Is Federer really getting closer or is Nadal still a puzzle?

[Mr Topspin]

I watched yesterday's dramatic Monte Carlo masters final yestrday in which i'm sure every tennis fan is aware that Nadal won in four sets 6-2, 6-7(2-7), 6-3, 7-6(7-5).

The post mortem coming from Federer is that he is getting closer and that he played better than in Roland Gaross last year. But i want to examine that statement and explore how close is Federer really getting.

In the first set Federer was 4-0 down, playing awfully and short of confidence. Fed was serving in the 5th game and Nadal had a breakpoint for 5-0 which was missed and Fed took heart from that and went on to hold serve again losing 6-2. In short Fed could have easily lost the 1st set 6-0 if Nadal had executed on his breakpoint.

In the second set Nadal found himself serving for the second set on the 10 game and despite being breakpoint down had a set point in which he double faulted. He actually double faulted twice in the 10 game and was broken back. Nadal clearly got tight when trying to close out the second set and let Fed back in which allowed Fed to gain confidence and rap up the tiebreak. Once again Nadal could have had routine 6-4 set had he not got nervous.

In the 3rd set Nadal was broken early and had a timout for a problem with his finger. When the matcg resumed Nadal broke Federer who had established a 40-15 lead in the second game. This suggests that the timeout was not to blame for the breakback as Nadal played some great points to break at 40-15. Nevertheless Nadal regrouped after the 2nd game and ended up winning the 3rd set 6-3.

In the fourth set Nadal was 3-0 up with a double break and again it seemed got tight as he made 2 poor ue's and then Fed did the rest as he started swinging freely and relaxed. Both guys held serve till the 8th game where at 4-3 while serving Fed raised his game and broke Nadal for 4-4. It went to the tiebreak and Nadal completed another famous win.


Now, Federer says in his post match interview that he played better than in Paris last year. I have just shown that Nadal could have easily won 6-2,6-4,6-3. If he had played his best. I get the feeling that Nadal was tight in so many instances yesterday and still won in four. I can only assume that had he played his best it would have been a straight sets demolition.To qualify this further, how many people have played Federer and served for the set and still won? How many guys have have had a double break lost the break and still won in the tiebreak? Nadal is getting away with being tight in big situations and not being punished the way others are. Take Blake, Baghdatis and Ljubicic for example. All those guys got tight and were punished and yet Nadal does the same at key moments and still wins.

Thus, if Nadal plays averagely as he did IMHO and still wins i wonder just how close Federer is really getting. All things being considered when Nadal played Fed and got tired/tight in their second meeting at Miami, Fed benefitted by a poor call in the tiebreak but still won in 5 and punished Nadal in the process. But now the situation is reversed.

Therefore, IMHO yesterday's scoreline creates an illusion that Fed took Nadal to two tiebreaks suggesting he is geeting better but if you break down the match you will see that Nadal squandered winning opportunities and should and could have won more easily.

Federer also hit 76 ue's and Nadal had about 15 breakpoints! If that is geeting better i hate to imagine what the stats at the FO were.

And before Fed fanatics get on my case please note that i am neutral on Fed and Nadal and have presented a favtual account of what took place on the Monte Carlos masters final.

 

[Grimjack]

"Getting closer" and "getting close" aren't the same thing.

What's important for Federer is that he continues, year after year, to get better on clay, to show better results against the claycourt specialists, and to go deeper into tournaments. His clay 2005 was better than his clay 2004, and to date, his clay 2006 is off to a better start than 2005.

But that doesn't mean he's running even with the game's premiere claycourter. Nadal is clearly the best claycourter on the planet right now, and it's not even contestable.

Thing is, Roger was already the dominant force on the tennis circuit when he simply dominated the rest of the tour on every other surface and allowed himself to be an also-ran on clay. Now, since he appears to be poised to be runner-up level on clay week-in/week-out, his overall level of dominance has never been higher.

