Nadal outsmarts Federer to lift 10th Slam

First topic message reminder :

Rafael Nadale consolidated his status as one of the greatest players argueably the greatest tennis player ever at least age wise when he outsmarted Roger Federer to win a 6th French Open and 10th Grand slam title today. This match reminded me of the many analysis people make about Federer Nadal match ups but the truth today was, not only does Nadal play more tactically against Federer but he also outsmarts him almost every time. Federer played well enough but not good enough to beat the man from Mallorca. One of Federer's strength has been to run away with matches as a front runner and came out all guns blazing to storm to a 3-0 lead having broken Nadal in the 2nd game but even at 5-2 and serving for the set, you could see it coming that soon as Nadal gets into rythm, it's almost game over and it came right away when he broke when Federer was serving for the set.
Having won the 2nd set on tie break Federer came back stronger in the 3rd set withh Nadal helping with some simple forehand errors into the net but the result was never in doubt as Nadal won the 4th set.
The truth is, Federer was not overpowered by Nadal, he was just outsmarted. I thought Nadal did not play that well to be honest, certainly not in the 3rd set but he was still too good enough. A professional tennis player is supposed to know his and his opponents game, exploit it and take any advantages strategically and Nadal does just exactly that against Federer. Talks were of Federer mixing up his shots before the game but Nadal did more than him in that regard. He kept Federer out of finding a comfort zone all match. A great tennis brain i'll say. With a 10-12 win record in Grand slam finals, Nadal is proving too tough to beat in slam finals. Federer unfortunately has fallen 2-6 in their grand slam meetings and no matter how unfair Federer fans might think this is, Nadal has just been better than him consistently throughout their carrers. 17 times now he has beaten him and it's looking more like a one-sided rivalry i'm afraid.
Nadal has shown the importance of going home with the slam title. With credit to Djokovic and his unbeaten runs, it comes to nothing when at the back of that run you fall short of the slam title and it's something he might learn from so we have great competition in the game amongst the top players.
With Wimbledon coming and Nadal having won the last 2 out of 3 and the last 2 he entered, it's going to be difficult for him to get beaten there. He still isn't playing anywhere at his best but we might see a change at Wimbledon. Congratulations to Nadal

head to head against your contemporaries, at least other greats of your era is an accurate gauge of greatness.
-----------------------------------

If all things were remaining equal, H2H could be very important. But the game, essentially the technology, balls, diet, medecine and all other stuff evolve.

If you take the example of McEnroe, he learnt his tennis, like all of his generation, with a small framed wooden racquet. At his peak of his career, 1984, he is suddenly exposed against young players who have learnt the game with bigger frames who can wack the ball and blunt his beautiful touch game that made him invincible in 1984.

Do you think Agassi could have played the same game with a wooden racquet? or even developed the same game with those small frames?

Look at the French open and how much balls affect a surface. Do you really think Nadal woudl have won Wimbledon in 1990s conds? You can always speculate but the fact is, he struggled against an Isner on clay!

Do you really think Nadal and Djoko woudl have been as fit were they born 10 years earlier? Do you really think those younger players could have played such a physical tennis without today's medical science? You were not around obviously 10 or 30 years when great hopes career were cut short becase of knee, back or elbow problems, despite playing a much less physical game than now?

Do you think Nadal woudl have developed his heavy topspin game had he been faced with an army of Djokovic, Delpo, Davydenko, Murray and so on at an earlier age, all DHBHs? Or had teh conditions been as fast as the 90s? Back then noone learnt to play like Wilaner anymore.

You are trying to single out stats without seeing the bigger picture and the evolution of the game.

What I can see is that Federer at nearly 30 could hold his won against peak Nadal on his best surface, even if he lost many of those encounters. What I can see is that despite his superior atheltism, peak Nadal on clay is beaten by a younger guy with better shots.
What I can see is that once again, Federer makes, even on clay, his draw look easir than Nadal, able to adapt quicker to the conditions than his opponent.

Until you factor in all those elements, you, Lydian and Tom are just trying to find petty arguments to try to up Nadal and lesser Fed's achievements.

The fact is only one name will be remembered in that last decade....and it ain't Nadal.

