Tennis_Hands
Banned
Tenez101, you are trying to pass the theory , that a 17 times Major winner is not mentally tough as a valid one?
:LOL:
:LOL:
Nadal and Federer helped make me what I am today
- Thread starter cronus
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
W 2007? He lost the lead but still won.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed is the most consistent player of all time IMO. When you are consistent as him, you are bound to play a lot of important matches.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You can't win them all. He has won close matches, just as he has lost close matches. It happened to many players before him as well
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You can't win them all. He has won close matches, just as he has lost close matches. It happened to many players before him as well
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
In Nad101, the tenets are
- it is better to lose in 1R or 2R than in finals / semis
- it is better to have a losing record against lower ranked players than top ranked players
- it is not a big deal to get on court coaching
- MTO's are part of the game
- Umpires are not within their rights to give time warnings when the match is intense
- Nadal never loses unless injured
- Players mature on different surfaces at different times in their career. The performances on different surfaces are like overlapping sine curves.
wangs78
Legend
Nadal always had the matchup advantage. Fed clearly underestimated a 17 year old Nadal and it took a while for Fed to figure out the right tactics but unfortunately by then Nadal had already gotten a lot better and had developed a big mental edge. I have no disagreement that Nadal is the one big blemish on Fed's near impeccable resume.
But make no mistake, if not for Fed, Nadal would have remained a clay beast and not the all-court threat and GS contender on all surfaces as he is today.
wangs78
Legend
Yes, yes no need to beat the dead horse. We all know that Fed's biggest blemish is his record against Nadal. The reality is they did play a majority of their matches on clay where Nadal's matchup advantages are the greatest. But for critics of Fed's mental strength (as you are as you keep calling him a mental midget), the reality is Nadal had a huge advantage every year due to the sequence of the tennis season. Nadal would always steamroll through the clay season, often beating Fed in the finals of Montecarlo, Rome and then Roland Garros that by the time grass rolled around, Fed was the one with all the pressure to stem the tide. Nadal had no pressure once grass and hard rolled around. So it's a bit unfair to say that Fed is a mental midget when in reality Nadal benefited hugely by the fact that the clay season comes first during the year and Fed often made it to the clay finals only to lose to Nadal which battered his self-belief when facing Nadal. I guarantee you that if grass and hard came first and clay in the fall, Nadal would have no more than 5 Slams, tops.
In fact, Nadal goes deep into clay tournaments and is actually the one more tired when grass comes around, which should make it much easier for Federer to defeat him the rest of the season.
Excuses go both ways. That is why losers make excuses while winners just win.
wangs78
Legend
In many of those clay tournaments - Fed went just as deep as Nadal, into the final. And Nadal was a teenager - going deep on clay isn't going to put him at a disadvantage physically for grass. They get plenty of time to recover.
And Federer was more "experienced" so he should have used that.
Nadal was always there but he lost to lesser players.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
Fed101:
- When comparing Federer to Nadal(the very player challenging him for goathood) it is more important to look at how they fared against Roddick than one another.
- A gold medal in doubles = gold medal in singles. Hell, it's the same medal.
- WTF = 5th slam
- Hewitt = all-time great in another era
- Court speed, in any tournament, is determined by the respective success of Federer and Nadal, and can vary by round. A slow court has been known to turn lightning fast in two days.
