posted Dec 1, 2007

henman
roddick
nadal
rafter

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 1, 2007

Rosewall, whom I once saw play, is certaintly the best never to have won Wimbledon. A secondary list would include Ivan Lendl, Ilie Nastase, Nadal and Patrick Rafter in that order.

------------

Katada, your “nothing is guaranteed” philosophy is interesting. It is not guaranteed that a person might not be hit by lightning or a car outside her home. Whether in business or in life, the most successful and intelligent companies and individuals are better at predicting future outcomes (and taking the right decisions) based on assessements and probabilities. We do it all the time, instead of being paralyzed by uncertainty.

In 2005, 2006 and again this year, some wishful Nadal fans and other analysts prematurely speculated that Nadal might or would overtake Federer for the No. 1 ranking, based on Nadal’s results in the clay-heavy first half of the season. However those who assessed the big picture better, realized that Federer would probably prevail over an entire season. They got it right because of good analysis, not luck.

Nadal is unlikely to beat Federer at Wimbledon for at least the next 2 years. At this year’s Wimbledon final, Nadal played the best major match of his career. Yet Nadal’s best and most aggressive could not beat Federer playing below his best (until he raised his game at key moments and near the end of the match). Federer has now beaten Nadal in 5 of the last 7 times they played (Nadal won only twice on clay while Federer has beaten Nadal on all surfaces, including clay). Based on Nadal’s struggles getting through the early rounds, it is probable that Nadal will continue to have a harder time getting to the Wimbledon final than Federer will have getting to the French final. As well, Nadal will have to deal with a new problem. For two years Nadal’s No. 2 position has been unchallenged while he was hunting Federer. Now Nadal will have to deal with being hunted by players such as Djokovic and the one or two others who are able to step it up.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 2, 2007

Interesting post MorePerspective. As a Nadal fan, I didn't think he would get to number one this year. He isn't good enough yet on HC to win the big tournaments and he was only in contention because he played extra tournaments, Federer lost more but played less. At the moment, you have to acknowledge Federer as the better player. Agree about the Wimbledon final. Nadal played about the best tennis I have ever seen him play but lost with a bit of bad luck IMO. However MorePerspective I don't buy into the whole "he played badly in the match and as a result Nadal almost won" thing. You play each other on the day and the better player wins- in this case Federer was the better player. Yes it is probable that Federer can make RG final easier than Nadal can make Wimbledon final. But paper is different to reality and several factors play into it e.g. scheduling, opponents, form etc. You can't sit and say he'll make the final, he'll get to the third round etc. without assessing the other factors. But I think this is where Katada's "nothing is guaranteed" idea comes in. The thing is MorePerspective, every player struggles against specific players and it could be a case of Nadal being drawn heavy servers and hitters at Wimbledon i.e. Youzhny, Djokovic etc. and therefore his path to the final looks harder than if say he had been drawn against the likes of clay-courters. At RG if Federer had been given his equivilent of Nadal's Wimbledon draw e.g Canas, Safin, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Ferrer etc. and had tight matches would you still say that he will make the final easier than Rafa will at Wimbledon? I agree about Djokovic and several others. The gap between the top two and the likes of Djokovic, Murray etc. is closing and it's no longer a certainity that Rafa will be number 2 without any challenge. But as fan, I welcome that. These players will push him to work harder and develop his game which will ultimately be a good thing.

