Federer V Nadal At The Australian Open 2014

First topic message reminder :

I think the AO semi featuring Federer and Nadal might need a thread of it's own   

Just to set the scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqr_gA4MYls

 

I think the final will be a walkover, probably straight sets in around 2 hrs. A bit like other recent times where a surprise player has made a slam final (Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych even Murray before he got his act together).

Would like it to be different to that but I can't find a way to convince myself otherwise.

ALPanorak wrote:

kemet wrote:Predictable result.

Rafa is not number one for nothing.

And Roger is number six (and soon to slip down the rankings?) for a good reason.

He has to solve the backhand problem versus Rafa or he will continue to lose against his nemesis (rival is not the correct word to describe Rafa from Roger's point of view)

It is impossible to solve because his backhand is inherently not good enough as a shot, no amount of practice or technique changing will alter this at this point. Federer's backhand has always been an overall average shot, its his backhand slice that is the best shot on that wing yet it can't be utilised effectively vs Nadal. Therefore it all comes down to a perfect alignment of consistently good forehand, footwork and a quick court (indoors), plus maybe a below par Rafa, not hitting with depth - the only scenario I see Federer getting a win these days

Remember the world tour finals of a few years ago (Roger actually won a set 6-0!), where he was actually hitting backhand winners?! Then again, it was a match played indoors and on a much faster surface.

The topspin was simply not a factor in that match.

However, Australia is a completely different animal.

A bigger factor is that Rafa is a bad match up for him. Roger was still in his 20's when Rafa was handing out beatings to him so nothing has really changed with age.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A bigger factor is that Rafa is a bad match up for him. Roger was still in his 20's when Rafa was handing out beatings to him so nothing has really changed with age.

Not in the result, but in Fed's overall level of play. Otherwise at what age does age become a factor in a player's career - 35, 38? I'd say hitting 30 it starts to become a factor. Maybe a bit earlier (28-ish) for some, maybe a bit later (31-ish) for others. Depends on the trajectory of their careers e.g. Agassi took time out and came back later.

In this case ie match up it is not a factor though. Nadal was beating Federer in his 20's when age cannot be used as an excuse. That is my point here. Roger in his 20's or Roger in his 30's makes no difference - Rafa is chiefly the boss in their match ups.

Evidence that age is no real factor is in that Roger bear Murray in fine kettle. Chiefly because he has a very good head to head V Murray in slams and always has had.

CaledonianCraig wrote:In this case ie match up it is not a factor though. Nadal was beating Federer in his 20's when age cannot be used as an excuse. That is my point here. Roger in his 20's or Roger in his 30's makes no difference - Rafa is chiefly the boss in their match ups.

You do realise that nobody is disputing this, and literally every single person on this forum agrees with that point, right?

CaledonianCraig wrote:In this case ie match up it is not a factor though. Nadal was beating Federer in his 20's when age cannot be used as an excuse. That is my point here. Roger in his 20's or Roger in his 30's makes no difference - Rafa is chiefly the boss in their match ups.

CC I've agreed with that (twice already ) which is why I tried to move on to discussing age as a factor in general.

Rafa will face his third SHBH in a row to win the title. Bet he'd have taken that at the start of the tournament.

Danny_1982 wrote:Rafa will face his third SHBH in a row to win the title. Bet he'd have taken that at the start of the tournament.

No - Rafa's had the worse draw by far, apparently. hawkeye will back me up on that

Sorry late catching posts as am travelling on a train

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Rafa will face his third SHBH in a row to win the title. Bet he'd have taken that at the start of the tournament.

No - Rafa's had the worse draw by far, apparently. hawkeye will back me up on that

It's ended up nice thanks to DelPo, Murray and Djoko mucking up!

Good play by Nadal. Fed from last year was playing tod\y, I guess if Fed from Murray match came, we could of seen a few more sets.

Ignoring this match, Fed seems more free flowing up to today, so I'm hoping in Masters, he will be more interesting

CaledonianCraig wrote:Evidence that age is no real factor is in that Roger bear Murray in fine kettle. Chiefly because he has a very good head to head V Murray in slams and always has had.

