PDA

View Full Version : Nadal Vs Federer: who figured out the other


ksbh
10-21-2009, 09:57 AM
When Nadal was regularly beating Federer on clay, some people said that Federer would eventually figure out Nadal's game. But what really happened was that Nadal continued to dominate Federer on clay and in the meantime figured out Federer's game on grass and hard courts. He then went on to beat Federer in the finals of both Wimbledon & the Australian Open.

Did anybody see things working out this way?

Has Federer figured out Nadal's game on clay or now it must be asked ... on other surfaces?!

Discuss!

drakulie
10-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Of course he has figured out, Nadal, and Nadal has figured him out as do other pros with each other.

That said, to win and implement a strategy is easier said than done.

LolzWhat?
10-21-2009, 10:03 AM
it's obvious Nadal has figured Federer out. Of course Nadal's molecular superior racket helped but he displayed greater grit than federer. Federer's 2009 was drastically improved with Nadal's kneecaps shattering and abdomen tearing up.

mandy01
10-21-2009, 10:11 AM
There's difference between 'figuring out' someone's game and to actually be able to execute the right strategy to beat him even if you know what to do.
Nadal poses a naturally bad match-up for Roger.For Nadal,Roger's game was always easier to 'figure out' because he had a simple working strategy.All he had to do from his side on surfaces other than clay was to make a few adjustments overall to his game.Improve his own game and approach.-Nothing too specific with Federer particularly in mind.

That wasnt the case for Roger.Roger's strategy is a lot more complicated,especially to execute given today's conditions.Its but obvious that having played Nadal so many times he knows the guy's game well.But then even Roddick knows Roger's game well and probably even knows what to do against him.Its just easier said than done for him.
Roger has to call for lefties during the off-season to practice with them.He has to take specific efforts towards beating Nadal..thats not the case for Nadal.Him being a lefty and with his topspin has a natural leverage over Roger.
Even then Roger has been no slouch against the guy.
So 'figuring out' really isnt the issue here.

Cesc Fabregas
10-21-2009, 10:15 AM
When Nadal is playing well on clay theres nothing Federer can do.

akv89
10-21-2009, 10:17 AM
It should be expected that as time passes, Nadal would do better against Federer on other surfaces than Federer would against Nadal on clay considering that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer.

sureshs
10-21-2009, 10:20 AM
Federer figured him out in Madrid. He realized he should not be afraid of hitting to the Nadal backhand. Of course Nadal was probably injured by this point (even if he didn't know it), so it doesn't say much.

Agassifan
10-21-2009, 10:21 AM
two words: bad matchup

TMF
10-21-2009, 10:28 AM
When Nadal is playing well on clay theres nothing Federer can do.

You’re wrong again. For the first time, Roger often uses the drop shot in Madrid this year. It was affective which he continue to employ it at the FO.

grafselesfan
10-21-2009, 10:32 AM
In 2005-2007 Federer at his best could not beat Nadal at his best on claly. Since 2008 Federer is not the same calibre of clay courter he was from 2005-2007 and Nadal when healthy is even better. So whereas 2005-2007 Federer and Nadal at their best would play competitive quality matches on clay which 90% likely Nadal would pull out in the end, 2008 onwards if Nadal is healthy and playing even reasonably well it is no longer even that competitive on clay.

ksbh
10-21-2009, 10:43 AM
Then why don't you guys apply the same criteria to Sampras who was almost 10 years older to Federer in their only match?

I can't accept age as the reason. Federer blows away his other opponents, with the exception of Del Potro! :twisted:

It should be expected that as time passes, Nadal would do better against Federer on other surfaces than Federer would against Nadal on clay considering that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer.

akv89
10-21-2009, 11:08 AM
Then why don't you guys apply the same criteria to Sampras who was almost 10 years older to Federer in their only match?

I can't accept age as the reason. Federer blows away his other opponents, with the exception of Del Potro! :twisted:

I never made any assumptions based on the one match between Federer and Sampras. Nevertheless, my point is that as time goes by, the younger player will enter into his peak as the older player leaves his. So it should be expected that Nadal will do better against Federer on grass and hard than Federer against Nadal on clay. Federer's match against Sampras came up when neither player was at their peak and the match could have gone either way.

Federer doesn't really blow away his opponents any more. A couple years ago it was considered an achievement to even take a set off of Federer and it was a surprise if Federer lost to anyone other than Nadal, even on clay. It's not as unexpected anymore.

Chadwixx
10-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Makes you wonder how fed made it to number one and holds 15gs's when when nadal is so dominate...

ksbh
10-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Because with the exception of Nadal, no other player believed that they had a right to beat Federer until Del Potro came into his own.

Just look at Blake & Roddick for examples of Federer worshippers.

Makes you wonder how fed made it to number one and holds 15gs's when when nadal is so dominate...

matchmaker
10-21-2009, 12:19 PM
They have both figured each other out.

But if Nadal applies his strategy of attacking the Fed BH with high topspin drives, Fed might have figured this out, but there is nothing he can do against it, except: grow taller (lol), hit a 2hander (he won't) or make essential improvements to his BH (which is good BTW, but breaks down after 4-5 balls, and at his age he cannot change his technique anymore with an immediate result).

What Fed can do is shield his weaknesses more and put more pressure on Nadal.

But I think that both seemingly being over their best, from now on it might well be the form of the day that determines their match outcomes.

I think a vintage Fed might not have lost the Australian open last year.

And a vintage Nadal might not have lost Madrid to Fed either.

I think last year's Wimbledon would probably still have the same outcome, as they both seemed to be playing well.

I just think that both Fed and Nadal are making more UE's than they used to, so that will be a deciding factor from now on. They are just not as sharp anymore.

Grampy
10-21-2009, 12:21 PM
I never made any assumptions based on the one match between Federer and Sampras. Nevertheless, my point is that as time goes by, the younger player will enter into his peak as the older player leaves his. So it should be expected that Nadal will do better against Federer on grass and hard than Federer against Nadal on clay. Federer's match against Sampras came up when neither player was at their peak and the match could have gone either way.

