Rafa vulnerable on pressure

Consistently Rafa has failed to defend a slam outside FO when he is the defending champion, to add more he could not hold on to no.1 either after winning the year end number one, this just shows how much pressure it was on Fed when he was holding on to number 1 position inspite of great challangers in like Rafa, Djoko,Roddick, Hewitt etc,...

I won't be surprised if Rafa wins some slam in 2012 outside French, but just can't see him defend a GS title, I wrote about this twice once in 2009 and another article in 2010 end in 606 this Wimbledon defeat just backs my argument, lets see how he fares come USO.

I had a feeling that Nadal wouldn't be able to defend his Wimbledon title successfully this year. It's one thing winning it, defending it isn't as easy as it appears. If there was any title he was going to defend successfully besides the French, Wimbledon was the one.

I remember having a debate with other posters who said it wasn't important or necessary to defend a title successfully, as long as you win it a few times, well it's more of an achievement if you can defend a title back to back, few players accomplish it. Maybe it will put in perspective Fed's achievement of doing this in the past.

Exactly Lucius, people say Rafa is great at pressure, but by stats Rafa is more vulnerable on pressure specifically defending slams as champion. Rafa still has one more chance this year to prove it wrong, bring in USO.

i think it is easy to be mentally strong when the players playing you don't believe they can beat you and you know it. I think Federer had the same effect on players, but when Nadal said " I don't care who you are I think I can stay with you" Federer just had never had that before and it rattled him. You can watch his match with Nadal at the 2006 Masters cup to see what a release of pressure he let out when beating him. Now Nadal is having to face the same thing, someone thinking I will stay with you even when you hit ridiculous shots, and Nadal has never had to deal with that

Isn;t it what I have always said? It;s easy to be mentally stonger when you are physically 3 times stronger. But when you are being challenged phsyically, then the mental weaknesses show up.

I have always doubted Nadal's mental. Even v Federer, he often starts nervously, and panics, and it;s only as the match goes on that he knows his physical superiority will make the differnce that he relaxes mentally and gets the better of Federer.

Again today Nadal became mentally stronger as he saw Djoko crumbling down in tht 3rd set....but as soon as he was faced with a pressure game....he was the first to collapse.

Can't see how Nadal was vulnerable under pressure when time and again he defied the odds to come back from impossible situations. This match was as a result of Nadal playing poorly the first 2 sets, way below his standards. 27 winners, 7 aces included was hit by Djokovic to Nadal's 21, 5 aces in 4 sets. It was pretty poor and with Djokovic having every thing going for him, 5/6 breaks won, it was just a dream scenario for him. Nadal's serve just let him down at crucial points. It was like the USO final whenever Djokovic goes 30-15 on Nadal's serve, he finds 2 aces to erase the advantage.

Nadal seems to be making a habit of playing really badly against Djokovic.

There could be another explanation of course, that his game matches up badly to Djokovic. But you don't believe in the concept of bad match-ups, do you?

I for one don't believe in the so called bad match ups. If that is the case, the top players are bad match ups for almost all players on tour. A player beats another consistently because he is better. The ironic part of using the logic of bad match up for Djokovic Nadal is Djokovic has lost 16 times to him. Djokovic is just currently a better player than Nadal just like Nadal has been a better player than Federer.

What the thread is getting @ is that when it comes down to defending something Nadal has won, he doesn't have a habit of defending successfully outside the French/clay. As a result of yesterday, he hasn't defended Wimbledon successfully and now it looks assured he won't have defended the year end World No.1. Same goes for the Australian Open '09 and the only one that remains is the USO, which frankly is looking unlikely too (especially if he plays Djokovic).

I made the point about this weakness at defending his titles (away from clay) on earlier threads when I joined but were dismissed because they were considered 'attacks'. Well away from clay, his bedrock, he hasn't defended any titles successfully. If there was any title he was going to defend successfully, it would have been on grass yesterday. Personally, I think it's less that Nadal has developed an issue with defending titles than the fact he's developed a mental issue with Djokovic. Let's put it in context, had Djokovic not upped his game, we'd be looking at a clean sweep of all the major titles (ATP 1000 tournaments) and the back to back double of RG & Wimbledon since March. A Brilliant achievement (if he'd had have done it), so it's misleading as some posters have suggested, that Nadal played poorly, he hasn't played poorly this season, he's just unable to cope with Djokovic.

Quite simply Novak has surpassed Nadal, it's the passing of the torch (I would say that happened when Nadal beat Federer at Australia) right now Novak is the one they are hoping to figure out, unless Novak's level drops they are going to be left empty handed.

