Which has been greater at the US Open: Nadal's overachieving or Djokovic's/Federer's underachieving?

[calitennis127]

While I think Djokovic and Federer have both underachieved, I also think that no player in tennis history has overachieved more at any particular event than Nadal has at the US Open (except maybe Nadal at the French Open, where Federer and Djokovic both should have beaten him more than they did).

Any thoughts? To Nadal's credit, he put together a nice gadget/contraption style to win at the US Open while his main rivals severely underachieved.

 

[Front242]

It can be both too.

 

[Moxie]

While I think Djokovic and Federer have both underachieved, I also think that no player in tennis history has overachieved more at any particular event than Nadal has at the US Open (except maybe Nadal at the French Open, where Federer and Djokovic both should have beaten him more than they did).

Any thoughts? To Nadal's credit, he put together a nice gadget/contraption style to win at the US Open while his main rivals severely underachieved.

You've mentioned this "gadget style" before, and I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on that.

The notion of "underachieving" and "overachieving" gets thrown around here a lot these days. I find it a bit flaccid, as it really implies that folks are mad that somebody won a Major, resenting who lost it to them, even where they weren't there to make the final. Fed fans have been egregious on this about Roger "underachieving" at Wimbledon and the US Open. As to Nadal "over-achieving" at RG, I can really only laugh at that. Federer and Djokovic had more than a few chances at Nadal there, and they couldn't do it. (2015, notwithstanding, since Rafa was crap, and Novak didn't win the title, anyway.) You can whine about that all you want, but they didn't beat him. Same with Novak v. Nadal at the USO. Rafa outplayed him 2-1. You can't change that, nor the rest of tennis history, no matter how much you try to keep replaying missed break opportunities.

 

[calitennis127]

You've mentioned this "gadget style" before, and I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on that.

What I mean is that he has crafted a set of go-to maneuvers (particularly off his serve) for winning cheap points before his opponent can react or get comfortable in the match. It's sort of like buying groceries 30 minutes before a guest arrives to make it seem like you had been preparing all week for their visit. It's not effortless or natural. It's forced in a rush to squeeze by.

It's akin to, in American football, using a 3 wide-receiver staggered set to help someone get open instead of just letting them go 1-on-1 with a cornerback. Offensive coordinators do the 3-wide set when they don't think their receivers get open on their own.

The notion of "underachieving" and "overachieving" gets thrown around here a lot these days. I find it a bit flaccid, as it really implies that folks are mad that somebody won a Major, resenting who lost it to them, even where they weren't there to make the final. Fed fans have been egregious on this about Roger "underachieving" at Wimbledon and the US Open. As to Nadal "over-achieving" at RG, I can really only laugh at that. Federer and Djokovic had more than a few chances at Nadal there, and they couldn't do it. (2015, notwithstanding, since Rafa was crap, and Novak didn't win the title, anyway.) You can whine about that all you want, but they didn't beat him.

All fair points, and you are absolutely right that Federer and Djokovic had their chances at Nadal at the French Open. But that doesn't mean they didn't underachieve either. They could have and should have been much better in those matches. I would also add that Djokovic has screwed up quite badly the last two years in losing prior to the final, which is also part of underachieving.

 

[Moxie]

Also, just to point out the implicit prejudice in your OP...

 

[calitennis127]

Also, just to point out the implicit prejudice in your OP...

Yes, I do have a prejudice in this conversation, as do you. Everyone has prejudices. One of the biggest lies of the modern world is that "objectivity" is humanly possible. It's not. We can try to be evenhanded and fair as human beings but we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences. That doesn't mean that we can't be honest.

So yes, I would have preferred that Federer and Djokovic win at the French Open. But that doesn't mean I am wrong to say that they played below their potential either. Both can be true.

 

[Moxie]

What I mean is that he has crafted a set of go-to maneuvers (particularly off his serve) for winning cheap points before his opponent can react or get comfortable in the match. It's sort of like buying groceries 30 minutes before a guest arrives to make it seem like you had been preparing all week for their visit. It's not effortless or natural. It's forced in a rush to squeeze by.

It's akin to, in American football, using a 3 wide-receiver staggered set to help someone get open instead of just letting them go 1-on-1 with a cornerback. Offensive coordinators do the 3-wide set when they don't think their receivers get open on their own.



All fair points, and you are absolutely right that Federer and Djokovic had their chances at Nadal at the French Open. But that doesn't mean they didn't underachieve either. They could have and should have been much better in those matches. I would also add that Djokovic has screwed up quite badly the last two years in losing prior to the final, which is also part of underachieving.

So just to be clear...a tactic that works against an opponent, to win a point, or get you a touchdown, or to sort out your dinner party is not cool with you, if it's not elegant enough? This is exactly what you've been arguing for, vis-a-vis Nalbandian all these years. He didn't win much, but he looked great doing it. You will not be invited to my next dinner party.

