2019 Men's US Open Semifinals: Rafael Nadal vs. Matteo Berrettini

Who wins?

  • Nadal in five sets

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Berrettini in three sets

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Berrettini in five sets

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Oh please.....lol. Talking "nuance" as if nuance to you is anything other than some boring rehashing of a cliche. If you really want to get detailed (which I welcome), then you will see that Federer was in Nadal's service games far more than the other way around in the 2007 French final and the 2008 Wimbledon final. And Federer did not convert on the breakpoints.

Actually, you're wrong about the Wimbledon 2008 final. Nadal didn't face a single break point in sets 3 and 4, and didn't face a break point until 4-3 in the fifth, which he saved, and didn't face another one. He was far more in Roger's service games. Roger's break point opportunities came in the first two sets. Also, yes, Roger failed to convert while Nadal didn't...but that's exactly why Roger had more break points: When you convert on a BP chance...that's it. Game over. When you don't, the score is tied again, and then you get another break point and another...and that's part of why you see on the stats Federer having more BP opportunities. Because sometimes he would get 4 BP's in a single service game, whereas Nadal typically didn't need as many.

And again, this is a completely irrelevant conversation since Berrettini wasn't even close so what are we debating here?


By this stupid logic, after 2 sets today we'd have to think that Nadal was completely "the better player" over Medvedev because he was more in Medvedev's games during those first two sets - when anyone with a brain could see that Medvedev simply played bad in the first set and gave it away with his moronic decision to stand 45 feet behind the baseline when returning on the ad court.

Newsflash, if one player is playing very bad, then yes, the other is the better player at that moment. So yeah...



You fail to understand the nuance of human emotions. That is one nuance that you have always failed to understand.

Yes, the same guy who makes 5 frustrated threads for every little thing that ticks him off is giving me lessons about human emotions. How's that lucky ace that Nadal hit vs. Djokovic in the 2013 US Open final? Want to revisit that shot too? Maybe make another thread about it....
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
PS: Cali accuses me of dodging a question yet he's unable to explain how come Berrettini couldn't muster up a single break point if he was bossing Nadal in the rallies so easily...
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
PS: Cali accuses me of dodging a question yet he's unable to explain how come Berrettini couldn't muster up a single break point if he was bossing Nadal in the rallies so easily...


I never said he was routinely bossing Nadal around in rallies. I said that he was doing more than just hitting some big serves and forehands, which was your original insinuation. I also think that the match never really opened up for him where he could play freely. I think you would have seen much more variety from him had he won the first set. It's a shame he collapsed like he did.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Actually, you're wrong about the Wimbledon 2008 final. Nadal didn't face a single break point in sets 3 and 4, and didn't face a break point until 4-3 in the fifth, which he saved, and didn't face another one. He was far more in Roger's service games. Roger's break point opportunities came in the first two sets. Also, yes, Roger failed to convert while Nadal didn't...but that's exactly why Roger had more break points: When you convert on a BP chance...that's it. Game over. When you don't, the score is tied again, and then you get another break point and another...and that's part of why you see on the stats Federer having more BP opportunities. Because sometimes he would get 4 BP's in a single service game, whereas Nadal typically didn't need as many.

And again, this is a completely irrelevant conversation since Berrettini wasn't even close so what are we debating here?

What we are debating is that someone merely being in your service games doesn't mean you're getting owned in the match overall. If you're talking about the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had far more opportunities to break in the first two sets. Nadal didn't get his until later. How do you know Berretini wouldn't have gotten into some of Nadal's service games had he won the first set and had more momentum?

Also, you completely dodged the point about the 2007 French Open final. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set and numerous more in the second set. But I don't recall you saying that he was the better rally player on clay (which I do believe he was at the time). Why the inconsistency?

Why is Nadal better than Berretini for being in his service games more but 2007 Federer on clay isn't better than Nadal even though he constantly and repeatedly had more breakpoints in Nadal's games than vice versa?

