Nadal outsmarts Federer to lift 10th Slam

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:50 pm

Rafael Nadale consolidated his status as one of the greatest players argueably the greatest tennis player ever at least age wise when he outsmarted Roger Federer to win a 6th French Open and 10th Grand slam title today. This match reminded me of the many analysis people make about Federer Nadal match ups but the truth today was, not only does Nadal play more tactically against Federer but he also outsmarts him almost every time. Federer played well enough but not good enough to beat the man from Mallorca. One of Federer's strength has been to run away with matches as a front runner and came out all guns blazing to storm to a 3-0 lead having broken Nadal in the 2nd game but even at 5-2 and serving for the set, you could see it coming that soon as Nadal gets into rythm, it's almost game over and it came right away when he broke when Federer was serving for the set.
Having won the 2nd set on tie break Federer came back stronger in the 3rd set withh Nadal helping with some simple forehand errors into the net but the result was never in doubt as Nadal won the 4th set.
The truth is, Federer was not overpowered by Nadal, he was just outsmarted. I thought Nadal did not play that well to be honest, certainly not in the 3rd set but he was still too good enough. A professional tennis player is supposed to know his and his opponents game, exploit it and take any advantages strategically and Nadal does just exactly that against Federer. Talks were of Federer mixing up his shots before the game but Nadal did more than him in that regard. He kept Federer out of finding a comfort zone all match. A great tennis brain i'll say. With a 10-12 win record in Grand slam finals, Nadal is proving too tough to beat in slam finals. Federer unfortunately has fallen 2-6 in their grand slam meetings and no matter how unfair Federer fans might think this is, Nadal has just been better than him consistently throughout their carrers. 17 times now he has beaten him and it's looking more like a one-sided rivalry i'm afraid.
Nadal has shown the importance of going home with the slam title. With credit to Djokovic and his unbeaten runs, it comes to nothing when at the back of that run you fall short of the slam title and it's something he might learn from so we have great competition in the game amongst the top players.
With Wimbledon coming and Nadal having won the last 2 out of 3 and the last 2 he entered, it's going to be difficult for him to get beaten there. He still isn't playing anywhere at his best but we might see a change at Wimbledon. Congratulations to Nadal

by socal1976 Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:55 pm

Good post, except the part where you claim Djoko's run comes to nothing. He has a grandslam, 4 master's titles and about 7300 of the 11000-12000 points he will need to be #1 one from 8 of 19 qualifying tournaments. Meaning from about 40 percent of the season he has about 2/3 of the points he will need for #1. Otherwise agree Nadal is great and congratulations. He will need to play even better if the wants to repeat at wimby this year and the USO and most likely he will need both to retain the year end #1.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:58 pm

Don't get me wrong, he got the AO and played great there but the remarkable run started from then and yes the ranking points and the master titles really mean it shouldn't be branded "nothing" though.

by bogbrush Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:59 pm

A long post, but what I saw was another match played onto Federers backhand, as usual.

It's the effective tactic, but whether I'd grace it with a suggestion of being a smart master plan I don't know.

Once again someone gets the h2h all to heart and forgets it is massively clay dominated. Simplistic Analysis I'd say.

I found it interesting that this was their closest match at RG when both have gone over the top of their careers.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:03 pm

So Nadal only started playing into Federer's backhand once he was 2-5 down in the 1st set? He just started outsmarting him as usually, toying with him on the baseline by playing angled shots, drawing him more into thew court and then further back with his forehand, never allowed him to get into a comfort zone.

by bogbrush Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:10 pm

Crazy analysis. It was, as I said, the standard Nadal game of serving viryually exclusively to the backhand and rallying there whenever he could. I can't imagine anyone seeing anything different.

That's not to say he played every single shot there, that would be impossible, but it was the normal tactic that he playes every time he plays Federer.

Credit for it getting him past Federer, but there's no way in this World anyone could portray that as some kind of cunning surprise plan. Not unless they'd never seen them play before.

by super_realist Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:13 pm

Does anybody else find Nadal's rubbish celebration of biting the trophy as if to determine its authenticity really annoying?
You can get away with it once, perhaps even twice but 10 times is too many.

