A RG excuse from Federer examined

I always read in articles that one of the reason Roger Federer attributes a weaker record to clay was because of the kick up to his single handed backhand, especially from a Nadal Forehand, say. But, thinking about it, Guga was a single hander and it certainly never slowed him down...
Was this an excuse to hide a genuine weakness?
What are your thoughts?
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
well guga never get to play nadal, for one. besides, on a good day, no one can beat federer on clay except of course, nadal. the extreme top spin coming from that forehand is always pummeling his backhand.
 

daddy

Legend
I think its nothing more or less than bad matchup. Nadal has a key to his lock and was using it quite a while before Fed got to him. But when you lose to someone so much, you tend to react like Fed did a few times - meltdowns, letting big leads go away and losing when you should be winning. Good play and mental toughness from Nadal's side plus a shaky Federer when playing him because of the past and head to head, and there you go.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Not an excuse,it's just that Guga's backhand is way better then Federer's(not saying that Fed's backhand isn't great but Guga had probably the best one hander of all time) and also Guga's backhand similarly to Henin's worked best on clay and could handle high bounces much better then Fed's whose backhand is much more suited to lower bouncing surfaces.
 

Mad iX

Semi-Pro
They both may hit 1hbh but they're very different. Fed hits it way earlier off the bounce. After a while, it always breaks down. Fed has a great backhand but Nadal's forehand is plain superior.
 

Tempest344

Professional
guga used (and still uses) a much more extreme grip on his backhand than Fed

of course Fed would have no trouble once he switches to a larger frame
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
guga used (and still uses) a much more extreme grip on his backhand than Fed

of course Fed would have no trouble once he switches to a larger frame
Plain and simple. Guga was taller, had an extreme backhand grip, and he was comfourtable topspinning anything off that wing, both low and high balls.

Same thing with Gaudio, who never had trouble with Nadal's high-kicking forehands.
 

bluescreen

Hall of Fame
i actually think fed runs around his backhand too much and leaves the rest of the court open. guga's backhand was his strength, so he wouldnt lose court positioning cuz he wouldnt run around it.

nadal and guga would actually be a very good match cuz nadal's typical lefty forehand would be playing into guga's better groundstroke side so he'd almost have to play him like a lefty.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
The combination of HUGE topspin and his lefthandedness are deadly to Roger. If Rafa was a righthander Roger could be close to equal
 

msc886

Professional
Federer does not use an extreme backhand grip which is why he doesn't like extremely high backhands. One handers with more extreme grips like Gasquet or Gaudio never had trouble with Nadal's topspin forehand.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Federer does not use an extreme backhand grip which is why he doesn't like extremely high backhands. One handers with more extreme grips like Gasquet or Gaudio never had trouble with Nadal's topspin forehand.
Everyone has had trouble with Nadal. No grip out there can consistently handle Nadal's topspin. Maybe for a set but it will wear them down.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
No you are an idiot. Nadal is the GOAT of clay whether you like it or not.
When people call Roger Federer the GOAT of tennis, their arrogant *******s and Roger fanboys.. yet you call Rafa the GOAT of clay already, like it's something undisputable? He's sure up there.. But I think a certain Björn Borg (yeah that underwear guy), might have a say in it as well.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
When people call Roger Federer the GOAT of tennis, their arrogant *******s and Roger fanboys.. yet you call Rafa the GOAT of clay already, like it's something undisputable? He's sure up there.. But I think a certain Björn Borg (yeah that underwear guy), might have a say in it as well.
30 years ago. Don't you think tennis has progressed since than in every way?
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
30 years ago. Don't you think tennis has progressed since than in every way?
Yeah, well.. Than almost every new number 1 is the GOAT of tennis. Okay, in that kind of thinking Rafa is the GOAT of clay (Guga probably coming second, Roger coming third), and Roger Federer is the greatest player of all time. Or hasn't tennis progressed since the ninetees?
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Yeah, well.. Than almost every new number 1 is the GOAT of tennis. Okay, in that kind of thinking Rafa is the GOAT of clay (Guga probably coming second, Roger coming third), and Roger Federer is the greatest player of all time. Or hasn't tennis progressed since the ninetees?
10 years is not as big of difference as 30 years. Just look at the skinny basketball players in the late 70's. It was not the same as these days. NBA in the 90's is much better and comparable to athletes now unlike players of the 70's.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
10 years is not as big of difference as 30 years. Just look at the skinny basketball players in the late 70's. It was not the same as these days. NBA in the 90's is much better and comparable to athletes now unlike players of the 70's.
I understand that, but I think when you consider how great a player was, you shouldn't want to put them up against each other (Borg would be destroyed by Rafa, only useful thing he could provide Rafa with is better fitting boxershorts), but how succesful they were in their time. That way ou can consider old people the GOAT as well (players like BOrg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe). If you don't you're just gonna say who'd beat who if they'd play in both players's prima you have Rafa, Roger, Sampras, Agassi, and some others. Even Roddick would probably make the top 10.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
In Borg's time, the competition was much weaker except for the elite (the first five), it was a little like WTA now. Look, I'm not the one saying that, Borg does and everyone on the tour knows that. (There was less money to be made and fewer people at the highest level) Plus, if you compare their winning percentage on clay during their 4 best years (up to now for Rafa), Nadal has a slightly higher one than Borg despite the difference in opposition. Also Borg was turning 25 when he achieved the 4 in a row. But all this doesn't matter because the people who dislike Rafa will always find something to diminish his merit no matter how many RG he wins. Former pros know better and unlike those seemingly "blase" posters here, they show unrestrained admiration for what Rafa has been able to accomplish in this day and age. I agree with them: his domination on clay is unique and record-breaking ( I didn't even mention the 81 match streak which is a record by a landslide...)
 
Last edited:
Top