Who could beat Nadal at the French if... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who could beat Nadal at the French if...

uNIVERSE mAN
06-07-2012, 05:39 PM
They were spotted a point 15-0 or 0-15 in every game? I still think very, very few people could do it.

GSMnadal
06-07-2012, 05:44 PM
Is it the off season yet? To answer the question, this would help more than the 2-0 sets in my opinion, Rafa usually lets an awful lot of games get to deuce

Freak3yman84
06-07-2012, 05:48 PM
Hmmmm maybe Soderling...

Certinfy
06-07-2012, 05:53 PM
It depends on how Nadal plays. If he plays well then no one.

Dmitry Verdasco
06-07-2012, 05:56 PM
Sara Errani

Mjau!
06-07-2012, 05:59 PM
It depends on how Nadal plays. If he plays well then no one.

:facepalm:

Looner
06-07-2012, 06:01 PM
It depends on how Nadal plays. If he plays well then no one.

You forgot to add he has to be fully healthy and fit. If he's fit, even Berdych can beat him.

Mods, please bin this thread.

156mphserve
06-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Nole, and a few others

getting gifted 1 point to start a game would be a lot more helpful that people think.

Smoke944
06-07-2012, 06:08 PM
Nole, and a few others

getting gifted 1 point to start a game would be a lot more helpful that people think.

this. Stupid thread, but if it actually happened a lot of guys could beat him

MaxPower
06-07-2012, 06:24 PM
Every other top50 player. Have you noticed how few points that differ in many pro matches. Even in "routine" wins. Imagine every 30-40, 15-40, 0-40 being the actual break instead. And in reverse a safe hold for the same player. Players get to that situation all the time vs Nadal.

Soderling could do it without. Isner could take 2 sets without. With an advantage like that even his fellow spaniards like Almagro could straight set him. Player like Andujar would take 1-2 sets from Nadal, maybe even win

nastoff
06-07-2012, 06:26 PM
what a bizarre topic, lets make one for Djokovic too.

paseo
06-07-2012, 06:54 PM
Donald Young.

Mark Lenders
06-07-2012, 06:55 PM
A lot of players. 1 point in every game makes a huge difference.

ahadabans
06-07-2012, 07:01 PM
Agreed. Most tight matches are decided by just a few points. Granted, few people play Nadal tight on this court. But 1 free point per game would be very difficult to overcome even for Clay Warrior.

Mark Lenders
06-07-2012, 07:09 PM
Even in blowouts, players rarely win more than 60% of total points. Nadal won 65% of points vs Monaco for instance, his maximum at this year's RG. Had Monaco been gifted a free points every game, he could even beaten Nadal.

The margins are much finer than people think in matches between top 50 players, Nadal would basically have 0 chance of reaching semis if his opponent had a free point every game, let alone win the title.

TigerTim
06-07-2012, 07:13 PM
Nadal would be home by QF. This is a huge handicap.

Mountaindewslave
06-07-2012, 11:51 PM
let's be honest, almost no one would beat him still. the way he dominates his opponents no clay, they would still not have the talent nor mental edge to beat him on the games. I mean just imagine the fact that they would be aware that he is such a threat they GET a handicap like that.

it would make little difference. MAYBE Djokovic or Murray? THat's still in doubt though. you value one point too much if you seriously think it would enable lower ranked players to beat Nadal. players on clay sometimes fail to win points against Nadal, let alone games.

not to mention he fights so insanely for every point. case and point really is how hard have you seen Nadal work to get to the SF's of this ROland Garros? not hard at all. even if in the matches he played opponents had had this one point advantage it is doubtful they would have made the matches close.

OP makes a good point in that Nadal is virtually unbeatable on clay when healthy and in the zone

Mountaindewslave
06-07-2012, 11:52 PM
Nadal would be home by QF. This is a huge handicap.

really you think Monaco would have beaten Nadal even if he had a point advantage each game when they played this tournament? that is purely delusional.

156mphserve
06-08-2012, 12:47 AM
In his match with Schwank, Nadal won 25 more points than Schwank. The match lasted 26 games. So If Schwank were given 1 point each game for free he would have won 1 more point than Nadal, so it's very conceivable that he could have beaten Rafa.

Now if we do the same for the Almagro match. Nadal won 23 more points than Almagro. There were 30 games including the TB which I'm assuming he would be gifted a point in too. So give Almagro 1 point each game and he won 7 more points than Nadal, and probably beats him.

So It wouldn't be that difficult

Looner
06-08-2012, 12:49 AM
If you were to do that, thing's won't change much. RN is an animal on BPs and his opponents are mugs. So he'd still win but slower/harder. If he knows he's behind he'll just turn the serve switch on like every other great... oh wait...

Say Hey Kid
06-08-2012, 01:47 AM
Fed, Djokovic, Delpo, Ferrer, Almagro, Berdych would be relatively heavy favorites over Nadal in this situation. One point handicap everygame would be huge.