Age has never been a factor; it is just a bad matchup....

Think about it this way: if Murray had played Rafa tonight instead of Roger, I suspect it would have been a more competitive match, because Murray's return game is far superior to Roger's at this stage in both of Roger's and Andy's careers.

This is why HM Murdoch (sorry to bring you into my comment HM Murdoch, but you made a great point) was lamenting the absence of Novak, the only player, who can handle Rafa's game and counter it with interest.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Evidence that age is no real factor is in that Roger bear Murray in fine kettle. Chiefly because he has a very good head to head V Murray in slams and always has had.

Murray isn't the benchmark to judge Roger; Nadal and Federer are in another bracket, with all respect.

I just thank God Nadal was able to play with a hole in his hand.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:A bigger factor is that Rafa is a bad match up for him. Roger was still in his 20's when Rafa was handing out beatings to him so nothing has really changed with age.

Not in the result, but in Fed's overall level of play. Otherwise at what age does age become a factor in a player's career - 35, 38? I'd say hitting 30 it starts to become a factor. Maybe a bit earlier (28-ish) for some, maybe a bit later (31-ish) for others. Depends on the trajectory of their careers e.g. Agassi took time out and came back later.

Yes age will wear you down and wears down all players. But in this case I don't think it matters. I mean would anyone of taking notice if Andy Roddick put his later defeats V Federer down to age? Of course not as he never had a good record against Roger even as a youngster.

I think when people talk about Federer vs Nadal its far too much like everything is on Federer, when he loses he needs to find a solution or has mentally buckled, when he wins everyone commends his brilliant tactics or singing backhand. Nadal is an all time great as well and he has a winning h2h against most players, for people just to say its a bad match up, which I agree is true to an extent, I do not think it a simple as just that. Nadal plays his part too, he raises his game against all of his major rivals at the slams and is much harder over 5 sets 6-2 vs Murray and 8-3 vs Djokovic (at slams). Nadal himself is the biggest factor in the lop sided h2h.

Having said that, it, of course, does not follow that the h2h means Nadal is a better player, as Nadal himself has said it is just a statistic. Federer is the better player and has the titles to prove it. Also as good as it has been for Federer to tweak his game to try and combat Nadal he was right never to try and do an overhaul, since his game has been good enough to beat the rest of the tour consistently for many years.

In the end Federer can take hope in the fact that the early days with Edberg have shown signs of promise and may bring big titles yet. I hope Wawrinka can settle quickly in the final, on one hand its his first slam final but he has to take great confidence from his last two matches.

Just watched an hour's highlights of Federer-Nadal as wasn't able to watch the whole match. A lot of backhand errors from Federer, and Rafa winning long rallies, often at the same time. I thought Rafa wasn't really tested. He had another gear to go to.

It wasn't the worst quality of their matches by any means, but I actually thought it was the most boring one I've ever seen, there was no tension, it was the most predictable one yet, hmm let's say most predictable non clay one. Rafa really improved a lot on hard court, the surface evolved to suit him over time (at least vs 2004-2007) and he really dominates more than ever in the past.

That's 5 wins in a row. He did that in the past, twice actually, but only with the majority on clay. This time 4 out of 5 were on hard, so that's 4 wins in a row on hard. Roger managed one set on those matches.

I think in 2009 Australian Open (a much better match than this year's version) was when the rivalry tilted in Rafa's favour more solidly but at least Federer after that still could get the odd win across various surfaces and still dominated indoor. I think the 2013 WTF win was more significant than today in sealing the dominance across all surfaces.

I think the matches on slow/medium outdoor hard are becoming too predicable. I know people will say it's been that way for years but I wouldn't be so sure. The 2012 AO match was somwhat closer and only the second half of the match was predictable. Fed then followed this up with a win at a windy Indian Wells.

I want to see them play at Wimbledon once more and any fast surface but for the rest of the matches I'm starting to get a little less interested.

At least I made a few quid betting on Nadal to win. The 60/40 odds looked strange to me.

