2014 Australian Open Championship...Melbourne, Austalia

[klacr]

Nadal got some back paiins after a warm-up.
Being an old school would you quit BEFORE or AFTER the first set?
So being 80% you would default at AO?
Very interesting.
Would you apply the same logic if Berdych would be playing instead of Nadal?

This post was good and made me laugh. Thanks Julian.

I heard Nadal had back pains after warm-up. My main point was let's give Wawrinka his due and not say Nadal lost only because he's injured. Wawrinka was playing him tough and its bad luck for Rafa. No doubt Nadal is an incredible competitor and was heartbroken by the outcome. Credit to him for staying out there and giving fans some extra tennis. If this was not a grand slam final you might suspect he would have retired from the match. You never want to lose that way, especially in a big moment. I thought Stan got a little careless in the 3rd set and that was dangerous as it gave Nadal a glimmer of hope. it's tough to play someone who is noticeably not 100%. However, you must focus and tell yourself they are 100% and continue with your game plan. If they are strong enough to remain on court as your competition, they are strong enough to beat you. I guess it all depends on your pain threshold. Everyone is different.

As for your Berdych question, if his back was giving him problems during an Aussie Open final I'd have the same amount of respect for him staying out there for the fans and fighting back to win the 3rd set. But since you asked a hypothetical question of "If Berdych were Nadal..." does this mean we could also say Berdych also has 13 grand slams? If so, that's damn impressive. I could live with that. I like that switcheroo

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[julian1]

Nadal

Glorious Glorious Glorious.

New Blood.

What a match by Stan. Some detractors will say Nadal was injured and that may be the case, but Stan still had to execute, and he did. I'm a bit old school in the thought that if you step on the court, and continue to play, you are 100%. There is a difference between being hurt and being injured. If you are hurt, you can continue to play. If you are injured, stop playing. But I digress.

Credit to Stan. Before Nadal had his back issue, Stan legitimately competed and won the first set, simply playing better than Nadal. How do you beat a guy that runs everything down and gets everything back? Play every ball and every point on your terms and hope you redline. Stanislas Wawrinka did that today.
Some of his ground strokes were just unreal and Rafa knew it was gonna be a long day, healthy or injured. Stan lost his focus a bit in that 3rd set with Nadal playing wounded warrior. Just when you thought Nadal was going to pull off the impossible and make a comeback, Stan held his ground. Breaks of serve traded in that 4th set set Stan up for a serve for the championship. He cruised through that game and became Australian Open Champ. A man with a one-handed backhand, a chip return and an ability to play the net if he so chooses. He exercised many demons when he beat Djokovic. Once you Climb Everest or K2, Mt. McKinley (Denali) doesn't seem so tough. Credit to Wawrinka and major credit to his coach who taught Stan something bigger than x's and o's, he taught him BELIEF in himself. A lesson all coaches can give to their students.

On a sde note and an obligatory Tberd mention, Berdych has lost to the eventual Aussie Open Chamion in 3 of the last 4 years. The one he did not was 2012 when he lost to Nadal, who lost to Djokovic in that epic 5 setter. Just some food for thought. Perghaps a consolation trophy for Berdych? Thye title goes through Berdych.
Grasping for straws I know

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Nadal got some back paiins after a warm-up.
Being an old school would you quit BEFORE or AFTER the first set?
So being 80% you would default at AO?
Very interesting.
Would you apply the same logic if Berdych would be playing instead of Nadal?

[klacr]

Stan IS The Man!

Glorious Glorious Glorious.

New Blood.

What a match by Stan. Some detractors will say Nadal was injured and that may be the case, but Stan still had to execute, and he did. I'm a bit old school in the thought that if you step on the court, and continue to play, you are 100%. There is a difference between being hurt and being injured. If you are hurt, you can continue to play. If you are injured, stop playing. But I digress.

