PDA

View Full Version : Who benefitted more from Hamburg!


Mr Topspin
06-14-2007, 06:00 AM
When Federer defeated Nadal at the Hamburg masters, many of us assumed that Federer would go on to defeat Nadal at Paris for the French Open. I like many pundits, assumed that the defeat of Nadal in a big final would serve two purposes: firstly, Federer would regain his confidence after early losses to Canas and successive defeats to Nadal in prior tournaments and secondly, it would give Federer the final push he needed to really believe he could beat Nadal at the French Open.

However, it seemed to benefit Nadal more than Federer. Nadal played far better in this years French than in the previous two. He was especially impressive against Both Hewitt and Djokovic who were both fancied to give him trouble. Nadal also dealt with the disappointment of losing his clay court streak far better than many of us expected. In some ways losing in Hamburg made winning the French Open easier.

During the Hamburg masters in which Nadal was feeling the strain of maintaining his streak with tight matches against Davydenko it seemed that he was struggling to deal with the streak and his game. But once the streak was over he could get back to his game without any distractions.

I am convinced that if he had not played Hamburg, he may well have lost earlier at the French Open. I think he would have found it hard to concentrate on the matter at hand with all the media flurry that would be buzzing around him plus the fact that had he not entered Hamburg, Federer would have most likely won that tourney and would have come out against Nadal with more determination in the FO final. I think that Federer thought that he had found the recipe at Hamburg and therefore relaxed alot more than he would have in the FO final had he not met Nadal a week prior.

Any thoughts?

Marius_Hancu
06-14-2007, 06:10 AM
Can't really tell. Monday morning QB-ing ...

Fed played better than last year, but not still not enough.

Nadal_Freak
06-14-2007, 06:18 AM
I think Nadal is used to pressure. He doesn't let it get to him just like the previous years at the French Open. The clay at the French was a lot different than at Hamburg along with the conditions. I think the French Open clay is probably Nadal's favorite type as it is both slow and high bouncing. Hamburg was slow and low bouncing. Monte Carlo is medium with medium bounces and Rome was fast with medium bounces relative to clay speeds. Davydenko definitely benefitted from the faster clay against Nadal. So final thoughts is Nadal was tired in Hamburg and needed a week off. After that Nadal was ready to dominate.

rolliges
06-14-2007, 07:08 AM
That's a good question/discussion.

Has anyone mentioned this yet? Moya's "net game" and pressure to Nadal's backhand was an intended "warm up" for how Federer would play in the finals.

Perhaps it is just "the one good strategy" against Nadal. Or perhaps it was a very generous favor to a good friend (Nadal).

caulcano
06-14-2007, 07:57 AM
When Federer defeated Nadal at the Hamburg masters, many of us assumed that Federer would go on to defeat Nadal at Paris for the French Open. I like many pundits, assumed that the defeat of Nadal in a big final would serve two purposes: firstly, Federer would regain his confidence after early losses to Canas and successive defeats to Nadal in prior tournaments and secondly, it would give Federer the final push he needed to really believe he could beat Nadal at the French Open.

However, it seemed to benefit Nadal more than Federer. Nadal played far better in this years French than in the previous two. He was especially impressive against Both Hewitt and Djokovic who were both fancied to give him trouble. Nadal also dealt with the disappointment of losing his clay court streak far better than many of us expected. In some ways losing in Hamburg made winning the French Open easier.

During the Hamburg masters in which Nadal was feeling the strain of maintaining his streak with tight matches against Davydenko it seemed that he was struggling to deal with the streak and his game. But once the streak was over he could get back to his game without any distractions.

I am convinced that if he had not played Hamburg, he may well have lost earlier at the French Open. I think he would have found it hard to concentrate on the matter at hand with all the media flurry that would be buzzing around him plus the fact that had he not entered Hamburg, Federer would have most likely won that tourney and would have come out against Nadal with more determination in the FO final. I think that Federer thought that he had found the recipe at Hamburg and therefore relaxed alot more than he would have in the FO final had he not met Nadal a week prior.

Any thoughts?

Maybe it benefitted the french open organisers.

If Nadal had won, then people may not have turned up to see the final because they would feel Federer didn't have a chance to win. On a side note, even the presenters said the attendance at the FO was very poor.

TheTruth
06-14-2007, 08:10 AM
I think for Rafa it was a win-win situation. The streak, though glorious, was still a hindrance. Can you imagine the self-imposed pressure you would be under? It's not worth it! Every time you step on the court you're carrying it with you. Not a good thing going into the French. By playing Hamburg though, Rafa was able to keep Fed's lead from increasing by too much and relax. It also gave Fed a false sense of security. Then, rest, home-cooking, family and friends gave Rafa the renewed sense of purpose he needed to get the job done in Paris. Conversely, Federer put too much into the win. He got over confident and thought he had finally figured him out. What he didn't think about was that Rafa had to be exhausted from his grueling schedule. If it was a strategic move on Rafa's part it worked to perfection! Still, I think the Hewitt and Djokovic matches were more stressful on Nadal than meeting Federer. In the final, I didn't think Rafa played that well. Neither did Fed. It was one of their worse encounters to date, especially on a big stage like that. But, maybe the entire thing had nothing to do with physicality as much as it did with the mental battle that was going on between the combatants. Now on to Wimbledon and the US Open. The French seems so long ago!