Why is Nadal Losing Lately ?

sawfer

New User
Did roger Federer and Andy Murray immensely improved their tennis skills or it's Rafael Nadal who's not being able to perform while grabbing his tennis racket?
The Spaniard is almost losing every tennis tournament and is short of claiming an ATP tennis tournament since last year !
 

namelessone

Legend
Did roger Federer and Andy Murray immensely improved their tennis skills or it's Rafael Nadal who's not being able to perform while grabbing his tennis racket?
The Spaniard is almost losing every tennis tournament and is short of claiming an ATP tennis tournament since last year !
Federer can't level up anymore,he is at the maximum level possible. Murray has been improving very much,especially in fitness and approach to the game. Nadal hasn't been able to come back successfully because he has been "stop and go" since he had knee problems last year and the ATP'ers,who were already better than him,have passed him by and now he can't keep up. Just as he was making some progress in USO he got a injury and was sidelined for a week. In the next slam he got injured again. It is tough for him to keep up when there are younger guys who are getting better and his body keeps breaking down on him. This isn't the WTA where you can stay out of the game 2 years and be teleported into another slam final.
 

dozu

Banned
he is 1 and 10 against top10 guys in the past 11 matches.... it's not about Fed/Murray, it's about Nadal himself finally having the other shoe dropping.

even when he was dominating, anybody knowledgeable of tennis can see he can't last long... it was just hard to believe in the peak of the glory.

now the time is here.... he is done..... may have 1 or 2 French opens left in him, but that's it.
 

SteveI

Legend
Did roger Federer and Andy Murray immensely improved their tennis skills or it's Rafael Nadal who's not being able to perform while grabbing his tennis racket?
The Spaniard is almost losing every tennis tournament and is short of claiming an ATP tennis tournament since last year !
It has been said many times.. his style of play will beat the heck out of his body. I have to say.. I knew it would also.. but not this fast. Any drop in speed for him.. and the other players take advantage. The mens game is so deep and strong and based on movement... reduction in movement equals losses. While he still gets deep into most events..he wears down at the finish line.
 

max

Legend
Steve's probably on to the right thing here: serve and volleyers hurt their body less and tend to have longer careers.
 

cknobman

Legend
This isn't the WTA where you can stay out of the game 2 years and be teleported into another slam final.
I know right!!!

As much as I love Kim and Justine and their games fully validate why they have done so well in their combacks isnt it sad that it is that easy???

WTA = Women Tennis Abomination (minus the Williams, Clijsters, and Henin).
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
When Nadal is at his best, he overwhelms his opponents with his fitness and power by grinding his opponents down with his relentless play. At the moment, for whatever reasons, he isn't able to do that.
 

markwillplay

Hall of Fame
funny thing is..nd I really believe this...Nadal has a better chance of beating Fed at any time than most of the other top 6 players..no doubt. I guess it is just a weird match up for Fed. After Nadal falls in the rankings though, he may have more shots at Fed deep in tournaments before finals..that will be interesting.
 

rafan

Hall of Fame
funny thing is..nd I really believe this...Nadal has a better chance of beating Fed at any time than most of the other top 6 players..no doubt. I guess it is just a weird match up for Fed. After Nadal falls in the rankings though, he may have more shots at Fed deep in tournaments before finals..that will be interesting.
Thats a very good point
 

Retaliation

New User
Well he dropped the weight to not put so much pressure on his knees. This caused him to lose some of his power. In the meantime, his knees still aren't holding up apparently. His game gets rusty, albeit slightly, then the Fed/Nadal gap over everyone else has closed since they upped the game of the rest of the field.

Fed can still play, Nadal is off a bit.
 

Pink_Shirt

Rookie
He should probably just get buff again, obviously this isn't working for him. lol, but I'm positive he knows more about his tennis game than I do.
 
Better play and improvement by opponents.

Opponents more used to Nadal and having a better game plan against him.

Injuries leading to inability to play the playing style that won him so many big matches.

Lack of confidence at the big moments related to everything listed above. To me this is huge. Players ride waves of confidence. Before, at big moments, Nadal looked like he believed that no matter what, he would win the point, game, or match. Now, his confidence is shaky, and it'sa easy to see.
 

texasdoc

Rookie
go back and watch some matches when he was on top - the physical grind and effort he put into every single point was amazing - but clearly was going to catch up with his body.

when you are young you don't think about such stuff, because you think your body is invincible - but wear and tear catches up with everyone, even world class athletes.

i loved watching him play, but i always had my doubts about how long he could keep up such a physical grind.

