Thoughts on Nadal's seeding at French Open

Ferrer currently stands at No 4, Nadal at No 5. This makes the seeding issue at the French Open very interesting as it's possible that the draw could see Djokovic (1), Federer (3) and Nadal (5) all in the same half, with a possible quarterfinal match: Djokovic v Nadal, or Federer v Nadal (as well as Murray v Nadal if other side of draw).

Ferrer made:

2nd rnd at Monte Carlo - didn't win a match
Final at Barcelona - lost to Nadal
1/4's at Madrid - lost to Federer
Rome SF - lost to Nadal
(SF - French Open - lost to Nadal again!)

I see him at bettering his Monte Carlo result, perhaps a round less in Barcelona, making same round at least in Madrid, and probably same round or perhaps one less in Madrid.

So doubtful that with Nadal winning all his clay court matches, with the exception of Madrid on blue clay (he has all pts to defend), will/can reclaim the No 4 ranking.

Do you feel that the French Open should flex their "muscles," and put Nadal into the fourth seeded position instead of Ferrer (they CAN do this if they wish to - there's no rule that says the French Open MUST STICK to world rankings with their seedings)?

I think that being the 3 time defending champion (7 titles in 8 years) in Paris, with 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Opens, plus his slew of other clay titles historically in the run up to Paris - that he SHOULD NOT be seeded lower than 4; but what are your thoughts on the matter?

Unlikely that they will.

The problem is where do they draw the line?

Let's say we move Nadal from 5 to 4. But why not to 3 on the basis that he usually beats Federer? Why not to 2 on the basis that Murray is not that great on clay? Why not to 1 on the basis that he is the most successful clay play ever?

I think Nadal being at 5 messes things up a bit but once you set a precedent things become very messy in the future.

With respect to OP, is the concern for Nadal, or for his opponents, or for the survivability of seeds at RG?

I think if he is close enough, maybe. I cant guarantee it, but I am pretty sure they bumped up some ones seeding in 2010. I'm not against Rafa being seeded five, though. It hurts the guys above him more than the man himself. I mean, the top four have a scarily lop-sided hth vs Nadal

Why ??? let sleeping dogs lie.
Rafa has enough thrown at him .. favouritism being amongst it because he is Nadal.
If he is number 5 sobeit.. let him earn the respect he will deserve if he wins again
No one can say that he didn´t do it the hard way.. as for those above him then they too must suffer the luck of the draw. Rafa is at number five not because of lack of form but because of injury.. He has something to prove let him do it. I am sure he would not want it any other way

On present rankings if Nadal is seeded 4 or higher then his potential q/f opponents would be Ferrer, Berdych. Del Potro or Tsonga (Gasquet or Tipsarevic could realistically overtake Tsonga depending on clay court results prior to FO).

If seeded 5 then it would be Djokovic, Federer, Murray or Ferrer.

Given that we keep on being told that Federer is fading, and Murray's clay court game is not the best then as long as Nadal avoided Djokovic being number 5 might be beneficial as he would be sure to miss the big hitting guys in the quarter finals.

Well, Nadal isnt losing sleep over it, he skipped Mia! He could still get there, though for Wimbledon if he draws has a perfect Clay season, no? Although that would put him at 43-1 for the season, Pretty much putting us back where we started 9 months ago

HM Murdoch wrote:Unlikely that they will.

The problem is where do they draw the line?

Let's say we move Nadal from 5 to 4. But why not to 3 on the basis that he usually beats Federer? Why not to 2 on the basis that Murray is not that great on clay? Why not to 1 on the basis that he is the most successful clay play ever?

I think Nadal being at 5 messes things up a bit but once you set a precedent things become very messy in the future.

My thoughts exactly. Easiest way is just to keep him at 5 or they face setting a dangerous precedent.

Lets be honest, on clay he is the favourite. So putting him up to 4 would be just as ridiculous in a way and serve only to help him with the draw. Leave it as it is I say.

