27 year old peak Nadal vs 32 year old injured Federer

[objectivity]

Once again how do you explain this?


To me its not just the match up issue,more of a combination of Nadal being an all time great and the match up issue.How do you explain Federer losing to Nadal on HC in 04 and 06 and Nadal losing to guys like Gonzales,Blake,Davy,Roddick etc who didnt trouble Fed at all.I agree with you when you say that its not just because of match up issue that Nadal wins.

There are lot of match up issues in tennis Safin-Santoro ,Nadal-Davy etc.Tennis is basically a game of match ups.From my experience I can say this for sure,there are always a certain kind of players that trouble you but not the guys you beat easily.Thats the way it is and makes tennis that much more exciting.

How can you say tennis is not a game of match ups?

look, i do see that there are match-up issues. and thank you for at least acknowledging that it isn't just about the match-up. but frankly why is it so difficult for these nadal-haters on the forum to just acknowledge that nadal is a better player than federer man to man, but federer is the greatest player in terms of career statistics? why is it that hard to acknowledge?

 

[Nitish]

look, i do see that there are match-up issues. and thank you for at least acknowledging that it isn't just about the match-up. but frankly why is it so difficult for these nadal-haters on the forum to just acknowledge that nadal is a better player than federer man to man, but federer is the greatest player in terms of career statistics? why is it that hard to acknowledge?

Its an Internet forum and you dont have to own up to any kind of crap you post.It would be wise to ignore the haters IMO.I am a Fed fan and I definitely respect Rafa for his achievements.Fed and Rafa seem to genuinely respect each other unlike their fans.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

90`s clay talking of the exbition matches of sampras against fed and for him that is important???? jajaja

if federer would be played like a real match , of course he would be destoryed a retire sampras , he did that with 19 years old in wimbledon but he would lost in his peak in that .
exbition???? ROLFFFF.

the h2h with murray is not so important , fed beated murray in 3 slam finals and his first victory in slam against him was this year against tired federer with 31 years old and even with that the match was in 5 sets.....

murray never was a problem for federer in the important titles.

federer and nadal h2h outside clay is 8-8.

the clay was the key.

 

[MichaelNadal]

As if Nadal played his best today lol.

Peak Fed had his chance against Nadal in Dubai on a fast HC and got beat :lol:

This is being overlooked. He was standing far back again and not playing as well as he had been.

 

[tennissportsrog]

Age and injury were not an excuse, as Fed could probably have beaten Murray and Djokovic today.

yeah, sorry for Roger.

 

[cork_screw]

It's really unfair to fed that people give Nadal all this credit for beating Fed. He beat him and that's it. Let's not rub it in the face of someone who is placing higher in rankings than most of his peers who have either retired or dropped out of high ranking contention.

Hewitt, Blake, Roddick, Safin, Where are these guys now? Are they top 5 in the world? Haha, you guys gain some perspective on what fed is still doing at his age then understand before you start to bash people about things you could never do in your lifetime.

 

[tennissportsrog]

It's really unfair to fed that people give Nadal all this credit for beating Fed.

Right. And, Nadal's defeat continues when Nadal turns 30 years old?

Justification of age, an injury, or the excuse of condition starts there.


Typical.

 

[TheTruth]

According to your stupid logic 35 years old Agassi who was playing with pain killers at that time must be better than Fed since he was giving peak Fed lots of trouble.

Sometimes people don't think things through before they post is all I can think.

 

[TheTruth]

I was actually encouraged by Federers form. It is clear from the match that it could have gone either way. The break game against Federer in the second set went past deuce, in other words Federer was unlucky not to hold. And the final game in the last set Federer was close to breaking Nadal, to get back on serve. Nadal certainly deserved the win....but you can't think that it was anything other than a close call.

Regardless of you opinion, Federer could personally be encouraged by pushing this years form player so hard. It is Federers first tournament back after injury...he should get better for the US open. If he was 10% better today he would have beaten Nadal.

That's assuming Nadal wouldn't raise his level to counter. That doesn't happen very often against Federer.

 

[TheTruth]

Peaks or not, it was a great match. Fed played the best he has all year, and fought until the end. It was really a toss up, although Nadal did seem to slightly increase his level of play as the match progressed.

Fed had a lull in concentration at the end of the second, and the start of the third set, which cost him the match. It's definitely a sign of age, but at least he played well, and almost got the break back, saving multiple match points, with great shots in the final game.

