When will the ESPN sports writers stop the Nadal worship

[Hs0022]

Just curious, because their so called GOAT has been a ray of inconsistency at Wimbledon for the last three years, has been getting beat by players outside the top 100, has missed 3 or more slams ( again inconsistent form ), has looked out of sorts and helpless against Djokovic in the best of three sets. The only thing of note he has managed to do of late is win again at ROLAND Garros and beat Federer. None of these constitute as out of the ordinary. Once he fails to impress with resuts his butt picking and other eccentric/unhygienic behavior becomes even more unbearable.

He has only been able to win Wimbledon because they slowed the surface down after 2000 to see more baseline rallies and he managed to luck out in the draw and get to some finals and win two. I think Roddick was more deserving of two Wimbledon titles than Mr. Vamos Nadal.

 

[Hs0022]

The guy's lopsided results off clay is dismaying at best. Take away his nine FO titles and he is an average HOFer. Take away Fed's 7 Wimby and he still has 10 GS titles to rank among the all time greatest players. Amazing, no?

 

[JuiceTheGator]

ESPN has always tried to make a few superstars in every sport. Fed is aging and they want to hang all over somebody's sack.

It looks like a new batch is finally coming in to contend in men's tennis. (unfortunately, non American) So, the ESPeNis idiots will have to wait to run their cover stories while the rest of us enjoy good tennis.

 

[Smart]

I don't mind them billing up Nadal as a great player. He obviously is. What kills me is when they call him an entertaining player. They have somehow continued to talk up the 2012 Australian Open as "a classic" when it was one of the most frustrating and boring GS finals of my lifetime. He plays a heavy spin style which is effective, and he deserves credit, but spare me the lies about how pleasing it is to the eyes.

 

[nuraman00]

They have somehow continued to talk up the 2012 Australian Open as "a classic" when it was one of the most frustrating and boring GS finals of my lifetime.

I liked that one, even more than the 2008 Wimbledon Finals.

With Federer not getting into Nadal's service games in the 2008 Finals, and only winning sets on tiebreakers, and being down 2 sets to 0, it was a little less competitive, in my mind.

Both were great but I prefer the AO one as I felt either player could have won, and there was more back-and-forth tension.

 

[nuraman00]

With the broadcasters liking Nadal, I think sometimes it has less to do with his accomplishments, and more to do with his perceived attitude (aka "never gives up"), and his "intensity". They like his temperament more.

These are the same reasons why they like Serena and Sharapova too. With Serena, she has more on court accomplishments, but they always refer to her with the same adjectives that they describe all of these aforementioned players.

The broadcasters talk more about these attributes, than their respective games, at times.

Serena and Venus have similar games (except that Serena has a much better backhand and a little better movement), but they rarely talk about Venus and her "intensity". Even though when she was good, she would win easily as other top players.

Also, Nadal did have to beat good players like Murray to get to the Wimbledon title. Murray didn't play that well against Nadal, at Wimbledon.

Nadal has won 8 hardcourt Masters 1000s, and been to 7 other Finals. I think grass is his worst surface now, due to his lack of 1st-strike return game.

 

[Smart]

I liked that one, even more than the 2008 Wimbledon Finals.

With Federer not getting into Nadal's service games in the 2008 Finals, and only winning sets on tiebreakers, and being down 2 sets to 0, it was a little less competitive, in my mind.

You clearly don't remember that match well. Federer had 13 break points in that match which took place over several games (IIRC, 6 or 7). He won 33% of the return points, which is pretty much the same as Nadal did both against him that match and against Djokovic in 2012. Fed won 5 fewer points than Nadal. In the 2012 final, Djokovic won 17 more points.

So if "competitiveness" is your measure, Fed-Nadal was much closer. And it took more than an hour less, despite having 40 more points. There were nearly 50 more winners. There were 60 fewer unforced errors. There were more classic points. There was the greatest tiebreaker ever played. There was the drama over Nadal finally ascending to #1 in the rankings. There was the drama of Fed going for a 6-peat.