"Getting closer?" Yeah. He's gotten to #2 on his worst surface. Hard to say whether he's on the verge of beating him or not. But he doesn't have to, because he shows up big the other 3/4 of the year, while Nadal doesn't. For Fed to do that, AND be #2 on clay -- whether he ever takes even another *game* off Nadal or not -- is historically awe inspiring.

 

[PRADEEPKUMAR MANI]

I will have to disagree with you. Fed only converted 4 of his 18 break points (agreed that he had multiple breakpoints in a single game). you can easily argue that Fed could have beaten nadal had he converted more of his breakpoints. Or made lesser unforced errors (78, as compared to 39 from Nad. Infact Nadal won a total of 155 points, 78 of which were unforced errs frm fed). Fed was down 0-4 in the first set cos he was nervous. Mental strength is an attribute in tennis as much as one's serve, forehand, etc,. So I dont think it is right to argue that fed could have actually lost in straight sets. Nadal was the better player on the day. IMO, fed played better than be played in paris, and its only a matter of time before he settles scores with nadal. Its going to be one helluva rivalry for some time to come!! We are on for some super hot tennis in the forthcoming weeks, and I cannot wait.

 

[MasterTS]

I watched yesterday's dramatic Monte Carlo masters final yestrday in which i'm sure every tennis fan is aware that Nadal won in four sets 6-2, 6-7(2-7), 6-3, 7-6(7-5).

The post mortem coming from Federer is that he is getting closer and that he played better than in Roland Gaross last year. But i want to examine that statement and explore how close is Federer really getting.

l.

Fed may think he's getting closer but fact is, Nadal shoulda closed that in THREE STRAIGHT SETS!

Nadal failed to close out the 2nd set because of two double faults. Fed was lucky to win the 2nd set. It shoulda been 6-2, 6-4, 6-3 for Nadal. Fed is no closer than he was last year when he lost to Nadal in 4 sets in Paris.

 

[urban]

If I read it right, then Nadal had a 155-140 points lead, quite a big lead in terms of overall points. I agree with Mr Topspin, that Nadal seems to have had a chance to win it in straight sets. It must give Federer some fits, that Nadal won despite getting tight. Also Federer had the easier passing through in the tournament, and as in Dubai, he seemed poised to take advantage in the final. Now clay court tennis is different from fast court tennis. Not the single big point counts, but the long distance. You always get a second or third chance to change a match. The Spaniards know that well. Bruguera always played the same patient style, come rain come shine. I often watched him trailing by a break or two, but in the end he always came on top.

 

[fjgarciap]

The more times Roger plays Rafael on clay, the better for him. I think it's a matter of time before he figures out the tactics to beat him. Based on this argument I would say he is still "solving the puzzle".

I would like to see three more encounters between these two in Rome, Hamburg and Paris. If the swiss manages to revert the adverse trend of constantly losing to Rafa I would consider it a major achievement, kind of a flexion point.

 

[ezdude1970]

I might say something here that might require some out of the box thinking; maybe just maybe Federer applies some rope a dope technique here (ala Ali vs. Fraiser), losing to Nadal couple times figure out how to beat him and just deliver the devastating punch in the final round come RG time. But I agree with most posters at this point Nadal seems unbeatable on clay.

 

[fastdunn]

I think Rogelio is getting close to beat Nadal on clay occasionally.
But I think Nadal will be continuously problem to Rogelio because
of match-up. Rogelio's 1 handed backhand and attacking game
is not big enough to hurt Nadal. However, IMHO, Rogelio can manage
to beat Nadal in FO(like Sampras did againt Bruguera) and win FO.

 

[edberg505]

Fed may think he's getting closer but fact is, Nadal shoulda closed that in THREE STRAIGHT SETS!

Nadal failed to close out the 2nd set because of two double faults. Fed was lucky to win the 2nd set. It shoulda been 6-2, 6-4, 6-3 for Nadal. Fed is no closer than he was last year when he lost to Nadal in 4 sets in Paris.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda, the fact is he didn't and nobdy beats Fed in straights. That hasn't happend in almost 2 years. That's an amazing stat in itself.

