Nadal doesn't dominate Federer, he plays better on breakpoints

[JennyS]

Save for the 2008 French Open final, Nadal doesn't really dominate Federer in their individual matches. He plays better on break points. Consider these stats in the other Grand Slam matches....

1. 2009 Australian Open final...
Federer was 6 for 19 (31%)
Nadal was 7 for 16 (43%)
Overall, Federer won one more point in the match

2. 2008 Wimbledon final...
Federer was 1 for 13 (7%)
Nadal was 4 for 13 (30%)
Overall, Nadal won only 5 more points in the match

3. 2007 French Open final
Federer was 1 for 17 (5%)
Nadal was 4 for 10 (40%)
Overall, Nadal won 17 more points, but won two more sets

4. 2006 French Open final
Federer was 3 of 10 (30%)
Nadal was 4 for 12 (33%)
Overall, Nadal won 12 more points in the match, but won two more sets

5. 2005 French Open semifinal
Federer was 6 of 12 (50%)
Nadal was 9 of 13 (69%)
Overall, Nadal won 11 more points, but won two more sets

It's amazing how close in points the 4 set French Open matches were. That means that per set, Nadal was only winning a few more points than Federer, but he managed to win almost all of the important ones.

So THE key for Roger is converting breakpoints.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Nadal doesn't have a big serve, so people are always going to get breakpoint chances against him. These stats don't mean a whole lot.

[Aabye]

Then he dominates him in the mental department...what is your point? Haven't you ever heard of playing the big points better? If you can't do that you can't win.

[fps]

Originally Posted by Aabye

Then he dominates him in the mental department...what is your point? Haven't you ever heard of playing the big points better? If you can't do that you can't win.

that's an incredibly defensive reaction to a reasonable post....

[JennyS]

Originally Posted by Aabye

Then he dominates him in the mental department...what is your point? Haven't you ever heard of playing the big points better? If you can't do that you can't win.

My point is that people make it seem like Nadal is winning most of the matches in dominant fashion. Even most of the clay matches have been close in terms of points won.

[Omega_7000]

Yeah besides the FO '08 final, Fed has missed a lot of BP chances in almost all of them...

[JennyS]

Originally Posted by fps

that's an incredibly defensive reaction to a reasonable post....

Thanks! I was trying to show two things:
1. Fed actually plays well against Nadal overall
2. Nadal plays MUCH BETTER on the big points.

I would bet that in most lopsided rivalries the total points won differential is much bigger. Will look into it later after work

[World Beater]

the biggest problem for federer is nadal's swinging serve in the ad court followed by the nadal fh straight into the bh.

federer's weakest shot is not his bh against nadal.

it is his bh return in the ad court specifically. he cannot/will not take it aggressively on the big points. this allows nadal to just corner him and eventually win those pts.

nadal has the advantage of swinging the serve to most players in the ad court...all the big points ad points are played on nadal's terms against most players.

[tennisMasta1]

JennyS, your analysis is excellent. There is another point here: Not only has Rafa not dominated Roger, but you could make a point that Roger has dominated Rafa - even on clay.

Take the 2007 French as one example. Roger gave 10 break chances on his serve and obtained 17 break chances returning Rafa's serve. From Rafa's perspective, he gave a whopping 17 break chances on his serve and only obtained 10 break chances returning Roger's serve.

Clearly what that means is that Roger dominated Rafa on both serve and return games - on clay in Roland Garros finals. No one notices that since Roger ended up losing the match he should have won.

The reason is very obvious to me. Their games couldn't be different. Roger plays an aggressive game and takes lots of chances. Rafa plays an extremely tight and safe game and takes no chances.

But on breakpoints their games seem to completely reverse. Roger suddenly becomes tentative, chipping the return (instead of coming over it) is content simply rallying, and gives up control of the point to Rafa. Whereas Rafa suddenly becomes a Roger on breakpoints. He takes big chances right from get go and even comes to the net.

All Roger has to do on breakpoints is to play exactly the same aggressive game that gets him those tons of breakpoints. It is stunning to me that neither he nor his camp have observed this.

I have also discussed this topic on Bleacher Report.

[flyinghippos101]

Originally Posted by tennisMasta1

JennyS, your analysis is excellent. There is another point here: Not only has Rafa not dominated Roger, but you could make a point that Roger has dominated Rafa - even on clay.

Take the 2007 French as one example. Roger gave 10 break chances on his serve and obtained 17 break chances returning Rafa's serve. From Rafa's perspective, he gave a whopping 17 break chances on his serve and only obtained 10 break chances returning Roger's serve.

