Who thinks Fed would play better with a 95" racquet?

[BreakPoint]

How many people has federer lost to on clay who use a larger sized racquet?

Nadal, Djokovic, Warwrinka, Volandri, Kuerten, Gasquet, etc. - should I go on? :-?

 

[King of Aces]

Failed reading again!

He ALWAYS has the virus - win or lose.

Ask anyone who has the herpes virus - same problem, it's always in your system.

so lets sum this up......

If federer loses its always because he had a virus.....

If federer wins its a miracle because he overcame a virus.

Its all so convenient.

 

[King of Aces]

Nadal, Djokovic, Warwrinka, Volandri, Kuerten, Gasquet, etc. - should I go on? :-?

yes please...because thats exactly my point.

Fed loses to all of these people because his racquet is too small on clay.

 

[BreakPoint]

yes please...because thats exactly my point.

Fed loses to all of these people because his racquet is too small on clay.

Yet, Federer gets to the final of RG every year.

He only has to worry about beating Nadal, not these other guys.

 

[King of Aces]

Yet, Federer gets to the final of RG every year.

He only has to worry about beating Nadal, not these other guys.

man that took you a loooooong time. is that the best you got?

 

[Pwned]

How is that not enough? 3 year runner up to Nadal on clay is somehow not impressive now. We must fault the racquet.

 

[grizzly4life]

LOL (not directed as last poster, just a general comment),

anyway, federer will get another year of denial out of yesterday's tainted win (hey, i'm a huge fan, just stating the truth)....... and then seriously regret it 5 years from now.

there is no doubt/dispute whatsoever that fed would play better with a larger racquet.......... none whatsoever............ would anyone actually suggest a 90 sq inch racquet for him? he won "in spite" of his racquet.

anyway, i don't think anyone with any credibility disagrees. i certainly don't see anyone on this site.

 

[Simon Brown]

I guess Fed disagrees with you. But maybe he has less credibility than the average TW poster?

 

[pmerk34]

Failed reading again!

He ALWAYS has the virus - win or lose.

Ask anyone who has the herpes virus - same problem, it's always in your system.

Hey, it's ok just take Valtrax. You will be able to rock climb, canoe in the rapids and date gorgeous women who either have Herpes too or don't care that you have it because hey you can rock climb!

 

[Pwned]

LOL (not directed as last poster, just a general comment),

anyway, federer will get another year of denial out of yesterday's tainted win (hey, i'm a huge fan, just stating the truth)....... and then seriously regret it 5 years from now.

there is no doubt/dispute whatsoever that fed would play better with a larger racquet.......... none whatsoever............ would anyone actually suggest a 90 sq inch racquet for him? he won "in spite" of his racquet.

anyway, i don't think anyone with any credibility disagrees. i certainly don't see anyone on this site.

In spite of his racquet? Thank you for your expert opinion oh omniscient one. Your last comment about credibility goes for you as well.

 

[LPShanet]

Yes Nadal tried very hard to win and Nadal lost. You just can't admit it!! I understand you have to come up with some B.S. to rationalize the lost in your mind. It is the racquet, he tanked, and.... I understand your mentality all too well.

Wow, I stop checking this thread for two days, and I come back to find us all in some kind of bizarro-world. I think it's time for some people to step back and look at what they've written. We're arguing about whether Nadal tanked? Really?

Accusing Nadal of tanking is not only inaccurate, not only completely insane, but actually hilarious. If you started a thread asking people to name the one player in tennis history who never tanked a match, I guarantee you the responses would be a landslide for Nadal. He's the only player currently playing about whom you could say that he never gives less than 100% in every match. Every commentator says it about him. Every player says it's why it's so hard to play him. And now we're arguing that he tanked in a final? On clay? With a streak riding on it? In his home country? That's like saying that Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken was famously lazy and didn't play regularly. It's like saying Shaq is kinda small. Like saying Jesse Owens would have won a few races, but unfortunately he was slow and white. My mind boggles.

But if we're going to take the discussion seriously, what possible benefit would Nadal get from tanking? He still ran all over the court and played the match, so he didn't save any energy or decrease his risk of injury at all. And why would he do this during that match, after having given everything humanly possible the day before? If he were saving himself, wouldn't he have done it the previous day? There is no logical argument that can be made here.

I'd be happy to concede that maybe Nadal was tired, and that the exhaustion had an effect on the outcome of the match. Definitely possible. Even probable. You could also make a case that the few matches he's lost in the last couple of years occurred when he was either super tired or somewhat injured/tweaked. But saying that he tanked it is hilarious, and could only be classified as a conspiracy theory on the level of total crackpotness.

