Rafael Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic: The time is now for Rafa to reverse the trend
TT
trend
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
When 2011 dawned nine months ago, not a single soul predicted that
Rafael Nadal would become Novak Djokovic's lapdog. After all, Rafa had
won three straight major titles, the last by beating Djokovic in the final.
Of course, now we can all see that the turnaround was inevitable.
Empowered physically and mentally by a new diet, a Davis Cup title and a
better serve, the streamlined Novak no longer had a soft spot -- i.e.,
Roger Federer's backhand, Andy Murray's brain -- to brutalize. As a
result, Nadal suddenly understood what it felt like to play against
himself. And he didn't like it.
This harsh reality has been harder for Nadal to accept than one would
have expected. He's come right out and said that figuring out how to
turn the tables on Djokovic is such a big job that it can't possibly
happen before next season. Federer, with his bird's eye perspective on
the game, recently hit on why that is: Rafa's never been dominated
before. "I don't think it's rattling him badly," he said, diplomatic as
ever, of Djokovic's five straight wins over Nadal. "But it should have
some effect on him, because he doesn't have losing streaks against many
players, or hasn't had, because he was such a good teenager, really."
That's a key point. Nadal was so good at such a young age that he
skipped over an important step in development. The natural order of
things is for a player, no matter how talented, to get beaten like an
old rug early in his ATP career. Back in his pony-tail days, Federer
regularly got pounded by Andre Agassi and even Lleyton Hewitt, before
his 2003 breakthrough. But the same didn't happen to Nadal. He was a
true prodigy, a phenomenon. In addition to his freakish teenage physique
and skills, injuries kept him off the circuit early on. So when he made
his very first appearance at Roland Garros, he won the thing. He even
won his first-ever match against Federer, then the new number-one player
in the world. And it was on a hard court.
This led to the Rafa Mythos, which Nadal bought into with equal or
greater fervor than even his opponents. "I think I have the capacity to
accept difficulties and overcome them that is superior to many of my
rivals," he says in his new book.
That certainly has been true. Now it's more true of Djokovic than it is
of Nadal.
The Spaniard's tail-between-the-legs response to Djokovic's rise has
been a bit of a shock. Rafa has never been one to swagger -- that's
always been an important aspect of his appeal. He's a pleasant, genuine
guy. The idealized Nice Young Man. He brings boyish enthusiasm, not
marking-my-territory arrogance, to the court. But there is a flip side
to that humility: Abject acceptance of the Way of Things, whatever it
might be. There will be no Connorsesque, "I'll chase that S.O.B. to the
ends of the earth" bluster from him. He's number two again? OK, Rafa
doesn't like it, but he accepts it.
To change this new, unpleasant reality, he needs to go away for a while,
soak in the hot tub, gather his brain trust -- and work, work, work.
At least he thinks he does. He actually doesn't. And maybe
Soreshouldergate will convince him that the time to strike isn't 2012
but right now, in New York. Djokovic retired in the Cincy final against
Murray, kicking up speculation that he's seriously hurt, that he's
burned out. That he won't be ready for the U.S. Open next week. He'll be
fit and ready, make no mistake. But the Djoker is a mental block for
Nadal, not a physical one. Rafa just needs to believe the Serbian will
be 99% instead of 100%.
Yes, Djokovic can beat anyone at any time. That includes Federer and
Nadal and the ghosts of Budge and Laver. He's that good. But the same is
still true of Rafa. He's the defending U.S. Open champion, let's
remember. And it's not like Djokovic has been blowing Nadal off the
court this season. Their matches have been close, and Rafa just needs
that little extra oomph to get over the hump. I never thought I'd be
saying this, but he just needs to believe in himself.
felangey
:)
RzR
"TT" <as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
news:hL75q.70715$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
> Rafael Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic: The time is now for Rafa to reverse the
> trend
>
yeah that shit aint happening unless novak gets sick
RzR
"felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote in message
news:j332ec$6g6$1...@dont-email.me...
> >he just needs to believe in himself<
>
> :)
pure comedy
TT
But the claim is correct.
Nadal played much better than Djokovic at Wimbledon, apart from the
final. Not only according to my opinion but statistics as well.
