It doesn't matter what Federer does!

[flyer]

I started this thread because Im sick of hearing and reading about what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal on clay as if though the match is dependent on Federer's performance....its not, it is dependent on Nadal's play, if Nadal plays to his clay court potential Federer will not beat him, serve and volley, chip and charge, controlled agression, grinding, what ever Federer does he still needs Nadal to have a bad day to win; so Im sick of all you Fed fans saying "if he just stayed argessive" etc, etc

Sereve and volley > Fed gets passed or can't make the volley at his feat

Agressive baseline play > May put a few good games together but eventually errors are his down fall

Drop shots > Work at times but on the average Nadal gets there in plenty of time and wins the point

Grind > not sure cause he never truley tryed it, but he would prolly get systematically beat to submission

I think he should serve the lights out and grind, why? Because we know everything else doesn't work and he hasn't tryed that yet so whta the h*ll does he have to lose....he should intend to serve as well as he ever has and go for very big second serves because once Nadal gets into a rally its a very small number of points Federer will win, then he needs to basically beat Nadal at his own game and do anything to avoid his backhand wing and most importantly: hope Nadal has a bad day because even if he does all that and Nadal is on Nadal will still win...


Either way if Nadal is playing at his ability level Nadal will win, Nadal is the better player so its Nadal's match to win or lose, not Federer's; so all your theroies should be followed by an asterisk(*) and that should read
*victory is still dependent on Nadal putting forth a subpar performance.

Im sure some of you are thinking what if Federer plays his best match ever, then he could beat Nadal on clay with one of those strategies....yes he could, but what if that same day Nadal has his best clay match ever? Nadal wins. So its still dependant on Nadal...

 

[krprunitennis2]

In my opinion, I think that this is too much of a rash opinion. I really think that it's more on who gets the points at which times. If Nadal is clearly the better player, even on his best day, he'd beat Federer in straight sets.

Well, I'm looking at wikipedia right now, and Nadal beat Federer in straight sets two out of nine times on clay.

Yes, Nadal beat Federer 8 out of nine times, but they're mostly close sets and if Nadal beats Federer 6-1 or something, Federer also has beaten Nadal 6-1. For those sets, Federer had to have used one of the above post's tactics, so those do work to a point.

Getting to the point... can't really say that it depends on Nadal since they're both great!

 

[flyer]

In my opinion, I think that this is too much of a rash opinion. I really think that it's more on who gets the points at which times. If Nadal is clearly the better player, even on his best day, he'd beat Federer in straight sets.

Well, I'm looking at wikipedia right now, and Nadal beat Federer in straight sets two out of nine times on clay.

Yes, Nadal beat Federer 8 out of nine times, but they're mostly close sets and if Nadal beats Federer 6-1 or something, Federer also has beaten Nadal 6-1. For those sets, Federer had to have used one of the above post's tactics, so those do work to a point.

Getting to the point... can't really say that it depends on Nadal since they're both great!

you said they work to a point...they do, unfortunatly not to the point of winning the match, which is the goal.

they are both great but nadal is better on clay, so the match is his to win or lose...

 

[BkK_b0y14]

were you watching the same Hamburg final I was?

 

[jrachiever]

In my opinion, I think that this is too much of a rash opinion. I really think that it's more on who gets the points at which times. If Nadal is clearly the better player, even on his best day, he'd beat Federer in straight sets.

Well, I'm looking at wikipedia right now, and Nadal beat Federer in straight sets two out of nine times on clay.

Yes, Nadal beat Federer 8 out of nine times, but they're mostly close sets and if Nadal beats Federer 6-1 or something, Federer also has beaten Nadal 6-1. For those sets, Federer had to have used one of the above post's tactics, so those do work to a point.

Getting to the point... can't really say that it depends on Nadal since they're both great!

By your logic, would you disagree then that Federer is clearly the better player on grass and hard courts?

 

[montx]

I think it depends on both, or your losing your objectivity.

 

[flyer]

I think it depends on both, or your losing your objectivity.

how?................

 

[stormholloway]

So Nadal is unbeatable on clay if he's playing his best?

What a lame assessment. There's always a way. Your post is pretty much stupid from top to bottom.

 

[flyer]

So Nadal is unbeatable on clay if he's playing his best?