No shame in being 2nd to this Novak, we are talking about a guy who won 50 times out of 51, which should have been 52 from 52. Enjoy chasing the new King, challengers.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Quite simply Novak has surpassed Nadal, it's the passing of the torch (I would say that happened when Nadal beat Federer at Australia) right now Novak is the one they are hoping to figure out, unless Novak's level drops they are going to be left empty handed.

No shame in being 2nd to this Novak, we are talking about a guy who won 50 times out of 51, which should have been 52 from 52. Enjoy chasing the new King, challengers.

If mu auntie should have had balls she'd be my uncle.

I don't recall anything dodgy happening in the French semi. Sometimes a great can roll back the years.

I don;t think it is very important to defend titles. He defended his first FO and that is good enough for me.

The reason he is not defending the other ones is simply cause he is not good enough and I maintain that 2010 was a poor year in therms of top 5 players with most injured (Delpo, Davydenko, Federer, Murray and Djoko completely out of form).

This is why I was keen to see how Nadal woudl do at the O2 2010 cause it woudl give a better assessment of his 2010 form as most were healthy there. And we saw how he struggled v Murray and was outplayed by Federer. Unfortuantely we coudl not see how he fared v Djoko cause Nole was playing with 2 contacts lenses per eye...or none.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I for one don't believe in the so called bad match ups. If that is the case, the top players are bad match ups for almost all players on tour. A player beats another consistently because he is better. The ironic part of using the logic of bad match up for Djokovic Nadal is Djokovic has lost 16 times to him. Djokovic is just currently a better player than Nadal just like Nadal has been a better player than Federer.

This is perhaps the most damaging admission you've made. Any observer who doesn't understand the concept of match-ups in this sport doesn't understand the sport.

Now Djokovic has fixed his physical side the match up to Nadal is delicious to him. Lots of hits into his strength and an opponent he can wear down. On the other hand he will have more trouble with Federer whose variety and short slices can catch him out, although at this stage of their careers that will not likely turn the match that often.

I don't recall anything dodgy happening in the French semi. Sometimes a great can roll back the years.

True Roger served very well, Novak did not play nearly as well as he was playing before that though.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I for one don't believe in the so called bad match ups. If that is the case, the top players are bad match ups for almost all players on tour. A player beats another consistently because he is better. The ironic part of using the logic of bad match up for Djokovic Nadal is Djokovic has lost 16 times to him. Djokovic is just currently a better player than Nadal just like Nadal has been a better player than Federer.

This is perhaps the most damaging admission you've made. Any observer who doesn't understand the concept of match-ups in this sport doesn't understand the sport.

Now Djokovic has fixed his physical side the match up to Nadal is delicious to him. Lots of hits into his strength and an opponent he can wear down. On the other hand he will have more trouble with Federer whose variety and short slices can catch him out, although at this stage of their careers that will not likely turn the match that often.

You are right, Federer is not a better player than Roddick, he is just a bad match up for him.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I for one don't believe in the so called bad match ups. If that is the case, the top players are bad match ups for almost all players on tour. A player beats another consistently because he is better. The ironic part of using the logic of bad match up for Djokovic Nadal is Djokovic has lost 16 times to him. Djokovic is just currently a better player than Nadal just like Nadal has been a better player than Federer.

This is perhaps the most damaging admission you've made. Any observer who doesn't understand the concept of match-ups in this sport doesn't understand the sport.

Now Djokovic has fixed his physical side the match up to Nadal is delicious to him. Lots of hits into his strength and an opponent he can wear down. On the other hand he will have more trouble with Federer whose variety and short slices can catch him out, although at this stage of their careers that will not likely turn the match that often.

You are right, Federer is not a better player than Roddick, he is just a bad match up for him.

A facepalm is sooo appropriate, but not for the reason you think.

Please, just think this stuff through before you react. It'll save you a lot of face.

Five straight losses to the same man in five months, seems like a pretty bad match up if you ask me

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Five straight losses to the same man in five months, seems like a pretty bad match up if you ask me

And the 16 times the same player lost to the one he beats 5 times now? What's that called? ' A bad match up' in the past?.

Bogbrush as expected can't see the flaw in his match up logic.

Do you truly not understand match-ups in tennis? Really, don't you get that?

I'm finding it quite surprising you don't but amazing that you're admitting it.

SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

But Nadal is still finding way to win slams isn't he?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

But Nadal is still finding way to win slams isn't he?

