Federer and Nadal Down 2-0 Sets

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Oct 19, 2012.

  1. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,234
    Fed reached 6 straight USO finals. He couldn't do better than that. He played his part every year between 2005-2009, when Nadal was always below him at no.2

    Surely you can't expect him to keep reaching finals past 29.
     
    #51
  2. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,394
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Federer didn't reach Nadal in 2010, 2011 or 2013 either.
     
    #52
  3. Read the above posts...
     
    #53
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,253
    2014 US Open Quarterfinal.
    Gael Monfils: Federer Started Mixing Everything Up, That’s Why He’s The Greatest
     
    #54
  5. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,093
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    If you're gonna discount 04-07 for Nadal being too young then you should also discount any wins that Nadal's had over Federer in the last couple of years(when Fed still managed to reach him in the latter stages irrespective of his form at the time) when Roger's been too old. That seems about right to me.
     
    #55
  6. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,215
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    agreed !

    it was fun to have those 5-sets finals (even more when courier loses, it's true) :) in some 'regular' tournaments back in the (not so) 'old' times...

    and now they don't even let us having a best-of-5 in the WTF... WTF !!! :(
     
    #56
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,394
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I don't discount them. Nadal wasn't good enough to get to the final of the Australian Opens and US Opens that he played when he was 18-21. That's all there is to it.
     
    #57
  8. Egoista

    Egoista Professional

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,304
    nadal is mentally stronger unfortunately

    but thats just him
     
    #58
  9. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,093
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    And yet Fed is still good enough to get to Slam finals between 30-33! :razz:
     
    #59
  10. tennisfan87

    tennisfan87 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Messages:
    303
    I didn't do that, you should read more carefully. I only excused him for 2004 because, not only was he just a teenager back then, but the most important thing - not a top player yet. Is that so hard to understand?

    Maybe Novak should've reached the UO final that year too? So what if he was only 17 years old and nowhere close to being a top player? As you say, it doesn't matter.

    It was just 1 match and with a good reason, not the whole 2004 - 2007 period as you say.

    And I just did that :)

    So we have this situation: I excused Rafa for only 1 match because he wasn't a top player yet. I started counting from the moment he became a top 2 player and won his 1st slam, 2005 RG. We have 3 other matches - 2005, 2006, 2007.

    Nadal didn't reach Federer those 3 times (teenager, was just a claycourt specialist) but Federer also didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013 (because of age, decline, being out of prime).

    Like I said, it all balances itself out in the end. I have excused both of them in this case. And if you want, you can take away Rafa's 1st win over Federer ( 2004 Miami, they didn't meet in any other matches that year) and swap it with that 2004 UO final where he didn't meet Federer.

    Again, it all balances itself out. They're even in this case.

    This I agree with. Rafa was in his peak and prime years in 2008 and 2009 so I can give those 2 matches to Roger. But that's still only 2 matches and not 6 like many like to emphasize.

    I think it's fair. I have excused both of them, Rafa for 2004 - 2007, Roger for 2010, 2011, 2013 (so that's even) and I gave Roger those 2 matches in 2008 and 2009 (Rafa's peak and prime years).

    So that's +2 for Roger but not +6 as initially stated. Can posters agree with this?
     
    #60
  11. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,234
    Federer missed 3 matches: 2010,2011,2013

    Nadal missed 5 matches: 2005-2009.

    5>3.

    Nadal therefore missed more matches than Federer.
     
    #61
  12. tennisfan87 - I agree that the difference was overstated.
     
    #62
  13. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,923
    Location:
    U.S
    take out 2011 from that ...he played djokovic much closer in the semi than rafa did in the final ..

    the rest of it is fine ....though one could still nitpick about 13 -- because it was an injury-affected year for federer ...
     
    #63
  14. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,278
    #64
  15. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,691
    Laver won the cygs at 31. Rosewall made it to 2 finals in a row at age 40. Agassi was still making finals in his mid 30's.

    Stop making out that 30 is like 80, it isn't. You don't just suddenly stop being able to run and lose all your fitness. Federer is in better condition than most of the 25 year olds on tour.

    Federer is one of the greatest HC champions, yet even he wasn't making it to finals at age 18-21.

    Nadal's best ball is on clay. He made it to the clay major final almost immediately and has continuously done so for the past 10 years apart from 2009.

    However, Nadal still made it to his first HC major final at roughly the same age as Federer was when he first made it to a HC major final. The only problem for Nadal is, Djokovic played unbelievable tennis from A02011 - AO2012. He effectively took away 2 HC titles and a Wimbledon title Nadal would have won. Nobody of that calibre arrived during Federer's peak, only the same old pigeon Roddick, Hewitt and 34+ yr old Agassi were consistently facing him in majors.

    Put a 35 year old Agassi against Nadal in US2011 and in 2005 put 2011 Djokovic against Federer. The trophy cabinet would look very different with Nadal having 3 US Opens and Federer 4.

    Furthermore, had the 2010 and 2013 version of Nadal showed up to the US Open in any of the 2 years from 04-07 you can take away 2 US Opens from Federer and add them to Nadal because he won't be beating Nadal playing at his best.

