A mickey mouse tournament and 3 matches with Federer past his peak.
Fast indoors is the ultimate test of tennis skill and shotmaking dude.
Reasons Why Nadal Dominated Federer During Their Prime?
- Thread starter REKX
- Start date
Fast indoors is the ultimate test of tennis skill and shotmaking dude.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I don’t consider serving contests to be shows of skill but I can maybe see the rest of that point.
I'm talking both from serve and baseline perspective.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
The baseline point is definitely valid. I value that much more than anything else post poly era
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Must be fun being a contrarian huh.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I spent about 15 minutes writing that out. What was wrong with this post?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Impressive, considering it would take like an hour to write out all that was wrong with it
every7
Hall of Fame
Federer was sick, it was well documented around the time. You might as well not agree with the assertion that the Earth is a sphere
Federer was 5-2 against Nadal off clay during 04-07. So he clearly had the upperhand but was of course not untouchable for Nadal in that period.
This is a far better assessment of the situation.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
The whole 2004-2005 was the weakest era ever part.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
One thing is for sure. The Former Pro Player section will be infected with these discussions in that case.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Do you honestly think Hewitt-Roddick-Baghdatis-Gonzalez-Unpredictable Safin are on par with the likes of Mcenroe-Lendl-Becker-Prime Sampras & Agassi-Courier-Wilander-Edberg and so on?
I mean when Safin actually was focused I can see that but the rest no way. I have long said despite the fact I’m a Roddick FAN that he can’t be ranked very highly anywhere because he played in that same era himself.
People talk about how unfortunate he was to face Fed but honestly if he played in a previous era I don’t think he even reaches a GS final. Just look what Pete did to him at the 2002 USO and he was 1-5 against an aging Agassi. Roddick wasn’t that great. And that’s from a fan of his. Same goes for Hewitt. There is no way in hades Lleyton wins two slams in any other point in tennis history.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Baghdatis wasn't a factor in those years. Replace him with Nadal.
And yes, Hewitt-Roddick-Safin-Agassi-Nalbandian-Nadal was a decent group in 2004-2005.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I’m not saying they were garbage but no way are they in the same league with the previous era’s. Also read the stuff I added to the post.
Nalbandian could have been great but wasn’t willing to put in the work for it especially after 2005.
moonballs
Hall of Fame
if you think he can maintain the high enough level to beat the best of the best from the lost generation plus the next generation plus the new generation, then more power to him. I am certainly not losing sleeps with this concern.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Roddick wasn't yet top 10 at the 2002 USO and hadn't yet won a masters event. And as far as I recall, Roddick even had an injury in that 2002 USO match.
And 3 of Agassi's matches against Roddick were when Roddick wasn't even top 10 yet and hadn't even won a masters. From 2003 it was only 2-1 Agassi, with them splitting the last 2 matches in deciding set tiebreaks.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I see your point on it, but I still can’t say I see Andy being very successful in an era with all those greats.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Lost+next+new generation, whatever. Nadal will take care of them all somewhere in between of his 6th to 8th comebacks.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Please give me the era in which all those guys played together in their primes. And when did Baghdatis and Gonzalez do anything in 2004 or 2005? Basic lack of knowledge, or willing lack, because you have to go to the ends of the earth to discredit Fed for whatever weird reason.
No way Djokovic wins a slam in the 2004-2007 period. Look at what semi-retired no-knees Safin did to him at 2008 Wimbledon and he had a losing record against an aging Roddick.
justasport
Professional
You are correct
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
2006-2009
RF: 9 GS titles
RN: 5 GS titles
2006-2010
RF: 10 GS titles
RN: 8 GS titles
Total domination by Rafa.
RF: 9 GS titles
RN: 5 GS titles
2006-2010
RF: 10 GS titles
RN: 8 GS titles
Total domination by Rafa.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes. Nadal had the movement and intensity to dictate, and the style to be very awkward for Federer. This is not the case much these days. And also, Federer now is not as good as he was, so he is forced to be more aggressive. This combined with what you say in your post, has altered the dynamics of Federer vs. Nadal in 2017, tipping the balance into Federer's favour.