In 2011 only when Federer takes out Djokovic for him. Aren't you listening to the guy?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

But Nadal is still finding way to win slams isn't he?

By beating Shankerer in the finals, would not win RG playing against No.1vak

Clearly, some players are simply better than others - all the top 4 now are better players than Roddick for example, and a million times better than Bogdanovic.

However, the difference between the top 3 does come down to match-up, form and confidence. Federer is a tougher opponent for Djokovic than Rafa is, but Rafa is a tougher opponent for Federer. It's a question of how the strengths in your game match with the relative weaknesses in your opponent's.

As for the Nadal v Djokovic H2H, even before this run, Novak had beaten Nadal 7 times, which is pretty good for a world #3 against the #1. Suggests that Djokovic has a game that causes Rafa problems, especially on hard courts. Now that Djokovic is a bit fitter (related to improved health) and playing with more confidence, he is clearly dominating the match-up because of those elements of his game that Rafa struggles with.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

But Nadal is still finding way to win slams isn't he?

In 2011 only when Federer takes out Djokovic for him. Aren't you listening to the guy?

Oh so you saying Federer is protecting Nadal. How cruel of him to leave Nadal out in the mercy of Djokovic's hands at New York last year. Or was he waiting for the FO 2011?

This article is about Nadull's vulnerability, learn to read it Catalan boy.

SA, you've actually reminded of some more points which Nadal fans said would show up Djokovic:

a) winning streaks are meaning, Djokovic had a 3 (or 4) winning streak against Nadal going into the USO
b) Nadal beat Djokovic in the US0 Final last year.

One thing you're over looking is that back @ the US0, Djokovic did not have his remarkable winning streak which encompassed beating Nadal & Federer consistently. He's a different player now. Nearly all pundit and the vast majority of people agree that what sparked the winning streak was the Davis Cup victory and Djokovic has said that. Comparing before that isn't useful.

It remains a fact that only one person has beaten Djokovic this year and it was Federer, not Nadal. Last year it was a different story, just like this year is.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:SA the fact is right now that a 30 year old Federer is more of a threat to "No.1vak" than a 25 year old Nadull, maybe Rafito needs to take up golf more seriously, he isn't beating Novak in any big matches any time soon!

That explains why Rory McIlroy was giving free lessons @ Wimbledon.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Nadal-Reaches-Out-To-McIlroy.aspx

dummy_half wrote:Clearly, some players are simply better than others - all the top 4 now are better players than Roddick for example, and a million times better than Bogdanovic.

However, the difference between the top 3 does come down to match-up, form and confidence. Federer is a tougher opponent for Djokovic than Rafa is, but Rafa is a tougher opponent for Federer. It's a question of how the strengths in your game match with the relative weaknesses in your opponent's.

As for the Nadal v Djokovic H2H, even before this run, Novak had beaten Nadal 7 times, which is pretty good for a world #3 against the #1. Suggests that Djokovic has a game that causes Rafa problems, especially on hard courts. Now that Djokovic is a bit fitter (related to improved health) and playing with more confidence, he is clearly dominating the match-up because of those elements of his game that Rafa struggles with.

Point taken dummy, I know how match ups works, just find it unlikely a player that loses so many times to another can be underline ; Bad match up'.
In making the point, people forget before the USO, Djokovic beat Nadal 3 straight times, thrashings than even his recent victories over Nadal but who won their match at the USO and WTF? Was Djokovic a bad match up then to?
Putting down rivals domination as match ups is a simplistic and fairly ignorent theory which also ignores the relative improvents in the players game i.e. Yes, fitness but also serve, net play, focus and concentration, will to win etc. Djokovic has become a better player than all his rivals. Carried his country to DC glory, gained confidence and has not looked back. What's hard to understand?

Oh now we know about match-ups do we? A bit earlier you said you didn't believe in them.

"God loves a sinner, come to his understanding" (Mr Witt, Zulu, 1964)

What's hard to understand?
----
What's hard to understand is how bitter Nadull fans are after losing to clearly the number 1 playing in the world.

No more shankers in the final for Nadull to benefit from

bogbrush wrote:Oh now we know about match-ups do we? A bit earlier you said you didn't believe in them.

"God loves a sinner, come to his understanding" (Mr Witt, Zulu, 1964)

Seems you still haven't answered my Federer Roddick example, need help?
I'm sure the 16 times Nadal has beaten Djokovic he was a bad match up for him every time.

Simple_Analyst wrote:
I'm sure the 16 times Nadal has beaten Djokovic he was a bad match up for him every time.