Without doubt one of the worst and most cliched celebrations in sport.

by sonic_boom10 Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:15 pm

super_realist wrote:Does anybody else find Nadal's rubbish celebration of biting the trophy as if to determine its authenticity really annoying?
You can get away with it once, perhaps even twice but 10 times is too many.

Without doubt one of the worst and most cliched celebrations in sport.

I'd rather Nadal bite the trophy than Federer cry like a baby...

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:19 pm

bogbrush wrote:Crazy analysis. It was, as I said, the standard Nadal game of serving viryually exclusively to the backhand and rallying there whenever he could. I can't imagine anyone seeing anything different.

That's not to say he played every single shot there, that would be impossible, but it was the normal tactic that he playes every time he plays Federer.

Credit for it getting him past Federer, but there's no way in this World anyone could portray that as some kind of cunning surprise plan. Not unless they'd never seen them play before.

Nadal didn't have to play much to Federer's backhand especially in the 1st set and Federer's backhand held up better than it has on their past RG final matches. He simply got outsmarted with how Nadal was mixing up his play and taking Federer from his confort zone. Are players not allowed to exploit the limitations and weaknesses in others game? May be Federer needs to improve his backhand technique if you think he is losing to Nadla because of that but too late for that.

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:21 pm

Personally i like the trophy biting

I liked Agassi's quadruple bow - fairly cheesy also

At the end of the the day he did it as a joke once and now the journalists ask him to do it each time, so he continues to.

by lydian Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:24 pm

We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.
Nadal is one of the greatest competitors the sport has ever seen, he wins, that's what he's meant to do, that's what he's trained to do. He's literally a winner. If he even did by playing exactly the same shot and nothing else it still wouldnt matter, a win is a win - Nadal and his team only care about the W. And they know how to extract it from Federer - its to Federer's loss and weakness that he has never worked out how to stop Nadal doing it. If Federer is the greatest he should be able to work out how to nullify Nadal but he hasnt - because he cant, because Nadal does outsmart him most of the time to consistently be able to exploit his weaknesses.

However, Nadal is more than that, more than just beating Federer...he has won 4 slams by not even playing him. Still more than Djokovic and Murray combined.

Yes, it was a closer match BB but you always felt Nadal had the extra gears to go into when he really needed, and he won the match pulling away really. He ought to have tidied up quicker in the 2nd and 3rd sets too. But history shows Nadal's name on the cup not Federer's.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:25 pm

Let us not even forget the desperation to change the FO into another hard court tournament with faster balls and less dressing on the clay all came to nothing yet again as Nadal adapted once again and won the trophy.

by super_realist Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:25 pm

I'd tell them to F-----Off if they kept asking me to do it.
Sometime you have to placate the press, but not at the express of looking like a d***head every time you win a tournament.

I don't know what's worse though, watching Nadal bite the trophy and then adding "no" onto the end of every sentence or seeing the smug and smarmy Federer win another GS tournament.

by lydian Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:29 pm

super_realist, most spanish speakers add 'no' to the end of their sentences when speaking english because of the way they speak spanish. Abit unfair that comment....

by super_realist Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:32 pm

I have never heard Olazabal, Ballesteros, Jiminez, Contador, Raul or any of the other great spanish sportsmen use it with such irritating regularity. I'm picking holes in the man for not very much at all, but I do find him a very annoying man.

by kemet Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:33 pm

lydian wrote:We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.
Nadal is one of the greatest competitors the sport has ever seen, he wins, that's what he's meant to do, that's what he's trained to do. He's literally a winner. If he even did by playing exactly the same shot and nothing else it still wouldnt matter, a win is a win - Nadal and his team only care about the W. And they know how to extract it from Federer - its to Federer's loss and weakness that he has never worked out how to stop Nadal doing it. If Federer is the greatest he should be able to work out how to nullify Nadal but he hasnt - because he cant, because Nadal does outsmart him most of the time.

However, Nadal is more than that, more than just beating Federer...he has won 4 slams by not even playing him. Still more than Djokovic and Murray combined.

