Wimbledon 08 or Australian Open 09

Which of the two finals was the greatest? Many will say Wimbledon 08 but the AO 08 was a great match with outstanding shot making. Almost unmatched tennis for sometime in my opinion. After Nadal beat Verdascn in what I thought was also one of the greatest match I have ever seen, I told a friend I was watching with there was no way Nadal would lose the final, tired or not. Verdasco played lights out, sublime tennis but still lost. Nadal just wouldn't back down. It did not suprise me when he won the finals.

The final match was really great. Not the spectacle with rain breaks, darkness etc of the Wimbledon final but was a shot making spectacle with many jaw dropping shots played by both players.
Wimbledon 08 was also a great match with genius all round tennis from both players. What is your choice? Wimbledon 08 or AO 09.

Two great matches. Wimbledon 2008 was the year Laura Robson won the girls tournament aged 14 years 5 months.

Wimbledon 2007 was even better than both.

Wimbledon 07 in no way was a great match. Good match just.

Wimbledon 2009 was also quite interesting.

I would say Wimbledon 2008 was the greatest match whereas the Australian Open 2009 was the most significant match.

I would say Wimbledon 2008 was one of those poignant moments in tennis and especially in this rivalry as both were beating each other on their favoured surfaces at the time. Nadal made the breakthrough on this surface and for me it changed the feud. It shows the difference in their respective talents as Nadal has managed to close the gap on other surfaces, whereas Roger has found it difficult to get a sniff on clay at Roland Garros. I would love to see them meet at Flushing Meadows in the final.

Disagree LK.

Take Nadal out of the equation and Federer would have been a great player on all surfaces, including clay with as many as 6 FOs possibly. Nadal did not need Federer to be absent of USO and AO finals and even at Wimbledon had too many close calls in the first week and was essentially saved once again by his stamina and power v Querry, Youzhny, Haase and Petchner...and probably Gulbis.

Federer learns and adapt quicker to surfaces and conditons. Where he fails to adapt is very simply#: Nadal's physical game like all other players bar Djoko now. Nothing else.

Look at teh FO this year, Federer was muh quicker in adapting to the new balls. Nadal was all over the place in panick mode for the first 7 days.

And it's so important to note that Wimbledon adapted to Nadal's game much more than the other way around. If you overlook that point then we can come up with anything. Again Nadal does much better the second week when the grass is sparse and dry and the courts slow down considerably.

If you looked at Queens the balls are much slower when getting at the baseline tahn at the French allowing Nadal to confidently whack the ball. Something he had trouble to do even on FO clay.

When you think that the USO was considered the medium pace tournament in teh 90s, imagine how Nadal woudlhave struggled on lower, faster balls of 90s Wimbledon.

I disagree there Tenez.

The courts at Queens played like lightening for the first 3-4 days. The balls themselves are not slow, The courts deteriorated and hence why the courts slowed down dramatically. Roddick and Murray as an example of this as Roddick was playing a near serve and volley game for the first few rounds before the courts slowed down and that is why Murray defeated Roddick very easily because the serve wasn't effective.

I agree Feds would've won more French Opens had Nadal not been around and Feds did adapt to the conditions this year than anyone else. I think the courts played faster than in previous years and that the windy conditions taking the clay off the surface aided Nadal more.

In terms of Nadal's fitness, it isn't so much the deciding factor in his matches. He is able to defend when necessary and then attack when the opponent is defeated more mentally. If you take Federer in this years FO final, when he played more passively on his backhand, he was so much more successful and then he went aggressive and started taking the backhand on far too early.

The Wimbledon final of 2007 was a great match and it showed what it meant to Roger when he came through it because he knew how close Nadal was getting to him on grass. The reason Nadal has been able to adapt on Grass and the Hardcourts is because he has learnt to mix up his aggression and not play so defensively.

Federer is unable to make any radical changes to his game. He has such a different tempo than a Nadal. If Federer had more patience, he could defeat Nadal more on clay. Roger changes his tactics during Nadal matches too much and hence why he has little success against him.

The courts at Queens played like lightening for the first 3-4 days. The balls themselves are not slow,
------------------------------

Then you are in disagreement with Murray, Cash, Ljubo and Mirnil and probably most others. They all say the balls are dead slow.

BUt just watch for yourself and see how dead the ball is when it reaches the baseline.

In terms of Nadal's fitness, it isn't so much the deciding factor in his matches. He is able to defend when necessary and then attack when the opponent is defeated more mentally. If you take Federer in this years FO final, when he played more passively on his backhand, he was so much more successful and then he went aggressive and started taking the backhand on far too early.