"Do you think Agassi could have played the same game with a wooden racquet? or even developed the same game with those small frames? "

Do you think Tiger woods would be able to hit 350 yrds drives with wooden shafted drivers? If every golfer still played with older clubs, does that mean T.woods would not be a golfing great? total conjecture

The question is Tenez is in what style would have Agassi learnt to play in those older conditions? My bet would he would have been successful in any generation, but not necessarily played the same game. Remember that Sampras chose to play serve volley, having had more of a baseline game in his youth, purely because he felt that was the way to go at the time. Clearly Borg was able to play effective baseline tennis with such technology that was around in his time, so the option of game style has always been there. Its not all one way traffic either. For example serves got bigger and bigger since Macs time - much to do with racquet technology - if groundstrokes had not increased in accuracy/power to counter the serve you would have a massive advantage to those who serve volleyed.

Interesting you mention Agassi, who at 30 was right at the top of his game and on top of the game, unlike Federer. Its not like 29 is incredibly old, its simply that Federers game style requires lots of physical movement and needs all elements to work in harmony - when they don't his level falters. The young guys have really come through to play at and above his level - it shouldn't be surprising to you to see a 29 yr old former no.1 play well in a slam final against anyone.

Federer's all court game actually takes massive advantage of todays technology in that he can consistently aim for the lines repeatedly - this was far harder to do with old technology where the reactions and rebound you got from racquets was much more variable. Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time. Now it may be easier to hit close to lines these days compared to the 70s/80s, but to do so with such regularity means todays players are every bit as talented as those of yesterday - the game is simply played differently, the talent of all these players is something to be marvelled at across all generations and it will continue to be.

"The fact is only one name will be remembered in that last decade....and it ain't Nadal"

so embarrassing

Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time.
----------------------------

Clearly you haven't go a clue about today's game! The problem for Fed is actually that right now you have 2 or 3 guys physically strong enough to run down balls plum on the line and make him play another risky shot.

But you don't want to see that cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

Tenez wrote:Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time.
----------------------------

Clearly you haven't go a clue about today's game! The problem for Fed is actually that right now you have 2 or 3 guys physically strong enough to run down balls plum on the line and make him play another risky shot.

But you don't want to see that cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

So why do you see Murray, Nadal and Djoko, not to mention some other talented players hit lines with regularity? Its not like they are aiming 2 ft inside lines incase the ball doesn't go quite where they aimed and Fed is the only guy going for the lines sucessfully

dear me

Its not like they are aiming 2 ft inside lines incase the ball doesn't go quite where they aimed and Fed is the only guy going for the lines sucessfully
------------------------------

Tom - You really have lost it if you think Murray and Nadal were looking to hit the lines.

And you may find out that in that match, the one hitting closer to the net and lines lost.

You can certainly hide your face cause you haven't gota clue! It's written there for everybody to see!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/06/SPBP1JPDN6.DTL

Quote "The fact is only one name will be remembered in that last decade....and it ain't Nadal"


Explain how you are ever going to mention Federer without mentioning Nadal.????? you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Hand with Glove
Knife with fork... the man will of course be remembered for his own achievements but even if you want to deny that fact you cannot deny that he will always be known as the man who owned Federer-.. bury your head in the sand if you must but dont try fooling the rest of us. Rafa has booked his own place in the history books but the above article should give you a wake up call. Rafael Nadal the King of Clay... remember it because the rest of us will.

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time.
----------------------------

Clearly you haven't go a clue about today's game! The problem for Fed is actually that right now you have 2 or 3 guys physically strong enough to run down balls plum on the line and make him play another risky shot.

But you don't want to see that cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

So why do you see Murray, Nadal and Djoko, not to mention some other talented players hit lines with regularity? Its not like they are aiming 2 ft inside lines incase the ball doesn't go quite where they aimed and Fed is the only guy going for the lines sucessfully

dear me

Brah, you serious? Nadal? Trying to hit lines? He's just a moonball pusher who just physically exhausts his opponents and then goes for the kill. But look what happened against Djokovic, who is as if not more fit than Nadal. He had no plan B, his Plan A was exposed. Against Roger, he just moonballs his backhand into oblivion. Admit it, Nadal has an extremely one-dimensional game. Yeah sure he may go for the lines at times, but every player sometimes goes for the lines.

Brah, you serious? Nadal? Trying to hit lines?
-------------------------------

Yes he is serious and with his friends likes to be seen as a "knowledgeable poster".

I AM AWESOME wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time.
----------------------------

Clearly you haven't go a clue about today's game! The problem for Fed is actually that right now you have 2 or 3 guys physically strong enough to run down balls plum on the line and make him play another risky shot.

