Can Nadal win Wimbledon one more time?

[Deleted member 756486]

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

A mental block which lasted over a decade is overstated?

Well on clay apart from few matches like Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2008 when Fed was mugging it up, did he lose those matches because due of his mentality or because RAFA was too good for him on clay?
In 2008 Wimbly he mugged it up fair enough but in 2009 AO he was probably having back problems (same as in Bercy/WTF 2008) given his serve was one of the worst it had ever been (like in the USO 2009 final). Was he having a mental block against Berdych too when he had to come back from two sets down?
In 2010 they went 1-1.
Would he have won the FO 2011 with a "better" mentality or not?
In 2012 they went 1-1. He was targettingt RAFA's BH, which was a working tactic but he stopped doing it and then lost but AO was slow as sh1t that year.
2013 injury season for Fed. Might as well chalk AO 2014 to that.
Played once in 2015.

In 2017 he also went to five sets with Kei and Stan due to his groin injury and not some mental demons.

 

[zagor]

A mental block which lasted over a decade is overstated?

It is essentially. Of course Fed could have performer better against Nadal but a large part of it was just Fed exiting his peak as Nadal was entering his.

Fed didn't just get worse against Nadal in 2008 and onwards, he got worse against the field on the whole. I mean in 2010 for example he was on the brink of losing in the 1st round at Wimbledon of all places.

I mean of course a match like 2008 WImbledon was mostly mental on Fed's part (all those 2nd serves netted on BPs) but 2012 AO for example? Nadal was just a better player then and Fed was already over 30.

People overstate the mental aspect and understate the 5 year gap which started working against Fed and in Nadal's favour for the better part of last decade. Fed didn't get on a winning streak against Nadal last year just because he improved his BH and became mentally tougher (against Nadal) but because guess what, Nadal entered the 30 territory too and isn't nearly the physical beast he once was to run down every ball and hit those ridiculous passing shots time and time again.

 

[cc0509]

Well on clay apart from few matches like Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2008 when Fed was mugging it up, did he lose those matches because due of his mentality or because RAFA was too good for him on clay?
In 2008 Wimbly he mugged it up fair enough but in 2009 AO he was probably having back problems (same as in Bercy/WTF 2008) given his serve was one of the worst it had ever been (like in the USO 2009 final). Was he having a mental block against Berdych too when he had to come back from two sets down?
In 2010 they went 1-1.
Would he have won the FO 2011 with a "better" mentality or not?
In 2012 they went 1-1. He was targettingt RAFA's BH, which was a working tactic but he stopped doing it and then lost but AO was slow as sh1t that year.
2013 injury season for Fed. Might as well chalk AO 2014 to that.
Played once in 2015.

In 2017 he also went to five sets with Kei and Stan due to his groin injury and not some mental demons.

Federer's mental struggles vs Nadal have been well publicized including by Federer himself admitting said struggles after being beatdown at RG so many times by Nadal and transferring that off clay. In addition to that, Federer played stupidly many times vs Nadal and refused to change his tactics, tactics which he finally started to change and which have been paying off, i.e. stronger, flatter backhand.

I'm not a Federer fan who makes ridiculous excuses for Fed's losses to Nadal at off clay slams. You can see that Federer was able to beat Nadal at an off clay slam at age 36 so should we really be making excuses for his losses 5-10 years ago?

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

It is essentially. Of course Fed could have performer better against Nadal but a large part of it was just Fed exiting his peak as Nadal was entering his.

Fed didn't just get worse against Nadal in 2008 and onwards, he got worse against the field on the whole. I mean in 2010 for example he was on the brink of losing in the 1st round at Wimbledon of all places.

I mean of course a match like 2008 WImbledon was mostly mental on Fed's part (all those 2nd serves netted on BPs) but 2012 AO for example? Nadal was just a better player then and Fed was already over 30.

People overstate the mental aspect and understate the 5 year gap which started working against Fed and in Nadal's favour for the better part of last decade. Fed didn't get on a winning streak against Nadal last year just because he improved his BH and became mentally tougher (against Nadal) but because guess what, Nadal entered the 30 territory too and isn't nearly the physical beast he once was to run down every ball and hit those ridiculous passing shots time and time again.

Their Miami final was pretty good mental showing from Fed. After the Kyrgoat match Fed straight sets RAFA by saving four BPs.

 

[zagor]

Their Miami final was pretty good mental showing from Fed. After the Kyrgoat match Fed straight sets RAFA by saving four BPs.

Saved some of them by hitting the lines IIRC but yeah, whole Miami was one of Fed's career most impressive mental performances from start to finish. Of course, Nadal had a joke draw as usual.

 

[zagor]

You can see that Federer was able to beat Nadal at an off clay slam at age 36 so should we really be making excuses for his losses 5-10 years ago?

A 30-31 year old Nadal who can no longer run like a rabbit all day long which makes all the difference.

2017 Fed would have not defeated 2009 or 2012 Nadal at AO (especially in slow conditions), new BH and all.

 

[cc0509]

It is essentially. Of course Fed could have performer better against Nadal but a large part of it was just Fed exiting his peak as Nadal was entering his.

Fed didn't just get worse against Nadal in 2008 and onwards, he got worse against the field on the whole. I mean in 2010 for example he was on the brink of losing in the 1st round at Wimbledon of all places.

