Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
This is an odd question but has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in any of their matches against one another other than maybe RG 08? Are winner stats available for all of their matches?
This is an odd question but has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in any of their matches against one another other than maybe RG 08? Are winner stats available for all of their matches?
Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.
i would think that Nadal had done so in some of his earlier hardcourt matches vs Federer where he was more aggresive and in some of the more one sided clay court matches. When Nadal was younger he made so many passes on that surface it's ridiculous.
From what I know the most important aspect of the game is winning points...Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.
2004 Miami...the most aggressive form of Nadal in a fedal match.
2008 FO...I would guess because it was a beatdown that Nadal should have got more winners.( I don't know how Federer couldn't win more games in that match. Nadal looked the same level as before.)
Federer didnt play that well at the 2008 French compared to his former clay standards but his clay court game has declined gradually after 2007. His clay court peak was definitely 05-07, especialy 05-06. Heck tennis wise he was a better clay courter even from 2002-2004 then 2008-today, he simply didnt have the mental toughness to deliver and fight of off days at the French those earlier years which he had in abundance in his later years.
His performance at the 2008 French was in line with his natural decline on clay which has continued ever since. He after all played worse at the 2009 French overall than 2008 and won it because of Nadal's loss.
And Nadal played better than ever at the 2008 French and Federer couldnt even beat him or come that close from 2005-2007, so even if Federer played at his 05-06 clay level at the 2008 French he still would have lost in straight sets to Nadal probably.
Has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in a match?
Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.
I would seriously doubt it, Nadal is by all accounts a more patient / defensive player. Federer is one of THE most aggressive players.
I agree with you.I don't know where he was.It was shocking.It wasn't so much the loss-that was nothing unexpected.It's the manner in which he went down.Federer just played awful in FO08.
1):shock: Don't get ahead of yourself, Federer before 2004 wasn't even near any of the post 2005 years on clay, if that wasn't obvious enough. I remember one match he played against Coria on clay in 2004, that was one of the best matches I've seen from him on clay in his career. Results speak for themselves, tho, he lost in Rome and the FO that year pretty badly
2) Dunno, that's still guessing, I'd say he'd probably lose anyway which is the point in this discussion. Don't forget that Fed played Nadal twice on clay in 2008 and the final scores were 7-5 7-5 and 7-5 6-7 6-3, Fed really had chances to win both matches, but only God knows how he squanders those 5-1 4-0 leads over Nadal. Federer on clay in 2008 was close to his 2005-2007 level, people are critisizing his clay campaign in 2008 based on that 1 awful match he played against Nadal in the final of the FO.
No matter what anyone has to say about FO09 Roger was better imo.He fought but he fought against players who were playing some really good tennis.Particularly Del Potro.That's some of the best stuff I'ver ever seen from DP on clay.
The only matches Federer was better at the 2009 French was the final (obviously) and probably the semis (though he was still badly overpowered by an on fire Del Potro for 3 sets and lucky to sneak out that 2nd set somehow and not lose in 3 straight sets). Before that Federer nearly lost to Acasuso and a 31 year old Haas, and I think one other even more obscure opponent gave him trouble. How is that better?
Except for Monte Carlo Djokovic played a higher level of clay court tennis than Federer in 2008. Do you really dispute that if you watched Rome, Hamburg, and the French? Federer lost to Stepanek, hardly a clay court danger, in Rome. And I think he nearly lost to a really old Moya (who he owned even in Moya's prime years) at one of the other Masters. Monte Carlo he had no real chance to win the match, maybe win a set. Hamburg yes he had a chance but Nadal was worn from his semi with amazing semi Djokovic so it was similar to 2007, but except this time Federer couldnt capatilize.
At the French I knew after watching Federer clown around and struggle so much with MONFILS of all people that an on fire Nadal would destroy him and I predicted that before the match.
On the whole though I agree Federer still had a pretty good clay campaign in 2008. As I said I think he was better on clay (as far as actual tennis level) in 08 than 09. Basically every year since 2007 it has gone down a bit and will probably continue. Clay is not an old mans surface.
Who cares who hit how many winners? What do you win for hitting more winners than your opponent?