If a group of knowledgeable tennis analysts were looking at why Federer finally beat Nadal on clay again yesterday, a number of factors would come up, none of which would include racquet head size or tanking. Aside from any tiredness that Nadal was feeling, Fed did a number of things that were strategically quite different from his previous matches with Nadal. He took much less time between points, which took advantage of any tiredness Nadal might have been feeling and the fact that Nadal tries so hard on every point (make a note of that, those of you with tanking theories). He attempted to end points as soon as he had the chance, rather than biding his time with as many neutral shots as he usually does, so that Nadal couldn't fight his way back into points after being on the defensive. Fed was willing to accept a few errors (and shanks) in an effort to impose his will on Nadal more. In this case, it paid off. Fed didn't get upset when he missed, he just cued up the next shot and went for it. He also served very well, which is key for him in any match. He came over a much higher percentage of his backhands, which not only kept Nadal further back in the court and gave him a little less time, but it also mentally suggested that Federer wasn't hiding the stroke. He hit it as well as he has in quite a while. His hit point was further into the court than it was in his last few matches, and he took many more balls on the rise, even if the risks were higher, which made it possible for him to get more balls by Nadal. He didn't avoid Nadal's forehand as much as he did in the past. Various players, including Djokovic have shown that it seems to be a better strategy to go at Nadal's forehand than try to hit around it every shot. I could go on, but don't need to. Anyone who has watched their matches with an informed and critical eye would agree that Fed played a totally different kind of match at Madrid than the recent past. While some say he's stubborn for not switching racquets, the cognoscenti say he's been most stubborn for not switching tactics. He finally did at the right time, and it worked. Of course, it didn't hurt that the whole thing took place at altitude, which meant the ball moved through the court much quicker than it normally does on clay, giving the match some of the aspects of one on a faster surface.

As for Federer, taking anything away from his abilities on clay also makes little sense. He's been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last few years running. Not bad when it's his weakest surface and comes at a time when one of the best clay-courters of all time is in his prime. Look at the records. Since summer of 2005, Nadal has lost on clay three times total. Two thirds of those losses have been at the hands of Federer (and the 90 square in racquet that those hands held). Pretty tough terms for arguing a racquet problem. Fed is the only person who has beaten him on clay in the last year. He's certainly the only person who's done it twice. He's the only person who's done it more than once since Nadal first played the French Open. He's got twice as many claycourt wins against Nadal as the entire rest of the ATP combined in the last two years, and as many as the entire ATP combined in the last four. Time for a head check.

Back to the racquets. If the argument is that Federer is shanking balls and having problems with mishits, etc., the LAST thing he needs to do is change racquets. He's been playing with something basically like his current frame for years, and the almost impossible to measurable increase in hitting area that a 95" provides would cause so many other changes in his stroke that it would be more likely to increase that particular problem. Mishitting is not a credible reason for making a switch, as the reduction of shanks is one of the things that will change least in making that switch. If you wanted to make an actually measurable difference in shanks, you'd have to talk about a MUCH bigger racquet (something at least 105" or over), and we know that's ridiculous. When someone is as accomplished as the top tour guys, change is bad. It's a very simple concept. It's also why the whole practice of paintjobs exists in the first place. Because almost everyone who plays the game at a high level believes this.

(We wont even get into the fact that some companies' 90's are really more like 92 or so, depending on their measuring methodologies, and some companies 95's are more like 93's, so we know that there may be almost no statistically measurable difference between a given 90 and a 95.)

On the other hand, maybe the last few days on this thread were just a bad dream and we can return to sanity with little or no kerfuffle.

 

[King of Aces]

How is that not enough? 3 year runner up to Nadal on clay is somehow not impressive now. We must fault the racquet.

Its impressive but just not enough. The difference between winning a grand slam and coming in runnerup is HUGE.

 

[MichaelChang]

well actually chang was one of the first to use an extended racquet so that he could reach more balls.

I used it to serve better, not to reach more balls.:evil:

 

[Rabbit]

Its impressive but just not enough. The difference between winning a grand slam and coming in runnerup is HUGE.

I hope this is a joke. Since Open tennis began, there have been only two repeat finalists (please note the difference between a finalist and champion), Andre Agassi in 90 - 91 and Federer 06 - 08. The fact that Federer has 3peated in the finals versus a guy who is now touted the King of Clay, the best claycourt player of all time, a four time champion who is undefeated in Paris including his freshman effort, is not good enough? Now we've taken the "discussion" from the realm of the reasonable to the incredulous.

If you seriously think that Federer's effort is "impressive but not enough" and that an equipment change would make a difference, you've just lost any/all credibility.

 

[MichaelChang]

Back to the racquets. If the argument is that Federer is shanking balls and having problems with mishits, etc., the LAST thing he needs to do is change racquets. He's been playing with something basically like his current frame for years, and the almost impossible to measurable increase in hitting area that a 95" provides would cause so many other changes in his stroke that it would be more likely to increase that particular problem. Mishitting is not a credible reason for making a switch, as the reduction of shanks is one of the things that will change least in making that switch. If you wanted to make an actually measurable difference in shanks, you'd have to talk about a MUCH bigger racquet (something at least 105" or over), and we know that's ridiculous. When someone is as accomplished as the top tour guys, change is bad. It's a very simple concept. It's also why the whole practice of paintjobs exists in the first place. Because almost everyone who plays the game at a high level believes this.

