Federer deserved to win the Madrid Masters but...

[Zaragoza]

Federer clearly deserved to win this Masters 1000. Give him a break. He had not won any title this year and he had not won a Masters Series in almost 2 years. He is the no.2 in the world so it's normal that he wins some big titles, it was weird that he had not won anything this year.
And it was weird that Nadal won everything but Miami this year, so you can't blame him for not winning this final. He played a great match to beat Djokovic, he's really dominant on clay and this is his best season so far so it's time to move on and get ready to win Roland Garros.

As for the match today, I knew the altitude wouldn't make it a typical clay court match as we have seen since the first day of this event.
Federer served great and that made the difference today. Nadal couldn't convert his chances to break because Federer came up with a great serve or Nadal made some unforced errors. But the conditions here are nothing like Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros. This is the most atypical clay tournament I have ever seen, this is not typical clay court tennis.
Federer can't rely on his serve so much on typical clay court conditions if he wants to beat Nadal, especially in a best of 5 sets match. Even on these atypical conditions I felt Nadal had the upper hand in the long rallies but there were not many of them thanks to Federer's great serve and the really fast conditions here.
So as I said before the tournament started, I think this tournament means nothing for Roland Garros.

I still think Djokovic will be a tougher opponent for Nadal at Roland Garros, I think his game is more solid than Federer's on clay.

Time to move on to Roland Garros, and as I expected, some fans are showing their true colours again. As I supposed, they hided it for a long time but they have not changed since 2005. Too bad they couldn't learn to be better and more humble fans in the last year and a half. It only took them a Masters Series in 8 months to show their true colours again.

 

[DragonBlaze]

Federer clearly deserved to win this Masters 1000. Give him a break. He had not won any title this year and he had not won a Masters Series in almost 2 years. He is the no.2 in the world so it's normal that he wins some big titles, it was weird that he had not won anything this year.
And it was weird that Nadal won everything but Miami this year, so you can't blame him for not winning this final. He played a great match to beat Djokovic, he's really dominant on clay and this is his best season so far so it's time to move on and get ready to win Roland Garros.

As for the match today, I knew the altitude wouldn't make it a typical clay court match as we have seen since the first day of this event.
Federer served great and that made the difference today. Nadal couldn't convert his chances to break because Federer came up with a great serve or Nadal made some unforced errors. But the conditions here are nothing like Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros. This is the most atypical clay tournament I have ever seen, this is not typical clay court tennis.
Federer can't rely on his serve so much on typical clay court conditions if he wants to beat Nadal, especially in a best of 5 sets match. Even on these atypical conditions I felt Nadal had the upper hand in the long rallies but there were not many of them thanks to Federer's great serve and the really fast conditions here.
So as I said before the tournament started, I think this tournament means nothing for Roland Garros.

I still think Djokovic will be a tougher opponent for Nadal at Roland Garros, I think his game is more solid than Federer's on clay.

Time to move on to Roland Garros, and as I expected, some fans are showing their true colours again. As I supposed, they hided it for a long time but they have not changed since 2005. Too bad they couldn't learn to be better and more humble fans in the last year and a half. It only took them a Masters Series in 8 months to show their true colours again.

Ahh now that's what I like to see. A thoughtful objective post. It really is quite refreshing. Nice work Zaragoza! And I agree with most of what you said.

 

[Gasquetrules]

Condtions in Madrid gave Federer his best chance to beat Nadal...

One could plainly see the extra pace and depth Federer was getting on his serve in Madrid. Nadal had to stand well behind the baseline to return serve and hope to keep the ball in play. This made it hard for Nadal to take control of the point off his service returns and allowed Federer to hold much more easily than he normally does on clay or grass or any other surface that is close to sea level.

I live in the foothills of the North Carolina mountains. Once a year I play indoors in Boone, NC (which is a couple thousand feet higher than the foothills) during league play. Everyone serves huge there! I'm not a big guy, and even I'm thumping all my serves heavily into the backstop behind the courts. The rallies are short and favor the guy with the best serve and attacking style.

It looked much the same in Madrid. Conditions gave Federer his best chance, and it's good he recognized this and adjusted his game tactics accordingly.

