Can Nadal win Wimbledon one more time?

ADuck

Hall of Fame
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.
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.



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 ?
The pile of excuses grow and grow every time you post, this is too tiring sifting through them all. I'm sorry, i'm not reading whatever you posted just now. It's just regurgitation at this point. Adios, i'm done here, didn't make one post to engage in another ****-fest of excuse-making with you.
 

Freddy Cat

Professional
While it's very easy to dismiss Nadal (I still don't think he'll have another shot at Wimbledon), all the people he's lost to since 2012 were no typical players... they were either putting up a best ever performance, or just playing extremely clean grass-court tennis. I think that the way his opponents were playing could have given absolutely any player a hard time -- and that Nadal's gotten fairly unlucky in that regard. If there's a place you're going to run into a journeyman who will create some magic out of the blue, it's Wimbledon.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
While it's very easy to dismiss Nadal (I still don't think he'll have another shot at Wimbledon), all the people he's lost to since 2012 were no typical players... they were either putting up a best ever performance, or just playing extremely clean grass-court tennis. I think that the way his opponents were playing could have given absolutely any player a hard time -- and that Nadal's gotten fairly unlucky in that regard. If there's a place you're going to run into a journeyman who will create some magic out of the blue, it's Wimbledon.
Last year shows he can still do it. He has to stand closer to the baseline though, the Muller match was so winnable it's ridic
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The pile of excuses grow and grow every time you post, this is too tiring sifting through them all. I'm sorry, i'm not reading whatever you posted just now. It's just regurgitation at this point. Adios, i'm done here, didn't make one post to engage in another ****-fest of excuse-making with you.
And yet again, being so cowardly........

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"

response:

"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."

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

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

and of course the rest of it is your delusional, biased self .
I answered your question about "excuses" for Nadal.
But you couldn't do anything with the answer, so now, avoiding respondning to that.

and Nadal was visibly sluggish in AO 09 final ? LOL ..........that was his best AO and that final was among his 3 best matches at the AO (vs an atleast decent opponent ) --- AO 09 SF/F, AO 12 SF

the kind of sh*t you bring up is hilarious...

Nadal was visibly sluggish in AO 09 final, he was terrible in Cincy 2013 vs federer.... LOL !!!!!
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Last year shows he can still do it. He has to stand closer to the baseline though, the Muller match was so winnable it's ridic
He's not comfortable returning from there. Even against Fed at IW, he was backing off in the later stages of the match. That said, not everyone can capitalise on it the way Muller did. Most players rely heavily on a kick serve which works in Nadal's favour. Muller has a wicked slice serve which both keeps low and also goes either down the T or out wide. Even Cilic beat him only with great difficulty.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
He has an actual chance
Djokovic and Murray are far from their best.
Federer could be met only in the F and if he reaches Sunday it usually means that he is in great shape
Cilic, Del Po, Raonic and Dimitrov have mental problems vs Rafa
The "new" guys - Kyrgios, Zverev, Gofffin and Thiem lack Grand Slam success and most notably lack Wimbledon experience.

Nadal needs to overcome the collective ego that he is "vulnerable" in the first week - by believing it, people give their best against him while at RG you see the opposite effect, people dont believe that they have a chance. If Nadal reaches QF and sees some familiar face to boost his confidence with a big win, its his tournament to be lost. Somehow I dont feel the vibe about Federer this year
But I think last year changed the dynamics in their H2H to a point where Federer will beat Nadal on grass no matter how both players’ form was during the upcoming days. It’s exactly the opposite to the 10 years before (at least when they played outdoors). If Federer gets upset before the final and Nadal is in it, Nadal will win though.

Cilic could only beat Rafa before the final, but I have a feeling that he won’t make it very far at all this time. What you said about the other players should be completely true. I would rather say Nadal loses to total nobody again than to the likes of Thiem and Zverev.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
And yet again, being so cowardly........

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"

response:

"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."

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

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

and of course the rest of it is your delusional, biased self .
I answered your question about "excuses" for Nadal.
But you couldn't do anything with the answer, so now, avoiding respondning to that.

and Nadal was visibly sluggish in AO 09 final ? LOL ..........that was his best AO and that final was among his 3 best matches at the AO (vs an atleast decent opponent ) --- AO 09 SF/F, AO 12 SF

the kind of sh*t you bring up is hilarious...

