Reflecting on the 2009 AO

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Looking back on OZ, these are my thoughts. I think Tennis Australia has greatly improved the OZ Open.

(This is a really “dead” time in Pro Tennis for me. I don’t get the Tennis Channel, so most of the pro tourneys between now and the French are a mystery to me.)


The Courts - OZ finally has hit upon a surface which give the whole tourney an “identity”. (I mean a positive identity. Rebound Ace had too many problems.) Yes, OZ is a “hard court” tournament but it’s a slow hard court. Good move.

The roofed stadiums are a success (and TA plans to roof yet a third stadium). The tourney committee *could* do a bit better in their decision-making, but the fact is ... the roofs work. Kudos!

The Draws - I thought Murray and Nadal had the toughest sections. (But the other Seeds didn’t have cakewalks.)

I thought Serena was “a lock” for the Final ... but Venus was my pick to win the whole thing ... even though I thought Venus’ half was clearly tougher than Serena’s. Once Venus was out, I lost most interest; too many flakey players in today’s WTA....

Doubles - I *love* dubs ... but I was astonished at how few doubles teams played “real” doubles. I *hate* what Academy Tennis -- and its clones -- have done to this game. (And I know the latest strings contribute to this *bashing* style. Groan...!)

The Fans - I love the fun-loving / occasionally rowdy tennis fans Down Under. What a great and lively way to kickoff the Pro season with flair. I’ve been to many US Opens. The Aussies make me want to attend the Australian Open sometime, too.

Tennis fans on TT give me numerous chuckles with how fickle they are. Starting with the “which Seed got the better portion of the Draw” arguments, fans of “X” player seem to be “hedging their bets” in case their player doesn’t do as well as hoped.

Then the match discussions are a HOOT. I especially enjoyed the following threads:
Navarro / Venus
Gonzalez / Gasquet
Verdasco / Murray
Roddick / Djokovic
Nadal / Verdasco
(and especially) Nadal / Federer

You people are funny and so ... changeable. When a match is less than a set old you declare “A” the winner. Two sets later you lament the rise of “B” (or the inexplicable collapse of “A”). And so on. I have determined one particular player’s fans are the MOST fickle ... but I won’t name names in this post....

Notable Players -- Good AND Bad
Flipken She impresses me. I hope a woman with excellent footwork makes it into the Top Ten again. I hope she’s got the fire it takes to really compete.

Ivanovic - Good grief! I thought she’d made a breakthrough. Where’s the dedication? Where’s the fire? Where’s the competitive spirit? :: Sigh::

Carla S-Navarro - Oh yeah! As much as I like Venus, I was quite impressed with Carla. Can she use her very good results in this Major as a launch pad? I hope so....

Jankovic - Sheesh! I am beginning to think she’s another flake... ::Sigh::

Zvonareva - I admit I was almost holding my breath on every changeover of her matches. I was waiting for the dam to burst. Thankfully, it didn’t. Maybe she’s really getting her head together??? I really hope so....

Serena - She showed-up more fit than I expected. I still marvel that she *can* use the first week to tune up for the second week. (But this is more a commentary on the state of the WTA....) Congratulations, Serena!

Murray - Wow! This kid’s dedication shows. And he’s got serious smarts and game. I tell my HS boys to watch Murray; not Federer or Nadal. Murray’s footwork is improved ... he is much more fit ... his anticipation is superior ... his play is smart ... he actually constructs points. (And his temperament is greatly improved.) I can’t help it; I’m starting to like this kid.

Roddick - Another player who clearly devoted a great deal of time to conditioning and improving his game. The payoff is he made his first Semi in a long while. Not bad, Andy. (I still marvel at his persistent use of the crosscourt approach shot. And “marvel” shouldn’t be taken to think I marvel in a positive way....)

Verdasco - Wow!!! Here’s a player who reaped the benefits of some very strong dedication to improving. Wow!!! Well done. (Enough has been posted about him on other threads. I am impressed.)

Women's Final I’ve already posted my POV on the WTA. But clearly Serena demonstrated a mental fortitude the other girls can only dream about. Kudos to her for Major #10. (And don’t forget her Dubs Majors...!)

Safina? “Not ready for Prime Time” is how I view her.