With the 4 Majors being under ITF control and not ATP control, they are able to use discretion in their seedings. I think the move from 5 to 4, is realistic whereas the suggestion about "where do you stop - move him to 3,or 2, or 1 because of past results is a little ludicrous. They're not going to do something drastic and/or in appropriate, which that would be. I think the tennis "cognescenti" would also echo this.

We've seen many, many examples of Wimbledon "adjusting" their seedings due to past form on grass - Bruguera, Corretja, and a number of other "clay court" players - done to keep the draw and players within, to a more realistic "spread." There's nothing worse than a stacked draw - and whilst I get the opinion of "let them fall where they do and 'earn' their place in the draw relative to their ranking, I don't think that should always be the case. Sure, if I were Corretja and No 4 in the world, I might be peeved if I was seeded No 8. But surely the concept of "earning" the right to be placed elsewhere in the seedings is also a relevant "side" of the "earning" right.

It's as much as for the players, the audience, live and over the media, rather than the one player who might be moved.

I think the only player that might be/have an issue, would be Djokovic. Has he not "earned" the right to not have Nadal in the 1/4s? It's not a one way street but a matter of considering the whole picture, all perspectives.

I do agree that Nadal is probably the one player possibly "affected" by this set of circumstances, who is not that bothered, and perhaps it's something that can throw open this year's French, if certain top players meet before one would think otherwise, allowing for some "different" blood, to make the latter stages.

Regardless of what does or doesn't happen - it's going to be very "suspenseful" when they start pulling those tokens out of the bag, to decide where various players are installed. Once that's over, then we'll have a great time, seeing who DOES win which matches, and who pairs against whom, on those latter stages.

Gonna be a "cracker" of a French Open, whatever comes to pass.

I think possibly the biggest concern will be with the sponsors. I'm sure they will be the ones throwing racquets at the prospect of having one of the biggest match ups in sport taking place in the quarters (Ha ha! and before some smart aleck jumps in I don't mean Murray and Ferrer). And having those in the cheaper seats get to watch the blockbuster whilst the ones with the money get to rattle their jewellery at some low budget matinee.

So we should let the sponsors have a say in the seedings?

Brilliant.

If Nadal ends up drawn in the Murray/Ferrer half, then I will do the happy dance.

Truth be told, Nadal has dropped, what Four sets in the last 3 years? Doesnt matter who he faces. Besides, its not like its a gauntlet he will be running.

Federer? 31-years old. Hardly been vintage.
Murray? Always improving on clay, but he cant be taken as a challenge this year, surely?
Ferrer? 6-2 6-0
Djokovic? Well, he could prove a problem. But he is coming off a 0-3 run om clay vs Nadal last year, plus he was one point away from being taken out by Tsonga.

Exactly kingraf. That's why I don't think they really need to do anything!

Rafa is so far ahead of everyone at RG that being seeded 5th wouldn't really affect him anyway.

Nadal practising with Zeballos in the run-up to the Clay season...
Are his fellow Spaniards tired of losing to him even in practise?

Imo if djoko hadn't been messed up by fognini ( that really keeps on giving that one) I think djoko would have beaten rafa. He wasn't at his best, struggled to adapt to the faster balls and was suffering from a lack of confidence throughout the tournament (think he was shaken from the djoko losses).
If he could get that form back i think he could beat him in the masters but perhaps not at RG.
Imo last year he was unwilling at times to go toe to toe with rafa physically, like the aus open was the final straw and he couldn't take it anymore.
As a result he was going for shots more and missing by trying to hit winners that weren't really on, plus his execution wasn't what it was.

LS- That is an interesting assertion. I think the biggest difference was Nadals forehand. It just got SuperSonic. I dont think Djoko knew exactly how to counter him.
Maybe he realised that he escaped at Australia (which he really did), he figured he couldnt out last Nadal. In the final at RG, when the weather was dry, Nadal was absolutely vicious.

yloponom68 wrote:With the 4 Majors being under ITF control and not ATP control, they are able to use discretion in their seedings. I think the move from 5 to 4, is realistic whereas the suggestion about "where do you stop - move him to 3,or 2, or 1 because of past results is a little ludicrous. They're not going to do something drastic and/or in appropriate, which that would be. I think the tennis "cognescenti" would also echo this.