- Max Decugis is the true clay goat
- 2009 was the only year clay meant something
- Fed could win 10 slams with a wooden racquet
Last edited:
Player of the decade
2000 - 2009: Federer (15 slams)
1990 - 1999: Sampras (12 slams)
1980 - 1989: Lendl (7 slams)
1970 - 1979: Borg (8 slams)
1960 - 1969: Laver (11 slams, but 6 were amateur)
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 13
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6
= Novak Djokovic 6
GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
= Rafael Nadal 19*
4. Pete Sampras 18
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. Novak Djokovic 12*
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*
GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 22*
= Novak Djokovic 21*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17
Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 14
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*
GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 41*
= Jimmy Connors 41
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 27*
8. Rafael Nadal 26*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21
Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 36*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= 3. Novak Djokovic 19*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. = Andy Murray 11*
6. Pete Sampras 10
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*
All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011
All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969
All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Novak Djokovic 2012
Novak Djokovic 2013
Andy Murray 2011
Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31
Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 264*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204
Other Stuff:
Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3
= Novak Djokovic 3
Most Year-End Championship finals
1. Ivan Lendl 9
2. Federer 8*
= Boris Becker 6
4. Pete Sampras 6
5. Ilie Năstase 4
= Bjorn Borg 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
9. Novak Djokovic 3
= Lleyton Hewitt 3
Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. 7. Rafael Nadal 129*
7. Björn Borg 109
8. Novak Djokovic 101
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80
Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56
Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3*
Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
12. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. = Rafael Nadal 61*
9. Andre Agassi 60
10. Boris Becker 49
Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 26
2. Ivan Lendl 22
3. Roger Federer 21
4. John McEnroe 19
5. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
8. Novak Djokovic 16
9. Bjorn Borg 15
10. Boris Becker 13
11. Pete Sampras 11
Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974
Tenez101
Banned
Sure, why not? I'm not saying Fed isn't mentally tough but it's a Lendl-like mental toughness, in that he's extremely consistent and beats players worse than him, but more often than not folds under pressure from superior players. Fed thrived off of exceedingly weak competition in a number of his slam wins and has consistently shown his inability to beat his rival Nadal (and more recently, Djokovic) in the big moments. Even when a lesser-caliber player gets "hot" he seems to show a propensity for losing his head, like in AO 2005 and USO 2009.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You can't just ask for a 32 year old Fed to beat prime Djokovic consistently.
In fact they have played as follows:-
Hard 15 matches Federer 6 wins Nadal 9 wins
Clay 15 matches Federer 2 wins Nadal 13 wins
Grass 3 matches Federer 2 wins Nadal 1 win.
So in actual fact they have played 18 matches on Federer's preferred surfaces and 15 on Nadal's preferred surface.
The hard court and grass have slowed down and added higher bounce. Change in conditions have greatly aided Nadal's game while Federer have suffered.
Please read.
http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html
Really? The writer of this article from ESPN would disagree.
Excerpts from the article:-
How Rafa made Federer better
Updated: September 14, 2009, 6:35 PM ET
By Greg Garber | ESPN.com
In February, in the wake of his crushing loss in the Australian Open final to Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer retreated to his favorite training base. With the temperature usually in triple digits, he practiced four and five hours a day, working his way through a slew of hitting partners.
Darren Cahill, Andre Agassi's former coach and an ESPN analyst, saw that sweat equity with his own eyes. He worked with Federer for nine days as they discussed a possible coaching role.
In the narrow span of eight months, Federer lost three Grand Slam finals to Rafael Nadal: the 2008 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon (hailed widely as perhaps the greatest match ever) and the 2009 Australian Open.
Federer cried shamelessly after his loss in Australia and smashed his racket in frustration during a loss to Novak Djokovic in Miami. Bjorn Borg, who had seen those tears, was interviewed in March by ESPN. It was as if he could see the future when few others could. Perhaps it was a champion recognizing a rare peer.
"Nadal's right there, and he's his nemesis," Sampras told ESPN before the French Open. "It's going to push him to try and beat him. Maybe it's what he needs a little bit. Maybe he needs to add something to his game against Nadal to beat him.
"Maybe come in a little more, mix it up. But it'll be good for him. He's got another four, five years, Roger, and I think he'll look at this time as frustrating, but I think it will be good for him."
Sampras spoke with a certainty that could only come from experience.
"He just forced me to be a better player. And I think Nadal will do that for Roger."
"It was good for me when Andre [Agassi] started beating me," Sampras said. "It made me a better player. I added things to my game that, against most guys, I didn't have to do. Against Andre, I had to serve and volley on my second serve.
"He just forced me to be a better player. And I think Nadal will do that for Roger."
"Roger made everyone better," Cahill said. "Then it was Rafa's turn."
The intriguing question surfaced after Federer won his first-round match. How much of his recent success was due to the challenge of Rafael Nadal? Has his place in history been advanced by the appearance -- by the surprising dominance -- of the swaggering Mallorcan?