Men's Final
Federer - He played "off" the whole match.  His Footwork was sloppier than I’ve ever seen -- and IMO, this has been one of the keys to his success. His Serve was clearly off. He seemed not to have a Plan ... other than to play Nadal’s game. I really think Nadal psyches out Roger. Frankly, I was amazed he managed to make this a 5-set match. If he could do that NOT playing well, what could he do if he finally got himself into a frame of mind that produced good play against Nadal...?

Unlike many, I don't believe there's been a match between the two (in a Major tourney other than the French) where they've both played well.  (Roger playing well in Paris is pointless. Nobody can compete with Rafa on the dirt.)  But Wimby ‘07, '08 and Oz '09 were all "less than top" performances by Fed. (Maybe Nadal’s game and force of will is such that Roger cannot have a good performance against him. Sometimes the “match up” just works against a player; I wonder if this is the case for Nadal -vs- Federer.)

Award speeches: NOW you show some emotion???  Where was that during the 5th set??? (He did a good -- and gracious -- job on his 2nd try.) I know there were a dozen threads about his tears. And I know we’ve learned Roger is prone to crying at peak emotional times. Still, my respect for Federer did slip a few notches for that. (Yes. He was reacting to the crowd’s outpouring of affection, but GEEZ! )

I saw Newk and Laver standing behind him when he was overcome by emotion. I couldn’t help but notice the contrast of the traditionally stoic and manly Aussies watching this display of lack of control. Be a man, Roger.

I’ve concluded Roger’s psyche is ... fragile. Just five years ago he allowed his temper to vent itself. Since ‘04 he’s pretty much been a model of self-control ... but I wonder how tenuous his hold on his emotions really is. His emotional outbursts used to be temperamental displays; now they manifest in uncontrolled sobbing. I suspect Roger is “wound more tightly” than many of us imagined....

Nadal - [size=+2]Wow![/size]

Here’s a player who really takes this game seriously. (Remember, I don’t really *like* the way he plays. But I must respect his approach to his craft....)

He was the World #1 ... and he didn’t rest on his laurels. Nadal clearly put loads of work into his game. He improved his Serve, which was never much of a weapon. (It’s still not “great” but) Nadal’s Serve can no longer be labeled a weakness.

Nadal improved his Forehand. Yes, it’s still primarily the monstrous spin / reverse / buggy whip ... but he has clearly learned how to flatten-out the forehand. He used it more in the early rounds of Oz ... which tells me he’s still not completely confident in it. By using it in matches which “count” he’s only going to gain confidence and his “flatter” FH will probably become another ... weapon.

Nadals’ refusal to “coast” while at the Top of the game sends a message to the other guys. (They’re gonna have to TAKE his titles and ranking; he’s not about to be caught without many MANY battles.) Nadal’s dedication and determination broadcasts that he plans to go deep at all the Majors. (I do hope his knees hold up.) I think his example will lift the rest of the guys, too. They will have to put in some very “hard yards” to catch this guy.

That being posted, I can’t fathom how he refuses to funnel some of that determination / concentration / focus into *stopping* the juvenile butt-picking and the presumptuous time wasting. I firmly believe part of the reason Rafa doesn’t get as much “respect” as so many of his fans wish he did is ... his underwear adjusting AND his time delays rub “tennis purists” the wrong way. (Nadal’s fans may cry “Foul!” at this, but the truth is, the roots of Tennis still are in the Country Club communities.)

A gentleman would be more ... discreet about picking at his bottom. A gentleman would honor the rule about the time between points. If and when the “respect” issue becomes important enough to Rafael Nadal, I’m certain he can fix these behaviors. He’s already demonstrated he can change parts of his game when he wishes; of course he can act like a gentleman on the court ... if he chooses to.

Lastly, Nadal has more HEART than any player I've seen since Jimmy Connors.  And Rafael is an "anti-Connors." Jimbo worked the crowd more toward the end of his career. Rafa did more in the beginning. Now he doesn't showboat much at all. He just let's his tennis do the talking ... and Rafael Nadal's tennis SHOUTS!

Wow. Wow!

- KK
 

sp00q

Rookie
Great post Kaptain Karl! I really enjoyed it! Although I must confess that, not being a native English speaker, I was compelled to use the dictionary a few times. :oops:

I too was stunned by the fact Federer took the AO final into a 5 setter but I believe not only Fed’s skill but Nadal’s fatigue after the long semi-final has something to do with it.