I mean of course a match like 2008 WImbledon was mostly mental on Fed's part (all those 2nd serves netted on BPs) but 2012 AO for example? Nadal was just a better player then and Fed was already over 30.

People overstate the mental aspect and understate the 5 year gap which started working against Fed and in Nadal's favour for the better part of last decade. Fed didn't get on a winning streak against Nadal last year just because he improved his BH and became mentally tougher (against Nadal) but because guess what, Nadal entered the 30 territory too and isn't nearly the physical beast he once was to run down every ball and hit those ridiculous passing shots time and time again.

For me, the greater part of Federer's problem vs Nadal was Fed's weaker mentality vs Nadal and Fed's stubbornness and refusal to change a few key things in his game and do it consistently vs Nadal. In 2008 and 2009 Federer was still in his prime, winning slams, making all the slam finals so using the age excuse at that point is stupid IMO. If you want to use the age excuse post-2010 in part to explain Fed's losses to Nadal or Djokovic, I'm on board with that.

 

[cc0509]

A 30-31 year old Nadal who can no longer run like a rabbit all day long which makes all the difference.

2017 Fed would have not defeated 2009 or 2012 Nadal at AO (especially in slow conditions), new BH and all.

Nah. IMO the Federer win over Nadal at the AO 2017 was more a consequence of Federer being absent from the tour for six months and being able to focus on and put together a winning gameplan vs Nadal and to execute it by not giving up that plan even if he missed a bunch of shots which is what he used to do. By being away and skipping playing clay vs Nadal it also helped him with the mental part.

 

[roger presley]

No,he can't. Can he survive first two rounds, that's the question.

 

[zagor]

For me, the greater part of Federer's problem vs Nadal was Fed's weaker mentality vs Nadal and Fed's stubbornness and refusal to change a few key things in his game and do it consistently vs Nadal. In 2008 and 2009 Federer was still in his prime, winning slams, making all the slam finals so using the age excuse at that point is stupid IMO. If you want to use the age excuse post-2010 in part to explain Fed's losses to Nadal or Djokovic, I'm on board with that.

2008 WImbledon and 2009 AO were in part a result of mental block and wrong tactical approach. However beyond that, peak/prime Nadal was just a better player on every surface (but grass since 2012) than Fed near 30 and beyond. 2012 and 2014 AOs the best examples of it, Nadal was just a better player overall (in form, ranking etc.).

Nah. IMO the Federer win over Nadal at the AO 2017 was more a consequence of Federer being absent from the tour for six months and being able to focus on and put together a winning gameplan vs Nadal and to execute it by not giving up that plan even if he missed a bunch of shots which is what he used to do. By being away and skipping playing clay vs Nadal it also helped him with the mental part.

There were several factors at play here (including the faster conditions which for once benefited Fed) but we'll agree to disagree in regards to the crucial one which for me is the loss in Nadal's physicality which really helped Fed swing more freely, knowing not every damn ball is coming back.

 

[MugOpponent]

It is not just that, the match up played into Nadal's hands. The match up is NOT playing into Nadal's hands anymore. Federer is vaporizing backhands off of that side against Nadal, no slice being used. Take away Nadal's primary game plan against you on a shot making court, and he is in serious trouble. Federer also uses some of tactics that Djokovic uses. Nadal was so baffled by Federer's backhand assault that for the first time in Miami 2017, he actually targeted Federer's forehand. The ball will still bounce lower than on other courts, even in the second week....

From what I've seen this year the Fed backhand is not close to the 2017 level at all. I would be interested in seeing a match on HC to see how it would play out. On grass, Federer is the favorite without question.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

From what I've seen this year the Fed backhand is not close to the 2017 level at all. I would be interested in seeing a match on HC to see how it would play out. On grass, Federer is the favorite without question.

I highly doubt we will see any matches between them going forwards on any surface but hard courts. While I agree that Federer's backhand is not 2017 level, Nadal hasn't really done anything on hard courts all season long either, last year he was arguably the most consistent on the surface.

 

[Sport]

It is essentially. Of course Fed could have performer better against Nadal but a large part of it was just Fed exiting his peak as Nadal was entering his.

Fed didn't just get worse against Nadal in 2008 and onwards, he got worse against the field on the whole. I mean in 2010 for example he was on the brink of losing in the 1st round at Wimbledon of all places.

I mean of course a match like 2008 WImbledon was mostly mental on Fed's part (all those 2nd serves netted on BPs) but 2012 AO for example? Nadal was just a better player then and Fed was already over 30.

People overstate the mental aspect and understate the 5 year gap which started working against Fed and in Nadal's favour for the better part of last decade. Fed didn't get on a winning streak against Nadal last year just because he improved his BH and became mentally tougher (against Nadal) but because guess what, Nadal entered the 30 territory too and isn't nearly the physical beast he once was to run down every ball and hit those ridiculous passing shots time and time again.

Brilliant analysis, it's not only the mental aspect what gives now Federer an advantage. Nadal has lost speed since 2017 or even before, and it was a essential part of his game during his peak years. You only need to watch his 2008 Wimbledon final and Australian Open 2009 final to see how fast he was.
Now Nadal plays more aggresive and tries to finish the points earlier. His offensive style allows him to defeat other players but not Federer. Nadal's old style based on pure velocity and defensive skills suited him more against Federer.

