FEDAL No. 39 Preview

Your Hero

Professional
#1
Rafa WILL play. The pressure on him to play will be considerable.
He will ditch the pink disaster shirt though. You don't want to
quit during a match or play it out and lose badly in a thing like
that. You'll be doubly embarrassed.

My guess is Federer in straights at worst. If it's Fed, 4-0, and
Nads is in gimp a la mode mode, then a retirement will happen sooner
or later. Hopefully later for I do enjoy watching Rafa grimace. I
know you do as well. His pain makes us feel more alive and isn't
that what it's all about? Of course it is.

16-23 here we come!
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
#2
Rafa WILL play. The pressure on him to play will be considerable.
He will ditch the pink disaster shirt though. You don't want to
quit during a match or play it out and lose badly in a thing like
that. You'll be doubly embarrassed.

My guess is Federer in straights at worst. If it's Fed, 4-0, and
Nads is in gimp a la mode mode, then a retirement will happen sooner
or later. Hopefully later for I do enjoy watching Rafa grimace. I
know you do as well. His pain makes us feel more alive and isn't
that what it's all about? Of course it is.

16-23 here we come!
LOL, what kind of preview is this?
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#4
Fed is nowhere near the form that he was in two years ago. Fed doesn’t have that neo-backhand clicking, something that he needed in 2017 to hit through Nadal on these slow courts. If Nadal is moving well, then I think that he will win in two sets.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
#5
Fed is nowhere near the form that he was in two years ago. Fed doesn’t have that neo-backhand clicking, something that he needed in 2017 to hit through Nadal on these slow courts. If Nadal is moving well, then I think that he will win in two sets.
What got Federer through the 2012 semi showdown then? He didn't have the neo-backhand then either, or the racket he uses now.
 
#6
I wonder if we'll get an inverse of 2013? With Rafa showing up simply because he doesn't want to pull out against Federer, and playing well enough to compete but never truly threaten.
 
#8
Nadal will not go down more than 1 game per set and if Fed senses that Nadal is not well, he will definitely not break him more than once.He will leave the score 6-4,6-3

That said, things change by the minute. We can see a totally fresh Nadal tomorrow.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
#11
It's too bad for tennis that the fact of this match taking place is such a big story. It's one of ESPN's top headlines right now -- 'tennis match to be played between two very old players one or both of whom are likely to emerge injured afterwards...'

We now have several generations of younger players who aren't good enough to be much more than the targets in the aging star players' shooting galleries. When are we going to once again see a 20 or under player who nobody can beat?
 
#13
Nadal will not go down more than 1 game per set and if Fed senses that Nadal is not well, he will definitely not break him more than once.He will leave the score 6-4,6-3

That said, things change by the minute. We can see a totally fresh Nadal tomorrow.
He should dunk on him lmao, 5-0 RET
But you're right he's too respectful to do that
 
#14
Still both injured.
Yes, but here's the difference:

Nadal hadn't beaten Federer on a fast court since when? Wimbledon 2008 maybe? So no one was expecting him to beat Fed that day anyway, healthy knee or not. His health wasn't the main reason he lost.

Whereas for IW 2013, Federer had just beaten him on that very court the year before (and in pretty decisive fashion). Nadal could have very well won that match even if Fed was fine. But the main factor in how that match played out was definitely Roger's back.
 
#16
It's too bad for tennis that the fact of this match taking place is such a big story. It's one of ESPN's top headlines right now -- 'tennis match to be played between two very old players one or both of whom are likely to emerge injured afterwards...'

We now have several generations of younger players who aren't good enough to be much more than the targets in the aging star players' shooting galleries. When are we going to once again see a 20 or under player who nobody can beat?
To answer your last question, likely not for a long time. In general, 32-year-olds now have a significant age advantage over 19-year-olds (both in tennis and in most sports). The better question would have been when we'll see a 23 or 25 year old who is unbeatable. And, of course, Federer's age really is a disadvantage at this stage.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
#18
Yes, but here's the difference:

Nadal hadn't beaten Federer on a fast court since when? Wimbledon 2008 maybe? So no one was expecting him to beat Fed that day anyway, healthy knee or not. His health wasn't the main reason he lost.