DJB14 wrote:I think when people talk about Federer vs Nadal its far too much like everything is on Federer, when he loses he needs to find a solution or has mentally buckled, when he wins everyone commends his brilliant tactics or singing backhand. Nadal is an all time great as well and he has a winning h2h against most players, for people just to say its a bad match up, which I agree is true to an extent, I do not think it a simple as just that. Nadal plays his part too, he raises his game against all of his major rivals at the slams and is much harder over 5 sets 6-2 vs Murray and 8-3 vs Djokovic (at slams). Nadal himself is the biggest factor in the lop sided h2h.

Having said that, it, of course, does not follow that the h2h means Nadal is a better player, as Nadal himself has said it is just a statistic. Federer is the better player and has the titles to prove it. Also as good as it has been for Federer to tweak his game to try and combat Nadal he was right never to try and do an overhaul, since his game has been good enough to beat the rest of the tour consistently for many years.

In the end Federer can take hope in the fact that the early days with Edberg have shown signs of promise and may bring big titles yet. I hope Wawrinka can settle quickly in the final, on one hand its his first slam final but he has to take great confidence from his last two matches.

For now but by the end of their careers there is a very good chance that Rafa will of overhaul him, given he's 5 years younger.

He trails in GS by 4 but by the end of the FO, that could well be down to 2.
He trails in all titles by 16 but he got time to close that.
He's got the overall higher win &age and at GS's

Assuming he stays fit its only a matter of time.

weeks at number 1 he will never beat federer
WTF titles he will never beat federer

total slam count, I doubt he gets there... but maybe. I get the feeling that even if he wins on sunday, roland garros 2014 will be crucial for the future and the possibility of getting to 17. and I have the feeling that in 2013 was about to beat nadal... and he could do it this season... and that would change all the perception of the near future

andyi wrote:

DJB14 wrote:I think when people talk about Federer vs Nadal its far too much like everything is on Federer, when he loses he needs to find a solution or has mentally buckled, when he wins everyone commends his brilliant tactics or singing backhand. Nadal is an all time great as well and he has a winning h2h against most players, for people just to say its a bad match up, which I agree is true to an extent, I do not think it a simple as just that. Nadal plays his part too, he raises his game against all of his major rivals at the slams and is much harder over 5 sets 6-2 vs Murray and 8-3 vs Djokovic (at slams). Nadal himself is the biggest factor in the lop sided h2h.

Having said that, it, of course, does not follow that the h2h means Nadal is a better player, as Nadal himself has said it is just a statistic. Federer is the better player and has the titles to prove it. Also as good as it has been for Federer to tweak his game to try and combat Nadal he was right never to try and do an overhaul, since his game has been good enough to beat the rest of the tour consistently for many years.

In the end Federer can take hope in the fact that the early days with Edberg have shown signs of promise and may bring big titles yet. I hope Wawrinka can settle quickly in the final, on one hand its his first slam final but he has to take great confidence from his last two matches.

For now but by the end of their careers there is a very good chance that Rafa will of overhaul him, given he's 5 years younger.

He trails in GS by 4 but by the end of the FO, that could well be down to 2.
He trails in all titles by 16 but he got time to close that.
He's got the overall higher win &age and at GS's

Assuming he stays fit its only a matter of time.

I think if he stays fit and he stays competitive with Djokovic he will get there but its still a way to go yet. I wasn't saying that Nadal never would or could catch Federer only downplaying the role of the h2h. It would be great if Nadal does catch Federer but for now he needs to focusing on catching Sampras then go from there.

naxroy wrote:weeks at number 1 he will never beat federer
WTF titles he will never beat federer

total slam count, I doubt he gets there... but maybe. I get the feeling that even if he wins on sunday, roland garros 2014 will be crucial for the future and the possibility of getting to 17. and I have the feeling that in 2013 was about to beat nadal... and he could do it this season... and that would change all the perception of the near future

The wtfs agree he will never catch and since on the worst conditions for Nadal. But then Federer will most likely never catch Nadal's Masters count.