I agree with this. Any amature tennis fans who 'strongly' suggest a top pro to change his racket, is beyond funny.

 

[drakulie]

Wow, I stop checking this thread for two days, and I come back to find us all in some kind of bizarro-world. I think it's time for some people to step back and look at what they've written. We're arguing about whether Nadal tanked? Really?

Accusing Nadal of tanking is not only inaccurate, not only completely insane, but actually hilarious. If you started a thread asking people to name the one player in tennis history who never tanked a match, I guarantee you the responses would be a landslide for Nadal. He's the only player currently playing about whom you could say that he never gives less than 100% in every match. Every commentator says it about him. Every player says it's why it's so hard to play him. And now we're arguing that he tanked in a final? On clay? With a streak riding on it? In his home country? That's like saying that Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken was famously lazy and didn't play regularly. It's like saying Shaq is kinda small. Like saying Jesse Owens would have won a few races, but unfortunately he was slow and white. My mind boggles.

But if we're going to take the discussion seriously, what possible benefit would Nadal get from tanking? He still ran all over the court and played the match, so he didn't save any energy or decrease his risk of injury at all. And why would he do this during that match, after having given everything humanly possible the day before? If he were saving himself, wouldn't he have done it the previous day? There is no logical argument that can be made here.

I'd be happy to concede that maybe Nadal was tired, and that the exhaustion had an effect on the outcome of the match. Definitely possible. Even probable. You could also make a case that the few matches he's lost in the last couple of years occurred when he was either super tired or somewhat injured/tweaked. But saying that he tanked it is hilarious, and could only be classified as a conspiracy theory on the level of total crackpotness.

If a group of knowledgeable tennis analysts were looking at why Federer finally beat Nadal on clay again yesterday, a number of factors would come up, none of which would include racquet head size or tanking. Aside from any tiredness that Nadal was feeling, Fed did a number of things that were strategically quite different from his previous matches with Nadal. He took much less time between points, which took advantage of any tiredness Nadal might have been feeling and the fact that Nadal tries so hard on every point (make a note of that, those of you with tanking theories). He attempted to end points as soon as he had the chance, rather than biding his time with as many neutral shots as he usually does, so that Nadal couldn't fight his way back into points after being on the defensive. Fed was willing to accept a few errors (and shanks) in an effort to impose his will on Nadal more. In this case, it paid off. Fed didn't get upset when he missed, he just cued up the next shot and went for it. He also served very well, which is key for him in any match. He came over a much higher percentage of his backhands, which not only kept Nadal further back in the court and gave him a little less time, but it also mentally suggested that Federer wasn't hiding the stroke. He hit it as well as he has in quite a while. His hit point was further into the court than it was in his last few matches, and he took many more balls on the rise, even if the risks were higher, which made it possible for him to get more balls by Nadal. He didn't avoid Nadal's forehand as much as he did in the past. Various players, including Djokovic have shown that it seems to be a better strategy to go at Nadal's forehand than try to hit around it every shot. I could go on, but don't need to. Anyone who has watched their matches with an informed and critical eye would agree that Fed played a totally different kind of match at Madrid than the recent past. While some say he's stubborn for not switching racquets, the cognoscenti say he's been most stubborn for not switching tactics. He finally did at the right time, and it worked. Of course, it didn't hurt that the whole thing took place at altitude, which meant the ball moved through the court much quicker than it normally does on clay, giving the match some of the aspects of one on a faster surface.

As for Federer, taking anything away from his abilities on clay also makes little sense. He's been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last few years running. Not bad when it's his weakest surface and comes at a time when one of the best clay-courters of all time is in his prime. Look at the records. Since summer of 2005, Nadal has lost on clay three times total. Two thirds of those losses have been at the hands of Federer (and the 90 square in racquet that those hands held). Pretty tough terms for arguing a racquet problem. Fed is the only person who has beaten him on clay in the last year. He's certainly the only person who's done it twice. He's the only person who's done it more than once since Nadal first played the French Open. He's got twice as many claycourt wins against Nadal as the entire rest of the ATP combined in the last two years, and as many as the entire ATP combined in the last four. Time for a head check.

Back to the racquets. If the argument is that Federer is shanking balls and having problems with mishits, etc., the LAST thing he needs to do is change racquets. He's been playing with something basically like his current frame for years, and the almost impossible to measurable increase in hitting area that a 95" provides would cause so many other changes in his stroke that it would be more likely to increase that particular problem. Mishitting is not a credible reason for making a switch, as the reduction of shanks is one of the things that will change least in making that switch. If you wanted to make an actually measurable difference in shanks, you'd have to talk about a MUCH bigger racquet (something at least 105" or over), and we know that's ridiculous. When someone is as accomplished as the top tour guys, change is bad. It's a very simple concept. It's also why the whole practice of paintjobs exists in the first place. Because almost everyone who plays the game at a high level believes this.

(We wont even get into the fact that some companies' 90's are really more like 92 or so, depending on their measuring methodologies, and some companies 95's are more like 93's, so we know that there may be almost no statistically measurable difference between a given 90 and a 95.)

