Nadal vs Federer on clay in 2008 - what the hell happened between MC and Hamburg --> RG?

[jl809]

Far from being a mug, 08erer was actually pushing arguably the best ever version of Nadal on clay super close in their first 2 matches of the season. He lost their match in the final of Monte Carlo 7-5, 7-5, having been 4-0 up in the 2nd set before a classic choke job (and Nadal rescue voyage) occurred. Hamburg 2008 is arguably Fedal's best EVER clay match, but Fed once again blew a big lead (5-1 in the first set) before losing in 3 (also 113 points to 106). It lent evidence to Fed's claim in March 08 that "I've proved so many times now that I know how to play against Rafa [on clay]", which aged like ****ing milk lol

Then RG 08 happened and Fed decided to attack with heavy balls down the middle of the court, relatively low aggression by his standards, and poor shot selection with kamikaze net rushes. He couldn't last in rallies without making UEs. We all know what the result was. Of course, Nadal was absolutely supernova in terms of level, one of the GOAT slam final performances, on fire in a way he wasn't at MC or Hamburg (where his movement was a bit down), but still...

So my question - has Fed himself or anyone else ever explained how or why such a huge shift took place? I know he got Higueras as a coach in 08, but other than that, I don't know much about what was different in 08 compared to 07.

 

[MichaelNadal]

#Chatrier

 

[FeroBango]

Mono. It was the Monorer season.

 

[DSH]

GOATDAL happened!
Nadal at 60% destroyed the Basel player.

 

[BayAreaBooster]

The reason is as Mats Wilander eloquently put it. Fed lacked the cojones to play Rafa at Phillippe Chatriere. His subconscious did not truly believe he stood a chance.

It was evident during 2006 and 2007 that Rafa was MUCH closer to besting Fed on grass, than Fed was to beating Nadal on clay. Indeed Fed subconsciously acknowledged Rafa would win them all in the winner speech during Wimbledon 2007. It was not until 2017 did Fed show a semblance of self belief beating Nadal at a GS since 2007. He still withdrew from RG, perhaps knowing he did not stand an iota of a chance on PC courts.

The Monte Carlo / Hamburg tourneys were like Mickey Mouse tourneys to Rafa to fine tune his game for RG.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal played a lot better at the 2008 French Open than what he had in the weeks before, even by his standards. It was the best Nadal, with the perfect mixture of fitness, youth, experience, mobility, confidence and playing level. Nadal beat Djokovic in the semi finals of 2008 Hamburg when Nadal's number 2 ranking was at stake in that match. After that, and beating Federer in the 2008 Hamburg final, Nadal seemed to push on to taking over the number 1 ranking. Winning the 2008 French Open in devastating fashion was important to build enough momentum to topple Federer at 2008 Wimbledon. Federer was getting further and further away from solving Nadal at the French Open, while Nadal was getting closer and closer to solving Federer at Wimbledon and then did it.

 

[Mustard]

Hamburg 2008 is arguably Fedal's best EVER clay match

That's probably the 2006 Rome final.

 

[ChrisRF]

That's a really good question that I asked myself as well. Obviously Nadal at the 2008 French Open was on one of the best levels of any player in tennis history. But for sure Federer must have negatively contributed to this result nevertheless. I also wonder how so and cannot really explain it.

 

[The_Order]

Fed saw Nadal's level at RG and knew it was beyond anything he'd seen from him before.

No doubt the thoughts would have crept in his mind that he couldn't beat Nadal in previous years and now he's playing better than ever.

Similar thing happened to Djok too, he played Nadal really close in Hamburg. In their RG bout, if not for the lapse in the 3rd set, Nadal would have disposed of him in a similar manner (albeit a bit less devastating)

 

[NatF]

Perfect storm of Nadal playing the match of his life and Fed exacerbating the degree of the defeat with a poor strategy. In other years Fed may have had the confidence to rely on his serve + fh and he would have netted a few more games (like Djokovic did) but instead he went down in blaze of kamikaze net approaches.