Yes, it was a closer match BB but you always felt Nadal had the extra gears to go into when he really needed, and he won the match pulling away really. He ought to have tidied up quicker in the 2nd and 3rd sets too. But history shows Nadal's name on the cup not Federer's.

Agreed. To Roger's credit, his backhand was not as vulnerable against Nadal's topspin shots as it has been today. Nadal even said as much in his on court interview with John McEnroe.

However, the key to this final was Rafa's amazing defensive abilities. I honestly believe he gradually wore Roger down by getting every single shot back into play. Roger basically had to hit an average of five winners simply to win a point. Against any other player, that would have most likely not been the case. Everytime Roger would see Rafa make an insane retrieval of one his great shots, thereby forcing him to hit another, I knew that the inevitable error was coming, since I knew that Roger was going to go for too much on his follow up shots.

That's also why he kept missing first serves. A telling statistic from this match is that when Roger was serving for the first set, he could not seem to get a first serve in all of a sudden. That is why Rafa eventually broke. The fact that Rafa is such a great defender from the back of court must have been playing on his mind and that is why he began taking such risks on the first serves.

Again, this testimony to the greatness of Rafa's defensive abilities and his forehand, which has now become a more potent shot than Roger's.

by Tenez Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:42 pm

However, the key to this final was Rafa's amazing defensive abilities. I honestly believe he gradually wore Roger down by getting every single shot back into play. Roger basically had to hit an average of five winners simply to win a point. Against any other player, that would have most likely not been the case. Everytime Roger would see Rafa make an insane retrieval of one his great shots, thereby forcing him to hit another, I knew that the inevitable error was coming, since I knew that Roger was going to go for too much on his follow up shots.

And why do you think Federer and all other players bar Djokko have to go for too much?

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:48 pm

Well then, Federer simply has to improve his defensive skills. An addition to a list of things he needs to improve on. Or should there be a rule in tennis which says a players certain winner shot must be left alone to be a winner?

by wow Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:50 pm

Welcome CP !

by lydian Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:53 pm

super_realist, I actually work in Spain alot and can verify that many people add 'no' to their sentences, particularly the catalans.

Good points Kernet, and I thought Roger's BH actually stood up pretty well today, he didnt actually make that many errors on that wing. I thought his FH at times let him down, and his first serve deserted him at key points as the pressure told. Its as good as I;ve seen him play against Nadal on clay - and yet I still think Nadal could play at least 10% better.

Also, agree that despite speeding the balls and courts up it didnt make much of a difference to the winner. At some point people will start to understand that Nadal is actually a pretty good faster court player and adaptable to boot.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:56 pm

The problem with Federer is, he can just pull away from players and run away with the match but Nadal never gives him that chance. It was mind blolwing how Nadal came back to win game 1 of the 4th set from 0-40 down. It has nothing to do with Federer but all about Nadal serving and playing aggressively and that again was the turning point in the 4th set. After that hold, i knew the match was all but done and the 6-1 confirmed it.

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:57 pm

To add to that Lydian i think its going to be worth watching how much spin Nadal is able to generate when we hit the grass and the very fluffy balls they use at Wimbledon.

I mentioned part way through this tournament Nadal might have a better chance of winning wimbledon than winning the FO this year, purely due to the balls

by bogbrush Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:58 pm

lydian wrote:We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.

No problem, you won't have found me making an issue of that. You're rather misrepresenting my post.

I just think the OPs idea that this was some kind of cunning plan that "outsmarted" Federer faintly amusing. He seems to be the only person on the planet who found something surprising in Rafas tactics. That's the only thing I find surprising.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:04 pm

I think Bogbrush is lost in Federer's loss today i'm afraid. Off course the old tactics of playing to the backhand was deployed but as stated here, it was not used much in the game by Nadal and you off all people who watched the match should know that. Nadal just outsmarted Federer in many ways. He was serving 2nd serves at speeds lower that what he would normally do even. Going for body serves on many occassion and in all, played a really smart game by not over doing the same thing over and over. Unfortunately Federer was the exact opposite and with the so-called most talented player with all the shots in the book, the only i saw today was the good use of the drop shot. The rest were just doing the same thing over and over.

by lydian Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:05 pm

Fair enough BB, dont mean to misrepresent your post, it just that many people talk about nadal going after Fed BH as a negative when, really, what is the guy meant to do, play to his FH every point? Very Happy

Its certainly not a new plan for Nadal, we know the way he plays Roger and by and large it works every time. Why change a literal winning game. I still think Fed actually handled the pressure to his BH pretty well, didnt really see that many winners from that side to be honest. I think we just have to say Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer really, he always finds the way to win.

