Let's face it, folks. Rafael Nadal is a remarkable competitor and always seems to show up against Roger Federer on the biggest of stages. But despite this fact, in basically all of their important non-clay matches, Federer has had opportunities galore to secure wins against his biggest rival.
Take this latest loss to Nadal for example. He wins the first set, barely, in a tiebreaker after starting the match super hot and taking a 4-1 lead and almost securing the double break. Then as usual and right on time the inexplicable happens, he gets visibly rattled which then affects every single point he plays. Nadal hits one or two great shots and no matter how dominant Federer had been overall up until then, he loses belief. He's scarred. Crippled. Traumatised from previous encounters. He... chokes.
In the second set, again Federer plays well enough to give himself ample opportunities to take the set, but falters immediately after gaining the upper hand. He breaks... then cannot consolidate and gets broken to love. Did Nadal play spectacular to secure the re-break? In this case (as in most cases) not particularly. Federer hits the net cord, plays a silly and out-of-place dropper, hits out, frames it, etc. Opportunity and advantage and the upper hand lost.
In the third set, again he has the chance to take the set. Fails. How? Errors. Nadal plays well but he's not blazing winners past Federer on most points. Of course he plays his share of amazing points where Roger doesn't stand a chance winning the point, or forces the error, but most of the time Roger dismantles himself and wastes any opportunity that that he has earned for himself. In the breaker he inexplicably shoots himself in the foot with his play and goes down 1-6.
In the fourth, again, Federer up 4-3 has a break point on Nadal's serve. He can serve for the set if he only can secure it. No. Fails.
This pattern can be seen in so many of their matches. Even last year's French Open. He gains the upper hand only to suddenly become error prone and tight, creating poor play on crucial points. Not to take away from Nadal as he does play many points brilliantly on the defence, but Federer has shown many times that it is he who ends the point (by losing it with a nervous shot).
It's truly sickening and stomach-churning to watch as a fan of his. But in some ways it makes me think. Perhaps it's better this way than if Roger just could not beat Rafa, that he just doesn't have the game, the ability, the talent. This is clearly NOT the case. He trembles playing Nadal and his game suffers rightly so for it.
What do you guys think? Is it better knowing that Federer's lack of self-belief is the main obstacle and the main cause of his undoing against Nadal, or would it be better if Roger just didn't have the game to beat Nadal and we as fans could just concede that Nadal is the overall better tennis player?
I think watching Roger playing his archenemy Rafa is like sitting through a Greek tragedy; the hero being fatally flawed. It is tragic that Federer can't overcome his trembling, unconfident, error-prone play against his main historical rival because he's such a great champion... but ultimately, a very flawed champion.