On the other hand, maybe the last few days on this thread were just a bad dream and we can return to sanity with little or no kerfuffle.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write, and post it. It's too bad it will go to waste will all the momos here.

 

[vsbabolat]

Wow, I stop checking this thread for two days, and I come back to find us all in some kind of bizarro-world. I think it's time for some people to step back and look at what they've written. We're arguing about whether Nadal tanked? Really?

Accusing Nadal of tanking is not only inaccurate, not only completely insane, but actually hilarious. If you started a thread asking people to name the one player in tennis history who never tanked a match, I guarantee you the responses would be a landslide for Nadal. He's the only player currently playing about whom you could say that he never gives less than 100% in every match. Every commentator says it about him. Every player says it's why it's so hard to play him. And now we're arguing that he tanked in a final? On clay? With a streak riding on it? In his home country? That's like saying that Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken was famously lazy and didn't play regularly. It's like saying Shaq is kinda small. Like saying Jesse Owens would have won a few races, but unfortunately he was slow and white. My mind boggles.

But if we're going to take the discussion seriously, what possible benefit would Nadal get from tanking? He still ran all over the court and played the match, so he didn't save any energy or decrease his risk of injury at all. And why would he do this during that match, after having given everything humanly possible the day before? If he were saving himself, wouldn't he have done it the previous day? There is no logical argument that can be made here.

I'd be happy to concede that maybe Nadal was tired, and that the exhaustion had an effect on the outcome of the match. Definitely possible. Even probable. You could also make a case that the few matches he's lost in the last couple of years occurred when he was either super tired or somewhat injured/tweaked. But saying that he tanked it is hilarious, and could only be classified as a conspiracy theory on the level of total crackpotness.

If a group of knowledgeable tennis analysts were looking at why Federer finally beat Nadal on clay again yesterday, a number of factors would come up, none of which would include racquet head size or tanking. Aside from any tiredness that Nadal was feeling, Fed did a number of things that were strategically quite different from his previous matches with Nadal. He took much less time between points, which took advantage of any tiredness Nadal might have been feeling and the fact that Nadal tries so hard on every point (make a note of that, those of you with tanking theories). He attempted to end points as soon as he had the chance, rather than biding his time with as many neutral shots as he usually does, so that Nadal couldn't fight his way back into points after being on the defensive. Fed was willing to accept a few errors (and shanks) in an effort to impose his will on Nadal more. In this case, it paid off. Fed didn't get upset when he missed, he just cued up the next shot and went for it. He also served very well, which is key for him in any match. He came over a much higher percentage of his backhands, which not only kept Nadal further back in the court and gave him a little less time, but it also mentally suggested that Federer wasn't hiding the stroke. He hit it as well as he has in quite a while. His hit point was further into the court than it was in his last few matches, and he took many more balls on the rise, even if the risks were higher, which made it possible for him to get more balls by Nadal. He didn't avoid Nadal's forehand as much as he did in the past. Various players, including Djokovic have shown that it seems to be a better strategy to go at Nadal's forehand than try to hit around it every shot. I could go on, but don't need to. Anyone who has watched their matches with an informed and critical eye would agree that Fed played a totally different kind of match at Madrid than the recent past. While some say he's stubborn for not switching racquets, the cognoscenti say he's been most stubborn for not switching tactics. He finally did at the right time, and it worked. Of course, it didn't hurt that the whole thing took place at altitude, which meant the ball moved through the court much quicker than it normally does on clay, giving the match some of the aspects of one on a faster surface.

As for Federer, taking anything away from his abilities on clay also makes little sense. He's been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last few years running. Not bad when it's his weakest surface and comes at a time when one of the best clay-courters of all time is in his prime. Look at the records. Since summer of 2005, Nadal has lost on clay three times total. Two thirds of those losses have been at the hands of Federer (and the 90 square in racquet that those hands held). Pretty tough terms for arguing a racquet problem. Fed is the only person who has beaten him on clay in the last year. He's certainly the only person who's done it twice. He's the only person who's done it more than once since Nadal first played the French Open. He's got twice as many claycourt wins against Nadal as the entire rest of the ATP combined in the last two years, and as many as the entire ATP combined in the last four. Time for a head check.

Back to the racquets. If the argument is that Federer is shanking balls and having problems with mishits, etc., the LAST thing he needs to do is change racquets. He's been playing with something basically like his current frame for years, and the almost impossible to measurable increase in hitting area that a 95" provides would cause so many other changes in his stroke that it would be more likely to increase that particular problem. Mishitting is not a credible reason for making a switch, as the reduction of shanks is one of the things that will change least in making that switch. If you wanted to make an actually measurable difference in shanks, you'd have to talk about a MUCH bigger racquet (something at least 105" or over), and we know that's ridiculous. When someone is as accomplished as the top tour guys, change is bad. It's a very simple concept. It's also why the whole practice of paintjobs exists in the first place. Because almost everyone who plays the game at a high level believes this.

