Miscellaneous Thread Part II

Guys like Murray just tend to stick to a baseline game, force them to one side with repetitive powerful shots then hit it to the other side with power.

Murray has got a good net game but I think its a lot like a boxer with the jab, if you can get the set up shot right you just look one dimensional, and you'll just get nailed coming in behind something weak. If anything Murray's lack of power was a story for a long time in his career.

Original post by jam277

Wonder how much adaptation there is required between grass and clay, and which one is more tiring for a player?

Depends on the match, but because of the nature of clay few people could successfully operate a serve and volley game, which shortens the points. The surface tends to be slower, especially after its been watered, so unless you're coming behind a very good approach you'll just get picked off at the net. That means most clay games are decided by baseline rallies. It can be demanding because of the lack of speed, its more about angles and spin than a hardcourt baseline match. Also, climate, Clay season occurs in Europe/ where other than Halle, (now Stuttgart) grass season is UK for the top players.

Guess the ball will bounce slightly differently and you can get better grip when running on clay but no idea why you can't adapt your game to that?

Bounce is opposite ends of the spectrum. Grass when packed like the later rounds of Wimbledon will bounce almost as fast as a hard court, but you then have the issues that things like dropshots will kick more due the spin and its not a uniform surface which means you can get defected/altered bounces. Clay again has a slower bounce as the surface is less packed, but also get the issues with it being a non uniform surface. On both surfaces you'll also get issues with feet. You will often see players sliding on clay in a way you don't on a hardcourt.

Can anybody clarify why clay is so tough for certain players and vice versa?

Rodgers used a standard eastern grip where Rafa uses a Semi western, Rodgers single handed backhand and Rafa double. Those two thing means Rafa is better equipped for clay and Rodgers for grass. Semi western is easier to hit at higher ball heights and Eastern at low to med, same for the single and double. Its very difficult to hit a single handed back hand once the ball gets above shoulder height, less so with a double. Due to the speed of the court, you need to generate your own power to keep depth, you can't just counter punch like Murray did earlier in his career. Big talking point of Rodger-Rafe on clay is forehand to backhand. Rodger's backhand which on most courts is probably one of the best in the game (second best to look at imo) is a liability on clay. Its for the most part harmless, he can rally from it but unless you make a mistake he can't attack. Nadal's strength is the forehand, the semi western plus the court bounce means, that shot on that court, has the highest rpm on tour, and a huge bounce as a result. On grass however, Fed's backhand is a weapon, and Rafa's is more a problem. Rafa has to adjust his grip for the net game and has to flatten out his shots for more power and less spin. Serve and volley although going out fashion still is most effective on grass, and generally requires the most complete game.

You tend to get clay court specialists and top players often find clay to be their weakest surface. Its the most specialised game, where the clay courts often struggle on another surface, hard for Nadal and Borg but dominate on clay.

Reply 7122

Original post by Fizzel

Which would still take him to 4th on the open Era list with 4 titles. Not to mention that would put him above Sampras and equal Federer (by deduction, although I think it could change Sun) on the all time Slam list.

Nadal has 14... 14+1 (or +2) is less than 17. Is there something I'm missing here?

The big talking point on the rivalry which is generally considered the greatest of all time will be the head to head, as above. Rafa beat Fed at the peak of his powers in one of the all time great matches, defining point in Rafa's grass legacy. Federer on the other hand only won the French in the year Nadal was eliminated unusually early, and will always be mentioned with Fed's career Slam. Nadal leads their h2d 23-10, and 9-2 in GS, those aren't close numbers so I don't think the case for Rafa not being as good as Fed can be made, its outside their matches which has decided the slam tilt.

If anything, Federer is punished for his consistency. Nadal hasn't been reaching finals when not at his peak on his unfavoured surfaces - whereas Federer has consistently been making those finals despite not being at his peak. Fed played his first slams at 18, in 1999. Realistically, he should have been on the decline in 2009, and peaked in the years before. Indeed most people think he peaked in 06 or 07. Since 07, past his peak, he's lost at least 5 grand slam matches to Nadal, probably 6, on his unfavoured surfaces. Whereas Nadal has been too busy getting knocked out of Wimbledon by players not in the top 100 to even give Federer a match at Wimbledon. The 9-2 record is only existent because Federer was good and consistent enough to make finals and semis far past his peak - Nadal has never been able to do that. That doesn't completely negate his mastery over Fed, but goes some way to explaining it.