We've seen many, many examples of Wimbledon "adjusting" their seedings due to past form on grass - Bruguera, Corretja, and a number of other "clay court" players - done to keep the draw and players within, to a more realistic "spread." There's nothing worse than a stacked draw - and whilst I get the opinion of "let them fall where they do and 'earn' their place in the draw relative to their ranking, I don't think that should always be the case. Sure, if I were Corretja and No 4 in the world, I might be peeved if I was seeded No 8. But surely the concept of "earning" the right to be placed elsewhere in the seedings is also a relevant "side" of the "earning" right.

It's as much as for the players, the audience, live and over the media, rather than the one player who might be moved.

I think the only player that might be/have an issue, would be Djokovic. Has he not "earned" the right to not have Nadal in the 1/4s? It's not a one way street but a matter of considering the whole picture, all perspectives.

I do agree that Nadal is probably the one player possibly "affected" by this set of circumstances, who is not that bothered, and perhaps it's something that can throw open this year's French, if certain top players meet before one would think otherwise, allowing for some "different" blood, to make the latter stages.

Regardless of what does or doesn't happen - it's going to be very "suspenseful" when they start pulling those tokens out of the bag, to decide where various players are installed. Once that's over, then we'll have a great time, seeing who DOES win which matches, and who pairs against whom, on those latter stages.

Gonna be a "cracker" of a French Open, whatever comes to pass.

Even though the majors fall under the aegis of the ITF, I believe all but Wimbledon have agreed to seed strictly according to ranking. Wimbledon seeds according to ranking as well, but they leave themselves the option of seeding more "appropriately" as the see fit, but if I'm memory serves me correctly, the move to seed strictly based on ranking was due in large part to clay-court specialists who were skipping Wimbledon when they were seeded far below the ranking they had built up on clay.

In principal I don't agree with seeding according to anything other than ranking. I understand the argument against it, but there is just too much potential for the appearance of, at the very least, unfairness and in the worst case, outright favoritism when tournaments decide, for whatever reasons they deem fit, to seed someone much higher or lower than their ranking. Not that they care about the blogosphere, but if major media start howling about conspiracy theories and such, then that may cause a problem for the majors. And it wouldn't be unjustified if they started meddling with the seeding just because they don't like the results of rankings based seedings - what else are they meddling with?

I understand that people want to see the top player in later rounds, but to me, I just want to see the top players play each other, and if it happens one round ahead of schedule, I really don't care about that. I'd rather see a Federer Nadal quarterfinal than have them in different quarters and then one of them gets knocked out before the QF and the other rolls over his conqueror in a rather anti-climactic quarterfinal.

kingraf wrote:Nadal practising with Zeballos in the run-up to the Clay season...
Are his fellow Spaniards tired of losing to him even in practise?

Judging by his results so far this season, Zeballos is the only player Rafa can learn anything from!

kingraf wrote:LS- That is an interesting assertion. I think the biggest difference was Nadals forehand. It just got SuperSonic. I dont think Djoko knew exactly how to counter him.
Maybe he realised that he escaped at Australia (which he really did), he figured he couldnt out last Nadal. In the final at RG, when the weather was dry, Nadal was absolutely vicious.

I agree, nadal changed his tactics. He went up the line to expose djoko more and it worked. Also more serve variety (body serve and into the fh), short slices etc. But I don't think it was anything drastic 2bh.

Djoko outlasted everyone in 2011. In 2012 he was outlasted regularly by nadal and also by murray. That did not happen 12 months before.
He did escape but he didn't play his best imo, same with the aus semi final.

So yes to sum it up imo, djoko '11 would have won the french if he had played rafa and if '11 djoko had turned up in the clay season i think he would have won rome, lost MC and lost RG.