Federer hasnt lost to Haas since January 2002. Haas's worst surface is clay.
I dont care if Haas was playing well, Federer should have never been in position to lose in straight sets to Haas. Yeah Haas was playing well but when they played at Wimbledon when Haas was playing even better Federer destroyed him, and clay should be just as easy against this opponent.
It doesn't matter that clay is Haas's worst surface.In that tournament,he wasn't playing like it.Overall,that was just a fairly good period for him.And I do not care what position you think Fed should have or should not have been in.Roger should've probably never been two sets down to love against Berdych at the AO that year either.But he was.All i know is that Haas played a good match and won two closely contested sets.Inspite of losing two sets like I said,Roger was never on the back foot in the match.His service games in particular were very strong from his side.The match was more or less on even footing.It was just one poor tb in the first set and one poor service game in the second set and I think Haas who was serving extremely well himself,won that tiebreak on just one minibreak so again,it was a closely contested set.Other than that however,Roger was completely dominant on his service games.
I cannot tell you in certain terms if Haas was better at Wimbledon SF but I definitely think Fed was better there from what I can remember of the match..But again,that doesn't matter.I never said Federer was excellent at the FO09.I just think he was better than 08.Also imo he seemed nervous in the Haas match for a while.Once he settled down,once he took control of the match he never looked behind,he never let any doubt seep into his game. .Perhaps the knowledge that Nadal was out the previous day and he knew what that meant made him nervous initially.
Also,imo, it's not about the sets lost.Even Nadal lost sets to players people have barely heard of at Wimbledon last year-and all this in one of his best years ever result-wise.But he was solid when he needed to be.That is somewhat(not exactly, so don't fly off handle) how I saw Roger's form at the FO .
Anyway,it doesn't matter that you disagree.You do make some pretty good points as well.So I see your side of the argument.But I still stand by what I said.
Haas was playing some good tennis during that stretch,going on to win Halle and making Wimbledon semis subsequently.It doesn't matter that was 31 year old.It doesn't change the fact that he played well.Even then Roger hadn't lost a single point on his service games despite losing the first set in the TB.Next time watch the match before you talk.Yes,it was close one and he could've lost it but he didn't.Just like he could've lost against Berdych at the AO that year and didn't or just like he could've lost to Andreev at the USO in 2008 and didn't.The point being,that once Roger had made the recovery,he never looked back.Despite those being five setters he was never completely on the back foot game wise (like he was against Falla at last year's Wimbledon).
Even Nadal lost sets at Wimbledon last year to players one had barely hear of (Atleast people know about Haas).Doesn't automatically mean he was poor.He played solid tennis when it counted and was there fighting mentally and physically.
And no,Roger lost a set to Acasuso .Sure he was trailing 1-5 in the second but that doesn't immediately translate into a near loss especially considering the fact that he made up the deficit and didn't look back from there on.
As for the DP match-Yes, overwhelmed,he was at the beginning.But he weathered the storm brilliantly.He wore DP down mentally and physically.So overall he definitely did better.And I have to LOL at the 'lucky to sneak it out' stuff from you.I don't remember *******s coming up with such stuff when their boy is just getting by.(AO 09 SF being a fine example of it.Maybe Nadal was just 'lucky' to win that tournament.).
Overall,as a tournament,I would still say Roger played better than he did in 08 when imo,he looked both physically and mentally weary.Neither 09 and 08 were brilliant from him.But in 09 I thought he was more prepared to fight for it with or without Nadal and so he played very well nearly everytime it had to.When push came to shove he was ready and I don't think he would've lost to Nadal again the way he did in RG 08 even if they had met in the finals( here the Madrid victory also played its part.It gave him much needed confidence.So even if he might not have been there at his very best game wise line in 08,he was there both mentally and physically).And while Nadal wasn't there his absence did put added pressure on Fed (I did feel he was terribly nervous in both the Haas and Monfils matches and of course he admitted to being under a lot of pressure later).It was almost a must-win situation for him.
And you are already known for posting idiotic stuff..Usually pushers are not known for their winner hitting capabilities.
And you are already known for posting idiotic stuff..