Fed has the benefit of a smooth elegant classic style which doesn't seem to stress his body very much - as long as he keep up his endurance and footwork he should be fine.
 

bruce38

Banned
It's more than just Rafa's injuries. I think the idea of how good he is got blown way out of proportion by his 2008 year when Roger was simply not himself. He is good but not as good as he seemed in 2008. The real him and how good he is, is the sum total of all his performances not just that one year. *********s seem to think that 2008 Rafa is the "true" him. This is false.
 

Blinkism

Legend
It's more than just Rafa's injuries. I think the idea of how good he is got blown way out of proportion by his 2008 year when Roger was simply not himself. He is good but not as good as he seemed in 2008. The real him and how good he is, is the sum total of all his performances not just that one year. *********s seem to think that 2008 Rafa is the "true" him. This is false.
But even in the years between 2005-2007 and in the first half of 2009, he was still very competitive in the Top 10 and could hang with Roger.

It's debatable whether or not Rafa peaked in 2008 or Federer hit some sort of lull or low, but Rafa is still nowhere near the level he showed for the last 5 years.

Or, at the least, he can't produce the same sort of results.

Some say it's because the field's figured him out, but I disagree.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
It's more than just Rafa's injuries. I think the idea of how good he is got blown way out of proportion by his 2008 year when Roger was simply not himself. He is good but not as good as he seemed in 2008. The real him and how good he is, is the sum total of all his performances not just that one year. *********s seem to think that 2008 Rafa is the "true" him. This is false.
Absolute nonsense. Nadal around the middle of 2008 was too good for even Federer. But Nadal's fighter style has been very taxing on his body, as we've seen. Federer's style is more like an artist and is much less taxing on the body.
 
Whether Rafa rebounds, I don't know.

But, the mood sometimes seems as if he should be apologizing, that his career is a disappointment. He was an absolute top player for about 5 years -- that's a pretty long time. 6 Slams on 3 surfaces.

People seems do disappointed because when he was at his peak, so many people were expecting him to be doing this forever. There was also the infamous 20-slam predicition on TW, which, though few people believed, made a lot of people think that 10 or 12 Slams was a safe assumption.

Players have vastly different career arcs. His playing style is difficult to do for a long time. I'm surprised he's done it so successfully for so long.

It would be nice to see him in relatively good health one more time and nice to see him have another period of confident tennis where he is challenging for Slams.

But, if not, he's had a great career, and was a great addition to the game.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
funny thing is..nd I really believe this...Nadal has a better chance of beating Fed at any time than most of the other top 6 players..no doubt. I guess it is just a weird match up for Fed. After Nadal falls in the rankings though, he may have more shots at Fed deep in tournaments before finals..that will be interesting.
and some of the other players strangely have better chances of beating Nadal than Federer. When Blake was beating Nadal on hard courts Federer was having trouble and still does.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Well he dropped the weight to not put so much pressure on his knees. This caused him to lose some of his power.
I think the weight loss will only make a slight difference if any. The way he moves, twists and bends his legs when playing is to me at least 80% plus the cause of his knee problems.
 

Blinkism

Legend
Maybe Nadal lost his recipe for his extra-special muscle juice?

Or maybe somebody stole the recipe.

drakulie :evil:
 

bruce38

Banned
But even in the years between 2005-2007 and in the first half of 2009, he was still very competitive in the Top 10 and could hang with Roger.

It's debatable whether or not Rafa peaked in 2008 or Federer hit some sort of lull or low, but Rafa is still nowhere near the level he showed for the last 5 years.

Or, at the least, he can't produce the same sort of results.

Some say it's because the field's figured him out, but I disagree.
How can you say it's debatable that Roger was not at a low in 08? In previous years at the FO they all went to 4 sets. In 2008 he wins 4 games. Sorry but even aging Roger and rising Rafa could not account for such a sudden disparity. This absolutely proves in my mind that Roger was not himself. Want more proof? In 2008 Roger breaks his finals streak by losing to Djoker. You might question was that real or fluke because Roger was not himself. Since then what has Djoker done in slams? Nothing. Roger has been in all finals since. That is more proof Roger 2008 was not Roger. If Roger was a 9 in 2005, 10 in 2006, 7.5 in 2007, he should have been say 7 in 2008. He was clearly not. He was a 4 or 5 in 2008. Hence Rafa appeared better than he was. Do the same analysis was Rafa. Rafa won countless tourneys, two slams (one where Roger got an aberrant 4 games and one where he barely won in the 5th). What's he done since? AO09 champ again in 5 sets. Anything else? Again I say to you, the perception of Rafa being so good is inflated. I'm not saying he's not great, but let's get real *********s, he was never as good as you purport him to be.
 