Credit to Stan. Before Nadal had his back issue, Stan legitimately competed and won the first set, simply playing better than Nadal. How do you beat a guy that runs everything down and gets everything back? Play every ball and every point on your terms and hope you redline. Stanislas Wawrinka did that today.
Some of his ground strokes were just unreal and Rafa knew it was gonna be a long day, healthy or injured. Stan lost his focus a bit in that 3rd set with Nadal playing wounded warrior. Just when you thought Nadal was going to pull off the impossible and make a comeback, Stan held his ground. Breaks of serve traded in that 4th set set Stan up for a serve for the championship. He cruised through that game and became Australian Open Champ. A man with a one-handed backhand, a chip return and an ability to play the net if he so chooses. He exercised many demons when he beat Djokovic. Once you Climb Everest or K2, Mt. McKinley (Denali) doesn't seem so tough. Credit to Wawrinka and major credit to his coach who taught Stan something bigger than x's and o's, he taught him BELIEF in himself. A lesson all coaches can give to their students.

On a side note and an obligatory Tberd mention, Berdych has lost to the eventual Aussie Open Chamion in 3 of the last 4 years. The one he did not was 2012 when he lost to Nadal, who lost to Djokovic in that epic 5 setter. Just some food for thought. Perghaps a consolation trophy for Berdych? Thye title goes through Berdych.
Grasping for straws I know

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Rotten luck to get injured

I missed the final because of work. I am waiting for it to come up on Youtube. Such a shame Nadal became injured. Apparently Wawrinka was playing well and won the first set on merit...so I am told. It's tough on Nadal, though, after playing so well against Federer. I thought if he had won today he would have a good shot at pulling off a calendar grand slam. You have to figure he will play another 12 slams at his zenith...and it's likely he could win 6 of those.

[tennis_chiro]

6-3 Wawrinka

Wow!

[klacr]

After listening to the moronic babble coming out of the commentators mouths I promptly told my wife that she was married to the most intelligent man on the planet.

Federer blasted ball after ball into the net right from the get go...topspin backhands every one of them. Not a single word from the geniuses with the microphone that it might be intelligent to try a slice down the line or sharply angled crosscourt. Morons.

Modern tennis has got themselves a real SNAFU on their hands...Situation Normal All Fucked Up. The commentators and apparently the coaching world have all drank the Kool-Aid. Witness the effects of political correctness...it causes blindness.

I thought the exact same thing tennis_chiro about the commentary...I have thought it for a long time. Utter nonsense. All of it. I could do a way better job of it...I have the voice too.

We need to start our own tennis centric television channel. We do the commentary.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Too much for TV...and now too much for live-streaming on the computer.

I didn't see a single mention on Eurosport from any of the commentators about the lack of the slice or even and effective down the line backhand from Federer, even a topspin one. Are any of them aware of this "thrust/parry" strategy that we are talking about here. Apparently not. I don't know what they are saying on ESPN or the Tennis Channel, but I suspect it is more of the same.

don

After listening to the moronic babble coming out of the commentators mouths I promptly told my wife that she was married to the most intelligent man on the planet.

Federer blasted ball after ball into the net right from the get go...topspin backhands every one of them. Not a single word from the geniuses with the microphone that it might be intelligent to try a slice down the line or sharply angled crosscourt. Morons.

Modern tennis has got themselves a real SNAFU on their hands...Situation Normal All Fucked Up. The commentators and apparently the coaching world have all drank the Kool-Aid. Witness the effects of political correctness...it causes blindness.

I thought the exact same thing tennis_chiro about the commentary...I have thought it for a long time. Utter nonsense. All of it. I could do a way better job of it...I have the voice too.

[don_budge]

Borg vs. McEnroe...Nadal vs. Federer is not

don_budge often brings up the Borg v McEnroe rivalry and likens it to Nadal and Federer's...it's almost irresistible not to. But in that rivalry McEnroe had a game that was three quarters the way there to start with...a few tweaks here and the padlock was off to beat Borg, but it was never easy...very intricate actually...and Mac's IQ for the game was/is the best ever. I've said this before on the forum and I will say it again: McEnroe always played the right game using the right shots at the right time...virtually always.

Actually...I never likened the rivalry of Nadal and Federer to that of McEnroe and Borg. I only point out that the tactical struggle has some real similarities. The opposite hands...contrasting styles. Therein lies a game plan to emulate or at least to study. If you had any sense at all...any sense of being a student of the game. But that requires a real knowledge of history...not the slop that is being dished up these days.

But the "rivalry" of the modern age players falls way short of the other two classic players. Theirs was the last and final scene on what was once known as classic tennis...lawn tennis...spharistikè. The art of playing the ball...in Greek. What they are playing today does not remotely resemble what McEnroe and Borg were playing.

