Why is no Nadal fan ready to accept that even without injury Rafael would have had an extremely difficult match with Wawrinka?

[Deleted member 744633]

Its amazing to watch Stan when he’s on. It’s exactly how most club players wish they could play. I wish Federer could hit through the backhand like Stan can on slow surfaces. Federer does everything better than Stan except the backhand drive and this makes all the difference in the world against Djokovic. Djokovic gets a fair amount of cheap points from Federer by drawing the error or getting him to cough up a shorter ball on the backhand side. Wawrinka on the other hand can crush the backhand on a slower surface and get Djokovic scrambling.

Great post, fully agreed. From a Djokovic fan point of view though, it was really frustrating watching him several feet behind the baseline just trying to run every ball down rather than stepping up and taking it to Stan. I knew he was going to get hit off the court with that kind of a game plan. Djokovic definitely has a mental weakness against Stan, as you alluded to in your earlier post.

 

[40L0VE]

Wawrinka was crushing the ball off both sides in that tournament. Unlike on clay Nadal couldn’t just topspin his backhand to death and ball retrieve. Slow hardcourt is the perfect surface for Stan. Djokovic always becomes a pusher when he meets Stan. He’s scared ****less to trade power shots.

COWers in the corner like a scared little boy.

 

[btsjungkook]

Great post, fully agreed. From a Djokovic fan point of view though, it was really frustrating watching him several feet behind the baseline just trying to run every ball down rather than stepping up and taking it to Stan. I knew he was going to get hit off the court with that kind of a game plan. Djokovic definitely has a mental weakness against Stan, as you alluded to in your earlier post.

If Djokovic played Stan more agressively like in 2011 he would've won more, unfortunately he couldn't go down the line on his backhand consistently anymore after that year.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

If Djokovic played Stan more agressively like in 2011 he would've won more, unfortunately he couldn't go down the line on his backhand consistently anymore after that year.

Yes agreed, Kook!

 

[Third Serve]

There is a difference between winning a tournament and playing great tennis in it. In IW and Miami 2011 Djokovic indeed played great. Didn't really see that in 2014-2015 (again, except for Miami 2014), leave alone 2016. He was vulnerable at these specific tournaments but nobody could take advantage of that. I actually remember him beating Thiem in Miami 2016 with 6 winners and 36 unforced errors. Was this a much better performance than the one he had against RBA in Miami 2019? I'm not sure.

lmao

 

[StrongRule]

lmao

You want to to say you think Nadal played better in Madrid 2014 than in Madrid 2009 because he won?

 

[40L0VE]

Great post, fully agreed. From a Djokovic fan point of view though, it was really frustrating watching him several feet behind the baseline just trying to run every ball down rather than stepping up and taking it to Stan. I knew he was going to get hit off the court with that kind of a game plan. Djokovic definitely has a mental weakness against Stan, as you alluded to in your earlier post.

I would not call that a mental weakness. When Stan is in top gear Novak simply can not match him in power off both wings which is why he retreats behind the baseline to give himself more time to deal with the power.

 

[yokied]

You want to to say you think Nadal played better in Madrid 2014 than in Madrid 2009 because he won?

I want to say your entire poasting career is laughable - all 100k of them. The only value you could’ve had to us it is if you kept your word and left after your epic Nadal diarrhoea panic attack.

 

[Hitman]

Its amazing to watch Stan when he’s on. It’s exactly how most club players wish they could play. I wish Federer could hit through the backhand like Stan can on slow surfaces. Federer does everything better than Stan except the backhand drive and this makes all the difference in the world against Djokovic. Djokovic gets a fair amount of cheap points from Federer by drawing the error or getting him to cough up a shorter ball on the backhand side. Wawrinka on the other hand can crush the backhand on a slower surface and get Djokovic scrambling.

Wawrinka has that powerful upper body, built like a tank.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

I would not call that a mental weakness. When Stan is in top gear Novak simply can not match him in power off both wings which is why he retreats behind the baseline to give himself more time to deal with the power.

Good point but we have to remember Djokovic beat Wawrinka many times before Stan turned it round. What changed? Personally I think Djokovic now has a mental block. If you look at the UO 2019 discussions, soon as we found Djokovic was going to play Stan next, I said Djokovic's tournament was going to be over in the next round. And sure enough, Stan was bullying Djokovic around before Nole had enough and quit.