Also, I'm not buying your cute little rationalization about the 2008 Wimbledon final.....Nadal got breakpoints later in the match as it wore on but early on Federer was the one who had a bunch of them. And if you are going to say that Nadal was flat out better than Berretini in rallies for having more breakpoints, then you should say the same about Federer in his matches with Nadal when he had numerous stretches where he was the one troubling the other's service games far more.

Newsflash, if one player is playing very bad, then yes, the other is the better player at that moment. So yeah...

That's not the point. The point is that the match opened up for Medvedev as it wore on and momentum shifted his way. With that came more breakpoints.

Based on Berretini's playing style and how tight the first set was, winning the first set was more important for him than Medvedev.


]
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
What we are debating is that someone merely being in your service games doesn't mean you're getting owned in the match overall. If you're talking about the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had far more opportunities to break in the first two sets. Nadal didn't get his until later.

Nadal didn't get his until later? I'm confused as to how he actually won those first two sets 6-4 6-4 then. Or are we valuing unconverted break points over converted ones? Nadal broke Federer 3 times in the opening two sets (Fed was actually up a break in the second before Nadal broke back and broke again).

How do you know Berretini wouldn't have gotten into some of Nadal's service games had he won the first set and had more momentum?

I wouldn't know. But I sure as hell know that he had 3 sets to get into Nadal's service games and didn't, and that was my whole point. If he was as dominant in the rallies as you claim he was, and that his forehand wasn't largely set up by his serve, then how come we hardly saw any of that in Nadal's service games? Creating a hypothetical where he wins the first set and gets into Nadal's service games after that doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. We're talking about what actually transpired.

Also, you completely dodged the point about the 2007 French Open final. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set and numerous more in the second set. But I don't recall you saying that he was the better rally player on clay (which I do believe he was at the time). Why the inconsistency?

I wasn't even on the boards when that final happened, and neither were you, so yeah, you don't recall anything I said about the match because I didn't. I didn't dodge shit, as it is common knowledge that Federer missed a ton of break points.

In any event, this is where your bias gets in the way of logic. I never claimed that being in your opponent's service games automatically means you're dominating rallies. It's a case by case basis and there could be so many reasons. For instance, nobody is in Karlovic's service games, yet they're definitely dominating the rallies. It's just that he serves so well, there aren't any on his service games. With Nadal, that's clearly not the case.

In the Berrettini match, there was a very specific point I made: his forehand is largely set up by his serve, and he was unable to give himself the opportunity to dominate with it in neutral rallies due to the lack of penetrating rally ground strokes. In that case, yes, his inability to create ANYTHING on Nadal's serve is significant, because it highlights how little he was able to initiate without his big serve?

Nobody has ever claimed that about Roger fucking Federer, who clearly can rally with Nadal, dominate, and then some. So what the fuck are you even talking about?

For the record, regarding the 2007 FO final, Fed had 17 total BP opportunities (and converted only on 1, which is awful and inexcusable). Nadal had 10 and converted on 6 (which is amazing). However, clearly, if Nadal didn't convert on so many of them, he would have actually had more BP opportunities because then the games would be extended, the score would be deuce (or whatever), and they'd go back and forth in long service games. When you convert, the game is over, that's it.

The idea, once again, to spoon feed it to you, is that none of that is relevant to the Berrettini match at all since he didn't get a single break point. And if you claim Medvedev should have won the fifth set because he had a break point or two early, then surely Nadal should have won the first set vs. Berrettini even earlier since he had about a thousand of them without facing a single one?

Why is Nadal better than Berretini for being in his service games more but 2007 Federer on clay isn't better than Nadal even though he constantly and repeatedly had more breakpoints in Nadal's games than vice versa?

Because once again, this isn't a set in stone criterion, but a case by case basis. In the case of Berrettini, having zero break points implies he wasn't able to do anything without his serve (which is a fact). With Fedal, Nadal was also in Fed's service games, as evidenced by breaking him SIX FUCKING TIMES. You're just putting more emphasis on break point opportunities missed over break point opportunities converted, which is typically stupid.

