[tennisphilia]

NADAL is still the king of clay. Djokovic is getting nearer but even he admits that beating Nadal on clay in the ultimate challenge. I think the Monte Carlo result is non-bearing for the rest of the clay court season. Looking more forward to the results at Rome and Madrid - the surfaces are closer to Roland Garros.

[sexybeast]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

I hear what you're saying, but the bolded part is surely wrong. Before last year, nobody had beaten Nadal in 2 clay finals in the same year or achieved a winning record against Nadal in a clay season. Nobody had actually beaten him in a final in Rome either. Had Nole won just one of those matches, you could perhaps disregard it in the same way you might Fed's wins against Nadal. But he won both, in straights. I agree Nadal will be tougher to beat at R.G., but if Djoker plays as well as he did last year, he can certainly get the win - though not in straights.

No, you are right. That came out wrong, what I meant was that any of the 2 matches seperated would not be anything that hasnt been done before against Nadal. Combination of both matches was impressive, but then again Djokovic still has alot to proof before he can be favorite against Nadal in RG.

I didnt even really understand this before, but it is quite obvious to me that Nadal is a different beast in MC/Barcelona/RG.

However, RG is playing very fast these days. Last year it was playing so fast I thought Federer could beat Nadal. I have to see how they play each other on RG clay with the smaller balls and everything, game on clay can change completely depending on the weather and circumstances.

[duong]

Originally Posted by sexybeast

I didnt even really understand this before, but it is quite obvious to me that Nadal is a different beast in MC/Barcelona/RG.

Roland-Garros is between Monte-Carlo and Roma for him.

Stats about the % of sets won since 2005 :
1. Barcelona 97%
2. Monte-Carlo 93%
3. Roland-Garros 91%
4. Roma 82%
5. Hamburg/Madrid 77%

Stats about the % of games won since 2005 :
1. Barcelona 70%
2. Monte-Carlo 68%
3. Roland-Garros 65%
4. Roma 63%
5. Hamburg/Madrid 59%

But it doesn't depend only on Nadal, also on his opponents : clay season has been like that for long, specialists do better in the beginning, less specialists do better in the end, it's not only a matter of different surfaces but also a matter of the way you prepare : clay specialists try to be good from the start of the clay season while less specialists try to peak for Roland-Garros. It has been like that since I've followed tennis (beginning of the 80s) : Monte-Carlo has always been a tournament where specialists had success, Roma and Hamburg it was less the case, Roland-Garros was between them.

PS : I keep these stats because clay season is so boring with Nadal, it's only interesting when you try to look at some partial challenges like taking Nadal to 5-5 (Wawrinka was the first to do it), to 6-6 and even better of course to win a set. I'm certain the best way (for other players than Djokovic) to play against Nadal on clay is to have such partial challenges in mind.

[Greatness]

I watched the highlights of the Monte Carlo final and it's clear to me that Novak will not be losing again to Rafa anytime soon.
Despite this terrible performance from Novak, he was still making Rafa run around like a helpless bunny and dictating play from both wings; what hurt Novak the most was not Rafa's level of play, it was Novak making unforced errors he usually doesn't make.

Rafa was still standing 8 feet behind the baseline, which has been a huge mistake against Novak in all their matches last year because he drops more short balls for Novak to hit winners with. You have to hit the ball flat and low against Novak and Rafa is still sending loopy, high bouncing forehands and still doesn't have an aggressive backhand down the line.

The only thing the Monte Carlo match proves is that Novak has to play like crap for Rafa to win.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Greatness

Despite this terrible performance from Novak, he was still making Rafa run around like a helpless bunny and dictating play from both wings; what hurt Novak the most was not Rafa's level of play, it was Novak making unforced errors he usually doesn't make.

yes, what also hurt him was the wind and how slow the surface is here to say the truth.

Anyway he would have had to work more than in Roma and Madrid to take Nadal out of the point.

Originally Posted by Greatness

You have to hit the ball flat and low against Novak and Rafa is still sending loopy, high bouncing forehands and still doesn't have an aggressive backhand down the line.

Nadal always plays with more spin in Monte-Carlo. On sunday he was also lucky with a few mishits but that's typically Nadal's game related to modern rackets

His backhand was really good in this match, as well as his serve.