I'm glad to see Federer steal a win in another Masters event. But typically, Federer is going to find it hard to make the finals of these events with Murray and Djokovic and Nadal all playing such great tennis. He needs to savor this win. So do his fans.

 

[DarthMaul]

WOW, I just got home and red the news... Federer did WHAT? Beat Nadal on clay in Madrid? OMG!
The best news I've heard about him in a while. Congrats! I hope he repeats this performance at RG!

Hats off to Rafa too, for dominating clay the way he does... It's really breaking news when he gets beaten on this surface.

 

[zagor]

Federer clearly deserved to win this Masters 1000. Give him a break. He had not won any title this year and he had not won a Masters Series in almost 2 years. He is the no.2 in the world so it's normal that he wins some big titles, it was weird that he had not won anything this year.
And it was weird that Nadal won everything but Miami this year, so you can't blame him for not winning this final. He played a great match to beat Djokovic, he's really dominant on clay and this is his best season so far so it's time to move on and get ready to win Roland Garros.

As for the match today, I knew the altitude wouldn't make it a typical clay court match as we have seen since the first day of this event.
Federer served great and that made the difference today. Nadal couldn't convert his chances to break because Federer came up with a great serve or Nadal made some unforced errors. But the conditions here are nothing like Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros. This is the most atypical clay tournament I have ever seen, this is not typical clay court tennis.
Federer can't rely on his serve so much on typical clay court conditions if he wants to beat Nadal, especially in a best of 5 sets match. Even on these atypical conditions I felt Nadal had the upper hand in the long rallies but there were not many of them thanks to Federer's great serve and the really fast conditions here.
So as I said before the tournament started, I think this tournament means nothing for Roland Garros.

I still think Djokovic will be a tougher opponent for Nadal at Roland Garros, I think his game is more solid than Federer's on clay.

Time to move on to Roland Garros, and as I expected, some fans are showing their true colours again. As I supposed, they hided it for a long time but they have not changed since 2005. Too bad they couldn't learn to be better and more humble fans in the last year and a half. It only took them a Masters Series in 8 months to show their true colours again.

Ah yes,those devious Fed fans unlike those classy fans of Nadal,Sampras and Djokovic who gave zero credit to Fed and made threads like Nadal will destroy Fed tomorrow and Fed should thank Djokovic,share his prize money with Djokovic etc. etc.

No,according to this forum,Federer didn't deserve to win Madrid today,nor did he deserve to win USO last year,nor did he deserve to win any of his slams because he played clowns or had rigged draws.

According to experts in this forum,Federer didn't deserve to win anything in his career but fortunately what "experts" in this forum think is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things since Fed gets plenty respect from ex and current players,coaches and commentators-from people who actually understand tennis and are relevant in that sport.They hardly think of Federer as a mediocre player who got lucky to achieve all he did(which is a consensus on this forum).

 

[Gasquetrules]

Madrid elevation: 2,200 feet

Just checked and Madrid is at an elevation of 2,200 feet. Most major cities are at or just above sea level (Paris, London, New York, Shanghai), as are Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Montreal and Miami.

An extra 2,000 feet makes quite a difference in play. I know the Indian Wells Masters event is also at a bit of altitude, not sure how high. But it makes a difference there, too.

 

[Stampen]

I thought I saw a little change in Feds tactics today. It has bothered me since US open that he has tried to hit every possible forehand 1000 mph to go for the kill. Today it seemed he took of some pace on his forehand but was more careful with placement. It also seemed like he tried to mix it up a bit more. He seemed to try to pull Rafa more back and forth depth wise in the court. Instead of just trying to move him from side to side. Of course Rafs legs wasn't their usual selves today but I thought there also were these tactical changes. Fed also seemed to succesfully pound on Rafas backhand a bit better than usually.

Am I making any sense? Did anyone else notice this?

/A

/A

 

[West Coast Ace]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the OP. Claiming 'altitude' - an excuse Rafa started getting out in the press about Thurs, is weak. It was still a clay court event - and Fed beat him in a final just like he did in Hamburg - which everyone says is a 'slow' event - and not at altitude.

The better player won. The 'altitude' affected both players and their shots equally. The difference is that when Fed serves well - and 63% isn't even that great - and plays more aggressively - he can beat anyone on any surface.