Uncle Toni

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 2, 2007

My vote goes to Rosewall, who I was lucky enough to see play both on the old pro circuit, then at Wimbledon, and later still in the Legends events, when he was still a very high-class player. I doubt we'll see another player reach the Wimbledon Final at the age of 39. He was unlucky in that because of rain delays, his Semi-Final went on well into Friday evening (a long match against Stan Smith) and in those days the Men's Final was on Saturday. Also Connors was in spectacular form.
I believe that most people supported Drobny when Ken played him in the Final, on the basis that Drobny was nearing the end of his playing career, and it was almost taken for granted that Ken would be a future champion. Doubtlss he would have been, had he not chosen to make an honest living by turnng pro.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 2, 2007

Wayne Arthurs was sooo good on grass but could never play on centre court which was highly suited to his game

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 2, 2007

i vote for lendl. i unfortunately never saw rosewall play so cant comment. however did see lendl coming back to wimbledon finals, was it 3 consecutive finals, and i am always an admirer of frikking dogged determination.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 3, 2007

Toni, interesting coments. I said it is probable that Federer will make the French Open final easier than Nadal makes Wimbledon final. Roger has been the second best major clay court player in the last three years, while it is not clear that Rafa is the second best grass court player on tour despite his two Wimbledon finals. At Wimbledon, Nadal has yet to face some of the better grass court players other than Federer (Nadal has not faced players like Hewitt [whom he lost on 2006 Queens Club grass], Roddick, Nalbandian, Henman, Karlovic, Bjorkman, Ancic (recently], Stepanek, Grosjean, etc.). Agassi in 2006 was a shadow of what he was on grass up to 2001. Yet Nadal has struggled at Wimbledon againt players like Kendrick, Soderling, Youzhny, Djokovic in 2007 or 2006, none of whom are the best grass court players.

Even on clay Nadal is relatively inefficient. It took Nadal almost 50 minutes longer than Federer to reach this year’s Roland Garros final (Nadal took 804 minutes to Federer’s 755 minutes)! In 2006 RG, the disparity was worse (Nadal took 1,019 minutes to Federer’s 739 minutes). In the last three years, Federer has dropped only three sets in all rounds at RG before meeting Nadal, while Nadal dropped 4 or 5 sets. Even at RG, Nadal is more likely to be dragged into a long match which he could lose (not that he will, but the probability increases), than Federer is.

Regarding the players you mentioned who might trouble Federer on RG clay: Federer has beaten Safin all three times they met on clay, twice easily. Federer beat Ferrer all three times they played on clay, twice easily (6-0 set at Monte Carlo this year). Federer beat Djokovic the only time they met on clay. Federer has played Nalbandian three times on clay, winning the last two times (in 2006) only losing the first time they met professionally in 2002. Federer has never played Canas on clay. Federer has beaten former French Open champ Juan Carlos Ferrero all three times they’ve met on clay. Federer has beaten former French Open champ Carlos Moya all three times they’ve met on clay, twice easily. Federer has beaten former French Open champ Gaston Gaudio both times on clay (including at Hamburg just before Gaudio won RG). There are far fewer players, besides Nadal, who can challenge Federer on clay than there are players who can challenge Nadal on grass.

In the Wimbledon finals, Nadal played his best -- possibly on any day, on any surface –- and it still was not enough to beat Federer. You too agreed that “Nadal played about the best tennis I have ever seen him play.” Nadal losing while playing his best as well as Federer having beaten Nadal in 5 of the last 7 times they played (Nadal won only twice on clay while Federer has beaten Nadal on all surfaces, including clay) are more significant to predicting the outcomes of future matches. Of course “you play each other on the day and the better player wins” but in this case there’s enough information to make intelligent predictions about who might win. You can assess all the little factors like scheduling, etc. to say “nothing is guaranteed” but it is the big key factors that have the most bearing on who is probably going to win in future. Nadal’s current best game is unlikely to beat Federer in future Wimbledon finals (unless he is able to improve his game even further and again hit his very best form against Federer while hoping Federer plays poorly) and I suspect Nadal will be experiencing diminishing returns in terms of improvement (based on his performances after Wimbledon).