He just needs to believe in himself...and in his serve which imo has
been the biggest problem through whole season.
uly...@mscomm.com
final."
So what? Federer played much better than Nadal throughout the '09 AO
except in the final.
BFD.
The final is all that matters in tennis history, not "playing better
before the final."
felangey
> Not only according to my opinion but statistics as well.<
Regardless if whether you think Nadal looked good at Wimbledon earlier
rounds or not....it is of no consequence. Winning slams is about pacing
yourself and bringing your best tennis for the biggest matches.
>He just needs to believe in himself...and in his serve which imo has been
>the biggest problem through whole season<
No doubt he will be aided by the serving he mustered last US Open....will it
be enough? I dunno. For all Nadal played perhaps his best US Open match in
the final last year....Djoke was the one who was then tentative....now he
believes to the n'th degree....I think Nadal should hope he isn't there in
the final, should he himself get there.
RzR
if only fed believed in himself while playing nadal...
we wouldnt even be talking about nadal on this ng
TT
Fine but that's in no way related to what I said. The topic was that
it's a mental barrier for Nadal. Pay attention to context next time.
TT
>> Nadal played much better than Djokovic at Wimbledon, apart from the final.
>> Not only according to my opinion but statistics as well.<
>
> Regardless if whether you think Nadal looked good at Wimbledon earlier
> rounds or not....it is of no consequence. Winning slams is about pacing
> yourself and bringing your best tennis for the biggest matches.
>
Yup, and Nadal did that before the final.
>> He just needs to believe in himself...and in his serve which imo has been
>> the biggest problem through whole season<
>
> No doubt he will be aided by the serving he mustered last US Open....will it
> be enough? I dunno. For all Nadal played perhaps his best US Open match in
> the final last year....Djoke was the one who was then tentative....now he
> believes to the n'th degree....I think Nadal should hope he isn't there in
> the final, should he himself get there.
>
>
Djoke played his best tennis.
felangey
>> rounds or not....it is of no consequence. Winning slams is about pacing
>> yourself and bringing your best tennis for the biggest matches.
>
> Yup, and Nadal did that before the final.
That is oxymoronic.
>Djoke played his best tennis
Yeah, so he did. Last years final was not smart tennis from Djoke...it was a
dumb slugfest. He is a lot better since then.
RzR
mental barrier? nadal? LOL
RzR
"felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote in message
djokers best is way better than nadals boring best, and thus 5:0 as i
predicted
Sakari Lund
>Rafael Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic: The time is now for Rafa to reverse the
>trend
The time would be now, but not going to happen.
>Tuesday, August 23, 2011
>
>By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
>
>When 2011 dawned nine months ago, not a single soul predicted that
>Rafael Nadal would become Novak Djokovic's lapdog.
Good opening sentence (my working side notes).
>After all, Rafa had
>won three straight major titles, the last by beating Djokovic in the final.
>
>Of course, now we can all see that the turnaround was inevitable.
>Empowered physically and mentally by a new diet, a Davis Cup title and a
>better serve, the streamlined Novak no longer had a soft spot -- i.e.,
>Roger Federer's backhand, Andy Murray's brain -- to brutalize. As a
>result, Nadal suddenly understood what it felt like to play against
>himself. And he didn't like it.
>
>This harsh reality has been harder for Nadal to accept than one would
>have expected. He's come right out and said that figuring out how to
>turn the tables on Djokovic is such a big job that it can't possibly
>happen before next season. Federer, with his bird's eye perspective on
>the game, recently hit on why that is: Rafa's never been dominated
>before. "I don't think it's rattling him badly," he said, diplomatic as
>ever,
Note the "diplomatic as ever" :-)
>of Djokovic's five straight wins over Nadal. "But it should have
>some effect on him, because he doesn't have losing streaks against many
>players, or hasn't had, because he was such a good teenager, really."
Good point from Federer.
bob
yes, self serving as always. explains whey a kid nadal gave fed such
trouble.
bob
Sakari Lund
Djokovic played some great tennis, as he has done a lot over the
years. But he made enough errors on big points and wasn't mentally
strong enough, as was the case usually until last December. He has
played much better complete matches this year.
