US open
rec.sport.tennis
(1) Djok will be still one of top contenders (notice that although he
won W, his overall level has slighly dropped as time moves with best
in AO)
(2) Fed is clear underdog vs both Djok and Nadal (perhaps against a
well rested Depo)
(3) Super saturday schedule has import bearing on current tennis
because it's more physical than past., and even the second match in
Saturday has some disadvantage.
Again unlike YEC that eliminates all lucky factors, who you meet in a
late stage of slams may be a key to success.
A no.1 factor here is which half Fed will stay because it means two
things: though an underdog, if he is in semi after two days resting
(needed for old men), he can make a big dent in either rafa or djok,
so depleting their tanks. Also the guy who play Fed may be placed as
the second semi so a further disadvantage (remember that in the last
year, the organiser didn't schedule no.1 rafa as the second semi as
they did in past when Fed was no.1? Or was it due to uncle Toni's
wallet, Dave?).
Delpo will be as dangerous as Fed for top two if he is in semi (the
lanky man needs two day resting as much as Fed though only 22 years
old).
After the above super saturday issue, Rafa will want to avoid Delpo
and Tsonga (if Tsonga can play to the level of the two matches vs Fed
and djok in this Wimbledon). On the flip side, Rafa will be probably
more sure vs this old Fed than djok due to match
up............................
TT
I disagree about Tsonga, he can be dangerous but he's not a bad matchup
against Nadal any more...and playing him is not very tiring, Tsonga
would be a good SF opponent for Nadal imo.
Murray, as always, can be very tiring and I consider him worse draw than
playing Fed.
Delpo, super dangerous with his booming strokes and big serve.
Completely different from Djokovic but he will always have his power and
be dangerous.
Delpo really really impressed me at Wimbledon, Rafa was playing pretty
much his absolute best attacking tennis and still won only 5 points more
total!
felangey
> playing Fed.<
Arf arf.
>Rafa was playing pretty much his absolute best attacking tennis<
That was it? In that case, man Nads is screwed if he plays Del P at the US
Open. Gotta hope for one of those "Youzhny draws".
TT
You're just a shit poster and bring nothing to discussion.
Nadal outhit Delpo with 61 winners and 16 UE. But Delpo gets lots of
easy points because of his serve.
SliceAndDice
DelPo is way better on hard courts than he is on grass. He is
definitely a geniune threat to Nadal once he finds his 2009 form. He
matches up well against him.
TT
That's what I was saying. Then this retard comes telling that Nadal's
play wasn't very special...it was, near perfect with tremendous hitting.
SliceAndDice
I just saw your first post. Yes, I agree with you. DelPo was super
this year. And he is only getting more dangerous. I would not be
surprised to see a Djoker-DelPo US Open final.
felangey
Nothing you like to hear, anyway.
> Nadal outhit Delpo with 61 winners and 16 UE. But Delpo gets lots of easy
> points because of his serve<
I never said it wasn't a decent performance from Nads. But if that his
"absolute best attacking tennis" then he is pretty much screwed.....against
Djoke anywhere.....against on-form Del P on HC. It was workmanlike at
best....against a guy not yet back to his best...and who is only now
beginning to get to grips on grass. No need to ham up a big 'Rafi
revenge'....
Superdave
wrote:
now that would be a cracker of a final. they might have to use new balls every
game!
Ocean
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:48:02 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com>
My gut feeling tells me Nole won't win the USO. Despite this being HIS
peak year he doesn't win more than 2 slams this year.
Superdave
Rafa certainly won't win it. Del Potro could run away with it. Djock will be the
favorite though with Fed a close second.
bob
<ocean....@yahoo.com> wrote:
dunno. i didn't pick him in hops to win Wimbledon, but said many times
past month he'll win Wim, USO or both. beating rafa won't be a
cakewalk though. rafa's not going to roll over.
bob
drew
> DelPo is way better on hard courts than he is on grass. He is
> definitely a geniune threat to Nadal once he finds his 2009 form.