I disagree with you on the ‘Federer sobbing’ and ‘Murray’s smart play’ points of view though.

Federer cryed because grudge, grief and frustration overwhelmed him. I too cried one time (ok, maybe two :)) for a similar reason and I’m not ashamed. This incident shows the terrible pressure Fed has put on himself chasing records, stubbornly refusing coaching and therefore dooming his chance of becoming the all time great. He sure did have the game to do it...

Murray on the other hand can win matches without hitting a single winner. Not that it’s not a perfectly respectable approach of the game, but it has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s my impression that Murray is setting his mind on one plan and adhering to it bitterly fighting to the end with never a thought of change.

All the best!

P.S.: The articulate and reasonable people like you are the reason I still enter TT.
 
O

oneleggedcardinal

Guest
Yes, yes, very good analysis there, KK. I definitely agree with the whole Nadal-and-Federer-not-actually-playing-that-well-against-each-other thing. The final was somewhat of a bore for me and I wandered in and out of the live stream. Although I don't really watch the WTA, nothing on Azarenka? She looked like a force to be reckoned with in that match against Serena. Also, any thoughts on Djokovic?
 

Bhagi Katbamna

Hall of Fame
Great Post. I am amazed that just now you are beginning to think Jankovic may be a flake. She's been a flake for a long time already.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Great post Kaptain Karl! I really enjoyed it! Although I must confess that, not being a native English speaker, I was compelled to use the dictionary a few times.
I re-read my OP. I'm guessing I used too much slang? (Or was it the portion on Fed's psyche?)

If I could post in Spanish (My 2nd language) as articulately as you post in English, I'd be one happy guy!!!

Re: Fed's tears. I really didn't want to *focus* on this with my review ... but it bugged me. And I fully accept some TT-ers will not agree with my attempt at being his Therapist....

Re: Murray. I see your points ... and still contend his ability to win matches without many winners is a function of his smart play. (Reasonable minds can differ.)




... nothing on Azarenka? She looked like a force to be reckoned with in that match against Serena.
I only read posts and reports on her. I didn't see any of Azarenka's matches.

Also, any thoughts on Djokovic?
I figured he'd been beat-up pretty thoroughly already. (I think he should have toughed it out. I think he insulted Andy ... and hurt his own reputation ... by quitting.)




Great Post. I am amazed that just now you are beginning to think Jankovic may be a flake. She's been a flake for a long time already.
Ha-ha!!! I guess you've been more aware of her fragility than I....


Thanks for the kind remarks, everyone. I'm glad it was worth it to some of you.

- KK
 

danb

Professional
I don't agree with "Federer - He played "off" the whole match....etc.etc.etc"
Many posts just ignore Rafa's skill and tactics. Fed can't play his flashy style against a guy who is ready to battle for every point. He can only do that against players that give away a few (or more) easy points since that flashy style is a high risk proposition. Look at Fed's matches against Canas, Murray and Joker when he lost. It is the same story: one guy who wants it so bad he will chase all the balls and makes that flashy style too risky. When that happens errors start piling up - Fed gets tight.
Plus, Fed never had any plan on how to play against Rafa or at least none of them worked even remotely.
And, going to the IF's section, hadn't been for 5 hours semi, the final would have been over in straights.
My 2c.
Other than that your post is pretty good. Keep writing.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I couldn't agree more, especially about Flipkens and the mens final, although I am surprised you left Dokic out of your review, or do you feel its to early to tell where she is at in terms of her comeback right now?

personally, she played well, especially in that quarterfinal, I'd love to see her build on this...hopefully she doesn't crash and fall back like her other attempts at a comeback
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
... I am surprised you left Dokic out of your review, or do you feel its to early to tell where she is at in terms of her comeback right now?
Oops! How could I have left out the Comeback Story of the fortnight??? I really enjoyed her play, her newfound steadfastness, her leap in the rankings from her good showing in OZ.

Thanks, boredone. Good catch.