Superdave
Fed also played far better in most of the tournaments in which he lost to Rafa
apart from the final but so what. You only have to play well enough to win.
indeed you should only play well enough to win. Djock seems to know how to do
that, Rafa doesn't.
Superdave
sure 5x in a row on 3 different surfaces. rafa meanwhile, couldn't be arsed
right?
Superdave
no doubt about it.
Superdave
Fed has ONE weakness and it is the shoulder high bouncing ball loaded with top
that is Rafa. That and that alone is why Rafa beats Fed. Nobody else plays like
that but Rafa and Fed beats all the rest while Rafa loses to them often. Nothing
to do with belief at all.
bob
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:06:48 +0200, "RzR" <2r4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"TT" <as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
>>news:OE95q.70756$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>> 24.8.2011 18:54, RzR kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:j332ec$6g6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> >he just needs to believe in himself<
>>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> pure comedy
>>>
>>> But the claim is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nadal played much better than Djokovic at Wimbledon, apart from the final.
>>> Not only according to my opinion but statistics as well.
>>>
>>> He just needs to believe in himself...and in his serve which imo has been
>>> the biggest problem through whole season.
>>
>>if only fed believed in himself while playing nadal...
>>
>>we wouldnt even be talking about nadal on this ng
>
>Fed has ONE weakness and it is the shoulder high bouncing ball loaded with top
>that is Rafa.
ony to the BH side too.
> That and that alone is why Rafa beats Fed. Nobody else plays like
>that but Rafa and Fed beats all the rest while Rafa loses to them often. Nothing
>to do with belief at all.
which is why i never figured out why fed lets rafa dictate every match
as a rafa FH to fed BH match. sampras wouldn't allow that. fed should
do ANY THING humanly possible to not allow the FH to BH rallies to
perpetuate.
bob
Superdave
of course Fed is aware of that but it must be not so easy to avoid or he would
no?
felangey
Technically, that's a *woulda* and so "means fuck all". Sorry to pass this
on.
Alas I get a bit confused considering the things Sampras chap did actually
allow....he seems flawless at retrospective nostalgic tennis.
drew
> He just needs to believe in himself...and in his serve which imo has
> been the biggest problem through whole season.
That's a big ask because Nadal knows that IF Djokovic plays his best
tennis when
the two meet...on any surface...there's a good chance that Nadal will
lose.
Up until now Nadal has been able to grind out wins...work a little
harder, stay positive
longer, fight, fight, fight until the finish and then the odds are in
his favour.
What happens when you do all of this and still lose?
I don't say that Nadal can't beat Djokovic...even the new and improved
Djokovic. But it's going
to take a little bit of good fortune...maybe an off day from
Djokovic...maybe a particularly good
day from Nadal, maybe somebody inspired to take Djokovic out for
him. These are not variables
that Nadal can control.
And Nadal is all about CONTROL. From the time taken between points,
to the between point rituals and
the little bottles lined up courtside. This is a guy who has built a
career around the assumption that if he does
as he always has done....he'll win.
That's just not necessarily true anymore. And that's a tough one to
deal with psychologically.
Superdave
I'll say it. Nadal can't beat Djokovic anymore and never will. Nole has his
number tattoed on his chest.
bob
no, he was beaten playing his game sometimes. sometimes he didn't play
it as well as usual. but always his game - not the other guys game.
bob
bob
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
sure - but then it comes to a pt where you go out on a limb and try
something different. which he's never done.
bob
John Liang
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:11:35 +0800, Superdave
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
DID Sampras play anyone that could generate as much top spin as Nadal
during his career ?
The players that beat Sampras on clay did use this very tactic to
extract errors from Sampras
backhand. I guess it is time for you to look at some of the video of
Sampras' match in FO
and just to have an understanding on how Sampras actually lost those
matches.
Shakes
+1. Fed should've never played the matches on Nadal's terms. That, IMO,
is the main reason Nadal won their 2008 WIm F and 2009 AO F. Of course,
clay is another story. But Fed plays Nadal the same every where.