What a lame assessment. There's always a way. Your post is pretty much stupid from top to bottom.

stupid in that it has been proven to be true?

the only way is to be better on that day, and even then Nadal still wins at times, which for any player currently has been when Nadal is injured or tired, no body has beaten a healthy 100% in his prime Nadal on clay...so please if your going to take a stance present substance to back up what you say

don't just say "your post is pretty much stupid" with out explaining why, because that is stupid

 

[stormholloway]

How has it proven to be true? Federer lost in Hamburg because of mental weakness. After blowing a 5-1 lead in the first Federer did well just to make it interesting.

 

[flyer]

How has it proven to be true? Federer lost in Hamburg because of mental weakness. After blowing a 5-1 lead in the first Federer did well just to make it interesting.

It has been proven to be true because his two loses in his last like 100 matches have been when he is worn out or injured, nobody has beaten him when he has been 100%, and he has beaten Federer 8 times comparred to one, the one being when he was very physically and mentally fatigued, also his 3 French Open titles to Federer's none, thats how it has been proven that Nadal is the much better clay player....I can't even beleive you would make such a ridiculous argument

Mental weakness? BS, he got beat by a better player, how strong must Nadal be mentally to come back from 5-1 down and take a set against Federer, is the mental aspect not one of the most important parts of the clay game? Federer is never called mentally weak until he plays Nadal on clay, is it just a coincidence that Federer is only mentally week on the 2 or 3 days a year he plays Nadal on clay? The mental weakness argument in complete BS, the reason he goes up is because hes plays so agressive so he goes on hot streaks and gets a few games in a row, unfortunatly he is not good enough to sustain that level and being that agressive he eventually hits errors, and Nadal on clay if you give him one look he will take it, again nothing to do with mental weakness

 

[NikeWilson]

i'd like to see Fed try moon-balling and more slicing. and more "wicked" kick on his serve. he needs to play like Fabrice Santoro out there!

 

[stormholloway]

It has been proven to be true because his two loses in his last like 100 matches have been when he is worn out or injured, nobody has beaten him when he has been 100%, and he has beaten Federer 8 times comparred to one, the one being when he was very physically and mentally fatigued, also his 3 French Open titles to Federer's none, thats how it has been proven that Nadal is the much better clay player....I can't even beleive you would make such a ridiculous argument

When did I ever say that Nadal wasn't the better clay player? You need to learn to communicate properly. You said that it's all up to Nadal if Nadal wins. I said that hasn't been proven to be true. Nowhere did I state what you're implying I stated so try to stay on point if you expect anyone to converse with you.

Who are you to determine when a player is 100%? Ferrero beat him when he had blisters. So what? Players get blisters. Clay isn't even that harsh on blisters.

Mental weakness? BS, he got beat by a better player, how strong must Nadal be mentally to come back from 5-1 down and take a set against Federer, is the mental aspect not one of the most important parts of the clay game? Federer is never called mentally weak until he plays Nadal on clay, is it just a coincidence that Federer is only mentally week on the 2 or 3 days a year he plays Nadal on clay? The mental weakness argument in complete BS, the reason he goes up is because hes plays so agressive so he goes on hot streaks and gets a few games in a row, unfortunatly he is not good enough to sustain that level and being that agressive he eventually hits errors, and Nadal on clay if you give him one look he will take it, again nothing to do with mental weakness

Federer blew significant set leads in their two matches thus far. Blowing a 5-1 lead is a mental issue, period.

Federer isn't called mentally weak until he plays Nadal on clay? He's been mentally weak ever since he recovered from illness. It's been as plain as day. He almost got beat beat by some guy out of the top 100 in Monte Carlo.

Are you honestly saying mental weakness had nothing to do with Federer not closing out a 5-1 lead? Go ahead and say yes so I can be done with your BS and this pointless thread.

 

[flyer]

When did I ever say that Nadal wasn't the better clay player? You need to learn to communicate properly. You said that it's all up to Nadal if Nadal wins. I said that hasn't been proven to be true. Nowhere did I state what you're implying I stated so try to stay on point if you expect anyone to converse with you.

Who are you to determine when a player is 100%? Ferrero beat him when he had blisters. So what? Players get blisters. Clay isn't even that harsh on blisters.



Federer blew significant set leads in their two matches thus far. Blowing a 5-1 lead is a mental issue, period.