And to say Joker will be a tougher out at RG is ridiculous. He only has one major win and Rafa normally handles him easily. While Fed got blown out last year at RG most of his loses to Rafa have been competitive.

 

[Ripster]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the OP. Claiming 'altitude' - an excuse Rafa started getting out in the press about Thurs, is weak. It was still a clay court event - and Fed beat him in a final just like he did in Hamburg - which everyone says is a 'slow' event - and not at altitude.

The better player won. The 'altitude' affected both players and their shots equally. The difference is that when Fed serves well - and 63% isn't even that great - and plays more aggressively - he can beat anyone on any surface.

And to say Joker will be a tougher out at RG is ridiculous. He only has one major win and Rafa normally handles him easily. While Fed got blown out last year at RG most of his loses to Rafa have been competitive.

Nothing against Roger he played great. But if Nadal played like he did today against Djokovic yesterday, Novak would have won easily in straight sets. I think that's obvious. Djokovic will provide the tougher challenge to Nadal at Roland Garros just like last year.

 

[joeri888]

Nice post of you Zaragoza, except for the last part I think. When it comes to being a troll it doesn't matter how great your guy is playing or how bad he plays, he's just like that. You had to say something about it when it's Federer again which is a shame.. You are absolutely right to say that some people should be more humble, however the exact same thing goes for a lot of fans from 'other colours' and there's really nothing MORE wrong with Federer idiots than with Nadal, Djokovic or Young idiots.

For the rest, very sensible post, i agree on the djokovic thing and Fed deserving to win. Cheers

 

[ksbh]

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'altitude' theory. Nadal beat Federer in the Australian open final, a hard court which is obviously faster than any clay anywhere! If Nadal could beat Federer there, why not here? Federer was fresh, he played better and won. That's all there is to it.

When it comes to the most important match though, the 2009 French Open final, if Nadal & Federer face each other, I fully expect normalcy to be restored. Nadal will take Federer down, of this there is no question IMO.

 

[NamRanger]

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'altitude' theory. Nadal beat Federer in the Australian open final, a hard court which is obviously faster than any clay anywhere! If Nadal could beat Federer there, why not here? Federer was fresh, he played better and won. That's all there is to it.

When it comes to the most important match though, the 2009 French Open final, if Nadal & Federer face each other, I fully expect normalcy to be restored. Nadal will take Federer down, of this there is no question IMO.

This is objective. Federer simply played better today, and Nadal played well below his normal level. At the FO, I don't expect Nadal to lose to anyone, but I do expect either Djokovic or Federer to give him competitive matches.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'altitude' theory. Nadal beat Federer in the Australian open final, a hard court which is obviously faster than any clay anywhere! If Nadal could beat Federer there, why not here? Federer was fresh, he played better and won. That's all there is to it.

When it comes to the most important match though, the 2009 French Open final, if Nadal & Federer face each other, I fully expect normalcy to be restored. Nadal will take Federer down, of this there is no question IMO.

It's easier to break at the Australian Open than it is in Madrid.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

It's easier to break at the Australian Open than it is in Madrid.

You know, because you've broken in both locations, right?

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'altitude' theory. Nadal beat Federer in the Australian open final, a hard court which is obviously faster than any clay anywhere! If Nadal could beat Federer there, why not here? Federer was fresh, he played better and won. That's all there is to it.

When it comes to the most important match though, the 2009 French Open final, if Nadal & Federer face each other, I fully expect normalcy to be restored. Nadal will take Federer down, of this there is no question IMO.

You can abuse the kick serve in Madrid so it is more difficult to break serve.

 

[NamRanger]

It's easier to break at the Australian Open than it is in Madrid.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.................





*takes deep breathe*



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


*dies of laughter*

 

[NamRanger]

You can abuse the kick serve in Madrid so it is more difficult to break serve.

You can abuse the kick serve on any surface that bounces high. Nadal has been doing this to Federer in the ad court for 3-4 years now on clay.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.................





*takes deep breathe*



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


*dies of laughter*

He has a point you can abuse the kick serve in Madrid look how difficult Federer had at breaking Roddick's serve whilst he normally breaks it with ease.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

You can abuse the kick serve on any surface that bounces high. Nadal has been doing this to Federer in the ad court for 3-4 years now on clay.