 

[tennissavy]

Hello Mr Topspin! I agree with you. I think that Nadal would have easily won in straight sets if he had not gotten a little nervous. If anything, I think that Nadal has further distanced himself from Federer on clay. I totally disagree with federer's statement that he is closer to beating Nadal- he wishes that to be the case. With every win over federer, Nadal's confidence will increase and perhaps he will be serving some bagels to federer in the near future.

 

[pound cat]

Nadal is no puzzle. In his interview Federer said the problem is that Nadal returns every single thing he throws at him & Federer may have to face up to n the fact that Nadal is better than he is on clay...just as he is better than everyone else on other surfaces.

Good possibility that Federer just does not have the feel for clay, and never will. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

 

[chess9]

Well, losing 4 out of 5 matches is virtual ownership, at first blush. But, with 78 unforced errors, how can you win? What was that about? Nadal's left-handedness? Many of the errors were on very simple shots. Federer would just hit them long or into the net. Was it Fed's foot taping? I was thinking that perhaps he wasn't bending deeply enough because he had so many going long from the baseline and into the net when they were short. But, without knowing WHY Fed made so many unforced errors, we must conclude that he is either scared witless when confronted with Nadal, or he just matches up poorly against heavy topspin lefty baseliners.

-Robert
________
Nexium death

 

[tlm]

Very good points by mr topspin,you told it like it is.Fed is no were near handling nadal,not even close.


I was surprised the way nadal was joking during that match.
But being the true champion that he is he still put the smackdown on poor fed again.

All the fed fans keep talking about clay,but 2 of nadals victories have been on hardcourt.They dont want to talk about that they want to just blame it on clay.

Do you fed fans remember dubai this year ,it wasnt that long ago that i kept reading hear that nadal would never beat fed on hardcourt.

Dont hear that to much anymore,now they want to talk about grass.Fed can not handle nadal is it not obvious?

 

[tennissavy]

Very good points by mr topspin,you told it like it is.Fed is no were near handling nadal,not even close.


I was surprised the way nadal was joking during that match.
But being the true champion that he is he still put the smackdown on poor fed again.

All the fed fans keep talking about clay,but 2 of nadals victories have been on hardcourt.They dont want to talk about that they want to just blame it on clay.

Do you fed fans remember dubai this year ,it wasnt that long ago that i kept reading hear that nadal would never beat fed on hardcourt.

Dont hear that to much anymore,now they want to talk about grass.Fed can not handle nadal is it not obvious?

Hi Tim. It is getting more and more obvious that Nadal is fed's biggest challenge and fed is quite concerned about him. Perhaps fed is losing some sleep over Nadal.

 

[tlm]

There is no question about that fed cant stand it.It is great to see that arrogant ass hole get his butt beat.You know in every tourny. he is praying someone else will take nadal out so he doesnt have to take another butt whooping!

 

[Moose Malloy]

Well, losing 4 out of 5 matches is virtual ownership, at first blush. But, with 78 unforced errors, how can you win? What was that about? Nadal's left-handedness? Many of the errors were on very simple shots. Federer would just hit them long or into the net. Was it Fed's foot taping? I was thinking that perhaps he wasn't bending deeply enough because he had so many going long from the baseline and into the net when they were short. But, without knowing WHY Fed made so many unforced errors, we must conclude that he is either scared witless when confronted with Nadal, or he just matches up poorly against heavy topspin lefty baseliners.

You realize the vast majority of points won on clay are won by amount of UE's, not winners? Stats on UE's regarding clay court matches are often meaningless, compared to hard/grass.
I think every year Guga won the French he made more errors than winners. Not sure why Fed would be different- making errors is a part of claycourt tennis, it is unavoidable if you try to be aggressive.

Fed said in his interview afterwards, he wasn't concerned about errors because the only way to play Nadal is by being aggressive. And Nadal hits with such spin that his shots are hard to handle, even on seemingly easy misses.

Since Fed has lost to Nadal 4 times & made a lot of errors all those times, its stands to reason Nadal is more responsible for Fed's UE's more than Fed is.

