French Open 2011

Having said that I am happy with his game. As I said, I haven't seen him strike the ball this cleanly for ages.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I disagree. While it's true that his game plan was right and that if he still turns it on at Wimbedon he really should win. But at the same time he's just go of a HUGE opportunity.

It's all well and good on a theoretical level saying Nadal chases everything down and on this surface it's hard to beat him so Federer was spot on in how he played. But the fact is that he had Nadal chasing the ball all over the court in the first set, was in complete control of the match and when it came to putting the foot on the other persons throat and closing the set out he crumbled in the strangest of manners. For me, I think he has little left to prove but maybe beat Nadal a few times in grandslams and obviously get a few more. He had a chance to not only do both but do it at Nadal's own patch.

And the result is alright because Nadal is brilliant on clay and it's Federer's worst surface but the fact that he royally messed up on the big points has less to do with surface IMO.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly why Federer was better in this match. I disagree - imo he actually grasped an opportunity - he did not let one go. He has'nt really competed mentally with Rafa for the last couple of years ( I have my own take on that - he's done it all, now a family man with a kid, less hunger etc etc ) but he certainly competed in this game, in fact this tournament and Nadal came under a severe examination in this match which 'well done' to him, he passed

Federer's had to improve mentally to get close enough to exert that kind of pressure and Nadal to his credit and being the great champion he is withstood it brilliantly but on a quicker surface I think he'll find Federer playing like this a different proposition entirely, a lot of those balls that Nadal scrapes back just wont come back on a grass court and I feel should Federer be this aggressive and volley more on the green he'll beat Nadal.

If I was Federer I'd be feeling delighted after that match, yes disappointed to have lost but he's given everybody something to think about.

He made Rafa have to pull out some incredible top drawer shots and I dont think he's done that for 2/3 years.

Playing like this I fancy Federer will be difficult to beat at Wimbledon imo. if he survives the first week my money will be on him.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I disagree. While it's true that his game plan was right and that if he still turns it on at Wimbedon he really should win. But at the same time he's just go of a HUGE opportunity.

It's all well and good on a theoretical level saying Nadal chases everything down and on this surface it's hard to beat him so Federer was spot on in how he played. But the fact is that he had Nadal chasing the ball all over the court in the first set, was in complete control of the match and when it came to putting the foot on the other persons throat and closing the set out he crumbled in the strangest of manners. For me, I think he has little left to prove but maybe beat Nadal a few times in grandslams and obviously get a few more. He had a chance to not only do both but do it at Nadal's own patch.

And the result is alright because Nadal is brilliant on clay and it's Federer's worst surface but the fact that he royally messed up on the big points has less to do with surface IMO.
Click to expand...

You could argue that but you are forgetting how Nadal overwhelmed Federer. Yes, he started off brightly and should have won the first set. Thing is, Nadal still would have won. You are underestimating just how good Nadal is on clay. Best on it ever to be frank with you. There were so many points where Federer went toe to toe with him but somehow, someway Nadal just kept returning the ball even when the execution was perfect from Roger.

What happened to Roger in the 1st set happened to Rafa in the 3rd set. But Rafa is just way too good on clay. I mean there were some balls he retrieved that I'm sure Roger was like 'wtf? that's my best forehand and he returns?' However, had that match been played on grass then I suspect Roger would've either won or it would have been a five setter.
 
Stretch said:
There were so many points where Federer went toe to toe with him but somehow, someway Nadal just kept returning the ball even when the execution was perfect from Roger.
Click to expand...

But that's the improvement in Federer in this tournament right there. Previously in recent years, he was'nt executing anything perfectly against Nadal and although Nadal got a lot of those back, on a quicker court they'd all be winners - 90% of them won't come back.

Speculation, but for me had this match been on anything other slow clay Federer would have won that comfortably

Hope he maintains the form and aggression as he'll be a handful at Wimbledon

Great to see Fed getting some real form in his game - makes the rivalry all the better
 
Jopub said:
But that's the improvement in Federer in this tournament right there. Previously in recent years, he was'nt executing anything perfectly against Nadal and although Nadal got a lot of those back, on a quicker court they'd all be winners - 90% of them won't come back.

Speculation, but for me had this match been on anything other slow clay Federer would have won that comfortably

Hope he maintains the form and aggression as he'll be a handful at Wimbledon

Great to see Fed getting some real form in his game - makes the rivalry all the better
Click to expand...

Fully agree and I think that is what amol is failing to see.
 
Jopub said:
Playing like this I fancy Federer will be difficult to beat at Wimbledon imo. if he survives the first week my money will be on him.
Click to expand...

He's reached at least the quarters in the last 28 grand slams, so you can put your money on him now.
 
surf said:
He's reached at least the quarters in the last 28 grand slams, so you can put your money on him now.
Click to expand...