The only reason I dont like it is because Zeballos is lef-handed, so he cant be gainining any "muscle memory" on how to play his rivals.

So far-fetched as it sounds, Nadal may really be trying to learn from him. Maybe there was somethig about the forehand that Nadal liked?

Danny_1982 wrote:So we should let the sponsors have a say in the seedings?

Brilliant.

kingraf wrote:

Truth be told, Nadal has dropped, what Four sets in the last 3 years? Doesnt matter who he faces. Besides, its not like its a gauntlet he will be running.

Danny_1982 wrote:Exactly kingraf. That's why I don't think they really need to do anything!

Rafa is so far ahead of everyone at RG that being seeded 5th wouldn't really affect him anyway.

So obviously there is consensus that Rafa isn't the 5th best in terms of chances to win at RG?

This from Wikipedia

A seed is a preliminary ranking that can be used in arranging a sports tournament. It is called a seed because of the analogy with plants where the seed might grow into a top rank at the end of that tournament, or might instead wither away. Players/teams are 'planted' into the bracket in a manner that is typically intended so that the best do not meet until later in the competition. The term 'seed' was first used in tennis and is based on the idea of laying out a tournament ladder by arranging slips of paper with the names of players on them the way seeds or seedlings are arranged in a garden: smaller plants up front, larger ones behind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_%28sports%29

Clearly if Nadal is "better" than 5th in terms of chances to win (and I think it is obvious that he is) then seeding by ranking is not doing the job intended. The whole point of seeding was to ensure the better players meet until the latter stages of a tournament and the very best in the final. One of the biggest reasons for this is to ensure the "best" matches or rather match ups don't occur randomly but occur at the final stages of a tournament when the biggest audience can watch.

The biggest reason for this is to do with the audience and not the players. So yes the sponsors will be unhappy. It is well within their power to do something about it. IMO they should. Not for Djokovic or Federer if they are unlucky enough to bump into Rafa in the quarters but for us the viewers.

Sorry but the whole topic is pretty nonsensical. Rafael Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all-time who, due to injury has slid down to No.5 in the rankings but seedings should remain consistent and if ranked No.5 he should be seeded No.5. I see it making no difference whatsoever in the end outcome and besides for the GOAT clay courter is it really such a terrifying prospect.....I think not.

Tbh - HawkEye, you convinced me. If seeding lives up to its use, then I think Nadal justifies a higher seed. The problem is, almost no one follows it to the letter.

Although I guess it is interesting to note- When Nadal moans about the time rule ammendment, he is moaning. When fans ask wether an EXISTING system should be used again, it is nonsensical?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but the whole topic is pretty nonsensical. Rafael Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all-time who, due to injury has slid down to No.5 in the rankings but seedings should remain consistent and if ranked No.5 he should be seeded No.5. I see it making no difference whatsoever in the end outcome and besides for the GOAT clay courter is it really such a terrifying prospect.....I think not.

I don't think you read my argument... Do you understand why tournaments want seeding? Do you understand why the tournaments (nothing to do with the players) want the best match ups in the final stages? In this case (and I think you agree with me here?) counting ranking points does not show who the best player is. ie the favorite. Seeding based on counting ranking points in this case is not fit for purpose. Everyone knows this.

kingraf. Wow! I did? I feel well pleased

So basically Hawkeye your view is that the other 125 players (plus those in the qualifiers) shouldn't bother turning up as their not really wanted there in case they upset the sponsors by winning against a Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic.

Calder106 wrote:So basically Hawkeye your view is that the other 125 players (plus those in the qualifiers) shouldn't bother turning up as their not really wanted there in case they upset the sponsors by winning against a Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic.

I think you are just being mischievous? Because I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand what seeding means.