This surface bounced insanley high it was a clay court which are usually high bouncing with a hard surface.

 

[All-rounder]

He has a point you can abuse the kick serve in Madrid look how difficult Federer had at breaking Roddick's serve whilst he normally breaks it with ease.

With ease?? the last 3 set meetings where all deciding sets

 

[NamRanger]

This surface bounced insanley high it was a clay court which are usually high bouncing with a hard surface.

All clay court surfaces bounce high; did you not see Rome? The ball was bouncing erratically and immensely high due to the way the court is built.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

All clay court surfaces bounce high; did you not see Rome? The ball was bouncing erratically and immensely high due to the way the court is built.

And it is usually slow enough for the ball to have time to drop down for Nadal's return positioning.

 

[The-Champ]

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'altitude' theory. Nadal beat Federer in the Australian open final, a hard court which is obviously faster than any clay anywhere! If Nadal could beat Federer there, why not here? Federer was fresh, he played better and won. That's all there is to it.

When it comes to the most important match though, the 2009 French Open final, if Nadal & Federer face each other, I fully expect normalcy to be restored. Nadal will take Federer down, of this there is no question IMO.

Great post! If Rafa is physically fit at the FO, he will probably win, but one should never doubt a player of Federer's caliber either.

Anyway I still have Federer as the second favorite to win at Roland Garros. Good luck to both guys.

 

[cam2]

I laugh at a lot of these posts. There are way too many just Nadal or just Federer fans. They are both great players and while Nadal has been better lately this might be a turning point in the rivalry.

People seem not to notice that Federer has not played as well since he was sick. It hasn't only been because the other top players are better. Maybe it's easier to notice this if you personally play tennis at a high level.

If this is more of a return to form for Federer than a upset at RG might be in the making.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Great post! If Rafa is physically fit at the FO, he will probably win, but one should never doubt a player of Federer's caliber either.

Anyway I still have Federer as the second favorite to win at Roland Garros. Good luck to both guys.

Ridiculous. Djokovic is easily the second favorite. But I guess Fed could take advantage of Nadal if Nadal plays a 5 hour match with Djokovic in the semis.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Ridiculous. Djokovic is easily the second favorite. But I guess Fed could take advantage of Nadal if Nadal plays a 5 hour match with Djokovic in the semis.

If Nadal and Djokovic are ever involved in a 5 setter on clay, it will be the longest in history.

Assuming they waste only an extra 15 seconds between each point (that's about right IMO), that alone could make the match almost 2 hours longer than an equivalent match (i.e. 400 points) played by players who abide by the time rules.

So that 4 hour match will easily become 6 hours.

 

[anointedone]

Federer clearly deserved to win this Masters 1000. Give him a break. He had not won any title this year and he had not won a Masters Series in almost 2 years. He is the no.2 in the world so it's normal that he wins some big titles, it was weird that he had not won anything this year.
And it was weird that Nadal won everything but Miami this year, so you can't blame him for not winning this final. He played a great match to beat Djokovic, he's really dominant on clay and this is his best season so far so it's time to move on and get ready to win Roland Garros.

As for the match today, I knew the altitude wouldn't make it a typical clay court match as we have seen since the first day of this event.
Federer served great and that made the difference today. Nadal couldn't convert his chances to break because Federer came up with a great serve or Nadal made some unforced errors. But the conditions here are nothing like Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros. This is the most atypical clay tournament I have ever seen, this is not typical clay court tennis.
Federer can't rely on his serve so much on typical clay court conditions if he wants to beat Nadal, especially in a best of 5 sets match. Even on these atypical conditions I felt Nadal had the upper hand in the long rallies but there were not many of them thanks to Federer's great serve and the really fast conditions here.
So as I said before the tournament started, I think this tournament means nothing for Roland Garros.

I still think Djokovic will be a tougher opponent for Nadal at Roland Garros, I think his game is more solid than Federer's on clay.

Time to move on to Roland Garros, and as I expected, some fans are showing their true colours again. As I supposed, they hided it for a long time but they have not changed since 2005. Too bad they couldn't learn to be better and more humble fans in the last year and a half. It only took them a Masters Series in 8 months to show their true colours again.

Very well said Zaragoza. As usual an excellent and well thought out post. I agree with all of it.