Nadal was visibly sluggish in AO 09 final, he was terrible in Cincy 2013 vs federer.... LOL !!!!!
Sorry, but I never intended to argue with you in the first place, it was you who first replied to me anyway. I guess I just don't have the stamina for this kind of sh*t-fest like you do. Notice how I've been trying to keep my posting short and simple and to the point? But with you the replies get too long.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sorry, but I never intended to argue with you in the first place, it was you who first replied to me anyway. I guess I just don't have the stamina for this kind of sh*t-fest like you do
forget arguing part for a second.
you don't even the guts to admit when you have been proven completely wrong.

and yes , I responded to your post to cut through your BS and wrong statements.

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),":

you were the one who brought in the excuses stuff first and made a deliberately provocative post.

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? :rolleyes: Wait.. or was it bad back? mono? old? injured? sick?"
Now that you've gotten beaten in the argument, you want to back away saying you don't want to argue ? LOL, ha ha.

re : number of posts. lol, are you that desparate ? :D
I've been on TTW for more than 10 years.
and I actually watch many matches of many players/comment on them and know about them, Unlike your very limited viewing of other players' matches , BS over-hyping of Nadal and ignorance of other players. ;)
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
What does Federer suddenly losing to Canas(Canas was always a tough match-up for Federer; tennis is about match-ups), Blake, etc. have to do with Federer's match up specifically with Nadal? Nadal was a tough match-up for Federer from day one. Federer lost to infant Nadal on hc at Miami 2004(yes, I know Federer was ill.) Federer lost to Nadal in 2006 in Dubai. In their very first Wimbledon match in 2006, Nadal(the clay specialist)took the grass GOAT to four sets.

Trying to paint Federer as some type of invalid in 2008 and 2009 when he was still in his prime and made 7 out of 8 slam finals in those two years and won 3 of those slams is simply idiotic IMO. From 2010 on when Federer was past his prime, I totally agree with you that Nadal and Djokovic were able to take advantage of the age difference at that point. But prior to 2010, any excuses for Federer's losses to Nadal by Federer fanatics sound inane IMO and I'm truly embarrassed to be a Federer fan when I see those type of arguments from Federer fanatics. I'm also embarrassed by the constant foolishness by many Nadal fanatics. Don't people ever get tired of these Fedal fans wars?(and I say that as somebody who has participated in them.)

Nadal had the perfect game plan to beat Federer and Federer didn't commit to making adjustments to combat Nadal(not lasting adjustments) for over a decade. On top of that, those early and repeated clay beatdowns did a number on Fed's psyche when things transferred to off clay surfaces. All players, even players as great as Federer, have weaknesses and like it or not, Nadal was Federer's Achilles heel. Credit to Federer for being able to achieve what he did and have the greater slam record(thus far), slam distribution, record weeks @#1, etc. and become the greatest of all time while having to deal with his biggest vulnerability in his career(Nadal.)
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with you on that. But regardless, prime Federer shouldn't have lost W 2008 and AO 2009 to Nadal IMO. Thankfully, Federer doesn't give a flying fig about our opinions on a tennis forum and he's happily known as the GOAT by the majority of people. :cool:
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
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!
He was obviously trying to work on the game plan with Ljubicic to beat Nadal during his absence, i.e. by flattening out his backhand and committing to that shot throughout a match vs Nadal. He's even talked about it. He had to try something different because he was spinning his wheels vs Nadal before. Same script over and over.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
While it's very easy to dismiss Nadal (I still don't think he'll have another shot at Wimbledon), all the people he's lost to since 2012 were no typical players... they were either putting up a best ever performance, or just playing extremely clean grass-court tennis. I think that the way his opponents were playing could have given absolutely any player a hard time -- and that Nadal's gotten fairly unlucky in that regard. If there's a place you're going to run into a journeyman who will create some magic out of the blue, it's Wimbledon.
Come on, man. That's not true and you know it. Nadal's lost the plot at Wimbledon for the past six years. You can't sensibly try to discount all of that. Can he win it again with Djokovic out of sorts and the younger players still not seasoned enough? Maybe but he'd have to have an impeccable draw because there are so many players who can disassemble his game on that surface. If he can make it to the second week, he could have a slight chance depending on who else makes it to that second week.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Come on, man. That's not true and you know it. Nadal's lost the plot at Wimbledon for the past six years. You can't sensibly try to discount all of that. Can he win it again with Djokovic out of sorts and the younger players still not seasoned enough? Maybe but he'd have to have an impeccable draw because there are so many players who can disassemble his game on that surface. If he can make it to the second week, he could have a slight chance depending on who else makes it to that second week.
No one will admit that Nadal overplays during the clay season. When he was very young, he could recuperate, but now he can't. He did it again this year.

