SHANGHAI ROLEX MASTERS - ATP-1000 - OCT. 6 to 13, 2013.

[calitennis127]

I think Delpo's forehand can stand up pretty well in that kind of analysis, no?

Oh, I think that when it clicks it's magnificent, but you're the one who said he's got the figures and stuff to prove it has "more pedigree and more history" than any other pro...

On an average match-by-match basis Delpo's forehand is, overall, better than Nadal's. Nadal is able to move quicker for longer because he has more stamina. This allows him to set up his forehand better than Delpo can set up his, but that doesn't mean Nadal's FH is better. It means that Nadal has more stamina.

Yeah, that's quite a forensic analysis. Proof, indeed! :huh:

Please note my edit above (it is so annoying to post on an iPhone). Then please attempt to actually refute what I said.

 

[Kieran]

Then please attempt to actually refute what I said.

Refute what? You haven't said it yet. Look at this:

And this match really illustrated why it is preposterous to call Nadal's forehand "the best in the game". I'd love to see someone explain how it is better than, for example, Del Potro's.

This is your problem, buddy. You try draw huge definitive conclusions from one match. Sometimes even from one highlights reel...

Not true at all. Delpo has more pedigree and more history with the forehand than just any ATP pro.

How are you measuring that, my friend?

Average level on a match-by-match basis over the course of the year.

Provide your records, please, that show he has "more pedigree and more history than just any ATP pro" and then tell me how you analysed this...

 

[herios]

Seeing what happened today in Shanghai, I had to come back and salute my boyz for making their first final ever against each other on Tour.
While I was expecting Novak to make it, after he seems to be back in form, JM win was unexpected, considering what kind of year Rafa had, thus that much more sweater. This is a Huge win for JM over Rafa, first since the 2009 USO and it could be the starting point to him closing on the true elite of tennis, journey which got derailed so swiftly 4 years ago.
He is now in a position to run down not only Ferrer, but also Murray to finish the year in the top 3.
But either way, I will be happy to see any of them win tomorrow, so Ajde and Vamos all the way

 

[masterclass]

Has a newly crowned #1 ever been removed from the facilities in this manner (2 cans of whoop-ass opened in the span of 7 days)?

Well he's only the 3rd man in history to receive the number one ranking for a 3rd time (Lendl, Federer are the others), so quite unique circumstances. Plus he's in the weakest stage of his season traditionally, and made the final last week, semis this week, so very good results and perfect preparation for the World Tour Finals (he avoided marathons).

No, no..., this is not even close. We won't talk about in history.
Since 1973 alone (ATP rankings):

# of times number 1
--------------------
14 - McEnroe (170 total weeks)
11 - Sampras (286)
09 - Connors (268)
08 - Lendl (270)
06 - Borg (109)
06 - Agassi (101)
05 - Edberg (72)
04 - Courier (58)
03 - Kuerten (43)
03 - Federer (302*)
03 - Nadal (103*)

*still active

For almost 9 years, (July 1974 - Feb 1983), Jimmy Connors who dominated early with 160 consecutive weeks, Bjorn Borg (46 con. weeks), John McEnroe (58 con. weeks) held and exchanged #1 rankings (though some believe Vilas should have had it in 1977). Then until 1988, Ivan Lendl was added to the #1 list, as he altered with Connors, then McEnroe until Lendl dominated from Sep 1985 - Sep 1988 - 157 consecutive weeks.

The next big domination was with Pete Sampras - who was #1 for 82 consecutive weeks and later for 102 consecutive weeks between 1996 and 1998. Andre Agassi managed 52 consecutive weeks at #1 in Sep 1999 - Sep 2000. Lleyton Hewitt dominated for 75 weeks from late 2001 to early 2003, and Roger Federer holds the Open Era record for consecutive weeks at 237 weeks from Feb 2004-Aug 2008. Rafael Nadal had 46 (2008-09)and 56 (2010-11) weeks consecutively and Novak Djokovic 53 (2011-12) and 48 weeks (2012-13).

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[herios]

Has a newly crowned #1 ever been removed from the facilities in this manner (2 cans of whoop-ass opened in the span of 7 days)?

Well he's only the 3rd man in history to receive the number one ranking for a 3rd time (Lendl, Federer are the others), so quite unique circumstances. Plus he's in the weakest stage of his season traditionally, and made the final last week, semis this week, so very good results and perfect preparation for the World Tour Finals (he avoided marathons).