Federer doesn't really blow away his opponents any more. A couple years ago it was considered an achievement to even take a set off of Federer and it was a surprise if Federer lost to anyone other than Nadal, even on clay. It's not as unexpected anymore.

Not if the younger player peaks early then burns out. I don't think Fed is past his peak yet. A few other players have increased their level of play for sure, but Fed is not past his peak yet. To make it to all 4 GS finals and win 2 of them is proof he still has it (the 2 he lost were close matches). How much longer will he be able to do this is unknown, but to say he is past his peak is a bit premature.

Saying Nadal is past his peak is a bit premature too, next year will tell though. I don't know how his game will be able to survive without his legs if they don't get back to 100%. Maybe he'll pull through it. I hope so since I like both players and I'll miss the rivalry if Nadal is out.

akv89
10-21-2009, 12:37 PM
Not if the younger player peaks early then burns out. I don't think Fed is past his peak yet. A few other players have increased their level of play for sure, but Fed is not past his peak yet. To make it to all 4 GS finals and win 2 of them is proof he still has it (the 2 he lost were close matches). How much longer will he be able to do this is unknown, but to say he is past his peak is a bit premature.

Saying Nadal is past his peak is a bit premature too, next year will tell though. I don't know how his game will be able to survive without his legs if they don't get back to 100%. Maybe he'll pull through it. I hope so since I like both players and I'll miss the rivalry if Nadal is out.

I think it's safe to say that Federer is not consistently playing at his peak level anymore, the kind of level that won him about 95% of his matches, won him most of the tournaments he would enter, etc. But he's still good enough to push himself in majors.

I agree that Rafa won't be doing any more catching up to Federer if he continues to have health problems. I was referring to his improved results against Federer on non-clay surfaces since 2008, when Nadal did seem to be playing his best while Federer's level went down a bit.

kimbahpnam
10-21-2009, 01:11 PM
nadal's game against fed on every surface is the same.

sureshs
10-21-2009, 01:34 PM
Nadal has been absconding for so long now that Fed has forgotten what he did to beat him in Madrid, and so will lose to him again the next time they meet.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 01:36 PM
There's difference between 'figuring out' someone's game and to actually be able to execute the right strategy to beat him even if you know what to do.
Nadal poses a naturally bad match-up for Roger.For Nadal,Roger's game was always easier to 'figure out' because he had a simple working strategy.All he had to do from his side on surfaces other than clay was to make a few adjustments overall to his game.Improve his own game and approach.-Nothing too specific with Federer particularly in mind.

That wasnt the case for Roger.Roger's strategy is a lot more complicated,especially to execute given today's conditions.Its but obvious that having played Nadal so many times he knows the guy's game well.But then even Roddick knows Roger's game well and probably even knows what to do against him.Its just easier said than done for him.
Roger has to call for lefties during the off-season to practice with them.He has to take specific efforts towards beating Nadal..thats not the case for Nadal.Him being a lefty and with his topspin has a natural leverage over Roger.
Even then Roger has been no slouch against the guy.
So 'figuring out' really isnt the issue here.

A very good post Mandy, I fully agree with it.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 01:39 PM
In 2005-2007 Federer at his best could not beat Nadal at his best on claly. Since 2008 Federer is not the same calibre of clay courter he was from 2005-2007 and Nadal when healthy is even better. So whereas 2005-2007 Federer and Nadal at their best would play competitive quality matches on clay which 90% likely Nadal would pull out in the end, 2008 onwards if Nadal is healthy and playing even reasonably well it is no longer even that competitive on clay.

No longer competitive? Was the Hamburg 2008 was not competitive? Federer was one point away from winning the 1st set and won the 2nd. This match was a complete choke by Federer, it's a match he should have won, he was the better player in the 1st and 2nd sets. How about Monte Carlo? Federer was leading by breaks in both sets and ended up losing 7-5 7-5? Is that not competitive enough for you?

Sure, Nadal is the better clayer for sure, but aside of FO 08 all of their matches on clay were always very close and competitive. Plus, Federer beat Nadal on their last match on clay, and it was in 2009. Still not competitive?

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 01:40 PM
Nadal has been absconding for so long now that Fed has forgotten what he did to beat him in Madrid, and so will lose to him again the next time they meet.

Doesn't change the fact that Federer is the undisputed GOAT and is also the proud owner of 18 slams.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 01:43 PM
They have both figured each other out.

But if Nadal applies his strategy of attacking the Fed BH with high topspin drives, Fed might have figured this out, but there is nothing he can do against it, except: grow taller (lol), hit a 2hander (he won't) or make essential improvements to his BH (which is good BTW, but breaks down after 4-5 balls, and at his age he cannot change his technique anymore with an immediate result).

What Fed can do is shield his weaknesses more and put more pressure on Nadal.

But I think that both seemingly being over their best, from now on it might well be the form of the day that determines their match outcomes.

I think a vintage Fed might not have lost the Australian open last year.

And a vintage Nadal might not have lost Madrid to Fed either.

I think last year's Wimbledon would probably still have the same outcome, as they both seemed to be playing well.

I just think that both Fed and Nadal are making more UE's than they used to, so that will be a deciding factor from now on. They are just not as sharp anymore.

I agree with most of your post aside of Fed playing well at Wimbly 2008. Sure, he made some unbelievable shots, served really well, but his FH was not there in this match. It lost him the crucial points and he ended up with tons of unforced errors. It wasn't as bad as in Wimbly 2007, but it was hardly Roger's best. Far from it.

NamRanger
10-21-2009, 01:43 PM
No longer competitive? Was the Hamburg 2008 was not competitive? Federer was one point away from winning the 1st set and won the 2nd. This match was a complete choke by Federer, it's a match he should have won, he was the better player in the 1st and 2nd sets. How about Monte Carlo? Federer was leading by breaks in both sets and ended up losing 7-5 7-5? Is that not competitive enough for you?