But you don't want to see that cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

So why do you see Murray, Nadal and Djoko, not to mention some other talented players hit lines with regularity? Its not like they are aiming 2 ft inside lines incase the ball doesn't go quite where they aimed and Fed is the only guy going for the lines sucessfully

dear me

Brah, you serious? Nadal? Trying to hit lines? He's just a moonball pusher who just physically exhausts his opponents and then goes for the kill. But look what happened against Djokovic, who is as if not more fit than Nadal. He had no plan B, his Plan A was exposed. Against Roger, he just moonballs his backhand into oblivion. Admit it, Nadal has an extremely one-dimensional game. Yeah sure he may go for the lines at times, but every player sometimes goes for the lines.

Really quite amusing love the sarcasm

Oh dear, this place really has become 606 version 2 hasnt it...the same old Nadal vs Federer vitriol.

The same old calling Nadal 'just a moonball pusher', no talent, etc. What parallel universe are you guys living in, have you ever played tennis?

And you lot are supposed to be fans of tennis?

Ridiculous, and a shame for this forum actually.

I agree lydian

All this has become is Nadal bashing place. No constructive criticism and just the same old rubbish over and over.

The real shame of a tennis forum Lydian is when its posters and fans can't quite analyse why their favourite player is successful and come up with the most absurd statements as above.

That Nadal wins 10 slams, thats fine but not recognising the share his physic plays in this success andtrying to make us believe that Nadal aims for the line is simply very poor posting.

Soon will hear that Karlovic's serve don;t play a role in his wins.

I was having a nice little day, and I thought to myself, I never really go onto the tennis sections.

So I thought I would take a gander - wheres the facepalm when you need it?

Seriously?

I suggest that you all take a 10 minute breather and go and have a look at your driving licenses or passports. I will take a quick guess and say that you are all adults.

A forum is a place for debating interesting topics. Its not a place for throwing out anonymous abuse to other posters, because they dont like the player you do. I had a poster of Debbie Gibson on my wall growing up. I loved her.

My friends thought she had a big nose - did I cry? No.

Every person who steps onto court in a grand slam final deserves their place in history. Anyone who has won one will be remembered. Even Conchita Martinez. They are all supreme athletes but like every sport, each will have slightly different skills that they excel in.

Just because you are a fan of one, does not mean that you should run down the other over nad over again. Yes we get it, my dad is bigger than your dad. But who cares - if you do care, then you shouldnt.

I am going to keep an eye on this section from now on, and I have a reputation of being a hard line admin person. I dont want to see anymore aggressiveness towards other people. And I dont want to see people getting overly defensive of their respective Debbie Gibson crush.

Debate, have fun, respect each others views or in the words of our favorite California Governor, I will be back.

Tom_____ wrote:

I AM AWESOME wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Tenez wrote:Right now you've got a bunch of guys at the top who are able to hit the lines time after time after time.
----------------------------

Clearly you haven't go a clue about today's game! The problem for Fed is actually that right now you have 2 or 3 guys physically strong enough to run down balls plum on the line and make him play another risky shot.

But you don't want to see that cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

So why do you see Murray, Nadal and Djoko, not to mention some other talented players hit lines with regularity? Its not like they are aiming 2 ft inside lines incase the ball doesn't go quite where they aimed and Fed is the only guy going for the lines sucessfully

dear me

Brah, you serious? Nadal? Trying to hit lines? He's just a moonball pusher who just physically exhausts his opponents and then goes for the kill. But look what happened against Djokovic, who is as if not more fit than Nadal. He had no plan B, his Plan A was exposed. Against Roger, he just moonballs his backhand into oblivion. Admit it, Nadal has an extremely one-dimensional game. Yeah sure he may go for the lines at times, but every player sometimes goes for the lines.

Really quite amusing love the sarcasm

OK maybe it was a bit exgerrated, but you've got to admit that Nadal doesn't really play attacking tennis. His whole game revolved around his physical attributes. Come on you've got to admit that at least.

No I dont

Great (not!) to see the return of full-on wumming as Simple Analyst (oohh, do I remember a name like that before?) gives it his best shot.

Yeah, Nadals tactics were novel, surprising and baffling to everyone who had never seen a tennis match before. He won well using established tactics.

lydian wrote:Oh dear, this place really has become 606 version 2 hasnt it...the same old Nadal vs Federer vitriol.

Indeed. Look no further than the first post of the thread to see where it all went wrong, an article that I thought was just over-excited and worthy of debate, until the ad hom started from him. Disappointing, I hope as suggested Admin will look closely.

I too am now getting very disappointed in this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery. Please dont allow it to happen here Admin

bogbrush wrote:Look no further than the first post of the thread to see where it all went wrong, an article that I thought was just over-excited and worthy of debate, until the ad hom started from him.

ad ho·mi·nem - Adverb
1. (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Looking at definition 2 of the above, I'd say both sides are guilty of just that.