Clearly what that means is that Roger dominated Rafa on both serve and return games - on clay in Roland Garros finals. No one notices that since Roger ended up losing the match he should have won.

The reason is very obvious to me. Their games couldn't be different. Roger plays an aggressive game and takes lots of chances. Rafa plays an extremely tight and safe game and takes no chances.

But on breakpoints their games seem to completely reverse. Roger suddenly becomes tentative, chipping the return (instead of coming over it) is content simply rallying, and gives up control of the point to Rafa. Whereas Rafa suddenly becomes a Roger on breakpoints. He takes big chances right from get go and even comes to the net.

All Roger has to do on breakpoints is to play exactly the same aggressive game that gets him those tons of breakpoints. It is stunning to me that neither he nor his camp have observed this.

I have also discussed this topic on Bleacher Report.

Whaaa? Your post is as ridiculous as that "Serena is a better clay courter than Henin" thread.

[richjohn]

Maybe you are right, so please give us your analysis here....

Originally Posted by flyinghippos101

Whaaa? Your post is as ridiculous as that "Serena is a better clay courter than Henin" thread.

[valiant]

Isn't that what is required to win ie you break your opponent. Well fed must help himself and try to break him. Simple.

[sureshs]

Statistics are an after-thought.

Rafa dominates Roger in the head, due to a snowballing sequence of events: a lefty spin on the ball, an ability to get balls back which Roger's other opponents could not, and the collapse of Roger's backhand on the high balls. The technical reasons cause mental problems, and vice versa, till it becomes difficult to separate cause and effect.

[Blinkism]

The first time they met was a beatdown from Nadal.

Other than that, most matches have been tight, yes.

[Claudius]

Originally Posted by Blinkism

The first time they met was a beatdown from Nadal.

Other than that, most matches have been tight, yes.

I'd say the '08 French Open final was a beatdown as well.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by JennyS

Save for the 2008 French Open final, Nadal doesn't really dominate Federer in their individual matches. He plays better on break points. Consider these stats in the other Grand Slam matches....

1. 2009 Australian Open final...
Federer was 6 for 19 (31%)
Nadal was 7 for 16 (43%)
Overall, Federer won one more point in the match

2. 2008 Wimbledon final...
Federer was 1 for 13 (7%)
Nadal was 4 for 13 (30%)
Overall, Nadal won only 5 more points in the match

3. 2007 French Open final
Federer was 1 for 17 (5%)
Nadal was 4 for 10 (40%)
Overall, Nadal won 17 more points, but won two more sets

4. 2006 French Open final
Federer was 3 of 10 (30%)
Nadal was 4 for 12 (33%)
Overall, Nadal won 12 more points in the match, but won two more sets

5. 2005 French Open semifinal
Federer was 6 of 12 (50%)
Nadal was 9 of 13 (69%)
Overall, Nadal won 11 more points, but won two more sets

It's amazing how close in points the 4 set French Open matches were. That means that per set, Nadal was only winning a few more points than Federer, but he managed to win almost all of the important ones.

So THE key for Roger is converting breakpoints.

When you break it down to the pure numbers like this you will indeed find that the difference between these wins and loses are hairs!

That is tennis for you, you have to have the highest concentration because one slip and it is over!

Roger is amazing, Nadal is just a little bit more amazing. However after many years all those numbers add up.

[grafselesfan]

JennyS are you trying to set a record for stupid threads with a "waah waah dont say anything against Roger ever" undertone. It is posters like you that makes it easier to dislike Roger.

[VivalaVida]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

JennyS are you trying to set a record for stupid threads with a "waah waah dont say anything against Roger ever" undertone. It is posters like you that makes it easier to dislike Roger.

Take a chill pill. You are the opposite of JennyS. You make nonsensical threads against Federer all the time calling "overrated", mental midget etc. Posters like you make it much easier to dislike sampras ***** like yourself. As a matter of fact, JennyS is better than you because he doesnt run like a ***** when people give him heat. Who can forget your cowardly escape after you started those "Federer loses to Soderling" like a moron and than ran away when it was time for repercussions.

[veroniquem]

Nadal isn't a mental chicken like Fed. He doesn't go away in the 5th set as soon as the opponent offers a little resistance...

[flyinghippos101]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

JennyS are you trying to set a record for stupid threads with a "waah waah dont say anything against Roger ever" undertone. It is posters like you that makes it easier to dislike Roger.

A bit harsh but the topic of this thread is kinda outrageous nonetheless. Nadal play the bigger points better, he defends BPs but he also goes out and forges his own BP opportunities. And I hardly see how Nadal playing bigger points better lends any credibility to Federer "dominating" Nadal.