2017 Shanghai Rolex Masters...ATP 1000...Shanghai, China

[stroke]

Oddsmakers missed this one. Roger pulled a fast one. Particularly on the serve. He was winning his serve so routinely. Playing to the score. Knowing where he stood at each and every juncture.

One thing to keep in mind with the oddsmakers is they do not set the odds on what they think will happen(even though sometimes this may be the case). They set the odds at what they think is an ideal position for them making money. They are very good at taking advantage of the general public's potential misconceptions(willingness to overpay so to speak).

[stroke]

I only got to see the highlights. But from that it reinforced what seems to be a trend. The days of just trying to bash balls from deep in the court will slowly change. Basically, players these days try to rip their way through opponents. Very few can play tactically and try to win points by moving them around. Federer hits the ball very nicely. But the younger players are just walls looking to outhit everyone.

My only hope is Shapovalov.

to me, he strikes the ball like no one else

[don_budge]

The fact he won the US Open is testament the phenomenon he is more than anything else. He won a grand slam whilst leaving himself wide open. Incredible.

Actually the testimony is more that there is nobody playing the game (except Roger Federer) who has the skills to exploit this tactic by Nadal. This is quite a testimony if you think about it. Any of the players in the draws of the 1969 or 1976 U. S. Opens that have been posted recently would immediately exploit this obvious tactic.

I hope that nobody any longer believes the myth that the modern game can hold a candle to the classic game. Modern players are so one-dimensional. Players of yesteryear used to transition from grass to clay to hardcourts. That alone tells a huge part of the story.

I wouldn't call Nadal a phenomenon. I'm thinking more along the lines of "imposter" or "pretender". "Usurper" comes to mind. All of 'em. Not a single reasonable facsimile among them. Except...you know who.

[don_budge]

I only got to see the highlights.

My only hope is Shapovalov.

Denis Shapovalov is an exceptional talent...compared to today's standards but he will not be able to carry the tour like Federer has. The rest of the "Next Generation" are even more one-dimensional than their predecessors. There is no hope and there is no future for the Professional Tennis Tour. Shut out the lights. When Federer retires...it is over.

I know for myself that there is nothing redeemable in the modern game of tennis other than our endless discussions about forehand technique. It's boring and if one has half of a brain there isn't enough to even be entertaining. They will monkey around with the engineering once again...maybe even the scoring system. It's over.

Highlights? Check out this highlight video. Every single point without the endless mind numbing ball bouncing and pre-serve routine by the idiot-in-chief Rafael Nadal. He was "complaining" about the conditions in his usual losing awards ceremony ramble. What an idiot. Thick? Stone cold idiot. You don't have to be to intelligent to play the modern game. Here is living proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBiAuNuvPNU

[arturohernandez]

Denis Shapovalov is an exceptional talent...compared to today's standards but he will not be able to carry the tour like Federer has. The rest of the "Next Generation" are even more one-dimensional than their predecessors. There is no hope and there is no future for the Professional Tennis Tour. Shut out the lights. When Federer retires...it is over.

I know for myself that there is nothing redeemable in the modern game of tennis other than our endless discussions about forehand technique. It's boring and if one has half of a brain there isn't enough to even be entertaining. They will monkey around with the engineering once again...maybe even the scoring system. It's over.

Highlights? Check out this highlight video. Every single point without the endless mind numbing ball bouncing and pre-serve routine by the idiot-in-chief Rafael Nadal. He was "complaining" about the conditions in his usual losing awards ceremony ramble. What an idiot. Thick? Stone cold idiot. You don't have to be to intelligent to play the modern game. Here is living proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBiAuNuvPNU

I actually think Nadal and Moya are both highly intelligent. There is a reason that Nadal hits so many reverse forehands. There is a reason he stands way back. I think he simply knows that this is his best shot to win and cannot stand closer.

He is just not built that way and his best play comes when he hits the ball while retreating. He prefers to take someone's power and redirect it.

He is a counterpuncher or maybe better a counterpummeler.

He knows Wimbledon is tough for him.