He should be almost there in a couple of years. :0
Iceberg
agreed, Potro is highly dangerous esp if he improves after Wimbledon.
TT is right, was at that match, Nadal played incredible tennis and
only just got a few points more. Murray is also way more tiring than
Fed and Tsonga, simply because of the way he plays, remember Madrid.
Sakari Lund
<changj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I play this Open game based on three premises:
>(1) Djok will be still one of top contenders (notice that although he
>won W, his overall level has slighly dropped as time moves with best
>in AO)
I think he played his best maybe on the two clay finals against Nadal.
>(2) Fed is clear underdog vs both Djok and Nadal (perhaps against a
>well rested Depo)
But I still think Fed is less of an underdog against Djokovic than
Nadal is against Djokovic. Nadal just has no answer at the moment.
TennisGuy
> But I still think Fed is less of an underdog against Djokovic than
> Nadal is against Djokovic. Nadal just has no answer at the moment.
Yes but "I have two months to watch the videos and change things, no?" (Nadal)
:)
Sakari Lund
Nadal skips all the fishing trips this summer and spends the next two
months watching Djokovic videos...
rec.sport.tennis
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT), "rec.sport.tennis"
>
> >I play this Open game based on three premises:
> >(1) Djok will be still one of top contenders (notice that although he
> >won W, his overall level has slighly dropped as time moves with best
> >in AO)
>
> I think he played his best maybe on the two clay finals against Nadal.
>
> >(2) Fed is clear underdog vs both Djok and Nadal (perhaps against a
> >well rested Depo)
>
> But I still think Fed is less of an underdog against Djokovic than
> Nadal is against Djokovic. Nadal just has no answer at the moment.
Nadal will see Djokovic only in final, by then he will be less an
underdog then Fed is (should Fed be in final), because Fed should be
more worn (both physical and mental) after saturday semi at this age.
Assuming that both rest 2-3 days then playing Djok, maybe Fed has more
chance if he has an explosive day, but more often than before he could
lose intensity in middles of the match (he can't control that no
matter how hard he train and how much he does believe his form,
meaning lack of reliability).
Superdave
lamest fucking post of the year award.
felangey
Nadal will get sent out fishing while Toni tries to formulate a new
plan....and scours ebay for a bigger whip. ;)
Patrick Kehoe
There are 3 patterns of shots that Nole can 'induce'/produce that act like mouse traps and no matter what Rafa does he's trapped/strapped... 1) the flat neutral ball back to Rafa NOT EXATCLY DOWN THE CENTER but the one hit back to the same side of the court that Nole's on with pop, fairly flat, (it can be off the forehand or backhand) hit to Rafa's side about half way from center to sideline and deep, looks a harmless ball but it negates Rafa hitting a counter shot ANGLED return... and then Nole can CRUSH the return off of it (struck when he's on and feeling hot) OR just rip the top spinner to whatever side he wants higher up the court and Rafa is either left standing or forced TOTALLY out of the court for a miracle get and Nole knocks back the reply for easy winner...
2) the angled backhand crosscourt winner struck during 'chase' rallies with both players scrambling... Nole can hit it from a looper to the corner OR even a low skidder and WITH POWER and THAT'S the ball no one has consistantly been able to hit back for a winner against Nadal's forehand before...
3) The crosscourt power forehand off of a short Nadal reply, usuall off the backhand OR even an angled Nadal backhand hit with authority... getting that ball back with interest has cracked the Nadal template for running around an angled ball to crack the forehand and leave guys for dead... because Nole can dig out some of those with stretched forehand returns or bunted backhand replies down the line, Rafa is more cautious about giving up so much court to Nole's consistant returns AND THAT'S where Nole turns the dynamic because RAFA MUST run around and crack the forehand to dominate key points... it's just so much more difficult because of the returns from Nole...
