Proof that Federer is not playing clay tune ups in 2018

[Dolgopolov85]

Lol, Rusty, I wish you reached those conclusions before you were walking around telling people how they should feel about Federer's chances, insulting them and actually making a laughing stock of yourself, while trying to explain the tennis behind your optimism for Federer's success at RG.

'Tis quite a peculiar definition of fandom he's put out there. Thought fans unconditionally support their favourites? Note I am saying support, not deification. Not saying fans should consider Fed perfect but that they ought to back his decisions. And if Fed's victories and defeats don't katter, why the obsession with RG glory?

 

[zagor]

So he has confirmed that he will be skipping the clay season again. I get his reasons but can't say I agree. Why the obsession with Wimbledon when he has already won it 8 times? He has only won the FO once and this is really a bit of an asterix on his record. Nobody has won every slam twice and he could do it with Nadal still a bit suspect injury wise. Surely he could play one warm up clay event and then the FO and then have a complete rest before Wimbledon and maybe skip Halle.

-The same reason Nadal is still obssessed with FO despite winning it 10 times, it sets a new milestone that will likely never be reached and represents the best chance of adding to his slam tally (the main reason why both Nadal and Fed are still slugging it out there).

-DCGS or winning every slam twice is a (historically speaking) recent invention by the VBers, I doubt Fed is either aware of it or cares about it.

-Nadal is far from being the only obstacle for Fed on clay, the last time he was responsible for Fed's loss at the FO was 7 years ago.

-Nadal usually comes to life during the CC season regardless of his current condition on other surfaces. Fed is well aware of that which is why he relatively recenly said that Nadal is still the man to beat on clay.

-Having a complete rest and having a perfect Wimbledon preparation are two conflicted terms. You can't do both in 3 weeks time, especially if you're a 36-37 and with tremendous mileage.

 

[zagor]

Shouldn't he have said it earlier then, rather than wait till hes in a bad mood because he lost a match? Smacks of sour grapes.

Actually, I reckon he was supposed to say it later because of the ticket sales, sponsors etc. but he was grumpy enough after a shock loss to drop the charade.

I sincerely doubt Fed had any intention of playing CC season this year at any point.

 

[van_Loederen]

I still don't believe #2 and I don't think #3 is any kind of "proof" - if Federer would want to play RG, he would skip it.

playing RG without serious prep would be completely ridiculous. it's not like the AO.

and if he has made even several appointments during the clay season, that's evidence enough, since he is not preparing for just one event ...and given the Wimbly priority.

 

[moonballs]

Excuse me but if Nadal is fit for the clay season it just seems ridiculous to favour anyone else over him to win RG maybe because the results of the last 12 years strongly indicate we should favour him. But it’s of course your opinion and you’re perfectly allowed to keep it. It just that an objective prediction and a wish are different things.

Yes he is the favorite but the chance of an upset is higher now because he is getting older. Same way Fed was the favorite to win Miami before he lost in R2.

 

[kOaMaster]

playing RG without serious prep would be completely ridiculous. it's not like the AO.
and if he has made even several appointments during the clay season, that's evidence enough, since he is not preparing for just one event ...and given the Wimbly priority.

In Swiss media it reads as if Federer initially wanted to play RG but last week his team convinced him not to do so after his rather strenuous tournament in IW.

 

[van_Loederen]

In Swiss media it reads as if Federer initially wanted to play RG but last week his team convinced him not to do so after his rather strenuous tournament in IW.

and that makes sense to you?

skipping a Slam is quite a big thing. he needed some sort of excuse (for his fans).
(he revealed it early enough, so it's all fair.)


...what many posters here also underestimate is the clay/grass transitioning aspect. while Fed is surely one of the most capable, it's still a considerable extra effort.

 

[kOaMaster]

I meant not only RG but clay + RG of course.

 

[van_Loederen]

skipping the entire clay season because of feeling tired at IW of course makes much more sense.
especially since the weather in IW this year made conditions (even) slower than usually (afaik).