Tennis, like boxing, is a sport of styles. Nadal wins the battle against Fed, but loses the war. Even if he wins their rivalry it doesn't mean he's the greater player, which he isn't.

Federer's consistency and longevity, probably heavily as a result of his classy and graceful style of player will be what separates the two players, same as Woods-Nicklaus, talent will not be considered the deciding factor. Fed's semi final streak is testament to his consistency both physically and mentally. We'll see with Nadal, if he can come back and win another couple, people will talk about his resilience. He's knees haven't been as much of an issue, although you'd question whether he can play at the intensity needed for top, without them becoming an issue.

Comparing Federer to Nicklaus is ridiculous when Federer has won 18 slams over a 9 year period (17 in 7) and Nadal has won all his 14 over 9 years too.

Federer just had the skills on all surfaces. Athleticism has been the driving factor in Nadal's wins outside clay against opponents that weren't at their peaks.

Reply 7123

Original post by Pimped Butterfly

Nadal has 14... 14+1 (or +2) is less than 17. Is there something I'm missing here?

I wrote by deduction, you can't both win the same as, with the French. 14+2 goes with 17-2. Same thing I said for the French.

If anything, Federer is punished for his consistency. Nadal hasn't been reaching finals when not at his peak on his unfavoured surfaces - whereas Federer has consistently been making those finals despite not being at his peak. Fed played his first slams at 18, in 1999. Realistically, he should have been on the decline in 2009, and peaked in the years before. Indeed most people think he peaked in 06 or 07. Since 07, past his peak, he's lost at least 5 grand slam matches to Nadal, probably 6, on his unfavoured surfaces. Whereas Nadal has been too busy getting knocked out of Wimbledon by players not in the top 100 to even give Federer a match at Wimbledon. The 9-2 record is only existent because Federer was good and consistent enough to make finals and semis far past his peak - Nadal has never been able to do that. That doesn't completely negate his mastery over Fed, but goes some way to explaining it.

I think your fanboyism is coming out here. You cannot say a 28 year old Fed is past his peak physically, mid to late 20's in peak for tennis players, he's fully competitive through to around 2010, all finals reached or won. Nadal equally is past his peak physically he's 29 he's been in this recessed period since about 27 he won two slams in 13. Peak years is only a excuse past 30. 2008 Fed wasn't past his peak, he just got beaten.

Tennis, like boxing, is a sport of styles. Nadal wins the battle against Fed, but loses the war. Even if he wins their rivalry it doesn't mean he's the greater player, which he isn't.

I never claimed he was, it you doing that, as said fan boyism coming through again, I'm simply stating even if Fed is the goat, his biggest rival had his number, that will be mentioned as a counter point to more titles.

Comparing Federer to Nicklaus is ridiculous when Federer has won 18 slams over a 9 year period (17 in 7) and Nadal has won all his 14 over 9 years too.

Its not about density of win its the fact that surpassing the all time record seemed a formality until injuries hit. No doubt an injury free Nadal would overhaul Fed's record. Nadal like Wood's his peak year have been ravaged by injury. Its a talking point not a point scorer though, fitness and longevity are part of the game as much as athleticism.

Federer just had the skills on all surfaces. Athleticism has been the driving factor in Nadal's wins outside clay against opponents that weren't at their peaks.

I think this again is just fanboyism. Federer is certainly the more complete player but Nadal against players who weren't at their peaks? Bull****, he's had peak Fed/Djok in his years. Notice there is no mention of the 6 slams Fed won early in his career against relative nobodies of tennis, and one against a mid 30's Agassi. Not going to bring that up? Its a one way argument you are making. If you can bring Nadal down for facing a 28 year old Federer, what does beating Marat Safin do?

I can't really be bother to continue this. My OP was a appreciation of both players, mainly as a comparison to other greats, yours are just Federer fanboyism.

Reply 7124

Original post by Fizzel

I can't really be bother to continue this. My OP was a appreciation of both players, mainly as a comparison to other greats, yours are just Federer fanboyism.

You're under no obligation pal

Reply 7125

Original post by Pimped Butterfly

You're under no obligation pal

Irrational fan boy status fully confirmed.

Reply 7126

Original post by Fizzel

Irrational fan boy status fully confirmed.