Do yuo really think it's a mental issue? Honestly!!!

Well Prat Cash isn't the best judge for me as some of the comments he has made have been ridiculous by his standards. The balls for me were not slow, The last few days have been rain hit and I think the moisture in the courts may have something to do with the balls appearing slower. I am not sure though why the LTA are using Babolat ahead of the preferred choice of Slazenger.

Tenez wrote:

In terms of Nadal's fitness, it isn't so much the deciding factor in his matches. He is able to defend when necessary and then attack when the opponent is defeated more mentally. If you take Federer in this years FO final, when he played more passively on his backhand, he was so much more successful and then he went aggressive and started taking the backhand on far too early.

Do yuo really think it's a mental issue? Honestly!!!

I do. Do you think it was physically that Federer fell short in the final? I don't. Like I said when he played passively with backhand he was able to get onto his forehand or even rip the backhand. Take Djokovic. His success this year has been down to a improved mental approach. Murray yesterday against Roddick. No tantrums or shouting. Mental. When players are feeling at one with their game, they can play more loose shoulders. When Federer plays Nadal, he doesn't look comfortable. Federer could play more defensively, but mentally doesn't feel comfortable with it.

Federer can't cope with Nadal, whether it is physicality or talent, or nadal's preservice ritual; whatever the reason is Nadal has had the advantage. Most of their matches have been on clay but nadal is still good enough on a fast surface to have 2 beaten Fed in Australia and at wimby.

Of the two finals I think the history of wimbeldon adds that much more to it. Plus the semifinal at AO 09 was a better match. Fed kind of collapsed in the 5th set of the AO final and played a very poor set. While the fifth set of the 08 final went down to the wire.

Tenez wrote:Wimbledon 2007 was even better than both.

Mentally Federer is not really strong compared to some greats of the past and present. However against nadal, not only is the Mallorcan stronger mentally but tactically more intelligent. Watching Federer Nadal matches, you often see Nadal make various adjustments in the game and tactics.

I am not sure though why the LTA are using Babolat ahead of the preferred choice of Slazenger..
------------------------------
They are not using babolat but Slazengers at Queens. Big fat slazengers balls.

However against nadal, not only is the Mallorcan stronger mentally but tactically more intelligent.
--------------------------------

LOL! Of course. Ndal played 4 times versus Djoko recently and 4 times played the same tactic and 4 times lost. He and more importantly Toni were clueless on what to do...besides coming stronger and fitter next tme around. Same against Davydenko and anybody with a double HBH. That's Nadal's problem! lack of variation and real talent! If he can't bring the battle to long physical rallies...he goes out quickly!

At least Federer found a way to beat Djokovic at the 4th occasion. Federer is in control of his destinity. If he plays well he wins...Nadal has to rely on makig his opponent playing badly and hope they'll lose that edge.

Personally i think Wimbledon 2008 was the greater match, but Aus 09 was more significant and effectively ended the Rivalry between Fed and Nadal. It meant Nadal had beaten Federer on all three basic surfaces in slam finals, whereas Fed had only managed to win on grass, with the margin narrowing from 06 to 07, before flipping to Nadal in 08. So at that point Nadal had total ascendancy over Fed. I think up until Aus 09 federer believed he was better than Nadal under certain conditions, whereas the tears appeared to indicate he was realising for the first time that when he played Nadal the result was not only in his hands, but also, if not more so, in Nadals hands, regardless of surface.

I also think Aus 09 was significant because going into that final, the battering Versadco had given Nadal in the second SF (95 winners/ marathon), should really have meant that Nadal would be at risk of running the tank low, but the start of that 5th set showed an unwavering resolve from Nadal and i think that broke Federer mentally, hence he messed up that set and couldn't deal with it afterwards. That fact that Nadal felt he had to apologise to Fed at the start of his champions speech was remarkable in a number of ways.

if someone mention theres best final other than wimby 08 (so far)

then he/she is using his heart,,not his/her head..

which mean..the tourney final is the best only if his/her man is a winner tinted fans

I do. Do you think it was physically that Federer fell short in the final?

As explained, it's exactly like in 2006 and 2007! and all those 5 setters Fed has lost in his career.