Federer isn't called mentally weak until he plays Nadal on clay? He's been mentally weak ever since he recovered from illness. It's been as plain as day. He almost got beat beat by some guy out of the top 100 in Monte Carlo.

Are you honestly saying mental weakness had nothing to do with Federer not closing out a 5-1 lead? Go ahead and say yes so I can be done with your BS and this pointless thread.

Yes it has been proven to be true because everytime Nadal has been 100% since hitting his prime he has won on clay, how is that not proof, the times he lost to Federer and Ferrero he was not 100%, calling it injuries, fatigue, w/e, he was not 100%, there has not been a time when he was just clearly out played, no strings attached, so it has been proven....


And no its not "period" because Nadal has so much to do with it, I wouldn't call it mentally weak I would say he just got beat by the better player, mental, forehand, movement, evertyhing that goes itno being the better player Nadal is on clay and he won the set....even if it is Federer's mental weakness is the mental aspect of the game not the most important on clay? So still Nadal is the better play..

Im glad to see you came with substance this time though, arguments not just assertations.

 

[Shaolin]

I started this thread because Im sick of hearing and reading about what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal on clay as if though the match is dependent on Federer's performance....its not, it is dependent on Nadal's play, if Nadal plays to his clay court potential Federer will not beat him, serve and volley, chip and charge, controlled agression, grinding, what ever Federer does he still needs Nadal to have a bad day to win; so Im sick of all you Fed fans saying "if he just stayed argessive" etc, etc

Sereve and volley > Fed gets passed or can't make the volley at his feat

Agressive baseline play > May put a few good games together but eventually errors are his down fall

Drop shots > Work at times but on the average Nadal gets there in plenty of time and wins the point

Grind > not sure cause he never truley tryed it, but he would prolly get systematically beat to submission

I think he should serve the lights out and grind, why? Because we know everything else doesn't work and he hasn't tryed that yet so whta the h*ll does he have to lose....he should intend to serve as well as he ever has and go for very big second serves because once Nadal gets into a rally its a very small number of points Federer will win, then he needs to basically beat Nadal at his own game and do anything to avoid his backhand wing and most importantly: hope Nadal has a bad day because even if he does all that and Nadal is on Nadal will still win...


Either way if Nadal is playing at his ability level Nadal will win, Nadal is the better player so its Nadal's match to win or lose, not Federer's; so all your theroies should be followed by an asterisk(*) and that should read
*victory is still dependent on Nadal putting forth a subpar performance.

Im sure some of you are thinking what if Federer plays his best match ever, then he could beat Nadal on clay with one of those strategies....yes he could, but what if that same day Nadal has his best clay match ever? Nadal wins. So its still dependant on Nadal...

Ok. Then just dont watch them play since its so certain that he will win.

While youre at it, just assume he will win every match from now on ever to be played on tour. That way, you wont have to bother posting your inane comments on this forum. Thx.

 

[flyer]

Ok. Then just dont watch them play since its so certain that he will win.

While youre at it, just assume he will win every match from now on ever to be played on tour. That way, you wont have to bother posting your inane comments on this forum. Thx.

Are you going to make a tennis based argument about this thread because if not than your post is ten times more inane, how is this thread inane, since you made the claim you should be able to back it up...big guy.

 

[grafrules]

I am a Federer fan but you are absolutely right. That is why I get a sense of dread before all their matches on clay because I pretty much know it will not go as I hope it to, and I just have to buckle down and bear it and try to enjoy it for the quality of the tennis anyway. I would think Federer has similar sentiments before a match with Nadal on clay at this point.

This last loss was probably one of the worst though since he had Nadal in a more vurnerable situation then usual for a variety of reason, and still goofed it up. He wont have that many chances vs Nadal on clay as good as he had in that match.

 

[Hot Sauce]

Everything you write is full of contradictions. A joke, really.