The weeks at number one doesn't really figure as much for me since eras can be so different. Federer came through at a time where there was no dominant number one, unlike Nadal who had Federer in his way at the beginning of his career. I'm not pushing a weak era theory, all I'm saying is that there was no clear player in the way who dominated the rankings for years, same with Sampras, his peers were coming through but no one had really been undisputed for a long time who he had to break through.

Also the fact that 2 slams, 6 masters and the wtf are on hard courts has surely kept Nadal from adding more weeks at number 1 to his record. Can you imagine what Nadal's career stats would be like had had you swapped all hard court events for clay ones, scary stuff.

lol at Federer not even getting a sniff at a set, despite Nadal playing with the wrong hand (he is right handed, right?), and then having his weaker hand almost crippled by a hideous crater. Isn't Rafa just the mostest greatest tennis player ever?

Just finished watching he match. Federer didn't have his greatest day granted but the few points he to 30 on the Nadal and serve and even on a couple serves on second never showed any aggression or urgency. Then it was simply Nadal breaking the Federer BH down and Federer missing more as the match wore on.

Nadal still has a couple of more gears left in him and if your Wawrinka that must scare you.

DJB14 wrote:Can you imagine what Nadal's career stats would be like had  had you swapped all hard court events for clay ones, scary stuff.

It is good to theorize but then can you imagine what would career stats be if ONLY HC was the surface? or only Carpet? We are now harking back to Wimbledon boycotts by clay specialists. Lydian has court speed analysis somewhere hidden here.

laverfan wrote:

DJB14 wrote:Can you imagine what Nadal's career stats would be like had  had you swapped all hard court events for clay ones, scary stuff.

It is good to theorize but then can you imagine what would career stats be if ONLY HC was the surface? or only Carpet? We are now harking back to Wimbledon boycotts by clay specialists. Lydian has court speed analysis somewhere hidden here.

true and I know we are getting into the realms of what ifs but for me the number of hc events it has been a huge factor in weeks at number one.

DJB, that is true but that is what it is. Tennis is a sport where clay is a minority surface. If there were more clay court tournaments and fewer HC tournaments, plenty of parameters would change - different guys would come out of the juniors, players would be training differently etc. You cannot just assume different surface composition and keep everything else unchanged.

What you are saying is not that different from people who complain that tennis surfaces slowed down too much and that the results would be different if they had not. In a sense, your argument is even less meaningful. At least the fans of faster conditions with lower bounce can argue that that is what tennis used to be like and that current tennis is in effect a bit dfferent sport.

But tennis never used to be 50/50 between clay and HC, making it so would efectively remake it into a new sport yet again.

summerblues wrote:DJB, that is true but that is what it is.  Tennis is a sport where clay is a minority surface.  If there were more clay court tournaments and fewer HC tournaments, plenty of parameters would change - different guys would come out of the juniors, players would be training differently etc. You cannot just assume different surface composition and keep everything else unchanged.

What you are saying is not that different from people who complain that tennis surfaces slowed down too much and that the results would be different if they had not.  In a sense, your argument is even less meaningful.  At least the fans of faster conditions with lower bounce can argue that that is what tennis used to be like and that current tennis is in effect a bit dfferent sport.

But tennis never used to be 50/50 between clay and HC, making it so would efectively remake it into a new sport yet again.

I see our point about it being similar to being compared to surfaces slowing down, but how is it a weaker argument?

My point is that weeks at number one is not a better comparison for Federer being better than Nadal based on the hc imbalance and the fact as I said no dominant player keeping Federer at being number two for so long as well. Weeks at number one I don't think is a good comparison for many rivals in fact. One last point about weeks at number one, if Nadal finishes this year as year end number one he has 4, compared to Federers 5 year end number ones not a big difference unless you break it down to weeks.

A better argument would be that Federer managed to dominate at both W and the USO on two different surfaces, whereas Nadal has only ever dominated one slam at RG. Weeks at number one is no tipping point for me in comparisons of players and wouldn't sway me from a comparison between one or another unless it was extremes. For example, comparing someone who never world number one to someone who has or Sampras's 6 year end number 1s to Agassis' lone 1. But even then the slam count is a much better argument imo.