Nadal did not have to win so many tournaments. He could have played just two, maximum, before RG. But he was also in two hard DC matches.

It's not just grass. If you look at his level carefully, he was absolutely incredible in the first half of the clay season, but he got weaker. How could it be otherwise at his age?

The result was that he might have lost RG, because if Thiem had put more pressure on him the 3rd set, it is quite possible he would have lost the next two sets if the cramp in this hand got out of control.

Nadal was gassed in the final, but he was close enough to the finish to make it over the line.

And now he can't play a tune-up. That's not grass. That's pure BS. That's exhaustion from over-playing on clay, and he does it every year.

There is NO conclusive evidence I've seen that Nadal is SO much weaker on grass than on HCs that he simply can't win on it. It may be true, but it may not be. What is clear is that he loses to players on grass he should not lose to. For sure using clay-court return tactics on grass is not the best strategy, but the deciding factor is that he goes into Wimbledon with a half-empty tank.

Who in heaven's name can possibly believe he will be ready for Wimbledon this year, even if he somehow is even able to play, when he is hinting that doctor's have told him more play is dangerous right now?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
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.
Yep, it's like people don't know what they're watching. It's perplexing to me when I'm still mainly hearing about his speed and stamina when Nadal is so aggressive these days even off the BH wing, Heck this FO he hit more DTL BHs than I've ever seen him do.

I agree, Nadal's new aggressive style of play under Murray suits Fed far more because well, that's his bread and butter, a fast pace match suits him far more.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Come on, man. That's not true and you know it. Nadal's lost the plot at Wimbledon for the past six years. You can't sensibly try to discount all of that. Can he win it again with Djokovic out of sorts and the younger players still not seasoned enough? Maybe but he'd have to have an impeccable draw because there are so many players who can disassemble his game on that surface. If he can make it to the second week, he could have a slight chance depending on who else makes it to that second week.
Yeah, it nonsense. 2012 Rosol played an amazing match and could have been a handful for everyone but that's about it, the rest of those guys would have been haindled routinely by any of Fed, Novak and Murray in solid form.

Even in his peak/prime days on grass (when he was much younger) Nadal used to struggle with grass journeymen in the first week, that's mostly unique to him. He just used to win all those matches (compared to losing all of them since 2012) because he was younger and faster, more athletic and his body recovered better from his packed schedule during the CC season.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
No one will admit that Nadal overplays during the clay season. When he was very young, he could recuperate, but now he can't. He did it again this year.

Nadal did not have to win so many tournaments. He could have played just two, maximum, before RG. But he was also in two hard DC matches.

It's not just grass. If you look at his level carefully, he was absolutely incredible in the first half of the clay season, but he got weaker. How could it be otherwise at his age?

The result was that he might have lost RG, because if Thiem had put more pressure on him the 3rd set, it is quite possible he would have lost the next two sets if the cramp in this hand got out of control.

Nadal was gassed in the final, but he was close enough to the finish to make it over the line.

And now he can't play a tune-up. That's not grass. That's pure BS. That's exhaustion from over-playing on clay, and he does it every year.

There is NO conclusive evidence I've seen that Nadal is SO much weaker on grass than on HCs that he simply can't win on it. It may be true, but it may not be. What is clear is that he loses to players on grass he should not lose to. For sure using clay-court return tactics on grass is not the best strategy, but the deciding factor is that he goes into Wimbledon with a half-empty tank.