 

[EloQuent]

In Swiss media it reads as if Federer initially wanted to play RG but last week his team convinced him not to do so after his rather strenuous tournament in IW.

lol. Exactly how I said it would play out

 

[kevaninho]

I think he said it at the right time. When he won Miami last year, he said he would not play...did anyone say it was sour grapes then?

No, but why wait? Why not say he isn't playing clay weeks ago? He obviously knew all along.
People spoke of Nadal pulling out of Mexico after tickets went on sale, well its funny that RG tickets just went on sale this week.
Lets be honest hes a bad loser, and he didn't want to be in the press room after that defeat, and he just blurted it out when asked.
The old nice guy image seems to come and go

 

[kevaninho]

Actually, I reckon he was supposed to say it later because of the ticket sales, sponsors etc. but he was grumpy enough after a shock loss to drop the charade.

I sincerely doubt Fed had any intention of playing CC season this year at any point.

Kind of what ive said above to Hitman. The ticket sales were out this week, but I think hes blurted it out because he didn't want to be in that media conference, and the questions were irritating him. Not his best PR moment.

 

[EloQuent]

Kind of what ive said above to Hitman. The ticket sales were out this week, but I think hes blurted it out because he didn't want to be in that media conference, and the questions were irritating him. Not his best PR moment.

nah, he kept saying before that he would "decide after Miami", he obviously had it planned that he would announce no clay after Miami

 

[kevaninho]

nah, he kept saying before that he would "decide after Miami", he obviously had it planned that he would announce no clay after Miami

Funnily enough deciding after the last HC tournament on his schedule before clay....well that's obvious, from a PR point of view

 

[EloQuent]

Funnily enough deciding after the last HC tournament on his schedule before clay....well that's obvious, from a PR point of view

Of course it's a PR move, but anyone could have figured it out

 

[West Coast Ace]

No, but why wait? Why not say he isn't playing clay weeks ago? He obviously knew all along.
People spoke of Nadal pulling out of Mexico after tickets went on sale, well its funny that RG tickets just went on sale this week.
Lets be honest hes a bad loser, and he didn't want to be in the press room after that defeat, and he just blurted it out when asked.
The old nice guy image seems to come and go

Could have been a good post..... but you forgot the most important words at the start: “I’m a huge Fed fan but...” (*rollseyes*)

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So he has confirmed that he will be skipping the clay season again. I get his reasons but can't say I agree. Why the obsession with Wimbledon when he has already won it 8 times? He has only won the FO once and this is really a bit of an asterix on his record. Nobody has won every slam twice and he could do it with Nadal still a bit suspect injury wise. Surely he could play one warm up clay event and then the FO and then have a complete rest before Wimbledon and maybe skip Halle.

It's about making sure he holds onto the grand slam record, the MOST important record of them all. No DCS could ever match that. And Wimbledon is his best chance to add another and keep Nadal at arms length.

I am not sure why that is so difficult for some to understand. You pick your battles...that is how you win the war.

 

[clayqueen]

So he has confirmed that he will be skipping the clay season again. I get his reasons but can't say I agree. Why the obsession with Wimbledon when he has already won it 8 times? He has only won the FO once and this is really a bit of an asterix on his record. Nobody has won every slam twice and he could do it with Nadal still a bit suspect injury wise. Surely he could play one warm up clay event and then the FO and then have a complete rest before Wimbledon and maybe skip Halle.

Fed knows he would lose to a 75% Rafa at RG.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

-The same reason Nadal is still obssessed with FO despite winning it 10 times, it sets a new milestone that will likely never be reached and represents the best chance of adding to his slam tally (the main reason why both Nadal and Fed are still slugging it out there).

-DCGS or winning every slam twice is a (historically speaking) recent invention by the VBers, I doubt Fed is either aware of it or cares about it.

-Nadal is far from being the only obstacle for Fed on clay, the last time he was responsible for Fed's loss at the FO was 7 years ago.