Whereas for IW 2013, Federer had just beaten him on that very court the year before (and in pretty decisive fashion). Nadal could have very well won that match even if Fed was fine. But the main factor in how that match played out was definitely Roger's back.
Nadal beat him at WTf 2013
 
#29
I do think Fed will win, and it's quite embarrassing for Nadal, since he used to slay Federer left and right outdoors, and Fed is almost 38.
That's just woefully reasonable. I have been watching Roger through the tournament but not Rafa. If Roger somehow pulls this out with his iffy groundstrokes (especially on the run), then Nadal's level must have dropped a long way. I can't really get too excited about this match because I know neither of them are a threat to Novak anymore. It's like the GOAT race - nobody really cares about being second or third.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#32
Rafa WILL play. The pressure on him to play will be considerable.
He will ditch the pink disaster shirt though. You don't want to
quit during a match or play it out and lose badly in a thing like
that. You'll be doubly embarrassed.

My guess is Federer in straights at worst. If it's Fed, 4-0, and
Nads is in gimp a la mode mode, then a retirement will happen sooner
or later. Hopefully later for I do enjoy watching Rafa grimace. I
know you do as well. His pain makes us feel more alive and isn't
that what it's all about? Of course it is.

16-23 here we come!
I won't be complaining if Fed destroys Nadal's clay season today.:happydevil: Nadal's knee was just fine for Khach match, but I have hope as I saw him on failed drop shot get having the knee hobble him a touch as he slowed down from the sprint. On clay Thiem's Time Has Come.:eek:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#33
It's too bad for tennis that the fact of this match taking place is such a big story. It's one of ESPN's top headlines right now -- 'tennis match to be played between two very old players one or both of whom are likely to emerge injured afterwards...'

We now have several generations of younger players who aren't good enough to be much more than the targets in the aging star players' shooting galleries. When are we going to once again see a 20 or under player who nobody can beat?
Never. The games physical requirements have changed. FAA is the closet thing we've got now.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
#34
To answer your last question, likely not for a long time. In general, 32-year-olds now have a significant age advantage over 19-year-olds (both in tennis and in most sports). The better question would have been when we'll see a 23 or 25 year old who is unbeatable. And, of course, Federer's age really is a disadvantage at this stage.
I know that's a common narrative, but I don't buy it. I think the athleticism and talent of youth cancels out any advantage you might be referencing.
 
#36
I know that's a common narrative, but I don't buy it. I think the athleticism and talent of youth cancels out any advantage you might be referencing.
I don't buy your counter narrative. There has been one world-class teenager since Pete Sampras (so, since, August 1991). That's a long time. Again, if your counter narrative were that 30-somethings are too old, and that players in their early/mid 20s had the advantage of athleticism over them, it might be plausible, because the dominance of older players over 23-year-olds is recent. But teenagers were crowded out of men's tennis long ago and even out of women's tennis a fair while ago. What possible advantage does a 19-year-old have over a 24-year-old?

Edited on reflection: Actually, teenagers have never had the ascendancy over players aged 23-25 in men's tennis. Never. Sure, some teenagers won majors. But some 30-year-olds did too. The dominant age at the time that teenagers were winning majors was early-to-mid 20s. Lendl retained the #1 ranking through 1986 over Becker. Wilander pushed hard for it in 1983, but ended up #4. Sampras and Chang had their struggles after the breakout years. Agassi couldn't get higher than #3 in 1988. Even Borg didn't do his best work until about 1978.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#38
It's not a surface-specific thing. Many of the great teenagers in the past were primarily slow-court players - Borg, Wilander, Chang, Agassi, Austin, Evert, Graf, Seles, etc.
That is not the point: the point is that the younger players (not teenagers!) have the advantage of the reflexes and speed, which would shine in all circumstances. The surface specific thing comes to help them hold their ground better in some circumstances than other, thus building confidence against the more experienced players. If all surfaces play similarly and the endurance trumps speed and reflexes there is nowhere to go except to build experience.

Even Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in their younger days were playing much more aggressive tennis and were making inroads against the more established players by relying on those advantages, and noone can accuse them of being particularly fast-surface oriented.