Sure, Nadal is the better clayer for sure, but aside of FO 08 all of their matches on clay were always very close and competitive. Plus, Federer beat Nadal on their last match on clay, and it was in 2009. Still not competitive?



Mental strength is a part of the game, and it's obvious who is superior in that respect. On a surface like clay that relies heavily on physical and mental strength, Nadal is clearly a favorite no matter the circumstances, especially when you take into account the match-up issues, etc.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 02:05 PM
Mental strength is a part of the game, and it's obvious who is superior in that respect. On a surface like clay that relies heavily on physical and mental strength, Nadal is clearly a favorite no matter the circumstances, especially when you take into account the match-up issues, etc.

That wasn't the point. The point was to call out grafselesfan who said their matches on clay aren't competitive anymore. That is simply false.

NamRanger
10-21-2009, 02:18 PM
That wasn't the point. The point was to call out grafselesfan who said their matches on clay aren't competitive anymore. That is simply false.


Quite a few of their matches were competitive but some weren't close at all. Monte Carlo 2008 was really not that close at all to be honest. Nadal was playing sloppy tennis and Federer still could not capitalize.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Quite a few of their matches were competitive but some weren't close at all. Monte Carlo 2008 was really not that close at all to be honest. Nadal was playing sloppy tennis and Federer still could not capitalize.

I don't know about you, but to me a 7-5 7-5 score is very competitive, espeically with Federer leading by breaks in both sets.

matchmaker
10-21-2009, 02:32 PM
I agree with most of your post aside of Fed playing well at Wimbly 2008. Sure, he made some unbelievable shots, served really well, but his FH was not there in this match. It lost him the crucial points and he ended up with tons of unforced errors. It wasn't as bad as in Wimbly 2007, but it was hardly Roger's best. Far from it.

He was serving well, as you say, which is a big factor in the equation.

I do think that Nadal would have clinched a Wimbledon title sooner or later, even with Fed at his best. He was terribly close in 2007 also.

But I think that had they both played at their best during the whole year, then Nadal might not have won the AO and Federer the FO.

Form of the day seems to be important in what remains of the Fedal rivalry.

P_Agony
10-21-2009, 02:38 PM
He was serving well, as you say, which is a big factor in the equation.

I do think that Nadal would have clinched a Wimbledon title sooner or later, even with Fed at his best. He was terribly close in 2007 also.

But I think that had they both played at their best during the whole year, then Nadal might not have won the AO and Federer the FO.

Form of the day seems to be important in what remains of the Fedal rivalry.

Exacly, though the mental part plays a big role in their matches as well. That's why I'm not excited by their matches anymore, as it's always the same routine and very predictable. Sure, that just might be because I'm a Fed fan, thus a bit biased (naturally), but even when he wins, I don't know, it's like their rivlary already achieved its biggest heights.

topher.juan
10-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Fed seemed very in control in Madrid, he had an attitude about him that he was going through with a new plan/vision/formula for playing Nadal. The next match should be interesting.. I don't think too much of Madrid one way or the other because of Nadal's health (of course, it still counts); the match gave both players a lot to think about. The plot thickens!

matchmaker
10-21-2009, 05:00 PM
Exacly, though the mental part plays a big role in their matches as well. That's why I'm not excited by their matches anymore, as it's always the same routine and very predictable. Sure, that just might be because I'm a Fed fan, thus a bit biased (naturally), but even when he wins, I don't know, it's like their rivlary already achieved its biggest heights.

I think the rivalry has already had many iterations and it loses a little of its magic except if Fed can turn around the H2H.

There is this thing in Fed matches that he sometimes seem to lack passion. Either he wins with glamour and easy, either things don't go his way and then he sort of gives up.

grafselesfan
10-21-2009, 05:39 PM
No longer competitive? Was the Hamburg 2008 was not competitive? Federer was one point away from winning the 1st set and won the 2nd. This match was a complete choke by Federer, it's a match he should have won, he was the better player in the 1st and 2nd sets. How about Monte Carlo? Federer was leading by breaks in both sets and ended up losing 7-5 7-5? Is that not competitive enough for you?

Sure, Nadal is the better clayer for sure, but aside of FO 08 all of their matches on clay were always very close and competitive. Plus, Federer beat Nadal on their last match on clay, and it was in 2009. Still not competitive?

What I mean is I dont think Federer is that competitive with a healthy and rested Nadal on clay anymore. In 2005 and 2007 all their matches on clay were extremely close with almost no exceptions. I think there was one maybe Nadal won 6-4, 6-4 but that was it. In 2008 and 2009 obviously their FO final in 2008 was a rout and their match in Monte Carlo in 2008 was a straight setter. Nadal was really fatigued for that 2008 Hamburg final and was playing on Federer's favorite clay so Roger should have really won.

Steve132
10-21-2009, 06:58 PM
What I mean is I dont think Federer is that competitive with a healthy and rested Nadal on clay anymore. In 2005 and 2007 all their matches on clay were extremely close with almost no exceptions. I think there was one maybe Nadal won 6-4, 6-4 but that was it. In 2008 and 2009 obviously their FO final in 2008 was a rout and their match in Monte Carlo in 2008 was a straight setter. Nadal was really fatigued for that 2008 Hamburg final and was playing on Federer's favorite clay so Roger should have really won.

Federer won, in straight sets, his last match on clay against Nadal. Of course if one believes that any Nadal defeats are due to illness, injury or tiredness, your propositions become trivially true.

NamRanger
10-21-2009, 07:19 PM
I don't know about you, but to me a 7-5 7-5 score is very competitive, espeically with Federer leading by breaks in both sets.