Also, I'm not buying your cute little rationalization about the 2008 Wimbledon final.....Nadal got breakpoints later in the match as it wore on but early on Federer was the one who had a bunch of them.

Again, how did he get those break points later in the match when he broke him 3 times in the first two sets? Are you seriously looking at the times players blew break points and ignoring the times they actually converted?

And if you are going to say that Nadal was flat out better than Berretini in rallies for having more breakpoints, then you should say the same about Federer in his matches with Nadal when he had numerous stretches where he was the one troubling the other's service games far more.

I think I've addressed this like a dozen times now (and yes, it shows how little you're able to grasp nuances when you're so emotional). The point was simply about Berrettini's forehand being reliant on his serve. It's not about who was better in the rallies.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
What we are debating is that someone merely being in your service games doesn't mean you're getting owned in the match overall. If you're talking about the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had far more opportunities to break in the first two sets. Nadal didn't get his until later. How do you know Berretini wouldn't have gotten into some of Nadal's service games had he won the first set and had more momentum?

Also, you completely dodged the point about the 2007 French Open final. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set and numerous more in the second set. But I don't recall you saying that he was the better rally player on clay (which I do believe he was at the time). Why the inconsistency?

Why is Nadal better than Berretini for being in his service games more but 2007 Federer on clay isn't better than Nadal even though he constantly and repeatedly had more breakpoints in Nadal's games than vice versa?

Also, I'm not buying your cute little rationalization about the 2008 Wimbledon final.....Nadal got breakpoints later in the match as it wore on but early on Federer was the one who had a bunch of them. And if you are going to say that Nadal was flat out better than Berretini in rallies for having more breakpoints, then you should say the same about Federer in his matches with Nadal when he had numerous stretches where he was the one troubling the other's service games far more.



That's not the point. The point is that the match opened up for Medvedev as it wore on and momentum shifted his way. With that came more breakpoints.

Based on Berretini's playing style and how tight the first set was, winning the first set was more important for him than Medvedev.


]

The problem is you're discussing hypotheticals. That's fine, but you're putting hypothetical What If arguments on matches that took place. That's also fine - it's kind of fun. But you can't use hypotheticals as proof.

The reality is that we actually had the benefit of seeing what took place in real terms rather than hypothetical.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Nadal didn't get his until later? I'm confused as to how he actually won those first two sets 6-4 6-4 then. Or are we valuing unconverted break points over converted ones? Nadal broke Federer 3 times in the opening two sets (Fed was actually up a break in the second before Nadal broke back and broke again).

Even if Nadal got breaks in the first two sets, I recall quite vividly Federer being the one who was in the other's service games more often.

I wouldn't know. But I sure as hell know that he had 3 sets to get into Nadal's service games and didn't, and that was my whole point. If he was as dominant in the rallies as you claim he was, and that his forehand wasn't largely set up by his serve, then how come we hardly saw any of that in Nadal's service games?

Because Berretini had a bad day with the backhand and Nadal's serve placement was very good.

Creating a hypothetical where he wins the first set and gets into Nadal's service games after that doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. We're talking about what actually transpired.

And part of what transpired was Berretini getting the better of numerous rallies, including in the tiebreak when he went up 5-2 and then 6-4. You are omitting that little inconvenient detail.

I wasn't even on the boards when that final happened, and neither were you, so yeah, you don't recall anything I said about the match because I didn't. I didn't dodge shit, as it is common knowledge that Federer missed a ton of break points.

Lol.....I didn't accuse you of dodging in 2007. I accused you of dodging in this conversation. What I am saying is that it is quite rich for a Nadal fan to be talking about how Nadal was in his opponent's service games so much and did not convert when so many of Nadal's biggest victories over Federer entailed Nadal savings bunches and bunches of breakpoints - ESPECIALLY on clay. I don't recall hearing you talk on and on about how great Federer is in rallies on clay compared to Nadal just because he was constantly troubling him on serve.

In any event, this is where your bias gets in the way of logic. I never claimed that being in your opponent's service games automatically means you're dominating rallies. It's a case by case basis and there could be so many reasons. For instance, nobody is in Karlovic's service games, yet they're definitely dominating the rallies. It's just that he serves so well, there aren't any on his service games. With Nadal, that's clearly not the case.

