Totally agree. His getting to semis and finals pretty much every grandslam for the last 3 or so has actually hid the fact that his game is nothing near what it was during his prime.
ATP World Tour Finals: London
- Thread starter wr8_utd
- Start date
Totally agree. His getting to semis and finals pretty much every grandslam for the last 3 or so has actually hid the fact that his game is nothing near what it was during his prime.
So great that Roger won again and he played great. Liked his tactics, although the court helped him. It's too bad that the courts around the world are generally slow and have a high bounce which obviously favours Rafa. It would be nice if there were some faster ones to give a balance. Anyway Roger I think was at his peak in 2006/2007 and then the mono in 2008 ruined most of that season. I'm sure if he stays healthy next year and with Annacone as his coach he can have another good year. I have to say he and Rafa are a class above everyone else and the rivalry is great. It's also amazing that so many tennis players fade around age 27 (Agassi is an exception) and Roger is hanging in there. Not sure if Rafa will be able to play his physical style for another 4 or 5 years.
Yeah I expect Nadal to last another 3 years at the highest level before his body lets go. But for a Spanish "one court wonder" to win 9 slams (probably 13-14 by the time he retires) would be remarkable. It's been a joy to follow his career from THAT match in Cincinnati vs Federer.
These two are brilliant players and the respect they have for each other is outstanding.
Oh and while we're saying slow courts favor Rafa, well I wish the grass and clay court seasons lasted a little longer as 3/4th of the year is hard and indoor courts, Rafa's weakest
These two are brilliant players and the respect they have for each other is outstanding.
Oh and while we're saying slow courts favor Rafa, well I wish the grass and clay court seasons lasted a little longer as 3/4th of the year is hard and indoor courts, Rafa's weakest
It's ironic that the fastest surface which is grass, has been slowed down so much that Wimbledon is as slow as clay almost, especially when the grass wears off and there is dirt everywhere. I also think the hard courts are slow now too compared with what they used to be. It makes for longer ralleys for the spectators, but it is harder to put the ball away which makes it difficult for players who like to get to the net and finish a point quickly. I'm sure people like Edberg, Rafter, Sampras etc would have trouble with today's slow courts.
I'm just saying that people don't overrate how much he struggles against Nadal. Nadal gets into his head it's as simple as that. I honestly would have never imagined Nadal would beat Fed at Wimbledon or Australia but he did it. Despite being horrendous today he still managed to take a set today and this was Federer at his best in quite a while on his favorite surface
Anyway I'm pretty happy with the tournament. After the shambolic performance last year where he exited without winning a single set this was brilliant.
I've heard lots of people on forums like 606 say he's a flat track bully and can't beat the top 10 players blah blah. But he beat Djoko Murray and Berdych, all on their favorite opposed to Nadal who hates indoors even more than hard courts and he yet beat them all in the space of 3 days. Pretty encouraging
Good thing is that there are not too many indoor tournaments in a calendar year!
Anyway these two are absolute legends of the game and it's a honor to witness them both at their very best. 25 of the last 30 Slams have been won by these 2. Legends!
Nadal is yet to beat Federer at YET, where Federer is 3-0 against him and this was the closest match so far he played against him.
People overrate the h2h mainly because it's too skewed by the fact they played a large amount of their meetings on clay.
If we take a look at how their H2H went through the years:
2004 0-1
2005 1-1
2006 2-4
2007 3-2
2008 0-4
2009 1-1
2010 1-1
it's pretty close bar 2008, unsurprisingly that's the year Federer had mono and back issues all year.
Federer since 2008 is not the same player he was from 03 Wimbey up until 2007. He declined which was to be expected. The movement is not the same, the head speed is not the same, the confidence is a tad low. In his prime Federer was almost unplayable - just ask Hewitt at the USO final and how he used to smash every forehand and backhand near the baseline.
People went on how the new generation with Djokovic, Murray, Delpo etc has been much better than what was in Federer's prime, but 3-4 years after that only Delpo and Djokovic have an odd slam to their name. 29 years old Federer dismantles them with ease at the YET, without losing a set. Roddick about the same age keeps pushing for slams, etc.
Either way, as for the tournament. That was not Federer at his best, far from it. That was off prime Federer with lots of confidence behind him. It was a fun tournament, but Djokovic was rather subpar. Vision problems or else he wasn't good enough. Murray was subpar against Federer, Roddick was not up his best, Ferrer is to be expected.
I'd much rather liked to see Delpo and Davy in that tournament, cause they would really make things tight in the group stage, rather than straight forward they were.