Yeah, nothing says 'better' more than winning 3 out of 11 US/French finals LOL....what a champ! Get real
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
To answer the title question:
1. Yes a mental edge Rafa had over him. Though not to the extent of Djokovic, I think it infuriated Fed to lose to someone who he considers a clod like Nadal and he pressed against him, making the task more difficult. There’s few times I think where he ever played with a clear head against him.
2. The FH to BH matchup and Fed’s unwillingness to try to do something about it largely. Fed is obviously capable of making on the fly adjustments very well. But he refused to make those changes
3. Similar to 2. Bad strategy. Especially stupid frivolous net approach after stupid net approach. Not using his wise serve enough. Either playing way too conservative or way too aggressive. Any number of these things.
Look, Fed has always been capable of beating Rafa at any time on any surface. He could have consistently destroyed him all their careers if he has truly set his mind to it. Just watch Hamburg ‘07 or WTF ‘11. He is WAY more talented than Nadal and anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about. But he let Rafa fluster him all those years and refused to consistently do what he needed to tactic wise. Therefore he left many slams and other events on the table. I have always maintained that while Fed has “wanted it”, it’s not to the extent that Rafa and Djokovic are driven, because if he had Ivan Lendl’s attitude I think he would have at least 25 slams now, and would have wiped both of them away.
The main reason I consider Nadal ahead of Fed is the talent-to-accomplishment quotient they have. Nadal has pretty much gotten all he could out of his career. Fed hasn’t done all of what he could.
1. Yes a mental edge Rafa had over him. Though not to the extent of Djokovic, I think it infuriated Fed to lose to someone who he considers a clod like Nadal and he pressed against him, making the task more difficult. There’s few times I think where he ever played with a clear head against him.
2. The FH to BH matchup and Fed’s unwillingness to try to do something about it largely. Fed is obviously capable of making on the fly adjustments very well. But he refused to make those changes
3. Similar to 2. Bad strategy. Especially stupid frivolous net approach after stupid net approach. Not using his wise serve enough. Either playing way too conservative or way too aggressive. Any number of these things.
Look, Fed has always been capable of beating Rafa at any time on any surface. He could have consistently destroyed him all their careers if he has truly set his mind to it. Just watch Hamburg ‘07 or WTF ‘11. He is WAY more talented than Nadal and anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about. But he let Rafa fluster him all those years and refused to consistently do what he needed to tactic wise. Therefore he left many slams and other events on the table. I have always maintained that while Fed has “wanted it”, it’s not to the extent that Rafa and Djokovic are driven, because if he had Ivan Lendl’s attitude I think he would have at least 25 slams now, and would have wiped both of them away.
The main reason I consider Nadal ahead of Fed is the talent-to-accomplishment quotient they have. Nadal has pretty much gotten all he could out of his career. Fed hasn’t done all of what he could.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
That's also why I consider Ferrer to be the greatest player of all time. Maximised his game more than any other player I've seen to date. Talent to accomplishment quotient off the charts. I'm glad that, given your line of reasoning, you agree that Ferrer is just on another level to all others.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
That is not really a criterion for ranking someone ahead of someone else in achievements.
We are dealing here with the question of the 'best', not 'best value for the money'.
We are dealing here with the question of the 'best', not 'best value for the money'.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I highlighted some of the more absurd things, but the whole poast is facepalm worthy.
-snake-
Hall of Fame
I highlighted some of the more absurd things, but the whole poast is facepalm worthy.
Ehh, it's a well-known fact that Fed is a stubborn and "way too confident" fella. He had no business playing with that small racquet for so long and not doing squat to improve his BH/BH DTH. If you didn't see that, I don't know what else to tell you. Everyone knew shankerer would make an appearance if the guy on the other side of the net was able to pin him on that side consistently. Nalby did it when he was younger, then Nads and Djokovic. Trying to re-write history is pathetic. He should've fixed his BH ages ago. Fed was also playing great tennis in 2012... look at what happened at the AO. Same old same old.
Pheasant
Legend
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/...good-federer-with-new-racket-to-find-out.html
The above link talks about Fed switching from his garbage racquet to a modern one. Brad Gilbert, who owned a tennis shop, told several customers who wanted to buy a Fed’s racquet, that he doesn’t sell them because they are outdated and it’s way too easy to shank balls. He said this in 2011!