Fair point about Karlovic, but Nadal has his moments (especially if someone hasn't played him before or in a long time) where his placement is highly effective. That's why his serve was not broken the entire tournament until the Cilic match. Berretini also hit his backhand terribly.

So if you're asking me specifically why Berretini did not get into Nadal's service games, I would give you two main reasons: 1) Nadal's serve placement, and 2) Berretini having a bad day with the backhand. I also think that losing the first set really sucked the air out of the match and made Berretini more resigned.

In the Berrettini match, there was a very specific point I made: his forehand is largely set up by his serve, and he was unable to give himself the opportunity to dominate with it in neutral rallies due to the lack of penetrating rally ground strokes. In that case, yes, his inability to create ANYTHING on Nadal's serve is significant, because it highlights how little he was able to initiate without his big serve?

He had a bad day with the backhand, but if you watch the highlights of his prior matches you will see that he is not dependent on his serve to set up his forehand. You are making a ridiculous exaggeration based on one match.

Nobody has ever claimed that about Roger fucking Federer, who clearly can rally with Nadal, dominate, and then some. So what the fuck are you even talking about?

Lol.....excuse me. Federer's ability to "rally with Nadal, dominate, and then some" has been understated by numerous people, especially when it comes to Federer v. Nadal clay matches.

For the record, regarding the 2007 FO final, Fed had 17 total BP opportunities (and converted only on 1, which is awful and inexcusable). Nadal had 10 and converted on 6 (which is amazing). However, clearly, if Nadal didn't convert on so many of them, he would have actually had more BP opportunities because then the games would be extended, the score would be deuce (or whatever), and they'd go back and forth in long service games. When you convert, the game is over, that's it.

You keep making this point as if it is deeply profound and only you notice it. But, again, allow me to say "no shit Sherlock." What you are omitting from your narrative of the 2007 French Open is that the breakpoints EARLY IN THE MATCH were heavily tilted in Federer's favor. In the first two sets, Federer was in Nadal's games far more than the other way around. Everyone at the time talked about it. But no one has ever pointed to that as evidence of Federer's rally superiority (aside from myself, because, lo and behold, in that particular case, I do think it was an indicator of superior rally ability).

And if you claim Medvedev should have won the fifth set because he had a break point or two early, then surely Nadal should have won the first set vs. Berrettini even earlier since he had about a thousand of them without facing a single one?

FACT CHECK: Medvedev got the first break of the match to go up 2-1 in the first set, which is one of many reasons why I say he should have won the first set it.


Because once again, this isn't a set in stone criterion, but a case by case basis. In the case of Berrettini, having zero break points implies he wasn't able to do anything without his serve (which is a fact).

Because the match never opened up for him and he was hitting his backhand very poorly.

With Fedal, Nadal was also in Fed's service games, as evidenced by breaking him SIX FUCKING TIMES. You're just putting more emphasis on break point opportunities missed over break point opportunities converted, which is typically stupid.

It was stupid of you to say Nadal did not face a single breakpoint in the first set yesterday when it was actually Medvedev who got the first break. But most of Nadal's breaks in the 2007 FO final came later, in sets 3 and 4, after the match opened up for him. The rallies in the first two sets were overwhelmingly dominated by Federer, not Nadal. Yet we have heard precious little from you about that over the years.

Again, how did he get those break points later in the match when he broke him 3 times in the first two sets? Are you seriously looking at the times players blew break points and ignoring the times they actually converted?

From what I recall Federer was in Nadal's service games more than the other way around in the first two sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final. Yes, Nadal converted his opportunities when they came but they were still less on a cumulative basis (and not just because Federer had 1 or 2 games that went to deuce 5 times like you are alleging). But either way, the match that interests me far more for the purpose of this argument is the 2007 French Open final, which Nadal fans are strangely silent about. What decided that match was Federer squandering so many break points and everyone at the time talked about it. But if I was to cite that as an example of Federer being a superior clay court rally player at the time, I'm sure you and other Nadal fans would wail and scream at the suggestion of it.