    Federer's a great player, but his slam count and achievements are inflated. He had a 4 year period where there was very little to really challenge him apart from Nadal on clay (and in 07 Nadal on grass). If peak Djokovic was in Federer's path and not in Nadal's things would be very different. If you don't believe that then why all of a sudden Federer stopped winning 3 majors a year from 2008 onwards? Only 2009 he won 2 and that was because Nadal was out of the way. You really want to tell me that 26-28 is too old? Why doesn't Nadal have that problem at age 26-28? Nadal's 2014 is a definite drop from 2013, but he still made it to AO final and won RG against his main rival. If it weren't for bad luck with injuries (something that has plagued him his entire career) who knows what he would've achieved. He'd probably have beaten Stan in the AO final and made it to the US final again this year. I say this because he's dominated Stan in the past without even losing a set and made it to the final in 5 of the last 6 HC slams he's played in and it's not like the competition is tough this year, it's dropped off big time with Murray not reaching his best, Del Potro being out, Nadal being out, Djokovic focusing on family and young players still fragile in majors for the most part.

    But hey it's ok, there's no point trying to convince you with logic, believe what you want.
     
    #65
  16. Dolgopolov85

    Dolgopolov85 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,268
    *bump* Rather than posting a new thread, I am just going to use this one to make a point I have been thinking about in light of Nadal's struggles in 2015. There have been references by fans as well as the Nadal camp to his loss of confidence this year affecting his performance. Maybe this also explains his record from 2 sets down. I guess Nadal needs to feel confident and in control of the match. He may abide by losing the first set but two sets down and he panics. Somebody else referred to Fed/Nole's arrogance helping them to get out of tough situations because even when they are playing crap they believe they can come back. I think there's something to that theory. You can see it in the RG matches in 09 where Fed beat Haas/Delpo. He never panicked and as he began to win, his 'arrogance' was very much evident. You can call it 'aura' or 'indomitable spirit' or whatever else you like. Nole too in 2011 was in a similar frame of mind, which is how he sprung that incredible comeback on Fed from 2-0 down at USO. Nadal fights hard in the battles within the battles. But once he feels he's losing the war, he's more liable to throw in the towel than Fed or Nole.
     
    #66
  17. Prabhanjan

    Prabhanjan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    753
    True, it is just that as it gets delayed, players find it more difficult to win the slams. Interestingly, when Rosewall thought he could not do worse than losing 6 games in the Wimbledon finals, he was further humiliated in the USO by winning only 2 games. Similarly, Fed in 15 lost in 4 sets as against 5 in the previous year. Expect the performance to decline against a player at his peak in the future years.

    True, Fedatics would do much twisting as Nadalatics and Noletics .

    Nadal is the single surfact GOAT and it is not even close for greats such as Sampras, Fed, or anybody else. Including pre-era too.

    Nothing is a lock. Djokovic was still a 2-slam winner in 2011 WImbledon. This also tells that nobody is ever a lock to win a slam.
    I can't quite agree with this one. I thought Nadal was a lock to win AO 2014. After all the opponent had never won even a single set against him in 6+matches. Also, 2011 Djokovic was match-points down against Federer in 2011. A 35 year old Agassi is quite formidable and better than, may be, 2010 Djokovic. So, a 2006 Federer would not even let this go the 5th set. It was only the second time in slams that Fed lost from 2-0 in the match. A 2006 Fed would easily sail through against 2011 Djokovic. Also, he had beaten Djokovic at FO in 2011. I don't think Fed deserves any less than 5 slams at USO :)

    Interesting observation here. Fed almost always struggles against Nadal. However, this would similar to saying that if Krajieck was fit between 1993-2000, may be Sampras won't have 7 WImbledons. However, I don't think 2004 Fed would struggle against even 2010 Nadal, and not even 2013 Nadal either.

    I don't agree with slam inflation theory at all. Fed earned his bragging rights in 2004-07, ala Sampras at Wimbledon and Nadal at FO. It is not that challengers were easy. Look 2014 AO for Nadal and 2014 USO for Nole. There is nothing such as gimme slam. Agassi at 1990 FO also had a gimme finalist and he lost. Safin had a gimme finalist at 2002 AO and still he lost. To an extent Djokovic had his 2015 FO in Wawrinka, and he lost too.

    No, nothing would be really different. If Nadal stops peak Djokovic at FO between 2012-14, so can Fed stop him at Wimbledon-USO. It is not a stretch. Post 2008, Fed has won 4 slams. Post 1998, Pete won 3 slams. Post 2013, Nadal has won 1 slam (still counting though) and post 2014 Nole has 3 slams. 1997 onwards Agassi 5 slams, moreso as he less tennis matches in his legs. There is nothing too anomalous about Fed since 2009. Yes, 26-28 is too old if go by the records of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, or even Fed and Nadal.

    If the bad luck with injuries is a genuine excuse, so must be the choking that happens to players in the slam finals. What if Coria did not choke? Choking and injuries are fully part of the game.
    At end of the day Nadal is STILL a 3 slam winner on HC. By any stretch at most one slam benefit can be given. Making finals is such a non-plus factor in winning slams. Ask Fed and Nole at FO. Or Goran before winning it in 2001. And slams played-in is also not big deal. Going by form also does not mean much. Nadal would have mostly lost at the USO's he missed and the AO's he missed. Nadal losing in earlier rounds at 2012 USO would also have taken out his confidence in 2013. So, applying 2013 form retrospectively means that losing out earlier in the previous slam year would have effected win ability down the year. If anything, applying retrospective logic may also imply Nadal benefited by skipping 2009 WImbledon, 2012 USO, 2013 AO, and 2014 USO.
     
    #67

Share This Page