Agree Tom, Nadal has probably upped the FH RPM to 8000 to get more spin on the FO balls - when he gets to SW19 he'll be putting them up above people's heads!

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:14 pm

BP conversions of 7/15 (Nadal) and 5/15 (Federer) indicate a good competitive match. The breadstick set was anti-climatic.

Nadal won a total of 143 points while Federer won 130 points - again fairly even.

Rafa controlled his UEs well (27) vs. Fed's (56).

Rafa had 39 winners to Fed's 53.

The winner-UE differential is a good indicator of controlled aggression.

Good match. Fed should take it as a positive result compared to W 2010, USO 2010, AO 2011.

W 2011 promises to be exciting. If Fed ends up in Nole's half, he probably will have another chance against Rafa, potentially in the final.

Congrats to Rafa on his 10th slam.

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:
lydian wrote:We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.

No problem, you won't have found me making an issue of that. You're rather misrepresenting my post.

I just think the OPs idea that this was some kind of cunning plan that "outsmarted" Federer faintly amusing. He seems to be the only person on the planet who found something surprising in Rafas tactics. That's the only thing I find surprising.

Truth be told though that looking at the match: Federer started well and played well through the match really. Its just that after the shakey start Nadal got back and won the first set and then after that was even or better against Fed. At no real point after the first set did Federer appear to change his game to give Nadal something to think about. He just said 'i'm playing well, you will have to play well enough to beat me' and Nadal did so. the flip side is that you do tend to see Nadal adapt his game to particular situations to turn around matches that aren't going his way. So while i think saying Nadal outsmarted Federer may be a bit much, he certainly outplayed him from behind and only had to do so once to make the telling difference to the match.

Over the years we've seen Nadal do things to make his game better against players, better for health and better on all surfaces - such as the losing of weight, the massive emphasis to develop a fast consistent serve and the change of grip employed to hit flatter only on HCs. Federer has been losing key finals to Nadal for years now and at no point have we really seen him try to specifically address this: for example by bulking up a bit to add power and remove the need to use a racquet with a small powerful sweet spot; or say by increasing his own ability to hit heavy topspin. Federer hit a truely high level and has great variety in his game, but are his game plans or aims dynamic? I'm not so sure...

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:26 pm

39 winners for Nadal to 53 by Federer but crucially, 4 winners coming from ace to Federer's 11 winners. Therefore in theory winner comparison of 35 for Nadal and 42 for Federer. Hardly any difference in aggression from both players. Nadal just kept his unforced errors down but to be honest, he had Federer on the backfoot far too many times in the rallies but Federer held his own again him. I'll say this is the best he has played against Nadal at the FO and even with balls which are supposed to be in his favour and still couldn't come too close.
I agree with Tom above that Federer throughout his career has failed to address the issue of Nadal and it's one undoing on his claims as a possible greatest ever as i believe the greatest player of all time should there be a title like that should have been able to deal with almost anything thrown at him in his career but Federer couldn't. The slam head to head might actually get worse. At 7-2 now to Nadal, not looking too good.

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:32 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:39 winners for Nadal to 53 by Federer but crucially, 4 winners coming from ace to Federer's 11 winners. Therefore in theory winner comparison of 35 for Nadal and 42 for Federer. Hardly any difference in aggression from both players. Nadal just kept his unforced errors down but to be honest, he had Federer on the backfoot far too many times in the rallies but Federer held his own again him. I'll say this is the best he has played against Nadal at the FO and even with balls which are supposed to be in his favour and still couldn't come too close.
I agree with Tom above that Federer throughout his career has failed to address the issue of Nadal and it's one undoing on his claims as a possible greatest ever as i believe the greatest player of all time should there be a title like that should have been able to deal with almost anything thrown at him in his career but Federer couldn't. The slam head to head might actually get worse. At 7-2 now to Nadal, not looking too good.