But I have to say that's just my opinion and you could very well be right.

 

[zagor]

Nadal nor his fans are big on giving credit, generally speaking. The guy has absolutely insane longevity (one of the best in the history of the game in that regard) and is always fit as a fiddle for his best part of the season yet hearing him and his fans you'd think the guy's another Delpo in terms of injuries. Not sure how is anyone is buying the whole humble, eternally injured warrior shtick at this point but to each their own, I guess.

Now peak/prime Nadal would handle Stan on every surface, it's a tough match-up for the latter because Rafa's spin exploits Stan's movement, also his ROS is his weak spot and it all starts with the return against Nadal.

However, 2014 Nadal is past his prime, injury or no injury and zoning Stan would have his shot in AO final. It's laughable to use their FO matches as a counter-point when Nadal has 15 FOs and only one AO (that he won through the skin off his teeth). Stan never beat Fed on HC in his life yet their 2017 AO match was close because while Fed was in-form he was still overall past his best by some distance, same would go for 2014 AO final even if Nadal wasn't injured.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal, nor his fans aren't big on giving credit, generally speaking. The guy has absolutely insane longevity (one of the best in the history of the game in that regard) and is always fit as a fiddle for his best part of the season yet hearing him and his fans you'd think the guy's another Delpo in terms of injuries. Not sure how is anyone is buying the whole humble, eternally injured warrior shtick at this point but to each their own, I guess.

Now peak/prime Nadal would handle Stan on every surface, it's a tough match-up for the latter because Rafa's spin exploits Stan's movement, also his ROS is his weak spot and it all starts with the return against Nadal.

However, 2014 Nadal is past his prime, injury or no injury and zoning Stan would have his shot in AO final. It's laughable to use their FO matches as a counter-point when Nadal has 15 FOs and only one AO (that he won through the skin off his teeth). Stan never beat Fed on HC in his life yet their 2017 AO match was close because while Fed was in-form he was still overall past his best by some distance, same would go for 2014 AO final even if Nadal wasn't injured.

Fred was up and down the entire tournament, visibly, when he was up he looked almost prime but when he was down it was ugly. If Federer was then capable of ~30 straight games of "up" tennis like even 1.5 years earlier (2015 USO), Stanimoll would've bee dismissed in straights I reckon.

 

[zagor]

Fred was up and down the entire tournament, visibly, when he was up he looked almost prime but when he was down it was ugly. If Federer was then capable of ~30 straight games of "up" tennis like even 1.5 years earlier (2015 USO), Stanimoll would've bee dismissed in straights I reckon.

Quite possible, he did that at 2015 USO. I'm one of those who believes Fed's 2015 level was atleast on par with 2017 overall.

Point is, when the top guy is past his prime or out of form he'll suffer more mental/physical coupled with lower top and average level of play. That narrows the gap with lower ranked players, even those with a tough match-up and gives them a puncher's chance.

What I'm trying to say, I have no doubt that Nadal in his 2009 or 2012 form would handle any Stan at AO but 2014+ Nadal? Yeah, zoning Stan would have a decent shot in a HC slams (especially AO where Nadal is most vulnerable).

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal, nor his fans aren't big on giving credit, generally speaking. The guy has absolutely insane longevity (one of the best in the history of the game in that regard) and is always fit as a fiddle for his best part of the season yet hearing him and his fans you'd think the guy's another Delpo in terms of injuries. Not sure how is anyone is buying the whole humble, eternally injured warrior shtick at this point but to each their own, I guess.

Now peak/prime Nadal would handle Stan on every surface, it's a tough match-up for the latter because Rafa's spin exploits Stan's movement, also his ROS is his weak spot and it all starts with the return against Nadal.

However, 2014 Nadal is past his prime, injury or no injury and zoning Stan would have his shot in AO final. It's laughable to use their FO matches as a counter-point when Nadal has 15 FOs and only one AO (that he won through the skin off his teeth). Stan never beat Fed on HC in his life yet their 2017 AO match was close because while Fed was in-form he was still overall past his best by some distance, same would go for 2014 AO final even if Nadal wasn't injured.

