Match Stats/Report - Nadal vs Federer, French Open final, 2007

[Waspsting]

Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the French Open final, 2007 on clay

This was Nadal's 3rd French title. Federer had been on a non-calendar year Grand Slam, just as he had the previous year when he had also been thwarted by Nadal

Nadal won 137 points, Federer 119

Serve Stats
Nadal...
- 1st serve percentage (105/137) 77%
- 1st serve points won (73/105) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (18/32) 56%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/137) 22%

Federer...
- 1st serve percentage (75/119) 65%
- 1st serve points won (50/75) 67%
- 2nd serve points won (23/44) 52%
- Aces 9
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (29/119) 24%

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 4%
- to BH 93%
- to Body 3%

Federer served...
- to FH 43%
- to BH 53%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Nadal made...
- 89 (45 FH, 44 BH), including 9 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (3 FH), including 1 runaround FH
- 17 Forced (9 FH, 8 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (89/118) 75%

Federer made...
- 106 (19 FH, 87 BH), including 15 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH), a runaround FH
- 28 Errors, comprising...
- 16 Unforced (6 FH, 10 BH), including 4 runaround FHs
- 12 Forced (12 BH)
- Return Rate (106/136) 78%

Break Points
Nadal 4/10 (7 games)
Federer 1/17 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding aces)
Nadal 29 (19 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
Federer 28 (13 FH, 9 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Nadal's FHs - 2 cc (1 pass at net), 5 dtl (1 pass, 1 return), 6 inside-out, 3 inside-in, 1 drop shot, 1 longline/inside-out and 1 cc running-down-drop-shot at net pass
- BHs - 6 cc (4 passes - 1 a return), 1 inside-in return and 1 drop shot

- the FHV was a pass, hit from no-man's land and has not been counted a net point

Federer's FHs - 1 cc, 3 dtl, 6 inside-out (1 runaround return), 2 inside-in and 1 cc running-down-drop-shot at net
- BHs - 6 cc (1 pass), 1 dtl, 1 inside-out at net and 1 longline slice

- 2 FHVs from serve-volley points - a first volley and a second volley
- 1 BHV was a drop

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Nadal 61
- 32 Unforced (14 FH, 18 BH)
- 29 Forced (16 FH, 13 BH)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.8

Federer 77
- 59 Unforced (33 FH, 22 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV)
- 18 Forced (12 FH, 4 BH, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV)
Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.8

(Note 1: all half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Half -volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke counts)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Nadal was...
- 4/7 (57%) at net

Federer was...
- 25/39 (64%) at net, including...
- 7/11 (64%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 6/9 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/2 off 2nd serve

Match Report
Expected outcome aside, this is one of the more interesting - if not good - clay matches between the pair. Federer's changed his usual strategy in how he uses his BH and if nothing else, it makes playing dynamics different from the pairs norm

Federer's BH play
Typically, Nadal relentlessly sends down FH cc's to Federer's BH until it breaks. Federer's usual response is to either -

- play along and hit BH cc's back (not once have I seen him come off better over a clay match doing this against Nadal)
- try to runaround BH to hit FH inside-outs, which leaves the court wide open for Nadal's own FH inside-out and puts him in a hopeless position cooped up in the BH corner of the court

In this match, Federer mostly plays BH longline to the Nadal BH instead. It works better than I would have thought, though that's somewhat due to Nadal having a bad day on the BH by his standards. Note Nadal with 18 BH UEs - still better than Federer who has 22 - but the gap is a lot shorter than normal. All other things remaining equal, this would give Federer a good shot at coming out on top (he doesn't because all other things don't remain equal, specifically, he has a bad FH day. More on that later)

These shots to Nadal's BH aren't 'attacking shots' (looking to force errors) but rather, who-blinks-first strategy (just neutral shots repeated over and over with the hope the UE comes from Nadal before it does from him). Basically, the same thing Nadal usually does to him with the FH cc's

Initially, Fed flirts a bit with giving Nadal a dose of his own FH cc to BH medicine. Nadal has little trouble redirecting the ball longline, which leaves Fed having to hit running BHs. Given he doesn't seem to want to hit BHs at all (let alone running ones), one can understand why Fed didn't pursue this line of 'attack' further and went in for BH longlines instead