Isn't it 6-2? - might well become 7-2 shortly tho.

Does anyone else wonder about the 53 UEs from Fed? A lot of the time people had high UEs vs. Nadal to be honest i'd like to see a replay of every Fed UE, as i bet many of them were actually damn near forced by Nadal.

by Tenez Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:35 pm

39 winners for Nadal to 53 by Federer but crucially, 4 winners coming from ace to Federer's 11 winners. Therefore in theory winner comparison of 35 for Nadal and 42 for Federer.
-------------------------

You can't compare at all the winners or the volleys of each others.

Nadal's winners don't require that much skill but power as explained so many times.

he hits 10 CCs in a row and can pick his FH along the line when he is bored. His winners, unlike Federer don;t need to be close to the lines just over the net...no they can be well inside the court and 3 meters over the net cause they are generated by his power not his timing skills.

Why can't people see that?

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Tom that's the problem, most of them were forced by Nadal. He puts angled balls in position Federer jsut does not like and leads to unforced errors. Federer played well today and was not hitting simple shots into the net or long as he usually does against Nadal but Nadal made life difficult for him to say.

by lydian Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:41 pm

Tenez wrote:Why can't people see that?

Because other people see qualities in his approach, persona and game that you dont. Nadal played some blistering winners today like that running forehand in the first set...because you seek to constantly nullify any talent in his game for a guy that's won 10 slams...it gives you zero judgement credibility.

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:41 pm

Tenez wrote:39 winners for Nadal to 53 by Federer but crucially, 4 winners coming from ace to Federer's 11 winners. Therefore in theory winner comparison of 35 for Nadal and 42 for Federer.
-------------------------

You can't compare at all the winners or the volleys of each others.

Nadal's winners don't require that much skill but power as explained so many times.

he hits 10 CCs in a row and can pick his FH along the line when he is bored. His winners, unlike Federer don;t need to be close to the lines just over the net...no they can be well inside the court and 3 meters over the net cause they are generated by his power not his timing skills.

Why can't people see that?

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:41 pm

Tenez wrote:39 winners for Nadal to 53 by Federer but crucially, 4 winners coming from ace to Federer's 11 winners. Therefore in theory winner comparison of 35 for Nadal and 42 for Federer.
-------------------------

You can't compare at all the winners or the volleys of each others.

Nadal's winners don't require that much skill but power as explained so many times.

he hits 10 CCs in a row and can pick his FH along the line when he is bored. His winners, unlike Federer don;t need to be close to the lines just over the net...no they can be well inside the court and 3 meters over the net cause they are generated by his power not his timing skills.

Why can't people see that?

Tenez wasn't focused on the match to be honest probably because Federer was losing. Nadal was painting the lines at will all match. He was painting the line of down the line forehands especially. Federer also did that but Nadal had more success in the regard than him. So if his winners are not close to the line, why couldn't Federer get to them for absurd argument sake? Unfortunately for Federer. Nadal's backhand was weak in the earlier rounds but improved and was causing damage to Federer many times today.

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:52 pm

Tom...

Federer has been losing key finals to Nadal for years now
-----
Do you consider WTF 2010 not to be a key final?

Nadal adapt his game to particular situations to turn around matches that aren't going his way
-------
So does Federer - the dropshot.

S_A...

The slam head to head might actually get worse. At 7-2 now to Nadal, not looking too good.
-------
Is h2h the only definition of greatness? Here are some for you to assimilate.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=L018
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=P059 (Roland Garros)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D402&oId=N409
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=D643 (2011)

by Tom_____ Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:11 pm

laverfan wrote:Tom...

Federer has been losing key finals to Nadal for years now
-----
Do you consider WTF 2010 not to be a key final?

Nadal adapt his game to particular situations to turn around matches that aren't going his way
-------
So does Federer - the dropshot.

S_A...