I'll never forget where I was for Fed-Nadal. I was at Arlington Park, where I was originally the only one watching. By the late 5th set, there were dozens of people watching, tennis fans and non-tennis fans. Do you think people would have stopped for Nadal-Djokovic?

 

[nuraman00]

What kills me is when they call him an entertaining player.

I see what you mean. I agree, his style is not for everyone.

I don't find it as entertaining, but I appreciate the skill of his forehand, and his running diving low scoop shots.

For example, the two shots between 0:22 and 0:25, I find pretty amazing. He can do a lot of those to keep the ball in play.


I only watched the first two shots in this video, but they feature two more examples IMO. This video really stats at 0:22.

 

[nuraman00]

You clearly don't remember that match well. Federer had 13 break points in that match which took place over several games (IIRC, 6 or 7). He won 33% of the return points, which is pretty much the same as Nadal did both against him that match and against Djokovic in 2012. Fed won 5 fewer points than Nadal. In the 2012 final, Djokovic won 17 more points.

I didn't post clearly. It's disappointing to have break points but not actually win the break games. So the fact that FED had those break points but didn't win, made it feel less competitive.

Whereas in the AO match, both Djokovic and Nadal broke each other a few times.

Do you think people would have stopped for Nadal-Djokovic?

It's hard to compare the 2008 Wimbledon Finals and the 2012 AO Finals because they're played at different times of the day.

I know sports radio hosts talked about the 2012 AO Finals after it ended, and sports radio rarely talks tennis outside of those 20 minute score updates (for all sports).

They talked about whether it was a good final, and what it mean, etc. It was the most I've heard them talk about tennis since when Federer was first coming up, and starting to win majors. With the 2008 Wimbledon Finals being one of the other few times I heard them talk tennis on the radio.

 

[nuraman00]

Similarly, I thought it was disappointing when Murray would have break chances against Nadal, and not win them. For example, at the 2011 FO.

 

[Hs0022]

I don't mind them billing up Nadal as a great player. He obviously is. What kills me is when they call him an entertaining player. They have somehow continued to talk up the 2012 Australian Open as "a classic" when it was one of the most frustrating and boring GS finals of my lifetime. He plays a heavy spin style which is effective, and he deserves credit, but spare me the lies about how pleasing it is to the eyes.

Thank you.

 

[Hs0022]

I liked that one, even more than the 2008 Wimbledon Finals.

With Federer not getting into Nadal's service games in the 2008 Finals, and only winning sets on tiebreakers, and being down 2 sets to 0, it was a little less competitive, in my mind.

Both were great but I prefer the AO one as I felt either player could have won, and there was more back-and-forth tension.

The problem with Federer against Nadal is that

1. He does not have an intimidating backhand response to deep balls on that side as he does not use a full Eastern grip, and so he rallies with a makeshift backhand that just can't hold up when the balls are deep and ankle hugging. his backhand is best suited to balls that land shorter and don't rise up that much and fall in a strike zone ( hence he does better against Nadal on grass and fast indoor).

2. Federer has one of the poorest BP conversion rates of all time and gets plenty of opportunities against the Nadal unspectacular serve but can't capitalize.

3. When Fed serves to the as court he likes the wide serve unlike Pete who used the down the middle a million times for almost that many aces, even on second serves. So that falls to the Nadal FH and has zero effect.

4. Federer is not tall enough to get the BH high rise balls in his strike zone like a Rosol or Soderling or DelPo who all get that height advantage as well as a double handed BH THAT IS STABLE. Fed doesn't even move back ala Gasquet to take it (late) on the downward trajectory because you would have to muscle that shot because of the extra few feet that the ball would have to travel when you move further back behind the baseline.