namelessone

Legend
Absolute nonsense. Nadal around the middle of 2008 was too good for even Federer. But Nadal's fighter style has been very taxing on his body, as we've seen. Federer's style is more like an artist and is much less taxing on the body.
Yeah,but some people are so blind in their hate(yet they feel like they are the only ones who know the "truth") to this that they don't give Nadal any credit for this. I already said what I feel about Fed's mono,which affected his early part of 2008(look at his face in AO not to mention the fact that he is absolutely soaked in those matches,very weird for fed),losing to no names in smaller tournaments in the first four five months or so. But what the haters fail to see is that mono fed actually performed better in 2008 in GS's(the most energy sapping events which will **** you up) with the exception of AO 2008 when mono did affect him IMO. Let's take a look:

RG:

2008: Mono Federer loses 3 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with montanes,gonzales and monfils). Unfortunately for him Nadal waits in the final and get blitzed.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 6 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with martin,acasuso,mathieu,haas and delpo). He murders soderling in the final even if he dropped double the sets he did in 2008.

WB:

2008: Mono Federer doesn't drop a set until the final and shows tremendous nerve(and physical ability which is weird for someone suffering from mono) to come back from two sets down to almost win the final against Nadal.

2009: Healthy Federer drops a set on his road to the final to Kohli and almost manages to have a two set handicap against his pigeon Roddick(like in 2008 when Nadal lead by 2-0). He wins in the fifth.

USO:

2008: Mono Federer loses 4 sets the whole tournament and wins it convincingly by beating Murray. His most difficult match was with andreev when he got pushed to five but to me this doesn't say anything on the state of his health because a way worse andreev almost pushed him to five in AO 2010.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 5 sets the whole tournament and barely loses to delpo.

So there you have it,in the most energy sapping tournaments in the world,GS's,mono Federer performed just as well,if not better than healthy 2009 Federer. Some people just can't accept the fact that Nadal is a very very bad matchup(technically and mentally) for even the best Federer,being the only guy that beat him in 2004-2006(fed's prime according to his fans) and he beat him even on HC.
 
Last edited:

Dimension

Professional
But even in the years between 2005-2007 and in the first half of 2009, he was still very competitive in the Top 10 and could hang with Roger.

It's debatable whether or not Rafa peaked in 2008 or Federer hit some sort of lull or low, but Rafa is still nowhere near the level he showed for the last 5 years.

Or, at the least, he can't produce the same sort of results.

Some say it's because the field's figured him out, but I disagree.
Like everyone has figured out Soderling and Djokovic? =P
 

Dimension

Professional
Yeah,but some people are so blind in their hate(yet they feel like they are the only ones who know the "truth") to this that they don't give Nadal any credit for this. I already said what I feel about Fed's mono,which affected his early part of 2008(look at his face in AO not to mention the fact that he is absolutely soaked in those matches,very weird for fed),losing to no names in smaller tournaments in the first four five months or so. But what the haters fail to see is that mono fed actually performed better in 2008 in GS's(the most energy sapping events which will **** you up) with the exception of AO 2008 when mono did affect him IMO. Let's take a look:

RG:

2008: Mono Federer loses 3 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with montanes,gonzales and monfils). Unfortunately for him Nadal waits in the final and get blitzed.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 6 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with martin,acasuso,mathieu,haas and delpo). He murders soderling in the final even if he dropped double the sets he did in 2008.

WB:

2008: Mono Federer doesn't drop a set until the final and shows tremendous nerve(and physical ability which is weird for someone suffering from mono) to come back from two sets down to almost win the final against Nadal.

2009: Healthy Federer drops a set on his road to the final to Kohli and almost manages to have a two set handicap against his pigeon Roddick(like in 2008 when Nadal lead by 2-0). He wins in the fifth.

USO:

2008: Mono Federer loses 4 sets the whole tournament and wins it convincingly by beating Murray. His most difficult match was with andreev when he got pushed to five but to me this doesn't say anything on the state of his health because a way worse andreev almost pushed him to five in AO 2010.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 5 sets the whole tournament and barely loses to delpo.