The slam head to head might actually get worse. At 7-2 now to Nadal, not looking too good.
-------
Is h2h the only definition of greatness? Here are some for you to assimilate.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=L018
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=P059 (Roland Garros)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D402&oId=N409
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=D643 (2011)

for heavens sake, i didn't say Nadal has won every key final against federer - two wimbledon titles instantly say so. The point i was making is that over federer's career he has faced no greater threat than that of Nadal and yet he has done little specifically to change his game to have a better chance of beating Nadal unless he is playing somewhere near his best tennis. Can you please not take my comments out of context.

As for H2H and greatness, thats debateable, but i think the 6-2 slam H2H is clearly significant when the TWO of them face each other in a slam. If you chuck in the FO SF then its 7-2 in all slam matches. To re-iterate my point - Federer clearly must note that in a slam his success at beating Nadal is not great and that specifically he might have wanted to address this at some point during his career. I don't just mean tactics, like playing more drops shots, or more of any particular shot, but actually training differently/changing body shape, or working to improve his ability/power of a particular shot.

Nadal has done this Re: weight;serve;grip on HC;swing through of forehand on HC

It appears that if Fed gained a little bit of bulk he might have, say, 3mph more gusto on his forehand and be able to aim 2 inches inside lines to get the ball past some one rather than right on lines, or set his racquet up with a larger sweet spot and reduce the shank %. Thats the kind of game changing i was thinking about. There must have been many options to Fed over the years, but his game is largely unchanged since 2006, - when he plays great, hes great, but there is a lack of plan B, or game evolution particularly against Nadal. Nadal has gone out of his way to improve on all surfaces and has reaped the rewards the last few years

by Tenez Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:18 pm

lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote:Why can't people see that?

because you seek to constantly nullify any talent in his game for a guy that's won 10 slams...it gives you zero judgement credibility.

But that's not what makes him win games and matches. If that was the case the crowd woudl be supporting him and I woudl too.

I don't make him a jaw dropping shot maker cause he isn't. His scrapping around the court can be impressive, I give you that...but that's it.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:27 pm

Moonballer with 10 slams and total grand slam domination of Federer, i'll take that any day of the week. Whistle

Hahaha, Nadal not a jaw dropping shot maker? You sound quite bitter to be honest. Did you see some of the winners especially the one he it for one of his break points at 30-30 today? If we want to talk about playing jaw dropping shots, i'm afraid Nadal has plays far too many of them more than Federer. Just watch their AO 2009 finals for example and see who was making the jaw dropping shots the most.
The Paris crowd i'm afraid are ignorant and dare i say a little bit uneducated compared to many tennis crowds around the world. How do you boo a call that was rightfully judged wide? Such blinded ignorance is being shown by Tenez here to be honest. You are French by any chance?

by Tenez Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:30 pm

Yes Wilander the moonballer got as many slams as McEnroe...yet we remember McEnroe for his genius and Wilander for his moonballing.

Tough life!

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:32 pm

Tenez wrote:Yes Wilander the moonballer got as many slams as McEnroe...yet we remember McEnroe for his genius and Wilander for his moonballing.

Tough life!

Tough life i agree. I'm happy for a player over a win, you are sad. I agree tough life.
Wilander for his moonballing, haven't seen any article on Wilander or any of his 8 Grand slam titles with moonball written next to it. If genius Federer has you claim cannot play a moonball shot, then he is just not good enough. Nadal has shown he can play all shots you see.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:35 pm

And as much as it will also hurt, Federer will be more remembered for a 7-2 slam record 6-2 in finals against one of his main rivals. That you'll see in articles and records books many years from now. Wink

by Tenez Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:38 pm

A present for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TDGbbLXUQ

Proof you can win slams moonballing.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:44 pm

Tenez wrote:A present for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TDGbbLXUQ

Proof you can win slams moonballing.