P
rec.sport.tennis
>
> - Show quoted text -
Congratulations because you have been correct that Tennis needs
honesty (I am not ready to call rafa a cheater but stand by that the
rule must be enforced and extra time does have a bearing on the match
outcome). Please read the following link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/tennis/06/16/san.quentin.prison/index.html
Now more important than my lamest post is to make sure that uncle
Toni's wallet will not be a factor to schedule who will play the
second match on Super Saturday:)
Court_1
Nadal looked like a deer in the headlights against Nole. He has no
lethal weapons against Nole. Nole has all the answers thus far at
least. The match up appears to be worse than the Nadal/Fed one because
Fed has or had way more tools at his disposal than Nadal does.
jdeluise
On 6-Jul-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> Funny you mentioned that...
We love reading your posts, but please... please get a free account at
eternal-september.org or use the old Google interface. As it is right now
your replies break threading and long lines aren't being broken...
RaspingDrive
Federer better fortify his BH! Another Australian Open fiasco is
eminently possible.
Ocean
Whatever Rafa does, Nole can do better at everything now. Ouch.
undecided
Good analysis but there's one variable that is missing. From what I
saw in the Wimby Final, Nadal's FH did not produce anywhere near the
spin that it used to. Perhaps we are over analyzing this but it could
be something as simple as that. His ball doesn't have as much bite as
it used to. I mean, we have to take other evidence into account. For
example, Fed was demolished at the FO in the past but this time around
he made it really close. Is the reason the fact that Fed got a lot
better? Probably not since the rest of his results suggest he is
playing worse now than he used to. Then, the obvious answer has to be
that Nadal's game is not as imposing anymore. I wonder if it's a
physical ailment, a technique change or possibly even equipment. I
know I tried the stupid Babolat RPM blast strings and it made my
strokes a lot flatter and less powerful than my Luxilon strings. It's
possible that Rafa's equipment switch to this string may not have been
the best choice even though he said that the strings added to his
'spin' that may have been just giving credit to his sponsors.
Joe Ramirez
>
> Good analysis but there's one variable that is missing. From what I
> saw in the Wimby Final, Nadal's FH did not produce anywhere near the
> spin that it used to. Perhaps we are over analyzing this but it could
> be something as simple as that. His ball doesn't have as much bite as
> it used to. I mean, we have to take other evidence into account. For
> example, Fed was demolished at the FO in the past but this time around
> he made it really close. Is the reason the fact that Fed got a lot
> better?
The premise on which your argument is based is not accurate. Federer
was demolished once, in the 2008 FO final. The 2005 semi, the 2006
final, and the 2007 final all went to four sets. The closest of those
matches -- and closer than the 2011 final -- was the 2006 final, which
went to a fourth-set tiebreak. Federer played well for three sets in
2011, except for the usual fatal choke-lapses, but there's no real
evidence that he played "a lot better" than in most previous FO
matches against Nadal.
As for the degree of Nadal's forehand topspin, you have to take into
account factors such as (1) a change in balls at Roland Garros and (2)
Nadal's *intention* to flatten the shot somewhat at Wimbledon.
drew
Then, the obvious answer has to be
> that Nadal's game is not as imposing anymore.
It's clear to me that he has lost speed. He has changed his game to
favour shorter points and
less running so that whole mindset is probably making the long points
harder for him to win.
As Nadal has had so much success against almost all players for most
of his career, it would be
risky to change his game just for Djokovic.
But it is a problem when you have a winning formula and you execute it
pretty much the way you're supposed
to.....and then you still lose.
That's why I say his best strategy is to do nothing. Just hope that
Djokovic' form drops. Bad new is that even
if the other players can't be rubber-man Djokovic, they can watch
video. There's nothing like a bunch of wins on video
against Nadal by the same guy on 3 different surfaces to form the
basis of a "How to beat Nadal" video training session.
drew
> As for the degree of Nadal's forehand topspin, you have to take into
> account factors such as (1) a change in balls at Roland Garros and (2)
> Nadal's *intention* to flatten the shot somewhat at Wimbledon.
