Tennis 2016

Nadal's game is essentially built to beat Federer. It is virtually impossible for Fed to beat Nadal, there was nothing he could really do to change that. On the other hand Djokovic's game is built very well to beat Rafa. It's just the way the match-ups worked, I don't place a lot in the idea that there is genuine difference in quality between them.
What is this Djokovic style we speak of that gives him such an advantage over Nadal? When you analyze purely the style of tennis he is basically an athletic fast footwork type who usually tries to take his returns fast and primarily works from the baseline with hard shots and tries to hit the angles. There are hundreds Who practice this type of tennis On the pro tour but these have all fallen to Nadal in his prime. I mean, are there even serve and volleyers left in world tennis? Maybe hundreds was an understatement.
Djokovic is simply better than him as a player, the style isn't even an advantage vs Nadal. at best it could be said that he hasn't the weaknesses the Spaniard can exploit since he is also a confortable baseliner who is comfortable on both sides and has the athleticism to bring back balls to make an opponent hit that extra shot and risk unforced errors.

This isn't a similar case to Nadal vs Federer where one truly possesses major advantages thanks to him being a left hander who therefore can use his forehand to perform a natural cross court stroke filled with top spin to feck up The weakness of the one handed backhand (difficulty in maintaining power and control with high jumping spin balls, he can try taking it earlier but that is a harder riskier shot). Although I am sure some left handed pros have tried this before against Federer and failed.

Bottom line is that I believe it is wrong to simply dismiss one player's dominance over the other with "oh his style matches up well so it's normal" arguments.
You have to be a better server, a faster runner, a better hitter or whatever it is that you are doing to differentiate yourself from the millions others on this world who play a similar style as you, to build on a minimal advantage such as a clash of styles and that advantage grows smaller against top top players. These guys match up against all types of opponents with different tactics all career long.
 
Last edited:
CZzZ1TfUEAAulgp.jpg
 
I agree with Kevin on that one. Djokovic doesn't have any obvious stylistic advantage over Nadal the way the latter has over Federer. I'd say all the other match ups are good, and balanced.

Although I don't know about Djokovic turning the tables between the pair of them when both were at their peaks. It's tough to decide whether a player is at their peak. Someone could argue that Nadal's was when he dominated, and Djokovic's was when he dominated, and it would be hard to argue. That's why GS' wins (IMO) is the best way to look at it.
 
Pretty insulting to Nadal and pandering to Federer to dismiss their head to head as one of them having some natural advantage over the over. And even if you take away clay court results Nadal still has the better record (against Federer at his peak). Maybe just give him the credit he deserves.
 
Nadal's game is essentially built to beat Federer. It is virtually impossible for Fed to beat Nadal, there was nothing he could really do to change that. On the other hand Djokovic's game is built very well to beat Rafa. It's just the way the match-ups worked, I don't place a lot in the idea that there is genuine difference in quality between them.
Very valid point regarding playing styles.

I was watching the 2013 US Open final highlights not long ago and the level Nadal had to play at to beat Djokovic (who was beating him all the time bar clay) was incredible

Just the way tennis goes I guess. Difficult but up to players to come up with something special against such playing styles.
 
I don't expect him to surpass 17, but this his time to make it count really.


What's happened has been pretty natural. The torch passed from Federer to Nadal to Djokovic, with Federer now maintaining his fitness and level at the age of 34 to make it appear as though we presently have a proper rivalry (we don't). The only anomaly there is that Nadal's game is completely suited to exploit Federer's weaknesses whereas every other match up is a good one.
Nah i believe Nadal was still in his prime when Djokovic started to beat him regularly, even on clay (apart from Roland Garros). Nadal still looked miles better than anyone else during that time, highlighted by the fact that he brushed everyone away and consistently made GS finals.

Agree with the anomaly in styles between Nadal and Federer and as you said... The rest simply match up pretty evenly and do not have huge advantages over another purely based on style.
 
Nadal and Djokovic's peaks were easily more spectacular than Federer's. Djokovic's even more so because he dominated prime Nadal (2011).

Federer wins the longevity game though.
 
Amazing that Federer is still pushing the envelope at 34. Shows why he is the greatest ever
 
Didn't Djokovic's dominance come when he started his gluten free diet? I remember at every GS the commentators mentioned this around that time.
 
Didn't Djokovic's dominance come when he started his gluten free diet? I remember at every GS the commentators mentioned this around that time.

He already had a grandslam at that point and had reached another 2 finals. He just peaked at an older age than Nadal and Federer - doubt the whole gluten free diet had too much to do with it.
 
He already had a grandslam at that point and had reached another 2 finals. He just peaked at an older age than Nadal and Federer - doubt the whole gluten free diet had too much to do with it.
He wasn't really dominant until after it though.
 
Djokovic really is a machine, but that's the very reason he doesn't receive the adulation he feels he deserves - even in a match where he spent the first 2 sets wiping the floor with Federer, he still came out hitting fewer winners.