"Potentially," Federer said, weighing his words. "I think this is stuff you can talk about when my career is over, really. This is when you analyze, 'OK, how much did Rafa Nadal help my career and how much did I help his career?'
"I can't answer this."
Nadal, like Federer, was never completely satisfied with his game. He improved his backhand. He empowered his serve. He tinkered with his return position. He stayed hungry -- insatiable, really. Cahill said Nadal is as mentally strong as anyone he's seen.
"Whenever someone comes in and distances himself from the pack, some people get together and work out how to close the gap," Cahill explained. "That, to an extent, is what Rafa did. He wasn't the only one doing it, but he was the first and the fastest. And he took the game to a new level, not so much from a technical standpoint, but more from a physical point of view.
"Roger realized that he needed to address the physicality. He had to evolve his game to answer the questions that Rafa's game kept posing."
The Nadal camp, according to Benito Perez-Barbadillo, has not discussed the specific effects of Nadal's success on Federer's game.
"No," Perez-Barbadillo, Nadal's close friend, said on Friday. "Not at all.
"The one who benefits from this is tennis, not Federer. If Rafa hadn't come along, Roger would have won many more Grand Slams. And, without Roger, Rafa would probably have won more Slams.
"Roger has won [nine] more, but you see this great rivalry and it's good for history and good for the sport."
"I think it became clear to Roger when he was not feeling well that to beat Rafa he had to be in top shape," Higueras said. "His movement had to be more precise to beat Rafa."
So Federer went to work in Dubai at the end of the 2008 season, and again in February, with renewed purpose. Beating Rafa was his greatest motivation. He worked harder than ever with trainer Pierre Paganini.
" Made his forehand more effective and improved his backhand.
"He's never going to beat Rafa off the backhand side," Cahill said. "Once he got into the mindset that if he could at least stay neutral with his backhand and beat Rafa with his forehand, then he was going to be in a much better position. Now he uses his backhand to set up the forehand."
"In the patterns of a point," Higueras said, "this is what hurt the most: Rafa's forehand to Roger's backhand. He needed to correct this."
• Took something off his serve in the bigger moments.
"I think he also used to press on his serve against Rafa," Cahill said. "He was looking for that extra 4 or 5 miles an hour. And he's always serving his best when he's between 120-126 miles per hour. He relaxes a little more on the serve. He hits his spots a lot better. He's not looking to hit it so hard. He's more about direction than powering through the opponent."
• Embraced the drop shot from the baseline and drop volleys from closer to the net.
"You can't imagine what a difference that one shot makes," Cahill said. "He's mastered it."
It was Higueras who taught Federer that nasty little weapon.
"We introduced that last year," Higueras said. "You have never seen him use the drop shot on the forehand side. On clay especially, that's a great play."
• Came forward more often, sometimes at surprising junctures, even when he didn't want to.
"When he is aggressive," Higueras said, "he is very hard to beat."
Federer's unpredictable dashes to the net -- facilitated by his improved fitness -- helped him defeat Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray in Cincinnati.
"Champions know that if you stop getting better, you're getting worse," Higueras said. "This is true at all levels. I mentioned it pretty often to him last year: You have to think in terms of trying to get better, or your longevity suffers.
After looking up at Nadal for 46 straight weeks, Federer regained the No. 1 ranking following his Wimbledon win. Today, Nadal is No. 3 in the rankings and wrestling with a strategy that will close the gap a second time.
"You have to assume [Rafa's] one of the reasons [for his improvement]," said Tony Godsick, Federer's International Management Group agent. "Roger needs competition. He needs challenges to make it exciting for him. He tells you he wants to play the best player in the biggest stadiums and he means it, he really does."
"I think it was a great, great rivalry we've had so far," Federer said. "I definitely think it increased popularity in the game."
"You have the lefty against the righty," Cahill said. "The guy that's so gritty and tough, and Roger's cool and collected. It's going to be an exciting next five years for the sport."
But in the final analysis, we have Nadal to thank for Federer's marvelous return, although Federer isn't quite willing to admit it.
Greg Garber is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
Awesome post. Eye opener for all Federer fans (if they want to open thier eyes)..this post is worthy of a new thread
Povl Carstensen
Legend
And then he went nr 1 at 31.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Straw arguing.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
:lol:
Your analysis is absolutely brilliant.