 

[flyer]

thanks grafrules for being realistic

 

[caulcano]

I started this thread because Im sick of hearing and reading about what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal on clay as if though the match is dependent on Federer's performance....its not, it is dependent on Nadal's play, if Nadal plays to his clay court potential Federer will not beat him, serve and volley, chip and charge, controlled agression, grinding, what ever Federer does he still needs Nadal to have a bad day to win; so Im sick of all you Fed fans saying "if he just stayed argessive" etc, etc

Sereve and volley > Fed gets passed or can't make the volley at his feat

Agressive baseline play > May put a few good games together but eventually errors are his down fall

Drop shots > Work at times but on the average Nadal gets there in plenty of time and wins the point

Grind > not sure cause he never truley tryed it, but he would prolly get systematically beat to submission

I think he should serve the lights out and grind, why? Because we know everything else doesn't work and he hasn't tryed that yet so whta the h*ll does he have to lose....he should intend to serve as well as he ever has and go for very big second serves because once Nadal gets into a rally its a very small number of points Federer will win, then he needs to basically beat Nadal at his own game and do anything to avoid his backhand wing and most importantly: hope Nadal has a bad day because even if he does all that and Nadal is on Nadal will still win...


Either way if Nadal is playing at his ability level Nadal will win, Nadal is the better player so its Nadal's match to win or lose, not Federer's; so all your theroies should be followed by an asterisk(*) and that should read
*victory is still dependent on Nadal putting forth a subpar performance.

Im sure some of you are thinking what if Federer plays his best match ever, then he could beat Nadal on clay with one of those strategies....yes he could, but what if that same day Nadal has his best clay match ever? Nadal wins. So its still dependant on Nadal...

I've make a quite calculation that in their previous 9 meetings on clay, Nadal has won 170 games & Federer 144 (I might be a few games out). That's pretty close imo.

You have to remember that no-one can play 100% all of the time. Otherwise, Nadal would not lose any sets.

So yes, Federer needs luck on his side to win the FO if they both meet in the final (I hope they do).

 

[deme08]

Everything you write is full of contradictions. A joke, really.

I agree with stormholloway. This thread is stupid top to bottom.

 

[flyer]

I agree with stormholloway. This thread is stupid top to bottom.

your post is stupid top to bottom because you make a statement with out substance, you have nothing to back up your argument, so please enlighten us as to how its stupid....

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

your post is stupid top to bottom because you make a statement with out substance, you have nothing to back up your argument, so please enlighten us as to how its stupid....

Well first you say that it dont matter what fed does and you're sick of people saying what fed needs to do to win, then you go on to say in your opinion what fed needs to do lol...

 

[veroniquem]

How has it proven to be true? Federer lost in Hamburg because of mental weakness. After blowing a 5-1 lead in the first Federer did well just to make it interesting.

In Hamburg 2008, in the 3rd set, Fed was playing as well as he possibly could, really imo remarkable and he still lost the set. That Fed's best would beat Rafa's best on clay is the biggest myth on this board, a myth based exclusively on one match (Hamburg final 2007) when Nadal had won the 3 previous tournaments and was physically and mentally drained.

 

[dh003i]

I started this thread because Im sick of hearing and reading about what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal on clay as if though the match is dependent on Federer's performance....its not, it is dependent on Nadal's play, if Nadal plays to his clay court potential Federer will not beat him, serve and volley, chip and charge, controlled agression, grinding, what ever Federer does he still needs Nadal to have a bad day to win; so Im sick of all you Fed fans saying "if he just stayed argessive" etc, etc

Sereve and volley > Fed gets passed or can't make the volley at his feat

Agressive baseline play > May put a few good games together but eventually errors are his down fall

Drop shots > Work at times but on the average Nadal gets there in plenty of time and wins the point

Grind > not sure cause he never truley tryed it, but he would prolly get systematically beat to submission

I think he should serve the lights out and grind, why? Because we know everything else doesn't work and he hasn't tryed that yet so whta the h*ll does he have to lose....he should intend to serve as well as he ever has and go for very big second serves because once Nadal gets into a rally its a very small number of points Federer will win, then he needs to basically beat Nadal at his own game and do anything to avoid his backhand wing and most importantly: hope Nadal has a bad day because even if he does all that and Nadal is on Nadal will still win...


Either way if Nadal is playing at his ability level Nadal will win, Nadal is the better player so its Nadal's match to win or lose, not Federer's; so all your theroies should be followed by an asterisk(*) and that should read
*victory is still dependent on Nadal putting forth a subpar performance.

Im sure some of you are thinking what if Federer plays his best match ever, then he could beat Nadal on clay with one of those strategies....yes he could, but what if that same day Nadal has his best clay match ever? Nadal wins. So its still dependant on Nadal...