It works to a point. Nadal himself is reluctant to go BH cc and put the ball on Fed's FH and instead, plays BH longline back. And they have BH longline rallies - not something you see often. A good chunk of these end with a UE from one or the other - and its Nadal not infrequently. Still, Nadal probably wins the bulk - but less than he's used to winning FH cc to BH cc - which is a small win (or at least, a smaller loss) for Fed

The staple rally opens up other patterns of play. Both players occasionally go BH cc to open court. Federer is more adventurous - note the 5 winners, usually its 0 - but also makes UEs trying. Nadal's BH cc change up is usually a neutral, loopy shot, rarely strong enough to even force an error much less go for a winner. Both also let loose with the odd FH inside-out - and both are damaging with it

Its a good move from Federer, though he didn't try it in future matches. I don't think it would have worked long term. It works as well as it does because Nadal's more error prone than usual off the BH

 

[Waspsting]

Other Playing Dynamics
Fed isn't able to capitilize on minimizing his BH handicap because he has a bad day off his stronger side. 33 UEs off the FH for Fed, 1 more than Nadal's total for all shots. These are of all types - routine balls, attacking shots, winner attempts, you name it. Many are groan inducing

For all that, he plays relatively safe with his attacks. Whereas normally he goes for inside-out winners, here he mostly goes inside-in or cc to pressure Nadal rather than (try to) finish the point in a stroke. Again, the focus is on attacking the Nadal BH. At other times, his attack is just stepping in and hitting FHs hard and straight. Its not a good ploy... even when he makes the ball, its rarely enough to force an error out of Nadal (and of course, he misses balls trying)

Nadal for his part plays his usual game, allowing for his adapting to Fed's novelties. Safe, consistent, heavy top spin - with the odd FH zinger thrown in. He leads in hitting winners by 1 - which is rare, and largely a product of Fed playing less aggressively than his norm. While the BHs a bit suspect, the FH is the star of the court - hitting the most winners (19, 6 more than Fed's) and yielding the fewest UEs (14 - 4 less than his own BH)

Movement isn't as big a part of the match as others and both players are a bit down. Nadal's is less than astonishing (which is down for him) and Fed is ordinary, with occasional lazy movement. The handiness of sliding is noticeable... Nadal reaches balls with it that stretch and sometimes mildly force errors out of Fed. In the 4th set, Nadal also takes it a bit easy on return after going up a break and while not tanking, is obviously not trying his best to either return or rally to the death

Net play is a mixed bag for Fed. He only comes in 4 times in the first set, but after the second, has won 16/17 in forecourt. One would imagine a few trips forward might have helped on the 10 break points he misses in the opener

Any thought of net play coming to Fed's rescue are emphatically brushed aside by Nadal in the 3rd. He breaks first chance, with the points he won including a passing winner and strongly forcing a volleying error and wins 7/10 points Fed advances on. That's mostly down to Nadal, but Fed misses couple of easy volleys too

Serve & Return
Nadal doesn't do much with the serve, mostly just using it to get the point underway. And he's as unrelenting as ever in targeting the Fed BH, directing 127/136 serves there or 93% (he's go even higher the following year).

Fed's returning is a bit off. Note the 16 UEs. Many of them are against first serves, but very ordinary ones. 78% return rate is solid, but Fed would probably need to absolutely minimize it give his other disadvantages... and he doesn't. Lots of makeable balls missed. Fed does runaround a number of second serves, hitting 1 winner and otherwise returning with greater power and intent. Its a nice change up and a good ploy to keep Nadal on his toes but not too significant. He makes 9 and misses 4 and the strong shots he hits usually come back normally anyway

One thing Fed does do well on the return is find Nadal's BH. He returns inside-out a lot from the deuce court, giving Nadal 3rd ball BHs. Nadal not running around to hit FHs is another indicator that his speed was a bit down... the returns aren't particularly powerful, and Nadal's runaround such balls in many other matches

Fed takes his sweet time in finding his serving rhythm. First set he makes just 10/26 first serves. Probably doesn't make a difference - he's broken in both games where he got the most first serves in. His rate is a tremendous 79% in the last two sets and he wins a number of cheap points. There's a caveat... in the last set in particular, Nadal isn't going all out after gaining the early break. He lets a couple of aces go that I'm sure he could put have put in play if he was fully committed to doing so, let alone get a racquet on the ball. Nadal's 75% return rate is on the low side for him