 

[anointedone]

Ah yes,those devious Fed fans unlike those classy fans of Nadal,Sampras and Djokovic who gave zero credit to Fed and made threads like Nadal will destroy Fed tomorrow and Fed should thank Djokovic,share his prize money with Djokovic etc. etc.

No,according to this forum,Federer didn't deserve to win Madrid today,nor did he deserve to win USO last year,nor did he deserve to win any of his slams because he played clowns or had rigged draws.

The Sampras fanatics that have popped up of late are by far the worst on the forum. They are a joke. I am not a Djokovc fan really but the Djokovic fans are probably the most least abrasive group on the whole forum as a whole. Other than Ripster perhaps I dont have a problem with any of them.

 

[Sentinel]

Just checked and Madrid is at an elevation of 2,200 feet. Most major cities are at or just above sea level (Paris, London, New York, Shanghai), as are Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Montreal and Miami.

An extra 2,000 feet makes quite a difference in play. I know the Indian Wells Masters event is also at a bit of altitude, not sure how high. But it makes a difference there, too.

2200 feet is 670 meters. that's nothing really (athletically speaking), does it really make a difference in tennis!

I would assume at least 4500 feet to make a difference. ???

 

[Nadal_Freak]

2200 feet is 670 meters. that's nothing really (athletically speaking), does it really make a difference in tennis!

I would assume at least 4500 feet to make a difference. ???

It makes a big difference. Just look at how high and fast the ball bounces there. It is completely visible and Nadal made his displeasure having to play there. When you hit a serve 120 mph and with spin, you will know the difference. Madrid Indoors was also very fast and high bouncing.

 

[iriraz]

Ridiculous. Djokovic is easily the second favorite. But I guess Fed could take advantage of Nadal if Nadal plays a 5 hour match with Djokovic in the semis.

On clay in a normal best of 3 set match u can consider Djokovic as the second favourite.But in a best of 5 set match where obviously the matches are longer Federer has the edge over Djoko.Also u never know if these guys get to the semifinals what a tough road they had to get there.Lots of 4/5 hour matches can make any player tired so there are lots of things to take into account

 

[OddJack]

Federer clearly deserved to win this Masters 1000. Give him a break. He had not won any title this year and he had not won a Masters Series in almost 2 years. He is the no.2 in the world so it's normal that he wins some big titles, it was weird that he had not won anything this year.
And it was weird that Nadal won everything but Miami this year, so you can't blame him for not winning this final. He played a great match to beat Djokovic, he's really dominant on clay and this is his best season so far so it's time to move on and get ready to win Roland Garros.

As for the match today, I knew the altitude wouldn't make it a typical clay court match as we have seen since the first day of this event.
Federer served great and that made the difference today. Nadal couldn't convert his chances to break because Federer came up with a great serve or Nadal made some unforced errors. But the conditions here are nothing like Monte Carlo, Rome or Roland Garros. This is the most atypical clay tournament I have ever seen, this is not typical clay court tennis.
Federer can't rely on his serve so much on typical clay court conditions if he wants to beat Nadal, especially in a best of 5 sets match. Even on these atypical conditions I felt Nadal had the upper hand in the long rallies but there were not many of them thanks to Federer's great serve and the really fast conditions here.
So as I said before the tournament started, I think this tournament means nothing for Roland Garros.

I still think Djokovic will be a tougher opponent for Nadal at Roland Garros, I think his game is more solid than Federer's on clay.

Time to move on to Roland Garros, and as I expected, some fans are showing their true colours again. As I supposed, they hided it for a long time but they have not changed since 2005. Too bad they couldn't learn to be better and more humble fans in the last year and a half. It only took them a Masters Series in 8 months to show their true colours again.

He had not won a tournament so give him a break? He's no 2 so it's normal to win? Noone deserves any title unless they play better than thier opponent, whether its one year or 6 year since they won a title. And ranking doesnt mean if you win it's normal. What's normal is again when the better player wins. Like when Delpotro beat nadal few weeks back there was nothing unormal about that, he simply outplayed him.