Djokovic just hadn't reached his peak yet, until this season.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:What's hard to understand?
----
What's hard to understand is how bitter Nadull fans are after losing to clearly the number 1 playing in the world.

No more shankers in the final for Nadull to benefit from

So you saying Federer is a shanker who has not been good enough to beat Nadal? Be careful, your Federer friends won't be happy with that comment.
Good point, No.2 should be losing to No.1, see Federer did not understand that when he was No.1

Fedal debates are now Djokull debates in 2011.

Maybe if some Nadal fans weren't so dismissive of Federer (+ plus his achievements), so jubilant when he loses and a bit less arrogant about the invincible Nadal we'd have a better debate.

Instead, even when the body of evidence suggested Nadal would lose yesterday they lived in a dreamland where Rafa never loses. I heard so many lines trotted out about why he just couldn't lose, even I started to think it was impossible! Really does prove that if you say something enough you end up believing it!

I don't think Rafa fans expected the sort of defeat we witnessed yesterday and certainly not during his peak years. I always thought that Federer was due respect because he managed to see off most of his challengers during his peak years but I always thought the idea Nadal would do the same during his peak years was unlikely, you can never predict which player will dethrone another. Djokovic always had the potential too and so it's proved.

Lucius

I'm not a Rafa fan, but I didn't expect him to lose yesterday - I thought that his grass court pedigree would see him through, despite the recent defeats by Djokovic. I didn't expect to see Djokovic play as well as he did for 2 sets, and effectively dismantle Rafa's game.

The interesting thing for me was that unlike when Rafa beat Federer in 2008, this was not even a close match. That one had a feel of two players battling for supremacy. This one felt more like someone asserting his superiority over his closest opponent.

Nadal's extraordinary fitness and strength have made him nearly unbeatable in Grand Slam finals. He was 7-0 since 2008 before Sunday's match. He battles relentlessly, never giving up on a point, never conserving energy by playing out the string in a seemingly hopeless set. The physical grind of all those long points has the effect of early-round body blows from a boxer. They pay off later as the opponent wears down.

Yet Nadal must have felt like he was looking into a mirror on Wimbledon's main stage. Djokovic dominated the long points in taking the first two sets, showing off his vastly improved conditioning. For once, it was Nadal whose groundstrokes found the net to end the extended rallies, Nadal who was being pushed from corner to corner, Nadal who saw shots he thought were winners come back for yet another exchange.

Yes dummy_half, I agree with you. I did feel that prediction of Djokovic winning could look silly, although a few others said the same but like you, 95% of people & pundits were plumping with Nadal, which is understandable.

What's more striking is that this year Djokovic has transcended his spread of titles away from hardcourts on the whole onto clay and now grass. This what I think is most worrying for Nadal and I think that's why when it went to 5 - 4, it played on Nadal's mind, he's not safe from Djokovic on any surface. At least with Federer he always dominant with him on clay so he goes for it on other surfaces. Fed would sneak a clay court tournament win but Nadal would always have clay.

Agreed, although Fed came back from 2 sets down to love, Fed did fight to make it close, whereas yesterday, even when Djokovic lost the 3rd set, you could see it was because Djokovic lost his focus and that's exactly what he's said today. The fact the match wasn't close is ominous, I think it's premature to say Djokovic's successes hails a period of dominance but what if he goes into the Canadian and Cincinnati Masters and wins them too? Then the USO Open? It would suggest the RG was a blip and he'll have thoroughly dominated the tour more than even Fed did in a single year. Now we can actually reflect and say it's possible now, but who would have thought it before yesterday's final?

luciusmann wrote:Yes dummy_half, I agree with you. I did feel that prediction of Djokovic winning could look silly, although a few others said the same but like you, 95% of people & pundits were plumping with Nadal, which is understandable.

I knew Djoko woudl win. The only fear was to have a Djoko melt down like we had last year at Wimbledon. That says so much bout the "pundits" cause Physical/technical ratio of Djoko is clearly much better than Nadal and those guys coudl not see it.

When you think that some of them get £250k for a 2 weeks commentating! Amazing isn't it?

Nadull is just overrated, there were much better players than him who would dominate him in previous eras..

Same here Tenez, but meltdowns are part of the game, some can be minor blips like Djokovic had in the 3rd set or come out of nowhere and become full blown ones like Murray after the 1st set last Friday and as Federer has often had against Nadal in finals.

Be kind JM, calling him Nadull just makes anyone who's not a fan of Nadal look bad.