No, no..., this is not even close. We won't talk about in history.
Since 1973 alone (ATP rankings):

# of times number 1
--------------------
14 - McEnroe (170 total weeks)
11 - Sampras (286)
09 - Connors (268)
08 - Lendl (270)
06 - Borg (109)
06 - Agassi (101)
05 - Edberg (72)
04 - Courier (58)
03 - Kuerten (43)
03 - Federer (302*)
03 - Nadal (103*)

*still active

For almost 9 years, (July 1974 - Feb 1983), Jimmy Connors who dominated early with 160 consecutive weeks, Bjorn Borg (46 con. weeks), John McEnroe (58 con. weeks) held and exchanged #1 rankings (though some believe Vilas should have had it in 1977). Then until 1988, Ivan Lendl was added to the #1 list, as he altered with Connors, then McEnroe until Lendl dominated from Sep 1985 - Sep 1988 - 157 consecutive weeks.

The next big domination was with Pete Sampras - who was #1 for 82 consecutive weeks and later for 102 consecutive weeks between 1996 and 1998. Andre Agassi managed 52 consecutive weeks at #1 in Sep 1999 - Sep 2000. Lleyton Hewitt dominated for 75 weeks from late 2001 to early 2003, and Roger Federer holds the Open Era record for consecutive weeks at 237 weeks from Feb 2004-Aug 2008. Rafael Nadal had 46 (2008-09)and 56 (2010-11) weeks consecutively and Novak Djokovic 53 (2011-12) and 48 weeks (2012-13).

Respectfully,
masterclass

cool stats, Masterclass. Hopefully Nole will snatch back the pole position soon then he wuill make this list as well;.

 

[honey1269]

still picks the back.....
and probably not a favorite after today..

 

[britbox]

Seeing what happened today in Shanghai, I had to come back and salute my boyz for making their first final ever against each other on Tour.
While I was expecting Novak to make it, after he seems to be back in form, JM win was unexpected, considering what kind of year Rafa had, thus that much more sweater. This is a Huge win for JM over Rafa, first since the 2009 USO and it could be the starting point to him closing on the true elite of tennis, journey which got derailed so swiftly 4 years ago.
He is now in a position to run down not only Ferrer, but also Murray to finish the year in the top 3.
But either way, I will be happy to see any of them win tomorrow, so Ajde and Vamos all the way

Good to see you buddy. Who are you rooting for in the final?

 

[Front242]

Has a newly crowned #1 ever been removed from the facilities in this manner (2 cans of whoop-ass opened in the span of 7 days)?

Well he's only the 3rd man in history to receive the number one ranking for a 3rd time (Lendl, Federer are the others), so quite unique circumstances. Plus he's in the weakest stage of his season traditionally, and made the final last week, semis this week, so very good results and perfect preparation for the World Tour Finals (he avoided marathons).

No, no..., this is not even close. We won't talk about in history.
Since 1973 alone (ATP rankings):

# of times number 1
--------------------
14 - McEnroe (170 total weeks)
11 - Sampras (286)
09 - Connors (268)
08 - Lendl (270)
06 - Borg (109)
06 - Agassi (101)
05 - Edberg (72)
04 - Courier (58)
03 - Kuerten (43)
03 - Federer (302*)
03 - Nadal (103*)

*still active

For almost 9 years, (July 1974 - Feb 1983), Jimmy Connors who dominated early with 160 consecutive weeks, Bjorn Borg (46 con. weeks), John McEnroe (58 con. weeks) held and exchanged #1 rankings (though some believe Vilas should have had it in 1977). Then until 1988, Ivan Lendl was added to the #1 list, as he altered with Connors, then McEnroe until Lendl dominated from Sep 1985 - Sep 1988 - 157 consecutive weeks.

The next big domination was with Pete Sampras - who was #1 for 82 consecutive weeks and later for 102 consecutive weeks between 1996 and 1998. Andre Agassi managed 52 consecutive weeks at #1 in Sep 1999 - Sep 2000. Lleyton Hewitt dominated for 75 weeks from late 2001 to early 2003, and Roger Federer holds the Open Era record for consecutive weeks at 237 weeks from Feb 2004-Aug 2008. Rafael Nadal had 46 (2008-09)and 56 (2010-11) weeks consecutively and Novak Djokovic 53 (2011-12) and 48 weeks (2012-13).