This is bonus time for Fed and every tennis fan. Everyone, whether you love or hate Fed, should savour matches like this one. As it stands, the next crop of players just can't play at the same level of Fed/Nadal, and Djokovic and Murray don't see to provide the same level of excitement.

Enjoy it while you can!

Agreed.

It was a great match. No one that I know of gave Federer a shot to win. He came out and played great and still so many of them are not satisfied and trying to find "reasons" that he didn't win, calling him a quitter, etc. Some of these people are not tennis fans, they're simply looking for a hero.

 

[TheTruth]

True and this is coming straight from Nadal's mouth...There is no way his fangirls can deny this.

Berdych said they were faster.

 

[SafinIsGOAT]

I'm sorry, but as a Federer fan I have to admit that Fed didn't "almost" beat Nadal yesterday. The first set was somewhat of a fluke since Nadal hadn't gotten into form yet. Once he did, there was no question who was going to win.

 

[TheTruth]

:lol:

if the 'expert' you're referring to is Patrick McEnroe, who essentially sets the template for an insecure fedephant in broadcasting, then you're correct.

However, in reality any rational person realizes Nadal's 2010 USO form is far and away superior to the current Nadal!

recognize!

So true. The stuff most of them say (with the exception of Davenport) is pretty laughable in terms of reality-based commentating.

 

[TheTruth]

I thought he was going to cry last night after Fed lost. I also remember he looked like he was going to start sobbing after Fed lost the AO in 2009 as well. Pmac is a total joke.

He's pretty pathetic. Wears his heart on his sleeve.

 

[TheTruth]

Oh dear, here comes the the "if nadal would have reached more hard finals.. bla bla" again. Federer fans are really blind about this.

The outcome would have been the same, deal with it. It's not about surfaces, its about their games being matched up, and also about the demons and ghosts Federer has everytime he faces Rafa.

Nadal beat him in Miami 2004 when he was just a kid and Roger was in his absolute prime. He also beat him in the fast Dubai (absolute prime too), beat him in Wimbledon (heartbreaking loss), beat him in the AO finals (he was in good form there as well) and left him crying.

Roger must thank Rafa for not reaching more hard finals in the past.

The operative word is always if. If simply makes an issue a hypothetical, not a fact. We can only deal with reality, not ifs.

Personally, I think one of the reasons Federer has so many issues with Nadal is because Nadal doesn't back down, he keeps coming and Roger doesn't like that. He's used to players capitulating when he hits a great shot, and Nadal simply counters with another great shot.

It's hard to play someone who keeps coming at you and raising their level to meet yours. That, to me, is the basis of the "matchup" issue. Nadal refuses to go away and that causes Federer much concern.

 

[Crisstti]

I suspect John and Pat might have goat debates mirroring the ones here.

I never said it's unfair or not legit.

The point is that Fed was/is unlucky to have his biggest rival have such a huge match-up advantage against him.

Oh, Federer was not unlucky, quite the other way around.

federer and nadal h2h outside clay is 8-8.

the clay was the key.

No, the key is Nadal being better on clay than Fed anywhere, as the statistic you post shows.

 

[Incognito]

Edberg vs Muster, that's a match-up issue. Edberg beat Muster on every surface available to mankind.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=E004&oId=M099

 

[Nitish]

The operative word is always if. If simply makes an issue a hypothetical, not a fact. We can only deal with reality, not ifs.

Personally, I think one of the reasons Federer has so many issues with Nadal is because Nadal doesn't back down, he keeps coming and Roger doesn't like that. He's used to players capitulating when he hits a great shot, and Nadal simply counters with another great shot.

It's hard to play someone who keeps coming at you and raising their level to meet yours. That, to me, is the basis of the "matchup" issue. Nadal refuses to go away and that causes Federer much concern.

There are definitely match up issues but that is not entirely the reason like some people make it out to be,to me its more of a combination of Nadal being an all time great and the match up issue.How do you explain Federer losing to Nadal on HC in 04 and 06 and Nadal losing to guys like Gonzales,Blake,Davy,Roddick etc who didnt trouble Fed at all
You cant really say there are no match up issue.There are lot of match up issues in tennis Safin-Santoro ,Nadal-Davy etc

Tennis is basically a game of match ups.From my experience I can say this for sure,there are always a certain kind of players that trouble you but not the guys you beat easily.That's the way it is and makes tennis that much more exciting.