(We wont even get into the fact that some companies' 90's are really more like 92 or so, depending on their measuring methodologies, and some companies 95's are more like 93's, so we know that there may be almost no statistically measurable difference between a given 90 and a 95.)

On the other hand, maybe the last few days on this thread were just a bad dream and we can return to sanity with little or no kerfuffle.

I agree with you. This whole thread is a Bizarro world.

 

[sureshs]

3 consecutive titles for Nadal and 0 for Federer -> Nothing in Nadal's tank -> causes tanking -> did not want to disappoint home country crowd -> so decided to make it to the finals -> then took it easy on Fed -> ran around a little but not much -> allowed Fed to come back from breakpoints down -> will emerge at FO and demolish everyone

 

[vsbabolat]

3 consecutive titles for Nadal and 0 for Federer -> Nothing in Nadal's tank -> causes tanking -> did not want to disappoint home country crowd -> so decided to make it to the finals -> then took it easy on Fed -> ran around a little but not much -> allowed Fed to come back from breakpoints down -> will emerge at FO and demolish everyone

I am sorry but you don't know what it is to tank. You have no clue of what you are talking about. You are saying that Nadal has no heart. That he just went out there to lose.

I will post what the definition of to tank again so maybe you can understand it.
To tank is not to put forward ones best efforts. To not try to win.

Nadal put forward his best efforts. Nadal tried to win the match. I am sorry that you think other wise but you are wrong. Nadal did not fight off match points against Djokovic so he could get into the Finals against Federer to tank.

All your post show is that you don't understand tennis and you don't understand what it is to tank.

 

[jmverdugo]

Reading through this thread ir really seems as a discussion between teenagers and adults. This will never end as one of the two reached their comprehension limit.

 

[Rabbit]

Nothing in the tank = tanked

3 consecutive titles for Nadal and 0 for Federer -> Nothing in Nadal's tank -> causes tanking -> did not want to disappoint home country crowd -> so decided to make it to the finals -> then took it easy on Fed -> ran around a little but not much -> allowed Fed to come back from breakpoints down -> will emerge at FO and demolish everyone

Sorry, tanking is what Lendl did at the Masters in a RR match against Connors to avoid playing Borg in the semis. He lost on purpose.


Nothing in the tank = loss of conditioning

 

[King of Aces]

Sorry, tanking is what Lendl did at the Masters in a RR match against Connors to avoid playing Borg in the semis. He lost on purpose.


Nothing in the tank = loss of conditioning

Sampras says he sort of tanked a US Open match against Edberg.

 

[vsbabolat]

Sampras says he sort of tanked a US Open match against Edberg.

If you are talking about the 1992 U.S. Open Finals in which Edberg won 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(7-5), 6-2. That is not a tank.

 

[King of Aces]

If you are talking about the 1992 U.S. Open Finals in which Edberg won 3-6, 6-4, 7-6(7-5), 6-2. That is not a tank.

what was the line Pete used? he said that he gave up during that match and that it was his "rubicon" ....he would never give up again. It was his turning point.

 

[mtommer]

Now we've taken the "discussion" from the realm of the reasonable to the incredulous.

Really? I though it became unreasonable from the moment the title of this thread was written.

 

[andreev_forehand]

Wow, I stop checking this thread for two days, and I come back to find us all in some kind of bizarro-world. I think it's time for some people to step back and look at what they've written. We're arguing about whether Nadal tanked? Really?

Accusing Nadal of tanking is not only inaccurate, not only completely insane, but actually hilarious. If you started a thread asking people to name the one player in tennis history who never tanked a match, I guarantee you the responses would be a landslide for Nadal. He's the only player currently playing about whom you could say that he never gives less than 100% in every match. Every commentator says it about him. Every player says it's why it's so hard to play him. And now we're arguing that he tanked in a final? On clay? With a streak riding on it? In his home country? That's like saying that Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken was famously lazy and didn't play regularly. It's like saying Shaq is kinda small. Like saying Jesse Owens would have won a few races, but unfortunately he was slow and white. My mind boggles.

But if we're going to take the discussion seriously, what possible benefit would Nadal get from tanking? He still ran all over the court and played the match, so he didn't save any energy or decrease his risk of injury at all. And why would he do this during that match, after having given everything humanly possible the day before? If he were saving himself, wouldn't he have done it the previous day? There is no logical argument that can be made here.

I'd be happy to concede that maybe Nadal was tired, and that the exhaustion had an effect on the outcome of the match. Definitely possible. Even probable. You could also make a case that the few matches he's lost in the last couple of years occurred when he was either super tired or somewhat injured/tweaked. But saying that he tanked it is hilarious, and could only be classified as a conspiracy theory on the level of total crackpotness.