Either way it has been an amazing year for Nadal winning 3 slams and sweeping the CC titles and really good year for Federer, claiming YET, one slam and couple of titles here and there. It's a good sign that even not at his best he has enough in the tank to finish off a season strong. Here's on for a great 2011 and for the young and not so young anymore to step up and make it even more interesting.
It's an impossible comparison. When Nadal had yet to peak Federer was beating him regularly. Once Nadal had peaked he beat a declining Federer regularly. It's just a shame they didn't come through at the same time, though I suspect it would have just meant the titles were shared pretty evenly.
Agree that it is a shame. Imagine if they had come to prominence together. That would have been truly something.
But personally, I still haven't seen anyone play tennis as well as Federer did at his best. It was like an art form. As good a sight in sport as I've had the honor to witness.
yeah, maybe during 06-07 it was fair to say that these were the times they were closer to their respectable peaks. When both in the zone I don't think there's that big of a gap between them. Even on clay Federer had his chances especially Rome 06, which was an awesome match and Federer had match points to win it.
Although Murray and Djokovic raised their game and matured they are just not good enough for now at consistent basis to rival Fed and Nadal. Maybe Delpo is a different case, but he needs to stay injury free.
Fact of the matter is Nadal has sped up Federers decline.. mentally he has undoubtedly inflicted severe punishment on Federer who for a long time had it his own way.
I do believe however that a young Federer breaking though against a Nadal at his best would simply be an amazing match, far more even and far spectacular than the tennis we regularly get from these two which is already mind-blowing enough stuff as it is.
For instance Fed's backhand back in the day was truly lethal, he would go for winners regularly from any given angle and make them, his forehand rarely misfired and he would always make the lines. However Nadal has made an impact on both, destroying the efficiency and potency of both strokes due to his ability to get to every shot and then coming up with winners of his own. This has coincided with a slight natural physical decline in Federer and less power in his groundstrokes.
Anway I hope next year that Federer does really well, I didn't rate his season where Nadal was injured... it was just 'hey my nemesis is not here and so I have a huge weight off my mind', Nadal came back last year and nearly had a clean sweep.. so for me Federer needs to up his game and remind people he is a genuine match for Nadal and some.
I do believe however that a young Federer breaking though against a Nadal at his best would simply be an amazing match, far more even and far spectacular than the tennis we regularly get from these two which is already mind-blowing enough stuff as it is.
For instance Fed's backhand back in the day was truly lethal, he would go for winners regularly from any given angle and make them, his forehand rarely misfired and he would always make the lines. However Nadal has made an impact on both, destroying the efficiency and potency of both strokes due to his ability to get to every shot and then coming up with winners of his own. This has coincided with a slight natural physical decline in Federer and less power in his groundstrokes.
Anway I hope next year that Federer does really well, I didn't rate his season where Nadal was injured... it was just 'hey my nemesis is not here and so I have a huge weight off my mind', Nadal came back last year and nearly had a clean sweep.. so for me Federer needs to up his game and remind people he is a genuine match for Nadal and some.
To be honest I don't think he has it in him to be his best. There are just too many errors in his game these days. That doesn't mean he can't be right up there.
I love it when people bring out the "surfaces have been slowed down" whenever Nadal wins something.
When he only used to win Clay Court tournaments he was declared a one court wonder. When he started to brilliantly against the King of Grass at Wimbeldon people said, "ah well he's yet not won anything at hard courts". When he won at the Aussie Open it was said that "USO is main hard court Slam" and now that he's won this as well people say the courts have been slowed down. The number of places and times I've heard these arguments is ridiculous really.
If the courts have been slowed down then even the likes of Murray should be benefiting from it as he's not exactly a net player or a hard hitter. But he's not and neither has Djoko.
And Nadal won the Olympic Gold on a very very fast Indoor court which is by far his worst surface.
Well Federer is brilliant indoors and it's no shame having a 0-3 record on that surface. This is by far Nadal's worst surface so I was pretty surprised he even managed a final appearance this time.
And as for this generation, sure it's not that great but it's definitely better than the one in which Fed played for some 2-3 years imo. Not talking anything away from Fed but he had just had to compete with the one trick pony Roddick (who has a 15-1 record against Fed) and Hewitt.
Nadal's had to compete against the brilliant Federer and had to massively develop his game to play on all surfaces.