 

[monfed]

There are definitely match up issues but that is not entirely the reason like some people make it out to be,to me its more of a combination of Nadal being an all time great and the match up issue.How do you explain Federer losing to Nadal on HC in 04 and 06 and Nadal losing to guys like Gonzales,Blake,Davy,Roddick etc who didnt trouble Fed at all
You cant really say there are no match up issue.There are lot of match up issues in tennis Safin-Santoro ,Nadal-Davy etc

Tennis is basically a game of match ups.From my experience I can say this for sure,there are always a certain kind of players that trouble you but not the guys you beat easily.That's the way it is and makes tennis that much more exciting.

Nadal was beating prime Federer on HC when he was as little as 17 as Miami 04 shows, was he an all-time great then? Everyone else were getting beaten soundly by Fed except Nadal at the time and Nadal himself was losing to players Fed was thrashing on a regular basis such as Gonzales,Davy,Youhzny,Blake. So yes it is a matchup issue which later manifested itself as a mental one too because of the repeated beatdowns Fed suffered on slow higher bouncing surfaces esp clay.
BTW Fed has NEVER lead the H2H against Ralph at any point in time even when Peak Fed played teenage Nadal numerous times.

 

[jackson vile]

Federer fans are in denial. If Nadal and Federer had met more often on other surfaces the losing record would just be even larger.

Also, don't forget that you guys said that Federer fell out of his prime when he was 27 as well.

 

[zagor]

Federer fans are in denial.

Not really, no.

If Nadal and Federer had met more often on other surfaces the losing record would just be even larger.

Nope, Fed beat Nadal 8 times off clay and 2 times on clay in roughly the same amount of matches (half on clay, half off clay), therefore it is logical to assume the opposite, the losing record would be smaller not larger if they played more off clay.

Also, don't forget that you guys said that Federer fell out of his prime when he was 27 as well.

So? You claimed Nadal fell out of his prime when he was 24.

Regardless, there's a difference between being slightly past one's prime and being in the twilight of one's career.

 

[Omega_7000]

Federer fans are in denial. If Nadal and Federer had met more often on other surfaces the losing record would just be even larger.

Also, don't forget that you guys said that Federer fell out of his prime when he was 27 as well.

The post clearly says had Nadal met Fed on fast outdoor hardcourts in his prime, Fed would have amassed more wins and the H2H would not have looked so bad.

Now that Fed is old, injured, ranked lowest than he has ever been in 11 years, obviously nadal is going to beat him everywhere. Hell, I would bet, he would beat him on fast indoor too if they had a match tomorrow.

Why is so difficult to accept this. Nadal was not good enough to go deep on hardcourt majors in Fed's prime and this maybe because Nadal was still developing on surfaces outside clay etc. but the fact remains that had they met earlier in Fed's career (you know when he was winning 5 USO's in a row), the H2H would be more even. He would have a chance to gain confidence on Nadal and maybe this would have changed the dynamic all together.

Unfortunately for him he had to face the greatest clay court player who has a matchup advantage against him on his favourite surface over and over. This not only hurt his confidence but also hurt his legacy somewhat...Well at least thats what Nadal (aka Sampras fans) claim anyway.

 

[zagor]

The post clearly says had Nadal met Fed on fast outdoor hardcourts in his prime, Fed would have amassed more wins and the H2H would not have looked so bad.

Now that Fed is old, injured, ranked lowest than he has ever been in 11 years, obviously nadal is going to beat him everywhere. Hell, I would bet, he would beat him on fast indoor too if they had a match tomorrow.

Why is so difficult to accept this. Nadal was not good enough to go deep on hardcourt majors in Fed's prime and this maybe because Nadal was still developing on surfaces outside clay etc. but the fact remains that had they met earlier in Fed's career (you know when he was winning 5 USO's in a row), the H2H would be more even. He would have a chance to gain confidence on Nadal and maybe this would have changed the dynamic all together.

Unfortunately for him he had to face the greatest clay court player who has a matchup advantage against him on his favourite surface over and over. This not only hurt his confidence but also hurt his legacy somewhat...Well at least thats what Nadal (aka Sampras fans) claim anyway.

Omega, it's OK, his time will come.

Some people are too caught up in the moment and don't realize that eventually they're gonna end up having to taste some of their own medicine.

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Sentinel]

Federer fans are in denial.

Yeah, yeah, you've suddenly come out of a year or more of hiding to tell others that they are in denial.

Comic, dear chap.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Omega, it's OK, his time will come.