Thought of writing a book some day?
Before we know it we will hear from you how there are no match-ups in tennis, an ïntriguing definitions of "superior" and Open Era oldies, beating the world number one left and right.
Tenez101
Banned
Thanks.
Yup, but on more important things than tennis.
There are matchups, and then there's 10-23. A trend of this consistency either shows
1. a gap in skill between the two players;
2. a consistent lack of mental resiliency against a player of equal/greater caliber;
3. an inability to effectively change tactics.
You tell me which is the best scenario. Not sure what's going on in the second half of your last sentence, looks like you had a few too many thoughts you were trying to get out at once.
Also, just fyi: here in 'murica we only dot our i's once!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Sweet!
1) So, Nadal is more skilled than Federer.
2) You clearly haven't seen enough matches between Federer and Nadal, if you think, that Federer didn't show enough or as much mental resiliency as Nadal. Most of their matches Federer was playing not only against the worst possible match-up for his game, but also the general trend of the slowing down of the surfaces.
I am definitely sure, that you either:
a) don't play tennis or
b) are severely lacking of honesty
IF you play tennis, you would know, what a problem a match-up issue is and that it can disturb your game. If that match-up issue is enhanced by the surfaces I can only imagine what influence it has on the performance. The changing of the strategies can do only so much as to balance to some extend the problem, but it never makes it go away, because by definition, you have to go out of your comfort zone, to execute that and NO player could do that on that level of competition for prolonged periods of time. I actually give credit to Federer for making a lot of matches, that favoured Nadal, a lot more competitive, than they had to be, given the presented match-up issue and the surface issue. Not to mention what happens, when Federer and Nadal meet on a surface, that is favourable to Federer's game.
Your last comment is amusing.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
its simple as this:
1) nadal is clearly superior on clay ... he clearly leads the h2h there.
2) outside of clay, federer is clearly superior , including when they face off while playing well
its just nadal didn't/doesn't make it as far into semis & finals on non-clay surfaces when not at his best in contrast to federer on clay, who'd make clay finals regardless ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's dumb. Federer beat djokovic in RG 11, when nadal could do squat vs him in whole of 2011, including breaking back in the 4th set to take it to a breaker
He also beat Djokovic convincingly in wimbledon 12. djokovic couldn't even get a read on his 2nd serve that day
fed lost his head in AO 05 ? jeez , he saved multiple MPs and it was well contested throughout ...
Comparing federer's mental toughness with lendl's is absolutely thick ........Lendl would've very less chance to pull off what federer did in wimbedon 07 and RG 11.
as far as fending off lesser players when they are hot is concerned, no one compares to him in that regard :
nalbandian in AO 04, roddick in wimbledon 04, agassi in USO 04, hewitt in USO 05, davydenko in AO 06, blake in USO 06, roddick in USO 07, tipsarevic in AO 08, andreev in USO 08, del potro in RG 09, soderling in USO 09, davydenko in AO 10 etc etc
delpo in USO 09 is one of the rare rare occasions where he blew it ...
Last edited:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Number 1 is the correct answer. Nadal is simply better than Federer. Match up issue only helps Nadal a little bit, but the main reason Nadal completely utterly owned Fed is because he is simply better than Federer.
Tenez101
Banned
1. You're right skill isn't the right word. Federer is clearly more technically skilled, but I think Nadal is the far superior player under pressure. He is much more capable of raising his game and winning in the big moments. Federer usually starts at a high level then declines over the course of the match. Once can't really say Nadal is better at winning matches in general since Federer is more consistent against the field, but for the BIG matches Nadal is the better player. When all is said and done, I think he will at least catch/surpass Federer's slam record.
2. I've been watching Fedal matches for a long time, and while Federer showed greater fortitude in their early meetings Nadal almost always outdid him in focus and intensity. Since 2008 it's been one-way traffic, Federer now ALWAYS capitulates in the big (i.e. slam) matches the moment things get close. I'm not saying Federer doesn't try hard against Nadal but you can tell he's a beaten man usually by the end of the second, if not first set. BTW, I think Nadal leads the h2h outside clay at this point too.