I suggest you all re-read Jubba's post from earlier today

Davie

I have just recently had a tooth infection... I tried ignoring that too´until I finally had to go to the dentist.

Everyone tried it on 606 and it didnt work there either sorry to say

Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve. Sure, he likes to ralley the point akin to a game of chess until he's gets the moment when he can unleash a forehand or backhand. Its a kind of measured aggression. Its a different style to Federer but there is no best way of playing tennis, so we need to avoid tennis snobbery in what is best for winning.

Rafa played many great points yesterday where he attacked Federer with winners, and running forehands, etc, but we also have to realise that the guy was simply not on top form yesterday, or most of the year infact. This was not the guy who devastated Federer with the loss of 4 games in 2008 when he blew him off court with attacking tennis. Nadal has also picked out 2 bad matches this year, one against Berdy and one against Federer in Madrid where he said his form was terrible. He's played nervously all tournament and yet still won! And found a win to win. Surely thats impressive? Also, aside from clay he have seen Nadal winning 3 grass court titles (2 x SW19) by playing attacking tennis because you simply have to...especially at Queens. This is not a one-trick pony. He's also more than competent around the net as the reflex lob-volley to Federer yesterday showed.

So it seems to me that people like to whitewash Nadal with generalities about his physique, etc, which does a massive disservice to the genuine talent the guy has. Are you really trying to tell me the guy can win 10 slams, 18 Masters titles, lord knows how many other titles, etc without having prodigous amounts of talent? Sure he strong and fit, but so are Djokovic, Murray and Federer - and they're all around the same bodyweight so its not like Nadal is some type of behemoth. Yet, Djokovic and Murray dont have a fraction of his overall success...ok Nole is getting better but he's also at the very top of his form and Nadal is way off his this year. All players have to be strong and fit to survive on the tour - did we see Federer wilting yesterday? No. Nadal game is based on the ability to play chess-like points around the court (which is talent many others dont have), he'll find and ruthlessly exploit opponents weaknesses. But to say he wins just because of strength and stamina is ridiculous - most of his victories dont even go the distance.

So, come on as you say, you've got to admit the guy has geniune talent to win all that he has against a field of other supremely fit athletes. We're not talking about a Thomas Muster here...who was good on clay but nowhere else. Nadal can adapt to all surfaces, win on fast Queens grass and slow Hamburg clay, win slams on all surfaces, has won doubles events, has served above 135MPH at USO, etc, etc and beat Djokovic fairly routinely in the slam final after Djokovic had 3 straight wins against him like this year...just what more does the guy have to prove for lords sake.

Haddie

Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.


See what I mean?

Frankly NO

Then let me explain. The above in bold text is preceisely what you are doing.

As I said originally, both sides in this argument are equally guilty of that. I'm asking for it to stop now

To which of my comments are you referring please

Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of course! Exactly like a torero! Nadal uses the moleta and strikes once the bull is on his knees...breathless. BUt his bread and butter shots are as agressive as the red cap, just there to make you dizzy but are anything but agressive.

Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.

No problem, you won't have found me making an issue of that. You're rather misrepresenting my post.

I just think the OPs idea that this was some kind of cunning plan that "outsmarted" Federer faintly amusing. He seems to be the only person on the planet who found something surprising in Rafas tactics. That's the only thing I find surprising.

Strangely enough, I looked at a reply of the Wimbledon 2004 final and Andy Roddick basically employed the same tactics, i.e. go after Roger's backhand, albeit without the devastating topspin. So Bogbrush you are right, there is nothing new about this tactic. However, since Rafa is a lefty and able to generate such topspin, he has been able to execute it to perfection.

Tenez wrote:Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of course! Exactly like a torero! Nadal uses the moleta and strikes once the bull is on his knees...breathless. BUt his bread and butter shots are as agressive as the red cap, just there to make you dizzy but are anything but agressive.

Example of a bread and butter shot by Nadal - a heavy topspin forehand:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UW1_oRrjA

Davie wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

I just like to use a favourite comment 'with great power comes great responsibility'

I have seen moonball and moonballer used on this thread. I was told those words would be moderated and haven't.

Please address that.

