Problem being Federer plays a lefty once every ten times whilst Nadal play a righty 9 of 10
Wimbledon
- Thread starter KeyserSoze
- Start date
Nadal is quicker and stronger then Roddick
Just back in from watching the match, what a game. Both players have to be given credit for the most enthralling game of tennis I've ever watched, if not the most technically proficient.
Firstly, I didn't give Federer a chance at 2-0, but the fact is he put Nadal under the sort of pressure that no other player in the world can, including the current flavour of the month, Djokovic. Unfortunately, he made too many errors that he normally wouldn't and they cost him in the end. At times he was played off the court, but he hung in there. He has more bottle than most have given him credit for, and if he had to lose, I'm glad it was to someone as good as Nadal.
His match was pretty notable for one thing too-his ability to work around Nadal's targeting of his backhand. He seems finally to have realised(or at least he did for the better part of the latter three sets), that you cannot hit a ball to Nadal's forehand without first being in a position to run around Nadal's looping forehand to the backhand side, and play it as a forehand. That was one of the keys to his [almost] fightback, and it is undoubtedly something he will use in next years French Open.
As for Nadal, incredible. For those of you spouting about his overpowering of Federer, you either have never played the game, or don't understand it. Nadal's power is so important, because it allows him to use his shot-making abilities, and make angles that are impossible for every other player, possible. Only by bludgeoning the ball like he does can you put the sort of spin the makes the ball dip so much, and allow him to hit the ball far harder cross-court than any other player on the circuit.
Finding angles is one of the most important parts of a player's game, and he does it better than anyone. A couple of times today, Federer was playing shots while he was almost in the crowd, and the difference with Nadal is that he gets that sort of angle playing six feet from the baseline, rather than inside the boxes like most players have to.
Nadal looks to have finally got the grass courts sussed, and it will be no surprise at all to me if he goes on tom dominate Wimbledon in a similar way to Federer. I think Federer will find it far tougher next year to beat him, as the confidence of having won one will undoubtedly make Nadal a better player, and allow him to free himself of the nerves that go along with having lost a couple of finals.
All in all, a brilliant final, and one which I hope will be repeated next year, albeit with a different outcome.
Firstly, I didn't give Federer a chance at 2-0, but the fact is he put Nadal under the sort of pressure that no other player in the world can, including the current flavour of the month, Djokovic. Unfortunately, he made too many errors that he normally wouldn't and they cost him in the end. At times he was played off the court, but he hung in there. He has more bottle than most have given him credit for, and if he had to lose, I'm glad it was to someone as good as Nadal.
His match was pretty notable for one thing too-his ability to work around Nadal's targeting of his backhand. He seems finally to have realised(or at least he did for the better part of the latter three sets), that you cannot hit a ball to Nadal's forehand without first being in a position to run around Nadal's looping forehand to the backhand side, and play it as a forehand. That was one of the keys to his [almost] fightback, and it is undoubtedly something he will use in next years French Open.
As for Nadal, incredible. For those of you spouting about his overpowering of Federer, you either have never played the game, or don't understand it. Nadal's power is so important, because it allows him to use his shot-making abilities, and make angles that are impossible for every other player, possible. Only by bludgeoning the ball like he does can you put the sort of spin the makes the ball dip so much, and allow him to hit the ball far harder cross-court than any other player on the circuit.
Finding angles is one of the most important parts of a player's game, and he does it better than anyone. A couple of times today, Federer was playing shots while he was almost in the crowd, and the difference with Nadal is that he gets that sort of angle playing six feet from the baseline, rather than inside the boxes like most players have to.
Nadal looks to have finally got the grass courts sussed, and it will be no surprise at all to me if he goes on tom dominate Wimbledon in a similar way to Federer. I think Federer will find it far tougher next year to beat him, as the confidence of having won one will undoubtedly make Nadal a better player, and allow him to free himself of the nerves that go along with having lost a couple of finals.
All in all, a brilliant final, and one which I hope will be repeated next year, albeit with a different outcome.
How will it settle the issue once and for all?
What if Federer dominates the next four years? And you were claiming commentators and ex players jump the gun with their opinions and claims. fecking hell. Get a grip, dramatic bloody statements.
Its possible Nadal is better than Villas. Nadal looks like an all court player rather than a one trick poney. He has beaten Villas' record of consecutive wins, i think.
True, he probably should have sorted himself out against Nadal by now. But he hasnt. And one downfall doesnt shatter a magnificent career. What people forget is that apart from the French, this is the only year Federer's domination has been threatened. Your allowed a bad year for gods sake.