Nadal skipped many slams in his career. Especially compared to Federer and Djokovic. So I don't get your point about him never being injured.

Anyway, it's a joke to deny that he was injured in AO 2014 final. If anything, he never was the same player since then.

 

[StrongRule]

Quite possible, he did that at 2015 USO. I'm one of those who believes Fed's 2015 level was atleast on par with 2017 overall.

Point is, when the top guy is past his prime or out of form he'll suffer more mental/physical coupled with lower top and average level of play. That narrows the gap with lower ranked players, even those with a tough match-up and gives them a puncher's chance.

What I'm trying to say, I have no doubt that Nadal in his 2009 or 2012 form would handle any Stan at AO but 2014+ Nadal? Yeah, zoning Stan would have a decent shot in a HC slams (especially AO where Nadal is most vulnerable).

Sure. I guess the difference is that in 2015 he had to face the ATG Seppi.

 

[zagor]

Nadal skipped many slams in his career. Especially compared to Federer and Djokovic. So I don't get your point about him never being injured.

He never skipped a single FO (unless you count 2004 when he was a kid) and both Fed and Djokovic played slams injured quite a few times and paid the price after. They should have been as smart as Nadal and skipped them to fight another day.

Again, if you're arguably the guy with the best longevity in the history of the game, you're not injury prone generally speaking. That doesn't mean you never have injuries, every pro athlete has fair share of those.

Anyway, it's a joke to deny that he was injured in AO 2014 final. If anything, he never was the same player since then.

I know, he was also injured in 99% of slam losses in his career so it's kinda of a moot point to make.

 

[zagor]

Sure. I guess the difference is that in 2015 he had to face the ATG Seppi.

The difference is he had to face Novak in Wimbledon and USO when he was in slam winning form. I don't think 2017 Fed would beat Novak at AO or Wimbledon.

And no, I'm not saying either of those versions can hold a candle to prime or peak Fed.

 

[StrongRule]

He never skipped a single FO (unless you count 2004 when he was a kid) and both Fed and Djokovic played slams injured quite a few times and paid the price after. They should have been as smart as Nadal and skipped them to fight another day.

Again, if you're arguably the guy with the best longevity in the history of the game, you're not injury prone generally speaking. That doesn't mean you never have injuries, every pro athlete has fair share of those.



I know, he was also injured in 99% of slam losses in his career so it's kinda of a moot point to make.

So he never retired in RG 2016?

And if you think he wasn't injured in AO 2014 final then you are totally ignorant.

 

[StrongRule]

The difference is he had to face Novak in Wimbledon and USO when he was in slam winning form. I don't think 2017 Fed would beat Novak at AO or Wimbledon.

And no, I'm not saying either of those versions can hold a candle to prime or peak Fed.

Federer lost to Seppi and his pigeon Wawrinka in slams in 2015, lost to the likes of Ramos and Isner in masters and so on. You are basically comparing a year when he won 2 slams and 3 masters with a year when he won nothing but Cincinnati? Really? Facing Djokovic is not a good enough excuse, as Federer clearly had great chances in USO 2015 final, but he was choking like crazy that day. By the level of play Federer was much better in 2017 and it isn't even close.

 

[zagor]

So he never retired in RG 2016?

That's one out of what, 15 FOs? And your point was about skipping slams, not quitting them mid-way.

And if you think he wasn't injured in AO 2014 final then you are totally ignorant.

I'm saying it's pointless to isolate that match. You could take a pick of any number of Nadal's slam losses in his entire career and chance are that he was injured.

Of course, all of his opponents are always completely fit when playing him. Nevermind that Stan had surgeries on both knees after their last FO match.

 

[Nadal_Django]

I want to say your entire poasting career is laughable - all 100k of them. The only value you could’ve had to us it is if you kept your word and left after your epic Nadal diarrhoea panic attack.

Wait, you're saying that's a real guy/girl!? I thought that account is made and provided by the mods themselves for the sole reason to stimulate TTW posters to have some fun with it/sharpen their humour skills, in the moments of boredom from the endless Goat debates... WTF!?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Nadal was injured?

 

[Benben245]

And might as well lose?

Wawrinka defeated Djokovic. Fought past Berdych. And blew Rafael off the court in the first.