Respectfully,
masterclass

Great job with those stats cool:

 

[masterclass]

Herios, I believe it is probably inevitable that Novak gets in that list if he stays healthy and motivated. The rankings are pretty cyclical. Domination for long periods occurs relatively rarely. I would be a little surprised if Nadal holds #1 for more than 40 or so weeks (after next US Open). It seems that when a group of players dominates, as is happening now, they tend to exchange it back and forth. Long domination by an individual seems to historically come after a group of players who dominate retire/fade. Somebody rises up and asserts themselves.

I'm not sure if Djokovic will be the next to take it back, though he is a top candidate. A resurgent Federer could do it next year considering his lack of points this year. But one doesn't know if he is still capable of yet another resurgent run. But since his astounding run to #1 again only one year ago, I won't write him off until he retires. If Djokovic doesn't take it back in 2014, then I think 2015 could certainly be his year. But then Mr Nadal, Mr. Murray, and others will also have a say. So who can predict with any real accuracy. Tennis future expectations can change in a twinkling of an eye.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

Good posts, Mastercall, and I agree, Novak will take it back eventually. he's already starting on the road back, even though these are points he's defending and Rafa is still gaining, but I think this end of year form is ominous or promising, depending on which player you cheer for...

 

[Didi]

"He played amazing. I just congratulate him," Nadal said in defeat. "Very few times I play against a player with a level like today...I really go home with the feeling that I didn't play bad. That's the thing. It is fair to say that. I am humble enough to say that I played well and I lost 6-2, 6-4."

That's a classy reaction from Nadal and a worthy tribute to Del Potro's wonderful performance. Can't recall many top players admitting they played well after getting straight-setted and outclassed. I also don't think Nadal will lose much sleep over it. What I give him most credit for is that he clearly knows the limitations in his game on Indoors. He gained 660 points in Beijing and Shanghai and should mathematically secure the year end #1 within the next couple of weeks.

 

[calitennis127]

Good posts, Mastercall, and I agree, Novak will take it back eventually. he's already starting on the road back, even though these are points he's defending and Rafa is still gaining, but I think this end of year form is ominous or promising, depending on which player you cheer for...

Honest question, Kieran: do you think Djokovic at the end of 2013 is looking as good as Nalbandian did at the end of 2007?

I do hope that Djokovic keeps it going into 2014, unlike Nalbandian at the 2008 Australian Open.

 

[Kieran]

Good posts, Mastercall, and I agree, Novak will take it back eventually. he's already starting on the road back, even though these are points he's defending and Rafa is still gaining, but I think this end of year form is ominous or promising, depending on which player you cheer for...

Honest question, Kieran: do you think Djokovic at the end of 2013 is looking as good as Nalbandian did at the end of 2007?

I do hope that Djokovic keeps it going into 2014, unlike Nalbandian at the 2008 Australian Open.

I haven't seen him much, unfortunately, but I never heard of anyone ever playing as great as Daveed in 2007. That includes Muhammad Ali, Pele and Don Bradman. I do know that Nole is matching his results from last year, which isn't necessarily an easy thing to do. So far, his rebound from Flushing Meadows is impressive...

 

[brokenshoelace]

This makes me even more annoyed with Del Potro for losing at Indian Wells and falling to Isner in the Cincinnati semifinals.

Jesus, this kind of argument makes no sense. Him playing so well SIX MONTHS later, in a different tournament, under different circumstances, has ZERO effect on the Indian Wells loss. Different court speed, vastly different conditions, different day, different months, different level brought by his opponent...

You always do this. A player wins a match and you go "see, he could have done that in all of his losses." It makes no sense. Nadal's forehand penetrates the court far better at Indian Wells, which allowed him to move Del Potro around more. Likewise, the surface was slower, so he was able to defend well, counter-punch, track down some of DP's rockets, and force his level to drop and/or drain him physically (wasn't that what you attributed that lost to back then)? None of that was possible in Shanghai, and therefore, the result was different.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And this match really illustrated why it is preposterous to call Nadal's forehand "the best in the game". I'd love to see someone explain how it is better than, for example, Del Potro's.

OKay, I'll explain. Watch the past six months of tennis. Watch Nadal's matches, and watch Del Potro's matches. That should be more telling, with more elaborate data, than ONE match. I love this: Nadal's forehand looks like a world beater for 6 straight months, and he wins virtually everything in sight accordingly, especially on hards, to the point where even Cali struggled to pick the matches that Nadal won via "bullshit." Then, there is one match, on Nadal's worst surface that is supposed to debunk everything else.