So there you have it,in the most energy sapping tournaments in the world,GS's,mono Federer performed just as well,if not better than healthy 2009 Federer. Some people just can't accept the fact that Nadal is a very very bad matchup(technically and mentally) for even the best Federer,being the only guy that beat him in 2004-2006(fed's prime according to his fans) and he beat him even on HC.
very well said nameless. Very fair and analytical post.
 

bruce38

Banned
Yeah,but some people are so blind in their hate(yet they feel like they are the only ones who know the "truth") to this that they don't give Nadal any credit for this.
This is not about hate. I do not hate Nadal. This is about interpretation. I have one view, and you another. I think Nadal is a great player but not as good as the results of 08 show in a manner similar to Djoker whereby his one victory is not really indicative of his abilities thus far. He will get better and win more, but that 2008 AO was premature and was due to Fed. Same with Nadal. Premature. My opinion. Don't say I hate, because I don't. Your saying that shows more hate. My posts are sometimes extreme to balance out ********* rantings.

p.s. comparing set losses in healthy vs. mono fed is silly, you do realize there are 1000s of other variables at play.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yeah,but some people are so blind in their hate(yet they feel like they are the only ones who know the "truth") to this that they don't give Nadal any credit for this. I already said what I feel about Fed's mono,which affected his early part of 2008(look at his face in AO not to mention the fact that he is absolutely soaked in those matches,very weird for fed),losing to no names in smaller tournaments in the first four five months or so. But what the haters fail to see is that mono fed actually performed better in 2008 in GS's(the most energy sapping events which will **** you up) with the exception of AO 2008 when mono did affect him IMO. Let's take a look:

RG:

2008: Mono Federer loses 3 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with montanes,gonzales and monfils). Unfortunately for him Nadal waits in the final and get blitzed.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 6 sets on the road to the final(in his matches with martin,acasuso,mathieu,haas and delpo). He murders soderling in the final even if he dropped double the sets he did in 2008.

WB:

2008: Mono Federer doesn't drop a set until the final and shows tremendous nerve(and physical ability which is weird for someone suffering from mono) to come back from two sets down to almost win the final against Nadal.

2009: Healthy Federer drops a set on his road to the final to Kohli and almost manages to have a two set handicap against his pigeon Roddick(like in 2008 when Nadal lead by 2-0). He wins in the fifth.

USO:

2008: Mono Federer loses 4 sets the whole tournament and wins it convincingly by beating Murray. His most difficult match was with andreev when he got pushed to five but to me this doesn't say anything on the state of his health because a way worse andreev almost pushed him to five in AO 2010.

2009: Healthy Federer loses 5 sets the whole tournament and barely loses to delpo.

So there you have it,in the most energy sapping tournaments in the world,GS's,mono Federer performed just as well,if not better than healthy 2009 Federer. Some people just can't accept the fact that Nadal is a very very bad matchup(technically and mentally) for even the best Federer,being the only guy that beat him in 2004-2006(fed's prime according to his fans) and he beat him even on HC.
If some of us feel that Fed wasn't at his peak by 2008(wasn't at his 2004-2006 level of play anymore) it doesn't mean we hate Nadal.

Also the fact that Fed performed better in some slams on the road to the final in 2008 compared to 2009 doesn't tell the whole story as draws were different and have an effect whether Fed loses a set or not.

Despite how much you want to overlook Fed's 2008 masters results it is still telling that in 2009 Fed aside from Bennetau didn't lose to a player out of top 10 while you know 2008 losses in the first half ot the year.

2008 Nadal was too good for 2008 version of Fed,fair enough.Whether he would have been too good(in slams and finished #1) for 2004,2005 or 2006 aside from clay Federer is another story and it's one's right to believe he wouldn't,that doesn't mean that that person hates Nadal.

It's the same way you feel that Nadal wasn't mentally up to par with Murray in this AO's match,does it means you hate Murray?
 
Last edited:

bolo

G.O.A.T.
Did roger Federer and Andy Murray immensely improved their tennis skills or it's Rafael Nadal who's not being able to perform while grabbing his tennis racket?
The Spaniard is almost losing every tennis tournament and is short of claiming an ATP tennis tournament since last year !
The clay and grass seasons are where he has always excelled. Until the fall of 2008 he was basically an average SF on hard courts and he's reverted back to that since his comeback in Aug 2009. Should be an interesting few months coming up for him.
 