You feel that Nadal “lost with a bit of bad luck IMO.” Watch the official Wimbledon DVD of the match. If anything, it was good luck that Nadal was allowed to play as well as he did for 4.5 sets and was allowed to get into a dogfight with Federer. For 4.5 sets (except for certain big moments), Federer was playing conservatively and trying to rally, mishitting balls, making poor shot selections, stroking balls that landed short or well within the lines into Nadal’s strike zone (which Nadal was able to take advantage of, to his credit). Things changed in the game where Nadal had his final breakpoint opportunity, when Federer raised his game like a champion, changed his shot selections, put more punch in his shots and went for the lines. Nadal was overpowered and couldn’t handle it, and his will was broken. When it mattered, Nadal had no Plan B against a player like Federer, while Federer did against Nadal, and that’s why Nadal lost. Not because of bad luck. Federer has a long history of saving multiple breakpoints and then going on to raise his game and win the match. Had Federer played throughout the match as he did in the final few games, or like he did in the Shanghai Tennis Masters Cup semifinals this year or last year, Nadal would have had a harder time getting into the match at all. So it is significant that Federer was playing below his best for 4.5 sets.

But why was Federer playing below his best for 4.5 sets and throughout the tournament? Federer was under massive pressure to make the most of his one-time opportunity to tie Borg’s 5-consecutive Wimbledons in front of Borg and other Wimbledon legends. Second, Federer was a bit rusty because he lacked match practice on grass. Federer had to skip the Halle grass tournament because of a groin injury from the French Open, while Nadal got some match practice at Queens. More significant, at Wimbledon, Federer then spent less time on the grass court because he won his matches quickly and easily, Tommy Haas gave him a walkover, and he went 6 days without playing a match. In his BBC commentary (Wimbledon DVD), Jimmy Connors suggested that Nadal, given his fitness, got match tough from playing nearly every day of the tournament as well as from playing tighter and longer matches. For Nadal, who needs to practice and play a lot, this was perfect preparation for the final, even if no player likes the inconvenience and stress of starting and stopping matches. To Nadal’s credit, because most other players would have folded in the final from the scheduling. The superfit, intense and focused Nadal was able to enter the final with better match preparation than Federer.

It is thus important to understand the primary issues influencing the context in which the match was played. There were other secondary issues, like Nadal losing momentum by taking an injury time out (but then running without problems), Federer losing momentum by taking a bathroom break at the end of the third set, Nadal losing momentum by taking a bathroom break at the end of the fourth set, Nadal’s gamesmanship at the end of the third set, etc. but these are secondary issues.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 3, 2007

moreperspective,
You should just be careful when talking about facts because even facts don't tell the whole story. You said Nadal lost to Hewitt on grass but he was actually leading before pulling out. Also, I don't see how Bjorkman, Karlovic and Stepanek can be rated as grass-courters, have you seen who they have beaten to reach the quarters or semis?
To say that Nadal is inefficient on clay must be a bad joke, he's already one of the best clay-courters ever. But his style of play make him play more than Federer.
When Federer beat Nalbandian in the French Open semis and Ferrero in Rome, both Nalbandian and ferrero were leading before getting injured so who knows what would have happened? But you are right when saying he has been the second best clay-courter in the world and he has beaten any clay-courter on their surface.
Nadal has indeed struggled in the early rounds against the Soderlings and Youzhnys but gave a hard battle against Federer. It makes me think of the way Safin won the US Open, he lost two sets to Pozzi and later on crushed Sampras in straight sets. The best players tend to raise their games as the tournament goes on so you shouldn't judge Nadal's grass skills by his early rounds performance.
You also forget to mention how Federer was helped by the stupid Wimbledon organisers, making Gasquet finish his 5 setter against Roddick late on friday before playing the semi with Federer at noon sharp, have you ever seen this being scheduled anywhere else?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 3, 2007

More Perspective, it's not Nadal's fault the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian etc. were not able to get to the latter stages of Wimbledon in 2006. You play the opponent on the day and that's it. If you get a favourable draw (and I go back to the point I made about a favourable draw for Nadal would not necessary be the same as a favourable draw for Federer) it's up to you to take advantage of it and last year, Nadal to his credit took advantage of it. So does that mean that if Nadal won Wimbledon in 2006, his win would be less valid because he didn't play what you define "better grass-court players" or if say Federer won RG playing the players you have listed and didn't beat Nadal in the tournament, his win would be less valid because he didn't beat the best player on clay?