Yeah but just 2 months ago it didn't seem like he'd get past a semi (decent opponent) never mind the surface. So this performance at RG has shown he's still got what it takes to win a slam.
 
Stretch said:
You could argue that but you are forgetting how Nadal overwhelmed Federer. Yes, he started off brightly and should have won the first set. Thing is, Nadal still would have won. You are underestimating just how good Nadal is on clay. Best on it ever to be frank with you. There were so many points where Federer went toe to toe with him but somehow, someway Nadal just kept returning the ball even when the execution was perfect from Roger.

What happened to Roger in the 1st set happened to Rafa in the 3rd set. But Rafa is just way too good on clay. I mean there were some balls he retrieved that I'm sure Roger was like 'wtf? that's my best forehand and he returns?' However, had that match been played on grass then I suspect Roger would've either won or it would have been a five setter.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been a five setter if Roger had simply served for the first set successfully? It didn't have to be grass for that.

And no, I'm not failing to see that there was an improvement for Federer. His game came together brilliantly. I'm strictly talking about the mental side of the game. The difference between the two more than their ability or level of play seemed to be mental. And any champion who is one of his sport's greats should not be pleased with that IMO.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Wouldn't it have been a five setter if Roger had simply served for the first set successfully? It didn't have to be grass for that.

And no, I'm not failing to see that there was an improvement for Federer. His game came together brilliantly. I'm strictly talking about the mental side of the game. The difference between the two more than their ability or level of play seemed to be mental. And any champion who is one of his sport's greats should not be pleased with that IMO.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think it would have necessarily been a five setter. And you assuming that if Roger found his first serve it would have made a difference. Nadal got settled in by that stage. The rest of the match showed that Nadal could still win massive points a Fed first serve. Why? Because of his impossible retrieval. I actually think that this is the best Fed has been 'mentally' for a long time and that is what you are not seeing. Yes, he didn't find the big first serves in that game but hey, over a match even Nadal has lapses in mental capacity, see 3rd set. So I don't think it would have made all that much of a difference. Nadal's best surface is clay because of his retrieval skills on a slow paced surface. Federer's best surface is grass because of his superior shot selection range he has.
 
The last few lines are rather obvious. We all know that.

Nadal played the big points well. Federer wilted. That's where we differ in opinion. Not the rest.

He could have given himself a great shot by winning that first set. I don't care who the opponent is really. If you're as great as he is you should be able to serve out a set when it matters. Fine if the opponent is too good at times and doesn't give you a sniff. It happens. But having done the hard work and gotten up a break, finish the job off.

Nadal subsequently went ul a break in that first set and successfully closed out the set. That's the mentality Federer lacked particularly in the first set and it cost him.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
The last few lines are rather obvious. We all know that.

Nadal played the big points well. Federer wilted. That's where we differ in opinion. Not the rest.

He could have given himself a great shot by winning that first set. I don't care who the opponent is really. If you're as great as he is you should be able to serve out a set when it matters. Fine if the opponent is too good at times and doesn't give you a sniff. It happens. But having done the hard work and gotten up a break, finish the job off.

Nadal subsequently went ul a break in that first set and successfully closed out the set. That's the mentality Federer lacked particularly in the first set and it cost him.
Click to expand...

Well I simply disagree on the mental aspect.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Earlier he used to find the aces and brilliant first serves just when he needed them. Now its tje other way round. His serve let's him down when he needs it the most.
Click to expand...

He yet does find the brilliant serves when he's done like he did in the Djoko match as well. The serve has always mysteriously deserted him vs Nadal though.
 
That Nadal will get trounced by Federer on any other surface but grass. And this is in spite of the fact Nadal won three grand slams on three different surfaces last season. Obviously, this Nadal bugger is quite shit.
 
:lol:

Anyone watched Nadal yesteday vs Tsonga? The difference in his level between the Slams and the other ATP/Master series tournaments is quite amazing.
 
Well he did play Queens immediately after a tiring clay season which was kind of stupid but he lost to Lopez at Queen's last year and won Wimby so I'm not too bothered ;)
 
So what does Novak have to do at Wimbledon to get No. 1?

Nadal has to win just to ensure that he doesn't lose any points. Did Novak get to the semis last year?
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
So what does Novak have to do at Wimbledon to get No. 1?

Nadal has to win just to ensure that he doesn't lose any points. Did Novak get to the semis last year?
Click to expand...

If Nadal doesn't win it or Djokovic reaches the Final Djokovic is No. 1.
 
I think Nadal can keep the ranking till maybe a tournament or two after Wimbledon. After that he only has major points to defend at the USO.

Next season is going to be hell for Djokovic. Till June he can earn a maximum of ZERO points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.