And yeah hopefully next years more fun. Fed and Nadal are winning all the slams far too easily. The problem with mens tennis is that there is absolutely no young upcoming talent right now. Even when Fed was in his prime we had Nadal coming through who looked a wonderkid at 16 in that match at Cincinnati. Right now there is just no one who looks special
Del Po looked brilliant on the Hard Courts but you have to wonder how much the wrist is going to hamper him when he comes back. I'm not sure he'll be the same anymore.
Not true. At the age of 17 in 2004 Nadal beat Federer in straight sets at Miami. If I'm not wrong he was only one of just 6 or 7 people to beat Fed that year. Nadal was not in the top 50 that year.
In 2005 Nadal was 2 points away from a straight sets victory over Fed again in Miami Final but lost in 5 after missing several match points.
In 2005 Nadal beat Federer in the semis at Rolland Garros before beating Puerta in the final. Again this ws just one of 4 defeats for Fed that year.
In 2006 Nadal beat Fed in the final of the Dubai tournament (on hard courts). He also beat Fed thrice in the clay court season that year including Rolland Garros thus becoming the first person to beat Fed in a Slam final. So fair to say a not at his peak Nadal was causing immense troubles for an in form and at his peak Fed
Federer was extremely graceful. His backhand was like Henin's. Absolutely deadly.
I wouldn't attribute it all to that but it has been the case that surfaces are slowing down drastically and it does favor the likes of Nadal who prefer long rallies. Honestly given how surfaces are changing I wonder if Sampras would have the same success on these surfaces or the current lot would have ample time to make passing shot after passing shot.
In 2005 Nadal was 2 points away from a straight sets victory over Fed again in Miami Final but lost in 5 after missing several match points.
In 2005 Nadal beat Federer in the semis at Rolland Garros before beating Puerta in the final. Again this ws just one of 4 defeats for Fed that year.
In 2006 Nadal beat Fed in the final of the Dubai tournament (on hard courts). He also beat Fed thrice in the clay court season that year including Rolland Garros thus becoming the first person to beat Fed in a Slam final. So fair to say a not at his peak Nadal was causing immense troubles for an in form and at his peak Fed
All of that doesn't really point to immense troubles though. That's 'immense troubles on clay', which Federer wasn't too great on, and one win on hard courts.
To be honest I totally agree.. I just don't think Federer can physically play the same level of tennis anymore.. but what he can do is just enjoy himself again, go for his shots.. if he misses so what, don't let it affect you.
His backhand also has to come back to being a weapon, its been targetted as a weakness.. its time for Fed to step up and go for winners off it again.
There were signs in the ATP final that he was creating outrageous angles off it once more which was a delight to see.. his cross court backhands to Nadal's forehands were brave but excellently executed and its these ploys which can undermine Nadals use of tactics against him.
Yeah, I'm not expecting much to be honest. A grandslam a year for the next three would be a great achievement for him. It frustrates me a tad, yes, because I'm used to seeing so much better with him, but he seems to be taking it the right way. He seems very positive mentally these days which is good. So if his mental outlook is right and he doesn't let losing affect him too much then maybe he can do better than what my expectations are.
Well 2 wins on hard courts and that one 5 setter game suggests he caused Fed troubles on Hard courts too
Well it is true. Nadal on old Wimbey grass wouldn't make those finals back in the days.He's far more vulnerable to lose to big hitters on their day. Anyone who watched the old matches in which Sampras, Goran, Krajicek and the likes took part know what I mean. The bounce at Wimbey is ridiculous now. There were numerous comparisons to see what I mean. Surfaces where the bounce is not real(Wimbey, clay) favor very much Nadal's style of play and the heavy topspin. On the other hand when there's real and low bounce, Federer has a major advantage as it neutralizes Nadal's strengths.
Federer is much better player than Nadal on hard courts in his prime than Nadal is on clay. I think the results each have on their worst surfaces speaks for itself.
As for AO, Federer simply blew the match, which was on his racket. He blew the big points and eventho he lost the last set 6-2, he won the majority of the rallies(174 vs 173). Add to that the bad service day and it was disaster written all over it.
All surfaces have been slowed down, carpet is now non existent, grass is not what it used to be, but that doesn't take away what Nadal has achieved, it's just how tennis evolved.
Well Federer is brilliant indoors and it's no shame having a 0-3 record on that surface. This is by far Nadal's worst surface so I was pretty surprised he even managed a final appearance this time.
And as for this generation, sure it's not that great but it's definitely better than the one in which Fed played for some 2-3 years imo. Not talking anything away from Fed but he had just had to compete with the one trick pony Roddick (who has a 15-1 record against Fed) and Hewitt.