1/17
This match is probably best known for Federer's break point conversion rate of 1/17. Bad, even by his standards He loses these in every way there is to lose a point -

- 1 ace
- 5 return errors (3 forced, 2 unforced... with 1 of the forced's being marginal)
- 2 Nadal winners
- 3 FEs (3 FH)
- 5 UEs (2 FH, 3 BH)

Summing up, different playing dynamics from the usual for this match up - the change initiated by Federer and more successful than not. Nadal though, remains just too consistent off the ground and with Federer's FH being loose, maintains his usual superiority

Stats for their matches in Monte Carlo https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...dal-vs-federer-monte-carlo-final-2007.645066/ and Hamburg https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...t-federer-vs-nadal-hamburg-final-2007.645163/ leading into this one

 

[RS]

Good stuff.

 

[fedfan24]

Reading this and watching the highlights confirms my belief that Federer was better in 2005/2006. Movement, FH and attacking intent. 2007 marginally more stable on BH side playing more passively. IMO. He doesn’t slice enough there either imo. A deep slice to reset the point is better than hitting a short Bh to service line to be put away or netting it. Fed still had elite movement. Only in 2006 did I see him defend at his absolute best on the surface.

Still, a disgrace he didn’t win the first set in 07 or 11. The better player making the better shots loses those sets to a guy, more often than not just running around and spamming moonballs and tap backs until the other guy misses (with the occasional good winner thrown in). On a proper surface like the USO, Federer wins in 4.

 

[abmk]

Reading this and watching the highlights confirms my belief that Federer was better in 2005/2006. Movement, FH and attacking intent. 2007 marginally more stable on BH side playing more passively. IMO. He doesn’t slice enough there either imo. A deep slice to reset the point is better than hitting a short Bh to service line to be put away or netting it. Fed still had elite movement. Only in 2006 did I see him defend at his absolute best on the surface.

Still, a disgrace he didn’t win the first set in 07 or 11. The better player making the better shots loses those sets to a guy, more often than not just running around and spamming moonballs and tap backs until the other guy misses (with the occasional good winner thrown in). On a proper surface like the USO, Federer wins in 4.

I have to disagree with multiple things in Wasp's summary.
no way was Nadal's movement anything less than astonishing.
and I have him at only 12 UEs and not error prone with it.
nor was federer's movement ordinary by any standards.

these are my stats and comments about the match.

Federer Nadal French Open 2007 final stats

Nadal def Federer : 6-3,4-6,6-3,6-4 Aces : Federer - 9 Nadal - 2 DFs: Federer - 1 Nadal - 1 No service winners FHWs : Federer - 13 (including one return winner) Nadal - 18 (including one return winner and 2 passing shot winners) BHWs: Federer - 9 (including one passing shot winner) Nadal -...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

re: fed's BH, he hit it consistently deep, wasn't hitting shallow balls
big diff b/w his BH in 06/07. even if his FH and attacking intent was better in 06.

 

[fedfan24]

I have to disagree with multiple things in Wasp's summary.
no way was Nadal's movement anything less than astonishing.
and I have him at only 12 UEs and not error prone with it.
nor was federer's movement ordinary by any standards.

these are my stats and comments about the match.

Federer Nadal French Open 2007 final stats

Nadal def Federer : 6-3,4-6,6-3,6-4 Aces : Federer - 9 Nadal - 2 DFs: Federer - 1 Nadal - 1 No service winners FHWs : Federer - 13 (including one return winner) Nadal - 18 (including one return winner and 2 passing shot winners) BHWs: Federer - 9 (including one passing shot winner) Nadal -...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

re: fed's BH, he hit it consistently deep, wasn't hitting shallow balls
big diff b/w his BH in 06/07. even if his FH and attacking intent was better in 06.

Some of his cc BHs looked good but the highlights showed a lot of short balls that’s nadal killed from that side. Fed should’ve sliced deep more if he was on the back foot to give himself a chance to defend and win more points. I think his movement was peak in 06 too.