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by Greatness

I watched the highlights of the Monte Carlo final and it's clear to me that Novak will not be losing again to Rafa anytime soon.
Despite this terrible performance from Novak, he was still making Rafa run around like a helpless bunny and dictating play from both wings; what hurt Novak the most was not Rafa's level of play, it was Novak making unforced errors he usually doesn't make.

Rafa was still standing 8 feet behind the baseline, which has been a huge mistake against Novak in all their matches last year because he drops more short balls for Novak to hit winners with. You have to hit the ball flat and low against Novak and Rafa is still sending loopy, high bouncing forehands and still doesn't have an aggressive backhand down the line.

The only thing the Monte Carlo match proves is that Novak has to play like crap for Rafa to win.

Good to know. You clearly missed the points that Rafa dictated, or ended with FH winners or won by serving unreturnables... Nadal has always run around on the baseline - that's not new - the question is can he get the ball back and is he allowing Novak to really step in and open up the court. He didn't allow that as much. If you didn't think Nadal was more aggressive than in previous meetings then you watched a different match. On clay he doesn't need to send the ball flat and low - he needs to strike down the middle and hit deep - it's not easy but Novak isn't unbeatable on clay - not by a long stretch.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Ash86

If you didn't think Nadal was more aggressive than in previous meetings then you watched a different match.

he was more aggressive especially because Djokovic often played very short

I think the main difference with the other matches was that Djokovic didn't put him on the defensive, esp. from the return.

See Tignor's analysis about what Djokovic did in Roma/Madrid last year comparing to their previous matches :

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012...t-changed.html

Frankly speaking, apart from Nadal's serve, I think the main difference between this match and the other ones was Djokovic's level, not Nadal's (even if Nadal's backhand was good in that match comparing to what it has beenon average in recent years)

[Nole fan]

Originally Posted by duong

Roland-Garros is between Monte-Carlo and Roma for him.

Stats about the % of sets won since 2005 :
1. Barcelona 97%
2. Monte-Carlo 93%
3. Roland-Garros 91%
4. Roma 82%
5. Hamburg/Madrid 77%

Stats about the % of games won since 2005 :
1. Barcelona 70%
2. Monte-Carlo 68%
3. Roland-Garros 65%
4. Roma 63%
5. Hamburg/Madrid 59%

But it doesn't depend only on Nadal, also on his opponents : clay season has been like that for long, specialists do better in the beginning, less specialists do better in the end, it's not only a matter of different surfaces but also a matter of the way you prepare : clay specialists try to be good from the start of the clay season while less specialists try to peak for Roland-Garros. It has been like that since I've followed tennis (beginning of the 80s) : Monte-Carlo has always been a tournament where specialists had success, Roma and Hamburg it was less the case, Roland-Garros was between them.

PS : I keep these stats because clay season is so boring with Nadal, it's only interesting when you try to look at some partial challenges like taking Nadal to 5-5 (Wawrinka was the first to do it), to 6-6 and even better of course to win a set. I'm certain the best way (for other players than Djokovic) to play against Nadal on clay is to have such partial challenges in mind.

Not to forget that the field both in Barcelona and Montecarlo is kind of weak. Djokovic, Murray and Federer have skipped them over the years.

[Nole fan]

Bodo:

You have to credit Nadal for taking full advantage of this opportunity. The windy conditions and the uneven play of Djokovic were surprising, but Nadal handled them extremely well. He was not about to avert his eyes and find that the momentum had shifted or the terms of engagement had changed when he decided to resume paying attention.

However, one aspect of this match that still might trouble Nadal fans was the extent to which Djokovic was still able to control the inside of the court, while leaving the heroics performed outside the lines to his opponent. Djokovic was unable to dictate on many occasions for any number of reasons, mostly having to do with the rule about keeping the ball within or on the lines. If he plays at a similar level in his future meetings with Nadal, the result is likely to be the same. Yet we also saw many examples of the shot combinations that allow Djokovic to push Nadal around and off the court, which must continue to be an area of concern for Nadal.

