Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Rafa Nadal (Read 30190 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #46 –
Clay is a surface too.

You would think after 4 US open titles the "Nadal can only win on clay myth" would be well and truly busted.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #47 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Clay is a surface too.

You would think after 4 US open titles the "Nadal can only win on clay myth" would be well and truly busted.

Who made that claim?

The fact remains that 40% of their H2H matches have been on clay and that must skew the overall H2H.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #48 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Who made that claim?

The fact remains that 40% of their H2H matches have been on clay and that must skew the overall H2H.

That still leaves 24 out of 40 matches that are not on clay. Federer wins the grass h2h 3-1 and the hard court 11-9. The grass is probably too small a sample space to quibble about, but the hardcourt is fairly even, and not even close to being a domination like Nadal on clay. I would suggest that hardcourt better suits Federer than Nadal.

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #49 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
Far from it.

H2H highly tainted by 16 matches on clay - 14 to 2 Rafa's way....

Let me put it to you this way.  Federer won most of his titles before Rafa and the Joker came along.

Quote from: madbluboy – on
Djokovic is actually better than both.

I dont disagree.

I waiver a bit, Im just glad they are both better than Federer!
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #50 –
You also discount the fact Federer made the mistake of not switching to a bigger racquet head till 2014 - he used a (minute) 90 sqi Pro Staff. Now he's finally on a 97 SQI bat. And since the change, he's dominated Nadal.

Meantime both Rafa and the Djoker use 100sqi bats.

Reckon Roger cost himself 4-8 slams by not switching to a bigger bat sooner - it was the reason why Nadal hit 80% of balls to the Federer backhand.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #51 –
He hits it to his back hand because his forehand is unbelievable.

Sampras used an 85 sqi pro staff.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #52 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
You also discount the fact Federer made the mistake of not switching to a bigger racquet head till 2014 - he used a (minute) 90 sqi Pro Staff. Now he's finally on a 97 SQI bat. And since the change, he's dominated Nadal.

Meantime both Rafa and the Djoker use 100sqi bats.

Reckon Roger cost himself 4-8 slams by not switching to a bigger bat sooner - it was the reason why Nadal hit 80% of balls to the Federer backhand.

In terms of hitting to players backhand, the dominant player tends to do this strategically to dominate the point.  Sports 101.  Put your opponents onto their weaker side.  That means right footers onto their left and vice versa.

Regarding the bat size, the exact period you talk about (post 2014) have seen both Nadal and joker miss time through injury.  Even andy Murray won a major during that time.

There's no telling how it would have affected him when he was younger.  It took him some time to adjust.  He only made the move when he was no longer able to win.  Perhaps he may have lost a fee he won had he converted earlier.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #53 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
He hits it to his back hand because his forehand is unbelievable.

Sampras used an 85 sqi pro staff.

As did everyone in that era. That is to miss the point. Entirely.

Playing with a 90sqi bat against 100sqi bats is chalk and cheese....

Like today's cricketer's wielding a piece of willow from the 1970s.

Federer thought, wrongly, that he could always win on his terms. Playing his way. That was true with all except Rafa and later the Djoker.

Look at the stats, Nadal does not pepper the Federer backhand at all these days. It's essentially 50/50.

As for the post 2014 era - 5 years now. With the new bat....and with Federer in his late 30s.

9 meetings - 8-1 to federer, the only loss this year at RG on Rafa's beloved clay.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #54 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
As did everyone in that era. That is to miss the point. Entirely.

Playing with a 90sqi bat against 100sqi bats is chalk and cheese....

.......................


I think Agassi used a bigger racquet than Sampras, and Sampras has a comfortable lead in the h2h.

And Roddick I think also used a bigger racquet than Federer, and that h2h record is extremely one sided.

Federer is still losing matches and missing out on slams even with the new larger design.

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #55 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I think Agassi used a bigger racquet than Sampras, and Sampras has a comfortable lead in the h2h.

And Roddick I think also used a bigger racquet than Federer, and that h2h record is extremely one sided.

Federer is still losing matches and missing out on slams even with the new larger design.

The effect of racquet size is over stated, just like the effect of club head size in golf.

The benefits of oversize come at a cost, the larger sweetspot means less peak power, so if you are confident in your ability to hit the sweetspot you are far better off with a smaller sweetspot.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #56 –
Quote from: LP – on
The effect of racquet size is over stated, just like the effect of club head size in golf.

The benefits of oversize come at a cost, the larger sweetspot means less peak power, so if you are confident in your ability to hit the sweetspot you are far better off with a smaller sweetspot.

That is BS.  ::) ::)

If you'd tried a bit of the loss of control angle, there's a slight element of truth.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #57 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
As did everyone in that era. That is to miss the point. Entirely.

Rubbish. Sampras chose to play his whole career with a racquet made in 1984.

Agassi was getting a new racquet every year.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #58 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
That is BS.  ::) ::)

If you'd tried a bit of the loss of control angle, there's a slight element of truth.

You cannot beat the math or the physics, an opinion means nothing!

If weight is basically static, then the smaller surface area results in a higher peak energy, the principal a bullet works on. If this wasn't true I could fire a Nerf ball through your head at the same speed as a bullet, but I can't as it will just splatter on your head leaving you pudding faced!

Improved control comes from a more uniform larger sweet spot, but it has a lower peak power. So you can hit further off the central zone but still get basically the same power, although it will be less peak power than the central zone of a smaller sweet-spot. The power distribution across the surface is represented by a bell curve, small surfaces have a sharp steep curve, large surfaces have a blunt wide curve.

The top spin effects of big racquets come from the ability to hit in the larger sweet spot, more margin for error under extreme angles of incidence, but it's nothing to do with peak power.

If you want to drive as far as Tiger, or hit as hard as Federer, do not use big racquets or cavity back clubs! But you then have to accept that hitting outside the sweet spot will have a more dramatic effect. Anyone who has used blade clubs knows this finger-breaking effect!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rafa Nadal

Reply #59 –
Quote from: LP – on
The effect of racquet size is over stated, just like the effect of club head size in golf.

The benefits of oversize come at a cost, the larger sweetspot means less peak power, so if you are confident in your ability to hit the sweetspot you are far better off with a smaller sweetspot.

Yes, I tend to agree.

From my very brief research, it seems as though Federer spent most of 2014 experimenting with a number of variations on the 97sq model, and started using the 97 as his full time racquet in 2015. If that's correct, we've had 5 completed tennis seasons in that time, which means 20 slams, and Fed has won 3. I don't have the time to paint a more holistic picture (time at No1, other titles etc.) but it would be an interesting exercise.