The French aren't keen on the Spanish anyway so he'll be staying at #5. Rafa won't be bothered. By the end of RG12 he was in great form, he had raised his game and found a way to attack Djokovic again (more slice and hit hard to the FH - in either case the ball is staying lower, it's why Fed is more successful against Djokovic) but his knees were flaring badly and had done since AO12 so he couldn't sustain beyond the effort to haul his injuries any longer.

Some people think Nadal is just a pair of lungs with no ball striking and critical analysis talent but that couldn't be further from the truth. He probably shows the greatest capacity to learn and adapt out of the top players, he also changes game plans mid-match better than most - he's got a very good analytical tennis brain under pressure. He was just starting to reap the benefits from new approaches and was leading the ATP race before leaving the tour. However, nearly 12 months on I don't expect him to hit top gear until RG...anything could happen before then in Bo3 formats and he still hadnt played Murray or Djokovic yet. However, he won't be as wary next time he faces Djokovic. I also think Djokovic isn't quite the player he was up to RG12.

Zeballos hits the ball hard and flat so he's good practice in facing Djokovic.

Hawkeye, Actually I do but I also think the top players get too much protection via their seeding. For example a top 4 player cannot play anyone higher than 25 in the last 32 of a slam (I think you have questioned this yourself) or a top 13 player in the last 16. It's not like a two year ranking but IMO it makes it easier for the top guys to stay there longer.

I agree, there were only 16 seeds not to long ago. TDs have been desperate to keep all the big names in tournies for revenues...so protect them via seedings and slow surfaces down to harmonise everything. That way, no surprises.

Calder106. So are you saying that you don't agree with seeding at all? I've heard some say that seeding should perhaps just be limited to the top 16 in slams but that would still protect the top players. I'm not sure many would agree with doing away with seedings completely.

Especially not the sponsors. Ha ha!

Seeding by ranking is the only way to make it not subjective.

Because if you say that Rafa should be above Ferrer, it's just as easy to say he should be above everyone at RG. It would essentially be ranking on bookies favourites. But how is that fair to the world number 1 who has clocked up more points than anyone?

To those that say he should be number 4 only above Ferrer, well why should Ferrer alone be penalised? All he has done is earn more points than all but 3 players over the last 12 months. Yes, Rafa is more likely to win it than Ferrer but he's more likely to win it than anyone I think, so he should be number 1 on that basis.

But that's a subjective call of course. And when it's subjective you bring in theories of favouritism, conspiracy... Etc.

Seed by rankings and you can never go wrong. Judging by points won is never subjective. As said earlier, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference anyway as this is Rafa and RG we're talking about. He'll probably win it losing about 2 sets along the way.

And for the sake of fairness, transparency and the good of the sport I hope he wins it as number 5 seed.

No I'm not saying that. Seeding has been part of tennis since I have followed it but I do feel it has got too protective of the top players once they reach that level. It just makes it harder for anyone to break through.
If it were down to 16 seeds then the top 8 and could draw anyone between 9 and 16 I think that would open things up a bit.

Calder106 - am sure you'll know this but picking up on your last post...the seeding arrangement in the woman's game is different to that of the men, and I prefer the WTA's stance over the ATP/ITF version.

In the men's game it is guaranteed that the 1st seed will meet either the 15th or 16th seed; that the 3rd and 4th seeds meet either the 13th or 14th seeds.

Whereas the women "place" the top 8 seeds - 1st seed at top of draw, 2nd at bottom, then 3rd or 4th to meet them, and 5th through 8th to meet them.
HOWEVER, this is where the difference occurs - seeds 9th through 16th - are drawn out at random, filling the "slots" from top of the draw down, where the seeds "places" are - so that the 1st seed has as much chance of playing the 9th through 16th seeds in the 4th round of a Major.

Especially where players are maintaining their rankings over months, it provides more possibilities of a different opponent in successive tournaments - rather than only 2 possiblities. Would be great for the men to do it too - so that No 1 has as much chance of playing 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16th seed, rather than always facing either 15 or 16.