7-5, 7-5 versus a Nadal that was playing uncharacteristically bad that day isn't exactly a good day at the office for Federer.

maddogz32
10-21-2009, 07:23 PM
i think they figured out eachother which is why the rivalry is so great

dh003i
10-21-2009, 07:40 PM
If Nadal plays his best on clay, he's going to beat Federer on clay. Sure. But if Federer played his best on grass, he wouldn't have lost the '08 Wimbledon. He is, after all, pretty much indisputably top-2 on grass all-time.

But I think its silly to blame all of Nadal's losses on injury or being tired. Come on. But even so, his injuries are all related to his style of play. Some of his losses -- also inability to defend Wimbledon -- were due to injury. Not the case everywhere, though. Madrid is a 3-set tournament; I don't think his SF against Djokovic played that much of a role in his loss. What happened is that Federer was rejuvinated and playing exceptionally, and employed new and effective strategies against Nadal on clay. Nadal wasn't at the top of his game, and thus lost.

A similar explanation is valid for Federer's AO and USO losses, although I don't think DP or Nadal employed any new strategies. They just played very well, and Federer had awful serving days on both occasions.

When Federer plays at the top of his game, no-one is going to be able to beat him except Nadal on clay. Same for Nadal on clay, no-one's going to beat him on clay if he plays his best.

As for longevity, I still think that Federer will outlast Nadal. From what I can tell, Nadal seemed to peak from mid-2008 to early 2009. That was his best period. Despite that being his peak, I still think he benefited from Federer not playing his best at Wimbledon (although there Federer did play very well), and serving awful at the AO. None-the-less, Fed wouldn't have beaten Nadal playing his best at this year's FO either; it happens.

None-the-less, Nadal had a peak from mid-2008 to early-2009. Then his body gave out. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll be able to get back there, unless he makes significant changes to his game.

NamRanger
10-21-2009, 07:43 PM
If Nadal plays his best on clay, he's going to beat Federer on clay. Sure. But if Federer played his best on grass, he wouldn't have lost the '08 Wimbledon. He is, after all, pretty much indisputably top-2 on grass all-time.

But I think its silly to blame all of Nadal's losses on injury or being tired. Come on. But even so, his injuries are all related to his style of play. Some of his losses -- also inability to defend Wimbledon -- were due to injury. Not the case everywhere, though. Madrid is a 3-set tournament; I don't think his SF against Djokovic played that much of a role in his loss. What happened is that Federer was rejuvinated and playing exceptionally, and employed new and effective strategies against Nadal on clay. Nadal wasn't at the top of his game, and thus lost.

A similar explanation is valid for Federer's AO and USO losses, although I don't think DP or Nadal employed any new strategies. They just played very well, and Federer had awful serving days on both occasions.

When Federer plays at the top of his game, no-one is going to be able to beat him except Nadal on clay. Same for Nadal on clay, no-one's going to beat him on clay if he plays his best.

As for longevity, I still think that Federer will outlast Nadal. From what I can tell, Nadal seemed to peak from mid-2008 to early 2009. That was his best period. Despite that being his peak, I still think he benefited from Federer not playing his best at Wimbledon (although there Federer did play very well), and serving awful at the AO. None-the-less, Fed wouldn't have beaten Nadal playing his best at this year's FO either; it happens.

None-the-less, Nadal had a peak from mid-2008 to early-2009. Then his body gave out. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll be able to get back there, unless he makes significant changes to his game.




Federer played as well as he could in that final; Nadal did not allow him to play his best tennis. People on this forum seem to be able to comprehend such a simple concept.



I mean, this is like "Oh if Mike Tyson would have fought his best, he would have beaten Evander Holyfield".

abmk
10-21-2009, 10:28 PM
Federer played as well as he could in that final; Nadal did not allow him to play his best tennis. People on this forum seem to be able to comprehend such a simple concept.


So federer dumping second serves into the net on BPs, not once, but quite a few times is because of nadal's great 2nd serve and his efforts and not because of federer being sloppy ? What about those shanks in the second set to gift nadal the double break in the 2nd set after leading by a break ....

Get real, federer played well, but didn't play at his best and a major part of the reason was himself ...Playing level depends on both : the player and the opponent, you are ignoring the player part itself by saying nadal didn't allow him to play his best tennis.

grafselesfan
10-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Who cares if Federer played his best vs Nadal in the Wimbledon finals or not. Bottom line is Nadal has proven he is every bit a match for even prime Federer on grass. In 2006 baby Nadal is like his 4th tournament ever on grass still took peak Federer to 4 sets, and would have been 5 had he not choked serving out the 2nd. In 2007 Federer still won 3 slams that year and in the minds of some Nadal even outplayed Federer in that Wimbledon final despite falling in 5 sets to a very determined Federer, a match Nadal might have won without busting his knee to start the 5th and still could have won even with that without choking on so many break points that set. In 2008 of course Federer was playing an awesome Wimbledon and still fell to Nadal.

abmk
10-21-2009, 10:32 PM
The rivalry was nearly evened out by the end of 2007, when it was 8-6 to nadal, with fed taking 5 of the 7 non-clay matches and nadal 6 of the 7 clay matches. But since then its been mainly nadal. madrid 2009 though, I suspect could turn out to be another turning point in the rivalry ...

lambielspins
10-21-2009, 10:36 PM
The rivalry was nearly evened out by the end of 2007, when it was 8-6 to nadal, with fed taking 5 of the 7 non-clay matches and nadal 6 of the 7 clay matches. But since then its been mainly nadal. madrid 2009 though, I suspect could turn out to be another turning point in the rivalry ...

I agree. I actually think Nadal will have a tough year next year. The only slam he might win is the French and Federer, Del Potro, and Djokovic can all beat him there possibly next year IMO. You will never see a repeat of the 2008 French Open dominance again, or Rafa with a year that is right up with 2008 again IMO.

abmk
10-21-2009, 10:45 PM
Who cares if Federer played his best vs Nadal in the Wimbledon finals or not. Bottom line is Nadal has proven he is every bit a match for even prime Federer on grass. In 2006 baby Nadal is like his 4th tournament ever on grass still took peak Federer to 4 sets, and would have been 5 had he not choked serving out the 2nd.

uh, yeah, because fed would've easily allowed nadal to take the 3rd set had nadal taken the 2nd :roll.