 

[tennissavy]

There is no question about that fed cant stand it.It is great to see that arrogant ass hole get his butt beat.You know in every tourny. he is praying someone else will take nadal out so he doesnt have to take another butt whooping!

That is probably true.

 

[fastdunn]

It's not simply because Nadal returns everything Fed throws.
It's the "match-up". Actually, there are other players who can
do better than Fed against Nadal.

 

[chess9]

You realize the vast majority of points won on clay are won by amount of UE's, not winners? Stats on UE's regarding clay court matches are often meaningless, compared to hard/grass.
I think every year Guga won the French he made more errors than winners. Not sure why Fed would be different- making errors is a part of claycourt tennis, it is unavoidable if you try to be aggressive.

Fed said in his interview afterwards, he wasn't concerned about errors because the only way to play Nadal is by being aggressive. And Nadal hits with such spin that his shots are hard to handle, even on seemingly easy misses.

Since Fed has lost to Nadal 4 times & made a lot of errors all those times, its stands to reason Nadal is more responsible for Fed's UE's more than Fed is.

True about UEs on clay, but many of Fed's mistakes were on simple points. One hit, two hits, then OUT! These weren't UEs after 8-50 hits of the ball. If you analyze the tape, you will conclude that FED just lost a lot of easy points when Nadal was doing very little with the ball. Often FED hit his best shots when Nadal was pressing. Fed also double faulted in his first game! Not a real big deal, but in retrospect I think he was very nervous.

I don't know, I think Nadal is either better but less consistent than Federer or Federer has a serious problem with the matchup of contrasting styles.

-Robert
________
Depakote withdraw

 

[Moose Malloy]

Again I think its just the nature of claycourt tennis. The matches are so long you will have your ups & downs. Its hard to concentrate for so long. I've seen many great claycourt players play long 5 setters go through stretches where they miss early & often.
I imagine its even harder for a fast court player like Fed.

Anyway I watched the match & didn't think there were as many easy misses as you(after 1st set) I'd be curious to see exactly how many of these points there were & in relation to total amount of points played.

I doubt "nerves" can be significant factor when you are talking about 4 matches with the same result. Why would Fed be nervous, considering how dominant he is?

 

[edberg505]

There is no question about that fed cant stand it.It is great to see that arrogant ass hole get his butt beat.You know in every tourny. he is praying someone else will take nadal out so he doesnt have to take another butt whooping!

Just like Nadal is hoping he doesn't run into James Blake or Thomas Berdych. Hell, even Scoville Jenkins gave Nadal a scare in the first round of the US Open. The fact of the matter is Nadal is susceptible to defeat by anybody on a surface other than clay. And Federer is unbeatable on hardcourts and grass and the only person who can beat him on clay is Nadal. So until Nadal can reach the final of every event he enters like the world's #1, I don't really see much of a rivalry.

 

[chess9]

Again I think its just the nature of claycourt tennis. The matches are so long you will have your ups & downs. Its hard to concentrate for so long. I've seen many great claycourt players play long 5 setters go through stretches where they miss early & often.
I imagine its even harder for a fast court player like Fed.

Anyway I watched the match & didn't think there were as many easy misses as you(after 1st set) I'd be curious to see exactly how many of these points there were & in relation to total amount of points played.

I doubt "nerves" can be significant factor when you are talking about 4 matches with the same result. Why would Fed be nervous, considering how dominant he is?

Well, remember the old FED? From 2001? I'll bet FED remembers him. Also, when you've lost to the NUMBER 2 guy 3 out of 4 times (now 4 out of 5) it can play with your head. I know in college there was one guy who always got to me every time we played. My nemesis. We all have them and maybe that is the correct answer. Nadal is nothing more than Fed's nemesis. Since Nadal seems capable of losing to lesser players, this might be plausible.


-Robert
________
Mercedes-Benz Vario

 

[Captain Lou]

The major problem Federer has with Nadal is that Nadal forehand with lots of topspin thends to bounce high on Federer backhand. That's Federer's weakest side and it's hard for any player with a one handed backhand to deal with the high bounce.