I also listened to a podcast that mentioned that even Berdych owned Fed from 2010-2013. I had no idea.
So I looked up some stats since I wanted to see if these so called experts were right about Fed using a garbage racquet. I figured that if they were right, then Fed’s last 4 years against the top 10 might be as good as it was the previous 4 years, despite being 4 years farther away from his prime. I figured that the better racquet would offset his aging.
Let’s take a look:
Old racquet Fed, 2010-2013, ages 28-32 vs new racquet Fed, 2014-2017, ages 32-36
2010-2013, Fed’s record vs top 10 was 46-34.
Here are some opponents that troubled Fed:
3-5 vs Berdych
5-5 vs Murray
3-9 vs Nadal
7-10 vs Djokovic
Total: 18-29
2014-2017, Fed’s record vs top 10 was 47-17.
Here is how he did against these same opponents with a modern racquet:
8-0 vs Berdych
5-0 vs Murray
5-1 vs Nadal
6-8 vs Djokovic
Total: 24-9
These are massive differences! And 2016 hurts his stats for obvious reasons.
And how about this?
Fed in 2017 had a winning pct of .875 against the top 10(14-2). The last player to match or top Fed’s .875 mark against the top 10 was Federer in 2004. In 2004, Federer was 18-0 vs the top 10.
Equipment makes a massive difference. That garbage racquet allowed people to pick on his backhand for years. Toss in the transformation of the courts and a balls, and you saw an outdated Fed playing the wrong game with the wrong equipment.
Even Agassi switched to a 103 inch racquet around 2004. Sampras never made the change. Sampras himself said he regrets never switching racquets.
The above link talks about Fed switching from his garbage racquet to a modern one. Brad Gilbert, who owned a tennis shop, told several customers who wanted to buy a Fed’s racquet, that he doesn’t sell them because they are outdated and it’s way too easy to shank balls. He said this in 2011!
I also listened to a podcast that mentioned that even Berdych owned Fed from 2010-2013. I had no idea.
So I looked up some stats since I wanted to see if these so called experts were right about Fed using a garbage racquet. I figured that if they were right, then Fed’s last 4 years against the top 10 might be as good as it was the previous 4 years, despite being 4 years farther away from his prime. I figured that the better racquet would offset his aging.
Let’s take a look:
Old racquet Fed, 2010-2013, ages 28-32 vs new racquet Fed, 2014-2017, ages 32-36
2010-2013, Fed’s record vs top 10 was 46-34.
Here are some opponents that troubled Fed:
3-5 vs Berdych
5-5 vs Murray
3-9 vs Nadal
7-10 vs Djokovic
Total: 18-29
2014-2017, Fed’s record vs top 10 was 47-17.
Here is how he did against these same opponents with a modern racquet:
8-0 vs Berdych
5-0 vs Murray
5-1 vs Nadal
6-8 vs Djokovic
Total: 24-9
These are massive differences! And 2016 hurts his stats for obvious reasons.
And how about this?
Fed in 2017 had a winning pct of .875 against the top 10(14-2). The last player to match or top Fed’s .875 mark against the top 10 was Federer in 2004. In 2004, Federer was 18-0 vs the top 10.
Equipment makes a massive difference. That garbage racquet allowed people to pick on his backhand for years. Toss in the transformation of the courts and a balls, and you saw an outdated Fed playing the wrong game with the wrong equipment.
Even Agassi switched to a 103 inch racquet around 2004. Sampras never made the change. Sampras himself said he regrets never switching racquets.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Amazing that Agassi went to the larger racket about 10 years before Fed!
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
This.
Once the 'invincible' Federer started to lose Nadal, I think he started to panic and lost confidence and self-belief v Nadal. Federer admitted the mental side played big part in 2008 Wimbledon final, probably made him too anxious in key moments. The clay matches did the damage mentally and once Federer was removed so slightly from his peak and Nadal was entering his peak, there was no hope for Federer under that circumstance. Of course, the BH of Federer was a big reason for his match up problem, as you can see their past matches where basically Nadal had an insurance whenever he was in trouble. All he had to do was to send a looping topspin shot to Fed's BH, which was so predictable, but that worked. Had Federer had the 97 sq" frame then, I think things would've been quite different, but there's no ifs of buts in sports and we should just take their rivalry as it is now. So far(and probably for good), Nadal has the upper hand in their H2H but their matches have been close in general, not one-sided mismatches, and that's why their rivalry is special in spite of somewhat lopsided 23-15 record.