Shakes
Correct. Though, like I said, some times it backfired on Sampras - like
losses to big guys on fire. Sampras, IMO, tried to be too "macho". But
against a guy like Nadal, that's the way to play. If you let a guy like
Nadal dictate the play into his patterns, you are begging for a loss.
MBDunc
Fed played very good at Wimb 08 final. Too bad for Fed but Nadal
played probably his best grass matchl.
AO 09 Fed had a proper strategy and played great but his serving was
way off from his usual standards (1st serve percentage 51% and only 11
aces in 5 sets - both stats are very low for Fed).
.mikko
bob
yes, never let an OCD guy get into his preferred patterns. :-)
bob
bob
no. nadal probably generates more on the FH than anyone in history,
maybe berasatagui generated as much. but there were lots of heavy
topspinners in clay specific 90s. problem was none of them were great
off clay.
>The players that beat Sampras on clay did use this very tactic to
>extract errors from Sampras backhand.
actually it was the clay itself that took away much of any aggressor's
game (incl sampras), and in the 90s there were lots of defensive clay
specialists. nadal is one of the only offensive clay superstars ever.
note how many of those clay specialists beat sampras at USO/Wim? note
my posts always refer to sampras on fast courts (USO/Wim). that is
where he would beat nadal, not FO.
why do you never comprehend what is written john?
bob
TT
Maybe he was tired from watching Nadal's endless semifinal in tv?
ocea naut
etc At the end of 2010 he thought his biggest rival at the slams in
2011 would be 30 year old Fed so he rest on his laurels and let his
fitness, BH, serve, ROS decline. He wasn't arsed to improve at all.
"I'm #1 so why try harder". When you fail to improve in tennis
other(s) overtake you. You can tell he's not been training like he
used too. Not spending as many hours at the gym. His stamina has gone
down. He loves to eat junk food like quelys, nutella and chocolate
chip cookies. Meanwhile Nole hungry and desperate to stop being the
djoke of tennis has been training and improving like never before. No
more gluten or junk food for him. He's a lean tennis machine. And this
is why Nole has won 9 titles this year while Nadal has just won 3 and
all on clay.
Court_1
But the fact that he is busy doing Armani ads, etc. should not be a
reason for him to decline in his play. Federer was out doing tons of
ads in his prime and that did not stop him from being hungry and
winning titles.
It is more than Nadal doing ads, which is part of the business of
being a top tennis player. It seems that Nadal is perhaps burnt out a
little mentally. He has a lot of mileage because he was a young tennis
prodigy who started to win big at a very young age. That, plus his
style of tennis takes its toll. It is hard work physically and
mentally to continue to be a top champion. Maybe Nadal is not willing
to sacrifice everything at this point in time in order to be number
one or maybe it is a temporary blip. He certainly does not sound like
he is prepared at all to defeat Djokovic at this time. He has said in
interviews he needs more time to be able to come up with a plan to
defeat Djokovic. Does not sound like a player who is confident to me
or willing to sacrifice everything else to concentrate solely on
beating Djokovic.
Shakes
> On 26 elo, 03:47, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-25 06:01:06 -0700, bob said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:11:35 +0800, Superdave
>>> <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Fed has ONE weakness and it is the shoulder high bouncing ball loaded with top
>>>> that is Rafa.
>>
>>> ony to the BH side too.
>>
>>>> That and that alone is why Rafa beats Fed. Nobody else plays like
>>>> that but Rafa and Fed beats all the rest while Rafa loses to them
>>>> often. Nothing
>>>> to do with belief at all.
>>
>>> which is why i never figured out why fed lets rafa dictate every match
>>> as a rafa FH to fed BH match. sampras wouldn't allow that. fed should
>>> do ANY THING humanly possible to not allow the FH to BH rallies to
>>> perpetuate.
>>
>>> bob
>>
>> +1. Fed should've never played the matches on Nadal's terms. That, IMO,
>> is the main reason Nadal won their 2008 WIm F and 2009 AO F. Of course,
>> clay is another story. But Fed plays Nadal the same every where.-
>
> Fed played very good at Wimb 08 final. Too bad for Fed but Nadal
> played probably his best grass matchl.
Yes, Fed played very good considering that he played Nadal's game.
