The Importance of Nadal to the Federer Legacy

For as long as I can remember for every rain delay Wimbledon ever suffered, the BBC would treat us to the 1980 Final between Borg and McEnroe. The pundits would refer to them as 'rivals' and in a short 3 year spell they met 15 times. In short, to me it seems McEnroe adds to the strength of the Borg legacy. Go further back and I am sure LF will be able to add in greater detail the importance of Pancho Gonzales to Laver's legacy. Albeit the best of it was during the amateur days. They met a staggering 59 times over a 6 year period! McEnroe struggles in some ways to be remembered as an individual entity. A multi Slam winner in both Singles and Doubles. Yet he is best remembered for his 1980 defeat despite in the 2 years they met at both Wimbledon and US Open and that McEnroe holds a 3-1 lead. In the more recent modern day think of Agassi. Despite a Golden Career Slam and controversial autobiography he is best remembered in some ways as Sampras's whipping boy. Agassi had a 20 year career and played in the best years of Sampras and Federer which a lot players cannot boast.

Now here we are in possibly the best period of Mens tennis since the mid 80's. I won't use era's because there was the Open and Amateur Era's. For me even in the 1980's, the Australian Open started to become priority to all top male players and the tour itself only really started to take any shape in terms of tournaments being a permanent fixture outside the Slams.

Nadal whether you like him or not is an intriguing entity. He was Roger's nemesis in Roger's best years and whenever we reflect on Federer's great career you can that only one player could really get the best of him in his prime. If your best competition over a career was a 10 time Slam winner, then frankily that is a great rival to have added to your legacy. Look past the brand of tennis and the little imperfections and rule bending he stands acussed of. Federer fans will not feel so reluctant to mention his name when reflecting on his career.

Nadal himself is now finding a new rival in Djokovic who is proving to be more than a match for him. Like he is with Federer, Djokovic is with him. When Djokovic hangs his racquet up, Nadal will be a prominant feature in his legacy.

Hopefully in years to come, when rain delays strike and we all bemoan the lack of roofs we can reflect on such matches - Wimbledon 2007, 2008, Australian Open 2009,

legendkillar wrote:Nadal whether you like him or not is an intriguing entity. He was Roger's nemesis in Roger's best years and whenever we reflect on Federer's great career you can that only one player could really get the best of him in his prime. If your best competition over a career was a 10 time Slam winner, then frankily that is a great rival to have added to your legacy. Look past the brand of tennis and the little imperfections and rule bending he stands acussed of. Federer fans will not feel so reluctant to mention his name when reflecting on his career.

Definitely I think in the future it will be impossible for tennis enthusiasts to mention one name without the other.

Theirs has been an intriguing rivalry because their games and their outward persona on court have been polar opposites and because of this their rivalry has really caught the public imagination in a way I don't think it would have done if they had both had similar games, even with the same stellar results for each.

Certainly Djokovic's success last year and the beginning of this one has been fantastic but the achievement is enhanced by the fact that his rival in the majority of the big tournaments was the seemingly invincible Nadal.

Will we have rain delays at Wimbledon anymore, or Cliff serenading the crowds - ah things ain't wot they used to be!

Fedal phenomenon is certainly nothing but fascinating in more than one way.

After years of Federer's undisputed and unchallenged dominance, it was very interesting to have Nadal and observe his transmutation.

The thing that bugs me more than anything is that Federer failed to solve the riddle of his main rival. To me it's more mental that technical.

Same way, although I like Federer Djokovic matches most, but Nadal Djokovic matches , merely because of their ranking kind of take the limelight, neither of these rivalries or match-ups will go down as "historical" like Federer Nadal.Theirs really was an era.

I'm kind of expecting a Djokovic Murray to happen in the same way, and form a kind of independent , strong rivalry, Murray has to start winning slams asap for that.

Next year will be very interesting, and I expect a serious changing of the guard.

Yes I can see the bright side of Nadal. But those matches between the two are about how Nadal can beat Federer by blunting the edge of teh Swiss and bringing him down to earth.