-Nadal usually comes to life during the CC season regardless of his current condition on other surfaces. Fed is well aware of that which is why he relatively recenly said that Nadal is still the man to beat on clay.

-Having a complete rest and having a perfect Wimbledon preparation are two conflicted terms. You can't do both in 3 weeks time, especially if you're a 36-37 and with tremendous mileage.

I know that Wimbledon is his best chance at winning a slam and setting further Wimbledon related records. I just don't see how playing the French jeopardises his Wimbledon chances that much given that there is a 3 week gap between the end of the French and the start of Wimbledon. He won't even need to try that hard in the first few rounds of Wimbledon either as he will be playing mugs. He doesn't necessarily have to play Halle either.

 

[EloQuent]

It's about making sure he holds onto the grand slam record, the MOST important record of them all. No DCS could ever match that. And Wimbledon is his best chance to add another and keep Nadal at arms length.

I am not sure why that is so difficult for some to understand. You pick your battles...that is how you win the war.

i think they understand it all too well, and want to hold him back

 

[KINGROGER]

I know that Wimbledon is his best chance at winning a slam and setting further Wimbledon related records. I just don't see how playing the French jeopardises his Wimbledon chances that much given that there is a 3 week gap between the end of the French and the start of Wimbledon. He won't even need to try that hard in the first few rounds of Wimbledon either as he will be playing mugs. He doesn't necessarily have to play Halle either.

Yeah I agree. 3 weeks break, he can have plenty of ice baths and lie ins and he will be sorted to go for Wimbledon..

 

[JackGates]

I know that Wimbledon is his best chance at winning a slam and setting further Wimbledon related records. I just don't see how playing the French jeopardises his Wimbledon chances that much given that there is a 3 week gap between the end of the French and the start of Wimbledon. He won't even need to try that hard in the first few rounds of Wimbledon either as he will be playing mugs. He doesn't necessarily have to play Halle either.

Because even when Fed skipped clay last year, he STILL got injured, and this year he is even in worse shape. He only played great till the AO 18 final, since then, he is playing very average tennis.

Fed is losing because of mental and physical fatigue, hey, he is still old, it's starting to show up.

 

[van_Loederen]

its funny that RG tickets just went on sale this week.

if tickets went on sale only a week ago, he absolutely should have waited a week more, shouldn't he?

hes a bad loser, and he didn't want to be in the press room after that defeat, and he just blurted it out when asked.

he destroys big business because he was pissed? nope, that i don't buy at all. more likely is still that the agreement was that he's allowed to speak as soon as he's out of that tourney.

but even this i find unlikely.
i wonder about the legal frame of this "scenario".
how can he even legally make an agreement/contract with RG about "not revealing withdrawal until date X" ? could be some informal agreement, but that's already a bit speculative as it would be illegal if he received cash that way (i think).

i had rather interpreted it as the opposite, namely a clue for no agreement having been in place and him trying to be fair with the fans.
how? for now i find it kinda normal that he waited til the end of his hardcourt schedule, in order to avoid friction with fans during these tourneys.
i mean, if i were in his place, why should i reveal my plans that very early? i would just not like to do that.

 

[JackGates]

Sorry, haters, Fed won't destroy his body in order for other weaklings to win. Hey, Rafa and Nole are only 31, why do they need to rely on Fed destroying his body???

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Fed knows he would lose to a 75% Rafa at RG.

Fed knows he probably will never even get to Nadal at RG. After RG 2011, seven years ago, Federer has played Nadal only once on clay, it is clear his problems on clay is now more than just Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

i think they understand it all too well, and want to hold him back

Let's see.

Watch Federer lose more, watch Federer lose to Nadal, watch his mental edge vanish, watch him potentially get injured, watch him get tired before the defense of W....of course Fed haters want him to play clay. Win win for them.

 

[Badabing888]

Kind of what ive said above to Hitman. The ticket sales were out this week, but I think hes blurted it out because he didn't want to be in that media conference, and the questions were irritating him. Not his best PR moment.

