French Open 2015

lostcat

Yip, he was going for almost everything and it was almost all going in. Quite a sight to behold. He was much better here than when be beat Nadal in the Aussie Open last year.

Even with that Djokovic should/could have possibly brought it to a fifth but his serving was not up to par and Stan simply did not let up for four sets. As good a performance as I have seen in a final in a long time.

MisterAnarchy

MrKingsley wrote: »

I remember when soderling beat nadal and couldnt believe how hard and flat he hit the ball. I remember thinking why dont more players try this against nadal at the french?? Your clearly not going to out rally him or wear him down so why not just trust yourself to get on the front foot and take him on.

Its primarily due to the homogenisation of the court surfaces as most players now play a base line top spin grinding game.
They will stay in their comfort zone.

The days of the different court type specialists are gone .

There are only a handful of players with an aggressive game nowadays ,but most of them cant maintain their power hitting for long enough ,especially on clay.

Wawrinka could ,but he was playing at peak performance levels .

I missed the match but I saw a stat that stan hit 60 winners in the match. Is this true?

Yes ,that is correct ,60 winners,twice that of Djokovic.
60 winners on clay is phenomenal .

MrKingsley

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its primarily due to the homogenisation of the court surfaces as most players now play a base line top spin grinding game.
They will stay in their comfort zone.

The days of the different court type specialists are gone .

There are only a handful of players with an aggressive game nowadays ,but most of them cant maintain their power hitting for long enough ,especially on clay.

Wawrinka could ,but he was playing at peak performance levels .

.

Im not talking about specialists on different courts. What im saying is that when playing Nadal at the French then why do other players not try a different game plan. They arent going to out outrally him or grind him down so just go for it.

Wats the difference between losing 6-3,6-2,6-1 when playing into his hands or getting thrashed trying something else? And that different tactic may actually make him uncomfortable and create a few opportunities.

All the professional players could hit harder and flatter if they wanted to. If the guys ranked 10th-50th are happy in their comfort zone then grand but I find it amazing that so few players will attempt something new in order to try and get the biggest win of their careers

Floppybits

MrKingsley wrote: »

Im not talking about specialists on different courts. What im saying is that when playing Nadal at the French then why do other players not try a different game plan. They arent going to out outrally him or grind him down so just go for it.

Wats the difference between losing 6-3,6-2,6-1 when playing into his hands or getting thrashed trying something else? And that different tactic may actually make him uncomfortable and create a few opportunities.

All the professional players could hit harder and flatter if they wanted to. If the guys ranked 10th-50th are happy in their comfort zone then grand but I find it amazing that so few players will attempt something new in order to try and get the biggest win of their careers

I heard them talking about this on either Eurosport, maybe Rudseski or it could have been Roland Garos radio, someone tweeted in why do players keep going to Nadal's forehand and not his backhand? And whoever was commentating said that its because players try take their opponents biggest weapon, in this case Nadals forehand, because once that happens the rest of their game suffers, which is understandable, tennis is a mental game as much as it is physical, if you can get a player to have a bad day on the strongest part of their game then the rest of their game will suffer.

Anyways on Nadal, if he is going to have to adapt his game because as much of a great player he is, its not match for time and as he gets older he wont be able to run around that Forehand, like he has done for years.

MrKingsley

Floppybits wrote: »

I heard them talking about this on either Eurosport, maybe Rudseski or it could have been Roland Garos radio, someone tweeted in why do players keep going to Nadal's forehand and not his backhand? And whoever was commentating said that its because players try take their opponents biggest weapon, in this case Nadals forehand, because once that happens the rest of their game suffers, which is understandable, tennis is a mental game as much as it is physical, if you can get a player to have a bad day on the strongest part of their game then the rest of their game will suffer.

Anyways on Nadal, if he is going to have to adapt his game because as much of a great player he is, its not match for time and as he gets older he wont be able to run around that Forehand, like he has done for years.

See i get that theory but Nadal isnt any other player. Hes a freak and when at his best, comfortably the toughest player mentally on court IMO. So just repeatedly hitting to his forehand in the hope he makes 30 unforced errors just isnt going to happen.

Even this year djokovic played so many dropshots just to not allow Nadal get into a rythym. If the number 1 realises that he cant really out rally Nadal then surely the others must cop on that theyve to try something new.