Federer and Djokovic are great players. If they could have done better at RG v. Nadal, don't you think they would have? However, if we're handing out bonus points for "underachieving," then certainly Nadal has underachieved at the YEC, at the AO, and at Wimbledon. Certainly there were matches he left on the table there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, I do have a prejudice in this conversation, as do you. Everyone has prejudices. One of the biggest lies of the modern world is that "objectivity" is humanly possible. It's not. We can try to be evenhanded and fair as human beings but we all have our likes and dislikes and our preferences. That doesn't mean that we can't be honest.

So yes, I would have preferred that Federer and Djokovic win at the French Open. But that doesn't mean I am wrong to say that they played below their potential either. Both can be true.

This is actually the most sensible thing you've ever said.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Re: Federer and Djokovic vs. Nadal at the FO...

I actually think that even though Novak's style is clearly better equipped to deal with Nadal on clay, it's Federer who has more to regret. Honestly, I thought Novak was more or less soundly outplayed every time they played at RG, and unlike say, the US Open in 2013, where Novak just didn't play well, it never struck me that he was far below his level or anything. Not saying he played his best, but I don't look at it and feel his level inexplicably dropped. In all his wins over Nadal on clay, he needed to play sensational to win (unlike hards where his normal level is usually enough). Anything else never cut it as Nadal on average is just better on clay. The closest Novak has gotten was in the 2013 semi finals, and I thought Nadal just played much better that day and Novak was lucky it went to five with Nadal wetting the bed while twice serving for the match in the fourth set (a bunch of errors and a lucky let chord got him broken), and in the fifth he just flat out out-hit Novak which doesn't happen too often.

Federer, meanwhile, has a bunch of missed opportunity to look back on. 2007 is an obvious one. 2011 is a year in which Nadal just wasn't himself (and wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in the finals) and Roger should have approached that match with far more belief. It wasn't just an issue of strategy.

 

[atttomole]

While I think Djokovic and Federer have both underachieved, I also think that no player in tennis history has overachieved more at any particular event than Nadal has at the US Open (except maybe Nadal at the French Open, where Federer and Djokovic both should have beaten him more than they did).

Any thoughts? To Nadal's credit, he put together a nice gadget/contraption style to win at the US Open while his main rivals severely underachieved.

I don’t think Federer underachieved at RG, but I think he underachieved at Wimbledon and at the US Open. I may add the Australian Open too. Nadal in my opinion has overachieved at the US Open.

Hard to say which is greater. I am leaning towards Nadal overachieving at the US Open than Federer/Djokovic underachieving at the same tournament.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal has actually underachieved at the USO. He should have had a record 6 titles by now if it weren’t for his many injuries preventing him to play in 2012, 2014 and forcing him to abandon in 2018. And don’t get me started on his bad luck with injuries at the AO. If he had the luck of Djokovic and Federer in terms of injuries he would have 25 slams by now.

 

[calitennis127]

So just to be clear...a tactic that works against an opponent, to win a point, or get you a touchdown, or to sort out your dinner party is not cool with you, if it's not elegant enough? This is exactly what you've been arguing for, vis-a-vis Nalbandian all these years. He didn't win much, but he looked great doing it. You will not be invited to my next dinner party.

Federer and Djokovic are great players. If they could have done better at RG v. Nadal, don't you think they would have? However, if we're handing out bonus points for "underachieving," then certainly Nadal has underachieved at the YEC, at the AO, and at Wimbledon. Certainly there were matches he left on the table there.

No, Moxie, this is what I am saying:

1) If you have a great wide receiver (say, Terrell Owens or Randy Moss - the two best and most athletic ever), and you line them up by themselves out wide against any cornerback, you know as a quarterback or offensive coordinator that they can get open by themselves. You just call a play and they will get open, regardless of who is defending them.

2) If you have a wide receiver of moderate athleticism/talent, what an offensive coordinator will often do is use them in more confusing formations for the defense to guard against so that they can get open without individually getting past someone.

To make this as simple as possible: if you have a wide receiver who is, say, 6-4 and runs a 4.4-40 and is good at running routes, you know you can call just about any play and he will get open. On the other hand, if you have a receiver who is 6-0, 210 and only runs a 4.5 or 4.6, you know that you are going to have to use some special plays to get him open when he is up against a more athletic cornerback.

Now to tennis.....

3) Federer walks up to the line in rhythm, takes a moment, and effortlessly hits a devastating first serve, followed by a seamless forehand if needed.

4) Nadal walks up to the line, takes as much time as possible (if not more), touches his hair as a means of easing his own nerves, and then thinks about where he can place a sneaky 115-mph first serve to win a cheap point before muscling it in.

