Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.
To answer an age old question.
That particular surface is really bad for Federer when he is playing against Nadal. Not only is it high bouncing, it is dreadfully slow which means Federer cannot hit through the court on it. Federer doesn't have the consistent power that the other big hitters have. This lets Nadal just run balls down all day and frustrate Federer to no end.
However, the times Nadal has lost at Miami are really mostly due to bad luck. He ran into an absolutely on fire Djokovic, Roddick, and Davydenko in the years he was set to win Miami. And the thing is that those three guys both have more firepower than Federer does in his game (when Roddick is playing the correct version of his game), and can penetrate the court easier. Nadal being a guy that doesn't hit all that hard really can't hit through the court, so the ball just sits up for these guys to just whail on all day.
Which is why I always find it so amazing Nadal has been able to do so well on the Plexicushion at the AO. Because really, that's not a surface he really likes at all, mainly because he can't penetrate the court well enough since it is slow as molasses, and the ball doesn't bounce high enough so his shots are mostly sitters on the court. He wins really mainly on just pure determination and athleticism here, unlike at Wimbledon and RG.