MrFlip
Professional
Federer's 90 sq inch put pressure on him to come up with extra good forehands against Nadal, putting more pressure on his game overall.
You'll find in the matches he lost, Federer's UE were way up and 1st Serve % way down against Nadal during 2004-2013.
Now he's got a bigger racquet he can plow through shots cleaner and easier and not rely upon his forehand so much.
That's it. They're about equal physical.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
Why the hell are 15 year olds even allowed on this forum. I'm taking a screen capture of your age so that I can post it in response to every moronic thing you post.
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
Masao has to be just a troll account….no one can really be that dumb.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
There's been an influx of children recently. First Fabresque and now this kid. And at least Fabresque can talk about things other than how much he dislikes Federer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The last player to match of top Fed's .875 mark against the top 10 was actually Fed in 2005 who had a 15-2 win loss record against the top 10, with a .882 winning pct.
Also in 2010-2013, Fed did better in the slams against Djokovic than in 2014-2017. While the new equipment did help Federer against the other guys (although against Murray he still would have done well in the slams regardless of equipment), he seemed to do worse against Djokovic in slams than in 2010-2013.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Certainly better than the crap we have today.
1)Nadal, even when he had not yet reached his full potential on all surfaces, was still a freakishly talented all-time great. So he had the raw talent to beat Federer at any age or stage of his career.
2) Uncle Toni specifically trained Nadal to play to what he saw as Federer's weaknesses (ie the backhand). Federer was too arrogant to realise he had any weaknesses in his game.
3) Federer was a very poor strategist with no Plan B. Federer's A-Game was enough to beat pretty much everyone, so he never changed it, or thought he needed to make a change. You could see in his interviews at the time that he had an insane superiority complex and figured that he'd eventually beat Nadal just by doing what he always did. By the time he actually started to seriously respect Nadal's talent, it was too late. Federer's arrogance was his undoing in many ways.
He probably views Nadal an an equal these days. He's got no choice, as 16 slams put Nadal second only to him in the history of the game.
2) Uncle Toni specifically trained Nadal to play to what he saw as Federer's weaknesses (ie the backhand). Federer was too arrogant to realise he had any weaknesses in his game.
3) Federer was a very poor strategist with no Plan B. Federer's A-Game was enough to beat pretty much everyone, so he never changed it, or thought he needed to make a change. You could see in his interviews at the time that he had an insane superiority complex and figured that he'd eventually beat Nadal just by doing what he always did. By the time he actually started to seriously respect Nadal's talent, it was too late. Federer's arrogance was his undoing in many ways.
He probably views Nadal an an equal these days. He's got no choice, as 16 slams put Nadal second only to him in the history of the game.
Last edited:
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
There's a very interesting article here called "Federer as a 15 year old" http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/tag/roger-federer-excerpts-rene-stauffer/ (you have to go half way down the page to get to it) which discusses his quest for perfection at that age and says that he almost regarded his opponents as collaborators in that aim rather than as people to be defeated.
I've always wondered if that's where some of his issues with Nadal came from - that Nadal made no secret of doing what he had to do to beat Federer rather than trying to play a perfect game himself. It's only been relatively recently that he's seemed to give Nadal the respect he's earned - maybe it's taken maturity to understand that very different approach to the game.
Before anyone jumps on me I recognise this is pretty speculative but I think his resentments against Nadal seemed to come from something other than just getting beaten - although no doubt that was unpleasant as well!!