Nadal's had to compete against the brilliant Federer and had to massively develop his game to play on all surfaces.
And yeah hopefully next years more fun. Fed and Nadal are winning all the slams far too easily. The problem with mens tennis is that there is absolutely no young upcoming talent right now. Even when Fed was in his prime we had Nadal coming through who looked a wonderkid at 16 in that match at Cincinnati. Right now there is just no one who looks special
Del Po looked brilliant on the Hard Courts but you have to wonder how much the wrist is going to hamper him when he comes back. I'm not sure he'll be the same anymore.
I don't consider Federer as brilliant indoors. He sure is the best at the moment, but he had his fair share of losses against Nalbandian. Indoors on fast surface(or carpet) is really Nadal's weakest surface and that's why Federer has advantage over there.
But for Federer's best surface I'd say USO outdoor courts.
Well take away Nadal and how many of the young and comers have beaten Federer in slams? Djokovic and Delpo. Berdych and Sod have been around since his prime. It's not that they are much better than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, etc, it's more likely because he has declined.
I mean would Berdych and Sod beat him in his prime on his favorite surfaces?
Murray and Djoko have a lot to achieve to convince they are better than Safin and Hewitt, both of whom are multiple slam winners and huge talents of the game.
I have high hopes of Delpo. He's a huge talent who on his day is almost unstoppable. Hopefully he'll flourish in the future.
Not true. At the age of 17 in 2004 Nadal beat Federer in straight sets at Miami. If I'm not wrong he was only one of just 6 or 7 people to beat Fed that year. Nadal was not in the top 50 that year.
In 2005 Nadal was 2 points away from a straight sets victory over Fed again in Miami Final but lost in 5 after missing several match points.
In 2005 Nadal beat Federer in the semis at Rolland Garros before beating Puerta in the final. Again this ws just one of 4 defeats for Fed that year.
In 2006 Nadal beat Fed in the final of the Dubai tournament (on hard courts). He also beat Fed thrice in the clay court season that year including Rolland Garros thus becoming the first person to beat Fed in a Slam final. So fair to say a not at his peak Nadal was causing immense troubles for an in form and at his peak Fed
Federer was extremely graceful. His backhand was like Henin's. Absolutely deadly.
Nadal is early bloomer.As teenager he was sweeeping the CC titles.
Federer lost to Murray when he was up and coming in Cincy but he's yet to beat him in a slam. Losses happen, it's not like Federer is supposed to be 90-0 all year. Yes, Nadal was a huge obstacle for him, but let's not forget that Nadal was on the verge of losing in Rome in 06(when he was close to his peak level on CC) and Federer had numerous chances to take it to 5 at RG later the same year. At MC it was a close match as well, which could have been easily 5 setter as well.
Pity Nadal couldn't get to HC final at that time so we can compare, but really both at their peaks it'll be a tight game on any surface. It's like fire and water, very entertaining match. I'd say better than Agassi - Sampras rivalry.
Federer is much better player than Nadal on hard courts in his prime than Nadal is on clay.
Sorry but no one is as dominant on any surface is Nadal is on clay. Let Fed do to Nadal in a Hard Court Final what Rafa did to Fed when Fed only won 4 games in the final and then I'll say it's true.
It's simple as this, Nadal has beaten Fed in 2 of their 4 meeting on Fed's two favorite surfaces in Slams while Fed has only ever taken one set off Nadal on Nadal's favorite clay.
Sorry but no one is as dominant on any surface is Nadal is on clay. Let Fed do to Nadal in a Hard Court Final what Rafa did to Fed when Fed only won 4 games in the final and then I'll say it's true.
It's simple as this, Nadal has beaten Fed in 2 of their 4 meeting on Fed's two favorite surfaces in Slams while Fed has only ever taken one set off Nadal on Nadal's favorite clay.
I'd tend to agree with that. On clay Nadal is a 10/10. No one even gets close if he's on his game. He'll win the French Open four or five more times if his body holds up.
I guess I should've pointed out that this was regarding their rivalry. In other words - both in their prime, Federer should beat Nadal more easily on HC's than Nadal - Federer on clay.
Federer on his worst surface was winning masters and reaching every FO final, on the other hand, Nadal has only 2 HC finals so far.
Not this again. The balls have been made heavier which means they're slower through the air, but the actual grass hasn't been touched in more than a decade. And no way grass is almost like clay now, the number of aces served at RG compared to Wimbledon and the players that make it through to the latter parts of each tourney proves this.
Nadal reached 2 Wimbledon finals which he lost. Reaching a final makes no difference imo if you don't win.