- KK
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Very interesting post. I agree with the tears comment and Rafa making progress and having a lot of heart. I don't know if Federer played that badly, I agree that he can't produce his best serving against Rafa but that would be true of any other player, Rafa puts a lot of pressure on your serve. I think Fed played brilliantly at times in the match but just failed to do it consistently. I agree that Fed should have shown more emotion (and heart) in the 5th set rather than AFTER the match. For me the 5th set was a relief (as a Nadal fan who doesn't want to die of a heart attack!) but for a neutral viewer it must have been very disappointing. Federer seemed already out of the match and didn't seem to have the belief, the courage or the physical reserves, I don't know which, to make it tighter. Nadal raised the level in his own service games at the start of the 5th which was quite remarkable in itself but Federer couldn't do the same on his serves and pretty much collapsed. A surprising surrender for a champion of his caliber.
 

Alexandros

Professional
It's all mental for Federer. He doesn't need to play his best to beat Nadal - he just needs to convert some more break points! His break point conversion rate against Nadal is absolutely atrocious, far below par in comparison to any other player he comes up against. And I suspect that other players have better conversion rates against Nadal than Federer does.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
It's all mental for Federer. He doesn't need to play his best to beat Nadal - he just needs to convert some more break points! His break point conversion rate against Nadal is absolutely atrocious, far below par in comparison to any other player he comes up against. And I suspect that other players have better conversion rates against Nadal than Federer does.
I don't think so. Most other players don't have BP against Rafa anyway or very few. It's a testament to Fed's talent that he manages to get so many! But Nadal is a beast at defending BPs (and I mean in general, not just vs Fed)
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
Very interesting post. I agree with the tears comment and Rafa making progress and having a lot of heart. I don't know if Federer played that badly, I agree that he can't produce his best serving against Rafa but that would be true of any other player, Rafa puts a lot of pressure on your serve.
Very good point on the serve pressure. The last two years Nadal has led in all the relevant return of serve statistics, especially percentage of return games won, which is the most meaningful. It is not that he has the best return (as a shot) by any means, but he has the best return *game* in the sense that once he manages to bring the point to neutral (often by scrambling in the first two or three shots) the chances of winning it are in his favor. His ability to bring it to neutral is a result of his defensive skills. Opponents know this, Federer knows it very well, and they probably try to go for a bit extra on the first serve. And so the percentage drops.

I think Federer served at about 50% in that match, which is on the low side for him, although for guys like McEnroe it used to be more or less average. It would be interesting to know the first serve percentage of all the big players, especially the big servers.

Note that Nadal's first serve percentage was also lower than usual in this tournament. A result of a deliberate decision to go for more, I suppose. It's a delicate balance. In the 80s, commentators like Drysdale used to say that for players whose serve is a clear weapon, 50% is about optimal. I don't know. Perhaps. Drysdale sometimes said surprising things. Once I heard him say (in the 80s) that on grass or hard surfaces, at 0-40 the server still has a slight advantage. He said it with absolute conviction.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
It's all mental for Federer. He doesn't need to play his best to beat Nadal - he just needs to convert some more break points! His break point conversion rate against Nadal is absolutely atrocious, far below par in comparison to any other player he comes up against. And I suspect that other players have better conversion rates against Nadal than Federer does.

Part of the "mental block" is that Nadal is good enough to keep things close. There are not that many players good enough to pull that off.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Amazing party Nadal.

All the positives go for Nadal and negatives for Roger. Post match analysis is so easy isnt it. Just wow the winner and find some negatives for the loser and you cant go wrong, right?

Things will change but this has been the same; the higher and faster you go up the harder you crash. There is no exception.
Enjoy
 

SoCal10s

Hall of Fame
Aussie Open

In those years passed no one looked forwards to the Aussie open even some Aussies downplayed it,but now I love it... it's one of the most exciting and anticipated Grand Slams IMO because it brings in the new year with a big bang.. we get to see who's gonna be HOT and who's just pretending...
 

Fiederer

New User
Yeah, it was a blast to watch...

And being in Singapore, the friendly "live" match-times were a god-send.

The Dokic run-and-story was an inspiration, great stuff.
 
The main items that stood out for me were:

1) The bookies making Murray the favourite for the AO. He may be able to last five sets in one match but am not sure he can do it again match after match.

2) Verdasco's improvement. At last, it's nice to see him fulfil his potential. He's here to stay I hope. Also nice to see Baghy being semi-competitive again.