 

[Vamos Rafa Nadal]

My answer is yes because most people didn't think he would ever win another US Open. He has also come super close to winning the Australian open and imo was going to win this year before his SF injury - he was playing incredibly well! Any of the top players could win if the draw opens for them or if they get on a roll (we saw that happen with #72 Cecchinato, who made it all the way to the SF at the FO).

I am not saying he ever will win, only that he certainly can.

 

[mike danny]

Nah. IMO the Federer win over Nadal at the AO 2017 was more a consequence of Federer being absent from the tour for six months and being able to focus on and put together a winning gameplan vs Nadal and to execute it by not giving up that plan even if he missed a bunch of shots which is what he used to do. By being away and skipping playing clay vs Nadal it also helped him with the mental part.

Well, given that Fed and Nadal met once again in a non-clay slam 3 years after 2009, there was not much Federer could do to figure out Nadal. I mean, Wimb 2009, USO 2009 and AO 2010 could have been his best chances in that time frame, but Nadal didn't show up in any of those matches.

After that time frame, Nadal simply exploited the age gap and Fed's lack of confidence in general (AO 2014).

 

[mike danny]

From what I've seen this year the Fed backhand is not close to the 2017 level at all. I would be interested in seeing a match on HC to see how it would play out. On grass, Federer is the favorite without question.

Nadal also is not on the same level as last year off clay (although unproven as he hasn't played much), so let's see Nadal perform too.

 

[mike danny]

My answer is yes because most people didn't think he would ever win another US Open. He has also come super close to winning the Australian open and imo was going to win this year before his SF injury - he was playing incredibly well! Any of the top players could win if the draw opens for them or if they get on a roll (we saw that happen with #72 Cecchinato, who made it all the way to the SF at the FO).

I am not saying he ever will win, only that he certainly can.

No, he wasn't going to win as Fed was waiting for him in the final and the courts were once again pretty fast just like in 2017.

And no, Nadal wasn't playing incredible. He needed 4 hours to dispatch Schwartzman on a fast court FFS.

 

[TahoeTennis]

He can and he will, 1 wimby 1 uso 2 ao 3 fo to end with 24 slams to feds 22

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Brilliant analysis, it's not only the mental aspect what gives now Federer an advantage. Nadal has lost speed since 2017 or even before, and it was a essential part of his game during his peak years. You only need to watch his 2008 Wimbledon final and Australian Open 2009 final to see how fast he was.
Now Nadal plays more aggresive and tries to finish the points earlier. His offensive style allows him to defeat other players but not Federer. Nadal's old style based on pure velocity and defensive skills suited him more against Federer.

Key factors that have turned Fedal matches upside down

1 - Nadal has physically declined - Nadal has been out of his prime for over 4 years now. It is generally considered that Nadal's prime ended the night he lost to Wawrinka at AO 2014. Since then physically he has not been the same. More injuries, more wear tear, loss of foot speed...safe to say that Federer has aged more gracefully on a tennis court than Nadal.
2 - No matches between Federer and Nadal for a significantly long period of time - Between AO 2014 and AO 2017, then played only one time in an indoor event that Federer won. Not having to play Nadal helped Federer heal some of mental scars, several losses Fed has taken have been influenced by Nadal's dominance of Federer on clay courts, which began to spill onto other surfaces. Not having to play Nadal on clay, was like starting fresh with a clean slate
3 - Nadal changing his game style to become more aggressive - This will work against almost any player on the tour, but playing the aggressive game against the most aggressive player on the tour is a lose lose situation. It is like Federer trying to out grind Nadal on a clay court, just not going to happen. By trying to be closer to the baseline and moving up the court to take the initiative, Nadal not only robs himself of time to set up his strokes, but also makes it harder on himself to chase Federer's balls down with reduced foot speed.
4 - Federer's new racket and the backhand - He may have lost some venom on his forehand due to the larger racket, but the larger sweet spot has now given more balance to Federer's ground strokes and more confidence. The large sweet spot means that Federer can still take the ball on the rise on the backhand side with there being less shanking. Federer now does not chip the return back, or use the slice, virtually every shot off of the backhand is a powerful topspin drive, which he can now redirect effortlessly either cc with an acute angle to pull Nadal off the court and then hit an easy forehand into the empty court, a deep cc backhand into Nadal's forehand using Djokovic' tactic of going deep and hard into the Nadal forehand to cough up mid court balls to attack, or he can now blast them over the high part of the net with massive DTL BH topspin drives. What this does is keep Nadal planted more into the middle of the court, since he does not know which way Federer will go with that backhand, this opens up the angles and allows Federer to rob him of time and Fed starts to dictate.
5- Federer's serving has gotten better than in his prime - He is even more deadlier with that serve, Nadal was normally very good at reading the serve, it is not quite the case at the moment, a lot has to do with Nadal trying to move up the court against Federer to return serve, if he stands too far back, Federer will pick off the acute angle and go for the corners.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No, he wasn't going to win as Fed was waiting for him in the final and the courts were once again pretty fast just like in 2017.

And no, Nadal wasn't playing incredible. He needed 4 hours to dispatch Schwartzman on a fast court FFS.