All too easy to pull out the fanboy card when someone has a differing opinion and your subtle attempt to equate Rafa to Fed failed. Didn't expect this immaturity from you

Reply 7127

Original post by Pimped Butterfly

All too easy to pull out the fanboy card when someone has a differing opinion and your subtle attempt to equate Rafa to Fed failed. Didn't expect this immaturity from you

You are a fanboy I've made multiple criticism of both players, you've not made a single one of Fed, and pretty desperate ones of Rafa's record. If you'd applied arguments both ways I wouldn't have said it but a one way street is always a clear sign.

I never equated them, Rafa's is not a contender for goat even if he did overhaul Fed (you haven't included the main reason for that which is his lack of a record at Aus, US, key ATP tour or Miami). If you want to attack Rafa his hardcourt record and game in general is where you'd do it but for some reason you're obsessed with Wimbledon/French (because it allows fanboy duopoly most likely) No subtle attempt, just a paranoid fanboy reaction to any perceived comparison, if anything my initial post is a criticism of Sampras who I've made no attempt to disguise how over rated I think his claim to goat was, no subtly going on there.

The only immaturity here is from you, which as from your response to my post has been proven to be rubbish and full of double standards, which is standard for a fanboy. A discussion of why Fed is the goat doesn't required Nadal to be mentioned (goat on 2/3 surfaces, most tour finals, most number of weeks at number 1, and highest GS record, done.)

Reply 7128

Rk2k14

Federer is the greatest player of all time.
Rafa is certainly one of.
End.

Reply 7129

difeo

18

Original post by Rk2k14

Federer is the greatest player of all time.
Rafa is certainly one of.
End.

thx for clearing that up

Reply 7130

Original post by Fizzel

You are a fanboy I've made multiple criticism of both players, you've not made a single one of Fed

but I did

and pretty desperate ones of Rafa's record.

No, just factual in correcting your misleading statements

(you haven't included the main reason for that which is his lack of a record at Aus, US, key ATP tour or Miami)

Idk if the words 'outside clay' 'unfavoured surfaces' and 'outside of the French' mean anything to you.

If you want to attack Rafa his game in general is where you'd do it

as I did

if anything my initial post is a criticism of Sampras who I've made no attempt to disguise how over rated I think his claim to goat was, no subtly going on there.

Not even in the discussion, and I never disagreed.

A discussion of why Fed is the goat doesn't required Nadal to be mentioned

Double standards everywhere, Fizz old boy, and not from me.

'The big talking point on the rivalry which is generally considered the greatest of all time will be the head to head, as above.'
'Either way, either of their careers will be defined by the other'

Reply 7131

Rk2k14

Finally caught up to Game of Thrones.
What did you guys think of the season finale?

Can't wait to see Jon and Daenerys find out.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7132

Original post by Pimped Butterfly

but I did

Quote it then, instead of a unsubstantiated reverse statement. Before you do it don't point to the h2h, that's not a criticism that's a statistic of fact presented by me, not by you. I want a criticism you've made without prompt.

No, just factual in correcting your misleading statements

No you didn't because I responded and you dropped the point. You didn't respond because you were wrong. You stated Rafa's wouldn't be much improved, 4th all time, then stated Fed's would 3rd all time. That is a double standard, different standards are being applied to same thing.

Idk if the words 'outside clay' 'unfavoured surfaces' and 'outside of the French' mean anything to you.

Don't try to mis construe your point. Your point was not a point about lack of trophies, you didn't mention any of them by name. You made a vague, and unsubstantiated, claim about poor standard of opponents. You then didn't expand on it, and ignored my counter about Fed' quality of opponents (some expansion of the class levels of his finals opponents would be good here). Attempted to make a laughable claim about Fed being past it in 2008 which again you ignored. The tragic thing, and again heavy fanboyism, is that you aren't even making that point to excuse Fed's loss, its purely so you don't need to give Nadal any credit for a victory, which is irrelevant to Fed's legacy for all but the most sensitive fanboy.

as I did

In the typical athletics rather than skill and random steroid claim vein, which is tap in/HGH CR7/Messi levels of sad. No analysis of why style of play/ball strike contributes to his record on hard courts being so poor relative, and actual point about how it demonstrates his limitations as a player.

Not even in the discussion, and I never disagreed.

It was in the opening point of the discussion, so you can't claim it wasn't in the discussion. "They for me are far and away the two best in reality." You were happy to accept my point on Fed, but not Nadal, despite it being the same point.

Double standards everywhere, Fizz old boy, and not from me.

'The big talking point on the rivalry which is generally considered the greatest of all time will be the head to head, as above.'
'Either way, either of their careers will be defined by the other'

You need to research the definition of a double standard. The set of principles there is the same for both players, its a direct comparison, which was consistent from my opening point.

