Cincinnati Masters

Full draw: http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2015/422/mds.pdf

I've gone for Fed beating Nadal. But Rafa reaching the QF will be pretty impressive if Chardy brings his Montreal form and then he's like to be facing Raonic, who should surely be fresh as a daisy

Very hard to see Roger not making the final and so yes, I agree the No.2 spot could be his again

I think Murray's very motivated right now, it was interesting that he saw last night as a good workout!! i.e. there don't appear to be fitness issues, so I see no issues with getting to the SF

Likewise Novak, but he has one or two players who could cause him problems, given his elbow, if they are firing on all cylinders

Fed should make it but the way Nadal is playing Fed might not have to play him.

I really shouldn't say this, but I would expect Federer to beat Nadal. Indeed, time for Federer to get a bit of h2h joy. Be just like the young Nadal not to make his appointments when the odds favour Roger!!

If Rafa did lose to Roger I think it would be perhaps more significant than all the other losses he's recently suffered; I know he's #3 but he's 34 and the match-up has always been perfect for Nadal. To lose to him now would kind of say it all. Watching last night one thought I had was what a massive mess either Murray or Djokovic would have made of him.

bogbrush wrote:I really shouldn't say this, but I would expect Federer to beat Nadal. Indeed, time for Federer to get a bit of h2h joy. Be just like the young Nadal not to make his appointments when the odds favour Roger!!

If Rafa did lose to Roger I think it would be perhaps more significant than all the other losses he's recently suffered; I know he's #3 but he's 34 and the match-up has always been perfect for Nadal. To lose to him now would kind of say it all. Watching last night one thought I had was what a massive mess either Murray or Djokovic would have made of him.

Agree with all of this. I had thought that Federer would never beat him again, no matter surface or form. But if they play this week then my money would be on Federer.

Despite Federers standing in the game, Rafa has had his number for a long time now. A loss to Federer would show how far he is off the pace.

Yes and no. 
If feds regularly beat Rafa then yes for sure.
But Feds has shown that he can outplay rafa and beat him in a one off match.
IW '12 he was brilliant, wtf's '10 & '11.

Even when he lost to Rafa at cincy '13 (rock bottom confidence and back issues) he almost beat Nadal who was on a tear at that time.
On this court he can beat him. If he racks up a few then yes.

Federer beating Rafa?

"I'll tell you, honestly, I will love it if he beats him. Love it."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/cincinnati-2015-sunday-federer

Good interview with Fed.

Thanks Slippy.

"“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don't have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it's ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I've had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

Always fun to be reminded of the infamous outburst by good 'ole Kev ! (HMM   )

Forever part of football managers' folklore - along with the more recent, but equally entertaining,  "These are Facts" rant as per Rafa (er .... Benitez, not Nadal ...... )

LuvSports! wrote:Thanks Slippy.

"“I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don't have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it's ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I've had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

One things for certain, he's a far better competitor.

From the Federer interview that BS linked to above:

"...the generation that usually pushes players out wasn't as strong as maybe other ones. I'm talking about the players who are 25 years old right now. That generation only had a few players and the same thing for age 20 right now. There are some good ones, but not like 30 of them when we came along. I think those are usually the guys that push the older guys out. So we're able to hang on."

Always nice to have Federer agree with me!

It's nothing to do with players suddenly peaking later, or court conditions. It's simply that that subsequent generations have not been as good.

HM Murdock wrote:Federer beating Rafa?

"I'll tell you, honestly, I will love it if he beats him. Love it."

I can see the next Stan-Kyrgios match start like something like this 

https://youtu.be/Vmv1l1oUHUA

Well, I'll watch if they meet. Will be interesting to see tennis' version of an immovable object (Nadal's squatter rights in Federer's psyche) taking on an unstoppable force (Nadal's seemingly inevitable decline).

They wont meet, they just wont meet, these two seem destined never to meet again and id be glad if they didnt.

Itll be a horrible anticlimax one way or the other, either Rafa wont be nearly good enough and lose badly, or Roger will freeze up and play like a girl (no offense to the wta). Or it will be close and be a rubbish match.

May I ask honestly if anyone thinks this match would be a classic if it happened this week? Its been 5 years since they had even a good one.

Rafa wont have the form to get there I dont think, and ive a bad feeling Roger wont throw the rust off and get dumped out.

bogbrush wrote:I really shouldn't say this, but I would expect Federer to beat Nadal. Indeed, time for Federer to get a bit of h2h joy. Be just like the young Nadal not to make his appointments when the odds favour Roger!!