In 2007 Federer still won 3 slams that year and in the minds of some Nadal even outplayed Federer in that Wimbledon final despite falling in 5 sets to a very determined Federer, a match Nadal might have won without busting his knee to start the 5th and still could have won even with that without choking on so many break points that set.

uh, nadal took a time-out in the 4th set , not the 5th and he was fine, running around like before after that time-out . Oh and nadal didn't choke any BPs in the 5th, fed saved all of them, three with his serve and one with a FH winner

You really need to learn the meaning of the word choke

ksbh
10-22-2009, 08:14 AM
Spot on, Ranger! By the way, I think you meant to say 'don't seem to be able to comprehend' :)

It's funny because I ask the Federer lovers ... why did Federer choose not to play his best tennis that day? Because he forgot to take his EPO pills? LOL!

Federer couldn't play his best tennis because Nadal didn't allow him to! It's simple as that. You think it's a coincidence that time and again Federer fails to play his best tennis against Nadal? According to you Federer lovers, Federer must be an incredibly stupid player!

Federer played as well as he could in that final; Nadal did not allow him to play his best tennis. People on this forum seem to be able to comprehend such a simple concept.


I mean, this is like "Oh if Mike Tyson would have fought his best, he would have beaten Evander Holyfield".

Cyan
10-22-2009, 08:32 AM
Looks like the younger generation has figured out the so called GOAT. Del Potro beating Fed at a slam final he owned for 5 long yrs. proves it. Fed will be lucky to win Wimbledon next year. No more slams for Rogi anywhere else. Remember how glad he was the HC season was over earlier this yr. He can't win slams on HC anymore against the young guns. His only slam win will be Wimbledon next yr.

mandy01
10-22-2009, 08:50 AM
Federer couldn't play his best tennis because Nadal didn't allow him to! It's simple as that. You think it's a coincidence that time and again Federer fails to play his best tennis against Nadal? According to you Federer lovers, Federer must be an incredibly stupid player! yeah..Roger rarely plays his best against Nadal due to the whole match-up thing.Just like Nadal so far has been struggling against big hitters who aint afraid of his topspin..Unfortunately the big hitters are not yet consistent enough.

Cyan
10-22-2009, 08:52 AM
Unfortunately the big hitters are not yet consistent enough.

Del Potro was consistent enough to beat Rogi at the USO :lol:

mandy01
10-22-2009, 08:55 AM
Del Potro was consistent enough to beat Rogi at the USO :lol:
I know and I love Del Po but one tournament,be it a Grand Slam dosent exactly determine consistency :wink:

Cesc Fabregas
10-22-2009, 08:59 AM
I agree. I actually think Nadal will have a tough year next year. The only slam he might win is the French and Federer, Del Potro, and Djokovic can all beat him there possibly next year IMO. You will never see a repeat of the 2008 French Open dominance again, or Rafa with a year that is right up with 2008 again IMO.

Based on what? Federer has been schooled by Nadal at the French 05-08, Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay and Del Potro isn't that great on clay. Nadal is better than them all on clay.

drakulie
10-22-2009, 09:05 AM
Based on what?


based on this:

http://sofiaecho.com/shimg/zx500y290_732851.jpg

Cesc Fabregas
10-22-2009, 09:16 AM
based on this:

http://sofiaecho.com/shimg/zx500y290_732851.jpg

How about this?

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2006+French+Open+Day+Fifteen+2sIH2WRUssAl.jpg

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/nadal-kuerten-federer-rg.jpg

http://www.daleisphere.com/wp-content/uploads/borg-presents-trophy-to-nadal-at-2008-french-open.jpg

benasp
10-22-2009, 09:21 AM
I know and I love Del Po but one tournament,be it a Grand Slam dosent exactly determine consistency :wink:

Del Potro was definitly playing way above his level in term of consistency at the USO. He made federer look like a puppet and after every point i said to myself "ok now it's over he's gonna drop his level and federer will be fine" but it hadn't append. Maybe it was the only time we see Del Potro that much on fire but if he did it once i can do it again.

drakulie
10-22-2009, 09:30 AM
How about this?



What about it? Last time Nadal was at the French, he was on his back side, not lifting trophies.

ksbh
10-22-2009, 09:59 AM
Cesc ... LOL, firing on more than 4 cylinders I see! :)

How about this?

http://www.daleisphere.com/wp-content/uploads/borg-presents-trophy-to-nadal-at-2008-french-open.jpg

kishnabe
10-22-2009, 12:41 PM
In 2005-2007 Federer at his best could not beat Nadal at his best on claly. Since 2008 Federer is not the same calibre of clay courter he was from 2005-2007 and Nadal when healthy is even better. So whereas 2005-2007 Federer and Nadal at their best would play competitive quality matches on clay which 90% likely Nadal would pull out in the end, 2008 onwards if Nadal is healthy and playing even reasonably well it is no longer even that competitive on clay.

What you say is quite true, but federer can still make marginly improvements on clay and maybe still create quality matches against prime Nadal.

bolo
10-22-2009, 01:34 PM
Has Federer figured out Nadal's game on clay or now it must be asked ... on other surfaces?!



Nope. Federer had all the advantages of being in his prime as well. Nadal FTW! :)

P_Agony
10-22-2009, 01:54 PM
Who cares if Federer played his best vs Nadal in the Wimbledon finals or not. Bottom line is Nadal has proven he is every bit a match for even prime Federer on grass. In 2006 baby Nadal is like his 4th tournament ever on grass still took peak Federer to 4 sets, and would have been 5 had he not choked serving out the 2nd. In 2007 Federer still won 3 slams that year and in the minds of some Nadal even outplayed Federer in that Wimbledon final despite falling in 5 sets to a very determined Federer, a match Nadal might have won without busting his knee to start the 5th and still could have won even with that without choking on so many break points that set. In 2008 of course Federer was playing an awesome Wimbledon and still fell to Nadal.