 

[Count Grishnackh]

I watched yesterday's dramatic Monte Carlo masters final yestrday in which i'm sure every tennis fan is aware that Nadal won in four sets 6-2, 6-7(2-7), 6-3, 7-6(7-5).

Now, Federer says in his post match interview that he played better than in Paris last year. I have just shown that Nadal could have easily won 6-2,6-4,6-3. If he had played his best. I get the feeling that Nadal was tight in so many instances yesterday and still won in four. I can only assume that had he played his best it would have been a straight sets demolition.To qualify this further, how many people have played Federer and served for the set and still won? How many guys have have had a double break lost the break and still won in the tiebreak? Nadal is getting away with being tight in big situations and not being punished the way others are. Take Blake, Baghdatis and Ljubicic for example. All those guys got tight and were punished and yet Nadal does the same at key moments and still wins.

And before Fed fanatics get on my case please note that i am neutral on Fed and Nadal and have presented a favtual account of what took place on the Monte Carlos masters final.

I agree with you on this but at this point it's not worth telling the Fed fans as they seem to have the blind spot put on deliberately and I expect that for a while too. But there's a point made here, Nadal quite possibly wasn't playing at last year's level and he still won in 4 sets. How many players can get away with that against Federer? None. We always mention how players have to play off the wall and Federer to be below his best for them to have a shot, man I'd be dammed if this wasn't the case for Fed and Rafa. Federer needed to play insane tennis and needed Rafa to be below his best in order for more oppotunities to be created and what happens? 4 set defeat and if Nadal were playing better he would'nt have given away the second set tiebreak. I know, the Fed fans are in a rage these last couple of days, but honestly, I don't see how good it would be for tennis if Federer didn't have some rival. I mean he wouldn't be losing matches at all if he weren't for Nadal. You should embrace this and welcome the challenge, "no we want complete dominance and we don't ever want to see him lose ever!!!" Getting spolied eh? "You can't eat your pudding if you don't finish your meat!"

 

[alienhamster]

Fed is definitely figuring out individual shots and point strategies that are working against Nadal, piece by piece. Every time I seem them play I get the feeling Federer is starting to find a few things that work. (In this last match I'm thinking of how he sliced down on some of the high, heavy balls to the backhand, using the DTL shot, coming to net, etc.)

What he doesn't need to do is push so hard on offense once the rally gets long. There's no point playing THAT high risk when your errors are that high. Fed can play really good defense, too, and I think with Nadal he forgets that sometimes and just plays stupid.

The best play IMO is to take risks on the first few shots of the rally to try to get an edge, but if the rally is neutral, play smart deep shots (ones with enough safety/spin) until you get a real chance to smack an unreturnable shot. Then expect it to come back and smack another. Repeat and rinse.

Patience, my Fed, patience.

And last point: the big problem with Fed saying he is getting "closer" to Nadal is that he's not acknowledging how much Nadal is improving. The serve, consistency, and depth of shots are definitely improving.

 

[Count Grishnackh]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about Federer's press conference was how much he intimated that it was all him why he lost. He lost because Nadal took it to him and defeated him. If he just stayed back tried to be the backboard only, he would've lost like Hewitt at the US Open final 2004 and almost everytime since. Nadal can bring the heat and he has the game to hurt him. If it were as simple as "the being a lefty" line then why does he have no trouble with other lefties like Verdasco and Lopez? He has a combined 5-0 record against both of them. So that "lefty" line is just an excuse and hiding the fact that Nadal is better than Federer when they meet. Nadal has the defence and movement of a Hewitt and the offence of a Super Muster. It's a nice combination.

 

[tennistomcat]

I think nadal's just a tough matchup for fed with his heavy topsin & high bouncing shots. I only saw the highlights from this yr's monte carlo match but i saw that match last year in miami that fed won in 5 sets. Nadal makes some incredible shots just like fed & runs everything down & continually forces fed to hit one great shot after another. Normally fed rises to the occasion against other players but it seemed like fed missed that final putaway shot more often against nadal than anyone else - esp on the forehand side ( it does seem like fed makes alot more errors against nadal - maybe from trying to make too good a shot?). Fed's an awesome player but Nadal seeems to be the one guy whose game is well suited to handle fed's style of play at this point in time.