If a group of knowledgeable tennis analysts were looking at why Federer finally beat Nadal on clay again yesterday, a number of factors would come up, none of which would include racquet head size or tanking. Aside from any tiredness that Nadal was feeling, Fed did a number of things that were strategically quite different from his previous matches with Nadal. He took much less time between points, which took advantage of any tiredness Nadal might have been feeling and the fact that Nadal tries so hard on every point (make a note of that, those of you with tanking theories). He attempted to end points as soon as he had the chance, rather than biding his time with as many neutral shots as he usually does, so that Nadal couldn't fight his way back into points after being on the defensive. Fed was willing to accept a few errors (and shanks) in an effort to impose his will on Nadal more. In this case, it paid off. Fed didn't get upset when he missed, he just cued up the next shot and went for it. He also served very well, which is key for him in any match. He came over a much higher percentage of his backhands, which not only kept Nadal further back in the court and gave him a little less time, but it also mentally suggested that Federer wasn't hiding the stroke. He hit it as well as he has in quite a while. His hit point was further into the court than it was in his last few matches, and he took many more balls on the rise, even if the risks were higher, which made it possible for him to get more balls by Nadal. He didn't avoid Nadal's forehand as much as he did in the past. Various players, including Djokovic have shown that it seems to be a better strategy to go at Nadal's forehand than try to hit around it every shot. I could go on, but don't need to. Anyone who has watched their matches with an informed and critical eye would agree that Fed played a totally different kind of match at Madrid than the recent past. While some say he's stubborn for not switching racquets, the cognoscenti say he's been most stubborn for not switching tactics. He finally did at the right time, and it worked. Of course, it didn't hurt that the whole thing took place at altitude, which meant the ball moved through the court much quicker than it normally does on clay, giving the match some of the aspects of one on a faster surface.

As for Federer, taking anything away from his abilities on clay also makes little sense. He's been the second best clay-courter in the world for the last few years running. Not bad when it's his weakest surface and comes at a time when one of the best clay-courters of all time is in his prime. Look at the records. Since summer of 2005, Nadal has lost on clay three times total. Two thirds of those losses have been at the hands of Federer (and the 90 square in racquet that those hands held). Pretty tough terms for arguing a racquet problem. Fed is the only person who has beaten him on clay in the last year. He's certainly the only person who's done it twice. He's the only person who's done it more than once since Nadal first played the French Open. He's got twice as many claycourt wins against Nadal as the entire rest of the ATP combined in the last two years, and as many as the entire ATP combined in the last four. Time for a head check.

Back to the racquets. If the argument is that Federer is shanking balls and having problems with mishits, etc., the LAST thing he needs to do is change racquets. He's been playing with something basically like his current frame for years, and the almost impossible to measurable increase in hitting area that a 95" provides would cause so many other changes in his stroke that it would be more likely to increase that particular problem. Mishitting is not a credible reason for making a switch, as the reduction of shanks is one of the things that will change least in making that switch. If you wanted to make an actually measurable difference in shanks, you'd have to talk about a MUCH bigger racquet (something at least 105" or over), and we know that's ridiculous. When someone is as accomplished as the top tour guys, change is bad. It's a very simple concept. It's also why the whole practice of paintjobs exists in the first place. Because almost everyone who plays the game at a high level believes this.

(We wont even get into the fact that some companies' 90's are really more like 92 or so, depending on their measuring methodologies, and some companies 95's are more like 93's, so we know that there may be almost no statistically measurable difference between a given 90 and a 95.)

On the other hand, maybe the last few days on this thread were just a bad dream and we can return to sanity with little or no kerfuffle.

I, like others, agree with this thread. The only factor you may have left out is that an addition to altitude the hot dry weather left the court very dry and hard, which according to many of the players there left it basically playing like a hard court with a bunch of sand on it. This would severely hamper Nadal since (a) he's not as good on hardcourt and (b) movement is a if not the most important part of his game, so a "sandy" hardcourt is even worse for him than a normal one. I actually think that this in conjunction with playing what was the longest masters series match ever the day before were the biggest factors in his loss. Although a nice win for Federer, the situation will surely be much different at the French.

 

[samster]

what was the line Pete used? he said that he gave up during that match and that it was his "rubicon" ....he would never give up again. It was his turning point.

Sampras was outplayed by Edberg at the 1992 US Open.

 

[Rabbit]

Really? I though it became unreasonable from the moment the title of this thread was written.

I stand corrected, sir!

I, like others, agree with this thread. The only factor you may have left out is that an addition to altitude the hot dry weather left the court very dry and hard, which according to many of the players there left it basically playing like a hard court with a bunch of sand on it.

And the last place Federer beat Nads was at Hamburg where the conditions are heavier and slower than Paris. I guess then that Nads has only one particular type of clay court he can win on? But wait....I thought he was the King Of Clay.

Last year at RG, the wind blew most of the top dressing off the court leaving it, in Nads' words, playing like a super slick hardcourt. That didn't deter him from winning then did it?

This would severely hamper Nadal since (a) he's not as good on hardcourt and

See Austrailian Open January 2009.

(b) movement is a if not the most important part of his game, so a "sandy" hardcourt is even worse for him than a normal one.

Gee, I always found moving on a hardcourt easier than a claycourt. Was Federer playing on a more secure footing during all this?