 

[abmk]

Some of his cc BHs looked good but the highlights showed a lot of short balls that’s nadal killed from that side. Fed should’ve sliced deep more if he was on the back foot to give himself a chance to defend and win more points. I think his movement was peak in 06 too.

watch the full match when you feel like it.

there will some short balls off BH vs nadal on clay. even for djoko/nalby, let alone fed. don't think there were too many from fed in this match.

nadal murders those slices. heck he got the better of fed slices in Wim 07. what do you think he would have done on clay where it sits up more.
occasionally yes, some deep slices, but wouldn't work consistently.

movement maybe marginally better in 06 than in 07, but not much difference honestly.

biggest plus for 06 compared to 07 is fh
for 07 compared to 06 is bh

06 had better attacking intent, yes.

 

[abmk]

This is comment from my thread.

3. federer's BP conversion : 1/17
most costly in the 1st set : all 10 BPs lost. in 3 separate games.

committed UEs to get himself broken twice in the 1st set, after having chances to break himself.

Federer Nadal French Open 2007 final stats

Nadal def Federer : 6-3,4-6,6-3,6-4 Aces : Federer - 9 Nadal - 2 DFs: Federer - 1 Nadal - 1 No service winners FHWs : Federer - 13 (including one return winner) Nadal - 18 (including one return winner and 2 passing shot winners) BHWs: Federer - 9 (including one passing shot winner) Nadal -...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

focus goes too much on 1/17. Tbh, nadal saved majority of those. and those mattered for 1st set.
fed anyway won 2nd set. only 1 BP in 3rd and 4th set combined (nadal saved it IIRC)

bigger issue was this -->

"committed UEs to get himself broken twice in the 1st set, after having chances to break himself."

 

[Krish872007]

watch the full match when you feel like it.

there will some short balls off BH vs nadal on clay. even for djoko/nalby, let alone fed. don't think there were too many from fed in this match.

nadal murders those slices. heck he got the better of fed slices in Wim 07. what do you think he would have done on clay where it sits up more.
occasionally yes, some deep slices, but wouldn't work consistently.

movement maybe marginally better in 06 than in 07, but not much difference honestly.

biggest plus for 06 compared to 07 is fh
for 07 compared to 06 is bh

06 had better attacking intent, yes.

Pretty much all except one - the one that really mattered at 3-2, 15-40, 5th set

 

[RS]

Both at there very best.

17 years ago.

 

[abmk]

Pretty much all except one - the one that really mattered at 3-2, 15-40, 5th set

that was one wicked low slice from fed! can't hit those consistently though.

 

[Milanez82]

Pretty much all except one - the one that really mattered at 3-2, 15-40, 5th set

Fortunately, Federer found a way.

 

[Towny]

I think beyond the atrocious break point conversion, Federer actually played well here. Nadal was just way too good here. One of his highest level RG performances

 

[RS]

Reading this and watching the highlights confirms my belief that Federer was better in 2005/2006. Movement, FH and attacking intent. 2007 marginally more stable on BH side playing more passively. IMO. He doesn’t slice enough there either imo. A deep slice to reset the point is better than hitting a short Bh to service line to be put away or netting it. Fed still had elite movement. Only in 2006 did I see him defend at his absolute best on the surface.

Still, a disgrace he didn’t win the first set in 07 or 11. The better player making the better shots loses those sets to a guy, more often than not just running around and spamming moonballs and tap backs until the other guy misses (with the occasional good winner thrown in). On a proper surface like the USO, Federer wins in 4.

Fed played great in all 3.

 

[abmk]

Fed played great in all 3.

if fed played great in 05/06, it would have gone 5 for sure.
even 07 which was the best among the 3 IMO, could have been better with the FH for sure.

there is a clear difference between playing good and great

 

[RS]

if fed played great in 05/06, it would have gone 5 for sure.
even 07 which was the best among the 3 IMO, could have been better with the FH for sure.

there is a clear difference between playing good and great

For me you don't need a 5th set to have played great. But I agree that would have made Fed's effort more impressive.

 

[NatF]

Fed played great in all 3.

Worse than 2004 Roddick's and 2006 Nadal at Wimbledon in 05/06.