Anyway, who knows if they'll get to that point, though I would have thought the players would prefer it as well, but they're busy working on prize money and scheduling - the latter of which, at all but Wimbledon is ridiculous. From the 1/4's on in a MAJOR, all players should be at equal timing between rounds, excepting the length of the actual match itself. Guess in "due time," they may focis and address that as well.

I'm not sure that is correct. I think both men and women have tbe same approach. The top 4 seeds are drawn randomly against seeds 13-16.

Sorry but where then do we stop if we go down this route? If Robin Soderling returned to fitness would he get an automatic seeding due to past heroics at RG? No. If Andy Roddick suddenly came out of retirement for Wimbledon should he get an automatic top ten seeding on the grounds of Wimbledon record? No of course not. If theoretically Roger Federer had dipped to No.5 ranking by the time of Wimbledon would Rafa fans be advocating Roger replaces Rafa in top four seeds on the grounds of him being GOAT grass courter? No of course not. Get the picture?

I cannot recall Del Potro getting any special treatment seeding-wise when he returned from injury. He had to restore his ranking/seeding the hard way and that is how it should be. Anything else to Rafa could be construed as blatant favouritism. Sorry hawkeye be a good boy and take your medicine - it won't make any difference to the end result in RG in any case.

If Robin Soderling came back at RG, I would, to borrow a wrestling term, Mark Out!

Well being a seven-time champ is a lot different from being a one-time defending champ. Plus I suspect that Federer, if close enough to Nadal would get put above him. (For more on that, look up Wimbledon seedings)

Wimbledon has a recognised formula to take into account grass court form. Whilst I would completely support the use of such a formula at other slams, the fact is that the French has never used such a formula nor, as far as I am aware, does it even have one. It simply follows the rankings.

Against that backdrop, whilst I agree Rafa clearly should be seeded higher, RG really has no sensible way in which it can do so. It would be creating a rule for one player and the floodgates argument is valid in this instance.

I agree with the sentiments from Born Slippy and CC.

To arbitrarily change the way you have run the competition because of one players misfortune is opening a can of worms that can never be permanently closed.

It has to be fair to all players and applying the same logic all the way down the field, a player ranked 25 could argue he has much better results (over a 7/6/5 year period) at RG than say a player ranked 15. Or even a player who sits outside the rankings could say he has been better than any person in the rankings - so therefore should be ranked.

What ever formula they use to bump Rafa seedings should be applied to the whole field. If they want to do that, that's fine - its their perogative. It's what Wimbledon do. So there is precedent.

But if they did it for one year (for Rafa's benefit) and then changed it back the next, it would become a bit of laughing stock for me - and show blatant favouritism.

If Rafa doesn't win RG given his form so far and his histroy there - regardless of his ranking - I would be absolutely amazed!

Most agree that there should be some form of seeding. Technicalities about how the seeds are drawn are a side issue to how the players are seeded. Prior to his injury Nadal was number one in the race and had stolen the clay season as usual including three straight wins against the number one player of the moment. He didn't gain ranking points for 7 months not because he was beaten but because he didn't take part. When he came back he just started where he left off. He could do the same clay sweep leading up to RG and yet still be seeded 5. (Ha ha CC and others that think he's a similar case to Roddick and Del Potro)

I don't think I have to explain that Nadal isnt the 5th best player at RG because I think everyone agrees on this. Despite this knowledge and despite everyone talking about it because it is clearly ridiculous some still think the seeding should still be based on ranking. Their only reasoning is that it's always been done that way and in the past it hasn't been a problem. Not good reasoning for knowingly doing the wrong thing. I wonder what happened when pro players returned to open tennis. Did Laver have to play through challengers to get his ranking points up on the way to his grand slam? Or did they make some special rules to suit special circumstances?

I agree it probably won't make much difference to Nadal's chances of lifting the trophy at the end but that's not the point. The point is the "final" may very well take place in the quarters. No tournament wants it's marque match in the quarters and a damp squid in the final. Thats why we have seeding in the first place.