Contrary to popular myth it was not necessarily McEnroe who was doing all of the chasing of Borg in their brief three year rivalry. John won the first in Stockholm of all places, two of the first three and three of the first five meetings and all in all it was a rivalry of equals...which is what made it a rivalry. A perfect balance of everything opposite...including apparently polar opposites of personality. It was mathematically speaking...a balanced equation. These two are nothing but pretenders...I am sorry to say. Nadal is a jerk and Federer is a patsy.

Even Borg...who was the "baseline machine" serve and volleyed on the slick grass at Wimbledon. Both players had enough "game" to adapt their own play to different conditions...which is something that even the slightly altered conditions at the Australian Open illustrated that the modern players are not capable of doing. No "cat and mouse"...just a "couple of guys throwing rocks at each other".

There is not "likening" in the rivalry aspect...but there are some similarities in the tactical puzzle. Federer and his brain trust should have been looking into this a long time ago. It's funny how Edberg went from looking like a genius to just warmed up hash. Great players make great coaches? Not necessarily. Becker doesn't look to have had any meaningful input into the Djokovic process and some are even speculating a negative influence.

There is no possible comparison between the modern players and the classic players. By now readers of this forum realize what a sham has been perpetrated on the sacred sport of tennis. Nobody likes to admit it...but it is true. This Australian Open instead of igniting a revolution has fizzled like some wet fireworks on the Fourth of July. It sounded and felt like the air going out of a balloon.

I came to realize how far tennis has fallen this past two weeks. I watched everything that I could and now I completely convinced there is no way back. I knew it back in 1981...you can ask Dr. Herbert Krickstein and his talented son Aaron. I called it...and I never wavered. Now the rooster has come home to roost. "They" destroyed the sport and all that it represented. To even think for an instant that either of these too are the GOAT is such a joke...they are merely prospering from a watered down talent pool and media hype.

Welcome to the modern world...which George Orwell predicted many years ago. He who controls the past controls the present. What is power? Answer...control.

I am too disgusted to write any more...but given some time to collect my thoughts...I'll be back.

[stotty]

Interesting-- Navratilova's unremitting comment on Roger's forehand volley-- racket tip too high.

The tip is certainly higher than most good volleyers it seems. I am not sure what the deficit is with the racket being more "stood up" than other players. Things seem okay on impact.

The problem with the Federer overcoming the Nadal dilemma is Federer cannot do the all out attack serve and volley business. Nadal would get used to that and Federer would soon end up playing volleys at his ankles, which he is no good at...relatively speaking. That kind of thing can only be done by Edberg, McEnroe and all that crowd. No, it has to be a selective business, which is bound to get trickier as the match wears on. Nadal is a super fast learner so the guessing game could only go on for so long. Sooner or later rallies are bound to get longer, and once Nadal finds his length and groove it then becomes very difficult for Roger to get to the net at all. You can see Roger being able to pull off the necessary for one and half sets...or possibly two, but after that it would be close to impossible for him to keep the "cat and mouse" tactic up, or the standard of play required...unless he got rain delays...as in Wimbledon 2008, which he lost in the end anyway.

don_budge often brings up the Borg v McEnroe rivalry and likens it to Nadal and Federer's...it's almost irresistible not to. But in that rivalry McEnroe had a game that was three quarters the way there to start with...a few tweaks here and the padlock was off to beat Borg, but it was never easy...very intricate actually...and Mac's IQ for the game was/is the best ever. I've said this before on the forum and I will say it again: McEnroe always played the right game using the right shots at the right time...virtually always.

Federer isn't three quarters of the way there...not even half way. Tilden would have written off a whole season building a game to take on the Nadal of his day. Federer should write off the next six months until Wimbledon to do the same. Who cares if he loses time and again between now and then to learn the craft.

Federer quit midway through that second set...went through the motions after that. Nadal is tough, the toughest I have ever witnessed. In truth it's unlikely Federer will ever beat a fit Nadal again. Nadal may be simply too good for Roger...but as my Italian wife often says, "hope is the last thing to die"

[bottle]

Interesting-- Navratilova's unremitting comment on Roger's forehand volley-- racket tip too high. Maybe he should have hired her instead of Steffan Edberg. Also, to focus on a single point near the end of the match: Roger generates an easy short ball to come in on affording him time for anything he wants. So what does he do? Uncorks a full topspin crosscourt backhand from ten feet away into the net.