 

[StrongRule]

Fed saw Nadal's level at RG and knew it was beyond anything he'd seen from him before.

No doubt the thoughts would have crept in his mind that he couldn't beat Nadal in previous years and now he's playing better than ever.

Similar thing happened to Djok too, he played Nadal really close in Hamburg. In their RG bout, if not for the lapse in the 3rd set, Nadal would have disposed of him in a similar manner (albeit a bit less devastating)

Federer was actually acting as an overconfident person before RG 2008 final. He was saying that he feels he can surprise Nadal this time. Well, he surprised... Don't think anyone expected such a scoreline.

 

[alinefx]

Trust Fed to wear Epic RG kit for his worst slam loss

 

[The_Order]

Federer was actually acting as an overconfident person before RG 2008 final. He was saying that he feels he can surprise Nadal this time. Well, he surprised... Don't think anyone expected such a scoreline.

He did that a lot prior to Nadal humbling him...

 

[big ted]

i don’t get the question.. rafa beat him at the 08 FO and twice before on clay that year… where’s the shift

 

[wangs78]

Part of the problem was that Fed didn’t really accept Nadal as a peer until after 08-09. Up until that point he had been the undisputed top player in the world, was loved by the media who were already discussing him as GOAT and all current and past pro players were saying Fed was the best they’d ever seen. So it’s understandable that for the first few years of their rivalry that Fed felt some of Rafa’s wins were flukes, that he lost because he (Fed) had played badly, and so on. But that attitude was self-defeating because it prevented him from acknowledging holes in his own game and to fix them to become good enough to beat Rafa. The thing that Rafa and Novak share is that they had to come up the ranks having to fight past Roger’s shadow. This gave them a certain toughness forged by fire that was beyond even what Roger had. Remember that Roger basically had faced nothing but sunshine in 2003-2006 that when the storm clouds named Nadal and Novak showed up he didn’t realize the danger until it was too late.

 

[NeutralFan]

Nadal brings his best at FO, masters mean nothing when it comes to judging his performance at FO.

 

[initialize]

Fed’s peak on clay is higher than Nadal’s for sure. It’s just that Fed has a harder time tapping into his fullest potential on clay. But it’s definitely evident in the Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2008.

Fed BAGELED Nadal in Hamburg. For as good as Nadal is on clay, when Fed plays his 100% on clay he is unrivaled

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Part of the problem was that Fed didn’t really accept Nadal as a peer until after 08-09. Up until that point he had been the undisputed top player in the world, was loved by the media who were already discussing him as GOAT and all current and past pro players were saying Fed was the best they’d ever seen. So it’s understandable that for the first few years of their rivalry that Fed felt some of Rafa’s wins were flukes, that he lost because he (Fed) had played badly, and so on. But that attitude was self-defeating because it prevented him from acknowledging holes in his own game and to fix them to become good enough to beat Rafa. The thing that Rafa and Novak share is that they had to come up the ranks having to fight past Roger’s shadow. This gave them a certain toughness forged by fire that was beyond even what Roger had. Remember that Roger basically had faced nothing but sunshine in 2003-2006 that when the storm clouds named Nadal and Novak showed up he didn’t realize the danger until it was too late.

Not really, Federer always knew Nadal was going to be an ATG. When he beat him at Wimbledon he said he had to enjoy it before Nadal started winning everywhere. Even when he lost in Miami 2004 he spoke highly about him.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Nadal brings his best at FO, masters mean nothing when it comes to judging his performance at FO.

Which is why I think people diminishing Djokovic's victory against him in 2015 saying he would have lost to anyone else are talking nonsense. Nadal was far away from his best and it was his worst RG showing but 2022 and 2014 showed even if he plays well below par he can win the title. And in 2013 he started being outplayed by Brands and Klizan (and lost to Zeballos during the clay season) and ended up winning as well. And in 2021 he wasn't playing great too and also would have won without Djokovic.