3) Yet another chapter in the Nadal v Federer rivalry. I'm sure they will contest many more finals and am also dead certain that Federer will recover from what seems to be an impossible/desperate position - all GOAT nominees do.

4) The women's final fiasco and the state of the women's game in general. World number 1 beats world number 2 love and three. Not pretty.

5) Related to the above... men's/women's equal pay decision needs to be revisited. At least make the women play 5 sets in the final.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
I don't agree with "Federer - He played "off" the whole match....etc.etc.etc"
Okay. Reasonable minds can differ.

Many posts just ignore Rafa's skill and tactics. Fed can't play his flashy style against a guy who is ready to battle for every point.
Hmm. In the same post where you appear to be miffed that people don't give Nadal proper credit ... you reduce Roger's play to "flashy style???" (You might want to look in the mirror for unbalanced opinion.) For me to agree with your conclusion I'd have to agree to your premise about Federer's game. (I don't.)

... Fed never had any plan on how to play against Rafa or at least none of them worked even remotely.
Here, we certainly agree.

And, going to the IF's section, hadn't been for 5 hours semi, the final would have been over in straights.
Hypothetical arguments surely do build up certain TT-ers' post counts, but they are a waste of time, IMO.




I don't know if Federer played that badly ...
My contention is "How Fed's serve and footwork goes ... so goes his game." His serve was poor, by "Fed standards." His footwork made me wonder if he'd been abducted by aliens and we were watching a replacement.




In those years passed no one looked forwards to the Aussie open even some Aussies downplayed it,but now I love it... it's one of the most exciting and anticipated Grand Slams IMO because it brings in the new year with a big bang.. we get to see who's gonna be HOT and who's just pretending...
A great summary to my OP. (And you did it in one short paragraph...!




Yeah, it was a blast to watch...

And being in Singapore, the friendly "live" match-times were a god-send.
Ugh! I think my metabolism is -- only this week -- back to normal. (18-hour difference here.)

- KK
 

vince evert

New User
Mens competition was one of the best ever in grand slam history!

Women's comp was mainly C-R-A-P !!!

Hahahahahaha haha ha
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
2) Verdasco's improvement. At last, it's nice to see him fulfil his potential. He's here to stay I hope. Also nice to see Baghy being semi-competitive again.
Man that is so true. Verdasco was amazing at the Austrailian and I couldn't believe how well he played against Nadal, I have always like him , and he definitely stepped up and raised the bar for himself. I just hope this wasn't a one shot deal for him, because if he can get to point where in can consistantly play like that, He may become a legitimate all court threat. We'll just have to wait and see, Tsonga has a dream run last year and really struggled after that to make a consistant big impact, hopefully that doesn't Happen to Verdasco.
 

vince evert

New User
My reflections of the 2009 Australian!!!

First up the absurdity of equal prizemoney for Women and Men competitions. The only way to resolve this is you either change Womens' to 3/5 sets or Mens' to 2/3 sets.

It would make sense to change the latter as the Melbourne park court surface is playing slow-medium, almost as slow as Roland Garros. Also the length on some of the matches are too long that they go to 1am - 2 am (ala Djokovich-Baghdatis), an absurd time of the night to be playing any sport, not just tennis. The chaos this causes to the public transport system which closes at 1am is horrendous.

Secondly, what does it say about the women's game that Serena can win the tournament by playing maybe at 70 percent of her best. Not wishing to take anything away from her win as Serena's deserves a lot of credit by improving her fitness and is therefore a desreved champion. But any more lopsided Grand Slam Finals such as
what the 09 Williams-Safina Final was, then the administrators and ITF should have the review the prizemoney issue at once.
 

oranges

Hall of Fame
^^ Quite frankly, Federer has played quite a few GS finals that seemed as one sided as the women's final and the beating he took in RG 08 final is possibly even worse than Safina's. That said, I'd agree the situation in WTA and general level of tennis is at a low and there's no telling when and if it is going to change, but giving them 5 sets to play (unless there are new Navratilovas around the corner, for God's sake no please) or cutting down the prize money are certainly not going to solve that. Reducing men's game to best of three would be even worse and I'd literally stop watching anything but DC. Masters finals in best of three are bad enough.
 

vince evert

New User
I doubt it. Nadal's win at last years French was about as close to perfection that a player has ever reached. It must surelly rank alongside McEnroes '84 Wimbledon final thrashing of Connors. On the 2009 Australian Women's final, neither Serena or Safina played exceptional. Serena throughout the tournament was struggling and with the exception of her semifinal win vs Elena Dementiava, was playing maybe 70 % of her best. She was aided by something like 25 unforced errors from a scared Safina in 59 minutes of pathetic tennis When was the last time we ever saw a classic three set Women's final in either of the Slams?.