The AO and FO surfaces are worst suited for Fed's game against someone like Nadal. Although don't get me wrong Fed can play in slower surfaces against righties and lefties not named Nadal just fine.

 

[nuraman00]

The problem with Federer against Nadal is that

1. He does not have an intimidating backhand response to deep balls on that side as he does not use a full Eastern grip, and so he rallies with a makeshift backhand that just can't hold up when the balls are deep and ankle hugging. his backhand is best suited to balls that land shorter and don't rise up that much and fall in a strike zone ( hence he does better against Nadal on grass and fast indoor).

2. Federer has one of the poorest BP conversion rates of all time and gets plenty of opportunities against the Nadal unspectacular serve but can't capitalize.

3. When Fed serves to the as court he likes the wide serve unlike Pete who used the down the middle a million times for almost that many aces, even on second serves. So that falls to the Nadal FH and has zero effect.

4. Federer is not tall enough to get the BH high rise balls in his strike zone like a Rosol or Soderling or DelPo who all get that height advantage as well as a double handed BH THAT IS STABLE. Fed doesn't even move back ala Gasquet to take it (late) on the downward trajectory because you would have to muscle that shot because of the extra few feet that the ball would have to travel when you move further back behind the baseline.

The AO and FO surfaces are worst suited for Fed's game against someone like Nadal. Although don't get me wrong Fed can play in slower surfaces against righties and lefties not named Nadal just fine.

Good post, agree.

The BP conversion was also in my mind, with Federer's struggles against Nadal, and the realistic chance of him winning break games, while watching.

 

[nuraman00]

OT: I've been wondering, is there anyone that can use both a one handed and two-handed backhand? If so, I was wondering if Federer could could try a two-handed backhand against certain players, for more stability.

I know it would be tough to get the timing and muscle memory of it all, but were he to try it if he was younger, could he have done it?

If in MLB, hitters can hit from both sides of the plate, and there can even be those rare switch-pitchers, why not a tennis player with a one-handed and two-handed backhand?

 

[nuraman00]

Similarly, I thought it was disappointing when Murray would have break chances against Nadal, and not win them. For example, at the 2011 FO.

Just to be specific, Murray was 3/18 on BP chances in this match, and was playing from behind all match.

Because he wasn't actually winning more of the break points, and couldn't capitalize, I didn't think it was that competitive from Murray.

The same applies in other matches in general with a low BP conversion, if the player is not able to win those break points and win the return games.

I thought it was disheartening, for example, for Murray not to be able to win more.

 

[nuraman00]

OT: I've been wondering, is there anyone that can use both a one handed and two-handed backhand? If so, I was wondering if Federer could could try a two-handed backhand against certain players, for more stability.

I know it would be tough to get the timing and muscle memory of it all, but were he to try it if he was younger, could he have done it?

If in MLB, hitters can hit from both sides of the plate, and there can even be those rare switch-pitchers, why not a tennis player with a one-handed and two-handed backhand?

Any thoughts? I'm sure the idea will be dismissed easily as unrealistic, but just wondering if anyone had any comments.

 

[Hs0022]

Any thoughts? I'm sure the idea will be dismissed easily as unrealistic, but just wondering if anyone had any comments.

I play tennis with one handed backhand and the biggest issue I had was the service return on my bh side. The powerful serve causes a weaker return off a one handed bh because of its instability. I always wished I could have a two handed bh just for the return. Also you can even just block hard hit serves well with the two hander. This is also one of the reason why Djoko and Agassi are the best returners of the game.

This one dude I used to know did the return with two hands so Fed could easily have mastered it if he really wanted to early on in his career. now I am not too sure. I am not sure if Fed can hit the bh with a full Eastern grip or if he can use different subtle variations of the bh grip (usually people only use two grip positions - one for the slice and one for the flat or topspin shot), but he would be able to muscle block some returns by keeping his wrist firm that Becker was able to do against Edberg down the Line for winners even back in the day.

 

[nuraman00]

Thanks.