I actually think that this in conjunction with playing what was the longest masters series match ever the day before were the biggest factors in his loss. Although a nice win for Federer, the situation will surely be much different at the French.

Man, that's really a string of excuses. Should Nads lose at the French, I wonder what the reason(s) will be then...

 

[drakulie]

I, like others, agree with this thread. The only factor you may have left out is that an addition to altitude the hot dry weather left the court very dry and hard, which according to many of the players there left it basically playing like a hard court with a bunch of sand on it.

Wasn't aware the conditions were like this only on Nadal's side of the court.

I actually think that this in conjunction with playing what was the longest masters series match ever the day before were the biggest factors in his loss. Although a nice win for Federer, the situation will surely be much different at the French.

The "biggest factor in his (rafa's) loss", was the small head sized frame he hard-headedly chooses to use.

 

[Pwned]

Its impressive but just not enough. The difference between winning a grand slam and coming in runnerup is HUGE.

Sure. But you acted as if his point was worthless. Being the second best clay court player for 4 years is quite an achievement.

 

[andreev_forehand]

And the last place Federer beat Nads was at Hamburg where the conditions are heavier and slower than Paris. I guess then that Nads has only one particular type of clay court he can win on? But wait....I thought he was the King Of Clay.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Obviously he lost at Hamburg for a different reason. Maybe Fed just played a better match since this was before he began to "suck." As far as your last comment, he obviously is the King of Clay, since he's lost only 3 matches on the surface in the last 4 years.

Last year at RG, the wind blew most of the top dressing off the court leaving it, in Nads' words, playing like a super slick hardcourt. That didn't deter him from winning then did it?

Paris is cooler and wetter, lower altitude, plus he hadn't just played a 4+ hr match the day before.

See Austrailian Open January 2009.

Yeah I saw it. What's your point? Nadal has won 1 out of the last 16 hardcourt grandslams and 4 of the last 4 clay court grandslams, therefore, as I stated, "he's not as good on hardcourt" as he is on clay. It was a simple statement that should be easily understood even by a simple mind.

Gee, I always found moving on a hardcourt easier than a claycourt. Was Federer playing on a more secure footing during all this?

You're supporting my argument. Moving on a hardcourt is easier than moving on a clay court, therefore a player w better movement (Nadal) has an advantage on a clay court, therefore if the clay court is playing like a hardcourt (especially one with sand on top of it) the advantage is reduced for the player with better movement. On top of this Nadal's style of movement is specifically tailored for clay, whereas Federer's is more suited for hardcourts.

Man, that's really a string of excuses. Should Nads lose at the French, I wonder what the reason(s) will be then...

You won't have to worry about that.

Wasn't aware the conditions were like this only on Nadal's side of the court.

See answer to Rabbit's 2nd to last comment.

The "biggest factor in his (rafa's) loss", was the small head sized frame he cooses to use.

See every other comment in this thread by anyone who actually knows anything about tennis.

Now please thank me for wasting my time in this forum.

 

[drakulie]

See every other comment in this thread by anyone who actually knows anything about tennis.

According to several posters (including you), he lost because his head size is too small.

 

[andreev_forehand]

According to several posters (including you), he lost because his head size is too small.

You forgot the "who actually knows anything about tennis" part of my comment. And no, I wasn't one of those who thought that Federer should switch racquets.

 

[drakulie]

You forgot the "who actually knows anything about tennis" part of my comment. And no, I wasn't one of those who thought that Federer should switch racquets.

 

[Rabbit]

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Obviously he lost at Hamburg for a different reason. Maybe Fed just played a better match since this was before he began to "suck." As far as your last comment, he obviously is the King of Clay, since he's lost only 3 matches on the surface in the last 4 years.

Point is, according to you either the clay court is too hard, or too slow, or too fast. Why not just say the obvious, Nads lost? Federer was on the same court and played in more adverse conditions considering he had to deal with a Nads hometown crowd. And on top of all that, Federer just plain whupped that ass. Nads didn't have an answer. Federer served him off the court, played aggressively, and worked the points better. Whether Nads had an off day, was tired, had the sun in his eyes, or his shoes were too tight is besides the point. He lost. Why *******s have such a hard time admitting that is beyond me. The court issue is a non-issue. He had a Fed-issue.

Paris is cooler and wetter, lower altitude, plus he hadn't just played a 4+ hr match the day before.

So?

You're supporting my argument. Moving on a hardcourt is easier than moving on a clay court, therefore a player w better movement (Nadal) has an advantage on a clay court, therefore if the clay court is playing like a hardcourt (especially one with sand on top of it) the advantage is reduced for the player with better movement. On top of this Nadal's style of movement is specifically tailored for clay, whereas Federer's is more suited for hardcourts.

Nice rationalization, just nonsensical. As I pointed out, the conditions in Paris were worse on a windy day when the top dressing was basically blown off the court. Nads prevailed in those conditions, had he been the best player in Madrid on the day they played, he'd have won. End of story.

You won't have to worry about that.