Yes 'not at his best' because i think he has a mental block. Its an opinion. Obviously apart from other tennis reasons.
Nadal has been the better player this year, no doubt. Roger's not been at his best for awhile. Hes making simple mistakes far too often. I never denied Rafa's been better this year. Federer was never going to go his whole career without a slump in form.
Federer only broke Nadal once in first four sets last year. In both the tie breaker sets Nadal was the better player, could not round it off. Federer upped a bit in fifth set and won it. Was fair enough. It should be mentioned that Nadal has slight injury problems and did not look the same afterwards.
The shots which gets Fed winners against others don't work against Nadal. The longer the rally goes, Nadal eventually overpowers Federer to win the point. That's the reason Federer goes for the break early in many rallies and ends up with so many unforced errors. Volleying errors have always been present in Federer game especially in high pressure game. If he had Sampras' serve and volley game he would have won today.
Nadal thing does not work as well. He has played him far too many times, to use that as an excuse. If anything a true champion shows his worth by putting away his closest challenger. Lets not forget that Nadal has gotten better with age over the last few years so it is no surprise that he is about to overtake Federer after coming close previous years.
Sampras did have shit years. But he always rose in big matches when spotlight was on him. He was best against his toughest competitors. Losing in one off match in no big deal even if it is a final. But you have to be better your closest competitor, dominating a weak field does not make you great.
Other than Djokovic, the righties Federer faces don't even close to troubling him.
The Nadal cloud has been over his head for over three years now.
You say it as if there is absolutely no contest whatsoever. The other poster was spot on in regards to the mental issue of playing Nadal and it was clear that Federer had lost his head in the first two sets. I can't remember the last time Federer failed to take advantage of so many break points.
The amount of unforced errors by Federer today was staggering and his serve has also been better, even if he tended to produce the goods when it was most important. I found myself a lot of the time wondering why Federer did not take greater advantage of the wide serve to Nadal's backhand. He's shown throughout the tournament that he's pretty much perfected that serve, and to a left hander it can only be more difficult to return.
Today, Nadal played to his strengths and also won the mental and tactical battles. He also played a Federer that was not at the top of his game. Unforced errors, an inability to capitalise on break points, and a weakened serve are factors that are immutable. Federer did not play well today and these factors are not determined by how well Nadal played, even though he was magnificent. When i say Nadal is inferior to Federer in terms of ability, i say that with a lot less confidence than i would say about Ronaldo and Messi in football for example.
In conclusion, credit to Nadal, but i still view Federer as the better player and i think this time next year he will have regained his Wimbledon crown. It's possible that he needed something like this as he's not had the greatest year for his standards for all sorts of reasons.
Novak for US Open now, leaving Nadal and Djokovic at 2 a piece this year and Federer with a GS total of 0
Federer at this moment in time is still the best player in world
But only just.
Federer at this moment in time is still the best player in world
But only just.
How hard is this to understand?How will it settle the issue once and for all?
What if Federer dominates the next four years? And you were claiming commentators and ex players jump the gun with their opinions and claims. fecking hell. Get a grip, dramatic bloody statements.
Its possible Nadal is better than Villas. Nadal looks like an all court player rather than a one trick poney. He has beaten Villas' record of consecutive wins, i think.
True, he probably should have sorted himself out against Nadal by now. But he hasnt. And one downfall doesnt shatter a magnificent career. What people forget is that apart from the French, this is the only year Federer's domination has been threatened. Your allowed a bad year for gods sake.
Yes 'not at his best' because i think he has a mental block. Its an opinion. Obviously apart from other tennis reasons.
Nadal has been the better player this year, no doubt. Roger's not been at his best for awhile. Hes making simple mistakes far too often. I never denied Rafa's been better this year. Federer was never going to go his whole career without a slump in form.
You can only be best when you better your toughest competitor. Federer has not proven that he is better than Nadal yet. If it is heading the other way now.
If you think Federer is gonna go down as the best player in history because he dominated Roddick then you are off it.
This is one of the reasons why I stopped rooting for Federer. His fans boys.
I believe Fed was making those simple mistakes because he is playing Nadal. He needs to re-adjust his game to compete with Nadal, and that is costing him. Nadal has finally beaten him on his favoured grass court, so it is up to Fed to up his game against his new adversary.
I don't believe how people think that someone who has won so much over the years and played so many high pressure games, lost it mentally today?
Seems like a convenient excuse. He was not good because of the mental block. You should all start supporting Arsenal.
Seems like a convenient excuse. He was not good because of the mental block. You should all start supporting Arsenal.