The points you made about RG were intersting. The reason Nadal takes longer to win matches than Federer is purely due to the fact he works harder for his points and plays a more physical game. It doesn't necessary mean that he will lose the match just because he takes longer to win it, although I agree with you when you say that the likelyhood of opponents having BPs, playing in a purple patch etc. increases as the match goes on. I'd certainly feel happier if Rafa won quicker!!!!! However, more perspective Rafa has in total dropped 7 sets in 21 matches since making his debut at RG in 2006. On average, in every third match, he will drop a set- I for one, think that is an unbelievably good statistic (providing I've done the maths right!!!!!) That is not a lot IMO- which suggests that it is harder to beat Nadal at RG than you think. Also when you factor in things such as the five-set format, the physical nature of clay, the playing style of Nadal it wouldn't be a reach to say that it is near impossible to beat Nadal at RG at the moment, hence his 21-0 record there. This could all change of course and I expect it to in the future. Also MorePerspective, Nalbandian was actually 6-4 3-0 up against Federer in the semis in 2006 and I seem to remember a certain Argentinian Diego Hartfield having commanding leads in the first two sets against Federer in Rnd 1 2006. So is it fair to say Federer "struggled" just because he had close matches against good, classy players? If anything, it shows how good he is that he was able to turn the matches around and win. However, I do agree with you that more players can beat Nadal on grass than Federer on clay.

About the Wimbledon final, I'm looking at it from a biased point and I think you're more neutral so I do think what you're saying is correct. Federer didn't play his best and Nadal did- which suggests Federer at his best would win 9/10 times. However, I don't think many people are giving Nadal a chance to improve and do better. A lot of people thought his run at Wimby last year was a fluke but he made the final again this year and very nearly could have won. It was also evident that Nadal had improved, Federer himself said "...he's improved yet again "- I would for
one would take Federer's opinion over ours as he was the one who was playing Nadal, not us. And I do still stand by my comments that Nadal was unlucky to win. He made the errors on the BPs and Federer didn't do anything spectacular. However, credit to him, he raised his game when it mattered most and won.
I'm really glad to have this discussion with you MorePerspective, talk to you later

Uncle Toni

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 4, 2007

Probably Lendl, Nadal (if he doesn't win one in the next 2-3 years) and Henman (really pity him - the best & most exciting British player in the last 20-25 years since I first started watching tennis)...

Why Lendl? He's not a terrible grass court player - he learnt how to adjust well & worked very hard - but his timing was really bad. Managed to reach 2 finals in a row - in 1986 against a very inspired & brutal (heavy serve & blanketing net play) defending champion, Boris Becker. The following year lost to Pat Cash, one truly natural grass court player. Then the following 2 years 1988 & '89 beaten by Becker during the semis in 4 & 5 sets respectively - in fact Lendl was getting better on grass but Becker was tougher mentally. In 1990 Lendl won the pre-tourney at Queen's but in semis was demolished by Edberg (a much improved serve-&-volleyer whom Lendl beat 3 years ealier in '87 semis). From then on, Lendl basically gave up unlike Goran Ivanisevic who finally won after 3 attempts in the finals. I would probably think Lendl could have beaten Agassi should he made the final in 1992 since Agassi was not truly a grass court specialist like Becker, Edberg, Cash or Stich.

Next - Nadal would be a similar case like Lendl if his injuries limit his agility & high power game style. In the next 3-4 years when the Federer era is finally over, a new talent may emerge who would probably 1 or 2 titles - hopefully Nadal will be fit enough to cause some serious threat then - before the next legend (like Borg or Sampras) comes along!

Then comes Henman - probably another case of bad timing, born in the wrong era. A natural serve & volleyer but the speed of the court had been somewhat reduced, meaning that even baseliners like Hewitt could also win....

add comment | complain about this comment