Rubbish. He was asked the question in the post match press conferenxe about the upcoming clay court season and he gave a straight answer to the question. He didn’t blurt anything out and did not have an agenda on ticket sales for RG. For him it’s irrelevant.

If you read what Pierre Paganini said in Feb it was a clue that Roger was never going to play on clay:

Pierre Paganini

The advantage when you play on clay for the joints is that there is less shock because there is the slide, and the disadvantage of [playing on] hard courts is that shock,' he said. 'But the advantage on hard courts is that the shock is brief. In contrast, the disadvantage with the slide on clay is that there is a lot of vibration in the joints. We don’t see it from the outside, but to control this slide there is instability in the knee, the foot, the ankle. And that in some cases can be bad for the knee or joint in question.'

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.**...iner-fuels-speculation-about-his-clay-season/

Reading between the lines Post knee surgery Fed will not risk destabilising his knee by playing on the clay because he would need to slide into shots. He’s said before that his knee will never be the same again post surgery.

 

[clayqueen]

Fed knows he probably will never even get to Nadal at RG. After RG 2011, seven years ago, Federer has played Nadal only once on clay, it is clear his problems on clay is now more than just Nadal.

The first time Federer made the SF at RG was in 2005 when he first played Nadal there. It's a myth that Nadal is his only problem on clay.

Federer - Roland Garros

 

[clayqueen]

In short, Federer thinks he is far too good to win on clay.

Here are excerpts from the Independent of Federer's explanation for not achieving on clay:

Federer: 'On clay, you don't need a volley or a serve. It's too easy'

Roger Federer doesn't want to offend Rafael Nadal, the man he acknowledges as the king of clay, but the world No 1 believes that winning the French Open can be less than a full test of a man's tennis.

"On clay, you don't need to have a volley," Federer says. "You almost don't need to have a serve. All you need to have are legs, an incredible forehand and backhand and to run things down. I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces.

"On a hard court, you can lure a guy in and do many more things. You almost have to have more feel. On clay, I don't want to say it's too simple, that you just have to keep the ball in court and wait for a mistake, but sometimes it's too easy."

"I don't think my problem was clay, even though there were lots of people who said that clay wasn't my best surface," Federer says. "Of course it's not, because I've won Wimbledon six times and the US Open five times in a row, but I'd always thought I could win the French Open. My problem, of course, was Rafa. The guy is unbelievable on clay. Some people don't want to believe it, but unfortunately, that's the truth for a big generation of players on clay, because I can also play on clay and so can [Novak] Djokovic, so there isn't much room at the top."

Clay places huge demands on a player's stamina. Because the ball comes off the surface more slowly than on a hard or grass court, it is much harder to hit winners, making the rallies noticeably longer. Coming to the net with the intention of finishing off a point more quickly can be perilous because it is harder to hit a damaging approach shot and you can become a sitting target for the opponent firing bullets at you from the baseline.

A different mindset is therefore required: you need to be patient and prepared to hit several shots to create a winning position rather than one or two. That is a particular challenge for a naturally attacking player like Federer. "The reason why clay has not been so easy for me is that on the other surfaces I can play my game without thinking," Federer said. "Everything happens naturally. I can turn defence to offence when I want to and how I want to. When I play well I know I can dominate players."

Federer admits it has taken him time to find the best way to play on clay. "I had to learn how to control my aggression because I love to finish points quickly. On hard courts and grass I love to play aggressively [and win points] in a couple of shots. That's the way we play.

"On clay, it's not that easy. You can do it on 50 percent of the points, but the other 50 percent you'll just donate to your opponent because you'll be taking too many chances. I had to learn how to play from far back in the court and to use the angles better when to attack. It was more of a geometry lesson for me.

"The more I played on clay the more I started to understand the game on clay, even though I had great potential. If you play the wrong game on clay and play well, you can still lose. You have to play smart as well. It's something I had to get really used to, especially when I was coming up against the best player like Rafa."

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...a-volley-or-a-serve-its-too-easy-1979825.html

 

[Deleted member 756486]

In short, Federer thinks he is far too good to win on clay.