Last edited:

bruce38

Banned
If some of us feel that Fed wasn't at his peak by 2008(wasn't at his 2004-2006 level of play anymore) it doesn't mean we hate Nadal.

Also the fact that Fed performed better in some slams on the road to the final in 2008 compared to 2009 doesn't tell the whole story as draws were different and have an effect whether Fed loses a set or not.

Despite how much you want to overlook Fed's 2008 masters results it is still telling that in 2009 Fed aside from Bennetau didn't lose to a player out of top 10 while you know 2008 losses in the first half ot the year.

2008 Nadal was too good for 2008 version of Fed,fair enough.Whether he would have been too good(in slams and finished #1) for 2004,2005 or 2006 aside from clay Federer is another story and it's one's right to believe he wouldn't,that doesn't mean that that person hates Nadal.

It's the same way you feel that Nadal wasn't mentally up to par with Murray in this AO's match,does it means you hate Murray?
Excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself.
 

bolo

G.O.A.T.
How can you say it's debatable that Roger was not at a low in 08? In previous years at the FO they all went to 4 sets. In 2008 he wins 4 games. Sorry but even aging Roger and rising Rafa could not account for such a sudden disparity. This absolutely proves in my mind that Roger was not himself. Want more proof? In 2008 Roger breaks his finals streak by losing to Djoker. You might question was that real or fluke because Roger was not himself. Since then what has Djoker done in slams? Nothing. Roger has been in all finals since. That is more proof Roger 2008 was not Roger. If Roger was a 9 in 2005, 10 in 2006, 7.5 in 2007, he should have been say 7 in 2008. He was clearly not. He was a 4 or 5 in 2008. Hence Rafa appeared better than he was. Do the same analysis was Rafa. Rafa won countless tourneys, two slams (one where Roger got an aberrant 4 games and one where he barely won in the 5th). What's he done since? AO09 champ again in 5 sets. Anything else? Again I say to you, the perception of Rafa being so good is inflated. I'm not saying he's not great, but let's get real *********s, he was never as good as you purport him to be.
Just one match so anything can happen and after taking nadal to 3 setters in MC and Hamburg in 2008, Fed. got spanked in the RG final. Not much he could do really, just totally dominated in that final after throwing the kitchen sink at nadal on clay for the previous 4 years straight. Note that Federer's only wins against nadal on clay are at the end of seasons where nadal dominated all the clay court tournaments in which he entered (2009, 2007).
 

bruce38

Banned
Just one match so anything can happen and after taking nadal to 3 setters in MC and Hamburg in 2008, Fed. got spanked in the RG final. Not much he could do really, just totally dominated in that final after throwing the kitchen sink at nadal on clay for the previous 4 years straight. Note that Federer's only wins against nadal on clay are at the end of seasons where nadal dominated all the clay court tournaments in which he entered (2009, 2007).
What about Madrid in 2009?
 

bolo

G.O.A.T.
What about Madrid in 2009?
yep, I noted the 2009 victory in my post. That was the 4 straight clay court final that nadal played in that clay court season. Just like 2007, where the hamburg final was the 4th straight clay court final that nadal played in that claycourt season.
 

bruce38

Banned
yep, I noted the 2009 victory in my post. That was the 4 straight clay court final that nadal played in that clay court season. Just like 2007, where the hamburg final was the 4th straight clay court final that nadal played in that claycourt season.
Sorry, I'm confused, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
 

namelessone

Legend
This is not about hate. I do not hate Nadal. This is about interpretation. I have one view, and you another. I think Nadal is a great player but not as good as the results of 08 show in a manner similar to Djoker whereby his one victory is not really indicative of his abilities thus far. He will get better and win more, but that 2008 AO was premature and was due to Fed. Same with Nadal. Premature. My opinion. Don't say I hate, because I don't. Your saying that shows more hate. My posts are sometimes extreme to balance out ********* rantings.

p.s. comparing set losses in healthy vs. mono fed is silly, you do realize there are 1000s of other variables at play.
It is not silly when he look at the way I analized things. I purposely left out AO comparisons because I believe federer was affected by mono in AO 08'.