 

[fedfan24]

watch the full match when you feel like it.

there will some short balls off BH vs nadal on clay. even for djoko/nalby, let alone fed. don't think there were too many from fed in this match.

nadal murders those slices. heck he got the better of fed slices in Wim 07. what do you think he would have done on clay where it sits up more.
occasionally yes, some deep slices, but wouldn't work consistently.

movement maybe marginally better in 06 than in 07, but not much difference honestly.

biggest plus for 06 compared to 07 is fh
for 07 compared to 06 is bh

06 had better attacking intent, yes.

Everyone always says that, but the 07 F had a few points where fed went to the short slice and came out on top, a few in a row in fact. More reliable shot to mix in imo.

 

[RS]

Worse than 2004 Roddick's and 2006 Nadal at Wimbledon in 05/06.

I am not comparing it to Fed's at Wimbledon on a different surface that's a different discussion there.

 

[abmk]

For me you don't need a 5th set to have played great. But I agree that would have made Fed's effort more impressive.

given 05/06 nadal wasn't at 07 level, yeah if fed had played great, it'd have gone 5. that follows naturally.
or at the very least a tight 4-setter ala RG 11 semi or USO 01 QF

 

[fedfan24]

This is comment from my thread.

3. federer's BP conversion : 1/17
most costly in the 1st set : all 10 BPs lost. in 3 separate games.

committed UEs to get himself broken twice in the 1st set, after having chances to break himself.

Federer Nadal French Open 2007 final stats

Nadal def Federer : 6-3,4-6,6-3,6-4 Aces : Federer - 9 Nadal - 2 DFs: Federer - 1 Nadal - 1 No service winners FHWs : Federer - 13 (including one return winner) Nadal - 18 (including one return winner and 2 passing shot winners) BHWs: Federer - 9 (including one passing shot winner) Nadal -...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

focus goes too much on 1/17. Tbh, nadal saved majority of those. and those mattered for 1st set.
fed anyway won 2nd set. only 1 BP in 3rd and 4th set combined (nadal saved it IIRC)

bigger issue was this -->

"committed UEs to get himself broken twice in the 1st set, after having chances to break himself."

One of those BPs 1st set was ridiculous. He hammered his FH inside out and Nadal gets to it and loops a topspin cc fh to reset the point. I prefer hc and grass, the type of shots fed was playing that didn’t result in winners deserved more.

 

[Milanez82]

I think beyond the atrocious break point conversion, Federer actually played well here. Nadal was just way too good here. One of his highest level RG performances

What about having 59 UE, certainly should have done better

 

[BeatlesFan]

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 4%
- to BH 93%
- to Body 3%

This stat would be consistent with every match they ever played. Why mess with success? The fact Fed never learned (until 2017) to deal with Rafa's serve was inexplicable. He had no issue with lefties, his W-L ration against all lefthanders not named Nadal was like 95%+. Nadal's serve was never a strength except in 2010, but Roger was insanely stubborn. How many times did John McEnroe scream in the booth while commentating, "Roger, take 2 steps to the left to cover the serve you know is coming to the BH. DO IT!"

 

[Towny]

What about having 59 UE, certainly should have done better

He certainly could have done better but he never really did against Nadal at RG. But overall, Federer was good in this match and Rafa was better. Maybe if Federer didn't have the mental complex against Nadal, he could've taken him to 5 here

 

[RS]

given 05/06 nadal wasn't at 07 level, yeah if fed had played great, it'd have gone 5. that follows naturally.
or at the very least a tight 4-setter ala RG 11 semi or USO 01 QF

He was at least close to being great for me. If it's a higher bar/standard based on Fed's caliber possibly I could drop it very good.

 

[abmk]

He was at least close to being great for me. If it's a higher bar/standard based on Fed's caliber possibly I could drop it very good.

not based on fed's caliber.
Speaking in general.

nadal in Wim 06 final was similar level (give or take) to fed in RG 05/06. wouldn't call it great either.

very good is ok.

and like @NatF said, Roddick Wim 04 obviously clears all of these.

 

[RS]

not based on fed's caliber.
Speaking in general.

nadal in Wim 06 final was similar level (give or take) to fed in RG 05/06. wouldn't call it great either.

very good is ok.

and like @NatF said, Roddick Wim 04 obviously clears all of these.

Depends on the scale I wouldn't mind also calling it very good.

I don't agree on Roddick but that's a different discussion there.