With Federer it just flows. With Nadal it is much more forced and put together. That's why I call it a contraption. It's comparable to a romantic relationship that happens spontaneously in life as opposed to one that is arranged through a dating app or an Indian-style parental agreement (although an Indian-style parental agreement is probably more spontaneous than a dating app).

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal has actually underachieved at the USO. He should have had a record 6 titles by now if it weren’t for his many injuries preventing him to play in 2012, 2014 and forcing him to abandon in 2018. And don’t get me started on his bad luck with injuries at the AO. If he had the luck of Djokovic and Federer in terms of injuries he would have 25 slams by now.

Lol.....his only Australian Open win occurred because Federer fell apart. His 2008 Wimbledon win had more to do with Federer's flaws than his own strengths. His 2010 win had to do with Federer and Djokovic having horrendous losses prior to the final. I will grant that Nadal probably should have won the 2012 AO final over Djokovic (although Djokovic played like crap in allowing it to get to the point where Nadal's miss made the difference).

At the US Open, Nadal was not the better player in the 2013 US Open final. In 2010 he beat Djokovic even though Djokovic had a 3-match win streak against him on hardcourts. On clay Federer was clearly the better player in 2007 and 2011 (and probably 2006). Fed's level in the 2011 French Open was absolutely insane.....probably the best I have ever seen on clay from anyone. Yet he completely choked away the final.

Nadal has been far more lucky than unlucky in his career. The injury problems are exaggerated given that everyone goes through them at some point. He has had far more bounce his way than not.

 

[Moxie]

No, Moxie, this is what I am saying:

1) If you have a great wide receiver (say, Terrell Owens or Randy Moss - the two best and most athletic ever), and you line them up by themselves out wide against any cornerback, you know as a quarterback or offensive coordinator that they can get open by themselves. You just call a play and they will get open, regardless of who is defending them.

2) If you have a wide receiver of moderate athleticism/talent, what an offensive coordinator will often do is use them in more confusing formations for the defense to guard against so that they can get open without individually getting past someone.

To make this as simple as possible: if you have a wide receiver who is, say, 6-4 and runs a 4.4-40 and is good at running routes, you know you can call just about any play and he will get open. On the other hand, if you have a receiver who is 6-0, 210 and only runs a 4.5 or 4.6, you know that you are going to have to use some special plays to get him open when he is up against a more athletic cornerback.

Now to tennis.....

3) Federer walks up to the line in rhythm, takes a moment, and effortlessly hits a devastating first serve, followed by a seamless forehand if needed.

4) Nadal walks up to the line, takes as much time as possible (if not more), touches his hair as a means of easing his own nerves, and then thinks about where he can place a sneaky 115-mph first serve to win a cheap point before muscling it in.

With Federer it just flows. With Nadal it is much more forced and put together. That's why I call it a contraption. It's comparable to a romantic relationship that happens spontaneously in life as opposed to one that is arranged through a dating app or an Indian-style parental agreement (although an Indian-style parental agreement is probably more spontaneous than a dating app).

I don't know why you keep talking about football, or basketball. What you really want it to be is ballet. Sorry, again...all aesthetics. Results count, and it ain't that much luck, when you've got so much hardware.

 

[Andy22]

While I think Djokovic and Federer have both underachieved, I also think that no player in tennis history has overachieved more at any particular event than Nadal has at the US Open (except maybe Nadal at the French Open, where Federer and Djokovic both should have beaten him more than they did).

Any thoughts? To Nadal's credit, he put together a nice gadget/contraption style to win at the US Open while his main rivals severely underachieved.

nadal overachieved at, RG you must be mad crazy ect.. anyway nadal should have 14 French opens by now with two injuries at RG 09,16 where he was clearly going to win if not for injury. 4 us opens titles sounds right to me with all the unlucky Australia opens he's had, even I think he should have 5 us opens titles with 2014/08 being the ones he should have also won but 4 close enough.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Lol.....his only Australian Open win occurred because Federer fell apart. His 2008 Wimbledon win had more to do with Federer's flaws than his own strengths.

LOL Nadal during that final was the one who was leading the whole time while Federer always fighting back. Nadal was in control.

He also beat Federer in the 2012 AO and 2014 AO semis proving that it was not a fluke.

His 2010 win had to do with Federer and Djokovic having horrendous losses prior to the final.

LOL Nadal beat Djokovic in that 2010 USO final.

I will grant that Nadal probably should have won the 2012 AO final over Djokovic (although Djokovic played like crap in allowing it to get to the point where Nadal's miss made the difference).

Yes he should have won. It also shows how it was hard for Djokovic to beat Nadal at the AO which is his best slam.