He'll go down the best in history if he wins the most majors, it's a bit daft to say you've just got to be better then everyone else in the field since winning that many majors takes just that
Weak field
Also its possible Nadal goes on to become better than any competition Sampras faced. Just worth slipping in. Are you claiming Federer isnt great?
That he hasnt achieved greatness? IMO he would have dominated Agassi. A fit albiet 30 year old Agassi playing above himself couldnt touch Federer, i dont think he would have earlier either.
In the fifth set last year Federer upped his game and there was little Nadal could do. I know exactly how the points work between the two. Federer has to go for a little more hence more errors, sure. Same goes for Nadal against Federer as opposed to the other opponents. But also he seems to make a lot more unforced errors, errors he wouldnt make if it wasnt Nadal, against the spaniard.
I never disagreed that he needs to beat his current competition to prove beyond doubt what everyone has believed for so long. No doubt. So wheres the disagreement? He needs to up his game against Nadal, simple. Its just my personal belief that if Federer got over his mental block, Nadal wouldnt have a chance. I can only hope it happens. Theres certainly a chance.
Also, he did beat Sampras in the one match they played. One grass
Then you've got a spastic reason for rooting for people, considering that has nothing to with the man himself. Go support Chelsea because United have glory hunters. Extremely strange behavior.
Federer's been MUCH better than Nadal for the last 4 years. They've played a lot more of clay than any other surface. Hes been worse than Nadal for one year. If hes better than Nadal for the next few, he will be the greatest.
And you said he isnt great yet. Hence the laughter, because its a spastic comment.
Spot on. There is no doubt Roger Federer is one of the best players to ever play the game, that needs to be made clear.
But the problem comes with the comparison to players such as Sampras. When you ask someone why they think hes better than the likes of Sampras, they will give you the typical 'fan boy' response of 'his dominance'. Which is bullshit. His 'dominance' has been over Mark Philipousis(1st GS), Andy Roddick(Wimbledon & US) who tbh is all brawn no brains. Everyone wanks over his performances against an ageing Andre Agassi who was nearing the end of his career. He has now come up against his first real competition, Rafa Nadal, and he has struggled greatly to 'dominate him'. With the likes of Davydenko at 4 in the world, theres no doubt that the likes of Mc Enroe, Bjorg and Sampras would have been just as dominant, maybe even more, had they been in this era.
Federer = unbelievable tennis player. But his 'dominance' is bullshit.
incredible match that, simple incredible!
Not really. It is not just about records. Most people still hail Borg better than Sampras despite the latter winning more slams.
If Nadal keeps beating Federer and Roger crawls his way to 15 GS, he won't be hailed better than either Sampras or Borg, Laver etc.
What if he doesn't crawl his way, what if he finishes this year and next with everything but the French? Will he be considered the best of all time?
That's obviously not the only reason but i would've thought it was obvious today that Federer had very little confidence from that opening break onwards. Infact, the difference in his backhand was staggering as the game processed. He was unbelievably defensive and reluctant to hit his shots flat or with topspin, even against shots that were coming at him a lot slower than Nadal's incredible forehand.
Irregardless of the fact that volleying and net play isn't Federer's greatest strength, his hesitance at the net today was unbelievable and some of the shots he did miss were very poor. Decision making was also suspect when he chose to come to the net at times when Nadal had a comfortable forehand to make. The fact that he kept feeding the forehand in the first two sets bewildered me!
In conclusion, mentality played a huge part but was not the sole reason. Nadal was far better tactically and physically, and also won the mental battle, and therefore played brilliantly.
Thats exactly my point. People are talking as if Federer's had 3 or 4 bad years. I dont care if Sampras had a few rubbish years but always raised his game at the big stage. Federer reaches the big stage almost every time, at an almost unprecedented rate. Hes had one year a little off form. fecking hell you would think his career has gone to the pits and he isnt getting past the third round anymore.
Give it time people. Hes one of the greatest ever, he could be the very best. Time will probably tell.
It is just so convenient to roll out the "Federer not at his best", "had a poor game" excuses to justify his losses to Nadal. Fed blitzed to the final without dropping a set, not exactly "not at his best". Fed has lost to Nadal 4 times this year already, without a single win, and now on his favoured grass. Surely it can't be all 4 times, he's not at his best?
The mistakes he were making are all due to playing Nadal. He's obviously trying to cut the rallies short, and get quick points, resulting in more unforced errors. That is due to the fact that Nadal is indirectly making him do that, which resulted in many people convenient mentioning the "Fed not at his best" excuses. Come on now, 4 games played, 4 losses. Nadal is the better player now, I am sure most nuetrals will said that.