Here are excerpts from the Independent of Federer's explanation for not achieving on clay:

Federer: 'On clay, you don't need a volley or a serve. It's too easy'

Roger Federer doesn't want to offend Rafael Nadal, the man he acknowledges as the king of clay, but the world No 1 believes that winning the French Open can be less than a full test of a man's tennis.

"On clay, you don't need to have a volley," Federer says. "You almost don't need to have a serve. All you need to have his legs, an incredible forehand and backhand and to run things down. I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces.

"On a hard court, you can lure a guy in and do many more things. You almost have to have more feel. On clay, I don't want to say it's too simple, that you just have to keep the ball in court and wait for a mistake, but sometimes it's too easy."

"I don't think my problem was clay, even though there were lots of people who said that clay wasn't my best surface," Federer says. "Of course it's not, because I've won Wimbledon six times and the US Open five times in a row, but I'd always thought I could win the French Open. My problem, of course, was Rafa. The guy is unbelievable on clay. Some people don't want to believe it, but unfortunately, that's the truth for a big generation of players on clay, because I can also play on clay and so can [Novak] Djokovic, so there isn't much room at the top."

Clay places huge demands on a player's stamina. Because the ball comes off the surface more slowly than on a hard or grass court, it is much harder to hit winners, making the rallies noticeably longer. Coming to the net with the intention of finishing off a point more quickly can be perilous because it is harder to hit a damaging approach shot and you can become a sitting target for the opponent firing bullets at you from the baseline.

A different mindset is therefore required: you need to be patient and prepared to hit several shots to create a winning position rather than one or two. That is a particular challenge for a naturally attacking player like Federer. "The reason why clay has not been so easy for me is that on the other surfaces I can play my game without thinking," Federer said. "Everything happens naturally. I can turn defence to offence when I want to and how I want to. When I play well I know I can dominate players."

Federer admits it has taken him time to find the best way to play on clay. "I had to learn how to control my aggression because I love to finish points quickly. On hard courts and grass I love to play aggressively [and win points] in a couple of shots. That's the way we play.

"On clay, it's not that easy. You can do it on 50 percent of the points, but the other 50 percent you'll just donate to your opponent because you'll be taking too many chances. I had to learn how to play from far back in the court and to use the angles better when to attack. It was more of a geometry lesson for me.

"The more I played on clay the more I started to understand the game on clay, even though I had great potential. If you play the wrong game on clay and play well, you can still lose. You have to play smart as well. It's something I had to get really used to, especially when I was coming up against the best player like Rafa."

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...a-volley-or-a-serve-its-too-easy-1979825.html

He’s right but you can say the same about HC these days too.

Grass is the true tennis surface and the only surface that showcases a players true skill.

 

[clayqueen]

Federer:
"I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces."

If this is true, then far more people would be winning on clay.

 

[clayqueen]

He’s right but you can say the same about HC these days too.

Grass is the true tennis surface and the only surface that showcases a player's true skill.

So logically, if you are good on grass, clay should be a walk in the park.

 

[JackGates]

Federer:
"I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces."

If this is true, then far more people would be winning on clay.

No, if you have the legs, you can have flaws in your game and get away with it. Grass players don't have the legs, that's why the lose on clay, not because they have flaws.

But, personally, I don't really care, fitness for me is also a skill, so these arguments are silly anyway.

 

[clayqueen]

No, if you have the legs, you can have flaws in your game and get away with it. Grass players don't have the legs, that's why the lose on clay, not because they have flaws.

But, personally, I don't really care, fitness for me is also a skill, so these arguments are silly anyway.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The first time Federer made the SF at RG was in 2005 when he first played Nadal there. It's a myth that Nadal is his only problem on clay.

Federer - Roland Garros

Well regardless of what was or what wasn't Federer's problem at RG when he was in his 20s, since he entered his 30s, he has been losing to several players on clay, including even multiple losses to his supposed pigeon Wawrinka. If he had played this clay season, that was not magically going to change. He would be more than likely taken out at the clay events by the Corics, Chungs and Thiems of this world. He would never even make it to Nadal.