Of course it's physical. How can you doubt that? Sure Federer could run another 2 sets in that FO final but he loses that extra clarity and explosiveness to put the ball away. In short he loses that "edge" which is so important to his game. SO when he loses this sharpness, he is forced to play more secure and therefore forced to rally with Nadal a bit more making the situation worse for him. Unlike Nadal he needs to find the lines and that is much easier to do when you are fresh than when you have had a few 30 shot rally. Nadal doesn;t care losing a 30 shot rally, it's working his way anyway for the latter stages of the matches. This is why Nadal wins all his clay matches convincingly at the end, be it v Isner or anyone else bar Djoko of course. Cause Djoko is the only one that can tire him nowadays.

And were you listening to Mirnil and Ljubo as well who both played Federer and Nadal and both said that teh problem playing Nadal was the physicality of it...but every single player on tour woudl say that. I don;t understand why you guys can't or don't want maybe to see it.

And yes, because it is physical...it of course becomes mental. You know those opportunities to close a gam or a set are huge cause if you miss them, you might be dragged in a long match and the task will be evn more difficult. They all know that Nadal will be the better in the 5th set...

If you look at Nadal v Djoko and Davydenko, he is the one scared to have to do all the running (has he does) and therefore he gets mentally very nervous.

The mental only comes in the equation because it is first and foremot a physical battle.

Tenez you are using the two cases one of Djokovic and the desperate clinging onto Davydenko to make a case but remember Nadal has beaten Djokovic 16 times, 5 times in grand slams. He los t 4 times to him but as proved in the past Nadal often had many losing streaks against Djokovic but when it comes to the big slam matches, he outsmarts him. Davydenko is irrelevant and not worthy of my time.
I've seen you bought into Federer's comment if he plays well he beats Nadal. Funny he played bad 17 times against him then. Such a delusional. 25 matches and time again he has been outsmarted.

ebar86 wrote:if someone mention theres best final other than wimby 08 (so far)

then he/she is using his heart,,not his/her head..

which mean..the tourney final is the best only if his/her man is a winner tinted fans

Why? It was 4 great sets...but having the final played in total darkness because they had to finish the match took away a lot to this fial to me. Like a damp squib after 4 hours of drama.

IN that 2007 final, the beast was exhausted to have run right and left and the maestro, with his sharpest blade and elegance killed the kneeled bull .

Tenez you are using the two cases one of Djokovic and the desperate clinging onto Davydenko to make a case but remember Nadal has beaten Djokovic 16 times, 5 times in grand slams.
--------------------------

Yes Wyse...but in the past you prefectly know that Djoko was not as fit as now....and that is the simple difference. Some I am sure will want to argue that it's in the head first... .

So you still fail to explain why the intelligent Nadal could not find a solution v Djoko on his garden. That is pretty bad for a player being at his peak on his best surface! Federer was unbeaten on grass for 5 years and 11 months!

And Nadal was only saved by Federer, cause Djoko was going to beat Nadal in 3 easy sets...you know that don;t you? Look how Nadal struggled to beat an injured Murray in the semi....Nadal would have been easy meat for Djoko.

Tenez wrote:

I do. Do you think it was physically that Federer fell short in the final?

As explained, it's exactly like in 2006 and 2007! and all those 5 setters Fed has lost in his career.

Of course it's physical. How can you doubt that? Sure Federer could run another 2 sets in that FO final but he loses that extra clarity and explosiveness to put the ball away. In short he loses that "edge" which is so important to his game. SO when he loses this sharpness, he is forced to play more secure and therefore forced to rally with Nadal a bit more making the situation worse for him. Unlike Nadal he needs to find the lines and that is much easier to do when you are fresh than when you have had a few 30 shot rally. Nadal doesn;t care losing a 30 shot rally, it's working his way anyway for the latter stages of the matches. This is why Nadal wins all his clay matches convincingly at the end, be it v Isner or anyone else bar Djoko of course. Cause Djoko is the only one that can tire him nowadays.

And were you listening to Mirnil and Ljubo as well who both played Federer and Nadal and both said that teh problem playing Nadal was the physicality of it...but every single player on tour woudl say that. I don;t understand why you guys can't or don't want maybe to see it.


And yes, because it is physical...it of course becomes mental. You know those opportunities to close a gam or a set are huge cause if you miss them, you might be dragged in a long match and the task will be evn more difficult. They all know that Nadal will be the better in the 5th set...

If you look at Nadal v Djoko and Davydenko, he is the one scared to have to do all the running (has he does) and therefore he gets mentally very nervous.

The mental only comes in the equation because it is first and foremot a physical battle.