Nadal played his usual game, baseline rallies, forehands to fed's backhands, unbelievable passing shots and chasing every balls down. Fed couldn't handle that, but amazing pulled off 2 tiebreak wins to even the match. That is unbelieveable. But they way Nadal just shrugged off those match points and the tiebreaks were amazing. His mental strength is way stronger than Fed's, and he wanted it more.
Ability wise, you might argue Federer's still better, but mainly because the whole world saw him showcasing his talents, strokes and skills against a mediocre field who only served as whipping boys for his grand slams win for the past 3-4 years. Against a Nadal, he couldn't come up with the goods. Federer has his work cut out for him now, I feel that Nadal's not going to let up after winning Wimbledon the way he did today.
It's magic. He only has so many unforced errors against Nadal, that too when he loses against him. When he wins there is no mental block.Weak field
Also its possible Nadal goes on to become better than any competition Sampras faced. Just worth slipping in. Are you claiming Federer isnt great?
IMO he would have dominated Agassi. A fit albiet 30 year old Agassi playing above himself couldnt touch Federer, i dont think he would have earlier either.
In the fifth set last year Federer upped his game and there was little Nadal could do. I know exactly how the points work between the two. Federer has to go for a little more hence more errors, sure. Same goes for Nadal against Federer as opposed to the other opponents. But also he seems to make a lot more unforced errors, errors he wouldnt make if it wasnt Nadal, against the spaniard.
I never disagreed that he needs to beat his current competition to prove beyond doubt what everyone has believed for so long. No doubt. So wheres the disagreement? He needs to up his game against Nadal, simple. Its just my personal belief that if Federer got over his mental block, Nadal wouldnt have a chance. I can only hope it happens. Theres certainly a chance.
Also, he did beat Sampras in the one match they played. One grass
And it was a weak field despite whatever the fanboys may claim. It is not his fault that likes of Roddick and Hewitt are shit but history does not work that way. Sampras needed Agassi and Federer needs Nadal/Djokovic to prove his greatness.
He is one of the best players ever. Not THE best as you and others are so desperate to claim.
He can have the record number of slams but he has to put away Nadal and Novak's challenge to be hailed as greatest ever. As it stands even Sampras > Federer.
Show me where anyone said otherwise.
How many fecking times. One of the biggest reasons he makes more unforced errors against Nadal (and everyone else has this problem against Nadal as well for that matter), is because he's playing a wall that happens to return his shots with interest... and when he takes risks to hit shots that are normally winners against anyone else, Nadal brings them back in awkward positions and it starts all over again ("do I risk it and pummel another forehand down the line?", "wtf do I have to do to win a point. oh wait, let's panic and do a dropshot or rush into the net after a silly excuse of an approach shot". I've seen their match ups one time too many - You just feel Federer will be the first one to hit the unforced error - to the credit of the footwork and the ability of Nadal to hit the ball with depth and awkward angles back from ridiculous positions - whilst Nadal also hits a shitload of winners from the baseline with far less errors...
He hits the corners consistently with hard shots, it's like he's a playstation character in a tennis game with the world champion playing as him... you can't ever hit out, you always hit it to the left, right, inside out, left, cross, etc etc. Eventually you'll wear out and dominate the rallies against even someone like Federer.
Federer will need to have the consistency of Nadal to break the pattern from the baseline... otherwise he'll always lose it from the back. He needs to mix it up even more, improve his serve to even higher levels, improve his fecking volleys and improve his approach shots.
People are seriously underestimating Nadal, making idiotic bold predictions how Federer will naturally come on top again next year at wimbledon and everywhere else. He has had years to deal with him already, he hasn't done it, nadal hasn't gone away. He keeps reaching these finals, and has done better and better against Federer.
Federer knew Nadal was close after last year's final, if he's so fecking good at figuring him out, why's he lost now? Now that he knows Nadal can beat him on grass, he won't magically be ten times better than him next year either... as brophs said, it's more likely the other way around. Nadal has gained even more confidence now.
Brophs' post is the closest to the harsh reality: Nadal isn't going away and he'll only get better. I doubt Federer will dominate him, ever. He will have his 1 win every 5 matches they play though. let's hope he makes it count and do it at a grand slam.
Yes. I don't think it is necessary for him to win the French to be hailed as the best ever. Though that would be a big achievement for him to do that finally. Otherwise critics would always point at Bjorg's three double in a row to his none.
Put it better than me.
He isn't the greatest yet.
And I only support two teams in this world. Otherwise at best I root for at times. Federer was the same. Lack of competition also played its part in me supporting the underdog to give Federer some fight. The annoying media campaign to get him hailed the best tennis player in history was certainly another.
