next »

[Aileen]

I think the main reason why Nadal took all those losses to all those people is because his mind is really in a different place.

I think his mind has been too taken up with matters off court, and possibly his physical state which does seem to be deteriorating despite his denials.

[Aileen]

Good one!

[TheMadHatter]

Very true and a great point you raise. But it's his form SINCE then, in the non-Slams where he's really come under question. And as has been said, this is probably largely down to his mental state after the way he's been dominated by Djokovic. He just hasn't looked anywhere near as dominant this year or anywhere near as "invincible" as he did back in 2008, first part of 2009.

He was the 2nd best player (by some distance) in 2011, but fell away in the second half of the season. Andy, in-fact, was the 2nd best player from June onwards (ahead of Nadal and Federer) in terms of ranking points won. Djokovic bested him in the two Slams after RG, but in the other tournaments it was the likes of Dodig, Murray, Mayer, Federer and Tsonga beating him, not Djokovic, and even this season he lost to Monfils.

But, vitally, he did still get to the Slam final. And in the Slams he has without a doubt been the 2nd best player from 2011 to now.

Which is why the coming few months are vital. Was his second half of 2011 just a blip (we all know he often falls away a bit towards the end of the season, but not normally that early), and will he return to dominance on the Clay (bar perhaps Djokovic), or will he start actually getting beaten on Clay by other players?

I have a feeling we'll find out a lot over the coming months. We'll find out if Djokovic can continue to dominate the Majors and the Masters; if Nadal is still the force he was a couple of years back or if he is starting to fall away, be it mentally or physically; if Federer can repeat his 3-set performances over 5-sets or if he will continue to struggle in the Majors; and most importantly (to us, anyway) if Andy can continue to progress under Lendl and beat one of the top two in a Slam.

[Fiverings]

I think this is going to be one of the most exciting years ever in tennis - not only the top four, but with some very good young players coming through.  And then there's Del Potro - can he make it back into the top 5 or, maybe more likely, the top 10?

  Definitely agree with that - there's a seismic shifting in the rankings afoot between Andy, Rafa and Federer,  though Djokovic seems pretty solid. Whether Andy can really capitalise remains to be seen.

[Emma Jean]

TMH - it was easy for Nadal to dominate 2008 and first part of 2009 because that was the first time he was seeing success outside clay, so obviously his confidence level was running very high around that time and started 2009 with a bang by beating Federer in the AO final. But once he was ousted by Soderling in the 4th round in RG, he never looked back and went into a slump instead and didn’t recover until the next clay season. In 2010, you can say that he had another successful year (I personally call it the rebound year for Nadal).

The fact that Nadal didn’t do as well in the 2nd part of 2011 is because he never really does well that part of year anyway (with the exception of 2010 but luck played a considerable part in the 2010 USO draw as well) and that’s mainly because he plays far more tennis than Andy during clay and grass season (constantly making finals and winning beating the very best), so the usual burn out starts to happen right after Wimbledon and that’s together with the fact that, he really isn’t a true hard court and indoor player and that season is consisted with both. I hardly see it as a loss of form but rather a few facts stated above. So losing to all these players, for me, especially to Murray and Federer is rather expected. Lets’ also take the fact that, the type of game he plays is quite taxing on his body and so the injuries are directly related to the type of game he plays. But of course, like all other champions, sometimes Nadal makes the extra effort solely based on sheer will and a strong desire to win.

This year he took out Federer again from AO so the loss to him in IW really isn’t as big a deal as it’s made out to be, because when things truly matter, he’ll be there to make sure Federer doesn’t get an inch from him.

Again, it’s only Novak who is clearly the problem for him and nothing else. He played a very competitive AO final against him and came even very close to beat him, so he definitely wants to keep that competitive level in mind and doesn’t want to play Novak until the clay season. Besides, he took the entire February month off to recover both mentally and physically but I’d say mostly mentally.

Anyway, I don’t feel at all that Nadal took any of these events between AO and clay season all that seriously. I am sure back in his mind he knows what’s more important to him and that’s the upcoming clay season.

I agree that the clay season is going to reveal a lot and critical for both - Nadal and Djokovic. If the whole season becomes very competitive for both as these two are most keen on it, then there’s a very good chance that both Andy and Federer might benefit a lot from it going forward.

Another thing I’d say that, we all judge things from a fan’s point of view but from a player’s point of view it’s rather different. Its’ mandatory for each player to play 18 tournaments each year (correct me if I am wrong) and so at the start of the year, each player singles out the tournaments that are important to them and are highly focused on them. They are not going to worry too much about the tournaments that they don’t feel will be the focal point for them. In other words, they are okay with the losses in these tournaments and it doesn’t matter to whom they lose. There’s a pattern in each player’s schedule if you pay attention and you will see which player is likely to underperform or even dump a tournament to focus on the next that’s more important to them. If you play even closer attention, you will notice that there’s a certain pattern in Andy’s schedule as well. It’s no coincidence that he loses Cincinnati and wins Toronto in the same year and then the opposite happens the following year. The target is of course USO and you just can’t afford to win both just before USO and burn yourself out in the process.