I'm sure that Nadal wins that RG if Djokovic is not around given that Federer was well past his prime and Thiem hadn't shown up yet. Different story if Federer 2006/2007 or Thiem 2019 were around, but given that Murray was never great on clay and that Nadal owns Wawrinka on the surface (and somewhat in general), I think even in 2015 he manages to win Roland Garros without Djokovic (same as 2021 although I think everyone agrees with this one).

 

[NeutralFan]

Which is why I think people diminishing Djokovic's victory against him in 2015 saying he would have lost to anyone else are talking nonsense. Nadal was far away from his best and it was his worst RG showing but 2022 and 2014 showed even if he plays well below par he can win the title. And in 2013 he started being outplayed by Brands and Klizan (and lost to Zeballos during the clay season) and ended up winning as well. And in 2021 he wasn't playing great too and also would have won without Djokovic.

I'm sure that Nadal wins that RG if Djokovic is not around given that Federer was well past his prime and Thiem hadn't shown up yet. Different story if Federer 2006/2007 or Thiem 2019 were around, but given that Murray was never great on clay and that Nadal owns Wawrinka on the surface (and somewhat in general), I think even in 2015 he manages to win Roland Garros without Djokovic (same as 2021 although I think everyone agrees with this one).

Problem is 2015 Nadal has been trash all year, please stop hyping Nadal who had 4 winners in whole match lol.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Problem is 2015 Nadal has been trash all year, please stop hyping Nadal who had 4 winners in whole match lol.

As I said, that's the worst Nadal played at Roland Garros (but he still wins it). If you look at the early matches before he faced Djokovic he was actually doing better than in other years and much better than he did during the rest of the clay season.

 

[The_Order]

Fed’s peak on clay is higher than Nadal’s for sure. It’s just that Fed has a harder time tapping into his fullest potential on clay. But it’s definitely evident in the Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2008.

Fed BAGELED Nadal in Hamburg. For as good as Nadal is on clay, when Fed plays his 100% on clay he is unrivaled

 

[robthai]

Part of the problem was that Fed didn’t really accept Nadal as a peer until after 08-09. Up until that point he had been the undisputed top player in the world, was loved by the media who were already discussing him as GOAT and all current and past pro players were saying Fed was the best they’d ever seen. So it’s understandable that for the first few years of their rivalry that Fed felt some of Rafa’s wins were flukes, that he lost because he (Fed) had played badly, and so on. But that attitude was self-defeating because it prevented him from acknowledging holes in his own game and to fix them to become good enough to beat Rafa. The thing that Rafa and Novak share is that they had to come up the ranks having to fight past Roger’s shadow. This gave them a certain toughness forged by fire that was beyond even what Roger had. Remember that Roger basically had faced nothing but sunshine in 2003-2006 that when the storm clouds named Nadal and Novak showed up he didn’t realize the danger until it was too late.

Federer never really had issues with Novak until much later in his career.

 

[Backspin1183]

#Chatrier

It was mono. Federer got mono at RG.

 

[NeutralFan]

As I said, that's the worst Nadal played at Roland Garros (but he still wins it). If you look at the early matches before he faced Djokovic he was actually doing better than in other years and much better than he did during the rest of the clay season.

Who did he face before 2015 QF? he has freaking 4 winners in 3 sets at QF so no he wasn't not playing better than clay season .You can hype all you want but 2015 Nadal has been the worst Nadal everywhere

 

[hypercube]

Which is why I think people diminishing Djokovic's victory against him in 2015 saying he would have lost to anyone else are talking nonsense. Nadal was far away from his best and it was his worst RG showing but 2022 and 2014 showed even if he plays well below par he can win the title. And in 2013 he started being outplayed by Brands and Klizan (and lost to Zeballos during the clay season) and ended up winning as well. And in 2021 he wasn't playing great too and also would have won without Djokovic.

I'm sure that Nadal wins that RG if Djokovic is not around given that Federer was well past his prime and Thiem hadn't shown up yet. Different story if Federer 2006/2007 or Thiem 2019 were around, but given that Murray was never great on clay and that Nadal owns Wawrinka on the surface (and somewhat in general), I think even in 2015 he manages to win Roland Garros without Djokovic (same as 2021 although I think everyone agrees with this one).

