The Unofficial 2013 U.S. Open Thread

Valid point

Invalid point.

Federer is at the end of his career in terms of slams, but it's not like he lucked into 17 grand slams with only a forehand and no strategy when he walked out on the court.

It's a whathaveyoudoneinthepast15minutes world and too easy to forget what Federer was doing to people a few short years ago.

Granted his strategy had more to do with breaking an opponent down with shot selection and opening up the court for his forehand, rather than a methodical plodding the ball to everyone's backhand strategy. In a sense it was all too easy for Federer for a certain stretch in the mid-2000s. He basically toyed with his opponent until he found the weakness and imposed his will. Do you like the slice? No? Ok, here is another one that will skip even lower to the ground and closer to the line. And another. Do you like to come to the net? No? Looky here at another short ball. Come get it and watch my passing shot. Again, nothing methodical like a spinning high bouncer to every single opponent's backhand, but plenty of strategy nonetheless.
 
Do you see anyone named Rafael Nadal?

6-2, 6-0, 6-0 ain't no joking around.

6-0, 6-2, 6-2 was the Rafa/Robredo scoreline, but, yeah, it was a brutal beatdown.

Having seen both player's form, I have to say that I give the slight edge to Djokovic should both he and Rafa make the final. Djokovic has gotten noticeably better with each match. Rafa started out like a juggernaut, but his form dropped off a little. Hard to make any assessment from the Robredo match. It should be an epic final should they meet.

Watch out for Wawrinka. He nearly beat (and should have beaten) Djokovic at the Australian Open in a very well played 5 setter (losing 10-12 in the 5th). Wawrinka is playing exceptionally well right now.
 
One thing that's been written about Federer is that he can be too talented for his own good. In other words, he never really had to problem-solve to win matches in his heyday. He just played. And now that just playing maybe isn't good enough, he has no idea how to figure things out in the middle of a match.

No. Not even close. In fact, I think Federer is over-thinking his way through matches these days if anything. His strategy is sound and it differs depending on who he is playing. His problem is execution. For example, when he plays Djokovic and Rafa, or Berdych or Tsonga, Federer amps up shots and flattens them out trying to move the ball through the court. The line between it working and looking brilliant and not working and looking foolish is very, very fine.

Over the past few years, there has been more "looking foolish" outcomes than not.

Here is the thing: in the heat of the moment watching your favorite player lose, it always seems like they are playing pitifully and hardly trying. I've noticed when I go back and watch a replay of some of Federer's recent slam losses (pre-2013) that he wasn't playing bad at all. A few inches here or there is the difference.

The poor guy is a victim of his success. After winning 17 slams and three per year for several years running, we came to expect it always. I think he has a little more to offer the sport before hanging up his racquet, but I don't think it's a case of him being befuddled by what to do on the tennis court.
 
Regarding Federer, is it just a motivational thing with him? Has he lost his hunger?

It doesn't seem his physical ability could have dropped off that drastically in the last year. He's only a month older than Serena Williams.

Ok, I've totally hijacked the thread. This is the last one I promise.

It is not a motivational thing nor has he lost the hunger. He is 32, which is ancient in the world of professional tennis, competing against 27 year olds in their prime.

Undeniably, he has lost a half-step, which makes a lot of difference. He has also suffered a back injury most of this season following the AO. That set him back in matches, but also in practice and fitness.

I try to be reasonable about RF's decline and maybe I just refuse to see it, but I believe most of his problems on the court are confidence based and mental. As any of us that play tennis can relate, once you start thinking about shanking your forehand you better get ready for a bunch of shanked forehands. Then when you try to hit it even harder while thinking of shanks, it turns into a disaster.

So, combine loss of a step due to age together with a loss of confidence/mental block plus the fact that this is all occurring at the end of his career and it equals such things as a 4th round loss to Tommy Robredo at the U.S. Open.

I don't expect him to retire just yet. I think he can get healthy and get his form straightened out to be a still-dangerous top ten player for a year or two more.
 
Federer fanboy alert.


What if Wawrinka upset Djokovic in the semis and then Nadal in the finals? Has there ever been someone win a grand slam by beating #1, #2, #3, and #5?
 
Invalid point.

Federer is at the end of his career in terms of slams, but it's not like he lucked into 17 grand slams with only a forehand and no strategy when he walked out on the court.

It's a whathaveyoudoneinthepast15minutes world and too easy to forget what Federer was doing to people a few short years ago.

Granted his strategy had more to do with breaking an opponent down with shot selection and opening up the court for his forehand, rather than a methodical plodding the ball to everyone's backhand strategy. In a sense it was all too easy for Federer for a certain stretch in the mid-2000s. He basically toyed with his opponent until he found the weakness and imposed his will. Do you like the slice? No? Ok, here is another one that will skip even lower to the ground and closer to the line. And another. Do you like to come to the net? No? Looky here at another short ball. Come get it and watch my passing shot. Again, nothing methodical like a spinning high bouncer to every single opponent's backhand, but plenty of strategy nonetheless.

Somebody pissed?
 
No rain in the forecast, right?

pCOVcUe.png
 
'Rafael Nadal Is the Leonardo da Vinci of Tennis'

It’s usually Roger Federer who gets compared to intellectual heroes, but a remark by John McEnroe rightly appreciated that Nadal's best, most underrated weapon is his brain.

Last night in New York, a former U.S. Open tennis champion dismantled an opponent 6-0, 6-2, 6-2 in the quarterfinals of this year’s event. It was yet another display of the player’s unparalleled dominance, and as the victor celebrated, TV commentator and retired tennis legend John McEnroe remarked, “What we’re seeing here, this guy is the Leonardo da Vinci—the Albert Einstein—of tennis.”