Federer would have beaten Nadal again at AO, had they played this year. Court was fast, plays right into Federer's hands.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

He will never win Wimbledon again.

 

[Sport]

He will never win Wimbledon again.

Thanks captain obvious.

 

[Sport]

Federer would have beaten Nadal again at AO, had they played this year. Court was fast, plays right into Federer's hands.

Nadal was the only one who had a chance to beat him at the AO.

Wimbledon is a different story, I don't see anyone upsetting Roger. Roger will win his 9th WB title.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal was the only one who had a chance to beat him at the AO.

Wimbledon is a different story, I don't see anyone upsetting Roger. Roger will win his 9th WB title.

Agree on both things.

 

[cc0509]

Well, given that Fed and Nadal met once again in a non-clay slam 3 years after 2009, there was not much Federer could do to figure out Nadal. I mean, Wimb 2009, USO 2009 and AO 2010 could have been his best chances in that time frame, but Nadal didn't show up in any of those matches.

After that time frame, Nadal simply exploited the age gap and Fed's lack of confidence in general (AO 2014).

True. But Federer could have done more years back off clay to combat Nadal but he was stubborn and those clay beatdowns dented his confidence.

It will be interesting to see if Federer can continue his winning streak especially if they meet at a slam and see if Nadal does anything different to compensate.

 

[ADuck]

Brilliant analysis, it's not only the mental aspect what gives now Federer an advantage. Nadal has lost speed since 2017 or even before, and it was a essential part of his game during his peak years. You only need to watch his 2008 Wimbledon final and Australian Open 2009 final to see how fast he was.
Now Nadal plays more aggresive and tries to finish the points earlier. His offensive style allows him to defeat other players but not Federer. Nadal's old style based on pure velocity and defensive skills suited him more against Federer.

Exactly, the amount of excuse-making here is reaching pathetic levels. Had Nadal won AO 2017 they'd be making up an excuse for that as well. Fact is, Federer had a mental block against Nadal because Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23. And no, it wasn't because Federer was only playing Nadal on clay (lmao), Nadal was beating Federer on all surfaces aside from grass from 2003-2007. And even on grass, where the surface should "massively" favour Federer, Federer was still losing sets to a 20-21 year old Nadal. The double standards and cognitive dissonance about the Fedal matchup here are hilarious.

 

[abmk]

Exactly, the amount of excuse-making here is reaching pathetic levels. Had Nadal won AO 2017 they'd be making up an excuse for that as well. Fact is, Federer had a mental block against Nadal because Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23. And no, it wasn't because Federer was only playing Nadal on clay (lmao), Nadal was beating Federer on all surfaces aside from grass from 2003-2007. And even on grass, where the surface should "massively" favour Federer, Federer was still losing sets to a 20-21 year old Nadal. The double standards and cognitive dissonance about the Fedal matchup here are hilarious.

it wasn't ? didn't play a factor at all ? right !

jeez, guess you know federer's mind better than federer himself. you are some genius !

-------------------

Q. On court you said in your rivalry with Rafa early on, you maybe played him too many times on clay court, and that impacted how you played him. Can you go into more detail on that.
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, not really. Why give him an edge? I said enough. Maybe I lost the Wimbledon finals in 2008 because of too many clay court matches, because he crushed me at the French Open final. I said that before. I think it affected my first two sets at Wimbledon. Maybe that's why I ended up losing.

I know Rafa played great in that final. I actually ended up playing great, too. It was similar like today. I was fighting a two-sets-to-love lead. I wasn't fighting the right way. I think that was the effect that the French Open loss that I actually got crushed in left on me.

That's kind of the things I meant with it. It was more mentally something at some moments. Now it's a different time. A lot of time has gone by. I know this court allows me to play a certain game against Rafa that I cannot do on center court at the French Open.

 

[ADuck]

it wasn't ? didn't play a factor at all ? right !

jeez, guess you know federer's mind better than federer himself. you are some genius !

-------------------

Q. On court you said in your rivalry with Rafa early on, you maybe played him too many times on clay court, and that impacted how you played him. Can you go into more detail on that.
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, not really. Why give him an edge? I said enough. Maybe I lost the Wimbledon finals in 2008 because of too many clay court matches, because he crushed me at the French Open final. I said that before. I think it affected my first two sets at Wimbledon. Maybe that's why I ended up losing.

I know Rafa played great in that final. I actually ended up playing great, too. It was similar like today. I was fighting a two-sets-to-love lead. I wasn't fighting the right way. I think that was the effect that the French Open loss that I actually got crushed in left on me.

That's kind of the things I meant with it. It was more mentally something at some moments. Now it's a different time. A lot of time has gone by. I know this court allows me to play a certain game against Rafa that I cannot do on center court at the French Open.

No, of course it played a factor, but it's in your interest to use this excuse and downplay any other reason. How does one get a mental block in the first place? By being beat by someone who you cannot win against even when you feel you are playing your best. I never denied the existence that he had it, but out of 23 matches he lost, the grand majority of them because Rafa beat him, plain and simple. In your mind, almost every single set Federer lost against Nadal not on clay was because he was playing bad or had a mental block right? Wait.. or was it bad back? mono? old? injured? sick?

 

[tennis_pro]

Well said. If Federer plays Nadal on grass at this stage in their careers, Federer will be the one more likely to win.