At the time Nadal was getting straight-setted on clay by the likes of Almagro, Fognini, Wawrinka and Murray. It's obvious the same would have happened at RG as he failed to raised his level. Any decent player would have beaten him.

 

[ForehandRF]

The 2008 Hamburg match is a forgettable one for Fed.Had it been a slam match, it would have been a serious candidate for the worst choke of his career

 

[RS]

Fed’s peak on clay is higher than Nadal’s for sure. It’s just that Fed has a harder time tapping into his fullest potential on clay. But it’s definitely evident in the Rome 2006 and Hamburg 2008.

Fed BAGELED Nadal in Hamburg. For as good as Nadal is on clay, when Fed plays his 100% on clay he is unrivaled

If a Peak Fed and a Peak Nadal play 50 times at RG how many does Fed win?

 

[Clay lover]

I think it boils simply down to FO Nadal being the best Nadal. The fact he's ironically won a slam, which should be the toughest challenge, more often than any other smaller tournament, indicates he's just born for the FO.

 

[Kralingen]

The mono was a big time factor.

It really comes and goes you see.

Against James Blake and Berdych in AO 08 the mono was under control but then hit him like a ton of bricks in the Djokovic match. Unfortunately the Mono returned when he lost to Roddick in Miami, but then the mono was cured again when he won Estoril in April 08.

Things were looking great and he seemed to be in the clear but then he played Djokovic in the MC SFs (where Djokovic retired due to sore throat). Guess what a symptom of mono is? Sore throat! So then the mono returned for the first set of the MC final vs Nadal, then it went away again for 4-0 lead, then it returned again and Fed lost the match and later lost to Stepanek in Rome. Poor guy

Hamburg is where it really gets messy. He totally cured the mono, winning every set by 6-3 or better, in the run up to Hamburg F, and seemed to be totally cured of mono, up 5-1 40-30, but then the mono returned again and he lost 6 straight games and the set. But then he cured the mono again and won the 2nd set, but it returned again and he lost the third set. Same story at RG.

It happened at Wimbledon too, Federer cured his mono and won all of his matches in straights from Halle to the Wimbledon SF… the mono was a thing of the past. Then it sadly returned as he went down 2-0 in sets, but was cured as Fed made a miraculous comeback to 2 all, but then came back again as the sun went down and mono raged in his body making him lose the match.

It’s just a very complex illness, more sympathy needed.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

If a Peak Fed and a Peak Nadal play 50 times at RG how many does Fed win?

0

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Must be all those injuries.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It has to be said Hamburg plays a bit differently from Roland Garros. Federer won Hamburg in 2002 when he wasn't good on clay (he was destroyed by Nalbandian in R2 in Montecarlo and Nalbandian wasn't that good on clay either yet). Federer really hit his stride on clay in 2005 and he was winning that event three years earlier when he wasn't doing great at Roland Garros yet.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Who did he face before 2015 QF? he has freaking 4 winners in 3 sets at QF so no he wasn't not playing better than clay season .You can hype all you want but 2015 Nadal has been the worst Nadal everywhere

I'm not hyping anything, he clearly was well below his best. But to act like any random mug would have beaten Nadal at RG when he has one defeat outside the Djokovic losses in his whole career and it took a superhuman performance from Soderling it's ridiculous. He was playing badly but it's not like he couldn't beat a decent player. He was beating Ferrer, Almagro, Isner, Berdych, Dimitrov, etc. If you look at those early matches he only lost one set and it was 7-5, in all the other matches/sets he won very comfortably. There were other years he was struggling worse than that in the early matches and he ended up winning (2013). A good Federer o Thiem would beat that Nadal I'm sure, but that year the field wasn't strong so it's not a given.

 

[Krish0608]

Nadal played a lot better at RG. Federer played a lot worse at RG. That explains the lopsided score line. Federer lost sets to Montanes (WTF?), Monfils and Gonzales in that tournament. It’s unarguably the crappiest version of Federer that made the RG final against the greatest version of Nadal that made the RG final.