Whiney post from a Nadal fan. Presumes Nadal's best on clay is better than Federer's best, which is a reasonable assumption, but not necessarily true. The argument is that Nadal's average on clay is better than Federer's average, ergo, Nadal's best is better than Federer's best. That's a reasonable argument, and has a certain weight behind it. On the other side, is that Federer is quite possibly the most talented player ever, so him playing his top game would arguably over-power Nadal, even on clay.

When Federer has taken large leads in sets, only to lose them, it isn't as if Nadal brought out his best, and that beat Federer's best. It's more like, Nadal upped his level, and Federer greatly decreased his.

If we were talking about Federer and Roddick, I'd agree with the above poster, that it's completely dependent on Fed, even if Roddick brings his best, Fed can still beat him. But there's an enormous talent gap between those two. Between Fed and Nadal, the talent gap overall is in Fed's favor, and even on clay, it's not like Fed is that far behind.

 

[veroniquem]

The talent gap is in Fed's favor even on clay? Let me spell that for you: DENIAL.

 

[dh003i]

It has been proven to be true because his two loses in his last like 100 matches have been when he is worn out or injured, nobody has beaten him when he has been 100%, and he has beaten Federer 8 times comparred to one, the one being when he was very physically and mentally fatigued, also his 3 French Open titles to Federer's none, thats how it has been proven that Nadal is the much better clay player....I can't even beleive you would make such a ridiculous argument

Mental weakness? BS, he got beat by a better player, how strong must Nadal be mentally to come back from 5-1 down and take a set against Federer, is the mental aspect not one of the most important parts of the clay game? Federer is never called mentally weak until he plays Nadal on clay, is it just a coincidence that Federer is only mentally week on the 2 or 3 days a year he plays Nadal on clay? The mental weakness argument in complete BS, the reason he goes up is because hes plays so agressive so he goes on hot streaks and gets a few games in a row, unfortunatly he is not good enough to sustain that level and being that agressive he eventually hits errors, and Nadal on clay if you give him one look he will take it, again nothing to do with mental weakness

You obviously didn't pay attention to the match. Every time Federer was that aggressive, he started dominating the match. Both in Monte Carlo, where Nadal was perfectly healthy, and at Hamburg. He lost control when he reverted to a less aggressive game. It wasn't because his aggressive game started simmering down.

 

[dh003i]

In Hamburg 2008, in the 3rd set, Fed was playing as well as he possibly could, really imo remarkable and he still lost the set. That Fed's best would beat Rafa's best on clay is the biggest myth on this board, a myth based exclusively on one match (Hamburg final 2007) when Nadal had won the 3 previous tournaments and was physically and mentally drained.

Really absurd to say he played his best in the 3rd set...he played best in the 2nd set, and 1st half of the 1st set. And he played his best in the 1st half of each set at MC, and dominated Nadal, until he switched to more conservative, and Nadal wasn't injured there.

Of course, you can argue that Nadal wasn't playing his best at the MC final, although you can also argue that Federer wasn't playing his best there either, especially 2nd half of each set, when he didn't close out each set, where he had multiple opportunities on his serve.

In any event, we can say that Nadal's best on clay beats Federer's best. We can say that his average beats Fed's average. So what? If Federer keeps on producing opportunities to take him out at the FO final, he keeps giving himself chances; which he can capitalize on. I think some Nadal fans just really hate the possibility of Fed winning the French Open. These, imo, are people who hate greatness.

I mean, here we have the first player since Laver who has put himself in the position to win all 4 slams year-after-year. Even when he doesn't make the finals, he's in the semi-finals, and only defeated by the eventual winner (Safin, Nadal). A guy who's won 12 slams, and is most likely going to break Sampras' record. And what do we have, a bunch of people trashing on him, hoping he fails. Really petty.

 

[Defcon]

This year its more obvious than ever that Federer has the game to beat Nadal on clay, since he easily gets huge leads but is mentally too weak to close out the set and match.

Lets just take Hamburg - Nadal was in perfect and he was not tired or injured, despire what some of you will say. In the 1st 2 sets, Fed was up 5-1 and 4-2 and should have won the match 6-1 6-4. It wasn't that Nadal was missing shots earlier and suddenly started to play better, Fed just went away. And he can't afford to do that against Nadal on clay. Thats the difference.