The point was simply about Berrettini's forehand being reliant on his serve. It's not about who was better in the rallies.

He could have hit his backhand better and Nadal was really on top of things in his own service games with serve placement and stepping in to attack. The match never opened up for Berretini to show what he could do the way it did for Medvedev.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Even if Nadal got breaks in the first two sets, I recall quite vividly Federer being the one who was in the other's service games more often.



Because Berretini had a bad day with the backhand and Nadal's serve placement was very good.



And part of what transpired was Berretini getting the better of numerous rallies, including in the tiebreak when he went up 5-2 and then 6-4. You are omitting that little inconvenient detail.



Lol.....I didn't accuse you of dodging in 2007. I accused you of dodging in this conversation. What I am saying is that it is quite rich for a Nadal fan to be talking about how Nadal was in his opponent's service games so much and did not convert when so many of Nadal's biggest victories over Federer entailed Nadal savings bunches and bunches of breakpoints - ESPECIALLY on clay. I don't recall hearing you talk on and on about how great Federer is in rallies on clay compared to Nadal just because he was constantly troubling him on serve.



Fair point about Karlovic, but Nadal has his moments (especially if someone hasn't played him before or in a long time) where his placement is highly effective. That's why his serve was not broken the entire tournament until the Cilic match. Berretini also hit his backhand terribly.

So if you're asking me specifically why Berretini did not get into Nadal's service games, I would give you two main reasons: 1) Nadal's serve placement, and 2) Berretini having a bad day with the backhand. I also think that losing the first set really sucked the air out of the match and made Berretini more resigned.



He had a bad day with the backhand, but if you watch the highlights of his prior matches you will see that he is not dependent on his serve to set up his forehand. You are making a ridiculous exaggeration based on one match.



Lol.....excuse me. Federer's ability to "rally with Nadal, dominate, and then some" has been understated by numerous people, especially when it comes to Federer v. Nadal clay matches.



You keep making this point as if it is deeply profound and only you notice it. But, again, allow me to say "no shit Sherlock." What you are omitting from your narrative of the 2007 French Open is that the breakpoints EARLY IN THE MATCH were heavily tilted in Federer's favor. In the first two sets, Federer was in Nadal's games far more than the other way around. Everyone at the time talked about it. But no one has ever pointed to that as evidence of Federer's rally superiority (aside from myself, because, lo and behold, in that particular case, I do think it was an indicator of superior rally ability).



FACT CHECK: Medvedev got the first break of the match to go up 2-1 in the first set, which is one of many reasons why I say he should have won the first set it.




Because the match never opened up for him and he was hitting his backhand very poorly.



It was stupid of you to say Nadal did not face a single breakpoint in the first set yesterday when it was actually Medvedev who got the first break. But most of Nadal's breaks in the 2007 FO final came later, in sets 3 and 4, after the match opened up for him. The rallies in the first two sets were overwhelmingly dominated by Federer, not Nadal. Yet we have heard precious little from you about that over the years.



From what I recall Federer was in Nadal's service games more than the other way around in the first two sets of the 2008 Wimbledon final. Yes, Nadal converted his opportunities when they came but they were still less on a cumulative basis (and not just because Federer had 1 or 2 games that went to deuce 5 times like you are alleging). But either way, the match that interests me far more for the purpose of this argument is the 2007 French Open final, which Nadal fans are strangely silent about. What decided that match was Federer squandering so many break points and everyone at the time talked about it. But if I was to cite that as an example of Federer being a superior clay court rally player at the time, I'm sure you and other Nadal fans would wail and scream at the suggestion of it.



He could have hit his backhand better and Nadal was really on top of things in his own service games with serve placement and stepping in to attack. The match never opened up for Berretini to show what he could do the way it did for Medvedev.

I'll go back to all of this but when I said Nadal did not face a single break point, I was clearly referring to the Berrettini match... which is what this thread is about.