I compared sets lost because it takes a lot to win sets over federer,mono or no mono.Federer rarely gifts sets because he wants to stay on court as little time as possible. Also,we are talking about Grand freaking Slams,the most physically demanding tournaments in the world. You could see that Federer was struggling physically in AO 08',that's my honest opinion after looking at his face and general movement on court. Maybe I'm wrong I don't know. What I do know is that a person with some serious mono and mono after effects doesn't perform just as well or even better in GS events then when he is without mono. If he does the same,one could say that it never existed though that is not true. Look at Nadal and his injuries and how it truly affected his slam results(in his best slams-RG and WB). When he was injury free he had equaled his best result in his worst slam and had he not met a extraordinary andy murray he could have made it again into AO finals. We will have to see how he does in RG and WB this year and hopefully he will enter them healthy.

Now,I already know the usual arguments,Federer is so outstanding that he fights off the disease and manages to be at his best in GS's. But what I hear from you is that he was much worse physically in GS's in the whole of 2008 and I don't believe that(just he first months IMO). Ancic also had mono and he haven't seen anything from him since. Federer meanwhile made three out of four GS finals in 2008. He made three out of four in 2005 also. His only problem was that he met his bad matchup otherwise he could have won 3 slams in his mono year,just like in his prime years.

Those thousand variables that you talk of would be overridden if Federer had a debilitating disease or still suffered side effects. You cannot play high level tennis as Fed did in RG 08'(up until the final where he kinda gave up),WB 08'(didn't lose one set and came back from two sets down) and USO 08'(had just one five setter and smashed the young and fit murray in the finals).

Maybe we will just agree to disagree.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Combination of things.

1. opponents have more confidence playing him.

2. His shots are no longer as intimidating as they once were.

3. His game is extremely one dimensional.

4. fatigue, injury, no juicing, etc.

5. He is not as mentally tough. Maybe feeling a bit punch drunk and is not as confident.
 

bruce38

Banned
It is not silly when he look at the way I analized things. I purposely left out AO comparisons because I believe federer was affected by mono in AO 08'.

I compared sets lost because it takes a lot to win sets over federer,mono or no mono.Federer rarely gifts sets because he wants to stay on court as little time as possible. Also,we are talking about Grand freaking Slams,the most physically demanding tournaments in the world. You could see that Federer was struggling physically in AO 08',that's my honest opinion after looking at his face and general movement on court. Maybe I'm wrong I don't know. What I do know is that a person with some serious mono and mono after effects doesn't perform just as well or even better in GS events then when he is without mono. If he does the same,one could say that it never existed though that is not true. Look at Nadal and his injuries and how it truly affected his slam results(in his best slams-RG and WB). When he was injury free he had equaled his best result in his worst slam and had he not met a extraordinary andy murray he could have made it again into AO finals. We will have to see how he does in RG and WB this year and hopefully he will enter them healthy.

Now,I already know the usual arguments,Federer is so outstanding that he fights off the disease and manages to be at his best in GS's. But what I hear from you is that he was much worse physically in GS's in the whole of 2008 and I don't believe that(just he first months IMO). Ancic also had mono and he haven't seen anything from him since. Federer meanwhile made three out of four GS finals in 2008. He made three out of four in 2005 also. His only problem was that he met his bad matchup otherwise he could have won 3 slams in his mono year,just like in his prime years.

Those thousand variables that you talk of would be overridden if Federer had a debilitating disease or still suffered side effects. You cannot play high level tennis as Fed did in RG 08'(up until the final where he kinda gave up),WB 08'(didn't lose one set and came back from two sets down) and USO 08'(had just one five setter and smashed the young and fit murray in the finals).

Maybe we will just agree to disagree.
He also had back problems in 08 and beginning of 09. You don't know what it's like to have mono, for all you know it could have a debilitating disease effect as Ancic showed. Ancic is not Federer. Maybe Fed's mono was not as serious, who can say. Bottom line is Fed's 2008 was a huge aberration from previous years. You want to believe it was mostly due to Nadal, I believe it was mostly due to Fed. For me 2009 and now 2010 are proving it. You cling to Nadal's injuries now as I do to mono in 08.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
Why is his AO loss being lumped in with the hammerings he took at the end of last year? He even said himself that he was playing close to his best in the AO loss. He was nowhere near that level when he was being routined at the WTF.
 

bolo

G.O.A.T.
Why is his AO loss being lumped in with the hammerings he took at the end of last year? He even said himself that he was playing close to his best in the AO loss. He was nowhere near that level when he was being routined at the WTF.
He lost but he had some chances to take a set (tiebreak vs. murray). Don't forget even last year at the AO it took his best to take verdasco in 5 in that SF. He's not far off his average results even when compared to his best HC form (fall 2008 to spring 2009).
 