People need to understand that Federer has solved Nadal's game out, it being a slam doesn't change that. The difference about playing on a clay court is that Nadal would be able to tire Federer out, that cannot happen on a surface that rewards shot making. And, I have still to see how Nadal is going to solve this new Federer, because hitting to his backhand is not going to cut it, and with Federer looking sharp on serve, pressure would be huge on each Nadal service game.

I don't think Federer has solved Nadal. Nadal just lost his main advantage of him being at his peak/in his prime and facing a past his prime Federer. Luckily Fed can still play at an incredibly high level at his stage to take advantage of the situation and hopefully Fed can get a couple more wins because it's a joke that the h2h stands at 23-15 when the guy with 15 wins is clearly better on grass and hard.

The whole overtone of the Fedal h2h was basically 2008-2014 where Nadal was at his peak and Federer was beginning to age and had some health issues too. It's a joke that they played 4 times in 2013 - one of Fed's wort seasons and one of Nadal's best. At the same time they played 1 time from mid 2014 to early 2016 when Nadal was struggling a lot while Federer was playing at a high level - ironically it was in Basel.

The Fedal h2h can be summed up perfectly by one tournament - Cincinnati. Federer has won it 7 times compared to Nadal's one but the one and only time they played there was not in one of Fed's winning years - it was in 2013 when Nadal won it, that's freaking hilarious not to mention that Federer played his worst or second worst Cincinnati (after 2008) in the last 15 years and still kept the match close. There are more examples like Nadal getting his only win against Federer in the fall in 2013 (WTF), like the only time he beat him in Indian Wells was in 2013, the only time they played in Dubai was when Fed was still recovering from an ankle injury, the fact that when they played on HC it wasn't medium/fast HC like Canada, Cincinnati or Shanghai it was mostly the AO (pre 2017) or Miami - both super slow courts, the fact that 14 of their first 25 matches were on clay (basically all their matches before Fed's 30th birthday). It all makes sense.

I hope Nadal doesn't run away from Federer until Monte Carlo because Fed ain't gonna fall for the same trap again. We need 2-3 wins this year baby because Fed's not gonna cheat on father time forever.

 

[VaporDude95]

Nadal is not winning Wimbledon. He was in much better form last year and failed to do so.

/thread

 

[AiRFederer]

Nah. IMO the Federer win over Nadal at the AO 2017 was more a consequence of Federer being absent from the tour for six months and being able to focus on and put together a winning gameplan vs Nadal and to execute it by not giving up that plan even if he missed a bunch of shots which is what he used to do. By being away and skipping playing clay vs Nadal it also helped him with the mental part.

LOL. So after getting beat by a mug in wimby 2016, and getting injured for 6 months, YOU just KNOW that he was gameplanning and therefore knew he was going to play Nadal at the biggest stage 6 months later? I mean wow! What a clairvoyant that Fed is, truly the GOAT!

 

[abmk]

No, of course it played a factor, but it's in your interest to use this excuse and downplay any other reason. How does one get a mental block in the first place? By being beat by someone who you cannot win against even when you feel you are playing your best. I never denied the existence that he had it, but out of 23 matches he lost, the grand majority of them because Rafa beat him, plain and simple. In your mind, almost every single set Federer lost against Nadal not on clay was because he was playing bad or had a mental block right? Wait.. or was it bad back? mono? old? injured? sick?

@ 1st bold part : not necessarily. it could also be because you are playing a lot on the other guys's best surface while not playing enough on the surfaces on which you are better.
could also because the matchup prevents from playing close to your best

@ 2nd bold part : didn't say anything like that
but nice try at BSing.

@ this part :

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23."

one or two losses ? really ?

Rome 06, Hamburg 08, AO 09 (&Dubai 06 --this was before a mental block was formed though in their matchup) were matches that Federer would've won if he was clutch enough.

mental aspect played quite a bit of part in both sets of Monte Carlo 08 , in RG 11 , AO 12, even if its not necessary that Federer would've won without being affected mentally.
played a role in Wim 08 final as well, especially the first 2 sets where he was subdued ..he himself flat out stated. " I think it affected my first two sets at Wimbledon. "
match could still have gone either way, but to say it didn't have a role is just being ignorant.

Here's a post I made previously in response to the mental part being exaggerated. Also about Nadal playing at a very high level to beat Fed in Wim 08/AO 09/AO 12.

I don't think Nadal's level has anything to do with it. At this point it was completely mental. That was the reason Federer lost his serve so early in the Wimbledon final. He was still wrecked from RG '08. I would bet the same thing happens to Federer if he plays Nadal at US Open in 2008.

when federer is playing well, the mental block thing only comes into the picture only when nadal is playing at a very high level.
otherwise no.

Its pathetic just how some people think nadal had to just show up vs federer to win those matches, he had to play at a bloody high level in order to win each of these - wim 08, AO 09 and AO 12. (just talking about the non-clay major wins for nadal vs fed)

 

[ADuck]

@ 1st bold part : not necessarily. it could also be because you are playing a lot on the other guys's best surface while not playing enough on the surfaces on which you are better.
could also because the matchup prevents from olaying close to your best

@ 2nd bold part : didn't say anything like that
but nice try at BSing.

@ this part :

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23."

one or two losses ? really ?