I know Tenez, to be fair, some of the pundits got it right like Henman, he actually sounded like he's been watching tennis matches outside of the slams and Becker who gave some explanations why he thought Djokovic could win. But most of them? Woeful, I wonder why they're paid so much, all of them seemed over awed by Nadal -there meant to be commenting on the tennis.

This place is full of fed and novak fans at the moment. I am surprised to see as how one loss in a final can suddenly cast a doubt on a great player's play, his physicality and his mentality.

Rafa has only lost one of the slams final and he is only losing to Novak who might not maintain the same level of play for rest of the year.

Slightly disagree on as being vulnerable under pressure as it was quite clear that Djoko was the better player, he kept returning everything that too with the dividend and anyone would have struggled with that. Djoko's past 4 wins played a lot on rafa's mind and when one have that kind of mental edge over a player then it is a tremendous boost.

Novak is a bad match up to Nadal as suggested by many. As long as Rafa keep bumping into Nole, we will find out that Nole is the .....

wow wrote:This place is full of fed and novak fans at the moment. I am surprised to see as how one loss in a final can suddenly cast a doubt on a great player's play, his physicality and his mentality.

It's not one loss in a final! It's 5 losses in a final. Getting more and more convincing each time.

Tenez wrote:

wow wrote:This place is full of fed and novak fans at the moment. I am surprised to see as how one loss in a final can suddenly cast a doubt on a great player's play, his physicality and his mentality.

It's not one loss in a final! It's 5 losses in a final. Getting more and more convincing each time.

Tenez you should not forget that everyone was talking about this slam as a different one because all other victories had come in 3 setters format. Had nadal won this one, he would have deifintely gotten his mojo back.

I see what you mean wow, but the implications are larger than this one match might seem to suggest, just like Wimbledon '08. If this had been a close match then perhaps it might suggest Rafa as a chance in the future of beating Djokovic, but those 4 defeats don't lie and he won't be beating Djokovic easily again, if he does. Also, the air of invincibility around Rafa is gone in grand slam finals, he can be beaten by someone other than Federer.

I'm not sure about what you've said, everyone apart from Federer in one match this year has been losing to Djokovic, he's that dominant. Waiting for your rival's form to dip is hardly a recipe for future success, it's more the refuge of someone at a loss.

Also, Rafa does appear vulnerable at defending titles off clay, or put it this way, is impotent at defending titles off clay. I was told it was meaningless that Nadal had never defended any title off clay successfully in his entire career. Well he had an opportunity to show he could and he didn't, why? You could say because Djokovic came along but apart from on clay this year, he has no titles on grass or hardcourt. By way of comparison, Federer at the same age had successfully defended and held titles on clay, grass and hardcourt.

wow wrote:

Tenez wrote:

wow wrote:This place is full of fed and novak fans at the moment. I am surprised to see as how one loss in a final can suddenly cast a doubt on a great player's play, his physicality and his mentality.

It's not one loss in a final! It's 5 losses in a final. Getting more and more convincing each time.

Tenez you should not forget that everyone was talking about this slam as a different one because all other victories had come in 3 setters format. Had nadal won this one, he would have deifintely gotten his mojo back.

It didn;t matter to me cause I saw that after 3 sets in the previous finals, it was Nadal who looked the more exhausted so I knew that over 5 sets it could actually benefit Djokko more than Nadal...and Nadal knew that and this is why he was forced into errors.

This is correct from Tenez; in all those matches Nadal has looked shattered towards the end.

It does appear that despite all the criticism, Tenez was on the money about the modern game becoming a physical battle. Sure, you have to have shots to start with, but it's a shame. Certainly we won't be blessed with another John McEnroe until this changes. Everyone talks about what good players we have at #1 and #2, but we don't know about what we're bing denied - McEnroe Mk II might be out there now either stuck outside the top 100 or perhaps playing another sport.

bogbrush wrote:This is correct from Tenez; in all those matches Nadal has looked shattered towards the end.

It does appear that despite all the criticism, Tenez was on the money about the modern game becoming a physical battle. Sure, you have to have shots to start with, but it's a shame. Certainly we won't be blessed with another John McEnroe until this changes. Everyone talks about what good players we have at #1 and #2, but we don't know about what we're bing denied - McEnroe Mk II might be out there now either stuck outside the top 100 or perhaps playing another sport.

McEnroe MKII's name is Federer and is currently number3 in the world!

If you watch Federer returning Karlo's serve live at Wimbledon, you see that in terms of reflexes/eye/hand coordination there is no equal past and present, imo.

Yes, I guess so, but at least we didn't miss out on him. With Mk III we may not be so lucky.