Rarely have we been treated since 2006 by a match that actually pushes Federer to play a sharper game pushed by a sharp player who can run him close like Safin, Nalby or more recently Davy has done.

Djoko has done it a few times and they have produced great quality matches and I woudl prefer to watch those than the Fed/Nadal ones.

But finally I prefer to re-watch matches of yesteray than yesteryear, so I don;t think I'll spend too much time watching Federer pulling 4 great shots in a rally yest lose the point cause teh ball came one more time.

I'm kind of expecting a Djokovic Murray to happen in the same way, and form a kind of independent , strong rivalry, Murray has to start winning slams asap for that.

Fully agree with that statement. Murray needs for me 3+ Slams to be remembered in the same breath as them 3. For me it wouldn't weaken his place with them 3, but being a Multi Slam winner and the weaker of a cartel of 4 for me would be no shame what so ever.

If he ends up Slamless, I will not say 'Well the others were that much better' but 'Wasted talent and opportunity'

noleisthebest wrote:The thing that bugs me more than anything is that Federer failed to solve the riddle of his main rival. To me it's more mental that technical.

That's because it's not a riddle, it's a physical challenge. And it's also not that surprising considering that we moved the goal posts away from teh conds Fed learnt the game. It's easy for your man who kind of developed his game on those slow conds and bet his future on a DHBH. Do you tthink Nole could have beaten Nadal with a SHBH?

Tenez wrote:Yes I can see the bright of Nadal. But those matches between the two are about how Nadal can beat Federer by blunting the edge of teh Swiss and bringing him down to earth.

Rarely have we been treated since 2006 by a match that actually pushes Federer to play a sharper game pushed by a sharp player who can run him close like Safin, Nalby or more recently Davy has done.

Djoko has done it a few times and they have produced great quality matches and I woudl prefer to watch those than the Fed/Nadal ones.

But finally I prefer to re-watch matches of yesteray than yesteryear, so I don;t think I'll spend too much time watching Federer pulling 4 great shots in a rally yest lose the point cause teh ball came one more time.

Again another statement I agree with. Nadal blunts Federer, but when playing like for like players has to that much more extra to win points and go on the offensive.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The thing that bugs me more than anything is that Federer failed to solve the riddle of his main rival. To me it's more mental that technical.

That's because it's not a riddle, it's a physical challenge. And it's also not that surprising considering that we moved the goal posts away from teh conds Fed learnt the game. It's easy for your man who kind of developed his game on those slow conds and bet his future on a DHBH. Do you tthink Nole could have beaten Nadal with a SHBH?

SBH was never an option for Nole, not strong enough in the upper body. I admire baseliners with a single backhand, but they are all fairly strong.
The more I think about it the more I realise that Nadal's main weapon is his speed. Nole takes it away from him with being able to play angles on his crosscourt shots, I don't see why Fed doesn't do the same. His open stance although it gives him opportunities to go for it with winners with ease is also costing him. He is not the running type of player.

The Rog-Rafa rivalry has been intense and fascinating and previous posters have been spot on as to the reasons for it. After the 09 AO defeat for Fed, I was disappointed as I wanted him to win but I reckoned at the time that I would be content to see these two playing epic finals indefinitely even if Rog was to lose. Now, Fed's form - and the draw - is more often than not preventing any repeats of those earlier titanic struggles.
But their having managed another good final at the French last year at least gives hope of one or two final hurrahs for this pair. But who knows, the Djoko-Rafa rivalry or the Murray/Djoko rivalry could eclipse that of even these two giants of the game.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:The thing that bugs me more than anything is that Federer failed to solve the riddle of his main rival. To me it's more mental that technical.

That's because it's not a riddle, it's a physical challenge. And it's also not that surprising considering that we moved the goal posts away from teh conds Fed learnt the game. It's easy for your man who kind of developed his game on those slow conds and bet his future on a DHBH. Do you tthink Nole could have beaten Nadal with a SHBH?

SBH aside, I agree on the physical challenge bit. 2009 and 10 were ugly.

noleisthebest wrote:

SBH was never an option for Nole, not strong enough in the upper body.