Nice video. If that's how moonballs are where the players just stand at the same place whiles the ball is hit back at them high over the net, them i'm afraid, Federer might just be a limited player in my view. Moonballs as your video clearly shows are not exactly hard shots to deal with yet Federer has lost 6 grand slam finals to a moonballer. This doesn't make Federer look good at all. Wilander would have owned him to then. Not so much for a genius i'll say.

by wow Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:50 pm

lydian wrote:We can say what we like about Nadal targeting Federer's BH but in any combative sport you go for your opponents weakness - or rather why would you consistently go after their strength, there is no logic in that. The merit in true sport is in the WIN. And this is professional sport not Dancing on Ice or a beauty pagent of shot making.
Nadal is one of the greatest competitors the sport has ever seen, he wins, that's what he's meant to do, that's what he's trained to do. He's literally a winner. If he even did by playing exactly the same shot and nothing else it still wouldnt matter, a win is a win - Nadal and his team only care about the W. And they know how to extract it from Federer - its to Federer's loss and weakness that he has never worked out how to stop Nadal doing it. If Federer is the greatest he should be able to work out how to nullify Nadal but he hasnt - because he cant, because Nadal does outsmart him most of the time to consistently be able to exploit his weaknesses.

However, Nadal is more than that, more than just beating Federer...he has won 4 slams by not even playing him. Still more than Djokovic and Murray combined.

And those players are- Robin Soderling, Thomas Berdych, Marian Puerta and DJokovic. That's a tennis elite. The win against Djoko came when Djoko had already spent 5 hours in coming winner against Federer.

Yes, it was a closer match BB but you always felt Nadal had the extra gears to go into when he really needed, and he won the match pulling away really. He ought to have tidied up quicker in the 2nd and 3rd sets too. But history shows Nadal's name on the cup not Federer's.

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:54 pm

Tom...

It appears that if Fed gained a little bit of bulk he might have, say, 3mph more gusto on his forehand
------
That is a double-edged sword. It may create back issues (which are already present), reduce movement, etc.

Re the racquet with a larger sweet spot, not sure if he wants to change it now to reduce shanks vs. the FH winners he can hit. A risk perhaps worth taking.

Re Nadal's improvements,they are absolutely fantastic. and you are correct about the subsequent rewards. He has even shortened points on other surfaces, a very positive change.

BTW, I am not a big fan of picking up a single statistic and using it to signify greatness, hence my comment about h2h. Fed has many other statistics which are perhaps much harder to achieve, but prefer not start that debate here.

Great to see Rafa win his 10th slam. Hope he wins more.

by Tom_____ Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:22 am

laverfan wrote:Tom...

It appears that if Fed gained a little bit of bulk he might have, say, 3mph more gusto on his forehand
------
That is a double-edged sword. It may create back issues (which are already present), reduce movement, etc.

Re the racquet with a larger sweet spot, not sure if he wants to change it now to reduce shanks vs. the FH winners he can hit. A risk perhaps worth taking.

Re Nadal's improvements,they are absolutely fantastic. and you are correct about the subsequent rewards. He has even shortened points on other surfaces, a very positive change.

BTW, I am not a big fan of picking up a single statistic and using it to signify greatness, hence my comment about h2h. Fed has many other statistics which are perhaps much harder to achieve, but prefer not start that debate here.

Great to see Rafa win his 10th slam. Hope he wins more.

I agree with the double edged sword thing and i think its too late now for Federer to really attempt any particular kind of change, other than just try to play as well as he has done previously (form). I think the time for change was around 2007 when the Nadal issue was building, yet Fed was still on top of the game. That said i guess Agassi managed to reinvent himself around Feds age, but Agassi had only really reached his potential for a very short period before then and so it was more of getting things straight than changing everything.

Its incredibly difficult for people to change their game once they get past there mid 20s. for example, its looking increasingly likely that Murray will always have a slightly weak 2nd serve compared to the other guys

by cjarrett Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:37 am

i fink federer done as well as can be expected rafa owns the clay but i saw enuff of fed to suggest he has couple of slams left in him yet.

by socal1976 Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:08 am

Cjarrett, if Fed continues on this form he will be a big threat if not the out and out favorite at wimbeldon, I don't know about a couple more slams but I think Roger will get one more slam, and it will probably be at wimbeldon.

Tenez, your definition of talent is that you believe talent is a player who can do the things you like to watch. Speed is talent. Power involves talent as well as hardwork. Hitting those passing shots that I have only seen Nadal hit, and this is coming from a Novak fan, well that is talent as well.