He's definitely worked on flattening out his groundstrokes for the
last couple of years.
I remember seeing him in Toronto practising. It took him quite a
while on hardcourt to
find his range and as one might imagine, a lot of balls were sailing
long. To his credit,
he managed to change his game and it has helped him to win on
hardcourt.
But there's only so much tweaking that can be done at this level. Now
he's got to deal
with the breakdown of the physical plant and that's going to be a
bigger factor than any
kind of improvements that can be brought into play in the next year.
topspin
> The premise on which your argument is based is not accurate. Federer
> was demolished once, in the 2008 FO final. The 2005 semi, the 2006
> final, and the 2007 final all went to four sets. The closest of those
> matches -- and closer than the 2011 final -- was the 2006 final, which
> went to a fourth-set tiebreak. Federer played well for three sets in
> 2011, except for the usual fatal choke-lapses, but there's no real
> evidence that he played "a lot better" than in most previous FO
> matches against Nadal.
I agree with a lot of this. I think it is as much about Nadal coming
off the boil as anything else going on. In fact until Djokovic went
completely walkabout in the third set I was very much comparing what I
was watching with the FO final of 2008. Nadal was not playing well at
all, as Federer was in 2008, and was being demolished. If Djokovic had
had the mental intensity and confidence of Nadal in 2008 (remember he
was a four time champion on his favourite surface, who had already
beaten Federer three times) I think it was headed for a three-set near
rout. It was an example of how fine the margins are at the top level
between competing and being steam rollered. In both 2008 and 2011 the
beaten player was off their best, enough to be hammered. Even in that
third set he didn't really play well, Djokovic virtually gifted it
with some really sloppy play.
Nadal has not been what he was in 2010 this year, though obviously
still a fantastic player.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would never have believed it even after seeing Djokovic defeat Nadal
at IW, MIami, Rome and Madrid, I still figured Nadal would have the
edge at Wimbledon since Djokovic's worst surface is grass and Djokovic
never defeated Nadal in a slam. After watching the Wimbledon final I
am convinced that Djokovic has all the answers for Nadal.
Joe Ramirez
> On Jul 7, 2:26 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > The premise on which your argument is based is not accurate. Federer
> > was demolished once, in the 2008 FO final. The 2005 semi, the 2006
> > final, and the 2007 final all went to four sets. The closest of those
> > matches -- and closer than the 2011 final -- was the 2006 final, which
> > went to a fourth-set tiebreak. Federer played well for three sets in
> > 2011, except for the usual fatal choke-lapses, but there's no real
> > evidence that he played "a lot better" than in most previous FO
> > matches against Nadal.
>
> I agree with a lot of this. I think it is as much about Nadal coming
> off the boil as anything else going on. In fact until Djokovic went
> completely walkabout in the third set I was very much comparing what I
> was watching with the FO final of 2008. Nadal was not playing well at
> all, as Federer was in 2008, and was being demolished. If Djokovic had
> had the mental intensity and confidence of Nadal in 2008 (remember he
> was a four time champion on his favourite surface, who had already
> beaten Federer three times) I think it was headed for a three-set near
> rout. It was an example of how fine the margins are at the top level
> between competing and being steam rollered. In both 2008 and 2011 the
> beaten player was off their best, enough to be hammered.
As someone who is highly skilled at, and highly dependent on,
patterned play, Nadal is particularly capable of delivering
demolitions, and of receiving them in turn, as we've seen on a few
occasions and perhaps will begin to see more often, especially when
the Djoker is involved. If Nadal has a small edge in his patterned
points, and his opponent isn't playing well enough to break out much
(e.g., Fed at 2008 FO), then virtually everything will go Nadal's way.