The Leonardo da Vinci of tennis. If you haven’t followed the U.S. Open, you’d be forgiven for thinking McEnroe was talking about Roger Federer. One of the most graceful, visually dazzling athletes in contemporary history, he’s the obvious choice for comparisons to the famous "Mona Lisa" painter. In 2008, The Times columnist Simon Barnes even wrote that “It is becoming increasingly apparent that Roger Federer was Leonardo da Vinci in a previous life,” in an article titled “Federer the genius, an artist with a racket for a brush.” In fact, when tennis writers invoke the name of any intellectual hero, it’s often in the context of describing Federer. Over the years, he’s been compared to dancers (“McEnroe compared the Swiss to the former Russian ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov…”), musical geniuses (Federer’s style of play compared to the rest of the ATP players’ in 2006 was “like trying to whistle Mozart during a Metallica concert,” according to David Foster Wallace), holy figures (“Roger Federer’s aura of infallibility…” “…a sly dig at Federer's saintly image…”), and literary icons celebrated for their poise and elegance (like The Great Gatsby’s Jay Gatsby).

But last night, McEnroe was talking about the other, more rugged half of the sport’s most famous modern rivalry: Rafael Nadal. Nadal had just beaten Tommy Robredo, the Spaniard who had dismissed Federer in straight sets the round before.

Unlike Federer, Nadal has more frequently conjured up images of sweaty, fast-and-loose iconoclasm and brute force among sports journalists. In the years since his inaugural French Open victory in 2005, and most noticeably in the first few years after, he drew comparisons to pirates, cavemen, bulldogs, bulls, bulls, more bulls, bulls in china shops, bulls in Federer’s china shop, and, um, “Apaches.”

So I wondered at first if McEnroe had somehow forgotten which player he’d just watched, or if he’d maybe meant Leonardo the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle (same headwrap!). But his offhand remark actually sheds light on a truth about Nadal that’s been somewhat underappreciated until recently: He may not be the magical athlete-artist Federer is (or—gulp—was), but he’s the Leonardo da Vinci of the sport in that he’s a whiz kid—a tennis brainiac.

Leonardo da Vinci, after all, wasn’t just an artist. Like Albert Einstein, he was a scientist, too—and an engineer. He spent years doodling up designs for machines that could make a human fly; five centuries later, when scientists built his imaginary contraptions out of modern materials, some of them actually flew. Da Vinci was a tinkerer with an intuitive comprehension of how things worked—and the same could be said of Nadal. Despite the mentions of Nadal’s “baseline bashing” and “extremely physical style of play,” it’s come to light in recent years that Nadal is unquestionably one of the best thinkers in the game of tennis, with a terrifyingly deft understanding of its science and strategy.

Last night, McEnroe instructed all the junior players watching the broadcast to closely observe Nadal’s play because, by subtly identifying his opponent’s movement patterns and adjusting and re-adjusting his service motion and returns accordingly, he was putting on what McEnroe called “a clinic” in shot placement. (The importance of being able to analyze and respond to an opponent’s play during a match shouldn’t be underestimated: Earlier this week, as The New York Times’ Geoff MacDonald noted, Federer made his earliest exit from a Grand Slam in 10 years because he failed to readjust his game plan against Tommy Robredo in the fourth round.)

Gilbert and McEnroe also made mention last night of a 2011 New York Times video feature that delved into the physics of why Rafael Nadal’s lethal lefty forehand—sometimes affectionately known as the “fearhand”—causes so much trouble for his opponents.

The answer? Topspin. Nadal’s extreme grip on the racquet results in a rate of topspin twice what Andre Agassi’s and Pete Sampras’s were when they played. In layman’s terms, if you’re on the other side of the net when a tennis ball comes hurtling through the air spinning as quickly as a Rafael Nadal forehand shot spins, it will bounce in ways you did not expect a tennis ball to bounce, especially on clay—even if you’re used to playing guys who play like Agassi and Sampras. And your attempt to hit it back with control will likely fail. This isn’t just a quirk of Nadal’s game; rather, it’s a willful mastery of a strange, somewhat unnatural, and acutely effective technique.

Gilbert and McEnroe (and others) have also repeatedly called Nadal the “best problem-solver in the game.” This summer in particular, analysts like MacDonald have picked up on the small but hugely effective tweaks Nadal and his coach have made to get Nadal back to the top of the ATP tour:

The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. … vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly. … Two years ago, Djokovic owned Nadal. Now, after overcoming an injury to his knee and a seven-month layoff, Nadal seems to have solved the riddle of his most troubling nemesis.

Nadal has been one of the shrewdest players in professional tennis for a while now, and these days, more fans and analysts have begun to publicly appreciate that—as illustrated by remarks like John McEnroe’s. Maybe da Vinci’s most famous achievements—his artistic ones—still make “the Leonardo da Vinci of tennis” a more suitable title for Nadal’s more graceful counterpart, but it’s a pleasant surprise to see Nadal’s success rightly attributed to both brains and brawn.
 
I try to be reasonable about RF's decline and maybe I just refuse to see it, but I believe most of his problems on the court are confidence based and mental.

I don't see why someone who has won as much as he has would have confidence issues.

I am not a pro athlete.
 
#13 for the GOAT.

3473762_3_d111_rafael-nadal-et-son-trophee-apres-sa-victoire_48c27dff1a26a3b667e5f3ecad241863.jpg

Even though his constant ass and nut grabbing annoys the hell out of me, I really like his style of play. I've always pulled for him. Don't know about the GOAT part, although it would be interesting to see how many more he could have at this point if not for his countless injuries. Still has the opportunity though. I just think his style of play will keep him from passing Fed.
 
On another note, Fed, as you know, would never have won his French had Nadal been healthy. That would be 14 to 16, but pointless to talk about. I'm just rambling for the hell of it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top