At the US Open, Nadal was not the better player in the 2013 US Open final..

You're a fool.

On clay Federer was clearly the better player in 2007 and 2011 (and probably 2006). Fed's level in the 2011 French Open was absolutely insane.....probably the best I have ever seen on clay from anyone. Yet he completely choked away the final..

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Nadal has been far more lucky than unlucky in his career. The injury problems are exaggerated given that everyone goes through them at some point. He has had far more bounce his way than not.

How can injury problems be exaggerated if they actually forced him to miss many slams during his prime like 2009 WB, 2016 WB, 2012 USO, 2014 USO, 2013 AO. :cuckoo:

And even in certain tournaments where he was actually entered he had to withdraw during the 2016 RG in the 4th round, was serving 40 mph serves in the 2014 AO final, injury against Ferrer in 2011 AO, withdrew in 2010 AO against Murray, withdrew during the 2018 USO SF, etc.

That doesn't even take into account how everytime he had to comeback, even though he was healed he was still playing himself back into form in the next slam... Federer and Djokovic in their prime could continue their momentum and not have to start over and over.

 

[Andy22]

Lol.....his only Australian Open win occurred because Federer fell apart. His 2008 Wimbledon win had more to do with Federer's flaws than his own strengths. His 2010 win had to do with Federer and Djokovic having horrendous losses prior to the final. I will grant that Nadal probably should have won the 2012 AO final over Djokovic (although Djokovic played like crap in allowing it to get to the point where Nadal's miss made the difference).

At the US Open, Nadal was not the better player in the 2013 US Open final. In 2010 he beat Djokovic even though Djokovic had a 3-match win streak against him on hardcourts. On clay Federer was clearly the better player in 2007 and 2011 (and probably 2006). Fed's level in the 2011 French Open was absolutely insane.....probably the best I have ever seen on clay from anyone. Yet he completely choked away the final.

Nadal has been far more lucky than unlucky in his career. The injury problems are exaggerated given that everyone goes through them at some point. He has had far more bounce his way than not.

you are clearly a fedhead troll, and like to talk a lot of trash but nadal won these matches you said because he was the better player on the day anything else is exercises so stop cry baby fanboy make exercises everytime nadal wins. Australian open 09 nadal was too good in the 5th set 6-2 this is not close crazy much.. 2008 Wimbledon nadal too mentally strong which is a big part of tennis if Federer mentally weak its because nadal god level of tennis made him that way. 2013 us open final again nadal god mode tennis too good, Djokovic was being beaten at he's own game 6-1 not close at all, Federer better on clay 06,07 11 why was used as nadal doormat in these years huh lol, or wwe terms jobber, Federer level of play on clay always been weak than comes to nadal or Djokovic that's a fact even Djokovic has been a much better player than Federer on clay.

 

[Andy22]

LOL Nadal during that final was the one who was leading the whole time while Federer always fighting back. Nadal was in control.

He also beat Federer in the 2012 AO and 2014 AO semis proving that it was not a fluke.



LOL Nadal beat Djokovic in that 2010 USO final.



Yes he should have won. It also shows how it was hard for Djokovic to beat Nadal at the AO which is his best slam.



You're a fool.



:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:



How can injury problems be exaggerated if they actually forced him to miss many slams during his prime like 2009 WB, 2016 WB, 2012 USO, 2014 USO, 2013 AO. :cuckoo:

And even in certain tournaments where he was actually entered he had to withdraw during the 2016 RG in the 4th round, was serving 40 mph serves in the 2014 AO final, injury against Ferrer in 2011 AO, withdrew in 2010 AO against Murray, withdrew during the 2018 USO SF, etc.

That doesn't even take into account how everytime he had to comeback, even though he was healed he was still playing himself back into form in the next slam... Federer and Djokovic in their prime could continue their momentum and not have to start over and over.

he's clearly one of the dumbest fans I ever seen that's for sure I'm starting to miss front242 now

 

[Front242]

Nadal has actually underachieved at the USO. He should have had a record 6 titles by now if it weren’t for his many injuries preventing him to play in 2012, 2014 and forcing him to abandon in 2018. And don’t get me started on his bad luck with injuries at the AO. If he had the luck of Djokovic and Federer in terms of injuries he would have 25 slams by now.

He was so so injured in 2012. Rosol just beat him fair and square and then what? I can't possibly lose to Rosol so it must have been my knee except he did the same the following year as regards losing to a low ranked player (so did Federer in case you think I'm singling out your bff). Better skip the Us Open to make it legit like 2009. Okkkkkkkkayyyy. 2013 AO was the biggest head scratcher. Made no sense to miss that.

 

[Front242]

he's clearly one of the dumbest fans I ever seen that's for sure I'm starting to miss front242 now

I don't miss you but you knew that.