And funny how Nadal fans go research altitude and geography to explain the loss. The close their eyes on how Federer came to the court with a plan and stick with it through out the match. The wide serves he fired had nothing to do with altitude and is reproducible in Rg also. Attackin weak Nadal serves had nothing to do with sea level and is possible again in RG. Firing sold FHs to Nadal BH is also reproducible in RG. Did you see any drop shots from Nadal in this match, and how many successful drop shots and net attacks Roger had?

Open your eyes and instead of giving yourself comfort with this altitude and silly geography and clay analysis and calling Djoker the second best player , look at the match stats and see that this match was won by a plan not by thin air.

 

[imalil2gangsta4u]

Im a fed fan but ide put djokovic and federer on the same level on clay at the moment.

 

[The-Champ]

Ridiculous. Djokovic is easily the second favorite. But I guess Fed could take advantage of Nadal if Nadal plays a 5 hour match with Djokovic in the semis.

Djokovic hasn't even managed to take a set off Nadal at the FO, something only Federer has done, and twice at that. Until Djokovic has proven he has what it takes at Roland Garros against Nadal, Federer is still miles ahead of him.



I'm Rafa's fan but he went through a much tougher match against Verdasco at the AO and came out victorious the next day. Federer played wisely yesterday and deserved that win, not djokovic or anyone else. Even Rafa admits federer deserved the win and was simply the better player yesterday.

 

[coloskier]

Just checked and Madrid is at an elevation of 2,200 feet. Most major cities are at or just above sea level (Paris, London, New York, Shanghai), as are Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Montreal and Miami.

An extra 2,000 feet makes quite a difference in play. I know the Indian Wells Masters event is also at a bit of altitude, not sure how high. But it makes a difference there, too.

I live at 5300', and it definitely makes a difference, but not necessarily in speed of the ball on serves. What it makes a difference is the depth that each ball flies and how high it bounces. At 2200' (Madrid) the ball will travel at least 2-3 feet farther with the same stroke compared to sea level, due to the thinness of the air AND gravity. At 5300' it travels 5-6 feet farther. I would think this would actually help Nadal, especially against Fed. Also, at 2200' the ball will bounce about 6 inches higher, and at 5300' it bounces at least a foot higher. Even with high altitude balls, which are heavier and larger in diameter, the effects are seen. Does anyone know if they used high altitude balls at Madrid?

All this being said, besides the "tiredness" factor, I think the biggest issue in Fed's win was that there were a lot of bad bounces on the court, and if anything hit the lines the odds of returning it were not good. Of course, both players had to play in the same conditions, but it definitely seemed to affect Nadal more than it did Fed. For everyone's information the altitude at RG is approximately 300'.

 

[Spider]

What this basically proves is Fed hasn't gone anywhere (like many thought he has). I mean, he may not be the the most dominating player he once was but he is still a major force that won't be easy to put away for anyone (including Nadal).

This win may or may not help Federer at the RG but for the rest of the year (especially Wimbledon and the US open), he will be a very tough guy to beat. He has smooth complete game which is not phycially taxing, and which helps him to be completely fresh in the latter stages at slams (as compared to the other guys in the top 4 on all surfaces). That's why we see most of these players are almost tired reaching Fed and this guy is there as if he hasn't even broken a sweat yet.

I think the mistake most do is to write him off.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I live at 5300', and it definitely makes a difference, but not necessarily in speed of the ball on serves. What it makes a difference is the depth that each ball flies and how high it bounces. At 2200' (Madrid) the ball will travel at least 2-3 feet farther with the same stroke compared to sea level, due to the thinness of the air AND gravity. At 5300' it travels 5-6 feet farther. I would think this would actually help Nadal, especially against Fed. Also, at 2200' the ball will bounce about 6 inches higher, and at 5300' it bounces at least a foot higher. Even with high altitude balls, which are heavier and larger in diameter, the effects are seen. Does anyone know if they used high altitude balls at Madrid?

All this being said, besides the "tiredness" factor, I think the biggest issue in Fed's win was that there were a lot of bad bounces on the court, and if anything hit the lines the odds of returning it were not good. Of course, both players had to play in the same conditions, but it definitely seemed to affect Nadal more than it did Fed. For everyone's information the altitude at RG is approximately 300'.

It was hard to predict but seeing Fed get so many aces and unreturned serves says you are wrong. It makes Fed's serve go through the air faster and higher. Making Nadal very uncomfortable on the returns. Nadal should've been taking the serves early to avoid the high bounce.