It doesn't matter who outplayed the other. Federer outplayed Nadal in the AO 09 final and even won more points than him overall (despite barely winning any in the 5th set). Did it help him? No.

TheTruth
10-22-2009, 03:39 PM
Del Potro was definitly playing way above his level in term of consistency at the USO. He made federer look like a puppet and after every point i said to myself "ok now it's over he's gonna drop his level and federer will be fine" but it hadn't append. Maybe it was the only time we see Del Potro that much on fire but if he did it once i can do it again.

I thought Del Potro played terrible in that final. So bad for the first two sets I almost turned in disgust. He was nervous, making easy mistakes, and didn't seem to have any belief at all. Fed was on fire in the first set and a half, but he couldn't seem to keep it up. Maybe he was ired, I don't know, but it seemed to me when Del Potro, although he wasn't playing his best, still refused to go away Fed lost his nerve which made Del Potro gain in confidence. I think once Fed started to lose his nerve Del Potro pounced and from point on Del Po knew he could and should win. My opinion.

TheTruth
10-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Cesc ... LOL, firing on more than 4 cylinders I see! :)

I was expecting the one where he was sobbing. Opportunity missed!

ksbh
10-23-2009, 10:52 AM
There will be plenty more opportunities, TT ... stay tuned! :)

I was expecting the one where he was sobbing. Opportunity missed!

REBEL
10-23-2009, 02:35 PM
It doesn't matter who outplayed the other. Federer outplayed Nadal in the AO 09 final and even won more points than him overall (despite barely winning any in the 5th set). Did it help him? No.

Didnt nadal win the AO?

Chadwixx
10-23-2009, 03:22 PM
Cesc ... LOL, firing on more than 4 cylinders I see! :)

130% on the juice vs 75% with mono.

ksbh
10-23-2009, 08:09 PM
Chad ... if someone can play 5 competitive sets of tennis in the blistering Aussie heat whilst supposedly suffering from mono, then my neighbors dog can win a Formula 1 race with one paw tied behind his back whilst listening to Robbie Williams on the team radio! And no, this is no exaggeration! LOL!

130% on the juice vs 75% with mono.

abmk
10-23-2009, 08:19 PM
Chad ... if someone can play 5 competitive sets of tennis in the blistering Aussie heat whilst supposedly suffering from mono, then my neighbors dog can win a Formula 1 race with one paw tied behind his back whilst listening to Robbie Williams on the team radio! And no, this is no exaggeration! LOL!

umm, federer-tipsarevic was a night-match if I am not mistaken

ksbh
10-23-2009, 08:33 PM
Thats true, ABMK .... but mono is just as debilitating in the night as it is in the day ... just like any other disease! LOL!

umm, federer-tipsarevic was a night-match if I am not mistaken

abmk
10-23-2009, 08:45 PM
Thats true, ABMK .... but mono is just as debilitating in the night as it is in the day ... just like any other disease! LOL!

umm, am not in the medical field , but common sense would suggest that it would be much more difficult playing under hot, blistering weather with fever than under cool ( not cold ) conditions at night , he he ...

lawrence
10-23-2009, 09:01 PM
How about this?

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2006+French+Open+Day+Fifteen+2sIH2WRUssAl.jpg

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/nadal-kuerten-federer-rg.jpg

http://www.daleisphere.com/wp-content/uploads/borg-presents-trophy-to-nadal-at-2008-french-open.jpg

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7313/rogerfederer15grandslam.jpg

mandy01
10-23-2009, 10:06 PM
Chad ... if someone can play 5 competitive sets of tennis in the blistering Aussie heat whilst supposedly suffering from mono, then my neighbors dog can win a Formula 1 race with one paw tied behind his back whilst listening to Robbie Williams on the team radio! And no, this is no exaggeration! LOL! If someone can WIN five tournaments while supposedly having tendinitis and pain for nine months then pigs can fly..and this aint no exaggeration :D

lawrence
10-24-2009, 12:21 AM
umm, am not in the medical field , but common sense would suggest that it would be much more difficult playing under hot, blistering weather with fever than under cool ( not cold ) conditions at night , he he ...

Please don't use logic against ksbh, it just doesn't register in his brain.

zagor
10-24-2009, 12:59 AM
If someone can WIN five tournaments while supposedly having tendinitis and pain for nine months then pigs can fly..and this aint no exaggeration :D

LOL,well said :)

ksbh
10-24-2009, 05:35 AM
Exactly! So we're in agreement that the top 2 is a bunch of whiners?! The biggest that I ever saw in all these years of following tennis! LOL!

If someone can WIN five tournaments while supposedly having tendinitis and pain for nine months then pigs can fly..and this aint no exaggeration :D

mandy01
10-24-2009, 05:55 AM
Exactly! So we're in agreement that the top 2 is a bunch of whiners?! The biggest that I ever saw in all these years of following tennis! LOL!
Agreed :D :evil:
Two moaners right at the top..pfff......:evil:

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 01:13 PM
When Nadal was regularly beating Federer on clay, some people said that Federer would eventually figure out Nadal's game. But what really happened was that Nadal continued to dominate Federer on clay and in the meantime figured out Federer's game on grass and hard courts. He then went on to beat Federer in the finals of both Wimbledon & the Australian Open.

Did anybody see things working out this way?

Has Federer figured out Nadal's game on clay or now it must be asked ... on other surfaces?!

Discuss!

I did not think that would ever happen, really I had no expections of Nadal rather I just enjoy his abilities.

With that said Roger has not, and never will figure out Nadal on any surface.