And any real Rafael fan who watched that first set, will attest to the fact that he didn't play completely hampered.

And Rafael served at 72% with enough pace and his defence wasn't hampered.
I am not saying he definitely wins or loses, but my point is why it is such an absolute given that Nadal was always going to win that final?

Wawrinka was playing great tennis.


If Verdasco and Berdych can push two better versions Nadal's on the surface ,why can't Wawarinka?

And as for the single BH issue, it really wasn't an issue against Nadal in the first set and nothing post 2013 to suggest that off clay it has been an problem off clay.

Match starts with 35 minutes in. First set ends at 1hrs 14 minutes in.

I will concede defeat if anyone finds me 5 points from the set that has Rafael looking completely hampered.

Djokovic due to weather delays played something like 4-5 days in a row as I recall heading into his match against Wawrinka, who had like three days rest. A healthy Nadal would have destroyed Wawrinka; he was no where close to match fit

 

[mike danny]

Quite possible, he did that at 2015 USO. I'm one of those who believes Fed's 2015 level was atleast on par with 2017 overall.

Point is, when the top guy is past his prime or out of form he'll suffer more mental/physical coupled with lower top and average level of play. That narrows the gap with lower ranked players, even those with a tough match-up and gives them a puncher's chance.

What I'm trying to say, I have no doubt that Nadal in his 2009 or 2012 form would handle any Stan at AO but 2014+ Nadal? Yeah, zoning Stan would have a decent shot in a HC slams (especially AO where Nadal is most vulnerable).

Fed's 2015 level may have been on par with his 2017 level, but in the first 3-4 months of 2017, he hit his BH better than at any point in 2015.

 

[Nole_King]

Maybe because the fact that apart from 3 matches, in 1 of which Nadal could barely play, and the other 2 coming from Nadal’s career lowest point, Wawrinka hasn’t even taken a set off him? Not even once in 13 years.

Wawrinka is an intriguing case study. If you look at numbers only, well then his record against Novak till 2012 where he mostly played him in Bo3 would not give you any indication that he wud be going to provide more competition to Novak in slams than Fedal (2013 onwards) while still continuing to lose pretty easily to him in Bo3s. So yes, predicting Wawrinka only by nos is similar to what experts were predicting about Covid looking at some graphs.

 

[Third Serve]

You want to to say you think Nadal played better in Madrid 2014 than in Madrid 2009 because he won?

Poor comparison. Nadal made the final of Madrid 2009 so at least it’s close there.

2019 Djokovic never even made it past the QF of either IW or Miami. Hitman better outlines my other thoughts on this.

 

[StrongRule]

Poor comparison. Nadal made the final of Madrid 2009 so at least it’s close there.

2019 Djokovic never even made it past the QF of either IW or Miami. Hitman better outlines my other thoughts on this.

Oh, I'd say Nadal also played better in RG 2009 than he did in Madrid 2014.

I really think Djokovic should have lost at least one of IW and Miami in 2016. It is really sad that nobody could punish him for the level he brought in these two tournaments.

 

[hypercube]

And might as well lose?

Wawrinka defeated Djokovic. Fought past Berdych. And blew Rafael off the court in the first.

And any real Rafael fan who watched that first set, will attest to the fact that he didn't play completely hampered.

And Rafael served at 72% with enough pace and his defence wasn't hampered.
I am not saying he definitely wins or loses, but my point is why it is such an absolute given that Nadal was always going to win that final?

Wawrinka was playing great tennis.


If Verdasco and Berdych can push two better versions Nadal's on the surface ,why can't Wawarinka?

And as for the single BH issue, it really wasn't an issue against Nadal in the first set and nothing post 2013 to suggest that off clay it has been an problem off clay.

Match starts with 35 minutes in. First set ends at 1hrs 14 minutes in.

I will concede defeat if anyone finds me 5 points from the set that has Rafael looking completely hampered.

For 3 of those points, look no further than the final game of the first set. Nadal was 40-0 up on Wawrinka's serve, then proceeds to dump into the net (or send wildly out) three meek second-serve returns in a row. This was very uncharacteristic of him at the time. I don't think finding two additional points would be hard, it was clear something was hampering him.