His uncle Tony told him he was less talented.

So he put in the hard work and manufactured wins with his effort and retrieval.

It seems a bit harsh to criticize a player that clearly recognizes his or her weakness and tries to compensate.

If Nadal could play like Federer he would.

Uncle Tony tried to change his forehand many years ago.

Nadal is Nadal and will always be Nadal.

In some ways, he is a good lesson to all those up and coming.

He has managed to improve in every category across the years.

Can we fault him for making wine out of water?

[stotty]

IQ is a difficult thing to quantify. I don't know peoples IQ for sure but can have a vague stab if I like. It is a forum after all.

I would say Djokovic and Roger have roughly the same level of intelligence. Murray is harder to quantify. He's a reluctant communicator so not eloquent, but I suspect he may be smarter than Roger and Djokovic. I would definitely rate Rafa as being the least intelligent of the four.

Moya may be intelligent. I have no idea about him yet. But being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean a person will have good judgment or be any less prone to making mistakes, or even really big mistakes.

Moya is known to being an advocator of popping balls back in play. He has said as much in interviews. He likes the percentage approach. This is a whacking big mistake if you are playing Roger. Letting a man with that kind of timing and skill come at you is downright lunacy. In the past Nadal has adopted a more hug-the-baseline strategy and done extremely well against Roger when he has. In his two Wimbledon victories he was downright brilliant on his forehand taking returns earlier.

One thing Nadal has lost, probably forever, is the blistering speed he had round the court. He is still quick, but not quite as quick as he was.

Nadal's match against Muller at Wimbledon was the worst I have seen him play. It was completely bonkers to return serve from that far back on grass in that final set. Success relied purely on Muller choking, which he nearly did, but didn't in the end.

The draw fell open in front of Nadal at the US Open, and despite sitting in the linesman lap when returning, he managed to win the tournament. Remarkable. That's like beating Usain Bolt in a 100m dash starting 10 metres behind him.

I think Nadal does as he is told. If the coaching ploy is to retreat or stand further back, he will do it and stick to it. I doubt Roger or Novak would do that and instead would be more inclined to form their own judgements along the way. They are just smarter like that. The first time I thought Rafa might be a bit thick when he lost to Novak several times in a row on clay. His facial expression was completely flummoxed and bereft of ideas. He seemed to have no clue or comprehension of what on earth was going on. Wimbledon 2011 in the final against Novak he wore exactly the same expression...flummoxed. He couldn't work what to do so he just tried harder instead. No luck.

I do concede to the notion that Rafa's game plan might be a little out of date and that he is vulnerable despite the fact he has done so well this year. I get that. The trouble is there doesn't seem to be too many players who can really take advantage, especially with Novak and Murray out of commission.

[don_budge]

IQ is a difficult thing to quantify. I don't know peoples IQ for sure but can have a vague stab if I like. It is a forum after all.

And of course I wasn't referring to anybody's IQ afterall. There is a certain "awareness" how one is perceived by others and this awareness is what is lacking in these players. They are all so transparently narcissistic and in love with their image. Isn't there a fable about someone gazing at the reflection in the water and then dropping the ball. Nadal and Murray are particularly galling...in this sense these two are abysmal idiots. Djokovic is somewhere in between. Roger has the act down to a science where it has actually become part of his personna to be so cool...so Rico suave.

Did someone say "Nadal is going to be Nadal"? Oh really? Of course he is and I don't really blame him for his lack of awareness. Afterall he must have a mother and father. Wouldn't mom tell him..."Rafa, don't put your fingers in your ass in front of large crowds of people on every single damn point." Wouldn't his father tell him to be a little more aware of what he says in public that shows he has zero or little respect for his opponents. Wouldn't a coach be telling him that all of his idiosyncratic behavior isn't cute or endearing at all but it is unnerving and totally obnoxious? Wouldn't somebody have told him to stop wasting everybody's time with his endless fidgeting with towels, ball kids, water bottles and on and on and on? Did I forgot to mention his ridiculous preserve routine? This really takes the cake. Did you see the highlight video of him against Federer where all of that bullshit is edited out. What a relief!