Which is, rallying endlessly from the backcourt. IMO, he should've
changed things up. S/V a little, chip-charge a little, stay back a
little. Anything to disrupt Nadal's rhythm or patterns.
Like I said, Fed played very well but it was still Nadal's game that he played.
>
> AO 09 Fed had a proper strategy and played great but his serving was
> way off from his usual standards (1st serve percentage 51% and only 11
> aces in 5 sets - both stats are very low for Fed).
>
> .mikko
The truth is, like Nadal against Djok today, Fed had confidence issues
against Nadal. That's why he made some errors during crucial points.
bob
holy crap, i think i might agree. i better reread this...
bob
bob
OT, i have a good friend who used to work in the gym where buster
douglas trained before he fought (then undefeated) tyson. he said that
douglas was drilled about tyson being a 'rhythm fighter', and that if
allowed to get into 'his rhythm', will knock out everyone quickly.
the plan was 1 thing: do not allow tyson into his rhythm. so douglas
followed a training technique of always giving tyson a 'little shove'
(not a punch, just a shove, a push) every time tyson started to weave
and bob and find his 'rhythm.' douglas wasn't used to 'giving a little
shove' all the time, but he was drilled to do it and executed it. and
knocked tyson out cold, shocked everyone.
this should have been (too late probably now) a lesson for fed.
whether it plays to your own strength or not, if it disrupts your
superior opponent, do it at all costs.
>Like I said, Fed played very well but it was still Nadal's game that he played.
>
>>
>> AO 09 Fed had a proper strategy and played great but his serving was
>> way off from his usual standards (1st serve percentage 51% and only 11
>> aces in 5 sets - both stats are very low for Fed).
>>
>> .mikko
>
>The truth is, like Nadal against Djok today, Fed had confidence issues
>against Nadal. That's why he made some errors during crucial points.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
your friend is full of shit about Douglas-Tyson... Tyson's style was
in fact antithetical to being a rhythm fighter/puncher... Tyson was an
asymetircal cluster puncher/power hitter... Douglas-Tyson was about
how BD maintained distances and body geometry, how he allowed Tyson to
collapse the distance between them when he was punching and not Tyson
and then held Tyson at distance for the punishing jab-right or jab
hook combos, etc... too long to get into here...
P
felangey
Quite. Seems that may be a common theme for old Bob! :)
Court_1
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't know you could read. That is a big step forward for you! ;)
Pelle Svanslös
>
> AO 09 Fed had a proper strategy and played great but his serving was
> way off from his usual standards (1st serve percentage 51% and only 11
> aces in 5 sets - both stats are very low for Fed).
So? There's good serving days and there's bad serving days.
bob
there's a lot you don't realize!
bob
bob
dunno, my friend was a boxer and worked the ohio gym where buster
trained. he told me this story many times.
>Tyson's style was in fact antithetical to being a rhythm fighter/puncher... Tyson was an
>asymetircal cluster puncher/power hitter...
> Douglas-Tyson was about
>how BD maintained distances and body geometry,
agreee - but how was he able to maintain those distances? keeping
tyson off balance and out of rhythm.
> how he allowed Tyson to
>collapse the distance between them when he was punching and not Tyson
>and then held Tyson at distance for the punishing jab-right or jab
>hook combos, etc... too long to get into here...
bob
Patrick Kehoe
The fight wasn't about 'rhythms' as much as an absolute masterful
stamping authority of the offensive case jab (Douglas's best asset)
marshalled upon a fluency of accurate/punitive combination hitting
which set parameters and positions that Tyson's spastic, bursting
power volleys could not collapse... Douglas fashioned a small skipping
movement (backward) just as Tyson tried to rush/assert his punching
prowess (which was replicated by Holyfield in their 1996 classic) like
a positional reset and Tyson LITERALLY fell into the puching
slipstream of Douglas OVER AND OVER and THAT mentally broke Tyson
down... the fight was ring geometry as territorial imperative...
Holyfield even more effectively destroyed Tyson MENTALLY... that's the
short handed analysis... I wrote about it many, many moons ago...
P
bob
<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
i'm going to forward this to the guy, see what he says.
bob