Why not a slice or drop-shot as Navratilova asks? Not enough success with the drop-shot? Nonsense! For quite a while he won every point when he used it, sometimes after two or three reflex volleys.

One has no idea of the pressure out there-- unless of course one feels intense pressure every day of one's life.

Regardless, more bad decisions by the Fed came into effect the longer the games wore on. His head, I would argue, not his body, let him down.

[stotty]

I just came home from work to see the end scoreline. Well, it was only going one way after that first set for me...so no surprise.

It didn't start off too bad. Federer was tight to the baseline. He was playing well from inside the baseline also. He was definitely stealing time from Nadal and had Nadal retreating well behind the baseline. The problem is there was no other tactic backing it up...and nothing like the opening two sets against Murray. And then we started getting the lengthy rallies. At that point it was as good as over.

And, yes, what happened to the slice!

The encouraging thing is that when he does what he is supposed to (as the two Murray sets) it looks doable, it even looks easy. It's just when it comes to the crunch he reverts...understandable...but can he not see it's the ONLY way he could ever beat Nadal.

I know it sounds insane, but I actually think Wawrinka has more chance than Federer. He is more penetrating off the ground and better in the lengthy rallies...the penetration factor being the most important ingredient, being as he doesn't have the arsenal of Federer. If he can dislodge Djokovic, then why not Nadal...this is the way he must think. And he was a little unlucky at the ATP finals at the O2 where he should have won one of those two very close sets...lady luck had her say in that one.

The problem is he is 12-0 in head-to-heads and that's tough to overcome...

[tennis_chiro]

No one else agrees with us about the slice??!!

I didn't see a single mention on Eurosport from any of the commentators about the lack of the slice or even and effective down the line backhand from Federer, even a topspin one. Are any of them aware of this "thrust/parry" strategy that we are talking about here. Apparently not. I don't know what they are saying on ESPN or the Tennis Channel, but I suspect it is more of the same.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Everything Stotty and don_budge were saying was so true. That was hard to watch.

I think Wawrinka will do better. But if the blister does not sideline Nadal, he looks awfully good.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Perhaps Nadal is just too much into Federer's head. That last service break was a gift.

don

[tennis_chiro]

I think Federer has fallen in love too much with his improved backhand. He is saying, effectively, "I'm tired of getting beaten up on this side and now, Rafa, I can hit your damned topspin forehand to my backhand. I don't have to play my slice."

He is definitely hitting that shot better, but it is not better than Rafa's forehand. Federer is hitting hardly any slice backhands unless he has no other choice. This is a huge mistake. Rafa is getting to see the same ball over and over again and he is just teeing it up. Glaringly absent is the parry and thrust element of a slice backhand hit by Federer by choice to change up the pace a little bit. And the lack of any ability to hit the Rosewallian slice deep and sharp into the corners of the court. On any chance Federer has to set up and hit his backhand, he is going solely with the topspin backhand; big mistake.

In the parlance of Malcolm Gladwell's "David and Goliath", David might as well have engaged Goliath in close quarters hand-to-hand combat because he had gone on a new strength training program and was 25% stronger than he had been before. David beat Goliath by using artillery and staying out of the range of Goliath's strength. (Great book by the way!)

This tactical error on the backhand is just one part of Roger's problem. I stated in an earlier post that it was going to be really hard for any of these players to learn to adopt the aggressive tactics Federer has been using through his first five matches. It should be easier for Federer because he played serve and volley tennis when he was younger. But even for Federer, when faced with real stress, resisting returning to the tactics he has been using for the last 8 or 9 years is really difficult. Nadal's ball is just a little bit heavier than everyone else's, but he has to play it early to have any real chance. At this point, just having broken back to 2-2 in the third set, he is going to have to rely on tremendous serving and the hope that Rafa's blister starts to play a role. And perhaps adrenalin has a role to play yet.

I hope I am wrong. Fed has just slithered off the hook to 2-3. Perhaps there is still hope!

don