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
1. C-L-A-Y
2. Fed didn’t care about non big 5 events when he was at his prime /peak because he was busy winning majors and he couldn’t care less about the masters
3. Rafa’s wins at AO 09 and Wimb 08 where by a whisker and he could have very well ended losing both
2. Fed didn’t care about non big 5 events when he was at his prime /peak because he was busy winning majors and he couldn’t care less about the masters
3. Rafa’s wins at AO 09 and Wimb 08 where by a whisker and he could have very well ended losing both
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
That's not what others are disputing in your post. Roddick was incredibly fortunate to win the one slam he did win, he never was that good. I think it's a sham he's in the HOF.
However, his grass game was excellent and had he not faced Fed at Wimbledon he could have won that once. But not more than that.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Laughable. Beating Fed 6-2 in the fifth at the AO is emphatically not "by a whisker." This is the same ridiculous logic Nadal fans use for this year's AO: "he almost beat Fed!" As if that's some kind of moral victory. Even if a player holds MP's, a loss is a loss.
wangs78
Legend
To keep it simple, Nadal was able to dominate bc of the following:
1) Matchup advantage - his crazy lefthanded topspin to Roger’s righty OHBH. This advantage was especially pronounced bc Roger used a small 90 inch racquet.
2) Long clay season - in the critical years of 2006, 2007 and 2008, Nadal pretty much swept through the clay season, often defeating Roger in 3 (maybe even 4) clay finals including RG which mentally affected Roger by putting more pressure on Roger to win on his preferred surface of grass. This pressure made Roger play tight against Rafa at Wimby in both ‘07 and ‘08. Honestly if the entire clay season was in the fall and RG was the last Slam of the year, Rafa would have at most 5-6 Slams. Rafa benefitted hugely from his preferred surface being in the 1st half of the year when he could earn ~6000 ranking points on clay (an insane amount). Bc it basically allowed him to play freely the rest of the year, and especially against Roger bc he had already drubbed Roger multiple times on clay.
With the break in 2H2016 and the bigger racquet and an improved backhand, Roger was able to tip the balanc in those Lefty FH to his BH exchanges (at least on hardcourts) and this renewed confidence has kept building with each additional win their H2H. It is not surprising that the AO was their closest recent match bc that was when Roger had not yet completely cast away those mental scars from previous years. And had he lost that 5th set at the AO you could be sure he would not have gone 3-0 against Rafa during the remainder of the year.
1) Matchup advantage - his crazy lefthanded topspin to Roger’s righty OHBH. This advantage was especially pronounced bc Roger used a small 90 inch racquet.
2) Long clay season - in the critical years of 2006, 2007 and 2008, Nadal pretty much swept through the clay season, often defeating Roger in 3 (maybe even 4) clay finals including RG which mentally affected Roger by putting more pressure on Roger to win on his preferred surface of grass. This pressure made Roger play tight against Rafa at Wimby in both ‘07 and ‘08. Honestly if the entire clay season was in the fall and RG was the last Slam of the year, Rafa would have at most 5-6 Slams. Rafa benefitted hugely from his preferred surface being in the 1st half of the year when he could earn ~6000 ranking points on clay (an insane amount). Bc it basically allowed him to play freely the rest of the year, and especially against Roger bc he had already drubbed Roger multiple times on clay.
With the break in 2H2016 and the bigger racquet and an improved backhand, Roger was able to tip the balanc in those Lefty FH to his BH exchanges (at least on hardcourts) and this renewed confidence has kept building with each additional win their H2H. It is not surprising that the AO was their closest recent match bc that was when Roger had not yet completely cast away those mental scars from previous years. And had he lost that 5th set at the AO you could be sure he would not have gone 3-0 against Rafa during the remainder of the year.
wangs78
Legend
Fed himself said Ivan told him to play the ball, not the man for the AO final this year and that that was important in how he remained aggressive in the 5th set when he was down a break. So I do give Ljube credit, and especially with his own achievement of beating Rafa and Roderick to take Indian Wells (or was it Miami) it shows he actually knows how to beat Nadal when he lacks a single weapon better than Fed’s.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Fedhaters don’t want give Federer or any of his coaches credit for returning to the tour successfully this past season because they resent Federer winning additional GS and beating Nadal which they need to stop Federer. They will move on to the next player who they believe can stop Federer if Nadal can’t do the job.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Points won . RF -174, RN -173
BP Rafa saved - 13/19
Fed should have closed this in 4.
Similar threads
