very high capacity for handling pain and working harder than normal, uncompromising discipline (thank you uncle Toni), superior athletic abilities to begin with, a very high level of "learnability" (which enabled him to play lefty as a righty to start and keeps helping him to tweak his game whenever needed), a superior support system ( uncle coach, relative already in pro sport).
And all of that produced: the ultimate champ.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

" Hit as hard as possible, at the lines, multiple times a rally, over and over again."

That isn't a strategy, that's just being in the zone. That's why players like Soderling who have beaten Nadal this way haven't done so consistently. That's why Federer didn't win the FO 2006, despite starting out in the zone and making everything in the first set, blowing Nadal off the court.

The times that Federer has beaten Nadal, it has not been because he has been in the zone the entire match. I really don't think that has happened much for Federer against Nadal. When he beats Nadal its a combination of him playing well and executing the right strategy.

People like to talk about the AO 2009, and yes Nadal deserves credit for breaking through there and beating Federer. However, what people tend to forget is that Federer essentially had that match on his racket despite serving awfully (very similar to the USO 2009).

Nadal basically says that is the strategy for playing Federer. No matter how good Fed is playing, to wait, keep close and keep trying. It is rare for anyone to be in the zone for the entire 3 sets out of 5 match.

 

[TTMR]

Actually, I do think Nadal has trouble with big servers. He may not always lose to them, but he does struggle with them. Guys like Isner, Karlovic, Roddick, Del Potro, Mahut, etc.

Given the quantity of posts you have accumulated over the years, you are probably the originator of the "Nadal struggles against big servers" myth.

Nadal has so much trouble he has a combined 19-3 record against the "biggest" servers of the past decade: Roddick, Karlovic, Isner and Raonic, and is undefeated against the latter three.

Of course, you wouldn't ever contend that Djokovic struggles with "big servers". Yet his winning percentage against the four best servers of our time: 8-8. Djokovic, the "greatest returner in history" according to John McEnroe, has won 50% of his matches against the best servers who have played during his career.

Oh I know, Nadal stands "too far back" and doesn't hit enough flashy return winners; hence, he is a terrible returner according to the experts on this forum. His being second all-time in return games won is just a product of clay, and has little, if anything, to do with the player.

It's time for people to admit the reality. There is no strategy or "player type" with which Nadal finds problematic. Your only hope is be on fire for the necessary 3-5 hour period it will take to wear down the Spaniard.

 

[ubi1]

Given the quantity of posts you have accumulated over the years, you are probably the originator of the "Nadal struggles against big servers" myth.

Nadal has so much trouble he has a combined 19-3 record against the "biggest" servers of the past decade: Roddick, Karlovic, Isner and Raonic, and is undefeated against the latter three.

Of course, you wouldn't ever contend that Djokovic struggles with "big servers". Yet his winning percentage against the four best servers of our time: 8-8. Djokovic, the "greatest returner in history" according to John McEnroe, has won 50% of his matches against the best servers who have played during his career.

Oh I know, Nadal stands "too far back" and doesn't hit enough flashy return winners; hence, he is a terrible returner according to the experts on this forum. His being second all-time in return games won is just a product of clay, and has little, if anything, to do with the player.

It's time for people to admit the reality. There is no strategy or "player type" with which Nadal finds problematic. Your only hope is be on fire for the necessary 3-5 hour period it will take to wear down the Spaniard.

Nadal never loses unless he is injured understood.:evil:

 

[jg153040]

Reality is simple - with modern slow courts, defense beats offense every single time.

Nadal has perfect defense, enough offense to take advantage when he needs to, and will never ever break mentally or give up.

With no advantage to hitting hard due to slow courts that make it possible to get everything back, you can't eat a player like that.

Novak is a ore offensive minded version of Rafa, with the balance tilted more to offense, less ability to turn the point around with one shot, les topspin and more variety.results are predictable - he loses a little more, but matches up well with Rafa.

How does Djokovic lose a little more? He is number 1 for last years the most and he is the most consistent in majors. Is he a bad matchup for everyone?

Nole is just a better player than Nadal for the last three years.

 

[jg153040]

Nadal never loses unless he is injured understood.:evil:

Even if we use this argument, it is still a fallacy. A sick soldier who is in a hospital is still a worse soldier. Even if he can be undefeated when healthy. But he is not a great soldier after all if he gets injured a lot.

I guess I'm a better employee when healthy. But I just don't show up for work every day.

Let's see if my boss agrees with me. I can be the best worker, but if I'm home sick that doesn't help him.

In the end Fed was fighting way more battles. And he even won more battles than Nadal overall. So, if Nadal is a better soldier, why does he get injured in battles all the time?

 

[TheTruth]

How does Djokovic lose a little more? He is number 1 for last years the most and he is the most consistent in majors. Is he a bad matchup for everyone?

Nole is just a better player than Nadal for the last three years.

Unfortunately, you have to count their entire careers. Not just pick out the ones that favor Nole.

 

[ubi1]

How does Djokovic lose a little more? He is number 1 for last years the most and he is the most consistent in majors. Is he a bad matchup for everyone?

Nole is just a better player than Nadal for the last three years.

Yes Nole was the better player in 2011. I wouldn't say 2012 or 2013 though.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

That's because he is injured quite often. He gears up only for the slams.....

Anyway I think a guy by the name of Roger Federer would disagree with you .....he told me to tell you that Nadal is extremely hard to beat and that you shouldn't be a sore loser.

He's never injured. He's a liar and uses it as an excuse. Or his demented fans do.

Truth is he has played Robin to the incumbent #1 for most of his career. He has almost always been more beatable than someone else on tour. The only reason he's doing so well right now is because we've entered the weakest era of all time.

 

[veroniquem]

You forgot to add to that doctors who can perform miracles by healing several career ending injuries and completely curing broken knees without surgery making him play better than he did before the injury. (What the likes of poor Delpo or even Fed and Murray would give to get such doctors).

Indeed, our Raphla is fortunate.

Sour pusses will be sour pusses. :twisted: (Doctors are automatically included in the "superior support system" category, so I think I covered everything )