Who in heaven's name can possibly believe he will be ready for Wimbledon this year, even if he somehow is even able to play, when he is hinting that doctor's have told him more play is dangerous right now?
You may be right. He was able to play okay last year though. I think the difference is first and foremost the ability to push off the ground when reacting to his opponent's shot. Whether his decline in that ability is because of the long and arduous clay season or just because he's older now I don't know.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Yeah, it nonsense. 2012 Rosol played an amazing match and could have been a handful for everyone but that's about it, the rest of those guys would have been haindled routinely by any of Fed, Novak and Murray in solid form.

Even in his peak/prime days on grass (when he was much younger) Nadal used to struggle with grass journeymen in the first week, that's mostly unique to him. He just used to win all those matches (compared to losing all of them since 2012) because he was younger and faster, more athletic and his body recovered better from his packed schedule during the CC season.
I agree that with 2012 it was just Rosol playing way too good, but then all years since he's lost to players he shouldn't have.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
You may be right. He was able to play okay last year though. I think the difference is first and foremost the ability to push off the ground when reacting to his opponent's shot. Whether his decline in that ability is because of the long and arduous clay season or just because he's older now I don't know.
The thing is, if you believe something is true, it becomes true for you until something proves to you that this "right thing" is really wrong.

Is clay really worse on Fed's knees than other surfaces? Maybe. But just maybe his game is suited to fast surfaces, always has been, and that he has always struggled on clay RELATIVE to fast surfaces. His record on clay as a young player looks pretty impressive, but if you compare his stats, they were always weakest on clay. That's true if you filter out Nadal.

Is grass really all that bad for Nadal's knees? Maybe. But how can he know for sure when all he has ever done is to push into the grass season after battling through an incredibly long, hard clay season?

How can he know?

How much of Fed's struggles on clay and Nadal's on grass are purely physical, and now much are mental?

Without any doubt Fed is best on grass, Nadal is best on clay, and they both know their own strengths. The difference is that Fed can never come through Wimbledon utterly gassed every year because of playing three M1000s on grass plus an M500, all before Wimbledon. Yet Nadal did the equivalent again on clay this year, and he lead off with DC, then:

Monte Carlo
Barcelona
Madrid
Rome
RG

Unlike the earlier HC swing, happening after the AO, only TWO M1000s, which also space the matches over two weeks instead of one, the clay swing is basically 5 matches in a row starting on Wednesday. It's insane even for young players, but for aging players like Rafa, it's too much.

I admire his fighting spirit, but he's a stubborn man. What sense does it make to play a schedule like that after being injured and not being able to play earlier?

He does it to himself, and it happens every year. I suspect he is no more able to stop this insane schedule than he can stop his tics.

I'll bet Moya has been trying to get him to rest more. What do you think the chances are that he is listening?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I agree that with 2012 it was just Rosol playing way too good, but then all years since he's lost to players he shouldn't have.
Pretty much, Rosol was zoning like crazy, it was just one of those matches where a big hitter can't miss.

However Dustin Brown, Steve Darcis and even Kyrgios in 2014 I think was more due to Nadal than the opponent. Especially the match against Dustin Brown stuck in my mind, the guy was approaching on junk and getting away with it.

Nadal could have gone deeper last year, his serving throughout whole of 2017 was excellent and Moya made him play more aggressive off the ground which helped him transition better to grass.

What got him against Mueller (aside from the obvious things like a lefty all-courter with a great serve) is that he was a bunlde of nerves in the match. For me It's one of the worst mental performances I've seen from Nadal in a tight match.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Pretty much, Rosol was zoning like crazy, it was just one of those matches where a big hitter can't miss.

However Dustin Brown, Steve Darcis and even Kyrgios in 2014 I think was more due to Nadal than the opponent. Especially the match against Dustin Brown stuck in my mind, the guy was approaching on junk and getting away with it.

Nadal could have gone deeper last year, his serving throughout whole of 2017 was excellent and Moya made him play more aggressive off the ground which helped him transition better to grass.

What got him against Mueller (aside from the obvious things like a lefty all-courter with a great serve) is that he was a bunlde of nerves in the match. For me It's one of the worst mental performances I've seen from Nadal in a tight match.
Well, what do expect after what happened before they came out.