Mountaindewslave
06-08-2012, 02:33 AM
Fed, Djokovic, Delpo, Ferrer, Almagro, Berdych would be relatively heavy favorites over Nadal in this situation. One point handicap everygame would be huge.

it's Nadal on clay, if he was down a point to start out each game you seriously don't expect that you'd see a Nadal way way focused and determined? he'd be battling every single point. I think you are mistaken, it is ill logic to act like this is a normal setting. at any other tournament in the world, maybe minus currently Djokovic at Australia or Nadal at other clay events, it would be detrimental for a player at his best surface and best form to be losing the first point of each game BUT this is Nadal on clay. even with a handicap he is still better than others on the surface.

there is nothing parallel to Nadal on clay as far as dominance on a surface or at a tournament, and best of 5 Roland Garros I don't think he would be beaten hardly ever, if at all, even with that disadvantage. just go back and look at how many close matches he has had. and if you pull out any 'he only won by so many points, the scoreline is decieving' it is a moot point given Nadal obviously plays differently/at different intensities given circumstances, and he would certainly be playing a bit more focused if knowingly down a point to start every game

Ajk822
06-08-2012, 02:36 AM
Tomorrow someone should chart the match and see what the score would be if this happened. I bet Ferrer would win easily. This is basically giving the other player a 25% advantage every single game.

Mark Lenders
06-08-2012, 02:40 AM
it's Nadal on clay, if he was down a point to start out each game you seriously don't expect that you'd see a Nadal way way focused and determined? he'd be battling every single point. I think you are mistaken, it is ill logic to act like this is a normal setting. at any other tournament in the world, maybe minus currently Djokovic at Australia or Nadal at other clay events, it would be detrimental for a player at his best surface and best form to be losing the first point of each game BUT this is Nadal on clay. even with a handicap he is still better than others on the surface.

there is nothing parallel to Nadal on clay as far as dominance on a surface or at a tournament, and best of 5 Roland Garros I don't think he would be beaten hardly ever, if at all, even with that disadvantage. just go back and look at how many close matches he has had. and if you pull out any 'he only won by so many points, the scoreline is decieving' it is a moot point given Nadal obviously plays differently/at different intensities given circumstances, and he would certainly be playing a bit more focused if knowingly down a point to start every game

You underestimate how fine margins are in tennis. There's simply no way Nadal would win Roland Garros or anyone would win any tournament with such handicap. I dare say he'd even have lost the 2008 final to Federer if Roger started every game 15-0 up.

The tennis scoring system simply makes this impossible. Even Federer in his prime would not have won Slams with such handicap. Even in 6-0, 6-0 blowouts, the margins in terms of points are slimmer than one thinks, let alone in actually competitive matches.

With this handicap, Nadal would have lost R1 to Isner last year, would have lost at max QF to Almagro this year and been crushed in 3 easy sets by Del Potro in the Davis Cup final last year.

With this scoring system, there will never be a tennis player dominant enough to win with such handicap. Starting every match 0-2 down in sets is a far better handicap than starting every game down a point tbf.

In short, you need to win four points to win a game vs Nadal on clay. If you start 15-0 up, you only need three points. It might not look much, but it is a tremendous difference when we're talking about elite players.

156mphserve
06-08-2012, 02:55 AM
Tomorrow someone should chart the match and see what the score would be if this happened. I bet Ferrer would win easily. This is basically giving the other player a 25% advantage every single game.

I don't think that's actually possible to do though, because if Nadal hold to 30, the 40-30 point using this system would be actually deuce, and then when nadal wins the next point it's game, when here it's only Adv. Nadal, I don't think continuing in the next service game would be fair considering the 0-0 points aren't as important as the deuce and advantage points.

Plus the match would likely end before it did in our scoing system and we'd end with something like 6-3 6-7 5-3 and that's it

leng jai
06-08-2012, 03:11 AM
Even in blowouts, players rarely win more than 60% of total points. Nadal won 65% of points vs Monaco for instance, his maximum at this year's RG. Had Monaco been gifted a free points every game, he could even beaten Nadal.

The margins are much finer than people think in matches between top 50 players, Nadal would basically have 0 chance of reaching semis if his opponent had a free point every game, let alone win the title.

David Pics Ferrer.

Caesar1844
06-08-2012, 03:25 AM
Tons of players, especially the good returners.

1 point may not sound like much, but there are only 4 points in a game. That is, it is now 25% easier for his opponent to take games from Nadal.

Even a poor player will get to 30 on an opponent's serve a few times a match, and will almost always get to 30 on their own serve (even when they're broken). In this scenario, every time that happened it would be a game point.

Nadal is a great player but he would really struggle to win matches against anyone decent in that situation.