Rome 06, Hamburg 08, AO 09 (&Dubai 06 --this was before a mental block was formed though in their matchup) were matches that Federer would've won if he was clutch enough.

mental aspect played quite a bit of part in both sets of Monte Carlo 08 , in RG 11 , AO 12, even if its not necessary that Federer would've won without being affected mentally.
played a role in Wim 08 final as well, especially the first 2 sets where he was subdued ..he himself flat out stated. " I think it affected my first two sets at Wimbledon. "
match could still have gone either way, but to say it didn't have a role is just being ignorant.

As always, your replies are boring and predictable and offer little to no insight. Nadal will beat Federer on clay and outdoor hard courts the majority of the time because peak for peak, the match up is in his favour. Whatever reasons after that played only a little role to that fact. The mental woes Federer suffered against Nadal are only a product of being the victim of a losing match-up, that's the truth.

@ 2nd bold part : didn't say anything like that
but nice try at BSing.

I offer you an option to pick which excuse and let's see what you picked.. ahh here it is, "not clutch enough" and "mental block." Cool.

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23."

one or two losses ? really ?

Rome 06, Hamburg 08, AO 09 (&Dubai 06 --this was before a mental block was formed though in their matchup) were matches that Federer would've won if he was clutch enough.

mental aspect played quite a bit of part in both sets of Monte Carlo 08 , in RG 11 , AO 12, even if its not necessary that Federer would've won without being affected mentally.
played a role in Wim 08 final as well, especially the first 2 sets where he was subdued ..he himself flat out stated. " I think it affected my first two sets at Wimbledon. "
match could still have gone either way, but to say it didn't have a role is just being ignorant.

In other news, Nadal is unbeatable when healthy.

 

[abmk]

As always, your replies are boring and predictable and offer little to no insight. Nadal will beat Federer on clay and outdoor hard courts the majority of the time because peak for peak, the match up is in his favour. Whatever reasons after that played only a little role to that fact. The mental woes Federer suffered against Nadal are only a product of being the victim of a losing match-up, that's the truth.

on clay for sure. he's better+ has the matchup adv.
not on outdoor HC.

Federer has the edge peak to peak or prime to prime on outdoor HC.
He's clearly better on outdoor HC in general. in their matches, matchup makes it closer, but Federer would still have the edge.

As far as bold part is concerned, playing a lot on clay in their earlier matches was also a factor. that spilled onto non-clay matches as well.Federer himself stated that clearly.

I offer you an option to pick which excuse and let's see what you picked.. ahh here it is, "not clutch enough" and "mental block." Cool.

LOL, hilarious ....
I mentioned only some matches, nowhere near all of the matches as your delusional self was yapping about.

In other news, Nadal is unbeatable when healthy.

lol, completely unrelated response after being owned big time. typical.

 

[Purplemonster]

Sure as hell he can. Last year he played quite well, but he's not the same young running beast as before. So I'm guessing he'll need a bit of luck and, once he reaches the final rounds, then he's going to become dangerous.

Hope he can do it

Likewise, moreso to get the adolescent Federer fans panicking.

 

[ADuck]

on clay for sure. he's better+ has the matchup adv.
not on outdoor HC.

Federer will have the edge peak to peak or prime to prime on outdoor HC.
He's clearly better on outdoor HC in general. in their matches, matchup makes it closer, but Federer would still have the edge.

Haha, no. On clay, and outdoor hardcourt mate. The evidence does not favour your opinion there. Of course you have your "mental block," "not clutch enough," and a vast variety of other excuses in defense of the 8-6 in matches and 25-19 in sets. But excuses from fanboys are not enough to offset that difference
From 2004-2009 (during Federer's prime) the h2h on outdoor hardcourts was 3-1 in matches and 9-6 in sets in favour of Nadal, despite the fact Nadal was only 18-21 years old. During Nadal's prime (2008-2013) the h2h was 5-1 in matches and 12-6 in sets. Nadal will beat a peak/prime Federer any day of the week assuming he is himself in his peak/prime. Don't try to tangle this with Federer being the better player on outdoor hardcourts in general.

LOL, hilarious stuff from the delusional guy.
I mentioned only some matches, nowhere near all of the matches as your delusional self was yapping about.

lol, completely unrelated response after being owned big time. typical.

Ah, your timing is impeccable, right on queue. Here comes the "I am more objective and not as bias as you because that is what my brain is telling me" phase. Joy

 

[abmk]

Haha, no. On clay, and outdoor hardcourt mate. The evidence does not favour your opinion there. Of course you have your "mental block," "not clutch enough," and a vast variety of other excuses in defense of the 8-6 in matches and 25-19 in sets. But excuses from fanboys are not enough to offset that difference
From 2004-2009 (during Federer's prime) the h2h on outdoor hardcourts was 3-1 in matches and 9-6 in sets in favour of Nadal, despite the fact Nadal was only 18-21 years old. During Nadal's prime (2008-2013) the h2h was 5-1 in matches and 12-6 in sets. Nadal will beat a peak/prime Federer any day of the week assuming he is himself in his peak/prime. Don't try to tangle this with Federer being the better player on outdoor hardcourts in general.