This one mistake by Nadal may have cost him the GOAT title forever....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
I agree that with 2012 it was just Rosol playing way too good, but then all years since he's lost to players he shouldn't have.
While Rosol indeed put an incredible performance (third set was phenomenal in particular, Nadal making only 1 UE and hit 6 winners but still lost the set), Nadal should not have lost that fifth set the way he did. When he got broken in his first service game in the fifth, with an absolutely horrible approach shot while being a break point down, I knew it wasn't Nadal of the same mentality (at least while playing on grass) from 2007-2011. He completely lost the confidence and the intensity in the last set, which was so untypical for a guy who used to be a master of those situations, who would always raise his game to another level and make his opponent surrender eventually. Since the Rosol defeat, he's lost every close match at Wimbledon. It seems that even a small decline in his athleticism (when he realized he wouldn't be able to chanse down every single ball with the success he'd had 5-6 years before) seriously shook his confidence.

So, I would say it's 50:50. Rosol played great, while Nadal was below his best on crucial points.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
The thing is, if you believe something is true, it becomes true for you until something proves to you that this "right thing" is really wrong.

Is clay really worse on Fed's knees than other surfaces? Maybe. But just maybe his game is suited to fast surfaces, always has been, and that he has always struggled on clay RELATIVE to fast surfaces. His record on clay as a young player looks pretty impressive, but if you compare his stats, they were always weakest on clay. That's true if you filter out Nadal.

Is grass really all that bad for Nadal's knees? Maybe. But how can he know for sure when all he has ever done is to push into the grass season after battling through an incredibly long, hard clay season?

How can he know?

How much of Fed's struggles on clay and Nadal's on grass are purely physical, and now much are mental?

Without any doubt Fed is best on grass, Nadal is best on clay, and they both know their own strengths. The difference is that Fed can never come through Wimbledon utterly gassed every year because of playing three M1000s on grass plus an M500, all before Wimbledon. Yet Nadal did the equivalent again on clay this year, and he lead off with DC, then:

Monte Carlo
Barcelona
Madrid
Rome
RG

Unlike the earlier HC swing, happening after the AO, only TWO M1000s, which also space the matches over two weeks instead of one, the clay swing is basically 5 matches in a row starting on Wednesday. It's insane even for young players, but for aging players like Rafa, it's too much.

I admire his fighting spirit, but he's a stubborn man. What sense does it make to play a schedule like that after being injured and not being able to play earlier?

He does it to himself, and it happens every year. I suspect he is no more able to stop this insane schedule than he can stop his tics.

I'll bet Moya has been trying to get him to rest more. What do you think the chances are that he is listening?
In my mind, Moya was somewhat the reason Rafa withdrew from IW and Miami. I'm guessing Rafa thought after that "well, if I'm going to skip those 2, I'm not gonna miss a single clay-court tournament." And here we are. I think Uncle Toni wanted to get Rafa to do a lot of things as well but Rafa was too stubborn. Of course this is all conjecture on my part. We'll find out this year post-USO if Rafa is listening to him at all, and again next year's clay season.
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Hall of Fame
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.
I watched him play and he was poised to win and he would have won against Federer in the final imo. I had never seen him more physically fit. Injuries hapen, esp. to Rafa, and that was imo the only reason he didn't win that year. His mental lapse the year before was the most disappointing tennis match ever for me.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.

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.

In other news, Nadal is unbeatable when healthy.
Your reply is unsubstantiated. Nadal wouldn't win the majority vs Fed on outdoor HC. They only played 1 match prime for prome and it could have gone either way and they never played at the USO.

So I wouldn't criticize others given your poor reply.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I watched him play and he was poised to win and he would have won against Federer in the final imo. I had never seen him more physically fit. Injuries hapen, esp. to Rafa, and that was imo the only reason he didn't win that year. His mental lapse the year before was the most disappointing tennis match ever for me.
What was the game plan going to be for Nadal to beat Federer on a fast low bouncing hard court? Interested to know, since no one else has the answer, perhaps you do?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I watched him play and he was poised to win and he would have won against Federer in the final imo. I had never seen him more physically fit. Injuries hapen, esp. to Rafa, and that was imo the only reason he didn't win that year. His mental lapse the year before was the most disappointing tennis match ever for me.
His level wasn't high enough to win. It took him 4 hours to beat Schwartzman on a fast court. That wasn't going to get it done vs Fed.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is a wrong one.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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 :D
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.