So how intelligent do you have to be to understand what it looks like to anybody with a brain in their head to see such self glorifying and totally narcisstic behavior from the beginning of a match to the very end. You only have to see the entrance and exit to know what is going to be going on in between.

Sure he has won a lot of tennis tournaments. But the game has been engineered and rigged exactly for his type of boring monolithic play. When a player such as Federer is able to better adapt to different conditions such as faster courts wouldn't it be better to acknowledge just that and move on instead of offering some tepid excuses and thinly veiled innuendoes.

I hate his game...it's ugly. His attitude and the expression on his face are sickening. He has tons of fans. What does that say about Johnny Q Public? Answer...not a whole helluva lot. The public is as dumbed down as it can possibly be. Did you hear the one where they are going to allow girls in the Boy Scouts? Dumb and dumber.

[stroke]

I actually think Nadal and Moya are both highly intelligent. There is a reason that Nadal hits so many reverse forehands. There is a reason he stands way back. I think he simply knows that this is his best shot to win and cannot stand closer.

He is just not built that way and his best play comes when he hits the ball while retreating. He prefers to take someone's power and redirect it.

He is a counterpuncher or maybe better a counterpummeler.

He knows Wimbledon is tough for him.

His uncle Tony told him he was less talented.

So he put in the hard work and manufactured wins with his effort and retrieval.

It seems a bit harsh to criticize a player that clearly recognizes his or her weakness and tries to compensate.

If Nadal could play like Federer he would.

Uncle Tony tried to change his forehand many years ago.

Nadal is Nadal and will always be Nadal.

In some ways, he is a good lesson to all those up and coming.

He has managed to improve in every category across the years.

Can we fault him for making wine out of water?

Good post, I also think he, and many/all others, would like to play like Fed, but that as you say is not possible. I think his 10 French Opens is the single greatest achievement ever in tennis. Fed is the best ever to me, but I would put Nadal right behind him.

[arturohernandez]

Good post, I also think he, and many/all others, would like to play like Fed, but that as you say is not possible. I think his 10 French Opens is the single greatest achievement ever in tennis. Fed is the best ever to me, but I would put Nadal right behind him.

I think so too. But Nadal just needs more time to hit a clean ball. He is built perfectly for clay. On clay he pretty much plays intuitively. The other surfaces have all been about learning and his willingness to practice a lot and push himself way out of his comfort zone.

I am sorry that don_budge finds Nadal appalling. He is definitely not elegant like Federer or nimble like Djokovic.

He is just limited in what he can do physically. Remember he almost had to quit tennis because of problems with his feet.

He has a substantial number of injuries pushing himself way beyond what he should have accomplished.

He is not one to adapt. To try many different things. He is much less flexible mentally. If it were up to him he would stay on his Island home and never leave again. And he is pretty obsessive compulsive in his personality.

It is not about IQ. It is about style and his physical limitations. Nadal is like a souped up version of Ferrer. A bit taller and more athletic. But he likes to fight.

He enjoys long matches and will stay out there as long as possible to win.

He has said that he needs to practice like crazy to play as well as he does.

It is easy to adapt when you have a game like Federer's. I mean the guy came up serving and volleying and then in the early 2000's began to attack from the baseline.

And now Roger will pretty much give up clay for the rest of his career.

I think if everything were reversed, if the majority of the tour was played on clay, and Nadal gave up two months of hard court play, we would be in awe of Nadal.

He would be winning everything and we would be wondering what Federer had to do to right the ship.

Nadal has over performed on grass and hard courts. This is due to his stubbornness and his hard work.

So he is a little inflexible during matches.

It may not be pretty but we have to give some credit to what he has done.

And his style of dealing with problems has taken him a long way.

Come on don_budge at least say something neutral about Nadal.

You may not like him but you should at least acknowledge his accomplishments.

[stotty]

It is not about IQ.

Sometimes it is. When you don't break serve against the same opponent for matches on end, it's time to try another tact. It's pretty dumb not to.