I agree with lydian that Roger didn't serve as well in this match as he did against Djokovic. And basically I knew the match was over when Fed was serving for the first set and Rafa broke back.

by socal1976 Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:47 am

As for H2H and greatness, thats debateable, but i think the 6-2 slam H2H is clearly significant when the TWO of them face each other in a slam. If you chuck in the FO SF then its 7-2 in all slam matches. To re-iterate my point - Federer clearly must note that in a slam his success at beating Nadal is not great and that specifically he might have wanted to address this at some point during his career. I don't just mean tactics, like playing more drops shots, or more of any particular shot, but actually training differently/changing body shape, or working to improve his ability/power of a particular shot.

I have to agree here with Tom, i think over the years Roger has not done enough to derail Rafa's gameplan against him. Rafa has used pretty much the same exact strategy against Roger in every single match. I think one manner that Roger could have improved is a very serious weight training regiment focused on his right shoulder and back to be able to hit the one hander up high and with heavy speed. And in terms of strategy and tactics the he tried something new against Rafa at the WTF in london and it seemed to work. And he played with better tactics at the final we just witnessed. Maybe if he had implemented these new tactics back in 2006 and 2007 we wouldn't be looking at such a lopsided h2h record.

And here is where I disagree with Tom and I often disagree with many Fed fans, head to head against your contemporaries, at least other greats of your era is an accurate gauge of greatness. It doesn't end the debate, but it does not reflect well on federer that even a teenage Nadal could handle him when Roger was at his absolute peak. Now true Rafa's style and ability make him a very difficult matchup for Roger. And if Rafa was just some other player who happened to have a good h2h against Roger then it isn't that significant. But when measuring two greats who are contemporaries of each other it does come into the equation.

by Tom_____ Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:04 am

socal1976 wrote:
As for H2H and greatness, thats debateable, but i think the 6-2 slam H2H is clearly significant when the TWO of them face each other in a slam. If you chuck in the FO SF then its 7-2 in all slam matches. To re-iterate my point - Federer clearly must note that in a slam his success at beating Nadal is not great and that specifically he might have wanted to address this at some point during his career. I don't just mean tactics, like playing more drops shots, or more of any particular shot, but actually training differently/changing body shape, or working to improve his ability/power of a particular shot.

I have to agree here with Tom, i think over the years Roger has not done enough to derail Rafa's gameplan against him. Rafa has used pretty much the same exact strategy against Roger in every single match. I think one manner that Roger could have improved is a very serious weight training regiment focused on his right shoulder and back to be able to hit the one hander up high and with heavy speed. And in terms of strategy and tactics the he tried something new against Rafa at the WTF in london and it seemed to work. And he played with better tactics at the final we just witnessed. Maybe if he had implemented these new tactics back in 2006 and 2007 we wouldn't be looking at such a lopsided h2h record.

And here is where I disagree with Tom and I often disagree with many Fed fans, head to head against your contemporaries, at least other greats of your era is an accurate gauge of greatness. It doesn't end the debate, but it does not reflect well on federer that even a teenage Nadal could handle him when Roger was at his absolute peak. Now true Rafa's style and ability make him a very difficult matchup for Roger. And if Rafa was just some other player who happened to have a good h2h against Roger then it isn't that significant. But when measuring two greats who are contemporaries of each other it does come into the equation.

Hi Social - i basically agree with what you just said. My comment Re. greatness was in reply to some one who said H2H was not related to greatness. Personally i think as you say when the H2H is against your main rival it has to be considered. Its a very interesting situation considering Feds massive period of dominance and his records, yet even during that period you never really saw any one sided matches going against Nadal. With Sampras and Agassi over their careers Sampras led the H2H, but it was only a swing of 3 games, so was close really (20-14 if i remember right?), the fact a lot of people point to however is that Sampras won the majority of their big matches. Obviously with that rivalry theres other thing to consider, like Agassi's career slam on 4 (very) different surfaces etc etc. But in Nadals case the H2H on the slam matches at 7-2 is even more distinctive

by Sponsored content