We can see the same pattern in most of their clay court matches. If Fed can keep it together in his head, he can win. But that appears harder than it looks, even for someone as great as him.

 

[coloskier]

This year its more obvious than ever that Federer has the game to beat Nadal on clay, since he easily gets huge leads but is mentally too weak to close out the set and match.

Lets just take Hamburg - Nadal was in perfect and he was not tired or injured, despire what some of you will say. In the 1st 2 sets, Fed was up 5-1 and 4-2 and should have won the match 6-1 6-4. It wasn't that Nadal was missing shots earlier and suddenly started to play better, Fed just went away. And he can't afford to do that against Nadal on clay. Thats the difference.

We can see the same pattern in most of their clay court matches. If Fed can keep it together in his head, he can win. But that appears harder than it looks, even for someone as great as him.

Exactly!!!!!

 

[Nadal_Monfils]

This year its more obvious than ever that Federer has the game to beat Nadal on clay, since he easily gets huge leads but is mentally too weak to close out the set and match.

Lets just take Hamburg - Nadal was in perfect and he was not tired or injured, despire what some of you will say. In the 1st 2 sets, Fed was up 5-1 and 4-2 and should have won the match 6-1 6-4. It wasn't that Nadal was missing shots earlier and suddenly started to play better, Fed just went away. And he can't afford to do that against Nadal on clay. Thats the difference.

We can see the same pattern in most of their clay court matches. If Fed can keep it together in his head, he can win. But that appears harder than it looks, even for someone as great as him.

Yes it was like that.

 

[veroniquem]

Really absurd to say he played his best in the 3rd set...he played best in the 2nd set, and 1st half of the 1st set. And he played his best in the 1st half of each set at MC, and dominated Nadal, until he switched to more conservative, and Nadal wasn't injured there.

Of course, you can argue that Nadal wasn't playing his best at the MC final, although you can also argue that Federer wasn't playing his best there either, especially 2nd half of each set, when he didn't close out each set, where he had multiple opportunities on his serve.

In any event, we can say that Nadal's best on clay beats Federer's best. We can say that his average beats Fed's average. So what? If Federer keeps on producing opportunities to take him out at the FO final, he keeps giving himself chances; which he can capitalize on. I think some Nadal fans just really hate the possibility of Fed winning the French Open. These, imo, are people who hate greatness.

I mean, here we have the first player since Laver who has put himself in the position to win all 4 slams year-after-year. Even when he doesn't make the finals, he's in the semi-finals, and only defeated by the eventual winner (Safin, Nadal). A guy who's won 12 slams, and is most likely going to break Sampras' record. And what do we have, a bunch of people trashing on him, hoping he fails. Really petty.

IMO Fed carried his best tennis over in the 3rd in Hamburg. He kept playing great but Rafa raised his level, at least that's the way I saw it... I never meant that Fed will never win RG or that he has no chance. He has a very real chance, Rafa could get injured for example, that would not be impossible and I do admire Fed, I think he's an amazing champion. I'm only saying that if Fed plays Nadal in the final and they're both playing well, from what I've seen so far, the result is gonna be the same as usual. If I'm wrong you can flame me after the RG final...

 

[zagor]

This year its more obvious than ever that Federer has the game to beat Nadal on clay, since he easily gets huge leads but is mentally too weak to close out the set and match.

Lets just take Hamburg - Nadal was in perfect and he was not tired or injured, despire what some of you will say. In the 1st 2 sets, Fed was up 5-1 and 4-2 and should have won the match 6-1 6-4. It wasn't that Nadal was missing shots earlier and suddenly started to play better, Fed just went away. And he can't afford to do that against Nadal on clay. Thats the difference.

We can see the same pattern in most of their clay court matches. If Fed can keep it together in his head, he can win. But that appears harder than it looks, even for someone as great as him.

Maybe you're right,but another problem is that it's damn hard to put away Nadal on clay as he runs down everything and won't give you a single point.He doesn't comeback only in matches against Federer,Djokovic had 3-0 40-15 and failed to take a set,Ferrer had a big lead in second set in Monte Carlo and he wasted it,Chela in Barcelona etc. that's too many times to be a coincidence.Fed(and even Djokovic) can play at the level where he is dominating Nadal but it's very hard to sustain that level from beginning to the end and the moment they slip a little Nadal will get his teeth back into the match.IMO he should definitely play agressive and come to the net(that's the play that brough him those leads in Monte Carlo and Hamburg),slice more,maybe more dropshots,the way he should not play is to try to outplay Nadal from the baseline on clay,that's the wrong approach IMO.