I'm aware of the matchup issue which as everyone knows is built around Nadal's ability to consistently pin Federer to his backhand corner and bombard him with crazy topspin, but let's think things through.
If the matchup is so bad that there is no good way for Federer to counter it then this really shows there is an egregious hole in Federer's game (for the record to be 10-23). Nadal, on the other hand does not seem to suffer the same problem with any other player except to some extent Djokovic, showing that either a) his game does not have any glaring weaknesses that can be exploited in the current conditions of this era of b) he's able to overcome such matchup challenges. For a while it looked liked Djokovic had Nadal completely figured out to an extent where he had a 7-match streak against him - even Nadal never had this on Federer, showing the matchup issue in this case was even worse. Yet Nadal has turned it around in the last two years by adapting his game, taking the fight to Djokovic in the big matches, something Federer has not been able to do since 2007. Again Nadal shows far greater mental resiliency than Federer.
If the Fedal matchup is not so bad for Federer that it's impossible for him to adapt, then he really just sucks at adapting to the challenge. Of course matchups have mental consequences, but 10-23 is a whole other level, and in any case not a GOAT-like statistic.
Just wondering: are you French? The way you use prepositions makes it seem so ("lacking of honesty", manque d'honnetete), plus the diacritical (trema) in your last post.
Tenez101
Banned
I misspoke. Nadal is not more talented/skilled than Federer, but in their peak forms he is a better player.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
What's their H2H outside of clay in slams? 3-2 in favor of Nadal(Lucky Fed didn't have to meet Nadal at USO). Which surface did 16 year old Nadal beat peak Federer in 2004? Hard Court.
abmk
Bionic Poster
FFS, federer broke back with a stunning return game late in the 4th set vs djokovic.
lol nadal got lucky in RG 12 after umpires decided to stop because of whining. AO 12, he had his chances and blew it.
RG 13 & USO 13, I'll give you..
But to say he always fights it out is not correct. He could only be a spectator vs tsonga in AO 08 and vs delpo in USO 09 ...
Not to mention several other HC matches vs djokovic & davydenko where they've simply dominated him left right and he's looked absolutely clueless.
oh and my favorite, 3-6,0-6 vs federer. He could do nothing that day vs federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
a ) it was 17 year old nadal. He faced a sick federer who wasn't even sure of playing miami.
b) federer met him far times in unfavorable circumstances outside of clay than the other way round. even in his worst year in 13, still met him thrice , IW , cincy & YEC ... no wonder, even the h2h outside of clay also has turned slightly in favour of nadal
helloworld
Hall of Fame
abmk
Bionic Poster
wow, can't face the reality ...
tell me, does nadal still need 34 slams to beat sampras ? :lol:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Nadal and Sampras never even play each other, so it is a joke to compare them in the first place. On the other hand, there is a significant amount of proofs that Federer is Nadal's little whipping boy. :lol:
cronus
Professional
you mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4t7Bdlck-U
playing defense and always moon balling to the backhand, never attacking but just grinding defense till the opponent wears out? sure that is called whipping.lol!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I can agree, that Nadal has come on top in most of their encouters, when the situation was tight, but I think that a big part of that comes from the fact, that he knows, that he has a strategy, that is always working. You can say, that he still has more belief, but it is important to understand, where it comes from.
Is it because of his determination or is it because he knows, that he will always be able to switch to a gear, that makes Federer go exhausted mentally?
Nadal plays with bigger margins and that is what makes him "superior player", not some specific state of mind. It is easy to be mentally tough, when you know, that your game (which is completely a match-up issue) allows you for more margin for error.
Like I said, the result doesn't always show the whole picture.
Of course, you can use it as the ultimate comparing tool when talking about play under pressure, in which case there is nothing to discuss, but Federer has done some pretty significant things against Nadal in that regard. His absolute amazing play in the tiebreak of the 4th in the W2008 final and not letting the final of the WTF 2010 slip away from him are just two such instances.
I do not agree, that Federer is a beaten man. It is just the fact, that the general trend doesn't favour him, but in the few instances, that it is at least not so unfavourable (read the surface of the WTF), the things look a bit different for Nadal.