Still, with Federer out I can now root for Murray to get his first AO, can't see past Djokovic in the final though really.
 
Surely Murray is due an Aus Open. Should he beat Raonic tomorrow, it will be his fifth final there.
 
Everybody is saying that Nadals game exploits Federers one handed backhand, but how come he was utterly destroyed by Wawrinka's in last years Aus final?
 
Everybody is saying that Nadals game exploits Federers one handed backhand, but how come he was utterly destroyed by Wawrinka's in last years Aus final?


Ummm. The career H2H is 18-3 to Federer. If you want to use one-off games as an example, how about Wawrinka thrashing peak Djokovic at last year's French?
 
I just love how in recent years every time they met people were talking in advance how good Federer is this time etc. just for him to get destroyed by the Djoker over and over again.
 
Ummm. The career H2H is 18-3 to Federer. If you want to use one-off games as an example, how about Wawrinka thrashing peak Djokovic at last year's French?
What's Federer got to do with it? I was just pointing out how Nadal was absolutely destroyed by a one handed backhand in a final.
 
What's Federer got to do with it? I was just pointing out how Nadal was absolutely destroyed by a one handed backhand in a final.

Sorry I completely misread your post.
I think with Wawrinka he has peaks where no-one can match him - he has thrashed Fed, Djokovic, and Nadal in huge games but never gone on a consistent run.
 
Everybody is saying that Nadals game exploits Federers one handed backhand, but how come he was utterly destroyed by Wawrinka's in last years Aus final?

It was quite apparent Nadal injured his back towards the end of the first set. His movement was laboured and he couldn't hit his serve properly after that. He was in great form in that tournament. Confident he would have beaten Stan if that problem hadn't reared up.
 
It was quite apparent Nadal injured his back towards the end of the first set. His movement was laboured and he couldn't hit his serve properly after that. He was in great form in that tournament. Confident he would have beaten Stan if that problem hadn't reared up.
Stan dominated that first set, even before the back injury.
 
Stan dominated that first set, even before the back injury.

Didn't it go to a tie-breaker? Being his first grand slam final, I think nerves would have got the better of him if Nadal played at his usual level. Think it was a combination of nerves and not knowing how to handle playing an injured opponent that even enabled Nadal to nab a set after his injury.

Edit: Just realised it was 6-3 in the first set. Still think Nadal would have won, however. ;)
 
Last edited:
Didn't it go to a tie-breaker? Being his first grand slam final, I think nerves would have got the better of him if Nadal played at his usual level. Think it was a combination of nerves and not knowing how to handle playing an injured opponent that even enabled Nadal to nab a set after his injury.

Edit: Just realised it was 6-3 in the first set. Still think Nadal would have won, however. ;)
Second set after Stan broke him I believe Nadal had the injury. He then called a very long time out, Wawrinka argued with the Umpire and he was completely destroyed in that set. Nadal regained some form and took the third, although I think nerves got the better of Stan there, and Wawrinka eased into the win with the 4th set.
 
What is this Djokovic style we speak of that gives him such an advantage over Nadal? When you analyze purely the style of tennis he is basically an athletic fast footwork type who usually tries to take his returns fast and primarily works from the baseline with hard shots and tries to hit the angles. There are hundreds Who practice this type of tennis On the pro tour but these have all fallen to Nadal in his prime. I mean, are there even serve and volleyers left in world tennis? Maybe hundreds was an understatement.
Djokovic is simply better than him as a player, the style isn't even an advantage vs Nadal. at best it could be said that he hasn't the weaknesses the Spaniard can exploit since he is also a confortable baseliner who is comfortable on both sides and has the athleticism to bring back balls to make an opponent hit that extra shot and risk unforced errors.

This isn't a similar case to Nadal vs Federer where one truly possesses major advantages thanks to him being a left hander who therefore can use his forehand to perform a natural cross court stroke filled with top spin to feck up The weakness of the one handed backhand (difficulty in maintaining power and control with high jumping spin balls, he can try taking it earlier but that is a harder riskier shot). Although I am sure some left handed pros have tried this before against Federer and failed.

Bottom line is that I believe it is wrong to simply dismiss one player's dominance over the other with "oh his style matches up well so it's normal" arguments.
You have to be a better server, a faster runner, a better hitter or whatever it is that you are doing to differentiate yourself from the millions others on this world who play a similar style as you, to build on a minimal advantage such as a clash of styles and that advantage grows smaller against top top players. These guys match up against all types of opponents with different tactics all career long.

Well Rafa built his career by hitting those topspin forehands into his opponent's BH side and it was very effective because no one had the ability to really attack it. As mentioned Fed had the one-hander and couldn't generate the power or control, and there were very few others who could really dominate even with a two-hander. And even if they did Nadal had the wheels to be able to chase it down. Djokovic has arguably the greatest ever BH though. He hit it so well that Rafa had no answer. Continually hit the same FH and watched as Djokovic dominated him.