AH! I see a technical glitch here! It shoudl be the other way around. To play DHBH one needs a stronger upper body. Much stronger actually than to play a SHBH.

Look at Gasquet's SHBH...and his shoulders narrower than his cap.

To play DHBH, one needs an extremly strong abdominal belt, back and they all work on it very hard to save them from back problems.

The reason they choose one over teh other is often simply down to natural skills and more recently essentially to conds.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

SBH was never an option for Nole, not strong enough in the upper body.

AH! I see a technical glitch here! It shoudl be the other way around. To play DHBH one needs a stronger upper body. Much stronger actually than to play a SHBH.

Look at Gasquet's SHBH...and his shoulders narrower than his cap.

To play DHBH, one needs an extremly strong abdominal belt, back and they all work on it very hard to save them from back problems.

The reason they choose one over teh other is often simply down to natural skills and more recently essentially to conds.

All I know is that Nole himself asked his coach when he was 10 to switch to DBH because he didn't feel it/he was not strong enough.

I don't have a clue to what it's like to play at their level, but at my lowly level, SBH is a no brainer as I feel a lot freer with it.
Personally, I'd ban all double handed shots, but who am I to argue

I'd love to ban DHBH too cause SHBH is a real tester of talent.

The cleanliness of the strike is so important in SHBH that beig off-timing is simply unforgivable for a professional. This is why I was saying that on tour all SHBH are really talented players....even Robredo.

One can always hide behind a DHBH but not with a SHBH.

I think the acceleration through a SHBH is the most difficult thing technically to master. There is always 2 extremes to it for the amateur player like myself. Either putting too much through and ball takes off onto another court or your put much less on it and you either frame it or net it. The DHBH tends to be the safer shot as players I play with it always tend to find the deuce court and not alot else.

When looking at current masters of the SHBH, Blake and Ljubicic played a long length all the time in rallies and often struggled for variation in length due to them being flat hitters. Gasquet and Federer are able to put more topspin through their shots and can vary the pace and length.

legendkillar wrote:When looking at current masters of the SHBH, Blake and Ljubicic played a long length all the time in rallies and often struggled for variation in length due to them being flat hitters. Gasquet and Federer are able to put more topspin through their shots and can vary the pace and length.

Yes good points but that is also Gasquet ad Fed's problem when facing Nadal and Djoko cause more spins means less pace and therefore easier to retrieve and send back to their SHBH....until it cracks. A flat SHBH can really open the court but more importantly forces teh opponent to keep an eye on that shot therefore, in Nadal's case for instance, opens his BH to attacks.

On lower bounce in London, it's much easier for Fed to hit flat and can risk it more often keeping Nadal on his toes.

Same in Dubai v Murray actually.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:When looking at current masters of the SHBH, Blake and Ljubicic played a long length all the time in rallies and often struggled for variation in length due to them being flat hitters. Gasquet and Federer are able to put more topspin through their shots and can vary the pace and length.

Yes good points but that is also Gasquet ad Fed's problem when facing Nadal and Djoko cause more spins means less pace and therefore easier to retrieve and send back to their SHBH....until it cracks. A flat SHBH can really open the court but more importantly forces teh opponent to keep an eye on that shot therefore, in Nadal's case for instance, opens his BH to attacks.

On lower bounce in London, it's much easier for Fed to hit flat and can risk it more often keeping Nadal on his toes.

Same in Dubai v Murray actually.

I actually see it as a slight technical flaw. See on Clay yes it is a weapon used against him, but whenever he is on a Hardcourt what you find when he is trading punches with someone trying to hit through his BH, he will frame one which takes all the fizz out of the rally when he is hitting flat BH's and tends to result him losing the point. Again it is being really ultra critical, but if I was to pick holes in it, that would be the issue I see with his BH on a HC.

Tenez wrote:
To play DHBH, one needs an extremly strong abdominal belt, back and they all work on it very hard to save them from back problems.

The reason they choose one over teh other is often simply down to natural skills and more recently essentially to conds.

Federer does have a history of back problems. He has commented in the past that the SHBH was the easier shot for him, given his back issues.