FACT: Once upon a time the Women did play best of five at the WTA championships in the 1990's.

Reducing men's tennis to best of three is but one way of resolving the absurdity of equal prizemoney. Also I believe that no player should be expected to be playing tennis beyond midnight. I was only refering to the Australian Open, not the other Slams, my friend.
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
Nice article. I agree with some of the points. Will differ on some of comments about Final.

I am a big fan of these two elite Athletes and in between them i support Nadal otherwise I am as good a federer supporter as any. My reason is simple-- I can associate my game with Nadal's (hardworking/simple strategies/mental fortitude). Federer's game is sublime. There is no way in the hell i can hit the shots he can(not to say i can hit shots like Nadal but Not all of Nadal's shots are spectacular like Federer and some aspects of my game very remotely and vaguely do resemble nadal's). Couple of years ago , i didnt see how Federer could ever possibly lose a match. Nadal showed how it could be done.
He built his game plan around a simple mismatch (His forehand against Federer's backhand). However in AO final i felt that it was Nadal's backhand that did the damage to Federer.



My respect for Federer went up a notch after watching his emotional outpour. Every one has their opinion about this but for me that showed that he is human. Lets not all forget that he is not some guy. He is Roger Federer!!! - one of the greatest players of all time and 'arguably' the GOAT.
 

oranges

Hall of Fame
Reducing men's tennis to best of three is but one way of resolving the absurdity of equal prizemoney. Also I believe that no player should be expected to be playing tennis beyond midnight. I was only refering to the Australian Open, not the other Slams, my friend.
So you'd effectively demote AO? No thanks again.
 

vince evert

New User
Don't be silly now. The courts are quite obviously playing slow to medium. Also by playing 2/3 sets, think of the nighttime matches that will conclude at or near midnight. Methinks it is ludicrous for tennis players o be playing beyond midight.
 

vince evert

New User
Well there's the length of some of the mens and even womens matches (including Jelena Dokic's three hour R 16).

That includes last years Open as well. You only need to examine the Nadal-Verdasco semifinal. 5 hrs 14 mins is rare for hardcourt tennis. It wasn't like the spaniards were trading long rallies either. When was the last time a match took that long at the french open?
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
<Mod Mode> This isn't the Nadal / Sampras thread. </Mod Mode>




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...r-Federer-singing-the-blues-in-Melbourne.html

tennis monk:

My friend, here's an article quoting Federer about the speed of the courts.
The grittier slower courts were much discussed by the commentators the whole first week of Oz.

from Vince's link said:
... [Federer] reported that the Plexicushion courts were a touch on the slow side for his liking. There have also been some concerns in the locker-room that the courts are fluffing up the yellow fur on the balls, making them bigger and therefore slower through the air.
- KK
 

vince evert

New User
Kaptain Karl,

greetings from Australia!

Would that be the american commentators who "much-discussed" the slownesess of the court's at the Australian open?

It comes as no surprise this, as I long suspected it. Also a few years ago Lleyton Hewitt had also complained that the surface was slow.

My friend, what else did the ESPN commentators have to say about this issue?

Just curious!
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Sorry, vince. I just saw your question.

Overall the ESPN commentators were very complimentary about the new surface. The high grit topic seemed to wane by the 2nd week.

- KK
 

Knightmace

Professional
Seriously not being biased but Federer could have won that match 4 or 3.

He served at 4-2 is set set to potentially og up 5-2 adn take set set 6-3 or 6-3 by this time Nadal's momentum would have dropped a ton of mommentum knowing he has to atleast 3 more sets to win after playing and exhausting 5 setter. Had the second set gone the way it really did then Fed could have gone up 6-3,6-3 then maybe took the next set 7-6.

But serving was poor, and TOO MANY UE!

KUdos to Nadal big heart and amazing shots in that match.
 
Top