 

[ksbh]

Agreed!

This is objective. Federer simply played better today, and Nadal played well below his normal level. At the FO, I don't expect Nadal to lose to anyone, but I do expect either Djokovic or Federer to give him competitive matches.

 

[ksbh]

Disagree! :twisted:

It's easier to break at the Australian Open than it is in Madrid.

 

[ksbh]

Disagreed

You can abuse the kick serve in Madrid so it is more difficult to break serve.

 

[ksbh]

Ref underlined: agree!

Ref bolded: Disagree! Rafa won't surrender his crown on his home turf as Federer did on his. Mark my words.

Great post! If Rafa is physically fit at the FO, he will probably win, but one should never doubt a player of Federer's caliber either.

Anyway I still have Federer as the second favorite to win at Roland Garros. Good luck to both guys.

 

[prefab]

to provide a little context... I am a Fed fan, but I still think that Nadal is THE greatest clay court player of all time... whether Fed becomes THE greatest player of all time, is debatable.

Now, regarding the Madrid final... it's annoying to hear all of the talk about how tough Djokovic plays/played Nadal on clay. There is a reason that so many players that meet Federer late in major tournaments are worn down... they don't possess Federer's ability to quickly set-up points and put away clean winners. Now... I realize Federer hasn't been doing a whole lot of that lately, which is why I think many of us have forgotten this. But back in the day, everyone marveled at how federer seemingly never broke a sweat. Even, McEnroe, marveled in one of Fed's Wimbledon finals that he was almost making it look casual.

I won't argue that Nadal was probably a little tired from his previous match... I will also note that the scenario was very similar at the AO and he was still able to defeat Fed in a 5 setter, no less. However, the primary difference in this match was Fed's strategy and execution... plain and simple.

His backhand did not break down, he constructed points beautifully, used the drop shot effectively, his forehand was ridiculous and he served well when it counted. When was the last time we could say all these things about a Federer match??

So for all those who want to somehow diminish this win... the argument does not hold up to scrutiny.

I still think that Nadal will win the French... but I also think the Fed is getting his form back. Oh yeah... Fed has been in every major final since last years FO... so before we get too carried away with the Jokers and the Murrays, let's wait and see what them break through.

 

[mrDamien]

Does the first win on Nadal in 2009 and first trophy of the year meaning to say Federer is coming back to his own goods?? I don't think he will be back as No 1 again. His age is coming and his era is gone now.

 

[mzzmuaa]

He doesn't deserve to win because he played like crap for the past 1.5 years, because he's the #2 in the world, or because it was "weird" that he hadn't won a MS. He deserves to win because he played perfectly in that match.
You can't blame Nadal's loss entirely on the relatively fast conditions and Federer's serve.
1) Bad bounces favor Nadals rough, percentage-based game over Federer's more delicate, precise game. This court condition should favor Nadal.
2) Nadal has beaten Federer on much faster courts, but this time he had the added bonus of his improved mobility on clay. So speed isn't the issue.
3) Federer cut down the ground stroke rallies and controlled the points by creating a plan and executing it perfectly. He pounded Nadal's backhand with his more consistent DTL forehand. This forced Nadal to hit an uncomfortable DTL backhand or a very low margin of error crosscourt BH, either of which Federer could pounce on.
4) His second serve has also improved. He increased the kick and that will make it favorable at any clay tournament.
5) More generally, he played with great intelligence. He was mixing up his shots and he always kept Nadal guessing.

 

[gj011]

Don't forget about that RG draw. Make sure you beat me to commenting on it, otherwise I will write your post for you. It's just me and you!

If it is rigged and Djokovic is YET AGAIN in Nadal's half and Federer gets YET AGAIN cakewalk of a draw, like last year or in Madrid you bet I will comment on it.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Just checked and Madrid is at an elevation of 2,200 feet. Most major cities are at or just above sea level (Paris, London, New York, Shanghai), as are Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Montreal and Miami.

An extra 2,000 feet makes quite a difference in play. I know the Indian Wells Masters event is also at a bit of altitude, not sure how high. But it makes a difference there, too.

