Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 2slik, May 21, 2010.
Why has Federer only been able to push Nadal to four sets instead of five at Roland Garros?
lol. Because Nadal is the King of Clay?
Because Nadal is better on clay. Nothing more to it.
Because he couldnt convert break points to save his life.
Hey how have you been?
I'm gud, how are you?
because, as the guys above me said , cant convert break points and also he runs out of gas against Rafa. Rafa makes the battle very physical which is unusual for Fed.
Clay is a surface that neutralizes elite tennis skills.
because (in the words of pete sampras) "nadal is just an animal."
Because Nadal is better on clay?
That was hard...
So being good on clay doesn't require elite clay tennis skills? hmm....
This doesn't make sense, otherwise Roddick would have swept RG every year.
slowish court when they played. his backhand breaks down under the long slog.
And Roddick will take every clay title he enters and double bagel Federer in the finals every time because Federer's "elite" skills are somehow neutralized.
It just requires less skill than HC or grass, since those surfaces are faster. Faster courts requires faster reflexes and low percentage power shots. Slow down the game by using a tennis ball like a squash ball and my grandma can get a point off Nadal. I hope the analogy is clear for those hard of comprehension.
Oooo come on!!!!Enough with this b..ts!!!Wich is elite tennis skill????The serve!?!?!?!The most boring thing in tennis!!!If you don't like the surface and the players that are good on it-don't watch them and don't comment!You speaking such a crap!!!!
Because Fed tanks against Rafa. He presents no challenge.
because he lost the 4th....this a stupid thread...nothing to discuss really
the answer is right there.......
This year I predict Federer will lose, but still push Nadal to 0-6 1-6 0-6 0-6 0-6. It will be very close, with Federer in control of the match throughout.
Because Federer isn't good enough.
Because Fed doesn't bring his bigger racket to the finals.
At 2 sets to 1 up on clay, Nadal is too strong mentally for Federer. Roger doesn't have the mental strength to fight back on that surface. Grass, yes; hardcourts, yes; clay, no.
I don't know...Why has Nadal never managed to even face Fed at USO?
Because if Nadal is able to get 2 sets to 1 up on Federer in Clay, that means that Federer has probably already thrown his best in, because he would rather win in straight sets than get locked into a 5 set war. So if he's unable to win 2 of the first 3, he won't be able to win the 4th. Pretty simple.
A second analogy for the real miscreants. Make a tennis court full of small rocks/pebbles/gravel and maybe even some mud. Take an 11 year old kid who's been playing on it for years - he could beat Federer. Now just extrapolate a little if your minds will allow it, and the answer will become clear.
Best show on TV.
Because he didn't win the tiebreak in the 4th set 06.
because Nadal is a better player on clay
I think clay actually does neutralize power and skill quite a bit but really emphasizes physicality (speed and conditioning) and strategy. 4 sets on clay is much more grueling than 5 sets on grass. As much as I like Federer, I think Nadal succeeds on clay primarily because he is such an intelligent ego-less player. He doesnt go for winners unless they are there, reverts to pusher mode when the other guy gets really hot and really sets up important points with previous play. Its no accident Federer has trouble winning all those break points. Nadal can do this because he knows almost no one is going to blow him off the court on clay.
Not to take away from Federer who would be the greatest clay courter of his generation had it not been for Nadal but alot of his shotmaking and precision get neutralized.
Guys who win on clay are fast, dont get tired and smart. Guys who win on grass have two/three shot power games.
because nadal = goat? Now go start a new thread...
I think in 2007 he had the best chances, but couldn't convert break points and he usually faeds away mentally very quicky against Nadal on clay.
Federer had chances to push it to five sets like in 2006 4th set tiebreak...andything can happen in a tiebreak. Federer should have won 2007 French open....If he had coverted a breakpoint each time it came...he would have be 2 sets-0 already..then momentum is at his side...He would have won in straights ot rafa would have won or lost in 5. 2008...Nope, Rafa would have won....Roger would have been lucky to even get to a tiebreaker. 2009...Rafa wasn't there in the final.
2010....This is the year the First FO five setter between Rafa and Roger....(Who wins...Obviously Federer)
Finally we get a unbiased take on things.
Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed and is an especially bad matchup for him on clay.
It would take more skill to construct a point and tactics, court positioning and awareness is very important on clay versus faster surfaces. Look at Karlovic on grass for example,40-50 aces per match and it takes less skills than say rallying from point to point, the point ends really quick too.
since when did power=skills?
clay is the toughest of all surfaces, it requires better physique and tactical skills instead just blast away on a fast surface.
Just look at hoe tennis has evolved.. if they havent slowed down the grass at wimby we would probably seen a crap player like Karlovic winning a wimby or two! tennis is not only a big serve and FH! Imagine that before they slowed down the game a bit many ppl actually preffered wathing WTA because they that way they would get the chance to see some nice rallies..
Because Nadal has a solid strategy on big points which will make him win more of them than lose. Federer is the one that needs to do something special/out of his comfort zone on those points. This makes it hard.
On top of that, Nadal's game is more suited for clay.
Also because Nadal's game is all about consistency and he has more room for error than Fed's game allows him. Nadal is a modern day Borg....they win on clay because they are more consistent than everyone else.
Federer prefers four sets instead of 5.
so you call nadal's topspin and defensive retrieving "tactical skills"
he plays very similarly on other surfaces - maybe a little more aggressive and closer to the baseline on hard / grass.
but still the same topspin and defense.
Because nadal moonballed to fed's backhand.
Well, what does Federer do differently on the other surfaces? Shank less with the high backhand?
Most tennis players are, in TW terms, one dimensional baseline bashers on all surfaces.
1. I think Nadal really does wear Fed out. By the third set Fed usually is letting the ball go and not trying anymore, unless it's tight and he might have a chance.
But, what I really think it that Fed plays reactive tennins and Nadal seems to know his tendencies, where Fed doesn't seem to understand what Nadal is going to do. Many times Fed looks flat footed when they play.
When he doesn't overanalyze it, and plays more instinctive tennis he does better.
...more like all tennis players from the current era-this is of course according to the so-called 'experts' and 'respected' posters( exactly who respects them so much,I am yet to see.But then,the word is thrown around rather loosely.)
Very good point, TheTruth! What happens is an inversion of control. Fed likes being in control of points and finishing points early. When he is forced to lose that control, which is what Rafa ends up doing when they play (even outside clay, which is what I find truly amazing) he is simply lost.
Separate names with a comma.