Considering that Federer played less hours on court than Nadal? The same thing with the AO Final 2009. So to me it doesn't come down to the physicallity factor. It comes down to Roger not being able to mentally find a way to out smart Nadal.

Look at it from another perspective which was mentioned on another thread that was discussed by posters. Look at Nadal and the one advantage he has over other players. Nadal's Ambidexterity. Being able to think like a right-handed player as well as a left-handed player has an advantage. Federer is a nightmare for right-handed players because his CCFH is able to bamboozle players and he has done it so many times. When you have a player that is able to think like a right-handed player and is able to workout the angles and the percentage shots and is able workout players games quicker than others. That to me why Nadal stands out more than any other player.

Usual Fedal debate by another name.

So LK you think guys who both played and beat Federer and Nadal don;t know what they are talking about? And same for all players inclusing Federer, Murray and Djoko all saying the same thing.

Well at least I know that if they can't convince you, then I know can't either and will leave it as that!

laverfan wrote:Usual Fedal debate by another name.

And what do you think the OP's intenion was?

Hahaha, so Federer got a breadstick a week ago in the finals due to physical factors, hilarious. I bet his 5 set lost to Djokovic at last years USO and to a 20 year Del Potro was also physical reasons. I then wonder in awe what Federer's win against Roddick Wimbledon 09 and Nadal 07 were, let me guess, a testament to his unmatched genius and cunning tennis ability. This is really funny

Tenez wrote:So LK you think guys who both played and beat Federer and Nadal don;t know what they are talking about? And same for all players inclusing Federer, Murray and Djoko all saying the same thing.

Well at least I know that if they can't convince you, then I know can't either and will leave it as that!

So if it is physical, why don't other players get themselves fitter and then beat him?

Because it isn't all PHYSICAL!!!

Nadal works the angles on the courts beautifully and that is what players find tiring. Tennis has always been a physical sport.

Very apt that people like to bring physical fitness into things when it suits them doesn't it? I mean in Murray's first slam final against Roger Federer didn't he have less than 24 hours rest before the final whilst Federer had over a day's more rest. However, those with an agenda will not take that into consideration.

The way I see it is those posters filled with a hatred of certain players will never shift from their position or stance as hatred is a strong but negative emotion so there is no real point trying to discuss things with them.

So what was the reason behind Djokovic's 3 win streak against Nadal before the USO final? Nadal would have beaten Djokovic at the FO a slam match again. Good point about Federer unbeaten for 5 years but that's the proble m, Nadal does not crumble under pressure like Federer. However one thing is Nadal is the FO champion this year. He struggled to beat Murray? You lack the basic understanding of pro sport, struggling to beat an opponent is not victory for the opponent. At the end, you win he loses. Nothing mOre and nothing less.

legendkillar wrote:
So if it is physical, why don't other players get themselves fitter and then beat him?

Because it isn't all PHYSICAL!!!

Nadal works the angles on the courts beautifully and that is what players find tiring. Tennis has always been a physical sport.

They are all trying their best at becoming more physical! Are you denying that as well?

Trying their best but not quite getting there so is that a concession that Nadal is fitter than everyone else? If so that merits a gold star for him as physical fitness is essential in almost all forms of sport.

I agree here, it's a mental issue.

Returning to the thread, I'd say the Australian Open 09 was better in that you felt it was a more competitive match whereas Wimby 08 didn't seem like that at all as Fed fell 2 sets behind and clawed his way back in but it didn't feel like he was going to win (although you may have hoped), but it was far more dramatic and exciting.

I think it's been mentioned before in another thread but head to head between Fed/Nadal isn't particularly illuminating, yes Nadal has the better record but most of those matches are on clay. They are more or less even on the other surfaces (grass/hard courts: Fed 6 - 5 Nadal) which suggests they more than match each other, and what does the grand slam finals record away from clay show? 2 - 2 each (grass/hard courts). Sounds about right and suggests they are evenly matched.

I more than believe that if Fed plays his top game @ Wimbledon, he can beat Nadal this year, but:

a) he must maintain his composure during key points and in subsequent games and not allow his performance to dramatically fall
b) edge out Nadal in the first set (giving him control of the match but more importantly allowing him to play more comfortably)

I have no doubt some will disagree and suggest it's highly unlikely, but their records away from clay are very evenly matched, Federer fans fear a loss to Nadal and Nadal fans don't want to admit that it's remotely possible that Federer is more than a match for Nadal and capable of beating him.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
So if it is physical, why don't other players get themselves fitter and then beat him?