Original post by Rk2k14

Federer is the greatest player of all time.Rafa is certainly one of.End.

I'm more interested in SUG's mentality and perception of his own arguments at this point tbh. Trend of his debating style when talking about issues which he can't remain neutral on. If it were about that it would have been accepted 2 posts in.

Original post by Rk2k14

Finally caught up to Game of Thrones.
What did you guys think of the season finale?

Can't wait to see Jon and Daenerys find out.

Seem to be rumours about Jon, and the manner of the finale meaning there is more to come on that front.
For non finale viewers

Spoiler

Reply 7133

doobucks

OP

16

Original post by Fizzel

Murray has got a good net game but I think its a lot like a boxer with the jab, if you can get the set up shot right you just look one dimensional, and you'll just get nailed coming in behind something weak. If anything Murray's lack of power was a story for a long time in his career.

That may be the case but you see Federer's net game and he can mix up a baseline game with a perfect net game. Just from what I've been watching so far(I'm a casual observer of tennis) I been seeing Murray just staying in the baseline attempting a long rally game.

Depends on the match, but because of the nature of clay few people could successfully operate a serve and volley game, which shortens the points. The surface tends to be slower, especially after its been watered, so unless you're coming behind a very good approach you'll just get picked off at the net. That means most clay games are decided by baseline rallies. It can be demanding because of the lack of speed, its more about angles and spin than a hardcourt baseline match. Also, climate, Clay season occurs in Europe/ where other than Halle, (now Stuttgart) grass season is UK for the top players.

Ok that makes sense. I'd also hazard a guess that because it occurs in europe humidity factors in, which again will make the game slower? Was that what you meant by climate?

Bounce is opposite ends of the spectrum. Grass when packed like the later rounds of Wimbledon will bounce almost as fast as a hard court, but you then have the issues that things like dropshots will kick more due the spin and its not a uniform surface which means you can get defected/altered bounces. Clay again has a slower bounce as the surface is less packed, but also get the issues with it being a non uniform surface. On both surfaces you'll also get issues with feet. You will often see players sliding on clay in a way you don't on a hardcourt.

Good point. So what type of game do people successfully use on a hardcourt?

Serve and volley although going out fashion still is most effective on grass, and generally requires the most complete game.

Why is Serve and Volley going out of fashion?

You tend to get clay court specialists and top players often find clay to be their weakest surface. Its the most specialised game, where the clay courts often struggle on another surface, hard for Nadal and Borg but dominate on clay.

That's true, don't see Nadal dominating wimbledon. In that case Djokovic was capable of winning all the grand slams in one year, what's in his game that allows him to play well on so many different courts? Was it physical condition, or his adaptability that allowed that to happen.

Reply 7134

Original post by jam277

That may be the case but you see Federer's net game and he can mix up a baseline game with a perfect net game.

Fed's game is better obviously, I was just making the point about the difference between a player being X type and being made to look X type by an opponent.

Ok that makes sense. I'd also hazard a guess that because it occurs in europe humidity factors in, which again will make the game slower? Was that what you meant by climate?

Idk tbh, more just they are played in different locations, different time of year in terms of players tiring.

Good point. So what type of game do people successfully use on a hardcourt?

Good all-round game, varies too as not all hard courts are the same, often a big variation between players record in the US and Aus. Think you need a powerful game for the most part, big serve is definitely very helpful.

Why is Serve and Volley going out of fashion?

Mainly just tech advances, strings and such, mean its less effective than it was, and the back of the court is easier to hit from. Being able to generate more rpm's in topspin is a big one for passing shots.

That's true, don't see Nadal dominating wimbledon. In that case Djokovic was capable of winning all the grand slams in one year, what's in his game that allows him to play well on so many different courts? Was it physical condition, or his adaptability that allowed that to happen.

I think Djok just as a brilliant all round game, in many ways a more suited all round game than Federer. He's got a strong forehand, serve, net game, and the best back in tennis (imo). He's got a brilliant return of serve too. I think his turning point was 09/10 when he changed his diet and stepped up physically. He's a physical beast now, as showed Aus 12, he's capable of going toe to toe with Nadal for athleticism. Plus I suspect some of it was mental, he was a bit floppy earlier on, accusations of injuries being more mental than physical. Got a feeling Fed will do it today though, conditions are favourable and he's in better form on his favoured surface.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7135

Rk2k14