You know what this match showed? Nadal's forehand isn't that devastating on this kind of surface, and yes, that is a knock on him. Unfortunately for you, only two months of the season is played on this surface. You know what Nadal's entire career showed? That his forehand is pretty devastating everywhere else.

Also Cali, remember their 2011 Wimbledon match? Where Nadal fired off forehand winners at will? How superior did DP's forehand look then? Moral of the story? You can't formulate such a narrative off of one match. But you're too biased to understand that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And this match really illustrated why it is preposterous to call Nadal's forehand "the best in the game". I'd love to see someone explain how it is better than, for example, Del Potro's.

This is your problem, buddy. You try draw huge definitive conclusions from one match. Sometimes even from one highlights reel...

Not true at all. Delpo has more pedigree and more history with the forehand than just any ATP pro.

Congratulations. You just graduated from biased to moronic. You also might want to check the definition of some of the above words that you just used.

 

[huntingyou]

No, no..., this is not even close. We won't talk about in history.

He meant three times #1 after losing it in different years.......not week in and week out.

2008, 2010, 2013

for Roger it was 2004, 2009, 2012

lendl as well

 

[tented]

I just watched the watch on DVR, which is why I'm so late coming to this, but all I have to say is WOW! What an excellent match DP played. Congratulations on an impressive, well-deserved win.

I'm disappointed Rafa lost, but I like DP too much to be angry at him for beating my guy. It's like when Federer beats Rafa -- you just have to say "too good" to the opponent, and move on. Today, JMDP was too good.

 

[tented]

Seeing what happened today in Shanghai, I had to come back and salute my boyz for making their first final ever against each other on Tour.

I hadn't noticed that, but it's interesting.

Great to see you around, Herios. You've been missed by lots of people.

 

[calitennis127]

This makes me even more annoyed with Del Potro for losing at Indian Wells and falling to Isner in the Cincinnati semifinals.

Jesus, this kind of argument makes no sense. Him playing so well SIX MONTHS later, in a different tournament, under different circumstances, has ZERO effect on the Indian Wells loss. Different court speed, vastly different conditions, different day, different months, different level brought by his opponent...

Del Potro winning today may have "ZERO effect" on the Indian Wells final, but that match is still relevant to bring up given the often erroneous conclusions certain people draw from Nadal's victories. It also wasn't that far back. Seven months is not 50 years.

Also, Shanghai does not have a faster court than Cincinnati. And while Indian Wells may be slower, I do recall Del Potro taking a 6-4, 3-1 lead in the final at Indian Wells, and if memory serves me right, it wasn't by making Nadal hit the extra shot. He was dictating with massive offensive firepower.

You always do this. A player wins a match and you go "see, he could have done that in all of his losses." It makes no sense.

Uhhhh, yeah, actually it does. Because Del Potro DID do much of what he did in the Shanghai semifinal in the IW final as well.

Nadal's forehand penetrates the court far better at Indian Wells, which allowed him to move Del Potro around more. Likewise, the surface was slower, so he was able to defend well, counter-punch, track down some of DP's rockets, and force his level to drop and/or drain him physically (wasn't that what you attributed that lost to back then)?

Yes, I did, and my comments on Nadal's stamina were entirely relevant to that final. At the same time, while it may have been possible for Nadal to prolong more points at Indian Wells, Del Potro was still dominating plenty of rallies - well enough, in fact, to take a 6-4, 3-1 lead. He absolutely should have closed out that match as he closed out the second set today. And make no mistake - Nadal did his best today to sneak out of that second set with Delpo devastated and tired, so that he could run away with the third. This time, Delpo staved him off.

None of that was possible in Shanghai, and therefore, the result was different.

No, some of it was possible in Shanghai. It may have been a little harder for Nadal to pull off in Shanghai, but it was still possible, and Nadal made his best effort at weaseling his way out of the second set as he did against Delpo at Indian Wells and Federer at Cincinnati. The difference this time was that Delpo made sure to close the door at the end of the second set.

But, make no mistake - Nadal thought he could win this match. After saving the match point at 3-5 in the second set, there is no doubt he felt that he could get that break and then run away with the match as he did against Delpo at Indian Wells and Federer at Cincinnati. But Delpo just did what the more potent offensive shotmaker should do in such a situation, which is assert the superiority of his offensive game in those important moments.