Some people are too caught up in the moment and don't realize that eventually they're gonna end up having to taste some of their own medicine.

Nothing lasts forever.

Sadly, these clowns like to dish it out but are cowards when the going gets rough. You can expect them to run like pigs from a gun when Nadal starts having tough times.

I'm sure you know about a particular "tennis expert" on this forum who went awol for 2 years and has resurfaced in 2013 to troll in full force.

I'm sure you don't need a hint, but his catchprase is something like this "do you guys even play tennis? I play tennis everyday and this somehow boosts my credibility ."

 

[Omega_7000]

Sadly, these clowns like to dish it out but are cowards when the going gets rough. You can expect them to run like pigs from a gun when Nadal starts having tough times.

I'm sure you know about a particular "tennis expert" on this forum who went awol for 2 years and has resurfaced in 2013 to troll in full force.

I'm sure you don't need a hint, but his catchprase is something like this "do you guys even play tennis? I play tennis everyday and this somehow boosts my credibility ."

Let me guess...This poster is also into Music?

 

[Omega_7000]

Omega, it's OK, his time will come.

Some people are too caught up in the moment and don't realize that eventually they're gonna end up having to taste some of their own medicine.

Nothing lasts forever.

Very true !

 

[zagor]

Sadly, these clowns like to dish it out but are cowards when the going gets rough. You can expect them to run like pigs from a gun when Nadal starts having tough times.

Yup, they're like vultures.

I honestly wouldn't care all that much if Fed ever wins another slam (given his tremendous career, can't ask for more as a fan) if not for those dregs, I'd just like him to win it one more time just to watch them scatter, maybe that makes me petty but that's how I feel.

I'm sure you know about a particular "tennis expert" on this forum who went awol for 2 years and has resurfaced in 2013 to troll in full force.

I'm sure you don't need a hint, but his catchprase is something like this "do you guys even play tennis? I play tennis everyday and this somehow boosts my credibility ."

Oh no doubt, the individual who in practice hits much better tweeners than Fed or any other pro for that matter.

Considering the crap he dishes out, his holier than thou attitude is nauseating.

 

[abmk]

it isn't some "pattern". he knows how to pick on federer's weakness, and federer can't do it against him when they play. that is why nadal is a better player than federer man to man. why is that "unfair" which you seem to imply? look at federer playing against fernando gonzalez at AO 2007. federer was playing almost every shot to fernando's backhand, because he fears fernando's forehand and knows the backhand is weak. how is that not legit? so did federer win only because of some matchup advantage? and not because he is way better than fernando gonzalez?

there's nothing wrong with picking on weaknesses.

But your part about federer in AO 07 vs fernando gonzalez is *completely* wrong. Go and rewatch that match. federer went mostly to gonzo's fh wing and rushed him for time ( along with excellent net play ). that was because gonzo's CC FH and DTL FH from that side were pretty much less effective than his I/O FH from the middle of the court or ad side of the court.

 

[TheTruth]

There are definitely match up issues but that is not entirely the reason like some people make it out to be,to me its more of a combination of Nadal being an all time great and the match up issue.How do you explain Federer losing to Nadal on HC in 04 and 06 and Nadal losing to guys like Gonzales,Blake,Davy,Roddick etc who didnt trouble Fed at all
You cant really say there are no match up issue.There are lot of match up issues in tennis Safin-Santoro ,Nadal-Davy etc

Tennis is basically a game of match ups.From my experience I can say this for sure,there are always a certain kind of players that trouble you but not the guys you beat easily.That's the way it is and makes tennis that much more exciting.

I don't think it's a matchup issue as much as it's a mental issue. Nadal at 17 coming out and beating Federer at his absolute peak had to make an impact on Federer and I think it set the tone for the rivalry.

Key in their matchup to me is that Federer does not have that warrior spirit. He's used to playing a few great points and sucking the life out of his opponents even if he's behind. He doesn't have that luxury with Nadal. He's going to have to keep hitting spectacular winners and deal with the spectacular winners coming off of Nadal's racket at the same time. That creates tremendous pressure and usually forces Federer into errors.

Also, Nadal to me has the best court geography I've ever seen. He knows how to get opponents out of position while putting them in low percentage positions that have them making risky shots and causing errors.

During their matches Nadal makes Federer work hard. He sends him to all corners of the court which I think wears Federer out. He's used to dictating points, not being dictated to. All of this in my mind is what makes the matchup what it is.