Lastly ive no doubt that nadal can adjust his game and win more slams. He comfortably has 2/3 years left playing at the very highest level and he will create chances to win slams in that period i think

RosyLily

I don't think Nadal has many good years left. He's 30 next year - the clock is running down. He might win the French Open again who knows. But Paris is probably his best chance, maybe Australia. He hasn't done much at Wimbledon. He won't pass Federer's 17 Majors. Rafa's lost a good bit of mass and I think he's lost some power as well. As many posters have noted plenty of times before, his aggressive style of play isn't the gentlest or easiest on the body.

MrKingsley

I agree(hope) he wont touch Federers total but I think he can still play at a level required to get to semis and finals of the slams.

He got rid of all the bulk a good while ago in order to prolong his career apparently. Not that i expect him to play until 35 or anything but Id be amazed if he wasnt in another 2 finals at least

Mousewar

The massive advantage both Nadal and Djokovic will have in their careers over Federer is that whereas when Federer started into his decline (2009 onwards) he had to deal with two of the most successful players in history at their peak (Nadal and Djokovic), Nadal and Djokovic themselves look like having no such competition as there is no one so far in the new generation that looks like competing at their level. Hence, they will find it easier to continue to have success outside their peak years. Really, it's remarkable that Federer has managed to remain relevant at his age.

RosyLily

True. Not a lot of players can match Djokovic on court. His few losses since last year's US Open (for example) have been to Major champions (Federer and Wawrinka) and a future Major champion (Nishikori). Karlovic in Qatar was probably the only surprise loss.

More people can beat Nadal imo, similar to when Federer started to decline and people he normally beat, he lost to.

Edit: BTW, Congrats on the mod-ship Mousewar!:)

Floppybits

Mousewar wrote: »

The massive advantage both Nadal and Djokovic will have in their careers over Federer is that whereas when Federer started into his decline (2009 onwards) he had to deal with two of the most successful players in history at their peak (Nadal and Djokovic), Nadal and Djokovic themselves look like having no such competition as there is no one so far in the new generation that looks like competing at their level. Hence, they will find it easier to continue to have success outside their peak years. Really, it's remarkable that Federer has managed to remain relevant at his age.

I cant agree with that, I think Djokovic are at opposite ends of the spectrum. When Federer and Nadal were in their prime they had this air of invincibilty about them that only say the top 5 players would stand a chance against them. But now I feel any player in the top 20 would fancy their chances against them now where as a year or 2 ago they would never have thought that, this just makes those players play harder because what a prize taking the scalp of Federer or Nadal is. Just look at Fogini this year beating Nadal on clay. He saw a Nadal that was not the same as before and went for the win, that is what Nadal is facing now and what Federer has been facing that last year or 2.


Djokovic on the other hand is only starting to get that invincibility aura about him and even then I don't think it will ever be as strong as Federer or Nadal's as he is prone to have his moments on court when he can be beaten where as Federer or Nadal never really had that. Now Djokovic has cut down on those days but he is still prone to having them.

MrKingsley

I would argue that the gap between the top 5/6 today is smaller than 5 years ago when it was Nadal and federer, and then the others.

Out of Federer, Djokovic, Warwinka, Nadal, Murray and Nishikori I would say that whoever brings their A-game would be favorite to win. Regardless of the matchup I think that whoever plays closer to their potential they should win.

Previously even with Djokovic and murray they wouldve had to play their best possible and hope federer or nadal made mistakes in order to get a win

MisterAnarchy

Floppybits wrote: »

I heard them talking about this on either Eurosport, maybe Rudseski or it could have been Roland Garos radio, someone tweeted in why do players keep going to Nadal's forehand and not his backhand? And whoever was commentating said that its because players try take their opponents biggest weapon, in this case Nadals forehand, because once that happens the rest of their game suffers, which is understandable, tennis is a mental game as much as it is physical, if you can get a player to have a bad day on the strongest part of their game then the rest of their game will suffer.

Thats a bizarre strategy .You sure it wasnt Wilander who said that because it sounds like something he'd come out with.
Why would anyone target an opponents best side

Anytime Nadal played Federer he continuously targeted Federer's backhand ,his weakest side.
The primary tactic was a high bouncing shot to the backhand.

Floppybits

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Thats a bizarre strategy .You sure it wasnt Wilander who said that because it sounds like something he'd come out with.
Why would anyone target an opponents best side

Anytime Nadal played Federer he continuously targeted Federer's backhand ,his weakest side.
The primary tactic was a high bouncing shot to the backhand.

I don't think it was Mats, it was definitely during a mat checkout. Whoever it was also said that they can target the strongest side to get the player out of position to target their weak side. So they don't get a chance to run around to their strong side.

I know when I'm playing I am targeting the weak side as much as I can. Maybe that's why I'm not a pro.