Thank you

Davie wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 6
06. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

and that is this

Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Well its a pity we do not have a smiley that is "shakes head in disbelief
On top of everything else you might as well call me thick.. Im sorry I dont know where you are coming from. That is obviously your interpretation of what I have said and there is no point in me trying to tell you otherwise seemingly you have made up your mind.

lydian wrote:Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve. Sure, he likes to ralley the point akin to a game of chess until he's gets the moment when he can unleash a forehand or backhand. Its a kind of measured aggression. Its a different style to Federer but there is no best way of playing tennis, so we need to avoid tennis snobbery in what is best for winning.

Rafa played many great points yesterday where he attacked Federer with winners, and running forehands, etc, but we also have to realise that the guy was simply not on top form yesterday, or most of the year infact. This was not the guy who devastated Federer with the loss of 4 games in 2008 when he blew him off court with attacking tennis. Nadal has also picked out 2 bad matches this year, one against Berdy and one against Federer in Madrid where he said his form was terrible. He's played nervously all tournament and yet still won! And found a win to win. Surely thats impressive? Also, aside from clay he have seen Nadal winning 3 grass court titles (2 x SW19) by playing attacking tennis because you simply have to...especially at Queens. This is not a one-trick pony. He's also more than competent around the net as the reflex lob-volley to Federer yesterday showed.

So it seems to me that people like to whitewash Nadal with generalities about his physique, etc, which does a massive disservice to the genuine talent the guy has. Are you really trying to tell me the guy can win 10 slams, 18 Masters titles, lord knows how many other titles, etc without having prodigous amounts of talent? Sure he strong and fit, but so are Djokovic, Murray and Federer - and they're all around the same bodyweight so its not like Nadal is some type of behemoth. Yet, Djokovic and Murray dont have a fraction of his overall success...ok Nole is getting better but he's also at the very top of his form and Nadal is way off his this year. All players have to be strong and fit to survive on the tour - did we see Federer wilting yesterday? No. Nadal game is based on the ability to play chess-like points around the court (which is talent many others dont have), he'll find and ruthlessly exploit opponents weaknesses. But to say he wins just because of strength and stamina is ridiculous - most of his victories dont even go the distance.

So, come on as you say, you've got to admit the guy has geniune talent to win all that he has against a field of other supremely fit athletes. We're not talking about a Thomas Muster here...who was good on clay but nowhere else. Nadal can adapt to all surfaces, win on fast Queens grass and slow Hamburg clay, win slams on all surfaces, has won doubles events, has served above 135MPH at USO, etc, etc and beat Djokovic fairly routinely in the slam final after Djokovic had 3 straight wins against him like this year...just what more does the guy have to prove for lords sake.

One of the most attacking on clay court? I think on Clay he's the most defensive. What you're saying about Rafa rallying until he can unleash a forehand/backhand is exactly what most defensive players do. They just push the ball onto the other side and when they're opponent is exhausted/tired/fed up they then go for the kill with their shot. That's exactly how I see Nadal and the same thing was happening yesterday, Federer played some beautiful backhands/forehands but Nadal was just retrieving them back and putting them deep. I'll admit he's got tremendous talent to retrieve difficult balls and not only retrieve them but also land them deep on the opponents half, but to say he's an attacking player I still do not agree.

legendkillar wrote:

Davie wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

I just like to use a favourite comment 'with great power comes great responsibility'

I have seen moonball and moonballer used on this thread. I was told those words would be moderated and haven't.

Please address that.

Thank you

Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

I AM AWESOME wrote:

lydian wrote:Completely disagree....Nadal is probably one of the most attacking players on a clay-court, but he doesnt do it from the first shot after the serve. Sure, he likes to ralley the point akin to a game of chess until he's gets the moment when he can unleash a forehand or backhand. Its a kind of measured aggression. Its a different style to Federer but there is no best way of playing tennis, so we need to avoid tennis snobbery in what is best for winning.

Rafa played many great points yesterday where he attacked Federer with winners, and running forehands, etc, but we also have to realise that the guy was simply not on top form yesterday, or most of the year infact. This was not the guy who devastated Federer with the loss of 4 games in 2008 when he blew him off court with attacking tennis. Nadal has also picked out 2 bad matches this year, one against Berdy and one against Federer in Madrid where he said his form was terrible. He's played nervously all tournament and yet still won! And found a win to win. Surely thats impressive? Also, aside from clay he have seen Nadal winning 3 grass court titles (2 x SW19) by playing attacking tennis because you simply have to...especially at Queens. This is not a one-trick pony. He's also more than competent around the net as the reflex lob-volley to Federer yesterday showed.