As of the H2H, with the match-up issue presented it is hardly surprising.
Effectively, in this particular match-up Federer has fought the match-up, the general trend of the slowing of the surfaces and his aging. This is a monstrous triad, when it comes to influence over someone's ability to play tennis (on any level, but I can imagine more significant at the top).
I don't agree, that the match-up issue in Federer-Nadal rivalry is anywhere close to the match-up issue between Djokovic and Nadal.
In the Federer vs. Nadal case the match-up issue hits not simply by presenting the specific playing pattern you are referring to.
Nadal is able to hit on Federer's game by the means of:
1) hitting extreme spins, resulting in very heavy AND spinny ball, which is a nightmare for every player (that is why Nadal has a positive H2H against most of the players on tour). Effectively, with his spin Nadal nullifies Federer's own spin and presents him with a problem that is worst possible for a player, who relies on timing and positioning.
I consider the extreme spins, that Nadal is able to impart on the ball (along with Federer's OHBH), the most significant part of that match-up, because he can use it to move Federer from side to side (and not simply pin him to his backhand). The exploitation of the backhand is only a consequence of the spin and the most logical thing: that every player has a weaker hand (there is NO tennis player on the level, we are discussing, that plays with both hands equally well).
In my experience the spin and physical play are related mostly to the side-to-side play, whereas the technnique and skill are related to the forward and backward play.
2) effectively running down all the shots, that Federer relies on, when he is trying to impose himself on the opponent.
In this regard Nadal is greatly helped by the general slowing of the surfaces, which allows him to do that (along with his speed).
3) the lefty vs. the righty issue
In the Djokovic - Nadal matchup there are completely different factors into play and the overcoming of the match-up issue in Nadal's case is just tipping of the scales (which in their match-up are quite balanced as they rely on similar games), based on tweaks, that are more a MATTER OF EXECUTION, rather than a matter of changing and counteracting.
No, there are challenges and there are limitations. The shot mechanics are a thing, that is a fine tuned tool for achieving particular purposes in particular circumstances.
Federer grew up on faster surfaces and his OHBH was clearly intended for such as is the steering of his natural instinct towards developing an exceptional half-volley.
Needless to say, that, without the back up explanation, the use of the H2H in determining, who is the "better" player, means little to me.
No, I am not French, but I speak French and German (where the trema is also presented).
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Agree. Not taking anything away from Rafa, but it is easy to be mentally tough when you know you always have the match-up advantage.
Nice analysis. How about the most obvious mental edge lefties have. That all important points are played on the side of the court that benefits a lefty. Yeah, Fed can exploit Rafa on non important points, doesn't really matter much. But Rafa has the edge on important points. I think this is huge. And explains why close matches Nadal wins by tiny margins.
Not to mention Fed is playing righties all the time, while in a final he gets Rafa who is playing also righties. Rafa doesn't change a thing, Fed has to change a lot. Fed like all righties need more time for the same effect vs a lefty. This time is practice time too and match practice.
I think this plays a HUGE part in the dynamics of their matchup. That's why I admire Djokovic so much. Even with this weakness, he was still able to match Rafa. Shows how talented Djokovic is.
Let's say Fed is playing 30 lefties before a GS final vs Rafa. That would be huge. Fed is used of the patterns. And if Rafa was a righty, it's even playing field on important points.
The-Champ
Legend
what's Fed's record against lefties not named Nadal?
Worse that it should be if they were righties. He would have defeated them even more in that case. Won more points vs them.
And you know you made a fallacy. Obviously the edge is marginal. If you are a 17 GS champ vs a player like Verdasco, you will still win even if he has an unfair edge.
Fact is lefties have an unfair edge. This is proven. It's a fact.
I don't know for sure if this tips the close matches between Fed and Rafa, but it's a good reasoning to assume this.
But since Fed has four times more achievements than Rafa on non clay and yet he had problems with Rafa from the start, it's logical to try to assume that it could be a correlation.
It can't be proven 100%, but even you have to admit it's a very strange coincidence.
Fed is so above other lefties that this difference doesn't help them. But Fed and Rafa who are close in skills, this could tip the scales a bit.
Similar threads