If Rafa did lose to Roger I think it would be perhaps more significant than all the other losses he's recently suffered; I know he's #3 but he's 34 and the match-up has always been perfect for Nadal. To lose to him now would kind of say it all. Watching last night one thought I had was what a massive mess either Murray or Djokovic would have made of him.

It's a be careful what we wish for because we've seen Federer always have trouble with him even when nadal was young, lower ranked and losing to guys Federer was dominating.

However, nadal got to play a seriously hampered fed in 2013 several times and really make the h2h a joke even off clay.  A couple of those matches fed was so hampered by the back, he shouldn't have played.    
Yet - since last year while fed has been playing #2 tennis and Nadal getting knocked out of no clay tournies left and right-  the favor has not been returned.  They've been drawn in same half several times with Nadal not making it far enough. So fed is due.

At same time-  it will hurt even worse if fed can't beat him even now.

I think it is quite possible that at least one of them (or both) fail to make the appointment.

But if they meet, my money is on Rafa. He is not playing quite as poorly as the word on the street would have him play, and he is a really bad match-up for Fed.

My money is also on Rafa. He is still good in dealing with SHBH. Kei, Novak and Murray all come with good DHBH and are very good returner of serves, so Rafa is wary of their ROS hence he tends to serve poorly vs them.

What's with Rafa these days is that he's too tentative especially during beginning of his matches vs top guys. He was competitive enough vs Kei in the second set when he decided to up his level (though a little too late) and hitting with depth and precision. I think it all depends on his mentality, whether he feels good and confident enough to hit those shots. Kei said he had to up his level to beat Rafa, who's still not playing his best tennis. What we see is a Rafa who can play competitive tennis but cant sustain it for long enough to last a full match vs top players (eg FO first set vs Novak, First set at Rome vs Stan, second set at Montreal vs Kei but he's not good enough to be competitive a full match).

Rafa has to get past Chardy and Raonic most probably before meeting Fed, so let's see how he fares vs those two; if he can beat big serving Raonic I think he'll gain some confidence for his next match.

Rafa did beat Fed at AO2014 when Fed was playing well, and in straight sets! So it's not just Rafa beating Fed when Fed was playing relatively poorly in 2013. Rafa almost always has the upper hand vs Fed, when both are fit and healthy.

A young Rafa could beat Fed, in 2004,2006, so I don't see why should they meet more often back then, Fed would have the upper hand. Fed had to go five sets to beat a young Rafa at Miiami in 2005, if Rafa was good enough to reach the later rounds to meet Fed at the slams, I don't see why Fed would beat Rafa all the time, I bet they would split the wins and so Fed won't have any H2H advantage. Rafa's problems back then were players like Blake, Youzhny on the HCs.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Rafa did beat Fed at AO2014 when Fed was playing well, and in straight sets! So it's not just Rafa beating Fed when Fed was playing relatively poorly in 2013.  Rafa almost always has the upper hand vs Fed, when both are fit and healthy.

I think they both tend to play very well when they meet. Surface plays a part though. Put them on a fast indoor court over three sets and conditions will give Fed a huge advantage because of his serve. It's hardly surprising that most of his wins have come at the WTF. Any other conditions including clay are more neutral (Federer is better on clay even against Rafa than he's given credit for ). I would give the edge to Federer in Cincy too. It's not by chance he has three titles there. Hot quick conditions over three sets are perfect for Federer.

I loved their match at the AO in 2014. Brilliant stuff from both. The only thing that spoiled it for me was Fed complaining to the Umpire about Rafa's grunting. It still leaves a bitter taste when I think about it.

hawkeye wrote: I would give the edge to Federer in Cincy too. It's not by chance he has three titles there. Hot quick conditions over three sets are perfect for Federer.

He actually has six titles there!

TRuffin wrote:

However, nadal got to play a seriously hampered fed in 2013 several times and really make the h2h a joke even off clay.  A couple of those matches fed was so hampered by the back, he shouldn't have played.    
Yet - since last year while fed has been playing #2 tennis and Nadal getting knocked out of no clay tournies left and right-  the favor has not been returned.  They've been drawn in same half several times with Nadal not making it far enough. So fed is due.

At same time-  it will hurt even worse if fed can't beat him even now.

They have played enough to be judged. My biggest regret was Fed somehow contriving to lose to Djokovic twice preventing meetings in the US Open final. Federer should have been able to win those matches. How old was he then? Nadal was asked about this once and said he regretted it too but he reckoned any meeting now would not be the same.

HM Murdock wrote:

hawkeye wrote: I would give the edge to Federer in Cincy too. It's not by chance he has three titles there. Hot quick conditions over three sets are perfect for Federer.