There are also quite a few prominent names missing on that list which confirm that there are also players that thrive in those faster conditions. Imagine the ATG lists without those players.

Also, skillset, so obviously missing from the repertoire of the current young players, so that they can use it as a plan B and plan C when in trouble. It is easy for Federer to drop shot someone to death. Apart from Nick, when he is on, who else can do that from the younger players?

:cool:
 
Last edited:
#39
If Nadal isn't feeling in decent shape, he isn't going to play.
No point in trying to beat a guy whos beaten you 5 times in a row, if you aren't feeling healthy.
If he plays it will be like Shanghai 2017 all over again.
Better to withdraw, than to face a beatdown ala Federer V Djokovic WTF 2014. That was obviously a sensible decision by Fed.
 
#40
That is not the point: the point is that the younger players (not teenagers!) have the advantage of the reflexes and speed, which would shine in all circumstances. The surface specific thing comes to help them hold their ground better in some circumstances than other, thus building confidence against the more experienced players. If all surfaces play similarly and the endurance trumps speed and reflexes there is nowhere to go except to build experience.

Even Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in their younger days were playing much more aggressive tennis and were making inroads against the more established players by relying on those advantages, and noone can accuse them of being particularly fast-surface oriented.

There are also quite a few prominent names missing on that list which confirm that there are also players that thrive in those faster conditions. Imagine the ATG lists without those players.

Also, skillset, so obviously missing from the repertoire of the current young players, so that they can use it as a plan B and plan C when in trouble. It is easy for Federer to drop shot someone to death. Apart from Nick, when he is on, who else can do that from the younger players?

:cool:
Okay, I understand your point now. I agree that more diversity of surface would help less-established players (young and old) break through against the big three.

I know I left many people off the list. All I wanted to say was that many young players in the past liked slow surfaces, not all. My main view is that most young players in the past tended to have one preferred surface and be less versatile than middle-aged players. Versatility tends to come with time, I think, and also to dissipate fairly quickly.
 
#41
how come a 38 year-old keeps winning everything I mean shouldn't 28 be closer to prime in 38 why isn't there a great player who shows no fear against fed
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
#42
What possible advantage does a 19-year-old have over a 24-year-old?
Sounds like your question implies equilibrium, in other words, what does 19 year old Richard Gasquet have that 24 year old Gasquet doesn't? My point was that a 19 year old super genius player transcends all concerns of experience, training, coaching, and whatever else. Maybe that player is even better at age 22, dominating all surfaces, world number 1 by a large margin etc. Great, however, is great at any age. I've read that Nadal could beat Carlos Moya in practice matches when Nadal was something like 12 years old. The software is the cherry, the hardware is the cake.
 
#43
Sounds like your question implies equilibrium, in other words, what does 19 year old Richard Gasquet have that 24 year old Gasquet doesn't? My point was that a 19 year old super genius player transcends all concerns of experience, training, coaching, and whatever else. Maybe that player is even better at age 22, dominating all surfaces, world number 1 by a large margin etc. Great, however, is great at any age. I've read that Nadal could beat Carlos Moya in practice matches when Nadal was something like 12 years old. The software is the cherry, the hardware is the cake.
If great is great at any age, you should have no objection to the top players being 31 and 32, which isn't even that old in comparative sporting terms, or even 37, which really is pretty old. Although I personally don't buy the narrative of individual genius, it's a larger topic that we won't resolve, so we may as well not get into.

But, yeah, my point was that no player is going to be at his best at 19, even if he could in theory be the best - although I don't think there's even been a teenage #1 (Lleyton Hewitt was #1 at 20). I thought about it more and I think that the only players in the recent history of men's tennis who didn't improve after turning 22 were Boris Becker, whose best year was probably 1989, when he was 21 for the vast majority of the year, and Lleyton Hewitt, who probably burned out. Even Nadal was clearly better at 22 than he had been previously, as all men should be, because teenage boys are at a disadvantage in terms of both strength and decision-making compared to adult men.

Anyway, we will see what the future holds. I wouldn't hold my breath for a teenage #1 or even a teenage Slam champion, but we should certainly expect some 22 or 23 year olds to win majors within the next five years or so.
 
Top