 

[Mattle]

Fed may think he's getting closer but fact is, Nadal shoulda closed that in THREE STRAIGHT SETS!

Nadal failed to close out the 2nd set because of two double faults. Fed was lucky to win the 2nd set. It shoulda been 6-2, 6-4, 6-3 for Nadal. Fed is no closer than he was last year when he lost to Nadal in 4 sets in Paris.

lol... Nadal was unlucky, very bad excuse etc. Nadal was lucky in the fourth set man!
But Nadal deserved to win the match, no doubt about it

 

[dozu]

I believe he is getting closer... After Nad's latest defeat by Blake, I posted that Fed needs to use drop shots more and come to the net more, which he DID.. and he won 75% of the net points.

He needs to leverage this stat more imo, even if it drops to 65% by taking more chances and coming to the net behind not so much a 'sure-thing' approach shot, he still needs to do it..... seems the longer the rally goes, the more edge Nad has.

Nadal hits some unbelieveable passes and they can be demoralizing for the net player, but I believe Fed will figure it out after reviewing the match with Tony R.

 

[tlm]

Hey edberg you are right there isnt much of a rivalry because fed has to win some more against nadal to make it a rivalry.As it stands nadal owns fed!ha ha

Now this is your typical fed fan quote:
And Federer is unbeatable on hardcourts and grass and the only person who can beat him on clay is Nadal. So until Nadal can reach the final of every event he enters like the world's #1, I don't really see much of a rivalry

I will repeat this again for these hard headed fed lovers nadal has beat fed twice on hardcourts yes twice He has 4 wins over fed+ twice on hardcourts.

So unbeatable i dont think is a very accurate statement,to say the least.But that is typical of your average fed lover,not in touch with reality.

What in the hell did fed figure out in that match yesterday?How to get smacked all over the court again.He is no were near figuring out nadal.

I am sure fed can beat nadal on grass surface,nadal seems lost on the green stuff.But other than that nadal is a better player than fed period!

 

[fastdunn]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about Federer's press conference was how much he intimated that it was all him why he lost. He lost because Nadal took it to him and defeated him. If he just stayed back tried to be the backboard only, he would've lost like Hewitt at the US Open final 2004 and almost everytime since. Nadal can bring the heat and he has the game to hurt him. If it were as simple as "the being a lefty" line then why does he have no trouble with other lefties like Verdasco and Lopez? He has a combined 5-0 record against both of them. So that "lefty" line is just an excuse and hiding the fact that Nadal is better than Federer when they meet. Nadal has the defence and movement of a Hewitt and the offence of a Super Muster. It's a nice combination.

Yep. It's a sign of low confidence against Nadal.
Sampras often made surprisingly immature comments on
clay court tennis. It's a sign of frustration.

The extra tricky thing is Nadal is a righty who's playing lefty.
Rogelio must exploit some of net game against Nadal.
Rogelio still looks undecided whether he should go forehand or backhand
of Nadal. And he still looks confused at the net.

 

[Rickson]

Different matchups present different problems for people. Nadal has trouble with Blake, who Federer has minimal trouble with, yet Federer has trouble with Nadal. That being said, Federer has played Nadal closely in all 5 of their matches and unlike Roddick against Federer, Federer actually has a good chance of winning any one of his matches against Nadal where Roddick seemingly had no real chance of beating Federer except for Wimbledon 04 where Roddick did surprisingly well in the 1st. Federer will soon be beating Nadal on Nadals' best surface, clay, so hang in there and have faith in the man.

 

[Captain Lou]

To tell you the truth, I'm just glad that Federer has someone that can beat him. That's the thing that use to **** me off about Sampras. You always knew he was going to win. Even in his last US Open final against Agassi, every body said Sampras would win when He had no business being there. I even knew Sampras would win even though Agassi was the better player in 2002. I don't know about you, but I like a little surpise when I watch my tennis.