No player coming on tour has everybody's number. This is a part of the maturation process. You have to become accustomed to the various styles on tour and for Nadal, the problematic ones were hard, flat hitters. But, he turned that around in all of those matchups except for Davy. You have to have a nemesis. Early in his career he also had problems with Berdych and Youzny, but he turned those rivalries around.

Nadal's biggest strength is remaining humble and realizing that he has not reached the pinnacle. This gives him an opportunity to grow and improve. He never allows his game to get stagnant and is constantly tinkering with his game to meet new challenges as he goes forward.

When you don't match up well with a particular opponent you have to make adjustments. Pete had a matchup issue with Krajicek, but he kept plugging along and made the h2h respectable. That's what champions do, imo.

 

[hoodjem]

A 32 year old injured Federer in the worst form of his career almost took out peak injury free 27 year old Nadal in the best form of his career.

There's an objective, unprejudiced premise.

Good to know we have someone on here who can start a debate with a neutral, unrhetorical statement.:wink:

 

[jackson vile]

You guys are so funny, you act as if your very life depends on this. This is just a stupid forum, these tennis players don't even know you exist, and if they did they would not care about you to any degree what so ever.

Stop being crazy and taking it so personally.

Most of all stop crying about everything, get a real life.

In the last year that I have been gone I moved, bought an completely renovated a house with my own bare hands, and am working on obtaining my masters degree. The the while you guys have been here, crying, moaning, groaning.

Grow up.

Yeah, yeah, you've suddenly come out of a year or more of hiding to tell others that they are in denial.

Comic, dear chap.

 

[topher]

Yep, I can remember how in Federer's prime the main thing Federer fans wanted were more heart-breaking matches against Rafa to even up the H2H

If Rafa was making HC finals against Roger in his prime he would've statistically been beating him about 50% of the time (that's if you include indoors) - that means less titles and in the end less years at #1 for Roger. You can't hypothetically give him credit in the H2H w/o also including the effect of those hypothetical losses as well lol. And I don't see anyone acknowledging that in order for the H2H to have been more respectable Roger would no longer be the undisputed slam king.

Either way you cut it, the lopsided H2H is a marr on Roger's otherwise fantastic legacy. Moaning about it won't change that, only call attention to it.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

You guys are so funny, you act as if your very life depends on this. This is just a stupid forum, these tennis players don't even know you exist, and if they did they would not care about you to any degree what so ever.

Stop being crazy and taking it so personally.

Most of all stop crying about everything, get a real life.

In the last year that I have been gone I moved, bought an completely renovated a house with my own bare hands, and am working on obtaining my masters degree. The the while you guys have been here, crying, moaning, groaning.

Grow up.

Spare us the lecture, Vile. You are the one who shows up on this forum the moment a certain swiss tennis player loses an important match. Apparently Federer's losses thrill you enough to ignore that masters degree for a while.

Bolded part..are we supposed to be impressed? I'm glad you finally learned how to manage posting on this forum and taking care of your daily responsibilities simultaneously, but I think most of us didn't need to take an year off to learn simple multi-tasking skills.

 

[jackson vile]

Nope, I will be posting little if any until mid winter, regardless of who wins. Enjoy your pity fest, maybe all of you guys can meet up and tell your sad stories to one another, all while you hold each other and cry.

Like I said, this is not reality, these players don't care about you or anything you say or do.

Get a grip, and relax.

Spare us the lecture, Vile. You are the one who shows up on this forum the moment a certain swiss tennis player loses an important match. Apparently Federer's losses thrill you enough to ignore that masters degree for a while.

Bolded part..are we supposed to be impressed? I'm glad you finally learned how to manage posting on this forum and taking care of your daily responsibilities simultaneously, but I think most of us didn't need to take an year off to learn simple multi-tasking skills.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Nope, I will be posting little if any until mid winter, regardless of who wins. Enjoy your pity fest, maybe all of you guys can meet up and tell your sad stories to one another, all while you hold each other and cry.

Like I said, this is not reality, these players don't care about you or anything you say or do.

Get a grip, and relax.

Thanks for the info, Sherlock. You must have just realized this recently, but most of us have no trouble grasping this.

The bolded part doesn't make any sense, but when do you ever make sense? I have never been eager to talk to Federer personally and give him my own personal opinions about his game. I just enjoy discussing tennis with other tennis posters.

Maybe you should relax. Most of us here have jobs, skills, hobbies other than tennis. Fortunately, most folks understand that bragging about yourself on a forum is something only a narcissist does.