Nadal has 2 Slams on his least favorite surface and 2 Slams on Grass where he had played less than 10 career matches before 2006.
So that's 4 Slams on what were Rafa's hardest surfaces and all this while he's yet 5 years younger than Federer.
Federer has just ONE slam on Clay and that too has not been won by beating Nadal. Nadal's beaten Federer on route to winning Wimbledon and Australian Open. And Nadal has won quite a number of Masters Series titles on HC's as well. He's won 4 Masters Series titles on HC's and 2 Slams and one Olympic Gold on the fastest indoor courts.
Fed has 5 Masters Series on clay and not all of them while Nadal was playing and 1 Slam at RG and he's also played 5 years more.
It's the latest standard excuse by anti Nadal posters on various forums now.
If Wimbledon was anywhere near as slow as Rolland Garros then well I would LOVE to see Isner and Mahut serve 250 aces in one match on any clay in the world.
It's slightly unfair anyway as clay is such a specialist surface - Nadal is a clay court specialist so he's always going to have a greater advantage over Federer on his best surface than vice versa.
That said though, it's worth asking how many French Open's Federer would have won the last 5 or so years if Nadal wasn't around. Federer's overall record would very likely be something utterly phenomenal if he'd not met Nadal in the final in Paris those times.
You could make the same case for grass when talking about Federer then. Grass is even more of a specialist surface being that before Nadal came around, the really good grass court players were Federer, Roddick and Hewit and for a while Feliciano Lopez and Ferrero, now the list is cut short to just Federer, Nadal and to some extent Murray and Roddick if you're being merciful and there are only about 3 or 4 grass tourneys. Only clay, you could count Nadal, about 70% of the Spanish players and a good bit of the South American ones
That's completely untrue.
The grass on Wimbey has been changed as of 2001. It's slower and the bounce is significantly higher. Watch one match in the 90's and one in the 00's to see the difference yourself.
Federer was the best clay courter after Nadal in his prime (04-07). He had 4 finals at Rome and MC, almost beating Nadal in one of them, 2 times Hamburg winner(beating Nadal there), 2 finals and 1 SF at RG all lost to Nadal.
Can't see who realistically could have taken those clay titles bar of course Nadal. Since Federer won his first slam he made it to 4 finals out of 7 tries at RG. Since Nadal won his first slam, he lost before the finals at HC slams in 8 out of 10 times. If Nadal was as dominant on his weaker surfaces to make the finals, he would have lost more times to Federer and the H2H wouldn't be the same. However during Federer's prime Nadal wasn't even top 5 when it came to HC slam favorites.
Look it from another perspective. If you take the top ten players in the world or at that period, their best surface(bar Nadal) is hard courts. Bar Nadal and Federer I can't single out anyone to be remotely good or consistent on clay over the years.
Federer in his prime 04-07 has pretty dominant at HC - he swept every HC slam during that period, bar 1 which he lost in a tight match against Safin.
My point is that the competition on HC's is much stiffer than what is/was on clay yet Federer's dominance during that period in those slams is pretty close to what Nadal achieved on clay.
As for Nadal being 5 years younger - he turned pro 3 years after Federer. He has played nearly 600 matches. I don't think when he becomes 29 like Federer he'd still be in contention for slams. At this rate(80 matches per year), he'd be close to 1000 after those 5 years. With his game style can't see him lasting that long.
2 years short of being more than a decade
But my point about the grass still stands. Everyone makes it seem like the slowing down of surfaces recently started or began when Nadal burst out at Wimbledon, which is untrue. It didn't seem to be much of an issue back in 2001 itself or when Federer was dominating. The "slowness" really only seems to be an issue when unconventional grass players whose game don't really look like it should succeed on grass started playing well on it.Not directed at you, but I always find the whining about slowing down the fast surfaces a bit funny, but no one complains about clay especially at the French Open which is undoubtedly faster than it used to be.
Hmm. Well Nadal would have another 2 Wimbledon slams more then had Fed not been along
Spot on. Federer has been playing on this surface and winning countless titles since 2001 which is when Enigma claims the grass was changed. Well then Nadal and Fed have been playing on the same courts. And Federer was also brought up playing on European Clay courts (remember reading that somewhere) and hence a slower court helps him as well even though he's better on faster courts than Nadal is.2 years short of being more than a decade
Not directed at you, but I always find the whining about slowing down the fast surfaces a bit funny, but no one complains about clay especially at the French Open which is undoubtedly faster than it used to be.