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/...urgencies.html

[Greatness]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Good to know. You clearly missed the points that Rafa dictated, or ended with FH winners or won by serving unreturnables... Nadal has always run around on the baseline - that's not new - the question is can he get the ball back and is he allowing Novak to really step in and open up the court. He didn't allow that as much. If you didn't think Nadal was more aggressive than in previous meetings then you watched a different match. On clay he doesn't need to send the ball flat and low - he needs to strike down the middle and hit deep - it's not easy but Novak isn't unbeatable on clay - not by a long stretch.

You are talking as if Rafa's aggression makes any difference in this match-up when it's clear that it doesn't because Novak defends well from both wings.

Nadal has always run around but not in desperation like he does against Novak. Go watch Madrid and Rome 2011 and see how many times Rafa swings at air and barely gets a racket on Novak's shots: how can he be aggressive when he can barely get his racket on the ball? Against other players he can defend and attack, but against Novak he's usually limited to defending, meaning the match is on Novak's racket; I saw the same type of desperate defending in the Monte Carlo final points even against a crap level of play from Novak.

It's true that you don't need to hit the ball flat on clay or any surface for that matter, but you will have a tough time beating in form Novak if you don't.
Murray gave Novak more trouble than Rafa in Rome 2011, why do you think that is? Murray hits flatter and deeper, so does Roger, which is why they have both been able to beat Novak last year while Rafa's loopy high bounces were getting smashed away consistently in 7 finals in a row.

Bodo: "Yet we also saw many examples of the shot combinations that allow Djokovic to push Nadal around and off the court, which must continue to be an area of concern for Nadal."

This.
Rafa hasn't answered with anything new. Low level from Novak is his only chance.

[Alex999]

to be honest, Djokovic simply played a sh!t match. just horrible. no, I don't want to take anything away from Nadal, but again ... Djokovic was not there. It's not a big deal, you can not be 100% every day.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Nole fan

Not to forget that the field both in Barcelona and Montecarlo is kind of weak. Djokovic, Murray and Federer have skipped them over the years.

for Barcelona yes (but it's also the slowest surface : Fed and Djoko wouldn't like it), but for Monte-Carlo I talk of stats since 2005 and until 2009 included, there were always Fed or Djoko in the end. In 2010 only Fed in Madrid did it until the end. In 2011, yes, Djoko was not there in Monte-Carlo.

But anyway these stats were basically the same from 2005 to 2009 : less games lost in Barcelona then Monte-Carlo then Roma then Hamburg/Madrid, and I guess it's related top the quickness of the court and the position in the calendar.

Anyway even in the past, Monte-Carlo has always been the tournament with the highest number of surprising losses for top-players who are not specialists of that surface : it's more a specialists' tournament than the others as I said, but it's been traditionally the best tournament for specialists, because often specialists did get more tired by Roma/Hamburg.

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by Nole fan

Not to forget that the field both in Barcelona and Montecarlo is kind of weak. Djokovic, Murray and Federer have skipped them over the years.

Your credibility in terms of actually discussing tennis gets lower every time. Can you show tangibly that the MC field is weak? The good clay courters play it - so what if Fish, Roddick etc. don't play. They weren't going to do anything anyway. How many times has Fed skipped? Or Novak? 1 or 2? Would they have beaten Rafa anyway? No. Novak was there in 2010 and got beaten by Verdasco - not Nadal's fault.

Nadal's just brilliant MC - it's a Masters series with a top clay field.

As for Bodo's match analysis - I agree - there were signs of what Novak could do - which is why I don't think the win means Rafa will win every time. But maybe there were also things that were harder for Novak because of what Rafa could do. To pretend this match had no impact at all is what I'm saying is silly....

[EddieNero]

I'm afraid this MC win has turned this rivarly around again. Nadal got rid of Nole's complex and the whole effort Djoković put into building the mental edge over Nadal faded away.

Nadal is going to win everything up to Wimbledon.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Ash86

But maybe there were also things that were harder for Novak because of what Rafa could do.

what for instance ? (believe me that's a completely naive question : I just wondered when reading you, I could think of the serve but nothing else)

Originally Posted by Ash86

To pretend this match had no impact at all is what I'm saying is silly....

a mental impact certainly