So it seems to me that people like to whitewash Nadal with generalities about his physique, etc, which does a massive disservice to the genuine talent the guy has. Are you really trying to tell me the guy can win 10 slams, 18 Masters titles, lord knows how many other titles, etc without having prodigous amounts of talent? Sure he strong and fit, but so are Djokovic, Murray and Federer - and they're all around the same bodyweight so its not like Nadal is some type of behemoth. Yet, Djokovic and Murray dont have a fraction of his overall success...ok Nole is getting better but he's also at the very top of his form and Nadal is way off his this year. All players have to be strong and fit to survive on the tour - did we see Federer wilting yesterday? No. Nadal game is based on the ability to play chess-like points around the court (which is talent many others dont have), he'll find and ruthlessly exploit opponents weaknesses. But to say he wins just because of strength and stamina is ridiculous - most of his victories dont even go the distance.

So, come on as you say, you've got to admit the guy has geniune talent to win all that he has against a field of other supremely fit athletes. We're not talking about a Thomas Muster here...who was good on clay but nowhere else. Nadal can adapt to all surfaces, win on fast Queens grass and slow Hamburg clay, win slams on all surfaces, has won doubles events, has served above 135MPH at USO, etc, etc and beat Djokovic fairly routinely in the slam final after Djokovic had 3 straight wins against him like this year...just what more does the guy have to prove for lords sake.

One of the most attacking on clay court? I think on Clay he's the most defensive. What you're saying about Rafa rallying until he can unleash a forehand/backhand is exactly what most defensive players do. They just push the ball onto the other side and when they're opponent is exhausted/tired/fed up they then go for the kill with their shot. That's exactly how I see Nadal and the same thing was happening yesterday, Federer played some beautiful backhands/forehands but Nadal was just retrieving them back and putting them deep. I'll admit he's got tremendous talent to retrieve difficult balls and not only retrieve them but also land them deep on the opponents half, but to say he's an attacking player I still do not agree.

I'm not sure if people watched much clay court tennis over the years, but i have always been an avid watcher of clay matches. From this its abundantly clear that Nadal is one of the most attacking clay courter players that have ever enjoyed success on the surface. His rallies are only long when required and quite often end with a shot that is unreturnable (winner/near winner). Generally speaking his rallies are not especially long for clay court tennis. He's also one of the best players at turning defense into attack, which is why you often see a turnaround mid-rally, rather than just retrieving until a mistake gets made on the other side of the net.

Tenez/I am awesome

I'm not getting into discussions with any forum members who call Nadal, or any other player - and I quote - "He's just a moonball pusher". You make your feelings about players and 'love' of the game clear. And yes, I am also surprised these comments are not moderated despite previous warnings.

I found one find it highly amusing when a players physicality is used as a way of having a go. This pro sport and unless it's chess, it's physical. Look at sports like football and basketball. Very physical and players with such are rewarded and call talented. Take Messi for example, at 5 ft 7 and looks small, his physicality when on the ball is amazing. Why should a player having a talent of being very fast on a tennis court be cursed at by critics whiles speed in a footballers leg is a gift and called a talent. If a player can hit a pretty shot, sure he is talented. If a player can reach and retrieve impossible shots, that's talent to.
I don't know what Federer fans expect. If Federer hits a winner should Nadal stand on the baseline and admire it or drop his racquet and applaud?

lydian wrote:Tenez/I am awesome

I'm not getting into discussions with any forum members who call Nadal, or any other player - and I quote - "He's just a moonball pusher". You make your feelings about players and 'love' of the game clear. And yes, I am also surprised these comments are not moderated despite previous warnings.

Like I said that was perhaps a little bit of exagerration. But to say that he does not ''moonball'' either is not correct as clearly he does, has and will continue to. What is wrong anyway with calling him a moonballer if he indeed is one? Can't we just have a civilized discussion on this matter? You're making it seems like I've shot someone or something.

I AM AWESOME wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Davie wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:To which of my comments are you referring please

This one for starters

Haddie-nuff wrote:...this forum allowing one or two people two bring it down to the level of 606. Where wumming got to crisis levels and made the forum a total mockery.

I just like to use a favourite comment 'with great power comes great responsibility'

I have seen moonball and moonballer used on this thread. I was told those words would be moderated and haven't.

Please address that.

Thank you

Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

Jubb did say this would be moderated, so its a shame it has not been. Really moonballing has become a derogatory term.