 

[zagor]

Spare us the lecture, Vile. You are the one who shows up on this forum the moment a certain swiss tennis player loses an important match. Apparently Federer's losses thrill you enough to ignore that masters degree for a while.

Bolded part..are we supposed to be impressed? I'm glad you finally learned how to manage posting on this forum and taking care of your daily responsibilities simultaneously, but I think most of us didn't need to take an year off to learn simple multi-tasking skills.

Damn Sid, that was one heck of a smackdown, especially the bolded part.

I also love how he's lecturing Fed fans here while he has made more threads about Fed (and has had a habit of periodically reviving them) than all of Fed fans in this thread combined (heck I doubt anyone made more threads about Fed than JV), he's obsessed with Fed, his achievement and legacy as much as (maybe even more) than any hardcore Fed fan.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal was beating prime Federer on HC when he was as little as 17 as Miami 04 shows, was he an all-time great then? Everyone else were getting beaten soundly by Fed except Nadal at the time and Nadal himself was losing to players Fed was thrashing on a regular basis such as Gonzales,Davy,Youhzny,Blake. So yes it is a matchup issue which later manifested itself as a mental one too because of the repeated beatdowns Fed suffered on slow higher bouncing surfaces esp clay.
BTW Fed has NEVER lead the H2H against Ralph at any point in time even when Peak Fed played teenage Nadal numerous times.

Nadal beat Moyá when he was 15, and then RG champion Costa when he was 15 or 16. He won an under 12 tournament when he was 8 or 9 years old. You cannot just chalk it up to "match up".
Nadal simply had't developed his consistency on hc and there were naturally some styles of play that bothered him more.

The post clearly says had Nadal met Fed on fast outdoor hardcourts in his prime, Fed would have amassed more wins and the H2H would not have looked so bad.

Now that Fed is old, injured, ranked lowest than he has ever been in 11 years, obviously nadal is going to beat him everywhere. Hell, I would bet, he would beat him on fast indoor too if they had a match tomorrow.

Why is so difficult to accept this. Nadal was not good enough to go deep on hardcourt majors in Fed's prime and this maybe because Nadal was still developing on surfaces outside clay etc. but the fact remains that had they met earlier in Fed's career (you know when he was winning 5 USO's in a row), the H2H would be more even. He would have a chance to gain confidence on Nadal and maybe this would have changed the dynamic all together.

Unfortunately for him he had to face the greatest clay court player who has a matchup advantage against him on his favourite surface over and over. This not only hurt his confidence but also hurt his legacy somewhat...Well at least thats what Nadal (aka Sampras fans) claim anyway.

They met in Wimbledon and the WTF when Fed was on his prime. Had they met more in Cincinnati and the WTF FEd would have a few more wins (not that Nadal couldn't beat him in fast hc either), and if they were the same age, with how good Rafa was since very young compared to Fed, it would have been even worse for Roger, so...

 

[kragster]

Sadly, these clowns like to dish it out but are cowards when the going gets rough. You can expect them to run like pigs from a gun when Nadal starts having tough times.

I'm sure you know about a particular "tennis expert" on this forum who went awol for 2 years and has resurfaced in 2013 to troll in full force.

I'm sure you don't need a hint, but his catchprase is something like this "do you guys even play tennis? I play tennis everyday and this somehow boosts my credibility ."

Omega, it's OK, his time will come.

Some people are too caught up in the moment and don't realize that eventually they're gonna end up having to taste some of their own medicine.

Nothing lasts forever.

Not disagreeing with you guys but the OP is hardly an objective poster himself and the opening post reeks of bias. Can't start a troll thread and expect a reasonable discussion after.

 

[Omega_7000]

Not disagreeing with you guys but the OP is hardly an objective poster himself and the opening post reeks of bias. Can't start a troll thread and expect a reasonable discussion after.

Yeah it's not like the forum is full of vultures feeding off old injured Fed's career...:roll: Good double standards buddy!

What was so trollish about my thread anyway? Me and a lot of posters agree that the H2H would be more even if Nadal was able to deeper on hardcourts in Fed's prime...That is not so far fetched to me.

 

[Nitish]

I don't think it's a matchup issue as much as it's a mental issue. Nadal at 17 coming out and beating Federer at his absolute peak had to make an impact on Federer and I think it set the tone for the rivalry.