 

[devila]

Federer was broken 7 and 9 times in both clay matches.
Without the 2 double faults and passiveness, Nadal would've had a straight set domination.

Rafa's immaturity and fatigue fed Fed's ego in Miami match. He blocked out the fact that the clown linesmen rescued him in the nick of time when he faced break point and a 3-5 t/b hole.
Fed Fool can worship himself, but even his fans called him stupid. WIns won't
erase his wimpy interviews.
He just said he's equal to Nadal. Now Fed's one of the best clay specialists of all time. LMAO! ! !


Each time he played Nadal on hardcourt he was broken 3 or 4 times. He had BIG CHANCES to win.

 

[Buzzlightyear]

Therefore, IMHO yesterday's scoreline creates an illusion that Fed took Nadal to two tiebreaks suggesting he is geeting better but if you break down the match you will see that Nadal squandered winning opportunities and should and could have won more easily.

Federer also hit 76 ue's and Nadal had about 15 breakpoints! If that is geeting better i hate to imagine what the stats at the FO were.

And before Fed fanatics get on my case please note that i am neutral on Fed and Nadal and have presented a favtual account of what took place on the Monte Carlos masters final.

The fallacy of your logic is that you only see "if Nadal didn't get tight on here and there...", the same could be argued for Federer if he didn't get tight with his breakpoints and some other crucial points. Using assumptions to construct an argument is simply, well, just assumption.

I'm neither a fans of Federer nor Nadal, I just support the beautiful game itself. Geez, this is literally just the kickoff tourny of the claycourt season, if the mighty Fed has solved the Nadal puzzle so early on, this is really a big anti-climax for the coming French Open. At least there is still some tough challenges lying ahead for him.

 

[sandiegotennisboy]

federer is nadal's b!tch, and i hate to say it cuz im a federer fan...but at this moment, its true.

 

[er00si]

Mr Topspin,

Mental game is part of the match. How come you take points from Roger's break down and ignore points from Rafa's break down?

There is no doubt that Rafa is a great player who should be adored. But, I am not sure what you want to say.

I watched yesterday's dramatic Monte Carlo masters final yestrday in which i'm sure every tennis fan is aware that Nadal won in four sets 6-2, 6-7(2-7), 6-3, 7-6(7-5).

The post mortem coming from Federer is that he is getting closer and that he played better than in Roland Gaross last year. But i want to examine that statement and explore how close is Federer really getting.

In the first set Federer was 4-0 down, playing awfully and short of confidence. Fed was serving in the 5th game and Nadal had a breakpoint for 5-0 which was missed and Fed took heart from that and went on to hold serve again losing 6-2. In short Fed could have easily lost the 1st set 6-0 if Nadal had executed on his breakpoint.

In the second set Nadal found himself serving for the second set on the 10 game and despite being breakpoint down had a set point in which he double faulted. He actually double faulted twice in the 10 game and was broken back. Nadal clearly got tight when trying to close out the second set and let Fed back in which allowed Fed to gain confidence and rap up the tiebreak. Once again Nadal could have had routine 6-4 set had he not got nervous.

In the 3rd set Nadal was broken early and had a timout for a problem with his finger. When the matcg resumed Nadal broke Federer who had established a 40-15 lead in the second game. This suggests that the timeout was not to blame for the breakback as Nadal played some great points to break at 40-15. Nevertheless Nadal regrouped after the 2nd game and ended up winning the 3rd set 6-3.

In the fourth set Nadal was 3-0 up with a double break and again it seemed got tight as he made 2 poor ue's and then Fed did the rest as he started swinging freely and relaxed. Both guys held serve till the 8th game where at 4-3 while serving Fed raised his game and broke Nadal for 4-4. It went to the tiebreak and Nadal completed another famous win.