Having good instinct is great. You can be thick yet have great instincts....do all the right things. But sometimes a player might be better off breaking from instinct and using his brain. Standing 10 feet behind the baseline to return might not always be a good idea. That's the best thing about tennis. It can be so engaging mentally. Fundamentally, this is why I came to tennis myself.

[don_budge]

Sometimes it is. When you don't break serve against the same opponent for matches on end, it's time to try another tact. It's pretty dumb not to.

Having good instinct is great. You can be thick yet have great instincts....do all the right things. But sometimes a player might be better off breaking from instinct and using his brain. Standing 10 feet behind the baseline to return might not always be a good idea. That's the best thing about tennis. It can be so engaging mentally. Fundamentally, this is why I came to tennis myself.

"Never change a winning game...always change a losing game."

[don_budge]

One thing to keep in mind with the oddsmakers is they do not set the odds on what they think will happen(even though sometimes this may be the case). They set the odds at what they think is an ideal position for them making money. They are very good at taking advantage of the general public's potential misconceptions(willingness to overpay so to speak).

Of course...the game within the game.

[don_budge]

I am sorry that don_budge finds Nadal appalling. He is definitely not elegant like Federer or nimble like Djokovic.

Come on don_budge at least say something neutral about Nadal.

You may not like him but you should at least acknowledge his accomplishments.

arturohernandez...I can assure you that I have read all that you have to say about Rafael Nadal. I read what stroke has to say. I have read a lot of tennis literature and some of it has to do with Rafael Nadal. I must confess...I have never once had the impulse to tell anyone what they should or should not say regarding the subject individual.

If you are suggesting that I have somehow missed the point about the character or some other redeeming trait about Rafael Nadal that is entirely up to you. You can and should feel free to say what is in your heart. What I fail to understand or realize is why I should say something about someone that I am not inclined to say...for whatever reason that is mine.

Nadal has many admirers and this is something that I don't give a twit about. I don't hold it against anyone either. It's a free country...we used to say. Before lockstep thinking became in vogue. But I can assure you of one thing...I will never say something that does not come from the heart. I don't care if it is 7 billion to one against me. If the rest of the planet thinks one thing and I think another...it only leads me to believe that somehow I have stumbled across something resembling the truth. In other words...when I see the herd going one way you will most likely see me heading in the opposite direction at break neck speed.

When I first started writing on this forum I was perhaps the lone critic of the modern game of tennis. I took a lot of flack. I never wavered. As Stotty has said..."don_budge is unwavering". Apparently I no longer am alone about the feelings I have for the modern game of tennis as the rest are starting to wise up as the end of the Roger Federer Era of tennis comes to a close. I have nothing against Rafael Nadal personally. I generally call a spade a spade.

But I hope that you continue to write exactly how you feel about things. I would never suggest to you that you "should" say something you are not inclined to say. The fact that you did to me doesn't move me in the slightest. That's not how I roll. You can trust a couple of things in life and one of them is that don_budge is going to be true to himself and to the game of classic tennis.

There are those that have told me that the one handed backhand is not viable any longer either. I heard what they had to say.

[don_budge]

The one thing that I like most about Rafael Nadal is that Roger Federer has put a serious ass whipping on him the last five time they have played. This final in Shanghai is just a little icing on the cake. Roger Federer is the Living Proof of my teaching paradigm. Rafael Nadal is an antithesis. My paradigm is designed to defeat the Nadal paradigm...each and every time. Roger is bearing me out in this regard. All that he had to do was equalize the equipment and the proof has been in the pudding. I was the early advocate of the Federer equipment change. My feelings about equipment are clear to anyone that has read my 4,500 plus posts here on this forum.

Modern tennis...like modern man...has shunned what traditionally was a given. Modern equipment to tennis is what artificial intelligence is to everyday life. Tennis metaphors life. Of course you don't see it now...but time will prove me correct in the end. It isn't going to be pretty. Just like modern tennis isn't pretty.

What appears to be an improvement to the masses will be their undoing in the end.

[don_budge]

I'm not a fan of Novak Djokovic I might add either.