Key in their matchup to me is that Federer does not have that warrior spirit. He's used to playing a few great points and sucking the life out of his opponents even if he's behind. He doesn't have that luxury with Nadal. He's going to have to keep hitting spectacular winners and deal with the spectacular winners coming off of Nadal's racket at the same time. That creates tremendous pressure and usually forces Federer into errors.

Also, Nadal to me has the best court geography I've ever seen. He knows how to get opponents out of position while putting them in low percentage positions that have them making risky shots and causing errors.

During their matches Nadal makes Federer work hard. He sends him to all corners of the court which I think wears Federer out. He's used to dictating points, not being dictated to. All of this in my mind is what makes the matchup what it is.

No player coming on tour has everybody's number. This is a part of the maturation process. You have to become accustomed to the various styles on tour and for Nadal, the problematic ones were hard, flat hitters. But, he turned that around in all of those matchups except for Davy. You have to have a nemesis. Early in his career he also had problems with Berdych and Youzny, but he turned those rivalries around.

Nadal's biggest strength is remaining humble and realizing that he has not reached the pinnacle. This gives him an opportunity to grow and improve. He never allows his game to get stagnant and is constantly tinkering with his game to meet new challenges as he goes forward.

When you don't match up well with a particular opponent you have to make adjustments. Pete had a matchup issue with Krajicek, but he kept plugging along and made the h2h respectable. That's what champions do, imo.

Many don't know this but Fed actually had a lot of problems against Nalbandian and Hewitt earlier in his career.He actually had a 0-5 record against Nalby,2-7 against Hewitt.The only match up he couldn't figure out was Nadal.Its unfair to compare Krajicek-Sampras with Fedal ,like I said earlier match up is not the only reason for Feds problems.Nadal is an all time great which cannot be said of Krajicek.Maybe comparisons with Feds problems with Hewitt and Nalby would be fair(Actually Hewitt is far more accomplished than Krajicek or Davy) which Fed managed to turn around brilliantly.

I do agree there is definitely a mental issue.Fed would dominate for a portion of the match and then inexplicably go back to trading CC BH to Nadal's FH

The Fedal H2H was 6-3 to Nadal at the end of 2006 but Fed managed to pull it back to a close 8-6 at the end of 2007.It went downhill for Fed after 2008 but there were some close contests in Wimby 2008 and AO 2009.

I agree with Nadal forcing Fed into an error on most occasions but it is Nadal who does most of the running in their matches.I know this for sure cause they showed the total distance run in some of their matches and Nadal was way ahead.I saw it on TV I ll try to find a link for that.Just to clarify I am not saying that match up is the only reason or Fed should be excused for these loses, Its just I believe that the match up is a part of the problem.

 

[abmk]

Spare us the lecture, Vile. You are the one who shows up on this forum the moment a certain swiss tennis player loses an important match. Apparently Federer's losses thrill you enough to ignore that masters degree for a while.

Bolded part..are we supposed to be impressed? I'm glad you finally learned how to manage posting on this forum and taking care of your daily responsibilities simultaneously, but I think most of us didn't need to take an year off to learn simple multi-tasking skills.

that is some smackdown

 

[jackson vile]

Topher makes a very good point here, and substantiates his point with sound statistics as well.

Yep, I can remember how in Federer's prime the main thing Federer fans wanted were more heart-breaking matches against Rafa to even up the H2H

If Rafa was making HC finals against Roger in his prime he would've statistically been beating him about 50% of the time (that's if you include indoors) - that means less titles and in the end less years at #1 for Roger. You can't hypothetically give him credit in the H2H w/o also including the effect of those hypothetical losses as well lol. And I don't see anyone acknowledging that in order for the H2H to have been more respectable Roger would no longer be the undisputed slam king.

Either way you cut it, the lopsided H2H is a marr on Roger's otherwise fantastic legacy. Moaning about it won't change that, only call attention to it.

 

[zagor]

Topher makes a very good point here, and substantiates his point with sound statistics as well.

Yeah, he does, however indirectly we can also conclude that moaning about Fed's otherwise fantastic legacy (as described by Topher) won't change it either, you could whine about weak era, weak draws, luck, Nadal's 1001 injuries till the cows come home it still won't change that Fed's one of the best ever (a point which is supported by statistics as well).

 

[ksbh]

Dedans, are you from India? Well if you're not- back home they say the full moon has something to do with certain people's mental balance. You just have to wonder if Nadal has the same effect on poor Mr. 7000? LOL!

