Spencer Gore
Legend
All three are great fighters. You don't get 16+ slams without a great fighting spirit.
Down 0-2 in Sets in Grand Slams - Federer and Nadal
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Not even Federer can serve like me.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
He came back again from two sets down at Wimbledon 2010 against Petzschner
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Oh yeah, that match...
DSH
Bionic Poster
4th Round.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
That match is the single reason why I rate his 2008 Wimbledon run higher than his 2010 run.
And also the match against Haase but whatever
DSH
Bionic Poster
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I posted that six years ago! Holding someone's old words against them must be some kind of logical fallacy, as I might have changed my mind in the years since I wrote it.
On a serious note, you may well be right that my interpretation - claiming that the OP was insufficiently parsimonious in his/her interpretation was itself insufficiently parsimonious. Certainly, your interpretation is more parsimonious, although perhaps a fully parsimonious account would go even further and say it only indicates that he has less often come back from 0-2 than Federer, as he might be perfectly capable of doing so were he 0-2 behind more often.
I think I had in mind that Nadal usually wins Roland Garros without going to five sets and, indeed, that at that time he had never gone to five sets at the US Open in his title winning runs. In fact, only in this year's US Open final did he finally get pushed to five sets in a title winning run.
As for Federer: he definitely digs in when behind, but, as this year's Wimbledon showed, he can get nervous when ahead.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, 3R. Youzhny hurt his back though, so that one is better swept under the rug :0
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Aye. Though it was more the fourth/fifth (forget when) set antics that rubbed me up the wrong way.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He is a fighter, he is just not that great of a finisher.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was 1-2, not 0-2.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Muller FTW.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
What does this even mean? Why not be "fair" to every other tennis player who is down 0-2 in sets and use the same "rationale" (heavy quotations). How about Novak at the USO in 2011 when he was down 0-2 in sets to Roger and was surely battling a brutally pro-Fed crowd and still came back to win the match, being down MP's.
Every single player who comes back from 0-2 in sets is battling the elements and their opponent. It's not something exclusive to Rafa.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
What is the percentage of loses for each after having match point? 
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Adding to Novak's losses I think he retired in at least some of those scenarios, like Wawrinka at the USO this year.
It's nice Fed leads in this stat but his MPs lost really counter.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Two of those losses were retirements. Djokovic will retire but he almost never gives a walkover, only once in his career, and is the least likely to do. Federer is the least likely to retire.
Yea Federer has come back in matches from 2 sets to love down the most often and then at the same time, relinquished leads from 2 sets up the most.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
2 out of 22 is pretty pathetic for someone regarded as the greatest fighter ever. I guess the nadal likes to apply his fighting qualities selectively.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I think it's the other way round. Federer and Djokovic rarely get pushed to 5 sets by noobs like Nadal does. I mean how many times has it happened to Nadal at Wimbledon that some no name pushed him to 5 sets?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
You join @Sport as being the second person this week to ask me about comments I made six years ago! As he will tell you, I am not a fan of Nadal. What I meant was that Nadal has rarely (never, I think, unless I am forgetting some early Davis cup match or MS 1000 final) been down 2-0 on clay so all the times he has been 2-0 down, it was on a surface not his favorite. Whether that makes a difference or not, I am not now sure. But Novak was on his favorite surface at the 2011 US Open.
van_Loederen
Professional
2 things to consider:
1. 'comeback' means that you didn't play at your best at first.
2. 'fight' is not the main reason for combacks. you need to improve technically.
...he indeed always seems to be very focused from the first point, but i assume that's just his demeanor. i mean, what would it mean otherwise? that veteran ATGs like Feder or DJ could actually be better if they raised their adrenalin release on court?
1. 'comeback' means that you didn't play at your best at first.
2. 'fight' is not the main reason for combacks. you need to improve technically.
very true, but his playstyle is not as complex and dependent on accuracy as that of Feder or DJ, which makes it (not easy but) easier for him to be close to 100% from the start.
...he indeed always seems to be very focused from the first point, but i assume that's just his demeanor. i mean, what would it mean otherwise? that veteran ATGs like Feder or DJ could actually be better if they raised their adrenalin release on court?
or Borg 
D
Deleted member 763691
Guest
It depends on who you are playing 
Being down 2 sets vs. weak players or being down 2 sets vs. strong players, completely different.
Being down 2 sets vs. weak players or being down 2 sets vs. strong players, completely different.
D
Deleted member 763691
Guest
Plus 2011 was the year when Rafa's confidence (vs. Djokovic) was shot, and Rafa was mostly going crosscourt and that led to the insanely long rallies which made it impossible for Rafa to come back without being dead tired.
When Rafa is confident at the US Open he goes down-the-line regularly, and Djokovic has no chance of beating that (2010 and 2013) version of Rafa at the US Open
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Then he lost to Fognini from 2 sets up.
The clutch factor really declined after 2013 which is why he's lost so often to Fedovic.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Federer / 9-28 = 24.3%
Djokovic / 4-22 = 15.4%
Nadal / 2-20 = 9.1%
Federer = total 37 times
Djokovic = total 26 times
Nadal = total 22 times
Working off the stats given by other posters earlier on the thread, it's kinda difficult to say that Federer and Djokovic rarely get pushed to 5 sets when they've been pushed to 5 more times than Nadal has, noobs or not. You can narrow it down to just Wimbledon if you like, but I don't think it's as significant as you think besides that Nadal has sucked on grass from 2012-2017, which we all know. But to Nadal's credit, he hasn't been in that situation at all on clay, whereas Federer and Djokovic have been in similar situations on all three surfaces.
The way I see it, Djokovic and Federer's bread and butter game in autopilot mode don't have a tendency to groove their opponents in a way Nadal's does. With Nadal his bread and butter game while in autopilot mode, together with his more conservative style of play when things aren't working, ends up grooving his opponent who then finds the ability to hit winners left right and centre.
Plus, Federer has his serve and slice, and Djokovic has his ROS, and as sabotaging shots neither of these are particularly conducive to helping an opponent get into a rhythm (to put it mildly). Nadal OTOH has the forehand, which is both a huge weapon and a sabotage shot (with the way it pulls people off the court and keeps the ball out of the strike zone the same way Federer's slice does, just with spin going the opposite direction). So if it's off it becomes a huge problem because it becomes a free drilling session. All the usual aspects of Nadal's counterpunching and offensive baselining won't work if that forehand isn't clicking.
Similar threads