 

[NatF]

Depends on the scale I wouldn't mind also calling it very good.

I don't agree on Roddick but that's a different discussion there.

Lol

 

[jackson vile]

Federer played the best he could and did a great job against the clay God, but it take a god to beat a god…

 

[The Guru]

Are Fed fans saying this was not a great performance from Fed and was on par with 05/06? Typically I see 07 held up as the best Fed of those 3.

 

[RS]

Are Fed fans saying this was not a great performance from Fed and was on par with 05/06? Typically I see 07 held up as the best Fed of those 3.

07 usually is ranked as the best of the 3 even by Fed fans. But some pick 05 and some pick 06 so it's not overwhelming consensus.

 

[The Guru]

07 usually is ranked as the best of the 3 even by Fed fans. But some pick 05 and some pick 06 so it's not overwhelming consensus.

I guess it makes sense that there's not consensus as Fed never put together a complete performance like say Rome 06. Middle two sets of 05 are prolly the standout sets to me but I've always thought 07 was the best overall. Never thought 06 was in contention but it's been awhile since I've revisited these matches.

 

[JasonZ]

if fed played great in 05/06, it would have gone 5 for sure.
even 07 which was the best among the 3 IMO, could have been better with the FH for sure.

there is a clear difference between playing good and great

maybe he played great, but against nadal it looks like he played only good

 

[MichaelNadal]

The match that made me join TTW

 

[abmk]

Depends on the scale I wouldn't mind also calling it very good.

I don't agree on Roddick but that's a different discussion there.

Embrace the reality and light!

 

[RS]

Embrace the reality and light!

I am staying on topic here.

 

[adil1972]

Which record is more important

1) 14 FO

or

Only 10 consecutive FO

2) 2CYGS

or

24 slams

 

[RS]

I guess it makes sense that there's not consensus as Fed never put together a complete performance like say Rome 06. Middle two sets of 05 are prolly the standout sets to me but I've always thought 07 was the best overall. Never thought 06 was in contention but it's been awhile since I've revisited these matches.

Agreed. Even for Djokovic actually most pick 13 SF but it's not a consensus at RG because you would also get the 12 F/15 QF/21 SF crowd.

 

[objection_]

Serve Pattern
Nadal served...
- to FH 4%
- to BH 93%
- to Body 3%

This stat would be consistent with every match they ever played. Why mess with success? The fact Fed never learned (until 2017) to deal with Rafa's serve was inexplicable. He had no issue with lefties, his W-L ration against all lefthanders not named Nadal was like 95%+. Nadal's serve was never a strength except in 2010, but Roger was insanely stubborn. How many times did John McEnroe scream in the booth while commentating, "Roger, take 2 steps to the left to cover the serve you know is coming to the BH. DO IT!"

In all fairness, it's one thing to know that the serve is going to the BH, and another thing to actually execute - what other strategies did Rog really have?
Hit runaround forehand returns? - Could be more effective in gaining the upper hand in a rally, although if not executed quite perfectly, he'd leave a lot of open court for Rafa to hit a winner.
Stand 2 steps left to cover the BH serve? - Might be more effective in helping him strike it harder, although he'd be apt to chip it back anyways, which he was arguably doing regularly from his current position. Also circa 2007-2008, Rafa's spot serving really did begin improving and he'd often send it to Roger's FH wing on important points, when he was expecting the predictable one to the BH, getting him more free points.
Drive the BH return more? - More effective on grass on HC's, but he'd probably drop them short anyways and get burned by Rafas +1

Roger's ground game, especially in 04-12, was more than a match for basically any leftie on tour bar Nadal, chipping the return back as he usually did wouldn't matter much against them, as he'd more or less get into a neutral starting rally position, and his groundgame would be more than adequate in baseline encounters

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Hit runaround forehand returns? - Could be more effective in gaining the upper hand in a rally, although if not executed quite perfectly, he'd leave a lot of open court for Rafa to hit a winner.

i wonder if hard inside-out forehands into Nadal's forehand (and conversely, loopy forehands into Nadal's backhand), would have been the ideal ways to pressure Nadal for time and force him out of his unbeatable clay mode. i.e. go "actually i will just straight up not hit backhands under pain of death" and bait Nadal into hard court tennis and line changing shotmaking rather than clay court tennis and angle based neutral-aggressive play. not that this was necessarily something Federer (or Djokovic, or Borg, or anyone) was capable of, but rather just the theoretical ideal strategy against that Nadal version and level. actually just be Moya lmao