Last edited:

bolo

G.O.A.T.
Why is his AO loss being lumped in with the hammerings he took at the end of last year? He even said himself that he was playing close to his best in the AO loss. He was nowhere near that level when he was being routined at the WTF.
oops multiple post. :)
 

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
Wow some of these posts show how obsessed some people are with Nadal. No other player has fans that are this OC. I guess it fits since he suffers the same ailment.
 

namelessone

Legend
If some of us feel that Fed wasn't at his peak by 2008(wasn't at his 2004-2006 level of play anymore) it doesn't mean we hate Nadal.

Also the fact that Fed performed better in some slams on the road to the final in 2008 compared to 2009 doesn't tell the whole story as draws were different and have an effect whether Fed loses a set or not.

Despite how much you want to overlook Fed's 2008 masters results it is still telling that in 2009 Fed aside from Bennetau didn't lose to a player out of top 10 while you know 2008 losses in the first half ot the year.

2008 Nadal was too good for 2008 version of Fed,fair enough.Whether he would have been too good(in slams and finished #1) for 2004,2005 or 2006 aside from clay Federer is another story and it's one's right to believe he wouldn't,that doesn't mean that that person hates Nadal.

It's the same way you feel that Nadal wasn't mentally up to par with Murray in this AO's match,does it means you hate Murray?
I was merely refering to those that don't believe that Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer,no matter what Fed's form is. Masters don't mean **** to Federer and this is evident even to his most ardent fans. Up until Madrid 2009 Federer hadn't won a masters title since Cincy 2007(in august). So Federer went the second half of 07',the whole of 08'(lost 3 clay MS finals to Nadal)and the first four months of 09" without winning one masters final. When did that ever happen to him in GS's? Oh,I know, he raised his game(probably even his health) in GS'S. Which only serves to prove my point. I watched a healthy Fed basically hand a match to ferrer in cincy cause he looked bored(and ferrer managed to lose) on court only to super smash djoker and murray later in that tournament. He also managed to blow a 5-1 lead in the decider against Tsonga in Montreal. When has that ever happened to him in a GS?

Never.

Federer doesn't care about masters,people,you have to understand that,at least not as much as GS's.
Let's look a bit at the facts,by pre-prime,prime(2004-2006) and post-prime(2007 onwards) according to fed fans:

2003: he makes one masters final and one GS final(WB)
2004: he makes 3 MS finals and 3 GS finals(AO,WB and USO)
2005: he makes 4 MS finals and 3 GS finals(AO,WB and USO)
2006: he makes 6 MS finals and 4 GS finals(all of them)
2007: he makes 5 MS finals and 4 GS finals(all of them)
2008: he makes 2 MS finals and 3 GS finals(RG,WB,USO)
2009: he makes 2 MS finals and 4 GS finals(all of them).

Look at how wildly his MS level varies yet his GS level stays almost the same.

Federer is all about the slams. He assesses his year by how he does in Slams,not masters. If Federer would have met any other player than Nadal in RG and WB,mono or no mono,he would have creamed them and won 3 GS that year. I cannot buy mono from Fed in the later half of 2008 when his level goes down a lot in the weaker tournaments yet he shows up at the same level in the stronger tournaments,at least where the physical side is concerned.
 
Last edited:

namelessone

Legend
Why is his AO loss being lumped in with the hammerings he took at the end of last year? He even said himself that he was playing close to his best in the AO loss. He was nowhere near that level when he was being routined at the WTF.
Because stupid fanboys and trolls don't listen to him and blame the loss for a injury he had late in the match and which wouldn't have influenced the outcome of the match.
 
Last edited:

namelessone

Legend
He also had back problems in 08 and beginning of 09. You don't know what it's like to have mono, for all you know it could have a debilitating disease effect as Ancic showed. Ancic is not Federer. Maybe Fed's mono was not as serious, who can say. Bottom line is Fed's 2008 was a huge aberration from previous years. You want to believe it was mostly due to Nadal, I believe it was mostly due to Fed. For me 2009 and now 2010 are proving it. You cling to Nadal's injuries now as I do to mono in 08.
Fed's level is assessed by how he does in Slams(the toughest tournaments of the body and mind) and since he is successful in all four that's what we use as a measuring unit. Federer's mono in 2008 allowed him to go to three out of four GS finals,much like in previous years.