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 01:14 PM
If someone can WIN five tournaments while supposedly having tendinitis and pain for nine months then pigs can fly..and this aint no exaggeration :D

Yeah, Roger knows what the is about LOL

REBEL
10-26-2009, 03:55 PM
If someone can WIN five tournaments while supposedly having tendinitis and pain for nine months then pigs can fly..and this aint no exaggeration :D

Pigs can fly......just take a look at Mirka....she travels all over the world......just kidding.

Baikalic
10-26-2009, 03:58 PM
Pigs can fly......just take a look at Mirka....she travels all over the world......just kidding.

WOW...was that necessary? I laughed a little bit but I cut it out, that is bad bad bad.

raisethe3
10-26-2009, 09:22 PM
I remember recalling that when he lost to Djok. After losing the match he said "Thank god, the hard court season is over."

Looks like the younger generation has figured out the so called GOAT. Del Potro beating Fed at a slam final he owned for 5 long yrs. proves it. Fed will be lucky to win Wimbledon next year. No more slams for Rogi anywhere else. Remember how glad he was the HC season was over earlier this yr. He can't win slams on HC anymore against the young guns. His only slam win will be Wimbledon next yr.

Tennis_Hands
10-26-2009, 10:39 PM
I agree, that, to win and implement a strategy is easier said than done. It is even harder to accept a strategy, that might require subtle changes in your game plan or, even worse, your technique.

To me, the "who figured out who" in Nadal vs. Federer rivalry is a matter of positioning in the big picture of the game, and, thus, resembles a process without clear outcome, until one of the players retires from the game.

It is also very important to determine what constitutes "figuring out":

Is it the understanding, what you need to do in order to beat your opponent?
Is it the adoption of changes in your game plan, technique etc. that are necessary in order to defeat your rival which means that you can effectively execute certain strategy
Is it just a matter of who wins or loses?

I am not delusional about the fact, that either player is not clever or talented enough to see and understand the game of the other. They both are top professionals in every aspect of their game - skills, mental strenght, willingness to achieve goals etc. So, regarding the first point, I will have to go with the conclusion, that they both have figured out the other guy.

The second point is the most important one for me and it is related to my comment about the positioning in the game. I will go out on a limb and say, that those two players entered the game from a different perspective.

Federer took the the more travelled path - he had a lot of talent, but, since he was a prodigy, he needed time to comprehend the idea, that he needs to start putting the things in certain order if he wants to achieve (big) things. It is quite common with very talented kids - they feel (and sometimes see), that they can achieve things easily, that is why they cannot be bothered to work very hard (in this aspect it is very important, that Federer comes from country and culture, where the hard work ethic is highly appreciated and even required). Federer adopted the general notion, that he needs to work on his strenghts and weaknesses and establish his OVERALL style. He worked on ALL the aspects of his game. That took him a while. When he managed that he was already 19 or sth. This resulted in him, being more conscious about his general attitude towards the game - it was time for him to IMPOSE his overall game style over the field, which he did. He took time to develop all the aspects of his game, and that proved crucial against most of the field. Against somewhat more experienced players he had the confidence, because his game was leading to a lot of outcomes, that kept his opponents GUESSING. Also, he had several prime examples of superb tennis skills in front of him - Sampras, Agassi etc. so he had a good measure stick as to what he needs to achieve in terms of competitiveness. Choosing his racket was more or less mainstream decision. It was to his liking, but nothing that specifically gives him an advantage over the field by itself. He developed a multifaceted game style, which was able to subdue almost every playing style. His talent helped him to execute this kind of game even against more advanced (at the time) (in certain aspects of their games) players. Federer was already an adult when he started winning. He had raised the bar high and was enjoying his game, and this I see as his primal source for his success at the time (circa 2001 - 2004)

When Nadal emerged on the scene he was a kid. A prodigy and a beast of a kid, but still kid. He had a lot of talent too, but his mentor and coach (Toni Nadal) choose to develop certain aspects of his game, that will give Nadal refuge from the storm of the whirling competitive side of the tennis life as a Pro. He had only one purpose - to make Nadal feel safe on certain grounds, and since their home soil is typical with clay courts, this was the surface he choose for Rafa. Being able to play on somewhat "home" surface made Nadal more confident (he was able to compete on other surfaces too, but mostly because he was very talentedand and not so much because he developed his game). There were a couple of decisions that were ingenious(for good or not so good) on Toni Nadal's part - the left playng hand, the use of Rafa's natural athleticism and movement (on clay) and their conection with the equipment he choose. Toni took care to suit Nadal's playing style to specific surface AND, at the same time to be a bad-matchup for ...... Roger Federer. (I think, that this decision was made back then and ever since Federer was chasing in his battle with Nadal's approach in their encounters.). Toni was well aware that he need to keep the things natural for the young Rafa, so I think that he didn't specifically pointed out to Rafa what are they after - establishing dominance over ... Federer. Instead he gave Rafa's natural hunger for development and expression of the skills the opportunity to develop via his style on clay to an extend, that he could easily take on any competitor and eat him alive with his passion for the game, athleticism and specifically suited killer game on clay. I think that this might have been the decisive factor for Rafa being dominant over everybody (including Federer) - while everybody was accepting the game as business (no matter how much they enjoyed the game) Rafa accepted his game on clay as pure OWNAGE of "his own" tennis. A kid's passion goes a long way. He didnt't set any specific major purposes other than to play as well as he can in every match and execute the strategy that has been set by Toni.

So, there they were, an established Federer, with classic approach and the young Nadal who was thriving on his clay skills. Besides, their matches in Maiami showed, that young Nadal could have chosen different approach towards Federer. Uncle Toni probably saw, that, although competitive with Federer even at such a young age, Nadal could burn out if their battle is too competitive from the very beginning. Also, he needed to build up on Rafael's skills by adding enough athletic background, to develop his game on even higher level.