Miami 04 - fed was sick. its irrelevant to a prime to prime to prime matchup.
Nadal played pretty well in Miami 05 and Dubai 06 , even if they weren't prime years for him.
Reverse for Federer in IW 12 for example.
IW 13 and Cincy 13 are irrelevant to a prime to prime matchup as well. injury affected year for federer+he was actually injured in IW13.
the result would be flipped in any other year at Cincy.

they've had 5 matches where both played well enough - Miami 05, Dubai 06, AO 09, AO 12 and AO 17.
Its 3-2 to Nadal. Given more matches , over a better spread and minus the mental block generated due to clay, Federer would have the edge.

If we're including a match in a prime year where neither player was sick/injured, you could throw in IW 12 as well.
Nadal didn't play well, but it was in a prime year for him.

only someone ignorant or with an agenda would count matches like Miami 04, IW 13 or Cincy 13 for a prime to prime matchup.

If federer minus a half-decent serve was the better player in AO 09 vs the best version of Nadal over the first 4 sets, he'd have the edge at the AO if he actually had his serve working.

@ the bold part : LAWL, LAWL, LAWL. ignorance, arrogance and delusion - nice combo.

If I had to choose, prime to prime , in their matchup:
AO : Fed
IW : Fed
Miami : Nadal (and this is with federer winning in Miami 3 times as opposed to 0 times for Nadal)
Montreal : Nadal, Toronto : Fed
Cincy : Fed
USO : Fed

Ah, your timing is impeccable, right on queue. Here comes the "I am more objective and not as bias as you because that is what my brain is telling me" phase. Joy

lol, no response to getting owned throughly, completely to this part.

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23."

my response in that part didn't have to do with objectivity or bias. Just plain reality.
your coverup or diversion won't work.

 

[sbengte]

Of course he can.

Of course he will play, And beat Catelic , MateroK, Gargil , Bentomen, Gobbledygook , Gasquet, Raonic to win his third Wimby.

 

[RS]

Nadal beat Federer at AO in 2009 and 2012 and 2014. He gets a edge at AO to me as does Djokovic.

 

[Julian Houston]

Nadal? He will be probably out by R3 or R4. Return position and age slow down his grass movement. Even if he get to QF I'm confident Cilic or Potro will take him to cleaners.

 

[Jonas78]

Sure will. Bet your house on It.

 

[Julian Houston]

A 30-31 year old Nadal who can no longer run like a rabbit all day long which makes all the difference.

2017 Fed would have not defeated 2009 or 2012 Nadal at AO (especially in slow conditions), new BH and all.

Hard to say, I believe AO is still the same. It can be Fedr broke through wall pushing tactics with new style and racquet.

Even Rafa feels wall pushing is useless post-2016.

 

[Jonas78]

I'd only favour 1 player over him in a Final or a Semi-Final.

Dustin probably wont reach the final.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Dustin probably wont reach the final.

 

[ADuck]

Miami 04 - fed was sick. its irrelevant to a prime to prime to prime matchup.
Nadal played pretty well in Miami 05 and Dubai 06 , even if they weren't prime years for him.
Reverse for Federer in IW 12 for example.
IW 13 and Cincy 13 are irrelevant to a prime to prime matchup as well. injury affected year for federer+he was actually injured in IW13.
the result would be flipped in any other year at Cincy.

they've had 5 matches where both played well enough - Miami 05, Dubai 06, AO 09, AO 12 and AO 17.
Its 3-2 to Nadal. Given more matches , over a better spread and minus the mental block generated due to clay, Federer would have the edge.

only someone ignorant or with an agenda would count matches like Miami 04, IW 13 or Cincy 13 for a prime to prime matchup.

If federer minus a half-decent serve was the better player in AO 09 vs the best version of Nadal over the first 4 sets, he'd have the edge at the AO if he actually had his serve working.

@ the bold part : LAWL, LAWL, LAWL.

Annnnnd, the excuses are piling up! Ladies and gentleman! The mind of a Federer fanboy right here! In other news, Nadal is unbeatable when healthy.
In those 5 matches where you deem both have played well, two is where Nadal is not in his prime nor full fitness yet. A more experienced Nadal would've closed that Miami match in 3. Also AO 17 is off the list because there's no way we can count that as Nadal's prime, you could say post-prime Federer beats a post-prime Nadal, but that's not relevant to this conversation. Therefore it's still 3-0 even if I pretend for a moment I'm living in your skewed reality. Once more I see you making excuses for Federer in 2009, when Nadal was the one who just had to play a 5-hour 5-set match the round before. Nadal was actually visibly more sluggish in that final match (was not running to balls he would normally would have been, pushing off the ground less powerfully), but despite that he still won, take from that what you will. The evidence is there plain as day for any normal, reasonable and objective person to look at.

lol, no response to getting owned throughly, completely to this part.

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23."

your coverup or diversion won't work.

There's no diversion or cover-up needed on my part, you've made excuses for most of Nadal's victories over Federer, but almost none so far for Nadal. The only diversion is being done by you by trying to label me as biased. Actually your whole argument is just one big diversion from the H2H! Lmao at you saying "diversion." The conversations I have with you are never thoughtful or productive, perhaps it's better if you keep yourself huddled away with your comrades where my opinions cannot hurt you? Because it's clear the agitation level is rising.