 

[van_Loederen]

Federer: "I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces."

If this is true, then far more people would be winning on clay.

good article, despite some arrogant federesque statements.
but the author also seems to be doing his bit of sensationalism by directing all the arrogant interspersals to the start of the article:

"Federer: 'On clay, you don't need a volley or a serve. It's too easy' [...]
the world No 1 believes that winning the French Open can be less than a full test of a man's tennis. [<-sais the author]
"On clay, you don't need to have a volley," Federer says. "You almost don't need to have a serve. All you need to have are legs, an incredible forehand and backhand and to run things down.
[...] I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces.
[...] On clay, I don't want to say it's too simple, that you just have to keep the ball in court and wait for a mistake, but sometimes it's too easy."

while the end of the article has these "confessions":

"A different mindset is therefore required: you need to be patient and prepared to hit several shots to create a winning position rather than one or two. That is a particular challenge for a naturally attacking player like Federer. [...]
Federer admits it has taken him time to find the best way to play on clay. "I had to learn how to control my aggression because I love to finish points quickly.
[...] I had to learn how to play from far back in the court and to use the angles better when to attack. It was more of a geometry lesson for me.
[...] If you play the wrong game on clay and play well, you can still lose.
You have to play smart as well."


Fed basically misses or avoids to explain WHY Nadal is now so much better than him and all others on clay.
so let me try to fill it in:
on clay one also has to move differently and Nadal is better suited for that. it's not just stronger legs, it's different physique, that Fed cannot compensate for.
building a lot of stamina is nothing that Nadal is more capable of than many many other players, so that's not the main difference (but when compared to lesser players, Nadal has ofc simply superior basic tennis skills).

 

[BeatlesFan]

This entire debate will be sadly resurrected in 2019 with the same result. Fed has retired from clay and now I seriously doubt he'll he'll even have a farewell try at the FO. He's done on the dirt and realized it's the best way to prolong his career and remain healthy.

 

[Pagoo]

good article, despite some arrogant federesque statements.
but the author also seems to be doing his bit of sensationalism by directing all the arrogant interspersals to the start of the article:

"Federer: 'On clay, you don't need a volley or a serve. It's too easy' [...]
the world No 1 believes that winning the French Open can be less than a full test of a man's tennis. [<-sais the author]
"On clay, you don't need to have a volley," Federer says. "You almost don't need to have a serve. All you need to have are legs, an incredible forehand and backhand and to run things down.
[...] I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces.
[...] On clay, I don't want to say it's too simple, that you just have to keep the ball in court and wait for a mistake, but sometimes it's too easy."

while the end of the article has these "confessions":

"A different mindset is therefore required: you need to be patient and prepared to hit several shots to create a winning position rather than one or two. That is a particular challenge for a naturally attacking player like Federer. [...]
Federer admits it has taken him time to find the best way to play on clay. "I had to learn how to control my aggression because I love to finish points quickly.
[...] I had to learn how to play from far back in the court and to use the angles better when to attack. It was more of a geometry lesson for me.
[...] If you play the wrong game on clay and play well, you can still lose.
You have to play smart as well."


Fed basically misses or avoids to explain WHY Nadal is now so much better than him and all others on clay.
so let me try to fill it in:
on clay one also has to move differently and Nadal is better suited for that. it's not just stronger legs, it's different physique, that Fed cannot compensate for.
building a lot of stamina is nothing that Nadal is more capable of than many many other players, so that's not the main difference (but when compared to lesser players, Nadal has ofc simply superior basic tennis skills).

Nah, it's the stamina and wearing your opponents down with topspin.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Federer:
"I'm not trying to take anything away from Rafa because he's an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well, but I think you can get away with having problems with your game on clay more than you can on other surfaces."

If this is true, then far more people would be winning on clay.