 

[Cup8489]

Yes it was like that.

did you even WATCH the match? Nadal wasn't making any better shots, at all..

i think the poster was referring to the MC final, as the Hamburg final wasnt with federer up in both sets.

but it is true that federer shut down mentally in both the first and second sets at monte carlo. for whatever reason he reverts back to playing nadal's game JUSt as he is about to pull through a set..and until federer is able to pull through these mental blockades he has put up on himself, he wont be able to beat nadal.

but quite honestly we have never seen federer's absolute best on clay against nadal, because he always goes away at the tail end of a set, or lets tiny things throw him off. look at the 2006 final showing on TTC right now..federer took the first set 6-1, and nadal could do nothing. he lost this match because at 0-1 40-love, he replayed a point that was called out, and completely lost his rythm. federer does this over and over against nadal, for whatever reason.

but we have NEVER seen these two players play their absolute best against each other on clay at the same time.

but this thread really is pointless, since it is based on a bunch of ASSUMPTIONS made by the OP, rather than based in cold hard facts. i dont pretend to say that Federer will beat Nadal, but it's preposterous to say that at 100% against Federer, Nadal would always win, for we have never seen Federer play 100% against Nadal throughout a match.

Why can't people just take the match as it comes and root for who they want to win, and if that person doesnt win, accept that fact, and move on. it's not as if we're going to get rich if Fed beats Rafa this year, or vice versa. it would be cool to see him get the career slam, as well as it would be cool for Nadal to win 4 straight.

Personally, i root for both, because the winner deserves to win. always. so stop with the hate posts. it's annoying. just give them their dues, and stop trying to belittle someone who will be a thousand times better at tennis than any of us, because it's childish.

 

[Nadal_Monfils]

^^^ He was referring to the Hamburg match and in that match Nadal played pitifully at the beginning. He missed easy forehands and made way too many unforced errors. Clearly, Federer should have finished the set when he had a 5-1 lead but Nadal's play has a greater effect on the outcome of the match than Federer's, as Nadal has proven he is better on clay.

 

[Mr Topspin]

I think the OP makes some good points. It is perfectly reasonable to deduce that Nadal's best would beat Federer's best on clay as the record is 8-1 in Nadal's favour. It is irelevant about how many leads Federer squanders because of mental fragility. It all boild down to earning matchpoints and Nadal achieves that more often than Federer when playing on clay. The amount of games that Federer achieves is also imo irrelevant. For example, Roddick usually loses in 4 sets or 3 sets to Federer and often goe's to a tiebreak and yet you would be hard pressed to find support that he is closer to beating Federer despite the fact he might go down in tie-breaks. The wining margin has to be looked at whether or not the losing player is choking or not.

I think that the real reason for a lot of denial by some posters is that they cant accept that Nadal has a dominace over an alleged GOAT if only on clay.

 

[veroniquem]

Excellent post! I wish I had written it...

 

[zagor]

II think that the real reason for a lot of denial by some posters is that they cant accept that Nadal has a dominace over an alleged GOAT if only on clay.

I'll aknowledge Nadal's dominance over Federer on clay(it would be stupid not to with 8-1 h-t-h on that surface) however not on other surfaces as Federer beat Nadal in two Wimbledon finals in a row(and please don't pull that "Nadal should've won Wimbledon last year" crap,Fed won fair and square just as Nadal did in Rome when Fed had MPs) and last two times they met on hardcourts Fed won both times in straight sets(even one set with 6-1).

 

[tangerine]

I started this thread because Im sick of hearing and reading about what Federer needs to do to beat Nadal on clay as if though the match is dependent on Federer's performance....its not, it is dependent on Nadal's play, if Nadal plays to his clay court potential Federer will not beat him, serve and volley, chip and charge, controlled agression, grinding, what ever Federer does he still needs Nadal to have a bad day to win; so Im sick of all you Fed fans saying "if he just stayed argessive" etc, etc

There's some truth to this. Roger has thrown every trick he knows at Nadal on clay and at most he's won one set. I don't see how anything will change at the French this year unless Djokovic does Federer a huge favor and takes out Nadal for him.