Get the pfuck out of YOUR threads? Hahahaha, aren't we the little badass... :razz:

Poor, poor lil' fanboy

__________________

 

[TennisCJC]

The thing that would make it very much in Federer's favor would be if there were 5 or 6 more grass tourneys. Federer would have long winning streaks on grass like Nadal does on clay. If Nadal would have played Federer on grass early in his career as many times as Federer has played Nadal late in Federer's career, Federer would have a lead. Unfortunately for Federer, grass is where he has been as dominate as Nadal on clay and there are 2 or 3 weeks of grass tourneys.

And, he did help the head to head that Federer made finals of clay court tourney's given Nadal opportunities on his best surface.

Federer was 68-1 on grass at one point and that rivals anything Nadal has ever done on clay.

But, to be fair to Nadal, Nadal is playing very well on hard courts this year. And, as long as his knee holds up, I think this is Nadal's prime. I think 26-28 are a players prime age. There have been a lot of players that don't win much at 29 and beyond.

 

[World Beater]

This is being overlooked. He was standing far back again and not playing as well as he had been.

nadal doesnt stand inside the court against Federer when the point is neutral

Federer doesn't allow this to happen.

nadal only steps in if he gets a short ball otherwise he is 5+ feet behind the baseline.

nadal was playing well and making some mistakes - expected..this is a fast court where the balls are flying and he was much more aggressive than usual.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Fed played a great match. No sign of injury, and he was painting the lines for the first two sets. Age and injury were not an excuse, as Fed could probably have beaten Murray and Djokovic today.

Nadal is simply a better player. It's killing Federer fans, but it's time to accept reality.

So age doesn't matter in tennis? And Fed's back still bothering him doesn't matter as well? ROFLMAO.

 

[granddog29]

Nadal has always led the head to head even in Federers prime so the answer is obvious. Nice to know a 27 year old Nadal is supposably in his prime though. I guess that means Federer who wasnt near the early bloomer Nadal was either:

1. Was unquestionably in his prime when at age 26-27, younger or the same age as Nadal is now, he lost 3 straight slam finals to Nadal, including on all 3 surfaces.

2. Federers longevity of so called prime or peak level play was apparently less than half as long as Nadal.

 

[TheTruth]

Many don't know this but Fed actually had a lot of problems against Nalbandian and Hewitt earlier in his career.He actually had a 0-5 record against Nalby,2-7 against Hewitt.The only match up he couldn't figure out was Nadal.Its unfair to compare Krajicek-Sampras with Fedal ,like I said earlier match up is not the only reason for Feds problems.Nadal is an all time great which cannot be said of Krajicek.Maybe comparisons with Feds problems with Hewitt and Nalby would be fair(Actually Hewitt is far more accomplished than Krajicek or Davy) which Fed managed to turn around brilliantly.

I do agree there is definitely a mental issue.Fed would dominate for a portion of the match and then inexplicably go back to trading CC BH to Nadal's FH

The Fedal H2H was 6-3 to Nadal at the end of 2006 but Fed managed to pull it back to a close 8-6 at the end of 2007.It went downhill for Fed after 2008 but there were some close contests in Wimby 2008 and AO 2009.

I agree with Nadal forcing Fed into an error on most occasions but it is Nadal who does most of the running in their matches.I know this for sure cause they showed the total distance run in some of their matches and Nadal was way ahead.I saw it on TV I ll try to find a link for that.Just to clarify I am not saying that match up is the only reason or Fed should be excused for these loses, Its just I believe that the match up is a part of the problem.

I was watching tennis during the Hewitt and Nalbandian years. Hewitt was extremely consistent back then. Fed's "glorious shots" didn't work against Hewitt. Once Hewitt got sick, he was never the same player again and Nalbandian was inconsistent throughout his career. Hewitt and Nalbandian contributed to Fed's brilliance in that regard.

I don't understand how it's unfair to compare Sampras and Krajicek to Fedal. Pete had problems with Richard's game, but he kept plugging away at it. Similar to Agassi. Agassi had problems with Pete's game, but he kept plugging away too. Nalbandian has no slams, Krajicek won Wimbledon.

Nadal still led since he was 17 years old. That is unheard of. How many players at 21 (right now) are leading Nadal, Novak, and Andy? It just doesn't happen.

I've also seen those stats posted and there is very little difference in the distance ran, so much so that they quit posting them, because it didn't prove their point. One, they had recently was so small and insignificant that Darren said, "I would have never have guessed that." I'll have to look at my old matches.