He actually has six titles there!

Yes of course! I was thinking 6 and have no idea why I typed 3

Yep, Fed is better on quicker courts and Rafa on slower ones, so other than clay, Rafa would have edge over Fed on slow HCs like AO, IW, Miami, Toronto and Fed at Cincy, Shanghai, Paris, WTF. USO? I think Fed had edge during 2005-2009, Rafa from 2010 onwards.

WTF isn't that fast. Slower than Melbourne. It just doesn't kick up.

Dubai was regarded as the fastest hard court surface on tour and a teenage Nadal racked a pretty routine straight set victory

summerblues wrote:I think it is quite possible that at least one of them (or both) fail to make the appointment.

But if they meet, my money is on Rafa.  He is not playing quite as poorly as the word on the street would have him play, and he is a really bad match-up for Fed.

lol

It's all about bounce, not speed. Rafas game is heavily based on high bounce, and when it comes to a SHBH that's even more important.

Nadal is a very good fast court player. Very slow, low bouncing kills him - remember the FO final when it rained? Djokovic was winning every game.

kingraf wrote:WTF isn't that fast. Slower than Melbourne. It just doesn't kick up.

Dubai was regarded as the fastest hard court surface on tour and a teenage Nadal racked a pretty routine straight set victory

Not at all routine.
Three setter & Feds was bossing it but Rafa turned it around.

I do think Feds would have got a few more wins if they met off clay in the past but not by much!

Whatever it is about the indoor conditions at the WTF they favor Fed and are a hindrance to Rafa. Whatever it is about Cincy also favors Fed.

bogbrush wrote:It's all about bounce, not speed. Rafas game is heavily based on high bounce, and when it comes to a SHBH that's even more important.

Nadal is a very good fast court player. Very slow, low bouncing kills him - remember the FO final when it rained? Djokovic was winning every game.

You're spot on, this is actually a common misconception about Nadal's game.
Rafa himself is quite honest when it comes to his strengths and weaknesses, I recall from a few years back when Nadal was having a poor WTF in the o2 the sky sports commentator said something along the lines of how the speed may be troubling him, and he responded by raising his eyebrow and saying 'Speed? it's not a problem, no for me it has to bounce a bit higher'

temporary21 wrote:May I ask honestly if anyone thinks this match would be a classic if it happened this week? Its been 5 years since they had even a good one.

No, it will probably be over-hyped and anti-climactic.

But I want to see that rarest of birds in the tennis forest: Rafa being out of form but still keeping an appointment with a rival.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's all about bounce, not speed. Rafas game is heavily based on high bounce, and when it comes to a SHBH that's even more important.

Nadal is a very good fast court player. Very slow, low bouncing kills him - remember the FO final when it rained? Djokovic was winning every game.

You're spot on, this is actually a common misconception about Nadal's game.
Rafa himself is quite honest when it comes to his strengths and weaknesses, I recall from a few years back when Nadal was having a poor WTF in the o2 the sky sports commentator said something along the lines of how the speed may be troubling him, and he responded by raising his eyebrow and saying 'Speed? it's not a problem, no for me it has to bounce a bit higher'

Yep, he's said similar about the court in Beijing too.

If he doesn't get the bounce, he doesn't get the spin and that a huge chunk of his weaponry blunted.

Disagree.
Imo there cincy '13 match vs v good. 
SOme great tennis at aus '12 and fo'11. 

But it is deffo overhyped.

LuvSports! wrote:Disagree.
Imo there cincy '13 match vs v good. 
SOme great tennis at aus '12 and fo'11. 

But it is deffo overhyped.

They were all good matches but they were hardly classic. If the exact same matches took place but the identity of the players was, say, Murray and Wawrinka, I doubt many would be recalling them years later.

It's the hype that ruins it. The mindset that it's still 08-09 and that this is still tennis' pièce de résistance, and not a pairing where one of them has always hated the match up and now can't even call upon the speed and explosiveness of his younger years to fight it.

Generally courts with higher bounces played a bit slower, so Rafa is better at those courts. It's not that he can't win on lower bouncing courts, it's just that he has to work harder and plays at a high level to win. He was good during WTF2010 and only a Fed at his best at that time could beat him.

I feel the most important thing is his court position behind the baseline. Once he starts by standing further from the baseline, ie a more defensive position, he would struggle on those low bouncing courts, just like at Shanghai in 2013 vs Delpo.

The match at Cincinnati had some stunning tennis. I don't know about hype or no hype, but Federer-Nadal have provided us with some classics over the years. A few one-sided matches too, but I think most people associate the rivalry with the best matches, not the worst.