Now, at that point, I think that Nadal didn't figure out Federer's game. He took him by surprise with each player playing his own game, which essentially gave Nadal the edge over Federer because of the bad matchup of their styles. Also, Nadal was winning, because he had more willingness to follow strategy than Federer. Surprisingly (for me) the spaniard appeared more disciplined than the swiss, which only has to tell how naive about the whole picture of the game and at the same time passionate about the game itself Nadal was.

Later on, as their rivalry entered the "golden years" of Federer (2004-2007) there was a quite dramatic change in their attitude towards each other. Until 2004 Federer didn't care who he is playng against. He was enjoyng his establishment as a powerhouse and his rivalries with different players. Then, when he was already at the top he wanted to impose his playing style on everyone. I don't think, that, despite his difficulties with Rafa in their matches in Maiami, he was too concerned, because he was still ascending in his abilities (on clay as well) and Rafa did not appear that much of a threat on any particular surface.

When Rafa defeated Federer at RG in 2005 it became clear that Federer is going to have longterm problems with this kid. Federer thought, that he has to try harder to impose his own playing style on Rafa, which he almost did in 2006. Only, "almost". I think that at that point he started to realize that he has to do something, if he wants THAT trophy. Federer was trying to impose his game. He figured out what his rival is doing, but didn't figure him out in terms of implementing a counter strategy. Instead, he just stood there.

A big part of his failure to impose his style on Rafa in RG final in 2006 was Federer's stubbornness to go for more agressive play when he had the chance and Rafa's natural skills on clay. I think that this was the turning point when actually Federer started to realize, that his unwillingness to employ more flexible strategy against Nadal had lost him some matches and that made Federer vulnerable in terms of mental strenght. Also, he was partly unwilling to accept this, because he was winning a lot on the other surfaces and Nadal did not appear a threat there (just like in their Miami matches, Federer didn't realize/bother to realize the significance of this. Even the Wimbledon success (relative) of Nadal, didn't seem to change the things ). Only Nadal has made clay his kingdom (2007 confirmed that), and went on to develop other skills, while Federer in fact was already loosing ground. He was unable to put aside his ego and abandon his usual strategy in order to defeat Nadal (no matter how superb Nadal skills on clay were - Federer didn't even try).

....

Tennis_Hands
10-26-2009, 10:40 PM
....
So, circa 2007-2008 Nadal was gaining strenght based on his "reserved territory" and going on assaults all over the place. Federer knew what to do on surfaces other than clay - when he employed agressive strategy against Nadal, he succeeded (Wimbledon 2007), when he didn't - he lost. Also, there was a turnaround in terms of pure physical abilities - Federer's speed went down a tad, and Nadal's remained the same or slightly improved. This resulted in some really painful losses for Federer and I think at this point he "figured out" that he has to make adjustments to his game if he wants to regain his status as number 1 (which he had lost already (2008)). Somewhere between AO 2008 and taking the #1 spot, Nadal found himself in Federer's place from 2004. He had to impose his game on the tour, but, aside from Federer, who was not his former self (despite him winning US OPEN), there was noone, who can challenge him seriously. He could beat any player if that was his aim and had he had the right aim (winning the Olympics is prime example of that), but he could not dominate as he would like, since there was quite a beating on his body, due to his style and number of matches played. He was a mature player, but his mind was still well behind his achievements and skills (and Toni Nadal failed to make a smooth transition in that aspect of Nadal's developement).

After AO 2009 we had an injury burdened Nadal, who had his confidence shattered, and his playing style questioned (just like Federer's after his loss at RG 2006 and even more at 2007) by his constant health problems. He knew how to play against Federer, but he didn't knew what to do with his schedule (as a result he didn't set his goals very well and suffered losses that should have never happened) and that started to bother him. A player he could beat by fighting his way through , but there is little he can do when he is plagued by injuries. This ruined the party for him and made him doubt his own style (along with the "oh, so natural" weakness of Nadal's game - where high speed low balls, delivered with flat shots from tall guys like Del Po are a BIG problem), just like his wins at RG made Federer doubt his own style. As a result Federer has found a way to beat Nadal, by pressing him even more (like he said that he will keep playing and he hopes that he will be "there" when Rafa is not, in which he totally succeeded) via his ranking and playing style. For me it would be correct to state, that Federer "figured out" Nadal with his style of play, rather than some particular changes in his game plan or technique (although he incorporated some new strategies in his game, like utilizing the lob more often and playing even more agresive tennis than before)

Apparently, both players have to "figure out" their opponents by figuring out their own problems, caused by their own decisions and the natural weaknesses of their games. A game plan for certain match can figure out the oppponent and a carefully implemented strategy can win a match. Not sure about figuring out anyone longterm, since there are so many things that influence the process.

Although, we have to accept the high possibility of having a situation, where aging Federer is denied a chance to compete with healthy Nadal on a leveled basis. If both are healthy, I would give the edge to Nadal, since his game is a bad matchup for Fed, his age and because he has proved that he can play very well when he knows what he wants. Then again, Federer has outlasted so many of his main rivals, that I wouldn't be surprised if he succeeds again!

P.S.Do excuse me for any mistakes that I have made in my post! English is not my native language.

REBEL
10-27-2009, 12:22 PM
I thought Nadal had some bad months die to injurys an personal family problems, but he never actually lost to Roger in a grand slam and he did beat Roger at last years FO and then again at Wimbledon and then yet again at the AO.....is this really even a debate?

ksbh
10-27-2009, 01:25 PM
ROFL X 100! Uncalled for but splendid timing!

But some Federer fans would have us believe that Mirka is actually a woman! :twisted:

Pigs can fly......just take a look at Mirka....she travels all over the world......just kidding.

LiveForever
10-27-2009, 01:28 PM
Pigs can fly......just take a look at Mirka....she travels all over the world......just kidding.
Okay. I loled :lol: even though it was messed up.