He'll pile up loads and loads of very similar points and make his
adversary look helpless. But if the slight edge in the repeated
patterns goes to his opponent -- e.g., Djokovic throughout 2011, Del
Potro at the 2008 USO, Fed on just a few occasions -- Nadal will be
the one to suffer. He's unlikely to improvise his way out of a beating.
TT
You won't win 81 matches in a row on clay without being great on
adjusting tactics.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why? What does winning 81 matches on clay have to do with adjusting
your game on other surfaces or for other players when they have your
number? Fed, who has the largest shotmaking range to choose from often
did not use this ability to defeat Nadal, so how will Nadal who is
less naturally talented with fewer shots to choose from defeat
Djokovic who is solid in every aspect of the game it seems.
Joe Ramirez
On the contrary, the best way to achieve mind-bogglingly consistent
results on a single surface over a relatively short period of time
(Nadal's streak lasted about two years, not 10 or 15) is an
indomitable sameness of approach. If it works -- and it certainly did
-- don't tamper with it. Vilas and Borg, who also had long clay
streaks, were exactly the same: find your best clay style and stick
with it resolutely, and your opponents will wilt. Play every match the
same way if you can; play every *point* the same way if you need to.
undecided
So, you are arguing my point then. He needs to change. His current
game is less effective than it used to be and people now know how to
beat him as long as they execute. Same things has happened to every
past champion. Eventually the crowd figures them out.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
so he obviously did not ajust his tactics on hc well enough to win
more than 2 HC
slam and fail to defend any. Winning 81 clay court matches means
little on HC.
CloudsRest
Nadal will get another chance in about six weeks. He'll be looking to
"salvage" his season.
TT
Of course Nadal needed to have extremely strong basic game, but that was
not the point here. The point is that he faced many different opponents
and playing styles during the stretch, on a surface where momentum
changes are most likely. Sometimes his forehand/backhand was working
better sometimes worse, sometimes his opponent was on fire, sometimes it
was very windy etc. He could not hold to one single pattern/plan, he had
to adjust to his opponent's play, conditions and his own play.
Nadal is great at figuring out matches, adapting.
RaspingDrive
Can't wait for the USO to observe how Nadal would respond to the
Djokovic challenge. Federer also would be smarting under his last
year's semi final loss. Djokovic would have to deal with two fired-up
GOAT level players.
felangey
Yeah, I noticed it all Wimbledon again....he goes to the corner speaks with
Toni....and then magically, all by himself, figures out which tactics to
change. So it goes. :\
I think you would have to admit though....on all surface, especially on
clay....Nadal's play is pretty much based on the same static ideas. However,
it has been a fantastically fruitful plan, implemented very well....until
now.
drew
> On Jul 7, 3:04 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:09 pm,undecided<cost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then, the obvious answer has to be
>
> > > that Nadal's game is not as imposing anymore.
>
> > It's clear to me that he has lost speed. He has changed his game to
> > favour shorter points and
> > less running so that whole mindset is probably making the long points
> > harder for him to win.
>
> > As Nadal has had so much success against almost all players for most
> > of his career, it would be
> > risky to change his game just for Djokovic.
>
> > But it is a problem when you have a winning formula and you execute it
> > pretty much the way you're supposed
> > to.....and then you still lose.
>
> > That's why I say his best strategy is to do nothing. Just hope that
> > Djokovic' form drops. Bad new is that even
> > if the other players can't be rubber-man Djokovic, they can watch
> > video. There's nothing like a bunch of wins on video
> > against Nadal by the same guy on 3 different surfaces to form the
> > basis of a "How to beat Nadal" video training session.
>
> So, you are arguing my point then. He needs to change.
I don't think there is much he can do to change now. He's already
made some
significant changes and at 25, you have to figure what you see is what
you get.
If he tries to change to deal with ONE opponent, he takes the chance
of changing
a formula that works almost all of the time. I think Federer probably
figured the same
way....why change a game that is effective against almost every other
player, except Nadal?