Also HM my detective eye has noticed you've changed the spelling of your name.

In terms of earlier discussion about state of Rafa's game (can't remember if it was on this thread or Montreal thread), I think I agree with what most people were saying, including Hawkeye's points.

His level if not quite there yet, and the thing about the tennis scoring system is the way is low margins. A little gap between two players can be exposed during the match and show itself as pretty significant in the scoreline. It means Nadal can't have afford to continue playing at this level and have a hope in hell of winning. However a few improvements, along with a rise in confidence (both needed...), means he may have a shot in the latter stages of some Slams if the draw is nice.

^He can play some brilliant shots but the problem now is how he could sustain that throughout a match.

I feel it's the belief, the trust in his body and his own ability that's lacking. He appears half a step slow, I suspect that's because of him feeling hesitant, being indecisive. I think his movement won't just deteriorate for no reason; even when he's really aging, just a few months won't make that much difference when he'a still very quick last year.

Rafa used to play high risk tennis. Always prepared to take the initiative he had the confidence to do so. He has not got that anymore. As the saying goes success breeds success. But Rafa's successes are getting fewer, and with the lacki of winning comes the lack of confidence. He allows his opponents to dictate., He does not intimidate even lesser players anymore they go on court knowing that this WAS  the great Nadal who has become
beatable.  Someone tell me how he is going to come back from that because I really cant see it

Rafa has never played high risk tennis.
When you hit the ball 2m above the net at least, that isn't risk taking.
Standing way behind the baseline (now and again he can but his defence imo wins more matches than his offence, attacking just helps him) isn't risk taking.

Rafa winning RG last year is distorting the picture and making it look like his problems are new.

In 2014, he lost to Dolgo in IW, Ferrer at MC, Almagro in Barcelona, Klizan in China and Coric in Basel. He got knocked out in the 4th round of Wimbledon.

He won one Masters title in Madrid but was unconvincing in doing so. Nishi blew him away in the first set.

He missed all of North America and the end of the season with injury.

By his standards, that's terrible. We can't say that 2014 was a good year for him just because he strung together seven wins in Paris.

Ignoring that good performance at RG, I don't see much difference between this year and last year.

LuvSports! wrote:Rafa has never played high risk tennis.
When you hit the ball 2m above the net at least, that isn't risk taking.
Standing way behind the baseline (now and again he can but his defence imo wins more matches than his offence, attacking just helps him) isn't risk taking.

Don't agree Rafa was known for "painting the lines". His running  passing shots across and down the lines within mm's was high risk tennis.. He could find the length landing mere inches inside the baseline That to me is high risk tennis.. what do you call it ??

Net coverage is a false way of assessing how aggressive some one is. You dont need to hit 1 mm above the net to be aggressive when you have the topspin and depth of nadal at his attacking best. Theres more than one way to attack than the Sampras Federer method.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Rafa used to play high risk tennis.

"If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer's backhand, I'll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I'll wait. There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding; you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent"
Rafa: My Story.

That's not answering the question I asked above.. that is how he beat Federer.. the invincible !!!!

Haddie-nuff wrote:That's not answering the question I asked above.. that is how he beat Federer.. the invincible !!!!

Being able to hit the lines is just good technique and good eye. It doesn't show high risk tennis, especially if he doesn't do it very often.

A good passing shot does not a high risk player make!

Rafa's success is built upon being able to play with a higher margin of error than his opponent. Novak is much the same.

I don't see there being anything wrong with that at all.

But it's not high risk.

Is this thread really about the Cincinnati Masters?

Paire lost to Kudla in qualifiers, but as a LL beat Muller, while Kudla lost to Pospisil in R1. Fognini gone. Goffin played the last two sets very nicely.

Lu was sweating buckets. Very hot and humid in Cincy.

HM Murdock wrote:But it's not high risk.

Murdoch <> Mur-dock. Why?

Haddie-nuff wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Rafa has never played high risk tennis.
When you hit the ball 2m above the net at least, that isn't risk taking.
Standing way behind the baseline (now and again he can but his defence imo wins more matches than his offence, attacking just helps him) isn't risk taking.

Don't agree Rafa was known for "painting the lines". His running  passing shots across and down the lines within mm's was high risk tennis..  He could find the length landing mere inches inside the baseline That to me is high risk tennis.. what do you call it ??

Does Rafa hit with a very high net clearance and stand a long way from the baseline? 
Does he hit the ball flat like Dolgo, stan, nishi etc?
No he uses a great deal of margin for error. He can go for the lines because his game style is generally risk averse. He can go for it more because his topspin helps him greatly.

I will never see him as a risk taker.