Stand 2 steps left to cover the BH serve? - Might be more effective in helping him strike it harder, although he'd be apt to chip it back anyways, which he was arguably doing regularly from his current position. Also circa 2007-2008, Rafa's spot serving really did begin improving and he'd often send it to Roger's FH wing on important points, when he was expecting the predictable one to the BH, getting him more free points.

the play might have been to mix return-approaching and treat 2nd returning as 1st returning, so focus more on reacting and being impulsive than thinking

 

[objection_]

i wonder if hard inside-out forehands into Nadal's forehand (and conversely, loopy forehands into Nadal's backhand), would have been the ideal ways to pressure Nadal for time and force him out of his unbeatable clay mode. i.e. go "actually i will just straight up not hit backhands under pain of death" and bait Nadal into hard court tennis and line changing shotmaking rather than clay court tennis and angle based neutral-aggressive play. not that this was necessarily something Federer (or Djokovic, or Borg, or anyone) was capable of, but rather just the theoretical ideal strategy against that Nadal version and level. actually just be Moya lmao

the play might have been to mix return-approaching and treat 2nd returning as 1st returning, so focus more on reacting and being impulsive than thinking

You raise some good points
- Inside out FH's into Nadal's forehand seemed to be relatively effective on faster courts - on clay however, he seemed to be able to keep looping it back to Roger's BH - if Rog kept trying to hit I/O FH's nadal would just go DTL and expose it
-Loopy forehands into Nadal's backhand never seemed particularly effective - he always appeared to be able to hammer it hard and flat back CC, sometimes even overpowering opponents FH's
-Return approaching looked to be effective on faster surface, but rafa eats up roger's slice better than anyone - also seemed to get him killed roddick kamikaze style at RG 08

 

[The Blond Blur]

No way am I reading that Ol’ Rog should have sliced more against RAFA on clay no less, lol. No one in the history of the game punished slices as well as he did, especially at his physical prime/peak. It’s basically inviting him to either take over the point or win it outright entirely.

And I thought we’re past the point of calling RAFA’s CC FHs “moonballs” You either don’t play tennis or you’ve bought into the myth that a shot that has a lot of topspin is a moonball. A moonball is just tennis slang for lob. Now that that has been cleared up we can stop being wrong as a forum

 

[InsideOut900]

not based on fed's caliber.
Speaking in general.

nadal in Wim 06 final was similar level (give or take) to fed in RG 05/06. wouldn't call it great either.

very good is ok.

and like @NatF said, Roddick Wim 04 obviously clears all of these.

RG 05/06 Fed was definitely a bit better and closer to his own best than Wimb 06 Ned.

Yeah, Nadal was better in RG 07, but this was also reflected in the match dynamic. 2007 win was more one sided than the 2005-2006 matches, even if all were 4 setters.

In 05/06 Fed had various chances at crucial parts of the match (especially 4th set in both matches).

07 Fed was steadier for sure, but I doubt he payed better in a way he would take advantage of 05/06 Nadal, so I would still rate all 3 in the same ballpark.

 

[RS]

No way am I reading that Ol’ Rog should have sliced more against RAFA on clay no less, lol. No one in the history of the game punished slices as well as he did, especially at his physical prime/peak. It’s basically inviting him to either take over the point or win it outright entirely.

And I thought we’re past the point of calling RAFA’s CC FHs “moonballs” You either don’t play tennis or you’ve bought into the myth that a shot that has a lot of topspin is a moonball. A moonball is just tennis slang for lob. Now that that has been cleared up we can stop being wrong as a forum

On clay it slows down the point. So it actually extends the rally which is even worse for anyone against Nadal on clay.