His current
> game is less effective than it used to be and people now know how to
> beat him as long as they execute. Same things has happened to every
> past champion. Eventually the crowd figures them out.- Hide quoted text -
drew
Nadal is a master of executing his game and keeping his head in the
present. He doesn't
get too high and he doesn't get too low. All of the tics and
preparation help to make him execute
like a machine.
There aren't too many guys who can significantly adjust during a match
and I'd say Nadal is less
likely than most to change his game during a match.
I think he's taken his game about as far as it can go. He's certainly
taken it further than I
thought he would and he's shown an eagerness to be an all surface
player in spite of his
natural clay game.
The only thing he can work on is improving his percentages and at this
stage of his career
I doubt that he's going to push them up very much.
Patrick Kehoe
The FO being so close this year, IN MY VIEW (only), I've already
written about... to me Team Federer are chipping away at the Rafa
ediface on 4 fronts and trying to melt down the Rafa advantage that he
produces in terms of overall effectiveness... Team Fed are doing the
following: 1) Hitting the 2nd Rafa serve much harder either down the
middle to Rafa's feet or when he puts out that 89mph one Fed bashes it/
or tries to 2) uses the down the line backhand earlier in games on the
return (mainly) to negate the Rafa forehand barrage 3) Suddenly Fed
(like Nole though not as well) is winning more and more 10+ rally
points due to taking the deep Rafa ball and either looping it back
(pulling a Rafa on Rafa) to a corner and then flatening out the net
ball OR hitting that neutral deep ball straight between center court
and the sideline, a parallel ball that Rafa cannot immediately hit
with big angled margin but has to PLACE while topspinning it and
that's drawing more errors than before and 4) Fed is pounding the Rafa
backhand to set up his killshot forehand off a midcourt reply... this
a balanced against being more aggressive on return games given that
Rafa is just beginning to struggle a touch holding his serve this
season...
P
Patrick Kehoe
> On Jul 6, 7:09 pm, undecided <cost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then, the obvious answer has to be
>
> > that Nadal's game is not as imposing anymore.
>
> It's clear to me that he has lost speed. He has changed his game to
> favour shorter points and
> less running so that whole mindset is probably making the long points
> harder for him to win.
Before speed covered him in terms of coverages, obviously AND secured
some speculative serving periods... BUT TO ME, now Rafa is having to
pull the tricker on his forehand mainly on balls he'd formally have
just placed back for better and better position... in shortening
points you have to hit slightly less optimal balls and that's how your
UE's tend to climb, it's not just him getting to his position
marginally slower, it's that he's unloading on balls he never did
before or not as often anyway...
> As Nadal has had so much success against almost all players for most
> of his career, it would be
> risky to change his game just for Djokovic.
And yet that might be a real talking point among his Team...
> But it is a problem when you have a winning formula and you execute it
> pretty much the way you're supposed to.....and then you still lose.
Yes... and on clay where you aren't just good or great but arguably
the BEST EVER... that had to dent his confidence those Madrid and Rome
finals... let alone Wimbledon...
> That's why I say his best strategy is to do nothing. Just hope that
> Djokovic' form drops. Bad new is that even
> if the other players can't be rubber-man Djokovic, they can watch
> video. There's nothing like a bunch of wins on video
> against Nadal by the same guy on 3 different surfaces to form the
> basis of a "How to beat Nadal" video training session.
The new ANTI-Nadal template is being forensically studied by all the
top coaches to be sure... just as Federer found himself and his game
under the proverbial microscope... that's one of the inevitabilities
of sport, isn't it Drew...
P
drew
I had a squash partner who told me that his girlfriend was going to
video
one of our matches.
I laughed. He was obviously just trying to deconstruct the match so
that
he could figure out how this old guy was consistently beating
him....and
when I called him on it, he said nothing but the look I got was,
"OK, I'm busted."