Rafa was definitely at his peak when Djokovic started dominating. Djokovic improved all facets of his game though and Nadal couldn't match him with his current tactic. He came back from an injury (I think) and had been working on his forehand down the line though. That became a good weapon against Djokovic and suddenly the match-up was a lot better. He had some success too - the USO '13. Since then Nadal's declined so badly physically and his FH has lost all penetration that it isn't even a fair contest.

I don't think H2H should be dismissed in all cases just on the match-up thing. However I think it is valid in the Federer case. That doesn't mean Nadal was not the better player when the two met all those years ago, he probably was, but the contrast in styles is so favoured towards Nadal that it is almost impossible for Federer to win.

EDIT: On the Wawrinka/Rafa thing; Nadal was injured in that final and could hardly move. He did drop the first set but Wawrinka is one of the few players who can generate the power and control (even with a one-hander) that could test Nadal.
 
Everybody is saying that Nadals game exploits Federers one handed backhand, but how come he was utterly destroyed by Wawrinka's in last years Aus final?
The answer to me is different than a few presented on here: Wawrinka's one handed backhand is sublime, better than Federer's. It is almost unique in the way that traditional weaknesses of the one hander don't seem to bother him: he seems to have no trouble with his control when taking the ball early and he easily smashes down high bouncing spin balls from that side as if it were a forehand stroke.
Not sure if you have played tennis, but crudely said, imagine dealing a card,that is sort of the natural movement of the backhand. One of the disadvantages of this swing is that it gives you less control than a steady two handed one.
Now imagine trying to get your onehanded backhand movement over a venomously spinning ball full of effect and spin coming at you with an unpredictable bounce above your waist height or even to your shoulders. You'll be made to flail and lose even more control and power. Far easier to smash them down with your forehand than backhand. Even pros and former greats using the one hander couldn't properly get those balls back (either failing or no depth and/or power to the stroke) and imagine getting these type of balls over and over again on your backhand side... Something will give.

Rambling on a bit now but Wawrinka is one of a handful one handed backhand players who just simply have such great control and power over the shot that it's unique. He is much like Safin used to be in his younger years, a total wild card who lacks the consistency to become a true great but their top level is very high... They can beat anyone on their day and no specific style can stop their amazing shotmaking from either side. Which is why he also massacred Djokovic in absolute top form in that amazing match on clay last year.
 
Last edited:
:lol: Those chaps ambling about slowly to their seats holding up play

Raonic looks class today.
 
Fun facts: Raonic's dad was hiring tennis ball machines for his son at 7.30am and after 9pm because they were cheaper. His parents lived in the same block of flats where (former Roma and Juventus) Mirko Vucinic's family also had their appartment.
 
I really like Raonic. This is the kind of guy I want to see winning slams soon. Love players who play on the front foot. If the courts a little faster, he'd have blown Murray aside today.
 
Raonic has improved a lot this year. What's the thinking behind the mouthpiece?
 
Raonic has improved a lot this year. What's the thinking behind the mouthpiece?
Keeps him from grinding his teeth and tensing his jaw, which apparently affects his spine, posture and even leads to injuries. Apparently he wears it day and night and only takes it off to eat. Speaks with it too. A bit mental if you ask me but all athletes make sacrifices for the sport, I suppose.

More here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mouth-guard-that-keeps-milos-raonic-loose-1453746321
 
Neither of these guys is beating Novak on Sunday after 5 sets today. Enjoy what's left of the last intriguing game of the tournament.
 
Neither of these guys is beating Novak on Sunday after 5 sets today. Enjoy what's left of the last intriguing game of the tournament.

I was thinking that, especially as he has had a two day rest period as well.

Thanks for the mouthpiece info. I thought it must be something along those lines as they reckon problems with the teeth/jaw can cause problems in the rest of the body.
 
What's this story about Murray wanting to be present for the birth of his first child even if he had to miss the finals for it?!
 
What's this story about Murray wanting to be present for the birth of his first child even if he had to miss the finals for it?!
There's not really much more to it than that. If the wife is about to pop, he's quite adamant he's sodding off.
 
Shame for Raonic, played a nice game, but lost his nerves at the beginning of the 5th set, now it's pretty much game over.

I doubt Andy can beat Nole, especially after 5 sets today.
 
I don't think he'd miss the actual final though. He was asked about it before the tournament started and said he'd go home but the tournament is practically over at this point. One day is hardly going to make a difference.

She's due in the middle of February, anyway. The chances of him having to make the choice are slim.
 
I don't think he'd miss the actual final though. He was asked about it before the tournament started. Had it been before the quarter or something like that - sure he'd go home but now? One day is hardly going to make a difference.

She's due in the middle of February, anyway. The chances of him having to make the choice are slim.
I thought he'd repeated it and stated that if it happened on the eve of the final, he's gone.

But, yeah, it's unlikely to be a decision he has to make.
I kinda want it to happen.
:lol:

I can definitely understand that.