Djokovic has the best chance in this senario but still comes short.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

You raise some good points
- Inside out FH's into Nadal's forehand seemed to be relatively effective on faster courts - on clay however, he seemed to be able to keep looping it back to Roger's BH - if Rog kept trying to hit I/O FH's nadal would just go DTL and expose it
-Loopy forehands into Nadal's backhand never seemed particularly effective - he always appeared to be able to hammer it hard and flat back CC, sometimes even overpowering opponents FH's
-Return approaching looked to be effective on faster surface, but rafa eats up roger's slice better than anyone - also seemed to get him killed roddick kamikaze style at RG 08

No way am I reading that Ol’ Rog should have sliced more against RAFA on clay no less, lol. No one in the history of the game punished slices as well as he did, especially at his physical prime/peak. It’s basically inviting him to either take over the point or win it outright entirely.

And I thought we’re past the point of calling RAFA’s CC FHs “moonballs” You either don’t play tennis or you’ve bought into the myth that a shot that has a lot of topspin is a moonball. A moonball is just tennis slang for lob. Now that that has been cleared up we can stop being wrong as a forum

just rotate and imagine '91 Edberg + '98 Moya's FH + '01 Hewitt's mind and body !

 

[fedfan24]

In all fairness, it's one thing to know that the serve is going to the BH, and another thing to actually execute - what other strategies did Rog really have?
Hit runaround forehand returns? - Could be more effective in gaining the upper hand in a rally, although if not executed quite perfectly, he'd leave a lot of open court for Rafa to hit a winner.
Stand 2 steps left to cover the BH serve? - Might be more effective in helping him strike it harder, although he'd be apt to chip it back anyways, which he was arguably doing regularly from his current position. Also circa 2007-2008, Rafa's spot serving really did begin improving and he'd often send it to Roger's FH wing on important points, when he was expecting the predictable one to the BH, getting him more free points.
Drive the BH return more? - More effective on grass on HC's, but he'd probably drop them short anyways and get burned by Rafas +1

Roger's ground game, especially in 04-12, was more than a match for basically any leftie on tour bar Nadal, chipping the return back as he usually did wouldn't matter much against them, as he'd more or less get into a neutral starting rally position, and his groundgame would be more than adequate in baseline encounters

Stand further back and loop or deep slice the ball back rather than risk getting aced. Taking returns early on clay wasn’t doing anything for him anyway. Some baffling tactics from Federer at RG vs Nadal. 2011 was his best effort in that regard other than that drop shot miss on SP.

 

[fedfan24]

No way am I reading that Ol’ Rog should have sliced more against RAFA on clay no less, lol. No one in the history of the game punished slices as well as he did, especially at his physical prime/peak. It’s basically inviting him to either take over the point or win it outright entirely.

And I thought we’re past the point of calling RAFA’s CC FHs “moonballs” You either don’t play tennis or you’ve bought into the myth that a shot that has a lot of topspin is a moonball. A moonball is just tennis slang for lob. Now that that has been cleared up we can stop being wrong as a forum

That’s just your opinion. There’s quite a few examples in the 07 RG final alone that show the deep or short slice being more effectively than looping a topspin bh to the service line that Nadal can easily put away. It seems easier to slice deeper when on the run that try a deep topspin bh when stretched and on the run.

If it’s a more neutral ball then driving through the bh more of running around to hit a FH would be better.

 

[Third Serve]

Are Fed fans saying this was not a great performance from Fed and was on par with 05/06? Typically I see 07 held up as the best Fed of those 3.

I think Wasp is a bit low on this match for my taste. I’d rank them as 2007 > 2005 > 2006. 2006 had the most potential but the way he imploded after the first set was shocking and he was poor from the backhand.

They’re not that far apart from each other though.

 

[Third Serve]

Some of his cc BHs looked good but the highlights showed a lot of short balls that’s nadal killed from that side. Fed should’ve sliced deep more if he was on the back foot to give himself a chance to defend and win more points. I think his movement was peak in 06 too.

Saying that Fed should have sliced more against Nadal on clay is certainly a take.

 

[JasonZ]

I think Wasp is a bit low on this match for my taste. I’d rank them as 2007 > 2005 > 2006. 2006 had the most potential but the way he imploded after the first set was shocking and he was poor from the backhand.

They’re not that far apart from each other though.

this so called implosion in the second set after a great first set happened to peak federer against hewitt wimby 2004, against agassi uso 2004, against hewitt uso 2004, against roddick wimby 2005, against agassi uso open 2005, against nadal wimby 2006, against roddick uso 2006. he won all those matches and also a few times the second set. the difference was that the opponent was not nadal on clay.