 

[Jonas78]

If the stars align, like USO17, it could happen again.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

For me, the greater part of Federer's problem vs Nadal was Fed's weaker mentality vs Nadal and Fed's stubbornness and refusal to change a few key things in his game and do it consistently vs Nadal. In 2008 and 2009 Federer was still in his prime, winning slams, making all the slam finals so using the age excuse at that point is stupid IMO. If you want to use the age excuse post-2010 in part to explain Fed's losses to Nadal or Djokovic, I'm on board with that.

The win loss record against the FIELD (meaning tom dick and harry, not Nadalovic) is demonstrably worse in 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007 which was already off 2006 levels. Please, what does Nadal have tp do with Fed suddenly losing to Canas, Blake, Fish? Other than USO 2008, I wouldn't say his slam winning campaigns of that period were that amazing anyway. Struggled like never before to beat Roddick. Nadal's injury as well as Djokovic losing form after winning AO 2008 allowed Fed to eke out a few slams but even Wimbledon 2012 is imo a much stronger slam campaign than any of those 4 slams. Takes a player time to adjust after losing his prime. That is not an excuse. We saw Nadal go through a slump and he has still not fully worked out a viable HC gameplan. Djokovic still hasn't sorted it out nor has Murray. If anything, you are penalizing Fed for his adaptability which masked his decline better than in the case of the other Big Four guys.

 

[abmk]

Annnnnd, the excuses are piling up! Ladies and gentleman! The mind of a Federer fanboy right here! In other news, Nadal is unbeatable when healthy.
In those 5 matches where you deem both have played well, two is where Nadal is not in his prime nor full fitness yet. A more experienced Nadal would've closed that Miami match in 3. Also AO 17 is off the list because there's no way we can count that as Nadal's prime, you could say post-prime Federer beats a post-prime Nadal, but that's not relevant to this conversation. Therefore it's still 3-0 even if I pretend for a moment I'm living in your skewed reality. Once more I see you making excuses for Federer in 2009, when Nadal was the one who just had to play a 5-hour 5-set match the round before. Nadal was actually visibly more sluggish in that final match (was not running to balls he would normally would have been, pushing off the ground less powerfully), but despite that he still won, take from that what you will. The evidence is there plain as day for any normal, reasonable and objective person to look at.

Fed clutched out that 3rd set in Miami 05. Nadal didn't lose it.
AO 12 will also be thrown out of the list , since AO 12 was post prime Federer.
Nadal wasn't visibly sluggish in AO 09 final. he made some really insane gets. there were 1 or 2 points in set 4 where commentators started saying Nadal was maybe getting a little tired, but he came up with insane defense in the rally of the match to get to BP at 1-2 Federer. That was Nadal's best AO and he played his best tennis in that final.
He was actually hitting better/being more aggressive in the final than in the SF vs Verdasco where he was defending even better.

I'm stating that Federer served like cr*p in that final, that's not an excuse, that's an observation.
it was prime fed, but not peak. whereas it was absolute peak Nadal.

Strictly speaking, prime to prime, they had only one match on HC, which could have gone either way.

There's no diversion or cover-up needed on my part, you've made excuses for most of Nadal's victories over Federer, but almost none so far for Nadal. The only diversion is being done by you by trying to label me as biased. Actually your whole argument is just one big diversion from the H2H! Lmao at you saying "diversion." The conversations I have with you are never thoughtful or productive, perhaps it's better if you keep yourself huddled away with your comrades where my opinions cannot hurt you? Because it's clear the agitation level is rising.

yeah, that's because Nadal wasn't injured/sick in any of his matches vs federer.
not giving much weightage to Basel 2015 match in Nadal's worst year is fair game, but that's about it.

Whenever he was in injured/sick in general (&completed the match), I've mentioned it in the past : AO 11 QF vs Ferrer, USO 07 vs Ferrer, Rotterdam 2009 final vs Murray, AO 14 final vs Stan, abdominal problem in USO 09, doha 11 vs davydenko etc.
I've defended his MTO vs delpo in Wim 11.

My point was about this anyways.

" Nadal was the only player who could beat Federer even when he was playing extremely well. That demoralized Federer. Perhaps it is responsible for one or two losses, but not 23"

but you don't have the guts to accept you were wrong here, do you ?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Nah. IMO the Federer win over Nadal at the AO 2017 was more a consequence of Federer being absent from the tour for six months and being able to focus on and put together a winning gameplan vs Nadal and to execute it by not giving up that plan even if he missed a bunch of shots which is what he used to do. By being away and skipping playing clay vs Nadal it also helped him with the mental part.

There's a long Quora answer written by coach Lon Shapiro showing how Nadal's forehands actually kicked up higher in the sets he won in the AO final. Ergo, Nadal reverted to old faithful and won easily. You just can't get on top of those above shoulder height forehands with your backhand, neo backhand or not. But when Nadal played his new Moya strategy of attacking, low trajectory forehands, the new backhand helped Fed attack harder. By set 5, Nadal was simply too exhausted and couldn't 'moonball' his way out of trouble. Again, Fed's attitude did make a difference but only to the extent that he would have STILL lost to olddal without the change in mentality. But in 2012, against a stronger Nadal and on a grittier surface, neither mentality nor neo backhand would have made much difference. Consider that Fed paid heavily for one or two bad games in that match. In 2017, he let his level drop for two whole sets and still won. You are overrating his mentality and not like he was a snowflake mentally earlier either.