 

[Hitman]

All things aside, that already have been discussed, there is a very big difference between the clay and conditions at Hamburg and RG.

Remember, Federer was winning at Hamburg all the way back in 2002 before he even emerged as an ATG.

 

[Mustard]

It has to be said Hamburg plays a bit differently from Roland Garros. Federer won Hamburg in 2002 when he wasn't good on clay (he was destroyed by Nalbandian in R2 in Montecarlo and Nalbandian wasn't that good on clay either yet). Federer really hit his stride on clay in 2005 and he was winning that event three years earlier when he wasn't doing great at Roland Garros yet.

Federer was excellent at 2002 Hamburg, with the way that he smashed Safin in the final. He just wasn't yet consistent enough to carry that form on beyond Hamburg.

And Nalbandian was a nemesis for Federer back then. Before the 2003 YEC, I believe Federer's only previous win over Nalbandian was as a junior in the Orange Bowl. Nalbandian won all their other junior matches and went 5-0 up on Federer in their head-to-head as a professional.

 

[mike danny]

The reason is as Mats Wilander eloquently put it. Fed lacked the cojones to play Rafa at Phillippe Chatriere. His subconscious did not truly believe he stood a chance.

It was evident during 2006 and 2007 that Rafa was MUCH closer to besting Fed on grass, than Fed was to beating Nadal on clay. Indeed Fed subconsciously acknowledged Rafa would win them all in the winner speech during Wimbledon 2007. It was not until 2017 did Fed show a semblance of self belief beating Nadal at a GS since 2007. He still withdrew from RG, perhaps knowing he did not stand an iota of a chance on PC courts.

The Monte Carlo / Hamburg tourneys were like Mickey Mouse tourneys to Rafa to fine tune his game for RG.

One handed BHs can't beat Rafa on clay in a BO5, irrespective of how much belief you have.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal played a lot better at the 2008 French Open than what he had in the weeks before, even by his standards. It was the best Nadal, with the perfect mixture of fitness, youth, experience, mobility, confidence and playing level. Nadal beat Djokovic in the semi finals of 2008 Hamburg when Nadal's number 2 ranking was at stake in that match. After that, and beating Federer in the 2008 Hamburg final, Nadal seemed to push on to taking over the number 1 ranking. Winning the 2008 French Open in devastating fashion was important to build enough momentum to topple Federer at 2008 Wimbledon. Federer was getting further and further away from solving Nadal at the French Open, while Nadal was getting closer and closer to solving Federer at Wimbledon and then did it.

There was nothing to solve. Nadal knew how to play Fed from day one without exiting his comfort zone.

 

[mike danny]

Part of the problem was that Fed didn’t really accept Nadal as a peer until after 08-09. Up until that point he had been the undisputed top player in the world, was loved by the media who were already discussing him as GOAT and all current and past pro players were saying Fed was the best they’d ever seen. So it’s understandable that for the first few years of their rivalry that Fed felt some of Rafa’s wins were flukes, that he lost because he (Fed) had played badly, and so on. But that attitude was self-defeating because it prevented him from acknowledging holes in his own game and to fix them to become good enough to beat Rafa. The thing that Rafa and Novak share is that they had to come up the ranks having to fight past Roger’s shadow. This gave them a certain toughness forged by fire that was beyond even what Roger had. Remember that Roger basically had faced nothing but sunshine in 2003-2006 that when the storm clouds named Nadal and Novak showed up he didn’t realize the danger until it was too late.

Even if he's realized the danger earlier, what exactly was he gonna do? He was always going to become older anyway.

 

[StrongRule]

One handed BHs can't beat Rafa on clay in a BO5, irrespective of how much belief you have.

Prime Nadal was almost impossible to beat in BO5 on clay in general, doesn't matter if you have a one handed or two handed backhand. Federer was extremely close to do it in Rome 2006, so blaming the one handed backhand makes zero sense.

 

[mike danny]

Prime Nadal was almost impossible to beat in BO5 on clay in general, doesn't matter if you have a one handed or two handed backhand. Federer was extremely close to do it in Rome 2006, so blaming the one handed backhand makes zero sense.