[Aileen]

Another thing I’d say that, we all judge things from a fan’s point of view but from a player’s point of view it’s rather different. Its’ mandatory for each player to play 18 tournaments each year (correct me if I am wrong) and so at the start of the year, each player singles out the tournaments that are important to them and are highly focused on them. They are not going to worry too much about the tournaments that they don’t feel will be the focal point for them. In other words, they are okay with the losses in these tournaments and it doesn’t matter to whom they lose. There’s a pattern in each player’s schedule if you pay attention and you will see which player is likely to underperform or even dump a tournament to focus on the next that’s more important to them. If you play even closer attention, you will notice that there’s a certain pattern in Andy’s schedule as well. It’s no coincidence that he loses Cincinnati and wins Toronto in the same year and then the opposite happens the following year. The target is of course USO and you just can’t afford to win both just before USO and burn yourself out in the process.

That doesn't quite explain why Djokovic won Montreal last year then got to the final of Cincinnati before retiring injured, thereby giving Andy a rather unsatisfactory victory - as Andy said, no player wants to win a title in this way.  If he was so worried about burn-out by the USO, then why not throw a match say in R3?  But that, of course, would have seriously dented his aura of "invincibility".  Djokovic was on a winning roll and I believe he wanted it to stay that way, so we have to assume that he chickened out against an opponent who was playing at the top of his game and looked set to beat him.

Going back to Lendl a bit - I really think he will be able to provide some different strategies when it comes to certain match ups and of course, the mental part of a game which is a giant factor in Andy’s game and some techniques on the forehand side I am sure already in progress, but when it comes to serve, I really think Andy could have benefited from Pete a bit had he had the opportunity to spend some time with him - even a few weeks should be efficient. For some reason, I don’t see Pete saying no to this but of course Andy is already a very high profile player and Pete is known for coaching…yet.

Agreed Sampras had a great serve but, even if he were willing to spend time with Andy, I can't see it working.  Andy needs one coach only at the moment, and that is Lendl.  He doesn't need two coaches muddling his head.  Also it would seem to me from this Lendl instructional video that he's perfectly capable of teaching Andy how to serve, in theory at least. 



However, given that during his own career Lendl's serve was inconsistent, then maybe he's focussing more on other aspects of Andy's game to counteract that deficiency.  I hope not, but it could be that we may just have to accept that Andy's serve will always be the weakest part of his game.

[Emma Jean]

Nole was an exceptional case last year and he was on a winning streak so obviously he became a bit obsessed with it. Against Andy in the final, he must have thought he had a chance but Andy started out very well and that sort of shook Nole’s confidence. I don’t know if you remember but after he got broken, Nole started spraying more error in the late first set and the start of the 2nd set. To me he looked very nervous and it wasn’t really a smart idea to lose to any of the top four at that stage, where USO was only around the corner and this was a Masters final. I personally think that had this been a smaller tournament, he would have handed Andy a proper win and that’s with or without the injuries. Personally I think it would have been best for him had he opted out from that tourney even before it begun, but he already became so big by that time that, I don’t think he could afford that either. I don’t think he wanted to give any wrong ideas about his form to his fans, opponents, organizers etc., given that all eyes were on him all the time.

As to Pete being Andy’s coach, no, I don’t mean that he should be his coach now because that would create a big chaos in Andy’s life. What I mean is that, I wish Andy had a chance to learn from him re: the serve when he was much younger - let’s say back in 2006/2007 etc., when Brad was his coach. I think that Pete would also teach him to keep his points short and come to the net more often, since you know, Andy is quite natural at the net, Pete would have spotted that right away. A great coach realizes the strength of a player first I would assume and then focuses on the weaknesses. 

Anyway, just looked at Lendl’ video and thanks for that. It was interesting. One thing I’d say that Andy hits his first serve a bit too flat. You can see that Lendl doesn’t do that – at least not in that clip anyway. Also, Andy doesn’t use the kick serve as often. Pete was a master at disguising both first and second serve that kept even the likes of Agassi, who was probably the best returner in his generation, guessing and that says a lot.

Apart from the mental side, I’d say Andy’s biggest weak point is his serve so I agree with you there. The second is a liability in fact. His first serve is actually great – just not as consistent. It’s consistent when he’s feeling very confident and he feels very confident when he is highly focused but unfortunately, more often than not, he’s least focused. This probably goes back to his mental side of the game again.

Let’s just wait a few months and see where things stand with him with regards to his serve, mental and overall attitude.

[Emma Jean]

You know, I forgot to mention to you how funny it was just a day or two after I read it. I was talking to a friend of mine on the same week and she said something to which I said, "well, I couldn't care less anyway" and as soon as I said it, I stopped and noticed it. So now it seems, I say it correctly while write it incorrectly. Not sure why this inconsistency. Ah well, I don't claim my English is perfect anyway, you see. But just so you know that guy in that clip has gone overboard as well and two wrongs don't make one right.