Mimi
06-08-2012, 03:35 AM
They were spotted a point 15-0 or 0-15 in every game? I still think very, very few people could do it.

:confused::confused: sorry don't understand?

156mphserve
06-08-2012, 05:06 AM
Tons of players, especially the good returners.

1 point may not sound like much, but there are only 4 points in a game. That is, it is now 25% easier for his opponent to take games from Nadal.
Even a poor player will get to 30 on an opponent's serve a few times a match, and will almost always get to 30 on their own serve (even when they're broken). In this scenario, every time that happened it would be a game point.

Nadal is a great player but he would really struggle to win matches against anyone decent in that situation.

The math in not as simple as assuming 1 point of 4 given to him means he's 1/4 more likely to win games

To figure that out you'd need to know how likely a player is to win a point against Nadal, and do a probability tree.

If you assume that each point is 50/50(Nadal wins 50%, his opponent wins 50%) then not given the 0-15 or 15-0 advantage, Nadal's opponent would win 50 % of the games. Given the 1 point advantage the simpliest of probability trees will give the opponent a 21/32 chance to win the game, that is roughly 65.6 % chance of winning the game, a 15.6 % increase from normal circumstances, not 25%.

Clearly the 50 % assumption is no good however. There'd be different numbers for when nadal is serving and when he is returning for the likelyhood that his opponent wins the point and then you could use that number in a more complicated probability tree to find such number, but that number would not be 25%.

/Math

:confused::confused: sorry don't understand?

He means Nadal's opponent is given a point to start each game, which players would beat Nadal

156mphserve
06-08-2012, 05:57 AM
I did manual probability calculations to see how often Nadal would hold his serve on clay given a 0-15 deficit every service game

Firstly I'm basing all my numbers on Nadal's Career clay stats.

using his 1st serve %, and his first serve points won, and 2nd serve points won, I calculated that Nadal win 66% of his service points(I found it odd that this wasn't listed on the atp stats on the atp site).

Then using a probability tree I calculated that using this 66% that Nadal will hold 84 % of the time on clay. This exactly matches the number given on the ATP site so I think my calculations are valid.

then I did the same probability tree calculations to figure out how often he would hold serve if he started down 0-15 every game. I found that he would hold serve 72% of the time on clay. In comparision Robin Haase holds serve 72% of the time on clay, so I think Nadal would be very beatable

Jimnik
06-08-2012, 05:59 AM
What if his side of the court was 3 inches wider and longer.

156mphserve
06-08-2012, 06:46 AM
I did manual probability calculations to see how often Nadal would hold his serve on clay given a 0-15 deficit every service game

Firstly I'm basing all my numbers on Nadal's Career clay stats.

using his 1st serve %, and his first serve points won, and 2nd serve points won, I calculated that Nadal win 66% of his service points(I found it odd that this wasn't listed on the atp stats on the atp site).

Then using a probability tree I calculated that using this 66% that Nadal will hold 84 % of the time on clay. This exactly matches the number given on the ATP site so I think my calculations are valid.

then I did the same probability tree calculations to figure out how often he would hold serve if he started down 0-15 every game. I found that he would hold serve 72% of the time on clay. In comparision Robin Haase holds serve 72% of the time on clay, so I think Nadal would be very beatable

continuing on this. I calculated the probability that Nadal will break serve from 15-0 down. His career stats on clay are he wins 47% of return points so this is the number I used.

For comparision Nadal breaks his opponents serve 43 % of the time on clay.

Based on my calculations, from 15-0 down, Nadal will break only 30 % of the time

For comparision Robin Haase breaks 29% of the time on clay.

So Nadal would hold as often a Robin Haase and break just 1% more than Robin Haase, so giving his opponent 1 free point to start each game, and Nadal would basically be as beatable as Robin Haase is on clay

GSMnadal
06-08-2012, 07:45 AM
continuing on this. I calculated the probability that Nadal will break serve from 15-0 down. His career stats on clay are he wins 47% of return points so this is the number I used.

For comparision Nadal breaks his opponents serve 43 % of the time on clay.

Based on my calculations, from 15-0 down, Nadal will break only 30 % of the time

For comparision Robin Haase breaks 29% of the time on clay.

So Nadal would hold as often a Robin Haase and break just 1% more than Robin Haase, so giving his opponent 1 free point to start each game, and Nadal would basically be as beatable as Robin Haase is on clay

One slight difference between Rafa and GOAT Robin Haase, their mental state. I think when Rafa is down breakpoint, he elevates his level instead of folding like a cheap tent. Even when Rafa is down 0-15 or 0-30, he always seems to step it up. Getting that break will still be very tough, because Nadal is a great match player.

Caesar1844
06-08-2012, 11:26 PM
The math in not as simple as assuming 1 point of 4 given to him means he's 1/4 more likely to win games
I didn't say he was 25% more likely to win games. I said it was 25% easier for him to win games.

Big difference.