Nadal doesn't moonball imo because his shots are not high enough to be classed as a moonball and have too much power on them. Moonballs go higher and have less power. E.g:-

This pretty much covers it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TDGbbLXUQ&feature=related

Two reasons for a moonball - firstly to allow yourself time to recover, second to stop you opponent getting a big hit on the ball. Now really Nadals shots are, if your honest, not designed exclusively for either of those purposes. For me, Nadals topspin shots are part of his point construction, rather than a delaying tactic and he only uses them to manouvre the point. Its not like he does this particularly on grass or HC, where he has still been incredibly successful through talent

I AM AWESOME wrote: Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

No, the lie is stating that Nadal uses that shot. You show me where he played a "medium-high LOB with topspin" in the whole match against Federer's BH? Or any match this year. Another great fallacy. You use the term as specific and intended wummery, as I just quoyed above you called him a "moonball pusher". You and Tenez love winding up the Nadal fans knowing these terms are inflammatory, and quite frankly technically incorrect too.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I found one find it highly amusing when a players physicality is used as a way of having a go. This pro sport and unless it's chess, it's physical. Look at sports like football and basketball. Very physical and players with such are rewarded and call talented. Take Messi for example, at 5 ft 7 and looks small, his physicality when on the ball is amazing. Why should a player having a talent of being very fast on a tennis court be cursed at by critics whiles speed in a footballers leg is a gift and called a talent. If a player can hit a pretty shot, sure he is talented. If a player can reach and retrieve impossible shots, that's talent to.
I don't know what Federer fans expect. If Federer hits a winner should Nadal stand on the baseline and admire it or drop his racquet and applaud?

It's not that physicality is my main gripe with Nadal's game, but in my opinion he plays the game in a negative way. He keeps himself in rallies by just getting the ball back in and hardly ever attacks/comes upto the net. Look at his game, it's all revolved around his forehand. His serve is average, it peaked at the US Open but it hasn't reached those heights since. When I see him attack he is wonderful and I wonder why he doesn't do that more often because I can see him doing very good things by being an aggressive player, but sadly he choses to just hand around at the baseline using his stamina and strength to get through.

I am awesome, I'm more than happy to have civilised discussions and believe I am doing so. Seen as you're keen on the idea, perhaps its not too much for you to lead by example then...?

First you can start with showing evidence of Nadal moonballing seen as you have referred to him multiple times as a moonball pusher, etc?

lydian wrote:

I AM AWESOME wrote: Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

No, the lie is stating that Nadal uses that shot. You show me where he played a "medium-high LOB with topspin" in the whole match against Federer's BH? Or any match this year. Another great fallacy. You use the term as specific and intended wummery, as I just quoyed above you called him a "moonball pusher". You and Tenez love winding up the Nadal fans knowing these terms are inflammatory, and quite frankly technically incorrect too.

I suggest you go back and watch most of the Nadal/Federer match ups. All you see is that 99.9% of the balls from Nadal are played to the Federer backhand at near shoulder height with incredible top spin. Now are you telling me that is not ''medium'' height?

lydian wrote:I am awesome, I'm more than happy to have civilised discussions and believe I am doing so. Seen as you're keen on the idea, perhaps its not too much for you to lead by example then...?

First you can start with showing evidence of Nadal moonballing seen as you have referred to him multiple times as a moonball pusher, etc?

OK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc9HGLR70s

Look at the two balls Nadal gives to Federer here, both near shoulder height. And that court is not even known for it's bounce.

I AM AWESOME wrote: It's not that physicality is my main gripe with Nadal's game, but in my opinion he plays the game in a negative way. He keeps himself in rallies by just getting the ball back in and hardly ever attacks/comes upto the net. Look at his game, it's all revolved around his forehand. His serve is average, it peaked at the US Open but it hasn't reached those heights since. When I see him attack he is wonderful and I wonder why he doesn't do that more often because I can see him doing very good things by being an aggressive player, but sadly he choses to just hand around at the baseline using his stamina and strength to get through.

1. Did you see Federer running around his FH pretty much all match - and you say Nadal's game is based around his forehand?
2. Serve is average? Have you tried running the kick serve he has? Do you see opponents returning winners off his serve? No neither do I. Its not all about power, plus he serves according to the surface.
3. He's selectively aggressive - he likes to break down opponents games through moving them to exploit the weakness. Its another strategy and way to play. You dont have to flat hit risky winners down the lines every shot to win slams.
4. "hang around at the baseline using his stamina and strength to get through" - so where did Murray and Federer break down from a stamina perspective? You're over-stating it again.
5. All players at the top level use physicality, its a physical game for crying out loud. But seems to me you seek to only judge Nadal negatively and not see any positives in his ability whatsoever.

Obviously I'm not saying that the moonball is specifically a bad thing to do against Roger as it is afterall exploiting his weakness.