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 :p
Aha, a 2011-2013 Federer is prime/peak...

Nadal wouldn't win the majority on outdoor HC. The H2H is just 5-4 Nadal on outdoor HC since 2010.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Hit to the backhand?

:D
Yes, with the match happening indoors, Nadal was a shoe in to win the match and the title...

I can imagine the hysteria if Nadal was in that final, it taking place indoors in it's entirety. An indoor low bouncing hard court...yeah, can see how that would go down with some folks. Federer would have blitzed Nadal under those conditions.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
What does Federer suddenly losing to Canas(Canas was always a tough match-up for Federer; tennis is about match-ups), Blake, etc. have to do with Federer's match up specifically with Nadal? Nadal was a tough match-up for Federer from day one. Federer lost to infant Nadal on hc at Miami 2004(yes, I know Federer was ill.) Federer lost to Nadal in 2006 in Dubai. In their very first Wimbledon match in 2006, Nadal(the clay specialist)took the grass GOAT to four sets.

Trying to paint Federer as some type of invalid in 2008 and 2009 when he was still in his prime and made 7 out of 8 slam finals in those two years and won 3 of those slams is simply idiotic IMO. From 2010 on when Federer was past his prime, I totally agree with you that Nadal and Djokovic were able to take advantage of the age difference at that point. But prior to 2010, any excuses for Federer's losses to Nadal by Federer fanatics sound inane IMO and I'm truly embarrassed to be a Federer fan when I see those type of arguments from Federer fanatics. I'm also embarrassed by the constant foolishness by many Nadal fanatics. Don't people ever get tired of these Fedal fans wars?(and I say that as somebody who has participated in them.)

Nadal had the perfect game plan to beat Federer and Federer didn't commit to making adjustments to combat Nadal(not lasting adjustments) for over a decade. On top of that, those early and repeated clay beatdowns did a number on Fed's psyche when things transferred to off clay surfaces. All players, even players as great as Federer, have weaknesses and like it or not, Nadal was Federer's Achilles heel. Credit to Federer for being able to achieve what he did and have the greater slam record(thus far), slam distribution, record weeks @#1, etc. and become the greatest of all time while having to deal with his biggest vulnerability in his career(Nadal.)
Yes, it would be idiotic but I didn't say that. For someone who loves to boast about his objectivity (always an indication of lack of self awareness), you sure don't think twice before putting words in the mouths of those you argue with. Er, the fact that Fed suddenly began to lose to players he beat very handily shows that his level had dropped quite noticeably from 2006. Too bad that it doesn't fit your pet theory and therefore you must now proceed to characterise those who disagree with you as foolish fanatics or whatever. Suit yourself.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with you on that. But regardless, prime Federer shouldn't have lost W 2008 and AO 2009 to Nadal IMO. Thankfully, Federer doesn't give a flying fig about our opinions on a tennis forum and he's happily known as the GOAT by the majority of people. :cool:
Why so when Nadal did push him to five sets already at Wimbledon 2007? Objectivity my foot! The thing is many Fed fans like you hate to give credit to Nadal. You just cannot accept that by 2008-09 Nadal had grown into his peak at the same time that Fed was falling off his own. You have to make it all out like it was totally Fed's fault for losing and nothing to do with how good Nadal was at that point. Because of Fed's style of playing and the many more options he gives himself, he has aged better than Nadal and is finally in a position to turn the tables on him. But when Nadal was in his prime, the only thing Fed could have possibly done to turn around the match up was learn a double handed backhand. And it was too late for that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
While it's very easy to dismiss Nadal (I still don't think he'll have another shot at Wimbledon), all the people he's lost to since 2012 were no typical players... they were either putting up a best ever performance, or just playing extremely clean grass-court tennis. I think that the way his opponents were playing could have given absolutely any player a hard time -- and that Nadal's gotten fairly unlucky in that regard. If there's a place you're going to run into a journeyman who will create some magic out of the blue, it's Wimbledon.
Nah, Fed wouldn't have lost to Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Kyrgios and Muller. All this talk of Nadal simply running into hot opponents needs to stop. He makes them look hot.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Your reply is unsubstantiated. Nadal wouldn't win the majority vs Fed on outdoor HC. They only played 1 match prime for prome and it could have gone either way and they never played at the USO.