Now, Federer says in his post match interview that he played better than in Paris last year. I have just shown that Nadal could have easily won 6-2,6-4,6-3. If he had played his best. I get the feeling that Nadal was tight in so many instances yesterday and still won in four. I can only assume that had he played his best it would have been a straight sets demolition.To qualify this further, how many people have played Federer and served for the set and still won? How many guys have have had a double break lost the break and still won in the tiebreak? Nadal is getting away with being tight in big situations and not being punished the way others are. Take Blake, Baghdatis and Ljubicic for example. All those guys got tight and were punished and yet Nadal does the same at key moments and still wins.

Thus, if Nadal plays averagely as he did IMHO and still wins i wonder just how close Federer is really getting. All things being considered when Nadal played Fed and got tired/tight in their second meeting at Miami, Fed benefitted by a poor call in the tiebreak but still won in 5 and punished Nadal in the process. But now the situation is reversed.

Therefore, IMHO yesterday's scoreline creates an illusion that Fed took Nadal to two tiebreaks suggesting he is geeting better but if you break down the match you will see that Nadal squandered winning opportunities and should and could have won more easily.

Federer also hit 76 ue's and Nadal had about 15 breakpoints! If that is geeting better i hate to imagine what the stats at the FO were.

And before Fed fanatics get on my case please note that i am neutral on Fed and Nadal and have presented a favtual account of what took place on the Monte Carlos masters final.

 

[sandiegotennisboy]

some players just really get bothered by other players' games: ie hingis to the power players...she couldnt use her tactical skills any longer (even now, when she faces a power player).

federer will get wins against nadal but it wont come easy. i think in the long run nadal will have a winning record against federer just because his style neutralizes most aspects of federer's game. there is a consolation though for me and other fed fans....nadal will never win more slams than federer. i guarantee it.

 

[mdhubert]

I think Fed knows how Nadal exploits his strenghts against Fed's weaknesses, the main one being the fabulous top spin FH on the 1HBH.

Rog must protect himself form this and the old say "the best defense is attack" applies very well in this matchup. Fed is never better against Nadal than when he plays an all court game, mixing serve and volley, aggressive midcourt game and approach shots. One thing he did pretty well at some point was anticipating Nadal's passing shots.

This is the key: Federer will handle better Nadal's passings at the net than his FH at the baseline.

His tactic in the first set was a total mistake, staying back. He should have surprised Nadal from the get-go by crushing the net.
What is Nadal used to ? Righties playing form the baseline... Rog has the weapons to destabilize him by going more to the net. His volleys were 10 times better than in Roland Garros last year, better constructed.

 

[Count Grishnackh]

As I read all these posts from fans playing armchair coach on how to beat Nadal. Here's one question? When had Federer played and entire match exclusively serve and volleying? Not even at Wimbledon and that surface almost dictates that you come to net. Federer will never have the serve like Roddick or Ljubicic or better yet his constant comparison Pete Sampras. Another thing is Federer is not as good a S & V'er like Henman, Rafter or Sampras. Fed is at his best when he slices, dices and dissects you piece by piece with well placed shots and exposing your weaknesses. He's a finesse player with great variety and tremendous athleticism, but he's not a power player like Sampras, Safin, Roddick or Ljubicic. Fed can't win with brute force, that's not his game. And he certainly won't win by becoming a serve/volleyer. That's not what makes him Roger Federer.

 

[Rickson]

As I read all these posts from fans playing armchair coach on how to beat Nadal.

I agree that there are too many couch coaches.

Another thing is Federer is not as good a S & V'er like Henman, Rafter or Sampras.

Can't agree with this one. Federer is a selective volleyer, but there's no way I can agree that Henman volleys better just because he does it more often.

 

[mdhubert]

Fed can't win with brute force, that's not his game. And he certainly won't win by becoming a serve/volleyer. That's not what makes him Roger Federer.

He's got great volleys. He's not a natural S&Ver like Rafter but have a look at the Doha finals, it's a volleying demo. It's his only option against Nadal IMO.

It's a great mental exercise to think about tactics, but realistically none of us on this board, even coaches, have the required experience to know what exactly happens between these two in terms of shotmaking, feeling of the ball, and mind game.