Nadal's measuring unit is RG and WB since he has had little success in AO and USO(1 HC GS final out of his 8 GS finals). Nadal's injuries did affect his success there unlike fed with his favourite slams,since they cause him to be sub-par in AO and lose in 4th round to a guy he bageled and breadsticked a couple of years ago and caused him to withdraw from WB.

Federer on the other hand would have won 3 GS's in his mono year had he not met his bad match-up.
 

bruce38

Banned
Fed's level is assessed by how he does in Slams(the toughest tournaments of the body and mind) and since he is successful in all four that's what we use as a measuring unit. Federer's mono in 2008 allowed him to go to three out of four GS finals,much like in previous years.

Nadal's measuring unit is RG and WB since he has had little success in AO and USO(1 HC GS final out of his 8 GS finals). Nadal's injuries did affect his success there unlike fed with his favourite slams,since they cause him to be sub-par in AO and lose in 4th round to a guy he bageled and breadsticked a couple of years ago and caused him to withdraw from WB.

Federer on the other hand would have won 3 GS's in his mono year had he not met his bad match-up.
That's YOUR definition of success for Fed. Success for Fed is not going to slam finals, it's winning them. In 08 he only won one. 08 was an unsuccessful year compared to previous years where he won 3.
 

namelessone

Legend
That's YOUR definition of success for Fed. Success for Fed is not going to slam finals, it's winning them. In 08 he only won one. 08 was an unsuccessful year compared to previous years where he won 3.
I have heard Fed state that 2009 was probably his most satisfying year on tour. A year in which he won 2 MS titles:). However,he went to 4 GS finals and lost two of them but won the other two,whereas usually he wins three. He also lost two GS finals in mono 2008. But he managed to win RG and WB(which he lost in 08')in 2009 so all was right. I have never heard Fed say "Oh,losing [insert MS name here] really bummed me out" but he did admit that losing RG the way that he did and WB did affect him mentally a bit,as it would anyone.

Let's take a look at the GS finals he lost in 2008:

RG:

Nadal was on fire in 2008(look at his stats throughout the tourney) and Fed had lost 3 times here against him. He did have his chances in the first two sets but squandered them,Nadal raised his level and Federer basically gave up mentally in the middle of the second and allowed himself to get bageled(when did that ever happen to him). This wasn't a physical breakdown cause of mono,it was a mental one. Look at Nadal's reserved celebration after he wins.

WB:

Nadal plays a bit better in the key moments and manages to be two sets up against a mono Fed. Notice that he does not roll over Federer,which he should have done if Fed has physical problems cause of mono. BTW,Roddick(Fed's pigeon) was almost two sets up against healthy Fed in 2009.The rain comes,the mono presumably goes away and Fed start firing and with some amazing grit manages to push it to five and could have won it with a bit more luck,it was anyone's game. If he had won this,it would have been another year where Nadal got the best of him in RG but where Fed won everything else. Like 2005,2006 and 2007.

As a guy who has watched Federer since 2002 I can understand his fans when they say that his level has dropped since 2007. I agree cause he is human but his half level is enough to beat 90% of the tour and especially in GS's. Federer's didn't play much better in 2009 at the Slams(the only reason he didn't make four out of four GS finals in 2008 was his AO mono) than he did in 2008 but the difference was that his only bad match-up on tour didn't meet him in the other finals. In fact some say that he played worse in GS finals in 09' since he melted mentally in AO 09',allowed roddick of all people to take him to five in WB 09' and lost a match which he should have won with GS final virgin,DelPotro.
 

bruce38

Banned
I have heard Fed state that 2009 was probably his most satisfying year on tour. A year in which he won 2 MS titles:). However,he went to 4 GS finals and lost two of them but won the other two,whereas usually he wins three. He also lost two GS finals in mono 2008. But he managed to win RG and WB(which he lost in 08')in 2009 so all was right. I have never heard Fed say "Oh,losing [insert MS name here] really bummed me out" but he did admit that losing RG the way that he did and WB did affect him mentally a bit,as it would anyone.
Uh yeah, satisfying because he won the FO finally and had babies. You need to learn to interpret more carefully. Sorry, couldn't read the rest of your post, too much rambling as per usual. You really have to be more concise fella. No one is going to read all of that crap.
 
Top