LMAO....yeah, well we'll see... I don't see Nads winning this year (please note date).

 

[mtommer]

Wasn't aware the conditions were like this only on Nadal's side of the court.

Ahhhh, no it's true, Nadal's side was slicker and sandy. As I was there what happened was that the players did not switch sides. All they did was move the camera to make it LOOK like they did. Rafa was very upset but alas, Federer threatened to make the tennis duel a real gentleman's duel and Rafa wimped out. So there you have it.

 

[drakulie]

^^^Now that, I could full understand, and now agree that Nadal lost because everyone is against him.

 

[samster]

^^^Now that, I could full understand, and now agree that Nadal lost because everyone is against him.

Even his racket?

 

[pmerk34]

Sampras was outplayed by Edberg at the 1992 US Open.

Which is why he gave up..he had no chance and didn't give 100% in the 4th set.

 

[samster]

Which is why he gave up..he had no chance and didn't give 100% in the 4th set.

Hard to believe Sampras "gave up" his match against Edberg, who played Michael Chang for 5 hrs and 26 minutes less than a day before. If anything, Edberg should have been the one with "nothing in the tank."

 

[vandre]

Even his racket?

especially his racquet, samster!!! that's why nadal always has tape on his hands: because his racquets are actually biting him!!! his racquets hate him for everything from the full poly stringjobs to flying coach (while nadal sits in luxurious first class). they are out to get him too!!!! :twisted:

 

[pmerk34]

Hard to believe Sampras "gave up" his match against Edberg, who played Michael Chang for 5 hrs and 26 minutes less than a day before. If anything, Edberg should have been the one with "nothing in the tank."

Sampras has been on the record in saying this for many many years. Why is that so hard to believe.

 

[samster]

especially his racquet, samster!!! that's why nadal always has tape on his hands: because his racquets are actually biting him!!! his racquets hate him for everything from the full poly stringjobs to flying coach (while nadal sits in luxurious first class). they are out to get him too!!!! :twisted:

a biting racket! scary!

 

[mtommer]

Which is why he gave up..he had no chance and didn't give 100% in the 4th set.

I wouldn't consider this tanking. Tanking is a strategic move where the other player knows they could probably win but decide to save themselves for "a bigger battle" in order to win the war so to speak.

I consider this Sampras getting beaten before the score actually reflected the fact. I read his book and I think this is what he's trying to get across. He wasn't actually beaten yet so he shouldn't have given up and from that moment on he made a commitment to himself that he would no longer do so.

 

[samster]

Didn't Roger switch from the PS 85" to the NCode 90" early on? I know I frame a lot more balls with a 90" inch frame than a 95 or 98 inch frame.

At Rogers level I don't know what the effect would be.

Sampras has been on the record in saying this for many many years. Why is that so hard to believe.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion. It is all about perspective, isn't it? It was helpful to know where you are coming from.

 

[LPShanet]

3 consecutive titles for Nadal and 0 for Federer -> Nothing in Nadal's tank -> causes tanking -> did not want to disappoint home country crowd -> so decided to make it to the finals -> then took it easy on Fed -> ran around a little but not much -> allowed Fed to come back from breakpoints down -> will emerge at FO and demolish everyone

It seems like you've made a few leaps of logic here in which the gap is a bit too large. Nothing in Nadal's tank (which is very likely true) doesn't lead to any assumption about him other than tiredness. Assuming that it was any more or less disappointing for the fans to have him lose in the final rather than the semis has no basis in fact or logic. That he ran around a significant amount less in losing than he would have in a win is an assumption of the same kind. Why not try the logical assumption before the bizarre, conspiracy theory one. Personally, if I saw a light coming from my living room, I'd probably check if I'd left a lamp on first before directly proceeding to the assumption that aliens had landed on my coffee table and were there to autopsy me.

And yes, Nadal will in all likelihood demolish everyone at the French Open. But that doesn't change any of the above. It just means he had a couple of days off (and is playing at sea level on a good court).

 

[LPShanet]

especially his racquet, samster!!! that's why nadal always has tape on his hands: because his racquets are actually biting him!!! his racquets hate him for everything from the full poly stringjobs to flying coach (while nadal sits in luxurious first class). they are out to get him too!!!! :twisted:

Luckily, they are so tiny that they can't cause any real damage.

 

[Rabbit]

Hard to believe Sampras "gave up" his match against Edberg, who played Michael Chang for 5 hrs and 26 minutes less than a day before. If anything, Edberg should have been the one with "nothing in the tank."

Not really. Sampras wouldn't have given up if he had been using a 90 or 95 square inch frame. Of course, this doesn't explain why Edberg didn't give up first since he was older and using the same frame.

 

[King of Aces]

Pete had a much better excuse than Mono.....he had some sort of blood disease that affected greek people.......on the other hand sampras was half Jewish......so err...

 

[pmerk34]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion. It is all about perspective, isn't it? It was helpful to know where you are coming from.

Um ok whatever that means. It's not my opinion anyway Pete said it.