Because it isn't all PHYSICAL!!!

Nadal works the angles on the courts beautifully and that is what players find tiring. Tennis has always been a physical sport.

They are all trying their best at becoming more physical! Are you denying that as well?

Would you not agree that over the last 5 years that Murray and Djokovic have become physically fitter?

They are much fitter. They are fit to the level of a Nadal and yet they don't win so many titles or matches against him. So it is not based on a last man standing competition.

So many people say "Nadal plays every point like it's his last" that is not a statement of physicality, but mentality.

Does Roger play like that? No. Does Djokovic? No. Does Murray? No.

So can we reach a middle ground by where physicality isn't the reason that Nadal is successful?

Luciusman no one is saying Federer cannot beat Nadal, just that it's unlikely More often than not. Legend killer, physicality is the reason for all tennis players success. It's a physical sport. I for one don't understand how physicality is used as an undermining tool for a player. Also like the constant pointing out of slow down of courts but when the FO was like a hard court and fast this year we heard nothing. Who decides what'r right for tennis? Tennis fans or Federer fans?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusman no one is saying Federer cannot beat Nadal, just that it's unlikely More often than not. Legend killer, physicality is the reason for all tennis players success. It's a physical sport. I for one don't understand how physicality is used as an undermining tool for a player. Also like the constant pointing out of slow down of courts but when the FO was like a hard court and fast this year we heard nothing. Who decides what'r right for tennis? Tennis fans or Federer fans?

I am not suggesting it isn't apart of the success of a tennis player, I am merely pointing out that it isn't the only factor.

I get what your saying Simple Analyst but the records away from clay are almost identical! Therefore you can't conclude 'it's unlikely More often than not' (unless your including clay, and I'm not looking at his clay court record, I was looking at how he plays away from it). Regardless of whether you look at their overall head to head on grass/hard court or in grass/hard court grand slam finals, it's exactly the same, or a tiny bit better for Federer in the overall head to head on grass and hard courts. When that record changes (which could be soon) then I agree, Nadal is more likely to beat Federer on other surfaces, but it hasn't happened (yet).

Perhaps the FO did play more like a hard court this year but it's debatable amongst tennis fans, the only thing we do is it that it was played on clay (which is not subjective) and not on a hard court and unsurprisingly, Nadal won, as usual.

luciusmann, are you sharing the same computer as Tenez ???

You two never seem to be online at the same time.

Are you brothers by any chance ?

Just asking, in a friendly, unassuming manner


As for the SA's question, Wimbledon for me is the better of the two and of any other slam final, as it was never a gimme for either player until the final game of the match.

Mesmerising, nail biting tennis.

As far as I know Jubbahey, I don't know Tenez, apart from seeing him post on here. Also, it's easy to see from the posts we don't agree on everything! For example, I do not think Federer's main issue is physicality with Nadal, I think it's the mental aspect (like most reasonable posters).

I also have a great deal of respect for Nadal, okay, I don't think he's the best of all time, not just yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does become it, I just think he's got more to prove but so far, for his age, he's impressive. I still remember parts of the 2008 Wimbledon final, it was brilliant, would be great if there's a rematch this year!

I don't share my computer with anyone, I don't know why he posts at different times and he isn't my brother (I do have brothers and they're nowhere near as keen as me on tennis)!

For me that Wimbledon 2008 Final was the classic of all classics. Five sets going deep into the fifth set (no tie-break) with the drama of poor light yet still memorable tennis being played. Just a whole range of things made that final very, very special.

Tom do you really think that the Australian 09 was more significant than wimby. Wimby 08 was the first grandslam off of clay that Nadal beat Roger at, and to me the shift of the tide occurred there and not six months later at the AO. Nadal finishing #1 in 08 for the first time in so many years.

Caledonian, the wimbeldon 08 had all the feel of an epic historic matchup, like you say a whole range of things made it special. Fed going for tying Borg's record of consecutive wimbys, the battle for supremacy, the most hallowed ground in tennis. I feel blessed to have seen it, and I feel like it is one of those matches that we will be able to tell future generations yes I watched every second of it, and for once they will be envious of their elders.

Spot on socal1976. It was also a historic moment as Nadal finally done the unthinkable and beat the (until then) grass master Roger Federer in what was a titanic, long drawn-out epic battle. Obviously Fed fans will look to happier outcomes for their man so those occasions will be the better matches for them but probably not the neutral tennis fans.