I am not saying anything about weeks at number one being or not being a good comparator.

What I am saying that the lack of clay court surfaces is not an excuse for not having enough weeks at No 1. Tennis is a sport where HC is more important than clay. If a player A is great on HC and mediocre on clay while player B is great on clay but mediocre on HC then player A is effectively a better tennis player - because he is better where it matters more. To be equally good, player B has to compensate by being either even more dominant on clay or relatively better on HC - which is effectively exactly what Rafa has been doing in his slam victories.

The only thing Federer has a superiority to Nadal is in luck of injuries and durability. The year end #1s and weeks at #1 advantage is basically down to Nadal's injuries. After AO 09 and Rafa beating fed on a hardcourt and on a grass court successively the only thing that gave Fed back his number #1 that year was a midseason Nadal injury. And of course Nadal has faced much tougher competition and didn't have 4 years straight of being able to face the rollover generation.

It's deja vu all over again!

I remember when we used to hear about Djokovic. It's gone very quiet in that direction now.

summerblues wrote:I am not saying anything about weeks at number one being or not being a good comparator.

What I am saying that the lack of clay court surfaces is not an excuse for not having enough weeks at No 1.  Tennis is a sport where HC is more important than clay.  If a player A is great on HC and mediocre on clay while player B is great on clay but mediocre on HC then player A is effectively a better tennis player - because he is better where it matters more.  To be equally good, player B has to compensate by being either even more dominant on clay or relatively better on HC - which is effectively exactly what Rafa has been doing in his slam victories.

So if next year 6 masters and two slams are suddenly held on clay, thus making them the more important surface, Nadal is the better player? I don't think so. The more abundant the surface does not mean that is the better measuring stick.

Players develop their game on surfaces based on a lot of different factors, upbringing, facilities, build etc. They naturally have a surface that suits their game the best then try and develop on the others. If hard courts are the be all end all simply because they are cheaper to maintain then everyone would be tailoring their games to hard courts and trying to improve on the rest.

Remember though that outdoor hard courts are not Fed's best surface - indoors and grass are, and there are only 2 tournies a year on the latter surface and no slams on the former. It's just that Fed has had more success on his 3rd best surface that most other players.

@ Julius

True and more grass court tournaments would have suited Federer. Although indoor hard isn't a surface, its all hard courts in the end. As I said earlier the fact that Federer has been dominant over two surfaces is a good point, not the abundance of one surface.

@SB

Even if I concede that the abundance of hard courts is not an excuse for lack of weeks at number one Federer only leads 5-3 in year end number 1s so not a huge difference.

I never did get the relevance of y/e; the ranking is a rolling full calendar, so y/e is no less arbitrary than year to July.

It's a bit like New Years Eve celebrations, which always baffle me in their lack of point.

DJB14 wrote:So if next year 6 masters and two slams are suddenly held on clay, thus making them the more important surface, Nadal is the better player? I don't think so. The more abundant the surface does not mean that is the better measuring stick.

I do not know about "suddenly" because that would not give players time to develop their games accordingly (and that is also one of the reasons why I have more sympathy for those who complain about changing conditions than for your take on things).

But if say tennis had always been a sport where two slams and about 50% of tourneys were held on clay and if say Rafa had been on 20 slams with that scenario, then yes, of course that would have made him a better tennis player (but obviously in a world where "tennis" would have been effectively a slightly different sport).

Anyway, to some extent we are arguing about opinions, or even semantics, and I do not think one can quite "prove" that one of s is correct and the other one wrong.

DJB14 wrote:@SB

Even if I concede that the abundance of hard courts is not an excuse for lack of weeks at number one Federer only leads 5-3 in year end number 1s so not a huge difference.

As I said before, I am not saying anything about whether or not #1 ranking is a good yardstick for comparing players.

bogbrush wrote:I remember when we used to hear about Djokovic. It's gone very quiet in that direction now.

Then you must not of been on here after the Wawrinka match where I did like a dozen or so posts on Djokovic. Oh I forget you suffer from selctive memoritis.