So I wouldn't criticize others given your poor reply.
He would. Sorry, but the evidence is there, and excuses about Federer's form in previous matches by his fanboys are the only defense for 3-1 h2h during Fed's prime and the 5-1 h2h during Nadal's prime.
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
I think it’s interesting that Borg reached his last Wimbledon final aged 25 and Rafa also reached his last aged 25. Yes, I know Borg retired after USO 1981, but still i think he would have followed the same course as Rafa has faced since 2011 and not reached another final at Wimbledon even if he did play on post 1981.
 
He would. Sorry, but the evidence is there, and excuses about Federer's form in previous matches by his fanboys are the only defense for 3-1 h2h during Fed's prime and the 5-1 h2h during Nadal's prime.
Nadal doesn't have a win in a best of 5 on HC in Federer's peak.

:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Aha, a 2011-2013 Federer is prime/peak...

Nadal wouldn't win the majority on outdoor HC. The H2H is just 5-4 Nadal on outdoor HC since 2010.
Cherry picking at its finest. Never said that was Fed's prime, but in the interest of fairness we need to consider the h2h in both Fed and Nadal's prime. 2014 to present only accounts for post-prime Nadal and Fed which is not related to the argument.
 

hugobosstachini

Professional
@ 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.
This is utter nonsense and does not contradict what the poster said. The poster's definition is the good one regardless of surface. Mental blockage comes by the fact of losing repeatedly to someone even when you have the feeling that you have played your best. The accumulation of losses creates a mental barrier that the athlete perceives as insurmountable.

could also because the matchup prevents from playing close to your best
Which create losses hence mental blockage. You're not adding anything to the definition.

What you are intrinsically explaining is the reason for losing a match or multiple matches to a given player which can indeed be because of matchup issues or surface deficiencies. However, what creates mental blockage is an accumulation of losses to a same person over a large period of time.

The inverse is also true. Mental advantage is created when an athlete believes that his strategy and tactics are vastly superior to his opponent by empirical evidence of having defeated that person numerous times. This creates a physical and mental boost whenever these two players would meet.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
This is utter nonsense and does not contradict what the poster said. The poster's definition is the good one regardless of surface. Mental blockage comes by the fact of losing repeatedly to someone even when you have the feeling that you have played your best. The accumulation of losses creates a mental barrier that the athlete perceives as insurmountable.
yeah, it does contradict. it ain't good regardless of surface.
if they had played quite a bit indoors/fast HC earlier on and lesser on clay, there'd be no/less mental blockage.


Which create losses hence mental blockage. You're not adding anything to the definition.

What you are intrinsically explaining is the reason for losing a match or multiple matches to a given player which can indeed be because of matchup issues or surface deficiencies. However, what creates mental blockage is an accumulation of losses to a same person over a large period of time.
yes, I am. he said

" 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."

federer didn't necessarily feel that he was playing his best vs Nadal , nor was he actually doing so in quite a few of those losses.

Hence the part from me ..."could also because the matchup prevents from playing close to your best"

he was wrong on both counts and so are you.
 

hugobosstachini

Professional
if they had played quite a bit indoors/fast HC earlier on and lesser on clay, there'd be no/less mental blockage.
I'm not sure what you are issuing but basically your inference states that had they not played more on clay, then player X would have lost less to player Z. Therefore there would be no mental blockage.

In other words, for there to have mental blockage, there needs to have losses and they have to be accumulated over a period of time. Sooooo.... What's your contradiction? Unless you're just arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I can understand that a mental block can transfer from an environment or surface to another, if that's what you are stating but how true that is, is up for you prove.

federer didn't necessarily feel that he was playing his best vs Nadal
The same can be said for Nadal. Feeling is entirely subjective. You can beat someone 20 times without necessarily having had the feeling that you played your best [attitude that is very common with perfectionists]. So to me this does not add any additional depth to the ongoing discussion. More, I don't the point trying to be made.
 

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Dear Nadal devotee. WHY are you posting random images that have NOTHING TO DO with the thread?

Nadal devottees only wish that Federer is INJURED so that he won't be healthy to face Rafa.
Hmm. Fed devotee, I wonder why you are posting in Rafa's thread?
 
Top