Also really don't understand those that say it's somehow disrespectful to Djokovic to allow Nadal to leapfrog him in the seedings (not the rankings) because given half a chance he would be first in the queue to sign a petition to give Rafa top seeding. Ha ha! "Please Rafa you can go 1st I don't mind"

I couldn´t agree more. Rafa gets enough flack as it is the inference always being that the courts are slowed down for his benefit, his cup cake draws and all other manner of "knocks" and snide remarks. he gets no matter what seed he is. Personally I would love his seeding to remain at number 5.. silence his critics and hopefully, and as he should ,win another RG. As I repeat I dont think Rafa woud wish it any other way. Let him prove once and for all he is what he is the King of Clay

But we know that surely, regardless of whether he stays at no5, 6, 4, etc he is the king of clay. The seeding doesn;t matter to him

Haddie-Nuff. Your showing blatant favoritism for Rafa wanting him seeded at 5. I know your game. You just want Rafa to draw Djokovic in the quarters and steal all his points. That's not fair on poor Djokovic! Also what about us the viewing public we want to see a marquee match in the final as we may not be able to watch the quarters.

O dear HE have I been that transparent There was I thinking hmmmmmmm no one will see through my "cunning plan"

Seriously though no .. I think there should be no tinkering with the seedings .., you I and a n others would be up in arms if it were done for Fed Djoko or any other player. I would be more troubled for Rafa if he had dropped to No.5. because of form.. but I honestly do not believe that once he steps on to that RG court which he has come to believe "he owns" it wil not matter what seed he is.. like has been said its oponents that will have more to worry about. IMHO

Marquee match in the final eh? Oh like we did last year and that was something of a let-down wasn't it? Rafa is so far ahead of the opposition on clay there is no real Marquis match for a final at RG. If Rafa fails to win the French Open it will have sweet fanny adams to do witg what he was seeded as and more to a dip in form.

lydian wrote: He probably shows the greatest capacity to learn and adapt out of the top players, he also changes game plans mid-match better than most - he's got a very good analytical tennis brain under pressure.

Wow, I see it completely differently! I consider Nadal to be one of the least versatile players. His success comes from the fact that his 'Plan A' is so staggeringly effective.

If you read his autobiography, his whole approach is about following a plan and you stick rigidly to that plan.

When, in 2011, he came up against a player on whom Plan A didn't work, Nadal was totally lost.

In the whole of 2011, what do you consider Rafa tried differently?

There were some occasions, notably USO and AO12 when he played a bit closer to the baseline but he didn't have the discipline to stay there and soon drifted deeper.

Compare him to say Murray and the changes he has made in the last 18 months, Nadal's progress is minimal. I'd even argue that Fed and Novak have evolved as players more in the last couple of years than Rafa.

CC. Last years RG final a let down! It was one of the most dramatic matches I've watched. Just re-watched some of it recently and the tennis quality was a lot higher than some give it credit for. Not surprisingly considering what was at stake.

If those two players share a court at RG this year in the quarters it would be a disaster for the sponsers, sad for the audience, Djokovic would probably smash his racquet at the draw ceremony.... and Rafa (and Haddie-Nuff) would smile smugly and maybe even rub their hands in glee.

If those two players share a court at RG this year in the quarters it would be a disaster for the sponsers, sad for the audience, Djokovic would probably smash his racquet at the draw ceremony.... and Rafa (and Haddie-Nuff) would smile smugly and maybe even rub their hands in glee.


------------------------

Ohhhhh HE how could you think such a thing.. I would be totally devastated because that would be a waste of a good racquet !!!!

hawkeye wrote: Djokovic would probably smash his racquet at the draw ceremony.... and Rafa (and Haddie-Nuff) would smile smugly and maybe even rub their hands in glee.

I doubt it.

They're playing for the title, not ranking points. To win RG, you have to assume that you'll need to beat Rafa along the way. Doesn't matter if you meet him in the QF, SF or F.

No it wasn't HE who are you kidding?
There have been a lot better matches between the two.