What your forgetting conveniently and a little spastically is that i dont claim hes the best ever (i may have in the past). He is one of the best ever. These things i guess are never decided when the player is 27. He can be shat on by everyone and its under doubt.It's magic. He only has so many unforced errors against Nadal, that too when he loses against him. When he wins there is no mental block.
And it was a weak field despite whatever the fanboys may claim. It is not his fault that likes of Roddick and Hewitt are shit but history does not work that way. Sampras needed Agassi and Federer needs Nadal/Djokovic to prove his greatness.
He is one of the best players ever. Not THE best as you and others are so desperate to claim.
He can have the record number of slams but he has to put away Nadal and Novak's challenge to be hailed as greatest ever. As it stands even Sampras > Federer.
He does have to probably put away their challenge to prove he is the best ever. But IMO the comparison with Federer is slightly unfair. Please at least state which of Sampras' competitors Federer wouldnt have been able to dominate. Sampras was rubbish on clay. Federer's been much better on that surface. IMO he will easily surpass Sampras. Until he throws it away, Federer>Sampras
er why exactly? I was just stating my opinion, not that someone else didnt agree with it.
Every one bar a few spazes agree Federer is one of the best ever. Where exactly he ranks alongside Laver, Borg, Sampras etc is unclear. Its been the other side who have been too quick to claim him as the best ever, not the other way around.
There wasnt a media campaign. It was genuine belief from most people who played/ watched the sport because they believed him to be best tennis player they had ever set their eyes on. Most ex players believed so too. Not really Rogers fault he was that bloody good. A slightly bad year, he still has time to comfirm that belief.
I havent in this thread claimed that hes the greatest ever. You seem to love repeating that statement.
Sampras hopeless on clay, Fed's better but it won't be remembered this way if he didn't win the French. I believe the likes of Becker, Agassi (at his peak), and Rafter would be able to give Federer more of a challenge as compared to Federer's perennial whipping boys, namely Roddick, Hewitt, etc.
He is better than all the Sampras's competitors. That's not the point. Pete proved he was better than Agassi, but his record against him was 20-14. Federer has only lost once against Roddick I think and has something like 12-1 record against him. Federer walked to too many grandslams without any solid competition around. Sampras had to over come Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Govan during his career.
I don't really want to get dragged into this debate about who is the best ever, but the only player who can be seriously considered is Sampras. As good as Rod Laver, Borg, Connors McEnroe et al were, they played the game in a different era, with different equipment, at a different speed. You only have to look at the footage of their games to see the game they are playing doesn't compare with the game of today. The game is slower, the put far less spin on the ball, and there are far fewer winners, and far more unforced errors.
They didn't have the power, the fitness, or the ability that the top players of today and recent years have had. That is not to say they might not have had if they played in this era, or with this equipment, but that is not the issue. The question for me is who is the greatest player of all time, ie if you pitched each player at their best against each other, who would win. In that case, there can only be Federer and Sampras right now, maybe Nadal in a few years time, who knows?
They didn't have the power, the fitness, or the ability that the top players of today and recent years have had. That is not to say they might not have had if they played in this era, or with this equipment, but that is not the issue. The question for me is who is the greatest player of all time, ie if you pitched each player at their best against each other, who would win. In that case, there can only be Federer and Sampras right now, maybe Nadal in a few years time, who knows?
I would love to know which footage you have been watching
It doesnt matter how it will be remembered. Federer would thrash Sampras on clay.
I was a big fan of Rafter but Federer would have torn him apart every single time. He probably would win one set in 10 against Federer. If he had played in the Federer era he wouldnt have won a single grandslam. Federer gets into every damn final. Agassi would have given him more competition but a very fit 30 year old Federer made him look hopeless, a young Agassi may have threatened more but i doubt he would seriously trouble Federer. Agassi himself stated Federer was the best ever. Doesnt seem as though he rated his chances when he was young against Federer either.
More of a challenge? Maybe, maybe not. Or maybe Federer would just have gone on to dominate like he has and win the French with Nadal not around (he definitely would have). Maybe Federer wishes he was in the Sampras era so he could win the French
Internet
I have to do some thesis work and I am stuck here arguing with some cocks.
I have to do some thesis work and I am stuck here arguing with some cocks.
Whose Govan?
Federer would also have proven hes better than Agassi, more convincingly than Sampras did. Even Agassi himself knows that, hence how in awe hes been of Roger.
Why are you stuck exactly? Weirdo.Internet
I have to do some thesis work and I am stuck here arguing with some cocks.