Yawn. 2,000 feet is nothing. Blip on the radar. 6,000 feet makes a large difference. 10,000 feet is like playing tennis on another world. Having played tennis and golf at all of those altitudes, and sea level, I can honestly say that the differences because of altitude being tossed about here are irrelevant at the low altitude of 2,000 feet. The air is still quite dense at that height. At high altitudes, like above 5,000 feet, there's a significant difference in play because spin has less effect on the ball than at low altitudes. Are those of you saying that Madrid is "high" really thinking it had a major impact on the outcome of the tournament? Not realistic.

Federer won. Nadal lost. Stop making excuses about it. It's really not that complicated.

 

[veroniquem]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the OP. Claiming 'altitude' - an excuse Rafa started getting out in the press about Thurs, is weak. It was still a clay court event - and Fed beat him in a final just like he did in Hamburg - which everyone says is a 'slow' event - and not at altitude.

The better player won. The 'altitude' affected both players and their shots equally. The difference is that when Fed serves well - and 63% isn't even that great - and plays more aggressively - he can beat anyone on any surface.

And to say Joker will be a tougher out at RG is ridiculous. He only has one major win and Rafa normally handles him easily. While Fed got blown out last year at RG most of his loses to Rafa have been competitive.

There is a reason why the only big clay tournament Fed has ever won is Madrid/Hamburg (I think it's been 5 times now) and it's something else than altitude. Hamburg/Madrid is the last big event before RG, superlative clay court players have usually played and won a lot before getting to the last event, so they usually arrive a little bit on their last legs and also not wanting to push themselves too much before RG since they don't want to jeopardize the good chance they stand there. Actually before masters were compulsory, a lot of clay specialists skipped Hamburg (also because the conditions in Hamburg, as in Madrid were very different from the other tournaments on clay). Also note that clay is the only season that has 3 consecutive masters, all the others have 2 which also explains why the players who have done very well in the other 2 pace themselves in the 3rd.
Does a single Hamburg/Madrid title in the clay court season come with an asterisk attached to it? To me, yes. The real barometer on clay are the big 3: Monte-Carlo, Rome and RG.
Some stats to support my point: since 1968,
# of years when the Monte-Carlo champion also won RG = 12
# of years when the Rome champion also won RG = 10
# of years when the Hamburg champion also won RG = 4
Number of players who won only Hamburg and RG ( did not win Rome, Monte-Carlo or Barcelona as well) : 0

 

[icedevil0289]

There is a reason why the only big clay tournament Fed has ever won is Madrid/Hamburg (I think it's been 5 times now) and it's something else than altitude. Hamburg/Madrid is the last big event before RG, superlative clay court players have usually played and won a lot before getting to the last event, so they usually arrive a little bit on their last legs and also not wanting to push themselves too much before RG since they don't want to jeopardize the great chance they stand there. Actually before masters were combulsory, a lot of clay specialists skipped Hamburg (also because the conditions in Hamburg, as in Madrid were very different from the other tournaments on clay). Also note that clay is the only season that has 3 consecutive masters, all the others have 2 which also explains why the players who have done very well in the other 2 pace themselves in the 3rd.
Does a single Hamburg/Madrid title in the clay court season come with an asterisk attached to it? To me, yes. The real barometer on clay are the big 3: Monte-Carlo, Rome and RG.
Some stats to support my point: since 1968, # of years when the Monte-Carlo champion also won RG = 12
# of years when the Rome champion also won RG = 10
# of years when the Hamburg champion also won RG = 4
Number of players who won only Hamburg and RG ( did not win Rome or Monte-Carlo as well) : 0

******** mode*- there's a first time for everything, right?

okay back to realistic mode...nice stats btw.

 

[veroniquem]

******** mode*- there's a first time for everything, right?

okay back to realistic mode...nice stats btw.

No, no ,no you're right. There IS a first time to everything. Those stats are not supposed to prove that Federer CANNOT win RG. They just show that the last clay master has been so far the least relevant to predict RG winner. I'm gonna add a few more stats:
# of times when the Hamburg winner was also a RG winner (but not necessarily the same year) = 8
# of times when the Rome winner was also a RG winner: 25
# of times when Monte-Carlo winner was also a RG winner: 26

 

[vtmike]

^^^ Who said that Fed will win RG based on the last Master result? :-?