He answers that question also, saying the reason he or Djokovic, who all have played on clay, cannot win more titles on it is Nadal. I don't understand your gripe here, he pretty much praised your loverboy to the skies and you still have a problem. He said, "I am not trying to take anything away from Rafa, because he is an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well." Had you watched ANY tennis at all in the 90s, you would have understood what Fed means about being able to win on clay without much of a serve and practically no volleying skills. Muster was a pure baseliner for instance, pretty much the inspiration for Dominic Thiem. Even Coria wasn't very different and would have won an RG if he hadn't choked so horribly against Gaudio.

 

[Pagoo]

He answers that question also, saying the reason he or Djokovic, who all have played on clay, cannot win more titles on it is Nadal. I don't understand your gripe here, he pretty much praised your loverboy to the skies and you still have a problem. He said, "I am not trying to take anything away from Rafa, because he is an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well." Had you watched ANY tennis at all in the 90s, you would have understood what Fed means about being able to win on clay without much of a serve and practically no volleying skills. Muster was a pure baseliner for instance, pretty much the inspiration for Dominic Thiem. Even Coria wasn't very different and would have won an RG if he hadn't choked so horribly against Gaudio.

Nothing Federer says is enough. No amount of praise can assuage the VB. They feel hard done by because a guy their idol "owned" is more successful than him.

That stings and nothing short of Nadal holding the slam record will heal their pain.

 

[van_Loederen]

Nah, it's the stamina and wearing your opponents down with topspin.

topspin and (to an extent) being a lefty we could add indeed,
but that stamina impact is a myth.
Nadal moves far better than Fed or DJ on clay, so he uses up less energy than them (per mile).

having stronger legs than the both plays a part in this equation, but there are other players with similarly strong legs, who cannot move well on clay.

I don't understand your gripe here, he pretty much praised your loverboy to the skies and you still have a problem. He said, "I am not trying to take anything away from Rafa, because he is an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well."

please read the entire article. then you will understand.

 

[zagor]

Fed basically misses or avoids to explain WHY Nadal is now so much better than him and all others on clay.
so let me try to fill it in:
on clay one also has to move differently and Nadal is better suited for that. it's not just stronger legs, it's different physique, that Fed cannot compensate for.
building a lot of stamina is nothing that Nadal is more capable of than many many other players, so that's not the main difference (but when compared to lesser players, Nadal has ofc simply superior basic tennis skills).

That's because he's not really talking about Nadal there specifically.

I've seen him say before (most notably after his 2008 FO final drubbing) that the main thing that makes it so hard to play Nadal on clay is not about his offense and defense but that he moves better than anyone else on the surface.

I do think stamina is much more important on clay compared to other surfaces but in the case of Nadal everything in his game suits clay perfectly from his movement and FH to his serve. Stamina is his last line of defense on clay, usually people just can't really handle his CC FH rally ball on clay (unless you have Novak's BH and footspeed) and of course his BH is rock solid (not easy to attack) combined with forementioned movement that givs him even more margin compared to the other players.

 

[van_Loederen]

That's because he's not really talking about Nadal there specifically.

I've seen him say before (most notably after his 2008 FO final drubbing) that the main thing that makes it so hard to play Nadal on clay is not about his offense and defense but that he moves better than anyone else on the surface.

i'm sure that Fed knows all these things better than us. in this interview he omitted them though.

I do think stamina is much more important on clay compared to other surfaces but in the case of Nadal everything in his game suits clay perfectly from his movement and FH to his serve. Stamina is his last line of defense on clay

stamina is definitely more important on clay (and all players try to get fit for RG), but Nadal has not more stamina than Fed or DJ.
well, he likely has a little bit more, after his insane clay schedule every year, but that's hard-earned
and he didn't have it yet in his early years (2005-...).

Nadal appears like a "physically superior player", but that's hardly because of stamina. he is stronger. but even such muscles are not hard to gain for an average athlete. they would just be useless, even a hindrance for Fed or DJ, as the 2 have a very different physique and "thus" different game.
for Nadal('s game) muscles are however economic.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

please read the entire article. then you will understand.