I AM AWESOME wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc9HGLR70s

Look at the two balls Nadal gives to Federer here, both near shoulder height. And that court is not even known for it's bounce.

You're kidding me right? And you think that is a moonball?
Have you actually played tennis?
I rest my case if that's what you're calling moonballing. Ridiculous.

lydian wrote:

I AM AWESOME wrote: It's not that physicality is my main gripe with Nadal's game, but in my opinion he plays the game in a negative way. He keeps himself in rallies by just getting the ball back in and hardly ever attacks/comes upto the net. Look at his game, it's all revolved around his forehand. His serve is average, it peaked at the US Open but it hasn't reached those heights since. When I see him attack he is wonderful and I wonder why he doesn't do that more often because I can see him doing very good things by being an aggressive player, but sadly he choses to just hand around at the baseline using his stamina and strength to get through.

1. Did you see Federer running around his FH pretty much all match - and you say Nadal's game is based around his forehand?
2. Serve is average? Have you tried running the kick serve he has? Do you see opponents returning winners off his serve? No neither do I. Its not all about power, plus he serves according to the surface.
3. He's selectively aggressive - he likes to break down opponents games through moving them to exploit the weakness. Its another strategy and way to play. You dont have to flat hit risky winners down the lines every shot to win slams.
4. "hang around at the baseline using his stamina and strength to get through" - so where did Murray and Federer break down from a stamina perspective? You're over-stating it again.
5. All players at the top level use physicality, its a physical game for crying out loud. But seems to me you seek to only judge Nadal negatively and not see any positives in his ability whatsoever.

Yes his serve really isn't up there. The kick serve is good but that's pretty much all there is to his service. It was immense at the US open but it hasn't reached the same heights since. He is not selectively aggressive, that's the point. He's aggressive at time, but hardly do I see it during matches and even tournaments. If he has to break down opponents through moving them, then there's your answer, he moves them and exploits their physical health and then hence forces them to try and play winners and end rallies quickly. Why don't you think it's worked against Djokovic this season? It's because Djokovic's fitness is right up there with Nadal and Djokovic was patient in the rallies, knowing that he can cope with fitness levels of Nadal. This is why we didn't see Federer and Murray break down physically because they cannot engage in the long rallies with Nadal because all he does is tire out his opponents and THEN go for the kill, they had to hit winners early in the rallies and did quite well IMO.

Yes it is a physical game, and to be quite honest a lot of players have started to depend on their physical attributes to carry them through. Look at the top 10 and you'll see that a lot of the players on there really aren't very gifted tennis wise.

lydian wrote:

I AM AWESOME wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc9HGLR70s

Look at the two balls Nadal gives to Federer here, both near shoulder height. And that court is not even known for it's bounce.

You're kidding me right? And you think that is a moonball?
Have you actually played tennis?
I rest my case if that's what you're calling moonballing. Ridiculous.

So what is a moonball then? Does the ball have to touch the ceiling or something for it to be constituted as a moonball? Shoulder height is pretty much more than medium height.

I AM AWESOME wrote:

lydian wrote:

I AM AWESOME wrote: Wait, what's wrong with calling certain players ''moonballers''? As far as I know the definition of a moonball is as follows:

a medium-high offensive lob hit with topspin

Now to say that Nadal does not use this tactic while playing against Federer to his backhand is IMO a lie because he does.

No, the lie is stating that Nadal uses that shot. You show me where he played a "medium-high LOB with topspin" in the whole match against Federer's BH? Or any match this year. Another great fallacy. You use the term as specific and intended wummery, as I just quoyed above you called him a "moonball pusher". You and Tenez love winding up the Nadal fans knowing these terms are inflammatory, and quite frankly technically incorrect too.

I suggest you go back and watch most of the Nadal/Federer match ups. All you see is that 99.9% of the balls from Nadal are played to the Federer backhand at near shoulder height with incredible top spin. Now are you telling me that is not ''medium'' height?

No, they aren't medium height particularly - look at the vid i posted, those are medium height lob shots with topspin - moonballs. Nadals shots bounce high due to topspin, but their still hit aggressively and so can't be too high or they'd go out of court. As Lydian said its one of those fallacy's that has spread around about Nadal, when in fact technically you hardly see moonballs in todays game as its not such a viable shot as in the 70s/80s.

Is it not more to do with the height it goes over the net as opposed to the amount of topspin that is on it, generating the height post bounce.

Think of cricket, a bouncer is over shoulder height after the bounce, a beamer is head height all the way. Is this a similar confusion?