Good points and spot on from CC and socal. Like I said to, The Wimbledon final was the turning point in the rivalry and certainly for Rafa's career. The match was also the best of all time in my opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on socal1976. It was also a historic moment as Nadal finally done the unthinkable and beat the (until then) grass master Roger Federer in what was a titanic, long drawn-out epic battle. Obviously Fed fans will look to happier outcomes for their man so those occasions will be the better matches for them but probably not the neutral tennis fans.

spot on.

Yeah, for me it was the most memorable match I have ever seen. I still remember some of the shots in that match and the quality of the rallies were really epic. Even the tension that was in the air, the stars that turned up to witness the match. There was a certain something in the air. With the rain delays it was almost as if nature itself was a participant and didn't want to let the match end.

I agree socal1976, it was a pivotal moment.

A slight inaccuracy, Federer wasn't attempting to tie Borg's record, he already had by 2007; he was attempting to surpass it in 2008 and tie with Renshaw with 6 consecutive Wimbledon titles (set in the 1880s).

As the recent French Open suggests, I think there is more to go in this rivalry.

Honestly, i wish I could agree with you lucius, not that I feel like fed has nothing left. Like you said he can still play brilliant tennis. I think we may still see some great grandslam matches between the two but I just think this rivalry is winding down. Nadal is ascendent, Fed has started the process of riding off into the sunset although he denies it vigorously. But I could see Fed beating Nadal at wimby or the USO if they play and if Roger brings his very best. I just think we are entering the late autumn of the rivalry. More than a physical degradation i think at times Fed has nothing left to prove, has all the money in the world and maybe that hunger just isn't quite as sharp as it used to be.

Nadal is ascendant after the RG victory, you could be right that's it's winding down, I still feel hesitant about saying that while both are still reaching grand slam finals. I agree it feels like that, Fed hasn't won a grand slam in almost a year and a half (for him that's long), but I'm sure if he wins one, the discussion will open up. The fact he's still playing in spite of that means he must still have the hunger, but until he wins another grand slam, it won't seem like he has.

Just curiously, if Federer can get through to the grand slam final on weakest surface, then that's reasonable evidence to suggest he will on his stronger surfaces. Last year, his quarter final exit at RG was a surprise but also was a warning that something was up and then Fed was taken to 5 sets in his first round match (@ Wimbledon) and almost went out. I knew he wouldn't win Wimbledon after that but his performance this year suggests he stands a very strong chance of making the Wimbledon final, and I'm sure most of us think Nadal will make the final. So we got a strong chance of a re-match between the two and wouldn't most of us love that after the last time they played in Wimbledon in 2008?

Just on facts - Federer first won on grass at Halle June 2003, his last consequetive win was also at Halle June 2008 - 5 year stretch. We cant count the extra 11 months because he lost Wimb 2008.

However.....of course we know there arent many grass events (2 per year entered), so for Fed that was 10 titles. Nadal had a clay final run from Aug 2004 to May 2007 that spanned 16 straight titles, and then lost that one Hamburg final to Fed before going on another 9 consequetive clay final wins. So not much point in covering the years really for a single surface, its more the number of events won straight. More impressive for Fed was that he also won 16 conseq. HC titles from Mar 2003 to Jan 2006.

I dont buy this physicality argument...not when Federer has never appeared tired against Nadal (or any other player come to think of it, he hardly even sweats!) and even looked the fresher than Nadal in the FO final this year. Roger also went toe to toe with Nadal for over 5 hours at Rome 2006 with Nadal edging him mentally in the final set TB. But the facts show that Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam since July 2007, and since then its 9-3 overall to Nadal. All this suggests is mental...and surely Federer's breakdown at the end of AO 2009 "God its killing me" suggested just that.

Physicality is part of the game for all players, indeed tennis is a highly physical sport - thats one of the wonders of it, but many of the top pros have said the game is mainly mental at the highest level - including Connors who said 95% of matches are won in the mind. So if Federer has stopped winning against Nadal both in slams and in general, what does that suggest? These facts would tend to be supported by Federer's 5-set record which isnt great for someone of his achievement (18/14 - 56% vs 15/3 for Nadal - 83%, #1 alltime).

When you look at all-time 5-set records, its interesting to see the list as players like Nadal (83%) , Borg (80%) , Sampras (69%), and Becker (69%) who were/are known for their even-headed focus have good 5-set records, whereas players like Agassi (59%), Federer (56%), and Roddick (45%) who are known for mental lapses in matches are more average. McEnroe was known for being able to channel his frustration into better play, and his record is good (68%).