I did and I wonder if you did since you have clearly missed the part where Fed specifically said all of this didn't really apply to Nadal.

 

[La Vigésima]

He answers that question also, saying the reason he or Djokovic, who all have played on clay, cannot win more titles on it is Nadal. I don't understand your gripe here, he pretty much praised your loverboy to the skies and you still have a problem. He said, "I am not trying to take anything away from Rafa, because he is an exception and he did everything on other surfaces as well." Had you watched ANY tennis at all in the 90s, you would have understood what Fed means about being able to win on clay without much of a serve and practically no volleying skills. Muster was a pure baseliner for instance, pretty much the inspiration for Dominic Thiem. Even Coria wasn't very different and would have won an RG if he hadn't choked so horribly against Gaudio.

You're talking to someone who, as evinced by so many of her posts, knows next to nothing about tennis. She's just someone with a bizarre, all-consuming obsession with a single tennis player. Save the effort.

 

[van_Loederen]

I did and I wonder if you did since you have clearly missed the part where Fed specifically said all of this didn't really apply to Nadal.

the word "apply" isn't even in the text. and what are you even indicating there? what doesn't "apply" to Nadal???

You're talking to someone who, as evinced by so many of her posts, knows next to nothing about tennis. She's just someone with a bizarre, all-consuming obsession with a single tennis player. Save the effort.

this is off-topic and ad-hom. is that allowed on this forum?
-1

 

[Dolgopolov85]

the word "apply" isn't even in the text. and what are you even indicating there? what doesn't "apply" to Nadal???

Eh, he clearly said Nadal is an exception and has done everything on other surfaces. Ergo, Fed's theories as to clay allowing great defence to cover up other flaws don't apply to Nadal. Is that really the best argument you could come up with?

 

[van_Loederen]

Eh, he clearly said Nadal is an exception and has done everything on other surfaces. Ergo, Fed's theories as to clay allowing great defence to cover up other flaws don't apply to Nadal. Is that really the best argument you could come up with?

lol, this is in the blue part of her post, to that you replied first.
now look again at that very post and finally try to understand the contradiction or controversy.
i have also replied to the article in length, above there.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

lol, this is in the blue part of her post, to that you replied first.
now look again at that very post and finally try to understand the contradiction or controversy.
i have also replied to the article in length, above there.

And? I replied to that post and said that Fed has basically answered why more people cannot win on clay now - Nadal. He said the reason he or Djokovic could not win more on clay is Nadal.

But this was not the case before. Berasatagui got to the final with basically a forehand. Coria neither had a great serve nor much of a netgame and should have won RG if he didn't choke it away. Now don't say I am making it a could have/should have. The point is it wasn't Coria's skillset that stopped him from winning RG. Muster too was a baseline without a big serve and he won RG and was as such regarded as a great clay court player.

Fed's comments were pretty clear but if the aggrieved wish to fish for opportunities to take offence, so be it. Go cry me a river, why should I care.

 

[kevaninho]

if tickets went on sale only a week ago, he absolutely should have waited a week more, shouldn't he?

he destroys big business because he was pissed? nope, that i don't buy at all. more likely is still that the agreement was that he's allowed to speak as soon as he's out of that tourney.

but even this i find unlikely.
i wonder about the legal frame of this "scenario".
how can he even legally make an agreement/contract with RG about "not revealing withdrawal until date X" ? could be some informal agreement, but that's already a bit speculative as it would be illegal if he received cash that way (i think).

i had rather interpreted it as the opposite, namely a clue for no agreement having been in place and him trying to be fair with the fans.
how? for now i find it kinda normal that he waited til the end of his hardcourt schedule, in order to avoid friction with fans during these tourneys.
i mean, if i were in his place, why should i reveal my plans that very early? i would just not like to do that.

Being fair with the fans, or caring about the fans at all, then he could've mentioned long ago that he wont be playing clay again. That's respecting the fans.