Chatrier is still different to Rome.

 

[MichaelNadal]

One handed BHs can't beat Rafa on clay in a BO5, irrespective of how much belief you have.

Facts

 

[mike danny]

Facts

Easy for people to say "have more belief". The guy played Rafa a lot of times, I think he probably tried everything.

 

[Pandora Mikado]

The nadal was a big time factor.

It really comes and goes you see.

Against James Blake and Berdych in AO 08 the nadal was under control but then hit him like a ton of bricks in the Djokovic match. Unfortunately the nadal returned when he lost to Roddick in Miami, but then the nadal was cured again when he won Estoril in April 08.

Things were looking great and he seemed to be in the clear but then he played Djokovic in the MC SFs (where Djokovic retired due to sore throat). Guess what a symptom of nadal is? Sore throat! So then the nadal returned for the first set of the MC final, then it went away again for 4-0 lead, then it returned again and Fed lost the match and later lost to Stepanek in Rome. Poor guy

Hamburg is where it really gets messy. He totally cured the nadal, winning every set by 6-3 or better, in the run up to Hamburg F, and seemed to be totally cured of nadal, up 5-1 40-30, but then the nadal returned again and he lost 6 straight games and the set. But then he cured the nadal again and won the 2nd set, but it returned again and he lost the third set. Same story at RG.

It happened at Wimbledon too, Federer cured his nadal and won all of his matches in straights from Halle to the Wimbledon SF… the nadal was a thing of the past. Then it sadly returned as he went down 2-0 in sets, but was cured as Fed made a miraculous comeback to 2 all, but then came back again as the sun went down and nadal raged in his body making him lose the match.

It’s just a very complex illness, more sympathy needed.

I discovered a way make it less complex. Sympathy still needed though.

 

[Mustard]

Yeah tried everything, but not in his peak, tried it in 2017. During his peak he was doing the same thing again and again, and losing again and again.

In 2017, Nadal was shortening the points a lot more compared to the past. It changed the dynamic of his matchup with Federer.

 

[abmk]

Yeah tried everything, but not in his peak, tried it in 2017. During his peak he was doing the same thing again and again, and losing again and again.

that's not accurate. At RG, at his prime, Fed in these years:
in 05, he played aggressive all-court style, less claycourtish
in 06, more baseline than in 05
in 07, he tried closer to conventional claycourter style with more topspin off both wings compared to 06. BH actually helped up in the final vs Nadal, but FH was a little inconsistent and Nadal too good in the last 2 sets
in 08, he tried aggressive net play (but kamikaze approaches, so hara kiri)
in 09, he was employing tons of dropshots in clay court season (didn't face Nadal at RG though)

Edit: the question was strategy+execution being correct and holding up for long.
06 Rome, 07 Hamburg both all court, but with aggressive FH and claycourt expertise/familiarity - seemed to work best
07 RG: strategy was decent, but execution a little lacking from FH wing and up against Nadal playing close to his best.

 

[-snake-]

One handed BHs can't beat Rafa on clay in a BO5, irrespective of how much belief you have.

That's why I always lol when some TTWers claim GK would've stood a chance vs Ned on Chatrier.

 

[ChrisRF]

That's why I always lol when some TTWers claim GK would've stood a chance vs Ned on Chatrier.

Same here. It's even more absurd when realizing that in Nadal's WORST of his 14 RG titles he lost 4 sets (and this happened only once) while Kuerten lost 5 sets in the BEST of his 3 RG titles. And Kuerten didn't have to play against any of the Big 3 of course during his RG wins. He often needed 5 sets against total nobodies (or even lost in other years). Kuerten obviously would have needed a Söderling moment to win RG during Nadal's time, and it's much more unlikely than with Federer that he would have converted in exactly that year.

But still, he's a great guy and I'm actually happy for him that he had quite some success.

 

[Milanez82]

Nadal upped the stakes, that's what happened. And few weeks later he backed it up at Wimbledon that he is finally the best player in the world.